Soccer Dad

Whoa.. Nice Work!
When one combines the notion SD posted of the NY Times editorial taking the J-Street line, and then follow the extension that the new Administration in Washington generally follows the same J-Street talking points.. Things get interesting.

Israelis want peace but both sides must work together to make it happen. If the other side does not want to be a partner, there is not much Israel can do to get to the destination. Israel does not to be lectured to on making peace. The West doesn't appear interested in supporting Israel, leading most Israelis to question why their country should take the risks for countries that don't live in the same neighborhood that they do. Instead of working together with Israel to create a secure environment to make real peace possible, the West is asking Israel to deliver a suicide note without knowing first whether the other side wants to live in peace with Israel. It would be foolish for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to give without receiving something in return. And it is not clear what Israel would get for committing to a two state formula and even then the devil is in the details and slogans do not substitute for the nitty-gritty (the fine print) that is required to protect Israel's national security and its vital interests. The PM is taking only the responsible path that he can if he is to secure Israel's well-being and needs not to be condemned but be understood for doing so and no other world leader would act any differently for his country.

Greetings:

It seems to me that there is already a two-state solution, Israel and Jordan. Wasn't Jordan part of Palestine before it became "Trans-Jordan"? It's about time to go on the offensive and start talking about re-locating the "Palestinians" (weren't Jordanians Palestinians) from the West Bank and Gaza. All this talk about a West Bank state and a contiguous Gaza is nonsense.

Netanyahu and Barak were serious soldiers in their day. It's time to soldier on again.

It's too late to talk about the Jordanian option--neither the Jordanians nor the Palestinian Arabs will agree to it and the two-state 'solution' is on everybody's lips.

The conventional wisdom has become a settled cliche. But transforming it into reality is extremely difficult. The PA can sign an agreement but they cannot execute it. And the Palestinian Arabs are simply not ready to assume the responsibilities of statehood. That is why a "bottom up" approach stands a better chance of success than an imposed solution. As for the Jordanian option, its not too late to talk about it. The Palestinian Arabs need territory and access to markets a landlocked country cannot provide them with. A federal or confederal union with Jordan offers them both. A political breakthrough requires imaginative thinking, not rote formulas. It can happen if all sides eschew all dogmas and consider new ways to make peace.

What you say makes sense, but that assumes that the Palestinian leadership is thinking sensibly. Also, if Arafat faced pressure not to make concessions, imagine the pressure on the much weaker Abbas not to relieve the world pressure on Israel by agreeing to the Jordanian solution?

They're going not to take the pressure off Israel. My point was that a durable peace can be built with the right approach. But for the reason you've indicated, that I'm in agreement with, its not going to happen.

Am I missing something?

And that is the crux of the matter, is it not? At the first inkling that the pendulum may be swinging the other way, that Israel is no long content to be told to unilaterally make concessions on its security with nothing in return--the media and the world insists that Israel sign on to a poorly defined two-state solution, a solution that is geared to solves the world's problem rather than Israel's.

1.) "poorly defined two-state solution"? I think that the Arab Peace Initiative is the best option at present and, to the extent it's "poorly defined" it leaves room for negotiation. If it were clearly and firmly deliniated in great detail, Israel would claim that they were being forced to sign off on a plan without any opportunity to address the Israeli considerations.
2.)"a solution that is geared to solves the world's problem rather than Israel's" - how is the occupation and resulting armed insurrection not Israel's problem? If the resolution of this issue is not beneficial to Israel and there's no problem, why all the whining about suicide bombers and Quassam rockets? (I'm not touching the "geared to solves" bastardization of the English language)
3.)"told to unilaterally make concessions on its security with nothing in return" - wtf? Nothing in return? Really? Reducing the legitimacy of the militants' complaints, removing incentives for resistance, making the job of militant recruitment more difficult, making Israel more palatable to an international community that just isn't comfortable with rogue nations who steal their closest allies' state secrets, develop nuclear weapons in defiance of the international community, attack their closest allies' ships, commit egregious war crimes which include the systematic execution of persons on the basis of religion and ethnicity as well as violation international law regarding occupation of territory captured in war - these are "nothing?"

