The Case for a Larger Israel

The Problem In The Middle-East Is Not That Israel Has Too Much Land

2010-01-06T18:05:00.000-08:00

.

I’ll be looking for a new blogging home with a wider built-in audience, so this will be my last extended post at this blog site. In the meantime, I invite you to check out this short YouTube video about Israel, Palestinian Arabs, History and Common Sense at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj_WYDb7enU

Let me leave you with this thought.

The problem in the Middle-East is not that Israel has too much land.

The intermediate goal of my book, The Case for a Larger Israel, and this blog, is to ever-so-slightly change the allowable parameters of the international debate regarding the two-state solution. In my opinion, the obsessive international focus on the question: "how do we create a two-state solution within the confines of Israel and the territories?" is wrongheaded. People who do not share the conviction of the necessity of a two-state solution are shunned, and thereby politically silenced.

Perhaps humanity will outgrow the current way in which we divide Earth.
But, given the zero-sum international model of dividing the planet into countries, the important question to ask is this: how much territory should be allocated to the sole Jewish majority state?

The arguments I offer for a larger Israel are rational, not faith based.
Using the Bible or reference to God to convince a believer is unnecessary. Using the Bible or reference to God to convince any non-believer is a non-starter.

Conventional wisdom has it that making Israel smaller is the path to peace. Of course, this wisdom is contradicted by both concrete historical evidence and the general principles of game theory.

One can expect duplicity from the leaders of predator and anti-Semitic nations. But it is hard to fathom the hopeful ignorance of the Western political elites, including President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and envoys George Mitchell and Dennis Ross.

This hopeful ignorance extended into the previous Republican administration as well. Neither President Bush nor Condoleezza Rice deserves a medal. They failed to side with pursuers of freedom and liberty when facing off against dictators and thugs.

The moment President Bush cut a deal with Lybia’s Gaddafi, the war on terror was bound to lose popular support among liberty-seeking Arabs. How could any pro-liberty Arab trust the U.S. to stand by a liberty movement? Most people don’t fear siding against the U.S., but there is great fear in siding against a dictatorship that may survive. Non-fanatical Arabs and Muslims who side with terrorists, or remain silent, are making a rational choice – a choice to survive.

Though it does not sit well in the American Jewish community, one must look to Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin to find U.S. politicians who appreciate the dangers of appeasing dictators, petty tyrants and perpetual haters.

As for Israel, one either sees or does not see that Israel is on the front line of a war that pits the advancement of humankind against barbarism. One either sees or does not see that the fight in Afghanistan is the same as the fight in Iraq, and the same as the fight in Yemen and Somalia. The Jihadists are using the whole global boxing ring. They are not confining the fight to the battlegrounds we dictate. Like the game whack-a-mole, if the seekers of liberty and human advancement seem to be gaining the upper hand in one part of the world, Jihadists will simply fold their tents at night and surface in another part of the world in the morning.

Without a certain degree of study on the matter, one either instinctively sees this or does not.

I could be wrong about the need for Israel to be larger. I acknowledge the possibility that one day the size of a country may not matter at all. Advances in both civility and technology may simply make the horizontal physical size of a country irrelevant. But then again, perhaps technological advances that eliminate the need for physical land only reduce the need for land in a world where free trade and peace are permanent.

Until we outlaw economic boycotts and boot predator nations out of the U.N., it seems to me that both military strategic depth and self-sufficiency with regard to food, water and energy do matter. Perhaps one day they won’t matter. Today they do.

Few countries are more deprived of military strategic depth and natural resources than Israel.

Why should anyone in the world care? Beyond the morality of allowing Jews to live in peace in their ancestral homeland, it is in the enlightened self-interest of humanity to allow Israel to become a reasonably sized country. There is plenty of land for everyone in this region.

Few communities have contributed more to humanity’s well-being on a per capita basis. The world greatly benefits from Jewish Israeli technology and innovation – from Intel’s Nehalem Processor, to the medical breakthrough of a swallowable camera that can help doctors scope out disease in a person’s body, Israeli companies are changing the world for the better.

Israel is a marvel. If Israel isn’t destroyed, and can avoid a massive brain drain its enemies hope to facilitate through terror, Israel is likely to become an economic powerhouse in the next ten years.

But without a good quality of life, leading entrepreneurs will not stay in Israel, and much good that can be done for the world will be lost. It is morally repugnant that world leaders stand by and do nothing to prevent backwards-looking, hateful people from harassing Israeli global contributors. It is every bit as shameful as their inaction in Darfur.

When I speak of the case for a larger Israel, I frame the issue as an Arab/Muslim-Israel problem, not an Israel-Palestinian problem. I am correct in doing so. For Israel-hating Arabs or Muslims, the problem may be rooted in the Quran, in Israel envy, or even in a misguided sense of justice that precludes Arabs and Muslims from sharing even 1% of the Middle-East with Israel. Israel can win a debate on the international stage if the issue is properly and correctly framed.

But when others are allowed to frame the issue as a conflict between Israel and Palestinian Arabs, Israel will lose the debate in the court of international opinion. This is so notwithstanding the general disgust at Palestinian politics, corruption, and hate. When the debate is mischaracterized as a dispute over a small patch of land between two parties, the natural reaction of most people is to simply call on both parties to share the land.

There is land enough in the Middle-East for Palestinians and Israelis. Israeli withdrawal from the territories will not help the average Palestinian Arab – almost certainly, a withdrawal would lead to chaos in the territories. Per capita income will go down, not accounting for international bailout money. A look at normalized per capita incomes during different periods of Ottoman, British, Jordanian and Israeli rule bear this out.

And returning Israel to the pre-1967 Auschwitz borders may cripple Israel. Israeli withdrawal to these borders will likely make Israel too tempting a target for a predatory enemy.

Further, as in Lebanon and Gaza, terrorists will view Israeli withdrawal as a victory for practicing terror. This tactic must never be rewarded because doing so increases its frequency.

Indeed, weakness is a prime cause of war. Predators look to take on the weak, not the strong. If you have any doubt about this, look to the animal kingdom. Lions attack the weakest animals in a herd, not the strongest.

The well-meaning peace seeking people on the political left do not appreciate that they are the biggest impediment to peace.

By seeking peace in the face of terror, they communicate that terror works. Bad behavior must be punished, not rewarded. The Israeli pursuit of peace over victory paradoxically prevents peace. Only by preparing for victory is peace achievable with predator nations.

Not only does Israel have a full moral right to use force to end violence against it, the U.N., by the terms of its charter, should join Israel in ending violence directed against Jews once and for all. Israel should not be accused of a disproportionate use of force because of the harm done to the perpetrators and instigators of violence. Whether retaliation against evil is proportional should be judged by whether the amount of force used is the necessary force to end the instigator’s violence.

Finally, I encourage all who believe that Palestinian Arabs truly want land for peaceful purposes, to ask: why must the land come from too-small Israel? Most Palestinian Arabs have roots in Israel and the territories of less than 100 years. They came to live in British Mandate Palestine for economic reasons, not ideological ones. Why doesn’t the international community reallocate land to Palestinians from Arab neighbors? After all, the creation of Lebanese, Syrian and Jordanian borders are recent. A Palestinian entity could likewise be created.

While I believe that a larger Israel is in the world’s interest, the size that will produce a permanently viable, self-sustaining Israel is hard to quantify. That being so, perhaps the most fair, face-saving bargain ever attainable will be the one generally agreed to between Jewish and Arab leaders at the 1919 Paris Peace conference. The map showing these bargained for borders can be seen on the YouTube Video mentioned above, at http://www.mideastweb.org/zionistborders.htm, or in my book.

Clearly, such a bargain is not within reach today.

With pride in the Zionist movement, and deep respect for peace-seeking Arabs and Muslims,

I am yours,

David Naggar

Secretary Clinton Is Wrong To Pursue The Two-State Solution

2009-12-01T10:00:00.000-08:00

.

H.L. Mencken famously said “there is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible and wrong.”

In Morocco last month, U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said she “was the first American associated with any administration to call for the establishment of a Palestinian state” 10 years ago. “A lot of people thought that was very radical; now there is consensus.”

Her view WAS radical then. Yet it is consensus now. Her solution is neat, plausible and wrong.

Fast forward ten years from Secretary Clinton’s radical pronouncement, and now, my view that Secretary Clinton’s “two state solution” is folly, is the new radical. The sea change in Ms. Clinton’s direction occurred quickly. The sea change in a completely new direction can occur quickly as well, but only if people stand up and aren’t afraid to be counted.

Consider Switzerland and Denmark, home of tolerant Western societies. This week, the Swiss people unexpectedly voted to keep Switzerland, well, Swiss. They backed a ban on new minarets. And in Denmark, the government has offered ‘anti-social’ immigrants $20,000 to leave Denmark because, well, the Danes would like Denmark to remain Danish. Now there’s sea change!

Secretary Clinton’s once radical view regarding Israel and the territories became consensus only because people stood up and supported this view. My view, that pursuing the goal of creating a Palestinian state in Israel’s very tiny heartland is causing immense harm to Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs alike, is ignored, dismissed and considered radical fringe. Until more people who actually share this view have the courage to stand up against convention, things won’t change. Changing the goal of creating two-states in this too-small geography will not become consensus if people stay silent.

So forget that Israel is on the fault line of jihad. Ignore Kashmir, Kosovo, Sudan, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, and so forth. But recognize that the concept of ‘live and let live’ is not in short supply in Denmark, Switzerland, or Israel. It is in short supply in the Palestinian territories and the Islamic world.

The lives of Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews would be vastly improved if the Obama administration would take the lead and recognize that carving Israel and the territories into two pieces cannot solve the dispute between Arabs/Muslims and Israel.

It is time to stop pursuing an ill conceived and wrong-headed two-state solution. It is time for a sea change. There is plenty of room for everyone in the Middle East.

--David Naggar

Time for President Obama and Secretary Clinton to Hit the “Reset” Button on Israel and the Territories

2009-11-02T12:16:00.000-08:00

.

Expectations were low for this past weekend’s visit by Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, to Israel and the territories. Diplomats understand that no negotiation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority will occur until after January 24, 2010, the date set for Palestinian “elections.” The Secretary’s visit was a non-event, with one exception.

Secretary Clinton’s statements did affirm the Obama administration’s foreign policy mantra: Talk to your enemies.

If the United States is willing to negotiate with Iran and North Korea without preconditions, the United States expects the Palestinians to negotiate with Israel regardless of ongoing Israeli settlement activity.

Secretary Clinton’s message sent Palestinian “leadership” into a tizzy.

Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, thought he had a better friend in President Obama. In the past, Israel’s settlement activity had never caused Mr. Abbas to refuse to negotiate with Israel, but President Obama’s strong stance on Israeli settlements had a predictable effect on Mr. Abbas. He decided to halt any negotiation with Israel until Israel ceased all settlement activity.

What did Mr. Abbas do in response to Secretary Clinton’s statements now urging him to negotiate with Israel? He immediately sought public backing to refuse to negotiate from the League of Arab States. Amr Mussa, Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, obliged. He called Mr. Abbas’ refusal to negotiate with Israel, sensible. He said Mr. Abbas’ position had Arab backing.

Well, off course Mr. Abbas’ position has Arab backing. Arabs and Muslims, whether or not they call themselves Palestinian, have been taught to hate Israel and Jews.

Peace cannot be made between Palestinian Arabs and Israel alone. It must be made on a regional basis between all Arabs/Muslims and Israel. Otherwise, there will be no peace.

Permanent peace will come when Arabs/Muslims in the region accept Israel as Jewish state (and that means finding the answer inside of the Quran). Permanent peace will come when Israel is independently viable (and for the many reasons identified in my book, in all likelihood, that means Israel must be larger than it is today).

There is plenty of room for everyone to peacefully thrive in the Middle-East. The current tragedy can be abated. This human problem is solvable. But the problem cannot peacefully and permanently solved by forcing the creation of a twenty-second Arab state within the borders of Israel and the territories.

When January 24, 2010 comes and goes, President Obama will have been in office for more than a year. It is my hope that President Obama and Secretary Clinton will have learned from year one of their administration that the current two-state solution is not workable. They need a new course of action if they are to bring real peace. It is time to hit the “reset” button on this one, too.

--David Naggar

President Obama at the U.N. He Says Much And Nothing, But Is Still Following The Wrong Path

2009-10-01T13:19:00.000-07:00

.

In his recent speech to the United Nations, President Obama laid out, once again, the much rehashed and unworkable vision for a two state solution West of the Jordan River:

He said: “We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements…the goal is clear: Two states living side by side in peace and security — a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.”

Because the President is a master wordsmith his words require parsing.

The President “does not accept the legitimacy of CONTINUED Israeli settlements.” Notice that the President is no longer focused on preventing future settlement activity. The words above articulate a position that NO Israeli settlement is acceptable.

This statement is not useful. If the President expects Israel to return to the 1967 borders, Israel won’t do this without being defeated in a war. In fact, the President’s focus on settlements in the past few months has led the Palestinians to make the cessation of ALL Jewish settlement activity a precondition to further negotiation. This was not the President’s objective.

President Obama calls for “a JEWISH state of Israel.” This is a nod to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu who wants Palestinians to recognize the “Jewishness” of Israel. Palestinian Arabs (and their Arab brethren) are highly unlikely to make such a statement. Given that Prime Minister Netanyahu is a master wordsmith himself, it is likely that he demanded Palestinians made a statement accepting Israel’s “Jewishness” because he knows they will not agree to make it. It is a request made to embarrass the Palestinians and the Arab world.

The Prime Minister’s request of the Arab world is just like the Saudi offer of normalization with Israel, an offer contingent on Israel accepting Arab refugees. The Saudi offer is an offer meant to embarrass Israel. It sounds reasonable at first blush, but the offer is made knowing that Israel cannot accept this term of peace and still maintain its identity as a Jewish state.

President Obama also calls for “a viable, independent Palestinian state with CONTIGUOUS territory that ENDS THE OCCUPATION that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.”

No one can make Gaza and the West Bank contiguous without cutting Israel in two. Maybe the President is only speaking of a contiguous West Bank. Maybe he’s speaking of a subway or an “Arabs only road” cutting across Israel. Part of careful wordsmithing is knowing when to be ambiguous. Ambiguity allows trusting people to find meaning they wish to find. But the President’s ambiguity is not constructive. In a recent poll, only 4% of Jewish Israelis think he is pro-Israel.

Also, the President’s words indicate that the “occupation” can’t end unless there is full withdrawal to the 1967 border. Again, this will not happen peacefully. No Israeli government has been willing to withdraw to the armistice lines that existed between 1949 and 1967.

Further, the President links Israeli withdrawal to Palestinian people realizing their full potential. There are better ways for Palestinian Arabs to realize their full potential than to force Israel to withdraw to borders that are extremely difficult to defend, and invite aggression.

The President said a lot, and at the same time, he has said nothing. Former Ambassador Josh Bolton describes the President’s recent speech as the most anti-Israeli speech he’s ever heard a U.S. President utter. I don’t think the President sees it that way.

I don’t know if the President, famous for voting present in the Illinois Senate, but not yet famous for being decisive in matters of foreign policy, is saying anything at all.

I do know he has not advanced the ball of peace. His public speeches remind me of Dennis Ross who confessed that he did his best to say nothing meaningful during in his public interviews while he was serving in the Bush-Clinton administrations.

When the President wants to take a meaningful stand, he should stand by America’s natural ally; the ally that advances humanity on scientific, medical and technological fronts; the ally that advance the human rights of minorities and women. There are 21 Arab majority countries. There is plenty of room for everyone to live peacefully in the Middle East, should they choose to do so. Though there is no need for a twenty second Arab majority State, should the Palestinian Arabs want a twenty second Arab state, and should the other Arab states agree, there is plenty of room in the vast Arab majority lands to create one for them.

The President should concentrate on Israel, the American ally. Let’s make sure Israel is viable and independent, and take it from there. There is room for Palestinian Arabs to prosper and thrive. Surely there can be room enough for the sole Jewish majority state to have a plot of land large enough for it to independently prosper and thrive.

-- David Naggar

Common Sense for Israel and Palestinian Arabs, Courtesy of Governor Mike Huckabee

2009-09-01T09:23:00.000-07:00

.

While in Israel this past month, Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, a potential United States presidential candidate in 2012, spoke to the issue of peace in the Middle East, and a Palestinian State.

Governor Huckabee said, "The question is, should the Palestinians have a place to call their own? Yes, I have no problem with that. Should it be in the middle of the Jewish homeland? That's what I think has to be honestly assessed as virtually unrealistic."

Governor Huckabee may be the highest-profile politician in the United States to understand that the tiny geographic area west of the Jordan River is not large enough to host two independent states, especially when one of the those states is the sole Jewish majority state in the region and the world.

