Showing posts with label Two-State Solution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Two-State Solution. Show all posts

Sunday, 22 May 2011

Israel Matzav: No great surprise here: Canada says Nobama

No great surprise here: Canada says Nobama

Coming just a few weeks after the stunning (due to its margin) re-election of Conservative Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, it should come as no surprise to anyone that Canada is not going to back Barack Hussein Obama's pressure on Israel (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
“What the government of Canada supports is basically a two-state solution that is negotiated,” a senior federal official said. “If it’s border, if it’s others issues, it has to be negotiated, it cannot be unilateral action.”

Pressed by reporters, federal officials said both the Israelis and the Palestinians have to decide on their bottom lines, which the Israelis have said will not include a return to the 1967 border.

“If the two parties are of the view that this is a starting point, that is fine for them,” said the federal official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The Prime Minister’s director of communications, Dimitri Soudas, added that Canada’s position continues to be the search for a two-state solution.

“No solution, ultimately, is possible without both parties sitting down, negotiating and agreeing on what that final outcome will look like,” he said.
Canada under Stephen Harper is a true friend of Israel.


Israel Matzav: No great surprise here: Canada says Nobama

Friday, 20 May 2011

Israel Matzav: Beck: Who needs Yasser Arafat when you have the President of the United States?

Beck: Who needs Yasser Arafat when you have the President of the United States?




I was getting emails about this while it was on television.

Glenn Beck rips Obama's sellout of Israel.

Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Cheryl H).



Make sure especially to watch the interview around the 14:00 mark.

Israel Matzav: Beck: Who needs Yasser Arafat when you have the President of the United States?

Sunday, 15 May 2011

Love of the Land: The Börne identification

The Börne identification

Sarah Honig
Another Tack
13 May '11

http://www.sarahhonig.com/?p=844


“Losing an illusion makes you wiser than finding a truth.” – Ludwig Börne (1786-1837)

One of the wittier and more brilliant satirists ever to have come out of Germany, Börne identified with characteristic precision that indispensable preliminary step in Everyman’s quest for solutions to whatever plagues us. “If you seek wisdom,” he advised, “seek the destruction of the illusions you hold as true more than you seek new truths.”

This is counsel that should be heeded here and now by our inveterate hawkers of mega-delusion – Israel’s very own proponents of the two-state solution. Unflaggingly they peddle tattered, intrinsically disorienting delirium. Incredibly they never seem to tire of pulling the wool over their own and our eyes. They present themselves as possessors of singular insight, as harbingers of a greater truth and as wise beyond our plebeian grasp.

They won’t let go of the grand delusion that underlies their self-professed wisdom and purported truth. Their two-state delusion was certainly sweet – simplistically and seductively so. It claimed that all conflicts can be amicably and fairly settled by just dividing up whatever is contested. It touted idealistic goodwill and seemed compellingly rational. But it was from the start delusionary.

By all empirical yardsticks, that delusion has finally and undeniably crumbled into grimy dust. The illusion of a reasonable accommodation with genocidal foes – which without fail anyhow failed the test of coolheaded analysis – ignobly disintegrated when Ramallah’s Fatah and Gaza’s Hamas banded back together, at least pro forma, for the sake of expediency.

Whatever their motives and whatever the long-range plans of the old-new partners, their joint venture should persuade even the most diehard of our peaceniks that the time has come to finally wise up and lose the illusion.

The prevalent illusion thus far was that we face two dissimilar Palestinian entities – negotiation- espousing Ramallah and Gaza, whose unaltered goal is Israel’s annihilation. Now that the pair has retied the knot, their deception has been exposed. That should mean that the illusion has been shattered irrefutably once and for all.

In reality the only distinction between the two always was tactical. Ramallah excels at propaganda warfare, while Gaza fires rockets. Ramallah is funded by the Quartet, while Gaza is underpinned by Damascus and Tehran. Both wish to obliterate Israel, but Ramallah is more cunning and Gaza more candidly confrontational.

Neither Ramallah nor Gaza was ever a reliable or viable peace partner. Only our indomitable wishful thinking and obsessive illusion kept conjuring up interlocutors on whom we could unload slices of homeland, directly atop the soft underbelly of our densest population centers.

Gaza’s Hamas thumbs its nose at us and glorifies the Islamo-Nazism of infamous Second World War-criminal Haj Amin al-Husseini, who from his Berlin residence avidly abetted Hitler’s Final Solution, recruited Muslims to the SS and actively foiled the rescue even of several thousand Jewish children.