Netanyahu's words do ring hollow. All he has to do is say the words "two states for two peoples," but he just can't do that. For 60 years, Israel has defied the international community, made promises with no intention of keeping them, lied, spied, and pursued a policy of genocide. Now, they try to use the argument that so much time has passed that they shouldn't be punished for the actions of past generations. Something has to be done. If generations of jews were forced to live in refugee camps after being driven from their homes by radical Islamic extremists, there would be cries of "remember the holocaust" and "never again!" When generations of arabs are driven from their homes by radical Jewish extremists and forced to live in utter, destitute poverty in "refugee camps" where they are completely at the mercy of soldiers in full body armor who can search, detain, and even kill them without any reason at all, forced to watch their children, parents, and spouses murdered before their eyes while powerless to do anything about it and subjected to indefinite detainment if they speak out too vocally, that's somehow different? Israel, like so many victims of serious physical, verbal, and sexual abuse has responded by becoming the abuser. While the abuse they endured is sad and certainly deplorable, it cannot be allowed to excuse their actions when they cause so much harm to so many.

"Am I missing something?"

Yes. The devil is in the details:

Five Basic Arguments Against A Palestinian State

Contrary to the governments of the United States and Israel, various experts in both countries reject the "two-state" solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I shall mention their views while developing five decisive arguments against a Palestinian state: Economic, Demographic, Political, Strategic, and Democratic. Let's begin with the�

1. Economic Arguments

a. A RAND study indicates that a Palestinian state would not be economically viable. It would require $33 billion for the first ten years of its existence�and this study was made before the economic crisis now confronting the United States and entire world.

b. Besides, to confine more than two million Arabs to the 2,323 square miles of the so-called West Bank, and to squeeze another million into the 141 square miles of Gaza, is to doom these Arabs to economic stagnation and discontent. The projected state would be a cauldron of envious hatred of Israel fueled by the leaders of one or another group of Arab clans or thugs parading under the banner of Allah.

c. Moreover, to compensate perhaps 200,000 Jews expelled from the "West Bank"�or even half that number�would bankrupt Israel's government, to say nothing of the resulting trauma and civil discord.

2. Demographic Arguments

a. "Two-state" solution advocates warn that the Arabs between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean will soon outnumber the Jews, and that this necessitates a Palestinian state. The Sharon government, without public argumentation, used this demographic contention to justify its perfidious implementation of Labor's policy of unilateral disengagement from Gaza in 2005. The Olmert-Livni government is using the same policy to withdraw from Judea and Samaria including eastern Jerusalem.

b. However, a groundbreaking study by the American-Israel Demographic Research Group (www.aidrg.com) revealed in 2005 that Israel does not need to retreat from Judea and Samaria to secure Jewish demography. The study shows that the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics exaggerated the Arab population in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza by nearly 50%. Rather than 3.8 million Palestinians, it was no more than 2.4 million. Since those registered as Jews in Israel comprise almost 80% of Israel's population, they make up a 59% majority with Gaza and Judea and Samaria, and a solid 67% majority with Judea and Samaria without Gaza!

c. The American and Israeli researchers also found that Jewish fertility rates are steadily increasing while Arab fertility rates are steadily decreasing. Not only is there no demographic time bomb necessitating the surrender of Judea and Samaria to Palestinian terrorists, but Israel's demographic position should encourage its government to develop a strategy for annexing Judea and Samaria.

3. Political Arguments

a. According to Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, former head of Israel's National Security Council, "the Palestinians do not truly desire the conventional two-state solution. The Arab world�especially Jordan and Egypt�does not truly support it either �" (The Jerusalem Post, September 24, 2008).

b. Dr. Yuval Steinitz, former Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chairman, said that the idea of a two-state solution should be dead. "A Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria," he said, "would bring about Israel's demise.� Such a Palestinian state would immediately become an outpost for Iran" (The Jerusalem Post, September 14, 2008).

c. Advocates of a Palestinian state live in a fantasy world or lack the intellectual courage to acknowledge the obvious: the Palestinians are committed to Israel's annihilation. A generation of Arab children has been educated to hate Jews and emulate suicide bombers. Daniel Pipes said it would take at least two generations to undo such indoctrination. (This would require, among other things, basic changes in the Quran. Muslims would have to renounce the ethos of Jihad. No American or Israeli official has the guts to speak of this religious-cultural issue.)

