Beyond the Cusp

February 11, 2017

Why Does Israel Continue to Exist Today?

 

Ask the average American irreligious or slightly religious Jew, many call them secular Jews or twice a year Jews who only visit the synagogue for the High Holidays and celebrate Hanukkah almost as if it were the Jewish Christmas even to having what they call a Hanukkah Bush (it really is a Christmas Tree with a six pointed star on top instead of a five pointed star). Ask the Jewish leadership of the Anti-Defamation League. Ask Rabbi Rick Jacobs, President of the Union for Reform Judaism. Ask Gideon Levy who writes for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Ask J-Street, B’Tselem, Peace Now or any of the plethora of misnamed human rights groups which act as Palestinian Arab critical support and fifth column against Israeli interests. The list of people and groups one can ask extends throughout Europe and the entire world with an ever growing number vocally screaming foul over the latest law passed by the Knesset which makes the Jewish communities anywhere west of the Jordan River legal, even those in the, dare we say it, West Bank, formerly known as Judea and Samaria for close to three thousand years. All these protesters keep repeating that this law will destroy the Israeli democracy and disenfranchise Arabs in Israel. This is total bunk. The Israeli Arabs will not be affected by this law in any way or by any means, period. Arabs will still be permitted to work in any position they are qualified to and desire, they will continue to be doctors, nurses, lawyers, Ministers in the Knesset, judges including on the Supreme Court, drivers, construction, engineering or anything they can dream. They will still own their homes, live where they choose, attend schools of their choice, attend church, Mosque, Synagogue or other religious institution of their choice, drive, ride all forms of transportation, vote in all elections and everything else as citizens of Israel. Guess that democracy thing will survive.

 

I hear the yelling already, “What about the Palestinians voting?” Well, tell you what, whenever Mahmoud Abbas decides that elections are due, then they can have elections. Abbas is serving his twelfth year of a four year term which started in January 2005. The reason the Palestinian Arabs have not voted is because the Palestinian Authority, which means Mahmoud Abbas who has become its dictatorial ruler, has suspended their democratic processes as Abbas knows he would never win in a fair election and the deceit necessary to have him win is beyond his personal ability to manage as there are those standing ready for any opportunity to replace him. Israel has absolutely no control over elections for the Palestinian authority any more than it has over elections in Gaza ruled by Hamas. Where Israel is often faulted for the lack of opportunity to vote for their government by the Arab Palestinians, it has no validity and nothing to do with Arab Israelis who have full rights and do vote in Israeli elections. What happens to the Palestinian Arabs has more to do with their true intentions and the actual and real meaning and purpose of the State of Israel. We will try and clarify both in the remainder of this article and hope we can at least set a few misconceptions straight.

 

First, let us cover the easiest misperception, that Israel was founded to be a democracy. Not even slightly true. Israel was founded to be the homeland for the Jewish People. It is that simple. Read the Balfour Declarations (see image below) and you will see nary a word about democracy throughout. Read the San Remo Conference and again nary a word about elections, democracy or anything covering governance. Everything in every treaty, conference, document and even the Mandate Rules written by the League of Nations have no reference to democracy or anything about how the State of Israel was to be governed. The main points were that it was to be the homeland for the Jewish People and it could not deprive the residents residing in the land of their freedoms to own property, practice their religion and all civil and religious rights but says nothing about political rights. According to all of the laws etcetera regarding the making and founding of the State of Israel, the form of governance is completely unmentioned leaving it up to the Jews, the Zionists, to decide as they formed their nation. Technically, Israel could legally limit the right to vote to Jews or even to practicing Jews. Israel did not take that path. Israel gave full rights to their population whether Jewish or not. That is why Arabs are full voting citizens of the State of Israel as are many other peoples who were present or have been allowed citizenship as refugees from persecution. The Arabs who remained in Israel did not join the Arab forces who attacked Israel in the 1948 Arab War of Genocidal Intent launched by the Arab World on Israel’s founding morning of May 15, 1948.

 

Balfour Declaration and Initial Proposed Map and Lands

Balfour Declaration and
Initial Proposed Map and Lands

 

As a result of that war, what in Israel is euphemistically called the Israeli War of Independence and is celebrated as a victory as Israel survived, yet the reality comes to territory where Israel lost major parts of Judea and Samaria to Jordan who renamed that area the West Bank while Egypt took over the Gaza Strip. There were some Arab villages which harbored fighters which attacked the Israeli forces from behind the lines which lead to the Israeli forces dispossessing the entire village as that was the expedient way of addressing the situation most efficiently and immediately deciding that the villagers were at the least partially responsible for the use of their areas for staging a rear attack and that they were acting as a fifth column. Much has been misrepresented about these actions claiming that these villagers were dispossessed of their lands simply because they were Arabs and nothing else, ignoring their harboring of Arab forces which were planted in order to attack Israeli forces from behind and cutting off their routes of supply and assaulting the civilians claiming that every Jew was a legitimate target. These differences will never be resolved and can only be mitigated by what means will allow.

