Operation Jordan Is Palestine, Can it Happen?

“Building On History Will Help Establish A Palestinian Jordan While Ensuring Israel’s Sovereignty Over All of Its Soil”  

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION:

Operation Jordan Is Palestine (OJIP) complies with the Trump Administration’s proposed Executive Order(s) that dealing with Terrorism, Terrorist Supporters and Human Rights, as well as the UN relative to the Palestinian Authority (PA), while bringing new thoughts and options to the Middle East Peace Process. Overall, OJIP supports a two state solution based on current international agreements and actions, and will not only provide secure and safe borders for the State of Israel, but will provide Palestinian people with land, education, jobs and economic security. Additionally, it will usher in important governmental changes in Jordan, including the elimination of a Dictatorship that tortures, oppresses and restricts his own subjects while supporting terrorist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. Additionally, it will eliminate a Dictatorship that clearly violates Western Interests by supplying America’s enemies with money, heavy equipment and military supplies. As such, OJIP will save lives and taxpayer money, eliminate terrorism and increase democracy.

HIGHLIGHTS: a few examples 

  • OJIP complies with the Administration’s proposed Executive Order that will cease support for entities that support in terrorism or violate human rights.
  • OJIP complies with the Administration’s proposed Executive Order that ends financial support for UN programs that allow full participation by the PA.
  • OJIP recognizes that Jordan is the legitimate Arab state for Palestinians and accepts Israel’s identity as a Jewish state with full sovereignty over all of its soil west to the River Jordan including the West Bank/Judea and Samaria.
  • The OJIP plan aims to provide a practical, cost-effective, and feasible solution that leads to peace based on international treaties by which both the Jewish and Palestinian Arab existence and sovereignty are secured.
  • A recent poll shows that 63% of Palestinians in the West Bank would like to move or relocate somewhere else due to the bad economic and inhumane conditions brought by the Palestinian Authority
  • OJIP recognizes that the Muslim Brotherhood is openly operating in Jordan, and is an avid business partner of the Hashemite royal family, not a competitor.
  • Once the interim government is in the palace, it shall enhance the economy through transparency and simply not stealing the country’s funds.
  • OJIP has been created on the belief that the plan’s tenants will (and can) be accomplished without any new expenditures by the US and her allies (re-categorization or allocation of existing monies, combined with a phase out schedule is all that is needed).
  • The US has provided more than $20 billion on economic and military aid to the Jordanian Monarchy since 2000, as well as several billions to the Palestinian Authority. None of this money has brought peace any closer to reality, let alone enhanced the livelihoods of Jordanians and Palestinians. [http://mondoweiss.net/2015/11/spends-billion-foreign/ ]
  • Economically, the OJIP plan will create jobs, expand the economy, and ensure that Foreign Aid money is spent properly, saving taxpayers money.
  • This plan will help restore the Arab Palestinians right to Jordan, which has been ruled by an outsider family of 88 people from Saudi, the Hashemite’s.
  • OJIP protects American political, military and business interests in Jordan, while seeking to expand (and include) any and all parties’ that Jordan’s allies see fit to use in military, intelligence, and counter-terrorism cooperation operations.
  • OJIP does not change Jordan’s governmental structure(s). Rather, OJIP removes the royal figureheads while keeping the government and military bodies intact. This avoids any form of Arab Spring drama from happening.

 

OPERATION JORDAN IS PALESTINE – OVERVIEW

Main Document

 

OVERVIEW: Operation Jordan Is Palestine (OJIP): A Pathway to a Lasting Peace in the Middle East

Historically, achieving peace in the Middle East has been difficult and elusive and has negatively affected all interested parties in the region socially, politically, and economically.  Needless-to-say, all previous attempts to establish peace between the Palestinian Arabs and the Jews have failed costing the US and her allies huge amounts of funds as well as lives wasted on both the Palestinian and Israeli sides.

The OJIP seeks the implementation of the original historical agreements, which recognize 78% of British Mandate of Palestine as an Arab State, which is today’s Jordan and 22% of as a Jewish state, which is Israel, including all of the West Bank. [http://maurice-ostroff.tripod.com/id350.html]  And it does this through reforming Jordan and providing it with a leadership that will follow and comply with international law while creating a humane state with zero-Islamization.  As a result, OJIP is not seeking a regime change in Jordan, but simply an evacuation of the palace occupants, replacing the 88-member Hashemite family with a new leadership, while keeping the Jordanian regime, government structure, army, and all public bodies intact. This will re-establish Jordan as a reformed country and an economically and politically attractive homeland to Palestinians all over the world, including those in Israel (and the West Bank) and thus secures Israel’s sovereignty over all soil West to the River Jordan, including the West Bank.

The OJIP plan aims to provide a practical, cost-effective, and feasible solution that leads to peace based on international treaties by which both the Jewish and Palestinian Arab existence and sovereignty are secured. To accomplish this, the OJIP builds on the historical fact that both today’s Israel and Jordan are parts of the original British Mandate for Palestine. British Colonial Powers designated these lands as the future Jewish homeland in the 1917 Belfour Declaration. They were later reauthorized by the Faisal-Weizmann agreement, a covenant by which Arabs agreed to as the full “Judaization” of the land West to the River Jordan and the Land East to the river Jordan to become a homeland for the Arabs.

Therefore, OJIP recognizes that Jordan is the legitimate Arab state for Palestinians and accepts Israel’s identity as a Jewish state with full sovereignty over all of its soil west to the River Jordan including the West Bank/Judea and Samaria.  This plan also recognizes that most of today’s Jordanian population identifies as Palestinians. In fact, based on a US Embassy-Amman cable, Palestinians make more than 80% of Jordan’s population and all of those hold Jordanian passports. Additionally, Palestinians in the West Bank all hold Jordanian passports including all the Palestinian Authority’s leaders.  The Jordanian Citizenship Act, Article No.2, identities “all non-Jewish Palestinians” as natural-born Jordanians.  As a result, the majority of Palestinians in the West Bank travel with a Jordanian passport not a Palestinian one.  Taking this one-step further, thousands of Palestinian refugees in Syria hold Jordanian passports but are systematically denied ‘the right of return” to Jordan by King Abdallah, a matter that has brought international criticism on the King. [https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/07/jordan-palestinians-escaping-syria-turned-away] In addition, all Palestinian refugees in Lebanon could simply claim Jordanian citizenship by the Jordanian law itself; Article No.2, nonetheless, Jordan’s monarchy will not allow that.

Supporting this, a recent poll shows that 63% of Palestinians in the West Bank would like to move out or relocate somewhere else due to the bad economic and inhumane conditions brought by the Palestinian Authority. [http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Despite-surging-Hamas-popularity-Gazans-frustration-with-conflict-grows-405520]  Despite having Jordanian passports, King Abdallah II, restricts their entry to Jordan and harasses them upon even limited trips to their homeland, often forcing them to spend a day being interrogated by the Jordanian police.

As of today, Jordan’s Palestinians remain the majority in the country, with US Embassy-Amman cable confirming over 80% of 6.4 million Jordanian citizens. There are about 650,000 Syrian refugees registered in Jordan [https://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/country.php?id=107] and less than 200,000 Iraqis* (all have to register with UN or risk being deported upon any contact with Jordan’s authority, therefore the figures are accurate) despite the regime’s exaggerations of “millions of refugees already in the country”. In addition, those refugees have not shifted demographics against Palestinians, and cannot make any political difference because they are considered non-citizens who cannot vote. [*Jordan’s government “estimates that there are 500,000 Iraqi refugees in Jordan. An “unclassified” US Embassy Amman cable, which Jordan’s Opposition leader had worked on, in 2008, shows the actual figure to be less than 165,000 and many have returned home to Jordan then, UNHCR shows only 60,000 Iraqi refugees registered with it in Jordan, which confirms Jordan’s government is trying to exaggerate the actual number, most likely to get more aid].

Jordan’s royal family contains less than 100 individuals (88 to be exact), and for some unknown reason, they spend most of their time outside of the country. King Abdallah II, unlike his father, does not have much control or influence over Jordan’s army of intelligence. Those are under the direct, yet unpublicized, control of the CIA, The US Defense Intelligence Agency, the US Central Command, and the US Department of Defense. On top of that, the US subsidizes Jordan’s army to the tune of over $400 million a year. Additionally, the USA has just finished building “Jordan’s Great Wall”, a wall that runs along the country’s borders with Syria, Iraq, and Israel, who has almost finished a one-billion Dollar wall along the western Jordanian border.  With the king’s constant absence from Jordan, it has become fact that the royal family has nothing to do with Jordan’s security and the structure of the Jordanian state itself; in fact, their interests are focused on collecting taxes as absentee property owners. On the other hand, they are the reason Palestinians are still being called refugees, and the reason the Palestinians still don’t have a state of their own. Simply put, the Hashemite’s officially and openly call all 5.9 million Palestinians in Jordan as refugees “who must return to Palestine someday”.

On the other hand, Jordan’s Palestinians are not interested in “the right of return to Palestine”, as a US Embassy-Amman cable, titled “the Grand Bargain” explains they are interested in having civil rights in Jordan over return to Palestine. [https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08AMMAN391_a.html]

Further, support for Jordan’s royal family has vanished, the East Bankers or what some call as “Bedouins” have led the protests the king since 2011. The international media have documented this numerous times. “East Bankers” despise the Hashemite regime, and this conflict has escalated into countless events of violence and unrest. All major “Bedouin” cities have rebelled against the regime at least once since 2011, and the king has failed to either bring peace or any form of satisfaction for those. Therefore, the “Bedouins” will not defend or stand by the royal Hashemite family if they leave the country.

