January 7, 2014
January 6, 2014
Israel's Right to Exist....
If I recall, the KEY part of Resolution 242 is that BEFORE any final negotiations BEGIN....
the Arabs must accept fully Israel and Israel's right to exist.
Kerry is wasting his time, like all of those before him. The POTUS needs to go to Israel and find out what she wants to start ...geez ...nothing, I guess he will just waste his time also.
The KEY part of Resolution 242 is that BEFORE any final negotiations BEGIN....
the Arabs must accept fully Israel and Israel's right to exist.
the Arabs must accept fully Israel and Israel's right to exist.
Kerry is wasting his time, like all of those before him. The POTUS needs to go to Israel and find out what she wants to start ...geez ...nothing, I guess he will just waste his time also.
The KEY part of Resolution 242 is that BEFORE any final negotiations BEGIN....
the Arabs must accept fully Israel and Israel's right to exist.
Obama's Last Chance - Israel
Obama's failures mean the only place he has to turn is the ME and Israel.
We know that Obama is a HUGE anti-Semite.
We know that Obama has been a HUGE failure with ALL of his domestic issues.
We know that Obama has been a HUGE failure with Benghazi.
We know that Obama has been a HUGE failure with his political appointees.
We know that Obama has been a HUGE failure with the A.C.A. (Obamacare)
We know that Obama has been a HUGE failure in job creation
We know that Obama has been a HUGE failure in fixing social programs.
We know that Obama has been a HUGE failure in maintaining the status of the office of the POTUS.
We know that Obama has been a HUGE failure in the economy.
We know that Obama has been a HUGE failure protecting the office of the Presidency
And so on and so on....
Obama's reputation is so damaged, that the only place he has to turn that he has not finished mucking up yet is Israel.
Be afraid of the desperation of a failed POTUS, grasping at straws....
We know that Obama is a HUGE anti-Semite.
We know that Obama has been a HUGE failure with ALL of his domestic issues.
We know that Obama has been a HUGE failure with Benghazi.
We know that Obama has been a HUGE failure with his political appointees.
We know that Obama has been a HUGE failure with the A.C.A. (Obamacare)
We know that Obama has been a HUGE failure in job creation
We know that Obama has been a HUGE failure in fixing social programs.
We know that Obama has been a HUGE failure in maintaining the status of the office of the POTUS.
We know that Obama has been a HUGE failure in the economy.
We know that Obama has been a HUGE failure protecting the office of the Presidency
And so on and so on....
Obama's reputation is so damaged, that the only place he has to turn that he has not finished mucking up yet is Israel.
Be afraid of the desperation of a failed POTUS, grasping at straws....
Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria - Caroline Glick
Caroline Glick: Explaining the Right’s Alternative to the World
In her new book, journalist Caroline Glick lays out a political plan
built on application of Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.
Here too, the question of how to deal with the demographic issue is a
leading concern, but in this case, Israeli sovereignty becomes a
surprising and essential demographic solution.
Journalist Caroline Glick has recently completed her book (in English)
about the alternative plan to the ‘Two-State’ scheme. Glick directs
her book ‘The Israeli solution: A One State Plan for Peace in the
Middle East’ to the American audience “so that they will understand
that the reason the United States’ Middle East policy has been such a
failure for the past two generations is because it’s been based on a
failed concept of carving a Palestinian state out of Israeli
territory.
Whereas in Israel, the conversation has begun about alternatives to
the ‘Two-State’ model, no such conversation is taking place in
America. Since George W. Bush officially adopted the idea and made it
the centerpiece of US Middle East policymaking, everyone has supported
the establishment of a Palestinian state. In truth ever since the
Nixon era, the paradigm that the United States has been promoting is
the paradigm based on appeasing the PLO at Israel’s expense.”
Before Richard Nixon decided to treat the PLO as a desirable
organization, US policy was not predicated on Israeli land giveaways.
“In ’67 there was no such concept in the United States. UN Security
Council Resolution 242, which set out the terms of an eventual peace
between Israel and its Arab neighbors, stipulated clearly that the
Arabs must recognize the right of Israel to exist in peace and
security within defensible borders and, only afterward, would
territorial changes be addressed…”
In Glick’s view, the US’s reliance on the ‘Two-State’ paradigm as the
panacea for all the Middle East’s political pathologies has been the
principal cause of most of its policy failures in the Middle East. “By
viewing the Arab world through the prism of the Palestinian conflict
with Israel, US policymakers’ perception of Israel and the war against
it has become distorted to the point of debilitation. The Americans
are so blinded by their belief that by establishing a Palestinian
state on territory Israel controls they will solve all the problems of
the region that they cannot understand the region.”
On a military level, according to Glick, this has blinded successive
American administrations to the strategic significance of Israel’s
military campaigns and so blocked Washington’s capacity to learn from
Israel’s experience or even understand that it is worth thinking about
Israel’s experiences.
In her book, Glick considers the US military intervention in Lebanon
in 1982 and its intervention in Iraq in 2003. She discusses how the
Americans’ refusal to learn from Israel’s experience in Lebanon, which
stemmed from its embrace of the ‘Two-State’ model, made it impossible
for them to understand the nature of the societies they were operating
in or to develop strategies that were relevant to their battlefields.
In Lebanon, she explains, the Americans sided with the PLO against the
IDF forces and deployed the Marines to force Israel out of Beirut
while protecting the PLO from the IDF. “This was the aim of their
‘peacekeeping mission,’” she says. “They were not prepared for the
reality. That reality dictated that the parties fighting in Lebanon
saw the US forces as an Israeli proxy. When they replaced the IDF
positions all of those forces that were fighting against Israel aimed
their guns at the Americans. The American misconception stemmed from
the fact that they saw themselves as a liberating force, in contrast
to the IDF, which they perceived as an occupying force. They were
incapable of reaching the right conclusions regarding the PLO, Syria
and Lebanon. The United States saved the PLO, and arranged a haven for
it in Tunisia because the State Department believed that their
generosity to Arafat would convince him to moderate his position,
agree to the ‘Two-State’ solution and everything would be okay.”
