T. Belman. Having Jews live in Palestine should we create it is a non starter. I think the settlers themselves would reject doing so. Does Netanyahu really see this as an option or is he merely making a point to discredit the TSS proposed by the US and the EU and the UN?
By raising this issue he is accepting the TSS and throwing the settlers under the bus. If he cuts a deal where the settlers stay in their homes, then he has avoided the need to remove them. Is this what he wants? Why not do a video, instead, on our rights to the land as in the Levy Report
The US focuses on opposition to settlement construction without referring tothe demands for ethnic cleansing
Washington expressed outrage on Friday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu characterized as “outrageous” the world’s apparent acquiescence in the Palestinian demand for a future state without Jews.
While Israel has nearly two million Arabs living inside its borders, the Palestinian leadership “actually demands a Palestinian state with one pre-condition: no Jews,” Netanyahu said in a video released by his office.
“There’s a phrase for that,” Netanyahu said. “It’s called ethnic cleansing. And this demand is outrageous.”
What is even more outrageous, he added, is that the world “doesn’t find this outrageous.
Some otherwise enlightened countries even promote this outrage.”
Since when, he asked, is “bigotry a foundation for peace?” Within hours of the video being uploaded on Friday on Netanyahu’s Facebook pages, State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau was asked about it at the daily press briefing, and roundly condemned it.
“We obviously strongly disagree with the characterization that those who oppose settlement activity or view it as an obstacle to peace are somehow calling for ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank.
“We believe that using that type of terminology is inappropriate and unhelpful. We share the view of every past US administration, and the strong consensus of the international community, that ongoing settlement activity is an obstacle to peace. We continue to call on both sides to demonstrate with actions and policies a genuine commitment to the two-state solution,” she added.
Netanyahu began the brief, two-minute video by saying that he has always been “perplexed” by the notion that the settlements are an obstacle to peace, since no one would seriously claim that the Arabs living inside Israel are an obstacle.
Trudeau did not respond to that part of Netanyahu’s message, focusing instead on continued settlement activity.
“Let’s be clear,” she stated. “The undisputed fact is that already this year, thousands of settlement units have been advanced for Israelis in the West Bank, illegal outposts and unauthorized settlement units have been retroactively legalized, more West Bank land has been seized for exclusive Israeli use, and there has been a dramatic escalation of demolitions resulting in over 700 Palestinian structures destroyed, displacing more than 1,000 Palestinians.
“As we’ve said many times before, this does raise real questions about Israel’s long-term intentions in the West Bank.”
Asked whether the administration was going to ask Netanyahu to “walk back” the video, Trudeau said, “We’ll have our conversation with our Israeli allies and friends and we’ll see where that goes.”
The brief video is the eighth that Netanyahu has made since David Keyes took over from Mark Regev as Netanyahu’s English spokesman in March. The Prime Minister’s Office views these videos as a very effective way to get the premier’s unfiltered message out to millions of people. Some 750,000 people have seen this video since it was uploaded Friday, and the number of those who have seen the others – which have dealt with issues varying from Israeli Arabs to gay rights – have been seen by tens of millions of people.
The PMO, not wanting to get into a tit-for-tat with the State Department, had no response to Washington’s sharp reaction.
One government official, however, advised not looking for any meaning in the timing of the video, saying it was designed to highlight an “outrageous Palestinian demand.” The “ethnic cleansing” argument that Netanyahu stressed in the video has been tucked into previous speeches he has made, but never underlined to such a degree.
The official said this was “one step” in the direction of getting the world to pay attention to this demand.
Palestinian leaders have on a number of occasions stressed that all settlements would have to be completely removed from a future Palestinian state. For instance, in July of 2013, just prior to the start of US-led Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told Egyptian journalists in Cairo that “in a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli – civilian or soldier – on our lands.”
And at a dinner in 2010 with Jewish leaders in the US hosted by the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, he said, “If we want an independent state, I will not accept any single Israeli in our territories.
We are not against the Jews.
We are against the Israeli occupation.”
The Zionist Union’s Tzipi Livni responded to the video, saying that the US is now saying that all the settlements are obstacles to peace, including those inside the large settlement blocs, while in the past Israel received recognition for those blocs.
“I worked to get diplomatic benefit while paying a political price, while Netanyahu is trying to get political benefit while paying a diplomatic price,” she said.
Ayman Odeh, head of the Joint List, slammed Netanyahu for comparing Israeli Arabs to “settlers.”
