All you need to know about the Palestinian move for recognition by the United Nations.
by Leadership Action Network
(1) What Is UDI?
UDI stands for a Unilateral Declaration of Independence to recognize a Palestinian state via the United Nations. UDI would fundamentally violate all of the major bilateral and international agreements that require that disputes be resolved through direct negotiations, not third parties. This includes the Declaration of Principles from 1993 that formalized the direct Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The Oslo Interim Agreements of 1995 expressly prohibits (in Article 31), unilateral action by either side to change the status of the West Bank and Gaza prior to reaching a negotiated permanent status agreement.
(2) Does Israel oppose a Palestinian state?
Israel is dedicated to two states for two peoples, living side by side in peace and security. However, this must be achieved through direct, bi-lateral negotiations between the parties, not imposed from the outside or through a unilateral declaration. Especially in light of previous agreements including the Oslo Accords, this will only complicate the road to reaching an agreement for a sustainable, secure peace. None of the core issues including borders, Jerusalem, refugees and water, will be resolved by a UN resolution. It will only harm any efforts for peace by having the Palestinians lock into positions precluding any compromise in the future and possibly triggering violence on the ground due to unrealistic expectations. The United States and other countries have warned that recognition outside of direct negotiations could have implications for continued aid to the Palestinians.
(3) What does Israel want?
Israel wants to negotiate a settlement with the Palestinians and has made it clear that it is willing to discuss peace without preconditions. In meeting with members of Congress on August 15, 2011, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “I am willing to immediately start direct negotiations with [President Abbas] without preconditions. I am willing to invite him to my house in Jerusalem and I am willing to go to Ramallah.” And on September 8, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told PA President Mahmoud Abbas that it is critical that both sides “return to the negotiating table sans any preconditions. We must try and reach a breakthrough together. We must achieve this for our children and grandchildren.”
(4) What does the United States think about the PA pursuing UDI?
The United States believes that peace is only possible through a negotiated approach between the parties with mutual concessions and has made clear it will veto a UDI resolution in the Security Council if necessary. President Obama has said, “Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state,” and later called it a distraction. Congress reaffirmed its commitment to a negotiated settlement of the conflict between the parties through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The Senate vote was unanimous and the House vote was an overwhelming 407-6. Many members of Congress have expressed their concern regarding UDI and indicated that they will reconsider the aid package to the Palestinians.
(5) What do the Palestinians think?
Many Palestinians have expressed concern over the United Nations declaration. In the “Palestine Papers” – confidential Palestinian Authority documents released earlier this year by Al Jazeera – lead Palestinian negotiators argued that announcing a Palestinian state without negotiating with Israel would be a mistake. Their major concern – as expressed in several memos – is that such a make-shift state would not satisfy the national hopes of the Palestinian people. Among those who have been adamantly against this approach is Prime Minister Salam Fayad. A recent study conducted for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs also pointed out that 40 percent of Palestinians living in East Jerusalem would prefer to become citizens of Israel rather than become citizens of a new Palestinian state.
(6) What would be the borders of this new state?
It is understood that Abbas will ask for the new state to be based on the 1967 lines, which are the 1949 armistice lines. These are the fragile lines that Israel’s late Foreign Minister Abba Eban declared as the “Auschwitz” lines due to the existential threat this could pose to the security of Israel.
(7) Can the PA declare their state in this manner?
Under the principles of international law, which were codified under the Montevideo Convention, there are four prerequisites for statehood: a permanent population; a defined territory; effective government; and a capacity to enter into relations with other States. Currently, the Palestinian Authority does not satisfy these criteria. According to the UN Charter, membership is open to states only, not movements.
(8) Why would the Palestinian Authority proceed with UDI if they don’t meet the traditional prerequisites for statehood?
UDI would symbolically raise their international status without doing the work needed to establish a legitimate state.
(9) Is there a difference in jurisdiction between the Security Council and the General Assembly?
According to the UN charter, membership to the United Nations requires Security Council consent and an endorsement from two thirds of the General Assembly. In the event that a permanent member of the Security Council exercises a veto, membership could still be attained by utilizing the obscure “Uniting for Peace” resolution, a motion adopted during the Korean War that provides for an emergency session of the General Assembly in instances where the Security Council is believed to have failed. It is of note that there is considerable disagreement amongst UN officials over the applicability of “Uniting for Peace” on questions of UN membership. Alternatively, the Palestinians could opt for a simple General Assembly recognition of statehood based on the 1967 lines. Though legally non-binding, such a symbolic international gesture could enable the new state to join other specialized agencies and petition the International Criminal Court against Israel which Abbas has long asserted as a primary goal.
(10) If UDI succeeds, would the PA accept Israel as a Jewish state? What about Jewish citizens in the new state?
As recently as August 28, 2011, Mahmoud Abbas said that the Palestinian Authority would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He told the international community, “Don’t order us to recognize the Jewish state. We won’t accept it.” The Palestinian leadership has made clear that any Palestinian state will be cleansed of all Jews. Unlike Israel, a state in which people of all backgrounds and faiths live, a new Palestinian state will be off limits to all Jews.
(11) Would Hamas gain legitimacy if the UDI is successful?
Hamas and the Palestinian Authority signed a reconciliation agreement but the Hamas Charter still calls for the annihilation of Israel. In fact, Hamas rejects the three Quartet Principles - recognition of Israel’s right to exist, acceptance of existing agreements and an end to violence. Hamas is designated a terrorist group by many countries including Jordan, Japan, the EU, and the United States. Supporting UDI under these current conditions would result in Hamas being given de facto international legitimacy. President Obama said in May, “Hamas still hasn’t recognized Israel’s right to exist and renounce violence, and recognize that negotiations are the right path for solving this problem. And it’s very difficult for Israel in a realistic way to say we’re going to sit across the table from somebody who denies our right to exist. And so that’s an issue that the Palestinians are going to have to resolve…. I also believe that the notion that you can solve this problem in the United Nations is simply unrealistic.” The Senate’s unanimous resolution regarding direct negotiations between the parties reaffirmed opposition to inclusion of Hamas in a unity government unless it is willing to accept peace with Israel and renounce violence.
(12) What if the PA decides not to pursue statehood?
If the PA does not seek recognition of a Palestinian state, they will request to upgrade their diplomatic status at the United Nations General Assembly without compromise on any of their maximum demands on borders, refugees, Jerusalem and settlements.
(13) How does upgrading the PA’s diplomatic status to a “non-member observer state” compare with their current observer status?
This would give the Palestinians the same status in the UN as the Vatican. It is important to note that the Vatican is a sovereign state, while the Palestinian Authority is not. This change would enable the PA to become a member of other UN organizations including UNESCO and the WHO. This could enable the Palestinians to petition bodies such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with charges to try and delegitimize and isolate Israel, following the Apartheid South African model.
(14) When could this happen?
On Friday, September 23, President Abbas will address the United Nations General Assembly’s opening session. He may use this opportunity to present a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, initiating the process at the Security Council. There could be an elongated process or steps could be taken to short circuit the required committee review and recommendation that precedes a vote. It is believed that as of now, there are not enough affirmative votes with a couple of countries still undecided. Should seven members vote against or abstain, the resolution is defeated. Should it pass, the United States has indicated it will veto. An option is delaying until the elections to the Security Council in October, in the hope they will receive more affirmative votes. Another option is for direct negotiations to be launched simultaneously with the Security Council process, perhaps beginning with a meeting on the UN sidelines. Much rests on the course to be chosen by the
A video and text blog explaining why a Palestinian state would be a disaster by rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
Friday, September 23, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Rick Perry on Israel
Rick Perry’s Israel appeal
Posted by Rachel Weiner at 03:54 PM ET, 09/20/2011
Rick Perry has been very interested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lately. On the heels of editorials in both the Wall Street Journal and the Jerusalem Post criticizing the Obama Administration’s policies in the Middle East, Perry held a press conference Tuesday morning accusing the president of a “policy of appeasement” toward the Palestinian Authority.
