Whither the “peace process”?
By Ted Belman [first published at Hudson - NY]
The peace process has not brought us one step closer to peace. Just the opposite, it has brought us closer to war. In fact the closest we have been since Israel’s dramatic victory in ‘67.
The Annapolis Summit promoted the last iteration of it without any success. If anything, it proved that the parties can’t agree on the terms. When pundits or diplomats argue that we know what the deal is, they ignore the fact that the parties can’t agree on it.
Avigdor Lieberman has rejected Annapolis and wants to return to the Roadmap notwithstanding that it went way beyond Resolution 242 of the UNSC and the Oslo Accords. It incorporates the settlement freeze as prescribed in the Mitchell Report, the security arrangements as set out in the Tenet Plan and the destination of a Palestinian state as set out in President Bush’s vision speech of 2002. In that speech, President Bush set out many preconditions to the creation of Palestine. But when the Quartet joined the Roadmap, they watered them down. The Roadmap reduced Israel’s rights to Judea and Samaria and to Jerusalem. It also recited the newly announced Saudi Plan. Sharon strenuously objected to this insertion but Powell rammed it down his throat. Obviously, the fix was in. Israel accepted it with fourteen reservations and the U.S. promised to give them “serious consideration”. Needless to say, that was the end of them.
The reason that this bitter pill was swallowed by Israel then, and by Minister Lieberman now, is that the Roadmap demanded an end to violence and incitement and thus afforded a good defensive shield for Israel. Israel would not have to perform her obligations unless and until, the Arabs ended violence and incitement. Lieberman spelled it out in his maiden speech, [1]
-
I will never agree to our waiving all the clauses – I believe there are 48 of them – and going directly to the last clause, negotiations on a permanent settlement. No. These concessions do not achieve anything. We will adhere to it to the letter, exactly as written. Clauses one, two, three, four – dismantling terrorist organizations, establishing an effective government, making a profound constitutional change in the Palestinian Authority. We will proceed exactly according to the clauses. We are also obligated to implement what is required of us in each clause, but so is the other side. They must implement the document in full.
Netanyahu was silent on Lieberman’s remarks and announced that his government would immediately review all elements of the peace process before announcing its position.
Meanwhile, Obama simply affirmed the two-state solution.
-
“In the Middle East, we share the goal of a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors. Let me be clear: the United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.”
“That is a goal shared by Palestinians, Israelis, and people of good will around the world. That is a goal that the parties agreed to in the road map and at Annapolis. And that is a goal that I will actively pursue as president.”
While he committed to this goal, he did not commit to any part of the process including Annapolis. The mainstream media have misrepresented this point with few exceptions. Obama has a different process in mind. One where he forces Israel to comply with the Arab initiative.
Meanwhile, the Arabs set out their position on the peace process at the Doha Summit in late March. MEMRI reported that The Doha Summit was a defeat for the Saudi-Egyptian Camp [2]
-
After the summit, the Syrian president called it “the most successful summit of the last 20 years.” [3] Indeed, the Iranian-Syrian camp had a number of achievements at the summit:
1) They prevented any discussion of the “Iranian threat,” a concept that is at the heart of the Saudi-Egyptian alliance and over which a cold war is being waged between the two camps. [4]
2) Stipulations were added to the Saudi peace initiative such that it would be conditional not just on Israel’s acceptance of it as it stands, but also on Israel’s beginning to undertake its obligations stemming from the peace initiative’s authoritative documents – namely, U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338 (which, in contrast with the peace initiative itself, do not commit all the Arab states to normalization). [5]
3) Emphasis was placed on the option of resistance in Bashar Al-Assad’s speech.
This is hugely instructive. The Arabs did not support Annapolis. Nor did they support the Roadmap. Nor did they support the Oslo Accords. They went right back to Resolution 242 passed in ‘67 which they had utterly rejected at the Khartoum Conference in the same year. There, they insisted on “no peace, no recognition, no negotiations” with Israel. Their position has not changed though they accepted the Resolution a few years later. Such acceptance was tactical only. They had gone to war in ‘67 to destroy Israel just as they did in ’48 and again in ’73.
By supporting the resistance they are rejecting the Roadmap. By rejecting the Roadmap, they are rejecting a Palestinian state. They don’t care about the Palestinians. They care about destroying Israel.
After forty years, their policy is still “no peace, no recognition, no negotiations”.
So where has the U.S. been in all this. Originally she supported the true meaning of Resolution 242 which called for partial withdrawal to “secure and recognized borders.” A year later, she accepted the Arab interpretation requiring full withdrawal. But by law, a resolutions is interpreted according to what was intended at the time and not one year later. Obviously the Arabs got America to change her mind. The policy of the U.S. has been, for almost forty years, to force Israel to return to the pre ‘67 borders.
Wikepedia reports [23],
After the 1967 Six Day War several Israeli leaders argued against turning the armistice lines (pre-67 borders) into permanent borders on the grounds of Israeli security:
-
* Prime Minister Golda Meir said the pre-1967 borders were so dangerous that it “would be treasonable” for an Israeli leader to accept them (New York Times, December 23, 1969).
* The Foreign Minister Abba Eban said the pre-1967 borders have “a memory of Auschwitz” (Der Spiegel, November 5, 1969).
* Prime Minister Menachem Begin described a proposal for a retreat to the pre-1967 borders as “national suicide for Israel.”
On December 17, 1975, Henry Kissinger met with Sadun Hammadi, Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs. A transcript of this meeting [6] was published a couple of years ago. It discloses Kissinger’s attempts to assuage the concerns of Hammadi.
-
“Kissinger: I think, when we look at history, that when Israel was created in 1948, I don’t think anyone understood it. It originated in American domestic politics. It was far away and little understood. So it was not an American design to get a bastion of imperialism in the area. It was much less complicated: And I would say that until 1973 the Jewish community had enormous influence. It is only in the last two years, as a result of the policy we are pursuing, that it has changed,
We don’t need Israel for influence in the Arab world. On the contrary, Israel does us more harm than good in the Arab world [..]
We can’t negotiate about the existence of Israel but we can reduce its size to historical proportions.
I don’t agree Israel is a permanent threat. How can a nation of three million be a permanent threat? They have a technical advantage now. But it is inconceivable that peoples with wealth and skill and the tradition of the Arabs won’t develop the capacity that is needed. So I think in ten to fifteen years Israel will be like Lebanon–struggling for existence, with no influence in the Arab world.
