Friday, August 18, 2017
Friday, August 11, 2017
Sorry Ms. Wise, there is no occupation in the land of Israel - and you are not welcomed!
As reported in the Jerusalem Post, five members of an interfaith delegation to Israel were prevented from boarding their flight from Washington, DC, becasue of their activism on behalf of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.
This came into play after the Israeli parliament (or Knesset), amended the Law of Entry in March, to prevent leaders of the BDS movement from being allowed into Israel in the future...
According to the report, the amendment specifically applies to organizations that take consistent and significant action against Israel through BDS, as well as the leadership and senior activists of those groups - a move which mind you, I totally agree with...
According to the report, the amendment specifically applies to organizations that take consistent and significant action against Israel through BDS, as well as the leadership and senior activists of those groups - a move which mind you, I totally agree with...
As you can imagine, these liberal Rabbis are pretty upset, including JVP activist Alissa Wise - who said in the JVP statement that Israel denied her the ability to travel to the state because her work for justice for Palestinians poses a danger to Israel's security - which in fact it does...
According to Wise "the mussernik" this outrageous becasue she is Jewish and a Rabbi, which apparently gives her the carte blanche to promote Jewish blood shed in the name of resistance - I might be missing something, perhaps someone can explain her logic to me...
According to Wise "the mussernik" this outrageous becasue she is Jewish and a Rabbi, which apparently gives her the carte blanche to promote Jewish blood shed in the name of resistance - I might be missing something, perhaps someone can explain her logic to me...
“I’m heartbroken and outraged” said Wise. “This is yet another demonstration that democracy and tolerance in Israel only extends to those who fall in line with its increasingly repressive policies against Palestinians”...
As expected, the Israeli government's decision and actions have irked quite a few liberal Jews, including a small group of at least two hundred liberally progressive Rabbis who joined together once again to stab Israel and its Jewish population in the back and sign a "Rabbinic Letter Against Israel’s Travel Ban"...
As expected, the Israeli government's decision and actions have irked quite a few liberal Jews, including a small group of at least two hundred liberally progressive Rabbis who joined together once again to stab Israel and its Jewish population in the back and sign a "Rabbinic Letter Against Israel’s Travel Ban"...
According to the press release of this unholy gathering...
“A controversy for the sake of Heaven will have lasting value, but a controversy not for the sake of Heaven will not endure” (Pirkei Avot 5:17).
We, the undersigned rabbis, stand with our colleague, Rabbi Alissa Shira Wise, who was denied entry to Israel because of her support for the Palestinian civil society call for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) of Israel.
...the decision to bar Rabbi Wise from visiting Israel is anti-democratic and desecrates our vision of a diverse Jewish community that holds multiple perspectives.
Wow...
It is so rich, it is disgusting, I am truly at a lost for words with rage.
The fact that these Rabbis have a lot of chutzpah to quote Perkei Avot as if they - you know, individuals who've sanctioned all indecency and immorality under the banner of the Jewish faith - have any fear of God, is prosperous. Seriously, who gave these laymen and women (I cringe just writing that) the ability to discern what exactly is considered a dispute which is not for sake of heaven...
Apparently, as per Wise and her ilk, one can commit murder (which make no mistake, support for palestinian cause is exactly that) and at the same time be doing so for the sake of heaven - imagine that...
It is so rich, it is disgusting, I am truly at a lost for words with rage.
The fact that these Rabbis have a lot of chutzpah to quote Perkei Avot as if they - you know, individuals who've sanctioned all indecency and immorality under the banner of the Jewish faith - have any fear of God, is prosperous. Seriously, who gave these laymen and women (I cringe just writing that) the ability to discern what exactly is considered a dispute which is not for sake of heaven...
Apparently, as per Wise and her ilk, one can commit murder (which make no mistake, support for palestinian cause is exactly that) and at the same time be doing so for the sake of heaven - imagine that...
Lets talk to the facts, the bottomline is that any rational person - that is not consumed with the mental illness called progressive liberalism - knows very well that there is no occupation...
Anyone who says otherwise, is not only denying history and how the state of Israel came to be - but is in fact denying what is written in the Torah.
Yes! you know, that Book of Moses, on which the entire Jewish faith is based upon...
Yes! you know, that Book of Moses, on which the entire Jewish faith is based upon...
Within, one will find - stated black on white - that the land of Cenan, (now Israel) was to be our inheritance, given to our forefather Avraham by the one and only God over four millennia ago...
Denying such a fact, I believe, strips an individual from any right they might have had in the past to represent the Jewish people and the land of Israel - and certainly strips them from the so called right to call themselves a Rabbi...
But what I fear the most is not as much the actions of these individuals as much as our community's apparent silence in the face of the aggression of these self hating Jews...
The Babalonian Talmud, 87B tells us that "he who is silent is taken to agree" can it truly be that the words of individuals as Wise do not hurt us to our core? do they not cause us to break into a stupor of rage at the blatant desecration of our Torah and its values on a regular basis?
But what I fear the most is not as much the actions of these individuals as much as our community's apparent silence in the face of the aggression of these self hating Jews...
The Babalonian Talmud, 87B tells us that "he who is silent is taken to agree" can it truly be that the words of individuals as Wise do not hurt us to our core? do they not cause us to break into a stupor of rage at the blatant desecration of our Torah and its values on a regular basis?
