.
With great fanfare in Annapolis last week, the present-day international consensus solution was reaffirmed: two states—one Israeli, one Palestinian—within the confines of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. This is unfortunate because the “two-state solution” can AT BEST only lead to a temporary cessation of hostilities between Arabs/Muslims and Israel. It cannot lead to long enduring peace that includes a viably strong Israel in the Middle East.
The consensus is based on flawed assumptions. One flaw arises simply because the Arab/Muslim-Israeli conflict has been oversimplified in public discourse to the point where only Palestinian statelessness and Israel’s security needs are discussed as the lynchpin to regional peace. This is nonsense. One need only look to the fighting in Iraq or Lebanon to establish the fallacy. Arab and Muslim tribal animosity towards each other continues without regard to Israel.
And Arab and Muslim animosity towards Israel will not abate by splitting into two-states, the tiny area in which Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs are now crammed.
Of course, regional dictators have a long list of self-serving reasons for blaming Israel and the Jews for everything wrong in the Arab world, and they have reason to sell Washington on the idea that if only the Israeli-Palestinian problem were solved, terrorism would abate and the sun would shine on the whole region.
Much of establishment Washington (and the rest of the world) plays along, I dare say, to appease important oil interests. And, present Israeli leadership cowers in the face of international pressure.
I was heartened that, rhetoric aside, the actions of Dr. Rice and President Bush run counter to the myth that this is an Israeli-Palestinian problem that can be solved by two states for two peoples. Just look at the Annapolis guest list. Dr. Rice and President Bush felt it necessary to invite and involve members of the Arab League. The guest list makes it clear that the problem to be solved is an Arab/Muslim-Israeli one. Present at the conference were Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
The Muslim states participating were Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and Turkey.
(For what it’s worth, Annapolis did confirm that the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia will not shake the Prime Minister of Israel’s hand, and that Arab Ministers, save the Jordanian one, will still not meet with Israel’s foreign minister.)
The chance for real peace between Israel and her neighbors in the next year is nil. Appeasement does sometimes work, but history has shown that in this particular conflict, and in this particular region it will not.
Nevertheless, with enough international political pressure, there could one day be a 22nd Arab state, a Palestinian one on the West Bank and in Gaza. This “triumph” will be no road to a lasting peace. It will leave Israel weak and in more danger, and the Palestinian state will be feckless.
Here’s my expectation. Whether or not a Palestinian state is recognized, it will eventually become apparent to international leadership that the present consensus solution is unstable, unworkable and untenable.
As is expressed in a recent RAND Study: "If the failed or failing states of recent years—Somalia, Yugoslavia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Afghanistan—have endangered international security, consider the perils in the Middle East and beyond of a failed Palestine, or the costs and risks of one so weak that it must be propped up and policed by the United States and others."
It is HIGHLY likely that an independent Palestinian state, limited to the West Bank and Gaza, will fail or be extremely weak. It cannot realistically be viable as an independent state.
Again, according to the hopeful RAND Study, “Palestine can only succeed with the backing and assistance of the international community—above all, the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Resource requirements will be substantial for a decade or more.” Specifically, the RAND Study suggests that to have even a chance of success, this small Palestinian state would require $33 billion of aid over 10 years, $50 billion of aid through 2019, AND ACCESS TO ISRAEL’S LABOR MARKET (emphasis added)."
This approach is fantasy.
Sooner or later, after massive international funding fails, or perhaps after the outbreak of war, the international community will have to revisit the idea of having two non-viable states on this particular small parcel of land.
Simply put, the single-minded international pursuit of this “two-state” approach endangers the lives of some, and ruins the lives of many—Palestinians and Israelis alike.
There is plenty of room in the Middle East for ALL people who currently live there to be prosperous. But because there isn’t a humanitarian approach to the Arab/Muslim-Israeli problem, Israel's long-term viability is in danger, and Palestinian Arabs languish.
Time bombs in the Middle East will only be defused when international pressure is such that democratic states large enough to be self-sustaining are created for all Peoples in the region. To do this, not only must Israel’s boundaries be redrawn, but also, the boundaries imposed by the British and French at the end of World War I on much of the Middle East must be redrawn.
--David Naggar
Monday, December 03, 2007
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Because Allah is Fair: A Reason to Revisit the Issue of Jerusalem
.
"The former mufti of Jerusalem, Ikrema Sabri, has made the claim that there never was a Jewish temple on the Temple Mount, and the Western Wall was really part of a mosque.
"There was never a Jewish temple on Al-Aksa [the mosque compound] and there is no proof that there was ever a temple," he told The Jerusalem Post via a translator. "Because Allah is fair, he would not agree to make Al-Aksa if there were a temple there for others beforehand."
Asked if Jews would ever be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount under Muslim control, he replied: "It is not the Temple Mount, you must say Al-Aksa. And no Jews have the right to pray at the mosque. It was always only a mosque - all 144 dunams, the entire area. No Jewish prayer. If the Jews want real peace, they must not do anything to try to pray on Al-Aksa. Everyone knows that."
"Zionism tries to trick the Jews claiming that this was part of a Jewish temple, but they dug there and they found nothing," Sabri added.” By Mike Seid, The Jerusalem Post, October 25, 2007.
* * *
If properly appreciated, what Mr. Sabri says is good news for Israel, Muslims and peace.
The whole idea of a Jewish temple existing on what many of us call the Temple Mount is seen as one big Zionist lie in the Muslim world. The last time I was in Egypt, Egyptian “scholars” that I met insisted that there was no Jewish temple on this land. I was flabbergasted.
At the end of the road, any road, true durable peace will come between Israel and the Arab/Muslim world only when these 144 dumans (35.5 acres) are shared, or either Jews or Muslims give up any claim to it.
Now undoubtedly, Mr. Sabri well knows verse 4:135 of the Quran that calls on Muslims to be absolutely equitable.
To him, there could never have been a Jewish temple where Al-Aksa is because it would simply be beyond Allah to do such a thing.
I understand this. From Mr. Sabri’s perspective, this makes perfect sense. It is ethical thinking.
As he said, "Because Allah is fair, he would not agree to make Al-Aksa if there were a temple there for others beforehand."
But in his analysis, Mr. Sabri fails to consider the possibility that Al-Aksa is not what Muslims now claim it to be—the farthest place of prostration adjacent to which Mohammed ascended to heaven one night.
Following Mr. Sabri’s logic, the very establishment of the Jewish temple on this site would negate the possibility that Al-Aksa is what it is claimed. If a Jewish temple existed here, it is reason enough for the Muslims to cede the area without further debate regarding the current meaning of Al-Aksa to anyone.
Here’s what I know from history.
Al-Aksa is a converted Christian church. The original building was the Byzantine Church of Saint Mary of Justinian. At the time of Mohammed’s death, Muslims had not yet invaded Jerusalem.
The idea that this spot was the farthest place of prostration was an invention of the Umayyad Dynasty about 80 years after Mohammed’s death as a challenge to other Muslim powers in Mecca. Ibn Taymiya, one of the most influential religious thinkers in Islam dismissed as folly the idea that this site was the place of Mohammed’s ascent to heaven. (I detail this topic in greater detail in my book, The Case for a Larger Israel).
Now, presuming Mr. Sabri is an equitable Muslim, and truly believes in the fairness of Allah as he has stated, revisiting the historical truth would be worthwhile.
Let us as an international community decide once and for all what is true and what is false regarding this potential powder keg. If sharing is out of the question, there will be no peace without deciding between the two narratives.
Here’s the deal.
If there was no Jewish temple on what I call the Temple Mount, then Israel and Jews everywhere should walk away from these 144 dunams. End of story. I’m not saying Israel doesn’t need to be larger to be viable and successful well into the future. I’m just saying that if a Jewish temple wasn’t here, there is no reason to pretend otherwise. Israel doesn’t need to retain these particular 35+ acres.
But if there is demonstrable evidence of a Jewish temple on this site, (and it would be just for the U.N. to call for proper and internationally supervised archaeological work), then the Muslims should at the very least share the area.
Further, if it can be established by the historical record (and it can) that the holiness of Al-Aksa was an after-the-fact hoax on Muslims by the Umayyad Dynasty, it would be equitable for the Muslims to cede, once and for all, all 144 dunams to the state of Israel, as keepers of the holiest site in all of Judaism.
In the name of fairness and peace, it does not desecrate either Judaism or Islam to seek and spread the truth. Let us all start doing so.
--David Naggar
"The former mufti of Jerusalem, Ikrema Sabri, has made the claim that there never was a Jewish temple on the Temple Mount, and the Western Wall was really part of a mosque.
"There was never a Jewish temple on Al-Aksa [the mosque compound] and there is no proof that there was ever a temple," he told The Jerusalem Post via a translator. "Because Allah is fair, he would not agree to make Al-Aksa if there were a temple there for others beforehand."
Asked if Jews would ever be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount under Muslim control, he replied: "It is not the Temple Mount, you must say Al-Aksa. And no Jews have the right to pray at the mosque. It was always only a mosque - all 144 dunams, the entire area. No Jewish prayer. If the Jews want real peace, they must not do anything to try to pray on Al-Aksa. Everyone knows that."
"Zionism tries to trick the Jews claiming that this was part of a Jewish temple, but they dug there and they found nothing," Sabri added.” By Mike Seid, The Jerusalem Post, October 25, 2007.
* * *
If properly appreciated, what Mr. Sabri says is good news for Israel, Muslims and peace.
The whole idea of a Jewish temple existing on what many of us call the Temple Mount is seen as one big Zionist lie in the Muslim world. The last time I was in Egypt, Egyptian “scholars” that I met insisted that there was no Jewish temple on this land. I was flabbergasted.
At the end of the road, any road, true durable peace will come between Israel and the Arab/Muslim world only when these 144 dumans (35.5 acres) are shared, or either Jews or Muslims give up any claim to it.
Now undoubtedly, Mr. Sabri well knows verse 4:135 of the Quran that calls on Muslims to be absolutely equitable.
To him, there could never have been a Jewish temple where Al-Aksa is because it would simply be beyond Allah to do such a thing.
I understand this. From Mr. Sabri’s perspective, this makes perfect sense. It is ethical thinking.
As he said, "Because Allah is fair, he would not agree to make Al-Aksa if there were a temple there for others beforehand."
But in his analysis, Mr. Sabri fails to consider the possibility that Al-Aksa is not what Muslims now claim it to be—the farthest place of prostration adjacent to which Mohammed ascended to heaven one night.
Following Mr. Sabri’s logic, the very establishment of the Jewish temple on this site would negate the possibility that Al-Aksa is what it is claimed. If a Jewish temple existed here, it is reason enough for the Muslims to cede the area without further debate regarding the current meaning of Al-Aksa to anyone.
Here’s what I know from history.
Al-Aksa is a converted Christian church. The original building was the Byzantine Church of Saint Mary of Justinian. At the time of Mohammed’s death, Muslims had not yet invaded Jerusalem.
The idea that this spot was the farthest place of prostration was an invention of the Umayyad Dynasty about 80 years after Mohammed’s death as a challenge to other Muslim powers in Mecca. Ibn Taymiya, one of the most influential religious thinkers in Islam dismissed as folly the idea that this site was the place of Mohammed’s ascent to heaven. (I detail this topic in greater detail in my book, The Case for a Larger Israel).
Now, presuming Mr. Sabri is an equitable Muslim, and truly believes in the fairness of Allah as he has stated, revisiting the historical truth would be worthwhile.
Let us as an international community decide once and for all what is true and what is false regarding this potential powder keg. If sharing is out of the question, there will be no peace without deciding between the two narratives.
Here’s the deal.
If there was no Jewish temple on what I call the Temple Mount, then Israel and Jews everywhere should walk away from these 144 dunams. End of story. I’m not saying Israel doesn’t need to be larger to be viable and successful well into the future. I’m just saying that if a Jewish temple wasn’t here, there is no reason to pretend otherwise. Israel doesn’t need to retain these particular 35+ acres.
But if there is demonstrable evidence of a Jewish temple on this site, (and it would be just for the U.N. to call for proper and internationally supervised archaeological work), then the Muslims should at the very least share the area.
Further, if it can be established by the historical record (and it can) that the holiness of Al-Aksa was an after-the-fact hoax on Muslims by the Umayyad Dynasty, it would be equitable for the Muslims to cede, once and for all, all 144 dunams to the state of Israel, as keepers of the holiest site in all of Judaism.
In the name of fairness and peace, it does not desecrate either Judaism or Islam to seek and spread the truth. Let us all start doing so.
--David Naggar
Thursday, October 25, 2007
The Shifting U.S. Public Opinion on Free Trade and the Disastrous Consequences for Israel
.
“By a nearly two-to-one margin, Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals could face high hurdles under a new president.” By John Harwood, The Wall Street Journal, October 4, 2007.
* * *
With the Turkish troop buildup on the Iraqi border, and U.S. Secretary of State Rice announcing new sanctions against Iran this morning, it is easy to lose sight of dangers to Israel other than military.
The shift in U.S. public opinion regarding free trade is one such danger that is easily obscured by war headlines.
Free trade has lead to global prosperity. It has taken hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in China and India alone.
Israel is a prime beneficiary. Its standard of living has risen appreciably because of free trade with Europe and the U.S. Its standard of living would fall dramatically if free trade were curtailed.
Today we live in dangerous times.
Nearly 80 years ago, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was enacted in the U.S. to help it out of recession. Instead, the Act exacerbated the economic downturn by inviting retaliatory tariffs worldwide. Smoot-Hawley helped push the globe deeper into recession, and ultimately toward World War II.
What happens if the U.S. housing and credit crisis causes its economy to stall next year as many expect? What happens in the likely event that Democrats—the political party that traditionally is more wary of free trade—win control of the Presidency and both Legislative branches of government next year?
Legislation limiting free trade could very well be enacted into U.S. law.
The U.S. must look after U.S. interests, but if political pressure causes it to adopt a mistaken policy, it’s not only the U.S. that will pay the price.
Anti-free trade legislation in the U.S. would almost certainly trigger worldwide retaliatory measures. The consequences would be most painful in the emerging countries where, at the very least, millions will be thrown back into poverty. Political instability would increase worldwide.
For Israel, a country that needs to import water, oil and grain, and has very limited natural resources, limiting free trade would be a disaster. Beyond the economic pain, curtailed free trade would be disastrous for Israel because a weakened economy leaves Israel more vulnerable to enemies that wish it destroyed.
The upshot is this: Israel needs to be large enough to be independently viable so that it does not suffer too dearly when a foreign power makes a mistake.
Israel must not be so tiny and insignificant that it risks withering. It is ironic that "success" in Annapolis will greatly expose Israel to serious dangers in the long run.
Through technological, medical and scientific achievements, Israel massively contributes to the well being of all people on the planet. It must have a fair chance to survive and thrive in all economies, not just global good times.
The risk to Israel’s long term well being would be significantly lower if it had geography enough to make it self-sufficient in an age where trade may become more limited, and ensuing international calamities occur.
Please read The Case for a Larger Israel and then make up your mind.
--David Naggar
“By a nearly two-to-one margin, Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals could face high hurdles under a new president.” By John Harwood, The Wall Street Journal, October 4, 2007.
* * *
With the Turkish troop buildup on the Iraqi border, and U.S. Secretary of State Rice announcing new sanctions against Iran this morning, it is easy to lose sight of dangers to Israel other than military.
The shift in U.S. public opinion regarding free trade is one such danger that is easily obscured by war headlines.
Free trade has lead to global prosperity. It has taken hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in China and India alone.
Israel is a prime beneficiary. Its standard of living has risen appreciably because of free trade with Europe and the U.S. Its standard of living would fall dramatically if free trade were curtailed.
Today we live in dangerous times.
Nearly 80 years ago, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was enacted in the U.S. to help it out of recession. Instead, the Act exacerbated the economic downturn by inviting retaliatory tariffs worldwide. Smoot-Hawley helped push the globe deeper into recession, and ultimately toward World War II.
What happens if the U.S. housing and credit crisis causes its economy to stall next year as many expect? What happens in the likely event that Democrats—the political party that traditionally is more wary of free trade—win control of the Presidency and both Legislative branches of government next year?
Legislation limiting free trade could very well be enacted into U.S. law.
The U.S. must look after U.S. interests, but if political pressure causes it to adopt a mistaken policy, it’s not only the U.S. that will pay the price.
Anti-free trade legislation in the U.S. would almost certainly trigger worldwide retaliatory measures. The consequences would be most painful in the emerging countries where, at the very least, millions will be thrown back into poverty. Political instability would increase worldwide.
For Israel, a country that needs to import water, oil and grain, and has very limited natural resources, limiting free trade would be a disaster. Beyond the economic pain, curtailed free trade would be disastrous for Israel because a weakened economy leaves Israel more vulnerable to enemies that wish it destroyed.
The upshot is this: Israel needs to be large enough to be independently viable so that it does not suffer too dearly when a foreign power makes a mistake.
Israel must not be so tiny and insignificant that it risks withering. It is ironic that "success" in Annapolis will greatly expose Israel to serious dangers in the long run.
Through technological, medical and scientific achievements, Israel massively contributes to the well being of all people on the planet. It must have a fair chance to survive and thrive in all economies, not just global good times.
The risk to Israel’s long term well being would be significantly lower if it had geography enough to make it self-sufficient in an age where trade may become more limited, and ensuing international calamities occur.
Please read The Case for a Larger Israel and then make up your mind.
