The day the Republican party moved squarely into the pro-Israel corner
Yes, it's late again.
Here's video from Tuesday Republican national party platform committee meeting in which what is almost certainly the most pro-Israel platform ever by a US political party is adopted.
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip:
Roseanne Barr).
Labels: BDS, Jerusalem, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Judea and Samaria, one-state solution, two-state solution, US presidential campaign 2016
Breaking: Republican platform dumps 'two-state'
Received from Mark Zell of Republicans in Israel:
This is a scoop: the Republican National Platform Committee a few
moments ago unanimously adopted the Clemmons Amendment changing in one
fell swoop 25 years of standard language and putting the Republican
Party squarely behind the unity of Jerusalem, against BDS, removing the
label of "occupier" from Israel for returning to Judea, and much more.
The amendment was adopted with a standing ovation by the Platform
Committee and tears from us in the audience. Please check YouTube to see
Alan Clemmons stirring remarks introducing the Amendment. And see this
page for the text of the Amendment that was drafted with the active
participation of Donald Trump's Middle East advisors.
The text of the amendment is above (unless it changed since last night).
A good reason to vote Republican.
Labels: BDS, Donald Trump, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, one-state solution, two-state solution, US presidential campaign 2016
My college classmate, Donald Trump's Israel adviser, eviscerates Reform leader Jacobs
A while back, someone told me that 'Dave Friedman' who went to Columbia was Donald Trump's adviser on Israel.
There were (at least) two Dave Friedman's who started Columbia with me who eventually became lawyers. One, with whom I have been in touch over the years through friends, is a partner at a Manhattan law firm. The other, who actually overlapped with me for a year at NYU law (I took two years off between college and law school to study in yeshiva in Israel) was someone I had not seen since he graduated law school in 1981. I googled and found the picture above. Unmistakable. Definitely the wisecracking Dave Friedman who went to college and law school with me.
Dave has come under attack by
rabbi Rick Jacobs, the President of the Union of Reform Judaism, a member of
J Street's rabbinic council, a board member of the
New Israel Fund, and someone who has participated in demonstrations against Jerusalem's Jews in Israel. Why? Because of
remarks Dave made to CNN last week.
"It ought to be time to at least take a
fresh look at this," Friedman said, adding that he believes even many
Arabs in the West Bank may prefer Israeli rule to a Palestinian state.
"The two-state solution might be one answer, but I don't think it's the
only answer anymore."
Friedman was the Trump adviser who told the Israeli newspaper
Haaretz two weeks ago that Trump may be open to Israel annexing part of the West Bank, which is counter to stated U.S. policy.
Friedman told CNN this week that he was
responding to a hypothetical situation and saying there may be
circumstances where that is true, rather than putting it forward as a
policy position.
But he also
indicated to CNN that Trump could be amenable to the changes the Iron
Dome Alliance is seeking, though he didn't comment on specific language.
He
said the mogul would support a policy of not "imposing" U.S. will on
Israel. Other policy positions would include an undivided Jerusalem as
the capital of Israel, regional military and technological superiority
for the nation and showing "no daylight" between the U.S. and Israel in
public.
For the record, the Iron Dome Alliance is a group started by Jeff Ballaboon, who follows me on Twitter and likely reads this blog from time to time.
On Wednesday, Jacobs wrote an 'open letter' to the Trump campaign
attacking Dave's remarks.
These reports raise a number of significant concerns and more than a few questions, such as:
- Under what circumstances can you imagine another “answer” would be preferable?
- What would another “answer” look like? How would it be developed? Implemented?
- How would any other “answer” provide peace and security for Israel?
- How would any other “answer” provide peace and security for the Palestinians?
- Do you believe Israel can have peace and security without the Palestinians having the same?
I ask these questions because it seems axiomatic that the
alternative to two states is one state. Such a state would either be a
Jewish state that would cease to be a democracy and disenfranchise
millions of Palestinian souls, or it would be a democracy and cease to
be Jewish. It would put the fate of the Jewish State of Israel in the
hands of extremists on all sides, exposing the region to an endless
cycle of violence. Are either of these alternatives acceptable to you?
They are not acceptable to us, and that is why the Reform Movement has a
longstanding position in support of a two-state solution.
I write with a sense of deep concern. As I hope and trust you know, a
two-state solution has been a bedrock of American foreign policy for
decades, supported by every American President – Democratic and
Republican alike – since at least President George W. Bush in 2002. It
is also the policy of the Israeli government, and has been the policy of
every Israeli government since Prime Minister Rabin signed the Oslo
Accords at the White House in 1993.
Only two states for two people can end the conflict and offer hope and
security to a part of the world that needs and deserves them, a region
that is of vital interest to the United States in all of our nation’s
foreign policy concerns.
No one familiar with the current reality can doubt that there remain
significant obstacles to achieving a two-state solution, but that
doesn’t mean it is no longer the preferred solution. Any comments
suggesting otherwise undermine responsible Middle East policy.
For all these reasons and more, I was taken aback to read Mr. Friedman’s
suggestion that another “answer” might make more sense, especially
because he did not offer any ideas about what such an alternative might
be. To talk about discarding such a fundamental tenet of both U.S. and
Israeli policy, without offering any alternative, suggests either a lack
of understanding or a lack of seriousness. Either way, the statement
calls for your urgent clarification.
In response,
Dave eviscerates rabbi Rick.
July 6, 2016
Dear Rabbi Jacobs,
In your letter earlier today to Donald J. Trump and me, you
state that you were “taken aback” by my comment that a “two state
solution was an answer, but not the only answer,” to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am happy to engage in a discussion with
you on the subject, which I believe is more detailed and complex than
either your letter, or my response below, can do justice. Nonetheless, I
am happy to offer some brief summaries of my views.
That a two-state solution has been a part of American foreign
policy for some length of time – something you place great weight upon
-- is, to me, entirely irrelevant. The wars in Vietnam and Iraq were
also part of American foreign policy and I have no doubt that these were
policies you opposed. As I’m sure you recognize, and as we witnessed
this past week with the brutal murder of Hallel Ariel as she lay
sleeping in her bed, followed the next day by the murder of Rabbi
Michael Mark, a father of 10, the numerous proposals and initiatives for
a two-state solution over the years have brought neither peace nor
security to the State of Israel.
