Israpundit Digest

Support Israpundit


USD

ILS

CAD

Syndication

Blog Traffic

Pages

Pages|Hits |Unique

  • Last 24 hours: 0
  • Last 7 days: 0
  • Last 30 days: 0
  • Online now: 0
Los Angeles SEO

Recent Comments

Sponsors

Sponsor

Dry Bones
Dry Bones

”souvenirs”

Archives

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

LIVE HEADLINE NEWS FEEDS
THERE IS NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION

Support Israpundit

USD

ILS

CND


  • December 22, 2012

    Naftali Bennet’s Plan to take over Area C

    Op-Ed: A Doable Plan for Managing the Israeli-PA Arab Conflict
    Published: Monday, March 05, 2012 11:08 AM in INN

    The plan to extend Israeli sovereignty in Area C has three distinct advantages, described below, including that of achieving tranquility in the entire area. Most important, it is doable.

    Naftali Bennett
    The writer was Chief of Staff of the office of Prime Minister Netanyahu and General Manager of the Council of Judea and Samaria.

    Editor’s Note: Naftali Bennett was chosen by FoxNews to comment on Obama’s speech to AIPAC, but he has recently been in the news in Israel for the plan below.

    This article was translated from the Hebrew newspapaer Makor Rishon. Area C represents 59% of Jand S and contains 300,000 Jews and onoly 55,000 Arabs.


    During the two years I spend at the Council of Judea and Samaria, not a day passed without someone saying to me: Okay, we understand that a Palestinian state is a terrible idea. But what is your solution? What do you suggest?

    They had a point.

    In the market of ideas today there are only two solutions for sale: The establishment of a Palestinian state on most of the area of Judea and Samaria, or total annexation of the area and its two million Arabs.

    By now, the public understands that the two solutions are untenable and that both endanger the future of the state of Israel for security reasons as well as demographic and ethical ones.

    The time has come to suggest a solution that is feasible, level-headed and that serves the interests of the state of Israel.

    The idea presented here, one that is now being formulated in detail, does not pretend to solve the entire gamut of problems once and forever, because there is no solution that can do that.

    This initiative, whose goals are modest, gives Israel three advantages: retaining the vital areas, strengthening international standing by neutralizing the ‘apartheid’ issue – and it creates stable conditions on the ground for the next several decades.

    And most important: it is achievable and doable.

    The following is a brief summary of the plan: “The 7 Point Program for Administering the Arab-Israeli Cpnflict in Judea and Samaria:

    1. Israeli will extend full sovereignty over Area C. by doing this, Israel will take the initiative and ensure its vital needs: security for the coast and Jerusalem, keeping the settlements intact and sovereignty over national heritage sites.

    The world will not recognize our sovereignty in the area, just as it does not recognize our sovereignty at the Western Wall, in the Ramot and Gilo neighborhoods of Jerusalem and in the Golan Heights. Not to worry, the world will get used to it.

    Area C forms a contiguous Israeli land mass and includes the Jordan Valley, the Dead Sea, Ben Gurion airport and surrounding area, Maaleh Adumim and all the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

    Residents of Tel Aviv, the coastal plain, and the entire country will live in security and be protected from the threats from the east.

    2. Full citizenship for the 50,000 Arabs who live in Area C. That is all the Arabs who are there, just 4% of the Arabs in Judea and Samaria. This will pull the rug out from under the Apartheid accusation. There are 350,000 Jews in Area C today and only 50,000 Arabs. Those Arabs can become full-fledged Israeli citizens. And they will all realize that no Arab or Jew will be expelled from his home there.

    3. The PA will have full autonomy and contiguous public transportation in the areas under its control. Arabs there will be able to go from one place to another without roadblocks and soldiers. .Arabs hate long lines and traffic jams as much as Israelis do. This contiguous route is not easy to achieve but can be done for a one time investment of a few hundred million dollars.

    We can improve Arab lives and at the same time, remove the international humanitarian pressure on Israel.

    4. No ‘refugee’ from Arab countries will be allowed to enter Judea and Samaria. This negates the PA state concept that allows for millions of ‘refugees’ and their descendants to flow into the area from Arab countries. It is unfortunate that Netanyahu, in his Bar Ilan speech, said that the “refugees” could return to the Palestinian State he envisaged.

    That is an egregious mistake that would lead to an irreversible demographic catastrophe. From the moment that millions of “refugees” from Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and other Arab countries flood Judea and Samaria, there is no turning back the clock, so we cannot allow that to occur. The descendants of the refugees must be absorbed by the nations wherein they reside, and in no case west of the Jordan River.

