Israel is Jewish, That’s My Ultimate Deal


John R. Houk

© September 23, 2018

 

President Trump has long formulated an “Ultimate Deal” between Israel and the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians. I am not going to lay out the perceived details of such a deal because so far those details seem to be a bit fluid. Meaning the Trump team hasn’t nailed down an internal agreement. My guess for that is negativity against potential details from Leftist supporters of the fake-Palestinians and some Jew-hating Muslim apologists globally as well some Arab nations.

 

In full disclosure, I’m a Christian Zionist. In case you haven’t realized it, ultimately that means I have little sympathy for the pseudo-Palestinian Arabs that can never pinpoint a historical period in which an Arab speaking nation of people called Palestinian EVER existed. INDEED, the current Arabs calling themselves Palestinians are overwhelmingly descendants of migrating Arabs outside the area who showed up after returning Jews began modernizing the land then managed by Ottoman Turks made employment attractive.

 

Prior to Arab immigration, the longstanding inherent Arabs were exploited peasants at the mercy of rich Muslim tenant owners who mismanaged the Land of the Jews into swamps and unusable agricultural land further impoverishing the shrinking peasant tenant farmers.

 

Thus my stand on Israel is leads toward disenfranchising hostile Arabs deporting them for sedition even if it means a forced depopulation of Arabs that do not accept the existence of the Jewish State of Israel. My Christian Zionist predilection of believing in the Jewish return to their Biblically promised homeland is my primary reasoning. And yes, I realize in the realm of political correctness, my ultimate plan for a One-State Solution is incomprehensible to Leftist Multiculturalists. I don’t care. Whatever hastens the return of Jesus the Messiah is the only realistic solution for world peace. (And yes I realize the Messiah concept produces misgivings among Observant Jews. But remember, I am not calling for any harm to Jews. I believe the Return of Jesus will inspire Jews rather than irritate them. SO, I stand with Jews for the Jewish State of Israel.)

 

The inspiration for these thoughts is some commentary by Martin Sherman on the President Trump initiative for the “Ultimate Deal” for Israel/Arab peace in the Middle. I found it in Ted Belman’s Israpundit.

 

JRH 9/23/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

**************************

INTO THE FRAY The rumored “ultimate deal”: Potential payoffs and possible pitfalls.

 

By Martin Sherman

Intro by Ted Belman

Email Alert Sent: 9/22/2018 3:17 PM

Israpundit

 

T. Belman.Martin’s point is that the “ultimate deal” must include incentivised emigration. I agree. In my article Trump’s Deal of the Century, I made no mention of this as I considered it to be the second stage of the process. First things first, namely end the Oslo Accords, UNRWA and the “peace process”. And finally destroy the Palestinian narrative. I did not want to jeopardize those very significant gains by suggesting that incentivised emigration must be part of the first deal.

Nevertheless the first deal as described by me includes a Jordanian initiative to incentivize emigration of Palestinians by providing free housing and jobs as the incentives. Also there is nothing to prevent Israel or others from providing further incentives.

I made it clear that the first deal, (Deal of the Century), includes Israel sovereignty west of the Jordan River. Pursuant to that sovereignty, Israel would appoint administrators of the former Area A namely a friendly Jordan. It is understood, though not mentioned, that Jordan would amend the text books and cirriculae [sic] for all students under its care to one acceptable to Israel. Jordan would be no more than the agent of Israel while admistering [sic] Area A and in no way autonomous.

 

By Martin Sherman

 

Trump EO to move U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem

 

The potential impermanence of the positive measures already undertaken by the Trump team should not be the only reason for Israeli concern over the brewing “ultimate deal”

 

…we will not put forth a plan or endorse a plan that doesn’t meet all of Israel’s security issues because they are of extreme importance to us—Jason GreenblattAssistant to the President & special representative for international negotiations, JNS, September 12, 2018.

 

…To defend itself Israel must retain control over the Jordan valley…[A]ny future arrangement must include Israeli control of the mountain ridge and a demilitarized Palestinian state…[T]o defend itself Israel must control the airspace over the West Bank—Israel’s Critical Security Needs for a Viable Peace, The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, May 25, 2010.

 

…Arab officials say, Mr. Kushner is pushing the idea of a confederation between Jordan and the Palestinian rump of the West Bank. Far from new thinking, this recycles one of the oldest mantras of Israeli irredentism: that the Palestinians already have a state—Jordan.—David Gardner, “Trump’s ‘deal of the century’ offers nothing good to Palestinians”, Financial Times, September 5, 2018.

 

In recent weeks, there has been a spate of media speculation that the White House is soon to release details of the Trump administration’s ultimate peace deal to end the century-long conflict between Jew and Arab over control of the Holy Land.

 

Although almost no details have been revealed by official sources, rumors abound as to some of its more important components—and others have been inferred on the basis of some already implemented elements of Trump’s Mid-East policy.

 

Some transformative measures

 

Opening of US Embassy in Jerusalem: May 14, 2018.

 

Since the start of his presidency, Donald Trump has undertaken some bold, far reaching measures that have, in some significant ways, potentially transformed the discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. These have all been unequivocally favorable to Israel and considerably undermine long-held Palestinians positions.

 

Thus, Trump has largely preempted the question of the status of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital—albeit not its precise geographical extent. Likewise, he exposed the enduring and egregious anomaly of the Palestinian “refugee” ruse, terminating all US funding to UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency(, the UN body charged with dealing with the Palestinian-Arab refugees and their multi-generational descendants. This burgeoning population has been held in political limbo for decades as stateless refugees until such day as they can exercise their illusionary “Right of Return” and reoccupy their now non-existent homes inside Israel, abandoned in 1948 and 1967.

 

As a direct derivative of the decision to defund UNRWA and to dispute the refugee status of millions of Arabs of Palestinian descent—resident in Arab countries for decades—there has been a flurry of reports suggesting another ground-breaking US initiative. According to these reports, the Trump administration is seriously considering engaging Arab countries over the permanent resettlement of the Palestinian-Arabs living as “refugees” within their borders, and their absorption as citizens of their host nations.

 

If implemented, such an initiative—which this writer has been promoting for almost a decade-and-a-half—would clearly take the “Right of Return” off the table and remove one of the most intractable—arguably the most intractable—issue from the agenda.

 

The question of durability

 

Although these are, of course, greatly welcome developments from Israel’s point of view and were totally inconceivable under earlier administrations—the previous one in particular—a word of caution is called for.

 

After all, just as such measures were unthinkable under the Obama administration, there is no way to ensure their durability under a post-Trump administration. Indeed, given the pathological animus toward the president from his political adversaries on the one hand; and the growing anti-Israel sentiment in the Democratic Party, on the other, there is good reason for concern that if a Democratic president were to be elected, a concerted effort would be made to undo anything perceived as a “Trump’s legacy”—including, perhaps, especially—his Mid-East policy initiatives.

 

Thus, just as a presidential decision precipitated the US’s exit from the Iran nuclear deal, the moving of the American embassy to Jerusalem, the shuttering of the PLO office in Washington, the defunding of UNRWA and emerging rejection of the “Right of Return,” so can any contrary presidential decision reverse them—or at least largely neutralize them.

 

Moreover, the closer Israel is perceived to be to the Trump administration, the harsher and more vindictive the backlash is liable to be, should the Democrats regain the White House?—?particularly with the growing erosion of bipartisanship over Israel.

 

The hazards of hubris

 

Of course, this caveat should not be interpreted as a call for reticence in accepting the GOP’s warm embrace. Indeed, that would be both detrimentally counterproductive and inappropriately ungrateful.

 

It should however, be seen as warning against complacency and as a caution that more inclement times may well be ahead. For, at this stage, little can be more hazardous than hubris.

 

It is essential that Israel now undertake a vigorous initiative to cement these unexpected favorable developments and ensure that they cannot be easily undone by future administrations.

 

This must be accomplished by a comprehensive strategic endeavor, both at the diplomatic level, aimed at changing hearts and minds and at the physical level, aimed at changing facts on the ground.

 

The diplomatic component must be directed at undermining the Palestinian claims to statehood west of the Jordan River—by discrediting and delegitimizing the “Palestinian narrative”. The physical component must be directed at making the Jewish presence in Judea-Samaria irrevocable—by launching a largescale construction drive to increase the Jewish population beyond “the point of no return”.

 

Without such a strategic initiative, any welcome gains that have accrued to Israel because of Trump’s largely unexpected—and certainly unpredicted—electoral victory will remain potentially ephemeral—exposed and vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the bile or the bias of some anti-Trump successor in the White House.

 

Rumors cause for concern?

 

But the potential impermanence of the positive measures already undertaken by the Trump team is not the only reason for Israeli concern over the brewing “ultimate deal”. For the rumors swirling around the ongoing contacts between US officials and various figures in the Arab world could also well be cause for alarm.

 

These rumors relate to the eventual source of authority envisioned for the governance of the territory beyond the 1967 lines in Judea-Samaria and Gaza. Some rumors refer to giving Jordan (whether under the current Hashemite regime or under some yet-to-be determined successor) a range of civilian powers to govern the Arab residents there. Others raise the possibility of likewise empowering a reformed and repentant Palestinian Authority—with or without some affiliation to Jordan. Yet others relate to the possibility of engaging “alternative Palestinians” as a more pliant alternative to the recalcitrant Abbas, to manage the civilian affairs of the Arab residents of Judea-Samaria.

 

All these suggested alternatives miss the most crucial point for the future of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

 

This is that they all entail the permanent presence of a large, potentially hostile Arab population, resident in territory vital to Israel’s security-and nurtured on decades of Judeocidal incitement and exposed to irredentist influences from the wider Arab/Muslim world. It therefore makes little difference what/who the envisaged source of formal authority is over this population, since its continued presence in the commanding highlands adjacent to Israel’s most populous area will render any “deal” –ultimate or otherwise?—?inherently unstable and potentially perilous for Israel.

 

Accordingly, if all the steps taken hitherto by the Trump administration do not converge towards synthesis of a single, unequivocal outcome, they will—despite all their positive features—eventually be of little—if any—avail. At least if the goal is for Israel to endure permanently as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

 

The autonomy paradox?

 

As I have been at pains to underscore repeatedly in the past, for Israel to indeed endure as the nation state of the Jews, it must extend its sovereignty over all the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River—including the highlands that protect Israel from invasion/infiltration from the East, and ensure the security of its coastal megalopolis in the West. But Israel’s sovereignty over this territory is incompatible with providing authority to any other party that does not acknowledge the legitimacy of that sovereignty.

 

This is something that the rumored formats of Trump’s “ultimate deal” seem to overlook. After all, the only reason to suggest allowing Arab governance (whether Jordanian or Palestinian) over the Arab population in Judea-Samaria is that they reject the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty.

 

Indeed, this highlights the underlying contradiction in any attempt to confer “autonomy” (i.e. limited authority) on any Arab entity under Israeli sovereignty (i.e. unlimited authority) in the context of the conflict between Jew and Arab. For any “autonomous” arrangement to be inherently stable, it is essential that the autonomous entity acknowledge and accept the legitimacy of the sovereign entity (Israel). But this is precisely the reverse of the underlying rationale of all the proposals to grant some Arab entity limited authority to govern the Arab population in Judea-Samaria.

 

Here, such authority is being granted precisely because the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty is rejected and hence, every limitation imposed on the authority of the Arab entity will be resented, and rejected—creating endless potential for friction.

 

The sovereignty imperative

 

Carcinogenic emission from Palestinian charcoal production

 

This will be particularly acute at the interface between areas under full Jewish sovereignty and those under Arab autonomy and in contending with cross-border issues, such as pollution (particularly the carcinogenic emissions of the wide spread charcoal industry), sewage, pollution from industrial effluents, agricultural run-offs, treatment of transmissible diseases, compulsory inoculation of livestock and rabies and so on Who would be charged with setting standards for dealing with these matters and for enforcing those standards? Israel or the Arab entity? If the Arab entity, how would Israel protect its citizens from the resultant hazards if those standards were not enforced? If Israel, what would remain of the authority of the Arab entity, which would be virtually emptied of all substance?

 

Similar questions could be raised for almost every walk of life. Would Israel impose standards of road safety for vehicles on its roads? If not, what would the consequences be? Would Israel determine the content of education to prevent continued incitement? If so, how would this erode the authority of the Arab entity? If not, how would Israel contain the consequences of such incitement?

 

These questions are thrown into even sharper relief when it comes to matters of law and order and security. If, for example, Jordan were given authority to run civilian affairs in Arab populated areas, what would happen in case of insurrection and Israel were compelled to use force to quell the violence? Could Jordan accept the use of force against those in its charge? How would it justify inaction to the rest of Arab world?

 

Worse, what if an assumedly amicable regime were given administrative status west of the Jordan River and, for reasons beyond Israel’s control, it was replaced by a far less amicable one? Would Israel continue to grant powers of governance to an inimical entity?

