The Israeli Consensus on Annexation Can Break the Peace Deadlock

One month before he was murdered, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin spoke in the Knesset on how he saw the future of the land east of the "Green Line," the Armistice Line between Israel and Jordan, created in 1949. He spoke about the conditions that, to his mind, were essential elements and prerequisites for any Israeli future.

"First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev — as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty. ... The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term ... changes which will include the addition of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar and other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the Green Line, prior to the Six Day War," Rabin declared in October 1995.

These demands almost completely mirror the details laid out in President Trump's peace plan, which would allow Israel to annex much of this territory, including the Jordan Valley and the settlement blocs.

Rabin's heirs on the center-left, including Blue and White leaders Benny Gantz and Gabi Ashkenazi — like Rabin, both former Israel Defense Forces chiefs-of-staff — have entered into an agreement with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to bring forward plans to place sovereignty over the areas demarcated in the former prime minister's speech.

Israeli consensus about issues of sovereignty and annexation is stronger than ever before.

Arguably, for the first time in Israel's history, there is remarkable consensus among Israeli political representatives about the issue of sovereignty and annexation. Even the current leader of the Labor Party, Amir Peretz, who ran with the Meretz Party in the recent election, is a fully willing member of a future government that places these issues openly on its agenda.

Israelis of all backgrounds and ideologies long have believed this conflict never was about territory. Ever since it began, more than 100 years ago, the question that motivated Palestinian rejectionism was always about Jewish sovereignty per se, and not about where and how much. This is what motivated massacres of Jews in the Land of Israel in the 1920s and 1930s, among others.

This is what motivated the Arab leaders of Mandatory Palestine to reject the Peel Plan of 1937, which would have given them around three-quarters of the whole territory for statehood, and the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947, which would have provided for a state on 55 percent of the territory.

Palestinian Authority leaders Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas continued this rejectionist stance in 2001 and 2008, even though Israeli prime ministers offered terms that included an almost full withdrawal from the territory east of the Green Line.

The Palestinian sticking point always has been the sovereignty of Jews anywhere in their ancestral homeland.

The sticking point always has been the issue of sovereignty of the Jewish People over any territory in their indigenous and ancestral homeland. This is why Abbas could walk away from former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's maximalist offer at Annapolis in 2008 because the agreement would include articles about ending the conflict and all claims to the territories offered.

Since then, Abbas has barely allowed himself to enter into a room with an Israeli prime minister, even after Netanyahu placed a full construction freeze on settlements in 2009, demonstrating again that the issue of settlements and territory is merely a "red herring" issue.

No Israeli has seen Israeli and Palestinian leaders shake hands for over 12 years.

Thus, no Israeli has seen an Israeli and Palestinian leader shake hands for over 12 years. On the contrary, many Israelis have felt the continuance of Palestinian rejectionism, in the form of suicide attacks, deadly rockets and attempts to charge the borders, especially emanating from territories that Israel relinquished in the now-dashed hopes for peace and reconciliation.

Israelis are tired of waiting for a Palestinian leader, so they want to force the issue by taking the legal step of placing sovereignty over parts of Judea and Samaria, which are vital from a security, national and historic vantage point.

None of these steps precludes making a deal in the future if a Palestinian leader decides to free his people from rejectionism and instead wants to use its resources to build up a Palestinian polity and society. Until such time, Israel must take steps that it sees as being in its best interests, with the broad support of multiple parties from the right to the left, government and opposition.

Of course, it should be done sensibly, and not increase the numbers of Arab citizens of Israel and disrupt the delicate demographic balance in Israel. This also could be offset by offering the heavily Arab-populated Triangle area in northern Israel to the Palestinians.

Annexation will show Palestinians that rejectionism has consequences.

Annexation can be seen as a step towards ending the deadlock between the parties. It should be the pressure to place on Palestinian leaders to acknowledge that they will not defeat Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish People. It will show the Palestinians that rejectionism has consequences and force them to give up longstanding violent aims.

Most of all, it will fulfill the vision of Israeli leaders — from the left, right, and center, such as Rabin, Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon — who understood implicitly that Israel will always retain the settlements and the Jordan Valley. It is time to take them off the table.

SOURCE






Why the Nigel Farage Dover story matters

Nigel Farage recently made a trip to Dover to report on what he sees to be a ‘scandal’: the apparent ferrying of illegal immigrants across the Channel by the UK border force. Migrants regularly attempt the Channel crossing, often in dinghies or other small craft. These are then intercepted by the authorities, and the people on board are transported ashore for processing.

