Donald Trump, Lonesome Rhodes?

Trump is Lonesome Rhodes without  the charm.
MFB
'He’s got the courage of his ignorance'.

Rarely and perhaps not in modern times has a presidential campaign more resembled the classic 1957 film, “A Face in the Crowd.” Written by Budd Schulberg and starring Andy Griffith, Patricia Neal and Walter Matthau, the storyline follows an Arkansas hayseed named Larry “Lonesome” Rhodes (Griffith), whom Marcia Jeffries (Neal) discovers in a county jail.
Jeffries has a local radio show on which she interviews interesting characters. She finds Rhodes irresistible and puts him on the air.
Rhodes becomes a sensation, eventually climbing the ladder to his own network TV show and then, as politicians approach him for endorsements, a self-described kingmaker.
I think of Rhodes when I watch Donald Trump. The two have much in common. Rhodes‘ view of women seems to mirror Mr. Trump‘s. In one scene, Rhodes says, “A guitar beats a woman every time.” He marries more than once and has several affairs during and in between those marriages.
As he becomes intoxicated with a beverage clearly not the milk of human kindness, Rhodes brags: “I’m not just an entertainer. I’m an influence, a wielder of opinion, a force a force!”
Later as his political and cultural demise approaches, Rhodes says this about his audience when he thinks the microphone is off (Jeffries has kept it on to expose him as a fraud and make amends for creating a monster): “Those morons out there? Shucks, I could take chicken fertilizer and sell it to them as caviar. I could make them eat dog food and think it was steak. You know what the public’s like? A cage of guinea pigs. Good night, you stupid idiots. Good night, you miserable slobs. They’re a lot of trained seals. I toss them a dead fish and they’ll flap their flippers.”

Rent or buy the film if you haven’t seen it. Think of Mr. Trump as you watch Lonesome Rhodes, his rise and eventual fall, as ego and arrogance lead to the self-immolation of his career and life.
Mr. Trump’s braggadocio about how he plans to bully Russian President Vladimir Putin and free American hostages held by Iran, even before he is sworn in as president, excites his supporters, but lacks any credible specifics. Perhaps Mr. Trump thinks the force of his personality is greater than Russian weaponry or the coming Iranian nuclear bomb. If so, he should not be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office.
Mr. Trump has tapped into a deep anger among many members of the public who hate Washington and its dysfunction. He rightly lambasts politicians who rarely live up to their promises and especially Republicans for too often surrendering to Democrats, a party to which until fairly recently he belonged. But if he wants to tear down the establishment, he must offer something of substance in its place.
Mr. Trump is a chameleon, having held contradictory positions on various issues over the years as it suits him. He fits the dictionary.com definition of demagogue: “A person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.” That’s Lonesome Rhodes. That’s also Donald Trump.
Mr. Trump is a serial violator (and he’s not alone in this) of Ronald Reagan’s “11th Commandment,” which states that Republicans are never to speak ill of a fellow Republican. There’s a good reason for this. If Republicans trash Republicans, by the time a nominee is chosen, the party has given Democrats a slew of disparaging sound bites they can use as political ammo in the general election campaign. Not a smart move.
In the film, Mel Miller (Matthau) delivers one of Schulberg’s best lines about Rhodes: “I’ll say one thing for him, he’s got the courage of his ignorance.”
So does Mr. Trump, who, to give just one example, claims the Bible is his favorite book, but can’t name any of its chapters, or even a single verse. Lonesome Rhodes would have known how to fake it. Mr. Trump might consult the Gideon version in any of his hotel rooms.
• Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist. His latest book is “What Works: Common Sense Solutions for a Stronger America”
　

Progressive Jews and the crusade against Israel

　Progressive Jews leverage their political power and funding outside of Israel in order to change Israeli policies, but they ignore the consequences

Cheers for US vice president Joe Biden’s criticism of settlements at the Reform movement’s recent convention reflect a long-standing position of the organization and a controversy that has divided Jewish communities and undermines support for Israel and Zionism: Are Jewish communities built beyond the 1949 Armistice Lines – the “settlements” – legal, legitimate, and part of the Zionist vision? Unfortunately, Israeli administrations and leaders have not addressed this question.

