John R. Houk
© September 23, 2018
President Trump has long formulated an “Ultimate Deal”
between Israel and the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians. I am not going
to lay out the perceived details of such a deal because so far those details
seem to be a bit fluid. Meaning the Trump team hasn’t nailed down an internal
agreement. My guess for that is negativity against potential details from
Leftist supporters of the fake-Palestinians and some Jew-hating Muslim apologists
globally as well some Arab nations.
In full disclosure, I’m a Christian Zionist. In case you
haven’t realized it, ultimately that means I have little sympathy for the pseudo-Palestinian
Arabs that can never pinpoint a historical period in which an Arab speaking
nation of people called Palestinian EVER existed. INDEED, the current
Arabs calling themselves Palestinians are overwhelmingly descendants of
migrating Arabs outside the area who showed up after returning Jews
began modernizing the land then managed by Ottoman Turks made employment attractive.
Prior to Arab immigration, the longstanding inherent
Arabs were exploited peasants at the mercy of rich Muslim tenant owners
who mismanaged the Land of the Jews into swamps and unusable agricultural land
further impoverishing the shrinking peasant tenant farmers.
Thus my stand on Israel is leads toward disenfranchising hostile
Arabs deporting them for sedition even if it means a forced depopulation of
Arabs that do not accept the existence of the Jewish State of Israel. My
Christian Zionist predilection of believing in the Jewish return to their
Biblically promised homeland is my primary reasoning. And yes, I realize in the
realm of political correctness, my ultimate plan for a One-State Solution is
incomprehensible to Leftist Multiculturalists. I don’t care. Whatever
hastens the return of Jesus the Messiah is the only realistic solution for
world peace. (And yes I realize the Messiah concept produces
misgivings among Observant Jews. But remember, I am not calling for any harm to
Jews. I believe the Return of Jesus will inspire Jews rather than irritate
them. SO, I stand with Jews for the Jewish State of Israel.)
The inspiration for these thoughts is some commentary by Martin Sherman
on the President Trump initiative for the “Ultimate Deal” for Israel/Arab peace
in the Middle. I found it in Ted
Belman’s Israpundit.
JRH 9/23/18
In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping
in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.
in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.
**************************
INTO THE FRAY The rumored
“ultimate deal”: Potential payoffs and possible pitfalls.
By Martin Sherman
Intro by Ted Belman
Email Alert Sent: 9/22/2018 3:17 PM
T. Belman. Martin’s
point is that the “ultimate deal” must include incentivised emigration. I
agree. In my article Trump’s Deal
of the Century, I made no mention of this as I considered it
to be the second stage of the process. First things first, namely end the Oslo
Accords, UNRWA and the “peace process”. And finally destroy the Palestinian
narrative. I did not want to jeopardize those very significant gains by
suggesting that incentivised emigration must be part of the first deal.
Nevertheless the first deal as
described by me includes a Jordanian initiative to incentivize emigration of
Palestinians by providing free housing and jobs as the incentives. Also there
is nothing to prevent Israel or others from providing further incentives.
I made it clear that the first
deal, (Deal of the Century), includes Israel sovereignty west of the Jordan
River. Pursuant to that sovereignty, Israel would appoint administrators of the
former Area A namely a friendly Jordan. It is understood, though not mentioned,
that Jordan would amend the text books and cirriculae [sic] for all students
under its care to one acceptable to Israel. Jordan would be no more than the
agent of Israel while admistering [sic] Area A and in no way autonomous.
By Martin Sherman
The potential impermanence of the positive measures
already undertaken by the Trump team should not be the only reason for Israeli
concern over the brewing “ultimate deal”
…we will not put forth a plan or
endorse a plan that doesn’t meet all of Israel’s security issues because they
are of extreme importance to us—Jason Greenblatt, Assistant
to the President & special representative for international
negotiations, JNS, September 12, 2018.
…To defend itself Israel must
retain control over the Jordan valley…[A]ny future arrangement must include
Israeli control of the mountain ridge and a demilitarized Palestinian
state…[T]o defend itself Israel must control the airspace over the West Bank—Israel’s
Critical Security Needs for a Viable Peace, The Jerusalem Center
for Public Affairs, May 25, 2010.
…Arab officials say, Mr. Kushner
is pushing the idea of a confederation between Jordan and the Palestinian rump
of the West Bank. Far from new thinking, this recycles one of the oldest
mantras of Israeli irredentism: that the Palestinians already have a
state—Jordan.—David Gardner, “Trump’s ‘deal of the century’ offers nothing good to
Palestinians”, Financial Times, September 5, 2018.
In recent weeks, there has been a spate of media speculation
that the White House is soon to release details of the Trump administration’s
ultimate peace deal to end the century-long conflict between Jew and Arab over
control of the Holy Land.
