The very idea of citing the Balfour Declaration (not to mention the Bible) as legitimizing Israel's right to own every inch of historic Palestine is laughable.
First, the Bible. The Jewish people's own holy book says Jews have should have Palestine. Interesting. Is there any other country on earth that cites its own religion as justification for holding territory in 2017? Come on.
Then there is the Balfour Declaration in which the United Kingdom, which had no claim on Palestine itself, stated that Palestine should be constituted as a national homeland for Jews. This is not just colonialism but colonialism by proxy with about as much standing in today's world as Belgium's claim to the Congo.
Israel has every right to exist within the pre-'67 lines because it fought for that right, it was recognized by the United Nations and virtually the entire world, and because Israel is now a vibrant nation and culture, as valid as any other. That right, however, does not extend to its settlements, whose existence on Palestinian land deny Palestinians their rights to self-determination determination anywhere on earth and which, unlike Israel within the '67 lines, is recognized by no nation but Israel.
First, the Bible. The Jewish people's own holy book says Jews have should have Palestine. Interesting. Is there any other country on earth that cites its own religion as justification for holding territory in 2017? Come on.
Then there is the Balfour Declaration in which the United Kingdom, which had no claim on Palestine itself, stated that Palestine should be constituted as a national homeland for Jews. This is not just colonialism but colonialism by proxy with about as much standing in today's world as Belgium's claim to the Congo.
Israel has every right to exist within the pre-'67 lines because it fought for that right, it was recognized by the United Nations and virtually the entire world, and because Israel is now a vibrant nation and culture, as valid as any other. That right, however, does not extend to its settlements, whose existence on Palestinian land deny Palestinians their rights to self-determination determination anywhere on earth and which, unlike Israel within the '67 lines, is recognized by no nation but Israel.
98
Whatever. This is Groundhog Day redux. All we hear from both sides is some variation of:
Biblical Times
Balfour Declaration
1948
1967
First and Second Intifadas
Gaza Wars
"They started it. Not, they started it. No, it is their fault."
It is 2017 now. Both sides must figure out a way to deal with the world they live in. Discussing prior missed opportunities and wrongs accomplishes nothing.
Israelis and Palestinians. Figure your stuff out and learn how to get along with each other. But for the love of God, can we please keep our (American) financial and political capital out of your dispute?
Biblical Times
Balfour Declaration
1948
1967
First and Second Intifadas
Gaza Wars
"They started it. Not, they started it. No, it is their fault."
It is 2017 now. Both sides must figure out a way to deal with the world they live in. Discussing prior missed opportunities and wrongs accomplishes nothing.
Israelis and Palestinians. Figure your stuff out and learn how to get along with each other. But for the love of God, can we please keep our (American) financial and political capital out of your dispute?
9
If there is not a two-state solution or one bi-national state with equal rights for all and with one person/one vote all that will be left will be to rightfully call Israel an apartheid state that would have to be subjected to the same boycott and sanctions as was apartheid South Africa.
25
The scathing vitriol spewing forth in these comments exposes the visceral Jew hatred so many NYTIMES readers harbor within. This piece was an articulate fair and dispassionate explanation of the conflict from an honest settlers POV. I applaud the NYTIMES for publishing it but just wish it could have been received more hospitable by the readers.
37
"Jews have lived here for 3,700 years, despite repeated massacres, expulsions and occupations" - some of those Jews were forcefully converted by Arab invaders, and are today called Palestinians. The Ancient Egyptians are now Arab Egyptians, and Babylonians are modern Iraqis, the Phoenicians are now Lebanese.
Israel, especially settlers with blond hair and blue eyes, may think they are from "Judea and Samara"; but by blood Palestinians are the people you describe in your history books. Therefore, if you want a one-state solution, then include ALL of your people in your state - including those who were forcefully converted to Islam. Can it work? - Just ask 1/4th of Israel's population you call Israeli-Arabs who live inside Israel proper - they prove that if you give your forgotten people equal rights, they become contributing members of your society. They blend in so well that you can't tell who is Arab or Jew in cities like Haifa. Hopefully, this will awaken the historic mindset of other Arabs in other "Arab" countries to their ancient history and ancient accomplishments, while diminishing the influence of brainwashing-Saudi Arabia.
Israel, especially settlers with blond hair and blue eyes, may think they are from "Judea and Samara"; but by blood Palestinians are the people you describe in your history books. Therefore, if you want a one-state solution, then include ALL of your people in your state - including those who were forcefully converted to Islam. Can it work? - Just ask 1/4th of Israel's population you call Israeli-Arabs who live inside Israel proper - they prove that if you give your forgotten people equal rights, they become contributing members of your society. They blend in so well that you can't tell who is Arab or Jew in cities like Haifa. Hopefully, this will awaken the historic mindset of other Arabs in other "Arab" countries to their ancient history and ancient accomplishments, while diminishing the influence of brainwashing-Saudi Arabia.
25
It is about time we saw something in the NYT that actually makes sense. Two states was never a solution. It would only have resulted in Gaza (Hamas, rockets, tunnels etc) x 1000.
The two state option is long dead anyway, the victim of continued unwillingness by the PA (let alone Hamas) to accept any state of Israel, no matter its size or borders and continued Arab terrorism. Those who argue that Israeli settlements are the issue should look at a map. The vast majority of the population in the so called settlements are concentrated in areas that would have gone to Israel in a two-state deal anyway. In any case, since the Arabs have repeatedly and consistently rejected the offers that would have given them soverignty over the West Bank, why shouldn't Israel settle in it? If anything, one would expect the Arabs to act with urgency and make some sort of deal before the evil Israels gobble up all of it. They are apparently unconcerned or lack the sense to be concerned, both equal possibilities.
So, here we have some other options.
The two state option is long dead anyway, the victim of continued unwillingness by the PA (let alone Hamas) to accept any state of Israel, no matter its size or borders and continued Arab terrorism. Those who argue that Israeli settlements are the issue should look at a map. The vast majority of the population in the so called settlements are concentrated in areas that would have gone to Israel in a two-state deal anyway. In any case, since the Arabs have repeatedly and consistently rejected the offers that would have given them soverignty over the West Bank, why shouldn't Israel settle in it? If anything, one would expect the Arabs to act with urgency and make some sort of deal before the evil Israels gobble up all of it. They are apparently unconcerned or lack the sense to be concerned, both equal possibilities.
So, here we have some other options.
22
What a ridiculous Op-Ed piece. "Judea and Samaria belong to the Jewish people." The reason for this is that there were no real other people living on this land, just marauders like the Crusaders, the Ottomans and the Romans. Arabs? Palestinians? who are they, they don't really exist. The land was promised to the Jews in the Old Testament. Clearly an historical document written by non Jews with direct access to what God promised to my fellow Jews. What junk. It has been 50 years since the 6 Day War, and the two-state solution may be dead, but if it is, so is any hope for a Democratic Jewish State. Those right wing Israelis resisting the two-state solution, are really calling for the destruction of Israel as a democratic Jewish State, shame on them.
49
Did it ever occur to you that the Palestinians have lived in Palestine for a very long time and it is their home. Why are you emulating the white South Africans in your treatment of Palestinians? You are occupiers. After the Nazis one would think you of all people would be sensitive to religious prejudice. I honesty do not get it. The only way to peace is a two secure state solution with respect for one another. You are two brothers of the same father and different mothers by your belief in Abraham.
37
Spare us the blah blah. Under a one state solution, Israel can be Jewish or democratic but it cannot be both.
37
"The two-state solution was misconceived, and will never come to pass, because Judea and Samaria belong to the Jewish people. Our right to this land is derived from our history, religion, international decisions and defensive wars."
There were times when it was ruled by pre-Muslim Persia, Macedonia, Rome, Britain, and the Muslims. Let's partition the place between Italy, England, Saudi Arabia, Macedonia, and Persia. Only Jews living there continuously prior to 1948 get to stay, fair?
There were times when it was ruled by pre-Muslim Persia, Macedonia, Rome, Britain, and the Muslims. Let's partition the place between Italy, England, Saudi Arabia, Macedonia, and Persia. Only Jews living there continuously prior to 1948 get to stay, fair?
39
The honesty is at least refreshing; Israel never had any intention of honoring the agreements to ensure a viable Palestinian state and they never will - going by the steps their government is taking. However, can I ask Mr Fleisher this: would the settler Jews be willing to live in a Palestinian state with 'personal but no national rights'? If the answer is no, then surely he cannot expect that somebody else will. A nation - even if they are made of clans - binds a people, in EQUALITY, above all else. Otherwise, it is just a form of subjugation and second class citizenship that nobody would want to be a part of. What 's next? Make the Arabs wear Palestinian flags on their garments and restrict them in marked ghettos? Well, part of this is already happening, and that isn't freedom. You can look at this from a religious point of view and may certainly agree with the sentiments of the author, but I find it hard to understand why that view does not appear the most humane. The cycle of hatred and death has to stop or else there is no hope; and it is up to us to figure out a way, one that is fair to all.
46
The only thing that this article serves is to put in context the horrors that the Palestinians have to deal with, whether from the Israeli government or those who justify the theft of their land.
52
"Jews have lived here for 3,700 years."
According to their own history (i.e. the Scriptures) the Hebrews took possession of the land through acts of genocide against the Cannanite people.
Then Jews were expelled from Samaria in the 8th century BCE and from Jerusalem in CE 135.
There have been a few changes since then.
According to their own history (i.e. the Scriptures) the Hebrews took possession of the land through acts of genocide against the Cannanite people.
Then Jews were expelled from Samaria in the 8th century BCE and from Jerusalem in CE 135.
There have been a few changes since then.
44
Judea and Samaria are claimed by the Jewish people, which is no surprise since they also claim the God gave them the land. how do you argue with that? a classic example of using religion and god to justify your goals, however immoral they may be.
49
By this logic, the entire United States should be returned to the peoples of the First Nations, Australia should be turned over to their Indigenous Peoples, etc. Or, the entire Middle East should be returned to the Homo Sapiens and their descendants, i.e., Africans.
48
Five solutions, all of them from Israelis, none from Palestinians.
I long for the day why my tax money no longer goes toward subsidizing these tyrants.
I long for the day why my tax money no longer goes toward subsidizing these tyrants.
72
I say if the author wants to return to the Judea and Samaria as it is said to have been in the Bible, he must abolish the state of Israel and open its land to all the other Semites that Jews shared the land with throughout the millenia. Falling back on fanciful tales such as found in the Bible to justify a modern day land grab is beyond the pale. As with any of the other modern day retrogressions being argued via passages from the bible (such as abortion or birth control) one finds that document to be nothing more than a buffet of homilies from which can be drawn conclusions to bolster any end.
69
Burning farms, murdering people who refuse to leave and building homes on someone else's land does not make you a settler, it makes you a murderer and a thief.
13
Yishai omits one crucial detail ... the Palestinians ARE (largely) Jews.
Genetic evidence suggests that Palestinians are Arabized Jews, just as Ashkenazi Jews descend from Jewish male ancestors (evidence from Y chromosome) and female European ones (evidence from mitochondrial DNA).
Today, there are Islamic Palestinians with Samaritan names, and Samaritans were essentially a branch of the Jewish people.
Thus any ancestral right to Israel appears to apply equally to all descendants of the original inhabitants.
Genetic evidence suggests that Palestinians are Arabized Jews, just as Ashkenazi Jews descend from Jewish male ancestors (evidence from Y chromosome) and female European ones (evidence from mitochondrial DNA).
Today, there are Islamic Palestinians with Samaritan names, and Samaritans were essentially a branch of the Jewish people.
Thus any ancestral right to Israel appears to apply equally to all descendants of the original inhabitants.
10
A land grab is a land grab is a land grab.
12
The basis of this argument, though not fully stated by the writer, is religious; the West Bank, i.e. Judea and Samaria, were given to Jews by God. This is no counter argument to religious belief.
The remainder of the article is attempted justification on alternatives on how to deal with a population that Israel cannot absorb (personal versus civil rights within Israel, that is second-class citizenship or official apartheid) or moving the unwanted population to Jordan (get rid of the problem).
To face facts, the two state solution has been dead for many years; the U.S. political class just continues to play the game to avoid international resistance. Israel can't give up or give a larger share of the West Bank resources, particularly water to a Palestinian state. It would require a massive suspension of disbelief to think it happenstance that many of the largest settlements are located over valuable aquifers currently providing water to Israel. The careful dividing of the West Bank land resources by the settlements and their connecting roads and security buffers have so split up the land as to eliminate any kind of contiguous state unless the settlements are abandoned. Anyone believe that is likely?
The facts on the ground mean that the Palestinian or Arab population will never have a viable state. They are not wanted in Israel, they are not wanted in Jordan. The miserable status quo must continue because the Palestinians have no place to go.
The remainder of the article is attempted justification on alternatives on how to deal with a population that Israel cannot absorb (personal versus civil rights within Israel, that is second-class citizenship or official apartheid) or moving the unwanted population to Jordan (get rid of the problem).
To face facts, the two state solution has been dead for many years; the U.S. political class just continues to play the game to avoid international resistance. Israel can't give up or give a larger share of the West Bank resources, particularly water to a Palestinian state. It would require a massive suspension of disbelief to think it happenstance that many of the largest settlements are located over valuable aquifers currently providing water to Israel. The careful dividing of the West Bank land resources by the settlements and their connecting roads and security buffers have so split up the land as to eliminate any kind of contiguous state unless the settlements are abandoned. Anyone believe that is likely?
The facts on the ground mean that the Palestinian or Arab population will never have a viable state. They are not wanted in Israel, they are not wanted in Jordan. The miserable status quo must continue because the Palestinians have no place to go.
7
The author writes as if Israel is not surrounded by enemies, many of them armed with nuclear weapons, all of whom would be deeply angered by his "democratic solutions".
1
One one idea overlooked is the concept of Confederation involving pre 1967 Israel, Palestine, and if desired, Jordan. In this concept, the Confedeation consists of the two or three distinct entities above united by a central authority with defined powers. In this scenario, the Confederation capital city is Jerusalem (all can then say Jerusalem is My Capital), no one need relocate as Jewish residents of Palestine can become non-residents there.....voting in local Israeli and Confederation wide elections but not local Palestine elections (the same goes for Arabs in Israel, they can change their status to non residents of Israel with voting rights for within Palestine). Palestinian refugees can return to the Palestinian area and claim that they have returned to the Homeland (although the Israeli area should take in a certain number of refugees as a humanitarian gesture.) This arrangement guarantees the Jewish character of Israel and the Arab character of Palestine. If Jordan becomes part of the Confederation there must be allowance for Jews to live there in certain numbers as well.
Let's move toward unity rather than further fragmentation and go with the current of evolution.
For a better explanation of this idea please look at:
http://2states1homeland.org/en
http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=240
https://www.facebook.com/groups/federip/?ref=ts&fref=ts
Let's move toward unity rather than further fragmentation and go with the current of evolution.
For a better explanation of this idea please look at:
http://2states1homeland.org/en
http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=240
https://www.facebook.com/groups/federip/?ref=ts&fref=ts
2
As a non Jewish American, can I ask that we stop subsidizing Israel (and Egypt). Time to let them work it out by themselves, just or unjust.
As an American I don't want to have to make sense of decades, even centuries of someone else's history.
By the way, saying the Palestinians are something else seems a word game.
As an American I don't want to have to make sense of decades, even centuries of someone else's history.
By the way, saying the Palestinians are something else seems a word game.
16
If the country of Israel wants some people of The Middle East to stop rationalizing doing wrongdoing in the name of religion, so should Israel stop doing these settlements in the name of religion, which are also viewed by many as wrongdoing.
When Israeli-politician Netanyahu criticized the Obama Administration for appropriately criticizing their settlements, Netanyahu might as well have sought pathetic international attention off of The United States by asking the world; Is America the King of the Jews? (It is far better for the U.S. to ask if Israel is the King of Democracy in The Middle East.)
Why could not have Israel bombed some of Assad’s military sights long ago when Assad used chemical weaponry against the Syrian people and ‘earned’ some respect for Israel and Democracy from the Arab Community? (As usual, Israel ‘sat and waited’ for the U.S. to respond ‘for them’ instead as we pay for their dormant weaponry.)
When Israeli-politician Netanyahu criticized the Obama Administration for appropriately criticizing their settlements, Netanyahu might as well have sought pathetic international attention off of The United States by asking the world; Is America the King of the Jews? (It is far better for the U.S. to ask if Israel is the King of Democracy in The Middle East.)
Why could not have Israel bombed some of Assad’s military sights long ago when Assad used chemical weaponry against the Syrian people and ‘earned’ some respect for Israel and Democracy from the Arab Community? (As usual, Israel ‘sat and waited’ for the U.S. to respond ‘for them’ instead as we pay for their dormant weaponry.)
8
The writer has no sense of justice, only entitlement.
35
Benet and yishie are the best and looking for real jewish future, may god bless them and all there sopporters
10
It is disappointing that New York Times saw it fit to provide space for an article that, among others, advocates the uprooting of the indigenous population of the West Bank. In fact, the five solutions proposed by Mr. Fleisher, while differing in nuances, have one thing in common: The denial of self-determination for the Palestinian populations of the West Bank and Gaza.
Then again, there is, perhaps a value to this piece. In laying bare the only methods by which Israel can maintain the current status quo, it reminds us that a lasting peace will only come via a solution - whether one state or two - that take into consideration the views of both groups living in the territory currently controlled by Israel.
Then again, there is, perhaps a value to this piece. In laying bare the only methods by which Israel can maintain the current status quo, it reminds us that a lasting peace will only come via a solution - whether one state or two - that take into consideration the views of both groups living in the territory currently controlled by Israel.
17
we heard it today...Israel wants control over all the land west of the Jordan River. Judea is our homeland, Bibi said in today's news conference. It will be a one-state solution. Palestinians might as well start moving to Jordan!
5
The Oslo agreement was a big mistake on part of the Palestinians. Israel knew in the early 90's that with the dissolution of apartheid in South Africa, the world would not tolerate the deprivation of civil rights of Palestinians much longer. By setting up a toothless Palestinian authority while maintaining control of the fertile lands in the West Bank, Israel allowed itself plausible deniability. Since 9/11, Israel has been able to portray the Palestinian conflict as an ideological battle between the West and Islam rather than a battle for land and civil rights.
Today, most Israelis have become far right extremists. The majority would like nothing more than to commit ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and annex all the land. The only thing holding them back is world opinion. That is movements such as BDS is important.
Today, most Israelis have become far right extremists. The majority would like nothing more than to commit ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and annex all the land. The only thing holding them back is world opinion. That is movements such as BDS is important.
9
The branches of Judaism have spatial claims to the area,Jews, Christians, and Muslims. No branch should have power over the other branches their, even by size of population.
The two state solution is already doomed. A Palestinian "state" with no control over its borders, highways, water, hill tops, etc, is not a state. It would indeed be apartheid.
The solution is to have one country with three
presidents., one for each religion. Each president would have veto power, so that a majority would not be able to abuse the other religions. At first it would cause gridlock, but eventually, this would be worked out.
The two state solution is already doomed. A Palestinian "state" with no control over its borders, highways, water, hill tops, etc, is not a state. It would indeed be apartheid.
The solution is to have one country with three
presidents., one for each religion. Each president would have veto power, so that a majority would not be able to abuse the other religions. At first it would cause gridlock, but eventually, this would be worked out.
1
It becomes so dangerous when a thief becomes a thug. Stealing the historic Palestine is not enough for the Zionists, there will never be peace there a long as injustice prevails so pervertedly.
It seems eventually the Zionists will do to Palestinian Arab Muslims what the Nazis did to the Jews in Germany. History will repeat itself as long as the people stands and watches it happens. May God help us all.
It seems eventually the Zionists will do to Palestinian Arab Muslims what the Nazis did to the Jews in Germany. History will repeat itself as long as the people stands and watches it happens. May God help us all.
7
Funny how the BDS crowd always seems to overlook that part of the "West Bank" being in the hands of "Palestinians" from 1948-1967;
And peace did not break out!
What happened?
The end of another "Arab Spring"?
Oh, yeah, here is what happened.
Someone called Nasser exhorted the masses to finish what Hitler started.
http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/threats.asp
Where were all the Dems and BDS folks then? Probably listening to Roger Waters' early albums.
And peace did not break out!
What happened?
The end of another "Arab Spring"?
Oh, yeah, here is what happened.
Someone called Nasser exhorted the masses to finish what Hitler started.
http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/threats.asp
Where were all the Dems and BDS folks then? Probably listening to Roger Waters' early albums.
15
The only thing that gives Mr. Fleisher's arguments any credence whatsoever, is the fact that the Palestinians don't support a two state solution either. Arguments about who was there first or who has a greater claim to the land miss the inevitable reality of who is living there now.
Israelis and Palestinians have more in common than most people think. Both groups require clean and plentiful water, a good education and medical system, freedom of religion, and the ability to raise their families in peace.
These goals are attainable through bi-partisan cooperation. Israel may continue to build the settlements, but she should build Palestinian infrastructure as well. Eventually, there should be two states, and Jews, Muslims and Christians should be able to live where they want in either of them with full rights.
Imagine an Israel in which all government decisions were made equally by Arabs and Jews- in other words an education committee with equal representation, a defense committee with equal representation. Now imagine a Palestine with the same arrangement- one in which Jews could be Palestinian citizens and have an equal say in government.
Sounds good?
Now ask yourself what you think would happen to the Jews in those communities.
Israelis and Palestinians have more in common than most people think. Both groups require clean and plentiful water, a good education and medical system, freedom of religion, and the ability to raise their families in peace.
These goals are attainable through bi-partisan cooperation. Israel may continue to build the settlements, but she should build Palestinian infrastructure as well. Eventually, there should be two states, and Jews, Muslims and Christians should be able to live where they want in either of them with full rights.
Imagine an Israel in which all government decisions were made equally by Arabs and Jews- in other words an education committee with equal representation, a defense committee with equal representation. Now imagine a Palestine with the same arrangement- one in which Jews could be Palestinian citizens and have an equal say in government.
Sounds good?
Now ask yourself what you think would happen to the Jews in those communities.
5
The idea of a "Jewish state" made more sense long ago, but the world has moved on and has no faith in theocratic regimes or intense nationalism of any kind. Most people recognize that democratic values such as tolerance and fair representation are incompatible with polities based on religion. Jews will eventually have to accommodate this reality and open themselves to the probability of no longer being a majority in any state they inhabit, as so many other ethnicities have done and will do in the future.
8
I think the greatest failure of Fleisher's essay is that he fails to recognize what might be the greatest creation of modern civilization - the non-ethnic secular democratic state. It might sound like I'm being blindly patriotic, but I think the model of the United States is actually something to be proud of here.
In revulsion against the memories of the Holocaust, and present-day anti-Semitic propaganda, we can't help feeling some sympathy for the idea of a Jewish State - but as a general principle, it fails. A world of open, secular democracies is a vastly better aspiration.
In revulsion against the memories of the Holocaust, and present-day anti-Semitic propaganda, we can't help feeling some sympathy for the idea of a Jewish State - but as a general principle, it fails. A world of open, secular democracies is a vastly better aspiration.
11
While there is a cornel of truth in the notion that the 2-state solution may be dead, nearly everything else in this editorial is blatantly dishonest. While Jews may recognize the land as Jewish, their scripture is not the basis of international law. I would also point out that the land was actually taken by the Jews originally from others and Jews did not effectively constitute a major population for 1800 years. You can't come back nearly 2 millennium later and say it is ours? No country in the world could would be safe from such nonsense.
Having said that, we much acknowledge that Israel conquered the land, and after 2+ generation it will not be independent. However, as conquerors, Israel must act in a manner consistent with international law. That means the continuing war crimes against the Palestinians must end and it must provide equal rights and universal suffrage to all (including Arabs) living within the boundaries. While it might be a demographic nightmare for a "Jewish" state, you bought, now you need to pay for it!
If you don't take these civilized actions and treat the Palestinians humanely, the world will have a right and even a responsibility to treat you as war criminals and an exceptional state warranting sanctions - just like South Africa.
Having said that, we much acknowledge that Israel conquered the land, and after 2+ generation it will not be independent. However, as conquerors, Israel must act in a manner consistent with international law. That means the continuing war crimes against the Palestinians must end and it must provide equal rights and universal suffrage to all (including Arabs) living within the boundaries. While it might be a demographic nightmare for a "Jewish" state, you bought, now you need to pay for it!
If you don't take these civilized actions and treat the Palestinians humanely, the world will have a right and even a responsibility to treat you as war criminals and an exceptional state warranting sanctions - just like South Africa.
8
The US should withdraw all political and military aid from this region of the world. We have spent enough treasure and political capital with nothing to show for it.
6
Mr. Fleisher, thank you for writing the truth about the situation, and I am pleased that the New York Times finally published it.
11
A stunning essay. Andrew Jackson could not have written better.
It always seems like I'm watching a bad science fiction movie with one-dimensional villains when I hear, "because [Juderat 9] and [Samarik 3] belong to the [Klingon] people. Our right to [these planets are] derived from our history, religion, inter[stellar] decisions and defensive wars."
It sounds like a speech from some evil alien lord wearing lots of makeup. "[The Klingons] have lived here for [220,000 solar] years, despite repeated massacres, expulsions, and occupations–[by the Federation, the Romulans, and the Borg]."
I mean... listen to yourself. "[Earthlings] can live [on Samarik 3], as other minorities do, with personal rights, not national rights.... and.... we believe those questions can be worked out through the democratic process." A process you humans cannot participate in. Once you have been incorporated and processed you must then "pledge allegiance to the [Klingon gods and empire]."
