Kulam Marvichim - Everyone Wins

God blessed me to compose the Everyone Wins Peace plan 6 years ago. With the impasse due to the Fatah-Hamas alliance, I thought it appropriate to restate the best alternative to the diplomatic initiatives that brought us to this stalemate. How do you avoid a stalemate when negotiating with terrorists and their sympathizers?

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. 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.

To get there we need to stop trying to negotiate with terrorists in an effort to abandon the land that God gave us. What's so terrible about that?

Unilateralism such as this would bypass most multilateral negotiations, true. But isn't that the same thing that occurs when you buy your friend a present? If the gift is a good thing, does the friend hold it against you that he had no choice in the matter? That's the whole point of a surprise present isn't it? 

Whereas trying to force a wolf into a sheepskin is risking real human lives for a plan that cannot succeed. Oslo, the Quartet, Labor, Kadima, Likud have all followed that path to no avail.

Dedicating policy towards multilateral-ism at all costs, brings high cost in it's wake. Focusing on the goals of true peace and justice for all is the path to true peace. You can't do that with terrorists, but you can do that with people.

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

Pursue True Independence

If the international community is weak towards Russian violations of international borders, then that should be a wake up call to anyone still naive enough to believe international pressure will keep peace with a Palestinian country and Israel.  And if the world tries to force Russia to the point of armed conflict, would that be a path of peace either?


UN peacekeepers? Their main offensive threat is how fast they can flee from a conflict. Their main purpose to protect media.  Do they regulate any media bias? No. Freedom to slander and not help is all that UN peacekeepers would do, not because the soldiers are not brave, but the poor policy is so entrenched to the point that it blocks the good they could do.

The only way to have peace between Jews and Arabs in the Holy Land is if one army is in control, not two opposing forces established to enshrine a perpetual state of war. History has shown us that army must be Israel's.  The only way for an army to function is to have complete control not international observers to violence and political roadblocks to keeping the peace.

You may expect Russia to now take Israel's side and say that Israel must be able to have military control so that there can be true peace. But the opposite is likely the case. The world leading nations have conflicting agendas. To meet all of those agendas simultaneously would negate logic, common sense, sanity and security for Israel. Therefore the only solution for Israel is to recognize it's own needs and take care of them itself. It can no longer live the life of its foreign policy vicariously through the eyes of the governments of nations of the world. It should turn it's eyes to Heaven, and fulfill all that is right in the eyes of Heaven. Included in that is the concept of self preservation and the pursuit of true and lasting peace, not the chaotic and conflicting and consequently hypocritical whims of the governments of the nations of the world.

Do not empower your enemies any more. Empower your true independence from them. The independence that was yearned for and yet from 1948 until today still has not been the main foreign policy of the State of Israel. "A Place Among the Nations" is the title of a book you wrote Prime Minister Netanyahu. But a place independent from the nations is that which your people need. 

May it soon be so, by the grace of G-d.

Terrorists Must Be Brought To Justice

You cannot make peace with people dedicated to terror, you must bring them to justice. You can only make peace with those fit to govern their own people, and unlikely to become a danger to their neighboring peoples.  Do we agree on this?

Hamas is a rabid dog champing at the bit to attack the first innocent it can find.  Fatah is a rabid dog that learned a few tricks, such as diplomacy.  But remember Arafat's description of the peace process, repeated a hundred times by Abbas, "A Strategic choice for peace." Not a dedication to peace, not a path of peace, not even an experiment for peace. A war time strategy.

To even entertain the idea of a treaty with the PA is a sick joke, not a foreign policy. OK, I take that back, it is a policy foreign to the Torah way, or any common sense.  The current US/Kerry initiative is not based on common sense, but on broader strategic considerations.  ...Interesting how that strategy word keeps coming up... An initiative based on a philosophy with no historic support, but that made sense when it was thought up while high and listening to songs about peace. The Kerry initiative calls for risking friends to make friends out of enemies. Which means it is a dangerous path for not just Israel, but also the USA, NATO and the entire Western alliance.

The Netanyahu Administration must not go into the light that Kerry is so excited about, but rather follow the light that was given at Sinai, and "Choose Life."  May it soon be so, by the grace of God.

