no two states

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/shooting-israel-between-israel-and-the-west-bank-1.404555

one state two peoples

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/151200#.TvvrbPJTrl4

death of 2 state solution

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/2011-the-year-the-two-state-solution-died-1.404098

invented people

http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/86826/useful-fiction/

invented palestine

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11018#.TvKMcPJTrl4

Invented Palestinian

martin
sherman...http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=249674

caroline glick...
http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=249183

PA Change

http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/2501/the-politics-of-change-in-palestine

all of palestine

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/150673#.TucxN_JTrl4

poor NEWT!

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/10975#.TucsHfJTrl4

BERNARD LEWIS: CONTEXT - Palestine: On The History and Geography of a Name

Net Gingrich called the Palestinians "an invented people."

annex J&S

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/149232#.TtSjA_JTrl5

the first shot across the bow!!

stay tuned.

www.onestateplan.com

The Palestinian Authority (PA) is a symbol of the new anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Zionism, according to Dr. Gerardo Stuczynski, the president of the Latin American Zionist Confederation... He asserted that the PA is popular because of the new anti-Semitism that "states that all the peoples of the world have the right to self-determination, except the Jewish people. That is why Zionism is illegitimate and Israel is the only country that has no right to exist."

He explained that since the Holocaust, it is no longer politically correct to identify oneself as a simple anti-Semitic. Thus anti-Semitism "modernises and becomes anti-Zionism." Dr. Stuczynski noted that the PA is the "most subsidised people in the world". There is an agency in the UN for Palestinian refugees and another one for the rest of the refugees in the world.

"The countries of the world hurry to recognise a Palestinian State that does not satisfy the necessary requirements to be a State and that is governed mainly by a terrorist organisation. And when UNESCO recognises Palestine as a member, it is implicitly accepting the anti-Jewish hatred transmitted in their schools and through the mass media."

This completely disproportionate solidarity is not due so much to the concern for the Palestinians but to the fact that it is fundamentally anti-Israeli. ...He charged that anti-Zionists have turned the United Nations "into an instrument to promote anti-Semitism and offers Palestinians a podium so that their words have more repercussion" while allowing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to state that Israel must be wiped off the map.

myth of jewish colonialism

http://www.jewcy.com/post/myth_jewish_colonialism

PAL ancestry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsvi_Misinai

Why there is no chance for peace

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=791&mid=523

OWS insights

http://www.israpundit.com/archives/41033#comments

geneva accord

http://www.geneva-accord.org/

Pals want Israel

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/01/_one_of_the_givens.html

1947

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/abbas-arab-world-was-wrong-to-reject-1947-partition-plan-1.392560

dirshowitz two states

http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/a-joint-proposal-on-the-foundations-of-a-two-state-solution

AB Yehoshua

moral imperative...
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/dividing-the-land-of-israel-into-two-states-is-a-moral-imperative-1.388861
read

israelis want a PA state?

what did rabin
promise?...http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4129623,00.html

nusseibah: jewish or democratic

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4129692,00.html

PA plans

The PA
twostateplan...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyhuqthF2UM&feature=share

shomron high ground

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dACXsFW407w&feature=share

Fwd: ANNEX

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/148362#.ToKac9SwVTQ

Annexation-Phase I

not only "right-wingers"...

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-must-annex-west-bank-settlements-right-wing-mks-tell-netanyahu-1.387018

shannah tovah!

mike

good essay

freund...

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=23895

hopefully his father-in-law agrees....

edelstein

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/147848#.TnBuStQ05uQ

jerusalem arabs

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/would-east-jerusalem-arabs-rather-be-citizens-of-israel-or-palestine-1.336758

BRAVO - IMPORTANT CONTEXT: Hebron's Mayor Explains What's Really on the Palestinian Mind

read very carefully.....-
then go to
www.onestateplan.com

Hevron Mukhtar Misses Pre-Oslo Days

Sheikh Abu Hader Jaabari says Israel made a bad mistake when it chose dialogue with the PLO instead of local leadership.

by Hezki Ezra and Gil Ronen

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/147354#.TlzwZs35Nv0

First Publish: 8/30/2011, 2:25 PM

Sheikh Jaabari

Hezki Ezra

The Mukhtar of Hevron, Sheikh Abu Hader Jaabari, says in an exclusive interview with Arutz Sheva that Israel made a bad mistake when it chose dialogue with the PLO instead of local tribal leadership. He says he misses the days that preceded the Oslo Accords.

The interview with Jaabari was conducted at his home, in the presence of Deputy Minister Ayoub Kara.

"I wish we had remained in the pre-Oslo period," Jaabari said. "The situation was much better, at least economically. Today we have over 40% unemployment. Most of the factories have closed down, and drug trafficking within the populace has grown. People find themselves in a vacuum; they look for their path…"

"We are basically a conservative nation. Now there is no conservatism, no anything."

Speaking emotionally and with conviction, Jaabari said that there is no way of establishing a "Palestinian" state. Firstly, he said, Islam forbids Arab leaders from ceding any part of the land, which is considered holy. Therefore, any kind of land compromise is not valid from a religious viewpoint. Secondly, he said, Israel is present everywhere on the land, there are checkpoints everywhere and there is no way to create an independent Arab country, because there is not enough land to create it on.

