Mike Wise is the person who crafted Glick’s Israeli Solution some 10 years. I remember because we used to discuss the ideas contain in it at that time. Sherman’s attack on Glick’s thesis is also an attack on Mike’s thesis because he entirely agrees with Caroline. I have had many discussion with both Sherman and Wise on their differing views. When they debate each other, neither relents. For my part, I am not comfortable with either view and prefer to back Bennett’s Plan instead.Ted Belman
I strongly concur with Caroline B. Glick’s diagnosis of the fatal failings of the two-state formula, and disagree just as strongly with the prescription she offers to remedy them.
The mechanics of the policy are fairly straightforward. Israel will apply its laws to Judea and Samaria and govern the areas as normal parts of Israel… Contingent on security concerns… Palestinians will have the right to travel and live anywhere they wish within Israeli territory… … Palestinians will have the same legal and civil rights as the rest of the residents and citizens of Israel… Those that receive Israeli citizenship in accordance with Israel’s Citizenship Law will also be allowed to vote in national elections for the Knesset.
… suddenly reducing the Jewish majority from 75 percent to 66 percent will undoubtedly have unforeseeable consequences on Israeli politics.
– Caroline Glick, The Israeli Solution: A One- State Plan for Peace in the Middle East (2014)
Caroline Glick is a journalist of exceptional ability. As readers of The Jerusalem Post well know, she is an astute, articulate analyst of political realities in Israel, the wider Mideast and the US. She has penned countless columns, courageously – at times caustically – critiquing unfolding events and ongoing processes with incisive insight.
I have long been a dedicated follower and avid admirer of her writings, which have made her one of the most widely read Israeli columnists in the English language today.
But it is precisely because of her wide readership and her significant influence that any errors in judgment or flaws in assessments on her part should be addressed rapidly and resolutely.
Excellent analysis, erroneous conclusion
Regrettably, I feel this is the case with her new book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, which has received a warm reception among leading rightwing and conservative circles.
The book has considerable value for two reasons. First, it represents a welcome, and much needed, challenge to the monopolistic stranglehold the two-state approach has had on much of the public discourse on the Palestinian issue.
Second, it provides a penetrating historical review of how this choke-hold developed, particularly regarding the formulation of US Mideast policy, and of why this detrimental impediment should be removed.
However, while I strongly endorse her admirable analysis of the pernicious pervasiveness of the two-state principle, I strongly disagree with the conclusions she draws from that analysis. I therefore find myself compelled to take issue with her prescription for the measures with which the problem should be confronted, and with the nature of the alternatives she proposes to replace the dysfunctional paradigm that hitherto dominated the discourse.
Lebanonization of Israel?
I concur with Glick on virtually everything she rejects, but reject much of which she urges us to accept.
I certainly agree that the establishment of a Palestinian state would gravely undermine Israel’s security and its ability to survive over time. Likewise, I share her skepticism regarding the feasibility some solution involving Jordan; and her assessment that “the Hashemites [or any other successor regime – M.S.] cannot be considered viable partners with Israel for governing Judea and Samaria.”
But I have grave reservations – to understate the case – regarding what is, in fact, the center-piece of her book: Her proposal that Israel not only annex the entire area of Judea and Samaria, extend Israeli sovereignty over these territories and apply Israeli law to them, but incorporate the Arab population there as permanent residents of Israel, and offer them a path to citizenship.
It would require more than a gigantic leap of unsubstantiated hope to believe that such a measure could precipitate any result other than “Lebanonization” of Israel.
Implausible and imprudent
“Lebanonization,” as the noted New York Times columnist, the late William Safire, explained, refers to the [situation] within a single country so riven with religious and other disputes that [it] becomes impossible to govern”; and should be distinguished from “Balkanization,” which refers to splitting a country into several separate – usually rivalrous – countries.”
Were Glick’s prescription to be adopted, it is difficult to see how internecine inter-ethnic strife, which has become the hallmark of Israel’s northern neighbor, would not afflict Israel itself. Even if her demographic calculations are correct, it would induce almost intolerable pressures on the socioeconomic fabric of the country, were it to attempt to maintain itself as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
Glick does seem to be aware, at least partially, of the severity of the problems implementation of her policy prescription is likely to generate. She writes: “The main price Israel will pay for applying its laws to Judea and Samaria… will be the demographic burden of increasing its potentially hostile Arab minority by 1.66 million people.”
