Posted on 07/21/2012 3:00:49 PM PDT by Eleutheria5
It was just a matter of time before self-appointed prominent Jewish leaders in America got organized to send a letter to PM Netanyahu claiming that Israel's int'l standing is in peril due to the recent judicial report by retired Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy who concluding that Israel is not occupying Judea and Samaria and that there is no legal prohibition to populate the land east of the 1967 "border" (actually 1949 Armistice Lines) with Jewish residents.
Beyond the issue of the report itself, why have US Jewish leaders become so agitated and disturbed?
"As strong advocates for Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish and democratic state, we are deeply concerned about the recent findings of the government commission led by [retired Supreme Court Justice] Edmund Levy. We fear that if approved, this report will place the two-state solution, and the prestige of Israel as a democratic member of the international community, in peril," the letter read.
Signatories to the letter include ... (usual blowhards with money and titles).
The signatories insist on ignoring the most basic historical facts, preferring to perpetuate the false and invented narrative that pre1948, the land already belonged to the Palestinian Arabs which is a gross historical fabrication.
The signatories also refuse to acknowledge that the land was allocated for a Jewish National home by the League of Nations and then by the United Nations in a partition plan that Israel accepted and the Arabs rejected.
Why are these self-proclaimed Jewish leaders losing sleep over a judicial report that simply reiterates the truth about Israel's legal standing in Judea and Samaria?
.....
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
It would depend on how poor and miserable I was there. $10K would be enough to go elsewhere and start over in a new place, and would keep me fed for a while while I looked for work.
No doubt but it is going to have to be all or nothing. Annexation of only Area C just formalizes the status quo. The presence of the Arab population is a fact. It is just not possible to have the land without the people.
But as I said, there would be no wholesale grant of citizenship. It would be made available to those who applied, just as it already is in Jerusalem.
But with the greater numbers involved I think that you would have a different response that with the limited number of Arabs in Jerusalem. Even with Arabs at only 33% of the population (assuming that it is possible to exclude Gaza) it would be politically unfeasible to maintain a privileged position in the law for the Jews. In time it would be impossible to maintain Israel as a Jewish nation; it would necessarily have to become a bi-national, multi-religious state. This would be a possible solution if (big if) both sides could accept it.
This is the dilemma to which I always return. I can see only two possible solutions (neither necessarily palatable): two states, one Jewish and one Arab; or one state that is equally Jewish and Arab.
No doubt but it is going to have to be all or nothing. Annexation of only Area C just formalizes the status quo.
I’d also favor annexing Area B. As for Area A, I’m not going to go to war with whatever psychotic bozo claims to be its ruler. It was already made Judenrein. Unless they start with us, I’d leave it.
The presence of the Arab population is a fact. It is just not possible to have the land without the people.
Must we continue belaboring this? Citizenship would be available to those who want it. Many, perhaps most, will refuse. I’m fine with that. They’ll still have civil rights and a vote in local elections, and be expected to pay taxes and do public service (non-military).
But with the greater numbers involved I think that you would have a different response that with the limited number of Arabs in Jerusalem.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Even with Arabs at only 33% of the population (assuming that it is possible to exclude Gaza)
Not only is it possible, Resolution 242 requires the return of some territories (in the English draft). Egypt has dibs on Ghaza under 242. They’re welcome to it. It’s not worth going to war over, much as I sympathize with the exiles of Gush Katif.
it would be politically unfeasible to maintain a privileged position in the law for the Jews. In time it would be impossible to maintain Israel as a Jewish nation; it would necessarily have to become a bi-national, multi-religious state. This would be a possible solution if (big if) both sides could accept it.
Thus far, the Arab side has been unable to accept the existence of a Jewish state, or even a homeland. 31 attempts have been made at negotiating their acceptance, and there is no chance. So have done with negotiations. We’ll annex. They can do what they want with that fact. If they want to join and participate, fine. If they want to turn their noses up, fine. If so many want to join and participate that it becomes a multinational state, that’s an eventuality that will have to be accepted. But the possibility is remote, imho.
