In a recent series of meetings with think tank colleagues in the Arabian Gulf I discovered deep disquiet about the emerging Israeli government coalition.
By David M. Weinberg, ISRAEL HAYOM
The many planned reforms of Israel’s incoming government in the security, defense, diplomatic, and religious arenas – of which I am mostly supportive – are going to create difficulties for Israel’s foreign relations.
Much already has been written about the concerns in Washington and in liberal Diaspora Jewish communities. It appears that Israel is under the microscope in Arab capitals too, specifically in the palaces of its new Abraham Accords partners.
In a recent series of meetings with think tank colleagues in the Arabian Gulf I discovered deep disquiet about the emerging Israeli government coalition. To them, “tolerance” is the key concept behind the Abrahamic agreements they reached with Israel, and they expect to see this reflected in Israeli government policy. Below, I will try to explain what they mean by “tolerance.”
But first, a quick scan of the many changes the incoming government hopes to implement.
In the legal sphere, the government can be expected to redress the skewed balance of power between the courts and parliament, involving some sort of Supreme Court override legislation and a change in the way senior justices are appointed.
It will seek to regularize the status of two dozen young Israeli towns in Judea and Samaria (what the left pejoratively calls “illegal” settlements), and to check the spread of European-funded illegal and unauthorized Palestinian settlements in Area C of the West Bank (which are under full Israeli civilian and military control, purportedly).
It may seek to apply Israeli law directly to Israeli residents of Judea and Samaria, canceling the role of the IDF’s “Civil Administration” in managing the growth (or should we say blocking the growth) of Jewish towns and neighborhoods.
Many ministers aim to liberalize the open-fire rules of engagement for IDF troops in the territories. This also goes for the Israel Police and para-military Border Police operating in lawless Arab areas of the Negev and the Galilee as well as mixed Jewish-Muslim towns across Israel.
The government can be expected to crack down on the nefarious activities of radical Islamic groups in eastern Jerusalem, including Turkish groups, which weaponize the security situation in Jerusalem and undermine Israeli sovereignty in the city. And, hopefully, the government will act (cautiously, one presumes) to increasingly facilitate Jewish prayer on Har HaBayit (the Temple Mount).
My Emirati and Bahraini interlocutors are not opposed to any of these developments in principle. Nor in the longer term do they rule-out extension of Israeli sovereignty to parts of Judea and Samaria (along the lines, say, of the Trump peace plan). After all, some of these moves are internal Israeli matters, and others, like Jewish prayer on Har HaBayit, stem from principles of tolerance and religious freedom which are treasured by the Gulf Arabs.
But the key, they say, is not to act like a bull in a China shop. If Israel starts building settlements in Judea and Samaria with abandon; or gets into what might be seen as trigger-happy live fire confrontations with Arab, Bedouin, and Palestinian stone throwers leading a sharp rise in casualties; or barrels into the Temple Mount with wholesale changes in security and prayer protocols without attempting to conduct a respectful dialogue on this with the Arab world – the Abraham Accords could suffer.
No Abraham Accord country is going to break relations with Israel or end intelligence and defense cooperation (especially against Iran). And many areas of cooperation (from environmental and agricultural cooperation to scientific, space, and business partnerships) will continue apace. But Arab countries may feel it necessary to deemphasize their ties with Israel in public and to distance themselves loudly from the government in Jerusalem.
One Gulf colleague warned me that the Saudis in particular stand at a tricky moment. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman could be ready to take significant new steps towards Israel. That is certainly the hope of incoming prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who has specified an Israeli breakthrough in ties to Saudi Arabia as one of his top priorities.
But I was warned that the Saudis could be forced into retreat from such an opening if Israeli acts “incautiously and intolerantly.” The first step away from Israel that Saudis might take is a withdrawal of their permission for Israeli, Bahraini, and Emirati airlines to fly over Saudi Arabia on routes to/from Israel. This would be a gigantic step backward that would severely impact the development of Israeli-Gulf ties (and of course, tourism). I consider this a stark warning.
Which brings me back to the Abrahamic concept of “tolerance.” What the Gulf Arabs are trying to do is redefine the identity and global image of Arab Muslims based on a discourse of genuine tolerance and ideological moderation. They explicitly reject the discourse of hatred (of the West, and of Israel) that lies at the root of extremist strains of Sunni and Shiite Islam.
