The Everyone Wins Peace Plan in Halacha

A common theme that a couple of the religious critics of the Everyone Wins Peace Plan have expressed is that peace plans to the right of my plan follow Halacha (Talmudic Law) and mine does not in relation to not allowing gentiles to have dominion in the Holy Land. Here is where they are mistaken according to my understanding of Talmudic Law.

Are Arabs allowed to be accepted in the Holy Land by the Jewish people?

• 1) The Biblical injunction against allowing idolators to possess the Holy Land (Lo Techanem) only applies to adding groups and entire populations to the land, not individuals. (for more on this study tractate Avodah Zarah, Mishnah 1:8 and the Gamora 21a) So, for example, to bring this back to current events, the concept of an Arabic "right of return" to the Land of Israel would not be acceptable under this concept.
  
  Saving Lives (pikuach nefesh) is the more pressing concern, however, as Security realities preclude an Arabic "right of return" therefore the Arabic "right of return" is forbidden due to clear cut danger to life concerns and thus the prohibition is even more severe than the concept of Lo Techanem alone would prohibit and is absolutely forbidden under Biblical injunction.



• 2) Maintaining current demographic ratios via a staggered naturalization process connected to Jewish immigration rates (i.e. the heart of the Everyone Wins Peace Plan) would not be Biblically prohibited.



• 3) Any rabbinical restrictions that would be glossed over, due to the fact of the realities on the ground, and the probable leadership of a secular government in this process cannot override the fundamental command of preservation of life. Every day that true peace is delayed more lives are at risk. It would be a violation of Biblical law to even consider delaying a TRUE peace plan.

Moshiach (the Messiah) could come up with a better plan, I admit. But we are prohibited to wait until he comes for such an optimal plan due to the danger of life that would entail (unless he should show up before you finish reading this...). Since that is the case, we must run with whatever peace plan that is politically VIABLE within the context of allowing for primal halachic standards. Rabbi Kahane's plan, unfortunately, does not meet that test.

Of the currently well known peace plans, Everyone Wins allows for primal halachic standards, while showing the most concern for the indigenous Arabic population (as well as the indigenous Jewish Population) of any halachically acceptable plan.

This makes Everyone Wins the most politically liberal interpretation of halachic standards in the context of any peace plan out there.

That means that Everyone Wins' political viability is unmatched by any other halachically acceptable peace plan over the long term.

That also means that unlike a Kahane type plan, it does not require a political revolution to occur.

This way of a "politically natural" redemptive process is consistent with the concept (in Isaiah 44:22) "return to me for I have (already) redeemed you."

Thus the three main standards that would uphold halachic concerns in our search for a true peace plan would be:

a) being strong for security (and against terror),

b) allowing Judaic religious freedom in any part of the land, and

c) political viability so that the first two goals can be achieved as soon as possible.

The emphasis in religion should be on morals and ethics and it all starts with the preservation of life. That is the intent of Talmudic Law. And so may it be our collective aspiration, by the grace of God.

Regime Change of the PA Via Annexation

Were I a member of the Netanyahu Administration I would have voted against the building freeze in the territories. They are sending a confusing message of negotiating against their own position even before the PA regime returns to the negotiation table with them. This was only to placate a foreign power, not in pursuance of good policy for their people. The destructively self effacing courtship of friendship from the anti Jewish PA must cease so that Israel’s penchant for kindness and patience no longer be used against it by anyone. Fair play begins with being willing to play by the rules.

The Israeli government’s blunder, however, has a silver lining that is found in their special treatment of East Jerusalem in the face of Western linkage of East Jerusalem with Judea and Samaria. It illustrates that they believe that the State of Israel, at least potentially, has absolute authority over the lands conquered in the defensive Six Day War, otherwise how could they assume that their annexation of East Jerusalem is valid? Thus the silver lining in the dark cloud that the Netanyahu Administration performed is that they have incidentally taken a real step in disputing those who erroneously say that U.N. resolutions 242 and 338 make lands conquered in defensive wars barred from annexation by the defensive conquerors. One of the leading foundations in the conflict over the territories is this very dispute.

To briefly explain the basics of that dispute in International Law, those who argued that defensive conquest is illegal since the passage of Resolution 242 are standing upon the implicit but not explicit gist of the resolution’s wording and matters of current political expediency alone, whereas those who say defensive wars are legal means of territorial annexation cite actual historic precedents. As even an explicit law forbidding defensive conquest would only be a “customary law”, while returning strategic land to a belligerent regime would be aiding and abetting the self destruction of the innocent nation(s) who heed the implicit command of resolutions like 242, which would violate the most profound of International Norms in existence (Jus Cogens) toward their own populace. Humanity, if it is to continue to morally and ethically progress in its great journey through time, cannot bear such crimes against it.

Allow me to ask you this: A man that loves his wife does not mind if she makes a few mistakes here and there. A man that hates his wife does not tolerate any wrong that she does unless he depends on her for something, whether that is for his continued prestige, care of his children, avoiding the loss of his fortune to divorce expense or the like. So what does Abbas have that makes the Netanyahu Administration desire to put up with him?

If Abbas leaves, there is fear that Hamas would take over? How can they not if every time there is an election Hamas gains more and more strength? But that is not Israel’s concern. The Arab people subjugated by the PA voted for their terrorist leaders rather than less offensive third party candidates like Hanan Ashrawi’s party. Now third party alternatives will likely never again gain the attention of the Palestinian press thus solidifying the hold of the current terroristic PA configuration in perpetuity for as long as the PA will exist. You owe such voters nothing from a foreign policy aspect. Thus when forming your policy towards Palestinian Arabs only humanitarian concerns should be considered in relation to their dire political plight and bleak future if the PA should remain their masters, God forbid.

Standard regime change cannot fix this problem. The regime once removed would likely be replaced by a worse regime. So what you have then is essentially an entire national entity lost to the prospect of achieving true peace through negotiation. Therefore negotiation itself has been made a mockery and even an impediment toward the pursuit of actual regional peace by the will of the Palestinian voters themselves as interpreted by their petty and corrupt leaders. Acknowledge that as long as you hope for the PA to change, there is no hope.

Consider that if you annex only small portions of the West Bank, you abandon thousands of good Arab people within the PA to an endless reign of despotic rulers. It would not be compassionate to ignore their plight. Abraham asked God to spare an entire evil city if only ten good people could be found in it. Many thousands of Arabs voted against Hamas. Do they all deserve abandonment?

Let’s put the answer out there plainly. Do not replace Abbas, remove him and his whole regime entirely. Annex the territories and bring democracy and peace simultaneously to the Israelis and Arabs living there. If demographic concerns still haunt, then a plan like the Everyone Wins Peace Plan can treat that even in the context of such a massive annexation by way of a staggered naturalization process. Either way, you could then have true peace and liberty for all, by the grace of God.

Good Governance Post National Trauma: Rejecting a Two State Solution

Israeli President Shimon Peres recently said, "Those who reject the two-state solution will not bring a one-state solution. They will bring one conflict, not one state. A bloody endless conflict."

Excuse me, but isn't that what the Oslo Accords accomplished? Is that not the very fruit that it brought upon Israel? Isn't that what the Roadmap to Peace (Oslo 3) ended up doing, especially before the security fence was built?

Has it been so long since the first Intifada began that people have forgotten what it was like when Arab refugees didn't try to kill Israelis?

