In the last 16 years, Israel has moved Right no Left and the ‘Palestinians’ have become more rejectionist

November 9, 2011
Media_http4bpblogspot_hopif(Israel Matzav)Today was the 16th anniversary of the death of Yitzchak Rabin. While the observances today were much quieter than they have been in the past (another issue for another post), Evelyn Gordon used the occasion to refute the mantra that Israelis have moved to the Right since Rabin’s death. Comparing Rabin’sfinal Knesset speech(which the Left systematically ignores – it has never been included in the package of materials given to journalists to mark Rabin’s death) to today’s seeming Israeli consensus, Gordon argues convincingly thatIsrael has moved dramatically to the Left.

For instance, Rabin envisioned a final-status solution in which Israel lived alongside a Palestinian “entity which is less than a state.” Today, even the “right-wing” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly advocates a Palestinian state.

Rabin envisioned “united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma’ale Adumim and Givat Ze’ev [two nearby settlements],” as “the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty.” Since then, two Israeli prime ministers have offered to give the Palestinians East Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount and most of the Old City.

Rabin declared that Israel’s “security border … will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.” Since then, two Israeli premiers have offered to give the Palestinians almost all the West Bank, including the Jordan Valley; even the “right-wing” Netanyahu reportedlyagreed to negotiateborders based on the 1967 lines.

Rabin listed Gaza’s Gush Katif as one of the settlement blocs Israel would retain. Since then, Israel has withdrawn from every inch of Gaza.

Rabin pledged “not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.” Since then, Israel
has uprooted 25 settlements (21 in Gaza and four in the West Bank) without a final-status agreement, while the “right-wing” Netanyahu instituted Israel’s first-ever moratorium on settlement construction (for 10 months), including “building for natural growth.”

Read the whole thing.

Rick Richman looks at the flip side of the equation and finds thatthe ‘Palestinians’ are more intransigent than ever.

What about the Palestinians? In the last 11 years — after they rejected the Clinton parameters that would have given them a state on 97 percent of the West Bank and Gaza with a capital in Jerusalem and a “right of return” to the new Palestinian state — they have not moved at all.

In a July 2000polltaken by the Palestinian Center for Policy & Survey Research (PCPSR), large majorities opposed Israeli retention of even the Western Wall and Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem, or security arrangements prohibiting a Palestinian air force or heavy weapons systems. A total of 87 percent opposed adopting a school curriculum in the Palestinian state that would “recognize Israel and teach school children not to demand return of all Palestine to the Palestinians.” Flash forward a decade: a December 2010 PCPSRpollshowed a lopsided majority (58-40) opposed to what “everyone knows” is the solution: a Palestinian state on roughly the 1967 lines, with land swaps for the major Israeli settlement blocs, a shared Jerusalem, international compensation for Palestinian refugees, and a “right of return” to the new Palestinian state.

I suppose that there are those who will argue that President Obama’s pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu was worthwhile. After all, it has yielded Netanyahu’s acceptance of a ‘Palestinian state,’ Netanyahu’s alleged agreement to negotiate based on the ‘1967 borders’ and a 10-month ‘settlement freeze.’ One is left to wonder what similar pressure on the ‘Palestinians’ might have yielded.

Peres: Rabin and I had our differences but got results

November 8, 2011
Peres y Rabin, sur del Libano, 1984

The differences were that Peres lied to Rabin about Arafat and got him killed

(YNET/Ronen Medzini) President Shimon Peres launched the events marking the 16th anniversary of the murder of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Speaking in Jerusalem, Peres said: “We will never forget how you left us, through the boulevard of hate and incitement, within a landscape of incendiary posters calling for violence. You were not alarmed. You did not retreat. You did not stop marching forward.”

Peres noted that “it is no secret that we had our differences, which caused both you and me a great deal of sorrow. Yet at the foundation we had a true common vision that bore far reaching results.”

Four big Israeli mistakes

October 23, 2011
IDF Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren
(center),with General Uzi Narkiss
(left) at the Western Wall, June 7, 1967

(Fresno Zionism h/t Love of the Land) On June 7th, 1967, Israeli Paratroopers liberated the Temple Mount. Although some religious leaders (including, initially, Rabbi Shlomo Goren) favored destroying the Dome of the Rock and building a Third Temple, this idea was never seriously considered. But short of that, what was to be done? There was a debate among the rabbis about how to deal with the prohibition against entering the Holy of Holies. Some proposed simply banning Jews from the entire area. But Rav Goren felt that Jews should be allowed to pray on at least specified parts of it, because otherwise Israel would lose its sovereignty there.

