By Ted Belman
The Royal Geographic Society hosted a debate in London on Jan 15/13 on the motion “Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy”.
Speakers for the motion
Daniel Levy
Director for Middle East and North Africa at the European Council on Foreign Relations, and Senior Research Fellow at the New America Foundation, a former adviser in the Israeli Prime Minister’s office and member of the Israeli team negotiating with the Palestinians, and a Board member of the New Israel Fund
William Sieghart
Founder and Chairman of Forward Thinking, an NGO which works with the leadership of all parties on both sides of the divide in the Israel/Palestine conflict
Speakers against the motion
Dani Dayan
Chairman of the Yesha Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria.
Caroline Glick
Senior contributing editor, Jerusalem Post, director of the Israel Security Project, David Horowitz Freedom Center, senior adjunct fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs, Center for Security Policy
The approval of the motion was a forgone conclusion but the arguments against are worthy of note.
A debate is simply the wrong forum. The facts and law basic to the matter are extremely complicated. There is no possibility that the Jews’ story can be gotten across in the time permitted. One can only summarize and offer to debate each individual issue of fact and issue of law. In legal argument, lawyers commence with the facts, then apply the law to the facts and finally reach a conclusion. This debate ignored facts and law and brought forth only differences in perceptions. Caroline Glick was the closest to making an argument based on reason. I am still disappointed that the vote after the presentation was 5 to 1.
The main issues are:
1. Who owns the political rights to Palestine?
2. Was the Jews liberation of Israel within the Green Line and of Judea and Samaria good for the Arabs or bad.
3. Can you have a lawful one Jewish majority state?
4. What has been the role of the Soviet Union in the Arab-Israeli conflict?
@ Wallace Brand: your first paragraph is well stated bu I cannot agree with the start of the second paragraph:
Wallace Brand Said:
I dont see the “excellent presentation” I was very disappointed and surprised as her columns show she is knowledgeable about the history and treaties. Dayans problems was more than his accent, he squandered a good deal of time at the start makling a political infomercial rather than seize the great opportunity to completely discredit Seighart with his trans jordan omission. Perhaps he does well in Israel debates but his grasp of the debate format was lacking here. The main arguments concerning the legality of jewish settlement and the current nazi behavior of the arabs were never taken up. Sorry, this is not a time to be kind as she will be participating n a NY conference in april and she can make a big difference if she does her homework and focuses on the goals.
Those who said that Palestine belonged to the Arabs based on “International Law” based their view of what “the majority of nations now say what International Law is. But International Law is not made by popular vote. Nor is it made by the UN General Assembly. it is made by treaty or by the UN Security Council. The relevant treaty here is the 1920 San Remo agreement which created the British Mandate adopting the policy of the Balfour Declaration for close Jewish settlement on the land. It was a trust agreement. What was in trust? It was the political rights to Palestine — from the Mediterranean Sea to the Iraq border. Article 80 of the UN Charter preserved that treaty after the demise of the League of Nations. Some 78% of what had been recognized as belong to the Jews was given to the Arabs, first by closing it off from Jewish settlement in 1922 and then by giving it outright to Abdullah and his Hashemite tribe after making the remarkable discovery that the political rights to all of Palestine was not really intended to be recognized as belonging to the Jews.
The San Remo agreement was adopted by the League of Nations amended to deny settlement to Jews east of the Jordan. The US adopted it by a joint resolution of Congress in 1922 and by treaty with the UK in 1924. The three maps displayed at the very start showed a declining Arab percentage of Palestine. The maps should have shown an increasing Arab percentage from 0% to about 88% from 1920 to the present time.
Caroline Glick gave an excellent presentation. Dayan’s presentation suffered because of his accent. Caroline Glick was the only one who referred to the Jews rights to the land under international law and then only in passing. No one pointed out the absence of extermination camps in Palestine to counter the suggestion that the Jewish administration vis a vis the Arabs was different than the Nazi administration of “the Jewish Problem” No one pointed out that the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine expressly gave priority to Jewish Immigration and the entire world then favored such priority. It was intended to create a Jewish majority in Palelstine..