God forbid can we remain silent to this onslaught on the basic tenets of our faith, the importance of the land of Israel to our faith, our heritage and our day to day lives...
As such, I think it is appropriate to call on the greater Jewish orthodox community to unite together and make our voices be heard...
Let it be known from this lowly earth to the heavens, that we the people of God and his Torah will not stand idly by to such such a desecration of His name...
Let it be known that as the people of faith, we affirm that while we might be in exile, there is no doubt that the land of Israel is our inheritance from all those years ago, and it is our possession for all eternity without a doubt and with the merit of such an action may we merit the coming of the Messiah speedily in our days.
Amen!
Let it be known from this lowly earth to the heavens, that we the people of God and his Torah will not stand idly by to such such a desecration of His name...
Let it be known that as the people of faith, we affirm that while we might be in exile, there is no doubt that the land of Israel is our inheritance from all those years ago, and it is our possession for all eternity without a doubt and with the merit of such an action may we merit the coming of the Messiah speedily in our days.
Amen!
INTO THE FRAY: The Humanitarian Paradigm — Hobson’s Choice for Israel (Part II)
By MARTIN SHERMAN
By rigorous process of elimination, we are left with the Humanitarian Paradigm, as the only possible policy prescription able to adequately address the imperatives needed to preserve Israel as the nation state of Jews.
O, who can hold a fire in his hand; By thinking on the frosty Caucasus?
Or cloy the hungry edge of appetite; By bare imagination of a feast?
Or wallow naked in December snow; By thinking on fantastic summer’s heat?
- William Shakespeare, in Richard II, Act1 Scene 3, on the futility of self-deception
There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.– Sherlock Holmes, “The Boscombe Valley Mystery”
Last week I began a two-part analysis of the policy paradigms that have emerged in the public discourse for dealing with the more-than-century old dispute between Jews and Arabs over control of the Holy Land as the conflict approaches its third post-Oslo decade.
In it, I identified four such archetypical paradigms for its resolution — and one for its “management” (a.k.a. its perpetuation). Moreover, I undertook to demonstrate that only one of these alternatives, the Humanitarian Paradigm, advocating funded emigration of the Arab residents of Judea-Samaria (and eventually Gaza) — is consistent with the long-term survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews. Accordingly, for those dedicated to the preservation of the Zionist ideal, it is nothing less than “Hobson’s choice”.
To recap briefly
Readers will recall that I confined the analysis last week to those policy proposals that eschew full or partial Israeli annexation of territory, deferring analysis of those that endorse such annexation for this week’s discussion.
To recap briefly: In the aforementioned prior analysis I dealt with the (a) idea of “managing the conflict” and (b) the two-state formula.
As for the former, it was shown to reflect disregard for the fact that, without appropriate decisive proactive initiatives, Israel is facing a growing threat and decreasing freedom to deal with it. Accordingly, “managing the conflict” is little more than a pretext for backing away from confrontations in which Israel can prevail, while backing into a confrontation in which Israel might not prevail — or do so only at ruinous cost.
As for the latter, it has shown to be a fatally flawed formula, devoid of any sound theoretical foundation or empirical evidence on which to base its naïve prognoses for resolving the conflict by means of Palestinian statehood. Indeed, given the past precedents, there is little reason to believe — and two-state proponents have never provided one — that any future Palestinian state will not rapidly become a mega-Gaza on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv, precipitating all the harrowing realities, wrought on the hapless residents of the South on those of the coastal megalopolis.
So having dealt with the policy paradigms that eschew annexation — whether full or partial — it is now time to assess those that endorse it.
One-state: Lebanonization of Israeli society
Some pundits on the Israeli “Right”, keenly aware of the infeasibility of the two-state paradigm, have in large measure adopted — albeit for very different reasons — a prescription very similar to that touted by their radical Left-wing adversaries — that of a single state stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
According to this proposal, Israel should extend its sovereignty over the entire area of Judea-Samaria and offer immediate permanent residency to all its Palestinian-Arab residents, as well as the right to apply for citizenship at some undefined date, via some undefined process to ascertain loyalty — or at least the absence of disloyalty — to Israel as the Jewish nation state.
The rationale, allegedly underpinning this ill-conceived proposal, is the new, optimistic demographic assessments suggesting that even if Israel were to enfranchise the Muslim population of Judea-Samaria, it would still retain a more than 60% Jewish majority.
Even conceding that this may be true, such a measure is likely to herald disaster for the Zionist enterprise and the future of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews. For the initial electoral arithmetic is hardly the defining factor in assessing the prudence of this approach, but rather the devastating effect it will have on the socio-economic fabric of the country and the impact this will have on preserving Israel as a desired/desirable place of residence for Jews inside and outside the country.
It would take considerable — and unsubstantiated — faith to entertain the belief that Israel could sustain itself as a Jewish nation-state with a massive Muslim minority of almost 40% — as the societal havoc that far smaller proportions have wrought in Europe indicate.
Indeed this is a clear recipe for the Lebanonization of Israeli society with all the inter-ethnic strife that tore Israel’s unfortunate northern neighbor apart.
Lebanonization of Israel (cont.)
Any forlorn hope that life under Israeli sovereignty will somehow “domesticate” the Palestinian-Arabs into reconciling themselves to life in the Jewish nation-state should have been well and truly dashed by the behavior of Israel’s Arab citizens.
