Wednesday, April 21, 2010

The Case Against Ahmed Moor's "Case For One State"

As I mentioned earlier, Ahmed Moor is a brand new Huffington Post blogger, and his debut article is all about destroying Israel as a Jewish state. In doing so, he proves himself to be truly "more Palestinian than the Palestinians" which is ironic, because he himself is Palestinian. But then again, he also doesn't live in the territories anymore, so he doesn't need to worry about the consequences of what he advocates. Anyway, let's go through his article about the "one state solution" together. It should be fun.

Mr. Moor starts off his article by complaining about how Netanyahu cannot accept a two-state solution and maintain his coalition. This is not true, and even if it were, Netanyahu can always be voted out, while Moor's conclusion from the current situation is that a two-state solution is in fact unworkable. He then goes on to probably the most important and informative part of his article:
"But its most glaring failure is the presumption that Palestinians will meekly accept American dictates regarding the right of return. As a Palestinian, I believe that any plan that seeks to sacrifice our inalienable human rights to ensure race-based majorities in Israel will fail."
 More Palestinian than the Palestinians? Right here, baby. Moor is more than willing to condemn his fellow Palestinians to another decade of violence and suffering before he would even dream of giving up his "inalienable human rights." Guess what, Mr. Moor? Part of peacemaking is compromise. Compromise means giving something up. And considering that the Palestinians never really had a right of return to begin with, I don't think asking them to renounce it is that much to ask. He can try to muddle the waters with loaded language as much as he wants but there is nothing in international law that gives the Palestinians the right to flood into Israel without permission from the Israelis who live there.

Fortunately, it's a non-issue because true Palestinian moderates have already expressed a willingness to forego the "right of return" in exchange for another concession. Mr. Moor might want to considering learning from their example. It's quite easy for him to sit in Beirut and demand the Palestinians don't back down, but I guess that's the nature of opinion writers, isn't it?

Moor continues with a trademark anti-Zionist distortion:
"To the extent that Israel must exist exclusively for the Jewish people, the enfranchising of the roughly four million Palestinians living under Israeli occupation today does pose a threat to its existence...." [Emphasis mine.]
 Israel has never been a state exclusive for the Jewish people, at least no more than Ireland is a country exclusively for the Irish people. Non-Jews can live in Israel, but it is harder. What Israel does need to preserve, though, is it's ability to be a haven for Jews the world over and as a homeland for Jews. They cannot do that if a Palestinian majority is going to veto everything they try to do to protect Jews who might want to come.
Moor is being rather dishonest with his implication that Israel is the only country that has this problem. Demographics is something that many countries are dealing with, from Australia to Denmark. Like a typical anti-Zionist, Moor focuses exclusively on Israel for the purposes of demonization. Not entirely surprising, considering that his entire purpose behind writing this article is to destroy Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people. Moor continues with Palestinian pseudohistory:
"It is this anachronistic obsession with the racial makeup of the state that created the Palestinian refugee problem in the first place. Mandate Palestine was ethnically cleansed by Zionist armed forces in 1948 to create room for a Jewish majority state, as documented by the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe in his book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine."
I have countered this false history more than enough times, I have no need to do so a second time. The fact that Moor needs to rely on the very discredited (to the point where I can't call him a "historian," though Moor does) Ilan Pappe only shows how extreme his views truly are. He'll find a welcoming committee on the Huffington Post, though, that's for sure. Let's keep going, because now Moor is going to tell us why a two-state solution can't work.
"First, as previously noted, Palestinians will not relinquish the right of return. Mr. Abbas, hardly in a position to negotiate the right away."
O rly? So because the Palestinians are intransigent, a two-state solution is impossible? Why don't they just become...not intransigent? Again, this is Moor speaking for the Palestinians, even though I haven't seen him get elected into any positions lately, and again Palestinian officials have shown a willingness to relinquish it. No matter how mad this will make Mr. Moor.
"Second, there are approximately 500,000 Jewish settlers in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and no one is capable of removing them from their homes. [He then continues to say that because the settlements are all spread out, the state of Palestine would have no territorial integrity.]"
 Another weak argument I have seen anti-Zionists use a million times before. I'll just do this in bullet points.
1. They can be removed. Not all of them, but many of them. It happened in Gaza, after all. Israel might be willing to do it for you, they just need a good reason to do so.
2. 75% of the settlements live close to the Green Line. Close enough that land swaps would work, as long as nay-sayers like Mr. Moor don't bring everyone down.
3. Settlers can become citizens of Palestine! After all his complaining about Israel and their "demographic threat," why is it not considered a possibility for him that Jewish settlers can simply become Palestinians? They have the choice between citizenship or expulsion. No integrity problem to worry about.
As you can see, the settlements are not an insoluble problem. It's just that Mr. Moor would rather throw up his hands and give up rather than try to make a just and equitable peace. He would rather just lobby to destroy Israel, no matter how much it hurts his fellow Palestinians.
" Third, the Holy Land is relatively arid. Much of the water Israelis consume comes from the Coastal and Mountain aquifers, both of which lie under Palestinian land. Notwithstanding international law and the prevailing sentiment of much of the world, Israel simply will not relinquish control of such strategic freshwater reserves."
 Water is something that the two sides have discussed before. There is nothing to stop them from sharing the aquifers under a peace agreement. Mr. Moor is all about sharing, right?
"Finally, there are Israeli security considerations. As Brzezinski and Solarz generously admit, Israel will never agree to a Palestinian state with a conventional military. A state without a military option isn't really a state at all, especially since Israel will likely continue to conduct raids into Palestinian territory."
 Not really a state? That might be news to Japan, Iceland, Monaco, and many others. Palestine would hardly be the first nation to be demilitarized as the result of a conflict ending. What is the matter, Mr. Moor? Are the Palestinians afraid to be without their precious guns? It's not like having terror groups running around the territories is really keeping their people safe, I might add.
Secondly, the whole point of a peace agreement is that Israel wouldn't need to conduct raids into Palestine. Israel has proved in the past that if terror groups stay out of their territory, they will stay out of their neighbors'. Ask Jordan.