Netanyahu, he said, “is comparing a minority born here, who has lived in the place for generations, which Israel came and foisted itself upon, to settlers that were transferred against international law to occupied territory, all the while trampling the human rights of the residents of the West Bank and Gaza.”
But reality, he said, “never bothered Netanyahu.”
Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria is Jewish territory – No annexation is required
If anything it may need to be re-incorporated or re-patriated.
Let me pose an interesting scenario. If you had a country and it was conquered by foreign powers over a period of time. After many years you have taken back you country and land in various defensive wars. Do you have to officially annex those territories? It was always your territory and by retaking control and possession of your territory it is again your original property and there is no need to annex it. The title to your property is valid today as it was many years before.
Annexation only applies when you are taking over territory that was never yours to begin with, just like some European countries annexed territories of other countries.
YJ Draiman
Jews hold title to the Land of Greater Israel even if outnumbered a million to one.
The fact that more foreigners than Jews occupied the Land of Israel during certain periods of time does not diminish true ownership. If my house is invaded by a family ten times larger that mine does that obviate my true ownership?
Jewish roots and rights to all the land of Greater Israel are stronger than ever!
“If I am turned out of hearth and home and remain outside one night, I am legally entitled to return the following day. If I suffer for ten, twenty, five thousand or fifty thousand nights, does my right of return stand in inverse relationship to the length of my exile? Quite the contrary; my right to return and recover my freedom becomes stronger in direct proportion to what I have endured, not by virtue of some abstract arithmetic, but because of the nights spent in exile, and because I want my children, to be spared a similar experience.”
YJ Draiman
Sovereignty of Israel with no safety and security is a hollow sovereignty
The State of Israel must always keep in mind its own sovereign obligations and be careful not to risk its capacity to perform the vital task of defending itself, its people, and its interests. Israel even under the most adverse conditions, it shall not capitulate to world pressure whereby its citizen’s safety and security is compromised.
Israel has faced over 24,190 terror attacks since September 2000, when a wave of terror started against Israeli citizen’s right after Arafat was offered a second independent Arab/Palestinian state.
To date Israel’s concessions and appeasement to the Arabs has decreased the safety and security of Israel’s population. It is time to change direction and not worry about world opinion. Do not wait for the world at large to condemn these terrorist attacks, they did not care in the past when Jewish blood was spilled and they do not care now. The security and safety of the people of Israel must be first and foremost above any other consideration. That is the duty and obligation of a responsible government. Deliberating at time of National crisis without a previous set plan borders on dereliction of duty, based on Israel’s experience with terror, they should know better. Meanwhile, Israelis are being killed and injured on a daily basis throughout Israel, the people in Israel feel unsafe and the economy is suffering. Get your act together, act immediately and forcefully with no compromise, now that is the only way, it has to be Israel’s way or the highway. Any delay in implementation will increase terror and violence and escalate the death and injury of Jewish lives in Israel. Israel must face the bold facts. The Arabs do not want peace, they never did, they only want the destruction of Israel, Israel must act accordingly with no illusion and fantasy or false promises that the Arabs are partners for peace, it is perfectly clear that they are not interested in peace at all. Their Charter and actions confirm it.
The Arabs educate and train their children and the masses to commit terror and violence, celebrate and glorify suicide bombers, Need I say anymore. Stop bickering among yourselves, unify, and face the enemy with vigor and determination and do not stop until the enemy is totally vanquished and peace and tranquility returns to Israel.
YJ Draiman
The Arabs do not want peace with Israel and they state so publicly. Stop deluding yourselves that the Arabs want peace and face reality. They want all of Israel and they do not hide their intent. Peace might be valid if the so-called fictitious Arab/Palestinians wanted to live in peace. They state clearly by statement and action that their goal is to drive the Jewish people out and take all of Israel. Their method is killing, destruction and hate. They perpetuate this strategy by lying to their people and indoctrinating their children with hate. They are a pathetically unproductive people that beg and accept millions in support but spend it on weapons and hate. Would you want to share a small country with these primitive barbaric people who know nothing but terror and killing including their own Muslim people by the thousands every month? If you are silent to the Arab/Muslim atrocities than your complicity in their crimes is also accountable. That makes the silent majority guilty.