Recently, two American professors who claim to be Zionists wrote an op-ed inThe Washington Post supporting campaigns to boycott Israel because of “Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory.”

Although criticism of Israel by Jews and Israelis is not unusual, few have crossed the red line of what is considered legitimate criticism.

But it’s a line that begged to be crossed. If Israel’s policy is wrong in their view, why should it be tolerated? Since criticism of “the occupation” and settlements is raised by Israelis, the media and the international community all the time, why should anyone be surprised or upset that non-Israeli liberal Progressive Jews also hold these views and join the crusade against Israel? Progressive Judaism defines itself as a movement for social justice, civil and humanitarian rights, gender equality and pluralism.

It’s a Jewish tradition. Jews are and have been in the forefront of efforts to help those in need, the suffering and persecuted. It’s a biblical commandment: charity, concern for the stranger and the prohibition of taking advantage of someone who is less fortunate, especially an indentured servant – and, above all, the desire for peace.

It is argued that this is the reason why many Progressive Jews support another Palestinian state, “ending the occupation” and eliminating settlements.

But while advocating “pluralistic Judaism” in Israel is consistent with the Reform movement’s theological position, Israel’s settlement policy has nothing to do with religious belief or practice. It is political and affects only Israeli Jews.


Opposition to settlements supports Arab insistence that violence against Israel is legitimate “resistance against Israeli occupation.”

Disguised in rhetoric of “the peace process,” “the two state” delusion, and “two states for two peoples” opposition to settlements and support for Palestinianism ignores Israeli security and the threat of jihad.

Ostensibly humanitarian arguments like “the right of Palestinians to self-determination” confuse the issue by ignoring the meaning of Palestinianism as clearly stated in the PLO and Hamas covenants: Israel’s destruction.

Since there is consensus in Israel that settlements are a strategic asset and there is no longer any possibility of removing them, the Reform movement’s opposition is difficult to understand.

Most Israelis agree that withdrawing from “the occupied territories” would turn these areas into launching sites for more terrorist attacks. Moreover, the large number of Jews living in there – more than a half million – has passed well beyond the point of no return.

If destroying Israeli settlements is not a realistic possibility, harms Jews and Israel and no Israeli government would even consider such a move, why do liberal Progressive Jews continue to promote it? Although some current and former Israeli leaders, academics, writers and pundits support calls to “end the occupation” and champion the cause of Palestinianism, they have little popular support at home. All recent Israeli polls indicate increasing support for settlements and disenchantment with Palestinian promises.

Even Arab Palestinians are deeply divided about “the two-state solution.”

And few Israeli Arabs – even those who despise Israel – would be willing to give up their privileges as Israeli citizens.

A recent Israel Democracy Institute survey revealed that 83.4 percent of Israeli Arabs prefer to live in Israel rather than move to the US or Europe, and rate their situation as “good” or “very good.”

Yet, in another survey by Prof. Sami Smooha of Haifa University, at least 57% of Israeli Arabs said that they support the radical Islamic Movement; other polls indicate widespread support of violence against Jews – demonstrating the power of ideology over well-being.

Similarly, the Nakba (catastrophe of Israel’s establishment) remains a rallying cry for hatred and incitement, even though everyone understands that it is practically irrelevant. Although Arabs focus on “settlements” built after 1967, they don’t ignore those which were established before.
Opposition to settlements is also the heart of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and Arab and Muslim efforts to destroy the State of Israel.

The dispute over settlements, moreover, is exploited by the PA/ PLO.

Ironically, PA President Mahmoud Abbas in his recent UN address quoted Yitzhak Rabin that Israeli settlements are a “cancer.”
But settlement-building continued during Rabin’s tenure, as well as all Israeli administrations because settlements are a national priority which insures defensible borders; they are essential to Israel’s security, economy and its survival.

Progressive Jews, especially those affiliated with the Reform and Reconstructionist movements, organizations like J Street and the New Israel Fund, and pro-Palestinian NGOs led by Progressive Jews like Peace Now, T’ruah, Tayush, Yesh Din, Rabbis for Human Rights and B’Tselem leverage their political power and funding outside of Israel in order to change Israeli policies, but they ignore the consequences.