Moreover, Gulf Arabs see Israel’s blending of tradition with enlightenment as a role model for their own societies. After all, Israeli society and the societies of UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco cherish their strong family, ethnic, cultural, and religious identities while appreciating modernity. They concurrently uphold proud nationalist sentiment and a broad-minded approach to advanced education, international brotherhood, and regional cooperation. And they all seek peace.
Consequently, the Arab leaders of Abraham Accord countries need to see Israel expressing tolerance, actively pursuing accommodation with Israeli Arabs, and seeking peace with the Palestinians too. They are not wedded to the archaic Oslo-era two-state paradigm, nor do they care about satisfying every extremist Palestinian demand. What they do care about is an approach of dialogue and tolerance.
They want to see Israel pursuing Jewish-Muslim channels of reconciliation, not angry altercations; opportunities for at-least informal (“track two”) diplomacy with the Palestinians, not confrontation; avenues for practical teamwork, not squabbles.
They expect that Israel will pursue dialogue with Israeli Arab leaders on matters of internal governance and with the broader Arab world on matters relating to sovereignty and especially Jerusalem.
How this squares with the current rejectionist policies, absolute hostility to Israel, and even raw antisemitism of Palestinian leadership – I don’t know. How can Israel be expected to make progress with Mahmoud Abbas and his cronies, never mind with Hamas leaders – I don’t know. How Israel forcefully rolls back the mafia-style Bedouin protection rackets in the Negev, which it must, without some degree of confrontation – I don’t know. So, I told my Gulf colleagues to temper their expectations!
Furthermore, I told them that Israel firmly will assert control of its sovereignty and governance in the face of Israeli Arab and Palestinian lawlessness. That is what most Israelis expect of their new government!
At the same time, I assured them that Israel will do so without racist incitement and delegitimizing rhetoric, and without crude demonstrations of its power, but rather with finely calibrated tools and from an approach of maximum willingness to dialogue. I trust that I am right.
# Ted
I have never believed a third State is warranted under any circumstances for the simple reason that two States – one Jewish and one Arab – already exist in the boundaries of former Palestine. One is called Israel – sovereign in about 17% of former Palestine – the other Jordan which is sovereign in about 78% of former Palestine. Stuck between them is the remaining 5% of Palestine over which neither Israel nor Jordan exercises sovereignty.
Two peoples need two states – not three
My view has been for the last 45 years that the key to ending the Jewish-Arab conflict must involve sovereignty in this 5% being allocated between Jordan and Israel- the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine – in direct negotiations.
Your view – I believe – and correct me if I am wrong – is that the conflict can be ended without Israel ceding sovereignty in any part of that 5%.
I find the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine solution worthy of endorsing because its successful implementation will result not only in the division of sovereignty of Judea and Samaria between Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine but also result in an end to the Arab-Jewish conflict – something my proposal could not have promised since it only called for direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan.
By proposing the merger of Jordan, Gaza and part of Judea and Samaria into one territorial entity – the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine plan has seemingly drawn the PLO and Hamas into the negotiating process. This is a breakthrough of massive proportions. For the PLO and Hamas to entertain a plan that involves giving sovereignty in part of Judea and Samaria to Israel and abandoning their own claim to an independent state between Israel and Jordan is mind blowing.
Whether this all translates into anything tangible – only negotiations will tell.
I am calling for those negotiations to start asap.
I understand why you are not. The idea of Israel conceding sovereignty in even one square meter of Judea and Samaria is non-negotiable for you and so many others who passionately share your view.
I only regret that my belief 45 years ago never led to negotiations between Jordan and Israel over that 5% of land – yes the heartland of the Jewish national home and strategically vital for Israel. It did entail a huge sacrifice by Israel – but the prize was worth pursuing – making peace with the Arab world.
So many lives – Jewish and Arab – lost or maimed – and an area in a constant state of turmoil including Gaza, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Islamic State – all that might have been avoided if a small piece of land could have been divided between Israel and Jordan – in fact returning to the status quo ante that existed between 1948 and 1967 in the area to be allocated to Jordan. Trillions of dollars expended on arms and feeding and housing refugees of many conflicts in the region – all that could have been employed for the benefit of the region and its inhabitants. Millions of column inches in the world’s media, endless debates at the UN, the formation of a bunch of NGO’s spawned by the continuing conflict – all could have been avoided if that piece of very special land to the Jewish people could have been subdivided been Israel and Jordan. That opportunity was never taken and instead Oslo emerged.
30 years later that opportunity has miraculously arisen once again – thanks to the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine Plan.
