INSS urges growth only in settlement blocs, calls for developing parts of Area C for Palestinians

T. Belman. INSS is a left of center think tank associated with Tel Aviv U. I agree with their thinking that Israel, in conjunction with the US, must move unilaterally and must build on what they agree Israel is to keep. I also agree that Israelis prefer a two state solution but with different borders.  I couldn’t find the proposed map but it redraws Area C:

“Besides carving out 17 percent of the area for the settlement blocs, where 86 percent of settlers live, Orion and Dekel suggest using up to 42 percent for development on behalf of the Palestinians and up to 33 percent for protection of “vital” security sites, including the Jordan Valley.”

It does not say who will have sovereignty over the 33% nor if whether the designation is permanent. Let us assume we have sovereignty over the 33%. This means that we can build there too  but I do not believe that’s what INSS has in mind. I disagree strongly that we should use the 42% for the Arabs. They should get nothing without an agreement. Better that we amend Bennett’s plan to give them some of Area C but less than INSS suggests and that we close down some  of Area B and move the Arabs to the new housing for them in Area C to do away with the swiss cheese effect. In other words rationalize the borders of A, B and C. This should be a proposal only waiting for their agreement. In the meantime build on the land we intend to keep.  We can always change the proposal if there are no takers.

Note also that they do not want to violate Oslo.  Why not? The Arabs do it all the time.

By Andrew Tobin, TOI

JTA — Israel’s leading security think tank has published a plan to redraw the map of the West Bank in a bid to consolidate major settlements and prevent the spread of others

The plan, presented Monday to Israeli President Reuven Rivlin as part of the Institute for National Security Studies’ yearly strategic survey, calls for the government to allow construction in West Bank settlement blocs and Jerusalem. At the same time, it recommends a halt to construction in the 90 percent of the territory outside the major settlements. 

 

In laying out the plan, researchers Assaf Orion and Udi Dekel argue that negotiations with the Palestinians are unlikely to lead to a final-status agreement. With relations deadlocked, they warn, Israel is drifting toward a single binational state with the Palestinians, which threatens its democratic and possibly Jewish identity.

It is an analysis that echoes one put forth in a speech last month by US Secretary of State John Kerry, although unlike Kerry’s plan it would proceed without direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians intended to reach a final-status agreement and without resolving what Kerry called “all the outstanding issues.”

To preserve Israel’s options, including the possibility of a Palestinian state, the researchers say, the government should implement their plan in coordination with the incoming administration of US President-elect Donald Trump, which has already signaled that it will not pressure Israel on the settlements or negotiations.

Amos Yadlin, the director of the institute and a former head of Israel’s military intelligence, told JTA that he endorsed the plan, saying Israel had a “window of opportunity” with Trump.

“Israel should take this chance of a new administration with a new approach to promote the bottom-up independent shaping of its borders, even if the Palestinians are still holding their extreme position,” he said.

The main changes under the institute’s plan would be to Area C, the 60 percent of the West Bank under full Israeli control per the 1993 Oslo Accords. Besides carving out 17 percent of the area for the settlement blocs, where 86 percent of settlers live, Orion and Dekel suggest using up to 42 percent for development on behalf of the Palestinians and up to 33 percent for protection of “vital” security sites, including the Jordan Valley.

The rest of Area C would keep its current status, and settlers would be encouraged to relocate to the settlement blocs.

The Palestinian Authority would administer the major Palestinian population centers in Areas A and B, which comprise 40 percent of the West Bank and are home to 99.7 percent of Palestinians, as it already largely does. But the Israeli military would retain the right to act as needed.

The status of Jerusalem, which Israel governs as its capital but the Palestinians also claim as theirs, would not change. Most of the world considers all Israeli building in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem illegal, but Israel disputes this.

Orion and Dekel recommend that Israel and the world promote security and development in the West Bank. This could bolster the Palestinian Authority’s declining legitimacy on the West Bank street and help prepare the society for eventual final-status negotiations, they say. An alternative, they say, would be for Israel to take “independent steps” to politically separate from the Palestinians.

The Hamas-governed Gaza Strip would be handled separately, ideally with a combination of military deterrence, border security and development.

Yadlin said the Institute for National Security Studies had long preferred a negotiated final-status agreement with the Palestinians, but this year concluded that the prospects for success had gone from “very low” to “zero.”

The plan has elements that could appeal to the political right and left, said its architects.

Despite a rightward shift in recent decades, Yadlin said, the Israeli public was “ready to consider” the institute’s plan because the left had given up the “illusion” that there was a Palestinian partner for peace and the right no longer supported the status quo. He cited Education Minister Naftali Bennett’s proposal that Israel annex Area C as an example of new thinking on the right, but said the Palestinians would need part of that territory to create a viable political entity.

Israelis “basically want to see a two-state solution, with a Jewish, democratic secure country, but not according to the Palestinian parameters,” Yadlin said.

Ideally, he said, the Palestinians would cooperate with the institute’s plan and eventually return to negotiations for a two-state solution. The government should leave open that possibility anyway to fend off international condemnation like the United Nations Security Council’s anti-settlement resolution that the US allowed to pass last month, he said. But if the Palestinians would not budge, Yadlin said, Israel could unilaterally draw its borders to exclude most of them.

“I’m not among those who are terrified by the demographic threat [of Jews being outnumbered by Palestinians in a single state]. I think this is the biggest mistake of Kerry,” Yadlin said, referring to the Kerry speech, in which he warned that without relinquishing control of the Palestinians, “Israel can either be Jewish or democratic – it cannot be both.”