Opponents of settlements who claim to be “liberal Zionists” don’t want to destroy Israel, only to destroy settlements and “end the occupation.” But their demands contribute to Israel’s demonization, endanger its citizens and place Israel at risk – and, therefore, are fundamentally anti-Zionist and anti-Israel.

In 1937, the Reform movement, in its Columbus Platform affirmed “the obligation of all Jewry to aid in [Palestine’s] upbuilding as a Jewish homeland by endeavoring to make it not only a haven of refuge for the oppressed but also a center of Jewish culture and spiritual life.”



By MOSHE DANN

Angola Takes the Lead in How To Deal With Muslims

By popular demand, Angolan authorities have taken pre-emptive action and decided to ban the Muslim religion, which they consider a cult, NOT a religion. They see what Muslims are doing to non-Muslims, especially in Africa, and are taking steps to prevent the same from happening in Angola. In early October 2013, the Muslims living in Luanda in the municipality of Viana Zango were shocked to see the minaret of their mosque dismantled into pieces on the ground without permission. On Thursday 03 October in the morning, the Angolan authorities decided to destroy the mosque Zango located in the urban district of Viana 17 km. The governor of Luanda Bento announced in a radio spot that radical Muslims are not welcome in Angola and the Angolan government is not ready for the legalization of mosques in Angola. 

And on Tuesday, November 19, the Minister of Culture, Rosa Cruz e Silva said. “Regarding Islam, the legalization process has not been approved by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights. Therefore all mosques would be closed until further notice. “ It should be noted that the Angolan government has made closing of all mosques a priority. The only two mosques located in Luanda have already received a warning document signed by the mayor of the municipality of Viana José Moreno. 

The provincial governor of Luanda, Bento Bento, said on the airwaves of local radio that “radical Muslims are not welcome in Angola and the Angolan government is not ready for the legalization of mosques.” Minister of Culture, Rosa Cruz e Silva explained that the law on freedom of religion will be reviewed given the current national context , noting that the Government will redouble its efforts to fight relentlessly against religious cults like Islam which are contrary to the customs of Angolan culture. 

95% of Angola’s population is Christian. A quarter belongs to Protestant churches founded during the colonial period, including congregational evangelical church. 

This decisive action taken by the Angolan head of state is based on a desire to guard against the rise of the Wahhabi ideology that has created havoc, death and destruction in Africa and elsewhere. And as rightly explained Tunisian philosopher Mezri Haddad: “Islamism and Islamophobia feed each other. Worse, long-term Islamism as an ideology destroy Islam as religion. “ 

According to the International Religious Freedom Report 2008, Islam in Angola is a minority religion with 80,000 – 90,000 adherents, composed largely of migrants from West Africa and families of Lebanese origin. The Muslims comprise between 2.5 to 3 percent of Angola’s overall population of 17 million people, most of them Christians. 

in the last decade, but especially during the last few years the Muslim community in Angola has grown appreciably and Islamic activities have become more common in major cities. Mosques have sprung up in a number of places and Qur’anic schools have been built to provide Islamic instructions and teach Arabic language to adherents. 

Public attitudes toward Islam have been generally negative. Cultural differences between Angolan and Muslim immigrants have been the basis for negative views toward Islam, as was the perceived link between Islam and illegal immigration. Since the September 11 attacks, there has been a deliberate attempt to link Muslims with terrorism. It has become a matter of routine at Luanda airport for security officers to detain Muslims arriving from Sahelian countries. 

On September 1, 2008, a Muslim mob attacked non-Muslims in the community of Andulo. The school-age daughter of a deacon at one of the churches was decapitated. Forty Christians were assaulted or tortured. The mob burned three church buildings. They also went to non-Muslim houses to intimidate them or destroyed items of property. Stones were thrown at the headquarters of a local Christian project, causing some damage. An Angolan Christian leader said that the local police were unable to stop the attack and fled the scene. 
In early October 2013, the Muslims living in Luanda in the municipality of Viana Zango were shocked to see the minaret of their mosque dismantled into pieces on the ground without permission. On Thursday 03 October in the morning, the Angolan authorities decided to destroy the mosque Zango located in the urban district of Viana 17 km. The governor of Luanda Bento announced in a radio spot that radical Muslims are not welcome in Angola and the Angolan government is not ready for the legalization of mosques in Angola. 

