web analytics
January 21, 2017 / 23 Tevet, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘Palestinian State’

The Devil is in the Details

Thursday, August 25th, 2016

I was shocked to read last week in the Jerusalem Post that Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, the Chief Rabbi of Efrat, is supporting a radical and dangerous leftwing “peace plan,” and worse, this plan is being promoted to the youths of Efrat and other settlements.

“Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, the founder and chief rabbi of Efrat, has expressed support, at the behest of his 18-year-old grandson, Eden, also a resident of Efrat, who has taken a leading role in drumming up support among teenagers and young adults (or, [in the words of the plan’s chief promoter Eliaz] Cohen, “infecting them with the sense of hope that is expressed by this proposal).”

I met and spoke with Rabbi Riskin a few times this week and he wanted to emphasize that he insists he “never accepted the plan.”

Rabbi Riskin said he was approached and was presented with a germ of an idea for a peace initiative, but was not made aware of any clear formulation of the terms of the plan itself.

Rabbi Riskin said he liked the name of the plan, “Two States, One Homeland,” and the concept as it was presented to him: a plan that would allow for peaceful coexistence, and did not require anyone, Jew or Arab, to be expelled from their homes.

Rabbi Riskin is a big believer and proponent of peace and coexistence between Jews and Arabs. He puts his money where his mouth is, and is known to personally get involved in helping Arabs who live in the villages around the town of Efrat. Without a doubt, this Rabbi is one of the reasons there so little friction between Jewish Efrat and its Arab neighbors.

He gave the plan’s advocate some stipulations of what any plan must include if he were to support it:

1) The Israeli-Jewish areas where Jews lived must clearly constitute a strong majority of Jews who would be establishing a Jewish State.

2) Not only would Jews have rights of access – and of course shared ownership – to the Temple Mount,  but would also be permitted to build a synagogue on the Temple Mount.

3) There would be a complete cessation of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel propaganda in Palestinian media and publications.

4) The Arab areas must be demilitarized.

Alas, the good Rabbi was not thinking like a good radical leftist, and didn’t consider the far more dangerous provisos that any typical leftwing “peace plan” might include.

Nothing New at All

The Jerusalem Post article’s author, Andrew Friedman, claims “the plan is a departure from the classic two-states-for-two-peoples formula,” but it’s anything but that.

It instead takes elements from some of the worst proposals, ideas that even Peres, Beilin and Sarid refused to entertain, and makes them the cornerstones of the plan.

But that’s not what makes this plan dangerous. The danger lies in the fact that this peace plan’s proponents are targeting Jewish settlement youths and older settlers who truly believe that coexistence is possible, repackaged to make the plan sound benign.

Unlimited Arab Refugees Allowed to Overrun Israel

The “Two State, One Homeland” website clearly states (emphasis added):

Immigration and naturalization Both states will have the right to define their own laws of immigration and naturalization within its boundaries. The State of Palestine would be at liberty to naturalize Palestinian refugees as it sees fit, and the state of Israel will be at liberty to naturalize the Jews of the diaspora, as it sees fit.

The Open Land vision a. The two states would be committed to a vision of one land, within which the citizens of both states have the right to travel and live in all parts of the land;

If their intentions aren’t clear enough from the text above, let me explain it, a fundamental cornerstone of the plan allows for the new Palestinian State to freely invite in millions of “Palestinian Refugees”.

Two million Jordanian Arabs, half a million Lebanese Arabs, and half a million Syrian Arabs (for starters) will be offered citizenship and entry into the new Palestinian state, where they will then be granted free access to the entire country — including the state of Israel, or what’s left of it.

Rabbi Riskin was surprised to learn this was a cornerstone of the plan, and made it clear that he in no way supports such an idea.

Efrat to Become Part of the Palestinian State

Rabbi Riskin was actually shocked to learn that his own town of Efrat would be transferred over to the Palestinian State, and any of its Jewish residents who choose to remain might be allowed to obtain Palestinian State citizenship, or otherwise will be granted “permanent residency” status.

It’s implied in the plan that the Jewish residents remaining inside the Palestinian State will be disarmed.

While he believes there can be land concessions in exchange for peace, Rabbi Riskin said he could never accept a plan that transfers sovereignty of the settlement blocs, and of Jews, away from the State of Israel.

What Demilitarized State?

While the plan calls for some “demilitarized zones” and decommissioning “armed militias and unauthorized organizations,” the Palestinian State will be anything but demilitarized.

In the Q&A section, the authors make it clear that the State of Palestine will be a completely independent sovereign entity with its own independent security force – but not to worry, the plan’s Arab co-authors say “they have no interest in tanks and planes.”

With a plan like this, they won’t need them.

By the way, all the plan’s Arab co-authors “are senior Fatah officials, all of whom served long stints in Israeli jails for murder,” according to the Jerusalem Post article.

