By MARTIN SHERMAN
The Palestinian population is not some hapless victim of the terror groups, but the very crucible from which they emerged
Congress is finally considering legislation to stop the Palestinian Authority from incentivizing violence…This has to stop, and the Taylor Force Act…attempts to do that. As it currently stands, the act would cut U.S. foreign assistance to the West Bank and Gaza in its entirety if the “payments for acts of terrorism against United States and Israeli citizens …do not stop…. There should definitely be no ‘pay to slay’, but…[b]eing smart counts for more than being right. And the smart approach is one that also recognizes that innocent Palestinians…should not be forced to pay for the mistakes of a government they cannot control. – David Makovsky et al“The Smart Way to End ‘Pay to Slay’”, Foreign Policy, August 2, 2017.
Lesley Stahl, on CBS’s 60 Minutes on the effects of US led sanctions against Iraq (May 12, 1996): We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”
Madelaine Albright, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations , subsequently President Clinton’s Secretary of State: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it.
Recently, three members of the well-known think-tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, posted an article on the new legislative initiative, named the Taylor Force Act after the West Point graduate and veteran, who was killed in a terrorist attack in Israel last year.
Appropriate and imperative
The proposed bill, which was recently passed in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with overwhelming bipartisan support, is designed to stop American financial aid to the Palestinian Authority [PA] until it ceases its generous payments to individuals who commit acts of terrorism and to the families of deceased terrorists.
Perversely, under the prevailing conditions, the more gruesome the act of terror and the longer the sentence imposed on the perpetrator, the greater the remuneration!
Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal points out, under existing circumstances, “U.S. aid becomes a transfer payment for terrorists”.
This is clearly an unconscionable situation and hence legislation to contend with it, and correct it, was not only appropriate, but imperative.
The need for a punitive response to the egregious “pay for slay” custom of the PA was conceded by the previously mentioned Washington Institute article, entitled “The Smart Way to End ‘Pay to Slay’”.
Penned by David Makovsky, distinguished fellow and director of the project on the Middle East Peace Process, veteran diplomat Dennis Ross, distinguished fellow and counsellor on the U.S.-Israel Strategic Relationship, and Lia Weiner, a research assistant, it clearly proclaims “There should definitely be no ‘pay to slay’… This has to stop.”
“…the ‘mistakes’ of a government they cannot control”.
However, it cautions against an across-the-board cessation of US funds to the PA, calling for a more nuanced (read “watered-down”) application of the punitive cuts: “Threats of sweeping cuts to Palestinian aid may hurt the cause more than they help.” They warn that “To entirely defund U.S. aid to the West Bank and Gaza is…to halt economic and social progress there”, proposing instead an approach that “recognizes that innocent Palestinians…should not be forced to pay for the mistakes of a government they cannot control”.
But making the innocent members of the population pay for the nefarious deeds of governments they “cannot control” has been the hall mark of American policy across the globe for years—even when those governments have been far more tyrannical than the PA.
Indeed, why should “innocent Palestinians” merit greater consideration than “innocents” in a range of despotic regimes against which the US has imposed punishing, at times crippling, economic penalties—such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea?
For example the US-led UN sanctions against Saddam Hussein-controlled Iraq inflicted wide-spread suffering (see introductory excerpt) on innocent Iraqis—including women, infants and the elderly—who, arguably, had much less chance of influencing the actions of their government than do the “innocent Palestinians” with regard to Abbas’s PA.
A government reflecting popular preferences
Indeed, while it is true that they “have not been able to vote in an election for more than a decade”, and to a large measure cannot “control” the current PA government, they certainly did empower it. In fact, it is in many ways, a government of their making—and theirs alone.
After all, in the last elections held in 2006, the Islamist terror organization Hamas and PA president Abbas’s Fatah won just over 90% of the vote—with the former winning 74 and the later 45 of the 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council. Interestingly, the third largest party was a faction representing the radical hardline Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a terrorist group founded by the infamous George Habash and headed today by Ahmed Saadat, currently in an Israeli prison for his part in planning the 2001 assassination of Israeli minister, Rehavam Zeevi .
Moreover, parties focusing on socio-economic reforms and human rights fared extremely poorly. Thus, the “Third Way” headed by former PA prime minister Salam Fayyad and a former PA Minister, the well-known Hanan Ashrawi, won a paltry 2 seats, while the National Coalition for Justice and Democracy, headed by prominent physician and human rights activist Eyad El-Sarraj won, well…none
“Palestine”: What the polls predict
However, not only did the last elections show a vast endorsement of rejectionist views (both Fatah and Hamas –and the PFLP–vehemently reject any recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews), but recent public opinion polls provide little cause for optimism that this is likely to change.
Indeed, should Abbas leave his post, the most popular candidates are Fatah’s Marwan Barghouti, currently serving multiple life sentences in Israel for a myriad of lethal acts of terror, and Hamas’s Ismail Haniyeh.
Moreover, findings for legislatives elections show that almost 70% would vote for either Fatah or Hamas, 10% for all other parties, with over 20% being undecided.
Thus, there is little reason to believe that—were new elections to be held—they would produce a sea-change for the better in the composition of the PA, or its policy. In fact, there is considerable room for concern that the very opposite might well be true.
But perhaps most damaging to Makovsky, Ross and Weiner’s contention that “innocent Palestinians…should not be forced to pay for the mistakes of a government they cannot control” is the finding that there is near unanimous public endorsement for the very financial support that the Taylor Force Act is intended to terminate.
“Pay to Slay” & Vox Populi
Stunningly (or not), a July 2017 survey by Palestinian Center of Policy and Survey Research, headed by the well-known Palestinian pollster, Dr. Khalil Shikaki, found that “an almost total consensus rejects pressure on the PA to terminate payments to Palestinian security prisoners” and “91% are opposed to the suspension of PA payments to Palestinian security prisoners [i.e. jailed terrorists- MS] in Israeli jails; only 7% support such measure”.
This is precisely the reality mirrored in an article that appeared in Tablet Magazine this week by Alex Kane, according to which” the prisoner payment program is one of the most popular PA programs, and it would be political suicide for the PA to halt it.
So, in stark contradiction to the impression conveyed by Makovsky, Ross and Weiner, the “pay to slay” policy is not something foisted on a reluctant peace-seeking “innocent” Palestinian population , but is, in fact enthusiastically embraced by it—reflecting nothing more (or less) than vox populi.
Indeed, it is more than a little disturbing to see such “luminaries” as Makovsky and Ross propagating views demonstrably detached from reality, in what appears to be a misplaced endeavor to create the false impression that, overall, the Palestinians, share their worldview—when, in fact, they clearly seem to have a very different one…
Self-contradictory, self-obstructive “rationale”
But beyond the fact that their contentions sit uneasily with the empirical evidence, they appear to have additional disconcerting implications. Thus, they endorse the view that “although a tough message [should be] sent to the PA about the consequences of incentivizing violence”, they recommend that measures undertaken should “prevent any deterioration in the quality of life for Palestinians lest that lead to greater radicalization”.