Elsewhere she acknowledges that there will be an “initial shock that [Israel’s] economy will likely absorb following the sudden, steep rise in the number of applications for its welfare rolls after it grants permanent residency to the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria.”
But apart from glib acknowledgment of their existence, I could find no indication of how Glick proposes that the grave societal strains she mentions (and the many that she doesn’t) will be resolved, other than an expression of optimism that they will be.
It is difficult to avoid the impression that it is a proposal that is both implausible and imprudent.
“Steady diet of pure hatred…”
Glick correctly warns of the dangers to Israel should there be an influx into the country of the Palestinian diaspora currently resident in surrounding Arab states: “For sixty-six years the United Nations, the PLO, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and governing regimes have fed them a steady diet of pure hatred toward Israel.”
She cautions: “With such populations immigrating to the Palestinian state, pressure for Israeli concessions… will only grow, along with the Palestinians’ ability to threaten Israel…”
However, she identifies precisely the same pernicious influences among the very population she advocates – somewhat paradoxically – incorporating permanently into Israel: “Just as devastatingly, Arafat built a Palestinian school system and media and appointed imams in mosques that fed Palestinian society a steady diet of jihadist and Nazi-style anti-Semitism…”
Today, the same Judeophobic indoctrination and Judeocidal incitement continues unabated. Yet Glick, with unflustered equanimity, appears to recommend their almost seamless inclusion into Israeli society, by little more than an administrative decree
With enviable optimism, she predicts that “an Israeli assertion of central authority over the areas will likely have a significant moderating impact. Once the population feels there is a central governing authority in place, that sense of order will likely neutralize a significant amount of opposition momentum spurred by anti-Israel animus.”
Really? I, for one, can envision, with at least equal plausibility, a far more perilous scenario unfolding.
Perilous blueprint
For it is difficult to see how Glick’s blueprint could allow Israel to forge its permanent population into anything remotely resembling a coherent, cohesive societal entity.
The specter of a country riven by ethno-religious rivalries and domestic unrest seems far more plausible.
For her blueprint ignores the very essence of nationhood and contravenes what leading liberal scholars have long identified as the most central component of viable nations – a sense of fellow-feeling.
After all, nations are more than a random amalgam of individuals, bound by no more than the coincidence of their current location in a given area.
It was French philosopher Ernest Renan who in What is a Nation? (1882) noted: “[A] nation, is the culmination of a long past of endeavors, sacrifice, and devotion.” Elaborating on this, Renan stipulated: “A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things… constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One lies in the past, one in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present- day consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received in an undivided form…”
Perilous (cont.)
This is particularly true if one wishes to maintain democratic governance and representative institutions.
Thus, in his seminal treatise On Representative Government (1861), John Stuart Mill, who essentially concurs with Renan as to the essence of nationhood, cautions that without such fellow-feeling, “Free institutions are next to impossible… [and] the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist.”
Mill identifies the strongest components of this indispensable “fellow-feeling” as an “identity of political antecedents; the possession of a national history, and consequent community of recollections; collective pride and humiliation, pleasure and regret, connected with the same incidents in the past.”
This clearly is the antithesis of the realities that would prevail were Glick’s blueprint to be implemented – as can be vividly illustrated with a single example of one “incident in the past” – say the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
For Jewish Israelis, this is a source of pride and pleasure; for the Arabs, humiliation and regret.
Note that this is not a marginal incident, but a seminal event in the collective memory of the two groups, and is but one example of the antithetical attitudes of Jews and Arabs in relation to a host of socio-cultural issues in the past and the present.
In light of such stark ethno-nationalist discordance, can anyone seriously posit a stable, functioning state, unless one group has overwhelming numerical dominance over the other? As the relative sizes of the discordant groups converge – even if the dominant one maintains its (dwindling?) majority – the internal situation will become increasingly unmanageable, especially if, as is highly likely, there exist large disparities in their socioeconomic conditions. Withholding full voting rights from a sizable portion of the sizable ethnic minority, as Glick seems to suggest, would inevitably exacerbate these internal tensions – and external pressures.
And the daunting prospect of Lebanonization will become increasingly tangible.