After all, despite living (and prospering) for seven decades under Israeli sovereignty — and more than a half-century after military rule over the Arab population was abolished — they not only voted, almost en-bloc, for the vehemently anti-Zionist “Joint List” in the 2015 elections, but displayed great empathy in a mass funeral for the terrorists, from the Israeli town of Um-al Fahm, who murdered two Israeli police officers on the Temple Mount.
Once the Arab population of Judea-Samaria becomes incorporated into Israel’s permanent population, at least two crucial elements of national life are almost certain to be dramatically — and in Zionist-compliant terms, negatively –impacted. The one is the distribution of national resources; the other is population flows into, and out of, the country.
With regard to the former, clearly once the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria — whether enfranchised or not — become incorporated into the country’s permanent population, Israel will not be able to afford the kind of socio-economic disparities that prevail between the pre- and post-annexation segments of the population.
Accordingly, huge budget resources will have to be diverted to reduce these disparities — siphoning off funds currently spent on the Jewish population (and Israeli Arabs) in terms of welfare, medical care, infrastructure, education and so on.
Indeed, if enfranchisement (eventual or immediate) is envisaged, the electoral potential of the Arab sector is liable to be elevated from its current 13–15 seats in parliament to 25–30. This will not only hugely bolster its ability to demand enhanced budgetary allotments, but also make it virtually impossible to form a governing coalition without their endorsement.
Moreover, collaboration on various ad hoc parliamentary initiatives with radical Jewish left-wing factions is likely to nullify any formal calculations of an ostensible “Jewish majority”, and lead to legislative enterprises that ultra-Zionist proponents of annexation would strongly oppose — in an ironic manifestation of unintended consequences.
Partial Annexation: The Balkanization of Israel
Thus, while full annexation of Judea-Samaria will almost inevitably result in the Lebanonization of Israel — i.e. create a single society, so fractured by interethnic strife that it would be untenable as the nation- state of the Jewish people; proposals for the partial annexation of Judea-Samaria will result in the Balkanization of Israel — (i.e. dividing the territory up into disconnected autonomous enclaves, which will be recalcitrant, rivalrous and rejectionist, creating an ungovernable reality for Israel.)
Proposals for partial annexation appear to be fueled by (a) concern that total annexation would be too drastic a step for the international community to “swallow”, and (b) a sense that some semblance of self-rule must be facilitated for the Arabs resident in Judea and Samaria. As will be shown, partial annexation will address neither of these issues effectively. Indeed quite the opposite is true.
By rigorous process of elimination, we are left with the Humanitarian Paradigm, as the only possible policy prescription able to adequately address the imperatives needed to preserve Israel as the nation state of Jews.
O, who can hold a fire in his hand; By thinking on the frosty Caucasus?
Or cloy the hungry edge of appetite; By bare imagination of a feast?
Or wallow naked in December snow; By thinking on fantastic summer’s heat?
- William Shakespeare, in Richard II, Act1 Scene 3, on the futility of self-deception
There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.– Sherlock Holmes, “The Boscombe Valley Mystery”
Last week I began a two-part analysis of the policy paradigms that have emerged in the public discourse for dealing with the more-than-century old dispute between Jews and Arabs over control of the Holy Land as the conflict approaches its third post-Oslo decade.
In it, I identified four such archetypical paradigms for its resolution — and one for its “management” (a.k.a. its perpetuation). Moreover, I undertook to demonstrate that only one of these alternatives, the Humanitarian Paradigm, advocating funded emigration of the Arab residents of Judea-Samaria (and eventually Gaza) — is consistent with the long-term survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews. Accordingly, for those dedicated to the preservation of the Zionist ideal, it is nothing less than “Hobson’s choice”.
To recap briefly
Readers will recall that I confined the analysis last week to those policy proposals that eschew full or partial Israeli annexation of territory, deferring analysis of those that endorse such annexation for this week’s discussion.
To recap briefly: In the aforementioned prior analysis I dealt with the (a) idea of “managing the conflict” and (b) the two-state formula.
As for the former, it was shown to reflect disregard for the fact that, without appropriate decisive proactive initiatives, Israel is facing a growing threat and decreasing freedom to deal with it. Accordingly, “managing the conflict” is little more than a pretext for backing away from confrontations in which Israel can prevail, while backing into a confrontation in which Israel might not prevail — or do so only at ruinous cost.
As for the latter, it has shown to be a fatally flawed formula, devoid of any sound theoretical foundation or empirical evidence on which to base its naïve prognoses for resolving the conflict by means of Palestinian statehood. Indeed, given the past precedents, there is little reason to believe — and two-state proponents have never provided one — that any future Palestinian state will not rapidly become a mega-Gaza on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv, precipitating all the harrowing realities, wrought on the hapless residents of the South on those of the coastal megalopolis.
So having dealt with the policy paradigms that eschew annexation — whether full or partial — it is now time to assess those that endorse it.