Shlomo Brom, the head of Israeli-Palestinian research at the Institute for National Security Studies, told JTA that he saw no chance the current Israeli government would accept the plan backed by Yadlin. Every right-wing government since 2000 has avoided drawing a line around the settlements, he said, and “none were as right wing as the one we have now.”

Nor would the Palestinians be likely to cooperate if the plan were carried out, Brom said, since they would see their potential future state shrink with no real gains. He added that it would be problematic from the point of view of international law for Israel to change the terms of the Oslo Accords without Palestinian consent.

The best hope to shake up the status quo and save the two-state solution, Brom said, was the rise of a viable centrist alternative to Netanyahu’s government and increased international pressure on Israel.

The simplest option for a government that wanted a two-state solution would be to make the security barrier Israel’s provisional border — allowing settlement building to the west and prohibiting building to the east of it, Brom said. Israel could then begin taking steps toward a Palestinian state, unilaterally and in coordination with the Palestinians, hopefully culminating in a final-status agreement, he said. Brom recommended trading the Oslo principle of “Nothing is agreed until everything agreed” for “What is agreed and can be implemented will be carried out.”

Like Yadlin, Brom said he did not think the end of the two-state solution would spell demographic disaster for Israel. But he said terrorism would probably force the state into indefinite militarily rule over a stateless Palestinian population, which the world would view as a form of apartheid.

Unfortunately, Brom said, this was the most likely outcome.

In about two weeks, Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman, Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot and other senior security officials are expected to lay out their national security assessments at an international conference hosted by the institute.

January 4, 2017 | 33 Comments » | 44 views

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

33 Comments / 33 Comments

  1. xx
    It is actually shocking to me to read that Ted Belman actually agrees with a Two State Solution. I was under that impression that the opposite was the case.

    My own belief is well known, I would chase drive, or export all the Arabs, especially those poisoned, hate-filled dogs-dinners in YESHA, over to Jordan or the various countries from which the originally came. The nomadic and itinerant Arabs have NO RIGHT to be living in Eretz Yisrael, especially after all the slaughter, murder, the wanton killing of men and women, old and young, sneaking into houses to cut throats etc. It’s too sickening to write more on it.

    Those who want to give them land are mashugga and should be certified as insane. They’ve already stolen over 80% of our legal entitlement, so that we are living in a rump state, impossibly hard to defend; and cost us untold billions over the years, and the deaths of our best and brightest.

    We should act as ANY OTHER nation would act under the same circumstances, and not be showing off how nice and benevolent we are. THAT is just as sickening as what they’ve done to us.

    Are we NEVER to have our own country……?

  2. I am in complete disagreement. My position is that Israel should simply apply Israeli Law to Area C and permit unlimited Jewish building. There should be no additional building for Arabs. Arabs there now should be offered incentives to sell and leave. The ultimate goal should be an Arab-free Jewish state from the river to the sea. No coercion should be applied to peaceful, law-abiding Arabs but no encouragement either. Moreover, there is no point in negotiating anything with Arabs. Arabs do not keep agreements. The peace with Jordan and Egypt will not last for ever either. Needless to say, after decades of an ice-cold peace with Mubarak, we got Morsi, and Sisi, despite security cooperation has been waging diplomatic war against Israel. Now Jordan? This is all within the last 2 years:

    “Jordan Threatens to Revoke Peace Treaty Over Temple Mount”
    “Jordanian minister blames Netanyahu for ‘not keeping promise’ of discriminatory status quo on Temple Mount, drafts plan against ‘breaches.'”

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Tag.aspx/493

    This is why Jews are arrested for praying on our holiest site but Arabs can play soccer.

    http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2012/04/sacred-soccer-stadium-on-temple-mount.html

    “VIDEO: Muslim worshipers attack Jews trying to pray on Temple Mount”
    http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Israel-evicts-eight-Jews-from-Temple-Mount-for-attempted-prayer-452357

    “Rabbi Arrested on Temple Mount for Praying
    On the eve of the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah, at least three Jews, one a rabbi, and one Arab were arrested on the Temple Mount.”
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/160609

    “American Jewish Tourist Arrested for Praying on Temple Mount
    JTA April 18, 2016”

    http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/338893/american-jewish-tourist-arrested-for-praying-on-temple-mount/

    I’m not the least bit religious and I’ll never go there. I could care less how Jews pray there. But this makes me very, very, very angry.

    Huckabee put it really well in that interview I posted (even if he forgot to include the Arabs among the foreign occupiers he listed but I’ll let that slide.) He shows a map of the Middle East. It’s all Arab. Israel, from the river to the sea is a dot. And we have to share that with f*ing Arabs? Who also massacred us in 1929, using Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount as a provocation just like Jordan is doing now.

    As for me, secular Jewish-American me? I say:

    They have 22 states that were allotted to them or they can go West. Or to Hell on a sled for all I care.

    Kahane was right. Arabs out.

  3. Edgar G. Said:

    It is actually shocking to me to read that Ted Belman actually agrees with a Two State Solution.

    Its not that simple. What we all want is less Arabs and more land.If Israelis were prepared to cough up $300 billion to get rid of the arabs and annex all the land, I would prefer that. But that is nowhere is sight.

    So starting with what the Israelis want namely a TSS with better borders, I am suggesting what those borders should be. If we could get most of area C including the Jordan Valley I would accept it. But as I say, we give the Arabs nothing without an agreement. If after 5 or 10 years building on land we intend to keep and the Arabs still won’t make a deal, then we keep going. Meanwhile we entice them to leave.