It is now 92 years after the San Remo agreement. What a pity that the key history has been obscured by the passage of time and the propaganda of anti-semites and anti-Zionists as was predicted by Col Richard Meinertshagen in his book Middle East Diaries 1917- 1956 blaming this on the lack of clarity of the language. But even he did not realize that Jews who were neither anti-semites or anti-Zionists would ignore the view that the San Remo agreement did not recognize the political rights to Palestine as belonging to World Jewry.
the phoenix Said:
ok, thanks.
For me the main thing is to debunk the term occupation and to bring attention to the internationally guaranteed rights of jewish settlement in YS(west bank, etc) In treaties and agreements it is referred to as “west of the Jordan river”. My goal is for Jews to settle there unobstructed, for Israeli sovereignty throughout as internationally promised and declared, and no 5th column in residence as currently obtains in JEW FREE arab controlled Jordan, Gaza and PA. A deal is a deal and Jews should expect the obligation to be fulfilled. You can call it “Joe” if you like and I will be happy for the rest.
@ Bernard Ross:
In liberating yehuda and shomron
There!
FIFY
language, mr. Ross, language…
🙂
@ yamit82:
Succinct and to the point!
Like you, I hope to see the rapid demise of this disgusting isle inhabited by hypocrite lymees , and as of late, more and more musloids, of the anjem choudary type…
La’azazel yim kulam!
Silverio Facundo Said:
although I agree with much of what you say I think this statement is inaccurate. In liberating the west bank Israel fulfilled the international treaties which the signatories, and guarantors, to the league of nations, UN charter and san remo failed to do: “encourage the close settlement of Jews west of the Jordan river”. the international community had reneged and abrogated their agreements with the Jews and Israel was restoring Justice as per those agreements which every Jew had a reasonable expectation for fulfillment. Britain being the greatest offender by fraudulently converting its trusteeship into a swindle to suit its own agenda and interests. Any govt administrating the west bank was obligated in international law to fulfill the settlement and Israels action was not only a defensive action but an action to restore Justice. where Israel went wrong was in not continuing Jewish settlement and as such Israel committed the same crime on the Jewish people as did britain and the International community. When an obligation is not demanded, or fulfilled it becomes ignored and forgotten. However, Israels folly can still be corrected as its negligence does not waive Jewish rights and any agreements made under duress are non binding. The Jews, especially Levy type jews, are suffering from 2000 years of duress from the habit of appeasement of their masters to avoid slaughter. The international swindlers, especially Britain has been abusing and swindling its victim, Britain should pay and in debates its behavior should be attacked rather than Israels defended.
“Can’t return from where you’ve never been?”
Bravo! And “You can’t make cheesecake out of snow!”
“Again, Israel does not have to defend any action taken to secure what is rightfully theirs.
“As I stated before, “build baby build”, possession is 9/10th of the law.”
Bravo!
“The destiny of the Jewish nation as a whole, and of the State of Israel which is based upon that nation, has little or nothing to do with whatever the Europeans, Americans or any other cultures or political entities outside the scope of the Jewish nation.”
Well said, Mr. Harris. I wrote this down. Der oilem iz a goilem.
I’ll post here a comment I entered at the Caroline Glick website regarding this debate.
I watched the debate, and a few things struck me. First, the abused term “East-Jerusalem”. There is no such thing as East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem is only a token in the arab narrative. East Jerusalem is an aberration that ocurred in 1948 and was corrected in 1967. There exists an East-Jerusalem as much as there is a South London or a West Washington. Still, both Jews and non-Jews alike use the term as if it was an issue or a “fait-accompli”. Any serious pro-Israel debater has to get their point to their audience that there is no such thing as East-Jerusalem, just like there is no Santa Claus.
Second, the “settler” narrative. Just like anybody moving into a new home in a recently developed piece of land in Nevada would be called a citizen, so any Jew moving to a recently developed piece of land in Judea and Shomron is a citizen, not a settler. By using this toxic term we Jews allow the evil arab narrative to gain a stronger foothold.
Third, the map that the first panelist showed was flawed from its beginning, since it only showed half the story. He mentioned that his first map represented Palestine as per the British mandate, while the true map of the mandate, including today’s Jordan was not shown at all. The narrative should begin by saying: “There exists already an arab palestinian territory. It’s called Jordan and it’s government is currently usurped by the Hashemite lackeys of the Saudis. Arabs want their slice of Palestine, they’ve got it already. Let them move there”.
