Making Peace With Syria

Why would Syrian dictator Assad wish to forsake all of his terrorist cronies in Damascus for the sake of a mere majority of the Golan Heights, when he had always demanded all of the Golan? The timing is puzzling of Assad's new willingness to give up the equivalent of an extra army in his land for the sake of only part of what he has always claimed was entirely his. Especially when you take former Israeli Prime Minister and current Defense Minister Barak's opinion into account. From today's Jerusalem Post:

According to the defense minister, Assad's first priority is the survival of his regime. His second priority is getting the international tribunal into 2005's assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri canceled, a tribunal that is expected to point an accusatory finger at the highest echelons of the Syrian government.

Third, according to Barak, is securing a "special status" for Syria in Lebanon, followed by getting itself into the good graces of the US and the West. Only after all those interests does the Golan Heights enter Assad's list of priorities. (Herb Keinon's, 'Peace not a priority for Damascus', Jerusalem Post, May 25, 2008)

It is vital that the Knesset stops any pseudo peace plan with Syria that current Israeli Prime Minister Olmert may try to run through. In 2006 Olmert pledged to never give up the Golan in any peace deal with Syria. (April 24, 2008, Israel National News) Now Olmert, under investigation, and eager to make a mark of some kind of positive legacy before he may have to leave office abruptly, announces discussions to give up most of Golan, the territory that borders Israel and Syria.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the likely next Prime Minister of the State of Israel pledged to ignore any peace deal Olmert signs with Abbas. (April 22, 2008, INN) Let's hope he intends to do the same toward any possible deal with Syria as well, though it is more problematic from an International Law perspective. Abbas is not a head of State, Syria's Assad is. That has huge implications in International Law. It would be significantly more difficult to change a signed deal between two heads of state. The two most potent forms of International Law are Jus Cogens/primal rights, and also treaties between two officially recognized states. So it is vital that any false peace plan be stopped before it is signed.

Despite what Olmert has done in the past I have nothing against him doing good for his people, and getting a little honor along the way with it. But the giving of strategic land to an unrepentant regime that historically has only used the exact territory in question as a platform to wage war from is the worse thing Olmert could try to do to his people. What is Olmert thinking? For the sake of true peace in the Middle East, we cannot assume that Olmert, under such serious pressure, is fully thinking this through. Assad's closest ally is Iran of all countries.

Even if Assad agrees to forsake terror, he has a signed treaty with Iran that if any country attacks Syria, Iran will attack that country. Now that Israel took out Assad's secret nuclear program, there is no hope for Syria individually to defeat Israel via a surprise attack, at a moment when Assad's hatred for Israel is at its peak over the embarrassing nuclear set back at the hands of Israel. Yet Assad knows that if he attacks Israel, he forces Iran to fight Israel as well, God forbid. Ahmadinejad may be telling Assad even now, the price for fulfillment of that scenario is optimum strategic advantage, which for Iran would be Syrian control of the Golan. We need to seek paths to perpetual peace, not empower potential pretexts for war!

Syria must reject terror bases in its land, it must desire peaceful relations, and it must give up its constant demands for the Golan as a prerequisite for its civilized behavior. Paradoxically, then Israel would be empowered to consider some sort of land for friendship deal if they so choose to. But not land for peace. Land for peace, in an age of terror, is nothing less than fuel for terror. A pseudo justification used by enemies of peace to deceive their people that Israel is still their enemy, when all Israel wants to do is the same as any other Western nation wants to do; business with its neighbors and never war.

Assad, on the other hand, wants his people distracted from their lack of freedom, and the only way to do that is if Israel is an enemy. Therefore, we must assume that any attempt to get peace exclusively on condition of gaining the Golan when Iran is primed to attack Israel at the slightest excuse, is nothing other than a preparation for war in the immediate future by the leaders of both Syria as well as the silent partner in this sorted affair, Iran. All friends of peace should be opposed to such a disgusting perversion of the concept of peace, and discourage Israeli leadership from making such a tragic mistake!