And on Tuesday, November 19, the Minister of Culture, Rosa Cruz e Silva said. “Regarding Islam, the legalization process has not been approved by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights. Therefore all mosques would be closed until further notice. “ It should be noted that the Angolan government has made closing of all mosques a priority. The only two mosques located in Luanda have already received a warning document signed by the mayor of the municipality of Viana José Moreno. 

The provincial governor of Luanda, Bento Bento, said on the airwaves of local radio that “radical Muslims are not welcome in Angola and the Angolan government is not ready for the legalization of mosques.” Minister of Culture, Rosa Cruz e Silva explained that the law on freedom of religion will be reviewed given the current national context , noting that the Government will redouble its efforts to fight relentlessly against religious cults like Islam which are contrary to the customs of Angolan culture. 

95% of Angola’s population is Christian. A quarter belongs to Protestant churches founded during the colonial period, including congregational evangelical church. 

This decisive action taken by the Angolan head of state is based on a desire to guard against the rise of the Wahhabi ideology that has created havoc, death and destruction in Africa and elsewhere. And as rightly explained Tunisian philosopher Mezri Haddad: “Islamism and Islamophobia feed each other. Worse, long-term Islamism as an ideology destroy Islam as religion. “ 

According to the International Religious Freedom Report 2008, Islam in Angola is a minority religion with 80,000 – 90,000 adherents, composed largely of migrants from West Africa and families of Lebanese origin. The Muslims comprise between 2.5 to 3 percent of Angola’s overall population of 17 million people, most of them Christians. 

in the last decade, but especially during the last few years the Muslim community in Angola has grown appreciably and Islamic activities have become more common in major cities. Mosques have sprung up in a number of places and Qur’anic schools have been built to provide Islamic instructions and teach Arabic language to adherents. 

Public attitudes toward Islam have been generally negative. Cultural differences between Angolan and Muslim immigrants have been the basis for negative views toward Islam, as was the perceived link between Islam and illegal immigration. Since the September 11 attacks, there has been a deliberate attempt to link Muslims with terrorism. It has become a matter of routine at Luanda airport for security officers to detain Muslims arriving from Sahelian countries. 

On September 1, 2008, a Muslim mob attacked non-Muslims in the community of Andulo. The school-age daughter of a deacon at one of the churches was decapitated. Forty Christians were assaulted or tortured.

Muslims Can Rape 'Legitimately-Owned Slaves"

Originally published under the title "Good News: Female Muslim Prof. Says Muslims Can Rape, Rob Infidel Women Only in Some Circumstances."

Suad Saleh, a professor of Islamic doctrine at Al Azhar University, says Muslims can rape "legitimately-owned slaves" captured in the course of jihad, but it's important not to bend the rules.

Straining at gnats while swallowing camels is increasingly how Islam's apologists rationalize away the violence and hate Sharia engenders for the "infidel," the non-Muslim.

Consider the true significance of yet another learned Muslim justifying the enslavement and rape of non-Muslim women.

Suad Saleh, a female professor of Islamic doctrine at Al Azhar University, correctly defined the Arabic phrase melk al-yamin—"right hand possession" (Koran 4:3)—by saying non-Muslim "female prisoners of wars are 'those whom you own.' In order to humiliate them, they become the property of the [Muslim] army commander, or of a Muslim, and he can have sex with them just like he has sex with his wives."

Ms. Saleh's comments, made in September 2014, are not new. Countless Muslims, beginning with Muhammad himself, have confirmed that Islam permits the sexual enslavement of non-Muslim women seized during the jihad. Saleh cannot even take the "honor" of being the first Muslim woman to support this inherently misogynistic creed.

No, what is of interest here is how the Al Azhar professor swallows a camel by claiming that the Islamic institution of sex slavery is fair and just, but then she strains at gnats by complaining that some Muslims exploit it to the detriment of Islam:

Some [Muslim] opportunists and extremists, who only harm Islam, say: "I will bring a woman from East Asia, as [as a sex slave] under the status of 'right hand possessions.' And with the consent of my wife, I will allocate this woman a room in the house, and will have sex with her as a slave girl." This is nonsense. This is not prescribed by Islam at all. Islam says that a woman is either a wife or a slave girl. Legitimately-owned slaves come from among prisoners of war.