4. Strategic Arguments

a. On December 29, 2002, the freighter Karine A set sail from Iran en route to the Suez Canal. It was boarded by Israeli commandos without opposition from the four crewmen, who were members of the Palestinian naval force. When the commandoes examined the ship's cargo, they discovered launchers and rockets, mortars, anti-tank weapons, mines, 2 tons of explosives, assault rifles, machine guns, sniper rifles with telescope lenses, hand grenades, and hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition�enough weaponry to tilt the balance of terror against Israel. The destination of the Karine A was Gaza. Consistent with Dr. Steinitz's warning, this Iranian arms shipment arms signifies that Iran views the Palestinians as a battle field in its 30-year war with Israel. (See Ronen Bergman, The Secret War with Iran, 2008, p. 270.)

b. Even if it were agreed that a Palestinian state would have to be demilitarized, only fools would believe that the Arabs would abide by such an agreement�no more than they adhered to the arms limitations in the Oslo Agreement.

c. An armed Palestinian state would expose all of Israel to missile attacks. Preoccupied with such attacks, Israel could no longer serve effectively as America's strategic ally in the Middle East. No longer could it provide the U.S. with priceless intelligence and technological assistance whose value far exceeds the value of U.S. military aid. And I have not mentioned the multibillion dollar economic market Israel provides the fifty states of the American Union.

d. Ponder also the fact that rewarding the Palestinians with statehood would promote irredentist movements or civil war and terrorism throughout the world.

5. Democratic Arguments

a. Doctrinaire adherence to the democratic principle of self-determination would encourage any ethnic group to seek independent statehood. It would endow any ethnic group with the right to elect a tyrannical form of government, whether fascist, communist, or Islamic.

b. Hamas, an Islamic terrorist group dedicated to Israel's destruction, was victorious in the 2006 democratic elections. Lincoln echoed Jefferson when he said, "No people have a right to do what is wrong." Ponder the American Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

c. Underlying these words is the Biblical conception of man's creation in the image of God. The Declaration portrays man as a rational being possessing free will and capable of distinguishing right from wrong. Without such a conception of human nature, the signers of the Declaration would have had no rational or moral grounds for rebelling against Britain, whose colonial governments violated the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

d. This "Higher Law" doctrine of the Declaration provides a set of standards by which to determine whether granting national self-determination to any ethnic group can be justified. It cannot be justified among people steeped in ignorance or habituated to violence and servitude. In his classic, Representative Government, John Stuart Mill said that a people may lack the moderation that representative government requires of them: "Their passions may be too violent, or their personal pride too exacting, to forego private conflict, and leave to the laws the avenging of their real or supposed wrongs."

e. The "Palestinians" have not only bungled their every chance of self-government by making Fatah and Hamas terrorists their leaders. Having educated their children to emulate suicide bombers, the goal of these thugs is not statehood but Israel's annihilation. The democratic principle of self-determination is not an absolute; it is limited by rational and ethical considerations. It would be irrational�indeed, criminal�to establish a Palestinian state on Israel's doorstep.

another solution is the transformation of Israel from a theocratic state privileging the jewish majority to a democratic, secular state of all its citizens ie. the dezionization of israel in which the palestinians of gaza and the west bank will be incorporated into one country and the return of the refugees.
of coarse the bigots will have to migrate.

how long can israel survive on its present coarse.
if we are to have a israeli style peace, it will include massacres,aparthied and further ethnic cleansing for israel to remain a jewish state.

the transformation of Israel from a theocratic state privileging the jewish majority to a democratic, secular state of all its citizens ie. the dezionization of israel in which the palestinians of gaza and the west bank will be incorporated into one country and the return of the refugees

Let's arrange for millions of people who currently elect their leaders to become a minority among people currently ruled by Hamas, Fatah, the Hashemite monarchy, etc.? And let's do this is the name of creating a "democratic, secular state"? How is that supposed to work?

Um, by nature democracy means that the government is ruled by the people. Technically, Israel is a Republic, but that's not important. When, in order to continue to have their way, one group uses various means to ensure that the majority is denied the right to representation, that is called "apartheid" and that is where Israel stands. Netanyahu doesn't want to give them an independent state, but keeps the governments of Gaza and the West Bank in place as an excuse to avoid giving the original inhabitants of the land, the Palestinian residents citizenship and the right to vote. That is wrong and you know it. Why is it ok for the immigrant minority to suppress the native majority? That would be like Mexican immigrants in the U.S. denying all non-latino Americans the right to vote. Do you think that would go over well or do you think there might be some armed resistance groups sprouting up across the country to fight for their right to self-determination? And there it is, without the spin of the Israeli apologists....

"When, in order to continue to have their way, one group uses various means to ensure that the majority is denied the right to representation, that is called "apartheid" and that is where Israel stands."

Seeing as Jews are the majority, where is the apartheid?

"Why is it ok for the immigrant minority to suppress the native majority?"

Minortiy/majority of what? There was no sovereign country there--there has never been a sovereign country of Palestinian Arabs.