    5. Israel will keep an IDF security “umbrella” open over all of Judea and Samaria.

    The necessary condition for the plan’s success is tranquillity. Quiet is possible only if the IDF is in charge of security. If the IDF leaves, Hamas will take its place. That is what Hamas did in Gaza and it is what Hizbullah did in Lebanon [once the IDF left, ed.]

    6. Gaza will be separate from Judea and Samaria.

    The “secure passage” idea between Gaza and Yesha is passé. It would only lead to all of Gaza’s troubles stirring up violence in quiet Judea and Samaria.

    Gaza is joining Egypt little by little. It is already happening. We have no responsibility for Gaza. We expelled 8,000 Israelis from their Gush Katif homes there, we left every centimeter of land on which we had built communities there and in return, we got Hamastan. Let Egypt deal with it.

    7. There will be massive economic investment to help Jews and Arabs live together in Area C: better infrastructure, highway interchanges, shared industrial areas. Peace begins with day to day living, with ordinary citizens. Instead of useless diplomatic cocktail parties in Oslo, Geneva and Camp David, there has to be an improvement on the ground, helping ordinary people.

    For example, an interchange at the Hizme checkpoint in Binyamin is long overdue. Every morning, thousands of Jews and Arabs sit out an unnecessary traffic jam together there. The roads also cause accidents because of their condition. I would transfer the money from the Geneva Proposal to the Department of Public Works and build this interchange.

    In Conclusion:

    We must admit that there is no great love between Arabs and Jews in Judea and Samaria. But both sides realize by now that the other side is not going to evaporate Therefore, instead of wasting our time, money and blood on solutions that lead only to frustration and violence, we should concentrate on realistic plans that lead to stability and improved conditions.

    It is time for a fresh approach in which we give up – at present – on the maximum in order to obtain the optimium, the perfect for the good. It is also time for the state of Israel to take the initiative.

  • Posted by Ted Belman @ 12:30 pm | 36 Comments »

    36 Comments to Naftali Bennet’s Plan to take over Area C

    1. the phoenix says:

      The world will not recognize our sovereignty in the area, just as it does not recognize our sovereignty at the Western Wall, in the Ramot and Gilo neighborhoods of Jerusalem and in the Golan Heights. Not to worry, the world will get used to it.

      The way I see it, THIS is the smartest sentence in this plan, and it should be used as a guiding principle to the strategy to be decided upon.
      The ‘world’, will immediately condemn Israel and do its oh sooooo predictable hypocritical ‘wounded righteousness’ fashion.
      I say expell them ALL!
      1. ” the world will get used to it”
      2. Yim kvar az kvar!
      3. Should have been done 45 years ago!

    2. rongrand says:

      @ the phoenix:

      Not to worry, the world will get used to it.

      And they will get over it like it or not.

      Israeli leadership has to cease worrying about world opinion.

      World opinion is influenced by the hateful liberal left media and anti-Semitism.

      World opinion has yet come to the aid of Israel. Notice the free world silence in between the rocket explosions
      raining in from Gaza.

      World opinion and $1.25 may get you a ride on the transit bus, if your lucky.

      World opinion sucks.

      G-d led his people back to the Holy Land not world opinion.

    3. Bernard Ross says:

      Apparently the only reason for not annexing the entire west bank, other than global condemnation, is that it is assumed that the arab residents must remain and be given citizenship. I do not agree as there are many precedents for other solutions. they can be given refugee status(as in arab lands) pending transfer under an assumed population exchange for jewish residents cleansed from arab lands. This does not violate geneva conventions, except to those with double sandards, because the conventions were not applied to the ethnically cleansed jews at the time. Jordan can accept them back as they were Jordanian citizens until 1988 and Jordan appears to have been created and maintained Jew free for the former muslim residents of the palestine mandate territory. The guiding principle should be that there can be no double standards applied to the jews and therefore what has transpired against the jews is operable also for the jews. Even if they are allowed to remain they can be given a form of political autonomy such as that enjoyed by the vatican and monaco but not in conflict with rights of jewish settlement, guaranteed by UN charter, or security.

    4. Ted Belman says:

      There is a major difference of opinion between those like Caroline Glick who want to annex all and give citizenships over time according to precedents in some western countries and those who want only to annex Area C to avoid the citizenship issue.

      In the first scenario the international criticism would be muted though they would still complain that we should have annexed Gaza too. But we would have to give citizenship to an extra 1.5 million Arabs. I have worked with a number of people to craft a constitution that would leave Jews in control of the identity of the state.

