.
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
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
What Do Regional Shopping Centers Have To Do With The Case For A Larger Israel?
.
In his new book, Threshold Resistance, American shopping mall pioneer A. Alfred Taubman, describes the difficulty he had over 50 years ago convincing retailers such as Macy’s that his new concept—regional malls—would work.
Imagine the difficulty he faced trying to convince smaller retailers that are found inside the mall to give up their street store fronts altogether? The fact that malls work for stores and customers may seem obvious today, but this was not the case back then. In fact, it was counterintuitive at the time. Mr. Taubman and a few other retail pioneers had the foresight that changed humanity’s shopping experience around the world.
But it wasn’t easy. Mr. Taubman had to overcome what he called threshold resistance with retailers, bankers and civic leaders.
Getting people over a threshold so that they will even listen to a new idea is extremely hard when the old way of doing things, or thinking about things, is so entrenched.
Like Mr. Taubman’s successful efforts in the shopping center arena, the case for a larger Israel must overcome tremendous threshold resistance—threshold resistance that simply causes most people to dismiss the idea before it is presented.
Here are a few threshold resistance points I’ve heard from many who actually support the Jewish State:
1. The Arab States will never agree to a larger Israel, so it’s a waste of time to discuss it.
2. The international community will never agree to a larger Israel, so be practical.
3. It isn’t feasible (or fair) because of the Palestinians who live there.
4. If Singapore can succeed in a small space, so can Israel.
5. It’s a land grab: the same as Nazi Germany.
The above is STRONG threshold resistance to the case I make for a larger Israel.
But imagine the threshold resistance all democratic reform leaders throughout the Soviet Union heard before the Soviet Empire crumbled.
Imagine the threshold resistance Mahatma Gandhi heard when he said the British would one day leave India.
Imagine the threshold resistance Chaim Weizmann or Theodor Herzl heard in their pursuit for world recognition of any Jewish entity at all.
Well I’m sure they heard plenty, and they proceeded to overcome threshold resistance anyway.
As Mr. Taubman writes in his book, the most difficult challenges can be overcome if they are understood and confronted forcefully.
Many of yesterday’s casually dismissed ideas are today’s conventional wisdom. Remember when anyone advocating that Israel talks to the PLO was vilified? Pendulums swing.
Before dismissing my ideas for reframing the Middle East debate as errant or unrealistic, know that merely giving them a fair public hearing will strengthen Israel when the day comes to negotiate a durable peace with the Arab and Muslim world.
I believe a larger, viable Israel will in the long run benefit Israel and Jews, Arabs and Muslims, and all of humanity as well.
Allow me the opportunity overcome your threshold resistance.
Please have a look at my book, The Case for a Larger Israel. It is available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and from your local bookstore. While I prefer that you buy a copy so that you can display it on your coffee table and more easily discuss it with your friends and neighbors, it is also available for free at www.alargerisrael.com.
--David Naggar
(Note: Some people have suggested that making the book available for free takes away the perceived value and harms the seriousness with which its ideas are taken. I bet Mr. Taubman would agree with this. I hope you don't.)
In his new book, Threshold Resistance, American shopping mall pioneer A. Alfred Taubman, describes the difficulty he had over 50 years ago convincing retailers such as Macy’s that his new concept—regional malls—would work.
Imagine the difficulty he faced trying to convince smaller retailers that are found inside the mall to give up their street store fronts altogether? The fact that malls work for stores and customers may seem obvious today, but this was not the case back then. In fact, it was counterintuitive at the time. Mr. Taubman and a few other retail pioneers had the foresight that changed humanity’s shopping experience around the world.
But it wasn’t easy. Mr. Taubman had to overcome what he called threshold resistance with retailers, bankers and civic leaders.
Getting people over a threshold so that they will even listen to a new idea is extremely hard when the old way of doing things, or thinking about things, is so entrenched.
Like Mr. Taubman’s successful efforts in the shopping center arena, the case for a larger Israel must overcome tremendous threshold resistance—threshold resistance that simply causes most people to dismiss the idea before it is presented.
Here are a few threshold resistance points I’ve heard from many who actually support the Jewish State:
1. The Arab States will never agree to a larger Israel, so it’s a waste of time to discuss it.
2. The international community will never agree to a larger Israel, so be practical.
3. It isn’t feasible (or fair) because of the Palestinians who live there.
4. If Singapore can succeed in a small space, so can Israel.
5. It’s a land grab: the same as Nazi Germany.
The above is STRONG threshold resistance to the case I make for a larger Israel.
But imagine the threshold resistance all democratic reform leaders throughout the Soviet Union heard before the Soviet Empire crumbled.
Imagine the threshold resistance Mahatma Gandhi heard when he said the British would one day leave India.
Imagine the threshold resistance Chaim Weizmann or Theodor Herzl heard in their pursuit for world recognition of any Jewish entity at all.
Well I’m sure they heard plenty, and they proceeded to overcome threshold resistance anyway.
As Mr. Taubman writes in his book, the most difficult challenges can be overcome if they are understood and confronted forcefully.
Many of yesterday’s casually dismissed ideas are today’s conventional wisdom. Remember when anyone advocating that Israel talks to the PLO was vilified? Pendulums swing.
Before dismissing my ideas for reframing the Middle East debate as errant or unrealistic, know that merely giving them a fair public hearing will strengthen Israel when the day comes to negotiate a durable peace with the Arab and Muslim world.
I believe a larger, viable Israel will in the long run benefit Israel and Jews, Arabs and Muslims, and all of humanity as well.
Allow me the opportunity overcome your threshold resistance.
Please have a look at my book, The Case for a Larger Israel. It is available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and from your local bookstore. While I prefer that you buy a copy so that you can display it on your coffee table and more easily discuss it with your friends and neighbors, it is also available for free at www.alargerisrael.com.
--David Naggar
(Note: Some people have suggested that making the book available for free takes away the perceived value and harms the seriousness with which its ideas are taken. I bet Mr. Taubman would agree with this. I hope you don't.)
Friday, June 01, 2007
Three Wrongs Don’t Make a Right; Pursuing Three Wrongs Won’t Bring Peace, Dr. Rice
.
“The Palestinian issue "is at the core of a lot of problems in the region," Rice said. She said, "There is no substitute for trying to get to the place where the Palestinians finally have their state and the Israelis finally have a neighbor who can live in peace and security with them."
The "Israeli-Palestinian track is extremely important" because it "unlocks the key" to "further engagement between the Arabs and the Israelis," Rice said.” By Jpost.com staff, the Jerusalem Post 5.30/07
* * *
Sadly, Dr. Rice is flat out wrong—three times.
She is wrong when she says: The Palestinian issue is at the core of a lot of problems in the region.
At the core of SOME of the regional problems is that Arabs throughout the region would like to see Israel’s existence extinguished. The Palestinian issue is a manifestation of this. It is one effect of the larger problem, not the cause of the problem.
She is wrong when she says: There is no substitute for trying to get to the place where the Palestinians finally have their state and the Israelis finally have a neighbor who can live in peace and security with them.
There are indeed substitutes, Dr. Rice. Better substitutes.
Whether or not Palestinians have “their” State shows the blind eye of a Western leader regarding States. Dr. Rice seemingly fails to recognize that the majority of Palestinians are a subset of a larger Muslim group who (1) don’t particularly identity with the Western concept of Nation States, and (2) would strongly prefer that Israel be removed from “the Muslim world.”
Whether Palestinians have a State of their own, or are invited to settle in with the larger group in the vast neighboring lands (to be first class citizens of an imposed, but not appreciated Western concept State), or are allowed by international consensus to join in the establishment of a peaceful Caliphate which reverses the travesty of the British and French imposed regional borders, the goal ought to be to make sure Palestinian lives are better (without perpetual UN, US or international support), and to make sure Israel is viable in all respects.
The truth is that a separate Palestinian State may temporarily serve the international community’s interest in the current world order, but it is unlikely to serve the Palestinians. It won’t serve Israel. And it won’t serve peace.
Finally, Dr. Rice is wrong a third time when she says: The "Israeli-Palestinian track is extremely important because it unlocks the key to further engagement between the Arabs and the Israelis.
The key to further engagement between Israel and the Arabs, at least the kind of engagement that leads to true peace, will be the unmistakable conviction by Arabs that Israel isn’t going anywhere, ever.
This will not occur with a truncated Israel as envisioned by Dr. Rice. A truncated Israel will be seen by its neighbors as weakened and vulnerable. History is a pretty conclusive guide that this is no incentive to peace. Only a strong Israel will lead to peace.
If Dr. Rice wants to unlock the key to further engagement, she should spend her time in the Arab/Muslim world promoting the establishment of Islamic learning centers that teach about Israel’s legitimate place in the Middle East.
Until Dr. Rice revisits her thinking, American peace efforts will be unproductive. Her three wrongs don’t make a right; pursuing her three wrongs won’t bring peace.
--David Naggar
“The Palestinian issue "is at the core of a lot of problems in the region," Rice said. She said, "There is no substitute for trying to get to the place where the Palestinians finally have their state and the Israelis finally have a neighbor who can live in peace and security with them."
The "Israeli-Palestinian track is extremely important" because it "unlocks the key" to "further engagement between the Arabs and the Israelis," Rice said.” By Jpost.com staff, the Jerusalem Post 5.30/07
* * *
Sadly, Dr. Rice is flat out wrong—three times.
She is wrong when she says: The Palestinian issue is at the core of a lot of problems in the region.
At the core of SOME of the regional problems is that Arabs throughout the region would like to see Israel’s existence extinguished. The Palestinian issue is a manifestation of this. It is one effect of the larger problem, not the cause of the problem.
She is wrong when she says: There is no substitute for trying to get to the place where the Palestinians finally have their state and the Israelis finally have a neighbor who can live in peace and security with them.
There are indeed substitutes, Dr. Rice. Better substitutes.
Whether or not Palestinians have “their” State shows the blind eye of a Western leader regarding States. Dr. Rice seemingly fails to recognize that the majority of Palestinians are a subset of a larger Muslim group who (1) don’t particularly identity with the Western concept of Nation States, and (2) would strongly prefer that Israel be removed from “the Muslim world.”
Whether Palestinians have a State of their own, or are invited to settle in with the larger group in the vast neighboring lands (to be first class citizens of an imposed, but not appreciated Western concept State), or are allowed by international consensus to join in the establishment of a peaceful Caliphate which reverses the travesty of the British and French imposed regional borders, the goal ought to be to make sure Palestinian lives are better (without perpetual UN, US or international support), and to make sure Israel is viable in all respects.