The issue confronting both the Israelis and the Palestinians is
fundamentally humanitarian in nature. It is not political and it is not
geographic. Both peoples are entitled to live in peace and dignity, and
both peoples are being deprived of those fundamental rights because of
one thing and one thing only – radical Islamic jihadism, a cancer that
infects Israel and much of the rest of the world. No re-allocation of
land will cure this scourge, and, indeed, Israel knew no peace from 1948
to 1967 when it did not even control Judea and Samaria.
So what should we do? Should we continue to force a square peg
into a round hole and demand that Israel cede land to Palestinians in
exchange for a naked promise that the Palestinians will change their
behavior? Are you not concerned that Mahmoud Abbas has no electoral
mandate (his term expired six years ago), and that his justification for
not calling for new elections is that he will be replaced by an even
more violent jihadist? Are you not concerned that Mr. Abbas presides
over ceremonies honoring Palestinian terrorists or that he has been
accused of massive fiscal corruption? Are you not concerned that
Palestinians teach their children to hate and murder Jews, even putting
on school plays enacting such despicable behavior? Are you not concerned
that the Palestinian Authority has no ability to control the Hamas
factions in Hebron, Jenin and Nablus, which continuously assault and
kill Jewish people? Are you not concerned that the Palestinian Authority
pays generous stipends to the families of terrorists who are jailed or
killed after murdering Jews? Are you not concerned, after seeing the
disastrous results of Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, that a Palestinian
state on the West Bank will bring missile attacks to the entire
population of Israel?
I know that you have no doubt that the People of Israel want
peace and that they are overwhelmingly well-intentioned, well-informed,
and non-hateful. Given that, are you not concerned that your desire to
divide Israel in two, leaving it without defensible borders, is solidly
rejected by a super-majority of Israelis? Indeed, even many Palestinians
now sensibly prefer Israeli rule to a nascent Palestinian state. Where
but in Israel do Arabs have educational opportunity, first class
healthcare, social and religious freedom and civil rights for women?
There are – and there must be -- other “answers” to a two-state
solution, some short term, some longer. I would begin by making
appropriate demands upon the Palestinians to end terror, incitement and
hateful indoctrination. I would condition further US funding on
meaningful progress in this regard. I would also encourage significant
economic investment in Palestinian communities – a challenge given the
difficulty of identifying non-corrupt leaders but still worth pursuing –
to strengthen the Palestinian middle class. I would improve
infrastructure and commit resources to enhance the quality of life for
every inhabitant of the region. Simply put, I would focus on what most
Palestinians and Israelis care the most about – better living conditions
and better opportunities. If and when those initiatives bear fruit and
tensions are reduced, talks could continue about long term solutions.
But, even then, I must reject categorically your statement that
Israel must either be a democratic state or a Jewish state. The numbers
simply do not support that conclusion. The Jewish population of
pre-1967 Israel is now about 6.3 million out of 8.4 million people –
about 75%. The Jewish population of Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem is
another 700,000 people out of about 2.4 million people (it may be lower
as many think the Arab population is overstated). Thus, the Jewish
population of the entire region is about 7.0 million out of 10.8 million
– still a solid 65% majority. (By the way, many people quote all kinds
of numbers for the West Bank population – these are, I believe, the most
accurate)
I’m not saying, one way or the other, that a “one state
solution” is the correct path. That is a decision for the Israeli people
to make in consultation with the Palestinians. But it is simply not
true that Jews will become a minority in their own land if a two-state
solution is not implemented. Indeed, given the demands of the
Palestinians for a return of so-called “refugees,” even the two-state
solution they envision would provide no demographic certainty to Israeli
Jews.
Let’s not grandstand this issue any more with “open letters”
that I can’t help but feel have more to do with American politics than
doing what’s best for Israel. Let’s have a cup of coffee (or some
Israeli wine) and continue the dialogue.
Respectfully,
David Friedman
Sounds like Dave has been reading
Caroline Glick and
Yoram Ettinger, while Jacobs is still living under the two-state delusion. Zeir gut gezogt (very well said).
Labels: Caroline Glick, demography, Donald Trump, one-state solution, rabbi Rick Jacobs, two-state solution, US presidential campaign 2016, Yoram Ettinger
Cruz: One-state? Two-state? Up to Israel
Wow would Ted Cruz (R-Tx) ever be an improvement over the current occupant of the White House.
Let's go to the videotape.
Awesome. For more, go
here.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Fatah, Hamas, one-state solution, Palestinian terrorism, Ted Cruz, two-state solution
The one-state solution is on our doorstep
David Goldman argues that because of changing demographics in the Middle East, the one-state solution is on our doorstep. Only one state is capable of ruling Judea and Samaria.
That state is Israel.
In the background of the region’s disrupted
demographics, a great demographic change overshadows the actions of all
the contenders. That is decline of Muslim fertility, and the unexpected
rise in Jewish fertility. The fall in Muslim birth rate is most extreme
in Iran and Turkey, with different but related consequences. When
Ayatollah Khomeini took power in 1979, the average Iranian woman had
seven children; today the total fertility rate has fallen to just 1.6
children, the sharpest drop in demographic history. Iran still has a
young population, but it has no children to succeed them. By mid-century
Iran will have a higher proportion of elderly dependents than Europe,
an impossible and unprecedented burden for a poor country. Iran’s sudden
aging will be followed by Turkey, Algeria, and Tunisia.
...
Israel is the great exception to the decline in fertility from North Africa to Iran, as I argued in a 2011 essay
for Tablet magazine. The evidence is now overwhelming that a Jewish
majority between the Jordan River and the sea is baked in the cake.
The CIA World Factbook estimates
total fertility of Arabs in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza at just 2.83 in
2014, versus 3.05 in 2011. The total fertility of Israeli Jews,
meanwhile, has risen above three children per female. Yakov Faitelson reported in the Middle East Quarterly:
From the beginning of the twenty-first century the TFR of
Israeli Muslims decreased considerably, from 4.7 in 2000 to 3.5
children per woman in 2011. The TFR of all Arabs decreased still further
to 3.3 children per woman, very close to the 3.09 for Jews born in
Israel. In November 2011, a new comprehensive ICBS projection was
published in which the government office admitted that in the past it
had overestimated Israeli Arab fertility and underestimated Jewish
fertility.