--David Naggar
Friday, October 05, 2007
It's Time to Align U.S. Vital Interests in the Middle-East with Bettering the Planet
.
“U.S. President George W. Bush said in comments aired on Friday he was "very optimistic" a Palestinian state could be set up alongside Israel and that next month's Middle East conference could lead towards peace in the region.
Israeli sources say November 26 is the date set for the U.S.-led Mideast peace conference to be held in Annapolis. The United States has yet to confirm the date.
"I am very optimistic that we can achieve a two-state solution," Bush said in comments on Al Arabiya television that were dubbed in Arabic.” From Haaretz, by Barak Ravid, Avi Issacharoff and Aluf Benn, October 5th, 2007.
* * *
President Bush wants stability throughout the Middle-East. He wants to make sure there is no interruption in oil supplies that would devastate the U.S. and world economy. He wants to make sure that so-called terrorists—Islamists who wish to cause mass harm to the U.S. and the American ideal of live and let live—aren’t given the weapons to do so by any “rogue state.”
His motivations are the motivations of Republicans and Democrats alike in the U.S. Setting aside the quest for power, the fight between the two major parties is about strategy, not goals. Iraq, for all the noise, is nothing more than a strategy question. There is little disagreement about American “vital interests.”
Where does this leave Israel?
Because Israel’s one true ally (that is, its current political ally in the ever shifting sands of allies and enemies) has what it deems to be larger interests to consider, Israel is left on the perpetual verge of being forced to return to the 1967 borders (give or take).
These borders will not work for Israel in the long run. Nor will a fractured mini-state work to achieve the well-being of Palestinian Arabs. But the vital interests of Israel and Palestinian Arabs cannot be expected to be the focus of the U.S. except as they coincide with U.S. vital interests, as those interests are understood in Washington.
It is in Israeli, Palestinian and world interest that the present-day understanding of U.S. vital interests be reexamined to take a longer view.
Middle-East oil is unlikely to be critically important in 50 years. And the present borders of Arab States, imposed by outside forces, are unlikely to be the same. Sects within the larger Arab population will choose to relocate if freely allowed to do so.
But the future mind-set of Islamic clerics in the Middle-East and beyond will likely be critical. Muslims of the Middle-East will either participate in a more prosperous world, or they will fight modernity and cause potentially catastrophic global problems.
So what can the U.S. do today? For starters, back off the unworkable two-state solution.
The U.S. and the world are best served if the U.S. promotes freedom in Middle-East States so that moderate clerics may speak up without fear of assassination.
The U.S. and the world are best served if the U.S. promotes that the only Jewish majority state be larger than Vermont. This will help diminish the ongoing threat of Israel’s annihilation, and ensuing regional carnage.
The U.S. and the world are best served if the U.S. promotes that Israel be large enough to be self-sufficient and prosperous without subsidy. The technological discoveries and innovation from within the Jewish state will spread and make the planet better in many, many ways.
It's time to align U.S. vital interests in the Middle-East with bettering the planet.
--David Naggar
“U.S. President George W. Bush said in comments aired on Friday he was "very optimistic" a Palestinian state could be set up alongside Israel and that next month's Middle East conference could lead towards peace in the region.
Israeli sources say November 26 is the date set for the U.S.-led Mideast peace conference to be held in Annapolis. The United States has yet to confirm the date.
"I am very optimistic that we can achieve a two-state solution," Bush said in comments on Al Arabiya television that were dubbed in Arabic.” From Haaretz, by Barak Ravid, Avi Issacharoff and Aluf Benn, October 5th, 2007.
* * *
President Bush wants stability throughout the Middle-East. He wants to make sure there is no interruption in oil supplies that would devastate the U.S. and world economy. He wants to make sure that so-called terrorists—Islamists who wish to cause mass harm to the U.S. and the American ideal of live and let live—aren’t given the weapons to do so by any “rogue state.”
His motivations are the motivations of Republicans and Democrats alike in the U.S. Setting aside the quest for power, the fight between the two major parties is about strategy, not goals. Iraq, for all the noise, is nothing more than a strategy question. There is little disagreement about American “vital interests.”
Where does this leave Israel?
Because Israel’s one true ally (that is, its current political ally in the ever shifting sands of allies and enemies) has what it deems to be larger interests to consider, Israel is left on the perpetual verge of being forced to return to the 1967 borders (give or take).
These borders will not work for Israel in the long run. Nor will a fractured mini-state work to achieve the well-being of Palestinian Arabs. But the vital interests of Israel and Palestinian Arabs cannot be expected to be the focus of the U.S. except as they coincide with U.S. vital interests, as those interests are understood in Washington.
It is in Israeli, Palestinian and world interest that the present-day understanding of U.S. vital interests be reexamined to take a longer view.
Middle-East oil is unlikely to be critically important in 50 years. And the present borders of Arab States, imposed by outside forces, are unlikely to be the same. Sects within the larger Arab population will choose to relocate if freely allowed to do so.
But the future mind-set of Islamic clerics in the Middle-East and beyond will likely be critical. Muslims of the Middle-East will either participate in a more prosperous world, or they will fight modernity and cause potentially catastrophic global problems.
So what can the U.S. do today? For starters, back off the unworkable two-state solution.
The U.S. and the world are best served if the U.S. promotes freedom in Middle-East States so that moderate clerics may speak up without fear of assassination.
The U.S. and the world are best served if the U.S. promotes that the only Jewish majority state be larger than Vermont. This will help diminish the ongoing threat of Israel’s annihilation, and ensuing regional carnage.
The U.S. and the world are best served if the U.S. promotes that Israel be large enough to be self-sufficient and prosperous without subsidy. The technological discoveries and innovation from within the Jewish state will spread and make the planet better in many, many ways.
It's time to align U.S. vital interests in the Middle-East with bettering the planet.
--David Naggar
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Since There is Plenty of Room in the Middle-East for Everyone, What’s the Real Problem?
.
Let’s look to history.
Fifty years ago there were people on this planet who called themselves Rhodesians, Burmese, and Soviets. Not today.
One hundred years ago there were there were people who called themselves Ottomans, Prussians and Siamese. Not anymore.
From the vantage point of one human life span, it is hard to appreciate just how quickly people voluntarily, or by force, change national self-identification.
But today, the combination of political correctness coupled with the fact that international powers benefit from perpetuating, as best they can, the illusion that different nation-state identities are immutable, makes it difficult to expound on the reality that lays one layer beyond the cursory headline understanding of a situation.
Consider the Middle-East.
The Middle-East is comprised of nation-states created from whole cloth. An Israeli Jew may be loyal to Israel, but the Arab citizens of the Arab nation-states created from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire by the British and French at the end of World War I are not paramountly loyal to the created states in which they reside.
This is known to anyone inside or outside of the Middle-East with an appreciation of regional history and Islamic tradition.
What else is known but out of step with political correctness and the will of the international powers?
1) Without international intervention to prop up the Hashemite monarchy, it is likely that Jordanians, in the not-too-distant future, will not be calling themselves Jordanians.
2) Without current U.S. presence (or the initial British invention of their country), most Iraqis would cease calling themselves Iraqis. Some would simply be Kurds. Others groups of former Iraqis would call themselves whatever they choose or whatever name is imposed upon them by a new power regime.
3) Palestinians who self-identify today as Palestinians might call themselves something new in the future? In the strange tangle of history, no entity called Palestine existed until the British created it after World War I, and there was never a culturally unique self-identifying group of Arabs in the area when the British arrived that used any particular nation-state name of its own.
As the world tries to force Gazans and West Bankers back into one politically cohesive group so that the consensus two-state solution can be imposed, the following politically incorrect question must be asked: Are Gazans and West Bankers really a distinct people to the exclusion of all other surrounding Arabs?
And are most Jordanians a different people than West Bankers? Are Jordanians a different people than certain Iraqis? Are Syrians a different people than Lebanese? How many subsets or “peoples” really live in each of these countries whose borders were drawn for the benefit of some outside power.
“A people” is not created by the imposition of borders that are created for the convenience of the international powers of the day.
Because the day will come when individual Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, Iraqis and Palestinians no longer honor the internationally imposed nation-state borders, it is counter-productive to internationally impose the creation of a new separate Palestinian state within the confines of Israel and the territories. It is harmful to present-day self-identifying Palestinian people to force them to live "in their own state” that cannot be viable, and it is harmful to the long-term needs of Israel. Non-militant Palestinians (be they Gazan, West Bankers, loyal to this group or that, and by whatever name or names any of them chose to self-identify in the future) must be afforded a better future, and Israel must be larger to thrive into the future as anything other than an eventual failed nuclear state.
So what’s the real problem?
The international community thinks it can attain regional peace by imposing false nation-state borders on people whose paramount loyalty will not be to the state.
But there is a better approach. With proper international interjection and cooperation, there is plenty of room in the Middle East for everyone.
--David Naggar
Let’s look to history.
Fifty years ago there were people on this planet who called themselves Rhodesians, Burmese, and Soviets. Not today.
One hundred years ago there were there were people who called themselves Ottomans, Prussians and Siamese. Not anymore.
From the vantage point of one human life span, it is hard to appreciate just how quickly people voluntarily, or by force, change national self-identification.
But today, the combination of political correctness coupled with the fact that international powers benefit from perpetuating, as best they can, the illusion that different nation-state identities are immutable, makes it difficult to expound on the reality that lays one layer beyond the cursory headline understanding of a situation.
Consider the Middle-East.
The Middle-East is comprised of nation-states created from whole cloth. An Israeli Jew may be loyal to Israel, but the Arab citizens of the Arab nation-states created from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire by the British and French at the end of World War I are not paramountly loyal to the created states in which they reside.
This is known to anyone inside or outside of the Middle-East with an appreciation of regional history and Islamic tradition.
What else is known but out of step with political correctness and the will of the international powers?
1) Without international intervention to prop up the Hashemite monarchy, it is likely that Jordanians, in the not-too-distant future, will not be calling themselves Jordanians.
2) Without current U.S. presence (or the initial British invention of their country), most Iraqis would cease calling themselves Iraqis. Some would simply be Kurds. Others groups of former Iraqis would call themselves whatever they choose or whatever name is imposed upon them by a new power regime.
3) Palestinians who self-identify today as Palestinians might call themselves something new in the future? In the strange tangle of history, no entity called Palestine existed until the British created it after World War I, and there was never a culturally unique self-identifying group of Arabs in the area when the British arrived that used any particular nation-state name of its own.
As the world tries to force Gazans and West Bankers back into one politically cohesive group so that the consensus two-state solution can be imposed, the following politically incorrect question must be asked: Are Gazans and West Bankers really a distinct people to the exclusion of all other surrounding Arabs?
And are most Jordanians a different people than West Bankers? Are Jordanians a different people than certain Iraqis? Are Syrians a different people than Lebanese? How many subsets or “peoples” really live in each of these countries whose borders were drawn for the benefit of some outside power.
“A people” is not created by the imposition of borders that are created for the convenience of the international powers of the day.
Because the day will come when individual Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, Iraqis and Palestinians no longer honor the internationally imposed nation-state borders, it is counter-productive to internationally impose the creation of a new separate Palestinian state within the confines of Israel and the territories. It is harmful to present-day self-identifying Palestinian people to force them to live "in their own state” that cannot be viable, and it is harmful to the long-term needs of Israel. Non-militant Palestinians (be they Gazan, West Bankers, loyal to this group or that, and by whatever name or names any of them chose to self-identify in the future) must be afforded a better future, and Israel must be larger to thrive into the future as anything other than an eventual failed nuclear state.
So what’s the real problem?
The international community thinks it can attain regional peace by imposing false nation-state borders on people whose paramount loyalty will not be to the state.
But there is a better approach. With proper international interjection and cooperation, there is plenty of room in the Middle East for everyone.
--David Naggar
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Just Ask the Residents of Sderot
.
“Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Wednesday that Israel is nearing a major ground assault in the Gaza Strip, to deal with the ongoing Qassam rocket fire directed at Israeli communities." From Haaretz article entitled, “Barak: Israel nearing major ground assault in Gaza,” by Amos Harel, et al., September 5, 2007.”
* * * *
Nearing a major ground assault? Nearing?
In anticipation of a hoped for permanent peace deal between Israel and its Arab neighbors, and in the wake of the six day war, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote a memorandum to the Secretary of Defense, putting forth the minimum geographic area Israel needed to defend itself. That was June 29, 1967.
This MINIMUM included control the Golan Heights, a substantial part of the West Bank, and part of the Sinai.
With reference to Gaza, the Joint Chiefs concluded that, “Occupation of the Strip by Israel...” was militarily required “to reduce the hostile border by a factor of five and eliminate a source for raids and training of the Palestine Liberation Army.”
Over forty years later, Gaza is used for the same hostile purposes, but more destructively so, by Hamas and others still pursuing the destruction of Israel. What other country would tolerate such a hostile border?
That Ehud Barak talks of NEARING a major ground assault is a testament to Israel’s weak international political standing. Forty years later Israel is still preparing the groundwork to do what needs to be done.
And what needs to be done?
Israel needs to be larger. Just ask the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff of any era. Just ask the residents of Sderot today.
--David Naggar
“Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Wednesday that Israel is nearing a major ground assault in the Gaza Strip, to deal with the ongoing Qassam rocket fire directed at Israeli communities." From Haaretz article entitled, “Barak: Israel nearing major ground assault in Gaza,” by Amos Harel, et al., September 5, 2007.”
* * * *
Nearing a major ground assault? Nearing?
In anticipation of a hoped for permanent peace deal between Israel and its Arab neighbors, and in the wake of the six day war, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote a memorandum to the Secretary of Defense, putting forth the minimum geographic area Israel needed to defend itself. That was June 29, 1967.
This MINIMUM included control the Golan Heights, a substantial part of the West Bank, and part of the Sinai.
With reference to Gaza, the Joint Chiefs concluded that, “Occupation of the Strip by Israel...” was militarily required “to reduce the hostile border by a factor of five and eliminate a source for raids and training of the Palestine Liberation Army.”
Over forty years later, Gaza is used for the same hostile purposes, but more destructively so, by Hamas and others still pursuing the destruction of Israel. What other country would tolerate such a hostile border?
That Ehud Barak talks of NEARING a major ground assault is a testament to Israel’s weak international political standing. Forty years later Israel is still preparing the groundwork to do what needs to be done.
And what needs to be done?
Israel needs to be larger. Just ask the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff of any era. Just ask the residents of Sderot today.
--David Naggar
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
What You Really Need To Know About Christiane Amanpour’s "God’s Warriors"
.
I watched part of the first two installments of Christiane Amanpour’s “God’s Warriors” series on CNN.
The contextual misreporting and cleverly chosen video editing left me gasping. I’ve never met Christiane Amanpour so I won’t challenge the motives that underlie what she passes off these days as reporting.
The bigger truth is, it is simply absurd to lump together Jewish, Christian and Muslim “Warriors” as she calls them, into a series.
“Warrior Jews” as a group don’t go around killing other people. And Jews as a whole publicly and loudly denounce such acts of violence.
“Warrior Christians” as a group don’t go around killing other people either. And Christians as a whole publicly and loudly denounce such acts of violence.
“Warrior Muslims” on the other hand have a different ethic entirely. And Muslims as a whole—most don’t actually side with the warriors' ways—are too afraid to denounce them.
And that difference in mentality is why, in short, Christiane Amanpour can happily make a living lumping her “Warriors” together on TV in Christian majority United States. She could also safely lump her “Warriors” together on TV in Jewish majority Israel. But she couldn’t safely offer any real exposé in Muslim majority Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Western civilization’s enemies are deadly, and they are real. And that is why it is so dangerous to insist that Israel be made too small to properly defend itself.
That’s what you really need to know about Christiane Amanpour’s “God’s Warriors.”
--David Naggar
I watched part of the first two installments of Christiane Amanpour’s “God’s Warriors” series on CNN.
The contextual misreporting and cleverly chosen video editing left me gasping. I’ve never met Christiane Amanpour so I won’t challenge the motives that underlie what she passes off these days as reporting.
The bigger truth is, it is simply absurd to lump together Jewish, Christian and Muslim “Warriors” as she calls them, into a series.
“Warrior Jews” as a group don’t go around killing other people. And Jews as a whole publicly and loudly denounce such acts of violence.
“Warrior Christians” as a group don’t go around killing other people either. And Christians as a whole publicly and loudly denounce such acts of violence.
“Warrior Muslims” on the other hand have a different ethic entirely. And Muslims as a whole—most don’t actually side with the warriors' ways—are too afraid to denounce them.
And that difference in mentality is why, in short, Christiane Amanpour can happily make a living lumping her “Warriors” together on TV in Christian majority United States. She could also safely lump her “Warriors” together on TV in Jewish majority Israel. But she couldn’t safely offer any real exposé in Muslim majority Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Western civilization’s enemies are deadly, and they are real. And that is why it is so dangerous to insist that Israel be made too small to properly defend itself.
That’s what you really need to know about Christiane Amanpour’s “God’s Warriors.”
--David Naggar
Friday, August 03, 2007
Thankfully, the Two-State Solution is not an Inevitable Fait Accompli
.
With even the Prime Minister of Israel working feverously to create a two-state solution, it is fair to ask, “Is the two-state solution an inevitable fait accompli?”
The answer is a resounding no. The global powers are NOT pursuing justice in their solution. They are pursuing tranquility.
