With all the talk about #FakeNews recently, there's one piece of #FakeNews that's been accepted as truth for the last 24 years, because the Israeli government was foolish enough to accept it. I saw this on Facebook:
Judith Bergman on "fake news"...
"In all the talk about 'fake news'
Israel is missing an opportunity by not calling out the fakest of the
fake news, namely the professed existence of a Palestinian Arab people.
Palestinian Arab officials themselves have admitted that the professed
Palestinian identity is fake, an invention for the political and
tactical purpose of defeating Israel.
In a 1977 interview with Dutch newspaper Trouw, PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein said:
“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian
state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of
Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference
between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for
political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a
Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit
the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism".
Hamas Minister of the Interior and of National Security Fathi Hammad
made it clear that nothing has changed since 1977. This is what Hammad
said when he was interviewed on Al-Hekma TV in March 2012: “Brothers,
half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis.
Who are the Palestinians? ... We are Egyptians…”
Why is the world -
and parts of the Israeli establishment - obsessed with establishing a
Palestinian Arab state, funnelling billions of taxpayer dollars into
that enterprise, if the Palestinian Arabs themselves readily admit that
their professed identity is fake? To begin with, the 'Palestine
industry' has become a flourishing business that would put many people
out of business if peace were to actually break out."
The reason the Israeli establishment accepted the existence of a 'Palestinian people' is that in 1993, Israel's Left saw the Messiah of 'Peace' and his name was 'Palestinian.' I've been railing about this stuff for years.
But most of the Israeli establishment - including our Prime Minister - won't admit this. If they admitted it, they'd also have to admit that there's no 'two state solution' and admitting that would be admitting that everything they've done for the past 24 years has been misguided and wrong. So the #FakeNews continues to be treated as real.
How Donald Trump is bringing hope to the 'peace process'
After eight years in which most Israelis felt that they weren't getting a fair hearing at the White House, and in which Israel's Prime Minister looked more uncomfortable with each trip to the United States, times have changed. In a White House meeting earlier this week, President Trump allowed Netanyahu to say what nearly all Israelis believe and what former President Hussein Obama would never allow to be heard.
Despite his international protestations, Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority (like Yasir Arafat before him), has consistently denied
that the Jews have a historic connection to the Temple Mount. Far more
than arcane arguments over historical minutiae, the Arafat-Abbas
tradition of denying a longstanding Jewish link to Jerusalem is the
Palestinian’s inimitable way of saying that the Jews are simply the latest wave of Crusaders,
that Israel is nothing but a colonialist presence in the Middle East.
Just as the crusaders and colonialists of the past ultimately departed,
the argument goes, so too will the Jews.
The
belief that President Abbas sees the two-state solution as a
steppingstone to a one – Arab – state solution leaves many Israelis
cynical about the peace process and tiring of the rhetoric about two
states. Mr. Trump may have shifted that momentum.
President Trump afforded Prime Minister Netanyahu an opportunity to assert – despite American denials – that Palestinian schools’ textbooks teach Palestinian children to hate Jews. Israelis wholeheartedly believe that accusation to be true. They know of the Fatah Party’s incendiary boast on Facebook that it had killed 11,000 Israelis and that the Palestinian Authority recently named its fourth
school for Salah Khalaf, mastermind of the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre
of Israeli athletes. While President Barack Obama obliquely acknowledged
in his eulogy for Shimon Peres, the former Israeli president and prime
minister, that “Arab youth are taught to hate Israel from an early age,”
Mr. Trump gave Mr. Netanyahu a stage from which to make the accusation
explicit.
Obama's eulogy for Shimon Peres - perhaps his first acknowledgment of mainstream 'Palestinian' hate for Israelis and Jews - came on September 30, 2016, nearly at the end of Obama's term, and at a point where it was likely designed to help Hillary Clinton's election prospects and not a sincere empathy with Israel's plight.
Daniel Gordis believes that Trump's openness to hear the Israeli point of view can only help the 'peace process.'
Outward
appearances of confidence notwithstanding, Palestinian leaders
undoubtedly understand that the jig is up – gone (for now) are the days
in which they can tell the world one story and their people another.
That actually gives Israelis hope that – if the Palestinians want
political sovereignty – the Palestinian Authority will have to lay the
groundwork by forging an entirely different narrative about Israel and
Jews.
There
is still no reason to assume that President Trump and Prime Minister
Netanyahu can forge a deal. Mr. Trump’s White House is in disarray, Mr.
Netanyahu is under investigation for corruption and politically
weakened, Mr. Kushner has not a day of diplomatic experience, the other
Arab countries that Mr. Trump and Mr. Netanyahu hope will be part of an
agreement may or may not cooperate and Palestinian hatred of Jews may be
too deeply entrenched.
Yet
there is at least cause for a glimmer of hope. On Wednesday, whatever
ambivalences about Mr. Trump many Israelis have, they heard from a
United States president sympathetic to their story, sensitive to their
fears of Iran and committed to their safety. That may matter a great
deal. For Israelis who feel safe and protected are infinitely more
likely to make accommodations for peace.
Gordis is right that it's highly unlikely (to say the least) that Trump and Netanyahu can forge a deal. Not now and not in the next eight years. But that has nothing to do with investigations, disarray or weak political positions. Rather, it's because the 'Palestinians' have yet to give any indication that they are ready to accept a Jewish state of any size, shape or form, and that creating a 'Palestinian' state (God Forbid) will not be the end of the conflict, but rather moving on to a new stage against a much weakened Israel.
Don't expect it to happen in your lifetime or mine.
Must see: Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fl) comments at David Friedman confirmation hearing
Several people have sent me this video and it really is a must see. This is Republican Senator Marco Rubio (Fl) speaking at the confirmation hearings for David Friedman as US Ambassador to Israel. He's awesome. This will be the best five minutes you will spend today.
Two Saudi journalists and a Kuwaiti have called on US President Donald Trump to move his embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. All three journalists also make clear that the 'Palestinians' are no longer at the head of the Arab world's agenda.
In a January 25, 2017 article in the London-based daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat,
prominent Saudi journalist 'Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, the daily's former
editor and the former director of Al-Arabiya TV, discussed the issue of
the U.S. moving its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He
stated that the Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem is a settled
matter, and that moving the U.S. embassy there, or any other embassy,
would not lend legitimacy to the occupation. Rather, if U.S. President
Donald Trump moved the embassy to Jerusalem as part of an overall peace
agreement, this measure could actually mark the end of the occupation
and the conflict.
Al-Rashed
also noted that, in the 2000 Camp David talks, Yasser Arafat sadly
missed an opportunity to restore East Jerusalem to the Palestinians as
part of then-U.S. president Bill Clinton's unprecedented proposal for
resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He added that today, due to
the crises plaguing the Middle East, "the Palestinian cause is no
longer central," although extremists exploit the Palestinian tragedy to
further their own interests.
