Question. "Free Palestine Movement" calls to expel all "non-indigenous Jews" from Israel. Does Rashida Tlaib agree? - by Elder of Ziyon

...Someone may want to ask Tlaib if she supports the goals of the Free Palestine Movement and the Palestine Liberation Movement, and if her vision of a one-state solution looks like this one.

Elder of Ziyon..
13 February '19..

The Free Palestine Movement was behind the 2011 flotilla to Israel and styles itself as a progressive peace movement that is pro-Palestinian.

They said in a November newsletter that they will offer new members of Congress a trip to "Palestine" as a rebuttal to the AIPAC-sponsored trip most take, and it is possible that Rashida Tlaib, who announced in December that she wants to partner with pro-Palestinian groups on a similar trip, may be working with FPM on this initiative.

FPM just sent out an email urging members to visit and support a "Call for a Palestine Liberation Movement" webpage, that describes what they want to see as a solution to the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

Their solution, as the map here show - no Israel. It would be replaced with the "One Democratic State of Palestine."

The description of that state makes it pretty clear that most Jews would be forced to leave.

(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. 

.

The worst alternative by Caroline Glick

...To paraphrase Winston Churchill, the Israeli one-state plan is the worst possible plan for managing the Palestinian and pan-Arab conflict with Israel, except for every other plan that has been tried from time to time. It presents Israel with considerable threats and challenges. But on balance, as I show in my book, these threats are less acute and less dangerous than the ones Israel now faces. Moreover, the Israeli one-state plan is a viable prospect, which similarly distinguishes it from all the other ideas on offer.

Caroline Glick..
Column One/JPost..
20 March '14..

PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas must have gotten a kick out of it on Monday when he visited the White House and President Barack Obama praised him as “somebody who has consistently renounced violence, has consistently sought a diplomatic and peaceful solution that allows for two states, side by side, in peace and security.”

After all, the same day the men met, Abbas’s regime continued its week-long celebration of the deadliest Palestinian terrorist attack on Israel to date.

On March 11, 1978, PLO terrorists commandeered a passenger bus on the coastal highway and massacred 37 people, including 12 children.

Dalal Mughrabi, a female terrorist, led the raid. Ever since, she has been lionized by the PLO.

While he met with Obama, Abbas’s adviser Sultan Abu al-Einein proclaimed that Mughrabi was the ultimate role model for Palestinian women.

In Einein’s words, (reported by Palestinian Media Watch), “In March, [we mark] Palestinian Women’s Day, in March, Palestinian Mother’s Day also occurs, in March… [we remember Dalal Mughrabi] who would not agree to anything other than to establish her state between Jaffa and Lebanon in her special way.”

Einein urged Palestinian youth to follow Mughrabi’s example of mass murder. “Let the young people hear me: Allah, honor us with Martyrdom, Allah, give us the honor of being part of the procession of Martyrs.”

The Israeli Right didn’t need the Mughrabi festival to understand that Obama’s claim that Abbas wants peace is ridiculous. As Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon explained last Saturday, Abbas is “a partner for taking, not for giving.”

Israeli Leftists, who have slavishly championed Abbas, are finally catching on. Last month, in an op-ed in Haaretz, long-time PLO champion Shlomo Avineri acknowledged the dynamic at work in the two-state policy model and how Abbas uses it to Israel’s disadvantage.

Avineri wrote that it is not that Abbas “is no partner for talks, but that he is an excellent partner for talks — as long as they are talks designed to lead Israel to make more and more concessions, and to put them in writing. Then, on one pretext or another, he is unwilling to sign and brings the negotiations to a halt, so they can be restarted in the future ‘where they left off’: with all the previous Israeli concessions included, and no concessions having been put forward by the Palestinian side.”

In other words, Abbas negotiates not to achieve peace, but to weaken Israel.

The Fictitious Palestinian Generational Divide

...Younger Palestinians have no such compunctions about pretending to want to live in peace alongside Israel. What they want is to extinguish Jewish sovereignty in any part of the country. This has nothing to do with a desire for equal rights or democracy, which, despite the assertions of his son, the elder Abbas (currently serving in the ninth year of the four-year presidential term to which he was elected) denies his people, as do his Hamas rivals in Gaza....

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
19 March '14..