If the two-state solution cannot bring tranquility, they will seek out a new path and a new consensus position will be built.
That is why after years of diplomatic taboo, some now talk openly about involving Jordan, much to King Abdullah’s dismay.
The open political discussion about a larger Israel will not happen immediately because as of yet, no credible statesman in our time has been willing to risk the wrath of being labeled an extremist by presenting an argument to counter those who demand that Israel withdraw to its pre-1967 borders.
No statesman has offered Palestinians any way to better their lives other than to pursue becoming citizens of a future feckless state.
No statesman has effectively put forth a case that the sole Jewish majority state, to be a self-sustaining viable state, must have adequate territory.
If you say there are no realistic alternatives to the two-state solution, you need to read my book.
The two-state solution is unworkable and unjust for both Israelis and Palestinians. It will not bring tranquility. And therefore, thankfully, it is not an inevitable fait accompli.
--David Naggar
With even the Prime Minister of Israel working feverously to create a two-state solution, it is fair to ask, “Is the two-state solution an inevitable fait accompli?”
The answer is a resounding no. The global powers are NOT pursuing justice in their solution. They are pursuing tranquility.
If the two-state solution cannot bring tranquility, they will seek out a new path and a new consensus position will be built.
That is why after years of diplomatic taboo, some now talk openly about involving Jordan, much to King Abdullah’s dismay.
The open political discussion about a larger Israel will not happen immediately because as of yet, no credible statesman in our time has been willing to risk the wrath of being labeled an extremist by presenting an argument to counter those who demand that Israel withdraw to its pre-1967 borders.
No statesman has offered Palestinians any way to better their lives other than to pursue becoming citizens of a future feckless state.
No statesman has effectively put forth a case that the sole Jewish majority state, to be a self-sustaining viable state, must have adequate territory.
If you say there are no realistic alternatives to the two-state solution, you need to read my book.
The two-state solution is unworkable and unjust for both Israelis and Palestinians. It will not bring tranquility. And therefore, thankfully, it is not an inevitable fait accompli.
--David Naggar
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
If You Can Envision Taiwan Falling Without U.S. Intervention, You Should Be Able To Envision Israel Falling Without One Too
.
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) wants Taiwan. The U.S. has a treaty that says it will defend Taiwan from attack.
If push comes to shove, will the U.S. really defend Taiwan, or will it let Taiwan fall?
If the U.S. lets Taiwan fall, all similar U.S. treaties could be considered worthless. If the U.S. defends Taiwan, it will be a huge mess—a mess the people of the U.S. might not be willing to stomach.
Fortunately, while the PRC gets economically and militarily stronger, they are also preoccupied preparing for the 2008 Olympics. Depending on the state of their economy, military readiness, and the political health of the Communist Party, sometime after 2008—maybe even a decade or two later—the status of Taiwan will undoubtedly create renewed global tension.
How does this relate to Israel?
Friends who reject the idea that Israel must be larger to be viable, often say, “but the U.S. will ALWAYS be there to support Israel.”
They simply can’t envision a world in which the U.S. allows Israel to fall. Interestingly, many of these same folks also liken the U.S. involvement in Iraq to Vietnam.
Now recall that in 1967, the U.S. didn’t intercede to prevent the six-day war, a war Israel might have lost. The U.S. was in no position to intercede—because of Vietnam.
What will the U.S. not be in a position to do because of Iraq? Or some future military entanglement?
I hope the parallel is clear.
Israel must be stronger not weaker. It must be large enough to be independently viable, not the U.S. client state it is today.
As renewed efforts to force an ill-conceived two-state solution are thrust upon Israel in the coming months, keep the following in mind:
If you can envision Taiwan falling without a U.S. intervention, you should be able to envision Israel falling without one too.
--David Naggar
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) wants Taiwan. The U.S. has a treaty that says it will defend Taiwan from attack.
If push comes to shove, will the U.S. really defend Taiwan, or will it let Taiwan fall?
If the U.S. lets Taiwan fall, all similar U.S. treaties could be considered worthless. If the U.S. defends Taiwan, it will be a huge mess—a mess the people of the U.S. might not be willing to stomach.
Fortunately, while the PRC gets economically and militarily stronger, they are also preoccupied preparing for the 2008 Olympics. Depending on the state of their economy, military readiness, and the political health of the Communist Party, sometime after 2008—maybe even a decade or two later—the status of Taiwan will undoubtedly create renewed global tension.
How does this relate to Israel?
Friends who reject the idea that Israel must be larger to be viable, often say, “but the U.S. will ALWAYS be there to support Israel.”
They simply can’t envision a world in which the U.S. allows Israel to fall. Interestingly, many of these same folks also liken the U.S. involvement in Iraq to Vietnam.
Now recall that in 1967, the U.S. didn’t intercede to prevent the six-day war, a war Israel might have lost. The U.S. was in no position to intercede—because of Vietnam.
What will the U.S. not be in a position to do because of Iraq? Or some future military entanglement?
I hope the parallel is clear.
Israel must be stronger not weaker. It must be large enough to be independently viable, not the U.S. client state it is today.
As renewed efforts to force an ill-conceived two-state solution are thrust upon Israel in the coming months, keep the following in mind:
If you can envision Taiwan falling without a U.S. intervention, you should be able to envision Israel falling without one too.
--David Naggar
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
It’s Okay If The Hashemite King of Jordan Gets A Little Testy
.
“Jordan's King Abdullah II told European Union envoys the issue of forming a confederation with the Palestinians would not be raised until the establishment of an independent state.
"The concept of Jordanian-Palestinian confederation or federation is not in our dictionary, and we won't tackle this issue for the time being," Abdullah said in remarks carried by the official Petra news agency.” From the Associated Press, article entitled, Jordan: Palestinian State, Then Alliance, June 11, 2007.
“Meanwhile, a caustic response to the idea of such a solution came from King Abdullah of Jordan who said Sunday during an interview that 'we reject the formula of confederation and federation and we believe that proposing this issue at this specific point in time is a conspiracy against both Palestine and Jordan.' The King added that he was 'fed up talking about this issue.'” From Haaretz, article entitled, Jordanian Role Increasingly Seen As Crucial To Peace Process, by Shmuel Rosner, July 3, 2007.
* * *
It’s likely to be a hot summer in the Middle East.
As the cracks in the artificially created Arab Nation-States continue to reveal themselves, it is important to keep in mind that there are many Arab leaders whose hold on power is tenuous. King Abdullah is one of them.
As “radical” Muslim elements press to expand influence, events in the Middle East could get quickly out of hand. Of course, the “radicals” appear to be mainstream since they seem to have a fair amount of local support.
Opposing these “radicals” is enormous international pressure to keep things from spinning out of control, and this is starting to put unwanted pressure on the King.
International envoys have a non-benevolent agenda to bring peace and stability to the region. As part of this agenda, envoys are searching to solve the Israeli-Palestinian quagmire.
The actual cost to the locals of implementing their agenda—be it Jewish Israelis or Palestinian Arabs—is not important to them.
The envoys want an end to hostilities, and any solution will do.
They are dismayed by Hamas’ easy power grab in Gaza. They are concerned about what may happen next. They do not want the entire region to explode.
But thanks to this year’s events, many envoys are FINALLY uncertain that a truly independent Palestine will be peaceful.
And so, they are beginning to look for solutions outside-of-the-box—the box being the so-called two-state solution within the confines of Israel and the territories.
Their first small peek outside-of-the-box is to try and involve Jordan. They want the King to help govern the West Bank (Judea and Samaria).
But the King will simply not help anyone who thinks outside-of-the-box.
As the press quotes show, the King is getting agitated. He will never willingly lend his hand because his necessary primary interest is the self-preservation of his Hashemite Kingdom.
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has its roots in present day Saudi Arabia. But the Saudis defeated the Hashemite clan in war about 80 years ago. In the post World War I Middle-East border shuffle, British politicians carved out, from what was supposed to be a homeland for the Jews, a land for the King’s great grandfather to rule.
In the last 40 years, Arabs in the West Bank began identifying themselves as Palestinian. Most of the inhabitants of the King’s Jordan have also come to think of themselves as Palestinians.
This is very dangerous news for his artificially created Kingdom. Too many unruly Palestinians to rule and the King’s Kingdom will fade into history.
As I’ve written, the Israeli-Palestinian problem is an EFFECT of a larger Israeli-Muslim/Arab conflict. It is not the CAUSE of it. But expect the well-spoken King to ALWAYS say that the root cause of Middle-East turmoil is the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
The King will continue to “compassionately” speak out in favor of a two-state solution within Israel and the territories. He will insist it is the only solution. He will insist on keeping Jordan out of it.
Why? Because ANY solution that involves Jordan jeopardizes his Kingdom.
But the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is likely to crumble sooner or later anyway. The tide of history is against it.
The good news, other than for the Jordanian monarch, is this: Finally, the box has been opened, if only a little.
Also, when envoys peek outside-of-the-box, they will notice that there is plenty of room in the wider area for all who live there now.
For regional peace and prosperity, it is time that Middle-East envoys focus on the welfare of people, not on the welfare of existing regimes.
It is in the world’s best interest that the international community promotes the idea of Israel becoming viable in all respects. This means a larger Israel.
It is also in the world’s best interest to pressure King Abdullah and other dictators of adjacent Arab states to allow Palestinians to live productive lives, either in their own entity, or as first-class citizens of existing Arab states.
For a solution that brings long-lasting peace, beyond establishing a larger Israel and a place for Palestinians to thrive, it is also in the world’s best interest that borders of other States in the region be reconfigured.
The new map lines should reflect local considerations. The states that currently exist only exist as distinct entities by the serendipity of historical map lines imposed by the British and French. They are relics of a bygone era.
Justice is not served by propping up dictators and monarchs. Justice is not served by imposing artificial map lines. Justice is not served by refusing to let go of the status quo.
Peace requires change. And it’s okay if in the process, the Hashemite King of Jordan gets a little testy.
--David Naggar
“Jordan's King Abdullah II told European Union envoys the issue of forming a confederation with the Palestinians would not be raised until the establishment of an independent state.
"The concept of Jordanian-Palestinian confederation or federation is not in our dictionary, and we won't tackle this issue for the time being," Abdullah said in remarks carried by the official Petra news agency.” From the Associated Press, article entitled, Jordan: Palestinian State, Then Alliance, June 11, 2007.
“Meanwhile, a caustic response to the idea of such a solution came from King Abdullah of Jordan who said Sunday during an interview that 'we reject the formula of confederation and federation and we believe that proposing this issue at this specific point in time is a conspiracy against both Palestine and Jordan.' The King added that he was 'fed up talking about this issue.'” From Haaretz, article entitled, Jordanian Role Increasingly Seen As Crucial To Peace Process, by Shmuel Rosner, July 3, 2007.
* * *
It’s likely to be a hot summer in the Middle East.
As the cracks in the artificially created Arab Nation-States continue to reveal themselves, it is important to keep in mind that there are many Arab leaders whose hold on power is tenuous. King Abdullah is one of them.
As “radical” Muslim elements press to expand influence, events in the Middle East could get quickly out of hand. Of course, the “radicals” appear to be mainstream since they seem to have a fair amount of local support.
Opposing these “radicals” is enormous international pressure to keep things from spinning out of control, and this is starting to put unwanted pressure on the King.
International envoys have a non-benevolent agenda to bring peace and stability to the region. As part of this agenda, envoys are searching to solve the Israeli-Palestinian quagmire.
The actual cost to the locals of implementing their agenda—be it Jewish Israelis or Palestinian Arabs—is not important to them.
The envoys want an end to hostilities, and any solution will do.
They are dismayed by Hamas’ easy power grab in Gaza. They are concerned about what may happen next. They do not want the entire region to explode.
But thanks to this year’s events, many envoys are FINALLY uncertain that a truly independent Palestine will be peaceful.
And so, they are beginning to look for solutions outside-of-the-box—the box being the so-called two-state solution within the confines of Israel and the territories.
Their first small peek outside-of-the-box is to try and involve Jordan. They want the King to help govern the West Bank (Judea and Samaria).
But the King will simply not help anyone who thinks outside-of-the-box.
As the press quotes show, the King is getting agitated. He will never willingly lend his hand because his necessary primary interest is the self-preservation of his Hashemite Kingdom.
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has its roots in present day Saudi Arabia. But the Saudis defeated the Hashemite clan in war about 80 years ago. In the post World War I Middle-East border shuffle, British politicians carved out, from what was supposed to be a homeland for the Jews, a land for the King’s great grandfather to rule.
In the last 40 years, Arabs in the West Bank began identifying themselves as Palestinian. Most of the inhabitants of the King’s Jordan have also come to think of themselves as Palestinians.
This is very dangerous news for his artificially created Kingdom. Too many unruly Palestinians to rule and the King’s Kingdom will fade into history.
As I’ve written, the Israeli-Palestinian problem is an EFFECT of a larger Israeli-Muslim/Arab conflict. It is not the CAUSE of it. But expect the well-spoken King to ALWAYS say that the root cause of Middle-East turmoil is the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
The King will continue to “compassionately” speak out in favor of a two-state solution within Israel and the territories. He will insist it is the only solution. He will insist on keeping Jordan out of it.
Why? Because ANY solution that involves Jordan jeopardizes his Kingdom.
But the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is likely to crumble sooner or later anyway. The tide of history is against it.
The good news, other than for the Jordanian monarch, is this: Finally, the box has been opened, if only a little.
Also, when envoys peek outside-of-the-box, they will notice that there is plenty of room in the wider area for all who live there now.
For regional peace and prosperity, it is time that Middle-East envoys focus on the welfare of people, not on the welfare of existing regimes.
It is in the world’s best interest that the international community promotes the idea of Israel becoming viable in all respects. This means a larger Israel.
It is also in the world’s best interest to pressure King Abdullah and other dictators of adjacent Arab states to allow Palestinians to live productive lives, either in their own entity, or as first-class citizens of existing Arab states.
For a solution that brings long-lasting peace, beyond establishing a larger Israel and a place for Palestinians to thrive, it is also in the world’s best interest that borders of other States in the region be reconfigured.
The new map lines should reflect local considerations. The states that currently exist only exist as distinct entities by the serendipity of historical map lines imposed by the British and French. They are relics of a bygone era.
Justice is not served by propping up dictators and monarchs. Justice is not served by imposing artificial map lines. Justice is not served by refusing to let go of the status quo.
Peace requires change. And it’s okay if in the process, the Hashemite King of Jordan gets a little testy.
--David Naggar
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Mr. President, It’s Time To Think Outside Of The Box
.
The box President Bush refuses to think his way out of is the two-state solution confined to Israel and the territories.
Hamas’ takeover in Gaza, and Fatah’s takeover in the West Bank have dealt a blow to the advocates of the two-state solution. But it has provided them with a perceived opportunity.
In the coming months we are likely to witness one more STRONG push to cement a two-state solution.
But such a “solution” cannot work in the long run, even if an independent Palestinian State is forcibly created and billions of aid money is bestowed upon it. This “solution,” if it comes about, will seriously weaken and imperil Israel, will serve to ruin the lives of many Palestinian Arabs, and will ultimately bring the world that much closer to a regional conflagration.
It is a pity that President Bush no longer appreciates the significance of his own principled words from 2003.
“Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place for stagnation, resentment and violence for export.”
The President abandoned his words in Iraq. Somewhere along the line, when the fight to win became difficult, the United States looked to cut deals with mini local tyrants who have non-democratic agendas. The willingness of the U.S. to cut deals—and purchase stability at the expense of liberty—was perceived by all as weakness.
As Tony Blair said back in 2003: “weakness in the face of a threat from a tyrant, is the surest way not to peace but to war.”
This applies to all tyrants, big and small, and whether in kaffiyeh or a business suit.
The principle abandoned in Iraq is now ignored in Israel and the territories because the fair election of Hamas—a group that wouldn’t say it accepts the existence of Israel, when it doesn’t—led to “inconvenient” problems for Washington.
Take a look at the new American tactic with respect to the Palestinians. President Bush has decided to choose sides between tyrants. He has decided to back Fatah’s dubiously created unelected government in the West Bank. This is the perceived opportunity to salvage the “two-state solution.”
How shortsighted.
We’ve come along way since the days when the PLO was treated as a pariah for its terrorist activities. It is now, once again, the benefactor of U.S. largess.
Since being resurrected from near death in 1993 by the Oslo-accords, the PLO in guise of the PA has received, according to noted historian Michael Oren, more international aid than any entity in modern history. It has abused this aid by buying weapons, maintaining in the West Bank the highest percentage of policemen-to-population ratio in the world, and stuffing its leaders’ private bank accounts.
Expecting Fatah to reform itself financially, ideologically and structurally defies all past experience.
It is oxymoronic—dare I say un-American—for the United States to side with and prop up one essentially anti-American non-democratic group (Fatah) in a fight with another anti-American non-democratic group (Hamas).
But this is exactly what the United States is doing.
And unfortunately the Israeli government is right there to help.
As the leader of a U.S. dependent State in mortal danger, perhaps Prime Minster Olmert (may he soon be replaced) has no real choice but to go along with President Bush in propping up the remnants of Yasser Arafat’s organization. But it sure smells.
Perhaps the Prime Minister figures that going along with the U.S., in exchange for the extra aid/bribe money Israel will receive for doing so, is worthwhile since the American endeavor is likely to fail anyway.
One thing is sure: a truncated Israel will need all the extra bribe money it can get. A truncated Israel will not be viable. It will not be strong into the future.