 

We have settled that the only real meanings behind the founding of Israel was to take some desert, swamp lands and rock strewn hills into the Jewish homeland. The few people residing in these lands at the end of World War I, a sparse set of peoples strewn here and there, were guaranteed their civil and religious rights such as continued ownership of lands, herds, business, residence and other properties as well as rights to worship in their traditional methods and follow their religions freely. The existing residents were not guaranteed political rights which were reserved technically for the Jewish People if this were the decision of the Zionist Congress upon the founding of the state. When Israel was founded on May 15, 1948 one might say that everything hit the fan as forces from more than a half dozen Arab armies and militias attacked Israel from every possible direction. Peace was not achieved for over a year and when the decision of governance was finally addressed the leadership from the Zionist Congress and the other groups such as the Haganah reached the decision to extend full political rights to all the residents in the nation, Arabs, Jews, Christians, Bedouins, Druze, Baha’I and other smaller minority groups all as one democratic nation. This was the first actual decision on using a democracy and it is notable that the democracy was all inclusive of those who were not opposed to the Jews having their own state. This is how and why Israel is a democracy.

 

When the State of Israel was founded, the Palestinian Arabs were not citizens of Israel but were Arabs residing in Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia as well as some Iraqis, Turks, Yemenis and others who were part of the invading forces and who remained on the lands or were actually driven onto the lands by their governments in order to make what have become known as facts on the ground. The claims that all of the Palestinian Arabs came from inside Israel is a common factual lie which has been repeated so often with such force and echo-chamber reinforced, the world now accepts it as factual. This is the main drive behind the two state concept as the claim is Israel owes the remnant of her invaders their own nation. This misconception has poisoned the waters so permanently that a solution would be difficult if this was the sole difficulty. There is a further problem in that the Arabs do not believe that the Jews have any right to a homeland within what they see as the Muslim Ummah. Their claim is that throughout all history, which for the Muslims begins in 625, there have been no Jewish lands within the lands they conquered and colonized. The reality is that the Arabs have the longest running and most extensive colonial enterprise in world history. They also are under the belief that the problem with the world is that it has not yet, emphasis on yet, come under the rule of Allah and the dictatorial rule of Islam. Until they are disabused of this notion, Israel, as well as the world in total, can never feel safe from the next Islamic offensive, something the Europeans should remember from their own history as Islam has attacked through Spain only to be turned at Tours by Charles “the Hammer” Martel and twice from Turkey Ottoman Empire being turned back at the Battle of Vienna, the first attack being stopped in 1529 and the second assault turned back by Polish King John III Sobieski in 1683.

 

Israel, conceived, initiated and founded to be the homeland of the Jewish People has faced the difficulty of a Palestinian Arab irascible obstinacy demanding they are the rightful owners of the lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea and that the Jews have no rights in these lands and deserve to be exterminated. This has been their first, second, and final demand and they refuse to compromise and accept anything less. Their demands are often couched in coded verbiage such as their demanding they receive their 22% of the Mandate Lands. The western leadership will almost always take that to mean that they are demanding 22% of the lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea this meaning Judea and Samaria or Judea, Samaria and Gaza. What Abbas actually means and has explained as his meaning is 22% of the entire of the Mandate Lands, the 22% which consists of all the lands not taken to make Jordan which was 78% of the original Mandate Lands, the entire of the lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Yasser Arafat and after him Mahmoud Abbas both demanded that Israel be destroyed and replaced by Palestine. Abbas has actually offered one compromise; his idea of a two state solution. His two state idea is for an Arab Palestine which will be completely free of Jews and an Arab ruled State of Israel where the Jews have no rights and are allowed to live at the indulgence of their betters, the Arabs which will include over five million Arabs brought from refugee camps from around the Arab world and even within Judea and Samaria and Gaza and who knows how many additional Arabs who simply claim to be refugees seeking economic betterment. Anyway one cuts it, finding a solution which will satisfy the Palestinian Arab leadership and their Arab League backers, it would require sacrificing the Jewish State making the Jews once again stateless.