Don’t you feel safer now about their intentions?

Conclusions

I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.

This plan is nothing more than a regurgitation of the worst of the radical left’s most dangerous ideas.

But the authors are actually playing a different game.

They are trying to get it support from the settlers and the settlement youth, apparently through obfuscation of the dangerous ideas in the plan and playing off the naiveté and idealism of those they approach.

One peace-loving settler, who asked not to be named, told me he was approached by this group to attend one of their parlor meetings. He quickly caught on to their con.

But what about all the idealistic youths who are being targeted and don’t yet have the sophistication to ask the right questions or realize they are being hoodwinked?

One can only hope that Friedman is correct when he writes, “Predictably, the proposal has yet to make headway in the settlement community where distrust of the Palestinians is trumped only by a religious commitment to the Whole Land of Israel.”

It’s also trumped by sheer common sense, shared by about 70% of Israel’s voters who have been leaning decisively to the right over the past ten years. It’s highly doubtful they would buy this plan either – once they know what it actually says.

Stephen Leavitt

Liberman Supports a 2-State Solution – Nothing to See Here Folks, Move Along

Tuesday, May 31st, 2016

I received a flurry of messages last night from all my friends on the right side of the political spectrum following our new Defense Minister’s stated support for a 2-State solution.

“You see, Liberman zig-zagged again”, “Liberman’s showing his true colors”, “Liberman got power and shifted Left” and “Liberman’s going to be another Sharon”.

I’d say it’s open to debate if Liberman really zig-zags left and right all the time, or if he simply prefers to sometimes emphasize one aspect of his statements when convenient, while other times emphasizing the other half – leaving him open to criticism of zig-zagging, while allowing his spokespeople to emphatically deny any zig-zagging at all.

Though I don’t see much wiggle room in his statement that he plans to take out Ismail Haniyeh in just 1 more day – leaving us to wonder if perhaps Liberman is really more bark than bite.

To remind my friends, Liberman has always supported a 2-State solution. He’s said he would evacuate his home in Nokdim for peace. I believe he would.

But everyone forgets the parameters of Liberman’s 2-State solution plan – “The Populated-Area Exchange Plan“.

It’s not a one-way street.

Liberman envisions a Palestinian State consisting of all the Arabs on this side of the Jordan River – with no Jews, and an Israeli state on this side of the Jordan River – with a lot less Arabs citizens.

Liberman contends that the only way to end the conflict is to end the friction resulting from 2 opposing religious and nationalist groups occupying the same space – and it makes no sense (nor is it fair) to create a Palestinian State with no Jews, while keeping Israel as a dual-nationality state with an antagonistic Arab minority who self-identify as “Palestinian”- nor is it fair or right to make anyone physically move.

In Liberman’s plan, Israel would annex the major settlement blocks, while transferring the major regions of Israel where there are a majority of Arabs, over to the Palestinian State.

Israeli-Arabs, who constantly identify themselves as “Palestinians” would lose their Israeli citizenship but immediately gain Palestinian State citizenship. They wouldn’t have to move out of their homes – the borders would be redrawn around them – mostly in the “triangle” region in part of the Galilee.

I personally disagree with his solution for a number of critically important and fundamental reasons (to be discussed another time), but there’s certainly no denying Liberman’s correct identification of the problem and that his plan treats all sides equally (even if it is a left-wing plan).

Strangely enough, the group who should be supporting the plan the most are the most vehemently against it – Israeli-Arabs who self-identify as “Palestinians”.

In a poll in the year 2000, 83 percent of Israeli-Arabs opposed the plan, with only 11% were in favor.

You would think, that all these Israeli-Arabs demanding a Palestinian State, waving “Palestinian” flags and touting their “Palestinian” identity would love the idea.

But they don’t – they don’t want to be citizens of a Palestinian State – they want to be citizens of the Israel they hate – the Israel that gives them equal opportunity, equal rights, and isn’t under Arab control.

Interestingly enough, a friend of mine was talking yesterday with some Arabs from one of the villages under Palestinian Authority control and they said the same exact thing.

These PA Arabs want Israel to come in, kick out the Palestinian Authority and bring back the “Occupation” – they want life to be good again – as it was under Israeli rule. Most of their village wants that.

Liberman’s plan is unlikely to be implemented, simply because the Arabs themselves don’t want to live in a Palestinian State – which says a lot.

If anything, the first step Liberman should really be taking for peace is helping the poor Gazans escape from the terror of Hamas.

Set up an emigration plan – one-way tickets to Europe and Detroit with cash in their pockets and full bank accounts.

Within a year, the only people left in Gaza would be Hamas supporters, if even that.

And then Liberman could prove to us that “Mila zu mila” and take out Ismail Haniyeh.