You mentioned new weapons. But they will not be delivered in the foreseeable future. All we agreed to is to study it, and we agreed to no deliveries out of current stocks. So many of these things won’t be produced until 1980, and we have not agreed to deliver them then. [..].
If the issue is the existence of Israe1, we can’t cooperate. But if the issue is more normal borders, we can cooperate.
Aide: Your Excellency, do you think a settlement would come through the Palestinians in the area? ‘How do you read it? Is it in your power to create such a thing?
Kissinger: Not in 1976. I have to be perfectly frank with you. I think the Palestinian identity has to be recognized in some form. But we need the thoughtful cooperation of the Arabs. It will take a year or a year and to do it, and will be a tremendous fight. An evolution is already taking place.
Aide: You think it will be part of a solution?
Kissinger: It has to be. No solution is possible without it. But the domestic situation is becoming favorable. More and more questions are being asked in Congress favorable to the Palestinians. (Emphases added)
President Bush offered some respite from this policy in his letter to Prime Minister Sharon prior to disengagement from Gaza. [7]
-
First, the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the road map. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan. Under the road map, Palestinians must undertake an immediate cessation of armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere, and all official Palestinian institutions must end incitement against Israel. [..]
The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats. [..]
It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.
As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. (emphases added)
Israel should be able to rely on said letter. Bush committed to “secure, defensible borders”, no “right of return” and no Arab Peace Initiative. Unfortunately, these commitments/assurances have been breached by the pressure to join the Annapolis process and the growing pressure to accept the Arab Peace Initiative. There is even talk of an imposed solution.
The EU, the PA and to some extent the U.S. are demanding Israel abide by past agreements, imaginary or real, while at the same time ignoring American commitments to Israel as set out in the Bush letter.
The Annapolis process was really a separation process, not a peace process. The central idea driving the Annapolis process from the point of view of the Government of Israel was to arrive at agreed borders endorsed by the Quartet. Israel could then have disengaged to such borders as circumstances permitted and built anywhere west of them. The issue of Jerusalem and refugees was to be dealt with later.
This was also the goal of the US and the EU. They too wanted the “occupation” to end.
So what are we to make of the Arab Peace Initiative [8] which
-
1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.
2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:
a. Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights to the lines of June 4, 1967 as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.
b. Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.
c. The acceptance of the establishment of a Sovereign Independent Palestinian State on the Palestinian territories occupied since the 4th of June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza strip, with east Jerusalem as its capital.
3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:
a. Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.
b. Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.
4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.
5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab Countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighborliness and provide future generations with security, stability, and prosperity
.
If you are wondering what (4) means you are not alone. Essentially it means that if the solution to the refugee issue i.e., “patriation”, leaves any refugees in Syria or Lebanon, it is to be rejected.
At least they are offering a “peace agreement”. Or are they? After the Initiative was reaffirmed in ‘07, AIPAC issued a Report, [9] which rejected it as an ultimatum.
-
The Arab League’s decision last week at a summit in Riyadh to reaffirm the 2002 Arab peace initiative could serve as the basis for dialogue between the Arabs and Israel if it is used as an opening to negotiations rather than as an ultimatum. However, the current positions of the Arab League—including support for violence and the “right of return” of Palestinian refugees—are not conducive to a peaceful settlement of the conflict. Israel is committed to exploring peace with the Palestinians and Arab states, but the Arabs have rejected negotiations and threatened Israel with continued violence if it does not unconditionally accept the Arab plan.
That’s it in a nutshell. Nothing has changed.
Some Israelis argue that Israel should nevertheless accept it, providing agreement could be reached on mutual exchanges of land and the number of refugees to be repatriated to Israel. Under this scenario, if Israel wanted to keep land which contains major settlements, she would have to offer some land from Israel proper, of equal value, in exchange. There is also some suggestion that the Arabs would be satisfied if Israel were to repatriate, perhaps 100,000 Arab refugees, and apologize for expelling them. The advocates of such a deal argue peace is worth it.
But most Israelis disagree. If the Arabs are not willing to negotiate or to make reasonable compromises, how can anyone have confidence in their peaceful intentions?
As to whether Israel can rely on the peace offered, the definitive Encyclopedia of Islam [10] simply states:
-
The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.
Of course she can’t. Why trade tangible security for a temporary peace.
Besides the Arabs have presented it as a take it or leave it offer. Saudi Arabia is demanding that the international community “put pressure on Israel to conform to its obligations towards resolutions agreed upon internationally, and based on the Arab Peace Initiative”. [11]
When Netanyahu met with Sen. Mitchell, he told him, “Israel expects the Palestinians to first recognize Israel as a Jewish state before talking about two states for two peoples,”. Obviously Hamas will not do this and Abbas will want Israel’s commitment to a Palestinian state before he does, if at all.
According to Haaretz, [12]
-
A decision has been made in Washington to follow a regional peace plan that will be based on the Arab peace initiative, bolstered by international security guarantees for Israel.
Under this plan, Arab states will proceed with normalization of their ties to Israel in parallel with progress in the negotiations to be held on the Palestinian and Syrian tracks.
Although a “regional “ solution is an advance over just dealing with the PA, Israel will be adverse to discussing final status issues at this time. She will not want to cede the Golan, uproot 100,000 Israelis, return to the pre ’67 borders or permit the return of some refugees all of which are required by the Arab Peace Initiative. And she certainly will not want to accept “international security guarantees”. There is a long history of international security forces not doing their job in Sinai and in Lebanon.
Iran and its proxies are dedicated to Israel’s destruction as exemplified by Hamas’ Charter [13] calling for same and President Ahmedinejad’s speech [14] in 2005 to the conference, World without Zionism, in which he said “Israel must be wiped off the map”. Don’t think for a moment that the Arab Peace Initiative negates that goal. It merely brings the Arabs closer to it.
How so? The Arab Peace Initiative weakens Israel by requiring her to retreat to what Abba Eden called “Auschwitz borders”. Were Israel forced to accept a significant number of refugees they would constitute a fifth column and diminish the Jewish majority. Finally if Israel were to retreat from the Golan and Judea and Samaria, she would be attacked from the land vacated just as she was, after retreating from Lebanon and Gaza. Israel must retain control of the Golan and Judea and Samaria in order to survive.
