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

 

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.

 

MUSLIMS IN MIAMI SCREAM: ‘WE ARE HAMAS’


Why Hamas is Evil

Tom Trento examines the Jew-hatred of the Islamic Terrorist organization Hamas. The Jew-haters receiving international sympathy from the Western World for Israel kicking their tails for sending missiles on Israeli cities is occurring in our very own nation the United States of America. In the cross post you will see below at the end of the Trento introduction you will view a video that begins with Muslim Hamas sympathizers spewing love for the Jew-haters saying a ditty that Palestine will be free. Trento explains that due to the reason that Hamas exists could be better read as Palestine will be JEW free.

 

JRH 7/25/14

Please Support NCCR

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

MUSLIMS IN MIAMI SCREAM: ‘WE ARE HAMAS’

 

By Tom Trento

23 Jul 2014

Breitbart.com – Breitbart TV

 

For all the Baby Boomers out in media land, could there be a jingle more annoying than Wendy’s, octogenarian with her nails-scratching-on-the-chalkboard, “WHERE’S THE BEEF?” Well, lately if you have been anywhere near a street corner in a major city or close to an electronic device that emits  sounds, then undoubtedly you have heard the battle jingle of the “Arab Street” along with their pseudo-Marxist trust fund baby comrades, together spewing, “From-the-River-to-the-Sea, Palestine-will-be-Free.” Though this little ditty has a melodic tone and maybe a good hip-hop rapper can make it jump, the curious among you may want to ask, “Hey, what does that river-to-the-sea business actually mean?”

 

That question can be answered quite eloquently by way of a detailed historical analysis going back to the Founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Al-Banna where in his writings, he desires to mobilize Muslims to recapture of glorious supremacy of the “Arabian Nights” crushing the infidel and raising a scimitar in victorious praise of Allah the majestic! Or our little Arab Street jingle can be fully understood by just adding one word – JEW. You see, Al-Banna realized that the only way Palestine could be free was if that freedom went from the river, the Jordan River on the eastern border of Israel to the sea, the Mediterranean Sea, on the western border of Israel. Again it is at this point that the mildly curious asks, “Free from what?” What must Israel be free of that is so important to the Founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1920’s and to the Armani Jihadis on the street corners today? What freedom do these followers of the Religion of Peace want when they all chant in unison, “From-the-River-to-the-Sea, Palestine-will-be-Free” becoming increasingly louder and more violent at the mere appearance of a Star of David on a child’s yarmulke? For the answer to this perplexing question let’s look at that one word again – JEW. If you take that word – JEW – and place it in our cute Arab rhyme then the code is broken, the puzzle solved and genocide is served on a historic platter. Here, take a look at this revised version and you will have eyes that see the obliteration of Israel and the Jew: “From-the-River-to-the-Sea, Palestine-will-be-JEW-Free.”

 

Ask the true followers of Mohamed and they will tell you, “yeah, yeah, yeah, maybe is some other lifetime Israel was the homeland of the Jews but since the conquest of Mohamedism in the Holy Land, that formerly Jewish real estate has now become Waqf, the Arabic concept of “sacred space.” Or to state it a bit more colloquially, “From-the-River-to-the-Sea, Palestine-will-be-JEW-Free.”

 

As Israel is in a battle for its very existence watch our special presentation and understand that the HAMAS members on the street corner in Miami are the same exact people that the IDF are fighting in the tunnels of Gaza. In a very real sense the disposition of the war in Gaza will have a profound effect on the wannabe jihadis in Miami. If HAMAS is victorious in Gaza, which means anything less than their total military destruction, then our home-grown Miami HAMAS will pen a new iteration of an this old jingle and it will go something like this:

 

“From-the-Miami-River-to-the-Atlantic-Sea, Miami-will-finally-be-JEW-Free.”

 

Tom Trento, for The United West

 

VIDEO: PALESTINE: JEW FREE

 

Published by theunitedwest

Published on Jul 23, 2014

 

Pro Hamas Rally Miami, FL – Muslims Scream, “Let’s go HAMAS. We are HAMAS!”

Tom Trento does a detailed examination of HAMAS Constitution.

Expert war analysis by Dr. Martin Sherman

________________________________

Copyright © 2014 Breitbart

Breitbart TV

 

THE PALESTINIAN PROBLEM: A REAL SOLUTION


Dry Bones- Property Israel-PA

I mentioned in this post, “Support Israel – Blessings Follow” that I would post three Think-Israel essays that would be offensive to Leftists and Islamic Supremacists. After reading the first essay (“An Alternative 2-State Solution”) was an immensely longer monograph than I anticipated. Below is essay number two: “THE PALESTINIAN PROBLEM: A REAL SOLUTION.”

