Now That the Two-State Solution Is Dead

By Mike Konrad, AMERICAN THINKER

Anyone with half a brain knew that there would be no two-state deal. The ugly truth is that only viable solution is moving the Arabs in Judea and Samaria out. Ugly? Yes, but all other options are primed to fail.

The lion’s share of the blame lies with the Arabs, who refuse to recognize a Jewish right to the land; but even had the Arabs been more reasonable, Israeli Jews were never going to surrender their patrimony. Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) are the Jewish heartland. No two-state solution was moral, let alone possible.

What to do with these Judean and Samarian Arabs? The ideas range all over. To arrive at the necessary conclusion of removal, it is necessary to show that other options fail.

Some pundits suggest annexation while slowly assimilating and enfranchising these Arabs over time. However, the large Arab population will not permit it. Once enfranchised, they would form a coalition with leftist parties inside Israel and vote Israel out of existence.

Annexationists often counter with claims that Arab birthrates have fallen. They ignore that Arabs marry much younger, cycling through generations faster. Even if Arab and Jewish women now have the same number of children, the Arab will have three children and nine grandchildren before the Jewish women finishes up with her three.

Judean and Samarian Arabs have a massive youth bulge. Israel would annex a population on the verge of a Muslim baby boom.

Others suggest confining the Arabs to severely controlled autonomous regions. Israel would control entrance and exit to these areas, water and mineral rights, population registry ID, imports and exports, etc.

Those who make this suggestions never quite explain how a violently irascible people like the Arabs would submit quiescently to such regulation. Far more peaceable people have revolted over less. Instead, they suggest that those Arabs who do not like being confined to administrative districts can leave.

Leave to where? Since the Arab states will not taken them in, where can they go? The inevitable reply is, “Where the Arabs go is not Israel’s problem.” However, it is Israel’s problem if the Arabs in Judea and Samaria can’t go anywhere else. Israel will remain stuck with angry Arabs.

Israel can no longer influence the way this looks to the world. The arrangement may be necessary for the safety of Jews, but it is not pretty. Yes, North Korea and Iran are worse, but that does not matter to the myopic U.N.

There are those who offer hybrid solutions. Israel will annex Area C only. These suggest that Israel offer citizenship to the 50,000 Arabs in Area C, and this will insulate Israel from charges of racism. They ignore that the world will focus on the continuing disenfranchisement of the Arabs in Areas A and B instead. Such hybrid solutions are insouciant at best.

If Israel wants stable control over Judea and Samaria, the Arabs have to go. The hostility between the two parties is too strong for compromise, the cultures too disparate. One side or the other must leave. In fact, if Israel does not get the Arabs out, many Jews may start to flee. The demand for second passports by Israelis is increasing.

The only thing that should be up for discussion is method.

Far too many commentators on pro-Israel sites advocate forced transfer, which is just a fancy term for ethnic cleansing. Even if successful, this would only seal Israel’s pariah status among an increasingly anti-Semitic world.

Other Israelis – those who want to avoid war – harbor the illusion that one day Jordan will decide to take these Arabs in and naturalize them. That any serious thinker could base his or her remedy on the preposterous idea that a Muslim Arab state would act rationally, and do the right thing, just indicates the desperation of some intellectuals to solve the problem. Frustration has driven them mad.

Waiting for the Muslims to become rational will only ensure continuing low-grade war in Judea and Samaria.

Since transfer is the only possible solution, and if war is to be avoided, then paying the Arabs in Judea and Samaria to leave is the only viable solution.

Despite what the media and Arab propaganda tell you, many Arabs would be willing to leave.

The most shocking result is related to willingness to [e]migrate… The results also show that 44% of young Palestinians are willing to [e]migrate if given the opportunity.

Of course, no Arab organization will admit it. However, if the offer is made to young Arab individuals in Judea and Samaria, particularly to graduating college seniors, studies show that they would voluntarily leave. This has so scared Arab leaders that they have issued fatwas against emigration.