YJ Draiman
Excerpt: “The Course of Justice” (From “So Sorry We Won – The Story of the Six Day War in Word And Cartoon ” by Ephraim Kishon and Dosh (Kariel Gardosh) Tel Aviv. 1967) (typed from the hardcover)
“September: a member of the El Fatah murder gang named Mahmoud Hejazi is captured wounded on Israeli territory in possession of an automatic rifle, 12 pounds of explosives, three flame-throwers and a couple of howitzers. The examination of the infiltrator proceeds slowly as when captured, the man was in state of coma induced by fright and he is unable to utter coherent sentences. He cowers in a corner, crawls in the dust and keeps mumbling: “Mahmoud good boy…Have pity on me, great effendis…Pity…Poor Mahmoud…”
‘October : Hejazi is tried by a military court and sentenced to death. Upon hearing the sentence, the accused collapses and sobbingly pleads for his miserable life. The Minister of Justice remembers his European heritage and approves the appointment of an Arab lawyer to defend the murderer who appealed the sentence.
‘November : The lawyer arrives from Algeria and is handed a memorandum on what is expected of him in court:
(1) That he should read the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel to an organ accompaniment.
(2) That he should express his gratitude and appreciation for the activities of the Government of Israel.
(3) Hatikvah
The lawyer refuses to co-operate, he happens to root for the Arabs. Out!
‘December : Hejazi stands up for his elementary rights: “I won’t budge without a foreign lawyer,” he announces. The authorities are somewhat perplexed. The Chief-of-Staff’s coaxing of Hejazi falls on deaf ears: “Leave me alone,” says the disappointed infiltrator; “There’s no-one I can talk to in this country.”
January: The trial is resumed without Hejazi’s approval. “You’re a bunch of crooks, the lot of you!” Hejazi declares. “You’re abominable behavior is in complete contradiction to all the tenets of international law and is repugnant to all freedom-loving people.” The defense attorney asks Hejazi not to make superficial generalizations, whereupon he is fired by him. The lawyer lodges an appeal.
February: Hejazi convokes a press conference and demands the resignation of the Government, which has entangled itself in its own web of perfidy. “I cannot negotiate with hooligans.” The infiltrator tells the press. “If my case is not settled within a week from today, I won’t answer for the consequences!” The President of the Court appeals to Hejazi’s nobler feelings in an effort to win his co-operation. Hejazi announces over Kol Israel that he is forced to dismiss the court.
March : Mr. Mahmoud Hejazi’s claim for compensation from the Israeli Army is heard by Mr. Abie Nathan as sole arbitrator. In his defense brief, the Chief-of-Staff claims that the infiltrator’s arrest was carried out without malice. Nor is he willing to accept Hejazi as a war invalid entitled to assistance and a Ministry of Defense pension. A compromise seems to be in the offing. IL.15,000 in cash and a soft drink stand.
—-
Other good books are: Battleground by Samuel (Schmuel Katz
From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters
A History of Palestine from 135 AD to Modern Times (1949) and the shorter “Whose Land” by James Parkes
A number of books by Pierre Van Paasen (he co-wrote one with Jabotinksky)
“They Must Go” by Rabbi Meier Kahane which has a number of accounts of the betrayal and massacre by the Arabs of their Jewish friends and neighbors (including their doctor) going back decades. By the way Kahane was neither a racist nor a terrorist. He advocated voluntary, generously subsidized transfer and gives examples of a whole Arab town that was ready to move to Canada which was ready to accept them when they thought that was the agenda.
Thank you. Amazon has a lot of copies starting at $9 paperback plus $3.99 shipping. I got a $19 hard cover (I have poor eyesight and Strand Books doesn’t accept paperbacks in trade, no ebook was listed.) with the option of free two DAy shipping on Amazon Prime but I opted to get it by Tues. Sept. 20 in exchange for a $5.99 credit on Amazon Pantry. It’s true they have the same thing as paperback for as little as $9 or over $1,000. I the it’s just computers running amok. I knew somebody who, back in the 80’s or ’90s, kept getting threatening letters from the power company to pay his bill of $0.00. They cancelled his turn-off notice with a nice thank you note when he sent them a check for the amount of $0.00.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
You should read the classic and definitive book on the Arabs and Jews in Israel. It’s called “Crossroads to Israel” written by Christopher Sykes the son of Sykes-Picot fame, 1965. In it he lays out clearly and cleanly exactly how the Arabs were gifted present day Jordan, and exactly how the hostility developed under British Rule.
I suspect that he sees the Rights of the Jewish People in a positive light, whilst being extremely accurate in all else.
I actually have a soft cover copy, (I think a Penguin) bought around 1967) and on looking it up a few months ago, I saw that on Ebay and etc. it was fetching up to $150 a copy. Astonishing, but it’s a famous book and of course long out of print.