At this point, we would like to make it clear that the OJIP Plan is not calling for “a regime change” in Jordan. That is because the Jordanian Opposition Coalition and their supporters believe that the Hashemite royal family is not the true regime and head of state for Jordan, unlike Libya and Syria. Rather, to millions, the ruling family in Jordan are viewed more as occupants of the palace and tax collectors who mistreat their subjects, while the important agencies – security and intelligence systems – run independently and effectively under the supervision of US.  This is very similar to what is going on in Egypt. When Mubarak was in power, he was a very strong president. Yet the security and military systems that were in place were never compromised when Mubarak left, nor could Morsi change those. And even when Morsi was toppled, the security and military bodies kept the country intact and the borders with Israel safe, simply because those are too close to US Intelligence and military, and so are Jordan’s security agency.

This plan sees the necessity to simply let Jordan’s royal family evacuate the palace and move somewhere else, but rather suggest that they “not return to Jordan” from one of their ‘vacations’ or almost-fulltime stays in the West.  The Jordanian “state” and “agencies” are to remain untouched and intact, only the Palace will be evacuated and new occupants shall be installed through an interim government ushered in by Jordan’s army, which falls under the full control of the US.

Additionally, despite $1.6 billion given to Jordan’s king by the US alone, very little seem to filter down to Jordanians and as for Syrian refugees; the king’s government does not give any form of handouts, welfare, or education for the Syrian refugees. In addition, despite the heaviest taxation of Jordanians in modern times, there are no free services of any kind provided, except of course for the most basic – education. This has not stopped the king and his family from raising prices and taxes on consumer goods to fund the king’s pet projects, like the maintenance of his fleet of private jets that are used by his family for fun and travel. This has led to a stalled economy with a debt ratio of over 90% to GDP and the king for some reason, demanding more financial help from the West that goes into his Swiss accounts and leaves millions starving, homeless, unemployed, and uneducated.

At the same time, the royal family has been systematically playing both ends against the middle. On one hand, they openly tell the west that they are working hard to fight terrorism; yet on the other hand, countless media reports have documented the Royal Family’s theft of US and British weapons, as well as heavy equipment. Additionally, the media has document the sale of these items to ISIS, and other rouge elements in addition to being one of the largest oil buyers of ISIS oil as confirmed by global media.  [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/world/middleeast/cia-arms-for-syrian-rebels-supplied-black-market-officials-say.html?_r=0], [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3682655/87-000-stolen-British-bullets-hands-jihadis-cache-ammunition-stolen-Army-training-camp.html].

What makes the situation intolerable is that they are using profits from the transactions to promote blaming everything on Israel/Jews, and thus are promoting anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, anti-American and pro-Jihadi incitement through their Muslim Brotherhood partners as well as the king’s state media. [http://www.jerusalemonline.com/news/middle-east/israel-and-the-middle-east/op-ed-jordans-king-promotes-anti-semitism-15772]  At this point, it is worth noting that the terrorist group Hamas, which has killed many Israelis and Americans falls under the direct administration of the Muslim Brotherhood of Jordan, in fact, Hamas is officially Jordan’s MB’s “Palestine Chapter”. The Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan is a part of the regime, a fact that is fully-detailed in this plan. [http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/jordans-king-supports-isis-yes-you-did-read-this-right/2016/01/19/]. That makes the royal family of Jordan not America’s allies.

Finally, this plan recognizes that the Muslim Brotherhood is openly operating in Jordan, and is an avid business partner of the Hashemite royal family, not a competitor. In fact, historically, the MB has supported the Hashemite regime through the so-called Arab Spring, especially during the largest revolution in Jordan’s history in 2012. This revolution was launched by Jordan’s seculars, [http://www.timesofisrael.com/preaching-the-gospel-of-liberalism-to-the-jordanian-street/]  particularly the JOC. Nonetheless, the MB stood against it and publicly announced: “We won’t allow the king to fall”.[ https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3464/jordan-trouble]  And to this day, MB supports the jailing and torture of seculars by the king’s government. On top of that, the king has allowed the MB to take over the Jordanian parliament through proven-rigged elections. As a registered charitable organization in Jordan, the MB operates their own TV station in Jordan (which calls for killing Jews and Americans), have the nation’s fourth largest licensed daily newspaper that promotes hatred, and has announced many times over the years that “we are against a regime change” and that “the king is the man for us”.  In fact, the king’s own minister of political reform, Bassam Hadaddeen, announced, “The Muslim Brotherhood is a part of the regime”. For the record, most of MB’s Board of Directors are Bedouin East Bankers, not Palestinians, while Palestinians in Jordan, despite their avid hatred for Israel, hate the MB more for its alliance with the king.

This plan seeks to execute a feasible two state solution where Jordan is the natural homeland for all Palestinians, and Israel becomes sovereign over all soil west to the River Jordan.  This could only happen if the corrupt, terror-supporting and double-speaking Hashemite royal family leaves Jordan. This could happen anytime, Jordanians often revolt against the regime and then the king’s police force quiets them down, simply because the much stronger army won’t announce support for the revolutions, and American media ignores the unrest in Jordan. This plan sees a peaceful “evacuation” of the palace could softly happen if the US influences the Jordanian army and security agency to stand with the revolution the next time it breaks out.  The security agencies and army are already securing the country without any influence from the king who is mostly abroad, and nothing would happen if he simply announces he will not return.  Once that happens an interim government of pro-peace with Israel seculars could be ushered in, as was the case with every single government in the Middle East that has had a revolution in the last 70 years. Only that the US in most cases has failed to use its influences to secure that the right people are installed in interim governments.

Once the interim government is in the palace, it shall enhance the economy through transparency and simply not stealing the country’s funds. Therefore, the economy shall thrive and the US would not have to spend a cent more than it already does in Jordan. With a thriving economy, Jordan’s interim government will simply enact the Jordanian laws allowing Palestinians in the West Bank to relocate to Jordan, specially that 63% of them already which to move somewhere else. Those shall have an interest in living and working in an economically thriving Jordan. Work opportunities as well as a rewarding benefits/welfare system will be made available to those by the new interim government. All Palestinians refugees around the world would be welcomed to return to Jordan upon mere inaction of the Jordanian citizenship act, which already recognizes all Palestinians as citizens of Jordan.

The interim government will also offer job opportunities and economic incentives to Jordanian East bankers AKA “Bedouins” and West Bankers/Palestinians as well to secure acceptance and content from both.

The low-to-mid-level public servants of the Palestinian Authority will be recruited to relocate to Jordan and work with the interim government with better salaries. The fact that President Trump could stop PA’s funding will make it go bankrupt and may not be able to pay salaries to its public servants. Those will relocate to Jordan, this will sustain the new Jordan’s position as Palestine and bankrupt the Palestinian Authority of its human capital and expedite its demise.

After Jordan’s economy begins thriving, the interim government will issue a counterterrorism act banning all Islamists and affiliates of radical Islamist organizations from running for any office. Sisi of Egypt did the same. This wills secure the Muslim brotherhood have zero chance in winning any parliamentary seats or running for office.

Parliamentary elections will be held, followed by presidential elections. The interim president is the most likely to win as he or she will have access to the state media and organizations to secure his victory. In addition, Jordanians, will vote for improvement of their economic condition and the interim president could bring that easily if he or she does not steal like the king does.

 

Chaos is already expected in the Palestinian Authority territories because of in-house fighting in the PLO. If President Trump and the UK stop funding the PA, it will collapse. Israel could begin taking over PA areas to secure them from unrest and terror acts, eventually taking over the entire West Bank. This will happen while the new Jordan is thriving and welcoming Palestinians from the West Bank with open arms and offering them jobs and help.  After the PA officially ends and the New Jordan’s position is empowered, Israel could announce full official annexation of the West Bank.

Per Jordan’s citizenship act, Israeli Arabs, who mostly identify as “Palestinians with Israeli passports”, are also Jordanian citizens eligible for citizenship. The new Jordan will welcome them and recruit them for jobs and the thriving economic opportunities that would become in the country once the royal family leaves and the money they steal is directed towards the economy. While Israel honors and values its Arab citizens, this plan intends to defuse the demographic problems straining peace by absorbing as many Arabs in Israel as it could.

Modi’s Arrival to Israel Next Week Marks a Pivot for Both Countries

The arrival in Israel of Narendra Modi, will not only be the first visit of an Indian Prime Minister, it will mark a huge shift in India’s foreign policy as the Hindu country home to one billion people will openly pivot to the only Jewish State. India has always kept a balanced approached in the Middle East in order to build relationships with Israel and Arab countries.  When Modi was elected in May of 2014, he entered office under a wave of populism and Hindu nationalism.  Many Indians are wary of their Shiite neighbors in Pakistan as well as the dispute over Kashmir.

Modi made no secret of his admiration for Israel and saw his long time relationships in the private sector with Israeli tech companies as a blueprint to build a serious long term partnership on.

But perhaps the most important part of this trip is not where Modi is going or what Defense and other development deals he signs with Israel it is where he is not going.

An article in the Indian Express expresses the pivot perfectly:

“The fact the PM will not visit the Palestine territories – especially Ramallah, which is only a few kms away from the Israeli Knesset – is a major departure for India’s foreign policy. Essentially this indicates that India is ready to break from the past and de-hyphenate its relationship with Palestine from Israel. The Ministry of External Affairs has been advocating this strategy for some time, but New Delhi’s hesitation has cut across party lines. Balancing Israel and Palestine had become the hallmark of India’s diplomatic dance since relations were normalised in 1992.

It is in this context one should read the important Indian shift vis-à-vis Israel. During Abbas’ recent visit, Modi announced India’s support to the Palestinian cause and said that there should be “a sovereign, independent, united and viable Palestine, co-existing peacefully with Israel.” In the previous decade, the Indian statement was always caveated with the phrase, “with East Jerusalem as the capital”, but Modi chose to omit it altogether.”