 

These are merely a sampling of the myriad of unavoidable and intractable questions with which the architects of the “ultimate deal” will have to contend—and whose significance and severity the Israeli leadership will have to convey to its American counterparts—lest ill-considered and irreversible decisions are made.

 

In the final analysis

 

In the final analysis, there is only one “ultimate deal” that can ensure Israel’s long-term survival as the nation-state of the Jewish people. This requires Israel extending its sovereignty over the entire territory—from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.

 

The only way Israel can do this, without being compelled to rule over a recalcitrant non-Jewish population, which rejects the legitimacy of its sovereignty, is to remove that population from the territory over which it must exert sovereign rule.

 

The only way it can do this without engaging in forced expulsion, is by material inducements?—?a.k.a. incentivized emigration.

 

So simple. So logical. So incontrovertible!  The real conundrum is why others don’t embrace it as the “ultimate deal”.

 

Martin Sherman is the founder & executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies

__________________________

Israel is Jewish, That’s My Ultimate Deal

John R. Houk

© September 23, 2018

______________________

INTO THE FRAY The rumored “ultimate deal”: Potential payoffs and possible pitfalls.

 

Copyright © 2017- Israpundit – All Rights Reserved

 

Intro to ‘The Ultimate Alternate Israel-Palestine Solution’


John R. Houk, Editor

Intro posted July 12, 2017

 

British Mandate for Palestine League of Nation Award 1920

 

Ted Belman proposes a concept of a Two-State Solution for Israel and non-people Palestinians. The proposal is actually closer to a One-State Solution, but you decide.

 

Belman takes his cue from the Jordanian political opposition Jordan’s Hashemite Monarch King Abdullah II. Those that oppose their king are known as Jordanian Opposition Coalition (JOC) [SEE ALSO HERE]. The JOC suggests that the people who call themselves Palestinians should abandon their Islamic terrorist leadership and move to Jordan. Jordan would then take on the aegis as the Arab State originally set up by the League of Nations way back when Britain was given the Mandate for Palestine back in 1922. [This should be of interest to the formation of the British Mandate for Palestine leading to the British shaft of Jews, creation of modern Israel and Arab hatred of Jewish Israel: HERE, HERE, HERE AND HERE.

 

The thing that Ted Belman and the JOC don’t specifically bring up is that it is unlikely that Jordan’s King Abdullah II is unlikely to allow non-Hashemite supporting Arabs into his nation without a fight. Keep in mind that in the 1970s the PLO’s Yasser Arafat tried to dethrone Abdullah II’s father King Hussein in a civil war that the loyal Jordanian army won and gave Arafat and his PLO Islamic terrorists the boot.

 

British Mandate for Palestine 1923

 

JRH 7/12/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

The Ultimate Alternate Israel-Palestine Solution

 

By Ted Belman

July 4, 2017

Email Alert Sent 7/11/2017 12:31 PM

ISRAPUNDIT

 

With a new U.S. president, new ideas are emerging on how to resolve the Israel-Palestine debacle. One of the most promising comes from Jordanian Opposition Council who favor a new Palestinian state — in Jordan. 

 

The GOP unanimously approved a pro-Israel platform at their convention in July 2016 which stipulated:

 

“The U.S. seeks to assist in the establishment of comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East, to be negotiated among those living in the region,”

 

David Friedman and Jason Greenberg, representing Donald Trump, participated in the drafting and were in complete agreement with the final text.

 

Gone was any reference to the Palestinian people or to a two-state solution. In addition, the platform included the words “We reject the false notion that Israel is an occupier.” If not an “occupier,” then presumably Israel is a sovereign.

Accordingly, the search is on for an alternate solution. Such a solution could take inspiration from the short-lived Feisal/Weizmann Agreement of 1919. The essence of this agreement was that Palestine as it then was, was to be divided into two states, one for the Arabs and one for the Jews. Chaim Weizmann on behalf of the Jews agreed to help develop the Arab state and King Feisal agreed to welcome Jewish settlement in the Jewish state and favored friendly cooperative relations.

 

Although the British didn’t breathe life into this agreement, they did separate Trans-Jordan from Palestine in 1922 with the Jordan River being the boundary between them. Trans-Jordan (Jordan) thus got 78% of the lands promised to the Jews. The remaining 22% consisting of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean was to be the Jewish state. This was enshrined in the Palestine Mandate signed by the League of Nations in 1922.

 

On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine,” confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in Palestine—anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

 

With respect to the Arabs living in Jewish Palestine, the Congressional Record contained the following:

 

“(2) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, they shall be required to sell their lands at a just valuation and retire into the Arab territory which has been assigned to them by the League of Nations in the general reconstruction of the countries of the east.

 

“(3) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, under conditions of right and justice, or to sell their lands at a just valuation and to retire into their own countries, they shall be driven from Palestine by force.” [Blog Editor: Bold Emphasis Mine]

 

The US was not a member of the League of Nations at this time. In order to be able to protect American interests in Palestine, she entered into the 1924 Anglo-American Convention in which the U.S. bound itself to the terms of the Mandate. This of course meant the recognition of Jewish right to close settlement of Palestine and that all of Palestine was to be the Jewish homeland.

 

Since then, there were a number of unsuccessful attempts, contrary to the terms of the Mandate, to further divide Jewish Palestine into two states.  UN General Assembly Resolution 181, passed in 1947, recommended partition, but was rejected by the Arabs. The Jews on the other hand took advantage of it and declared their independence in 1948. Israel owes its independence to that declaration and not to Resolution 181, which was only a recommendation, precipitating the move.

 

Nothing has happened of any legal consequence since, to cancel the right of the Jews to settle and be sovereign over all the land to the Jordan River.

 

To date, Israel has been reluctant to claim sovereignty over these lands as the Arabs living there would then demand citizenship resulting in a binational state. This is unacceptable to most Israelis. They also reject the two-state solution.

 

So what is the alternative?

 

Consider for a moment, that if Jordan agrees to grant citizenship to all Palestinians, as their law currently provides, and invites the return of all of them to live and work in Jordan, the conflict would soon be ended. While King Abdullah isn’t about to do so, the Jordan Opposition Coalition (JOC) would. This coalition represents all opposition groups in Jordan that back a secular state. The JOC since its creation six years ago has supported good relations with Israel. It does not include groups that support terrorism. This alliance has agreed to work together in order to form the government of Jordan should King Abdullah abdicate. Although at least 75% of Jordanians are Palestinians, the King has disenfranchised them to a great extent in favor of the ethnic Hashemites and Bedouins.

 

The JOC has produced a detailed plan, Operation “Jordan in Palestine,” which clearly identifies their goals and the operational steps needed to implement their plan.  Copies are available upon request.

 

All that is necessary for this to come to pass is for the U.S. to instruct the king, who currently spends most of his time outside Jordan, to not return home. Then it would arrange for the Jordanian army, which it controls, to support the next popular Palestinian uprising, and to designate who among them would form the interim government.

 

The JOC, puts it this way:

 

“This plan seeks to execute a feasible two-state solution where Jordan is the natural homeland for all Palestinians, and Israel becomes sovereign over all soil west to the River Jordan. This could only happen if the corrupt, terror-supporting and double-speaking Hashemite royal family leaves Jordan. The Palestinians often revolt against the regime but the king’s police force puts them down. The American media ignore this solution to the unrest in Jordan.

 

“What is needed is for the U.S. to influence the Jordanian army and security agency to stand with the revolution the next time it breaks out.  The security agencies and army are already securing the country without any influence from the king who is mostly abroad.  Under these conditions, the king would not return.  Once that happens an interim government of secular Palestinians who want peace with Israel could be appointed.

 

“Once the interim government is installed, it will strengthen the economy by stopping theft of government money and ending corruption. It will fully enfranchise the Palestinians. All Palestinians around the world would be welcomed to return to Jordan pursuant the current Jordanian citizenship act, which already recognizes all Palestinians as citizens of Jordan. Many Palestinians will emigrate to Jordan in part because many have family members and friends living in Jordan. Work opportunities as well as a rewarding benefits/welfare system will be made available to them by the new interim government as further inducement.”

 

Israel, with many international partners, including the U.S., could finance the building of a new Jordanian city of 1 million people. This would greatly stimulate the Jordanian economy and would provide work for the returning Palestinians. The new homes could be made available to the returnees and locals at subsidized prices further incentivizing people to return. The ending of King Abdullah’s discrimination against Palestinians living in Jordan, would also contribute to making Jordan a desired immigration destination.

 

Michael Ross, a Republican, wrote after the election of Donald Trump, “Trump Must  Speak to Mudar Zahran” because Zahran offers the alternate solution that Pres Trump is looking for.

 

As part of this solution, all Palestinian refugees enrolled with UN Relief And Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East could be repatriated to Jordan and given citizenship. Thus UNRWA could be wound up and the current UNRWA funding could be transferred to Jordan to assist in the resettlement.

 

According to Moshe Feiglin, the head of the Zehut Party in Israel, the Oslo Accords have cost Israel over 1 trillion shekels since they were signed. In addition, Israel has borne the cost of three military campaigns in Gaza. Finally, Israel supplies to the Palestinians their energy, water and sewage treatment for free or at greatly subsidized prices.

 

Last summer, Moshe Feiglin proposed a Solution in which Israel extends Israeli law from the Mediterranean to the Jordan:

 

“We will give the Arab population in those territories three options: The first is voluntary emigration with the aid of a generous emigration grant. The second is permanent residency, similar to the “Green Card” status in the US – not like what is currently the practice in East Jerusalem. This status will be offered to those Arabs who publicly declare their loyalty to the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish Nation. We will safeguard their human rights and will not do anything like we did to ourselves in Gush Katif. The third option will be reserved for relatively few Arabs, and only in accordance with Israeli interests. Those who tie their fate to the fate of the Jewish Nation, like the Druze, can enter a long-term process of attaining citizenship.”

 

Recently, Feiglin’s Party, Zehut, published The Diplomatic Plan.

 

Martin Sherman has published his plan which he calls the “Humanitarian Solution” as opposed to a strictly political solution. He summarized all his writings in support of such a plan and published them here.

 

With an estimated $300,000 per family grant, both he and Feiglin have estimated that incentivized compensated emigration will cost Israel over $200 billion USD but both argue it is feasible and worth doing.

 

The repatriation of Palestinians to Jordan, as proposed by JOC, would greatly facilitate the Palestinian emigration and greatly reduce the grants needed to incentivize it. UNRWA and the Palestinian Authority would both be wound up.

 

1.75 million Palestinians live in Judea and Samaria (West Bank). They should be induced to emigrate to Jordan.  The same goes for all Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere.

 

Considering the subsidies that the West provides to UNRWA, Gaza and the PA, this would be a bargain. Given that JOC has tied its fate to Israel, Israel would be happy to contribute to such a solution as the present conflict costs her hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

 

Currently the US gives $370 million to UNRWA, $300 million to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and $… to Jordan. The EU gives ….  These monies could be redirected to Jordan to kick start this repatriation.  Others, including Israel could contribute. In time, the US and EU subsidies could be phased out.

 

It really is that simple.  There is much more that can be said in support of it.

 

Prof. Hillel Frisch, a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies and Yitzhak Sokoloff, a fellow of the Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies at Bar-Ilan University recently wrote Trump and the Jordanian Option.

 

“The inauguration of an American administration uncommitted to the principle of an independent Palestinian state provides Israel with the opportunity to advocate a long-term strategic vision of building up a prosperous Jordan that could provide an alternative to the model of a two-state solution based on the Palestinian Authority.”

 

They are wrong to suggest that this can be done with King Abdullah. I believe, as does the JOC, that the king is part of the problem and must be replaced by Palestinians.

 

Gideon Saar, a touted future Prime Minister of Israel, in his recent article, Goodbye Two-State Solution, wrote:

 

“A Jordanian-Palestinian federative solution would offer the Palestinians space in addition to their autonomy. We could also consider adopting a joint Israeli-Jordanian-Palestinian economic framework. And there are many other ideas that could be constructed as a result of quiet, serious work with the backing of a supportive US administration.”

 

He is right but the ultimate alternate solution is the one put forward by the JOC.

 

If anyone wants more information or can help this solution get traction, please write me (tbelman3@gmail.com).

 

NOTE:

 

After publishing this article, I heard from a reader who had done considerable work on a plan of his own similar to the Jordan Option described above.  I spent many hours with him discussing his research. We also met with a few movers and shakers in Israel.

 

Whereas I merely suggested the possibility of building a new Jordanian city to house one million people, he went further and researched a location for such a city and researched the cost of housing in Jordan.

 

According to his research, an 800 sq ft apartment in Jordan costs $40,000.  Thus if 2 million Palestinians in the West Bank, Jerusalem and the camps could be induced to move to Jordan, 400,000 homes (5 people per family) would be needed costing $16 billion; a far cry from the $200 Billion needed to induce emigration according to Feiglin and Sherman. These homes can be given to the Palestinians, free of charge.