The Great Rabbi Ovadia Yosef

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, of blessed memory, was not merely a former Chief Rabbi of the State of Israel, nor was he just the Rabbi behind the Shas Party, but one of the greatest scholars of Talmudic Law of the past century and beyond.  The burden of his loss can only be filled by many working together. We cannot expect just any rabbi to simply step right in and equal his affect on Israel and the Torah world.

His writings literally changed the customs of many Sephardi Jews around the world.  His willingness to bring the Torah down from the Mountain and into the Knesset changed the path of politics in Israel for the better. He set Shas on a path to stand up for Torah ideals, and yet be willing to work with any party for the betterment of the State of Israel. We should not merely be grateful for the man, but for the One who gave him to us.  He was just what the people needed, and that is what God gave. "The Lord gave and the Lord took, may the name of the Lord be blessed." (Iyov/Job 1.21)

Palestinian Authority Unable to Govern

The PA is unable to protect the citizens of Israel from past, present or future terror groups. In fact the Olso Accords were not based on security concerns at all, as Rabin and Beilin never consulted with security or intelligence officials over the Oslo Accords.  I am not just blaming the Palestinian Arabs for this.  A systemic flaw exists that precludes the possibility of reliance upon the pseudo government formed by the Oslo Accords. For the rule of law to exist, the Knesset must work toward a united state of Israel that includes the territories.

Ninety five percent of PA employees are currently on strike. There is no mandate with only 5 percent of their own population supporting them.  The Palestinian Arabs are also eager for social and political change, not just economic improvement. They do not want their leaders.  When you combine the unpopular character of Fatah and Hamas and the lack of support of third party candidates, you get the impression that perhaps the PA elections are being delayed until a fix can be put in to continue Fatah or Hamas advantage. Why did Hamas take over Gaza?  Because when you are not allowed to vote for a better government, sometimes you vote for any kind of change, which unfortunately, turned Gaza into a fledgling terrorist state, though not officially under International Law.  A third way party movement would already have taken steam under a society under such discontent, if it were truly allowed to.  No political safeguards were another flaw with the Oslo Accords.

Even now, Israel could retake Gaza for the sake of the peace of Arabs and Israelis alike and justify it under International Law.  Which means that certainly, to merely transfer governance from the PA to the Knesset in Judea and Samaria, while allowing local and municipal continuity in Arab leadership, would be more than legal, but actually the most practical solution available. On that day, most governments that support a Palestinian State would sigh in relief behind closed doors even as they undoubtedly would protest openly that there will not be any new terrorist states in the Middle East. However, when you present many of those disenchanted Palestinian Arabs as the very advocates before the world of a united state of Israel, the teeth will be removed from the bite of the critics against Israeli annexation.

No PR (hasbara) nightmares on that road.  No more Roadmap to Peace nightmares of terror either.

The long delayed PA elections happen less often than regimes are changed in the Middle East today.

It is not for security that Israel and the West continue to support the Oslo Accords. It is not for democracy that Israel and the West continue to support the Oslo Accords.

Can someone remind me why we are waiting for this terrorist government to reform? Regime change via annexation by Israel and naturalization into Israel continues to seem to be the best viable option available.

It is not for peace that Israel and the West continue to support the Oslo Accords. Not real peace anyway.  May that realization soon become understood by all friends of peace and justice, by the grace of G-d.

Transitioning to Full Rights in Judea and Samaria

Israel's status in International law is unique, and therefore potentially confusing.  Preliminary dejure (full) rights are easily viewed as defacto (current practice, but not actual law).  By selecting to attempt to give away land, Israel is superimposing by her chosen policy a defacto status to the territories that are really fully Israel's.  Therefore the moment Israel's policy becomes to retain their land, in that moment it will gain full dejure status, as it is not predicated on International feelings, but on the legal process that began 90 plus years ago and applied since then.

Now in this context allow me to clarify a statement that I previously wrote about on this blog:
"...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."

But that defacto status is only due to current policy, not intrinsic to the legal status of all territories West of the River Jordan.