Answer this: Why, when Arafat was a fugitive for the first three decades of his terroristic career, there was no intifada? Why when Arafat underwent a PR makeover and was a pseudo partner in a pseudo peace process, why then did Israel stop looking over its borders with fear, but then start looking within its borders for the most clear and present dangers?

Arafat created a goon squad of terrorist abusers of the national psyche. Did anyone really believe that whitewashing the high crimes of the PLO by calling them by the designation of "diplomats" would bring Israel closer to peace?

Oslo 1, Oslo 2, the Roadmap. Wrong thought processes were at play that conceived these plans, which have brought these decades of endless violence. Like a battered wife who clings to her abusive husband. She should not cower behind the locked bathroom door each night hoping for her husband to calm down. She should leave or call the police.

By continuing to advocate the pursuit of a "two-state solution" you are essentially telling your people to sit there and take it; for eternity. This is peace? This is madness!

Bad policy such as this hopes to placate the abuser long enough so that the victim can just be left alone for a scant few moments of respite from his limitless rage. But no practical plans for long term security are on her agenda. Taking dangerous risks without a clearly obtainable goal is a classic symptom of the faulty reasoning that often affects the thought processes of victims of abuse. For example following up Oslo 1 with Oslo 2, then Oslo 2 with the Roadmap would be an expression of this disorder at the political level.

The healthier choice would have been seeking national consensus on the vital issues at play rather than forcing through the Knesset a left wing agenda.

To have true freedom from bloodshed, you must first inculcate true freedom of the heart and mind. As God told Yehoshua (Joshua) repeatedly, "Be strong and courageous".

Not only has the violence continued, your reaction has you pointed in the wrong direction to fix the problems...

Why should Arabs keep their homes and not Jews? Is this justice?

Why should Israel be forced into "Auschwitz Borders" as your friend Abba Eban used to call them? Is this security?

Why should you have to give anything to get peace? Should peaceful intentions not be shared by both partners?

Currently only one side is committed to peace and freedom of the other side if they should reach a peace deal, while the other guys refuse to accept even the notion of a Jewish State. Is this a true path to peace?

You have been strong and courageous to make sacrifices for peace. Now be strong and courageous to encourage the forsaking of the failed paths of national self destruction, leaving them as history. Only this new direction is a path that can lead to healthy and true peace.

Soon may it be so, by the grace of God.

Israeli Settlements Are Forever - Manifest Foreign Policy Is Not

As we discussed before, according to both Talmudic and International Laws, the Land of Israel is not only promised to the Jews, but legally belongs to them.

On Wednesday, Clinton insisted ''our policy on settlement has not changed.''''We do not accept the legitimacy of settlement activity. Ending all settlement activity current and future would be preferable,'' she told reporters after talks with Mubarak. (NY Times)

So what the Secretary of State is saying is that the Obama Administration does not care what "religions" say or even what "laws" say, only what the expedient needs of its self chosen foreign policy is. Is that what she's trying to communicate or am I missing something?

Reminds me of something I learned about Manifest Destiny. You make up a political ideology, and that becomes your law. Your current belief system trumps religion, history, law and common standards of fair play.

Ask a Native American if that is always a good thing.

Invite me to Washington and I'll explain it all to you.

P.S. I only eat Kosher.

US Foreign Policy in the Middle East under the Obama Administration - Nine Months Later

Siding with Israel over Iran does not mean that it's OK to sell out American principles on peace in the Middle East.

I don't mean to be pessimistic on a new administration. Generally it's good to give people a chance to get some experience and confidence going on their new job. Still, when the new kid on the block repeatedly foments controversy, it's hard to ignore what is going on.

Why does it seem that every time Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton make a statement in favor of Israel we need to tell ourselves to wait 24 to 48 hours until there is a retraction of some kind?

There needs to be ideological consistency out the White House. You can't blame Iran for being dangerous and then turn around and support Hamas.

On the matter of Iran, as said before, if there is military action against Iran, I would hope that it were by the US not Israel -not for Israel's sake, but for the well being of our troops overseas who are easier targets than anyone in the Land of Israel is. I don't care if they are holding guns, these brave soldiers are young Americans who are potentially in harm's way. America can and should protect it's own.

The prime responsibility of an American President is as Commander in Chief of the military. Iran's current regime is a potential threat to many members of that military.

Whereas the prime goal of foreign policy is to further national interests in a way that does not harm our allies, otherwise few trusted allies we would have, indeed. The territorial dispute in Israel should have zero to do with the foreign policy we show towards a world class dangerous regime in a different part of the Middle East. Please don't confuse the two.

Every time a tough statement is made against Iran, the current practice of this White House is to make some sort of corresponding verbal slight against Israeli rights to their land. If this is a calculated choice, it would be an effort at even handedness for the sake of even handedness, in a way that is not even handed at all.

Separate these two theaters of conflict within your foreign policy to prevent one large theater of war from believed intertwining interests that never existed until some foolish speech writer linked it all into a hodgepodge of pseudo even handedness and outright untruthfulness. The goal is to avoid conflict, not hasten it.

Please consider that perhaps the unintended message of this methodology is speaking louder than the intended message. The enemies of civilization tend pick and choose that which they want to hear. Therefore the upholders of civilization must be more circumspect in their speech.

Peace Cannot Be Founded Upon the Destruction of Societies

When a war ends and a people are sent into exile, the warfare ends, but the devastation lingers. If, however, after the war all non-corrupting elements of the conquered people are allowed or even encouraged to assimilate into the dominant society, then the long term harmful effects of war are minimized. A healthy influx of new ideas enters into the dominant society, enhancing it, not destroying it, because the corrupting elements were never invited to join the dominant society to begin with.

To bring peace between Israel and the Arab refugees in the territories, we must seek the method that will heal Israeli and Palestinian Arabic societies the best. Exiling this people or that cannot bring as strong a peace as seeking to allow every non terrorist to keep their home. This is not only the ethical foundation of the Everyone Wins peace plan, but it is also the clear understanding that anyone who witnessed firsthand the expulsions of the Jews of Gaza, must, by force of logic, arrive at.

Today thousands of the former residents of Gush Katif and the other former Israeli cities of Gaza are still in desperate financial distress. A recent speech by Rabbi Pesach Lerner of the National Council of Young Israel attests to the conditions that they are continuing to suffer from 4 years later. There were 10,000 Israeli evacuees of Gaza and all the kings horses and men of the West could not help them find jobs that were no longer available.

No famous peace plan other than the Everyone Wins peace plan avoids the pitfalls that were learned from the fall of Gush Katif. The Roadmap would face an infrastructure challenge 30 times greater than the Gaza evacuation did or else seek to abandon countless Israeli voters behind enemy lines. Whereas a plan to kick out the Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza would remove terrorist armies, yet create an infrastructure nightmare even greater than the Roadmap would.

It's time to look for a new method to end the madness without further delay. Raising mass discontent is not the answer. Perhaps it's time to seriously consider the Everyone Wins peace plan. It's time for applied logic and compassion to take center stage, so that the true betterment of humankind may find fulfillment on this world of ours. By the grace of God.

Jerusalem and Jewish Religious Freedom Are One

To not lend voice to all of the tools of truth is to offer truth a pale defensive effort. To deny any aspect of truth, is to pick up the mantra of the enemy and to insanely fight with oneself over the other aspects of truth that one still remembers to use to their own merit. You have embraced the enemy's deception and called it normalcy and thus weakened your overall efforts to preserve what absolutely must be preserved. To uphold that which is known to God and humankind. To put it plainly, that Jews have an historic, legal, moral and religious right to Jerusalem. Judaism itself, in fact, depends on Jerusalem.