Size does matter
The kind of socio-political entity Israel would be varies greatly depending on the size of the Jewish majority in the country. So do the societal processes and socio-cultural dynamics that could be sustained and justified.
Thus, if Israel is designated to be a Jewish state, with an overwhelming Jewish majority, a whole array of aspects of public life in the country can be justified as having a sound sustainable, national rationale.
For example: The blue and white Star of David on the national flag; the Menorah as the state emblem; the national anthem referring to the Jewish soul yearning for Zion; the calendar, celebrating/commemorating Jewish holidays and events relating to Zionist heritage; Hebrew as the dominant lingua in commerce, law and academia; the designation of Saturday as the day of rest, Judeo-centric legislation such as Law of Return… All of these are essential elements that make up the fabric of life in a Jewish state.
However, none of these makes any sense – i.e., is justifiable and sustainable – if between 35 percent and 40% of the population not only is unable to identify with them, but – having been fed a “steady diet of pure hatred” – harbors considerable hostility toward them.
Under such circumstances, a wide-ranging assault on the state’s Jewish character will soon be under way. It will be almost impossible to resist.
Mirror images of despair?
I have barely touched on the myriad of ways that more than doubling the Muslim population of Israel will adversely impact socioeconomic realities in the country and gravely undermine its ability to preserve itself as the Jewish nation-state. Such an exhaustive analysis must be deferred for another occasion.
However, in this regard I would refer readers to several earlier columns in which I discuss in greater detail some of these dangerous consequences – see “What’s wrong with the Right – Parts I & II” (August 16 & 23, 2012); “Brain dead on the Right?” (June 26, 2013); “Sovereignty? Yes, but look before you leap” (January 9, 2014).
As I mentioned last week in my critique of Michael Oren’s policy proposal, in many ways calls for a single state and offering permanent residency/citizenship to the Arabs of Judea-Samaria constitute a mirror-image of those calling for unilateral withdrawal.
Both attempt to disguise what is essentially intellectual surrender by a false display of hubris – portraying them as bold Zionist initiatives, when in reality either would doom – or at least, gravely imperil – the Zionist enterprise they profess to preserve.
While the former purports to address Israel’s geographic imperative by making it demographically untenable – even if a Jewish majority is maintained; the latter purports to address Israel’s demographic imperative by making it geographically untenable – even if it does not involve a full withdrawal to pre-1967 lines.
Both would set in motion a deteriorating Jewish demographic dynamic —the former because of the deteriorating socioeconomic situation it will inevitably engender; the latter because of the equally inevitable deteriorating security situation it will engender.
For these reasons – and many others – I would earnestly call on my colleague Caroline to rethink her call for “A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East” as the preferred “Israeli solution.”
Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.net) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.
(www.strategic-israel.org)
honeybee Said:
Does it matter?
yamit82 Said:
A priest!
CuriousAmerican Said:
Cousins in so far that they are one of two covenant nations (Ishmael and Jacob)mentioned in the Torah.
That leaves you goyim out in the cold.
Who was Melchizedek?
Shem!!!!
yamit82 Said:
No just disappointed!!!!!!
yamit82 Said:
Have we ever——talked about the same thing?????
honeybee Said:
What was she, a necrophiliac?
Are we talking about the same thing???
yamit82 Said:
I was at the flea market. I bought a tiny Star of David with CZs at each point and earings from Telado, /spain with /Star of David engraved on them that I shall turn into pendants. Also a framed print by on of my favorite artist, Fritz Shoulder. A cameo of a skeleton head with a fancy hairdo “La Boda Negra” a Mexican song. The song is about a bride who’s fiancé dies during the ceremony and she goes to the cementario and digs him up so she can enjoy thier wedding night. Mexican’s can be very dark
Size is nice , [as I have said before and often} technique matters more.
@ bernard ross:
Sure Adelson cares about Israel but his efforts with Romney were a transparent attempt to influence the administration to legislate against on line gambling which is becoming if not already a mjor and future competitor to his gambling empire. $100 mil for his is less than a weeks take. Chump change. He could do a lot of things for Jews and Israel and does some good but they fall short of having any impact. Adelson cannotbe depended upon from a Jewish or Israeli perspective.