 

Based on the enormous benefit caused by the plan to the Jordanian economy Abdullah can be convinced to invite all Palestinians to return to Jordan just as the JOC plans to do if they get into power.  Most people believe that Abdullah would never do it. But due to the poor Jordanian economy he could  be forced to do it

Prof Hillel Frisch, BESA, agrees. He recently wrote, Becoming Part of Jordan and Egypt: A Palestinian Economic Imperative which included this summary:

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Reintegrating into the Jordanian state is an economic imperative for the Arab inhabitants of the Palestinian Authority. Only by once again becoming citizens of Jordan will they be able to challenge the economic stone wall imposed by domestic Jordanian economic lobby groups barring West Bank exports. A two-state solution would lead, not to an economy of peace, but to an economy of violence as lobby groups in both Israel and Jordan shut out the Palestinian state’s exports. The Palestinian state would inevitably react by threatening and committing violence to extract the international aid to which the PA has become accustomed.

 

This reader also makes the novel suggestion that Israel can offer a water incentive to Jordan tied to the number of immigrants it absorbs. This would increase the water supply to Jordan and lower the cost per litre.  More on this later.

 

When presenting this plan to others, many mention that US Congressmen love King Abdulla. That may be so but they are ill informed. Recently Edy Cohen of BESA wrote Sorry but Jordan is not a friend?

 

Gaza and Egypt

 

Independent of this proposal or perhaps in tandem with it the same opportunity exists for helping all Gazans to emigrate to Egypt. There are approximately 1.5 million Gazans living in Gaza and the average family size is 6. Thus 250,000 apartments are required.

 

An 800 sq. ft. apartment in the new cities adjacent to Cairo that would accommodate 15 million people, costs about $16,000 USD: i.e, half the Jordan cost. This adds up to $4 billion USD.

 

Thus the Gazans would need only 10% of those homes. A 10 year plan would mean that 150,000 Gazans would emigrate there every year. This represents just 0.16% of the population of Egypt.1.5 million Gazans represent only 1.6% of the Egyptian population.

 

Other incentives might be pensions and welfare payments financed by the international community.

 

Considering how much it costs the EU and the US to support the current wave of migrants to their shores, this could well be a model for them to consider, i.e., a “Marshall Plan” for the Middle East as a means to get the migrants to stay where they are.

 

The obvious question is why would al Sisi agree to this, given how much trouble he is now having with Hamas that rules Gaza and is perceived as a threat to Egypt along with ISIS.

 

The obvious answer is that al Sisi needs help to meet its financial obligations and its security threats emanating from the Sinai and from Libya. The international community could provide that help.

 

Given that Saudi Arabia and other gulf states have started an initiative at Pres Trump’s urging, to stop the flow of funds to terrorists. They have severed relations with Qatar one of the biggest funders of terror demanding that it cease and desist. Specifically, they have demanded that Qatar stop funding Hamas.

 

Thus if Hamas is starved for money they will be less of a threat to Egypt too.

 

The reader above mentioned, is currently preparing a report in support of his Plan. It is 25 pages long and when completed in a few weeks will approach 35 pages. This Plan will make the case for why this is in the best interest of the US too.

_____________

Intro to ‘The Ultimate Alternate Israel-Palestine Solution’

John R. Houk, Editor

Intro posted July 12, 2017

_______________

The Ultimate Alternate Israel-Palestine Solution

 

Copyright © 2017- Israpundit – All Rights Reserved

 

Help Pseudo-Palestinians Emigrate


John R. Houk

© June 13, 2017

 

It has always been my opinion that a Two-State Solution would NEVER be a harbinger for peace between Israel and the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians. A Palestinian State would merely be a launching ground for Islamic terrorist attacks against Israel. The result would be Israeli military incursions to punish an independent Palestine for allowing the terrorist launching pads. Or an independent Palestine might have the hutzpah claim the terrorism is military incursions for whatever fake/false reason given.

 

The only raison d’être for a Palestinian State existence would be to end Israel’s existence and to kill Jews. Because of Muslim animus against Israel, a One-State Solution is the best solution.

 

The best One-State Solution is to find a way to move Jew-hating Muslims out of any area that is a part of ancient Jewish heritage.

 

Dr. Martin Sherman has written a two-part essay touching on the logistics and feasibility of an ethical fashion to aid Jew-hating Muslims to emigrate to another Arab-Muslim nation. I found out about Dr. Sherman’s from the Facebook Group “No Palestinian State!” (If you are a Pro-Israel kind of person you should go there and request to be a member and add to the discussion.)

 

The title is “INTO THE FRAY: The Humanitarian Paradigm – Answering FAQs”. You can read the 6/2/17 Part One HERE. Part Two is cross posted below.

 

JRH 6/13/17

Please Support NCCR

*****************

INTO THE FRAY: The Humanitarian Paradigm – Answering FAQs (Part 2)

 

Sequel to the dispelling of doubts regarding the feasibility – and morality – of largescale, financially incentivized emigration as the only non-kinetic approach for resolution of the Israel-Palestinian impasse.

 

By Dr. Martin Sherman

June 9, 2017 06:48

Israel National News – Arutz Sheva 7

 

The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. -attributed to Winston Churchill

 

Readers will recall that last week I began a two part response to FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) relating to the practical feasibility/moral acceptability of my proposed Humanitarian Paradigm (HP), which prescribes, among other measures, large-scale financially incentivized emigration of the Palestinian-Arabs, living across the pre-1967 lines as the only route to attain long-term survivability for Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

 

To recap briefly

 

In last week’s column, I addressed the question of the overall cost of the funded emigration project, and showed that, given the political will to implement it, it would be eminently affordable – even if Israel had to shoulder the burden alone. If other industrial nations could be induced to participate, the total cost would be an imperceptible percentage of their GDP.

 

I then went on to demonstrate that there is ample evidence indicating a wide-spread desire in large sections of the Palestinian-Arab population to emigrate permanently in search of more secure and prosperous live elsewhere. This point was underscored by a recent Haaretz article, describing how thousands of Gazans had fled their home to Greece, undertaking perilous risk to extricate themselves from the harrowing hardships imposed on them by the ill-conceived endeavor to foist statehood on the Palestinian-Arabs.  Significantly, according to the Haaretz report, none of them blamed Israel for their plight—but rather the ruling Hamas-regime, which, it will be recalled, was elected by popular vote to replace the rival Fatah faction, ousted because of its corruption and poor governance.

 

Finally, I dealt with the question of the prospective host nations, pointing out that the funded Palestinian-Arab émigrés would not arrive as an uncontrolled deluge of destitute humanity, but as an orderly regulated stream of relatively affluent immigrants spread over about a decade-and-a-half, whose absorption would entail significant capital inflows for the host nation’s economy.  Moreover, given the fact that, globally, migrants total almost a quarter billion, Palestinian-Arab migration of several hundred thousand a year would comprise a small fraction of one percent of the overall number—hardly an inconceivable prospect.

 

Following this short summary of previously addressed FAQs, we can now move on to tackle several additional ones.

FAQ 4: Won’t fear of fratricide deter recipients?

 

One of the most commonly raised reservations as to the practical applicability of the HP is that potential recipients of the relocation/rehabilitation grants would be deterred from accepting them because of threats of retribution from their kin-folk who allegedly would view such action as perfidious betrayal of the Palestinian-Arabs’ national aspirations.

 

In contending with this question, it is necessary to distinguish between two possible scenarios, in which such internecine intimidation will be either a phenomenon whose scope is (a) limited; or (b) wide-spread and pervasive.

 

Clearly, if the former is true, it is unlikely to have any significant inhibiting impact on the conduct of prospective recipients of the relocation/rehabilitation grants.

 

If, however, the assumption is that the latter is the case, several points need to be made:

– If this objection to the HP is to have any credence, its proponents must present evidence (as opposed to unproven supposition) that potential violent opponents of the HP program have the ability not only to inflict harm on prospective recipients (as opposed to issuing empty threats), but that they can sustain such ability over time.

– In this regard, it should be kept in mind that implementation of the HP entails the disarming, dismantling and disbanding —if need be, coercively—of the ruling Palestinian regime, and reinstating Israeli governance over all territory under Palestinian-Arab control.

Inhibiting internecine intimidation

 

The HP is hardly unique with regard to this latter point. All other proffered policy alternatives for the failed, foolhardy two-state formula entail such measures—either by explicit stipulation, or implicit inference—since preserving the current Palestinian regime intact would clearly preclude their implementation.  Indeed, they are even endorsed by some pundits who do not discount the eventual emergence of a Palestinian state, such as Middle East Forum president, Daniel Pipes.

 

Clearly, the dispersal of the central Palestinian governing body, together with the defanging of its armed organs and the deployment of Israeli forces in their stead, will greatly curtail (although not entirely eliminate) the scope for internecine intimidation and the capacity to dissuade potential recipients of the relocation/rehabilitation grants from availing themselves of the funds.

 

In addition, Israel should task its own formidable military and intelligence services to protect prospective recipients of these grants by identifying, intervening and thwarting attempts to intimidate those seeking to enhance their lives by extricating themselves from the control of the disastrously dysfunctional regime under which they live.

 

Moreover, the international community should be called upon to cooperate with and participate in this principled endeavor to prevent fratricidal elements within Palestinian society from depriving their brethren of the opportunity of better, safer lives. After all, violence against Palestinian-Arabs, who choose to reside within any given host nation, would comprise an intolerable violation of that country’s national sovereignty.

 

Appalling indictment of “Palestinian” society?

  

Of course invoking the specter of large-scale fratricide as an impediment to the acceptance of the HP is an appalling indictment of Palestinian-Arab society.

 

After all, the inescapable implication of such an objection to the HP’s practical applicability is that its acceptance by otherwise willing recipients, wishing to avail themselves of opportunity to seek security and prosperity elsewhere, can only be impeded by violent extortion of their kin-folk.

 

Accordingly, if the concern over large-scale fratricide is serious, it is in fact, at once, both the strongest argument in favor of the HP and against the establishment of a Palestinian state.  After all, two unavoidable conclusions necessarily flow from it: (a) any predicted reluctance to accept the relocation/rehabilitating grants would not be a reflection of the free will of Palestinian-Arabs, but rather a coerced outcome that came about despite the fact that it is not; (b) Similarly, the endeavor for a Palestinian state is not one that manifests any authentic desire of the “Palestinian people” but rather one imposed on them, despite the fact that it does not.

 

As a result, any Palestinian-Arab state established under the pervasive threat of lethal retribution against any dissenter will not be an expression of genuine national aspirations but of extortion and coercion of large segments of Palestinian-Arab society, who would otherwise opt for an alternative outcome.

 

In summation then, if the fear of fratricide can be shown to be a tangible threat, it should not be considered a reason to abandon the HP formula. Quite the opposite! It should be considered an unacceptable phenomenon to be resolutely suppressed –by both Israel and the international community—in order to permit the Palestinian-Arab public the freedom of choice to determine their future.

 

FAQ 5: Would funded emigration not be considered unethical “ethnic cleansing”?

I have addressed the question of the moral merits of the HP extensively elsewhere (see “Palestine”: Who Has Moral High Ground?), where I demonstrate that the HP blueprint will be the most humane of all options if it succeeds, and the least inhumane if it does not.

 

I shall therefore refrain from repeating much of the arguments presented previously and focus on one crucial issue: The comparative moral merits of the widely endorsed two-state paradigm (TSS) and those of my proposed Humanitarian Paradigm (HP).

 

Since there is very little doubt (or dispute) as to the domestic nature of any prospective Palestinian state, anyone seeking to disqualify the HP because of its alleged moral shortcomings must be forced to contend with the following question: Who has the moral high-ground?

 

(a) The TSS-proponents, who advocate establishing (yet another) homophobic, misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny, whose hallmarks would be: gender discrimination, gay persecution, religious intolerance, and political oppression of dissidents? ; or

 

(b) The HP-proponents who advocate providing non-belligerent Palestinian individuals with the opportunity of building a better life for themselves elsewhere, out of harm’s way, free from the recurring cycles of death, destruction and destitution, brought down on them by the cruel, corrupt cliques that have led them astray for decades.

 

Furthermore, TSS advocates should be compelled to clarify why they consider it morally acceptable to offer financial inducements to Jews in Judea-Samaria to evacuate their homes to facilitate the establishment of said homophobic, misogynistic tyranny, which, almost certainly, will become a bastion for Islamist terror; yet they consider it morally reprehensible to offer financial inducements to Arabs in Judea-Samaria to evacuate their homes to prevent the establishment of such an entity?

 

FAQ 6: What about those who remain?

 

This is, of course, a serious question and a detailed response would depend on, among other things, the size of the residual Palestinian-Arab population who refuse any material compensation as an inducement to emigrate.