By trying to divide either the physical Jerusalem, or the Jewish People from Jerusalem, you are violating their collective religious freedom in the most profound way possible. The Nazis tried to exterminate the Jewish race. The effort to divide Jerusalem is no less than an effort to exterminate the Jewish faith from the world. Which side of this divide does the Netanyahu Administration wish to place itself?

Even as the Prime Minister said that Israel will continue to build in Jerusalem, his Intelligence Affairs Minister, Dan Meridor of Likud showed with his recent interview all that is wrong with those leaders who are insensitive to the concept of freedom to pursue one's own religion being an inalienable right.

Seemingly drawing a line in the sand, Meridor said, "The Old City with the Jewish Quarter and the Wailing Wall will never be part of an Arab state; all the major Israeli parties share this conviction. There could be a compromise on land in Judea and Samaria. But all Israeli governments have agreed on having a united Jerusalem. This is our clear position, but we can negotiate about Jerusalem. There are no preconditions."

...he noted that the introduction of religion into a conflict that was historically defined on nationalistic ideas complicated matters. "It has become more difficult over the years because of the introduction of religion into this conflict. Arab rulers hated us in the past, but they did so because of nationalistic ideas. Since the [1979] revolution in Teheran, we hear a different tune: The Iranians, Hizbullah and Hamas fight us in the name of religion. This is very bad because people can compromise, but gods never compromise."

But Meridor also insisted that the issue of Jerusalem was not predicated on religion. "The previous pope (John Paul II) said that Jerusalem is sacred to all religions, but was promised to one people. We have no religious claim on Jerusalem; we have a national one. Jerusalem is our capital," he said.


You just said that Iran is using a religious argument to try to take your capital out from under you. Further the anti-democratic-democratically-elected Hamas denies the plain truth of your rights, using pseudo religious terms not found in the Koran to assault your claims. In other words, if this moral debate were not a battle of religious rights before, your enemies have turned this into one. To use a parable, if rioters take to the streets to loot innocent businesses, either you match their force with law enforcement, or you tell your citizens to at least protect themselves against the looters by staying off the streets.

By stating this is exclusively a secular conflict even as your enemy uses and twists religion as a tool to further their ends, you are disarming yourself before their verbal onslaught. Discapacitating your public relations at the same time as you empower their deceitful propaganda. Worse, you are disenabling dialectal pursuit of root and absolute truths. The very life preserver of moral, historic and legal rights themselves.

The majority of Israelis practice religion. This means that the many poll results that Jerusalem is considered beyond abandonment to the vast majority of Israelis are certainly true. Which also means that there is no way, no philosophic construction that could be devised that would be honestly conducive to democratic ideals that would allow the United States of America to support the separation of Jerusalem from Israel, the abrogation of the Jewish faith itself, with any shred of moral clarity or justification. If today you will try to abolish Judaism, is not the obliteration of Christianity on your agenda for the morrow?

Rather than trying to exploit any ideological weakness it can find in those few confused Israeli leaders who believe in whatever current U.S. policy happens to be, the U.S. Administration should be encouraging true democratic representation within Israeli's own government and policy making. At least that's what a true friend of Israel and bastion of democracy would do.


A call to a more hybridized political thought process on the Middle East Conflict would serve to sooner end it.

By the Grace of God.

Pollard for Robinson?

By awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom to pro-violence and anti Israel Mary Robinson, the Obama Administration has found a way to not only continue to aggravate pro-Israel Jews and Christians, but has made perhaps an unintentional but seriously flawed declaration that the ways of violent protests of Yasir Arafat trumps the non violent path of Martin Luther King Jr. Besides the broad implications this may have for domestic politics and the dire consequences for Democrats to keep their majorities in congress come the next election cycle should they be viewed as anti-King, this immediately and negatively effects American influence in the Middle East. This can only lend further extremes to future Palestinian Leadership demands and complicate the impossibly difficult situation between Israel and the PA beyond repair. While I would applaud an end to the wrong minded Roadmap to Peace, it should not be done in this way.

First the reversal on Jerusalem. Next the heavy handed interference on the matter of internal Israeli infrastructure policy that was never explicitly forbidden and signed upon in the Roadmap. Now the Administration can be viewed as implicitly rubber stamping future PA sponsored violence against Israel, let alone whatever good intentions that may have been in play during this Robinson decision.

Will supporters of terror look at the President's unstated intentions or his explicit actions to justify their evil plans? If the President does not retract his decision entirely, which is the preferred option, then I would suggest that clarification should issue from the White House that support for any anti-King philosophy that Robinson may hold was not intended and is virulently rejected by this administration.

Three such faux pas in a row is not just a bad sign, it is a diplomatic disaster than needs some cleanup work to be done as soon as possible.

A couple years ago I wrote that there could be a lot of political Goodwill to be gained with Israel by granting freedom to Jonathan Pollard, and no significant political downside to releasing him. President Bush rejected this opportunity, but perhaps President Obama will not. Perhaps this can be the political life preserver that Democrats need to show they are not the Anti-Israel party of the United States of America. Come the next election cycle, the Democrats could spin that it wasn't a Republican President who had mercy on a man incarcerated for 24 years, it was a Democrat. Conversely, it could be that what may be remembered at the next election cycle will be instead that every year, month, week and day that passes with undeserving fools like Robinson getting awards, while the humanitarian plight of Pollard is ignored as he is left to rot in prison.

What will the President choose to do?

Roadmap Agreements Are Not Universally Binding Under International Law

Bringing peace to nations is not a game. So why are the Roadmap Nations treating it as such? As if they can make up "house rules" of diplomacy where you can discriminate against the nation of your choice regardless of what objective norms (International Laws) say on the matter.

The new USA objection is due to concern over potentially prejudging the final outcome of a negotiated settlement. But in actuality, all that happened was not a political decision, but a decision in a court case between private litigants. To connect a court ruling on a decade old case with any future negotiation is a ludicrous suggestion at face value. No one at the signing of the Roadmap back in 2003 would ever have expected future court cases to be decided even before final status negotiations have taken place. To suggest that is to state fiction.

I start to worry where we are headed as a nation when our Foreign Affairs officials state current policy and call it International Law, when it is not. Until now the Obama Administration has been far from even handed in its treatment of Israel. But if its "experts" continue to misstate plain facts so grossly that they are viewed as either fools or liars not just by opposition political forces, but even mainstream members of foreign Parliaments, then the USA's influence in the Middle East will wane and erode along with it the hopes of participating in the bringing of true peace to the Middle East in the near future. Participating. That word is key. It implies a certain level of humility that current USA foreign policy lacks towards our best friend in the Middle East, Israel.

The court ruled that illegal housing was built on private property. In cases where the property owners were not Arabic, there was no previous protestation of the many prior decisions of the Israeli courts.

CNN reported the following declarations by the State Department:

In the United States, a State Department spokesman urged Israel to refrain from "provocative actions."

"As Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton has stated previously, the eviction of families and demolition of homes in East Jerusalem is not in keeping with Israeli obligations under the Roadmap," said Robert Wood, referring to the 2003 "Roadmap for peace" plan.

"We urge that the government of Israel and municipal officials refrain from provocative actions in East Jerusalem, including home demolitions and evictions. Unilateral actions taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community."

If any nation is discouraged from heeding its own courts because it is not preferred by other nations, would any nation listen to this? How about those non-democratic countries that are dismembering their own citizens due to highly questionable court decisions? Where is the condemnation?