Hopefully the opportunity will not be missed this time.
satire
“What would you know about comedy? There are no comedians in Iran.”
“I was the funniest one in school. And the funniest one in explosives training!”
“Finding Comedy in the Muslim World” Albert Brooks (2006)
https://youtu.be/zAkQ-gvErDw
Worse. This is a thinly veiled call for a new caliphate to replace Israel with salami* tactics by this Palestinian-Arab-Saudi using an economic argument.
ibid.
—
* No relation to the Iranian terrorist named Salami (who says Iranians have no sense of humor? 😀 )
Wow! Has anybody read this plan? I lost track trying to count all the lies and it advocates open horders with Israel? This creep hates Israel! Forget it. No way. It’s just another Trojan Horse. A ridiculously transparent one, at that. No wonder no one is even bothering to comment on it. Outside of Israpundit. We’ll chatter on about anything, won’t we? 😀
The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine
https://english.alarabiya.net/in-translation/2022/06/08/The-Hashemite-Kingdom-of-Palestine
@David Singer.
My article Two-State Solution or Jordan Option? Your choice presents the choice we are debating. What I wrote about Gantz and Lapid applies to you. The issue is not whether we want a third state but whether we prefer to keep all the land instead of trading much of it for a piece of paper.
@David Singer
That’s pretty categorical. What evidence do you have to make such a statement.. When are negotiations on the Saudi Plan going to commence? Do you have any knowledge to back up your belief that negotiations on the JO will not happen before?
#Peloni
Thank you for making your position clear.
Whether you like it or not negotiations on implementing the Saudi solution seem certain to begin before negotiations on the JO.
If they do not result in an agreement the JO will still remain in play to be activated and implemented another day. G-d help the Arabs and the Jews if this ever happens.
@David Palestinian Arabs have it better in Israel, including the territories, than in Jordan, a lot better. If Jordan annexes the territories, Arabs will still sneak into Israel as they have done since the days of the first of many TSS’s a century ago. The current status quo would be better than such risky reforms, frankly.
@David Singer
I responded to you in my last post just below, but perhaps you overlooked it. Here is the link for clarity:
https://www.israpundit.org/the-abraham-accords-enter-a-new-era/#comment-63356000256549
Now you tell me, when are you going to actually read the JO so you can respond with an informed opinion as to supporting the JO when Mudar comes to power.
Once you have an appreciation of what the JO contains, rather than what you imagine it contains, which is well off base, it would be good to hear you correct the following statement:
as it is nothing of the sort, or I would not support it, as I do not support your latest paramoured plan which is, itself, a recipe for disaster.
#Peloni
You state:
You suggested in a previous post that this was a list of benefits of the Saudi plan
1. Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel only
2. The 74 years old claim to the right of return to Israel will be abandoned
3. No new state between Israel and Jordan
4. Jews will gain recognized sovereignty in part of Judea and Samaria for the first time in 3000 years.
5. The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative will be abandoned.
6. The “conflict industry” headed by the UN, UNESCO, UNRWA and UNHRC and insidious NGO’s such as New Israel Fund, Breaking the Silence and B’tselem will be put out of business.
All of this is gained from the JO without any land transfer.
@David Singer
I object to bargaining with the Hashemites. I object to rekindling the TSS in a new skin. I object to seeking peace with the Pals before the remaining Sunni states, particularly Saudia Arabia. I object to giving credence to the idea that we Jews stole the Pal lands. And yes, I object to parting with our land.
This plan is nothing but a rehash on the TSS. Land for peace is land for blue sky. As you have noted, Abdullah uses terror against Israel as it suits him to do so, despite the supposed peace treaty of ’94. Also, the time is not ripe for peace with the Pals even thru Jordan. Indeed, the Pals don’t want peace, and neither do the Hashemites. As the previous Jordanian PM noted, if they could take Haifa, they would take it, and no signed paper would stop them. So what are you gaining from bartering with this terrorist brigand king? As you chase peace, you will never find it. Israel should focus its efforts on the Iranian threat, creating peace with what Sunni states will join her, and let the Pal issue age to a point when the benefactors of terror are less inclined to support the terrorists whose master this plan would place in a more stable and more prestigious position due to the entanglements of pursuing this Saudi plan. I do not care to see the Hashemites stabilized, as nothing would please me more to see them replaced with better management.
