By Ted Belman
Jonathan Kay is the Senior Editor of the National Post. He just wrote I want to support Israel, but Netanyahu is making it difficult. I was surprised because I know him and though I knew he was to the left of me, I never realized how far left.
He starts it by writing
-
The Middle East conflict is a fight about land. But it’s also a fight about time — about which exact historical moment we should use as our benchmark in assessing what real estate belongs to whom.
He goes on to say he thinks the right time is 1949.
-
Why do I pick 1949 and not, say, 1900 (no Israel) or July, 1967 (Greater Israel)? Because historical benchmarks are meaningful only when they offer some realistic guide to shaping the present. And so in choosing between divergent, irreconcilable geographical visions cherry-picked from history, pragmatism should be our guide. The Jews and their state are not going anywhere. But neither are Palestinians suddenly going to give up their nationalist aspirations. The solution that promises the most stability is two states existing side by side, one mostly Jewish, the other mostly Arab, their contours roughly shaped by the Green Line.
His support of his choice is very weak. He believes that the ’67 lines with swaps “promises the most stability” with only wishful thinking in support.
I would argue that the armistice lines (pre ’67 lines) have no more validity than the armistice lines ie Jordan R. (post ’67). They both resulted from Arab aggression. If Israel is entitled to keep the land from the first victory, why not the second.
Let us assume he is merely trying to accept reality that the Palestinians aren’t going anywhere or they aren’t going to give up their national aspirations. What is to say that they are entitled to realize their national aspirations based on the ’49 lines? Why does he not accept the reality that the Jews aren’t about to relinuish J&S.
Area C which comprises at least 60% of J&S is under full Israeli control. It contains 300,000 Israelis and 10,000 Ababs. Why is this not a reality he accepts? He makes no argument as to why Israel shouldn’t be allowed to keep Area C. Instead he wants to recognize Palestinian aspirations for virtually all of it because such a solution would offer the most stability. He ignores entitlement, rights, morality and history to come to such a conclusion. He ignores the reality of Arab intentions.
He calls this pragmatism. He argues “historical benchmarks are meaningful only when they offer some realistic guide”. He believes the ’49 armistice lines fit this bill. But such lines led to the ’67 War. Why isn’t the Jordan R a better historical benchmark?
What was pragmatic about giving Sudetenland to the Germans? How does that differ from giving J&S to the Palestinians?
Gilgal:Roll back the reproach of Egypt:
“Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?
..for the place whereon thou standest is holy.” * Joshua chs. 4,5
It became quite obvious around two years ago that Mr. Kay had succumbed to the so called “realism” view that demographics, arab political power and international sympathy were not on Israel’s side and that the Jewish nation must accept those facts or risk eventual defeat. It is astounding that a man of Mr. Kay’s talent has chosen to put his own self-interest ahead of his people’s. I understand that it can be quite difficult for individual’s who have to co-exist in a world dominated by leftist intellectuals who hate everything to the right of even an anti-semite like Jimmy Carter. But Mr. Kay should know that he will gain no credit among these people for his surrender. If Mr. Kay thinks we should act pragmatically because logic dictates so then his view of reality is sadly lacking.
The realities are that the left will never accept the Jewish state in any form whether it extend to the present borders or it be confined to one square mile around Tel Aviv. For the left Israel is a surrogate for the U.S.A. For the left Israel is a surrogate for out-dated “Nationalism”. For the left Israel is an anachronism in a world dominated by secularism and particularism. It is capitalism incarnate. Mr. Kay lives in a dream world peopled by individuals who think that evil is good and wrong is right. Does he really think that “pragmatically”, “realistically”, that the arabs will ever accept a Jewish state in any form whatsoever? Does he really think that any piece of paper signed by Fatah and/or Hamas is worth even a shekel? Such realism will mean the death of another six million Jews. Perhaps the supposedly so brilliant Mr. Kay can accept this bit of pragmatic realism while he sits here comfortably in Canada supported by a cushy job at the National Post. Unfortunately Israelis who have to live in the REAL world of the Middle East are not so lucky.
Netanyahu’s speech was great notwithstanding his many detractors. But it was short of addressing the fundamentals.
The issue of the “unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood” has been around for over a year. I expressed my concerns in an article published in July, 2010.
Netanyahu’s Israel clarified
As Netanyahu was speaking in the US about the need to leave some Jewish villages to the Palestinians, the Jewish Agency dropped Maaleh Adumim and Ariel from its aliyah advertising. That means the number of Jewish evictees will be closer to 100,000.
The Israeli government welcomes a worthless peace treaty with Palestinian Arabs at the cost of a war with its own Jewish citizens.
PERES: Die Already it’s Past Time!!!!!
Report: Peres Held Secret Meeting with Abbas
by Maayana Miskin
President Shimon Peres held a clandestine meeting with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas recently in London, Maariv reported Friday.
According to the report, the two continue to exchange telephone calls and messages, and their close associates have held discussions as well.
Peres took the official position of refusing to respond to “rumors.” However, a close associate of the president quoted in the report expressed dismay that the Peres-Abbas connection might be revealed.
“President Peres is the last Israeli who continues to enjoy a direct channel to the Palestinians, and it is highly unfortunate that this channel will be sealed due to being made public,” he said. The president “is horrified by the leaks regarding the London meeting,” the associate reported. He did not comment on the issue of whether Israel’s president is advancing his own policies, rather than the elected government’s.
