Jimmy Carter, Gaza and me!

On Sunday, May 3^rd an article appeared in my local newspaper, The Record, entitled "Carter calls life in Gaza 'intolerable'."

I reproduce the article below:

Since the clipping is difficult to read I reproduce the text below:

Carter calls life in Gaza 'intolerable'

 Former US president Jimmy Carter said Saturday that eight months after a bloody war in the Gaza Strip the situation there remains “intolerable”. 

 Carter and his delegation were supposed to visit the isolated territory but earlier this week called it off, citing unspecified security concerns. 

 Speaking to reporters in Jerusalem, Carter said he was still determined to work for a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. 

 “What we have seen and heard only strengthens our determination to work for peace,” he said. “The situation in Gaza is intolerable. Eight months after a devastating war, not one destroyed house has been rebuilt and people cannot live with the respect and dignity they deserve.” 

 More than 2,000 Palestinians were killed in the 50-day summer war between Israeli forces and Hamas militants who fired rockets into Israel.  

Earlier in the day, Carter, 90, visited Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah and laid a wreath on the grave of former leader Yasser Arafat. 

 Although he brokered the first Israeli-Arab peace treaty during his presidency, Carter outraged many Israelis with his 2006 book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." He's also repeatedly reached out to Gaza's Islamic Hamas leaders, considered terrorists by much of the West. 

 Carter met with a group of Israelis living in towns bordering Gaza and heard about life under the threat of rocket attacks and militant infiltrations from Gaza. 

 He said that he had no interest in meeting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has ignored him in the past. 

 "This time we decided it was a waste of time to ask," Carter said. "As long as he is in charge, there will be no two-state solution and therefore no Palestinian state." 

On May 5^th the inevitable outrage of anything that is critical of Israel appeared in the Record as a Letter to the Editor. I reproduce it below:

Once again the clipping is hard to read and so I transcribe it below:

Carter’s views show ignorance

 Regarding "Carter calls life in Gaza 'Intolerable' (PageA-l6, May 3)":

So, former President Jimmy Carter asserts not one destroyed house has been rebuilt" In Gaza. Has he ever asked where the billions of dollars sent in aid to the governments in Gaza or the West Bank have gone or are going?

 The apologist for terrorists will not visit Gaza, citing "unspecified security concerns." From the terrorists he has championed? When has Carter condemned the suicide bombings of innocent civilians or the sheltering of rocket launchers at hospitals and schools ?

 And when has he denounced Hamas' refusal to accept the state of Israel? Yet he castigates Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying there will be no two-state solution "as long as he is in charge." The Israeli people put him in charge. So Carter would have him removed? Marginalized?

 Carter is an embarrassment to the office of president of the United States. And yet, again, what is more shameful, our foreign policy leaders, including the current president, Secretary of State John Kerry and members of Congress, do not condemn him for aiding and comforting terrorists and eviscerating the hopes and dreams of people for peace in the Middle East.

 David Molk

This letter produced an immediate reaction on my part prompting me to take pen to paper, or rather fingers to keyboard,  and caused this reply to appear in the Record on May 10, 2015.

Once again its transcription follows:

Carter's work has aided Israel security

 Regarding "Carter's views show ignorance" (Your Views, May 5):

 The writer accuses former President Jimmy Carter of showing ignorance, but instead it is the ignorance of the writer that comes through.

 The writer asks: "Has he [Carter] ever asked where the billions of dollars sent in aid to the governments in Gaza have gone?"

 Just about a month ago, on April 13, the Jerusalem Post had this headline: "International donors fail to deliver promised aid to Gaza." And besides, the Israeli blockade makes it all but impossible for building materials to be delivered.

 The writer repeats the propaganda of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee by asking if Carter has denounced Hamas' refusal to accept the state of Israel.

 But acceptance is a two-way street. The writer ought to ask when will Israel agree to recognize a Palestinian state or its right to exist? Why should an oppressed people give recognition to their oppressors? The PLO has recognized Israel's right to exist and what has it gotten in return?