What if another nation tried to threaten America IN ANYWAY for a ruling of an American court of justice? Would, COULD, America ever dare give in to such meddling? It would undermine the whole justice system to do so, and therefore it is unreasonable and ridiculous to even suggest such a thing.

This is not a matter of even-handedness or not. It is a process toward making a mockery of objective truth and justice and therefore such a path is antithetical to the American Way.

Worse it shows that America no longer cares about how it looks in the eyes of her allies. That is diplomacy gone astray. The greatest threat to the Roadmap to Peace is not an Israeli judge, but current American Foreign Policy!

Even as a critic of the false Roadmap to Peace I do not glory in this path to failure through an overdose of self contempt. A hog enjoys playing in the mud, but a diplomat should not. The Roadmap nations need to respect themselves more by either speaking more truthful statements from now on, or getting out of the game.

Middle East Peace Plan Comparison Chart

Well, they say that a picture is worth a thousand words, so perhaps I can save us all a lot of time and effort by displaying an illustration of my Everyone Wins Peace Plan in relation to the other famous peace plan ideas out there.

Just click on the image below to enhance the size and once you do, it is formatted to print in landscape orientation, so you'll have to select landscape before printing to get the whole image on a single sheet of paper.

Explanation of the Questionable remarks
1) Rabbi Elon's Plan depends on the Kingdom of Jordan to enhance those civil rights, so it's a question mark whether that is an improvement or not. It can be argued either way, which may not be a good sign.
2) The Oslo Accords and the Roadmap to Peace depend on a cessation of further conflict which sadly those plans do not guarantee, merely a separation, a permanent segregation of peoples is guaranteed. That does not ensure the ability to, for example, to build a new road in Israel next to a strategic kind of hill that would be given to the Arabs. If security right at the border is not guaranteed, how peaceful is such a plan?

Analysis

I took six of the most essential aspects contributing towards the long term viability of true peace in the Middle East and showed that only Everyone Wins is a sure path to peace.

If these score were grades in a school. All other plans except the Elon plan would fail. With the Israeli Initiative/Rabbi Elon plan getting a "D" at best. The Oslo Accords and the Roadmap to Peace have pathetic levels of long term viability, significantly lower than even Rabbi Kahane's peace plan which Israelis rejected a couple decades ago as even being an option. The Kahane plan breaks even at the 50 percent level of long term viability, in my estimation.

Of these plans mentioned it would seem that only Everyone Wins is a sure plan and path to peace.

May it soon be so, by the grace of God.

Land For Peace Is Reward For Belligerence

I have mentioned before my rejection of the concept of land for peace as not only not leading to peace but actually being a fuel to the fire of terrorism. This concept applies equally to avoiding war when seeking peace with belligerent foreign nations as well.

Reuters today printed an article on Israeli National Security Adviser Uzi Arad's take on Syria and the annexed Golan Heights:

"If there is a territorial compromise, it is one that still leaves Israel on the Golan Heights and deep into the Golan Heights," Arad said, noting also the plateau's water resources.

Let's remember some of the contemporary history of the Golan Heights. On April 24, 1920 The Golan was declared a part of the Jewish Homeland by the Balfour Declaration's Mandate For Palestine (Palestine back then referred to Jews more often than Arabs). A couple years later due to political pressures of the time, Britain cut off Trans-Jordan and the Golan from the land West of the River Jordan (Which included all Green Line Israel, West Bank and Gaza). The Jews did not like this, but accepted this for the sake of preserving their rights to at least some of the land. This proved to be a bad precedent as Britain again began to whittle away at the "gift" they were preparing to give Israel until they gave only half of Green Line Israel.

If you find someone's property and return it to them, is it really a gift? If someone found your lost collection of expensive watches and returned only one would you merely be grateful or ask where the other watches were?

After various Syrian attempts to illegally interfere with Israel's water supply during the 1960s, in 1967 Syria threatened to attack Israel using the Golan as a launching ground even before the Six Day War began. Israel later won the Golan in the war. Israel deliberated long and hard, until 1981 before annexing the Golan. Israel depended on it too much, and Syria, frankly, no longer deserved it.

My question is what has changed since then? The new Assad is more verbally abusive against Israel than his violent father was. That's all that's changed.

While PM Netanyahu is opposed to territorial compromise of the Golan, a year ago, Syrian head Assad considered the possibility of some territory remaining in Israeli hands, whether or not that is the current stated foreign policy of Syria. It is important to openly express support for Bibi's policy of no territorial compromise on the Golan so that it is clear to everyone that Israel, not just Bibi, is unwilling to support laying the foundation of a new war in the Middle East.

In further comments published on Friday, Arad said he could not rule out some form of Palestinian state emerging in the next few years -- he mentioned 2015 -- but said that it would be a "fragile structure. A house of cards."

Message to PM Netanyahu. If you and your staff believe that a Palestinian state would be unstable, then why pursue a Palestinian state at all when there are safer ways out there? As I mentioned earlier, the current stated plan for peace with the Arab Palestinian refugees is a prescription for a subsequent war. Your people need you to stand strong.

Peace in the Middle East: Everyone Wins

The following is the main text of the missive that was sent to Benjamin Netanyahu four months ago. My thanks for the e-mail that Major General, US Army Ret., Paul E. Vallely sent to Bibi on my behalf. I received e-mail confirmation from Bibi's staff back in March that it was handed to Bibi himself, who sent his personal thanks to me, but no further comment was given at that time.

I only mention this at this time in order to enable the readership to better understand where I am coming from so perhaps you could be better inspired by Heaven to offer suggestions that may help us find a common ground between the current Israeli peace initiative and the plan that Hashem/God gave me, so that we may find that one elusive yet perfect path to world peace that the Lord has promised to bring to mankind.

* * * * *

Peace in the Middle East: Everyone Wins
By Alan Friedlander

In pursuit of a peace plan to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, we need to find something that ends not only the causes of conflict but also ends the foundations of terrorism. The "Oslo Accords" have failed to bring peace, only pseudo legitimacy to the PLO.

The current peace initiative, the "Roadmap to Peace" is little more than a roadmap to roadblocks and has only succeeded in giving pseudo legitimacy to Fatah and a terrorist haven to Hamas. Not surprising, the efforts by the political left wing to evict innocent Israeli Jews from their homes seemingly for the sake and lone true benefit of unrepentant terrorists has elicited a stronger reaction than ever before from the political right to instead evict West Bank Palestinian Arabs from their homes. The tit for tat cycle does not end on the path that current American Foreign Policy travels. The further the Roadmap is pursued, the deeper entrenched animosities will grow, bringing the conflict closer to the prospect of resolution being possible exclusively by full scale war.

The time is ripe for Change. Change from the failed policies of a bygone era, to a true path towards regional conflict resolution. First let's create a wish list of the goals of the new path to peace.

The Ten Commandments of an Ideal Peace Plan:

1. To secure an end to terrorist armies within a stone's throw of Israeli cities.
2. To maintain West Bank and Gaza Palestinian Arabic control of their cities
3. Allow Palestinian Arabs the retention of their homes.
4. To allow Israeli settlers to keep their homes as well.
5. Free Palestinian Arabs in the short term from terrorist police and long term from refugee camps.
6. Maintains Israel's military control over all the land and resources West of the Jordan River.
7. Guarantee freedom of religious access to non-Muslims (Jews, Christians, etc.) to ancient and historic holy sites.
8. Eventually allow West Bank and Gaza Palestinians to join their cousin Israeli Arabs within the "Green Line" by also having a right to vote in the State of Israel.
9. Not to overwhelm Israeli's economy or infrastructure, nor significantly alter electorate configuration to give unfair advantage to naturalized Arabs and risk disruption of the entire democratic process.
10. Put an end to the unhealthy segregationist environment that both sides are currently caught up in.
    