This appears to reflect a curious rationale which suggests that if one is punished for bad behavior, then one’s behavior will become…worse???
This never was a consideration in, say, Serbia, where markets, hospitals, buses, bridges and old age facilities—to name but a few civilian targets that were hit in high altitude bombing sorties in the US-led NATO attacks in the Balkans War of the 1990s.
Indeed, the claim that harsh punitive measures against an authoritarian regime will only make the regime –or the population under its control—more recalcitrant flies in the face of the most basic elements of deterrence theory. After all, if the threat of harsh measures cannot coerce the regime to modify its behavior, why should measures less harsh do the trick?
Moreover, if the collective is not forced to feel the consequences of actions carried out in its name- there is clearly no reason for these actions to cease. This is particularly true in the case of the “pay to slay” practice, which, while it may be implemented by an authoritarian regime, is widely endorsed by the general public. In this context, the rationale advanced by Makovsky, Ross et al appears to be at once both self-contradictory and self-obstructive.
Clash of collectives
It is of course somewhat discomforting to see such well-placed and well-connected pundits misread the lay-of-the-land so profoundly. For such gross misperception can only help perpetuate the conflict and its attendant suffering.
Firstly, these misperceptions nourish the false premise that privation drives radicalization, which is clearly disproven by the radicalization of many seemingly well-integrated Muslim youth in Europe, and the fact that in several Arab countries the greatest animosity towards Israel is harbored by the professional, well-to-do echelons of society.
Secondly, they obscure the real nature of the Israel-Arab conflict and hence, hamper the efforts to bring it to an end—diverting efforts toward bogus “causes”.
In this regard, then-defense minister Moshe-“Bogey” Yaalon, in a November 2015 address, correctly diagnosed the conflict as a clash of collectives i.e. “…predominantly a war of wills, of two societies with conflicting wills”.
But, if the clash is essentially one between collectives, surely victory will require one collective breaking the will of the rival collective. Accordingly, ensuring that said rival can maintain its daily routine hardly seems the most promising stratagem to adopt in an effort to break its will and achieve victory.
Indeed, if anything, it would seem the exigencies for a collective victory over an adversarial collective would dictate the diametrically opposite endeavor – disrupt the daily routine of the adversary. After all, misdeeds perpetrated in the name of the Palestinian collective must carry a price, which the collective pays – for if not, it will have no incentive to curb them.
Implacable enemy not prospective peace partner
The Palestinian population is thus not some hapless victim of the terror groups, as some might suggest but the very crucible from which such groups have emerged. It has by its own hand, by its deeds and declarations, made it clear that it will not—except on some temporary, tactical basis –brook any manifestation of Jewish political independence/national sovereignty) “between the River and the Sea”.
At the end of the day, the clash between Jew and Arab over the Holy Land is a clash between two collectives. For the Jewish collective, the Palestinian collective is—and must be treated as it sees itself: An implacable enemy, not a prospective peace partner.
Accordingly, the conflict, as one between collectives cannot be individualized .One collective must emerge victorious, the other vanquished. Only then, after victory/defeat, can the issue of personal misfortune be addressed.
This, then, is the perspective in which Palestinian society must be placed—and the perspective from which the formulation of the Taylor Force Act be addressed.
Martin Sherman is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies
@ Bear Klein:
They fought Iraq and Afghanistan with reservists and then replaced them with regular troops, I believe, and they sent people in for too many tours.
On the other hand, I knew weekend reservists who were sent, older guys who didn’t actually see battle but just assisted, who retired to Florida on what they made from being reservists.
Bush knew he would never get a draft through, or the funding, either. That’s why we went into debt to pay for it, as well. Should have made Iraq pay reparations for it the way the Soviet Union made Hungary and E. Germany after the war. America is allergic to war since Vietnam though many people volunteered after 9/11.
But, the US has a long history of anti-war sentiment. Thoreau invented civil disobedience over opposition to the Mexican War under Polk. NYC was under martial law, not to mention Southern Ohio and Indiana. Socialist Presidential candidate, Eugene Debs, won a million votes from jail, where he was sent for opposing WWI.
I think we are too individualistic. One of our national flags is the snake with the caption, “Don’t tread on me.”
Though Jews fought for and won the right to allowed to join under Peter Stuyvesant and Blacks fought for and won the right to be allowed to join during the Civil War because traditionally, the military was the road to acceptance for discriminated against minorities.
Many African-American soldiers stayed in France after WWI because they were accepted by a grateful population. That’ s how Jazz came to Europe.
In Vietnam and the Civil War, it was the deferments for those who could afford to pay for a substitute during the Civil War, and college students with a decent grade point average in Vietnam, exacerbating racial tensions that enraged many people.
Perhaps, if there were no exemptions.
S. Korea has a system like Israel. Also Switzerland.
Then, again, there were no deferments in WWI, I believe. Socialist Presidential candidate, Eugene Debs won a million votes from jail for opposing the war.
Thoreau went to jail for a night for opposing the Mexican War with his taxes inaugurating Civil Disobedience.
I don’t think it would fly here. Too individualistic.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
The soldiers in the USA have done multiple tours and large numbers are getting abused with all their PTSD plus war related physcial handicaps. Less than 1% of population in the USA serves.
Yes it might not fly in the USA. The USA has good soldiers and military academies do attract a bright officer core. However for the amount of conflicts it is involved in too small a group people are involved in combat and I truly wonder if this is sustainable.
@ Bear Klein:
You may be right about Israel, I don’t know, but the draft, tore the U.S. apart during the Vietnam War, that’s why it was abolished under President Ford in 1973. There were draft riots during the Civil War in both North and South.It was so unpopular during WW1 that the Supreme Court legalized suppressing criticism of the draft.
It won’t fly here.
Also, a different kind of soldier is needed now, more mature, educated, stable with families, preferably. War has changed.
@ Bear Klein:
You may be right about Israel, I don’t know, but the draft, tore the U.S. apart during the Vietnam War, that’s why it was abolished under Ford, I believe.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
The attached article conveys some of what I was trying to express. The IDF is a melting pot for Israelis. This is where people meet different types of people (e.g. kibtuznik meets city people). Many of the Soviet Jews learned about Judaism and converted. Many get higher education opportunities and training. https://www.entitymag.com/what-know-israel-mandatory-military-service-men-and-women/
@ Sebastien Zorn:
There are some who avoid military service in Israel but so far the numbers are not significant. Israel without a universal draft would not be Israel. It is a huge part of the culture. There are generations of Israelis in the same family who get drafted and proudly serve. Much of the culture is based on the relations people build in the military. There are certainly examples of Israelis who do not serve or do not serve well. Getting rid of the draft in Israel would be a reckless experiment, that could doom the state and not help it. Israel is way too small not to have universal service because a small amount of people do not like it. Some of the haredi who do not want to serve call for an all volunteer army. This would serve them but not the state.