New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren hit on a clever way to reiterate a familiar theme for the newspaper’s readers in today’s story that sought to explore what she called a “generational divide” among Palestinians. The centerpiece of the article is an interview with Tareq Abbas, the youngest son of Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas in which the former explains why he supports a one-state solution to the conflict with Israel rather than the two-state formula that his father purports to seek. Along with other younger Palestinians quoted in the piece, Tareq Abbas says that he is tired of waiting for his father’s peace strategies to succeed and now simply wants “civil rights” that would presumably be his if the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean became a single democratic entity.

The conceit of this argument is that since Israel will never allow Palestinians independence, they should instead simply wait for demographics and international pressure to force the Jews to give up their state. This notion of a generational divide also supports the claims of those who believe Israel must act now to divest itself of the West Bank, lest it eventually be forced to choose between being a Jewish state or a democratic one.

But the problem with the premise of this story is that it is false. Mahmoud Abbas and his predecessor Yasir Arafat rejected Israeli offers of statehood three times. He’s currently in the process of refusing another one that would probably, like the three previous peace bids, give the Palestinians the independent state they say they crave in almost all of the West Bank, Gaza (which is currently ruled by Hamas as an independent Palestinian state in all but name, but never mind), and a share of Jerusalem. The generational divide here isn’t so much about how many more Arab states there should be but rather the nature of the rhetoric employed in order to make the case against the existence of one solitary Jewish state.

Is a 1-state solution more dangerous, delusional and disastrous than the proposal for a 2-state solution?

When Omar Barghouti, who spearheads the anti-Israel boycotts, divestment and sanctions drive, and Tzipi Hotovely, one of the leading hardliners in the Likud, largely agree on the principle of one-state between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, and differ only on the particulars of the characteristics that state should have, who can be blamed for believing the we have arrived at the era when “the wolf lives with the lamb, the leopard lies down with the goat.”

Martin Sherman..
Into the Fray/JPost..
27 June '13..




The nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things... constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present-day consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received. – Ernest Renan, What is a Nation?

A portion of mankind... united among themselves by common sympathies which do not exist between them and any others – which make them cooperate with each other more willingly than with other people, desire to be under the same government, and desire that it should be government by themselves or a portion of themselves exclusively. – John Stuart Mill, On Representative Government

Yes, I know I have cited these excerpts before. Last March to be exact – see “The New York Times versus the Jews” and “Israel’s imperative: Jewish and democratic.” The difference is that then, I harnessed them to debunk far-left anti-Zionist calls for a one-state approach to the Israel- Palestinian conflict. Now it appears I have to invoke them to debunk rightwing proposals, which call for almost exactly the same thing.

End of times?

I realize this article will win me few new friends – and will in all likelihood lose me a fair number of old ones. However, the issues are so fateful and the ideas being bandied about to contend with them so lethally ludicrous, that the constraints of courtesy must be shed.

This is not a time for pussyfooting around the points of dispute. For some the proposals being raised by people I hold in high regard are so potentially disastrous, they must be removed forthwith from the agenda, before they have a chance to wreak the massive damage they are capable of.

One might be excused for believing we have arrived at the “End of times” when we see such far-reaching meeting of minds between rabid anti-Zionists on the radical Left and the fervent pro-Zionists on the hawkish Right.

When Omar Barghouti, who spearheads the anti-Israel boycotts, divestment and sanctions drive, and Tzipi Hotovely, one of the leading hardliners in the Likud, largely agree on the principle of one-state between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, and differ only on the particulars of the characteristics that state should have, who can be blamed for believing the we have arrived at the era when “the wolf lives with the lamb, the leopard lies down with the goat.”

Accelerating absurdity

But this absurd situation is emerging before our very eyes – at an accelerated pace in recent weeks – when stalwart Zionists such as Hotovely, Yoram Ettinger, Caroline Glick and Uri Elitzur began to embrace a one-state future and the granting of citizenship to the Palestinian Arabs in Judea-Samaria.

So while I might have chosen a less abrasive title for the column (Original title: Brain dead on the Right? Y.), I really need to catch reader attention, even if this means incurring the ire of some of my (genuinely) esteemed colleagues.