Furthermore, by giving the Pal territories to Jordan, even with Israel’s control of them, it provides the Jordainians a claim to the land which they would next push to gain full control over. Every peace treaty is but a fresh starting line for new negotiations as Israel is negotiated into the sea.
Beyond this, these lands are the heartllands of our people. If it is just land and nothing more, then why not gift the Arabs the whole of Israel in exchange for some safe property elsewhere. The land is our heritage, it holds our identity and our history. It is our land, and I would not part with one clump of it for any promise made by any Arab, let alone that of the Hashemites, of all people.
@David Singer
Induced means incentivized. The tap for their social benefits, free welfare, free education, free housing, etc, will be in Jordan. If the Pals have the means to stay where they are, and are please with living in squalor in a war zone, they can stay…but they won’t, not many of them, and I would suggest not most of them. Your assumption that the word ‘induce’ implies that they be forced to migrate is a serious liberty which is clearly contrary to the plan espoused by both Ted and Mudar to not be part of the JO.
Fair question. For one, the displacement of the false natured and terrorist supporting Hashemite regime. Another advantage is that the Pals are Jordanians. The violation of international law which was caused by Hussein’s fear of being overthrown by the Pals led to him tearing up their citizenship. Mudar would reverse this tragedy without the need of land transfers and thereby remove their stateless status, so that sovereignty in Yesha could be achieved without the need of Israel creating a class of secondary citizens. The Pals who leave will reduce the Pals in Israel, leading to fewer Pals being present in Israel to kill Israelis, so fewer dead Jews. UNWRA would be disbanded and an education based on history, and not propaganda, will be taught for free – in Jordan. The creation of an economy for the Jordanians will present the Jordanians and the Pal emigres with something to distract them from their Jew hatred and hopefully deter their interest in attacking Israel, but they will be on the far side of the Jordan River, reducing the potential of them finding their way into Jerusalem to kill Jews. As Israel and Jordan develop an integrated economy and trade, it will result in a warm peace to replace the cold peace established by the ’94 treaty. With Abdullah’s removal, his radical Islamist terror allies, the MB, will be evicted from Jordan, hopefully with extreme prejudice. Radical Islamist teachings will not be allowed in Jordan. Mudar is not interested in any land transfers from Israel – the border will remain the border described in the border documents described in 1923 and in the 1994 treaty, ie the Jordan River. Mudar does not have a history of supporting terrorists, he has no Jewish blood on his hands, he has never called for violence against Jews or Israel, and has in fact defended Israel on the international stage, including before the EU parliament. These are meaningful benefits which will be the product of replacing the Hashemites with Mudar – a very far cry from
You suggested in a previous post that this was a list of benefits of the Saudi plan
All of this is gained from the JO without any land transfer. Plus it comes with a warm peace, greater prosperity, and the recognition of the historic agreement between Weitzman and Feisal a century ago, thus eliminating the libel against our history that we stole the Pal lands.
#Peloni
Here is one statement:
What does “induced” mean? and what if the “inducement” does not work and they want to stay put?
What has then been gained by Mudar replacing the Hashemites – who have had a signed peace treaty with Israel for 28 years – if a sizeable proportion of the Arab populations remain in place in Gaza and Judea and Samaria?
The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine solution on the other hand is quite explicit: These populations will become citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine and the responsibility of the new entity’s Government. No more being under Israeli “occupation” – no more under scrutiny of Israeli and international NGO’s – no more Israel responsible for providing them with health, welfare and educational services. There has been a complete separation of the populations.
The JO is a recipe for more of the same under a different ruler. Crazy stuff. Support it if you will. I don’t.
Now tell me what you object to in the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine solution – apart from the loss of sovereignty of some agreed area of Judea, Samaria and Gaza to the new entity? Do you really believe this loss outweighs the benefits that will follow if the solution is finally adopted?
@David Singer
The brilliance and eloquence of the JO is that the means for all the Pals to emigrate will be put in place, but only those who care to self deport will be deported. The downside to this aspect of the JO is that all the Pals will not go, but many will, and many more will follow the first who leave based on good reports of their experiences in Jordan. The upside to this aspect of the JO is that it will work, and who in the international arena could object to the Pals choosing to move out of the PA to find work and safe harbor in Jordan.
@Sebastien
Well Said!
@David No one will be deported to Jordan, apart from criminals and terrorists. Those who wish to remain will do so as legal foreign residents but the incentives and perks Israel is currently supplying them with where they are to no avail will only be provided for them, by Israel and othe international donors, in Jordan, and more cheaply at that. As Ted put it so expressively, “You can’t suck and blow at the same time” or words to that effect. Ted and Zahran wish to build them a city and give them jobs and free housing.