      In the second scenario we avoid citizenship for Arabs but increase the condemnation. We would be at great risk of the Security Council imposing sanctions on us as the UN would consider such a move as endangering peace. The US and the EU would do all it can to reverse it.

      Both scenarios put an end to the two-state solution. The latter does so without killing Oslo.

      At the moment my view is that maintain Oslo, drop the freeze and demolish all Arab homes for which we can get demolition orders. We should also prevent Arab planting on State Land.

      This would also serve to have the West continue to subsidize the PA.

    5. the phoenix says:

      until such time that a strong unified nationalistic movement will be at the helm of israel’s ship,and will proceed to systematically, methodically unabashedly

      1. proceed to remove the iranian nuclear threat for once and for all
      2. annex y&s
      3. encourage muslim emigration to wherever the hell they want
      4.respond with disproportionate force to EACH AND EVERY attack from gaza or elsewhere
      5.eliminate those gazan ‘leaders’ inciting for marching to al quds and singing about ‘remembering kaybar’ (as in 6′ under)
      6.proceed to tell all those bleeding heart,concerned leaders of the ‘world community’ (that did not raise any objection whatsoever when the JEW was at the receiving end)whatever the diplomatic translation of “foxtrot oscar” is, …to do just that!

      until such a time comes….

      i am afraid that ALL we are doing is treading water

    6. Bernard Ross says:

      @ Ted Belman: I have a question which has been asked many times but never adequately answered. My understanding is that the UN Charter,league of nations mandate, san remo conference all mandate the encouragement of jewish settlement in order to reconstiture the Jewsih homeland. I have also never read or been directed to a resolution or treaty which has superior legal status that would abrogate or rescind that right. Further, I understand that this right is not subject to Israeli sovereignty over the west bank, as it predated Israels independence) and therefore may be exercised or fulfilled regardless of who controls the territory. In my wanderings over many forums and wickipedia s west bank history I see no mention of this jewish settlement as still to be encouraged, or even ever existent. Rather I always see jewish settlement as being considered synonymous with Israeli settlement and as illegal due to violating GC. My question is: did this legal jewish settlement encouragement ever exist in the relevant documents and if it did then what legal document of superior standing abrogated or rescinded that right(181 appears inferior in that it contradicted the UN charter and as a GA resolution was not legally binding on UN members) and if that right has never been rescinded then why is no one mentioning it as being a prime legal claim of world jewry to be published and pursued? I fear my understandings are incorrect as no Jews in a leadership position assert the right of jews to settle the west bank today therefore it appears that right either never existed or was rescinded.

    7. yamit82 says:

      @ Bernard Ross:

      My understanding is that the UN Charter,league of nations mandate, san remo conference all mandate the encouragement of jewish settlement in order to reconstiture the Jewsih homeland.

      INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE RIGHTS OF SETTLEMENT AND SELF-DETERMINATION IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL

      Also:

      United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 Interpreting its Meaning and Relevance for the State of Israel

    8. Zionlover says:

      I am glad to see everyone here realizes the folly of a “two-state solution.” I like Naftali Bennet’s plan, but it does not go far enough. I don’t see the Arabs just settling down easily and getting along with their Jewish neighbors after annexation. The Phoenix’s points are very good. We must implement those plans too. The only disagreement I have with these 6 points is #3. Yes, encourage Muslim emigration (very important) but not to wherever they want. I am American and don’t want them here in the U.S. Encourage their resettlement in Arab countries where they will share the same language and culture as others there. Pay them to encourage them to go. It’s worth it. Studies have shown that a large number of Palestinian Arabs want to move and would if given a financial incentive.

    9. Ted Belman says:

      @ Bernard Ross:
      In essence, a legal determination was made at San Remo that granted Jews the right to reconstitute there National homeland and to close settlement over all of Palestine which at the time included Trans Jordan. Nothing since has altered those rights. Not the Mandate, not R181, not Res 242 and not Oslo. But the Roadmap so long as it is operable denies us the right to build settlements pursuant to the Mitchell Report. I maintain we are not bound by the Mitchell Report or the Roadmap for many reasons which I need not go into. In part because it only was a process and in part because the Arabs haven’t lived up to their responsibilities.