The truth is that a separate Palestinian State may temporarily serve the international community’s interest in the current world order, but it is unlikely to serve the Palestinians. It won’t serve Israel. And it won’t serve peace.
Finally, Dr. Rice is wrong a third time when she says: The "Israeli-Palestinian track is extremely important because it unlocks the key to further engagement between the Arabs and the Israelis.
The key to further engagement between Israel and the Arabs, at least the kind of engagement that leads to true peace, will be the unmistakable conviction by Arabs that Israel isn’t going anywhere, ever.
This will not occur with a truncated Israel as envisioned by Dr. Rice. A truncated Israel will be seen by its neighbors as weakened and vulnerable. History is a pretty conclusive guide that this is no incentive to peace. Only a strong Israel will lead to peace.
If Dr. Rice wants to unlock the key to further engagement, she should spend her time in the Arab/Muslim world promoting the establishment of Islamic learning centers that teach about Israel’s legitimate place in the Middle East.
Until Dr. Rice revisits her thinking, American peace efforts will be unproductive. Her three wrongs don’t make a right; pursuing her three wrongs won’t bring peace.
--David Naggar
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Now, It’s The World’s Problem
.
"THOUSANDS OF PALESTINIANS FLEE EMBATTLED REFUGEE CAMP IN NORTHERN LEBANON
Thousands of people were fleeing late Tuesday during a lull in the fighting in the third straight day of clashes between Lebanese troops and Islamic militants holed up in a north Lebanon refugee camp, Associated Press reporters at the scene said." By News Agencies, May 22, 2007.
* * *
People flee wars. They flee in Lebanon. They flee in Iraq. And they fled Israel/British Mandate Palestine in 1948-1949 when Arab armies attacked Israel.
People flee because they fear for their safety.
They also flee because they fear their enemy or because they are asked to by their own invading armies.
The cause of the flight of the 1948 Palestinian Arab refugees has been subject to heated argument. But flee they did.
Less remembered are the 1948 Palestinian Jewish refugees who fled from the region then internationally known as Samaria and Judea—now generally called the West Bank. (Some of these people have moved back to the West Bank after Israel captured it from Jordan in 1967. To most of the world’s horror, they insist on calling it Samaria and Judea. But this story is for another day.)
Why were these fleeing Jews less remembered? Because Israel absorbed the fleeing Jews as full citizens of Israel.
In fact, Israel (and other countries) absorbed all the Jews who fled Arab countries after Israeli independence. And there were more Jews who fled Arab countries than there were Palestinian Arabs who fled in 1948.
Had the Arab countries that surround Israel—all of whom were created out of the embers of the Ottoman Empire—chosen to absorb Palestinian Arabs, there wouldn’t be any refugee camps to foment internal problems.
Instead the Arab countries cynically oppressed most of the fleeing Palestinian Arabs and kept them apart from their societies—purposely to be used as pawns against Israel in the future.
If the killing in Lebanon goes on for even a few more days, undoubtedly a portion of the media will trace back all the trouble to the usual suspect—Israel.
But today, Palestinian Arabs are not just Israel’s problem. They are Lebanon’s problem, they are the Arab States’ problem, and they are the world’s problem.
Palestinian Arabs need a better life and a real home where they can be first class citizens. Israel needs a State large enough to be viable in all respects.
How can this happen?
It’s time for the Arab countries to fully absorb Palestinian Arabs, or carve out a place in the vast Arab lands—about 500 times the size of Israel and the territories—for Palestinians to have their own viable State.
It’s time for the international community to pressure the Arab States to do so, and to also help fund this enterprise. Why? Because they didn’t do so nearly 60 years ago. Because they let the sick situation inside Arab borders fester. Because now, it’s the world’s problem.
--David Naggar
"THOUSANDS OF PALESTINIANS FLEE EMBATTLED REFUGEE CAMP IN NORTHERN LEBANON
Thousands of people were fleeing late Tuesday during a lull in the fighting in the third straight day of clashes between Lebanese troops and Islamic militants holed up in a north Lebanon refugee camp, Associated Press reporters at the scene said." By News Agencies, May 22, 2007.
* * *
People flee wars. They flee in Lebanon. They flee in Iraq. And they fled Israel/British Mandate Palestine in 1948-1949 when Arab armies attacked Israel.
People flee because they fear for their safety.
They also flee because they fear their enemy or because they are asked to by their own invading armies.
The cause of the flight of the 1948 Palestinian Arab refugees has been subject to heated argument. But flee they did.
Less remembered are the 1948 Palestinian Jewish refugees who fled from the region then internationally known as Samaria and Judea—now generally called the West Bank. (Some of these people have moved back to the West Bank after Israel captured it from Jordan in 1967. To most of the world’s horror, they insist on calling it Samaria and Judea. But this story is for another day.)
Why were these fleeing Jews less remembered? Because Israel absorbed the fleeing Jews as full citizens of Israel.
In fact, Israel (and other countries) absorbed all the Jews who fled Arab countries after Israeli independence. And there were more Jews who fled Arab countries than there were Palestinian Arabs who fled in 1948.
Had the Arab countries that surround Israel—all of whom were created out of the embers of the Ottoman Empire—chosen to absorb Palestinian Arabs, there wouldn’t be any refugee camps to foment internal problems.
Instead the Arab countries cynically oppressed most of the fleeing Palestinian Arabs and kept them apart from their societies—purposely to be used as pawns against Israel in the future.
If the killing in Lebanon goes on for even a few more days, undoubtedly a portion of the media will trace back all the trouble to the usual suspect—Israel.
But today, Palestinian Arabs are not just Israel’s problem. They are Lebanon’s problem, they are the Arab States’ problem, and they are the world’s problem.
Palestinian Arabs need a better life and a real home where they can be first class citizens. Israel needs a State large enough to be viable in all respects.
How can this happen?
It’s time for the Arab countries to fully absorb Palestinian Arabs, or carve out a place in the vast Arab lands—about 500 times the size of Israel and the territories—for Palestinians to have their own viable State.
It’s time for the international community to pressure the Arab States to do so, and to also help fund this enterprise. Why? Because they didn’t do so nearly 60 years ago. Because they let the sick situation inside Arab borders fester. Because now, it’s the world’s problem.
--David Naggar
Monday, May 07, 2007
Another Risk: A Massive Israeli Brain-Drain
.
“Approximately 47% of [Israel’s] population would, if born again, prefer for that to happen somewhere other than Israel, according to an "alternative survey" conducted by the Geocartographic Institute's iGeo subsidiary…
"Among wealthy local-born Israelis, 62% said they would like to be reborn abroad, 18% in the US or Canada, 8% in Switzerland and 6% in Sweden.
"The survey revealed surprising findings from pensioners; 59% said they would rather live abroad. Twelve percent would choose the US, 9% Switzerland, 6% Australia and 3% would seek retirement in New Zealand.”
.......From a Jerusalem Post article entitled "Israel's population reaches 7,150,000," by Shelly Paz and Haviv Rettig, April 23, 2007.
* * *
There are obvious external threats to Israel. There is also the very real threat of a flight of Jewish citizens leaving Israel to get a “better” economic life, or simply succumbing to the psychological pressures of Arab attacks of attrition.
How many Israelis would leave if they really could? Not the kind of question that keeps politicians awake in successful societies.
The continued existence of Israel depends on it becoming viable in all respects.
Israel must not just be a place tough enough to endure hate from its enemies; Israel must also be a great place to live. Otherwise, sooner or later, yet another real risk to Israel will become more obvious: a Massive Brain-Drain.
--David Naggar
“Approximately 47% of [Israel’s] population would, if born again, prefer for that to happen somewhere other than Israel, according to an "alternative survey" conducted by the Geocartographic Institute's iGeo subsidiary…
"Among wealthy local-born Israelis, 62% said they would like to be reborn abroad, 18% in the US or Canada, 8% in Switzerland and 6% in Sweden.
"The survey revealed surprising findings from pensioners; 59% said they would rather live abroad. Twelve percent would choose the US, 9% Switzerland, 6% Australia and 3% would seek retirement in New Zealand.”
.......From a Jerusalem Post article entitled "Israel's population reaches 7,150,000," by Shelly Paz and Haviv Rettig, April 23, 2007.
* * *
There are obvious external threats to Israel. There is also the very real threat of a flight of Jewish citizens leaving Israel to get a “better” economic life, or simply succumbing to the psychological pressures of Arab attacks of attrition.
How many Israelis would leave if they really could? Not the kind of question that keeps politicians awake in successful societies.
The continued existence of Israel depends on it becoming viable in all respects.
Israel must not just be a place tough enough to endure hate from its enemies; Israel must also be a great place to live. Otherwise, sooner or later, yet another real risk to Israel will become more obvious: a Massive Brain-Drain.
--David Naggar
Friday, April 20, 2007
Learning from Intel’s Israelis—It’s Time to Elect a Prime Minister Willing to Argue the Case to Death
.
“… A camera zoomed in on engineers in lab coats in Haifa, Israel. The video revealed that the chip Intel is counting on to recover from a battering by Advanced Micro Devices Inc. wasn't invented in Silicon Valley. Instead, Intel is betting on a group of Israeli mavericks and a design bureau 7,400 miles (11,900 kilometers) away…
``We did it the Israeli way; we argued our case to death,'' [Shmuel] Eden recalls. ``You know what an exchange of opinions is in Israel? You come to the meeting with your opinion, and you leave with mine.''
---By Ian King, March 28, 2007 (Bloomberg) --
* * *
How did the Israelis convince Intel to use its chip? They argued their case to death.
How can Israel convince the world that viability requires it to be larger? It must argue the case to death.
How can Israel convince the world that the two-state solution within the confines of Israel and the territories is unworkable? It must argue the case to death.
But what do current Israeli leaders do? They concede the two-state solution and claim that only a lack of a peace partner foils its implementation.
It’s time for new elections in Israel. It’s time to elect someone who is willing to start arguing the case to death.
--David Naggar
“… A camera zoomed in on engineers in lab coats in Haifa, Israel. The video revealed that the chip Intel is counting on to recover from a battering by Advanced Micro Devices Inc. wasn't invented in Silicon Valley. Instead, Intel is betting on a group of Israeli mavericks and a design bureau 7,400 miles (11,900 kilometers) away…
``We did it the Israeli way; we argued our case to death,'' [Shmuel] Eden recalls. ``You know what an exchange of opinions is in Israel? You come to the meeting with your opinion, and you leave with mine.''
