As a break from the regular (usually depressing and negative) news, we deal with all week, I offer a chance to add some light to the darkness, and positivity to this world. (or at least the Blogmocracy)
In the Shema prayer, Jews say, “You shall love God with all your heart, with all your life and with all your possessions.” This is a commandment to be willing to give up even our lives and our possessions in the pursuit of meaning.
The Jewish Sages explain that for some people, their money is more valuable than their life, so the Torah needs to state both. There are plenty of people who are willing to give up their lives for their money.
How many people do you know who are spending so much time making money that they have no time to actually “live”?
Each one of us knows deep down that life itself is so gorgeous that all of its bothersome details just pale into insignificance. At the same time, so many of us feel that we are just not tapping into that goodness. We know there is so much more out there that we are just not experiencing, so much we are missing out on.
The only way to engage fully in life is by doing exactly that: Savor every bite food; focus intently on the warmth of the sun on your skin; see the goodness in those around you, and love them for it. Even savor changing your beautiful baby’s diaper. It’s all there to be enjoyed. Life is rich, so rich, that even its most mundane aspects can be heavenly.
Unfortunately, the effort of enjoying life is often so great, that we would rather not bother. The effort of really focusing in order to fully experience the joy of living is such a hassle that we just mindlessly go through the motions. Deep down we know we are missing out when we do that, so we have to find a way to convince ourselves that we really are trying to find fullness in life.
The most common distraction from truly enjoying the living is the pursuit of money. We convince ourselves that once we have enough money, we will be able to enjoy life in its fullest sense. Quite obviously, this is not a means for engaging in life. It is merely a sophisticated excuse for not doing so.
Don’t just chase money for the future, chase life now! TIf you want to enjoy life, you have to take the effort to enjoy the “now” – not build toward some sort of wonderful future where all will be so much better. Life is rich for you now. Life is full for you now.
Don’t let the pursuit of a better life be an excuse for not living that better life right at this moment.
Much of this week’s Torah portion consists of Moses rebuking the people for a variety of mistakes, including the Golden Calf, Korach’s rebellion, the complaints about meat and water, and more. But, why did Moses choose the final days before his death to deliver 40 years worth of pent-up rebuke?
Leviticus 19:17 states:
“You shall rebuke your neighbor, but not do a sin in the process.”
Rebuke is fine, but not if the effect will be negative. If the other person will get defensive, angry, or not accept the criticism, then it is better left unsaid.
If a person feels you have your own self-interest at heart – and not his – he won’t listen to what you’re saying. Rebuke must clearly be for the benefit of the other person. He has to know that you care about him, are on his side, and want what’s best for him.
That is why Moses specifically delivers the rebuke after defeating Sichon and Og in battle (see Deut. 1:4). He had just reaffirmed his dedication to the people. So they knew that if Moses had criticism, it was only coming from a place of love.
A look at the original Hebrew clarifies this concept. The Torah says: “You should give toch’acha to your neighbor.” Toch’acha is from the same word as hoch’acha, meaning “proof.” The Torah is telling us that the way to get our neighbor to change is not through harsh rebuke, argumentation, or clever persuasion. The only way to convince anyone of anything is by way of a clear and obvious proof. As the Talmud (Brachot 7a) says: “It is better for a person to realize the truth for himself, than to have it beaten into him with 100 lashes.”
Of course, nobody likes to be on the receiving end. But do you think you’re perfect? Of course not! If you want to reach your potential, look for constructive criticism. Go ask for help to get rid of your mistakes. When a person is committed to reaching a goal, he’ll accept incredible doses of nagging, harassment and insults.
No doubt this is what King Solomon meant when he said, “Give toch’acha to a wise person ? and he’ll love you!” (Proverbs 9:8)
If you really love someone, you can’t stand to see him living a misguided life. Who gives you the most criticism? Those who love you the most – your parents. It’s because they love you that they can’t simply ignore you by saying, “He’s wasting time but I don’t care.” Similarly, humanity is one. If one person hurts, we all feel it.
So, what is the best way to correct each other? By being better role models.
