The End of Palestine - Daniel Greenfield - http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265820/end-palestine-daniel-greenfield
Israel has the opportunity to reclaim its nation.
Palestine is many things. A Roman name and a Cold War lie. Mostly it's a justification for killing Jews.
Palestine was an old Saudi-Soviet scam which invented a fake nationality for the Arab clans who had invaded and colonized Israel. This big lie transformed the leftist and Islamist terrorists run by them into the liberators of an imaginary nation. Suddenly the efforts of the Muslim bloc and the Soviet bloc to destroy the Jewish State became an undertaking of sympathetically murderous underdogs.
But the Palestine lie is past its sell by date.
What we think of as "Palestinian" terrorism was a low-level conflict pursued by the Arab Socialist states in between their invasions of Israel. After several lost wars, the terrorism was all that remained. Egypt, Syria and the USSR threw in the towel on actually destroying Israel with tanks and jets, but funding terrorism was cheap and low-risk. And the rewards were disproportionate to the cost.
For less than the price of a single jet fighter, Islamic terrorists could strike deep inside Israel while isolating the Jewish State internationally with demands for "negotiations" and "statehood."
After the Cold War ended, Russia was low on cash and the PLO's Muslim sugar daddies were tired of paying for Arafat's wife's shoe collection and his keffiyah dry cleaning bills.
The terror group was on its last legs. "Palestine" was a dying delusion that didn't have much of a future.
That's when Bill Clinton and the flailing left-wing Israeli Labor Party which, unlike its British counterpart, had failed to adapt to the new economic boom, decided to rescue Arafat and create "Palestine".
The resulting terrorist disaster killed thousands, scarred two generations of Israelis, isolated the country and allowed Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and other major cities to come under fire for the first time since the major wars. No matter how often Israeli concessions were met with Islamic terrorism, nothing seemed able to shake loose the two-state solution monkey on Israel's back. Destroying Israel, instantaneously or incrementally, had always been a small price to pay for maintaining the international order.
The same economic forces that were transforming the world after the Cold War had salvaged "Palestine". Arafat had lost his sponsors in Moscow, but his new sugar daddy's name was "Globalism".
The Cold War had been the focus of international affairs. What replaced it was the conviction that a new world tied together by international commerce, the internet and international law would be born.
The demands of a clan in Hebron used to be able to hijack the attention of the world because the scope of the clash between Capitalism and Communism could globalize any local conflict. Globalization was just as insistent on taking local conflicts and making them the world's business through its insistence that every place was connected. The terrorist blowing up an Israeli pizzeria affected stock prices in New York, the expansion prospects of a company in China and the risk of another terrorist attack in Paris. And interconnectedness, from airplane hijacking to plugging into the international's left alliance of global protest movements, had become the best weapon of Islamic terrorists.
But now globalization is dying. And its death may just take "Palestine" with it.
A new generation of leaders is rising who are actively hostile to globalization. Trump and Brexit were the most vocal rebukes to transnationalism. But polls suggest that they will not be the only ones. The US and the UK, once the vanguards of the international order, now have governments that are competitively seeking national advantages rather than relying on the ordered rules of the transnational safety net.
These governments will not just toss aside their commitment to a Palestinian state. Not when the Saudis, Qataris and countless other rich and powerful Muslim countries bring it up at every session.
But they will be less committed to it.
45% of Americans support the creation of a PLO state. 42% are opposed. That's a near split. These historical numbers have to be viewed within the context of the larger changes sweeping the country.
The transnationalists actively believed that it was their job to solve the problems of other countries. Nationalists are concerned with how the problems of other countries directly impinge on them without resorting to the mystical interconnectedness of everything, from climate change to global justice, that is at the core of the transnational worldview.
More intense competition by Western nations may make it easier for Islamic agendas to gain influence through the old game of divide and conquer. Nations facing terrorism will still find that the economic influence of Islamic oil power will rally the Western trading partners of Islam against them.
But without the transnational order, such efforts will often amount to little more than lip service.