In the Middle East, the Western proclivity to seek expedience and compromise to solve problems has proved to be a long and unending road. This path hasn’t worked.
Utterly defeating the enemy and imposing terms of unconditional surrender is painful, but it is the shorter and only road to peace. It will free the millions who simply want to live decent lives with their families.
Who is the enemy? Those who will not support the ideal of live and let live but rather, insist on destroying it. Those who wish to see Israel, the United States, and the rest of modern civilization destroyed, and seek out means to do so. Those who will not make fair room in the Middle East for Israel to thrive, not merely survive. Those who will not grant the Palestinian Arabs citizenship or a State of their own in the vast Arab lands that are 1 ½ times the size of the United States, and 99.8% the size of Israel and the territories.
Mr. President, propping up a regime such as Fatah is unworthy of America.
Propping up Fatah does not serve the Palestinians, Israel, or prospects for long-term peace between Israel and her many Arab neighbors.
The forced implementation of the two-state solution is a path to ruin.
Mr. President, it is time to think outside of the box.
--David Naggar
The box President Bush refuses to think his way out of is the two-state solution confined to Israel and the territories.
Hamas’ takeover in Gaza, and Fatah’s takeover in the West Bank have dealt a blow to the advocates of the two-state solution. But it has provided them with a perceived opportunity.
In the coming months we are likely to witness one more STRONG push to cement a two-state solution.
But such a “solution” cannot work in the long run, even if an independent Palestinian State is forcibly created and billions of aid money is bestowed upon it. This “solution,” if it comes about, will seriously weaken and imperil Israel, will serve to ruin the lives of many Palestinian Arabs, and will ultimately bring the world that much closer to a regional conflagration.
It is a pity that President Bush no longer appreciates the significance of his own principled words from 2003.
“Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place for stagnation, resentment and violence for export.”
The President abandoned his words in Iraq. Somewhere along the line, when the fight to win became difficult, the United States looked to cut deals with mini local tyrants who have non-democratic agendas. The willingness of the U.S. to cut deals—and purchase stability at the expense of liberty—was perceived by all as weakness.
As Tony Blair said back in 2003: “weakness in the face of a threat from a tyrant, is the surest way not to peace but to war.”
This applies to all tyrants, big and small, and whether in kaffiyeh or a business suit.
The principle abandoned in Iraq is now ignored in Israel and the territories because the fair election of Hamas—a group that wouldn’t say it accepts the existence of Israel, when it doesn’t—led to “inconvenient” problems for Washington.
Take a look at the new American tactic with respect to the Palestinians. President Bush has decided to choose sides between tyrants. He has decided to back Fatah’s dubiously created unelected government in the West Bank. This is the perceived opportunity to salvage the “two-state solution.”
How shortsighted.
We’ve come along way since the days when the PLO was treated as a pariah for its terrorist activities. It is now, once again, the benefactor of U.S. largess.
Since being resurrected from near death in 1993 by the Oslo-accords, the PLO in guise of the PA has received, according to noted historian Michael Oren, more international aid than any entity in modern history. It has abused this aid by buying weapons, maintaining in the West Bank the highest percentage of policemen-to-population ratio in the world, and stuffing its leaders’ private bank accounts.
Expecting Fatah to reform itself financially, ideologically and structurally defies all past experience.
It is oxymoronic—dare I say un-American—for the United States to side with and prop up one essentially anti-American non-democratic group (Fatah) in a fight with another anti-American non-democratic group (Hamas).
But this is exactly what the United States is doing.
And unfortunately the Israeli government is right there to help.
As the leader of a U.S. dependent State in mortal danger, perhaps Prime Minster Olmert (may he soon be replaced) has no real choice but to go along with President Bush in propping up the remnants of Yasser Arafat’s organization. But it sure smells.
Perhaps the Prime Minister figures that going along with the U.S., in exchange for the extra aid/bribe money Israel will receive for doing so, is worthwhile since the American endeavor is likely to fail anyway.
One thing is sure: a truncated Israel will need all the extra bribe money it can get. A truncated Israel will not be viable. It will not be strong into the future.
In the Middle East, the Western proclivity to seek expedience and compromise to solve problems has proved to be a long and unending road. This path hasn’t worked.
Utterly defeating the enemy and imposing terms of unconditional surrender is painful, but it is the shorter and only road to peace. It will free the millions who simply want to live decent lives with their families.
Who is the enemy? Those who will not support the ideal of live and let live but rather, insist on destroying it. Those who wish to see Israel, the United States, and the rest of modern civilization destroyed, and seek out means to do so. Those who will not make fair room in the Middle East for Israel to thrive, not merely survive. Those who will not grant the Palestinian Arabs citizenship or a State of their own in the vast Arab lands that are 1 ½ times the size of the United States, and 99.8% the size of Israel and the territories.
Mr. President, propping up a regime such as Fatah is unworthy of America.
Propping up Fatah does not serve the Palestinians, Israel, or prospects for long-term peace between Israel and her many Arab neighbors.
The forced implementation of the two-state solution is a path to ruin.
Mr. President, it is time to think outside of the box.
--David Naggar
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
What Do Regional Shopping Centers Have To Do With The Case For A Larger Israel?
.
In his new book, Threshold Resistance, American shopping mall pioneer A. Alfred Taubman, describes the difficulty he had over 50 years ago convincing retailers such as Macy’s that his new concept—regional malls—would work.
Imagine the difficulty he faced trying to convince smaller retailers that are found inside the mall to give up their street store fronts altogether? The fact that malls work for stores and customers may seem obvious today, but this was not the case back then. In fact, it was counterintuitive at the time. Mr. Taubman and a few other retail pioneers had the foresight that changed humanity’s shopping experience around the world.
But it wasn’t easy. Mr. Taubman had to overcome what he called threshold resistance with retailers, bankers and civic leaders.
Getting people over a threshold so that they will even listen to a new idea is extremely hard when the old way of doing things, or thinking about things, is so entrenched.
Like Mr. Taubman’s successful efforts in the shopping center arena, the case for a larger Israel must overcome tremendous threshold resistance—threshold resistance that simply causes most people to dismiss the idea before it is presented.
Here are a few threshold resistance points I’ve heard from many who actually support the Jewish State:
1. The Arab States will never agree to a larger Israel, so it’s a waste of time to discuss it.
2. The international community will never agree to a larger Israel, so be practical.
3. It isn’t feasible (or fair) because of the Palestinians who live there.
4. If Singapore can succeed in a small space, so can Israel.
5. It’s a land grab: the same as Nazi Germany.
The above is STRONG threshold resistance to the case I make for a larger Israel.
But imagine the threshold resistance all democratic reform leaders throughout the Soviet Union heard before the Soviet Empire crumbled.
Imagine the threshold resistance Mahatma Gandhi heard when he said the British would one day leave India.
Imagine the threshold resistance Chaim Weizmann or Theodor Herzl heard in their pursuit for world recognition of any Jewish entity at all.
Well I’m sure they heard plenty, and they proceeded to overcome threshold resistance anyway.
As Mr. Taubman writes in his book, the most difficult challenges can be overcome if they are understood and confronted forcefully.
Many of yesterday’s casually dismissed ideas are today’s conventional wisdom. Remember when anyone advocating that Israel talks to the PLO was vilified? Pendulums swing.
Before dismissing my ideas for reframing the Middle East debate as errant or unrealistic, know that merely giving them a fair public hearing will strengthen Israel when the day comes to negotiate a durable peace with the Arab and Muslim world.
I believe a larger, viable Israel will in the long run benefit Israel and Jews, Arabs and Muslims, and all of humanity as well.
Allow me the opportunity overcome your threshold resistance.
Please have a look at my book, The Case for a Larger Israel. It is available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and from your local bookstore. While I prefer that you buy a copy so that you can display it on your coffee table and more easily discuss it with your friends and neighbors, it is also available for free at www.alargerisrael.com.
--David Naggar
(Note: Some people have suggested that making the book available for free takes away the perceived value and harms the seriousness with which its ideas are taken. I bet Mr. Taubman would agree with this. I hope you don't.)
In his new book, Threshold Resistance, American shopping mall pioneer A. Alfred Taubman, describes the difficulty he had over 50 years ago convincing retailers such as Macy’s that his new concept—regional malls—would work.
Imagine the difficulty he faced trying to convince smaller retailers that are found inside the mall to give up their street store fronts altogether? The fact that malls work for stores and customers may seem obvious today, but this was not the case back then. In fact, it was counterintuitive at the time. Mr. Taubman and a few other retail pioneers had the foresight that changed humanity’s shopping experience around the world.
But it wasn’t easy. Mr. Taubman had to overcome what he called threshold resistance with retailers, bankers and civic leaders.
Getting people over a threshold so that they will even listen to a new idea is extremely hard when the old way of doing things, or thinking about things, is so entrenched.
Like Mr. Taubman’s successful efforts in the shopping center arena, the case for a larger Israel must overcome tremendous threshold resistance—threshold resistance that simply causes most people to dismiss the idea before it is presented.
Here are a few threshold resistance points I’ve heard from many who actually support the Jewish State:
1. The Arab States will never agree to a larger Israel, so it’s a waste of time to discuss it.
2. The international community will never agree to a larger Israel, so be practical.
3. It isn’t feasible (or fair) because of the Palestinians who live there.
4. If Singapore can succeed in a small space, so can Israel.
5. It’s a land grab: the same as Nazi Germany.
The above is STRONG threshold resistance to the case I make for a larger Israel.
But imagine the threshold resistance all democratic reform leaders throughout the Soviet Union heard before the Soviet Empire crumbled.
Imagine the threshold resistance Mahatma Gandhi heard when he said the British would one day leave India.
Imagine the threshold resistance Chaim Weizmann or Theodor Herzl heard in their pursuit for world recognition of any Jewish entity at all.
Well I’m sure they heard plenty, and they proceeded to overcome threshold resistance anyway.
As Mr. Taubman writes in his book, the most difficult challenges can be overcome if they are understood and confronted forcefully.
Many of yesterday’s casually dismissed ideas are today’s conventional wisdom. Remember when anyone advocating that Israel talks to the PLO was vilified? Pendulums swing.
Before dismissing my ideas for reframing the Middle East debate as errant or unrealistic, know that merely giving them a fair public hearing will strengthen Israel when the day comes to negotiate a durable peace with the Arab and Muslim world.
I believe a larger, viable Israel will in the long run benefit Israel and Jews, Arabs and Muslims, and all of humanity as well.
Allow me the opportunity overcome your threshold resistance.
Please have a look at my book, The Case for a Larger Israel. It is available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and from your local bookstore. While I prefer that you buy a copy so that you can display it on your coffee table and more easily discuss it with your friends and neighbors, it is also available for free at www.alargerisrael.com.
--David Naggar
(Note: Some people have suggested that making the book available for free takes away the perceived value and harms the seriousness with which its ideas are taken. I bet Mr. Taubman would agree with this. I hope you don't.)
Friday, June 01, 2007
Three Wrongs Don’t Make a Right; Pursuing Three Wrongs Won’t Bring Peace, Dr. Rice
.
“The Palestinian issue "is at the core of a lot of problems in the region," Rice said. She said, "There is no substitute for trying to get to the place where the Palestinians finally have their state and the Israelis finally have a neighbor who can live in peace and security with them."
The "Israeli-Palestinian track is extremely important" because it "unlocks the key" to "further engagement between the Arabs and the Israelis," Rice said.” By Jpost.com staff, the Jerusalem Post 5.30/07
* * *
Sadly, Dr. Rice is flat out wrong—three times.
She is wrong when she says: The Palestinian issue is at the core of a lot of problems in the region.
At the core of SOME of the regional problems is that Arabs throughout the region would like to see Israel’s existence extinguished. The Palestinian issue is a manifestation of this. It is one effect of the larger problem, not the cause of the problem.
She is wrong when she says: There is no substitute for trying to get to the place where the Palestinians finally have their state and the Israelis finally have a neighbor who can live in peace and security with them.
There are indeed substitutes, Dr. Rice. Better substitutes.
Whether or not Palestinians have “their” State shows the blind eye of a Western leader regarding States. Dr. Rice seemingly fails to recognize that the majority of Palestinians are a subset of a larger Muslim group who (1) don’t particularly identity with the Western concept of Nation States, and (2) would strongly prefer that Israel be removed from “the Muslim world.”
Whether Palestinians have a State of their own, or are invited to settle in with the larger group in the vast neighboring lands (to be first class citizens of an imposed, but not appreciated Western concept State), or are allowed by international consensus to join in the establishment of a peaceful Caliphate which reverses the travesty of the British and French imposed regional borders, the goal ought to be to make sure Palestinian lives are better (without perpetual UN, US or international support), and to make sure Israel is viable in all respects.
The truth is that a separate Palestinian State may temporarily serve the international community’s interest in the current world order, but it is unlikely to serve the Palestinians. It won’t serve Israel. And it won’t serve peace.
Finally, Dr. Rice is wrong a third time when she says: The "Israeli-Palestinian track is extremely important because it unlocks the key to further engagement between the Arabs and the Israelis.
The key to further engagement between Israel and the Arabs, at least the kind of engagement that leads to true peace, will be the unmistakable conviction by Arabs that Israel isn’t going anywhere, ever.
This will not occur with a truncated Israel as envisioned by Dr. Rice. A truncated Israel will be seen by its neighbors as weakened and vulnerable. History is a pretty conclusive guide that this is no incentive to peace. Only a strong Israel will lead to peace.
If Dr. Rice wants to unlock the key to further engagement, she should spend her time in the Arab/Muslim world promoting the establishment of Islamic learning centers that teach about Israel’s legitimate place in the Middle East.
Until Dr. Rice revisits her thinking, American peace efforts will be unproductive. Her three wrongs don’t make a right; pursuing her three wrongs won’t bring peace.
--David Naggar
“The Palestinian issue "is at the core of a lot of problems in the region," Rice said. She said, "There is no substitute for trying to get to the place where the Palestinians finally have their state and the Israelis finally have a neighbor who can live in peace and security with them."
The "Israeli-Palestinian track is extremely important" because it "unlocks the key" to "further engagement between the Arabs and the Israelis," Rice said.” By Jpost.com staff, the Jerusalem Post 5.30/07
* * *
Sadly, Dr. Rice is flat out wrong—three times.
She is wrong when she says: The Palestinian issue is at the core of a lot of problems in the region.
At the core of SOME of the regional problems is that Arabs throughout the region would like to see Israel’s existence extinguished. The Palestinian issue is a manifestation of this. It is one effect of the larger problem, not the cause of the problem.
She is wrong when she says: There is no substitute for trying to get to the place where the Palestinians finally have their state and the Israelis finally have a neighbor who can live in peace and security with them.
There are indeed substitutes, Dr. Rice. Better substitutes.
Whether or not Palestinians have “their” State shows the blind eye of a Western leader regarding States. Dr. Rice seemingly fails to recognize that the majority of Palestinians are a subset of a larger Muslim group who (1) don’t particularly identity with the Western concept of Nation States, and (2) would strongly prefer that Israel be removed from “the Muslim world.”
Whether Palestinians have a State of their own, or are invited to settle in with the larger group in the vast neighboring lands (to be first class citizens of an imposed, but not appreciated Western concept State), or are allowed by international consensus to join in the establishment of a peaceful Caliphate which reverses the travesty of the British and French imposed regional borders, the goal ought to be to make sure Palestinian lives are better (without perpetual UN, US or international support), and to make sure Israel is viable in all respects.
The truth is that a separate Palestinian State may temporarily serve the international community’s interest in the current world order, but it is unlikely to serve the Palestinians. It won’t serve Israel. And it won’t serve peace.
Finally, Dr. Rice is wrong a third time when she says: The "Israeli-Palestinian track is extremely important because it unlocks the key to further engagement between the Arabs and the Israelis.
The key to further engagement between Israel and the Arabs, at least the kind of engagement that leads to true peace, will be the unmistakable conviction by Arabs that Israel isn’t going anywhere, ever.
This will not occur with a truncated Israel as envisioned by Dr. Rice. A truncated Israel will be seen by its neighbors as weakened and vulnerable. History is a pretty conclusive guide that this is no incentive to peace. Only a strong Israel will lead to peace.
If Dr. Rice wants to unlock the key to further engagement, she should spend her time in the Arab/Muslim world promoting the establishment of Islamic learning centers that teach about Israel’s legitimate place in the Middle East.
Until Dr. Rice revisits her thinking, American peace efforts will be unproductive. Her three wrongs don’t make a right; pursuing her three wrongs won’t bring peace.
--David Naggar
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Now, It’s The World’s Problem
.
"THOUSANDS OF PALESTINIANS FLEE EMBATTLED REFUGEE CAMP IN NORTHERN LEBANON
Thousands of people were fleeing late Tuesday during a lull in the fighting in the third straight day of clashes between Lebanese troops and Islamic militants holed up in a north Lebanon refugee camp, Associated Press reporters at the scene said." By News Agencies, May 22, 2007.
* * *
People flee wars. They flee in Lebanon. They flee in Iraq. And they fled Israel/British Mandate Palestine in 1948-1949 when Arab armies attacked Israel.
People flee because they fear for their safety.
They also flee because they fear their enemy or because they are asked to by their own invading armies.
The cause of the flight of the 1948 Palestinian Arab refugees has been subject to heated argument. But flee they did.
