Tag: Palestine

Posted on

The Humanitarian Paradigm – Hobson’s Choice for Israel (Part II)

y rigorous process of elimination, we are left with the Humanitarian Paradigm, as the only possible policy prescription able to adequately address the imperatives needed to preserve Israel as the nation state of Jews.

O, who can hold a fire in his hand; By thinking on the frosty Caucasus?

Or cloy the hungry edge of appetite; By bare imagination of a feast?

Or wallow naked in December snow; By thinking on fantastic summer’s heat?

– William Shakespeare,  in Richard II, Act1 Scene 3, on the futility of self-deception

There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.– Sherlock Holmes, “The Boscombe Valley Mystery”

Last week I began  a two-part analysis of the policy paradigms that have emerged in the public discourse for dealing with the more-than-century old dispute between Jews and Arabs over control of the Holy Land as the conflict approaches its third post-Oslo decade.

In it, I identified four such archetypical paradigms for its resolution—and one for its “management” (a.k.a. its perpetuation). Moreover, I undertook to demonstrate that only one of these alternatives, the Humanitarian Paradigm, advocating funded emigration of the Arab residents of Judea-Samaria (and eventually Gaza)—is consistent with the long-term survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews. Accordingly, for those dedicated to the preservation of the Zionist ideal, it is nothing less than “Hobson’s choice”.

To recap briefly

Readers will recall that I confined the analysis last week to those policy proposals that eschew full or partial Israeli annexation of territory, deferring analysis of those that endorse such annexation for this week’s discussion.

To recap briefly: In the aforementioned prior analysis I dealt with the (a) idea of “managing the conflict” and (b) the two-state formula.

As for the former, it was shown to reflect disregard for the fact that, without appropriate decisive proactive initiatives, Israel is facing a growing threat and decreasing freedom to deal with it.   Accordingly, “managing the conflict” is little more than a pretext for backing away from confrontations in which Israel can prevail, while backing into a confrontation in which Israel might not prevail—or do so only at ruinous cost.

As for the latter, it has shown to be a fatally flawed formula, devoid of any sound theoretical foundation or empirical evidence on which to base its naïve prognoses for resolving the conflict by means of Palestinian statehood. Indeed, given the past precedents, there is little reason to believe—and  two-state proponents have never provided one—that any future Palestinian state will not rapidly become a mega-Gaza on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv, precipitating all the harrowing realities, wrought on the hapless residents of the South on those of the coastal megalopolis.

So having dealt with the policy paradigms that eschew annexation– whether full or partial–it is now time to assess those that endorse it.

One-state: Lebanonization of Israeli society

Some pundits on the Israeli “Right,” keenly aware of the infeasibility of the two-state paradigm, have in large measure adopted—albeit for very different reasons—a prescription very similar to that touted by their radical Left-wing adversaries—that of a single state stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

According to this proposal, Israel should extend its sovereignty over the entire area of Judea-Samaria and offer immediate permanent residency to all its Palestinian-Arab residents, as well as the right to apply for citizenship at some undefined date, via some undefined process to ascertain loyalty—or at least the absence of disloyalty—to Israel as the Jewish nation state.  

The rationale, allegedly underpinning this ill-conceived proposal, is the new, optimistic demographic assessments suggesting that even if Israel were to enfranchise the Muslim population of Judea-Samaria, it would still retain a more than 60% Jewish majority.

Even conceding that this may be true, such a measure is likely to herald disaster for the Zionist enterprise and the future of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews. For the initial electoral arithmetic is hardly the defining factor in assessing the prudence of this approach, but rather the devastating effect it will have on the socio-economic fabric of the country and the impact this will have on preserving Israel as a desired/desirable place of residence for Jews inside and outside the country.

It would take considerable—and unsubstantiated—faith to entertain the belief that Israel could sustain itself as a Jewish nation-state with a massive Muslim minority of almost 40% – as the societal havoc that far smaller proportions have wrought in Europe indicate.

Indeed this is a clear recipe for the Lebanonization of Israeli society with all the inter-ethnic strife that tore Israel’s unfortunate northern neighbor apart.

Lebanonization of Israel (cont.)

Any forlorn hope that life under Israeli sovereignty will somehow “domesticate” the Palestinian-Arabs into reconciling themselves to life in the Jewish nation-state should have been well and truly dashed by the behavior of Israel’s Arab citizens.