  4. @ Ted Belman:
    Why do you believe any deal the Arabs would make would be worth the toilet paper it was written on? When have they ever kept a deal?

  5. Here’s my proposal for a TSS. Conquer the entire Middle East which the Arabs stole in the seventh century from other peoples anyway. After protracted negotiations, give it back to the peoples they stole it from who weren’t completely exterminated by the Arabs. Then, the Arabs can have Saudi Arabia. Or parts of it, anyway. If they beg. Except for places like Medina, which should be incorporated into Israel as Arabs-free Jewish colonies.

    “Medina, Islam’s second holiest city, was originally a Jewish
    “settlement”

    http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/medina.html

    (Such savages they’ve never even been able to develop the country that spawned them, we had to do it and then, as is their wont, they moved in to murder, rape, enslave us and reap the fruits of our labors. Jackals. Wolves. What’s the proper way for a farmer to deal with jackals and wolves?)

  6. Ted Belman Said:

    Meanwhile we entice them to leave.

    Without Jewish Rule? I was amazed to find this even in the New York Slimes from 20 years ago before even the Oslo War:

    “Arab’s Death (and the Selling of Land to Jews)
    By JOEL GREENBERG MAY 12, 1997

    Behind shuttered doors on an empty side street in East Jerusalem, the Bashiti family grieved alone today for the head of the household, Farid Bashiti, whose bludgeoned and bound body was found Friday in the West Bank town of Ramallah.

    There were no condolence callers coming to pay their respects, no Koran verses being read in memory of Mr. Bashiti, who in death was declared a pariah, accused of what the Palestinian Authority last week declared a capital crime — selling land to Jews.

    In a sermon Friday at Al Aksa Mosque, the Mufti of Jerusalem, the highest ranking Muslim cleric in the city, pronounced Mr. Bashiti’s body unfit for religious burial. ”Anyone who sells land to the enemy should not be washed, prayed for or buried in a Muslim cemetery,” said the Mufti, Ikrama Sabri, who was appointed by the Palestinian leader, Yasir Arafat.

    No one has claimed responsibility for killing Mr. Bashiti, a 70-year-old real estate dealer, and details of his death remain unclear. But it has carried a potent message.

    A spokesman for the Israeli police said they are investigating whether Mr. Bashiti was slain in a business dispute or because he sold land to Jews. The Palestinian police in Ramallah, which is governed by Palestinians, have also announced an investigation.

    Israeli security officials say privately, as do many Palestinians, that they suspect the killing was the work of the Palestinian Authority, which said last week after a cabinet meeting that it would impose speedy death sentences for the sale of land to Israelis.

    That declaration was meant to block the spread of Israeli settlements, an issue that has become particularly acute since Israel began work in March on a new Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem on land mostly bought from Arabs.

    Although Palestinian officials have denied any links to Mr. Bashiti’s death, they have not spoken out to condemn it.

    ”Nobody from this moment will accept any traitor who sells his land to the Israelis,” said Freih Abu Middein, the justice minister in the authority. ”Everybody now realizes the danger of selling land to a Jew.”

    In a newspaper interview last week, Mr. Abu Middein defended the death penalty as part of a struggle with Israel over control of disputed land. ”The problem is that Israel does not distinguish between ownership of land and sovereignty over it,” Mr. Abu Middein said. ”If a certain area is under Jewish ownership, Israel sees it as part of its sovereign territory.”

    The attorney general of the authority, Khaled al-Qidra, termed land sales to Israelis ”high treason” punishable by death.

    Hundreds of accused collaborators with Israel, including land dealers, were killed by Palestinian militants during a seven-year uprising against Israeli occupation that ended with the entry of Palestinian forces to areas of the Gaza Strip and West Bank in 1994 under the Israeli-Palestinian self-rule accords.

    At Mr. Bashiti’s home in East Jerusalem, distraught relatives quarreled as they tried to defend his reputation and avoid accusations against the Palestinian Authority that might put them at risk.

    They strongly denied reports that Mr. Bashiti had sold property to Israelis in Jerusalem and surrounding areas. ”He is completely innocent of everything they say,” said his wife, Naziq, who wore black.

    Was the authority behind his death? ”Everything is possible,” she replied, coached by a relative. ”We don’t know.”

    Mr. Bashiti disappeared on Thursday afternoon, his wife recalled, after he left for a business meeting at a local hotel with a real-estate agent named Nadia. The two were seen leaving the hotel together, but he did not return home, the wife said.

    A nephew, Assem Bashiti, said that the Ramallah police called at 3 A.M. on Friday and reported that his uncle had been hit in a traffic accident. After rushing to Ramallah, he learned that his uncle was dead. The nephew said that his uncle’s body had been dumped by the side of a road with his hands bound behind him and that he was gagged and had been smashed in the head by a sharp weapon.

    Israeli security officials theorize that Mr. Bashiti, who was reportedly interrogated in Bethlehem two weeks ago by a Palestinian police commander about suspected land deals, may have been lured to the meeting at the hotel and taken to Ramallah where he was killed by Palestinian security men.

    The Israeli police have repeatedly accused Palestinian security forces of using plainclothesmen to abduct Arab suspects from East Jerusalem to Palestinian self-rule zones for interrogation and detention.

    ”I challenge any official to prove that my father sold real estate to Israel,” said Mr. Bashiti’s son, Mohammed Formad Bashiti, 37. ”He was murdered in cold blood without a trial and without any legal procedures.”

    Was the killing linked to the death penalty announced by the Palestinian Authority? ”I don’t accuse the authority, but it’s possible,” Mohammed Bashiti said. ”I can’t make an accusation without proof, because my father was accused that way.”