It
should be noted that one day before Al-Rashed's article was published,
Saudi columnist Muhammad Aal Al-Sheikh published an article in the
official Saudi daily Al-Jazirah titled "The Palestinians Have No
[Choice] But Peace." Like Al-Rashed, he argued that the Arab world,
currently preoccupied with civil wars and with fighting home-grown
terrorism, no longer regards the Palestinian cause as its foremost
concern, and called on the Palestinians to forgo armed resistance and
embrace the two-state solution – for that is the only solution that is
feasible and supported by the international community.[1]
Kuwaiti journalist 'Abdallah Al-Hadlaq also expressed support for relocating the embassy, in a January 28, 2017 article in the Al-Watan
daily titled "Be Brave [Trump] – Move [The Embassy] to Jerusalem and
Trust in God." Quoting extensively from an article by Robert Satloff,
executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East
Policy, which presents arguments in favor of the embassy move,[2]
Al-Hadlaq argued the move could involve extensive benefits and not only
dangers and drawbacks. He concluded by saying: "Wise and intelligent
diplomats, politicians and pundits are telling Trump, who is reluctant
to move the embassy to Jerusalem: 'Be brave, move it to Jerusalem and
trust in God."[3]
Satloff's piece is here. While it makes reference to 'west' Jerusalem, the facility in which the US consulate is currently located (pictured above) is practically on the line, although the US government likes to characterize it as 'west' Jerusalem, and it still serves (at least for now) as the US embassy to 'Palestine.'
Trump to Israel: 'Just do it (and stop talking about it)'!
On Thursday night, it was reported by Michael Wilner in the Jerusalem Post that Donald Trump believes in a 'two-state solution' and that Israel should stop making announcements that destroy that possibility.
The White House warned Israel on Thursday to cease settlement
announcements that are “unilateral” and “undermining” of President
Donald Trump’s effort to forge Middle East peace, a senior
administration official told The Jerusalem Post.
For the
first time, the administration confirmed that Trump is committed to a
comprehensive two-state solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict
negotiated between the parties.
The official told the Post that the White House was not
consulted on Israel’s unprecedented announcement of 5,500 new settlement
housing units over the course of his first two weeks in office.
“As
President Trump has made clear, he is very interested in reaching a
deal that would end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and is currently
exploring the best means of making progress toward that goal,” the
official said.
"With that in mind, we urge all parties to refrain from taking
unilateral actions that could undermine our ability to make progress,
including settlement announcements,” the official added. “The
administration needs to have the chance to fully consult with all
parties on the way forward.”
Trump plans to bring up the peace
process in his meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the
White House scheduled for February 15.
The JINO (Jewish In Name Only) Left was overjoyed. But that joy was apparently premature. Trump is apparently as pro-Israel as he has always been.
Trump says, shut up and build. That sounds more like Trump who is
asking Israel to play smart and to move only when the table is in your
favor.
“Not helpful in promoting peace,” said his White House spokesman today – and where have we heard that before?
Never from Trump. So something’s gone wrong and I don’t think it’s entirely Trump’s fault, nor do I think here we go again. He’s Obama all over again.
That
won’t happen. But over the years some of us have noticed Israel’s habit
of going public each time it hires an architect. As for me, it’s been
an astonishment how Israel telegraphs every move, particularly when it
comes to housing in Judea and Samaria.
Who asked?
What other country does this? What other country stops the presses to announce -- Hello World, We’re Building More Homes.
Got a problem with that? – and in unison the world says yes.
That
IS the wisdom of Chelm if you expect any other outcome, and that has to
be the cause of Trump’s annoyance. Immediately Israel’s High Court gets
into the act along with the “peace groups” and Haaretz and The New York Times and a day later France invites 70 countries for a Paris summit to denounce the Jewish State.
That leaves Trump boxed in and he says so himself, that it cramps his style and his space to maneuver.
How
many times a day can he take on the entire world, as he’s been doing,
and now must carry Israel on his back – as he has it figured.
All
for no good reason except that Israeli leaders do not know when to keep
quiet. Instead they keep rubbing it in and keep asking for trouble.
The
trouble comes when they speak loudly and then expect the United States
to carry the big stick…like stopping the UN from another 2334.
Have
we forgotten that personally Trump owes us nothing? The overwhelming
majority of American Jews voted against him. He knows this.
The
same majority protests his partial travel restrictions, which means
that while he wants to keep anti-Semites out, we want them in.
Even
pockets of Israelis were shown on television protesting Trump’s
immigration pause. That hurt and it sure wasn’t “helpful” in terms of
friendship.
Now we hear that Trump favors a two-state
solution and where did he get that if not from Benjamin Netanyahu who
keeps promoting that dangerous nonsense.
We can’t ask Trump to be more Jewish than the Jews or more Israeli than the Israelis.
Our only claim on Trump is that we are family. The United States and Israel share the same values.
Only Israel can be counted on through thick or thin throughout the region and he needs Israel as much as Israel needs him.
Trump knows this. But he’s asking Israel to play by new rules, which is to shut up and deal only when the time is right.
It's not that Kerry doesn't get Israel - he's enraged he can't get rid of it
In an editorial this morning, the Wall Street Journal blasts John Kerry's 'marathon speech' on Wednesday in which he reserved rage only for Israel in the entire Middle East.
We recite this history to show that it’s not for lack of U.S.
diplomacy that there is no peace—and that mishandled diplomacy has a way
of encouraging Palestinian violence. In 2000 then-President Bill Clinton
brought Israeli and Palestinian leaders to Camp David to negotiate a
final peace agreement, only to watch Palestinians walk away from an
offer that would have granted them a state on nearly all of Gaza and the
West Bank. That failure was followed by another Palestinian terror
campaign.
Israelis remember this. They remember that they elected leaders—Yitzhak Rabin in 1992, Ehud Barak in 1999, Ehud Olmert in 2006—who made repeated peace overtures to the Palestinians only to be met with violence and rejection.
In his speech, Mr. Kerry went out of his way to personalize his differences with current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
claiming he leads the “most right-wing” coalition in Israeli history.
But Israelis also remember that Mr. Netanyahu ordered a settlement
freeze, and that also brought peace no closer.
The lesson is that
Jewish settlements are not the main obstacle to peace. If they were,
Gaza would be on its way to becoming the Costa Rica of the
Mediterranean. The obstacle is Palestinian rejection of Israel’s right
to exist as a Jewish state in any borders. A Secretary of State who
wishes to resolve the conflict could have started from that premise,
while admonishing the Palestinians that they will never get a state so
long as its primary purpose is the destruction of its neighbor.