The solution, he said, is not to divide the land between Jews and Arabs but to establish a single country in which Jews and Arabs will have equal rights.

Regarding the Jewish fear that Arabs would eventually gain a majority in such a country, he said: "You have a fear of demography. But I think the Arabs are going down demographically and the Jews are only going up. Our women have begun to work and they are content with one or two children."

Ayoub Kara floated the idea that Arabs would have full rights in Israel but would not be able to vote for the Knesset. Sheikh Jaabari said he would agree to this arrangement as a temporary one, until trust was established between Jews and Arabs.

Kara tried to suggest that Palestinians are in effect Jordanians, and do not need an additional state. Jaabari agreed that most Jordanians are Palestinians and that many of the Arabs in Judea and Samaria are Jordanian citizens. However, he said that once Jordan announced its disengagement from Judea and Samaria in 1988 -- the option of "Jordan as Palestine" became difficult to implement. Perhaps a confederation of some sort with Jordan or Israel is still possible, he said, but this too is difficult after the Oslo process, because "everyone wants to be a part of the leadership and if there is no state there is no leadership."

In any case, he said, an independent Palestinian state is not an option.

end occupation

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/08/read-the-post-for-which-derfner-was-fired-the-awful-necessary-truth-about-palestinian-terror.html

guardian one state

http://www.jidaily.com/4O9N7/e

reagan and revisionism

how much of the below narrative is false?

http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1981

Fwd: time to annex!

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	time to annex!
Date:	Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:47:28 -0400
From:	Michael Wise <mlwise@gmail.com>
Reply-To:	mlwise@gmail.com
To:	undisclosed-recipients:;

caroline glick is now on board!....

http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=229937

read carefully.

mike wise

www.onestateplan.com

Our World: Israel's only two options

By CAROLINE B. GLICK 18/07/2011

The Jewish state's choices are to either annex Judea and Samaria or be destroyed by its neighbors.

Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas is in Europe this week seeking to convince the Spanish and Norwegian governments to support the Palestinian bid to sidestep negotiations with Israel and have the UN General Assembly recognize Palestinian sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem in addition to Gaza. The Palestinians know that without US support, their initiative will fail to gain Security Council support and therefore have no legal weight. But they believe that if they push hard enough, Israel's control over these areas will eventually unravel and they will gain control over them without ever accepting Israel's right to exist. Fatah's UN gambit, along with its unity deal with Hamas, makes clear that the time has come for Israel to finally face the facts: There are only two realistic options for dealing with Judea and Samaria. Either the Palestinians will take control of Judea and Samaria, or Israel will annex them. If the Palestinians take control, they will establish a terror state in the areas, which – like their terror state in Gaza – will use its territory as a starting point for continued war against Israel. It isn't only Israel's experience with post-withdrawal Gaza and South Lebanon that make it clear that a post-withdrawal Palestinian-controlled Judea and Samaria will become a terror state. The Palestinians themselves make no bones about this. In a Palestinian public opinion survey released last week by The Israel Project, 65 percent of Palestinians said they believe that they should conduct negotiations with Israel. But before we get excited, we need to read the fine print. According to the survey, those two-thirds of Palestinians believe that talks should not lead to the establishment of the State of Palestine next to Israel and at peace with the Jewish state. They believe the establishment of "Palestine" next to Israel should serve as a means for continuing their war against Israel. The goal of that war is to destroy what's left of Israel after the "peace" treaty and gobble it into "Palestine." That is, 66% of Palestinians believe "peace" talks with Israel should be conducted in bad faith. Moreover, three-quarters deny Jewish ties to Jerusalem, and 80% support Islamic jihad against Jews as called for in the Hamas charter; 73% support the annihilation of the Jewish people as called for in the Hamas charter on the basis of Islamic scripture. As bad as Israel's experience with post-withdrawal Gaza and South Lebanon has been, Israel's prospects with a post-withdrawal Judea and Samaria will be far worse. It isn't simply that withdrawal will invite aggression from Judea and Samaria. It will invite foreign Arab armies to invade the rump Jewish state. Unlike the post-withdrawal situation with Gaza and South Lebanon, without Judea and Samaria, Israel would not have the territorial depth and topographical advantage to defend itself from invasion from the east. Moreover, the establishment of the second Palestinian terror state after Gaza in Judea and Samaria would embolden some of Israel's Arab citizens in the Galilee and the Negev as well as in Jaffa, Lod, Haifa and beyond to escalate their already declared irredentist plans to demand autonomy or unification with whatever Palestinian terror state they choose. Living under the constant threat of invasion from the east (and the south, from a Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Egyptian army moving through the Sinai and Gaza), Israel would likely be deterred from taking concerted action against its treacherous Arab citizens. As then-prime minister Ariel Sharon warned in 2001, the situation would be analogous to the plight of Czechoslovakia in the 1930s. Just as the Nazis deterred the Czech government from acting against its traitorous German minority in the Sudetenland in the 1930s, so Arab states (and a nuclear Iran), supporting the Palestinian terror states in Judea and Samaria and in Gaza, would make it impossible for Israel to enforce its sovereign rights on its remaining territory. Israel's destruction would be all but preordained. The second option is for Israel to annex Judea and Samaria, complete with its hostile Arab population. Absorbing the Arab population of Judea and Samaria would increase Israel's Arab minority from 20% to 33% of the overall population. This is true whether or not Israel grants them full citizenship with voting rights or permanent residency without them. Obviously such a scenario would present Israel with new and complex legal, social and law enforcement challenges. But it would also provide Israel with substantial advantages and opportunities. Israel would have to consider its electoral laws and weigh the prospect of moving from a proportional representation system to a direct, district system. It would have to begin enforcing its laws toward its Arab citizens in a manner identical to the way it enforces its laws against its Jewish citizens. This includes everything from administrative laws concerning building to criminal statutes related to treason. It would have to ensure that Arab schoolchildren are no longer indoctrinated to hate Jews, despite the fact that according to the Israel Project survey, 53% of Palestinians support such anti-Semitic indoctrination in the classroom. These steps would be difficult to enact. On the other side, annexing Judea and Samaria holds unmistakable advantages for Israel. For instance, Israel would regain complete military control over the areas. Israel ceded much of this control to the PLO in 1996. The Palestinian armies Israel agreed to allow the PLO to field have played a central role in the Palestinian terror machine. They have also played a key role in indoctrinating Palestinian society to seek and work toward Israel's destruction. By bringing about the disbanding of these terror forces, Israel would go a long way toward securing its citizens from attack. Furthermore, by asserting its sovereign