Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump and Netanyahu on Israel: Enough Lies
I’m tired of the lies about Israel that have been perpetrated by the world and that have been supported by the United States for many years. It’s time to set the record straight on the history of Israel and the truth about the Palestinians. I’m hoping that Donald Trump will step forward and transform our relationship with Israel and call the world to accept the truth and the necessity for changing the narrative. 
In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Max Singer, founder of the Hudson Institute, suggested a path for Trump to pursue regarding Israel: “If Mr. Trump wants to advance the possibility of peace, he should begin by challenging the five big untruths that sustain the anti-Israel consensus.” To summarize his points, Mr. Singer offered the following myths (the information in brackets are my additions):
- Israel occupies “Palestinian territories”— there has never been a Palestinian state or territory, and Israel re-acquired the West Bank through a defensive war; it has never been “occupied.” [By the way, the area was not labeled “occupied” until UN Resolution 51/13312 passed in December 1996.] For a detailed explanation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 on the subject of occupation, go here.
- Millions of Palestinian “refugees” have a right of return regarding Israel. Most of these people are the descendants of refugees. In addition, no group of people in history has claimed a “right of return.” [As Shmuely Boteach points out in his book, The Israel Warrior, “Had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee, and an independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel.”]
- Israelis and Palestinians have comparable claims to Jerusalem. The First Temple was built long before the mosque on the Temple Mount. Neither the Quran nor the Muslim prayers mention Jerusalem, whereas the Jews repeatedly pray for the city. No Muslim group ever claimed Jerusalem as its capitol prior to this conflict.
- There was no ancient Jewish presence in Israel. This claim is absurd on its face.
- The Palestinians are ready to accept a “two-state solution.” Palestinian leadership and organizations refuse to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, and insist on destroying Israel, so the discussion of two states is an exercise in futility.
Mr. Singer’s piece presents very important myths that persist about Israel and the Palestinians. Asking Donald Trump to destroy these particular myths is a fine idea. But I don’t think this “truth-telling” goes far enough. I’d like to suggest three complementary statements for Trump to make that will support Mr. Singer’s points, particularly in light of Trump’s meeting yesterday with Prime Minister Netanyahu.
First, President Trump will need to declare that the Palestinians are not prepared to make a two-state peace agreement; they have turned down multiple opportunities to settle on an agreement without counter offering, and have turned down every proposal. Yesterday President Trump said, “I’m looking at two-state and one-state and I like the one that both parties like,” he said. “I’m very happy with the one that both parties like. I can live with either one.” Netanyahu (who most recently has advocated a two-state solution) is under a great deal of pressure from members of the Knesset in Israel to move to a one-state solution, I believe, with good reason. I think the President could be persuaded of the illegitimacy of the Palestinian settlement claims. If the President would consider recommending a one-state solution, confirming that the Palestinians relinquished their right to demand otherwise, I think Netanyahu would change his position and the Middle East would have its first chance for peace in almost 70 years. Trump could begin this transformation in the peace process by moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem.
Next, in concert with this first point, Trump must emphasize that Israel has every right to Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). These areas comprised ancient Israel. Although there are those who say the Jews abandoned this area, there has always been a small group of Jews living in this area. There is reason to believe that the Palestinian people living there today would be relieved to live under a true democracy with economic and political freedom, as Caroline Glick says in her book, The One-State Solution.
The Arabs and Druze in the Golan Heights have been living under Israeli bureaucratic rule and have been enjoying the benefits of education for their children and all the public services an Israeli bureaucracy provides. Although they are reluctant to acknowledge their appreciation of being governed by Israel (due to promises of retaliation by the Palestinian leadership), there is reason to hope that the Arabs in the West Bank might also welcome Israel’s governance.
Finally, the US needs to cut back drastically on funding the Palestinian Authority, or recommend the elimination of the kleptocracy entirely. The reason so many Palestinians live in poor conditions is because the millions of dollars that have been sent for aid over the years have mostly been pocketed by the Palestinian leadership. Caroline Glick suggests that the Palestinian Authority be dismantled as the Palestinian people are integrated into Israel.
These changes will be difficult, but for those living in a war zone since 1948, it offers a possibility for a normal, peaceful life. I think the Israelis and Palestinians are exhausted by these conditions, and are ready for this type of change. I hope that President Trump agrees.
Published in Foreign Policy
All right! Arahant for President!! Who’s with me?!
