The liberal-progressive movement in the United States and Europe is forcing liberal Jews to make some very difficult choices. The voices who dominate the I-P discussion on the left are telling liberal Jews that they must make a choice; they can support Israel or they can support the progressive movement, but they cannot support both. This is rarely stated explicitly, of course, but it is the implication embedded in the never-ending disdain and contempt heaped upon the Jewish state by those liberals who claim to speak for human rights… even as they almost entirely ignore horrendous human rights violations by China or Russia or various African countries, not to mention the so-called Coalition of the Willing.
On a daily basis, throughout the left political blogosphere, Israel is accused of anything, and everything, that anyone might think of for the specific purpose of delegitimizing its very existence. Israel is accused of being an apartheid state. Israel is accused of being a racist, colonialist entity. Israeli leaders are perpetually compared to Nazis. Israel is accused of being a vile, imperialist regime wholly dependent upon the United States for its existence, even as it is also accused of being the epicenter of a vast “Zionist” conspiracy to control the US government and media. (Just how Israel manages to be both an imperialist tool of the US, even as it allegedly controls the US, has never been made entirely clear to me.)
These accusations are not about policy, nor even about the occupation, per se, but go directly to the very nature of Israel’s existence and the implications of those accusations are obvious. If Israel is an apartheid state (which it most emphatically is not, by the way) than it must be dismantled, just as the racist South African regime was dismantled. If Israel is a Nazi fascist regime then, like Nazi Germany, it must be destroyed. If Israel is some excremental rogue state in perpetual violation of international law, than it must be shunned and opposed. It must be subject to boycotts, divestments, and sanctions. Its leaders must be dragged before the international court at the Hague to answer for war crimes. Its intellectuals must be banned from the world community of scholars. Its agricultural products must be left rotting on the docks of Tel Aviv. The entire world must line up against it on every possible level, politically, culturally, intellectually, and diplomatically, if not militarily.
And if liberal Jews disagree with this assessment? Then we are accused of racism, militarism, and right-wing extremism. We are called “right-wing Zionists” if not “ZioNazis.” Jewish college students who support Israel are hounded, sometimes violently, on university campuses throughout North America and Europe. Each and every Jewish organization that supports Israel is systematically maligned, denigrated, and delegitimized. If we actually have the cojones to stand up for Israel, or to counter the smears it perpetually faces, than we are spat upon and demeaned.
So, just what do you expect left-liberal Jews who support Israel to do? Are we supposed to continue supporting a political movement that insists that of all the world’s people Jews, and only Jews, must be denied self-determination and self-defense, despite centuries of persecutions, pogroms, and expulsions, all leading to the romping good time that we had in the middle of the twentieth century in Europe?
I don’t think so.
Perhaps the biggest lie told by those on the left who continually spit bile at the Jewish state is that their contempt has nothing whatsoever to do with Jews, but merely with the state of Israel. It is the nature of the state, not its people, that is worthy of their hatred, or so we are told.
This is a lie. It is false.
Jews are a tiny minority that represent about .02 percent of the world population. Israel is the lone Jewish state. 80 percent of its population is Jewish and it contains something like 40 percent of the world Jewish population, supported by the great majority of diaspora Jews. Furthermore, as a secular democracy, the behavior of the state is reflective of the will of the people. When Israelis witness the southern part of their country endure years of rocket fire, and when they see the left-progressive movement condemn it for the crime of being a Jewish state, and therefore vote in right-wing politicians like Benjamin Netanyahu, the will of nearly half the world’s Jews is expressed. You cannot, therefore, condemn Israel without condemning the Jews.
It is for this reason why it is important to make a strong distinction between criticism and defamation. Claiming that Israel should be dismantled as a Jewish state is not “criticism.” Claiming that Israel is an “apartheid state” is not “criticism;” nor is charging that Israel is something akin to Nazi Germany “criticism,” either. These are not criticisms, but vile smears designed to delegitimize Israel for the eventual purpose of destroying the national home of the Jewish people.
And you want my support?
What kind of a fool thinks that the liberal-left can smack around the Jewish people and that the Jews will support them in their efforts to do so?
