Looking to the Future and the Completion of the Peace Process

Reflecting on the entirety of the period after the liberation of Judea, Samaria, Benyamin and reunified Jerusalem I have realized how drastically things have changed since June of 1967. There was great hope and joy that came with the reunification of Jerusalem and having the Old City once again available for Jews and Christians to visit and enjoy their holy sites throughout the Old City and in the eastern heart of Eretz Yisroel. Looking back at that period using that hindsight which is always 20/20 vision coming from crystal clear thought I realize that Israel should have simply annexed whatever lands would have best served the future of the country. Instead Israel limited their annexations to the rest of Jerusalem and its immediate surroundings including the Mount of Olives and the historic cemetery as well as the vital Golan Heights. In hindsight it becomes clear that Israel should have simply annexed all of Judea, Samaria, Benyamin and anything else which made up the areas liberated from Jordanian oppression. Annexing the Golan Heights was wise and it might have even been expedient to have also annexed a mile or so of the lowlands east of the Golan Heights so as to be able to assure that no obstacles, tunnels or other structures of a military nature would even compromise a clear field of view and security from snipers or encroachments for the forces stationed along the heights. And finally it might have served Israel to also have retained at least part of the Sinai Peninsula, in particular the eastern sections from the easternmost mountain range to the eastern fork of the Red Sea assuring that the Straights of Tiran are never again used to cut off Israel’s seaway to all of Asia and the eastern coast of Africa. But that was not the path chosen and it is far too late now to concern ourselves with such fantasies.

 

The greatest error made after the reunification of Jerusalem was allowing the Muslim Waqf to retain control and enforcement of their will over the Temple Mount. This error in judgment has resulted in the destruction of countless priceless archeological artifacts dating back to the periods of both the First and Second Temples. This Jewish heritage has been permanently lost for all times. That mistake pales compared to the most grievous error and mistaken policy decision very likely in all of history. I am referring to allowing Yasser Arafat to return and granting that arch terrorist to hold any position or power. Allowing anyone with the moral depravity to dispatch youths with murderous vests filled with explosives into restaurants, malls, and other venues with the intent of murdering as many innocents as possible to hold any office which commands respect is a miscarriage of decency. The irony of pretending that Yasser Arafat, and after him, Mahmoud Abbas, were people with whom a peace could be negotiated was a fools folly. The vision of bringing two nations into existence living together in mutual peace, security and cooperation was beautiful even if it ended up being a futile venture. The idea was noble but the actual implementation was a completely different matter in which there would be no beauty to be found. After such disappointment and with the realization that an impasse has been reached, now what are the available options and which should be Israel’s target going forward?

 

The question is, knowing what is now known, what path is open which actually can be obtained and how would Israel be best served in reaching whatever goal is deemed to be the most equitable while still providing for a real and enforceable peace along with security for Israel and her citizenry. The first item that has to be resolved in order to begin is to understand precisely what the honest and actual position the Palestinian leadership would be willing to accept. In order to accomplish this not so small a feat one would be required to research and actually listen to speeches, broadcasts, editorials, and even school lessons which are shared between the Palestinians in their private conversing. This is actually something which is seldom taken into account by the Western mainstream media, European Union, European governments, and the American mainstream media and government. For reasons that escape all sanity, apparently there are almost no people in the Western World who are able to translate Arabic into English, French, German or any other native Western language thus their usual suppositions and position on all things concerning the Arabs and Palestinians relating to Israel are simply based on the propaganda which Mahmoud Abbas, Salam Fayyad and other Palestinian and Arab spokespeople relay in interviews and speeches made in English, French, German, or any language other than Arabic or Farsi. We know that in the European languages that the Palestinian positions are simply that they desire peace above all else and are completely willing to make peace if Israel would simply stop being so stubborn and agree to some simply items which Abbas often claims are just responsibilities which the Israelis need to perform and then negotiations may proceed and peace would be right around the corner. These minor little items actually fit well with what these same spokespeople say in Arabic, and what is that exactly? Let’s see.

