Wednesday, June 30, 2010


Are there always two sides to a story? That is what I keep hearing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But this theory smacks of just another way of giving the Palestinians an excuse for continuing their aggressive behavior towards Israel.

Although Israel is not a perfect country, how can the world tell us we need to understand the Palestinian side? How are there two sides, when the Palestinians rejected every plan of partition leading up to the Israeli War of Independence?

It is very simple: the Jews of Eretz Israel accepted a greatly decreased piece of land from what they were originally promised by the League of Nations and the British.

Many argue that the Yishuv (pre-state Jewish government) accepted partition in the hopes of attaining more land later. This contention overlooks the fact that the Yishuv put its hopes to the side in an attempt to reach an agreed settlement with her Arab neighbors.

Plain and Simple, the Yishuv accepted partition to attain self-determination for the Jewish Nation on land that was legally theirs -- no matter how much less than originally promised.

The Arab side, ever more greedy, refused partition -- no matter how much more land than the Jews they would receive.

This is not a disputable point, this cannot be argued, this is fact. There is only one side to this beginning: Arabs wanted war; Arabs thought they would win a war; Arabs STARTED the war; Arabs lost the war. This scenario took place over and over again (1947-48; 1956; 1967; 1973 ... etc., etc., etc.)

This aggressive, imperialistic thought pattern is obviously intrinsic to Arab culture and tradition.

The Arab peoples were not born in the Levant, as the Hebrew, Israelite and Jewish Nation was. So where do the Arabs come from? ARABIA.

The Arabs invaded and conquered the Near East, Northern Africa and Spain, more than seven centuries after the beginning of the Christian Era.

A conquering, colonialist culture would never let the Jews have a state in their midst, even if this land belonged to the Jews first, or whether Jews had always been living in this land (making up the majority of the population in most major cities). The conquering Greeks and Romans wouldn’t allow it; the newcomer Muslims wouldn’t allow it.

That’s a short version of the history of what we call Israel today, as well as a nutshell version of the Arab occupation of that part of the Middle East which was once the ancient kingdom of Israel.

Now let’s jump to the year 2000, Camp David, Maryland.

Then Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Barak, and U.S. President Bill Clinton offered Yassar Arafat and the Palestinian Authority the most generous entitlement a LOSING group has ever received.

Offered were 97 percent of the West Bank (which, remember, was once the sections of ancient Israel known as Judea and Samaria), East Jerusalem and the Muslim and Christian Quarters of the old City. Control over the Temple Mount was also offered to the Palestinians. Of course all the Gaza Strip would be included in Palestine.

In return the Palestinians had to relinquish their made-up notion of the Right of Return, to accept Israel as the Jewish State and agree to an end of conflict.

This was too much for Yasser Arafat. Believing he could wiggle more out of the Israelis, he rejected this offer at Camp David and later at Taba, Egypt. Instead he went on to start a guerilla war against the Israeli public.

This is not an idea I have thought up, nor is it Zionist propaganda. This is documented history that cannot be debated. Unless, of course, you are the type of person who says the Holocaust did not happen.

Do the Palestinians and outsider pro-Palestinian supporters truly want a solution to the problems in the Middle-East? If they do, they should take a look into the history books and realize there really is only one side to this story.

The problem has nothing to do with occupation -- unless you choose to erase the fact that the occupation could have been negated with a Palestinian acceptance of peace and statehood in the year 2000.

Should Israel be blamed for the horrible leadership of the Palestinian Arabs? I think not. After all, even Mahmoud Abbas admits the disaster the Second Intifada brought upon his people. The leader of the Palestinians has admitted responsibility for his nation’s situation!

We could call Arafat’s rejection of Barak and Clinton’s peace plan “The Second Catastrophe,” second only to the original Arab rejection of Partition.

If the world really wants peace and Palestinian statehood, it is high time to make them take responsibility for their actions. The world must stop making excuses for the Palestinians’ constant rejection of peace and a just settlement.


  1. Simon, I think you have a number of misconceptions informing your post. First and foremost you must recognize that "the world" does not care about Jews or Israelis coming to understand the Palestinian side of things. This is because the world already agrees with the Palestinian side: that Jews are vermin and deserve to be eliminated. In short, the majority in the world are themselves anti-Semites and are only too happy to let the Palestinians take care of wiping out Israel for them.

    Secondly, the world does not disagree with the history that you have outlined above. They are quite familiar with it, sick of it at this point actually. And they really don't care about "the Facts" as you call them. The facts are irrelevant as far as the world is concerned.

    Thirdly, you are making the same mistake that the Jews of Germany made in the early days of the Third Reich. You are trying to make a rational argument in order to convince your audience of your point of view. That would be a great strategy of you were talking to rational people about a rational topic. But hatred is not a rational topic. Hatred cannot be argued down with reason and evidence and logical discussion. It cannot be countered with demonstrations of moral superiority, or graciousness.

    We can only counter hatred by defending ourselves with the physical means to defeat our enemies. And by remembering to NEVER AGAIN be the victims of trusting others to be human, when in fact blind hatred and prejudice makes them into vicious animals.

    The Torah tells us explicitly that we are to follow all of the laws and statutes for one single overarching purpose: to live. If we cannot even live, however, then it is not possible to be Jews.

  2. I think there are as many sides as there are people. Each person hears their own set of "facts", and draws upon their own conclusion. You may be correct with your set, but apparently the story is very long. That gives ample facts to pick and choose from, and to teach to others. Hence, no need to make anything up, just omit what doesn't appeal to you. BTW, the Holocaust did happen, a good portion of my family died in camps, and none were Jewish. That's my side of the coin. Though I don't know the relevance of that.