1. Imre said:

The world would never accept Israel to expel the Arabs, further the economic situation of Israel is such that it needs the US aid.Israel cannot face an economic boycott. Its hands are tied. What we must hope for is that Fatah and Hamas start fighting each other, so that the world sees what they really are.

2. Bill Narvey said:

Ted, I agree that Israeli concessions have not moved Israel any closer to peace and it looks like Israel is being moved closer to war. Eaqch Israeli concession strengthen's Palestinians and their Arab backers.

Hamas may be induced by what they already call economic blackmail to keep its gun in its holster for the time being. Any fiction of peace negotiations however would be along the premise in return for more Israeli concessions, Hamas will grant Israel a truce. That translates into in return for concessions, Palestinians will not murder Israel now, but reserve all rights to murder Israel later.

There are many who wish Israel could take back Gaza, annex that and the West Bank and expel the Palestinians. Expelling the Palestinians is the rub in that scenario for in current circumstances it cannot be done for obvious reasons.

With Hamas however governing Gaza and the West Bank, should Hamas get carried away with their insane Jew hatred and in their impatience step up their plans to destroy Israel, Hamas just might create the right conditions that Israel can launch an all out attack on the Palestinians, retake Gaza and the West bank, and find support in expelling at least many Palestinians as well.

We will have to see how this new situation with Hamas being the government of Palestinians, plays out.

3. Leonard said:

Imre - the only people the Israelis have expelled to date are the thousands of Jewish citizens of the Gaza. So far Palestinians terror gangs have got away with their murderous crimes with impunity. Now that they are in power at last they can be held accountable. America understands Israels' predicament post9/11 in her War on Terror & can be expected to show solidarity.

4. Jauhara al Kafirah said:

Yeah, but. Aren't the only people Israel is expelling these days are Israelis? And isn't Olmert already signalling a nice, spineless cave-in to his new peace partners? Time to brush up your books of the Maccabees, boyos.

5. Ed D said:

Ted and Bill,
Thank G-d you have finally voiced what I have been advocating for many moons.

1. Gaza must be taken back and the Pals removed to Egypt. Egypt has shown it's true colors by not protecting the gate to and from Egypt.

2. The northern part of the Shomron be evacuated of Arabs and annexed. The rest of the area be under control of the IDF. Ted, I knew of the new missiles but I did not know that they were in the West Bank.

3. The protection walls be moved to a point where all Israelis are protected.

4. All currency paid to the Pals cease.

5. The southern gate into Egypt be occupied by the IDF immediately.

A special plea the American Jewish youth from age 18 to 30 years of age. Go to Israel, obtain dual citizenship, and train in the IDF. After training, go back to your homes in the US and be in the reserves. If hostilities break out, you will be ready to take up your positions. Even those of you who are not in condition to be in the IDF, can do many other things that can help. Israel I fear is on the threshhold of combat and any delay of preparation aids the enemies.

6. Bill Levinson said:

Hamas has already declared a war of extermination against Israel and Hamas is now the "legitimate" Palestinian government so the Knesset does not even have to declare war before the IDF rolls in the tanks. This must be done before Hamas forms an army and equips it with Iranian and Syrian weapons.

7. Fred Leder said:

The problem with going on a war footing is knowing what can be won. Unless Israel is willing to take land and expel Arabs, which seems to be unacceptable for many reasons, there is nothing to win. Invading Judea and Samaria or Gaza leaves Israel in control of an uncontrollable mob. It gains little.

Frankly we would all like to see the Arabs leave all the land west of the Jordan, so that Israel could settle into its rightful homeland, but that isn't going to happen. Even in biblical times it didn't happen. Joshua, Gideon, Saul, David all fought local "Arabs" for control of the Israeli heartland. Why should modern Israel be different.

I think the Arabs are clearly signaling war, as Ted has pointed out. This aggression will have to be met and defeated. I would like to see Israel enter the territories in force with the rule of engagement being that anyone with a gun is a target. If Hamas fighters show up in the street they will be shot. Who can quarrel with that? I suspect it will happen within a year.

8. radiorote said:

Brief forecast:

1. The only country with enough influence and reason to quell the Iranians and Syrians is France. The US will have to unwillingly realize it and work within France's framework.

2.HAMAS is a anarchist revolutionary unit with no experience or will to become part of the political process.