  7. @ Edgar G.:
    I agree, though Kahane, himself, understood it will never happen this way. We are too civilized. The way is to re-establish Jewish rule and offer the arabs incentives to leave. They are leaving in droves anyway. He pointed all this out in his book, “They Must Go.” Above all, I would add, arabs who cooperate with us must be protected. arabs who harm arabs who cooperate with us must be destroyed in a reversal of what the British allowed to happen 1936-39. The lynching of arab assets was also a prominent feature of the first intifada. What’s needed is a rational system of incentives and disincentives.

  8. Hudna, Tahadia and Hudaybiyyah are exclusively what Muslims regard as possible agreements. In other words, a Trojan Horse.

    “WHEN A “CEASE-FIRE” IS NOT A CEASE-FIRE
    An advisory to journalists in the Middle East.
    July 16, 2014 David Bedein

    ‘In the current conflagration between Israel and Gaza, news agencies mistakenly report that a “cease fire” is being discussed with Hamas.

    In the imagination of the media, such a “cease fire” might result in the kind of armistice that ended hostilities in World War I, on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the eleventh month on Nov. 11 1918, paving the way to the Versailles peace treaty and the genesis of the League of Nations.

    However, the three Arabic nuanced terms being discussed with Hamas as a resolution to the current situation have nothing to do with a “cease fire”:

    Those terms are Hudna, Tahadia and Hudaybiyyah. All three terms imply continued war, after a respite.

    Hudna: a tactical pause intended only for rearmament, a temporary respite in the war between Islamic forces and non-Islamic forces.

    The authoritative Islamic Encyclopedia (London, 1922) defines hudna as a “temporary treaty” which can be approved or abrogated by Islamic religious leaders, depending on whether or not it serves the interests of Islam; a hudna cannot last for more than 10 years.

    Tahadia: a temporary halt in hostile activity which can be violated at any time.

    Hudaybiyyah: An understanding that there will be no fighting for 10 years named for the “treaty of Hudaybiyyah” in 628 AD.

    The Islamic Encyclopedia mentions the Hudaybia treaty as an “ultimate hudna.”

    The late PLO leader Yasser Arafat often referred to “a hudna” in his speeches when he defined and described the nature of the Oslo Accords.

    In the words of the Islamic Encyclopedia, “The Hudaybia treaty, concluded by the Prophet Mohammad with the unbelievers of Mecca in 628, provided a precedent for subsequent treaties which the Prophet’s successors made with non-Muslims.

    Mohammad made a hudna with a tribe of Jews back then to give him time to grow his forces, then broke the treaty and wiped them out. Although this treaty was violated within three years from the time that it was concluded, most jurists concur that the maximum period of peace with the enemy should not exceed ten years, since it was originally agreed that the Hudaybia treaty should last ten years.”

    Hudna, Tahadia and Hudaybiyyah – the only options on the table with Hamas – do not compare to the “mu’ahada” treaty of peace that Egypt signed with Israel in 1979, or the mu’ahada treaty of peace that Jordan signed with Israel in 1994.

    How many people remember that three hudnas already occurred with Gaza?

    How many people remember what occurred during those ‘hudnas”’?

    Well, the people in Sderot and the Negev region of Israel remember.

    Let us refresh our memories.

    From November 26, 2006, until May 15, 2007, a Hudna between Hamas and Israel went on for almost six months. One cannot ignore the statement made by Hamas five days before the hudna went into effect: “Hamas’s military wing will stop the rocket fire when residents evacuate the city of Sderot.” (from November 21, 2006)

    During that hudna, Gazans launched 315 missiles targeted at Sderot and the western Negev, according to an IDF spokesman.

    And there was another hudna with Gaza which lasted until the end of Dedember . 2008, which witnessed 878 attacks fired from Gaza.

    And there was a hudna from the end of Operation Cast Lead on January 18, 2009, to the first day of Operation Pillar of Defense on November 12, 2012.

    During that period, approximately 2,000 rockets and missiles were fired from Gaza, sending one million Israelis running to shelters

    And from the end of operation ‘Pillar of Defense’, through June 30th 2014, 300 aerial attacks were launched from Gaza towards southern Israel- during yet another tenuous Hudna.

    What country would tolerate one missile fired into its territory — and agree to a Hudna, Tahadia and Hudaybiyyah that promises yet more aerial attacks?”

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/236310/when-cease-fire-not-cease-fire-david-bedein

    “There is No Diplomatic Solution” – Ted Belman

  9. How about getting one of our allies to sponsor a resolution to the UNSC that states that Palestinian refugees, after 70 years, finally be awarded citizenship in the countries they now reside in. Of course, that would be a problem for those that reside in Judea ans Samaria, but let’s not be held up by details.

    OK. Nice bedtime story …

  10. It is an analysis that echoes one put forth in a speech last month by US Secretary of State John Kerry, although unlike Kerry’s plan it would proceed without direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians intended to reach a final-status agreement and without resolving what Kerry called “all the outstanding issues.”