In a confidential memorandum to the Ministerial Committee for Holy Places which he sent shortly after military hostilities had ceased, Goren proposed that

the prime minister should declare that the holy places of the Jews be placed under rabbinic supervision. All the Temple Mount is holy to the Jews and therefore it is in the jurisdiction of the Chief Rabbinate even though mosques were built there. Since it is forbidden for Jews and non-Jews alike to enter the Temple Mount the Chief Rabbinate should request the army to close the Temple Mount for everybody. This step should be taken immediately [Goren’s emphasis] before the military curfew is lifted and before free access is given. Now the Arabs are in a state of shock, and their only hope is to stay alive and not be massacred. Now is the moment to set the conditions and basis for the status quo proposed. Through such a step, the exclusive Muslim rule on the Mount will be circumvented. Later it will not be possible to do anything. If this proposal comes from the rabbinate rather than the government it will be seen as a religious matter of holiness rather than a political idea. And since entry will be forbidden for Jews, the Arabs cannot claim discrimination.

Such a ban, which could have lasted years, would have given the Chief Rabbinate time to study the problem including clarifying which areas are permitted to enter and which are not. Goren added that “if the Arabs are suspicious it is possible to give them El Aqsa.”

But Defense Minister Moshe Dayan and Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin overruled him. The Temple Mount was placed under the control of the Jordanian waqf and the Western Wall was left for Jewish prayer. Later, Rabbi Goren tried to change the status quo, but many rabbis opposed him as did most of the political echelon. The Temple Mount in effect remained under Muslim control despite theoretical Jewish sovereignty in Jerusalem.
Since then, the waqf has excavated and built illegally, destroying archaeological evidence of a historical Jewish temple, and Israel has done nothing. Jews are permitted to go up to the Mount, but may not pray there — a Jew was arrested (by Israeli police) for trying to wave a lulav (a device woven from the ‘four species’ in observance of Sukkot) this week, and Jews have been reported by waqf officials for moving their lips.

Any Jewish activity in the area is cause for Arab riots. There is constant incitement of the Muslim population in mosques and by the Islamic Movement of Raed Saleh. ‘Peace’ proposals made to the Palestinians have included sovereignty over the Temple Mount — why not, since Israel has long since surrendered it.
Jewish soldiers died to take back all of Jerusalem, not just part of it. Rabbi Goren was right, Dayan and Rabin wrong. Mistake no. 1.

Dishonest Documentary on Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty

October 3, 2011

The media and the powers that be who want Jewish death slaughtered in the name of fake peace are scared. They know that a sovereign state can not be destroyed without it’s own suicide from within. And now this expensive Hollywood documentary is pushing that idea. Do not be impressed by the fancy sound work and digital graphics, this is a cry for Jews to kill what is left of their small population out of respect for a majority whose religion either asks for the murder of Jews or curses the Jews. Even the language follows Islamic and replacement theological Christian historical assumptions. For example: the Torah does not say specifically that Ishmael is the father of all Arabs. He might of been a wild ass of a man whose hand is against every other man, but there is no direct claim to who is his legacy.

Director Harry Hunkele has made a full-length documentary about the negotiations that led to the Camp David treaty between Egypt and Israel. The movie is called Back Door Channels and it will be opening in theaters in the fall of 2011.
Hunkele is an American who believes that what happened in 1979 can happen again. A ‘peace agreement‘ can be reached.

“It’s my great hope that people will view the film and realize that what once happened can happen again,” Hunkele says in an interview to Ynet. “All it takes is courageous politicians, but sadly I think that’s the key ingredient missing in today’s world.
“Carter, Begin and, of course, Sadat, paid a terrible price for peace. Politicians take notice of such things and no one since, with the exception of Rabin, has dared to push for peace.”

I don’t know what terrible price Carter paid for the peace treaty. For that matter, I’m not sure Begin paid a terrible price either, although Israel paid an economic price for it, and may yet – God forbid – have to fight another war because of it. Sadat paid a terrible price – he was murdered.