This week the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) published a Report, [15] authored by former national security adviser Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Giora Eiland. It concludes that the “present border line is the only one affording plausible defense for the State of Israel.” The Security establishment is even more adamant on the need to maintain a presence on the Jordan River and to maintain a security zone around Ben Gurion Airport and the Tel Aviv/Jerusalem highway.
If that is not enough, recent polls among Israelis [16] and Palestinians [17] have shown that both are strongly against a two-state solution.
Some suggest that the alternative to the two-state solution should be a bi-national single state. For Zionists, this is a non-starter. After all, the San Remo Conference in 1920, [18] awarded all of the Ottoman province of Palestine, including Trans Jordan to Jews. It decided
-
…in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine
This decision is binding in international law and thus the matter of who is entitled to Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem is res judicata. [19] Great Britain was responsible to execute this decision but violated it instead by awarding Trans Jordan, which amounted to 77% of the lands given to the Jews, to Abdullah bin Hussein. Thus Jordan was born at the expense of the Jewish homeland. In 1922 what was left of the original award was incorporated into the Palestine Mandate [20] which included the following recital,
-
Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;
Not only did the League of Nations recognize the historical connection of the Jewish people to the land but it also recognized that this was the grounds for reconstituting their national home there. Thus it recognized the right of the Jews to recreate their ancient homeland in Judea and Samaria. This flies totally in the face of Arab claims to the land. Furthermore, the “non-Jewish communities” i.e., Arabs and Christians, were protected as to “civil and religious rights” only, not political rights.
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. [21].
Thus it lies ill in the mouth for the U.S. to now deny Jews the right to settle the lands. It is the settlement freeze that’s illegal, not the settlements.
Great Britain in violation of the spirit of the Mandate, restricted Jewish immigration, even during the Holocaust, and permitted immigration by Arabs. The Arab population doubled in size between 1922 and 1947. [22].
In 1947 the General Assembly of the United Nations, the successor to the failed League of Nations, passed the Partition Plan which proposed that two states, one Arab and one Jewish, be established. The General Assembly was thus violating the Mandate which granted political rights only to Jews.
Nevertheless the Jews accepted it and formed their state, Israel, and the Arabs rejected it and invaded Israel. Thus Jewish rights to all the land remained intact. In no way can the so called Palestinians rightfully claim that Judea and Samaria (West Bank) are Palestinian lands. They are Jewish lands, recognized so by law.
Netanyahu has been clear. He won’t commit to a two-state solution and he doesn’t want to rule over the Palestinians. He wants to give them autonomy or limited sovereignty. He is fully within his rights to do so. He deserves our full support.
The sooner we abandon the Arab Peace Initiative the better.
[1} Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs
[2} MEMRI
[3] Al-Sharq (Qatar), April 2, 2009.
[4] See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 492, “An Escalating Regional Cold War – Part 1: The 2009 Gaza War,” February 2, 2009, http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA49209.
[5] Saudi Arabia’s capitulation to Syrian and Iranian pressure before and during the summit requires explanation, given that it followed long months, including the Gaza war period, during which Saudi Arabia remained committed to the peace initiative, and did not heed the calls to suspend or withdraw it. This change is perhaps attributable to one or more of the following factors: the unrest reported in Saudi Arabia in recent weeks; King ‘Abdallah’s weakness; a Saudi adjustment to U.S. President Barack Obama’s policy of engaging Iran and Syria; and the electoral victory of the right wing in Israel.
[6] Kissinger transcript
[7] Bush- Sharon letters of 2004
[8] The Arab Peace Initiative
[9] The Arab Peace Initiative: Offer for Peace or Ultimatum.
[10] War and Peace – and Deceit – in Islam
[11] Saudi Press Agency
[12] Haaretz
[13] Hamas Charter
[14] BBC Report
[15] Defensible Borders on the Golan Heights
[16] Maagar Mohot Survey Institute
[17] Fafo Institute
[18] San Remo Convention
[19] Howard Grief, Nativ
[20] The Palestine Mandate
[21] Myths and Facts
[22]. MidEastWeb
[23] Armistice Lines
email rec’d
China Confidential writes to say “Brilliant analysis!”
Great analysis Ted. Makes one want Israel to finally not mince words, if words are even necessary and therefore to simply spit in the faces of the lying Jew hating Arabs.
Further, Israel should be speaking plainly to the one track minded Obama. He is making the 2 state solution, that neither Palestinians nor Israelis want, the centre piece of his Middle Eastern policy and figures he can force Israel to accept it against her interests.
For that Israel should mince no words and just tell Obama…..well, you figure it out.
Great article, Ted!
I think the time has come for Israel to put an end to this 16 year Oslo nonsense and concentrate on the last part of your article: the legal rights of Israel over Palestine. That it hasn’t been done before baffles me
email rec’d
Excellent analysis Ted. Many thanks.
You should send this out to major media and I hope that they print it.
“Kissinger: I think, when we look at history, that when Israel was created in 1948, I don’t think anyone understood it.”
———————————————————
What is the difference between the words create and reestablish? According to Dictionary.com, to create is to cause to exist; bring into being. As for the word reestablish is to bring back into original existence, use, function, or position. With that in mind, was the modern State of Israel created or reestablished?
The war of words is on, within the context of distortions regarding this conflict. It seems that media, politicians, historians, and so forth are trying to distort the meaning of two words when it comes to Israel. The basic idea is that Jews came in huge waves from Europe before and after holocaust to grab and steal the land from so called Palestinians. Then Jews proclaimed their independence with help of Great Britain and the U.N. In other words Western countries in conspiracy with Jews divided British Mandate. So the question arises who gave right to the U.N. divide the land that belonged to indigenous people of that region?
But those who ask this question forget or willing fully distort that the Jews are the indigenous people of that region that Jews were exiled by a series of aggressors. That the Jews outnumbered Arabs 2:3 in Jerusalem even before emigration from Europe ever started, that there are remains of two Jewish Temples on which they have built a masque. That there are tombs of our forefathers in Hebron, and the list goes on. They have forgot that one of Muslim prophets by the name Musa (Jewish: Moshe, English: Moses) have received Torah from G-d, in which it says that this land is promised to the Jews. Muslims supposedly accept everyone from Abraham to Jesus, everything from Torah to the Christian Bible. But yet they do not accept the written words in them. We are supposedly the people of the book, but it does not deter them from wishing our destruction.
