Thursday, July 25, 2013

MJ Rosenberg Prematurely Blames Israel (Again)

I like to imagine Israel hating Huffington Post blogger MJ Rosenberg coiled like a cat above his keyboard, ready to pounce the second that it looks like he might be able to blame his three favorite targets on something. For his latest article on the Huffington Post, even though the peace talks have barely begun he is already blaming Israel and giving the Palestinians a complete pass.

The half-truths line up quite quickly: The Palestinian Authority wants peace, the Palestinian Authority has the power to implement peace and has the backing of its constituents, the Palestinians have always wanted peace and haven't changed their position, and of course that Israel is actually stolen Palestinian land:
"It, of course, should be noted that 100 percent of the West Bank and Gaza represents only 22 percent of historic Palestine (Israel plus the West Bank and Gaza). Israel would still control 78 percent. That is important to remember when you read a report that Palestinians are being obstinate for not agreeing to accept 90 percent. That is because the 90 percent is of the 22 percent which would reduce their portion to 18 percent."
If he would like to dispute that his intention here is not trying to convince us that Israel stole "historic Palestine's" land, then I would ask why he brought it up in the first place. Clearly Rosenberg thinks that "their portion" of "historic Palestine" should have been all of it, leaving none for the Jews. But remember, he claims to be "pro-Israel," and this is not a new position for him.

What remains informative, though, is that Rosenberg is quibbling about percentages of land while the Palestinians are supposedly being genocided and apartheided and all that jazz. Clearly Rosenberg thinks that if the Palestinians reject the Israeli offers because they don't give them enough land, his audience should back them up. This is no longer the 14th century, however, and killing innocent people over land is no longer morally acceptable. Unless you are a Palestinian or one of their supporters, apparently.

At this point he blames Israel for having the following positions:

  • No giving away of any part of Jerusalem.
  • Although they would give the Palestinians 90% of the West Bank, they will keep a military presence in the Jordan Valley.
  • Israel will keep Ma'ale Adumim and Ariel.
To all this Rosenberg thunders in protest. Check out how amazing the follow speech is, especially the second sentence:
"The Palestinians, rightly, will never accept them. After all, they have considerably compromised from their pre-Oslo demand for the return of all of Palestine to 22 percent of it. They have recognized Israel's right to security and, even without a peace treaty, they work hand-in-hand with the Israeli Defense Forces to defend Israel. Additionally, under international law, the occupied territories are just that -- occupied -- and must be returned to them."
Rosenberg would have us believe that when the Palestinians went from "we will destroy Israel" to "we will make peace with Israel," that was a "considerable compromise" instead of just the barest minimum necessary in order for them to make peace. Do you think if Netanyahu said "we already made a big concession by granting the Palestinians a state in Judea and Samaria, so we aren't going to give any more," Rosenberg would agree that that is totally legitimate? Almost certainly not, remember that he thinks "Jerusalem is Palestinian."

Ditto with the security forces. Keeping terror groups from murdering innocent people is now a concession that must be reciprocated, rather than the barest minimal step toward peace and following (wait for it) international law. Notice that Rosenberg claims the Palestinians "worked hand in hand with the IDF to defend Israel" leaving out the obvious addendum "from other Palestinians." Finally, nothing in international law nor in Rosenberg's link says that the 'occupied territories' must be 'returned' to the Palestinians. As usual, what the Palestinians demand becomes "rights" that must be granted to them, not negotiated for. This is the only thing about the Palestinians that has remained consistent.

At this point Rosenberg asks his favorite question:
"What are they [Palestinians] supposed to compromise on? They have nothing to give to Israel except an enhanced version of the security guarantees they already implement."
Unfortunately for Rosenberg, he already answered his question above. This is the problem with the Palestinian "rights-based" argument: when you have yourself convinced that everything you want is your "right," you leave you with no room to negotiate. I know that we have answered Rosenberg's question before, but here's a quick reminder. The Palestinians can renounce claims to Jerusalem, the "right of return," recognize Israel as a Jewish state, accept less than 100% of the West Bank, and accept a demilitarized state. Of course Rosenberg wouldn't be okay with this, but he asked for what they could compromise on and all of those are fine examples. Another great lie:
"Notably, the Palestinians, who are infinitely weaker than Israel, don't demand security guarantees, just their territory."
(Ahem!) You would really think that Rosenberg would have learned not to speak for people besides himself at this point, but apparently not. Of course the Palestinians don't have 'territory' to demand, but I think Rosenberg has traveled too far down that rabbit hole to ever be convinced back, no matter the facts. AT this point he bashes the USA and says it can't be impartial, just to prove his Palestine-firster credentials, before returning to the classical anti-Semitism that made him infamous:
"The Palestinians understand the role of the Israel lobby in keeping Congress in line behind Israel, with Congress doing the job of making sure the administration doesn't stray."
Still Huffington Post approved, even after all these years. He then returns to the usual whining and signs off. Another day, another ill earned dollar.

1 comment:

  1. MJ Rosenberg, the new Sharmine "Dignity Rockets" Narwani.

    HuffPost approved, of course.


Hey guys we've started to employ a slight comment policy. We used to have completely open comments but then people abused it. So our comment policy is such: No obvious trolling or spamming. And be warned: unlike the Huffington Post we actually enforce our comment policy.