.
The prisoner swap is now complete. A convicted murderer, among others, has been released in exchange for bodies and closure. The Prime Minister and other Israeli leaders argue that it was necessary to pay this heavy price because Israeli cohesiveness demands that no soldier be left behind.
When the emotional satisfaction of taking the purported moral high grounds fades away, the strategic price Israel paid and will continue to pay will become sadly apparent.
If it was moral and necessary under these particular circumstances to release an unrepentant murderer—one who still plans to pursue the destruction of Israel—hasn’t Israeli leadership just incentivized Israel’s enemies to create the same “necessary and moral conditions” next time?
My heart goes out to Smadar Haran, the families of the police officers murdered, and the Regev and Wasserman families. My heart also goes out to the family of the next murder victims, and the next captured soldiers. Though you are nameless at the moment, your pain in the future has been made all the more certain this past week.
Bad long-term policy is often made when leadership sacrifices the common good for heart-wrenching immediate aims.
A vulnerable and weak-acting Israel will never be able to make true peace with its neighbors—only a truly independent, strong, and viable Israel can.
--David Naggar
Friday, July 18, 2008
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Mr. Prime Minister Olmert, Accommodating the Short-Term Goals of Israel’s Enemies, including “Trading Prisoners,” Is Counter-Productive
.
A new WorldPublicOpinion poll of people in 18 countries reveals that a majority of those people blame both sides in what is referred to as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and they don’t want their governments to take sides. This should come as no surprise.
When I was an active lawyer, judges never wanted to hear both sides of the story in a dispute between the lawyers. They were busy and simply assumed that somehow both lawyers were to blame. This allowed for one side, usually the side with deeper pockets, to abuse the other.
And so it was, and so it is.
The rest of the world is too busy to really care what happens in Israel and its environs, as long it doesn’t affect them. They don’t pay close attention and are happy to cast blame on everyone.
In a thousand ways Israeli leadership bends to Arab demands to prove to the world that Israel is “the good guy” in the dispute. Their reason? 1) The hope that one day its neighbors will let Israel exist in an area that is objectively too small for it to be truly self-reliant and independent or 2) That the world will notice Israel’s current good will and therefore not rush to condemn it when the next war breaks out.
With history and polls as a guide, Israel will get no long-term credit for bending to Arab demands. This fact seems lost on current Israeli leadership.
Today, by all accounts the Prime Minister of Israel is working hard to conclude a deal with Hezbollah in which, Samir Kuntar, a prisoner “with blood on his hands,”—that is, a murderer—and other prisoners are exchanged by Israel for information about a long dead Israeli airman and the bodies of two IDF soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah in 2006 and presumed dead.
This is folly.
By sheer brut strength Hezbollah has forced itself into the dominant position of Lebanese politics.
Did the people of world care enough to stop this? No.
Hezbollah will not be disarmed as was agreed to by the terms of UN Resolution 1701, a condition of the ending of the 2006 Lebanon War. (But then, every diplomat around the world, including Israeli diplomats knew Hezbollah wouldn’t be disarmed, and today, Israeli warnings that Hezbollah is rearming and building new military infrastructure in the areas north and south of the Litani River are ignored).
Did the people of world care enough to do anything about it? No.
Yet because of international pressure, Israel felt forced to abandon its goal of eliminating Hezbollah as a serious existential threat to Israel.
Would the people of the world have done anything meaningfully harmful to Israel had it finished the job? No.
Israel should have taken the heat and finished the job. The international anger would have ended when the people of the world moved to the next topic.
Presently, Israel will get little additional long-term credit and little additional long-term debit for doing either what is perceived to be right or wrong.
And that is why Prime Minister Olmert’s bending to negotiate with Hezbollah over prisoners is shortsighted.
It just serves as “proof” that both sides must somehow be to blame for their conflict.
And it gives Hezbollah added legitimacy in international circles. If Israel can negotiate with Hezbollah, every country is more free to do so. Hezbollah’s place, as the inevitable heirs to governing Lebanon, becomes more certain.
Hezbollah could teach current Israeli leadership plenty about how to negotiate.
Years ago when Israel withdrew its troops from Lebanon the UN concluded that Israel no longer occupied any Lebanese territory. But Hezbollah simply refused to accept the UN’s conclusion, and continued to use a canard of continued Israel presence on Lebanese territory as a pretext to keep fighting Israel. Now under Hezbollah pressure the UN will reconsider which country, Syria or Lebanon “owns” this “disputed” area called Shebaa Farms.
By being a disrupting pain, the world rushes to appease if appeasement is even remotely possible. Why? Because the people of the world wish to avoid trouble from spreading to them. It’s that simple.
For Israel, negotiating over prisoners with Hezbollah (and Hamas) leads to two short-term things. The first is that Israel might, for a price, win the release of a kidnap victim (or information or remains). The second is that it invites the next kidnapping to occur. How foolish.
In the eyes of the world, current Israeli negotiating strategy treats enemies who demand Israel’s destruction as good-faith equals.
But Israel’s leaders will at most receive from its neighbors more pieces of paper that, for the time being, allow it to live in an area that is objectively too small for it to be truly self-reliant and independent.
Current Israeli leadership does not recognize that the current international handwriting on the wall—a smaller Israel—is not forever true. It is nothing more than today’s graffiti.
In the long-term, if Israel is to thrive, Israel must to be large enough to be self-sufficient and a more important partner in the world community. This goal of self-sufficiency must be perceived by the world to be non-negotiable. Israel must repeat and repeat that it will not become a modern day pre-world war II era Czechoslovakia.
Since the majority of the people of the world will not care how the Israeli-Palestinian/Hamas/Hezbollah/Arab/Muslim problem is solved, it might as well be solved in a way the benefits Israel, Palestinian people, and humanity.
But until the problem is solved, like all semi-distracted judges, the world will find plenty of blame to go around for Israel, Palestinians, the rest of the local Muslim Arabs and, of course, the United States.
For Prime Minister Olmert and Israel, a renewed first negotiating step that must be taken to move the negotiation of a permanent solution forward on favorable terms (a larger, self-sufficient, independently viable Israel) is this: Stop accommodating the short-term goals of Israel’s enemies.
--David Naggar
A new WorldPublicOpinion poll of people in 18 countries reveals that a majority of those people blame both sides in what is referred to as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and they don’t want their governments to take sides. This should come as no surprise.
When I was an active lawyer, judges never wanted to hear both sides of the story in a dispute between the lawyers. They were busy and simply assumed that somehow both lawyers were to blame. This allowed for one side, usually the side with deeper pockets, to abuse the other.
And so it was, and so it is.
The rest of the world is too busy to really care what happens in Israel and its environs, as long it doesn’t affect them. They don’t pay close attention and are happy to cast blame on everyone.
In a thousand ways Israeli leadership bends to Arab demands to prove to the world that Israel is “the good guy” in the dispute. Their reason? 1) The hope that one day its neighbors will let Israel exist in an area that is objectively too small for it to be truly self-reliant and independent or 2) That the world will notice Israel’s current good will and therefore not rush to condemn it when the next war breaks out.
With history and polls as a guide, Israel will get no long-term credit for bending to Arab demands. This fact seems lost on current Israeli leadership.
Today, by all accounts the Prime Minister of Israel is working hard to conclude a deal with Hezbollah in which, Samir Kuntar, a prisoner “with blood on his hands,”—that is, a murderer—and other prisoners are exchanged by Israel for information about a long dead Israeli airman and the bodies of two IDF soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah in 2006 and presumed dead.
This is folly.
By sheer brut strength Hezbollah has forced itself into the dominant position of Lebanese politics.
Did the people of world care enough to stop this? No.
Hezbollah will not be disarmed as was agreed to by the terms of UN Resolution 1701, a condition of the ending of the 2006 Lebanon War. (But then, every diplomat around the world, including Israeli diplomats knew Hezbollah wouldn’t be disarmed, and today, Israeli warnings that Hezbollah is rearming and building new military infrastructure in the areas north and south of the Litani River are ignored).
Did the people of world care enough to do anything about it? No.
Yet because of international pressure, Israel felt forced to abandon its goal of eliminating Hezbollah as a serious existential threat to Israel.
Would the people of the world have done anything meaningfully harmful to Israel had it finished the job? No.
Israel should have taken the heat and finished the job. The international anger would have ended when the people of the world moved to the next topic.
Presently, Israel will get little additional long-term credit and little additional long-term debit for doing either what is perceived to be right or wrong.
And that is why Prime Minister Olmert’s bending to negotiate with Hezbollah over prisoners is shortsighted.
It just serves as “proof” that both sides must somehow be to blame for their conflict.
And it gives Hezbollah added legitimacy in international circles. If Israel can negotiate with Hezbollah, every country is more free to do so. Hezbollah’s place, as the inevitable heirs to governing Lebanon, becomes more certain.
Hezbollah could teach current Israeli leadership plenty about how to negotiate.
Years ago when Israel withdrew its troops from Lebanon the UN concluded that Israel no longer occupied any Lebanese territory. But Hezbollah simply refused to accept the UN’s conclusion, and continued to use a canard of continued Israel presence on Lebanese territory as a pretext to keep fighting Israel. Now under Hezbollah pressure the UN will reconsider which country, Syria or Lebanon “owns” this “disputed” area called Shebaa Farms.
By being a disrupting pain, the world rushes to appease if appeasement is even remotely possible. Why? Because the people of the world wish to avoid trouble from spreading to them. It’s that simple.
For Israel, negotiating over prisoners with Hezbollah (and Hamas) leads to two short-term things. The first is that Israel might, for a price, win the release of a kidnap victim (or information or remains). The second is that it invites the next kidnapping to occur. How foolish.
In the eyes of the world, current Israeli negotiating strategy treats enemies who demand Israel’s destruction as good-faith equals.
But Israel’s leaders will at most receive from its neighbors more pieces of paper that, for the time being, allow it to live in an area that is objectively too small for it to be truly self-reliant and independent.
Current Israeli leadership does not recognize that the current international handwriting on the wall—a smaller Israel—is not forever true. It is nothing more than today’s graffiti.
In the long-term, if Israel is to thrive, Israel must to be large enough to be self-sufficient and a more important partner in the world community. This goal of self-sufficiency must be perceived by the world to be non-negotiable. Israel must repeat and repeat that it will not become a modern day pre-world war II era Czechoslovakia.
Since the majority of the people of the world will not care how the Israeli-Palestinian/Hamas/Hezbollah/Arab/Muslim problem is solved, it might as well be solved in a way the benefits Israel, Palestinian people, and humanity.
But until the problem is solved, like all semi-distracted judges, the world will find plenty of blame to go around for Israel, Palestinians, the rest of the local Muslim Arabs and, of course, the United States.
For Prime Minister Olmert and Israel, a renewed first negotiating step that must be taken to move the negotiation of a permanent solution forward on favorable terms (a larger, self-sufficient, independently viable Israel) is this: Stop accommodating the short-term goals of Israel’s enemies.
--David Naggar
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Mr. Prime Minister, There You Go Again
.
As Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert continues his effort to extract himself from his personal problems, he does what he can to turn Israel’s attention towards “peace negotiations.” As part of his campaign, he now states that only delusional people think Israel can keep post-'67 borders.
He does Israel no favor by conceding the size of Israel. This Prime Minister’s effort to ingratiate himself to the international community is exacerbating Israel’s larger existential problems.
World leaders are indifferent to the manner of solution of the Arab/Muslim-Israeli problem. They just want the problem off the international table.
Just as it would be fine with world leaders if Arabs conceded the establishment of a twenty-second Arab State, if Israel’s Prime Minister concedes Israel’s future, that’s fine too. Any resolution will do.
Besides being a weak negotiating tactic, consider how the Prime Minister arrives at his conclusion that Israel must shrink in size, and that only delusional people could question this inevitability.
Olmert’s current way of thinking—it was not always so—made its way onto the scene sometime in the last 20 years. It derives from this truism: Israel cannot survive as a Jewish state if it has too many non-Jewish Arab citizens.
But there is more that underlies the Prime Minister’s thinking than this.
He goes beyond the truism and into the realm of shortsighted speculation when he assumes that no Arab will ever move from Israel or the territories. It is on the basis of this assumption that he concludes that in order to keep its Jewishness, Israel has no choice but to be smaller.
Mr. Prime Minister, there are options to resolving the Arab/Muslim-Israeli problem other than making Israel smaller. Polls show that many Palestinian Arabs would be eager to move from Israel and the territories under the right circumstances. Consider:
What if a person’s move is voluntary? What if there are internationally sanctioned incentives to help make the decision the right one for one’s family and future? What if the surrounding Arab dictatorial regimes were pressured by the international community to be more accommodating of Israel and Palestinian Arabs? What if a properly sized Israel and Palestinian State were both stamped onto the map?
What if no one who didn’t want to move was forced to move? What if Arabs living in Israel could decide if they wanted to accept that they lived in a Jewish State--and those Arabs who decided not to accept that they lived in a Jewish State still stayed, but were granted citizenship of one of the twenty one neighboring Arab States that comprise 99.8% of the area surrounding Israel?
Yes, there are many options for the international community to consider other than the establishment of a non-viable mini Palestinian State and the forcing of Israel to be undersized. But no credible world leader will propose any such solution if the sitting Prime Minister of Israel publicly advocates the shrinking of Israel.
The Prime Minister ignores the ebb and flow of history when he concedes that Israel must withdraw to, more or less, what Abba Eban called the Auschwitz borders.
Just consider this 1988 statement from the “left of center” Democratic nominee for President of the United States, Michael Dukakis. “Israel needs room to breathe, and a return to the 1967 borders is out of the question.”
How far we have come is such a short time.
The failure of Jewish and Israeli media relations over the course of the last twenty years boggles the mind. It has taken only twenty years for “the right” to move more to the left than the left was back then. And “the left” is now off the chart in its anti-Israel view.
The world now sees the problem as one of Israeli oppression of stateless Palestinians rather than one of Arab/Muslim denial of Israeli Jews' moral right to have ample territory to thrive and contribute to humanity’s goodwill. The world does not view the problem as an existential struggle of tiny Israel to survive in the midst of hostile Arab/Muslim neighbors.
The San Francisco Chronicle—home of America’s left—is typical in its contempt for Israel. It runs pictures of frightened Palestinian women and children alongside articles that report on “Israeli military attacks”. Israel’s purpose of targeting those responsible for rocket attacks on Israeli civilians from Gaza is intentionally obfuscated.
And consider an unrelated headline from the Chronicle from March 2008. “Democracy’s First Day In Tiny Bhutan.” Lost on the Chronicle staff, I am sure, is that TINY Bhutan is 67% larger than Israel and the territories combined.
Don’t expect the Chronicle to be reporting on TINY Israel soon. Don’t expect the Chronicle to start its coverage with a dose of history or even a map of Israel’s hostile, non-democratic and NON-TINY neighbors.
And don’t expect anyone outside of Israel to challenge the wisdom of Prime Minister Olmert’s view. Olmert’s view, because he is the Prime Minister of Israel, is the ceiling of acceptable aspiration for Israel. If the sitting Prime Minister says a counterview is delusional, those offering such a view will be seen as delusional.
As with most people who agree with the Prime Minister’s vision of a two-state solution within the confines of Israel and the territories, the following question is derided and dismissed without answer: What if Israel can’t survive in the long run as anything other than a failed nuclear State in its pre (plus or minus) '67 borders?
It is from the false certainty that a larger Israel is unnecessary for the welfare of its citizens that the Prime Minister hurls the “delusional” barb at those who do not share his worldview.