About 75% of those drafted volunteer to serve in a combat unit. One only gets in a combat unit by volunteering.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
There are some who avoid military service in Israel but so far the numbers are not significant. Israel without a universal draft would not be Israel. It is a huge part of the culture. There are generations of Israelis in the same family get drafted and proudly serve. Much of the culture is based on the relations people build in the military. There are certainly examples of Israelis who do not serve or do not serve well. Getting rid of the draft in Israel would be a reckless experiment, that could doom the state and not help it. Israel is way too small not to have universal service because of a small amount of people do not like it. Some of the haredi who do not want to serve call for an all volunteer army. This would serve them but not the state.
About 75% of those drafted volunteer to serve in a combat unit. One only gets in a combat unit by volunteering. I venture to say the USA would be less divided and look at things differently if it had a draft again.
It would also prevent a lot of emigration. I met an Israeli pianist who left to avoid the draft. I’m sure there are many others. That doesn’t mean he can’t contribute. It also takes away the situation we saw where those new recruits ran during a terror attack. It also takes away the attempt to justify murder by the pals who say that all Israelis are past, present or future soldiers therefore they are not civilians.
That didn’t stop a lot of Americans from volunteering after 9/11.
@ Bear Klein:
Yes, and there really is no alternative to reinstating military occupation of the Arabs in all the areas it was relinquished. The task of the pro-Israel left should be to counter the accusations of “Apartheid.” Whatever you call it, there is no alternative in the short run.
Perhaps, the way to avoid Peace Now type Mutinies is the way the US dealt with it. Replace the draft with an all volunteer career military and if necessary, supplement it with paid reservists, activated when necessary.
Religious and non-religious Jews should like that. It accords with Deuteronomy 20, actually. It’s also common sense. Israel has come a long way. It shouldn’t be necessary to mobilize the entire population.
“5 The officers shall say to the army: “Has anyone built a new house and not yet begun to live in it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else may begin to live in it. 6 Has anyone planted a vineyard and not begun to enjoy it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else enjoy it. 7 Has anyone become pledged to a woman and not married her? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else marry her.” 8 Then the officers shall add, “Is anyone afraid or fainthearted? Let him go home so that his fellow soldiers will not become disheartened too.” 9 When the officers have finished speaking to the army, they shall appoint commanders over it.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+20
Martin is correct that the Palestinians as a collective are the enemy of the Jews for the Land of Israel. Under this understanding we must evaluate paradigms such as the two state solution.
One of the USA’s big advocates and workers in the peace industry is Aaron David Miller. He has started seeing reality in the last couple of years. He even wrote an article in which he wrote what a major mistake it would have for Israel to have given up the Golan Heights. He said thought he understood the middle east when he advocated for this but was wrong.
To those of us who have lived on the Golan it was a reckless idea to give up the Golan as it would have very obviously put Israels security at risk. The idea of giving up Judea/Samaria is equally reckless and wrong.
So we did to deal with reality that the Palestinians are the enemy and in anything we do keep this in mind. Pro Israel advocates need to constantly remind people that the Palestinians want to get rid of Israel and not make peace with it. That has been the issue for 100 plus years.
Felix Quigley Said:
To what things are you referring. I googled, “Trotsky and the Jews” without quotes and found these statements. Please tell us what you agree with or if the statements to which you refer can be found elsewhere. At least, put the in your own words and tell us where you read them. Based on this selection alone, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it’s hard to imagine anybody being wrong more of the time or about more things.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/xx/jewish.htm
Also, what are you talking about when you accuse Yamit of working to hide Trotsky’s writings.
The test of “science” is it’s ability to predict. Pierre Van Paasen made no such pretentions. But, he predicted that in the year 2020, the U.S. President would be an African-American Socialist. in 1943.
@ yamit82:
And Felix Quigley. Be nice if you could edit the @ feature in editing.
All sort of half-true. Yes, capitalism created the potential but it was the victory of the labor movement during the New Deal and World War 2 periods that made it possible for workers to enter the middle class. Marx thought that potential could only be realized under Communism, for which socialism, as he defined it was the transition period in which the workers, through their representatives* would finish the job that the bourgeoisie, seeing what was coming after them, refused to finish, on the basis of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” in the transition period.
Also, Venezuela is a disaster but Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands weren’t before the Muslim invasion.
Canadian and Scandinavian healthcare works. English and German is horrible.
Cuba favors foreigners with hard cash, leftists from abroad, and apparatchiks at the expense of their own people.
Israel’s is unparalleled, especially in new innnovative technologies.
China is horrible unless you have lots of money or work for the state.
Actually, the only workers in NYC who are paid well with good benefits, for the most part are civil servants, teachers, cops (though Communists wouldn’t define either as workers since they mediate between the classes, postal workers, fire fighters, etc.)
It’s a little hard to generalize or it should be I think.
*They’re the rub. through their representatives. Felix Quigley says Marx spoke of the working class acting for itself. He does. But, then he says that the best the workers can come up with on their own is anarcho-syndicalism. That’s where he comes in. And later, Lenin, Trotsky (who I also hated when I was an anarchist communist, because he massacred the anarchists as minister of war) Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. He says that the workers need renegade bourgeois like him who — since he has to rationalize everything as collective self-interest — see their future class interest with the working class since capitalism is doomed — to lead them.
Incidentally, Marx made a living as a journalist and translator, he was the European correspondant for the NY Herald Tribune, he also reported on India and the Middle East without going there. But, mostly, though he was quite poor with a big family and a servant his countess wife inherited from her mother, he lived off Friedrich Engels, who ran his father’s textile factory in Engand.
@ yamit82:
Yes, when I’ve pointed out that the Paris accords make no sense from the perspective of saving the planet because they only penalize the U.S. and not China which is the worst polluter of them all.
Either there is a planetary emergency or there isn’t. If there is, and if it is due to human carbon emissions, then we all need to cut back. If it’s not, it’s just social engineering at the U.S.’s expense and to to China’s advantage.
These Leftists have actually replied that the it’s fair because the US was able to develop earlier because it didn’t have to worry about all these restrictions, so now it’s only fair to level the playing field so China can catch up. American Leftists.
Above comment should have been directed to Felix reposted below
@ Felix Quigley:
Have not the foggiest idea of what you are saying or meaning?