Obviously, the Governor is not looking for a plum assignment from the Obama administration.

Too bad Israel is looking for something for the Obama administration. Too bad Israel is dependent on the United States. Because of this dependency, Prime Minister Netanyahu pays lip service to the establishment of a Palestinian State west of the Jordan River, an Obama requirement, but at the same time espouses terms that could not possible be acceptable to Palestinian Arab leaders.

It is difficult for any politician to be more pro-Israel than the sitting Prime Minister of Israel, and Governor Huckabee is out on a limb. People in the mainstream media point out that he is a Southern Baptist preacher and based on that, deride his view. This is both shameful and ignorant.

Governor Huckabee should be applauded. If more knowledgeable people vocalized their true assessment of the situation, the debate on how to bring peace to the region would change. Rather than trying to figure out how to divide a piece of land too small to divide, world leaders could focus on making Israel truly viable. They could focus on bringing an end to the Palestinian Arab humanitarian crises—a crisis the international community and the Arab/Muslim community have exacerbated for over sixty years.

Supporters of the idea that the world is large enough to house one independently viable Jewish majority state must encourage politicians besides governor Huckabee to take a stand for Israel—not just a stand that offers vague support for Israel’s right to exist, but rather a real stand for an independently viable Israel. This stand, not coincidentally, will further Palestinian Arab dignity and prosperity, and peace.

Failure to encourage more political leaders to take a real stand for Israel will mean the currently proposed international solution—two states west of the River Jordan—will not change. Sooner or later, Israel will be forced to cede land needed to independently survive and thrive in the Middle East. And Palestinian Arabs will continue to be treated as second class Arabs by their Arab brethren.

There is plenty of room in the Middle-East for everyone. Governor Huckabee recognizes this and publicly says so. Most politicians won’t say so because saying so is out of favor.

I, for one, thank Governor Huckabee for his common sense. I thank him for not being cowardly. And I thank him for putting the welfare of people above political expediency.

--David Naggar

In A Busy World, Names Matter. The Tale of Macedonia, Palestine and Israel.

2009-08-03T10:44:00.000-07:00

.

Greece is currently feuding with Macedonia over, of all things, the use of the name Macedonia. Greece insists that Macedonia change its name because the Greeks fear that Macedonia is stealing the Greek National identity, and may one day lay claim to an area of Greece known as Greek Macedonia.

How did this come about? If you open a history book, you will find that Greece's national hero, Alexander the Great, hailed from “Macedonia.” Greece argues present-day Macedonia consists mostly of Slavs and others who invaded the region a millennium after Alexander died. Greece claims Alexander as its own, from the city of Pella, located in present-day Greece.

Because Macedonia refuses to change its name, Greece vetoed Macedonia’s bid to join NATO, and is blocking Macedonia’s admission to the European Union.

Names matter. Names influence politics and policy. In a busy world, public opinion forms quickly, and is often based on information that is untrue, or that lacks context. World public opinion can drive outcomes, whether or not the opinion is fact based.

People throughout the world haven’t focused much attention on the Greek-Macedonian dispute, but the governments of Greece and Macedonia are at loggerheads. Because it is not a hot button issue for many people outside of Greece and Macedonia, I can tell you this story without sounding provocative.

The name “Palestine” is also a name that matters. This name is central to one aspect of the Israeli/Arab-Islamic dispute.

In the early part of the 20th century, “Palestine” was the name given by the international community to a geographic region slated to be a Jewish homeland. The indigenous people of the area, Jews, were returning to their homeland.

Part of Palestine was taken away from the slated Jewish homeland and given by the British to the son of an Arab ruler who lost control of what became Saudi Arabia. Thus nearly 80% of Palestine became the present-day Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

In 1948, the Jews of the now smaller “Palestine” decided not to call itself Palestine, but rather to call its country Israel. This was a fateful decision. The Arabs who lived in areas of the smaller Palestine—most of them, like the returning Jews, lived there for a generation or two at most—associated themselves with other Arabs who lived in “Jordan” and other Arab nations that attacked Israel to drive Jews into the sea.

In 1950, Jordan “annexed” what the United Nations then called Judea and Samaria, and called the area the West Bank, since the area was on the West Bank of the River Jordan. The people who lived there became Jordanian citizens (Jews were not allowed to stay).

In the 1960’s, a movement formed in Egypt, Yasser Arafat's PLO, set about to re-brand local Arabs with a new name their fathers loathed, a named once associated with Jews—Palestinians. The PLO's aim in adopting the name was to start the process of destroying Israel. They made no claim to the “West Bank,” then controlled by Jordan, or Gaza, then controlled by Egypt. The movement was not then powerful enough to challenge this status quo.

But something changed along the way.

The current crisis for the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is that the majority of its population now calls itself Palestinian too. King Abdullah of Jordan fears “Palestinians” will reference the map that once showed a “Palestine,” that included both Jordan and Israel, and attempt to seize control of Jordan.

The “Palestinian” national identity created in the 1960’s to destroy Israel, now threatens the Jordanian monarchy.

That is why this past month, Jordanian authorities have started revoking the citizenship of thousands of “Palestinians” living in Jordan. Tensions are rising. Violence is occurring.

The Jordanians claim their latest measures are aimed only to ensure that “Palestinians” are not prevented from returning to their original homes inside Israel. In truth, the actions are meant to preserve the Hashemite Kingdom.

Jordan's Interior Minister Nayef al-Kadi said, "We insist that Jordan is not Palestine, just as Palestine is not Jordan.” Compare Kadi’s words to the words of King Abullah’s father, King Hussein. He said this of Palestinians and Jordanians. “The two peoples are actually one. This is a fact.”

In a busy world, names matter. If Jordan were called “Palestine,” world sympathy would quickly turn from support for a homeland for Palestinians, to support for solving a border dispute between countries.

The upshot is this. There is plenty of room for everyone to live peacefully and prosper in the Middle-East. Israel, the sole Jewish majority state, should be large enough to be independently viable in all respects. Simultaneously, the world should help facilitate better lives for Palestinians and Jordanians. This is doable, but in a busy world, names matter, and they often get in the way.

--David Naggar

Dear President Obama, Saying You are Speaking the Truth, and Actually Speaking the Truth, are Two Different Things.

2009-07-01T20:39:00.000-07:00

.

Many Arab Muslims opine that Israel exists because of European atrocities committed in World War II. In Cairo last month, President Obama, in essence, agreed with this presumption regarding the existence of Israel. He stated, "The aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.”

President Obama’s statement is ignorant, untruthful, and disconcerting—disconcerting because many Muslims will simply never accept a Jewish homeland on “holy Islamic territory.” They feel Israel was imposed on them by outside colonial powers.

One can say the Romans came to Judea (present day Israel and environs) as a colonial power. One can say Arabs from present day Saudi Arabia came to present day Israel as a colonial power. But one cannot truthfully say Israel is a colonial power. This is the Jewish homeland. There is no other. In this land, the Jewish identity was forged.

President Obama needs to be more truthful in his rhetoric.

The truth President Obama should speak to Arabs across the Middle East is this: Israel is not a colonial power. Israel does not owe its existence to the hate and misery the world has heaped on Jews. The root of Israel’s existence is not tragedy. And finally, Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people.

Of course, I’m not holding my breath waiting for this President to be truthful with regard to Israel.

President Obama compounded his well crafted but egregious Cairo speech by pressuring Prime Minister Netanyahu to recognize a future Palestinian state in the West Bank.

The President can do this because Israel is not independently viable, and Prime Minister Netanyahu knows this. Reluctantly then, the Prime Minister agreed to accept a Palestinian state on the West Bank. Of course, Netanyahu made this concession contingent on many conditions, conditions that no Palestinian leader could ever accept.

As I’ve written previously, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s list of conditions are disrespectful to Palestinian Arabs. Though disrespectful, Netanyahu’s concession is also disheartening for the future of Israel. Here’s the reason why, in Netanyahu’s own words (December, 2002). It’s worth reading.

“The question is whether in a future settlement, the Palestinians would indeed enjoy self-rule. I, for one, have no desire whatever to rule over even a single Palestinian.

The question is whether we can agree that they have sovereign authority, power that goes beyond self-rule, which every country has. This power would include:

The right to have full control over borders, through which they could import unlimited arms and solders. States control their own air space – a Palestinian state would have the right to shoot down any Israeli plane overflying it without permission. States have the right to make military alliances with other countries – a Palestinian state would have the right to make such alliances with Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc. States control the water sources underground – a Palestinian state would have the right to control the mountain aquifer which supplies about 30 percent of Israel’s water and most of our drinking water. Even those who support the establishment of a Palestinian state are unwilling under any circumstances to give this power to the Palestinians. But the moment we agree to give them a state, that is exactly what we would be giving them!

It must be understood that sovereignty has its own power. Even if an agreement limiting certain sovereign rights were signed, within a short time, this Palestinian state would demand to have all these rights and would realize them, whether we agreed or not.

The world would not stand in the way of allowing the Palestinian state to appropriate all this authority, which would give it the power to destroy the State of Israel, but it would stand in our way if we tried to prevent it from realizing these rights.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu knows his words put Israel in peril. He knows that a Palestinian state on the West Bank makes Israel more vulnerable, and less viable, in many ways. He obviously felt he had no choice given the Obama presidency.

So what happens next? Netanyahu will stall for time and hope world events radically change the political situation. President Obama will continue to pressure Israel.

No doubt, Israel and Palestinian Arabs will be hurt. Only if President Obama recalibrates his thinking—for instance, because of recent events in Iran—can a future calamity be avoided.

President Obama saying he is speaking the truth, and actually speaking the truth, are two different things.

Here are some truths I wish would be at the center of future “peace” efforts.

1. Israeli Jews do not want to govern over Arabs.
2. Few, if any Arabs would choose to live under Jewish sovereignty if they could live in a democratic Arab state. (Not a possibility today).
3. There is plenty of room in the Middle East for everyone.
4. There is room for a Palestinian state somewhere (if Palestinian Arabs really want a separate state).
5. Israeli Jews want to live in a country that is self-sustaining.
6. Neither Israel nor a Palestinian state is viable in the territory world leaders are determined to allocate to each.

It is in the world’s best interest that Israel becomes larger, and that Palestinian Arabs be afforded the opportunity to live better lives. The formation of a feckless, non-viable mini-state won’t help better the lives of Palestinian Arabs (read my book!)

David Naggar

Peace and the Coming Two State Alternatives

2009-06-01T10:25:00.000-07:00

.

As the world stands closer to nuclear catastrophe than it has in years, I believe the Obama administration will be unable to negotiate its way to a solution that successfully ends the conflict between Israel and her neighbors. It is certain that without an American imposition, there will be no diplomatically generated peace agreement that meets the demands of all parties.

Unlike his predecessor, new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not speak of an “inevitable” two-state solution. In fact PM Netanyahu recently refused to consent to Jordanian King Abdullah’s request to back a Palestinian State at all. Instead PM Netanyahu wants to broaden the circle of parties involved in the negotiation in order to bring about peace.

The Prime Minister correctly wants to change the parameters of the discussion to focus on Israeli peace with the Arab/Muslim world. He recognizes that making peace with a minority faction of Palestinian Arabs, will not lead to a permanent peace.

The change of leadership from PM Olmert to PM Netanyahu creates the opportunity for a true peace-bringing dialogue to begin.

It is now politically safe for thoughtful people to offer common sense proposals without being unfairly tarnished as “extremists.” People ignored or derided by the conventional mainstream for years, will now be given a hearing.

All proposed solutions to problems between Arabs/Muslims and Jews, if they are to be considered seriously, must now take into account an Israeli leadership that won’t simply acquiesce to the “forgone conclusion” of a two-state solution within the limited geography of Israel and the territories.

As I’ve said many times, international leaders want a solution. They don’t really care what the solution is. They will now be open to exploring new ideas that, fortunately, are better for Israel and Palestinian Arabs, alike.

Hats off to Israeli Knesset Member Tzipi Hotovely for spearheading a conference entitled "Alternatives to the Two-State Outlook."

At the conference, Israeli political and military leaders such as Moshe Ya’alon, Robert Ilatov, Eli Yishai, Giora Eiland, Uri Elitzur and Benny Elon advanced various options including a Palestinian confederation with Jordan, maintaining the current situation in the West Bank, annexing all of Judea and Samaria, extending Gaza into Egypt, and delaying dealing with the problem until a better opportunity arises.

I believe my approach is geo-strategically more sound. It is respectful to Arabs/ Muslims (including Palestinian Arabs). It calls for properly dealing with Palestinian Arab hardship, and calls for a Jewish state to be a size large enough to be truly independent and thrive.

Read my book.

There is plenty of room in the Middle East for everyone.

--David Naggar

King Abdallah, President Obama, and an Israeli Cure for Deafness

2009-05-01T13:00:00.000-07:00

.

There he goes again. King Abdallah of Jordan was a guest on Meet the Press last week. He said, “Unless we solve the core issue of the Israeli-Palestinian, Israeli-Arab challenges, then we will always be an area of instability that costs all of us… Any crisis that you want to talk about, whether it’s Al Qaida, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, all comes back to the sore -- the emotional issue that is Palestine and Jerusalem. Any conflict that you pick in the Middle East today, ‘all roads lead back to Jerusalem’ is probably be a better way of -- of explaining it.”

The King is an eloquent spokesman. But he has a strong motive for being less than candid. His monarchy in Jordan is unlikely to survive another decade unless a separate Arab Palestinian state is created in a way that leaves Jordanian territory out of the equation. This is why the King forwards the preposterous idea that solving the Israeli-Palestinian problem allows the Israeli-Arab-Muslim problem to be solved and in turn, is the best way for the United States to persuade Iran to back away from a nuclear program.

Unfortunately, David Gregory, the host of Meet the Press is not educated enough on this issue, confrontational enough, or quick witted enough – take your pick – to have asked the King how the dispute between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs/Arab-Muslim world caused Iraq to invade Iran or Kuwait, Syria to sit on Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Egypt to fear Iran, Hezbollah to seek to upend Egypt, the Taliban to attack in Pakistan, genocide in Darfur, etcetera, etcetera.

Hopefully, President Obama won’t be swayed by the eloquent, self-serving, King of Jordan.

Hopefully, President Obama will learn quickly and won’t be swayed by Bush/Clinton era politicians like his Mid-East envoy, George Mitchell, who says: the "two-state solution is the only solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Hopefully, the President won’t strong-arm Israel.

If the President is swayed and does strong-arm Israel, Israel and the free world will pay the price. Israel’s imminent survival may not be at stake by a return to the 1967 borders, but it’s viability as a thriving Jewish state is at stake.

As for the world, the price will be steep. As just one example, think of the medical discoveries that may be lost over time if Israel is prevented from thriving. Recently, Israeli researchers made a discovery regarding the function of small molecules in the inner ears of mice that could lead to a cure of adult deafness. Wouldn’t it be nice to cure adult deafness for all of humanity?

There is plenty of room in the Middle-East for everyone. If the Palestinian Arabs really want their own state, the state should not be feckless. Surrounding Arab states, including Jordan should donate some land to the cause of their brethren. Israel, the only Jewish majority state in the world, should be large enough to be independent and viable well into the future. A thriving Israel benefits the world.

Here’s hoping the world can hear. If not today, then when Israeli medical researchers help cure the deaf.

--David Naggar

Good Luck Prime Minister Netanyahu

2009-04-01T10:40:00.000-07:00

.

In a parting shot to new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert talked about the heartbreaking and painful concessions Israel MUST make, and added "A government whose basis is not saying 'two states for two peoples'... will find itself bearing responsibility for a great calamity."

The former Prime Minister thinks his view is rational. It rests on two premises. One, the creation of a Palestinian State is the only way to keep Israel Jewish in the long run. And two, if Israel does not capitulate to the creation of a 22nd Arab state within the territories, the international community will bring Israel to its knees by treating it worse than apartheid South Africa.

Both premises are wrong (and parenthetically, publicly repeating these assertions as fact, even if they were correct, is a counter-productive negotiating tactic for any Israeli Prime Minister to take).

To judge from his writings, Prime Minister Netanyahu hopes to steer a different course.

Today, in no small part thanks to former President Bush, and former Prime Minister Olmert, the international community has concluded that a two-state solution within the boundaries of Israel and the territories is the only path to peace. But in truth, the international community cares little about the lives of Israelis or Palestinian Arabs. Each member state of the G-7 or the G-20 cares about is its own citizens.

The cost of the extended Middle East conflict for the last 20 years is estimated by India’s Strategic Foresight Group to be $12 trillion. To put this amount in perspective, it is larger than the total outstanding U.S. national debt.