This Prime Minister is shortsighted and plain wrong. It is not delusional to think that it is fair, just and beneficial to humanity that Israel’s final borders are larger. It is not delusional to think a larger Israel is necessary for the welfare of its citizens. There is plenty of room in the under-populated Middle-East for everyone.
It is however delusional, even if well intended, for Prime Minister Olmert to think that voluntarily shrinking Israel will lead to a golden age of true Israeli independence, peace and prosperity. Making Israel smaller and creating a non-viable Palestinian State will not benefit Israelis, Jews, Palestinians, the interests of peace, and/or humanity at large.
Until the day that the planet is no longer divided into nation-states, Israel must be large enough to thrive and be self-sustaining in global good times and bad; that is, in times of free trade and national retrenchment.
Palestinian issues must be addressed in a way that offers Palestinians better lives, rather than the creation of new arbitrary Arab State lines that flow from the ash heap of France and Great Britain’s 20th century imperialistic adventures.
I, myself, will continue to champion a long-term viable Israel. I have no illusions that this will come tomorrow. My hope for tomorrow is only that it will bring a new Prime Minister—one who has a deeper appreciation of the need for improved media relations, a better understanding of negotiation on the world stage, and a longer-term vision of Israel's place among the nations.
--David Naggar
As Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert continues his effort to extract himself from his personal problems, he does what he can to turn Israel’s attention towards “peace negotiations.” As part of his campaign, he now states that only delusional people think Israel can keep post-'67 borders.
He does Israel no favor by conceding the size of Israel. This Prime Minister’s effort to ingratiate himself to the international community is exacerbating Israel’s larger existential problems.
World leaders are indifferent to the manner of solution of the Arab/Muslim-Israeli problem. They just want the problem off the international table.
Just as it would be fine with world leaders if Arabs conceded the establishment of a twenty-second Arab State, if Israel’s Prime Minister concedes Israel’s future, that’s fine too. Any resolution will do.
Besides being a weak negotiating tactic, consider how the Prime Minister arrives at his conclusion that Israel must shrink in size, and that only delusional people could question this inevitability.
Olmert’s current way of thinking—it was not always so—made its way onto the scene sometime in the last 20 years. It derives from this truism: Israel cannot survive as a Jewish state if it has too many non-Jewish Arab citizens.
But there is more that underlies the Prime Minister’s thinking than this.
He goes beyond the truism and into the realm of shortsighted speculation when he assumes that no Arab will ever move from Israel or the territories. It is on the basis of this assumption that he concludes that in order to keep its Jewishness, Israel has no choice but to be smaller.
Mr. Prime Minister, there are options to resolving the Arab/Muslim-Israeli problem other than making Israel smaller. Polls show that many Palestinian Arabs would be eager to move from Israel and the territories under the right circumstances. Consider:
What if a person’s move is voluntary? What if there are internationally sanctioned incentives to help make the decision the right one for one’s family and future? What if the surrounding Arab dictatorial regimes were pressured by the international community to be more accommodating of Israel and Palestinian Arabs? What if a properly sized Israel and Palestinian State were both stamped onto the map?
What if no one who didn’t want to move was forced to move? What if Arabs living in Israel could decide if they wanted to accept that they lived in a Jewish State--and those Arabs who decided not to accept that they lived in a Jewish State still stayed, but were granted citizenship of one of the twenty one neighboring Arab States that comprise 99.8% of the area surrounding Israel?
Yes, there are many options for the international community to consider other than the establishment of a non-viable mini Palestinian State and the forcing of Israel to be undersized. But no credible world leader will propose any such solution if the sitting Prime Minister of Israel publicly advocates the shrinking of Israel.
The Prime Minister ignores the ebb and flow of history when he concedes that Israel must withdraw to, more or less, what Abba Eban called the Auschwitz borders.
Just consider this 1988 statement from the “left of center” Democratic nominee for President of the United States, Michael Dukakis. “Israel needs room to breathe, and a return to the 1967 borders is out of the question.”
How far we have come is such a short time.
The failure of Jewish and Israeli media relations over the course of the last twenty years boggles the mind. It has taken only twenty years for “the right” to move more to the left than the left was back then. And “the left” is now off the chart in its anti-Israel view.
The world now sees the problem as one of Israeli oppression of stateless Palestinians rather than one of Arab/Muslim denial of Israeli Jews' moral right to have ample territory to thrive and contribute to humanity’s goodwill. The world does not view the problem as an existential struggle of tiny Israel to survive in the midst of hostile Arab/Muslim neighbors.
The San Francisco Chronicle—home of America’s left—is typical in its contempt for Israel. It runs pictures of frightened Palestinian women and children alongside articles that report on “Israeli military attacks”. Israel’s purpose of targeting those responsible for rocket attacks on Israeli civilians from Gaza is intentionally obfuscated.
And consider an unrelated headline from the Chronicle from March 2008. “Democracy’s First Day In Tiny Bhutan.” Lost on the Chronicle staff, I am sure, is that TINY Bhutan is 67% larger than Israel and the territories combined.
Don’t expect the Chronicle to be reporting on TINY Israel soon. Don’t expect the Chronicle to start its coverage with a dose of history or even a map of Israel’s hostile, non-democratic and NON-TINY neighbors.
And don’t expect anyone outside of Israel to challenge the wisdom of Prime Minister Olmert’s view. Olmert’s view, because he is the Prime Minister of Israel, is the ceiling of acceptable aspiration for Israel. If the sitting Prime Minister says a counterview is delusional, those offering such a view will be seen as delusional.
As with most people who agree with the Prime Minister’s vision of a two-state solution within the confines of Israel and the territories, the following question is derided and dismissed without answer: What if Israel can’t survive in the long run as anything other than a failed nuclear State in its pre (plus or minus) '67 borders?
It is from the false certainty that a larger Israel is unnecessary for the welfare of its citizens that the Prime Minister hurls the “delusional” barb at those who do not share his worldview.
This Prime Minister is shortsighted and plain wrong. It is not delusional to think that it is fair, just and beneficial to humanity that Israel’s final borders are larger. It is not delusional to think a larger Israel is necessary for the welfare of its citizens. There is plenty of room in the under-populated Middle-East for everyone.
It is however delusional, even if well intended, for Prime Minister Olmert to think that voluntarily shrinking Israel will lead to a golden age of true Israeli independence, peace and prosperity. Making Israel smaller and creating a non-viable Palestinian State will not benefit Israelis, Jews, Palestinians, the interests of peace, and/or humanity at large.
Until the day that the planet is no longer divided into nation-states, Israel must be large enough to thrive and be self-sustaining in global good times and bad; that is, in times of free trade and national retrenchment.
Palestinian issues must be addressed in a way that offers Palestinians better lives, rather than the creation of new arbitrary Arab State lines that flow from the ash heap of France and Great Britain’s 20th century imperialistic adventures.
I, myself, will continue to champion a long-term viable Israel. I have no illusions that this will come tomorrow. My hope for tomorrow is only that it will bring a new Prime Minister—one who has a deeper appreciation of the need for improved media relations, a better understanding of negotiation on the world stage, and a longer-term vision of Israel's place among the nations.
--David Naggar
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Another Reason for Israel to be Larger—The Global Rice Shortage
.
As Israel prepares to celebrate its 60th birthday, the drumbeat of war grows louder from Iranian backed Hamas and Hezbollah. This is a clear and present danger to Israel.
It is indisputable that militarily, a larger Israel would have an easier time defending itself. Yet many argue that when there is peace, Israel’s size—i.e., back to its approximate pre-1967 borders—won’t matter.
But size does matter. There are many reasons other than military ones that require Israel to be larger. One such reason is adequate territory for growing the food necessary to feed its people.
Today’s headlines are splashed with news of a global rice shortage. Rice is even being rationed at the big box stores in the United States.
The U.S. housing crisis has given rise to a global credit crunch and forced institutional deleveraging. Oil prices have soared. Prices of potash and other products necessary in food production are going through the roof. And food prices are rising rapidly.
There are protests and riots around the world stemming from a lack of food availability and high prices. Poorer countries in Asia and Africa are erecting new export barriers because of the food crisis.
India’s finance minister P. Chidambaram was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying “There is no place in the world that grows the food we need if we’re forced to import.” Therefore we have to be nearly self-sufficient.”
What about Israel?
If a country the size of India demands itself to be self-sufficient, Israel too must demand itself be self-sufficient.
There is a rise in Nationalism. Countries are reasserting control over their people and their borders. Globalization has created a great deal of new wealth but the wealth is unevenly distributed so its wisdom is being challenged more forcefully in many corners of the world. Israel has been a beneficiary of globalization, and even a modest return of national fervor will take a toll on Israel.
Israel, the sole Jewish majority state in the world, must be self-sufficient in good global economic times and in bad. Bad economic times may isolate Israel.
Israel must not only be self-sufficient in its ability to defend itself and supply its own energy needs, it must also be self-sufficient in its ability to feed its growing population. Israel is one of the most densely populated countries in the world.
In a region that has more than enough land for all its inhabitants, Israel is deprived of sufficient land to take care of itself. It sits on much less than one percent of the land in its vastly under-inhabited region.
Global rice shortages and national export barriers? What about bread? Israel today imports 85% of its milling wheat.
What would happen to Israel if it were cut off?
When the world spirals out of control, as it may be doing now, and as history shows it will from time to time, being a good global trading partner is not enough.
An undersized Israel is at risk of withering one day. It would then survive, if it survives, merely as a failed nuclear state. This is not a proper future for Israel. Israel must be encouraged to thrive, not only for its citizens, but also for all the good that Israeli agriscience brings to the world.
For example, water-saving drip irrigation used throughout the world was perfected in Israel. When the future needs of the yet unborn around the globe become even greater, a thriving Israel will be in much better shape to stand with other countries in the creation of new methods and techniques to feed the hungry.
Israel must insist that it live on territory large enough to be self-sufficient in all respects. The international community should encourage peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors such that Israel winds up larger, and Palestinian Arabs are put on a path to better lives rather than being condemned to live in a failed mini-state.
In a world that will face increasing difficult agricultural issues, a larger Israel will be a strong global partner in the effort to ensure that our children, and our children’s children have enough water to drink, and bread and rice to eat. A larger, thriving, self-sufficient Israel is in humanity’s interest.
--David Naggar
As Israel prepares to celebrate its 60th birthday, the drumbeat of war grows louder from Iranian backed Hamas and Hezbollah. This is a clear and present danger to Israel.
It is indisputable that militarily, a larger Israel would have an easier time defending itself. Yet many argue that when there is peace, Israel’s size—i.e., back to its approximate pre-1967 borders—won’t matter.
But size does matter. There are many reasons other than military ones that require Israel to be larger. One such reason is adequate territory for growing the food necessary to feed its people.
Today’s headlines are splashed with news of a global rice shortage. Rice is even being rationed at the big box stores in the United States.
The U.S. housing crisis has given rise to a global credit crunch and forced institutional deleveraging. Oil prices have soared. Prices of potash and other products necessary in food production are going through the roof. And food prices are rising rapidly.
There are protests and riots around the world stemming from a lack of food availability and high prices. Poorer countries in Asia and Africa are erecting new export barriers because of the food crisis.
India’s finance minister P. Chidambaram was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying “There is no place in the world that grows the food we need if we’re forced to import.” Therefore we have to be nearly self-sufficient.”
What about Israel?
If a country the size of India demands itself to be self-sufficient, Israel too must demand itself be self-sufficient.
There is a rise in Nationalism. Countries are reasserting control over their people and their borders. Globalization has created a great deal of new wealth but the wealth is unevenly distributed so its wisdom is being challenged more forcefully in many corners of the world. Israel has been a beneficiary of globalization, and even a modest return of national fervor will take a toll on Israel.
Israel, the sole Jewish majority state in the world, must be self-sufficient in good global economic times and in bad. Bad economic times may isolate Israel.
Israel must not only be self-sufficient in its ability to defend itself and supply its own energy needs, it must also be self-sufficient in its ability to feed its growing population. Israel is one of the most densely populated countries in the world.
In a region that has more than enough land for all its inhabitants, Israel is deprived of sufficient land to take care of itself. It sits on much less than one percent of the land in its vastly under-inhabited region.
Global rice shortages and national export barriers? What about bread? Israel today imports 85% of its milling wheat.
What would happen to Israel if it were cut off?
When the world spirals out of control, as it may be doing now, and as history shows it will from time to time, being a good global trading partner is not enough.
An undersized Israel is at risk of withering one day. It would then survive, if it survives, merely as a failed nuclear state. This is not a proper future for Israel. Israel must be encouraged to thrive, not only for its citizens, but also for all the good that Israeli agriscience brings to the world.
For example, water-saving drip irrigation used throughout the world was perfected in Israel. When the future needs of the yet unborn around the globe become even greater, a thriving Israel will be in much better shape to stand with other countries in the creation of new methods and techniques to feed the hungry.
Israel must insist that it live on territory large enough to be self-sufficient in all respects. The international community should encourage peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors such that Israel winds up larger, and Palestinian Arabs are put on a path to better lives rather than being condemned to live in a failed mini-state.
In a world that will face increasing difficult agricultural issues, a larger Israel will be a strong global partner in the effort to ensure that our children, and our children’s children have enough water to drink, and bread and rice to eat. A larger, thriving, self-sufficient Israel is in humanity’s interest.
--David Naggar
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Thank You King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
.
This past week saw the most astonishing piece of news. It deserves significantly more coverage by the media than it has received.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has offered to hold an interfaith conference with Christians and Jews.
People are suspicious of his motivation. I am not. I welcome the news.
I concede that, in part, he may be motivated by a realization that a particular view of Islam that he does not personally share, is gaining traction in parts of Saudi Arabia. Many of his oil resources are in a traditionally Shi’a part of his Kingdom, but his royal line is Sunni.
Maybe he senses the growing ability of Al Qaida to regroup, and he fears a withering US resolve to fight it.
Maybe he is concerned that thirty years from now his oil resources will be depleted or irrelevant to the world economy, and he understands the need to modernize and integrate his country in the post-oil global economy.
But maybe he truly appreciates verse 5:48 of the Quran that does not talk of conquering other religions but in essence states that Muslims are to compete in righteousness with Christians and Jews.
“Then we revealed to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming previous scriptures, and superseding them. You shall rule among them in accordance with God’s revelations, and do not follow their wishes if they differ from the truth that came to you. For each of you, we have decreed laws and different rites. Had God willed, He could have made you one congregation. But He thus puts you to the test through the revelations He has given each of you. You shall compete in righteousness. To God is your final destiny--all of you--then He will inform you of everything you had disputed.”
No matter the motive, the King’s openness to religious dialogue is the light that can redirect the Middle-East away from the abyss.
David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, mistakenly believed that Israel should keep religion out of the discourse between Israel and her neighbors.
But here we are. The issue always was and still is whether a Jewish State can peacefully and prosperously exist within a Middle-East that is dominated by Muslims.
I say it can, but only after religious dialogue and rapprochement.
It is time to speak frankly and honestly about religion.
It is time to spread the word within Islam that Jews are not evil, that Jews do not drink Muslim blood, and that Jews do not want to kill or displace all Arabs from the Nile to the Euphrates.
It is time to speak frankly about what is, and is not Islamic holy land, Jewish holy land and Christian holy land.
It is time to speak about what is and is not freedom, what are human rights, and what is demeaning about subrogation rules such as dhimmi.