Rick Perry has been outspoken on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict of late. (Melina Mara - THE WASHINGTON POST)
Perry’s interest in Israel is longstanding, and he’s defended the country’s foreign policy before, but not so frequently or vocally. Is he hoping to win over Jewish voters or is it another pitch to win over evangelicals?
As Texas agriculture commissioner in the 1990s, Perry started the Texas-Israel Exchange. In 2009, he traveled to Israel to receive a “Defender of Jerusalem” award. That same year, he told a reporter, “I have a special affection for that country, for the nation of Israel, a remarkable people,” comparing Masada, the sight of a famed battle between the Jews and the Roman Empire, to the Alamo.
Perry’s press conference on Tuesday came as the Obama administration tries to stop a U.N. vote on Palestinian statehood this week. Obama is slated to talk to the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday.
Furthermore, Obama’s support with Jewish voters is dropping, some say illustrated by an unlikely win last week in the heavily Democratic and Jewish New York 9th district special election contest to replace Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.). During Perry’s appearance in New York on Tuesday, newly-minted Empire State GOP Rep. Bob Turner was by his side.
While polling finds that the economy is the main reason for Obama’s drop in Jewish support, many Republicans have seized on the results of last week’s special election as a sign that Israel could become a wedge issue with Jews in swing states in 2012.
“Whoever our Republican nominee is I think is going to have the ability to go into the Jewish community and provide a very strong argument and a very strong contrast” with Obama, said Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition.
A top Perry strategist insisted following Perry’s speech that nothing had changed in terms of the governor’s strategy.
“Consistent, principled positions that don't change depending on what election one might be seeking will always do better amongst all voters,” said Perry strategist Dave Carney. “Our mission is to demonstrate for voters that we can take on Obama on the big issues of the day.”
Answering questions after his remarks Tuesday, Perry framed his Israel advocacy as part of his religion. “As a Christian, I have a clear directive to support Israel,” he said. “As an American and a Christian I will stand with Israel.”
That explicit religious appeal is the sort of comment that could displease Jewish voters. Perry’s hawkish Israel views will likely win him more support among evangelical Christians, many of whom support Zionism for their own religious reasons.
Just before becoming a presidential candidate, the governor held an unabashedly Christian prayer gathering in Houston, “The Response.” A few days ago he spoke at Liberty University, the school founded by evangelical fundamentalist Jerry Fallwell.
Even some Republican Jews were turned off by those events, a sign that Perry might struggle with GOP Jewish donors, who sources say have largely lined up behind former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney already.
Jonathan Tobin, the editor of the neo-conservative Jewish magazine Commentary, wrote earlier this week that “most American Jews fear evangelicals more than Hamas or Hezbollah,” adding that Perry “could send the vast majority of Jews fleeing back to the Democrats, Israel.”
Perry’s social conservativism could also hurt him with Jewish voters.
While more socially conservative Orthodox Jews are the fastest-growing demographic in the Jewish community, the vast majority of Jews still oppose Perry on abortion and same-sex marriage.
And Jews still make a small population in swing states key to the general election. Only 7 percent of Jews in Pittsburgh are Orthodox and only 5 percent of Jews in Cincinnati, Ohio are Orthodox; only 3 percent of the Jews in Palm Beach County are Orthodox, according to the Jewish Databank. (About a third of the Jews in New York’s 9th district are Orthodox.)
Jews aren’t the only constituency in America invested in the Israeli state. According to Pew polling, sixty-four percent of white evangelical Protestants and 62 percent of conservative Republicans say helping Israel should be an important U.S. policy goal, compared with only 34 percent of mainline Protestants and 51 percent of all Republicans.
Fallwell, like Perry was an ardent supporter of Israel. So is evangelical pastor John Hagee, who spoke at Perry’s Prayer gathering.
“I don’t think the focus is on Jewish voters” right now, said Tevi Troy, who served as liaison to the Jewish community in the Bush White House. “There are a lot of Americans outside the Jewish community, including but not limited to evangelicals, who feel very strongly about Israel.”
In a GOP primary with Romney, Perry probably doesn’t have to worry much about the evangelical vote. But his outspoken defense of Israel will only endear him more to those voters.
Over a quarter of Americans are evangelical Protestants, while less 2 percent of the country is Jewish. Moreover, evangelicals are far more influential in Republican primaries. Exit polling found that in 2008, sixty percent of caucus voters in Iowa and primary voters in South Carolina were evangelicals.
One danger for Perry is that his grandstanding on Israel exposes some holes in his foreign policy knowledge. As the Post’s Glenn Kessler wrote yesterday , two of the three preconditions Perry demanded of Palestinians were met decades ago. The third has only been an issue since March of 2010.
2012 rival Rick Santorum (R)on Tuesday quipped, “I’ve forgotten more about Israel than Rick Perry knows about Israel.”
Posted by Rachel Weiner at 03:54 PM ET, 09/20/2011
Rick Perry has been very interested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lately. On the heels of editorials in both the Wall Street Journal and the Jerusalem Post criticizing the Obama Administration’s policies in the Middle East, Perry held a press conference Tuesday morning accusing the president of a “policy of appeasement” toward the Palestinian Authority.
Rick Perry has been outspoken on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict of late. (Melina Mara - THE WASHINGTON POST)
Perry’s interest in Israel is longstanding, and he’s defended the country’s foreign policy before, but not so frequently or vocally. Is he hoping to win over Jewish voters or is it another pitch to win over evangelicals?
As Texas agriculture commissioner in the 1990s, Perry started the Texas-Israel Exchange. In 2009, he traveled to Israel to receive a “Defender of Jerusalem” award. That same year, he told a reporter, “I have a special affection for that country, for the nation of Israel, a remarkable people,” comparing Masada, the sight of a famed battle between the Jews and the Roman Empire, to the Alamo.
Perry’s press conference on Tuesday came as the Obama administration tries to stop a U.N. vote on Palestinian statehood this week. Obama is slated to talk to the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday.
Furthermore, Obama’s support with Jewish voters is dropping, some say illustrated by an unlikely win last week in the heavily Democratic and Jewish New York 9th district special election contest to replace Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.). During Perry’s appearance in New York on Tuesday, newly-minted Empire State GOP Rep. Bob Turner was by his side.
While polling finds that the economy is the main reason for Obama’s drop in Jewish support, many Republicans have seized on the results of last week’s special election as a sign that Israel could become a wedge issue with Jews in swing states in 2012.
“Whoever our Republican nominee is I think is going to have the ability to go into the Jewish community and provide a very strong argument and a very strong contrast” with Obama, said Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition.
A top Perry strategist insisted following Perry’s speech that nothing had changed in terms of the governor’s strategy.
“Consistent, principled positions that don't change depending on what election one might be seeking will always do better amongst all voters,” said Perry strategist Dave Carney. “Our mission is to demonstrate for voters that we can take on Obama on the big issues of the day.”
Answering questions after his remarks Tuesday, Perry framed his Israel advocacy as part of his religion. “As a Christian, I have a clear directive to support Israel,” he said. “As an American and a Christian I will stand with Israel.”
That explicit religious appeal is the sort of comment that could displease Jewish voters. Perry’s hawkish Israel views will likely win him more support among evangelical Christians, many of whom support Zionism for their own religious reasons.