Jewish immigration is consistently positive and accelerating, while Palestinian emigration, at an estimated 10,000 per year
since 1967, is reducing the total Arab population west of the Jordan
River. Palestine Authority data exaggerated Arab numbers in Judea and
Samaria by about 30 percent, or 648,000 people, as of the 1997 census.
As Caroline Glick observes in her 2014 book The Israeli Solution,
Jews will constitute a 60 percent majority between the river and the
sea, and “some anticipate that due almost entirely to Jewish
immigration, Jews could comprise an 80 percent majority within the 1949
armistice lines and Judea and Samaria by 2035.”
Israel therefore has little fear demographically from annexation. Net
Jewish immigration and net Arab emigration will combine with higher
Jewish fertility to establish a Jewish supermajority over time. The
character of the West Bank population is changing: It is becoming older
and more educated, and increasing numbers of Arabs are benefiting from
the strong Israeli economy. Over time, West Bank Arabs may embrace
Israeli citizenship—when it is offered—as firmly as their counterparts
inside the Green Line. The so-called apartheid issue is a canard.
Israeli Arabs lived under martial law between the end of the War of
Independence in 1949 and 1966, and no one spoke of apartheid. Israel’s
most pressing problem in the near future may be Arab refugees trying to
get in.
As a non-Israeli, I do not wish to recommend a particular course of
action to Israel’s government. But the notion that the Palestinians
could stay clear of the riptide that has engulfed their neighbors was
fanciful to begin with and has now been trampled by events. Over the
past two decades, since the Oslo agreements were signed, the Palestine
Authority shown little ability to govern anything. After Egypt’s
military government suppressed the Muslim Brotherhood, it turned
viciously against the Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing, Hamas, and
blockaded Gaza. If the PA were capable of ruling the West Bank, it would
have allied with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to further isolate Hamas:
Instead the PA formed a national unity government with Hamas. Events
have shown that the PA cannot rule without Hamas, and it cannot rule
with Hamas; it can neither support nor suppress terrorism on the West
Bank. The inability of the Palestine Authority to govern, the inability
of Hamas to distance itself from its patron in Tehran, and the collapse
of the surrounding states eventually will require Israel to assume
control over the West Bank. This time the Israelis will stay.
Israel can’t rely on the PA to conduct counterterrorism operations
against Hamas, its coalition partner. Israel’s border with the Hashemite
Kingdom in the Jordan Valley, meanwhile, has become a strategic pivot.
ISIS is now operating in strength at the common border of Israel, Syria,
Jordan, and occupied Iraqi-Syrian border towns close to the common
frontier with Jordan. Jordan’s own security requires a strong IDF
presence on its western border.
When Israel absorbs Judea and Samaria—and it is a when, not an if—the
chancelleries of the West will wag their fingers, and the Gulf States
will breathe a sigh of relief.
The historical homeland of the Jewish people
will pass into Israeli sovereignty not because the national-religious
will it to be so, or because an Israeli government seeks territorial
aggrandizement, but because Israel will be the last man standing in the
region, the only state able to govern Judea and Samaria, and the only
military force capable of securing its borders. It will happen without
fanfare, de facto rather than de jure, at some moment in the
not-too-distant future when the foreign ministries of the West are
locked in crisis session over Iraq or Syria. And it will happen with the
tacit support of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
Israeli authority will replace the feckless regime of the Palestine
Authority in order to maintain public order and ensure that the
electricity works, and the roads are secure, and that bands of jihadist
marauders or Shiite terrorists do not massacre entire villages; this
action will elicit the reflex condemnation from bored and dispirited
Western diplomats. The realization of the Zionist dream will then be
consummated not with a bang, but a whimper; the bangs will be much
louder elsewhere.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: demography, Egypt, Iran, Israel is a Jewish state, Jordan, Judea and Samaria, Libya, one-state solution, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey
The Feiglin plan
Moshe Feiglin spoke about his plan for Israel at Chabad Lubavitch in Toronto on May 6 2014.
This event was sponsored by the Jewish Defense League and the Toronto Zionist Council.
Let's go to the videotape.
Labels: Israel is a Jewish state, Moshe Feiglin, one-state solution
Did you miss this too?
Did you miss
this on the eve of Passover?
"The time has come to acknowledge reality:..There will be no peace
along the lines of the model that has stirred such a mighty uproar here
for the past decades, over which Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was
assassinated. In fact, let’s admit it -- the uproar has been fading for
some time. The burning issue has consumed itself and turned to dust. All
that passionate, feverish arguing has grown hollow. All that remains is
an empty shell that echoes with the raucous shouts of the ghosts of Rabin Square.
There won’t be two states for two peoples. It’s not going to happen.
Jerusalem will not be divided, no arrangement will be found for the Holy
Basin, settlers will not be evacuated, construction in the West Bank
will continue, the occupation will not end, no agreement will be signed
and there won’t be any unilateral withdrawal, no land swaps will take
place, America won’t present an ultimatum, Vladimir Putin won’t put a
gun to our head, Europe won’t boycott until the situation becomes
unbearable..."
Haaretz actually published this. Of course, the fact that they did so after 3:00 pm on the eve of Passover may be one reason why you missed it.
Can't get to the rest of it - it's behind a paywall. But it sounds pretty good.
Labels: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Middle East peace process, one-state solution, settlements are legal, two-state solution, Yitzchak Rabin
The real demographic balance between Israelis and 'Palestinians'
Shavua tov u'moadim l'simcha, a good week and a happy holiday to all of you.
The main criticism of Caroline Glick's
The Israeli Solution is that her demographic projections are somehow risky or not widely accepted.
Caroline says that's totally false. Here is a discussion of the numbers from Israel television channel 2. It's in Hebrew with English subtitles.