It’s amazing, Mountie, how many people are still on the bandwagon of overpopulation. And he consequences of the aging population, as your link points out, will be extremely serious. Thanks.
how does that differ from BHO being a muslim?
The only thing that bothers me is that I see as many problems arising for Israel from a one-state resolution of the problem as a two-state resolution. I’m guessing Netanyahu sees it that way too since he said he would support either path.
There’s a nice long solid physical barrier between Israel and the Gaza Strip, which has provided some protection for Israel. The protection is needed because of the Hamas terrorists who live in the Gaza Strip, who in fact lobbed rockets into Israel over the summer of 2014 and also tunneled under the wall to kill Israelis using suicide bombers.
The only way I see the one-state path succeeding is if the Hamas and Hezbollah occupants of the Gaza Strip are relocated to other countries in the Arab world. Otherwise, to incorporate the Gaza Strip into Israel proper feels to me as though they are opening the floodgates for the terrorists to invade Israel and destroy her.
The good thing about the two-state resolution is that it keeps Hamas and Hezbollah on their side of that important wall. The terrorists will never change their minds about Israel’s right to survive.
Am I missing something?
No, you’re not missing anything, Marci. You missed my comment#25 where I said Gaza IMHO couldn’t be included. But what would be done re Gaza is unclear at this point.
The Palestinians should be sent to Saudi Arabia, where there are 100,000 empty air-conditioned tents that could house several million. Yet they refuse to take Syrian or any other refugees, and have recently offered to finance the building of a mosque — in Germany. Let’s have Trump make them an offer they can’t refuse.
I think it’s unrealistic to leave Gaza out and expect the rest of the Palestinians to go along with it. Ditto with the Palestinians in Lebanon. From Forward:
Because
moreknowledge is always good:In their presser, the president told the prime minister that he was for the solution that both sides agreed upon and that he had no doubt it would be far better than the dishonest media could possibly allow with their minds trapped the way they are.
I find myself in complete agreement. Let them negotiate.
I think that’s why the president had that subsequent glorious, glorious presser in which he told the media so beautifully that their partisan framing of every issue would hurt the country, as well as warning them that they would be ignored by people if they continued to bleat the same lies.
Lord bless us all, what a ride we’re on.
The Palestinians already have a country. It’s called Jordan.
The difficulty with negotiating is that both countries have to negotiate in good faith. I think that Israel may have to decide simply to move forward without the Palestinians. That’s not a pretty picture, though.
As an officially recognized State Palestine would be free to entertain any and all alliances (Iran, Russia, China) freely and openly. They would also be able to obtain any arms less than mass destruction openly …planes, heavy artillery, tanks.
I always appreciate your input, Zafar. Here’s more information from Glick’s book:
“A team of U.S. and Israeli researchers was formed, experts in mathematical modeling. Members of the team, which called itself the American-Israel Demographic Research Group . . . in a nutshell, the researchers discovered that the 1997 Palestinian census was a fraud. The PCBS had exaggerated the Palestinian population figures by nearly 50%, or 1.34 million people.” The researchers then provide the explanation of their discovery . . .
“In estimating population growth, ‘Fully 22 Muslim-majority countries and territories were estimated to have undergone fertility declines of 50 percent or more during those three decades [1975 to 2005].’
“From 2001 to 2011, the total fertility rate of Palestinians in Judea and Samaria has dropped 25.2 percent, from 4.08 children per woman to 3.05 children per woman. In 2012 it dropped to 2.98 children per woman.
“Regardless of whether immigration rates to Israel rise or stay more or less at their current levels, Jews currently comprise 59 percent o the population west of the Jordan River, in sovereign Israel, Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Jews make up two-thirds of the population of sovereign Israel and Judea and Samaria, and if current trends continue, the proportion of Jews west of the Jordan River will gradually rise, not precipitously drop.”
Is there such a thing as Jewish rabbits? Israelis will need to emulate.
I like you Susan Quinn :-)
I don’t care if it is Jews or Arabs or mixtures or whatever who are a majority between the river and the sea. People are people, their ethnicity or religion comes a very irrelevant second to that. Imho.
Efrata makes Aliyah.
Or the other way around, as in Ireland.
Educating their children has always been a priority for Jews, as it is with most people.
Me, for example. Though a somewhat different bandwagon than the lefty one.