Just before becoming a presidential candidate, the governor held an unabashedly Christian prayer gathering in Houston, “The Response.” A few days ago he spoke at Liberty University, the school founded by evangelical fundamentalist Jerry Fallwell.
Even some Republican Jews were turned off by those events, a sign that Perry might struggle with GOP Jewish donors, who sources say have largely lined up behind former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney already.
Jonathan Tobin, the editor of the neo-conservative Jewish magazine Commentary, wrote earlier this week that “most American Jews fear evangelicals more than Hamas or Hezbollah,” adding that Perry “could send the vast majority of Jews fleeing back to the Democrats, Israel.”
Perry’s social conservativism could also hurt him with Jewish voters.
While more socially conservative Orthodox Jews are the fastest-growing demographic in the Jewish community, the vast majority of Jews still oppose Perry on abortion and same-sex marriage.
And Jews still make a small population in swing states key to the general election. Only 7 percent of Jews in Pittsburgh are Orthodox and only 5 percent of Jews in Cincinnati, Ohio are Orthodox; only 3 percent of the Jews in Palm Beach County are Orthodox, according to the Jewish Databank. (About a third of the Jews in New York’s 9th district are Orthodox.)
Jews aren’t the only constituency in America invested in the Israeli state. According to Pew polling, sixty-four percent of white evangelical Protestants and 62 percent of conservative Republicans say helping Israel should be an important U.S. policy goal, compared with only 34 percent of mainline Protestants and 51 percent of all Republicans.
Fallwell, like Perry was an ardent supporter of Israel. So is evangelical pastor John Hagee, who spoke at Perry’s Prayer gathering.
“I don’t think the focus is on Jewish voters” right now, said Tevi Troy, who served as liaison to the Jewish community in the Bush White House. “There are a lot of Americans outside the Jewish community, including but not limited to evangelicals, who feel very strongly about Israel.”
In a GOP primary with Romney, Perry probably doesn’t have to worry much about the evangelical vote. But his outspoken defense of Israel will only endear him more to those voters.
Over a quarter of Americans are evangelical Protestants, while less 2 percent of the country is Jewish. Moreover, evangelicals are far more influential in Republican primaries. Exit polling found that in 2008, sixty percent of caucus voters in Iowa and primary voters in South Carolina were evangelicals.
One danger for Perry is that his grandstanding on Israel exposes some holes in his foreign policy knowledge. As the Post’s Glenn Kessler wrote yesterday , two of the three preconditions Perry demanded of Palestinians were met decades ago. The third has only been an issue since March of 2010.
2012 rival Rick Santorum (R)on Tuesday quipped, “I’ve forgotten more about Israel than Rick Perry knows about Israel.”
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Can you see Obama saying this? Annex West Bank!
In what is both a powerful display of political support for the Netanyahu government and a potentially game-changing maneuver, Republican congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois has introduced a bill into the U.S. House affirming Israel's right to annex the West Bank should it choose to do so.
Haaretz reports that the bill has 30 co-sponsors and was introduced because, as Walsh puts it “We’ve got what I consider to be a potential slap in the face coming up with the vote in the UN, which is absolutely outrageous."
It’s clear that the United States needs to make a very strong statement. I would argue that the president should make this statement, but he’s not capable of making it. So, the House needs to make this statement, if the [Palestinian Authority] continues down this road of trying to get recognition of statehood, the U.S. will not stand for it. And we will respect Israel’s right to annex Judea and Samaria.
The bill may or may not pass, but has a good chance given Republican dominance in the House and Speaker John Boehner's outspoken support for Israel. It will also be seen as a partisan rebuke of President Barack Obama during the runup to an election year.
Boehner himself delivered a harsh criticism of Obama's conduct toward Israel on Sunday, saying that the U.S, must be "not just as a broker or observerm" in regard to Israel, but "a strong partner and reliable ally.”
Israel is becoming a partisan issue in America for the first time in recent memory, with Republicans enthusiastically supporting the current rightwing government and Democrats towing a much more cautious and conciliatory line.
President Obama in particular has drawn a great deal of criticism in this regard, causing some prominent Democrats such as former New York mayor Ed Koch to attack the president publi
Haaretz reports that the bill has 30 co-sponsors and was introduced because, as Walsh puts it “We’ve got what I consider to be a potential slap in the face coming up with the vote in the UN, which is absolutely outrageous."
It’s clear that the United States needs to make a very strong statement. I would argue that the president should make this statement, but he’s not capable of making it. So, the House needs to make this statement, if the [Palestinian Authority] continues down this road of trying to get recognition of statehood, the U.S. will not stand for it. And we will respect Israel’s right to annex Judea and Samaria.
The bill may or may not pass, but has a good chance given Republican dominance in the House and Speaker John Boehner's outspoken support for Israel. It will also be seen as a partisan rebuke of President Barack Obama during the runup to an election year.
Boehner himself delivered a harsh criticism of Obama's conduct toward Israel on Sunday, saying that the U.S, must be "not just as a broker or observerm" in regard to Israel, but "a strong partner and reliable ally.”
Israel is becoming a partisan issue in America for the first time in recent memory, with Republicans enthusiastically supporting the current rightwing government and Democrats towing a much more cautious and conciliatory line.
President Obama in particular has drawn a great deal of criticism in this regard, causing some prominent Democrats such as former New York mayor Ed Koch to attack the president publi
Monday, September 19, 2011
whose fault
"While many American jews like to engage in a form of group think that if the Israelis were more magnanimous and offer more concessions then the Palestinians would come around. But since the advent of Oslo how has Palestinian leadership readied their people for the eventuality of having to live next to jewish neighbors? By using children's programing to portray jews in the most vulgar caricatures? By employing a curriculum that doesn't even have Israel on the map? By announcing that any future Palestinian state will be Judenrein?"
East Jerusalem Always was Jewish
September 16, 2011
Building Jerusalem
By Hadassah Levy
On the edge of Route 1 as that thoroughfare runs through eastern Jerusalem lies an Arab neighborhood by the name of Sheikh Jarrah. In one section of the neighborhood, an Israeli flag waves and Jews walk back and forth to the tomb of Simon the Just (Shimon Hatzadik), who served as high priest in the Second Temple. The synagogue surrounding the tomb is filled with men studying Torah and women reciting Psalms. Approximately ten young families live in a building adjacent to the tomb.
East Jerusalem Elliot Jager, Jewish Ideas Daily. What and where is it? SAVE
Cherry-Picking History Omri Ceren, Contentions. Taking the Palestinian position on Jerusalem, as the U.S. State Department has done, means installing an atypical 18-year historical blip as the baseline for negotiations. SAVE
The Future of Israel’s Capital Nadav Shragai, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. The unresolved issue of land ownership in eastern Jerusalem has led to illegality, chaos, and violence; the interests of all parties lie in rectifying the situation. (PDF) SAVE
Every Friday, protesters gather at the edge of the neighborhood to demonstrate against evictions of Arabs from their homes. The evictions are legal, as the Arabs in question are squatters, having been living rent-free for years in houses that don't belong to them. But the real complaint of the protesters, who comprise both Arabs and Jews, concerns the prospect of Jewish families taking over the houses and thus contributing to the changing character of the neighborhood.
Sheikh Jarrah is not the only Arab neighborhood in eastern Jerusalem undergoing demographic change. On the Mount of Olives, the Beit Orot yeshiva, situated between the Augusta Victoria church and the Mormon outpost of Brigham Young University, is in the process of constructing housing that could ultimately bring a total of 300 Jewish families to the area. This could help to create a continuous Jewish presence from the Mount of Olives cemetery down toward the Temple Mount.