I am perfectly aware of excesses and exploitation during before and after the period of Marx and his fellow 19th century travelers…. None realized that built into the excesses of brute capitalistic exploitation was also the cure to to excesses like organized labor…… They created the functioning middle class heretofore unknown in any society and raised the income and working conditions to all in the labor force both blue and white collar. …. I am not crtiquing here your theoretical positions althjough I can easily but challenged you to show any examples of proof that your Commie theories have ever been shown to succeed in practice anywhere and at any time in the history of mankind? You never answer directly to that simple challenge because you can’t but since you love history and pride yourself on being history knowledgeable Here are some historical facts for your pursuance and edification.
On This Labor Day Please Remember the 94 Million Killed by Communist Workers Party in the 20th Century
Never Forget.
On this Labor Day please remember the 94 million brutally murdered, starved, beaten to death and assassinated by Communist regimes in the 20th Century.
20th Century Death, communism was the leading ideological cause of death between 1900 and 2000. The 94 million that perished in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Afghanistan, and Eastern Europe easily (and tragically) trump the 28 million that died under fascist regimes during the same period.
During the century measured, more people died as a result of communism than from homicide (58 million) and genocide (30 million) put together. The combined death tolls of WWI (37 million) and WWII (66 million) exceed communism’s total by only 9 million.
It gets worse when you look at: The Natural World—which includes animals (7 million), natural disasters (24 million), and famine (101 million). Curiously, all of the world’s worst famines during the 20th century were in communist countries: China (twice!), the Soviet Union, and North Korea.
And today as you enjoy your holiday with family and friends please remember the starving people in Venezuela ruled over by Socialist tyrants.
@ Felix Quigley:
Have not the foggiest idea of what you are saying or meaning?
I am perfectly aware of excesses and exploitation during before and after the period of Marx and his fellow 19th century travelers…. None realized that built into the excesses of brute capitalistic exploitation was also the cure to to excesses like organized labor…… They created the functioning middle class heretofore unknown in any society and raised the income and working conditions to all in the labor force both blue and white collar. …. I am not crtiquing here your theoretical positions althjough I can easily but challenged you to show any examples of proof that your Commie theories have ever been shown to succeed in practice anywhere and at any time in the history of mankind? You never answer directly to that simple challenge because you can’t but since you love history and pride yourself on being history knowledgeable Here are some historical facts for your pursuance and edification.
On This Labor Day Please Remember the 94 Million Killed by Communist Workers Party in the 20th Century
Never Forget.
On this Labor Day please remember the 94 million brutally murdered, starved, beaten to death and assassinated by Communist regimes in the 20th Century.
20th Century Death, communism was the leading ideological cause of death between 1900 and 2000. The 94 million that perished in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Afghanistan, and Eastern Europe easily (and tragically) trump the 28 million that died under fascist regimes during the same period.
During the century measured, more people died as a result of communism than from homicide (58 million) and genocide (30 million) put together. The combined death tolls of WWI (37 million) and WWII (66 million) exceed communism’s total by only 9 million.
It gets worse when you look at: The Natural World—which includes animals (7 million), natural disasters (24 million), and famine (101 million). Curiously, all of the world’s worst famines during the 20th century were in communist countries: China (twice!), the Soviet Union, and North Korea.
And today as you enjoy your holiday with family and friends please remember the starving people in Venezuela ruled over by Socialist tyrants.
@ yamit82:
@Yamit82.
As a student of International Relations, I very much understand the concept of realism whereby states are the actors in a system with no supranational authority. Thus, might makes right (at least according to another anti-Semite J. Mearshimer). I get it!
As such, I agree that especially given the anarchic nature of the international system, “no sane (I would say Rational) country / actor would want to give it’s sovereignty to an international police force” and
that “occupation is legal (really only when land is occupied in a defensive war, such as 1967, otherwise countries would be incentivized to use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of states), but the acts that an occupying power performs must be such that it can restore the country in the same condition as prior to occupation (barring certain necessities) to a prior sovereign. This is especially true as per the Hague 1907 as Geneva IV supposedly deals more with civilian protections.
My questions are purely regarding what the international community deems that Israel must do if its presence in J&S is considered an occupation (which in my opinion it is not, especially according to the Hague and according to Geneva IV) and what are Israels obligations under treaties it has signed.
@ Felix Quigley:
The Wikipedia articles on the history of the use of the term, which has changed over time, are pretty good.
Just google: Leftwing wikipedia and look at all the articles on the page including the one from Frontpage magazine about how the left has taken over Wikipedia.
It is fine until it gets to the present where it minimizes the absorption of the formerly fractured left into the Progressive movement which, in the name of the ideals laid out in John Lennon’s song, “Imagine” actually seeks to create a vacuum for Islamists to move in and take over in practice.
@ yamit82:
The IDEA of communism or socialism in that sense arose out of the class struggle. Marx and Engels were not the first to recognize what was happening and happening in a rather explosive way if you are studying the clearances of the Scots Highlands and Yorkshire Moors that created the slums of Glasgow and Manchester.
Investigate the ideas and life of Robert Owen. Owen was recognizing from the standpoint of being an entrepreneur and utopian socialist some of the aspects of the NEWLY FORMING capitalism of England.
Engels later was to write the Condition of the English Working Class, a very empirical study.
The point I am making is that Marx and Engels came out of a particular historical development.
Whereas Owen saw himself as a benefactor, a helper of workers, Marx and Engels developed the idea that this was a class which would help itself by revolution, it was revolutionary because of its position in relation to capital.
Here is the thing – this is all sert down on the basis of much empirical study. (Marx was so much part of the British Library they left a chair out for him)
These ideas were not outside of the general flow of ideas, they were part of it, adding to it. They were IDEAS Yamit.
One of the central ideas of this new theory (set of ideas) was that eventually the capitalist system by its very nature created a WORLD MARKET.
The new concept of Stalin and Mao that it was possible to build communism or socialism IN A SINGLE COUNTRY was outside of those general ideas of Marx.
Which is right?…that is AGAIN an ideological problem.
Stalin eventually “argued” by means of his agents recruiting a Catalan and a very elaborate plot to have the great person of Trotsky … his life ended.
You yourself have worked all of your life to have the very important things that Trotsky was writing about Jews and the Israel to be hidden from Jews.
You Yamit cannot be said to be a Stalinist but in that sense you certainly can be called a fellow traveller of Stalinism (strange as that sounds it is objectively true)
You exhibit no knowledge of any of THis history. A true Ignoramus.