And as to the claim that Rabin is ‘the only one who pushed for peace’ since, I believe that depends on how you define ‘push for peace.’ Had Rabin lived, I do not believe that he would have continued with the Oslo Accords. I believe that he saw where the ‘Palestinians’ were heading. In his last speech in the Knesset, Rabin said he would never agree to a ‘Palestinian state.’ And by the way, Rabin was dragged into the Oslo Accords by Shimon Peres and his poodles. So did they ‘push for peace’?
Here’s the opening scene of the movie. Let’s go to the videotape.

And here’s the trailer. Let’s go to the videotape.

This is a mass media cry for Corpus Separandum. Obviously the mainstream is threatened by the Jews energy finds that would allow Israel greater autonomy from powers outside it’s borders. One can see the desperation in the amount of money that was spent on this

The hidden divide between the Israeli Left and the Palestinian "moderates"

August 31, 2011
“Two states for two people” sign at Solidarity Movement march in support of Palestinian independence, Jerusalem, 15 July, 2011 (Photo: Dahlia Scheindlin)

…The concept of “two states for two peoples” has been the mantra of the Israeli “peace camp” for decades.
In what can only be considered a triumph by the leftists, this idea, which was was considered anathema to Israeli governments of both the right and the left, became mainstream Israeli policy. Even Ariel Sharon used that exact phrase in May, 2004 when unveiling the disengagement plan from Gaza (placing him far to the left of Yitzchak Rabin, who never accepted the idea of a “Palestinian state.”)
Similarly, that phrase has been highlighted by both George Bush and Barack Obama.
Yet the mainstream, supposedly moderate Palestinian Arab leadership has never accepted this key concept, and has been consistently and adamantly against it. To them, the idea of even accepting the existence of a Jewish people cannot be countenanced – even in private.
Any reasonable observer can see that this is a dealbreaker. The PLO’s insistence on trampling the idea of a Jewish people and a Jewish homeland means that real peace can never be achieved. They are the ones who are the true obstacle to peace, far more than anything the Israeli government has ever done. The majority of Israelis have steadily moved to the stated positions of the “peace” movement in the past two decades, while the majority of Palestinian Arabs have remained as obstinate as ever.

The MYTH of the Israeli LEFT

August 2, 2011

the Leftist +972 online magazine explains why the ‘return of the Israeli Left‘ isn’t happening: It’s time to face facts: Rabin’s second government was a historical accident, no more. This was the only time in 35 years that the left won a Knesset majority – and even then, it wasn’t even close to a majority of the Jewish public. Liberalism, in the American sense, never took real hold in Israel.

The current social protest is a unique event with tremendous potential, but if it’s a return to the Jewish democracy dreamland that Americans hope for, you are up for a major disappointment. There won’t be a “return” – all we can and should hope for is something completely new.

Carl of Israel Matzav: I hadn’t quite thought about it that way, but he’s right. Both Rabin (1992) and Barak (1999) failed to get a majority of the Jewish vote. Sharon (2001 and 2004) won as the Likud candidate. Olmert 2006? Didn’t get a majority of the Jewish vote and arguably wasn’t running on a Left platform. Kadima is still not considered a party of the Left (although their platform is definitely more Left than Right).
Whatever support for the Left there was among Jewish Israelis was spooked by the terror sponsorship of the ‘Palestinian Authority’ and that started long before 2000. It’s not likely to come back anytime soon. And nearly all Jewish Israelis have become capitalists, Even the ones demonstrating in the streets of Tel Aviv.

Isn’t it funny the way opposition agrees against the New York Times? One wonders what planet the Times is on. I suppose their intent is to give the left some hope that they can dismantle Israel from within, but their leftist pals in smaller publications just don’t hold that optimism. The fact of the matter is it isn’t a matter of left and right. It is a matter of protecting people from killers… and if that is what the right is in Israel, then the left does not have a chance. Should the left decide they want to be a John F Kennedy style Left that protects the country from it’s enemies and still considers the jobs and quality of life of it’s people, then they have a chance, but the truth is the Left in Israel… what little there is of it …is not about the people. They are haters that are funded from beyond Israel’s borders.  Jobs and quality of life are merely bait… and not even good bait because Israel’s economy is doing well.  Why do you think Israel’s enemies are trying so hard to take part in BDS movements?  The haters know the one thing that keeps Israel going is success… and they certainly would not want that to happen.  As for the right, the fact remains that increasing wealth is better for the people… and in fact stealing wealth from the people to give to a government that hates it’s people is not what Jews want. It isn’t like as if the LEFT has created jobs in America.  I’m unemployed.