    10. the phoenix says:

      Zionlover Said:

      Encourage their resettlement in Arab countries where they will share the same language and culture as others there

      i stand corrected. that they should go to any arab/muslim country, i took it as self understood, with the emphasis on getting the hell out of israel.
      once again, to quote the late (unfortunately) rabbi kahane, “they must go!”

      in fact, one solution imho to strengthen the crumbling western civilization is precisely, this point #3. but i digress…

      Pay them to encourage them to go. It’s worth it

      well,
      i think they should be paid the same amounts that the over 700,000 jews were paid when they left the musloid countries in ’47-’48….
      but to show a sign of good faith,i say give each one shekel…to keep as a souvenir / memento…

    11. Bernard Ross says:

      @ Ted Belman:
      @ yamit82: It appears to me that both Ted and Yamit’s links agree specifically, among other things, that the right of settlement to at least the territory west of the Jordan river has never been rescinded. It allso appears to me that when a law or agreement governs a relationship then that agreement is specifically quoted to resolve issues. E.G. when Ban Ki Moon, Obama, and any other international official (related to the UN or relevant treaties of San Remo, etc.)comments on the legality of Jewish settlement they should be immediately referred to the relevant clauses of the UN Charter, league of Nations etc which on the contrary encourages that settlement. It appears clear that jewish settlement is not subject to Israeli sovereignty of the area and that Jewish settlement should take place in arab controlled areas also. The pathetic part is that the jews are to blame. I have never heard the internationally binding legal right of settlement quoted in any international forum when Jewish settlement is discussed. It is as if the world is totally ignorant and those jewish entities who are aware are obstructing the legal rights of jews. The question becomes why aren’t jews and their representatives repeatedly referring to this legally binding right of settlement. The “palestinian” “success” has a lot to do with their seizing on every opportunity to advance their narrative. I was not aware of these legal rights until a couple of years ago and had never heard the arguments made in at least 50 years of international discussions. Simply put, the right of settlement appears to be still in existence and the representatives of the jewish people are obstructing and covering up those rights while the jewish people wallow in ignorance and red herrings. KISS!

    12. Bernard Ross says:

      I think the jewish people need a jewish lawyer, or the way things are going a non-jewish lawyer!

    13. Ted Belman says:

      @ Bernard Ross:
      I have written many articles on the legal aspects and posted many others.
      The truth about “the occupation” and “the settlements”

      Do a search on Israpundit for Greif or for Gauthier.

      Do a search for settlements legal

    14. @ Bernard Ross:
      Bernard Ross is right on the right of Jewish settlement. This right extends to all areas west of the Jordan River and it has never been revoked since it was recognized under international law in the 1920s.

      But in order to exercise this right without triggering (an unjustified) opposition from the world community, it would be good for Israel to first assert its de jure title of sovereignty over J&S and demand that the world community acknowledge it, as most countries were signatories of the League of Nations Mandate in 1922-23.

      That is why I prefer bringing up the de jure title of sovereignty before proceeding to any de facto annexation, as I wrote here.

    15. Simcha says:

      Bennet is either just another stooge for Bibi trying to appear right wing, or doesn’t have the courage of his conviction that Eretz Yisrael belongs to Am Yisrael and that Jewish sovereignty over all of J&S IS the solution to all of our problems.

    16. Bernard Ross says:

      @ Ted Belman: Why do you think that the issue of the right of jewish settlement is never raised as a rebuttal, in the UN, US,etc, at the diplomatic level? It would seem to me that representatives of the Jewish people should be beating that issue to death. Perhaps the truth repeated often enough can become believed as we already know that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.

    17. Bernard Ross says:

      Salomon Benzimra Said:

      But in order to exercise this right without triggering (an unjustified) opposition from the world community, it would be good for Israel to first assert its de jure title of sovereignty over J&S

      I read your link. I have been wondering about which comes first the chicken or the egg. It appears that the right of settlement came first before there was a sovereign state. Furthermore, it also appears to be a right which is not based upon sovereignty. In other words even during the Jordanian occupation the right of jewish settlement of the west bank was not rescinded and should have proceeded under the Jordanians who obstructed that right. Also, sovereignty has more issues for rebuttal than the simple right of settlement. Especially those such as the british who claimed that a national homeland did not mean sovereignty. What is their argument against settlement west of the river? Perhaps it is better for private jewish organizations to demand their right of settlement and demand that the israeli govt not obstruct that right as it is obligated to do under the UN Charter. Even if deemed an occupier Israel would have the obligation to protect the residents which include the settlers. Furthermore, what about the rights of non israeli jews to settle the west bank, what laws can israel invoke against them for exercising that right? Their immigration to the west bank is protected by law. Perhaps it would be better to separate the settlement right from the sovereignty issue as it appears to have a greater legal standing and might be able to be promulgated by means separate from the israeli govt. Also, once there is settlement then sovereignty acceptance becomes easier. Perhaps the issues of sovereignty and settlement can be proceeded upon at the same time by various parties as there appears to be a conflict of interest between the perceived interests of the Israeli govt and settlement rights of Jews to the west bank. I can see that suits against the israeli govt, by world jewry,to cease obstructing settlement rights of Jews(not Israeli. Perhaps legions of non israeli jews can demand the fulfillment of their rights under the UN charter and find a way to unilaterally execute those rights. It is only the GOI who can stop them and the GOI can have a legal decision that such obstruction would be illegal. Furthermore, who is to say that the settlement rights of jews in the west bank can only result in one sovereign national Jewish entity. The issue of jewish rights to settlement appear more difficult to rebutt in law than sovereignty(KISS principle). Does anyone know of what arguments can be used to say the rights of jewish settlement in west bank ended?

