Ezekiel's Jerusalem

We spoke of the brief lifespan of previous (land for peace) peace plans from a pragmatic, logic-based discussion in the context of International Law. Now we are going to discuss why they do not work from a religious perspective.

What if you knew what was going to happen before it happened? What if there was a prophecy that the current Roadmap to Peace would fail? What if Israel is absolutely destined to rule the land west of the Jordan River and you also believe that it is wrong to throw the thousands upon thousands of innocent men women and children amongst the Palestinians out of their homes and into the street; what would you do?

What if the only alternative to an apocalyptic war, was to find a way to keep Palestinian Arabs in the Holy Land, yet somehow also allow Israel to police the entire land west of the River Jordan. If you believed this were about to happen and you believe in fair play, then you would surely seek a peace plan that somehow allows the Palestinians to keep their homes in the post-prophecy-come-true Israel of tomorrow.

Most of the world’s population believes that there is a God, and in fact, a slight majority believes there is only one Deity, the God of Abraham. Yet most of them are probably not extremely conversant in the later prophets. If you look at the last chapter in the Book of Ezekiel, you will find that Jews are destined to rule the entire land in the vicinity of the immediate North and South of Ancient Jerusalem. The borders of Ezekiel’s Jerusalem based state of the future, in fact, encompass the entire West Bank, all of Judea and Samaria as well as the land within the Green Line.

There are three Peace Plans that are potentially consistent with Ezekiel’s prophecy. Rabbi Binyamin Elon’s Israeli Initiative, Rabbi Meir Kahane’s plan, and the Everyone Wins peace plan. Of the three of them, Everyone Wins is the most liberal, the most to the political center, and thus the most likely to win the broadest long term political support to last eternally. Of the three of them, Everyone Wins is the only one that allows for a Palestinian Arabic presence in the Holy Land, within the context of Ezekiel’s words. Effectively speaking, Everyone Wins seeks to allow a place for Palestinians within the utopian world of the Israel of tomorrow, unlike any other peace plan to its right or to its left. Every other peace plan to the right or left, are attempts at complete amputations of the Arabs from the Jews or the Jews from the Arabs. But Everyone Wins is a surgery, removing only the unhealthy parts (terrorists), so that the rest may live in serenity, together, forever.

People say that due to their fiery nature, religion and politics do not mix. Yet if the most controversial belief systems on Earth of religion and politics are not both addressed satisfactorily, in the context of claim and counter claim that oftentimes encompasses both belief systems, then how can any peace deal hope to find real success?

If you are a religious person, I am now going to ask a lot of you. I am asking you to have faith that God did not create man to live in a state of perpetual war, but that we should cast aside all prejudices and find eternal peace. The faith I speak of is in the conviction to act. A change of policy from that which we think is right, to that which God knows is best. That is true faith.

Have the faith to believe, and the courage to act.

Individualistic Moral Accountancy: The Ideological Foundation of Healing Societies

Supporters of Two State Solutions typically state that there will be no method to stop terrorist violence until there is the surrender of land in some sort of a treaty. Even though there has never been any capitulation to terror in history that was as effective to halt terror as police action is (such as building walls and fences or actual military usage).

What then is the theoretical philosophic foundation to this reasoning? The needs of individuals are subservient to the needs of society. Take away the societal frustration of no land for peace, and individual would-be terrorists will start breeding doves and loving their former enemies.

In the real world, however, it is the needs of individuals that direct the course of societal streams of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Take away the feelings of lack of opportunity and personal sense of injustice and loss of freedom, and societal problems will seem far away to the individual. So to heal a society, one must first treat the molecular structure of the society, that is, individual families and then the very atoms themselves, the individuals within those families.

Thus we have it that the foundation of healing a society is the antithesis of Two State Solution advocacy.