After all, despite living (and prospering) for seven decades under Israeli sovereignty—and more than  a half-century after military rule over the Arab population was abolished—they not only voted, almost en-bloc, for the vehemently anti-Zionist “Joint List” in the 2015 elections, but displayed great empathy in a mass funeral for the terrorists, from the Israeli town of Um-al Fahm, who murdered two Israeli police officers on the Temple Mount.

Once the Arab population of Judea-Samaria becomes incorporated into Israel’s permanent population, at least two crucial elements of national life are almost certain to be dramatically—and in Zionist-compliant terms, negatively –impacted.  The one is the distribution of national resources; the other is population flows into, and out of, the country.
 
With regard to the former, clearly once the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria—whether enfranchised or not—become incorporated into the country’s permanent population, Israel will not be able to afford the kind of socio-economic disparities that prevail between the pre- and post-annexation segments of the population.

Accordingly, huge budget resources will have to be diverted to reduce these disparities – siphoning off funds currently spent on the Jewish population (and Israeli Arabs) in terms of welfare, medical care, infrastructure, education and so on.

Indeed, if enfranchisement (eventual or immediate) is envisaged, the electoral potential of the Arab sector is liable to be elevated from its current 13-15 seats in parliament to 25-30.  This will not only hugely bolster its ability to demand enhanced budgetary allotments, but also make it virtually impossible to form a governing coalition without their endorsement.

Moreover, collaboration   on various ad hoc parliamentary initiatives with radical Jewish left-wing factions is likely to nullify any formal calculations of an ostensible “Jewish majority”, and lead to legislative enterprises that ultra-Zionist proponents of annexation would strongly oppose – in an ironic manifestation of unintended consequences.

Partial Annexation: The Balkanization of Israel

Thus, while full annexation of Judea-Samaria will almost inevitably result in the Lebanonization of Israel—i.e.  create a single society, so fractured by interethnic strife that it would be untenable as the nation- state of the Jewish people; proposals for the partial annexation of Judea-Samaria will result in the Balkanization of Israel –  (i.e. dividing the territory up into disconnected autonomous enclaves, which will be recalcitrant, rivalrous and rejectionist, creating an ungovernable reality for Israel.)

Proposals for partial annexation appear to be fueled by (a) concern that total annexation would be too drastic a step for the international community to “swallow”, and (b) a sense that some semblance of self-rule must be facilitated for the Arabs resident in Judea and Samaria. As will be shown, partial annexation will address neither of these issues effectively. Indeed quite the opposite is true.

Proposals for partial annexation are commonly of two types:  Those that prescribe including  selected areas of Judea-Samaria under Israeli sovereignty   (such as Area C as advanced by Education Minister Naftali Bennett) ; and those that prescribe excluding certain selected areas from Israeli sovereignty such as the large urban centers in  Judea-Samaria (such as advanced by Dr. Mordechai Kedar in his “Emirates” plan)

Sadly, neither of these paradigms will solve any of the diplomatic or security problems Israel faces today, and will in fact exacerbate many.

The Balkanization of Israel (cont)

It is hardly necessary to go into the intricate details of the individual proposals for partial annexation to grasp how impractical they really are.

For whatever the configuration of the un-annexed areas left to Arab administration –whether the disconnected enclaves of Areas A and B, or the micro-mini “city states”—they will leave the sovereign territory of Israel with dauntingly long and contorted frontiers, making it almost impossible to delineate and secure. Clearly if one cannot effectively demarcate and secure one’s sovereign territory, there is little meaning to one’s sovereign authority over that territory.  

Although Haaretz is not my preferred source of reference, I find it difficult to disagree with the following assessment of Bennett’s plan for annexing Area C:

“… Bennett’s plan is groundless from the security, diplomatic, legal and, especially, physical angles. It’s easy to discern that, contrary to what was presented in a video produced by Bennett’s…party recently, Areas A and B in the West Bank are not contiguous blocs, spreading over 40 percent of the West Bank. Instead, they consist of no less than 169 Palestinian blocs and communities, cut off from one another by innumerable Israeli corridors and unused IDF firing zones that are together defined as Area C”.