Less remembered are the 1948 Palestinian Jewish refugees who fled from the region then internationally known as Samaria and Judea—now generally called the West Bank. (Some of these people have moved back to the West Bank after Israel captured it from Jordan in 1967. To most of the world’s horror, they insist on calling it Samaria and Judea. But this story is for another day.)
Why were these fleeing Jews less remembered? Because Israel absorbed the fleeing Jews as full citizens of Israel.
In fact, Israel (and other countries) absorbed all the Jews who fled Arab countries after Israeli independence. And there were more Jews who fled Arab countries than there were Palestinian Arabs who fled in 1948.
Had the Arab countries that surround Israel—all of whom were created out of the embers of the Ottoman Empire—chosen to absorb Palestinian Arabs, there wouldn’t be any refugee camps to foment internal problems.
Instead the Arab countries cynically oppressed most of the fleeing Palestinian Arabs and kept them apart from their societies—purposely to be used as pawns against Israel in the future.
If the killing in Lebanon goes on for even a few more days, undoubtedly a portion of the media will trace back all the trouble to the usual suspect—Israel.
But today, Palestinian Arabs are not just Israel’s problem. They are Lebanon’s problem, they are the Arab States’ problem, and they are the world’s problem.
Palestinian Arabs need a better life and a real home where they can be first class citizens. Israel needs a State large enough to be viable in all respects.
How can this happen?
It’s time for the Arab countries to fully absorb Palestinian Arabs, or carve out a place in the vast Arab lands—about 500 times the size of Israel and the territories—for Palestinians to have their own viable State.
It’s time for the international community to pressure the Arab States to do so, and to also help fund this enterprise. Why? Because they didn’t do so nearly 60 years ago. Because they let the sick situation inside Arab borders fester. Because now, it’s the world’s problem.
--David Naggar
"THOUSANDS OF PALESTINIANS FLEE EMBATTLED REFUGEE CAMP IN NORTHERN LEBANON
Thousands of people were fleeing late Tuesday during a lull in the fighting in the third straight day of clashes between Lebanese troops and Islamic militants holed up in a north Lebanon refugee camp, Associated Press reporters at the scene said." By News Agencies, May 22, 2007.
* * *
People flee wars. They flee in Lebanon. They flee in Iraq. And they fled Israel/British Mandate Palestine in 1948-1949 when Arab armies attacked Israel.
People flee because they fear for their safety.
They also flee because they fear their enemy or because they are asked to by their own invading armies.
The cause of the flight of the 1948 Palestinian Arab refugees has been subject to heated argument. But flee they did.
Less remembered are the 1948 Palestinian Jewish refugees who fled from the region then internationally known as Samaria and Judea—now generally called the West Bank. (Some of these people have moved back to the West Bank after Israel captured it from Jordan in 1967. To most of the world’s horror, they insist on calling it Samaria and Judea. But this story is for another day.)
Why were these fleeing Jews less remembered? Because Israel absorbed the fleeing Jews as full citizens of Israel.
In fact, Israel (and other countries) absorbed all the Jews who fled Arab countries after Israeli independence. And there were more Jews who fled Arab countries than there were Palestinian Arabs who fled in 1948.
Had the Arab countries that surround Israel—all of whom were created out of the embers of the Ottoman Empire—chosen to absorb Palestinian Arabs, there wouldn’t be any refugee camps to foment internal problems.
Instead the Arab countries cynically oppressed most of the fleeing Palestinian Arabs and kept them apart from their societies—purposely to be used as pawns against Israel in the future.
If the killing in Lebanon goes on for even a few more days, undoubtedly a portion of the media will trace back all the trouble to the usual suspect—Israel.
But today, Palestinian Arabs are not just Israel’s problem. They are Lebanon’s problem, they are the Arab States’ problem, and they are the world’s problem.
Palestinian Arabs need a better life and a real home where they can be first class citizens. Israel needs a State large enough to be viable in all respects.
How can this happen?
It’s time for the Arab countries to fully absorb Palestinian Arabs, or carve out a place in the vast Arab lands—about 500 times the size of Israel and the territories—for Palestinians to have their own viable State.
It’s time for the international community to pressure the Arab States to do so, and to also help fund this enterprise. Why? Because they didn’t do so nearly 60 years ago. Because they let the sick situation inside Arab borders fester. Because now, it’s the world’s problem.
--David Naggar
Monday, May 07, 2007
Another Risk: A Massive Israeli Brain-Drain
.
“Approximately 47% of [Israel’s] population would, if born again, prefer for that to happen somewhere other than Israel, according to an "alternative survey" conducted by the Geocartographic Institute's iGeo subsidiary…
"Among wealthy local-born Israelis, 62% said they would like to be reborn abroad, 18% in the US or Canada, 8% in Switzerland and 6% in Sweden.
"The survey revealed surprising findings from pensioners; 59% said they would rather live abroad. Twelve percent would choose the US, 9% Switzerland, 6% Australia and 3% would seek retirement in New Zealand.”
.......From a Jerusalem Post article entitled "Israel's population reaches 7,150,000," by Shelly Paz and Haviv Rettig, April 23, 2007.
* * *
There are obvious external threats to Israel. There is also the very real threat of a flight of Jewish citizens leaving Israel to get a “better” economic life, or simply succumbing to the psychological pressures of Arab attacks of attrition.
How many Israelis would leave if they really could? Not the kind of question that keeps politicians awake in successful societies.
The continued existence of Israel depends on it becoming viable in all respects.
Israel must not just be a place tough enough to endure hate from its enemies; Israel must also be a great place to live. Otherwise, sooner or later, yet another real risk to Israel will become more obvious: a Massive Brain-Drain.
--David Naggar
“Approximately 47% of [Israel’s] population would, if born again, prefer for that to happen somewhere other than Israel, according to an "alternative survey" conducted by the Geocartographic Institute's iGeo subsidiary…
"Among wealthy local-born Israelis, 62% said they would like to be reborn abroad, 18% in the US or Canada, 8% in Switzerland and 6% in Sweden.
"The survey revealed surprising findings from pensioners; 59% said they would rather live abroad. Twelve percent would choose the US, 9% Switzerland, 6% Australia and 3% would seek retirement in New Zealand.”
.......From a Jerusalem Post article entitled "Israel's population reaches 7,150,000," by Shelly Paz and Haviv Rettig, April 23, 2007.
* * *
There are obvious external threats to Israel. There is also the very real threat of a flight of Jewish citizens leaving Israel to get a “better” economic life, or simply succumbing to the psychological pressures of Arab attacks of attrition.
How many Israelis would leave if they really could? Not the kind of question that keeps politicians awake in successful societies.
The continued existence of Israel depends on it becoming viable in all respects.
Israel must not just be a place tough enough to endure hate from its enemies; Israel must also be a great place to live. Otherwise, sooner or later, yet another real risk to Israel will become more obvious: a Massive Brain-Drain.
--David Naggar
Friday, April 20, 2007
Learning from Intel’s Israelis—It’s Time to Elect a Prime Minister Willing to Argue the Case to Death
.
“… A camera zoomed in on engineers in lab coats in Haifa, Israel. The video revealed that the chip Intel is counting on to recover from a battering by Advanced Micro Devices Inc. wasn't invented in Silicon Valley. Instead, Intel is betting on a group of Israeli mavericks and a design bureau 7,400 miles (11,900 kilometers) away…
``We did it the Israeli way; we argued our case to death,'' [Shmuel] Eden recalls. ``You know what an exchange of opinions is in Israel? You come to the meeting with your opinion, and you leave with mine.''
---By Ian King, March 28, 2007 (Bloomberg) --
* * *
How did the Israelis convince Intel to use its chip? They argued their case to death.
How can Israel convince the world that viability requires it to be larger? It must argue the case to death.
How can Israel convince the world that the two-state solution within the confines of Israel and the territories is unworkable? It must argue the case to death.
But what do current Israeli leaders do? They concede the two-state solution and claim that only a lack of a peace partner foils its implementation.
It’s time for new elections in Israel. It’s time to elect someone who is willing to start arguing the case to death.
--David Naggar
“… A camera zoomed in on engineers in lab coats in Haifa, Israel. The video revealed that the chip Intel is counting on to recover from a battering by Advanced Micro Devices Inc. wasn't invented in Silicon Valley. Instead, Intel is betting on a group of Israeli mavericks and a design bureau 7,400 miles (11,900 kilometers) away…
``We did it the Israeli way; we argued our case to death,'' [Shmuel] Eden recalls. ``You know what an exchange of opinions is in Israel? You come to the meeting with your opinion, and you leave with mine.''
---By Ian King, March 28, 2007 (Bloomberg) --
* * *
How did the Israelis convince Intel to use its chip? They argued their case to death.
How can Israel convince the world that viability requires it to be larger? It must argue the case to death.
How can Israel convince the world that the two-state solution within the confines of Israel and the territories is unworkable? It must argue the case to death.
But what do current Israeli leaders do? They concede the two-state solution and claim that only a lack of a peace partner foils its implementation.
It’s time for new elections in Israel. It’s time to elect someone who is willing to start arguing the case to death.
--David Naggar
Monday, April 02, 2007
Once Again, for Passover. A Guide To The Four Questions Of Israel
.
But first, a news note before I begin: The Arab Peace Initiative, Round Two.
The Arab Peace Initiative, inspired by the Saudis, suggests that if Israel returns to its onerous pre-1967 borders, and if the millions of descendants of Palestinian Arabs who left Israel when the Arab armies attacked it in 1948 were allowed to return to Israel, there could be peace. In essence, this plan calls for peace by ending the Jewish State. This non-proposal is not a morally inspired offer to end the conflict. It is a media ploy, complete with warnings of war should Israel not seize the “opportunity.”
Prime Minister Olmert’s response is a good one. No to taking refugees, but yes to a summit in Jerusalem. Now the ball is back in the Arab’s court. I hope the Prime Minister appreciates he’s in a media game, but sometimes I wonder.
Now, the four questions…
1) Do you accept that as part of a global village, there is room for a Jewish majority State?
Some people do not accept that there is room in the world for a Jewish majority State because they believe in the Jeffersonian ideal that separates religion from civil governance.
Others claim not to accept Israel because they think a Jewish majority State is racist.
Presumably people in both of these camps would also be opposed to Christian majority or Muslim majority States, but their silence, notwithstanding the existence of many such States, stands in stark contrast to their thunderous and singular disapproval of Israel.
Whether it is high-minded or low minded, there is no point arguing the politics of Israel and its neighbors without first hearing a “Yes” to this question.
(For the record, I wish that all the people of the globe adopted the American mentality of live and let live, that we had a united planet, and that there was no need for borders of any kind. But utopia is far away.)
Here in the West, the vast majority of people have no problem with the existence of a Jewish majority State that wishes to self-govern. Most acknowledge the right to self-determination, and agree with the proposition that people who wish to self-govern should be free to do so.
So, with one “Yes” in tow, we can ask the second question:
2) Do you accept that as part of a global village, there is room for a Jewish majority State IN THE MIDDLE-EAST?
Today, most Arabs and Muslims of the Middle-East, would answer a resounding “NO!” They tolerate the reality of Israel, but believe it will ultimately fail. They will dance in the streets if it fails. They will celebrate any effort to hasten Israel’s demise. There is no love lost on Israel from these quarters.
Again, it is pointless discussing with those who do not believe a Jewish majority State should exist in the Middle-East, the morality of Israel’s actions in the face of her hostile neighbors (the usual antagonistic ones being settlements, checkpoints, and the so-called wall).
For those who don’t believe Israel should exist in the Middle-East, the inhumanity of Israel’s neighbors will be justified by the “inhumanity” of Israel’s existence. The nut of this self-righteous, yet morally dubious argument is something like this: “Israel stole the land in the first place, and so, they deserve everything that’s coming to them.”
It is an historical stretch to claim that Jews stole their own historical homeland. It is also a stretch to say that Jews were advantaged unfairly over Arabs at the conclusion of World War I. But it is not a stretch to say that Palestinian Arabs, as a particular subset of Arabs, ended up with a raw deal that continues to be raw.
For those who have little sense of the area, a little background helps.
The Middle-East is the historical home of the Jewish people, and in the West, we connect Jews and the Holy Land. The fact that a) there has been a continuous Jewish presence in the land for thousands of years, that b) Roman, Arab and Crusader armies combined to drive most, but not all Jews out, and that c) there can be no morally binding statute of limitations against coming back to the land of your ancestors, seems to suffice most people that Israel belongs were it does.
Further, in modern times, before there was a Syria, a Lebanon, an Iraq, a Jordan or an Israel, the Ottoman Empire ruled the area. But the Ottoman Turks lost World War I, and the Empire was divided.
The Arabs got most of the land, the Jews got a little, and that little was reduced again and again.
There is room for everyone in the Middle-East, but without doubt, just as Jews were displaces in the last century from Muslim majority States stretching from Morocco to Iran, Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians were displaced from what is now Israel.
Of course, 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab, so comparing the cause, circumstances, or terms of partial displacement of Arabs to the near total displacement Jews is like comparing apples and oranges.
Historical truth aside, only if a person answers “Yes” to this question and the first question is there any reason to ask the third question.
3) Do you accept that as part of a global village that contains hostile elements, the sole Jewish majority State must do what it can to survive, defend its citizens, and ensure that its citizens have the opportunity to thrive?
One could ask a similar question of any State. Bit isn’t “survive, defend and ensure opportunity” Israel’s obligation as a State? Israel’s actions and motivations can be properly judged by how well it morally fulfills its obligation.
Compare this question to one asked most loudly by Israel’s detractors: “Why does Israel have to oppress innocent Palestinians?” This question is loaded. The reality is, Israel doesn’t HAVE to oppress anyone. I know of no Israeli leader who WANTS to oppress Palestinians.
No doubt those Palestinians who wish Israel no harm suffer alongside those who do wish Israel harm.
But if Israel must choose between life as a withering failed State that is constantly being terrorized, or fighting its enemies—even knowing that some who are not enemies will suffer, and some who are not enemies will be made into enemies—it has no alternative but to fight. How can anyone in good faith argue otherwise?
Israel must do what it must do because it is a State, and it has obligations to its citizens, not to mention a unique obligation to Jews throughout the world. As such, it is obligated and duty bound to reach its own “Yes” answer to this 3rd question. For over 50 years it has been fighting an antagonistic Arab/Muslim population that stretches from Morocco to Iran and beyond. It is at war. Sometimes it is a hot war, and sometimes it is a cold war. People on all sides of a war suffer. Hopefully innocent suffering is limited, but this is plainly not always so.
This brings us to the 4th question.
4) Do you accept that as part of a global village, IF the sole Jewish majority State’s viability is dependent on it becoming larger, it should become larger?
If your answers to the first three questions are “Yes” but your answer to this fourth question is “No,” you have probably concluded one of two things: 1) the Jewish majority State’s viability is not dependent on its size, or 2) you really don’t believe that there is room for a viable Israel in the Middle-East even though you say you accept that there is.
Saying a larger Israel “can’t happen” to avoid giving a “Yes” answer is no answer at all. Asking, “what about the Palestinians?” may show compassion, but also provides no answer to the question. (Incidentally, handled correctly, Palestinian Arabs will benefit from, not be victimized by, a viable, sustainable, unassailable Israel).
If you are a supporter of Israel who answers “No,” to this question, and you do so because of a feeling that that Israel is large enough, or that in an interdependent world, size doesn’t matter, don’t you owe it to yourself and to Israel to make sure your assumptions are right? Or will you be content with the prospect you are wrong, and a slowly decaying Israel?
Don’t give a lazy “No.” The stakes are too high.
Please read The Case For A Larger Israel. Maybe you’ll find your fourth “Yes.”
And then, who better to stand up than you?
Happy Passover.
--David Naggar
But first, a news note before I begin: The Arab Peace Initiative, Round Two.
The Arab Peace Initiative, inspired by the Saudis, suggests that if Israel returns to its onerous pre-1967 borders, and if the millions of descendants of Palestinian Arabs who left Israel when the Arab armies attacked it in 1948 were allowed to return to Israel, there could be peace. In essence, this plan calls for peace by ending the Jewish State. This non-proposal is not a morally inspired offer to end the conflict. It is a media ploy, complete with warnings of war should Israel not seize the “opportunity.”
Prime Minister Olmert’s response is a good one. No to taking refugees, but yes to a summit in Jerusalem. Now the ball is back in the Arab’s court. I hope the Prime Minister appreciates he’s in a media game, but sometimes I wonder.
Now, the four questions…
1) Do you accept that as part of a global village, there is room for a Jewish majority State?
Some people do not accept that there is room in the world for a Jewish majority State because they believe in the Jeffersonian ideal that separates religion from civil governance.
Others claim not to accept Israel because they think a Jewish majority State is racist.
Presumably people in both of these camps would also be opposed to Christian majority or Muslim majority States, but their silence, notwithstanding the existence of many such States, stands in stark contrast to their thunderous and singular disapproval of Israel.
Whether it is high-minded or low minded, there is no point arguing the politics of Israel and its neighbors without first hearing a “Yes” to this question.
(For the record, I wish that all the people of the globe adopted the American mentality of live and let live, that we had a united planet, and that there was no need for borders of any kind. But utopia is far away.)
Here in the West, the vast majority of people have no problem with the existence of a Jewish majority State that wishes to self-govern. Most acknowledge the right to self-determination, and agree with the proposition that people who wish to self-govern should be free to do so.