Saleh is correct that some Muslim men twist the "right hand possession" law in ways that allow them to have nonconventional sex. For instance, some years back in Egypt a Muslim scholar formally took a woman to be his "right hand possession," even though she wasn't conquered in a jihad and in fact entered the agreement willingly.

An inherently unjust and uncivilized law will by nature always be 'abused.'

Yet what Professor Saleh and many other Muslim apologists fail to understand is that an inherently unjust and uncivilized law—such as one that permits the sexual enslavement of women simply because they are non-Muslims—will by nature always be "abused."

For example, Saleh and others will insist that the mass rape and sexual abuse of European women by Muslim men in Cologne and elsewhere does not fit the literal definition of "right hand possessions." But other interrelatedIslamic doctrines command Muslim men to hate all non-Muslims and to see women—especially infidel women—as little more than sex objects (or, in the words of a Muslim who recently murdered a Christian girl in Pakistan for refusing him sex, "Christian girls are only meant for one thing: the [sexual] pleasure of Muslim men."

Moreover, Islamic clerics routinely encourage Muslims to migrate to the West and help empower Islam anyway they can—including through propaganda, proselytization, apologetics, births, theft, etc.—and not just through violent jihad. If they do any of these, they technically become jihadis (after all and as the apologists are fond of insisting, jihad literally means "striving" on behalf of Islam.) Thus many Muslim rapists in Europe believe it is their Islamic right and reward to molest and rape infidel women.

The "exploitation" of Islam's already unjust and uncivilized laws is common and inevitable. Muslims are not supposed to coerce non-Muslims to convert (Koran 2:256). Yet from the dawn of history up to the present, forced conversions have been a normal aspect of Islam. Why? Because based on the hate that Islam engenders for non-Muslims, "compelling" infidels (especially attractive females) to embrace Islam can—and often is—rationalized as an altruistic act. After all, how bad can it be to force hell-bound infidels into the true religion? Moreover, it helps the growth of Islam and so can also fall into the jihad category. As one human rights report explained while discussing the rampant sexual abuse and forced conversion of Christian girls in Pakistan:

The dark side of the forced conversion to Islam is not restricted only to the religious Muslim groups but also involves the criminal elements who are engaged in rape and abduction and then justify their heinous crimes by forcing the victims to convert to Islam. The Muslim fundamentalists are happy to offer these criminals shelter and use the excuse that they are providing a great service to their sacred cause of increasing the population of Muslims.

Likewise, Islamic law (based on Koran 9:29) calls for the leaders of state to extort money (jizya) from Christians and Jews who live under Islam. Most Muslim countries, thanks to European pressure in the colonial era, abolished this practice and its strictures. However, Muslims around the world know the basics, namely, that the non-Muslim is meant to provide the Muslim with wealth and resources—or, in the words of one caliph to his military commander in Christian Egypt: "milk the camel [the Copts] until it gives no more milk, and until it milks blood." Nearly 1600 years later, a Muslim cleric and welfare recipient in the UKreferred to British taxpayers as "slaves,"and explained:

We take the jizya, which is our haq[Arabic for "right"], anyway. The normal situation by the way is to take money from the kafir [infidel], isn't it? So this is the normal situation. They give us the money—you work, give us the money, Allahu Akbar. We take the money.

Unsurprisingly, all over the Muslim world, non-Muslims are being kidnapped and held for ransom—and sometimes killed even after the ransom is received—or just robbed and plundered.

The problem isn't that Muslims aren't following Islam's rules on sexual enslavement, but rather that Islam allows it at all.

In short, the problem isn't that Muslims aren't strictly following Islam's rules concerning the sexual enslavement of infidel women—but rather that Islam allows non-Muslim women to be enslaved in the first place; the problem isn't that Muslims aren't strictly following Islam's rules concerning conversion—but rather that Islam calls for nonstop enmity and war for non-Muslims in the first place.

The problem isn't that Muslims aren't strictly following Islam's rules concerning who has the ultimate right to collect jizya from infidels—but rather that Islam allows non-Muslims to be plundered in the first place.