Another logical argument toward this point would be to ask: historically, how did Palestinian society degrade from a peaceful group of refugees into the public worship of terrorism as a legitimate form of resistance. Individuals forsook morality and chose evil. History tells us it was not a societal decision to become terrorists in creed. It was the growth of distinct bunches of individuals, not in any single neighborhood or town, but multifarious seedlings of terror worship popping up here and there.

I blame the misappropriation of American and Israeli Tax dollars by the Palestinian Authority, in the administration of the broadcast of pro-terrorist, society perverting television programming, as the fuel to the fire that created the terrorist loving predicament that exists in Palestinian Arabic society today. But it was only a fuel that was ignited by countless tiny individual flames, due to a mass loss of self responsibility by countless individual Palestinian Arabs. It was not a thousand families grouping together to become one massive terrorist network, rather it was one thousand families with one thousand individual black sheep who veered off the path of those who seek to uphold truth and life. And it was the one thousand families whose failure to deliver sufficient consequences to the chaotic lovers of terror in their midst. And only then was it a societal breakdown by leaders who not only did not condemn the evil of individual terrorists, but both clergyman and politician actually encouraged individuals to die the “death of the brave.”

Thus we have it that the foundation of healing a society is INDIVIDUALISTIC MORAL ACCOUNTANCY.

Individualistic Moral Accountancy is also the antithesis of Two State Solution advocacy, which claims that an ill society must be nurtured in order for its families and individuals to desire to behave morally. Therefore we can say that Two State Solution advocates are pushing a fallacious belief and are attempting to label it as our only hope. The time for such small thought has passed. The actual best hope for peace is for lovers of peace everywhere to mobilize and to publicly forsake such erroneous thought from now on and for all time. Let them declare that the age of Individualistic Moral Accountancy has arrived.

The Friedlander Peace Plan: An Evenhanded Policy for Peace

Toward an Evenhanded Policy for Peace in the Holy Land, Part 3

By Professor Alan Friedlander

In the creation of the Friedlander Peace Plan, an effort has been made to try to form a peace plan for an electorate that currently votes for terrorists, the Palestinians, and for a nation that is adamant about keeping its current ethnic mix, the Israelis. There is a general lack of trust because Palestinians and Israelis are fighting over the same territory. If seen from a perspective of victor and loser, which is the natural baggage that comes as an intrinsic aspect of territorial disputes, then only one side can truly win and the other side therefore must lose. This makes compromise politically impossible without creating a loser, or two vaguely confused combatants with so many minor wins and losses along the way that the meaning of the victory is run away in the downpour of endless compromise, leaving only the taste of defeat in the mouths of both sides. In other words, any two-state solution based peace deal is guaranteed to dissatisfy at least one side and probably both. In other words, any two-state solution peace initiative is guaranteed to be a temporary solution until the next conflict arises.

Meanwhile, all other one state solutions believe in shipping one nation or the other to another country, tearing asunder civil rights such as the right to reside in one's own property and the right to vote, thus also creating dissatisfaction on both a societal as well as a national scale. Therefore any true peace deal must minimize feelings of dissatisfaction that are caused by any one side "losing" the negotiations, and also any peace deal must be able to create a permanent solution, otherwise all gains will eventually be lost and the cycle of violence would not cease, God forbid.

By naturalizing West Bank and Gaza Arabs, but in a corresponding ratio based system to Jewish immigration, both key individual national desires of full political rights for Palestinians in the territories and an end to security risks for Israelis will be met. Both sides would also benefit from peace without withdrawal, which makes no political losers on a national scale, plus the right in many cases to keep a family homestead that has existed for dozens and dozens of years, no losers on a societal scale. The newly united State of Israel would experience a massive investment surge from overseas companies and industries, the likes of which have never been seen in the country before.