    No wonder the pals dont negotiate…. its much better to watch the panicked Jews chasing their tails round and round negotiating with themselves. LOL, the pals get so much more by letting the jews negotiate with themselves.
    All these plans left of bennet are the same one.
    In all of them Israel beleives that simply doing something solves the problem, anything. The fact is there is no reason for all the defamers to buy any of these plans because behind all of them is simply the basis of security…. the world will not give land to Israel to hold for securtiy. Their notion is that Israels security lies in an agreement with the pals.
    Missing from all these plans is the right of Jews to settle and the dealing with Jewish refugees. No nation or person with dignity would discuss the concerns of another before the concerns of their own… another bad choice. Any unilateral move will be taken and then more demanded… hence make a major move in the interest of the jews and give NOTHING. Just allow them to keep living there under supervision until there is an agreement. In the meanwhile annex C which has few pals on the basis that it contains the vacant lands to settle Jews as stipulated in international law. There is no reason for the Jews to wait on the same arabs who attacked in 47 onwards. Waiting damages the rights of jews to settle… that is the basis for taking C now and leaving the rest for future negotiations under the same occupation. The land MUST be claimed by Israel for Jews as legally promised. The pals get to stay where they are living. If C is not taken then all Israeli arabs should be moved to palestine so that the Jews do not allow double standards.
    There will be as much flak taking C as not.. the flak will never end… best to take C and encourage muslims to go to europe and destablize the enemy euros who are the source of all these problems.

    All these foolish plans begin with what can we give our enemies that belongs to us rather than what can we take now that belongs to us. Taking C hardly impacts the pals where they are now living. there is no reason to give them land where they are not now living wherever that land is. I agree with bennet… at most one state in gaza, no more. but Israel need commit to nothing, just take what belongs to the Jews and keep arguing with everyone… the arguing wont stop, Israel must learn how to make the arguing and terror too costly in blood and money. Kick the PLO back out of the west bank because the agreement that allowed them back has failed. Use a self interested basis of law as pretext to “justify” taking what you want, like everyone else does….. escept the suckers… the Jews.

  11. Ted Belman Said:

    Meanwhile we entice them to leave.

    poverty, suffering, disorder, crime…. these will entice them to leave… building them up economically like BB says entices them to stay and seek more.

    I know little about the security military aspects but if possible I would let hamas into a and b to slaughter fatah and cause civilians to run east… then after they cross the jordan… like the syrian refugees… I would go into a and b and mop up hamas… the destroyed and bombed areas would be given to Jews to rebuild.

  12. The crucial thing is title. Upholding Jewish title to Eretz Israel in it’s entirety. The actual application of civil law can be done piecemeal using salami tactics, leaving the rest open-ended. The notion of a final agreement must be laid to rest. The enemy will never agree to a final agreement — if they say they will, it will be a lie — and for us to do so leaves us at a disadvantage, besides being just plain wrong. So for now, apply sovereignty to Area C, let the Jews be under Israeli civil not military rule — I was going to say, starting tomorrow but since Ex Post Facto Rules have been given the go-ahead — retroactively — how far back to be determined. The Knesset should also pass a rule that no international authority can supersede national authority. We need that too. And, just as a 2/3 majority of the Congress can over-ride a President’s veto, it should apply to supreme quart judgements, as well. Both in Israel and here in America. The supreme quart should be subject to this rule, as well, when they rule legislation unconstitutional, as they have. Huckabee is tackling this. I really like him. politifact disagrees:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/may/29/mike-huckabee/huckabee-supreme-court-cant-overrule-other-branche/

  13. Ted Belman Said:

    Its not that simple. What we all want is less Arabs and more land.If Israelis were prepared to cough up $300 billion to get rid of the arabs and annex all the land, I would prefer that. But that is nowhere is sight.

    xx
    Sebastien puts it so succinctly and clearly. I don’t see any reason to schmear them with $300 billion, a really impossible sum. They have no right to be in the country at all, and especially after their ongoing 70 year reign of terror, they don’t even have the right to life itself. It’s about time we invoked the British Mandate conditions TO THE LETTER. Israel prides itself on it’s “legalistic” approach and meticulously keeping to legal agreements and laws. Let them re-new directly from the 1920 San Remo Conference and onward. Let THAT be the beginning of our Constitution…

    It may not be out of order to help the departing Arabs with some moving expenses, they have relatives in practically every country in the world, particularly in the neighbouring Arab countries from which they came…. It would at most, cost about $30 billion, perhaps as much as $50 bill, although they really deserve not a penny.

    Me….I would give them kadachas mit kashere foedem…+ a chollerah in gantzen.

  14. Sebastien Zorn Said:

    Why do you believe any deal the Arabs would make would be worth the toilet paper it was written on? When have they ever kept a deal?

    xx
    Nobody expects the Arabs to ever keep any deal, even if countersigned by Muhammed. They never have-so far, and precedent, in a legalistic state like Israel carries a lot of influence on decisions.

    But well meaning, eyes skyward, good people keep mentioning agreements with the Arabs, a genui1ne example of a contradiction in terms, of toxic strength.
    Toilet paper is more useful to a person than any paper with an Arab “agreement” signed and sealed on it.

    Later on down this page there is a treatise on the various kinds of temporary cessation of hostilities between Arabs and enemies. The 24 Karat standard seems to be the Hudna, no more than a 10 year lull. It’s widely quoted, because that was the precedent that their Prophet, the mythical Muhammed laid down. BUT…… many forget, or don’t know, that the Arabs of that time, broke that 10 year treaty, within TWO YEARS, because they had re-armed and re-grouped, and were strong enough
    to destroy their enemies….naturally the enemies were JEWS…… who else…??

    And that’s how they play “the game” right to this day. Why don’t we play their own tactics back at them…? A famous example of this is the way the Romans defeated Hannibal eventually after 16 years of heavy disasters themselves against this brilliant and complete General Staff encased in a single person.

    They had learned his tactic over the time, and Zama was Hannibal’s decisive defeat. And of course treachery came into it too, if you read the account of the battle.