Well worth reading, either in a library or on the internet somewhere.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
You should read the classic and definitive book on the Arabs and Jews in Israel. It’s called “Crossroads to Israel” written by Christopher Sykes the son of Sykes-Picot fame, 1965. In it he lays out clearly and cleanly exactly how the Arabs were gifted present day Jordan, and exactly how the hostility developed under British Rule.
I suspect that he sees the Right’s of the Jewish People in a positive light, whilst being extremely accurate in all else.
I actually have a soft cover copy, (I think a Penguin) bought around 1967) and on looking it up a few months ago, I saw that on Ebay and etc. it was fetching up to $150 a copy. Astonishing, but it’s a famous book and of course long out of print.
Well worth reading, either in a library or on the internet somewhere.
@ Ted Belman:Caroline Glick answers your question about what Bibi’s point was in an excellent article.
Here is a small snippet.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Benjamin-Netanyahu-and-the-otherwise-enlightened-467554
“…But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness. In a moment the fruits of patient toil, the prospects of material prosperity, the fear of death itself, are flung aside. The more emotional Pathans are powerless to resist. All rational considerations are forgotten. Seizing their weapons, they become Ghazis—as dangerous and as sensible as mad dogs: fit only to be treated as such. While the more generous spirits among the tribesmen become convulsed in an ecstasy of religious bloodthirstiness, poorer and more material souls derive additional impulses from the influence of others, the hopes of plunder and the joy of fighting. Thus whole nations are roused to arms. Thus the Turks repel their enemies, the Arabs of the Soudan break the British squares, and the rising on the Indian frontier spreads far and wide. In each case civilisation is confronted with militant Mahommedanism. The forces of progress clash with those of reaction. The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace.”
? Winston S. Churchill, The Story of the Malakand Field Force
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/arabs
Yes, he talked a good talk, but what a shame he passively a aided the Holocaust by barring Jewish immigration to Palestine.
The Churchill White Paper (also known as The British White Paper of 1922) of 3 June 1922 was in response to the 1921 Jaffa Riots in which growing tensions between Arab and Jewish populations in Palestine came to a head. Although the attacks were primarily facilitated by the Arabs, the British White Paper concluded that the violence was sparked by resentment towards Jewish Zionists and the perceived favoritism towards them by the British, as well as Arab fears of subjugation. The paper emphasized that “the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian”, that the Balfour Agreement did not support “the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine”, and that British intended to “foster the establishment of a full measure of self government in Palestine”.[1] In response, the paper called for a limitation of Jewish immigration to “the economic capacity of the country to absorb new arrivals” in order to reduce tensions between the Arabs and Jews in the region.[2] This was considered a great setback to many in the Zionist movement.[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_White_Paper
@ Sebastien Zorn:
You should read some of the quotes of Winston Churchill on the Arabs. Right to the mark. An education in a few paragraphs. And proven accurate by all subsequent events. Even though this was in the period of the Lawrence of Arabia hysteria, he didn’t flinch fro saying what were obviously historical and present day facts on the ground, for all to see.
“The militant Muslim is the person who beheads the infidel, while the moderate Muslim holds the feet of the victim.”
Marvelous quote mistakenly attributed to Marco Polo
No point in debating hypotheticals. Bibi knows that the PA will Never accept anything that impedes the phased plan:
“Beware of the Phased Plan!
Yoram Ettinger
http://www.theettingerreport.com/Palestinian-Issue/Beware-of-the-Phased-Plan!.aspx
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?
id=1338, February 09, 2012
This week’s meeting between Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal highlighted their common strategic goal, despite their bitter rivalry in recent years: The PLO’s Phased Plan aimed at the establishment of a Palestinian state in all of what was Palestine within the Ottoman/British Mandate borders.
Abbas (who is both the chairman of the PLO, established in 1964, and Fatah, established in 1959) told the U.N. General Assembly last year that the highest Palestinian authority was the PLO, and that the “occupation” began in 1948 and not in1967.
On August 14, 2009, Mahmoud Abbas concluded the Sixth Convention of Fatah, which ratified its platform, calling for the continued struggle – through peaceful and armed means – to eradicate the Jewish state. Fatah’s policy is founded on the claim of return for the1948 Arab refugees, self-determination, an independent state and the PLO’s 10-point Phased Plan (http://bit.ly/y2zkfZ ), formulated by the PLO’s Palestinian National Council in June, 1974.
The second of the 10 points, for example, calls for the establishment of an independent national authority over “every part of Palestinian territory that is liberated.” The third point states that the PLO will not consider a temporary agreement which renounces the final goal – Palestine from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. The fourth point states that each step will be just a phase in the liberation of the whole of Palestine. The eighth point obligates the Palestinian Authority to fight for the liberation of the entire Palestinian territory.