Although almost no details have been revealed by official
sources, rumors abound as to some of its more important components—and others
have been inferred on the basis of some already implemented elements of Trump’s
Mid-East policy.
Some transformative measures
Since the start of his presidency, Donald Trump has
undertaken some bold, far reaching measures that have, in some significant
ways, potentially transformed the discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian impasse.
These have all been unequivocally favorable to Israel and considerably
undermine long-held Palestinians positions.
Thus, Trump has largely preempted the question of the status
of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital—albeit not its precise geographical extent.
Likewise, he exposed the enduring and egregious anomaly of the Palestinian
“refugee” ruse, terminating all US funding to UNRWA (United Nations Relief and
Works Agency(, the UN body charged with dealing with the Palestinian-Arab
refugees and their multi-generational descendants. This burgeoning population
has been held in political limbo for decades as stateless refugees until such
day as they can exercise their illusionary “Right of Return” and reoccupy their
now non-existent homes inside Israel, abandoned in 1948 and 1967.
As a direct derivative of the decision to defund UNRWA and
to dispute the refugee status of millions of Arabs of Palestinian
descent—resident in Arab countries for decades—there has been a flurry of
reports suggesting another ground-breaking US initiative. According to these
reports, the Trump administration is seriously considering engaging Arab
countries over the permanent resettlement of the Palestinian-Arabs living as
“refugees” within their borders, and their absorption as citizens of their host
nations.
If implemented, such an initiative—which this writer has
been promoting for almost a decade-and-a-half—would clearly take the “Right of
Return” off the table and remove one of the most intractable—arguably the most
intractable—issue from the agenda.
The question of durability
Although these are, of course, greatly welcome developments
from Israel’s point of view and were totally inconceivable under earlier
administrations—the previous one in particular—a word of caution is called for.
After all, just as such measures were unthinkable under the
Obama administration, there is no way to ensure their durability under a
post-Trump administration. Indeed, given the pathological animus toward the
president from his political adversaries on the one hand; and the growing
anti-Israel sentiment in the Democratic Party, on the other, there is good
reason for concern that if a Democratic president were to be elected, a
concerted effort would be made to undo anything perceived as a “Trump’s
legacy”—including, perhaps, especially—his Mid-East policy initiatives.
Thus, just as a presidential decision precipitated the US’s
exit from the Iran nuclear deal, the moving of the American embassy to
Jerusalem, the shuttering of the PLO office in Washington, the defunding of
UNRWA and emerging rejection of the “Right of Return,” so can any contrary
presidential decision reverse them—or at least largely neutralize them.
Moreover, the closer Israel is perceived to be to the Trump
administration, the harsher and more vindictive the backlash is liable to be,
should the Democrats regain the White House?—?particularly with the growing
erosion of bipartisanship over Israel.
The hazards of hubris
Of course, this caveat should not be interpreted as a call
for reticence in accepting the GOP’s warm embrace. Indeed, that would be both
detrimentally counterproductive and inappropriately ungrateful.
It should however, be seen as warning against complacency
and as a caution that more inclement times may well be ahead. For, at this
stage, little can be more hazardous than hubris.
It is essential that Israel now undertake a vigorous
initiative to cement these unexpected favorable developments and ensure that
they cannot be easily undone by future administrations.
This must be accomplished by a comprehensive strategic
endeavor, both at the diplomatic level, aimed at changing hearts and minds and
at the physical level, aimed at changing facts on the ground.
The diplomatic
component must be directed at undermining the Palestinian
claims to statehood west of the Jordan River—by discrediting and delegitimizing the “Palestinian narrative”.
The physical component must be directed at making the Jewish presence in
Judea-Samaria irrevocable—by launching a largescale construction drive to
increase the Jewish population beyond “the point of no return”.
Without such a strategic initiative, any welcome gains that
have accrued to Israel because of Trump’s largely unexpected—and certainly
unpredicted—electoral victory will remain potentially ephemeral—exposed and
vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the bile or the bias of some anti-Trump
successor in the White House.
Rumors cause for concern?
But the potential impermanence of the positive measures
already undertaken by the Trump team is not the only reason for Israeli concern
over the brewing “ultimate deal”. For the rumors swirling around the ongoing
contacts between US officials and various figures in the Arab world could also
well be cause for alarm.
These rumors relate to the eventual source of authority
envisioned for the governance of the territory beyond the 1967 lines in
Judea-Samaria and Gaza. Some rumors refer to giving Jordan (whether under the
current Hashemite regime or under some yet-to-be determined successor) a range
of civilian powers to govern the Arab residents there. Others raise the
possibility of likewise empowering a reformed and repentant Palestinian
Authority—with or without some affiliation to Jordan. Yet others relate to the
possibility of engaging “alternative Palestinians” as a more pliant alternative
to the recalcitrant Abbas, to manage the civilian affairs of the Arab residents
of Judea-Samaria.