In Iraq, she explains, the Americans failed again because of the same
misguided approach. “They thought they had nothing to learn from the
Israeli experience of 18 years in Lebanon, because again, they were
convinced that they were liberators and Israel was the occupier. So
they marched blindly into Iraq. Most Israelis who understood Iraq and
what happened to us in Lebanon foresaw precisely what happened in
Iraq. But the Americans, who failed to notice the demographic
similarities between the Lebanese and the Iraqis, didn’t understand
the relationships between the groups and the Syrians and Iranians –
the sponsors of the war in Lebanon – and were blind to it. And again,
their blindness owed to their inability to see Israel outside of the
‘Two-State’ paradigm. For them, Israel is only useful if it is giving
land to Arabs. It isn’t an ally; it is an obstacle to Arab support for
the US.”
The ‘Two-State’ solution, she explains, is the end of analysis and
serious thinking about the region, not the beginning of it. “This is a
belief that absolves its adherents from considering reality. If all of
the problems of the Middle East stem from the fact that there is no
Palestinian state in the Land of Israel then you don’t need to learn
about the Arab world, the various ethnic groups, the contradictory
interests. There is no need for strategic thinking because every
problem is clearly a result of ’Israeli greed’.”
“The undertones of the ‘Two-State’ model are deeply anti-Semitic. And
this makes sense. The eternal characteristic of Jew hatred is its
rejection of logic and reason. If the Jews are to blame for
everything, then there is no reason to think anymore. Jewish guilt is
the catch-all explanation for everything that is happening, has ever
happened and will ever happen in the world. If the Jews are to blame,
then there is no reason to think anymore. There, you have the answer.
Punish the Jew and everything will be fine.”
In light of this, Glick sees the ‘Two-State’ model as nothing less
than a model based on an anti-Semitic world concept. And Jews are not
immune to the anti-Semitic rejection of reason. “The Israeli Left’s
belief in the ‘Two-State’ idea, despite innumerable proofs that it is
false, is nothing but a part of the world view that rejects logic and
reason.”
Glick divided The Israeli Solution into three parts. Part One is a
historical survey that lays out the failure of the ‘Two-State’
paradigm from the British Mandatory period to the present day.
In the second part of the book Glick examines the various aspects of
the application of Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. She
provides an in-depth analysis of Arab and Jewish demography and shows
that, far from being an existential threat to Israel, demography is
one of our strongest assets. Glick demonstrates that if Israel were
to apply its sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, and offer immediate
permanent residency to all its Palestinian residents, as well as the
right to apply for citizenship, Israel would still retain a two-thirds
Jewish majority. Moreover, there is every reason to believe that the
Jewish majority would only rise from there on in.
“The high rate of Arab emigration from Judea and Samaria, and the
great potential for Jewish aliyah from Europe are clear indicators
that time is on Israel’s side. Moreover, the Jewish fertility rate has
outpaced the Arab fertility rate in Judea and Samaria and is closing
in on the Israeli Muslim fertility rate,” she explains.
Ironically, she notes, Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria is
what will stop Jewish demographic erosion, in total contradiction to
the way in which the ‘Two-State’ advocates describe reality. “Tzipi
Livni speaks about a Palestinian state as a demographic solution
whereas such a state would turn demographics into a real threat. After
all, the Palestinian state would have control over its immigration
policy. And who are the Palestinians in Syria and Lebanon who would
immigrate immediately to a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria?
They are the hundreds of thousands of people who live in villages that
are called refugee camps and are controlled by al-Qaeda and Ahmed
Jibril’s PLO. This would be the implementation of the Palestinians’
so-called ‘right of return.’ Obviously, these people would not live
peacefully. They would incite the Arabs of the Galilee and the Negev
to wage a terror war against Israel. All of the moderate Arabs, who
are now well integrated into Israeli society, would be murdered like
the collaborators that were killed in great numbers by Arafat when he
came here. Only if we have exclusive control of the border can we
prevent a demographic disaster. Even if all of the Palestinians become
Israeli citizens we would prevent a demographic disaster by
restraining Palestinian control in the immigration policy.”
She also considers the record of success of the Israeli sovereignty
model – or the Israeli ‘One-State’ plan. “Israel has implemented the
Israeli ‘One-State’ plan twice – in Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
And both experiences were successful.”
She devotes a chapter to Israel’s legal rights to sovereignty over
Judea and Samaria, and another chapter to its historic rights to
sovereignty over the areas.
She spends, as well, two chapters considering the civil rights aspects
of the Israeli ‘One-State’ plan and explains, “Israeli democracy and
the status of the civil rights of Israelis and Palestinians alike will
be massively enhanced if Israel applies its sovereignty over Judea and
Samaria. The Palestinians in particular have been the primary victims
of the ‘Two-State’ formula. From living in the freest society in the
Middle East, outside Israel under military rule, they became subjected
to the PLO’s jackboot. For the past 20 years, the Palestinians have
lived in a legal jungle, with no protected rights whatsoever and have
stood by powerless as their children have been indoctrinated to become
murderers and bigots. The Israeli ‘One-State’ plan offers them true
civil rights and corrects a situation that should never have been
created to begin with.”
Part Three of The Israeli Solution considers the likely responses of
the Palestinians, the larger Arab world and the European Union to an
Israeli move to apply its sovereignty to Judea and Samaria. The last
two chapters analyze how Israeli sovereignty over the areas would
impact Israel, and the United States. In general, Glick’s analysis led
her to the conclusion that the party that will react most harshly
would likely be the Europeans. “Today, the EU’s only foreign policy is
hostility towards Israel. This is made clear first and foremost in
their aggressive rejection of Israel’s sovereign rights to Jerusalem,
Judea and Samaria. The Arabs have other interests. The Palestinians
have limited capacities. The Europeans have nothing else going on. But
in the end, Israel has the means to mitigate the damage of European
anti-Israel actions. And a decision to apply Israeli sovereignty over
the areas will give Israel the strategic clarity to meet the challenge
in a coherent and constructive way.”