 

The problem with the Arab reasoning is that history did not begin in 625 AD, especially in the lands of Judea, Samaria and the rest of the lands of the Twelve Tribes of Israel (see map on right below). The Twelve Tribes of Israel were founded when Joshua crossed the Jordan River and defeated the first Canaanite King of Jericho. This was followed with another victory at Ai and continued until the Holy Lands were conquered following numerous tactical routes first heading through the central Judean hills, then southward and finally the northern areas (shown in the left map below). This conquest began approximately 1275 BCE. Since that time virtually every conquering empire outside those in the Americas, China, Japan, and Russia but even to including the Vikings if one believes that the Greeks were originally Vikings who found the Greek climate preferable to Scandinavia, surprise, surprise, and their Triremes were modified Long Ships; they all have invaded and occupied without ever naming Jerusalem as a capital city even for a province unless the province was expressly for the Jews as was the case under the Persian Empire of Cyrus the Great. The Jewish People have an extensively long history uninterrupted with Jews residing in the lands and especially in Jerusalem constantly starting soon after the entrance of Joshua through the expansive times under Kings David and Solomon through the First Temple Period, their Babylonian exile of most of the population and their subsequent return and building of the Second Temple and expanding the Temple Mount and the remainder of their history through to the modern period. That is the real history and Israel was founded recognizing the entirety of the history, not just that which is fancifully convenient for the Islamic sensibilities.

 

Israel Through the Ages Joshua Enters to the Twelve Tribes

Israel Through the Ages Joshua Enters to the Twelve Tribes

 

Then there is the biggest fallacy of them all, that Israel conquered Palestinian Lands in the Six Day War in 1967. First thing is there has never been anything called Palestine for their land to be stolen. Palestine is the name of the region and the original use of the term Palestinian was for the Jews during the British Mandate period where the Arabs were referred to as Arabs or Syrians, Jordanians, Iraqis, Druze, Bedouins, Egyptians or other designation of origin or tribe. When Israel regained the lands of Judea and Samaria in the 1967 Six Day War they were not conquering new lands, they were liberating their own lands which had been occupied by the Jordanians since the 1948 War. The only occupation of Judea and Samaria was by Jordan and the claim that Jordan gifted these lands to the Palestinian Arabs is a great misconception, a great invention of propaganda. The lands were originally and always Israeli and were occupied by Jordan. One cannot give away stolen lands and thus Jordan could not gift the lands to the Palestinian Arabs as it was stolen land occupied illegally by Jordan. The entire world with the exception of Britain and Pakistan refused to recognize these lands as Jordanian. Even Egypt and the Arab League refused to recognize the Jordanian occupation. Lastly, Jordan signed a peace with Israel surrendering the occupied lands of Judea and Samaria back to Israel and it was not until two years after that treaty that Jordan officially claimed to have gifted the lands to Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Arabs. That makes these lands doubly not Jordanian to give as they were not even occupying the lands when they claimed to have given them away. What is next, the Iranians claiming they gave away Hollywood to the Arab Palestinians community of Southern California? That would be just as legal as the Jordanian claims to have given land they did not even possess at the time to the Palestinian Arabs and they even made the claim retroactive to attempt to grant it some degree of validity. That simply does not wash and the land remains Israeli until such time as Israel gives it away in a treaty, something seeming more and more remote by the day.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

February 7, 2017

Israel’s Worst Enemy is Israel

 

Prime Minister Netanyahu is meeting with British Prime Minister Theresa May where the two are expected to talk about how they can work together and pursue mutual interests. It is commonly thought that since BREXIT that Britain separating from the European Union (EU) might actually side with Israel on matters which would naturally be opposed by most leaders of the EU membership. Where this might be valid for many members of the British public, one need remember that there is an entire party, one of the larger parties, the Labour Party which has been having a devil of a time with anti-Semitism within its ranks. It comes as little surprise that this was also the part most opposed to BREXIT. We may as well state what many believe from all evidence to be true, the membership nations of the EU largely hate Israel due to their undertow of anti-Semitism, something Europe has never really found a means to get around. Anti-Semitism is pretty rank across the EU and they show it most when it comes to Israel. This is not to claim that such feelings are universal, fortunately they are not. Still, many members and politicians across the EU hold a visceral hatred of all things Israel and by their actions make it appear that their best served interests would lead to the end of Israel once and for all, a seeming cherished outcome. Way back in ancient history when anti-Semitism was better received, 2001 to be exact, French Ambassador to the United Kingdom Daniel Bernard was quoted of having stated during a conversation with Conrad Black of the Daily Telegraph at a private dinner party Black was hosting, “All the current troubles in the world are because of that shitty little country Israel. Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?” He pretty much summed up the feeling of many in Europe then as well as now as the EU and its member nations remain amongst the major contributors to the various Arab agencies working towards the annihilation of Israel. What can we conclude from all of this? We can have fairly low expectations of earth shaking results coming from the meetings between our two Prime Ministers, that is all.