  15. NOTHING IN WRITING AND NO LAND FOR ARABS UNTIL A FULL AND COMPREHENSIVE PEACE IS SIGNED SEALED AND DELIVERED TO ALL PARTIES AND THE UN, SO NOBODY BACKS OUT OR SAYS NO SUCH.

  16. The huge flaw in the whole thinking process is to reserve more land for a Palestinian entity. This entity would be a terror state.

    The whole battle is for the Land of Israel. We need to defeat the Palestinians and not find ways of preserving for the future the chance of a PA State.

    Think Tank thinking too much and is falling over backwards to make sense of how to compromise with ourselves and whom??

  17. @ ROBERT FELDMAN:
    “Until?” What, so then Jews can’t settle on all the unused Jewish land? Can’t buy land from willing arab sellers? Screw all the Amonas?

  18. Israel must retain all the territory west of the Jordan River. It must also protect all Jewish Houses of Worship, Jewish burial sites with military presence at all times that include Temple Mount (The site of 2 Jewish Temples, that king David purchased the land from Aruna the Jebusite for building the Jewish Temple).
    It is more than enough that Israel lost over three quarters of its territory to Jordan from the 120,000 sq, km. originally allocated for the Jewish National Home on their Historical Land (which included a good part of Jordan of which the Jews were expelled and all their assets confiscated. Israel now has about 21,000 sq. km.). Moreover, the Arab countries terrorized and expelled over a million Jewish families and confiscated all their assets, including, personal, businesses, homes and over 120,000 sq. km of Jewish owned Real Estate for over 2,400 years (valued in the trillions of dollars). Most of the expelled Jewish families and their children were resettled in Israel. The Arabs/Muslims received over 12 million sq. km of territory after WWI with a wealth of oil reserves, and that territory is 70% vacant. The Arab countries, organizations and other nations who are funding the Arabs should demand that those funds must be utilized to resettle the Arabs in the Arab countries.
    The more you concede and give to the Arabs, the more they want.
    I am not conceding anything anymore. I have the results with Gaza. Anyone who is willing to permit another terrorist entity west of the Jordan River, needs his head examined.

    YJ Draiman

    P.S. Local Arabs is the description of the Arabs in what was formerly known as the region of Palestine, which is the Land of Israel.
    It is an insult and it is promoting the perpetration of a fraud by calling the local Arabs nothing else than local Arabs. Prior to the mid sixties they were called Arabs all of a sudden they woke up one morning and decided in order to promote their fraud and deception to assume the title the Jews had since the Romans renamed the Land of Israel Palestine and Jerusalem Aelia Capitolina.
    YJ Draiman

  19. @ YJ Draiman:
    Thank you. Moreover, local arabs only applies to the arabs who lived there in 1922. It has been well documented that most of the arabs who these arabs claim descent from are either illegal immigrunts who came during the mandate period or locals in other countries claiming to be refugees to get benefits. Only Jews have a claim. Only Israel exists. Only local arabs can claim legal protection as individuals under the 1920-22 legislation. Not their descendants in other countries. Not imposters. Not most of them. That’s legally. Morally? None of them.
    pals? Get thou to a nunnery (or a none-of-thee.)
    Jews? Get thee to a gunnery.

  20. BEN-GURION’S DECLARATION ON THE EXCLUSIVE AND INALIENABLE JEWISH RIGHT TO THE WHOLE OF
    THE LAND OF ISRAEL:
    at the Basle Session of the 20th Zionist Congress at Zurich(1937)

    No Jew has the right to yield the rights of the Jewish People in Israel –
    David Ben Gurion

    (David Ben-Gurion was the first Prime Minister of Israel and widely hailed as the State’s main founder).

    “No Jew has the right to yield the rights of the Jewish People in Israel.
    No Jew has the authority to do so.
    No Jewish body has the authority to do so.
    Not even the entire Jewish People alive today has the right to yield any part of Israel.
    It is the right of the Jewish People over the generations, a right that under
    no conditions can be cancelled.
    Even if Jews during a specific period proclaim they are relinquishing this right, they have neither the power nor the authority to deny it to future generations.
    No concession of this type is binding or obligates the Jewish People. Our right to the country – the entire country – exists as an eternal right, and we shall not yield this historic right until its full and complete redemption is realized.”

    (David Ben Gurion, Zionist Congress, Basel, Switzerland, 1937.)

    “No country in the world exists today by virtue of its ‘right’.
    All countries exist today by virtue of their ability to defend themselves against those who seek their destruction

  21. 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine
    The U.S. Congress in 1922
    On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine,” confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine—anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea:
    “Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
    “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.” [italics in the original]
    On September 21, 1922, the then President Warren G. Harding signed the joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine.
    Here is how members of congress expressed their support for the creation of a National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine – Eretz-Israel (Selective text read from the floor of the U.S. Congress by the Congressman from New York on June 30, 1922). All quotes included in this document are taken verbatim from the given source.
    CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
    1922 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    NATIONAL HOME FOR THE JEWISH PEOPLE
    JUNE 30, 1922
    HOUSE RESOLUTION 360
    (Rept. NO. 1172)
    Representative Walter M. Chandler from New York – I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:
    (1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration.
    (2) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, they shall be required to sell their lands at a just valuation and retire into the Arab territory which has been assigned to them by the League of Nations in the general reconstruction of the countries of the east.
    (3) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, under conditions of right and justice, or to sell their lands at a just valuation and to retire into their own countries, they shall be driven from Palestine by force.