India’s shift away from a Palestinian centric foreign policy will have deep ramifications on the Palestinian leaderships ability to play an anti-colonial PR game. For years third world countries saw India as a beacon for other former colonies. It is no accident that in recent years as Africa has grown closer to Israel, that India and Israel have also forged a unique alliance.

The more “Palestine” is seen as the real artificial presence residing in the heartland of the Jewish people subsisting from international assistance, then real peace can be achieved.  Modi’s visit destroys the “Palestinian” narritive and recalibrates the focus on India’s 2000 year old relationship with Israel and the Jewish people. This burgeoning partnership enhances Israel’s position as a world leader and boosts development in India.

Modi’s focus on building relationships with countries that are likeminded and valuable to the giant Hindu superpower will not only boost Israel, but rehape world geopolitics for years to come.

Are these the Final Borders Between Israel and “Palestine?”

This map has been circulating the web lately as possible outline for final borders between Israel and a demilitarized “Palestine.”

Image Source: Al- Monitor and Partners for a Progressive Israel

 

While the official policy of Israel Rising is to not support any sort of concessions to the creation of a sovereign Arab state within Israel’s heartland, the above borders would win the majority of Israel’s support. It should be noted that no “Palestinian” leader will ever support these border.  If anything the above map may very well be a long term interim deal where Israel annexes the grey and yet “Palestine” agrees to call these disputed in order to gain a state.

The problem with this approach is that Palestinian leaders will never truly end the conflict.  Any Israel is a bad Israel because a Jewish State essentially means that it is they who are the interlopers.  Afterall the entire Land of Israel is has always been historically Jewish.  Only due to the colonial asperations of the Roman Empire as well as Jihad of 7th and 8th Century Muslims were the Jews forcibly removed from their homeland.

By accepting the historic claims of Israel, the Palestinians render their claims baseless.

The above map is just another in a long line of giving in to international pressure no matter how attractive the final borders may seem.

Gaza Proves the Two State Solution Does Not Work

Originally published as: INTO THE FRAY- Gaza:The ultimate indictment of “two-statism”

The real humanitarian solution to the plight of Gaza lies not in its reconstruction, but in its deconstruction

…the prospective Palestinian state is bound to be a failed and repressive entity, and a permanent danger to its Israeli and Jordanian neighbors    Elliott Abrams, in a briefing to the Middle East Forum, June 15, 2017

 

Hamas wants Israel to supply it with electricity “or else”, but there is no reason why Israel should submit to Hamas extortion. It is not Israel’s obligation to satisfy the needs of a population that continues, through its ongoing support of Hamas, to pursue Israel’s destruction. Efraim Inbar, Gaza in the Dark Is Not So Terrible, June 18, 2017

 

What is the point of raising and spending many millions of dollars to rebuild the Gaza Strip just so it can be destroyed in the next war? It’s a harsh question. Given the region’s tragic history, it is also inevitable. New York Times Editorial, October 10, 2014

 

Once again Gaza is in the news.

 

Once again the specter of “humanitarian disaster” hovers over the population on the coastal enclave, the hapless victims of the hopelessly ill-conceived endeavor to foist statehood on the Palestinian-Arabs.

 

Inane and iniquitous idea

 

Ironically,  this time the deteriorating plight of the Gazans was not thrust into the media spotlight because of any  Israeli initiative—or indeed, not even because of any Israeli response to Palestinian aggression—but rather at the behest of  the nominal head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas.

 

It was, after all, at Abbas’s request that Israel reduced even further the already scant supply of electricity to the beleaguered territory, making life even more onerous for the unfortunate population of the Gaza Strip—apart, of course, from the vastly wealthy cliques of connected cronies.

 

Clearly, the power cuts were merely one additional measure of misery the average Gazan has had to endure since the fatally flawed formula of two-statism was instigated almost a quarter-century ago.

 

This inane and iniquitous idea has wrought almost every imaginable hardship on the residents of this ill-fated strip of land: Spiraling unemployment; collapsing infrastructure, domestic tyranny and fratricidal factionalism.

 

Depending on which report one chooses to lend credence to, unemployment has reached 40%-60% and is particularly severe among the young and the more educated segments of the population; up to 96%  of the water resources are reported to be unfit for drinking; the only power station has shut down because of a lack of fuel following, the refusal of Abbas to foot the bill; the supply of electricity has been cut from four hours a day to three; the lack of sewage treatment and disposal is becoming critical.

 

These then, are all the bitter fruits of two-statism.

 

Trying to solve the problem by reintroducing its cause?

 

Of course, one of the most absurd aspects of the discourse on the future of Gaza and how to handle the grave and growing problems of the area, is the prevailing platitude that the governance of the area should somehow be wrested from Hamas and restored to Abbas’s Fatah, whose corrupt and dysfunctional governance was the reason for Hamas’s ascendance in the first place. As if reinstating the cause for the current problem will somehow solve it.

 

Unsurprisingly, the Palestinian-Arabs, particularly those in Gaza, seem decidedly skeptical as to the efficacy of such a measure. Indeed, recent Palestinian polls point to wide spread dissatisfaction with Abbas and Fatah. Overall, in the Palestinian-administered territories, almost two thirds feel that Abbas, who has been in office three times his elected term, should resign, while 70% hold this view in Gaza. Indeed, the fear that Hamas may well win a new election is widely considered the reason that none have been held since 2005.

 

Moreover, it is widely acknowledged that without Israel’s military presence in Judea-Samaria, the Abbas regime would be speedily disposed of, as it was in Gaza. Accordingly, there is little reason to believe that, were Abbas’s control over Gaza reinstated, it could endure without restoring IDF presence there as well—hardly something advocates of Abbas’s return seem to advocate.

 

Nothing unpredictable, nor unpredicted.

 

The tragedy is that there is nothing about the Gaza fiasco that was not entirely foreseeable, and indeed, foreseen.

 

Over the last half-decade, I have written a slew of articles warning of the futility and folly of trying to maintain autonomous Arab rule in Gaza. But, perhaps more significantly, over a quarter-century ago (1992) I penned an article, Why we can’t dump Gaza, predicting precisely the course of events that would unfold if Israel abandoned Gaza—events that should have been obvious to anyone with the even slightest grasp of the most rudimentary elements of political science and related disciplines.

 

I warned: “The inevitable implication of Israeli withdrawal [from Gaza] can be ignored only at great peril to Israelis and Arabs alike”, and explained why such a measure would lead to the take-over by extremist elements like Hamas: “In the ensuing political vacuum [left by Israeli withdrawal], the most radical and violet elements in Gaza would undoubtedly seize power. In the absence of recognized institutions of government, all the more moderate elements would be speedily eliminated, either politically or physically”—as indeed they were!

  

I cautioned as to the impact of inadequate infrastructure: “The Gaza Strip does not have the means to sustain any semblance of durable economic life. Its water resources are increasingly being salinated through over-use, it has no land reserves, no indigenous sources of energy or power, no existing infrastructure for the conduct of international trade…”

 

Accordingly, I pointed out: “A total separation between Israel and the Gaza Strip …to stop the flow of ‘undesirable’ workers in search of the livelihood their immediate environs cannot provide” would precipitate widespread unemployment and resultant turmoil: “A denial of employment would inevitably increase the frustration and bitterness of the beleaguered population and its potential for incitement, lawlessness and violence”.

 

Foreseeing economic privation, violence and international censure

 

I identified the difficulties Israel would have in maintaining security and preventing smuggling of armaments particularly along the maritime border and Sinai frontier: “…the IDF would only be able to supervise along the northern and [eastern] approaches to the Strip. It would have no control over smugglers wishing to enter from the west (via the sea) or the south (via Sinai)”.   

The result was not difficult to forecast: “ The combination of these elements is a certain formula for explosive social and political unrest, feeding on a deepening sense of hopelessness, misery and deprivation of the local population, feelings which will  inevitably be directed against the most obvious and convenient target – Israel.”

 

The diagnosis of what was to follow was unequivocally clear, making operations such Cast Lead, Pillar of Defense and Protective Edge unavoidable: “…our southern settlements and towns will be the targets of frequent attacks, which will compel Israel to retaliate.”

The predicament of waging “asymmetric” war was not hard to foretell.

 

I wrote:  “But how and against whom? Without a military presence, the IDF will not be able to identify and apprehend those responsible…”, and warned of the ramifications of “collateral damage” and consequent international censure: “Air strikes or artillery shelling on civilian population centers will cause heavy casualties among the dense, destitute masses in whose midst the attackers would conceal themselves”, asking trenchantly: “How would world opinion react”.   

 

Consequently, I predicted: “Unilateral withdrawal from Gaza will do nothing to ease the socio-economic plight of the local inhabitants, nor will it reduce the politico-security problems of Israel; rather it will be likely to exacerbate them.”  I leave it to the reader to judge to what degree that prediction has been borne out.

 

Underscoring the untenability of two-statism

 

Accordingly, just how hopeless the doctrine of two-statism is, especially with regard to Gaza, should have been abundantly clear from the get-go for anyone with an iota of intellectual integrity and a smidgeon of analytical ability. But, if for some reason, anyone required further proof, Abbas’s initiative to impose further hardship on his harrowed kinfolk should provide it, removing all shadow of doubt.

 

For it served to highlight two things (a) The dismal plight of the Gazan population, who along with the residents of Jericho, were the first to be subjected to the egregious experiment of thrusting self-government on the Palestinian-Arabs, two-and-half decades after the start of that experiment; (b) the callous disregard that the Palestinian-Arab leadership has for the welfare of their people. After all, calling for the reduction of power to Gaza is a measure that will negatively impact virtually every walk of life, from the functioning of medical equipment through sewage treatment to desalination plants for production of scarce drinking water.