He created a free giveaway newspaper “Israel today” as a partisan voice for BB. Bennett and Lieberman call it “Pravda” and they are not far off. They never criticize BB.
@ honeybee:
Yeah but then there is Long and then there is LONG!!!
Size I’m told does matter.
When I feel ignored I do that sometimes.
yamit82 Said:
Nitzana Darshan-Leitner: my heroine who puts all the childish Israeli politicians to shame. Call Adelson and tell him that 100 million in her hands, instead of romney, will rocket israel into the stars of success. she puts the GOI to shame for its negligence and incompetence showing what real achievement and knowledge is as opposed to the political chatter of mediocre pols.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Because IT WAS DONE to the Jews!!!!
What, are you for real??
My cousins????
MY COUSINS???
I have a first degree blood cousin that lives in ny.
The IDIOT (I affectionately refer to him as my idiot cousin) is very proud of the fact that he has voted for ovomit . Twice!
I would not even spit on him, and you think that the musloids are my cousins……
There you go again.
Didn’t I tell you already what to do with your little suggestion? American!
Shurat Ha Din again highlighting politicians incompetence.
Why wait for the ICC? Arrest all PLO suspected of past terror crimes and support. Their immunity expires with the expiration of Oslo and are conveniently in one place waiting for their pick up. No need this time to go to brazil to get Eichmannnnn. re-institute the death penalty for terror crimes, no statute of limitations. Swoop in and pick them up: firing squad next day after quick “trial”.
(Wish I were PM for a day)
CuriousAmerican Said:
It was done to Jews and the international community did nothing: are you saying that Jews cannot do what others are allowed? The GC did nothing then.
CuriousAmerican Said:
You are suggesting double standards whereby behavior acceptable to be done by others is unacceptable when done by jews.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Whay would you expect the jews to act differently? Why would YOU want that?
CuriousAmerican Said:
Once they are out of Israel the Christians, EU, Arabs will all pay them to leave or face destabilization and civil war. They will then seek israeli consultants to advise them of a plan.
Because were it done to Jews, you would RIGHTLY see it as tyranny. You are suggesting that the Jewish state be tyrants. Quite often, people stiffen their resistance when subject to tyranny. Jews got more Jewish in response to tyranny.
Why would you expect the Arabs, your cousins, to act any differntly?
Pay them to leave.
@ bernard ross:
Well put! This is the concept I endorse.
@ yamit82:
Dear yamit,
What an incredible man.
Listening to his grandson eulogy and salute…evoked an indescribable outpour of emotions…
I could not help but wonder why were barak, Sharon and PERES (!!!!) included in this video…
A criminal coming back to the crime scene?
I might be wrong, but I believe I read somewhere (chamish?) that ghandi’s murder was not unlike rabbin’s murder…
Pointing to shabak and Peres.
???
CuriousAmerican Said:
I admit it: they must go. the manner of their going is secondary. but Jews should only pay for property left behind that is of value to other Jews, at the most. the arabs, Christians, UN and EU are the ones NOW funding their war on Israel and they are the ones who need only redirect their blood money towards resettling their proxy assassins or they can let them continue to suffer in the bed of their own making. No tears or empathy here for their “suffering”: the suffering of those who war against the Jews or support that war in any fashion is to be celebrated, I include their enablers in this category.
yamit82 Said:
thanks for the info and video: he is now more correct than ever!
CuriousAmerican Said:
I agree, but that’s Ted. Not me and more Israelis agree with me I believe than Ted. All that is needed is a leader to lead the way, or another round of major violence against us by your diaper heads, then the people will follow any leader in support of driving them out of here. I believe it’s only a matter of time.
yamit82 Said:
Kahane was a true jewish leader who could have led the jews out of the abyss they are now in. His honesty, straightforwardness and resolve are the characteristics that a true Jewish leader must have. Over all, he is for the Jews first and this is where the others fall apart.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Rehavam “Gandhi” Ze’evi on Transfer: Ze’evi advocated the population transfer by agreement of 3.3 million residents of the West Bank and Gaza to Arab nations. He believed this could be accomplished by making life difficult, so they would relocate on their own, through use of military force during wartime, or by agreement with Arab nations. In July 1987, Ze’evi presented his ideas at a forum in Tel Aviv, describing the plan as a voluntary transfer and the only way to make peace with the Arabs.