It correctly pointed out: “… in fact, Bennett is proposing to increase the length of the Israeli border from 313 kilometers to 1,800 kilometers (194 to 1,118 miles). If [one] believe[s] Bennett, he will doubtless back the dismantling of the security barrier that Israel has built to the tune of 15 billion shekels ($3.9 billion), but [one] will have to accept that annexing Area C means Israel will have to build a barrier along the new border at the cost of 27 billion shekels and allocate another 4 billion shekels per year for maintenance purposes.”

Partial Annexation: Full political price

Similar criticism can be leveled at Kedar’s proposal for setting up an array of up to eight micro-mini “emirates” or city states.  It is not difficult to envisage the problems of future expansion beyond the highly constricted confines of disconnected enclaves, and of the need to severely curtail the authority of the local administration to deal with cross border issues such as pollution (particularly the carcinogenic emissions of the wide spread charcoal industry), sewage, pollution  from  industrial effluents, agricultural run-off, transmissible diseases and so on.   

Of course, any hopes that partial annexation, which entails extending Israeli sovereignty over about 65-75% of the territory, leaving the Palestinian-Arabs with an emasculated  25-30%, in a quilted patchwork of disconnected enclaves and corridors, will in any way diminish  international censure, are utterly unfounded. The political “pain” involved in such schemes would be no less than annexing 100% of the territory—without having to deal with the attendant chronic problems associated with partial annexation (as detailed above).   

Fanciful suggestions  that Nablus and Hebron might flourish into entities like Monaco and Luxembourg are as risible as those which, in the heady days of Oslo, predicted that Gaza would become the Hong Kong of the Mid East—and would be rightfully rejected as such.

Humanitarian Paradigm: Hobson’s choice

Even from the far-from-exhaustive analysis conducted over the last two weeks, it should be clear that an indisputable picture emerges as to the Zionist-compliant feasibility of the various policy paradigms proposed for dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Thus:

– The attempt to manage the conflict is little more than a formula for backing away from confrontations in which Israel can prevail, while backing into a confrontation in which Israel might not prevail—or may do so only at ruinous cost.

– The two-state paradigm will almost inevitably result in the establishment of a yet another homophobic, misogynistic, Muslim-majority tyranny, which will rapidly become a mega-Gaza on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv, menacing the socio-economic routine in the commercial hub of the country.

-Full annexation of Judea-Samaria together with the Arab population will result in the Lebanonization of Israeli society and thrust the country into ruinous inter-ethnic strife that will imperil it status as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

– Partial annexation of Judea-Samaria will result in the Balkanization of Israel, dividing the territory up into disconnected, rivalrous, recalcitrant and unsustainable autonomous enclaves, which will create an ungovernable reality for Israel.

Thus, by a rigorous process of deductive elimination we are left with the Humanitarian Paradigm, advocating funded emigration for non-belligerent Palestinian-Arabs to third party countries, as the only possible paradigm that can adequately address both the geographic and demographic imperatives needed to preserve Israel as the nation state of Jews.

As such, for Zionists, it is Hobson’s choice. Anything else is self-deception.

Posted on

Report: Terror Attacks by Palestinian Children on the Rise, Despite U.N. Coverup

Palestinian child terrorists as young as eight years old are increasingly being radicalized and spurred to carry out terror attacks on Israeli citizens, according to a prominent human rights organization that is accusing the United Nations of covering up the recruitment of child terrorists by Palestinian militant groups.

At least 79 separate terror attacks have been carried out by Palestinian children ranging in ages from eight to 17 since 2015, when a wave of Palestinian terror attacks began, according to Human Rights Voices, or HRV, a U.N. watchdog group that has accused the international body of engaging in a “feeble cover-up” of this growing terror issue.

Palestinian leaders and other officials continue to praise the use of children in terror attacks and continue to encourage youths to take up arms against the Jewish state, according to HRV’s report, which was provided to the Washington Free Beacon.

“In violation of [its] legal obligations” to prevent such attacks, “there have been at least 79 separate terrorist attacks by Palestinian children since September13, 2015,” according to the report. “The preferred method of murder and attempted murder by Palestinian child terrorists are stabbings or knifings, the modus operandi in 66 of the 79 attacks.”

At least two of these attacks were committed by terrorists as young as eight, while another four attacks were done by children aged 12, according to the report. Thirteen-year-olds have carried out seven terror attacks, while Palestinian children 14 years of age are responsible for at least 10 of these terror incidents. The majority of these attacks were committed by children ages 16 and 17.