Making a video about illegal immigration would not be everyone’s choice for a lockdown outing. But one reaction to Farage’s video has revealed something far more concerning than what that video itself reports. According to Farage, he was subsequently visited at his home by two policemen who came to ‘advise on essential travel’, at the sociable time of 10pm. The officers said they had received a complaint about his trip to Dover.

Now, the public has been advised that we may not leave our homes without what the College of Policing ominously calls ‘a reasonable excuse’. But going to work, if that work cannot be done from home, is considered fine. A politician and commentator going to report on what he sees to be an important political issue seems to fit within the guidelines. That he was not directly commissioned to make such a report, or indeed that he does not derive any financial profit from it, seems irrelevant. It was hardly a leisure activity, so it must have been work-related.

But let us assume for a moment that Farage did, in fact, go against the guidance. We would still be faced with the deeply uncomfortable prospect of a man being visited by police after criticising the action – or inaction – of the government, all because one of his fellow citizens snitched. This is the sort of story we are more used to hearing from dictatorial states. It should worry any lover of liberty. Here we are confronted with the censorious and authoritarian potential of the lockdown policy.

Not all blame can be foisted upon the government. It has not ordered the police to intimidate potential lockdown-breakers, or to clear public spaces – the coppers have gone about doing this on their own steam. But the lack of clarity from the government over what it considers to be reasonable activity has resulted in police overreach, undermining our rights. What makes the situation worse is that there are members of the public who are all too prepared to aid in such illiberal practices.

What kind of jobsworth sits at home watching Farage’s video and decides to call the police? I can imagine the wry smile as they dialled 101. ‘Hello, officer, I need to report on someone. Their crime? Going for a drive.’ In lieu of dealing with actual crime, the police are apparently offering a new service. You can now get at your political enemies by telling the authorities they have broken the lockdown.

Holding the authorities to account is essential, whether or not one agrees with an individual’s specific analysis of a particular policy. In fact, this is probably more important now than ever. This is why the Farage story matters

SOURCE






Media hysteria is tearing the social fabric

There has been much talk about solidarity and a national effort throughout the coronavirus crisis. But it is worth pointing out that the best expressions of both are exhibited by the public. In particular, the role that the public has played stands in stark contrast to that of the political and media elites.

Expressions of solidarity and selflessness among the public under lockdown have been nothing short of inspirational and should not be underestimated. Southern Europe erupts into applause every day for frontline workers. Hundreds of thousands of Brits are volunteering to help in hospitals. Community groups have been organised to look out for the most vulnerable. And vast armies of supermarket workers continue to serve the locked-down public. People have rallied together and shown themselves at their best. What’s more, the solidarity shown by the public, continuing to abide by the lockdown rules and social-distancing protocols after so many weeks, is itself profound. It is a sight that is as surreal as it is impressive.

Of course, there is nothing to celebrate in the political decision to lock everyone in their homes, which has stripped people of their livelihoods, of their most fundamental rights and of everyday social interactions. It is nevertheless clear that ordinary people have taken their only practical and meaningful role in defeating the virus – social isolation – very seriously, and have carried it out to the letter.

This is an intuitive and palpable expression of social solidarity, born of concern for others. This is where hope lives. It is therefore crucial that we make a distinction between the public’s reaction to the lockdown, and the political class’s decision to implement it – with all the economic, social and cultural devastation that comes with it.

This dynamic makes the actions of the media all the more reactionary and decadent. Mainstream media broadcasters and commentators have actually served to undermine the social solidarity shown by the public through scare stories and moral panics. The media should be holding government and experts to account and engaging and informing the public by asking wide-ranging and contentious and difficult questions. But instead, they have acted more like sandwich-board merchants of doom, making ever-more deranged and hysterical demands for tougher and tighter measures to contain and control the public.

The media elite have predicted doom resulting from sunbathing in parks and on beaches, group picnics, jogging, cycling, walking in the country and even from shopping for non-essential items. They just cannot help themselves. Their tendency to catastrophise was evident long before Covid-19, particularly in their interventions in the climate change and Brexit debates.

The liberal-left media, in particular, have been utterly indifferent to the economic and social catastrophe that has landed on the public due to the lockdown. Their enthusiasm for shutting down society, regardless of the impact, is an instinctive and palpable expression of their fear of mass society.