In September 1991, while serving as Minister without Portfolio, he called then US President George H. W. Bush an “anti-Semite.” In 1997, he called then US Ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk a “Jewboy” and challenged him to a fistfight.
In July 2005, the Knesset passed a law to commemorate Ze’evi’s memory. Route 90 was renamed Gandhi Road in his honor. Eilat’s promenade was named for him and there is a life-size statue of him there as well. The communal settlement of Merhav Am and the West Bank settlement Ma’ale Rehav’am also bear his name.
In 2005, he was voted the 7th-greatest Israeli of all time, in a poll by the Israeli news website Ynet to determine whom the general public considered the 200 Greatest Israelis
Israel misses Rehavam Zeevi “Gandhi”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_Iyf62jY7k#t=250
Related to my comment # 25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI9PeQoa_2A
Ted your spam filter has blocked a Youtube URL and don’t know why? I posted it three times and each time it was rejected pls post at least one of them and drop the others.
@ yamit82:
Rabbi Meir Kahane: A Retrospective with Steven M. Goldberg (ZOA)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4uOCQji7UE
Yesterday I wrote a rather long and detailed 4th and fifth alternative using The lefts mantra of them there and we here, meaning separation of Jews and Arabs in the whole of the Land of Israel including and especially those with Israeli citizenship but defining the borders of that separation much farther eastward than the Israeli left would have us accept. I decided to scrap the whole thing. Too long and too detailed for this forum.
For anyone interested here is the Complete book of “They Must Go”
Full text of “Rabbi Kahane`s book” “They Must Go” (Entire Book)
Shy Guy Said:
Yesterday I wrote a rather long and detailed 4th and fifth alternative using The lefts mantra of them there and we here meaning separation of Jews and Arabs in the whole of the Land of Israel including and especially those with Israeli citizenship but defining the borders of that separation much farther eastward than the Israeli left would have us accept. I decided to scrap the whole thing. Too long and too detailed for this forum.
For anyone interested here is the Complete book of “They Must Go”
Full text of “Rabbi Kahane`s book” “They Must Go” (Entire Book)
Rabbi Meir Kahane: A Retrospective with Steven M. Goldberg (ZOA)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4uOCQji7UE
@ Shy Guy:
Without any shadow of a doubt, I consider this to be THE option.
Many on this forum, would think the same.
What however matters, is in Israel, the prevailing thoughts over THERE!!
And when the author of this book, whose title says it all, was thrown into jail for incitement!!!!!!! When his party was dismantled and outlawed….. (All the while speeches by Azmi bishara are protected by legal immunity ……..spit!!!)
I KNOW that kahane tzadak…. I hope that at the end, his vision and philosophy shall prevail…
@ Ted Belman:
Well put. A plan by definition needs some workable details not purely some global theoretical idea. Walk before you run. Annex C plus what you need of B. You can not have 1 1/2 million Arabs moving all over Israel! This is a security nightmare. This is not livable and is not just a voting issue. The terrorists would exploit this security issue.
Arabs should be encouraged to leave. Start with a village or town in a particular locale.However, it is hardly believable that this will be approved nor successfully implemented.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Nothing wrong with that, american! Please explain why NOT, make their miserable lives miserable?
Yep! THEY MUST GO!
And you know, what I think that you should do with that little suggestion of yours, american…
Right?
😉
Ted Belman Said:
One more
Why not?! I think Israelis would pay to see them leave.
It is a start, if they leave Qalquilya to somewhere outside of Israel. It they move from Qalauilya to Ramallah, you have gained nothing.
Puerto Ricans have US citizenship, can fly into the USA at will and run for president. Same is true for Guam. Bad analogies. Free movement is allowed for both sides, which you would never allow.
Getting the Arabs to leave; but your suggestion is a rather “antiseptic” way of saying make their lives more miserable, so they “want” [are actually coerced by circumstance] to leave.
Admit it. Getting them to leave is the good part of the idea. But advocating state coercion is not your usual style, Ted.
Getting them to leave is Israel’s only solution.
You know my suggestion on compensation as the method.
There are two questions – the first is when to annex
– and that depends on whether we can mount a successful counter propaganda campaign and whether it is better to face the threat of Iran now or after it gets nuclear power.