For the moment, the great majority of American Jews barely realize the level of anti-Zionism, and hatred toward Israel, that infests the grassroots / netroots of the progressive movement and the Democratic party. There is one thing that you can be certain of, however. If the anti-Zionism and Israel hate moves from the fringes to the center, Jews will run for the hills before they will continue to support any such movement.
Of course, that’s probably what some on the left would prefer to see, anyway.
The Day of the Dhimmi is Done - Michael Lumish, Proprietor
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Anti-Israel and Anti-Semitic: The Correlation
In a recent study (pdf), two Yale University professors have found a direct correlation between degrees of anti-Israel sentiment and degrees of anti-Semitism. Edward H. Kaplan, of Yale’s School of Management, and Professor Charles A. Small, of Yale’s Institute for Social and Policy Studies, conclude:
This should hardly be surprising. The I-P conflict is, as always, heated, but those of us who tend to support Israel have often wondered aloud why it is that with all the state-sponsored injustice in the world, from the Chinese in Tibet to the genocide in Darfur, that Israel’s alleged, and significantly smaller, violation of human rights receives such a never-ending histrionic response from American liberals? The typical answer is money. Anti-Zionists and Israel-Haters on the American left tend to claim that the reason they focus so much on Israel, with hardly any consideration or rebuke for any other country, despite much worse human rights violations, is because they do not want their tax-dollars funding those violations.
While such an answer does not seem the least bit unreasonable, it fails to demonstrate why, if that is the case, that anti-Zionism, and anti-Israel hatred, is even more virulent on the European left than the American left? Since European countries do not financially sponsor the Jewish state, if tax-dollars truly explained the phenomenon one would expect to find a lesser degree of anti-Zionism and Israel hatred there, yet the opposite is true.
Kaplan and Small write:
When Kaplan and Small refer to “extreme anti-Israel sentiment” they are not, of course, referring to mere criticism of Israel. It must be understood that there is a substantive difference between “criticism” and loathing. Criticism looks at policy and offers alternatives. It is not meant to, and does not have the effect of, demeaning, dehumanizing, or vilifying its target. Statements that equate Israel with Nazi Germany or Apartheid South Africa, or that suggest that Israel is somehow “illegitimate,” or that justify suicide bombing and violence against Israeli civilians, are not criticism. They are, instead, hyperbolic rhetorical constructions designed to create hatred in a propaganda war against the Jewish state.
When Kaplan and Small refer to “extreme anti-Israel sentiment” they are referring to statements such as the following:
Indeed, calls to boycott Israeli universities to pressure the “illegitimate state of Israel” or assertions that Israel is a “terrorist” state or suggestions that violence against innocent Israeli civilians are justified, do not represent “criticism,” but hatred. What Kaplan and Small have demonstrated is that the greater degree of such sentiments the greater likelihood that the individuals holding to such beliefs are also anti-Semitic.
While I am no statistician, this strikes me as non-controversial and a confirmation of common sense. What Kaplan and Small are telling us is that those who perpetually lambaste Israel in the most intense terms possible, while giving every other country on the planet a pass, are statistically six times more likely to be anti-Semitic than those who do not hold such views.
Is anyone actually surprised at this finding?
From a large survey of 5,000 citizens of ten European countries, we showed that the prevalence of those harboring (selfreported) anti-Semitic views consistently increases with respondents’ degree of anti-Israel sentiment (see Figures 2 and 3 and Table 3), even after controlling for other factors.
“Anti-Israel Sentiment Predicts Anti-Semitism in Europe”
Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 50 No. 4, August 2006, 560
This should hardly be surprising. The I-P conflict is, as always, heated, but those of us who tend to support Israel have often wondered aloud why it is that with all the state-sponsored injustice in the world, from the Chinese in Tibet to the genocide in Darfur, that Israel’s alleged, and significantly smaller, violation of human rights receives such a never-ending histrionic response from American liberals? The typical answer is money. Anti-Zionists and Israel-Haters on the American left tend to claim that the reason they focus so much on Israel, with hardly any consideration or rebuke for any other country, despite much worse human rights violations, is because they do not want their tax-dollars funding those violations.