Conversely, in his Moscow Friendship University PhD treatise, Fatah figurehead Mahmoud Abbas attempted to dwarf the Holocaust’s proportions drastically, while simultaneously accusing Zionists of colluding in Holocaust perpetration – i.e., it didn’t happen, but Israel is guilty. This history-warping dissertation is compulsory study material in his fiefdom’s schools.

Abbas’s Fatahland is nothing but a more outwardly decorous version of Hamastan. All the rest is desperate illusion.

Moreover, our self-imposed hallucination arises from deep desires for something that far transcends Israel’s well-intentioned, if strategically misguided, yen for compromise. Our irredeemable devotion to delusion is inherently Jewish. Perhaps it’s the defensive adaptation of the weak.

Most members of the dysfunctional family of nations indeed advocate the two-state solution, but we alone are delusional. All the others are stimulated by cynical vested interests, which impair our self-preservation prospects. In other words, other states don’t push us into the two-state abyss for our own good. Quite the contrary.

Nevertheless, too many of our headliners and opinion-molders voluntarily embrace that detrimental external pressure. They avidly engage in scare-mongering. If we don’t succumb to what’s dictated from abroad, they hector, we’ll be left alone, ostracized, vulnerable and on the verge of extinction.

But are these demoralizers weakening our resolve for altruistic ends? Or, perhaps, are they identifying with foreigners whom they regard as sources of clout and influence? Are they obsequiously out to win coveted international credentials of enlightenment, that would differentiate them from all those bothersome insular, intransigent and politically incorrect Israelis?

A cooperatively toadying disposition could secure Israel’s peaceniks the acceptance they crave, allow them to bask in the limelight of those who really scorn Israel, win accolades in places Israelis should naturally shun, and earn approval from the most disapproving sorts.

The illusion is that serving the purposes of powers whose greedy, shortsighted interests negate one’s own interests will help promote personal or factional aggrandizement. This isn’t a recently evolved illusion. It has been with us for at least two millennia, perhaps the manifestation of a persistent, pesky mutation in the Jewish genome that keeps popping up exasperatingly in all manner of circumstances, no matter how superficially different.

Somehow Jews appear to crave acceptance, to seek to bask in the limelight of those who really revile them, to win accolades in places they should naturally shun, to yearn for approval from the most inimically disapproving sorts. Ingratiating ourselves with our enemies – and friends-of-enemies – seems preprogrammed into too many of us.

The Jews of Germany, who historically comprised one of the most successful of Diaspora communities, were mind-bogglingly susceptible to the aberration. The list of famous Germans who were born Jewish yet strove not to stay Jewish is unbelievably long. For those cursed with Jewish parentage, talent and brains were never enough to make it in intensely Judeophobic surroundings.

Too many Jews with both talent and brains deluded themselves that Christian credentials would secure them the acceptance they craved, allow them to bask in the limelight of those who really reviled them, win accolades in places they should naturally have shunned, and earn approval from the most disapproving sorts.

Razor-sharp Börne was disturbingly typical. He was born in Frankfurt as Leib Baruch, and that critically was a colossal fly in his ointment. He couldn’t even keep a bureaucratic public-sector job because of his Jewishness. His illusion was to ditch said Jewishness by becoming a Lutheran convert with a suitably Teutonic name.

Gallingly, though, even that failed to erase the original sin of Baruch’s extraction. Eventually he ended up in Paris banding with other frustrated Jews to fix up the world.

Börne-Baruch’s illusion of ingratiating himself didn’t pan out. He didn’t succeed in currying the favor of non-Jews. To them Börne remained who he was born. Perhaps it was this life experience that led him to conclude that the prelude to any progress is losing one’s illusions.

Illusions won’t lead any of us anywhere – not to peace with Ramallah or with Gaza, and certainly not with both. Before we rummage around for yet more appeasement-expediting supplementary sacrifices, we must rid ourselves of specious illusion. First things first.


If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.



Love of the Land: The Börne identification

Wednesday, 11 May 2011

Israel Matzav: Zahar: Hamas will accept state on '67 borders... for now

Zahar: Hamas will accept state on '67 borders... for now




Hamas foreign minister Mahmoud Zahar says his organization will accept a 'Palestinian state' based on the 1967 borders... for now (Hat Tip: Stephen D).


Hamas would accept a Palestinian state "on any part of Palestine," he said in an interview with Palestinian news agency Ma'an. Hamas has previously said it is willing to temporarily accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. The ultimate goal, however, would be a state of "Palestine in its entirety," Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal told Charlie Rose last year.

At the same time, Zahar said that Hamas would not recognize Israel, because doing so would "cancel the right of the next generation to liberate the land." He added that recognition of Israel could lead to Palestinian refugees losing their right of return.