Giving toch’acha does not mean criticizing, throwing stones, or shouting louder than the next guy. Real toch’acha is demonstrating through action and deed. If secular people do not appreciate the warmth and sanctity of G-d, it is because religious people are not modeling G-d in the right way. If we were truly projecting the beauty of G-d, then the truth would be obvious to all.
____________________
Hopefully this was a bit of food-for-thought.
For those Jews who keep it, have a meaningful Shabbat. For those who do not, have a wonderful weekend.
Palestinian Media Watch once again proves that the terrorists from Fatah (”Moderate” Mahmood Abbas/Abu Mazen’s Party and the ones the U.S. are building a professional army for, with your tax dollars), openly admit their true intent, and state that any “peace” created will only be a means to their ultimate goal of destroying Israel.
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
This discussion on public “Palestinian” T.V. again proves that despite the West’s continuous desires, Fatah is no less committed to Israel’s destruction than Hamas.
Kifah Radaydeh, the deputy head of the Jerusalem chapter of Fatah, says openly that the PA will resume violence and terror against Israel when Fatah is “capable,” and “according to what seems right.” “It has been said that we are negotiating for peace,” she further stated, “but our goal has never been peace. Peace is a means; the goal is Palestine.”
Just like their founder Yassir Arafat, they know to say one thing to the usefull West, and to work for another with their fellow Arab Muslims. Kifah Radaydeh however is not a lone “extremist”, as her statements are part of the overall Fatah policy.
Fatah MP Najat Abu Bakr said in a PA TV interview last year that Fatah’s goal remains the destruction of Israel, but that their political plan is to focus on returning to the 1967 borders. He stated “It doesn’t mean that we don’t want the 1948 borders,” Abu Bakr said, referring to all of Israel,” but rather that “our current political program is to say that we want the 1967 borders.”
Also, just four months ago, senior PA official Mohammed Dahlan stressed that Fatah adamantly refuses to recognize Israel, and that even the Palestinian Authority’s recognition is only for the sake of receiving foreign aid: “…the Fatah movement does not recognize Israel, even today… [such recognition is] required of the government but not of the Fatah, so that this government will be able to offer the necessary assistance, to carry out the necessary reconstruction, to offer assistance to the sick, to bring relief to needy families… This can be dealt with [only] by a government that has relations with the international community, one that is acceptable to the international community, in order that we can work together and benefit from the international community.”
The terrorists of Fatah/PLO have been lying to the West, and getting away with it, for decades. It is never the Arabs whom state that they are going to accept a “two-state” solution, or “peace” as their ultimate goal. This is simply what the West, including our current administration, wants to hear – so they do. Even today the West demands a “settlement freeze” from Israel, stating it is a requirement for “peace” even though the Phakestinians openly state that this won’t make a difference. On these confused beliefs of what the Phakestinians want, and what will bring about a resolution to the Arab-Israel conflict, despite the Arab’s own statements to the contrary, the EU is even calling on the UN to impose “peace” on Israel.
The Obama Administration, along with most of the Western world, continues to fool itself into thinking that the Arabs want peace with Israel, and two states living side-by-side. This is despite the fact that the Arabs themselves have never explicitly said so.
Here is Hamas’ most recent example.
______________________________
Hamas head Khaled Mashaal gave a speech Thursday evening in response to a policy speech given by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu several days earlier. Mashaal proclaimed that Hamas is ready to cooperate with the international community in order to reach a deal with Israel, but only under conditions it deems favorable.
Specifically, Mashaal rejected every proposal supported by Israel, including Netanyahu’s insistence that the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Hamas will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state, because it hopes to see millions of descendants of Arab residents of pre-state Israel “return” to the area, potentially turning Israel into a majority-Arab state, Mashaal explained.
He rejected Netanyahu’s proposal that the PA form a demilitarized state within Judea, Samaria and Gaza. “A demilitarized state is a miserable state, not a serious entity,” he stated.
Mashaal also insisted that an Arab state in Judea and Samaria be granted Jerusalem as its capital.
While stating his readiness to cooperate, Mashaal compared Israel to Nazi Germany and expressed support for terrorism. “[Israel] failed in its Nazi war on Gaza, just as it failed in Lebanon,” he said. “This was due to the resistance, not to dialogue, which serves only to hide the true face of occupation.”
