Amona? How many times before we lose our national soul? - by Vic Rosenthal

...Do we care about Judea and Samaria and the Jews that live there? If so, we need to commit, to act as though we truly are the sovereign power; as Annika Hernroth-Rothstein wrote, to make a marriage and not just an extended engagement. Zionism demands it. If not – well, I don’t want to think about the alternative.

Vic Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
16 December '16..

I have avoided writing about Amona until now. This is because the legal issues surrounding the notion of land ownership in Judea and Samaria are so arcane that one legal scholar (email correspondence) wrote that “the number of people who have a good understanding of West Bank property law can be counted on one hand.” And I don’t want to add to the noise by writing yet another amateur legal brief about it. There are, though, some things that are clear and worth saying.

First of all, let me state my prejudices: I do not believe Jews living in Judea and Samaria are an “obstacle to peace,” nor do I think that Jewish communities there are illegal or even “illegitimate,” whatever that means. Indeed, I think that Jews settling anywhere in the land of Israel are performing a religious and Zionist mitzvah, and I’m all for it. Those who find this position offensive can stop reading now.

The last time I mentioned Amona, someone took me to task for advocating “land theft.” It’s private Palestinian land, he said. What more do you need to know? Well, actually there is a great deal to know. Some of the complexities are discussed here. It’s worthwhile reading if you care about more than slogans.

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Insult Or An Excuse for Betrayal? - by Jonathan S. Tobin

...To the contrary, the kind of inflammatory rhetoric used in the administration statement has all the earmarks of yet another ginned-up spat intended to create more distance between the U.S. and Israel. If there is anything suspicious about the timing, it relates to the Americans’ manufactured umbrage. If the president is planning on leaving office with one final, devastating parting shot at Israel and Netanyahu, he needs a casus belli to justify betraying an ally at a United Nations that is already prejudiced against Israel and riddled with anti-Semitism.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
06 October '16..
Link: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/israel/insult-or-an-excuse-for-betrayal-settlements/

The decision of the Obama administration to issue a full throttle condemnation of Israel over new housing in the West Bank is an ill omen for the post-election conduct of the outgoing president when it comes to Palestinian efforts at the United Nations in November and December.

The administration’s complaint is focused on the announcement of a new development with 98 houses in the West Bank. Unlike the new neighborhoods built in Jerusalem since the Six Day War or the settlement blocs that are adjacent to the 1967 borders, the homes are in an area that might be expected to be part of a Palestinian state in the event of a two-state solution peace deal. Washington is also offended at the timing since it comes just after President Obama’s visit to the country for the funeral of Shimon Peres. The administration is trying to spin this as an “insult” to the president in the way it attempted to portray a routine housing announcement as a slight to Vice President Biden in 2010. The White House alleges that the decision contradicts private and public assurances to the president that no “new” settlements would be built. Administration spokespersons are also trying to portray the decision as evidence of ingratitude since it comes weeks after the signing of a new long-term aid agreement between the U.S. and Israel.

There’s nothing new about the U.S. condemning Israeli building in the West Bank. That long predates Obama. The main distinction between this administration and its predecessors has been the president’s willingness to treat Jerusalem as if it were a remote hilltop settlement. That’s a point that was re-emphasized when the White House transcript of the president’s remarks at Shimon Peres funeral was amended to re-emphasize the American position that Jerusalem—even the Western portion where the Mount Herzl cemetery is located—is not recognized as part of Israel. What makes this attack on Israel’s policies different is the timing and the circumstances.

Truth Versus the Pernicious Myth About ‘Settlement Growth’ - by Michael Rubin

...The more scholars delve into statistics, the more apparent it is that professional peace processors have become so blind to reality that they would discount any data that does not conform to their preconceived assumptions. With so much conventional wisdom about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict unsupported by reality, is it any surprise that U.S. and European diplomacy on the issue has such a poor track record of success?

Image by © Howard Davies/CORBIS

Michael Rubin..
Commentary Magazine..
25 July '16..
Link: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/how-much-are-settlements-growing/

There are four common myths or misconceptions that infuse U.S. and European peace process diplomacy when it comes to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The first is that there are millions of Palestinian refugees. This number is arbitrary, the result of UN sleight-of-hand. After all, the United Nations uses a different definition with regard to Palestinians than it does everywhere else in the world. The late University of Illinois Professor Fred M. Gottheil tackled this issue a decade ago in Middle Eastern Studies.

