All Together Now--Cry For The Poor Palestinians

Way back in the dark ages otherwise known as the Forties, there was a series of affrays in a small portion of the Mideast then called on all the maps as "Palestine" or the "Palestinian Mandated Territory."  The interlocking series of nasty little wars called either the "War of Independence" or "The Catastrophe" was occasioned by a combination of factors.  Some of these factors were indigenous to the region.  Others, far larger in impact on both the people of the region and the world generally, were the result of a specific ideology applied ruthlessly by a particular regime and its allies in other countries.

One result of the affray was the generation of a generation of refugees.  It is critical to understand that the refugees were not simply a mass of ever-so-innocent civilian victims caught between the millstones of events and forces far outside their control.  Nor was there any thought at the time of the affrays and their concomitant refugee streams that the displaced individuals and their descendants would be the pawns of governments and ideological devotees for years, decades, and finally generations.

On occasions, social and political forces have a power which transcends the capacity of any government or group of governments to control.  The months and years immediately following the end of World War II in Europe and the revelations regarding the magnitude of the Nazi campaign of racial extermination now called the "Holocaust" was such an occasion.

The movement to create (or, perhaps more accurately, to recreate) the ancient Jewish homeland in the former territories of the Ottoman Empire known as Palestine had been underway in a series of fits and starts since the late Nineteenth Century.  The confusingly ambiguous bit of British political expediency executed during the worst days of World War I known as the Balfour Declaration provided some seeming basis for the creation of a "Jewish National Homeland" in the Ottoman occupied territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.  A brilliantly worded bit of diplomatic gibberish, the Balfour Declaration appeared to provide either (A) the foundation of a Jewish state or (B) a Jewish homeland inside an Arab state or (C) both.

The Arabs resident in the land more or less affected by the Declaration both cooperated with and bitterly opposed the transfer of land from Arab to Jewish ownership. Some Arabs, primarily absentee landowners, were quite willing to sell their land to Jews.  Other Arabs, primarily lesser landholders and ambitious Muslim clerics, frothed with opposition.  Several times the opposition turned violent particularly when the crowds were lashed by sermons preached by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a man who was so antisemitic as to make Adolph Hitler seem a Hebrewphile in comparison.

The British ran the place as they did the neighboring territory called back then "the Trans-Jordan."  The British government was at best given to vacillation regarding the settlement of Jews in the territory given to their mandate by the League of Nations.  Most of the time both the British Army and Foreign Ministry were dominated by Arabists given to a romantic view of the Arabs.  In practice this meant the relevant officials on the ground in the region as well as back in London tilted British policy to fit the desires, not to say demands, of the Arabs.  Even as the Nurenberg War Crimes Tribunal was hearing the evidence of the mass slaughter of the Jews of Europe as a state policy, the British government and its minions in Palestine consistently favored the Arab position of total opposition to the creation of even a minimalist form of Jewish National Homeland.

The revelations of the Nazi state policy of mass slaughter did have a profound impact on many people both in Europe and the US.  Americans were notably disturbed by the images and testimony of gas chambers and death transports.  While mild and "gentlemanly" antisemitism had been a common currency in the US prior to the end of the war, all such attitudes and behaviors were set aside with rapidity and vigor under the impact of the tales of savage, premeditated murder on a scale previously unthinkable.

The US became a supporter of the more expansive interpretation of the Balfour Declaration.  This support was not highly visible.  It was not one of loud voices in Congress or demonstrations in the street.  This was not the American way in those more innocent days.  Still, the mood of We the People was evident.  There was a sense of collective guilt within much of the American elite.  We had stood silent on the sidelines during the Thirties.  We had refused to believe the first horrifying stories of persecution as they oozed out of Germany and German occupied territory.  During the war, we had done nothing to impede the machinery of slaughter even as our government (like that of the UK) became increasingly aware of its existence.

Guilt required atonement.  The atonement took the form of supporting the creation of a Jewish state in the mandated territory of Palestine.  It can and has been argued that the American guilt feelings had the net result of transferring misery from the Jews of Europe to the Arabs of Palestine.  There may be a shred of truth to this.  But, if so, it is irrelevant.

The US did its dead level best to see the Jewish state brought into existence peacefully with the least possible ill-effects for the already resident Arab population.  We bent much diplomatic influence to this task.  The influence was backed with money.  We invoked the UN.  We tried negotiation.  We urged the Arab governments to step back, work with us in solving a problem which had an impact on the Jews of Europe, the Arab Muslims of the Mideast, and other people and religions far from both the Mideast and Europe.  To us, the problem of the Jewish state was an affair which had meaning and impact for humanity generally.

