Once upon a time there was a man named Chuck who had a friend named Dave. One day Chuck came home and was very angry. “You cannot believe what happened to me today”, he told Dave. “This banker stole my life savings. Can you believe it?”
Dave responds with sympathy to his friend. “That is really terrible Chuck. Is there anything I can do to help?”
After lathering himself up with increasingly hostile rhetoric, Chuck responds to Dave’s offer. “Yes, Dave, there is something you can do for me. I have decided that I am going to punish this banker. I need you to buy me a chainsaw and set up a lunch meeting with her. When she comes to the meeting, I am going to kidnap her and force her to tell me where her family lives. I am then going to capture her family and dismember them before her with the chainsaw and finally I am going to kill her.”
Dave readily agrees to purchase the chainsaw and set up the meeting and Chuck carries out his plan.
Now the question that I want to ask is, “Is Dave guilty of conspiracy to commit murder?” If you believe that he is, then at what point do you believe that he should have acted to put a stop to Chuck’s plan? When he saw all the dismembered bodies? After the kidnapping? After purchasing the chainsaw?
The answer I hope you come to as a decent human being is that Dave should have stopped Chuck AT THE VERY BEGINNING WHEN CHUCK WAS DISCUSSING HIS PLAN. “Now wait a minute there Chuck,” Dave should have said, “I am sympathetic with your grievance, but don’t you think kidnapping and mass murder is going a bit too far? Maybe this isn’t a proportional response to the theft of your life savings?”
Now, of course, all of this analysis is independent of any consideration as to whether or not the grievance is actually legitimate. Why? Because it doesn’t make any difference if the grievance is legitimate or not. Even if the grievance is 100% legitimate, and Chuck’s irrational response calls his credibility in this regard into serious question, the response is still 100% wrong and evil. Chuck cannot be coddled or sympathized with as long as he believes that this response is appropriate and is seeking to bring it to pass.
What does this have to do with the Israel/Palestine question? Everything. Those who support Palestinian statehood when the Palestinians declare in their very charter and with everything they say in the public square that Israel has no right to exist and that all of the Jews should be killed are accomplices to genocide regardless of whether or not the Palestinians have a legitimate grievance. When aid to the Palestinians is used to build terror tunnels in order to kidnap and murder innocent Israeli civilians and this plot is only foiled because of the murder of three Israeli teenagers, then you must not give aid to the Palestinians until they renounce such tactics and recognize the right of Israeli’s to live in peace. If the “Palestinians” simultaneously are unreasonable in their demands to allow Israel to have defensible borders, then you cannot support their claim to statehood. If you support the “Palestinians” in these ways, you are an accomplice to the genocide and murder that they are constantly talking about and planning.
But the grievance of the “Palestinians” as stated by their supporters is not even legitimate. When Jimmy Carter and other liberals accuse the Israelis of an “occupation” of Palestinian lands, you would never guess from the choice of this word the history of the region if you didn’t already know it. That Jews fleeing from the Nazi death camps arrived in a portion of land granted to them by the United Nations and were immediately attacked by the surrounding Arab nations who wanted to finish the work that Hitler started is entirely absent from the one word synopsis “occupation”. That the Palestinians gladly left their homes to get out of the way of the Arab invaders seeking to murder these Israeli’s is entirely absent from the one word synopsis “occupation”. That the Arab countries expelled a large number of Jews who fled to Israel without any of their property is entirely absent from the one word synopsis “occupation”. That the Jews had purchased large sections of the lands from willing Arabs is entirely absent from the one word synopsis “occupation”. That the “Palestinians” include many people like Yasser Arafat who was not born in “Palestine” is entirely absent from the one word synopsis “occupation”. A more reasoned analysis leads to a much more complex picture where Israel is not a villain and the “Palestinians” are not the innocent victims that they claim to be.
When I see the modern BDS movement and the anti-Semites in the catholic church joining forces to destroy Israel, it makes me extremely angry. Support of the “Palestinians’ is tantamount to support for genocide and this truth must be declared by reasonable people.