But
that Secretary isn’t Mr. Kerry. Though he made passing references to
Palestinian terror and incitement, the most he would say against it was
that it “must stop.” If the Administration has last-minute plans to back
this hollow exhortation with a diplomatic effort at the U.N., we
haven’t heard about it.
Contrast this with last week’s Security Council resolution, which the Obama
Administration refused to veto and which substantively changes
diplomatic understandings stretching to 1967. Mr. Kerry claimed
Wednesday that Resolution 2334 “does not break new ground.”
The
reality is that the resolution denies Israel legal claims to the
land—including Jewish holy sites such as the Western Wall—while
reversing the traditional land-for-peace formula that has been a
cornerstone of U.S. diplomacy for almost 50 years. In the world of
Resolution 2334, the land is no longer Israel’s to trade for peace. Mr.
Kerry also called East Jerusalem “occupied” territory, which contradicts Administration claims in the 2015 Supreme Court case, Zivotofsky v. Kerry, that the U.S. does not recognize any sovereignty over Jerusalem.
The
larger question is what all this means for the prospects of an eventual
settlement. Mr. Kerry made a passionate plea in his speech for
preserving the possibility of a two-state solution for Jews and
Palestinians. That’s a worthy goal in theory, assuming a Palestinian
state doesn’t become another Yemen or South Sudan.
But the effect
of Mr. Kerry’s efforts will be to put it further out of reach.
Palestinians will now be emboldened to believe they can get what they
want at the U.N. and through public campaigns to boycott Israel without
making concessions. Israelis will be convinced that Western assurances
of support are insincere and reversible.
It's not that Kerry doesn't get all those things. He does. It's that in Kerry's 60's radical mind - like his boss' - Israel is a neo-colonialistcreation of the West that has no right to exist among the 'natives' of the Middle East.
The only reason Kerry doesn't come right out and say it is because while that kind of talk is acceptable in Europe, it's not acceptable (yet) in the US. Thanks to Donald Trump defeating Hillary Clinton in last month's election, it may never become acceptable in the US.
This is rich: Frequently anonymous source blasts Beacon's Kredo for using anonymous sources
On Monday, Martin Indyk took to Twitter (which is not just a tool of the Trump campaign) to blast the Washington Free Beacon's Adam Kredo for using anonymous sources to attack Vice President Joe Biden for pressuring Ukraine to vote against Israel in last Friday's Security Council vote on 'settlements.'
Typical 'liberal' that he is, Indyk maintains a double standard: When he's the anonymous source, he wants to be protected, but when someone else uses an anonymous source, that's not okay.
Here are a couple of the instances in which it's come out over the last few years that Martin Indyk, now head of the Brookings Institution, which took $14 million from Qatar, and formerly US ambassador to Israel, has been caught being an anonymous source.
Meanwhile, the Washington Free Beacon's Adam Kredo blames it on the
Americans, saying that the White House has had a secret campaign to scapegoat Israel for the 'talks' failure.
Multiple sources told the Washington Free Beacon that top
Obama administration officials have worked for the past several days to
manufacture a crisis over the reissuing of housing permits in a
Jerusalem neighborhood widely acknowledged as Israeli territory.
Senior State Department officials based in Israel have sought to lay
the groundwork for Israel to take the blame for talks collapsing by
peddling a narrative to the Israeli press claiming that the Palestinians
were outraged over Israeli settlements, the Free Beacon has learned.
These administration officials have planted several stories in
Israeli and U.S. newspapers blaming Israel for the collapse of peace
talks and have additionally provided reporters with anonymous quotes
slamming the Israeli government.
The primary source of these multiple reports has been identified as
Middle East envoy Martin Indyk and his staff, according to these
insiders, who said that the secret media campaign against Israel paved
the way for Secretary of State John Kerry to go before Congress on
Tuesday and publicly blame Israel for tanking the talks.
“The Palestinians didn’t even know they were supposed to be
abandoning negotiations because of these housing permits, which are
actually old, reissued permits for areas everyone assumes will end up on
the Israelis’ side of the border anyway,” said one senior official at a
U.S. based pro-Israel organization who asked to remain anonymous
because the Obama administration has in the past retaliated against
critics from inside the pro-Israel world.
“Then Martin Indyk started telling anyone who would listen that in
fact the Palestinians were angry over the housing issue,” the source
said. “Eventually, the Palestinians figured out it was in their interest
to echo what the Americans were saying.”
One former Israeli diplomat familiar with Indyk’s tactics said that
he is a crass political player who has a history of planting negative
stories about Israel in order to undermine the Netanyahu government and
bolster his hand in the talks.
“I’ve seen this before and see his fingerprints,” said the source,
who referenced a separate story two weeks ago in which U.S. government
sources implied that newly installed Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer was
not performing his job effectively.
“It’s certainly in Indyk’s interest now [to undermine the Israelis],
but this was a game he also used to play when he was ambassador twice,”
said the former diplomat. “This is part of Indyk’s playbook.”
“There was only one person who would do this kind of thing and it’s Martin Indyk and his staff,” the former diplomat added.
Another Washington-based source familiar with the talks said that
Kerry’s peace team has a track record of trashing Israel anonymously.
“It’s one of the worst-kept secrets in Jerusalem that Kerry’s team
leaks anti-Netanyahu quotes and claims to the Israeli press—not that is
should be a mystery why Israeli reporters based in Israel keep producing
anti-Bibi quotes from ‘American officials,’” the source said.
“But just imagine the outrage if the roles were reversed and Bibi had a team on the ground in D.C. trashing Obama to the Washington Post on background,” the source said.
Martin Indyk is going to resign from the leadership of the Obama-Kerry
State Department's 'negotiating team' for the 'peace process' after
being exposed as the source for Nachum Barnea's YNet story blaming Israel for the failure of the 'peace talks.'
The Israeli daily Haaretz reported that Indyk
is considering resigning in light of President Barack Obama’s intention
to suspend US involvement in seeking a negotiated end to the conflict,
citing unnamed Israeli officials “who are close to the matter.” Indyk
has informed the Brookings Institute that he will soon return to his
vice president post, from which he took a leave of absence during the
negotiations, Haaretz reported.
“There are a lot of reasons for the peace
effort’s failure, but people in Israel shouldn’t ignore the bitter truth
– the primary sabotage came from the settlements,” the official told
Barnea.
He's a bitter old man, isn't he?
In May 2014, Indyk went on a drunken tirade blaming Israel for the talks' collapse.