All these suggested alternatives miss the most crucial point
for the future of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
This is that they all entail the permanent presence of a
large, potentially hostile Arab population, resident in territory vital to
Israel’s security-and nurtured on decades of Judeocidal incitement and exposed
to irredentist influences from the wider Arab/Muslim world. It therefore
makes little difference what/who the envisaged source of formal authority is
over this population, since its continued presence in the commanding highlands
adjacent to Israel’s most populous area will render any “deal” –ultimate or
otherwise?—?inherently unstable and potentially perilous for Israel.
Accordingly, if all the steps taken hitherto by the Trump
administration do not converge towards synthesis of a single, unequivocal
outcome, they will—despite all their positive features—eventually be of
little—if any—avail. At least if the goal is for Israel to endure permanently
as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
The autonomy paradox?
As I have been at pains to underscore repeatedly in the
past, for Israel to indeed endure as the nation state of the Jews, it must
extend its sovereignty over all the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and
the Jordan River—including the highlands that protect Israel from
invasion/infiltration from the East, and ensure the security of its coastal
megalopolis in the West. But Israel’s sovereignty over this territory
is incompatible with providing authority to any other party that does not
acknowledge the legitimacy of that sovereignty.
This is something that the rumored formats of Trump’s
“ultimate deal” seem to overlook. After all, the only reason to suggest allowing
Arab governance (whether Jordanian or Palestinian) over the Arab population in
Judea-Samaria is that they reject the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty.
Indeed, this highlights the underlying contradiction in any
attempt to confer “autonomy” (i.e. limited authority) on any Arab entity under
Israeli sovereignty (i.e. unlimited authority) in the context of the conflict
between Jew and Arab. For any “autonomous” arrangement to be inherently stable,
it is essential that the autonomous entity acknowledge and accept the
legitimacy of the sovereign entity (Israel). But this is precisely the reverse
of the underlying rationale of all the proposals to grant some Arab entity
limited authority to govern the Arab population in Judea-Samaria.
Here, such authority is being granted precisely because the
legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty is rejected and hence, every
limitation imposed on the authority of the Arab entity will be resented, and
rejected—creating endless potential for friction.
The sovereignty imperative
This will be particularly acute at the interface between
areas under full Jewish sovereignty and those under Arab autonomy and in
contending with cross-border issues, such as pollution (particularly the
carcinogenic emissions of the wide spread charcoal industry), sewage, pollution
from industrial effluents, agricultural run-offs, treatment of transmissible
diseases, compulsory inoculation of livestock and rabies and so on Who would be
charged with setting standards for dealing with these matters and for enforcing
those standards? Israel or the Arab entity? If the Arab entity, how would
Israel protect its citizens from the resultant hazards if those standards were
not enforced? If Israel, what would remain of the authority of the Arab entity,
which would be virtually emptied of all substance?
Similar questions could be raised for almost every walk of
life. Would Israel impose standards of road safety for vehicles on its roads?
If not, what would the consequences be? Would Israel determine the content of
education to prevent continued incitement? If so, how would this erode the
authority of the Arab entity? If not, how would Israel contain the consequences
of such incitement?
These questions are thrown into even sharper relief when it
comes to matters of law and order and security. If, for example, Jordan were
given authority to run civilian affairs in Arab populated areas, what would
happen in case of insurrection and Israel were compelled to use force to quell
the violence? Could Jordan accept the use of force against those in its charge?
How would it justify inaction to the rest of Arab world?
Worse, what if an assumedly amicable regime were given
administrative status west of the Jordan River and, for reasons beyond Israel’s
control, it was replaced by a far less amicable one? Would Israel continue to
grant powers of governance to an inimical entity?
These are merely a sampling of the myriad of unavoidable and
intractable questions with which the architects of the “ultimate deal” will
have to contend—and whose significance and severity the Israeli leadership will
have to convey to its American counterparts—lest ill-considered and
irreversible decisions are made.
In the final analysis
In the final analysis, there is only one “ultimate deal”
that can ensure Israel’s long-term survival as the nation-state of the Jewish
people. This requires Israel extending its sovereignty over the entire
territory—from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.
The only way Israel can do this, without being compelled to
rule over a recalcitrant non-Jewish population, which rejects the legitimacy of
its sovereignty, is to remove that population from the territory over which it
must exert sovereign rule.
The only way it can do this without engaging in forced
expulsion, is by material inducements?—?a.k.a. incentivized emigration.
So simple. So logical. So incontrovertible! The real
conundrum is why others don’t embrace it as the “ultimate deal”.
__________________________
Israel is Jewish, That’s
My Ultimate Deal
John R. Houk
© September 23, 2018
______________________
INTO THE FRAY The rumored
“ultimate deal”: Potential payoffs and possible pitfalls.