Best thing for them since Eddie Cantor’s free ice cream factory in “Kid Millions” (1934).
Those who will be swayed by economics. It will certainly reduce their numbers in Yesha and that would be a positive step.
@David Then you misunderstand the Jordan Option. The Hashemite ruling family is composed of about 80 people. According to Ted, the US controls its military. The King spends most of his time abroad. With one phone call, a US president could bloodlessly transfer power to Zahran by coup d’etat. It would be popular. The people hate the monarchy which is bleeding them dry and is repressive. Moreover most of the population is Palestinian Arab but they are discriminated against.
It would be practical if an American president could be found – a Mike Huckabee, say – who sides unequivocally with Israel.
In anticipation of that great day
I am holding my breath.
@David Singer
This is a gross mischaracterization of the JO. No one will be forced to leave. They will stay or they will go, but they will do so of their own accord. You have as much access to the articles and interviews which Ted has posted as any of us, so I challenge you to find a single reference to where it even hints that it would include provisions which include that
Is this really the extent of your stubborn recalcitrance to support the JO once Mudar becomes Jordan’s leader? If so, your reluctance is based on a complete distortion of the truth.
@Sebastien
Well done. I am not sure how you did it, but you found the words to draw Singer into actually addressing my question to him about why he would refuse to endorse the JO after Mudar came to power. For some reason he refused to answer me after being questioned multiple times. Now that he has answered you, though, I can understand his reason for opposing the JO is that he has a completely flawed understanding of what the plan actually entails.
In any event, once again, well done, and thank you.
#Sebastian
I didn’t say that. I said Mudar’s entry to take control of Jordan would produce civil war. He hardly expects the Hashemites and those supporting continued Hashemite rule will be showering him with confetti.
Mudar will be spruiking the JO at some point after the dust settles – and then again maybe he won’t.
When Mudar comes to putting the JO forward calling on all West Bank and Gazan Arabs to move to Jordan even if they want to stay where they are presently living – expect more conflict.
The JO is a humanitarian disaster waiting to happen. Maybe that is what you want to see. I don’t.
This conflict can be ended far more quickly and effectively by implementing the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine solution which really boils down to agreement being reached on two main issues:
1. Redrawing the new international border between Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine
2. Resolving who exercises security control in the territory of the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine west of the Jordan River.
No one moves unless he wants to do so voluntarily.
Good plan – good outcomes – if it can be implemented.
@David Why do you believe the Jordan Option will produce civil war in Jordan?
#Sebastien
Well Ted is wrong and so are you if you think this is what he is saying and you believe him.
The phone call – in the case of the JO – doesn’t come until the carnage and chaos ends. There might not even be any means of communication between Jordan and the outside world when Mudar assumes power.
With the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine solution – that phone call could come today. Just needs MBS or Bibi to pick up the phone – or for UN Secretary-General Guterres to mention it at one of his numerous weekly conferences – or for one cub reporter to door stop and ask Netanyahu – “what do you think of the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine solution”?
Who is going to take the historic first step? There are lots of prospective candidates.
@David
😀 That’s what Ted says about his plan but at least his plan doesn’t entail Israel relinquishing more territory.
—
Phone rings.
you don’t say
You don’t say
YOU DON’T SAY!!!
Who was it, dear?
He didn’t say. 😀
1930’s or 40’s radio satire, Georgie Jessel, I think.
#Sebastien
You state:
With the JO it certainly is an intellectual exercise – with no prospect of Mudar ever overthrowing the Hashemites and being around to enjoy his moment in the sun. If he eventually does so – what he will be confronted with when the dust settles after he takes over? I shudder to think of the chaos and carnage that could happen.