Historically speaking, eastern Jerusalem was where most Jews always lived. In biblical times, the city as a whole was limited geographically to the area surrounding the Temple Mount (known today as the City of David). Even in the modern period, as settlement expanded in the 19th century, it was to the eastern parts of the city that Jews moved. Not until 1929, under the pressure of Arab riots, did officials of the British Mandate undertake to separate the populations and force most Jerusalem Jews to resettle in the west. Those who remained, in the Jewish Quarter and a few other neighborhoods of the Old City, were expelled in 1948 when these areas fell into the hands of the Jordanians.
In 1967, with the return of Jerusalem's eastern sectors to Israel, Jews quickly settled wherever property was available while Arabs remained in all-Arab enclaves like Sheikh Jarrah. Today, the Jewish population in all of eastern Jerusalem numbers about 200,000, of whom about 2,000 reside in Arab neighborhoods.
What now? Israeli politicians and activists who favor agreements with the Palestinians based on the concept of "land for peace" share the view of the British Mandate: peace can be achieved only by separating the Jewish and Arab populations. This was the logic behind the 2005 evacuation of the Jewish settlements in Gaza, and today it is the goal of those who wish to cede land in the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority. An expanded version of the same idea is the guiding principle of the international community. According to it, all land captured by Israel in 1967 should be ceded to the Arabs, thus returning the Jewish state to the armistice lines as they existed at the end of the 1948–49 war of independence.
In contrast to this, Jewish settlers seek an integration of the two populations. Those politicians and activists who regard land-for-peace as a bankrupt policy similarly see integration as a solution. Their strategy is to settle as many Jews as possible in an as many areas as possible in both the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, thus making the segregation of the two populations a logistical nightmare, if not an impossibility. Many settlers now wish they had pursued this strategy—also known as creating "facts on the ground"—more energetically in the 1980's, when the settlement movement was focused more on homogeneity than on size, with the result that the Jewish population in the West Bank, now at about 330,000, is much lower than it might have been. Such thinking is in part behind the current rush to establish new settlements as well as to expand existing ones, which according to this logic will make it that much harder for any government to undertake a wholesale, Gaza-style evacuation in a future peace agreement.
"Facts on the ground" will undoubtedly influence public policy in Israel. Places with very small Jewish populations or that have been abandoned by Jews are almost always considered negotiable or by definition as belonging to the Arabs. Prime examples are the Temple Mount area in Jerusalem and most of the West Bank itself. By contrast, Jewish cities like Ariel and Maaleh Adumim, thanks to the size of their populations, are usually conceded to the Israelis in most peace proposals.
Past experience suggests that a genuine peace agreement with the Palestinians is unlikely to emerge for many more years, and during that time the demographics of eastern Jerusalem could change significantly. Moreover, Israel's last previous experiment with evacuating its citizens is almost universally considered a failure. Not only did the departure of the IDF from Gaza lead to serious security problems, including the still-unceasing rocket fire from the Hamas-ruled terrritory, but the evacuees themselves have yet to be settled properly in homes and communities. The action also caused large segments of the Israeli citizenry, especially those within the religious-Zionist camp, to lose faith in the willingness of the government to protect their interests.
Will a future Israeli government insist on drawing the country's borders so as to recognize new realities and avoid incurring a much larger trauma than the fiasco of 2005? On Jerusalem, at least, the Netanyahu government has so far declined to be clear, issuing unequivocal declarations against any future division of the city while at the same time permitting very little construction to take place in virtually any part of Jerusalem, east or west. Whether it allows continued settlement of Jews in Sheikh Jarrah and other areas of eastern Jerusalem will perhaps provide one barometer of its longer-term intentions.
Hadassah Levy is a website manager and marketer for Jewish Ideas Daily.
Building Jerusalem
By Hadassah Levy
On the edge of Route 1 as that thoroughfare runs through eastern Jerusalem lies an Arab neighborhood by the name of Sheikh Jarrah. In one section of the neighborhood, an Israeli flag waves and Jews walk back and forth to the tomb of Simon the Just (Shimon Hatzadik), who served as high priest in the Second Temple. The synagogue surrounding the tomb is filled with men studying Torah and women reciting Psalms. Approximately ten young families live in a building adjacent to the tomb.
East Jerusalem Elliot Jager, Jewish Ideas Daily. What and where is it? SAVE
Cherry-Picking History Omri Ceren, Contentions. Taking the Palestinian position on Jerusalem, as the U.S. State Department has done, means installing an atypical 18-year historical blip as the baseline for negotiations. SAVE
The Future of Israel’s Capital Nadav Shragai, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. The unresolved issue of land ownership in eastern Jerusalem has led to illegality, chaos, and violence; the interests of all parties lie in rectifying the situation. (PDF) SAVE
Every Friday, protesters gather at the edge of the neighborhood to demonstrate against evictions of Arabs from their homes. The evictions are legal, as the Arabs in question are squatters, having been living rent-free for years in houses that don't belong to them. But the real complaint of the protesters, who comprise both Arabs and Jews, concerns the prospect of Jewish families taking over the houses and thus contributing to the changing character of the neighborhood.
Sheikh Jarrah is not the only Arab neighborhood in eastern Jerusalem undergoing demographic change. On the Mount of Olives, the Beit Orot yeshiva, situated between the Augusta Victoria church and the Mormon outpost of Brigham Young University, is in the process of constructing housing that could ultimately bring a total of 300 Jewish families to the area. This could help to create a continuous Jewish presence from the Mount of Olives cemetery down toward the Temple Mount.
Historically speaking, eastern Jerusalem was where most Jews always lived. In biblical times, the city as a whole was limited geographically to the area surrounding the Temple Mount (known today as the City of David). Even in the modern period, as settlement expanded in the 19th century, it was to the eastern parts of the city that Jews moved. Not until 1929, under the pressure of Arab riots, did officials of the British Mandate undertake to separate the populations and force most Jerusalem Jews to resettle in the west. Those who remained, in the Jewish Quarter and a few other neighborhoods of the Old City, were expelled in 1948 when these areas fell into the hands of the Jordanians.
In 1967, with the return of Jerusalem's eastern sectors to Israel, Jews quickly settled wherever property was available while Arabs remained in all-Arab enclaves like Sheikh Jarrah. Today, the Jewish population in all of eastern Jerusalem numbers about 200,000, of whom about 2,000 reside in Arab neighborhoods.
What now? Israeli politicians and activists who favor agreements with the Palestinians based on the concept of "land for peace" share the view of the British Mandate: peace can be achieved only by separating the Jewish and Arab populations. This was the logic behind the 2005 evacuation of the Jewish settlements in Gaza, and today it is the goal of those who wish to cede land in the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority. An expanded version of the same idea is the guiding principle of the international community. According to it, all land captured by Israel in 1967 should be ceded to the Arabs, thus returning the Jewish state to the armistice lines as they existed at the end of the 1948–49 war of independence.
In contrast to this, Jewish settlers seek an integration of the two populations. Those politicians and activists who regard land-for-peace as a bankrupt policy similarly see integration as a solution. Their strategy is to settle as many Jews as possible in an as many areas as possible in both the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, thus making the segregation of the two populations a logistical nightmare, if not an impossibility. Many settlers now wish they had pursued this strategy—also known as creating "facts on the ground"—more energetically in the 1980's, when the settlement movement was focused more on homogeneity than on size, with the result that the Jewish population in the West Bank, now at about 330,000, is much lower than it might have been. Such thinking is in part behind the current rush to establish new settlements as well as to expand existing ones, which according to this logic will make it that much harder for any government to undertake a wholesale, Gaza-style evacuation in a future peace agreement.