It is true that many Arabs would be afraid to take the offer. They would be killed. However, if individual Arabs were offered traveling papers, residency in a third country, and money to set themselves up, and were whisked out immediately upon agreement, no killing would be possible. If an engineering graduate was offered papers to Uruguay, got his money, and was flown out that evening, who could kill him?

The agreement has to be made with individuals to bypass the threat of violence. Women should be especially encouraged to leave. If women were given preference, birthrates would drop. Removing only men will result in increased polygamy, with no effect on birthrates.

Who should pay? Far too many say, “Israel should not have to pay.”

Maybe not, but since Israel would benefit, I do not see how Israel can avoid paying. Certainly the Arab states will not subsidize this. If you can get Western states to chip in, I have no problem, but Israel is going to have to contribute a considerable portion.

Who would take them?

Many countries would take them, if they came with money. Muslim states would blacklist them, but many second-tier states would welcome them. South American and Asian countries would take them. Mozambique, which is democratic, and religiously pluralistic, might take them in.

Uruguay gives residency to anyone who can demonstrate a $6,000-a-year income. Argentina has relatively liberal immigration laws. Chile is 5% Arab, and they are elite. South America has a track record of converting and assimilating Muslims. The Muslims would arrive in the midst of a South American Evangelical revival. Evangelicals have quadrupled in the last 30 years. Gospel street preachers would dampen their Islamic ardor.

The only other option is spending lots of time inventing fanciful solutions that will not work. The end result will be war.

This may not be the most moral solution. In a perfect world, the Arab states would take their brethren in, but in this world, they won’t. If we wait for the Arabs to act rationally, then we are as delusional as the Arabs are.

It may hurt our Western pride to pay the Arabs to leave Judea and Samaria, but it is cheaper than war – and far less insane than a two-state solution.

Mike Konrad is the pen name of an American who is not Jewish, Latin, or Arab. He runs a website, http://latinarabia.com, where he discusses the subculture of Arabs in Latin America. He wishes his Spanish were better.

May 24, 2014 | 30 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

30 Comments / 30 Comments

  1. yamit82 Said:

    Peace talks have collapsed: Hooray!

    I beleive both sides accepted the outcome before it began. If the outcome is a breakdown of talks followed by….(?????)then the question is who did the 9 month stall serve. I beleive that BB got something because he paid for abbas to sit down with the prisoner release which would have been unnecessary is any serious talk. Abbas was the only one who did not need the fake talk but was obligated to someone to enter them but had to have a victory to wave to his constituents when the inevitable failure came. I believe the GCC are the shadow behind this: what did they give and what did they get? I think they promised Israel to weaken hezbullah, Irans proxies and leash hamas in return for the Israel sit down. Abbas and hamas needed the GCC funds and backing for any outcomes. The GCC was able to recruit jihadis to an area adjacent to Israel without them focusing on their arch enemy Israel by keeping the pal issue quiet and in talks. israel targeted iranian linked elements in gaza for the GCC to reextend their hegemony over gaza. As soon as this was finished the gaza cease fire took place. Morsi was part of this but was not acting against the sinai terrorists enthusiastically(I beleive the sinai factions were likely iranian sponsored) I think the GCC ditched Morsi either for his independence, continuing iranian links or even possibly a double cross at benghazi.
    I think abbas is given the faux state, UN access to orgs, etc as a “victory” and fig leaf for little actual progress. I think small “victories” will continue to be given to abbas and there will be a lot of rhetoric and noise but that the noise will be there to allow each leader to play to his constituency:Abbas, BB, EU. The syrian and iranian outcome are a major influence on this in my view. Even Crimea may be involved.

  2. @ yamit82:

    You sound like an Evangelical preacher, and I hope you are correct. But what is the law? Civil, criminal, or are you speaking of Justice? And justice for whom?
    There that should keep you and dweller busy for a while!!!!

  3. @ Bear Klein:

    Why not declare the whole country part of greater Jerusalem.