Mashaal praised United States President Barack Obama for “using new language” with Israel, but called on the U.S. leader to do more. “We’re hoping for real pressure on the Israelis,” he said.
What the Arabs want is not two states living side-by-side in peace, but instead a Phakestinian State created so it can be used to destroy Israel – all according to the PLO Phased Plan.
The Arabs have never wanted “two states”, and have honestly never stated such. “Two states” is simply what the West wants to hear, and thus we pretend that it has been said. Every act by the Arabs regarding Israel (as acknowledged again by Hamas) is in furtherance of their goal to destroy Israel. They want Judea, Samaria and Gaza to chip away at the body of Israel, and they insist on Jerusalem as their capitol because they know it will destroy Israel’s heart and soul. The “demand of so-called Return” is to create a cancer within the Jewish state.
Every Arab act of “peace” is to destroy Israel. It is about time the West (especially the U.S.) woke up to this fact.
Today, President Barack Obama met with Phakestinian “President”, and leader of Fatah terrorist organization, Abu Mazen (now being called Mahmoud Abbas). The numerous reports around the globe are stating that Abu Mazen/Mahmoud Abbas will be discussing with Obama how they can work together to “stop all Jewish ’settlement’ growth” in Judea, and Samaria, and force Israel to accept a “Palestinian” state within their borders despite any legitimate security concerns that they might have.
The main issue that the U.S. now seems to be concentrating on is Jewish “settlements” as being the core stumbling block in our eternal quest for Jewish-Islamic Middle East peace. This claim is ridiculous, as the building of homes is not nearly as much as an international concern (or it should be) as the murder of innocent civilians.
The concentration on “settlements” however is not new -it has been the Arab talking-point from before the modern state of Israel was founded. It was originally a complaint about Jewish settlement in pre-1948 that the Arabs used as an excuse to murder Jews, then after 1948 it was Jewish settlement in general (the Creation of Israel). This caused many conflicts, much violence, and ultimately the 1967 Six Day War. Only thereafter did the Arab complaint regarding “Jewish settlement” come to refer to post-1967 Jewish communities in Judea, and Samaria. (as a starting point to getting back to fighting about the “settlement” pre 1948)
Accordingly, it seems that the U.S. has now bought into the Arab campaign to end Jewish “settlement”, and thus work for the destruction of Israel in general (whether the U.S. is aware of it or not). The concern is not the health, or safety of innocent civilians (Israeli or Arab) through the ending of terrorism, but now a campaign against Jewish ’settlement’ and specifically growth. With zero emphasis on whether or not this tact is even going to end the conflict, or save lives.
In fact, as is evidenced by the articles above, the U.S. has actually taken a policy against Jewish “natural growth”. But hey, why not concentrate on the building of homes by Jews among Islamists as the core reason there is no peace – we saw how much peace was achieved from ethnically cleansing Gaza of all Jews, and Jewish settlement. “natural growth” of ’settlements”
Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of the Obama Administration are leading the charge against what they are calling “natural growth” of Jewish neighborhoods in post 1967 Israel. But what does “natural growth” mean? In short, natural grown is the normal expansion of communities due to natural events such as marriage, and child birth. Therefore, the U.S. is taking a policy against marriage, and child birth for Jews living in Judea, and Samaria.
Could you imagine if this demand was made on Muslims in pre-1967 Israel? (or anywhere else in the World for that matter?)
You can read all about this issue on Israel Matsav,Israel National News, and many other sources. Thus, I am going to concentrate on a group more vilified in the world by the MSM, EU, U.S., and UN than anyone else – Jewish Residents of Judea & Samaria. Who really are these “settlers”, what do these “evil” “settlements” look like, what is this illegal “outpost” or “settlement”?
One of the most spoken/complained about “settlements” is Hebron. Also for reference, here are a few pictures of those “evil” “settlers” – the ’cause of all the strife in the middle east’, and who now no longer have a right to procreate.
(More info to follow within the comments. Expect continuous updates as time permits.)