It is time to confirm that Israel is not a Christian outpost and not the continuation of the Crusades.
It is time to present evidence and discuss whether or not the site of the Jewish Temple is where the Jews say it is, and whether or not Muhammad’s night journey occurred on this same property. There is no point fighting over land if one of the parties concludes it may be mistaken about location after all.
There is much to discuss in the interfaith dialogue. A great deal of good can come from it because there will be no peace in this land without religious harmony.
Each religion must do more than tolerate the others. Each would be well served to embrace the vision of verse 5:48 of the Quran regarding God’s choice in purposefully making separate congregations to compete in righteousness.
With this in mind, it is time for Israel to ask the entire Muslim world to live side by side with the single Jewish State. It is time for Israel to humbly ask its neighbors for a sufficient plot of land to properly compete in righteousness. To properly compete, Israel must be large enough to be independently viable and successful on its own.
It is time for a larger Israel—one that will still be less than 1% of the land on which Muslims live, but one that will live peacefully with its larger neighbors and righteously contribute to the benefit of all humankind.
King Abdullah, I sincerely thank you for offering to hold an interfaith conference. It’s high time one occurs.
--David Naggar
This past week saw the most astonishing piece of news. It deserves significantly more coverage by the media than it has received.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has offered to hold an interfaith conference with Christians and Jews.
People are suspicious of his motivation. I am not. I welcome the news.
I concede that, in part, he may be motivated by a realization that a particular view of Islam that he does not personally share, is gaining traction in parts of Saudi Arabia. Many of his oil resources are in a traditionally Shi’a part of his Kingdom, but his royal line is Sunni.
Maybe he senses the growing ability of Al Qaida to regroup, and he fears a withering US resolve to fight it.
Maybe he is concerned that thirty years from now his oil resources will be depleted or irrelevant to the world economy, and he understands the need to modernize and integrate his country in the post-oil global economy.
But maybe he truly appreciates verse 5:48 of the Quran that does not talk of conquering other religions but in essence states that Muslims are to compete in righteousness with Christians and Jews.
“Then we revealed to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming previous scriptures, and superseding them. You shall rule among them in accordance with God’s revelations, and do not follow their wishes if they differ from the truth that came to you. For each of you, we have decreed laws and different rites. Had God willed, He could have made you one congregation. But He thus puts you to the test through the revelations He has given each of you. You shall compete in righteousness. To God is your final destiny--all of you--then He will inform you of everything you had disputed.”
No matter the motive, the King’s openness to religious dialogue is the light that can redirect the Middle-East away from the abyss.
David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, mistakenly believed that Israel should keep religion out of the discourse between Israel and her neighbors.
But here we are. The issue always was and still is whether a Jewish State can peacefully and prosperously exist within a Middle-East that is dominated by Muslims.
I say it can, but only after religious dialogue and rapprochement.
It is time to speak frankly and honestly about religion.
It is time to spread the word within Islam that Jews are not evil, that Jews do not drink Muslim blood, and that Jews do not want to kill or displace all Arabs from the Nile to the Euphrates.
It is time to speak frankly about what is, and is not Islamic holy land, Jewish holy land and Christian holy land.
It is time to speak about what is and is not freedom, what are human rights, and what is demeaning about subrogation rules such as dhimmi.
It is time to confirm that Israel is not a Christian outpost and not the continuation of the Crusades.
It is time to present evidence and discuss whether or not the site of the Jewish Temple is where the Jews say it is, and whether or not Muhammad’s night journey occurred on this same property. There is no point fighting over land if one of the parties concludes it may be mistaken about location after all.
There is much to discuss in the interfaith dialogue. A great deal of good can come from it because there will be no peace in this land without religious harmony.
Each religion must do more than tolerate the others. Each would be well served to embrace the vision of verse 5:48 of the Quran regarding God’s choice in purposefully making separate congregations to compete in righteousness.
With this in mind, it is time for Israel to ask the entire Muslim world to live side by side with the single Jewish State. It is time for Israel to humbly ask its neighbors for a sufficient plot of land to properly compete in righteousness. To properly compete, Israel must be large enough to be independently viable and successful on its own.
It is time for a larger Israel—one that will still be less than 1% of the land on which Muslims live, but one that will live peacefully with its larger neighbors and righteously contribute to the benefit of all humankind.
King Abdullah, I sincerely thank you for offering to hold an interfaith conference. It’s high time one occurs.
--David Naggar
Monday, March 03, 2008
Israel Is Not Disproportionately Aggressive, It is Disproportionately Good
.
Here we go again.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned what he described as Israel's "excessive and disproportionate" use of force in the Gaza Strip.
"While recognizing Israel's right to defend itself, I condemn the disproportionate and excessive use of force that has killed an injured so many civilians, including children," Ban told the emergency session of the council. "I call on Israel to cease such attacks," he said.
Well, nothing new here.
As usual, Israel is being accused of applying a “disproportionate use of force” against people who publicly call for its annihilation.
What does Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon think Israel is supposed to do to properly defend its citizens?
This is not a question that the Secretary-General concerns himself with. The truth is, the Secretary-General expects Israel to manage and cope with the problem, not end it.
The UN continues to be a disproportionate disappointment.
When the U.S. was attacked by Al-Qaeda living in Afghanistan on 9/11, the world joined as the U.S. used overwhelming force to mitigate the possibility that another attack would occur. There was no international outcry against a disproportionate use of force. This is what the government of a Nation-State is supposed to do—defend its citizens.
But Israel is different, in part, because its enemies are rich and powerful and have oil, the current engine of the world’s energy. In poker parlance, Israel has a weak international hand. It is only allowed to do so much before outside pressure comes to bear. This is unfortunate for the idea of stomping out terror around the world, not just for Israel.
It is an indisputable truth that not all people solve differences through negotiation and compromise. Hamas, the duly elected leaders of the Palestinians, intend to win their struggle with Israel. Winning, to Hamas, means the destruction of Israel. And so they go about their attempt to win through violence.
In some circles it is not well understood that sometimes there is simply no alternative but to deal with violent people violently. What could be a disproportionate use of force when faced against such a foe? There is no middle ground. There is no room for negotiation. Such an enemy must be destroyed before it destroys.
A more reasonable question is this: Why don’t more people in the international community consider it a “disproportionate use of force” when Hamas indiscriminately launches rockets into Israeli civilian population centers?
For those who assume both sides are equally wrong, know this: Israeli leadership mourns the loss of Palestinian civilians. Palestinian leadership intentionally targets Israeli civilians.
The Palestinian leadership could lessen the chance of its civilian casualties by choosing to locate its war machine away from civilian areas. But apparently, it would rather use the death of its own citizens for political gain than to do so. This is decidedly not the case in Israel.
And neither is there a “cycle of violence,” in this fight. For such a cycle to truly exist, it must be presupposed that one side can voluntarily stop the cycle if it simply does not respond to the other side’s violence. This is simply not true in this conflict. If Israel stopped going after Hamas, Hamas wouldn’t just recognize Israel’s right to exist and stop attacking it. Their terrorism is rational because it works. Repeatedly aiming to blow up civilians is not the “desperate” acts of those with no other recourse. Each act of terrorism is an act of “hope” in the fight to destroy Israel.
Hamas must be defeated.
As far as disproportionate, if one must use the term disproportionate as it relates to Israel, the term should be used as follows:
Israel has been disproportionate in its contributions that benefit humanity in the fields of science, medicine, and green energy.
Or,
Israel has earned disproportionate goodwill to have a viable state in which its Jewish citizens, outcast from both Europe and most of the Arab world, are free to help better their lives and lives throughout the world, without threat.
Israel has more than earned its place at the table of Nations. People in every corner of the world are much better off because of Israel’s existence. They eat better and are healthier.
Yet, as it exists today, Israel, even with its success and contribution to humanity, is not a viable state without the financial and military aid of the United States.
When the dust settles on the Arab/Muslim-Israeli conflict, the international community should help resolve it in such a way that Palestinians who want to, have room enough to live full lives in their own State or as citizens in the vast under-populated areas that stretch from the Morocco to Iraq, and Israel should be large enough to be prosperous, self-sufficient and independent on its own.
This day is not yet upon us. Unfortunately, world leaders pay disproportionate attention to which side of the bread their economies are oiled, and too little attention to the fact that Israel is disproportionately good.
--David Naggar
Here we go again.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned what he described as Israel's "excessive and disproportionate" use of force in the Gaza Strip.
"While recognizing Israel's right to defend itself, I condemn the disproportionate and excessive use of force that has killed an injured so many civilians, including children," Ban told the emergency session of the council. "I call on Israel to cease such attacks," he said.
Well, nothing new here.
As usual, Israel is being accused of applying a “disproportionate use of force” against people who publicly call for its annihilation.
What does Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon think Israel is supposed to do to properly defend its citizens?
This is not a question that the Secretary-General concerns himself with. The truth is, the Secretary-General expects Israel to manage and cope with the problem, not end it.
The UN continues to be a disproportionate disappointment.
When the U.S. was attacked by Al-Qaeda living in Afghanistan on 9/11, the world joined as the U.S. used overwhelming force to mitigate the possibility that another attack would occur. There was no international outcry against a disproportionate use of force. This is what the government of a Nation-State is supposed to do—defend its citizens.
But Israel is different, in part, because its enemies are rich and powerful and have oil, the current engine of the world’s energy. In poker parlance, Israel has a weak international hand. It is only allowed to do so much before outside pressure comes to bear. This is unfortunate for the idea of stomping out terror around the world, not just for Israel.
It is an indisputable truth that not all people solve differences through negotiation and compromise. Hamas, the duly elected leaders of the Palestinians, intend to win their struggle with Israel. Winning, to Hamas, means the destruction of Israel. And so they go about their attempt to win through violence.
In some circles it is not well understood that sometimes there is simply no alternative but to deal with violent people violently. What could be a disproportionate use of force when faced against such a foe? There is no middle ground. There is no room for negotiation. Such an enemy must be destroyed before it destroys.
A more reasonable question is this: Why don’t more people in the international community consider it a “disproportionate use of force” when Hamas indiscriminately launches rockets into Israeli civilian population centers?
For those who assume both sides are equally wrong, know this: Israeli leadership mourns the loss of Palestinian civilians. Palestinian leadership intentionally targets Israeli civilians.
The Palestinian leadership could lessen the chance of its civilian casualties by choosing to locate its war machine away from civilian areas. But apparently, it would rather use the death of its own citizens for political gain than to do so. This is decidedly not the case in Israel.
And neither is there a “cycle of violence,” in this fight. For such a cycle to truly exist, it must be presupposed that one side can voluntarily stop the cycle if it simply does not respond to the other side’s violence. This is simply not true in this conflict. If Israel stopped going after Hamas, Hamas wouldn’t just recognize Israel’s right to exist and stop attacking it. Their terrorism is rational because it works. Repeatedly aiming to blow up civilians is not the “desperate” acts of those with no other recourse. Each act of terrorism is an act of “hope” in the fight to destroy Israel.
Hamas must be defeated.
As far as disproportionate, if one must use the term disproportionate as it relates to Israel, the term should be used as follows:
Israel has been disproportionate in its contributions that benefit humanity in the fields of science, medicine, and green energy.
Or,
Israel has earned disproportionate goodwill to have a viable state in which its Jewish citizens, outcast from both Europe and most of the Arab world, are free to help better their lives and lives throughout the world, without threat.
Israel has more than earned its place at the table of Nations. People in every corner of the world are much better off because of Israel’s existence. They eat better and are healthier.
Yet, as it exists today, Israel, even with its success and contribution to humanity, is not a viable state without the financial and military aid of the United States.
When the dust settles on the Arab/Muslim-Israeli conflict, the international community should help resolve it in such a way that Palestinians who want to, have room enough to live full lives in their own State or as citizens in the vast under-populated areas that stretch from the Morocco to Iraq, and Israel should be large enough to be prosperous, self-sufficient and independent on its own.
This day is not yet upon us. Unfortunately, world leaders pay disproportionate attention to which side of the bread their economies are oiled, and too little attention to the fact that Israel is disproportionately good.
--David Naggar
Friday, February 01, 2008
Identity Politics, U.S. Democrats, Gaza and Israel
.
Identity politics are terrible. Just ask Barack Obama. He wants to be thought of as the best person to be President of the United States. For political purposes, some have manipulated voter perception of his identity so that he widely seen as the BLACK man candidate running against the white WOMAN candidate for the Democratic nomination.
Identity politics won’t tell us who might make a better President, but this form of segregating people by “groups” is potent in electoral politics.
Identity politics are at work in Gaza. Arabs who live or lived within an arbitrary area drawn by the British after World War I are defined as Palestinians. Arabs who live outside this area are identified with other marks and labels.
It is a dubious way to segregate people.
The people who now live in Gaza are living in an overly crowded corner of the world. They need either to be absorbed as equals into the vast lands of existing Muslim/Arabs States, or they need to be allocated an ample amount of the planet so that they can govern themselves in a self-sufficient contiguous State.
Even those who blame Israel for the Gazans spilling into Egypt should see the larger point. There isn’t enough room within Israel and the territories for two or three SUCCESSFUL fully independent States.
But there is PLENTY of room in the region. Saudi Arabia itself is roughly EIGHTY times larger that Israel and the territories.
But just like some American politicians, the international community plays the identity politics game when it suits it. World leaders don’t want to interfere with the recognized borders of the surrounding States, even though those borders are the invention of last century’s mostly European powers.
Today’s international community continues its harmful attempt to impose a two-state solution in this tiny geography. People who need help are being hurt. They have been told how they must identify themselves to the point where most, at least on some level, now do. This is shameful.
It is time to either unwind the identity politics created in the area over the last century, or accept the new identity by allocating to this group of people enough land to be independently successful.
If part of Egypt’s vast desert is expropriated for a larger home for Palestinians, or Gazans, or Arabs that wish to self-govern—by whatever future self-chosen subgroup name—then the international community should help make that peacefully happen. It should drop the identity game and accept the reality that the people currently living within Gaza are not different than people living right next door to Gaza on the other side of the wall, in present day Egypt.
And as for Israel—the sole Jewish majority State, a State that fosters the liberty and freedom of Jews—the world and all of humanity will greatly benefit by Israel becoming large enough to be independently viable.
Undoubtedly, afforded the opportunity to independently prosper, Israeli Jews will play a big part in fulfilling the global need for post-oil energy and an improved environment. Current Israel, even while being propped up by outside States, and being forced to squander resources fighting for its very survival, has already made undeniably huge contributions in the arts, medicine, science and technology.
There are nearly 200 United Nations member States. The international community should rally so that no Arab, however defined by sub-group, suffers abuse by fellow human beings or our international institutions, and that Jews, whose self-identity has not wavered for centuries, are in charge of one State large enough to thrive in our global village.
--David Naggar
Identity politics are terrible. Just ask Barack Obama. He wants to be thought of as the best person to be President of the United States. For political purposes, some have manipulated voter perception of his identity so that he widely seen as the BLACK man candidate running against the white WOMAN candidate for the Democratic nomination.
Identity politics won’t tell us who might make a better President, but this form of segregating people by “groups” is potent in electoral politics.
Identity politics are at work in Gaza. Arabs who live or lived within an arbitrary area drawn by the British after World War I are defined as Palestinians. Arabs who live outside this area are identified with other marks and labels.
It is a dubious way to segregate people.