The international community is only looking for this costly problem to be removed, even temporarily, from the world's agenda. International leaders do not care how it is done, and they do not care what the solution is. If they can pressure Israel, they will. If Israel reacts to the pressure, the pressure will keep coming. When Israelis stand united against the pressure, the international community backs down.

When Ariel Sharon said he would not negotiate with Yasser Arafat, the international community pressured Sharon. Then, over time, it stopped the pressure and looked for a different approach because the pressure didn’t work.

It is important to solve the Arab/Muslim-Israeli problem the right way. Otherwise, as weapons become more dangerous and prolific, the region will explode in a much deadlier fashion, and the spillover will contaminate the globe.

For Palestinian Arabs, better solutions exist than a two-state solution within the boundaries of Israel and the territories. Forcing people to live in a feckless mini-state that will be subsidized for as far into the future as can be seen, is no solution. Solving the humanitarian issues facing the Palestinian Arabs will require both a commitment by a united Palestinian populace to stop trying to destroy Israel, and a commitment by other Arab states to stop treating their Palestinian Arab brethren as dirt.

I hope the new Prime Minister will rise to the challenge of putting on trial the behavior of Arab states towards Israel and Palestinian Arabs.

The international community must also be educated to recognize that shoving a four-pound problem into a two-pound bag has never worked. Territorially speaking, cutting the two-pound bag into one pound bags, one for Palestinian Arabs, and one for Israel, will not serve Palestinian Arabs either.

Nor, in the long run, will a one-pound bag work for Jewish continuity in the Middle-East.

For Israel, better solutions exist than a two-state solution within the boundaries of Israel and the territories. Eighty years ago, the international community embraced the idea that justice demands a properly sized Jewish majority state. This is not true today. That generation of leaders had it right. This generation of leaders has it wrong.

Because former Prime Minister Olmert has done so much damage to the future of a viable Israel in the Middle-East, Prime Minister Netanyahu is being pressured from all quarters to go along with the current international will. Rather than do so, I hope Prime Minister Netanyahu reshuffles the diplomatic deck, and has the confidence to ask the international community “What can the 21 Arab states do to have peace with Israel?” rather than the typical “What else can Israel do for peace?”

I hope the new Prime Minister repeatedly insists on pointing out that if Arab states stopped trying to destroy Israel in a thousand subtle ways, and instead either absorbed Palestinian Arabs or gave some of their empty land to Palestinian Arabs, they too could help solve the Mid-East problem.

There is, after all, plenty of room in the Middle East for everyone who lives there now.

Good luck, Prime Minister Netanyahu. I hope you succeed.

--David Naggar

Mr. Netanyahu’s Vision for the West Bank and Gaza is, Among Other Things, Demeaning to Palestinian Arabs

2009-03-01T09:40:00.000-08:00

.

The elections in Israel are over, and the political ugliness of forming a coalition is in progress. It is likely that Benjamin Netanyahu will succeed in this task and become the next Prime Minister of Israel. For Israel’s future, this is a better outcome than the alternative, Tzipi Livni.

In a recent speech at a convention of American Jewish leaders, Ms. Livni said, "we need to give up half of the Land of Israel." Her words were blunt, and stem from a desire, as she puts it, to head off international programs. She plays the hand Israel has been dealt, very weakly. (Parenthetically, how did she determine that the area West of the Jordan River designated by the British less than 100 years ago is the “Land of Israel”?)

A small, truncated Israel will leave the sole Jewish majority state vulnerable and overly dependent on other countries for its survival. And this will be so forever, or at least, until the present world order collapses. There will always be a next international program that must be headed off.

Ms. Livni’s two-state outcome within the confines of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, is untenable for Israel and Palestinian Arabs alike.

Still, I fear, as Prime Minister, Mr. Netanyahu will never say what needs to be said with regard to rightsizing Israel for an enduring future.

At the same convention addresses by Ms. Livni, Mr. Netanyahu said he does not want to govern Palestinians. This is laudable. But he went on to say that Israel had to maintain control of all borders, airspace and electronic traffic.

In other words, Mr. Netanyahu’s vision is of a Palestinian entity on the West Bank and Gaza that is less than a full sovereign state.

Understandably, this will be a non-starter for Palestinian leadership. So what’s the point of pushing for such a deal?

If neither the Livni approach nor the Netanyahu approach can work for both the sole Jewish majority state and Palestinian Arabs simultaneously, then what?

To the despair of many Israelis and Palestinian Arabs, the international community continues to insist that putting four pounds of potatoes into a two-pound bag is perfectly workable. The international community perpetuates misery, no matter how well intended, by pushing a two state solution in this limited space.

Unlike present-day politicians, I believe President Dwight Eisenhower would understand the situation on the ground immediately: He said: If a problem cannot be solved as it is, enlarge it.

The way the dispute is framed internationally—Israel/Palestine—is wrong, and as such, is insolvable. Even if borders are imposed by international force, long-term, the problem cannot be solved between Israel and Palestinian Arabs alone, and it cannot be solved within the confines of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Peace must be between Israel and the Arab/Muslim world. The path to true Israeli viability must be hammered out between Israel and the Arab/Muslim world.

Poorly conceived, self-serving, 20th century borders drawn by the British and French notwithstanding, there is plenty of physical room in the Middle-East for everyone. The Palestinian Arabs need a humanitarian solution to their problems. Creating a 22nd Arab state, a dependent beggar mini-state on the West Bank and Gaza, will not lead them to better lives. Trying to impose Mr. Netanyahu’s not-quite-a-state vision on Palestinian Arabs is delusional, dangerous and demeaning.

It is time for leaders throughout the world to insist that Middle-East land swaps involve all Arab states adjacent to Israel, and that also, resource and land rich Arab states be invited to accommodate and make sacrifices for their Palestinian Arab brethren.

Whether or not these sacrifices one day include the creation of Palestinian state in the region, it is time for Israel to be appropriately larger for all the reasons discussed in my book.

--David Naggar

Hamas Lives, the Long View, and Hoping President Obama Learns to Think Outside of the “Two-State” Box

2009-02-02T14:04:00.000-08:00

.

In 1991, The U.S. thought it defeated Saddam Hussein and waited for the citizens of Iraq to rise against him. Sadly, Saddam was both clever and ruthless, and his regime did not collapse. At great cost, the U.S. went back into Iraq a decade later to remove the tyrant.

It appears that the current Israeli government has chosen not to crush Hamas, perhaps hoping that the residents of Gaza will rise up against Hamas and save Israel the trouble. This is fantasy, I fear, for Hamas is both clever and ruthless. If Israel does not destroy the Hamas that exists today, Hamas will learn from this war, and simply grow stronger.

I am profoundly repulsed by the means by which Hamas pursues its end. I am appalled by Hamas’ goal to destroy Israel. But I respect Hamas for the integrity of its mission.

Undeterred by the obvious, and looking to negotiate a compromise, Jimmy Carter, recently said: Hamas can be trusted. Mr. President, it is Hamas’ stated goal to destroy Israel. Yes, Hamas can be trusted. It can be trusted to destroy Israel if it isn’t destroyed first.

In the coming days, with Hamas’ “victory” behind it, and with great fanfare, Hamas may accede to a tactical lull. But Hamas will never agree to a permanent peace. By failing to destroy Hamas, Israel is playing a game of tactical Russian roulette with the lives of its citizens.

Lt.-Gen. Thomas McInerney, a 35-year veteran of the US Air Force said this about Israel’s reluctance to drive deeper into Gaza, "Your leadership is too sensitive about world opinion.”

This Israeli over-sensitivity is logical on its face, and is a condition of being a State that is not a truly independent actor.

Assuming that Hamas retains power in Gaza, it is highly likely that, having forgone the opportunity to destroy Hamas, Israel will have to pay a much higher price to destroy Hamas in the future. There is no middle ground with Hamas. There is no permanent compromise that can be worked out. There is no room for true negotiation.

The 2008-2009 Gaza war is barely over, if it is indeed over, and with President Obama now at the helm, there will be renewed pressure on Israel to work towards the so-called “two-state” solution with Fatah.

To this end, the United States and the international community are doing their best to prop up Fatah, and starve Hamas. Propping up the corrupt Fatah in the hope of making Arab Palestinian lives better, or even in the hope of Fatah reaching a true peace with Israel, has not worked in the past, and it will not work in the future. The Palestinian Arabs voted for Hamas for a reason. Yet Senator George Mitchell, President Obama’s new Middle East envoy, is under the impression that the dispute between Arabs/Muslims and Israelis is akin to the dispute in Northern Ireland. This is doubtful.

When the shear hate of Israel throughout the Muslim World is reduced exponentially to the hate level of the Irish for the British, I’ll be less skeptical. When Islam undergoes the reform that occurred centuries ago in Christianity and Judaism, I’ll be less skeptical. When Israel is accepted into the EU, I’ll be less skeptical.

In the meantime, it is past time that the world community revisits the assumption that the two-state solution is the way to solve this problem.

It is well established that the manner in which choices are framed has an impact on the decisions people ultimately make. When the Isreal/Jew-Arab/Muslim dispute is framed around the question: “What is the best way to reach a two state solution between Israel and Palestinians?” it directs people’s thinking in the wrong direction.

Kudos to Neil Cavuto of Fox Business News for asking the following question to a pro-Arab guest: “Should “Arab” nations give land to Palestinians to solve Middle-East crisis?” Mr. Cavuto also showed his audience and his guest, a map of the region—Israel marked in red, surrounded by vast Arab lands in a pale color. He followed up by asking his floundering guest, “How small do you want the red dot to be?”

The red dot needs to be larger for Israel to be a truly independent, viable, and livable State well into the future. And at the same time, the world can offer Palestinian Arabs a better life than the one that can be offered through the creation of feckless mini-state, one that sooner or later will be ruled by Hamas; one that sooner or later will destroy or be destroyed.

Let’s hope the next Prime Minister of Israel takes a longer view of matters than Prime Minister Olmert. And let’s hope that President Obama learns to think outside of the “two-state” box.

David Naggar

The Gaza War: Destroying Hamas is the Least Worst Option

2009-01-01T18:32:00.000-08:00

.

Hamas insists on destroying Israel. Israel does not wish to be destroyed. This, in a nutshell, is what made a war between Israel and Hamas inevitable.

As usual, when hostilities break out between Israel and a militarily weaker enemy, there are Arab street protests, calls for an immediate ceasefire, mounting international outrage against Israel, and calls for Israel to stop using “disproportionate force.”

In the coming days, we will learn whether Israel has the resolve to defeat Hamas once and for all, or whether Israel will back down because of international pressure, and let Hamas live to fight another day.

If Israel presses this fight, Israelis and supporters of Israel should feel morally assured that Israel’s use of force is not disproportionate in this case.

No civilized person disputes that war is tragic, and killing is tragic. Yet civilized people also know that it is the duty of a State to confront and end threats to the safety of its citizens. How much force is justified to end Hamas’ multi-year rocket attacks against Israeli civilians? The force necessary to permanently end the threat. Many more people may die in Gaza than in Israel from this war, but that does not make Israel’s force disproportionate. And, it is quite evident from Israeli tactics—tactics that include sending cell phone text message warnings to Gazan residents—that Israel is using all means to keep civilian casualties to a minimum.

One can be simultaneously saddened by an action and know that that action is justified.

Sadly, Israel’s best option from among bad choices is to destroy Hamas. This is so even though perversely, a Hamas defeat may destroy Israel in the long run.

Hamas’ goal, shared by many in the Arab and Muslim world, is to wipe Israel off the face of the map by wearing Israeli society down slowly. The thousands of rocket attacks from Gaza are carried out to frighten, harass and terrorize. Rockets do kill Israelis from time to time, but Hamas has no illusion that these rockets will cause Israel to cease to exist overnight.

Hamas’ long-term goal is advanced when Israelis die. Hamas’ long-term goal is advanced when Palestinian “martyrs” die. With the vision of Hezbollah’s recent success, Hamas knows that it wins this war simply by surviving. Hamas expects that, sooner or later, Israel will be forced by diplomatic and economic pressure to back down and accept a ceasefire. And if Israel backs down, Hamas expects not only glory, but also, international acceptance and greater military strength.

Israel must destroy Hamas, even though destroying Hamas will mean that Fatah will once again rule Gaza. And that means that international pressure will re-intensify to immediately create a two-state solution west of the Jordan River. If this pressure is successful, Israel would be forced to accept borders that will make her resource poor, perpetually dependent as a client-state on Western favors, and also militarily vulnerable to attack from a sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank, mere miles from Israel’s largest cities.

And what if Israel fails to destroy Hamas?

It is ironic that a Hamas victory—and by victory I mean Hamas’ survival—may actually serve Israel’s interests of becoming a truly viable state in the long run.

Consider the fallout from a Hamas victory. A Hamas victory would, sooner rather than later, likely spell the end of Fatah’s power in the West Bank. The international community would cease all pressure on Israel to accept a permanent two-state solution since it could not be expected to do so with an enemy sworn to Israel’s destruction.

A Hamas victory may also lead to the end of the Jordanian monarchy (unless Israel props up the monarchy). The Arabs who reside in the former League of Nations/British Mandate Palestine—Arabs who in the last few decades have come to call themselves Palestinians—are mindful of the fact that Jordan was a part of that Mandate.

If the land mass currently called Jordan comes to be controlled by Hamas, or a likeminded offshoot of the Islamic Brotherhood, it could come to be known internationally as a home of, and for, Palestinian Arabs. The international sense of Palestinian legitimacy to another homeland would dissipate, and Israel would be in a stronger position to assert its need on the international stage for larger and defensible borders. (In 1970, Israel had the opportunity to stand aside and allow Syria and the PLO to destroy Jordan’s monarchy, but Israel sided with the King of Jordan, and Jordan survived. That decision had short-term benefits to Israel, but was probably ill-advised.)

Nevertheless, allowing Hamas to survive as a functioning entity is not a good option for Israel. Hamas will simply refortify and continue to fight. A lesson must be taught to all who wish Israel destroyed.

In this war, Israel must choose between bad options. Israel must stand resolute and destroy Hamas. It must then undertake the challenge of educating the world to the fact that even with Fatah in charge of the West Bank and Gaza, the two-state solution within this limited geography is simply a mistake.

In refusing calls for a two-state solution, Israel must also be resolute. The two-state solution is bad for Israel, and it is bad for Palestinian Arabs. Even a peaceful mini-Palestinian Arab state will be feckless, and dependent on the world’s largess.

Being resolute matters. There can be no wavering. Here’s an example of why this is so.

In a recent Wall Street Journal interview, President Bush takes full credit for the fact that the two-state solution is widely accepted as the proper solution to this dispute. He said it is an example of his strong foreign policy. He said that since others understood that “we can’t change [Bush], let’s join him and try to solve the problem…therefore the two-state solution led by a Palestinian Authority that recognized Israel has now come to be.”

The widely accepted two-state solution isn’t too old (recall my piece on 1988 Democratic Presidential Nominee Michael Dukakis’s platform statement) and yet anyone who doesn’t acknowledge the wisdom of President Bush’s ultimate solution is now labeled an extremist.

President Bush’s firm stand is an example of what happens when people come to accept a position as fixed, firm, and immutable.

Diplomatic solutions bend to fixed parameters.

But rather than taking firm positions, Israel has become the king of pink-line parameters—parameters that are firm one day, and change the next. This is unfortunate.

International diplomatic players will not bend to accommodate a potentially moving position. They will only bend to accommodate a fixed Israeli position.

With a newly fixed Israeli position, the questions asked, and the proposals for resolving the conflict will change.

The question asked will not be—how do we establish a Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza while addressing Israel’s security needs? This question has no solvable answer. It is destructive to Israel and Palestinian Arabs alike. (Read my book for a detailed explanation of why this is so.)

Bear in mind that there is ample room in the vast, under-populated regions of the Middle-East for everyone to live peacefully and to prosper. To avoid future wars, it is time to focus the international community on the right questions.

The questions to ask are—what size does Israel, the sole Jewish majority state, need to be to permanently dissuade or fend off Arab/Muslim aggression? What size must Israel be in order to be a successful, thriving and truly independent State? How does the world community provide better opportunities for Palestinian Arab people to live full and productive lives?

The answer to these questions starts with the destruction of Hamas. It is the least worst option. Sadly, this entails the loss of innocent lives.

The Two State Solution: A Given, Until The Day It Won’t Be.

2008-12-01T09:03:00.000-08:00

.

A black man can’t be elected President of the United States. This was, after all, a “given.”

Unless Israel withdraws to the pre-1967 armistice line, Israel and her Arab neighbors won’t have peace. This is also is accepted as a given.

Let’s compare the two givens.

President-elect Obama could easily have talked himself out of running for the Presidency. Beside the color of his skin, powerful interests backing the “inevitable” Hillary Clinton blocked his road to the Presidency. A politically more seasoned African-American, Colin Powell, took a pass when the office was his to be won rather than rise to the challenge.