Let me try to explain this with a parable.  A person hurts his arm with painful wound that will fully heal in time and unwisely selects to undergo a voluntary amputation on that otherwise healthy limb.  Until that surgery happens, the chosen limb is at risk, and considered "ill" (even though it is only the person's way of thinking that is ill).  The diagnosing doctor marks the limb for amputation (he's a friend of the patient and just wants to be a "good friend" and listen to the patient), going against his own better judgement (assuming he has any). The surgeon (International Law in this parable) does not attempt to test the limb to see if it's healed (which would be a good medical practice for real doctors to follow).  Unless the patient changes his mind before the surgery begins, his limb remains marked for amputation. It has a pending defacto status of a severed limb. The surgery in this example, is signing a final status agreement, which has never taken place.

By placing a PLO flag on Judea, Samaria and Gaza, the State of Israel has marked those lands for amputation.  But it is extremely important for the patient to change his mind, for Israel to not go through with it.  It is extremely important for the nations of the world to check the facts of the situation to see if the limb really must go and if the limb, once severed, would only serve to make a Frankenstein monster rather than a healthy clone.

May Israel soon awaken from the extremely bad idea of giving away the wonderful land that the Creator gave her.  May she acknowledge her inherent dejure rights, her full and complete legal rights to all of the land West of the River Jordan.  May it be very soon, by the grace of G-d.

Ending the Demographic Nightmare

A chief concern of those who refuse to accept the most obvious solution to the Palestinian issue, that of full Israeli annexation of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is the question of demographics.  No friend of Israel wishes it to endanger itself by disproportionately increasing Arabic power in the state of Israel.  Therefore a peace plan would require two things, that annexation allows expansion of IDF control while simultaneously furthering the preservation of current political power levels of both Jews and Arabs in the State of Israel.

The key is keeping things proportional.  If current demographics are maintained by adding an equal amount of Jews from outside the Green Line, then the current levels are not at risk. Pretty simple.  Yet if you take out all Arabs with terrorist leanings, you'll still have more Arabs than Jews currently living outside the Green Line.

That why there is a need to tie the naturalization rate of Green Line Arabs to the immigration rate of foreign born Jews, as I stated previously.

Next comes the most important part, placing in a bureaucratic filter to weed out terrorist from naturalization candidates.  But just as a credit card company can figure out who to trust with a credit card, similarly there is a way to get past that hurdle as well in the security field.  Just as one with bad credit can build their credit back to good, one with an anti Israel past can regain lost trust, if they are sincere and patient.

The key is this, everyone gets to keep their homes.  Both Jews and Arabs.  Only enemies of the state must leave.  So this gives this plan an advantage other plans cannot compete with, as no other plan allows retention of societal norms as does this one.  That is why I named it the Everyone Wins peace plan. But it's decidedly more important that everyone actually wins, that true peace be given a chance to flourish, than this plan be called by my name for it.  So rename it if you will, but I challenge anyone to come up with another plan better than this that does not require war to get us there.

The government has known about this plan for a few years now, let's hope it finally gets the serious review by the government that it deserves.  May it soon be so, by the grace of G-d.

The Meaning Behind the Destruction of the Temple

A friend recently wrote of his impatience with G-d at the rebuilding of the Temple, saying that Our Father was ignoring us by leaving us with fast days of mourning destruction rather than restoring the joy of the rebuilt Bais HaMikdash.  This is my reply...

Tisha B'Av and the Three Weeks of mourning for the Bais HaMikdash that is in ruins is not about doubting G-d's existence, it is about humbling ourselves in preparation for the high holy days when we must accept G-d's supremacy. Then we call Him, Our Father, Our King.  He is not just an Abba, a father that allows room for us to calculate how much we can get away with, He is also our King, with the absolute righteous right to demand of us as He wills.

What father would ignore his children? Yet what king can tolerate if their behavior ignores him?  This is the time of our wake up call.  Return to Hashem, or at least recognize that we need to return to him.

When much of the nation wants to share G-d's mountain with another religion rather than wish that G-d's house, the Temple, be built there, then where is there room to doubt our Father, our King in His silence, however painful it may be?  Yet He still protects us from our enemies.  Even when the State of Israel was established while ignoring His Rabbis, G-d did not let us lose that war, or any since.  Just as one can choose to lose a battle that that can be won, so too a child can choose to prolong their exile from their father's embrace.