"Facts on the ground" will undoubtedly influence public policy in Israel. Places with very small Jewish populations or that have been abandoned by Jews are almost always considered negotiable or by definition as belonging to the Arabs. Prime examples are the Temple Mount area in Jerusalem and most of the West Bank itself. By contrast, Jewish cities like Ariel and Maaleh Adumim, thanks to the size of their populations, are usually conceded to the Israelis in most peace proposals.
Past experience suggests that a genuine peace agreement with the Palestinians is unlikely to emerge for many more years, and during that time the demographics of eastern Jerusalem could change significantly. Moreover, Israel's last previous experiment with evacuating its citizens is almost universally considered a failure. Not only did the departure of the IDF from Gaza lead to serious security problems, including the still-unceasing rocket fire from the Hamas-ruled terrritory, but the evacuees themselves have yet to be settled properly in homes and communities. The action also caused large segments of the Israeli citizenry, especially those within the religious-Zionist camp, to lose faith in the willingness of the government to protect their interests.
Will a future Israeli government insist on drawing the country's borders so as to recognize new realities and avoid incurring a much larger trauma than the fiasco of 2005? On Jerusalem, at least, the Netanyahu government has so far declined to be clear, issuing unequivocal declarations against any future division of the city while at the same time permitting very little construction to take place in virtually any part of Jerusalem, east or west. Whether it allows continued settlement of Jews in Sheikh Jarrah and other areas of eastern Jerusalem will perhaps provide one barometer of its longer-term intentions.
Hadassah Levy is a website manager and marketer for Jewish Ideas Daily.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
A Palestinian Moral and Political Failure
Letter from London: A Palestinian Moral and Political Failure
8:01 AM, SEP 9, 2011 • BY ELLIOTT ABRAMS
London—Several days of Middle East discussions in London have not contributed to any sense of optimism about the near, or for that matter medium-range, future on the Israeli-Palestinian front. It did not appear to the officials with whom I spoke that PA president Mahmoud Abbas can be persuaded to drop his foolish U.N. gambit. The only good news was that the UK will, this fall, adopt laws protecting Israeli officials from the politicized prosecutions that have kept them out of Britain.
No one, official or "expert," had a solid answer to what comes after September's folly at the U.N. Abbas will be forced by public opinion, or at least by Hamas and other extremist pressure, immediately to use any new options a U.N. reference to Palestinian statehood gives him—such as seeking International Criminal Court indictments of Israeli officials. The only effect will be to embitter relations between Israel and the PA and make cooperation more difficult even when it is in the interests of both sides. The refusal to see all of this is a great failure of leadership by Abbas, whose public opinion is not forcing him into this posture. Recent polls suggest that most Palestinians prefer negotiations and see the U.N. as a sideshow, so Abbas could have taken that view and faced down the extremists. He did not, and there is no evidence he will now, so we can expect the U.N. action to be the start of a nasty autumn. His declarations about non-violence are not going to stop large demonstrations from becoming violent if Hamas and others decide to provoke it. And Israeli officials are unlikely to go beyond the call of duty in cooperating with the PA if they are fighting both "lawfare" attacks and street violence.
But the larger and more depressing issue that emerged in a very useful conference at RUSI, the Royal United Services Institute, was that of the refugees—the Palestinian refugees and the "right of return," which in turn is connected to the question of whether Palestinians will acknowledge and accept Israel as a Jewish state. Palestinian official representatives here used every cheap argument in the book on these issues, including misrepresentation of the Israeli position. The demand for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is a new Israeli precondition for negotiations, they said, and is blocking talks. That's false, Israeli officials replied; that recognition is our goal and our demand in negotiations, not a precondition to sitting down. This clear statement did not prevent PA/PLO officials from repeating their false claim over and over, including on the BBC.
Worse yet was the argument that the "right of return" is an individual right that the PA/PLO cannot waive in a peace treaty. If that is the firm Palestinian position when talks come—if they ever do—there is quite simply no chance for an agreement. For that position means the Palestinians would be insisting that each individual "refugee," a category they define to include those born in Israel before 1948 plus all their descendants no matter where or when they were born, has the right to move to Israel and each must decide for himself. No Israeli government will ever agree to this, and this demand constitutes a Palestinian refusal to accept the Jewish state—in fact, an intention to make its continued existence impossible.
It would be useful to clarify this point, asking the PA/PLO its precise view. Perhaps they will be willing to state that, even if they consider it a reasonable view, it is also wrong, and the PLO has the right to negotiate on behalf of all Palestinians on all issues—borders, security, and the rights of "refugees," too. If they are not willing to state this, it should become the top priority of U.S. and E.U. diplomacy to take the issue up. Unless Palestinian leaders are clear on this issue, there will never be a peace agreement, so those diplomats dedicated to "the peace process" should stop wasting time on far smaller matters such as construction in settlements and focus on the "refugee" issue instead. Only when Palestinian leaders are willing publicly to say that the refugees are not going "home" to Israel, that as President Bush put it in 2004 "a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel," will we know they are serious about a peace agreement.
THE BLOG
Letter from London: A Palestinian Moral and Political Failure
8:01 AM, SEP 9, 2011 • BY ELLIOTT ABRAMSSingle PagePrintLarger TextSmaller
A related fundamental point, one that may seem esoteric but is in fact practical, is whether Palestinians are willing to acknowledge that Jews are a people. The assertion that Jews are "merely" a religious group is another way of saying that statehood is not deserved, for peoples or nations deserve a state, not religions. At recent conferences I have heard Palestinian spokesmen refer to their great respect for Judaism as a religion when asked about Jewish nationhood. This is a polite way of saying they continue to believe the existence of the state of Israel is wrong, just as insistence of the "right of return" suggests they are not reconciled to Israel's survival as a Jewish state.
One might say "relax, these are just negotiating positions. Why give them away until serious talks begin?" I wish I believed that. But so much of Palestinian (and wider Arab) political discourse continues to display anti-Semitism and hostility to Israel's existence that this view would be Pollyannaish—without even getting to the views of Hamas and similar terrorist groups.
This is in large part a failure of leadership, so long the Palestinian curse—from Haj Amin Al Husseini through Arafat to the Fatah crew today. Moderate views exist and moderate voices are heard. Those who understand the need to build their state from the bottom up do exist as well, have achieved a great deal, and do have serious popular backing. If the Fatah leaders took up the cause of building their own state instead of tearing down their neighbor's, peace could be achieved. All of which suggests that there is another failure of leadership, in the West. Not since President Bush frankly condemned Arafat in 2002 and said there would be no state until he was replaced by decent governance has any Western leader spoken with such candor. Instead, we have heard obsessive concern about real estate issues regarding construction and we have not heard much about the continued hate speech so widespread in Palestinian media. At a time when a broad consensus in Israel accepts the need for Palestinian statehood, this is a moral and political failure of historic proportions.
8:01 AM, SEP 9, 2011 • BY ELLIOTT ABRAMS
London—Several days of Middle East discussions in London have not contributed to any sense of optimism about the near, or for that matter medium-range, future on the Israeli-Palestinian front. It did not appear to the officials with whom I spoke that PA president Mahmoud Abbas can be persuaded to drop his foolish U.N. gambit. The only good news was that the UK will, this fall, adopt laws protecting Israeli officials from the politicized prosecutions that have kept them out of Britain.