In this video, Dr. Guy Bechor discusses the actual demographic balance between Israel
and the Palestinians on Israel TV Channel 2's morning show. His data are
aligned with those set out in Caroline Glick's book: The Israeli
Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in The Middle East and point to the
same policy conclusions
The only ones threatened by demography are the Arabs.
Let's go to the videotape.
Labels: Caroline Glick, demography, Middle East peace process, one-state solution
'Peace partner' pushes Judenrein one-state solution
Throughout the current 'negotiations,' the 'Palestinians' have been feeding their people a narrative that promises that
'Palestine' will replace the Jewish state of Israel.
Official PA TV broadcast a cartoon last month that showed a math teacher pointing to a map of "Palestine" as an example of "a number that is indivisible." The map included both PA areas and all of Israel.
Text on blackboard under map: "Palestine: A number that is indivisible." [Official PA TV, Feb. 21, 2014]
Fatah also continues to promote this idea. Fatah's Facebook administrator recently stated that before teaching them "to read and write," Palestinians teach their children that "Palestine" is indivisible, so that they "will only agree to one rule, which cannot be added to, subtracted from, or calculated: that Palestine cannot be divided":
"We educate our children on the national anthem every morning. They will memorize the anthem of 'return'; they will engrave the four-colored [Palestinian] flag on their hearts; they will learn the foundations of the revolution before they learn to read and write; they will only agree to one rule, which cannot be added to, subtracted from, or calculated: that Palestine cannot be divided."
[Facebook, "Fatah-The Main Page," March 5, 2014]
The text was accompanied by a photo of a teacher pointing to a map of "Palestine" replacing all of Israel drawn on the blackboard, with the explanatory text rejecting Israeli jurisdiction over Israeli cities: "Acre, Haifa, Jaffa, Ramle, Safed, Beit Shean, were and will remain Palestinian cities."
Looks like US Secretary of State John FN Kerry has gone a long way toward convincing the 'Palestinians' to accept a 'two-state solution.' Great job Obama and Kerry!
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, John Kerry, one-state solution, Palestinian incitement, Palestinian media, Palestinian Media Watch, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome
Caroline Glick discusses her new book
Here's an interview of Caroline Glick by Newsmax's Steve Maltzberg. They're talking about Caroline's new book (which I believe is officially published today) and about President Hussein Obama's demand that Israel create a 'peace deal.'
Let's go to the videotape.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Caroline Glick, Middle East peace process, one-state solution
Caroline Glick previews her book
Caroline Glick
previews her new book,
The Israeli Solution, which will be published next week.
Israel’s fervent and committed supporters at AIPAC have been told
that Israel needs a Palestinian state more than the PLO does. Only by
bringing such a state into existence in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem can
Israel get the Palestinian demographic albatross off its neck.
These committed supporters of the Jewish state have been sternly
lectured that Israel is doomed if it doesn’t give the Palestinians an
outlet for their political impulses outside of Israel, because within a
year or two there will be more Palestinians than Israelis west of the
Jordan.
The same day AIPAC’s delegates meet with members of both houses of Congress, my new book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East will be released by Crown Forum, a division of Random House.
In my book, I show that the demographic time bomb is a dud, and a malicious one at that.
In 1997, the head of the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics Hassan Abu Libdeh told The New York Times that he was carrying out a census which would serve as a “civil intifada,” that is, as a statistical terror assault.
And he was right. The goal of terrorism is to force a target
population to take actions it otherwise would not have taken. The goal
of statistical warfare is to manipulate numbers to coerce a target
society into taking actions that it would otherwise not take.
The Palestinian census claimed that by 2015, Arabs would be the
majority west of the Jordan River. And once Jews were the minority, the
Arabs could destroy Israel just by demanding the vote.
The Clinton administration, the US Jewish leadership and the Israeli
Left rushed to embrace the findings, even though they were totally
inconsistent with annual Palestinian population surveys the Israeli
military government conducted from 1967 through 1996.
All crowed that true, the PLO still supports terrorism, but if Israel
didn’t cough up the territories, it would be demographically
overwhelmed.
...
In The Israeli Solution, I fill in the blanks that plague the American discourse on Israel and the Palestinians.
I provide a 360-degree analysis of a policy that I call The Israeli
One-State Plan. That plan involves applying Israeli law – and through it
Israeli sovereignty – throughout all of Judea and Samaria.
I divide the discussion into three parts. Part One provides the
90-year history of failure that has attended the two-state model, from
the end of World War I through the present day. I also show how the US’s
embrace of the two-state model has worked to blind US policymakers from
both parties to the realities of the region and so guaranteed the
failure of US Middle East policies.
Part Two presents the case for Israeli sovereignty from the
perspectives of demography, international law, history and civil
liberties.
Far from transforming the areas into a race-based state, as Israel’s
opponents threaten, such a move by Israel will free the Palestinians
from life under the PLO’s terror supporting kleptocracy and provide them
with full civil and legal rights as permanent residents of Israel.
They will also have the right to apply for Israeli citizenship.
Even if all the Arabs of Judea and Samaria were to become Israeli
citizens, Israel would retain a strong two-thirds Jewish majority. And
it would avert the only real demographic threat. That is the threat
posed by a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria which would permit
millions of hostile, foreign-born Arabs from Lebanon, Jordan and Syria
to immigrate to its territory.
In Part Three, I discuss the probable responses of the Palestinians,
the larger Arab world and the EU to a decision by Israel to apply its
laws to Judea and Samaria and abandon the two-state policy model.
I also discuss how such a move will impact Israel and the United States.
Read the whole thing.
Buy the book and read the whole thing. I'm still holding out hope for an autographed copy from the author.
Labels: AIPAC, Caroline Glick, demography, one-state solution, two-state solution
European governments support 'erase Israel' conference
The European Union is funding a conference by an Israeli fringe group called Zochrot, which would replace Israel with a 'binational state' - a concept that doesn't exist in the Middle East (for example, Syria is now tearing itself apart through tribalism) - that would be flooded with 'returning' 'Palestinian refugees.' I discussed the
Zochrot conference when it was announced in August. What's new here is the
European funding that Zochrot receives, without which it would not exist.