rights to its heartland, for the first time since 1967, Israel would be adopting an unambiguous position around which its citizens and supporters could rally. Annexation would also finally free Israel's politicians and diplomats to tell the truth about the pathological nature of Palestinian nationalism and about the rank hypocrisy and anti-Semitism at the heart of much of the international Left's campaigns on behalf of the Palestinians. No, annexation won't be easy. But then again, the alternative is national suicide. And again, these are the only options. Either the Palestinians form a terror state from which it will wage war against the shrunken, indefensible Jewish state, or Israel expands the size of the Jewish state. Since 1967, Israel has refused to accept the fact that these are the only two options available. Instead, successive governments and the nation as a whole have set their hopes on imaginary third options. For the Left, this option has been the fantasy of a two-state solution. This "solution" involves the Palestinians controlling some or all of the lands Israel took over from Jordan and Egypt in the Six Day War, establishing a state, and all of us living happily ever after. Given the Palestinians' overwhelming, consistent and violent support for the destruction of Israel in any size, this leftist fantasy never had a leg to stand on. And since 1993, when the Rabin government adopted the Left's fantasy as state policy, more than 2,000 Israelis have been killed in its pursuit. Not only has the Left's third option fantasy facilitated the Palestinian terror machine's ability to kill Jews, it has empowered their propaganda war against Israel. Israel's pursuit of the nonexistent two-state solution has eroded its own international position to a degree unprecedented in its history. Last week's meeting of the so-called Middle East Quartet ended without a final statement. It isn't that its members couldn't agree on the need to establish "Palestine" in Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem. That was a no-brainer. The Quartet members couldn't agree on the need to accept the Jewish state. Russia reportedly rejected wording that would have enjoined the Palestinians to accept the Jewish state's right to exist as part of a peace treaty. And this was eminently foreseeable. The unhinged two-state solution makes Israel's legitimacy contingent on the establishment of a Palestinian state. And it put the burden to establish a Palestinian state on Israel. Since everyone except Israel and the US always accepted the establishment of a Palestinian state, and no one except Israel and the US always accepted the existence of the Jewish state, by making its own legitimacy dependent on Palestinian statehood, Israel started the clock running on its own demonization. The longer Israel allows its very right to exist to be contingent on the establishment of another terror state committed to its destruction, the less the nations of the world will feel obliged to accept its right to exist. As for the Right, its leaders have embraced imaginary third options of their own. Either Jordan would come in and save us, or the Palestinians would come to like us, or something. The one thing that both the Left's fantasy option and the Right's fantasy option share is their belief that the Palestinians or the Arabs as a whole will eventually change. Both sides' imaginary third options maintain that with sufficient inducements or time, the Arabs will change their behavior and drop their goal of destroying Israel. Our 44-year dalliance in fantasyland has not simply weakened us militarily and diplomatically. It has torn us apart internally by surrendering the debate to the two ideological fringes of the political spectrum. Actually, to be precise, we have surrendered 99% of our public discourse to the radical Left and 1% to the radical Right. The Left's control over the discourse has caused its ideological opposite's numbers to increasingly disengage from the state. That would be bad enough, but the Palestinians' inarguable bad faith and continued commitment to Israel's destruction have driven the far Left far off the cliff of reason and rationality. Unable to convince their fellow Israelis that their two-state pipe dream will bring peace, the Israeli Left has joined forces with the international Left in its increasingly shrill campaigns to delegitimize the country's right to exist and undermine its ability to defend itself. This sorry state of affairs is exemplified today by the radical Left's hysterical response to the Knesset's passage last week of the anti-boycott law. The comparatively mild law makes it a civil offense to solicit boycotts against Israel. It bars people engaged in economic warfare against Israel from getting government benefits and makes them liable to punitive damages in civil suits. The Left's hysterical public relations campaign to demonize the law and its supporters as fascists and seek its overthrow through the Supreme Court makes clear that the Left will wage war against its own country in pursuit of its delusion. But aside from driving the public discourse into the depths of ideological madness, Israel's embrace of fantasy has made it impossible for us to conduct a sober-minded discussion of our only real options. The time has come to debate these two options, choose one, and move forward. caroline@carolineglick.com

One state hevron conference

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/145996#.TitV-Ec05uQ

annex now- hevron conference

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/145996#.TitV-Ec05uQ

time to annex!

caroline glick is now on board!....

http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=229937

read carefully.

mike wise

www.onestateplan.com

Our World: Israel's only two options

By CAROLINE B. GLICK 18/07/2011

The Jewish state's choices are to either annex Judea and Samaria or be destroyed by its neighbors.

Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas is in Europe this week seeking to convince the Spanish and Norwegian governments to support the Palestinian bid to sidestep negotiations with Israel and have the UN General Assembly recognize Palestinian sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem in addition to Gaza. The Palestinians know that without US support, their initiative will fail to gain Security Council support and therefore have no legal weight. But they believe that if they push hard enough, Israel's control over these areas will eventually unravel and they will gain control over them without ever accepting Israel's right to exist. Fatah's UN gambit, along with its unity deal with Hamas, makes clear that the time has come for Israel to finally face the facts: There are only two realistic options for dealing with Judea and Samaria. Either the Palestinians will take control of Judea and Samaria, or Israel will annex them. If the Palestinians take control, they will establish a terror state in the areas, which – like their terror state in Gaza – will use its territory as a starting point for continued war against Israel. It isn't only Israel's experience with post-withdrawal Gaza and South Lebanon that make it clear that a post-withdrawal Palestinian-controlled Judea and Samaria will become a terror state. The Palestinians themselves make no bones about this. In a Palestinian public opinion survey released last week by The Israel Project, 65 percent of Palestinians said they believe that they should conduct negotiations with Israel. But before we get excited, we need to read the fine print. According to the survey, those two-thirds of Palestinians believe that talks should not lead to the establishment of the State of Palestine next to Israel and at peace with the Jewish state. They believe the establishment of "Palestine" next to Israel should serve as a means for continuing their war against Israel. The goal of that war is to destroy what's left of Israel after the "peace" treaty and gobble it into "Palestine." That is, 66% of Palestinians believe "peace" talks with Israel should be conducted in bad faith. Moreover, three-quarters deny Jewish ties to Jerusalem, and 80% support Islamic jihad against Jews as called for in the Hamas charter; 73% support the annihilation of the Jewish people as called for in the Hamas charter on the basis of Islamic scripture. As bad as Israel's experience with post-withdrawal Gaza and South Lebanon has been, Israel's prospects with a post-withdrawal Judea and Samaria will be far worse. It isn't simply that withdrawal will invite aggression from Judea and Samaria. It will invite foreign Arab armies to invade the rump Jewish state. Unlike the post-withdrawal situation with Gaza and South Lebanon, without Judea and Samaria, Israel would not have the territorial depth and topographical advantage to defend itself from invasion from the east. Moreover, the establishment of the second Palestinian terror state after Gaza in Judea and Samaria would embolden some of Israel's Arab citizens in the Galilee and the Negev as well as in Jaffa, Lod, Haifa and beyond to escalate their already declared irredentist plans to demand autonomy or unification with whatever Palestinian terror state they choose. Living under the constant threat of invasion from the east (and the south, from a Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Egyptian army moving through the Sinai and Gaza), Israel would likely be deterred from taking concerted action against its treacherous Arab citizens. As then-prime minister Ariel Sharon warned in 2001, the situation would be analogous to the plight of Czechoslovakia in the 1930s. Just as the Nazis deterred the Czech government from acting against its traitorous German minority in the Sudetenland in the 1930s, so Arab states (and a nuclear Iran), supporting the Palestinian terror states in Judea and Samaria and in Gaza, would make it impossible for Israel to enforce its sovereign rights on its remaining territory. Israel's destruction would be all but preordained. The second option is for Israel to annex Judea and Samaria, complete with its hostile Arab population. Absorbing the Arab population of Judea and Samaria would increase Israel's Arab minority from 20% to 33% of the overall population. This is true whether or not Israel grants them full citizenship with voting rights or permanent residency without them. Obviously such a scenario would present Israel with new and complex legal, social and law enforcement challenges. But it would also provide Israel with substantial advantages and opportunities. Israel would have to consider its electoral laws and weigh the prospect of moving from a proportional representation system to a direct, district system. It would have to begin enforcing its laws toward its Arab citizens in a manner identical to the way it enforces its laws against its Jewish citizens. This includes everything from administrative laws concerning building to criminal statutes related to treason. It would have to ensure that Arab schoolchildren are no longer indoctrinated to hate Jews, despite the fact that according to the Israel Project survey, 53% of Palestinians support such anti-Semitic indoctrination in the classroom. These steps would be difficult to enact. On the other side, annexing Judea and Samaria holds unmistakable advantages for Israel. For instance, Israel would regain complete military control over the areas. Israel ceded much of this control to the PLO in 1996. The Palestinian armies Israel agreed to allow the PLO to field have played a central role in the Palestinian terror machine. They have also played a key role in indoctrinating Palestinian society to seek and work toward Israel's destruction. By bringing about the disbanding of these terror forces, Israel would go a long way toward securing its citizens from attack. Furthermore, by asserting its sovereign rights to its heartland, for the first time since 1967, Israel would be adopting an unambiguous position around which its citizens and supporters could rally. Annexation would also finally free Israel's politicians and diplomats to tell the truth about the pathological nature of Palestinian nationalism and about the rank hypocrisy and anti-Semitism at the heart of much of the international Left's campaigns on behalf of the Palestinians. No, annexation won't be easy. But then again, the alternative is national suicide. And again, these are the only options. Either the Palestinians form a terror state from which it will wage war against the shrunken, indefensible Jewish state, or Israel expands the size of the Jewish state. Since 1967, Israel has refused to accept the fact that these are the only two options available. Instead, successive governments and the nation as a whole have set their hopes on imaginary third options. For the Left, this option has been the fantasy of a two-state solution. This "solution" involves the Palestinians controlling some or all of the lands Israel took over from Jordan and Egypt in the Six Day War, establishing a state, and all of us living happily ever after. Given the Palestinians' overwhelming, consistent and violent support for the destruction of Israel in any size, this leftist fantasy never had a leg to stand on. And since 1993, when the Rabin government adopted the Left's fantasy as state policy, more than 2,000 Israelis have been killed in its pursuit. Not only has the Left's third option fantasy facilitated the Palestinian terror machine's ability to kill Jews, it has empowered their propaganda war against Israel. Israel's pursuit of the nonexistent two-state solution has eroded its own international position to a degree unprecedented in its history. Last week's meeting of the so-called Middle East Quartet ended without a final statement. It isn't that its members couldn't agree on the need to establish "Palestine" in Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem. That was a no-brainer. The Quartet members couldn't agree on the need to accept the Jewish state. Russia reportedly rejected wording that would have enjoined the Palestinians to accept the Jewish state's right to exist as part of a peace treaty. And this was eminently foreseeable. The unhinged two-state solution makes Israel's legitimacy contingent on the establishment of a Palestinian state. And it put the burden to establish a Palestinian state on Israel. Since everyone except Israel and the US always accepted the establishment of a Palestinian state, and no one except Israel and the US always accepted the existence of the Jewish state, by making its own legitimacy dependent on Palestinian statehood, Israel started the clock running on its own demonization. The longer Israel allows its very right to exist to be contingent on the establishment of another terror state committed to its destruction, the less the nations of the world will feel obliged to accept its right to exist. As for the Right, its leaders have embraced imaginary third options of their own. Either Jordan would come in and save us, or the Palestinians would come to like us, or something. The one thing that both the Left's fantasy option and the Right's fantasy option share is their belief that the Palestinians or the Arabs as a whole will eventually change. Both sides' imaginary third options maintain that with sufficient inducements or time, the Arabs will change their behavior and drop their goal of destroying Israel. Our 44-year dalliance in fantasyland has not simply weakened us militarily and diplomatically. It has torn us apart internally by surrendering the debate to the two ideological fringes of the political spectrum. Actually, to be precise, we have surrendered 99% of our public discourse to the radical Left and 1% to the radical Right. The Left's control over the discourse has caused its ideological opposite's numbers to increasingly disengage from the state. That would be bad enough, but the Palestinians' inarguable bad faith and continued commitment to Israel's destruction have driven the far Left far off the cliff of reason and rationality. Unable to convince their fellow Israelis that their two-state pipe dream will bring peace, the Israeli Left has joined forces with the international Left in its increasingly shrill campaigns to delegitimize the country's right to exist and undermine its ability to defend itself. This sorry state of affairs is exemplified today by the radical Left's hysterical response to the Knesset's passage last week of the anti-boycott law. The comparatively mild law makes it a civil offense to solicit boycotts against Israel. It bars people engaged in economic warfare against Israel from getting government benefits and makes them liable to punitive damages in civil suits. The Left's hysterical public relations campaign to demonize the law and its supporters as fascists and seek its overthrow through the Supreme Court makes clear that the Left will wage war against its own country in pursuit of its delusion. But aside from driving the public discourse into the depths of ideological madness, Israel's embrace of fantasy has made it impossible for us to conduct a sober-minded discussion of our only real options. The time has come to debate these two options, choose one, and move forward. caroline@carolineglick.com

