Every now and then a new voice joins the Palestine/Israel gutter of ideas and theories, and while the pillars of both sides are still the popular ones with "It's Palestinians land" and "It's Israelis land", we are often treated to new takes that come with a fresh look at the situation, often forcing to reconsider what we already know, Bill Maher's take was simple not of those.

For those unfamiliar with Bill Maher or his show, you can easily Google it as I don't want to take time from the post to write him an introduction. I would only like to state that I do like Bill Maher, yes, I often disagree with him, but I do like his direct takes as you can either agree with them or, in the case here, disagree. So, what did Bill Maher say? Well, I don't want to fight a strawman here, thus, I am leaving the full video of his New Rule below and encourage all to watch it first.

Now, the main argument is kinda of summed up in a quasi-antisemitic/stereotypical way in the form of Jews are here, they like their bagels with a schmear so get used to it, no my words. Bill's take consists of the Is/Ought fallacy, basically, these things have always happened, so no problem of them happening again.

Now, the video is still up there, but if there was a way to summarize it would be borders change all the time, so it's okay that it is changing here. That was reaffirmed by many examples that Bill Maher went through. Before we get to the reason Bill Maher's entire point is wrong, we must go through the examples he gave as some, if not most of them, actually prove him wrong.

His examples will be put in three categories as far as my response is concerned,

Events I am familiar with to a certain extent
Events I am very familiar with
Events I am not familiar with.

Events I am familiar with to a certain extent

Starting with the first, Bill Maher mentions the British Empire's growth and how it took some land from Ireland. He then points out how they "blew each other up for 30 years" and then reached peace, except that's not accurate. Even as a person who's not familiar with the topic very much, I know it well enough to know that it definitely didn't end 30 years later nor did it end with just negotiation, nor did it even end as there are still demands and attempts to bring the land back, the latest of which happened in 1998. That's also a main reason why Ireland identifies with Palestine so much.

More importantly, by that example, the length of fighting before complete submission, should we even call it complete submission, Palestine has the right to keep fighting until around 2080.

Obviously, I will not be speaking for conflicts I am not aware of that were mentioned by Bill Maher such as a million Greeks out of Turkey, a million Ghanaians out of Nigeria, nor am I really aware of the Kosovo situation.

Events I am very familiar with

There are three examples I will talk directly to, 2 of which actually prove Bill Maher's point wrong, but let's start with the one that doesn't. Bill Maher mentions the fact that around a million Syrians moved to Germany 8 years ago, the question here is, isn't the world fighting the powers behind this displacement? Isn't the goal still to stabilize the area in order for those people to go back home? Also, aren't those people taking refuge because of the current civil war in Syria? So, Syria is still there, like, the country Syria, with its Syrian borders are still there.

The other two examples Bill Maher went with are almost hilarious because if you mention them without saying which side you're on, one would easily think that you're actually making a point on behalf of the Palestinians.

The first example Bill Maher mentioned is that Germans, post World War 2 had to move back to Germany. All the lands Nazi Germany took over actually went back to the rightful owners and then some. Now, honestly, when you read this in relation to the Palestine/Israel conflict, doesn't your mind immediately spring to Palestine getting back its ethnically cleansed villages? How is this a point against Palestine in any way?

The second is not only similar but even more directly obvious, Bill Maher talks about how 1 million French had to move back from Algeria to France. The first thing you need to know is that those French didn't move back without Algerians putting up such a ferocious fight against their French occupiers that it was entitled "The Million Martyr Revolution". So, it wasn't French people relocating, it was invaders and settlers getting kicked out by Algerians. Isn't that a direct point for the Palestinians not to stop resisting?

Is/Ought Problem

Now the argument Bill Maher laid isn't really a new one in its form as it is simply a logical fallacy that if followed throughout history, slavery would still remain a legal and global trade, discrimination would still be acceptable, women would still be considered subordinate to men, and pretty much any social movement you have seen demanding rights for minorities, gay people, and anyone slightly different would be met with rejection.

This is because the Is/Out problem or fallacy is based on a simple premise that anything observed is moral because it exists. That is why it is referred as a fallacy or more accurately problem.

The Real Conclusion

Honestly, by laying down the events and conflicts Bill Maher laid, it is difficult to reach the same conclusion he had, unless you are on Israel's side and are looking at it only through that narrow scope. In fact, even then, Bill's argument actually works against Israel more than it does for it because if Bill is saying Palestinians shouldn't fight for the lands taken since before the state of Israel was even formed, then Israel definitely doesn't have the right to establish its state after 1953 years since it was dissolved.

The real conclusion from Bill Maher's point isn't what he is claiming, despite him dressing it with "Gaza would have looked like Dubai", the real conclusion is simple, Might is Right. Simple as that. Might is right and those who don't have might should just shut the fuck up and stop resisting, women should just accept rape because rape always existed.

What Bill's argument manifests is what we already know about Israel, it's his, along with Israel's, attempts to make it look like it is a moral and ethical right to have this land.

Ironically, what Bill also states in his two examples about Algeria and post-Nazi European countries, is that people fighting against invasion, colonization, and ethnic cleansing, do win their lands back.

This leads me to my final point about Bill Maher's New Rule segment.

I Actually Love That He Said It

It's such a refreshing world in a sad way to see people on the side of Israel finally admitting to what is happening, colonization and ethnic cleansing, although Bill Maher didn't admit to the latter he almost stumbled over it mentioning how Bethlehem was 86% Christians and now overwhelmingly populated by Muslims. Why do you think that is, Bill? Why did so many Muslims go to Bethlehem? and why did so many Christians have to leave? What kind of event that would have led to such a conclusion?

Even with all the trickery and mental gymnastics exhibited, I am honestly relieved that Israel's past actions are finally being acknowledged at least. It's a step in the right direction. I am not naive to think justice would ever be served for Palestinians be they the hundreds of thousands who died or the millions displaced, but I am optimistic that at least the truth would eventually be shown.

Israel will eventually win this because Bill Maher's real conclusion is correct, might is right, it's survival of the fittest, and when your enemy isn't allowed an army, a recognized state, has to put all its faith in a terrorist group, and is literally isn't fit due to the lack of food, shelter, and survival necessities allowed by Israel, you are going to win.

In the end, the truth remains what is, if deep inside you can live with it and be okay with it, it says more about you than anyone else.

Previous Parts

Responding to Bill Maher's New Rule | Ecency