Put differently, it is no solace to learn that Islam permits Muslims to enslave, rape, convert, and plunder non-Muslims in certain circumstances, but not others.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Judith Friedman Rosen fellow at the Middle East Forum and a Shillman fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Related Topics:  Sex and gender relations  | Raymond Ibrahimreceive the latest by email: subscribe to the free mefmailing list

back to top of page

Why Arabs in YESHA Refuse Peace

Progressives Should Support Israel

• Steve Sheffey Pro-Israel and political activist

The progressive movement has been tarred by a vocal minority that seeks to criticize Israel at every opportunity. It's time for the progressive community to stand up and show its support for Israel.

Israel is a progressive's dream: "Universal education, universal health care, equal rights, minority rights protections, strong activist courts, and gays and lesbians openly serving in the military." As progressives, we should be outraged by the way the Arabs, including the Palestinians, treat women, gays and other minorities. We should be outraged that the Palestinians demand that no Jews should be allowed to live in the West Bank, even as over one million Palestinians live within pre-1967 Israel. We should be outraged by the beheadings and honor killings. Israel is not perfect, but Israel holds itself to its own standards, to progressive standards.

Israel is accused by some of apartheid. Yet Arab Israelis "can be found on the Supreme Court, in the Knesset (parliament), in ambassadorial positions, as senior officers in the police and army, as mayors, as deputy-speakers of the Knesset and even as government ministers and deputy ministers. Prominent Arab Israelis can be found in almost every sphere of Israeli life, including in the medical fields, media and playing on Israel's national soccer team." Whatever an apartheid state is, it's not Israel.

That's all well and good, but what about the "occupation"? What about ending the conflict between Israel and its neighbors? Progressives are on the side of peace. So is Israel. There would be no "occupation" if Jordan had not attacked Israel in 1967, and there would be no "occupation" if Palestinian leadership had accepted either of Israel's offers in the last decade to withdraw from nearly all of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank.)

If Palestinian leadership is so upset about the "occupation," if Palestinian leadership is sincere about its concern for its people, why did it twice in the past decade reject the opportunity to establish a state on the West Bank?

Israel's entire history is an unending willingness to trade land for the hope of peace despite Arab intransigence and Arab unwillingness to partner with Israel for peace.

When the United Nations recognized Israel's independence, all of the West Bank and Jerusalem were outside Israel's borders. Despite the historic, legal, and moral claims of the Jewish people to Jerusalem and to Judea and Samaria, Israel was willing to forgo the land in exchange for independence and peace.

But the Arab world could not countenance a Jewish state in its midst. Several Arab armies attacked Israel. When the fighting stopped in 1949, Israel controlled half of Jerusalem (the half without the holy places) and none of the West Bank. Jordan proceeded to raze dozens of synagogues in the half of Jerusalem it controlled, with no international protests.

In 1964, the Palestine Liberation Organization was formed -- three years before Israel controlled any of the West Bank. It's not hard to imagine what the "Palestine" was that the "organization" wanted to "liberate." There were no settlements and there was no "occupation" in 1964.

In 1967, Israel launched preemptive strikes against Egypt and Syria after they committed acts of war against Israel (Syria attacked kibbutzim from the Golan Heights while Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, ordered UN peacekeepers to leave the Sinai, and massed troops on Israel's border, threatening to "drive the Jews into the sea"). But Israel did not attack Jordan. Israel controls Jerusalem and the West Bank today only because Jordan attacked Israel during the Six Day War.

Despite achieving the 2,000-year-old dream of Jewish sovereignty over its historic homeland, albeit in response to Arab aggression, Israel immediately indicated its willingness to trade land for peace, only to be rebuffed by the three no's of Khartoum: no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel.

So it went until 1973, when on the holiest day of the Jewish year, Yom Kippur, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel. Yet when Egyptian President Sadat indicated a genuine desire to make peace with Israel, Israel traded the entire Sinai peninsula to Egypt in exchange for a promise of peace from a man who, if not a Nazi, was at least a Nazi sympathizer during World War II, and from a country that had waged unceasing war against Israel since its rebirth.

Relinquishing the Sinai meant forcibly uprooting settlements (so much for the myth that settlements are the obstacle to peace) and giving up its energy independence, but Israel was willing to make those tangible sacrifices for the intangible promise of peace.

In 2000, Israel offered Palestinian leadership 94-98% of the West Bank in exchange for peace, but Yasir Arafat -- who could have gone down in history as another Sadat -- rejected the offer. Had he accepted, there would today be an Arab Palestinian state.

In 2000, Israel unilaterally withdrew from all of Lebanon in exchange for nothing, and that's exactly what it got: nothing. Nothing except terrorism and rockets from Lebanon, ultimately resulting in the Lebanon War of 2006 and the evacuation of nearly one million Israelis from the north.

In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from all of Gaza in exchange for nothing, and that's exactly what it got: nothing. Nothing except terrorism and rockets from Gaza. There is no "occupation" of Gaza; the only Israeli in Gaza is Gilad Shalit, the soldier held captive in violation of international law. Yet just last week, dozens of rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel.

Israel withdrew from Lebanon and Gaza and was rewarded not with peace, but with violence. Israel learned from those experiences that ending the "occupation" is not enough. It's not enough to unilaterally withdraw. Israel needs a partner for peace.

But Israel did not give up hope. In 2008, Israel offered Palestinian President Abbas a state consisting of nearly all of the West Bank. But the Arabs said no, just as they said no to a state of their own in the West Bank in 2000. How is Israel supposed to end the "occupation" if the Palestinians won't accept Israel's offers to withdraw? How can Israel address Palestinian concerns about a final peace agreement if Abbas refuses to re-enter peace talks?

If Palestinian leadership was serious about peace, they would accept Israel's offer to talk peace with no preconditions. But more than that, they would start preparing their people for a two-state solution, which means stopping the incitement and publicly recognizing Israel's permanent right to exist as a Jewish state. And they would recognize the moral and historic right of the Jewish people to live in Judea and Samaria -- the key point is that by agreeing to cede the West Bank to a Palestinian state, Israel is making a major concession by relinquishing territory it not only won in a defensive war, but by relinquishing territory that represents the fulfillment of a 2,000 year-old dream. 

The concept of an Arab "Palestinian" people did not even exist 100 years ago. Israel's security and moral concerns require a two-state solution, and one would think that if Palestinian leadership's goal was a state of their own rather than the destruction of the Jewish state, Palestinian leadership and those sympathetic to the Palestinians' demands would do all they could to create an atmosphere conducive to peace.

Instead, as Rep. Steve Rothman (D-NJ) and Rep. Steve Austria (R-OH) note in their recent letter to President Obama, "Television programs run by the Palestinian Authority and textbooks in government schools continue to praise martyrdom and terrorists and call for armed struggle against the Israelis."

Most Israelis believe that Israel cannot indefinitely remain Jewish and democratic while retaining the West Bank. Israel again and again has chosen peace over land, even land it has dreamt of regaining for centuries. Israel's dream of peace in exchange for land will become reality as soon as the Arab world gives up its dream of destroying the world's only Jewish state.

Israel continues to strive for peace not because the Arab Palestinians have a better legal, historic, or moral claim to the land -- after all, there has never been an Arab nation of Palestine and the concept of a unique Arab Palestinian people was unknown before the 20th century -- but because trading land for peace is in Israel's best interests, and Israel knows it.

Peace can be achieved tomorrow if the Arab world accepts the permanent reality of a Jewish state of Israel today. The Palestinians could have had a state comprising nearly all of the West Bank if their leadership had accepted Israel's offers in 2000 or 2008. Israel accepted several partitions of its national homeland before achieving independence in 1948, and Israel remains willing to cede parts of its national homeland because it values peace over land and an independent state over a state perpetually at war. It is time for Palestinian leadership to accept the same paradigm. It is time for Palestinian leadership to work toward a state for their children instead of working to deprive Israel's children of their future.

Peace is still within our grasp. All it takes is for Arab Palestinian leadership to place a higher priority on achieving a state of their own than on destroying Israel. Or as Golda Meir said, "we will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us."

More:

#Israel #Israeli Palestinian Conflict #Steve Rothman

Around The WebB

Zebra Palace

22 Perfectly Timed Photos

LyfeTraveler

Advertisement

News for you

Ariel Winter Slays In Her Birthday Bodysuit

Here's Why The Preserved Body Of This Catholic Saint Is Hitting The Road

12 Famous Scientists On The Possibility Of God

Susan Sarandon Makes A Case For Bras On The Red Carpet