The people who now live in Gaza are living in an overly crowded corner of the world. They need either to be absorbed as equals into the vast lands of existing Muslim/Arabs States, or they need to be allocated an ample amount of the planet so that they can govern themselves in a self-sufficient contiguous State.
Even those who blame Israel for the Gazans spilling into Egypt should see the larger point. There isn’t enough room within Israel and the territories for two or three SUCCESSFUL fully independent States.
But there is PLENTY of room in the region. Saudi Arabia itself is roughly EIGHTY times larger that Israel and the territories.
But just like some American politicians, the international community plays the identity politics game when it suits it. World leaders don’t want to interfere with the recognized borders of the surrounding States, even though those borders are the invention of last century’s mostly European powers.
Today’s international community continues its harmful attempt to impose a two-state solution in this tiny geography. People who need help are being hurt. They have been told how they must identify themselves to the point where most, at least on some level, now do. This is shameful.
It is time to either unwind the identity politics created in the area over the last century, or accept the new identity by allocating to this group of people enough land to be independently successful.
If part of Egypt’s vast desert is expropriated for a larger home for Palestinians, or Gazans, or Arabs that wish to self-govern—by whatever future self-chosen subgroup name—then the international community should help make that peacefully happen. It should drop the identity game and accept the reality that the people currently living within Gaza are not different than people living right next door to Gaza on the other side of the wall, in present day Egypt.
And as for Israel—the sole Jewish majority State, a State that fosters the liberty and freedom of Jews—the world and all of humanity will greatly benefit by Israel becoming large enough to be independently viable.
Undoubtedly, afforded the opportunity to independently prosper, Israeli Jews will play a big part in fulfilling the global need for post-oil energy and an improved environment. Current Israel, even while being propped up by outside States, and being forced to squander resources fighting for its very survival, has already made undeniably huge contributions in the arts, medicine, science and technology.
There are nearly 200 United Nations member States. The international community should rally so that no Arab, however defined by sub-group, suffers abuse by fellow human beings or our international institutions, and that Jews, whose self-identity has not wavered for centuries, are in charge of one State large enough to thrive in our global village.
--David Naggar
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Please God Mr. Prime Minister, I Hope You Know Something I Don’t.
.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister,
Events have shown you to be a brilliant political tactician. That is why I am at a loss to understand your negotiating tactics on behalf of Israel and the Jewish people on the global stage.
I hope you know something I don’t.
Let’s go over what we both know.
We both know that the international community (the IC) doesn’t really care how the Israeli-Arab/Muslim problem is solved. The IC just cares that the problem is resolved so that peace and prosperity in their home countries is not affected.
We both know that for the most part, each country acts in its own self-interest. This should be expected.
Because there are 100 times more Arabs and Muslims than Jews, many Arab and Muslim majority countries and only one Jewish one, and much more Arab/Muslim wealth than Jewish wealth, there are more self-interest reasons to side with the Arabs and Muslims and against Israel.
The upshot of this is that if Israel were willing to commit suicide, the IC would not care. We both know this.
On the other hand, if the Arab countries agreed to a larger Israel, the IC would not care either. The IC would not shed a tear if the solution entailed a Palestinian State in place of Jordan, or in Jordan, or in Saudi Arabia.
The IC would also not care if there were no Palestinian State at all (as long as Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims didn’t insist on one). Nor would the IC care if Palestinians were absorbed in the vast empty space of the existing 21 Arab States in the Middle East. The IC just wants A solution.
Mr. Prime Minister, I presume we both know all of the above. Don’t we?
So here’s my concern with your negotiating tactic.
You have publicly championed a two-state solution in this tiny geography. You have stated repeatedly that this is the only way for Israel to survive.
Well then, given that the IC doesn’t care about the solution, or the best solution, but just wants A solution, haven’t you created a self-fulfilling prophecy that AT BEST Israel is to return to the 1967 (give or take) borders? Haven’t you created a self-fulfilling prophecy that AT BEST Israel is to be completely dependent on globalization and global trade for the rest of its days?
Mr. Prime Minister, did you ever wonder why the Arabs haven’t insisted that Israel return to the 1947 partition plan borders, but only the 1949-1967 borders?
The answer, I believe, is clear. You would object. Israel would object. The IC would conclude such an Arab/Muslim demand is a non-starter with Israel, and would not lead to a solution. That would end the matter. Arabs/Muslims don't presently even bother to ask for this.
Where does your tactic lead Israel?
Every country that expects a fair measure of prosperity for its citizens in the long term—and this includes Israel—must necessarily be self sufficient when it come to defending itself, feeding itself, and supplying itself with the energy resources it needs.
Currently Israel can only defend itself with the aid of the United States, and it cannot feed or supply itself with food, water and energy. This is untenable. But this is your public stance for Israel’s future.
Your public stance has cut the legs from under anyone who 1) believes that a larger Israel is necessary for Israel’s well-being, 2) believes that Palestinian lives would be more readily improved if their plight was recognized and addressed as a humanitarian one, and 3) believes that members of the IC, who don’t care how the problems of the region are solved, will champion ANY solution they see as having the greatest chance of success.
Your public stance has cut the legs from under any American Congressman who believes that the two-state solution in this tiny-geography is foolish and will not lead to a permanent solution.
Your public stance has cut the legs from under any Muslim politician who one day might recognize the true history of the area (including Jerusalem) and say that a viable Israel is a welcomed addition to the Middle-East. It was not too long ago in history when King Abdullah’s great-uncle called the idea of much larger proposed Israel “moderate and proper.”
As it stands, anyone who freely proposes that Israel should be geographically larger than Israel’s Prime Minister thinks it should be, will be mocked or marginalized. This, Mr. Prime Minister, is the result of your public stance.
Your public stance, as Prime Minister of one of the disputing parties, is the IC’s ceiling. No one can credibly ask for more on behalf of the sole Jewish majority state.
YOUR public stance is the point from which the negotiation with Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims begins.
Do you really think your stance will win Israel friends and make it a permanent hero with the IC? Mr. Prime Minister, appeasing tyrants and negotiating with them from perceived weakness is the path to war, not peace. This is where your public stance seems to be leading.
Are you preparing for war?
Please God Mr. Prime Minister, I hope you know something I don’t.
--David Naggar
Dear Mr. Prime Minister,
Events have shown you to be a brilliant political tactician. That is why I am at a loss to understand your negotiating tactics on behalf of Israel and the Jewish people on the global stage.
I hope you know something I don’t.
Let’s go over what we both know.
We both know that the international community (the IC) doesn’t really care how the Israeli-Arab/Muslim problem is solved. The IC just cares that the problem is resolved so that peace and prosperity in their home countries is not affected.
We both know that for the most part, each country acts in its own self-interest. This should be expected.
Because there are 100 times more Arabs and Muslims than Jews, many Arab and Muslim majority countries and only one Jewish one, and much more Arab/Muslim wealth than Jewish wealth, there are more self-interest reasons to side with the Arabs and Muslims and against Israel.
The upshot of this is that if Israel were willing to commit suicide, the IC would not care. We both know this.
On the other hand, if the Arab countries agreed to a larger Israel, the IC would not care either. The IC would not shed a tear if the solution entailed a Palestinian State in place of Jordan, or in Jordan, or in Saudi Arabia.
The IC would also not care if there were no Palestinian State at all (as long as Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims didn’t insist on one). Nor would the IC care if Palestinians were absorbed in the vast empty space of the existing 21 Arab States in the Middle East. The IC just wants A solution.
Mr. Prime Minister, I presume we both know all of the above. Don’t we?
So here’s my concern with your negotiating tactic.
You have publicly championed a two-state solution in this tiny geography. You have stated repeatedly that this is the only way for Israel to survive.
Well then, given that the IC doesn’t care about the solution, or the best solution, but just wants A solution, haven’t you created a self-fulfilling prophecy that AT BEST Israel is to return to the 1967 (give or take) borders? Haven’t you created a self-fulfilling prophecy that AT BEST Israel is to be completely dependent on globalization and global trade for the rest of its days?
Mr. Prime Minister, did you ever wonder why the Arabs haven’t insisted that Israel return to the 1947 partition plan borders, but only the 1949-1967 borders?
The answer, I believe, is clear. You would object. Israel would object. The IC would conclude such an Arab/Muslim demand is a non-starter with Israel, and would not lead to a solution. That would end the matter. Arabs/Muslims don't presently even bother to ask for this.
Where does your tactic lead Israel?
Every country that expects a fair measure of prosperity for its citizens in the long term—and this includes Israel—must necessarily be self sufficient when it come to defending itself, feeding itself, and supplying itself with the energy resources it needs.
Currently Israel can only defend itself with the aid of the United States, and it cannot feed or supply itself with food, water and energy. This is untenable. But this is your public stance for Israel’s future.
Your public stance has cut the legs from under anyone who 1) believes that a larger Israel is necessary for Israel’s well-being, 2) believes that Palestinian lives would be more readily improved if their plight was recognized and addressed as a humanitarian one, and 3) believes that members of the IC, who don’t care how the problems of the region are solved, will champion ANY solution they see as having the greatest chance of success.
Your public stance has cut the legs from under any American Congressman who believes that the two-state solution in this tiny-geography is foolish and will not lead to a permanent solution.
Your public stance has cut the legs from under any Muslim politician who one day might recognize the true history of the area (including Jerusalem) and say that a viable Israel is a welcomed addition to the Middle-East. It was not too long ago in history when King Abdullah’s great-uncle called the idea of much larger proposed Israel “moderate and proper.”
As it stands, anyone who freely proposes that Israel should be geographically larger than Israel’s Prime Minister thinks it should be, will be mocked or marginalized. This, Mr. Prime Minister, is the result of your public stance.
Your public stance, as Prime Minister of one of the disputing parties, is the IC’s ceiling. No one can credibly ask for more on behalf of the sole Jewish majority state.
YOUR public stance is the point from which the negotiation with Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims begins.
Do you really think your stance will win Israel friends and make it a permanent hero with the IC? Mr. Prime Minister, appeasing tyrants and negotiating with them from perceived weakness is the path to war, not peace. This is where your public stance seems to be leading.
Are you preparing for war?
Please God Mr. Prime Minister, I hope you know something I don’t.
--David Naggar
Monday, December 03, 2007
Annapolis—One More Well-Meaning Dangerous Road
.
With great fanfare in Annapolis last week, the present-day international consensus solution was reaffirmed: two states—one Israeli, one Palestinian—within the confines of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. This is unfortunate because the “two-state solution” can AT BEST only lead to a temporary cessation of hostilities between Arabs/Muslims and Israel. It cannot lead to long enduring peace that includes a viably strong Israel in the Middle East.
The consensus is based on flawed assumptions. One flaw arises simply because the Arab/Muslim-Israeli conflict has been oversimplified in public discourse to the point where only Palestinian statelessness and Israel’s security needs are discussed as the lynchpin to regional peace. This is nonsense. One need only look to the fighting in Iraq or Lebanon to establish the fallacy. Arab and Muslim tribal animosity towards each other continues without regard to Israel.
And Arab and Muslim animosity towards Israel will not abate by splitting into two-states, the tiny area in which Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs are now crammed.
Of course, regional dictators have a long list of self-serving reasons for blaming Israel and the Jews for everything wrong in the Arab world, and they have reason to sell Washington on the idea that if only the Israeli-Palestinian problem were solved, terrorism would abate and the sun would shine on the whole region.
Much of establishment Washington (and the rest of the world) plays along, I dare say, to appease important oil interests. And, present Israeli leadership cowers in the face of international pressure.
I was heartened that, rhetoric aside, the actions of Dr. Rice and President Bush run counter to the myth that this is an Israeli-Palestinian problem that can be solved by two states for two peoples. Just look at the Annapolis guest list. Dr. Rice and President Bush felt it necessary to invite and involve members of the Arab League. The guest list makes it clear that the problem to be solved is an Arab/Muslim-Israeli one. Present at the conference were Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
The Muslim states participating were Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and Turkey.
(For what it’s worth, Annapolis did confirm that the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia will not shake the Prime Minister of Israel’s hand, and that Arab Ministers, save the Jordanian one, will still not meet with Israel’s foreign minister.)
The chance for real peace between Israel and her neighbors in the next year is nil. Appeasement does sometimes work, but history has shown that in this particular conflict, and in this particular region it will not.
Nevertheless, with enough international political pressure, there could one day be a 22nd Arab state, a Palestinian one on the West Bank and in Gaza. This “triumph” will be no road to a lasting peace. It will leave Israel weak and in more danger, and the Palestinian state will be feckless.
Here’s my expectation. Whether or not a Palestinian state is recognized, it will eventually become apparent to international leadership that the present consensus solution is unstable, unworkable and untenable.
As is expressed in a recent RAND Study: "If the failed or failing states of recent years—Somalia, Yugoslavia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Afghanistan—have endangered international security, consider the perils in the Middle East and beyond of a failed Palestine, or the costs and risks of one so weak that it must be propped up and policed by the United States and others."
It is HIGHLY likely that an independent Palestinian state, limited to the West Bank and Gaza, will fail or be extremely weak. It cannot realistically be viable as an independent state.
Again, according to the hopeful RAND Study, “Palestine can only succeed with the backing and assistance of the international community—above all, the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Resource requirements will be substantial for a decade or more.” Specifically, the RAND Study suggests that to have even a chance of success, this small Palestinian state would require $33 billion of aid over 10 years, $50 billion of aid through 2019, AND ACCESS TO ISRAEL’S LABOR MARKET (emphasis added)."
This approach is fantasy.
Sooner or later, after massive international funding fails, or perhaps after the outbreak of war, the international community will have to revisit the idea of having two non-viable states on this particular small parcel of land.
Simply put, the single-minded international pursuit of this “two-state” approach endangers the lives of some, and ruins the lives of many—Palestinians and Israelis alike.
There is plenty of room in the Middle East for ALL people who currently live there to be prosperous. But because there isn’t a humanitarian approach to the Arab/Muslim-Israeli problem, Israel's long-term viability is in danger, and Palestinian Arabs languish.
Time bombs in the Middle East will only be defused when international pressure is such that democratic states large enough to be self-sustaining are created for all Peoples in the region. To do this, not only must Israel’s boundaries be redrawn, but also, the boundaries imposed by the British and French at the end of World War I on much of the Middle East must be redrawn.
--David Naggar
With great fanfare in Annapolis last week, the present-day international consensus solution was reaffirmed: two states—one Israeli, one Palestinian—within the confines of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. This is unfortunate because the “two-state solution” can AT BEST only lead to a temporary cessation of hostilities between Arabs/Muslims and Israel. It cannot lead to long enduring peace that includes a viably strong Israel in the Middle East.
The consensus is based on flawed assumptions. One flaw arises simply because the Arab/Muslim-Israeli conflict has been oversimplified in public discourse to the point where only Palestinian statelessness and Israel’s security needs are discussed as the lynchpin to regional peace. This is nonsense. One need only look to the fighting in Iraq or Lebanon to establish the fallacy. Arab and Muslim tribal animosity towards each other continues without regard to Israel.
And Arab and Muslim animosity towards Israel will not abate by splitting into two-states, the tiny area in which Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs are now crammed.
Of course, regional dictators have a long list of self-serving reasons for blaming Israel and the Jews for everything wrong in the Arab world, and they have reason to sell Washington on the idea that if only the Israeli-Palestinian problem were solved, terrorism would abate and the sun would shine on the whole region.
Much of establishment Washington (and the rest of the world) plays along, I dare say, to appease important oil interests. And, present Israeli leadership cowers in the face of international pressure.