This is L. Ron material!
Years ago the underdog got some sympathy. But a nuclear state with the the most powerful army in the galaxy at its side is not the backstory for a hero. That spaceship has blasted off. The better story is one where the stronger state with the power of doG at its back shows some compassion and selflessly shares all rights and privileges with all of the people who live within its borders. A people who have their own history, stories, mythologies and religions.
Let the hate mail begin.
It always seems like I'm watching a bad science fiction movie with one-dimensional villains when I hear, "because [Juderat 9] and [Samarik 3] belong to the [Klingon] people. Our right to [these planets are] derived from our history, religion, inter[stellar] decisions and defensive wars."
It sounds like a speech from some evil alien lord wearing lots of makeup. "[The Klingons] have lived here for [220,000 solar] years, despite repeated massacres, expulsions, and occupations–[by the Federation, the Romulans, and the Borg]."
I mean... listen to yourself. "[Earthlings] can live [on Samarik 3], as other minorities do, with personal rights, not national rights.... and.... we believe those questions can be worked out through the democratic process." A process you humans cannot participate in. Once you have been incorporated and processed you must then "pledge allegiance to the [Klingon gods and empire]."
This is L. Ron material!
Years ago the underdog got some sympathy. But a nuclear state with the the most powerful army in the galaxy at its side is not the backstory for a hero. That spaceship has blasted off. The better story is one where the stronger state with the power of doG at its back shows some compassion and selflessly shares all rights and privileges with all of the people who live within its borders. A people who have their own history, stories, mythologies and religions.
Let the hate mail begin.
7
Just the latest version of formulas whose main objective is to legitimize an illegal and oppressive occupation of a sovereign people built upon the foundations of religious zealotry and Messianic insanity. And as has been true for far too many decades underwritten by obscene levels of US aid.
13
The problem could be solved easily once Israel stops treating the Palestinians the way Europeans treated Native Americans.
7
Yishai Fleisher was raised in the U.S. and his wife was born and raised in Texas.
They are not "settlers". They're colonists. International law does not recognize "history, religion, international decisions and defensive wars" as an excuse for taking and ruling what isn't yours. The burning bush is no more a justification for theft than inventing the cell phone or "we have gay rights".
"Obvious obfuscation", indeed.
They are not "settlers". They're colonists. International law does not recognize "history, religion, international decisions and defensive wars" as an excuse for taking and ruling what isn't yours. The burning bush is no more a justification for theft than inventing the cell phone or "we have gay rights".
"Obvious obfuscation", indeed.
13
So sad that the same old bias is driving the discussion. 2 states are logical. Convoluted citizenships and loyalties are answers derived by people with great imaginations and little desire for reality. Israel is not the only confused nation these days.
2
Its amazing how many times the writer mentions the word "evict" with regard to the Palestinian natives as if they were some objects or cattle. When he himself is admittedly a settler on their land. Also there is no mention of more than 1 million Palestinians that have been "evicted" and made refugees in Jordan, Syria and other places.
There is absolutely no logic in the entire article. It is based on a religious dogma and a "promise" which was supposedly made to the Israeli people by none other than "God"!
Such logic is completely inadmissible in any court or any intelligent argument. Indeed if another group or regime had used such an excuse to grab land from natives and grant it to immigrants based entirely on their religion and race the world would have no hesitation in calling it by what it is .. a utterly racist racist argument used to make policy and systematically grab land from natives.
Talk about using Religion to spread hate and steal.. what a shame!!!
In the past, we have been indirectly supporting this form racism .. now our leader is shameless enough to support it openly. Then we have the audacity to state that we are for freedom and liberty.
There is absolutely no logic in the entire article. It is based on a religious dogma and a "promise" which was supposedly made to the Israeli people by none other than "God"!
Such logic is completely inadmissible in any court or any intelligent argument. Indeed if another group or regime had used such an excuse to grab land from natives and grant it to immigrants based entirely on their religion and race the world would have no hesitation in calling it by what it is .. a utterly racist racist argument used to make policy and systematically grab land from natives.
Talk about using Religion to spread hate and steal.. what a shame!!!
In the past, we have been indirectly supporting this form racism .. now our leader is shameless enough to support it openly. Then we have the audacity to state that we are for freedom and liberty.
9
"reservations" for Native Americans, "bantustans" for South African Africans, the other side of the tracks, ghettos,
8
It is interesting that all 5 proposals were made by Israelis, with no comments from anyone else.
I am all for proposals, in fact, I see as a major problem the fact that there have not been ANY proposals from either the Israeli or Palestinian leaderships.
All that has existed for the past decade or two is intransigence. By both sides.
But back to the proposals by the author - does he really believe that any of them will be accepted by Palestinians?
It is clearly who he is proposing to - not to the ones who Israeli needs to work things out with, but rather to other Israelis and Americans.
If President Trump and Mr. Kushner are truly serious about resolving the problem, they must hear proposals from both Netanyahu and Abbas. Or else come up with their own. Merely hearing complaints is counterproductive. Stop the intransigence.
Those of us on the center-left as well as the center-right want the same things:
An absence of war and the removal of the current trend toward an endless conflict inherited by children and grandchildren on both sides.
Prosperity for the people of both nations by focusing on issues other than war. Let Israel's ingenuity work towards great scientific breakthroughs on disease.
I hope Trump and Kushner understand this.
I am all for proposals, in fact, I see as a major problem the fact that there have not been ANY proposals from either the Israeli or Palestinian leaderships.
All that has existed for the past decade or two is intransigence. By both sides.
But back to the proposals by the author - does he really believe that any of them will be accepted by Palestinians?
It is clearly who he is proposing to - not to the ones who Israeli needs to work things out with, but rather to other Israelis and Americans.
If President Trump and Mr. Kushner are truly serious about resolving the problem, they must hear proposals from both Netanyahu and Abbas. Or else come up with their own. Merely hearing complaints is counterproductive. Stop the intransigence.
Those of us on the center-left as well as the center-right want the same things:
An absence of war and the removal of the current trend toward an endless conflict inherited by children and grandchildren on both sides.
Prosperity for the people of both nations by focusing on issues other than war. Let Israel's ingenuity work towards great scientific breakthroughs on disease.
I hope Trump and Kushner understand this.
2
Living on stolen land never works. First it was Gaza where the fresh aquifers were destroyed by illegal settlers. Then they moved to the West Bank and again are creating misery of the Palestinians. Israel is constantly bringing up the cry that they are Jews so they are good people. Hypocrisy at its finest.
3
Has it come to this that the influx of Russians of recent decades has inspired Israel to create ghettoes for the Arabs under their control, with the occasional pogrom when some Arab youngsters get out of control?
3
So what your saying is my family has claim to land because 3,700 years ago according to a book, my family may or may not have lived there.
Religious fundamentalism needs to die a fiery death.
Religious fundamentalism needs to die a fiery death.
8
Something seems to be missing here. Oh, it's the lack of any consideration or input from the Arab side, no matter how disorganized and contorted that side seems to be.
It is hard to find a solution that requires agreement by all sides when there are only options considerred that favor one side.
Unless it is by war.
Nothing new here, just more one sided rhetoric. After trying since Carter's success with Egypt, maybe it's time to admit...it is not our fight to try to lead. Support Israel defensively? Yes. Recognize the other side? Yes? Do anything more? No. It is not our business and since Carter's success, it never has been, regardless of who is in power in Washington or in Israel.
The other NYT article today on this same subject is much more informative and as one questionable "news" source likes to claim...is fair and balanced.
It is hard to find a solution that requires agreement by all sides when there are only options considerred that favor one side.
Unless it is by war.
Nothing new here, just more one sided rhetoric. After trying since Carter's success with Egypt, maybe it's time to admit...it is not our fight to try to lead. Support Israel defensively? Yes. Recognize the other side? Yes? Do anything more? No. It is not our business and since Carter's success, it never has been, regardless of who is in power in Washington or in Israel.
The other NYT article today on this same subject is much more informative and as one questionable "news" source likes to claim...is fair and balanced.
2
Of thousands of books about the Holocaust, Jews, and Israel, one glaring literary lead remains largely unexplored. Why?
The index of Mein Kampf leads the name of Henry Ford to the author's glowing endorsement. Why? An attribution of hatred without explanation, as cause, is inadequate. Ford had a Jewish architect design the World's largest manufacturing plant at River Rouge. He was not hostile to Jews then. What changed him?
When US Ambassador Dodd reported early concentration camp atrocities, the initial focus was on Nazi political & moral repression.
Jews had influence at the highest level of the US. FDR's next-door neighbor was US Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, who was Jewish, as was his assistant, Harry Dexter White, whose influence provoked Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.
Perhaps, the problem arises from the blurred distinction between Judaism (a religion), Semitic (a linguistic grouping that includes all Arabs) and Zionism (an extreme political movement to acquire Jewish living space).
The British presumed to leave Palestine to whomever it chose when it was the Arabs who conquered Palestine. [The Turks destroyed the British (ANZAC) at Gallipoli.]
Yet, although it did nothing to win Palestine, Britain saw to it that Palestine became Israel. Was it thanks for an instant loan that enabled England to wrest ownership of the Suez canal from France -- dug by Egyptian labor through Egyptian land, or for finding a cheap way to make acetone?
How is it justified?
The index of Mein Kampf leads the name of Henry Ford to the author's glowing endorsement. Why? An attribution of hatred without explanation, as cause, is inadequate. Ford had a Jewish architect design the World's largest manufacturing plant at River Rouge. He was not hostile to Jews then. What changed him?
When US Ambassador Dodd reported early concentration camp atrocities, the initial focus was on Nazi political & moral repression.
Jews had influence at the highest level of the US. FDR's next-door neighbor was US Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, who was Jewish, as was his assistant, Harry Dexter White, whose influence provoked Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.
Perhaps, the problem arises from the blurred distinction between Judaism (a religion), Semitic (a linguistic grouping that includes all Arabs) and Zionism (an extreme political movement to acquire Jewish living space).
The British presumed to leave Palestine to whomever it chose when it was the Arabs who conquered Palestine. [The Turks destroyed the British (ANZAC) at Gallipoli.]
Yet, although it did nothing to win Palestine, Britain saw to it that Palestine became Israel. Was it thanks for an instant loan that enabled England to wrest ownership of the Suez canal from France -- dug by Egyptian labor through Egyptian land, or for finding a cheap way to make acetone?
How is it justified?
2
Considering our collective history, it seems to me that humans, fundamentally, are just not good enough to figure this one out. It may be that a fuller implementation of artificial intelligence, which will be so much smarter and more rational than we can ever hope to be, will be able to sort through it appropriately and in the most egalitarian manner possible.
But someone far greater than I am once said: "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
Since the Middle East is such an emblematic microcosm of humanity, it will be truly seminal in how this all plays out in the end.
But someone far greater than I am once said: "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
Since the Middle East is such an emblematic microcosm of humanity, it will be truly seminal in how this all plays out in the end.
If you engage with the hard right radial Israeli administration, by moving in to disputed settlements, then there is only one point of view; that of usurper.
Regardless of all the other disputes between Palestinians and Israelis, this is the central issue.
Not security, but who gets to live where and with what rights attached.
Regardless of all the other disputes between Palestinians and Israelis, this is the central issue.
Not security, but who gets to live where and with what rights attached.
5
One of the most incredible attempts to square a circle that I've ever read. That the end product of settler "thought" on the subject is this thought pretzel surprises no one.
7
The underlying assumption of this article is that the Arab inhabitants of the Levant are not also the historic people of the region. Just as Israel does not want a Islamic country looking "down" at them, the people of the Levant do not want a Jewish state doing the same. If the Europeans who colonized the Levant and established the state of Israel had created a secular government that invited everyone living in the area to participate equally, we would have a different situation. Alas, the Jews of Israel are as rigid in their religious determinism and ethnic elitism as Hezbollah and ISIS. Rationality and equality lose out to extremism.
7
The two-state solution appears to have always been limited to a choice for Palestinians to live either in a state of apartheid, or on a reservation.
On the other side, it has always condemned Israelis to live in a theocracy.
On the other side, it has always condemned Israelis to live in a theocracy.
8
When American Jews withdraw their support for Israel, which is already happening it will not be long after this that the United States will shrug its shoulders and leave Israel on its own. I wonder how long have this will the West Bank settlers continue to exist in any form.
12
To give the readers a good understanding of where the author lives, I would highly recommend an article The Atlantic did a few years back called "The Shame of Shuhada Street". It gives us a good sense of the tragedy of what has happened to Palestinians.
9
Two comments:
In noting "the world recognized the Jewish people’s indigenous existence in this land in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the San Remo Accords of 1920", the author left out the League of Nations Mandate decision of over 50 states and its phrase:
"recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".
And I could add that no where in those three documents of decision of international legal validity was the term "Arabs" included in connection with the future of "Palestine". Only "non-Jews". Civil liberties and personal rights for sure were to be guaranteed and protected but the primary political character of that country was its Jewishness.
My second comment is in discussing various alternatives, it need be emphasized that the main "obstacles" the Arabs have claimed, i.e., "settlements" and "occupation", did not exist prior to the 1967 war. And so, dismantling Jewish communities (which always existed in Judea, Samaria and Gaza except during the Jordanian illegal annexation and after the 1920-1948 local Arab ethnic cleansing campaign against Jews in Gaza, Hebron, Jerusalem, Gush Etzion, etc.) has nothing to do with that war's outbreak so how could they be part of the solution of which they were not a problem?
In noting "the world recognized the Jewish people’s indigenous existence in this land in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the San Remo Accords of 1920", the author left out the League of Nations Mandate decision of over 50 states and its phrase:
"recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".
And I could add that no where in those three documents of decision of international legal validity was the term "Arabs" included in connection with the future of "Palestine". Only "non-Jews". Civil liberties and personal rights for sure were to be guaranteed and protected but the primary political character of that country was its Jewishness.
My second comment is in discussing various alternatives, it need be emphasized that the main "obstacles" the Arabs have claimed, i.e., "settlements" and "occupation", did not exist prior to the 1967 war. And so, dismantling Jewish communities (which always existed in Judea, Samaria and Gaza except during the Jordanian illegal annexation and after the 1920-1948 local Arab ethnic cleansing campaign against Jews in Gaza, Hebron, Jerusalem, Gush Etzion, etc.) has nothing to do with that war's outbreak so how could they be part of the solution of which they were not a problem?
7
Why not the obvious solution, the only one that will replace a century of strife by a constructive peace, with no apartheid and with dignity and security for both people? A Federation of two sovereign states - Israel-Palestine - with each its own parliament, cabinet, secure borders and thriving culture and economy. Israelis would be responsible for all military matters, which means that Palestinians do not have to worry about any predatory moves by their unstable neighbors. Palestinian refugees who wish to return would do so in the new Palestinian State and would be compensated by Israel and the international community. The two populations have lived and worked together since the beginning of the 20th Century and they will continue to do so forever, whether they are a peace or at low intensity war with each other. This simple solution would simply turn the page and evacuate the conflict. It is amazing that practically no politician ever mentions such a possibility. Why?
3
Every day more and more land is appropriated, everything else is obfuscation.
12
I see Narcissism and Apartheid in this article. This is 21st Century not 3700 yrs BCE. Indeed nobody denies Jews have been living in the W Bank for thousands of years but nobody can deny Arabs too were there for thousands of years. Would it matter that the earliest were Jews and the Arabs came later or whatever? If that sort of logic must apply to support Israel then why must not this logic be applicable to all other nations and communities and everyone who had come later into possession of lands not essentially native to them be told to leave and render the land free for sons and daughters of soil to takeover completely. This would mean the people of European stock leave Australia, USA, and Latin America, and also people of Aryan stock are told to leave India to simply vanish. This is rubbish. What Yishai Fleisher pleads is nothing but concession to Apartheid and Racism! The world must resolve not to remain hypocritical when it comes to Israel. Let E Jerusalem be Palestine Capital and the West Bank and Gaza Palestine. This would be fair, not Racism.
9
In the spirit of true equality, I suggest the following:
1. One state.
2. Equal rights and full citizenship for all residents.
3. The "Law of Return" extends to both Jewish and Palestinians people who once lived on the land.
Israel struggles with the conflicting notions of being a theocratic state and a democratic state. It is not clear that it is possible or desirable to be both.
1. One state.
2. Equal rights and full citizenship for all residents.
3. The "Law of Return" extends to both Jewish and Palestinians people who once lived on the land.
Israel struggles with the conflicting notions of being a theocratic state and a democratic state. It is not clear that it is possible or desirable to be both.
13
Here is a rich idea for you, Yishai, stop blaming others, pick up your things and get off of land that is you've stolen, like cowards, from peasants. Now. Settlers are a pawn in a vicious and self destructive plan constructed by a far right in Israel that is run by politicians crippled by mental illness. Israel's future depends on a repudiation of their tribalistic policies. Paint this hideous situation however you will, but to anyone with a conscience, it is an apartheid and settlers are complicit. The attempt to bulldoze and suffocate Palestinian heritage with cul-de-sac's and swimming pools encased in razor wire is a plan as vile as it is self destructive. Get out. Now.
23
Four cautionary words to the settler fantasists who are hurtling Israel towards a catastrophe:
- Yugoslavia
- Lebanon
- Rwanda
- Syria
None of the scenarios listed in the article include any consideration, let alone input from Palestinians. It’s Israeli settlers talking to other settlers about what to do to Palestinians.
Israel has a proportional parliamentary system. Even if the writer’s demographic projections are correct, post-annexation Palestinians could easily form the largest party block in Knesset, and the ruling cabinet.
The ugly secret the writer is neglecting to tell his gentle American audience is that the settlers have zero intention of letting that happen. Even the settlers know that this is apartheid. That is why they protest loudly whenever that word in mentioned.
The settlers’ Plan A was to pray really, really hard for a miracle. Upon hearing their heart-rending pleas, the god who promised Abraham the land of Israel was supposed to make the Palestinians disappear. Poof!
But god was busy playing video games. Hence Plan B: a beautiful fairytale, where two ethnic groups with a history of frequent brutal bloodletting, live in harmony in a polity where one group ruthlessly subjugates the other.
Bible-based politics end up in slaughter. Always. The biblical delusions of the settler project will end in catastrophic disaster.
- Yugoslavia
- Lebanon
- Rwanda
- Syria
None of the scenarios listed in the article include any consideration, let alone input from Palestinians. It’s Israeli settlers talking to other settlers about what to do to Palestinians.
Israel has a proportional parliamentary system. Even if the writer’s demographic projections are correct, post-annexation Palestinians could easily form the largest party block in Knesset, and the ruling cabinet.
The ugly secret the writer is neglecting to tell his gentle American audience is that the settlers have zero intention of letting that happen. Even the settlers know that this is apartheid. That is why they protest loudly whenever that word in mentioned.
The settlers’ Plan A was to pray really, really hard for a miracle. Upon hearing their heart-rending pleas, the god who promised Abraham the land of Israel was supposed to make the Palestinians disappear. Poof!
But god was busy playing video games. Hence Plan B: a beautiful fairytale, where two ethnic groups with a history of frequent brutal bloodletting, live in harmony in a polity where one group ruthlessly subjugates the other.
Bible-based politics end up in slaughter. Always. The biblical delusions of the settler project will end in catastrophic disaster.
11
“What prevents us from manifesting our greatest potential is our enchantment with our own story or that which we believe ourselves to be. In the end, who are we? Are we just a body? Are we a name? One of the aspects of inner healing is to de-identify with the story from our past. This identification with the past can be regarded as an illness, a deep amnesia in reference to what we truly are and what we came here to do. This forgetfulness is what leads us to live a life full of anxiety, fear and depression, amongst other symptoms.”
Sri Prem Baba
Beyond the above, any solution is better than a stalemate.
All of the five proposals are good and valid if implemented with the intention of achieving peace based on laws and respect. It is time to move beyond the limitation of continued failed policies, empty discussions, hypocrisy, cynicism and violence.
Sri Prem Baba
Beyond the above, any solution is better than a stalemate.
All of the five proposals are good and valid if implemented with the intention of achieving peace based on laws and respect. It is time to move beyond the limitation of continued failed policies, empty discussions, hypocrisy, cynicism and violence.
3
The intractable problem: Our RIGHT to this land is derived from our history, RELIGION.......
6
People fervently in favor of a two-state solution live in the US, and live rather dangerously in suburban US (and drive to interfaith dialogs). There can only be one state. You pick.
Palestinians want it all, with all Jews gone (existentially). Israel wants the whole thing, and Palestinians gone or living in apartheid. Better resettled than living in apartheid.
Ironic. Had the supporters of Palestinian causes: (a) absorbed the people within their geographic borders, and (b) spent on them what they spend on waging and supporting terrorism and war - it would be a pretty happy place right now.
But they have waged war and lost. I wish Palestinians had taken up the most potent weapon in recent history: non-violence.
There is no chance of that now. 180-200 million Muslims want every non-Muslim eradicated. The majority (supposedly peace loving) is not squashing these losers, but spawning more of them. So they are largely irrelevant.
No one can shield Palestinians from perennial dangerous choices, who seek assurances from friends (rich Arabic states and Iran) to destroy another people (Jews).
I am pretty clear about the murky nature of the water, but that does not prevent me from steadfastly supporting Israel. Obfuscate away and do what you need to do Israel! Only you know the existential threat under which your citizens live, and I am glad you are taking care of them. The J-streeters will bicker about the deli from which the pastrami came - let them.
Kalidan
Palestinians want it all, with all Jews gone (existentially). Israel wants the whole thing, and Palestinians gone or living in apartheid. Better resettled than living in apartheid.
Ironic. Had the supporters of Palestinian causes: (a) absorbed the people within their geographic borders, and (b) spent on them what they spend on waging and supporting terrorism and war - it would be a pretty happy place right now.
But they have waged war and lost. I wish Palestinians had taken up the most potent weapon in recent history: non-violence.
There is no chance of that now. 180-200 million Muslims want every non-Muslim eradicated. The majority (supposedly peace loving) is not squashing these losers, but spawning more of them. So they are largely irrelevant.
No one can shield Palestinians from perennial dangerous choices, who seek assurances from friends (rich Arabic states and Iran) to destroy another people (Jews).
I am pretty clear about the murky nature of the water, but that does not prevent me from steadfastly supporting Israel. Obfuscate away and do what you need to do Israel! Only you know the existential threat under which your citizens live, and I am glad you are taking care of them. The J-streeters will bicker about the deli from which the pastrami came - let them.
Kalidan
6
Don't count too much on that administration. Here today gone tomorrow.
2
Mr. Fleisher's perspective only makes sense if Jews and Arabs are separate peoples. When I visited Israel, it was clear that the general intention was to keep the people separate: Jews and Arabs live in different kinds of buildings in different towns and go to different schools. But guess what? At some point, and it has probably already happened, some Jews and Arabs are going to fall in love and make children: Arab Jews. And that is one pretty strong reason why there has to be a one-state solution, with equal rights for all citizens. People shouldn't have their rights and citizenship defined by their ethnicity but instead by where they live. We already know this in the United States.
11
The mindset and notion that Israel has a "biblical" right to the land is and will be the end of Israel. It is the road to Israel's own self destruction.
14
Settler? Sounds like Occupier really. But how about this? Instead of going to Haiti, come to the United States and work with our Native Peoples to reclaim the land that is theirs and has been for more thousands of years than you claim for your land. Why not? Your reasoning, which I believe is faulty and self diluting, should be applied to all indigenous people everywhere. Clearly, from your writing you feel that Palestinian Arabs and others have no claim to those lands, that they are usurpers. I guess they disagree on that point.
The Israeli "settlers" especially, should lead the charge, lead the way for all indigenous peoples to reclaim what has been taken from them. Start here in the USA! Then, while in the Western Hemisphere, go down to Tierra Del Fuego or up to the Arctic, your choice and clean the slate from the foreign occupiers! When you leave the Western Hemisphere, and don't forget Hawaii, off to Australia. There's a lot to do there to help the indigenous people who have been there for, what, 100,000 years? As for Europe? Find Neanderthals and return the land!
Well, Mr. Settler/Occupier, you have a lot of work to do across the world. And everywhere you go, you can establish Gay Rights, technology studies and so much more from the Israeli portfolio of accomplishments. But, I suggest you work with the non-Jewish Palestinian peoples first. Because, like you, they believe it is THEIR land. They may even be willing to share it if you would just stop oppressing them.
The Israeli "settlers" especially, should lead the charge, lead the way for all indigenous peoples to reclaim what has been taken from them. Start here in the USA! Then, while in the Western Hemisphere, go down to Tierra Del Fuego or up to the Arctic, your choice and clean the slate from the foreign occupiers! When you leave the Western Hemisphere, and don't forget Hawaii, off to Australia. There's a lot to do there to help the indigenous people who have been there for, what, 100,000 years? As for Europe? Find Neanderthals and return the land!
Well, Mr. Settler/Occupier, you have a lot of work to do across the world. And everywhere you go, you can establish Gay Rights, technology studies and so much more from the Israeli portfolio of accomplishments. But, I suggest you work with the non-Jewish Palestinian peoples first. Because, like you, they believe it is THEIR land. They may even be willing to share it if you would just stop oppressing them.
9
And the Palestinians have no right or history to the land?
Not to mention the Zionist movement began around 1890 and began the migration of Jews to Palestine.
While the Palestinians were always there.
Not to mention the Zionist movement began around 1890 and began the migration of Jews to Palestine.