In September 1993, on the eve of the Oslo Accords, then-PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat declared in a speech broadcast by Amman radio that Oslo would be “the basis for a Palestinian state in accordance with the [Phased] policy of the Palestinian National Council from June 1974.”
Abbas makes the distinction between provisional goals, dictated by the current balance of power, and the permanent goals dictated by the “natural, historic, constitutional and permanent Palestinians rights” and by the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim “destiny.” The provisional goals (Judea and Samaria and Gaza) are a means to achieving the permanent goals (Jaffa, Tel Aviv and Haifa), but certainly not a substitute. Therefore, he does not view U.N. resolutions, peace talks with Israel or the “liberation of the 1967 occupation” as a compromise, but rather as pragmatism, or a springboard.
Abbas differentiates between phase-based temporary peace with Israel and a final peace, which can only be achieved by completing the permanent goal: the eradication of Israel. In his view, relinquishing parts of the homeland could lead to the loss of it entirely. That is why Abbas is entrenching the “claim of return” to Safed, the Galilee, Haifa, Jaffa, Ashkelon and the Negev – and the denial of any Jewish rights in Palestine – in the Palestinian Authoritiy’s kindergartens, schools, mosques and media. That is why he claims to represent all Israeli Arabs, and why he views the Palestinian Authority as a reincarnation of Palestinian liberty and the end of the “crusader-like” Jewish state.
Abbas is a practicing Muslim. His worldview is shaped by the Muslim principle that the right to all of “Palestine” is a religiously endowed, inalienable right (Waqf) that must not be relinquished, even when requiring the sacrifice of one’s life. He wages his internal, as well as his external struggles, in accordance with the principles of Islam, including the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (a pivotal treaty between Muhammad, representing the state of Medina, and the Quraish tribe of Mecca in 628 C.E.), which directly shapes contemporary intra-Arab conflicts.
According to Professor Majid Khadduri, the leading authority on Islamic law (“War and Peace in the Law of Islam,” Johns Hopkins Press, 1955), Allah promised his followers a permanent victory; those who relinquish the struggle are considered apostates; the Hudaybiyyah precedent (the breach of a peace treaty that led to the conquest of Mecca) permits Muslims to agree to temporary peace in order to regroup and resume waging holy war. Moreover, the natural relationship between the Abode of Islam – the only legitimate religion – and the Abode of the Infidel is war; a peace agreement is not a goal, and not a means to advance coexistence, but rather a means to force submission on its adversaries.
The hate-education system that Abbas instituted in 1994, Abbas’ glorification of terrorists and their families, and the brainwashing tactics employed by mosques and media outlets controlled by Abbas – all aim to promote the Phased Plan, which guides Abbas and the so-called moderate Palestinian camp. This plan is the common thread connecting PLO’s Abbas to Hamas’ Mashaal and his “radical” camp.:
Bear Klein Said:
and therefore one must wonder why BB never initiates new settlements outside the euro designated ghetto boundaries of the major settlement blocks in the last 9 years… and why he NEVER, NEVER, NEVER utters these simple words:
“JEWISH SETTLEMENT IN YS IS LEGAL AND LEGITIMATE”
even if no one agrees with him, or he loses that struggle… at least utter those TRUE words. A man who cannot speak that truth cannot be trusted to lead the Jews.
Next time you see BB ask him why he never says those words…. do they make him sick?
Ted Belman Said:
Yes, and you may rightly wonder why…. because the pals didnt just say that yesterday… so why the sudden flurry.
In saying that the settlers should be allowed to stay there because its not right to throw out folks for being Jews….. he is basically also saying, by ommission, that there is no legal, moral or other basis for Jews to be there….. he also saying, by ommission that he is not asking,, demanding or facilitating settling Jews there…. just begging that the ones there are not thrown out.
Ted Belman Said:
I doubt that the settlers would be satisfied with leaving the Jewish homeland with a few isolated settlements based on playing the anti semite card rather than the inalienable connection of Jews to their homeland as already attested to by a world of gentiles at balfour, san remo, LON mandate, etc.
I think it is what BB wants…. notice there is NEVER, NEVER, NEVER any talk from BB about the rights of jews to settle in YS…. which is strange because that is the whole basis of Jews returning to Israel. Why would BB run a Jewish state that obstructs jews from settling in YS?
there is no legal reason, and neither from Oslo, to obstruct the settlement of Jews from YS…. and no one is ever given an overt reason for the obvious obstruction of that settlement by BB nor for BB’s obvious facilitation of euro and pal bldig in C.