 

Later this month there will be a slightly more important meeting, or at least it could be if and only if Israel is not sabotaged by her own Prime Minister. Israel still appears to be working in the service of those who wish to do her harm. Partly this is a result of the Israeli desire for two items which often appear to be mutually exclusive. The first is the demand that Israel do everything out in the open in the light of day because, as the Talmud teaches, sunshine is the best cleanser of corruption, by dealing in all things openly, Israel avoids conflicts of interest and other pitfalls from government malfeasance. Secondly, Israel wishes to be liked and accepted by the rest of the world, but as this is ever so unlikely, by being open and above board in so many government and private business dealings she opens herself more to criticism than acceptance. One might ask what other government works so hard at being upright and free from backroom dealings and where would even what other nations consider doing business get new elections other than in Israel. It is partly due to this openness that Israel receives regular scorn and the proof is the method by which new residences and office buildings and other such constructions are permitted especially beyond the Green Line. The method consists of announcing the government taking bids, tenders, for the project. Then there come public debate over whose bid is the best for the lowest price. Then there is a second round of this bidding, why we will never know as rarely does it alter who wins the bid. Then there are more hearings where those opposed to such building are given privileged opportunities to state their case, and they are legion and very boisterous. Then the proposed date is publically debated, then announced and then eventually the building starts and it becomes obvious that something is actually being constructed. Everything leading up to the surveying the landscape and breaking ground takes over two years and countless announcements each and every minor step along the way. This leads to Israel being raked over the coals for every building project beyond the Green Line multiple times for over two years before anything solid even takes place on the ground. Most, if not all, of the process could just as openly be conducted in private government operations which would still allow for public review without making formal declarations to the world and give every newspaper the world over the particulars of projects which often never get off the ground or ever become reality. This has been the reality for all too many projects to build anything anywhere in Israel, particularly if the buildings will benefit the Jews and double so if it is on what Mahmoud Abbas will scream is land belonging to his Arab Palestinians, which for your information is anywhere in Israel between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. And once Mahmoud Abbas or any other Palestinian authority (PA) or PLO leadership goes public with an outcry over any single part, or each and every step along the two year plus procedure, the EU and member nations amongst others, often President Obama these past eight years, along with whomever was serving as Secretary of State, would all scold Israel for building on lands which belong to Israel and will remain Israeli until such time as Israel signs any treaty gifting the lands to some other entity. This all but demanding a public flogging at each progression along the winding road to any project has got to come to an end if Israel is ever to be a normal nation, something she seems very proud not to be considered as she acts so above board and carefully in all actions of governance. Such is of course needless agony brought upon herself.

 

That is one point where later this month Israel may catch the biggest break possibly since the San Remo Conference formalized and gave near universal acceptance of the Balfour Declaration and led to the Mandate system which was to become a benefit and a curse for Israel. This break could come in the form of one President Donald Trump who himself also tends to announce everything he does and give it great notice, though for a far different reason. The Donald, as he becomes during such times, likes to boast and be the great pretender, even when he is actually winning, and actively seeks admirations and recognition for all he does and does in such a grand manner. Still, President Trump proved along the campaign trail and its trials and tribulations that he knew how to manage the media such that he got what he wanted out to the people for whom it was meant and worded as he would have stated such, and often had stated such. Learning some pointers on how to gain a positive image while doing that which you desired to accomplish anyway would be a valuable lesson. But President Donald Trump could go a whole lot further, though initially it might appear otherwise.

 

You see, if President Trump begins his meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu with a public press conference, then President Trump could point out that he is expecting to take Prime Minister Netanyahu into private meetings where many demands and other instructions will be identified, delineated and demanded of Israel going forward, especially concerning the “Peace Process,” amongst many other items of mutual interests. Then when the two men are in private, perhaps at an informal two family dinner the two men could retire to a private session, play some mutually preferred music to mask their voices, smoke a good Cuban cigar, made in the United States from old Cuban seeds, have a sifter of brandy and get down to the one thing that President Trump may demand of Israel. That singular thing would be to shut up and get one with ending the stalemate the only way it can possibly end. Oddly enough, by using the traditional method first utilized by Joshua right before he led the Israelites across the Jordan River into the Promised Lands to start what would be the ensuing three to four millennial history of the Jewish People and their land, the solution would resolve today’s problems even more efficiently than it did in Biblical times where it took over a century to complete the conquest of the Promised Lands. The Torah tells us as well as repeating such in later books and writings that the Canaanites were given three options and some took each of these options. The first option was to live amongst the Israelites in peace, obey the seven Noahic Codes for a civil society, and cooperate with Israelite rule and be content to benefit when the Israelites would benefit. The second option was to gather all of your belongings and all the wealth you cared to bring with you which were actually yours and leave to find another land in which to reside and the Israelites would allow you to leave unmolested by them. The final choice was to war with the Israelites and refuse their other offers at which point you would be granted your war and would be erased from all future history. No matter which you chose, the one certainty was that the Israelites would have their Promised Lands and that did come to pass, though it did take a while to fully accomplish. This could be a part of the deal a President Trump would impart to Prime Minister Netanyahu, but there should be more.