    Ki mitzion teitzei torah ud’var adonai mirushalayim:
    For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. Isa 2:3

    ‘Zion’ (meaning the mountain, the city of Jerusalem and the land of Israel, depending on context) will be the place of future revelation, where G-d and G-d’s will shall be authoritatively disclosed.

    The whole of the Land of Israel can be considered a single Eruv in a national sense.

  4. Land of Israel Caucus submits bills to annex West Bank settlement blocs.

    Katz seeks MK to legislate his plan to turn settlements near capital into “Greater Jerusalem.”

    Ten bills that could lead to the annexation of major settlement blocs were placed on the Knesset’s docket Monday.

    Coalition chairman Yariv Levin (Likud Beytenu) and MK Orit Struck (Bayit Yehudi), leaders of the Knesset Land of Israel Caucus, submitted separate bills calling to annex different major settlement blocs.

    The legislation calls for Israeli law, judiciary and administration to apply to the areas in question.

    Each of the 10 bills are identical, except for the names of the regions, which are: the Jordan Valley, the Ariel region, Lev HaShomron, the Modi’in area, Menashe, Binyamin, Gush Etzion including Efrat and Beitar Illit, the Hebron region, Ma’ale Adumim and western Samaria.

    “This puts a solution on the table, which the State of Israel used since its establishment and when it applied its laws to Jerusalem and the Golan Heights,” Struck explained.

    According to Struck, “the Oslo Accords were a serious detour from this path and our move will return us to sanity and Zionism.”

    A caucus spokesman said the bills were not coordinated with any ministers, but MKs were confident that they will receive support from many of them.

    The Land of Israel Caucus bill follows efforts by Economy Minister Naftali Bennett and Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz to expand Israel’s sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.

    Ahead of Jerusalem Day, which is on Wednesday, Katz is looking for MKs to submit a bill to expand the borders of the capital city to form “Greater Jerusalem.”

    According to the proposal, Greater Jerusalem will include Ma’ale Adumim, Givat Ze’ev, Gush Etzion and Betar Illit, which will be administered by a joint local authority while each town will maintain municipal independence.

    The concept was modeled after Greater London and Greater Paris, which are made up of the capital cities and their suburbs.

    “This initiative can get great support from Jews around the world and friends of Israel in the US and other places, who recognize our historic connection and right to Jerusalem,” Katz wrote on Facebook.

    Earlier this month, Bennett presented his proposal to annex Area C to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, in the wake of failed peace talks.

    Katz, Communications Minister Gilad Erdan and Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein have expressed support for annexing Area C, which makes up about 60 percent of the West Bank, including all Jewish settlements.

    According to Bennett, this would create a buffer zone for Gush Dan and Jerusalem, protecting Israel’s vital interests and national heritage sites.

    http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Land-of-Israel-Caucus-submits-bills-to-annex-West-Bank-settlement-blocs-354373

  5. @ Bear Klein:
    @ yamit82:
    @ the phoenix:

    Yawl don’t have enough King David’s Tombs. Every little stop in West Texas has the graves of Billy the Kid, Frank/Jesse James, Sam Bass or one of a dozen other outlaws for which they charge tourist cash money to see. Yawl ought to have a Tombs of King David sprinkled all over Israel and ask admission . Throw in some prophets too.

  6. @ honeybee:

    With BB I can never be sure because he wants a deal…Only thing stopping him from giving away the kitchen sink is his fear of internal political fallout.

    I still don’t trust him not to find a way to sell us out.

  7. @ bernard ross:

    Peace talks have collapsed: Hooray!

    Before you can solve a problem you must define it accurately first.

    “The Israeli-Palestinian problem is actually very simple — not the solution, mind you, but the identification of the problem.”

    “One of Netanyahu’s key sins, according to the Americans, was to insist on recognition from the Palestinians of Israel as a “Jewish State”. According to Kerry and company, Netanyahu was essentially asking Mahmud Abbas, Abu Mazen to his friends, to buy into the “Zionist narrative”. This, according to the Americans, Abbas can’t do.