Ted Belman Said:
I find it odd and interesting that BB has managed to assume the status of the “inscrutable oriental” in that no one in the right wing who voted for him can ever figure our “what BB wants”????????
All his supporters have different ideas about what he wants, but I say look at what he does… and pay no attention to the bogus excuses given for what he does. When looking at what he does you can see that there is no longer any discusssion of any new settlements outside the ghetto boundaries of the major blocks; you will see that he has facilitated all through his term, covertly, the euro and pal building in C; you will see that he has enabled a pr false flag campaign to defame and delegitimize the settler movement and the right wing with Duma and the hevron soldier;you will see that he always gives back the taxes which he pretends to withold from the PA without accomplishing anything but PR drama; but most of all you will see that he has NEVER, NEVER NEVER uttered these taboo words which he avoids under any circumstances and no one in Israel asks why:
“JEWISH SETTLEMENT IN YS IS LEGAL AND LEGITIMATE”
simple words which should be no problem for a PM of Israel to utter once in a while during the last 9 years… and yet NEVER, NEVER NEVER….. Right wing suckers want to beleive that his talk of ethnic cleansing based on being jews is a big battle that their champion knight in armor is fighting on their behalf…. but if he wins this fake battle which depicts him as their champion….. all he would have won is that when he gives the jewish YS homeland to the muslim they will allow a few jews to remain under their muslim rule. What he does not fight for, nor does he champion the most obvious of goals which is for Jewish settlement in YS. But how can he champion that which he himself daily obstructs? If he mentions those obvious rights then folks will want to know why he does not settle Jews.
Did you notice that there are no longer any discussions about settling jews in YS outside the major settlement euro designated ghetto boundaries? Israeli children are not educated to their connection and rights and his current brainwashing of jews does the same. All we see is a fake champion begging those who were vanquished to allow a few jews to remain there in dhimmitude. Really, is this worth discussing? Why yes, it is worth discussing if you want the discussion of new Jewish settlement to sink into oblivion. After all, those who beg their vanquished to allow a couple of jews are obviously NOT demanding or implementing new jewish settlement in the jewish homeland.
a complete fake or an incompetent fool… Jews must be settled in YS… new settlements must be undertaken… all the gov lands inherited from the brits and turks were earmarked by the LON to settle Jews in YS. If BB does not make the slightest move nor utter the simple words he is not the man to lead the Jews but more likely just one more foreign funded mole being paid, blackmailed or extorted into betraying the Jews … just like sharon, olmert, barak, peres, rivlin, livni, herzog… etc etc etc
@ Ted Belman:The point makes clear when countries who support the PLO demands are advocating for ethnic cleansing. This fights them on ethics they supposedly care about.
So PLO does not agree to a Jewish State as a neighbor nor to Jews living in Judah/Samaria. They are at the core anti-Semites so this renders the concept of a two state solution as null and void.
So one who says the problem is Jews building settlements as the core of the conflict is basically an anti-Semite.
A quote from Will Durant is…”to say nothing (definitive) whilst speaking is half the art of diplomacy”.
Of course its ethnic cleansing but why make the point?
Is he saying that the settlers should be allowed to stay there or is he saying what?
If the world insisted that they stay there, is that what the settlers want? Is that what Bibi wants?
@ Ted Belman:
Ted I owe you an apology, of which you are not aware. But coming up to Yom Kipur, well…I was focusing on a large part of the article in which the Arabs were claiming that they wanted not a single Jew in their territories, and that State Department’s Trudeau was supporting the anti-Israel line, although carefully not calling IT ethnic cleansing. The U.S. just want to see 350,000 Jews picked up and transferred to inside the “Green Line”…….
So I automatically assumed that you meant that the Trump group supported the accusation against Israel. I should have known better.
When I lived in the Galil many years ago, for quite a while, there was no fear that Arabs would ever outnumber Jews there. Jewish families were still coming to Galilee to live, but now, already for the past few years, writers have been exploring the possibility that the Arab population superiority there might be a reason to call for autonomy, or even attempt to break away from Israel. Misusing the democratic principles of course, but still troublesome.
As a Jew, where Arabs are concerned…….
@ Bear Klein:
Yes i am aware, but I thought it was about 1.5-6 mill. Besides they are already living somewhere, so why encourage them to have space for that extra baby, by building them enough homes for 3-400,000 people. I would like to see ALL Arabs out of Israel. Whilst they are outwardly law abiding (due to the fact that they are not only in the best Arab conditions in the Middle East, but are a positive minority with little overt strength) they are a 5th column, who, more and more are being found to actively or passively support terrorism against Jews.