Carter probably has done more for the security of Israel than any other person by brokering peace between Egypt and Israel. In return he gets only hatred, because he rightly criticizes Israeli policy toward the Palestinians.

 The Israeli people chose Benjamin Netanyahu as their prime minister in the recent election. But in a democracy the people are sovereign. but not necessarily wise, and with Palestinians in the occupied territories unable to vote in Israeli elections, it puts into question whether Israel is, in fact, a democracy.

 Emil Scheller 

Fort Lee, May 8

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office. 

People Can’t Seem To Get Their Facts Right! (Comments)

On April 6th, 2015 I posted a commentary on my blog entitled "People Can’t Seem To Get Their Facts Right!" where I re- published a letter that had appeared in the North Jersey newspaper the Record and which, as is so often the case these days, had set forth totally erroneous facts.

I took the letter writer to task and published the incontrovertible facts.

Both letters were re--produced in my post together with transcriptions of their contents. I urge the reader to read, or re-read my post, that can be found here.

After the post was distributed Albert Nekimken of Vienna, Virginia posted a comment directly to my blog and the comment can be found there but to save the reader to trouble of accessing the earlier blog entry I transcribe his comments here:

To describe Mr. Scheller as a "stickler for details" is likely an understatement. Yet, he probably omitted a few additional instances when American presidents lost patience with Israel's refusal to bend to U.S. leadership. ...And then there are the series of incidents involving Israeli spying on the U.S., most recently its alleged spying on the U.S.-Iran negotiations. Just as spying among friends reflects business as usual, Obama and Netanyahu appear to have a realistic assessment of each other, their respective political situations and their views on the Middle Eastern neighborhood. Both Obama and Netanyahu have been faulted mercilessly by critics over their public disagreement with how to proceed with Iran negotiations, but this is highly unlikely to undermine the fundamental working relationship between the two countries.

It's worth noting that the U.S. spent the past month upgrading and testing its arsenal of bunker-buster conventional bombs that, in the present geopolitical context, have only one identifiable target.

I also received a comment from Stephen Baird, MD of Solana Beach, California who made the following observation.

You do have your facts straight.  As a note added in proof, I attended a series of lectures two weeks ago by Dr. Jacob Goldberg, currently a Professor in Israel, who was also an adviser to Ehud Barak when he was Prime Minister of Israel.  Goldberg gives a series of lectures on the Middle East every year at the San Diego Jewish Community Center.  This year he concentrated on the negotiations with Iran over the possible development of a nuclear weapon and on the Israeli elections.  One of the "facts" he noted was that the last five years have represented the best ever in US-Israeli cooperation on matters of security.  The idea that President Obama hates Israel is just mythology.  True, he doesn't like Prime Minister Netanyahu but lots of Israelis don't either.  What Bibi did just before the polls closed by putting out a TV ad noting that Arabs were voting in droves was just despicable.  Perhaps President Obama's antipathy to Bibi is entirely justified.

Additional comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

Law Enforcement, Race and the Gun Culture – III

This is the third in this series. I recommend that you read or re-read Part I, which you can find here as well as Part II, which you can find here.

In both Parts I and II I outlined misbehavior by police in my own experience, as well in the news. I don’t want the reader to come away as a result with the impression that I think the police, as a whole, is corrupt or anxious to kill. It is the usual situations of a few bad apples.

But there are many important reasons why there is often incompetence and/or corruption in the police. Most important is that the police in the US are unionized. I happen to favor unions in the private sector, where the bargaining power of the individual worker is none existent, and where the demise of unions is a major factor in the wage stagnation that we are now experiencing.

But the police are different. The police are in many ways a quasi-military force, who like the military, often have to put their lives on the line, and have the power of life or death over those they confront. It is vital that they obey orders from their superiors, and not put the interest of themselves, or of their comrades, over that of the public. Insubordination ought to no more be tolerated in the police, than it would be in the military.