US chief Middle East negotiatorbottle washer
Martin Indyk went on a 30-minute anti-Israel rant at a Washington bar on
Thursday night just before meeting with former Defense Minister and
Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
Indyk—who has been identified by the Washington Free Beacon as the
source of a recent series of anonymous quotes in the press condemning
Israel—was caught openly lashing out at Israel over drinks with several
members of his staff and wife, Gahl Burt.
The conversation took place in the hotel bar at the Ritz-Carlton on
Thursday night, shortly after Indyk finished delivering remarks at the
Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s (WINEP) annual gala.
While Indyk was critical of Israel in his public remarks, he and his
staff are said to have let loose on the Jewish state over drinks before
Indyk was scheduled to meet with former Israeli Defense Minister Ehud
Barak.
“The tone was nasty,” according to the source who overheard the conversation.
Indyk and his staff “openly blamed” conservative Israeli politician
Naftali Bennett and others for “sabotaging the [peace] negotiations” by
issuing permits for new Israeli housing blocks in Jerusalem.
“In the 30 minute conversation, no one at the table mentioned a single
wrong thing the Palestinians had done,” according to the source who
overheard the conversation. “There was no self-criticism whatsoever.”
Indyk’s staff also weighed in on the peace process, saying that while
the press may believe that peace negotiations broke down over
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ unilateral bid for
statehood at the United Nations, “they knew the truth and that [talks
had broken down] way before that due to settlements,” according to the
source.
“The staff relished how critical Indyk was of Israel in public speech,” the source said. “They laughed about it.”
Indyk also took aim at WINEP executive director Rob Satloff, who had
moderated a question-and-answer session with Indyk earlier in the
evening.
Indyk “was incredulous” that Satloff had offered an alternate
explanation of the settlement issue, one that applied less blame to
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Indyk told his crew that
Satloff’s explanation “was just false” and that no one he knows believes
it.
The conversation then turned to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians,
according to the source, who additionally provided a hand-drawn map of
the bar area pinpointing Indyk’s location.
Indyk did not respond to emails requesting comments, and the State
Department is denying that the conversation took place. But there are
far too many details in this story.
Oh, by the way, in his younger days, Indyk was known as Arafat's yes-man, and the 'Palestinians' continually sought his participation in the last round of talks against Israeli opposition.
Thankfully, he is unlikely to play any role in a Trump administration. Good riddance.
Obama's hatred of Israel isn't just personal animus against Netanyahu
When Barack Hussein Obama ordered his UN ambassador to abstain in Friday's vote against the 'settlements' at the United Nations, it wasn't just personal animus against Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Mr. Obama’s animus toward Prime Minister Netanyahu is well known.
Apparently Mr. Obama took it as an affront that the President-elect
would express an opinion about this week’s U.N. resolution.
It
is important, though, to see this U.S. abstention as more significant
than merely Mr. Obama’s petulance. What it reveals clearly is the Obama
Administration’s animus against the state of Israel itself. No longer
needing Jewish votes, Mr. Obama was free, finally, to punish the Jewish
state in a way no previous President has done.
What Obama did on Friday went against the views of the vast majority of the US Congress, the vast majority of the American people, and of course, the vast majority of Israelis - including the sane part of the Israeli Left.
I call upon the Obama administration to veto this resolution against Israel at the UNSC.>>
For those who speak Hebrew, there's a video of Lapid blasting the resolution on Saturday here.
What Obama did on Friday will permanently cloud the possibility of any kind of peace. This is from the first link, a Wall Street Journal editorial.
No effort to rescind the resolution, which calls the settlements a
violation of “international law,” will succeed because of Russia’s and
China’s vetoes.
Instead, the resolution will live on as Barack
Obama’s cat’s paw, offering support in every European capital,
international institution and U.S. university campus to bully Israel
with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.
Here in Israel, there's a palpable fear that the mamzer in the White House isn't done 'punishing' us yet.
At the cabinet meeting yesterday the experts on foreign affairs
presented a scenario in which Obama could even on his last day in office
cause harm to Israel.
The concern is that Obama may promote a move in the UN Security
Council giving guidelines for a peace agreement between Israel and the
Palestinians and the establishment of a Palestinian state. Israel would
find it hard to present an alternative model after these guidelines are
set.
The experts on foreign affairs also posed another concern regarding
the Paris conference which is supposed to take place during the course
of February. At the conference a pro-Palestinian peace initiative may be
presented and could be viewed as authoritative if it is adopted.
I'm less concerned about what could happen in February - when Donald Trump is President - than I am about what could happen in the next three weeks.
Obama has earned the title ימח שמו וזכרו - may his name and memory be obliterated. May God Bring that about speedily and in our time.
Dennis Ross rips Obama over abstention, says it's not likely to matter
Former peace processor par excellence Dennis Ross has ripped President Obama for failing to veto Friday's UN Security Council resolution.
If there is one issue on which the President has been consistent
vis-à-vis Israel, it has been settlement construction in the territories
that Israel occupied after the 1967 war. From the outset of his
administration, he called for a freeze on the building of Israeli
settlements to include natural growth. Even when he vetoed a settlements
resolution in 2011, he had his then UN ambassador, Susan Rice, make a
tough statement about our opposition to settlements even as she
explained that the one-sided nature of the resolution left us little
choice but to veto.
Perhaps, President Obama felt this resolution was more balanced. Truth
be told, resolutions in international forum about Israel are rarely, if
ever, balanced.
This one creates the veneer of balance by referring to the need to stop
terror and incitement, but of course it never names the Palestinians so
this effectively refers to stopping all such actions by both sides.
Moreover, the resolution is criticizing only Israel and calling on it to
cease all its activity beyond the June 4, 1967, lines — which is
defined as a violation of international law. Nothing is asked of the
Palestinians.
Sounds just like Obama administration policy all along, doesn't it? Nothing asked of the 'Palestinians.' But Ross also has some good news for the Israelis.
While the Israelis clearly opposed the resolution and hoped it would be
vetoed by the U.S., one can ask: Does this resolution create a
precedent? It is hard to see how. President-elect Trump was clear about
his opposition to it and has already tweeted in response to the
resolution that things will be different in his administration.
Even in UN terms, the fact that the resolution was considered under
Title 6 and not Title 7 means it cannot serve as a predicate for
imposing sanctions later on — clearly a path the Palestinians would like
to go down.
If there is one area in the resolution that may be potentially
problematic for the future, it is the reference to the settlements being
illegal. That could create problems for the one possible formula for
resolving the border at some point: settlement blocs and territorial
swaps. One way to absorb a significant number of settlers is to permit
settlement blocs which are on a small part of the West Bank to become
part of Israel; in return the Israelis would swap territory as
compensation to the Palestinians. Will that not be more difficult if all
settlements are deemed illegal?
Killing what was left of the 'two-state solution' through his bumbling is clearly right up Obama's alley. The mamzer.
