Select Page

Response To Jason Hill’s – A Moral Case For Israel Annexing The West Bank

Response To Jason Hill’s – A Moral Case For Israel Annexing The West Bank

Last week The Federalist published an opinion piece by Jason D. Hill, professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago. As I read this, I found that some of what I read I was in agreement, some not so much, and other parts in total disagreement with.

After I read this article I turned first to a conservative site, wanted to see their opinion, so I read the rebuttal from The American Conservative. He states his objections as follows:

In his essay, Hill insisted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should faithfully keep his campaign promise to incorporate West Bank settlements. In fact, according to Hill, the Israeli leader has a “moral right to annex all of the West Bank…for a plethora of reasons.”   

This “plethora of reasons” comes down basically to four. First, the Israelis were too “altruistic” in dealing with the Palestinians whom they conquered in 1967. It would be better if the Israelis had regarded the Palestinians as “enemies of the state: supporters of the Fatah (Palestinian Liberation Organization) Charter, which basically calls for the end of Jewry in the region.” Jewish conquerors should have immediately annexed the land and made “the people there [who should have been expelled] the responsibility of their original homeland: Jordan.”

Second, he implies that Palestinian authority doesn’t deserve any better, in part because it fails to recognize the inherent inferiority of their people in relation to the Jewish masters of the West Bank: “Jewish exceptionalism and the exceptionalist nature of Jewish civilization require an unconditional space for the continued evolution of their civilization. What’s good for Jewish civilization is good for humanity at large. Jewish civilization is an international treasure trove that must be protected.”’

Third, Israel has “every moral right to wage a ruthless and unrelenting war against Hamas and to re-settle the land if it ever so desires.” On top of that, the United States is morally obligated to pay “political and financial reparations” to Israel, supplying it with “more advanced military capabilities” so that it can maintain its “unrivaled military status in the Middle East.”

Finally, Hill solemnly arrives at his last point. The Palestinians have no moral authority “because they have never explicitly held a philosophy that can support freedom, the basic principles of individual rights, and a free market economy.” Additionally, they vote for terrorist organizations like Hamas to represent them. In short, they are a “security threat to Israel because a core feature of their identity is a commitment to destroying Israel as a Jewish state.” It is therefore immoral to accept “anti-Semitics devoted to the destruction of Israel into the domain of Jewish civilization.”

While I agree, the settlers in what today is called the West Bank, and they were settlers, Jordan had moved these people in after they attacked and expelled all the Jews in 48 from the land, these are the same ones that later claimed as if by magic to have turned into Palestinians. I take issue with mass expulsion now, you can’t say 70+ years later you are going to expel not only the people that came way back then but their children and grandchildren as well, how would you claim morality if you are doing the same exact thing they are demanding to do to you?

Image result for The federalist, a case for Israel annexing the West Bank

The author from the American Conservative says that Israel would have had no right to do this to Jordan, but I disagree. If they had done it in 67, I would have had no issue with it, after all, Jordan with the support of the Arabs in Judea and Samaria, (this is not the West Bank, it was renamed this to strip Jewish identity from the area), but all these years later, I see now no reason for Israel to do this, but I have no issue with expelling terrorist, and supporters of terrorist.

Inside Higher Ed took a more liberal bent on this, they claimed that to mention that the Arabs were moved into the area by Jordan, that was bigoted:

Now a DePaul University professor is facing criticism for the tone of his writings on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In this case, students demanding that he apologize and go to sensitivity training are arguing that his pro-Israel writings demean Palestinians in ways that are bigoted.

This I equally object to, to state facts are not bigoted, they are merely facts, facts are only interested in the truth. Truth is what is told here, the “Palestinians” are no more native to the land then the Jews are, they came due to economic migration in the 1800s, then due to Arab influx with leaders paying immigrants money to migrate so as to prevent the Jews from claiming the area as their homeland, that is a fact, stating it is not bigoted. I deal with this in PALESTINIANS: WHAT IS FACT, WHAT IS FICTION, and in DID ISRAEL STEAL THE ANCESTRAL HOME OF THE PALESTINIANS?

The author, Scott Jaschik, took exception to the statement by Hill:

“Not all cultures are indeed equal. Some are abysmally inferior and regressive based on their comprehensive philosophy and fundamental principles — or lack thereof — that guide or fail to protect the inalienable rights of their citizens. Given the voting patterns of Palestinians — towards Islamicism and terrorist organizations for the most part — that openly advocate and work for Israeli and Jewish destruction and annihilation, a strong argument can and ought to be made to strip Palestinians of their right to vote — period.”

Now he may not like it, but the facts are not all cultures are equal. When you have a culture that is bent on the destruction of another, celebrates when they see the other side slaughtered, there is no way you can say that this culture shares equal footing with a culture that views life as precious and does all it can to preserve it.

There is also the case of voting rights with the Arab population in Judea and Samaria, along with Gaza, one just needs to look at polling to see where their sympathies and votes lay.

Image result for Muslim polling

YNet: One-third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children:
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/06/32-of-palestinians-support-infanticide/
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4053251,00.html

PCPO (2014): 89% of Palestinians support Hamas and other terrorists firing rockets at Israeli civilians.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/poll-89-of-palestinians-support-jihad-terror-attacks-on-israely

Palestinian Center for Political Research (2015): 74% of Palestinians support Hamas terror attacks.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/support-for-hamas-skyrockets-following-war-poll-shows/

Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (2015): Two-thirds of Palestinians support the stabbing of Israeli civilians.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/12051848/More-than-two-thirds-of-Palestinians-support-knife-attacks-against-Israelis.html

Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (2015): Two-thirds of Palestinians support the stabbing of Israeli civilians.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/12051848/More-than-two-thirds-of-Palestinians-support-knife-attacks-against-Israelis.html

We can see an obvious trend here, the overwhelming support of all forms of terrorism by the Arabs in Israel’s West Bank and in Gaza. This is supported by polling, it is rather hard to dispute this, but I am sure some will. I would say that any nation that would take in, make citizens of such people would be both self-destructive and not serving the interests of its people, so what does one do?

Related image

I think Israel would be best served by a loose confederacy, set up where the Arabs are given more autonomy, although I sadly wonder if this would be a recipe for disaster, for an example of this, go to Gaza. But this would have to be set up with an understanding, Arabs wishing to support terrorism, they should be deported, no nation is expected to maintain a group of armed terrorist who works for and demand their destruction. The rest, should be made citizens and given full rights, but with an understanding, you engage in terrorism, you will too be expelled.

There was one huge problem though I had with Hills paper, and that was his statement:

America must also admit that it owes Israel political and financial reparations for America’s many decades of support of the PLO and the PA, which have pledged destruction to Israel and have rejected all plausible peace offerings from Israel, preferring instead war and destruction.

As a Jew, I am overjoyed looking at America’s support of Israel, but as an American the notion that we owe reparations, that stinks of entitlement and offends the hell out of me.

Image result for us jerusalem embassy

We give to Israel, and it should be this way for all nations, not because we are obligated, otherwise, it would not be a gift, rather a duty, rather we do so because of a common bond shared between us and Israel. We have seen their fight for survival, the efforts made to preserve equality and justice for their people, an ideology we both share, that is why we support them, and hopefully why we would and should continue to do so. But if this becomes a duty, it is worrisome that soon it would be a burden, one future generation’s would want nothing to do with.

As I said, there are parts with this that I agree with, I think the outrage and screams of bigotry are blown way out of proportion. There are parts I equally disagree with, but this is the beauty of a democracy, we can agree, sometimes bitterly disagree, and other times amicably agree to disagree.

About The Author

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.