Those of us looking for lasting peace in the Middle East (the kind that doesn’t require the elimination of every Jew in the region, that is) look beyond the daily headlines of this so-called settlement or that white phosphorous-laced Qassam rocket.
And we see a way, if only people would follow us:
Two weeks ago, US Congressman Joe Walsh published an op-ed in the The Washington Times in which he called for the US and Israel to abandon the two-state solution.
After running through the record of Palestinian duplicity, failed governance, terrorism and bad faith, he called for Israel to apply its sovereignty to Judea and Samaria. In his words, Israel should “adopt the only solution that will bring true peace to the Middle East: a single Israeli state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Israel is the only country in the region dedicated to peace and the only power capable of stable, just and democratic government in the region.”
That is precisely my view, as I’ve stated here explicitly for maybe two years now. It makes sense geographically, culturally, historically, and, not least, for reasons of security.
Given the abject failure of the two-state paradigm, it is abundantly clear that for all the complications that may be associated with the application of Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, it is a better option for Israel than Israeli surrender of the areas.
Walsh’s op-ed is not his first statement of support for Israeli annexation. Last September, ahead of the UN general assembly, Walsh authored Congressional Resolution 394 supporting Israel’s right to annex Judea and Samaria in the event that the Palestinians asked the UN to recognize a Palestinian state outside the framework of a peace treaty with Israel. Forty-four other congressmen co-sponsored the resolution.
And this makes sense.
But American Jews, motivated more by liberal orthodoxy than religious orthodoxy, are apoplectic.
It is hard to know where to begin a discussion of this assault in which Jewish Americans attacked one of Israel’s strongest supporters simply because he had the temerity to recognize reality and call for the US to support an Israeli victory against our enemies who seek our destruction.
First, it is important to consider the claim that Walsh went against the grain of American ideals by suggesting, “Those Palestinians who wish to may leave their Fatah- and Hamas-created slums and move to the original Palestinian state: Jordan. The British Mandate for Palestine created Jordan as the country for the Palestinians. That is the only justification for its creation. Even now, 75% of its population is of Palestinian descent.”
A quick correction: initially, a Jewish homeland was to be permitted in the entirety of the British Mandate. So stated the Balfour Declaration:
According to the Peel Commission, appointed by the British Government to investigate the cause of the 1936 Arab riots, “the field in which the Jewish National Home was to be established was understood, at the time of the Balfour Declaration, to be the whole of historic Palestine, including Transjordan.”
Only later—the first step in a long march toward ghettoization—did Britain and the League of Nations amend the intention to establish a Jewish homeland from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Which is all Walsh et al are asking for.
The demands of the Arabs and the “international community” today are not only dangerous and bigoted, they repudiate recent decades and distant millennia of history.
The fact of the matter is that the two-state paradigm rests on the assumption that the Palestinian state will be ethnically cleansed of Jews before it is established. Whereas Walsh somehow stands in opposition to American ideals for suggesting that the Palestinians may voluntarily immigrate to Jordan, Kampeas, Ben- Ami and their cohorts have no problem with the concept of a Jew-free Palestine and the forcible expulsion of up to 675,000 Jews from their homes in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem simply because they are Jewish.
Those seeking peace—real peace, not a hudna (strategic ceasefire)—must first recognize the lay of the land.
From the practical impossibilities:
A Hamas leader said Thursday that if his militant group came to power in a future Palestinian state, it would not abide by any previous Palestinian peace deals with Israel.
Moussa Abu Marzouk, the Islamic militant group’s number two figure, said any potential deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, even if ratified in a Palestinian referendum, would be considered only as a temporary truce.
“We will not recognize Israel as a state.”
To more existential threats:
Following are excerpts from an interview with former PA Mufti Sheik Ikrima Sabri, which aired on Al-Arabiya TV on May 11, 2012:
Interviewer: Do you agree that in Jerusalem, there are places that are holy to the Muslims, the Jews and the Christians?
Ikrima Sabri: No, not to the Jews. I didn’t say to the Jews. Omar Ibn Al-Khattab didn’t find any synagogues of the Jews. There weren’t any.
Interviewer: So in your opinion, today there are no places whatsoever in Jerusalem that are holy to the Jews?
Ikrima Sabri: No, none. They build new synagogues, but there are no archaeological remains [pertaining to the Jews]. For many years, they have been digging for archaeological remains, but they haven’t found anything. How can we acknowledge something when they themselves admit that they have found nothing?
I would ask what he thinks the Temple is, but I’m sure I don’t want to know.
I encourage all our readers to reject the racist ideology of the Arab nationalists and their liberal Democrat (and sometimes Jewish) enablers. Israel is a pluralistic, Democratic state (larger may it grow, long may it live), offering more rights to Arabs than any other country in the region. The Arab enclave of Gaza is a human rights septic tank and a burial ground for religious liberty. It is free of Jews, yet full of hate.
Which side are you on?