Then, there is the issue that demographic reality means that Israel must make peace now lest Palestinian population growth mean that Israel will lose its democratic character. At the root of this view, however, is blind acceptance of Palestinian Statistics Agency numbers, as Yakov Faitelson definitively showed in the Middle East Quarterly.

A third myth appeals to the humanitarian impulses embraced by so many across the political spectrum. It holds that the plight of the Palestinians (and especially the Gaza Strip which hasn’t been under occupation for a decade) is a humanitarian tragedy. And while the Palestinian leadership may be tragic in its disdain for life, liberty, and the bettering opportunities and freedoms within society, the simple fact of the matter is that living standards in the Gaza Strip are better than those in Turkey and many other developing countries.

The fourth and perhaps most pernicious myth is that settlements are the chief impediment to fruitful peace talks. A bit of background: The Obama administration entered office putting Israeli settlements in the disputed West Bank front and center. In contrast to his predecessors, President Obama made freezing the expansion of settlements and towns in disputed territories—both in terms of area and population—a prerequisite to further peace talks rather than a subject for diplomatic discussion. In effect, by acting as the zoning commissioner for Jerusalem rather than the leader of the free world, Obama gave Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas a free pass on his refusal to respond to previous Israeli peace offers, be they from 2000 or 2008. The Israeli government might offer talks anytime, anywhere but the Palestinian Authority could and did use Obama’s initial statements as a reason not to engage.

Actually, the standard narrative about Israel is simply wrong on every count - by Evelyn Gordon

...Any government which considers Israeli-Palestinian peace unachievable in the foreseeable future has no choice but to invest in Israel’s internal development, in order to ensure that the country is strong enough to survive without peace. And improving Arab integration is crucial to the country’s internal development because Israeli Arabs, currently underrepresented in both higher education and the work force, represent one of the main potential sources of future economic growth. But proponents of the “far-right-extremism” narrative seem utterly impervious to the facts. So they can only scratch their heads in puzzlement over why Israel’s “most right-wing government ever” is precisely the one that’s taking far-reaching steps to improve the lot of Israeli Arabs.

Image by © Paul A. Souders/CORBIS.

Evelyn Gordon..
Commentary Magazine..
20 June '16..
Link: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/israel/israel-narrative-doesnt-fit-facts/

The standard narrative about Israel these days goes like this: The current government is the most right-wing ever, the public is increasingly racist and anti-democratic, and the prime minister is either a right-wing zealot or a coward afraid to challenge his right-wing base. But the most remarkable part of this narrative is how durable it has proven despite all evidence to the contrary.

The latest such evidence comes from today’s Jerusalem Post report about a massive drop in construction in the settlements. According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, housing starts in the settlements plummeted by 53 percent in the first quarter, compared to an 8.1 percent decline in housing starts nationwide. Needless to say, one would expect settlement construction to soar under Israel’s “most right-wing government ever” and a prime minister captive to his right-wing base. Yet in fact, as I’ve written before, the “right-wing” Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently built less in the settlements than any of his left-wing predecessors–a fact that never seems to disturb proponents of the “far-right extremist” narrative.

Even more noteworthy was a pair of reports in the left-wing daily Haaretz earlier this month about two unprecedented moves to boost equality for Israeli Arabs. The first report noted that the Council for Higher Education, chaired by Education Minister Naftali Bennett of the right-of-center Jewish Home party, is advancing plans for Israel’s first ever BA-granting college in an Arab town. Until now, the only institutes of higher education in Arab towns have been teacher’s colleges. But a tender to set up a BA-granting college closed on May 31, and the CHE is now reviewing the five bids it received. The winner is expected to be announced in another few months, and the new institution is slated to open next year. To help it succeed, the government has promised millions of shekels in start-up funds plus an annual budget of 20 to 40 million shekels (depending on enrollment).

The new institution is expected to significantly increase the number of Arabs, and especially Arab women, obtaining BAs, because many will now be able to live at home and commute to college. Not only will this eliminate the expense of renting apartments near campus, but it also solves the access problem for women from conservative Arab families who are barred by social norms from living away from home.