“…As it was in the beginning, so shall it be in the end, give thanks and praise to the Lord and I will feel all right. Let’s get together to fight this Holy Armageddon, so when the Man comes there will be no no doom. Have pity on those whose chances grow thinner, there ain’t no hiding place from the Father of Creation…”
Bob Marley – “One Love” (from “Playing for Change: Song Around The World”)
Newspapers all over the world are working overtime to brand new Foreign Minister of Israel Avigdor Lieberman as a “racist”, “ultra-nationalist”, “right winger” and any other supposedly disparaging term they can dig up. They will tell you nothing about the man other than he is an evil man who dared to suggested that Israelis, including Israeli-Arabs, be required to take an oath of loyalty. What they don’t show you is why he suggested it.
Sadly, it seems that our own Government still just doesn’t get it. Just a few hours after The Jerusalem Post completed the interview below with Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, gave testimony on Capitol Hill that insists that Israel continue the failed policies of the past. Clinton stated that “For Israel to get the kind of strong support it is looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it can’t stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts. They go hand in hand.”
Israel however has never even hinted that it has any desire to stall peace-making efforts with the so-called Palestinians. When asked about this, Lieberman stated that his government instead, “intends to take the initiative” [on peace efforts].
Hillary Clinton knows this. But what she really means when she says “peace efforts” is that Israel must surrender to the Phakestinians, follow the same failed policies of the last 60 plus years, and continue to surrender their sovereignty and security in return for nothing but empty promises. This however is something that Lieberman, and Netanyahu, (for now it seems) won’t do.
Below are segments from this interview with Avigdor Lieberman. Hear him in his own words.
_________________________________________
…
Can we start with the issue of two states for two peoples. Wasn’t the international basis for the establishment of Israel that there be a Jewish entity alongside an Arab entity? Is your government now departing from this paradigm or is the principle of two states still the applicable one?
First of all, we must understand why the Palestinian issue is deadlocked, because since 1993 we really made every effort. We had very dovish governments. We can start with Ehud Barak at Camp David, who made a very generous offer to [Yasser] Arafat and he rejected it. As for the Ariel Sharon government, we undertook an insane process called disengagement. We transferred thousands of Jews from the Gaza Strip. We evacuated tens of flowering settlements and we received in return Hamas and Kassam rockets. The last government of Ehud Olmert is the same. From what I saw in the papers, he really made a very very generous offer to Abu Mazen. And the same thing happened: Abu Mazen rejected it.
Were there elements that Olmert offered that were surprising to you?
Of course. I was shocked, as was everybody.
But more than this offer, more important at the end of the day: what was the final result? This was a very dovish government – without Lieberman, without Netanyahu. It was Olmert, Barak and Tzipi Livni. And the result? The Second Lebanon War, the operation in Gaza, severed diplomatic relations with Mauritania and Qatar, our soldier Gilad Schalit still in captivity. And we cannot move forward without understanding why.
I know that all of us know some very popular slogans – land for peace, two-state solutions. It would be very easy to win over public opinion or the mass media by talking in slogans. But this is not election time. We’re not during the campaign. We want to bring real results.
Israel has proved its good intentions, our desire for peace. Since 1978, we gave up territories three times larger than Israel. We invested billions of shekels in the Palestinian Authority. We paid a very heavy price. Thousands of our citizens were killed in terrorist acts. What more can we do?
Without understanding the real reasons for this long-standing conflict, we cannot move forward. That’s my view.
Over the last two weeks I’ve had many conversations with my colleagues
around the world. Just today, I saw the political adviser to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Chinese foreign minister and the Czech prime
minister. And everybody, you know, speaks with you like you’re in a campaign: Occupation, settlements, settlers…
You mean they speak in slogans?
Yes, slogans. Settlements, outposts. And I ask only one thing: What was the situation before 1967, before we established a single settlement. What was before ‘48 and ‘67? Was it peace, was it a heaven here?
It was the same: friction, terrorism, bloodshed. The PLO and Fatah were established before ‘67 and the Arab countries controlled Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip for 19 years, from ‘48 to ‘67. Nobody spoke during this time about the Palestinian state. And even before the establishment of the state of Israel, it was the same: friction, tension, terror, riots, pogroms. People try to simplify the situation with these formulas – land for peace, two-state solution. It’s a lot more complicated.