That is why your analogy--

"That would be like Mexican immigrants in the U.S. denying all non-latino Americans the right to vote."

--is wrong.

Then, why the references of travelers to the area as "Palestine?" Under that sort of logic, the existence of an "Afghanistan" is pretty questionable. The culture of Arabs emphasizes a support for Islam and for tribal leaders over the centralized state government. Just because they weren't legally defined as a nation, if they lived there under some sort of system - tribal, feudal, whatever - it's still their land. I don't discount the theft of America by the European settlers just because there was no nation of America prior to the arrival of the pilgrims.

I know there is debate about this, but I was under the impression that the non-Jews would make up something like 51% of Israeli population if the West Bank and Gazans were counted as citizens. I could be wrong. Under any conditions, the PA and Hamas have very little actual control which isn't subject to Israeli override and definitely do not qualify as sovereign states, but I don't believe they have Israeli citizenship - correct me if I'm wrong. Thus my argument about the nefarious purpose of leaving such entities in place is still quite valid and it is still an apartheid system. I also require reading that non-Jews would not need a majority to effectively wrest control of the central gov't from the Jews because the Arabs would likely vote in a bloc, but the Labor, Likud, and other parties would not likely be able to reach such a consensus, thus allowing the Arab bloc to control legislation and easily gain a majority and select the PM.

I also have to say that I have spent a lot of time pondering how, exactly, Obama expected the Turks to take him seriously about how imprtant it is to be a secular state rather than an Muslim nation or Christian nation when our closest alleged ally is a Jewish nation. Seems a little hypocritical, but then again maybe I'm just not on the same page as the President....

"Under any conditions, the PA and Hamas have very little actual control which isn't subject to Israeli override and definitely do not qualify as sovereign states, but I don't believe they have Israeli citizenship - correct me if I'm wrong. Thus my argument about the nefarious purpose of leaving such entities in place is still quite valid and it is still an apartheid system"

So because Israel does not let Hamas just fire rockets at their civilians at will--that't apartheid?

In any case, since Israel no longer occupies Gaza, it can hardly be accused of apartheid there.

As far as the West Bank goes, when is the last time you read about Abbas insisting that the IDF leave? Even then, just what do you think those forces are doing there, other than watching Abbas's back?

"I also require reading that non-Jews would not need a majority to effectively wrest control of the central gov't from the Jews because the Arabs would likely vote in a bloc, but the Labor, Likud, and other parties would not likely be able to reach such a consensus, thus allowing the Arab bloc to control legislation and easily gain a majority and select the PM."

No, you are mistaken.
You recall reading that.
I require knowing where you read it.

any military which uses airstrikes is not doing everything they can to prevent civilian casualties

That's a grand pronouncement, but can you name some armies in the real world that fight in a more moral way than the IDF does?

hamas,fatah and the zionist leaders will have no place in binational state. these guys will be out of a job because there is no need for them. once a democratic constitution is in place ,everyone is guarenteed equality and can settle differences politically or through the law.

http://onestate.net/articles.htm

hamas,fatah and the zionist leaders will have no place in binational state. these guys will be out of a job because there is no need for them. once a democratic constitution is in place ,everyone is guarenteed equality and can settle differences politically . . .

Politically? Will that involve any Islamist parties? Or have you already forgotten the beginning of your sentence?

the islamic parties wouldn't survive. hamas only won the last election because fatah was corrupt and had failed in stopping israeli expansion.

it is often lamented by believers in palestine that its people are the most indifferent muslims. wine is freely available and they pray seldom. their women have jobs and go to schools with their head uncovered. the iranian style theocracy is,to most of them,laughable. and this is reflected from the start in the movement that expressed their dream of nationhood. the PLO was not islamic, but nationalist and leftist-just as irreligious as zionism-it looked for ideology not from mecca but moscow .

the PLO was not islamic, but nationalist and leftist-just as irreligious as zionism-it looked for ideology not from mecca but moscow .

You are proving my point. The old Marxist alphabet soup has been eclipsed by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Now even Fatah has to style its armed wing the "Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades."

these are the same guys who love their johnny walker whiskey

these are the same guys who love their johnny walker whiskey

I blogged about Palestinian scotch preferences myself, but Islam is a force to be reckoned with.

http://www.meforum.org/1874/fatahs-embrace-of-islamism

obviously when your drunk as a skunk

my comment was meant to say-

'obviously when they're all drunk as a skunk.'

sorry, i didn't mean to offend anyone