Felix Quigley Said:
Scientific position??? Geez your commie ideas about science differ than any definition I know. The Palis were a KGB invention from 1964 that’s historical fact….. Arafat himself was born and educated in Egypt. Sherman likes to write wordy intellectual tropes but he refuses to accept the fact that at any time Israel has the power to bring down the whole artificial mess known as PA without firing a shot if there was a political will by Israel to effect such a policy…..Europe still open to them and I would provide small boats with water and a box of matzas per person and a compass and send them off to Germany Sweden and France…. Best idea I have seen in years 🙂
Felix Quigley Said:
Being let down by political leaders across all ideologies and nationalities is almost a default condition…. Not Just the poor palis……. Re: Sheman’s contention that the conflict revolves between and around two competing collectives? Have to disagree to a point….. There almost no difference between so called Arab Palis and Arabs from any of the surrounding nation states all relatively new artificial colonial inventions. But most so called Palis in any of the neighboring countries with the exception maybe of Egypt and you won’t find any significant differences…. The Palis collective is so divided that they cannot be accuratly be described with certitude as a single collective not ethnically, historically or culturally. The culture is still semi tribal built around a few mega large interlocking families and their first loyalties are to family and to clan… Little concept of modern nation state consciousness. If they are to be considered technically a collective then it is a very fractured dysfunctional collective with more divisions than unifying elements aside from hatred of Jews and Israel…. Then that hatred is reflected against Jews throughout Europe and America by Commie leftists, The Roman and Eastern churches, mainline Protestant christians and the alt right. So I must disagree with Sherman’s main contention and YOURS.
@ Felix Quigley:
AH You didn’t read what I wrote and ducked behind SB, only 2 lines from him are quoted directly and I agree with what I quoted. You disagree AH? Make your case historically even scientifically 🙂 . Show me a single example of your Commie beliefs having been successfully applied and demonstrated in any nation ever in history…:) You can’t but it’s my long standing challenge to you. Scientifically the method must go from theory to test and shown to be correct…. (scientific method ) so based on your religious belief in both science and Marxism show us your method of test and results of test to prove your theory correct …. This should be good!!! Haaaa Going to leave skid marks again Felix?
Ted Belman Said:
The best approach for advocates on the right is not to develop new terminology for the political spectrum, but to define the existing terminology with respect to political essentials
“left” and “right” originally referred to seating arrangements of 18th-century legislators in France—arrangements unrelated to anything in contemporary American politics today.
Use of the terms left, leftists, commies and Alex Jones is doing this all the time, including the “Chinese Ciommunists” are always intodays discussion in America geared towards stopping youth and people in general learning history.
I am very dustrustful of all such terms. I need more concrete experiences and concrete experiences of history.
In fact this article of today by Martin Sherman has struck a huge blow against that approach and it is an article that the likes of Alex Jones are incapable of.
Rather than ranting about “leftists” Sherman cooly enumerates the falseness of the argument that the “poor Palestinians” are let down by bad leaders.
By the way that false argument is held right acrtoss the spectrum, and you can say correctly that Reagan promoted that false ideology. All of the leaders of the world did without a single exception.
Sherman has showed without a doubt that it is this Palestinian Arab collective, closely linnked to Islam, that has created the PLO, fatah and Hamas, with the strong possibiolity of even worse than them to come.
This is not a left position it is a scientific position.
It was not left but science when Marx visited Jerusalem and cooly pointed out that Jews were the majority in Jerusalem in 1854.
quote…”To finish the picture, be it remembered that the fathers of the Latin Church, almost exclusively composed of Romans, Sardinians, Neapolitans, Spaniards and Austrians, are all of them jealous of the French protectorate, and would like to substitute that of Austria, Sardinia or Naples, the Kings of the two latter countries both assuming the title of King of Jerusalem; and that the sedentary population of Jerusalem numbers about 15,500 souls, of whom 4,000 are Mussulmans and 8,000 Jews. The Mussulmans, forming about a fourth part of the whole, and consisting of Turks, Arabs and Moors, are, of course, the masters in every respect, as they are in no way affected with the weakness of their Government at Constantinople. Nothing equals the misery and the sufferings of the Jews at Jerusalem, inhabiting the most filthy quarter of the town, called hareth-el-yahoud, the quarter of dirt, between the Zion and the Moriah, where their synagogues are situated – the constant objects of Mussulman oppression and intolerance, insulted by the Greeks, persecuted by the Latins, and living only upon the scanty alms transmitted by their European brethren. The Jews, however, are not natives, but from different and distant countries, and are only attracted to Jerusalem by the desire of inhabiting the Valley of Jehosaphat, and to die in the very places where the redemptor is to be expected.”…end quote
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1854/03/28.htm
The article by Sherman is closer to that than anything I have read. It is not left. It is science.
Yamit now for your opinion not Samsonblinded.org opinion
@ yamit82:
Franciso Gil-White writes that the terms left and right originated in the French Revolution. When the new parliament was set up the representatives of the Aristocracy sat on the right whereas the people’s representatives sat on the left. Thus the left vs the right. The masses vs the elite. The many vs the few.
He argues that Jews historically defended the many from oppression by the few.
At least, that’s what I remember.
@ Felix Quigley:
Leftism is the most primitive, anti-intellectual teaching. Most leftist academics in social sciences are not real scientists, but mostly engage in false liberal sciences. Many if not most technical scientists (physicists, engineers, etc.) are right-wingers. Not all of them, but at least the proportion of conservatives among them is tremendously higher than among liberal academics. It strains credulity to call literature, ecology, or economics science. Economists are only good at explaining facts post factum. No economic theory has ever succeeded in successfully predicting or preventing upheavals. In order to implant their political notions, leftists discard their accumulated knowledge. Anyone with a basic knowledge of history can see that leftist policies are unworkable. Not surprisingly, wherever they have taken power, leftists have quashed education.
Fascism, far from having anything in common with capitalism, is essentially the same atrocity as communism and socialism—the only difference being that whereas communism and socialism openly call for state ownership of all property, fascism holds that some property may be “private”—so long as government can dictate how such property may be used. Sure, you own the factory, but here’s what you may and may not produce in it; here’s the minimum wage you must pay employees; here’s the kind of accounting system you must use; here are the specifications your machinery must meet; and so on. The essential issue in politics is not the size but the function of government; it’s not whether government is big or small but whether it protects or violates rights.
The proper purpose of government is to protect individual rights by banning the use of physical force from social relationships and by using force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. A properly conceived political spectrum must reflect this fact. Whatever terms are used to identify the positions of political ideologies or systems must be defined with regard to the fundamental political alternative: force vs. freedom—or, more specifically, rights-violating vs. rights-protecting institutions. Because the term “left” is already widely used to denote social systems and ideologies of force (e.g., socialism, communism, “progressivism”), and the term “right” is substantially used to denote social systems and ideologies of freedom (e.g., capitalism, classical liberalism, constitutional republicanism), the best approach for advocates of freedom is not to develop new terminology for the political spectrum, but to define the existing terminology with respect to political essentials—and to claim the extreme right end of the spectrum as rightfully and exclusively ours.