    18. Bernard Ross says:

      If non israeli jews were to settle the west bank then couldnt israel state that the GOI has no legal right to prevent their settlement and they are not subject to Israeli law which prevents the actions of their own citizens. Israeli citizens are bound to the decisions of their govts treaties, etc whereas non israeli jews would only be subject to the laws of the territorial administration. I would be curious as to what methods and arguments the GOI can use to prevent non israeli jewish settlement. Is tourism allowed, what about tent cities for new immigrants which begin as tourist camps and become settlements? It is a job for Jewish NGO’s(the leftist NGO’s would know what do do if it were their focus). If Israel is not sovereign over the west bank then who is responsible for fulfilling the UN charter regarding Jewish settlement there? How can they argue that observing the prime directive of the palestine mandate would be a danger to Israels security west of the green line? These would be interesting case to follow and the focus would shift to the rights of Jews. Cases do not have to be tried or won to be succesful. You cannot win the lottery if you do not purchase a ticket!

    19. Ted Belman says:

      Bernard Ross Said:

      Why do you think that the issue of the right of jewish settlement is never raised as a rebuttal, in the UN, US,etc, at the diplomatic level?

      That’s the $64,000 question. I am forever criticisng the GOI, Bibi included, for only claiming historical rights and not legal rights. I have yet to understand why it refrains. The GOI is on again off again in calling the land “disputed”.
      One argument I have heard is that if we claim our Mandate/San Remo rights then we would have to honour the rights of the arabs set out therein namely, “religious and civil”. We honour them for the Arabs in Israel but many would argue that we have to repatriate the Arabs who fled. It would be argued that it is their civil right to live here.

    20. Bernard Ross says:

      Ted Belman Said:

      One argument I have heard is that if we claim our Mandate/San Remo rights then we would have to honour the rights of the arabs set out therein namely, “religious and civil”.

      It can be argued that the civil and religious rights of the jews and, more importantly,the breaching of the Jewish settlement right by the british when it created trans jordan in the 77% eastern portion of the mandate modified the accepted interpretation of honoring civil and religious rights. By creating JOrdan and excluding jews from the overwhelming majority portion of the palestine mandate the british are either violating the mandate, thus bringing all or part into abrogation, or they are considering that it is not an abrogation because Jewish civil,religious and settlement rights are still being honored in the western portion(Cis Jordan). The creation of trans jordan with a foreign ruler was still to be considered the home of Palestine mandate inhabitants. By excluding the Jews from the eastern portion a precedent has been set, and globally accepted, that denying rights in one portion of the mandate to a group does not violate the charter if those rights are still honored in another portion of the mandate territory. Thus by denying muslim residence, religious and civil rights in Cis JOrdan the mandate is not breached because the overwhelming portion of the mandate territory(tran jordan) continues to fulfill muslim rights to the exclusion of jewish rights in trans jordan. The british creation of trans jordan and banning of jewish residence,religious and civil rights and its continuing maintenance, do not confer legality on the state of Jordans affairs. Britain withheld the application of mandate clauses to trans jordan and created a questionable soverignty in Jordan which also may be disputed as going beyoond the bounds allowable under articla 25(which is another issue that can be oursued separately and in tandem). .
      Ted Belman Said:

      but many would argue

      Ted Belman Said:

      It would be argued that it is their civil right to live here.