"Settlements" Not an Obstacle to Peace. Where's the Coverage?

...“Settlements” are only an obstacle if you accept that no Jews can live in a Palestinian state; that Palestine must be, as the Nazis wanted Europe to be, Judenrein (Jew-free). Twenty percent of Israelis are not Jewish – most of them Arabs – yet zero percent of Palestinians can be Jewish? That would be crazy. But none other than the “moderate” Mahmoud Abbas himself, among other Palestinian officials, have said just that....That kind of hatred and bigotry…? THAT is an obstacle to peace. Yet… Where’s the coverage?

Sarit Catz..
CAMERA Snapshots..
05 March '14..

In a recent interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, widely perceived as blaming Israel for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, President Obama never addressed the issue of incitement by Palestinian Authority leaders, media and educational materials to hatred of and violence against Jews and Israelis. He never mentioned the PA policy to celebrate terrorists as heroes and to glorify killers by naming public squares and soccer tournaments after them.

President Obama did, however, refer a number of times to Israeli “settlements.” He agreed that “settlements are illegitimate” and even threatened:

But what I do believe is that if you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction -- and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction over the last couple years than we’ve seen in a very long time -- if Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited.

However, as Evelyn Gordon points out in Commentary, “on this issue, Obama’s ‘facts’ are flat-out wrong.” The article continues:

In reality, as a simple glance at the annual data published by Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics reveals, there has been less settlement construction during Benjamin Netanyahu’s five years as Israeli premier (2009-13) than under any of his recent predecessors.

During those five years, housing starts in the settlements averaged 1,443 a year (all data is from the charts here, here and here plus this news report). That’s less than the 1,702 a year they averaged under Ehud Olmert in 2006-08, who is nevertheless internationally acclaimed as a peacemaker (having made the Palestinians an offer so generous that then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice couldn’t believe she was hearing it). It’s also less than the 1,652 per year they averaged under Ariel Sharon in 2001-05, who is similarly lauded internationally as a peacemaker (for having left Gaza); the fact that even Sharon out-built Netanyahu is particularly remarkable, because his term coincided with the second intifada, when demand for housing in the settlements plummeted. And it’s far less than under Ehud Barak, who is also internationally acclaimed as a peacemaker (for his generous offer at Camp David in 2000): One single year under Barak, 2000, produced more housing starts in the settlements (4,683) than the entire first four years of Netanyahu’s term (4,679).

Whether settlement construction is “aggressive” or not, it is certainly not an obstacle to peace.

Open Letter to the U.S. Secretary of State

...By your repeating this ill-advised determination that Israel's settlements are illegitimate, and by your threatening Israel with a "third Palestinian intifada" and international isolation and delegitimization, you are in fact buying into, and even fueling the Palestinian propaganda narrative, and exerting unfair pressure on Israel. This is equally the case with your insistence on a false and unrealistic time limit to the negotiation.

H/T to Yoram Ettinger..
11 November '13..





The Hon. James Kerry, U.S. Secretary of State,

The State Department,

Washington D.C.

November 8, 2013

Dear Secretary Kerry,

After listening to you declare repeatedly over the past weeks that "Israel's settlements are illegitimate", I respectfully wish to state, unequivocally, that you are mistaken and ill advised, both in law and in fact.

Pursuant to the "Oslo Accords", and specifically the Israel-Palestinian Interim Agreement (1995), the "issue of settlements" is one of subjects to be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations. President Bill Clinton on behalf of the US, is signatory as witness to that agreement, together with the leaders of the EU, Russia, Egypt, Jordan and Norway.

Your statements serve to not only to prejudge this negotiating issue, but also to undermine the integrity of that agreement, as well as the very negotiations that you so enthusiastically advocate.

Your determination that Israel's settlements are illegitimate cannot be legally substantiated. The oft-quoted prohibition on transferring population into occupied territory (Art. 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention) was, according to the International Committee Red Cross's own official commentary of that convention, drafted in 1949 to prevent the forced, mass transfer of populations carried out by the Nazis in the Second World War. It was never intended to apply to Israel's settlement activity. Attempts by the international community to attribute this article to Israel emanate from clear partisan motives, with which you, and the US are now identifying.