 

The preconditions include but are not limited to, release all of the Palestinians held in Israeli prison system with an emphasis on those who are convicted terrorists or security risks, complete Israeli building freeze in West Bank and East Jerusalem, Netanyahu to submit a map of the proposed Palestine and having the map be acceptable to Mahmoud Abbas, remove all IDF and Border Police from Palestinian claimed areas, allow free import of weapons for Palestinian Security Forces, allow training exercises between Palestinian Security Forces and Arab countries’ militaries, agreement from Israel for utilizing the pre-1967 War Armistice Lines as the basis for Palestinian State allowing for exchanges if and only if Abbas approves of them, Israeli accept the Right of Return for all Palestinian refugees into Israel with full citizenship and with or without Israel acceptance the Palestinians demand the right to continue resistance until all of their land has been liberated. Once one takes these demands and digests them it becomes apparent that the only final situation the Palestinians are willing to accept is a one state solution with such state being the Palestinian state and that state must be rendered free of any Jews. What makes this even more obvious is that once you translate what is said between the Palestinians and their allies in the Arab world, you quickly realize that the sole acceptable solution is a Palestinian Arab state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, every single iota of what they believe is Palestine without any Israel. It is the way it is drawn in their textbooks and on the map in Mahmoud Abbas’s office; it is the way the Arab League depicts the final solution; it is the way many in Europe and at the United Nations believe to be perfectly acceptable if not preferable.

 

Once Israel and Israelis fully understand that as long as there is any semblance of Palestinian governance they will not have peace, then Israel will be able to decide exactly what their path going forward should be. Should the Israelis, and the Jewish people, decide that they will continue to live in their own lands where their ancestors resided and are the lands depicted in the Bible, then they too will realize the same thing the Palestinians already have realized, the only solution will eventually be a one state solution. Even if there were sufficient arable land for two viable nations, there is no existing politics which would permit such. Should the day ever arrive where a Palestinian state were founded alongside of Israel, it would simply become the end of the first phase of the conquest and deportation, or worse, of the Jews and their state, Israel. Once this is recognized as the truth of the situation, then it also becomes apparent that for the Jewish state of Israel to survive, it much first prevail in a struggle which has but one possible resolution, a single state where the winner of the conflict takes all of the land and the other side is either deported or murdered. This realization makes the next step painfully obvious; the people of Israel will need to decide whether or not the existence of their state is worth the efforts it will take to keep the land upon which it sits. If the answer is as expected, in the affirmative, then the Israelis will need to implement and execute whatever responses are necessitated in order to establish Israel as the existing state and decide if the Arab populations which are currently considered to be Palestinians is allowed to remain as legal alien residents, deported with compensation for loss of properties, or given a path by which they would attain Israeli citizenship.

 

My preference, though fortunately it is not my place to decide, would be to allow a path for those Palestinians who wished to be able to become Israeli citizens, those who would prefer to remain but not become Israeli citizens should be allowed alien status and those who want no part of the Jewish state of Israel should be given a parting gift and transportation to their desired destination provided the destination country is willing to accept them. The one additional provision which would probably be a necessity is to establish a law that should a member of a family commit an act of terror, the entire family will be deported and the individual perpetrating the act of terrorism will not be eligible to receive compensation for loss of property along with whomever resided in the same location as the terrorist. If Mother and Father live with a young adult who commits an act of terror, then their claim to compensation would initially be voided. Of course some legal challenge might be allowed in exceptional cases, but such would need to be evaluated on an individual basis. Such may not be even close to resembling the perfect solution, but the fact that the Palestinians as an entirety refuse to accept the existence of the Jewish state in any size, manner or form is the impetus forcing such measures. Should the Palestinians wish to avoid such an inevitability, they would be advised to make a real and lasting peace and accept sharing rather than insisting on removing all vestiges of Jewish presence.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Republican Lack of Discipline Exposed by Hagel Confirmation

There is a theory throughout the free world that on certain votes party discipline is expected. Such examples abound in the Parliaments in Europe, Israel, Japan, Australia, Canada and any we may have omitted. It has often been on display within the United States Congress, but almost exclusively by the Democrat legislators and almost never, actually might be never, from the Republican side of the aisle. The nomination by President Obama of former Senator Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense was problematic even before his dreadful performance at his confirmation hearings. As positions go in a President’s Cabinet, Secretary of State, CIA Chief, Chief of the FBI are the few of the positions which rival Secretary of Defense in their importance. This makes the ability to answer questions competently and without overly long hesitations very crucial. Mr. Hagel’s performance left loads to be desired. He not only stumbled on answering questions but also had to correct answers he had given after conferring with handlers sent to aid him in his responses. The United States does not need or desire a Secretary of Defense who is less prepared to answer vital questions than the average Senator would be. Even if this had been the only problem with the Hagel appointment it still would have been worthy of greater objection than was displayed.