While such an answer does not seem the least bit unreasonable, it fails to demonstrate why, if that is the case, that anti-Zionism, and anti-Israel hatred, is even more virulent on the European left than the American left? Since European countries do not financially sponsor the Jewish state, if tax-dollars truly explained the phenomenon one would expect to find a lesser degree of anti-Zionism and Israel hatred there, yet the opposite is true.
Kaplan and Small write:
Not only do we find that the extent of anti-Israel sentiment differentially predicts the likelihood of anti-Semitism among survey respondents, but the predictions are sharp. Those with extreme anti-Israel sentiment are roughly six times more likely to harbor anti-Semitic views than those who do not fault Israel on the measures studied…
Journal of Conflict Resolution, pg. 550
When Kaplan and Small refer to “extreme anti-Israel sentiment” they are not, of course, referring to mere criticism of Israel. It must be understood that there is a substantive difference between “criticism” and loathing. Criticism looks at policy and offers alternatives. It is not meant to, and does not have the effect of, demeaning, dehumanizing, or vilifying its target. Statements that equate Israel with Nazi Germany or Apartheid South Africa, or that suggest that Israel is somehow “illegitimate,” or that justify suicide bombing and violence against Israeli civilians, are not criticism. They are, instead, hyperbolic rhetorical constructions designed to create hatred in a propaganda war against the Jewish state.
When Kaplan and Small refer to “extreme anti-Israel sentiment” they are referring to statements such as the following:
On April 22, 2005, the Executive Council of Britain’s Association of University Teachers (AUT) voted to boycott two Israeli universities (Bar Ilan and Haifa). The boycott was advocated “as a contribution to the struggle to end Israel’s occupation, colonization and system of apartheid” (http://www.zionismontheweb.org/AUT/autres.htm), while the boycott’s main proponent stated that this action would increase pressure on the “illegitimate state of Israel” (http:// education. guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,9959,1466250,00.html). Similarly spirited statements include London Mayor Ken Livingstone’s assertion that Israeli Prime Minister “Sharon continues to organise terror. More than three times as many Palestinians as Israelis have been killed in the present conflict” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1430132,00.html). Addressing suicide bombings in Israel, philosopher Ted Honderich wrote that “those Palestinians who have resorted to necessary killing have been right to try to free their people, and those who have killed themselves in the cause of their people have indeed sanctified themselves”
(http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i09/09b01201.htm).
Many Israeli and Jewish individuals and organizations have characterized statements such as these as anti-Semitic in effect if not intent, given that Israel is singled out in the face of silence over human rights violations committed elsewhere.
Journal of Conflict Resolution, pg. 548 – 549.
Indeed, calls to boycott Israeli universities to pressure the “illegitimate state of Israel” or assertions that Israel is a “terrorist” state or suggestions that violence against innocent Israeli civilians are justified, do not represent “criticism,” but hatred. What Kaplan and Small have demonstrated is that the greater degree of such sentiments the greater likelihood that the individuals holding to such beliefs are also anti-Semitic.
While I am no statistician, this strikes me as non-controversial and a confirmation of common sense. What Kaplan and Small are telling us is that those who perpetually lambaste Israel in the most intense terms possible, while giving every other country on the planet a pass, are statistically six times more likely to be anti-Semitic than those who do not hold such views.
Is anyone actually surprised at this finding?
Thursday, December 17, 2009
The End of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process
It’s all over, folks.
The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is dead. For there to be peace among the Israelis and the Palestinians the occupation must end, but the occupation will not end and nothing Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or George Mitchell can do will change that. The reason for this is because there are two possible ways for Israel to end the occupation, but both have already been tried and both have already failed. The first possible way is through a negotiated settlement. The second possible way is through a unilateral withdrawal. History has shown that neither will work and, furthermore, Barack’s counterproductive call for a total settlement freeze has killed any likely chances for meaningful negotiations in the future.
Negotiated Settlement:
The idea behind a negotiated settlement, of course, is that Israeli officials would sit down with Palestinian officials, presumably Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, and hammer out the details of a workable two-state solution. Unfortunately, if we have learned anything, it is that Palestinian leadership has never shown the slightest inclination toward accepting a two-state solution.