One-state: Lebanonization of Israeli society
Some pundits on the Israeli “Right”, keenly aware of the infeasibility of the two-state paradigm, have in large measure adopted — albeit for very different reasons — a prescription very similar to that touted by their radical Left-wing adversaries — that of a single state stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
 |
| Sectarian Violence in Lebanon |
According to this proposal, Israel should extend its sovereignty over the entire area of Judea-Samaria and offer immediate permanent residency to all its Palestinian-Arab residents, as well as the right to apply for citizenship at some undefined date, via some undefined process to ascertain loyalty — or at least the absence of disloyalty — to Israel as the Jewish nation state.
The rationale, allegedly underpinning this ill-conceived proposal, is the new, optimistic demographic assessments suggesting that even if Israel were to enfranchise the Muslim population of Judea-Samaria, it would still retain a more than 60% Jewish majority.
Even conceding that this may be true, such a measure is likely to herald disaster for the Zionist enterprise and the future of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews. For the initial electoral arithmetic is hardly the defining factor in assessing the prudence of this approach, but rather the devastating effect it will have on the socio-economic fabric of the country and the impact this will have on preserving Israel as a desired/desirable place of residence for Jews inside and outside the country.
It would take considerable — and unsubstantiated — faith to entertain the belief that Israel could sustain itself as a Jewish nation-state with a massive Muslim minority of almost 40% — as the societal havoc that far smaller proportions have wrought in Europe indicate.
Indeed this is a clear recipe for the Lebanonization of Israeli society with all the inter-ethnic strife that tore Israel’s unfortunate northern neighbor apart.
Lebanonization of Israel (cont.)
Any forlorn hope that life under Israeli sovereignty will somehow “domesticate” the Palestinian-Arabs into reconciling themselves to life in the Jewish nation-state should have been well and truly dashed by the behavior of Israel’s Arab citizens.
After all, despite living (and prospering) for seven decades under Israeli sovereignty — and more than a half-century after military rule over the Arab population was abolished — they not only voted, almost en-bloc, for the vehemently anti-Zionist “Joint List” in the 2015 elections, but displayed great empathy in a mass funeral for the terrorists, from the Israeli town of Um-al Fahm, who murdered two Israeli police officers on the Temple Mount.
Once the Arab population of Judea-Samaria becomes incorporated into Israel’s permanent population, at least two crucial elements of national life are almost certain to be dramatically — and in Zionist-compliant terms, negatively –impacted. The one is the distribution of national resources; the other is population flows into, and out of, the country.
With regard to the former, clearly once the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria — whether enfranchised or not — become incorporated into the country’s permanent population, Israel will not be able to afford the kind of socio-economic disparities that prevail between the pre- and post-annexation segments of the population.
Accordingly, huge budget resources will have to be diverted to reduce these disparities — siphoning off funds currently spent on the Jewish population (and Israeli Arabs) in terms of welfare, medical care, infrastructure, education and so on.
Indeed, if enfranchisement (eventual or immediate) is envisaged, the electoral potential of the Arab sector is liable to be elevated from its current 13–15 seats in parliament to 25–30. This will not only hugely bolster its ability to demand enhanced budgetary allotments, but also make it virtually impossible to form a governing coalition without their endorsement.
Moreover, collaboration on various ad hoc parliamentary initiatives with radical Jewish left-wing factions is likely to nullify any formal calculations of an ostensible “Jewish majority”, and lead to legislative enterprises that ultra-Zionist proponents of annexation would strongly oppose — in an ironic manifestation of unintended consequences.
Partial Annexation: The Balkanization of Israel
Thus, while full annexation of Judea-Samaria will almost inevitably result in the Lebanonization of Israel — i.e. create a single society, so fractured by interethnic strife that it would be untenable as the nation- state of the Jewish people; proposals for the partial annexation of Judea-Samaria will result in the Balkanization of Israel — (i.e. dividing the territory up into disconnected autonomous enclaves, which will be recalcitrant, rivalrous and rejectionist, creating an ungovernable reality for Israel.)
Proposals for partial annexation appear to be fueled by (a) concern that total annexation would be too drastic a step for the international community to “swallow”, and (b) a sense that some semblance of self-rule must be facilitated for the Arabs resident in Judea and Samaria. As will be shown, partial annexation will address neither of these issues effectively. Indeed quite the opposite is true.
 |
| Dr. Mordechai Kedar (L) & Education Minister Naftali Bennett |
Proposals for partial annexation are commonly of two types: Those that prescribe including selected areas of Judea-Samaria under Israeli sovereignty (such as Area C as advanced by Education Minister Naftali Bennett) ; and those that prescribe excluding certain selected areas from Israeli sovereignty such as the large urban centers in Judea-Samaria (such as advanced by Dr. Mordechai Kedar in his “Emirates” plan)
Sadly, neither of these paradigms will solve any of the diplomatic or security problems Israel faces today, and will in fact exacerbate many.
The Balkanization of Israel (cont)
It is hardly necessary to go into the intricate details of the individual proposals for partial annexation to grasp how impractical they really are.
For whatever the configuration of the un-annexed areas left to Arab administration –whether the disconnected enclaves of Areas A and B, or the micro-mini “city states” — they will leave the sovereign territory of Israel with dauntingly long and contorted frontiers, making it almost impossible to delineate and secure. Clearly if one cannot effectively demarcate and secure one’s sovereign territory, there is little meaning to one’s sovereign authority over that territory.