I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that the Arabs, too, will vote against a right of return for the hereditary “refugees” of 1948. They might carry signs demanding it, for to do otherwise would be to lose “honor,” but in the privacy of a voting booth, they’ll vote against.
This is the dilemma to which I always return. I can see only two possible solutions (neither necessarily palatable): two states, one Jewish and one Arab; or one state that is equally Jewish and Arab.
The two state solution is a bad idea whose time has gone. It will solve nothing and will never happen—not because it has no support among Jews, but because it has no support among Arabs, except as a tactical maneuver from which to destroy the Jewish state. The one state solution might or might not end in a loss of the Jewishness of the state, but I’m willing to literally bet my life that it will not.
It is a dilemma to you because you care about world affairs and track them from the safety of your living room. I face it in my daily life and have a different perspective. Right now, Ramadan fireworks continue to pound away from North Hevron, which is less than a block away from where I live. The Arabs there are usually quite friendly, from behind the high fence with the razor wire. They live in beautiful houses with lush fields under cultivation and satellite dishes on their roofs. The residents of Mitzpeh Avihai on Hill 18, also adjacent to North Hevron, lived in crudely constructed shacks, until the government sent Druze Magavniks to forcibly evacuate them and destroy their hovels. These are my friends and neighbors, not faceless incarnations of dilemmas. Their scrawny grapevines are still growing near the ruins of their community. To me there is no dilemma. We must have one state, and I’ll live or die by that, and do whatever I have to to rebuild Mitzpeh Avihai.
A number of Palestinian refugees have immigrated to Chile under the sponsorship of the UNHCR. They are apparently very happy to be there, accepted, and productive. I agree that only helping the women leave would be unworkable. I also strongly believe that there are Jewish captives among the Palestinians, whether leftist idiots who got raped and driven into marriage and conversion, or rebellious teenagers who ran away from home and or eloped, and then found themselves trapped in a remote village with an abusive husband. As a Jew, I cannot countenance letting said husband abscond with these captive women and their offspring and on top of it all paying them for it. There will have to be some sort of proof.
As for “well above $10K,” I got well below that amount to come to Israel, had to work for appalling wages for ten months until the paperwork was sorted, and left a good paying job in the states for it, as well as flying here at my own expense. My mother-in-law just made aliya with her flight all paid for, immediate citizenship, but still well below $10K in assistance. In 1967, the IDF paid Palis in Ghaza unhappy with being conquered and wanting to leave, the grand sum of 100 lira, and they left on foot to Egypt. Those who stayed prospered until the intifaa’ida (correct plural form, any Arabic speakers know?) and evacuation of Gush Katif.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
A solution must be found in what is realistically possible, not wishful thinking.
Do you think an Israel that was completely committed to G-d would even need any support from "the rest of the world?" Many articles have been written on how the greatest Jewish victories have come from cleaving to G-d and telling everyone else where to go (pardon my language).
1) Do you really believe that the present secular Israeli society is completely committed to God?
2) As a Christian I believe that God's promises to Israel now find their fulfillment in the Jesus Christ and his Church which is made up of both Jews and gentiles, as was foretold by the prophets.
Unfortunately, it is not. But G-d still has a covenant with `Am Yisra'el (the Jewish People, as opposed to the secular state founded in 1948), and for all its problems and deficiencies, a Jewish State in the Holy Land (and the Jews who live there) are of key significance.
2) As a Christian I believe that God's promises to Israel now find their fulfillment in the Jesus Christ and his Church which is made up of both Jews and gentiles, as was foretold by the prophets.
In other words, you believe the interpretation of the prophecies which chrstianity has reiterated for the past two millenia. These beliefs (to put it politely) may not be correct. They are hardly self-evidently true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.