Capitalism—the social system of the political right—is the system of individual rights. It is the system that respects and protects individual rights—by banning physical force from social relationships—and thus enables people to live their lives, to act on their judgment, to keep and use their property, and to pursue personal happiness. This observation grounds the political right in the proper goal of politics: the protection of rights.
Related, and still more fundamental, capitalism is morally right. By protecting individual rights, capitalism legalizes rational egoism: It enables people to act on the truth that each individual is morally an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others, and that each individual should act to sustain and further his own life and happiness by means of his own rational judgment. This observation deepens the significance of the term “right” and anchors it in the only code of morality that is demonstrably true.
The far left comprises the pure forms of all the rights-violating social systems: communism, socialism, fascism, Islamism, theocracy, democracy (i.e., rule by the majority), and anarchism (i.e., rule by gangs). The far right comprises the pure forms of rights-respecting social systems: laissez-faire capitalism, classical liberalism, constitutional republicanism—all of which require essentially the same thing: a government that protects and does not violate rights. The middle area consists of all the compromised, mixed, mongrel systems advocated by modern “liberals,” conservatives, unprincipled Tea Partiers (as opposed to the good ones), and all those who want government to protect some rights while violating other rights—whether by forcing people to fund other people’s health care, education, retirement, or the like—or by forcing people to comply with religious or traditional mores regarding sex, marriage, drugs, or what have you.
The Right, the true liberals, are not certain if they are correct, and do not press their demands. The Left, narrow-minded, are certain of their truth, and push their demands at any cost to society. The Left thus ascend to power, while the right can only sporadically be elected to mitigate the damage society has suffered from Leftist activism. In strong but theoretically liberal states, the left have taken charge of welfare distribution and bribed the voters. Leftists are active while conservatives are passive, defending the old values.
@ NoahFarbstein:
There is no such thing as International law! Countries do have treaties with one another and they or may not be honored. The United Nations passes resolutions but has no power to enforce them. There is a World Court but it only works if all the parties agree to be bound by the decision in advance, and then actually abide by it. There is no international organization that has the power or authority to hunt down terrorists and arrest them. The reason for this is simply that there is no international police that can carry out sanctions on violators of the law.
No sane country in the world would want to give of it’s sovereignty to an international police force. Remember; the definition of a state include the ability to use force (as in arresting and prosecuting) on it’s people.
International law recognizes occupation as a descriptive state. Sometimes it is called “belligerent occupation.” But by definition, any occupation is by default legal. The acts that an occupying power perform can be illegal under Geneva, but the legality of the occupation itself is not addressed in either the Geneva Conventions or the 1907 Hague Conventions, the only two sources of international law for occupation.
There is only one way that an occupation can be considered “illegal,” which is if the UN Security Council declares it as such under a Chapter VII resolution. That has never happened with Israel. A valid legal argument can be made that Israel is legally occupying territory – even though many prominent legal experts disagree with even that – but there is no valid legal argument whatsoever that Israel is illegally occupying territory.
Before I chose to intervene I would wish Yamit and Sebastian to define their continual use of this term “leftist”…what is it? Is it helpful or unhelpful? Give it some historical meaning?
@ Sebastien Zorn:
“The supreme mystery of despotism, its prop and stay, is to keep men in a state of deception, and cloak the fear by which they must be held in check, so that they will fight for their servitude as if for salvation.” –Baruch Spinoza
@ Sebastien Zorn:
@SZ
I am not a lawyer, but have read much on the conflict. As such, your opinion on the following interpretation is appreciated.
I agree that only the basic provisions of the Geneva Convention apply during peacetime, such as Article 144 which requires the “dissemination of the text of the present Convention as widely as possible in their respective countries”.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5
However, I believe that the Convention’s applicability to the conflict today depends on ones interpretation of Article 2 of the Convention, entitled “Application of the Convention”.
Article 2 states:
“In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance”…
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=C5031F972DD7E216C12563CD0051B998
I interpret this in the same manner as Israel, which is that under international law, Israel is the legal sovereign in J&S. As such, Jordan’s presence there between 1948 and 1967 was illegal. Therefore, Israel does not occupy J&S, it merely reclaimed it.
Specifically, there is a “missing reversioner” or no prior sovereign other than Israel. In other words, even ignoring the peace treaty with Jordan whereby it relinquished claims to J&S, it was not the legal sovereign prior to 1967.
However, the majority in the international and especially human rights community, most of whom are anti-Semites. Falsely, they argue Article 2 must be read as a whole. If so, Paragraph 1 of Article 2 would ensure that the Convention applies to all situations of international armed conflict, including occupations resulting from direct hostilities (regardless of the legitimacy of any claims over the occupied territories), whereas paragraph 2 should be read as simply covering occupations not resulting from an armed conflict (e.g. any occupation of land held previously by another party).
If correct, then in their minds Israel still would be occupying land and the persons there would be “Protected” by the convention, which as stated above covers War & Occupation, such as Article 33 on “Collective Penalties”.
I believe that this interpretation not only is wrong but ridiculous. In 2003-4, the USA handed authority to the Iraqi interim government but maintained a military presence there. As such, many international jurists considered the USA’s occupation of Iraq to be over even though in reality it never began. This is because the previous sovereign was completely Subjugated (Under international law, subjugation is sufficient to acquire land even if cession does not occur).
Many of these same jurists still call Israel an occupier, despite its having handed authority over most of the territory in dispute to the PA just as the USA had handed authority to the Iraqi interim government.
Any way, I believe that the current conflict with the “Palestinian” Arabs is domestic and only in the territory of one Contracting Party to the Convention, Israel. Thus, Article 3 of the Convention is applicable.
QUESTIONS
1. If the anti-Semitic interpretation of Article 2 of the Convention was applicable and Israel was an occupier, would the Arab “Palestinians” still be considered “Protected Persons” under the Convention?
2. Given that I believe Israel cannot occupy its own land, is this a Domestic Conflict (not an Occupation) between Israel & the very Arabs which Martin Sherman, with whom I agree, seeks to relocate in order to avoid more “Lebanonization” of J&S?
3. I assume you are correct that the USA has no obligation to send funds to the PA and this is not an issue. I assume MS was referring to “Collective punishment” in a broad, not legal sense?
However, if it is a Domestic Conflict covered by Article 3 of the convention, “Conflicts not of an International Nature” is any form of collective punishment a violation of Article 33 of the Convention?
I am not a lawyer and thus am unable to discern if this were the case would the Arab “Palestinian” be “Protected Persons” or would only Article 3 apply?