When dealing with people like Assad, you do not seek common ground, you make them leave their philosophy of evil and chart a new course. The path toward the concept of true peace is education of all sides of what objective peace is. Such as no backstabbing, no support of terror, and a host of other concepts that you and I take for granted, but corrupted people may not fully grasp. That is why evenhanded mediation with terrorists only strengthens them, not the cause of true peace.

The Friedlander Peace Plan Is The Everyone Wins Peace Plan

By the grace of God, if others wish to call my peace plan, the Friedlander Peace Plan, I will let them. First, the name consistently differentiates between itself and the (Rabbi) Elon Peace Plan, which is also a One State Solution but of a different character. Second, the original Germanic meaning of Friedland is "peaceful land", which is the goal of any peace plan. Indeed, both are valid reasons to continue to call it by my surname, yet... in an attempt in having at least the appearance of a basic level of humility, except where appropriate I will endeavor to refer to my peace plan as the "Everyone Wins Peace Plan", and I will tell you why later in this post, but first I want to mention what I didn't name it. I did not name it according to the first idea that came to me, the freedom peace plan or the liberty peace plan for several reasons:

1. Freedom plan sounds more like a phone service commercial advertisement than a realistic path to peace. And I did not want to make this very serious path to peace sound like a joke.
   
2. As one person's freedom is an other's anarchy, and as terrorists deal mainly in anarchy, the meaning of liberty has a different connotation than when the Declaration of Independence speaks of liberty, for example. Freedom, to the radical Islam that Hamas deals in, is a danger in the hands of others (non-Islamic people), and is used exclusively as a self reference when referring the term to itself (true freedom is when they can do what they want, they are essentially arguing).
   
3. By calling the plan by the name Friedlander, I placed an address label on it. As this plan has no other source text than an Internet based blog, it is not as easy to research as the other peace plans, so therefore I placed a moniker that could aid in better directing inquiries from interested parties toward the source of the plan. Nevertheless, in the interest of keeping my head from swelling and necessitating the usage of a larger hat size, I figured that for myself at least, I would still have to come up with another descriptor for this peace plan.

The reason why the Friedlander Peace Plan can be called the Everyone Wins Peace Plan is that you can argue it from either the right or the left and it still remains flexible enough to be the best plan available.

An argument from the right would include 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.

From a left point of view, the Everyone Wins Peace Plan maintains Palestinian control of their cities and allows the retention of their homes, it frees them short term from terrorist police and long term from refugee camps, and it allows them to join their cousins within the Green Line by having a right to vote in the State of Israel.

From a centrist perspective that everyone can agree with, the Everyone Wins Peace Plan ends the unhealthy segregationist environment 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.

When you compare the Everyone Wins Peace Plan it to all the others, no other peace plan comes close to being so politically acceptable to as broad a base as this plan does. That, in my opinion, is the most important factor when choosing a path by which to avoid perpetual war. The wider the support a peace plan has, the less the likelihood of rebellion against the process once everyone is deeply invested in more ways than merely financial.

The Everyone Wins Peace Plan: An Evenhanded Policy for Peace

A Statement Against Arrogance

The Talmud teaches in Ethics of Fathers, one should be as clear as possible in their teachings to that students do not stumble on a misinterpretation. The Talmud (first chapter of Sotah) also relates how God despises Yuhara/haughtiness comparing it to idolatry and adultery. Ethics of the Fathers further says in the first chapter that whoever who tries to increase their name, decreases it. Indeed, self promotion for its own sake is against the Torah. So I state for the record that I do not intend in any way to teach arrogant self promotion by calling the peace plan that God gave me after my own name. No one has taken me to task over this as of this writing, but in the spirit of the Talmudic concept of avoiding sinful appearances I speak.