Although Haaretz is not my preferred source of reference, I find it difficult to disagree with the following assessment of Bennett’s plan for annexing Area C:
“… Bennett’s plan is groundless from the security, diplomatic, legal and, especially, physical angles. It’s easy to discern that, contrary to what was presented in a video produced by Bennett’s…party recently, Areas A and B in the West Bank are not contiguous blocs, spreading over 40 percent of the West Bank. Instead, they consist of no less than 169 Palestinian blocs and communities, cut off from one another by innumerable Israeli corridors and unused IDF firing zones that are together defined as Area C”.
It correctly pointed out: “… in fact, Bennett is proposing to increase the length of the Israeli border from 313 kilometers to 1,800 kilometers (194 to 1,118 miles). If [one] believe[s] Bennett, he will doubtless back the dismantling of the security barrier that Israel has built to the tune of 15 billion shekels ($3.9 billion), but [one] will have to accept that annexing Area C means Israel will have to build a barrier along the new border at the cost of 27 billion shekels and allocate another 4 billion shekels per year for maintenance purposes.”
Partial Annexation: Full political price
Similar criticism can be leveled at Kedar’s proposal for setting up an array of up to eight micro-mini “emirates” or city states. It is not difficult to envisage the problems of future expansion beyond the highly constricted confines of disconnected enclaves, and of the need to severely curtail the authority of the local administration to deal with cross border issues such as pollution (particularly the carcinogenic emissions of the wide spread charcoal industry), sewage, pollution from industrial effluents, agricultural run-off, transmissible diseases and so on.
Of course, any hopes that partial annexation, which entails extending Israeli sovereignty over about 65–75% of the territory, leaving the Palestinian-Arabs with an emasculated 25–30%, in a quilted patchwork of disconnected enclaves and corridors, will in any way diminish international censure, are utterly unfounded. The political “pain” involved in such schemes would be no less than annexing 100% of the territory — without having to deal with the attendant chronic problems associated with partial annexation (as detailed above).
Fanciful suggestions that Nablus and Hebron might flourish into entities like Monaco and Luxembourg are as risible as those which, in the heady days of Oslo, predicted that Gaza would become the Hong Kong of the Mid East — and would be rightfully rejected as such.
Humanitarian Paradigm: Hobson’s choice
Even from the far-from-exhaustive analysis conducted over the last two weeks, it should be clear that an indisputable picture emerges as to the Zionist-compliant feasibility of the various policy paradigms proposed for dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Thus:
- The attempt to manage the conflict is little more than a formula for backing away from confrontations in which Israel can prevail, while backing into a confrontation in which Israel might not prevail — or may do so only at ruinous cost.
- The two-state paradigm will almost inevitably result in the establishment of a yet another homophobic, misogynistic, Muslim-majority tyranny, which will rapidly become a mega-Gaza on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv, menacing the socio-economic routine in the commercial hub of the country.
-Full annexation of Judea-Samaria together with the Arab population will result in the Lebanonization of Israeli society and thrust the country into ruinous inter-ethnic strife that will imperil it status as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
- Partial annexation of Judea-Samaria will result in the Balkanization of Israel, dividing the territory up into disconnected, rivalrous, recalcitrant and unsustainable autonomous enclaves, which will create an ungovernable reality for Israel.
Thus, by a rigorous process of deductive elimination we are left with the Humanitarian Paradigm, advocating funded emigration for non-belligerent Palestinian-Arabs to third party countries, as the only possible paradigm that can adequately address both the geographic and demographic imperatives needed to preserve Israel as the nation state of Jews.
As such, for Zionists, it is Hobson’s choice. Anything else is self-deception
Martin Sherman is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.
Sadly, neither of these paradigms will solve any of the diplomatic or security problems Israel faces today, and will in fact exacerbate many.
The Balkanization of Israel (cont)
It is hardly necessary to go into the intricate details of the individual proposals for partial annexation to grasp how impractical they really are.
 |
| Violence in the Balkans |
For whatever the configuration of the un-annexed areas left to Arab administration –whether the disconnected enclaves of Areas A and B, or the micro-mini “city states” — they will leave the sovereign territory of Israel with dauntingly long and contorted frontiers, making it almost impossible to delineate and secure. Clearly if one cannot effectively demarcate and secure one’s sovereign territory, there is little meaning to one’s sovereign authority over that territory.
Although Haaretz is not my preferred source of reference, I find it difficult to disagree with the following assessment of Bennett’s plan for annexing Area C:
“… Bennett’s plan is groundless from the security, diplomatic, legal and, especially, physical angles. It’s easy to discern that, contrary to what was presented in a video produced by Bennett’s…party recently, Areas A and B in the West Bank are not contiguous blocs, spreading over 40 percent of the West Bank. Instead, they consist of no less than 169 Palestinian blocs and communities, cut off from one another by innumerable Israeli corridors and unused IDF firing zones that are together defined as Area C”.
It correctly pointed out: “… in fact, Bennett is proposing to increase the length of the Israeli border from 313 kilometers to 1,800 kilometers (194 to 1,118 miles). If [one] believe[s] Bennett, he will doubtless back the dismantling of the security barrier that Israel has built to the tune of 15 billion shekels ($3.9 billion), but [one] will have to accept that annexing Area C means Israel will have to build a barrier along the new border at the cost of 27 billion shekels and allocate another 4 billion shekels per year for maintenance purposes.”