Lawless: Obama trying to handcuff Trump on Middle East
Greetings from Israel. I am home again (briefly).
President Hussein Obama is trying to handcuff President Elect Donald Trump's Middle East policy.
Washington DC insiders widely expect the president to launch a bold
effort to constrain the president-elect's options in dealing with the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict by supporting unilateral international
recognition of Palestinian statehood, possibly in the UN Security
Council.
...
In seeking to overturn longstanding precedent and thwart the expressed
policy positions of his successor, Obama presumably hopes that
supporting (or not vetoing) a UN Security Council resolution on
Palestinian statehood will create an irreversible fait accompli
that will eventually spur Israel to make concessions, like a settlement
freeze, which will in turn strengthen moderates on the Palestinian side.
It's the same thinking that led the United States to make concession after concession in the Iran nuclear deal,
and it is likely to backfire in the same way. Unilateral recognition of
a Palestinian state will communicate to Palestinian leaders that they
do not need to concede anything and validate the use and incitement of
violence, vindicating hardliners.
Until the Palestinian leadership can recognize
and accept a Jewish state in the land of Israel, the United States must
continue working to prevent international recognition of a Palestinian
state.
Anyone still want to claim that the Obama administration is the 'most pro-Israel administration evah'? If yes, it's time to take your blinders off.
Just received this by email. It came out a short while ago.
Joint Statement from Jason
Dov Greenblatt and David Friedman, Co-Chairmen of the Israel Advisory Committee
to Donald J. Trump
It has been an exhilarating
election cycle. Approximately seven months ago, we were blessed to have been
tapped by Donald J. Trump to be his top advisors with respect to the State of
Israel. We have been fortunate to work with a talented team of people and have
put together the below positions. Each of these positions have been discussed
with Mr. Trump and the Trump campaign, and most have been stated, in one
form or another, by Mr. Trump in various interviews or speeches given by him or
on his social media accounts. For those of you who are true friends of the
State of Israel, and for those of you who believe that the State of Israel and
the United States of America have an unbreakable friendship, we urge you to
read the below. We would like to express our gratitude to those individuals who
have helped us over the past few months – we truly appreciate your efforts,
friendship and guidance. We would also like to express our gratitude to our
friend, a great friend of the State of Israel, Donald J. Trump, who gave us the
tremendous opportunity to serve in this capacity. May God bless the United
States of America and the State of Israel.
·The unbreakable bond between the
United States and Israel is based upon shared values of democracy, freedom of
speech, respect for minorities, cherishing life, and the opportunity for all
citizens to pursue their dreams.
·Israel is the state of the Jewish
people, who have lived in that land for 3,500 years. The State of Israel was
founded with courage and determination by great men and women against enormous
odds and is an inspiration to people everywhere who value freedom and human
dignity.
·Israel is a staunch ally of the U.S.
and a key partner in the global war against Islamic jihadism. Military
cooperation and coordination between Israel and the U.S. must continue to grow.
·The American people value our close
friendship and alliance with Israel -- culturally, religiously, and
politically. While other nations have required U.S.
troops to defend them, Israelis have always defended their own country by
themselves and only ask for military equipment assistance and
diplomatic support to do so. The U.S. does not need to nation-build
in Israel or send troops to defend Israel.
·The Memorandum of
Understanding signed by the American and Israeli Governments is a good first
step, but there is much more to be done. A Trump Administration will ensure
that Israel receives maximum military, strategic and
tactical cooperation from the United States, and the MOU will not limit
the support that we give. Further, Congress will not be limited to give
support greater than that provided by the MOU if it chooses to do so. Israel
and the United States benefit tremendously from what each country brings
to the table – the relationship is a two way street.
·The U.S. should veto any United
Nations votes that unfairly single out Israel and will work in international
institutions and forums, including in our relations with the European Union, to
oppose efforts to delegitimize Israel, impose discriminatory double standards
against Israel, or to impose special labeling requirements on Israeli products
or boycotts on Israeli goods.
·The U.S. should cut off funds for the
UN Human Rights Council, a body dominated by countries presently run by
dictatorships that seems solely devoted to slandering the Jewish State. UNESCO’s
attempt to disconnect the State of Israel from Jerusalem is a one-sided attempt
to ignore Israel’s 3,000-year bond to its capital city, and is further evidence
of the enormous anti-Israel bias of the United Nations.
·The U.S. should view the effort to boycott,
divest from, and sanction (BDS) Israel as inherently anti-Semitic and take
strong measures, both diplomatic and legislative, to thwart actions that are
intended to limit commercial relations with Israel, or persons or entities
doing business in Israeli areas, in a discriminatory manner. The BDS movement
is just another attempt by the Palestinians to avoid having to commit to a
peaceful co-existence with Israel. The false notion that Israel is an occupier
should be rejected.
·The Trump administration will ask the
Justice Department to investigate coordinated attempts on college campuses to
intimidate students who support Israel.
·A two-state solution between Israel
and the Palestinians appears impossible as long as the Palestinians are
unwilling to renounce violence against Israel or recognize Israel’s right to
exist as a Jewish state. Additionally, the Palestinians are divided between PA
rule in the West Bank and Hamas rule in Gaza so there is not a united
Palestinian people who could control a second state. Hamas is a US-designated
terrorist organization that actively seeks Israel’s destruction. We will seek
to assist the Israelis and the Palestinians in reaching a comprehensive and
lasting peace, to be freely and fairly negotiated between those living in the
region.
·The Palestinian leadership, including
the PA, has undermined any chance for peace with Israel by raising generations
of Palestinian children on an educational program of hatred of Israel and Jews.
The larger Palestinian society is regularly taught such hatred on Palestinian
television, in the Palestinian press, in entertainment media, and in political
and religious communications. The two major Palestinian political parties –
Hamas and Fatah – regularly promote anti-Semitism and jihad.
·The U.S. cannot support the creation
of a new state where terrorism is financially incentivized, terrorists are
celebrated by political parties and government institutions, and the corrupt
diversion of foreign aid is rampant. The U.S. should not support the creation
of a state that forbids the presence of Christian or Jewish citizens, or that
discriminates against people on the basis of religion.
·The U.S. should support direct
negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians without preconditions, and
will oppose all Palestinian, European and other efforts to bypass direct
negotiations between parties in favor of an imposed settlement. Any solutions
imposed on Israel by outside parties including by the United Nations Security
Council, should be opposed. We support Israel’s right and obligation to
defend itself against terror attacks upon its people and against alternative
forms of warfare being waged upon it legally, economically, culturally, and
otherwise.
·Israel’s maintenance of defensible
borders that preserve peace and promote stability in the region is a necessity.