You don’t need to persuade this newspaper not to speak to you in slogans, but nonetheless, is it not the case that for our sake, to keep a Jewish, democratic Israel, we have to find some way to separate from the Palestinians? And doesn’t that mean, in principle at least, statehood? I understand the prime minister’s concerns about what statehood brings with it – giving one the right to arm and to pose a threat. But what then is the ultimate goal here vis-a-vis the Palestinians?
We must clarify our position. The real reason [for the deadlock with the Palestinians] is not occupation, not settlements and not settlers. This conflict is really a very deep conflict. It started like other national conflicts. Today it’s a more religious conflict. Today you have the influence of some non-rational players, like Al-Qaida. What is Hamas and Islamic Jihad? It’s Iran by proxy.
To resolve this conflict, it is not enough to repeat slogans. I don’t see any short way for any comprehensive solutions.
From my point of view, we’re interested in three things. First of all, as Israeli citizens, the most important thing is security. I don’t want to see, every day, every morning, Palestinian missiles striking Sderot.
Second, what is most important for the Palestinians? I think it’s also very clear – the economy. Now I say as a settler, we at Nokdim are the biggest employer in our area. I have met many times with Palestinians from the villages around us, who really strongly do not believe in any political process, in peace processes - not in summits, not in conferences, not in declarations…
…
Is our government going to say to the international community and the Americans in particular, ‘We’re not even going to start trying to make progress with the Palestinians until you stop Iran?
No, no, no, no, no.
That’s the impression that’s sometimes being created.
No, we must start with the Palestinian issues because it’s our interest to resolve this problem. But there should be no illusions. To achieve an agreement, to achieve an end of conflict, with no more bloodshed, no more terror, no more claims – that’s impossible until Iran [is addressed], one of the biggest players in our arena.
…
You say you don’t foresee a comprehensive solution in the near future, but we’re already hearing from the new American president that this has been going on for long enough.
Annapolis was the wrong approach. With the Road Map, you can see some logical path: First of all, [for the PA to] dismantle terrorist organizations, collect illegal weapons, establish a justice system and establish normal state institutions. You have three stages in the Road Map, with 48-49 paragraphs. Only the last stage, the last paragraphs, deal with negotiations for the permanent solution. So, [under Annapolis,] to jump straight to the last paragraph and to concede on all of the Palestinian commitments to fight terror – it’s a very strange approach.
Now in our policy review, it’s a new government and we need time. I’m not ready for someone to stand with a stopwatch and say, ‘What’s happening, what’s happening?’ I talked with [President Obama's special envoy George] Mitchell, and he well understood our problems.
The people of Israel made their decision [in the elections] and this is really the right time to examine new ideas, new approaches, new visions. We’re trying to formulate this new approach now.
Although I do not agree completely with everything Liberman says in his interview, I believe that the Netanyahu government is on the right track by trying something different. Despite what the World media wish for you to believe, Liberman is hardly an “extremist”, nor a “ultra-nationalist”. His only sin here is that he questions the prevailing so-called wisdom, of blaming the conflict on Israel not giving enough to the Arabs. The problem however is that the media is wrong, and Liberman is right. The main stumbling block with the Arab-Israeli conflict has been the World’s insistance that we continue the same failed policies. Sadly, from the words of Secretary of State Clinton, it seems that the U.S. still doesn’t get it, and I am afraid that with an Obama Administration we never will. Despite history, they wish to continue the “all for nothing from Israel” policies that have caused the stalemate Israel and the Arabs are in today.
For the sake of everyone involved, I pray for the peace of Israel, and that our leaders finally get it!
Once again, the “moderate” P.A. issues another death threat to their people against selling land to Jews. This isn’t the first time either, this is a long standing P.A. policy. Notice that this Fatwa and law is against all Jews; not “Zionists”, or “Israelis”, or IDF, blah,blah, blah….nope…..it is against ALL Jews! Where are the condemnations for such blatant Anti-semitism, and actions against harmony from the usual “peace” groups, and “civil-Rights” Organizations on this?
