FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Here is an example of a popular phenomenon that is hard to understand. Isi Liebler wrote:

Diaspora Jewish support for Israel cannot be based exclusively on the intransigence and evil of Abbas and the PA. Instead, it must articulate a broad, unifying, positive, strategic policy around which pro-Israel activists can build their cases. It should reaffirm its support of a two-state solution that reflects the desire of the vast majority of Israelis to end Israeli rule over the Arab population. It should support the retention of the major settlement blocs, as enunciated in President George W. Bush’s letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. It should state explicitly that in the regional scorpions’ den in which it exists, Israel will not compromise on defensible borders or security and should demand that its neighbors recognize its sovereignty as a Jewish nation. [my emphasis]

Liebler is a Zionist and well-informed. And yet, he appears not to know (or ignores) the fact that Israel does not “rule over the Arab population.” More than 90% (I’ve seen figures as high as 97%) of the Arab population of Judea and Samaria are “ruled over” by the Palestinian Authority (PA). And I won’t even discuss the lunatic idea that is popular on the Left that Gaza is ‘occupied’!

True, the PA doesn’t control its airspace or its borders. And Israeli security forces sometimes do penetrate PA areas in order to arrest terrorists who have perpetrated attacks against Israelis or are preparing such attacks. The PA is not allowed to have the tanks, antiaircraft weapons, or for that matter, chemical and nuclear weapons that they would so much like to have. But this is the minimum that is required for Israel’s self-preservation.

What seems to be going on here is that Liebler still can’t shake the illusion that a withdrawal from Judea and Samaria will improve Israel’s strategic position in any way.

He would probably say that European threats and American encouragement of said threats are dangerous. He’s right about that, but they are not as dangerous as the consequences of accepting the indefensible borders, with or without high-tech pretend solutions, that any two-state plan that creates a sovereign Arab state in the territories entails.

It should also be obvious that the demands from the Arabs and from Europe (which is working itself into an anti-Jewish lather lately) will not abate until Israel has been rendered entirely defenseless.

I have proposed, as an ideal solution, that Israel annex all of Judea and Samaria and induce members of violent organizations like those comprising the PLO to leave (by compensation or, if necessary, coercion). But if that is politically impossible, then the status quo — which essentially means the maintenance of an autonomous Palestinian entity with less than full sovereignty — is acceptable.

When Rabin first agreed to Oslo, his conception seems to have been that the Palestinian entity would be demilitarized and with certain limitations on its sovereignty (border control, airspace, etc.). The PA, which Oslo conceived as a temporary device on the way to a permanent solution, seems to have morphed into precisely this.

The Israeli government has responded to the pressure — Kerry’s mission is just the latest manifestation of this pressure — in an ambiguous way. Various members of the cabinet, as Liebler notes, say different things. The official position seems to favor a “two-state solution” with reservations. The reservations change from day to day.

Here is what the government could say in order to normalize the status quo (speaking in one voice if possible):

Insofar as negotiations with the PA have failed — the PA has refused to recognize our sovereignty and right to self-determination — we consider the ‘peace process’ that began with the Oslo accord to be officially ended.

We consider the PA the ruler of the Arab population of Areas A and B, and Hamas (a hostile entity with whom we are in a state of war) as the ruler of the Gaza strip. We view these areas as autonomous.

We will continue to discuss issues such as environmental concerns and water with the PA to the extent that it wishes to do so. But acts of war will be responded to as such.

We also announce that we will continue to unilaterally impose control of borders and airspace, etc. We will interdict weapons shipments to the PA and will take whatever unilateral action necessary to stop terrorism emanating from these areas. All of these actions are based on our right of self-defense, as enunciated in the UN Charter. The US, the EU and others do not have the right to interfere with Israel’s exercise of this right.

This would be combined with the application of Israeli law to Area C, and a continued emphasis on Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. Other areas of ambiguity that should be clarified are the question of sovereignty on the Temple Mount (it belongs to Israel), and the tolerance for ‘misdemeanor terrorism‘ in Jerusalem and Judea/Samaria (it should be dealt with harshly).

Is this the ideal solution? No. Is it a better solution than continuing to participate in an inherently contradictory ‘peace process’? Absolutely.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinian Authority, Isi Liebler

Sometimes the truth is difficult. Sometimes you shrink from drawing the conclusions that fact and logic demand. I too have been guilty of this. It’s time to apply logic to the facts and draw the appropriate conclusion.

I’ve written a lot about the Oslo delusion — that territorial concessions to the Arabs will bring peace. Most Israelis understand that it is a delusion (unfortunately, many pro-Israel Americans still believe in it). Nevertheless, territorial compromise — the creation of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria — is now the official position of the ‘right-wing’ government of Israel.

There is no doubt that the strategic and social repercussions of ceding most (or even much) of Judea, Samaria and Eastern Jerusalem would destroy the Jewish state. I’m not going to go into detail about why this is so, because I’ve done it countless times before in these pages.