Glick says she got the idea of writing a book after watching the
vice-presidential debate ahead of the 2008 presidential elections. The
moderator asked Sarah Palin rhetorically whether she supports the
establishment of a Palestinian state. Palin looked slightly confused,
hesitated and answered positively. From watching this debate Glick
understood that in the absence of a clear, cogent alternative from the
Right, the world, even those who support Israel, would continue to see
the Left’s vision as the only vision on the table for discussion.
“I brief the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate
several times every year. Each time I present this plan on Capitol
Hill, the response borders on euphoria. In the United States, just as
in Israel, there are millions of people who understand that the
‘Two-State’ solution is a disaster. They are just waiting for someone
to tell them that they can abandon it. My book gives them, and the
Israeli public as well, the alternative that they are waiting for.”
Glick rejects the voices on the Israeli Right that promote the idea of
payment for Arab emigration or defining Jordan as Palestine. In her
view, these are irrelevant ideas that no one will accept, especially
the Palestinians themselves. “The only thing that should interest us
is that Judea and Samaria is Israel,” she says and notes that even
though providing the Palestinians with permanent residency and the
right to apply for citizenship is not a perfect solution and will
damage Israel on certain levels, “it is absolutely clear that it is
better than establishing a Palestinian state. Such a state would be
the ruin of Israel.”
Despite the risks, this policy will allow us to exist coherently as a
liberal, open and Jewish country with the ability to determine our own
fate, she explains.
In her new book, journalist Caroline Glick lays out a political plan
built on application of Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.
Here too, the question of how to deal with the demographic issue is a
leading concern, but in this case, Israeli sovereignty becomes a
surprising and essential demographic solution.
Journalist Caroline Glick has recently completed her book (in English)
about the alternative plan to the ‘Two-State’ scheme. Glick directs
her book ‘The Israeli solution: A One State Plan for Peace in the
Middle East’ to the American audience “so that they will understand
that the reason the United States’ Middle East policy has been such a
failure for the past two generations is because it’s been based on a
failed concept of carving a Palestinian state out of Israeli
territory.
Whereas in Israel, the conversation has begun about alternatives to
the ‘Two-State’ model, no such conversation is taking place in
America. Since George W. Bush officially adopted the idea and made it
the centerpiece of US Middle East policymaking, everyone has supported
the establishment of a Palestinian state. In truth ever since the
Nixon era, the paradigm that the United States has been promoting is
the paradigm based on appeasing the PLO at Israel’s expense.”
Before Richard Nixon decided to treat the PLO as a desirable
organization, US policy was not predicated on Israeli land giveaways.
“In ’67 there was no such concept in the United States. UN Security
Council Resolution 242, which set out the terms of an eventual peace
between Israel and its Arab neighbors, stipulated clearly that the
Arabs must recognize the right of Israel to exist in peace and
security within defensible borders and, only afterward, would
territorial changes be addressed…”
In Glick’s view, the US’s reliance on the ‘Two-State’ paradigm as the
panacea for all the Middle East’s political pathologies has been the
principal cause of most of its policy failures in the Middle East. “By
viewing the Arab world through the prism of the Palestinian conflict
with Israel, US policymakers’ perception of Israel and the war against
it has become distorted to the point of debilitation. The Americans
are so blinded by their belief that by establishing a Palestinian
state on territory Israel controls they will solve all the problems of
the region that they cannot understand the region.”
On a military level, according to Glick, this has blinded successive
American administrations to the strategic significance of Israel’s
military campaigns and so blocked Washington’s capacity to learn from
Israel’s experience or even understand that it is worth thinking about
Israel’s experiences.
In her book, Glick considers the US military intervention in Lebanon
in 1982 and its intervention in Iraq in 2003. She discusses how the
Americans’ refusal to learn from Israel’s experience in Lebanon, which
stemmed from its embrace of the ‘Two-State’ model, made it impossible
for them to understand the nature of the societies they were operating
in or to develop strategies that were relevant to their battlefields.
In Lebanon, she explains, the Americans sided with the PLO against the
IDF forces and deployed the Marines to force Israel out of Beirut
while protecting the PLO from the IDF. “This was the aim of their
‘peacekeeping mission,’” she says. “They were not prepared for the
reality. That reality dictated that the parties fighting in Lebanon
saw the US forces as an Israeli proxy. When they replaced the IDF
positions all of those forces that were fighting against Israel aimed
their guns at the Americans. The American misconception stemmed from
the fact that they saw themselves as a liberating force, in contrast
to the IDF, which they perceived as an occupying force. They were
incapable of reaching the right conclusions regarding the PLO, Syria
and Lebanon. The United States saved the PLO, and arranged a haven for
it in Tunisia because the State Department believed that their
generosity to Arafat would convince him to moderate his position,
agree to the ‘Two-State’ solution and everything would be okay.”
In Iraq, she explains, the Americans failed again because of the same
misguided approach. “They thought they had nothing to learn from the
Israeli experience of 18 years in Lebanon, because again, they were
convinced that they were liberators and Israel was the occupier. So
they marched blindly into Iraq. Most Israelis who understood Iraq and
what happened to us in Lebanon foresaw precisely what happened in
Iraq. But the Americans, who failed to notice the demographic
similarities between the Lebanese and the Iraqis, didn’t understand
the relationships between the groups and the Syrians and Iranians –
the sponsors of the war in Lebanon – and were blind to it. And again,
their blindness owed to their inability to see Israel outside of the
‘Two-State’ paradigm. For them, Israel is only useful if it is giving
land to Arabs. It isn’t an ally; it is an obstacle to Arab support for
the US.”