Nationalist governments will find Israel's struggle against the Islamic invaders inconvenient because it threatens their business interests, but they will also be less willing to rubber stamp the terror agenda the way that transnationalist governments were willing to do. The elimination of the transnational safety net will also cause nationalist governments to look harder at consequences and results.
Endlessly pouring fortunes into a Palestinian state that will never exist just to keep Muslim oil tyrants happy is not unimaginable behavior even for a nationalist government. Japan has been doing just that.
But it will be a less popular approach for countries that don't suffer from Japan's energy insecurity.
Transnationalists are ideologically incapable of viewing a problem as unsolvable. Their faith in human progress through international law made it impossible for them to give up on the two-state solution.
Nationalist governments have a colder and harder view of human nature. They will not endlessly pour efforts and resources into a diplomatic black hole. They will eventually take "No" for an answer.
This won't mean instantaneous smooth sailing for Israel. It will however mean that the exit is there.
For two decades, pledging allegiance to the two-state solution and its intent to create a deadly Islamic terror state inside Israel has been the price demanded of the Jewish State for its participation in the international community. That price will not immediately vanish. But it will become easier to negotiate.
The real change will be on the "Palestinian" side where a terrorist kleptoracy feeds off human misery in its mansions downwind of Ramallah. That terror state, conceived insincerely by the enemies of the West during the Cold War and sincerely brought into being by Western trans nationalists after the Cold War ended, is a creature of that transnational order.
The "Palestinian Authority", a shell company of the PLO which is a shell company of the Fatah terrorists, has no economy worth speaking of. It has foreign aid. Its diplomatic achievements are achieved for it by the transnational network of foreign diplomats, the UN, the media and assorted international NGOs. During the last round of "negotiations", Secretary of State John Kerry even attempted to do the negotiating on behalf of the Palestinian Authority in the talks with Israel.
Take away the transnational order and the Palestinian Authority will need a new sugar daddy. The Saudis are better at promising money than actually delivering it. Russia may decide to take on the job. But it isn't about to put in the money and resources that the PA has grown used to receiving from us.
Without significant American support, the Palestinian Authority will perish. And the farce will end.
It won't happen overnight. But Israel now has the ability to make it happen if it is willing to take the risk of transforming a corrosive status quo into a conflict that will be more explosive in the short term, but more manageable in the long term.
Prime Minister Netanyahu, in stark contrast to rivals on the left like Peres and on the right like Sharon, is not a gambler. The peace process was a big gamble. As was the withdrawal from Lebanon and the expulsion from Gaza. These gambles failed and left behind scars and enduring crises.
Unlike the prime ministers before and after him, Netanyahu has made no big moves. Instead he serves as a sensible steward of a rising economy and a growing nation. He has stayed in office for so long because Israelis know that he won't do anything crazy. That sensible stewardship, which infuriated Obama who accused him of refusing to take risks, has made him one of the longest serving leaders in Israeli history.
Netanyahu is also a former commando who participated in the rescue of a hijacked airplane. He doesn't believe in taking foolish risks until he has his shot all lined up. But the time is coming when not taking a risk will be a bigger risk than taking a risk. Eventually he will have to roll the dice.
The new nationalist wave may not hold. The transnational order may return. Or the new wave may prove darker and more unpredictable. It's even possible that something else may take its place.
The status quo, a weak Islamist-Socialist terror state in Ramallah supported by the United States, a rising Muslim Brotherhood terror state in Gaza backed by Qatar and Turkey, and an Israel using technological brilliance to manage the threat from both, is already unstable. It may collapse in a matter of years.
The PLO has inflicted a great deal of diplomatic damage on Israel and Hamas has terrorized its major cities. Together they form an existential threat that Israel has allowed to grow under the guise of managing it. The next few years may leave Israel with a deadlier and less predictable struggle.
"Palestine" is dying. Israel didn't kill it. The fall of the transnational order did. The question is what will take its place. As the nationalist wave sweeps the West, Israel has the opportunity to reclaim its nation.
Trump & Netanyahu agree: Israel-Gulf peace first - http://www.debka.com/article/25927/Trump-Netanyahu-agree-Israel-Gulf-peace-first
"One state, two states, I like this state," Donald Trump joked, turning to visiting Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu when they addressed a wide-ranging, friendly news conference Wednesday, Feb.15, at the White House, ahead of their face-to-face talks.