    

Effecting Real Change

The peace plan alternative must be as moderate and evenhanded as possible without ignoring the key needs of Israel, external and internal security, and religious freedom in order to be a politically viable option.

Everyone Wins

The "Everyone Wins" Peace Plan requires the tying of West Bank/Gaza Arabic naturalization rates to the immigration rates of foreign born Jews. Whereas previous one state solutions called for relocating masses of people, this plan calls for no segregation whatsoever. Nobody has to give up their homes, neither Jews nor Arabs (except for terrorists and those who support them). Palestinians slowly but surely become complete Israelis without overwhelming the Israeli economy and infrastructure.

The key to making this work is twofold. First: Setting the categorization of the level of security risk of each naturalization applicant. The ones who are at zero risk are immediately placed in cue and await a corresponding number of immigrants to raise enough quota to allow them entry as naturalized Israelis. Second: Setting a fair and an appropriate ratio. If current demographics in Israel are that 15% of Israelis are Arabs, then the ratio could be set at 15%. That is, for every 100 immigrants, 15 West Bank and Gaza Arabs who are not a threat are allowed in. So if in a given year there are 100,000 Jewish immigrants, 15,000 friendly Arabs would naturalize.

Once true peace exists, I would expect that Jewish immigration will likely increase by no less than 300% of current rates. Plus financial stability and growth will be at unheard of levels. The ability to power infrastructure growth and the greater Jewish immigration numbers will allow a corresponding expansion of the Arabic naturalization process that is at the core of this solution. Israel can thereby naturalize more Arabs faster and safer than currently possible. Thus the entire conflict will come to an end that much sooner, by the grace of God.

By implementing the principles of my Everyone Wins Peace Plan the Israeli government can find a single and straight path towards peace. If you agree, then we must be prepared to shout out loud and clear in support of the peace plan that seems to be the most consistent with the will of God and the needs of humankind, no matter how simple its author may be.

Preliminary SWOT Analysis of the PM's Plan

The Prime Minister must answer what is the extent of Palestinian Independence in his plan under International Law before his plan can even be called an option. Resolving all the internal strife between Israelis and West Bank and Gaza refugees is wonderful. But increasing the potential for external strife (regional war) is not a peace plan.

I am not trying to nor trying to encourage a rushing to judgment against the duly elected Prime Minister of the State of Israel. Perhaps after the Iranian issue becomes more calm than it is today, it will become easier for news agencies to receive clear communication on this matter from the PM's office and also the PM's office will have more time to present the current peace plan with all its nooks, crannies and variations to the public.

Yet, I cannot remain silent, even as I wish I could. Silence can be a sin in such a circumstance. Hopefully, the PM will accept my words for their good intent, as the Holy Sages of the Talmud said, "Who is wise? He who learns from everyone."(Avos/Ethics of the Fathers 4:1) My concern over saying nothing is that there should be open debate and honest discussion, and consequently also the potential opportunity to perfect any peace plan that is presented.

In academic circles, generally scholars humbly send in their thesis papers to other co-practitioners of their trade for assessment. Or, as in my case, nowadays scholars who are pressed for time can at least create a blog such as this one to discuss the matter and allow some sort of public review and chance to receive criticism. By denying the possibility of any real critical review, previous peace deals fell apart as their underlying theories were untested until it was too late, when it was time to actually put them into practice. So my public critique of the PM is not an effort to defame him in any manner, but to put even my very critique of his plan to the test so that I can offer even better quality aid to him the next time I open my mouth, pen, or computer. While my reverence for his office is present, the greater calling is to do the will of God and the needs of humanity, and so I comment thusly.

As the revealed aspects of his plan, as per the text that I have received so far, have been a bit sketchy, here then is a very preliminary SWOT Analysis of PM Netanyahu's peace plan (but really this sort of appraisal is for the Prime Minister's office or the Foreign Ministry to run via an objective agency or think tank and then communicate to the public when toting their plan)...


Strengths:

• The PM's plan ends the dangers of missiles firing at Israeli cities.
• It ends the dangers of roving bands of terrorists destroying holy sites such as happened with the Tomb of Joseph.
• It increases the economic welfare of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians Arabs.

Weaknesses:

• It keeps the noses of the nations in Israel's business. Does any Israeli like this status? If the (non terroristic) Palestinians were all absorbed into Israel instead, it would be an internal matter under International Law and an end to external interference. Such independence is a good place for an open democracy like Israel to be in. The plan was supposed to resolve this, but in my opinion it does not cover all potentialities.
• It creates a veil of immunity to the just prosecution of terrorists based in the West Bank and Gaza that their Arab brethren inside Israel do not have.
• It has an element of bias, as it creates an artificial limit on where Jews are allowed to settle in their historic homeland. Israel set no such limits on Arabs within the Green Line, so Jews on the other side of the Green Line should enjoy at least the same courtesy and rights as Israeli Arabs do.

Opportunities:

• It can remove a huge monkey off the back of the State of Israel that is impeding its finding an economic and prestigious place among the nations of the world.

Threats:

• War.
• Perpetual international interference in internal Israeli affairs.
• Consequently the monkey actually remains on the back with people scratching heads and asking why. Thus the opportunities that the PM's plan offers, as I have heard it, while well meaning are fallacious in character.

So, it appears to me that Bibi and his administration have come up with a sincere and strong peace plan that in its current form may begin nicely, yet does not address all of the present and pending issues in its wake, and thus creates a false sense of opportunity where, unfortunately, none exists.

I urge the Prime Minister to reread the letter that I sent him four months ago concerning the Everyone Wins Peace Plan and consider incorporating some elements therein to his plan in order, by the grace of God, to enrich and strengthen the chance for true and lasting peace.

PM's Plan Less Than Ideal In Its Current Form

Perhaps I am understating the intensity of my objection to his current plan, but presumably Prime Minister Netanyahu intends to elucidate further details of his plan, assuming the Palestinian leadership even comes to the table. Still I do not wish to remain silent when perhaps my inaction could contribute to the evil that could come should the plan be implemented in its current form due to the diminishment of IDF authority in keeping the peace.

To illustrate a main issue that needs some editing, let's imagine if the plan in its current apparent form were implemented completely...

The Israeli press celebrates, a new day has dawned now that the Palestinians have signed away the right to complain about further land concessions.

Then the mayor of (a small town in the West Bank) objects to the Palestinian Authority's renunciation of rights to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and he leads an open rebellion against Israel, encouraging terrorist groups to use his town as a safe haven. The PA police claim they do not have strong enough weapons to put down the violence. The Israeli Defense Ministry claims that the PA does have enough weapons. After the violence escalates, the Israeli government authorizes military action. Several Arab states protest Israel's attack on the "defenseless (by law) Palestinians civilians". (Since the PM's plan calls for a demilitarized PA, technically, all West Bank Palestinians would remain civilians, whether or not they are part of an authorized militia.) Resolutions are brought forth at the United Nations and pass against the aggressive Israeli ("over")reaction.

Problem: Now, as a full fledged state, Palestinians have FULL member status and rights in the U.N.

Arabs states feel more empowered to act against Israel militarily in order to "enforce the law".