The ‘Two-State’ solution, she explains, is the end of analysis and
serious thinking about the region, not the beginning of it. “This is a
belief that absolves its adherents from considering reality. If all of
the problems of the Middle East stem from the fact that there is no
Palestinian state in the Land of Israel then you don’t need to learn
about the Arab world, the various ethnic groups, the contradictory
interests. There is no need for strategic thinking because every
problem is clearly a result of ’Israeli greed’.”
“The undertones of the ‘Two-State’ model are deeply anti-Semitic. And
this makes sense. The eternal characteristic of Jew hatred is its
rejection of logic and reason. If the Jews are to blame for
everything, then there is no reason to think anymore. Jewish guilt is
the catch-all explanation for everything that is happening, has ever
happened and will ever happen in the world. If the Jews are to blame,
then there is no reason to think anymore. There, you have the answer.
Punish the Jew and everything will be fine.”
In light of this, Glick sees the ‘Two-State’ model as nothing less
than a model based on an anti-Semitic world concept. And Jews are not
immune to the anti-Semitic rejection of reason. “The Israeli Left’s
belief in the ‘Two-State’ idea, despite innumerable proofs that it is
false, is nothing but a part of the world view that rejects logic and
reason.”
Glick divided The Israeli Solution into three parts. Part One is a
historical survey that lays out the failure of the ‘Two-State’
paradigm from the British Mandatory period to the present day.
In the second part of the book Glick examines the various aspects of
the application of Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. She
provides an in-depth analysis of Arab and Jewish demography and shows
that, far from being an existential threat to Israel, demography is
one of our strongest assets. Glick demonstrates that if Israel were
to apply its sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, and offer immediate
permanent residency to all its Palestinian residents, as well as the
right to apply for citizenship, Israel would still retain a two-thirds
Jewish majority. Moreover, there is every reason to believe that the
Jewish majority would only rise from there on in.
“The high rate of Arab emigration from Judea and Samaria, and the
great potential for Jewish aliyah from Europe are clear indicators
that time is on Israel’s side. Moreover, the Jewish fertility rate has
outpaced the Arab fertility rate in Judea and Samaria and is closing
in on the Israeli Muslim fertility rate,” she explains.
Ironically, she notes, Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria is
what will stop Jewish demographic erosion, in total contradiction to
the way in which the ‘Two-State’ advocates describe reality. “Tzipi
Livni speaks about a Palestinian state as a demographic solution
whereas such a state would turn demographics into a real threat. After
all, the Palestinian state would have control over its immigration
policy. And who are the Palestinians in Syria and Lebanon who would
immigrate immediately to a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria?
They are the hundreds of thousands of people who live in villages that
are called refugee camps and are controlled by al-Qaeda and Ahmed
Jibril’s PLO. This would be the implementation of the Palestinians’
so-called ‘right of return.’ Obviously, these people would not live
peacefully. They would incite the Arabs of the Galilee and the Negev
to wage a terror war against Israel. All of the moderate Arabs, who
are now well integrated into Israeli society, would be murdered like
the collaborators that were killed in great numbers by Arafat when he
came here. Only if we have exclusive control of the border can we
prevent a demographic disaster. Even if all of the Palestinians become
Israeli citizens we would prevent a demographic disaster by
restraining Palestinian control in the immigration policy.”
She also considers the record of success of the Israeli sovereignty
model – or the Israeli ‘One-State’ plan. “Israel has implemented the
Israeli ‘One-State’ plan twice – in Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
And both experiences were successful.”
She devotes a chapter to Israel’s legal rights to sovereignty over
Judea and Samaria, and another chapter to its historic rights to
sovereignty over the areas.
She spends, as well, two chapters considering the civil rights aspects
of the Israeli ‘One-State’ plan and explains, “Israeli democracy and
the status of the civil rights of Israelis and Palestinians alike will
be massively enhanced if Israel applies its sovereignty over Judea and
Samaria. The Palestinians in particular have been the primary victims
of the ‘Two-State’ formula. From living in the freest society in the
Middle East, outside Israel under military rule, they became subjected
to the PLO’s jackboot. For the past 20 years, the Palestinians have
lived in a legal jungle, with no protected rights whatsoever and have
stood by powerless as their children have been indoctrinated to become
murderers and bigots. The Israeli ‘One-State’ plan offers them true
civil rights and corrects a situation that should never have been
created to begin with.”
Part Three of The Israeli Solution considers the likely responses of
the Palestinians, the larger Arab world and the European Union to an
Israeli move to apply its sovereignty to Judea and Samaria. The last
two chapters analyze how Israeli sovereignty over the areas would
impact Israel, and the United States. In general, Glick’s analysis led
her to the conclusion that the party that will react most harshly
would likely be the Europeans. “Today, the EU’s only foreign policy is
hostility towards Israel. This is made clear first and foremost in
their aggressive rejection of Israel’s sovereign rights to Jerusalem,
Judea and Samaria. The Arabs have other interests. The Palestinians
have limited capacities. The Europeans have nothing else going on. But
in the end, Israel has the means to mitigate the damage of European
anti-Israel actions. And a decision to apply Israeli sovereignty over
the areas will give Israel the strategic clarity to meet the challenge
in a coherent and constructive way.”
Glick says she got the idea of writing a book after watching the
vice-presidential debate ahead of the 2008 presidential elections. The
moderator asked Sarah Palin rhetorically whether she supports the
establishment of a Palestinian state. Palin looked slightly confused,
hesitated and answered positively. From watching this debate Glick
understood that in the absence of a clear, cogent alternative from the
Right, the world, even those who support Israel, would continue to see
the Left’s vision as the only vision on the table for discussion.