Israeli one-state advocates are so
few that they have neither a constituency nor influence in Israel. For Zochrot,
foreign funding is their lifeline; the conference was “made possible thanks to
the generous support of: Misereor, Christian Aid, HEKS-EPER, CCFD, Finn Church
Aid, Broederlijk Delen, AFSC, Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, Mennonite Central
Committee, Trócaire, St. Het Solidariteitsfonds, Oxfam GB and private
donors.”
NGO Monitor wrote each of the sponsors, and we received several
replies.
France’s CCFD and Germany’s Misereor (both Catholic) wrote
identical messages – including the same grammatical mistakes. They affirmed they
are a “funding partner of Zochrot” and declared “refugee issues and refugee
rights all over the world are of utmost importance to us.” But regarding funding
they opted for fogginess: “Our privacy policies do not allow to disclose (sic)
the amounts given to recipients.”
Belgium’s Broederlijk Delen, also
Catholic, wrote a similar response: “We support the work of Zochrot as we
believe refugee rights are important in any context and should be openly
discussed.”
But regarding funding, they also chose murkiness: “With
regard to details on funding, we wish to respect our partners’
privacy.”
What seems to be lost on these Christian groups is they are
supported by public funds.
In 2012 Misereor received 114 million euros
from the German government, CCFD received 1.1 million euros from the EU and
another 368,000 euros from France, the Swiss government gave $12.7 million to
HEKS and Broederlijk Delen received 6,891,347 euros from Belgium
taxpayers.
As for the one-state formula itself, the onus for proving that
this “solution” is workable is on the shoulders of its advocates. In Europe
binational states have an unhappy history.
Czechoslovakia was one state,
now it is two. Yugoslavia’s multi-national experiment ended in a horrific war
that gave the world the term “ethnic cleansing.” Belgium, Spain and the UK each
have strong national separatist movements (Flemish, Basque and Scottish
respectively).
IN THE Middle East, the region most relevant to this
discussion, concrete models of binational entities do not exist. The rights of
non-Arab and non- Muslim minorities in Arab states are severely repressed,
sectarianism is rending Syria, Iraq and Lebanon asunder, and the upsurge of
violence against the region’s Christians should serve as a warning. Israel is
the only Middle East country where democratic institutions are strong and
minorities enjoy by right the full protection of the law.
Yet, these
Christian funders are targeting Israel, and appear to be utterly unaware of the
plight of their Middle Eastern coreligionists. What makes them think that Jews
would fare better as a minority once Israel is forced to be a Muslim-majority
state than do Christians today in Egypt, Syria or Iraq? This point is all the
more pertinent considering the ethnic cleansing by Arab governments of 99
percent of their Jewish citizens after 1948. After Arab governments stripped
them of their citizenship and property most Jewish refugees fled to
Israel.
That two refugee populations resulted from the Arab-Israeli
conflict, one Jewish, one Arab, is ignored by this conference’s organizers and
funders. With all their moralistic rhetoric of refugee rights being “of utmost
importance” “in any context,” these Christian groups are mute about the rights
of nearly a million Jewish refugees from Arab states, and millions of their
descendants.
Given that we're talking about European Christians, it's far more likely that they are well aware of the plight of their coreligionists throughout the Middle East, and that they would be very happy to see all the Jews murdered as well.
As for the European Union, I'm sure that they too are well-aware of what and whom they are funding.
Labels: European anti-Semitism, European Union, one-state solution, Palestinian refugees
Flashback: Senior Fatah member: 'The greater goal cannot be accomplished in one go'
Here's senior Fatah member Abbas Zaki talking about the 'Palestinians' real goals. This video is from 2011.
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip:
Varda N).
Labels: Abbas Zaki, Middle East peace process, one-state solution, Palestinian state
Kerry in Israel amid Israeli calls for 'one-state solution'
What is perhaps most telling about US Secretary of State John FN
Kerry's upcoming visit to Israel is that the photos being published in the mainstream media are variations on the one above. All of the photos include Shimon Peres, our 90-year old President who has never won a national election, and probably could not be elected to the house committee of his condominium. None of the pictures include Binyamin Netanyahu, who will soon pass David Ben Gurion as Israel's longest-serving Prime Minister (this is his third term). That's because '
moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen won't meet with Netanyahu, and because Netanyahu - although he can't say so publicly - knows in his heart that the 'two-state solution' is dead.
Moreover, if you read that first link above regarding the trip, you will discover that no Israeli officials are quoted - only the director of communications for the pro-'Palestinian' J Street lobby, and David Harris of the American Jewish Committee, who
recoiled with horror over Naftali Bennett's splashing the 'two-state solution' with cold water last week.
Even Abu Mazen senses that the game is over. That's why he's now dropping hints to the media about meaningless '
limited negotiations,' as if setting a deadline will ensure a cloud of white smoke between Jerusalem and Ramallah. Abu Mazen cannot and will not make the compromises necessary for a peace agreement, and there is other 'Palestinian' leader who is willing to make those compromises. But Abu Mazen cannot risk offending his financial patron in Washington, and so he makes empty noises about starting 'negotiations' as if that will make a difference.
Writing in the Jerusalem Post (unfortunately, behind a pay wall, but I have the column by email and will reproduce most of it below), Evelyn Gordon argues that although Netanyahu cannot say it yet, we Israelis can and should tell the world that the 'two-state solution' is dead, and that we should back our second-tier politicians - like Bennett - when they do so.
If it weren’t for one flaw, I’d agree completely with Daniel Gordis' column in
this paper last Friday. He’s right that the endless debate over the
peace process has sucked all the air out of the international Jewish
conversation “for far too long,” leaving no room for crucial topics like
“why the Jews need a state and the values on which it ought to be
based.” He’s right that we can’t afford to keep ignoring these issues.
And he’s right that the impossibility of an Israeli-Palestinian deal in
the foreseeable future creates space to finally start addressing them.
Indeed, that’s precisely what happened in the last Israeli election,
which, for the first time in decades, revolved around domestic issues –
i.e., what kind of state Israel should be – rather than the peace
process.