But there were already other questions and difficulties posed by Senator Hagel’s previous statements concerning the United States staunchest Middle East ally Israel and his lack of resolve shown towards the Iranian nuclear program as well as his soft approach to such terrorist groups denoted as such by the State Department as Hamas and Hezballah. When one additionally inspects Senator Hagel’s voting record his appointment becomes all the more troublesome. Add in his flippant disregard for many such votes and his snide remark that there was no evidence that any of his votes ever did any damage to Israel which though technically true, it is not for want of trying on Hagel’s behalf and solely due to the fact that Hagel’s vote was among the minority and the vast majority of his fellow Senators supported the United State’s ally Israel. The final nail in the coffin for the Hagel appointment should have come when at least one Republican Senator decided to filibuster the nomination and requested his fellow Republicans support his efforts. Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma even wrote a letter asking as much and despite being given the support of a number of fellow Republican Senators; the party supported his efforts only through one cloture vote stalling the confirmation over one little weekend.

After supporting the Senator Inhofe intent to filibuster on a Friday vote, Senator Reid, the Majority Leader of the Senate, was assured by numerous Republicans that they would no longer support any further Republican efforts to filibuster and delay a confirmation vote. What makes the whole cloture vote fold by Republican Senators so disheartening is when the actual vote came to confirm the Hagel appointment as Secretary of Defense, the final vote was insufficient to have overcome the filibuster by a fair margin of 58-41, two votes short of cloture if the Senators had voted their up or down vote during the cloture vote. Despite the four Senators from the Republican side of the aisle who voted to approve the Hagel nomination, the cloture vote of 71-27 reveals that an additional thirteen Republican Senators voted to end the filibuster by their own party than eventually supported the nomination. The question which those whose Senators voted for cloture despite opposing the nomination must be asked is why, knowing that a vote for cloture guaranteed the nomination, did they ignore the sole path to resist this atrocious appointment and fold to the demands of President Obama, Senator Reid and the Democrats? Are they that afraid to stand strong for their beliefs and only vote their conscience when it will not make a difference and when their vote matters simply fold under even the slightest of pressures from the Democrats? What are they afraid of, missing out on some brie and red wine luncheons in the Capital Building or some other social affairs? If they are unable of standing when their votes matter, perhaps they should be replaced. If your Senator was among the four that voted for Hagel, well, at least they were consistent and voted their minds. But if your Senator is among the thirteen who voted for cloture thus guaranteeing a confirmation which they then voted against, you may wish to replace the worms you currently have as the next choice could not be worse. Maybe you can find a real Republican Senatorial candidate to run against the worm in the next primary and send a real conservative Constitutionalist Senator to Washington. Would that be too much to ask? My Senator, he was the one who first stated intent to filibuster and the other supported him and is known as Senator No. I am glad you asked.

Beyond the Cusp

Prisoners, Politics, Policies, Perceptions, Principles and Pardons

Once again the news is filled with denunciations, demands, pleas and outright indignations all demanding Israel release or commit to actions which will alleviate the reasons, conditions and complaints in order to mollify and end the hunger strike by Palestinian prisoners. It is not a new set of circumstance as this exact scenario has been played out before much to the delight and satisfaction of those who constantly call for Israeli surrender no matter the reason, situation or possible deleterious results which will be caused. The last time there were hunger-striking terrorist prisoners, we add the modifier terrorist in order to clarify exactly the kind of people and the reason for their detention as such is important, the world, or at least the Europeans and their cohorts from the left, made a set of demands with attached admonitions which revealed their duplicity. Now that the precedent and full consequences for particular actions have been established, this time around only the bald demand need be voiced as the rest of the limitations are understood. But what are the demands and the options the Israelis may utilize in addressing this situation?

The initial picture is a select number of Palestinians held due to their ties to terrorist activities. Some are under what is known as Administrative Detention, a charge left from the British Mandate legal system where those responsible for planning, arming, or other direct means of assisting terrorist activities were placed in custody for the increased safety of the peoples as a whole. Such incarcerations usually have an upper limit to the length of time such a prisoner may be held though there is no limit as to how many times they may be held or the frequency. Neither of these latter conditions applies to those currently involved in the hunger strikes and many of the strikers are imprisoned for actual terror acts. The one part of this entire affair which will never likely be explained are the limitations placed on the country or other administrative body under whose jurisdiction the hunger-striking prisoners are held. They are required to have a neutral physician determine the rationality and sanity of the prisoner and if they are found to be of sound mind, then they must be advised that their actions are harmful to their general health and could, if carried to its logical end, result in death. This is the limit in which the government may intercede concerning the hunger-striking prisoner. If the prisoner should expire as a result of their refusal of nourishment the state is not seen as being responsible. Should the state intervene and force-feed the hunger-striking prisoner, the act is viewed as a denial of the prisoners’ rights and such actions may lead to sanctioning the state. In a nut shell, Israel is left powerless to act in any manner to provide sustenance as long as the prisoner is deemed rational. So, if Israel were to force-feed any of the hunger-strikers, they would very likely find themselves charged with crimes against humanity as they would have denied the prisoner their human rights. If Israel followed international law and allowed the hunger-striker to starve and die, the firestorm that would follow would be beyond any such outrage ever before seen. That leaves Israel with only one option, to capitulate to the demands of the hunger-striking terrorist prisoners and release them to resume their organizing, assisting and implementing terror attacks against Israeli civilians. This is the unspoken desired result those protesting Israeli lack of actions in preventing the adverse effects of starvation from inflicting the hunger-strikers.