 

JRH 11/16/10

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

THE PALESTINIAN PROBLEM: A REAL SOLUTION

 

By Martin Sherman

 September/October 2010

Think-Israel

 

From Israel’s point of view, the “two-state/land for peace” solution to the Palestinian conflict has proven to be a long, drawn out failure that should have been abandoned long ago. It is only because many prominent political figures have foolishly mortgaged their personal and professional prestige in the name of this unworkable position that it manages to remain a live option — to the grave detriment of Israelis and Palestinians alike.

 

Any dispassionate evaluation of the events of the past two decades invariably leads one to accept the following conclusion: that the Palestinians seem far more focused on annulling Jewish political independence than attaining Palestinian political independence. That is to say, Palestinians are far more committed to the deconstruction of the Jewish State than to construction of a Palestinian one.

 

However, no matter how convincingly one can show that the Palestinians as a national entity have failed to create their own national destiny, a stark reality remains: there are hundreds of thousands of essentially disenfranchised Palestinian families residing both in Israeli territory and in the wider Arab world.

 

Addressing this situation requires a comprehensive solution comprised of three constituent elements, all eminently consistent with liberal political doctrine. Two involve eliminating discriminatory practices against the Palestinians as refugees and as residents in Arab countries. The third involves facilitating free choice for individual Palestinians to determine their own future.

 

Eliminating the UNRWA

 

As Daniel Pipes has pointed out, the persistence and scale of the Palestinian refugee problem is, to a large degree, an artificial construct. The UN body under whose auspices all the refugees on the face of the globe fall — except for the Palestinians — is the UN Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). A separate institution exists for the Palestinians — the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. UNHCR and UNRWA have widely different definitions for the term “refugee” and widely divergent mandates for dealing with them.

 

According to the High Commission’s definition, the number of refuges decreases over time, while according to the UNRWA definition, the number increases. This “definition disparity” brings about an astonishing situation: If the High Commission criterion was applied to the Palestinians, the number of refugees would shrink dramatically to around 200,000 — i.e., less than 5 percent of the current number of almost 5 million according to the UNRWA definition.

 

Moreover, while the mandate of the UNHCR permits the body to seek permanent solutions for refugees under its auspices, UNRWA is permitted only to provide ongoing humanitarian aid for the ever-increasing population of Palestinians. Accordingly, while UNHCR operates to dissipate the problems of the refugees under its auspices, UNRWA activities serve only to prolong their refugee status and thus, their predicament. Indeed, rather than reduce the dimensions of the refugee problem, UNRWA has actually functioned to perpetuate the refugee status of the Palestinians from one generation to the next. It has create (sic) an enduring and expanding culture of dependency, while cultivating an unrealistic fantasy of returning to a home that no longer exists.

 

As long as the Palestinian refugee problem continues to be treated in what former Congressman Tom Lantos called “this privileged and prolonged manner” it will never be resolved. Accordingly, the first step toward the resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem must be the abolition of UNRWA and the transfer of responsibility for the matter to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. This move will facilitate the gradual tapering off of support for what should be a decreasing Palestinian refugee population.

 

Eliminating Arab Discrimination against Palestinians

 

Throughout the Arab world, the Palestinians are subject to blatant discrimination with regard to employment opportunities, property ownership, freedom of movement, and acquisition of citizenship. For example, Saudi Arabia in 2004 announced it was introducing measures to ease the attainment of Saudi citizenship for all foreigners who were residing in the country except Palestinians, half a million of whom live in the kingdom.

 

Similar policies of discrimination are prevalent in other Arab states. A 2004 Los Angeles Times report painted a grim picture of the life Palestinians are forced to endure among the Arab “brethren.” According to the report, Palestinians in Egypt suffer restrictions on employment, education, and owning property, and when Egypt announced in 2003 that it would grant nationality to children of Egyptian mothers married to foreigners, Palestinians were excluded. In Lebanon, meanwhile, nearly 400,000 Palestinians live in 12 “refugee camps,” where crime is rife and clashes between rival Palestinian factions are common. Palestinians cannot own property or get state health care. According to Tayseer Nasrallah, head of the Palestinian Refugee Rights Committee in the West Bank, Lebanon bans refugees from 72 areas of employment, including medicine and engineering. Syria, with a population of 18 million, is a strong verbal supporter of the Palestinian cause, but refuses citizenship to its 410,000 Palestinian refugees. Even in Jordan, where Palestinians comprise nearly 70% of the population, Palestinians complain that they are discriminated against in terms of employment.