Yet these important arguments are undercut by the flaw
hidden in one seemingly innocuous statement: “Reasonable minds can
differ as to whether saying publicly that the two-state solution is dead
is healthy for Israel’s standing in the international community.”
Actually, where Gordis stands on that question seems pretty clear: Just last July, he signed an open letter urging
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu not to adopt the Levy Report, lest it
“place the two-state solution and the prestige of Israel as a
democratic member of the international community, in peril”; he then
wrote an op-ed in Haaretz
explaining his objections in more detail. Yet all the Levy Report said
is what every Israeli government has said for decades: that the West
Bank isn’t “occupied Palestinian territory,” but disputed territory to
which Israel has a valid claim – which in no way negates Israel’s
ability or willingness to cede part or all of it for peace. If Gordis
views even that as too dangerous to say publicly lest it paint Israel as
a peace rejectionist, I can’t imagine him not objecting to a blunt
public statement that “the two-state solution is dead.”
And therein
lies the flaw. For if prominent Israelis, and especially Israeli
leaders, aren’t willing to say this publicly and repeatedly, the “peace
process” will keep right on monopolizing the conversation, and we’ll
never have time and space for those other topics that Gordis rightly
considers vital.
First, this is because nobody
can be more Catholic than the pope: Neither American Jews nor world
leaders can declare the two-state solution dead as long as Israeli
leaders insist ad nauseam that it’s achievable.
Moreover, the
benefits of peace as envisioned by the optimists are enormous: no more
terror, an economic boom, reduced defense spending that frees up funds
for other purposes, unassailable international legitimacy instead of
creeping delegitimization. Most Israelis by now consider this “peace
dividend” a mirage: 83% think even withdrawing to the 1967 lines and
dividing Jerusalem wouldn’t end the
conflict, meaning that terror, high defense spending, the economic
hindrance of being in a “war zone” and delegitimization of Israel’s
efforts to defend itself would all continue. But people who still
believe a deal is possible generally also believe it really would
produce those benefits.
Thus as long as Israeli
leaders encourage the fallacy that an agreement is possible, overseas
Jews will naturally think this should take precedence over the issues
Gordis rightly wants to discuss. For unless you think Israel would
forfeit its heart by ceding its historic heartland – which two-state
enthusiasts don’t – then whatever kind of state you want Israel to be,
the above-mentioned benefits would make it easier to achieve.
The
biggest problem, however, is that Israeli leaders don’t just say peace
is possible; whether out of genuine belief or merely to prove their
peacemaking bona fides, they also repeatedly declare it essential for
Israel’s very survival: “If the day comes when the two-state solution
collapses … the State of Israel is finished” (former prime minister Ehud Olmert); “it's impossible to survive in the long run without a political settlement” (Netanyahu); without a Palestinian state, “Israel will not be the Jewish nation-state” (Justice Minister Tzipi Livni).
When
Israel’s own leaders – to whom Israelis routinely demand that Diaspora
Jews defer on vital security issues – deem a two-state solution the most
vital security issue of all, necessary for Israel’s very survival, how
can overseas Jews be expected to care about anything else? If Israel
truly will expire without a two-state solution, then there’s no point in
discussing either why we need it or what kind of state it should be;
all such questions are irrelevant until we first ensure its survival by
implementing such a solution.
Thus if the conversation is ever to
change, Israelis must first explain to the world why the two-state
solution is indeed dead, and why Israel can nevertheless survive and
even thrive without it, just as it has for the past 65 years.
In fact, explaining this is absolutely vital – because Israel can’t
survive and thrive without peace unless we invest in building a state
capable of doing so, and that entails a lot of very hard work. We have
to reform our economy and education system, promote our case overseas,
foster social solidarity, better integrate our minorities, and much,
much more. Yet none of this can happen if Israel continues wasting vast
amounts of political time and energy on the peace process – which it
must keep doing as long as world leaders and overseas Jewry keep
insisting on it. And they will keep insisting until Israeli leaders
persuade them of what most Israelis already know: that it’s a lost
cause.
It may be the world isn’t yet ready to hear this from the very
top (even assuming Netanyahu were capable of saying it, which I doubt).
But it never will be ready unless other Israelis start laying the
groundwork.
And for those of you who are sitting and worrying that we will be demographically overwhelmed,, here is yet another reminder that
the demographic monster is fake.
The latest Palestinian census, released in
2008, reported that there are 3.71 million Arabs living in Judea,
Samaria and the Gaza Strip. However, this figure includes persons living
overseas, persons twice counted, and inaccurate projections. In
addition, it appears that many PA Arabs have discovered the secret to
eternal life and rarely die, or – whose families simply choose not to
record the many members that do.
The Arab census numbers in Judea, Samaria and
Gaza are inflated by as many as 1 million persons. Even after removing
twice-counted persons and individuals not currently living in the
territories, the Arab population of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip
totals no more than 2.7 million people.
Furthermore, according to the American Israel
Demographic Research Group (AIDRG), studies have indicated that Arab
numbers have been on a significant decline while the Jewish birth rate
has been steadily on the upswing.
There exists no rational reason to put off the One State Solution.
If anything, due to the current wave of
illegal Arab settlement in Area C, which is under full civil and
military Israeli control as per the Oslo accords, the push towards the
One State Solution would be expedient and advisable, if not necessary in
Israel’s defense against an existential threat from within.
If we will not apply sovereignty over Judea
and Samaria, the Arabs will succeed in choking the Jewish communities,
isolating them—a process of establishing a terrorist run Palestinian
State that would threaten all of Israel. The PA’s blatant efforts to
establish physical infrastructures specifically in Area C are clearly an
attempt to actively annex more land and place it under PA control. In
fact, in July 2009, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad announced
his plan to unilaterally establish a de facto Palestinian state.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Binyamin Netanyahu, demography, John Kerry, Middle East peace process, one-state solution, Shimon Peres, two-state solution
Mr. Dayan goes to Washington
Barak Ravid reports with some consternation that former Yesha Council head Danny Dayan is giving the revenants something they never had before: A diplomatic alternative.
Dayan is heading to Washington this week, and he is the first 'settler leader' ever officially to do so.