For example, in 1937, the British Peel Commission, formed to find a possible solution to the Arab Uprising of 1936 to 1939, originally recommended two states, an Arab state and a Jewish state. The Jewish leadership accepted the offer, while the Arab leadership refused.
In 1947, of course, the United Nations passed resolution 181, also calling for a two-state solution and again the Jewish leadership accepted and the Arab leadership refused. The Arabs of the Palestinian Mandate (they were not yet called “Palestinians”) then launched a civil war against the Jews prior to the British withdrawal in May of 1948 and were defeated.
Between 1948 and 1967, Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip. At no time during this period did any Arab leadership call for a “Palestinian” state on this land and neither did the Palestinians, themselves. It was only after Israel acquired both territories during the 6 Day War, a defensive war on the part of the Jewish state, did Palestinian nationalism gain ground and we began to hear Palestinian calls for a Palestinian state.
Since then, however, the Palestinian leadership still consistently refused to accept a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel. In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, offered Yassir Arafat 100 percent of the Gaza, over 90 percent of the West Bank, and the Arab sections of East Jerusalem, as a capital. Arafat refused the offer and refused, even, to make a counter offer.
Just recently, in 2007, PM Ehud Olmert offered Mahmoud Abbas a similar offer that also included land-swaps to bring the Palestinian holdings of the West Bank to something close to 100 percent, but he, too, was turned down flat.
What can this possibly mean other than that the Palestinian leadership is still not ready to accept the two-state solution?
What more can they possibly want beyond 100 percent of the Gaza, something close to 100 percent of the West Bank, and the Arab parts of the East Jerusalem as a capital?
The right of return?
The right of return, of course, is entirely a non-starter for Israel because it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. It would mean that, yet again, Jews would have to live as a minority among a hostile population that has consistently sought the destruction of the Jewish community in its traditional home. The Knesset could never accept any such condition, nor should they.
Unilateral Withdrawal:
While the Palestinian leadership has never accepted a negotiated settlement, nor have they accepted Israeli unilateral withdrawal from occupied territory. In 2005, under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the entirety of the Gaza strip. In a move that traumatized Israeli society, the IDF turned Jewish rifles on Jewish settlers in the Gaza and forced about 10,000 of them to leave their homes in order to clear the way for Palestinian sovereignty over the Gaza.
At the time, the Gazans had an opportunity. Israel did precisely what virtually everyone throughout the world had been calling on it to do, end the occupation. And they did so, but, yet again, the Palestinian leadership showed itself unwilling to allow the end of that occupation.
At the time, the Palestinian people could very well have raised up a political party calling for peace, future prosperity, and normalization, but they refused. They could have raised a political party that might have said something along these lines. “Since what we desire above all else is peace, the potential for prosperity for our children and grandchildren, and for sovereignty over our own land, we call upon our neighbor to the East to join us in creating an atmosphere that might encourage those goals. Because Israel has ended the occupation of Gaza, we declare an end of the war against Israel and for full economic cooperation between our two peoples.”
Instead, they increased rocket fire by a magnitude of 10-fold against southern Israel and elected Hamas, an organization that calls quite specifically for the genocide of the Jews, which is precisely why both Israel and Egypt blockaded the Gaza shortly thereafter. It is for this reason that Israelis now find themselves less inclined to withdraw from the West Bank, because they do not want to see such a withdrawal result in thousands upon thousands of Qassam and Katyusha rockets potentially falling on Tel Aviv.
Operation Cast Lead, tragic as it was, and however unfashionable it might be to say so within western left-liberal circles, was a direct result of that decision by the Palestinian leadership and its people.
The Obama Administration:
As I have written before, Obama’s big mistake, if he was hoping to actually bring about peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, was calling for a total settlement freeze in both the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The demand for total settlement freeze, even within blocs that would likely end up as part of Israel, has resulted in a number of negative consequences that undermine even the slim possibility of a negotiated settlement.
The first negative consequence is that by calling for a total settlement freeze, Obama placed a precondition on negotiations at a time when he should have avoided any move that might decrease the likelihood of the two sides sitting down at the negotiating table. When Obama called for total freeze, Abbas took it as an opportunity to avoid negotiations and insisted that the Palestinians would never sit down with the Israelis until Israel met that demand.