It is the nature of the times and this mode of communication that self promotion is required just to present a dialog. Naming the peace plan that God inspired me to compose after my Father’s last name while it does have an aspect of honor one’s father, inescapably honors myself as well, I cannot escape that fact, but that is not why I did it. In fact, if I am true to myself and know my own feelings, it is because of the exact opposite reason that I did not care for my own honor that I chose to do things this way. If I wanted to be hailed as a genius by my peers, I would have taken the long but honorable method of pursuing the publication of articles in peer review journals of Political Science. I would have taken the time to have written books to better market my career and fill my wallet, if that was my main goal with this recent campaign of mine to promote the Friedlander Peace Plan. In this blog, however, we are not entertaining self promotion but in fact discussing the avoidance of bloodshed, as well as the avoidance of loss of religious rights and property rights for all who are at risk.

The Halacha/Talmudic Law states that if someone who is naked is drowning, we do not demand that they clothe themselves before we rescue them, but we push aside the normal practice of avoiding nudity in order to save a life. Every day millions of people are at risk. I simply could not wait until a career opportunity would present itself, but as soon as the idea was fully formulated, I spoke it. I began to write an extended essay on this a year ago, but I had to work though some paradoxes until God had mercy on me and gave me the inspiration to present this idea publicly beginning as of a month ago. I could not just sit still while countless people were in danger!

So if in any way I went over the line of arrogant self promotion as a byproduct of some aspect of low self esteem on my part, then I apologize and accept the full responsibility for my words and actions and if the Lord wills it, I do intend to make amends, if at all possible. If my words, however, lead in any way to true peace in the Middle East, then I request here and now that credit should be given to where it truly belongs, to those who made me, to God and to my parents and mentors, such as Rav Aharon Soloveichik.

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.

An Alternative Peace Plan

"Israeli Government Supports Kahanism - Only Against the Jews! ...Enough! ... Here is the Alternative Peace Plan You Have Been Waiting For!!"

Or

"An Alternative Peace Plan" by Alan Friedlander

In the March 30th 2008 Israel National News article, "Livni in Favor of Paying Jews to Leave East-of-Wall Towns" Left wing Jewish supporters describe the ethnic cleansing of the East Jerusalem suburbs of Jews as "relocating (them) back (home) to Israel." Either Kahanism is legitimate or it is not. If it is, then it is stupid to do it against yourself. I claim, however, it is not, so even against the "other side" I do not support ethnic cleansing and even by non-violent means. The key question then is what then is the alternative? An important question to address as for the sake of the lack of a workable alternative alone did Israel succumb to the dreadful Oslo Accords.

In an effort to end the cycle of self-destructive false peace deals, by the grace of God, I will suggest an alternative that is consistent with democratic ideals and does not embrace relocating any one who desires to live in peace.

The current roadmap to a Two State Solution is unworkable in practice and under International Law.

A One State Solution has previously been rejected by Israeli governments due to fear of a potentially overwhelming Palestinian Arabic birthrate.

Many Palestinians in the West Bank wish they were full fledged Israelis, but the Israeli governments have refused to allow them such an option.

But there exists a missing key that has eluded opponents of a One State Solution that is hidden deep within the recesses of bureaucratic organizational theory.

It is completely possible and even likely to workout a completely evenhanded policy of immigration rates between Jews and Arabs that will allow the slow but sure immigration of West Bank and Gaza Arabs into the State of Israel, without endangering the State one iota. I have written an extended work up of how this can work exactly, but skipping to the key point, all that needs to be done is to tie West Bank/Gaza Arabic naturalization rates to the immigration rates of foreign born Jews. As there are more Jews world wide that plan to "one day" make Aliyah than there are Palestinian Arabs who reside in the West Bank and Gaza, it does not take a mathematician to see how this can work out.

A major problem with this plan, you may say, is that at the current rate of immigration, this plan could take decades to complete. I would answer, well, if it took 60 years to get into the current quagmire, then 30 years doesn't seem like such a long time to work things out slow, sure, safely and fairly. But the truth of the matter is, once there is true peace, and people know that 1) Israel will not be endangered not just by Arabs, but by any weak leadership in the future, and 2) the economy will improve exponentially after such true peace occurs, then the Aliyah/Jewish immigration rate will more than triple current immigration rates and correspondingly hasten Palestinian redemption as well.