Anticipating and tracking any change in the status quo of the rate of immigration is crucial to keep this peace deal fair. First the electorate must set the ratio. If currently there are more than 5 Jews for every Arab. So would 2 Arabs admitted to the State of Israel for every 10 Jews admitted be what the electorate would choose? Whatever the numbers, and I am not in a position right now to make any solid suggestions on what the will of the people should be or is in this regard, nevertheless I feel that the ratio should not necessarily be considered written in stone. Through the wise fluctuation of the ratio rate of immigration and naturalization on a sliding scale in favor of the "disadvantaged" population it is possible to avoid major potential causes for flare ups in the future. It is certain that a ratio too extreme in either direction would be a costly mistake for which there is no need to extrapolate.

If I am ever quoted on this, allow me to point out that I never said terrorists should be granted citizenship. No country would make a citizen out of wanton felons, let alone murderers. But also that Palestinians have clearly been reacting to a series of Israeli and Western leaders supporting terrorists in diplomatic clothing such as Abbas. Such Palestinian leaders are PLO terrorists, not true moderates. Therefore peace negotiations in the past have taken unfair turns. All because the stand President Bush took against Hamas' take over in Gaza, was how pseudo moderates like Abbas should have been dealt with as well. It was the Western support of Arafat and Abbas that created the group psychological phenomena that propelled terror into the sphere of political option in the minds of Palestinian voters. Only by having zero tolerance toward fake diplomats such as Abbas can then the rise of true moderate, third way candidates be seen amongst the Palestinians and become widely acceptable to the public. This is an essential step in the local self governance that is necessary in primarily Palestinian Arab populated regions in the West Bank and Gaza, in order to allow Palestinian towns to be added one by one to the body of the State of Israel.

It should be clearly understood that all other peace deals have been begun by taking the first step with the wrong foot. The beginning of peace does not come by the placation of terror; that is its anathema. If your goal is trying to keep people from dying or losing their homes, then please let these words that I have told you take on meaning in your heart.

What do I answer to those who say, well what if in the end it turns out that most Palestinians utterly and eternally reject peace in support of terror. Will all this effort have all been in vain? To them I say: What of the flowers among the thorns? What of the innocent ones among them? Abraham, the forefather of Jews and Arabs prayed for those innocent trapped among the guilty. It's time that Abraham's descendants on both sides showed more respect for his legacy, and this most sacred family tradition.

A Discussion on the Mechanics of the Naturalization of West Bank and Gaza Arabs to the State of Israel

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

By Professor Alan Friedlander

In regard to this policy of Arabic absorption upon which the Friedlander version of the One State Solution depends... Obviously, and even Arab Israelis would agree that you cannot allow entry into the State of Israel and grant the right to vote to terrorists with blood on their hands or those who support terror. This then brings us back to the concern we raised before that, according to that March 19, 2008 NY Times poll, now a majority of West Bank Palestinian Arabs support terror against Israel. So how is it possible for a significant enough number of Palestinians in the territories to be eligible to become naturalized Israelis even in the eyes of their own Arab cousins in Israel?

Again, the good part of bureaucracy comes to the rescue. To best illustrate first we need to categorize the intensity of the problem, and next we prioritize the organization of the Arabic naturalization rate according to a Score of the Level-Of-Probable-Innocence (L.O.P.I. Score, to coin a phrase) of each immigration applicant. The higher the L.O.P.I. Score rating, the better chance they have to become an Israeli.

Categorization:

1. Terrorists with blood on their hands or their sponsors are the worst and are ineligible to become Israelis by any standard. They are inhuman.
2. Terrorists without blood on their hands are only slightly better. They look forward to murdering someone.
3. Avid supporters of terror who curse the existence of the State of Israel. Their hatred is deep.
4. Supporters of terror who are only doing so out of frustration and would likely stop if the frustration stopped.
5. Supporter of terror for political reasons. In the sick, Pro-Hamas culture, if you support terror, then your stock goes up in the eyes of the government. We have seen this in history in the cultures of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. It may mean more food on their tables each week.
6. Those courageous Palestinian Arabs who stand up to peer pressure and reject any connection whatsoever with terrorism, even though they are ostracized by their own neighbors.