Palestinian leaders have celebrated the violence, even in the halls of the U.N., HRV found.

“After Palestinian child terrorists had murdered two and injured nine in sixteen attacks in the fall of 2015, Palestinian UN representative Riyad Mansour made this declaration in the public hall of UN Headquarters on November 23, 2015: ‘We are so proud that in this popular uprising that has started almost two months ago, that the backbone of this uprising are the youth of Palestine,'” according to the report.

“Since that time, Palestinian child terrorists have attacked Israelis at least another 60 times,” the report found.

Despite scores of public records outlining these attacks by child terrorists, the U.N. had moved to downplay and ignore this activity in official reports, prompting criticism from human rights organizations such as HRV.

The U.N. Secretary General’s 2017 annual report on children in armed conflict zones, which was published in April, claims there is little information about Palestinian children terrorists, despite publicly available data.

“Limited information is available about the recruitment or use of children,” the report states on its section about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“Since the secretary-general’s claim is manifestly untrue, the United Nations is not merely engaged in a feeble cover-up,” the HRV report states. “The fact is that the U.N. is now an active enabler of the violation of the rights of Israelis and Palestinians: the basic rights to life and security of the person of the Israeli victims of Palestinian children engaged in terrorism, and the rights of Palestinian children not to be recruited or engaged in terrorism in the first place.”

Palestinian leaders continue to incite violence against Israel, despite recent promises to refrain from such activity. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas denied officials engage in incitement during a recent meeting at the White House with President Donald Trump, a claim that prompted pushback from pro-Israel organizations.

“The Palestinian U.N. ambassador publicly supported child terrorism at the U.N. itself,” according to the HRV report. “Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas embraced and shook hands with one of the child terrorists following his attack. ”

“Videos, photographs, television programs, and social media outlets—from Palestinian and Israeli sources—provide a multitude of other evidence both of Palestinian children engaged in armed conflict and Palestinian adults (from the political sphere to the education system—run by the U.N.’s own refugee agency UNRWA—to the family unit) promoting such behavior,” according to the report.

Originally Published in the Washington Free Beacon.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

ISRAEL VICTORY CAUCUS: Can We Ask the Palestinians to Leave?

Original title: Israel victory caucus – Assessing actionable alternatives

The Humanitarian Paradigm, advocating funded emigration of Palestinian-Arabs  appears the most plausible method for achieving the goals of the Israel Victory Caucus.

The major issue is not [attaining] an agreement, but ensuring the actual implementation of the agreement in practice.  The number of agreements which the Arabs have violated is no less than number which they have kept – Shimon Peres, Tomorrow is Now (Hebrew),  1978

Even if the Palestinians agree that their state have no army or weapons, who can guarantee that a Palestinian army would not be mustered later to encamp at the gates of Jerusalem and the approaches to the lowlands? And if the Palestinian state would be unarmed, how would it block terrorist acts perpetrated by extremists, fundamentalists or irredentists? – Shimon Peres, The New Middle East, 1993

Last week’s column was devoted to the launch of the Congressional Israel Victory Caucus (CVIC) by Reps. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and Bill Johnson (R-OH), and initiated by the Middle East Forum headed by Daniel Pipes its founder and president.

In the column, I began an analysis of the initiative, setting out some of its considerable merits and pointing out several difficulties that need to be addressed and others that need to be avoided;  and undertook to continue to discuss further aspects relating to the practical implementation of this crucially important enterprise.

A brief reminder

Readers will recall that the underlying spirit of the CIVC departs sharply from long-standing conventional wisdom regarding the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It rejects the view that the resolution of this conflict is contingent on ongoing and ever-more generous Israeli concessions.  Instead, CIVC holds that this can only be achieved by an unequivocal Israeli victory –and a commensurate unconditional Palestinian acknowledgement of defeat. Accordingly, US policy should reflect understanding of this restructured rationale and allow Israel to implement it.

While warmly commending this prescription for a radical redirection of endeavor, I cautioned that several aspects of the initiative will have to be fleshed out if it is to be transmuted from the sphere of well-intentioned generic guidelines to the realm of actionable policy prescriptions for Israel.  

Accordingly, I urged the authors of  CIVC to provide an operational definition of what would comprise an irrefutable Israeli victory and an undeniable Palestinian defeat. For absent such a definition, it is neither possible for Israel to know what to accomplish on the one hand, nor to impose on the Palestinians on the other.  