If this occurs, it will not be because you heeded the good advice of this political scientist, but because you heeded the Holy Word that the God of the Jews commanded through His servant, Moses, (Exodus 12.49) "A single law you shall have for the native born and the stranger who dwells among you."

Why I Still Reject Kahanism Despite Palestinian Support of Terrorism

You may be wondering the following: If I am blaming the majority of Palestinians for supporting terror in their hearts and with their votes, then why do I still reject Kahanism despite Palestinian Arabic support of terrorism. It's simple, the Bible says that there should be a single law and single ordinance for the stranger and the native of the land (Numbers 15.16). Kahanism removes voting rights from Palestinian Arabs. Not all Arabs would be ejected from Israel under Rabbi Meir Kahane's plan, those who swore allegiance can stay, only without voting rights.

Obviously whoever is chomping at the bit for bloodshed has no place in the Israel of the future. So what Kahanism is effectively saying is that those Israeli Arabs who befriend Israel should be rewarded with no right to vote. The Torah is always current. The Torah is always vibrant. Therefore how can a belief system like Kahanism fit within the context of a Torah nation that exists in an age of democracy? To have less democracy than the Kingdom of Jordan is not the way to honor the God of Israel. Therefore, in my opinion, pure Kahanism is inconsistent with Torah ideals.

That being the case, why do more than a few religious Jews support Kahanism? Because they are grasping at halachic straws out of desperation at the seemingly endless cycle of bloodshed, and we all know how important saving lives is to Judaism. Judaism is all about life (Deuteronomy, Chapter 30). The one thing that is true about Kahanism is that it is an effective method to eliminate immediate danger to the state of Israel by eliminating the policy of accommodation to terrorist organizations like Fatah that recent Israeli governments seem to be willing to put up with. Long term though, where does Kahanism place the friends of Israel? Where is the Jewish Light unto the Nations? Where then is the sanctification of God's Holy Name for which Jews have been willing to be martyred over throughout history? Only by focusing on God's long term plan for the Jewish people can we rise above knee jerk reactions to punish any relatives of our enemies, even if they wish to befriend us. But such a reaction misses a very important concept in the nature of God himself...

We are commanded to emulate the Lord of Yisrael. What then is His nature? Come and see that the nature of the God of Israel is not like the nature of mortals of flesh and blood. What is the nature of flesh and blood? If a man has a mortal enemy he will endeavor to destroy him and any and all who support him, lest they rise up again to cause danger at some later date. But what does God do with His enemy? Which nation is God's greatest enemy in the Bible? Amalek would be a good choice for God's eternal nemesis (Deuteronomy 25.17-19). Now even though there are some nations that were so perverted that God forbade their entry into Judaism, lest they harm the spirituality of His people, God did not prohibit the Jews from accepting a true convert from Amalek. Why? For the Lord is filled with kindness. Also, the Almighty Lord knows that His enemies cannot harm Him. Whereas with the enemies of His people, to those He is not so forgiving of. But of His own enemies? God is forgiving of the truly sincere penitent.

As we are commanded to emulate God (Deut. 28.9), we must accept that it would take a direct prophecy from God or the equivalent in order for Jews to be empowered to reject "true converts" i.e. true friends, from any specific nation. Therefore we must cultivate and not utterly reject true friendships wherever we may find them. The first step is stopping the violence by eradicating the forces of terror. But then what? We have to plan for the day after victory. You do that with the Will of God toward your friends in mind. I can understand if you may bear skepticism at the likelihood of success, but neither should you reject the possibility thereof.

Today you may think of peace loving Palestinian Arabs as the brothers and sisters of our enemies, and potential enemies of the future. But when we keep our faith in God close to us, it keeps the heart too warm to become cold to our friends. May God bless us with true friendships and true peace speedily in our days.