A L.O.P.I. Score of 3 or less means they are ineligible to become Israeli citizens. Level 4 supporters may end up being rejected by both Jewish and Arab Israelis as being potential immigrants, but perhaps not. Level 5 would get some opposition from the political right, but certainly less than level 4. I would think most would agree that level 6 Arab applicants are a highly desirable crop of potential immigrants.

How to determine the difference between a level 5 and a level three terror supporter? For some in these categories it could be as simple as asking them to pledge support of Israel and foreswear terror as a legitimate form of civil disobedience in the world. Those close to terror may not be able to take such a citizenship pledge, while for those far from terror in their hearts it may be very easy for them to take such a pledge.

For those in between categories; the externally indefinable citizenship applicants, how do we determine their true colors? One would need to know certain classified security secrets that I currently have neither access to, nor do I desire access to, that only Israel and the United States governments are privy to, in order to be able to offer any form of coherent and specified advice. Suffice it to say that the advice of King David from Psalm 131 holds true here, concerning not venturing too deeply into matters greater or more complex than one’s expertise. But fear not, there are those who could answer this query already in place in our governments. The major question is whether this query ever gets asked as a matter of actual policy. Let’s hope the answer is positive.

Prioritization:

Very simply, a L.O.P.I. Score of 6 or something very close to that equals being accepted as soon as a corresponding amount of Jewish immigrants come to Israel as well.

What to do with those who are terrorists? Bring them to justice. The others whom all Israelis, Jew, Arab, all groups alike collectively reject, those rejects who pose no active danger to the State, yet reject the idea of joining the State civilly, should not be kept in a segregated camp in perpetuity, but be given provisions and financial compensation and sent on their way (out of the country), in the spirit of pardoning sinners as on the Biblical Jubilee. This should be done with as much compassion as possible, all according to the nature of the crimes and the will of the people at the time such an event would occur.

But in all these matters I do not pretend that a professor sitting in New York City can judge what is best for Israelis better than they can themselves. This is a matter for Israelis, Jews, Arabs, Bedouins and everyone else in the State of Israel, to decide. This Professor is merely offering examples based upon a theoretical model of another way to go on the path to end violence as swiftly and perpetually as possible, toward a truly just and lasting peace; may God grant it speedily and in our days. Amen.

A New and Revised One-State Solution to Peace in the Middle East

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

By Professor Alan Friedlander

When seeking an end to belligerence the goal is to remove as many current and as many potential causes for feelings of outrage by either side of the conflict. Yet previous peace plans either favored one side or the other.

Previous one-state solutions ended in selecting a segregated victor and a losing side which then becomes a rejected, exiled nation; as if a Wandering Jew syndrome must be perpetuated with either Jewish settlers or Arab settlers of the West Bank and Gaza being arbitrarily chosen as the collective scapegoat for some ancient sin that has long been erased from Israel. I find other one-state solutions only politically reasonable, whether or not morally so, immediately following the massive war in which the refugee issue first arose, such as in this case, back in 1967. Thus the other one-state solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are inherently archaic. To wait for some kind of a messianic war to legitimize such a one-state solution to end violence while innocent people are in danger would be to ignore the Lord’s command: “Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor” (Leviticus 19.16)

Whereas two state solutions are all based on the assumption that two groups of married couples should share a single bed at the same time, and each time one man rolls over in his sleep, the second man thinks that the first man is making a play for his wife. Only the bed in this parable is merely a twin-size bed, and physically unable to contain two married couples peacefully. Such a commune-esque concept cannot work spiritually in a Holy Land, nor physically succeed whether we talk of a tiny proverbial bed or we speak of the political division of a small but cherished land.

I find two-state solutions bubbles of false hope and an invitation for bloodshed on more than one level. As we have seen in Northern Ireland, only once the very thing that the IRA rejected that England should be accepted as the dominant power occurred did peace break out. Peace came to Northern Ireland only through a one-state solution. Thus two state solutions are a codependency to terror. You take away the two-state solution and then when you begin a real peace process, it will stand a chance to succeed. Only then do we find that terrorists are no longer viewed falsely as freedom fighters but are seen correctly as the murdering terrorists that they are.