"What will be the fate of the five million Palestinians in the diaspora?" Zahar asked.

The Hamas leader told the Palestinian news agency that his faction's unity deal with Fatah, which included maintaining a ceasefire with Israel is "part of the resistance, not a cancellation." He added that "a truce is not peace."


And they actually believe that we would agree to this?

But what may be the best part is Zahar's explanation for why Abu Bluff isn't going to be visiting Gaza anytime soon.


Zahar also said that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will not visit Gaza soon. One of the reasons, he said, is that he can not guarantee that "Israel will not send its infiltrators to shoot Abbas" or that some Palestinians may "come out and throw rocks at him."


What could go wrong?


Israel Matzav: Zahar: Hamas will accept state on '67 borders... for now

Tuesday, 9 March 2010

Love of the Land: The extortion process

The extortion process


Soccer Dad
09 March '10

A few months ago Barry Rubin wrote:

Of course it is all political but this is a step toward delegitimization. The Arabic-speaking, Muslim-majority, and left-wing governments that supported the resolution see this as a step not toward a compromise peace but an elimination of Israel altogether.

I am not saying that this is going to happen, or that the resolution will have any actual negative impact on Israel itself. Yet what is most important is that having tasted blood, these forces will not be interested in getting less. Why should they--including the Palestinian Authority--settle for a stable two-state solution when they believe they can get far more without giving up anything?


Now here's "moderate" Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat:

(Read full post)


Love of the Land: The extortion process

Saturday, 6 March 2010

Love of the Land: Why the Palestinians Don't Want a State

Why the Palestinians Don't Want a State


David Gutmann
American Spectator
05 March '10

President Barack Obama will soon be entering the lion's den of Middle East politics with the same conviction that has guided all his predecessors -- that the solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict lies in the Two-State Solution, leading to the early establishment of a Palestinian state.

The received wisdom has it that the Palestinians wish above all things to have a state of their own, but that their fervent wishes are frustrated by Israeli delaying tactics, such as endless arguments over West Bank settlements, security fences, water rights, and the like.

While the Israelis probably do not want a Palestinian state on their borders, an entity that could easily become Hamastan II (and yet another missile launching platform), there is increasing evidence that the Palestinians themselves are of two minds about the prospect of their own statehood.

The first piece of evidence is the unchallenged observation that Palestinian leaders have rejected or sabotaged every proposal for statehood since 1947. In that year the Palestinians rejected the UN-sponsored division of the former British mandate into Jewish and Arab states on the grounds that they did not want to share Palestine with the infidel Jews. Instead of developing trheir own state, they tried through armed conflict to eradicate the nascent Jewish state. Their leaders took this big step just two years after the end of the Holocaust; and, guided by Hitler's associate Haj Amin Al-Husseini, their implicit goal was to continue the slaughter. But if you start a war of politicide plus extermination you had better win it; otherwise, like Hitler, or Tojo, or the Palestinians of 1948, you will very likely end up with a bombed-out wasteland, or -- in the Palestinian case -- as a defeated rabble of landless refugees.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Why the Palestinians Don't Want a State

Monday, 15 February 2010

Love of the Land: Where are the pressure points?

Where are the pressure points?


Ira Sharkansky
Shark Blog
12 February '10

What is amazing about the preoccupation with Israel and Palestine is the certainty with which respectable individuals preach about a problem whose complexity has been pondered for decades, and where fluidity is more prominent than stability.

Even more amazing is the focus of urging change on the one element that is stable, while failing to take account of the instability elsewhere that may run over in several directions with no end in sight.

A prominent recent example of misplaced certainty is an op-ed piece by Roger Cohen in the New York Times. Cohen has a long record of blaming Israel for the problems of the Middle East. He has called for an end to Israeli settlement in the West Bank, and expressed shame for the operation in Gaza that he described as a disastrous case of Israel slaying Palestinian children.

Now he is lamenting that President Obama must do more to honor an election pledge for "new thinking, outreach to the Muslim world, and relentless focus on Israel-Palestine. . . . The conflict gnaws at U.S. security, eats away at whatever remote possibility of a two-state solution is left, clouds Israel's future, scatters Palestinians and devours every attempt to bridge the West and Islam."

Cohen realizes that problems among Palestinians contribute their share of the frustrations, but he asserts that President Obama must work harder "to ask such tough questions in public and demand of Israel that it work in practice to share the land rather than divide and rule it."

If the two-state solution does not work, Cohen is certain that "there will be one state between the river and the sea."

The one-state solution is a common threat, typically made by the Israeli left and overseas critics who claim that they are friends of Israel, and want to reign it in before it is lost. As Cohen writes of the one state he sees as possible, "very soon there will be more Palestinian Arabs in it than Jews. What then will become of the Zionist dream?