Partial Annexation: Full political price
Similar criticism can be leveled at Kedar’s proposal for setting up an array of up to eight micro-mini “emirates” or city states. It is not difficult to envisage the problems of future expansion beyond the highly constricted confines of disconnected enclaves, and of the need to severely curtail the authority of the local administration to deal with cross border issues such as pollution (particularly the carcinogenic emissions of the wide spread charcoal industry), sewage, pollution from industrial effluents, agricultural run-off, transmissible diseases and so on.
Of course, any hopes that partial annexation, which entails extending Israeli sovereignty over about 65–75% of the territory, leaving the Palestinian-Arabs with an emasculated 25–30%, in a quilted patchwork of disconnected enclaves and corridors, will in any way diminish international censure, are utterly unfounded. The political “pain” involved in such schemes would be no less than annexing 100% of the territory — without having to deal with the attendant chronic problems associated with partial annexation (as detailed above).
Fanciful suggestions that Nablus and Hebron might flourish into entities like Monaco and Luxembourg are as risible as those which, in the heady days of Oslo, predicted that Gaza would become the Hong Kong of the Mid East — and would be rightfully rejected as such.
Humanitarian Paradigm: Hobson’s choice
Even from the far-from-exhaustive analysis conducted over the last two weeks, it should be clear that an indisputable picture emerges as to the Zionist-compliant feasibility of the various policy paradigms proposed for dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Thus:
- The attempt to manage the conflict is little more than a formula for backing away from confrontations in which Israel can prevail, while backing into a confrontation in which Israel might not prevail — or may do so only at ruinous cost.
- The two-state paradigm will almost inevitably result in the establishment of a yet another homophobic, misogynistic, Muslim-majority tyranny, which will rapidly become a mega-Gaza on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv, menacing the socio-economic routine in the commercial hub of the country.
-Full annexation of Judea-Samaria together with the Arab population will result in the Lebanonization of Israeli society and thrust the country into ruinous inter-ethnic strife that will imperil it status as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
- Partial annexation of Judea-Samaria will result in the Balkanization of Israel, dividing the territory up into disconnected, rivalrous, recalcitrant and unsustainable autonomous enclaves, which will create an ungovernable reality for Israel.
Thus, by a rigorous process of deductive elimination we are left with the Humanitarian Paradigm, advocating funded emigration for non-belligerent Palestinian-Arabs to third party countries, as the only possible paradigm that can adequately address both the geographic and demographic imperatives needed to preserve Israel as the nation state of Jews.
As such, for Zionists, it is Hobson’s choice. Anything else is self-deception
Martin Sherman is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.
Monday, August 7, 2017
ZOA Launches ‘Comprehensive Review’ of H.R. McMaster Israel History
By Matthew Boyle, BREITBART
Following troubling revelations and concerned raised about National Security Adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) announced it has undertaken a review and analysis of the top White House official’s positions, actions, and statements on Israel.
“Zionist Organization of America (‘ZOA’) issues the following statement in response to several media inquiries regarding General Herbert Raymond ‘H.R.’ McMaster’s tenure as President Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor,” ZOA said in a statement on Monday morning. “ZOA’s leadership is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of all publicly available facts and statements. Morton Klein, national president of ZOA, will be issuing a full statement later this week.”
ZOA is the oldest pro-Israel organization in America which has been a reliable supporter of President Donald Trump and his administration. The group, and its president Morton Klein, have fought back against phony allegations of anti-Semitism against former Breitbart News executive chairman and current White House Chief Strategist Stephen K. Bannon and former Breitbart News national security editor and current Special Assistant to the President Dr. Sebastian Gorka. ZOA is backed in substantial part by GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, an ardent defender of Israel and a confidante of President Trump.
While ZOA’s statement has not indicated where the powerful pro-Israel organization will come down in its review of McMaster’s activities and statements, there are many reasons to believe that ZOA may not have a favorable view of his positions on Israel. A source close to ZOA cautioned Breitbart News, explaining that ZOA’s review would be “limited in scope to analysis of McMaster’s performance and positions on issues related to Israel and the scourge of radical Islamic terrorism.”
It is worth noting that it has been widely reported that McMaster has a serious problem with the term “radical Islamic terrorism.” It’s also worth noting there are reportedly serious concerns with McMaster’s positions on Israel, as raised in part by Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post last week.
“According to senior officials aware of his behavior, he [McMaster] constantly refers to Israel as the occupying power and insists falsely and constantly that a country named Palestine existed where Israel is located until 1948 when it was destroyed by the Jews,” Glick wrote of McMaster. “Many of you will remember that a few days before Trump’s visit to Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – ?????? ?????? and his advisers were blindsided when the Americans suddenly told them that no Israeli official was allowed to accompany Trump to the Western Wall. What hasn’t been reported is that it was McMaster who pressured Trump to agree not to let Netanyahu accompany him to the Western Wall. At the time, I and other reporters were led to believe that this was the decision of rogue anti-Israel officers at the US consulate in Jerusalem. But it wasn’t. It was McMaster. And even that, it works out wasn’t sufficient for McMaster. He pressured Trump to cancel his visit to the Wall and only visit the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial — ala the Islamists who insist that the only reason Israel exists is European guilt over the Holocaust.”