How the Palestinians Can Redeem Themselves

The recent revelation of the Palestinian mindset changing from a silent majority of peace loving Arabs held hostage in a cycle of conflict with Israel by an internal radical terrorist fringe, into an all out terror worshiping nation had its roots in four major blunders. Many world leaders are turning a blind eye or trying to ignore this by other means, and therefore they have no hope to pinpoint these issues. The better international leaders, such as President Bush, are aware of the problems, but they have bigger issues demanding their priority, and so a full review of these issues never gets added to the sum of what Western Foreign Policy should be in the Middle-East. But I have the luxury of speaking of Utopian ideals, so I intend to, and hope that others will do likewise.

My one goal in this blog is merely to guide a discussion in methods to seek a fair and conclusive end to violence and fulfill International Law without treading upon the Religious Freedom of the Jewish People.

The Lord has said in the Book of Ezekiel (Chapters 18 & 33) that He desires not the death of the wicked and therefore I wish to present a road map for the Palestinians whereby they may regain hope of peace without forcing Israel to impose upon them a Kahane-esque plan of relocating them... (which would at least be better than slaughtering them en masse in an all out war. ...God, International Law and I do not like that genocide stuff...)

Someone with the courage to stand tall to opposition needs to speak up or else someone who is sufficiently insignificant enough to not get any opposition needs to speak up. I am such a man. Such a person would be willing to face the plain truth of things and offer a solution to avoid the end which the incredibly poor choices and actions of the Palestinians currently beg for.

The Four Deadly Palestinian Sins:

1. Bloodshed (Either you desire to be a member of civilization or you worship death. There is no middle course.)
   
2. Deceit (Why do they keep pretending that Jews don't have a 3500 year history in the Holy Land. They lie about blatant historical and archeological facts. Are they subconsciously admitting the Jews have more rights to the land? Why else would they try to haggle basic truths? Fast talkers try to make a sale. To a fast talker, truth is but the illusion that the buyers purchase, not a reality unto itself as truth truly is. ...This is the reason that makes it impossible to trust Jewish religious sites to the Palestinian Authority. The beginning of confidence gaining is the cessation of deception.)
   
3. Ingratitude (No matter how much Israel or the West gives, there is only mentioned what the Palestinians currently do not have. This leads to a fixation on only their own agenda, and makes negotiations near impossible. As negotiations lead to peace, this makes peace deals difficult. Further you cannot expect peace loving TV and other Media programming when the public perception and preferred entertainment is for hate-programming like kids shows that talk about the glory of homicide martyrdom instead of interracial groups of kids singing about how they love to play together, etc.)
4. Undemocratic (Try voting smarter, like for a democratic party, not a terrorist group. If tired of Fatah corruption, third way parties such as the one lead by Hanan Ashrawi are better alternatives than voting for Hamas which is essentially a declaration of war.)
   

Only by addressing these major moral issues within their national psyche can the Palestinian Arabs have hope to regain their lost right of a homeland. A right lost by the weight of their own transgressions. Of course they never had a right to have that homeland with Jerusalem as their capital but that is a discussion best left for another blog-post on another day.

Palestinians Choose Violence Over Peace

As Reported in the Jerusalem Post, according to a NY Times Poll, 84% of Palestinians approve of the slaughter of the innocent, peace loving youths at the Mercaz HaRav Yeshiva.

(Photo: Yehuda Boltshauser, Israel National News)

While one should not hastily decide the fate of an entire people based on the results of a single poll, the horror of recent times and the collective body of evidence points to one thing, the fact that the dream of Palestinian Statehood West of the Jordan has come to an end. It is a dream I must confess that I too dreamt. Imagine… Israel performing charity that no nation would have seriously even considered attempting… ( …for themselves… even though they have tried to force it down Israel’s throat). Only in an act of pure kindness and charity could Israel hope to give up an inch of God’s Land without desecrating His Holy Name. Yet, every government involved in the peace processes over the years has fought against spirituality. Fought against kindness for its own sake; fought against fair homage to the Faith and history of Israel, for they, and the faithless leaders of Israel included, had no respect for any of it. Instead new morals were created. A hodgepodge synthesis of their best estimation of what fair play is under these circumstances or that.