The one-state threat illustrates the weakness in many criticisms of Israel. It is more a fantasy than anything that can be extrapolated from realities. Who would make Israel absorb into itself land and people that do not succeed in achieving statehood. The process would not reflect any natural law of politics that I recognize.

(Read full article)


Love of the Land: Where are the pressure points?

Sunday, 17 January 2010

Love of the Land: Fitzgerald: When it comes to Islam, please stop this "problem" and "solution" nonsense

Fitzgerald: When it comes to Islam, please stop this "problem" and "solution" nonsense


Hugh Fitzgerald
Jihad Watch
16 January '10

Many continue to believe that if we argue that Islam itself is the problem, this will leave the West with no solutions.

The word "solution" leapt out at me. I have written about it many times before, in regards to those who speak of a "two-state solution" to the Arab Muslim Jihad against Israel. I have written many times about what a foolish idea it is to believe that further Israeli surrenders, of claims, legal and moral and historic, and of tangible assets, especially the supreme asset, as it is viewed in the Muslim world, of land, would somehow change the immutable and uncreated words of the Qur'an, or somehow change the Hadith -- that is, change either the contents, or the rank of "authenticity," assigned to the Hadith (the written records of the words and deeds of Muhammad) more than a millennium ago by the most authoritative Muhaddithin.

I noted that Americans, unlike Europeans, are used to identifying situations that are troublesome or difficult or unpleasant as "problems," and, as problems, they are assumed to be susceptible of solution and therefore can be "solved." In some ways it is an attractive attitude. It testifies to a certain strain in the national character, a belief that may come from the encounter in this country with Nature, that the settlers in order to survive had to learn to subdue. And they felt, in a different way (a way we find not quite so unobjectionable today) it was felt necessary to subdue the indigenous Indians. Nature could be overcome, other men could be overcome. And when there was a need for something to be invented, born of necessity that invention would emerge. Yankee know-how and stick-to-it-iveness, the attitude that there is "no problem in the world that cannot be solved" if we just put our minds to solve it, may seem to some comically naïve, but for many it reflects an attitude that will not disappear, and of which many of us apparently cannot be disabused.

(Read full article)


Love of the Land: Fitzgerald: When it comes to Islam, please stop this "problem" and "solution" nonsense

Thursday, 14 January 2010

Love of the Land: The Palestinian Issue – A New Paradigm: Focusing on the Humanitarian rather than the Political

The Palestinian Issue – A New Paradigm: Focusing on the Humanitarian rather than the Political


Dr. Martin Sherman
Jerusalem Summit

A. Assessment

1. The conventional-wisdom paradigm for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has failed woefully, bringing nothing but misery and despair to both sides – but particularly to the Palestinians as individual human beings.

2. This conventional paradigm has attempted to solve the conflict by means of a Political Approach involving the establishment of a self governing Palestinian entity on territories in Judea Samaria and Gaza which have been under Israeli control since 1967 i.e. on the basis of a "Land for Peace" approach.

3. Dispassionate assessment of the history of the conflict and its current development will strongly suggest that persisting with attempts to attain a political solution on the basis the conventional paradigm are at best futile - and at worse harmful. Accordingly, alternative modes of resolution must be pursued.

B. Analysis

1. Analysis of Palestinian deeds and declarations over the years make it difficult to avoid the conclusion that they are in effect both unwilling and incapable of achieving and maintaining statehood.

(a) Palestinian Unwillingness: This is reflected in the fact that the Palestinians have rejected every single viable proposal which would have afforded them a state - from the 1947 partition plan to the 2000 Barak proposals.

(b) Palestinian Incapability: The Palestinian national movement has enjoyed conditions far more favorable than almost any other national independence movement since WW-II - widespread international endorsement of their cause, unmitigated support of a superpower in the decades of the Cold War, highly sympathetic coverage by the major media organizations, and over a decade of Israeli administrations who have acknowledged (and at times even identified with) the Palestinians declared national aspiration. In spite of this, the achievements of Palestinian national movement have been more miserable than almost any other national independence movement – bringing nothing but privation and penury to its people.

(Read full synopsis)


Love of the Land: The Palestinian Issue – A New Paradigm: Focusing on the Humanitarian rather than the Political

Thursday, 10 December 2009

Love of the Land: Suicide isn’t an option

Suicide isn’t an option


FresnoZionism.org
08 December 09

Sometimes I find myself writing about Palestinian demands and Israeli responses in connection with plans for a ‘peace agreement’ which will bring about a ‘two-state solution’. I’ll say “how dare they insist on this or that” or “any agreement must include… blah, blah”.