 

The acuteness of the problem would undoubtedly be a function of its scale. Clearly, the smaller this residual population, the less pressing the need will be to deal with it. For example it seems plausible that if, say, only a hundred thousand Palestinians remain, consideration may well be given to the possibility of offering them Israeli citizenship – subject to stringent security vetting and sworn acceptance of Jewish sovereignty as the sole legitimate source of authority in the land – without endangering the Jewish character of the country.

 

However, it should be remembered that, unlike the two-state approach which advocates perilous concessions, and the one-state prescription which calls for incorporating the Palestinian-Arabs resident across the pre-1967 lines into Israel’s permanent population, the HP does not involve any cataclysmic irreversible measures.

 

At the heart of the HP program is a comprehensive system of material inducements to foster Palestinian emigration, which includes generous incentives for leaving and harsh disincentives for staying. As detailed elsewhere, such incentives would entail substantial monetary grants, up to 100 years GDP per capita per family in Palestinian terms; while the latter entail phased withdrawal of services (including provision of water, electricity, fuel, port facilities and so on) that Israel currently provides to the Palestinian-Arabs across the pre-1967 lines.

 

Accordingly, should it be found that the initial proposed inducements are ineffective, the former can be made more enticing, and/or the latter more daunting, until the proffered package is acceptable.

 

Seen in this context, it is difficult to envisage that many non-belligerent Palestinian-Arabs would prefer to endure the rigors of discontinued provision of services rather than avail themselves of the generous relocation/rehabilitation funds—especially given the dispersal of the Palestinian regime as an alternative source of such services.

 

 FAQ 7 What if the same kind of offer were made to induce Jewish emigration?

 

In addressing this question several points should be borne in mind:

 

The offer would clearly not be made by an Israeli government. After all, the HP is intended as a measure to: (a) Ensure – not undermine – the survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews, and (b) Relieve the genuine humanitarian predicament of the Palestinian-Arabs—precipitated by the dysfunctional administration they have been subjected to since the 1993 Oslo process—not Jewish disgruntlement with the imperfect functioning of the Israeli government.

 

Of course, it would be impossible to prevent Arab elements from offering Jews financial inducement to emigrate from Israel, but in this regard it should be recalled that: (a) As a sovereign nation Israel can control the financial flows into the country and impede money from hostile sources reaching Israeli citizens, considerably complicating the transfer and receipt of funds. (b) Arab governments have been singularly reticent in providing large sums  to advance the “Palestinian cause” and there is little chance (or evidence) that they would advance the hundreds of billions required to finance large scale Jewish emigration;  (c) The overwhelming majority of Israelis enjoy living standards of an advanced post-industrial nation with a GDP per capita around 20 times higher than that in the Palestinian-administered territories; (d) Accordingly, it would be commensurately more difficult to tempt them to leave. Indeed, sums offered would have to be considerably higher to create a comparable incentive, running into millions rather than hundreds of thousands per family. (e) Moreover, a slew of recent polls show the large majority of Israelis are satisfied with their lives – thus the prospect of material incentives to induce large-scale emigration seems remote.

Urgent Zionist imperative.

 

The HP is the only Zionist-compliant policy prescription that can save Israel from the perilous dangers of the two-state formula and the specter of Lebanonization/Balkanization inherent in other proffered alternatives. Embarking on its implementation is a Zionist imperative that is both urgent and feasible.

_________________

Martin Sherman is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.

Dr. Martin Sherman

The writer served for seven years in operational capacities in the Israeli Defense establishment, was ministerial adviser to Yitzhak Shamir’s government and lectured for 20 years at Tel Aviv University in Political Science, International Relations and Strategic Studies. He has a B.Sc. (Physics and Geology), MBA (Finance), and PhD in political science and international relations, was the first academic director of the Herzliya Conference and is the author of two books and numerous articles and policy papers on a wide range of political, diplomatic and security issues. He is founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies (www.strategicisrael.org).

 

 Born in South Africa, he has lived in Israel since 1971. More from the author

 

© Arutz Sheva, All Rights Reserved

 

Palestinian State Means Israel’s Destruction


John R. Houk

© May 23, 2017

 

About a month ago I found an interesting PragerU video at the G+ Community Islam contribution to America about Israel’s constant offers to give up land for an Arab state to be called Palestine and the Palestinian terrorists constant rejection of the Israeli offers. The owner of the community Roland Oliva posted the video on 4/27/17.

 

The enumeration of the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians constant rejection is well presented on the video. David Brog is the video speaker. His conclusion for Israeli/Arab peace is to accept the existence of the Jewish State of Israel in a Two-State Solution format.

I know it is a bit extreme and politically incorrect, but I have no doubt that a Two-State Solution is workable path. Why? The Multiculturalist believing world will continue to expect Israel to supply the infrastructure operations (electricity, water, etc.) while the fake Palestinian people will continue to find ways to destroy Israel. Hamas controlled Gaza (aka Hamastan) is enough evidence of the parameters of a Two-State Solution.

Rather the defensible survival of the Jewish nation is a One-State Solution with Israel annexing most of Judea and Samaria (known as the West Bank to Multiculturalists and Jew-hating Arabs) and Gaza. Push the Jew-hating Arabs out of the annexed areas. Offer Jordan a small portion of Judea and Samaria next to the Jordanian border. Let Jordan deal with the volatile Arabs that call themselves Palestinians in any way the best suits the maintenance of their government. Then let the chips fall where they may.

 

As a side note, the Hashemite Monarchy of Jordan had to expel Arabs that call themselves Palestinians because old Yasser Arafat tried to dethrone the Monarchy and claim Jordan for himself to launch future attacks against Israel. The Jordanians won that civil war and expelled Arafat and his military cadres. Arabs that consider themselves Palestinians still make up a large chunk of the Jordanian population. These pseudo-Palestinians do not have full citizenship benefits in Jordan undoubtedly due to Arafat’s attempt to root out the Hashemite Monarchy.

 

Here’s the PragerU video but there is more to peace than for Arabs to recognize the existence of a Jewish State.

 

VIDEO: Why Isn’t There a Palestinian State?

 

Posted by  PragerU

Published on Mar 27, 2017

 

Why don’t the Palestinians have their own country? Is it the fault of Israel? Of the Palestinians? Of both parties? David Brog, Executive Director of the Maccabee Task Force, shares the surprising answers.
Donate today to PragerU: http://l.prageru.com/2eB2p0h

Read David Brog’s book, “Reclaiming Israel’s History”. http://l.prageru.com/2nmj8ez

Get PragerU bonus content for free! https://www.prageru.com/bonus-content

Have you taken the pledge for school choice? Click here! http://www.schoolchoicenow.com

Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.

iPhone: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG

Android: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e

Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys

Join PragerU’s text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru

Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.

VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com

FOLLOW us!
PragerU is on Snapchat!
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru
Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru
Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/

JOIN PragerFORCE!
For Students: http://l.prageru.com/2aozfkP
Sponsor a Student: http://l.prageru.com/2aoz2ht

JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2aoz2y9

Script:

If Israel just allowed the Palestinians to have a state of their own, there would be peace in the Middle East, right? That’s what you hear from UN ambassadors, European diplomats and most college professors.

But what if I told you that Israel has already offered the Palestinians a state of their own – and not just once, but on five separate occasions?

Don’t believe me?

Let’s review the record.

After the breakup of the Ottoman Empire following World War I, Britain took control of most of the Middle East, including the area that constitutes modern Israel.

Seventeen years later, in 1936, the Arabs rebelled against the British, and against their Jewish neighbors.

The British formed a task force – the Peel Commission – to study the cause of the rebellion. The commission concluded that the reason for the violence was that two peoples – Jews and Arabs – wanted to govern the same land.

The answer, the Peel Commission concluded, would be to create two independent states – one for the Jews, and one for the Arabs. A two-state solution. The suggested split was heavily in favor of the Arabs. The British offered them 80 percent of the disputed territory; the Jews, the remaining 20 percent. Yet, despite the tiny size of their proposed state, the Jews voted to accept this offer. But the Arabs rejected it and resumed their violent rebellion. Rejection number one.

Ten years later, in 1947, the British asked the United Nations to find a new solution to the continuing tensions. Like the Peel Commission, the UN decided that the best way to resolve the conflict was to divide the land.

On November 7, 1947, the UN voted to create two states. Again, the Jews accepted the offer. And again, the Arabs rejected it, only this time, they did so by launching an all-out war. Rejection number two.

Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria joined the conflict. But they failed. Israel won the war, and got on with the business of building a new nation. Most of the land set aside by the UN for an Arab state – the West Bank and east Jerusalem – became occupied territory; occupied not by Israel, but by Jordan.

Twenty years later, in 1967, the Arabs, led this time by Egypt and joined by Syria and Jordan, once again sought to destroy the Jewish State.

The 1967 conflict, known as the Six Day War, ended in a stunning victory for Israel. Jerusalem and the West Bank, as well as the area known as the Gaza Strip, fell into Israel’s hands. The government split over what to do with this new territory. Half wanted to return the West Bank to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt in exchange for peace. The other half wanted to give it to the region’s Arabs, who had begun referring to themselves as the Palestinians, in the hope that they would ultimately build their own state there.

Neither initiative got very far. A few months later, the Arab League met in Sudan and issued its infamous “Three No’s:” No peace with Israel. No recognition of Israel. No negotiations with Israel. Again, a two-state solution was dismissed by the Arabs, making this rejection number three.

 

For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/courses/foreign-affairs/why-isnt-there-palestinian-state

 

JRH 5/23/17

Please Support NCCR

The Ultimate Alternate Israel-Palestine Solution


Ted Belman has a solution for the Israel/(fake)Palestine conflict that I find appealing. However, it’s solution that the Arabs pretending to non-existent Palestinians and the Jordanian royal family will not jump on board.

 

Belman joins the Jordan Opposition Coalition (JOC) to propose allowing Arab Palestinians to emigrate to Jordan with full citizenship making Jordan a Palestinian homeland and eliminate the governance of the Hashemite Royal Family (Wikipedia [neutral], Family Security Matters [hostile], Correct Islamic Faith International Association [or CIFIA – Conspiracy]) and HistoryFile.co.uk [Favorable History]  that purports a family tree traced back to pseudo-prophet Muhammad.

 

JRH 4/1/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

The Ultimate Alternate Israel-Palestine Solution 

 

By Ted Belman

April 1, 2017 1:15 am ET

Israpundit

 

With a new U.S. president, new ideas are emerging on how to resolve the Israel-Palestine debacle. One of the most promising comes from the Jordanian Opposition Council who favor a new Palestinian state — in Jordan. 

 

The GOP unanimously approved a pro-Israel platform at their convention in July 2016 which stipulated:

 

“The U.S. seeks to assist in the establishment of comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East, to be negotiated among those living in the region,”

 

David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt, representing Donald Trump, participated in the drafting and were in complete agreement with the final text.

 

Gone was any reference to the Palestinian people or to a two-state solution. In addition, the platform included the words “We reject the false notion that Israel is an occupier.” If not an “occupier,” then presumably Israel is a sovereign.

 
Accordingly, the search is on for an alternate solution. Such a solution could take inspiration from the short-lived Feisal/Weizmann Agreement of 1919. The essence of this agreement was that Palestine as it then was, was to be divided into two states, one for the Arabs and one for the Jews. Chaim Weizmann on behalf of the Jews agreed to help develop the Arab state and Emir Feisal agreed to welcome Jewish settlement in the Jewish state and favored friendly cooperative relations.

 

Although the British didn’t breathe life into this agreement, they did separate Trans-Jordan from Palestine in 1922 with the Jordan River being the boundary between them. Trans-Jordan (Jordan) thus got 78% of the lands promised to the Jews. The remaining 22% consisting of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean was to be the Jewish state. This was enshrined in the Palestine Mandate signed by the League of Nations in 1922.

 

On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine,” confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in Palestine—anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

 

With respect to the Arabs living in Jewish Palestine, the Congressional Record contained the following:

 

“(2) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, they shall be required to sell their lands at a just valuation and retire into the Arab territory which has been assigned to them by the League of Nations in the general reconstruction of the countries of the east.

(3) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, under conditions of right and justice, or to sell their lands at a just valuation and to retire into their own countries, they shall be driven from Palestine by force.”

 

The US was not a member of the League of Nations at this time. In order to be able to protect American interests in Palestine, she entered into the 1924 Anglo-American Convention in which the U.S. bound itself to the terms of the Mandate. This of course meant the recognition of Jewish right to close settlement of Palestine and that all of Palestine was to be the Jewish homeland.

 

Since then, there were a number of unsuccessful attempts, contrary to the terms of the Mandate, to further divide Jewish Palestine into two states.  UN General Assembly Resolution 181, passed in 1947, recommended partition, but was rejected by the Arabs. The Jews on the other hand took advantage of it and declared their independence in 1948. Israel owes its independence to that declaration and not to Resolution 181, which was only a recommendation, precipitating the move.

 

Nothing has happened of any legal consequence since, to cancel the right of the Jews to settle and be sovereign over all the land to the Jordan River.

