Faiglin plan: Israel would rule territories forever

[tinnypriv]

Faiglin plan: Israel would rule territories forever
* Likud hawks, encouraged by referendum victory, launch campaign to win party leadership *
Ma'ariv, 5 May 2004

"The Arabs will kiss us on the hands and the world will say thanks" - quote appears in the Hebrew sub-heading.


Members of the Likud’s “department for Jewish leadership” headed by Moshe Faiglin have launched a campaign to take over the party’s leadership. With the slogan “Sharon has no God! The people of Israel have a God!”, the group has introduced an alternative political plan to that of the prime minister’s.

Encouraged by the Likud referendum result, the group's plan calls for an extension of Israel’s sovereignty over all the territories of Israel including Gaza, Judea and Samaria. Palestinians on the West Bank would be given a permanent residence status. Involvement or support of terrorism would result in deportation.

Department members believe the plan would be well accepted by the international community. “After a ritual of condemnations and sanctions, the world will thank us for finally solving the basic crisis, that even in its standards has reached intolerable heights”.

...

One of its leaders, Moshe Karpel, is not hiding his leadership aspirations. “Israeli society is changing, the members of the kibbutzim and moshavim that courageously brought the country to where it’s at, have ended their duty. They are making room to a new leadership”, he said.

...

http://www.maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=6956
http://www.maariv.co.il/channels/1/ART/704/461.html (Hebrew)

[papau]

1. A single state solution -and Palestinians get green card - who can object?

:-)

[tinnypriv]

2. Well

The same paper ran an article on these guys a while back, noting how they justify transfer according to Jewish law, wear T-Shirts saying "I Buy From Jews Only" (I have a picture of that shirt from a friend in Israel) and hate Sharon for being moderate.¹

So I would take whatever these maniacs say with a grain of salt - their idea of "supporting terrorism" is likely to include being an Arab, and they have no problem with Jewish terrorism.

By the way, when I say "maniacs", that doesn't mean to suggest that they are particularly extreme within the core of Likud. For example, when Uzi Cohen presented his "map of transfer" on stage at the last Likud conference, there were "favourable reactions", according to the press.²

Some commentators were so disgusted at this they even said that contrary to the past (when some in Likud refused to join the Shamir government because of the presence of Moledet - "Homeland"), quote:

"Today transfer is a banner to be carried with pride in Likud" ³

I think that is roughly accurate - ethnic cleansing is viewed with pride by significant segments of the people now running Israel, and I think we ignore those trends at our peril.


-----

1. Shalom Yerushalmi, 'Alternative Likud', Ma'ariv, 28 Nov 2003.
2. Ma'ariv, 6 Jan 2004.
3. Nadav Eyal, 'No connection to reality', Ma'ariv, 5 Jan 2004.

[papau]

3. Sharon survived the vote - but I suspect new elections coming soon

The US will not agree to the cut-back in the removal of settlements from Gaza -

I suspect that the Quartet will restate the road map to note that their can be only a limited right of return - and that the border adjustment language does not mean taking 50% of the West bank. But we have wasted 4 years under Bush.

Unfortunately the pride card may be played by either side.

My relatives from the area have no problem with acting on 75 year old hates - and Iraq under Bush has added to the usual Israel is evil so as to allow for a real breakdown if not taken care of by Kerry first thing 2005, and Israeli reaction to an Arab pride forever decision will indeed be the "transfer" and green carding concept.

Amazing how much is riding on the Nov 04 election.

[tinnypriv]

4. Kerry

I fail to see a whole lot of difference between Kerry and Bush with regards to policy vis a vis Israel, given policy statements, platforms, advisors, etc.

Maybe a little less extreme, but that is about the same as preferring Sharon to "the barbarians" who oppose him.

[Gimel]

5. Another Plan

This is yet another format to express discontent, and not a serious plane. No question there is a need for new leadership, and many from extreme to moderate will try for that slot.