So the question arises who gave right to the U.N. divide the land that belonged to indigenous people of that region? Who gave the right to Russia to divide Central Asia into Kirgizstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and so forth? Who gave the right to divide Eastern Europe? Who gave the right to divide India?
Let us zoom into the Middle East for matter of division, reestablishment, and creation. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Israel was not the only county that emerged, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Libya, Sudan, and Lebanon were created note the key word created. Kurdish population still has no sovereignty their lands were divided among newly formed Iraq and Syrian also Turkey and Iran. While Israel on the other hand was reestablished, going back to the definition of this word we can logically connect Ancient Israel to the Modern State of Israel by using the word reestablish. Due to this reason that the sovereign Jewish State existed before with all the necessary requirements of a sovereign state such as a government, army, court of law, and so forth.
Now that we have covered that the modern State of Israel was reestablished not created, we can therefore conclude that Jews are the indigenous and have every right to that land from religious as much as secular perspective.
The critics of the peace process may rant on but the ultimate truth is that it will proceed on its course for the simple reason that GLOBAL SECURITY is contingent on its ultimate success.
Narvey:
Big problem Bill, there is little likelihood that the new Israeli leadership will be consulting Belman, Yamit or even yourself
as to what constitutes Israel’s best interests.
email rec’d
Does anyone have a link for the Syrian issue?
Real deep Peskin. You say essentially the same thing in almost every posting of yours but never never explain How it is so except to say that everybody says so so it must be I guess. The majority is never wrong, real deep Peskin real deep. I keep telling Narvey you are dense and I am trying to be civilized here because Bill gets upset if I really said what I think of you.
Martin Kessler writes
Your piece was an excellent succinct tutorial exposition of the only the material issues one needs to read to understand the conflict in the Middle East. It was refreshing to read one so logically assembled, point-by-point. well reasoned, we’ll argued and if there is a reader who still finds it difficult to understand the Arab-Israeli Issues, we can only say, with some regret, we can be of no further help to them.
Quote:
By supporting the resistance they are rejecting the Roadmap. By rejecting the Roadmap, they are rejecting a Palestinian State. They do not care about the Palestinians. They care about destroying Israel
There you have it. That is the history in a nutshell. Given this above quotation I extracted from your piece, I am at a loss to understand why governments persist in going further with “diplomacy.” What will it take to get it into the heads of the President and Mr. Mitchell as they announce, as if stating something that ought to be fair to all combatants with which all reasonable men would agree, that the two state solution is the only solution? Why is it so difficult to grasp the essence of the problem for Arabs? Destroying Israel was, is and will be the only issue. Men like the President, Mr. Mitchell, and any other who are looking to advance the creation of a Palestinian State cannot all be so stupid. My mind cannot accept that presumption. There needs to be some other rational explanation. But giving them the benefit of all doubts, I have one annoying afterthought. Is all this so we will pull the Saudi’s chestnuts out of the fire once again? It would not surprise me. The United States will betray anyone for oil. I can understand that.
So what is it that explains Mr. Obama’s comment:
“Let me be clear: the United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security”
We know we are dealing with a clever man. Surrounded I suspect by men even more clever.
Perhaps you have an answer. I am lost.
We’ll, perhaps, not completely lost. I do have an answer for Israel’s survival: Armed conflict. Not to save a Jewish State. But to save a state for Jews, even if not Jewish.
Which turns out to have been the original objective in the first place!
Martin Kessler
I just added the following to the article
2.”We know we are dealing with a clever man.
3. Surrounded I suspect by men even more clever.
1. No, Mr. Obama you support this. Not a majority of Americans, so speak for yourself not in the 3rd person.
2. Clever, no he is suspended by puppet strings and Axel (Grease) Rod the handler. He also handles the teleppromter for the community organizer.
3. More clever, if you want to believe Hillary, George Mitchell, Holbrooke and lets not forget Joe Biden, are all clever you are being overly generous. None are friends of Israel. Wrap them up together and you get anti-Semitisim.
Their veiws are not those of the majority of Americans.
email rec’d
email rec’d
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/8713
March 29, 2009
The Two – State Solution is 87 Years Old
By Victor Sharpe
In 1920, Great Britain was given the responsibility by the League of Nations to oversee the Mandate over the geographical territory known as Palestine with the express intention of reconstituting within its territory a Jewish National Home.
The territory in question stretched from the Mediterranean Sea to the eastern boundary of Mandatory Palestine, which was a border that would separate it from what was to become the future state of Iraq.
The League of Nations created a number of articles, which were in line with the original intent of the Balfour Declaration of November 29th, 1917. At the last minute, however, a new article was introduced by the British Colonial Office: article number 25.
At first the sudden addition of this article was not a cause for alarm but gradually it became apparent that its inclusion directly enabled Great Britain in 1921 to tear away all the territory of geographical Palestine, east of the River Jordan, and give it to the Arab Hashemite family; the territory to become Trans-Jordan and led by the emir Abdullah.
Britain presented this gift to Abdullah, the son of the Sherif of Mecca, as a consolation prize for its awarding of the Hedjaz territory and Arabia, which included Mecca, to the rival Saud family: That vast territory is now Saudi Arabia.
British officials also claimed that the gift of Mandatory Palestine east of the Jordan River was in gratitude to the Hashemites for their contribution in helping defeat the Turks. However, even T.S. Lawrence later described in derisory terms the Hashemite role as “a side show of a side show.”
This was the first partition of Palestine and created a brand new entity 87 years ago covering some 35,000 square miles or nearly four-fifths of the geographical territory of Palestine. Immediately Jewish residence in the territory was forbidden and it became in effect judenrein – the German term for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from a territory.
This betrayal by none other than Winston Churchill, the Colonial Secretary at the time, was a devastating blow to the Jewish and Zionist leadership, which now saw the promised Jewish homeland reduced to the remaining narrow territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan – an area barely 50 miles at its widest.
Shortly after, in 1923, the British and French colonial powers also divided up the northern part of the Palestine Mandate. Britain stripped away the Golan Heights (ancient biblical Bashan) and gave it to French occupied Syria.
The Balfour Declaration issued by Lord Balfour, British Foreign Secretary, never envisaged that the Jordan River would be the eastern boundary of the reconstituted Jewish homeland. Indeed, the Zionist leadership had put forward in February 1919 its first submission that the eastern boundary would run well east of the Hedjaz railway. The incorporation of the railway would be an economically essential requirement for the Jewish community living east of the River Jordan as well as providing it with vital security.