No one, official or "expert," had a solid answer to what comes after September's folly at the U.N. Abbas will be forced by public opinion, or at least by Hamas and other extremist pressure, immediately to use any new options a U.N. reference to Palestinian statehood gives him—such as seeking International Criminal Court indictments of Israeli officials. The only effect will be to embitter relations between Israel and the PA and make cooperation more difficult even when it is in the interests of both sides. The refusal to see all of this is a great failure of leadership by Abbas, whose public opinion is not forcing him into this posture. Recent polls suggest that most Palestinians prefer negotiations and see the U.N. as a sideshow, so Abbas could have taken that view and faced down the extremists. He did not, and there is no evidence he will now, so we can expect the U.N. action to be the start of a nasty autumn. His declarations about non-violence are not going to stop large demonstrations from becoming violent if Hamas and others decide to provoke it. And Israeli officials are unlikely to go beyond the call of duty in cooperating with the PA if they are fighting both "lawfare" attacks and street violence.
But the larger and more depressing issue that emerged in a very useful conference at RUSI, the Royal United Services Institute, was that of the refugees—the Palestinian refugees and the "right of return," which in turn is connected to the question of whether Palestinians will acknowledge and accept Israel as a Jewish state. Palestinian official representatives here used every cheap argument in the book on these issues, including misrepresentation of the Israeli position. The demand for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is a new Israeli precondition for negotiations, they said, and is blocking talks. That's false, Israeli officials replied; that recognition is our goal and our demand in negotiations, not a precondition to sitting down. This clear statement did not prevent PA/PLO officials from repeating their false claim over and over, including on the BBC.
Worse yet was the argument that the "right of return" is an individual right that the PA/PLO cannot waive in a peace treaty. If that is the firm Palestinian position when talks come—if they ever do—there is quite simply no chance for an agreement. For that position means the Palestinians would be insisting that each individual "refugee," a category they define to include those born in Israel before 1948 plus all their descendants no matter where or when they were born, has the right to move to Israel and each must decide for himself. No Israeli government will ever agree to this, and this demand constitutes a Palestinian refusal to accept the Jewish state—in fact, an intention to make its continued existence impossible.
It would be useful to clarify this point, asking the PA/PLO its precise view. Perhaps they will be willing to state that, even if they consider it a reasonable view, it is also wrong, and the PLO has the right to negotiate on behalf of all Palestinians on all issues—borders, security, and the rights of "refugees," too. If they are not willing to state this, it should become the top priority of U.S. and E.U. diplomacy to take the issue up. Unless Palestinian leaders are clear on this issue, there will never be a peace agreement, so those diplomats dedicated to "the peace process" should stop wasting time on far smaller matters such as construction in settlements and focus on the "refugee" issue instead. Only when Palestinian leaders are willing publicly to say that the refugees are not going "home" to Israel, that as President Bush put it in 2004 "a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel," will we know they are serious about a peace agreement.
THE BLOG
Letter from London: A Palestinian Moral and Political Failure
8:01 AM, SEP 9, 2011 • BY ELLIOTT ABRAMSSingle PagePrintLarger TextSmaller
A related fundamental point, one that may seem esoteric but is in fact practical, is whether Palestinians are willing to acknowledge that Jews are a people. The assertion that Jews are "merely" a religious group is another way of saying that statehood is not deserved, for peoples or nations deserve a state, not religions. At recent conferences I have heard Palestinian spokesmen refer to their great respect for Judaism as a religion when asked about Jewish nationhood. This is a polite way of saying they continue to believe the existence of the state of Israel is wrong, just as insistence of the "right of return" suggests they are not reconciled to Israel's survival as a Jewish state.
One might say "relax, these are just negotiating positions. Why give them away until serious talks begin?" I wish I believed that. But so much of Palestinian (and wider Arab) political discourse continues to display anti-Semitism and hostility to Israel's existence that this view would be Pollyannaish—without even getting to the views of Hamas and similar terrorist groups.
This is in large part a failure of leadership, so long the Palestinian curse—from Haj Amin Al Husseini through Arafat to the Fatah crew today. Moderate views exist and moderate voices are heard. Those who understand the need to build their state from the bottom up do exist as well, have achieved a great deal, and do have serious popular backing. If the Fatah leaders took up the cause of building their own state instead of tearing down their neighbor's, peace could be achieved. All of which suggests that there is another failure of leadership, in the West. Not since President Bush frankly condemned Arafat in 2002 and said there would be no state until he was replaced by decent governance has any Western leader spoken with such candor. Instead, we have heard obsessive concern about real estate issues regarding construction and we have not heard much about the continued hate speech so widespread in Palestinian media. At a time when a broad consensus in Israel accepts the need for Palestinian statehood, this is a moral and political failure of historic proportions.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
What Palestine?
Is the world just plain stupid?
An interesting questionnaire for Palestinian Advocates
By Yashiko Sagamori
If you are so sure that "Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded history," I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine:
1. When was it founded and by whom?
2. What were its borders?
3. What was its capital?
4. What were its major cities?
5. What constituted the basis of its economy?
6. What was its form of government?
7. Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
8.. Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
9. What was the language of the country of Palestine?
10. What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?
11. What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese Yuan on that date.
12. And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
You are lamenting the "low sinking" of a "once proud" nation.. Please tell me, when exactly was that "nation" proud and what was it so proud of?
And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call "Palestinians" are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over -- or thrown out of -- the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic id! entity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?
I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day "Palestinians" to the Biblical Philistines: Substituting etymology for history won't work here.
The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy. For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it "the Palestinian people" and installed it in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the "West Bank" and Gaza, respectively?
The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less claim to nationhood than that Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: At least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so-called "Palestinians" have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel, and in my book that is not sufficient to consider them a nation" -- or anything else except what they really are: A terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled.
In fact, there is only one way to achieve peace in the Middle East. Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side should, pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited on it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and accepting Israel's ancient sovereignty over Gaza, Judea, and Samaria.
That will mark the end of the Palestinian people. What are you saying again was its beginning?
Can this story be presented any more clearly or simply?
www.rabbijonathanginsburg.com
www.rabbijonathanginsburg.info
www.rabbijonathanginsburg.org
www.rabbijonathanginsburg.net
An interesting questionnaire for Palestinian Advocates
By Yashiko Sagamori
If you are so sure that "Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded history," I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine:
1. When was it founded and by whom?
2. What were its borders?
3. What was its capital?
4. What were its major cities?
5. What constituted the basis of its economy?
6. What was its form of government?
7. Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
8.. Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
9. What was the language of the country of Palestine?
10. What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?
11. What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese Yuan on that date.
12. And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
You are lamenting the "low sinking" of a "once proud" nation.. Please tell me, when exactly was that "nation" proud and what was it so proud of?
And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call "Palestinians" are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over -- or thrown out of -- the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic id! entity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?
I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day "Palestinians" to the Biblical Philistines: Substituting etymology for history won't work here.
The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy. For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it "the Palestinian people" and installed it in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the "West Bank" and Gaza, respectively?
The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less claim to nationhood than that Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: At least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so-called "Palestinians" have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel, and in my book that is not sufficient to consider them a nation" -- or anything else except what they really are: A terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled.
In fact, there is only one way to achieve peace in the Middle East. Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side should, pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited on it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and accepting Israel's ancient sovereignty over Gaza, Judea, and Samaria.
That will mark the end of the Palestinian people. What are you saying again was its beginning?