So, with one “Yes” in tow, we can ask the second question:
2) Do you accept that as part of a global village, there is room for a Jewish majority State IN THE MIDDLE-EAST?
Today, most Arabs and Muslims of the Middle-East, would answer a resounding “NO!” They tolerate the reality of Israel, but believe it will ultimately fail. They will dance in the streets if it fails. They will celebrate any effort to hasten Israel’s demise. There is no love lost on Israel from these quarters.
Again, it is pointless discussing with those who do not believe a Jewish majority State should exist in the Middle-East, the morality of Israel’s actions in the face of her hostile neighbors (the usual antagonistic ones being settlements, checkpoints, and the so-called wall).
For those who don’t believe Israel should exist in the Middle-East, the inhumanity of Israel’s neighbors will be justified by the “inhumanity” of Israel’s existence. The nut of this self-righteous, yet morally dubious argument is something like this: “Israel stole the land in the first place, and so, they deserve everything that’s coming to them.”
It is an historical stretch to claim that Jews stole their own historical homeland. It is also a stretch to say that Jews were advantaged unfairly over Arabs at the conclusion of World War I. But it is not a stretch to say that Palestinian Arabs, as a particular subset of Arabs, ended up with a raw deal that continues to be raw.
For those who have little sense of the area, a little background helps.
The Middle-East is the historical home of the Jewish people, and in the West, we connect Jews and the Holy Land. The fact that a) there has been a continuous Jewish presence in the land for thousands of years, that b) Roman, Arab and Crusader armies combined to drive most, but not all Jews out, and that c) there can be no morally binding statute of limitations against coming back to the land of your ancestors, seems to suffice most people that Israel belongs were it does.
Further, in modern times, before there was a Syria, a Lebanon, an Iraq, a Jordan or an Israel, the Ottoman Empire ruled the area. But the Ottoman Turks lost World War I, and the Empire was divided.
The Arabs got most of the land, the Jews got a little, and that little was reduced again and again.
There is room for everyone in the Middle-East, but without doubt, just as Jews were displaces in the last century from Muslim majority States stretching from Morocco to Iran, Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians were displaced from what is now Israel.
Of course, 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab, so comparing the cause, circumstances, or terms of partial displacement of Arabs to the near total displacement Jews is like comparing apples and oranges.
Historical truth aside, only if a person answers “Yes” to this question and the first question is there any reason to ask the third question.
3) Do you accept that as part of a global village that contains hostile elements, the sole Jewish majority State must do what it can to survive, defend its citizens, and ensure that its citizens have the opportunity to thrive?
One could ask a similar question of any State. Bit isn’t “survive, defend and ensure opportunity” Israel’s obligation as a State? Israel’s actions and motivations can be properly judged by how well it morally fulfills its obligation.
Compare this question to one asked most loudly by Israel’s detractors: “Why does Israel have to oppress innocent Palestinians?” This question is loaded. The reality is, Israel doesn’t HAVE to oppress anyone. I know of no Israeli leader who WANTS to oppress Palestinians.
No doubt those Palestinians who wish Israel no harm suffer alongside those who do wish Israel harm.
But if Israel must choose between life as a withering failed State that is constantly being terrorized, or fighting its enemies—even knowing that some who are not enemies will suffer, and some who are not enemies will be made into enemies—it has no alternative but to fight. How can anyone in good faith argue otherwise?
Israel must do what it must do because it is a State, and it has obligations to its citizens, not to mention a unique obligation to Jews throughout the world. As such, it is obligated and duty bound to reach its own “Yes” answer to this 3rd question. For over 50 years it has been fighting an antagonistic Arab/Muslim population that stretches from Morocco to Iran and beyond. It is at war. Sometimes it is a hot war, and sometimes it is a cold war. People on all sides of a war suffer. Hopefully innocent suffering is limited, but this is plainly not always so.
This brings us to the 4th question.
4) Do you accept that as part of a global village, IF the sole Jewish majority State’s viability is dependent on it becoming larger, it should become larger?
If your answers to the first three questions are “Yes” but your answer to this fourth question is “No,” you have probably concluded one of two things: 1) the Jewish majority State’s viability is not dependent on its size, or 2) you really don’t believe that there is room for a viable Israel in the Middle-East even though you say you accept that there is.
Saying a larger Israel “can’t happen” to avoid giving a “Yes” answer is no answer at all. Asking, “what about the Palestinians?” may show compassion, but also provides no answer to the question. (Incidentally, handled correctly, Palestinian Arabs will benefit from, not be victimized by, a viable, sustainable, unassailable Israel).
If you are a supporter of Israel who answers “No,” to this question, and you do so because of a feeling that that Israel is large enough, or that in an interdependent world, size doesn’t matter, don’t you owe it to yourself and to Israel to make sure your assumptions are right? Or will you be content with the prospect you are wrong, and a slowly decaying Israel?
Don’t give a lazy “No.” The stakes are too high.
Please read The Case For A Larger Israel. Maybe you’ll find your fourth “Yes.”
And then, who better to stand up than you?
Happy Passover.
--David Naggar
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
It May Be Time For Israel To Employ the Talents of DDB
.
“Israel, Iran and the United States are the countries with the most negative image in a globe-spanning survey of attitudes toward 12 major nations. Canada and Japan came out best in the poll, released Tuesday.
The survey for the British Broadcasting Corp.'s World Service asked more than 28,000 people to rate 12 countries - Britain, Canada, China, France, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Russia, the United States and Venezuela - as having a positive or negative influence on the world.
Israel was viewed negatively by 56 percent of respondents and positively by 17 percent; for Iran, the figures were 54 percent and 18 percent. The United States had the third-highest negative ranking, with 51 percent citing it as a bad influence and 30 percent as a good one. Next was North Korea, which was viewed negatively by 48 percent and positively by 19 percent.”
By the Associated Press, March 6, 2007.
* * *
The world is a busy place. Brand and image matter. And that’s where the magic of DDB comes in.
Who’s DDB? It is Budweiser’s ad agency.
The BBC poll which shows how poor Israel’s image is, may make it is easier to appreciate the dilemma faced by Israeli political leaders.
In Lebanon and Gaza they probably believed they had no choice but to choose poorly—to bend to the current international will.
After all, Israel’s success as an economy is dependent on exports. High technology goods and services now account for about one third of Israel’s GDP and 75 percent of its industrial exports.
As the most hated country on the planet, Israeli politicians are aware that any foreign policy misstep could drown its ability to export in a sea of sanctions. And that would be a catastrophe.
On the other hand, an actual return to the pre ’67 borders—the Auschwitz lines as Abba Eban called them—would also lead to a catastrophe.
So Israeli leaders walk a tightrope, and in so doing, they are roundly disrespected in Israel. And Israel is hated around the world.
Israel needs help on the international stage.
Rather than making a serious global media effort to change its image—to explain to the world how Israel contributes to benefit humanity, and why Israel needs adequate territory to both be self-reliant and end Arab/Islamic aggression—the Israeli leadership chooses instead to do what it can to avoid making the world more hostile to it in the short-term.
Israeli public relations efforts have been clumsy at best.
Like an unpopular adolescent, Israeli leaders have come to accept Israel’s current status as truth, and act accordingly.
The inevitable result of this acceptance is Israel’s precarious existence for the foreseeable future.
The people of Israel should not be compelled to live on a tightrope.
The international community will not presently allow Israel to stand up to its enemies. But help could come from DDB.
For Israel to be viable and thrive in the long-run, it must have different borders.
Yet the idea of creating viable (larger) borders is seen by many as evil. They compare it to Lebensraum, the Nazi expansion model. They deride it as unnecessary by noting that Singapore is also small. These are not valid comparisons. Please have a look at my book, “The Case for a Larger Israel” for proper refutations and perspective.
I’ve argued that world opinion must be changed before the idea of changing Israel’s borders is taken seriously.
“World opinion will never change,” you say? That’s just not so.
Recall that Israel was once a cause celeb. In 1919 the world favored the creation of a Jewish homeland large enough for it to prosper on its own. That slipped away. In 1948 the world favored the tiny Nation as it fought against annihilation. That too faded. In 1967, the world was in awe of little David that stood up to the vast Arab Goliath. This too has faded.
Today, Israel is far, far from being a cause celeb. Now Israel is Goliath, and the Palestinians are David. And the world works with David’s leaders—Hamas—to find acceptably ambiguous words which can be taken as their promise not to kill Goliath.
This reversal of Israel’s popularity is not permanent. Israel must be made to be a cause celeb once again, and without the reoccurrence of massive Jewish death.
Israel needs a massive ad campaign if it is to be allowed by the international community to climb down from the tightrope. It needs the effective magic of commercial advertising. You think I’m kidding? I’m not.
--David Naggar
“Israel, Iran and the United States are the countries with the most negative image in a globe-spanning survey of attitudes toward 12 major nations. Canada and Japan came out best in the poll, released Tuesday.
The survey for the British Broadcasting Corp.'s World Service asked more than 28,000 people to rate 12 countries - Britain, Canada, China, France, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Russia, the United States and Venezuela - as having a positive or negative influence on the world.
Israel was viewed negatively by 56 percent of respondents and positively by 17 percent; for Iran, the figures were 54 percent and 18 percent. The United States had the third-highest negative ranking, with 51 percent citing it as a bad influence and 30 percent as a good one. Next was North Korea, which was viewed negatively by 48 percent and positively by 19 percent.”
By the Associated Press, March 6, 2007.
* * *
The world is a busy place. Brand and image matter. And that’s where the magic of DDB comes in.
Who’s DDB? It is Budweiser’s ad agency.
The BBC poll which shows how poor Israel’s image is, may make it is easier to appreciate the dilemma faced by Israeli political leaders.
In Lebanon and Gaza they probably believed they had no choice but to choose poorly—to bend to the current international will.
After all, Israel’s success as an economy is dependent on exports. High technology goods and services now account for about one third of Israel’s GDP and 75 percent of its industrial exports.
As the most hated country on the planet, Israeli politicians are aware that any foreign policy misstep could drown its ability to export in a sea of sanctions. And that would be a catastrophe.
On the other hand, an actual return to the pre ’67 borders—the Auschwitz lines as Abba Eban called them—would also lead to a catastrophe.
So Israeli leaders walk a tightrope, and in so doing, they are roundly disrespected in Israel. And Israel is hated around the world.
Israel needs help on the international stage.
Rather than making a serious global media effort to change its image—to explain to the world how Israel contributes to benefit humanity, and why Israel needs adequate territory to both be self-reliant and end Arab/Islamic aggression—the Israeli leadership chooses instead to do what it can to avoid making the world more hostile to it in the short-term.
Israeli public relations efforts have been clumsy at best.
Like an unpopular adolescent, Israeli leaders have come to accept Israel’s current status as truth, and act accordingly.
The inevitable result of this acceptance is Israel’s precarious existence for the foreseeable future.
The people of Israel should not be compelled to live on a tightrope.
The international community will not presently allow Israel to stand up to its enemies. But help could come from DDB.
For Israel to be viable and thrive in the long-run, it must have different borders.
Yet the idea of creating viable (larger) borders is seen by many as evil. They compare it to Lebensraum, the Nazi expansion model. They deride it as unnecessary by noting that Singapore is also small. These are not valid comparisons. Please have a look at my book, “The Case for a Larger Israel” for proper refutations and perspective.
I’ve argued that world opinion must be changed before the idea of changing Israel’s borders is taken seriously.
“World opinion will never change,” you say? That’s just not so.
Recall that Israel was once a cause celeb. In 1919 the world favored the creation of a Jewish homeland large enough for it to prosper on its own. That slipped away. In 1948 the world favored the tiny Nation as it fought against annihilation. That too faded. In 1967, the world was in awe of little David that stood up to the vast Arab Goliath. This too has faded.
Today, Israel is far, far from being a cause celeb. Now Israel is Goliath, and the Palestinians are David. And the world works with David’s leaders—Hamas—to find acceptably ambiguous words which can be taken as their promise not to kill Goliath.
This reversal of Israel’s popularity is not permanent. Israel must be made to be a cause celeb once again, and without the reoccurrence of massive Jewish death.
Israel needs a massive ad campaign if it is to be allowed by the international community to climb down from the tightrope. It needs the effective magic of commercial advertising. You think I’m kidding? I’m not.
--David Naggar
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
What Would You Do To Save Your Kingdom?
.
“The wellspring of regional division, the source of resentment and frustration far beyond, is the denial of justice and peace in Palestine.
There are those who say, ‘It's not our business.’ But this Congress knows: there are no bystanders in the 21st Century, there are no curious onlookers, there is no one who is not affected by the division and hatred that is present in our world.
Some will say: ‘This is not the core issue in the Middle East.’ I come here today as your friend to tell you that this is the core issue. And this core issue is not only producing severe consequences for our region, it is producing severe consequences for our world.”
--King Abdullah of Jordan—speaking to the United States Congress, March 7, 2007.
* * * * *
The King is a well-spoken man, and is easy to like.
But “the denial of justice and peace in Palestine,” is not the well-spring of regional division. I’m fairly certain the King knows this.
Palestinian suffering is not causing Shiites and Sunnis to kill each other in Iraq, it is not causing the civil strive in Lebanon, and it is not causing mass murder in Sudan (Darfur).
Palestinian centrality is a red herring. If it weren’t, the King’s father, King Hussein, would have given the Palestinians the entire West Bank when Jordan controlled it before 1967.
What’s going on? Why is the King claiming that this is the central issue in the Middle-East, when anyone but a casual observer knows that this is not the case?
Because he is doing what he can to protect and strengthen his Kingdom: The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Continued Palestinian unrest is the well-spring that could lead to the demise of his Kingdom.
The King needs a settlement that confines Israel and Palestine to the geography of Israel and the territories, and he knows that his time is running out.
He knows that Jordan has no historical business existing. The Kingdom is a legacy of Britain’s global chess game with France at the end of World War I.
The King feels the heat, and his monarchy is in trouble.
When his father faced a Palestinian attempt to end his rule in 1970, Israel, purportedly at America’s request, came to Jordan’s rescue. With an eighty percent self-identifying Palestinian population, it is likely that one day, these people will reject Hashemite rule.
As King Abdullah’s father, King Hussein, said of Palestinians and Jordanians on Egyptian television in 1977. “The two peoples are actually one. This is a fact.”
There is no reason to distinguish between people living on one side of the Jordan River from those living on the other side when they share the same heritage, culture, faith (generally), language, and ethnicity.
There is no reason that the laudable international goal of having each People achieve self-determination should mean that Palestinians, even if acknowledged as a Nation, should have two States.
Since Israel isn’t viable within its 1967 borders—its current level of economic strength notwithstanding—if the King really wanted peace and justice for Palestinians, he would offer West Bank Palestinians homes in Jordan. There is room. But he won’t make that offer. From his personal point of view, he can’t.
If he did, his new “subjects” might add to a chorus that would invite him to return to his Hashemite home in present day Saudi Arabia. His family’s historical enemy, the House of Saud would not exactly welcome his return with open arms.
I wonder if the King would argue that this historical fight, too, is somehow caused by the lack of Palestinian justice?
King Abdullah is, as they say, between a rock and a hard place. His only way out is to convince the world of Palestinian centrality and hope the United States strong-arms Israel. And so the King will pursue this strategy with gusto.
But don’t be misled by warmth or charm, or calls for peace that preserve Hashemite rule over all of present-day Jordan without sacrifice. This is just what a King does to save his Kingdom.
--David Naggar
“The wellspring of regional division, the source of resentment and frustration far beyond, is the denial of justice and peace in Palestine.
There are those who say, ‘It's not our business.’ But this Congress knows: there are no bystanders in the 21st Century, there are no curious onlookers, there is no one who is not affected by the division and hatred that is present in our world.
Some will say: ‘This is not the core issue in the Middle East.’ I come here today as your friend to tell you that this is the core issue. And this core issue is not only producing severe consequences for our region, it is producing severe consequences for our world.”
--King Abdullah of Jordan—speaking to the United States Congress, March 7, 2007.
* * * * *
The King is a well-spoken man, and is easy to like.
But “the denial of justice and peace in Palestine,” is not the well-spring of regional division. I’m fairly certain the King knows this.
Palestinian suffering is not causing Shiites and Sunnis to kill each other in Iraq, it is not causing the civil strive in Lebanon, and it is not causing mass murder in Sudan (Darfur).
Palestinian centrality is a red herring. If it weren’t, the King’s father, King Hussein, would have given the Palestinians the entire West Bank when Jordan controlled it before 1967.
What’s going on? Why is the King claiming that this is the central issue in the Middle-East, when anyone but a casual observer knows that this is not the case?
Because he is doing what he can to protect and strengthen his Kingdom: The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Continued Palestinian unrest is the well-spring that could lead to the demise of his Kingdom.
The King needs a settlement that confines Israel and Palestine to the geography of Israel and the territories, and he knows that his time is running out.
He knows that Jordan has no historical business existing. The Kingdom is a legacy of Britain’s global chess game with France at the end of World War I.
The King feels the heat, and his monarchy is in trouble.
When his father faced a Palestinian attempt to end his rule in 1970, Israel, purportedly at America’s request, came to Jordan’s rescue. With an eighty percent self-identifying Palestinian population, it is likely that one day, these people will reject Hashemite rule.
As King Abdullah’s father, King Hussein, said of Palestinians and Jordanians on Egyptian television in 1977. “The two peoples are actually one. This is a fact.”