This is a waste of time. The ‘two-state solution’ exists only in the minds of those who do not understand the actual players in this game, or the mouths of those (like the Swedes) who see it as a way to weaken Israel. No Palestinian with the power to influence a decision wants a peaceful two-state solution or an end to the conflict — what they want is to gain an advantage in the long-term struggle with Israel.


My head is spinning from the doubletalk of the Europeans or the Obama administration, for example, in which they give lip service to Israel’s security while demanding that Israel sacrifice it to escalating Arab demands, and the doubletalk from Israel in which its leaders pretend to believe that peace is possible while trying to avoid giving up too much for nothing.

So could we please forget about Oslo, the Roadmap and all of the forty-two quintillion ’solutions’ that have been proposed, all of which are premised on the idea that the Palestinian Arabs want to end the conflict if we can just find terms that they would accept. They don’t.


(Continue reading)


Love of the Land: Suicide isn’t an option

Tuesday, 24 November 2009

Israel Matzav: What has been guaranteed to Israel

What has been guaranteed to Israel

Over the weekend, 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen called for the UN to endorse a 'two-state solution' based upon the June 4, 1967 borders between Israel and Jordan and between Israel and Egypt. I have pointed out many times that UN Security Council Resolution 242 does not call for a return to the 1949 armistice lines that were in effect on June 4, 1967. Rick Richman does a good job of summing up the promises that have been made to Israel regarding its eventual permanent border.

The Roadmap calls for final-status negotiations in Phase III “based on UNSCR 242.” It does not mention the June 4, 1967, lines, much less endorse them as “borders.” The U.S. has at least three times formally assured Israel of “defensible borders” as the outcome of the peace process: (1) in the January 16, 1997, letter from Secretary of State Warren Christopher to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; (2) in the April 14, 2004, letter from President George W. Bush to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon; and (3) in the January 16, 2009, Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. and Israel. Only such borders meet the Resolution 242 requirement that Israel’s borders be not only recognized but also secure.

There will be a quiz tomorrow. Heh.


Israel Matzav: What has been guaranteed to Israel

Friday, 13 November 2009

Love of the Land: Good Governance Post National Trauma: Rejecting a Two State Solution

Good Governance Post National Trauma: Rejecting a Two State Solution


Prof. Alan Friedlander
Jerusalem Defender
12 November 09

Israeli President Shimon Peres recently said, "Those who reject the two-state solution will not bring a one-state solution. They will bring one conflict, not one state. A bloody endless conflict."

Excuse me, but isn't that what the Oslo Accords accomplished? Is that not the very fruit that it brought upon Israel? Isn't that what the Roadmap to Peace (Oslo 3) ended up doing, especially before the security fence was built?

Has it been so long since the first Intifada began that people have forgotten what it was like when Arab refugees didn't try to kill Israelis?

Answer this: Why, when Arafat was a fugitive for the first three decades of his terroristic career, there was no intifada? Why when Arafat underwent a PR makeover and was a pseudo partner in a pseudo peace process, why then did Israel stop looking over its borders with fear, but then start looking within its borders for the most clear and present dangers?

Arafat created a goon squad of terrorist abusers of the national psyche. Did anyone really believe that whitewashing the high crimes of the PLO by calling them by the designation of "diplomats" would bring Israel closer to peace?

Oslo 1, Oslo 2, the Roadmap. Wrong thought processes were at play that conceived these plans, which have brought these decades of endless violence. Like a battered wife who clings to her abusive husband. She should not cower behind the locked bathroom door each night hoping for her husband to calm down. She should leave or call the police.

By continuing to advocate the pursuit of a "one-state solution" you are essentially telling your people to sit there and take it; for eternity. This is peace? This is madness!

Bad policy such as this hopes to placate the abuser long enough so that the victim can just be left alone for a scant few moments of respite from his limitless rage. But no practical plans for long term security are on her agenda. Taking dangerous risks without a clearly obtainable goal is a classic symptom of the faulty reasoning that often affects the thought processes of victims of abuse. For example following up Oslo 1 with Oslo 2, then Oslo 2 with the Roadmap would be an expression of this disorder at the political level.

The healthier choice would have been seeking national consensus on the vital issues at play rather than forcing through the Knesset a left wing agenda.

To have true freedom from bloodshed, you must first inculcate true freedom of the heart and mind. As God told Yehoshua (Joshua) repeatedly, "Be strong and courageous".

Not only has the violence continued, your reaction has you pointed in the wrong direction to fix the problems...

Why should Arabs keep their homes and not Jews? Is this justice?