Can this story be presented any more clearly or simply?
www.rabbijonathanginsburg.com
www.rabbijonathanginsburg.info
www.rabbijonathanginsburg.org
www.rabbijonathanginsburg.net
Friday, September 9, 2011
Congr Walsh bill on UN vote
http://walsh.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=49§iontree=6,49&itemid=323
Rep. Walsh Introduces Legislation to Defend Israel in Face of Upcoming U.N. Vote on Palestinian State
09/08/11
WASHINGTON– Today, Congressman Joe Walsh introduced a resolution supporting Israel’s right to annex Judea and Samaria in the event that the Palestinian Authority continues to press for unilateral U.N. recognition of Palestinian statehood. It anticipates the General Assembly vote on recognition of Palestinian statehood scheduled for September 20. The resolution coincides with a bill being introduced in the Israeli Knesset to terminate all obligations and agreements made between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and implement full Israeli sovereignty over the land in which Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria currently reside.
“The Palestinian Authority has repeatedly violated peace agreements and has even joined forces with the terrorist group Hamas. But the United States has continued to give aid to the Palestinians on the one condition that they continue to negotiate with Israel for peace. Now the Palestinians can’t even do that and have cut Israel completely out of the process by pushing for unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations. This is the last straw. It is clear that the Palestinian Authority no longer has any interest in peace.”
“We must stand firmly by Israel because a strong and secure democracy in the Middle East is absolutely vital to American security. The Palestinian Authority has to negotiate directly with Israel. If it is going to continue to cut Israel out and violate its peace agreements, then the United States must support Israel’s efforts to defend its sovereignty and the security of its citizens.”
“A U.N. recognized Palestinian state would potentially put Israelis directly under the sovereignty of a group of people that have sworn the destruction of Israel and its people. This is unacceptable, and, in the absence of a negotiated peace agreement, Israel has the right to protect its citizens living in Judea and Samaria by annexing those territories.”
Congressman Walsh has introduced two other bills in defense of Israel during the 112th Congress. H.R. 1501 will withhold funding from the United Nations until it retracts the Goldstone Report, a 2009 report that accused Israel of war crimes. H.R. 2457, the Palestinian Accountability Act, will withhold funding from the Palestinian Authority until it stops inciting violence against Israel and recognizes Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State; it will also withhold US funding to the United Nations if that body or any of its entities unilaterally recognize Palestinian statehood.
Rep. Walsh Introduces Legislation to Defend Israel in Face of Upcoming U.N. Vote on Palestinian State
09/08/11
WASHINGTON– Today, Congressman Joe Walsh introduced a resolution supporting Israel’s right to annex Judea and Samaria in the event that the Palestinian Authority continues to press for unilateral U.N. recognition of Palestinian statehood. It anticipates the General Assembly vote on recognition of Palestinian statehood scheduled for September 20. The resolution coincides with a bill being introduced in the Israeli Knesset to terminate all obligations and agreements made between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and implement full Israeli sovereignty over the land in which Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria currently reside.
“The Palestinian Authority has repeatedly violated peace agreements and has even joined forces with the terrorist group Hamas. But the United States has continued to give aid to the Palestinians on the one condition that they continue to negotiate with Israel for peace. Now the Palestinians can’t even do that and have cut Israel completely out of the process by pushing for unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations. This is the last straw. It is clear that the Palestinian Authority no longer has any interest in peace.”
“We must stand firmly by Israel because a strong and secure democracy in the Middle East is absolutely vital to American security. The Palestinian Authority has to negotiate directly with Israel. If it is going to continue to cut Israel out and violate its peace agreements, then the United States must support Israel’s efforts to defend its sovereignty and the security of its citizens.”
“A U.N. recognized Palestinian state would potentially put Israelis directly under the sovereignty of a group of people that have sworn the destruction of Israel and its people. This is unacceptable, and, in the absence of a negotiated peace agreement, Israel has the right to protect its citizens living in Judea and Samaria by annexing those territories.”
Congressman Walsh has introduced two other bills in defense of Israel during the 112th Congress. H.R. 1501 will withhold funding from the United Nations until it retracts the Goldstone Report, a 2009 report that accused Israel of war crimes. H.R. 2457, the Palestinian Accountability Act, will withhold funding from the Palestinian Authority until it stops inciting violence against Israel and recognizes Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State; it will also withhold US funding to the United Nations if that body or any of its entities unilaterally recognize Palestinian statehood.
israel primer
Even those who aren't particularly sympathetic to Israel's Benjamin
Netanyahu, could get a good measure of satisfaction from this
interview with British Television during the retaliation against
Hamas' shelling of Israel.
The interviewer asked him:
"How come so many more Palestinians have been killed in this conflict than
Israelis?"
(A nasty question if there ever was one!)
Netanyahu: "Are you sure that you want to start asking in that direction?"
Interviewer: (Falling into the trap) Why not?
Netanyahu: "Because in World War II more Germans were killed than
British and Americans combined, but there is no doubt in anyone's mind
that the war was caused by Germany's aggression. And in response to
the German blitz on London, the British wiped out the entire city of
Dresden, burning to death more German civilians than the number of
people killed in Hiroshima.
Moreover, I could remind you that in 1944, when the R.A.F. tried to
bomb the Gestapo Headquarters in Copenhagen, some of the bombs missed
their target and fell on a Danish children's hospital, killing 83
little children. Perhaps you have another question?"
Apparently, Benjamin Netanyahu gave an interview and was asked about
Israel's occupation of Arab lands.
His response was, "It's our land". The reporter (CNN or the like) was
stunned - read below "It's our land..." It's important information
since we don't get fair and accurate reporting from the media and
facts tend to get lost in the jumble of daily events.
"Crash Course on the Arab Israeli Conflict."
Here are overlooked facts in the current & past Middle East situation.
These were compiled by a Christian university professor:
BRIEF FACTS ON THE ISRAELI CONFLICT TODAY...(It takes just 1..5 minutes to
read!)
It makes sense and it's not slanted. Jew and non-Jew -- it doesn't matter.
1. Nationhood and Jerusalem.
Israel became a nation in 1312 BCE, Two thousand years before the rise of
Islam.
2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a
Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the
modern State of Israel.
3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BCE, the Jews have had dominion over
The land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for
the past 3,300 years.
4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 CE lasted no more than
22 years.
5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem
Has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the
Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital,
and Arab leaders did not come to visit.
6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy
Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.
7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to
Jerusalem.
8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward
Jerusalem.
9. Arab and Jewish Refugees: in 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to
Leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews.
Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.
10 The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab
brutality, persecution and pogroms.
11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be
around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is
estimated to be the same.
12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the
Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the
100,000,000 refugees since World WarII, theirs is the only refugee group
in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own
people's lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a
country no larger than the state of New Jersey ..
13. The Arab-Israeli Conflict: the Arabs are represented by eight separate
nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation.
The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself
each time and won.
14. The PLO's Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of
Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land,
autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them.
15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews
Were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and
Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all
faiths.
16. The UN Record on Israel and the Arabs: of the 175 Security Council
resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.
17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were
directed against Israel.
18. The UN was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by the
Jordanians.
19. The UN was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated
the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.
20. The UN was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like a
Policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western
Wall.
www.rabbijonathanginsburg.org
www.rabbijonathanginsburg.info
www.rabbijonathanginsburg.com
Netanyahu, could get a good measure of satisfaction from this
interview with British Television during the retaliation against
Hamas' shelling of Israel.
The interviewer asked him:
"How come so many more Palestinians have been killed in this conflict than
Israelis?"
(A nasty question if there ever was one!)
Netanyahu: "Are you sure that you want to start asking in that direction?"
Interviewer: (Falling into the trap) Why not?
Netanyahu: "Because in World War II more Germans were killed than
British and Americans combined, but there is no doubt in anyone's mind
that the war was caused by Germany's aggression. And in response to
the German blitz on London, the British wiped out the entire city of
Dresden, burning to death more German civilians than the number of
people killed in Hiroshima.
