I AM A JEW (PART XX - A Two-State Solution?)

As the title shows, this is the 20th part (actually the 21^st, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts, I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on Part I and then scrolling upwards or by accessing the label I Am A Jew.

As I indicated in my post "I AM A JEW (PART XIX - I Almost Wish I Hadn’t Started This  Study!)," the two-state solution is rapidly being denigrated and discarded by the Israeli government and its American supporters. While Netanyahu has not yet himself floated this idea, it was prominently advocated by his minister of the economy, Naftali Bennett and if the reader will refer to my post, as set forth above, he will see that what the minister of the economy is advocating is clearly an Apartheid state, with the Palestinians being confined to what can only be considered to be Bantustans. (See also the map shown in that post)

But while Netanyahu has not yet joined in this advocacy, The President of Israel, Ruvi Rivlin, has. In an article appearing in the New Yorker, see here or here. 

David Remnick writes:

Reuven (Ruvi) Rivlin, the new President of Israel, is ardently opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian state. He is instead a proponent of Greater Israel, one Jewish state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. He professes to be mystified that anyone should object to the continued construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank: “It can’t be ‘occupied territory’ if the land is your own.”

He does not, as far as I can find, explain on what basis he claims the land as being that of Israel.

However, as Remnick explains, he, like Netanyahu, owes his philosophic bearings to Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky, who early on “recognized the deep, irreconcilable interests of the Arab presence in Palestine.” In the “Iron Wall” he wrote, according to Remick:

Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonized…That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of ‘Palestine’ into the 'Land of Israel.'

So he recognized that Arab resistance was not some evil, anti-Semitic impulse, but the expected reaction of any people to “being colonized”.

But, according to Remick:

Rivlin is no doubt sincere when he says that he would give Arabs full civil rights in a Greater Israel, but he can be viewed as the more benign face of a right-wing one-state ideology. Others on the right who talk of one state want mainly to sanctify the annexing, in some form, of occupied territory. As Margalit puts it, “The rest really believe in apartheid in the West Bank. They believe in full surveillance, full dominion, something resembling a Stasi state as in that film "The Lives of Others."

When we look at Bennett’s plan it is apparent that this is what he advocates. 

But just as it was important for Israelis and their supporters to have realized that the Arabs had to fight as long as they could, it is equally important to realize that the fight is over. There is no longer any threat to Israel’s existence. There has not been since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and probably not since the 1967 war. Today, Israel has peace treaties with its main Arab opponents, Egypt and Jordan, Syria in the midst of its civil war is hardly a threat, and Iran, despite its bluster about wanting Israel to disappear, has never suggested that it plans to be the instrument of that demise. It is not likely to ever get the bomb, but even if it did, Israel’s own atomic bomb would be more than an adequate deterrence to any attempted attack, as would its iron done. Talk of needing more territory for its security, (which would have no effect on any threat from Iran) is blatantly and transparently dishonest, for if Israel’s border of 1948 could withstand the Arab armies, surely the much improved 1967 borders, could and would do so. But the so-called military threat is a phony, trumped up, excuse for the messianic drive for the annexation of Judea and Samara, as Israel likes to call the West Bank.

And opposition to the two state solution now comes from the many propaganda outlets for whatever the new Israeli policy is. Like the old communist party and their adherents, the Israeli propaganda machine, and their adherents, fall in line.

Thus the American Jewish Committee, gives voice to the new paradigm through an article by Lt. Col. (res.) Avital Leibovich writing in the New York Times she argues:

Recent statements by Sweden’s new prime minister and a nonbinding British resolution recognizing a Palestinian state could damage peace prospects by creating false expectations among Palestinians. Such recognition is premature. A two-state solution can only be achieved through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

Of course, what that means is that Israel insists on the right to veto any Palestinian state. It is more than apparent that it is not negotiating in good faith, and even as it has pretended to negotiate, it has constantly created ”facts on the ground”, which make a mockery of those negotiations. As the new position against a two state solution become increasingly shrill, even if not yet official, it is apparent that negotiations are now, and have always been, a mere pretense toward the drive for a “Greater Israel.” Gaza is to remain the great prison, where the majority of Palestinians are to be confined, without any rights, except such as Israel may deign to grant them, or that may be extracted by resistance, at great cost in human lives and suffering.

But let us look at the words of the Israeli spokes person explaining why a Palestinian state cannot come into being:

Any nation wishing to declare independence should meet three essential elements: a strong central government, control of defined territory and security. The Palestinian Authority does not yet meet any of them.