Thanks to American pressure, this could come about in the near future. So what’s the matter with Israel’s leadership? Why is it seemingly going along — or at most, temporizing? Why isn’t Israel firmly rejecting the idea of a hostile Arab state gnawing at its belly? Martin Sherman thinks, and I agree, that it is because those opposed to the destructive non-solution proposed by the Left and the US have offered no reasonable alternative.

Some have suggested annexing part of the territories (Area C). While this would avoid removing more than 100,000 Jews from their homes, it would not solve the security problems inherent in having hostile Arabs close to Israel’s population centers, and would necessitate impossibly complicated borders.

Others have argued that the demographic impact of annexing all of Judea and Samaria would not be as great as the Left suggests, and that a Jewish majority could be maintained (Arab population estimates are wildly exaggerated, the Jewish birthrate is high, etc.).

Unfortunately, even if the Arab population of Israel were increased only from 20% to 30%, it would be massively destabilizing. This is a very hostile population, including a large number of members of terror organizations. Israel would either need to become a police state to protect itself, or be torn apart by an unprecedented amount of terrorism.

The survival of the state requires at least two things: control of the strategic areas of Judea/Samaria (pretty much all the area), and a population that is primarily Jewish and does not contain hostile elements.

In other words, a reasonable alternative will have to involve Arabs moving, not Jews.

It doesn’t have to be all the Arabs. Unlike them, we don’t require an ethnically pure state to live in. But we also don’t have to live alongside creatures committed to violence, as the members of the PLO and Hamas are.

We can hear the screaming of the Left, the Europeans, the academic community and of course the Muslim world all the way over here. How dare we suggest that Arabs might be displaced (of course, the idea that a ‘solution’ involves expelling every last Jew so ‘Palestine’ can be free of contamination is perfectly reasonable to them)!

This is the essence of what is needed for peace and the continued existence of the Jewish state: possession of Judea and Samaria and expulsion of Arabs who are not prepared to live peacefully alongside Jews in their state. Yes, this solution is harder than signing an instrument of surrender. It will certainly bring down boycotts and sanctions on Israel.

But its objective, unlike that of Kerry’s imposed ‘solution’, is the preservation of the Jewish State of Israel. Accept that, and all the rest is implementation.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Arabs, peace process

Neturei Karta members demonstrate in favor of Jew-hating Hungarian Jobbik party, January 28, 2014

I don’t argue anymore about whether extreme anti-Zionism is other than a form of Jew-hatred. It’s evident from the double standards, the imagery used, and the very special place it holds in the hearts of the self-righteous who enjoy feeling sorry for the dead Jews of the 1940s while supporting those who want to murder the still-living ones of today.

I also don’t take seriously those who say that Jews can’t be professional Jew-haters. This is refuted by a list of counterexamples as long as my arm, from Max Blumenthal to Philip Weiss. They will all say that they are only ‘critical of Israel’s policies’, but if you believe this then you probably also believe that Iran’s nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes.

If more examples of Jewish Jew-hatred are needed, there is a perfect one in our friends from Neturei Karta. They always insist that they are just anti-Zionist, from the purest of religious motives, but their actions show that this is not the case.

Last week, Gábor Vona of the Hungarian Jobbik party spoke at a rally in London in advance of Hungarian elections (Hungarians living abroad who have a permanent address in Hungary can vote). And among his supporters were members of Neturei Karta (who, incidentally, were seriously annoyed that the BBC at first reported that they were demonstrating against Jobbik)! There is no doubt that Jobbik is anti-Jewish in the traditional, ugly European sense. Of course they are also anti-Zionist, but the latter is clearly derivative from the former. It is not possible to be pro-Jobbik without being anti-Jewish.

Worlds away from Neturei Karta in almost every respect we have 58 affluent, progressive Jews from New York. They would never demonstrate on behalf of Jobbik, but they have no trouble bashing New York’s new, very liberal, Mayor Bill De Blasio for — imagine the chutzpah — speaking at an AIPAC event.

What seems to have particularly annoyed them was De Blasio’s statement that his door was open to AIPAC. They responded that

…the needs and concerns of many of your constituents–U.S. Jews like us among them–are not aligned with those of AIPAC, and that no, your job is not to do AIPAC’s bidding when they call you to do so. AIPAC speaks for Israel’s hard-line government and its right-wing supporters, and for them alone; it does not speak for us.

I find this very revealing. AIPAC is a bête noir to Israel-haters like Weiss and Blumenthal, because it is a pro-Israel lobbying organization, and they are anti-Israel. In addition, as Jew haters, they naturally see AIPAC as a conspiracy, because Jewish conspiracies are part of traditional Jew-hatred.

But there is nothing conspiratorial about it — it works to influence the US government in support of the interests of Israel, just like the Saudi Arabian lobby, or the China lobby, or the Micronesian lobby (although, unlike these, it is supported by American citizens and not paid by the states it lobbies for).