There is no reason to distinguish between people living on one side of the Jordan River from those living on the other side when they share the same heritage, culture, faith (generally), language, and ethnicity.
There is no reason that the laudable international goal of having each People achieve self-determination should mean that Palestinians, even if acknowledged as a Nation, should have two States.
Since Israel isn’t viable within its 1967 borders—its current level of economic strength notwithstanding—if the King really wanted peace and justice for Palestinians, he would offer West Bank Palestinians homes in Jordan. There is room. But he won’t make that offer. From his personal point of view, he can’t.
If he did, his new “subjects” might add to a chorus that would invite him to return to his Hashemite home in present day Saudi Arabia. His family’s historical enemy, the House of Saud would not exactly welcome his return with open arms.
I wonder if the King would argue that this historical fight, too, is somehow caused by the lack of Palestinian justice?
King Abdullah is, as they say, between a rock and a hard place. His only way out is to convince the world of Palestinian centrality and hope the United States strong-arms Israel. And so the King will pursue this strategy with gusto.
But don’t be misled by warmth or charm, or calls for peace that preserve Hashemite rule over all of present-day Jordan without sacrifice. This is just what a King does to save his Kingdom.
--David Naggar
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Some Things Sound Fair, But Aren’t
.
“Israeli Arab group proposes new 'multi-cultural' constitution.
A proposed constitution written by the Israeli Arab advocacy center, Adalah, states that Arab Knesset members will be able to bring about the disqualification of bills that impinge on the rights of Arabs, and classifies the State of Israel as a "bilingual and multicultural" country rather than a Jewish state.
The proposal, entitled "The Democratic Constitution," also calls for majority and minority groups to split control of the government ....
Adalah's version of the constitution essentially abolishes the Jewish elements of Israel, but allows the Jewish majority to maintain its character through educational and cultural institutions. The proposal invalidates the Law of Return, which grants automatic citizenship to people with at least one Jewish grandparent, and states that citizenship will be granted to those who come to Israel for humanitarian reasons, regardless of their religion.”
From Haaretz, by Yoav Stern, February 28, 2007.
* * * * *
This proposal will sound fair to many people.
Before you dismiss it as an attempt to embarrass Israel, as a clever way to gain international sympathy, as propaganda, as a way to eventually establish an Arab majority, or as a way to eliminate the sole Jewish State, do consider this from the point of view of an individual Israeli-Arab.
Consider that he or she may honestly be offended by “their flag” having a Jewish star in it. Wouldn’t most American Jews (among others) be troubled if the U.S. flag had a Christian cross on it?
Consider that he or she may honestly be offended by “their national anthem” referring to the land, as the land of the Jews.
Consider that he or she may honestly feel discriminated against because, legal equality aside, he or she IS discriminated against.
Please understand that even if a Palestinian State is created in the territories, the Israeli-Arabs—most of whom will undoubtedly do all they can to avoid becoming part of any festering Palestinian entity—will want full equality in Israel.
Any minority citizen of any State wants no less. It sounds fair.
Why do so many Israelis, Jews, and supporters of Israel look for a dark hiding place when confronted with the truth of discrimination? I think it is because Jews understand what it is to be discriminated against, and have a deep desire that discrimination against all people throughout the planet be eliminated.
Discrimination against Arab-Israelis doesn’t sound fair.
As supporters of Israel, it is necessary to accept and admit, without nuance, that some discrimination against Arab-Israelis is 100% true.
Given geopolitical realities, we need not be embarrassed by this truth. This admission frees us to have an honest and thoughtful discussion regarding why it is true, why it must remain true, and why Israel will fight to retain a democratic character, but within the fuzzy confines of Judaism (whatever that ultimately means).
Serious peace discussions between Israel and her neighbors will have to include incentives for people to move. Many Arab-Israelis will ultimately move.
Those that choose not to, and instead choose to live in Israel, outside of the vast lands in the extended region that are governed by 21 recognized Muslim Arab States will need to declare their loyalty and acceptance of Israel as a Zionist Jewish State, and will need to commit to performing national service.
Those who choose to remain in Israel but not make such a pledge should not be considered citizens. They should be considered resident foreign nationals with citizenship of Jordan, Syria, or another State in which Arabs are the majority.
Someday, if liberal democratic ideals truly prevail, we will live in a world without Nation States. People will treat each other as individuals, and not as a part of this group or that.
Until that day, the world is better off with Israel’s continued existence. But we must recognize that there is indeed a price to pay by any Arab-Israeli who, understandably, may be unwilling to fully come to terms with living in a Jewish State.
The price, however, can be offset, and it is a small price next to the moral price of Israel being forced to participate in its own slow demise.
There is no shortage of land in other Arab majority States. Neither is there a language barrier. These countries could easily accept resettling Arabs as full citizens, and there is no reason that they and their children would not thrive.
When all the circumstances of the situation are taken into account (read my book if you want to know more about these circumstances), the imperfect solution of a Jewish Israel, not a pluralistic one, is the most just outcome possible.
Establishing a “multi-cultural” constitution in Israel is not the most just outcome.
Some things sound fair, but aren’t.
--David Naggar
“Israeli Arab group proposes new 'multi-cultural' constitution.
A proposed constitution written by the Israeli Arab advocacy center, Adalah, states that Arab Knesset members will be able to bring about the disqualification of bills that impinge on the rights of Arabs, and classifies the State of Israel as a "bilingual and multicultural" country rather than a Jewish state.
The proposal, entitled "The Democratic Constitution," also calls for majority and minority groups to split control of the government ....
Adalah's version of the constitution essentially abolishes the Jewish elements of Israel, but allows the Jewish majority to maintain its character through educational and cultural institutions. The proposal invalidates the Law of Return, which grants automatic citizenship to people with at least one Jewish grandparent, and states that citizenship will be granted to those who come to Israel for humanitarian reasons, regardless of their religion.”
From Haaretz, by Yoav Stern, February 28, 2007.
* * * * *
This proposal will sound fair to many people.
Before you dismiss it as an attempt to embarrass Israel, as a clever way to gain international sympathy, as propaganda, as a way to eventually establish an Arab majority, or as a way to eliminate the sole Jewish State, do consider this from the point of view of an individual Israeli-Arab.
Consider that he or she may honestly be offended by “their flag” having a Jewish star in it. Wouldn’t most American Jews (among others) be troubled if the U.S. flag had a Christian cross on it?
Consider that he or she may honestly be offended by “their national anthem” referring to the land, as the land of the Jews.
Consider that he or she may honestly feel discriminated against because, legal equality aside, he or she IS discriminated against.
Please understand that even if a Palestinian State is created in the territories, the Israeli-Arabs—most of whom will undoubtedly do all they can to avoid becoming part of any festering Palestinian entity—will want full equality in Israel.
Any minority citizen of any State wants no less. It sounds fair.
Why do so many Israelis, Jews, and supporters of Israel look for a dark hiding place when confronted with the truth of discrimination? I think it is because Jews understand what it is to be discriminated against, and have a deep desire that discrimination against all people throughout the planet be eliminated.
Discrimination against Arab-Israelis doesn’t sound fair.
As supporters of Israel, it is necessary to accept and admit, without nuance, that some discrimination against Arab-Israelis is 100% true.
Given geopolitical realities, we need not be embarrassed by this truth. This admission frees us to have an honest and thoughtful discussion regarding why it is true, why it must remain true, and why Israel will fight to retain a democratic character, but within the fuzzy confines of Judaism (whatever that ultimately means).
Serious peace discussions between Israel and her neighbors will have to include incentives for people to move. Many Arab-Israelis will ultimately move.
Those that choose not to, and instead choose to live in Israel, outside of the vast lands in the extended region that are governed by 21 recognized Muslim Arab States will need to declare their loyalty and acceptance of Israel as a Zionist Jewish State, and will need to commit to performing national service.
Those who choose to remain in Israel but not make such a pledge should not be considered citizens. They should be considered resident foreign nationals with citizenship of Jordan, Syria, or another State in which Arabs are the majority.
Someday, if liberal democratic ideals truly prevail, we will live in a world without Nation States. People will treat each other as individuals, and not as a part of this group or that.
Until that day, the world is better off with Israel’s continued existence. But we must recognize that there is indeed a price to pay by any Arab-Israeli who, understandably, may be unwilling to fully come to terms with living in a Jewish State.
The price, however, can be offset, and it is a small price next to the moral price of Israel being forced to participate in its own slow demise.
There is no shortage of land in other Arab majority States. Neither is there a language barrier. These countries could easily accept resettling Arabs as full citizens, and there is no reason that they and their children would not thrive.
When all the circumstances of the situation are taken into account (read my book if you want to know more about these circumstances), the imperfect solution of a Jewish Israel, not a pluralistic one, is the most just outcome possible.
Establishing a “multi-cultural” constitution in Israel is not the most just outcome.
Some things sound fair, but aren’t.
--David Naggar
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Proper Incentives For The Right People…
The Correct Approach Should Be As Obvious As The Answer To Adding Two Plus Two
.
“The Finance Ministry [of Israel] estimates that the civilian-related cost the state incurred for the evacuation of Gaza is expected to total NIS 6.5 billion, an average of NIS 3.6 million per family." By Meirav Arlosoroff, Haaretz 2/22/07.
*******
At a conversion rate of 4.17 Shekels to the U.S. Dollar, this amounts to an astounding figure of between $800,000 and $900,000 per family. Wow!
And now some politicians have concluded that the Jews who live in the West Bank can be willingly induced to move with the proper economic incentives too.
It is undeniably true that human behavior is greatly affected by incentives.
Indeed, a poll of Israeli settlers conducted in 2003 showed that 74% would leave in return for compensation.
This could prove financially rewarding to willing settlers, but may devastate Israel in the long-term.
That being the case—and if you don’t think it’s the case, take a look at my book—doesn’t it make sense to ask if the Palestinian Arabs could be offered proper incentives to move as well?
A poll taken in early 2004 by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion showed that 37% of Palestinians were willing to emigrate in return for a home, a job and $250,000. One can only presume the figure would be much higher if average Palestinians could freely speak their minds.
World leaders know the truth of the matter. Even in EPIC struggles between countries over boundaries and religion, most people in those countries just want a place to raise their family in peace, and with the chance of prosperity. History shows people will eagerly move for peace and prosperity.
Peaceful economic opportunity is why immigrants flocked to the United States in the 19th and 20th century, and continue to do so today.
Now here’s the reality in the Middle-East. Palestinian Arabs have places to go, the Jews of Israel do not.
If world leaders truly wanted peace in Israel and the territories, wouldn’t it make sense to offer an incentive to the right people to move? If this isn’t done, the BEST that can be expected is that the world will eventually live with two vulnerable, unstable, struggling, non-viable states.
And if that happens, well, you do the math.
--David Naggar
.
“The Finance Ministry [of Israel] estimates that the civilian-related cost the state incurred for the evacuation of Gaza is expected to total NIS 6.5 billion, an average of NIS 3.6 million per family." By Meirav Arlosoroff, Haaretz 2/22/07.
*******
At a conversion rate of 4.17 Shekels to the U.S. Dollar, this amounts to an astounding figure of between $800,000 and $900,000 per family. Wow!
And now some politicians have concluded that the Jews who live in the West Bank can be willingly induced to move with the proper economic incentives too.
It is undeniably true that human behavior is greatly affected by incentives.
Indeed, a poll of Israeli settlers conducted in 2003 showed that 74% would leave in return for compensation.
This could prove financially rewarding to willing settlers, but may devastate Israel in the long-term.
That being the case—and if you don’t think it’s the case, take a look at my book—doesn’t it make sense to ask if the Palestinian Arabs could be offered proper incentives to move as well?
A poll taken in early 2004 by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion showed that 37% of Palestinians were willing to emigrate in return for a home, a job and $250,000. One can only presume the figure would be much higher if average Palestinians could freely speak their minds.
World leaders know the truth of the matter. Even in EPIC struggles between countries over boundaries and religion, most people in those countries just want a place to raise their family in peace, and with the chance of prosperity. History shows people will eagerly move for peace and prosperity.
Peaceful economic opportunity is why immigrants flocked to the United States in the 19th and 20th century, and continue to do so today.
Now here’s the reality in the Middle-East. Palestinian Arabs have places to go, the Jews of Israel do not.
If world leaders truly wanted peace in Israel and the territories, wouldn’t it make sense to offer an incentive to the right people to move? If this isn’t done, the BEST that can be expected is that the world will eventually live with two vulnerable, unstable, struggling, non-viable states.
And if that happens, well, you do the math.
--David Naggar
Thursday, February 08, 2007
The Reality From Mecca: Forget About The Forced Creation Of A Palestinian State… At Least For Now
.
The following is a text of the Mecca Accord between the PLO and Hamas. Actually, the “accord” is in the form of a letter from PLO’s Mahmoud Abbas to Hamas’ Ismail Haniyeh:
From The Associated Press 2/08/07...
“In my capacity as the head of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the president of the Palestinian Authority...
a) I designate you to form the upcoming Palestinian government within the time specified under the basic law.
b) After forming the government and presenting it to us, it should be presented to the Palestinian Legislative Council for a vote of confidence.
c) I call upon you as the head of the upcoming Palestinian government to commit to the higher interests of the Palestinian people, to preserve its rights and to preserve its achievements and to develop them, and to work in order to achieve its national goals as was approved by the Palestine National Council, the clauses of the Basic Law and the National Reconciliation Document...
Based on this, I call upon you to respect international resolutions and the agreements signed by the Palestine Liberation Organization.”
* * * * *
Wow. The best that could be agreed upon was to ASK Hamas to RESPECT international resolutions and the agreements signed by the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Mercifully, perhaps this will lead the Palestinians to stop killing each other. But no matter how this weak statement is received in Europe, it isn’t likely to affect prospects for peace with Israel.
Between the troubles in Iraq, and Palestinian fratricide, the oxygen has been sucked out of any Bush/Blair push to impose "peace," i.e., impose an untenable solution on Israel.
These events have caused the planned imminent push to be postponed indefinitely... at least for now.
Blair has already announced that he plans to devote time to work on Mid-East peace AFTER he leaves office. Maybe the soon-to-be former Prime Minister can join President Clinton and talk about both the situation and his vision at seminars and conferences. For what that'll do.
In the meantime, let’s see how Iraq goes.
And while we wait, I may just ask a print publisher to print my book. There now appears to be time to go through this process after all.
--David Naggar
The following is a text of the Mecca Accord between the PLO and Hamas. Actually, the “accord” is in the form of a letter from PLO’s Mahmoud Abbas to Hamas’ Ismail Haniyeh:
From The Associated Press 2/08/07...
“In my capacity as the head of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the president of the Palestinian Authority...
a) I designate you to form the upcoming Palestinian government within the time specified under the basic law.
b) After forming the government and presenting it to us, it should be presented to the Palestinian Legislative Council for a vote of confidence.
c) I call upon you as the head of the upcoming Palestinian government to commit to the higher interests of the Palestinian people, to preserve its rights and to preserve its achievements and to develop them, and to work in order to achieve its national goals as was approved by the Palestine National Council, the clauses of the Basic Law and the National Reconciliation Document...
Based on this, I call upon you to respect international resolutions and the agreements signed by the Palestine Liberation Organization.”
* * * * *
Wow. The best that could be agreed upon was to ASK Hamas to RESPECT international resolutions and the agreements signed by the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Mercifully, perhaps this will lead the Palestinians to stop killing each other. But no matter how this weak statement is received in Europe, it isn’t likely to affect prospects for peace with Israel.
Between the troubles in Iraq, and Palestinian fratricide, the oxygen has been sucked out of any Bush/Blair push to impose "peace," i.e., impose an untenable solution on Israel.
These events have caused the planned imminent push to be postponed indefinitely... at least for now.
Blair has already announced that he plans to devote time to work on Mid-East peace AFTER he leaves office. Maybe the soon-to-be former Prime Minister can join President Clinton and talk about both the situation and his vision at seminars and conferences. For what that'll do.
In the meantime, let’s see how Iraq goes.
And while we wait, I may just ask a print publisher to print my book. There now appears to be time to go through this process after all.
--David Naggar
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Am I Early For Passover? A Guide To The Four Questions Of Israel
.
1) Do you accept that as part of a global village, there is room for a Jewish majority State?
Some people do not accept that there is room in the world for a Jewish majority State because they believe in the Jeffersonian ideal that separates religion from civil governance.
Others claim not to accept Israel because they think a Jewish majority State is racist.
Presumably people in both of these camps would also be opposed to Christian majority or Muslim majority States, but their silence, notwithstanding the existence of many such States, stands in stark contrast to their thunderous and singular disapproval of Israel.
Whether it is high-minded or low minded, there is no point arguing the politics of Israel and its neighbors without first hearing a “Yes” to this question.
(For the record, I wish that all the people of the globe adopted the American mentality of live and let live, that we had a united planet, and that there was no need for borders of any kind. But utopia is far away.)
Here in the West, the vast majority of people have no problem with the existence of a Jewish majority State that wishes to self-govern. Most acknowledge the right to self-determination, and agree with the proposition that people who wish to self-govern should be free to do so.
So, with one “Yes” in tow, we can ask the second question:
2) Do you accept that as part of a global village, there is room for a Jewish majority State IN THE MIDDLE-EAST?