“I brief the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate
several times every year. Each time I present this plan on Capitol
Hill, the response borders on euphoria. In the United States, just as
in Israel, there are millions of people who understand that the
‘Two-State’ solution is a disaster. They are just waiting for someone
to tell them that they can abandon it. My book gives them, and the
Israeli public as well, the alternative that they are waiting for.”
Glick rejects the voices on the Israeli Right that promote the idea of
payment for Arab emigration or defining Jordan as Palestine. In her
view, these are irrelevant ideas that no one will accept, especially
the Palestinians themselves. “The only thing that should interest us
is that Judea and Samaria is Israel,” she says and notes that even
though providing the Palestinians with permanent residency and the
right to apply for citizenship is not a perfect solution and will
damage Israel on certain levels, “it is absolutely clear that it is
better than establishing a Palestinian state. Such a state would be
the ruin of Israel.”
Despite the risks, this policy will allow us to exist coherently as a
liberal, open and Jewish country with the ability to determine our own
fate, she explains.
MK Hotovely Presents: The Gradual Plan – ‘Annexation - Naturalization’
When Deputy Minister of Transportation, MK Tzipi Hotovely is asked
what the Right should present as a political goal and an alternative
to the ‘Two-State’ plan she answers simply,
“The goal is for Judea and Samaria to be under Israeli sovereignty. It is ours and it was acquired legally in a bloody, defensive war. We must now implement the vision of the Greater Land of Israel and begin to apply sovereignty in all of the territory. This is the vision reflecting belief in the holy precept that the Land of Israel is ours and we have no right to revoke this precept. It is fidelity to the ideology of the Right and the religious public, which believes that this is our land.”
Although the vision mentioned in the title is a simple concept,
Hotovely is well aware of the difficulties that stand in the way of
implementing this vision, and the first of them, “the hot potato that everyone has been passing from hand to hand until now” as she defines it, is:
what will happen with the Arab population in the territories of Judea and Samaria the day after application of Israeli sovereignty?
The deputy minister envisions a solution to the matter in gradual phases. “I start with the assumption that this is a hostile population whose abiding dream is not to be part of the Jewish Zionist state. Therefore we must address several matters simultaneously.”
Jewish-Nationalist Legislation
The first matter Hotovely addresses is Jewish immigration to Israel
(aliyah). “We need to strengthen the Jewish population
demographically. When Ben Gurion established the Jewish state, there were six hundred thousand Jews along with four hundred and fifty thousand Arabs. These are frightening numbers for a small country without strong defenses. The state could have been destroyed within a short time by Arab procreation and nevertheless Ben Gurion did not hesitate; he established the State and opened its doors to the ingathering of the exiles, seeing the 12 million Jews of the Diaspora as a target. If this is what Ben Gurion did when we were a weak country, then when the country is secure and economically strong, a country that is good to live in, should we be ashamed to speak of gathering in the exiles? If, of the nine million Jews in the world, we bring one million, we have already provided a significant demographic answer.”
Sovereignty over Area C and the Issue of Citizenship
Hotovely urges a prudent approach to the issue of granting
citizenship. “I do not think that it is necessary to give automatic
citizenship,” she says and clarifies: “We must begin a gradual process of 25 years under the heading of ‘annexation-naturalization’. Unfortunately, I must now use the ABC letters used in the Oslo documents. As we know, Area C includes the entire Jewish population and along with it a small number of about one hundred thousand Arabs. This is a number that the State of Israel can manage. I’m not satisfied with just this, and I have no intention to give up ninety percent of the territory or to establish a hostile entity in the remaining area, like the one in Gaza, and this is in addition to my ideological objection to such a concession.”
“That group of one hundred thousand will be a sort of test case for
the future,” she adds and clarifies: “Laws will be passed to define
the State of Israel as a state for the Jewish people, the Law of
Return will be anchored as a Basic Law and within the framework of the Jewish laws of the state, it will be stated that all who request equal rights in the State of Israel will have obligations such as taxes and National Service. The Arab population today is free of these
obligations and this population will be tested anew within the
framework of new obligations. I do not believe in declarations of
loyalty but in the test of actions. Whoever does not take part in
National Service and bear part of the economic burden does not deserve to have certain rights. We must abolish the thought that since they are native-born, we cannot apply the naturalization laws to them. We must bear in mind that this is a hostile entity and it is impossible to turn them into citizens overnight. There is an intermediate phase of residency that can serve as a sort of candidacy period for citizenship. The drastic step of immediate citizenship for a million and a half Palestinians would be irresponsible and to think of doing
such a thing is not serious.”
Hotovely believes that a phased process such as this, beginning in
Area C, would be a significant statement to the world that “the
‘Two-State’ story is over. We cannot continue on this pointless course that leads nowhere.”
“Which is Preferable – the Gaza Model or the Sakhnin Model?”
Hotovely is also aware of the difficulty of “selling” the strategy she
describes to the Israeli public, who, according to her, want to see
the Arabs on the other side of the fence – mixing the populations
worries and concerns both the Left and the Right. “I ask a simple
question. What is better for you, the Gaza model or the Sakhnin model?
Sakhnin is indeed not an exemplary model of citizenship but, given the problems the State of Israel has in controlling the Arab population, applying Western thought patterns and developing an understanding that it pays to live with us allows for a vision of future coexistence. This is in addition to an intelligence point of view.”
Marketing Hotovely’s vision will not be easy within Israel or abroad.
She knows this but nevertheless declares, surprisingly, that selling
the idea abroad will be easier than doing it internally. “I get on
with the world easily because this plan is a democratic plan, a plan
that says that after you have tried to establish a Palestinian state,
(and the leadership in Israel was ready for almost anything including dividing her capital), at the end of the day, you have not succeeded. The other side does not want to end the conflict and there are great disparities between the two sides. And there is not one Palestinian leader who would agree to any one of the principles to which every Israeli leader has committed himself – regarding Jerusalem, refugees and areas for blocs of Jewish communities. No Arab leader would agree to Jewish blocs of communities. They will not concede Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim. They will not give up Jerusalem or the right of return. You have been trying since ’47 and you have not succeeded. If you try something six times with six different plans, leading to a partitioning of the Land, you must draw the right conclusions. If you feel sorry for the Palestinians, let them be citizens with equal rights in a democratic state.”