AIPAC does not — or tries not to — have a particular ideological tilt. It promotes the positions of Israel’s government, whether it is the labor government of Rabin or Barak, or the Likud government of Netanyahu. It is neither “hard-line” nor “right-wing” as the 58 signatories on the De Blasio letter imply (would that it were).

They happen to dislike Israel’s present government, but recent polls show that support for Netanyahu’s party among Israeli voters, who live there and have to deal with the consequences of their government’s behavior, is stronger than ever.

Earth to 58 ‘progressive’ Jews: it’s called ‘democracy’. You are for that, no?

The truth is that the 58 object to AIPAC because they object to an independent sovereign Jewish state, which is what AIPAC is for. Interestingly, that is also what Neturei Karta is opposed to.

Technorati Tags: Neturei Karta, Jobbik, 58 progressive Jews from New York

Barry Rubin, ×–”ל

This is not a post that I wanted to write, though I knew it was coming. Barry Rubin died last night, aged 64. You can find an obituary here. I and many others will miss Barry, both as a notable scholar of the Middle East and a personal friend.

Barry had at least 18 books to his credit — most of them serious scholarly works. He also wrote hundreds, probably thousands, of scholarly and popular articles, blogs, etc. He edited journals, administered institutes, and spoke in venues around the world. His scholarly writing was nevertheless clear and approachable, even entertaining, without academic jargon. Sometimes he introduced his articles with quotations from popular movies and music, or Shakespeare’s plays.

Unlike many ‘authorities’ on the Middle East, his predictions were usually accurate. He knew the players, and had visited many of the countries. He had correspondents throughout the world. It bothered him that so many important people in government and academia who dealt with the region did not know the most basic facts about it (he used the word ‘idiots’).

Another thing that made him unhappy was the politicization of his field of Middle Eastern Studies. He remarked that when he was a student, he had teachers that strongly disagreed with his pro-Israel politics, but never allowed that to affect their evaluation of his work. Today, he thought, that would not be the case. And today, someone like Barry, despite his qualifications, would have a hard time being hired in a Middle East Studies department.

Barry’s approach was always fact-based analysis. He never fit his conclusions to an ideology, and he could be quite critical of Israel’s policies when he felt that was appropriate. He did not dislike Arabs or Muslims, and had many Arab friends. He did dislike ideologues and they disliked him. Those who cared about the truth respected him.

He continued to work to the end of his life — a decision that he made after being diagnosed with aggressive lung cancer (he did not smoke) 18 months ago, and initially given only a few months to live. Despite his enormous output, he always had time and patience to answer questions from friends and students.

Some months ago, I emailed him a question. “I’m having trouble typing,” he responded. “I’ll call you.” And he did.

I enjoyed talking to Barry about lots of things, not just the Middle East. I first met him in person some years ago when I invited him to speak in Fresno. When I asked about his travel from Los Angeles, he told me that he preferred the train. “I like trains,” he said. I discovered that we shared an interest in railroads, and later was impressed by an elaborately detailed model of the Baltimore area in his Tel Aviv apartment. When did he find time to build this? Who knows?

His untimely death is a great loss for his family and friends, of course, but it is also a loss to scholarship and to the pursuit of truth.

Update [5 Feb 1433 PST]: I wrote that Barry Rubin had at least 18 books and probably thousands of articles to his credit. What an underestimate! An authoritative obituary on his site tells us that he “authored and edited close to 100 books–three of which will be published posthumously–and tens of thousands of articles.”

Technorati Tags: Barry Rubin

News item:

Top officials from the United Nations, United States, Russia and European Union will meet on Saturday [February 1] to discuss how they can help U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s drive for a Middle East peace deal, the EU said on Friday. …

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said she would chair the meeting with Kerry, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Quartet envoy Tony Blair, the former British prime minister.

I have always disliked the idea of the ‘Quartet’, basically a gang of bullies who conspire to find ways to force the Jews out of the territories, something that in the foreign offices of Europe and the US State Department seems to have a higher priority than any other geopolitical issue — I won’t list them; you know about Syria, South Sudan, etc.

These representatives of powerful nations and international organizations quite unashamedly apply the principles that ‘might makes right’, ‘international law is whatever gives us an advantage’, and ‘historical fact is anything we want it to be’. Then they try to wreck the tiny Jewish state because their lunatic idea of ‘justice’ demands yet another vicious Arab (possibly Islamist) dictatorship in its place. And (with the exception of the US) these are mostly the same perps that have brutalized the Jews for centuries. It will be chaired by the woman who can commemorate the Holocaust without mentioning Jews.

Speaking of justice, where is the justice in such a conspiracy, a meeting at which decisions are taken to force a small state, uninvited to the meeting, to give up territory to a vicious aggressor (the ‘Palestinians’, after all, are just a proxy for the rest of the Arab and Muslim world)?

Does this sound like something that happened to another small nation before, with many of the same players?

It does — which is why, in the words of the great Paul Harvey, I want to tell you the Rest of the Story:

The Quartet met today, in Munich, Germany.

Technorati Tags: Quartet, Munich, Israel