 

When approached on this issue of discrimination against the Palestinian residents in Arab countries, Hisham Youssef, spokesman for the 22-nation Arab League, openly acknowledged that Palestinians live “in very bad conditions,” but claimed the policy is meant “to preserve their Palestinian identity.” He went on to explain with perhaps unintended candor: “If every Palestinian who sought refuge in a certain country was integrated and accommodated into that country, there won’t be any reason for them to return to Palestine.”

 

But according to a survey conducted by the well-known Palestinian pollster, Dr. Khalil Shikaki, most Palestinians were less interested in being nationalist standard-bearers than in living fuller lives. This view resonates strongly with opinion samples gathered by the leading Arab television stations Al-Arabiya and Al Jazeera of Palestinians living in the various Arab states, the vast majority of whom very much want to become citizens in the their respective countries of residence.

 

This clearly seems to indicate that Palestinian national identity is something more jealously guarded by non-Palestinian Arabs rather than the Palestinians themselves.

 

It is only the United Nations Relief and Works Agency that allows the Arab countries to continue to keep the Palestinians within their borders in their situation of suspended stateless animation. For while its mandate prevents finding a permanent solution for the Palestinian residents in these countries, it is the ongoing humanitarian aid that it provides for an ever-increasing client population that permits the host governments to sustain their discriminatory policy toward their Palestinian “guests,” to perpetuate their inferior status, and to allow their situation to languish and fester.

 

Allowing Individual Palestinians the Exercise of Free Will

 

If the first two elements of the proposed solution — abolishing the UNRWA and attacking the discrimination Palestinian émigrés (SlantRight Editor: I am guessing the word was meant to be “immigrants.” The present rendering is how it looks at Think-Israel.) suffer in other Arab countries — are directed mainly toward easing the plight the Palestinians living outside the West Bank and Gaza, a third element is aimed directly and exclusively at those living inside these areas.

 

After decades of disastrous failure, it should be clear that there is little chance of resolving the Palestinian issue if we continue to consider Palestinians as a cohesive entity with which contacts are conducted via some sort of “leadership.” Efforts should therefore be devoted exclusively towards individual Palestinians and towards allowing them, as individuals, free choice as to how to chart their future.

 

These efforts should be channeled in two major ways:

 

·       Generous monetary compensation to aid the relocation and rehabilitation of the Palestinian residents in territories outside the confines of the 1967 “Green Line,” presumably — but not necessarily — in the Arab/Moslem world.

 

·       Making the offer of compensation and relocation directly to the heads of families and not through any collective Palestinian entity or organizational framework.

 

It should be stipulated that an offer of financially-induced relocation made to a Palestinian political leadership would be vehemently rejected. But the approach suggested here would be made directly by an Israeli (or possibly an appropriately constituted international) entity, to the individual recipients. The scale of the offer would be on the order of the average lifetime earnings in some relevant host country for each family head — i.e. the GDP per capita of such a country multiplied by at least say 40-50 years. (As a comparative yardstick, this would be equivalent to an immigrant bread-winner arriving in the US with 2-2.5 million dollars.)

 

Thus, each household breadwinner would be confronted with three possible choices: life under the rigors of Israeli rule; life under the harrowing hardships of some Palestinian regime, with commensurately dimmer prospects of a better life for the family; or a sum of money equivalent to the life earning of an average citizen in countries that could serve as an appropriate alternative place of residence — probably, but dominantly Arab or Muslim countries in the Middle East and North Africa, or countries with significant Arab/Moslem communities in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia.

 

It is of course possible that elements in the existing Palestinian institutional establishment would embark on a campaign to dissuade their constituencies from accepting any financial package for relocation. However, such harassment could be used to expose the cynicism of Palestinian “leaders” who lack the capability and perhaps even the desire to create a state, but threaten those who want to break the cycle of perpetual refugee-hood.

 

In fact, there is evidence that supports the plausibility of this proposal. A November 2004 survey commissioned by the Jerusalem Summit and conducted by a reputable Palestinian polling center and in conjunction with a well-know (sic) Israeli institute to gauge Palestinians’ willingness to emigrate permanently in exchange for material compensation. Significantly, the poll showed that only 15% of those polled would absolutely refuse to accept any such inducements, while over 70% stated that they would be willing to take the bargain.