  22. If the U.S. was conquered by various nations over a thousand years plus and than some outside forces helped Americans defeat the occupiers and regain its sovereignty and set up the American U.S. government again, would you consider the Americans as occupiers.
    I will take it a step further. Many Americans who were displace by the occupying forces in America were forced out of their homes and returned to the U.S., would you consider them occupiers or people returning to their homes. The U.S. has only been an independent sovereign country less than 250 years, after eliminating the Indigenous American Indians and fighting the British occupiers for Independence.

    If Mexico which had numerous wars and battles with the U.S. decided to fire thousands of rockets against the U.S., would you tolerate it or you would demand your country respond with extreme force at all costs, no holds barred and stop this rockets and terror attacks against Americans and women and children.

    The Jewish heritage as the remaining indigenous people in The Land of Israel including 2 Jewish Temples and many heroic battles to defend it, thus, the Jewish history goes back over 3,000 years with a continues habitation under extreme conditions. The Arabs/Muslims were nomads who milked the land and destroyed it as a viable source of habitation.
    Many Jewish communities in what is now the Arab/Muslim countries were in existence for about 3,000 years. Prior to WWII, there were over a million Jewish families living in Arab/Muslim countries. The Arabs/Muslims during the rise of Muhammad in about 627 terrorized, killed and raped the Jewish women and confiscated all their assets, whereby some of those Jewish communities no longer exist. In the past 70 years the Arabs/Muslims have ethnic cleansed the Jews and Christians from the Arab/Muslim countries.

  23. @ YJ Draiman:
    Thank you so much! I was looking for this! Is Ben Gurion’s statement on the internet somewhere? Where did you find it? I knew about it but couldn’t remember from where or exactly when and where he said it.

  24. @ Sebastien Zorn:
    Israel must be steadfast in protecting its rights and its people, no holds barred r12
    There are numerous world nations and people that are questioning Israel’s control of its own historical liberated territory. (for that matter I would asked the same question to the U.S. who took the land by force from the Indians and Mexico, and the European countries).
    No one is mentioning that the Arab countries had terrorized and expelled over a million Jewish families and their children from their countries confiscated their assets, businesses, homes and Real Estate, which includes Jordan. Many of the Jews expelled from Arab countries had only the clothes on their back and died while their forced departure from Arab countries, due to hardship, famine and starvation. Over 750,000 Jewish families and their children of these expelled Jewish people and their children were resettled in Greater Israel and today comprise over half the population. The homes and Real Estate the Arab countries confiscated from the Jewish people is over 120,000 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. miles, which is over 6 times the size of Israel, and its value today is the trillions of dollars.
    The Jewish people and their children during the over 2,700 years living in Arab countries have suffered Pogroms, Libel claims, beheadings, beatings, false imprisonment, rape and extreme hardship as a second class citizens. They had their businesses and homes pillaged, their wives and daughters raped, sold them as slaves, their houses of worship pillaged and burned, forced conversion to Islam.
    Today over half of Israel’s population are Jewish families expelled from Arab countries and their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.
    The Audacity of the Arab countries in demanding territory from the Jewish people in Palestine aka The Land of Israel after they terrorized and expelled over a million Jewish families and their children who have lived in Arab land for over 2,700 years and after they confiscated all their assets, personal, businesses, homes and Real estate 6 times the size of Israel (120,000 sq. km. – 75,000 sq. mi.), valued in the trillions of dollars.
    Now the Arab nations are demanding more land and more compensation.
    The Arab countries have chased the over a million Jewish families and their children and now the want to chase them away again, from their own historical land.
    Israel must respond with extreme force to any violent demonstration and terror. Israel’s population must have peace and tranquility without intimidation by anyone.
    The Jewish people have suffered enough in the Diaspora for the past 2,500 years. It is time for the Jewish people to live as free people in their own land without violence and terror.
    It is time to consider that the only alternative is a population transfer of the Arab-Palestinians to the territories the Arab countries confiscated from the Jewish people, including Jordan which is Jewish territory and settle this dispute once and for all. Many Arab leaders had suggested these solutions over the years. I do not care what the cost of relocating the Arabs from Israel. The Arab countries confiscated trillions of dollars of Jewish assets, let them pay for it. The Arab/Muslim nations and the world at large that contribute today billions of dollars to the Arabs, must use these funds for the relocation of the Arabs from Israel.

    YJ Draiman

  25. @ Sebastien Zorn:
    http://www.internationalwallofprayer.org/A-190-Ben-Gurions-Declaration-To-Jewish-Right-To-The-Land.html

    BEN-GURION’S DECLARATION ON THE EXCLUSIVE AND
    INALIENABLE JEWISH RIGHT TO THE WHOLE OF
    THE LAND OF ISRAEL
    At the Basle Session of the 20th Zionist Congress at Zurich (1937)
    by Howard Grief
    (English Translation Reprinted with commentary from “A Petition To Annul The Interim Agreement”, by Howard Grief, published by ACPR, Number 77, page 95)

    “No Jew is entitled to give up the right of establishing [i.e. settling] the Jewish Nation in [all of] the Land of Israel. No Jewish body has such power. Not even all the Jews alive today [i.e. the entire Jewish People] have the power to cede any part of the country [or homeland] whatsoever. This is a right* vouchsafed or reserved for the Jewish Nation throughout all generations. This right cannot be lost or expropriated under any condition [or circumstance]. Even if at some particular time, there are those who declare that they are relinquishing this right, they have no power nor competence to deprive coming generations of this right. The Jewish nation is neither bound nor governed by such a waiver or renunciation. Our right to the whole of this country is valid, in force and endures forever. And until the Final Redemption has come, we will not budge from this historic right.”