Rather than accept the wisdom of the conventional given, President-elect Obama fought and won. Israeli leadership, on the other hand, has talked itself out of fighting for a viable, self-sufficient Israel. They don’t fully stand up to the powerful interests allied against Israel. Israeli leaders ignore national necessity and aspiration. They accept as a given that powerful global interests will never allow Israel to control more territory than it did prior to 1967.

And so, Israeli leadership embraces the conventional given: the so-called two state solution.

The U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, supports the two-state solution and is working hard in her final days to push this idea forward. Amazingly, Ms. Rice does so, in part, because she equates Palestinian hardship to the American civil rights movement of the 1960s. Sadly, she does not see Israel’s struggle against 21 Arab states in the same light.

For all who think as Secretary Rice does, an analogy: Picture a black man living in a very small but nicely kept house in an otherwise white neighborhood filled with dilapidated mansions built on huge estates. Now, envision that the white people hate the black man, and blame the fact their mansions are falling apart on the black man’s very presence. Now picture many of the white people in white hoods burning an image of the black man in effigy to drive the black man out of the neighborhood. One white man in particular, owns no home of his own. He lives in a run-down rental, next door to the black man’s nicely kept house.

Rather than helping this poor white man find an appropriate place to build a nice house on empty land within one of the vast white owned estates, Secretary Rice has concluded that this particular white man—a white man who hates the black man with great passion—can be mollified by building him a tiny house right next door to the black man’s tiny house. To Secretary Rice, the black man, even though surrounded by angry white folks has made it! Not only that, but Secretary Rice wants us to believe that once the poor white man has a tiny house, all the white people will stop hating the black man.

Oh my God!!! Thankfully, she will soon be leaving the stage.

Unfortunately, the two-state solution is the “given” of powerful interests around the world. But the two-state solution, one that harms Israel and Palestinian Arabs alike, is only today’s given. It will be tomorrow’s given only if the people of the world accept it as such. In politics, the only given that is definitive is the one no one stands up to change.

The call for a larger Israel—a state that is properly sized to be durable, successful, and self-sustaining in good and bad economic times—is considered a non-starter in the halls of power. But making it a reality is no more of a fantasy than a black man’s successful quest for the Presidency of the United States.

On January 20th, 2009, Barack Obama will be sworn in as President of the United States. He fought and changed the given that precluded him from the White House.

The given of a two-state solution must be fought and changed as well. In the long-term, it is destructive to the well being of Israel, Palestinian Arabs, and to regional peace. When the powerful interests no longer abide by this given, but rather look to alternative remedies such as those found in my book, Israel will no longer be impeded from becoming a truly self-sustaining state—one that contributes mightily to the greater good of humanity. Palestinian Arabs will no longer be impeded from living better and more prosperous lives. And the vast majority of Muslims and Arabs, people who care more about their children than hating Israel, will no longer be impeded from making real peace with Israel.

I, for one, am hopeful that in January, the incoming President of the United States will studiously revisit the “given” of a two-state solution. It is my hope that in February, new leadership in Israel will help him do so. Like the impossible election of Mr. Obama, the tragedy of pursuing a two-state solution is only a given, until the day it won’t be.

--David Naggar

A Winning Strategy for Israel’s Next Prime Minister—Begin by Going on Offense!

2008-11-02T21:54:00.000-08:00

.

Only time will tell if Tzipi Livni’s failure to form a government ultimately works to her advantage.

Ron Ben-Yishai, a reporter injured on more than one occasion while covering Israel’s wars, correctly framed the big problem facing the next Prime Minister.

He said, “What we lack today is a winning strategy. Such strategy would enable us to successfully cope with the “slow destruction” strategy used by Iran, Syria, and radical Islamic elements to undermine Israel’s staying power and ultimately wipe it off the map.”

He’s right. What Israel lacks is a winning strategy.

Ms. Livni’s strategic aim of confining Israel to, more or less, the 1949 armistice lines that held until 1967, is the wrong strategy. Therefore, it is in Israel’s interest that she not be Prime Minister.

She, like Prime Minister Olmert, does not have a winning strategy to bring long-lasting peace to Israel. A winning strategy would ensure that Israel would be a strong, self-reliant, and independently viable state well into the future. Her strategic success might bring a lull in fighting, but would leave Israel weak, and in danger of failing as a state at some point down the line.

So, what would a winning strategy entail? First, going on offense.

Defense may win football games, but offense wins political games.
In politics, when you are on defense, you are losing the game.

President Clinton was first elected to the presidency because James Carville, Clinton’s campaign strategist, played offense and kept George Bush’s team on defense the entire campaign. Bush lost on defense. Clinton won on offense.

In the arena of international politics, Israel predominantly plays defense. It never challenges the status quo that Israel must give up land for peace. It barely challenges corrupt Arab regimes. It never tries to reach Arab people who for the most part hate their own regimes because of the known corruption. It never challenges Islam, yes Islam, to be its best self and fairly share the land of the Middle-East with the Jews of Israel. It never challenges Jordan’s monarchy to honor the agreement of the current King’s great uncle (an agreement made with Jewish leaders about 90 years ago that, in part, called for the reestablishment of a “moderate and proper” sized Jewish state that is larger than Israel is today).

Rather, Israel plays defense. It answers all charges. It sweats, for instance, whether or not to let “Free Gaza” protesters sail into Gaza. It gets mired in nuance. It too seldom goes on offense.

Today, Israel is too small for the good if its own people. It is too small for the good of humanity. And there are better ways to solve the Palestinian Arab humanitarian issues than to create a 22nd Arab State that is bound to be disaster for its residents and the region.

It is time to confront current Israeli leadership’s insistence on playing defense. It is a losing game, and Israel is losing.

One need not be bombastic to go on offense. When Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Empire an evil Empire, he was on offense. The international press at first was shocked, but most people, especially in the Soviet Union, knew it was the truth. When he asked Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, Reagan was on offense. When he pursued “Star Wars,” he was on offense. No bullet was ever fired, no war ever came, and no soldier ever died. But the debate, even within the Soviet Union, changed. The cold war ended.

Like the Soviet Union, Israel’s enemies have a lot of explaining to do (just read my book). But they will never be properly questioned or scrutinized in the court of world public opinion unless and until Israel has a Prime Minister who is willing to go on offense.

He or she should start by proclaiming that it is unjust for Israel, the sole Jewish majority state, to be confined to tiny borders when there is so much empty land in the Arab and Muslim world in need of owners, citizens and workers, and so much oil wealth available to help them prosper.

--David Naggar

These Are Normal Days, Ms. Livni.

2008-10-01T08:26:00.000-07:00

.

After being named Prime Minister-designate, Tzipi Livni told reporters: "These are not normal days for Israel. There are great diplomatic and economic challenges facing it." (Emphasis added).

But the reality is: these are precisely normal days for Israel. There are always great diplomatic and economic threats. The question is: what does tiny Israel do to change the normal days into better days?

The cost of normal days for the past sixty years—threats of war and economic boycotts—has been the cementation of a society that is too often on edge, anxious and temperamental. Normal days means that Israel has been unable to become an outwardly loving, warm and gentle society of high justice and morality that serves as a light to other nations.

The continued bellicose threats from enemies dedicated to Israel’s destruction have caused great internal strife. Sometimes the internal strive even exists within one person. Prime Minister Olmert now claims that he was wrong for thirty-five years, and that the only way to peace is through the same type of concessions that did not work in Lebanon, have not worked in Gaza, and have been rejected by Arab counterparts for 60 years.

Israel is now militarily and financially dependent on the United States. This is because Israel is not the necessary size to thrive peacefully and live as a full partner with other nations. Its diminutive size prevents it from maximally contributing towards the betterment of humanity.

These are normal days, Ms. Livni. But normal days must end.

The Times (of London) had it right nearly 90 years ago. The Jordan River “will not do as Palestine’s (the future Jewish state–ed.) eastern boundary. Our duty as Mandatory,” the Times proclaimed in reference to the British who were chosen by the world to act as mandatory, “is to make Jewish Palestine not a struggling state but one that is capable of a vigorous and independent national life.”

But sympathy for the plight of Jews has waned on the world stage, and times have put enormous pressure on Israel.

Under the current political course, Israel is a struggling state. Under the current political course, Israel’s national life is far from independent. Under the current political course, diplomatic and economic challenges will continue indefinitely until Israel collapses.

Of course, Israel might survive as a failed nuclear state for some time, but Israel’s days of contribution will diminish as the enlightened and able abandon the dream, abandon the vision, and finally abandon an uncivil society. Just like the disappearing non-Muslim communities throughout the former Ottoman Empire, the Jews of Israel will be worn down to a point of capitulation.

As Yasser Arafat said after signing the Oslo Accords, “We will make life unbearable for the Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion; Jews won’t want to live among us Arabs.”

It may be shocking, but like Lehman Brothers, Israel is not too big for the world to let fail.

The assumptions of the country’s leaders—that the road to peace and prosperity runs through the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza—must change, or the country must change its leaders. There is plenty of real estate throughout the Middle-East for everyone to peacefully co-exist.

A peace deal between Israel and her Arab neighbors that only temporarily replaces normal days with better days is no peace deal at all.

True peace will address the humanitarian needs of Palestinian Arabs within the context of 21 independent countries that presently control 99.8% of the greater Middle-East. And true peace will allow Israel to flourish, be truly independent of all other countries, and lead to perpetual better days so that Israel and Israelis can live in a just, moral and civil society that contributes mightily to the good of all humanity—truly a light to others nations.

-- David Naggar

Kosovo, Georgia, Power Politics and Israel

2008-09-02T12:19:00.000-07:00

.

The world is purposefully divided into nation-states. The powerful countries of the world long ago figured out that trade works better than colonialism.

The idea behind the nation-state system is that each State takes care of business within its own boundaries and doesn’t interfere with whatever goes on in the territory of all other states. Of course, this doesn’t always happen. There are international laws to consider, IGOs (such as the World Bank), NGOs, foreign economic pressures, and so on.

But the territorial status quo is protected as best it can in the halls of power. All ethnic-territorial disputes are attempted to be resolved within the boundaries of each State, with no spill over. Hence, the lunacy of trying to impose a two-state solution within the borders of Israel and the territories, rather than involving the territory of Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Jordan or Saudi Arabia in solving this geographical puzzle.

But this year, there has been a major crack in the idea of the territorial integrity of smaller states.

The first crack was the U.S. approved Kosovo declaration of independence. In February, Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed claims that Kosovo was a "special case" as the United States maintains.

Putin argued that Kosovo was in the same category as the separatist conflicts in parts of the former Soviet Union, such as Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Trans-Dniester.

He said Russia, a traditional ally of Serbia, has "a ready-made plan and we know what we are going to do".

Well, in the past two weeks we learned what Putin and the Russians decided to do. They couldn’t military prevent the United States from changing the “world order” balance of power in Kosovo. So the Russians changed the “world order” balance of power in Georgia.

Officials in Israel decided that it was in Israel’s interest not to speak out about these border changes. They neither embraced nor denounced the new status quo in Kosovo or Georgia.

But the precarious situation in Kosovo and the Georgian break away provinces “complicates” matters for the Israeli advocates of the two-state solution. These advocates have always refuses to acknowledge the obvious—the land mass of Israel and the territories is too small to successfully house the sole Jewish State and another Arab state. These advocates have also refused to acknowledge that the solutions embraced by the international community in the first half of the 20th century—separating potentially antagonistic populations—though imperfect, is better than the alternative of clashing peoples.

Separation, though currently an out of favor solution, is worthy of public advocacy. Peacemakers and Noble Prize winners once championed it. In the first half of the 20th century, populations were separated in Greece and Turkey, and German ethnics were moved to Germany. But no one moved people in the area that was once Yugoslavia.

Where populations were separated, there has been peace. And where they weren’t separated, there has been trouble.

Now because Russia and the United States are both permanent members of the UN Security Council with veto power, that means that the UN will never recognize either Kosovo or the break away Georgian provinces. Kosovo and the breakaway provinces of Georgia will act as independently as they can, guarded by their respective protectors.

The U.S.-Russian crisis presents a global problem, as ethnic minorities worldwide take heart from the Kosovar and Georgian precedents.

The U.S. had hoped to put the Kosovo genie back in the “special case” bottle by pressuring Russia economically to get out of Georgia. But NATO allies won’t make a move against Russia because they are afraid of losing their oil supply from Russia, not to mention being afraid of Russia’s military power.

Serbian President Boris Tadic is, of course, livid about Kosovo’s declared independence. He said, "Imagine you were in my place— the president of a country, which has been deprived of a territory against its will. How would you feel and how would you respond? I'm asking this question of you because if you cast a blind eye to this illegal act, who guarantees to you that parts of your countries will not declare independence in the same way?"

How does this effect Israel?

The Kosovar and Georgian situations, set precedents for a similar declaration of independence by Palestinian Arabs should final-status negotiations drag on without tangible results.

Also, Israel's Arab minority might one day use such a precedent to secede from Israeli areas heavily populated by Arabs, such as the Western Galilee.

Further, should Arab countries that surround Israel decide that they are strong enough to attack Israel, even long after the implementation of a two-state solution, the pretext of protecting Israel’s ethnic minority Arabs would readily be available to the invaders.

Protecting ethnic minorities is the pretext Russians used in Georgia, and that’s the pretext Germany used to invade Poland in World War II.

In the meantime, the odd-on favorite to become the next Prime Minister, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, repeats that in a peace deal with the Palestinians, Israel would need to cede parts of the country.

Like all advocates of the two-state solution, she refuses to acknowledge that the geography of Israel and the territories combined is too small to successfully house the only Jewish State and another Arab state. And she does not understand that solution embraced by the international community in the first half of the 20th century—separating antagonistic populations—though imperfect, is ultimately more moral that than the immorality that will surely follow if Israel is permanently made too small to ever achieve self-sufficiency, and Palestinian Arabs are granted the creation of a 22nd, non-viable Arab State, rather than having their individual needs met in a humanitarian way.

There is plenty of room in the Middle-East for everyone who now lives in the Middle-East. Israel and the territories combined comprise only two-tenths of one percent of the region. It is not the only land available in which people can live.

Sadly, Foreign Minister Livni’s negotiating mindset is made clear by her words: "If we don't [cede territory], we will be forced to give up aspects of our ultimate goal: to establish Israel as a Jewish, democratic and secure state.”

This is flat out wrong. And for Israel, Livni's public statements are counter-productive. With cracks in the nation-state system, and events unfolding the way they are between the United States and Russia, Israel is playing its international diplomatic hand as if it has no cards to play. But Israel has cards. Until alternative fuels replace oil, the United States needs its only dependable ally in the Middle-East now more than ever. This allows Israel more room to maneuver, not less.

Israeli politicians should ask themselves, “after the two-state solution, then what?” The answer is, there will not be peace. There will still be a pretext for the next attack because of the millions of Arabs living in Israel and the new schism between Russia and the United States over the territorial integrity of each nation-state in the face of ethnic tension.

Properly incentivizing those Palestinian Arabs willing to relocate is the right thing to do, and should be publicly advocated. It is moral, especially if no one is forced to move against his or her free will.

Israel’s long-term survival and prosperity are more likely to be attained if Israel becomes a larger, self-sufficient, viable state, not a smaller resource-challenged state at the mercy of its neighbors, or Russian—American games of power politics.

--David Naggar

Mr. Prime Minister, Please Just Go Quietly

2008-08-01T08:38:00.000-07:00

.

It is good news for Israel that Prime Minister Olmert has finally declared that he is leaving the stage. Though a quick collapse of the government is possible, the nature of Israeli politics being what it is, his time in office may unfortunately linger into next year. Most disturbing, for Israel, Palestinian Arabs and the rest of humanity is that he appears to want to sign a “peace deal” before he goes.

As I’ve said before, a peace deal that exchanges Israel’s long-term viability for unworkable borders and a peace of paper—even if the paper is guaranteed by the United States—is a peace whose price is too high.

First, no such paper guarantee is reliable. Consider retired Israeli Major General Yaakov Amidror’s account of a private conversation with Henry Kissinger: When asked for American guarantees in exchange for Israeli territorial concessions, Kissinger explained that South Vietnam had international guarantees from twenty countries. Kissinger went on to say that when North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam, no country took his telephone calls. The implication of the conversation was clear to General Amidror. Do not risk withdrawing to the 1967 borders on the basis of American guarantees.

But more importantly, as a state that currently fails to meet RAND Corporation criteria for successful independent existence, Israel’s return to the pre 1967 borders would increase the chances of its ultimate demise. This, of course, is exactly what Israel’s many enemies—who dwell within countries that already comprise 99.8% of the regional territory—expect over time.