The squabbling by the French and British colonial powers over the final frontiers of the Palestine Mandate had earlier led the London Times to urge Paris to accept sensible and rational frontiers in both the north and east of Jewish Palestine. As early as September 19th, 1919 it had thundered in an editorial:
“The Jordan will not do as the eastern frontier of Palestine … Palestine must have a good military frontier east of Jordan … Our duty as Mandatory is to make Jewish Palestine not a struggling state but one that is capable of vigorous and independent life … ”
But Jewish aspirations inevitably were dashed as a new British Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, took the place of Lord Balfour. This new British official within weeks of succeeding Balfour made it clear that Britain was intent upon separating Transjordan from Palestine: the first two-state solution.
The succeeding history of the remaining one fifth of the original territory promised to the Jewish people by Lord Balfour and the British government was one of continuing British betrayal as each successive Mandatory administration displayed pro-Arab and anti-Jewish policies.
During its administration up until 1947, Britain severely restricted Jewish immigration and purchases of land while turning a blind eye to massive illegal Arab immigration into the territory from neighboring Arab states.
Britain’s sorry record of appeasement of the Arabs, at the expense of Jewish destiny in the remaining territory, culminated in the infamous 1939 White Paper, which limited Jewish immigration to just 75,000 souls for the next five years. This onerous and draconian policy, coming as it did on the eve of the outbreak of World War 2, was a death blow to millions of Jews attempting to flee extermination by Nazi Germany.
Britain’s mismanagement of the Mandate finally led to the United Nation’s Partition Plan of 1947. The Jewish Agency reluctantly accepted this additional dismemberment of what was left in Mandatory Palestine of the promised Jewish National Home.
They did this in order to provide a refuge for the surviving Jewish remnants of the Holocaust and for the growing numbers of Jewish refugees being driven out of their homes throughout the Arab world. In contrast, the Arab regimes rejected the Partition Plan. Then, as now, they worked against the existence of an independent Jewish state.
Israel was officially re-born as a sovereign nation in 1948 and its 600,000 Jews fought to survive the massive Arab onslaught, which was intended to wipe out the Jewish state.
In 1948, Trans-Jordan, renamed the Kingdom of Jordan since 1946, had joined the other Arab nations in invading the Jewish state, illegally annexing the Biblical and ancestral Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria and renaming it the West Bank. Only Britain and Pakistan recognized the annexation.
The war ended in tortuous armistice lines resulting in an Israeli border a mere nine miles wide at the most densely populated area, which stretched from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordanian occupied West Bank. Israel’s late Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, described these dangerously vulnerable armistice lines as the Auschwitz borders.
Nineteen years later the Arab states declared again their imminent intention to destroy Israel. In the June 1967 Six Day War Israel liberated Judea and Samaria from Jordan in a defensive war. Israel offered to give away the newly liberated West Bank to the Hashemite regime in Jordan and the Gaza Strip to its erstwhile Egyptian occupiers in return for a full and lasting peace. But the Arab League, meeting in Khartoum in August, 1967, delivered the infamous three No’s: No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel.
It is within the narrow territory remaining for the Jewish state, if one includes Judea and Samaria, that the world now demands the establishment of yet another Arab state. Hamas controlled Gaza would be included in this future state to be called Palestine; a state which has never existed before by that name in all of recorded history – certainly not as an independent Arab state.
Gaza has already been given to the Arabs and they have turned it into a terror base from which they have launched a lethal missile blitz against Israel numbering to date over 10,000 rockets.
Israeli leaders should never have accepted even one missile fired from Gaza at its citizens in southern Israel. To let thousands fall with relative impunity for so many years led the world to believe that it was acceptable. After all, if Israel wasn’t interested in safeguarding its own civilians, why then should the world be. It was accepted as business as usual.
The Gaza War thus came as a surprise to the world community and, just as the Second Lebanon War, it was launched by Israeli leaders too late and ended too soon, leaving both Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon free to wreak future havoc upon the Jewish state.
The disputed West Bank, which is the ancient biblical heartland of Israel, is now the territory U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is pressuring Israel to give away to the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians. This is the present day so-called two – state solution and will dismember what is left of Israel and drive some 250,000 Jewish residents from their homes and farms. Why? Because just as in Jordan, Jews will not be permitted to live within Arab territory, while Arabs can remain free to live within Israel.
It is instructive to remember that upon the granting of the Palestine Mandate to Great Britain, an eminent British celebrity and supporter of Zionism, Josiah Wedgwood, addressed a Jewish crowd of thousands at the Royal Albert Hall in London in which he urged the audience to stand up for Jewish rights in its homeland.
According to the late Shmuel Katz in his groundbreaking biography of the great Zionist leader, Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky, titled The Lone Wolf, Wedgwood said:
“… This lesson I want the new Jewish nation to learn and to get by heart: Stand up for your rights. Let us have more of the spirit in the Jewish movement of my good and gallant friend Jabotinsky.”
Sadly, Israeli governments have become notoriously fearful of rejecting outright the deadly trap inherent in the so called two-state solution. Their muted responses have merely encouraged world leaders to repeatedly breathe new life into the discredited plan. The searing tragedy is that the two-state solution may presage for the Jewish people another Final Solution.
Perhaps the Secretary of State prefers to remain oblivious to the stark fact that the Arabs, whom she embraces and who today call themselves Palestinians, are as committed as their parents and grandparents before them to destroy the Jewish state; whatever size or shape its borders. The fact is that this is not a dispute over borders; this is a religious war and the Arabs, so long as the overwhelming majority remain Muslim, will never accept the existence of a non-Muslim state in territory previously conquered in the name of Allah -whatever the size or shape of its borders.
Only just recently, Muhammad Dahlan, speaking on behalf of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, declared on PA TV that the PA will not recognize Israel — one of the primary demands made upon the Palestinian Arabs in the Oslo Peace Accords. Indeed, Dahlan admitted that the only reason they meet with Israelis at all is in order to continue receiving the immense flow of international funds.
Is Ms. Clinton aware of this Arab charade? Or does she dismiss it and care not for the absence of a sincere and honest Palestinian Arab peace partner and the inevitable plight of the quarter of a million plus Jewish residents who will become displaced refugees by enacting the next two-state solution. Perhaps she cares little for the resulting takeover of Judea and Samaria by Hamas and the inevitable missile blitz that will be launched by the Palestinian Arabs upon the rest of Israel.
