Friday, July 29, 2016

A Summary of the Everyone Wins Peace Plan

HaShem/God blessed me to compose the Everyone Wins peace plan 8 years ago.  With the new Republican platform allowing for a One State solution, it would seem appropriate to restate the key aspects of this plan. The truly best one state solution is different from other one state solutions. This essay is a restatement of what it is and a description of what it is not.

The "Kulam Marvichim", "Everyone Wins" Peace Plan requires the tying of Judean and Samarian (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, only terrorists. Palestinians slowly but surely become complete Israelis without overwhelming the Israeli economy and infrastructure.

That means democracy without tyrannical leaders for the Arabs. Improved economic opportunity for Arabs without the need for any new infrastructure to power it.  And, of course, peace for Israel.

Peace plans offered by Labor, Kadima and Likud have all failed to sway me. The current Knesset's direction is toward Palestinian Autonomy, which in my mind is a guaranteed limit to security (making zones the IDF could not travel at will) as well as a hasbara nightmare. The two main alternatives to the Everyone Wins peace plan that could actually resolve the matter, that are currently popular, are the Jordan is Palestine peace plan of former MK Rabbi Elon and the annex Judea and Samaria plan of Jerusalem Post editor, Caroline Glick.

A major hurdle before "Jordan is Palestine" is it begins not as a one state solution but depends on the Kingdom of Jordan to first agree with it. One State solutions that do not allow for unilateral implementation of legal options for peace, are at risk to never get off the ground. Relying on political and diplomatic miracles that are not mentioned in the Prophets of Scripture, is unacceptable as policy.

If the opportunity somehow does occur through a diplomatic breakthrough with Jordan, I still do not prefer Jordan is Palestine from the aspect of forcing the good, non terroristic Arabs to lose their homes. If a terrorist should lose their home to a bulldozer, perhaps a non terrorist should not be forced to leave their home, even with compensation, if at all possible. If no other one state solution were possible, this would make sense, and I would support it under such a scenario, for the sake of stopping violence, but as there are other options, I do not actively support Jordan is Palestine as a plan for peace.

The main issues I have with Caroline Glick's proposed plan are that it does not, to my knowledge, demand that current criminals are filtered before given an option to naturalize into Israeli society, and it seems to kick the can of the entire Gaza Strip issue down the road.

I believe that you have to filter out terrorists if you are going to naturalize the Palestinian Arabs. You can't naturalize terrorists. As I wrote before,  "The beginning of peace does not come by the placation of terror; that is it's anathema."

I am also for a more decisive conclusion to the conflict with the Palestinian Arabs that does not allow for war over this issue ever again. As long as Gaza is still out there, what do you think a Hamastan would desire a few years down the road? Not trade and peace, that's for sure. If Fatah could not be trusted for peace, how can you possibly hope to trust Hamas? It seems as if this part of the plan is a manufactured vehicle to avoid naturalizing the Arabs of Gaza, not an actual solution based on a consistent policy. As if it is a straight line to political viability over substantive peace making. If no choice, I would support it to end the violence at least in the heartlands. But what about communities near Gaza like Sderot? How does that help them at all? As we do not need to rely on such a conveniency as this, we should not.

The process of naturalization, I feel, must be as methodical as necessary to not risk Israeli electoral balance or anything else. Using the slow nature of bureaucracy to everyone's benefit, we can reduce dangerous mistakes that could cost bundles of cash, or even lives. Trying to fix it all overnight is not as good as selecting the correct path as soon as possible, but then taking the time to implement it as wisely as possible. 

The Glick plan proposes to save the Arabs of Judea and Samaria from despotic leaders, but abandon their cousins in Gaza to that very fate. It calls for increasing the Arabic voting ratio within "Green Line" Israel, giving them more votes than today, but my Everyone Wins plan calls for maintaining current voting ratio levels in the State of Israel. 

Caroline Glick's proposed plan is very wise in several areas. It is unilateral and does not depend on bilateral negotiations with arch terrorists and their supporters. Or multilateral negotiations as does Jordan is Palestine. It also does not propose to ignore Scriptural "intel" that forewarns the world that Israel is going to have Judean and Samarian ("West Bank") territories no matter what people try to negotiate away, so it prevents running down a diplomatic path that would be doomed to fail from the start. As do Jordan is Palestine and Everyone Wins. It further does not destroy current societal configurations as most other peace plan suggestions of the past would. This is in Judea and Samaria, but Gaza, would remain forbidden to Jews, unlike Jordan is Palestine or Everyone Wins. Most importantly, and similar to, though not as well as Jordan is Palestine or Everyone Wins, it ends the possibility of those territories being used as staging ground for a war against Israel. This is a plan that actually has a chance to work. But for reasons stated, I do not support it as initial policy, only if it would be the only politically viable option.