The crux of the problem, the single reason a diplomatic question became a shooting war rests not with the Jews of Europe seeking a permanent sanctuary nor with the ideology of Zionism.  The responsibility for the wars does not reside with the US or with the European states.  Most assuredly, it does not rest with the pro-Arab men of the British government and military.  No.  None of these can have the tail of fault pinned on their behinds.

All the responsibility for the war and the refugees rests solely with the Arab governments of the day.  Well. to err on the side of accuracy, some of the blame must rest with the Muslim clerics who preached not only holy war against the hated Jews and their infidel supporters but also called upon Arab Muslims to leave their homes, to flee to the protection of the armies of the faithful so as to return in victory behind the conquering tanks of the believers.

Arab tanks were rolling.  Arab artillery was firing.  Arab infantry were shooting.  All even before the new state of Israel proclaimed its existence.  The war was on, declared not by words but by shooting, shelling, and bombing long before any state could recognize the existence of the new state.

The Arab armies moved long before the UN could urge peace.  The Arab armies sought to extinguish the nascent Jewish state before any UN resolution seeking a peaceful ending could be introduced let alone passed and put into effect.  The so-called "Catastrophe" was made by Arabs. Period.  End of discussion.

The same applies in the main to the production of the pitiful columns of refugees and the long, bitter aftermath in the camps.  The important phrase here is, "in the main."  For the Jews do not have clean hands in the matter of forced evacuations.

It is important to remember that to the shame and discredit of Israel then and now, some Jewish militia units, particularly those of the Palmach, engaged in atrocities intended to force Arabs from their ancestral homes, to ethnically cleanse land which would be incorporated in the Jewish state.  Unarmed civilians including old men, women, and children were massacred on a scale not different from that practiced by Serbians against their Muslim fellow citizens.  To the further discredit of the government of Israel, it did its best to cover up the evidence of the atrocities for decades.  It has been only recently that the relevant documents have come to light--due to the efforts of Israeli historians whose dedication to their craft overpowered feelings of patriotism.

However, the primary responsibility resides with Arab governments and Muslim clerics who used all manner of persuasion to convince Arabs to pack up and leave in the full (and false) expectation of a speedy and victorious return.  In the wars of independence, as in the Six Day War nearly twenty years later, the Arab states and Muslim clerics were co-conspirators in crimes against the Arabs of the disputed lands.

However, the Arab states and Muslim cleric were not alone in the commission of the offense.  They were aided and abetted by the UN.  The UN formed an office tasked with the resettlement, relief, and care of the refugees.

Admittedly, the UN sincerely if misguidedly conceived of the operation as short-lived, a temporary humanitarian expedient which would end with the coming of peace.  Unfortunately, the oft-seen process of the temporary becoming permanent worked once again with the UN effort at relief, resettlement, and reintegration of the Palestinian displaced persons.  The ever expanding network of refugee camps in the Gaza Strip, Jordan, and elsewhere took on a life of its own.  A new, always growing bureaucracy of refugee relief workers became a permanent feature of the human terrain of the Mideast.

The reason for this resides not so much with the UN bureaucrats as it does with the Arab states.  To the various governments of the so-called "frontline" states, the refugees and their camps became welcome pawns and tools in the forever war being waged by these states against Israel.  There was no desire on the part of any of these governments to see the Palestinian refugees effectively integrated into their own populations.

At the same time, assorted ambitious political leaders within the refugee population saw their way to power, status, and (dare it be written) wealth rested with keeping the refugees in their degraded and alienated position.  And, in the shadow, there were more than a few clerics of the political Islam tendency who saw advantage in having the rootless refugees available as potential recruits in the overarching holy war against Jews and infidels alike.

An unintended combination of international aid workers, agenda driven clerics, and self-interested states assured the camps and their wretched inhabitants would stay as a major feature of the social and political landscape of the region.  And, so it is today.  And, so it will stay tomorrow absent a severe alteration of the stances of the frontline governments as well as the leadership of the new unity government of Hamas and the Fatah dominated Palestinian Authority.

Arguably, the UN office, now called UNRWA, is the single major player in altering the terrain of camps and refugees.  Considering the existence of the Palestinian Authority, it can be asserted fairly that the camps as well as the UN bureaucracy no longer needs to exist.  Further, it is not inaccurate to argue that the best thing that UNRWA can do on behalf of its wards is to go out of existence.

By ceasing to exist, UNRWA would compel the Palestinian Authority including its Hamas branch to take proper responsibility for the well being of its citizens.  The reality now is that Palestinians are not and should not be wards of a giant and hugely expensive but inefficient welfare bureaucracy.  Rather, they are citizens of a nascent state with a government which exists in all but name.