---By Ian King, March 28, 2007 (Bloomberg) --
* * *
How did the Israelis convince Intel to use its chip? They argued their case to death.
How can Israel convince the world that viability requires it to be larger? It must argue the case to death.
How can Israel convince the world that the two-state solution within the confines of Israel and the territories is unworkable? It must argue the case to death.
But what do current Israeli leaders do? They concede the two-state solution and claim that only a lack of a peace partner foils its implementation.
It’s time for new elections in Israel. It’s time to elect someone who is willing to start arguing the case to death.
--David Naggar
Monday, April 02, 2007
Once Again, for Passover. A Guide To The Four Questions Of Israel
.
But first, a news note before I begin: The Arab Peace Initiative, Round Two.
The Arab Peace Initiative, inspired by the Saudis, suggests that if Israel returns to its onerous pre-1967 borders, and if the millions of descendants of Palestinian Arabs who left Israel when the Arab armies attacked it in 1948 were allowed to return to Israel, there could be peace. In essence, this plan calls for peace by ending the Jewish State. This non-proposal is not a morally inspired offer to end the conflict. It is a media ploy, complete with warnings of war should Israel not seize the “opportunity.”
Prime Minister Olmert’s response is a good one. No to taking refugees, but yes to a summit in Jerusalem. Now the ball is back in the Arab’s court. I hope the Prime Minister appreciates he’s in a media game, but sometimes I wonder.
Now, the four questions…
1) Do you accept that as part of a global village, there is room for a Jewish majority State?
Some people do not accept that there is room in the world for a Jewish majority State because they believe in the Jeffersonian ideal that separates religion from civil governance.
Others claim not to accept Israel because they think a Jewish majority State is racist.
Presumably people in both of these camps would also be opposed to Christian majority or Muslim majority States, but their silence, notwithstanding the existence of many such States, stands in stark contrast to their thunderous and singular disapproval of Israel.
Whether it is high-minded or low minded, there is no point arguing the politics of Israel and its neighbors without first hearing a “Yes” to this question.
(For the record, I wish that all the people of the globe adopted the American mentality of live and let live, that we had a united planet, and that there was no need for borders of any kind. But utopia is far away.)
Here in the West, the vast majority of people have no problem with the existence of a Jewish majority State that wishes to self-govern. Most acknowledge the right to self-determination, and agree with the proposition that people who wish to self-govern should be free to do so.
So, with one “Yes” in tow, we can ask the second question:
2) Do you accept that as part of a global village, there is room for a Jewish majority State IN THE MIDDLE-EAST?
Today, most Arabs and Muslims of the Middle-East, would answer a resounding “NO!” They tolerate the reality of Israel, but believe it will ultimately fail. They will dance in the streets if it fails. They will celebrate any effort to hasten Israel’s demise. There is no love lost on Israel from these quarters.
Again, it is pointless discussing with those who do not believe a Jewish majority State should exist in the Middle-East, the morality of Israel’s actions in the face of her hostile neighbors (the usual antagonistic ones being settlements, checkpoints, and the so-called wall).
For those who don’t believe Israel should exist in the Middle-East, the inhumanity of Israel’s neighbors will be justified by the “inhumanity” of Israel’s existence. The nut of this self-righteous, yet morally dubious argument is something like this: “Israel stole the land in the first place, and so, they deserve everything that’s coming to them.”
It is an historical stretch to claim that Jews stole their own historical homeland. It is also a stretch to say that Jews were advantaged unfairly over Arabs at the conclusion of World War I. But it is not a stretch to say that Palestinian Arabs, as a particular subset of Arabs, ended up with a raw deal that continues to be raw.
For those who have little sense of the area, a little background helps.
The Middle-East is the historical home of the Jewish people, and in the West, we connect Jews and the Holy Land. The fact that a) there has been a continuous Jewish presence in the land for thousands of years, that b) Roman, Arab and Crusader armies combined to drive most, but not all Jews out, and that c) there can be no morally binding statute of limitations against coming back to the land of your ancestors, seems to suffice most people that Israel belongs were it does.
Further, in modern times, before there was a Syria, a Lebanon, an Iraq, a Jordan or an Israel, the Ottoman Empire ruled the area. But the Ottoman Turks lost World War I, and the Empire was divided.
The Arabs got most of the land, the Jews got a little, and that little was reduced again and again.
There is room for everyone in the Middle-East, but without doubt, just as Jews were displaces in the last century from Muslim majority States stretching from Morocco to Iran, Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians were displaced from what is now Israel.
Of course, 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab, so comparing the cause, circumstances, or terms of partial displacement of Arabs to the near total displacement Jews is like comparing apples and oranges.
Historical truth aside, only if a person answers “Yes” to this question and the first question is there any reason to ask the third question.
3) Do you accept that as part of a global village that contains hostile elements, the sole Jewish majority State must do what it can to survive, defend its citizens, and ensure that its citizens have the opportunity to thrive?
One could ask a similar question of any State. Bit isn’t “survive, defend and ensure opportunity” Israel’s obligation as a State? Israel’s actions and motivations can be properly judged by how well it morally fulfills its obligation.
Compare this question to one asked most loudly by Israel’s detractors: “Why does Israel have to oppress innocent Palestinians?” This question is loaded. The reality is, Israel doesn’t HAVE to oppress anyone. I know of no Israeli leader who WANTS to oppress Palestinians.
No doubt those Palestinians who wish Israel no harm suffer alongside those who do wish Israel harm.
But if Israel must choose between life as a withering failed State that is constantly being terrorized, or fighting its enemies—even knowing that some who are not enemies will suffer, and some who are not enemies will be made into enemies—it has no alternative but to fight. How can anyone in good faith argue otherwise?
Israel must do what it must do because it is a State, and it has obligations to its citizens, not to mention a unique obligation to Jews throughout the world. As such, it is obligated and duty bound to reach its own “Yes” answer to this 3rd question. For over 50 years it has been fighting an antagonistic Arab/Muslim population that stretches from Morocco to Iran and beyond. It is at war. Sometimes it is a hot war, and sometimes it is a cold war. People on all sides of a war suffer. Hopefully innocent suffering is limited, but this is plainly not always so.
This brings us to the 4th question.
4) Do you accept that as part of a global village, IF the sole Jewish majority State’s viability is dependent on it becoming larger, it should become larger?
If your answers to the first three questions are “Yes” but your answer to this fourth question is “No,” you have probably concluded one of two things: 1) the Jewish majority State’s viability is not dependent on its size, or 2) you really don’t believe that there is room for a viable Israel in the Middle-East even though you say you accept that there is.
Saying a larger Israel “can’t happen” to avoid giving a “Yes” answer is no answer at all. Asking, “what about the Palestinians?” may show compassion, but also provides no answer to the question. (Incidentally, handled correctly, Palestinian Arabs will benefit from, not be victimized by, a viable, sustainable, unassailable Israel).
If you are a supporter of Israel who answers “No,” to this question, and you do so because of a feeling that that Israel is large enough, or that in an interdependent world, size doesn’t matter, don’t you owe it to yourself and to Israel to make sure your assumptions are right? Or will you be content with the prospect you are wrong, and a slowly decaying Israel?
Don’t give a lazy “No.” The stakes are too high.
Please read The Case For A Larger Israel. Maybe you’ll find your fourth “Yes.”
And then, who better to stand up than you?
Happy Passover.
--David Naggar
But first, a news note before I begin: The Arab Peace Initiative, Round Two.
The Arab Peace Initiative, inspired by the Saudis, suggests that if Israel returns to its onerous pre-1967 borders, and if the millions of descendants of Palestinian Arabs who left Israel when the Arab armies attacked it in 1948 were allowed to return to Israel, there could be peace. In essence, this plan calls for peace by ending the Jewish State. This non-proposal is not a morally inspired offer to end the conflict. It is a media ploy, complete with warnings of war should Israel not seize the “opportunity.”
Prime Minister Olmert’s response is a good one. No to taking refugees, but yes to a summit in Jerusalem. Now the ball is back in the Arab’s court. I hope the Prime Minister appreciates he’s in a media game, but sometimes I wonder.
Now, the four questions…
1) Do you accept that as part of a global village, there is room for a Jewish majority State?
Some people do not accept that there is room in the world for a Jewish majority State because they believe in the Jeffersonian ideal that separates religion from civil governance.
Others claim not to accept Israel because they think a Jewish majority State is racist.
Presumably people in both of these camps would also be opposed to Christian majority or Muslim majority States, but their silence, notwithstanding the existence of many such States, stands in stark contrast to their thunderous and singular disapproval of Israel.
Whether it is high-minded or low minded, there is no point arguing the politics of Israel and its neighbors without first hearing a “Yes” to this question.
(For the record, I wish that all the people of the globe adopted the American mentality of live and let live, that we had a united planet, and that there was no need for borders of any kind. But utopia is far away.)
Here in the West, the vast majority of people have no problem with the existence of a Jewish majority State that wishes to self-govern. Most acknowledge the right to self-determination, and agree with the proposition that people who wish to self-govern should be free to do so.
So, with one “Yes” in tow, we can ask the second question:
2) Do you accept that as part of a global village, there is room for a Jewish majority State IN THE MIDDLE-EAST?
Today, most Arabs and Muslims of the Middle-East, would answer a resounding “NO!” They tolerate the reality of Israel, but believe it will ultimately fail. They will dance in the streets if it fails. They will celebrate any effort to hasten Israel’s demise. There is no love lost on Israel from these quarters.
Again, it is pointless discussing with those who do not believe a Jewish majority State should exist in the Middle-East, the morality of Israel’s actions in the face of her hostile neighbors (the usual antagonistic ones being settlements, checkpoints, and the so-called wall).
For those who don’t believe Israel should exist in the Middle-East, the inhumanity of Israel’s neighbors will be justified by the “inhumanity” of Israel’s existence. The nut of this self-righteous, yet morally dubious argument is something like this: “Israel stole the land in the first place, and so, they deserve everything that’s coming to them.”
It is an historical stretch to claim that Jews stole their own historical homeland. It is also a stretch to say that Jews were advantaged unfairly over Arabs at the conclusion of World War I. But it is not a stretch to say that Palestinian Arabs, as a particular subset of Arabs, ended up with a raw deal that continues to be raw.