___________________________________
The Palestinian Authority has issued yet another warning to Palestinians against selling their homes or properties to Jews, saying those who violate the order would be accused of “high treason” – a charge that carries the death penalty.
The latest warning was issued on Wednesday by the Chief [Islamic] Judge of the Palestinian Authority, Sheikh Tayseer Rajab Tamimi, who reminded the Palestinians of an existing fatwa [religious decree] than bans them from selling property to Jews.
Sheikh Tamimi’s warning came in response to reports that Jewish businessmen from the US had purchased 20 dunams of land from Palestinians on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem.
Warning the Palestinians against engaging in “suspicious real estate deeds,” the religious leader said that according to Islamic teachings it was a “grave sin” to sell houses and lands to Jews.
He said that the ban also applies to
real estate agents or middlemen who are involved in such transactions.
He warned that anyone who ignores the warning would be punished in accordance with Islamic teachings and would also be ostracized by his community and family.
Sheikh Tamimi also issued a ban on renting out property to Jewish individuals and organizations under the pretext that they would spread moral, political and security corruption there.
…
“The city of Jerusalem is the religious, political and spiritual capital of the Palestinians,” he said. “The Jews have no rights in Jerusalem. This is an occupied city like the rest of the territories that were occupied in 1967.”
Scores of Palestinians have been murdered over the past three decades for allegedly selling their property to Jews or for acting as intermediaries in
real estate deeds involving Jews.
Several fatwas issued by PA Islamic clerics have ruled that any Palestinian who sells his property to Jews would face the death sentence.
Fatah legislator Hatem Abdel Kader, who also serves as PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad’s adviser on Jerusalem affairs, told The Jerusalem Post that the new-old ban was needed to thwart attempts by the new right-wing government in Israel to take control over more lands in the Arab neighborhoods of the city.
…
___________________________________
I ask you then….who exactly in this Conflict are the “racist”, “ultra-nationalists”? Funny, (not!) how they don’t use those terms when describing the Phakestinians, or other Arabs, even when their behavior is worse!
Per Carl In Jerusalem:
“By the way, unfortunately, these threats are not a joke. Recall the case of MuhammedAbual-Hawa (three links), who was murdered in April 2006 for selling land to Jews in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Abu Tor. And of course that explains why when they are discovered selling land to Jews, ‘Palestinians’ will inevitably deny it (in collaboration with Israeli ‘peace groups’ of course) as was the case with Shalom House in Hebron from which the Jewish residents were ultimately expelled in December 2008.
In an upcoming in-depth article in the April 6, 2009 issue of The New Yorker, investigative reporter Seymour M. Hersh states that Carter has met with President Obama to discuss foreign policy, and that the administration was aware of Carter’s trip to Syria in December 2008. Carter is calling for broader U.S.-Syrian relations. Is Obama using former failed President, Jimmy Carter, as a foreign policy adviser?
____________________________________________
“…
In his e-mail, Assad praised the diplomatic efforts of former President Jimmy Carter. “Carter is most knowledgeable about the Middle East and he does not try to dictate or give sermons,” Assad said. “He sincerely is trying to think creatively and find solutions that are outside the box.” Carter’s calls for engagement with Hamas have angered many in Israel and America. In “We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land,” published in January, Carter described Syria as “a key factor in any overall regional peace.” Last December, Carter visited Syria, and met not only with President Assad but with Khaled Meshal, the Hamas leader.
A senior White House official confirmed that the Obama transition team had been informed in advance of Carter’s trip to Syria, and that Carter met with Obama shortly before the Inauguration. The two men—Obama was accompanied only by David Axelrod, the President’s senior adviser, who helped arrange the meeting; and Carter by his wife, Rosalynn—discussed the Middle East for an hour. Carter declined to discuss his meeting with Obama, but he did write in an e-mail that he hoped the new President “would pursue a wide-ranging dialogue as soon as possible with the Assad government.” An understanding between Washington and Damascus, he said, “could set the stage for successful Israeli-Syrian talks.”
