Israel Thrives Welcomes Jay in Philadelphia

Mike L.

I am pleased to announce that JayinPhiladelphia has joined Israel Thrives as one of our eminent front pagers. This came about when Jay suggested that I do some analysis of The Atlantic around the Arab-Israel conflict and I suggested that maybe he could do so and he has agreed. So, like our other front pagers, Doodad, Oldschooltwentysix, and Geoffff (of Bar and Grill fame), Jay will publish according to his will and we very much look forward to his contributions.

Israel Thrives is, of course, a part of the larger on-line pro-Israel community that includes well-trafficked blogs, such as Elder of Ziyon, as well as lower traffic joints such as, say, Richard Landes' The Augean Stables. Our primary goal... or perhaps it's just my primary goal... is to rethink the terms of discussion around the Long Arab War against the Jews due to the fact that the old Oslo assumptions are no longer operational and because Barack Obama has driven the final nails into the peace process coffin.

Acknowledging the demise of the Oslo "peace process" means thinking in new categories around old problems. Before we can think in new categories, however, we must forgo old terminologies so that we may replace them by terms more suitable to the current political moment. What's most important, given the fact that the Long Arag war against the Jews in the Middle East continues to this day, is in not using terminology that reflects Arab and Palestinian propaganda, but that better reflect the 4,000 year history of Jewish people on Jewish land in the Middle East. Thus, for one small example, the term "West Bank" may have seemed useful during the Oslo years because there was still hope for a negotiated conclusion of hostilities in which the Palestinians would agree to a state for themselves in peace next to Israel. However, given that the local Arabs absolutely refuse to end hostilities against the Jews through a two-state solution, it makes no sense to continue referring to Judea and Samaria as the "West Bank."

The term "West Bank" was originally created, or popularized, by the Jordanians when they swiped that land during Israel's War of Independence. The reason that they chose to call it the "West Bank" was to obliterate any Jewish historical claims which would be impossible to do if we continued to call Judea Judea. Because well-meaning liberal Jews were invested in the two-state solution, via a negotiated agreement, it became standard that Jews who wanted two states used "West Bank" while those who opposed the creation of a Palestinian state continued to use Judea and Samaria.

This is no longer the case because the entire premise of Oslo is no longer operational. Since Oslo has failed the terms used during Oslo need to be rethought and abandoned if necessary. These include outmoded terms such as "West Bank" or "East Jerusalem" or even "Israel-Palestine conflict." And while I still believe in two states for two peoples, I also recognize that it cannot come with Palestinian cooperation for the very simple reason that the Palestinians absolutely refuse any such cooperation and have done so for almost one hundred years. In fact, the Palestinians have refused to cooperate in the creation of their own state since long before they even emerged as a distinct nationality toward the end of the twentieth century.

At a certain point one must acknowledge the obvious and it is more than obvious that the Arabs, Palestinian or otherwise, have no intention of concluding hostilities against the Jews in the Middle East, nor have they any intention of creating a Palestinian state in peace next to the Jewish one.

My appeal, therefore, is simply to encourage people to rethink the basic terms of the conflict. Whether or not people continue to use a Jordanian term such as "West Bank" or an inaccurate term that encourages the partition of Jerusalem, such as the non-existent city known as "East Jerusalem," what counts is sloughing off the old assumptions in recognition that we are in a new political moment defined by the failure of the "peace process" that wore the name Oslo.

The conclusions that we draw, upon acknowledging the current situation, are entirely up to each and every one of us, but to continue under the Oslo Delusion is to sustain the conflict, and the status quo, indefinitely on into the future. I, of course, do not have all the answers. All I want is fresh thinking on an issue that is exceedingly important to all of us, left, right, and center.

It is in that spirit, a spirit of non-partisan, forward-looking open-mindedness, that I welcome Jay to Israel Thrives.

{After all, we welcome all sorts of heretics, infidels, and apostates.}