Why should Israel be forced into "Auschwitz Borders" as your friend Abba Eban used to call them? Is this security?

Why should you have to give anything to get peace? Should peaceful intentions not be shared by both partners?

Currently only one side is committed to peace and freedom of the other side if they should reach a peace deal, while the other guys refuse to accept even the notion of a Jewish State. Is this a true path to peace?

You have been strong and courageous to make sacrifices for peace. Now be strong and courageous to encourage the forsaking of the failed paths of national self destruction, leaving them as history. Only this new direction is a path that can lead to healthy and true peace.

Soon may it be so, by the grace of G-d.

Love of the Land: Good Governance Post National Trauma: Rejecting a Two State Solution

Monday, 9 November 2009

Love of the Land: Neither a bi-national state nor a two state solution

Neither a bi-national state nor a two state solution


Ted Belman
Israpundit
07 November 09


Jeffrey Goldberg interviewed Hussein Ibish the author of “What’s Wrong With the One-State Agenda?” on The Fantasy World of One-Staters. Ibish was one of the speakers at the J Street Convention.

Ibish thought that the J Street tent was too big to find a consensus and it would have to create some cohesion and a central message before it could be effective.

    (Ibish) I mean people ranging from the sort of centrist-center left, all the way to post-Zionists, anti-Zionists, who were there, too. It’s not ultimately a group that’s going to form, I think, a functional coalition. Right now, they’re finding their feet. This is normal, it’s inevitable — but at a certain point, I think they have to clarify what they are, who their constituency is, what they stand for, who they are, who they’re not. They’ve been more successful in creating a space for themselves as a new voice that is compelling, but at other moments it’s looked like where they were simply positioning themselves as the alternative to AIPAC. And my sense of things is that, initially, that they would look too much to their rivals. But sooner rather than later, they’re going to have to just move on and start to define themselves in a much more coherent and pro-active way, not just in contrast to the traditional Jewish organizations but also to distinguish themselves from people in the Jewish community whose criticism of Israel makes them anathema to the mainstream of the community. They can’t go there and I think they’ve tried not to go there.


I think he is entirely wrong in this because he assumes that the goal of J Street is to attract a substantial number of Jews and thus speak for a major segment of the Jewish community. But what they really want to do is undermine the Jewish state. They are not pro-Israel they are anti-Israel. They will never compromise their ideology to get more support.

But I was more interested in what he had to say about the fantasy of the one state solution that some are touting now. He thought it was a fantasy because hardly any Israelis would agree to it.

He totally rejected the belief “that through the application of what they (the one staters) call BDS - Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions - globally that they can crush the will of the Israelis and break the Zionist movement.”

    Anyone who thinks that is plausible in the foreseeable future doesn’t understand the nature of the American relationship with Israel. The commitment of the U.S., not just the government but American society, is to the survival and security of the Israeli state. And then there’s another aspect, which is the extent to which Israeli institutions, organizations and corporations are interwoven at a very fundamental level with many of those in the U.S.

    I’m talking about corporate, governmental, intelligence, military, industrial, scientific ties. The point is that you can only take talk of boycott and sanctions seriously if you really don’t understand any of this. And if you don’t understand any of this, then you’re living in a fantasy world.

Furthermore, he says, the world has moved on.

    These people are trapped in the language of the Fifties and Sixties. You’re talking about a worldview is anachronistic in the most fundamental sense. It doesn’t recognize any of the changes that have taken place since then. For example, the strategic situation that’s emerged in the Middle East, where the Arab states and the Arabs generally have a lot of other things to worry about other than Israel. This is a world in which a lot of Gulf states are extremely concerned about Iraq, and where there are Arab states — Jordan and Egypt — that have treaties with Israel, where Syria has a motive to be civil with Israel that is unpleasant but completely stable, and where it’s a very different environment than simply the Arabs and Israelis are enemies.

    The other thing that they’ve missed completely, and this is sort of the amazing thing, is the total transformation in American official policy toward the Palestinians over the past 20 years. Twenty-one years ago, there was no contact ever between the U.S. and the PLO. No contact, zero, and no Palestinian statehood is the consensus American foreign policy and it is a national security priority under Obama. People in the House, key positions like the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Howard Berman, chair of the Subcommittee on the Middle East, Gary Ackerman, Nita Lowey on Appropriations - all of them Jewish American members of Congress, stalwart supporters of Israel, and all of them committed to peace based on two states. And all of them, by the way, who were on the host committee of the American Task Force on Palestine gala last week.