I have a strong feeling that they will eventually outnumber us. There are no more large pools of Jews to draw from, and the Americans won’t come. I always think of the large Bedouin pop in the south where 4 wives are common… And almost ALL the Israel Arabs were originally Bedouin there with their flocks, or for the Mandate work, or piled in from surrounding counties.
I’ve had personal experience of outrageous lies and fake land title deeds that Arabs have. Not as much as some, but the constant wearing down of Israeli morale is deliberate, and the Arabs play for long term results. If it were not for the Liberal Democratic PC crap we are all stuffed with these days, they would have done what other have had to do…move to a more friendly area with ethnic compatability.
So whilst the govt is committing such horrible blunders, there is NO hope of EVER being able to declare the sovereignty which we’ve had since San Remo days over the whole country. Minorities grow, and the Arab tradition -never mind the increased Jewish birth blip- is to hate the Jews and have large families. Israeli Arabs still commit “honour killings”…. so what can we expect from them if they ever get the chance……..
The Trump camp agreed that it was ethnic cleansing.
@ Austin:You are aware 2 million Arabs live within Israel and are citizens? This building is for these Arab citizens of Israel in Northern Israel.
@ bernard ross:
DO I AGREE WITH YOU””” 100%.
Netanyahuhas taken the first step, but it’s just like dozens of other “first steps” he’s taken, so we can now expect the normal follow up, which is that he freezes in the public expectation of seeing that second step. And his foot never does fall for that step.
This morning I read that Israel is building 30,000 homes for Arabs…no it was not a misprint, it said clearly “Arabs”. This doesn’t look as if that second step will ever be taken by Netanyahu. In fact he sometimes overbalances in trying to retrace that first step.
So although he’s the acknowledged expert in wriggling his way through the labyrinth of Anti-Jew international opponents, Maybe we need a really Jewish oriented PM. Netanyahu would, in that case, make an excellent Foreign Minister.
what is interesting is that BB still avoids the question of legality and legitimacy of Jewish settlement in YS… both of which were completely dealt with in all the international agreements begining with balfour, san remo, LON mandate, UN article 80.. etc. There has never been an argument advanced or offered which seeks to ban Jewish settlement in YS…. only Israeli settlement. The reason is obvious, how can you ban that which every legally binding document affirmed?
Why does BB NEVER, NEVER, NEVER bring up the simple fact of the legality and legitimacy of Jewish settlement in YS? Israeli leadership has made deals which contradict Jewish settlement in YS… its all under the table and unfolding over years but if you notice the movement is always in that direction… settlement outside the ghetto is less and less, talk of giving up part of jerusalem is more and more, talk of settlements being left behind under pal rule is gearing up, pals are given land to build in C, euros are given land to build in C…. watch carefully for facts and forget all the rhetoric. Rhetoric is designed to cover up facts.
Bear Klein Said:
HMMMMM… it appears to me that it is BB who for many years cannot “accept jews in Judah/samaria”. All BB needs to do to “assert a right to settle in YS” is to start settling Jews in YS…. or at least mention that their settlement in YS is legal and legitimate. It is unatractive to keep complaining to foreigners about that which you refuse to do yourself.
in my view BB is engaged in a tangential red herring designed to refocus attention away from the fact that he himself prevents Jews from settling in their ancestral homeland as mandated in international law. The immigration and settlement of Jews west of the Jordan river is the prime directive that obtains in ALL areas of the former mandate territory. Why would BB suddenly be talking about ethnic cleansing of Jews by others when he obstructs Jewish settlement?
He did the same with settlement outside the ghetto boundaries of the major settlements. There used to be conversation about new settlements outside those boundaries but then BB refocused all arguments of defending settlements on Jerusalem alone. By focusing on the area already annexed, and regularly arguing for it, ALL discussion of new settlements in YS has vanished from the conversation among Israelis.
By focusing on arguing against ethnic cleansing, or the removal of Jews in any future pal state he is defacto reducing the argument for Israeli sovereignty to merely allowing jews to live in a pal area. I have said for many years that there was a 5 to 10 year plan of withdrawal which would maintain the IDF in the Jordan valley AND would give outlying Israeli settlements outside the major ghetto block boundaries a choice between staying in “palestine” or moving back to Israel and possibly maintaining dual citizenship. All that has to happen now is for the pals to say they dont mind a couple of jewish settlements existing within their state subject to pal sovereignty and law. From what does this approach derive? BB always said that he would never repeat gaza forced relocation of jews and many right wingers took that to mean that he was not serious about a tss. However, by leaving the option to the outlying settlements he lives up to his deceptive “promise”. What I think would happen is that during a period between announcement and finalization that large incentives would be offered to those jews to relocate in Israel.