Mr. Moor's final paragraph, which is meant to be one of those furiously emotional conclusions, leads to a very interesting slip-up:
"We Palestinians will struggle for equal rights in our country in the same way blacks in America fought for their rights. We will persist in overwhelmingly demanding the implementation of our right of return. Our right of return is our right to sit anywhere on the bus, or attend any school." [Emphasis mine.]
 'In our country?' What does that mean? Is he referring to Israel or Palestine? And if so, he is caught in the trap that Matt and I talked about yesterday. If the the country of the Palestinians is Israel, that means that they have been lying for decades, and have been killing people for no reason at all. Mr. Moor doesn't seem to realize the implications of what he is saying when he says that Israel is "the country of the Palestinians." The international community is not behind his claim that Israel in fact "belongs" to the Palestinian Arabs, though he will surely find support among the more rabid anti-Zionists at the Huffington Post.

So there you have it: A Palestinian armchair extremist, demanding non existent rights, who lobbies for the destruction of the Jewish state. He doesn't even seem to be aware of the possible threat to the sovereignty of the Jewish people who live there, not to mention the threat to their lives. If he did he might have paid some kind of lip service towards it, but instead he chooses to ignore it. Unfortunately, the Israelis who live there won't.

More Palestinian than the Palestinians? Welcome to the Huffington Post blogger community.


  1. The one word the Palestinians have never learned is "compromise." They can't have Jerusalem and they can't threaten Israel's existence. You can't have everything you want life. A "my way or the highway" attitude will buy you neither friends nor satisfaction. But try telling that to Ahmed Moor. After all, if he can't deny the Jews the same things he wants, he would rather have nothing. No wonder the Palestinian Arabs are still going nowhere after six decades of perpetual intransigence.

  2. The Palestinians forgot how wonderful Jews were treated under the Muslim rule of Mohammad Amin al-Husayni.
    This was in the 20s, BEFORE Hitler..