      Many already argue these points just as jews globally can argue that it is not only their civil and religious right but also the mandate guarantees their immigration into trans jordan. If these were to be the only arguments for not asserting the jews rights of settlement I would say that Israel is insane or has been operatiing under duress of fearing that international law would only be applied unjustly to swindle them. There has been good reason for this fear from 1000′s of years and it is a principle of law that agreements made under duress are not enforceable. However, my true feeling is that one does not abandon ones just rights merely because the other side can raise an argument: in courts of law the other side always raises a counter argument no matter how spurious. fear of counter arguments cannot be the basis of a modus operandi. Furthermore, the real purpose of asserting ones rights under international law is as a justification for ones unilateral actions. It is the PR that results from assertions and the postulation of supporting arguments that allows those who see gain in supporting Israels arguments to have a legal basis for that support. This is the way things operate now in that nations assert a legal basis for their arguments no matter how spurious and they proceed thereon. The Russians and Chinese, the americans, etc. do this and the Palestinians especially. The spurious arguments against Israel are seized upon by those who wish an excuse to oppose Israel and reap the benefits therefrom. These arguments are never fully tested but the interested parties obtain what they want. No matter what position Israel takes there is spurious legal argument(apartheied,etc) which seeks its destruction in the legal forums and in some cases they are winning(UNHRC). The possibility of counter arguments should not be a deterrent against claims and unilateral action. However, Israel would need to be militarily and economically independent enough to counter global sanctions; this is the only real issue and this problem exists no matter what Israel does.

    21. Bernard Ross says:

      Ted Belman Said:

      The GOI is on again off again in calling the land “disputed”.

      I think this confuses the difference between the rights of jews worldwide to settle in the mandate territory with Israels sovereignty over that territory. I believe these are 2 separate issues and can even see that there is a legal basis for the status quo remaining regarding sovereignty but for the settlement in the west bank to proceed and be legally encouraged. Mixing the 2 allows the settlement right to be obscured by sovereignty arguments. Also, the settlement rights can be pursued by non Israeli Jewish organisations and individuals and can be pursued against even the GOI. The GOI can even be against settlement publicly but be bound in principles of international law to refrain from obstructing Jewish(not necessarily Israeli) settlement. The GOI can refrain from offieal israeli GOI settlements that are deemed an extension of sovereignty but can accede to private NGO settlement as fulfilling international obligations under the UN charter. If the UN abrogates the rights of jewish settlement, as it has the geneva convention regarding ethnic cleansing of jews from arab lands, then Israel declares alla greements null and void and proceeds as it wishes. It is important to point out that whatever Israel does regarding the arabs, it has already been done to the jews; reciprocity should be demanded. Again, it all comes down to power, military , political and economic. This power is always used against the jews, the jews should use their power.

    22. Bear Klein says:

      I like the annex Area C plan. However for the offer of Arab Citizenship I would put in qualifiers.

      1. Must agree to live in a Jewish democratic country.
      2. Know or learn Hebrew
      3. Pass a background check
      4. Must apply for citizenship and 10 or 15 year period where the above criteria is met and they nor a direct family members commit any crimes
      against the state. It takes 15 years in Switzerland for someone to become a citizen and after passing many hurdles. No reason to bring trouble makers into Israel.

    23. the phoenix says:

      @ Bear Klein:
      fwiw, points 1&2, = ok
      3 = goes unsaid
      4 i totally disagree.
      citizenship? to a muslim in a jewish country when there is no jew to spwak of in a musloid country???
      these bastards, have an infinite patience. (christ! look at the muslim brotherhood…once outlawed, now it is THE item!) they will only live multiply and when the time is right there will be ANOTHER intifada…
      they should be kept to pick up s**t from the streets (anybody remembers pictures of african ‘refugees’ defecating on the streets of tel-aviv???) and any other menial jobs, and that’s about IT!
      they want to ‘furtrher’ themselves, and move on up on the social scale…move to deerborn michigan…i am CERTAIN that all hurdles will be removed and a red carpet treatment would be awaiting them….courtesy of husein and holder and the rest of the criminal gang

    24. Canadian Otter says:

      THIS IS DISENGAGEMENT, FOLKS!
      This is a left-wing movement – a sort of Kadima dressed up as right wing – to push not only disengagement from Areas A and B, but perhaps to condition Israelis to give up ALL AREAS except the major settlements. ~~~~~ It’s called achieving a goal in stages, and it’s been applied to the dismantling of Israel before. Once Israelis get used to the idea of giving up Areas A and B, then the goal will shrink to annexing only the settlements area (1.7% of Judea and Samaria). This idea was floated this year by both Ehud Barak and Avigdor Lieberman, with no public reaction of outrage.