The Obama transition team also helped persuade Israel to end the bombing of Gaza and to withdraw its ground troops before the Inauguration. According to the former senior intelligence official, who has access to sensitive information, “Cheney began getting messages from the Israelis about pressure from Obama” when he was President-elect.Cheney, who worked closely with the Israeli leadership in the lead-up to the Gaza war, portrayed Obama to the Israelis as a “pro-Palestinian,” who would not support their efforts (and, in private, disparaged Obama, referring to him at one point as someone who would “never make it in the major leagues”). But the Obama team let it be known that it would not object to the planned resupply of “smart bombs” and other high-tech ordnance that was already flowing to Israel. “It was Jones”—retired Marine General James Jones, at the time designated to be the President’s national-security adviser—“who came up with the solution and told Obama, ‘You just can’t tell the Israelis to get out.’ ” (General Jones said that he could not verify this account; Cheney’s office declined to comment.)
We are constantly told that the “Two-State” solution is the only path to peace between the Arabs and Israel, and that if it were just tried, and the Arabs were genuinely offered their state, we would finally have peace in the Middle East. This presumption is the basis for the often repeated falsehood that the “settlements”, or “occupation” are the major stumbling blocks on the path to peace. The problem with this logic however is that it is not based in history. This so-called ‘new’ revolutionary concept of a just peace by way of a “Two State Solution” is eighty-seven years old, has been attempted numerous times before, and always yields the same result: failure! Bush, and now Obama naively insist on clinging to this fallacy of the “two-state solution”, and I am afraid that with history as my guide, will only continue to make things worse.
The following is a great primer on the real history of Israel and the Arabs, and explanation as to why peace for Israel has yet to be realized.
___________________________________________
The Two – State Solution is 87 Years Old
By Victor Sharpe
In 1920, Great Britain was given the responsibility by the League of Nations to oversee the Mandate over the geographical territory known as Palestine with the express intention of reconstituting within its territory a Jewish National Home.
The territory in question stretched from the Mediterranean Sea to the eastern boundary of Mandatory Palestine, which was a border that would separate it from what was to become the future state of Iraq.
The League of Nations created a number of articles, which were in line with the original intent of the Balfour Declaration of November 29th, 1917. At the last minute, however, a new article was introduced by the British Colonial Office: article number 25.
At first the sudden addition of this article was not a cause for alarm but gradually it became apparent that its inclusion directly enabled Great Britain in 1921 to tear away all the territory of geographical Palestine, east of the River Jordan, and give it to the Arab Hashemite family; the territory to become Trans-Jordan and led by the emir Abdullah.
Britain presented this gift to Abdullah, the son of the Sherif of Mecca, as a consolation prize for its awarding of the Hedjaz territory and Arabia, which included Mecca, to the rival Saud family: That vast territory is now Saudi Arabia.
British officials also claimed that the gift of Mandatory Palestine east of the Jordan River was in gratitude to the Hashemites for their contribution in helping defeat the Turks. However, even T.S. Lawrence later described in derisory terms the Hashemite role as “a side show of a side show.”
This was the first partition of Palestine and created a brand new entity 87 years ago covering some 35,000 square miles or nearly four-fifths of the geographical territory of Palestine. Immediately Jewish residence in the territory was forbidden and it became in effect judenrein – the German term for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from a territory.
This betrayal by none other than Winston Churchill, the Colonial Secretary at the time, was a devastating blow to the Jewish and Zionist leadership, which now saw the promised Jewish homeland reduced to the remaining narrow territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan – an area barely 50 miles at its widest.
Shortly after, in 1923, the British and French colonial powers also divided up the northern part of the Palestine Mandate. Britain stripped away the Golan Heights (ancient biblical Bashan) and gave it to French occupied Syria.
The Balfour Declaration issued by Lord Balfour, British Foreign Secretary, never envisaged that the Jordan River would be the eastern boundary of the reconstituted Jewish homeland. Indeed, the Zionist leadership had put forward in February 1919 its first submission that the eastern boundary would run well east of the Hedjaz railway. The incorporation of the railway would be an economically essential requirement for the Jewish community living east of the River Jordan as well as providing it with vital security.