How ‘experts’ got it wrong

December 15, 2010

Op-ed: Demographic threat hyped up, Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria unnecessary

Moshe Dann
Opponents of Israel’s legal and historical rights to Judea and Samaria raise a powerful and persuasive argument: Israel faces a “demographic crisis;” the Arab population between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River will soon outnumber that of the Jews, and the nature of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state is in danger. They argue, therefore, that Israel must withdraw from what was known, under Jordanian occupation, as the “West Bank,” (to distinguish it from Jordan’s “East Bank”), including “eastern Jerusalem,” the Old City and Temple Mount, and create a second Arab Palestinian state (after Jordan); the Golan Heights, in this plan, would revert to Syria. This, they argue, would avoid charges of “occupation,” “oppression,” “racism,” “apartheid,” etc.; it does not relate to Palestinian Arabs who are Israeli citizens, or the “Nakba,” (Catastrophe) in 1948, Israel’s creation and what Palestinians consider “occupation.”
The “demographic argument” was used to convince former PM Yitzhak Rabin to agree to the Oslo Accords, and was promoted by the dominant left-wing media, former PMs Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, Israeli ministers and politicians, and PM Netanyahu. There’s only one problem: it’s a myth, part of a campaign to destroy the settlement movement; it has been thoroughly refuted by various studies, including Bar-Ilan University’s The Million Person Gap and work undertaken by The Institute for Zionist Strategies,
The fact is that today, nearly all non-Israeli Palestinians living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are under the PA. The Gaza Strip, under Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, is a separate entity, with its own army and administration, supported by the PA, but opposed to its controlling group, Fatah. “The occupation,” therefore, at least that since 1967, refers to territory, not people.
The legal status of the area is disputed and has never been adjudicated by a court of law. Organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the UN and EU, political groups, and governments regard the area as “occupied” by Israel, without determining to whom it belongs; the question of its sovereignty is moot, subject to negotiation.
According to the Oslo Accords, Judea and Samaria was divided into three regions: A (under total PA control); B (under PA civilian control); C (under Israeli control). No Jews reside in areas A and B (comprising an estimated million-and-a-half residents); all Jewish communities/settlements (over 300,000 Jews) are in area C, along with about a few tens of thousands of Arab Palestinians (there are no accurate figures). In addition, over 200, 000 Jews live in new neighborhoods of Jerusalem established after 1967; these areas have already been virtually annexed.
There’s no crisis
If the entire area of Judea and Samaria is considered as a single unit, the demographic argument looks overwhelming. But, when the areas are separated – viewing area C alone, as distinctly Jewish – the perspective is quite different; there is no demographic threat.
Similarly, large concentrations of Arabs reside in pre-1967 Israel, primarily in the Negev and the Galilee. Looking at the entire population between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, using the demographic argument, the situation looks grim, with Jews and Arabs almost equal. When the areas are seen as discrete, however, the perspective changes, and the alleged demographic threat dissipates.
The argument that withdrawal is necessary to “preserve Israel’s Jewish character,” moreover, is vague, and contradicts the support for including hundreds of thousands of non-Jews, Arabs, Africans, and others seeking to live in Israel. Concern for the humanitarian rights of illegal immigrants seems to trump maintaining Israel’s Jewish identity.
Moreover, an estimated several hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the former Soviet Union who are not Jewish, many with no connection to Judaism, were given citizenship. Although many of them serve in the IDF and have applied for conversion, this is a controversial issue between those who expect sincere commitment according to Jewish law, and those who demand less, or none at all.
In other words, demographic arguments, including questions like, “Who is a Jew?” and “What is Israelism?” are complicated societal issues which cannot be resolved, or understood by simplistic notions, manipulating statistics, and hyping scare tactics.
There is no crisis, nor urgency to abandon Judea and Samaria in order to save the State of Israel. In fact, given realistic assessments of the threat a Palestinian state poses to Israel, the most reasonable solution is to leave things as they are.
The author is an historian, writer and journalist living in Jerusalem