JoeSettler

The Four-State Solution

Wednesday, May 25th, 2016

No one who claims to be an advocate of a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is really being honest about it.

If they were, they’d admit that a Palestinian state already exists, more than one in fact.

75% of Mandatory Palestine, which was promised for the Jewish state, was ripped away and given to the Hashemite invaders, eventually being renamed Jordan.

Some 80% of Jordan’s citizens self-identify as Palestinian.

So despite the Hashemite occupation and dictatorship, there already exists a fully-functioning Jew-free Palestinian state with a self-identified Palestinian majority.

But put Jordan aside, then there’s Gaza.

100% Arab ruled. 100% self-identified Palestinian population. Zero Jews.

Under blockade? True, but only because of their ongoing terrorism. The blockade would end tomorrow if they stopped trying to destroy Israel today.

So Gaza is the second Palestinian state currently in existence.

But for the two-staters, those two existing Jew-free Palestinian states just aren’t enough.

They want Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to be the third Palestinian state.

The autonomous Palestinian Authority, with zero Jews, already acts as a State in those areas it controls, but the two-staters want it bigger, much bigger. They also want the Jewish People’s holiest sites to be included in this third Palestinian state.

And then finally, there’s little Israel, with it’s 20% Arab population, into which some two-staters want to import/flood with even more self-identified Palestinians, to eventually outnumber the Jews, creating a fourth Palestinian state.

So enough with the two-state solution, because we already have more than that.

It’s time you two-staters admit that what you really want is a four-state solution, or maybe not even that – perhaps all you really want is no-Jewish state solution.

JoeSettler

Netanyahu Submits Coalition Guidelines – Yes to Peace, No Mention as to How

Wednesday, May 13th, 2015

PM Netanyahu presented his coalition’s guidelines to the Knesset on Wednesday. You can read the coalition guideline here, in Hebrew.

Ha’aretz was quick to point out that the guidelines make no explicit commitment to create a “Palestinian state” or to implement a “two-state solution”, and also makes sure to point out that neither did Netanyahu’s two previous governments.

What the second bullet item in the guidelines says is (translation: The Israel Project):

“The government will advance the diplomatic process and will strive for a peace agreement with the Palestinians and with all our neighbors, while guarding security interests, the historic and national (interests) of Israel. If such an agreement is reached, it will be brought for authorization by the government and Knesset and if there will be the need for it as required by law, to a national referendum.”

This Israeli government definitely sets peace as one of its top goals.

But Ha’aretz is right, it doesn’t say the Israeli government will continue to chase after the deadly and delusional, messianic left-wing pipe-dream of creating another Arab terror state in the Land of Israel (we already have one of those in Gaza).

Others will say that the guideline’s language implicitly means a “Palestinian State” because historically and politically this is the same exact language used in previous negotiations, and in particular, the language insisted upon by Tzipi Livni in her prior negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.

How President Obama or the EU, who are both wedded to the failed two-state delusion will respond to the vague terminology, remains to be seen. But we’re sure it will involve mentioning the failed two-state solution.

Netanyahu has repeatedly taken steps to advance the “peace process” with the Palestinian Authority. But he has also pointed out that the Palestinian Authority is currently not capable of making or upholding any deals it signs.

 

Among the other coalition guidelines are (partial descriptions):

1. The nation of Israel has the unquestionable right to a sovereign state in the Land of Israel, our national and historic homeland.

2. See text above.

3. The government will protect the citizens and fight terror and violence.

4. The government will lower the cost of living, especially in housing, food and energy.

5. The government will reduce the monopolies and decentralize the market and increase competition, including in banking, insurance, and investment houses.

 

We will publish a full translation in English later, when it is released.

Shalom Bear

Netanyahu Doubles Down on Dangers of ISIS Overtaking Palestinian State

Wednesday, March 11th, 2015

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Israeli Defense Forces at the Judea and Samaria Headquarters in Gush Etzion on Tuesday, March 10. The prime minister was accompanied by Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon.

The prime minister took the opportunity of being in the so-called disputed territories, a region in which much of the international community has been pushing Israel to create a Palestinian State, to reinforce a position he announced earlier in the week.

The prime minister said on Sunday, March 8, that because of the ability of Islamic extremists such as ISIS to exploit vulnerabilities in the region and spread its tentacles into vulnerable nations, there is no point now in discussing the creation of a Palestinian State which would immediately be taken over by such extremists. This would pose a danger not only to Israelis, but to Palestinian Arabs as well.

‘The activity of the IDF and the security services is essential to prevent a takeover by radical elements that would certainly attack Israel and threaten our communities and our people, and would also threaten the Palestinian Authority and take control of the Palestinian public,” Netanyahu said.