For those who have little sense of the area, a little background helps.
The Middle-East is the historical home of the Jewish people, and in the West, we connect Jews and the Holy Land. The fact that a) there has been a continuous Jewish presence in the land for thousands of years, that b) Roman, Arab and Crusader armies combined to drive most, but not all Jews out, and that c) there can be no morally binding statute of limitations against coming back to the land of your ancestors, seems to suffice most people that Israel belongs were it does.
Further, in modern times, before there was a Syria, a Lebanon, an Iraq, a Jordan or an Israel, the Ottoman Empire ruled the area. But the Ottoman Turks lost World War I, and the Empire was divided.
The Arabs got most of the land, the Jews got a little, and that little was reduced again and again.
There is room for everyone in the Middle-East, but without doubt, just as Jews were displaces in the last century from Muslim majority States stretching from Morocco to Iran, Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians were displaced from what is now Israel.
Of course, 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab, so comparing the cause, circumstances, or terms of partial displacement of Arabs to the near total displacement Jews is like comparing apples and oranges.
Historical truth aside, only if a person answers “Yes” to this question and the first question is there any reason to ask the third question.
3) Do you accept that as part of a global village that contains hostile elements, the sole Jewish majority State must do what it can to survive, defend its citizens, and ensure that its citizens have the opportunity to thrive?
One could ask a similar question of any State. Bit isn’t “survive, defend and ensure opportunity” Israel’s obligation as a State? Israel’s actions and motivations can be properly judged by how well it morally fulfills its obligation.
Compare this question to one asked most loudly by Israel’s detractors: “Why does Israel have to oppress innocent Palestinians?” This question is loaded. The reality is, Israel doesn’t HAVE to oppress anyone. I know of no Israeli leader who WANTS to oppress Palestinians.
No doubt those Palestinians who wish Israel no harm suffer alongside those who do wish Israel harm.
But if Israel must choose between life as a withering failed State that is constantly being terrorized, or fighting its enemies—even knowing that some who are not enemies will suffer, and some who are not enemies will be made into enemies—it has no alternative but to fight. How can anyone in good faith argue otherwise?
Israel must do what it must do because it is a State, and it has obligations to its citizens, not to mention a unique obligation to Jews throughout the world. As such, it is obligated and duty bound to reach its own “Yes” answer to this 3rd question. For over 50 years it has been fighting an antagonistic Arab/Muslim population that stretches from Morocco to Iran and beyond. It is at war. Sometimes it is a hot war, and sometimes it is a cold war. People on all sides of a war suffer. Hopefully innocent suffering is limited, but this is plainly not always so.
This brings us to the 4th question.
4) Do you accept that as part of a global village, IF the sole Jewish majority State’s viability is dependent on it becoming larger, it should become larger?
If your answers to the first three questions are “Yes” but your answer to this fourth question is “No,” you have probably concluded one of two things: 1) the Jewish majority State’s viability is not dependent on its size, or 2) you really don’t believe that there is room for a viable Israel in the Middle-East even though you say you accept that there is.
Saying a larger Israel “can’t happen” to avoid giving a “Yes” answer is no answer at all. Asking, “what about the Palestinians?” may show compassion, but also provides no answer to the question. (Incidentally, handled correctly, Palestinian Arabs will benefit from, not be victimized by, a viable, sustainable, unassailable Israel).
If you are a supporter of Israel who answers “No,” to this question, and you do so because of a feeling that that Israel is large enough, or that in an interdependent world, size doesn’t matter, don’t you owe it to yourself and to Israel to make sure your assumptions are right? Or will you be content with the prospect you are wrong, and a slowly decaying Israel?
Don’t give a lazy “No.” The stakes are too high.
Please read The Case For A Larger Israel. Maybe you’ll find your fourth “Yes.”
And then, who better to stand up than you?
Happy Passover.
--David Naggar
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
It May Be Time For Israel To Employ the Talents of DDB
.
“Israel, Iran and the United States are the countries with the most negative image in a globe-spanning survey of attitudes toward 12 major nations. Canada and Japan came out best in the poll, released Tuesday.
The survey for the British Broadcasting Corp.'s World Service asked more than 28,000 people to rate 12 countries - Britain, Canada, China, France, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Russia, the United States and Venezuela - as having a positive or negative influence on the world.
Israel was viewed negatively by 56 percent of respondents and positively by 17 percent; for Iran, the figures were 54 percent and 18 percent. The United States had the third-highest negative ranking, with 51 percent citing it as a bad influence and 30 percent as a good one. Next was North Korea, which was viewed negatively by 48 percent and positively by 19 percent.”
By the Associated Press, March 6, 2007.
* * *
The world is a busy place. Brand and image matter. And that’s where the magic of DDB comes in.
Who’s DDB? It is Budweiser’s ad agency.
The BBC poll which shows how poor Israel’s image is, may make it is easier to appreciate the dilemma faced by Israeli political leaders.
In Lebanon and Gaza they probably believed they had no choice but to choose poorly—to bend to the current international will.
After all, Israel’s success as an economy is dependent on exports. High technology goods and services now account for about one third of Israel’s GDP and 75 percent of its industrial exports.
As the most hated country on the planet, Israeli politicians are aware that any foreign policy misstep could drown its ability to export in a sea of sanctions. And that would be a catastrophe.
On the other hand, an actual return to the pre ’67 borders—the Auschwitz lines as Abba Eban called them—would also lead to a catastrophe.
So Israeli leaders walk a tightrope, and in so doing, they are roundly disrespected in Israel. And Israel is hated around the world.
Israel needs help on the international stage.
Rather than making a serious global media effort to change its image—to explain to the world how Israel contributes to benefit humanity, and why Israel needs adequate territory to both be self-reliant and end Arab/Islamic aggression—the Israeli leadership chooses instead to do what it can to avoid making the world more hostile to it in the short-term.
Israeli public relations efforts have been clumsy at best.
Like an unpopular adolescent, Israeli leaders have come to accept Israel’s current status as truth, and act accordingly.
The inevitable result of this acceptance is Israel’s precarious existence for the foreseeable future.
The people of Israel should not be compelled to live on a tightrope.
The international community will not presently allow Israel to stand up to its enemies. But help could come from DDB.
For Israel to be viable and thrive in the long-run, it must have different borders.
Yet the idea of creating viable (larger) borders is seen by many as evil. They compare it to Lebensraum, the Nazi expansion model. They deride it as unnecessary by noting that Singapore is also small. These are not valid comparisons. Please have a look at my book, “The Case for a Larger Israel” for proper refutations and perspective.
I’ve argued that world opinion must be changed before the idea of changing Israel’s borders is taken seriously.
“World opinion will never change,” you say? That’s just not so.
Recall that Israel was once a cause celeb. In 1919 the world favored the creation of a Jewish homeland large enough for it to prosper on its own. That slipped away. In 1948 the world favored the tiny Nation as it fought against annihilation. That too faded. In 1967, the world was in awe of little David that stood up to the vast Arab Goliath. This too has faded.
Today, Israel is far, far from being a cause celeb. Now Israel is Goliath, and the Palestinians are David. And the world works with David’s leaders—Hamas—to find acceptably ambiguous words which can be taken as their promise not to kill Goliath.
This reversal of Israel’s popularity is not permanent. Israel must be made to be a cause celeb once again, and without the reoccurrence of massive Jewish death.
Israel needs a massive ad campaign if it is to be allowed by the international community to climb down from the tightrope. It needs the effective magic of commercial advertising. You think I’m kidding? I’m not.
--David Naggar
“Israel, Iran and the United States are the countries with the most negative image in a globe-spanning survey of attitudes toward 12 major nations. Canada and Japan came out best in the poll, released Tuesday.
The survey for the British Broadcasting Corp.'s World Service asked more than 28,000 people to rate 12 countries - Britain, Canada, China, France, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Russia, the United States and Venezuela - as having a positive or negative influence on the world.
Israel was viewed negatively by 56 percent of respondents and positively by 17 percent; for Iran, the figures were 54 percent and 18 percent. The United States had the third-highest negative ranking, with 51 percent citing it as a bad influence and 30 percent as a good one. Next was North Korea, which was viewed negatively by 48 percent and positively by 19 percent.”
By the Associated Press, March 6, 2007.
* * *
The world is a busy place. Brand and image matter. And that’s where the magic of DDB comes in.
Who’s DDB? It is Budweiser’s ad agency.
The BBC poll which shows how poor Israel’s image is, may make it is easier to appreciate the dilemma faced by Israeli political leaders.
In Lebanon and Gaza they probably believed they had no choice but to choose poorly—to bend to the current international will.
After all, Israel’s success as an economy is dependent on exports. High technology goods and services now account for about one third of Israel’s GDP and 75 percent of its industrial exports.
As the most hated country on the planet, Israeli politicians are aware that any foreign policy misstep could drown its ability to export in a sea of sanctions. And that would be a catastrophe.
On the other hand, an actual return to the pre ’67 borders—the Auschwitz lines as Abba Eban called them—would also lead to a catastrophe.
So Israeli leaders walk a tightrope, and in so doing, they are roundly disrespected in Israel. And Israel is hated around the world.
Israel needs help on the international stage.
Rather than making a serious global media effort to change its image—to explain to the world how Israel contributes to benefit humanity, and why Israel needs adequate territory to both be self-reliant and end Arab/Islamic aggression—the Israeli leadership chooses instead to do what it can to avoid making the world more hostile to it in the short-term.
Israeli public relations efforts have been clumsy at best.
Like an unpopular adolescent, Israeli leaders have come to accept Israel’s current status as truth, and act accordingly.
The inevitable result of this acceptance is Israel’s precarious existence for the foreseeable future.
The people of Israel should not be compelled to live on a tightrope.
The international community will not presently allow Israel to stand up to its enemies. But help could come from DDB.
For Israel to be viable and thrive in the long-run, it must have different borders.
Yet the idea of creating viable (larger) borders is seen by many as evil. They compare it to Lebensraum, the Nazi expansion model. They deride it as unnecessary by noting that Singapore is also small. These are not valid comparisons. Please have a look at my book, “The Case for a Larger Israel” for proper refutations and perspective.
I’ve argued that world opinion must be changed before the idea of changing Israel’s borders is taken seriously.
“World opinion will never change,” you say? That’s just not so.