 

To date Israel has been reluctant to claim sovereignty over these lands as the Arabs living there would then demand citizenship resulting in a binational state. This is unacceptable to most Israelis. They also reject the two-state solution.

 

So what is the alternative?

 

Consider for a moment, that if Jordan agrees to grant citizenship to all Palestinians, as their law currently provides, and invites the return of all of them to live and work in Jordan, the conflict would soon be ended. While King Abdullah isn’t about to do so, the Jordan Opposition Coalition (JOC) would. This coalition represents all opposition groups in Jordan that back a secular state. The JOC since its creation six years ago has supported good relations with Israel. It does not include groups that support terrorism. This alliance has agreed to work together in order to form the government of Jordan should King Abdullah abdicate. Although at least 75% of Jordanians are Palestinians, the King has disenfranchised them to a great extent in favor of the ethnic Hashemites and Bedouins.

 

The JOC has produced a detailed plan, Operation “Jordan in Palestine,” which clearly identifies their goals and the operational steps needed to implement their plan.  Copies are available upon request.

 

All that is necessary for this to come to pass is for the U.S. to instruct the king, who currently spends most of his time outside Jordan, to not return home. Then it would arrange for the Jordanian army, which it controls, to support the next popular Palestinian uprising, and to designate who among them would form the interim government.

The JOC, puts it this way:

 

This plan seeks to execute a feasible two-state solution where Jordan is the natural homeland for all Palestinians, and Israel becomes sovereign over all soil west to the River Jordan. This could only happen if the corrupt, terror-supporting and double-speaking Hashemite royal family leaves Jordan. The Palestinians often revolt against the regime but the king’s police force puts them down. The American media ignore this solution to the unrest in Jordan.

 

What is needed is for the U.S. to influence the Jordanian army and security agency to stand with the revolution the next time it breaks out.  The security agencies and army are already securing the country without any influence from the king who is mostly abroad.  Under these conditions, the king would not return.  Once that happens an interim government of secular Palestinians who want peace with Israel could be appointed.

 

Once the interim government is installed, it will strengthen the economy by stopping theft of government money and ending corruption. It will fully enfranchise the Palestinians. All Palestinians around the world would be welcomed to return to Jordan pursuant the current Jordanian citizenship act, which already recognizes all Palestinians as citizens of Jordan. Many Palestinians will emigrate to Jordan in part because many have family members and friends living in Jordan. Work opportunities as well as a rewarding benefits/welfare system will be made available to them by the new interim government as further inducement.

 

Israel, with many international partners, including the U.S., could finance the building of a new Jordanian city of 1 million people. This would greatly stimulate the Jordanian economy and would provide work for the returning Palestinians. The new homes could be made available to the returnees and locals at subsidized prices further incentivizing people to return. The ending of King Abdullah’s discrimination against Palestinians living in Jordan, would also contribute to making Jordan a desired immigration destination.

 

Michael Ross, a Republican, wrote after the election of Donald Trump, “Trump Must  Speak to Mudar Zahran” because Zahran offers the alternate solution that Pres Trump is looking for.

 

As part of this solution, all Palestinian refugees enrolled with UN Relief And Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East could be repatriated to Jordan and given citizenship. Thus UNRWA could be wound up and the current UNRWA funding could be transferred to Jordan to assist in the resettlement.

 

According to Moshe Feiglin, the head of the Zehut Party in Israel, the Oslo Accords have cost Israel over 1 trillion shekels since they were signed. In addition, Israel has borne the cost of three military campaigns in Gaza. Finally, Israel supplies to the Palestinians their energy, water and sewage treatment for free or at greatly subsidized prices.

 

Last summer, Feiglin proposed a Solution in which Israel extends Israeli law from the Mediterranean to the Jordan:

 

We will give the Arab population in those territories three options: The first is voluntary emigration with the aid of a generous emigration grant. The second is permanent residency, similar to the “Green Card” status in the US – not like what is currently the practice in East Jerusalem. This status will be offered to those Arabs who publicly declare their loyalty to the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish Nation. We will safeguard their human rights and will not do anything like we did to ourselves in Gush Katif. The third option will be reserved for relatively few Arabs, and only in accordance with Israeli interests. Those who tie their fate to the fate of the Jewish Nation, like the Druze, can enter a long-term process of attaining citizenship.

 

Martin Sherman has published a similar plan which he calls the “Humanitarian Solution” as opposed to a strictly political solution. He summarized all his writings in support of such a plan and published them here.

 

With an estimated $300,000 per family grant, both he and Feiglin have estimated that incentivized compensated emigration will cost Israel over $200 billion USD but both argue it is feasible and worth doing.

 

The repatriation of Palestinians to Jordan, as proposed by JOC, would greatly facilitate the Palestinian emigration and greatly reduce the grants needed to incentivize it. UNRWA and the Palestinian Authority would both be wound up.

 

1.75 million Palestinians live in Judea and Samaria (West Bank). The 800,000 Arabs in Hebron, Nablus, Ramallah, and Bethlehem could remain there as Jorandian citizens. Ramallah is only 42 miles from Amman, the capital of Jordan. A new highway could be built connecting all these cities to Amman. The rest would have to be transferred to Jordan.

 

The 1.8 million Palestinians living in Gaza, of which 1.3 million are registered as refugees, would be incentivized to emigrate to Jordan. After enough leave, Israel could extend its sovereignty to Gaza thereby ending that perennial problem.

 

Considering the subsidies that the West provides to UNRWA, Gaza and the PA, this would be a bargain. Given that JOC has tied its fate to Israel, Israel would be happy to contribute to such a solution as the present conflict costs her hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

 

It really is that simple.  There is much more that can be said in support of it.

 

Prof. Hillel Frisch, a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies and Yitzhak Sokoloff, a fellow of the Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies at Bar-Ilan University recently wrote Trump and the Jordanian Option.

 

The inauguration of an American administration uncommitted to the principle of an independent Palestinian state provides Israel with the opportunity to advocate a long-term strategic vision of building up a prosperous Jordan that could provide an alternative to the model of a two-state solution based on the Palestinian Authority.

 

They are wrong to suggest that this can be done with King Abdullah. I believe, as does the JOC, that the king is part of the problem and must be replaced by Palestinians.

 

Gideon Saar, a touted future Prime Minister of Israel, in his recent article, Goodbye Two-State Solution, wrote:

 

A Jordanian-Palestinian federative solution would offer the Palestinians space in addition to their autonomy. We could also consider adopting a joint Israeli-Jordanian-Palestinian economic framework. And there are many other ideas that could be constructed as a result of quiet, serious work with the backing of a supportive US administration.

 

He is right but the ultimate alternate solution is the one put forward by the JOC.

 

If anyone wants more information or can help this solution get traction, please write me (tbelman3@gmail.com).

 

Addendum

David Singer suggested drawing a new border in the Israel Jordan peace agreement. I suggest it should be here.

 

Israel-Jordan new border imagery

 

3D Illustration of the Land of Israel

 

Shiloh and Beit El must remain in Israel yet they lie east of the new road. In some place the new road can be moved a little to the west if there are significant Arab populations to be included.  And look at Ariel. It too must be kept on the Israeli side.  A very crooked road. That’s why I came to the conclusion that maybe it’s better to move them all out.

 

On second thought I have an alternate suggestion:

Rather than draw a new border, transfer the 1.7 million Arabs in J&S and perhaps 100,000 from Jerusalem to Jordan.

 

But leave the Arabs in Gaza. Israel should put Jordan in power there even if she has to defeat Hamas to do so.

 

Thus only 1.8 million Arabs from J&S and east Jerusalem would have to move.

 

One more thing. We could build a highway from Gaza to Jordan. This highway could be open to Egyptian traffic and thus Egypt would finally have a land bridge to Jordan which they want. Jordan would thus gain a port on the Mediterranean.

_____________________

© 2005-2017 by Ted Belman. Some Rights Reserved. All views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the site owner or the rest of its participants.

 

THE END OF PALESTINE


palestine-flag-1939

Daniel Greenfield gives out a dose of reality pertaining to a Two-State Solution between the Jewish State of Israel and the Islamic terrorism of Arabs that made up a non-existent Palestinian nation.

 

JRH 2/18/17 (Hat Tip Donald Moore – Blind Conservatives)

Please Support NCCR

*****************

THE END OF PALESTINE

 

By Daniel Greenfield

February 16, 2017

FrontPageMag

 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam

hamas-terrorists

Palestine is many things. A Roman name and a Cold War lie. Mostly it’s a justification for killing Jews.

 

Palestine was an old Saudi-Soviet scam which invented a fake nationality for the Arab clans who had invaded and colonized Israel. This big lie transformed the leftist and Islamist terrorists run by them into the liberators of an imaginary nation. Suddenly the efforts of the Muslim bloc and the Soviet bloc to destroy the Jewish State became an undertaking of sympathetically murderous underdogs.

 

But the Palestine lie is past its sell by date.

 

What we think of as “Palestinian” terrorism was a low-level conflict pursued by the Arab Socialist states in between their invasions of Israel. After several lost wars, the terrorism was all that remained. Egypt, Syria and the USSR threw in the towel on actually destroying Israel with tanks and jets, but funding terrorism was cheap and low-risk. And the rewards were disproportionate to the cost.

 

For less than the price of a single jet fighter, Islamic terrorists could strike deep inside Israel while isolating the Jewish State internationally with demands for “negotiations” and “statehood.”

 

After the Cold War ended, Russia was low on cash and the PLO’s Muslim sugar daddies were tired of paying for Arafat’s wife’s shoe collection and his keffiyah dry cleaning bills.

 

The terror group was on its last legs. “Palestine” was a dying delusion that didn’t have much of a future.

 

That’s when Bill Clinton and the flailing left-wing Israeli Labor Party which, unlike its British counterpart, had failed to adapt to the new economic boom, decided to rescue Arafat and create “Palestine”.

 

The resulting terrorist disaster killed thousands, scarred two generations of Israelis, isolated the country and allowed Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and other major cities to come under fire for the first time since the major wars. No matter how often Israeli concessions were met with Islamic terrorism, nothing seemed able to shake loose the two-state solution monkey on Israel’s back. Destroying Israel, instantaneously or incrementally, had always been a small price to pay for maintaining the international order.

 

The same economic forces that were transforming the world after the Cold War had salvaged “Palestine”. Arafat had lost his sponsors in Moscow, but his new sugar daddy’s name was “Globalism”.

 

The Cold War had been the focus of international affairs. What replaced it was the conviction that a new world tied together by international commerce, the internet and international law would be born.

 

The demands of a clan in Hebron used to be able to hijack the attention of the world because the scope of the clash between Capitalism and Communism could globalize any local conflict. Globalization was just as insistent on taking local conflicts and making them the world’s business through its insistence that every place was connected. The terrorist blowing up an Israeli pizzeria affected stock prices in New York, the expansion prospects of a company in China and the risk of another terrorist attack in Paris. And interconnectedness, from airplane hijacking to plugging into the international’s left alliance of global protest movements, had become the  best weapon of Islamic terrorists.

 

But now globalization is dying. And its death may just take “Palestine” with it.

 

A new generation of leaders is rising who are actively hostile to globalization. Trump and Brexit were the most vocal rebukes to transnationalism. But polls suggest that they will not be the only ones. The US and the UK, once the vanguards of the international order, now have governments that are competitively seeking national advantages rather than relying on the ordered rules of the transnational safety net.

 

These governments will not just toss aside their commitment to a Palestinian state. Not when the Saudis, Qataris and countless other rich and powerful Muslim countries bring it up at every session.

 

But they will be less committed to it.

 

45% of Americans support the creation of a PLO state. 42% are opposed. That’s a near split. These historical numbers have to be viewed within the context of the larger changes sweeping the country.

 

The transnationalists actively believed that it was their job to solve the problems of other countries. Nationalists are concerned with how the problems of other countries directly impinge on them without resorting to the mystical interconnectedness of everything, from climate change to global justice, that is at the core of the transnational worldview.

 

More intense competition by Western nations may make it easier for Islamic agendas to gain influence through the old game of divide and conquer. Nations facing terrorism will still find that the economic influence of Islamic oil power will rally the Western trading partners of Islam against them.

 

But without the transnational order, such efforts will often amount to little more than lip service.

 

Nationalist governments will find Israel’s struggle against the Islamic invaders inconvenient because it threatens their business interests, but they will also be less willing to rubber stamp the terror agenda the way that transnationalist governments were willing to do. The elimination of the transnational safety net will also cause nationalist governments to look harder at consequences and results.

 

Endlessly pouring fortunes into a Palestinian state that will never exist just to keep Muslim oil tyrants happy is not unimaginable behavior even for a nationalist government. Japan has been doing just that.

 

But it will be a less popular approach for countries that don’t suffer from Japan’s energy insecurity.

 

Transnationalists are ideologically incapable of viewing a problem as unsolvable. Their faith in human progress through international law made it impossible for them to give up on the two-state solution.