Incidentally, what irony when the homes of Peace Now members living in Tel Aviv become daily targets of missiles launched from the very areas they campaign for their fellow Jews to be expelled from.
One wonders if Secretary Clinton knows that eighty seven years ago an original two-state solution was enacted in infamy. If she does, it is unlikely that she cares – anymore than the rest of the Obama Administration or State Department cares.
And what of those Jewish Americans who serve the Secretary and sadly will be in the forefront of destroying Jewish patrimony in the Land of Israel. Will they have a conscience or feel shame for the calamity they create? I think not.
Victor Sharpe is a freelance writer and author of Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish State.
DUMB STUPID JEWS
Jews have trusted treaties before. With Assyria and Rome and the Polish royals. Treaties are never eternal and so always violated.
Jews had a comprehensive agreement with Britain, the Balfour Declaration. That wasn’t a gift, but payment for worldwide Jewish support for the Entente. The British reneged on it soon and cut out 77% of Israel for a tribal chief ousted from Saudi Arabia; thus Jordan.
Jews achieved a comprehensive peace treaty with the Arabs. The British ruled Egypt, and the Balfour Declaration was binding on Egypt. France, which occupied Syria, concurred. The only other Arab nation also agreed. Sharif of Mecca wrote, “[The] country . . . will be developed by Jewish immigrants. . . . His [Palestinian] native soil could not retain a hold on him.” The Weizmann-Faisal pact included full recognition of the Balfour Declaration and included an Israeli Transjordan. The agreement was qualified on Arab independence, long since achieved.
The UN favored Jews after the Holocaust. The Soviet Union supported a socialist Israel. American Jews lobbied vehemently. The result? The world community further partitioned Israel in 1947 and gave the essential Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria to semi-nomadic Arabs whom the sensible king of Jordan did not want to absorb.
The tiny, indefensible speck of land was still deemed too much for the Jews. The US has strict visa quotas for Muslims. France forcibly assimilates them. Arab countries isolate Palestinian immigrants and push them out. Yet the world insists that Israel accommodate 1.3 million Palestinian Muslims who will breed to 35-50% of her population in fifty years. In about a century, the Jewish state shrinks from almost Eretz Israel back to Arab Palestine with a significant Jewish population.
The anti-semites are refuted. There is no world Jewish conspiracy. Jews are too stupid for that.
Pingback: Islam And The West
Pingback: Israpundit » Blog Archive » Today I gave Tony Blair indigestion, I expect
Watch for Balaam, the pagan pope, to promote his final solution: UN RESOLUTION 181.
Israel has already surrendered Mount Zion, in effect all Jerusalem, to the accursed Vatican. Jewish collaborators have learned nothing from the Holocaust and invite greater disasters.
THE MASS DECEPTION PERPETRATED AGAINST JEWS BY THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT
It’s ridiculous to talk about a “peace process” in a region that’s arming itself as rapidly as the Middle East is — and the vast, vast majority of that arming is being done by Moselm countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. Peace didn’t ever come during an arms race: it always came after the parties finished arming themselves, had at one another in an all-out war, and the beaten side came crawling to the peace table. American foreign policy, at least since the time of Henry Kissinger, has been to let Israel’s enemies attack Israel, and withold help long enough for the Israelis to accept American-dictated terms. The Israelis have generally thwarted this strategy, by beating their enemies black and blue every time they attacked. I don’t expect thing to turn out any differently in the near future.
Meanwhile, the “peace process” is, and always will be, the sweet-talk of compulsive liars.
David’s Tomb To Go To Catholic Church? Jewish Holy Sites To Be Appropriated By Covetous Pope
B”H
My stomach clenched when I read this. Of course, many of us have known for years that the Catholic Church is covetous of this particular Jewish Holy Site, believing that it is the place where the “last supper” occurred.
So, I guess our government will wrap up another precious Holy Site with a bow and gift it to some other religious group because they want it, right? After all, we have SO MANY religious sites, who cares if we cast off a Temple Mount here and a Mt. Zion there, right?
After all, our secular government has no clue why these sites are important, anyway, so why not just give them away as some sort of ceremonial nick-nack? I’m sure Bibi is just bursting with the news that he has decided that Mt. Zion will be a nice little gift to offer the Nazi Pope. (Seriously, Bibi, other governments would just offer a bottle of wine. May I suggest a nice vat of Dead Sea Mud?)
I’m sure King David won’t mind that his tomb is in the hands of a bunch of Catholics, right? You know, the same Catholic Church who committed mass murder, expulsion, torture, and forced conversion against Jews for over a thousand years?
You know, the same Catholic Church who burned Jews alive and helped invent the blood libel? You know, the same Catholic Church who burned every copy of the Talmud and every other important Jewish book they could find, and even when the kept a few copies, wouldn’t let us see them, and deny they exist?
You know, the same Catholic Church who has Holy objects looted from our Holy Temple, but won’t give them back and deny they have them?
You know, the same Catholic Church who refused to tell us where the Jewish babies saved from the Holocaust have been sent, who raised them, and what their names are now?
You know, the same Catholic Church who just signed an agreement with the Arab league, the same people who want to proclaim Isabella a Saint.
The same Catholic Church that “rehabilitated” a holocaust denying bishop?
The same Catholic Church who has decided to reintroduce the prayer for the conversion of the Jews? Yeah. That Catholic Church.
Oh, and, of course, the same Catholic Church who fashioned a pope from a former Nazi Youth (poor me, I didn’t really want to be one but I couldn’t keep myself from being a collaborator even though it was really the wrong thing to do because martyrdom is for OTHER people), and will send him in the robes of a holy person to tour our land.
Yeah, Bibi, let’s just give the Catholics the tomb of our greatest king, the Patriarch of the line of the Messiah, so that the Catholic Church can reinterpret our faith to match theirs and gain another foothold in our land.
Yeah, Bibi, let’s just give away an important holy site because some group who doesn’t want to pay their taxes decides that something is holy to them. That’s wonderful, don’t you think? Great.
I’m sure King David would really appreciate that. I’m also sure King David would really enjoy the idea of throwing a major Yeshiva out on the street so the Catholics can redecorate with some nice “religious” art.