 

The miserable circumstances in Gaza—in terms of the physical conditions that prevail, the quality of governance, and the priorities of the leadership—offer prospects for the future that, charitably, can only be described as bleak—underscoring just how untenable the dogma of two-statism has shown itself to be.

 

Israel’s counter-productive largesse

 

Indeed, the three introductory excerpts encapsulate the enduring and endemic hopelessness that is Gaza.

 

The first (from Elliot Abrams) relates to the nature of the political entity that can be expected to emerge from any process of two-statism. After all, there is little reason to believe—and certainly no evidence that the empirical record has produced in the last quarter century—that the prospective Palestinian-Arab state will be anything but a homophobic, misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny. Indeed, even its most fervent proponents have yet to produce anything approaching a persuasive argument to have us believe otherwise.

 

The second (from Prof. Efraim Inbar) relates to the nature of the population that will inhabit the political entity and the kind of conduct we can expect from it. As Inbar remarks: “…the Gazans cannot be exempted from responsibility for the consequences of Hamas’s actions…Hamas remains popular in Gaza, and all polls show that Gazans support continued violence against Israel. The Gazans are…not good neighbors, and…do not deserve Israel’s sympathy.”

 

The third (from the New York Times editorial) relates to the nature of the prospects the territory has for its future—and futility of maintaining the belief that there is any point to sustaining the two-state enterprise. For it raises the “harsh” but “inevitable” question: “Given the region’s tragic history” what is the point of further reconstruction efforts?

 

In this regard, Inbar echoes this trenchant question. Taking it a little further he asks: “What moral justification exists that compels Israelis to assist people who support an organization intent on destroying them?”

His answer: “There is no strategic or moral reason why Israel should supply free electricity to Gaza.”

 

Humanitarian Solution to Humanitarian Crisis: Deconstruction not Reconstruction

 

Inbar is of course entirely correct.  The Israeli government would do well to heed his counsel, and, taking its cue from Abbas’s demand, begin a phased withdrawal of all services and goods it currently provides the Palestinian Arabs, while offering the non-belligerent residents generous relocation grants, so that they can seek better, more secure lives elsewhere—outside the “cycle of violence” that the leaders wreak upon them regularly.

 

As I have pointed on numerous occasions, this will allow them to extricate themselves not only from any resultant “humanitarian crisis”, but also from the clutches of the cruel, corrupt cliques that have led them astray for decades.   

 

Thus, the real humanitarian solution to the plight of Gaza lies not in its reconstruction but in its deconstruction.

 

Indeed I raised this proposal in my 1992 article, by asking: “What, then, is the solution to this festering and intractable problem?”

I began my answer by pointing out: “It is essential to realize that no measure, whether total annexation or total withdrawal, can be reconciled with either Israel’s security or the welfare of the Arab population there”.

 

I clarified “This is not a call for a forcibly imposed racist ‘transfer’ by Israel, but rather for the initiation of  an appeal to enlist international support for the rehabilitation elsewhere of hundreds of thousands of refugees. They are the victims of war, held hostage…by those purporting to be committed to their welfare”.

 

In conclusion, I urged: “Instead of expounding the merits of a policy of dismantling Jewish settlements or abandoning the fate of Jewish settlers to some autonomous Arab regime (both antithetical to the Zionist ethos), the…leadership charged with responsibility for the conduct of Israel’s foreign policy would do well to devote its efforts to marshalling international pressure in support of this humane and historically imperative enterprise.”

Imagine how different things might have been, had my call been heeded, instead of waiting 25 years–for the ultimate indictment of two-statism.

 

Jared Kushner is in Israel, Is Peace Actually Happening?

Jared Kushner landed in Israel just under 24 hours ago and after rushing to visit the grieving Malka family over their daughter’s murder on Shabbat he wasted no time going to visit Bibi Netanyahu.

The purpose of Kushner’s visit is to push Trump’s “ultimate deal” to broker Israel-Palestinian peace.  To casual observers it appears that there is really momentum towards a peace deal.

Perhaps there is, but let’s look at five reasons this could all be just a show or even more importantly a deal that has nothing to do with the Palestinians:

  • Trump agrees with Israel’s rights as the sovereign in Jerusalem, “Palestinians” will never agree to that.
  • Trump does not really care about “settlements,” “Palestinians” believe they must go.
  • Trump has opted for regional normalization first before any agreement on final status issues.
  • If Mahmoud Abbas, the “Palestinian” strongman agrees to any deal he will be killed by his own people.
  • Trump agrees that Israel should have full security control over Judea and Samaria.

Given the above list, peace does not seem likely anytime soon.  So what’s really going on?

Interim Deal and Normalization

Trump’s team is pushing normalization first and then an interim solution leaving out final status issues for the foreseeable future. This is essentially a rendition of Education Minister Naftali Bennett’s Stability Plan. The interim deal will see some sort of non contiguous Palestinian State arise in Area A and B where they already have some sort of autonomy.  C will continued to be controlled by Israel.  “Settlements” will continue in two different capacities.  In the main blocks there will unrestrained building.  In the rest of the Jewish communities in Area C building will continue to allow for natural growth.

Furthermore, Israeli communities across Area C will be given the same political status as any other Israeli community.  This has already been established by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked earlier in the month.

So they would Abbas or the Sunni Arab world go for any of this?

Abbas doesn’t want a real deal for reasons mentioned above. He does want a long-term status quo with an upgrade for the territory he manages.

The Sunni world has never liked the Palestinians.  They have created a “cause” in order to push back on Israel.  Now they need Israel and they need the “cause” they created to quiet down.  The interim plan is the way for this to happen.

Look for Kushner to push the beginnings of an interim solution, a solution that will be so long-term it may just be permanent.

 

The Humanitarian Paradigm – Answering FAQs (Part 2)

Sequel to the dispelling of  doubts regarding the feasibility – and morality – of largescale, financially incentivized emigration as the only non-kinetic approach for resolution of the Israel-Palestinian impasse.

The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. -Widely attributed to Winston Churchill

 

Readers will recall that last week I began a two part response to FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) relating to the practical feasibility/moral acceptability of my proposed Humanitarian Paradigm (HP), which prescribes, among other measures, large-scale financially incentivized emigration of the Palestinian-Arabs, living across the pre-1967 lines as the only route to attain long-term survivability for Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

 

To recap briefly

 

In last week’s column, I addressed the question of the overall cost of the funded emigration project, and showed that, given the political will to implement it, it would be eminently affordable – even if Israel had to shoulder the burden alone. If other industrial nations could be induced to participate, the total cost would be an imperceptible percentage of their GDP.

 

I then went on to demonstrate that there is ample evidence indicating a wide-spread desire in large sections of the Palestinian-Arab population to emigrate permanently in search of more secure and prosperous livee elsewhere. This point was underscored by a recent Haaretz article , describing how thousands of Gazans had fled their home to Greece, undertaking perilous risk to extricate themselves from the harrowing hardships imposed on them by the ill-conceived endeavor to foist statehood on the Palestinian-Arabs.  Significantly, according to the Haaretz report, none of them blamed Israel for their plight—but rather the ruling Hamas-regime, which, it will be recalled, was elected by popular vote to replace the rival Fatah faction, ousted because of its corruption and poor governance.

 

Finally, I dealt with the question of the prospective host nations, pointing out that the funded Palestinian-Arab émigrés would not arrive as an uncontrolled deluge of destitute humanity, but as an orderly regulated stream of relatively affluent immigrants spread over about a decade-and-a-half, whose absorption would entail significant capital inflows for the host nation’s economy.  Moreover, given the fact that, globally, migrants total almost a quarter billion, Palestinian-Arab migration of several hundred thousand a year would comprise a small fraction of one percent of the overall number—hardly an inconceivable prospect.  

 

Following this short summary of previously addressed FAQs, we can now move on to tackle several additional ones.

FAQ 4: Won’t fear of fratricide deter recipients?

 

One of the most commonly raised reservations as to the practical applicability of the HP is that potential recipients of the relocation/rehabilitation grants would be deterred from accepting them because of  threats of retribution from their kin-folk who allegedly would view such action as perfidious betrayal of the Palestinian-Arabs’ national aspirations.

 

In contending with this question, it is necessary to distinguish between two possible scenarios, in which such internecine intimidation will be either a phenomenon whose scope is (a) limited; or (b) wide-spread and pervasive.  

 

Clearly, if the former is true, it is unlikely to have any significant inhibiting impact on the conduct of prospective recipients of the relocation/rehabilitation grants.

 

If, however, the assumption is that the latter is the case, several points need to be made:

– If this objection  to the HP is to have any credence, its proponents must present evidence (as opposed to unproven supposition) that potential violent opponents of the HP program have the ability not only to inflict harm on prospective recipients (as opposed to issuing empty threats) , but that they can sustain such ability over time.

 

– In this regard, it should be kept in mind that implementation of the HP entails the disarming, dismantling and disbanding —if need be, coercively—of the ruling Palestinian regime, and reinstating Israeli governance over all territory under Palestinian-Arab control.    

 

 

Inhibiting internecine intimidation

 

The HP is hardly unique with regard to this latter point. All other proffered policy alternatives for the failed, foolhardy two-state formula entail such measures—either by explicit stipulation, or implicit inference—since preserving the current Palestinian regime intact would clearly preclude their implementation.  Indeed, they are even endorsed by some pundits who do not discount the eventual emergence of a Palestinian state, such as Middle East Forum president, Daniel Pipes.

 

Clearly, the dispersal of the central Palestinian governing body, together with the defanging of its armed organs and the deployment of Israeli forces in their stead , will greatly curtail  (although not entirely eliminate) the scope for internecine intimidation and the capacity to dissuade potential recipients of the relocation/rehabilitation grants from availing themselves of the funds.