Why does it not meet these criteria? It is because Israel has not allowed it to! The P.L.O. is beholden to Israel for the collection of its taxes, which Israel withhold at its whim. It is responsible for security as Israel’s agent, much like Vichy was in occupied France, and as for defined territory, it would be clearly defined if Israel would stop grabbing more and more chunks.

Then the good lieutenant colonel (res) tells us that they can’t trust Mahmoud Abbas, because he isn’t popular enough. Is it any wonder, when he is seen as Israel’s poodle?

The excuses are legion. Abbas is too weak. He does not speak for the Gazans. They can only deal with someone who can speak for all Palestinians. So Hamas agrees to place itself under the P.L.O. Oh no, we will not deal with a unity government. The fact is that they have no desire to negotiate. Facts on the ground is the name of the game.

And then we hear the usual canard about Hamas. They will not recognize Israel. But now they said they are willing to abide by any treaty the P.L.O. negotiates. But they don’t trust them. But what about the fact that the charter of Likud forbids any ceding of any part of the West Bank? No one is supposed to know that, or mention it.

Facts on the Ground! Sincere negotiations require that the status quo be maintained, if not the status quo ante. Absent that, negotiations are a fig leaf for the endless and relentless creeping annexation of the West Bank, and the endless blockade of Gaza.

No wonder many Palestinians prefer a resistance leadership, rather than what they see as a collaborationist entity. Israel can’t have it both ways. It demands that Abbas collaborate and then claims they can’t negotiate with him because his collaboration has hurt his popularity. They can’t negotiate with their friends, and they certainly can’t with their enemies. But they can create facts on the ground.

And so we move to the final solution. An Apartheid state, with some Bantustans, and a Gaza under endless siege, a truly large, but not economically viable, Bantustan.

I welcome comments, but will not publish any, unless they have a unique relevance to the segment under discussion, until this series is complete.

I AM A JEW (PART XVIII - Colonialization at its worst!)

As the title shows this is the 18th part (actually the 19^th, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on the parts.

Part I, Part II, Part III, Special Bulletin, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, Part IX, Part X, Part XI, Part XII, Part XIII, Part XIV, Part XV, Part XVI and Part XVII.

I have written at length about Israeli unending expansionist policies and its treatment of its indigenous Arab population.

In particular, my post "I AM A JEW (PART XV - A Return to a Defense of Israel’s Policies & a Rebuttal)" shows the unending encroachment by Israel of the Western Bank, until less and less land is left to the indigenous Arab population

The deception in this campaign and the contempt that Israel has shown for the International community and even the United States can best be illustrated by its policies in Jerusalem.

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu has declared "We will continue to build in Jerusalem, our eternal capital."

But how many are aware that a Capital needs to have foreign embassies to function as a Capital and that means, at least a tacit recognition by the International community of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel. But there is not a single country in the world, including the US, that recognizes Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel. According to the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews:

Countries that have diplomatic relations with Israel—including the United States—have their embassies located outside of Jerusalem, mainly in Tel Aviv, and citizens born in Jerusalem are not officially listed in American documents as having been born in Israel.

But the issue between Israel and the Palestinians has never been about the Jerusalem, as the city has long been constituted. The Palestinians have long been willing to let Israel have Jerusalem as its capital and the P.L.O.’s acceptance would quickly bring International recognition. But Israel has not and has never been content with having the Jerusalem that has its holy sites and that has a majority Jewish population. It knows the Arabs want a piece of Jerusalem that is primarily populated by Palestinians as its own Capital, and that this is a sin qua non for the P.L.O. in peace negotiations.

So instead of trying to find a sensible demarcation line between the two ethnic groups, it has chosen to invent a new Jerusalem, which not only encompasses the historic Jerusalem, but a new invented Jerusalem that encompasses territory that has never been part of the city of Jerusalem.

B'Tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories informs us, and I quote:

Between 1948 and June of 1967, Jerusalem was divided in two: West Jerusalem, which covered an area of about 38 square kilometers was under Israeli control, and East Jerusalem, which contained an area of some 6 sq. km, was ruled by Jordan. In June 1967, following the 1967 War, Israel annexed some 70 sq. km to the municipal boundaries of West Jerusalem, and imposed Israeli law there. These annexed territories included not only the part of Jerusalem that had been under Jordanian rule, but also an additional 64 square kilometers, most of which had belonged to 28 villages in the West Bank, and part of which belonged to the municipalities of Bethlehem and Beit Jala. Following their annexation, the area of West Jerusalem tripled, and Jerusalem became the largest city in Israel. (Emphasis added)

And so Israel, without regard to any Palestinian rights, seizes, expropriates, steals, (or whatever you want to call its land seizures) Palestinian land and declares all these former 28 Palestinian villages part of Jerusalem. This one could hope, is a way for Palestinians to be given an area for their capital that is called Jerusalem. But even here, Israel is determined to thwart this aspiration, and is incorporating these new settlements into the new Jerusalem, in order to make sure that Palestinians cannot claim even a pseudo Jerusalem for their own Capital.