If BB were serious about Jews in Judea Samaria, instead of looking to the world he would have said these few important words of fact:
“JEWISH SETTLEMENT IN YS IS LEGAL AND LEGITIMATE”
I notice that no one really wonders why BB has NEVER said those words since his accesion to the throne. That is the answer to the real BB…… answer that question and you will see the real BB. There is a good reason why he never says those words… he can even say those words but say that he cant fulfill his obligations to settle jews because he is too weak in the face of foreign pressure…. just like the pals always do. If those words are spoken BB is afraid that Israelis will wake up and actually demand that Jews be settled in YS.
There is not ONE legal reason as to why BB does not settle Jews in YS. He could easily even avoid the false criticism under the Geneva conventions by settling foreign diaspora jews there prior to issuing Israeli citizenship just as in the mandate era. In that case no one could argue the GC of settling Israelis. As the mandate envisioned the immigration and settlement of Jews in all vacant gov controlled lands he could take those lands and create free land grants to diaspora collectives of jews on those gov lands in YS. Bring entire Jewish communities to settle there on free land grants like the US homestead acts of the 1800’s.
By discussing seriously such ethnic cleansing he is giving psychological acceptance to the whole concept of jewish communities living under pal rule. It is all about changing the Israeli psyche from zionism to accepting giving the jewish homeland to the pals. The problem is NOT ethnic cleansing of jews by pals in the future but of giving any land sovereignty to pals over any part of the Jewish homeland. So here the psyche moves past the land issue into a question of “will jews be allowed by the pals to live in YS under pal rule” whereas the question should be “will jews be allowed to live in YS by BB under BB’s rule.” The answer remains a resounding NO….. BB will NOT open YS to Jews to settle in the Jewish homeland…. and to cover up that fact he creates irrelevant, theoretical red herrings.
This is the only answer to all the questions of sovereignty and annexation: Jews must once again be allowed by the Jewish state to settle in the Jewish homeland of YS… if this is not acknowledged and executed by a Jewish state it makes NO sense to daily whine and moan about the foreigners…. the problem is NOT the foreigners, the problem is Israeli Jews who cannot decide whether Jewish settlement in YS is legal and legitimate.
That is the absurdity of the so called Jewish state…. a state which prevents its people from settling in their homeland, a state which allows unbridled muslim anti semitism and abuse of Jews in the Jewish homeland, a state which allows an institutionalized hostile murderous collective of Jew killers to remain in the Jewish homeland…… I wonder why Jews are unable to see the obvious.
This is a step forward by Bibi. This good groundwork for closing the chapter of the Oslo Accords. In other words the PLO will not only not accept a Jewish State next to it but will not accept Jews period in Judah/Samaria.
It is asserting Israel has a right to settle in Judah/Samaria.
I agree with Mr. Zorn that this was a step in the right direction by Bibi. Ted, has a point directly claiming our legal rights would have been better but at least it indirectly claims Jews and have right to live in Judah/Samaria.
This hit the USA indirectly because it is pointing out the PLO demand to get rid of all the Jews in Judah/Samaria amounts to ethnic cleansing. The USA does not like this because it puts them in a bad light. So basically all they can say the comments are not appropriate.
Haaretz published a few articles on this including U.S. Slams Netanyahu’s ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ Video, Calling It ‘Inappropriate and Unhelpful’
The author said that the State Department was “livid” and “slammed” Netanyahu. No quoted remarks come close to this.
I see it as a step in the right direction. Bibi has always known that the the two-state solution is not even an option. He used to say so. Then Obama twisted his arm. Now, Obama is backing off and he is pulling the pin out from the most important element of the tss from the arab point of view, which is, precisely, ethnic cleansing of Jews. But, because it is a civil libertarian point, it highlights liberal hypocrisy and puts them on the defensive. Civil Liberties are their rallying cry, their flag. It embarrasses them. That’s why the muted response from low level State Dept.flunkies. It’s been a game of chicken. Obama has been trying to get Bibi to break off relations, that’s been his goal. Also, to give Obama an excuse to recognize Palestinian statehood. So, Bibi didn’t even publicize it when Obama was witholding supplies during war time. Obama and Kerry must be very frustrated. It’s a game of one step back two steps forward. As long as they don’t cede sovereignty, it’s all reparable.