May the policies of the government reflect the spiritual aspirations of the people and in our policy and in our daily lives may we reflect those ideals intrinsic to a rebuilding of the Bais HaMikdash, swiftly in our days.  May it soon be so, by the grace of G-d.

My Address at the Hall of the Nascent Sanhedrin

I was asked to address tomorrow night’s conference at the Hall of the Sanhedrin at Ohel Yitzchak in the Old City of Jerusalem on Torah as Governance, Authority, and the base for establishment of Sovereignty. As I cannot attend the event this time, I at least wanted to make this posting to the blog in an effort at being unselfish with any gift that HaShem-G-d blessed me with.  If any innovation was said here, it was HaShem who gave it to me. This is the text of the speech:

B'Ezras HaShem Yisborach, by the grace of G-d, may He be blessed.  In Memory of Howard Chaim ben Leah (Grief).

I am grateful for the invitation to speak to you today in the Hall of Nascent Sanhedrin.  It is an honor to be asked to speak in a place of Torah, before people of wisdom. I have been asked to address two matters in the span of ten minutes, my feelings about Howard Grief, and my perspective about the Har HaBayit, Temple Mount in International Law.

I was saddened at the news of International Law expert Howard Grief's passing. But more than sadness, I am concerned. Concerned that today's scholars will not be able to speak as strong and freely as Howard Grief did. He was polite, but never catered to political correctness over absolute truthful analysis of International Law about a region in which a clear declaration of the truth is just as important as its understanding.  We must learn from Howard to not allow distractions nor an air of political correctness in legal discourse of International Law and Israel to keep us from speaking the simple truth.

Howard brought to our attention the San Remo conference of 1920 and its profound effect on Israeli sovereignty to all of the Land West of the River Jordan.  In my effort to emulate him, I will need to use the rest of this time to discuss International Law.  But unlike Howard Grief, I did not spend 25 years writing a book before publishing my thoughts.  Instead I have posted them publicly on my blog, Jerusalem Defender, for the past several years, so that some aspect of peer review would occur.  I want to point out that what I am speaking of Torah scholars already know, the only innovation here is to emphasize its significance in International Law.

In Sefer Ezra, the book of Ezra, we find the world leading political power, the Persian-Median Empire’s recognition of Jewish rights to Eretz Yisrael, the land of Israel, including Yehuda veShomron, Judea and Samaria, and Har Habayis, the Temple Mount in particular.

In the Book of Ezra, chapter 4, which occurred some 2500 years ago, when the Jews were also returning to the Holy Land from an exile, the leading political power of the World at the time was the Persian-Median Empire. The Emperor Artachshast(a), in Aramaic – Artaxerxes, in English, converses with the leaders of the adversaries of the Jews in the Holy Land.  Both the jealous leaders of the Arabic areas of the Trans-Euphrates region of the Persian-Median Empire and the main political leader of the World in that age itself each refer to the land of Israel as territory that stretched out to the River, the Euphrates.  A Jewish Right of Return and legal authority of the Land of Israel was recognized by the International Community of that day.

The Persian-Median recognition of Jewish rights to Har Habayis (the Temple Mount) is also interesting to consider, despite the inconsistency in its history of applied sovereignty due to the Babylonian exile. From the Persian-Median perspective, however, it seems that this too was not an impediment upon viewing Israel's rights to include all the land which they had acquired under King David.

Thus there exists a profoundly deep historical reality of International Recognition of Jewish Rights to the Land of Israel from ancient times and until today.

Israel annexed East Jerusalem 33 years ago. But even then the status of Israel's claims to the Temple Mount seemed on the surface to be in doubt, despite Jerusalem's reconquest, for in 1967, less than a month after it's capture, the keys to the Temple Mount were handed over to the Waqf. This was, however, a transfer of administrative control exclusively, but not of sovereignty.  The transfer was conducted by the defense minister, not by a head of state, to an Arab organization, not with a government.  Further, this took place prior to the Oslo Accords, and outside of them, yet no legally binding change to this administrative transfer has since occurred. The Clinton Parameters, the suggested split of Har HaBayit and the Western Wall, in the closing days of the Clinton Administration, were never accepted in a finalized peace deal.