I just can’t wait to pray at the tomb of King David as we stare at a giant cross on the wall and replace the burial cloth with a giant jewel-encrusted “Jesus is Lord” artwork.
And, by the way, what about all the other xtians in the world? Do they want this site controlled by the Catholic Church? Seriously, the site is important to a whole bunch of different types of xtians, and I’m not sure how they would feel about Bibi just giving the site away to the Catholic Church.
When site is controlled by Jews, everyone can come, but when it is controlled by Moslems or a particular xtians sect, there are always big problems. Let’s take, for example, the church where the J-guy was supposedly buried.
We have xtians there, feuding xtians. Monks who throw punches and fight, monks who refused to talk to one another, monks who haven’t moved a ladder for almost 200 years, and a church falling into ruin because no one can decide whose responsibility it is to fix things.
Wow. Sounds great. I’m sure King David would really love that too!
Just so everyone knows—if, by some miracle of G-d, I become a especially famous religious personality, please don’t allow some religion that came along a couple thousand years after my death to claim my tomb as some sort of holy place and take it over.
It’s really not what I want.
I doubt it is what King David would want either.
M
Israel’s Control of Mt. Zion in Danger
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/131032
by Hillel Fendel
(IsraelNN.com) Ten-year-long negotiations between Israel and the Vatican appear to be drawing to a close, with concerns rising that Israel will cede control of the building housing King David’s Tomb in Jerusalem.
The Bilateral Permanent Working Commission – a team of negotiators representing Israel and the Vatican – released an upbeat press release at the end of last week, speaking of “meaningful progress,” “great cordiality,” and a mutual commitment to reaching a final agreement “as soon as possible.”
Tellingly, a plenary meeting has been announced for this Thursday, April 30, at the Foreign Ministry. The meeting will be chaired by the two states’ deputy foreign ministers, Danny Ayalon and Monsignor Pietro Parolin. It is widely believed that the agreement will be signed then.
Church Demands Parts of Mt. Zion
The two states have been negotiating a treaty since March 1999 on matters having to do with Church-owned or Church-claimed property in Israel. Among the most significant issue under negotiations is the Vatican’s demand for the Last Supper room, located on the second floor of the ancient Mt. Zion building that also houses the tombs of Kings David, Solomon, and Hezekiah.
In addition, the Vatican is claiming areas around Lake Kinneret, as well as in Caesaria and Jerusalem.
Hints and implications in the Vatican and Catholic press have long indicated that the negotiations are expected to end successfully, from the Catholic vantage point, in time for Pope Benedict’s visit to Israel two weeks from now.
“This is a shame and a disgrace of unequalled proportions,” said Daisy J. Stern, M.D., who has been leading an information campaign on the topic. “Giving away these important areas has no Halakhic [Jewish legal] validity, of course, but signing it away will definitely make it very difficult to ever reclaim them.”
Mt. Zion – International Center for Catholics?
At present, since shortly after the Six-Day War in 1967, the Diaspora Yeshiva has run the Mt. Zion compound, on which it is located, and warns of the catastrophic implications for Israel and the Jewish People if the deal goes through.
The director of the yeshiva explained that if the Catholic Church receives control of the area, just a few hundred yards from the Temple Mount and adjacent to the Old City walls, it will turn it into “the international center for Catholics all around the world, and if the pope just gives the word, Christians will be flocking over here en masse.”
“This is an enormous issue that is being pushed through without any public debate whatsoever,” he said.
Vatican Signs Agreement with Arab League
Dr. Stern notes that though there had been reports that an agreement might be signed last week, “nothing happened – except that while they [the Vatican representatives] were talking with Israel, they signed an agreement with the Arab League. This is very worrisome. There are no details on the agreement with the Arab League, except that it aims to promote ‘peace, security and stability.’ Who knows what that really means? Are they dividing up the spoils of the future Vatican agreement with Israel – or perhaps they are preparing for the next Arab war with Israel? We don’t know.”
“This new agreement with the Arab League renders the Vatican, most gravely, an interested party in the Israeli-Arab dispute,” said Prof. Hillel Weiss of Bar Ilan University, who has been closely following the issue.
Of further concern is the fact that Israel is investing some 6 million shekels in improvements and renovations to various sites in preparation for the Papal visit. Work at the Last Supper room has been underway for some time.
Blueprint of an Agreement
A Foreign Ministry official confirmed in 2005 that a “blueprint of a possible agreement with the Vatican has been received.” The proposed contract, as Arutz-7 reported at the time, read as follows:
“The State of Israel hands over to the Holy See the use of the Cenacle [the room of the event known as the Last Supper, above King David's tomb - ed.], of the access path to it, and of the spaces adjacent to it… It is the Holy See’s intention to inform the Bishops – and through them the world’s Priests – that the Catholic Church has been given the use of the Cenacle, inviting them to visit the Holy Place together with their faithful… The Holy See hands over this use of the Cenacle to the Custody of the Holy Land [which acts on behalf of the Holy See]… [which] will keep the Cenacle open from 6 AM to 8 AM for the celebration of the Holy Mass… Official liturgical celebrations of non-Catholic Churches can take place only upon prior written permission by the Custody of the Holy Land.”
The proposed agreement also stipulated that the Holy See will preserve the historic character of the site and keep it open to pilgrims and tourists, and that Israel will provide for the safety of the site. The Foreign Ministry official said at the time that “Israel is not prepared to relinquish its jurisdiction over this area.” The world will find out later this week whether this position is still valid.
Rabbi Mordechai Goldstein, who founded and still runs the Diaspora Yeshiva, officially known as Yeshiva Toras Yisrael, told Arutz-7 in the past that “according to their bible, the Land is to return to the Christians, and 144,000 Jews are to return to Mt. Zion. Their plan is for them to take control of the site, and then to announce that they are holding a mass reenactment of the Last Supper, with [all types of religious rituals], and to invite millions of Christians to come to Jerusalem and celebrate.”
Rabbi Goldstein said that this means much tourism money for Israel, and that someone in the Israeli government is apparently very interested in making this happen.