 

President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu

President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu

 

Further, President Trump should lay out exactly what he sees as the best alternative for the United States to assist in the solutions to come, and he should stress that things are going to be vastly different and that Israel need take their moves largely from President Trump and his agents. There is a promising deal as well as some links to other proposed solutions which can be found in Ted Belman’s article titled “The Ultimate Alternate Israel-Palestine Solution” which spells out a regional solution which could benefit all honest and true brokers for peace in the region. The deal would require much from the United States in forcing assistance from the United Nations, the EU, most, if not all, the EU member nations, some United States allies in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt as well as Jordan as well as their leaders, and some radical changes with the Arab Palestinians basically being granted the same set of deals as the Israelites gave the Canaanites with a major difference, Israel would contribute fairly and, some might say, in mutual interest, being generous to a fault making relocation appear as the most beneficial of options. Jordan would necessarily become the Arab Palestinian State it was intended to be before the British placed the Hashemites in as the monarchs. Some of the lands where Hashemites and those Bedouins desiring Hashemite rule could be granted their own kingdom, simply smaller and without Arab Palestinians to oppress in the pursuit of continued power. The remaining Arab Palestinians could be offered, as were the Arabs of Eastern Jerusalem, a path over time to full Israeli citizenship or they could become Jordanian citizens residing legally in Israel recognizing Israeli laws as their laws. The particulars could be worked out for the most mutual benefit possible but each would need choose whether they were to be Jordanian or desirous of Israeli citizenship. It should be noted that simply desiring Israeli citizenship would not automatically grant one such status until a number of other elements and conditions were satisfied. As far as Mahmoud Abbas, the upper officers of the PA, the officers and other key personnel from Arab Palestinian Security Forces (which could be referred to seriously as the Arab Palestinian Military) would need to be dealt with largely by the United States who could find a nation which would allow their residence and see to their comfort in their remaining years, preferably an Arab or European State which would be of a welcoming nature. Wherever they are sent, they must have stipulations which would prevent them from once again being connected to terrorism or other illegal acts.

 

There is a group in Jordan known as the Jordan Opposition Coalition (JOC) (الائتلاف الاردني للمعارضة) which has been fighting for the Arab Palestinian rights and simply requires some additional pressures to be brought to manage a solution which would be mutually beneficial for the Jordanian Monarch and the Arab Palestinian desire for secular self-rule. The main obstacles this peace proposal will face is the fact that it actually recognizes the reality that under International Law, by several treaties and conferences and by a Congressional Resolution Israel is the rightful owner of the lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. June 30, 1922, a Joint Resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine,” confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in Palestine—anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Here also is Congressional statements concerning the recognition by the United States after a joint resolution passed both House of Representatives and the Senate which was subsequently signed by President Warren G. Harding on September 21, 1922, the Congress added additional information by attaching from the House of Representatives in the Congressional Record for the 1922 House of Representatives concerning the National Home for the Jewish People whereby on June 30, 1922 House Resolution 360 (Rept. NO. 1172) stating their feelings on the matter and was formally entered into the Congressional Record. These basic articles would give sufficient backing to any plan which President Trump cared to pursue provided it supported Israeli full rights to the lands promised them and finally removing any stigma caused by the illegal nineteen year Jordanian occupation and the British attempts to drown the Jewish State under a sea of immigrant Arabs having far less legitimate claims to the lands in question.

 

Finally, President Trump could insist that from their meeting forward, upon agreement of the Israeli leadership, follow the lead and be seen as walking with President Trump and cooperating with her Middle Eastern neighbors such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and whomever else President Trump corrals together making this an inclusive measure receiving support from numerous governments such that it has all the backing necessary to implement the details. President Trump will need to make Prime Minister Netanyahu and the people of Israel one very large promise which must be kept, namely that he will implement this peace in such a manner that the main political and other power structures, hopefully including the Arab League, finally recognizing Israel’s right to existing as the Home of the Jewish People and their ending all belligerent actions against the Jewish State of Israel. The final item would be the repealing by the Arab League of the Khartoum Resolution and especially its “Three No’s; no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel.” This in and of itself would be a major accomplishment for bringing peace and stability to a region sorely in need of such. Israel should be far less of a problem as these nations in the Arab League face threats from Iran as well as in Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, and the Sudan (hopefully this list seems a tad familiar). Should President Trump deliver on such a wide ranging solution forging some credible amount of peace and stability in the Middle East, do not expect any parades, laurel wreaths, write ups in the New York Times or any recognition other than, at best, stunned silence or, at worst, attempts to make a mockery of that which their heroes could not accomplish. Whether any of this comes to pass is unfortunately up to many of us despite how much we may desire such solutions, but the most we can do is pray and write our representatives in Congress and wherever else one may have such. So, for now pray and may these prayers be answered as we wish and our celebrations be true and many.