Caroline Glick made a wonderful argument, but when you address deaf ears even heavenly music won’t reach its destination. That self-hating Jew Levy was a disgrace, using the now-boring tactics of Jewish appeasers. Smart people like Glick should start pointing out more insistently the ludicrous arguments these pathetic losers present, rather than try to answer to their flawed arguments.
Jews in Israel should start moving on to a newer level, one where they’re not so concerned about public opinion. As it is, public opinion is very low in all things Israel, so what’s there to be concerned about. Israel gained the liberated territories fair and square the old-fashioned way, it conquered them. There’s nothing to be ashamed of. Just the way the USA gained the Pacific coast, the Southwest, the Midwest, Florida. Just the way Russia gained tens of thousand of square kilometers in Western Europe. Just the way that almost any country has carved is current geographical borders.
Jews should start mocking the fact that they are to be measured with a different rod or taken to a higher standard. “Disproportionate response”, “peace partners”, “two-state solution”, “roadmap” are terms that must be obliterated from the Jewish psyche, from the Jewish narrative and from the Jewish media.
Israel has a lot to offer to the nations of the world. Other than oil and abusive immigrants, arabs have nothing to offer. It will take decades for the nations of the world to realize that. Until then, a strong, defiant, proud Jewish state, who couldn’t care less what Hugo Chavez or Ahmadinejad or Hussein Obama or Putin think about it will evenually bring the respect and awe that today’s Israel lacks. An undecided, divided Israel plagued by doubts, victorious in every battle it has waged but still intimidated into humble submission by such nations, will always be sneered upon by them.
@ yamit82:
Uncle, well said.
They the Brits are not entitled to any explanation, period and in fact your true friends would not even ask for one.
Again, Israel does not have to defend any action taken to secure what is rightfully theirs.
As I stated before, “build baby build”, possession is 9/10th of the law.
Will the settlement policy be the death of Israel?
Just glanced at our Book the Tanach and it states many many times that the nation of Israel is eternal and our return to the Land is a confirmation of many prophesy’s. So the question for us is not any contributing factors to our demise.
In that same book most non immigrant Brits recognize there is no mention of Britain being eternal and all signs point to their own rapid disintegration as a nation socially, culturally. morally and ethically.
I for one applaud their rapid demise, may I see it come to pass completely in my own lifetime.
As for such debates? Jews from Israel and the exile should not participate in them. Most are not qualified to debate and they have no common agreed upon argument and argue from a defensive point of view.
Never put yourself willingly in a defensive position in business in war or debate.
Paul Collins Said:
Error is statement 1, column 10.
Paul Collins Said:
Can’t return from where you’ve never been? Then if you believe that a guy can walk on water and that there are Lakes of Fire awaiting, then I guess anything can be a reality even that I am ‘He’ that you await!!!
Wrong topic for a debate in Britain. It should have been “WILL THE IMMIGRATION POLICY BE THE DEATH OF BRITAIN?” ooops, too late. hey kicked the bucket already.
mrzee Said:
too bad glick and dayan weren’t there to counter his BS. Dayan was rambling and Glick kept selling her book. The obvious escaped them both.
Jane Dow Said:
this could have provided a great opportunity for Glick and dayan to demolish the credibility of Seighart and with it the general disinformation surrounding global claims. No mention was made of the 80% of the mandate given to create a jew free arab state, or the treaties and guarantees of the global community to the jews. That evermore Jew free communities are being created as time goes on on the former mandate(gaza,jordan, PA). what about the argument of the jews asserting their legal rights guaranteed under international law. I understand why there are problems: Israel never mentions these facts either, go figure.
What about the San Remo agreement of 1920 where it was ratified by the League of Nations, now the U.N. ? Israel was given the WHOLE of Trans-Jordan, but Churchill illegaly negated on this agreement to appease the Arabs. This is the Promised Land, The Holy Land, and Jerusalem is the Holy City. When the Messiah returns, He will want more than a bit of the West Bank !!!
mrzee Said:
Whether directly or indirectly, there’s still some responsibility. How many nations were willing to take in refugees. Events after that time show the true nature of these countries.