For more on Jerusalem, I refer the reader to therealnews.com where a video discussion is available.

Again I find myself quoting from Jeff Halper, the Director of Icahd the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, for nothing I can say can put the situation in better perspective.

Well, I think--look, I think the basic problem is that there's an entire disconnect between, on the Palestinian side, resistance and, on the Israeli side, occupation and military force, and any political process. In other words, there is no more political process. The two-state solution is gone. The Kerry initiative failed.

 And Israel is in the process of finalizing its Judaization of Jerusalem. There is no more Palestinian East Jerusalem. It's buried under the weight of settlements and Israeli highways. Israelis are moving in just freely into Palestinian neighborhoods and taking them over. And in a sense, then, what was resistance to try to get a Palestinian state or try to resolve the problem is simply there is no resistance because there's no political process. And so it's all declined into just lashing out, you know, the driving of cars and killing people by trains… there's nothing else to do if you're a Palestinian but just to lash out or be solemn and stay at home and watch your home being taken or being demolished.

 And on the Israeli side as well, the attack on Gaza this summer, the everyday killing of Palestinians in Jerusalem, in the West Bank, everywhere, is also indicative of the fact that the violence on the Israeli side is disconnected from anything political. In other words, we're in a stage where Israel says, no more [two-state] solution, it's over, and you either live with us and submit or you get out or you die. That's really the Israeli message, so that I think on both sides the violence is increasing, but it's increasing with no political context whatsoever.

But it has now become obvious that in all these years of negotiations with the P.L.O., Israel’s negotiations have never been in good faith, with the possible exception of those conducted by the martyred, Yitzhak Rabin. He paid with his life for conducting serious negotiations.

Now the pretense of decades of insincere “negotiations”, which always had, intentionally,  one or more conditions that Israel knew would not, could not, be accepted by the Palestinians, stands exposed.

Israel will not accept anything less than the complete annexation of the West Bank, - it intends to seize and occupy all of Palestine.

The entire pretense has come to an end!!!

Naftali Bennett, a member of the Netanyahu government, as minister of the economy, and leader of the Jewish Home Party in Israel’s coalition government ends the pretense.  In an op-ed article in the New York Times entitled: “For Israel, Two-State Is No Solution” he writes:

The time has come to rethink the two-state solution.

I give Mr. Bennett credit for one thing. An honest announcement for what has long been Israeli policy hidden behind insincere pronouncements and insincere negotiations, while all the while gobbling up Palestinian lands and forcing Palestinians into ever-smaller Bantustans.

What does Mr. Bennett propose in specifics? No more negotiations.

Instead he would give the Palestinians these portions of the West Bank and I quote:

known as Areas A and B, according to the Oslo Accords.

According to the The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD):  

Area A comprises 18% of the West Bank, B another 22%, leaving a full 60%, Area C, including most of Palestinian farmland and water, under exclusive Israeli control. - These areas, comprising 64 islands, shape the contours of the “cantons” Sharon proposed as the basis of the future Palestinian state. The emerging Bantustan will thus consist of five truncated cantons: a northern one around Nablus and Jenin; a central one around Ramallah; a southern one around Bethlehem and Hebron; enclaves in East Jerusalem; and Gaza. In this scheme Israel will expand from its present 78% to 85-90%, with the Palestinian state confined to just 10-15% of the country. 

ICAHD goes on to explain:

Israel defines its policy of ensuring permanent control over the Occupied Territories as “creating facts on the ground.” In this conception, Israeli control must be made immune from any external or internal pressures to remove Israel from the Occupied Territories (which Israel vehemently denies is an occupation at all), as well as to foreclose forever the possibility of a viable and truly sovereign Palestinian state. Nevertheless, …(they) recognize that Israel needs a Palestinian state, since it can neither extend citizenship to the Territories’ three and a half million Palestinians nor deny it to them. It also needs a Palestinian state to relieve itself of the necessity of accepting the refugees. A Bantustan, a cantonized Palestinian mini-state controlled by Israel yet possessing a limited independence, thus solves Israel’s fundamental dilemma of how to keep control over the entire country yet “get rid of” its Palestinian population (short of actual “transfer”).