 

In addition, Israel should task its own formidable military and intelligence services to protect prospective recipients of these grants by identifying, intervening and thwarting attempts to intimidate those seeking to enhance their lives by extricating themselves from the control of the disastrously dysfunctional regime under which they live.

 

Moreover, the international community should be called upon to cooperate with and participate in this principled endeavor to prevent fratricidal elements within Palestinian society from depriving their brethren of the opportunity of better, safer lives. After all, violence against Palestinian-Arabs, who choose to reside within any given host nation, would comprise an intolerable violation of that country’s national sovereignty.  

 

Appalling indictment of “Palestinian” society?  

 

Of course invoking the specter of large-scale fratricide as an impediment to the acceptance of the HP is an appalling indictment of Palestinian-Arab society.

 

After all, the inescapable implication of such an objection to the HP’s practical applicability is that its acceptance by otherwise willing recipients, wishing to avail themselves of opportunity to seek security and prosperity elsewhere, can only be impeded by violent extortion of their kin-folk.

 

Accordingly, if the concern over large-scale fratricide is serious, it is in fact, at once, both the strongest argument in favor of the HP and against the establishment of a Palestinian state.  After all, two unavoidable conclusions necessarily flow from it: (a) any predicted reluctance to accept the relocation/rehabilitating grants would not be a reflection of the free will of Palestinian-Arabs, but rather a coerced outcome that came about despite the fact that it is not; (b) Similarly, the endeavor for a Palestinian state is not one that manifests any authentic desire of the “Palestinian people” but rather one imposed on them, despite the fact that it does not.

 

As a result, any Palestinian-Arab state established under the pervasive threat of lethal retribution against any dissenter will not be an expression of genuine national aspirations but of extortion and coercion of large segments of Palestinian-Arab society, who would otherwise opt for an alternative outcome.

 

In summation then, if the fear of fratricide can be shown to be a tangible threat, it should not be considered a reason to abandon the HP formula. Quite the opposite! It should be considered an unacceptable phenomenon to be resolutely suppressed –by both Israel and the international community—in order to permit the Palestinian-Arab public the freedom of choice to determine their future.

 

FAQ 5: Would funded emigration not be considered unethical “ethnic cleansing”?

 

I have addressed the question of the moral merits of the HP extensively elsewhere (see “Palestine”: Who Has Moral High Ground?), where I demonstrate that the HP blueprint will be the most humane of all options if it succeeds, and the least inhumane if it does not.

 

I shall therefore refrain from repeating much of the arguments presented previously and focus on one crucial issue: The comparative moral merits of the widely endorsed two-state paradigm (TSS) and those of  my proposed Humanitarian Paradigm (HP).

 

Since there is very little doubt (or dispute) as to the domestic nature of any prospective Palestinian state, anyone seeking to disqualify the HP because of its alleged moral shortcomings must be forced to contend with the following question: Who has the moral high-ground?

 

(a) The TSS-proponents, who advocate establishing (yet another) homophobic, misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny, whose hallmarks would be: gender discrimination, gay persecution, religious intolerance, and political oppression of dissidents? ; or

 

(b) The HP-proponents who advocate providing non-belligerent Palestinian individuals with the opportunity of building a better life for themselves elsewhere, out of harm’s way, free from the recurring cycles of death, destruction and destitution, brought down on them by the cruel, corrupt cliques that have led them astray for decades.

 

Furthermore, TSS advocates should be compelled to clarify why they consider it morally acceptable to offer financial inducements to Jews in Judea-Samaria to evacuate their homes to facilitate the establishment of said homophobic, misogynistic tyranny, which, almost certainly, will become a bastion for Islamist terror; yet they consider it morally reprehensible to offer financial inducements to Arabs in Judea-Samaria to evacuate their homes to prevent the establishment of such an entity?

 

FAQ 6: What about those who remain?

 

This is, of course, a serious question and a detailed response would depend on, among other things, the size of the residual Palestinian-Arab population who refuse any material compensation as an inducement to emigrate.

 

The acuteness of the problem would undoubtedly be a function of its scale. Clearly, the smaller this residual population, the less pressing the need will be to deal with it. For example it seems plausible that if, say, only a hundred thousand Palestinians remain, consideration may well be given to the possibility of offering them Israeli citizenship – subject to stringent security vetting and sworn acceptance of Jewish sovereignty as the sole legitimate source of authority in the land – without endangering the Jewish character of the country.

 

However, it should be remembered that, unlike the two-state approach which advocates perilous concessions, and the one-state prescription which calls for incorporating the Palestinian-Arabs resident across the pre-1967  lines into  Israel’s permanent population, the HP does not involve any cataclysmic irreversible measures.

 

At the heart of the HP program is a comprehensive system of material inducements to foster Palestinian emigration, which includes generous incentives for leaving and harsh disincentives for staying. As detailed elsewhere, such incentives would entail substantial monetary grants, up to 100 years GDP per capita per family in Palestinian terms; while the latter entail phased withdrawal of services (including provision of water, electricity, fuel, port facilities and so on) that Israel currently provides to the Palestinian-Arabs across the pre-1967 lines.

 

Accordingly, should it be found that the initial proposed inducements are ineffective, the former can be made more enticing, and/or the latter more daunting, until the proffered package is acceptable.

 

Seen in this context, it is difficult to envisage that many non-belligerent Palestinian-Arabs would prefer to endure the rigors of discontinued provision of services rather than avail themselves of the generous relocation/rehabilitation funds—especially given the dispersal of the Palestinian regime as an alternative source of such services.

 

FAQ 7 What if the same kind of offer were made to induce Jewish emigration?

 

In addressing this question several points should be borne in mind:

 

The offer would clearly not be made by an Israeli government. After all, the HP is  intended as a measure to: (a)  Ensure – not undermine – the survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews, and (b) Relieve the genuine humanitarian predicament of the Palestinian-Arabs—precipitated by the dysfunctional administration they have been subjected to since the 1993 Oslo process—not Jewish disgruntlement with the imperfect functioning of the Israeli government.

 

Of course, it would be impossible to prevent Arab elements from offering Jews financial inducement to emigrate from Israel, but in this regard it should be recalled that: (a) As a sovereign nation Israel can control the financial flows into the country and impede money from hostile sources reaching Israeli citizens, considerably complicating the transfer and receipt of  funds. (b) Arab governments have been singularly reticent in providing large sums  to advance the “Palestinian cause” and there is little chance (or evidence) that they would advance the hundreds of billions required to finance large scale Jewish emigration;  (c) The overwhelming majority of Israelis enjoy living standards of an advanced post-industrial nation with a GDP per capita around 20 times higher than that in the Palestinian-administered territories; (d) Accordingly, it would be commensurately more difficult to tempt them to leave. Indeed, sums offered would have to be considerably higher to create a comparable incentive, running into millions rather than hundreds of thousands per family. (e) Moreover, a slew of recent polls show the large majority of Israelis are satisfied with their lives – thus the prospect of material incentives to induce large-scale emigration seems remote.  

Urgent Zionist imperative.

 

The HP is the only Zionist-compliant policy prescription that can save Israel from the perilous dangers of the two-state formula and the specter of Lebanonization/Balkanization  inherent in other proffered alternatives. Embarking on its implementation is a Zionist imperative that is both urgent and feasible.

 

PALESTINIAN SUFFERING AND ISRAEL

The Palestinians the international media don’t talk about — and the reason why.

How can we explain the international community’s indifference to Palestinian suffering? Every day, angry bands of protesters burn the flag of Israel, call for the destruction of the Jewish state and insist that Israel and its Jewish citizens be shunned from polite society and thrown out of the global economy all in the name of opposing “the Occupation.”

Although the breathless protesters insist that all their efforts are directed toward the Palestinians, as it works out, none of their assaults on Israel have improved the Palestinians’ lot. To the contrary, their protests have given a free pass to those that do the most to harm Palestinians.

The angry, hateful protests against Israel tell us nothing about either the history of the Palestinians’ relations with the Jewish state or their present circumstances.

And what are those circumstances? Consider the stories of two different groups of Palestinian prisoners.

The first story relates to the Palestinian terrorists imprisoned in Israeli jails after being tried and convicted of engaging in terrorist attacks against Israel.

Led by terrorist mastermind Marwan Barghouti, who is serving multiple life sentences for killing multiple Israelis, in April more than a thousand jailed terrorists opened a hunger strike demanding an improvement in their prison conditions.

The New York Times published an op-ed by Barghouti and massively covered the strike. Numerous other marquee media organizations similarly provided sympathetic coverage of the event.

Hidden beneath mountains of column inches was the basic fact that the terrorists’ demands made clear that their strike was ridiculous.

They weren’t demanding food. They weren’t demanding fair trials or the right to speak to their attorneys.

They were demanding that Israel add 20 new channels to their standard, free cable television access.

They demanded that Israel let them have telephones in their rooms.

They demanded that Israel buy them air conditioning units.

In other words, they were demanding that Israel treat them better than it treats its own soldiers.

The second prisoner story is the story of the 12,000 Palestinians that have been jailed in Syrian regime prisons since the start of the Syrian civil war. These men, women and children are denied sufficient food and water. They are subjected to torture. Several cases have been reported of Palestinian female prisoners being subjected to gang rapes. More than 500 Palestinians have died in jail. More than 500 Palestinian children are behind bars.

And the plight of the Palestinians on the outside is no better.

Nearly 4,000 Palestinians have been killed by regime forces since the start of the war. Yarmouk refugee camp has been all but depopulated. Whereas before the war began in 2011, more than 120,000 Palestinians resided in the camp just 8 km. from central Damascus, today a mere 20,000 remain. Those who remain have been besieged by regime forces for nearly three years. They have been starved and parched. Running water was cut off years ago.