What’s more, a piece out Sunday evening by Breitbart News’ Aaron Klein–this outlet’s Jerusalem Bureau chief–discovered deep troubling ties between McMaster and leftist billionaire George Soros.
Now, the oldest and strongest pro-Israel group in America is conducting its own probe to get to the bottom of it.
Following troubling revelations and concerned raised about National Security Adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) announced it has undertaken a review and analysis of the top White House official’s positions, actions, and statements on Israel.
“Zionist Organization of America (‘ZOA’) issues the following statement in response to several media inquiries regarding General Herbert Raymond ‘H.R.’ McMaster’s tenure as President Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor,” ZOA said in a statement on Monday morning. “ZOA’s leadership is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of all publicly available facts and statements. Morton Klein, national president of ZOA, will be issuing a full statement later this week.”
ZOA is the oldest pro-Israel organization in America which has been a reliable supporter of President Donald Trump and his administration. The group, and its president Morton Klein, have fought back against phony allegations of anti-Semitism against former Breitbart News executive chairman and current White House Chief Strategist Stephen K. Bannon and former Breitbart News national security editor and current Special Assistant to the President Dr. Sebastian Gorka. ZOA is backed in substantial part by GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, an ardent defender of Israel and a confidante of President Trump.
While ZOA’s statement has not indicated where the powerful pro-Israel organization will come down in its review of McMaster’s activities and statements, there are many reasons to believe that ZOA may not have a favorable view of his positions on Israel. A source close to ZOA cautioned Breitbart News, explaining that ZOA’s review would be “limited in scope to analysis of McMaster’s performance and positions on issues related to Israel and the scourge of radical Islamic terrorism.”
It is worth noting that it has been widely reported that McMaster has a serious problem with the term “radical Islamic terrorism.” It’s also worth noting there are reportedly serious concerns with McMaster’s positions on Israel, as raised in part by Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post last week.
“According to senior officials aware of his behavior, he [McMaster] constantly refers to Israel as the occupying power and insists falsely and constantly that a country named Palestine existed where Israel is located until 1948 when it was destroyed by the Jews,” Glick wrote of McMaster. “Many of you will remember that a few days before Trump’s visit to Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – ?????? ?????? and his advisers were blindsided when the Americans suddenly told them that no Israeli official was allowed to accompany Trump to the Western Wall. What hasn’t been reported is that it was McMaster who pressured Trump to agree not to let Netanyahu accompany him to the Western Wall. At the time, I and other reporters were led to believe that this was the decision of rogue anti-Israel officers at the US consulate in Jerusalem. But it wasn’t. It was McMaster. And even that, it works out wasn’t sufficient for McMaster. He pressured Trump to cancel his visit to the Wall and only visit the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial — ala the Islamists who insist that the only reason Israel exists is European guilt over the Holocaust.”
What’s more, a piece out Sunday evening by Breitbart News’ Aaron Klein–this outlet’s Jerusalem Bureau chief–discovered deep troubling ties between McMaster and leftist billionaire George Soros.
Now, the oldest and strongest pro-Israel group in America is conducting its own probe to get to the bottom of it.
Sunday, August 6, 2017
NY Democrat Senator Gillibrand’s Backtracks on Israel Anti-BDS Bill - Breitbart
By Adelle Nazarian
New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is under fire from World Jewish Congress president Ron Lauder, who said he was “deeply disturbed” by her decision to withdraw her backing for anti-BDS legislation introduced by a fellow Democrat, citing the First Amendment as the basis for her choice.
On Monday, Gillibrand said she was withdrawing her name from the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, introduced by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) in March and supported by 45 additional senators from the Republican and Democratic parties.
On Thursday, Lauder said he was “deeply disturbed” by Gillibrand’s announcement and noted that this bill was “aimed at combating the BDS movement which is spreading virulently in the United States and throughout the world.” According to the Algemeiner, he added, “I would urge Senator Gillibrand to instead add her name back as a co-sponsor for this legislation and reaffirm her commitment to opposing the international campaign to de-legitimize our democratic ally in the Middle East, Israel.”
The Israel Anti-Boycott Act “opposes the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution of March 24, 2016, which urges countries to pressure companies to divest from, or break contracts with, Israel” and “encourages full implementation of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 through enhanced, government-wide, coordinated U.S.-Israel scientific and technological cooperation in civilian areas.”
Gillibrand reportedly announced that she was withdrawing her support for the legislation at a town hall meeting in Queens where she cited the First Amendment — a position also held by progressive groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
In an op-ed last month, the ACLU wrote, “Last week, the ACLU came out against a bill that would criminalize constitutionally protected boycotts and certain speech targeting Israel. The Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which was introduced in both the House and Senate earlier this year, would expand a 1970s-era export law and expose a range of activity to sweeping penalties, including criminal prosecution.”
Cardin’s Israel Anti-Boycott Act seeks to amend the 1979 Export Administration Act “to include in the prohibitions on boycotts against allies of the United States boycotts fostered by international governmental organizations against Israel and to direct the Export-Import Bank of the United States to oppose boycotts against Israel, and for other purposes.”
This is not the first time the ACLU has targeted members of the Democratic Party over their support for Israel.
Last month, they went after Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) for supporting the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, accusing her of stifling free speech.
“Senator Hassan strongly opposes the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel and believes that it harms efforts to secure enduring peace through bilateral negotiations toward a two-state solution,” Ricki Eshman, Hassan’s press secretary, said in a statement, according to the Algemeiner.