I was heartened that, rhetoric aside, the actions of Dr. Rice and President Bush run counter to the myth that this is an Israeli-Palestinian problem that can be solved by two states for two peoples. Just look at the Annapolis guest list. Dr. Rice and President Bush felt it necessary to invite and involve members of the Arab League. The guest list makes it clear that the problem to be solved is an Arab/Muslim-Israeli one. Present at the conference were Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
The Muslim states participating were Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and Turkey.
(For what it’s worth, Annapolis did confirm that the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia will not shake the Prime Minister of Israel’s hand, and that Arab Ministers, save the Jordanian one, will still not meet with Israel’s foreign minister.)
The chance for real peace between Israel and her neighbors in the next year is nil. Appeasement does sometimes work, but history has shown that in this particular conflict, and in this particular region it will not.
Nevertheless, with enough international political pressure, there could one day be a 22nd Arab state, a Palestinian one on the West Bank and in Gaza. This “triumph” will be no road to a lasting peace. It will leave Israel weak and in more danger, and the Palestinian state will be feckless.
Here’s my expectation. Whether or not a Palestinian state is recognized, it will eventually become apparent to international leadership that the present consensus solution is unstable, unworkable and untenable.
As is expressed in a recent RAND Study: "If the failed or failing states of recent years—Somalia, Yugoslavia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Afghanistan—have endangered international security, consider the perils in the Middle East and beyond of a failed Palestine, or the costs and risks of one so weak that it must be propped up and policed by the United States and others."
It is HIGHLY likely that an independent Palestinian state, limited to the West Bank and Gaza, will fail or be extremely weak. It cannot realistically be viable as an independent state.
Again, according to the hopeful RAND Study, “Palestine can only succeed with the backing and assistance of the international community—above all, the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Resource requirements will be substantial for a decade or more.” Specifically, the RAND Study suggests that to have even a chance of success, this small Palestinian state would require $33 billion of aid over 10 years, $50 billion of aid through 2019, AND ACCESS TO ISRAEL’S LABOR MARKET (emphasis added)."
This approach is fantasy.
Sooner or later, after massive international funding fails, or perhaps after the outbreak of war, the international community will have to revisit the idea of having two non-viable states on this particular small parcel of land.
Simply put, the single-minded international pursuit of this “two-state” approach endangers the lives of some, and ruins the lives of many—Palestinians and Israelis alike.
There is plenty of room in the Middle East for ALL people who currently live there to be prosperous. But because there isn’t a humanitarian approach to the Arab/Muslim-Israeli problem, Israel's long-term viability is in danger, and Palestinian Arabs languish.
Time bombs in the Middle East will only be defused when international pressure is such that democratic states large enough to be self-sustaining are created for all Peoples in the region. To do this, not only must Israel’s boundaries be redrawn, but also, the boundaries imposed by the British and French at the end of World War I on much of the Middle East must be redrawn.
--David Naggar
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Because Allah is Fair: A Reason to Revisit the Issue of Jerusalem
.
"The former mufti of Jerusalem, Ikrema Sabri, has made the claim that there never was a Jewish temple on the Temple Mount, and the Western Wall was really part of a mosque.
"There was never a Jewish temple on Al-Aksa [the mosque compound] and there is no proof that there was ever a temple," he told The Jerusalem Post via a translator. "Because Allah is fair, he would not agree to make Al-Aksa if there were a temple there for others beforehand."
Asked if Jews would ever be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount under Muslim control, he replied: "It is not the Temple Mount, you must say Al-Aksa. And no Jews have the right to pray at the mosque. It was always only a mosque - all 144 dunams, the entire area. No Jewish prayer. If the Jews want real peace, they must not do anything to try to pray on Al-Aksa. Everyone knows that."
"Zionism tries to trick the Jews claiming that this was part of a Jewish temple, but they dug there and they found nothing," Sabri added.” By Mike Seid, The Jerusalem Post, October 25, 2007.
* * *
If properly appreciated, what Mr. Sabri says is good news for Israel, Muslims and peace.
The whole idea of a Jewish temple existing on what many of us call the Temple Mount is seen as one big Zionist lie in the Muslim world. The last time I was in Egypt, Egyptian “scholars” that I met insisted that there was no Jewish temple on this land. I was flabbergasted.
At the end of the road, any road, true durable peace will come between Israel and the Arab/Muslim world only when these 144 dumans (35.5 acres) are shared, or either Jews or Muslims give up any claim to it.
Now undoubtedly, Mr. Sabri well knows verse 4:135 of the Quran that calls on Muslims to be absolutely equitable.
To him, there could never have been a Jewish temple where Al-Aksa is because it would simply be beyond Allah to do such a thing.
I understand this. From Mr. Sabri’s perspective, this makes perfect sense. It is ethical thinking.
As he said, "Because Allah is fair, he would not agree to make Al-Aksa if there were a temple there for others beforehand."
But in his analysis, Mr. Sabri fails to consider the possibility that Al-Aksa is not what Muslims now claim it to be—the farthest place of prostration adjacent to which Mohammed ascended to heaven one night.
Following Mr. Sabri’s logic, the very establishment of the Jewish temple on this site would negate the possibility that Al-Aksa is what it is claimed. If a Jewish temple existed here, it is reason enough for the Muslims to cede the area without further debate regarding the current meaning of Al-Aksa to anyone.
Here’s what I know from history.
Al-Aksa is a converted Christian church. The original building was the Byzantine Church of Saint Mary of Justinian. At the time of Mohammed’s death, Muslims had not yet invaded Jerusalem.
The idea that this spot was the farthest place of prostration was an invention of the Umayyad Dynasty about 80 years after Mohammed’s death as a challenge to other Muslim powers in Mecca. Ibn Taymiya, one of the most influential religious thinkers in Islam dismissed as folly the idea that this site was the place of Mohammed’s ascent to heaven. (I detail this topic in greater detail in my book, The Case for a Larger Israel).
Now, presuming Mr. Sabri is an equitable Muslim, and truly believes in the fairness of Allah as he has stated, revisiting the historical truth would be worthwhile.
Let us as an international community decide once and for all what is true and what is false regarding this potential powder keg. If sharing is out of the question, there will be no peace without deciding between the two narratives.
Here’s the deal.
If there was no Jewish temple on what I call the Temple Mount, then Israel and Jews everywhere should walk away from these 144 dunams. End of story. I’m not saying Israel doesn’t need to be larger to be viable and successful well into the future. I’m just saying that if a Jewish temple wasn’t here, there is no reason to pretend otherwise. Israel doesn’t need to retain these particular 35+ acres.
But if there is demonstrable evidence of a Jewish temple on this site, (and it would be just for the U.N. to call for proper and internationally supervised archaeological work), then the Muslims should at the very least share the area.
Further, if it can be established by the historical record (and it can) that the holiness of Al-Aksa was an after-the-fact hoax on Muslims by the Umayyad Dynasty, it would be equitable for the Muslims to cede, once and for all, all 144 dunams to the state of Israel, as keepers of the holiest site in all of Judaism.
In the name of fairness and peace, it does not desecrate either Judaism or Islam to seek and spread the truth. Let us all start doing so.
--David Naggar
"The former mufti of Jerusalem, Ikrema Sabri, has made the claim that there never was a Jewish temple on the Temple Mount, and the Western Wall was really part of a mosque.
"There was never a Jewish temple on Al-Aksa [the mosque compound] and there is no proof that there was ever a temple," he told The Jerusalem Post via a translator. "Because Allah is fair, he would not agree to make Al-Aksa if there were a temple there for others beforehand."
Asked if Jews would ever be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount under Muslim control, he replied: "It is not the Temple Mount, you must say Al-Aksa. And no Jews have the right to pray at the mosque. It was always only a mosque - all 144 dunams, the entire area. No Jewish prayer. If the Jews want real peace, they must not do anything to try to pray on Al-Aksa. Everyone knows that."
"Zionism tries to trick the Jews claiming that this was part of a Jewish temple, but they dug there and they found nothing," Sabri added.” By Mike Seid, The Jerusalem Post, October 25, 2007.
* * *
If properly appreciated, what Mr. Sabri says is good news for Israel, Muslims and peace.
The whole idea of a Jewish temple existing on what many of us call the Temple Mount is seen as one big Zionist lie in the Muslim world. The last time I was in Egypt, Egyptian “scholars” that I met insisted that there was no Jewish temple on this land. I was flabbergasted.
At the end of the road, any road, true durable peace will come between Israel and the Arab/Muslim world only when these 144 dumans (35.5 acres) are shared, or either Jews or Muslims give up any claim to it.
Now undoubtedly, Mr. Sabri well knows verse 4:135 of the Quran that calls on Muslims to be absolutely equitable.
To him, there could never have been a Jewish temple where Al-Aksa is because it would simply be beyond Allah to do such a thing.
I understand this. From Mr. Sabri’s perspective, this makes perfect sense. It is ethical thinking.
As he said, "Because Allah is fair, he would not agree to make Al-Aksa if there were a temple there for others beforehand."
But in his analysis, Mr. Sabri fails to consider the possibility that Al-Aksa is not what Muslims now claim it to be—the farthest place of prostration adjacent to which Mohammed ascended to heaven one night.
Following Mr. Sabri’s logic, the very establishment of the Jewish temple on this site would negate the possibility that Al-Aksa is what it is claimed. If a Jewish temple existed here, it is reason enough for the Muslims to cede the area without further debate regarding the current meaning of Al-Aksa to anyone.
Here’s what I know from history.
Al-Aksa is a converted Christian church. The original building was the Byzantine Church of Saint Mary of Justinian. At the time of Mohammed’s death, Muslims had not yet invaded Jerusalem.
The idea that this spot was the farthest place of prostration was an invention of the Umayyad Dynasty about 80 years after Mohammed’s death as a challenge to other Muslim powers in Mecca. Ibn Taymiya, one of the most influential religious thinkers in Islam dismissed as folly the idea that this site was the place of Mohammed’s ascent to heaven. (I detail this topic in greater detail in my book, The Case for a Larger Israel).
Now, presuming Mr. Sabri is an equitable Muslim, and truly believes in the fairness of Allah as he has stated, revisiting the historical truth would be worthwhile.
Let us as an international community decide once and for all what is true and what is false regarding this potential powder keg. If sharing is out of the question, there will be no peace without deciding between the two narratives.
Here’s the deal.
If there was no Jewish temple on what I call the Temple Mount, then Israel and Jews everywhere should walk away from these 144 dunams. End of story. I’m not saying Israel doesn’t need to be larger to be viable and successful well into the future. I’m just saying that if a Jewish temple wasn’t here, there is no reason to pretend otherwise. Israel doesn’t need to retain these particular 35+ acres.
But if there is demonstrable evidence of a Jewish temple on this site, (and it would be just for the U.N. to call for proper and internationally supervised archaeological work), then the Muslims should at the very least share the area.
Further, if it can be established by the historical record (and it can) that the holiness of Al-Aksa was an after-the-fact hoax on Muslims by the Umayyad Dynasty, it would be equitable for the Muslims to cede, once and for all, all 144 dunams to the state of Israel, as keepers of the holiest site in all of Judaism.
In the name of fairness and peace, it does not desecrate either Judaism or Islam to seek and spread the truth. Let us all start doing so.
--David Naggar
Thursday, October 25, 2007
The Shifting U.S. Public Opinion on Free Trade and the Disastrous Consequences for Israel
.
“By a nearly two-to-one margin, Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals could face high hurdles under a new president.” By John Harwood, The Wall Street Journal, October 4, 2007.
* * *
With the Turkish troop buildup on the Iraqi border, and U.S. Secretary of State Rice announcing new sanctions against Iran this morning, it is easy to lose sight of dangers to Israel other than military.
The shift in U.S. public opinion regarding free trade is one such danger that is easily obscured by war headlines.
Free trade has lead to global prosperity. It has taken hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in China and India alone.
Israel is a prime beneficiary. Its standard of living has risen appreciably because of free trade with Europe and the U.S. Its standard of living would fall dramatically if free trade were curtailed.
Today we live in dangerous times.
Nearly 80 years ago, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was enacted in the U.S. to help it out of recession. Instead, the Act exacerbated the economic downturn by inviting retaliatory tariffs worldwide. Smoot-Hawley helped push the globe deeper into recession, and ultimately toward World War II.
What happens if the U.S. housing and credit crisis causes its economy to stall next year as many expect? What happens in the likely event that Democrats—the political party that traditionally is more wary of free trade—win control of the Presidency and both Legislative branches of government next year?
Legislation limiting free trade could very well be enacted into U.S. law.
The U.S. must look after U.S. interests, but if political pressure causes it to adopt a mistaken policy, it’s not only the U.S. that will pay the price.
Anti-free trade legislation in the U.S. would almost certainly trigger worldwide retaliatory measures. The consequences would be most painful in the emerging countries where, at the very least, millions will be thrown back into poverty. Political instability would increase worldwide.
For Israel, a country that needs to import water, oil and grain, and has very limited natural resources, limiting free trade would be a disaster. Beyond the economic pain, curtailed free trade would be disastrous for Israel because a weakened economy leaves Israel more vulnerable to enemies that wish it destroyed.
The upshot is this: Israel needs to be large enough to be independently viable so that it does not suffer too dearly when a foreign power makes a mistake.
Israel must not be so tiny and insignificant that it risks withering. It is ironic that "success" in Annapolis will greatly expose Israel to serious dangers in the long run.
Through technological, medical and scientific achievements, Israel massively contributes to the well being of all people on the planet. It must have a fair chance to survive and thrive in all economies, not just global good times.
The risk to Israel’s long term well being would be significantly lower if it had geography enough to make it self-sufficient in an age where trade may become more limited, and ensuing international calamities occur.
Please read The Case for a Larger Israel and then make up your mind.
--David Naggar
“By a nearly two-to-one margin, Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals could face high hurdles under a new president.” By John Harwood, The Wall Street Journal, October 4, 2007.
* * *
With the Turkish troop buildup on the Iraqi border, and U.S. Secretary of State Rice announcing new sanctions against Iran this morning, it is easy to lose sight of dangers to Israel other than military.
The shift in U.S. public opinion regarding free trade is one such danger that is easily obscured by war headlines.
Free trade has lead to global prosperity. It has taken hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in China and India alone.
Israel is a prime beneficiary. Its standard of living has risen appreciably because of free trade with Europe and the U.S. Its standard of living would fall dramatically if free trade were curtailed.
Today we live in dangerous times.
Nearly 80 years ago, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was enacted in the U.S. to help it out of recession. Instead, the Act exacerbated the economic downturn by inviting retaliatory tariffs worldwide. Smoot-Hawley helped push the globe deeper into recession, and ultimately toward World War II.
What happens if the U.S. housing and credit crisis causes its economy to stall next year as many expect? What happens in the likely event that Democrats—the political party that traditionally is more wary of free trade—win control of the Presidency and both Legislative branches of government next year?
Legislation limiting free trade could very well be enacted into U.S. law.
The U.S. must look after U.S. interests, but if political pressure causes it to adopt a mistaken policy, it’s not only the U.S. that will pay the price.
Anti-free trade legislation in the U.S. would almost certainly trigger worldwide retaliatory measures. The consequences would be most painful in the emerging countries where, at the very least, millions will be thrown back into poverty. Political instability would increase worldwide.
For Israel, a country that needs to import water, oil and grain, and has very limited natural resources, limiting free trade would be a disaster. Beyond the economic pain, curtailed free trade would be disastrous for Israel because a weakened economy leaves Israel more vulnerable to enemies that wish it destroyed.