While the Palestinians were always there.
14
We've stolen their land? Fine. We've killed their families? Fine. We have created the largest concentration camp in human history? Fine. But please do we have to continue tormenting the more intrinsically optimistic Palestinians with this "two state" pie in the sky? Tell them truth. Tell them they never had a chance. Tell them Israeli influence in America is too great. Tell them America was never able to serve as an honest broker. Tell them their fate is endless misery. Tell them they are lost. In reality most already know that. So tell the few eternal optimists. Disabuse them of this delusion. Don't they deserve that?
15
The only just one state solution is the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza become citizens of Israel. They should have full voting rights. Anything else is apartheid. Exchanging populations is just ethnic cleansing and will and should be condemned by the international community. The Jewish Supremacist of Israel are no different than the White Supremacist of South Africa or the White Supremacist who voted for Trump. I found this article extremely depressing because it was written by a Jew whose people have suffered thousands of years of discrimination and should know better than to inflict the same injustices on the Arab population of Palestine. Yeats was correct when he wrote. " A beggar on horseback beats a beggar on foot".
59
Why not try this? A one state solution where everyone who lives within its borders is a citizen with equal rights which means they have the same rights to vote in elections, stand for Parliament, move around the country freely, hold property, have the same working conditions etc. This is not the situation at the moment. One group has privileges which the other group does not have. Why is that? The answer is hinted at in the fourth option above which says that because of rising Jewish birthrates a stable Jewish majority above 60 per cent exists between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean (excluding Gaza) and is projected to grow to about 70 per cent by 2059. But this is an option only because a Jewish majority is seen as highly likely. But what if it wasn't? Would this be acceptable as an option? Not likely. Options are only considered feasible so long as Jews can maintain their ascendancy in Israel. They won't consider the situation that exists in other democracies like the United States, Canada, the UK, Australia etc where all citizens are equal, have equal rights, one person, one vote and where, in comparison to Israel, everyone is equal before the law. The Zionists want to hang on to their privileged position at the expense of the Palestinians. So long as they continue do this they can never be considered democratic and the state of Israel must be considered what it truly is: an apartheid state.
50
While Rome burns the US, under the enforcement of International Law, should put our Marines into the West Bank and Gaza and enforce the peace, separating the parties. Then move out every last illegal settler, proceeding to defend Palestinian women & children from the IDF and Israel from rock throwing kids. In Gaza we would police out any sort of organized terrorist activity that used rockets. Then take Israel to court in the Hague and get a judgment on the destruction and human misery they have caused.
Do the job America says it's all about, peace keeping & justice, and do it where we can actually accomplish it, in the West Bank. Begin economic redevelopment forthwith and jump start Palestinian-Israeli business activity. Making money is the best lure from conflict.
Do the job America says it's all about, peace keeping & justice, and do it where we can actually accomplish it, in the West Bank. Begin economic redevelopment forthwith and jump start Palestinian-Israeli business activity. Making money is the best lure from conflict.
6
Might makes right......
There, I've boiled it down for you. Now the issue for Israel, while not simple, is clear; What do you want to do with people who do not want to live peacefully beside you? And what do you want to do with people who do? You have the "might" to do almost anything you want to. My prediction is that whatever you call the current "status quo" will continue well into the next century....
You don't like "might makes right"? There is no Confederate States of America to prove it wrong.
There, I've boiled it down for you. Now the issue for Israel, while not simple, is clear; What do you want to do with people who do not want to live peacefully beside you? And what do you want to do with people who do? You have the "might" to do almost anything you want to. My prediction is that whatever you call the current "status quo" will continue well into the next century....
You don't like "might makes right"? There is no Confederate States of America to prove it wrong.
1
"Our right to this land is derived from our history, religion, international decisions and defensive wars."
Is it even possible to engage in reasonable way with someone who defends their expansive nation state on the basis of their religion and a mythopoetic understanding of history?
Is it even possible to engage in reasonable way with someone who defends their expansive nation state on the basis of their religion and a mythopoetic understanding of history?
13
Why does the NYT give this space to a settler apologist. They've already got the US ambassador to Israel. How about "A Palestinian View of Palestine's Future"?
12
A minor reason that I was not looking forward to a Hillary Clinton presidency was because that would mean another four or eight years of futile attempts to create an agreement under the two-state solution. It unfortunately appears now that the Trump administration will not be able to see beyond the sack on its head to create any new ideas on an Israeli-Palestinian agreement, so it may be left to the inhabitants of this area to do the fresh thinking. The ideas presented in this column are at least a start to that. I do not think it is helpful to go back to ancient history in order to plead one's case, though. Any agreement has to start with the facts on the ground now.
1
Truth and practical ideas. Finally.
The "Palestinians", actually only arab migrants from other countries, have never had a sovereign state and are not "entitled" to one. Certainly not one carved out of the miniscule State of Israel.
Bravo, Mr. Fleischer!
The "Palestinians", actually only arab migrants from other countries, have never had a sovereign state and are not "entitled" to one. Certainly not one carved out of the miniscule State of Israel.
Bravo, Mr. Fleischer!
7
MR. Fleisher left out one obvious solution: Israel contracts back to its May, 1967 borders and grants Palestinians the right of return. For those who claim those borders can't be defended, I point out that they were defended rather handily in June of 1967 and for those who want to deny Palestinians the right of return, why are you denying them a right that the Israeli government has insisted belongs to every Jew in the world?
Follow Mr. Fleisher's recommendations and Israel is well on the road to becoming just another Middle Eastern theocracy.
Follow Mr. Fleisher's recommendations and Israel is well on the road to becoming just another Middle Eastern theocracy.
5
Build settlements for everyone no matter their religion. Stop segregation, stop ghettoization. If it's all one country then all the people have a right to live anywhere they want. If they choose then to live with their extended family or people of their sect then fine -- it's not for the government to say who can live where.
4
"the historic Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria, which the world calls the West Bank"
Let's replace "Jewish" with "Amerindian", "Judea and Samaria" with "Canada and the United States" and "West Bank" with "North America".
Or "Jewish" with "Celts", "Judea and Samaria" with "Gaul" and "West Bank" with "France".
How does that fly? Besides, I seem to recall the Jewish people actually conquered most of that land from other folks way back when. At least that's what the Bible says.
Let's replace "Jewish" with "Amerindian", "Judea and Samaria" with "Canada and the United States" and "West Bank" with "North America".
Or "Jewish" with "Celts", "Judea and Samaria" with "Gaul" and "West Bank" with "France".
How does that fly? Besides, I seem to recall the Jewish people actually conquered most of that land from other folks way back when. At least that's what the Bible says.
10
You can have a Jewish state and an Arab state, or you can have one state, neither Jewish nor Arab, with increasing proportion of Arab citizens. Rather like Lebanon.
Choose your pick, but you can't have the best of both.
Choose your pick, but you can't have the best of both.
2
I have said it many times before:
I will never understand how a people so maligned and tormented and ostracized through history can finally have the freedom of their own state and then turn around to deny freedom to others and occupy their land illegally.
By the "logic" of this column, any one of the previous owners of my home could come forward and claim it without compensating me because they were here first. Or as another poster noted, must the U.S. now return all of the land it took from Native Americans?
Sorry, there is no justifying theft.
I will never understand how a people so maligned and tormented and ostracized through history can finally have the freedom of their own state and then turn around to deny freedom to others and occupy their land illegally.
By the "logic" of this column, any one of the previous owners of my home could come forward and claim it without compensating me because they were here first. Or as another poster noted, must the U.S. now return all of the land it took from Native Americans?
Sorry, there is no justifying theft.
15
Givin' us a straight answer, huh? You can just imagine the Palestinian response:
"But for us Palestinians, the truth is clear: the West Bank belongs to the Arab people. Our right to this land is derived from our history, religion, international decisions and defensive wars. Arabs have lived here for thousands of years, despite repeated occupations by the Ottomans, British, Israelis. Repeated UN resolutions condemned the occupation".
Regardless of who's "right" here about history and precedence, time for both of these playground bullies to stop bickering with each and learn how to live in peace. It's causing too much trouble for the rest of us.
"But for us Palestinians, the truth is clear: the West Bank belongs to the Arab people. Our right to this land is derived from our history, religion, international decisions and defensive wars. Arabs have lived here for thousands of years, despite repeated occupations by the Ottomans, British, Israelis. Repeated UN resolutions condemned the occupation".
Regardless of who's "right" here about history and precedence, time for both of these playground bullies to stop bickering with each and learn how to live in peace. It's causing too much trouble for the rest of us.
5
Syria is going to look like a picnic ground if this comes to pass.
The hypocrisy of publishing this opinion piece is mind boggling. When Americans just suggest America should put its own interests first, the NYT pummels them with names like white supremacist, fascist, xenophobic, ...
9
I am no expert on the Middle East. But, it seems that there are two problems, overlapping yet distinct. One problem is how do the Israelis and Palestinians in Israel and the West Bank resolve their differences and live peacefully within defined borders? The second is how does the rest of the world, other Arab and Islamic nations and the West, help or hinder that resolution for other domestic and international political purposes? Despite many diplomatic initiatives, there are more external influences perpetuating the conflict than reducing it. If those influences that stiffen resistance on both sides to achieve a resolution were removed, the two sides might make more progress on their own. Of course, within Israel and within the Palestinian authority, there needs to be more agreement and unity on how to move forward, but without external support for extremists this might happen.
5
A sixth proposal: Change Israeli voting laws so that anyone living outside of the Israel's official borders is no longer entitled to vote in Israeli elections, and have a say in how to conduct the peace process.
Such a move would immediately disprove the claim that Israel is an apartheid state, and would guarantee that indeed, settlements are not an obstacle to peace. Because nobody who is honest with themselves can maintain that people who have built their homes and communities in the settlements did so with the expectation of leaving them in the event of a peace deal.
Such a move would immediately disprove the claim that Israel is an apartheid state, and would guarantee that indeed, settlements are not an obstacle to peace. Because nobody who is honest with themselves can maintain that people who have built their homes and communities in the settlements did so with the expectation of leaving them in the event of a peace deal.
12
Debbie, this is already the law in Israel. The millions of Israeli's living outside Israel can not vote in elections. Even Israelis on vacation outside the country forfeit their right to vote. I think the only exception is diplomats and soldiers on official postings outside of Israel.
4
Create an Israeli equivalent of the electoral college that's independent of population size, with a set number of votes for Gaza, the West Bank, and at-large Arab residents in Israel. Other, predominantly Jewish areas would have their own set number of votes, but limited to Jewish residents. Everyone would have a voice nationally, and Jewish-Palestinian coalitions could conceivably form on certain issues.
9
"independent of population size" - that doesn't sound like one person one vote equality.
2
Yes you can create an electoral system that guarantees both excess representation and at least a minimum of representation for the major contending groups. That worked real well in Lebanon. :(
The US Electoral College (EC) in the last presidential election sure worked out great. The "winner" lost by 2.9 million votes but still won because the EC outcome was determined by about 80,000 votes in 3 key states. By the way, the US EC is coupled directly to the population size of each state.
2
Most Israeli Jews describe their ideology as in the center (55%) or on the right (37%) within the Israeli political spectrum. Just 8% of Israeli Jews say they lean left. In other words, there is a pool of about 45% of Israelis who could find themselves voting with Arabs under a unified democratic state. Settlers and their conservative friends should be careful what they wish for.
3
Could anything be more preposterous than the constant Jewish claim that Israel "belongs" to them because of their ancient ownership of it? Read the Book of Joshua, the Jews' very now, proud, boastful account of the total genocide that stole Israel from its natives, the Canaanites. Like other ancient histories, this one is no doubt partly mythical. That said, the Jews have no more "right" to Israel than the Iranians have to the lands the ancient Persians once controlled in the Middle East by "historical right." Besides, long after the Jews were driven out of Israel by the Romans, the Arabs totally dominated the area for well over a thousand years. Only 15% of the inhabitants of Palestine were Jews during WWI. Then the Rothschilds and other Zionists started shipping in Jews to change the demographics of the region, famously causing Arab riots, among other furious reactions, long before Israel was created. Jews like to compare the genocidal conquest of ancient Israel with European Americans' annihilation of the Indians in the 19th century. The only trouble with that is that the Arabs still dominated Israel when Israel was founded by the UN. So the analogy is this. What if over half of Americans today were native Americans? Would European Americans have the right to control the native Americans TODAY by military force and force them to live under terrible conditions? Sure, Indian reservations are a contemporary American disgrace. But not as if they contained over half of us.
22
I think it's more analogous to South African apartheid. But, also consider that, if Israel thinks it has a biblical claim to the area -- and the Arabs can make a strong claim, too, why not make Arabs full partners and give them voting rights? Keeping people without voting right? Hmmm...sounds a lot like post Civil War USA.
2
Lot of misinformation here. I was on the USS Saratoga in 1967 and saw first hand - Israel attacked the Arabs and started the 1967 war. I also recall Israel attacking the USS Liberty killing and wounding American sailors.
You act as if the Arabs who have lived in the region for 1000's of years didn't exist. The Jewish settlers have spread out so much across the West Bank it would be hard for the Arabs to have a country.
Lets take a different approach - make all Jewish settlers citizens of the Palestine state. Problem solved.
You act as if the Arabs who have lived in the region for 1000's of years didn't exist. The Jewish settlers have spread out so much across the West Bank it would be hard for the Arabs to have a country.
Lets take a different approach - make all Jewish settlers citizens of the Palestine state. Problem solved.
56
Answer this : how many Arab countries are there, that we should also give them one in the Jewish state?
4
Making such a suggestion is the same as recommending settlers expose their throats for slitting. They would be immediately massacred. No question or doubt about that.
7
Standard Israeli rewrite. Israel started the 67 war by a sneak attack on the Egyptian air force , there was no conspiracy to kill all the Jews and in fact the Israeli military's evaluation of the Egyptian army was that it had not the capability to seriously threaten Israel militarily much less its existence. In the 48 war it is well known that Israel had an agreement with Jordan to divide up Palestine with the West Bank going to Jordan. The Palestinians had no say in this. This took the only Arab army of any quality off the board and so while there was some fighting between them Jordan essentially stopped when it had what it wanted. There was no legitimacy for this agreement. The other Arab armies were only recently given independence, were poorly equipped and with inexperienced leadership particularly in comparison to the Zionists who received arms from both the East and West blocs. Despite the claims of being satisfied with the UN division which the US made on highly advantageous terms for the Zionists, they did not with draw to the territory allocated to them but stayed in the Palestinian areas where all the battles were fought.
18
The Egyptian naval blockade of Eilat came before the Israeli strike on the Egyptian air forces. A naval blockade is an act of war.
6
No. Legally Egypt started the war when it blockaded international waters. It also expelled the UN peacekeeping troops from Sinai and made a pact with Syria with the aim of encircling Israel. After the war started Egypt incited Jordan to attack Israel even though Israel told Jordan to stay out.
Under the circumstances prevailing in 1967 before the shooting war started, no country would have been obligated to wait for the first shot before protecting itself. No country includes Israel.
Under the circumstances prevailing in 1967 before the shooting war started, no country would have been obligated to wait for the first shot before protecting itself. No country includes Israel.
6
The greatest mistake of the 20th century, borne of the guilt of Hitler and the holocaust, was the creation of the state of Israel at the expense of the Arab population living there.
Hitler gave the Jews of Germany his holocaust, Netanyahu seems quite happy to give Arabs theirs.
Hitler gave the Jews of Germany his holocaust, Netanyahu seems quite happy to give Arabs theirs.
47
Gas chambers? Genocide? Mass shootings? Mass Expulsions ghettos followed by mass killings?
Netanyahu is doing all that?
Netanyahu is doing all that?
4
The standard response is, "We're not as bad as Hitler." Well you need to set yourself a higher bar.
7
What about Gaza? Is that to remain an open air jail?
25
Yes, as long as it is run by terrorists who use Gaza as a launching pad of rockets into Israel.
3
Your essay is another attempt at obfuscation. Israeli 'settlers' have illegally taken taken Arab land and given it to another religion. Judea and Samara are ancient names and do not reflect the current ownership of the land. If Israel wants peace and acceptance, a Palestinian state is required. While others may favor trading some of the 'settled' land for a recognized Palestinian State, the Palestinians have no reason to accept that trade.
Israel can't have its Lebensraum and expect the rest of the world to accept that. You are just spreading the seeds of another intifada or war.
Israel can't have its Lebensraum and expect the rest of the world to accept that. You are just spreading the seeds of another intifada or war.
29
What is current ownership if not the Arab conquest of 638 CE and subsequent Muslim rule through Mamelukes and Ottomans and emigration waves?
If you want to argue that, well, Israel similarly conquered the territory and os, just like the Arabs, it is now Israel's.
No?
If you want to argue that, well, Israel similarly conquered the territory and os, just like the Arabs, it is now Israel's.
No?
4
Every intifada is another excuse for the Israeli government to bomb homes, and expel or kill Palestinians. After the Jewish teenagers were killed, 1500 Palestinians were killed, 70% of them civilians, including hundreds of women and children. Countering crime with war is terrorism.
So of course they squeeze the Palestinians as hard as possible, citing food, medicine, etc, until they make another excuse for war.
So of course they squeeze the Palestinians as hard as possible, citing food, medicine, etc, until they make another excuse for war.
5
An Anti-Semite could have written this, I don't mean that it is literally a plant. What I mean is that the assertion of a God given right to living space is a mockery of the universality of values that have been such a central aspecct of the Diaspora's contribution to the world and also this perspective runs contrary to the secular values of the Zionist movement. If Trump wants to distract us from his growing scandal then he can do so by embracing this proposal and watching the regional war that are children will die in. Mr. Fleisher if this is what you want why don't you do it without American money ?
27
This is almost saying Hitler was also right about the right to land by the Germans...it is just nonsense really!
4
Your criticism is misconceived.
The writer included man-made internationally legal decisions recognizing and awarding the Jewish right to reconstitute their historic homeland.
The writer included man-made internationally legal decisions recognizing and awarding the Jewish right to reconstitute their historic homeland.
4
Semite is a language group. Arabs including Palestinians belong to this language group. If you hate Arabs, you are an anti Semite.
This is a fitted between cousins. Realize that you are one family and start treating each other like humans. When you dehumanized the other, you dehumanized yourself. The Nazis are the perfect example of this in action, as are the interrogators in places like Abu Ghraib.
Meanwhile your biggest supporters in the US are anti Semites that hate both Jews and Arabs. They just want you to fulfill their biblical prophesies so they can have Armageddon. And the Jews don't get anything good out of Armageddon. You should be more careful of who you pick for allies.
Better than the Nazis is not good enough.
Practice actual peace and tolerance, just as you expect it for yourself.
This is a fitted between cousins. Realize that you are one family and start treating each other like humans. When you dehumanized the other, you dehumanized yourself. The Nazis are the perfect example of this in action, as are the interrogators in places like Abu Ghraib.
Meanwhile your biggest supporters in the US are anti Semites that hate both Jews and Arabs. They just want you to fulfill their biblical prophesies so they can have Armageddon. And the Jews don't get anything good out of Armageddon. You should be more careful of who you pick for allies.
Better than the Nazis is not good enough.
Practice actual peace and tolerance, just as you expect it for yourself.
2
Mr. Fleisherfeb is at least honest, so thank you for that.
The 2 State solution has been dead because it was just a con job by Israel to fool the rest of the world. So, don't blame the rest of the world, Israel could've said what you are saying today 30 years ago. They decided to LIE and STEAL instead.
The recent passed would be illegal even if you had a One State today and had given citizenship to all Palestinians, because you are stealing personal property of Arabs and giving it to Jews. Imagine if we did this here or any other western nation to Jews.
As for West Bank belonging to Jews based on historical, religious or International agreements, that's total nonsense in today's world. At the end of the 19th Century, Jews constituted less than 2% of the population on said lands, through immense immigration after the Zionism was established, they barely got to 5% of the population by 1948. There is no evidence of a sovereign Jewish state ever existing in history, and even if it had, who cares, lots of nations existed that don't exist in the same form or at all, today. As for International agreements, your reading of them doesn't correspond with the understanding of the international community.
But, I agree, ONE STATE with full citizenship to all is the way to go. But you have to stop pushing Palestinians into shanty while you take their properties for your luxurious condos, in Israel proper or in the West Bank.
The 2 State solution has been dead because it was just a con job by Israel to fool the rest of the world. So, don't blame the rest of the world, Israel could've said what you are saying today 30 years ago. They decided to LIE and STEAL instead.
The recent passed would be illegal even if you had a One State today and had given citizenship to all Palestinians, because you are stealing personal property of Arabs and giving it to Jews. Imagine if we did this here or any other western nation to Jews.
As for West Bank belonging to Jews based on historical, religious or International agreements, that's total nonsense in today's world. At the end of the 19th Century, Jews constituted less than 2% of the population on said lands, through immense immigration after the Zionism was established, they barely got to 5% of the population by 1948. There is no evidence of a sovereign Jewish state ever existing in history, and even if it had, who cares, lots of nations existed that don't exist in the same form or at all, today. As for International agreements, your reading of them doesn't correspond with the understanding of the international community.
But, I agree, ONE STATE with full citizenship to all is the way to go. But you have to stop pushing Palestinians into shanty while you take their properties for your luxurious condos, in Israel proper or in the West Bank.
64
A con job? They offered the Palestinians their own state twice, so they were serious. It was rejected, once by Arafat, once by Abbas, so maybe the con job was on the other side.
3
WestSider:
This claim "barely got to 5% of the population by 1948" relating to the Jewish population of Mandate Palestine is wrong.
Even the Wikipedia entry for Palestine demography has it so:
"By 1948, the population had risen to 1,900,000, of whom 68% were Arabs, and 32% were Jews (UNSCOP report, including Bedouin)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)#...
Maybe review your facts before expressing opinions?
This claim "barely got to 5% of the population by 1948" relating to the Jewish population of Mandate Palestine is wrong.
Even the Wikipedia entry for Palestine demography has it so:
"By 1948, the population had risen to 1,900,000, of whom 68% were Arabs, and 32% were Jews (UNSCOP report, including Bedouin)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)#...
Maybe review your facts before expressing opinions?
2
Shanties?
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
You maybe seeing Bantustan, but the reality is that there are plenty of wealthy Arabs living in Judea and Samaria in very wealthy houses.
I once tried to rent one for a few months. The Arab landlord was willing, cause he was going to be in the Gulf on business. But he later recanted cause he was warned that his children might be dead upon his return.
You see, selling or renting to a Jew in the PA areas, is forbidden on pain of death.
How's that for a violation of the Housing and Urban Development laws and rules?
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
You maybe seeing Bantustan, but the reality is that there are plenty of wealthy Arabs living in Judea and Samaria in very wealthy houses.
I once tried to rent one for a few months. The Arab landlord was willing, cause he was going to be in the Gulf on business. But he later recanted cause he was warned that his children might be dead upon his return.
You see, selling or renting to a Jew in the PA areas, is forbidden on pain of death.
How's that for a violation of the Housing and Urban Development laws and rules?
4
So does the question become what group of people occupied this land first? According to the bible (Exodus 3:7) it was the: Canaanites; Hittites; Amorites; Perizzites; Hivites; and, Jebusites. These groups were dispossessed through wars begun by the Israelites.
I hope, Yishai Fleisher, you see the flaw in your argument? Your 3,700 years comes up a bit short. You forgot the Bronze Age as well.
I hope, Yishai Fleisher, you see the flaw in your argument? Your 3,700 years comes up a bit short. You forgot the Bronze Age as well.
21
Oh silly tbs. You forget that the only people who count as people are the ones on Abraham's team... not Ibrahim's team. Spelling matters.
2
The Israeli interlopers ("settlers") are simply human shields -- women and children that their government hides behind while appropriating more and more of its neighbors' land. Israel's hope and expectation is that their transgressions are so great and so numerous that the world will despair of the just solution (return to 1967 borders) and will simply forfeit to Israel the fruits of their ill-gotten gains.
15
That's just it - it's not THEIR land. They migrated from other countries. Only the Jews ever established a sovereign government - three times in fact. And there is no such thing as the 67 "borders". They were merely the armistice lines of 1949.
And why, if the Palestinians want a state, did they not attempt to establish one in the 19 years Jordan held the land?
And why, if the Palestinians want a state, did they not attempt to establish one in the 19 years Jordan held the land?
5
Straight out of the protocols of the elders of zion.
5
Yes, and they expect us to foot the bill.
2
I am appalled by the USA annexing the southwest after an aggressive unprovoked war against Mexico. Perhaps there should be a two state solution to the imternational illegal actions of the USA.
20
Sorry, no ex post facto rules in international law.
So why don't you annex Judea and Samaria, but of course, like the USA, you will have to grant national rights to all the people living there. But since you don't want to do that, I don't think this is a good argument for you.
3
Perhaps Americans, Jews and non-Jews alike, wish that Israel not repeat our mistake: the original sins of ethnic cleansing which have resulted, today, in native "reservations" where every aspect of life is an expression of chronic subjugation and misery. This arrangement, like that of slavery, has given us ethnic groups with clearly second-class status. Why would we wish these moral and civic violations upon any nation we care about, particularly Israel?
1
Settlers like Mr. Fleisher believe Jewish lives matter more than non-Jewish life. Thus, Jewish presence weighs more than the presence of non-Jews, Jewish civilization more than non-Jewish civilization.
Even if it's Jewish, we should call out his kind of ideology for what it is: chauvinism; ethno-supremacism.