The formal applicability of that convention to the disputed territories cannot be claimed since they were not occupied from a prior, legitimate sovereign power.

The territories cannot be defined as "Palestinian territories" or, as you yourself frequently state, as "Palestine". No such entity exists, and the whole purpose of the permanent status negotiation is to determine, by agreement, the status of the territory, to which Israel has a legitimate claim, backed by international legal and historic rights. How can you presume to undermine this negotiation?

Misinformed and erroneous statements are the real obstruction to peace

...In 2009 I was invited to meet Tony Blair, the special envoy of the quartet (the UN, US, Russia and the EU) for the Middle East. At the end of our conversation I invited him to visit the communities whose future we had just discussed. He declined, saying: "I can see them from my helicopter." "From the helicopter," I replied, "you can't see the faces, look into the eyes and understand their aspirations." Blair, like many of his peers, continues to fly over our heads.

Dani Dayan..
The Guardian..
07 June '13..

Catherine Ashton, the EU's high representative for foreign affairs, is a vocal critic of the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria. Referring to them as "settlements", she claimed last week that they "threaten to make a two-state solution impossible" and called on Israel "to immediately end all settlement activities beyond the green line, including East Jerusalem". Obviously, Ashton has never visited a "settlement", like almost all of her colleagues in the international diplomatic high echelons. Nevertheless they consider themselves experts on the matter.

One notable exception is the former US president Jimmy Carter, who visited Gush Etzion in 2009. Carter is well known for his harsh criticism of Israel, considered by many as sheer hostility towards the Jewish state. So shocked was he by the reality on the ground, he stated: "This particular settlement is not one that I envision ever being abandoned, or changed over into a Palestinian territory." The contrast between Carter's statement and Ashton's reminded me of a recent statement by Israel's finance minister, Yair Lapid: "I used to have so many opinions before I learned the facts."

In 2009 I was invited to meet Tony Blair, the special envoy of the quartet (the UN, US, Russia and the EU) for the Middle East. At the end of our conversation I invited him to visit the communities whose future we had just discussed. He declined, saying: "I can see them from my helicopter." "From the helicopter," I replied, "you can't see the faces, look into the eyes and understand their aspirations." Blair, like many of his peers, continues to fly over our heads.

More than 360,000 Israelis live in almost 200 communities across Judea and Samaria, with 200,000 more in East Jerusalem. That's more than half a million people. Our endeavour stands on solid moral ground.

Neumann - Dismantling the ‘settlement’ delusion

Jonathan Neumann..
The Times of Israel..
22 April '12..

Whether from the administration of President Obama or from the pen of Peter Beinart, all one seems to hear is that ‘‘the settlements’’ are the problem. The administration believes that freezing the growth of these communities of Israelis in Judea and Samaria is a prerequisite for negotiations, an interpretation of the conflict that dovetails with Beinart’s and that concludes that their ultimate removal is the very route to peace.

In the meantime, and relatedly, these communities erode Israel’s democratic character, for, as far as Beinart and Peace Now are concerned, the Israel ‘‘beyond the Green Line’’ — the arbitrary armistice border of 1949 — is ‘‘nondemocratic,’’ and this cancer is preying on ‘‘democratic’’ Israel on the other side of the armistice line. As long as, for illustration, the city of Ariel, in Samaria, is considered ‘‘the heart of our country’’ by Prime Minister Netanyahu, Israeli democracy itself is imperilled and a lasting peace settlement is impossible.

However, an honest consideration of realities on the ground recommends a different conclusion. To begin with, all residents of Judea and Samaria, whether Jewish or Arab, have voting rights: the Jews for the Knesset and the Arabs for the Palestinian Authority. That the different leaderships afford them unequal freedoms is no more Israel’s fault than that Arabs across the Middle East seem to prefer electing illiberal governments.

Fresnozionism - Why I support Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria

Fresnozionism.org..
25 March '12..

The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has proposed yet another investigation of Israel’s ‘crimes’, this one in respect to settlements. It passed by a vote of 36 in favor, one opposed (the US), and 10 abstentions. Israel has announced that it won’t cooperate, and is considering withdrawing its ambassador to the UN office in Geneva.