Who has cursed the Palestinians even as Israel and the West has tried to aid them? What is the culprit of the fall of the Palestinian Dream? Nothing other than their own lack of morality! Palestinians have proven themselves willing to ignore any evil they do, and in fact, now they rejoice over the evil they do. They are willing to ignore any good Israel does. Since the 1970s they followed Arafat’s bad advice and rejected Israel’s offered hand of friendship. And the moment President Bush grants them $150 million even as the USA suffers a national financial set back, the Palestinians go completely barbaric in their near unanimous joyful support for the slaughter of the innocent. No respect for their benefactors, beginning with the Almighty, and not a drop of gratitude for anyone. They have collectively forsaken both common decency and the rule of law, and therefore no nation can be expected to make peace with them.

They have proven that they do not understand the meaning of objective peace, nor of objective truth.

I said twenty years ago that Kahane was wrong, but the Palestinians have elected him to be right. But if twenty years ago Kahane was indeed wrong, he was not evil incarnate. The failed leaders of Labor and Kadima branded Kahane an anti-messiah, and the arch-terrorist Arafat a man of peace. Twenty years of lies as foreign policy later, Olmert, Sharon, Rabin, Barak and Peres all seem cruelly detached from reality and the needs of both peoples involved. I cannot blame the American Presidents involved when the leaders on the scene were so perversely wrong.

Twenty years ago most people thought Meir Kahane’s plans were racist. Now they seem more compassionate than the legacy of continual violence and death that the Oslo accords have brought us. Kahane wanted to pay money to Palestinians to relocate abroad. How many lives on both sides, especially among the Palestinians, would have been saved had we listened to him?

Who advocates for the Gypsies of Europe? Who mourns the divided Kurds of Mesopotamia? How then shall any person or nation continue to hold high the goblet of Palestinian Arabic independence in the face of their dastard inhumanity? To reward a nation such as this with a state at this point in time would be to perpetuate all that is wrong in International Politics today.

Succession in International Law

If the Palestinian Entity is considered a full fledged legal state, and at this stage they are not. Any attempt to give them territory would fall under the rules of Cession (explained well in Shaw, 1997, Pp 339 & following). This would require the Palestinians to respect third party rights to the land (such as Jewish rights to the visit the graves of their ancestors without danger). The fact that the Palestinians have yet to show that they would respect International legal rights of the Jews in their midst if Israel were to fully withdraw from the West Bank, makes it foolish and immoral to consider such a withdrawal, and illegal to implement such a withdrawal.

If the Palestinian Entity is a nonstate organization, and at this stage, they are. Any attempt to give them land would fall under the rules of Succession. (Shaw, 1997, Pg 930) And that would mean that Israel would need to fully consider the rights of the owners of the religious sites in question. As the State of Israel never annexed sites such as the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, and they preserved the rights of Jews to practice ritual and dwell near the Holy Sites of the West Bank, they have defacto declared the Jews of the West Bank as the rightful owners/representatives of these Holy Sites. Therefore any attempt to surrender West Bank Holy Sites, would require some sort of binding referendum of the Israelis in the West Bank as to the future of the Holy Sites.

This is not the case with East Jerusalem, which in its entirety, including all its Holy Sites has been annexed already by Israel. If however, Israel's government would reject its ownership of the East Jerusalem Holy Sites, it would require two referendums. One of Jews within the Green Line, and only if the Jews forsake their religious rights would it make sense to bother with a full referendum of all Israelis, Jew and Gentile alike, to seek political permit of any transfer. If, however, indeed the very freedom of religion for the Jewish People realistically depends on their possession of all their Holy Sites, then they cannot choose to surrender that which they must have. Primal law trumps political expediency every time.