In quoting the above I deleted a reference to Sharon’s plan, because what we are talking about is Bennett’s. But it isn’t new. It had been the late Sharon’s long ago. It just wasn’t publicized.

Under Bennet’s plan the Palestinians would be crowded into small non-contingent areas, scattered around Palestine, with no connection between them, subject to Israeli entry and exit controls and completely dependent for their survival on the beneficence of the Israeli government. Were the South-Africans any different?

This is how infoplease.com described them:

In 1962 the South African government established the first of the bantustans, the Transkei, as the homeland of the Xhosa people, and granted it limited self-government in 1963, later becoming "independent." Bophuthatswana, Ciskei, and Venda were also granted "independence," but no nation other than South Africa recognized them. Lebowa, Kangwane, Gazankulu, Qwaqwa, KwaZulu, and KwaNdebele were declared "self-governing" in the 1970s.

None of the reserves were viable nations; they were made up of broken tracts of poor-quality land, riddled with erosion and incapable of supporting their large designated populations. With no industry, opportunities for employment were few.

Can anyone find significant differences between South Africa’s policy under Apartheid and the Bennett proposal?

Allow me to show the reader a map of the proposed plan:

The little brown spots would be what the Palestinians would be crowded into. Carter may have been pre-mature in talking about apartheid, but he sure was prophetic.

As I have said in previous posts the governing party in Israel is Likud. It’s Original Party Platform, according to the Jewish Virtual Library states:

a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel and frustrates any prospect of peace.

Given this platform, how could anyone ever have been deceived into believing that a two state solution was possible under such a government? It is not Hamas and certainly not the P.L.O. that stands in the way of an end to the conflict. It is the messianic aim of Israel's ruling party, to do that which Bennett proposes. His talk about building the Palestinian economy is necessary window-dressing to an Apartheid plan that keeps Palestinians outside of Palestine forever as refugees, not ever to be allowed to return to ancestral homes, and to keep such Palestinians as remain in Palestine as a discriminated against, poverty stricken, minority, with few civil rights, and in so far as some remaining in Israel may keep their vote, it will always intend to be, and will remain, a vote that has no influence, and even less power.

An American liberal community cannot, or at least should not, be a party to such human rights abuses. It cannot, it must not, turn its back on its long commitment to civil and human rights. To make an exception for Israel is worse than to have sanctioned the abuses that the Jewish community so long opposed, fought against, and in some cases died for, in the United States.

I welcome comments, but will not publish any, unless they have a unique relevance to the segment under discussion, until this series is complete.

I AM A JEW (PART XIII - The Death of Klinghoffer & The Israeli Propaganda Machine)

As the title shows this is the 13th part (actually the 14^th, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on the parts.

Part I, Part II, Part III, Special Bulletin, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, Part IX, Part X, Part XI and Part XII.

I have chosen to continue to address the Klinghoffer controversy because it so well illustrates the Israeli propaganda machine.

As I illustrated in my last post this is an invented controversy that exploits the children of the slain Klinghoffer, who would have issued a statement when they first saw the opera in 1991 if they had found it offensive. They issue it now because they have been asked to. The propaganda machine has decided to go into action now, because following Gaza, there is increasing outrage, with the British Parliament (House of Commons) voting 274-12 in favor of a motion for UK recognition of a Palestinian state, and Sweden announcing that it will recognize a Palestinian state.

But it isn’t only the demonstrators; the politicians jump on the bandwagon. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Gov. George Pataki and two U.S. congressmen are among hundreds expected outside the Metropolitan Opera. Did any of them see the opera or is it politically expedient to be there?

Interestingly enough the “The Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish group, said the play (Opera) is not anti-Semitic …”  

And this is what the editor of The Jewish Week had to say about it: 

Well, I saw it.

 And I’m not sure which was more of a letdown, the hubbub over the show or the show itself.

 Let’s start with the critics and protesters, since they are responsible ultimately for turning the show into the most buzzed about cultural happening in New York (at least since the close of the Jeff Koons retrospective on Sunday at the Whitney Museum).

 By the time I settled into my seat on Monday night — after months of cries of “anti-Semitism” and “glorification/humanization of terrorists” filling my email box — I was expecting Shylock meets “Natural Born Killers.”