    And therein lies the problem. Abu Mazen does not buy into the “Zionist narrative.” In fact, neither does U.S. President Obama, nor some of his Jewish advisors who are trying to “save Israel from itself.” Don’t get me wrong, all these people visit Israel, some of their best friends are Israelis and America has a long-standing strategic relationship with Israel. But the fact is that many of the people now handling American foreign policy, and many of the big players in the international media, don’t buy into the “Zionist narrative.” And what is that narrative?”

    The “Zionist narrative,” first articulated in political terms by Theodor Herzl in his book “Old New Land” (1902), basically states that Jews are not simply a religious community, but a “people” and that they have a fundamental right to have a “Jewish State” in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel.

    That’s basically it.

    The Arabs rejected this “Zionist narrative” and they have done everything in their power over the last 100 years to continue to reject it. Before WWII, they initiated pogroms in places like Hebron, during WWII, their leaders allied themselves with Nazi Germany and in 1948, after the U.N. partition of British Mandate Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state, five Arab armies invaded the newborn state of Israel. Until a leader of the Palestinians says that he accepts the Jews as a “people”, who deserve their “own state” in the former British Mandate of Palestine, there will be no peace and all negotiations are a smoke screen for war by other means.

    Read More

    The only solution is complete separation of populations. Can be accomplished only if there is a political will on the part of Israel crossing all political divides between Zionist political parties so there can be long term continuity of policy. Arabs can be forced to leave with min. of violence by making it very hard for them to stay. Just as christians and many Muslim Arabs leave on their own every year. This process could take a generation or less depending on how hard we make it for the shit heads. It’s really up to us and there is no need to broadcast our policy or explain it but just do it… The old Mapai party did it with little fanfare and no trumpeting what they were about to the world or to the Israeli people but they did it and it worked.

    Ask me how and I will reply in another post.

  8. I’m with you Bernard. Let’s end the double standard for Israel. With that said, whether we transfer them without their approval, or whether we pay them to leave, either solution is good for Israel. The cost to Israel when they are not removed, is high enough to warrant a nice payment and still have Israel come out ahead. Personally, I believe they don’t deserve ten agorot, but whatever it takes to get them out of Israel is worth it. Be that a financial cost to Israel or a political cost.

  9. CuriousAmerican Said:

    THE CENTRAL ISSUE IS HOW TO GET JUDEA AND SAMARIA.

    The central issue is the necessary repudiation of double standards in all relations with arabs and internationals. The application of a single standard will give the solution to any problem or relationship. On any questions simply ask what the others do or have done and those options become available to Israel (NB the arab ethnic cleansing of Jews occurred after the inception of the GC and apparently the GC was ignored which sets a precedent for ignoring the GC)

  10. CuriousAmerican Said:

    As for Lebanon, Lebanon never expelled the Jews…..So you cannot expel the Arabs into Lebanon when the Jews were never expelled FROM Lebanon. That is a loser argument for you.

    any arab state which was on the other side in the precipitating cause, the war, of the 2 refugee populations are fair destinations. However, who said we must be fair to those who are never fair. Lebanon and syria have no benefit of peace with israel and therefore Israel can do anything they want to either.
    CuriousAmerican Said:

    the immediate problem is Judea and Samaria TODAY, not what happened in Marakeesh or Tunis sixty years ago.

    what happened 60 years ago is one of the justifications for transfer. you appear confused. there is no solution or energy to be spent wrt 60 years ago, that is the beauty of the solution. No negotiations no talking of compensation, no bargaining simply a transfer across any arab hostile border without a treaty along with a note saying this makes up for 60 years ago.
    however, you strayed from the point I made which was that Mr. Konrad referred to a transfer of arabs as ethnic cleansing which i said was anti semitic because it employed a double standard. I did not mention originally how the arab ethnic cleansing of Jews dould be unilaterally repaired. I merely stated that ignoring the arab cleansing of jews sets a precedent which would be a double standard if the Jews could not do the same. the repudiation of double standards is the most important solution to all arguments with the internationals. Application of a single standard by Israel in its relations with others will solve all the problems. all israel need do is treat everyone as they treat israel and the jews. you never dealt with my statement.