Moreover, I could remind you that in 1944, when the R.A.F. tried to
bomb the Gestapo Headquarters in Copenhagen, some of the bombs missed
their target and fell on a Danish children's hospital, killing 83
little children. Perhaps you have another question?"
Apparently, Benjamin Netanyahu gave an interview and was asked about
Israel's occupation of Arab lands.
His response was, "It's our land". The reporter (CNN or the like) was
stunned - read below "It's our land..." It's important information
since we don't get fair and accurate reporting from the media and
facts tend to get lost in the jumble of daily events.
"Crash Course on the Arab Israeli Conflict."
Here are overlooked facts in the current & past Middle East situation.
These were compiled by a Christian university professor:
BRIEF FACTS ON THE ISRAELI CONFLICT TODAY...(It takes just 1..5 minutes to
read!)
It makes sense and it's not slanted. Jew and non-Jew -- it doesn't matter.
1. Nationhood and Jerusalem.
Israel became a nation in 1312 BCE, Two thousand years before the rise of
Islam.
2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a
Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the
modern State of Israel.
3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BCE, the Jews have had dominion over
The land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for
the past 3,300 years.
4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 CE lasted no more than
22 years.
5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem
Has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the
Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital,
and Arab leaders did not come to visit.
6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy
Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.
7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to
Jerusalem.
8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward
Jerusalem.
9. Arab and Jewish Refugees: in 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to
Leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews.
Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.
10 The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab
brutality, persecution and pogroms.
11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be
around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is
estimated to be the same.
12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the
Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the
100,000,000 refugees since World WarII, theirs is the only refugee group
in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own
people's lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a
country no larger than the state of New Jersey ..
13. The Arab-Israeli Conflict: the Arabs are represented by eight separate
nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation.
The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself
each time and won.
14. The PLO's Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of
Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land,
autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them.
15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews
Were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and
Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all
faiths.
16. The UN Record on Israel and the Arabs: of the 175 Security Council
resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.
17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were
directed against Israel.
18. The UN was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by the
Jordanians.
19. The UN was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated
the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.
20. The UN was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like a
Policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western
Wall.
www.rabbijonathanginsburg.org
www.rabbijonathanginsburg.info
www.rabbijonathanginsburg.com
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
what are the facts re Mideast
Facts: The Reality
A) Palestine is only the description given to a geographical area; which has not been a nation since Israel was conquered by Rome in 70 A.D.
B) The Turks had this area from 1517 to 1917, and made it a wasteland, causing the peasants to flee... wandering all over the Middle East seeking subsistence.
C) Even after the Roman defeat in 70 A.D. the Jews (with their Zionist dream) never vacated the Holy Land.
D) The area known as Palestine covered areas both East and West of the Jordan; and the Arabic-speaking people there thought of themselves as Syrians, Turks, or simply "Arabs"... but never as "Palestinians".
E) The Arabs did not begin to think in terms of "nationalism" until early in the 1900's. Even T.E. Lawrence was not able to inject them with "nationalism" as late as World War I.
F) Islamic religious prejudice often resulted in anti-Jewish violence, throughout the Middle East, even before Israel became a state in 1948.
G) The British later described these religious persecutions as being "Arab Nationalism", so as to justify limiting Jewish immigration from Europe.
H) The British illegally "gave" Mandate lands (specifically allocated for a Jewish national home) to the Arabs instead.
I) The Arab peasants had been rendered landless by their own Arab landlords, natural disasters, excessive taxes, and Arab money lenders.
J) In 1923 Britain illegally gave Abdulah 77 percent of Palestine (the whole "East Bank") to protect rights to Arab oil, and the Suez canal, etc. for purposes of the British Empire. This created Transjordan; which became Jordan in 1946.
K) Thus, Jordan is the "independent Palestinian state" in the area; and was carved out of what was to become Israel.
L) In 1947 the UN further carved up the 23 percent west of the Jordan, into Israel, another Palestinian state (which the Arabs rejected) and an internationalized Jerusalem.
M) The Jews accepted the UN proposal; the Arabs did not.
N) The UN has changed the definition of "Refugee" for the Arabs only; who therefore need only be in the land two years to qualify.
O) The homelands to which many Arabs fled in 1948 and 1967 include lands from which many of them had recently come.
P) It is their own Arab-Muslim leaders who are preventing Arab refugees in Israel from "returning home". They are sacrificing Arab refugees to put pressure on the UN and Israel for another "Palestinian state".
Q) Of all the adjacent Arab states, only Jordan would grant citizenship to Arabs fleeing Israel. All other Arab states refused to grant Arabs citizenship.
R) Since the state of Israel (even including the "West Bank" and "Gaza strip") would total only 23 percent of Palestine (as defined by the League of nations in granting the British Mandate) how can Arabs be said to have been excluded from a Palestinian homeland?
S) Some elements of Islam are terrorizing and intimidating the world into combined action against Israel; the real intention being to destroy both Israel and Lebanon, so Islam can consolidate the Middle East before launching out to "take the world for Allah".
A) Palestine is only the description given to a geographical area; which has not been a nation since Israel was conquered by Rome in 70 A.D.
B) The Turks had this area from 1517 to 1917, and made it a wasteland, causing the peasants to flee... wandering all over the Middle East seeking subsistence.
C) Even after the Roman defeat in 70 A.D. the Jews (with their Zionist dream) never vacated the Holy Land.
D) The area known as Palestine covered areas both East and West of the Jordan; and the Arabic-speaking people there thought of themselves as Syrians, Turks, or simply "Arabs"... but never as "Palestinians".
E) The Arabs did not begin to think in terms of "nationalism" until early in the 1900's. Even T.E. Lawrence was not able to inject them with "nationalism" as late as World War I.
F) Islamic religious prejudice often resulted in anti-Jewish violence, throughout the Middle East, even before Israel became a state in 1948.
G) The British later described these religious persecutions as being "Arab Nationalism", so as to justify limiting Jewish immigration from Europe.
H) The British illegally "gave" Mandate lands (specifically allocated for a Jewish national home) to the Arabs instead.
I) The Arab peasants had been rendered landless by their own Arab landlords, natural disasters, excessive taxes, and Arab money lenders.
J) In 1923 Britain illegally gave Abdulah 77 percent of Palestine (the whole "East Bank") to protect rights to Arab oil, and the Suez canal, etc. for purposes of the British Empire. This created Transjordan; which became Jordan in 1946.
K) Thus, Jordan is the "independent Palestinian state" in the area; and was carved out of what was to become Israel.
L) In 1947 the UN further carved up the 23 percent west of the Jordan, into Israel, another Palestinian state (which the Arabs rejected) and an internationalized Jerusalem.
M) The Jews accepted the UN proposal; the Arabs did not.
N) The UN has changed the definition of "Refugee" for the Arabs only; who therefore need only be in the land two years to qualify.
O) The homelands to which many Arabs fled in 1948 and 1967 include lands from which many of them had recently come.
P) It is their own Arab-Muslim leaders who are preventing Arab refugees in Israel from "returning home". They are sacrificing Arab refugees to put pressure on the UN and Israel for another "Palestinian state".
Q) Of all the adjacent Arab states, only Jordan would grant citizenship to Arabs fleeing Israel. All other Arab states refused to grant Arabs citizenship.
R) Since the state of Israel (even including the "West Bank" and "Gaza strip") would total only 23 percent of Palestine (as defined by the League of nations in granting the British Mandate) how can Arabs be said to have been excluded from a Palestinian homeland?
S) Some elements of Islam are terrorizing and intimidating the world into combined action against Israel; the real intention being to destroy both Israel and Lebanon, so Islam can consolidate the Middle East before launching out to "take the world for Allah".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)