The upshot is this: Israel needs to be large enough to be independently viable so that it does not suffer too dearly when a foreign power makes a mistake.
Israel must not be so tiny and insignificant that it risks withering. It is ironic that "success" in Annapolis will greatly expose Israel to serious dangers in the long run.
Through technological, medical and scientific achievements, Israel massively contributes to the well being of all people on the planet. It must have a fair chance to survive and thrive in all economies, not just global good times.
The risk to Israel’s long term well being would be significantly lower if it had geography enough to make it self-sufficient in an age where trade may become more limited, and ensuing international calamities occur.
Please read The Case for a Larger Israel and then make up your mind.
--David Naggar
Friday, October 05, 2007
It's Time to Align U.S. Vital Interests in the Middle-East with Bettering the Planet
.
“U.S. President George W. Bush said in comments aired on Friday he was "very optimistic" a Palestinian state could be set up alongside Israel and that next month's Middle East conference could lead towards peace in the region.
Israeli sources say November 26 is the date set for the U.S.-led Mideast peace conference to be held in Annapolis. The United States has yet to confirm the date.
"I am very optimistic that we can achieve a two-state solution," Bush said in comments on Al Arabiya television that were dubbed in Arabic.” From Haaretz, by Barak Ravid, Avi Issacharoff and Aluf Benn, October 5th, 2007.
* * *
President Bush wants stability throughout the Middle-East. He wants to make sure there is no interruption in oil supplies that would devastate the U.S. and world economy. He wants to make sure that so-called terrorists—Islamists who wish to cause mass harm to the U.S. and the American ideal of live and let live—aren’t given the weapons to do so by any “rogue state.”
His motivations are the motivations of Republicans and Democrats alike in the U.S. Setting aside the quest for power, the fight between the two major parties is about strategy, not goals. Iraq, for all the noise, is nothing more than a strategy question. There is little disagreement about American “vital interests.”
Where does this leave Israel?
Because Israel’s one true ally (that is, its current political ally in the ever shifting sands of allies and enemies) has what it deems to be larger interests to consider, Israel is left on the perpetual verge of being forced to return to the 1967 borders (give or take).
These borders will not work for Israel in the long run. Nor will a fractured mini-state work to achieve the well-being of Palestinian Arabs. But the vital interests of Israel and Palestinian Arabs cannot be expected to be the focus of the U.S. except as they coincide with U.S. vital interests, as those interests are understood in Washington.
It is in Israeli, Palestinian and world interest that the present-day understanding of U.S. vital interests be reexamined to take a longer view.
Middle-East oil is unlikely to be critically important in 50 years. And the present borders of Arab States, imposed by outside forces, are unlikely to be the same. Sects within the larger Arab population will choose to relocate if freely allowed to do so.
But the future mind-set of Islamic clerics in the Middle-East and beyond will likely be critical. Muslims of the Middle-East will either participate in a more prosperous world, or they will fight modernity and cause potentially catastrophic global problems.
So what can the U.S. do today? For starters, back off the unworkable two-state solution.
The U.S. and the world are best served if the U.S. promotes freedom in Middle-East States so that moderate clerics may speak up without fear of assassination.
The U.S. and the world are best served if the U.S. promotes that the only Jewish majority state be larger than Vermont. This will help diminish the ongoing threat of Israel’s annihilation, and ensuing regional carnage.
The U.S. and the world are best served if the U.S. promotes that Israel be large enough to be self-sufficient and prosperous without subsidy. The technological discoveries and innovation from within the Jewish state will spread and make the planet better in many, many ways.
It's time to align U.S. vital interests in the Middle-East with bettering the planet.
--David Naggar
“U.S. President George W. Bush said in comments aired on Friday he was "very optimistic" a Palestinian state could be set up alongside Israel and that next month's Middle East conference could lead towards peace in the region.
Israeli sources say November 26 is the date set for the U.S.-led Mideast peace conference to be held in Annapolis. The United States has yet to confirm the date.
"I am very optimistic that we can achieve a two-state solution," Bush said in comments on Al Arabiya television that were dubbed in Arabic.” From Haaretz, by Barak Ravid, Avi Issacharoff and Aluf Benn, October 5th, 2007.
* * *
President Bush wants stability throughout the Middle-East. He wants to make sure there is no interruption in oil supplies that would devastate the U.S. and world economy. He wants to make sure that so-called terrorists—Islamists who wish to cause mass harm to the U.S. and the American ideal of live and let live—aren’t given the weapons to do so by any “rogue state.”
His motivations are the motivations of Republicans and Democrats alike in the U.S. Setting aside the quest for power, the fight between the two major parties is about strategy, not goals. Iraq, for all the noise, is nothing more than a strategy question. There is little disagreement about American “vital interests.”
Where does this leave Israel?
Because Israel’s one true ally (that is, its current political ally in the ever shifting sands of allies and enemies) has what it deems to be larger interests to consider, Israel is left on the perpetual verge of being forced to return to the 1967 borders (give or take).
These borders will not work for Israel in the long run. Nor will a fractured mini-state work to achieve the well-being of Palestinian Arabs. But the vital interests of Israel and Palestinian Arabs cannot be expected to be the focus of the U.S. except as they coincide with U.S. vital interests, as those interests are understood in Washington.
It is in Israeli, Palestinian and world interest that the present-day understanding of U.S. vital interests be reexamined to take a longer view.
Middle-East oil is unlikely to be critically important in 50 years. And the present borders of Arab States, imposed by outside forces, are unlikely to be the same. Sects within the larger Arab population will choose to relocate if freely allowed to do so.
But the future mind-set of Islamic clerics in the Middle-East and beyond will likely be critical. Muslims of the Middle-East will either participate in a more prosperous world, or they will fight modernity and cause potentially catastrophic global problems.
So what can the U.S. do today? For starters, back off the unworkable two-state solution.
The U.S. and the world are best served if the U.S. promotes freedom in Middle-East States so that moderate clerics may speak up without fear of assassination.
The U.S. and the world are best served if the U.S. promotes that the only Jewish majority state be larger than Vermont. This will help diminish the ongoing threat of Israel’s annihilation, and ensuing regional carnage.
The U.S. and the world are best served if the U.S. promotes that Israel be large enough to be self-sufficient and prosperous without subsidy. The technological discoveries and innovation from within the Jewish state will spread and make the planet better in many, many ways.
It's time to align U.S. vital interests in the Middle-East with bettering the planet.
--David Naggar
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Since There is Plenty of Room in the Middle-East for Everyone, What’s the Real Problem?
.
Let’s look to history.
Fifty years ago there were people on this planet who called themselves Rhodesians, Burmese, and Soviets. Not today.
One hundred years ago there were there were people who called themselves Ottomans, Prussians and Siamese. Not anymore.
From the vantage point of one human life span, it is hard to appreciate just how quickly people voluntarily, or by force, change national self-identification.
But today, the combination of political correctness coupled with the fact that international powers benefit from perpetuating, as best they can, the illusion that different nation-state identities are immutable, makes it difficult to expound on the reality that lays one layer beyond the cursory headline understanding of a situation.
Consider the Middle-East.
The Middle-East is comprised of nation-states created from whole cloth. An Israeli Jew may be loyal to Israel, but the Arab citizens of the Arab nation-states created from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire by the British and French at the end of World War I are not paramountly loyal to the created states in which they reside.
This is known to anyone inside or outside of the Middle-East with an appreciation of regional history and Islamic tradition.
What else is known but out of step with political correctness and the will of the international powers?
1) Without international intervention to prop up the Hashemite monarchy, it is likely that Jordanians, in the not-too-distant future, will not be calling themselves Jordanians.
2) Without current U.S. presence (or the initial British invention of their country), most Iraqis would cease calling themselves Iraqis. Some would simply be Kurds. Others groups of former Iraqis would call themselves whatever they choose or whatever name is imposed upon them by a new power regime.
3) Palestinians who self-identify today as Palestinians might call themselves something new in the future? In the strange tangle of history, no entity called Palestine existed until the British created it after World War I, and there was never a culturally unique self-identifying group of Arabs in the area when the British arrived that used any particular nation-state name of its own.
As the world tries to force Gazans and West Bankers back into one politically cohesive group so that the consensus two-state solution can be imposed, the following politically incorrect question must be asked: Are Gazans and West Bankers really a distinct people to the exclusion of all other surrounding Arabs?
And are most Jordanians a different people than West Bankers? Are Jordanians a different people than certain Iraqis? Are Syrians a different people than Lebanese? How many subsets or “peoples” really live in each of these countries whose borders were drawn for the benefit of some outside power.
“A people” is not created by the imposition of borders that are created for the convenience of the international powers of the day.
Because the day will come when individual Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, Iraqis and Palestinians no longer honor the internationally imposed nation-state borders, it is counter-productive to internationally impose the creation of a new separate Palestinian state within the confines of Israel and the territories. It is harmful to present-day self-identifying Palestinian people to force them to live "in their own state” that cannot be viable, and it is harmful to the long-term needs of Israel. Non-militant Palestinians (be they Gazan, West Bankers, loyal to this group or that, and by whatever name or names any of them chose to self-identify in the future) must be afforded a better future, and Israel must be larger to thrive into the future as anything other than an eventual failed nuclear state.
So what’s the real problem?
The international community thinks it can attain regional peace by imposing false nation-state borders on people whose paramount loyalty will not be to the state.
But there is a better approach. With proper international interjection and cooperation, there is plenty of room in the Middle East for everyone.
--David Naggar
Let’s look to history.
Fifty years ago there were people on this planet who called themselves Rhodesians, Burmese, and Soviets. Not today.
One hundred years ago there were there were people who called themselves Ottomans, Prussians and Siamese. Not anymore.
From the vantage point of one human life span, it is hard to appreciate just how quickly people voluntarily, or by force, change national self-identification.
But today, the combination of political correctness coupled with the fact that international powers benefit from perpetuating, as best they can, the illusion that different nation-state identities are immutable, makes it difficult to expound on the reality that lays one layer beyond the cursory headline understanding of a situation.
Consider the Middle-East.
The Middle-East is comprised of nation-states created from whole cloth. An Israeli Jew may be loyal to Israel, but the Arab citizens of the Arab nation-states created from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire by the British and French at the end of World War I are not paramountly loyal to the created states in which they reside.
This is known to anyone inside or outside of the Middle-East with an appreciation of regional history and Islamic tradition.
What else is known but out of step with political correctness and the will of the international powers?
1) Without international intervention to prop up the Hashemite monarchy, it is likely that Jordanians, in the not-too-distant future, will not be calling themselves Jordanians.
2) Without current U.S. presence (or the initial British invention of their country), most Iraqis would cease calling themselves Iraqis. Some would simply be Kurds. Others groups of former Iraqis would call themselves whatever they choose or whatever name is imposed upon them by a new power regime.
3) Palestinians who self-identify today as Palestinians might call themselves something new in the future? In the strange tangle of history, no entity called Palestine existed until the British created it after World War I, and there was never a culturally unique self-identifying group of Arabs in the area when the British arrived that used any particular nation-state name of its own.
As the world tries to force Gazans and West Bankers back into one politically cohesive group so that the consensus two-state solution can be imposed, the following politically incorrect question must be asked: Are Gazans and West Bankers really a distinct people to the exclusion of all other surrounding Arabs?
And are most Jordanians a different people than West Bankers? Are Jordanians a different people than certain Iraqis? Are Syrians a different people than Lebanese? How many subsets or “peoples” really live in each of these countries whose borders were drawn for the benefit of some outside power.
“A people” is not created by the imposition of borders that are created for the convenience of the international powers of the day.
Because the day will come when individual Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, Iraqis and Palestinians no longer honor the internationally imposed nation-state borders, it is counter-productive to internationally impose the creation of a new separate Palestinian state within the confines of Israel and the territories. It is harmful to present-day self-identifying Palestinian people to force them to live "in their own state” that cannot be viable, and it is harmful to the long-term needs of Israel. Non-militant Palestinians (be they Gazan, West Bankers, loyal to this group or that, and by whatever name or names any of them chose to self-identify in the future) must be afforded a better future, and Israel must be larger to thrive into the future as anything other than an eventual failed nuclear state.
So what’s the real problem?
The international community thinks it can attain regional peace by imposing false nation-state borders on people whose paramount loyalty will not be to the state.
But there is a better approach. With proper international interjection and cooperation, there is plenty of room in the Middle East for everyone.
--David Naggar
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Just Ask the Residents of Sderot
.
“Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Wednesday that Israel is nearing a major ground assault in the Gaza Strip, to deal with the ongoing Qassam rocket fire directed at Israeli communities." From Haaretz article entitled, “Barak: Israel nearing major ground assault in Gaza,” by Amos Harel, et al., September 5, 2007.”
* * * *
Nearing a major ground assault? Nearing?
In anticipation of a hoped for permanent peace deal between Israel and its Arab neighbors, and in the wake of the six day war, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote a memorandum to the Secretary of Defense, putting forth the minimum geographic area Israel needed to defend itself. That was June 29, 1967.
This MINIMUM included control the Golan Heights, a substantial part of the West Bank, and part of the Sinai.
With reference to Gaza, the Joint Chiefs concluded that, “Occupation of the Strip by Israel...” was militarily required “to reduce the hostile border by a factor of five and eliminate a source for raids and training of the Palestine Liberation Army.”
Over forty years later, Gaza is used for the same hostile purposes, but more destructively so, by Hamas and others still pursuing the destruction of Israel. What other country would tolerate such a hostile border?
That Ehud Barak talks of NEARING a major ground assault is a testament to Israel’s weak international political standing. Forty years later Israel is still preparing the groundwork to do what needs to be done.
And what needs to be done?
Israel needs to be larger. Just ask the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff of any era. Just ask the residents of Sderot today.
--David Naggar
“Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Wednesday that Israel is nearing a major ground assault in the Gaza Strip, to deal with the ongoing Qassam rocket fire directed at Israeli communities." From Haaretz article entitled, “Barak: Israel nearing major ground assault in Gaza,” by Amos Harel, et al., September 5, 2007.”
* * * *
Nearing a major ground assault? Nearing?
In anticipation of a hoped for permanent peace deal between Israel and its Arab neighbors, and in the wake of the six day war, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote a memorandum to the Secretary of Defense, putting forth the minimum geographic area Israel needed to defend itself. That was June 29, 1967.
This MINIMUM included control the Golan Heights, a substantial part of the West Bank, and part of the Sinai.
With reference to Gaza, the Joint Chiefs concluded that, “Occupation of the Strip by Israel...” was militarily required “to reduce the hostile border by a factor of five and eliminate a source for raids and training of the Palestine Liberation Army.”
Over forty years later, Gaza is used for the same hostile purposes, but more destructively so, by Hamas and others still pursuing the destruction of Israel. What other country would tolerate such a hostile border?
That Ehud Barak talks of NEARING a major ground assault is a testament to Israel’s weak international political standing. Forty years later Israel is still preparing the groundwork to do what needs to be done.
And what needs to be done?
Israel needs to be larger. Just ask the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff of any era. Just ask the residents of Sderot today.
--David Naggar
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
What You Really Need To Know About Christiane Amanpour’s "God’s Warriors"
.
I watched part of the first two installments of Christiane Amanpour’s “God’s Warriors” series on CNN.
The contextual misreporting and cleverly chosen video editing left me gasping. I’ve never met Christiane Amanpour so I won’t challenge the motives that underlie what she passes off these days as reporting.