Result: The threat of war is increased, if not guaranteed by implementation of the PM's plan in its current form.

This is just one potential work-around by foes of Israel to such a shared security plan. The only solution can be one in which the IDF retains absolute authority and at the same time the concept of Palestinian terrorists being "defenseless civilians" rather than the worst of criminals, is completely removed from the table.

The Everyone Wins peace plan, for example, is consistent with such an ideal resolution. So this aspect of the PM's plan still needs some editing before being used in actual practice.

Reaction to the Iranian Election Outburst

Even those that were previously threatened by Iran should feel compassion towards the terror and bloodshed of recent days. The Iranian leadership has only proven that they do not speak for God, as their disregard for the respect due towards the hallowed "Likeness of God" (tzelem Elokim) that is found in each human being, is so complete, that they even brutalize their own citizens.

May God protect the righteous of the world from the bloodthirsty and soon bring true peace to every land.

A Different State of Mind: Let True Peace Be Your Objective

What can one make of the public statements of the leaders of Israel and America in recent weeks supporting a Two State Solution in the unofficially annexed Israeli territory issue? Solution to what? If true peace is the goal, then how can a Two State path be any sort of road to a fair and lasting solution?

"I, like Rahm Emmanuel, come from a family of Etzel fighters whose symbol was a map of the land of Israel on both sides of the Jordan river. I was taught that the Jewish people have a historic, national, religious and legal right to all the land. "To this day, I believe in the right of the Jewish people to the entire land. I feel a deep, undying connection to the ancient land of Israel - Judea and Samaria - to places I was taken to as a girl after the Six Day War when we thought Jews and Arabs could live together in harmony between the River Jordan and the sea. I share and respect this sense of justice in our claim to the land. But my objective is different," Livni explained. (Jerusalem Post: Kadima party leader Tzipi Livni, May 4, 2009)

We see from Tzipi's statement that she truly believes, as I do, that under International Law all disputed territories in Israel are Israel's by way of a defacto annexation. Implicitly, then, it is only because Israel has been trying to give parts of it away that this whole "dispute" even exists. Only because a significant percentage of Israelis wish to continue the fantasy of a Palestinian state being a boon for peace does the entire concept continue as foreign policy.

The current path of the government of Israel would seem to be one of attempting to enter an aberrant state of mind hoping to enable dreams of things that cannot possibly be. Thereby they forsake the one thing that absolutely must be, true peace. In the ideologically bold, but still inexperienced President Obama, Israel's leaders have found someone who is willing to suspend his sense of political realism and embrace the blatantly unrealistic Israeli leftist dream of an independent Palestinian State and run with that as the foreign policy of the USA.

This erroneous path by the Obama Administration is a reactionary one that was made in the wake of statements that have come from Israel's leadership in the recent times. I do not believe it an attempt to force anything on Israel as some on the far right have claimed. The recent statements coming out of Washington are positions stated in Israel by parties like Labor and Kadima. They were not stated by Washington until the Netanyahu Administration publicly went along with it.

Tzipi Livni now represents the opposition forces from the Israeli political Left, and she apparently agrees entirely with my analysis of International Law, yet she proposes an alternate objective. Her current goal, apparently as well as the Netanyahu Administration's current I-don't-care-about-anything-but-stopping-Iran Policy is to offer up the unrealistic and false hope of peace with a Hamas-infected Palestinian government.

It's like demanding of a fire to only swallow up half of your home. Talmudic and International laws, however, call for something a tad more reality based. Such as: Put out the fire or flee from it! Do not depend on miracles.

President Obama's campaign spoke of Hope. Let that Hope be a true thing to believe in and live by, not a false path that ends in yet more needless bloodshed, when we need only will ourselves toward true peace in order to obtain it.

Israel has the legal right to end and disband the Palestinian Authority immediately and begin the integration of non-violent sectors of the Palestinian people into the State of Israel. Applicants for naturalization will be accepted or rejected not on how they entered this world, but on whether they choose to live and let live in it.

Jews and Arabs are already living in harmony. On the other side of the "Green Line". If you move that Green Line to encompass all peoples West of the River Jordan, then peace and harmony will encompass everyone.

Everyone's goal has to be peace! And the vehicle to get us there must no longer ignore the facts!

Jews and Arabs do get along when they are in a true democracy (see USA and Israel as examples). The Palestinian Authority is terminally bloodthirsty and corrupt. The Holy Land legally belongs to Israel if she will only dare to believe it.

To achieve reality based hope, we must enter a different state of mind.

We must let true peace be our objective. By the grace of God, soon we shall.

The Invalid Roadmap

The Roadmap to Peace that the new administrations in the USA and Israel currently seem to believe as still containing merit, is, in fact, already dead. The Benjamin Netanyahu of a decade ago would ask, where is there hope of reciprocity in this path with these pseudo partners in peace? Because Fatah still embraces Hamas, and Hamas is an unrepentant terror organization, the current Palestinian Authority leadership is nothing but a pure continuation of the PLO of old.

It is exasperating to consider the current diplomatic intentions of both countries. The path to false peace is when political leaders of nations become lovers of advancing diplomatic processes in the general realm of peacemaking rather than gaining true and substantial achievements in the realm of actual peace. The entire intent of International Law is to PREVENT CONFLICT between nations, not to enshrine an eternal state of war with pretend legitimacy. You cannot say that because the U.N. Security Council supports a path that leads to war and calls it peace, that it is now a legitimate peace plan and indeed consecrated as International Law itself. Nothing could be further from the truth. A treaty between nations cannot include the suicide of one of those nations. That would violate Fundamental Law (Jus Cogens). For example, when American demanded an unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany in 1945, that did not grant the USA a right to commit genocide against the Germans once they surrendered. If the roles had been reversed and the USA had to surrender to the Nazis. And the USA knew for a fact that Nazi Germany would only slaughter USA citizens if the USA surrendered, then such a document of surrender would be a violation of the Jus Cogens of the citizens of the USA. Similarly, if a peace treaty were to be signed with any ACTIVE enemy of Israel by any government of Israel that Israel should surrender land to it, and/or if a U.N. Security Council Resolution were to call such a peace treaty absolute law, the treaty would STILL remain invalid, because it would be predicated upon an implicit and highly credible assumption of impending violation of Jus Cogens.

Allow me to clarify that my intent is not to attack PM Netanyahu with abandon. I have confidence that he can come to the correct conclusions on his own without my having said anything. I feel that all he needs is a few days, weeks or months to reacquaint himself with the Palestinian leadership for him to come to the same realization that I am at. What I am trying to do by speaking about this now is to help breakdown the false philosophy of those political opposition forces that are trying to encourage him to make extremely unwise and unhealthy choices for his constituency, and what negative implications that would mean for the national security of both Israel and the USA if, God forbid, he heeded their advice, which again, at the end of the day I hope and feel that he won't.

Hamas believes it is entirely legitimate to attack Israeli civilians whenever it pleases. Fatah passively supports Hamas. And even if you want to say that Hamas can be dealt with and Israel can simply sign a peace deal with Fatah, then I would remind you that Fatah itself is still truly a terrorist organization, whether or not it is currently politically expedient to admit that as the national foreign policy of the USA and Israel. If you disagree with me then please forgive me if I pain you with the use of logic. If even now Fatah is not committed to ending terror, then how can they ever be trusted to do so? If even now Fatah is not against Hamas, when the Palestinian leaders of Fatah are supposedly with their backs to the wall and suffering greatly, and have the Israeli army almost at their beck and call to wipe out Hamas, or at least eliminate the main terror cells within Hamas controlled territory so that Fatah could rule peacefully. If even now Fatah is not committed against terror, then they can never be expected to police against future terror groups that may arise to demand 100% of the land of Israel from the Israelis. Thus any peace deal signed with FATAH, not just Hamas, would be invalid from the get go as such a deal would be predicated upon an implicit and highly credible assumption of impending violation of Jus Cogens of the people of Israel.

