There is no rational basis for the creation of a Palestinian state

Another conference on the Middle East has been prepared to take place in November or December on the initiative of the US-government. According to the media one of the issues to be discussed will be the creation of a Palestinian state.

The Israeli Prime Minister has already stressed that the event in itself will not act as the stage of some "historical breakthrough".

Sadly however the US president have uttered something that hints a growing interest from his part in creating such a state, which along with similar remarks from the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, is what motivates the remarks below.

At the present time - and in the foreseeable future - there is absolutely no reasonable basis for advocating the creation of a Palestinian state. On the contrary, there are plenty of reasons why the US-government and the rest of the governments of the free world should adamantly oppose such a creation.

Most importantly, the creation of such a state must be seen as a direct contribution to worsening the security of the Israeli society. The main threat to Israel is obviously the one coming from Iran, and which is a threat that is almost totally ignored (at least not addressed in action – including a proper response to what the Iranians inflict of damage, via their involvement in Lebanon and Iraq). The creation of a Palestinian State will simply be the equivalent of harming the freest society in the Middle East, which is Israel, by strengthening the position of its enemies.

In close connection to this, there are no indications, that any significant fraction of individuals in the areas concerned, are the slightest committed to the rights of the individual - or to that general culture of freedom and reason, that should be the basic values for creating a state that had the aim of securing the life-pursuing interests of the citizens in it.

On the contrary the culture in general in the Palestinian areas is one best described as a culture of hatred towards the principles that are the foundation of the prosperity of the West. There is no visible support for individual rights or for the culture of reason that would be a precondition for even the slightest discussion of the establishment of such a state. There is instead a visible and overtly violent culture to be identified in the Palestinian areas, that is at the same time to be described as “a culture of the suppression of reason”.

In the latter respect there may be identified three dominant ideological currents in the areas of interest. These are Tribalism, Socialism and Islamism. None of these ideological currents may in any reasonable way be said to form a valid basis for creating a state that serves the proper purpose of any state: that is to protect the rights of the individual and therefore to uphold and guarantee the freedoms of the individual, that are rights necessary for human beings to prosper as thinking human beings. These freedoms may be named as the freedom of speech, private property rights, freedom of thought, the freedom of choosing ones own religion and also of choosing not to have a religion, plus similar freedoms that sets man free from the collective and allows him to live a dignified and meaningful life on his owns terms.

What may be identified in abundance in the Middle East is this “culture of suppression”: suppression for instance coming from the various tribes of the Palestinian areas; and suppression of the freedom to use ones mind, and of the freedom to act as a rational human being. I mention in this respect: the indoctrination of the young to become "martyrs", the Islamic cult of bloodshed and of killing “infidels”, the suicide bombers, the kidnappings of foreigners, the opposition to the freedom of the press, – plus the various religious movements actively working to install a theocracy, that are phenomena that may all be identified in these areas.

These phenomena should provide Mr. Bush with all the reasons he needs, to reject even the discussion of such a state. George Bush has apparently argued that he believes that a Palestinian state would be ”democratic”. But the only possible kind of democracy, that is likely in this case, would be the ”democracy of the mob”: that is a state of majority rule spearheaded in practice by some ”junta” or dictatorial leader, and by a regime that would show absolutely no respect for the freedoms and values mentioned here.

Even the attempt of making a Palestinian state is therefore to be described as the equivalent of strengthening the very same people, who are already bent on destroying the freedom that exists in Israel and also in the rest of the western world. The proper thing to do is instead to make sure that fewer such anti-western regimes exists, and this means a strategy that - as the very least - contains the worst dictatorships and theocracies, and as a minimum do not create more of them.

Recommended reading - Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein - Neoconservative Foreign Policy: An Autopsy.

Hirsi Ali gets several invitations from Denmark

The former Dutch politician and author Ayaan Hirsi Ali now gets a direct invitation from the Danish minister of Culture. Hirsi Ali has lived under police protection since 2004 due to threats from Muslim extremists. The reason for the invitation is connected to the fact that the parliament in Holland has refused to pay for the protection of the author in her present exile of the United States.

In 2004 Ayaan Hirsi Ali contributed to a movie called Submission, concerned with the subjugation of women under the Islamic code. Following the broadcasting of the movie the Dutch director Theo Van Gogh was killed by the Islamic fanatic Muhammed Bouyeri on an Amsterdam street. This also meant that Ayaan Hirsi Ali had to be protected against similar threats on a permanent basis.

In 2006 the author migrated to the US, where she has been working for the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). - In an interview with Reason magazine Hirsi Ali mentions that she first hesitated at the idea of cooperating with the institute, since she does not consider herself a conservative or a religious person, but is an atheist and sees herself as a classical liberal; and she initially thought this would be a problem for the conservative think tank. However this was not the case, since her ideas and values according to her are respected at the AEI. In the interview with Reason Magazine one may also read that Hirsi Ali along with former UN Ambassador for the US, John Bolton believes that "talking to Iran is a sheer waste of time".

According to the Danish news paper Jyllands-Posten the invitation from the Danish minister may enjoy general support from the members of parliament including "the Danish Peoples party". The social democrats have nevertheless criticized the fact that an invitation to a specific individual is coming from a minister. They feel such initiatives should originate from elsewhere.

Odense, the home town of Hans Christian Anderson, has been named as a city that has a particular interest in the project of securing a safe haven for the Somali born Hirsi Ali, but local politicians from many others cities have expressed their interest as well.

From the Copenhagen Institute.