East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount were not legally acquired by Jordan during and due to their offensive attack in the War of Independence. Jordan never exercised sovereignty over the region, under International Law, merely military occupation. Nor was Israel's offer of Judea and Samaria to avoid conflict prior to the War of Independence accepted by the Arabs, and thus no revision of the Mandate for Palestine took place. 
Thus our political dilemma now has a religious question, not a legal one between states, and we need to know the extent, if any, of the legal authority of the Moslem Waqf on the Temple Mount.

First of all, whenever there is a question of the rights of an organization, when in conflict with a government under International Law, the weight of the law sides with a State.

Religiously speaking, the Temple Mount has been reserved for this time in history according to the Bible.  Before Islam was formed, it was already known and accepted that the location of the Temple Mount was reserved for the Third Temple.  The buildings currently on the Temple Mount do not change the fact that Jewish history predates Islamic history and the Jewish prophets are revered by the very text of the Islamic Faith itself.

Any demand or decree from the Waqf, then, would have no legal bearing or limitation upon the State of Israel, should it decide to change the status of the Temple Mount at any time. The choice is Israel's alone to make.

Thus after all these years since Motta Gur's famous declaration, nothing has changed.  "Har HaBayit BeYadaynu!" ("The Temple Mount is in Our Hands!")  We have G-d to thank for that. Perhaps it's time for our government to acknowledge this?

Would that our political policies reflected our religious responsibilities so that freedom of religion is at long last fully restored to the Jewish People, by rebuilding our Holy Temple in its place, that very holy place as was chosen by Heaven itself.  May it soon be so, by the grace of G-d, B’Ezras HaShem Yisborach.

The flyer for the event at the Hall of the Nascent Sanhedrin.

Chareidim Draft Proposal

Assaulting one's way of life is not consensus building. The attempt to force chareidim to give up Torah learning and join the army is misguided and needs to be rethought. By encouraging an increase in voluntary chareidi enlistment perhaps a compromise solution can be found.

Take societal pressures out of the mix, there is no pressing need for chareidim to join the ranks of the IDF. To eliminate discontent in society, one must do so in a manner that leaves as little collateral damage as possible. Appeasing this group of society by displeasing that group of society is politicking for votes, not pursuing a path toward true societal improvement.  Bottom line, the current drive to force the Chareidim into the IDF is going to leave some group hurt if it is implemented.

The question is not being put in the correct light.  There is no question that even the greatest of Rabbis in history have worked while they studied, and there is no question that in an emergency a Torah scholar is supposed to interrupt his studies and help those in need. The question is this: Does the IDF currently need the chareidim to be drafted in order for the security of the State of Israel to be provided? The answer is no. Will a draft of the chareidim be a minor interruption to their societal norms, as well as their religious convictions? The answer is also no. It would be a disastrous upheaval according to many of the greatest of our Rabbis.

Therefore being "fair" to the majority via the destruction of a minority is what is being proposed. If those who support the chareidi draft proposal get their way, will Israel be stronger morally and ethically for it? I suggest no.

If rather than trying to force this down the chareidim's throats, a suggestion would be made to their Rabbis, that in order to make a significant percentage of disgruntled citizens feel more respect for their Torah scholars, if the Chareidi leaders would please come up with some internal solution to the batlanim (idlers) who abuse their privileges as chareidim to do nothing while other (the real) chareidim learn intensely, and non-chareidim serve in the army.

Deescalate this situation from confrontation and blackmail to negotiation and consensus building.

The new leaders in the Knesset were put there to be diplomats, not enforcers, leaders of all Israelis, not just for a single constituency.  Perhaps they should act that way?

May it soon be so, by the grace of G-d.

Speaking Opp Needs Funding

By the grace of G-d, I've been offered to speak at a conference in Jerusalem in a few weeks, but could use a sponsor to grant coverage for travel and lodging expenses, as I currently reside in New York and do not have full time employment at this time.

One of the topics I plan to speak on is the status of Har HaBayit, the Temple Mount in International Law. I wrote about that briefly on this blog a month ago.

This would be a great way to support what we do here. All we do is with the help of Heaven. Now here's a way you can help too. Please pass the word along to someone who you think may be able to help.