Can anyone image a members of our military turning their back in disrespect on the President of the United States, or large numbers staging a slow-down because they are displeased with the policies instituted by their superiors, as the police recently did relative to the mayor in NYC. A quick court marshal would follow. We need the same discipline for our police forces throughout the US.

All this occurred in New York because the mayor, who has a son of color, expressed empathy for the demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights to peacefully demonstrate, and put into words what every father of an African-American knows (but which is probably good advise for all races) be very polite and non-confrontational with the police. Or maybe it occurred because the police were angry because they liked the freedom to stop and frisk at random in neighborhoods of color, which the new mayor and new police commissioner ended.

But what finally triggered the expression of their pent-up anger, was the assassination of two of their comrades by a deranged man, who had indicated that much of his anger against the police was triggered by the demonstrations. Of course, his anger wasn’t just directed against the NYC police, for before undertaking that wanton act, he shot his girlfriend, and thereafter shot himself, something he had considered doing in the first place.

So what are we to make of this wanton killing by a deranged man. The head of the police union immediately pointed the finger at the mayor.

I rather think that there is a clearer connection, for it falls into line with the many killings by deranged men at schools, recently at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Connecticut. See here, but less unusual then most think. CNN reports: 

After Tuesday's shooting at an Oregon high school, many media outlets, including CNN, reported that there have been 74 school shootings in the past 18 months.

That's the time period since the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, where 20 children and six adults were shot to death.

It prompted me to publish a letter in the North Jersey Record, which I reproduce below:

As I did in my previous blog posts, I set forth below the transcript of the letter for those who may have difficulty reading the clipping.

The tragic death of New York Police officer Rafael Ramos makes him another victim of a deranged man with a gun, though it has been presented as being the result of demonstrations against the killing of unarmed African-American men, and even as a result of New York Mayor Bill de Blasio’s action in ending the racially charged and racially profiled policy of stop and frisk.

It is no such thing!

It is no different from the many tragic death around the country, highlighted most recently by the murders at Sandy Hook in Connecticut. These are murders by deranged persons, who should have been in treatment, and who have easy access to guns.

How much longer must this country live with an atmosphere where the joy of owning a gun and the feeling of power that it gives its owners, not to speak of the all the money to be made by manufacturers and dealers, trumps the right to life of innocent people, whether they are school children or police officers.

It is difficult to understand why the right to own and drive an automobile can be licensed, but the right to own and shoot a gun cannot.

The second amendment has been completely distorted and given a meaning, which it does not have, and was never meant to have by its authors and did not have for most of this countries history.

Emil Scheller
Fort Lee, December 27

As I write this blog post I am reminded of the reaction of the President of the NRA, the lobbying arm of the gun manufacturers, after the Sandy Hook shooting. He said:

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Well, the two cops had guns. It didn’t stop their killer. Does the NRA care? Do they care about anything but the profits of the gun manufacturers for whom the solution will always be “we want to sell more guns – we want more profits!!!

But let us not be deceived. We have many more problems with our criminal justice system.

I will go into greater detail in future posts. But for now allow me to just set out a graph that speaks volumes.

What is there about the US that would make us have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world?

I will come back to this in another context, but for now allow me to express my disappointment that our President, in his sixth State of the Union address, did not speak about this subject. It is one of the few areas where he might be able to find common ground with Republicans.

The Washington Post reports: 

But on issues of sentencing reform and prison recidivism, Republicans — especially several governors in Southern states — have been the leaders, earning praise from prison reform groups on both sides of the aisle for efforts to save money by implementing rehabilitation programs and curbing skyrocketing prison costs.

A nonpartisan study issued last year about how one of the bluest states in the union, Massachusetts, could cut prison costs credited Republicans states for how they have tackled prison reform…

‘This is our chance to show we can provide solutions to affect significant problems,’ said Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

The renewed focus on costsaving reforms marks a dramatic, decade-long shift by Republican governors, many of whom previously won election by stumping on tough-on-crime platforms.