@ yamit82:
But the Court has gotten worse, hasn’t it? Look at this crazy immigration decision. “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” applies here, doesn’t it? There is no check on the Court’s power and they have started to really flex their muscles. I have read that some of the less wise war decisions were also made out of fear of the Court. The Court complained that the compromise in appointments procedure that Shaked pressured them into agreeing to was an infringment of democracy. What a laugh. It is the Court that infringes on democracy. They can over-turn any law, prosecute anybody for anything. Based on whim. Accountable only to themselves and each other on the Court. This is happening at various rates throughout the West. How is this democracy?
The Left in developed countries have always had one common goal. They wish to see their home over-run and destroyed.
@ yamit82:
I agree with everything you said but for one thing. The Left does regard the US as a territory occupied by Christian settlers from the poor Red Indians, though they would refer to them as European or White settlers. Religion is really irrelevant for them. That’s the US left. My high school history textbooks all had the consistent message that neither the US nor Europe had any legitimacy whatsoever. And we all know it’s gotten a lot worse. This Left is dominant now.
When I was active in the anti-nuke movement in the late 70s, many people had buttons that said, “US out of North America.”
Michelle Obama said she was finally proud to be an American when her husband took office.
Jews are mindful and respect world opinion. The world has tried to exterminate them for two millennia, and so Jews think there must be a good reason. And so they are sorry: for being strong, simply for being. They fear world opinion and ask themselves, Will the world tolerate our injustices to the Palestinians? Doesn’t the world expect us to behave morally? Indeed, it does: even before the gas chambers, the Jews had to behave, for if they showed temper, like the Hebrews who fell on the Canaanites under Joshua . . . Well, obviously the world would not like such Jews. As if it liked the ones it has.
Does the world care about the millions killed in the French wars in Algeria and Indochina? Are the news services concerned about the number of Iraqi victims of the American invasion? The world cares not a bit about the locals, only a bit about their own nationals. The world is populated by reasonable people. They know wars are cruel, that sweat builds states , but so does blood. They died and killed to establish their states. And they have no problem with Israel doing the same.
After the 1967 Israeli victory, no one objected to her acquiring land. No one expected her to return it. No nation ever returned land significant for its national conscience and acquired by repelling aggression. America rebuffed Sadat’s peace offers. The objections arose only when Israeli ability to hold the land became doubtful after 1973.
The world condemns Jews because they act guilty. They call the land “occupied” instead of “annexed.” They offer to return land. They deal humanely with the inhabitants. That is the cognitive framework of a very, very guilty people. And so the world sees that Jews are wrong. And powerful. And weak. A perfect mix for condemnation. No one enjoys condemning a fly; many enjoy condemning a softhearted elephant.
The terrorist problem can be solved. We have an example. The Germans cornered the 300,000-strong Russian guerilla movement with reserve police battalions. Shall I recall the measures they used? The Germans did not fight the guerillas head-on but annihilated their popular support. The ability to dissolve among the population and thrive on small donations and requisitions without logistics is the backbone of guerilla strength. The Germans crushed that backbone by shooting hostages and burning villages suspected of supporting the guerillas. Israelis might not like that approach, but let us not say there is no way to fight Hezbollah Fatah or Hamas. There is a way, proven, accepted, and not opprobrious. That we shrink from taking those measures is a matter of romanticizing, of blatant disregard for the nature of war, of the clear, wise instructions given to Joshua.
Eradicating popular support for the Arab terroism is one thing. Removing its reason for existence is another. Israel must stop oppressing the Palestinians. Making Arabs live in a Jewish state is oppression—a state whose anthem is The Hope, whose Law of Return applies to Jews, not to the 1948 Palestinian refugees, whose General Staff does not include Arabs. We must stop oppressing the Palestinians. Let them go.
There is a core Palestinian state in Jordan, a state with a Palestinian majority and a doomed monarchy, a state that will comfortably accommodate the oppressed Arabs from core Jewish territories the lemmings call “occupied.” (Somehow the United States is not commonly called a territory occupied by the Christian settlers from the poor Red Indians.) To deal with terrorism, address its cause. Make them leave.
@ yamit82:
Tax rebates part of the Paris Oslo accords and it was time limited for 6 years long expired and never renewed so what might be legal objections?
@ Sebastien Zorn:
Have done it for brief periods in the past with no interference by the court.
@ yamit82:
And even if the Israeli government decides to do just that, what do you want to bet that the Supreme Court makes them resume the payments.
David Makovsky, Dennis Ross, and Lia Weiner are all leftists who have made a career of supporting and advocating OSLO and 2 State Solution and have been consistently been shown to have been wrong about everything pertaining to the conflict between Israel and the Palis. and by extension wrong about everything else in the ME see support for Arab Spring add Indyk and many others of same ilk. All have made careers in and out of government by being not only wrong but are still the go to phony experts most turn to for advice and expert opinion re: Israel and the palis conflict.
It would be helpful if Israel led the way in stopping tax rebates to the PA…. they are legally non applicable and are just bribes for certain behavior and when applied in the past pressure from EU and all American admins to continue those bribes made them ineffective….. Why would America care or want to pressure Israel to continue the payments to PA? Because it has been the policy of every American admin since Reagan to support the Palis at all costs even at the expense of many dead Jews and weakening Israel.
It was after all Reagan who saved Arafat in Lebanon from certain death by Sharon and the IDF in Lebanon…. America trained and used the PLO in Lebanon as their personal diplomatic security personnel. Reagan can be considered the real Godfather of the PA. and 2 State solution… and every American administration since has deepened their support and commitment to that end.
If the The Taylor Force Act doesn’t pass and even if it does Israel should cease paying the PA tax rebates even if they use the excuse that the money will be held to repay all debts the PA authority owes to Israeli companies public and private and damages they cause to life and property of Israelis they have inflicted against us. Let the supporters of the terrorist kleptocracy make up the difference of the amt. Israel withholds from them. If the PA falls so be it we deal with fallout when it happens, if it happens?
Sorry, I forgot that key phrase the left developed way back — that has now been dubbed “intersectionality — that is just a way of getting the interest and involvement of people whose business it isn’t: “spending your tax dollars…” on fill in the blank.
How about:
“Money for Housing not PA Murder Inc..”
“Money for Jobs not Abbas’ Murder Inc.”
Can’t say, “Palestinian.” That might be dubbed “hate speech” and censored.
“Hey Abbas, Vas ist Das, How many kids have you killed today?”
Another lesson from the left. You have to rhyme.
“It don’t mean a thing, if it aint got that swing.” Duke Ellington. 1943
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDQpZT3GhDg
If the Taylor Force Act doesn’t go through, or is watered down so much that it is merely symbolic thanks to the treasonous actions of so-called Jewish groups like AIPAC, who seriously think that the argument that what comes after might be worse, and look at the handful of times the PA security notified the Israeli security forces of the terrorists they themselves had launched, directly or indirectly, then the ZOA and other patriotic Jewish groups should hold vigils and demonstrations in front of their offices as well as major mass transportation and shopping hubs with rotating pictures, videos, and story boards of the thousands of murdered Israeli Jews since 1993 with the slogan, “Why are so-called Jewish groups like AIPAC urging the US to continue sponsoring Palestinian Arab Murder Inc.”