But Israel’s demise would not make the lives of Palestinian Arabs better in the long run. Israel’s demise will not lead to regional peace. And Israel’s demise would not advance the interests of humanity around the globe, humanity that benefits from the scientific and medical advancements that occur in Israel.

Undoubtedly, a frenzied last minute push by the Bush Administration for “peace,” (i.e., a return to, more or less, what Abba Eban called the Auschwitz borders) will include many guarantees that will come with an unacceptable price: an Israeli commitment to be, at the very least, forever crippled. Deplorably, it appears that the Prime Minister is intent on figuring out how to pay this price.

For the sake of Israel, better lives for Palestinian Arabs, long-term regional peace, and humanity, Mr. Prime Minister, please just go quietly.

Please read The Case for a Larger Israel for details regarding the military, economic and social perils Israel faces within the inadequate geographical territory of the pre 1967 borders. Please read it to see that there are other options for Palestinian people other than to be herded like cattle into a mini-state that is sure to fail and cause misery.

--David Naggar

Trading Prisoners—An Addendum

2008-07-18T11:33:00.000-07:00

.

The prisoner swap is now complete. A convicted murderer, among others, has been released in exchange for bodies and closure. The Prime Minister and other Israeli leaders argue that it was necessary to pay this heavy price because Israeli cohesiveness demands that no soldier be left behind.

When the emotional satisfaction of taking the purported moral high grounds fades away, the strategic price Israel paid and will continue to pay will become sadly apparent.

If it was moral and necessary under these particular circumstances to release an unrepentant murderer—one who still plans to pursue the destruction of Israel—hasn’t Israeli leadership just incentivized Israel’s enemies to create the same “necessary and moral conditions” next time?

My heart goes out to Smadar Haran, the families of the police officers murdered, and the Regev and Wasserman families. My heart also goes out to the family of the next murder victims, and the next captured soldiers. Though you are nameless at the moment, your pain in the future has been made all the more certain this past week.

Bad long-term policy is often made when leadership sacrifices the common good for heart-wrenching immediate aims.

A vulnerable and weak-acting Israel will never be able to make true peace with its neighbors—only a truly independent, strong, and viable Israel can.

--David Naggar

Mr. Prime Minister Olmert, Accommodating the Short-Term Goals of Israel’s Enemies, including “Trading Prisoners,” Is Counter-Productive

2008-07-01T13:36:00.000-07:00

.

A new WorldPublicOpinion poll of people in 18 countries reveals that a majority of those people blame both sides in what is referred to as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and they don’t want their governments to take sides. This should come as no surprise.

When I was an active lawyer, judges never wanted to hear both sides of the story in a dispute between the lawyers. They were busy and simply assumed that somehow both lawyers were to blame. This allowed for one side, usually the side with deeper pockets, to abuse the other.

And so it was, and so it is.

The rest of the world is too busy to really care what happens in Israel and its environs, as long it doesn’t affect them. They don’t pay close attention and are happy to cast blame on everyone.

In a thousand ways Israeli leadership bends to Arab demands to prove to the world that Israel is “the good guy” in the dispute. Their reason? 1) The hope that one day its neighbors will let Israel exist in an area that is objectively too small for it to be truly self-reliant and independent or 2) That the world will notice Israel’s current good will and therefore not rush to condemn it when the next war breaks out.

With history and polls as a guide, Israel will get no long-term credit for bending to Arab demands. This fact seems lost on current Israeli leadership.

Today, by all accounts the Prime Minister of Israel is working hard to conclude a deal with Hezbollah in which, Samir Kuntar, a prisoner “with blood on his hands,”—that is, a murderer—and other prisoners are exchanged by Israel for information about a long dead Israeli airman and the bodies of two IDF soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah in 2006 and presumed dead.

This is folly.

By sheer brut strength Hezbollah has forced itself into the dominant position of Lebanese politics.

Did the people of world care enough to stop this? No.

Hezbollah will not be disarmed as was agreed to by the terms of UN Resolution 1701, a condition of the ending of the 2006 Lebanon War. (But then, every diplomat around the world, including Israeli diplomats knew Hezbollah wouldn’t be disarmed, and today, Israeli warnings that Hezbollah is rearming and building new military infrastructure in the areas north and south of the Litani River are ignored).

Did the people of world care enough to do anything about it? No.

Yet because of international pressure, Israel felt forced to abandon its goal of eliminating Hezbollah as a serious existential threat to Israel.

Would the people of the world have done anything meaningfully harmful to Israel had it finished the job? No.

Israel should have taken the heat and finished the job. The international anger would have ended when the people of the world moved to the next topic.

Presently, Israel will get little additional long-term credit and little additional long-term debit for doing either what is perceived to be right or wrong.

And that is why Prime Minister Olmert’s bending to negotiate with Hezbollah over prisoners is shortsighted.

It just serves as “proof” that both sides must somehow be to blame for their conflict.

And it gives Hezbollah added legitimacy in international circles. If Israel can negotiate with Hezbollah, every country is more free to do so. Hezbollah’s place, as the inevitable heirs to governing Lebanon, becomes more certain.

Hezbollah could teach current Israeli leadership plenty about how to negotiate.

Years ago when Israel withdrew its troops from Lebanon the UN concluded that Israel no longer occupied any Lebanese territory. But Hezbollah simply refused to accept the UN’s conclusion, and continued to use a canard of continued Israel presence on Lebanese territory as a pretext to keep fighting Israel. Now under Hezbollah pressure the UN will reconsider which country, Syria or Lebanon “owns” this “disputed” area called Shebaa Farms.

By being a disrupting pain, the world rushes to appease if appeasement is even remotely possible. Why? Because the people of the world wish to avoid trouble from spreading to them. It’s that simple.

For Israel, negotiating over prisoners with Hezbollah (and Hamas) leads to two short-term things. The first is that Israel might, for a price, win the release of a kidnap victim (or information or remains). The second is that it invites the next kidnapping to occur. How foolish.

In the eyes of the world, current Israeli negotiating strategy treats enemies who demand Israel’s destruction as good-faith equals.

But Israel’s leaders will at most receive from its neighbors more pieces of paper that, for the time being, allow it to live in an area that is objectively too small for it to be truly self-reliant and independent.

Current Israeli leadership does not recognize that the current international handwriting on the wall—a smaller Israel—is not forever true. It is nothing more than today’s graffiti.

In the long-term, if Israel is to thrive, Israel must to be large enough to be self-sufficient and a more important partner in the world community. This goal of self-sufficiency must be perceived by the world to be non-negotiable. Israel must repeat and repeat that it will not become a modern day pre-world war II era Czechoslovakia.

Since the majority of the people of the world will not care how the Israeli-Palestinian/Hamas/Hezbollah/Arab/Muslim problem is solved, it might as well be solved in a way the benefits Israel, Palestinian people, and humanity.

But until the problem is solved, like all semi-distracted judges, the world will find plenty of blame to go around for Israel, Palestinians, the rest of the local Muslim Arabs and, of course, the United States.

For Prime Minister Olmert and Israel, a renewed first negotiating step that must be taken to move the negotiation of a permanent solution forward on favorable terms (a larger, self-sufficient, independently viable Israel) is this: Stop accommodating the short-term goals of Israel’s enemies.

--David Naggar

Mr. Prime Minister, There You Go Again

2008-06-01T20:21:00.000-07:00

.

As Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert continues his effort to extract himself from his personal problems, he does what he can to turn Israel’s attention towards “peace negotiations.” As part of his campaign, he now states that only delusional people think Israel can keep post-'67 borders.

He does Israel no favor by conceding the size of Israel. This Prime Minister’s effort to ingratiate himself to the international community is exacerbating Israel’s larger existential problems.

World leaders are indifferent to the manner of solution of the Arab/Muslim-Israeli problem. They just want the problem off the international table.

Just as it would be fine with world leaders if Arabs conceded the establishment of a twenty-second Arab State, if Israel’s Prime Minister concedes Israel’s future, that’s fine too. Any resolution will do.

Besides being a weak negotiating tactic, consider how the Prime Minister arrives at his conclusion that Israel must shrink in size, and that only delusional people could question this inevitability.

Olmert’s current way of thinking—it was not always so—made its way onto the scene sometime in the last 20 years. It derives from this truism: Israel cannot survive as a Jewish state if it has too many non-Jewish Arab citizens.

But there is more that underlies the Prime Minister’s thinking than this.

He goes beyond the truism and into the realm of shortsighted speculation when he assumes that no Arab will ever move from Israel or the territories. It is on the basis of this assumption that he concludes that in order to keep its Jewishness, Israel has no choice but to be smaller.

Mr. Prime Minister, there are options to resolving the Arab/Muslim-Israeli problem other than making Israel smaller. Polls show that many Palestinian Arabs would be eager to move from Israel and the territories under the right circumstances. Consider:

What if a person’s move is voluntary? What if there are internationally sanctioned incentives to help make the decision the right one for one’s family and future? What if the surrounding Arab dictatorial regimes were pressured by the international community to be more accommodating of Israel and Palestinian Arabs? What if a properly sized Israel and Palestinian State were both stamped onto the map?

What if no one who didn’t want to move was forced to move? What if Arabs living in Israel could decide if they wanted to accept that they lived in a Jewish State--and those Arabs who decided not to accept that they lived in a Jewish State still stayed, but were granted citizenship of one of the twenty one neighboring Arab States that comprise 99.8% of the area surrounding Israel?

Yes, there are many options for the international community to consider other than the establishment of a non-viable mini Palestinian State and the forcing of Israel to be undersized. But no credible world leader will propose any such solution if the sitting Prime Minister of Israel publicly advocates the shrinking of Israel.

The Prime Minister ignores the ebb and flow of history when he concedes that Israel must withdraw to, more or less, what Abba Eban called the Auschwitz borders.

Just consider this 1988 statement from the “left of center” Democratic nominee for President of the United States, Michael Dukakis. “Israel needs room to breathe, and a return to the 1967 borders is out of the question.”

How far we have come is such a short time.

The failure of Jewish and Israeli media relations over the course of the last twenty years boggles the mind. It has taken only twenty years for “the right” to move more to the left than the left was back then. And “the left” is now off the chart in its anti-Israel view.

The world now sees the problem as one of Israeli oppression of stateless Palestinians rather than one of Arab/Muslim denial of Israeli Jews' moral right to have ample territory to thrive and contribute to humanity’s goodwill. The world does not view the problem as an existential struggle of tiny Israel to survive in the midst of hostile Arab/Muslim neighbors.

The San Francisco Chronicle—home of America’s left—is typical in its contempt for Israel. It runs pictures of frightened Palestinian women and children alongside articles that report on “Israeli military attacks”. Israel’s purpose of targeting those responsible for rocket attacks on Israeli civilians from Gaza is intentionally obfuscated.

And consider an unrelated headline from the Chronicle from March 2008. “Democracy’s First Day In Tiny Bhutan.” Lost on the Chronicle staff, I am sure, is that TINY Bhutan is 67% larger than Israel and the territories combined.

Don’t expect the Chronicle to be reporting on TINY Israel soon. Don’t expect the Chronicle to start its coverage with a dose of history or even a map of Israel’s hostile, non-democratic and NON-TINY neighbors.

And don’t expect anyone outside of Israel to challenge the wisdom of Prime Minister Olmert’s view. Olmert’s view, because he is the Prime Minister of Israel, is the ceiling of acceptable aspiration for Israel. If the sitting Prime Minister says a counterview is delusional, those offering such a view will be seen as delusional.

As with most people who agree with the Prime Minister’s vision of a two-state solution within the confines of Israel and the territories, the following question is derided and dismissed without answer: What if Israel can’t survive in the long run as anything other than a failed nuclear State in its pre (plus or minus) '67 borders?

It is from the false certainty that a larger Israel is unnecessary for the welfare of its citizens that the Prime Minister hurls the “delusional” barb at those who do not share his worldview.

This Prime Minister is shortsighted and plain wrong. It is not delusional to think that it is fair, just and beneficial to humanity that Israel’s final borders are larger. It is not delusional to think a larger Israel is necessary for the welfare of its citizens. There is plenty of room in the under-populated Middle-East for everyone.

It is however delusional, even if well intended, for Prime Minister Olmert to think that voluntarily shrinking Israel will lead to a golden age of true Israeli independence, peace and prosperity. Making Israel smaller and creating a non-viable Palestinian State will not benefit Israelis, Jews, Palestinians, the interests of peace, and/or humanity at large.

Until the day that the planet is no longer divided into nation-states, Israel must be large enough to thrive and be self-sustaining in global good times and bad; that is, in times of free trade and national retrenchment.

Palestinian issues must be addressed in a way that offers Palestinians better lives, rather than the creation of new arbitrary Arab State lines that flow from the ash heap of France and Great Britain’s 20th century imperialistic adventures.

I, myself, will continue to champion a long-term viable Israel. I have no illusions that this will come tomorrow. My hope for tomorrow is only that it will bring a new Prime Minister—one who has a deeper appreciation of the need for improved media relations, a better understanding of negotiation on the world stage, and a longer-term vision of Israel's place among the nations.

--David Naggar

Another Reason for Israel to be Larger—The Global Rice Shortage

2008-05-01T08:24:00.000-07:00

.

As Israel prepares to celebrate its 60th birthday, the drumbeat of war grows louder from Iranian backed Hamas and Hezbollah. This is a clear and present danger to Israel.

It is indisputable that militarily, a larger Israel would have an easier time defending itself. Yet many argue that when there is peace, Israel’s size—i.e., back to its approximate pre-1967 borders—won’t matter.

But size does matter. There are many reasons other than military ones that require Israel to be larger. One such reason is adequate territory for growing the food necessary to feed its people.

Today’s headlines are splashed with news of a global rice shortage. Rice is even being rationed at the big box stores in the United States.

The U.S. housing crisis has given rise to a global credit crunch and forced institutional deleveraging. Oil prices have soared. Prices of potash and other products necessary in food production are going through the roof. And food prices are rising rapidly.

There are protests and riots around the world stemming from a lack of food availability and high prices. Poorer countries in Asia and Africa are erecting new export barriers because of the food crisis.

India’s finance minister P. Chidambaram was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying “There is no place in the world that grows the food we need if we’re forced to import.” Therefore we have to be nearly self-sufficient.”

What about Israel?

If a country the size of India demands itself to be self-sufficient, Israel too must demand itself be self-sufficient.

There is a rise in Nationalism. Countries are reasserting control over their people and their borders. Globalization has created a great deal of new wealth but the wealth is unevenly distributed so its wisdom is being challenged more forcefully in many corners of the world. Israel has been a beneficiary of globalization, and even a modest return of national fervor will take a toll on Israel.

Israel, the sole Jewish majority state in the world, must be self-sufficient in good global economic times and in bad. Bad economic times may isolate Israel.

Israel must not only be self-sufficient in its ability to defend itself and supply its own energy needs, it must also be self-sufficient in its ability to feed its growing population. Israel is one of the most densely populated countries in the world.

In a region that has more than enough land for all its inhabitants, Israel is deprived of sufficient land to take care of itself. It sits on much less than one percent of the land in its vastly under-inhabited region.

Global rice shortages and national export barriers? What about bread? Israel today imports 85% of its milling wheat.

What would happen to Israel if it were cut off?

When the world spirals out of control, as it may be doing now, and as history shows it will from time to time, being a good global trading partner is not enough.

An undersized Israel is at risk of withering one day. It would then survive, if it survives, merely as a failed nuclear state. This is not a proper future for Israel. Israel must be encouraged to thrive, not only for its citizens, but also for all the good that Israeli agriscience brings to the world.

For example, water-saving drip irrigation used throughout the world was perfected in Israel. When the future needs of the yet unborn around the globe become even greater, a thriving Israel will be in much better shape to stand with other countries in the creation of new methods and techniques to feed the hungry.

Israel must insist that it live on territory large enough to be self-sufficient in all respects. The international community should encourage peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors such that Israel winds up larger, and Palestinian Arabs are put on a path to better lives rather than being condemned to live in a failed mini-state.

In a world that will face increasing difficult agricultural issues, a larger Israel will be a strong global partner in the effort to ensure that our children, and our children’s children have enough water to drink, and bread and rice to eat. A larger, thriving, self-sufficient Israel is in humanity’s interest.

--David Naggar

Thank You King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia

2008-04-01T08:59:00.000-07:00

.

This past week saw the most astonishing piece of news. It deserves significantly more coverage by the media than it has received.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has offered to hold an interfaith conference with Christians and Jews.

People are suspicious of his motivation. I am not. I welcome the news.

I concede that, in part, he may be motivated by a realization that a particular view of Islam that he does not personally share, is gaining traction in parts of Saudi Arabia. Many of his oil resources are in a traditionally Shi’a part of his Kingdom, but his royal line is Sunni.