Hotovely denies what is described as the right of Palestinians to
self-define. She notes that “they belong to the greater Arab nation
and if there is any place where there is a concentration of ethnic
Palestinian population, it is the present Kingdom of Jordan and
therefore, I do not feel guilty at all for not allowing them to
establish another Arab state”.
“This is a democratic suggestion that does not depend on external
factors. We suggest to the Palestinians that if they don’t want
citizenship, it’s alright, but Palestinian refusal must result in an
Israeli counter-reaction.”
“Freedom of Expression Must be Subject to Red Lines. We Must Determine Who Will Represent the Arab Public”
As mentioned, Hotovely believes that persuading Israelis will be more difficult than influencing international opinion. “The Israeli public has a problem because it foresees Arab representatives in Knesset as subversives, as potential Hanin Zoabis. The State of Israel must have red lines on this issue, even with all its aspiration for freedom of expression. The Basic Law of the Knesset does not permit Balad (an Israeli Arab political party), which collaborates with terrorists and spies, to express its contempt. Yet this occurs anyway because Bagatz (the High Court of Justice) ratifies the presence of these people in our parliament, time after time. We must change the rules of the game and define who is permitted to represent the Arab population. We must not accept a reality in which those who hold hands with Hamas and
Hizb’Allah can sit in the Knesset.”
When she is asked about the chances for her plan to be accepted within our political reality, Hotovely is convinced the chances are good. “The vision of two states began in the lunatic fringe of the Left with Uri Avnery and Luba Eliav, who managed to sell a plan that was originally attacked by Golda Meir, Yigal Allon and the VIPs of Mapai (the left-wing pre-cursor to the modern day Labor Party), all of whom thought that a Palestinian state would be a terrible thing, and now this plan has become mainstream as a result of brainwashing to the point that even within the Likud, they speak of it as if it were Jabotinsky’s vision. If a plan based on a false premise was able to win such acceptance, a true plan should be accepted much more easily.”
Towards the end of her address, Deputy Minister Hotovely gives credit for the plan that she presents to Uri Elitsur, who has been promoting this basic outline recently. “We must restore our confidence that if the Holy One, Blessed Be He, gave us parts of this Land, he also gave us the strength to be its sovereigns,” and with this she seals her words.
what the Right should present as a political goal and an alternative
to the ‘Two-State’ plan she answers simply,
“The goal is for Judea and Samaria to be under Israeli sovereignty. It is ours and it was acquired legally in a bloody, defensive war. We must now implement the vision of the Greater Land of Israel and begin to apply sovereignty in all of the territory. This is the vision reflecting belief in the holy precept that the Land of Israel is ours and we have no right to revoke this precept. It is fidelity to the ideology of the Right and the religious public, which believes that this is our land.”
Although the vision mentioned in the title is a simple concept,
Hotovely is well aware of the difficulties that stand in the way of
implementing this vision, and the first of them, “the hot potato that everyone has been passing from hand to hand until now” as she defines it, is:
what will happen with the Arab population in the territories of Judea and Samaria the day after application of Israeli sovereignty?
The deputy minister envisions a solution to the matter in gradual phases. “I start with the assumption that this is a hostile population whose abiding dream is not to be part of the Jewish Zionist state. Therefore we must address several matters simultaneously.”
Jewish-Nationalist Legislation
The first matter Hotovely addresses is Jewish immigration to Israel
(aliyah). “We need to strengthen the Jewish population
demographically. When Ben Gurion established the Jewish state, there were six hundred thousand Jews along with four hundred and fifty thousand Arabs. These are frightening numbers for a small country without strong defenses. The state could have been destroyed within a short time by Arab procreation and nevertheless Ben Gurion did not hesitate; he established the State and opened its doors to the ingathering of the exiles, seeing the 12 million Jews of the Diaspora as a target. If this is what Ben Gurion did when we were a weak country, then when the country is secure and economically strong, a country that is good to live in, should we be ashamed to speak of gathering in the exiles? If, of the nine million Jews in the world, we bring one million, we have already provided a significant demographic answer.”
Sovereignty over Area C and the Issue of Citizenship
Hotovely urges a prudent approach to the issue of granting
citizenship. “I do not think that it is necessary to give automatic
citizenship,” she says and clarifies: “We must begin a gradual process of 25 years under the heading of ‘annexation-naturalization’. Unfortunately, I must now use the ABC letters used in the Oslo documents. As we know, Area C includes the entire Jewish population and along with it a small number of about one hundred thousand Arabs. This is a number that the State of Israel can manage. I’m not satisfied with just this, and I have no intention to give up ninety percent of the territory or to establish a hostile entity in the remaining area, like the one in Gaza, and this is in addition to my ideological objection to such a concession.”
“That group of one hundred thousand will be a sort of test case for
the future,” she adds and clarifies: “Laws will be passed to define
the State of Israel as a state for the Jewish people, the Law of
Return will be anchored as a Basic Law and within the framework of the Jewish laws of the state, it will be stated that all who request equal rights in the State of Israel will have obligations such as taxes and National Service. The Arab population today is free of these
obligations and this population will be tested anew within the
framework of new obligations. I do not believe in declarations of
loyalty but in the test of actions. Whoever does not take part in
National Service and bear part of the economic burden does not deserve to have certain rights. We must abolish the thought that since they are native-born, we cannot apply the naturalization laws to them. We must bear in mind that this is a hostile entity and it is impossible to turn them into citizens overnight. There is an intermediate phase of residency that can serve as a sort of candidacy period for citizenship. The drastic step of immediate citizenship for a million and a half Palestinians would be irresponsible and to think of doing
such a thing is not serious.”