@ Jane Dow:
This is the best explanation of those four fraudulent maps I’ve seen. Too bad the author wasn’t there to counter his BS.
http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.ca/2012/07/the-maps-of-disappearing-palestine.html
@ andrew morris:The Israel population is also growing steadily. Whatever danger there maybe from a “one-state” solution is far less than from an independant palestinian state.
@ Sharbano:
Two thirds of the votes in favour of partition were from countries which had nothing to do with the Holocaust. They may all have had different reasons for their votes but guilt likely had little or nothing to do with it.
@ shachalnur: Which argument, where,I queried the meaning of your Satmar comment? I saw no argument being made related to that comment.
If we are going to talk about land re-distribution, then let’s go back, way back . I wonder how the present interloper Muslims would feel about giving up Egypt, Iraq, Iran, and North Africa to their former Jewish inhabitants? How about a panel to look at compensation for the 1 million Jews evicted from Muslim countries? Would the “Palestinians” in Israel be better off under the leadership of one of the three options available to Muslims these days: a fascistic dictator like Mubarak, Assad, Gaddafi, Hussein OR a religious dictator like Morsi, Al Saud, the Mullahs of Iran, etc, OR anarchy in the form of terrorists like in Gaza, Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, parts of Africa, Yemen, etc? These debaters like to look at the present day but they have conveniently forgotten history and the movement of people over time. They probably would not care because this debate was about a discussion of the annihilation of Jews (again) and I admire Ms. Glick for saying so. Let those in the audience mull over their ancestors killing records in the Americas and all over the world – let them ponder their pasts in Europe, America, Arabia, Russia and everywhere else where they raped the world of resources and killed millions in their quest to conquer.
@ Canadian Otter:
A well-dressed, well-washed, wealthy yob is still just a yob.
I suspect that they are deeply afraid of what their “multicultural” population would do to them if they made the slightest show of understanding for Israel; and that’s not even being pro-Israel.
@ Mr. Ross,
read the arguments ,if you dare,and then we’ll discuss the content,not the spin.
Israel is suffering death by a thousand cuts by virtue of a settlement policy that is totally incoherent. No matter what lies are disseminated the Palestinian population is growing steadily which makes a one state entity very dangerous for Israel’s security.
I must disagree: not worthy of note!!!
Israelis should stop sending non english speakers to debates conducted in english. Dani Dayan was unable to make a coherent presentation squandering his beginning on fluff and jumping all over the place without focus. Frankly it was an incompetent choice. Perhaps Israel has the same problem with hasbara in general.
Only an audience member called seighart’s maps and presentation disingenuous, no one ever mentioned the legal rights of jews to settle in the west bank except as a declaration in passing by glick. The giving of jordan was ignored as the first point in seigharts maps which presented an opening oporunity to demoslish the credibility of the detractors, which was squandered. The whole debate was disappointing and mediocre, I thought glick would have been better. Too much emotionalism on settlers side, not enough facts, which are abundant. The last eloquent english speaking rep for Israel was Abba Eban. With so much prior exposure of the typical arguments against setllements I would have expected a competent rebuttal. Very disappointing.
shachalnur Said:
What is your point. Are you saying that people should follow the Satmars?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/nyregion/kiryas-joel-a-village-with-the-numbers-not-the-image-of-the-poorest-place.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
from the satmars one can learn how to make use of welfare opporunities
A British accent does not give one the right to tell Israel what belongs to them or not. In fact, having Brits interject themselves into this debate is like having German Nazis tell Jews where they could or could not live after WWII. Britain gave away Jordan (part of Jewish historical land as is the entire Middle East) against the international law at the time and so whatever a Brit says is tainted by a one-sided policy of ethnic cleansing of Jews when they ruled the former Ottoman empire lands. Also, what right does anyone in the world and a Brit in particular have to interfere; why are they not talking about the rights of Scots, Irish, Argentinians or even ancient Celts to grab Britain or parts of colonial Britain for their own? The same applies to almost all European states whose borders have changed so frequently over the past 2000 years that the elites in Europe could spend the next 200 years sorting out which indigenous people owns what land. The situation in Europe is so complex that I think they need a team of Israelis to help them re-distribute their land and redraw their borders.