This is particularly pertinent as a parallel caucus is planned for launch in the Knesset this summer—and which, if it is to be in anyway  politically relevant, will have to champion the implementation of specific policy prescriptions.

Moreover, I observed that it would be necessary to outline what Israel’s post-victory policy should comprise—lest surrender (real or feigned) become a means to attain the very “fruits of victory” denied prior to admission of defeat.

The relevance of this latter point is thrown into sharp relief by the third element I raised: The need to avoid being misled by inappropriate historical analogies in which victory/defeat did, in fact, result in ending conflict and war.  This is particularly true in the case of Germany and Japan, neither of which were adjacent to large swathes of ethnically kindred nations, which could provide a constant stream of incitement, insurgents and armaments to undermine any arrangement or undercut any post-victory resolution the victorious party may wish to implement.

Post-Victory Policy & the Palestinian-Arab-Muslim nexus

This is something that has—or at least, ought to have—dramatic impact on the design of post-victory policy regarding the Palestinian-Arabs, pursuant to their acceptance of defeat.

After all, what might seem prudent and pragmatic under one set of circumstance (in which the defeated populace is effectively decoupled from inimical extraneous influences) may well be foolhardy, even fatally fanciful under another (in which the defeated populace is effectively exposed to such influences).

Of course, the term “influence”, would embrace diverse elements such as the supply of materiel and personnel, financial support and ideological reinforcement.

Painted in admittedly very broad brush strokes, this is essentially the seminal difference between the possible post-victory arrangements that were plausible in the case of Germany and Japan on the one hand, but not in Iraq and Afghanistan, on the other.  Clearly any post-victory scenario in the case of “Palestine”, embedded as it is in an Arab-Muslim milieu, would resemble Iraq/Afghanistan scenario rather than the German/Japan one.

Indeed, the Palestinian-Arabs have always identified themselves as an integral part of the “Arab nation” and, conversely, the wider Arab world has always identified them as an integral part of itself.

It is not difficult to see how this fact has direct and far-reaching bearing on the prudence and the practicality` of establishing a state (or even some other self-governing quasi-state entity).   

Post-victory Palestinian policy

Accordingly, in a scenario, in which the defeated Palestinian-Arabs are detached and insulated from hostile inputs from the wider Arab world, it might well be reasonable to envisage the feasibility of a durable and docile Palestinian entity, chastened by defeat, and insulated from hostile incitement and insurgency, living in relative harmony alongside the Jewish nation-state.  

However, in an alternative –and a patently more plausible –scenario, in which they are not, this is hardly a likely outcome.

After all, any  Palestinian-Arab administration, established in the wake of an unconditional surrender, will almost inevitably be seen in the wider, and largely inimical, Arab world,  as a perfidious “puppet regime”, in the service of the heinous Zionist entity. As such, it is certain to be branded as illegitimate by much of the Arab/Muslim world, to which the bulk of Palestinian-Arabs, exposed to the perspectives of their ethnic kinfolk beyond their borders, see themselves as belonging. Cooperation with it is likely to be condemned as cowardly treason and resistance to it, lauded as a noble duty.

Without ongoing Israeli control, incipient revolt will always be simmering near the surface, threatening to erupt.  

Adding the emerging potential for turmoil in neighboring Jordan, where the majority of the population is reportedly of Palestinian origins, only exacerbates this imminent threat of incitement and agitation against any post-victory arrangement with Israel.

Ensuring the fruits of victory

Indeed, Pipes himself in Jordan at the Precipice, underscores the precarious position of the current regime, warning that for Jordan today “dangers are manifold. ISIS lurks in Syria and Iraq”.

He cites dour evaluations from senior Israeli diplomatic sources that “the Hashemite kingdom faces growing instability amid economic woes and an influx of Syrian refugees” issuing “a pessimistic assessment on the firmness of the regime”.

Little imagination is required to grasp what a tectonic effect regime-change in Jordan would herald for the viability of any arrangement involving a neighboring, perhaps even abutting, self-governing Palestinian entity, particularly if established on the assumption of that regime’s durability.  

Accordingly, unless Israel is willing to maintain permanent control of any post-victory Palestinian-Arab entity, it is virtually certain that any compliant Palestinian-Arab administration would be a target of irredentist subversion from a myriad of Judeophobic actors (both state and non-state) across the Arab world and beyond.