I am not particularly interested in writing another post excoriating the UNHRC or the UN itself, which is a vile institution, far less than worthless. Rather, I want to summarize some important issues about ‘West Bank settlements’ — that is, Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria — and why I support them. Here are a few reasons:

International law — and justice

The League of Nations Mandate called for ‘close settlement’ (see also here) of the land by Jews. UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 call for secure and recognized boundaries for all states in the region, including Israel, to be established by direct negotiations between the parties. Neither the Jews nor the Arab states accepted the 1949 armistice lines as borders, and the ethnic cleansing of Jews in 1948 followed by the illegal Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria until 1967 did not make them so. Jews lived in the territories before 1948, and have as much right to live there today as then.

The argument that the 4th Geneva Convention prohibits the transfer of Jews into ”occupied territories” fails for several reasons, including the status of the Jewish presence there and the original intent of the Geneva Convention.

The Palestinian Arabs wish to establish a state in the territories where Jews will not be permitted to live (statements to the contrary are disingenuous), indeed from which they will be expelled. This is racist.

Fresnozionism - The AP’s Gonzo Journalism

Fresnozionism.org..
31 January '12..





The decay of the traditional Western media into irrelevance continues, as it sinks to the level of the old Soviet Pravda.

News item (the numbering of the paragraphs is mine):

1. (AP) JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has made two overtures to West Bank settlers in the run-up to his party’s leadership race on Tuesday: It’s offering financial incentives to encourage people to move to settlements and opening the door to legalizing rogue settler outposts.

2. The gestures appear to be aimed at appeasing hardline elements in the ruling Likud Party who are sympathetic to settlers. While Netanyahu is expected to win the leadership race, a relatively strong showing by his ultranationalist rival would suggest many Likud voters consider the prime minister too soft on peacemaking with the Palestinians.

3. The moves threatened to derail tentative new peace efforts with the Palestinians. A round of low-level peace negotiations ground to a halt last week, in large part because of Palestinian objections to Israeli settlement construction. U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon is expected in the region Wednesday in an effort to restart the talks…

4. Years ago, the Israeli government halted generous financial enticements designed to encourage Israelis to settle in the West Bank, the occupied territory the Palestinians see as the core of their future state.

5. But in this week’s government decision, 70 settlements appeared on a new list of 557 communities inside Israel and the West Bank that qualify for housing subsidies. The incentives, according to a statement from the prime minister’s office, are “meant to encourage positive migration to these communities.” …

6. In a separate move, the government on Monday appointed a committee to examine land ownership issues in the West Bank. The panel will review a 2005 government report that found several dozen outposts were built not only without state approval, but on privately held Palestinian land. Officials said the report needs to be reviewed because its author, state prosecutor Talia Sasson, later entered politics with a dovish political party, raising questions about her objectivity…

7. …the panel’s makeup aroused suspicions it would legalize at least some of the more than 100 outposts built without government authorization, including dozens Sasson says were erected on privately held Palestinian land.

This is presented as a news story, not an editorial. Let’s look at how its constructed.

In the very first sentence, the idea is introduced that these actions were taken in order to improve PM Netanyahu’s chances in the Likud primary. This may be true to some extent — although his opponent, Moshe Feiglin, is in no way a real threat (initial results show Netanyahu with 63% of the vote vs. Feiglin’s 36) — but surely, unsourced speculation about Netanyahu’s motives does not belong in the lead sentence of a news story.

Feiglin - How Much Do They Cost Us?

Moshe Feiglin
Manhigut Yehudit
7 Av, 5771
(August 7, '11)

http://www.jewishisrael.org/eng_contents/articles/71/article7187.html

Translated from an article written for Ma'ariv's NRG website

When the spokespersons for the social protests engulfing Israel revive the clichés about the money that could have gone to housing wasted on the settlements, they evoke the poltergeist of classic anti-Semitism. The Jew is always to blame, and so is the settler.

Unfortunately, for over a decade the State hasn't invested a shekel in the settlements. Not roads, not infrastructure and not development plans. Not only is there no state investment in the parts of the Land of Israel invaded by King Abdullah in 1948 (with the generous help of Britain) and liberated by the Israel Defense Forces 19 years later, but the State of Israel also absolutely blocks private investment and does not authorize any new construction there. In my community, three young families now share a divided house that used to house one family. Each family pays rent for its third equal to the rents paid in Israel's center. The high rents are not the result of an authentic shortage similar to what people are complaining about in Tel Aviv: it is the result of deliberate policy. The only funds allocated to the municipalities over the Green Line are those earmarked for basic municipal functions such as upkeep of roads and sidewalks, transportation for students and the like. This is the same funding that all municipalities in Israel receive.