Maybe he senses the growing ability of Al Qaida to regroup, and he fears a withering US resolve to fight it.

Maybe he is concerned that thirty years from now his oil resources will be depleted or irrelevant to the world economy, and he understands the need to modernize and integrate his country in the post-oil global economy.

But maybe he truly appreciates verse 5:48 of the Quran that does not talk of conquering other religions but in essence states that Muslims are to compete in righteousness with Christians and Jews.

“Then we revealed to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming previous scriptures, and superseding them. You shall rule among them in accordance with God’s revelations, and do not follow their wishes if they differ from the truth that came to you. For each of you, we have decreed laws and different rites. Had God willed, He could have made you one congregation. But He thus puts you to the test through the revelations He has given each of you. You shall compete in righteousness. To God is your final destiny--all of you--then He will inform you of everything you had disputed.”

No matter the motive, the King’s openness to religious dialogue is the light that can redirect the Middle-East away from the abyss.

David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, mistakenly believed that Israel should keep religion out of the discourse between Israel and her neighbors.

But here we are. The issue always was and still is whether a Jewish State can peacefully and prosperously exist within a Middle-East that is dominated by Muslims.

I say it can, but only after religious dialogue and rapprochement.

It is time to speak frankly and honestly about religion.

It is time to spread the word within Islam that Jews are not evil, that Jews do not drink Muslim blood, and that Jews do not want to kill or displace all Arabs from the Nile to the Euphrates.

It is time to speak frankly about what is, and is not Islamic holy land, Jewish holy land and Christian holy land.

It is time to speak about what is and is not freedom, what are human rights, and what is demeaning about subrogation rules such as dhimmi.

It is time to confirm that Israel is not a Christian outpost and not the continuation of the Crusades.

It is time to present evidence and discuss whether or not the site of the Jewish Temple is where the Jews say it is, and whether or not Muhammad’s night journey occurred on this same property. There is no point fighting over land if one of the parties concludes it may be mistaken about location after all.

There is much to discuss in the interfaith dialogue. A great deal of good can come from it because there will be no peace in this land without religious harmony.

Each religion must do more than tolerate the others. Each would be well served to embrace the vision of verse 5:48 of the Quran regarding God’s choice in purposefully making separate congregations to compete in righteousness.

With this in mind, it is time for Israel to ask the entire Muslim world to live side by side with the single Jewish State. It is time for Israel to humbly ask its neighbors for a sufficient plot of land to properly compete in righteousness. To properly compete, Israel must be large enough to be independently viable and successful on its own.

It is time for a larger Israel—one that will still be less than 1% of the land on which Muslims live, but one that will live peacefully with its larger neighbors and righteously contribute to the benefit of all humankind.

King Abdullah, I sincerely thank you for offering to hold an interfaith conference. It’s high time one occurs.

--David Naggar

Israel Is Not Disproportionately Aggressive, It is Disproportionately Good

2008-03-03T13:06:00.000-08:00

.

Here we go again.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned what he described as Israel's "excessive and disproportionate" use of force in the Gaza Strip.

"While recognizing Israel's right to defend itself, I condemn the disproportionate and excessive use of force that has killed an injured so many civilians, including children," Ban told the emergency session of the council. "I call on Israel to cease such attacks," he said.

Well, nothing new here.

As usual, Israel is being accused of applying a “disproportionate use of force” against people who publicly call for its annihilation.

What does Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon think Israel is supposed to do to properly defend its citizens?

This is not a question that the Secretary-General concerns himself with. The truth is, the Secretary-General expects Israel to manage and cope with the problem, not end it.

The UN continues to be a disproportionate disappointment.

When the U.S. was attacked by Al-Qaeda living in Afghanistan on 9/11, the world joined as the U.S. used overwhelming force to mitigate the possibility that another attack would occur. There was no international outcry against a disproportionate use of force. This is what the government of a Nation-State is supposed to do—defend its citizens.

But Israel is different, in part, because its enemies are rich and powerful and have oil, the current engine of the world’s energy. In poker parlance, Israel has a weak international hand. It is only allowed to do so much before outside pressure comes to bear. This is unfortunate for the idea of stomping out terror around the world, not just for Israel.

It is an indisputable truth that not all people solve differences through negotiation and compromise. Hamas, the duly elected leaders of the Palestinians, intend to win their struggle with Israel. Winning, to Hamas, means the destruction of Israel. And so they go about their attempt to win through violence.

In some circles it is not well understood that sometimes there is simply no alternative but to deal with violent people violently. What could be a disproportionate use of force when faced against such a foe? There is no middle ground. There is no room for negotiation. Such an enemy must be destroyed before it destroys.

A more reasonable question is this: Why don’t more people in the international community consider it a “disproportionate use of force” when Hamas indiscriminately launches rockets into Israeli civilian population centers?

For those who assume both sides are equally wrong, know this: Israeli leadership mourns the loss of Palestinian civilians. Palestinian leadership intentionally targets Israeli civilians.

The Palestinian leadership could lessen the chance of its civilian casualties by choosing to locate its war machine away from civilian areas. But apparently, it would rather use the death of its own citizens for political gain than to do so. This is decidedly not the case in Israel.

And neither is there a “cycle of violence,” in this fight. For such a cycle to truly exist, it must be presupposed that one side can voluntarily stop the cycle if it simply does not respond to the other side’s violence. This is simply not true in this conflict. If Israel stopped going after Hamas, Hamas wouldn’t just recognize Israel’s right to exist and stop attacking it. Their terrorism is rational because it works. Repeatedly aiming to blow up civilians is not the “desperate” acts of those with no other recourse. Each act of terrorism is an act of “hope” in the fight to destroy Israel.

Hamas must be defeated.

As far as disproportionate, if one must use the term disproportionate as it relates to Israel, the term should be used as follows:

Israel has been disproportionate in its contributions that benefit humanity in the fields of science, medicine, and green energy.

Or,

Israel has earned disproportionate goodwill to have a viable state in which its Jewish citizens, outcast from both Europe and most of the Arab world, are free to help better their lives and lives throughout the world, without threat.

Israel has more than earned its place at the table of Nations. People in every corner of the world are much better off because of Israel’s existence. They eat better and are healthier.

Yet, as it exists today, Israel, even with its success and contribution to humanity, is not a viable state without the financial and military aid of the United States.

When the dust settles on the Arab/Muslim-Israeli conflict, the international community should help resolve it in such a way that Palestinians who want to, have room enough to live full lives in their own State or as citizens in the vast under-populated areas that stretch from the Morocco to Iraq, and Israel should be large enough to be prosperous, self-sufficient and independent on its own.

This day is not yet upon us. Unfortunately, world leaders pay disproportionate attention to which side of the bread their economies are oiled, and too little attention to the fact that Israel is disproportionately good.

--David Naggar

Identity Politics, U.S. Democrats, Gaza and Israel

2008-02-01T09:32:00.000-08:00

.

Identity politics are terrible. Just ask Barack Obama. He wants to be thought of as the best person to be President of the United States. For political purposes, some have manipulated voter perception of his identity so that he widely seen as the BLACK man candidate running against the white WOMAN candidate for the Democratic nomination.

Identity politics won’t tell us who might make a better President, but this form of segregating people by “groups” is potent in electoral politics.

Identity politics are at work in Gaza. Arabs who live or lived within an arbitrary area drawn by the British after World War I are defined as Palestinians. Arabs who live outside this area are identified with other marks and labels.

It is a dubious way to segregate people.

The people who now live in Gaza are living in an overly crowded corner of the world. They need either to be absorbed as equals into the vast lands of existing Muslim/Arabs States, or they need to be allocated an ample amount of the planet so that they can govern themselves in a self-sufficient contiguous State.

Even those who blame Israel for the Gazans spilling into Egypt should see the larger point. There isn’t enough room within Israel and the territories for two or three SUCCESSFUL fully independent States.

But there is PLENTY of room in the region. Saudi Arabia itself is roughly EIGHTY times larger that Israel and the territories.

But just like some American politicians, the international community plays the identity politics game when it suits it. World leaders don’t want to interfere with the recognized borders of the surrounding States, even though those borders are the invention of last century’s mostly European powers.

Today’s international community continues its harmful attempt to impose a two-state solution in this tiny geography. People who need help are being hurt. They have been told how they must identify themselves to the point where most, at least on some level, now do. This is shameful.

It is time to either unwind the identity politics created in the area over the last century, or accept the new identity by allocating to this group of people enough land to be independently successful.

If part of Egypt’s vast desert is expropriated for a larger home for Palestinians, or Gazans, or Arabs that wish to self-govern—by whatever future self-chosen subgroup name—then the international community should help make that peacefully happen. It should drop the identity game and accept the reality that the people currently living within Gaza are not different than people living right next door to Gaza on the other side of the wall, in present day Egypt.

And as for Israel—the sole Jewish majority State, a State that fosters the liberty and freedom of Jews—the world and all of humanity will greatly benefit by Israel becoming large enough to be independently viable.

Undoubtedly, afforded the opportunity to independently prosper, Israeli Jews will play a big part in fulfilling the global need for post-oil energy and an improved environment. Current Israel, even while being propped up by outside States, and being forced to squander resources fighting for its very survival, has already made undeniably huge contributions in the arts, medicine, science and technology.

There are nearly 200 United Nations member States. The international community should rally so that no Arab, however defined by sub-group, suffers abuse by fellow human beings or our international institutions, and that Jews, whose self-identity has not wavered for centuries, are in charge of one State large enough to thrive in our global village.

--David Naggar

Please God Mr. Prime Minister, I Hope You Know Something I Don’t.

2008-01-02T12:30:00.000-08:00

.

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

Events have shown you to be a brilliant political tactician. That is why I am at a loss to understand your negotiating tactics on behalf of Israel and the Jewish people on the global stage.

I hope you know something I don’t.

Let’s go over what we both know.

We both know that the international community (the IC) doesn’t really care how the Israeli-Arab/Muslim problem is solved. The IC just cares that the problem is resolved so that peace and prosperity in their home countries is not affected.

We both know that for the most part, each country acts in its own self-interest. This should be expected.

Because there are 100 times more Arabs and Muslims than Jews, many Arab and Muslim majority countries and only one Jewish one, and much more Arab/Muslim wealth than Jewish wealth, there are more self-interest reasons to side with the Arabs and Muslims and against Israel.

The upshot of this is that if Israel were willing to commit suicide, the IC would not care. We both know this.

On the other hand, if the Arab countries agreed to a larger Israel, the IC would not care either. The IC would not shed a tear if the solution entailed a Palestinian State in place of Jordan, or in Jordan, or in Saudi Arabia.

The IC would also not care if there were no Palestinian State at all (as long as Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims didn’t insist on one). Nor would the IC care if Palestinians were absorbed in the vast empty space of the existing 21 Arab States in the Middle East. The IC just wants A solution.

Mr. Prime Minister, I presume we both know all of the above. Don’t we?

So here’s my concern with your negotiating tactic.

You have publicly championed a two-state solution in this tiny geography. You have stated repeatedly that this is the only way for Israel to survive.

Well then, given that the IC doesn’t care about the solution, or the best solution, but just wants A solution, haven’t you created a self-fulfilling prophecy that AT BEST Israel is to return to the 1967 (give or take) borders? Haven’t you created a self-fulfilling prophecy that AT BEST Israel is to be completely dependent on globalization and global trade for the rest of its days?

Mr. Prime Minister, did you ever wonder why the Arabs haven’t insisted that Israel return to the 1947 partition plan borders, but only the 1949-1967 borders?

The answer, I believe, is clear. You would object. Israel would object. The IC would conclude such an Arab/Muslim demand is a non-starter with Israel, and would not lead to a solution. That would end the matter. Arabs/Muslims don't presently even bother to ask for this.

Where does your tactic lead Israel?

Every country that expects a fair measure of prosperity for its citizens in the long term—and this includes Israel—must necessarily be self sufficient when it come to defending itself, feeding itself, and supplying itself with the energy resources it needs.

Currently Israel can only defend itself with the aid of the United States, and it cannot feed or supply itself with food, water and energy. This is untenable. But this is your public stance for Israel’s future.

Your public stance has cut the legs from under anyone who 1) believes that a larger Israel is necessary for Israel’s well-being, 2) believes that Palestinian lives would be more readily improved if their plight was recognized and addressed as a humanitarian one, and 3) believes that members of the IC, who don’t care how the problems of the region are solved, will champion ANY solution they see as having the greatest chance of success.

Your public stance has cut the legs from under any American Congressman who believes that the two-state solution in this tiny-geography is foolish and will not lead to a permanent solution.

Your public stance has cut the legs from under any Muslim politician who one day might recognize the true history of the area (including Jerusalem) and say that a viable Israel is a welcomed addition to the Middle-East. It was not too long ago in history when King Abdullah’s great-uncle called the idea of much larger proposed Israel “moderate and proper.”

As it stands, anyone who freely proposes that Israel should be geographically larger than Israel’s Prime Minister thinks it should be, will be mocked or marginalized. This, Mr. Prime Minister, is the result of your public stance.

Your public stance, as Prime Minister of one of the disputing parties, is the IC’s ceiling. No one can credibly ask for more on behalf of the sole Jewish majority state.

YOUR public stance is the point from which the negotiation with Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims begins.

Do you really think your stance will win Israel friends and make it a permanent hero with the IC? Mr. Prime Minister, appeasing tyrants and negotiating with them from perceived weakness is the path to war, not peace. This is where your public stance seems to be leading.

Are you preparing for war?

Please God Mr. Prime Minister, I hope you know something I don’t.

--David Naggar

Annapolis—One More Well-Meaning Dangerous Road

2007-12-03T10:40:00.000-08:00

.

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

Because Allah is Fair: A Reason to Revisit the Issue of Jerusalem

2007-11-01T17:30:00.000-07:00

.

"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 Shifting U.S. Public Opinion on Free Trade and the Disastrous Consequences for Israel

2007-10-25T07:34:00.000-07:00

.

“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

It's Time to Align U.S. Vital Interests in the Middle-East with Bettering the Planet

2007-10-05T14:53:00.000-07:00

.

“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

Since There is Plenty of Room in the Middle-East for Everyone, What’s the Real Problem?

2007-09-20T21:11:00.000-07:00

.

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

Just Ask the Residents of Sderot

2007-09-05T13:17:00.000-07:00

.

“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

What You Really Need To Know About Christiane Amanpour’s "God’s Warriors"

2007-08-22T21:09:00.000-07:00

.

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

Thankfully, the Two-State Solution is not an Inevitable Fait Accompli

2007-08-03T17:41:00.000-07:00

.

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

If You Can Envision Taiwan Falling Without U.S. Intervention, You Should Be Able To Envision Israel Falling Without One Too

2007-07-17T16:29:00.000-07:00

.

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

It’s Okay If The Hashemite King of Jordan Gets A Little Testy

2007-07-03T11:06:00.000-07:00

.

“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

Mr. President, It’s Time To Think Outside Of The Box

2007-06-21T17:53:00.000-07:00

.

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

What Do Regional Shopping Centers Have To Do With The Case For A Larger Israel?

2007-06-12T18:09:00.000-07:00

.

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.)

Three Wrongs Don’t Make a Right; Pursuing Three Wrongs Won’t Bring Peace, Dr. Rice

2007-06-01T18:09:00.000-07:00

.

“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

Now, It’s The World’s Problem

2007-05-22T18:21:00.001-07:00

.

"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

Another Risk: A Massive Israeli Brain-Drain

2007-05-07T23:34:00.000-07:00

.

“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

Learning from Intel’s Israelis—It’s Time to Elect a Prime Minister Willing to Argue the Case to Death

2007-04-20T13:10:00.000-07:00

.

“… 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

Once Again, for Passover. A Guide To The Four Questions Of Israel

2007-04-02T11:01:00.000-07:00

.

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

It May Be Time For Israel To Employ the Talents of DDB

2007-03-20T11:43:00.000-07:00

.

“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

What Would You Do To Save Your Kingdom?

2007-03-07T20:01:00.000-08:00

.

“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

Some Things Sound Fair, But Aren’t

2007-02-28T09:34:00.000-08:00

.

“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

Proper Incentives For The Right People…

2007-02-21T22:11:00.000-08:00

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 Reality From Mecca: Forget About The Forced Creation Of A Palestinian State… At Least For Now

2007-02-08T18:11:00.000-08:00

.

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

Am I Early For Passover? A Guide To The Four Questions Of Israel

2007-01-18T08:39:00.000-08:00

.

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?

In The Aggregate, Size Matters

2007-01-04T23:32:00.000-08:00

.

“[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.

The Thai Crisis and Israel

2006-12-22T10:21:00.000-08:00

.