Given the growing realization that the two-state approach has proved unfeasible in practice, and unacceptable in principle, the underlying rationale behind the growing acceptance of – or rather, resignation to – Palestinian inclusive “onestatism” appears to be rooted in three factors: (a) A dawning awareness that the status quo cannot be maintained indefinitely and some move toward a permanent resolution of the situation in Judea-Samaria is needed. Thus, Hotovely in an interview this week: “It makes no sense to leave this in the air for 45 years. [This] sends a message that we have no connection to these places.”

(b) A sense that the threat of international sanctions, particularly by the EU, is looming ever larger – first against the Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria and later against the rest of Israel. Thus, Hotovely warned that if there is no sign that the status quo will be changed, “we will pay the price through pressure and boycotts.”

(c) Adopting the optimistic demographic assessments spearheaded by the indefatigable Yoram Ettinger and based on studies by the American-Israel Demographic Research Group and Dr. Yakov Faitelson, which indicate that changes in prevailing trends ensure a Jewish majority between the Jordan and the Mediterranean for the foreseeable future.

Gideon Levy, dream on – but don’t inflict your nightmare on us

Gideon Levy’s dream is the triumph of hope over experience. The 650,000 Jews ( Sephardi and Mizrahi) who sought a haven in Israel and now form a 52 percent Jewish majority – some 300,000 others went to the West – did not escape violence and repression in Arab states in order to find themselves once more under Arab-Muslim dominion. Been there for 14 centuries, done that, got the blood-stained T-shirt.

Lyn Julius..
Times of Israel..
28 April '13..




Gideon Levy may be the most hated man in Israel, or the most heroic, but the controversial Haaretz columnist has a dream. Recently, he expressed his enthusiasm for turning Israel into ‘one just state for two peoples.’

One state for two peoples? It has already existed for a while now. More than two peoples live in it – Jews and Arabs; ultra-Orthodox Jews; religious Zionist and secular Jews; Jews of Middle-Eastern descent and Jews of European descent; settlers and Palestinians. (…) This, though, is how an imaginary, just state would appear: It would grant everyone the right to vote, and have a democratic constitution that would protect the rights of all communities and minorities – including an immigration policy like that of all other nations.Such a state would have a legislature that would reflect the mosaic of the country, and an elected government formed by a coalition of the communities and the two peoples’ representatives. Yes, a Jewish prime minister with an Arab deputy, or vice versa.

Levy’s Utopian ‘state of all its citizens’ will replace Zionism with ‘something infinitely more just and sustainable.’ In his dream, the lion will lie down with the lamb and all threats will dissipate. Foreign aid will flood into this cross-confessional nirvana.

One can assume that ‘an immigration policy like all other nations’ will not privilege Jews over Arabs. Very quickly, Arabs would become a majority, Hatikva would cease to be the national anthem, and the Jews will be forced to give up their national state.

Levy’s solution has already been tried. It has failed. Lebanon was a mosaic state, but following a bloody civil war, it is little more than a precarious collection of quarreling sects on the edge of another precipice. The Maronite Christians have become a beleaguered minority, prefiguring what will happen to the Jews of Israel. Who said the definition of insanity is proposing the same solution but expecting different results every time?

Gideon Levy’s dream is the triumph of hope over experience. The 650,000 Jews ( Sephardi and Mizrahi) who sought a haven in Israel and now form a 52 percent Jewish majority – some 300,000 others went to the West – did not escape violence and repression in Arab states in order to find themselves once more under Arab-Muslim dominion.

Been there for 14 centuries, done that, got the blood-stained T-shirt.

To all intents and purposes, the Arab world is now judenrein. The fewer the Jews in the Arab world, the greater the Jew-hatred.

Who else says Palestinian State is Unworkable? Mudar Zahran for one.

Mudar Zahran

Daniel Greenfield..
frontpagemag.com..
02 October '12..

…which really is the point. Very few of the Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank think that the current process works or expect it to work. The only people truly invested in a Palestinian Muslim state are international diplomatic elites and a layer of anti-Israel yuppies and terrorist leaders in Gaza and the West Bank.

But this is another face of the One State Solution, just not the kind that most expect to see, complete with calls for the annexation of the territories. That’s a position that Israel has avoided taking due to pressure from the international community and due to plain demographics.