Dayan feels that there has been a change in the attitude of the
international community towards the settlers in the past year. The
United States and the European Community countries believe that the
settlements are in contradiction of international law, that they are an
obstacle to peace and must be removed. But they understand that the
settlers are a significant political player that cannot be ignored.
“From total indifference and treating us like lepers with whom one
doesn’t speak, the situation has changed − now there’s curiosity and an
eagerness to hear what we have to say,” notes Dayan.
For
example, one day last October Dayan’s cell phone rang. It was former
U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, who is currently the vice
president and director of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution in
Washington. The two, each of whom was at different meetings in the
Knesset, arranged to meet in the Knesset cafeteria.
While
talking to Indyk about “the situation” Dayan realized that he was
actually in the midst of an “audition.” At the end of the meeting Indyk
invited him to participate in the Saban Forum − one of the most
prestigious events in Washington dealing with Israel-U.S. relations. The
Israeli participants − politicians, academics, diplomats and
journalists − are traditionally identified with the left. Dayan was the
first representative of the settlers.
George Mitchell, the U.S. Middle East envoy during the first term of U.S. President Barack Obama,
has never agreed to meet with Dayan or any representative of the Yesha
Council. All requests were turned down at best, or ignored at worst. The
only liaison for Dayan and the settlers was the U.S. consul general in
Jerusalem, who is actually credentialed to the Palestinian Authority.
Nowadays Dayan is invited to dinners in the home of U.S. Ambassador to
Israel Dan Shapiro. When one of the most senior advisors to President
Obama visited Israel a few weeks ago he sat with Dayan for two hours.
There
has also been a change in the attitude of the international media. Last
August The New York Times, which is known for an editorial policy
critical of the settlements, wrote a flattering portrait of him entitled
“A Settler Leader, Worldly and Pragmatic.” A month earlier Dayan
published an article in the Times entitled “The Settlers are Here to
Stay.” In March he published another article in which he declared that
“The Two-State Formula is Impossible.”
But
the most interesting example is the British newspaper The Guardian,
compared to which the New York Times looks like the mouthpiece of the
Yesha Council. Many European leaders read the op-ed page of The Guardian
with their morning coffee. Two weeks ago Dayan published an article in
the paper entitled “What You Call ‘Settlements’ are on Solid Moral
Ground.” Dayan claimed that the settlements are not an obstacle to peace
and that the world must recognize the fact that the settlers are not
the problem but part of the future solution.
The
article received 565 responses. Some were erased by the editors,
apparently because they contained various types of curses and invective.
The rest consisted mainly of harsh criticism of Dayan and of The
Guardian itself for publishing the article. “The Al Qaida manifesto
demands the return of Al Andalus in Spain where I live. Perhaps we
should have an article by one of them explaining how the land is theirs.
I am appalled that such a propaganda article has appeared in The
Guardian,” wrote one respondent. Many bloggers also published posts
attacking The Guardian.
One
can think of many reasons for the change in the attitude of the
international community towards the settlers. The stagnation of the
peace process, the lack of hope for the two-state solution and the
outcome of the recent election in Israel are some of them. “My
explanation is that for the first time in 20 years the world is
beginning to internalize that we don’t necessarily have to travel on the
two-state highway,” says Dayan. “We’ve reached a crossroads and
everyone is asking themselves where do we go now. People have understood
that ignoring the settlers was a mistake and only undermined the
attempts to find solutions.”
After
many years of opposing the idea, Dayan now believes that the settlers
have to present a genuine and serious diplomatic plan as an alternative
to the two-state solution. He has no consolidated plan as yet, but his
basic assumption is that there will be permanent Israeli control in
Judea and Samaria and no foreign sovereignty west of the Jordan River.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Danny Dayan, Judea and Samaria, one-state solution, revenants, two-state solution, Yesha Council
UN hosts art exhibit picturing 'Palestine' as all of Israel
I'd call it the final betrayal, but it's happened so many times before that who knows when the final betrayal will really be. The United Nations is currently holding an exhibit in its own headquarters that
depicts 'Palestine' as including the entire State of Israel.
On November 29th the General Assembly granted “Palestine”
the status of “non-member observer state” under the pretense that the
move brought the world closer to a two-state solution. But that same
evening Palestinian UN representative Riyadh Mansour opened an exhibit
entitled “Palestine – Memories Dreams Perseverance.” The political
message is not subtle, with the works bearing titles such as “homeless,”
“delirious in exile,” and “to Jerusalem we travel.”
The emblems of a long list of Palestinian terrorist organizations
include the familiar shape in which Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West
Bank are all combined into the only and only Palestine.
...
Here is a close-up of the logo on the cover page of Abbas’s speech:
It’s a perfect fit with the message now embedded in the UN public exhibit.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: one-state solution, Palestine, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, United Nations
Ban Ki-Moon becomes a one-stater
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon released the tweet below on Thursday.
Unfortunately, I doubt he has in mind that the one state be Jewish (Hat Tip:
Herb G).
Labels: Ban Ki-Moon, one-state solution
A book you may want to consider buying
Here's a book you may wall want to consider buying:
Only Israel West of the River.
This book offers a coherent paradigm to contend with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It first clarifies the national Jewish character of Israel, the danger of domestic Arab challenges, and the imperative of Israeli rule throughout the area west of the Jordan River. It secondly considers the Palestinian population in Judea and Samaria, and the complexity of arranging Jewish-Arab accommodation and political stability. The book then argues for the consolidation of a Palestinian entity east of the river in Jordan.
It's high time that argument came out of the closet.
Labels: Israel is a Jewish state, one-state solution
Pigs fly: NY Times publishes op-ed by 'settler' leader
Unexpectedly, the New York Times has published an op-ed by
Yesha Council leader Dani Dayan (Hat Tip:
My Right Word).
Arabs called for Israel’s annihilation in 1967, and Israel legitimately seized the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria in self-defense. Israel’s moral claim to these territories, and the right of Israelis to call them home today, is therefore unassailable. Giving up this land in the name of a hallowed two-state solution would mean rewarding those who’ve historically sought to destroy Israel, a manifestly immoral outcome.