The most plausible conclusion that emerges from this analysis is that any post-victory policy, aimed at sustaining the fruits of Israeli victory and Palestinian defeat, must convey the unequivocal message that no such entity is forthcoming—ever.

For unless such hopes are extinguished permanently, there will always be room for belief that defeat is merely temporary and that, at some later stage, the Jewish state will somehow be purged from the region.  

The question now, of course is:  How is this to be accomplished?

Achieving Victory: The “kinetic” route

Of course, the most common manner in which victory is achieved, and defeat inflicted, is by the use of naked military might.   Indeed, it appears this is more or less what Pipes envisages. Thus, in his A New Strategy for Israeli Victory  he writes “Palestinians will have to pass through the bitter crucible of defeat, with all its deprivation, destruction, and despair…”

In last week’s column I raise a question as to the feasible scope of devastation that can be wrought upon the Palestinian-Arabs in order to bring about their unconditional capitulation. How many Palestinian casualties would Israel need to inflict in order to achieve this?  10,000 fatalities?  20,000? As a somber reminder—and a very rough yardstick—it should be recalled that in the 1948 War of Independence, Israel suffered losses of over 6000—around 1% of the total Jewish population then—without bringing about any thoughts of unconditional surrender.

Could Israel kill a commensurate number of Palestinian-Arabs –between 30,000-40,000 depending on which demographic estimate one accepts—without incurring international censure and sanctions?     Could Israel inflict such death and devastation without precipitating massive popular clamor for international—even military—intervention,– across the Arab world and in other Islamic countries such as Turkey and Iran?

And once the fighting subsides, would Israel be responsible for providing the defeated populace with food and shelter, and for shouldering the burden (at least partially) for the massive reconstruction called for?

Achieving Victory: The “non-kinetic” route

There is, however, an alternative route to victory, one that is essentially “non-kinetic”,(or at least considerably less “kinetic”, than a full scale military invasion of Judea-Samaria and Gaza). It is an alternative that I have been advocating for over a decade and which I have designated the “Humanitarian Paradigm”.

In broad brush strokes, this involves differentiating between the Palestinian-Arab collective and individual Palestinian-Arabs. It calls for declaring the Palestinian-Arab collective precisely what it—and its leadership—declares itself to be, an implacable enemy of the Jewish nation-state…and for treating it as such.

The unavoidable imperative for this was aptly articulated by Israel Harel in Haaretz :“As long as Israel refrains from unequivocally defining the enemy, even the four brigades sent as reinforcements to Judea and Samara and the thousands of exhausted soldiers” will be of little avail, adding incisively: “The Palestinians, not terrorism, are the enemy. Terrorism is the means of combat that the Palestinians are using. Their ultimate goal is to expel us from our land.” 

Accordingly, the Jewish nation-state has neither moral obligation nor practical interest to sustain the social fabric or economic well-being of a collective dedicated to its destruction. To the contrary, an overwhelming case can be made – on both ethical and practical grounds – that it should let them collapse.

How Humanitarian Paradigm & Victory Caucus dovetail

Israel should, therefore, give notice that it will begin a phased withdrawal of all merchandize and services it currently provides that enemy collective—water, electricity, fuel, postal services, communications, port facilities, tax collection or remittances.  

In parallel, it should cease recognition of the authority of the Palestinian-Arab regimes in Judea-Samaria and Gaza, while offering generous relocation grants to non-belligerent Palestinian-Arab individuals to provide them and their families with the opportunity of a better, safer life elsewhere in third party countries out of harm’s way and free from the clutches of the cruel corrupt cliques–who have callously misled them from disaster to disaster for decades.

The political feasibility and the economic affordability of this policy paradigm have been discussed elsewhere so I will forego a repeated review of them here. However it should be clear that, given the abundance of external sources of inimical sentiment that can ignite aggression, it is only by permanently denuding the hostile Arab presence in the disputed territory, that Israel can ensure that this territory will not become a platform from which to launch attacks against it in the future (see Shimon Peres in introductory excerpts).  This is the only way to smother Arab hopes of someday prising  loose the Jewish hold on land they consider Arab.

But given the manifest obstacles in achieving this by means of wholesale expulsion by kinetic measures, this non-kinetic formula appears to be the most plausible method for achieving the goals of the Victory Caucus—and one that  should be vigorously explored by its authors.