The Quartet sponsored, and current foreign policy of the USA and Israel is the "Roadmap to Peace". But all these governments have thus far backed a losing horse. If you need to gamble with the safety of the citizens of Israel, how about at least putting your money on a pony that can win? But one thing is certain, the Roadmap to Peace is an Invalid Roadmap.

Jerusalem Defender: The First 50 Posts

Due to the fact that, by the grace of God, this blog has reached the 50 post milestone (this entry being post number 51) and many of the older posts may be needed by those researching the Everyone Wins Peace Plan, it occurred to me that a table of contents may be needed.

Whereas previously I only advertised on the the Internet for this blog, as of this month I am now running an ad in an upcoming edition of Viewpoint magazine. So our readership numbers may greatly increase and some of the new readers may not be used to "reading backwards" in the reversed chronological order of your average blog entry.

Therefore this post is something of an introductory post for those who are not as experienced with the format of the blogosphere as most of Jerusalem Defender's current readership is...

(Please note that as always, you can sign up for a free subscription to Jerusalem Defender blog's Atom-feed at this link: http://jerusalemdefender.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default for those of you who know what an Atom-feed is.)


Post #50 - March 2, 2009
The Spirit of a True Peace Plan

Post #49 - February 2009
The Everyone Wins Peace Plan Answers the Critics

Post #48 - January 2009
Religious Parties Unite!

December 2008
The Bearing of Leadership: National and Religious ...
(Full title: "The Bearing of Leadership: National and Religious Parties, Let Your Platforms Bloom")
Finally Action in Gaza: Now Make it Final!
Ending the Era of Weakness: Annex the West Bank an...
(Full title: "Ending the Era of Weakness: Annex the West Bank and Gaza")
Hybridized Political Thought on the Middle East Co...
(Full title: "A Statement of Hybridized Political Thought on the Middle East Conflict")
The Violence at Beit Hashalom: How the Olmert Admi...
(Full title: "The Violence at Beit Hashalom: How the Olmert Administration is Inciting Radicalism")
The Problem With Kadima: A Lesson in Pseudo Politi...
(Full title: "The Problem With Kadima: A Lesson in Pseudo Political Centrism")

November 2008
The Saudi Peace Plan is Roadmap to Armageddon

October 2008
Compassionate Zionism
The Difference Between Racists and the Enraged

September 2008
Land for Peace is Fuel for Terror
Ezekiel's Jerusalem
The Unsubstantial Nature of Past Peace Plans

August 2008
Israeli Settlements Are Legal Under International ...
(Full title: "Israeli Settlements Are Legal Under International Law")
Foreign Policy Toward Russia

July 2008
Individualistic Moral Accountancy: The Ideological...
(Full title: "Individualistic Moral Accountancy: The Ideological Foundation of Healing Societies")
Healing Societies: The Ideological Foundation of t...
(Full title: "Healing Societies: The Ideological Foundation of the Everyone Wins Peace Plan")
The Upcoming War With Iran
MK Rabbi Binyamin Elon is Now Aware of the Everyon...
(Full title: "MK Rabbi Binyamin Elon is Now Aware of the Everyone Wins Peace Plan")
How to Deal with International Hostage Crises

June 2008
Sarkozy Too Cozy With Division of Jerusalem
A Critique of the Elon Plan and a Summary of the E...
(Full title: "A Critique of the Elon Plan and a Summary of the Everyone Wins Peace Plan")
Palestinian Leaders Indicate Trust in the IDF
A United Jerusalem is the Only Chance for True Pea...
(Full title: "A United Jerusalem is the Only Chance for True Peace")
Russia & Iran: Avoiding a New Cold War

May 2008
Making Peace With Syria
The Friedlander Peace Plan Is The Everyone Wins Pe...
(Full title: "The Friedlander Peace Plan Is The Everyone Wins Peace Plan")
A Statement Against Arrogance
The Friedlander Peace Plan: An Evenhanded Policy f...
(Full title: "Toward an Evenhanded Policy for Peace in the Holy Land, Part 3: The Friedlander Peace Plan: An Evenhanded Policy for Peace
A Discussion on the Mechanics of the Naturalizatio...
(Full title: "Toward an Evenhanded Policy for Peace in the Holy Land, Part 2:
A Discussion on the Mechanics of the Naturalization of West Bank and Gaza Arabs to the State of Israel)
A New and Revised One-State Solution to Peace in t...
(Full title: "Toward an Evenhanded Policy for Peace in the Holy Land, Part 1: A New and Revised One-State Solution to Peace in the Middle East")

April 2008
A Comparison of Peace Plans
An Alternative Peace Plan
Why I Still Reject Kahanism Despite Palestinian Su...
(Full title: "Why I Still Reject Kahanism Despite Palestinian Support of Terrorism")

March 2008
How the Palestinians Can Redeem Themselves
Palestinians Choose Violence Over Peace
Succession in International Law
The Massacre At Mercaz Harav Yeshiva

January 2008
Diaspora Jews Are People Too
A Democratic Messianic King
The Iranian Dilemma

December 2007
The Definition of True Peace: Truth
Jerusalem & Jus Cogens
Temple Mount Is the Holiest Site in Judaism
Temple Time?
The Pollard Fiasco
Judaism and Jewish National Loyalty
Post #1 - Jewish Freedom of Religion and Jerusalem

The Spirit of a True Peace Plan

A true peace plan should create peace first inside and then out, not outside and then in. As we find in the Kaddish prayer “He who makes peace in His Heights should make peace between us and upon all Yisrael.” Why do the Rabbis of the Talmud place “we”, i.e. societal peace, before “all Yisrael” i.e. national peace? One would have thought that if we achieve external and global peace, we would instantly have Heaven on Earth even in private matters. But the Rabbis are teaching us an important lesson. Only once societal peace is assured, then can world peace be sure to follow.

Using this lens let’s look at what would have happened at the societal level if the Oslo Accords would have been successful. The left would have rejoiced as the right wing mourned. Now let’s consider what if the right wing had succeeded with a Kahane type plan. The right would have rejoiced as the left wing mourned. In either scenario only one side wins and perforce the other side MUST lose.

This is akin to the battle for property in the West Bank. The extreme Left wishes to make the West Bank Jews homeless, while the extreme Right wishes to make the West Bank Arabs homeless (the kinder and gentler Israeli Initiative Peace Plan wishes them to relocate their homes to the Kingdom of Jordan, but as far as the Arab’s current homes go, it is similar in effect as the Kahane plan). In either scenario again we find only one side can win and perforce the other side MUST lose.

But this is why peace has been elusive in the Middle East. The truth path to peace is not an economic equation. Its calculus should not and cannot be determined in mere economic terms of victor and vanquished. Its methodology is rather found in compromise, and not in seeking absolute terms.

The Everyone Wins Peace Plan is such a true peace plan.

The right can rejoice that the Everyone Wins Peace Plan secures an end to terrorist armies within a stone's throw of Israeli cities, it allows settlers to keep their homes, it also maintains the State's control over all the land and resources West of the Jordan River, and it guarantees freedom of religion to non-Muslims.