Prime Minister Netanyahu, however, could not meet that demand even if he wanted to because it would have meant tearing apart his governing coalition. The demand for total settlement freeze was really nothing less than a demand that Netanyahu step aside and allow his government to fall. Naturally, this he refused to do and while Obama has back-pedaled on this requirement, the damage has already been done. Abbas refuses to negotiate and Netanyahu knows that he has no friend in the White House.
Furthermore, if the United States is to broker a two-state settlement, it is imperative that the Israeli public have at least a little faith in the good will of the American president. They do not. Recent polls have shown that a grand total of 4 percent of Israelis believe that Barack Obama is a friend to the Jewish state. In Israel, Obama is about as popular as Swine Flu because he made serious demands upon Israel and virtually no demands upon the Palestinian leadership.
This means that the Israeli people do not trust Obama to broker a negotiated settlement and no Israeli PM can make peace without at least some level of trust by the Jewish Israeli citizenry toward the American broker.
Conclusion:
A confluence of factors has now led to the end of the peace process and to a no-win situation for the Israelis and the Palestinians. Israel cannot negotiate an end to the occupation, nor can it act unilaterally to do so without serious risk to its people, as the Gaza withdrawal proved in 2005.
Israel should, despite all, take that risk.
Negotiations have proven, time and again, to be absolutely pointless. The status-quo is simply intolerable because Israel cannot indefinitely maintain the occupation. Thus, the only thing for Israel to do is declare its final borders, remove the IDF behind those borders, and be the first country to welcome the state of Palestine among the brotherhood of nations.
And when the rockets start raining into Israel, again?
Well?
As always, Israel will defend itself… as well it should.
The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is dead. For there to be peace among the Israelis and the Palestinians the occupation must end, but the occupation will not end and nothing Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or George Mitchell can do will change that. The reason for this is because there are two possible ways for Israel to end the occupation, but both have already been tried and both have already failed. The first possible way is through a negotiated settlement. The second possible way is through a unilateral withdrawal. History has shown that neither will work and, furthermore, Barack’s counterproductive call for a total settlement freeze has killed any likely chances for meaningful negotiations in the future.
Negotiated Settlement:
The idea behind a negotiated settlement, of course, is that Israeli officials would sit down with Palestinian officials, presumably Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, and hammer out the details of a workable two-state solution. Unfortunately, if we have learned anything, it is that Palestinian leadership has never shown the slightest inclination toward accepting a two-state solution.
For example, in 1937, the British Peel Commission, formed to find a possible solution to the Arab Uprising of 1936 to 1939, originally recommended two states, an Arab state and a Jewish state. The Jewish leadership accepted the offer, while the Arab leadership refused.
In 1947, of course, the United Nations passed resolution 181, also calling for a two-state solution and again the Jewish leadership accepted and the Arab leadership refused. The Arabs of the Palestinian Mandate (they were not yet called “Palestinians”) then launched a civil war against the Jews prior to the British withdrawal in May of 1948 and were defeated.
Between 1948 and 1967, Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip. At no time during this period did any Arab leadership call for a “Palestinian” state on this land and neither did the Palestinians, themselves. It was only after Israel acquired both territories during the 6 Day War, a defensive war on the part of the Jewish state, did Palestinian nationalism gain ground and we began to hear Palestinian calls for a Palestinian state.
Since then, however, the Palestinian leadership still consistently refused to accept a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel. In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, offered Yassir Arafat 100 percent of the Gaza, over 90 percent of the West Bank, and the Arab sections of East Jerusalem, as a capital. Arafat refused the offer and refused, even, to make a counter offer.
Just recently, in 2007, PM Ehud Olmert offered Mahmoud Abbas a similar offer that also included land-swaps to bring the Palestinian holdings of the West Bank to something close to 100 percent, but he, too, was turned down flat.
What can this possibly mean other than that the Palestinian leadership is still not ready to accept the two-state solution?
What more can they possibly want beyond 100 percent of the Gaza, something close to 100 percent of the West Bank, and the Arab parts of the East Jerusalem as a capital?
The right of return?