  11. @ bernard ross:

    All irrelevant red herrings having nothing to do with my comment which you never rebutted!

    Your complaint is what is irelevant.

    Like the international and arab narrative it completely ignores the transfer of Jews from arab countries as a result of the same conflict and that the principle of quid pro quo demands the same standard and restoration of Justice by considering the transfer of arabs as the completion of a population exchange

    You cannot drive the Arabs in Judea and Samaria to Morocco.
    They are not responsible from what Morocco, Algeria, Libya did.

    Nor can you expel them to Morocco. It is too far away.

    As for Lebanon, Lebanon never expelled the Jews. The Maronite Christians who rule Lebanon until the 1970s were/are not anti-semitic. Lebanon NEVER EXPELLED THE JEWS. In fact, many Jews from Arab countries MOVED TO LEBANON after 1948.

    So you cannot expel the Arabs into Lebanon when the Jews were never expelled FROM Lebanon.

    There were very few, if any, Jews in Transjordan to expel. Whatever Jews were in the disputed Judean and Samarian areas have returned after 1967.

    If you bring up the expulsions from Eastern Jerusalem in 1948, the Arabs will bring up the expulsions of Arabs from Western Jerusalem in 1948.

    That is a loser argument for you.

    Ah! Egypt! Well, you signed a peace treaty with Egypt. Why didn’t Israel bring it up back then?

    Your issue of the Jewish Exodus from North Africa and the Arab countries is a red herring.

    It has merit, but is not the immediate issue.

    THE CENTRAL ISSUE IS HOW TO GET JUDEA AND SAMARIA.

    If you want to hold up clearing out Judea and Samaria of Arabs until you get your “satisfaction,” the problem is with you.

    I am sure that the reason that Mr. Konrad never dealt with the Jewish expulsions is because the immediate problem is Judea and Samaria TODAY, not what happened in Marakeesh or Tunis sixty years ago.

    If this does not satisfy you, it is not because I have not answered the question. Rather, it is because you will not accept any answer that does not agree with you 100%.

    Mr. Konrad is right. He dealt with the central issue, not the ancillary matters.

    This is not a double standard. THIS IS TRIAGE!

    You deal with the important stuff first.

    I know this won’t satisfy you; but then nothing will.

  12. @ CuriousAmerican:

    Are you more interested in a solution or revenge?

    BOTH.
    and they do not have to be one or the other

    Are you more interested in humiliating them than peace?

    Understand this, american. There is no such thing as “peace”. It is a nonexistent utopia. What you, mistakenly call ‘peace’ is lack of hostilities.
    There were NEVER any unprovoked hostilities from the Jewish side.
    The list of unprovoked hostilities from your beloved darlings the musloids is LOOOOOOOOOONG. Very long.
    These bastards must have a VERY HEAVY BOOT pressed against their neck, they must feel humiliated and exposed for the subhuman POS (‘shpose’ herein after) that they are.
    Only when this condition will occur, will there ever be “peace”.
    Got that, american?

    Oh, and I told you a thousand times. Just because you say some of the things that feiglin or Sherman say… It is not the same ….
    Let’s just say that what drives THEM to say that…is not what drives YOU.

  13. CuriousAmerican Said:

    Are you more interested in a solution or revenge?

    Irrelevant! You never rebutted my original argument.
    CuriousAmerican Said:

    Mike Konrad recommended that the Arabs should leave Judea and Samaria, but you are upset that he would not do it the way you would like. Is it not enough that the Arabs leave? Is compensating them anti-Semitic, now? Are you more interested in humiliating them than peace?