This fear of the ‘mob’ was best and most recently expressed in the run-up to Easter weekend. When weather forecasts indicated that the sun might shine, the panic was unleashed. In the fevered imaginations of journalists, the country’s parks and beaches would fill to capacity with the thronging, virus-laden and degenerate masses. This never materialised, of course. Most people are acting rationally, despite the irrational circumstances.

It should also come as no surprise that the people who see non-existent public disorder everywhere among an apparently zombie-like public are the same fanatics who dismiss and delegitimise dissenting voices by casting them as outside the acceptable parameters of discourse.

The political and cultural elites do not understand solidarity. Instead, they usurp public expressions of solidarity and codify them into propagandistic tools in an attempt to control and cajole the mob. This is why social media and community campaigns in support of health workers have been rebranded as an officially sanctioned campaign to ‘Stay home, protect the NHS, save lives’. This is a self-serving reassertion of the state’s authority and a naked attempt at ideological coercion. It is little more than political sloganeering in the place of rational public engagement.

How the elites have responded compared to the public needs uncoupling. It is revealing that the total adherence to the lockdown by the public is being continually undermined by the constant search for and reporting of the exceptions. This has fuelled the consistent demands for ever-tougher restrictions and extensions to the lockdown.

The public’s instinct for social solidarity is the good news. This is where hope lies. People have demonstrated time and again throughout this crisis that they are willing to sacrifice basic freedoms and put themselves in harm’s way for the love of their fellow man.

The bad news is that we have a political and media elite so fearful of the mob that instead of trusting the public to do the right thing, they are increasingly likely to reach for proscriptive and authoritarian measures to punish us.

SOURCE





Colorado Suspends License of Restaurant That Opened for Sit-Down Service on Mother's Day

The state of Colorado has suspended the business license of C&C Coffee and Kitchen in Castle Rock after the owners opened the doors of the restaurant on Mother’s Day and allowed customers to sit and dine. The business violated the state’s ban on restaurants only serving carryout and delivery.

The restaurant was packed on Sunday with a line down the block to get in. What’s worse, is that the customers weren’t six feet apart and few people wore masks. Governor Jared Polis was outraged.

Denver Post:

“I hope, I pray that nobody falls sick from businesses that chose to violate the law,” Polis said when announcing the suspension. “But if the state didn’t act and more businesses followed suit, it’s a near guarantee that people would lose their lives and it would further delay the opening of legitimate businesses.”

C&C Coffee and Kitchen remained open Monday afternoon, and it’s unclear exactly what the state is going to do if the owners continue to defy the order to close.

“It is disheartening that this restaurant has chosen to move ahead of the public orders and not even consider implementing best practices to prevent the spread of COVID-19,” John Douglas, Tri-County’s executive director, said in a statement announcing the closure order.

The health department could shut them down, but owners Jesse and April Arellano do not appear to be in any hurry to comply. “We’re here to serve the people of the community, churches and schools, and anyone we can help. That’s why we’re in the business, to serve people,” Jesse said.

The virus-shamers have been in full-throated attack mode.

“I’ve seen a lot of love and I’ve seen a lot of hate,” he added. “We’ve gotten death threats; ‘We’re going to burn the place down,’ ‘I hope all your family all gets COVID and dies,’ and things like this.”

Mr. Arellano wonders what life will be like if we give in to the fear of this virus.

“Everyone is tired of this and they’re ready to live life,” he said. “What kind of life are we going to have if we’re all scared to live and we’re always in a bubble? No one wants to live like that. There are risks all over the place, every day. There are animals who can hurt you in the mountains, but you don’t stop going there. You can drown in the ocean surfing, but people still go.”

Or you can go to the store and catch the flu. While COVID-19 is a more serious disease — more deadly and you’re more likely to be hospitalized if you contract it — the 35-60,000 flu deaths and 400,000-plus hospitalizations every year don’t appear to rattle anyone’s nerves that much.

And for good reason: we’ve learned to live with it. For many of us, it makes perfect sense to take precautions like practicing social distancing and wearing a mask. Those of us at risk for serious illness or death should know what to do to protect ourselves.

But it still should be a choice. I have no doubt infections and death will spike when we reopen the economy. This is to be expected. But people are getting sick and dying now and no one is advocating we lock people in their houses and close everything down. It’s not possible — unless you’re in Communist China. If you want to stop people from dying that’s what needs to be done.

So we’re willing to accept some people dying and getting sick. How many? The American people will decide. And they appear to be deciding to take some risks and go about living their lives.

The governor can emote and weep about people getting sick and dying all he wants. The people have spoken.

SOURCE

******************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here.
`
************************************