With the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine solution it is not an intellectual exercise – it takes just one phone call to get the ball rolling. Whether it ends up successfully depends on the decisions of five major players – Israel, Saudi Arabia, the PLO, Hamas and Jordan. So far the signs are encouraging. This is certainly the greatest plan ever presented since the failed UN two-state solution on 29 November 1947 that has some chance of success.
time ran out. Thnk of it as a lifestyle choice
No point in arguing about it further. Everybody is starting to repeat themselves and for what? Not going to happen. This is an intellectual exercise. Mr. Dinger is emotionaly invested in his hypothetical pet scheme. Think of i as a lifestyle choir. 😀
@David Singer
This is still a non response to the question of
Once the Jordanians have evicted the vestigial line of British administrators who like to call themselves kings, and Mudar comes to rule Jordan, the JO would not require regime change as a precondition. Recognizing this, you would boycott dealing with the new govt, even as you are currently calling to deal with terror laden administration which has brought about violence, murder and war on our people. Is it really so difficult to deal with someone who hasn’t spent their lives with Jewish blood on their hands? Now, this last sentence was of course rhetorically intended to make a point, but the very real question does remain of why you would not become a fully exuberant supporter of the JO once the bagman of Amman is evicted for administrative malfeasance, or expires without a functioning heir to take on his faux title of king. You are free to ignore this question, but sooner or later you will find a need to provide an explanation for your obstinate support for trusting a terrorist regime who would barter forgoing their murder of our people against our gift to them of our lands, while your adamant refusal to deal with an anti-terrorist regime which recognizes what is ours is our own and in no way belongs to them.
Edgar G
Really? My articles have always been about Judea and Samaria being divided between Israel and Jordan – the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine – in direct negotiations.
The Saudi Plan has gone way beyond anything I could have suggested: concerning Israel gaining sole sovereignty in Jerusalem, abandoning right of return, shredding the Arab Peace Initiative, recognizing Israeli sovereignty in an agreed part of Judea and Samaria for first time in 3000 years.
I will understand if you retract your asinine comment. You just weren’t reading my articles carefully enough.
#Sebastien #Peloni
Prattle on boys.
The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine solution is still alive and kicking – no matter what you say.
You both don’t like the plan. That is your right to do. I like the plan. My right to do also. Whether it translates into something permanent will depend on negotiations.
I do not support any plan that calls for regime change as a precondition for it to operate.
Can’t make it any clearer.
@Edgar
Worse than this, he fails to actually respond to the most obvious and easy criticisms of his enamored desire of elevating to the position of peace partners people who have an obvious lack of interest in pursuing peace. Also, he refuses to support the JO, even assuming that Mudar were to be successful in leading Jordan, and refuses to explain further beyond the simple statement that he would not. He must of course have his reasons for his silence, but his silence all by itself is a testimony, to my ears, that either he has no answer or that the answer might not improve the perception of the very dangerous nonsense he is peddling.
@David Singer
You have made the suggestion previously that the various parties, from Bibi to Mazen to Abdullah, have not rejected it, and thereby derived some sense of their support for it, while no one is actually pushing this plan, not withstanding your own efforts of course. You presume that silence indicates consent, when a public rejection of the plan by any party would be a political statement which would not be without its costs or consequences. For instance, why would Bibi speak to this plan, when no one is pressing him to accept it? His statement would have the Streisand effect of raising the subject for public discussion and review, and could result in creating the pressure in favor of this insane plan, when there was previously none to be found, again, not withstanding your own best efforts. Presuming the absence of such an unforced error as evidence of support for your preferred objective does indicate an obvious, even if unintentional, leap of logic. By a similar leap of logic, we might presume that Biden is secretly supportive of the JO or that Ben Gurion was a secret admirer of Begin, given their lack of commentary to the contrary by either Biden or BG. Yes, it is possible that all the relative parties are druelling in anticipation of Israel ceding more lands to the Arabs, but I would suggest that, particularly for the Arabs who would only benefit from Israel once again returning to the land for blue sky gambit, their silence does not indicate consent, but quite the contrary.
@David Singer The whole point of the Abraham Accords, as Bibi explained it, is to make peace based on mutual interests with the 99 percent of the Arab World without letting the 1 percent ~ the PA – have a veto because they will always continue to exercise that veto,
The Pals have never once deviated from Arafat’s infamous 1974 Ten Point Plan. In particular,
and
Any plan the PA would approve of, therefore, would just be another trap for Israel.
#Ted
You state:
You know that the PA rejected negotiations on Trump’s plan and should be expected to do the same thing on the “Saudi Plan
But most moderate Muslims still give Zakat (charity as prescribed by Islam). And a fixed portion of that, finances Jihad.
@ Carl Goldberg
All ten of them.
And then there are the apologists with a Western audience in mind who want toave their cake and eat it too, absurdly.
https://nyuscholars.nyu.edu/ws/portalfiles/portal/42476117/Abrogated_Rulings_in_the_Qur_an_Discerning_their_Divine_Wisdom.pdf
@Carl Goldberg Moderate Muslims get around that by ignoring eveything in the Islamic tradition but the early part of Mohammed’s career as laid out in the first part of the Koran, in which he, being powerless and needing to be tolerated, preached peace and tolerance.