I prefer living with humanity, right here in the diaspora.
Even if it's Jewish, we should call out his kind of ideology for what it is: chauvinism; ethno-supremacism.
I prefer living with humanity, right here in the diaspora.
31
The Diaspora is riddled with Anti-Semitism. This will only increase as more Muslims move to Western countries, like in France and the UK. It will happen here, in the US. The Balfour Declaration was an acknowledgement of that. You, like most other Jews, may need a safe haven in the future. Be careful.
3
"None of these options is a panacea. Every formula has some potentially repugnant element or tricky trade-off. But Israeli policy is at last on the move, as the passing of the bill on settlements indicates."
Very well said. Yet, I wonder which of the five options exposed is the least palatable to Mr. Fleisher. It may be the best one.
Very well said. Yet, I wonder which of the five options exposed is the least palatable to Mr. Fleisher. It may be the best one.
2
Simple solution to a complex problem. One state democracy with everyone who is a citizen having the ability to vote.
16
What? No Jewish State? Just State?
Blasphemy!
You mean to define demos broadly and without religious restrictions? Taking 2/3 off the table and offering 1 to 1? No 40 acres and a camel? Bus access for all? Freedom of movement? Water and power access?
What you are proposing is human rights!
Blasphemy!
You mean to define demos broadly and without religious restrictions? Taking 2/3 off the table and offering 1 to 1? No 40 acres and a camel? Bus access for all? Freedom of movement? Water and power access?
What you are proposing is human rights!
3
living proof the Palestinians shoulda built a wall in1948 to keep out invasive pirates like the USA raised Yishai Fleisher
16
If they had, they would have quickly bulldozed it on their way to trying to destroy the new Jewish state.
3
Wow, it's so simple. The Palestinians actually have no right to the land they've thought was theirs for generations, because Jews always had a claim on it. We don't have to discuss whether there is any competition between the claims.
And we can achieve a satisfactory solution by democratic means -- although that "democracy" will not include freedom of religion, because only those who acknowledge the primacy of the Jewish character of the state will be considered to have full rights. And we don't have to mention the strongly anti-democratic turn Israel has already taken. That proponents of the plans Mr. Fleisher mentions have made virulently racist statements is somehow ignorable in evaluating what their real effects are likely to be.
No. There really is a problem. The settlers' view is fundamentally based on a grossly distorted, one-sided view of history, and a fundamentally dishonest representation that the kind of state they will envision will be democratic. They know full well that their conception of the future will not involve full rights for the Palestinians, and they are trying to avoid criticism over this. In fact, John Kerry was completely correct.
And we can achieve a satisfactory solution by democratic means -- although that "democracy" will not include freedom of religion, because only those who acknowledge the primacy of the Jewish character of the state will be considered to have full rights. And we don't have to mention the strongly anti-democratic turn Israel has already taken. That proponents of the plans Mr. Fleisher mentions have made virulently racist statements is somehow ignorable in evaluating what their real effects are likely to be.
No. There really is a problem. The settlers' view is fundamentally based on a grossly distorted, one-sided view of history, and a fundamentally dishonest representation that the kind of state they will envision will be democratic. They know full well that their conception of the future will not involve full rights for the Palestinians, and they are trying to avoid criticism over this. In fact, John Kerry was completely correct.
179
Thanks for nailing it on the head, now I don't have to write more. ;-) The blind selfishness of Zionist settlers is incredibly galling.
2
Were the attacks on Israel in 1956, 1967, 1973, etc. what you refer to as Democratic means?
3
As opposed to the Palestinian view before 1967 when Jews had freedom to worship at the Western Wall (Sarcasm).
4
In my opinion, the solution is not an expanded, undemocratic and ethnically divided "Jewish" State but a new Israel protected by existing international law with vigorous enforcement and equal rights for all people who live within its borders. A multicultural, fully democratic state where freedom of religious practice (and of none) is at the core of a new constitution that recognizes the inalienable rights of Jew, Gentile, Muslim and Atheist, and where property rights of individuals that exist within living memory are more important than historic identities. But, to say that the Jewish people have no right to exist within the internationally recognized borders of Israel is to deny both political realty and the painful historical reality that multiple efforts to destroy Israel at birth ended in military defeat and failure. All actions have consequences. The lands of Palestine and Israel belong to people of all faiths who have lived there long enough to love the land and know where the bones of their ancestors are buried. In my opinion there should be no place in a "free world" for a nation based on any faith apart from than that enshrined in a constitution founded on human rights, social equity, respect for the law and the democratic process. The next decade will test how much the Jewish people really aspire to these values.
14
What about every other Middle East sate?
3
The "two state solution" is a delusion based on premises that will never happen. When will people actually believe that Israel will never relinquish control of Jerusalem, never return to the '67 borders, never give up the Golan heights, never agree with a right to return and never abandon the settlements. It would be tantamount to committing suicide. Two states side by side, one a highly effective Democracy, the other a highly effective Kleptocracy. How would that change the plight of the "poor Palestinians? How long would it take for a radical group to gain control? A heartbeat? Can one imagine Israel allowing that to happen? What would be best for both is for the Palestinians to become citizens of Israel with voting rights, but not a majority in the Parliament, with a long range plan of confidence building steps to gain full equality. It wouldn't take long for the "Poor Palestinians" to realize they were far better off being part of a state that is the most advanced society in the Middle East, one in which they could travel freely, get employed, have good schools, homes and medical care, practice their religion and become part of the military and build busineses. What energy would be released toward the common good, when the next generation is raised to take part in their society, to help build it with their minds and hard work and hold their heads high when they walk on the street. That's a million times better than the status quo called the "two state solution".
12
I'm a strong supporter of Israel but I disagree with Mr Fleisher.
I do agree that Israel has deep historical and religious ties to the West Bank. I will also agree that Israel captured this land in what was essentially a defensive war. I would also note that no Palestinian people ever exercised sovereignty over this land.
Furthermore, Israel is a tiny country and has very legitimate security concerns in maintaining a presence in these lands. (Nobody is concerned with a Palestinian army conquering Israel but it is very conceivable that a Palestinian standing on a West Bank mountaintop can fire a rocket at Ben Gurion Airport).
Nevertheless, Israel would be better off if it froze settlement construction and even removed some isolated and remote ones with a goal towards some kind of eventual Palestinian state.
Mr Fleisher lives Hebron and is likely a victim of group think with people who share his point of view.
Young secular Jews living in places like Tel Aviv and Haifa likely don't share his opinions. The educated elite in Israel are exhausted by serving in an army to protect Mr Fleisher's lifestyle.
Many are already emigrating.
I do agree that Israel has deep historical and religious ties to the West Bank. I will also agree that Israel captured this land in what was essentially a defensive war. I would also note that no Palestinian people ever exercised sovereignty over this land.
Furthermore, Israel is a tiny country and has very legitimate security concerns in maintaining a presence in these lands. (Nobody is concerned with a Palestinian army conquering Israel but it is very conceivable that a Palestinian standing on a West Bank mountaintop can fire a rocket at Ben Gurion Airport).
Nevertheless, Israel would be better off if it froze settlement construction and even removed some isolated and remote ones with a goal towards some kind of eventual Palestinian state.
Mr Fleisher lives Hebron and is likely a victim of group think with people who share his point of view.
Young secular Jews living in places like Tel Aviv and Haifa likely don't share his opinions. The educated elite in Israel are exhausted by serving in an army to protect Mr Fleisher's lifestyle.
Many are already emigrating.
75
Let them leave. If they think Berlin, or Paris, or New York is a better place, go. The Palestinians never had a state and Israel is under no legal obligation to give them one.
3
"Young secular Jews living in places like Tel Aviv and Haifa likely don't share his opinions. The educated elite in Israel are exhausted by serving in an army to protect Mr Fleisher's lifestyle."
Presumptive, arrogant and grossly wrong. Why did you jump onto that bandwagon? How many "young, secular Jews" have you identified and confirmed, who neither share the author's view and/or are exhausted by serving in the IDF? Do you honestly believe you are both qualified and endowed to act as a spokesperson for the millions of Israelis?
I see you as being another volunteer and victim of group-think, having assumed to have acquired and expert level of knowledge about what Israelis think. I will bet you've never lived in Israel. (I can't know that for certain.)
You however claim certainty about your false information. I claim you are just another arrogant and uninformed individual with a personal ax to grind and, as with so many others who post here and elsewhere, you've chosen - Israel (!) as the stone. I would go so far as to state that you have demonstrated a softer version of anti-Semitism.
Presumptive, arrogant and grossly wrong. Why did you jump onto that bandwagon? How many "young, secular Jews" have you identified and confirmed, who neither share the author's view and/or are exhausted by serving in the IDF? Do you honestly believe you are both qualified and endowed to act as a spokesperson for the millions of Israelis?
I see you as being another volunteer and victim of group-think, having assumed to have acquired and expert level of knowledge about what Israelis think. I will bet you've never lived in Israel. (I can't know that for certain.)
You however claim certainty about your false information. I claim you are just another arrogant and uninformed individual with a personal ax to grind and, as with so many others who post here and elsewhere, you've chosen - Israel (!) as the stone. I would go so far as to state that you have demonstrated a softer version of anti-Semitism.
3
The false narrative of Palestinian Arab national identity and vicitimization is gradually crumbling. "Palestine" was simply the name given by the Romans and adopted by the Ottomans and British for the ancient Land of Israel. It was never adopted by any Arab community until 1964 -- and in fact the Jews living in that area were referred to as "Palestinians". The League of Nations Mandate -- the legal authority pursuant to which Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Israel were created -- specified a Jewish homeland from the Jordan River to the sea. Jordan (originally Transjordan) was designated as the home for the Arab populations living in pre-mandatory Palestine. That construct, although altered by the British, who failed to implement the mandate for a Jewish home, and the UN, remains legally binding. From an historical and moral perspective, it is the Jews, who maintained a constant presence in the Land of Israel for millenia, who are the indigenous people. The local Arabs can either agree to live in peace with their Jewish neighbors, or should be compelled to move to their own designated homeland -- Jordan.
8
So basically the Arabs living there for thousands of years means zero - the real problem is that they didn't think of a good enough historical name for their "country". If only they had called themselves Hebrews, the Zionists would have been compelled to allow them to stay!
4
Finally. Someone who actually has some real knowledge and has done their homework. Thank you for bringing some much needed realism to this very disturbing uneducated opinion thread
2
Does this mean that we in North America should give up our land sometime in the future whenever the indigenous peoples become stronger and want to return to their land?
8
Maybe it does. Is that preposterous because it affects you and yours?
1
Native Americans can vote and have full citizenship. A far cry from what Israel "gives" to the Palestinians in "Judea and Samaria".
4
Silly argument. Should Israel, or anyone else, adopt slavery because the United States did that too? You should recognize the damage that ethic cleansing did in North America, and work to prevent other nations from making the same historical mistake.
2
One set of rules for every country in the world. Except for Israel. Look around the world and observe how nations are treating other nations and how they treat their own inhabitants. There is little, if any, outcry about the inequities experienced by ethnic and religious minorities in most of Asia and the Arab world. In World War II Germany and Japan launched a brutal campaign of conquest and anhilation just as the Arabs did in 1948. Unconditional surrender terms were imposed on the defeated Germans and Japanese. Those countries rebuilt themselves and achieved unprecedented prosperity. And what have the defeated Arab nations accomplished? Look at Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. The unfortunate Palestinians were Jordanian citizens. What has the Arab world done for them? Those five invading countries continue to be a mess in every significant way. They have perpetual dictatorship and chaos. Their governments murder and imprison their internal opposition. I could go on. When the Palestinians and their financial backers really want peace, it will be achieved. But who speaks for them with any ability to back up an agreement and stop the terrorism? We already know the answer to that. No one.
9
Even children know that their bad behavior can't be excused by "well, others are worse!"
You, like the author of the article keep mentioning 1948 without mentioning that hundreds of thousands of Arabs had been expelled by the Zionist militias BEFORE any Arab army attacked - which was MONTHS later. How long were they supposed to sit there and watch refugees pour in before they decided to do something? And don't try the "they told them to leave" lie, there's no evidence that ever happened. Even if it did, that's no reason why they should NEVER be allowed back to their homes.
Of course there are other half truths, but that one always gets me fuming.
You, like the author of the article keep mentioning 1948 without mentioning that hundreds of thousands of Arabs had been expelled by the Zionist militias BEFORE any Arab army attacked - which was MONTHS later. How long were they supposed to sit there and watch refugees pour in before they decided to do something? And don't try the "they told them to leave" lie, there's no evidence that ever happened. Even if it did, that's no reason why they should NEVER be allowed back to their homes.
Of course there are other half truths, but that one always gets me fuming.
5
You truly expect a 35 year old real estate broker to negotiate a plan between Israel and Palestine. Why doesn't the NY Times request an interview with Jared or better yet, his dad?
7
No matter what the future holds, someone's ox is going to get gored. What the author said rings true: "Every formula has some potentially repugnant element or tricky trade-off." The best they can do is to select the least repugnant option that injures the fewest people, but they must pick an option that leads to a stable future, and that compensates the injured parties.
I thank the author of this article for pointing out some of the variables and conditions, which as an American far removed from the part of the world, I did not know about.
I thank the author of this article for pointing out some of the variables and conditions, which as an American far removed from the part of the world, I did not know about.
11
"But for us settlers, the truth is clear: The two-state solution was misconceived, and will never come to pass, because Judea and Samaria belong to the Jewish people. Our right to this land is derived from our history, religion, international decisions and defensive wars."
Let us focus on the claim that the settlers have a right to Judea and Samaria that is rooted in their religion. Briefly, the religious belief is that God gave a real estate deed to the Jewish people. That deed is recorded in their sacred literature. This is the "truth" to which the writer refers. It is a belief that is subscribed to by many Christians. But, it is also a belief not shared by many around the world.
There is an expectation held by the settlers that even those who do not share their religion should accept their religious belief as a true and legitimate basis adjudicating competing claims. I doubt this will happen.
People around the world have claimed land for all of the reasons that the settlers are claiming Judea and Samaria, however, throughout history claims have been adjusted because of the results of wars and international decisions. If religious beliefs played a role at all it is because they were the beliefs of the more powerful.
The settlers are taking land because they are powerful enough to succeed in doing so. The religious argument and the intransigence of the Palestinian extremists are giving the settlers the cover they need to continue.
Let us focus on the claim that the settlers have a right to Judea and Samaria that is rooted in their religion. Briefly, the religious belief is that God gave a real estate deed to the Jewish people. That deed is recorded in their sacred literature. This is the "truth" to which the writer refers. It is a belief that is subscribed to by many Christians. But, it is also a belief not shared by many around the world.
There is an expectation held by the settlers that even those who do not share their religion should accept their religious belief as a true and legitimate basis adjudicating competing claims. I doubt this will happen.
People around the world have claimed land for all of the reasons that the settlers are claiming Judea and Samaria, however, throughout history claims have been adjusted because of the results of wars and international decisions. If religious beliefs played a role at all it is because they were the beliefs of the more powerful.
The settlers are taking land because they are powerful enough to succeed in doing so. The religious argument and the intransigence of the Palestinian extremists are giving the settlers the cover they need to continue.
10
Look at the above comment deriding the USA for annexing the entire southwest portion of our country from Mexico. Native Americans? Give them the poorest possible areas to live in, virtual ghettos in Arizona and other states. Alsace and Lorraine? They speak mostly German in those two areas of France. Ireland and Northern Ireland? Tibet? Crimea? Falkland Islands? Hawaii?
2
Yishai your idea of Jewish Imperialism is based upon a view of ownership through religion and ethnicity that would restore the US back to the Native Americans. Your 3700 year history is replete with massacres and ethnic cleansing. You have no moral clarity.
You talk nonsense Yishai. You think with your blood. Your humanity and intelligence has been destroyed by superstition and ancestor worship.
You already live in an 'apartheid style' country already. All your wrongs do not make a right.
You talk nonsense Yishai. You think with your blood. Your humanity and intelligence has been destroyed by superstition and ancestor worship.
You already live in an 'apartheid style' country already. All your wrongs do not make a right.
11
Settlements are illegal. Period. Start with that as a BEDROCK principle moving forward and things are much simpler. And, as there's increasingly little (I'd say ZERO) strategic value in Israel as a partner, we can start by withholding all financial and military aid. If they're intent to go it alone in breaking international law, then let them go it alone without help from the U.S.
Hopefully in one - worst case two - generations the undying fealty of the Congress (both parties) to Israel will evaporate. I hope I live to see the day.
Hopefully in one - worst case two - generations the undying fealty of the Congress (both parties) to Israel will evaporate. I hope I live to see the day.
12
Not convincing; the defensive wars wouldn't have happened without Jewish occupation; the Balfour plan was racist and corrupt, and thousands of years of tradition point to the entire Middle East as a maelstrom of settlement, migration and struggle. When apologists point to "tradition", it reveals the emptiness of their argument. It's time for true democracy in the Holy Land.
6
the current status IS the solution for Israel
they are in control and arabs are on the reservations
no fairytale ending in the works
what can Kerry do about it? lots of hot air to get good PR by showing concern for the losers
What can the losers do? Short of adopting an entirely new way of thinking of the sort practiced by Ghandi, nothing.
they are in control and arabs are on the reservations
no fairytale ending in the works
what can Kerry do about it? lots of hot air to get good PR by showing concern for the losers
What can the losers do? Short of adopting an entirely new way of thinking of the sort practiced by Ghandi, nothing.
6
Wow! Mr. Fisher you are one of the lucky ones who gets to state his/his groups position from a foreign country to impress upon this country of ours on the day your PM is meeting with our President to discuss bi-lateral ties between the two countries.
Could this be the reason why the world admires your global reach in every field including our Congress which keeps Israel first instead of what President Trump calls be America Firsters.
I and many others do believe that the Two State solution to the Palestinian Israeli problem died right after Oslo accord. And was killed by both Israelis and the Palestinians. Arab governments paid a lot of lip service but did not do anything else, yes there was a plan put forth by the Arabs once but it did not go anywhere. Most of your hypothesis re the right of occupying any land leaves a lot to be desired and is historically incorrect.
I do agree with the solution proposed by Caroline Glick. We need to keep two realities in focus, one being Israel is here to stay and the other being that the Palestinians are not going anywhere. A one Democratic State similar to ours would solve the issue for all people and if people like you help we can have peace. It can be achieved if there is a will for peace. It cannot be imposed, Arabs, Iranians, and Americans should just watch from the sidelines without interfering in the process. Just imagine the peace dividends, with capital flowing in undivided Israel/Palestine and the progress that will follow.
Could this be the reason why the world admires your global reach in every field including our Congress which keeps Israel first instead of what President Trump calls be America Firsters.
I and many others do believe that the Two State solution to the Palestinian Israeli problem died right after Oslo accord. And was killed by both Israelis and the Palestinians. Arab governments paid a lot of lip service but did not do anything else, yes there was a plan put forth by the Arabs once but it did not go anywhere. Most of your hypothesis re the right of occupying any land leaves a lot to be desired and is historically incorrect.
I do agree with the solution proposed by Caroline Glick. We need to keep two realities in focus, one being Israel is here to stay and the other being that the Palestinians are not going anywhere. A one Democratic State similar to ours would solve the issue for all people and if people like you help we can have peace. It can be achieved if there is a will for peace. It cannot be imposed, Arabs, Iranians, and Americans should just watch from the sidelines without interfering in the process. Just imagine the peace dividends, with capital flowing in undivided Israel/Palestine and the progress that will follow.
4
Mr. Fleisher's arguments as to why the West Bank "belongs to" Israel and why the Jews living there deserve greater rights than their non-Jewish neighbors are utterly specious.
He lists "history, religion, international decisions and defensive wars" as explaining why the Palestinians must submit to Israel's Jewish-settlement enterprise.
It is difficult to see how history gives Jews greater rights than non-Jews, since for all but a fraction of the last three millennia the West Bank has been under the control of non-Jews. Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Ottomans. The list is rather lengthy.
Religion is not a rational basis for political "solutions" which deny human and civil rights.
Fleisher cherry-picks one international decision which he thinks favors Jewish settlement in the West Bank, the post-WWI San Remo resolution enabling the Zionists to construct a "national home" in Palestine. He ignores all the UN Resolutions which have condemned Jewish settlement in the West Bank as contrary to international law, including the most recent one in December which was sanctioned by the US.
"Defensive wars" is presumably a reference to the 1967 war when Israel attacked Egypt, Jordan and Syria and first gained control of the West Bank. Israel portrays its attack as having been "defensive" in nature. Whether defensive or not, no such war gives the victor the right to permanent possession of the territory so gained. Not in the civilized world at least.
He lists "history, religion, international decisions and defensive wars" as explaining why the Palestinians must submit to Israel's Jewish-settlement enterprise.
It is difficult to see how history gives Jews greater rights than non-Jews, since for all but a fraction of the last three millennia the West Bank has been under the control of non-Jews. Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Ottomans. The list is rather lengthy.
Religion is not a rational basis for political "solutions" which deny human and civil rights.
Fleisher cherry-picks one international decision which he thinks favors Jewish settlement in the West Bank, the post-WWI San Remo resolution enabling the Zionists to construct a "national home" in Palestine. He ignores all the UN Resolutions which have condemned Jewish settlement in the West Bank as contrary to international law, including the most recent one in December which was sanctioned by the US.
"Defensive wars" is presumably a reference to the 1967 war when Israel attacked Egypt, Jordan and Syria and first gained control of the West Bank. Israel portrays its attack as having been "defensive" in nature. Whether defensive or not, no such war gives the victor the right to permanent possession of the territory so gained. Not in the civilized world at least.
15
"His premise is that the most stable Arab entity in the Middle East is the Gulf Emirates, which are based on a consolidated traditional group or tribe."
The author can't even be bothered to get the name of the United Arab Emirates correct? And the UAE is not based on a "consolidated traditional group" (whatever that is); its citizens, who are at most 20% of the population, are quite diverse, and only some are members of tribes.
The fact that he is the "international spokesman of the Jewish community of Hebron," one of the most extreme settler groups, is quite telling.
The author can't even be bothered to get the name of the United Arab Emirates correct? And the UAE is not based on a "consolidated traditional group" (whatever that is); its citizens, who are at most 20% of the population, are quite diverse, and only some are members of tribes.
The fact that he is the "international spokesman of the Jewish community of Hebron," one of the most extreme settler groups, is quite telling.
4
Thank you for this insight. I may still harbor doubts and confusion about the issues but I believe this is the first time I've read a settlers viewpoint and some suggested solutions in the nytimes.
5
Thanks for clearing up decades of "obvious obfuscation." You might want to extend this effort to your own words and use "Apartheid" instead of "Arabs can live in Israel, as other minorities do, with personal rights, not national rights"
13
If you believe what you just wrote, you should work tirelessly and sincerely to end the US apartheid in Puerto Rico.
4
As an American Jew I am startled by this column. I have heard that settlers have these opinions, that the occupied territories should be annexed in violation of the U.N. partition -- something Israel agreed to -- but have never seen them expressed so openly, and with such considered disregard for the non-Jews already living there.
This is the very attitude that led recently to an Israelis soldier committing a cold-blooded murder and being celebrated for it by these same settlers. This proposal dishonors Israel and world Jewry. The treatment of the Palestinian people proposed here is not what Jews are about, or at least shouldn't be. You make me ashamed, Mr. Fleisher. Jews don't treat other people the way you propose. That isn't who we are as a people.
I have always taken the existence of the State of Israel to be of paramount importance, especially after WWII. I am beginning to doubt that conviction, however, and this opinion only strengthens my doubt. I would rather see Israel fail as a nation than become the immoral, apartheid state proposed here.
This is the very attitude that led recently to an Israelis soldier committing a cold-blooded murder and being celebrated for it by these same settlers. This proposal dishonors Israel and world Jewry. The treatment of the Palestinian people proposed here is not what Jews are about, or at least shouldn't be. You make me ashamed, Mr. Fleisher. Jews don't treat other people the way you propose. That isn't who we are as a people.
I have always taken the existence of the State of Israel to be of paramount importance, especially after WWII. I am beginning to doubt that conviction, however, and this opinion only strengthens my doubt. I would rather see Israel fail as a nation than become the immoral, apartheid state proposed here.
14
This is such an excellent and enriching article -- it listed no less than five plans for peace -- that I am surprised it has been published in a "mainstream" publication given the mainstream's unceasing kow tows to an independent Palestinian state and blinkering of the debate to weaken the Zionist position
I just want to augment the power of the article by making a correction. In 1967, it was not just Jordan that wanted to dismember Israel; three Arab states, Egypt, Syria and Jordan were at war with Israel. In the days preceding the war, Arab capitals were overflowing with seething, febrile demonstrators who screeched and screamed that all the Jews should be drowned in the Med. Sea.
I also want to augment the article by noting that we Jews simply believe we cannot trust the Arabs to adhere to a peace agreement. We withdrew from positions South of the Litani River in Lebanon, in 2000, and the territories we ceded were soon fillled up with missiles which ordained Death in Northern Israel. Ditto when Israel withdrew from Gaza.
Peace can only come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.
I just want to augment the power of the article by making a correction. In 1967, it was not just Jordan that wanted to dismember Israel; three Arab states, Egypt, Syria and Jordan were at war with Israel. In the days preceding the war, Arab capitals were overflowing with seething, febrile demonstrators who screeched and screamed that all the Jews should be drowned in the Med. Sea.