    All irrelevant red herrings having nothing to do with my comment which you never rebutted!
    CuriousAmerican Said:

    Deal with the 1950 exodus of Jews from Araby after you get rid of Judean and Samarian Arabs.

    you appear to have ADD or reading comprehension disability. I never mentioned “dealing” with the exodus. I mentioned that the “exodus” or arab ethnic cleansing of Jews is automatically dealt with through a population transfer of the arabs thus rendering the Jewish cleansing into a population exchange, bringing justice unilaterally. wake up!
    CuriousAmerican Said:

    If someone does not agree with you on every point, are they now anti-semites?

    I said the quoted statement was anti semitic because it employed double standards for the Jews: why do you keep lying? Is it because of all that time spent with the Mondoweiss liars?

  14. @ bernard ross:
    Only Jewish demands for quid pro quo and a refusal to accept or continue double standards is acceptable.

    Are you more interested in a solution or revenge?

    Mike Konrad recommended that the Arabs should leave Judea and Samaria, but you are upset that he would not do it the way you would like.

    Is it not enough that the Arabs leave? Is compensating them anti-Semitic, now?

    Are you more interested in humiliating them than peace?

    Deal with the 1950 exodus of Jews from Araby after you get rid of Judean and Samarian Arabs.

    If someone does not agree with you on every point, are they now anti-semites?

    Martin Sherman – who makes similar recommendations – is Martin Sherman an anti-Semite?

    MK Feiglin who recommended the same? Is MK Feiglin an anti-Semite?

  15. Conrad is wrong annexing Area C can work. Yes it will not solve all problems. No perfect resolutions to the conflict exist. If Arabs in A/B cause violent issues they will be dealt with. Yes some will complain. As long as the IDF remains in all of Judah and Samaria we can deal with it.

    In the long run the situation can be normalized. Yes their will issues for a longtime.

    Maybe it is a choice of what is least bad or a bit better. Sort of like voting for a politician.
    Some people never realize that the politician who does everything you want at the time you want does not exist. The realists pick the best possible choice and the complainers are never satisfied. The magic pill of all the Arabs out is almost as unrealistic of those who believe a two state solution is viable.

    Basically autonomy for Arabs in A/B with economic encouragement as Bennett proposes is the carrot for those desiring normal lives. Opposing this offer has a stick approach with many possibilities. Certainly some like the Hamas will need to be deported or jailed. If the situation becomes normalized and the two state solution buried the Israeli Arabs who waive Palestinian flags may in due course put these flags in the closet.

  16. CuriousAmerican Said:

    Deal with the immediate problem first

    the “immediate” problem was the assumption that population transfer was alright done to Jews but not alright for the arabs. the immediate problem is the anti Semitism of double standards exhibited and assumed acceptable in this article and in the general behavior of the internationals. Their double standard and anti semitism proves that Israel cannot get multilateral justice but only justice unilaterally. this double standard convinces ignorant jews that arab criminality may be allowed to remain and that the world may do things to the Jews that are unacceptable to be done to anyone else. The immediate problem is the double standard and is the prime MO of the internationals towards Israel and the Jews. agreements made to Jews can be broken but not those made to others. Israel must repudiate the double standard which can only be done by applying the same standard to the arabs and the internationals.
    All the problems arise from the immediate problem of the “double standard”

  17. CuriousAmerican Said:

    There is nothing anti-Semitic about Konrad’s article,

    I clearly stated what made the statement I quoted anti semitic and true to form you have not grappled or rebutted my statement and submission. apparently you do not read or are astoundingly inattentive to what you read. My first statement gives the basis of my comment as “double standards” and the rest gives the evidence for that basis.
    bernard ross Said:

    This statement is a typical anti semitic demand for a double standard.

    put on your glasses and take off the dunce cap!
    CuriousAmerican Said:

    Take Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, etc. to court.

    No need for court when it can be rectified and justice restored with quid pro quo. then afterwards if they like they can take Israel to court, after the fact is established.