Hotovely believes that a phased process such as this, beginning in
Area C, would be a significant statement to the world that “the
‘Two-State’ story is over. We cannot continue on this pointless course that leads nowhere.”
“Which is Preferable – the Gaza Model or the Sakhnin Model?”
Hotovely is also aware of the difficulty of “selling” the strategy she
describes to the Israeli public, who, according to her, want to see
the Arabs on the other side of the fence – mixing the populations
worries and concerns both the Left and the Right. “I ask a simple
question. What is better for you, the Gaza model or the Sakhnin model?
Sakhnin is indeed not an exemplary model of citizenship but, given the problems the State of Israel has in controlling the Arab population, applying Western thought patterns and developing an understanding that it pays to live with us allows for a vision of future coexistence. This is in addition to an intelligence point of view.”
Marketing Hotovely’s vision will not be easy within Israel or abroad.
She knows this but nevertheless declares, surprisingly, that selling
the idea abroad will be easier than doing it internally. “I get on
with the world easily because this plan is a democratic plan, a plan
that says that after you have tried to establish a Palestinian state,
(and the leadership in Israel was ready for almost anything including dividing her capital), at the end of the day, you have not succeeded. The other side does not want to end the conflict and there are great disparities between the two sides. And there is not one Palestinian leader who would agree to any one of the principles to which every Israeli leader has committed himself – regarding Jerusalem, refugees and areas for blocs of Jewish communities. No Arab leader would agree to Jewish blocs of communities. They will not concede Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim. They will not give up Jerusalem or the right of return. You have been trying since ’47 and you have not succeeded. If you try something six times with six different plans, leading to a partitioning of the Land, you must draw the right conclusions. If you feel sorry for the Palestinians, let them be citizens with equal rights in a democratic state.”
Hotovely denies what is described as the right of Palestinians to
self-define. She notes that “they belong to the greater Arab nation
and if there is any place where there is a concentration of ethnic
Palestinian population, it is the present Kingdom of Jordan and
therefore, I do not feel guilty at all for not allowing them to
establish another Arab state”.
“This is a democratic suggestion that does not depend on external
factors. We suggest to the Palestinians that if they don’t want
citizenship, it’s alright, but Palestinian refusal must result in an
Israeli counter-reaction.”
“Freedom of Expression Must be Subject to Red Lines. We Must Determine Who Will Represent the Arab Public”
As mentioned, Hotovely believes that persuading Israelis will be more difficult than influencing international opinion. “The Israeli public has a problem because it foresees Arab representatives in Knesset as subversives, as potential Hanin Zoabis. The State of Israel must have red lines on this issue, even with all its aspiration for freedom of expression. The Basic Law of the Knesset does not permit Balad (an Israeli Arab political party), which collaborates with terrorists and spies, to express its contempt. Yet this occurs anyway because Bagatz (the High Court of Justice) ratifies the presence of these people in our parliament, time after time. We must change the rules of the game and define who is permitted to represent the Arab population. We must not accept a reality in which those who hold hands with Hamas and
Hizb’Allah can sit in the Knesset.”
When she is asked about the chances for her plan to be accepted within our political reality, Hotovely is convinced the chances are good. “The vision of two states began in the lunatic fringe of the Left with Uri Avnery and Luba Eliav, who managed to sell a plan that was originally attacked by Golda Meir, Yigal Allon and the VIPs of Mapai (the left-wing pre-cursor to the modern day Labor Party), all of whom thought that a Palestinian state would be a terrible thing, and now this plan has become mainstream as a result of brainwashing to the point that even within the Likud, they speak of it as if it were Jabotinsky’s vision. If a plan based on a false premise was able to win such acceptance, a true plan should be accepted much more easily.”
Towards the end of her address, Deputy Minister Hotovely gives credit for the plan that she presents to Uri Elitsur, who has been promoting this basic outline recently. “We must restore our confidence that if the Holy One, Blessed Be He, gave us parts of this Land, he also gave us the strength to be its sovereigns,” and with this she seals her words.
January 2, 2014
Black Islam...
Attendees of the 1928 Moorish Science Temple Conclave in Chicago. Noble Drew Ali is in the front row center.
Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/columns/the-lions-den-daniel-pipes-columns-indepth/a-century-of-african-american-islam/2013/12/30/
The year 2013 marks the centenary of the reported founding of the Canaanite Temple in Newark, New Jersey.Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/columns/the-lions-den-daniel-pipes-columns-indepth/a-century-of-african-american-islam/2013/12/30/
That was the very earliest form of an indigenous African-American Islam, one completely distinct from normative Islam, the 1,400 -year-old religion from Arabia founded by Muhammad.
From this movement came Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm X, and Louis Farrakhan.
The century divides into two main eras: inventing a new religion (1913-1975) and moving toward normative Islam (1975-2013).
Timothy Drew (1886-1929), an American black who called himself Noble Drew Ali, founded the Newark temple and then, in 1925 another, better verified organization, the oddly named Moorish Science Temple of America. His ideas derived mainly from four unlikely sources—pan-Africanists, the Shriners, Ahmadiyya Muslims, and white racists.
From pan-Africanists such as Edward Wilmot Blyden and Marcus Garvey, he appropriated the notion of Christianity as the religion of whites and Islam that of non-whites.
As a practicing Shriner, Noble Drew Ali borrowed traits from this organization, such as the use of “Noble” before one’s name, the requirement that men wear fezzes, and a network of lodges. From Ahmadis he took Arabic personal names, the crescent and star motif, the prohibition of pork, and the notion of Jesus traveling to India. From white racists came the idea that accomplished black Americans are not Africans at all but “Moors,” “Moorish-Americans,” or “Asiatics,” a mythical northwest African people, the Moabites, who migrated to sub-Saharan Africa.