UNRWA must go.  That is it must go if the UN is serious about being concerned about the best interests of the refugees and their descendants.  The wars which produced the refugees ended more than forty years ago. The youngest of the authentic refugees are in their mid-sixties.  It is long overdue to blow the whistle on UNRWA and tell the refugees and their third generation descendants that they are not going home--that where they live right now is home.

Of course UNRWA will not do the right thing.  The bureaucrats, the international aid workers, are not about to give up their phony jobs.  The chiefs and their chief assistants are not about to say give us no more money, our work here is done.

That is evident in the latest sob story out of UNRWA.  The violins are weeping in the background as the high minded, lofty thinking folks at the agency dry their tears over the very high unemployment in Gaza.  There is no end of gnashing of teeth, beating of breasts, and pulling of hair over the human costs of the unemployment which (stand by to be shocked) is caused solely by the Israeli "blockade" of Gaza.

Of course this interpretation is a mass of pooh-pooh.  The real deal is that Gaza under Hamas has no economic reason to exist.  Beyond that, it has been the policies and actions of Hamas which have made the Israeli "blockade" necessary.  As long as UNRWA exists to take up the slack, to feed, to house, to educate, to medicate, to apologize for, and generally tend to the so-called refugees, there will be no effective pressure on either Hamas or the Palestinian Authority to act like a responsible government and create the conditions and context necessary to assure that Palestine has an economic reason to exist as well as the ability to attract investment capital and create employment.

Down in the religious and political mire of the Arab states, deep under the cover of the "Arab Spring," each and every government continues to cynically exploit the "refugees" as part of their forever war against the Jews and their infidel supporters.  Commensual with the cynics of mosque and chancery are the self-serving and self-preserving international bureaucrats and aid workers of UNRWA.  This unlikely but lethal troika keeps its collective boot firmly on the neck of the Palestinian "refugees."

Pity the poor Palestinians.  Not for their unemployment.  Not for their alleged poverty.  Not for their purported longing for long lost olive groves and stone huts.  Pity them for their delusions.  Pity them for having been manipulated, propagandized, used, and exploited by cynics in the mosque, cynics in the chanceries of all the Arab states, and cynics at Turtle Bay.  Pity the Palestinians most of all for having died in their spirit, for having thrown away their own autonomy in order to become an army of automatons ordered, directed, and controlled by people who have nothing but contempt for them.

Pity the Palestinians, hollow shells of one time humanity, sacrificed on the alters of ambition.  Look at them in their mobs, their multitudes of misery, and remind yourself that once they were human.

Quoting Bugs Bunny, "What A Maroon!"

With admitted difficulty, the Geek has chosen three entities deserving the Bugs Bunny Memorial "Maroon" prize today. They are, in no particular order, professors of international law who have no clue what sort of neighborhood the Mideast really is, hand-wringing pundits who still insist on comparing Afghanistan with the American war in Vietnam (now that the 104 month of combat has come in the Land Of Deadly Hills), and, a surprise here, the Tea Party Movement.

Since Israel stopped the IHH "aid flotilla," the MSM both here and abroad have run to the Rolodex files seeking appropriate comment from genuine, bottled in bond, professors of international law, particularly those who assert a special competence in the laws governing blockades and maritime operations. The comments given in appropriately solemn words and in all probability accompanied by grave looks of disapproval universally condemn the Jewish state for both the action against the "aid flotilla" specifically and the blockade of the Gaza Strip generally.

In almost all cases the learned professors give Hamas a pass on all its actions by averring the terrorist entity is not a government. Many of the questioned professors use this reasoning to brand the Israeli blockade as "illegal," as the object of the blockade is not a legal government and Gaza is, perforce, not a "state."

Wow! Ain't the legal mind wonderful! All it takes to (literally) get away with acts of aggression, murder, kidnapping, and generally antisocial behavior in the international arena is to be a "non-state actor." What a concept! By this rationale Israel has no real right of self-defense since Hamas is not a real deal government.

Of course, ever since Hamas shot its way into power three years ago it has been acting as if it constituted a genuine government. It behaves as if it was a government, doing such governmental things as waging (undeclared) war, issuing passports, spending beyond its means, procuring weapons, executing evil doers. All the usual governmental attributes, don't you agree?

The duck test applies. Hamas passes it. Whether the professors like it or not, Hamas is a government and the Gaza strip is the state it governs. The blockade is rational and, by any rational standard, legal.