The bigger truth is, it is simply absurd to lump together Jewish, Christian and Muslim “Warriors” as she calls them, into a series.
“Warrior Jews” as a group don’t go around killing other people. And Jews as a whole publicly and loudly denounce such acts of violence.
“Warrior Christians” as a group don’t go around killing other people either. And Christians as a whole publicly and loudly denounce such acts of violence.
“Warrior Muslims” on the other hand have a different ethic entirely. And Muslims as a whole—most don’t actually side with the warriors' ways—are too afraid to denounce them.
And that difference in mentality is why, in short, Christiane Amanpour can happily make a living lumping her “Warriors” together on TV in Christian majority United States. She could also safely lump her “Warriors” together on TV in Jewish majority Israel. But she couldn’t safely offer any real exposé in Muslim majority Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Western civilization’s enemies are deadly, and they are real. And that is why it is so dangerous to insist that Israel be made too small to properly defend itself.
That’s what you really need to know about Christiane Amanpour’s “God’s Warriors.”
--David Naggar
I watched part of the first two installments of Christiane Amanpour’s “God’s Warriors” series on CNN.
The contextual misreporting and cleverly chosen video editing left me gasping. I’ve never met Christiane Amanpour so I won’t challenge the motives that underlie what she passes off these days as reporting.
The bigger truth is, it is simply absurd to lump together Jewish, Christian and Muslim “Warriors” as she calls them, into a series.
“Warrior Jews” as a group don’t go around killing other people. And Jews as a whole publicly and loudly denounce such acts of violence.
“Warrior Christians” as a group don’t go around killing other people either. And Christians as a whole publicly and loudly denounce such acts of violence.
“Warrior Muslims” on the other hand have a different ethic entirely. And Muslims as a whole—most don’t actually side with the warriors' ways—are too afraid to denounce them.
And that difference in mentality is why, in short, Christiane Amanpour can happily make a living lumping her “Warriors” together on TV in Christian majority United States. She could also safely lump her “Warriors” together on TV in Jewish majority Israel. But she couldn’t safely offer any real exposé in Muslim majority Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Western civilization’s enemies are deadly, and they are real. And that is why it is so dangerous to insist that Israel be made too small to properly defend itself.
That’s what you really need to know about Christiane Amanpour’s “God’s Warriors.”
--David Naggar
Friday, August 03, 2007
Thankfully, the Two-State Solution is not an Inevitable Fait Accompli
.
With even the Prime Minister of Israel working feverously to create a two-state solution, it is fair to ask, “Is the two-state solution an inevitable fait accompli?”
The answer is a resounding no. The global powers are NOT pursuing justice in their solution. They are pursuing tranquility.
If the two-state solution cannot bring tranquility, they will seek out a new path and a new consensus position will be built.
That is why after years of diplomatic taboo, some now talk openly about involving Jordan, much to King Abdullah’s dismay.
The open political discussion about a larger Israel will not happen immediately because as of yet, no credible statesman in our time has been willing to risk the wrath of being labeled an extremist by presenting an argument to counter those who demand that Israel withdraw to its pre-1967 borders.
No statesman has offered Palestinians any way to better their lives other than to pursue becoming citizens of a future feckless state.
No statesman has effectively put forth a case that the sole Jewish majority state, to be a self-sustaining viable state, must have adequate territory.
If you say there are no realistic alternatives to the two-state solution, you need to read my book.
The two-state solution is unworkable and unjust for both Israelis and Palestinians. It will not bring tranquility. And therefore, thankfully, it is not an inevitable fait accompli.
--David Naggar
With even the Prime Minister of Israel working feverously to create a two-state solution, it is fair to ask, “Is the two-state solution an inevitable fait accompli?”
The answer is a resounding no. The global powers are NOT pursuing justice in their solution. They are pursuing tranquility.
If the two-state solution cannot bring tranquility, they will seek out a new path and a new consensus position will be built.
That is why after years of diplomatic taboo, some now talk openly about involving Jordan, much to King Abdullah’s dismay.
The open political discussion about a larger Israel will not happen immediately because as of yet, no credible statesman in our time has been willing to risk the wrath of being labeled an extremist by presenting an argument to counter those who demand that Israel withdraw to its pre-1967 borders.
No statesman has offered Palestinians any way to better their lives other than to pursue becoming citizens of a future feckless state.
No statesman has effectively put forth a case that the sole Jewish majority state, to be a self-sustaining viable state, must have adequate territory.
If you say there are no realistic alternatives to the two-state solution, you need to read my book.
The two-state solution is unworkable and unjust for both Israelis and Palestinians. It will not bring tranquility. And therefore, thankfully, it is not an inevitable fait accompli.
--David Naggar
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
If You Can Envision Taiwan Falling Without U.S. Intervention, You Should Be Able To Envision Israel Falling Without One Too
.
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) wants Taiwan. The U.S. has a treaty that says it will defend Taiwan from attack.
If push comes to shove, will the U.S. really defend Taiwan, or will it let Taiwan fall?
If the U.S. lets Taiwan fall, all similar U.S. treaties could be considered worthless. If the U.S. defends Taiwan, it will be a huge mess—a mess the people of the U.S. might not be willing to stomach.
Fortunately, while the PRC gets economically and militarily stronger, they are also preoccupied preparing for the 2008 Olympics. Depending on the state of their economy, military readiness, and the political health of the Communist Party, sometime after 2008—maybe even a decade or two later—the status of Taiwan will undoubtedly create renewed global tension.
How does this relate to Israel?
Friends who reject the idea that Israel must be larger to be viable, often say, “but the U.S. will ALWAYS be there to support Israel.”
They simply can’t envision a world in which the U.S. allows Israel to fall. Interestingly, many of these same folks also liken the U.S. involvement in Iraq to Vietnam.
Now recall that in 1967, the U.S. didn’t intercede to prevent the six-day war, a war Israel might have lost. The U.S. was in no position to intercede—because of Vietnam.
What will the U.S. not be in a position to do because of Iraq? Or some future military entanglement?
I hope the parallel is clear.
Israel must be stronger not weaker. It must be large enough to be independently viable, not the U.S. client state it is today.
As renewed efforts to force an ill-conceived two-state solution are thrust upon Israel in the coming months, keep the following in mind:
If you can envision Taiwan falling without a U.S. intervention, you should be able to envision Israel falling without one too.
--David Naggar
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) wants Taiwan. The U.S. has a treaty that says it will defend Taiwan from attack.
If push comes to shove, will the U.S. really defend Taiwan, or will it let Taiwan fall?
If the U.S. lets Taiwan fall, all similar U.S. treaties could be considered worthless. If the U.S. defends Taiwan, it will be a huge mess—a mess the people of the U.S. might not be willing to stomach.
Fortunately, while the PRC gets economically and militarily stronger, they are also preoccupied preparing for the 2008 Olympics. Depending on the state of their economy, military readiness, and the political health of the Communist Party, sometime after 2008—maybe even a decade or two later—the status of Taiwan will undoubtedly create renewed global tension.
How does this relate to Israel?
Friends who reject the idea that Israel must be larger to be viable, often say, “but the U.S. will ALWAYS be there to support Israel.”
They simply can’t envision a world in which the U.S. allows Israel to fall. Interestingly, many of these same folks also liken the U.S. involvement in Iraq to Vietnam.
Now recall that in 1967, the U.S. didn’t intercede to prevent the six-day war, a war Israel might have lost. The U.S. was in no position to intercede—because of Vietnam.
What will the U.S. not be in a position to do because of Iraq? Or some future military entanglement?
I hope the parallel is clear.
Israel must be stronger not weaker. It must be large enough to be independently viable, not the U.S. client state it is today.
As renewed efforts to force an ill-conceived two-state solution are thrust upon Israel in the coming months, keep the following in mind:
If you can envision Taiwan falling without a U.S. intervention, you should be able to envision Israel falling without one too.
--David Naggar
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
It’s Okay If The Hashemite King of Jordan Gets A Little Testy
.
“Jordan's King Abdullah II told European Union envoys the issue of forming a confederation with the Palestinians would not be raised until the establishment of an independent state.
"The concept of Jordanian-Palestinian confederation or federation is not in our dictionary, and we won't tackle this issue for the time being," Abdullah said in remarks carried by the official Petra news agency.” From the Associated Press, article entitled, Jordan: Palestinian State, Then Alliance, June 11, 2007.
“Meanwhile, a caustic response to the idea of such a solution came from King Abdullah of Jordan who said Sunday during an interview that 'we reject the formula of confederation and federation and we believe that proposing this issue at this specific point in time is a conspiracy against both Palestine and Jordan.' The King added that he was 'fed up talking about this issue.'” From Haaretz, article entitled, Jordanian Role Increasingly Seen As Crucial To Peace Process, by Shmuel Rosner, July 3, 2007.
* * *
It’s likely to be a hot summer in the Middle East.
As the cracks in the artificially created Arab Nation-States continue to reveal themselves, it is important to keep in mind that there are many Arab leaders whose hold on power is tenuous. King Abdullah is one of them.
As “radical” Muslim elements press to expand influence, events in the Middle East could get quickly out of hand. Of course, the “radicals” appear to be mainstream since they seem to have a fair amount of local support.
Opposing these “radicals” is enormous international pressure to keep things from spinning out of control, and this is starting to put unwanted pressure on the King.
International envoys have a non-benevolent agenda to bring peace and stability to the region. As part of this agenda, envoys are searching to solve the Israeli-Palestinian quagmire.
The actual cost to the locals of implementing their agenda—be it Jewish Israelis or Palestinian Arabs—is not important to them.
The envoys want an end to hostilities, and any solution will do.
They are dismayed by Hamas’ easy power grab in Gaza. They are concerned about what may happen next. They do not want the entire region to explode.
But thanks to this year’s events, many envoys are FINALLY uncertain that a truly independent Palestine will be peaceful.
And so, they are beginning to look for solutions outside-of-the-box—the box being the so-called two-state solution within the confines of Israel and the territories.
Their first small peek outside-of-the-box is to try and involve Jordan. They want the King to help govern the West Bank (Judea and Samaria).
But the King will simply not help anyone who thinks outside-of-the-box.
As the press quotes show, the King is getting agitated. He will never willingly lend his hand because his necessary primary interest is the self-preservation of his Hashemite Kingdom.
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has its roots in present day Saudi Arabia. But the Saudis defeated the Hashemite clan in war about 80 years ago. In the post World War I Middle-East border shuffle, British politicians carved out, from what was supposed to be a homeland for the Jews, a land for the King’s great grandfather to rule.
In the last 40 years, Arabs in the West Bank began identifying themselves as Palestinian. Most of the inhabitants of the King’s Jordan have also come to think of themselves as Palestinians.
This is very dangerous news for his artificially created Kingdom. Too many unruly Palestinians to rule and the King’s Kingdom will fade into history.
As I’ve written, the Israeli-Palestinian problem is an EFFECT of a larger Israeli-Muslim/Arab conflict. It is not the CAUSE of it. But expect the well-spoken King to ALWAYS say that the root cause of Middle-East turmoil is the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
The King will continue to “compassionately” speak out in favor of a two-state solution within Israel and the territories. He will insist it is the only solution. He will insist on keeping Jordan out of it.
Why? Because ANY solution that involves Jordan jeopardizes his Kingdom.
But the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is likely to crumble sooner or later anyway. The tide of history is against it.
The good news, other than for the Jordanian monarch, is this: Finally, the box has been opened, if only a little.
Also, when envoys peek outside-of-the-box, they will notice that there is plenty of room in the wider area for all who live there now.
For regional peace and prosperity, it is time that Middle-East envoys focus on the welfare of people, not on the welfare of existing regimes.
It is in the world’s best interest that the international community promotes the idea of Israel becoming viable in all respects. This means a larger Israel.
It is also in the world’s best interest to pressure King Abdullah and other dictators of adjacent Arab states to allow Palestinians to live productive lives, either in their own entity, or as first-class citizens of existing Arab states.
For a solution that brings long-lasting peace, beyond establishing a larger Israel and a place for Palestinians to thrive, it is also in the world’s best interest that borders of other States in the region be reconfigured.
The new map lines should reflect local considerations. The states that currently exist only exist as distinct entities by the serendipity of historical map lines imposed by the British and French. They are relics of a bygone era.
Justice is not served by propping up dictators and monarchs. Justice is not served by imposing artificial map lines. Justice is not served by refusing to let go of the status quo.
Peace requires change. And it’s okay if in the process, the Hashemite King of Jordan gets a little testy.
--David Naggar
“Jordan's King Abdullah II told European Union envoys the issue of forming a confederation with the Palestinians would not be raised until the establishment of an independent state.
"The concept of Jordanian-Palestinian confederation or federation is not in our dictionary, and we won't tackle this issue for the time being," Abdullah said in remarks carried by the official Petra news agency.” From the Associated Press, article entitled, Jordan: Palestinian State, Then Alliance, June 11, 2007.
“Meanwhile, a caustic response to the idea of such a solution came from King Abdullah of Jordan who said Sunday during an interview that 'we reject the formula of confederation and federation and we believe that proposing this issue at this specific point in time is a conspiracy against both Palestine and Jordan.' The King added that he was 'fed up talking about this issue.'” From Haaretz, article entitled, Jordanian Role Increasingly Seen As Crucial To Peace Process, by Shmuel Rosner, July 3, 2007.
* * *
It’s likely to be a hot summer in the Middle East.
As the cracks in the artificially created Arab Nation-States continue to reveal themselves, it is important to keep in mind that there are many Arab leaders whose hold on power is tenuous. King Abdullah is one of them.
As “radical” Muslim elements press to expand influence, events in the Middle East could get quickly out of hand. Of course, the “radicals” appear to be mainstream since they seem to have a fair amount of local support.
Opposing these “radicals” is enormous international pressure to keep things from spinning out of control, and this is starting to put unwanted pressure on the King.
International envoys have a non-benevolent agenda to bring peace and stability to the region. As part of this agenda, envoys are searching to solve the Israeli-Palestinian quagmire.
The actual cost to the locals of implementing their agenda—be it Jewish Israelis or Palestinian Arabs—is not important to them.
The envoys want an end to hostilities, and any solution will do.
They are dismayed by Hamas’ easy power grab in Gaza. They are concerned about what may happen next. They do not want the entire region to explode.
But thanks to this year’s events, many envoys are FINALLY uncertain that a truly independent Palestine will be peaceful.
And so, they are beginning to look for solutions outside-of-the-box—the box being the so-called two-state solution within the confines of Israel and the territories.
Their first small peek outside-of-the-box is to try and involve Jordan. They want the King to help govern the West Bank (Judea and Samaria).
But the King will simply not help anyone who thinks outside-of-the-box.
As the press quotes show, the King is getting agitated. He will never willingly lend his hand because his necessary primary interest is the self-preservation of his Hashemite Kingdom.
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has its roots in present day Saudi Arabia. But the Saudis defeated the Hashemite clan in war about 80 years ago. In the post World War I Middle-East border shuffle, British politicians carved out, from what was supposed to be a homeland for the Jews, a land for the King’s great grandfather to rule.
In the last 40 years, Arabs in the West Bank began identifying themselves as Palestinian. Most of the inhabitants of the King’s Jordan have also come to think of themselves as Palestinians.
This is very dangerous news for his artificially created Kingdom. Too many unruly Palestinians to rule and the King’s Kingdom will fade into history.