And they do this by rejecting the fundamental principle embraced by all mainstream schools of Islam:
Good.
Good.
😀
So what else is new? Israel should give away the store for a few insincere smiles and a handshake?
Again?
I mean tradition can fun and all but
In the words of the sages,
“C’mon, man!”
This is very misleading: “They explicitly reject the discourse of hatred (of the West, and of Israel) that lies at the root of extremist strains of Sunni and Shiite Islam.” It is misleading because the “discourse” of hatred of the West and Israel is not a property of “extremist strains of Sunni and Shiite Islam”. That hate-filled “discourse” is a result of Allah’s clear commands in the Koran and Muhammad’s clear commands in the Sunnah. These are not “extremist strains”. They are inherent in Islam, itself, and taught to Moslems in every mosque as mandatory, sacred commands. The Moslem leaders of the Abraham Accord countries have not found a “non-extremist strain” of Islam; they simply ignore the sacred commands of their religion for practical economic and security interests of state.
@PELONI-
You are in your usually ultra-perceptive condition and have asked Singer the crucial, unanswerable questions. They actually could be answered, by Singer simply saying that he was wrong. THAT never enters his mind,.
As I also added, some time ago, he simply doubles down on his futile assertions. He has gone literally off-the-beam, but not having kept up with his nonsense, your excellent post is doubly appreciated by me.
Just imagine..a strongly dedicated Zionist, shilling to hand over to our bitter enemies a large part of our Ancestral Home, the very same area where most of our history took place But that’s just what Singer is pushing so hard for.
Hard to believe…>!!
@SINGER-
Since Hussein made that agreement, which by the way agreed that the River was the BOUNDARY line, there has been no single time when the Jordanians could have broken it and G-D Forbid, invaded Israel. My pious interjection is on behalf of the Jordanians, not the Israelis, as the result of any such folly would have been the complete destruction of the Jordanian army and the scattering of the Hashemites into the high breeze, never to return. Not to mention the breakdown of all social services and utter chaos, which automatically occure when a state disintegrates.
You have really gone over the edge, not at all like your sage, witty, and accurate articles of just a few years ago.
You now insist that Israel expose it’s throat to the tender mercies of unbridled barbarians fuelled by a a massive Jew Hate.
That sounds, and IS mashugga. Perhaps you do also.,
@David Singer.
You are too glib in calling for peace in our time. You know that the PA rejected negotiations on Trump’s plan and should be expected to do the same thing on the “Saudi Plan
You also know they have always rejected an end of conflict agreement. and that they want to destroy us, not live in peace with us. You know also that even if we reached an agreement, they would violate it as they always do.
You ignore Sherman’s arguments in The perils of Palestine
Finally you are too quick to give away our biblical heartland. I would rather fight to keep it than fight to give it away.
#peloni1986
You have one viewpoint. I have another. So be it.
@David Singer
You are sure, really? Are you sure that Israel was fully aware of the make-up of the persons it had to negotiate with during Oslo, because as I recall that negotiation was with terrorists as well, and knowing this did not save the loss of thousands of lives which grew from the consequences of bargaining with such evil men. We should not be advocating to empower such devils with the trust of our future as they will only abuse us for the lack of securing that future for ourselves. Doing as you suggest is unseemly, and it is dangerous.
I will reference you to the close connection between the Hashemites and the Brotherhood, as well as that with Isis. Also, the role which they play with the continued outbreaks of violence at Al Aqsa. Do recall that this violence cause a war last year, when the Brotherhood coordinated an integrated assault upon Israel from Gaza and within Israel. As I bring this to your attention, you suggest that it is bravado on my part. I suggest you mistake bravado for my very real distain of your unwarranted trust in the false nature of the Hashemites as potential peace partners, even as you recognize and do not dispute their connection with the murder of our people and the outbreaks of violence and war. This is no easy thing to ignore, and yet you brazenly do so. Is this not simpy due to your own unhewn bravado?
