Thursday, February 21
Showing 1 of 3

This week’s piece was going to be a segue from last time, on Fascism, but the recent news seems a bit more prevalent.

 

For those that don’t know, the United Nations, winner of the Garbage Institution of the Year Award, voted 128-9 in favor to condemn President Trump’s implementation to move the American embassy to Jerusalem, from Tel Aviv, and to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Quite the riot that ensued. Mind you, moving the embassy has been a congressional declaration for almost twenty years, and four presidents before Trump failed to do what he just did.

 

And so the mess continues – various articles from sources like the New Yorker (such as this one and this one) call for peace between Israel and Palestine, and essentially for Israel to give the Palestinians a land of their own.

 

Here’s an excerpt from one of them:

Trump’s announcement can also be seen as a symbol of favoritism from the purported mediator, a coat of many colors to provide cover to Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel’s Prime Minister is besieged by investigations, rising opposition forces, and international isolation. Trump is tossing Netanyahu – and himself – “a win,” something to sell to Likud’s nationalist, religiously inclined political base, about which Trump knows a thing or two; something Trump can pass off as bipartisan respect for Zionist history.

(Bernard Avishai, The New Yorker)

 

This paragraph alone is wrong on so many levels. Not only does it negatively accuse President Trump of favoritism, which in itself is ridiculous, as that’s kind of the point – we are allowed as a sovereign nation to favor certain countries over others – but also conflates Israeli nationalism and patriotism with a snobby reference to those crazy “Trump is a white supremacist” claims. And of course it’s respect for Zionist history! For centuries upon centuries, Jews searched for a homeland as they were promptly kicked out of, grouped together into, places across the world, especially Europe. So yes, in every sense – biblical, historical, or what have you – it is acknowledgement and respect for the Zionists.

 

In that same article:

In the nineteen-seventies, one could make the case – as President Anwar Sadat did – that a ‘psychological barrier’ in Israel was holding back the peace process. Israel’s leadership, it was assumed, was inclined to some kind of territorial compromise, if not with the P.L.O. then with Jordan, but could not be persuaded to relinquish any kind of strategic depth unless the Israeli public as a whole could be reassured that Egypt, or America, or both, recognized Israel’s red lines, including its capital in Jerusalem.

(Bernard Avishai, The New Yorker)

 

This paragraph is contextually bereft and complete BS. Yes, that is the point; that psychological barrier? That’s the Arabs being unable to accept an offer, reasonably counteroffer, or compromise. How about Jordan? They were in both wars launched against the Jews by Arab nations. But about when Israel offered and assured land, peace, and sovereignty to Palestine, on numerous occasions? Let’s go over them.

Showing 1 of 3
Share.

About Author

Edward Shturman

Editor-in-Chief at Our Free Write, Edward continues to develop new and thought-provoking political commentary. A high school fellow at Stanford University, with a Best Research award in Model United Nations, and a passion for humor and truth in politics, you can trust his authentic journalism right here at Our Free Write.

4 Comments

Leave A Reply

0

Your Cart