And yet, the only journalist who has consistently covered the story is Palestinian affairs correspondent Khaled Abu Toameh, writing for the niche website of the Gatestone Institute.

As Abu Toameh noted in a report on the Palestinians in Syria last August, the leaders of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority like their sometimes-rivals- sometimes-partners in Hamas have refused to intervene on their behalf.

To the contrary, the PLO happily reopened its embassy in Damascus last year, despite the fact that it is accredited to a regime that is slaughtering the people that the PLO claims to represent.

Abu Toameh wrote bitterly, “The Palestinians of Syria would have been more fortunate had they been living in the West Bank or Gaza Strip. Then the international community and media would certainly have noticed them. Yet when Western journalists lavish time on Palestinians delayed at Israeli checkpoints in the West Bank, and ignore barrels of explosives dropped by the Syrian military on residential areas in refugee camps in Syria, one might start to wonder what they are really about.”

This week we got reminder of what this is really about from an odd source.

During his interview with NBC’s Megyn Kelly, Russian President Vladimir Putin grew exasperated with Kelly’s repetitious line of questioning about whether or not Russia colluded to get President Donald Trump elected last November.

After repeatedly denying Kelly’s allegations, Putin insisted that the Russian-US elections narrative is simply a conspiracy theory invented by Democrats and their allies to avoid the blame for Hillary Clinton’s defeat.

In Putin’s words, “It’s easy to say, ‘It’s not our fault. It’s the Russians. They intervened. They interfered.’” Putin then compared the anti-Russian conspiracy theory to antisemitism.

“It’s like antisemitism,” Putin explained. Anti-Jewish conspiracy spinners use the Jews as a means to deflect blame for their failures. In his words, “‘The Jews are to blame.’ You’re [not] an idiot. Because ‘the Jews are to blame.’” Putin’s statement is important for two reasons.

First, the former KGB chief knows a thing or two about antisemitic conspiracy theories. Russia has played an outsized role in inventing them for precisely the reason that Putin gave – blame deflection.

It was a precursor of the KGB, the czar’s secret police, that wrote the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion which purported to expose a Jewish world conspiracy to control humanity for nefarious ends.

And in 1949, it was the KGB that created the antisemitic conspiracy that has animated and controlled Western discourse on Israel ever since. It was then that the Soviets invented the term “anti-Zionism,” and began referring to Jews as Zionists.

And this brings us to the second noteworthy aspect of Putin’s discussion of antisemitism. The KGB rebranded Jews as “Zionists” and antisemites as “anti-Zionists” to rescue antisemitism as a tool of political warfare from the ruins of Auschwitz.

Until then, it was socially unacceptable to hate Jews.

After the KGB moved to pan Zionism as a form of colonialism and imperialism, it became fashionable again.

What Putin explained in his remarks is that conspiracy theories are not accidental occurrences.

They are deliberate, premeditated acts of political warfare that serve specific political purposes for their creators.

Anti-Zionist conspiracies, like their traditional anti-Jewish antecedents are particularly attractive because Jews are such an easy target.

Their small numbers and the ease with which they can be singled out makes them natural targets of conspiracy mongers.

After all, who will stand up for Israel and the Jews? Jews, of course, have no credibility as defenders of the Jewish state, because, well, they’re Jews.

As for non-Jewish defenders of Israel – they can dismissed as hired guns or religious fanatics or discredited in any number of other ways.

Sadly, while Putin has no compunction about standing up to the anti-Russia conspiracy spinners, with each passing year, the American Jewish community has had more and more difficulty recognizing that they are the target of a conspiracy theory and acting appropriately. Rather than stand up for Israel and against its detractors, more and more American Jews have joined them.

And those who do not join them try to get out from under the conspiracy web by pretending that it is a rational argument, rather than a conspiracy.

Indeed, increasingly, American Jewish organizations make distinctions between Israel and Judea and Samaria. They don’t take their tours beyond the 1949 armistice lines. They say that boycotts of Jewish products made beyond the lines are legitimate.

They try to “dialogue” with anti-Israel activists and blackball Israeli conservatives.

And lo and behold, it doesn’t work.

It doesn’t work because it cannot work. Because the conspiracy mongers are not interested in compromising, they are interested in delegitimizing the very notion that Jews can argue with them.

The toll this has taken on the American Jewish community was clearly in evidence this week at the Israel Day Parade in New York.

15 years ago, some 100,000 area Jews marched in the parade. This year, official counts put the number of marchers at 40,000. A disproportionate number of them were Orthodox.

Fifty years after the Six Day War, Israel has become a hard subject for American Jews to discuss not because it is hard on the merits to defend, but because the conspiracy theories which have taken control of the non-Jewish discourse on Israel have captured the American Jewish discourse as well.

The most pressing duty of the American Jewish community then is to finally recognize the nature of the battle they are beset by and fight it as hard as they can.

The long-suffering Palestinians will no doubt thank them for doing so.

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

The Humanitarian Paradigm – Answering FAQs (Part 1)

Dispelling doubts as to the feasibility (and morality) of largescale, financially incentivized emigration as the only non-kinetic approach to resolve the Israel-Palestinian impasse.

Consideration should be given even to the heroic remedy of transfer of populations…the hardship of moving is great, but it is less than the constant suffering of minorities and the constant recurrence of war

President Herbert Hoover, The “Great Humanitarian”, in “The Problems of Lasting Peace”.

 

With all the money that has been invested in the problem of the Palestinians, it would have been possible long ago to resettle them and provide them with good lives in Arab countries.  Andrei Sakharov, cited in “The New Republic, June 22, 2009.

The rise in the number of international migrants reflects the increasing importance of international migration, which has become an integral part of our economies and societies. Well-managed migration brings important benefits to countries of origin and destination, as well as to migrants and their families-. Wu Hongbo, UN Under-Secretary-General, 2016.

 

 

Followers of this column will recall that for well over a decade I have promoted what I have designated: “The Humanitarian Paradigm” (HP).  This paradigm prescribes, among other things, large-scale financially incentivized emigration of the Palestinian-Arab population, resident across the pre-1967 lines, as the only comprehensive, non-kinetic policy blueprint that can enable Israel to adequately address both the Geographic and the Demographic Imperatives, which it needs to contend with in order to endure as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

 

Unfounded skepticism

 

Several reservations have been raised regarding my proposed prescription on various grounds, including skepticism as to its economic affordability, political feasibility and moral acceptability. Some have claimed that an alleged sense of “intense nationalism”, social pressures, and fear of retributory fratricide will preclude any chance of large-scale emigration of Palestinian-Arabs.

 

Such skepticism flies in the face of logical reasoning, historical precedents, empirical findings and the revealed preferences of significant segments of the Palestinians-Arabs themselves.   

 

Accordingly, in the ensuing paragraphs I will attempt to address these reservations, show them to be largely unfounded, and demonstrate that the HP is not only eminently feasible but unequivocally imperative if the Jews are to preserve their national independence and political sovereignty.

 

But before addressing the FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) regarding such feasibility, allow me to convey—in brutal brevity—what sets the HP apart from ALL other proposals for resolution.

 

This differentiation resolves chiefly around two elements: (a) the atomization of implementation; (b) the de-politicization of context.

 

With regard to the former, since the envisaged compensation will be offered directly to individual family heads/breadwinners, no agreement with any Arab collective (whether state or sub-state organization) is required—merely the accumulated consent of fate-stricken individuals, striving to improve their lot.

 

With regard to the later, this reflects a sober recognition that, after decades of effort, involving the expenditure of huge political capital and economic resources, there is no political formula for resolution of the conflict and efforts should be channeled into dissipating the humanitarian predicament of the Palestinian-Arabs.

 

FAQ 1: How much will it cost?

 

One of the most common queries raised as to the practicality of the HP is the question of cost.

 

In addressing this issue, it is important to keep three things in mind:

 

(a) The absolute cost of implementation is irrelevant; (b) There is inherent difficulty in reaching precise estimates of the required outlay; however (c) There is no need for fine-tuned precision estimates, since political resolve is the real constraint on implementation– not economic resources.

 

As to the first of these points, it is crucial to grasp that the absolute cost of the proposed measures is not really the issue, but rather the comparative cost, relative to other proposals – including the two-state formula – whose implementation is also certain to entail an ongoing multi-billion dollar price tag. Indeed, one of the few (arguably, the only) comprehensive study of the overall cost of the Oslo Process suggests that by 2014 it inflicted expenditures—excluding the cost of the 50-day long Operation Protective Edge—of almost a trillion shekels (a quarter trillion dollars) on Israel’s economy—producing nothing but trauma and tragedy for Jew and Arab alike.  

As to the second point: The overall cost for large-scale relocation and rehabilitation of the Palestinian population across the  pre-1967 lines clearly depends not only on the scope of emigration grants offered, but on the  actual size of the Palestinian-Arab population in Judea-Samaria and Gaza.  In this regard there is fierce ongoing debate regarding the true population figures for Judea, Samaria and Gaza – with a discrepancy of well over a million between competing estimates.

 

Calculating Costs (cont.)

 

Fortunately, precise appraisals of the required costs are not essential for assessing the affordability of the HP. Rough order-of-magnitude estimates are sufficient for this purpose. Indeed, as we shall see, the amounts required are dwarfed by the expenditures on other international ventures—which, predictably, produced results which, charitably, can be dubbed “disappointing”.

 

As I do not wish to become embroiled in an argument as to the real size of the Palestinian-Arab population, and as the envisaged financial grants would be distributed per family unit, I shall sidestep the issue and take as my point-of-departure a figure of 850,000 families (just over 60% in Judea-Samaria). This is far closer to the official Palestinian figures than to the alternative, more optimistic (and plausible) demographic estimates, which are almost 300,000 families lower! Assuming an average emigration grant of US$250-300,000 per family (which is roughly 100 years of GDP per capita in Palestinian terms) this would amount to a total budget of US$200-250 billion for the full implementation of the HP project.