 

Beyond the Cusp

February 4, 2017

Two States for One People Solution

 

The world through governments, leaders, politicians, statesmen, reporters and editorialists all tout the “Two States for Two People” as the agreed upon mantra for the solution of the Arab Palestinian-Israel Conflict. As an example, under the heading “What is the two-state solution?” New York Times journalist Max Fisher defined the two principles as being the same: “The two-state solution would establish an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel — two states for two peoples.” Would but such be true the conflict would have very long ago been settled. Unfortunately, this is the side taken by only one of the sides in the debate, the Israelis. The Palestinian Arab leadership has a very different set of parameters for a solution. Perhaps a short list of their favorites would be in order. There is their “River to the Sea, Palestine must be free” solution in which there is one Arab state named Palestine founded upon the graves of over six-million dead Israeli Jews. Even then the Arab Palestinians would have another set of problems, what to do with these Jewish bodies and what to do with the Jewish bodies which have been interred within these borders throughout history back into antiquity. One need understand that when the Arabs claim there must not be one Jew on their precious and pure lands that includes on top, alive or dead, or beneath it no matter how long dead. When Israel surrendered Gaza they were forced to reinter their dead which only added to the calamity and sociological shock suffered by the Jewish communities which were uprooted even unto their dead friends and relatives. Imagine being forced from your home, your place of work being destroyed and having to dig up friends and family from their resting places and rebury them locating them sometimes a great distance from where they resettled making their graves now difficult to visit and tend. That was part of the horror of the plan to solve everything by simply giving the Arab Palestinians the Gaza Strip so they could prove how they could be productive and live peaceably beside Israel. Simply stated, that experiment was a dismal failure.

 

The New York Times once again in an article, “The Two-State Solution: What It Is and Why It Hasn’t Happened,” would have one believe that the Palestinian Authority government fully supports the idea of “Two States for Two People” solution to the conflict with Israel. But what do Arab Palestinian leaders have to say on the Two State Solution? Back in July 2011, Senior Palestinian Official Nabil Shaath slammed the French peace initiative because it called on them to recognize the Jewish State, so he told ANB TV that the French Initiative had,

reshaped the issue of the ‘Jewish state’ into a formula that is also unacceptable to us — two states for two peoples. They can describe Israel itself as a state for two peoples, but we will be a state for one people. The story of ‘two states for two peoples’ means that there will be a Jewish people over there and a Palestinian people here. We will never accept this — not as part of the French initiative and not as part of the American initiative.

Additionally Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas also was quoted in 2011 stating, “I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I will never recognize the Jewishness of the state, or a ‘Jewish state.’” Both of these were statements directly contradicted what French President Nicolas Sarkozy stated in 2012 where he clearly underscored this difference between the statements made by Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership and the generally accepted beliefs of the Western World when he posited,

It is not enough to have two states; there must be two states for two nations. I know very well that there are two ways to destroy Israel: from without and from within. This is why the two-state solution is not enough. We need to have two states for two separate nations. One for the Jewish people and one for the Palestinians.

There is an additional slander which claims that Israeli complaints about the PA instigating violence have no basis in credibility. This has been the mantra of many reporters, editorialists, and largely European political leaders. This can be proven ridiculous simply by playing this now infamous video of Mahmoud Abbas and others speaking in the language nobody outside of a select few Westerners are capable of translating, Arabic (see videos below). These two videos are but a small example of the horrific statements almost always stated in Arabic knowing full-well that the European and American leftist and mainstream medias will pretend they are unable of making heads or tails of such statements only quoting that which these leaders of the Arab Palestinians feed them in English. We wish we could attribute this to their being lazy except with the proof of what was said already translated by MEMRI, they have no excuse other than a severe anti-Israel and thus anti-Semitic bias. Finding the lies could not be easier either, simply visit CAMERA and read almost any coverage they show about Israel and the Palestinians. Be prepared for news you may not have seen before and for much of what the nightly news has fed you to be upended with quotes and references.