    CuriousAmerican Said:

    Oddly, the Arabs in Judea and Samaria are not responsible for the explusion of Jews from Morocco, et al. These are related, but independent, issues.

    sorry, Judge Bernard says otherwise: both refugee issues arose from the same conflict and the pals opearated under the instruction of their arab allies, they left in the hope of stealing the dead jews property on return. The pals must be resettled as were the Jews. The fact that the Jews in arab lands were innocent of any relation to the conflict makes the deed even worse. Furthermore, the Jews innocence cannot be claimed by the pals who sought the dead jews property.

    CuriousAmerican Said:

    One cannot sue the Arabs in Ramallah for the actions of Morocco in the 1950s.

    who speaks of suing? only you. Israel should act unilaterally and then give its legal reasons of justification after the fact; just like vlad did in crimea.
    CuriousAmerican Said:

    Mr. Konrad has correctly prioritized.

    HMMM?????? something fishy here:

    Mike Konrad is the pen name of an American who is not Jewish, Latin, or Arab. He runs a website, http://latinarabia.com, where he discusses the subculture of Arabs in Latin America. He wishes his Spanish were better.

  18. @ bernard ross:

    Far too many commentators on pro-Israel sites advocate forced transfer, which is just a fancy term for ethnic cleansing.

    This statement is a typical anti semitic demand for a double standard.

    The article says the Arabs must go.

    The only thing one can debate is the method.

    There is nothing anti-Semitic about Konrad’s article, unless you think getting the Arabs out is anti-semitic.

    The immediate issue is the Arabs in Judea and Samaria. Until you get them out, nothing else matters.

    Worry about the 1948-66 expulsions of Jew later on. Take Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, etc. to court. Oddly, the Arabs in Judea and Samaria are not responsible for the explusion of Jews from Morocco, et al. These are related, but independent, issues.

    One cannot sue the Arabs in Ramallah for the actions of Morocco in the 1950s.

    Triage! Triage!

    Deal with the immediate problem first.

    Mr. Konrad has correctly prioritized.

  19. Far too many commentators on pro-Israel sites advocate forced transfer, which is just a fancy term for ethnic cleansing.

    This statement is a typical anti semitic demand for a double standard.

    Like the international and arab narrative it completely ignores the transfer of Jews from arab countries as a result of the same conflict and that the principle of quid pro quo demands the same standard and restoration of Justice by considering the transfer of arabs as the completion of a population exchange which is the ONLY conclusion that would not be a double standard. This solution has been accepted before and there is no reason why it cannot be accepted again for the Jews.

    Secondly, it does not take into account that the arabs have demonstrated that they cannot live with jews in that every area of former palestine mandate controlled by Arabs is JEW FREE as proven by gaza, jordan, PA west bank. Their intolerance, apartheid, anti semitism and incitement CANNOT reasonably be used as a basis for depriving Jews of settling in the land of YS which was internationally agreed. It is not the criminals behavior which should be rewarded.

    Third, JEW FREE arab only land has already been severed twice from the internationally agreed Jewish homeland as a reward for arab refusal to accept the Jews. this is unconsionable and despicable to assume that the Jews must keep being extorted by criminals and their supporting international abettors and facilitators.

    Only Jewish demands for quid pro quo and a refusal to accept or continue double standards is acceptable. Gaza and the PA should be under siege until the UNRWA purges ALL anti semitic material from the land. this is all the reason necessary to put the filth into a prison until they recant from their filthy despicable anti semitism which the international community facilitates and authenticates. The despicable internationals want the Jew to be perpetually humiliated, swindled, tortured and slaughtered and refuse to hold the Jew killers to any acceptable standards. The real criminals are the international community and especially the Eu and the church.

  20. It takes a gentile like Mr. Konrad to show more common sense than the entire Jewish establishment combined. Recall that Israeli in 1948 and in 1967 failed to remove all the Arabs from Israel as instructed in the Torah. Jewish leaders also failed to EVER demand Jewish rights in Israel regarding the Arabs. Jewish leaders failed to cite the Palestine Mandate, by the League of Nations, as providing legal claim to 45,000 square miles instead of the 8,000 inside the green line today. The Arabs are psychotic and the Jews are delusional. A match made in hell.