The official international solution has been to take the most violent terrorist groups, treat them as a government and throw billions of dollars at them. Surprisingly this has not worked out well.

Mudar Zahran represents one side of a growing consensus that a Palestinian state is a dead end and that the way to proceed is to merge those territories into Israel giving the “Palestinians” the option of becoming Israeli citizens or offering them compensation in exchange for moving to a majority Muslim country if they can’t be comfortable in Israel.

The best opportunity for security, peace and prosperity for all the residents of Israel? Apply sovereignty over all of Yehuda and Shomron.

Michael L. Wise..
Israel Resource Review..
06 July '12..

The dream of two states for two peoples will not realized in the tiny parcel of land that lies between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.

The vision of Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat, Yossi Beilin and the EU, Dennis Ross and Foggy Bottom, Ron Lauder and the "Jewish People Policy Planning Institute", is unacceptable to the leaders of the Muslim world, to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah and to global Jihadists.

Events surrounding the 1915-1916 MacMahon-Hussein Correspondence, outbreaks of violence between 1920-1936, the 1937 Peel commission, the 1939 MacDonald White Paper, the 1947 UN partition plan, Menachem Begin’s autonomy plan, Oslo, Intifadas, roadmaps and various two state initiatives demonstrate the futility of expecting any Arab leader coming to terms with Jewish sovereignty over any part of a divided land. Total Arab rejection of a Jewish State has not changed over the past 100 years.

PM Netanyahu’s generous 2009 Bar Ilan “two-state” offer was stillborn the moment he required that one of the “two-peoples” recognize the right of the Jewish people to a Jewish State. As Abu Mazen proclaimed: “The Palestinian people (sic) will never accept the right of the Jewish people to their own State. Not for a 1000 years!”

Walsh - There is no such thing as a two-state solution

Joe Walsh..
Op-Ed Contributor/JPost..
06 May '12..

It has been 64 years since the United Nations General Assembly approved the Partition Plan for Palestine and the struggle to implement a “two-state solution” began. Today we are no closer to that end.

It reminds me of that definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. By that definition, everyone who continues to cling to the delusion of a two-state solution is insane. There is no such thing as a two-state solution. It cannot work, it has not worked, and it will not work.

The only viable solution for the Middle East is a one-state solution: one, contiguous Israeli state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. There will not and cannot be lasting peace in the Middle East until then.

Ever since the Palestinians and Arab countries refused to accept the Mandate for Palestine, the original two-state solution, the international community has been catering to Palestinian and Arab demands for a divided Israel. The Palestinians and Arabs, however, have repeatedly rejected these proposals, including the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, which they now are using to justify their demands for a divided Israel. Enough is enough.

Why is the international community continuing to kowtow to these demands, when for 64 years the Palestinians and the Arabs have actively worked against peace? Israel is the only country in the region that has shown that it wants and will work toward peace. Since 1947, the Palestinian and Arab countries have fought more than five wars against Israel over territory, and each opportunity a victorious Israel returned land it acquired in exchange for peace.

Sherman - Israel’s Pearl Harbor?

Martin Sherman..
Into the Fray/JPost..
01 March '12..


Anti-Israel hatred on campus crests each year during an event called “Israel Apartheid Week.” With this ominous name and programs that thrive on ignorance and blind disregard for the facts, tens of thousands of college students are urged to rise up against Israel
– Dore Gold, February 23, 2012


Israel is completely outclassed and outmaneuvered on a battleground it doesn’t even understand it is on
– Melanie Phillips, January 9, 2011

Israel Apartheid Week (IAW) is once again upon us. Described on its official website as “an annual international series of events held in cities and campuses across the globe,” its aim is “to educate people about the nature of Israel as an apartheid system and to build Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns as part of a growing global BDS movement.”

Traditionally, IAW includes events (lectures, films, rallies, poetry readings, art exhibitions and so on) spanning anything from 60 to 90 cities from Albuquerque to Zurich.

This year, however, a new condiment has been added to spice up the noxious brew of deceit, distortion, and disinformation on the IAW menu.

Marquadt-Bigman - Guess who won’t be at Harvard this weekend?

Petra Marquadt-Bigman..
The Warped Mirror..
03 March '12..