Following his alleged meeting with Abbas, Peres proceeded to the United States, where he held a one-on-one meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama. Sources in both Israel and America have suggested that Obama’s recent Middle East policy speech included ideas heard from Peres in that meeting.
Obama’s mention of the “1967 lines” echoed statements made by Peres on Independence Day. Peres expressed support for the “1967 territory” and suggested that Israelis living in Judea and Samaria “return home” to pre-67 Israel.
The agenda of Peres’ meeting with Abbas remains unknown. Whether Peres hoped to dissuade Abbas from his planned unilateral declaration of a state in September, or prevent the PA leader from embracing Hamas, these did not occur. Sources said it is more likely that he paved the way for Obama to think that he could tell Israel that the 1967 lines are to be the basis for discussion and that Jerusalme is on the negotiating table after the border issue. Both are anthema to Netanyahu.
Peres did slam Abbas’ decision to reunite with Hamas – announced after the two reportedly met – as “a fatal mistake” that would doom the chances for a new Arab state led by the PA. He also expressed concern that it would lead to the continuation of rocket attacks – which would now threaten all of Israel.
It remains unclear if Peres met with Abbas independently, or with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s knowledge, let alone approval. While Israel’s president, chosen by the Knesset and not the voters, is intended to serve ceremonial functions, Peres has continued his involvement in foreign policy as president and has made statements, possibly to promote events reflecting his own views and not those of the Likud-led, democratically elected government.
Comment on this story
No “two-state solution” is plausible in Israel. The last time there were two states there of any duration, was during the period of the Kings of Israel and Judah. Israel is destined to rule the entire land, with the Arabs in a subordinate and, if they will accept it, autonomous position. The plain, geographical reality, is that Israeli Arabs must become Dhimmis to the Jews. If they can’t handle that, they have to leave or die. The rest of this “peace” talk is nothing but rubbish at best and, at worst, posturing to connive the extinction of Jews from Israel.
4infidels: Fantastic arguments, well composed and enunciated- but what good is it when nobody really cares or reads or listens. The only argument that carries any weight at all is how does Israel’sctions effect western economic and political interests.
The Middle East conflict is a fight about land.
No, it is a jihad to destroy the infidel, Jewish state that has no right to exist (according to Islamic Sharia Law) in what the Muslims consider dar-al-harb (the house of Islam). The jewish role is that of subjugated dhimmi submitting to their Islamic superiors, not ruling sovereign nation-state in the heart of the “Arab world.”
about which exact historical moment we should use as our benchmark in assessing what real estate belongs to whom.
Coming up with a random formula to justify his position. The land west of the Jordan River belongs to Israel for the following reasons:
1)Israel currently possesses it.
2)According to Mandate for Palestine, which was accepted by the UN as valid under International Law, Israel, Judea and Samaria were all part of the territory allocated for the Jewish National Home (as what is currently the nation-state of Jordan).
3)Judea and Samaria are not “occupied territory” because they don’t legally belong to any nation-state. It is made up of mostly state lands was ruled by the Ottoman Empire (that no longer exists) before passing to the British as part of the Mandate for Palestine (which the British relinquished), which would ultimately be part of the Jewish National Home.
4)Since Judea and Samaria do not legally belong to any nation-state, the Jews have the best claim because they were the last people to have an independent state in that territory.
5)Israel captured Judea and Samaria–which were originally given to the Jews under the Mandate for Palestine–in a defensive war in which its existence was threatened.
6) UN Resolution 242, long considered the basis for resolving the “Arab-Israeli conflict” by those who think such a thing is possible, states that the dispute is to be resolved by in a negotiated agreement of “land-for-peace” that allows all parties to live in peace and security. Since their has been no negotiated solution among the parties, Israel is not obligated to surrender “land” conquered in the 1967 war (and note that UN 242 did not say “the land). And since Israel gave up Sinai and withdrew from Gaza, Israel has given up over 90% of the land captured in 1967, but has not received peace, recognition and security in return.
7) Judea and Samaria are the Jews historic and Biblical homeland. Since no other nation has a legal claim to it, there is no moral justification for forcing the Jews to give it up.
8) The Arabs have 22 nation-states and the Muslims have 56 nation-states, and yet seek to expand their realm as much as possible at the expense of others. The Jews have only one nation-state and do not seek more.
9) The “Palestinians” did not exist as a people until the Arabs were unable to destroy Israel militarily and needed to reshape the propaganda campaign to one of a “tiny people fighting for self-determination.”
10) The Palestinians have never honored agreements. Egypt has honored its agreements and is now talking openly about ending the “cold peace” with Israel. What justice is there in asking Israel to sacrifice its security in exchange for promises of peace from people with no track record of keeping agreements, especially when they preach genocidal hatred and incite terrorist violence daily in their mosques, schools and media.
The legal, moral and historic case for Judea and Samaria belonging to Israel and the Jewish people is strong, much stronger than any for any other nation, people or group.
Aaron, you are a traitor and a coward. Israel should annex Judea and Samaria and let the fight begin. So long as this area is called disputed, there will never be peace. Arabs should have the choice of 1. moving to Jordan or elsewhere or 2. becoming an Israeli citizen with sworn allegience. It is people like you, weak livered cowardly Socialists who wishes to destroy Israel.