I also want to augment the article by noting that we Jews simply believe we cannot trust the Arabs to adhere to a peace agreement. We withdrew from positions South of the Litani River in Lebanon, in 2000, and the territories we ceded were soon fillled up with missiles which ordained Death in Northern Israel. Ditto when Israel withdrew from Gaza.
Peace can only come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.
5
Solution 4 is the only one that makes any sense. In other words, Israel should simply impose full democracy and civil rights for all people, regardless of religion, on the areas within the current and contested boundaries of the country.
Well, you can always dream.....
Well, you can always dream.....
4
Perhaps there is a way for native Americans to take their ancestral lands back from the U.S. Simply start referring to Arizona and West Texas as Apacheria and Comancheria.
12
It looks like some kind of 1 state solution is going to have to be found, but I wouldn't count on on-going demographic trends to make a Jewish majority permanent if I was an Israeli. I believe the Lebanese Christians once followed that strategy, and . . . .
3
The only answer to the Situation is for the Arab/Muslim world to accept the fact of an Israeli state and land swaps that would result in a Palestinian state on contiguous land. We are a long way from any of this happening, obviously. I love Israel; the Jews had a perfect right to populate Palestine as refugees and immigrants everywhere move around the world. Frankly, had the Arabs - the elite, the leaders - been unified - many sold land to the Jews - it's possible the UN vote would have gone differently, and there would be no Jewish state today. But here we are. The Arabs voted no to their state beside a Jewish state, and are still in effect voting no. But Israel cannot rule over the Palestinians without giving them full and equal rights forever. The solutions in the article are absurd and cruel, but the Palestinians must do their part to admit they lost the war and half the country. If they could only start teaching their people to accept the Jewish state, and work with the Israelis who are advocates of a Palestinian state, we could get somewhere on a two-state solution. For that is still the only answer.
4
Palestinians living with individual, but not national rights, in the West Bank could be the basis for an acceptable solution. This is the one-state solution. Unfortunately, the author is not actually proposing that. To have individual rights, the Palestinians must be granted the full rights of Israeli citizens. To just be allowed to live, where they have always lived, up to the point where Israeli settlers want their land and the government takes it by eminent domain, is not to have individual rights. To live under a government for which you are not permitted to vote is not to have individual rights. Saying you are an ex-pat Jordanian and can exercise your democratic rights in Jordan is not to have individual rights -- you are not ruled by Jordan and Jordan is not a democracy. You might as well take away my right to vote in the United States and proclaim me a Swiss citizen, since I have Swiss ancestors. Voting in the Swiss elections is a huge imposition upon the Swiss, who don't acknowledge me as a citizen, and useless to me, since the laws I live by are made by the United States Congress. Confining the Palestinians to city ghettos, cut off from their fields, is to impoverish them. A series of Bantustans were rejected when the South African white minority imposed that scheme. The world was right to reject it. It was an obvious attempt to diminish the black residents of South Africa and impede their economic, political, and cultural development.
16
Doesn't the Torah state that the Canaanites were the original inhabitants of the land? Perhaps, then, the Jewish people should return to Egypt.
12
Judea and Samaria were by far predominantly Arab since 635 CE when the Romans left the region. And the Arabs lived there continuously ever since. That Jews lived there 2,000 years ago doesn't give them title to the land. And, no they were not expelled from that land in 70 AD. Jews left in great numbers 100 years earlier and established successful colonies throughout the Hellenistic world. There were so many Jews in Rome before Titus' sack of Jerusalem that Tiberias expelled them for 2 years, then let them return.After the Roman occupation of Judea Jews left and went to Spain where they lived peacefully alongside Arabs. The Arabs actually protected the Jews from the Visigoths and Christians. If you want to go religious, (which I don't) the Palestinian could be the original Canaanites who were expelled when the Jews migrated from Egypt.
12
The group that English speakers call "Palestinian" is pronounced "Philistine" in Arabic. According to the Bible, the Philistines were in present-day Palestine/Israel at least as far back, and I think even further back, as the Israelites. Does this not give them an historic claim to the region that is at least as strong as that of the descendants of the Israelites?
13
Why do Arabs who have lived on those lands for generations not have at least an an equal claim to sovereignty as Jews? Are they, in the view of the author, lesser human beings?
19
How nice of members of Israel's Parliament (Aryeh Eldad and Benny Alon) to offer Jordan to the Palestinian people! I offer the settlers of Hebron the land of New Jersey! (Just one proposal on the table.) Finland? Uganda? Or....negotiate settlements that recognizes people's national sovereignty without the "Israel First" part? I think the author has been drinking the Trump Kool-Aid. The settlements endanger the land and people of Israel, proper, and most Israelis are aware of this and DON'T support the settlers. Sorry.
13
We as Americans must first make clear to all parties that mythic claims to land or anything else are not valid in any form. Whatever the Jewish or Muslim or Christian or Buddhist or Hindu holy books say about anything can have no rational bearing on a just solution to nationality conflicts They are all a form of superstition. We Americans base justice on written law which in turn rests on rational principles of philosophy, not on religion. That which we claim for ourselves we extend to others. Therefore the claims of religion to any land are entirely bogus and must be disregarded.
21
The forth proposal is obviously the best. It would turn the large Israel into a true democracy. Of course, this could endanger the principle of a Jewish Democracy, but let's face it, a Jewish Democracy is like a Socialist Republic (remember the old USSR?). If you deem in advance that your democracy must be Jewish or Socialist (or whatever), and not that the Jewish or Socialist character comes out of the ballot, your not a a true democracy really. All the other options end up with having second-class "citizens", submitted to a superior authority which they are not allowed to influence.
6
When all the verbal obfuscation is cleared away, it is obvious that the author offers only two solutions - either total ethnic cleansing or some form of legalized apartheid.
17
The argument that Jews have a right to control the land because of history does not hold water. The Arabs have just as much of a right. The problem is a total Jewish State. One true democratic state where Jews and Palestinians have equal rights is the real answer. But it doesn't look like that will happen. What is going on will just be one long drawn out problem ... just as it has been
Orange, NJ
Orange, NJ
10
The premise is that the land in question really belongs to the Jews - either because Jews lived there for a long time or because the land was given to Jews by a deity because Jews are special. American Indians have similar claims.
9
There is another solution which recognizes both Palestinian and Jewish rights to West Bank Land, which is confederation between a Palestinian state on the West bank and a Jewish state in present day Israel. One state will purposely be Jewish, the other Arab. IN the Arab state, Jewish settlers will be full citizens but a minority. In the Jewish states, Arab citizens will be full citizens, but a minority. Citizens of the confederation, both Jewish and Arab, will have the right to live anywhere they wish.
Each state can have its own government, each with separation of church and state, secular and private religious school systems, and each with national rights -- one Jewish, one Palestinian Arab. The confederation will also have a ruling government in charge of overall defense and security (to answer Israeli concerns regarding security from jihadist destabilizing forces and hegemonic goals of states like Iran) and foreign policy, whose leaders will be democratically elected by the whole confederation but also constitutionally alternate between Jews and Arabs in key positions. Jerusalem will be shared capital. The key uniting factor will be membership in the confederations military, which will eventually and hopefully unite the two populations in common cause and bring peace -- something which seems impossible right now. It would also acknowledge the reality that the Palestinian territories need Israel for security, water, electricity, sewage, and for their economy.
Each state can have its own government, each with separation of church and state, secular and private religious school systems, and each with national rights -- one Jewish, one Palestinian Arab. The confederation will also have a ruling government in charge of overall defense and security (to answer Israeli concerns regarding security from jihadist destabilizing forces and hegemonic goals of states like Iran) and foreign policy, whose leaders will be democratically elected by the whole confederation but also constitutionally alternate between Jews and Arabs in key positions. Jerusalem will be shared capital. The key uniting factor will be membership in the confederations military, which will eventually and hopefully unite the two populations in common cause and bring peace -- something which seems impossible right now. It would also acknowledge the reality that the Palestinian territories need Israel for security, water, electricity, sewage, and for their economy.
If I can remember correctly, the old testament course I was required to take in college, would dispute who occupied the West Bank land first. And this is the problem with all negotiations between Israel and Palestine---when both sides believe they have some religious or indigenous right to the land there is no room for compromise. Take religion out of this dispute and in Trump's words, a deal could be made.
1
On another thought, Trump loves Arabs....they give a lot of money to his business....remember bragging about billion dollar deal with some king in the middle east...
So Bibi better be smart about this.
Trump will say OK no two state solution and then the Arab King will call and he will change his mind.
It is hilarious cycle of affairs.
So Bibi better be smart about this.
Trump will say OK no two state solution and then the Arab King will call and he will change his mind.
It is hilarious cycle of affairs.
2
You stole the land like Hitler took the Sudetenland, the difference being the Reich Chancellor did not kill and torture and bomb his adversaries. Too bad you do not have some Arab lackey like Chamberlain to hand you the keys. You continue to steal what does nit belong to you and shield yourself from criticism on the dead bodies of the HOLOCAUST , SHAME!
10
Good try Mr. Fleischer, but no cigar.The United States became an immigrants haven, because our forefathers brilliantly put in our constitution, " There should not be a State Religion", right wing Christians have been trying to blur the line between Church & State ever since , but to no avail.Why would Muslims want to be citizens of a Theocratic Jewish State ?If we are to quote scriptures to justify Judea & Sumaria as the chosen land by God’s chosen people, than we must also believe in creation, which the greater majority of educated Jews look upon as a Fairy Tale.No,Yishai, the modern world will not accept any of the solutions you present. If Israel wants to be a respected part of the Industrial world they must give the Palestinians their Independence , which means the West Bank.
14
And we wonder why anti semitism flourishes. There is another option, perpetual war. Personally, I detest both of your tribes. Can I have my tax dollars back, with interest.
6
The Bible is not a real estate deed.
18
I stopped reading when I saw the line "Jordan is Palestine".
7
"They do not see a resolution of conflicting national aspirations in one land and instead propose an exchange of populations with Arab countries, which effectively expelled about 800,000 Jews around the time of Israeli independence. In contrast, however, Palestinians in Judea and Samaria would be offered generous compensation to emigrate voluntarily."
Anyone who even thinks of supporting this idea should please go and read about what happened during the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947.
Anyone who even thinks of supporting this idea should please go and read about what happened during the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947.
5
What this "settler" conveniently forgets is that ancient Judea and Samaria had a population of Semites, some Palestinian Arabs and some Jewish. What on earth gives the descendants of the Jews -- many of whom later emigrated to Russia and Europe before exercising their "right of return" -- the right to steal the land of their former Palestinian neighbors, declare the primacy of their religion, make the stolen land a Jewish State, deny the Palestinians the vote, rob them of their homes, olive groves and water, and generally treat them as second-class citizens? The Palestinian diaspora also seeks a "right of return." If Israeli Jews no longer believe in a two-state solution, fine; go for a one-state solution. But Greater Israel cannot continue to be both a democracy and an apartheid state. If it wants to avoid becoming an international pariah, it will have to accord dispossessed Palestinians the right of return, restore the impartiality of the courts, return stolen property, give Palestinians the vote and other citizenship rights, stop giving Jews preferential treatment and become a secular state with freedom of religion for all.
23
Ancient Judaea had no such thing as Palestinian Arabs. The Arabs as an entity are considered descendants of the Nabataeans, who first come into the historic records during the first century AD. Their origins are debated, but at the time the majority were living in the Arabian Peninsula, not Judaea. The Mizrahi are considered the descendants of the Jews living in the region and who never left, so there was a continual presence of them in Judaea. The influx of Arabs came after the conquests. I would suggest educating yourself before making any proclamations about "history."
Second, while a historic basis isn't any claim to any land. By your standards, the Arabs at the time of the conquest "stole" the lands. But more importantly, you have second, third, fourth generation Israelis living there who know no other home. They have been there as long as many Americans have been here. Are they any less "Israeli" than we are "American?"
And calling Israel an "apartheid" state is ludicrous. The treatment of Arabs can improve. But Arabs as is are able to hold jobs, office, citizenship, and do. I have yet to hear of Israel's Arab neighbors doing that for Jews. Most countries don't even allow Jewish passport holders to enter their borders.
If you want Israel to be a secular state with freedom for all, you better have the surrounding Arab states do the same. It boggles my mind how Israel is cited for human rights violations when you compare them to their neighbors.
Second, while a historic basis isn't any claim to any land. By your standards, the Arabs at the time of the conquest "stole" the lands. But more importantly, you have second, third, fourth generation Israelis living there who know no other home. They have been there as long as many Americans have been here. Are they any less "Israeli" than we are "American?"
And calling Israel an "apartheid" state is ludicrous. The treatment of Arabs can improve. But Arabs as is are able to hold jobs, office, citizenship, and do. I have yet to hear of Israel's Arab neighbors doing that for Jews. Most countries don't even allow Jewish passport holders to enter their borders.
If you want Israel to be a secular state with freedom for all, you better have the surrounding Arab states do the same. It boggles my mind how Israel is cited for human rights violations when you compare them to their neighbors.
5
Smh. My tax dollars should not be supporting crap like this. Or if they do, then let's stop the hypocrisy of criticizing ethnic cleansing in Muslim states.
4
Why is it that most Jewish narratives of the history of this land invariably exclude the reality that many non-Jews lived alongside Jews in the area as long as known and verifiable history. Also, the Jewish narrative that claims the expulsion of Jews ignores the well documented expulsion of Palestinians to surrounding countries in 1948, and again in 1967. Jewish historians have concluded that over 500 Palestinian villages were obliterated in 1948, then rebuilt and occupied by Jews.
As for the proposed solutions, for those requiring the further expulsion of the Palestinian population from the West Bank, who will do it, and how will it be done? What will be the consequences to the claimed legitimacy of this expanded Jewish occupation? These are serious issues that need to be addressed openly.
As for the proposed solutions, for those requiring the further expulsion of the Palestinian population from the West Bank, who will do it, and how will it be done? What will be the consequences to the claimed legitimacy of this expanded Jewish occupation? These are serious issues that need to be addressed openly.
2
The obvious response to the settlers is this: let's go ahead and try the one state solution, but not a peace by submission of the Palestinians, let's try a one state solution with equal rights, a merger and immediate citizenship, with voting rights, not apartheid, for all those living in the West Bank (or Judea and Sumaria if you prefer). Let's try it. I do hope everyone understand the Jews would be a minority. I for one believe Jews and Arabs can live in peace as long as they are treated equally.
1
The Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip could have had an independent UN protected State in 1948. The other Arab countries chose instead to attack Israel. Since then, although the Arab States have for the most part accepted Israel's existence, (in actuality if not officially), the Palestinian leadership has continued to deny Israel's existence and has continued to promise the Palestinian people that the Jews will be removed and a Palestinian State will replace it. Any time the Palestinian leadership has tried move towards acknowledging Israel's existence a more radical leadership takes over. Arafat was assassinated.
Until the Arab peoples living in the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip accept Israel they will never have their own State, or peace.
But.
Until the Arab peoples living in the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip accept Israel they will never have their own State, or peace.
But.
4
The writer neglects to mention a very important issue, the Arabs do not want to live or be controlled by Jews. Israeli Arabs, those who are citizens, do not fell connected to the State of Israel, they consider themselves Palestinian. Palestinian Arabs have always been hostile to Jews and it has always been unsafe for Jews to venture into Arab areas even within the State of Israel. Violence in the Arab community will not go away by any of these suggestions and extremists on both sides will never accept a situation where Jews and Arabs co-exist. Israel has enough social problems within their official borders, they do not need the additional burdens offered by trying to live with the Palestinian Arabs as opposed to living separately but in peace.
3
As an American, I honestly belief that I owe you nothing extra. No american lives or resources should be risked on your project; your belief in a divine mandate holds no earthly water.
7
I totally agree that America has no business interfering in Israel.
7
“Our right to this land is derived from our … religion.” You get to invent a god who commands his followers to steal, oppress and commit genocide … then you get away with theft, oppression and genocide? The instructions for Zionism are clear (Deut. 20:10-18):
"When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you. Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here.
But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites [the people of Jerusalem], as the LORD your God has commanded; that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done in the service of their Gods, and so to sin against the LORD your God."
"When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you. Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here.
But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites [the people of Jerusalem], as the LORD your God has commanded; that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done in the service of their Gods, and so to sin against the LORD your God."
2
"Our right to this land is derived from our history, religion, international decisions and defensive wars."
History? Most of that "history" is from the bible. Please do not skirt the issue that Palestinians history to this land is more fact based.
Religion? Hard to convince anyone besides a zealot that a deity deeded jews this land.
International decisions? Massively debatable.
Defensive wars? Are we in colonial times? Should we ignore the Geneva Convention.
I think the settlers should show some courage and go with your fourth option. It's the fairest way.
But I respect your position. Unlike our new ambassador to Israel and many safe and sound american Jews, you have the courage to put on a uniform and carry a rifle.
History? Most of that "history" is from the bible. Please do not skirt the issue that Palestinians history to this land is more fact based.
Religion? Hard to convince anyone besides a zealot that a deity deeded jews this land.
International decisions? Massively debatable.
Defensive wars? Are we in colonial times? Should we ignore the Geneva Convention.
I think the settlers should show some courage and go with your fourth option. It's the fairest way.
But I respect your position. Unlike our new ambassador to Israel and many safe and sound american Jews, you have the courage to put on a uniform and carry a rifle.
It works both ways. Israel can not continue to take land that belongs to Arabs. Israel can not continue to practice ethnic cleansing.
Israel has a right to live in peace without being threatened by missiles, bombs, knives or truck drivers.
Arabs have the right own their own land and not be occupied.
Prejudice and mistrust against Arabs by Israelis is now so deeply ingrained that co-existence in a single country could not happen in less then a generation.
Israelis do not have the right take away someone else's land and to force them out, subjugate them or outright kill them.
The World and the US will continue to stand behind Israel as long as they maintain the moral high ground.
But not if she continues to practice ethnic cleansing. If not eventually Israel will stand alone or will have to find friends in States that she otherwise finds morally repugnant.
I pray that that day never comes.
Israel has a right to live in peace without being threatened by missiles, bombs, knives or truck drivers.
Arabs have the right own their own land and not be occupied.
Prejudice and mistrust against Arabs by Israelis is now so deeply ingrained that co-existence in a single country could not happen in less then a generation.
Israelis do not have the right take away someone else's land and to force them out, subjugate them or outright kill them.
The World and the US will continue to stand behind Israel as long as they maintain the moral high ground.
But not if she continues to practice ethnic cleansing. If not eventually Israel will stand alone or will have to find friends in States that she otherwise finds morally repugnant.
I pray that that day never comes.
5
The Arabs have many countries, the Jews have 1. They seem to have no problem with self determination.
5
1) "Judea and Samaria belong to the Jewish people."
2) "Our right to this land is derived from our history, religion, international decisions and defensive wars."
3) "Arabs can live in Israel, as other minorities do, with personal rights, not national rights."
These statements are at the root of the problem.
1) Does America belong to the indigenous peoples?
2)Minus questionable "international agreements," Russia can similarly claim Crimea and Ukraine.
3) Wow! What a distinction! Who in the US would want personal rights without national rights? Where does one end and the other begin?
This is not to say that the Palestinians have not been helpful in finding a solution. But such comments as found in this op-ed do not help.
2) "Our right to this land is derived from our history, religion, international decisions and defensive wars."
3) "Arabs can live in Israel, as other minorities do, with personal rights, not national rights."
These statements are at the root of the problem.
1) Does America belong to the indigenous peoples?
2)Minus questionable "international agreements," Russia can similarly claim Crimea and Ukraine.
3) Wow! What a distinction! Who in the US would want personal rights without national rights? Where does one end and the other begin?
This is not to say that the Palestinians have not been helpful in finding a solution. But such comments as found in this op-ed do not help.
4
The two-state solution is dead as a door-nail in the State of Israel. Forfeiting land to get peace in return is a non-starter. Israeli sovereignty must reign over the West Bank, as it did on the Golan Heights and Eastern Jerusalem. The Arabs, living in Israel, have personal rights, as do all minorities living in the State of Israel. The settlers are developing the land as did the original Kibbutzim. From biblical times and since the Holocaust - when Israel was declared a state in 1948 to today - Israel has been a legitimate country where Jews have held sway.
All five options - save President Trump's - are on the table, and as Richard Holbrooke said "all peace begins at the negotiating table":
1 - "Jordan is Palestine": Arabs would have democratic rights in Jordan, but live as expats with civil rights in Israel. 2 - annexation of only Area C, West Bank where 400,000 settlers live - self-rule for Arabs in Areas A and B. 3 - Palestinian autonomy in 7 non-contiguous emirates in major Arab cities, security for the Jewish State. 4 -one-state solution, annexation and residency rights for the Palestinians. The fifth alternative, an exchange of populations with Arab countries - and Palestinians in Judea and Samaria would be compensated generously to emigrate voluntarily. So 5 options on the negotiating table.
If President Trump and his unqualified US Ambassador to Israel and orthodox son-in-law can make "the ultimate deal" for Israel, our yarmulkas off to him.
All five options - save President Trump's - are on the table, and as Richard Holbrooke said "all peace begins at the negotiating table":
1 - "Jordan is Palestine": Arabs would have democratic rights in Jordan, but live as expats with civil rights in Israel. 2 - annexation of only Area C, West Bank where 400,000 settlers live - self-rule for Arabs in Areas A and B. 3 - Palestinian autonomy in 7 non-contiguous emirates in major Arab cities, security for the Jewish State. 4 -one-state solution, annexation and residency rights for the Palestinians. The fifth alternative, an exchange of populations with Arab countries - and Palestinians in Judea and Samaria would be compensated generously to emigrate voluntarily. So 5 options on the negotiating table.
If President Trump and his unqualified US Ambassador to Israel and orthodox son-in-law can make "the ultimate deal" for Israel, our yarmulkas off to him.
4
So ethnic cleansing and murderous apartheid is ok to speak of in public?
I so wish people like me held sway in Washington, I would simply extract America from the entire Middle East, including Israel. It isn't our insanity to cure, we have plenty of our own to work on.
Recovery isn't possible in the Middle East, at least until there are far more bodies of little children in the streets of Palestine, and until Iran, Iraq...well pretty much everyone has their terrible purge and kill so many of each other that even they are willing to give peace a chance.
America, please leave the Middle East to resolve its craziness. I know crazy, it was a friend of mine, and really, lots of cheering on from the sidelines to indulge wild eyed violence isn't the way to go.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
I so wish people like me held sway in Washington, I would simply extract America from the entire Middle East, including Israel. It isn't our insanity to cure, we have plenty of our own to work on.
Recovery isn't possible in the Middle East, at least until there are far more bodies of little children in the streets of Palestine, and until Iran, Iraq...well pretty much everyone has their terrible purge and kill so many of each other that even they are willing to give peace a chance.
America, please leave the Middle East to resolve its craziness. I know crazy, it was a friend of mine, and really, lots of cheering on from the sidelines to indulge wild eyed violence isn't the way to go.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
2
I totally agree that America should let Middle Easterners solve their own problems and not impose its opinion in the region
4
Maybe they reject the personal rights but not national rights thingy!
What does that mean anyways?
I thought Arab-Israelis were nationals....are you taking this back too?
I think if you give all the Palestinians, Israeli passports, it will be hard to say they do not recognize Israel.
Also, outside of the middle eastern politics in the world, no one calls it West Bank...people just call it Palestine.
What does that mean anyways?
I thought Arab-Israelis were nationals....are you taking this back too?
I think if you give all the Palestinians, Israeli passports, it will be hard to say they do not recognize Israel.
Also, outside of the middle eastern politics in the world, no one calls it West Bank...people just call it Palestine.
7
It's very refreshing to see a proud Zionist perspective in the editorial pages of the NY Times, which is largely dominated by writers hostile to Israel and Zionism. Such diversity of opinion is very rare these days among leftist outlets. Well done, Yishai Fleisher.
3
It's good to see , at last, at least an attempt to explain the "one state" solution. However, we must bear in mind the shortcomings (fantasy) of each one.
Option 1 depends on a foreign country allowing already disavowed non-residents to vote in their elections. Imagine the US allowing English speaking Mexicans to vote in US elections while living in Mexico. Options 2 and 3 involve different iterations of keeping the land while either (option 2) giving residents second class citizenship (apartheid) or (option 3) creating a 7 state solution rather than a two state solution. Option 4, the most honest, but relying on wishful thinking to sell it. What happens if instead of the population of Jews multiplying, population trends continue as they are, with the number of Arabs projected to overtake the number of Jews in 10 years? And of course option 5, which assumes that Arabs who have not already moved, will move to countries that already will not accept them.
It's a start, I guess, but no substitute for two separate ethnic states.
Option 1 depends on a foreign country allowing already disavowed non-residents to vote in their elections. Imagine the US allowing English speaking Mexicans to vote in US elections while living in Mexico. Options 2 and 3 involve different iterations of keeping the land while either (option 2) giving residents second class citizenship (apartheid) or (option 3) creating a 7 state solution rather than a two state solution. Option 4, the most honest, but relying on wishful thinking to sell it. What happens if instead of the population of Jews multiplying, population trends continue as they are, with the number of Arabs projected to overtake the number of Jews in 10 years? And of course option 5, which assumes that Arabs who have not already moved, will move to countries that already will not accept them.
It's a start, I guess, but no substitute for two separate ethnic states.