By Douglas Wong and Darren Boey

Dec. 20 (Bloomberg) – “Thailand's reputation with investors has suffered long-term damage following a Sept. 19 coup and this week's on-again-off-again capital controls, which wiped out $23 billion of market value from Thai stocks yesterday…

The Bank of Thailand on Dec. 18 announced controls on overseas short-term investments in Thailand to stem a sharp rise in the value of the baht. Yesterday, the Finance Ministry made a volte face and exempted equities from the rules following a 15 percent slide in the benchmark SET index.”

******

So what does this averted Thai crisis have to do with Israel? Israel’s economy is largely dependent on global trade.

One key reason Israel MUST “cooperate” with world bodies—most of whose members presently do not care whether Israel is squeezed and marginalized—is because failure to cooperate might cut off Israel’s ability to conduct global trade. This could be disastrous for Israel.

Israeli political leaders are aware of this. They are not naive. In choosing their course of political action, they are being probabilistic. No one can foretell the future. They have calculated the odds of future events unfolding in certain ways, and they are acting on their views of expected outcomes.

I believe they are miscalculating. They are focusing on the risks of what can go wrong, and not on the rewards of what can go right.

They should ask themselves: “How large need Israel be to thrive, succeed and be viable in the Middle-East?”

They probably ask themselves: “Will a smaller, less vilified Israel better provide for its citizens than a larger, vilified one?

This latter kind of question, asked because of perceived international pressures may lead to a “Yes” answer that jeopardized Israel in the long-term.

A smaller Israel will be less important in the world, and ultimately less able to provide for itself, and a growing population. Remember, there is plenty of room in the Middle-East for everyone.

Large or small, Israel will still be vilified for years to come.

To stem and fight vilification, Israel must get more important, not less. Israel must take the calculated risk of becoming more demanding of the international community, not less.

Israel must strive to achieve what it needs to succeed, not succumb to current perceived pressure that may make it a perpetually limping, and withering State.

--David Naggar

47% Of Americans Believe What?

2006-12-19T13:12:00.000-08:00

.

From Rasmussenreports.com, December 15, 2006

“The Iraq Study Group recommended that Syria and Iran be included in talks about the future of Iraq…

A Rasmussen Reports survey conducted in mid-November found that half (52%) of American adults believe that Syria and Iran should be included in the talks….

Forty-seven percent (47%) of Americans believe that Israelis and Palestinians should also be included in the talks about Iraq’s future.”

********

Why do 47% of Americans think that Israelis and Palestinians should be included in the talks about IRAQ’S future?

Do they hold a sophisticated worldview that calls for the entire British/French contrived colonial map to be redrawn? Or is it their lack of familiarity with the region and the specific Sunni-Shia power struggles in Iraq that inexplicably leads them to call for Palestinian and Israeli involvement in Iraq?

The nature and sources of the various troubles emanating from the Middle-East are not well understood by the public.

Representative, Sylvestre Reyes, incoming House intelligence Committee Chairman, couldn’t even answer whether Al Qaeda was predominantly Sunni or Shia.

It is likely that the results of public opinion polls will guide his behavior in his new job.

To ignore the polls might be fatal at the next election to many Democrats, as Republicans founds out last month when public support for the war in Iraq faded.

If you are a supporter of a viable, successful Israel, you have to ask yourself, what does a powerful man like Rep. Reyes know? And how can you help him know more?

What is your obligation to promote an informed opinion that will doubtless redound to a thriving Israel?

The reason many people believe that a two-state solution within the confines of Israel and the territories is the only way forward is merely a reflection of the conventional wisdom that there is no other option. Do you really believe that President Bush or Secretary Rice would champion such an idea unless world opinion allowed for no other choice?

As long as public opinion is not swayed that there are indeed other more productive options available, there will never be another option available.

The big losers of the current option—executed or not—are both the Palestinians and Israel. And, as for the world, the increased likelihood of a regional war that ultimately flows from pursuing a non-workable option aside, if the citizens of Israel end up in bad shape, the technological and medical benefits that can be brought to all of humanity by the country that currently has the second most listings on the NASDAQ, will be greatly diminished.

There is a better way. Read The Case for a Larger Israel. Do encourage others to read it, including Rep. Reyes.

--David Naggar

Revisiting Conventional Wisdom—Everyone Wins

2006-12-12T12:31:00.000-08:00

These pearls of wisdom from the New York Times best seller Freakonomics, by famed economist Steven D. Levitt, and Stephen J. Dubner.

1. Journalists need experts as badly as experts need journalists. Every day newspaper pages and television newscasts must be filled, and so, an expert who can deliver a jarring piece of wisdom is always welcome. Working together, journalists and experts are the architects of much conventional wisdom.

2. Conventional wisdom must be simple, convenient, comfortable, and comforting—though not necessarily true. Noticing where the conventional wisdom may be false—noticing, perhaps, the contrails of sloppy or self-interested thinking—is a nice place to start to ask questions.

3. The conventional wisdom, however created, can be hard to budge.

********

If you believe millions of Jews who live in Israel and millions of Palestinians who live in the territories should be free to govern themselves and exercise rights of self-determination, you are probably a candidate for believing in the conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom calls for a two-state solution. The two-state solution is simple (if only the two sides would smarten up and get along), it is convenient, it is comfortable and it is comforting.

Folks who believe in the idea of a two-state solution within the confines of Israel and the territories undoubtedly believe that this will bring stability or peace.

They are wrong. It will bring more misery. But conventional wisdom, being what it is, is hard to budge.

If you have visited www.alargerisrael.com, but have not read the book, please take the time to do so. It will give you a fresh perspective on conventional wisdom, and why it is wrong.

Write to your country’s leaders about it. While they are busy searching out answers to the explosive Middle-East issues, they need to hear from you.

Revisiting conventional wisdom is good for Israel, it is good for Palestinians, it is good for the region, it is good humanity, and it is good for the world.

--David Naggar

The Wrong Vision from Bush, Blair and the Iraq Study Group

2006-12-07T19:47:00.000-08:00

“In relation to what the President was just saying a moment or two ago on Israel and Palestine, I think that one thing that is very clear is that the old Middle East had within it the origins of all the problems we see. I mean, this terrorist problem that we faced in the last few years, it didn't originate, I'm afraid, a few years ago. It's been building up over decades. It's come out of a series of states of oppression, of warped ideology, based on a perverted view of the faith of Islam. This has been building up for a long period of time. And it has basically come out of the Middle East.

Now, my view in the end is that you go back to the origins of this and say, well, how do we resolve it? And the only way we resolve it is by having the right vision and then the practical measures to achieve it.

Now, I think the vision is absolutely correct. What we've got to do now -- and this is exactly why the President was talking about the way forward -- is that we've got to get the right way forward -- this is where Baker-Hamilton helped -- in order that we have the practical policy that bolsters and gives effect to the vision, because the vision is the right vision. You leave a Middle East in which the Israel-Palestine issue is not solved, in which there's no moves towards democracy, in which Iraq goes back in its old state, in which the Iranian people have no chance to express themselves, maybe not in the months or one year, two years, but you'll have the same problem.”

Tony Blair—from today’s White House Press Conference with President Bush

*****

Peace between the Arabs and the Israelis won’t come easily, even if one starts with the right vision. But starting with the wrong vision will lead to disaster. Tony Blair’s vision is the same as George Bush’s: a two-state solution contained within the geography of Israel and the territories. His vision is wrong, but his assessment of what happens if one tries to implement the wrong vision is right. Sadly, this wrong-headed vision is endorsed by the Baker-Hamilton, Iraq Study Group Report.

What follows is quoted text from the Iraq Study Group Report dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict (with my interlaced editorial comments).

“The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict. There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.”

They favor the unworkable two-state solution. Consider the group’s motivation. As other world community leaders, Bush and Blair included, the study group participants want stability in the region. They can’t be expected to deeply care whether Israel or a Palestinian State is viable, except in so far as it furthers stability. Stability is in their perceived interest. If they can fashion a solution that would leave Jews and Arabs of the region suppressed but quiet, that would meet their interest. Every other achievement might be a welcomed bonus, but not necessary.

“The United States does its ally Israel no favors in avoiding direct involvement to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. For several reasons, we should act boldly:

• There is no military solution to this conflict.”

This bit of conventional wisdom, often repeated, has always been false. Why does the world request Israel to return to the 1949-1967 borders and not to the smaller 1947 U.N. General Assembly partition plan borders? Or the smaller Jewish State borders proposed in the 1930s? When winners truly win and losers truly lose, the losing side loses its taste for battle for a very long time. Witness Germany.

No one likes war, but it is the threat of it, and the fear of it, that makes the other side do what it otherwise is not inclined to do. The real threat of military conflict, and the knowledge by one side that they will likely lose that conflict is the prime driver of diplomacy. Fear of being next, kept Syria and Iran at bay in Iraq for a while. When the fear was gone, all hell broke loose.

Treaties, agreements and contracts are not worth the paper they are written on unless there is a remedy section that can be enforced against the party that is contemplating a breach. Yes, there are incentives, and disincentives—even out and out bribes—used by the stronger side to help the weaker side see the bigger picture of what’s in its interests, but the truth is, there is always a military threat that stands behind diplomatic efforts.

“• The vast majority of the Israeli body politic is tired of being a nation perpetually at war.”

This is true. And it is dangerous. This situation leads to extremes: capitulation, or lashing out at one’s enemies.

“• No American administration—Democratic or Republican—will ever abandon Israel.”

This is not a thoughtful statement. Even a fortune-teller wouldn’t be so bold. Demographics change. Interests change. Alliances change. France was once an ally of Israel. For a variety of self-interested reasons, among them oil and a growing Muslim population, France is no longer Israel’s ally.

“• Political engagement and dialogue are essential in the Arab-Israeli dispute because it is an axiom that when the political process breaks down there will be violence on the ground.”

It is also axiomatic that when a party to a conflict cannot thrive on the scraps the world is willing to allow it to have, the political process will break down. A wrong-headed political process in the Middle-East, even if it brings temporary respite, will over time lead to greater violence, not less. Tony Blair is right about this.

“• The only basis on which peace can be achieved is that set forth in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and in the principle of “land for peace.””

The only basis on which peace can truly be achieved in the Middle-East is through a new Muslim consensus understanding of the Quran. Until then, there will be no peace for the nations of the mostly Christian West, between Muslim sects, or for Israel.

With or without peace, Israel must be large enough to be viable or it will wither. But only with a new understanding of the Quran will Israel be allowed to live peacefully in borders of a sufficient size for it to be viable. Only in that day will Muslim society at large prosper throughout the vast amount of Middle-East territory that they dwell in.

“• The only lasting and secure peace will be a negotiated peace such as Israel has achieved with Egypt and Jordan.”

There is no lasting and secure peace between Israel, on the one hand, and Egypt and Jordan on the other. Free elections in Egypt would lead to the nullification of the treaty. A treaty with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is only good as long as a Hashemite King rules over Jordan—not a good long-term bet.

“This effort would strongly support moderate Arab governments in the region, especially the democratically elected government of Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority under
President Mahmoud Abbas.”

Moderate governments that are not democracies (i.e., all Arab governments) shouldn’t be afforded the label “moderate.” They are unelected, and supporting them is no virtue. Lebanon is a place on the map drawn by the French. It is a country in name only. Its army does not control the State. The weeks ahead are likely to show this once again.

“RECOMMENDATION 13: There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon and Syria, and President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.”

This is the wrong approach as noted above, and discussed in more detail in my book.

“RECOMMENDATION 14: This effort should include—as soon as possible—the unconditional calling and holding of meetings, under the auspices of the United States or the Quartet (i.e., the United States, Russia, European Union, and the United Nations), between Israel and Lebanon and Syria on the one hand, and Israel and Palestinians (who acknowledge Israel’s right to exist) on the other. The purpose of these meetings would be to negotiate peace as was done at the Madrid Conference in 1991, and on two separate tracks—one Syrian/Lebanese, and the other Palestinian.”

What is the true point of any Israeli meeting with Palestinians that excludes Hamas? The world will not let Israel defeat this foe, and unless it is defeated, Israel cannot have peace with the Palestinians.

What is the true point of any Israeli meeting with Lebanon that excludes Hezbollah? Unless it is defeated, Israel cannot have peace with Lebanon.

“RECOMMENDATION 15: Concerning Syria, some elements of that negotiated peace should be:
• Syria’s full adherence to UN Security Council Resolution
1701 of August 2006, which provides the framework for Lebanon to regain sovereign control over its territory.
• Syria’s full cooperation with all investigations into political assassinations in Lebanon, especially those of Rafik Hariri and Pierre Gemayel.
• A verifiable cessation of Syrian aid to Hezbollah and the use of Syrian territory for transshipment of Iranian weapons and aid to Hezbollah. (This step would do much to solve Israel’s problem with Hezbollah.)
• Syria’s use of its influence with Hamas and Hezbollah for the release of the captured Israeli Defense Force soldiers.
• A verifiable cessation of Syrian efforts to undermine the democratically elected government of Lebanon.
• A verifiable cessation of arms shipments from or transiting through Syria for Hamas and other radical Palestinian groups.
• A Syrian commitment to help obtain from Hamas an acknowledgment of Israel’s right to exist.
• Greater Syrian efforts to seal its border with Iraq.”

All one can truly say about this recommendation is that it is fantasy. For instance, can one really expect the Syrians to cooperate in an investigation of the Harari/Gemayel assassinations when the West has already suggested that Syria had a hand in it?

“RECOMMENDATION 16: In exchange for these actions and in the context of a full and secure peace agreement, the Israelis should return the Golan Heights, with a U.S. security guarantee for Israel that could include an international force on the
border, including U.S. troops if requested by both parties.”

It is true that if there is full peace with Syria, like the peace that exists between the Untied States and Canada, it really won’t matter who controls the Golan Heights—as long as Israel has sufficient other territory to be viable. When Syria is a democracy, and when the vast majority of the people who dwell within the confines of this modern-day British/French created entity agree that their territorial borders are final for the foreseeable future, Israel ceding the Golan might be a safer bet.

“RECOMMENDATION 17: Concerning the Palestinian issue, elements of that negotiated peace should include:
• Adherence to UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and
338 and to the principle of land for peace, which are the only bases for achieving peace.
• Strong support for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to take the lead in preparing the way for negotiations with Israel.
• A major effort to move from the current hostilities by consolidating the cease-fire reached between the Palestinians and the Israelis in November 2006.
• Support for a Palestinian national unity government.
• Sustainable negotiations leading to a final peace settlement along the lines of President Bush’s two-state solution, which would address the key final status issues of borders, settlements, Jerusalem, the right of return, and the end of conflict.”

Again, the contemplated two-state solution is no favor to Israel or the Palestinians. Read my book for greater detail. Pushing and attempting to implement a wrong-headed vision will lead to regional, if not global disaster.

Menachem Begin, Jimmy Carter and Today’s Troubles

2006-12-05T12:38:00.000-08:00

As a lawyer and in business, I always told the other side in any negotiation that no individual term of a deal was final until the entire deal itself was final.

In other words, any point on which we had reached an understanding was subject to renegotiation until we reached an understanding on all points.

A decent negotiator understands that all contended points in a negotiation are connected.

I might agree to concede point x if the other side would concede point y, but if we had an impasse on point z, we might have to revisit point x again to forge ahead on point z.

This brings me to Menachem Begin. I always felt that Menachem Begin made a terrible mistake in signing over all of the Sinai in exchange for a piece of paper from a dictatorial Egyptian regime—even if everyone likes the dictator.

There are a few reasons I feel this deal was a mistake—in spite of the cold peace that has lasted for nearly 30 years—but the negotiator’s reason is the one that I’d like readers to appreciate.

Once Egypt received 100% of the captured territory it held before the ’67 war, it painted Israel, Syria and Jordan (later the Palestinians) into what I call a “negotiating corner.” It is difficult to get out of such a corner.

How could Syria or Jordan (now the Palestinians) possibly accept different terms from Israel from those offered to Egypt?

Rather than waiting for the right time to negotiate a final peace with all the Arab countries, so that the Arab parties could weigh their success or lack of success against each other, the “Egypt only” deal set the benchmark.

For any sitting Syrian or Palestinian regime, accepting anything less than 100% of the pre ’67 territory (allowing for minor border adjustments) will be unacceptable.

And the deal with Egypt was destined to bind the international community, sooner or later, to pressure Israel into making the same deal with the other regimes that it made with Egypt—notwithstanding any perceived differences (from the Israeli point of view) in circumstances.

I am mindful that Menachem Begin had at his disposal more pertinent information than I do today, and hindsight isn’t a fair standard by which to judge any decision.

So I wonder…

I wonder if his motivation for a separate deal with Egypt was the thought that there wouldn’t be a western front should there be another war with other Arab regimes.

I wonder if he thought the deal he made would help him reestablish a Jewish presence in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria).