It would also serve to undercut the Left-Wing narrative that Israel dominates US policy through AIPAC. Even the former spy whose video was just posted suggested that Israeli lobbyists have a seat at the CIA table that runs everything. It’s funny how left-wing and right-wing conspiracy theories tend to converge. On us.
And this should especially be done on campuses. To avoid violence, or make it costly, the table should be accompanied by hired security of off-duty cops with impeccable records, and teams of lawyer observers. Everything and openly everybody video-taped and miked. And ready to sue.
It makes more sense to think of the PA as a quasi-mafia than as a quasi-government.
The mafia puts out a hit on somebody, and then whoever carries out the hit gets rewarded.
Muslims put out fatwas like Khomeini’s fatwa on Salman Rushdie, who was living in England.
The PA has put out a collective fatwa on Israeli Jews. Kill a Jew and you get a pension for life, your family too. A collective contract. Abbas is a mob hitman in a kafeiya. Sorry, that was Arafat. Abbas wears an expensive suit. His job is putting out contracts on Jews. His popularity rests on it. His rivals, Hamas, say they want to kill all Jews in the world in their charter. They are more popular.
And the UN and its agents like UNRWA and the so-called Human Rights Council are just paid-off cops.
Geneva Accords? Collective Punishment? Ha Ha.
If aid to the PA is not cut, the US is an accomplice.
@ NoahFarbstein:
The aid that would be cut, moreover, is to the PA, not directly to individuals, and the Geneva Accords says nothing about an obligation to support enemy combatants, directly or indirectly. Where, in the following description of “protected persons” would the PA or its terror recipients fit?
\
I think this is the only rule that applies here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
@ NoahFarbstein:
I don’t believe the Geneva Accords apply at all.
The PA is not a high contracting party, there is no state of war, Judea and Samaria are not occupied. The U.S. only offered aid recently and it was voluntary and on the understanding that it would not be used for terror. If withdrawing it is a form of abuse then was it a form of abuse not to have offered it earlier? What obligated the U.S. to provide aid in the first place here? Does the PA have any obligations? Any penalties for violating them? Isn’t this all the assertion of rights without responsibilities?
Superb article. Dr. Sherman is absolutely right here. Unfortunately, neither the Israel government or the USG is likely to listen.
I would like to ask the more learned in legal matters how the US could be breaking some or other international law by withholding its own money from the PA. If the funding is a voluntary humanitarian gesture by the US (not a legal obligation) and the funds are being misused in whole or in part, (as they are not being applied for any social welfare purpose) then withdrawing funding cannot really be classified as a punitive measure, rather then it would be a simple reaction to the misuse. After all if I am donating to a “feed the children” charity and I discover that the funds are being used for some other purpose then I have the choice to stop donating. Not even considering the fact that as a free agent I should be able to stop donating to any charity even if the funds I donate are being used for the intended purpose without being accused of applying punitive measures against the collective beneficiaries. I am no lawyer but surely gifts are normally voluntary acts by the giver and should Congress determine that the funds should be stopped, then International conventions and definitions appertaining to collective punitive measures are irrelevant.
@ MS.
I agree completely with your view that funding should be withdrawn.
However, my question is regarding legality under international law of doing so.
Art. 4 of Geneva IV defines Protected Persons as “those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals”.
Thus, Occupation or not (of course I believe it is NOT an Occupation), if this is a “Conflict of international character”, I believe Section I of Part III of Geneva IV, “Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories” applies to the Arabs living in J&S (section III of Part III, including Article 49, would NOT apply as there is no occupation).
Specifically, Art. 33, which prohibits Collective Penalties defined as punishment for an offense said persons have not committed.
1. As such, would revoking US funding from the PA be considered “Collective Punishment” under international law?
2. Even If revoking funding can be considered “Collective Punishment” & is illegal, given that the Arab “Palestinians” of J&S no longer hold Jordanian citizenship and that the conflict began as a civil war in Mandatory Palestine (British Mandate of Palestine), can this be considered a “Conflict Not of an International Character”.
If so, would the Arab “Palestinians” not be considered to be “Protected Persons” under Geneva IV (although most have residency in Israel)?
3. If the Arab “Palestinians” are not “Protected Persons”, would only Article 3 of Geneva IV, “Conflicts not of an international character” be applicable?
4. If said Arabs are not “Protected Persons”, then it appears that under Article 3, there is no restriction on “Collective Penalties”. Thus, if revoking funds is a form of Collective Penalty which is prohibited under Geneva IV in the case of only international but not domestic conflicts, would it not apply to the Arab “Palestinians in this case (assuming it is correct that they do not qualify as protected persons)?
@ MS.
I agree completely with your view that funding should be withdrawn.
However, my question is regarding legality under international law of doing so.
Art. 4 of Geneva IV defines Protected Persons as “those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals”.
Thus, whether an Occupation or not (of course I believe it is NOT an Occupation) I believe Part III, section I of Geneva IV, “Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories” applies to the Arabs living in J&S (section III, Part III, including Article 49, would not apply as there is no occupation).
Specifically, Art. 33, which prohibits Collective Penalties defined as punishment for an offense said persons have not committed.
1. As such, would revoking US funding from the PA be considered “Collective Punishment” under international law? or
If revoking funding can be considered “Collective Punishment” & is illegal:
2. Given that the Arab “Palestinians” of J&S no longer hold Jordanian citizenship and that the conflict began as a civil war in Mandatory Palestine (British Mandate of Palestine), can this be considered a domestic dispute. If so, would the Arab “Palestinians” not be considered to be “Protected Persons” under Geneva IV (although most hold only residency, not Israeli citizenship and thus are not nationals of Israel)?
3. If the Arab “Palestinians” are not “Protected Persons”, would only Article 3 of Geneva IV, “Conflicts not of an international character” be applicable?
4. If yes, then it appears that under Article 3, there is no restriction on “Collective Penalties”. Thus, if revoking funds is a form of Collective Penalty which is prohibited under Geneva IV, would it not apply to the Arab “Palestinians in this case (assuming it is correct that they do not qualify as protected persons)?
is only Art. 3 of Geneva IV, “Conflicts not of an International Character” applicable?
Islamofanaticism needs to be treated like the Nazi! Nazism was born in the mid-nineteen twenties and crushed in 1945. It lasted about twenty years. Islamofascism was born with Muhammad. This represents 13 centuries!!!
I wonder why the West refuses to face reality unless of course it considers the Jews as a more dangerous enemy!