The left can rejoice that the Everyone Wins Peace Plan maintains West Bank and Gaza Palestinian Arabic control of their cities and allows the retention of their homes, it also frees them short term from terrorist police and long term from refugee camps, and it eventually allows them to join their cousins within the Green Line by having a right to vote in the State of Israel.

Everyone will rejoice that the Everyone Wins Peace Plan will put an end to the unhealthy segregationist environment that both sides are currently caught up in. The Everyone Wins Peace Plan also removes the main pan-Arabic excuse to discriminate financially against the State of Israel. This will only snowball the effectiveness of the plan at ending the conflict that much sooner, as improved finances and security means increased Jewish immigration rates which allows the expansion of the Arabic naturalization process that is at the core of this solution.

“May He who makes peace in His Heights soon make peace between us and upon all Yisrael, and let us say Amen.”

The Everyone Wins Peace Plan Answers the Critics

By the Grace of God.

The political right wing of Israel needs to settle on a viable path to peace as soon as possible. The ideas that the left has offered so far have been nothing more than Roadmaps to roadblocks. If the Right can find a workable solution to the decades old quagmire, then, considering the current political environment, they are primed to be able to build the political consensus needed to implement such a plan.

This must be a priority of the right; especially the religious parties. According to Talmudic law, a physical messianic war is not mandatory before world peace can come. Positive prophecies must occur, yet negative prophecies can be forestalled or even rescinded with penance and good deeds. (Maimonides, Fundamentals of the Torah, chapter 10)

Which would seem to indicate that the messiah can come even without a physical war of Gog and Magog (as was foretold in Ezekiel chapters 38 & 39). If this interpretation is true, then to avoid seeking a peace plan and waiting for a War of Armageddon as a geo-political fix-all would violate the commandment of “Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor.” (Leviticus 19.16) Therefore the theoretical vehicle towards peace that we use must resolve not only all major secular issues it must also not preclude the resolution of religious ideals as well. It must be pragmatic and yet prophecy-friendly as well. Only in this way can Israeli Jew and Gentile, Arab and Bedouin, Religious and Secular achieve a lasting and secure peace that not only prevents external threats, but serves to heal internal trans-societal rifts.

Rabbi Benny Elon’s Israeli Initiative peace plan does not end false accusations against Israel of Arabic land grabbing, but the Everyone Wins Peace Plan does. In fact, any Kahane type plan, that seeks to toss out all Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza, that is not implemented only following a massive, map changing war, would not likely serve to eliminate false accusations against Israel, but would likely, Heaven forefend, only increase such slander and libel. We need to work towards bringing forth a peace plan that resolves all the problems at once, and yet does not depend on an apocalyptic war to smooth out any ruffled feathers that may remain when all is said and done.

“Apartheid State” (and other such false claims like that) would simply not hold water when the Palestinians have been accepted into Israeli society. At that point if anyone criticizes Israel, they would be criticizing the homogenized Jewish/Arabic post-conflict democracy of the Israel of tomorrow. The key is in removing terrorists and their supporters from Palestinian Arab applicants of naturalization into the State of Israel, plus doing this at a rate that does not overwhelm Israel’s immigration and naturalization infrastructure, nor significantly alter electorate configuration to give unfair advantage to naturalized Arabs. Once you do that, not only is it safe to integrate Palestinian Arabs into Israeli society, it would help to remove international animosity and slander against Israel and delegitimatize discrimination in favor of Palestinian Arabs and against Israeli Jews and Arabs as viable foreign policy. The façade of hating Israel as a pseudo-legitimate way to get away with anti-Semitism would crumble and people and nations would simply have to admit bias against Jews or pack their bags and go home. Israel’s new nickname among its former critics would then be, the “Humanitarian State.”

By implementing the principles of the Everyone Wins Peace Plan the Israeli government can find a single and straight path towards secular redemption and the requisite freedom for its citizens to choose to pursue religious salvation. As I mentioned before, however, should any peace plan that does not surrender Jewish holy sites be enacted before my peace plan could be, we should support it wholeheartedly, and not pursue the Everyone Wins Peace Plan as the better policy for the State of Israel. Life must come before anybody’s personal honor, so let me be clear on this point to any and all readers, students or fans of mine who end up in positions of power with the capacity to help implement “Everyone Wins” in actual practice. “Everyone Wins” should not be used as a hammer or an anvil to create headaches for the government of Israel. In such a case we should help the Israeli hasbara movement and help explain that true peace is good, however bumpy the road is.

Practical good-peace is better than theoretically perfect-peace. For if peace is not in the realm of actuality then it is not true peace. But if Israel should find itself in a new peace venture that does not lead to peace, then we must definitely be prepared to shout out loud and clear in support of the peace plan that seems to be the most consistent with the will of God and the needs of humankind, no matter how simple its author may be.

Religious Parties Unite!

In order to fully represent the religious concerns of all Jews the world over for the continued free access to holy sites throughout the West Bank and especially enhancing freedom of worship at the Temple Mount, the religious parties must unite to offer one loud and clear voice that accurately expresses worldwide Jewish religious aspirations, rather than through many small voices that sometimes are at odds with each other, asking for things that appear to be at the polar opposite of the other party.

This is what needs to be done...

First on the Rabbinical level, a Bais Din (rabbinical court) of 5 or most likely 7 of the most premiere politically outspoken and heeded sages should formed. Each of these rabbis would then select an alternate rabbi to fill in for themselves if they are unable to continue in their duties. This advisory council of rabbis will increase the collective power of rabbinical thought, even through their surrendering of the great deal of individual power that they currently hold over their respective parties. Having this bais din of rabbis will mitigate libel (loshon hora) against individual rabbis, as it will be perceived that it is the Torah itself that is speaking, not any one person with any single agenda. The perceived agenda would then be Hashem/God's will alone. Imagine the sanctification of God's Holy Name (Kiddush Hashem)!

Second, all parties that revere the advice of the rabbis should unite into a single party. This small council of rabbis will replace the large body of less renown rabbinical advisers who currently offer direction. All those current rabbis and members of all the parties involved in this United Religious Party will instead hold a single conference to vote on political advice to give to the executive bais din of 5 to 7 gedolim (great sages) mentioned above. Except for those great rabbis on the executive bais din, all members of such a conference should run according to the concept of one man, one vote. But the lone communication point to the members of Knesset should be via the executive bais din. A single voice, a single direction.

Third, the political leaders chosen to become members of Knesset should still be chosen by the will of the people, the executive bais din should have the right to veto a candidate's eligibility (which would take place quietly, before the votes of the party voters are cast). An announcement can be made before the vote of people who have decided at the last minute to not run after all (whether truthfully it is of their will or of the bais din's command will not be disclosed) which would be a nice way to exclude those that the bais din has rejected without embarrassing anyone in public.

Fourth, the candidates must be trustworthy and trusted. Trustworthy to do the will of the people and bais din, trusted to act without consent of even the executive bais din if national security, timely diplomacy, natural disasters or other such pressing matters preclude their taking the time to inquire of the most preferred methodology as per wishes of Bais Din.

Every party has its own bias. If Judaic religious freedom is to have the most effective advocacy, which is the very reason I started this blog in the first place, then it needs its own party to represent it. A party should not just be a clique that represents a single stream of constituents, rather it should be a representative body for all the people. All the people in this case, are all the religious people. Therefore the religious party of the State of Israel must be a religious party for all the religious Jewish people.