The building freeze in Judea and Samaria is one of the main causes (according to a study by Globes) of the housing shortage in Tel Aviv. Ending the building freeze is the only practical solution for quick and affordable housing near the business hubs in Israel's center. It is the cheapest, quickest and most convenient solution for most Israelis. It is also the most just and moral thing to do. But radical leftist singer Aviv Gefen thinks that it is Abdullah who liberated and the IDF that occupied Judea and Samaria, concluding that the most logical and inexpensive solution is a waste of billions of shekels that if they were invested elsewhere, would drastically lower the price of housing in the entire country.

Last week, I was interviewed with MK Yitzchak Herzog on the Channel 2 morning show. We discussed the housing protests in a very amiable atmosphere. But near the end of our slot, Herzog couldn't control himself and pulled the old genie out of the bottle: the "billions" going to the settlements at the expense of the development towns. I didn't ask him about the missiles flying into the development towns in his merit and the merit of his cohorts who rammed Oslo down our collective throats. I didn't want to raise the hate level.

"Do you have statistics?" I asked him in an attempt to keep the conversation businesslike. He didn't, of course. But it wouldn't have mattered even if he did. Because it is not the results of the investigation, but rather, who is investigating and who is being investigated that matters.

A person who talks about the billions going to the settlements is working on the assumption that the settlements are not legitimate and so, every shekel spent there is an exploitation of the tax payer. Likewise, a person who claims that all the State's money is channeled into the yeshivas (schools of higher Torah learning) is working on the assumption that Torah study is an insignificant waste of time.

To me, the Oslo Accords were not legitimate. Besides the death, misery and existential danger that they have brought upon us, we are also paying for them to the tune of 10% of our nation budget; approximately 15 billion dollars a year.

In other words, it is easy to claim - and to back up with numbers – that Aviv Gefen and Yitzchak Herzog and every other leftist who supported and dragged us into Oslo cost us infinitely more than a settler or yeshiva student ever could. And by the way, the IDF Home Front is quietly drilling emergency evacuation of the public from Israel's center to the only logical place that can safely accommodate them – Judea and Samaria. With G-d's help, we will not have to implement those plans. But we must remember that due to "Palestinian" (in quotation marks because there is no such nation) intransigence, the Oslo Accords have not been fully implemented, the settlements still exist and in the eventuality of a chemical attack (G-d forbid) Aviv Gefen and MK Herzog and their families will have a place to which they can run.

I heard a leftist professor explain that all the State's money goes to the religious and ultra-Orthodox. The professor, a senior liberal arts lecturer in one of Israel's major universities, earns at least 30,000 NIS per month. As far as I am concerned, let him earn twice that. The problem is that he and his students cost the State at least five times the amount that their yeshiva counterparts cost.

With this fact in mind, how do they dare to criticize the yeshiva students? It's simple: For the learned professor, liberal arts are a legitimate recipient of State investment (and I agree with him on that point) but Jewish studies are not. Despite the fact that the State invests miniscule sums on yeshiva students in proportion to what the professor and his students receive, they see those sums as nothing more than exploitation and waste.

I am not sure, by the way, that the State has to fund any of the students. But that is a different topic. Due to the fact that we still live under a centralized state, it would be best for us all to stop blaming each other. Who costs who how much and who is carrying the burden of whom is a matter of perspective that is decided in elections.