The prime minister also took the opportunity to press his position on Iran, noting that the current agreement being formulated “between the major powers and Iran gives a clear path to Iran to achieve a nuclear bomb,” and a better agreement must be pursued. He continued, “I think that this is important for the security of Israel, the region and the world.”

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Bibi: ‘ISIS Would Devour Palestinian State, We Cannot Help Create That’

Monday, March 9th, 2015

Whether or not he was publicly forced into stating it, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has now said what most focused Israelis and Israel-watchers have realized for quite some time: the creation of any Palestinian State now, as weak as it is and has been since its leadership began attempting to resemble a functioning state, would be immediately subsumed (or, if you will, “gobbled up”) by ISIS or any of the other Islamic extremist groups in the region.

For that reason alone, if not for the myriad others – such as its own leadership’s inclination towards and support for its own version of terrorism – it is impossible for any responsible leader in the region to consider the creation of a Palestinian State any time soon.

In the words of the Israeli prime minister regarding the calamitous instability in the region and its impact on whether there should be a Palestinian state anytime soon: “Therefore, there will not be any withdrawals or concessions. The matter is simply irrelevant.”

Whether Netanyahu’s hand was forced because of the pressure placed on him by the Religious Zionist party Bayit Yehudi which consistently states it will not hand over any territory to the Arabs, or because a right-wing member of his own Likud party got the ball rolling, the end result is the same.

The cat is back in the bag, the Two State “Solution” is now clearly only a solution for ending Israel, and enslaving even the Palestinian Arabs themselves. For the safety of all those living in the land south of Lebanon, west of Syria and Jordan and north of Egypt, the only way to prevent ISIS and its fellow barbarous murderers is for Israel to remain in control of all the borders.

The Israeli prime minister began his most recent iteration in his leadership role with a earth-shattering speech at Bar Ilan University. Netanyahu invoked the “Two State” mantra as if it were within reach.

In that 2009 speech at Bar-Ilan, Netanyahu said he would recognize a Palestinian State “if we get a guarantee of demilitarization, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state.” He said, if that were to happen, “we are ready to agree to a real peace agreement, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state.”

Even after the recent Gaza wars and bruising condemnations of Israeli self-defense by much of the international community, Netanyahu continued speaking, at least in public, of working with the Palestinian Arab leadership towards a result they claim (an idea that much of the international community was pushing very hard) they want: a Palestinian State.

Perhaps Netanyahu and his advisers believed that Israeli security is so strong it could even survive the birth of a tiny terror state of Palestine (Palistan?). But inviting ISIS into its own neural network? That would make the recent machete, hammer and automobile terrorism by local Palestinian Arab terrorists look like mere schoolyard spitting contests.

Netanyahu’s statement shutting the door on Palestinian statehood came on Sunday, March 8. It came in response to a question about a position taken by the Likud party’s answer to a small Israeli paper’s campaign question.

As Lahav Harkov reported in the Jerusalem Post on Sunday, “The article claimed that the Likud’s answer to a question as to its leader’s position on Palestinian statehood was: “The prime minister told the public that the Bar-Ilan speech [in which he advocated a demilitarized Palestinian state] is canceled.”

According to Harkov, a Likud spokesperson said party member MK Tzipi Hotovely provided the answer and it was her personal position. But regardless of whose language appeared in the campaign response, Netanyahu later made it clear he would not allow ISIS to fill the vacuum created by a weak Palestinian State.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Americans Split Over Palestinian Statehood, Gallup Poll Shows

Wednesday, February 25th, 2015

Americans are deeply conflicted over whether the United Nations should give birth to a new Arab country in the heart of Israel’s geographic borders, and call it “Palestine.”

The Gallup polling organization surveyed the U.S. population this month to determine how America feels about this issue. Pollsters conducted telephone interviews Feb. 8-11, 2015 with a random sample of 837 adults ages 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

(The margin of sampling error was plus-minus four percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.)

The organization uncovered a conflict that splits the country almost right down the middle.

A majority of Americans still does not support the idea, however, even though they elected to vote passively: only 42 percent of those polled favored the establishment of an independent Palestinian state comprised of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, a drop from the 46 percent of one year ago, and a full 20 percent would not express an opinion at all.

Just 38 percent were opposed to the idea, however. The numbers grow higher the older the sample.

Older Americans aged 55 and up were opposed (43 percent) to the creation of an independent Palestinian state. Those younger (41 percent) were in favor – and 16 percent had no opinion.

Those with higher levels of education were more likely to favor PA statehood; however, 48 percent of Republicans opposed it, and just 33 percent of GOP members supported it. In the Democratic Party the majority supported PA statehood.

That last point in particular may have some bearing when it comes to U.S. national elections in 2016, and the run for the White House.

Hana Levi Julian

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/americans-split-over-palestinian-statehood-gallup-poll-shows/2015/02/25/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: