I do not dispute history. Now, can you address the question or not. If Israel has some legal claim to the West Bank, does that mean that the 2 million or so arabs that live there would be granted Israeli citizenship, upon annexation or not? Your desires and your sense of entitlement to the land is ENTIRELY mitigated by this question.
Here is the answer from my part... a) For the umpteenth time, I do not make policy in my government... b) Israel is a Democracy and surely would give those that swear allegiance to the flag of Israel the same rights the other Arabs have had for 65 years including passport and what have you. c) Doe that answer your question????????
As an American who generally supports Israel, I am adamently opposed to the settlements. You can argue they are legal until you are blue in your face- I think that they are against the interests of the United States. I have said it before, and I will say it again- the United States does not have to provide monetary support to Israel- we do it because we believe in Israel. But when Israel works against the interests of the U.S. we should curtail our financial support to Israel. Reduce by $1,000,000 for each Israeli living on settlements. Israel can do what it wants- the United States can spend our money how we want. I encourage Israel and Palestine to come to a peace that both can live with.
Well if you want to ride that wild pony, this is an opportunity to leave us alone and keep the annual 3 Billion Dollars you have generously extended us for our welfare... we will never mention that it was shamefully attached to your interests. We will overcome, for you will not get a safe harbor in the Mediterranean, you will not get a chance to test and harbor your ammunition and armament... Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunis, Libya and even Algeria do not want to cooperate with you. Maybe your 3 Billion largesse will go to defray the 17 Trillion Dollars you owe China... Good Luck! We will buy our planes elsewhere. As an example of your international relations, read the following. Obama interview in Atlantic indicates he poorly briefed on Israeli Palestinian affairs and painfully silly about Iran Dr. Aaron Lerner IMRA 2 March 2014 With Prime Minister Binyamin on his way to Washington, President Obama's just released interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg provides a clear picture as to just how poorly briefed he in on Israeli Palestinian affairs and painfully silly about Iran. + Painfully silly On Iran: "they are capable of changing;... even if that takes ... 20 years, then that’s very much an outcome we should desire. Question: What logic is there to the U.S. plan not to apparently place any restrictions on Iranian weapons development and production (other than taking the last enrichment steps of the material for the nuclear warhead) while allowing Iran to retain the equipment to enrich uranium to weapons grade given that Mr. Obama concedes they may not change their dangerous ways for the next two decades? + Bad briefing on Israel: "the window is closing for a peace deal ..in part because of changes in demographics... There are going to be more Palestinians, not fewer Palestinians, as time goes on. There are going to be more Arab-Israelis, not fewer Arab-Israelis, as time goes on. While the American Jewish staffers and their Israeli Leftist pals continue to pitch the demographic argument, the figures keep moving in Israel's favor, with Palestinian and Israeli Arab fertility rates declining while Jewish rates go up. Even those secular Russian immigrants whose cousins back home barely approached a sustaining fertility rate are having 3 and 4 kids in the Jewish Homeland. And to make matters worse: Israelis are slowly starting to realize that the REAL demographic threat would happen if a Palestinian state were created and it was flooded with millions of Arabs who had someone in their family living for any period of time during the British Mandate. Given how many dramatic twists and turns have recently taken place in the region and the world it doesn't require much of an imagination to recognize that there are many plausible scenarios according to which Israel finds itself unable to cope with a flood of millions of Arabs crossing from the sovereign Palestinian state into what was left of Israel. Keep in mind Mr. Obama's warning: The condemnation of the international community can translate into a lack of cooperation when it comes to key security interests. Again: pitching the demographic argument may work among fellow travelers - but it has long ago lost its punch among thinking Israelis. + Painfully silly argument: "We do not know what a successor to Abbas will look like." So Israel should cut a deal based on Mahmoud Abbas when there is no telling what kind of radical may take his place? + Bad sense of what is happening in the world: "situation will not improve" Mr. Obama is the president of a country that is developing domestic energy resources at breakneck pace that promises to radically change the face of the world in the coming decades. And that includes the implementation of technologies that while not favored by the greens of the world have shown such success that even some European countries have opted to join in fracking shale. The British Geological Survey estimates there could be 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas in the north of England alone. And the more energy available from the West the better the situation for Israel. Yes. There is every reason to believe that the situation for Israel will indeed improve. + Poor briefing: "The only thing that I've heard is, "We’ll just keep on doing what we’re doing, and deal with problems as they arise. And we'll build settlements where we can. And where there are problems in the West Bank, we will deal with them forcefully. We’ll cooperate or co-opt the Palestinian Authority." And yet, at no point do you ever see an actual resolution to the problem." A suggestion: He talk with Minister Bennett. On the one hand he does in fact have a plan. On the other hand, it is silly to suggest that a necessary condition for a program is for it to provide "an actual resolution to the problem" - this when a realistic assessment is that as far as the Arabs are concerned Israel's existence is "the problem". + Skewed sense of the direction o developments: "there comes a point where you can’t manage this anymore, and then you start having to make very difficult choices." An alternative narrative is that much of Palestinian street is disgusted with two decades of Oslo bred corruption and could very well breath a sigh of relief if a serious program was implemented based on a combination of full Israeli citizenship rights for Arabs in areas annexed along with ramped up programs aimed at making the remaining Palestinian autonomous urban areas economic successes. + Painfully silly argument: " Do you place restrictions on Arab-Israelis in ways that run counter to Israel’s traditions?" Oops. So is Mr. Obama suggesting that even if we give the Palestinians everything they want that we still stuck with terrible problem posed by the Israeli Arabs? + Painfully silly argument: " It means reduced influence for us, the United States, in issues that are of interest to Israel. It’s survivable, but it is not preferable. ===== Obama: 'The Window Is Closing' for a Viable Israel-Palestine Peace Deal In an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, the president discusses Iran, Syria, and his view of the imperatives now facing Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Matt Ford Mar 2 2014, 4:09 PM ET http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-a-viable-israel-palestine-peace-deal/284161/ President Obama spoke on Israeli-Palestinian peace, the Iranian nuclear negotiations, and the Syrian civil war in a wide-ranging interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg conducted on Thursday and released on Sunday afternoon. After a global economic depression, the turmoil of the Arab Spring, the U.S. military's withdrawal from Iraq, and a catastrophic civil war in neighboring Syria, Obama sees a much different Middle East than when he took office. Perhaps the most significant change is the growing sense of rapprochement between Iran and the great powers as they inch closer to a diplomatic deal on the Islamic republic's nuclear program. For Obama, this progress comes despite Iran's other activities in the region. OBAMA: Here’s what I understand. For years now, Iran has been an irresponsible international actor. They've sponsored terrorism. They have threatened their neighbors. They have financed actions that have killed people in neighboring states. And Iran has also exploited or fanned sectarian divisions in other countries. In light of that record, it’s completely understandable for other countries to be not only hostile towards Iran but also doubtful about the possibilities of Iran changing. I get that. But societies do change -- I think there is a difference between an active hostility and sponsoring of terrorism and mischief, and a country that you’re in competition with and you don’t like but it's not blowing up homes in your country or trying to overthrow your government. GOLDBERG: And you feel there’s a real opportunity to achieve a genuine breakthrough? OBAMA: Here’s my view. Set aside Iranian motives. Let’s assume that Iran is not going to change. It’s a theocracy. It’s anti-Semitic. It is anti-Sunni. And the new leaders are just for show. Let’s assume all that. If we can ensure that they don’t have nuclear weapons, then we have at least prevented them from bullying their neighbors, or heaven forbid, using those weapons, and the other misbehavior they’re engaging in is manageable. If, on the other hand, they are capable of changing; if, in fact, as a consequence of a deal on their nuclear program those voices and trends inside of Iran are strengthened, and their economy becomes more integrated into the international community, and there’s more travel and greater openness, even if that takes a decade or 15 years or 20 years, then that’s very much an outcome we should desire. Negotiations with Iran are closely linked to another perennial American diplomatic endeavor: resolving the long-standing conflict between Israel and Palestine. Since Obama won re-election over a year ago, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has spear-headed the administration's toughest push yet on advancing the peace process. Kerry's efforts have borne some tentative signs of progress, with a framework accord planned to be announced in the coming weeks. At times, the Obama administration's increased sense of urgency has caused friction with Israeli officials. Israeli defense minister Moshe Yaalon publicly apologized in January after telling an Israeli newspaper that Kerry is "acting out of misplaced obsession and messianic fervor." When Kerry warned that boycotts against Israel could intensify without a peace deal, Israeli minister of strategic affairs Yuval Steinitz retorted that Israel "cannot be expected to negotiate with a gun to its head." GOLDBERG: Let me read you something that John Kerry told the American Jewish Committee not long ago: “We’re running out of time. We’re running out of possibilities. And let’s be clear: If we do not succeed now -- and I know I’m raising those stakes -- but if we do not succeed now, we may not get another chance.” He has also suggested strongly that there might be a third intifada down the road and that if this peace process doesn’t work, Israel itself could be facing international isolation and boycott. Do you agree with this assessment? Is this the last chance? OBAMA: Well, look, I’m a congenital optimist. And, obviously, this is a conflict that has gone on for decades. And humanity has a way of muddling through, even in difficult circumstances. So you never know how things play themselves out. But John Kerry, somebody who has been a fierce advocate and defender on behalf of Israel for decades now, I think he has been simply stating what observers inside of Israel and outside of Israel recognize, which is that with each successive year, the window is closing for a peace deal that both the Israelis can accept and the Palestinians can accept -- in part because of changes in demographics; in part because of what's been happening with settlements; in part because Abbas is getting older, and I think nobody would dispute that whatever disagreements you may have with him, he has proven himself to be somebody who has been committed to nonviolence and diplomatic efforts to resolve this issue. We do not know what a successor to Abbas will look like. [...] I believe that President Abbas is sincere about his willingness to recognize Israel and its right to exist, to recognize Israel’s legitimate security needs, to shun violence, to resolve these issues in a diplomatic fashion that meets the concerns of the people of Israel. And I think that this is a rare quality not just within the Palestinian territories, but in the Middle East generally. For us not to seize that opportunity would be a mistake. And I think John is referring to that fact. We don’t know exactly what would happen. What we know is that it gets harder by the day. What we also know is that Israel has become more isolated internationally. We had to stand up in the Security Council in ways that 20 years ago would have involved far more European support, far more support from other parts of the world when it comes to Israel’s position. And that’s a reflection of a genuine sense on the part of a lot of countries out there that this issue continues to fester, is not getting resolved, and that nobody is willing to take the leap to bring it to closure. Another challenge for Obama's efforts toward Israeli-Palestinian peace is his rocky relationship with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The two leaders are scheduled to meet this week. Netanyahu, who took the helm of the Israeli government for a second time two months after Obama's first inauguration, vowed to "stand steadfast" against "various pressures" on Israel. Speaking with Goldberg, Obama struck an amicable chord. GOLDBERG: My impression watching your relationship with Netanyahu over the years is that you admire his intelligence and you admire his political skill, but you also get frustrated by an inability or unwillingness on his part to spend political capital -- in terms of risking coalition partnerships -- in order to embrace what he says he accepts, a two-state solution. Is that a fair statement? When he comes to Washington, how hard are you going to push him out of his comfort zone? OBAMA: What is absolutely true is Prime Minister Netanyahu is smart. He is tough. He is a great communicator. He is obviously a very skilled politician. And I take him at his word when he says that he sees the necessity of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I think he genuinely believes that. I also think that politics in Israel around this issue are very difficult. You have the chaos that’s been swirling around the Middle East. People look at what's happening in Syria. They look at what’s happening in Lebanon. Obviously, they look at what’s happening in Gaza. And understandably a lot of people ask themselves, "Can we afford to have potential chaos at our borders, so close to our cities?" So he is dealing with all of that, and I get that. What I've said to him privately is the same thing that I say publicly, which is the situation will not improve or resolve itself. This is not a situation where you wait and the problem goes away. There are going to be more Palestinians, not fewer Palestinians, as time goes on. There are going to be more Arab-Israelis, not fewer Arab-Israelis, as time goes on. And for Bibi to seize the moment in a way that perhaps only he can, precisely because of the political tradition that he comes out of and the credibility he has with the right inside of Israel, for him to seize this moment is perhaps the greatest gift he could give to future generations of Israelis. But it’s hard. And as somebody who occupies a fairly tough job himself, I’m always sympathetic to somebody else’s politics. But he also mixed sensitivity with concern. Without a viable peace deal to resolve the West Bank occupation and the status of Palestinians and Arab Israelis, Obama questioned what the long-term effects on Israeli society and political culture would be. OBAMA: I have not yet heard, however, a persuasive vision of how Israel survives as a democracy and a Jewish state at peace with its neighbors in the absence of a peace deal with the Palestinians and a two-state solution. Nobody has presented me a credible scenario. The only thing that I've heard is, "We’ll just keep on doing what we’re doing, and deal with problems as they arise. And we'll build settlements where we can. And where there are problems in the West Bank, we will deal with them forcefully. We’ll cooperate or co-opt the Palestinian Authority." And yet, at no point do you ever see an actual resolution to the problem. [...] It’s maintenance of a chronic situation. And my assessment, which is shared by a number of Israeli observers, I think, is there comes a point where you can’t manage this anymore, and then you start having to make very difficult choices. Do you resign yourself to what amounts to a permanent occupation of the West Bank? Is that the character of Israel as a state for a long period of time? Do you perpetuate, over the course of a decade or two decades, more and more restrictive policies in terms of Palestinian movement? Do you place restrictions on Arab-Israelis in ways that run counter to Israel’s traditions? This, Obama fears, could weaken Israel's position in future negotiations, especially as Europe and other members of the international community grow increasingly critical of Israeli policies. OBAMA: Look, sometimes people are dismissive of multilateral institutions and the United Nations and the EU [European Union] and the high commissioner of such and such. And sometimes there’s good reason to be dismissive. There’s a lot of hot air and rhetoric and posturing that may not always mean much. But in today’s world, where power is much more diffuse, where the threats that any state or peoples face can come from non-state actors and asymmetrical threats, and where international cooperation is needed in order to deal with those threats, the absence of international goodwill makes you less safe. The condemnation of the international community can translate into a lack of cooperation when it comes to key security interests. It means reduced influence for us, the United States, in issues that are of interest to Israel. It’s survivable, but it is not preferable. Whatever cautious optimism Obama has for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and negotiations with Iran did not extend to Syria. Earlier last month, Bashar al-Assad's regime missed a February 5 deadline to transport all of its estimated 1,300-ton chemical weapons stockpile out of the country, with only 11% of its chemical weapons supply moved. The U.S., which brokered the disarmament deal with Russia last year after a deadly chemical weapons attack killed over 1,000 Syrians in a Damascus suburb, accused the Syrian government of dragging its feet in implementing the deal. Diplomats hammered out a new timetable last week that hopes to complete the challenge by August. Obama acknowledged critics of his Syria policy by pointing out the lack of viable alternatives. GOLDBERG: I was reading your Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech last night, and I wanted to quote one thing you said: “I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later.” I was really struck by that last sentence. I’m wondering at what point in Syria does it become too much to bear? I’m not talking about the bifurcated argument, boots on the ground or nothing, but what does Assad have to do to provoke an American-led military response? Another way of asking this is: If you could roll back the clock three years, could you have done more to build up the more-moderate opposition groups? OBAMA: I think those who believe that two years ago, or three years ago, there was some swift resolution to this thing had we acted more forcefully, fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the conflict in Syria and the conditions on the ground there. When you have a professional army that is well-armed and sponsored by two large states who have huge stakes in this, and they are fighting against a farmer, a carpenter, an engineer who started out as protesters and suddenly now see themselves in the midst of a civil conflict -- the notion that we could have, in a clean way that didn't commit U.S. military forces, changed the equation on the ground there was never true. Obama also challenged the conventional wisdom that Bashar al-Assad and his allies are "winning" the bloody civil war that will enter its third year later this month with over 200,000 dead and millions displaced. OBAMA: Over the last two years I have pushed our teams to find out what are the best options in a bad situation. And we will continue to do everything we can to bring about a political resolution, to pressure the Russians and the Iranians, indicating to them that it is not in their interests to be involved in a perpetual war. I'm always darkly amused by this notion that somehow Iran has won in Syria. I mean, you hear sometimes people saying, "They’re winning in Syria." And you say, "This was their one friend in the Arab world, a member of the Arab League, and it is now in rubble." It’s bleeding them because they’re having to send in billions of dollars. Their key proxy, Hezbollah, which had a very comfortable and powerful perch in Lebanon, now finds itself attacked by Sunni extremists. This isn’t good for Iran. They’re losing as much as anybody. The Russians find their one friend in the region in rubble and delegitimized. And although Obama concluded the interview with a final note on his administration's policy towards Syria, his words also reflect the broader challenges of U.S. foreign policy in an increasingly unstable world. There is a great desire not just to stand there, but to do something. We are doing a lot; we have to do more. But we have to make sure that what we do does not make a situation worse or engulf us in yet another massive enterprise at a time when we have great demands here at home and a lot of international obligations abroad. ________________________________________ IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Or we can just deduct the $1,000,000 per settler from the 3 billion dollars that we so generously provide to Israel. I would be perfectly fine with that. And you don't seem anxious for it- I imagine Israel won't even miss it. And Israel can continue the settlements and ignore the American complaints. Well- like Israel is doing now.
Well this is our country and we will do whatever we want with it without your interference thank you! Wherever you made an attempt to help you created chaos... i.e. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Greece... Your country is 300 years old and our is more than 3000 years young... The natives of our country are the Jews of lore... Compared to yours ours is genuine in history and archeology. Good bye.
Because you've spoken about occupation, settlements, arab refugees and about 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. And you got the answer. Source, please. Both about "There are 48,000 refugees in Israel" and about "Israel is not doing anything for".
I couldn't agree more. The United States should not interfere with the internal policies of any country that it is not financially supporting. But whether the country is Egypt or Israel- if any country receiving U.S. taxpayer funds acts in ways against the interests of the United States, I believe we should either stop supporting those countries financially or reduce our financial support. I can't say this often enough- I am not telling Israel what it should do. I am saying we don't need to give Israel any money either. Your country is some 60 years old, and most of the citizens of Israel are more recent immigrants than those of the United States. Your country has a legacy of a Jewish state that existed 2000 years ago.
Apparently what you write above is emotions... Here is the reality... (Otherwise go open a book on Jewish History)> Judea and Samaria Judea and Samaria were part of the area designated in 1922 by the League of Nations for the British Mandate of Palestine - for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people only. The Mandate drew its wording from the decisions of the San Remo Conference of 1920. The United Nations General Assembly voted in 1947 for partition of Palestine. However, contrary to accepted opinion, this vote was not a binding decision, but rather a recommendation. The United Nations Security Council took no action in response to this recommendation, in part because of objections from the Arabs. In other words, the status of Judea and Samaria was not changed following the partition recommendation: It remained part of the territory which, according to the Mandate, was intended for the establishment of a home for the Jewish People. Jordan’s entry into Judea and Samaria in 1948 as part of a military action it had initiated (not for defense purposes), was illegal. By the same argument, it can also be said that the Jordanian annexation was also illegal. Even the Arab League condemned Jordan for annexing Judea and Samaria. In 1967 Israel took control of Judea and Samaria from Jordan, which had annexed the area in contravention of international law. Israel did this during a defensive war, which makes its actions legal. Therefore, during the Six Day War, Israel took control of areas that were not part of any other legal sovereignty – stateless areas – and which had, in any case, been designated for the Jewish People. From a legal point of view, Israel could not be classified as a conqueror. Judea and Samaria are not “Palestinian” as the “Palestinians” were never a nation. There has never been a “Palestinian State”. Today there is an argument, and just an argument, made by the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria, regarding their right to an independent state. This is a political argument and Israel is not required to accept it, even if much of the world identifies with this argument. Furthermore, the right to self-determination, in the legal sense, only took form in international law long after 1967, from the 1980s onwards. And this even before we begin examining the question as to whether the Arabs in Judea and Samaria have such a right. Laws of occupation apply to a situation in which territory is taken by one state from another state. For this reason, they are not relevant and do not apply to Judea and Samaria. As a result, the settlements are not illegal. All the injunctions and restrictions placed on an occupying nation are not relevant to Judea and Samaria. Legal claims regarding Israeli occupation are no more than the adoption of an Arab national narrative. Nothing more than that.
The United States position is that we don't support them. Therefore we should reduce our spending in Israel everytime Israel increases the settler population there. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I’ve been very clear about Israel has an obligation under the road map. That’s no expansion of settlements. I look forward to continuing to work and dialogue with Israel on this subject.
I don't. I figure that if the US wants to influence Israel in any way they ought to provide aid and if they don't, just stop that aid and let the Israelis sell their technology to anybody they wish, provide intelligence to anybody they wish, cut back on defense anywhere they wish by replacing soft touches with more harsher realistic methods that other nations would and do what a normal nation would do and just destroy those who attack them rather than contain them. This of course would start a regional war but in the end greater Israel will be an attractive location for Chinese and Russians to expand their regional influence and become more global by allowing their ships to port and and be supported subsequently forcing the US to build more carrier groups to counter this. In any case, Israel will then be free to do whatever it wishes and, there are many Israeli proponents who welcome your ideas for the above reasons.
He did in post #27. Oh, nothing insulting about the answer either so you must be referring to something else.
To Jonsa and others who question my sincerity, I offer a book by Caroline Glick with the title <THE ISRAELI SOLUTION> a ONE STATE solution for Peace in the Middle East... Get it at your local library.
When have I ever questioned your sincerity? I've questioned a lot of your political positions, but I have never once questioned your sincerity nor have I ever questioned your integrity.
Thank you Jonsa, you and I might differ politically but we still speak the truth all the time... I wish you well. Caroline Glick: Myth of the 'two-state solution' (Video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjy1ml2h5Bs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoRuelqQFbg
Let me introduce you to Paula R. Stern... Paula R. Stern is CEO of WritePoint Ltd., a leading technical writing company in Israel. Her personal blog, “A Soldier's Mother”, has been running for more than 5 years. She lives in Maale Adumim with her husband and children, a dog, too many birds, and a desire to write her thoughts and dream of a trip to Italy, Scotland, and beyond. This is what she wrote to J. Kerry. Dear Secretary of State John Kerry Because of my respect for the United States, I will attempt to afford you the honor you think you so richly deserve. It’s hard to speak to you with anything but anger, hard to feel the need, again, to start from the beginning because you clearly choose to ignore history in your quest for glory. It is a quest destined to fail but its outcome, even, or more accurately especially, in failure, will hurt Israel. Greater men than you have tried to make, to force, peace on the Middle East. I promise you, you will fail too. You will fail because you are not addressing the root cause of the problem. You, like so many before you, take the easy way out. Blame Israel. It is so easy to do, and so stupid. I could speak to you of history – a history longer and greater than you can imagine. I could speak to you of injustices – yes, our land is filled with the graves of those murdered for the unjust reason that they lived here, or traveled abroad, or ate in the wrong restaurant, or took the wrong bus. I could speak to you of justice – of a population exchange similar to those that have taken place through out history as nations settle between war and peace. They left their lands to go there, most voluntarily so that their invading brothers would have a clear path as they pushed the Jews into the sea. And our people, who left their homes and possessions in Arab lands, most forced, not voluntarily, and came here. We fed our brothers, clothed them, gave them homes. And most importantly, we loved them and gave them the most precious of gifts – a future, a present, as integral parts of the land and people of this country. My neighbor, the family across the street – they live in the same houses that I do, drive the same cars, attend the same schools. He is an engineer; he is a judge in the courts. She is a nurse; she is a lawyer. All my neighbors, though their grandparents came here with nothing. And at the same time, across many borders, the Arabs put their “brothers” in refugee camps, all but starved them. They raised them to be embittered – not at those who kept them in squalor, but those they had hoped to defeat. They blame us and you are naive enough to blame us as well? They chose war, John Kerry, while we chose compromise. And you would blame us for this horrible chain of the decades? They invaded – five Arab nations, in 1949. They attacked. Out of sheer desperation, we won enough of our land to give us a measure of security…it lasted only 7 years, until they attacked again. But oh what we did in those 7 years. We welcomed our refugees from Europe, from Arab lands. We built them tent cities and turned them into real cities. We conquered swamp land and made it habitable and we raised our children to dream that someday there would be peace. We created universities and schools and parks. But the Arabs would have none of it. In 1948, in 1956, again in 1967 and again in 1973 and again and again, almost daily, we fight off their attempts to do in 2014 what they failed to do in 1948. They have not learned and amazingly enough, John Kerry, neither have you. We have built and evacuated whole communities; we have withdrawn from land in exchange for nothing but the hope that we could appease the “unappeasable.” We have flown around the world to help others – from earthquakes, tsunamis, devastating storms, famine and more. We have allowed the Arabs – yes, allowed them, to fire tens of thousands of missiles at our cities and we know they have more than 170,000 more rockets and missiles ready to try again. At any time and with no notice whatsoever, we have the power to flatten Gaza into the world’s largest, flattest parking lot. And each time they attack, we think of it and know we can’t do it, won’t do it. And you would blame us for the failure to make peace? When we attempt to stop them, to push back their military capabilities, just a bit, we aim for the rocket launchers, the arsenals, the training camps while they aim for our cities – Beersheva, Shderot, Ashkelon, Netivot, Ashdod. And you would threaten us for the ongoing state of war? There cannot be peace until you recognize your enemy. There cannot be successful negotiations if you fail to understand those you would bring to the table. You fail on both counts. After hearing that you threatened Israel unless the peace talks succeed, I can only conclude that your ignorance is even greater than I thought. I knew, years ago, that you had no clue what the Arab world is thinking, feeling, dreaming of. Now I know the same is true about Israel – you don’t understand us any better than you understand the Arabs and that amazes me. Unlike the Arab world, Israel is an open society – read our newspapers, speak to the people on the street. No one will stop you and we won’t escort you with secret police to control your experience. Pick any town, city, village, settlement and you will hear the same thing. Pick any street, any person and ask them what they dream of, what they want for their children. We do not dream of glorious death and martyrdom for our sons. We dream that they will never have to even serve in the army. I have friends who agonized over their sons going into the army. I could understand my agony, as I grew up in the United States where all my friends promised they would run away from the US before they would ever be drafted. I knew nothing of army and war and guns. But my friends here in Israel? They had served in the army; why did they suffer so when their sons were drafted. “We served so that they wouldn’t have to,” I’ve been told over and over again. They never believed, 20+ years later that their sons and daughters would have to sacrifice three years of their lives, that we’d still be at war. You won’t hear that in the Arab world. Oh, they’ll tell you that they dream of peace because they know that is what you want to hear, but in Arabic, they will talk of a time when there will be no Jews in the entire Middle East, never mind no Jews in the Palestine they envision. Their religious leaders will whip them up to the glory of Allah and jihad. But still you would expect us to make peace with them? Theirs is a culture built on a dream – a dream that they will own the world…my corner, John Kerry, and even yours. Theirs is a society that believes in a heaven earned by causing the deaths of others and so when their sons blow themselves up and kill those Jews, they celebrate. And yes, they celebrated on 9/11 when they killed your people just as they celebrated when we released their terrorists and killers in yet another attempt to appease them…and you. If you don’t understand their ability to celebrate, I will confess that neither do I. I have seen the mothers hugging their sons in a video, made the night before they killed themselves…and the innocent men, women, and children, of their enemies who happened to be on that bus, in that mall, or asleep in their homes. It doesn’t matter to them if they kill a soldier, a man with a gun, a pregnant woman, or a helpless child. The more, the better, in their twisted interpretation of what their God wants. You don’t understand this and I can see where it is hard, given your western mentality. But not understanding it doesn’t give you the right to ignore it. You won’t fail in your goal of ramming peace down our throats because of this, however. You will fail because, amazingly enough, you don’t even understand Israel. We are the easiest to get, the easiest, honestly. All you have to do is listen and see – but even that is beyond you. Listen to our national anthem – it does not speak of war. It is called, “The Hope” and speaks of a dream of 2,000 years to be a free people. We value that – the ability to protect ourselves, to be free in the land of our forefathers. Even the most right wing among us would be willing to compromise for a real peace, a peace where our children and grandchildren could live without the fears we deal with daily. We do not interfere in how they raise their children; we are stupid enough to even fund some of their text books – all in our own misguided belief that we can make peace with those who do not yet want it. You threaten us with economic sanctions, with international isolation. This is your latest blunder, and it is a big one. Israel is laughing at you this morning. Economic sanctions? They gassed us, beat us, bombed us, burned us. They haunted us, hunted us, hated us through the centuries across many lands and through this land in the last several decades. They burned the synagogue where my grandmother was hiding; they gassed my great grandmother to death. International isolation? They put us in ghettos, they exploded our buses and shot our babies in the head. They lynched my neighbor, attacked the buses on which my friends travel. They shot my daughter’s teacher (and his infant son) and ambushed and killed a colleague of mind. We are fighting for our lives, John Kerry – no less today than we were in 1948. The ONLY difference is that through the greed and stupidity of the Arab nations, we are stronger than we ever were, not weaker. You will fail, John Kerry, because you are fool enough to think you can come here, wave your American flag, look at your watch and tell us you’d like to finish these peace negotiations by 5:00 p.m. because you have a date at the opera or a baseball game to go to. For a long time now, the Arabs have fooled you. They’ll speak to you of peace over the coffee they serve you and then when you leave the room, they slap each other on the backs and laugh – another successful day at making the US look stupid. Now, this time, we will have that in common with the Arabs; we are laughing at you too. Naftali Bennet has tried to explain it to you, “There has not yet been a nation that has given up its land due to economic threats, and nor will we. Only security will bring economic stability, not a terrorist state near Ben-Gurion Airport.” Greater men have failed, John Kerry – and I promise you, until you know Israel and until you understand the Arabs, you don’t have a prayer of succeeding. Go watch the Superbowl, at least then, maybe you’ll have done something worthwhile. Paula Stern
...and, the property had belonged to Turkey when the WWI was over and it agreed to turn it over to England as a Protectorate. Plus, the Jews who had moved there actually BOUGHT the first lands from people who had title to it before 1948. The expanded lands were lost to these PLO people when they attacked Israel in the attempt to steal Israel from Jews had paid for the property. Any FAIR person can see that these PLO cry babies are weeping for lands they fled from when Israel won all the wars.
...and deduct $100 for each rocket fired into Israel from the $3 Billion America sends to the Hamas/PLO people every year.
I would be fine with that- make it $1,000,000 per rocket. And 1,000,000 dollars for each settler in the occupied territories.
Look, the Jews gave the land they held in Gaza, (and a whole bunch of great new homes they had built), to the Hamas people, and they reacted with even more bombs and a new effort to get bigger and more deadly weapons for use in their real plan, which is to eliminate israel. Facts are facts. Israel needs start leveling whole areas of Gaza, and consider immediately taking back the Gaza property they vacated. Gaza needs stop all bombing are see total devastation of the community from which a bomb comes.