Recall that Israel was once a cause celeb. In 1919 the world favored the creation of a Jewish homeland large enough for it to prosper on its own. That slipped away. In 1948 the world favored the tiny Nation as it fought against annihilation. That too faded. In 1967, the world was in awe of little David that stood up to the vast Arab Goliath. This too has faded.
Today, Israel is far, far from being a cause celeb. Now Israel is Goliath, and the Palestinians are David. And the world works with David’s leaders—Hamas—to find acceptably ambiguous words which can be taken as their promise not to kill Goliath.
This reversal of Israel’s popularity is not permanent. Israel must be made to be a cause celeb once again, and without the reoccurrence of massive Jewish death.
Israel needs a massive ad campaign if it is to be allowed by the international community to climb down from the tightrope. It needs the effective magic of commercial advertising. You think I’m kidding? I’m not.
--David Naggar
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
What Would You Do To Save Your Kingdom?
.
“The wellspring of regional division, the source of resentment and frustration far beyond, is the denial of justice and peace in Palestine.
There are those who say, ‘It's not our business.’ But this Congress knows: there are no bystanders in the 21st Century, there are no curious onlookers, there is no one who is not affected by the division and hatred that is present in our world.
Some will say: ‘This is not the core issue in the Middle East.’ I come here today as your friend to tell you that this is the core issue. And this core issue is not only producing severe consequences for our region, it is producing severe consequences for our world.”
--King Abdullah of Jordan—speaking to the United States Congress, March 7, 2007.
* * * * *
The King is a well-spoken man, and is easy to like.
But “the denial of justice and peace in Palestine,” is not the well-spring of regional division. I’m fairly certain the King knows this.
Palestinian suffering is not causing Shiites and Sunnis to kill each other in Iraq, it is not causing the civil strive in Lebanon, and it is not causing mass murder in Sudan (Darfur).
Palestinian centrality is a red herring. If it weren’t, the King’s father, King Hussein, would have given the Palestinians the entire West Bank when Jordan controlled it before 1967.
What’s going on? Why is the King claiming that this is the central issue in the Middle-East, when anyone but a casual observer knows that this is not the case?
Because he is doing what he can to protect and strengthen his Kingdom: The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Continued Palestinian unrest is the well-spring that could lead to the demise of his Kingdom.
The King needs a settlement that confines Israel and Palestine to the geography of Israel and the territories, and he knows that his time is running out.
He knows that Jordan has no historical business existing. The Kingdom is a legacy of Britain’s global chess game with France at the end of World War I.
The King feels the heat, and his monarchy is in trouble.
When his father faced a Palestinian attempt to end his rule in 1970, Israel, purportedly at America’s request, came to Jordan’s rescue. With an eighty percent self-identifying Palestinian population, it is likely that one day, these people will reject Hashemite rule.
As King Abdullah’s father, King Hussein, said of Palestinians and Jordanians on Egyptian television in 1977. “The two peoples are actually one. This is a fact.”
There is no reason to distinguish between people living on one side of the Jordan River from those living on the other side when they share the same heritage, culture, faith (generally), language, and ethnicity.
There is no reason that the laudable international goal of having each People achieve self-determination should mean that Palestinians, even if acknowledged as a Nation, should have two States.
Since Israel isn’t viable within its 1967 borders—its current level of economic strength notwithstanding—if the King really wanted peace and justice for Palestinians, he would offer West Bank Palestinians homes in Jordan. There is room. But he won’t make that offer. From his personal point of view, he can’t.
If he did, his new “subjects” might add to a chorus that would invite him to return to his Hashemite home in present day Saudi Arabia. His family’s historical enemy, the House of Saud would not exactly welcome his return with open arms.
I wonder if the King would argue that this historical fight, too, is somehow caused by the lack of Palestinian justice?
King Abdullah is, as they say, between a rock and a hard place. His only way out is to convince the world of Palestinian centrality and hope the United States strong-arms Israel. And so the King will pursue this strategy with gusto.
But don’t be misled by warmth or charm, or calls for peace that preserve Hashemite rule over all of present-day Jordan without sacrifice. This is just what a King does to save his Kingdom.
--David Naggar
“The wellspring of regional division, the source of resentment and frustration far beyond, is the denial of justice and peace in Palestine.
There are those who say, ‘It's not our business.’ But this Congress knows: there are no bystanders in the 21st Century, there are no curious onlookers, there is no one who is not affected by the division and hatred that is present in our world.
Some will say: ‘This is not the core issue in the Middle East.’ I come here today as your friend to tell you that this is the core issue. And this core issue is not only producing severe consequences for our region, it is producing severe consequences for our world.”
--King Abdullah of Jordan—speaking to the United States Congress, March 7, 2007.
* * * * *
The King is a well-spoken man, and is easy to like.
But “the denial of justice and peace in Palestine,” is not the well-spring of regional division. I’m fairly certain the King knows this.
Palestinian suffering is not causing Shiites and Sunnis to kill each other in Iraq, it is not causing the civil strive in Lebanon, and it is not causing mass murder in Sudan (Darfur).
Palestinian centrality is a red herring. If it weren’t, the King’s father, King Hussein, would have given the Palestinians the entire West Bank when Jordan controlled it before 1967.
What’s going on? Why is the King claiming that this is the central issue in the Middle-East, when anyone but a casual observer knows that this is not the case?
Because he is doing what he can to protect and strengthen his Kingdom: The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Continued Palestinian unrest is the well-spring that could lead to the demise of his Kingdom.
The King needs a settlement that confines Israel and Palestine to the geography of Israel and the territories, and he knows that his time is running out.
He knows that Jordan has no historical business existing. The Kingdom is a legacy of Britain’s global chess game with France at the end of World War I.
The King feels the heat, and his monarchy is in trouble.
When his father faced a Palestinian attempt to end his rule in 1970, Israel, purportedly at America’s request, came to Jordan’s rescue. With an eighty percent self-identifying Palestinian population, it is likely that one day, these people will reject Hashemite rule.
As King Abdullah’s father, King Hussein, said of Palestinians and Jordanians on Egyptian television in 1977. “The two peoples are actually one. This is a fact.”
There is no reason to distinguish between people living on one side of the Jordan River from those living on the other side when they share the same heritage, culture, faith (generally), language, and ethnicity.
There is no reason that the laudable international goal of having each People achieve self-determination should mean that Palestinians, even if acknowledged as a Nation, should have two States.
Since Israel isn’t viable within its 1967 borders—its current level of economic strength notwithstanding—if the King really wanted peace and justice for Palestinians, he would offer West Bank Palestinians homes in Jordan. There is room. But he won’t make that offer. From his personal point of view, he can’t.
If he did, his new “subjects” might add to a chorus that would invite him to return to his Hashemite home in present day Saudi Arabia. His family’s historical enemy, the House of Saud would not exactly welcome his return with open arms.
I wonder if the King would argue that this historical fight, too, is somehow caused by the lack of Palestinian justice?
King Abdullah is, as they say, between a rock and a hard place. His only way out is to convince the world of Palestinian centrality and hope the United States strong-arms Israel. And so the King will pursue this strategy with gusto.
But don’t be misled by warmth or charm, or calls for peace that preserve Hashemite rule over all of present-day Jordan without sacrifice. This is just what a King does to save his Kingdom.
--David Naggar
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Some Things Sound Fair, But Aren’t
.
“Israeli Arab group proposes new 'multi-cultural' constitution.
A proposed constitution written by the Israeli Arab advocacy center, Adalah, states that Arab Knesset members will be able to bring about the disqualification of bills that impinge on the rights of Arabs, and classifies the State of Israel as a "bilingual and multicultural" country rather than a Jewish state.
The proposal, entitled "The Democratic Constitution," also calls for majority and minority groups to split control of the government ....
Adalah's version of the constitution essentially abolishes the Jewish elements of Israel, but allows the Jewish majority to maintain its character through educational and cultural institutions. The proposal invalidates the Law of Return, which grants automatic citizenship to people with at least one Jewish grandparent, and states that citizenship will be granted to those who come to Israel for humanitarian reasons, regardless of their religion.”
From Haaretz, by Yoav Stern, February 28, 2007.
* * * * *
This proposal will sound fair to many people.
Before you dismiss it as an attempt to embarrass Israel, as a clever way to gain international sympathy, as propaganda, as a way to eventually establish an Arab majority, or as a way to eliminate the sole Jewish State, do consider this from the point of view of an individual Israeli-Arab.
Consider that he or she may honestly be offended by “their flag” having a Jewish star in it. Wouldn’t most American Jews (among others) be troubled if the U.S. flag had a Christian cross on it?
Consider that he or she may honestly be offended by “their national anthem” referring to the land, as the land of the Jews.
Consider that he or she may honestly feel discriminated against because, legal equality aside, he or she IS discriminated against.
Please understand that even if a Palestinian State is created in the territories, the Israeli-Arabs—most of whom will undoubtedly do all they can to avoid becoming part of any festering Palestinian entity—will want full equality in Israel.
Any minority citizen of any State wants no less. It sounds fair.
Why do so many Israelis, Jews, and supporters of Israel look for a dark hiding place when confronted with the truth of discrimination? I think it is because Jews understand what it is to be discriminated against, and have a deep desire that discrimination against all people throughout the planet be eliminated.
Discrimination against Arab-Israelis doesn’t sound fair.
As supporters of Israel, it is necessary to accept and admit, without nuance, that some discrimination against Arab-Israelis is 100% true.
Given geopolitical realities, we need not be embarrassed by this truth. This admission frees us to have an honest and thoughtful discussion regarding why it is true, why it must remain true, and why Israel will fight to retain a democratic character, but within the fuzzy confines of Judaism (whatever that ultimately means).
Serious peace discussions between Israel and her neighbors will have to include incentives for people to move. Many Arab-Israelis will ultimately move.
Those that choose not to, and instead choose to live in Israel, outside of the vast lands in the extended region that are governed by 21 recognized Muslim Arab States will need to declare their loyalty and acceptance of Israel as a Zionist Jewish State, and will need to commit to performing national service.
Those who choose to remain in Israel but not make such a pledge should not be considered citizens. They should be considered resident foreign nationals with citizenship of Jordan, Syria, or another State in which Arabs are the majority.
Someday, if liberal democratic ideals truly prevail, we will live in a world without Nation States. People will treat each other as individuals, and not as a part of this group or that.