It is easy to understand why these supporters of Israel and a two state solution would consider the expansion of settlements an obstacle to the two state solution. That’s why they supported Obama’s demand for a freeze, in part, if not in whole. But what about Israel. Israelis are in favour of building in Jerusalem but less supportive of building in the rest of Judea and Samaria. Those who support continued construction do not support a two state solution save for those who firmly believe that only through such construction can the Arabs be forced to make a deal. Time would not be on the side of the Arabs. If construction were to stop entirely, the Arabs could wait another hundred years to destroy Israel. Our American friends should understand this.

Israel should too. Israel can’t have it both ways. She can’t favour a two state solution and at the same time expand the settlement endeavour. Perhaps the Netanyahu government has come to this conclusion and therefor has frozen all new construction in favour of renewed negotiations. But the opposition to such a freeze is very strong. The opposition to withdrawing from Judea and Samaria is even stronger.

Netanyahu’s current policy is not aimed at the same end result as envisioned by Israel’s friends in the US, namely two states living in peace. He doesn’t believe it is possible. Netanyahu is aiming for limited sovereignty, only, for the Arabs, otherwise known as autonomy.

I would argue that the two staters are also pursuing a fantasy. To believe that such a solution is possible is to ignore that neither party wants to make the necessary compromises. It also ignores how intractable the problems are.

What is missing from the predominant view is a third possibility, namely, one where the one state is not a bi-national state but a Jewish state with a Jewish majority.

If Israel were to annex Judea and Samaria, the Jewish residents in the expanded Israel, would outnumber the Arab residents, 2:1 for the foreseeable future. (See AIDRG and One Jewish State .) Jewish citizens would exceed Arab citizens by even a greater majority. The Arabs would be granted citizenship over time according to western norms e.g. they must speak the language, swear loyalty, do national service and so on.

Basic Laws would be passed to ensure that Israel remain a Jewish state. This would not be unusual as many states affilliate with Christianity or Islam in their constitutions. The Arab citizens would simply have to accept that.

It is either that or autonomy only, over Area “A” only. This is about 40% of Judea and Samaria.

Pursuing such alternate solutions would have the best chance of success if the US committed to it.




Love of the Land: Neither a bi-national state nor a two state solution

Thursday, 17 September 2009

Israel Matzav: History is against a 'two-state solution'

History is against a 'two-state solution'

I've jiggered the title of this Guardian "Comment is Free" piece by historian Benny Morris, because I think my title is more honest. Perhaps Benny Morris would agree, but the editors of the Guardian would likely never let it through that way.

Morris argues that what he refers to as President Obama's ambition - 'two states for two people' - is impossible. Here's why:

President Obama's efforts to revive the Middle East peace process are bound to fail because of the unbridgeable divide separating Israel's and Palestine's political goals. The minor problems are Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu's unwillingness to partition Jerusalem and enable the Palestinians to constitute the eastern half of the city as their capital, and his reluctance to freeze the settlement enterprise in the West Bank. The major problem is that the two-headed Palestinian national movement is averse to sharing Palestine with the Jews and endorsing a solution based on two states for two peoples.

Read the whole thing. The only part I disagree with him on is his demographic projections.

One other point that bears making: In his New York Times op-ed over the weekend, former Saudi ambassador Turki al-Faisal referred to Hamas' 1988 charter as "the outdated 1988 Hamas charter" as if it was something in the past. Sadly, that is not the case. Here's Benny Morris again:

Hamas, which won the Palestinian national elections in 2006, says so bluntly. Its charter of 1988 explicitly calls for Israel's destruction and assures the believers that "Islam will destroy Israel". It repeatedly compares Israel to the medieval crusader kingdoms and states that its end will be identical. (This comparison, incidentally, has been a constant in Arab discourse on Zionism. In September 1947, the Arab League's secretary general, Abdul Rahman Azzam, told Zionist emissaries: "Centuries ago, the crusaders established themselves in our midst against our will, and in 200 years we ejected them.")

Fatah too has a constitution, never revised since the 1960s, which advocates Israel's destruction. During the 1990s, Fatah – then the leading component of the Palestinian national movement – agreed in negotiations with Israel to produce a revised Palestinian National Charter that deleted the clauses calling for Israel's destruction. No such revised charter was ever produced, though these clauses were ostensibly revoked by a gathering of Palestinian notables in Gaza in 1998.

That's just one of the elephants in the room with Obama's negotiators, but it's probably the biggest one.


Israel Matzav: History is against a 'two-state solution'

Thursday, 20 August 2009

Israel Matzav: Why 'peace' is elusive

Why 'peace' is elusive

There's a great letter in Thursday's New York Times by Queens College Sociology Professor Samuel Heilman in response to the Malley and Agha article that argued that a 'two-state solution' wouldn't solve anything.