Please contact me if you have any leads, Author@JerusalemDefender.com Thanks.

Defacto Statehood in International Law

I was saddened at the news of International Law expert Howard Grief's passing. But more than sadness, I am worried. Worried that today's scholars will not be able to speak as strong and freely as Howard Grief did. He was polite, but never catered to political correctness over absolute truthful analysis of International Law about a region in which a clear declaration of the truth is just as important as it's understanding.  I say this not because there are not also brilliant minds in this generation, but because distractions, an air of political correctness in legal discourse of International Law and Israel, in a place where only the simple truth will do.

The sages of the Talmud relate in the first chapter of Ethics of the Fathers, that civilization is founded upon truth, justice and peace. Thus without an adherence to truthful application of justice (International Law) there cannot be peace. Therefore for scholars to fail to emulate the Howard Grief style, would be to risk failure in pursuit of finding a true path to peace. While I may lack Howard's superior politeness and scholarship, I will attempt to address this as truthfully as I can.

Recently I have heard some scholarship attempting to support the current Knesset's policies by saying do not question that a Two State Solution can work, when there exists a defacto Palestinian state already.  In my opinion, this is a statement of political leanings, not a declaration of legal standards. Defacto means "an actual practice, but not necessarily one ordained by law." Further, such recognition is generally provisional. In this case, on condition of a final peace deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Also keep in mind the concept that a state must function as a state and also be recognized as one to be granted full rights under International Law.

To all supporters of the erroneous thought that Arabic Palestine is truly a defacto state, please consider the following:

1. Palestine is not (yet) a state that can even make a treaty.
2. Is Palestine a quasi State?  Logically speaking, if Palestine existed before the Oslo Accords which of course it did not, then for some strange reason it agreed to not become a State (again?) when it signed the Oslo Accords until after the Final Status discussions were concluded and signed as a treaty.  Never happened, never will.
3. The United Nations specifically granted limited recognition only, not full recognition. For what reason?  That they are already a state?  That they should be considered a state? Some of the countries that supported the PA only on condition that their limited recognition would not interfere with the treaty between them and Israel, other states that were trying to legalize the Palestinian Authority. But their intentions and current practices do not overrule Oslo, from their own reasoning, which essentially renders the UN resolution legally null and void, as customary law cannot overrule a treaty between member states and certainly between a member state and an ethnicity within it's borders. (Jordan has no legally binding joint claim over Judea and Samaria (the West Bank.) Thus even the quasi recognition by the UN, did not change that status.
4. The Palestinian Authority lacks the full functionality of an independent state, rather functions more like a sub-state within a nation, as a state or county in the United States does.  Interstate border issues, such as an environmental hazard that is bothering a neighboring state may soon find itself to the needs and dictates of the federal government, and as far as defacto status goes, Israel does not share authority with the PA,  it is the superior authority in anything that Israel deems is or is not in its interest.  It took an Israeli court order to change the location of security fence in Samaria, for example, not any force, command or pleading from the Palestinian Authority. 
5. If the anyone wishes to reinterpret reality that the UN has more power than it does, then remember that in International Law, a declaration by the United Nations of defacto recognition cannot overrule a treaty between states, if it is a state, as the PLO agreed to become a non-state-state until Israel agrees otherwise. (The self contradiction and circular reasoning at the UN matches the hypocritical and bipolar diplomacy of the Palestinian Authority.)
6. The Oslo Accords are have already expired, according to scholars like me, and only remain as a defacto practice by the majority of the United Nations to pretend that it is not over.  This, however, cannot overrule Israel's Fundamental rights (Jus Cogens) of self preservation by preventing the formation of a terrorist state within its border. So there is not a legal reason to continue to recognize the Palestinian Authority at all, just a current practice to really, really, really wish really hard that it would become a real state after all.  My legal advice: Wake up, people!

If not for the idea of a One State Solution with the IDF in charge of things, there would be no logical expectation of peace in the near future.  Therefore today's legal scholars must ignore their own political views and work towards finding the optimum One State Solution that works best for long term peace so that International Law may be upheld and peace be obtained.

May it soon be so, by the grace of G-d.