1
Keep the two-state solution. Arabs living in Israel are citizens of Palestine, not Israel, vote in Palestinian elections. Jews (settlers, others) living in Palestine are Israeli citizens, vote in Israeli elections. If the Palestinians will let Jews live in Palestine and protect their rights (as Israel does for Arabs in Israel), then the two-state solution becomes viable. Arab states that expelled Jews in 1948 (or endangered Jews had to flee) would either let Jews claim their former lands or compensate them. Similar arrangements for Arabs who fled Israel. If Palestinians want Palestine to be judenfrei, the deal is off.
2
Yes - a handful of Jews has intermittently lived in what is now Israel for thousands of years. So have the millions of Arabs in what is now the West Bank and Gaza. They lived there, worked the land for millennia, loved the land and saw it as theirs.
The horror of the Holocaust, after thousands of years of religious and institutional oppression of Jews in Europe and elsewhere had finally convinced the world that we need a land of our own. The State of Israel was born in 1948, recognized by the international community, but fought against by its Arab neighbors. It was small but brave and brilliantly innovative.
The Six Day War, largely recognized as a defensive war, brought a great victory to Israel. The vast lands conquered in the war would be returned to their original owners in return for peace accords, its leaders proclaimed.
And then came the settlements. Illegal at first, winked at later and finally fully recognized as pioneers (although theirs were not the hands that built their beautiful homesteads, like the kibbutz people did many years ago; it was the previous owners who did it, in order to feed their families). Palestinians have lived in a nightmare legal limbo for fifty years, and their basic human rights have been trampled on relentlessly and brutally
May a voice from heaven please proclaim the West Bank to the settlers. Until it does, it belongs to those who have lived and worked it for ever.
The horror of the Holocaust, after thousands of years of religious and institutional oppression of Jews in Europe and elsewhere had finally convinced the world that we need a land of our own. The State of Israel was born in 1948, recognized by the international community, but fought against by its Arab neighbors. It was small but brave and brilliantly innovative.
The Six Day War, largely recognized as a defensive war, brought a great victory to Israel. The vast lands conquered in the war would be returned to their original owners in return for peace accords, its leaders proclaimed.
And then came the settlements. Illegal at first, winked at later and finally fully recognized as pioneers (although theirs were not the hands that built their beautiful homesteads, like the kibbutz people did many years ago; it was the previous owners who did it, in order to feed their families). Palestinians have lived in a nightmare legal limbo for fifty years, and their basic human rights have been trampled on relentlessly and brutally
May a voice from heaven please proclaim the West Bank to the settlers. Until it does, it belongs to those who have lived and worked it for ever.
5
Seldom read such an abomination of an essay. Seeking legitimacy in the Balfour Declaration is like quoting Hitler's declarations on Lebesraum. Yishai Fleisher's cohorts have a legitimate right to live in the territory assigned it in the UN declarations of 1948. These might not pass muster to-day, but they were enshrined then and have to be honored. Anything else acquired by the sword is not recognized by the International Community.
According to Yishai we have to forget about civil rights, liberty, freedom from harassment, freedom to travel,separation of Church and State; all this goes out the window to be replaced by massive deportations to .......
According to Yishai we have to forget about civil rights, liberty, freedom from harassment, freedom to travel,separation of Church and State; all this goes out the window to be replaced by massive deportations to .......
14
This opinion piece is pure bigotry and racism, captured by this sentence: "Our right to this land is derived from our history, religion, international decisions and defensive wars." By this sentiment, the author air brushed from history the long and continuous presence of non-Jews. He also elides the fact that most of the Jewish Israelis who live in the land are either foreigners to the land or descendants of foreigners. It bears noting that Israel's wars were not defensive.
The land should be one secular state for all of the people living between the river and the sea - including Gaza, the refugees should be allowed to go home, their private property should be restored to them, reparations should be paid, and the Zionists should apologize for their decades of oppression.
I echo the sentiments of other writers that find it outrageous that the New York Times would publish a piece that proposes ethnic cleaning as a solution to the conflict. In this regard, the so-called exchange of populations is a bigoted and racist Zionist trope based on the racist Zionist myth of the generic Arab. In addition, factually, there was no exchange of populations.
Finally, the notion that Israel left Gaza and got rockets in return is both false and disingenuous. Israel has been oppressing the people in the so-called Gaza Strip since 1948 through the present, including most recently a nearly 11 year siege of the area. Israel's conduct is criminal and disgusting.
The land should be one secular state for all of the people living between the river and the sea - including Gaza, the refugees should be allowed to go home, their private property should be restored to them, reparations should be paid, and the Zionists should apologize for their decades of oppression.
I echo the sentiments of other writers that find it outrageous that the New York Times would publish a piece that proposes ethnic cleaning as a solution to the conflict. In this regard, the so-called exchange of populations is a bigoted and racist Zionist trope based on the racist Zionist myth of the generic Arab. In addition, factually, there was no exchange of populations.
Finally, the notion that Israel left Gaza and got rockets in return is both false and disingenuous. Israel has been oppressing the people in the so-called Gaza Strip since 1948 through the present, including most recently a nearly 11 year siege of the area. Israel's conduct is criminal and disgusting.
14
So Palestinians are squatters and the land they lived on before the state of Israel was created in 1948 by Harry Truman was always by divine right the Jewish peoples. That reasoning then gives you the audacity to come up with a series of ideas to evict or remove entirely a population from a land they have established roots in. I am sure if you go back in American history and examine the way our native population was treated we would find similar twisted logic by our U.S. government. Do you honestly believe the Palestinians will go along with your schemes peacefully?
4
Actions speak louder than denying editorials, Israel will be judged by its actions and not it's words.
1
Why doesn't Mr. Fleisher realize that the Palestinians will accept nothing short of the complete annihilation of Israel as a Jewish State as their only pre-requisite for peace? Just eliminate Israel once and for all and everything else will magically fall into place. No Israel--no problem.
3
No matter what ideas and schemes anybody has for Israel, nothing is going to happen until the Arabs clean up their corrupt government and recognize Israel's right to exist on it's land.
Like the fantasy land of "Palestine," I don't see this ever happening.
Like the fantasy land of "Palestine," I don't see this ever happening.
5
This piece is nothing more than naked propaganda for the land grab under way in the former moral state of Israel while twisting history into a pretzel. And all paid for, indirectly of course, by the American tax payer.
8
The Arabs have 2 alternatives. All Jews leave, or all Jews die. How can you speak with someone who doesn't believe you have any claim to the land of Israel.
4
Well, Yishai Fleisher, if your vision comes to pass, this fully fledged American Jew (Hebrew school, Bar Mitzvah, Jewish Summer Camp, Ulpan, Hebrew High School), will simply give up on Israel and support initiatives to withdraw American support. Then again, if American ties loosen, maybe Russia will pick up the slack. Shared values, you know.
4
I agree that the "two state solution is dead" and I like the idea of offering Israeli citizenship to Palestinians in the West Bank.
1
Lebensraum.
The Germans had a view of their future and, once adjusted for scale, it is remarkably similar to the views expressed by Mr Fleisher. Its an entitlement to lands occupied by others not of their race or religious dogma.
Yes, the nazis were far more barbaric, far more ruthless, far more righteous in their claims of being the master race than any of the theocracies contending for position and place in the Middle East. They personified evil.
No, the Jewish people of Israel are not nazis. For that matter, neither are the Muslim people of the Middle Eastern states. Certainly there exists among both populations ideologues who would cheerfully fulfill the role of God's executioner of the insignificant or the non believer races. Today, that title clearly has more applicants among Islamic terrorists and their supporters than among Israelis.
Theocratic revenge is certainly what happened when the Arabs attacked the British and UN sponsored state of Israel in all of their wars. The Muslims believed their ancient claims to and recent centuries of living in those lands mattered more than an ancient civilization of a conquered and scattered people.
So now the Israelis have determined that Judea and Samaria should have been part and parcel of the European grant of someone else's land to the Jewish people. Ok, the settlements are consistent with man's history of dominating neighbors.
But let's not kid ourselves. The settlements are just a grab for lebensraum.
The Germans had a view of their future and, once adjusted for scale, it is remarkably similar to the views expressed by Mr Fleisher. Its an entitlement to lands occupied by others not of their race or religious dogma.
Yes, the nazis were far more barbaric, far more ruthless, far more righteous in their claims of being the master race than any of the theocracies contending for position and place in the Middle East. They personified evil.
No, the Jewish people of Israel are not nazis. For that matter, neither are the Muslim people of the Middle Eastern states. Certainly there exists among both populations ideologues who would cheerfully fulfill the role of God's executioner of the insignificant or the non believer races. Today, that title clearly has more applicants among Islamic terrorists and their supporters than among Israelis.
Theocratic revenge is certainly what happened when the Arabs attacked the British and UN sponsored state of Israel in all of their wars. The Muslims believed their ancient claims to and recent centuries of living in those lands mattered more than an ancient civilization of a conquered and scattered people.
So now the Israelis have determined that Judea and Samaria should have been part and parcel of the European grant of someone else's land to the Jewish people. Ok, the settlements are consistent with man's history of dominating neighbors.
But let's not kid ourselves. The settlements are just a grab for lebensraum.
7
"New demographic research shows that thanks to falling Palestinian birth rates and emigration,...," n'ah, that ain't got nuthin' to do with border control, health care denial, or lack of clean water, does it?
2
Well, thank you for publishing this pov. Here I figured that the only strategic thinking was to hope that the Palestinians would just keep throwing rocks, building tunnels and lobbing missiles until the Israeli army could - oopsy - obliterate them. Justified genocide, righteous martyrs, win win.
2
One more option is to give Jordon and the Palestinians enough compensation that it will be in their favor to move from the entire West Bank historical Jewish Land which was given by G-D to the Jewish people as recorded in the bible and as the world recognized the Jewish people’s indigenous existence in this land in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the San Remo Accords of 1920. Israel's annexation of the entire West bank would create a better M.E. and safer world.
1
The missing piece of this editorial is the Palestinian perspective. In each of the five scenarios, the author considers Israeli options without considering the wishes of the Palestinian population or the neighboring Arab states (in the case of the Jordan is Palestine plan). This lack of concern is expressed most clearly in the line, "In contrast, however, Palestinians in Judea and Samaria would be offered generous compensation to emigrate voluntarily." What if they don't want to do so voluntarily? Puerto Rico has held four referendums on its status and each time, fewer than 10% of the population have voted for independence. I wonder what similar referendums in Palestine would show.
6
You articulate your argument very well...and in a very one-sided fashion. There will be peace either when a two-state solution is achieved or when Israel utterly annihilates the Arab populations in the West Bank, bulldozing homes, confiscating land "because you have a right to it" based on ancient history. It's obvious which of these two paths you prefer.
5
What a staggering thing to read. Perhaps Mr. David Duke could be persuaded to write a parallel piece on the New Confederacy, in which Afro-Americans could be offered
--the right to live as Helots in the South, but exercise their political rights in Michigan, as per Benny Alon's generous offer.
--the right to a few to live in white majority towns with a policed existence in Gaza-like crowded concentration camps, as per the good Minister Bennett.
--the right to communicate among their concentration camps, as per Professor Kedar.
--the right to live under a racist law regime, with special rights for whites, as per Ms. Glick, and Minister Hotovely, and as per the good old Jim Crow days.
--the right to get out of the South, with "generous" compensation to be determined by the whites expelling them who want their property and homes.
Will the New York Times be providing equal space soon to a Palestinian advocate of ethnic cleansing? True, it's hard to think of who that might be, since almost all Palestinian advocates propose the radical alternative of democracy, and people continuing to live in their homes, even if others move in and what to kick them out.
--the right to live as Helots in the South, but exercise their political rights in Michigan, as per Benny Alon's generous offer.
--the right to a few to live in white majority towns with a policed existence in Gaza-like crowded concentration camps, as per the good Minister Bennett.
--the right to communicate among their concentration camps, as per Professor Kedar.
--the right to live under a racist law regime, with special rights for whites, as per Ms. Glick, and Minister Hotovely, and as per the good old Jim Crow days.
--the right to get out of the South, with "generous" compensation to be determined by the whites expelling them who want their property and homes.
Will the New York Times be providing equal space soon to a Palestinian advocate of ethnic cleansing? True, it's hard to think of who that might be, since almost all Palestinian advocates propose the radical alternative of democracy, and people continuing to live in their homes, even if others move in and what to kick them out.
11
Sometimes I wish the British proposal, that Theodor Herzl had supported, for a Jewish homeland in Uganda had come to pass.
5
Herzl only supported that proposal as a temporary measure to save Jews under physical threat until a permanent Jewish homeland could be established in the land of Israel.
4
This entire analysis rests on one central assumption, that history, or perhaps God, has endowed the Jewish people with a right to occupy almost all of Palestine, based on their residence in the area over a period of nearly 4,000 years. This criterion, if applied worldwide, would turn nations upside down and require the massive movements of populations, to implement. In any case, large portions of the current Jewish population have lived in these lands for a shorter period than their Arab neighbors.
Fleisher's proffered solutions to the dilemma posed by the occupation also seem disingenuous, at best. If Israel annexed the West Bank, he claims, the Palestinian residents would be offered citizenship and equal rights. Really? Would those rights include title to the lands they live on? Would they include the freedom to travel throughout Greater Israel without submitting to search at the onerous checkpoints that now pockmark the land? Would their religion enjoy equal status to that of Judaism? In fact, would Israel cease to be a Jewish state?
Virtually all the plans advanced by Fleisher presume a continued Israeli dominance of almost all the area under contention. Of course, if the Palestinians rejected these 'solutions,' Fleisher would regard such intransigence as further evidence of their refusal to accept a peaceful compromise.
Fleisher's proffered solutions to the dilemma posed by the occupation also seem disingenuous, at best. If Israel annexed the West Bank, he claims, the Palestinian residents would be offered citizenship and equal rights. Really? Would those rights include title to the lands they live on? Would they include the freedom to travel throughout Greater Israel without submitting to search at the onerous checkpoints that now pockmark the land? Would their religion enjoy equal status to that of Judaism? In fact, would Israel cease to be a Jewish state?
Virtually all the plans advanced by Fleisher presume a continued Israeli dominance of almost all the area under contention. Of course, if the Palestinians rejected these 'solutions,' Fleisher would regard such intransigence as further evidence of their refusal to accept a peaceful compromise.
11
I think, that Euro-trash meddling in internal domestic politics, opens the Hague to liability and prosecution, inside Israeli courts.
The future, is probably a few hundred years or thousand, of quasi nothing-state for Pals; the Jews held out 2000 years. Pals have been at war for maybe 75.
The future MIGHT be expulsion into Syria or Iraq, or Yemen, or Iran, where the Israeli military umbrella no longer will protect Pals from their nominal co-religionists
The future, is probably a few hundred years or thousand, of quasi nothing-state for Pals; the Jews held out 2000 years. Pals have been at war for maybe 75.
The future MIGHT be expulsion into Syria or Iraq, or Yemen, or Iran, where the Israeli military umbrella no longer will protect Pals from their nominal co-religionists
1
This is wrong on so many fronts it is hard to know where to begin. So I won't. But rather I would point out the absurdity of the notion that now that USA has a mentally ill president who can not tell reality from fantasy, that now is the opportune time to break the settler's stalemate. It takes a mentally ill, delusional USA president to see things their way? That should give everyone pause.
8
In the world of Trump, anyone, however heartless they might be, can write and seem readable. This makes for a good lesson on the psychology of bias.
6
https://www.britannica.com/event/Balfour-Declaration
"The Balfour Declaration, issued through the continued efforts of Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow, Zionist leaders in London, fell short of the expectations of the Zionists, who had asked for the reconstitution of Palestine as “the” Jewish national home. The declaration specifically stipulated that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."
This op ed writer's proposals are not consistent with the last sentence of the excerpt above.
"The Balfour Declaration, issued through the continued efforts of Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow, Zionist leaders in London, fell short of the expectations of the Zionists, who had asked for the reconstitution of Palestine as “the” Jewish national home. The declaration specifically stipulated that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."
This op ed writer's proposals are not consistent with the last sentence of the excerpt above.
38
How is it not consistent? Civil and religious rights means only that minorities would have residency in a Jewish State. Some of the 5 options give even more then that...
2
David, And the Balfour Declaration gave the Zionists only a small speck of Palestine. Palestine was not Mr. Balfour's to give away, but what is done is done. We can only correct imbalances done after 1948. Israelis should move back behind the Green Line and move their wall to the Green Line. Still, that would not compensate the Palestinians for the land they lost at the creation of Israel, or for the refugees created by Israeli terror and massacres in 1948. Look up Deir Yassin and the number of Palestinian villages ethnically cleansed during and after Israel's war of Independence.
2
Yes it is. The writer proposes that the Palestinians get the vote and that their numbers are not consistent with a Palestinian takeover of Israel.
2
This is idiotic, and none of these so called proposals would satisfy anyone except the expansionist plans of Zionist dreams. First of all the area has been called Palestine at least as long as it was called anything else, you can find it in ancient Roman and Greek writings. The non-Jews living in "Palestine" many of which can also trace their ancestry there back thousands of years-Philistines, Samarians, even Crusaders. The Balfour Declaration was an egregious and not completely recognized imposition by foreign countries in spite of the promises made to King Husein and Arabs in the area for self-rule in the remnants of the Ottoman Empire including Palestine for helping to defeat Turkey in WWI. Instead France and England carved up the territories and created borders that are the basis of all conflicts there today. Just because the Jewish people once lived in the biblical lands of Palestine/Israel does not entitle them to just push aside centuries long residents as though they have no right to be there. They do. A one state solution with 2nd class citizenry with no voice is a ridiculous and completely unworkable concept...Does Israel want to be at war with its neighbors forever? Keep the Gazans imprisoned within their concentration camp of a non state? How's that going to work? The West Bank and Gaza should be given their autonomy, contiguous connection and freedom of movement and if Jewish settlers want to come in, they can be Palestinian citizens.
124
Mary's comments cut right through all the blather of this defense of Zionism Expansion. The Israeli concentration camps where thousands of Palestinians are kept without trial, without set terms of imprisonment speak louder than all these high faulting analyses and orations. There's no "straight answer" for Israelis to give because what they have done and continue to do to the Palestinian people is crooked and cruel. The Israelis are doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to them only with better PR.
2
Unfortunately for Mary's proposition, idealistic as it may, ideals are not substitute for policy.
The Israeli evacuation of Gaza, with no time lost has turned into a base for raining fire on Israel's towns nearby, brings to mind the saying:
"You Fooled Me Once - Shame on You; You Fooled me the Second time - Shame on me!"
The Israeli evacuation of Gaza, with no time lost has turned into a base for raining fire on Israel's towns nearby, brings to mind the saying:
"You Fooled Me Once - Shame on You; You Fooled me the Second time - Shame on me!"
3
"The Area was called Palestine for at least as long as it was called anything else." That is both incorrect and irrelevant. It is incorrect because it was called the Land of Israel and Judea before it was called Palestine (the name given by Roman invaders). And it is irrelevant because the native residents of Palestine, when it was so named by the Romans, were the Jews. Modern Palestinians are ethnically Arabs (and identify as such) and the Arabs did not invade Palestine until the 7th Century when they conquered the Byzantine armies that were there. The Byzantines had, only a few years prior, massacred most of the remaining Jews living in Palestine after a failed revolt. The Balfour Declaration was accurate.
The reality is that both the Jews and the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to the land. A two-state solution recognizes this fact, although both sides would have to give up on part of their legitimate claim. Practically speaking, a two-state solution will never be feasible so long as Israel is afraid of creating Hamas on the West Bank and a constant war with a much stronger enemy.
The reality is that both the Jews and the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to the land. A two-state solution recognizes this fact, although both sides would have to give up on part of their legitimate claim. Practically speaking, a two-state solution will never be feasible so long as Israel is afraid of creating Hamas on the West Bank and a constant war with a much stronger enemy.
2
Let Israel annex the whole West Bank and give FULL citizenship and voting rights to ALL [Jews , Arabs, others] who currently live in the West Bank.
17
Thank you Yishai for the 5 different flavors that all turn out to be your favorite. You have a set of scriptures that say this land is your land and who can argue with that. People of Palestine, Palestinans, who are they? Cut down their fig trees, bulldoze or wall in their villages, hose protesters with stink spray or rubber bullets or real ones. The vast majority of Israelis can only go back 3 generations. The Palestinians? But let's not allow real history to intervene. In the Hebrew Bible I read of Israelis taking the land of milk and honey from other tribes who lived there for generations. In world history I read of Jews expelled, Christians dominating to the 6th century and Muslims from the 6th down to when Lord Balfour declared from his perch in England that there should be a Jewish homeland where other people live. But then might makes right. Learned that in the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
13
"Arabs can live in Israel, as other minorities do, with personal rights, not national rights."
That sounds an awful lot like apartheid.
That sounds an awful lot like apartheid.
20
Today, Jews and Arabs need a new peace plan.
Jews used to be Arabs.
Jews used to be Arabs.
7
@ The Iconoclast Oregon - Ico, we here in Sweden are reading two fascinating books by a journalist who specializes in genome research and especially as it may be used in tracing lines of descent. In her first book, she traces her own family back to present day Syria, 52,000 years ago. In her second, she and a co-author concern themselves with the many paths followed by people populatiing Sweden after the most recent ice sheet retreated and disappeared. Swedes used to be lots of other peoples.
Since I have come to know 100s of Somalis all here in Linköping after fleeing from Somalia I became interested in exactly what you express in your single sentence.
Nice comment. I await the replies since I read this when for all of us we are told we were put in print 3 minutes ago.
My info at my comment a few above yours.
Since I have come to know 100s of Somalis all here in Linköping after fleeing from Somalia I became interested in exactly what you express in your single sentence.
Nice comment. I await the replies since I read this when for all of us we are told we were put in print 3 minutes ago.
My info at my comment a few above yours.
•
Recent increases in Israel-Palestinian murders of Israeli Jews and stabbings are not about the Al Aksa mosque.
The Palestinians wars were not about Israel.
These wars were not about borders, Jerusalem, land, settlements, ports, fishing, poverty,etc.,
The continuing source of Hamas-Fatah intransigence despite losing was expressed by a Palestinian leader during the 1982 Lebanon war.
George Habash, a Greek Orthodox Christian Palestinian, was known as "the godfather" of terrorism.
Habash's group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), pioneered the hijacking of airplanes, boarding ships, killing Israeli Olympic athletes, etc.
Habash said, “To kill a Jew away from the battlefield is better than killing a hundred Jews in battle." When told that many of the Palestinians were disproportionately being killed in the Lebanon war, he responded that he didn't care, because no matter how few, "We are killing Jews!”
The Palestinian leadership—both Hamas and Fatah as well as its people—and ISIS and other Arabs are mesmerized by what Thomas Mann's friend (who lived in Nazi Germany) called the "sorcery of violence.”
Those in Nazi Germany lost their souls.
It happened in Gaza and the West Bank.
It is now happening with Israeli-Palestinian terrorists.
Watch "The video the Arabs don't want you to see" on YouTube and wake up to their lies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2wOwv8V6Yo
Become enlightened.
7
Yishai,
It's an unfortunate fact that most of the world is against your position. And for a legitimate reason. It's an historical anomaly that a government can forever rule a people who want independence.
The truth is that the League of Nation's Mandate for Palestine in September 1922 divided what was then Palestine such that the land East of the Jordan River would go to the Hashemite kingdom (now Jordan) and the last West of the Jordan River (now Israel and the West Bank) would go to the Jews.
But it never worked out that way because the population west of the Jordan was majority Arab. And the European Jews were mostly emigrating to America. Of course, under Arab pressure, the British limited Jewish immigration to Palestine. But it didn't change the fact that Palestine pre-1948 was majority Arab. Today the population is divided, but with a clear Jewish Majority.
I often wonder what it would have been like if all those 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust had instead found their way to Palestine, and all their descendants were now living in Israel. That certainly would have changed the demographics.
But that's not the reality, is it.
It's an unfortunate fact that most of the world is against your position. And for a legitimate reason. It's an historical anomaly that a government can forever rule a people who want independence.
The truth is that the League of Nation's Mandate for Palestine in September 1922 divided what was then Palestine such that the land East of the Jordan River would go to the Hashemite kingdom (now Jordan) and the last West of the Jordan River (now Israel and the West Bank) would go to the Jews.
But it never worked out that way because the population west of the Jordan was majority Arab. And the European Jews were mostly emigrating to America. Of course, under Arab pressure, the British limited Jewish immigration to Palestine. But it didn't change the fact that Palestine pre-1948 was majority Arab. Today the population is divided, but with a clear Jewish Majority.
I often wonder what it would have been like if all those 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust had instead found their way to Palestine, and all their descendants were now living in Israel. That certainly would have changed the demographics.
But that's not the reality, is it.
7
Kudos to the NY Times for at least once printing something that isn't the usual Israel bad/Palestinians good blather, which finally affirms in clear terms the Jewish ties to the Land of Israel, the reality as it is to be seen there -- not on the top floor at the NY Times, DC, Scarsdale, or on the campus of UC Berkeley. And remind anyone who isn't totally brainwashed with Israel-hate all areas the Arabs seized in 1948 were ethnically cleansed of any ancient Jewish population, all synagogues destroyed, every cemetery desecrated; more Jews were expelled from Arab lands totally due to persecution and coercion than Palestinian Arabs from the Land of Israel during the 1948 War-- some by expulsion, but far more due simply to the war.
And finally for once someone has the courage to state what any person not blinded by ideology would see -- there is no historic Palestinian nation; it is an invention that appeared only after Jews returned to their land as a means to push the Jews into the sea. If there ever was such a Palestinian nation, why didn't they resist Jordanian occupation of their supposed lands in Judea/Samaria and Eastern Jerusalem?