I wonder if Jimmy Carter exerted so much pressure on him—i.e., take the deal or we will cut Israel off—that the Prime Minister felt he had no choice but to take the deal, or risk Israel’s survival.

He must have weighed many factors before agreeing, knowingly or unknowingly, to paint Israel into a future negotiating corner.

Still, I think it was a wrong decision.

In my eyes, Menachem Begin does not stand alone in this negotiating failure. And maybe he was left with no alternative.

Jimmy Carter, the President whose failed foreign policy eased the way for the Ayatollahs to come to power in Iran, must share in the blame for the current troubles.

The former President takes credit, and credit is given from many quarters, for his “achievement” at Camp David.

I think history will take the credit away for this failed policy. A partial solution that in all practicality prevents a workable full solution is no solution at all.

Now that all leaders in the Middle-East are boxed in by the Camp David Accords, the international community is forced to deal only with the part of the negotiation that remains “unsolved.”

And what to do? Conventional wisdom dictates that the only solution is to split Israel and the territories between Israelis and Palestinians.

But if there cannot be a viable Israel and a viable Palestine within the borders of Israel and the territories, how will forcing this solution on the parties, serve anyone in the long term?

If the “only solution” cannot work, there can only be trouble ahead.

That is why it is imperative to persuade international leaders to explore new ways of looking at the situation.

If Israel is to be viable in the long-term, if the Palestinians are to be allowed to escape from their current plight, the deal that puts to rest the Arab/Muslim-Israeli conflict must involve more than negotiating concessions from the Palestinians, Syrians or Israelis.

--David Naggar

A Bad Idea Attached to an Engine of Power Can Triumph, and Lead to Disaster

2006-11-29T14:39:00.000-08:00

Take Jimmy Carter’s new book, “Palestine, Peace not Apartheid.” Even Norman Finkelstein—considered by most in the mainstream to be highly biased against Israel—concedes, “The historical chapters of Peace Not Apartheid are rather thin, filled with errors small and large, as well as tendentious and untenable interpretations.”

But Finkelstein sets aside these errors and accepts the former President’s broader recipe to bring about a peaceful future. Picking through the anti-Israel rhetoric, President Carter arrives back at the conventional norm: Except for mutually agreeable negotiated modifications, Israel must live within its pre-1967 borders and, “all Arab neighbors must pledge to honor Israel's right to live in peace...”

Sounds like a good idea if you accept two premises: 1) The people of the Arab/Muslim world will allow a non-Muslim, Jewish majority State to live in peace within the pre-1967 borders, and 2) A Jewish majority State can be successful and thrive within those borders in the long run.

If either premise is wrong, implementing President Carter’s idea is likely to lead to disaster.

Part of the reason any well-intended person reaches a faulty conclusion about the Arab/Muslim-Israel conflict is a lack of historical understanding. If a former President of the United States can’t be bothered to write accurate history, can you imagine the accumulated false history that may impact the thinking of those who are only marginally acquainted with the conflict?

If truth matters at all to a peaceful outcome, it must be disseminated.

The first step is this: Anyone who supports solving the “Israeli/Palestinian problem,” must be shown a map of the region such as is found at www.alargerisrael.com. The picture brings the real problem—the Arab/Muslim-Israel conflict—into perspective. Most people simply do not know that Israel is less than 1% the size of the Arab world. Calling the problem "the Israeli/Palestinian problem" incorrectly frames the issue and makes it more difficult to solve. There is a lot to do to set the record straight, and there are powerful engines intentionally pulling in the wrong direction.

Look at all the misery caused in pursuit of implementing the “Road Map.” Bad ideas must be exposed as bad ideas before they become too attached to the engines of power, or real people suffer.

--David Naggar

A Good Idea that is Unattached to an Engine of Power, Cannot Triumph

2006-11-27T20:56:00.000-08:00

Standing up for a self-sufficient home where Jews live in the majority is not asking a favor from the world. Likewise, accepting a withering, failing Jewish majority homeland is no favor to the world.

The idea behind the book, The Case for a Larger Israel, is based on many premises.

Here are eight:

1) There is not enough room for the only Jewish majority State and a Palestinian State to successfully exist within the confines of Israel and the territories.

2) The sole Jewish majority State needs more territory in order to be self-sustaining. The call for a larger Israel is not an imperialistic call, despite Muslim outrage, real or feigned (don’t you hate feigned outrage?). Imperialism is based on the idea of superiority and the desire to rule over others. Neither Israel in particular, nor Jews in general, have any such desire.

3) Humanity will greatly benefit from a Jewish majority State that is self-sustaining. A larger Israel is in the world’s best interest because it will free up tremendous capacity to bring about advancement. For rich Nations and poor, it brings the promise of technological breakthroughs that more readily makes ocean water potable, food supplies more plentiful, medicine more accessible, and energy sources renewable.

4) It will not hasten peace to deny that Palestinians (without “quotation marks”) exist, even if the use of the term Palestinian, to describe certain Arabs, is a recent phenomenon in history. Palestinians, like all people, should be free to exercise self-determination, either in their own State or as citizens of one of the 21 other Arab majority States.

5) There is plenty of land in the Middle-East for all of the people who live there now.

6) The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is NOT the cause of the trouble in the Middle-East (as one can readily surmise by the unrelated example of Sunni-Shi’a violence in Iraq, or the violence in Lebanon). It is an effect of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is an outgrowth of the long-standing Islamic struggle against non-believers, particularly the Christians of Europe and the West.

7) Many Arabs and Muslims will work actively to see that Israel doesn’t exist in the future.

8) Isolating and shunning these particular Arabs and Muslims, rather than negotiating with them, is the only way to get them to stop, and so, isolating and shunning them is in the best interests of the world. Only when their heinous cause is voluntarily abandoned, or its implementation deemed to be utterly impossible, will it cease to be a force in the world.

----

Though being a proponent of a viable (i.e., larger) Israel does not make one an imperialist or an extremist, calling for a larger Israel will trigger the accusation. Fear of being tarred with these labels precludes many politicians, power brokers, and mass media outlets from ever suggesting that the case for a larger Israel has merit and should be considered.

That is why is important to persuade as many folks as possible that supporting a larger Israel is rational and moral. It is one way to begin reaching the engines of power. If enough regular folks are convinced of the rightness of case for a larger Israel, some engines of power will not be far behind.

We (and that includes you, if you support a viable, thriving Israel) must take part in spreading this message. With a proper, non-confrontational effort, I believe that over time, most people in the world, including Muslims, can be persuaded that it is moral for Israel be large enough to be viable. Many Muslims, of course, will only be persuaded by a moral case that can be understood with reference to the Quran. So what? It can be done. (Keep in mind that it took Martin Luther King a decade to persuade folks in the U.S. of what we all take for granted today. Poor tactics failed to persuade many generations of people before then.)

Help in the effort to attach this idea to an engine of power. An idea that not attached to an engine of power cannot triumph. It will die.

--David Naggar

Here Comes Pressure

2006-11-20T09:42:00.000-08:00

Blair: New initiatives could come soon to resolve Mideast conflict
By The Associated Press 11/17/2006

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said in an interview published Friday that new initiatives could be presented soon to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict…

He said British officials were holding talks with the U.S. and Middle East governments, but declined to discuss specifics…

Blair said the next few months are critical in resolving the conflict.

"So we either decide that we are going to take this moment and use it to drive forward or obviously there's a danger that the whole region takes a wrong turn," he said.

------------------------------------

Here comes the Bush-Blair pressure to “solve” the “Israeli-Palestinian” problem NOW. None of Israel’s needs, other than security needs, will be taken into account unless they are raised, explained over and over again, and appreciated by those who drive global decisions. Keep in mind that decision drivers will only back what they perceive to be in their own national or personal interest. They don’t care, and can’t be expected to care about Israel unless it serves their interest.

If you believe in a vibrant Israel, not a struggling one, now is the time to make your voice heard. We must convince a great deal of people, including many Muslims, that a viable, successful Israel benefits humanity and is in their self-interest. This won’t be easily done. But that is no reason not to try.

--David Naggar

Work on the Cause, not the Effect

2006-11-17T12:40:00.000-08:00

From The Associated Press 11/16/2006

“Spain will sponsor a new Middle East peace initiative along with France and Italy, the Spanish prime minister said Thursday, stressing that the international community cannot remain idle as violence rages between Israel and the Palestinians…

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero announced the initiative at a summit with President Jacques Chirac of France. "Peace between Israel and the Palestinians means to a large extent peace on the international scene," Zapatero told a news conference.”

--------------------------------------

As pressure mounts to end Middle-East conflicts, it should become clearer and clearer that if we do not educate people regarding the cause and effect of violence in Israel and the territories, misguided solutions, based on an incorrect set of “facts,” may be imposed. These will undoubtedly work towards Israel’s detriment. If this happens, all of humanity loses.

In the end, it will work to the detriment of Palestinians, too. Humanity loses again.

A lack of clarity between cause and effect leads people to refer to the situation between Israel and Palestinians as a “cycle of violence”—violence on one side begetting violence on the other, in an endless cycle. They want to put an end to the cycle, and they gear their solutions accordingly.

But it is not a cycle. It is a situation. If the Israelis stopped all violence, the violence would continue. That is why Israel cannot simply do this. If, on the other hand, the Palestinians stopped all violence, the violence would end. But the Palestinians WON’T do this.

Without a proper understanding of cause and effect, well-intended solutions will not serve the interests of long-lasting peace.

The Palestinian-Israeli violence is an effect of the Arab/Muslim conflict with Israel, it is not the cause if it, as Prime Minister Zapatero’s comments suggest. True peace between Israel and the Palestinians will not happen until there is peace between Israel and the Arab/Muslim world. This what the world should work on… the cause, rather than the effect. But as Dennis Ross concluded after years of negotiation, the Arabs don’t yet recognize Israel’s moral legitimacy. Will someone inform the Prime Minister?

--David Naggar

Faulty Assumptions Generally Foretell Faulty Conclusions

2006-11-15T20:57:00.000-08:00

From the Reut Insitute…

“Head of Israel's security service Shin Bet, Yuval Diskin, warned yesterday that Israel may have to launch a large-scale military action in Gaza in the near future (Haaretz, 11/15/06).

[Our publication] emphasizes the tension between Israel's military logic and its national security.

According to Israel's military logic, only through military presence in Gaza is it possible to contain the firing of Qassam rockets and the build-up of Palestinian terrorism. However, Israel's national security requires the ending of its control over the Palestinian population in order to maintain its Jewish and democratic identity.

Israel's present policy is first and foremost based upon its military logic. However due to several emerging trends, these policies may cause Israel to renew its responsibility over the Palestinian population and undermine its national security.”

-------------------------------------

What’s the assumption underlying the Reut Institute’s publication? It is this: that Israel can be any two of the following three, but never all three: (1) a democracy, (2) a Jewish state, and/or (3) a country composed of all of historic Israel—whatever it is that historic Israel is defined to include.

But what if their assumption is faulty? What if agreeing to live inside diminished borders isn’t Israel’s “only reasonable choice?" What if it is a dangerous, and perhaps fatal, choice?

Here’s my point: The first assumption underlying any policy decision must NOT take for granted what the only Jewish majority State CANNOT BE. Any assumption underlying all policy decisions must promote Israel’s long-term viability in all respects—a successful, thriving State that can meaningfully participate in the community of Nations, and help foster the betterment of humanity.

We must not accept the logical conclusions of any analysis which takes for granted that the focus of the international debate—how to implement a two state solution within the confines of Israel and the territories—will never change. The terms of the debate are not written in stone. They are the current faulty assumptions underlying many people’s perceptions of how to promote peace.

Together we must change the terms of the debate.

--David Naggar

Blair's “Whole Middle East Strategy” is Coming

2006-11-13T13:55:00.000-08:00

Blair Says Stabilizing Iraq Requires Engaging Whole Middle East

By Mark Deen and Robert Hutton

Nov. 13 (Bloomberg) -- U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair said stabilizing Iraq requires engaging nations across the Middle East, pressing the U.S. to open more diplomatic channels 3 1/2 years after Saddam Hussein was toppled.

``A major part of the answer to Iraq lies not in Iraq itself but outside it, in the whole of the region where the same forces are at work,'' Blair said in the text of a speech given in London today. ``This is what I call a `whole Middle East' strategy.''

---------------------------

As President Bush and Prime Minister Blair struggle to find ways to stabilize Iraq before they leave office, they (and the entire international community) will be examining ways to stabilize the whole region. Much will be on the table. Israel will be directly impacted.

If you support Israel, now is the time to join in promoting the idea that all of Israel’s long-term needs must be taken into account, not just its security needs. Peace is at stake. Israel's long-term viability is at stake. The betterment of the world is at stake.

--David Naggar

Things Change; Slowly at First, and then, They Snowball

2006-11-07T14:37:00.000-08:00

Who would have thought that the Soviet Union would collapse as it did? That Iran would be so quickly transformed with the ouster of the Shah in favor of an Ayatollah? Or that international pressure on South Africa would be so severe, that it had no choice but to reform itself? Events beneath the surface had been playing themselves out for years, and then boom! Things seemed to change suddenly.

It takes a great deal of effort to change the terms of any public debate. But it happens.

That Israel should live within viable, defensible, sustainable and even peaceful borders is not an unattainable utopian ideal. But this reality is certainly not at hand today. It will only happen with the concerted effort of many.

The terms of the debate must change. First, the prospects for Israeli and Palestinian long-term viability within the borders called for by current international consensus must be reexamined. Only when they are fully studied by world leaders, will they be rejected as unworkable. Only then will responsible leaders put forth alternative solutions without fear of ridicule.

Since posting The Case for A Larger Israel a week ago, and telling a few friends to pass the site along, well over a thousand different people have visited the site from all continents, save Antarctica. Beyond the United States and Israel, people from all over Europe, Asia, South America, Africa, and Australia have also visited. More people visit each day as word spreads. I am pleased that the reach of the internet has included places such as Ethiopia, Pakistan, Turkey, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. The site has been picked up by blogs, it has become searchable in Google and Yahoo, and I was interviewed by Tamar Yonah on Israel National Radio. The show aired on November 7th (www.israelnationalradio.com).

Please keep spreading the word to visit www.alargerisrael.com. Spread the word to read the book. Let’s together change the terms of the debate.

--David Naggar

This Shouldn't Come As A Surprise

2006-11-03T10:15:00.000-08:00

Arab parties skip Knesset session marking Rabin Memorial Day.
By Amiram Barkat, Haaretz Correspondent and Haaretz Service. 11/2/06

As the Knesset convened for a special session on Thursday to mark the 11th anniversary of Yitzhak Rabin's assassination, representatives of the Israeli Arab parties were not in attendance.

Kadima, Labor and Likud issued a joint condemnation, saying "the absence of the Arab party MKs is inappropriate, offensive to their constituency, and expresses disrespect for a ceremony that exemplifies commitment to Israeli democracy."

Hadash Chairman Mohammed Barakeh said the absence of the MKs was an "unfortunate coincidence."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not blame any Arab for preferring not to live in a Jewish State. But this does not mean that Zionism was a mistake. The establishment of a Jewish State in the historic homeland of the Jews, where there has been a continuous presence for thousands of years, is a legitimate one.

For most States to work, a cohesive demographic identity among its inhabitants is a must. Jewish Israel will never fully be legitimate in the eyes of its Arab citizens, just as an Islamic nation ruling over many Jews would never be fully legitimate in the eyes of its Jewish citizens. One unified Palestine with a large Jewish minority would not be a viable State, just as Israel with a large Arab minority will not remain viable. History shows an inevitable tension when disparate populations are forced together to live in one State. But because the international powers generally prosper from stability, they instinctively, rightly or wrongly, wish to maintain and promote the status quo everywhere. The result of this international pressure in so many places is that matters for local populations are made worse than if a clumsy separation was sanctioned.

In Israel and the territories, the international inclination to promote the status quo manifests itself as the imposition of a two-state solution within limited geographical confines—an attempt to avoid interfering with boundaries of neighboring States. Unchanged, this concoction is a recipe for future disasters.

What do you think?

--David Naggar

Now Is The Time

2006-10-31T15:21:00.001-08:00

From the Associated Press

ALICANTE, Spain. "Diplomats from 11 countries called Saturday for a multilateral approach to resolving the Middle East conflict, proposing an urgent revision of the "road map" process and an international conference to end what it called the current state of stagnation." Published: October 28, 2006

-----

To me, it is not difficult to proudly stand up for Israel, even while acknowledging the hardships of Palestinian Arabs. Now is the time, at this critical junction in history, for many voices to make the case for a larger Israel. Otherwise, no internationally sanctioned roadmap will take Israel's full legitimate needs into account.

Visit www.alargerisrael.com. Post your comments here.

--David Naggar