 

Nationalist governments have a colder and harder view of human nature. They will not endlessly pour efforts and resources into a diplomatic black hole. They will eventually take “No” for an answer.

 

This won’t mean instantaneous smooth sailing for Israel. It will however mean that the exit is there.

 

For two decades, pledging allegiance to the two-state solution and its intent to create a deadly Islamic terror state inside Israel has been the price demanded of the Jewish State for its participation in the international community. That price will not immediately vanish. But it will become easier to negotiate.

 

The real change will be on the “Palestinian” side where a terrorist kleptoracy feeds off human misery in its mansions downwind of Ramallah. That terror state, conceived insincerely by the enemies of the West during the Cold War and sincerely brought into being by Western transnationalists after the Cold War ended, is a creature of that transnational order.

 

The “Palestinian Authority”, a shell company of the PLO which is a shell company of the Fatah terrorists, has no economy worth speaking of. It has foreign aid. Its diplomatic achievements are achieved for it by the transnational network of foreign diplomats, the UN, the media and assorted international NGOs. During the last round of “negotiations”, Secretary of State John Kerry even attempted to do the negotiating on behalf of the Palestinian Authority in the talks with Israel.

 

Take away the transnational order and the Palestinian Authority will need a new sugar daddy. The Saudis are better at promising money than actually delivering it. Russia may decide to take on the job. But it isn’t about to put in the money and resources that the PA has grown used to receiving from us.

 

Without significant American support, the Palestinian Authority will perish. And the farce will end.

 

It won’t happen overnight. But Israel now has the ability to make it happen if it is willing to take the risk of transforming a corrosive status quo into a conflict that will be more explosive in the short term, but more manageable in the long term.

 

Prime Minister Netanyahu, in stark contrast to rivals on the left like Peres and on the right like Sharon, is not a gambler. The peace process was a big gamble. As was the withdrawal from Lebanon and the expulsion from Gaza. These gambles failed and left behind scars and enduring crises.

 

Unlike the prime ministers before and after him, Netanyahu has made no big moves. Instead he serves as a sensible steward of a rising economy and a growing nation. He has stayed in office for so long because Israelis know that he won’t do anything crazy. That sensible stewardship, which infuriated Obama who accused him of refusing to take risks, has made him one of the longest serving leaders in Israeli history.

 

Netanyahu is also a former commando who participated in the rescue of a hijacked airplane. He doesn’t believe in taking foolish risks until he has his shot all lined up. But the time is coming when not taking a risk will be a bigger risk than taking a risk. Eventually he will have to roll the dice.

 

The new nationalist wave may not hold. The transnational order may return. Or the new wave may prove darker and more unpredictable. It’s even possible that something else may take its place.

 

The status quo, a weak Islamist-Socialist terror state in Ramallah supported by the United States, a rising Muslim Brotherhood terror state in Gaza backed by Qatar and Turkey, and an Israel using technological brilliance to manage the threat from both, is already unstable. It may collapse in a matter of years.

 

The PLO has inflicted a great deal of diplomatic damage on Israel and Hamas has terrorized its major cities. Together they form an existential threat that Israel has allowed to grow under the guise of managing it. The next few years may leave Israel with a deadlier and less predictable struggle.

 

“Palestine” is dying. Israel didn’t kill it. The fall of the transnational order did. The question is what will take its place. As the nationalist wave sweeps the West, Israel has the opportunity to reclaim its nation.

_____________

ABOUT DANIEL GREENFIELD

 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

 

READ MORE

 

© COPYRIGHT 2017, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

 

ABOUT FPM

 

FRONTPAGE MAG IS A PROUD PROJECT OF THE DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER

 

The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.

 

The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror.  The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded.  Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics throughout the year.

 

David Horowitz began the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 1988 to establish a conservative presence in Hollywood and show how popular culture had become a political battleground. Over the next 18 years, CSPC attracted 50,000 contributing supporters and established programs such as READ THE REST

 

John Kerry Lies to Support Leftist Worldview


John R. Houk

© December 29, 2016

 

We know that John Kerry has a sketchy past as an American Patriot. Although the U.S. Navy sticks to the official records on Kerry’s medals and service in Vietnam. There seems to be some flaws in both the official record and anti-Kerry eyewitness accounts of faked Kerry heroism.

 

 

Kerry became the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War after being discharged, the Post reported. In testimony to Congress, he relayed accounts by his VVAW comrades of having “personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads … razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan …”

 

Later, it was shown that many of the stories on which Kerry based this testimony were false, some told by people who had stolen the identities of real GIs, the Post printed on Aug. 24, 2004. Kerry was not implicated.

 

As for claims in the viral email about his military record, much of this was discussed during the campaign after the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth questioned Kerry’s accounts and whether he deserved any of the commendations he received.

 

But the veterans who accused Kerry were contradicted by numerous former crewmen of Kerry’s, and by Navy records, according to FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan [Blog Editor: Link is by Editor and explains reliability fact checking websites] fact-finding project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, which researched the claims back in 2004.

 

 

Kerry received a Purple Heart after being wounded in December 1968 when he got hit by shrapnel. The Boston Globe quoted William Schachte, who oversaw the mission, as saying it “was not a very serious wound.”

 

 

In an affidavit, physician Lewis Letson said he treated Kerry and said Kerry’s wound was self-inflicted when his gun jammed and he threw a grenade at an object, which sprayed the area with shrapnel. Kerry’s medical records show that he was treated by J.C. Carreon (who has since died). Letson said it common practice for medics to sign the paperwork for the attending physician.

 

Letson said in his affidavit that “the crewman with Kerry told me there was no hostile fire, and that Kerry had inadvertently wounded himself with an M-79 grenade.” But the crewmen with Kerry that day deny ever talking to Letson, FactCheck.org reported.

 

 

Kerry earned his Silver Star later in February when he jumped onto the beach from his boat to chase and shoot a guerrilla who had a rocket launcher and who, Kerry thought, was about to fire a rocket at Kerry’s boat. According to the Boston Globe, another member of the crew on Kerry’s boat — Frederic Short, with whom Kerry had not talked for 34 years until being contacted by the Globe reporter — confirmed the account and said there was no doubt Kerry’s action saved the boat and crew.

 

 

Although Snopes.com labels attacks on Kerry’s medals being earned under “fishy” circumstances as “false,” FactCheck.org said in 2004, “at this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.” READ ENTIRETY  (Fact Check: John Kerry’s war accounts and whether he deserved commendations still being called into question; By Carole Fader; Jacksonville.com; 1/3/13 05:05 pm)

 

And so, Kerry won some medals fraudulently and for actual acts of heroism. A LIE IS STILL A LIE!

 

Kerry then went to disrespect those medals fraudulently or correctly earned by trashing his nation by painting a picture that the entire U.S. Military as a band of murderers and rapists. I can confidently speculate some of this nefarious stuff Kerry preached against America happened, but I can also confidently speculate the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Regulars committed more and worse atrocities than any group of U.S. Military fellows. War is war and unfortunately vengeance is a part of war on the affected individual soldier.

 

The point is John Kerry is a Left Winger willing to say or do anything to support his idiotic worldview. With that in mind, read Ben Shapiro’s “10 Lies Secretary of State Kerry Told ” in the Obama Administration’s betrayal of Israel.

 

JRH 12/29/16

Please Support NCCR

***************

10 Lies Secretary of State Kerry Told During His Big Middle East Peace Speech

 

By BEN SHAPIRO

DECEMBER 28, 2016

Daily Wire

 

On Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry gave a speech on his proposed plan for peace between Israelis and Arabs. His plan: blame the Jews, pretend that Palestinian terrorism and incitement isn’t representative of the actual Palestinian government, and then blather for 69 more minutes. His speech razed facts to the ground in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.

 

Here were ten of the worst lies and lies-by-omission Kerry purveyed in his ode to lying and self-indulgence:

 

  1. Equating Jewish Settlements and Palestinian Terrorism.Israel has been wracked by a wave of stabbings and shootings and rocket attacks from Palestinian terrorists over the last two years. Kerry spent a few minutes on that, but only in order to draw moral equivalence with Jews building additional bathrooms in East Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. “The truth is that trends on the ground, violence, terrorism, settlement expansion, and the seemingly endless occupation, they are combining to destroy hopes for peace on both sides,” Kerry said. This is nonsense. Before there were anyJewish settlements – when Israel did not control Judea, Samaria, or Gaza – the Palestine Liberation Organization called for the “liberation” of Palestine, meaning the complete destruction of Israel. The problem isn’t people building homes. It’s Palestinians murdering Jews, and refusing to accept that any home built by a Jew ought to exist in the Middle East. [Bold text last sentence is Editor’s]

 

  1. “If The Choice Is One State, Israel Can Either Be Jewish Or Democratic. It Cannot Be Both.” This is patently absurd. There has been one state in the area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean for some 50 years. That state has been democratic. This lie rests on two absurd contentions: first, that if Israel were to annex all Judea and Samaria, Jews would be outnumbered by Arabs; second, that if Israel were to annex all lands, Israel would have to grant all Palestinian Arabs full citizenship or face status as an apartheid state. The first claim is simply false – Jews outnumber Palestinian Arabs outside of the Gaza Strip by a factor of two-to-one, and Jews now have the equivalent birth rate of Palestinian Arabs, and will soon have a higher birth rate, as Caroline Glick points out, meaning that Jewish majority status will increase, not decrease. Second, the United States does not offer citizenship to all the people living within its borders, or over territories over which it has sovereignty. Puerto Rico is governed semi-autonomously, but citizens of Puerto Rico cannot vote in presidential elections in the United States. Israel could easily grant green cards to Palestinian residents while also giving them local control of their governance without a national vote.

 

  1. Peace Will Only Be Realized With a Palestinian Terror State.The notion that peace depends on the establishment of a Palestinian terror state – and that’s what will be established, given that the unity government of the Palestinians now includes Hamas and Islamic Jihad alongside Fatah – is asinine. Israel has had to blockade Gaza because Hamas controls it, and is attempting to take military shipments from Iran. Adding another Iran-backed terror proxy state to the Middle Eastern map is a great way to encourage a two-front war against Israel, given the presence of Hezbollahstan on Israel’s northern border.

 

  1. “No American Administration Has Done More For The Security of Israel Than Barack Obama’s.” To put it mildly, LOL. LOLOLOLOLOL. [Bold text after 1st line is Editor’s] Funny guy, this Kerry. Here’s a timeline of Obama’s “support” for Israel. That timeline doesn’t even include the Iran nuclear deal or the current UN resolution hubbub.

 

  1. Israeli Intransigence Is The Problem.Nope. Not even close. In 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered 94.2 percent of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians, a corridor that would link that territory to the Gaza Strip, land swaps that would increase Palestinian land holdings, a formula for division of Jerusalem. Abbas refused the deal. In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered a similar deal. Yassar Arafat refused it. Palestinians have never accepted any deal offered by the Israelis. [Bold text this line is Editor’s] Israelis continue to offer. But the problem is clearly the mean, nasty Israelis. And by the way, that awful Netanyahu fellow offered to freeze settlements early in the Obama administration, and the Palestinians responded with violence.

 

  1. Settlements Are Illegal.No, they aren’t. Kerry declared over and over that Israelis settling east of the so-called green line are living there illegally. That’s patent nonsense. He also suggested that no Jews would be allowed to live inside a new Palestinian state, because Jews would object – ignoring, of course, that Palestinians would quickly murder any Jew remaining in a Palestinian state, and Jews have a slight objection to being murdered. Right now, over a million Arabs live inside Israel. Virtually no Jews live in the Muslim world because they were expelled, and quickly absorbed into Israel.

 

  1. Equating Palestinian Government With Israeli Government.Perhaps the most insane spectacle was Kerry suggesting that the Netanyahu government is beholden to the “most extreme elements” in Israeli politics, while pooh-poohing Palestinian government support for terrorism. Kerry suggested that Hamas was a troublesome rogue group as opposed to an integral part of the Palestinian unity government.

 

  1. Israel As Purported Burden To The United States.Kerry spent serious time talking about how the United States had subsumed its own interests in order to give military aid to Israel. Of course, the Obama administration has also given aid to the Palestinian unity terror government, and attempted to block weapons shipments in the middle of the Gaza terror war. And even the Obama administration says that such aid is good for the United States defense industry; a huge percentage of American aid to Israel is a subsidy to domestic defense contractors. Israel is America’s only democratic ally in the region.

 

  1. The UN Resolution Changed Nothing. Kerry kept stating that the UN resolution didn’t do much to change the status quo. That’s false. This UN resolution said that all territories outside the 1949 Israel armistice lines – the “Auschwitz borders” – are occupied, including Jerusalem and holy sites like the Western Wall. It calls for all settlements in those areas “flagrant” violations of international law. There’s a reason Kerry pushed this thing through: of courseit changes things.

