Dinesh D'Souza (4:39)
That'll fix the problem. I must say, life gets complicated when your anti Semitic nostrums start crashing into one another. Back to Tucker's genetic argument. Oddly enough, my original fallout with Tucker a few months ago when was over exactly this point, Tucker sent me a text. He said that the genetic studies show that European or Ashkenazi Jews have a lower genetic continuity with ancient populations in the region than Palestinians do. His point seem to be that the Palestinians are truly indigenous and the Jews are to a considerable degree fakers or imposters. Now here's how I replied to Tucker and I quote, in biblical times the Philistines occupied the territory that is now Gaza. Well, it was Gaza then too, but other cities were included, like Ashdod and Gath. But the Philistines, I said, were European settlers originally from the Aegean, not Arabs. Centuries later, in some cases as late as the 20th century, Arabs moved into that region. Many of them came from Jordan, from Syria and the Arabian desert. So they are not all caps, the original inhabitants of Gaza. And Tucker replied, and I quote, sure, I believe that. But then in classic Tucker fashion, he quickly withdraws his agreement, quote, but in order to determine who's actually inherited the land, we'd have to conduct global genetic testing to award property on the basis of the results. And then Tucker concludes, sounds like a Nazi project to me. As a Christian, I reject that. I replied to Tucker, ha ha ha. I don't think that's necessary any more than it's necessary to genetically test Asian Indians to make sure their ancestors are from India. Remember, Jews maintain their tribal identity very little in a marriage. They didn't try to convert people as Christians did. Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice conveys the picture very vividly. The Jews don't mix, so their continuity as a group is generally more secure than virtually any other group. Again, Tucker says, I agree with all of that, but promptly returns to his main theme. If the claim is that Jews have a genetic right to, to certain pieces of land, it's going to be necessary to do genetic testing. If, if the Jews are claiming a genetic right, then we have to genetically examine them. But are the Jews claiming a genetic right? I'm not sure they are. Well, maybe some are, maybe some Christians agree with them. But there are several other non genetic and in fact non religious ways to establish the Jewish claim to the nation of Israel. How do any people anywhere claim the title deeds to a country? There are generally only three ways to have legitimate possession of a country. If you look at all the maps of the world, they are drawn as they are drawn based on one of three criteria. First, you get land because you were there. First, you are the original or aboriginal inhabitants. Second, you get land because it is given to you as a result of some treaty or negotiation. Second. Third, you get land because of conquest. And that, by the way, is the most common method for acquiring the title deeds to a country. You take the land by force and you hold it. Most countries got their land in this way. Now let's apply this threefold criteria to America. In the case of America, the native Indians were here first, but the white man conquered the land by force. So there is a sort of competing claim. Now, in practice, the white man's claim is stronger because conquest usually takes precedence over original inhabitancy. And this is true practically, but it's not necessarily morally the case. This is why so many leftists insist that the white man stole the land from the Indians. The implication here is that conquest or force is an illegitimate way to establish political right or political legitimacy. But now let's apply the same threefold criteria to Israel. The Jews were the original inhabitants of the land of Israel, going back thousands of years. Even Tucker doesn't dispute this. His question is whether today's Jews are truly descended from those original and rightful occupants. Second, the United nations gave the land to the Jews through a proposed partition in 1948. By the way, the partition was accepted by the Jews, rejected by the Arabs, War broke out. And so we reach the third criterion, which is conquest. And here too, Israel prevails. In fact, Israel has fought at least three wars, 1948, 1967, 1973 to win and hold the land. My point is that Israel checks all the boxes. Land obtained through original inhabitancy, Check. Land given by negotiation, Check. Land held by conquest, check. I cannot think of any other group that has a stronger claim to the land than the Jews. Quite frankly, Jews have a stronger claim to Israel than the white man has to America. Now, I'm sure Tucker wouldn't be happy with that conclusion. Remarkably, he seems to ignore all the three criteria for land ownership that I've spelled out here. Rather, he focuses on a fourth criterion. God gave the land to Abraham and his descendants, so we better do genetic testing to make sure who those descendants really are. This, for Tucker, is the test of Zionist legitimacy. But Zionism was never based on this type of a biblical claim at all. As an Evangelical Protestant and as a Christian, Mike Huckabee might attach a strong significance to God's promises to the patriarchs. But the early Zionists, who were not Christian, didn't care about Theodore Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism. Didn't care. Interestingly, the early Zionists weren't even serious about their Judaism. The early Zionists were mostly secular, mostly socialist. They rejected Biblical claims to the Holy Land. In this respect, they were like Tucker Carlson. Tucker doesn't want them to be the chosen people. And they didn't want to be the chosen people either. Their point is that every other group has a homeland. The Hindus have India. The Muslims have lots of countries. There are many Christian or nominally Christian countries. So why shouldn't the Jews have a country too? In fact, the Zionists considered Several alternative locations for a Jewish homeland. They looked at spots in Uganda, Nigeria, Mozambique, Argentina, Australia and Cyprus. They even looked at a tract of land near Niagara Falls. Now, in the end, they settled on the place their ancestors came from. But the fact that they looked elsewhere shows that their claim was not biblical. It was political. Give us a piece of land that we can call our own. That's it. My point then is that Israel's legitimacy can be established in purely political and secular terms. I've just tried to do it myself. But even so, just out of curiosity, I thought let's go down Tucker's rabbit hole. Let's assume God gave the land to Abraham's descendants. Let's even assume that it was the whole Middle east from the Euphrates to the Nile. Now, what follows from that? Does it mean Israel must run the Palestinians out of Judea and Samaria? The so called West Bank? Or Gaza? Does it mean Israel must se Iraq or Jordan or Syria? Here is where Tucker scored his only telling point against Huckabee.