But don't take this from me. Take it from local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, who in 1937 told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine] 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."
And finally for once someone has the courage to state what any person not blinded by ideology would see -- there is no historic Palestinian nation; it is an invention that appeared only after Jews returned to their land as a means to push the Jews into the sea. If there ever was such a Palestinian nation, why didn't they resist Jordanian occupation of their supposed lands in Judea/Samaria and Eastern Jerusalem?
But don't take this from me. Take it from local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, who in 1937 told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine] 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."
17
All nations are invented. They are, as Benedict Anderson showed, "imagined communities."
The reality of "Palestinians" is, in a phrase well-known to Israelis, a "fact on the ground."
The reality of "Palestinians" is, in a phrase well-known to Israelis, a "fact on the ground."
1
Congratulations on a very clear, well written and TRUE (!!!) article! It is great to see this perspective articulated in The New York Times and indeed represents the opinion of millions of Israelis. Endlessly pushing Two State has gotten us nowhere. And the reality is that the Jewish nation will never relinquish its ancient ancestral homeland. The Palestinians have been tragically manipulated by an Arab world and international community who use them to try to break Israel apart and down. This is horrible, yet also does not justify the Jewish people conceding territory to appease the situation. We look forward to a real solution that affords dignity to both parties. Thanks, Yishai!
12
As former VP Biden would say. This is pure bunch of "malarky"
2
Pure fascism. At least the hasbara is out in the open.
The Stern and Irgun terrorist gangs killed and displaced 3/4 million once peaceful Palestinians. The land stolen from the Palestinians is not "disputed," but rather stolen in a criminal enterprise that has been going on for 70 years.
These lands have been ruled by Hittites, Assyrians, Persians, Babylonians, Romans, etc. etc., and the Hebrews only ruled this land for 77 years, total. The implication that there has been continuous rule for 3,700 years is nonsense.
There is zero archeological evidence of any great Kingdom of David. Likewise, zero archeological evidence of a Second Temple (but it might be out by Jericho), in spite of nearly 200 years of German, British, American and now Israeli archeologists digging everywhere.
It is time for this criminal enterprise to be stopped. BDS is the only language people like Netanyahu and the settlers ("colonists") understand.
The Stern and Irgun terrorist gangs killed and displaced 3/4 million once peaceful Palestinians. The land stolen from the Palestinians is not "disputed," but rather stolen in a criminal enterprise that has been going on for 70 years.
These lands have been ruled by Hittites, Assyrians, Persians, Babylonians, Romans, etc. etc., and the Hebrews only ruled this land for 77 years, total. The implication that there has been continuous rule for 3,700 years is nonsense.
There is zero archeological evidence of any great Kingdom of David. Likewise, zero archeological evidence of a Second Temple (but it might be out by Jericho), in spite of nearly 200 years of German, British, American and now Israeli archeologists digging everywhere.
It is time for this criminal enterprise to be stopped. BDS is the only language people like Netanyahu and the settlers ("colonists") understand.
44
Zero archeological evidence of a Second Temple? Are you aware that there is a large wall from the Second Temple in the Old City of Jerusalem where millions of Jews from the world over come to pray?
There is also indisputable evidence of the Kingdom that David founded. If you want to claim that is wasn't as grand as depicted in the Bible, that is defensible, but to say the Kingdom didn't exist is laughable.
There is also indisputable evidence of the Kingdom that David founded. If you want to claim that is wasn't as grand as depicted in the Bible, that is defensible, but to say the Kingdom didn't exist is laughable.
4
Mr. Fleisher cunningly cloaks the total disenfranchisement of Palestinians from land they have legal title to and that they have lived on for centuries in the by now tired notion that Judea and Samaria somehow "belong" to the "Jewish people". This is rather like saying that the United Kingdom still "belongs" to the Ancient Romans or the Jutes and Saxons If such logic were to be accepted under international law, it would create total mayhem around the world. There would be countless wars begun to reclaim land on historical Biblical claims of dubious validity.
Fleisher - like most Zionists - sees nothing wrong with denying full democratic rights to another people, if it suits his own people's nefarious purposes. Why should Israel be the sole arbiter of the legal rights of allPalestinians and thus able to deny them?
Similarly, all five options he lays out amount to the denial of another people's rights. Dressing them up in the cloak of a spurious legitimacy by offering eventual Israeli citizenship to a few - too few to allow Palestinians any effective voice in Israeli society - is a disingenuous sham.
Once again, we are treated to the notion that Israel really is a democratic state. Fleisher wants gullible Americans to believe this lie. Ask Palestinians whose lands have been stolen, cattle stolen,. wells poisoned, children run down by Israeli settler cars - but no justice ever forthcoming, if they can believe such offers? This is Theresienstadt revisited Zionist style.
Fleisher - like most Zionists - sees nothing wrong with denying full democratic rights to another people, if it suits his own people's nefarious purposes. Why should Israel be the sole arbiter of the legal rights of allPalestinians and thus able to deny them?
Similarly, all five options he lays out amount to the denial of another people's rights. Dressing them up in the cloak of a spurious legitimacy by offering eventual Israeli citizenship to a few - too few to allow Palestinians any effective voice in Israeli society - is a disingenuous sham.
Once again, we are treated to the notion that Israel really is a democratic state. Fleisher wants gullible Americans to believe this lie. Ask Palestinians whose lands have been stolen, cattle stolen,. wells poisoned, children run down by Israeli settler cars - but no justice ever forthcoming, if they can believe such offers? This is Theresienstadt revisited Zionist style.
91
Yishai Fleisher is clearly less extreme than most settlers but that doesn't prevent him from making an astonishing statement:
"Arabs can live in Israel, as other minorities do, with personal rights, not national rights. But many Arabs reject that option because they do not recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish State, with or without settlements."
This is precisely the kind of obfuscation about which the author complains elsewhere in his piece. Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians, and the permanent theft of their lands, has caused the level of blind hatred that prevents 'many' (he doesn't say how many) Palestinians from concluding the only good Jew is a dead one. Not even Official Israeli-Arabs enjoy the rights of Israeli Jews (water resources, building rights and so on), so you can imagine how humiliated the Palestinians feel.
The justified hatred must be countered through positive measures by a centrist Israeli government to redress the wrongs described in graphic detail by Israelis such as Gideon Levy and Uri Avnery. Only by reducing hatred can there be any hope for peace.
"Arabs can live in Israel, as other minorities do, with personal rights, not national rights. But many Arabs reject that option because they do not recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish State, with or without settlements."
This is precisely the kind of obfuscation about which the author complains elsewhere in his piece. Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians, and the permanent theft of their lands, has caused the level of blind hatred that prevents 'many' (he doesn't say how many) Palestinians from concluding the only good Jew is a dead one. Not even Official Israeli-Arabs enjoy the rights of Israeli Jews (water resources, building rights and so on), so you can imagine how humiliated the Palestinians feel.
The justified hatred must be countered through positive measures by a centrist Israeli government to redress the wrongs described in graphic detail by Israelis such as Gideon Levy and Uri Avnery. Only by reducing hatred can there be any hope for peace.
46
If the Palestinian Authority, and more so the governments who continue to support the Palestinian Arab diatribe against Israel, does not wake up to reality, this may become the only path left to the Israeli government.
Please read the article carefully; there are many truths within its lines.
Please read the article carefully; there are many truths within its lines.
12
And many falsehoods.
3
Mr. Fleisher makes a number of valid points.
The Jews have a historical claim to Judaea and Samaria. But, counter the Palestinians, so do they. The historical fact is that everybody's claim boils down to force and power. The Palestinian claim is based on the Arab conquest of the area, including of Israel, in 640 CE. Just why is that claim by force and conquest any greater than Jewish conquests or possession of Judaea and Samaria or Israel for that matter. All possession by force was the result of and in the aftermath of war. There always was a winner and a loser. Sometimes them and sometimes. us.
Thus, Jduaea and Samaria is no more Palestinian than it is Jewish. It is contested land with both sides making claims based on force.
Do the Palestinians deserve a state? Not every ethnic group has a state. I do not see anybody offering the Kurds a state, in fact US policy is against it.
http://insidestory.org.au/the-worlds-largest-stateless-nation
So is the two state option still viable? As Mr. Friedman writes today in his op-ed, for that you need a viable Palestinian partner. Imagine if they had agreed in 1948, or 2000 or 2008 when they were viable options? They did not. The option might still be viable if there were such a partner who would sit down today or tomorrow and cut a deal. But they will not.
That being the case, there are five alternatives. I hope that there will be serious discussion as to their viability and to the possibility of implementing these solutions.
The Jews have a historical claim to Judaea and Samaria. But, counter the Palestinians, so do they. The historical fact is that everybody's claim boils down to force and power. The Palestinian claim is based on the Arab conquest of the area, including of Israel, in 640 CE. Just why is that claim by force and conquest any greater than Jewish conquests or possession of Judaea and Samaria or Israel for that matter. All possession by force was the result of and in the aftermath of war. There always was a winner and a loser. Sometimes them and sometimes. us.
Thus, Jduaea and Samaria is no more Palestinian than it is Jewish. It is contested land with both sides making claims based on force.
Do the Palestinians deserve a state? Not every ethnic group has a state. I do not see anybody offering the Kurds a state, in fact US policy is against it.
http://insidestory.org.au/the-worlds-largest-stateless-nation
So is the two state option still viable? As Mr. Friedman writes today in his op-ed, for that you need a viable Palestinian partner. Imagine if they had agreed in 1948, or 2000 or 2008 when they were viable options? They did not. The option might still be viable if there were such a partner who would sit down today or tomorrow and cut a deal. But they will not.
That being the case, there are five alternatives. I hope that there will be serious discussion as to their viability and to the possibility of implementing these solutions.
25
Actually the Palestinian claim comes long before the Muslim conquest... that's just when some of the residents of the territory converted either by force or by promises of better advancement within society to Islam. This area has been conquered over and over again since the beginning of time. The Jews actually only had total control and autonomy in the area for a few hundred years during the age of David and Solomen, they were conquered by Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and so on over and over again...One would think they would have more sympathy for the conquered people they have now over run. The population left behind have remnant of the Philistines, the Phoenicians, the Caananites, and all the various conquerors who passed through. To collectively call them all "Arabs" is disengenuous. They are Palestinians, a name for the area that has been around since before the time of Christ. Of course in 1948 and even through 1967 these people resisted what they saw as illegal immigration on a massive scale. Kinda like the way Texas feels about Mexico - which Texas used to be....
17
To Mary
Regardless of who had control, the Jews have been there in one form or another since the Iron Age and throughout all those periods you list. As for sympathy for others, the Muslims converted by the sword, convert or die. This has not totally changed. Sympathy is relative.
The Philistines, the source of the name, were non-Semitic and thus have nothing to do with the Semitic Palestinians or Arabs except for an unfortunate clumsy use of a name.
The name Palestine appears as Syria-Palaestina in the Hellenistic period with no connection to Arabs of any kind, the province Palestine is found only in the 2nd century CE, as also Syria-Palaestina or as Palaestina Prima, Secunda or Tertia later on in Byzantine times. The Arabs were more likely to be found in Provincia Arabia.
True there were many families of Arabs, such as Nabataeans or Idumaeans or Ituraeans, but Palestinian Arabs are a modern invention. Syria still sees "Palestine" as part of Greater Syria".
Provincia Judaea, the name of the Province at the time of Jesus means province of the Jews.
Whether the name Palestine has been around or not, it is Hellenistic-Roman-Byzantine and has nothing to do with ancient Arabs of any sort.
Regardless of who had control, the Jews have been there in one form or another since the Iron Age and throughout all those periods you list. As for sympathy for others, the Muslims converted by the sword, convert or die. This has not totally changed. Sympathy is relative.
The Philistines, the source of the name, were non-Semitic and thus have nothing to do with the Semitic Palestinians or Arabs except for an unfortunate clumsy use of a name.
The name Palestine appears as Syria-Palaestina in the Hellenistic period with no connection to Arabs of any kind, the province Palestine is found only in the 2nd century CE, as also Syria-Palaestina or as Palaestina Prima, Secunda or Tertia later on in Byzantine times. The Arabs were more likely to be found in Provincia Arabia.
True there were many families of Arabs, such as Nabataeans or Idumaeans or Ituraeans, but Palestinian Arabs are a modern invention. Syria still sees "Palestine" as part of Greater Syria".
Provincia Judaea, the name of the Province at the time of Jesus means province of the Jews.
Whether the name Palestine has been around or not, it is Hellenistic-Roman-Byzantine and has nothing to do with ancient Arabs of any sort.
5
Herodotus mentions Syrian Palestine .....The name Palestine is in all ancient maps. Not Israel.
6
This article is completely wrong. First, you have no rights to any land, it's that simple. None of us do. Israel exists and should continue to do so with it's current borders, wanting more land doesn't entitle you to it.
Second the notion that you have some historical rights is absurd. Land you owned thousands of years ago is not still yours just because you want it. Demographics changed, countries and empires have risen and fallen since then. Italians aren't trying to claim Bath in the UK (where I'm from) because it was built by Romans and it would be laughable for them to try.
Third, no rights were recognised in 1917. The British Empire did what it always did, drew some lines on a piece of paper and said here you go this is your country now, with no regard for the current population. It was a political move by the government of the day, a foreign one at that. Nothing about it gives it any legitimacy. Palestinian people, just as all people do, have the right to self determination. They clearly don't want to be part of Israel and you shouldn't try to make them. I agree that Israel needs to be secure and that a Palestinian state can't be allowed to sponsor terrorism but if they were allowed to form their own nation, secure and free from Israeli interference would cut that out. I'm not excusing those that do so now but it would still help the problem.
Thus Israel needs to stop gobbling up land and get on board with the two state solution for real.
Second the notion that you have some historical rights is absurd. Land you owned thousands of years ago is not still yours just because you want it. Demographics changed, countries and empires have risen and fallen since then. Italians aren't trying to claim Bath in the UK (where I'm from) because it was built by Romans and it would be laughable for them to try.
Third, no rights were recognised in 1917. The British Empire did what it always did, drew some lines on a piece of paper and said here you go this is your country now, with no regard for the current population. It was a political move by the government of the day, a foreign one at that. Nothing about it gives it any legitimacy. Palestinian people, just as all people do, have the right to self determination. They clearly don't want to be part of Israel and you shouldn't try to make them. I agree that Israel needs to be secure and that a Palestinian state can't be allowed to sponsor terrorism but if they were allowed to form their own nation, secure and free from Israeli interference would cut that out. I'm not excusing those that do so now but it would still help the problem.
Thus Israel needs to stop gobbling up land and get on board with the two state solution for real.
99
funny article.as a jew I see the arabs in the west bank as second class citizens.apartheid state.on what passport dothe west bank arabs travel.israel loosing us jews support.
10
Yeah, right. You can justify, develop plans, rationalize, and blame all you want. There is nothing fair about your plans. The only fair plan is a two-state solution, and whatever happens, Israel will be seen in history as the aggressor and bully. Yes, you deserve a country, but so do the Palestinians. The UN has had multiple resolutions that make clear that the borders should be the pre-1967 borders. All the rationalizing in the world don't change the truth.
50
This article operates entirely on the assumption that Jews are the ONLY group with the right to live with full and equal rights in Palestine, and that different mechanisms of expelling the Palestinians are okay.
Actually, Jerusalem for instance was settled before Judaism even existed as a religion. Palestine is as the geographic crossroads of so many civilizations. Is it hard to believe that many groups would live there, and sometimes fight over the land?
My problems with this article, in addition to its musings about whether or not to take political action to limit even more the rights of people in their own homes, is that the author bases these on historical inaccuracies. Palestinian Christians and Muslims are not "invaders" in Palestine. Many are converted from Judaism or other religions. Jesus, the most revered prophet in Christianity, was BORN to a Jewish woman in Palestine!
It speaks volumes that the author must defend participation in Israeli colonialism with false narratives. Many people have lived in Palestine and all of those people deserve rights in that land, regardless of religion. Palestinians are human beings and so deserve human rights, even if that's a nuisance to Israel's manifest destiny endeavors.
Actually, Jerusalem for instance was settled before Judaism even existed as a religion. Palestine is as the geographic crossroads of so many civilizations. Is it hard to believe that many groups would live there, and sometimes fight over the land?
My problems with this article, in addition to its musings about whether or not to take political action to limit even more the rights of people in their own homes, is that the author bases these on historical inaccuracies. Palestinian Christians and Muslims are not "invaders" in Palestine. Many are converted from Judaism or other religions. Jesus, the most revered prophet in Christianity, was BORN to a Jewish woman in Palestine!
It speaks volumes that the author must defend participation in Israeli colonialism with false narratives. Many people have lived in Palestine and all of those people deserve rights in that land, regardless of religion. Palestinians are human beings and so deserve human rights, even if that's a nuisance to Israel's manifest destiny endeavors.
153
Palestine is Israel and Israel is Palestine. There are already two states in Palestine, Israel and Jordan. The fakestinians are merely stranded Jordanians from the six day war and represent a population of stateless Arabs in Palestine. That doesn't make them Palestinians any more than Jordanians and Israelis. They don't have a state because they have refused to accept a state multiple times and they refuse to build their own state. Let's stop forcing them into statehood. Better to provide financial incentives to Jordan and Egypt to repatriate their folks.
Israel is Israel. Folks need to get over it.
Israel is Israel. Folks need to get over it.
24
Yishai Fleisher, exactly how long did each Native American group live on and show respect for the various pieces of land that are now the USA or CDN? if we were to accept the standard statement you provide that the Jewish people lived in what you refer to as Judea and Samaria and therefore this land must still be their land, then what about Native Americans?
We have seen your argument here countless times. It does not persuade anyone who is familar with North America and its first human populations nor does it persuade people in other parts of the world who were not "there" on their present land first.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
We have seen your argument here countless times. It does not persuade anyone who is familar with North America and its first human populations nor does it persuade people in other parts of the world who were not "there" on their present land first.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
40
That's correct. Native Americans ARE re-claiming their land and are being bought off with casinos. I can't wait till they get some smart lawyers to fight for them in Washington. You'd better sell your house now!
I am confused here. The Jews were there first and they are there now. The Jews are the Native Americans that reconquered the country. So in your mind it is legitimate when the country was taken away from them, but it is illegitimate for them to have taken it back 68 years ago?
3
"Our right to this land is derived from our history, religion,"
Oy Vey.
Who do they interview for these articles,? This knucklehead thinks the Jews have a historical claim to the greatest land rush since the American West was setteled.
They don't.
When the Jewish diaspora occurred they were gone, vacant, dispersed.
The Moslem people occupied an empty region, quite actually they did not occupy it, they were there and Islam swept through it. This was 500 YEARS AFTER the Jews were gone.
To compare this to anything we are familiar with it would be as though the American Indian tribes started a conquest of NYC today, only they brought guns and were heavily backed by an Indian government that received heavy weapons and tons of money from a rich Uncle ( named Sam ).
Sure they were here, but they are not currently. So, who ya gonna believe ?
Oy Vey.
Who do they interview for these articles,? This knucklehead thinks the Jews have a historical claim to the greatest land rush since the American West was setteled.
They don't.
When the Jewish diaspora occurred they were gone, vacant, dispersed.
The Moslem people occupied an empty region, quite actually they did not occupy it, they were there and Islam swept through it. This was 500 YEARS AFTER the Jews were gone.
To compare this to anything we are familiar with it would be as though the American Indian tribes started a conquest of NYC today, only they brought guns and were heavily backed by an Indian government that received heavy weapons and tons of money from a rich Uncle ( named Sam ).
Sure they were here, but they are not currently. So, who ya gonna believe ?
157
The Bible is not now, nor has ever been, a land deed.
81
Yes so if you spent that 500 years elsewhere in the world trying to live but only faced with persecution and genocide, why wouldnt you go back to where you had your original independent state? Why does the passage of of 500 years or any amount of time preclude re-establishing your ties to your original land -- especially when that land was not occupieed by any one particular people, and administered as parts of several different empires throughout those 500 years?? Regarding Native Americans, I am not so sure that among them are individuals who would like to take back parts of the United States for their own, lespecially when they too were almost exterminated by the powers that be
1
I agree with you. Here's his starting point:
"Our right to this land is derived from our history, religion, international decisions and defensive wars".
If this isn't vague enough for you as a justification, you already believe that this land should be confiscated. If there's another alternative to a 2 state solution that treats Palestinians fairly, I'm all for it. But with the starting point quoted above, you'll never get there. How about, "we both have rights to this lands derived from history, religion, international decisions, and wars, what is the best way to dampen this unending violence?" Put this way, it gives both the Israelis and Palestinians rights at the bargaining table. Put the other way, Israel has the upper hand, as usual, for those who are determined to deny Palestinians rights to at least an even shake.
"Our right to this land is derived from our history, religion, international decisions and defensive wars".
If this isn't vague enough for you as a justification, you already believe that this land should be confiscated. If there's another alternative to a 2 state solution that treats Palestinians fairly, I'm all for it. But with the starting point quoted above, you'll never get there. How about, "we both have rights to this lands derived from history, religion, international decisions, and wars, what is the best way to dampen this unending violence?" Put this way, it gives both the Israelis and Palestinians rights at the bargaining table. Put the other way, Israel has the upper hand, as usual, for those who are determined to deny Palestinians rights to at least an even shake.
4
This is ridiculous. If the premises stated by in this article were to be a rule for everyone, then, the US should, rightfully return the whole country to Native Americans, reparations should be paid to the descendants of slaves, etc. It is a land grab, nothing else. Look at the land of the original State of Israel in 1948 and look at its borders now.
199
Um. So maybe America SHOULD return land to the native Americans! It basically feels like you are afraid that if the Middle East is held accountable to historic crimes, America will be too - and that you are more afraid of having your house taken from you than you are committed to justice. Backwards morality!
1
Luis,
To use your rational of going back to the 1948 borders that the Arabs lost trying to throw the Jews into the sea, then we should consider giving Texas, California, & Texas back to Mexico, & all the so called illegals would not be illegals, but everyone other than Mexicans who live there would be illegal.
You show very little sensitivity for the the Israeli’s, & I doubt your objectivity.
To use your rational of going back to the 1948 borders that the Arabs lost trying to throw the Jews into the sea, then we should consider giving Texas, California, & Texas back to Mexico, & all the so called illegals would not be illegals, but everyone other than Mexicans who live there would be illegal.
You show very little sensitivity for the the Israeli’s, & I doubt your objectivity.
4
Perhaps you might also look at the numerous wars of annihilation launched by the Arabs between 1948 and now, in which the Israelis were forced to push back invading Arab soldiers and tank battalions. It might help to explain the borders you see today. Alternatively, if looking at two maps is sufficient to tell you everything you need to know about a situation, then I suggest you look at the borders of the Japanese Empire in 1938 and then look at the borders of Japan today and see how much land the various countries of Asia have fiendishly grabbed from Japan.
3
Mr. Fleisher, an “international spokesmen” for Israel, believes "Judea and Samaria" belong to the Jews and presents his argument. To an outsider, it appears that modern Jews need to reflect on this: thousands of years ago, the Israelites gained the advantage militarily, conquered some preferred land "flowing with milk and honey". Translation: prime pasture / farm land: cattle, sheep, etc. Then their rabbis and scribes composed a scripture to justify "theirs" ..."Yahweh told us so...".
Here’s a 6th solution: If Fleisher is right, the "palestinians" should convert to Judaism, where many advantages await them, among them, the negative ones: constant war with other palestinians who aren't on board with that idea, plus the numerous other enemies that show up in history, like an occasional Hitler. The US gets sucked into the conflict as the “lucky” world military leader, also hampered by its now impractical, lofty concepts of democracy in its original constitution, composed in the humanistic optimism of 17th century-to-present-day political-philosophical thinking.
What this means for the average Jewish settler in Israel: constant worry about who’s digging a tunnel under your house with malicious and murderous intent. For the person in the streets of Jerusalem, it means being wary of random stabbings. It must be very stressful to live anywhere in Israel.
Here’s a 6th solution: If Fleisher is right, the "palestinians" should convert to Judaism, where many advantages await them, among them, the negative ones: constant war with other palestinians who aren't on board with that idea, plus the numerous other enemies that show up in history, like an occasional Hitler. The US gets sucked into the conflict as the “lucky” world military leader, also hampered by its now impractical, lofty concepts of democracy in its original constitution, composed in the humanistic optimism of 17th century-to-present-day political-philosophical thinking.
What this means for the average Jewish settler in Israel: constant worry about who’s digging a tunnel under your house with malicious and murderous intent. For the person in the streets of Jerusalem, it means being wary of random stabbings. It must be very stressful to live anywhere in Israel.
8
He is an international spokesman for the tiny Jewish community of Hebron. He is not an international spokesman for Israel.
2
Mr. Fleisher's article does not even begin to address the myriad of reasons why the two state solution is dead. First, the Palestinians do not have a representative government. Abbas' electoral mandate expired in 2009. With whom should Israel negotiate, and who is going to enforce the agreement? Israel's "peace agreement" with the Gemayal government in Lebanon meant nothing, its agreement with Sadat meant nothing when Morsi came to power. Furthermore, when the Palestinians had an elected government it didn't comply with agreements it signed, nor did it according to Dennis Ross' book Missing Peace feel it was obligated to comply with agreements.