 

The Acceptability of the Offer to the Prospective Host Countries

 

For the prospective host countries the proposal has considerable potential economic benefits. The Palestinians arriving at their gates will not be impoverished refugees, but relatively prosperous individuals with the equivalent of decades of local per capita GDP in their pockets. Indeed, for every hundred Palestinian families received, the host country could count on around fifteen to twenty million dollars going directly into the private sector. Absorbing 2,500 new Palestinian family units could mean the injection of up to half a billion into local economies often in dire need of such funds.

 

There are 2.5 to 4 million people in the West Bank and Gaza. The numbers of families/households (the relevant unit for receipt of compensation) would be in a range of 600,000- 800,000.

 

If each family head were offered a relocation grant of between $150,000 to $200,000, this would be the equivalent of several decades, and in some cases centuries, of GNP per capita earnings in any one of a wide range of prospective host destinations (see table). Indeed, even in terms of the average overall world per capita GDP (about $7000 U.S.) — such grants would be the equivalent of up to a quarter of a century GNP per capita. (As mentioned previously, in comparative terms, this would be equivalent to a bread winner arriving in the US with 2-2.5 million dollars.)

 

In terms of current estimated GNP per capita in the Palestinian administered territories, the grants would be the equivalent of between over a half-century to more than a century of income.

 

Palestinian GNP Chart

 

The aggregate cost of the proposal would be between $45 — 80 billion (depending on whether the relocation grant was $100,000 or $200,000). Extending the relocation to the entire Palestinian population would effectively entail doubling the required outlay to $90-160 billion. Israel’s GNP is around $150 billion. If it were to declare that it was prepared to devote annually 4-6% of its GNP to the resolution of the Palestinian problem — i.e. offering an annual sum of $6-9 billion — the entire project could conceivably be implemented within a decade and a half. (It should be noted that the current Oslo process, with all the enormous expense it has entailed, has been going on for almost two decades, producing only catastrophic failure and tragedy.)

 

If international donors such as the USA, the EU or OECD countries matched Israel’s input dollar-for-dollar (which would involve contributing only a miniscule portion of these countries’ GNP), the implementation could be sped up considerably, possible within 5 years, without undue burden on the world economy.

 

In any case, the overall cost of the “two-state-solution” would, in all likelihood, be far greater. For even discounting the increased defense cost that Israel would have to incur if required to return to indefensible pre-1967 frontiers, there would still be huge costs. These would include the immense outlays required for the establishment and maintenance of the required physical infrastructure, and bureaucratic and organizational frameworks needed to make the micro-landlocked Palestinian state viable. Also, it should not be forgotten that if a Palestinian state were ever to be acheived, Arab regimes currently hosting Palestinian populations might begin impatiently (possibly coercively) pressing for their return to their newly established homeland. The cost of relocating a large “refugee” population in the nascent Palestinian state could be huge.

 

Conclusion

 

The time has come to recognize that for well over half a century, the Palestinians have been unable to produce a credible, competent, and capable leadership with the capacity to achieve statehood. This is in spite of highly favorable conditions such as robust international support and political pressure brought upon the Israelis.

 

The choice made time and again by this leadership is to prioritize the elimination of Israel over the creation of “Palestine.” This effort seriously undermines the moral and political bona fides of the Palestinian narrative, which has become the basis not only of Palestinian claims for statehood, but also for the much of the international acrimony directed against Israel.

 

The time has come to remove the noisome issue of Palestinian statehood from the international agenda, and address the enduring Palestinian humanitarian predicament (after all, there is a majority Palestinian state, which is Jordan); to abandon the approach of relating to the Palestinians as a collective entity. Instead we should treat them as individuals deserving a better fate than the one thrust on them by cynical leaders and neighboring states.

 

The time has come for imaginative new initiatives to defuse and disperse one of the global community’s most volatile problems.

 

Offering individual Palestinian families generous relocation grants is a solution that will dramatically and immediately improve the lot of individual Palestinians; defuse the Palestinian humanitarian “crisis”; ensure the continued survival of Israel as the state of the Jewish people; and inject billions of dollars of funds into the economies of low income nations who welcome the Palestinians.

 

This is a proposal that deserves debate and discussion. As it stands now, the Palestinians have nothing to lose but the chains in which their leaders have imprisoned them.

______________________________

Martin Sherman is the 2009-2010 visiting Israeli Schusterman scholar at USC/HUC-JIR and the academic director of the Jerusalem Summit. He lectures at Tel Aviv University, served in Israel’s defense establishment and was a ministerial adviser to the Yitzhak Shamir government. See also: Martin Sherman, “Palestinians have proven “state” would jeopardize Israel’s security” in this video.

 

This article appeared August 3, 2010 in Front Page Magazine
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/08/03/%20the-palestinian-problem-a-real-solution-2/