 

While these figures might appear somewhat daunting, two points should be borne in mind: Today Israel’s annual GDP is approaching US$300 billion. Accordingly the total outlay would be 8-10 months of GDP.

 

Assessing affordability (cont.)

 

Spreading this over, say, a decade-and-a-half (considerably less time than has been invested in the fatally flawed two-state endeavor) this would amount to 4.5-5.5% of total GDP. Accordingly, even if Israel was to bear this economic burden on its own, adding it  to the current levels of defense spending (5-6%), the economic burden would not reach the defense expenditure, as a percentage of GDP, through much of the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s (11-15%).         

 

Moreover, if the wider international community could be induced to help shoulder the task, the entire enterprise could be completed far more rapidly, at a cost which would be virtually imperceptible, amounting to a mere fraction of a percentage point of the GDP of the OECD nations.

 

It must be firmly emphasized that the sums referred to here are inconsequential in global terms. Indeed, they pale into insignificance when compared to the multi-trillion dollar cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, of which over 90% was spent after (!) Saddam Hussein was apprehended and the Taliban dislodged, and which, even by most benign assessments, produced, at best, meagre results.

 

Accordingly it would appear that financial resources for a program that would cost considerably less than 10% of the cost of those engagements is not a real impediment to its implementation.

 

FAQ 2: Is large-scale financially-induced Palestinian emigration feasible?

 

Of course, no-one knows precisely how many Palestinian-Arabs can be induced to emigrate without putting the matter to test. However, available evidence strongly suggests that extensive emigration is indeed eminently feasible. And there is certainly far more empirical support for it than there is for a stable two-state outcome.

 

A survey I commissioned as far back as December 2004 for the Jerusalem Summit, and conducted by a leading  Israeli polling institute, in collaboration with a well-known Palestinian center, showed that over 40% of the Arab residents of Judea-Samaria had actively considered emigration, while up to 50% did not discount such a possibility – even without being offered any material inducement. When the question of material compensation was introduced to encourage such emigration, the figure rose to over 70%!

 

It appears that this sentiment has only grown stronger over time.

 

Since then, a veritable slew of opinion surveys has emerged from Palestinian institutes showing a keen wish among the Palestinian-Arab population to emigrate. Thus, in 2007 the New York Times cited polls for Birzeit University, showing “35 percent of Palestinians over the age of 18 want to emigrate. Nearly 50 percent of those between 18 and 30 would leave if they could”.

 

Feasibility of financially-induced emigration (cont.)

 

Indeed the desire to emigrate grew so wide-spread that the Palestinian Authority’s mufti felt compelled to issue a  fatwa forbidding Muslims to leave, and berating the fact that “Many are continuing to rush to the gates of the embassies and consulates of the Western nations with requests for visas in order to reside permanently in those countries.”

 

Current polls conducted by the Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research show, regularly and repeatedly, that between 25-35% of the Arab residents of Judea-Samaria and 45-55% in Gaza wish to emigrate permanently.

But perhaps more compelling than the findings of any poll are the revealed behavioral preferences of the residents of Gaza, who are paying massive bribes to extricate themselves from the grim realities of life there, risking drowning at sea in rickety boats, desperate to seek a better life elsewhere. These headlines in Al Jazeera and Al Monitor bear poignant testimony to their predicament and despair:  Palestinians paying thousands in bribes to leave Gaza; Escaping Gaza, hundreds of Palestinians drown; Gaza’s intellectuals are fleeing abroad.

Surely then, establishing an orderly system of ample financial aid to enable them to extricate themselves from the dire situation which the misguided attempt to foist statehood on them has precipitated, would  be eminently more humane, moral and pragmatic.

 

FAQ 3: But who would accept them?

 

One of the most frequently asked questions regarding the feasibility of the HP is “Which countries will accept them?”

 

I find this question particularly puzzling – especially given today’s realities of massive global population flows. Indeed, the UN recently published a report on global migration, revealing that in 2015 there were almost a quarter-billion migrants globally (up 40% since 2000), the majority of which were motivated by economic considerations. Thus it is difficult to understand why an envisaged yearly increase of a fraction of 1% in this number over the next decade would be such an inconceivable event.

 

Moreover, it should be recalled that, in contrast to many other migrants, the Palestinian-Arab recipients of generous relocation grants would not be arriving as a stream of destitute refugees.  Rather they would be arriving in an orderly fashion as individual immigrants of relative affluence by global standards, who traditionally have brought great benefit to the host countries that have accepted them.

 

In addition, the funds the Palestinian-Arab newcomers would bring with them would constitute a very significant influx into the host countries’ economies. Indeed, for every hundred Palestinian families admitted, the host country could count on the influx of around US$25-30 million into its economy. Absorbing 2,500 new Palestinian-Arab family units could mean the injection of up to three-quarter billion dollars into the host nation’s economy.

 

Who would accept them? (cont.)


Consider the following example, which if not entirely realistic, is instructive in conveying the principle involved.

 

Suppose Indonesia – the world’s most populous Muslim country – were to open its gates to the Palestinian-Arabs across the pre-1967 lines, who, in turn, decided to emigrate to that country. This would entail an increase of a little over 1% of the Indonesian population (around 270 million) but an influx of over US $ 250-300 billion into the Indonesian economy, where total GDP is around US $ 900 billion. Moreover, each of the Palestinian breadwinners would arrive with a sum worth around 80 years of Indonesian GDP per capita (around US$ 3,500)  – the equivalent of over US$ 4 million in the US. Accordingly, they would in no way be impoverished refugees, or a burden on the local society/economy. Quite the opposite. They would be rather well-to-do individuals, capable of making a positive contribution to their new homeland

 

It is of course unrealistic to believe that all the Palestinians would head for a single destination. However if Palestinian-Arab emigration was distributed over several countries, they could be absorbed, resettled and rehabilitated with very little difficulty by a number of host nations with compatible domestic socio-cultural and religious environments – with the financial benefits accruing to these host nations being proportional to number of Palestinian-Arab immigrants they accept.

 

Next week…

 

Given the crucial importance of this issue, I intend to continue this response to FAQs regarding the HP and to address further economic aspects, the question of threatened fratricide and the moral superiority of the HP over all other proposed policy prescriptions. Until then Shabbat Shalom.

Will Trump Triumph or Will Abbas Mimic Arafat

Will President Trump achieve the impossible breakthrough his predecessors were unable to accomplish? Or, like his predecessors will he fall victim to two-faced Arab Palestinian leadership?

Let’s not forget how hard President Bill Clinton tried to forge an agreement between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and PLO founder Yasser Arafat during the Camp David ll negotiations in 2000. Prior to negotiations Arafat was all smiles and sounded committed to peace between the Arab Palestinians and Israel. Negotiations dragged on and on. Barak provided Arafat with an incredible offer, which would have placed Israeli security at great risk. Virtually 100% of Judea/Samaria, commonly called the West Bank was offered to Arafat. Jerusalem would have been divided and eastern Jerusalem would be awarded to the Arab Palestinians. A land bridge between Judea/Samaria and the Gaza Strip was included, effectively splitting Israel in half. Compensation for so-called refugees was included.

President Clinton would later say he could not believe how good the offer was. Yet all Arafat said was “no.” in the end Clinton was furious with him and publically blamed him for the collapse of the talks. Subsequent to the failed negotiations the Arab Palestinians rioted and an extended intifada ensued.

Arafat fell from favor as far as Clinton was concerned. He learned a painful and embarrassing lesson. Arafat could not be trusted.

In 2002 when the late Ariel Sharon was Prime Minister President George W. Bush was attempting to persuade Arafat to stop his terrorist activity and pursue peace with Israel. Sharon then dropped the hammer on the two-faced Arafat. He provided documents which proved that while Arafat kept up the diplomatic chatter, he was signing off on terrorist operations. Bush was angry and embarrassed. He had faith that Arafat could be a genuine peace partner.

However, when Sharon proved Arafat to be a liar, Bush publically called for his ouster. Relations between the Bush administration and Arafat went flat and never recovered.

Abbas Echoes Arafat

Subsequent to Bush came 8 years of an Obama administration. In 2008 another incredibly generous offer was put forth by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. This time the recipient was Mahmoud Abbas who had succeeded Arafat who passed away in 2004. Abbas rejected the offer out of hand. Abbas demanded Israel halt “settlement” construction as a pre-condition for peace negotiations.

In an effort to entice Abbas to the table, Israel did stop construction for 10 months. However, Abbas failed to return to negotiations. Obama was never able to achieve measurably diplomatic breakthrough during his 2 terms as president.

Enter the Trump Era

He’s called a peace agreement between Israel and the Arabs the “ultimate deal.” He’s met with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and PA President Abbas. This past week he made his first foreign trip as President. The first stop was Saudi Arabia where he spoke to an assembled audience of 50 Arab leaders.  The Saudi Royal Family rolled out the red carpet, signaling a clear departure from uneasy relations with the Obama administration.

In Trump’s speech to the audience of Arab leaders he said they must “drive out” the terrorists from their countries and from the earth. These are the strongest words ever spoken by a US President while in an Arab nation, and speaking to Arab leaders. Trump also signaled the Saudi’s are warm to his efforts to achieve a peace agreement with Israel.

Trump moved on and flew to Israel. He met with Mahmoud Abbas, who has already told Trump he is ready to begin negotiations with Israel right away….without preconditions. This is a departure from his long held position of demanding Israel halt all construction before he would consider coming to the table. The question begs, is Abbas sincere? Will he come to the table while Israel continues to build?