refugee rights

gavison
says...http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=227929 read

jewish state

where is bibi?...
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-4085974,00.html

by purchase

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=226002

Sergio Wins!!

http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/netanyahu-israel-needs-to-separate-from-the-palestinians-1.368795?trailingPath=2.169%2C2.225%2C2.226%2C

jordan and the bedouin

do not bet on jordan...
http://www.hudson-ny.org/2209/jordan-bedouin

china implode?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43403189/print/1/displaymode/1098/

peace pieties

i know how busy you are with important matters, but...
painful to read, but worth the effort.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/269836

shabbat shalom,
mike

one state mini-conference

i still have the transcript of the april 14, 2004 mini-presentation!!
a bit premature, but time will tell.

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-4083295,00.html

shabbat shalom,
mike

one state solution

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:
Date:
From:
Reply-To:
To:	undisclosed-recipients:;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uIEeiDjdUuU  

never recognize israel

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=223181

legal rights

http://new.ba-bamail.co.il/View.aspx?emailid=8885&memberid=726324

david brooks

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/opinion/03brooks.html?_r=1&ref=columnists

ny times oped.
so what if it is david brooks!
remarkable!!!
cannot believe what i read.
if only we would make peace with syria!!
and hillary said yesterday that

In Washington, D.C., Clinton came closer than ever to calling for Assad's ouster and indicated that only China and Russia were preventing stronger action by the United Nations against Syria's regime.

"The legitimacy that is necessary for anyone to expect change to occur under this current government is, if not gone, nearly run out," she told a news conference.

my heroine......

shabbat shalom!

---

June 2, 2011

The Depravity Factor

By DAVID BROOKS

By now you have probably heard about Hamza Ali al-Khateeb. He was the 13-year-old Syrian boy who tagged along at an antigovernment protest in the town of Saida on April 29. He was arrested that day, and the police returned his mutilated body to his family a month later. While in custody, he had apparently been burned, beaten, lacerated and given electroshocks. His jaw and kneecaps were shattered. He was shot in both arms. When his father saw the state of Hamza’s body, he passed out.

The family bravely put video evidence of the torture on the Internet, and Hamza’s martyrdom has rallied the opponents of President Bashar al-Assad’s Baathist regime. But, of course, his torture didn’t come out of nowhere. The regime’s defining act of brutality was the Hama massacre in 1982 when then-President Hafez al-Assad had more than 10,000 Syrians murdered. The U.S. government has designated Syria a state sponsor of terror for 30 consecutive years. The State Department’s Human Rights Report has described the regime’s habitual torture techniques, including pulling out fingernails, burning genitals, hyperextending the spine, bending the body around the frame of a wheel while whipping the victim and so on.

Over the past several weeks, Bashar al-Assad’s regime has killed more than 1,000 protesters and jailed at least 10,000 more, according to Syrian human rights groups. Human Rights Watch has described crimes against humanity in the town of Dara’a, where boys have been mutilated and men massacred.

All governments do bad things, and Middle East dictatorships do more than most. But the Syrian government is one of the world’s genuinely depraved regimes. Yet for all these years, Israel has been asked to negotiate with this regime, compromise with this regime and trust that this regime will someday occupy the heights over it in peace.

For 30 years, the Middle East peace process has been predicated on moral obtuseness, an unwillingness to face the true nature of certain governments. World leaders have tried sweet-talking Syria, calling Bashar al-Assad a friend (Nancy Pelosi) or a reformer (Hillary Clinton). In 2008, Nicolas Sarkozy invited Assad to be the guest of honor at France’s Bastille Day ceremonies — a ruthless jailer celebrating the storming of a jail.

For 30 years, diplomats and technocrats have flown to Damascus in the hopes of “flipping” Syria — turning it into a pro-Western, civilized power. It would be interesting to know what they were thinking. Perhaps some of them were so besotted with their messianic abilities that they thought they had the power to turn a depraved regime into a normal regime. Perhaps some of them were so wedded to the materialistic mind-set that they thought a regime’s essential nature could be altered with a magical mix of incentives and disincentives.

Perhaps some of them were simply morally blind. They were such pedantic technocrats, so consumed by the legalisms of the peace process, that they no longer possessed the capacity to recognize the moral nature of the regime they were dealing with, or to understand the implications of its nature.

In any case, their efforts were doomed. In fact, the current peace process is doomed because of the inability to make a categorical distinction. There are some countries in the region that are not nice, but they are normal — Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia. But there are other governments that are fundamentally depraved. Either as a matter of thuggishness (Syria) or ideology (Hamas), they reject the full humanity of other human beings. They believe it is proper and right to kill innocents. They can never be part of a successful negotiation because they undermine the universal principles of morality.

It doesn’t matter how great a law professor or diplomat you are. It doesn’t matter how masterly you sequence the negotiations or what magical lines you draw on a map. There won’t be peace so long as depraved regimes are part of the picture. That’s why it’s crazy to get worked into a lather about who said what about the 1967 border. As long as Hamas and the Assad regime are in place, the peace process is going nowhere, just as it’s gone nowhere for lo these many years.

That’s why it’s necessary, especially at this moment in history, to focus on the nature of regimes, not only the boundaries between them. To have a peaceful Middle East, it was necessary to get rid of Saddam’s depraved regime in Iraq. It will be necessary to try to get rid of Qaddafi’s depraved regime in Libya. It’s necessary, as everybody but the Obama administration publicly acknowledges, to see Assad toppled.  It will be necessary to marginalize Hamas. It was necessary to abandon the engagement strategy that Barack Obama campaigned on and embrace the cautious regime-change strategy that is his current doctrine.

The machinations of the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are immaterial. The Arab reform process is the peace process.

the real begin!

