Love of the Land: An Alternative to a 'Palestinian' State

An Alternative to a 'Palestinian' State

Moshe Feiglin
Manhigut Yehudit
21 Tevet, 5770
07 January '10

At a recent lecture in Los Angeles, I was asked about my alternative to a 'Palestinian State'. The solution that I propose, promotion of Arab emigration, is predicated on the following points:

A. The Land of Israel belongs exclusively to the Jewish Nation.

B. There is no "Palestinian nation" and aspirations for a "Palestinian State" are strictly for Arab propaganda purposes. The Arabs of Israel and their terror organizations are being offered a state on a silver platter – something that has never happened to any other group in history. Nevertheless, they have repeatedly rejected this gift. The reason that they reject this more-than-generous offer is because their real and exclusive goal is not Arab sovereignty, but the destruction of Jewish sovereignty. Thus, any plan that relies on a third side, and particularly on the good will and cooperation of the Arab countries, is unrealistic.

C. The solution for the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza must be based on the facts on the ground and not on the fantasies of Oslo.

There are three facts on the ground that support this position:

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: An Alternative to a 'Palestinian' State

Love of the Land: Is the US Constitution Worth Dying For?

Is the US Constitution Worth Dying For?

Emmanuel Navon
For the Sake of Zion
04 January '10

(While there are some points here with which I beg to disagree, the over all thrust of the response is on target. Y.)

A few weeks ago, a reader posted the following comment on my blog: "I perceive that young liberal U.S. Jews (i.e., the vast majority) are uncomfortable with the idea of a Jewish "nation" - just as they challenge the ethnic identification of nations generally. This is only natural for an American whose allegiance is to a legal document (the Constitution) and a flag, not a people. How do you make the argument to young Jews who are two generations removed from violent anti-Semitism, attracted to the "tikkun olam" worldview, and skeptical of nationalism generally, that Jews need a separate nation of their own that is worth killing and dying for? I think this is a serious issue that is already manifesting itself in the ever weakening support of Israel among under 40, non-orthodox U.S. Jews."

Most nations today define themselves ethnically. This is true of the Japanese, of the Germans, of the Russians, or of the Swedes. Indeed, it is because of ethnic differences that a civil war broke out in Yugoslavia in the late 1980s and that Czechoslovakia broke apart twenty years ago. And it is because of ethnic differences that the Québécois keep trying to break apart from Canada. Nationalism and national identity are a fact a life, whether you like it or not. Many academics have tried to de-construct and to de-legitimize nationalism and national identity, but it is a fact that most people identify with a nation, and that most nations define themselves ethnically.

I can understand that some people feel uncomfortable with the fact that many nations, indeed most nations, define themselves ethnically. But nations are entitled to define themselves however they want. And it is illiberal to be judgmental on how they define themselves. So people cannot on the one hand call themselves "liberal" and on the other hand denigrate the way other people wish to define their identity. Why is there such tolerance for gender and ethnic differences within American society, but at the same time such intolerance for ethnic differences within the international community?

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Is the US Constitution Worth Dying For?