To sum it up, Everyone Wins is more secure and strong against terror than the Glick plan, and more generous and politically viable than the Elon plan. It's political viability is open to unilateral implementation and not dependent on the whims of other nations.

In the spirit of Avraham Avinu, Abraham our forefather, it seeks to spare the righteous of the Arabs who are scattered among the thorns and keep good families and their friendships and societies intact.

In the spirit of King David, it does not allow the enemies of Israel to get away with it. Everyone Wins filters out terrorists and establishes unfettered rule of law throughout all land West of the River Jordan.

May all who need to understand this, do so, as soon as possible. May it soon be so, b''Ezras HaShem Yisborach, by the grace of God.

* * * * *

Further Details on Everyone Wins:

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

A Defense of Torah Based Zionism

There are those on the religious right who attack Zionism as being a rebellion against the sages of the 1940's. I previous condemned harshly the Neturei Karta movement as treasonist. But there are also those of that anti Israel perspective in philosophy, only who do not advocate actually supporting Israel's enemies. They think that way, but care too much about people in Israel to encourage terrorists. This essay is a defense of being completely religious AND pro Zionist in the face of that more benign, non treasonist, anti zionist perspective.

Halachic dissent with the government has to be in a respectful Torah way, like many great rabbis in Israel today, but not in the pro terror Neturei Karta way. Policy by policy opposition, but not as attacking an enemy. Such utter vilification is part of the sinas chinum, baseless hatred, that delays Moshiach (messiah).

As with Neturei Karta missionaries, anti Zionists like to quote rabbis from 100 years ago who opposed a philosophy that has little to do with the practical survival of Jews in the Holy Land today. That is due to God, and our faithful adherence to the Torah to the best of our ability. Including the Torah command to not sit idly by the blood of our fellow. That command is part of the halachic reason to support God's angelic army, the IDF, and do nothing to undermine it. A drowning person does not say to a lifeguard, "Stop, get on more clothes before you try to rescue me! You're not modest enough!" So too, we don't demand that the IDF first become completely religious before we stop trying to verbally bash it publicly.

If he who saves one life is like he saves the world, then what kind justification is there for those would would fight hasbara and risk increasing danger to men, women and children by adding moral support to terrorists incidentally while concurrently lowering the esteem of Israel and the IDF.

Metsiyus (actuality) has profound meaning in halachah (Jewish Law).  You can't only quote rabbis from long ago, you need to know the current halachic trend. This trend is only valid if the adherents are utterly dedicated to Talmudic principles. Most but not all Orthodox rabbis fall under this umbrella. Neturei Karta on the right and Open Orthodoxy on the left are examples of halachic deciders outside the bounds of Orthodox adherence to Talmudic law. The halachah follows the majority of kosher Torah sages in each generation.

We must protest outrageous public sin, otherwise it can seem like we are God forbid condoning it, (as per, the Talmud in Shabbos 54b-55a.) The government of Israel is not automatically immune to such protestation. A good Zionist would not want the government to do wrong policy either.

Secular Zionists who are under philosophic attack by this philosophy are often, at least in part, protected in halacha under the rules of “tinuk shenishba” from full liability for any aspects of foreign philosophy. But unfortunately the Neturei Karta themselves are involved with a first generation rebellion and it is forbidden to take their side in a dispute, as we are commanded to not only avoid a Korah, but also "his congregation."

For dissent against Zionism to not violate halachah, is to be done as a line by line protest, issue by issue. No global slander that saves nobody, but strengthens evil in the world.

If the Satmar Rebbe is your rebbe, so follow his opinion in your home, but don't use it to attack your fellow Jews whom you are supposed to show love for. It is an opinion (primarily from a previous generation), not a halachic mandate to campaign against the Jewish State. Great rabbis can surely express an opinion, but it is wrong to use any opinion, and certainly a minority opinion to hurt people with.

As the halacha for the nation is not like that opinion, but according to the majority, one surely can't use that minority opinion as justification to endanger the nation actively or even passively.  Free speech has a limit in halacha; you can't advocate that which would endanger life.

There is no justification to attempt to undermine hasbara globally whatsoever. Only an issue by issue protest is acceptable under halachah.

What I have written here is the basic halachah on these matters. I studied from great rabbis of blessed memory, my father, Rabbi Leon Eliezer Friedlander, and also Rav Aharon Soloveichik, and also Rav Chaim Yisroel Belsky from whom I received rabbinical ordination. There is no doubt among them as to the veracity of this position that we have stated here.

I hope this essay can help those on the wrong side of this matter to come over to the correct side of the fence. May those confused about this matter soon turn away from the wrong path and do good for our people.  May it soon be so, b'Ezras HaShem Yisborach, by the grace of God.