Until that day, the world is better off with Israel’s continued existence. But we must recognize that there is indeed a price to pay by any Arab-Israeli who, understandably, may be unwilling to fully come to terms with living in a Jewish State.
The price, however, can be offset, and it is a small price next to the moral price of Israel being forced to participate in its own slow demise.
There is no shortage of land in other Arab majority States. Neither is there a language barrier. These countries could easily accept resettling Arabs as full citizens, and there is no reason that they and their children would not thrive.
When all the circumstances of the situation are taken into account (read my book if you want to know more about these circumstances), the imperfect solution of a Jewish Israel, not a pluralistic one, is the most just outcome possible.
Establishing a “multi-cultural” constitution in Israel is not the most just outcome.
Some things sound fair, but aren’t.
--David Naggar
“Israeli Arab group proposes new 'multi-cultural' constitution.
A proposed constitution written by the Israeli Arab advocacy center, Adalah, states that Arab Knesset members will be able to bring about the disqualification of bills that impinge on the rights of Arabs, and classifies the State of Israel as a "bilingual and multicultural" country rather than a Jewish state.
The proposal, entitled "The Democratic Constitution," also calls for majority and minority groups to split control of the government ....
Adalah's version of the constitution essentially abolishes the Jewish elements of Israel, but allows the Jewish majority to maintain its character through educational and cultural institutions. The proposal invalidates the Law of Return, which grants automatic citizenship to people with at least one Jewish grandparent, and states that citizenship will be granted to those who come to Israel for humanitarian reasons, regardless of their religion.”
From Haaretz, by Yoav Stern, February 28, 2007.
* * * * *
This proposal will sound fair to many people.
Before you dismiss it as an attempt to embarrass Israel, as a clever way to gain international sympathy, as propaganda, as a way to eventually establish an Arab majority, or as a way to eliminate the sole Jewish State, do consider this from the point of view of an individual Israeli-Arab.
Consider that he or she may honestly be offended by “their flag” having a Jewish star in it. Wouldn’t most American Jews (among others) be troubled if the U.S. flag had a Christian cross on it?
Consider that he or she may honestly be offended by “their national anthem” referring to the land, as the land of the Jews.
Consider that he or she may honestly feel discriminated against because, legal equality aside, he or she IS discriminated against.
Please understand that even if a Palestinian State is created in the territories, the Israeli-Arabs—most of whom will undoubtedly do all they can to avoid becoming part of any festering Palestinian entity—will want full equality in Israel.
Any minority citizen of any State wants no less. It sounds fair.
Why do so many Israelis, Jews, and supporters of Israel look for a dark hiding place when confronted with the truth of discrimination? I think it is because Jews understand what it is to be discriminated against, and have a deep desire that discrimination against all people throughout the planet be eliminated.
Discrimination against Arab-Israelis doesn’t sound fair.
As supporters of Israel, it is necessary to accept and admit, without nuance, that some discrimination against Arab-Israelis is 100% true.
Given geopolitical realities, we need not be embarrassed by this truth. This admission frees us to have an honest and thoughtful discussion regarding why it is true, why it must remain true, and why Israel will fight to retain a democratic character, but within the fuzzy confines of Judaism (whatever that ultimately means).
Serious peace discussions between Israel and her neighbors will have to include incentives for people to move. Many Arab-Israelis will ultimately move.
Those that choose not to, and instead choose to live in Israel, outside of the vast lands in the extended region that are governed by 21 recognized Muslim Arab States will need to declare their loyalty and acceptance of Israel as a Zionist Jewish State, and will need to commit to performing national service.
Those who choose to remain in Israel but not make such a pledge should not be considered citizens. They should be considered resident foreign nationals with citizenship of Jordan, Syria, or another State in which Arabs are the majority.
Someday, if liberal democratic ideals truly prevail, we will live in a world without Nation States. People will treat each other as individuals, and not as a part of this group or that.
Until that day, the world is better off with Israel’s continued existence. But we must recognize that there is indeed a price to pay by any Arab-Israeli who, understandably, may be unwilling to fully come to terms with living in a Jewish State.
The price, however, can be offset, and it is a small price next to the moral price of Israel being forced to participate in its own slow demise.
There is no shortage of land in other Arab majority States. Neither is there a language barrier. These countries could easily accept resettling Arabs as full citizens, and there is no reason that they and their children would not thrive.
When all the circumstances of the situation are taken into account (read my book if you want to know more about these circumstances), the imperfect solution of a Jewish Israel, not a pluralistic one, is the most just outcome possible.
Establishing a “multi-cultural” constitution in Israel is not the most just outcome.
Some things sound fair, but aren’t.
--David Naggar
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Proper Incentives For The Right People…
The Correct Approach Should Be As Obvious As The Answer To Adding Two Plus Two
.
“The Finance Ministry [of Israel] estimates that the civilian-related cost the state incurred for the evacuation of Gaza is expected to total NIS 6.5 billion, an average of NIS 3.6 million per family." By Meirav Arlosoroff, Haaretz 2/22/07.
*******
At a conversion rate of 4.17 Shekels to the U.S. Dollar, this amounts to an astounding figure of between $800,000 and $900,000 per family. Wow!
And now some politicians have concluded that the Jews who live in the West Bank can be willingly induced to move with the proper economic incentives too.
It is undeniably true that human behavior is greatly affected by incentives.
Indeed, a poll of Israeli settlers conducted in 2003 showed that 74% would leave in return for compensation.
This could prove financially rewarding to willing settlers, but may devastate Israel in the long-term.
That being the case—and if you don’t think it’s the case, take a look at my book—doesn’t it make sense to ask if the Palestinian Arabs could be offered proper incentives to move as well?
A poll taken in early 2004 by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion showed that 37% of Palestinians were willing to emigrate in return for a home, a job and $250,000. One can only presume the figure would be much higher if average Palestinians could freely speak their minds.
World leaders know the truth of the matter. Even in EPIC struggles between countries over boundaries and religion, most people in those countries just want a place to raise their family in peace, and with the chance of prosperity. History shows people will eagerly move for peace and prosperity.
Peaceful economic opportunity is why immigrants flocked to the United States in the 19th and 20th century, and continue to do so today.
Now here’s the reality in the Middle-East. Palestinian Arabs have places to go, the Jews of Israel do not.
If world leaders truly wanted peace in Israel and the territories, wouldn’t it make sense to offer an incentive to the right people to move? If this isn’t done, the BEST that can be expected is that the world will eventually live with two vulnerable, unstable, struggling, non-viable states.
And if that happens, well, you do the math.
--David Naggar
.
“The Finance Ministry [of Israel] estimates that the civilian-related cost the state incurred for the evacuation of Gaza is expected to total NIS 6.5 billion, an average of NIS 3.6 million per family." By Meirav Arlosoroff, Haaretz 2/22/07.
*******
At a conversion rate of 4.17 Shekels to the U.S. Dollar, this amounts to an astounding figure of between $800,000 and $900,000 per family. Wow!
And now some politicians have concluded that the Jews who live in the West Bank can be willingly induced to move with the proper economic incentives too.
It is undeniably true that human behavior is greatly affected by incentives.
Indeed, a poll of Israeli settlers conducted in 2003 showed that 74% would leave in return for compensation.
This could prove financially rewarding to willing settlers, but may devastate Israel in the long-term.
That being the case—and if you don’t think it’s the case, take a look at my book—doesn’t it make sense to ask if the Palestinian Arabs could be offered proper incentives to move as well?
A poll taken in early 2004 by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion showed that 37% of Palestinians were willing to emigrate in return for a home, a job and $250,000. One can only presume the figure would be much higher if average Palestinians could freely speak their minds.
World leaders know the truth of the matter. Even in EPIC struggles between countries over boundaries and religion, most people in those countries just want a place to raise their family in peace, and with the chance of prosperity. History shows people will eagerly move for peace and prosperity.
Peaceful economic opportunity is why immigrants flocked to the United States in the 19th and 20th century, and continue to do so today.
Now here’s the reality in the Middle-East. Palestinian Arabs have places to go, the Jews of Israel do not.
If world leaders truly wanted peace in Israel and the territories, wouldn’t it make sense to offer an incentive to the right people to move? If this isn’t done, the BEST that can be expected is that the world will eventually live with two vulnerable, unstable, struggling, non-viable states.
And if that happens, well, you do the math.
--David Naggar
Thursday, February 08, 2007
The Reality From Mecca: Forget About The Forced Creation Of A Palestinian State… At Least For Now
.
The following is a text of the Mecca Accord between the PLO and Hamas. Actually, the “accord” is in the form of a letter from PLO’s Mahmoud Abbas to Hamas’ Ismail Haniyeh:
From The Associated Press 2/08/07...
“In my capacity as the head of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the president of the Palestinian Authority...
a) I designate you to form the upcoming Palestinian government within the time specified under the basic law.
b) After forming the government and presenting it to us, it should be presented to the Palestinian Legislative Council for a vote of confidence.
c) I call upon you as the head of the upcoming Palestinian government to commit to the higher interests of the Palestinian people, to preserve its rights and to preserve its achievements and to develop them, and to work in order to achieve its national goals as was approved by the Palestine National Council, the clauses of the Basic Law and the National Reconciliation Document...
Based on this, I call upon you to respect international resolutions and the agreements signed by the Palestine Liberation Organization.”
* * * * *
Wow. The best that could be agreed upon was to ASK Hamas to RESPECT international resolutions and the agreements signed by the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Mercifully, perhaps this will lead the Palestinians to stop killing each other. But no matter how this weak statement is received in Europe, it isn’t likely to affect prospects for peace with Israel.
Between the troubles in Iraq, and Palestinian fratricide, the oxygen has been sucked out of any Bush/Blair push to impose "peace," i.e., impose an untenable solution on Israel.
These events have caused the planned imminent push to be postponed indefinitely... at least for now.
Blair has already announced that he plans to devote time to work on Mid-East peace AFTER he leaves office. Maybe the soon-to-be former Prime Minister can join President Clinton and talk about both the situation and his vision at seminars and conferences. For what that'll do.
In the meantime, let’s see how Iraq goes.
And while we wait, I may just ask a print publisher to print my book. There now appears to be time to go through this process after all.
--David Naggar
The following is a text of the Mecca Accord between the PLO and Hamas. Actually, the “accord” is in the form of a letter from PLO’s Mahmoud Abbas to Hamas’ Ismail Haniyeh:
From The Associated Press 2/08/07...