 

 

 

Now prepare yourself for our small dose of food for thought. In the December of 2000 as President William Jefferson Clinton was desperately attempting to solve the unsolvable Arab-Israeli Conflict he held a series of meetings. The crux of these attempts to bridge the gap between Yassir Arafat and Ehud Barak led to an interesting turn of events during the desperate days in Paris. President Clinton met for hours with Yassir Arafat finally getting him to actually state what terms he would accept believing the Israelis would never in a million years meet these demands. They were for Israel to turn over 90% of the “West Bank” (Judea and Samaria) and all of the Gaza Strip as well as half of Jerusalem to become the Capital City for Palestine. Late in the evening President Clinton visited Ehud Barak and set forth the terms which Arafat had given him. It took some time and arm twisting but in order to make peace Ehud Barak agreed to returning 95% of Judea and Samaria along with all of the Gaza Strip and dividing Jerusalem. Once receiving Barak agreement, President Clinton sent word to Arafat’s delegation that they were to meet early the next morning for a joint session to negotiate face-to-face. Yassir Arafat smelled that he was a rat trapped by his own admissions and ordered secretively for his car to be brought around to the front entrance fully packed, door open, and driver ready to hit the gas as soon as Arafat was in the vehicle. When President Clinton presented copies of the agreement to the two leaders, Ehud Barak reached for a pen while Yassir Arafat bolted out the long corridor. Immediately afterward, Madeline Albright dashed after the fleeing Arafat in an ungainly and borderline hideous limping gallop never closing the distance. She cleared the door to have the cameras of the news reporters recording over her shoulder the black limousine circling out of the drive with Arafat seated in the back seat. A subsequent offer was tendered from Taba later that week which was not even dignified with a response and thus ended the Presidency of William Jefferson Clinton. But wait, there’s more.

 

Next comes along President George W. Bush and the ending of his term. He has successfully forced Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to turn the Gaza Strip over to the PA in exchange for some sweet words and fourteen promises written in a letter as an understanding between the two offices. This was supposedly an agreement between governments and this one won overwhelming affirmation from both houses of Congress garnering a total of comfortably over five-hundred votes from the combined Congress. These were the fourteen conditions under which the release of the Gaza Strip was performed and their refutation could have led to Israel retaking all of Gaza or some sections thereof. President Obama did indeed crumple up this agreement and trashed it completely with his assisting the passage of UNSC Res. 2334 during the closing days of his administration. This act will likely leave an unpleasant taste in any world leader’s mouth and be seen as a dire warning against accepting the world of any American President for the foreseeable future, especially one would hope Israeli leaders if no others. So, in late 2008 President George W. Bush and his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were pressing Israel once again to make the necessary sacrifices for peace. Again an Israeli Prime Minister, this time Ehud Olmert, made the supreme sacrificial offering of dividing Jerusalem and again over 90% of Judea and Samaria with land swaps for the remaining lands. This time they were dealing with Mahmoud Abbas, presumably a more reasonable and honest broker simply because instead of wearing fatigues and having a revolver strapped to his side, Abbas wears a business suit. Well, the apple did not fall far from the tree and Mahmoud Abbas proved to be a suitable (all inferences to a pun intentional) follow-up to Yassir Arafat as he officially received the offer and never even bothered to reply or make a counter offer. Instead he simply closed the negotiations with no further communication except to threaten to take the entire matter to the United Nations and the Court of The Hague and internationalize the conflict.

 

Division of lands between Israel and Semiautonomous Arab Zone

Division of lands between Israel
and Semiautonomous Arab Zone

 

With the ample assistance proffered by President Barack Hussein Obama, Mahmoud Abbas has done exactly that, internationalized the conflict such that any European nations, the United Nations in any of its near infinite capacities and anyone or anywhere else can jump in and demand Israel make concession after concession receiving nothing but threats and violence in return. The world is internationalizing the conflict quite adequately with city after city in Europe and numerous colleges conducting some level of boycott against Israel, often all Israel claiming all of Israel is responsible for there being no solution. Technically, from the Arab point of view, they are correct; the fact that there is an Israel which makes the statement that it is the Jewish Homeland, that is sufficient to make peacemaking impossible as the Arabs of the PA and the Arab World demand the end of Israel as Jewish. They will accept an Israel provided the Arabs rule and the Jews, if permitted, remain as Dhimmis, second class citizens with restricted rights who may be executed at any time by whim of any with the authority to do so, often meaning any Muslim. Since this United Nations Security Council Chapter Six Resolution 2334 which blames Israel, particularly the “settlements” which are simply Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, legal under International Law, for blocking the path to peace, the Arab Palestinians are free to demand anything while doing nothing and the world gets to blame Israel for not appeasing the Arabs sufficiently through boycotts and calls for “Kill the Jews.” What is surprisingly illegal are any claims made by the PA and other Arab representatives as while they have legal rights to their property, they have no legal leg to stand upon claiming self-rule or requiring an independent state. The reality, as we have stated near endlessly, and are working on endlessly, is the lands all belong to Israel for use as the Jewish State and that the only means by which any of the land can become an Arab State is if Israel signs a treaty relegating our claims and rights to these lands. And one does not need believe us, but one might feel inclined to take the wording of a decision made by the Third Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Versailles in a case brought by the PA against the French companies Alstom and Veolia for building Jerusalem’s light rail system. Their final decision was also a warning to the PA that Israel has the sole claim to all of Judea and Samaria and that they would do best not to take this into any court of law. The fact this came from the friendliest court system the PA was able to find makes this all the more impressively important. Please take our kind invitation to read for yourself a copy of the Court Ruling. Furthermore, in an earlier case brought before Egyptian Judge, Justice El Araby, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), who sat in judgement as part of the panel which heard the case where the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) sought an advisory opinion in 2003 from the ICJ on the legality of the security barrier erected by Israel; the Honorable Justice El Araby warned the UNGA and others, including Mahmoud Abbas and the whole of the PA, that filing further ran some risks, as he stated,