Attitudes such as mine would prevent such disasters as you are endeavoring to discover with a naive countenance, even as you state you would not support Mudar if he were to come to power. And you still have not answered the question which I have put to you twice before. Why would you not support the JO should Mudar come to power? You say yes to dealing with terrorists and continuing the failed gambit of land for peace, but you would not deal with an anti-terrorist towards a policy of incentives to reduce the number of Pals in Israel and decrease their opportunities for violence while intermingling the economies to work towards a substantial and meaningful peace without the need to give up a single clump of Jewish lands to our enemies. Explain this if you can.
By suggesting this is so, you fully vouch for the integrity of the Hashemites, despite their terrorist connections and flagrant and violent abuses against the Israeli people. What you suggest is fraught with folly, will be impossible to employ, and is ripe with danger while trying to do so as you desperately wander in search of peace and blindly walk further and further from its possible source. Indeed, you are so desperate to end the conflict that you support these overt risks which will conversely continue and likely expand the conflict further, while offering this line of brigand kings our lands.
#peloni1986
I am sure Israel is fully aware of the make-up of the persons it will have to negotiate with to implement the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine solution.
Israel hasn’t done too badly for the last 28 years in its dealings with Jordan since Rabin and King Hussein signed the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty which stills remains intact despite many times when it could have been possibly trashed.
Bravado of the kind displayed by you is very gung-ho – but not what is required to try and end a conflict that still remains unresolved after 100 years.
Attitudes such as yours only serve to perpetuate the conflict – not end it.
Advancing the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine solution is in Israel’s national interest.
@David Singer
We do not require the consent of the Arabs to hold what is ours as being in fact our own. Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel. It is recognized as such by both Israel and the US, and really, if the Hashemites don’t consent to our ownership, they can jolly well try to do something about it. Of course, as their former PM has noted, if they could do so, they would certainly have done so, and this statement should be recognized as indicating that this would be their position irregardless of anything which might be signed or bartered in the future in exchange for their consent – a consent which we neither need nor should we overvalue nor over emphasize as being necessary.
As you seem still to extol the virtues or import of this British import dynasty, might you please respond to Mudar’s report on the connection between the Hashemites and their terrorist connection with both the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS. Mudar’s report can be read here:
Jordan’s King’s Son Endorses Islamic Radicals
Of course, you have already acknowledged the connection of the Hashemites and the Brotherhood in a previous comment.
With all of this being accepted, pray tell, how can you support this brigand family as being equitable partners in peace, no matter what they might sign? They have the blood of our people staining their heritage going back, not just decades, but a full century, over the full length of their imposed rule in what was eastern Palestine, then TransJordan and now the Kingdom of Jordan. The current member of that family stands as implicated in the initiation of the violence which resulted in the May War of Riots and Rockets. Is this truly the partner you would seek to support a peace, no matter the terms, promises or bribes which might bring him to the table?
#milehigh88
You state:
Are you aware of the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine solution emanating from Saudi Arabia that states the following:
Nothing like this has appeared in print from an Arab source ever before to my knowledge.
Bring on the negotiations and see where they end. Nothing ventured – nothing gained. No agreement – no deal.
#David Weinberg
You state:
Would one of MBS’s significant steps entail discussions on the “Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine” solution enunciated by one of MBS’s confidants – Ali Shihabi – on 8 June 2022?
Weinberg understands what Jews need to do to save themselves from Amalek, but like King Shaul he is too pusillanimous to have the courage to do what’s necessary, always looking over his shoulder fearful of the Goyim. Thank Hashem that he isn’t leading Otzma Yehudit and that the fearless Ben G’vir is.
Hello DAvid,
Can you state in your next article, what your Gulf allies think of Jewish soverignty over Jerusalem? Do they accept it as your capital? Of course they don’t. Do get real!
Sorry but this Weinberg guy knows nothing about Gulf society.
They cozy up to Israel not because they accept Israel, (they want Israeli tech and brains to build their own countries) but because they want to build themselves big enough to be independent and THEN they will team up with whichever Muslim country to see Israel gone.
Sorry, David Weinberg, you don’t understand the shame honor culture that prevails. It predates Islam and it governs Gulf and Saudi Society. They will accept Jews as equals, heck they don’t even accept other Arab Muslims like non Gulf Arabs as equals.
There is nothing with having allies (including Gulf countries) as mutually beneficial alliances, as they are doing.
Remember, Israel is the middle East superpower, so anybody seeking progress in the Middle East cannot do it with Israel as an enemy. They saw what happened to Iraq, which for all its anti West and anti Israel hot air, was the most advanced of the Arab countries. its anti Israel and anti American stance brought it down. That is what the Gulf Arabs fear.