I watched the debate online and while I found that the most disgusting comment was made from the floor by some insignificant oik, who compared Israel to the Nazis, I was nevertheless more dismayed by the outright lie which William Sieghart opened his talk with.
William Sieghart presented the infamous four maps claiming that mandatory Palestine belongs to the Arabs, who nowadays call themselves Palestinians. The first map (essentially a map of Israel) was shown as 100 percent of Palestine before 47. (No mention of Trans Jordan). The second map showed the partition proposal. Here again William Sieghart lied when he claimed that the areas not given to Israel under the proposal were “Palestinian land”. He ignored the fact that to become “Palestinian land” the Palestinians had to accept the partition resolution, which they never did. With regards to the third map, again William Sieghart lied by claiming that the land occupied by Jordan and Egypt after 48 was “Palestinian land”, ignoring the fact that through most of that period (48 – 67) there wasn’t any Palestinian authority or any Palestinian organization. The organization that came to be in 1964, the PLO, was only concerned with the land within Israel’s borders and with carrying out terror attacks against Israelis. The fourth map William Sieghart showed was of area A, given to the Palestinian authority through the Oslo agreement. William Sieghart on the other hand claimed that this is all that the Palestinians are left with, having lost (according to him) the whole of Israel. He failed to mention that Area A is the only land that has ever had Palestian sovereignty and is therefore the most land they ever had. This was given to them through a peace agreement with Israel, an agreement that they have continually violated from day one.
In support of his fiction, William Sieghart showed maps coloured in yellow and white. Yellow, cunningly, was showing Mandatory Palestine in one map and what he claimed to be Palestinian Land in the other maps. Given that Mandatory Palestine has nothing to do with “Palestinian Land” and the name simply denotes a geographical area, it is quite obvious that William Sieghart was trying to con his audience to think that the name implies ownership by some people who took that name much later. Furthermore, in his fiction William Sieghart never mentioned the Jewish Palestinians who lived in this land, nor did he mention the 1.5 million Arabs who live in Israel now. Conveniently, according to William Sieghart, they do not exist and their land too was taken from the mass of the fictional “Palestinian land”.
William Sieghart, while having the appearance of an “English Gentleman” is nothing of the kind. He is a shame to his education and to his class.
Looks like likud figured it out;they’re gonna lose the elections.
Likud and israel beitenu are already blaming one another.
Likud stated that voting Bennet is creating a “left” wing government in Israel.
Well spotted,likud!
They are not left wing,they are planted assets by the NWO banker cabal,slaves.
Israel is under attack.
The price to pay for the failed coup in the US with Romney.
@arnold harris,
Your calculations for jewish population sounds ridiculous,if you keep in mind that since 1945 jewish population hasn’t grown.
Too many jews are assimilating,turning their backs on the political Zionist nightmare.
The future is now,if you don’t see the signs on the wall ,you’ll perish,just like your Nazi predessesors.
No problem for most posters here,old,paranoid and utterly racist Atheist Communist Khazars
You’re killing the children,shame on you.
The destiny of the Jewish nation as a whole, and of the State of Israel which is based upon that nation, has little or nothing to do with whatever the Europeans, Americans or any other cultures or political entities outside the scope of the Jewish nation. That destiny has always been, is now and evermore shall be strictly in the hands of the Jews alone. Moreover, it may well prove to be that the Jewish destiny is largely to be the outcome of the work of those dedicated Jewish ravim who in every age have held our nation together through the Judaism decreed for our ancestors by haShem who passed his commands down to the consciousness of our great leader Moshe and to the assembled Jewish nation of that era in the Sinai desert. In other words, stay true to Judaism, and the Jewish nation will survive. And if the Jewish nation survives, then so too shall the Jewish state.
What I write here will sound unusual to anyone who has read my incessant calls on behalf of mostly secular Jewish nationalism. It fact it sounds strange to me. But it has occurred to me that without haShem, without Tora, without the writings of the great Jewish Tora scholars, there could never have survived the Jewish nation through some 30 centuries of national divisiveness, defeat, expulsions great and small, robberies, outright mass murder and other tribulations visited upon our nation, and onto the present era of massive losses of our numbers through adhesion to and assimilation by other cultures and beliefs foreign to those of our forefathers.