Something else noteworthy took place while President Trump delivered his remarks as he stood next to Abbas. Not once did Trump mention the words “Palestinian State,” nor did he use the phrase “two state solution.”

While in Israel Trump became the first sitting US President to visit the Kotel (Western Wall). He also paid a visit to Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust memorial museum. While in Israel he restated the US commitment to Israel’s security and promised a continued qualitative edge in weaponry for Israel.

Yet, as was the case in Bethlehem with Abbas, in all of Trump’s remarks while in Israel he neglected to use the words “Palestinian State,” or “two state solution.”

A Quid Pro Quo?

One cannot help but wonder what took place in the private discussion between Trump and Abbas as well as with Netanyahu. Did the Saudi’s whisper something in Trump’s ear while he was there? Is there a quid pro quo brewing?

Will Donald Trump be able to achieve the impossible and forge an agreement between Israel and the Arab Palestinians as well as the Arab world in general? Is Mahmoud Abbas changing his colors and expressing genuine interest in peace with Israel? Will he sign off on what no other Palestinian leader has been willing to? Will he recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state? Will he accept Israeli sovereignty over Temple Mount?

President Trump seems to suggest there is a fresh wind of optimism blowing through the halls of power in the Middle East. He is eager to facilitate the most dramatic diplomatic breakthrough ever in the Middle East. He deserves an opportunity to do the unthinkable.

However, what remains to be seen is what Abbas will do. Will he follow in the footsteps of his predecessor and say one thing publically in English, while continuing his Islamic agenda of terror when he speaks in Arabic? Will he string President Trump along, only to ultimately show his true colors and embarrass President Trump as Arafat did with two previous presidents?

Or will Abbas do what no other Arab Palestinian leader has done?

We will wait, watch and witness…

Read more articles by Dan Calic on his Facebook page.

HOW TO SOLVE THE PALESTINIAN PROBLEM

…and bring peace to the Middle East.

In 1990, there were half as many Palestinians as Kuwaitis in Kuwait. Two years later there were almost none.

With the support of the international community, some 700,000 Kuwaitis expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their country. If they had not done it, basic arithmetic shows that the Palestinians would have outnumbered Kuwaitis in Kuwait in a generation.

The Palestinians of Kuwait were kidnapped, tortured and killed.  “Kill a Palestinian and Go to Heaven,” became the slogan. When Kuwait was “liberated”, tanks and armored vehicles were sent into the Hawally suburb of Kuwait City known as Little Palestine. Half the buildings were knocked down by bulldozers. Some detained Palestinians were buried in mass graves. The vast majority, including those who had been born in Kuwait, were deported or forced to flee a land they had lived in for a generation.

The violent ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians went mostly unremarked. While the Kuwaitis were ethnically cleansing their Palestinians, they continued to fund Palestinian terror against Israel and condemn Israel for violating the human rights of those they were deporting.

And the world shrugged.

President George H.W. Bush defended Kuwait’s actions. “I think we’re expecting a little much if we’re asking the people in Kuwait to take kindly to those that had spied on their countrymen that were left there,” he said. This was in the same press conference in which he condemned Israeli “settlements.”

A year later, Israel expelled 400 Hamas members.  Every human rights organization was outraged. The State Department “strongly” condemned Israel. And Israel was forced to take them back.

The Kuwaiti Nakba isn’t much remembered. There are no rallies full of old women clutching house keys to lost homes in Hawally. They had made a bad bet by backing Saddam Hussein. And paid the price for it.

Kuwait refused to allow Palestinian Authority leader Abbas to visit until he apologized for supporting Saddam. And apologize he did. “Yes, we apologize for what we have done,” the terror boss whined.

The PLO has yet to apologize to Israel for the Muslim settler role in the attempted 1948 genocide of the indigenous Jewish population and the thousands who were maimed and murdered by its terrorists.

Israel, like Kuwait, should have demanded an admission of guilt from Abbas for the PLO’s crimes.

The Kuwaiti Nakba has much in common with what took place in Israel. Palestinians had arrived in both Kuwait and Israel as a cheap labor force to take advantage of the economic boom of a feudal economy becoming industrialized. The “Palestinians” of Israel were not some ancient people but a mass of migrants, mostly from Israel’s neighbors, but occasionally from as far away as Sudan and Senegal in Africa, who were seeking economic opportunity. The existence of the Afro-Palestinians makes it quite clear that they are not a distinct ethnic or national group, but migrants who came from outside Israel.

Over half of the so-called “Palestinian” population lives outside Israel. Many continue to be economic migrants. That is what brought them to Kuwait. And the Kuwaitis were not the only ones to kick them out. Nor are the “Palestinians” the only migrating group that got caught without a country when the game of national musical chairs ended with a lot of new countries with old names dotting the map.

“Palestinians” embraced an imaginary and ahistorical identity because they had been locked out of every other political setup by new governments and tribal arrangements. And that’s not unique.

Kuwait’s other stateless group are the Bedoon. Like the Palestinians, the Bidoon were migrants. The Kuwaitis chose not to recognize them as citizens. There is one Bidoon for every ten Kuwaitis. But that is typical in a region where large nomadic groups around the region exist outside governmental structures.

In this century, hundreds of thousands of people were displaced in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Many of the countries in the region are on the verge of similar civil wars between quarreling ethnic and religious groups. The mass flow of migrants into Europe is an extension of the migratory nature of the region.

All of these problems have a single cause. That cause is the failure of the Arab Muslim nation state.

This century exposed how fragile and artificial most of the countries whose existence we take for granted, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Libya, really are. A little instability and they collapse into quarreling tribes. These tribal conflicts have the same root cause as the “Palestinian” problem.

The Palestinian problem can’t be solved without resolving the problem of the Arab Muslim nation state.

The civil wars in Syria and Iraq, the flow of migrants into Europe and the latest itineration of the failed Palestinian peace process all stem from the conflict between the natural tribe and the artificial nation state. The Arab Muslim nation state is incapable of resolving these tribal conflicts.

That is the source of the tyranny, instability and violence in the Middle East.

No amount of concessions or negotiations by Israel will do anything except create more instability. Decades of Israeli concessions have only led to terrorism, violence, death and misery. If Israel ceased to exist tomorrow, the place where it was would be as much of a disaster area as Yemen or Syria.

It’s often pointed out that the Palestinians are a fictional national identity. But the Iraqis, Syrians and many others are equally artificial; historical names attached to fake countries. We weren’t the first Westerners to think that we could fix the Middle East by making them just like us. Before we tried exporting democracy, the British and the French exported nationhood with all the trimmings of flags, constitutions and anthems. Just like Arab Muslim democracy, the Arab Muslim nation state is a farce that spreads misery, instability and violence.

We can best fix the Middle East by ending all the failed efforts to turn it into Europe and America. And reversing them. Stop recognizing Arab Muslim countries that have incompatible populations. They’re dictatorships on the verge of a civil war. And that civil war will eventually drag us in as Iraq and Syria did.

Whenever possible, deal with tribal and other organic regional leaders, not fake national governments. In Iraq, that means an end to the failed policy of only dealing with the Shiite puppet regime in Baghdad while ignoring the Sunni tribal leaders and the Kurdish authorities. That policy helped create ISIS.

We should recognize discrete regions based on the settlement of natural ethnic, religious and tribal identities. There will inevitably be conflict between these tribal territories, but they will claim far fewer lives than Saddam’s efforts to suppress the Shiites and the Marsh Arabs did. Tribes will kill fewer people than a tribal nation state striving to stamp out rivals and competitors with a powerful domestic military.

Borders should not be viewed as permanent. The Middle East is migratory. It is not Europe. An Arab Muslim who moves from Iraq to Syria or flees Kuwait for Jordan is not a refugee. When you start defining every migrant in a region with an extensive nomadic history as a refugee, the end result is the absurdity of the Palestinian refugee cities of Jordan or the million migrants showing up in Europe.

If you go back far enough, everyone in the Middle East is a refugee.

Instead of trying to resettle fake refugees, we should encourage the settlement of discrete territories with natural borders that create physical and defensible divisions between different groups. That rules out any of the lunatic peace schemes for a Palestinian state with a capital in Jerusalem and a territory that cuts through Israel. These plans have failed and will go on failing for the same reason that Iraqis are still killing each other despite our best efforts to talk, bribe and bomb them out of it.

The indigenous Jewish population and the Muslim migrants who settled in Israel are inherently incompatible. The Palestinian problem might be solved somewhere in Jordan or Syria. History and experience tells us it will never be solved in Israel.

The Israeli government should begin distinguishing between the Muslim settler population based not on artificial borders dating back to a particular war but on clan and ethnicity.

The Circassians who migrated to Israel in the 19th century from the Caucasus have not been a problem. These Ottoman military colonists are Muslims, but they serve in the Israeli military and have no interest in joining in the tribal wars of other Muslims against the Jews. The Husayni clan, which gave us Arafat and the Mufti of Jerusalem, has been a source of strife and violence in the region for far too long.

Israel doesn’t have a national problem with the “Palestinians”, it faces threats from marauding clans which dominate the leadership of Islamic terror groups such as the PLO and Hamas. No one has managed to make peace with the Husaynis yet. And they never will.

The first step to solving the Palestinian problem is to recognize that it doesn’t exist. The second is to determine which clans would be more compatible where. That is a process that must take place across the region in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Israel and beyond. And it is far more likely to bring peace than any amount of negotiations and peacekeeping missions.

The great error of Western foreign policy in the region was the belief that stability was best achieved through modernization.  The Arab Muslim world is not going to turn into Europe.

We should let it be what it is. Its tribalism won’t bring peace. But it can limit the scope of its wars.

Originally Published on FrontPageMag.