Pressure should not be put on Israel to withdraw to borders that make attacks
and conflict more likely.
·The U.S. will recognize Jerusalem as
the eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish state and Mr. Trump’s
Administration will move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.
·Despite the Iran Nuclear deal in
2015, the U.S. State Department recently designated Iran, yet again, as the
leading state sponsor of terrorism – putting the Middle East particularly, but
the whole world at risk by financing, arming, and training terrorist groups
operating around the world including Hamas, Hezbollah, and forces loyal to
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The U.S. must counteract Iran’s ongoing
violations of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding Iran’s quest for
nuclear weapons and their noncompliance with past and present sanctions, as well
as the agreements they signed, and implement tough, new sanctions when needed
to protect the world and Iran’s neighbors from its continuing nuclear and
non-nuclear threats.
A few observations:
1. It would be interesting to hear with what Hillary Clinton disagrees in this statement, if anything. It's a shame that no one who can will ask her, and no public statements are likely in the next week.
2. I would love to hear this directly from Donald Trump, rather than from his advisers. He should at least release this a statement saying he agrees with everything that is here.
3. To me, these are mainstream positions, certainly in Israel and probably among Republicans in the US as well. It would behoove all of us to carry these as talking points and to see who agrees with them and who does not.
On
the surface, the latest message to the Palestinian Authority from the
Obama administration is no different from the past two decades of
American policy: the U.S. will veto any resolution attacking Israel or
demanding Palestinian independence without them first making peace with
the Jewish state. But, as Haaretz reported, there
was one significant caveat to the warning. They were told not to push
for any such resolution until after the presidential election next
month.
The “senior Palestinian official” who spoke of this message to Haaretz
said PA leader Mahmoud Abbas had “no illusions and no expectations”
that the U.S. wouldn’t veto any resolution they put forward. They also
thought Washington might not have any plan of its own ready. “All we
know is that there are ideas.” But the significance of those “ideas” is a
function of the time frame enunciated by the administration.
If
President Obama had no plans to use his last two months in office to
launch some kind of a diplomatic initiative on the Middle East or to
stick it to the Israelis and his longtime antagonist Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, then why would he even mention the election? Were
the U.S. to keep faith with the Israelis, the Palestinians would just be
told that there would be no change in American policy. Period. Abbas
and the PA would be put on notice that, if they actually had any desire
for peace or hope of future independence, they should do what they
promised to do in the Oslo Accords: head back into direct negotiations
with the Israelis.
...
Yet nothing the
Palestinians have done has been enough to cause Obama to rethink the
mistaken assumption he brought with him into the White House in January
2009. He still thinks creating more daylight between the U.S. and Israel
is the best path to peace, or, at least, is the stance that reflects
his personal inclinations. That’s why he’s still flirting with the idea
of using the lame duck period between the presidential election and the
inauguration of his successor to put forward some kind of plan to
pressure Israel, or even going as far as betraying the Jewish state at
the UN by allowing a pro-Palestinian resolution to pass without an
American veto. Earlier this month, Secretary of State Kerry told Netanyahu that the administration was still thinking about it. Now they’ve told the Palestinians to hold their fire until November 9th.
You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to connect the dots and
realize that there is an excellent chance that Obama will finally make
good on this threat. The president may make a gesture before leaving
office that will damage the U.S.-Israel alliance in a way that even a
less hostile president won’t be able to completely undo.
Asking
the Palestinians to wait until after the election is a reflection of the
fact that Obama knows any move against Israel would hurt Hillary
Clinton. But with only 18 days to go until the election, friends of
Israel–both Republicans and especially Democrats–need to use this time
to speak up against any last minute betrayal of Israel.
Which Democrats will speak out against any last minute betrayal of Israel? Surely not Hillary Clinton.
3 'Palestinians' arrested for visiting Israeli Sukkah... by 'Palestinian Authority'
Moadim l'simcha - a happy holiday, and pithka tava - a good note - to all of you as it's Hoshana Rabba night.
On Thursday evening, three 'Palestinians' were arrested for visiting an Israeli Sukkah.
Let's go to the videotape.
Sorry, but no, that was not the 'Palestinian' arrested for visiting an Israeli Sukkah. Here's the real story.
The Palestinian Authority’s (PA) security forces arrested three
Palestinian Arabs from the Gush Etzion area who “dared” to visit the sukkah of Oded Revivi, mayor of the town of Efrat.
Channel 2 News reported on Thursday evening that the Arabs
who were arrested were questioned over allegations they met with
"baby-killers", an apparent reference to General Nitzan Alon, the head
of the IDF's Operations Directorate, and the Shai District Police
Commander, who were also guests in the same sukkah.
Revivi said on Thursday evening, “Yesterday we sat in the sukkah -
Jews and Muslims. We ate, drank and talked about common themes and our
hope for a better neighborhood and for peace. Today the PA summoned some
of the Muslim guests for questioning.
“All those who pressure the Israeli government to enter a peace
process with the Palestinian Authority should be reminded that they
behave in a way that does the opposite of encouraging peace with their
Jewish neighbors,” continued Revivi. “An authority which names squares
after suicide bombers and summons for questioning citizens who drink
coffee and talk about peace with their Jewish neighbors is not one that
promotes peace.
“I salute my neighbors who were not afraid to come to our sukkah
yesterday, to talk about peace, who asked to be photographed and to show
the world that they are brave enough to stand up for peace,” he
stressed.
Indeed. But none of that will stop President Hussein Obama from trying to give them their 'state' before he leaves office. Post on that coming soon.
It's come to this: Saudi editorial blasts Abu Mazen for not responding positively to Netanyahu invitation
It's finally happened. A major Sunni Arab country has told Abu Bluff where to get off. And it's a big one: It's 'our friends, the Saudis.'
The editorial, published Sunday in the Saudi Gazette, a daily published
in Jeddah that has a woman editor-in-chief, seemed to depart in tone
from the widely-held position in the Arab world that Israel is
responsible for the impasse with the Palestinians. It likened
Netanyahu’s proposal that the two leaders address each other’s
parliaments, to Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s 1977 invitation to
Egyptian president Anwar Sadat to visit Israel, and implied it could
also lead to a breakthrough. Begin made the invitation “and the rest is
history,’’ the editorial said.
“For all its shortcomings, Camp
David demonstrated that negotiations with Israel were possible and that
progress could be made through sustained efforts at communication and
cooperation,’’ it added.
As another example of how “official
visits can bend the arc of history’’ the paper cited then-US President
Bill Clinton’s 1998 visit to the Gaza Strip to address the Palestinian
National Council on the day it deleted clauses calling for the
destruction of Israel from the PLO charter.
Well, except that deletion had not legal effect, but let's leave that for now.