This weekend, Harvard Kennedy School is hosting a controversial “Student Conference” that has been organized to promote the so-called “one-state solution” as the best option to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to the conference program, the event will start out asserting that “’two-states for two peoples’” is no longer a viable option for Israel/Palestine,” and towards the end of the conference, participants will devote themselves to pondering how best to build a “global movement” to serve their agenda and how “academics and activists” could contribute to this endeavor.

Proponents of the “one-state solution” like to present their views in a language designed to create the impression that their primary concern lies with human and civil rights. However, it obviously takes willful blindness to overlook the fact that implementing an Israeli-Palestinian “one-state solution” would require the abolition of the world’s only Jewish state in order to subsume it in yet another Arab-Muslim majority state where Jews would have to live as a minority – and, based on the empirical record, it is only reasonable to expect that they would face the same precarious situation as minorities everywhere in the Arab and Muslim world.

Stotsky - Harvard Needs Some Schooling on the Middle East

Steven Stotsky..
The Algemeiner..
14 February '12..

On March 3-4, Harvard University will host a two-day conference on the “One State Solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Guests include veteran anti-Israel academics, the founder of Electronic Intifada and an ex-Palestinian official. No one sympathetic to Israel is identifiable.

This sort of anti-Israel activity, thinly disguised by a veneer of academic posing, has become commonplace at this venerable Ivy League institution. In recent years, Harvard has hosted Holocaust defamer Norman Finkelstein, accused serial fabricator professor Ilan Pappe and Naim Ateek, founder of the anti-Israel, anti-Jewish Sabeel ministry. The department sponsoring the upcoming conference is home to Stephen Walt, co-author of the error-prone The Israel Lobby.

These anti-Zionist conclaves are an outward sign of a more insidious transformation of Harvard’s Middle Eastern studies. At the crux of this transformation is the school’s Center for Middle East Studies, which benefits from both taxpayer support and gifts from Gulf Arab donors. Harvard is one of 17 universities receiving federal Title VI funding for the purpose of increasing public knowledge about the Middle East and Islam. By targeting their donations to schools involved in the federally funded outreach effort, the Gulf Arab donors influence not only instructors at the university level but also, through them, those who will teach about the Middle East in primary and secondary schools.

The activities of the outreach center of Harvard’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies are instructive. The center’s stated mission is to promote “a critical understanding of the diversity of the Middle East region.” But its activities and programming reveal a dogmatic adherence to the polemical, often counter-factual Palestinian version of the Arab-Israeli conflict, rather than the presentation of authoritative and diverse scholarly viewpoints.

IMRA: Israel cannot afford leaky solutions to coming tsunami

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
Independent Media news Analysis
Weekly Commentary
31 March '11


Here is the narrative:

Come September the United Nations is going to decide on the unconditional establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state encompassing the entire West Bank (including eastern Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip.

Most nations will instantly recognize the new state and “nonviolent” Palestinian mobs (AL: in Palestinian eyes, throwing petrol bombs and heaving rocks and rebar is just as “nonviolent” as Martin Luther King marching arms linked in Selma Alabama) make their way to push out the Israeli presence from sovereign Palestine.

The ensuing Palestinian casualties will be used to justify not only international sanctions against the Jewish state but also the injection of foreign forces to protect the Palestinians and supervise the expulsion of the remaining Jews from sovereign Palestine.

Given that the narrative is being used by Israelis from the Left who are trying to stampede us into embracing their policy recommendations it is far from clear just how realistic this apocalyptic scenario is.

But even if we take the narrative at face value, the policy recommendations being offered by those embracing the narrative don’t jibe with their predictions.

If the Palestinians are going to get a sovereign Palestinian state encompassing the entire West Bank (including eastern Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip with no strings attached in a few months if they sit back and do nothing then there is absolutely no offer that Israel can make today that will prevent the Palestinians from rejecting it so that they can find themselves at the UN come September, blaming Israel for be failing to negotiate in good faith and in turn being rewarded with an unconditional sovereign Palestinian state (with the blessings of a very impatient President Obama who religiously believes that a sovereign Palestinian state would miraculously insure peace while his support would earn America brownie points with the Moslem world).

By the same token, if the Israeli response to the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state encompassing the entire West Bank (including eastern Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip would be for Israel to unilaterally annex the settlements the reaction of the world would be to simply ignore the move with the original scenario continuing to play out.