Though the comparison of England and Israel ends there, as Israel was not a colonial power taking away another nation’s rights, as happened between England and Ireland, the Palestinians are former Jordanians and Egyptians who were abandoned by their former governments, and have yet to be taken in by Israel.

With hindsight we can see clearly how all two state solutions, including the current Roadmap, are guaranteed to fail in the real world. Had they succeeded in signing a paper piece of paper and called it a treaty, it would never have worked long term “on the ground”.

The Friedlander Peace Plan changes all that. Under this new and revised one-state solution as the peace plan of choice, Jews and Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza must be allowed to become one people with the Israelis. It may not be an easy transition to becoming one state, but however dysfunctional it may or may not be at first, that’s the small price of democracy for you. A smaller price than the seemingly endless years of bloodshed have been until now.

A Comparison of Peace Plans

A peace process should have the potential to lead to actual peace. If it does not, then it should not be considered a viable option even on a temporary basis. Each time a peace deal fails radical elements become even more radicalized. True lovers of peace, should therefore have zero tolerance for fake peace processes.

Two State Solution Based Peace Plans

• Madrid Talks
  
• Oslo Accords 1 & 2
• Roadmap to ?Peace?

All of these have thus far been unworkable. From an International Law perspective, any compromise of Jewish religious sites, with no true expectancy of Palestinian compliance with Succession laws, is illegal from the start. The reason the Quartet are forcing Israel into a continued cycle of violence rather than using a more workable plan is perhaps threefold...

1. Israeli governments literally asked for it.
2. The potential economic boon for all nations from a peace deal is just too alluring to ignore.
3. The focus is on assembling a united world against Iran, so even International Law itself needs to take a back seat, they apparently argue.

One State Solution Based Peace Plans

• The Friedlander Peace Plan, as briefly described in the previous post. This requires the tying of West Bank/Gaza Arabic naturalization rates to the immigration rates of foreign born Jews. Nobody has to give up their homes. Palestinians slowly but surely become complete Israelis.
  

• The Binational Solution, which is supported by many right wing Israelis, and parts of this plan have been accepted even by some American Republicans, including former Presidential candidate, Sen. Sam Brownback. Essentially it calls for Arabs in the East Bank of the Jordan and Jews on the West Bank, in the spirit of the Balfour Declaration. This is consistent with some aspects of Kahanism, in that the Arabs relocate; only in this case it is to a legally declared target country. Such a target country's population would increase in Palestinian favor, rather than what would occur in being sent to a random country. Thus Palestinians would at least get the benefit of increased political power from this forced exile than what they currently have in the West Bank.
  

• The Saudi Plan calls for a Palestinian Right of Return whereby the goal is possibly to overwhelm the Jewish population of Israel with an influx of many immigrants of Palestinian descent, who have been living in Arab lands since either 1967 or as far back as 1949. The ultimate result would be to vote in a Hamas like government over the entire state of Israel, not just Gaza. The Saudi plan, therefore, is consistent with terrorism. ...If there should be a Palestinian Right of Return, it must be decided upon by Israelis, all Israelis. Jew and Arab alike. The Friedlander Plan allows for this debate as to whether there should be further Palestinian immigration in the future, but the Saudi plan attempts to prejudge, preempt, forestall and force dangerous and economically destructive immigration practices down Israel's collective throat. Saudi Arabia could become a force for peace in the future, but this current plan of theirs doesn't come close to fulfilling that role.
  

Thus out of all the plans reviewed, the Friedlander Peace Plan sounds like the most fair and therefore the best plan of all of these. It seems to be the most consistent with true American values, and therefore should be the selected vehicle of American Foreign Policy towards the Palestinian issue. I recommend that all parties involved adopt this plan immediately.