The editorial said that Palestinians had rejected overtures from
Netanyahu with the explanation that his hard-line position on all core
issues made dialogue impossible.
“But the Palestinians should note that at that time, Egypt and Israel were mortal enemies having fought three wars.’’
The
editorial went on to second guess the Arab world for rejecting Camp
David, saying “in hindsight if the provisions had been carried out,
Israel and the Palestinians might not be in the impasse they are at
present.’’ Saudi Arabia was a leader of the Arab opposition to Camp
David.
'Moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen sent 'Palestinian' Christian mouthpiece Hanan Ashrawi out to respond.
‘’Whoever wrote this editorial is totally unaware of the reality of
this so-called invitation,’’ said PLO spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi. “It is
a very obvious public relations trick that’s been overused. If
Netanyahu wants peace, let him abide by the requirements of
international law, the two-state solution and the 1967 boundaries.’’
...
Ashrawi took issue with the analogy to Egyptian-Israeli peacemaking.
“It’s not a question of Egypt and Israel, two countries that wanted to
make peace, it’s a question of an occupying force that is destroying the
other state and it’s about people under occupation who have no right
and no power.’’
Funny. I don't recall Begin or Sadat imposing any preconditions... and I am old enough to remember.
Ashrawi said she thinks that “below the surface there are contacts
[between Israel and Saudi Arabia] and all sorts of security
considerations and Israel is positioning itself to be a regional
power.’’ But she added: “No matter what happens, they won’t recognize or
normalize with Israel because it hasn’t respected Palestinian rights
and international law. Once the Palestinian issue is resolved things
can move. Before that they might have secret contacts, but they can’t
afford to lose their own constituency.’’
Except that the 'Palestinians' have made the 'Palestinian issue' impossible to resolve by rejecting any form of compromise.
Here's betting that Abu Mazen and Ashrawi go to their graves without seeing any kind of compromise or 'Palestinian state.'
88 US Senators sign letter to Obama opposing UN-imposed 'solutions' in the Middle East, 2 of Israel's best friends don't sign
Greetings from Boston's Logan Airport where I am having a travel evening. I'm headed to... Chicago.
88 United States Senators have signed an AIPAC-drafted letter urging President Obama to oppose UN attempts to impose a 'solution' to the Israeli-'Palestinian' conflict. Two of Israel's best friends in the Senate - Marco Rubio (R-Fl) and Ted Cruz (R-Tx) did not sign the letter. Here's why. The letter says
The only way to resolve the conflicts between the two is through direct negotiations that lead to a sustainable two-state solution with a future state of Palestine living in peace and security with Israel. This outcome would provide Israel with greater security and strengthen regional stability. We remain optimistic that, under the right circumstances, Israel and Palestinians can successfully resume productive negotiations toward this goal.
My guess is that Rubio and Cruz don't agree with two-state anymore. I wonder why.
Using language rarely heard from an Israeli Minister about a 'Palestinian leader' since the death of Yasser Arafat, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has bluntly said that 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazenmust go.
The defense minister views Abbas as a bitter enemy of Israel and says that Abbas’s policies have eliminated any possibility of advancing the peace process.
In the past two weeks, Lieberman has said several times that defense officials meet frequently with West Bank Palestinians, without the involvement or approval of Abbas and his people.
“We’ve met dozens of economists and businessmen from the Palestinian Authority, and when you ask what’s most important for the Palestinian economy, they all reply that the most important thing is to get rid of Abu Mazen,” he said on one such occasion, referring to Abbas by his nickname. “He has imposed a reign of corruption that encompasses everything. He has people in every economic sector — in real estate, the fuel market, the communications market. Abbas’ people take a tithe from every deal, and aside from the people in the inner circle, the PA leadership doesn’t allow anyone there to develop economically.
“That’s why it’s so important for him to go,” Lieberman continued. “As long as Abbas is there, nothing will happen.”
Lieberman said he didn’t think Israel should actively work to end Abbas’ rule, but at the same time, he said, it shouldn’t blame itself for the situation in the West Bank.
“Not everything depends on us,” he said. “As long as the PA’s corrupt and ineffective management continues, the economic situation there won’t improve.”
The defense minister also charged that Abbas rarely visits Nablus and Jenin, the major cities of the northern West Bank, as he prefers to take diplomatic trips abroad. “He doesn’t want to deal with problems of economics and employment,” Lieberman said. “The entire system of management there has failed.”
All of which probably makes 'Abbas' no more corrupt than any other Arab leader. But then other Arab leaders don't lead a 'people' that have a real democracy in their midst as a standard of comparison.
By the way, yes, this could well be the end of the 'peace process.'
Last week, Arab media outlets reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin was trying to arrange a diplomatic summit between Abbas and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu later this year. Netanyahu doesn’t use Lieberman’s blunt language, but he apparently shares the defense minister’s skepticism about the prospects for real diplomatic progress as long as Abbas remains in power. And, like Lieberman, he blames the impasse entirely on the Palestinians.
Russia supports the Palestinian-Israeli settlement process, but there
are no specific agreements on holding a meeting of the sides’ leaders
in Moscow, Russian presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov said on
Monday.
"There are no specifics on this matter yet," he said, commenting on related reports issued by the Israeli media.
"Moscow maintains rather trust-based and active relations with both
the Israelis and Palestinians, but there are no specifics yet," he
added.
NY Times worries Israel will make peace with Saudi Arabia and leave the 'Palestinians' in the cold
In an editorial in Sunday's editions, the New York Times worries that Israel will make peace with Saudi Arabia (and Egypt, with which we made peace nearly 40 years ago) and leave the 'Palestinians' out in the cold.
The Israelis and the Saudis
have reasons to work together. They share antipathy toward Iran, the leading
Shiite-majority country. Both are worried about regional instability. Both are
upset with the United States over the Iranian nuclear deal and other policies,
including those dealing with Syria. For some time, Israeli and Saudi officials
have been cooperating covertly on security and intelligence matters.
...
It’s hard to tell sometimes
whether and through whom the Saudi royal family is speaking, and some analysts
do not view General Eshki as a serious interlocutor. But his visit to Jerusalem, which included a meeting with members of Parliament,
suggested a new Saudi openness to testing how the public in both countries would
react to overt contacts.
Significantly, Saudi Arabia has also begun a media
campaign in the kingdom, apparently to prepare its citizens for better relations
with Israel.
In recent years, Israelis
and Saudis have encountered each other often at academic and policy forums. In
addition, Israel has established separate official channels of communication
with Saudi Arabia, as well as with the United Arab Emirates, and these channels
are considered “real and significant,” according to Daniel Levy, president of
the U.S./Middle East Project.