 

  1. The Obama Administration’s Maneuvers Help Peace.This is the opposite of the truth. America’s position for two decades has been that it would not cram down a peace deal on the Israelis and Palestinians – all issues would have to be resolved through bilateral negotiations. By placing the onus for all concessions on Israel and making Israel subject to the possibility of blowback from the International Court of Justice, Obama just allowed Palestinians to abandon any pretense at negotiations and stand on their newfound “rights.” [Bold text last line is Editor’s]

 

Kerry’s speech was chock full of lies. [This bold text is Editor’s] But here’s the good news: nobody will remember it a month from now, just as nobody will remember John Kerry’s legacy beyond his slander of American soldiers in Vietnam.

_________________

John Kerry Lies to Support Leftist Worldview

John R. Houk

© December 29, 2016

_______________

10 Lies Secretary of State Kerry Told During His Big Middle East Peace Speech

 

© COPYRIGHT 2016, THE DAILY WIRE

 

Answering John Kerry


Intro to Glick’s ‘Answering John Kerry’

Edited by John R. Houk

12/13/15

Caroline Glick posted an essay about John Kerry’s speech at the Brooking Institute’s Saban Forum. This is the same forum that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu video streamed a speech to the Saban Forum from Jerusalem. To comprehend just how idiotic Secretary of State John Kerry is (and by extension President Barack Hussein Obama), let me share some excerpts from Netanyahu’s speech that addresses Islamic terrorism internationally and the terrorism of Arabs calling themselves Palestinians who refuse to accept the existence of the Jewish State of Israel:

I want to thank my friend Haim for giving me the opportunity to address you. This comes at a time when the United States has experienced a terrible and savage attack in San Bernardino, and I wish to offer the condolences of the people of Israel to the families, the aggrieved families, and of course send our wishes for a speedy recovery to the wounded. [Blog Editor: a sentiment rarely shared from Obama and Kerry to Israeli-Jewish victims of Palestinian Islamic terrorism.]

And these values are what makes the bond between Israel and the United States, the American people and the people of Israel, so strong. It’s that identity of values, those very values that are under such fierce attack today. …

Insofar as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is concerned, I think there is another misunderstanding. People have long said that the core of this conflict is the acquisition of territories by Israel in the 1967 War. That’s an issue that needs to be addressed in any peace process, as is the question of settlements, but it’s not the core of the conflict. In Gaza, nothing changed. In fact, instead of getting peace, we gave territory and got 15,000 rockets on our heads. We took out all the settlements; we disinterred people from their graves; and did we get peace? No. We got the worst terror possible.

… Why has this conflict not been resolved for a hundred years? Why has it not been resolved after successive Israeli prime ministers, six in fact after the Oslo Agreement, have offered to make peace, have offered the Palestinians the possibility of building a state next to Israel – it’s because the Palestinians have not yet been willing to cross that conceptual bridge, that emotional bridge, of giving up the dream not of a state next to Israel, but a state instead of Israel.

And that’s why they persistently refuse – not only Hamas in Gaza, but the PA – they consistently refuse to accept that in a final peace settlement, they will recognize the Jewish state, they will recognize a nation-state for the Jewish people. They ask that we recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, but refuse to accord that same right to us. I have said and I continue to say it, that ultimately the only workable solution is not a unitary state, but a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state. That’s the solution. But the Palestinians have to recognize the Jewish state and they persistently refuse to do so. They refuse to recognize a nation-state for the Jewish people in any boundary. That was and remains the core of the conflict. Not this or that gesture or the absence of this or that gesture, but the inability or unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership to make the leap.

You got a hint of that the other day when Abu Mazen spoke about the “occupation of Palestinian lands for the last 67 years”. Did you hear that? Occupation of Palestinian lands? For the last 67 years? Sixty-seven years ago was 1948. That’s when the State of Israel was established. Does Abu Mazen mean that Tel Aviv is occupied Palestinian territory? Of Haifa? Or Beer Sheba? He refuses to fess up to his people and say it’s over, from their point of view what they say are the borders they wish, the final borders they wish. They refuse to recognize that they will have no more claim on the territory of the Jewish state, that they will not try in any way to flood it with the descendants of refugees. After all, we in Israel took in an equal and even larger number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands. You should READ the ENTIRE Speech (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Remarks to the Saban Forum; By PM Benjamin Netanyahu; Release by Israel GPO posted at SlantRight 2.0; posted 12/7/15)

Now as you read Glick’s essay you will notice that Secretary Kerry acts like he is completely deaf and blind about the intentions of the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians to not only establish a state out of some territory of Jewish heritage but also the complete destruction of Israel to be replaced by an Arab State. In case you haven’t been paying attention to what ISIS is doing to the Christians that have lived in Syria and Iraq that means a brutal genocide against the Jews of Israel.

JRH 12/13/15

Please Support NCCR

********************

Answering John Kerry

By Caroline Glick

December 11th, 2015

CarolineGlick.com

On Saturday, US Secretary of State John Kerry gave a speech before the Brookings Institute’s Saban Forum. Kerry focused on the Palestinian conflict with Israel and sought to draw a distinction between the two-state policy model, which he supports, and the one-state policy model, which he rejects.

To justify his rejection of a policy based on Israeli sovereignty over areas beyond the 1949 armistice lines, Kerry raised a series of questions about what a one-state policy would look like.

I answered all of his questions, as well as many others, in great detail in my book The Israeli Solution: A One- State Plan for Peace in the Middle East. I will do so again here, albeit with the requisite brevity.

But before discussing the specific questions Kerry raised with regard to the one-state model, it is important to discuss the nature of the policies Kerry described in his speech.

Kerry argued Israel should deny civil and property rights to Jews beyond the 1949 armistice lines, and ignore the building and planning laws of both Israel and the military government in Judea and Samaria in order to allow unrestricted Arab construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.

Such steps, he argued, will advance the cause of peace because they will pave the way for an Israeli withdrawal from the vast majority of these areas. Such a withdrawal in turn will bring about the desired two-state solution.

Since the two-state solution is supported by the whole world, Kerry argued that once Israel withdraws from the areas, it will gain the support of the world, peace with its Arab neighbors as well as the Palestinians, and become more prosperous and happy than it is today. It will also secure its democracy.

On the other hand, Kerry argued, if Israel respects the civil and property rights of Jews and continues to enforce the law toward Arabs as well as Jews, and if it eventually applies its laws to any or all of Judea and Samaria, Israel will enter a state of perpetual war with the Palestinians and the wider Arab world. Israel will cease to be a democracy. Israel will be impoverished.

Israel will be isolated internationally even more than it is today.

If Kerry’s options were real options, then Israel would have a clear and easy choice, just as he argues it has.

But unfortunately, they aren’t real options. They are fantasies.

Today Israel has three options. As Kerry advocates, it can withdraw from Judea and Samaria and partition Jerusalem. But if it does so, there is no reason to believe that the outcome will be a Palestinian state, let alone peace.

Rather, it is far more likely that an Israeli withdrawal will lead to the establishment of a second independent Palestinian enclave that the Palestinians and the international community will insist is still under occupation, just as the Palestinians and the international community insist that Gaza remains under Israeli occupation 10 years after Israel vacated the Gaza Strip entirely.

Without Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, Israel will become a strategic basket case in an increasingly chaotic region. It will invite aggression from the Palestinians and from the east that it will be hard pressed to defend against.

Just as Israel is condemned for every action it has taken to defend against Palestinian aggression from Gaza, so it will be condemned for the actions it will be forced to take to defend itself from Palestinian aggression in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and beyond.

In other words, the so-called “two-state solution” is a recipe for war and expanded international isolation for the Jewish state.

The second option for Israel is to maintain the status quo. Today, Israel shares governing power in Judea and Samaria with the PLO. Sometimes the PLO cooperates with Israeli security forces, and sometimes it cooperates with terrorist groups.

The PLO rejects Israel’s right to exist. It uses every available platform to undermine Israel’s legitimacy and wage economic and political war against the Jewish state.

The advantage of the status quo is that under it, Israel has security control over Judea and Samaria. Consequently, it is able to prevent Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem from becoming strategically indistinguishable from Gaza, where Hamas is now openly collaborating with Islamic State forces in Sinai.

Israel’s third option is to apply its laws over all or parts of Judea and Samaria. The first benefit of this option is that it maintains Israel’s ability to defend itself against security threats emanating from the Palestinians and from the east.

Beyond that, under Israeli law, the civil rights of Palestinians and Jews in Judea and Samaria will be vastly improved. Israel’s liberal legal code is superior to both the military code governing the Jews and the Palestinian Authority’s law of the jackboot which governs the Palestinians.

Whereas the status quo invites and engenders politicization of Israel’s military commanders who serve as the governing authorities of the areas, the third option would end the politicization of the IDF. Generals would take a backseat to elected leaders and government ministries. Police would be responsible for law enforcement. Rather than deploy regular and reserve units to dispel rioters, police, who are better trained for such events, would be judiciously deployed in areas where they are most needed. The IDF’s operations would be limited to counterterrorism.

None of Israel’s actual three options will necessarily enhance its international standing. This is the case because, as we have seen, Israel’s international standing has little to do with anything Israel does.

But then again, by exhibiting strength, and forcefully asserting its rights, Israel may find itself winning the respect of some foreign governments that currently view it is weak and open to blackmail.

This brings us to Kerry’s questions about a one-state model.

Kerry asked, “How does Israel possibly maintain its character as a Jewish and democratic state when from the river to the sea there would not even be a Jewish majority?” The answer is easily. Israel will retain its strong Jewish majority, and its commitment to democracy, after it applies its laws to Judea and Samaria.

Kerry asked, “Would millions of Palestinians be given the basic rights of Israeli citizens including the right to vote, or would they be relegated to a permanent underclass?” The answer is yes, they would be given the basic rights of Israeli citizens, including the right to vote, and no, they would not be relegated to a permanent underclass.

Kerry asked, “Would the Israelis and Palestinians living in such close quarters have segregated roads and transportation systems with different laws applying in the Palestinian enclaves?” The answer is, no.

Kerry asked, “Would anyone really believe they were being treated equally?” The answer is that, as we have seen repeatedly, no matter what Israel does, and no matter what the Palestinians do, people like Kerry will always claim that Israel is mistreating the Palestinians.

Kerry asked, “What would the international response be to that, my friends, or to a decision by Israel to unilaterally annex large portions of the West Bank?” The answer, again, is that the international response to such a move would be about the same as the international response to the continuation of the status quo or to an Israel withdrawal. To wit, the response will be hostile to Israel.

Kerry asked, “How could Israel ever have true peace with its neighbors, as the Arab Peace Initiative promises and as every Arab leader I have met with in the last year reinforces to me as recently as in the last month that they are prepared to do?” The answer is that Israel can have true peace with the Arab world when the Arab world accepts the legitimacy and permanence of the Jewish state.

Kerry asked, “How will [Arab states make peace]… if there is no chance for a two-state solution?” The answer is that they will make peace when they decide they want peace and they rid their societies of Jew hatred.

Kerry asked, “How will the Arab street in today’s world let… [the two-state solution] go by?” The answer is that the Arab street doesn’t believe in the “two-state solution.” The Arab street wants the dissolution of Israel.

Finally, Kerry asked, “And wouldn’t Israel risk being in perpetual conflict with millions of Palestinian living in the middle of a state?” The answer is that Israel is at risk of perpetual conflict with the Palestinians and the Arab world as a whole for as long as the Arabs hate Jews. The millions of Palestinians living within Israel’s borders constitute a far smaller strategic danger to Israel than the millions of Jew-hating Arabs, who have terrorist armies, perched on its international borders.

At the outset of his remarks, Kerry explained that as far as US Middle East policy is concerned, “Our goal, our strategy is to help ensure that the builders and the healers throughout the region have the chance that they need to accomplish their tasks.”

Sadly, this is neither a goal nor a strategy. It is the sort of platitude you’re likely to find inside a Chinese fortune cookie.

If Kerry is interested in an actual strategy, he can fork out 20 bucks and buy my book.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

____________________

All right reserved, Caroline Glick. 2015

About Caroline B. Glick

Get Rid of the Trojan Horse


Muslim Trojan Horse 3

John R. Houk

© June 30, 2014

 

I read an editorial by Joseph Farah in which the title says everything, “2-State Solution is Dead”. Of course the title is due to the Arab-Israeli conflict that has been going on between Jews desiring the return of their Biblically ordained Homeland, even before Israel became a nation, and Arab that are culturally taught the Islamic Supremacist concept – once conquered for Islam then always owned by Islam (Dar al-Islam).

 

The premise of Farah’s editorial is based on polls which show that the majority of Arabs that call themselves Palestinians believe in a ONE-State solution in which all Jews are exterminated. In case the word “exterminated” didn’t sink in. These Arabs calling themselves Palestinians desire a Palestinian State in which Jews are ethnically cleansed from the Holy Land.