The maritime aspect of the blockade has been answered, at least in history. Distant blockades have been recognized internationally ever since Great Britain invoked the radical new doctrine under the pressures of real life during World War I. The employment of unrestricted submarine warfare against Imperial Japan by the US was executed under the color of being a distant blockade. No one seemed to mind--other than the Japanese.

Later, President Kennedy employed a distant blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He called it by a different name, but the use of the US Navy was in all respects identical to the use by Israel of its naval forces in its blockade of Gaza. Had the Soviets tested the American political will as the Turks did the Israeli, the results would have been much the same but on a far vaster scale.

Perhaps the learned members of the legal professorate simply are not aware of the Kennedy blockade or they have been baffled by the unusual terminology the Man From Camelot employed. In any event the precedent is there, and not even a full half-century old.

Attention pundits! The war we are waging in Afghanistan in no way mirrors the debacle we created for ourselves in Vietnam. Other than length of combat operations, there is only one similarity between the two. In Vietnam we used the wrong doctrine (theory of victory) for the totality of the war; in Afghanistan that sorry condition has ended with the appointment of General McChrystal to command and the promulgation of of his operational concepts.

The differences are far more striking. The single most important distinction between the war in Vietnam and that in Afghanistan--at least for Americans who are naturally aversive to battle losses--is the very low body count. Only recently has the total butcher's bill hit the one thousand level. It must be remembered that there were weeks, that's right, weeks, when the US lost a thousand or more KIA or DOW.

Another important difference between the two interventionary wars is the reality that in Afghanistan unlike Vietnam we have not sought a change of government every time the local panjandrum perturbed us. We have been willing to fly with Karzai no matter how irritating he can be. That was not the case in Vietnam with results which crippled fatally the development of an effective central government and South Vietnamese political will.

A third distinction between Vietnam and Afghanistan is that during the former war the US and its client South Vietnamese forces rarely had the initiative, and even when we did possess that most critical of battlefield commodities, we did not use it well. Over the past several months it is clear that the US and its allies do have the initiative in Afghanistan as measured by a critical indicator--who initiates contact.

While Taliban and al-Qaeda can still pull off PR spectaculars, the quotidian realities show the US, ISAF, and Afghan National Force hold the initiative. With the advent of more UAVs and the development of real time links to forces on the ground, even the most dreaded threat, the greatest causer of casualties, the roadside bomb, has been all but neutralized.

The road in Afghanistan remains long. It is still a winding one. But, there is no realistic probability it will end in a frank American defeat. And, remember pundits one and all, the minimum necessary strategic goal for the US and its allies is that of "not-losing."

The final, and surprising, Maroon Award winner is the Tea Party Movement. For all their laudable goals, putting the central government on a fiscal diet, ramming the DC monster back into the Constitutional Box, the Tea Partiers seem to believe the US is an island onto itself, disconnected from the rest of the world. A perusal of all the major Tea Party websites, a list too long to provide links to, shows no mention of foreign and national security policy worthy of the name.

Where there is any noting that the US inhabits a globe filled with other countries, some of which are quite hostile to us, it consists of (A) glittering generalities which might have emerged from the quick, facile lips of President Obama, or (B) the same sort of ever-so-muscular tough talk of the Cheney/Rumsfeld years. Get a grip, people!

The reality is the American defense budget has to be constrained as Eisenhower warned a half century ago. Today, his prescient words are more apropos than when he delivered them in his Farewell Address. At the same time the threats to our national interests and security are growing almost by the hour and certainly by the year.

The "international community" is a comforting fiction for the ever-so-sophisticated folks of the domestic hoi oligoi. The dysfunctional nature of international institutions including but not limited to the UN and its subordinate entities is self-evident. American diplomatic influence has whithered with the rapidity of a puddle in the hot sun of the Sonoran Desert. To put it bluntly, we aren't heard when we speak softly (or even loudly) because we lack the stick of self-confidence, faith in ourselves, our institutions.

It is that faith which counts for more than armed strength since absent faith and confidence in what we stand for, what limits we place on the behavior of other states, there is no reason for any to believe we will put our military in harm's way. States which have been pliable or simply inconsequential have taken advantage of our loss of faith to exert their own bounding belief in themselves to thwart the US at most if not every turn.

The Tea Party Movement may have properly read the mood of Americans buffeted by unemployment, economic uncertainty, sourness with the capacity and competence of the central government to do anything beneficial and effective, but it and We the People alike can never forget that we live in a complex world with enemies. Like Phil Esterhazy used to caution at the opening of every episode of Hill Street Blues, "Be careful out there."

Words to heed. Words to survive by.