But, as many of those governors have noted, one way to cut state costs is to decrease the number of people being locked up for nonviolent offenses and rid the law books of mandatory minimum sentences for such offenses.

In addition to Perry, prominent Republicans who once trumpeted tough-on-crime ­stances and now call for sentencing changes and rehabilitation programs for drug and other nonviolent offenders include former Florida governor Jeb Bush and former House speaker Newt Gingrich. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a tea party hero, has made reform of mandatory minimum sentences a major focus in recent months.

“We’re not a soft-on-crime state, you know what I’m saying? . . . We’re tough on crime,” Perry said. “But I hope we are also seen as a smart-on-crime state.”

That is quite a change from the tough on crime of Republicans in years and decades past, when, e.g. George H.W. Bush used the famous, or infamous, Willie Horton ad (See here) in his campaign against Michael Dukakis.

But whatever the past, this is an issue that now appears to have Republican support, and if the President and the Democratic Party don’t seize the opportunity, the chance for reform may well be wasted.

I will have more to say in the area of the American Justice system next time.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

While I have decided not to dwell on the Israeli issue any further, I cannot ignore the outrage of the Boehner/Netanyahu axis. They are both a disgrace in meddling in the domestic affairs of the other’s country. Netanyahu will face elections in Israel on March 17 according to Fox News, but instead of campaigning in Israel, he will campaign by addressing the US Congress on March 3, two weeks before the Israeli election. This is a blatant and transparent attempt on the part of both the Speaker and the Prime Minister to meddle in the affairs of the other country. Even while this is likely to aid Netanyahu in Israel, it is at the same time an attempt to embarrass the President of the US, by Netanyahu coming here, once again, in his ongoing and endless attempt to influence the US not to negotiate with Iran and instead go to war. He has said the US has no right to tell Israel not to attack Iran, which the US has never done, while trying to ensnare the US into war with Iran.

Netanyahu’s crude attempt to meddle in American domestic affairs has a long and infamous history. He is the proverbial child always crying wolf and has been doing so since more than two years. On September 12, 2012 I published an article entitled: “I am an American”, from which I quote:

But Netanyahu has gone out of his way to violate every rule of diplomatic behavior. In my view he has been a disaster for Israel. Since any Letter to the Editor has to be short I commend readers to "Peter Beinart on Netanyahu’s Bullying Act" from The Daily Beast.

That article relates in some detail Netanyahu’s long history of meddling in American politics, so much so that the Republican Secretary of State James Baker briefly had him banned from the State Department. But beyond that, and I quote from the article, “Netanyahu has been brazenly intervening in American politics—often with an eye to screwing Democratic presidents.”…

But now he has the gall to come to the US and use our airwaves to try to dictate American foreign policy. Appearing on US Television, Netanyahu declared: “Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.” I agree with the Prime Minster that no one has a right to place a “Red Light” before Israel. But, in fact no one has!!!...

The attempt by any country to dictate American policy, particularly on issues of war and peace must be rejected by all Americans.

What did the Prime Minister show to the US to demonstrate the imminent danger? Look here.

That was two years ago. Is Iran now in the final stage? Not even the man who keeps crying wolf claims that is the case. The negotiations, whether they finally succeed, or not, have delayed the Iranian progress. If the danger ever was anywhere near as imminent as the fear monger claimed, the Iranian’s would have the bomb today.

And what is the alternative to the present course? To go to war? Netanyahu is ready to hold the coat of the US. Israel is not about to commit that folly, nor would its military and intelligence agencies allow it. Should there be more sanctions by the US, which would end the negotiations, and worse, end the unity of the allies in imposing multi-lateral sanctions?

But quite aside from that, does his diagram look like an atomic bomb?

Here is a terrific YouTube video on that subject.



I urge the reader to watch it. If nothing else, it is funny and it does a good job of relating the history of the “the boy who cried wolf”. He points out that the cry that Iran is about to get “the bomb” goes back to 1992.

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

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.