“In my capacity as the head of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the president of the Palestinian Authority...
a) I designate you to form the upcoming Palestinian government within the time specified under the basic law.
b) After forming the government and presenting it to us, it should be presented to the Palestinian Legislative Council for a vote of confidence.
c) I call upon you as the head of the upcoming Palestinian government to commit to the higher interests of the Palestinian people, to preserve its rights and to preserve its achievements and to develop them, and to work in order to achieve its national goals as was approved by the Palestine National Council, the clauses of the Basic Law and the National Reconciliation Document...
Based on this, I call upon you to respect international resolutions and the agreements signed by the Palestine Liberation Organization.”
* * * * *
Wow. The best that could be agreed upon was to ASK Hamas to RESPECT international resolutions and the agreements signed by the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Mercifully, perhaps this will lead the Palestinians to stop killing each other. But no matter how this weak statement is received in Europe, it isn’t likely to affect prospects for peace with Israel.
Between the troubles in Iraq, and Palestinian fratricide, the oxygen has been sucked out of any Bush/Blair push to impose "peace," i.e., impose an untenable solution on Israel.
These events have caused the planned imminent push to be postponed indefinitely... at least for now.
Blair has already announced that he plans to devote time to work on Mid-East peace AFTER he leaves office. Maybe the soon-to-be former Prime Minister can join President Clinton and talk about both the situation and his vision at seminars and conferences. For what that'll do.
In the meantime, let’s see how Iraq goes.
And while we wait, I may just ask a print publisher to print my book. There now appears to be time to go through this process after all.
--David Naggar
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Am I Early For Passover? A Guide To The Four Questions Of Israel
.
1) Do you accept that as part of a global village, there is room for a Jewish majority State?
Some people do not accept that there is room in the world for a Jewish majority State because they believe in the Jeffersonian ideal that separates religion from civil governance.
Others claim not to accept Israel because they think a Jewish majority State is racist.
Presumably people in both of these camps would also be opposed to Christian majority or Muslim majority States, but their silence, notwithstanding the existence of many such States, stands in stark contrast to their thunderous and singular disapproval of Israel.
Whether it is high-minded or low minded, there is no point arguing the politics of Israel and its neighbors without first hearing a “Yes” to this question.
(For the record, I wish that all the people of the globe adopted the American mentality of live and let live, that we had a united planet, and that there was no need for borders of any kind. But utopia is far away.)
Here in the West, the vast majority of people have no problem with the existence of a Jewish majority State that wishes to self-govern. Most acknowledge the right to self-determination, and agree with the proposition that people who wish to self-govern should be free to do so.
So, with one “Yes” in tow, we can ask the second question:
2) Do you accept that as part of a global village, there is room for a Jewish majority State IN THE MIDDLE-EAST?
Today, most Arabs and Muslims of the Middle-East, would answer a resounding “NO!” They tolerate the reality of Israel, but believe it will ultimately fail. They will dance in the streets if it fails. They will celebrate any effort to hasten Israel’s demise. There is no love lost on Israel from these quarters.
Again, it is pointless discussing with those who do not believe a Jewish majority State should exist in the Middle-East, the morality of Israel’s actions in the face of her hostile neighbors (the usual antagonistic ones being settlements, checkpoints, and the so-called wall).
For those who don’t believe Israel should exist in the Middle-East, the inhumanity of Israel’s neighbors will be justified by the “inhumanity” of Israel’s existence. The nut of this self-righteous, yet morally dubious argument is something like this: “Israel stole the land in the first place, and so, they deserve everything that’s coming to them.”
It is an historical stretch to claim that Jews stole their own historical homeland. It is also a stretch to say that Jews were advantaged unfairly over Arabs at the conclusion of World War I. But it is not a stretch to say that Palestinian Arabs, as a particular subset of Arabs, ended up with a raw deal that continues to be raw.
For those who have little sense of the area, a little background helps.
The Middle-East is the historical home of the Jewish people, and in the West, we connect Jews and the Holy Land. The fact that a) there has been a continuous Jewish presence in the land for thousands of years, that b) Roman, Arab and Crusader armies combined to drive most, but not all Jews out, and that c) there can be no morally binding statute of limitations against coming back to the land of your ancestors, seems to suffice most people that Israel belongs were it does.
Further, in modern times, before there was a Syria, a Lebanon, an Iraq, a Jordan or an Israel, the Ottoman Empire ruled the area. But the Ottoman Turks lost World War I, and the Empire was divided.
The Arabs got most of the land, the Jews got a little, and that little was reduced again and again.
There is room for everyone in the Middle-East, but without doubt, just as Jews were displaces in the last century from Muslim majority States stretching from Morocco to Iran, Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians were displaced from what is now Israel.
Of course, 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab, so comparing the cause, circumstances, or terms of partial displacement of Arabs to the near total displacement Jews is like comparing apples and oranges.
Historical truth aside, only if a person answers “Yes” to this question and the first question is there any reason to ask the third question.
3) Do you accept that as part of a global village that contains hostile elements, the sole Jewish majority State must do what it can to survive, defend its citizens, and ensure that its citizens have the opportunity to thrive?
One could ask a similar question of any State. Bit isn’t “survive, defend and ensure opportunity” Israel’s obligation as a State? Israel’s actions and motivations can be properly judged by how well it morally fulfills its obligation.
Compare this question to one asked most loudly by Israel’s detractors: “Why does Israel have to oppress innocent Palestinians?” This question is loaded. The reality is, Israel doesn’t HAVE to oppress anyone. I know of no Israeli leader who WANTS to oppress Palestinians.
No doubt those Palestinians who wish Israel no harm suffer alongside those who do wish Israel harm.
But if Israel must choose between life as a withering failed State that is constantly being terrorized, or fighting its enemies—even knowing that some who are not enemies will suffer, and some who are not enemies will be made into enemies—it has no alternative but to fight. How can anyone in good faith argue otherwise?
Israel must do what it must do because it is a State, and it has obligations to its citizens, not to mention a unique obligation to Jews throughout the world. As such, it is obligated and duty bound to reach its own “Yes” answer to this 3rd question. For over 50 years it has been fighting an antagonistic Arab/Muslim population that stretches from Morocco to Iran and beyond. It is at war. Sometimes it is a hot war, and sometimes it is a cold war. People on all sides of a war suffer. Hopefully innocent suffering is limited, but this is plainly not always so.
This brings us to the 4th question.
4) Do you accept that as part of a global village, IF the sole Jewish majority State’s viability is dependent on it becoming larger, it should become larger?
If your answers to the first three questions are “Yes” but your answer to this fourth question is “No,” you have probably concluded one of two things: 1) the Jewish majority State’s viability is not dependent on its size, or 2) you really don’t believe that there is room for a viable Israel in the Middle-East even though you say you accept that there is.
Saying a larger Israel "can’t happen" to avoid giving a “Yes” answer is no answer at all. Asking, “what about the Palestinians?” may show compassion, but also provides no answer to the question. (Incidentally, handled correctly, Palestinian Arabs will benefit from, not be victimized by, a viable, sustainable, unassailable Israel).
If you are a supporter of Israel who answers “No,” to this question, and you do so because of a feeling that that Israel is large enough, or that in an interdependent world, size doesn’t matter, don’t you owe it to yourself and to Israel to make sure your assumptions are right? Or will you be content with the prospect you are wrong, and a slowly decaying Israel?
Don’t give a lazy “No.” The stakes are too high.
Please read The Case For A Larger Israel. Maybe you’ll find your fourth “Yes.”
And then, who better to stand up than you?
1) Do you accept that as part of a global village, there is room for a Jewish majority State?
Some people do not accept that there is room in the world for a Jewish majority State because they believe in the Jeffersonian ideal that separates religion from civil governance.
Others claim not to accept Israel because they think a Jewish majority State is racist.
Presumably people in both of these camps would also be opposed to Christian majority or Muslim majority States, but their silence, notwithstanding the existence of many such States, stands in stark contrast to their thunderous and singular disapproval of Israel.
Whether it is high-minded or low minded, there is no point arguing the politics of Israel and its neighbors without first hearing a “Yes” to this question.
(For the record, I wish that all the people of the globe adopted the American mentality of live and let live, that we had a united planet, and that there was no need for borders of any kind. But utopia is far away.)
Here in the West, the vast majority of people have no problem with the existence of a Jewish majority State that wishes to self-govern. Most acknowledge the right to self-determination, and agree with the proposition that people who wish to self-govern should be free to do so.
So, with one “Yes” in tow, we can ask the second question:
2) Do you accept that as part of a global village, there is room for a Jewish majority State IN THE MIDDLE-EAST?
Today, most Arabs and Muslims of the Middle-East, would answer a resounding “NO!” They tolerate the reality of Israel, but believe it will ultimately fail. They will dance in the streets if it fails. They will celebrate any effort to hasten Israel’s demise. There is no love lost on Israel from these quarters.
Again, it is pointless discussing with those who do not believe a Jewish majority State should exist in the Middle-East, the morality of Israel’s actions in the face of her hostile neighbors (the usual antagonistic ones being settlements, checkpoints, and the so-called wall).
For those who don’t believe Israel should exist in the Middle-East, the inhumanity of Israel’s neighbors will be justified by the “inhumanity” of Israel’s existence. The nut of this self-righteous, yet morally dubious argument is something like this: “Israel stole the land in the first place, and so, they deserve everything that’s coming to them.”
It is an historical stretch to claim that Jews stole their own historical homeland. It is also a stretch to say that Jews were advantaged unfairly over Arabs at the conclusion of World War I. But it is not a stretch to say that Palestinian Arabs, as a particular subset of Arabs, ended up with a raw deal that continues to be raw.
For those who have little sense of the area, a little background helps.
The Middle-East is the historical home of the Jewish people, and in the West, we connect Jews and the Holy Land. The fact that a) there has been a continuous Jewish presence in the land for thousands of years, that b) Roman, Arab and Crusader armies combined to drive most, but not all Jews out, and that c) there can be no morally binding statute of limitations against coming back to the land of your ancestors, seems to suffice most people that Israel belongs were it does.
Further, in modern times, before there was a Syria, a Lebanon, an Iraq, a Jordan or an Israel, the Ottoman Empire ruled the area. But the Ottoman Turks lost World War I, and the Empire was divided.
The Arabs got most of the land, the Jews got a little, and that little was reduced again and again.