Palestinian terror wounded the two state solution but the war in Syria killed it. If Barak had negotiated a deal with Assad to return the Golan Heights in 2000 Israel's very existence would be threatened by ISIS now. Who in his right mind would establish a fledgling Arab state feet from its capital and major population centers. If the priority of the Palestinians is to spend money building terror tunnels into population centers that border Gaza what could they do from territory bordering Jerusalem?
It's time to seriously consider the proposals in this editorial rather than the constant drumbeat of nonsensical vilification of Israel or bleating about two state solutions. Every proposal here deals with demographics, democracy, values, and the Arabs' rights.
Time to face the future honestly.
Palestinian terror wounded the two state solution but the war in Syria killed it. If Barak had negotiated a deal with Assad to return the Golan Heights in 2000 Israel's very existence would be threatened by ISIS now. Who in his right mind would establish a fledgling Arab state feet from its capital and major population centers. If the priority of the Palestinians is to spend money building terror tunnels into population centers that border Gaza what could they do from territory bordering Jerusalem?
It's time to seriously consider the proposals in this editorial rather than the constant drumbeat of nonsensical vilification of Israel or bleating about two state solutions. Every proposal here deals with demographics, democracy, values, and the Arabs' rights.
Time to face the future honestly.
27
If Barak had negotiated a deal with Assad to return the Golan Heights in 2000 Israel's very existence would be threatened by ISIS now.'
If Barak had negotiated a deal with Assad in 2000, there would be no ISIS today.
If Barak had negotiated a deal with Assad in 2000, there would be no ISIS today.
It is always a very good idea to put oneself in the shoes of people most afflicted by a situation. In this regard, the present op-ed is very enlightening and useful. Yet, it will be more useful if the Times seek an op-ed from the stark opposite side of Yishai; that is, a Palestinian whose land is to be "compensated for" by the Israeli government.
208
Amor Reza, there is a legal precedent in every democracy for appropriation of private land with compensation to its owners.
It is called "Eminent Domain". For sure you are aware of it.
It is called "Eminent Domain". For sure you are aware of it.
1
That's easy....just look at the PLO or Hamas charter....death to Jews....
2
Thank you for this. Finally an article on this issue in the NYT that is written by someone who actually understands the realities on the ground.
I'm so sick of armchair liberals comfortably ensconced in NYC, LA and other places far from Israel dictating to Israel how they should run their country. Israel needs to be able to work out a solution without the continued interference and pressure from abroad.
One thing I can say is that whatever Israel proposes, it will be kinder and fairer to the "Palestinians" than any Moslem country has ever been to the Jews. And yes, a good start would be to send 800,000 "Palestinians" back to the Arab countries from which Jews have been expelled in the 20th century. If Israel were to compensate them for their land and homes it would be far more than was ever done for the Jews expelled by the Arab nations.
I'm also sick of leftist US Jews who demonize Israel and support "Palestinians" and their notions of statehood. J-street doesn't speak for me. The NYT doesn't speak for me. The hordes of Reform and Conservative rabbis all shedding tears for the "Palestinians" don't speak for me.
I'm an American Jew and I support the annexation of Judea and Samaria into Israel and it's proper role as being part of the Jewish country of Israel. Yasher koach Mr. Fleisher!
I'm so sick of armchair liberals comfortably ensconced in NYC, LA and other places far from Israel dictating to Israel how they should run their country. Israel needs to be able to work out a solution without the continued interference and pressure from abroad.
One thing I can say is that whatever Israel proposes, it will be kinder and fairer to the "Palestinians" than any Moslem country has ever been to the Jews. And yes, a good start would be to send 800,000 "Palestinians" back to the Arab countries from which Jews have been expelled in the 20th century. If Israel were to compensate them for their land and homes it would be far more than was ever done for the Jews expelled by the Arab nations.
I'm also sick of leftist US Jews who demonize Israel and support "Palestinians" and their notions of statehood. J-street doesn't speak for me. The NYT doesn't speak for me. The hordes of Reform and Conservative rabbis all shedding tears for the "Palestinians" don't speak for me.
I'm an American Jew and I support the annexation of Judea and Samaria into Israel and it's proper role as being part of the Jewish country of Israel. Yasher koach Mr. Fleisher!
36
Israel is not just running it's own country...it is occupying one that should belong to others because they want to take it over too. THAT is the issue.
56
This is good, Greenie.
We finally have your word that Israel is not a democracy, it is a Jewish theocracy (duh).
We have your sure knowledge that there is no commitment to a two-state solution, so we can move on. Who knows to where.
And we have a statement that Israel will, one fine day, devise a solution and the Arabs will have no alternative but to accept it.
I'm a little confused by Fleisher's assertion that Jews have lived on that land for 3,700 years, because they were not Jews 3,700 years ago. But, fine.
I'm also concerned by your supporting that statement with the words of God that you get the land because, well, you do. I think in many religious circles claiming to know the mind of God is called hubris, and considered both arrogant and dangerous.
Finally, as you well know, basing your politics on your religion is a recipe unmitigated disaster, as you guys frequently point out when discussing your Arab neighbors.
So, a little progress and lots of questions.
We finally have your word that Israel is not a democracy, it is a Jewish theocracy (duh).
We have your sure knowledge that there is no commitment to a two-state solution, so we can move on. Who knows to where.
And we have a statement that Israel will, one fine day, devise a solution and the Arabs will have no alternative but to accept it.
I'm a little confused by Fleisher's assertion that Jews have lived on that land for 3,700 years, because they were not Jews 3,700 years ago. But, fine.
I'm also concerned by your supporting that statement with the words of God that you get the land because, well, you do. I think in many religious circles claiming to know the mind of God is called hubris, and considered both arrogant and dangerous.
Finally, as you well know, basing your politics on your religion is a recipe unmitigated disaster, as you guys frequently point out when discussing your Arab neighbors.
So, a little progress and lots of questions.
4
If it didn't receive massive amounts of financial support, it wouldn't need to tolerate the "interference." Is that what you're suggesting?
1
"They do not see a resolution of conflicting national aspirations in one land and instead propose an exchange of populations with Arab countries, which effectively expelled about 800,000 Jews around the time of Israeli independence. In contrast, however, Palestinians in Judea and Samaria would be offered generous compensation to emigrate voluntarily."
I can't believe you dared publishing a piece that overtly call for expelling Palestinians. For the sack of balancing, you should publish Palestinians' counterparts nourishing similar plans in your opinion's page, though I doubt you will....
I can't believe you dared publishing a piece that overtly call for expelling Palestinians. For the sack of balancing, you should publish Palestinians' counterparts nourishing similar plans in your opinion's page, though I doubt you will....
175
Isn't that, like, every single article the nytimes publishes on this subject EVER?
1
No one is calling for expulsion. I wrote about voluntary compensated emigration.
1
Would trains be used? I believed the enlightened Avigdor Lieberman proposed trucks. He did not want anyone to make any connections.
3
The Times should be commended for allowing this iconoclastic point of view to be considered, although no doubt 99% of the commenters will condemn it.
13
We rightly condemn fascism.
6
"Judea and Samaria belong to the Jewish people. Our right to this land is derived from our history, religion, international decisions and defensive wars"
This kind of thinking is exactly what perpetuates the conflict. The land doesn't belong to "the Jewish people" any more than it belongs to "the Arabs".
We are all apes clinging to the surface of a rock floating in space. We are born, we live, then we die (for now, anyway, until we develop the cure for aging or merge with machines). Ideas about ownership of pieces of this rock are completely devoid of any sense of the true nature of reality and are rooted in outdated modes of thinking about how collections of humans can best live with one another in order to promote maximum flourishing.
Accepting as our core values as a species the contents of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, essentially that all humans have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, is an important first step toward achieving that maximum flourishing, and it necessarily precludes beliefs about the supernaturally ordained birthright of a particular self-identified group of people.
Until Israel is not organized as a "Jewish State", wherein non-Jews are denied the dignity of being embraced as a fully legitimate member of society, I see no way for there to be a truly deep and lasting peace.
This kind of thinking is exactly what perpetuates the conflict. The land doesn't belong to "the Jewish people" any more than it belongs to "the Arabs".
We are all apes clinging to the surface of a rock floating in space. We are born, we live, then we die (for now, anyway, until we develop the cure for aging or merge with machines). Ideas about ownership of pieces of this rock are completely devoid of any sense of the true nature of reality and are rooted in outdated modes of thinking about how collections of humans can best live with one another in order to promote maximum flourishing.
Accepting as our core values as a species the contents of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, essentially that all humans have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, is an important first step toward achieving that maximum flourishing, and it necessarily precludes beliefs about the supernaturally ordained birthright of a particular self-identified group of people.
Until Israel is not organized as a "Jewish State", wherein non-Jews are denied the dignity of being embraced as a fully legitimate member of society, I see no way for there to be a truly deep and lasting peace.
19
The author proffers 4 or 5 plans offered by various Israelis regarding the future disposition of the West Bank Palestinians. No input from the Palestinians is sought or required; they will just have to accept whatever is decided for them. I don't think this is going to work.
21
The author ignores the Arab right to self-determination in the land of their parents and grandparents. This is demeaning and defies common sense.
Yet, I respect and applaud his openness to potentially admitting Palestinians as equal partners in Israel's future. To survive, a truly multi-faith greater Israel would need enormous courage and restraint on both sides. It's a high risk plan - but it does seem the only one left.
Yet, I respect and applaud his openness to potentially admitting Palestinians as equal partners in Israel's future. To survive, a truly multi-faith greater Israel would need enormous courage and restraint on both sides. It's a high risk plan - but it does seem the only one left.
5
It seems talking about practical solution is premature without some work to persuade both sides to commit to peace as a principle. I suspect ordinary people on both sides are eager to live in peace, get on with life, care for their children and elderly, and give themselves a reprieve from the conflict and destruction. Intractable are the politicians. The gap between ordinary people and politicians are generally a bad thing, but in this case may make persuasion easier as the number is much smaller.
"Personal rights, not national rights." This formula of national delegitimization is wrong. It is also a major contributor to the complex of forces that inspire Palestinians to commit terror. (And don't read me wrong. This is not a justification for terror, for none exists.)
Declaring boldly and loudly in the New York Times that Palestinians must compromise their national rights—rights that a minority that is over 10% of the current Israeli population and would be half of that of the new population after annexation—is to revealingly admit a philosophy of Jewish supremacy.
Yes, dealing with the binational character of Israel is an enormous challenge and would be an unending struggle. But declaring an abrogation of Palestinian national rights is tantamount to conceding plans of massive voter suppression.
Rights are self-reinforcing. The right to vote safeguards all other rights. The rights to freedoms of speech, press, and protest offer similar protection of other rights. Rights of due process of law and equality under law offer mutual protection of other rights.
A grant of partial rights is therefore a grant of second-class status; it is a grant of contingent existence. And as an Israeli Jew, as a member of that tribe of perennial contingent existence, I object.
Declaring boldly and loudly in the New York Times that Palestinians must compromise their national rights—rights that a minority that is over 10% of the current Israeli population and would be half of that of the new population after annexation—is to revealingly admit a philosophy of Jewish supremacy.
Yes, dealing with the binational character of Israel is an enormous challenge and would be an unending struggle. But declaring an abrogation of Palestinian national rights is tantamount to conceding plans of massive voter suppression.
Rights are self-reinforcing. The right to vote safeguards all other rights. The rights to freedoms of speech, press, and protest offer similar protection of other rights. Rights of due process of law and equality under law offer mutual protection of other rights.
A grant of partial rights is therefore a grant of second-class status; it is a grant of contingent existence. And as an Israeli Jew, as a member of that tribe of perennial contingent existence, I object.
11
Providing five solutions means that none of them are really acceptable
6
My parents and family lived in England 50 Years ago. Im Australian (british born). Doesnt give me the right to expropriate anyone's property in England just because they werent born there. You need to grow up, Mr Fleisher.
14
The situations are not equivalent.
Your English family's move to Australia was one option among others. I guess, I don't know.
But I bet your family was not flung unwilling, into a holocaust. They were not persecuted for their ethnicity, subjected to violence, did not burn in concentration camps nor did they have their property confiscated by the state nor their neighbors.
For many, returning home was not an option. Those that did found strangers living in there home, sitting at their kitchen tables, eating from their dishes. They didn't want to give any of it back. There are still claims court. To this day.
I cannot speak to the issue of who exactly needs to grow up, but there is a need to understand history, especially when it is as complicated and lengthy as this issue.
One thing is sure - Palestinians deserve better, both from Israel, and especially from their own leadership. Both peoples deserve to raise their families in some degree of security and hope. And where they are now, cannot hold. For anyone.
Your English family's move to Australia was one option among others. I guess, I don't know.
But I bet your family was not flung unwilling, into a holocaust. They were not persecuted for their ethnicity, subjected to violence, did not burn in concentration camps nor did they have their property confiscated by the state nor their neighbors.
For many, returning home was not an option. Those that did found strangers living in there home, sitting at their kitchen tables, eating from their dishes. They didn't want to give any of it back. There are still claims court. To this day.
I cannot speak to the issue of who exactly needs to grow up, but there is a need to understand history, especially when it is as complicated and lengthy as this issue.
One thing is sure - Palestinians deserve better, both from Israel, and especially from their own leadership. Both peoples deserve to raise their families in some degree of security and hope. And where they are now, cannot hold. For anyone.
3
Ellen, thats not correct. Its a perfect analogy. England has been my home for 1500 years. I was not given a choice in leaving. that doesnt entitle me to confiscate the property of people there now.
Your points re the holocaust are irrelevant. The reasons why people came back are irrelevant.
The jewish people no more returned "home" than I would be returning "home" if I went back to england - a country whose culture i live and breath (modified by my experience as an australian) but which is foreign to me. Either way, that doesnt give me the right to confiscate the land of people who may have been living their for generations. And by the way, I have jewish relatives and I am very familiar with the history, thanks.
Your points re the holocaust are irrelevant. The reasons why people came back are irrelevant.
The jewish people no more returned "home" than I would be returning "home" if I went back to england - a country whose culture i live and breath (modified by my experience as an australian) but which is foreign to me. Either way, that doesnt give me the right to confiscate the land of people who may have been living their for generations. And by the way, I have jewish relatives and I am very familiar with the history, thanks.
4
The assumption underlying all of Yishai Fleisher's arguments and assertions is that Palestinians are inferior to each and every Israeli. In his proposals, the Palestinians are foreign creatures that must be managed in a way that in every circumstance they have fewer rights, an unequal voice, and lesser opportunities. Mr. Fleisher seems to be unaware of the profound evil that pervades every society where some people are designated as second class or inferior. Or maybe Mr. Fleisher believes that nature or his god created Palestinians as lesser people.
31
It is an intractable problem. Option 4 proposes to treat all as equal citizens. Given the long history of strife, however, Options 3&5 might make be realistic means of accommodating the Palestinians who choose so. As others have pointed out, we need to hear what the five or seven or one-dozen options that Palestinians have in mind. It will have to begin with both sides agreeing to peace, and look at how Nepal and Bangladesh are making progress dealing with the Rohingyas once peace becomes the goal.
I respect the complexity of the dispute. I am supportive of a Jewish State - or a state where Jews enjoy the freedom to live in peace. Its a different world. I fear that all this time caught up arguing for who is right in complicated situations- where all parties deserve to live in peace as part of a state with all due rights and freedoms- is a huge distraction from the most pressing need of our time: climate change. Argue ownership of Judea and Somalia all you want... without peace it's impossible to focus on the huge risk the land is worthless in 50 years or less. Wake up people.
The "Jordan is Palestine" option is a total sham. The thought that Israeli law would be equally applied to resident "aliens" has been demonstrated to be incorrect looking over the recent history of land appropriations, and violations of the rule of law under military rule. Replacing the military rule is unlikely to modify the basic dynamic of the laws favoring populations which have political power. The idea that 400,000 citizens and 2.7 million "ex-pats" is laughable on its surface. Home rule ideas are better but as the author implies there are many problems and there would need to be some strong determination of what domains are ruled by the home rule and which are under national control. The only relatively clean option is to offer citizenship to all and allow them to choose it or areas of home rule. At least the population is offered the option rather than having it imposed. Finally the issue of Puerto Rico is a red herring because it is not under military rule with many land seizures and colonizing behavior. The two-state solution also is messy and perhaps the author is right as characterizing it as unworkable, but it isn't any crazier than some of the options offered. Past history does not give one the right to oppress in the present.
7
I believe the problem is not of land but of religion. Israel must decide if it is a country based on democracy, with equal rights and protections given to all or if it is a country based on religion, where a religious test determines your rights and protection under the law.
18
Some of the proposals are similar to what some white nationalists would want to implement in the United States if they had the power. Chilling stuff.
35
How can any rational person base a political concept on tribal mythology? Forget the Pentateuch; it's no closer to truth than the Pueblo people's belief that their ancestors emerged from the earth. Any semblance to a worthwhile faith begins by sifting the magician God out of the Pentateuch and starting with verifiable history.
13
You don't have to disbelieve in God to believe that the idea of a religious state is bad for the state and bad for the religion.
3
You forgot the sixth alternative, Yishai,
the adoption of Cloud Cuckoo Land.
It certainly has more of a chance than the other five.
A two state solution might not be on the table at the moment, but it is the only one with any chance of acceptance by all of the parties. I just hope it happens one day. After all, it was my own country that originally got us into this predicament.
the adoption of Cloud Cuckoo Land.
It certainly has more of a chance than the other five.
A two state solution might not be on the table at the moment, but it is the only one with any chance of acceptance by all of the parties. I just hope it happens one day. After all, it was my own country that originally got us into this predicament.
6
A two-state solution is no longer possible. One of the parties responsible for this is the Palestinian leadership, which should be jettisoned or ignored.
The several one-state proposals should be examined to determine which offers the greatest satisfaction to non-political non-activist "man-on-the-street" Palestinian individuals. Once identified it should be subject to an exceedingly well monitored referendum. Family reunification for Palestinians in exile should then be addressed.
The several one-state proposals should be examined to determine which offers the greatest satisfaction to non-political non-activist "man-on-the-street" Palestinian individuals. Once identified it should be subject to an exceedingly well monitored referendum. Family reunification for Palestinians in exile should then be addressed.
5
The personal rights of people with one religion determined by the full citizens of another religion who have "national rights?" What exactly is that if not apartheid?
104
"Judea and Samaria belong to the Jewish people. Our right to this land is derived from our history, religion, international decisions and defensive wars."
Throwing down the gauntlet, pushing for the acquisition of land with committed will and the backing of God...
Doesn't seem to be an end to this stance; each arrival is followed by the next project.
Throwing down the gauntlet, pushing for the acquisition of land with committed will and the backing of God...
Doesn't seem to be an end to this stance; each arrival is followed by the next project.
8
"those questions can be worked out through the democratic process"? When you're deciding the fate of millions of people against their will, that's not a democratic process.
118
What the author means is that Israeli citizens can democratically determine what happens to the Palestinians. Kinda of like how White Americans decided what happened to the Indians and the Blacks.
4
There is another option, one not really cited here, which would be a sort of Federalism; Two countries with shared parliament and equal representation.
But ultimately none of the other choices offered are workable. Make Palestinians Jordanian citizens and consider them "ex-pats" in the land where they and their ancestors have lived for a thousand years? Use a kind of caste system to further Balkanize the Palestinians by assuming they can only cohere within tribal boundaries and make cities independent? Attempt to play with demographics in such a way as to ensure a Jewish majority? Already that approaches a loss of democracy.
Look - Israel controls everything about the lives of the Palestinians. Their natural resources, movement, electricity, food, economy; Palestinians spend Shekels and the border with Jordan will always be under the control of Israel for strategic reasons. Decades of terrible policy have left Israel with one moral option: Annex the West Bank and Gaza and make the Palestinians living there full citizens, with the right to live where-ever they please, instead of being crowded into Bantustans. Israel created this problem by never being willing to deal with the fact that the indigenous Arabs have rights too.
I know the Israeli response will be to cite hatred and violence against them. South Africa's regime was far worse to its black residents, and now they have a unity government which represents all. If it can work there after Apartheid, it can work there.
But ultimately none of the other choices offered are workable. Make Palestinians Jordanian citizens and consider them "ex-pats" in the land where they and their ancestors have lived for a thousand years? Use a kind of caste system to further Balkanize the Palestinians by assuming they can only cohere within tribal boundaries and make cities independent? Attempt to play with demographics in such a way as to ensure a Jewish majority? Already that approaches a loss of democracy.
Look - Israel controls everything about the lives of the Palestinians. Their natural resources, movement, electricity, food, economy; Palestinians spend Shekels and the border with Jordan will always be under the control of Israel for strategic reasons. Decades of terrible policy have left Israel with one moral option: Annex the West Bank and Gaza and make the Palestinians living there full citizens, with the right to live where-ever they please, instead of being crowded into Bantustans. Israel created this problem by never being willing to deal with the fact that the indigenous Arabs have rights too.
I know the Israeli response will be to cite hatred and violence against them. South Africa's regime was far worse to its black residents, and now they have a unity government which represents all. If it can work there after Apartheid, it can work there.
28
The Federal solution is the one that I think actually offers the most promise. It does allow both peoples to nominally have their own state. But all the land and resources are shared between the two states, so essentially it's a single polity. Citizens of Israel and Palestine would both be completely free to live and work anywhere within the borders of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.
1
By Mr, Fleisher's logic, if descendants of the Lenape tribe park themselves on my lawn and build homes there I have no right to kick them out, as they were the persons who owned this land 400 years ago and were cheated and beaten out of it by William Penn and his familial and political descendants. They can disenfranchise me and take my water and electricity. Of course, that is not the case. Mr. Fleisher lives in an armed camp because he and his neighbors think Arabs inferior, not worthy of the most basic of rights and services the now descendant notions of Western civilizations demand. Mr. Fleisher and his neighbors do what they do because they can, not because it is right. Putin's pal in the White House will not save them from their folly.
I am an Israel supporter writ large— I believe in the necessity of its survival. I go there every two years and am returning in the Fall to visit and support an organization that, among other things, successfully promotes peace and cooperation between Israelis and Arabs all over the Middle East. But the Netanyahu/Bennet/Regev axis supported or tolerated by a majority Israeli voters and their feckless left is stomach turning, and is testing my desire to go there in the future. Mr Fleisher and his pals must either give everyone in the occupied territories a vote and equal access to the highways and services Israeli citizens receive, or work hard to get out in a way that protect peace as much as possible and get out.
I am an Israel supporter writ large— I believe in the necessity of its survival. I go there every two years and am returning in the Fall to visit and support an organization that, among other things, successfully promotes peace and cooperation between Israelis and Arabs all over the Middle East. But the Netanyahu/Bennet/Regev axis supported or tolerated by a majority Israeli voters and their feckless left is stomach turning, and is testing my desire to go there in the future. Mr Fleisher and his pals must either give everyone in the occupied territories a vote and equal access to the highways and services Israeli citizens receive, or work hard to get out in a way that protect peace as much as possible and get out.
13
Has anyone asked the Arabs what they want? Do they have a voice in their fate or, once again, are they expected to accept whatever the Jewish state determines is most convenient for itself? Let's be honest here: all these proposals (except maybe the fourth) appear to be Israeli schemes for taking the land but not taking the people. And of course the only reason Israel doesn't want the people is because the people are the wrong ethnicity. So what Fisher calls the "potentially repugnant element" of many of these solutions probably should be named: racism. It's interesting that Fisher ends with an appeal to Mr. Trump: "With a new American administration in power, there is a historic opportunity to have an open discussion of real alternatives, unhampered by the shibboleths of the past." In both America and Israel there seems to be great pleasure in being freed from the shackles of political correctness and therefore being able to embrace racist policies without embarrassment. A brave new world we've entered.
18
I say that extending citizenship to Palestinians is the best option. They may accept it, but the rest of the arab world will not. A new war will erupt and maybe Israel will do militarily what it has failed to do diplomatically for 70 some odd years
It is so refreshing to see someone so honestly and easily disarm and disprove a policy imposed so one sidedly, selfishly, and arrogantly by the international community on the people of the Middle East. Hopefully readers will see that no one but fat, disconnected power brokers have any hope for this plan. And that the onesided condemnation Israel has faced from the left for so long is nonsensical, uninformed, and counterproductive. Kudos Yishai!
4
I reject the claim by the writer of this piece that "jewish people" are any different than any other people anywhere in the world. Religion should not give people a right to rule a country nor should ethnicity, although people who consider themselves "jewish" are of multiple ethnicities as are most humans. Do the indigenous people of the americas have a right to rule their respective countries? The concept that arabs can live in Israel with personal rights but not national rights is a definite violation of human rights. What a bizarre and misguided article!
83
They had the right before colonialist Americans stole it from them. You might actually be making Yishai's point for him...
1
The calm and confidence of this is either absurd or evidence that the one-state solution must be accepted. I have no idea which to believe.
1) Full control by Israel, but no voting rights in Israel (status quo)
2) Land grab for most of the West Bank, still no nation for Palestinians (status quo).
3) "Autonomy" for tiny economically unviable Palestinian enclaves - 7 more "Gaza’s".
4) One state solution, full rights for all.
5) A buyout for Palestinians to go away, no change in status quo for those who remain.
All but one of these are transparent variations on land grabs, removal, or continuation of the existing Apartheid policy. The only remotely viable solution is the 4th one - one nation with equal rights for all inhabitants.
It remains to be seen if Israelis are willing to consider a nation where all are truly equal. The last 50 years do not support much optimism - it would take some truly moral and visionary leadership, which is sorely lacking right now.