Trump reacted positively to Netanyahu's proposal to broaden the Israeli-Palestinian peace process to a regional effort as a "very important" new idea "on a broader canvas" which he believed could succeed. Netanyahu said that the regional fears of Iran also presented an opportunity for cooperation against the Islamic State and radical Islamic terror.
debkafile reports that these sentiments reflected agreement in principle between Trump and Netanyahu to seek an Israeli peace accord with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates as the lead-in to negotiations for an accord with the Palestinians. Egypt, Jordan and Turkey with whom Israel already has normal relations would jump in later. This deal fits in with the US plan reported more than once on these pages for a regional peace between the Sunni Arab nations and the Jewish State.
Some of the spadework may have been performed by CIA Director Mike Pompeo who paid a secret visit to Ramallah Wednesday morning for talks with Mahmoud Abbas, after trips to Ankara and Riyadh, following which Turkey upgraded its diplomatic mission in Israel
This plan was the fulcrum for the president to push back against the two-state solution advocated by the Obama administration as the cure for the conflict. It remains to be seen if this plan takes on life outside the White House and in the region's capitals.
Trump realistically called on Israel to "hold back settlements," show flexibility and make compromises for a peace deal. He urged the Palestinians to "get rid of hate starting in the schoolroom." Whatever the Israelis and Palestinians agree to in direct talks - one state or two - "I will accept,." he said, adding "I believe we will have a deal that is better than many Israelis think."
In answer to a question on settlements, Netanyahu replied that he did not believe they were the core of the conflict and the issue could be addressed in peace negotiations. With regard to a two-state formula, the prime minister said this was a label and he preferred to deal in substance. An independent state was contingent on the Palestinians recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, giving up incitement to violence and Israel remaining responsible for security up to the Jordan River. "Do we want another failed state, another terrorist state?" he asked.
Netanyahu commended the US President for pledging that Iran must never, ever obtain a nuclear weapon and stressed that its missile program was a threat - not only to Israel and the region, but to America due to the ICBMs under development and Iran's plans for a nuclear arsenal.
President Trump greeted the Israeli leader with stress on the "unbreakable bond with our cherished ally, Israel" their cooperation against violence and terror and shared values in respect of human life. He said that his first sit-down with Netanyahu as president would be the first of "many productive meetings."
The president made the exceptional gestures of welcoming Netanyahu and his wife Sarah at the door of the White House, with the First Lady at his side. The couples exchanged warm embraces.
Melania Trump took a seat beside Sarah Netanyahu in the front row of the news conference. They were joined by Ivanka and Jared Kushner, who holds the post of special adviser to the president.
Netanyahu ends his Washington visit Thursday after meeting Vice President Mike Pence and leaders of Congress.
Knesset Bill Proposes Annexing All Jerusalem-Area Settlements - by Deborah Danan - http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/02/13/6136new-bill-annexing-all-jerusalem-area-settlements-to-be-submitted/
A new bill to annex the settlements around Jerusalem will be submitted to the Knesset this week, the Jerusalem Post reported.
MK Yehuda Glick (Likud) is advancing the private member's legislation, which would cover one-third of the 386,000 settlers in Judea and Samaria residing in communities including Ma'aleh Adumim, Givat Ze'ev, Adam, Psagot, Ma'aleh Michmash and the Gush Etzion bloc.
A similar bill annexing Ma'aleh Adumim has been submitted and is awaiting approval from the Ministerial Committee for Legislation. But according to Glick, annexing Ma'aleh Adumim alone is not enough.
Applying sovereignty to all the communities around Jerusalem would strengthen the capital and distance the notion of a Palestinian state, Glick said. He added that the bill has already garnered support from Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely and Transportation Minister Israel Katz.
He noted that his bill comes at an auspicious time, ahead of the 50th anniversary of the Six Day War that saw Judea and Samaria liberated from Jordan, and as such this should be "the year of sovereignty."