Are we really heading towards an apocalypse in September?

Developments in the region today are so unpredictable that it is certainly possible that the Palestinian program derails before our September appointment with destiny.

But it would still be a mistake not to be prepared.

Annexing settlements is neither a serious threat nor an effective response to a sovereign Palestinian state.

In sharp contrast, annexing the entire West Bank and granting citizenship and voting rights in a unilateral “one state solution” that leaves the “refugees” (in quotation marks because unlike other “refugees” who actually resided themselves in some “homeland” a Palestinian “refugee” can be someone who never himself resided in the area but who has an ancestor who resided for some period of time in the area) outside of the state would send everyone back to their drawing boards.

That makes a unilateral Israeli “one state solution” both a serious threat that may deter the actors from proceeding to the September tsunami and a workable plan to implement in the event that it is determined that the September apocalypse is indeed proceeding.

Related articles: Follow up on the annexation solution Dr. Aaron Lerner, also Hebron First by David Wilder

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.
.

Preying for Piece - Part 2

Marc Prowisor
Yesha Views
16 June '10

(Click here for Preying for Piece – Part 1)

Websters Dictionary’s meaning of “Peace”

1 : a state of tranquility or quiet: as a : freedom from civil disturbance b : a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom

2 : freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions

3 : harmony in personal relations.

From the minute the modern State of Israel came into existence in 1948, a state of war existed between the Arab nations and the Jewish State. Israel did nothing to provoke this situation - they simply came into being. They tried to destroy Israel then, and were defeated. Today they name this occasion, “Nakba” or Catastrophe, I call it be it’s more accurate name – defeat.

Since then the Arabs have been trying to erase Israel from the map.

In 1967 Israel was victorious against the Jordanian Kingdom and returned to the land not just historically Jewish, but land allocated to it by the “League of Nations”, as part of the partition of the region after World War 1, along with Lebanon, Syria, Trans-Jordan, to name a few.

Judea and Samaria were once again in Jewish hands. Now we were being called “Occupiers”, whom were we occupying the land from?

Lets see -

Roman rule (63 BCE)
Byzantine (Eastern Roman) rule (330–640 CE)
Islamic period (630–1918 CE)
Arab Caliphate rule (638–1099 CE)
Umayyad rule (661–750 CE)
Abbasid rule (750–969 CE)
Fatimid rule (969–1099 CE)
Crusader rule (1099–1187 CE)
Mamluk rule (1270–1516 CE)
Ottoman rule (1516–1831 CE)
Egyptian rule (1831–1841)
Ottoman rule (1841–1917)
British Mandate (1920–1948)
Jordanian rule (1948-1967)

Pick a name, any name…. I do not see the name “Palestinian Rule” anywhere.

(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.
.

More Two State Solutions….

Marc Prowisor
Yesha Views
08 May '10

Having just returned from a Speaking tour in the US, I have been noticing that the Buzz Word “Two State Solution” seems to be a proper solution for many, however not for Israel.

One of the most noticeable changes I witnessed during this trip was the increased polarization occurring in the US. For example, only six months ago while visiting LA, I saw by the mere mention of a non-supportive statement of the present US administration brought about a hostile reaction. Today, it seems that in LA, many more than a “few” tote anti White House thoughts, and it seems the numbers of “Anti Obama-ites” are growing at an alarming rate. (Something that is definitely not pleasing to the Secret Service)

A quick trip to the Mid West and I was astonished at how many voice their opposition to the White House and their crew of “Henchmen” (a quote). The opinions spanned numerous issues from Immigration, Medical Reform, Taxes and the list goes on and on, I didn’t even hear anything regarding Israel till the end of the list.

It seems that this “split” is taking a deep hold in the United States, and this chasm seems to be widening every day, a solution is needed, and needed quickly.

So obviously what is needed is the “Two State Solution”, (Fifty, doesn’t seem to be working). This will make America great again, this will solve all of the problems, the “Two State Solution” is the salvation needed.

Separation is the answer, no longer are we to be tasked with working things out, you take the high road and I’ll take the low road, and we won’t meet.

This “Solution” would also apply to many US Universities where separatism and lack of objectivity run rampant.