Black Islam
Anti-Semitism seen driving massive rise in French aliyah
Some 19,200 Jews made aliyah in 2013, a slight rise over the 18,940 who
immigrated in 2012, according to the Jewish Agency for Israel.
France saw 3,120 Jews leave for Israel,
marking a huge 63% increase over the 1,916 who came in 2012. The
increase is believed to reflect a well-documented swelling of anti-Semitic incidents in the country.
The phenomenon was not limited to France.
Western Europe as a whole saw a 35% increase in aliyah in 2013, driven
by a 46% increase from Belgium and a 57% increase from the Netherlands. A
poll released in November indicated that a full 75% of self-identifying Jews in Western European countries have considered emigrating because of anti-Semitism.
Driving Force - Read the Rest
How to Read or Watch TV about the Real Middle East
Obama told Karzai to
make friends with the Taliban.
Originally published at Rubin Reports. This column is an attempt to
provide a running narrative of the Middle East. It will tell the news
behind the news, including what the mainstream media has missed,
especially because of its lack of knowledge of history.
Obama Says Iran-Israel Nuke Deal Is Only a 50/50 Chance
It is amazing that even though this is a low-probability, it has been
talked about for a year. It has been the speculative centerpiece of the
Obama administration (like its domestic centerpiece the Obamacare
website. It is not just that the talk about this deal causes disruption
in all foreign policy, but also that if it isn’t realized the
administration will look like fools.
Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/rubin-reports/how-to-read-or-watch-tv-about-the-real-middle-east/2013/12/17/
Obama told Karzai to make friends with the Taliban. Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/rubin-reports/how-to-read-or-watch-tv-about-the-real-middle-east/2013/12/17/
This column is an attempt to provide a running narrative of the Middle East. It will tell the news behind the news, including what the mainstream media has missed, especially because of its lack of knowledge of history. Obama Says Iran-Israel Nuke Deal Is Only a 50/50 Chance It is amazing that even though this is a low-probability, it has been talked about for a year.
It has been the speculative centerpiece of the Obama administration (like its domestic centerpiece the Obamacare website. It is not just that the talk about this deal causes disruption in all foreign policy, but also that if it isn’t realized the administration will look like fools.
How to - Read the Rest
January 1, 2014
World Running Out Of Terrorists
First Israel had to create PA to monitor their fifth column enemy with Arabs.
Why? Because they did not want the world to think they were policing Judea and Samaria on their own as some sort of occupier. The PA allowed them to create policy and then have the Arab's themselves carry it out.
Bad idea, it did not work. all they did was give credence and weapons to the enemy!
They allowed Arab / Muslim / Nazi's to run for the Knesset. Now 10% of the Knesset is Arab / Muslim / Nazi's. The Fifth column has legal representation, how cute.
Bibi's IQ is supposed to be 180+, making him literally one of the smartest people in the world and yet....he still acts like a leftist politician. He does not stand up 100% for Israel only.
But in light of these, and other actions these US induced Terrorist releases can mean only one thing...
The World is Running Out Of Terrorists and the US said that the only way to keep the ME peace talks active is for Israel to still have an enemy. So they forced Israel to release more Terrorist Arab / Muslim / Nazi's into the wild to keep the charade going.
This makes sense because the US only wants to keep wars active and does not try to end them.......Until now.
Unless you have been brainwashed like the POTUS and his fellow crew of Arab / Muslim / Nazi's, it is clear that Israel is alone and that the US will not help her.
Israel needs to stand alone and be the light unto Nations ...if that what is needed for her security and ability to proceed towards the Moshiach. Prisoner release? What about the vitims families?
What about them?
Forget the Arab / Muslim / Nazi's, remember the Jewish Victims. The VICTIMS.
Who cares about the Terrorist Murderers? They should be dropped on their homes from Helicopters. It will serve 2 purposes, to remind people what happens to Murdering Terrorists and also it will mean that these Terrorists...will not kill again and that their victims families can take one tiny breath of relief.
Death Penalty for Arab / Muslim / Nazi' Terrorists in Israeli Prisons NOW.
Why? Because they did not want the world to think they were policing Judea and Samaria on their own as some sort of occupier. The PA allowed them to create policy and then have the Arab's themselves carry it out.
Bad idea, it did not work. all they did was give credence and weapons to the enemy!
They allowed Arab / Muslim / Nazi's to run for the Knesset. Now 10% of the Knesset is Arab / Muslim / Nazi's. The Fifth column has legal representation, how cute.
Bibi's IQ is supposed to be 180+, making him literally one of the smartest people in the world and yet....he still acts like a leftist politician. He does not stand up 100% for Israel only.
But in light of these, and other actions these US induced Terrorist releases can mean only one thing...
The World is Running Out Of Terrorists and the US said that the only way to keep the ME peace talks active is for Israel to still have an enemy. So they forced Israel to release more Terrorist Arab / Muslim / Nazi's into the wild to keep the charade going.
This makes sense because the US only wants to keep wars active and does not try to end them.......Until now.
Unless you have been brainwashed like the POTUS and his fellow crew of Arab / Muslim / Nazi's, it is clear that Israel is alone and that the US will not help her.
Israel needs to stand alone and be the light unto Nations ...if that what is needed for her security and ability to proceed towards the Moshiach. Prisoner release? What about the vitims families?
What about them?
Forget the Arab / Muslim / Nazi's, remember the Jewish Victims. The VICTIMS.
Who cares about the Terrorist Murderers? They should be dropped on their homes from Helicopters. It will serve 2 purposes, to remind people what happens to Murdering Terrorists and also it will mean that these Terrorists...will not kill again and that their victims families can take one tiny breath of relief.
Death Penalty for Arab / Muslim / Nazi' Terrorists in Israeli Prisons NOW.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)