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/144623

San Remo

http://new.ba-bamail.co.il/View.aspx?emailid=8681&memberid=633833 view

obama and israel's borders

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/middle-east/6423-obama-s-vision-of-the-middle-east-means-the-death-of-israel-on-planet-obama.html

Begin and Oslo (Talkback)

Mr. Netanyahu may think he has won, but there is an old saying you may
have "won the battle but lost the war". The congress does not control
the President or UN vote. They do not negotiate or speak to our European
allies. These same allies who are pushing the US to go in the same
direction that was in the presidents speech. If you read the article
written by President Carter in the May 25th opinion section of the New
York Times: "At Camp David in 1978, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem
Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat accepted the following words:
"The agreed basis for a peaceful settlement of the conflict between
Israel and its neighbors is United Nations Security Council resolution
242, in all its parts." Specifically concerning the West Bank and Gaza,
the Israelis and Egyptians mutually agreed: "In order to provide full
autonomy to the inhabitants under these arrangements the Israeli
military government and its civilian administration will be withdrawn as
soon as a self-governing authority has been freely elected by the
inhabitants of these areas. ..." As a result of the Oslo Accords of
1993, a self-governing authority was freely elected in January 1996,
with Yasir Arafat as president and 88 Parliament members. The
International Quartet's Roadmap for Peace in April 2003, supported by
President George W. Bush, began with these words: "A settlement,
negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an
independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by
side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors. The
settlement will resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and end the
occupation that began in 1967. ..." This was a treaty negotiated with
the help of the US that Israel and Egypt agreed to. So it sets a
precedent for all future negotiations. In my opinion, if our European
allies all push for what President Obama suggested the Congress will not
stand in the way. The question is, did President Obama suggest this or
the US European allies pressure him to do this for their support. As
Tony Blair said today, the president is worried for Israel and the
September UN vote. Mr. Netanyahu may have alienated his biggest
supporter, the President of the United States.

Bibi in Congress

watch the last one minute!!!...view

Abbas OpEd

The Long Overdue Palestinian State

By MAHMOUD ABBAS

SIXTY-THREE years ago, a 13-year-old Palestinian boy was forced to leave his home in the Galilean city of Safed and flee with his family to Syria. He took up shelter in a canvas tent provided to all the arriving refugees. Though he and his family wished for decades to return to their home and homeland, they were denied that most basic of human rights. That child’s story, like that of so many other Palestinians, is mine.

This month, however, as we commemorate another year of our expulsion — which we call the nakba, or catastrophe — the Palestinian people have cause for hope: this September, at the United Nations General Assembly, we will request international recognition of the State of Palestine on the 1967 border and that our state be admitted as a full member of the United Nations.

Many are questioning what value there is to such recognition while the Israeli occupation continues. Others have accused us of imperiling the peace process. We believe, however, that there is tremendous value for all Palestinians — those living in the homeland, in exile and under occupation.

It is important to note that the last time the question of Palestinian statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned into two states. In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued. Indeed, it was the descendants of these expelled Palestinians who were shot and wounded by Israeli forces on Sunday as they tried to symbolically exercise their right to return to their families’ homes.

Minutes after the State of Israel was established on May 14, 1948, the United States granted it recognition. Our Palestinian state, however, remains a promise unfulfilled.

Palestine’s admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice.

Our quest for recognition as a state should not be seen as a stunt; too many of our men and women have been lost for us to engage in such political theater. We go to the United Nations now to secure the right to live free in the remaining 22 percent of our historic homeland because we have been negotiating with the State of Israel for 20 years without coming any closer to realizing a state of our own. We cannot wait indefinitely while Israel continues to send more settlers to the occupied West Bank and denies Palestinians access to most of our land and holy places, particularly in Jerusalem. Neither political pressure nor promises of rewards by the United States have stopped Israel’s settlement program.

Negotiations remain our first option, but due to their failure we are now compelled to turn to the international community to assist us in preserving the opportunity for a peaceful and just end to the conflict. Palestinian national unity is a key step in this regard. Contrary to what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel asserts, and can be expected to repeat this week during his visit to Washington, the choice is not between Palestinian unity or peace with Israel; it is between a two-state solution or settlement-colonies.

Despite Israel’s attempt to deny us our long-awaited membership in the community of nations, we have met all prerequisites to statehood listed in the Montevideo Convention, the 1933 treaty that sets out the rights and duties of states. The permanent population of our land is the Palestinian people, whose right to self-determination has been repeatedly recognized by the United Nations, and by the International Court of Justice in 2004. Our territory is recognized as the lands framed by the 1967 border, though it is occupied by Israel.

We have the capacity to enter into relations with other states and have embassies and missions in more than 100 countries. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Union have indicated that our institutions are developed to the level where we are now prepared for statehood. Only the occupation of our land hinders us from reaching our full national potential; it does not impede United Nations recognition.

The State of Palestine intends to be a peace-loving nation, committed to human rights, democracy, the rule of law and the principles of the United Nations Charter. Once admitted to the United Nations, our state stands ready to negotiate all core issues of the conflict with Israel. A key focus of negotiations will be reaching a just solution for Palestinian refugees based on Resolution 194, which the General Assembly passed in 1948.

Palestine would be negotiating from the position of one United Nations member whose territory is militarily occupied by another, however, and not as a vanquished people ready to accept whatever terms are put in front of us.

We call on all friendly, peace-loving nations to join us in realizing our national aspirations by recognizing the State of Palestine on the 1967 border and by supporting its admission to the United Nations. Only if the international community keeps the promise it made to us six decades ago, and ensures that a just resolution for Palestinian refugees is put into effect, can there be a future of hope and dignity for our people.