3.Peres already said he would be willing to negotiate with a 'peaceful' HAMAS. The only difference between him and Likud is he is public in his intention.

4.Israel is waiting for the HAMAS and PLO to destroy one another, because that is what the PLO and HAMAS have been planning for years on end. When there is one group left, they will turn against Israel. Israel will neutralize that group.

5.In the end, when Israel decides to no longer take care of the welfare and military security of Gaza and the West Bank, the Paleo's will be absorbed, to some degree, by Egypt and Jordan. (radiorote)

9. Ed D said:

Radiorote. BS!

10. Rafi Klein said:

Mr. Ted Belman your article is very good.

The enemy is determined to eliminate Israel!!

Israel should not let that happen!!!! The fence should be around Area A. People west of who are not loyal citizens to Israel should be moved to the remains of Gush Katif in Gaza.

The Rafah crossing must again be controlled by the IDF to minimize the amount of arms and terriorists that flow into Gaza.

The part of your article contemplating citizenship for potential alien enemies I would say is missing the point of your own article (the same Palestinians are and have been the enemy). Whether Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad these are people have developed a cult of death. Hamas is overt in their aims some of the others are more covert and can never be trusted (no test has ever been devised or loyalty oath) that will ensure these people do not wake up one day to be suicide bombers.

The residents of Area A in the future sometime may wish to become confederated citizens of Jordan if the two parties agree. If not as long they do not promote, inspire or participate in terroism against Israel they should be free to run their own municipalities, schools and fire departments and sewage pickup.

They should not be allowed to have weapons of any sort including the local police. Any Palestinian who seen in public with weapons would be considered an armed terrorist and shot on site if not able to be arrested.

11. Ted Belman said:

Fred

Israel doesn't have to take any land, it already has the land. It just has to annex it.

By a war footing, I don't mean go to war. I mean change priorities from peace to victory.

12. Alex Eisenberg said:

Dear colleagues,

I share with you my desperation over Israel's situation. But, in my view, you are wasting your time rambling about what we already know and considering solutions that are not solutions because we can't go there and turn all your solutions into reality.

What we CAN do is to fight misinformation and go to the streets of the US telling its ordinary citizens what their government is doing against Israel. Remember that even under the shameful attacks of the AJC and affiliated institutions, Peter Bergson was able to organize a lot of Americans in 1948, who took to the streets to protest their government's absurd stance against the nascent State of Israel. It was perhaps the biggest manifestation in the streets of New York ever. And it worked, because Americans were informed by Bergson's organization about their government's policy towards the Jews in 'Palestine.'

Don't you realize that the US has much more than the necessary power to solve this conflict? Hasn't the US invaded Iraq regardless of the UN? So why doesn't the US propose (better late than never) annulling resolution 181 on the grounds that the Palestinian Arabs have never agreed to it and threw all opportunities to have their state to the outer space? Human-made laws are not made to be eternal. Are we Jews still stoning criminals to death, or do we now use prisons? Haven't the French abolished the guillotine? Laws (or resolutions bearing the power of law) should be carefully reviewed as the circumstances change. Resolution 181 has become obsolete LONG ago. Therefore, it should have been annulled, for it just didn't work. Why hasn't the US ever proposed this change? Why is the invasion of Iraq, which posed no threat to the US whatsoever, so much more important for the US than solving the Arab-Israeli conflict?

I am not a lawyer or a specialist in international law, but it is aberrantly striking to common sense that Resolution 181 has never been annulled (especially after 1967) and that the US governments insist in not telling their people the truth about this conflict. The US government never mentions the expulsion of nearly a million Jews from Islamic countries. Why doesn't the US propose the absorption of Palestinian Arabs by neighboring countries, since they are the ones who never wanted peace? Didn't the US applaud Germany's absorption of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia after WW2? And look, those Germans were expelled! This was not a negotiation. Same between India and Pakistan, and so many other cases of population exchange. Why does the US single out the Jews as non-deserving of equal treatment?

In sum, the point is: would the US population agree with the current US Israel policy IF they knew the truth? I don't think so, and history is behind my stance. So why don't we go about setting a new 'Bergson organization,' fully independent from the Israeli government, as Bergson did in 1948? If we just get the US government to put democracy into practice and fear the protests of its own citizenry, we may begin to make a difference. It is the government's propaganda by means of the big media that has been teaching ordinary Americans to look at the Arabs as victims and the Israelis as hangmen. THIS is what matters, because the decisions about the Middle East are made in Washington DC.