“The international legal status of the Palestinian Territory (paras. 70-71 of the Advisory Opinion), in my view, merits more comprehensive treatment. A historical survey is relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly, for it serves as the background to understanding the legal status of the Palestinian Territory on the one hand and underlines the special and continuing responsibility of the General Assembly on the other. This may appear as academic, without relevance to the present events. The present is however determined by the accumulation of past events and no reasonable and fair concern for the future can possibly disregard a firm grasp of past events. In particular, when on more than one occasion, the rule of law was consistently side-stepped. The point of departure, or one can say in legal jargon, the critical date, is the League of Nations Mandate which was entrusted to Great Britain.”

 

Mandate of San Remo for French and British including actual treaty demarcations for each nation

Mandate of San Remo for French and British including actual treaty demarcations for each nation

 

Things are not only not as they are portrayed by far too many in the Western Media Enterprise, but actually quite the opposite. Israel is not the occupier; the Arab Palestinians are the actual occupiers. International Law which is constructed from treaties, conferences, agreements and other contracts between men and nations is usually understood to have some leeway or allowance for differing opinions. The fact that Israel is defined on her east by the Jordan River and on the west by the Mediterranean Sea is an exception as it is delineated and spelled out with diagrams and maps in several agreements, conferences, treaties, Mandates and even Article 80 of the United Nations Charter. As the border of Israel is accepted as stated above in the United Nations Charter Article 80, the recent UNSC Res 2334 is invalid as the United Nations individual bodies cannot overrule the Charter thus in any instance where there might be a conflict, such as the statement that the Jewish communities defined as “settlements” due to their location east of the 1949 Armistice Line, also called the Green Line, is invalid as these communities are all west of the Jordan River and thus legally on Israeli lands. All of Judea and Samaria by default are Israeli lands unless Israel gives them away in a treaty, not agrees to talk about the possibility but actually agrees, until then the lands remain as an integral part of Israel. Those are the hard and true facts and the only lands that Israel signed away has been Gaza. How anybody can even think for a second after the catastrophic results of the Gaza giveaway that repeating the same motions this time with Judea and Samaria including the tactically significant Judean Heights and the Jordan Valley and its overlooking mountains has to be suffering from some severely debilitating mental disorder or actually desire to plot the end of Israel and her Jewish population. Gaza has proven that once the land has been signed away, no matter how severe the resulting rocket barrages and other acts of warfare committed against Israel, any reaction by Israel will be condemned by the world bodies and numerous governments where the best Israel can expect is half a dozen friendly nations, possibly the protection of the United States Veto in the Security Council (not an automatic despite what anybody says as Presidents change) and the great sacrifice some European nations and a few others might take by abstaining from a vote to condemn Israeli defense of her citizens from attacks. Former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Abba Eban said it best stating, “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” Abba Eban, having resided for a period in New York City, was able and took the opportunity to enlighten and grant the New York Times a singular piece of literary brilliance along with a moment of fresh air in the form of actual truth concerning Israel when he was quoted stating,

“Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its ”right to exist.” It is disturbing to find so many people well-disposed to Israel giving currency to this contemptuous formulation. Israel’s right to exist, like that of the United States, Saudi Arabia, and 152 other states, is axiomatic and unreserved. Israel’s legitimacy is not suspended in midair awaiting acknowledgement by the royal house in Riyadh. Nor does a group such as the Palestine Liberation Organization have any juridical competence to accord recognition to states, or withhold it.
A majority of the 155 states in the modern international community are younger in their sovereignty than Israel, which was the 59th member of the United Nations. There is certainly no other state, big or small, young or old, that would consider mere recognition of its ”right to exist” a favor, or a negotiable concession.
What Israel is entitled to have in return for the increase of its territorial vulnerability is not verbal recognition but an effective security system, to be arrived at by negotiations.
Back in 1967, when the world community adopted its unanimous policy for the Middle East in Security Council Resolution 242, some members suggested that Israel should be satisfied with a solemn declaration of the right of all states to exist. They added that Israel might, if it chose, regard itself as included in that definition. At that time, hardly any responsible government in the Western world or elsewhere accepted that definition of Israel’s rights as adequate…”

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.