Mahmoud Abbas is the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the president of the Palestinian National Authority.

MK Katz Shows Scope of Communities Outside the "Blocs"

read

Israel Will Never Have Peace

• GLOBAL VIEW
• MAY 17, 2011

This weekend's border-crossing demonstrators believe, like Hamas, that the Jewish State has no right to any territory from the river to the sea.

• By BRET STEPHENS

No doubt it is true, as the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported on Sunday, that among the Palestinian protesters seeking to force their way into Israel there were some with humbler aims than reclaiming "historic Palestine."

"We've crossed the border in order to stay with our families, away from all the killing in Syria," the paper reported one of the infiltrators as saying. "We ask the powers that be in Israel to help us stay and not send us back."

No doubt it is also true, as White House spokesman Jay Carney noted yesterday, that the attempted breach was an effort by Damascus "to distract attention from the legitimate expression of protest by the Syrian people." The border between Israel and Syria has been quiet for 37 years; it's no accident, comrades, that the embattled regime of Bashar Assad, perhaps advised by Iran, would choose this particular moment to shift violent energies toward a more opportune target.

But here's something about which there should also be no doubt: People don't scamper over barbed wire, walk through mine fields and march toward the barrels of enemy soldiers if they aren't fearless. And if they aren't profoundly convinced of the rightness of what they are doing.

For many years it has been the conventional wisdom of Arab-Israeli peace processors that the conflict was, at heart, territorial, and that it could be resolved if only Israel and its neighbors could agree on a proper border. For many years, too, it has been conventional wisdom that if only the conflict could be resolved, other distempers of the Muslim world—from dictatorship to terrorism—would find their own resolution.

REUTERS

Palestinians attempt to cross the border between Israel and Lebanon.

If the Arab Spring has done nothing else, it has at least disposed of the latter proposition. From Tehran to Tunis to Tahrir Square, Muslims are rising against their rulers for reasons quite apart from anything happening in Gaza, the West Bank or the Golan Heights. This isn't to say they've abandoned their emotional commitments to Palestinians, or their ideological ones against Israel. It's simply to say that they have their own problems.

But just as the West has consistently misunderstood the Muslim problem, so too has it failed to grasp the Palestinian one. And what it has failed to grasp above all is the centrality of Palestinian refugees to the conflict.

The fiction that is typically offered about the refugees by devotees of the peace process is that Palestinian leaders see them as a bargaining chip in their negotiations with Israel, perhaps in exchange for the re-division of Jerusalem. But listen in on the internal dialogue of Palestinians and you will hear that the "right of return" is an inviolable, inalienable and individual right of every refugee. In other words, a right that can never (and never safely) be bargained away by Palestinian leaders for the sake of a settlement with Israel.

In this belief the Palestinians are sustained by many things.

One is the mythology of 1948, which is long on tales of what Jews did to Arabs but short on what Arabs did to Jews—or to themselves. Another is the text of U.N. resolution 194, written in 1948, which plainly states that "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date." A third is UNRWA, the U.N. agency that has perpetuated the Palestinian refugee problem for generations when most other refugees have been successfully repatriated. A fourth is their ill treatment at the hands of their Arab hosts, which has caused them to yearn for the fantasy of a homeland—orchards and all—that modern-day Israel succeeds in looking very much like. A fifth is the incessant drone of Palestinian propaganda whose idea of Palestinian statehood traces the map of Israel itself.

Other things could be mentioned. But the roots of the problem are beside the point. The real point is that a grievance that has been nursed for 63 years and that can move people to acts like those witnessed on Sunday is never going to allow a political accommodation with Israel and would never be satisfied by one anyway.

No wonder Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas's prime minister, can say he would be prepared to accept the 1967 borders—but that establishing those borders will never mean an end to the conflict. The same goes for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who praised Sunday's slain protesters as martyrs who "died for the Palestinian people's rights and freedom." This from the "moderate" who is supposed to acquaint his people with the reality and purpose of a two-state solution.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due in the U.S. soon to deliver what is being billed as a major policy address. What should he say? I would counsel the same wisdom that sailors of yore used to tattoo to their knuckles as a reminder of what not to forget on the yardarms of tall ships in stormy seas. Eight easy letters:

H-O-L-D F-A-S-T.

Letter to UN

read

annex Area C now

no need to wait...read

oslo is dead

read

2 state madness

read

anti-fascism

read

jordan is palestine

read

Would israeli arabs rather live in israel or palestine

read

gold argument

read

Blair PA State

read

$6B aid for fayad

read

"new" 2 state plan

read

One state

read

Jerusalem survey

read

rabin's last knesset speech

read

Benny Morris one state

read

Jordan Valley

sovereignty... read

one state

sari nusseibeh...read

heritage

read

The Grand 'End Of Conflict' Delusion

Steven Plaut, a professor at the University of Haifa!...read

Revolution in Iran is Possible

read

greater Jerusalem

read

realism and 2 states

read

one state

one arab's insight...read

Two states will solve the world's problems

Jones says it all at Herzliya...read

East Palestine

it is only a matter of time!...read

2 states for 2 peoples

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-push-to-create-palestine/

Tunisia and the PA

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/141774

Jerusalem arabs prefer israel

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4013000,00.html