 Not even close. Whatever the original intentions of composer John Adams and librettist Alice Goodman when they created the opera about 25 years ago, the latest production casts the killers as not particularly likable, violent thugs and puts Leon Klinghoffer at the moral center. So much so that the show’s effort to provide a measure of absolution for the terrorists near the end comes off as contrived and heavy handed, and is immediately trumped by the final monologue from Klinghoffer’s wife, Marilyn….

 But after actually seeing the production, this seems wrong-headed: Compared to the anti-Semitic fare widely available on the Internet and Arabic television, this show could pass as an anti-terrorism public service announcement.

But while these distractions from what Israel is doing are being orchestrated in New York, the International community is increasingly concerned about continuing, and even increasing building activity on the West Bank and in Jerusalem.

As I have stated above the UK and Sweden have started to react.

Haaretz reports here and here:

The EU’s ambassador to Israel, Lars Faaborg-Andersen, is set to relay the message to Israel…

The two-page document defines several of the EU’s “red lines” regarding Israeli actions in the West Bank:

 1. Construction in the Givat Hamatos neighborhood, beyond the Green Line in Jerusalem: The document said that construction in that area would jeopardize the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as the capital of both states. The EU “cautions the Israeli government not to move ahead with tenders and construction. Such a development would constitute one more grave “fact on the ground” which would be liable to crucially prejudge the outcome of peace negotiations,” the document reads.

 2. Construction in the E1 area between Ma’aleh Adumim and Jerusalem: The document said construction in that area would also jeopardize the possibility of contiguous Palestinian state, and added that it has already publicly and strongly opposed plans for E1’s development.

 3. Further construction in the Har Homa neighborhood in Jerusalem, beyond the Green Line.

 4. Israeli plans to relocate 12,000 Bedouin without their consent in a new town in the Jordan Valley, expelling them from lands in the West Bank, including E1: “The EU strongly urges Israel to put these plans on hold and search for other solutions together with the concerned populations and the Palestinian Authority. The EU underlines that implementing those plans may amount to a serious breach of International Humanitarian Law (IV Geneva Convention),” the document reads.

In the meantime Economy Minister Naftali Bennett told Army Radio that:

...more housing for Jews in the predominantly Arab eastern half of the city as well as a more forceful response from police and security services is the formula for neutralizing the unrest.

 “It’s quite acceptable to think that what motivates our enemies is despair,” he said. “On the contrary, they are driven by the hope and aspiration to evict us from here. And they think that if they commit more terrorist atrocities then we will throw our hands up in despair and flee.”

 “What we need to do is to say, ‘We are staying here, we’re building in our capital,’ and I call on the prime minister to expedite the approval of construction permits,” Bennett said. “Without sovereignty, there can be no security. There’s no need to wait for a terrorist attack in order to put down the iron fist, and we have the means to do so.”

But what is the true nature of Jerusalem? What constitutes Jerusalem?

Jerusalem Online helps us to understand. Israel’s definition of Jerusalem is invented. As the article explains:

Forty-seven years ago… a decision was made that would dubiously be accepted quietly today: to annex the Arab areas of the city that were under Jordanian sovereignty, and several villages nearby along with it… From 6 square miles it has become a city of 70 square miles... since 1967, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians under Israeli sovereignty have a special status of residents without full citizenship. (Emphasis added)

And even while the Israeli government’s Economics minister talks about more oppression, more confiscation, Gazans can‘t even get drinking water.

From the Times of Israel:

There is a serious humanitarian crisis in Gaza and water is at its center. Holding water issues hostage to the conflict will have dire consequences for Palestinians in Gaza, Israelis and Egyptians. Directly due to the hostilities, an estimated 1.2 million Palestinians in Gaza have no running water. There exists insufficient electricity in Gaza to treat or pump out sewage. This will no doubt result in even higher than present levels of drinking water contamination that risk the outbreak of pandemic disease, such as cholera and typhoid. The health risk is compounded by the present inability to even chlorinate drinking water

 This situation requires an urgent response if the outbreak of pandemic disease is to be avoided. Pandemics risk Palestinian, Israeli and Egyptian populations.

And what’s ahead! More building on Arab land; more confiscation of Arab land; more oppression.

And an unending attempt to distract Americans of all faiths and creeds and political orientations from the crimes being committed by the Israeli government, by having a fabricated controversy over an Opera that will be seen by less than 28,000 people, if its seven performances are sold out to include standing room.

I welcome comments, but will not publish any, unless they have a unique relevance to the segment under discussion, until this series is complete.