    It is apparent from Ben-Gurion’s above words that though he had already accepted the concept of partition as a pressing necessity, in order to establish the Jewish State, his real goal, as stated, was always the unification of all parts of the Land of Israel, under Jewish sovereignty. Partition served only as a transitory or interim step in the realization of the ultimate goal to win possession of the entire country for the Jewish Nation. Though he never realized this goal during his long service as Prime Minister, he neverthe-less implanted this notion of eventual unification of the Land of Israel into the State’s constitutional structure and made it the law of the land to be enforced whenever additional parts of the land would be liberated by the Israel Defence Forces. It may therefore be safely assumed that in the absence of any serious military threat to Israel’s security, Ben-Gurion, had he been in power in 1967 and guiding the nation’s destiny, would never have sacrificed this aspiration after its very accomplishment, no matter what the counter-considerations may have been, such as making possible peace treaties with Arab states or the more inhibiting Arab demographic question, which proved less serious than first anticipated. It is most likely then that Judea, Samaria and Gaza would have been annexed to the State by Ben-Gurion as Prime Minister as soon as effective possession of these lands had been obtained, under the
    very law he himself had created for that purpose, namely the Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordinance. One need only look at what Ben-Gurion did in 1948 while at the height of his power when he annexed all parts of the Land of Israel that the IDF had liberated, to confirm the truth of this statement, despite what others have tendentiously imputed to him after he retired from active public life.
    Maccabean Online Website: http://www.freeman.org

  26. Edgar G. Said:

    They have no right to be in the country at all, and especially after their ongoing 70 year reign of terror, they don’t even have the right to life itself. It’s about time we invoked the British Mandate conditions TO THE LETTER.

    The unending deluge of public declarations by the gentile nations (and by the international organizations through which they interact) that portions of the Land of Israel are actually the “Occupied Palestinian Territories”, as well as the general hostility and ostracism experienced by Israel in all manner of international forums, has nothing to do with international law and everything to do with international politics, which, in Israel’s case, is propelled by a toxic mixture of Jew-hatred and economic self-interest. In Israel’s case, international law has been so dismembered by international politics that its precepts have been habitually distorted in order to protect and reward the defeated Aggressors and to deter and punish the undefeated Victim. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that, in an attempt to adorn the ongoing War against Zionism with a veneer of diplomatic legitimacy, the international community willfully falsifies and thereby willfully subverts international law.

    Accordingly, despite the layers of falsehoods, half-truths and distortions that have encrusted this subject matter over many past decades, international law remains Today as it was in 1920:

    All of cis-Jordania (as well as the Golan Heights portion of trans-Jordania) collectively belongs exclusively to the Jewish people.

    Consequently, in reality, it is the Arab population thereof — being the descendants of the massive 7th Century colonialist Islamic invasion force emanating from ancient Arabia — which is occupying Jewish Land.

    However, if the World were to complain that Israel’s possession of Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem (and formerly of Gaza), even if lawful, nevertheless deprives the “Palestinian” Arab population thereof of a separate independent homeland, then the World should be reminded that the modern State of Jordan (its precursor having been rendered Judenrein by the British Mandatory authorities in 1922) — constituting 77% of former Mandatory Palestine and, in consequence thereof, overwhelmingly comprised of a “Palestinian” Arab population — is already that separate independent homeland.

    Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas admitted as much when, after his meeting with Jordanian Prince Ali Bin al-Hussein on June 2, 2015, he declared, in part:

    “This is a friendly meeting between Jordan and Palestine, which will continue to be as they have been: one people in two countries.” (reported in the Britain-based and Saudi-owned “Asharq al-Awsat” newspaper, June 2, 2015)

  27. Edgar G. Said:

    xx
    It is actually shocking to me to read that Ted Belman actually agrees with a Two State Solution. I was under that impression that the opposite was the case.

    it will work if the “Palestinian Land” is on the moon.

  28. Edgar G. Said:

    Those who want to give them land are mashugga and should be certified as insane.

    they are not mashugga Darlin, they are EVIL.

  29. T. Belman. INSS is a left of center think tank associated with Tel Aviv U. I agree with their thinking that Israel, in conjunction with the US, must move unilaterally and must build on what they agree Israel is to keep. I also agree that Israelis prefer a two state solution but with different borders. I couldn’t find the proposed map but it redraws Area C:

    My rule of thumb for you seekers to divide the land and devising plan on top of plan and this border give away or that border all seeming to be rational and civilized…

    My proposal is simple if you believe in the word of any Arab leader and in particular the Palis Leadership then why not give them pretty much what they demand after all isn’t your aim Peace and security? But if you don’t believe them then I say give them Nothing!!! Keeping in mind that there can be no real security either within the green line or outside the green line with or without an agreement and I maintain we have more security w/out an agreement than we would have with an agreement.

  30. Yamit is correct.

    The conflict is zero sum. It is a battle for all of Israel from the river to the sea. How long will take for some people to realize this.

    There are two choices in broad scope.

    1. Win the conflict

    2. Keep fooling ourselves that they will get rational someday and agree to a fair peace compromise splitting the land and they may eventually get the means to win or do so much damage to Israel that it will as if we lost.

  31. The jibe at pussy footing over breaking Oslo because “the Arabs do it all the time” reminds me of Judah and Tamar in Gen38. Israel like Caesar’s wife needs must be above suspicion to at least keep the moral high ground. Just because Ishmael is a brothel creeper does not mean Israel should do likewise.

Comments are closed.