The real problem Israel is currently facing is a direct result of their former actions. Many, ourselves included, advised not to give in to an early release or any other demand made by the initial hunger-striking terror prisoners. This is not to say that Israel should have allowed the prisoners to starve themselves to death. There is a technicality which can be applied to make a kind of end-run around the noninterference clause within the applicable international law. The law states that if a prisoner should be determined to be in an impaired state of mind and possibly not fully cognizant of the imminent danger their actions are causing, then the prisoner may be hospitalized and fed. The only qualifying requirement is the documentation of their limited capacity by two neutral physicians. It is highly doubtful that two such physicians could be procured to make such a determination and thus allow Israel to address the threats of prisoners starving themselves to death while not surrendering to the demands for release or any other demands. No doubt Israel would probably be called to account for their actions for feeding terrorist prisoners against their declared intentions and will to starve themselves to death in order to bring condemnations upon Israel. It is not too late for Israel to implement this method for addressing such protestations in a way which will blunt the indignations from the world’s busybodies while also rendering hunger-strikes as an ineffective ploy robbed of its impact and denying the intended result. Sometimes it becomes dizzying witnessing the lengths and depths many in the world will travel simply to condemn Israel.

On another front of this situation, Israel should refuse to allow any advantages to come of not only the hunger-strikers but also those rioting and attacking security forces in supposed support of the hunger-strikers. We say supposed support as it is a relative call as to how much of the current increased violence is directly due to the prison hunger-strikers and how much is simply instituted in order to attempt to interrupt the joys and revelry associated with the joyous Purim celebrations throughout Israel this week. If Israel were to react with panic and surrender to increases in violence perpetrated by the Palestinians, the result would be a never ending spiral of increased violence. This has been the exact reaction to apparent Israeli restraint in the face of violence perpetrated against her citizens in the past. When Israel attempted to simply wait out increased violence of previous intifadas instead of mobilizing and restoring order; their lack of action was perceived as weakness and resulted in more violence, increased destruction, higher death toll, additional casualties and a greater intervention in order to restore order and calm. Each time Israel has appeased such pressure tactics such as these hunger-strikes which are coordinated with allied NGOs, leftists, and other anti-Israel and anti-Zionist groups and governments, Israel has simply guaranteed more similar actions with ever increasing demands attached. In every instance where some act was initially met with Israeli compliance and surrendering before coordinated world demands, the action would be repeated and escalated with demands eventually surpassing even the ability of the most permissive and tolerant of Israeli society to agree it was necessary to meet the demands in the hopes of restoring peace and order. This use of escalating threats tied to ever increasing demands has become the normal operating procedure of the Palestinian Authority with its preconditions, Hamas and their rocket barrages and has even spread to the anti-Zionist allied groups in Europe, the Middle East and world-wide. Since Israel gives in to some minor action and continues to capitulate through numerous and ever-increasing escalations; whenever Israel finally refuses and takes whatever actions are necessary to restore order, the result is the same calamitous cacophony of shrill denunciation thrust upon Israel for having the audacity to defend her people, country and even existence. The intent of the most minor act of defiance should be treated the same as the eventual escalation of such similar act if Israel can ever expect to live with the same peace and tranquility afforded other nations. It is not as if the boisterous cacophony if indignations would be any more or less than when after numerous escalations Israel finally resists the blackmail that is at the heart of the terrorist onslaught faced by Israel daily. The friendship of the world which is offered before every demand for Israeli concessions, usually land for the promise which matters not as it will never be met, will likewise not be forthcoming but withheld with yet another concession brought forth as the new parameter necessary for their friendship. The friendship of much of the world will remain denied to Israel until she learns that the world only loves those who demand their respect. Capitulation begets further demands, standing one’s ground is the only path which eventually leads to respect, the first requirement for friendship. Simple stated, capitulators will capitulate themselves to death, both literal and figurative, while the steadfast will dictate the terms and gain respect and be the ones whose friendship is sought. Israel needs to soon choose which side of this fence they will be found, lying helplessly defeated and trounced on the side of the capitulators or standing strong with pride among the recognized nations of the world. Let us hope and pray they choose to stand among the nations.

Beyond the Cusp