Why don't we study how Bergson put up his organization?

Alex

13. radiorote said:

Thank you Ed, always pleased to discover the wit and charm of others.

14. Salomon Benzimra said:

Ted Belman writes "Both parties view the occupation as the problem rather than the solution." I disagree: occupation is neither the problem, nor the solution. Occupation is the bogeyman that has been at the core of all "peace processes", "land for peace" the "Palestinian state" and all the Arab propaganda.

What Israel (and Diaspora Jews) should do now is launch an offensive challenging anyone and everyone to justify the word "occupation". Much has been written about this hoax by Howard Grief, Yoram Shifftan, David Singer, René Beres and many other learned analysts.

Once the title to the land is made clear (legally, historically and militarily) to the Israeli Left, the European Left and diplomats the world over, then we can discuss ways to address the situation of the Arab populations living in these lands for the benefit of all concerned.

Remember: you state the truth about the pseudo-occupation and the Palestinian balloon deflates immediately.

15. Ted Belman said:

Bill

Even all out war won't be so all out as to cause the fleeing or expulsion of the Arabs. What I have suggested doesn't require war at all and is doable.

Ed
I am not recommnending taking Gaza back.

Raphi
There is no perfect solution. I believe that to absorb the Arabs in the areas suggested is more of a demographic threat then a security one. Israel can expell any Arab even thinking about terror. But they must be given the right to citizenship over time. There is also the question of critical mass. Such a move would lessen the attraction of the Palestinian cause and would result in the arab Israelis more acceptant of Israel.

Alex
That was then. This is now. Whereas Jewry could be mobilized after the holocaust, it can't be now. But more important, is what Israel does. It must take the lead. The world will follow.

Salomon
I don't quarrel with what you say about Israel's right to the land. But saying "occupation is the solution" I mean only to say it is necessary to remain in the lands for security reasons.

16. Ya'aqov Ben-Yehudah said:

Ted, Overall, I think you make a good presentation, especially in trying to reach a general audience and appealing to its sense of logic.

At the risk of sounding "overly idealistic (& ideological)," I am against any fence/wall within Yehudah and Shomron; I am against any fence running in and around our country.

Even applying the logic of your presentation here (IOW, not even applying Torah logic), I would like to remind you that "they" (the Yishma'elim) want it all. They want Tel-Aviv and Haifa the same as they want Shchem, Hevron, and Jerusalem. No matter where you put a fence, the Yishma'elim will eventually outnumber Jews. Whether it is in 50 years or in 100 years, I don't believe that it matters. So, although I appreciate your bringing up the issue of annexation, as this is always important to bring up. Removal of Arabs who are unwilling to accept Jewish sovereignty of the Land of Israel must also be raised. This was one of the fundamental mistakes the old Tehiyah Party.

That all being said, I believe that the most important issue you raised is that Israel must [finally] learn how to say "no." Boy, that would sure be a good start to ANY approach to problem-solving, wouldn't it?

17. Ted Belman said:

Ya'acov
"Removal of Arabs who are unwilling to accept Jewish sovereignty of the Land of Israel must also be raised."
That's exactly what my article recommends.

A new demographic study concluded that Israel will remain in the majority for the foreseeable futture.

18. Bill Narvey said:

Ted,

You state in your proposal:

"Of course the Arabs would complain that Area "A" is a “prison“, the west would complain that it would mean the end of the two state solution and the leftists would complain that Israel is an apartheid state regardless that citizenship offered.. Pressure would then build for a bi-national state. Israel should learn how to just say “no”."

Your comment presumes that Israeli leadership is ignorant or incompetent, something which learning can cure. I make no such presumption.

Even Peres who it was reported the other day hinted that talks with Hamas may be possible, would say no if he felt it was possible.

World and American pressure to complete their vision of the end game for Israel and Palestinians, leaves Israel little manoevering room and limits options for Israel to choose a path that runs in even a somewhat different direction to the world's end game view.

In all these words of advice to Israel, one should lose sight of Israel's dependance on American support. C. Rice in respect of the Rafah agreement did not hide the fact that one of the levers she pulled in pressuring Israel to bend to American will was economic by a threat to cut support.