The next question is of the rights of the Palestinians. It would make more sense to give the Palestinians no federal voting rights but those rights for the next generation that is born in Israel. Arabs currently living in Judea and Samaria could become permanent legal residents but not citizens – as is done in Canada
All pertinent facts under consideration, I side with Martin Sherman and Ted Belman on what must in fact take place as a large-scale annexation of Shomrin and Yehuda, but without offering citizenship in the State of Israel to a presently hostile population of 1.66 million Arabs.
I have been calling for Israel to formally annex immediately the 62 per cent of Shomron and Yehuda the comprises Area C, which has been formally under control of the State of Israel since the Oslo Accords were negotiated and signed. Fatah, presently calling itself the Palestine Authority, will squawk loudly, but they will do so from Ramallah, not from Jerusalem.And in any case, the Jewish population of annexed Jerusalem and of Shomron and Yehuda, already numbers more than 700,000, growing now at a steady annual rate of 6 per cent. Which will mean more than 1 million Jews in about six years.
The expansion process that I favor is to begin by annexing outright Area C, and let the well-known process of urban sprawl will even more rapidly expand the Jewish population there. Israeli citizenship can be offered on an individual and selective basis to the relatively small number of Arabs residing in Area C, with local autonomy for the others.
it can be expected that this initial step will destabilize Fatah, irrespective of whatever paper thrones they will achieve through membership in this or that equally powerless and therefore useless UNO organizations and committees. And having formalized Israeli jurisdiction over that 62 per cent of Shomron and Yehuda, the next step for Israel will be to start negotiations directly with the key members of the urban Arab clans (hamoulas) that play significant leadership roles in Jenin, Tulkarem, Nablus, Kalkiliya, Ramallah, Jericho and Hevron, for purposes of establishing their autonomous control over the urban Arab populations. Under these arrangements, what had been Area B on the Oslo Accord maps would come under tighter Israeli control through the same rules that presently apply to Area C.
In short, the State of Israel should use exactly the same tactics in Shomron and Yehuda as he Russian Federation did last month in Crimea, and shall probably use to re-acquire the Russian-populated eastern and southern oblasts of now-destabilized Ukraine. President Putin probably would at least smile privately about all this.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
@ bernard ross:
Precisely!
‘Nuff said….
the phoenix Said:
I dont know if BB has ever demonstrated the ability for bold, well calculated and well planned action. However, it is not impossible that a person faced with stark choices can change and make the right decision even though bold. I do not know if he is capable of bold assertion.
the phoenix Said:
dishonorably discharge them, prosecute them, disallow them from any gov position or benefit. Reassign them and send them to the front where they must fight to defend their own lives and let them sell their conscientious objection argument to whoever is trying to kill them. As usual, the main stumbling block needing resolution, for all that we discuss here, does not reside with the EU, UN, Arabs, Pals, US but rather with the Israelis. No policy can be implemented without their assent and participation. This is what the BDS, EU, Obama understand and what their agenda incorporates: a thus far successful policy to divide and conquer the Jews. It starts with the Jews, the Jews must be reached and convinced.
@ bernard ross:
What kind of odds would jimmy the Greek give you????
😉
the phoenix Said:
If c were to be annexed there would be no swaps. I am referring to ground preparation for the annexation of C+ meaning that there should be, and have been, media dissemination of the perspective that:
1–Jewish settlement in YS is legal and to be encouraged under international law and that the state of Israel is obligate under that law to facilitate jewish immigration and encourage jewish settlement in YS as YS is part of that designated land.
2–That Area C consists of a Jewish majority and that the principle of self-determination in the UN charter supports a referendum there for independence and/or annexation.
3–That there is no legal or logical basis for the proposition that land which is vacant and unoccupied in YS belongs, or should belong, to the pals . This is the most absurd claim as most of C is vacant there is a stronger argument for its belonging to Israel as being reserved for jewish immigration and settlement as per prior law. Also, there has never been a pal sovereignty over land on the west bank and all other national claimants other than Israel have ceded sovereignty, then Israel has the strongest sovereignty claim. The ONLY legal basis the pals have is where they reside in large numbers and are a majority such as in A and parts of B. The only legal claim for soveriegnty the pals have is based in the Oslo agreement. JOrdans ceding of its claim did not grant sovereignty to any other. Empty non state vacant land belongs to who is in control or the majority of residents based on self determintation.
the phoenix Said:
This is the problem that those who want annexation AND transfer, like you and I,must realistically face. It is my determined view that the Israeli people would not agree to annex all of YS because they do not want to absorb the arabs and they are unwilling to transfer them at this time or in the near future. Does this mean we should abandon the possibility of getting more than the status quo just because we cant get it all at once?