If in the face of 61 years of the existence of Israel, which today is home to roughly 40 percent of the world’s Jews, Mr. Agha and Mr. Malley can argue that the definition of Israel as the Jewish state is still an open question, then the likelihood of a resolution of the conflict is as small as it’s ever been.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Why 'peace' is elusive

Tuesday, 18 August 2009

Israel Matzav: Huckabee: 'Two states in the Holy Land is unrealistic'

Huckabee: 'Two states in the Holy Land is unrealistic'

Former Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee told foreign reporters on Tuesday that expecting to have two states in the Holy Land is 'unrealistic.'

Speaking to a small group of foreign reporters in Jerusalem, Huckabee, seen as a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2012, said the international community should consider establishing a Palestinian state some place else.

"The question is should the Palestinians have a place to call their own? Yes, I have no problem with that. Should it be in the middle of the Jewish homeland? That's what I think has to be honestly assessed as virtually unrealistic," he said.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Huckabee: 'Two states in the Holy Land is unrealistic'

Sunday, 16 August 2009

Israel Matzav: Malley: 'I still favor a two-state solution'

Malley: 'I still favor a two-state solution'

In Tuesday's New York Times, Robert Malley (the only man to attend Camp David 2000 and blame Ehud Barak for its failure) and Hussein Agha wrote that a two-state solution 'doesn't resolve anything,' leading many to believe that they were advocating a one-state solution.

That so many attempts to resolve the conflict have failed is reason to be wary. It is almost as if the parties, whenever they inch toward an artful compromise over the realities of the present, are inexorably drawn back to the ghosts of the past. It is hard today to imagine a resolution that does not entail two states. But two states may not be a true resolution if the roots of this clash are ignored. The ultimate territorial outcome almost certainly will be found within the borders of 1967. To be sustainable, it will need to grapple with matters left over since 1948. The first step will be to recognize that in the hearts and minds of Israelis and Palestinians, the fundamental question is not about the details of an apparently practical solution. It is an existential struggle between two worldviews.

Read All at :


Israel Matzav: Malley: 'I still favor a two-state solution'

Tuesday, 11 August 2009

Israel Matzav: The issue shifts to 1948

The issue shifts to 1948

In Tuesday's New York Times, Hussein Agha and Robert Malley - former State Department Arabists in the Clinton administration - argue that a 'two-state solution' between Israel and the 'Palestinians' doesn't resolve anything.

Over the past two decades, the origins of the conflict were swept under the carpet, gradually repressed as the struggle assumed the narrower shape of the post-1967 territorial tug-of-war over the West Bank and Gaza. The two protagonists, each for its own reason, along with the international community, implicitly agreed to deal with the battle’s latest, most palpable expression. Palestinians saw an opportunity to finally exercise authority over a part of their patrimony; Israelis wanted to free themselves from the burdens of occupation; and foreign parties found that it was the easier, tidier thing to do. The hope was that, somehow, addressing the status of the West Bank and Gaza would dispense with the need to address the issues that predated the occupation and could outlast it.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: The issue shifts to 1948

Monday, 6 July 2009

FEIGLIN: "TWO-STATE" PROPOSAL HIJACKS NATIONALIST VOTES THAT ELECTED HIM

Feiglin: Netanyahu's "Two-State" Proposal HijacksNationalist Votes That Elected Him

July 5, 2009...
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu today made the statement that there is a national Israeli consensus in favor of his “two-state” proposal of carving an Arab state out of the biblical Jewish heartland in the state of Israel.
Manhigut Yehudit President Moshe Feiglin points out that Netanyahu was elected with the votes of the national camp that favors a "one-state" proposal - and this state remaining Jewish. As 65 of the 109 Jewish seats in the Knesset are in parties on the right wing of the political spectrum, it can be surmised that approximately 60% of the Jewish citizens of Israel actually oppose Bibi's giveaway.
Bibi’s proposal does not reflect national consensus, but rather hijacks the votes of the national camp and applies them to leftist policies.
taken from :
Press Releases
Manhigut Yehudit

Friday, 3 July 2009

Israel Matzav: The 'then maybe they will' doctrine

The 'then maybe they will' doctrine

Steven Plaut describes the cognitive dissonance that is necessary to entertain the notion that 'two states for two people' will lead to peace. He calls it the 'then maybe they will' doctrine.

For the past 30 years the Israeli political establishment has been prisoner to the "Then Maybe They Will" doctrine. Every major policy decision made by the government has reflected the power of wishful thinking and faith in the make-pretend. Here is a brief recapitulation of the doctrine:


Read All at :

Israel Matzav: The 'then maybe they will' doctrine
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...