The King David’s Tomb complex, some 100,000 square feet, is “certainly one of the holiest spots in the Land of Israel,” a yeshiva source said. “David, Solomon and others kings of Judea are said to be buried here. We’ve already given away the Temple Mount and the Machpelah Cave, except for here and there when we’re allowed in; now they want to give Mt. Zion away as well? For thousands of years, this area was almost always totally closed off to Jews. G-d gave it back to us in 1948, but parts of it were still in range and sight of Jordanian snipers and were not in full use. After 1967, Rabbi Goldstein founded the Diaspora Yeshiva here – and it became an island of holiness, the first yeshiva for baalei teshuvah [newly religious] in Israel; we were there day and night learning Torah. Rabbi Goldstein was almost prophetic in establishing this yeshiva at that time at that spot; destiny from above intertwined him with Mt. Zion.”
You know, the same Catholic Church
Yamit, I must say you have some valid concerns.
Listen as a Catholic I don’t see why the Vatican needs to have control over any of these sites.
Why can’t they be held by the Jews and shared by all?
Owning or in control of these is not going to make us better Catholics.
It will make us better Catholics if we leave them in control of the Jewish people. I am sure they will make it available for all to share.
Besides, the names of the children raised in custody of Catholic families should be released.
Sometime I wonder if G-d/God doesn’t look down and shake His head, why do my children squable.
Wanted: “1000″ Shofar Blowers
Make history and start your lag b’omer celebrations by welcoming the Pope and world media, to the Jewish Capital of the Jewish People for over 3000 years and ‘Forever’.
Jerusalem isn’t for sale or ‘negotiable’.Rally to Keep Jerusalem United
Zion Square, Jerusalem,
4-6 P.M., May 11, 2009
When the Pope is at Yad Vashem.
sponsored by: Shalom International
(107 rallies in U.S. since Oct. 2007-
to Keep Jerusalem United- see-www.defendjerusalem.net)
Contact: Bob Kunst, Pres.-
050-2000296
Yamit, I must say you have some valid concerns.
You are a good man Ron, wish there were many more like you.
I really wanted to put my two cents of comments on this subject; however, my words would be redundant. Yamit, you did a great job of defending our heritage. Thanks.
“JE ACCUSE”….The Israeli Government of Promoting The Christian Religion and Beliefs as Truth!!!
With my tax money. I object and demand an inquiry with the power to penalize the stupidity if not perfidy of those responsible.
Here is my evidence!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zRRpY8XmCk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.holyland-pilgrimage.org%2F%3FcategoryId%3D37573&feature=player_embedded
website produced by Israel Ministry of Tourism:
http://www.holyland-pilgrimage.org/?categoryId=37573
Popes Itinerary is cleary pro Palestinian and anti Israel and anti Judaism. see for yourselves.
I understand the motivations which are primarily Christian tourists dollars but this is totally beyond the pale. Are we all to be whores for a few dollars even a lot of dollars? Apparently yes.
Israel Ministry of Tourism:
Yamit, I’ll say one thing for sure, the Ministry of Tourism did a fine job.
Israel is a beautiful.
One has to wonder why the US is not supporting Israel, a thriving, peaceful democracy.
You have to shake your head in disbelief.
Caroline Glick is back thank G-d and she is right on.
Yamit I don’t have the answer however, I am sure you will agree with me our churches are governed more now by politicians rather than holy men.
You would think the Arabs would learn from the Israelis, no they prefer to recent and kill Jews and live in the dark ages.
Sad
Israel Ministry of Tourism:
Yamit, I’ll say one thing for sure, the Ministry of Tourism did a fine job.
Israel is a beautiful.
One has to wonder why the US is not supporting Israel, a thriving, peaceful democracy.
You have to shake your head in disbelief.
Caroline Glick is back thank G-d and she is right on.
Yamit I don’t have the answer however, I am sure you will agree with me our churches are governed more now by politicians rather than holy men.
You would think the Arabs would learn from the Israelis, no they prefer to recent and kill Jews and live in the dark ages.
Sad
Israel Ministry of Tourism:
Yamit, I’ll say one thing for sure, the Ministry of Tourism did a fine job.
Israel is a beautiful.
One has to wonder why the US is not supporting Israel, a thriving, peaceful democracy.
You have to shake your head in disbelief.
Caroline Glick is back thank G-d and she is right on.
Yamit I don’t have the answer however, I am sure you will agree with me our churches are governed more now by politicians rather than holy men.
You would think the Arabs would learn from the Israelis, no they prefer to recent and kill Jews and live in the dark ages.
Sad
My goodness
Well there is something wrong with cabel provider at home.
Each time I posted a comment I got the message “you have to be signed in” and when I checked, I was logged out.
Who said I wasn’t a repeater.
Then there are those things that need repeating.
Check it out CarolineGlick.com she reports it like it is.
rongrand this is like it is: Jews get out now while you can.
http://wejew.com/media/4299/Moshiach-Imminent-Feature-Part-1-of-2/
http://wejew.com/media/4298/Moshiach-Imminent-Feature-Part-2-of-2/
Chag Sameach 5th Iyyar, 5769, Yom Ha Atzmaut
Its unreal
I watched the clip and it’s hard to believe the hatred out there.
I have to think the majority of demonstrations are orchastraed by the liberal left media.
How do you hate someone or a people as a whole you don’t even know?
This is anti-simitism fueled by the liberal left.
If I were Jewish and lived in any of thees countries, I would defenitley move to Israel.
Believe it only it’s much worse than these clips show as most people are apathetic to this hatred and will allow it to exist and to act so anything is possible.
We see here a confluence of every type of Jew Hatred from the old style versions of religious Jew hatred, socialist Jew Hatred, Capitalism Jew Hatred, Universalists, Nationalist, poor and wealthy, paupers and aristocrates, anarchists and communists, Muslims, Protestants and Catholics and everything in between. There is no one group or nationality that can be singled out it is like the plague.
- Thomas Newton – British Clergyman: Bishop of Bristol (1704-1782)
How do you hate someone or a people as a whole you don’t even know?
The question of the ages, we Jews have been asking ouselves that very question for the past 2 thousand years.
True but also everyone else. It is not a rational condition.
That would include the Jews of North America and most won’t, until they will be forced into it and then it might be too late for most of them. I’m not sure we will then want them? Well I can only speak for myself on that score.
Yamit, I am begining to believe the majority of American Jews don’t want to be recognized as being Jewish.
Not all.
Thats a shame.
First of all they should be up in arms about the treatment Israel is receiving from this administration.
There is a definite need for education against anti-semitism.
Every school public and private needs to get on board.
Let’s put the Ministry of Tourism in charge of the PR work needed to set the American Jews straight.