Everyone know that i speak for annexation of all YS and transfer and have elucidated the legal, moral, logistical and practical bases for its realistic implementation plus shown how it would logically resolve the pal refugee crisis in the other lands by forcing a permanent and sustainable resettlement on Europe and the arabs. However, there is no point in repeating a mantra that I know has no chance of being implemented at this time due to the Israeli culture which has been brainwashed. I am a realistic and pragmatic person who tries to not confuse my hopes and dreams with reality or cloud my judgement with my desires. Therefore, after considering the available options I have settled on annexation of C and the status quo in A & B and maintaining the claim to sovereignty over A & B. This has a possibility of acceptability to the Israeli public IF the groundwork preparation of reeducation is applied through the media before or even after annexation. Annexation of C provides the most gain with a chance of acceptability by the Israeli public. If they dont have to deal with any change with the arabs of A & B, and are shown why the land SHOULD go to Israel due to international law and the principle of self determination of C then they MIGHT accept the annexation of C. I beleive that once it is considered aceptable by Israel to annex the major settlement blocks then the annexation of the remaining vacant land and few arabs is not a much bigger pill for the recalcitrant Israelis to swallow.
Furthermore, strategically and tactically speaking in terms of international law and the principles of self determination, the annexation of C has a much better chance of acceptability by the international community because it does not extend permanent rule over the majority of the arabs in A&B. It kicks their can down the road.
My main concern is that the annexation choices appear to be mainly between annexing all and annexing ONLY the major settlement blocks. I have no doubt that between those 2 sole choices that the majority of israelis would NOT annex ALL YS.
In fact, the only reason why the majority of Israelis MIGHT consider the annexation of C is with the obvious and complete demise of the Oslo agreement and the presentation of annexation to the public as a necessary reaction precipitated by the pal intransigence.
The question is would BB be able to take advantage of that opportunity and annex C or would he continue to ponder over preserving agreements and the status quo and what bits of Israel to give the pals to satisfy them.
Is BB capable of a calculated, bold, assertive, well planned action or can he only reply with small, frightened and humble reactions to bold pal moves?????. A grand opportunity is in the making to switch the paradigm, is he up to such a task? However, one should not bite off more than they can chew at this time, therefore C only for now.
@ the phoenix:
Further to my above comment….
The situation is being discussed here as if meretz, piss now, and all the other leftards do not exist…. ‘Refusing to be war criminals’ ….. Refusing to fly assassination missions signed by 27 pilots….
What will be with THESE???
Once again, will it be the biblical division of “the state of Judea” and “the state of Israel”?
These are pretty much unreconcilable differences!!!!!
🙁
the phoenix Said:
Curse, swear, use obscenities and they post you every time.
Ted Belman Said:
the answer obviously is the continuation of the status quo in A+ and the annexation of C+ with the vacant land and jewish majority. The pals must be under continued occupation in A+ because they have not demonstrated, to Israels satisfaction, that they are not a belligerent entity and threat, they cannot as sworn enemies be allowed into citizenship and the Jewish land cannot be given to them simply because they are there. Therefore A+ must be uniquely structured to allow self determination without compromising Israeli sovereignty over the land.
There is no legal or moral basis for Area C being part of any Palestine autonomy and not being annexed: based on unique international law regarding Jewish settlement rights there,based on international law of self-determination for the majority in C, based on land acquired in defensive war, etc. The foreign detractors would always seek to combine C+ with A & B in order to facilitate their claim of self determination. That is why it is important to begin with the separate annexation of C+ while leaving A+ still under the status quo. Israel can allow a separate referendum in C+ for independence and annexation; after all, C has been under complete israeli control. C has a strong legal case for annexation and the current timing of dead Oslo is the opportunity removing the ONLY real legal shackle. Losing the opportunity to annex C would be a major error of Israeli government. Hopefully the pals will go for statehood and force Israel to annex C and still maintain the status quo, control and sovereignty over A+. I fear that israel at best is foolish enough to only annex the major settlement blocks and give credibility to the canard that the vacant land of c belongs to the pals.