(Read full article)

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.
.

One-state tour visits our town

Freanozionism.org
13 April '10

One of our local churches is hosting a program on Wednesday entitled “[The] Costs of War on Israeli Society.” The speakers are a Jewish Israeli and what used to be called an Israeli Arab but now has become a “Palestinian citizen of Israel.” The suggestion seems to be that war is bad for both sides, and if they could just be reasonable everyone would be better off.

The church is collecting donations in return for admission, and all proceeds will go toward their tour and the sponsoring groups.

I would like church members to understand exactly whom they are helping when they collect funds.

The costs of war on Israeli society are dear indeed. Think of how much more Israel could have accomplished if it had not been the victim of a continuous war waged against it since its founding. All of the lives lost, the huge amounts of time and money wasted on achttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.giftivities which are essentially unproductive. I know that my son would have much preferred to have spent 8 years of his life developing a career as an illustrator and graphic novelist than in military and other security-related jobs.

Unfortunately, for Jews in the Middle East, such unproductive uses of human and material resources are essential to life in their neighborhood.

The speakers do not see it in this way. Ofra Yeshua-Lyth, a journalist and the Jewish speaker* on the program (see here, here and here), is an anti-Zionist who appears to hold in contempt almost everything about the Jewish state in which she grew up and was educated. Like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, she does not accept the idea of a ‘Jewish People’, only a Jewish religion. And she sees Judaism as a contradiction at the heart of Zionism which makes the idea of a democratic Jewish state impossible.

(Read full article)
.

Where are the pressure points?

Ira Sharkansky
Shark Blog
12 February '10

What is amazing about the preoccupation with Israel and Palestine is the certainty with which respectable individuals preach about a problem whose complexity has been pondered for decades, and where fluidity is more prominent than stability.

Even more amazing is the focus of urging change on the one element that is stable, while failing to take account of the instability elsewhere that may run over in several directions with no end in sight.

A prominent recent example of misplaced certainty is an op-ed piece by Roger Cohen in the New York Times. Cohen has a long record of blaming Israel for the problems of the Middle East. He has called for an end to Israeli settlement in the West Bank, and expressed shame for the operation in Gaza that he described as a disastrous case of Israel slaying Palestinian children.

Now he is lamenting that President Obama must do more to honor an election pledge for "new thinking, outreach to the Muslim world, and relentless focus on Israel-Palestine. . . . The conflict gnaws at U.S. security, eats away at whatever remote possibility of a two-state solution is left, clouds Israel's future, scatters Palestinians and devours every attempt to bridge the West and Islam."

Cohen realizes that problems among Palestinians contribute their share of the frustrations, but he asserts that President Obama must work harder "to ask such tough questions in public and demand of Israel that it work in practice to share the land rather than divide and rule it."

If the two-state solution does not work, Cohen is certain that "there will be one state between the river and the sea."

The one-state solution is a common threat, typically made by the Israeli left and overseas critics who claim that they are friends of Israel, and want to reign it in before it is lost. As Cohen writes of the one state he sees as possible, "very soon there will be more Palestinian Arabs in it than Jews. What then will become of the Zionist dream?

The one-state threat illustrates the weakness in many criticisms of Israel. It is more a fantasy than anything that can be extrapolated from realities. Who would make Israel absorb into itself land and people that do not succeed in achieving statehood. The process would not reflect any natural law of politics that I recognize.

(Read full article)
.

Thinking About The One State Solution

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA..
21 January '10..




A growing number of Jewish residents in Judea and Samaria have been advocating a “one state solution” in which their Palestinian neighbors become voting Israeli citizens with Gaza’s final disposition unclear.

While the proposition certainly highlights the fact that the so-called “demographic problem” is a red herring – and ever more so if we are only counting the Palestinians residing in the West Bank, those promoting the move need to walk through how such a plan might actually play out.

The efficacy of the proposal hinges on retaining the asymmetric application of “right of return” that is the very hallmark of Israel being a “Jewish State”: Jews from the Diaspora can continue to immigrate to Israel and become citizens while Arabs with ancestral ties to Israel (we are now at the stage that most “Palestinian refugees” are actually the progeny of refugees born overseas) cannot exercise the “right of return of refugees”.