 

Farah stating that the 2-State Solution is dead implies (but not actually stated) the only alternative then is a One-State Solution. Didn’t I just write that is exactly what the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians believe? Indeed I did; however the One-State Solution implied by Farah is one sovereign Israel that includes Judea-Samaria (labeled West Bank by Jordan and occupied land by Arabs and blind Liberals – SEE ALSO HERE). Frankly I would include Gaza but the Jews that lived there that actually operated prospering businesses, were forced to leave by now deceased Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Sharon, whether an actual change in stands or forced by arm twisting by the EU & USA, created a term called Disengagement. Sharon’s Disengagement was to unilaterally transport Jews outside of Gaza as a precursor to an independent Palestine. That mistake resulted in the Islamic terrorist organization Hamas (dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews) seizing control of Gaza and setting up a terrorist military structure armed with ballistic missiles that wasted no time to be aimed at Israeli cities. This should have proved to the world that the Land for Peace concept as a deceptive scam in the agenda to destroy Israel rather than a Palestinian State living in peaceful coexistence with Israel.

 

The concern of pro-Israel supporters is that extending sovereignty over Judea-Samaria under the current democratic political system in Israel would lead to an Arab birthrate population explosion that would make Jews the minority electorate in their own homeland. In which case a Muslim majority would democratically end the Jewish State in favor of a Muslim State basing the rule of law upon Islamic Sharia. Just view the manner in which Muslim dominated nations treat their minority Christian population to get a snapshot of what would happen to Jews in their own Homeland under Sharia Law. Then realize the hatred in Muslim lands for Jews dwarfs in comparison Muslims disdain Christians in Muslim lands.

 

Might the Jewish Israel begin their own version of ethnic cleansing JUST as the Muslim neighbors intend for Jews? Israel’s rule of law has a Western orientation. Even though Jews have faced ethnic cleansing for a better part of their existence after their last expulsion from their Homeland, I doubt Israel would utilize the same method to solve a majority Muslim problem. After all Israel is experiencing the same political polarization between Left and Right as America currently is. I am hopefully guessing the cough compassionate Liberal Jews would not stand for anything to do with ethnic cleansing. There might be a very small minority of Israeli Conservatives that favor some sort of ethnic cleansing or actual political apartheid but most politically Conservative Jews are sane enough to join the cough compassionate Liberal Jews. So unlike Muslim Arabs gaining control democratically of the Holy Land that would stoop to ethnic cleansing, Israel would not.

 

It is my humble politically incorrect opinion the best option for a ONE-State Israel Solution is a forced expulsion of Arabs that hate Jews. This is one practice that Jews have experienced first-hand over thousands of years. However, unlike Jews, an Arab expulsion would be sending them to Muslim majority nations. The Jewish Diaspora NEVER resulted in a Jewish majority in any non-Jewish land.

 

At this point Liberals (Leftists, Progressives, etc.) are howling for me to experience the noose and Muslims for my stoning or beheading. Think about it though. Because of the Islamic Supremacist concept Dar al-Islam vs. Dar al-Harb, we will always see Muslim nations trying retake the Holy Land. Ergo, the best viability for the Jewish State of Israel is to rid the nation of its Islamic Trojan Horse –expulsion of Jew-hating Muslims.

 

JRH 6/30/14

Please Support NCCR

*********************************

2-STATE SOLUTION IS DEAD

Exclusive: Joseph Farah reveals reality behind efforts for Israeli-Palestinian peace deal

 

By Joseph Farah

June 29, 2014

WorldNetDaily

 

It’s official – or should be.

 

The much-championed, so-called two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict should never be mentioned again as even a remote possibility. The “international community,” as it is known, as well as the nation of Israel, needs to declare it dead, buried, pushing up daisies.

Why?

 

Because it is. We just need a coroner to come and make it official. We have to get beyond denial and recognize reality.

 

The reality is that the very people for whom the two-state solution was dreamed up to satisfy have rejected it resoundingly as an option.

 

Last week, a poll commissioned by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy found a clear majority of so-called Palestinians in Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip rejects the idea of creating a Palestinian state in those territories.

 

In Judea and Samaria, 55 percent said they reject the idea in favor of exterminating all Jews from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. In Gaza, fully 68 percent took that position.

How anyone could think that creating yet another radical Islamic state in the Middle East is a solution for anything is beyond me – poll or no poll. But clearly, the solution that has been de rigueur for 25 years, is not going to make anyone happy – least of all Arab Palestinians.

 

The poll results are even worse than that when you scrutinize the numbers carefully. They show that less than one-third of Arab Palestinians actually support a two-state solution in which Arabs live peacefully alongside a Jewish state. Nearly two-thirds of the Arab population says “resistance should continue until all of historic Palestine is liberated.”

 

It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.

 

Experience more of Joseph Farah’s no-nonsense truth-telling in his books, audio and video products, featured in the WND Superstore

 

For decades, the Arab leadership, inside the territories and outside, has been fostering anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hatred and a victimization mentality in its schools, its media, its popular culture and in its own rhetoric. They indoctrinate the population, from the earliest age, to embrace jihad and martyrdom as the only acceptable path. Under the circumstance, it’s amazing the level of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish terrorism and violence is not higher.

 

The institute’s scholars got it right in their analysis of the poll: “U.S. policy should seriously consider abandoning all hope now of a permanent Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.” They suggested focusing on “immediate steps to lower tensions.”

 

Those steps should include a complete suspension of aid to the territories until all incendiary and provocative and anti-Semitic government, school and media rhetoric ceases. Since that will never happen, the U.S. and other aid could be put to much more constructive use.

 

These polls, by the way, are as close to free elections as anything in which Arab Palestinians get a chance to a chance to participate. So it is truly meaningful.

 

This has always been Israel’s problem, try as it might to make peace.

 

How do you make peace with a neighbor who doesn’t want it? How do you make peace with a neighbor who is sworn to murder you? How do you make peace with a neighbor who is sworn to killing you, your family, your community, your entire nation?

 

That’s what Israel is up against and has been up against since it was reborn as a nation-state 66 years ago. Things aren’t getting better. They are getting worse.

 

So why not try something new?

 

There’s an old saying, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.”

 

It doesn’t work. It’s not rational. It’s not scientific. It’s no sensible.

 

Has anyone noticed in the U.S. State Department? Not a chance.

 

Because the U.S. State Department has never been accused of being pragmatic, rational, scientific or sensible.

__________________________________

Get Rid of the Trojan Horse

John R. Houk

© June 30, 2014

_________________________________

2-STATE SOLUTION IS DEAD

 

Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact media@wnd.com.

 

© Copyright 1997-2014. All Rights Reserved. WND.com

 

About Joseph Farah:

 

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators News Service.. He is the author or co-author of 13 books, including his latest, “The Tea Party Manifesto,” and his classic, “Taking America Back,now in its third edition and 14th printing. Farah is the former editor of the legendary Sacramento Union and other major-market dailies.

The Winds of Anti-Semitism


Dry Bones - Israel - Prez vs PM history

 

This year from sunset on May 5th through sunset on May 6th Israel celebrated its Independence achieved by hard fighting in 1948 after five (or six) invading Arab armies came at the newly formed Israel (SEE Also HERE) to steal the Jewish homeland again. The miracle is Israel survived the Arab-Muslim aim of exterminating Jews and terminating the Jewish State.

 

Justin Smith writes an essay that touches on the recent Independence Day and Secretary John Kerry’s insidious pro-Palestinian accusation of calling Israel an apartheid state.

 

JRH 5/10/14

Please Support NCCR

***************************

The Winds of Anti-Semitism

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 5/10/2014 1:48 PM

 

For the past sixty-six years of this modern era, Israel has been forced to defend itself, day in and day out, from a cohesive group of fifty-seven Islamic nations across the globe, even though, since its new founding – “the Jewish State, to be called ‘Israel'” – on “the eve of the Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), Israel has appealed to the Muslims to preserve peace and participate in the rebuilding of the State on the basis of “full and equal citizenship”. But now, the decades have shown that the Islamofascists want nothing less than all of “Palestine” and the destruction of Israel, and Israel is doubly indemnified by an evil wind of anti-Semitism blowing through the international community, the U.S. State Department and the Obama administration.

 

On April 23, 2014, a nine-month long “peace talk” series of negotiations collapsed, after the White House and Secretary of State John Kerry seemed reluctant to introduce a more reasoned approach, that did not require so much more of Israel than it did the Palestinian Authority. Kerry was on a fool’s errand, if he actually thought Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would agree to expel 650,000 Jews living in so-called “Palestinian territory”, such as East Jerusalem; this same day, Kerry’s final-status agreement died, as Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) leaders held hands aloft with those of the Hamas terrorists, and Israel immediately froze any further talks indefinitely.

 

On April 28th, 2014 during a White House meeting, Obama attempted to coerce and intimidate Israel by issuing a veiled threat that the U.S. might not be able to properly defend or protect Israel, if the U.S. led peace talks were not soon renewed. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded that he would never compromise on Israel’s security.

 

A few days after Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas signed a unity deal with Hamas and the Islamic Jihad terrorist groups, John Kerry told the Trilateral Commission (April 29), in a blatant act of anti-Semitism, that if Israel does not cut a deal with the Palestinians soon, it will either cease to be a Jewish state or it will become “an apartheid state.” This represents the first time a sitting U.S. Secretary of State has publicly endorsed an anti-Semitic view of Jews and the Jewish state.

 

With anti-Semites such as Obama and John Kerry at the helm of these peace talks, how could anyone expect them to succeed?

 

According to the 1998 Rome Statute, Apartheid is a crime of intent, not outcome. The Palestinians across their political and ideological spectrum have the malicious intent to found a state based on anti-Jewish bigotry and ethnic cleansing, while no Israeli leader or faction has any intention of basing national policies on racial subjugation in any form.

 

And yet, it is the Palestinians who demand that many areas designated for their homeland must be cleansed of all Jewish presence, before they will agree to accept sovereign responsibility for it. These “peace-loving” Muslims are so imbued with genocidal hatred for Jews that they insist all 650,000 Jews living in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria must be forcibly removed from their homes.

 

So who is it that wants an “Apartheid State”, if not the PLO and their champion John Kerry?

 

To make matters worse, Tzipi Livni, Israeli Justice Minister and chief negotiator, has regularly weakened Israel’s position and enabled Kerry’s hostile and bigoted policy views, because she owes both positions largely to the Obama administration’s support. And, then of course there are the leftist Jews of J-Street, an American Jewish group, who use deceptive rhetoric to agitate against Israel, have embraced the PLO’s unity pact with Hamas and the Islamic Jihad and are now defending Kerry’s “apartheid” remarks.

 

Last month President Abbas signed 15 international treaties after the collapse of the peace talks. Two of these were the Geneva Convention of 1949 and the 1977 protocols on the laws of war. By signing these, the PLO leaders believe they are now recognized as an “occupied state”, which if true would undermine Israel’s contention that the 1967 territories are disputed.

 

Mustafa Barghouti, a member of the PLO’s central council, stated on April 29th: “We will proceed with UN treaties and gradually into UN agencies, the last of which will be the International Criminal Court”, as he suggested that the Palestinian’s would pursue Israel’s “war crimes” and that “There will be a moment when Israel will be brought to justice.”

 

Former Mossad intelligence director, Efraim Halevy told Israel Radio, “In the eyes of our rivals, it is in the end of the day a sign of weakness__ because they get something without giving anything”. But a senior officer stated, “Official rebuke, special reports, fact-finding missions and condemnations__ they (the PLO) are not ready for that,” as he alluded to how easy it is to show that human rights are being systematically violated everyday in Gaza.

 

“On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their state is irrevocable” (The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel).

 

Unilateral actions hold very clear lessons and dangers, as Israel learned through a 2005 disengagement from Gaza with thousands of rockets raining down on southern Israel, something Mahmoud Abbas may well soon discover. PLO negotiator, Saeb Erekat recently stated, “Israel cannot maintain the status quo”, and he is right, for reasons far removed from his own.

 

The propaganda and twisted rhetoric of the Islamofascists/ the PLO have led them into a dream of destruction and bloodshed, of injustice masquerading as justice and rights based upon falsehoods. And now, Abbas is considering a move to disband the Palestinian Authority and its security forces, to burden Israel with the responsibility for “the state under occupation”, scape-goating the Jewish state and inhumanely using “Palestinian refugees” as a war weapon against Israel; so, in light of this fact, Israel must move swiftly towards a One-State Solution, annexing Gaza and the West Bank, and in the process, Israel must correct the detrimental effects of 66 years of bending over backwards in the name of peace and human dignity.

 

“This is the natural right of the Jewish people to be the masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign state…..Placing our trust in the Almighty, we affix our signatures to this proclamation….on the soil of the Homeland, in the city of Tel Aviv…..” signed: David Ben – Gurion and 37 other founders of the State of Israel (Establishment of the State of Israel).

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________________

Editor John R. Houk

© Justin O. Smith