      Furthermore, even if this movement is completely sincere in its goal of annexing all of Area C – this is an indirect way of saying Let’s disengage from Areas A and B so that we can have a GAZA TWO on steroids. Why hasn’t this proposal been denounced more forcefully? This lack of strong opposition on the basis that it would create another Gaza gives me shivers. It shows how much education is needed to explain the danger of even a tiny sovereign Nazi-Arab enclave on what today is Jewish land. One last point that gives this movement away as fake-right-wing is its eagerness to confer citizenship to all Arabs, no question asked. ~~~~~ Another sample of readers’ reaction here: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/16338

    25. NormanF says:

      The issue is not a bi-national state. This is a red herring!

      Of decisive importance is who controls the process. I would rather the Jews run it. The demographic problem can eventually be solved.

      An Arab state cannot be undone later. Annexation of the entire territory of Judea and Samaria is not the worst of all worlds. To put it bluntly, Israel cannot afford a Hamastan bordering its major population centers and vital industry.

      The Jewish people can have the Land Of Israel or they can have Hamas. Naftali Bennett’s proposal to only acquire sovereignty over the so-called Area C does not solve the real problem and I do not want to cede a single square kilometer of the Land Of Israel to a dangerous enemy.

    26. the phoenix says:

      NormanF Said:

      An Arab state cannot be undone later

      and I do not want to cede a single square kilometer of the Land Of Israel

      well said, norman!

    27. Canadian Otter says:

      BOMBSHELL THAT WENT UNREPORTED – except by Israel National News – New Jewish settlements have NOT been approved. But 600 new houses for Arabs have. – How easily politicians lie to the public.

      The Director of the Israel Lands Fund, Aryeh King of the Power to Israel party, said on Thursday that the reports regarding the recent approval of construction in Jerusalem are nothing but election-season spin. King said that the plans for construction at Ramat Shlomo in northern Jerusalem have not truly been approved, press reports notwithstanding. “Bibi is recycling plans from two years ago,” he charged. “In actual fact, no plan has been approved. If Bibi is elected, there will be no construction – not at Ramat Shlomo and not at Mevasseret Adumim [E1].” King noted that the Jerusalem District Planning Committee rejected this week the construction of 700 housing units for Jews at Givat Hamatos, near Gilo. “On the other hand,” he revealed, “a plan for building 600 housing units for Arabs in the same area was approved.” “This is an area south of Talpiot and north of Gilo, and the plans for Jews have been stuck there for over 10 years,” he said. “Bibi’s PR people do not tell you this.” http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/163397

    28. Bernard Ross says:

      Canadian Otter Said:

      to push not only disengagement from Areas A and B, but perhaps to condition Israelis to give up ALL AREAS except the major settlements. ~~~~~ It’s called achieving a goal in stages, and it’s been applied to the dismantling of Israel before. Once Israelis get used to the idea of giving up Areas A and B, then the goal will shrink to annexing only the settlements area (1.7% of Judea and Samaria).

      It appears to me that this is the way it is going and that it will happen de facto without any agreement until later years thus enabling everyone to avoid recriminations from their constituents. Ultimately Israel will get the major settlements, E1 and all jerusalem, the arabs will get the appearance of a state. Israel will remain in all of C & the JOrdan valley until they withdraw to envisioned border; Israel will remain in JOrdan vallley and continue security as it is now and look for pals to run themselves or be run by Jordn/egypt. There will be no link with gaza, no jewish state recognition, no returning arab refugees. PA will develop associations with JOrdan and Gaza with Egypt. It will be an evolving situation with no commitments, allowing flexibility, but evolving with a particular goal in mind.

    29. Canadian Otter says:

      @ Bernard Ross:

      It appears to me that this is the way it is going and that it will happen de facto without any agreement until later years thus enabling everyone to avoid recriminations from their constituents

      That’s why Israelis need to look at those facts on the ground instead of listening to their leaders’ speeches. They need to watch the gradual Arab takeover of the entire country. While the right wing is increasing in numbers, by the time they manage to have any significant sway with the political parties, the Muslim facts on the ground will be irreversible.

    30. yamit82 says:

      Bennett: I Won’t Evict Jews from Their Homes
      Bayit Yehudi chairman says he would not agree to evict Jews; rival parties slam him, claim he advocates that soldiers refuse to obey orders.
      Bennett shot himself in the foot. A Novice Mistake, Never ans. Hypothetical questions by the Press especially a Press looking to bring you down. Instead of being on the offense he has put himself and his party on the defensive. Could cost him not only momentum but mandates.

