The Case for Israeli Settlements

Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, June 04, 2008

On Sunday, June 1, Israel announced plans to build over 800 homes in Jerusalem. And the international community proceeded to go ballistic.

"Our position on the settlements is that we don't believe that any more settlements should be built," said White House Press Secretary Dana Perino. "And we know that it exacerbates the tension when it comes to the negotiations with the Palestinians." U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon's office said that he was "deeply concerned" by Israel's plans. "The government of Israel's continued construction in settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory is contrary to international law and to its commitments under the Road Map and the Annapolis Process," Ki-Moon's office stated.

What's the problem with Israel building homes in its capital city? The problem is that the homes will be built in two neighborhoods -- Pisgat Zeev and Har Homa -- which lie east of the so-called "Green Line," the pre-1967 Israeli border.

And the international community doesn't like that at all. According to the international community, Israel's decision to build constitutes a slap in the face to its Arab neighbors, particularly the Palestinian Arabs.

Here's the question: so what?

The world should be far less concerned about Israel's settlement policy than about the terroristic, fascistic nature of Israel's enemies. Supporters of the so-called two-state solution -- in reality, a piecemeal attempt to dismantle the state of Israel by making its borders indefensible -- assume a moral equivalence between Israel and her enemies. They argue against Israeli settlements as if Israel were America and its Arab neighbors Canada, as if the Arab-Israeli conflict were a simple border dispute. In reality, Israel shares Western values; its enemies share values with the mullahs. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a conflict between two contrasting worldviews: freedom and fascism.

Viewed in its starkest terms, the Arab-Israeli conflict may be accurately described as a war between darkness and light. Those who argue against Israeli settlements -- outposts of light in a dark territory -- argue for the continued victory of night. They argue for the dominance of the same terroristic population that elected Hamas. They argue for the appeasement of populations and leaderships who value murder at the expense of those who value life.

No standoff is possible between darkness and light. Where light fails, darkness engulfs. When Israel pulled its settlements from the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Arab population immediately destroyed all semblances of civilization -- as they have wherever Israel has pulled out -- then elected Hamas. Hezbollah reacted to the Gaza withdrawal by initiating a war against Israel in Lebanon.

Israel is a single candle in a pitch-black room. Its rays are the settlements. As the candle burns more brightly, so too does its rays. The free world's true interest lies not in a truce between the darkness and the candle -- such a standoff means merely that the oxygen will eventually run out, extinguishing the flame -- but in providing energy for the candle, allowing it to continue shining forth. That means recognizing the right of liberty to overtake tyranny. It means acknowledging that the supposed right to self-determination must take a back seat to civilized behavior. It means supporting the right of free peoples to spread freedom.