@ bernard ross:
I would add one more element to this ‘ground preparation’…
Namely, WHO would implement, whatever decision will be made regarding a,b,c, swaps, schmaps, 50%, 100%….
WHATEVER!!!!
Of course there should be a plan! (My dream plan is THEY MUST GO!! Period! Kick them out first…)
Nonetheless, were the leadership of the country, to remain +/- as is….. In the long run it would be like changing a dollar for 4 quarters!
🙁
Ted Belman Said:
what happens in the period between annexation and most of the arabs having accepted the cash incentive? Are they Citizens who can vote during that period. What happens if most Arabs DONT choose the money and instead stay and demand Israel rights along with the Israeli arabs. There must be an option for the plan not materializing as planned: like when the bank asks what happens to their loan if your business does not succeed as planned. DUH??????
My view is annex C+ with the majority Jews and leave A+ in a status quo pending future agreements, transfer, emigration. There should be no period whereby A+ is annexed and the arabs there have citizenship or free movement to israel. Better to implement an incentive plan before annexing the mass of pals. Israel has the choice to devise her own structure for dealing with a mass of unwanted alien enemies within her borders that fits the unique situation. The answer is not to be forced to choose between jewish land and absorbing enemies. If the aliens remain then they must be in a limited self autonomy subject to Israeli rule without Israeli citizenship but granted no state sovereignty over the jewish land. Israel is being pressured to believe that there are only 2 choices. They can be granted future free movement in Israel after they prove they are no threat like Canada and the US but no residence or citizenship and no right of returns to ANY part of YS or Israel. In time with incentives and disincentives the young will be encouraged to leave and work elsewhere. It is time that Israel simply states that they will not keep an enemy inside their house without maximum supervision and that any misbehavior warrants immediate mandatory deportation. Anyone has the right to throw out undesirables from their house. No sovereign state and no citizenship in Israel for west bank arabs. My point of view is that any sanctions placed on Israel would automatically initiate transfer and the arrest for past crimes of all the PLO including Abbas(they would probably run on the announcement).
It is an insult to expect the jews to live peacefully with their sworn jew killer enemies inside their house. This is another foreign swindle. All other countries do what they want and make up the legal bases and reasons afterwards. However, the ground needs to be prepared before making the moves.
🙂
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/179243#.Uz_1Qsu9KSM
I sent the following email to Martin Sherman:P
This from Norman F:
I fully concur with Martin Sherman’s critique of Caroline Glick’s book – highlighting both its positive and negative sides.
I wonder, though, why should we be rushing to propose new “peace plans”? We have so much work to do (after decades of Israel’s apathy in the face of “Palestinian” propaganda) before we can sketch out a cogent plan.
In an article titled “Stay Away from New Peace Plans” (the title of which American Thinker unfortunately changed last December), I wrote:
We live in an imperfect world inhabited by imperfect human beings. I wish if the problems of mankind is resolved overnight and all be able to live in harmony. Given the reality, my wishful thinking won’t materialize. It is the same like proposing one state for two arch enemies. I donot know how well experienced and educated individuals come up with such notion unless they are academicians who deal with academic research which requires applied research to put it to practice. The Arab-Israeli conflict is more than an academic exercise!!!!
Bert Said:
“May Your enemies swiftly be cut down. May You uproot, crush, cast down and humble the kingdom of arrogance swiftly in our days.” – Amidah prayer
I feel like an outsider when I look to the Torah while all our other leaders and intellectuals look only to their own limited intellects. The “solution” to the Arab problem is simple. The land of Israel was given by G-d to the Jewish People and to no other. Arabs and others would be better off in their own country and ruling themselves. Jordan was carved out of the Palestine Mandate intended to be the Jewish National Home and remains a simple and sensible option. Jordan is already mostly Palestinian with 35,000 square miles vs. 2,000 square miles for Judea and Samaria. The ONLY problem is Arab hatred and Jewish cowardice. Jewish refusal to even speak of Jordan means that the only other option is to carve up Israel and risk her survival.