      BB does not want Bennett and any strong ideological nationalist party to the right of Likud. Bennett should go after BB with a meat cleaver. As his chief of staff for almost 2 years he knows a lot of dirt on BB. Leak it through 3rd parties. Word on the street is that BB’s crazy wife Sarah who rules him had BB fire Bennett because of his strong opposition to the Bar Ilan Speech. Not surprising in view of their history, (BB and Crazy domineering Sarah).

      Likud on Offense against Bennett for Statement on Expelling Jews

    31. yamit82 says:

      Bayit Yehudi chairman to hold press conference regarding his position on orders to evict Jewish homes.

      Bennett to Netanyahu: Yes or No, will You Order More Expulsions?

      “I never called for refusal of orders,” said Bayit Yehudi chairman, and accused Likud of playing a dangerous game.

    32. yamit82 says:

      @ yamit82:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naftali_Bennett
      Bennett’s parents, Jim and Miranda Bennett, were born in the United States and immigrated to Israel.

      During his mandatory national service in the Israel Defense Forces, he served in the elite Sayeret Matkal and Maglan units as a company commander and continues to serve in the reserves, holding the rank of Major.

      After his IDF service, Bennett received a Law degree from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

      After he took part in the Second Lebanon War, Bennett joined the then-opposition Leader Benjamin Netanyahu and served as his Chief of Staff from 2006–2008. Among other issues, he led a team which developed Netanyahu’s Educational reform plan. He also ran Netanyahu’s primary campaign to lead the Likud party in August 2007.

      On January 31, 2010, Bennett was appointed as the Director General of the Yesha Council and led the struggle against the Settlement freeze in 2010. He served in this position until January 2012.

      In April of 2011 he co-founded MyIsrael with over 80,000 Israeli members.

      In April of 2012 he founded a movement named “Yisraelim” – Israelis. The movement’s main goals include, increasing Zionism among center-right wing supporters; increasing dialogue between the religious and non-religious communities, and finally – promoting “The Bennett Plan”. Subsequently, Bennett resigned from the Likud and joined The Jewish Home party, while announcing his candidacy for the party leadership.

      At the internal elections, on November 6, 2012, he won about 67% of the votes, and was elected as head of “the Jewish Home”

      In 1999, he co-founded “Cyota” – an anti-fraud software company and served as its CEO. The company was sold in 2005 to RSA Security for $145,000,000.

      Bennett is married with four children, and lives in Ra’anana.

    33. Andrew says:

      Thanks for that Yamit.

    34. NormanF says:

      yamit82 Said:

      Bennett: I Won’t Evict Jews from Their Homes
      Bayit Yehudi chairman says he would not agree to evict Jews; rival parties slam him, claim he advocates that soldiers refuse to obey orders.
      Bennett shot himself in the foot. A Novice Mistake, Never ans. Hypothetical questions by the Press especially a Press looking to bring you down. Instead of being on the offense he has put himself and his party on the defensive. Could cost him not only momentum but mandates.
      BB does not want Bennett and any strong ideological nationalist party to the right of Likud. Bennett should go after BB with a meat cleaver. As his chief of staff for almost 2 years he knows a lot of dirt on BB. Leak it through 3rd parties. Word on the street is that BB’s crazy wife Sarah who rules him had BB fire Bennett because of his strong opposition to the Bar Ilan Speech. Not surprising in view of their history, (BB and Crazy domineering Sarah).

      Likud on Offense against Bennett for Statement on Expelling Jews

      The Likud has had a track record as the party of expulsion. They are attacking Bennett because they no longer believe in the Land Of Israel but in power. Fear of having to share power with true believers is creating an ideological challenge to the Likud. Its not used to this which is why it is going with a ferocity after Bennett it doesn’t reserve for the Left. And of course Israel’s leftist media has it own reasons to want to cut Bennett down to size so for the moment Netanyahu and the Israeli press have a temporary marriage of convenience in stopping a pretender to the throne.

    35. yamit82 says:

      @ Canadian Otter:

      Nothing is irreversible except death.

    Site Membership



    Google Site Search

    Editor

      Ted Belman

      tbelman3-at-gmail.com

    Mission

      News and Views on Israel, the Middle East, the war on terror and the clash of civilizations.

    Polls

    Will Israel attack Iran

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    RECOMMENDED BOOKS

    LOVE




    Tolerism2

    Iran islam

    Sharing

    mandate4

    Daily Archives

    July 2014
    S M T W T F S
    « Jun    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  

    Selected Israpundit Articles

    Miscellaneous Info

      All Politic Sites