Thank y0u for offering me knowledge, @zafar . I’m well known for being an idiot of course. The only sources I’ve been able to find for the “debunking” are open-source websites and blogs or quotes from the Saudis themselves – so trustworthy. Here are two examples, but they all say the same thing:
From OpenSource Investigations – the operative phrase being “Open Source,” i.e. take with a large grain of salt:
Gulf States Response to Syrian Refugee Crisis – A Myth Debunked
The government of Saudi Arabia has stated that, since the Syrian conflict began in 2011, it has hosted 2.5 million refugees and has given permanent residency to hundreds of thousands of Syrians.
………………………………………………
And this from Newsweek, by Alex Nowrasteh, a Libertarian advocate of freer immigration, which is probably the source for the OpenSource website you quoted above:
http://www.newsweek.com/gulf-states-are-taking-syrian-refugees-401131
Nabil Othman, acting regional representative to the Gulf States at the UNHCR, said Saudi Arabia has accepted 500,000 Syrian refugees, …
I’m sorry, Zafar. I don’t know what that means.
I wish the Palestinians felt the same way. Sigh.
You’re not going to leave us hanging, R, are you? I’m interested.
Since the settlements are being populated with many Orthodox Jews, they tend to have larger families so that will be a contributor.
I believe that quite a few of the settlements were purposefully placed in strategic locations. They are often not ideally situated for agriculture. A number of them are along an east to west line, built on top of hills and ridges. This is to guard against a possible invasion from Jordan into Israel. Israel is quite nervous, for good reason, of being invaded from the east yet again.
The same goes for the settlements in the Jordan Valley. They are tiny, often with only about a hundred inhabitants. If you look at old maps, you’ll see that other than Jericho (which has an oasis), there was hardly any population at all in the Jordan Valley. It was (and is still) much too arid. Those settlements are there, I would think, for strategic reasons. Yes, they do some farming in those settlements but they were not established for economic reasons.
Thanks so much for that input, TooShy. Jordan has invaded in the past, but they would have a lot to lose this time around.
Alan Dershowitz’ book “The Case against Israel’s Enemies” says this is because there are TWO refugee agencies at the UN.
For everyone else in the world, to be a “refugee” you have to be
1.The person (not a descendant)
2.who has him or herself left the place of his birth
3.under threat of military or other violence.
To be a Palestinian “refugee” a person can be
1.the descendant of someone,
2.who left an area where he had lived for as little as four years,
3.and there does not have to have been a threat of violence.
…so, THAT is how we get 3rd generation refugees….
And how how come nobody ever talks about a “right of return” for descendants of the Jews summarily expelled from the Arab nations in 1947 with just the clothes on their backs?
AND finally: if we look at history, who has the superior claim to Jerusalem?
(A)Jews, established there before one thousand. BCE (at least) and rulers of the last independent kingdom there before the Roman conquest?
(B)Christians, because 1000 years later Jerusalemwas the scene of Christ’s ministry and death? or
(C) Muslims, whose prophet never went there, but just had a dream about it , Six hundred thirty years after Christ?
COME ON!!!!!
and this time I do mean finally! Why is the whole world so focused upon and so judgmental about Israel, smaller than New Jersey and with less people? Nobody cares about the large number of Palestinians killed in the Syrian civil war. Nobody cared when two hundred thousand Palestinians were forcibly expelled from their homes after the First Gulf War. Betcha don’t even know where that occurred! It was the grateful nation of Kuwait.
I love over the original post here. I wish I were still on Facebook! I would share it there. I hope it gets a wide audience.
Thank you, Hypatia, for your excellent summary of the issues! It complements my points beautifully. I especially liked your comment about nobody speaking about the right of return for Jews who were kicked out of Arab countries. Israel is probably the only subject on which I agree with Dershowitz; his arguments about Israel are both passionate and rigorous. I just feel like things are shifting (for the better) right now, and I’m so glad to know your support for the topic.
The present Jordanian government would not want to invade Israel.
But Jordan isn’t the most stable country. I hope things remain peaceful there, but the country is riven by divisions. The king’s power is based on the Bedouin minority there, who receive preference in government jobs and other things. There is a very restive majority, many of whom are Palestinian.
It is not difficult to imagine certain bad actors (of which there are many in the Middle East, choose your favourite flavour) deposing the king and taking over. This could have very serious negative ramifications for Israel.
A Watership Down reference – because rabbits.