Of course, just because a policy is morally justified doesn’t mean it’s wise. However, our four-decade-long settlement endeavor is both. The insertion of an independent Palestinian state between Israel and Jordan would be a recipe for disaster.
The influx of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere would convert the new state into a hotbed of extremism. And any peace agreement would collapse the moment Hamas inevitably took power by ballot or by gun. Israel would then be forced to recapture the area, only to find a much larger Arab population living there.
Moreover, the Palestinians have repeatedly refused to implement a negotiated two-state solution. The American government and its European allies should abandon this failed formula once and for all and accept that the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria are not going anywhere.
On the contrary, we aim to expand the existing Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, and create new ones. This is not — as it is often portrayed — a theological adventure but is rather a combination of inalienable rights and realpolitik.
I can hear the Left lining up now:
'Acquisition of territory by force is not acceptable.'It is when it's done in a defensive war, when you have a better legal claim to it than the attacker, and when it's ratified by the United Nations in Resolution 242 (which famously said 'territories' and not '
the territories.'
'The status quo will force Israel to choose between being Jewish and democratic.'Only if you believe the damned lies known as 'Palestinian statistics.'
'The 'Palestinians' are the indigenous people of the region.'No, they're not. In fact, Newt Gingrich may have best described them when he called them
an invented people.
But the most important thing here is that Dayan is adopting a form of the 'one Jewish state solution. That's a good thing, because it's the only solution that gives peace a chance.
Yossi Beilin, a left-wing former Israeli minister, wrote a telling article a few months ago. A veteran American diplomat touring the area had told Mr. Beilin he’d left frightened because he found everyone — Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan and Saudi Arabia — content with the current situation. Mr. Beilin finds this widespread satisfaction disturbing, too.
I think it is wonderful news. If the international community relinquished its vain attempts to attain the unattainable two-state solution, and replaced them with intense efforts to improve and maintain the current reality on the ground, it would be even better. The settlements of Judea and Samaria are not the problem — they are part of the solution.
Indeed.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Dani Dayan, Judea and Samaria, one-state solution, revenants, two-state solution, Yesha Council
The one (Jewish) state solution: An idea that can be discussed in public
There was a conference in Hebron last Thursday, attended by more than 500 people, at which the only viable long-term solution to the Middle East dispute was discussed:
The one Jewish state solution.
It's an idea that until recently was not politically correct to discuss (and still isn't politically correct in some circles). But here in Israel, many people aren't just whispering it. They're saying it out loud. There’s nothing new about far-right groups holding events in which speakers fantasize about “Greater Israel.” But Thursday’s conference was different: It indicated that the idea of the one-state solution has become respectable within a larger segment of society, including the ranks of Israel’s ruling party.
[Likud MK Tzipi] Hotovely was right: For years, moderate right-wingers tiptoed around the question of what they envision for the future of the territories Israel captured in 1967. Only hardliners openly admitted what perhaps many others secretly desired, but knew to be politically too incorrect to openly demand.
...
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is on record saying that he does not want to rule over the Palestinians and is ready to accept a Palestinian state. But that no longer prevents some members of his party from openly demanding a one-state solution. MK Miri Regev, speaking on a recorded video clip, boasted that she recently founded the Knesset Lobby for the Application of Israeli Sovereignty over Judean and Samarian Communities. The Likud constitution requires the application of sovereignty over the settlements, she said.
“It’s time to change the discourse in the State of Israel about Judea and Samaria,” said MK Ze’ev Elkin, the chairman of the coalition, also in a prerecorded statement. “For 20 years, we talked about what to give and why. Now the time has come for an entirely different discourse. This is our land, and it’s our right to apply sovereignty over it. Regardless of the world’s opposition, it’s time to do in Judea and Samaria what we did in [East] Jerusalem and the Golan. It’s time to end this system in which the Palestinians take and take and we give and give.”
Most speakers focused on Israel’s right to The Land — all of it — and tried to reassure the audience that they need not fear the so-called demographic threat. Israel would not lose its Jewish majority if it annexed the West Bank and granted citizenship to the Arabs living there, nearly all the speakers promised.
...
Former Israeli ambassador Yoram Ettinger used his 15 minutes — the organizers strictly enforced every speaker’s time limit — for a slideshow in which he presented a lot of data ostensibly proving that there are a million fewer Palestinians in the West Bank than generally assumed. How come? Because the Palestinian officials dealing with statistics are either incompetent or lying, he said.
Ettinger’s graphs made it easier for subsequent speakers to dismiss the demographic argument against a one-state solution as left-wing demagoguery. Gershon Mesika, the head of the Samaria Regional Council, for instance, called the demographic threat a “big bluff.” Even most Arabs don’t believe the idea of two states for two people would work, he added.
And so the evening went by, with speaker after speaker preaching to the choir, rarely challenging the audience with provocative questions about, for example, Palestinian national aspirations. “This is not Arab land. This is the holy land of God,” said Hebron Rabbi Uzi Sharbaf, adding that it was “absolutely forbidden” by Jewish law to retreat from any centimeter of the Promised Land.
My guess is that if we actually annexed Judea and Samaria, a lot of the 'Palestinians' would leave (and whine about being refugees and demand international assistance). In any event, the idea ought to be publicly discussed, and if enough conferences like this take place, it will be discussed more and more.
Some of you may be surprised to see me refer to the one Jewish state solution as the only viable long-term solution. Aside from the Jewish right to the entire land conveyed in the Bible, please allow me to explain why I believe that the one Jewish state solution is the only one that is viable in the long term.
1. The 'Palestinians' have proven that they will never make peace with a Jewish state.
2. The 'Palestinians' insist that a 'Palestinian state' be
Judenrein.
3. Therefore, anything other than a one Jewish state solution will result, God forbid, in a mass slaughter of Jews.
4. On the other hand, Israel's Jews have proven for the last 64 years that they are willing and able to allow an Arab minority to coexist among us.
Simple enough? Anyone who wants to disagree is invited to challenge those four assertions, with proof. That, I believe, is an impossible task.
Labels: annexation, demography, Hebron, Judea and Samaria, Miri Regev, one-state solution, Tzipi Hotovely, Yoram Ettinger, Zeev Elkin
