The Guardian’s assault on Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state continues unabated, this time from the one-state solution advocate, Khaled Diab, in an article entitled Middle East: A Belgian Solution?
Drawing upon the similarities between Belgium and Israel, the West Bank and Gaza (which Diab deceptively lumps together as “Israel-Palestine”), Diab states:
But Belgium has been gripped by a nonviolent conflict which has its roots, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in the late 19th century. And the similarities don’t end there: both Belgium and Israel-Palestine are about the same size geographically, have a similar population density, and are made up of two main communities.
Diab goes on to argue that with a dose of so-called “Belgium compromise” the two sides could resolve their differences despite their “historical baggage”.
However, Diab falls short of taking the next logical step of explaining what the implications of the “Belgium compromise” are. Nevertheless, it doesn’t take much to realize that this is just another disengenuous push for the one-state solution given that the Walloons and the Flemings live in one-state and that Diab has in the past written
Personally, I am in favour of a federalised bi-national state eventually emerging, since a single state already exists, it only needs to be made fairer – but I don’t hold out much hope of it coming about any time soon.
Of course the Belgium analogy collapses as in the case of the Northern Ireland analogy when one examines the substantive differences rather than a handful of superficial similarities. Geary drives the point home with the following:
11 Oct 09, 4:41pm
Weird analogy this.
I think the Walloons at least recognise the Flemings exist.
I don’t remember the last time the Flemings were invaded by umpteen French speaking armies.
Do the Flemings have bunkers under their homes as refuge against “home-made” Walloon rockets?
And the Palestinians don’t make chocolate.
Underlying all of this is the rather revealing insight into Diab’s moral relativist world as he gives an example of one of the lessons to be learned from Northern Ireland.
These include the need to involve all the parties in a conflict, even if they are viewed as “terrorists” by the other side,…
In other words, not only is Diab repeating the Guardian World View’s call for negotiations with Hamas but in true Guardianista fashion subscribes to the morally blind school of thinking that “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist”.
And it gets worse. In an attempt to compare Brussels to Jerusalem, Diab makes the following astoundingly ignorant claim.
Brussels has undergone gradual Frenchification and Jerusalem rapid Hebrewisation.
Diab clearly means “Judaification” craftily employing the term “Hebrewisation” in a failed attempt at distortion. Is Diab not aware that the Jewish connection to Jerusalem dates back over 3,000 years – approximately 1,500 years before the birth of Islam? Is Diab not aware that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel under King David? Is he not aware of the central role that Jerusalem plays in Jewish existence and that Jerusalem is the holiest city in Judaism? Or perhaps he is which is why he chose the term “Hebrewisation”.
Should it then come as any surprise that Diab would advocate the one-state solution? As Sol Stern and Fred Siegel wrote:
The “one state” solution is a euphemism for the destruction of the Jewish state – a trope of the most extreme rejectionist elements within the Palestinian movement and their allies in Syria and Iran. Terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah want to create an Islamic Republic in place of Israel.