Today, most Arabs and Muslims of the Middle-East, would answer a resounding “NO!” They tolerate the reality of Israel, but believe it will ultimately fail. They will dance in the streets if it fails. They will celebrate any effort to hasten Israel’s demise. There is no love lost on Israel from these quarters.
Again, it is pointless discussing with those who do not believe a Jewish majority State should exist in the Middle-East, the morality of Israel’s actions in the face of her hostile neighbors (the usual antagonistic ones being settlements, checkpoints, and the so-called wall).
For those who don’t believe Israel should exist in the Middle-East, the inhumanity of Israel’s neighbors will be justified by the “inhumanity” of Israel’s existence. The nut of this self-righteous, yet morally dubious argument is something like this: “Israel stole the land in the first place, and so, they deserve everything that’s coming to them.”
It is an historical stretch to claim that Jews stole their own historical homeland. It is also a stretch to say that Jews were advantaged unfairly over Arabs at the conclusion of World War I. But it is not a stretch to say that Palestinian Arabs, as a particular subset of Arabs, ended up with a raw deal that continues to be raw.
For those who have little sense of the area, a little background helps.
The Middle-East is the historical home of the Jewish people, and in the West, we connect Jews and the Holy Land. The fact that a) there has been a continuous Jewish presence in the land for thousands of years, that b) Roman, Arab and Crusader armies combined to drive most, but not all Jews out, and that c) there can be no morally binding statute of limitations against coming back to the land of your ancestors, seems to suffice most people that Israel belongs were it does.
Further, in modern times, before there was a Syria, a Lebanon, an Iraq, a Jordan or an Israel, the Ottoman Empire ruled the area. But the Ottoman Turks lost World War I, and the Empire was divided.
The Arabs got most of the land, the Jews got a little, and that little was reduced again and again.
There is room for everyone in the Middle-East, but without doubt, just as Jews were displaces in the last century from Muslim majority States stretching from Morocco to Iran, Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians were displaced from what is now Israel.
Of course, 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab, so comparing the cause, circumstances, or terms of partial displacement of Arabs to the near total displacement Jews is like comparing apples and oranges.
Historical truth aside, only if a person answers “Yes” to this question and the first question is there any reason to ask the third question.
3) Do you accept that as part of a global village that contains hostile elements, the sole Jewish majority State must do what it can to survive, defend its citizens, and ensure that its citizens have the opportunity to thrive?
One could ask a similar question of any State. Bit isn’t “survive, defend and ensure opportunity” Israel’s obligation as a State? Israel’s actions and motivations can be properly judged by how well it morally fulfills its obligation.
Compare this question to one asked most loudly by Israel’s detractors: “Why does Israel have to oppress innocent Palestinians?” This question is loaded. The reality is, Israel doesn’t HAVE to oppress anyone. I know of no Israeli leader who WANTS to oppress Palestinians.
No doubt those Palestinians who wish Israel no harm suffer alongside those who do wish Israel harm.
But if Israel must choose between life as a withering failed State that is constantly being terrorized, or fighting its enemies—even knowing that some who are not enemies will suffer, and some who are not enemies will be made into enemies—it has no alternative but to fight. How can anyone in good faith argue otherwise?
Israel must do what it must do because it is a State, and it has obligations to its citizens, not to mention a unique obligation to Jews throughout the world. As such, it is obligated and duty bound to reach its own “Yes” answer to this 3rd question. For over 50 years it has been fighting an antagonistic Arab/Muslim population that stretches from Morocco to Iran and beyond. It is at war. Sometimes it is a hot war, and sometimes it is a cold war. People on all sides of a war suffer. Hopefully innocent suffering is limited, but this is plainly not always so.
This brings us to the 4th question.
4) Do you accept that as part of a global village, IF the sole Jewish majority State’s viability is dependent on it becoming larger, it should become larger?
If your answers to the first three questions are “Yes” but your answer to this fourth question is “No,” you have probably concluded one of two things: 1) the Jewish majority State’s viability is not dependent on its size, or 2) you really don’t believe that there is room for a viable Israel in the Middle-East even though you say you accept that there is.
Saying a larger Israel "can’t happen" to avoid giving a “Yes” answer is no answer at all. Asking, “what about the Palestinians?” may show compassion, but also provides no answer to the question. (Incidentally, handled correctly, Palestinian Arabs will benefit from, not be victimized by, a viable, sustainable, unassailable Israel).
If you are a supporter of Israel who answers “No,” to this question, and you do so because of a feeling that that Israel is large enough, or that in an interdependent world, size doesn’t matter, don’t you owe it to yourself and to Israel to make sure your assumptions are right? Or will you be content with the prospect you are wrong, and a slowly decaying Israel?
Don’t give a lazy “No.” The stakes are too high.
Please read The Case For A Larger Israel. Maybe you’ll find your fourth “Yes.”
And then, who better to stand up than you?
1) Do you accept that as part of a global village, there is room for a Jewish majority State?
Some people do not accept that there is room in the world for a Jewish majority State because they believe in the Jeffersonian ideal that separates religion from civil governance.
Others claim not to accept Israel because they think a Jewish majority State is racist.
Presumably people in both of these camps would also be opposed to Christian majority or Muslim majority States, but their silence, notwithstanding the existence of many such States, stands in stark contrast to their thunderous and singular disapproval of Israel.
Whether it is high-minded or low minded, there is no point arguing the politics of Israel and its neighbors without first hearing a “Yes” to this question.
(For the record, I wish that all the people of the globe adopted the American mentality of live and let live, that we had a united planet, and that there was no need for borders of any kind. But utopia is far away.)
Here in the West, the vast majority of people have no problem with the existence of a Jewish majority State that wishes to self-govern. Most acknowledge the right to self-determination, and agree with the proposition that people who wish to self-govern should be free to do so.
So, with one “Yes” in tow, we can ask the second question:
2) Do you accept that as part of a global village, there is room for a Jewish majority State IN THE MIDDLE-EAST?
Today, most Arabs and Muslims of the Middle-East, would answer a resounding “NO!” They tolerate the reality of Israel, but believe it will ultimately fail. They will dance in the streets if it fails. They will celebrate any effort to hasten Israel’s demise. There is no love lost on Israel from these quarters.
Again, it is pointless discussing with those who do not believe a Jewish majority State should exist in the Middle-East, the morality of Israel’s actions in the face of her hostile neighbors (the usual antagonistic ones being settlements, checkpoints, and the so-called wall).
For those who don’t believe Israel should exist in the Middle-East, the inhumanity of Israel’s neighbors will be justified by the “inhumanity” of Israel’s existence. The nut of this self-righteous, yet morally dubious argument is something like this: “Israel stole the land in the first place, and so, they deserve everything that’s coming to them.”
It is an historical stretch to claim that Jews stole their own historical homeland. It is also a stretch to say that Jews were advantaged unfairly over Arabs at the conclusion of World War I. But it is not a stretch to say that Palestinian Arabs, as a particular subset of Arabs, ended up with a raw deal that continues to be raw.
For those who have little sense of the area, a little background helps.
The Middle-East is the historical home of the Jewish people, and in the West, we connect Jews and the Holy Land. The fact that a) there has been a continuous Jewish presence in the land for thousands of years, that b) Roman, Arab and Crusader armies combined to drive most, but not all Jews out, and that c) there can be no morally binding statute of limitations against coming back to the land of your ancestors, seems to suffice most people that Israel belongs were it does.
Further, in modern times, before there was a Syria, a Lebanon, an Iraq, a Jordan or an Israel, the Ottoman Empire ruled the area. But the Ottoman Turks lost World War I, and the Empire was divided.
The Arabs got most of the land, the Jews got a little, and that little was reduced again and again.
There is room for everyone in the Middle-East, but without doubt, just as Jews were displaces in the last century from Muslim majority States stretching from Morocco to Iran, Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians were displaced from what is now Israel.
Of course, 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab, so comparing the cause, circumstances, or terms of partial displacement of Arabs to the near total displacement Jews is like comparing apples and oranges.
Historical truth aside, only if a person answers “Yes” to this question and the first question is there any reason to ask the third question.
3) Do you accept that as part of a global village that contains hostile elements, the sole Jewish majority State must do what it can to survive, defend its citizens, and ensure that its citizens have the opportunity to thrive?
One could ask a similar question of any State. Bit isn’t “survive, defend and ensure opportunity” Israel’s obligation as a State? Israel’s actions and motivations can be properly judged by how well it morally fulfills its obligation.
Compare this question to one asked most loudly by Israel’s detractors: “Why does Israel have to oppress innocent Palestinians?” This question is loaded. The reality is, Israel doesn’t HAVE to oppress anyone. I know of no Israeli leader who WANTS to oppress Palestinians.
No doubt those Palestinians who wish Israel no harm suffer alongside those who do wish Israel harm.
But if Israel must choose between life as a withering failed State that is constantly being terrorized, or fighting its enemies—even knowing that some who are not enemies will suffer, and some who are not enemies will be made into enemies—it has no alternative but to fight. How can anyone in good faith argue otherwise?
Israel must do what it must do because it is a State, and it has obligations to its citizens, not to mention a unique obligation to Jews throughout the world. As such, it is obligated and duty bound to reach its own “Yes” answer to this 3rd question. For over 50 years it has been fighting an antagonistic Arab/Muslim population that stretches from Morocco to Iran and beyond. It is at war. Sometimes it is a hot war, and sometimes it is a cold war. People on all sides of a war suffer. Hopefully innocent suffering is limited, but this is plainly not always so.
This brings us to the 4th question.
4) Do you accept that as part of a global village, IF the sole Jewish majority State’s viability is dependent on it becoming larger, it should become larger?
If your answers to the first three questions are “Yes” but your answer to this fourth question is “No,” you have probably concluded one of two things: 1) the Jewish majority State’s viability is not dependent on its size, or 2) you really don’t believe that there is room for a viable Israel in the Middle-East even though you say you accept that there is.
Saying a larger Israel "can’t happen" to avoid giving a “Yes” answer is no answer at all. Asking, “what about the Palestinians?” may show compassion, but also provides no answer to the question. (Incidentally, handled correctly, Palestinian Arabs will benefit from, not be victimized by, a viable, sustainable, unassailable Israel).
If you are a supporter of Israel who answers “No,” to this question, and you do so because of a feeling that that Israel is large enough, or that in an interdependent world, size doesn’t matter, don’t you owe it to yourself and to Israel to make sure your assumptions are right? Or will you be content with the prospect you are wrong, and a slowly decaying Israel?
Don’t give a lazy “No.” The stakes are too high.
Please read The Case For A Larger Israel. Maybe you’ll find your fourth “Yes.”
And then, who better to stand up than you?
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
More On Looking At A Problem In Pieces, Rather Than In The Aggregate
.
The same research again…
“[P]eople reveal a tendency to look at problems in pieces rather than in the aggregate. Even qualified scholars in reputable journals reached faulty conclusions by failing to recognize that the whole is the product of interaction among its parts…” Peter L. Bernstein, from Against the Gods, discussing the research of Professor Meir Statman.
*****
If one thinks of the whole problem as an Israeli-Palestinian problem, then one may be inclined to view the ultimate solution to be as simple as separating the antagonists into their own States.
If one appreciates that this is but a piece of a larger Israel-Arab/Muslim problem, one appreciates how unworkable the proposed international consensus “two-states within the confines of Israel and territories” solution really is.
This tendency to look at problems in pieces rather than in the aggregate has led to faulty "conventional thinking" among politicians and international leaders.
The same research again…
“[P]eople reveal a tendency to look at problems in pieces rather than in the aggregate. Even qualified scholars in reputable journals reached faulty conclusions by failing to recognize that the whole is the product of interaction among its parts…” Peter L. Bernstein, from Against the Gods, discussing the research of Professor Meir Statman.
*****
If one thinks of the whole problem as an Israeli-Palestinian problem, then one may be inclined to view the ultimate solution to be as simple as separating the antagonists into their own States.
If one appreciates that this is but a piece of a larger Israel-Arab/Muslim problem, one appreciates how unworkable the proposed international consensus “two-states within the confines of Israel and territories” solution really is.
This tendency to look at problems in pieces rather than in the aggregate has led to faulty "conventional thinking" among politicians and international leaders.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
In The Aggregate, Size Matters
.
“[P]eople reveal a tendency to look at problems in pieces rather than in the aggregate. Even qualified scholars in reputable journals reached faulty conclusions by failing to recognize that the whole is the product of interaction among its parts…” Peter L. Bernstein, from Against the Gods, discussing the research of Professor Meir Statman.
*****
This tendency to look at problems in pieces rather than in the aggregate leads to faulty conventional thinking among politicians and international leaders as well. Attempting to solve, in isolation, Israel’s problems in the Middle East, is a case of looking at a problem in pieces rather than in the aggregate. This is a recipe for disaster.
If a piecemeal solution to larger Middle East problems leaves a weak Israel, it will not only be harmful to Israel, it will also be harmful to Jews around the world, and harmful to humanity (and that includes Arabs and Muslims everywhere).
A solution that weakens Israel will, at a minimum, lead the Zionist State to wither. It will most likely plant the seeds for the next conflict. It will ultimately lead to less Jewish participation in global innovation and abundance. If history is a guide, this will lead to a less prosperous world.
It is in humanity’s—and by humanity, I mean everyday people everywhere—interest that the region’s problems be viewed holistically, and that the solution leaves Israel to become more important, not less.
Consider two historic examples of importance:
1) In 1863, the Confederate States of America issued bonds to foreigners. Besides the obvious purpose of raising money for the Southern war effort, these bonds served the purpose of creating a foreign constituency with an interest in the survival of that State. But the existence of this foreign constituency was not enough to pressure the United States into peace. The CSA was not important enough to the global powers of the day to survive.
2) In 1990-1991, Kuwait proved important enough. Would the non-democratic government of Kuwait been saved from Iraq if there didn’t exist a large foreign constituency that profits from Kuwaiti oil? Or was preserving the world’s, stable, more or less, Nation/State system reason enough to lead President George Bush (41) to conclude that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait could not stand?
Even if the reason was the latter, a broad-based foreign constituency (not just American) is key to Israel’s long-term survival. The United States will not always be the unrivaled military or economic power that it is today, and there is no other rising power that is likely to treat citizens of other States as well.
The United States will not always be able to serve as Israel’s bank, and enforcer of its existence. In time, the strings attached to this support will get heavy in both directions.
Israel must become more important to its foreign constituency, or it may face the end faced by the Confederate States of America. Or, if a piecemeal solution is imposed, Israel may get “lucky” and be allowed to face the slow death of a withering State that cannot sustain itself.
Any solution to any one of Israel’s many problems (the pieces) must be viewed through the prism of the aggregate problem Israel faces—how to emerge as a thriving, viable State for the long-term.
That is why the ultimate aim of any solution involving Israel must serve to make Israel more important to a broad foreign constituency. And that is why size ultimately matters.
“[P]eople reveal a tendency to look at problems in pieces rather than in the aggregate. Even qualified scholars in reputable journals reached faulty conclusions by failing to recognize that the whole is the product of interaction among its parts…” Peter L. Bernstein, from Against the Gods, discussing the research of Professor Meir Statman.
*****
This tendency to look at problems in pieces rather than in the aggregate leads to faulty conventional thinking among politicians and international leaders as well. Attempting to solve, in isolation, Israel’s problems in the Middle East, is a case of looking at a problem in pieces rather than in the aggregate. This is a recipe for disaster.
If a piecemeal solution to larger Middle East problems leaves a weak Israel, it will not only be harmful to Israel, it will also be harmful to Jews around the world, and harmful to humanity (and that includes Arabs and Muslims everywhere).
A solution that weakens Israel will, at a minimum, lead the Zionist State to wither. It will most likely plant the seeds for the next conflict. It will ultimately lead to less Jewish participation in global innovation and abundance. If history is a guide, this will lead to a less prosperous world.
It is in humanity’s—and by humanity, I mean everyday people everywhere—interest that the region’s problems be viewed holistically, and that the solution leaves Israel to become more important, not less.
Consider two historic examples of importance:
1) In 1863, the Confederate States of America issued bonds to foreigners. Besides the obvious purpose of raising money for the Southern war effort, these bonds served the purpose of creating a foreign constituency with an interest in the survival of that State. But the existence of this foreign constituency was not enough to pressure the United States into peace. The CSA was not important enough to the global powers of the day to survive.
2) In 1990-1991, Kuwait proved important enough. Would the non-democratic government of Kuwait been saved from Iraq if there didn’t exist a large foreign constituency that profits from Kuwaiti oil? Or was preserving the world’s, stable, more or less, Nation/State system reason enough to lead President George Bush (41) to conclude that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait could not stand?
Even if the reason was the latter, a broad-based foreign constituency (not just American) is key to Israel’s long-term survival. The United States will not always be the unrivaled military or economic power that it is today, and there is no other rising power that is likely to treat citizens of other States as well.
The United States will not always be able to serve as Israel’s bank, and enforcer of its existence. In time, the strings attached to this support will get heavy in both directions.
Israel must become more important to its foreign constituency, or it may face the end faced by the Confederate States of America. Or, if a piecemeal solution is imposed, Israel may get “lucky” and be allowed to face the slow death of a withering State that cannot sustain itself.
Any solution to any one of Israel’s many problems (the pieces) must be viewed through the prism of the aggregate problem Israel faces—how to emerge as a thriving, viable State for the long-term.
That is why the ultimate aim of any solution involving Israel must serve to make Israel more important to a broad foreign constituency. And that is why size ultimately matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)