As for the latest scoldings against us by liberal west Europeans, let it be said that if the State of Israel were to fall other than the national decay clearly implied by loss of Jewish nationality, it would certainly do so through retreat to the strategically indefensible borders and relative power positions in place until Israel took back control of the Jewish heartlands of Judea and Samaria in 1967. The establishment of an Arab state in any part of Eretz-Yisrael west of the Jordan River must be seen as a permanent mortal threat to the safety and long-term well-being of the State of Israel.
Instead of listening seriously to such nonsense, the Jewish nation and the State of Israel must turn their attention to speeding up — not slowing down — Jewish settlement of the Jewish heartlands. As soon as possible, the whole of Area C of the administered territories put under total Israeli control by the Oslo accords, must be annexed to the State of Israel, irrespective of what is to be done with the relatively small numbers of Arabs who reside in Area, either in permanent villages or in the always-temporary encampments of the Bedawi. Once that annexation is accomplished, it will be rendered permanent with a Jewish population of annexed Jerusalem and of Area C that now comprises more than 600,000 and which, if present population growth rates are maintained, will double in about 15 years to more than 1.2 million Jews, and could double again to about 2.5 million before the first centennial of the State of Israel in 2048. That is precisely what must be done if Israel is to escape the strategic death trap of a third Arab state on the historically defined lands of the Jewish nation, joining Trans_Jordan and Gaza.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
The motion was far too broad for meaningful discussion. Those for the motion ignored context and those against had far too little opportunity to contextualize the discussion/debate and cite facts to support their positions.
Levy for instance, premised much of what he said on his simple statement that Israeli settlement and occupation of the West Bank is contrary to international law. He thus premised his views on the West Bank is Palestinian land. On what basis, he did not say. Let him prove his premises for his arguments on facts.
Dani Dayan did not fare well in debate. He ought not to have offered that the Israeli and Palestinian narratives were sincerely presented. The Palestinians are doubtless sincere about presenting their revisionist narrative, but Dayan left the false impression that sincereity somehow imbues both narratives with truth. While he said that Israel has the superior moral claim, he did not say why. Further he ought not to have offered the generality that Israel has been guilty of injustice towards the Palestinians, without specifically stating at least generally that the Palestinians have been guilty of injustice towards Israel. In making his points without context, you can bet the anti-Israel factions will take any unspecified admissions of Israeli wrongdoing as an admission that all that they accuse Israel of, is warranted.
Glick was clear, but again, with limited opportunity for context her presentation suffered.
A better forum would be a written debate that allowed one side to present their views in detailed context of history, politics both Israel, Palestinian and international, economics, law and hard facts, with their counterpart presenting their case, with rebuttal and sur-rebuttal available.
These positions and counter positions would provide considerable reading material, but at least readers would be left with a much better grasp of facts and circumstances to make informed decisions on which side made the more cogent arguments.
Today in Ynet;
“Satmer:no greater offense than voting”
read the arguments ,if you dare.
Britain interfering on election day is logical.
The US elections were a battle between Likud neocons and the Banker controlled slaves.(Obama,Aipac,Atheist Communist Khazars)
The Bankers won.
Now it’s payback time,the Bankers will take control of Israel again through planted assets.
Labor,Yesh Atid,Hatnuah(Livni),Bennet and don’t forget Stanley Fisher,all NWO Banker assets.
These traitors will follow Banker dictates ,and throw Israel into a war,that will assure mutual destruction.
Nothing changed,before ww2 the Rothschild Zionist Bankerslaves helped destroy European judaism,now they’ll destroy Israel and Judaism world wide.
CAROLINE GLICK’S COMMENTS after the debate in the UK
“I was asked how I defend the Nazi state of Israel. When I responded by among other things giving the Nazi pedigree of the Palestinian nationalist movement founded by Nazi agent Haj Amin el Husseini and currently led by Holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas, the crowd angrily shouted me down. I want to note that the audience was made up of upper crust, wealthy British people, not unwashed rabble rousers. And yet they behaved in many respects like a mob.”