The squabbling by the French and British colonial powers over the final frontiers of the Palestine Mandate had earlier led the London Times to urge Paris to accept sensible and rational frontiers in both the north and east of Jewish Palestine. As early as September 19th, 1919 it had thundered in an editorial:
“The Jordan will not do as the eastern frontier of Palestine … Palestine must have a good military frontier east of Jordan … Our duty as Mandatory is to make Jewish Palestine not a struggling state but one that is capable of vigorous and independent life … “
But Jewish aspirations inevitably were dashed as a new British Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, took the place of Lord Balfour. This new British official within weeks of succeeding Balfour made it clear that Britain was intent upon separating Transjordan from Palestine: the first two-state solution.
The succeeding history of the remaining one fifth of the original territory promised to the Jewish people by Lord Balfour and the British government was one of continuing British betrayal as each successive Mandatory administration displayed pro-Arab and anti-Jewish policies.
During its administration up until 1947, Britain severely restricted Jewish immigration and purchases of land while turning a blind eye to massive illegal Arab immigration into the territory from neighboring Arab states.
Britain’s sorry record of appeasement of the Arabs, at the expense of Jewish destiny in the remaining territory, culminated in the infamous 1939 White Paper, which limited Jewish immigration to just 75,000 souls for the next five years. This onerous and draconian policy, coming as it did on the eve of the outbreak of World War 2, was a death blow to millions of Jews attempting to flee extermination by Nazi Germany.
Britain’s mismanagement of the Mandate finally led to the United Nation’s Partition Plan of 1947. The Jewish Agency reluctantly accepted this additional dismemberment of what was left in Mandatory Palestine of the promised Jewish National Home.
They did this in order to provide a refuge for the surviving Jewish remnants of the Holocaust and for the growing numbers of Jewish refugees being driven out of their homes throughout the Arab world. In contrast, the Arab regimes rejected the Partition Plan. Then, as now, they worked against the existence of an independent Jewish state.
Israel was officially re-born as a sovereign nation in 1948 and its 600,000 Jews fought to survive the massive Arab onslaught, which was intended to wipe out the Jewish state.
In 1948, Trans-Jordan, renamed the Kingdom of Jordan since 1946, had joined the other Arab nations in invading the Jewish state, illegally annexing the Biblical and ancestral Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria and renaming it the West Bank. Only Britain and Pakistan recognized the annexation.
The war ended in tortuous armistice lines resulting in an Israeli border a mere nine miles wide at the most densely populated area, which stretched from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordanian occupied West Bank. Israel’s late Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, described these dangerously vulnerable armistice lines as the Auschwitz borders.
Nineteen years later the Arab states declared again their imminent intention to destroy Israel. In the June 1967 Six Day War Israel liberated Judea and Samaria from Jordan in a defensive war. Israel offered to give away the newly liberated West Bank to the Hashemite regime in Jordan and the Gaza Strip to its erstwhile Egyptian occupiers in return for a full and lasting peace. But the Arab League, meeting in Khartoum in August, 1967, delivered the infamous three No’s: No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel.
It is within the narrow territory remaining for the Jewish state, if one includes Judea and Samaria, that the world now demands the establishment of yet another Arab state. Hamas controlled Gaza would be included in this future state to be called Palestine; a state which has never existed before by that name in all of recorded history – certainly not as an independent Arab state.
-Victor Sharpe is a freelance writer and author of Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish State.
___________________________________________
What the World speaks of today when they say “two-State solution” is in actuality a three-State solution supposedly necessary only because of the Arab insatiable desire to destroy Israel, and their deplorable willingness to use their fellow Arabs as the political pawns to do so. Forcing a so-called “two-state solution” on Israel would be horribly unjust. Its’ only accomplishment would be to once again take from the Jewish people what is legally and rightfully theirs, to appease the covetous Arabs. How sad it is that we still today see the West going down this same failed path. Western acquiescence to the reavageous Arab desire for more land is what has created the problem in the Middle East that we struggle with today. It is folly to believe that it is actually the solution.
Hamas head Khaled Mashaal gave a speech Thursday evening in response to a policy speech given by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu several days earlier. Mashaal proclaimed that Hamas is ready to cooperate with the international community in order to reach a deal with Israel, but only under conditions it deems favorable.
“…