LA Times Op-Ed Calls For Dismantlement of Jewish State

Tamar Sternthal
CAMERA
21 December 09

In the past, the Los Angeles Times marked Israel's birthday with an Op-Ed calling for its dismantlement via the so-called "one-state solution." The paper didn't bother to wait for the spring anniversary of the Jewish state's founding, presenting its readers yesterday with another call for a "one-state solution." Jonathan Kuttab's Dec. 20, 2009 Op-Ed ("Steps to Create Israel-Palestine"), like earlier pieces by Saree Makdisi (here and here) and Tony Judt which called for the destruction of the Jewish state, rests on a number of basic factual errors and faulty assumptions.

From the Mediterranean to the Jordan River

Kuttab, a Palestinian attorney and activist, begins by fabricating: "With Israel in total control of the territory from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River and unwilling to relinquish a significant part of the land . . . "

In fact, between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River lies the Gaza Strip which is fully under the control of Hamas—not Israel. Moreover, 40 percent of the West Bank is under the control of the Palestinian Authority. As for Israel's alleged "unwillingness to relinquish a significant part of the land," last week Ha'aretz published a detailed report and a map showing Ehud Olmert's unprecedented offer to Mahmoud Abbas.

(Read full article)

.

Good Governance Post National Trauma: Rejecting a Two State Solution

Prof. Alan Friedlander
Jerusalem Defender
12 November 09

Israeli President Shimon Peres recently said, "Those who reject the two-state solution will not bring a one-state solution. They will bring one conflict, not one state. A bloody endless conflict."

Excuse me, but isn't that what the Oslo Accords accomplished? Is that not the very fruit that it brought upon Israel? Isn't that what the Roadmap to Peace (Oslo 3) ended up doing, especially before the security fence was built?

Has it been so long since the first Intifada began that people have forgotten what it was like when Arab refugees didn't try to kill Israelis?

Answer this: Why, when Arafat was a fugitive for the first three decades of his terroristic career, there was no intifada? Why when Arafat underwent a PR makeover and was a pseudo partner in a pseudo peace process, why then did Israel stop looking over its borders with fear, but then start looking within its borders for the most clear and present dangers?

Arafat created a goon squad of terrorist abusers of the national psyche. Did anyone really believe that whitewashing the high crimes of the PLO by calling them by the designation of "diplomats" would bring Israel closer to peace?

Oslo 1, Oslo 2, the Roadmap. Wrong thought processes were at play that conceived these plans, which have brought these decades of endless violence. Like a battered wife who clings to her abusive husband. She should not cower behind the locked bathroom door each night hoping for her husband to calm down. She should leave or call the police.

By continuing to advocate the pursuit of a "one-state solution" you are essentially telling your people to sit there and take it; for eternity. This is peace? This is madness!

Bad policy such as this hopes to placate the abuser long enough so that the victim can just be left alone for a scant few moments of respite from his limitless rage. But no practical plans for long term security are on her agenda. Taking dangerous risks without a clearly obtainable goal is a classic symptom of the faulty reasoning that often affects the thought processes of victims of abuse. For example following up Oslo 1 with Oslo 2, then Oslo 2 with the Roadmap would be an expression of this disorder at the political level.

The healthier choice would have been seeking national consensus on the vital issues at play rather than forcing through the Knesset a left wing agenda.

To have true freedom from bloodshed, you must first inculcate true freedom of the heart and mind. As God told Yehoshua (Joshua) repeatedly, "Be strong and courageous".

Not only has the violence continued, your reaction has you pointed in the wrong direction to fix the problems...

Why should Arabs keep their homes and not Jews? Is this justice?

Why should Israel be forced into "Auschwitz Borders" as your friend Abba Eban used to call them? Is this security?

Why should you have to give anything to get peace? Should peaceful intentions not be shared by both partners?

Currently only one side is committed to peace and freedom of the other side if they should reach a peace deal, while the other guys refuse to accept even the notion of a Jewish State. Is this a true path to peace?

You have been strong and courageous to make sacrifices for peace. Now be strong and courageous to encourage the forsaking of the failed paths of national self destruction, leaving them as history. Only this new direction is a path that can lead to healthy and true peace.

Soon may it be so, by the grace of G-d.
.