There is room for everyone in the Middle-East, but without doubt, just as Jews were displaces in the last century from Muslim majority States stretching from Morocco to Iran, Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians were displaced from what is now Israel.
Of course, 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab, so comparing the cause, circumstances, or terms of partial displacement of Arabs to the near total displacement Jews is like comparing apples and oranges.
Historical truth aside, only if a person answers “Yes” to this question and the first question is there any reason to ask the third question.
3) Do you accept that as part of a global village that contains hostile elements, the sole Jewish majority State must do what it can to survive, defend its citizens, and ensure that its citizens have the opportunity to thrive?
One could ask a similar question of any State. Bit isn’t “survive, defend and ensure opportunity” Israel’s obligation as a State? Israel’s actions and motivations can be properly judged by how well it morally fulfills its obligation.
Compare this question to one asked most loudly by Israel’s detractors: “Why does Israel have to oppress innocent Palestinians?” This question is loaded. The reality is, Israel doesn’t HAVE to oppress anyone. I know of no Israeli leader who WANTS to oppress Palestinians.
No doubt those Palestinians who wish Israel no harm suffer alongside those who do wish Israel harm.
But if Israel must choose between life as a withering failed State that is constantly being terrorized, or fighting its enemies—even knowing that some who are not enemies will suffer, and some who are not enemies will be made into enemies—it has no alternative but to fight. How can anyone in good faith argue otherwise?
Israel must do what it must do because it is a State, and it has obligations to its citizens, not to mention a unique obligation to Jews throughout the world. As such, it is obligated and duty bound to reach its own “Yes” answer to this 3rd question. For over 50 years it has been fighting an antagonistic Arab/Muslim population that stretches from Morocco to Iran and beyond. It is at war. Sometimes it is a hot war, and sometimes it is a cold war. People on all sides of a war suffer. Hopefully innocent suffering is limited, but this is plainly not always so.
This brings us to the 4th question.
4) Do you accept that as part of a global village, IF the sole Jewish majority State’s viability is dependent on it becoming larger, it should become larger?
If your answers to the first three questions are “Yes” but your answer to this fourth question is “No,” you have probably concluded one of two things: 1) the Jewish majority State’s viability is not dependent on its size, or 2) you really don’t believe that there is room for a viable Israel in the Middle-East even though you say you accept that there is.
Saying a larger Israel "can’t happen" to avoid giving a “Yes” answer is no answer at all. Asking, “what about the Palestinians?” may show compassion, but also provides no answer to the question. (Incidentally, handled correctly, Palestinian Arabs will benefit from, not be victimized by, a viable, sustainable, unassailable Israel).
If you are a supporter of Israel who answers “No,” to this question, and you do so because of a feeling that that Israel is large enough, or that in an interdependent world, size doesn’t matter, don’t you owe it to yourself and to Israel to make sure your assumptions are right? Or will you be content with the prospect you are wrong, and a slowly decaying Israel?
Don’t give a lazy “No.” The stakes are too high.
Please read The Case For A Larger Israel. Maybe you’ll find your fourth “Yes.”
And then, who better to stand up than you?
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
More On Looking At A Problem In Pieces, Rather Than In The Aggregate
.
The same research again…
“[P]eople reveal a tendency to look at problems in pieces rather than in the aggregate. Even qualified scholars in reputable journals reached faulty conclusions by failing to recognize that the whole is the product of interaction among its parts…” Peter L. Bernstein, from Against the Gods, discussing the research of Professor Meir Statman.
*****
If one thinks of the whole problem as an Israeli-Palestinian problem, then one may be inclined to view the ultimate solution to be as simple as separating the antagonists into their own States.
If one appreciates that this is but a piece of a larger Israel-Arab/Muslim problem, one appreciates how unworkable the proposed international consensus “two-states within the confines of Israel and territories” solution really is.
This tendency to look at problems in pieces rather than in the aggregate has led to faulty "conventional thinking" among politicians and international leaders.
The same research again…
“[P]eople reveal a tendency to look at problems in pieces rather than in the aggregate. Even qualified scholars in reputable journals reached faulty conclusions by failing to recognize that the whole is the product of interaction among its parts…” Peter L. Bernstein, from Against the Gods, discussing the research of Professor Meir Statman.
*****
If one thinks of the whole problem as an Israeli-Palestinian problem, then one may be inclined to view the ultimate solution to be as simple as separating the antagonists into their own States.
If one appreciates that this is but a piece of a larger Israel-Arab/Muslim problem, one appreciates how unworkable the proposed international consensus “two-states within the confines of Israel and territories” solution really is.
This tendency to look at problems in pieces rather than in the aggregate has led to faulty "conventional thinking" among politicians and international leaders.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
In The Aggregate, Size Matters
.
“[P]eople reveal a tendency to look at problems in pieces rather than in the aggregate. Even qualified scholars in reputable journals reached faulty conclusions by failing to recognize that the whole is the product of interaction among its parts…” Peter L. Bernstein, from Against the Gods, discussing the research of Professor Meir Statman.
*****
This tendency to look at problems in pieces rather than in the aggregate leads to faulty conventional thinking among politicians and international leaders as well. Attempting to solve, in isolation, Israel’s problems in the Middle East, is a case of looking at a problem in pieces rather than in the aggregate. This is a recipe for disaster.
If a piecemeal solution to larger Middle East problems leaves a weak Israel, it will not only be harmful to Israel, it will also be harmful to Jews around the world, and harmful to humanity (and that includes Arabs and Muslims everywhere).
A solution that weakens Israel will, at a minimum, lead the Zionist State to wither. It will most likely plant the seeds for the next conflict. It will ultimately lead to less Jewish participation in global innovation and abundance. If history is a guide, this will lead to a less prosperous world.
It is in humanity’s—and by humanity, I mean everyday people everywhere—interest that the region’s problems be viewed holistically, and that the solution leaves Israel to become more important, not less.
Consider two historic examples of importance:
1) In 1863, the Confederate States of America issued bonds to foreigners. Besides the obvious purpose of raising money for the Southern war effort, these bonds served the purpose of creating a foreign constituency with an interest in the survival of that State. But the existence of this foreign constituency was not enough to pressure the United States into peace. The CSA was not important enough to the global powers of the day to survive.
2) In 1990-1991, Kuwait proved important enough. Would the non-democratic government of Kuwait been saved from Iraq if there didn’t exist a large foreign constituency that profits from Kuwaiti oil? Or was preserving the world’s, stable, more or less, Nation/State system reason enough to lead President George Bush (41) to conclude that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait could not stand?
Even if the reason was the latter, a broad-based foreign constituency (not just American) is key to Israel’s long-term survival. The United States will not always be the unrivaled military or economic power that it is today, and there is no other rising power that is likely to treat citizens of other States as well.
The United States will not always be able to serve as Israel’s bank, and enforcer of its existence. In time, the strings attached to this support will get heavy in both directions.
Israel must become more important to its foreign constituency, or it may face the end faced by the Confederate States of America. Or, if a piecemeal solution is imposed, Israel may get “lucky” and be allowed to face the slow death of a withering State that cannot sustain itself.
Any solution to any one of Israel’s many problems (the pieces) must be viewed through the prism of the aggregate problem Israel faces—how to emerge as a thriving, viable State for the long-term.
That is why the ultimate aim of any solution involving Israel must serve to make Israel more important to a broad foreign constituency. And that is why size ultimately matters.
“[P]eople reveal a tendency to look at problems in pieces rather than in the aggregate. Even qualified scholars in reputable journals reached faulty conclusions by failing to recognize that the whole is the product of interaction among its parts…” Peter L. Bernstein, from Against the Gods, discussing the research of Professor Meir Statman.
*****
This tendency to look at problems in pieces rather than in the aggregate leads to faulty conventional thinking among politicians and international leaders as well. Attempting to solve, in isolation, Israel’s problems in the Middle East, is a case of looking at a problem in pieces rather than in the aggregate. This is a recipe for disaster.
If a piecemeal solution to larger Middle East problems leaves a weak Israel, it will not only be harmful to Israel, it will also be harmful to Jews around the world, and harmful to humanity (and that includes Arabs and Muslims everywhere).
A solution that weakens Israel will, at a minimum, lead the Zionist State to wither. It will most likely plant the seeds for the next conflict. It will ultimately lead to less Jewish participation in global innovation and abundance. If history is a guide, this will lead to a less prosperous world.
It is in humanity’s—and by humanity, I mean everyday people everywhere—interest that the region’s problems be viewed holistically, and that the solution leaves Israel to become more important, not less.
Consider two historic examples of importance:
1) In 1863, the Confederate States of America issued bonds to foreigners. Besides the obvious purpose of raising money for the Southern war effort, these bonds served the purpose of creating a foreign constituency with an interest in the survival of that State. But the existence of this foreign constituency was not enough to pressure the United States into peace. The CSA was not important enough to the global powers of the day to survive.
2) In 1990-1991, Kuwait proved important enough. Would the non-democratic government of Kuwait been saved from Iraq if there didn’t exist a large foreign constituency that profits from Kuwaiti oil? Or was preserving the world’s, stable, more or less, Nation/State system reason enough to lead President George Bush (41) to conclude that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait could not stand?
Even if the reason was the latter, a broad-based foreign constituency (not just American) is key to Israel’s long-term survival. The United States will not always be the unrivaled military or economic power that it is today, and there is no other rising power that is likely to treat citizens of other States as well.
The United States will not always be able to serve as Israel’s bank, and enforcer of its existence. In time, the strings attached to this support will get heavy in both directions.
Israel must become more important to its foreign constituency, or it may face the end faced by the Confederate States of America. Or, if a piecemeal solution is imposed, Israel may get “lucky” and be allowed to face the slow death of a withering State that cannot sustain itself.
Any solution to any one of Israel’s many problems (the pieces) must be viewed through the prism of the aggregate problem Israel faces—how to emerge as a thriving, viable State for the long-term.
That is why the ultimate aim of any solution involving Israel must serve to make Israel more important to a broad foreign constituency. And that is why size ultimately matters.
Friday, December 22, 2006
The Thai Crisis and Israel
.
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
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
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
47% Of Americans Believe What?
.
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
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
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Revisiting Conventional Wisdom—Everyone Wins
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
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
Thursday, December 07, 2006
The Wrong Vision from Bush, Blair and the Iraq Study Group
“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.
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.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Menachem Begin, Jimmy Carter and Today’s Troubles
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