Egypt
has also been pursuing warmer ties with Israel. A week before the Saudi
delegation arrived, Sameh Shoukry became the first foreign minister of Egypt
to visit Israelin nine years. Although the two countries signed a peace treaty in 1979, the
relationship never fulfilled its promise. However, ties have improved since
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi became Egypt’s president in 2014, enabling greater security
cooperation against Hamas in Gaza and the militants battling Egyptian troops in
the Sinai.
Where does this leave the
Palestinians? Both the Saudi and Egyptian visits were ostensibly aimed at
promoting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, who have relied on the
Sunni Arab states to advance their interests. General Eshki, for instance,
talked of reviving the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which promised Israel
normalized relations with the Arab League countries as part of a deal to end the
Palestinian conflict.
Unfortunately, neither the
Israelis nor the Palestinians show interest in serious peace talks. And there
are reasons to doubt that the Palestinians are the Arab countries’ real focus.
Mr. Netanyahu, in fact, has made clear his preference for improving relations
with the Arab states first, saying Israel would then be in a stronger position
to make peace with the Palestinians later on.
Of course, improved
relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors do not preclude a Palestinian
peace deal. The danger is that these countries will find more value in mending
ties with each other and stop there, thus allowing Palestinian grievances, a
source of regional tension for decades, to continue to fester.
In an interview given by Zuhair Mohsen to the Dutch newspaper Trouw in March 1977, Mr. Mohsen explains the origin of the 'Palestinians':
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab
unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians,
Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical
reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people,
since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a
distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
It's long past time to acknowledge reality: There aren't going to be two states - a Jewish state of Israel and an Arab state of 'Palestine' living side-by-side in peace - unless the Arab state is the one known today as Jordan. The 'Palestinian grievances' can never be satisfied, and even the Arab states recognize today that they have more important things to do with Israel than try to dismember it by creating a 'right of return' for 'Palestinian refugees' who are non-citizens in weaker Arab countries like Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. There will be no 'right of return.'
The 'Palestinians' who live within Israel (including Judea and Samaria) will either learn to accept reality and economic and political conditions in the State of Israel that are far better than those anywhere in the Arab world outside of the royal families of the Gulf, or they will leave for Western countries that are willing to have them (Frau Merkel?). And Israel will eventually have relations with Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and maybe even Qatar (which today is Hamas' biggest supporter) because economic realities dictate that those relationships will happen.
And the New York Times will go off crying into the sunset. Speedily and in our times.
Israelis thumb their noses at US and EU: Housing prices in 'settlements' skyrocket
For those who are new or otherwise wondering why I put 'settlements' in scare quotes in the title to this post, it's because I hate the term. To me at least, it gives an impression of being something temporary, and I cannot think of any place populated by Jews in Israel as being a temporary home. Temporary homes for Jews only exist in the diaspora where we are supposed to pine for our imminent return to the land of Israel, and not in Israel itself. Surely as we sit a few days before Tisha b'Av, the fast that commemorates the destruction of the two Temples, we must understand that our forefathers were not sitting around waiting for their homes to be destroyed, even if they knew through the prophets that it was going to happen. Enough for my soapbox.
Israelis are becoming more secure that in fact the land of Israel - all of Israel - will remain ours. As a result, Jews are snapping up homes in Judea and Samaria as fast as they can be built, and prices are skyrocketing. The picture above is a partial view of Givat Zev, which is right outside Jerusalem, and which has been growing by leaps and bounds, filling more and more of the land that has been considered part of that town before the 1993 Oslo Accords. The picture was taken in April of this year.
But what's more impressive, as you will see in this article, is that Kfar Tapuach, which is not part of a 'settlement bloc' like Givat Zev, has also seen its home prices rising.
The
first time Michal Ronen traveled to her rental apartment in this Jewish
settlement in the occupied Palestinian territories, a firebomb struck
her bus.
“I was so hysterical,” she said. “I thought that happens every time.”
Now Ms. Ronen and her husband are looking to buy a home in Kfar Tapuach.
The
eagerness of Israelis to own a home on disputed land is an increasingly
important political and financial barrier to a comprehensive
Israeli-Palestinian peace based on two neighboring states, critics of
settlement expansion say.
Israel
has said that settlements aren’t an impediment to a two-state solution
because many of them could be exchanged for Israeli territory in a
future deal.
Prices
are rising faster in many Jewish settlements than in major cities such
as Jerusalem and Tel Aviv because of strong demand from Israeli home
buyers. Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahu’s government is increasing the
incentives for settlers, despite objections from the U.S. and other
world powers to expanding the settlements.
Israel
would almost certainly have to compensate settlers for moving from any
land included in a future Palestinian state, according to researchers at
the Tel Aviv-based Macro Center for Political Economics. That would
amount to billions of dollars, depending on the number of settlers who
had to relocate, the center estimated.
Indeed. I don't trust 'Peace Now' for anything, so take this with a grain of salt, but look at this graphic.
It should be noted that all of the 'West Bank settlements' noted above are in 'settlement blocs,' areas that Israel says it would keep in any conceivable 'peace settlement' with the 'Palestinians.' The United States committed, during the Bush administration, that Israel would in fact be allowed to keep the 'settlement blocs,' a promise that was reneged upon by the self-proclaimed 'most pro-Israel administration evah.' Congress backed the Bush commitment.
While home prices have risen because people want to move to Judea and Samaria because it appears safe to do so, that 'safety' theoretically ought to exist only in the 'settlement blocs.' None of that explains the meteoric rise in prices in Kfar Tapuach:
In Kfar Tapuach, where Ms. Ronen lives, the price of land has more than
tripled in the past five years, according to data from Israel-based
property website Madlan.
...
Residents
of Kfar Tapuach, a settlement of roughly 200 families near the
Palestinian city of Nablus, said house prices have benefited from the
growth of a university in the nearby settlement of Ariel.
Ms.
Ronen said she and her husband, Yuval, moved to the settlement because
Mr. Ronen studies engineering at the university. They live there with
their three children. “We now really want to buy a house,” she said,
adding that they say it has to be now because prices are “going up
crazy.”
Well yeah, but tripled? Ariel has had the university for many years (although it got university status officially in 2012). And Israel is not like the US where you need a Bachelor's degree to be a plumber.
Yes, some of the rise is explained by straight supply and demand calculations: Under pressure from the self-proclaimed 'most pro-Israel administration evah' Israel has underbuilt even in the 'settlement blocs.' But if people felt they needed to worry constantly about being expelled from Judea and Samaria for a 'Palestinian state,' there would be no demand.
Bottom line: The rise in price is best explained by the fact that Israelis feel secure that their land will not be turned over to the 'Palestinians.' And that's good for everyone. Actions should have consequences.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