More here http://israelmatzav.blogspot.ca/2013/01/why-would-anyone-jewish-want-to-live.html#links and on Caroline’s blog link provided there.
HYPOTHETICALLY – very hypothetically….
What would have happened if PM Netanyahu had swung to the right in response to a dream where a long-departed important rabbi or family member told him to protect Israel above all, including all of Yesha, and to bravely pursue a pro-Jewish instead of a pro-Arab agenda?
Or in more practical terms, what if he had sensed the growing popular support for nationalist causes and fully embraced a patriotic right wing program to ensure his political future?
What if he had defied the US in their demands for a freeze and promoted unlimited construction, legalized all outposts (compensating Arab owners if they presented credible proof of ownership), and used the Levy report to annex all of Yesha, with some kind of municipal self-govt for Arab towns?
What if he had implemented free and undisturbed Jewish access to Temple Mount? And so on…. What would have been the reaction from the Israeli elite? The IDF brass? Other interests and institutions in Israel?
Could public support be enough to ensure the political survival of a defiant Prime Minister?
I really get sick of the Brits and their arrogance. I noticed the first speaker didn’t use the Original map that constituted what land Israel was to encompass. Instead of speaking about the “West Bank”, there should be the discussion of the “East Bank”. Also, the picture that was on the screen showing the use of a sling-shot is certainly meant to direct the narrative in a certain way. I do like what Dayan had to say about what he couldn’t say.
Somewhere I read, and I don’t remember where, it was stated that during the war of independence that the countries were certain Israel wouldn’t be able to sustain itself and there were letters drafted stating how sad it was, and that some of the countries would be willing to take in a few refugees. In effect, these countries were counting on the demise of the new state. I daresay the majority of those voting For the state were doing so simple as a matter of guilt. That guilt is long past now. Their guilt can be assuaged by rendering Israel in the category of “occupier”. Finally, these countries being ‘guilt-free’, can now show their true anti-semitic colors. The Brits, And the French, should be the Last countries hosting such an event as this. Their own history should negate such participation.
Canadian Otter Said:
without ant shadow of a doubt!!!
TO EVERYONE – For the life of me I can’t understand why would Israelis give legitimacy to those who promote the country’s partition and other policies leading to its weakening and dismantling.
If I publicized their agenda at all, I would do it only under the headline TREASON – even in the case of Diaspora Jews who claim to speak for present and future world Jews.
ELECTIONS LIVE BROADCAST IN ENGLISH –
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/164459
ISRAEL NATIONAL RADIO DICUSSION AND INTERVIEWS ALREADY ON
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/Live.html
The Post’s View (WaPo)
Following the elections in Israel, a reset
Patriacide. Nationcide. Whatever you want to call it, that is what Israel is doing with its settlement policy: it is killing itself. If ever greater numbers of Jewish settlers are installed on land regarded by Palestinians as the basis for a state of their own, the possibility of a two-state solution grows ever more remote. Yet the single state alternative, involving annexation of the West Bank, would result in a country where Arabs vastly outnumber Jews and then you won’t have a one-state or a two-state solution: you’ll have a no-state solution. For those who love Israel and wish to preserve a democratic Jewish homeland, as much as for those who hate it, the settlements must stop. That’s what many left-wing Israelis and their friends say. But defenders of the settlements see things very differently. The two-state solution has long been a dead letter in their view: why stop building settlements in the name of a peace plan that is frankly unattainable? Whatever the eventual solution – it could even be a West Bank jointly governed by Jordan and Israel – there is no good reason why both Israelis and Palestinians shouldn’t both expand their settlements in the interim before an eventual peace deal.
For sure as an outsider it’s a bit confusing.
Amazing how other governments find it necessary to inject themselves into the fray of determining what is best for Israel.
Good grief, do we all forget who the Holy Land belongs to and is this an attempt to take it away from them, the later seems to be their main objective.
No, Israel doesn’t need to defend the need to build communities, it’s their G-d given rights contrary to what other want to believe.
The world will be a better place if for once it recognizes the sovereign Jewish Nation of Israel and her capital, Jerusalem.