The right of return, of course, is entirely a non-starter for Israel because it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. It would mean that, yet again, Jews would have to live as a minority among a hostile population that has consistently sought the destruction of the Jewish community in its traditional home. The Knesset could never accept any such condition, nor should they.
Unilateral Withdrawal:
While the Palestinian leadership has never accepted a negotiated settlement, nor have they accepted Israeli unilateral withdrawal from occupied territory. In 2005, under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the entirety of the Gaza strip. In a move that traumatized Israeli society, the IDF turned Jewish rifles on Jewish settlers in the Gaza and forced about 10,000 of them to leave their homes in order to clear the way for Palestinian sovereignty over the Gaza.
At the time, the Gazans had an opportunity. Israel did precisely what virtually everyone throughout the world had been calling on it to do, end the occupation. And they did so, but, yet again, the Palestinian leadership showed itself unwilling to allow the end of that occupation.
At the time, the Palestinian people could very well have raised up a political party calling for peace, future prosperity, and normalization, but they refused. They could have raised a political party that might have said something along these lines. “Since what we desire above all else is peace, the potential for prosperity for our children and grandchildren, and for sovereignty over our own land, we call upon our neighbor to the East to join us in creating an atmosphere that might encourage those goals. Because Israel has ended the occupation of Gaza, we declare an end of the war against Israel and for full economic cooperation between our two peoples.”
Instead, they increased rocket fire by a magnitude of 10-fold against southern Israel and elected Hamas, an organization that calls quite specifically for the genocide of the Jews, which is precisely why both Israel and Egypt blockaded the Gaza shortly thereafter. It is for this reason that Israelis now find themselves less inclined to withdraw from the West Bank, because they do not want to see such a withdrawal result in thousands upon thousands of Qassam and Katyusha rockets potentially falling on Tel Aviv.
Operation Cast Lead, tragic as it was, and however unfashionable it might be to say so within western left-liberal circles, was a direct result of that decision by the Palestinian leadership and its people.
The Obama Administration:
As I have written before, Obama’s big mistake, if he was hoping to actually bring about peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, was calling for a total settlement freeze in both the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The demand for total settlement freeze, even within blocs that would likely end up as part of Israel, has resulted in a number of negative consequences that undermine even the slim possibility of a negotiated settlement.
The first negative consequence is that by calling for a total settlement freeze, Obama placed a precondition on negotiations at a time when he should have avoided any move that might decrease the likelihood of the two sides sitting down at the negotiating table. When Obama called for total freeze, Abbas took it as an opportunity to avoid negotiations and insisted that the Palestinians would never sit down with the Israelis until Israel met that demand.
Prime Minister Netanyahu, however, could not meet that demand even if he wanted to because it would have meant tearing apart his governing coalition. The demand for total settlement freeze was really nothing less than a demand that Netanyahu step aside and allow his government to fall. Naturally, this he refused to do and while Obama has back-pedaled on this requirement, the damage has already been done. Abbas refuses to negotiate and Netanyahu knows that he has no friend in the White House.
Furthermore, if the United States is to broker a two-state settlement, it is imperative that the Israeli public have at least a little faith in the good will of the American president. They do not. Recent polls have shown that a grand total of 4 percent of Israelis believe that Barack Obama is a friend to the Jewish state. In Israel, Obama is about as popular as Swine Flu because he made serious demands upon Israel and virtually no demands upon the Palestinian leadership.
This means that the Israeli people do not trust Obama to broker a negotiated settlement and no Israeli PM can make peace without at least some level of trust by the Jewish Israeli citizenry toward the American broker.
Conclusion:
A confluence of factors has now led to the end of the peace process and to a no-win situation for the Israelis and the Palestinians. Israel cannot negotiate an end to the occupation, nor can it act unilaterally to do so without serious risk to its people, as the Gaza withdrawal proved in 2005.
Israel should, despite all, take that risk.
Negotiations have proven, time and again, to be absolutely pointless. The status-quo is simply intolerable because Israel cannot indefinitely maintain the occupation. Thus, the only thing for Israel to do is declare its final borders, remove the IDF behind those borders, and be the first country to welcome the state of Palestine among the brotherhood of nations.
And when the rockets start raining into Israel, again?
Well?
As always, Israel will defend itself… as well it should.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)