Too many proposals in the form of advice to Israel seem to ignore or belittle Israel's vulnerability caused by its need of American support, politically, economically and militarily.

Ted you were dismissive of Alex Eisenberg's suggestion about mobilizing support for Israel such as that which Peter Bergson did in 1948, as being so much wishful thinking given the much different situation that exists now.

Alex's proposal is not new and it is indeed wishful thinking for it does not go further to propose a plausible way of how to get to there from here. Much more attention must be paid if wishful thinking can be turned into a realistic potential possibility.
Israel would greatly benefit if diaspora Jews could come together in a more cohesive fashion to stand behind Israel, not just with financial support, but their moral support that translated into influential support to change the perceptions of the public and get the American administration to respond to that new way of seeing by altering their policies.

Thus far, mainstream pro-Israel advocacy and support for Israel along the lines of thinking expressed in this forum seem to be restricted to advocating for what is possible within the confines of current perceptions and attitudes towards Israel as expressed in American policy.

I do not know how influential the Reform movement is, but their views that seek to strike a balance between Palestinians and Israelis work at cross purposes to Israel’s needs and undermines the effectiveness of other pro-Israel advocacy that tries to consider Israel’s needs first and foremost.

Efforts to undermine and marginalize Reform Movement thinking is essential to the effectiveness of other mainstream pro-Israel advocacy which is more in line with thinking expressed here.

Further, such mainstream advocates must find a way to not limit their advocacy to what is possible within the restrictions of current perceptions and attitudes, but must find more effective ways to reach out to the public to change those perceptions and attitudes to bring about changes in American policy and thereby expand the options that Israel has.

Already, the Bush administration is trying to get back on its old message regarding its Road Map, that the majority of Palestinians want peace in spite of electing terror and encouraging Hamas to publicly declare that it recognizes Israel and abandons its goal of destroying Israel. Arafat and Abbas both made those statements but their actions betrayed the emptiness of their words.

Pro-Israel advocacy must redouble their efforts to hold the American administration’s feet to the fire by forcing them to confront and deal with what our eyes tell us that Hamas has brought a new reality that also exposes the ugly reality of the past that most Palestinians do not want and have never wanted peace, that words are not enough and that the world’s policy of giving Palestinians an infinite number of second chances must be put to an end.

In conclusion, for Israel to have options that reflect reality, Israel and pro-Israel advocates must find ways to get the public and the Bush administration and indeed other nations to adjust their attitudes and perceptions to the way things are and abandon the folly of assessing the situation and devising and imposing solutions on Israel, based on the way they want things to be.

19. Ted Belman said:

Bill

I believe that Israel has a window of opportunity here to change the paradigm. At the Herzliya Conference, Robert Satloff said that Israel has to lead and the world will follow. As an example, Israel suggested dissengagement and the US supported it.

Now that the US is back on its heels and is lacking a good policy in Israel, Iran or Iraq, Israel could take the opportunity to act. If Israel created a new paradigm as I suggested, the US would start thinking about its advantages to solving the problem. It wouldn't reject it out of hand because it has no answers. Furthermore how can it act against Israel now that Hamas has taken over the PA? They can't.

Will Israel shift criticism from Hamas to itself? Yes in part but Israel can say its actions are a reaction to the victory.

In a way if Israel did this it would be a light unto the nations. It may result in a turn around in US foreign policy.

20. felix quigley said:

Imre
The world will never accept ANYTHING that Israel does, especially the US and EU. That is a starting point!

21. Dan Barkye said:

Felix, then let's do what we have to do, as I preach all over.

Further, I do believe that in this world Isr has such an impact that it will be hard to ignore the benefits of an econ coop w her. China, India, are only a few ex's of this basic sit. Beside, a boycot never broke the back of any country. So, not to worry.

22. Bill Levinson said:

Ted (#11), I agree with this 100 percent: "Israel doesn't have to take any land, it already has the land. It just has to annex it. By a war footing, I don't mean go to war. I mean change priorities from peace to victory."

Robert A. Heinlein once wrote that you can have peace or you can have freedom, but never to count on having them both at the same time. I will add that it an honest war is better than a phony peace because, during an honest war, you get to shoot back.