During Monday’s town hall, Gillibrand reportedly said, “I am against BDS, but I feel that anybody who’s in favor of it should feel very comfortable speaking on any stage, anywhere in America.” However, the Algemeiner notes that she specifically “avoided any mention of the link between the BDS movement and anti-Semitic statements and actions.”
In response to this, Lauder reportedly said, “Supporters of the BDS movement shield themselves by claiming that their movement is anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic, but let me be crystal clear, anti-Zionism is no different than anti-Semitism. When you hold the only Jewish state to a different standard than every other nation, when you lie about its past and its present, that is old fashioned, unadulterated anti-Semitism.”
Adelle Nazarian is a politics and national security reporter for Breitbart News. Follow her on Facebook and Twitter.
According to Roger Stone POTUS Trump Never Approved White House Statement In Support of McMaster
With reporting by Joshua Caplan, of the GATEWAY PUNDIT
On Friday evening, the New York Times published a statement allegedly issued by President Trump in support of H.R. McMaster after the National Security Advisor came under heavy fire for his anti-Israel views and firing Trump loyalists. Former Trump campaign manager, Roger Stone, says the White House issued the statement without President Trump’s approval.
Oy Vay, Let that sink in...
As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, President Trump defended McMaster using the same, vague and cryptic terms used to describe his feelings on Reince Priebus after he was fired. “He is a good man and very pro-Israel,” said President Trump. Priebus was called a ‘good man,’ as well.
New York Times reports:
Coincidentally, here President Trump was describing Priebus, much like he describes McMaster, as a “good man.”
Real Clear Politics reports:
As you probably know, National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster took a beating this week from conservative media online following news of him purging Trump loyalists while praising Susan Rice and granting her access to classified information.
Rumors are swirling that President Trump is furious about McMaster’s decisions in his recent firings. Steve Bannon is reportedly also at odds with McMaster, causing a schism in the White House. It is a fight between the Trump loyalists and Deep State operatives still buzzing around attempting to unseat Trump.
TGP reported Thursday, McMaster might be shipped off to Afghanistan to oversee the war. The news also comes amid reports McMaster was caught leaking internal White House politics to now former Acting FBI Head Andy McCabe.So will McMaster be the next Deep State Neocon on the chopping block - that is, while the President learns how nasty Washington truly is?
Hell, we can only hope...
On Friday evening, the New York Times published a statement allegedly issued by President Trump in support of H.R. McMaster after the National Security Advisor came under heavy fire for his anti-Israel views and firing Trump loyalists. Former Trump campaign manager, Roger Stone, says the White House issued the statement without President Trump’s approval.
McMaster must go - Statement of support put out by WH was never seen or approved by @realDonaldTrump
Oy Vay, Let that sink in...
As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, President Trump defended McMaster using the same, vague and cryptic terms used to describe his feelings on Reince Priebus after he was fired. “He is a good man and very pro-Israel,” said President Trump. Priebus was called a ‘good man,’ as well.
New York Times reports:
President Trump defended Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, his embattled national security adviser, on Friday in the face of a full-bore campaign by the nationalist wing of his political coalition accusing him of undermining the president’s agenda and calling for his dismissal.
General McMaster has angered the political right by pushing out several conservatives on the national security staff and cautioning against ripping up the nuclear agreement with Iran negotiated by President Barack Obamawithout a strategy for what comes next. His future has been in doubt amid speculation that Mr. Trump might send him to Afghanistan.
But after two days of unrelenting attacks on General McMaster by conservative activists and news sites, complete with the Twitter hashtag #FireMcMaster, the president weighed in to quash such talk. “General McMaster and I are working very well together,” he said in a statement emailed to The New York Times. “He is a good man and very pro–Israel. I am grateful for the work he continues to do serving our country.”
Coincidentally, here President Trump was describing Priebus, much like he describes McMaster, as a “good man.”
Real Clear Politics reports:
President Trump gives a brief statement to the media about his decision to replace Chief of Staff Reince Priebus with Secretary of Homeland Security Ret. Gen. John Kelly. The president said Priebus was a “good man” and called Kelly a “great, great American.
Trump had just returned from New York and exited Air Force One.
“Mr. President, why Secretary Kelly? Why John Kelly?” a reporter asked Trump at Joint Base Andrews.
“Reince is a good man. John Kelly will do a fantastic job. General Kelly has been a star, done an incredible job thus far, respected by everybody. A great, great American. Reince Priebus, a good man. Thank you very much,” Trump responded.
As you probably know, National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster took a beating this week from conservative media online following news of him purging Trump loyalists while praising Susan Rice and granting her access to classified information.
Rumors are swirling that President Trump is furious about McMaster’s decisions in his recent firings. Steve Bannon is reportedly also at odds with McMaster, causing a schism in the White House. It is a fight between the Trump loyalists and Deep State operatives still buzzing around attempting to unseat Trump.
TGP reported Thursday, McMaster might be shipped off to Afghanistan to oversee the war. The news also comes amid reports McMaster was caught leaking internal White House politics to now former Acting FBI Head Andy McCabe.So will McMaster be the next Deep State Neocon on the chopping block - that is, while the President learns how nasty Washington truly is?
Hell, we can only hope...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)