The new bill comes on the heels of a series of annexation attempts put forward by nationalist politicians here since President Donald Trump came into office.
So far, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not supported efforts toward annexation, fearing it would cause too much backlash from the U.S. and international community. Instead, he favors a scenario in which the U.S. would lend its support for building within existing settlements.
A group of nationalist politicians from the Knesset Land of Israel Caucus published an open letter to Netanyahu Sunday, urging him "to seize the opportunity provided by the entry of the new U.S. administration ... [and] prevent the establishment of an Arab terrorist state in the Land of Israel, and to stand for freedom, prosperity and building of communities throughout Judea and Samaria."
The two-state delusion - Dr. Joel Fishman - http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/20165
It has been done before. During the war in Vietnam, the North Vietnamese also launched the "Two-State" formula in order to hide their true strategic goal.
For some time, the mantra known as the so-called "Two-State Solution," has been presented in the media as a desirable goal, one that Israel and the Palestinian Arabs should implement in the interest of peace. Whenever one raises this idea, it is implied that Israel should make major sacrifices in exchange for an unclear benefit.
During the Obama administration, Secretary of State, John Kerry, bitterly accused the Government of Israel of not being committed to the "Two State Solution," and even last week in London, Prime Minister Theresa May declared that she favored the "Two-State Solution." She asked Prime Minster Netanyahu if he were also committed to this formula. For his part, the Prime Minister did not respond directly but stated that Israel is committed to peace.
This slogan completely lacks merit. The PLO first introduced it as a stratagem, and its real purpose has been to conceal their true aims and those of their successor, the Palestinian Authority. Those who launched the idea of the "Two State Solution" intended that it be understood differently by the Israelis, -- their potential victims, -- and other well-meaning outsiders who seemingly would want a fair solution to this war.
During the war in Vietnam, the North Vietnamese originally launched the "Two-State" formula in order to hide their strategic goal. They adopted a strategy of phases which, by devoting attention to the intermediate stages of their struggle, would enable them to reach their goal by gradual steps. Their real intention was that North Vietnam would conquer South Vietnam, but they spoke of the "Two-State Solution," a tactic whose purpose was to disguise their aims and manipulate world public opinion. In the end, Communist North Vietnam subdued and conquered South Vietnam, and in 1975 the last Americans fled from the rooftop of their embassy in Saigon by helicopter. This was a major defeat both for the South Vietnamese and for the United States of America.
During the early 1970s Salah Khalaf, known as Abu Iyad, led a PLO delegation to Hanoi to learn from the North Vietnamese. There, they met the legendary General Vo Nguyen Giap and political advisors who coached them on presenting their case and changing their image of being terrorists in world public opinion. Abu Iyad described this important visit in his book, My Home, My Land (which he published with Eric Rouleau in 1978). Abu Iyad recounted that the North Vietnamese advised the Palestinians to devote attention to the intermediate stages of their war and to accept the need for "provisional sacrifices." "Without ever referring explicitly to Fatah or the PLO, the Politbureau members gave a long expos� of the various stages in the Vietnamese People's struggle, explaining why they had had to resign themselves to various concessions, sometimes important ones such as the division of the country into two separate, independent states."
Independently, in 1997 Yossef Bodansky, an intelligence analyst, published more information on this meeting. "The Vietnamese suggested that seemingly accepting 'the division of the land between two independent states,' without stressing that this was only an interim phase, would neutralize the PLO's opponents in the West."
We live in a high-technology culture of sound bites and SMS's, of quick and simple communication, of one-line messages, and such habits discourage the public from the careful study of past experience. In order to understand what is wrong here, we must remember the history of this mantra, which was designed from the start to be a swindle. It began as a tool of political warfare, and its purpose never changed. Its potency has remained, because people do not know the past or have been lulled to sleep.
By tracing and documenting the origin of the term, we can know with certainty that it is a fraud, and those who advance it cannot wish Israel well. For the same reason, no Israeli who wishes his country well should ever advocate the "Two State Solution." Its program means nothing less than the politicide of Israel. The idea may have been fashionable during the Oslo era, but it is still necessary to listen carefully to what the enemy is saying and what he means.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.