The social protests embody some very important authentic elements. It will all be lost if they become a platform for baseless hatred and reciprocal finger-pointing.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Palestinians’ UN Gambit Puts Both Israel and Obama on the Spot

Jonathan S. Tobin
Commentary/Contentions
29 December '10

The news that the Palestinian Authority is expected to try to use the United Nations Security Council to label any Israeli presence in the West Bank and Jerusalem “illegal” is hardly a surprise to those who have followed the PA’s continuous efforts to evade actual peace negotiations. Having rejected an Israeli offer of an independent state in the West Bank, Gaza, and a share of Jerusalem in 2008, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas spent the first two years of the Obama administration doing everything possible to avoid actually negotiating with Israel. With even Obama starting to understand that the last thing Abbas wants is to sign a peace accord no matter how generous its terms or where Israel’s borders might be drawn, it’s clear the Palestinian’s goal is not a state but to escalate the diplomatic conflict. That will enable him to compete with Hamas for support among a Palestinian population that has never reconciled itself to peace with a Jewish state. The UN is the perfect forum for such a venture since it is a hotbed of anti-Zionist, as well as anti-Semitic, incitement.

Yet despite the mainstream media’s oft trumpeted claim that settlements are illegal under international law, Israel actually has an excellent case here. As David Phillips of the Northeastern School of Law detailed in COMMENTARY in December 2009, whatever one’s opinion of the wisdom of building in the territories, allegations of its illegality are unfounded in international law.

(Read full "Palestinians’ UN Gambit Puts Both Israel and Obama on the Spot")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

What Is The Main Element to the Conflict?

Yisrael Medad
My Right Word
22 October '10

Dennis Mitzner, a MA student in Middle Eastern History at Tel Aviv University, posted this insight and I've extracted a few good points:

Putting aside the many intricacies of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, are the settlements really the main reason why there is no peace between Israel and the Palestinians? To accept the notion of the omnipotence of the settlements-issue vis-à-vis the peace process is to set a dangerous precedent...

...The constant human rights violations and the rabid anti-Semitism emanating from the Palestinian territories have become non-issues to those — mainly European and American analysts and experts — trying to provide solutions to the conflict.

...Palestinians are given a free pass on hatred that has become one of the main tenets of the forming of a Palestinian national identity. Why does the West cultivate a Palestinian narrative which is defined according to the existence and consequent actions of Israel?

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

PressTV (Iran): "'Israel preparing to occupy Lebanon'"

Soccer Dad
05 July '10

Let's just say this is one of those cases in which the story does not quite live up to the headline:

Israel troops are conducting military drills to get prepared for being deployed in Lebanon, in a move Tel Aviv says is aimed at preventing "rocket attacks by Hezbollah," Israeli sources say. Israel is conducting drills at its Elyakim training base, near Haifa, to simulate attacks on Hezbollah targets in southern Lebanon, Haaretz reported.

An Israeli colonel told Haaretz that the US military officers had advised Israel to deploy its soldiers in Lebanon during the 33-day war in 2006, hinting that Israel will do so in any offensive on Lebanon in the future.

The Elyakim base is covered with many simulated minefields and camouflaged bunkers. Israeli troops are exercising to pass those spots and find "rocket sites," the report added. According to the plan, Israeli troops will then be transported to Golan Heights by helicopters to be trained conducting other operations.

We learn of more Israeli ambitions in another PressTV article, "Israel plans 2700 new settlements":

Israeli settlement councils plan to build 2700 new settlements in the West Bank immediately after the existing settlement freeze on September 27.

The plans await approval by Israeli Housing Ministry and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, daily Haaretz reported on Monday.

In larger cities, plans have already been authorized, the report said. [...]

"Settlement" is PressTV-talk for "housing unit." The big and middle-sized Satan are also up to no good, but Iran is taking action:

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Bombers For Settlements

Avi Davis
The Intermediate Zone
25 March '10

I can’t say I disagree with the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens all too often. His is the first piece of writing I turn to every Tuesday morning, so certain am I that I will be greeted by a succinct, well argued editorial, wrapped in elegant, wry prose.

But his last two pieces for the print version of the Journal have angered me, not for the thrust of his arguments, but for some ancillary matters that he allowed to slip into the writing which betrayed a bias out of keeping with his generally level headed approach.

On Tuesday, March 16, his piece Settlements Aren’t the Problem, he let fly this doozy of a paragraph:

“It’s easy to dislike Israel’s settlements, and still easier to dislike many of the settlers. Whatever your view about the legality or justice of the enterprise, it takes a certain cast of mind to move your children to places where they are more likely to be in harm’s way. In the current issue of The American Interest, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer persuasively spells out the many ways in which the settlement movement has undermined Israel’s own rule of law, and hence its democracy.

(Read full post)
.