As I’ve written, the Israeli-Palestinian problem is an EFFECT of a larger Israeli-Muslim/Arab conflict. It is not the CAUSE of it. But expect the well-spoken King to ALWAYS say that the root cause of Middle-East turmoil is the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
The King will continue to “compassionately” speak out in favor of a two-state solution within Israel and the territories. He will insist it is the only solution. He will insist on keeping Jordan out of it.
Why? Because ANY solution that involves Jordan jeopardizes his Kingdom.
But the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is likely to crumble sooner or later anyway. The tide of history is against it.
The good news, other than for the Jordanian monarch, is this: Finally, the box has been opened, if only a little.
Also, when envoys peek outside-of-the-box, they will notice that there is plenty of room in the wider area for all who live there now.
For regional peace and prosperity, it is time that Middle-East envoys focus on the welfare of people, not on the welfare of existing regimes.
It is in the world’s best interest that the international community promotes the idea of Israel becoming viable in all respects. This means a larger Israel.
It is also in the world’s best interest to pressure King Abdullah and other dictators of adjacent Arab states to allow Palestinians to live productive lives, either in their own entity, or as first-class citizens of existing Arab states.
For a solution that brings long-lasting peace, beyond establishing a larger Israel and a place for Palestinians to thrive, it is also in the world’s best interest that borders of other States in the region be reconfigured.
The new map lines should reflect local considerations. The states that currently exist only exist as distinct entities by the serendipity of historical map lines imposed by the British and French. They are relics of a bygone era.
Justice is not served by propping up dictators and monarchs. Justice is not served by imposing artificial map lines. Justice is not served by refusing to let go of the status quo.
Peace requires change. And it’s okay if in the process, the Hashemite King of Jordan gets a little testy.
--David Naggar
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Mr. President, It’s Time To Think Outside Of The Box
.
The box President Bush refuses to think his way out of is the two-state solution confined to Israel and the territories.
Hamas’ takeover in Gaza, and Fatah’s takeover in the West Bank have dealt a blow to the advocates of the two-state solution. But it has provided them with a perceived opportunity.
In the coming months we are likely to witness one more STRONG push to cement a two-state solution.
But such a “solution” cannot work in the long run, even if an independent Palestinian State is forcibly created and billions of aid money is bestowed upon it. This “solution,” if it comes about, will seriously weaken and imperil Israel, will serve to ruin the lives of many Palestinian Arabs, and will ultimately bring the world that much closer to a regional conflagration.
It is a pity that President Bush no longer appreciates the significance of his own principled words from 2003.
“Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place for stagnation, resentment and violence for export.”
The President abandoned his words in Iraq. Somewhere along the line, when the fight to win became difficult, the United States looked to cut deals with mini local tyrants who have non-democratic agendas. The willingness of the U.S. to cut deals—and purchase stability at the expense of liberty—was perceived by all as weakness.
As Tony Blair said back in 2003: “weakness in the face of a threat from a tyrant, is the surest way not to peace but to war.”
This applies to all tyrants, big and small, and whether in kaffiyeh or a business suit.
The principle abandoned in Iraq is now ignored in Israel and the territories because the fair election of Hamas—a group that wouldn’t say it accepts the existence of Israel, when it doesn’t—led to “inconvenient” problems for Washington.
Take a look at the new American tactic with respect to the Palestinians. President Bush has decided to choose sides between tyrants. He has decided to back Fatah’s dubiously created unelected government in the West Bank. This is the perceived opportunity to salvage the “two-state solution.”
How shortsighted.
We’ve come along way since the days when the PLO was treated as a pariah for its terrorist activities. It is now, once again, the benefactor of U.S. largess.
Since being resurrected from near death in 1993 by the Oslo-accords, the PLO in guise of the PA has received, according to noted historian Michael Oren, more international aid than any entity in modern history. It has abused this aid by buying weapons, maintaining in the West Bank the highest percentage of policemen-to-population ratio in the world, and stuffing its leaders’ private bank accounts.
Expecting Fatah to reform itself financially, ideologically and structurally defies all past experience.
It is oxymoronic—dare I say un-American—for the United States to side with and prop up one essentially anti-American non-democratic group (Fatah) in a fight with another anti-American non-democratic group (Hamas).
But this is exactly what the United States is doing.
And unfortunately the Israeli government is right there to help.
As the leader of a U.S. dependent State in mortal danger, perhaps Prime Minster Olmert (may he soon be replaced) has no real choice but to go along with President Bush in propping up the remnants of Yasser Arafat’s organization. But it sure smells.
Perhaps the Prime Minister figures that going along with the U.S., in exchange for the extra aid/bribe money Israel will receive for doing so, is worthwhile since the American endeavor is likely to fail anyway.
One thing is sure: a truncated Israel will need all the extra bribe money it can get. A truncated Israel will not be viable. It will not be strong into the future.
In the Middle East, the Western proclivity to seek expedience and compromise to solve problems has proved to be a long and unending road. This path hasn’t worked.
Utterly defeating the enemy and imposing terms of unconditional surrender is painful, but it is the shorter and only road to peace. It will free the millions who simply want to live decent lives with their families.
Who is the enemy? Those who will not support the ideal of live and let live but rather, insist on destroying it. Those who wish to see Israel, the United States, and the rest of modern civilization destroyed, and seek out means to do so. Those who will not make fair room in the Middle East for Israel to thrive, not merely survive. Those who will not grant the Palestinian Arabs citizenship or a State of their own in the vast Arab lands that are 1 ½ times the size of the United States, and 99.8% the size of Israel and the territories.
Mr. President, propping up a regime such as Fatah is unworthy of America.
Propping up Fatah does not serve the Palestinians, Israel, or prospects for long-term peace between Israel and her many Arab neighbors.
The forced implementation of the two-state solution is a path to ruin.
Mr. President, it is time to think outside of the box.
--David Naggar
The box President Bush refuses to think his way out of is the two-state solution confined to Israel and the territories.
Hamas’ takeover in Gaza, and Fatah’s takeover in the West Bank have dealt a blow to the advocates of the two-state solution. But it has provided them with a perceived opportunity.
In the coming months we are likely to witness one more STRONG push to cement a two-state solution.
But such a “solution” cannot work in the long run, even if an independent Palestinian State is forcibly created and billions of aid money is bestowed upon it. This “solution,” if it comes about, will seriously weaken and imperil Israel, will serve to ruin the lives of many Palestinian Arabs, and will ultimately bring the world that much closer to a regional conflagration.
It is a pity that President Bush no longer appreciates the significance of his own principled words from 2003.
“Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place for stagnation, resentment and violence for export.”
The President abandoned his words in Iraq. Somewhere along the line, when the fight to win became difficult, the United States looked to cut deals with mini local tyrants who have non-democratic agendas. The willingness of the U.S. to cut deals—and purchase stability at the expense of liberty—was perceived by all as weakness.
As Tony Blair said back in 2003: “weakness in the face of a threat from a tyrant, is the surest way not to peace but to war.”
This applies to all tyrants, big and small, and whether in kaffiyeh or a business suit.
The principle abandoned in Iraq is now ignored in Israel and the territories because the fair election of Hamas—a group that wouldn’t say it accepts the existence of Israel, when it doesn’t—led to “inconvenient” problems for Washington.
Take a look at the new American tactic with respect to the Palestinians. President Bush has decided to choose sides between tyrants. He has decided to back Fatah’s dubiously created unelected government in the West Bank. This is the perceived opportunity to salvage the “two-state solution.”
How shortsighted.
We’ve come along way since the days when the PLO was treated as a pariah for its terrorist activities. It is now, once again, the benefactor of U.S. largess.
Since being resurrected from near death in 1993 by the Oslo-accords, the PLO in guise of the PA has received, according to noted historian Michael Oren, more international aid than any entity in modern history. It has abused this aid by buying weapons, maintaining in the West Bank the highest percentage of policemen-to-population ratio in the world, and stuffing its leaders’ private bank accounts.
Expecting Fatah to reform itself financially, ideologically and structurally defies all past experience.
It is oxymoronic—dare I say un-American—for the United States to side with and prop up one essentially anti-American non-democratic group (Fatah) in a fight with another anti-American non-democratic group (Hamas).
But this is exactly what the United States is doing.
And unfortunately the Israeli government is right there to help.
As the leader of a U.S. dependent State in mortal danger, perhaps Prime Minster Olmert (may he soon be replaced) has no real choice but to go along with President Bush in propping up the remnants of Yasser Arafat’s organization. But it sure smells.
Perhaps the Prime Minister figures that going along with the U.S., in exchange for the extra aid/bribe money Israel will receive for doing so, is worthwhile since the American endeavor is likely to fail anyway.
One thing is sure: a truncated Israel will need all the extra bribe money it can get. A truncated Israel will not be viable. It will not be strong into the future.
In the Middle East, the Western proclivity to seek expedience and compromise to solve problems has proved to be a long and unending road. This path hasn’t worked.
Utterly defeating the enemy and imposing terms of unconditional surrender is painful, but it is the shorter and only road to peace. It will free the millions who simply want to live decent lives with their families.
Who is the enemy? Those who will not support the ideal of live and let live but rather, insist on destroying it. Those who wish to see Israel, the United States, and the rest of modern civilization destroyed, and seek out means to do so. Those who will not make fair room in the Middle East for Israel to thrive, not merely survive. Those who will not grant the Palestinian Arabs citizenship or a State of their own in the vast Arab lands that are 1 ½ times the size of the United States, and 99.8% the size of Israel and the territories.
Mr. President, propping up a regime such as Fatah is unworthy of America.
Propping up Fatah does not serve the Palestinians, Israel, or prospects for long-term peace between Israel and her many Arab neighbors.
The forced implementation of the two-state solution is a path to ruin.
Mr. President, it is time to think outside of the box.
--David Naggar
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
What Do Regional Shopping Centers Have To Do With The Case For A Larger Israel?
.
In his new book, Threshold Resistance, American shopping mall pioneer A. Alfred Taubman, describes the difficulty he had over 50 years ago convincing retailers such as Macy’s that his new concept—regional malls—would work.
Imagine the difficulty he faced trying to convince smaller retailers that are found inside the mall to give up their street store fronts altogether? The fact that malls work for stores and customers may seem obvious today, but this was not the case back then. In fact, it was counterintuitive at the time. Mr. Taubman and a few other retail pioneers had the foresight that changed humanity’s shopping experience around the world.
But it wasn’t easy. Mr. Taubman had to overcome what he called threshold resistance with retailers, bankers and civic leaders.
Getting people over a threshold so that they will even listen to a new idea is extremely hard when the old way of doing things, or thinking about things, is so entrenched.
Like Mr. Taubman’s successful efforts in the shopping center arena, the case for a larger Israel must overcome tremendous threshold resistance—threshold resistance that simply causes most people to dismiss the idea before it is presented.
Here are a few threshold resistance points I’ve heard from many who actually support the Jewish State:
1. The Arab States will never agree to a larger Israel, so it’s a waste of time to discuss it.
2. The international community will never agree to a larger Israel, so be practical.
3. It isn’t feasible (or fair) because of the Palestinians who live there.
4. If Singapore can succeed in a small space, so can Israel.
5. It’s a land grab: the same as Nazi Germany.
The above is STRONG threshold resistance to the case I make for a larger Israel.
But imagine the threshold resistance all democratic reform leaders throughout the Soviet Union heard before the Soviet Empire crumbled.
Imagine the threshold resistance Mahatma Gandhi heard when he said the British would one day leave India.
Imagine the threshold resistance Chaim Weizmann or Theodor Herzl heard in their pursuit for world recognition of any Jewish entity at all.
Well I’m sure they heard plenty, and they proceeded to overcome threshold resistance anyway.
As Mr. Taubman writes in his book, the most difficult challenges can be overcome if they are understood and confronted forcefully.
Many of yesterday’s casually dismissed ideas are today’s conventional wisdom. Remember when anyone advocating that Israel talks to the PLO was vilified? Pendulums swing.
Before dismissing my ideas for reframing the Middle East debate as errant or unrealistic, know that merely giving them a fair public hearing will strengthen Israel when the day comes to negotiate a durable peace with the Arab and Muslim world.
I believe a larger, viable Israel will in the long run benefit Israel and Jews, Arabs and Muslims, and all of humanity as well.
Allow me the opportunity overcome your threshold resistance.
Please have a look at my book, The Case for a Larger Israel. It is available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and from your local bookstore. While I prefer that you buy a copy so that you can display it on your coffee table and more easily discuss it with your friends and neighbors, it is also available for free at www.alargerisrael.com.
--David Naggar
(Note: Some people have suggested that making the book available for free takes away the perceived value and harms the seriousness with which its ideas are taken. I bet Mr. Taubman would agree with this. I hope you don't.)
In his new book, Threshold Resistance, American shopping mall pioneer A. Alfred Taubman, describes the difficulty he had over 50 years ago convincing retailers such as Macy’s that his new concept—regional malls—would work.
Imagine the difficulty he faced trying to convince smaller retailers that are found inside the mall to give up their street store fronts altogether? The fact that malls work for stores and customers may seem obvious today, but this was not the case back then. In fact, it was counterintuitive at the time. Mr. Taubman and a few other retail pioneers had the foresight that changed humanity’s shopping experience around the world.
But it wasn’t easy. Mr. Taubman had to overcome what he called threshold resistance with retailers, bankers and civic leaders.
Getting people over a threshold so that they will even listen to a new idea is extremely hard when the old way of doing things, or thinking about things, is so entrenched.
Like Mr. Taubman’s successful efforts in the shopping center arena, the case for a larger Israel must overcome tremendous threshold resistance—threshold resistance that simply causes most people to dismiss the idea before it is presented.
Here are a few threshold resistance points I’ve heard from many who actually support the Jewish State:
1. The Arab States will never agree to a larger Israel, so it’s a waste of time to discuss it.
2. The international community will never agree to a larger Israel, so be practical.
3. It isn’t feasible (or fair) because of the Palestinians who live there.
4. If Singapore can succeed in a small space, so can Israel.
5. It’s a land grab: the same as Nazi Germany.
The above is STRONG threshold resistance to the case I make for a larger Israel.
But imagine the threshold resistance all democratic reform leaders throughout the Soviet Union heard before the Soviet Empire crumbled.
Imagine the threshold resistance Mahatma Gandhi heard when he said the British would one day leave India.
Imagine the threshold resistance Chaim Weizmann or Theodor Herzl heard in their pursuit for world recognition of any Jewish entity at all.
Well I’m sure they heard plenty, and they proceeded to overcome threshold resistance anyway.
As Mr. Taubman writes in his book, the most difficult challenges can be overcome if they are understood and confronted forcefully.
Many of yesterday’s casually dismissed ideas are today’s conventional wisdom. Remember when anyone advocating that Israel talks to the PLO was vilified? Pendulums swing.
Before dismissing my ideas for reframing the Middle East debate as errant or unrealistic, know that merely giving them a fair public hearing will strengthen Israel when the day comes to negotiate a durable peace with the Arab and Muslim world.
I believe a larger, viable Israel will in the long run benefit Israel and Jews, Arabs and Muslims, and all of humanity as well.
Allow me the opportunity overcome your threshold resistance.
Please have a look at my book, The Case for a Larger Israel. It is available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and from your local bookstore. While I prefer that you buy a copy so that you can display it on your coffee table and more easily discuss it with your friends and neighbors, it is also available for free at www.alargerisrael.com.
--David Naggar
(Note: Some people have suggested that making the book available for free takes away the perceived value and harms the seriousness with which its ideas are taken. I bet Mr. Taubman would agree with this. I hope you don't.)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