Transfer of Jewish families is "OK" and not only that it is being forced, so it is hardly surprising that there is a backlash.

I think the vote in the government itself will over-ride the Likud rejection of the Sharon Disengagement Plan. It will eventually be adopted in some form.

Arafat had a chance to agree on a more favorable plan he turned it down. Following that, the Palestinians began an uprising. That lead to Arafat's confinement in the Muqata, his Gaza residence and helicopters destroyed. So if he did not call an uprising, it happened under his leadership.

[tinnypriv]

6. "transfer" of Jews

About the only people I see using that phrase are invited op-eds in Ma'ariv from total maniacs, and letters from the "Jewish Leadership" on the cotvim page - usually from the most extreme settlements in existence.

[The Magistrate]

7. It Is An Argument That Can Be Expected, Though, Sir

Certainly any solution will involve liquidation of Israeli settlements, and the movement of their inhabitants back into Israel. As a principal mode of argument in this matter is to point out that the other side does, or insists on, the very things it accuses its opponent of, charges that an Arab Palestinian state demands the expulsion of Jews are sure to be raised.

My view is not that such charges are meaningless, for the uprooting of any people from their homes, and the barring of any people from a country, cannot be things good in themselves, but that the possible gain of a settled peace through incorporation of these measures is sufficiently great to outweigh such concerns. Life is, after all, largely an exercise in doing evil in hope that good might come from it.

[tinnypriv]

8. Actually

The Palestinian position is not that there should be explusion of Jews, but that Palestinian sovereignty should be extended over the settlements.

That is only a slight difference, considering that the PA/PLO know that 99.9% of the settlers would prefer to leave rather than be under Palestinian sovereignty, but it is a difference neveththeless.

Certainly the two positions (PA-Israel) are not comparable - try and find movements as closely connected with the leadership of the PA calling for "transfer" as there are on the Israeli side. And of course, the PA isn't establishing settlements in the heart of Israel, shooting any Jew who comes near, demolishing everything around them in ever expanding concentric circles etc.

As for the "barring of any people from a country", again, the official PA position is that after a peace agreement, there should be "free and open borders".

Whether this a majority position in the Palestinian population is hard to tell - certainly it looks it, given comments in the Israeli media, public opinion polls, etc (though it -understandably- does fluctuate relative to the current level of repression and violence).

[The Magistrate]

9. As A Practical Fact, Though, My Friend

Should there actually be an Arab Palestinian state, the settlers will have to leave. Their safety, to put it mildly, could not be guaranteed, and in event of attacks against them, Israel could hardly be expected to stand by and allow pogrom against Jews within sight of its borders. Thus, their continued presence would certainly act to re-instate the situation as it exists now, with periodic invasion and occupation of Arab Palestine by israeli military forces.

[tinnypriv]

12. I agree

The difference of course is that you are analysing this in terms of how to resolve the situation practically (as am I), and the proponents of this talking point couldn't care less.

In fact, this "transfer of Jews" term was literally invented to serve the purpose of defending the settlements and their continued expansion into Palestine (perhaps further, if you take the statements of Manhigut Yehudit seriously, as we should).¹

-----

1. Their pamphlets call for a Jewish state from the "Eurphrates to the Nile".

[Violet_Crumble]

16. I disagree with that....

Their safety, to put it mildly, could not be guaranteed, and in event of attacks against them, Israel could hardly be expected to stand by and allow pogrom against Jews within sight of its borders.

Saying that there'd be progroms against Jews makes it sound like you think the Palestinians wouldn't be bent on revenge because the settlers are the people whose presence has caused so much misery and oppression for them, but because they're anti-Semites. Sorry, but that's wrong. It wouldn't matter if the settlers were Eskimos, Hindus, Americans or whatever. Any people who stole land from the people who have been there for generations and brought a hostile military to protect them, while in some cases taking up arms and murdering Palestinians would get the same treatment doled out to them....

btw, I find it totally ridiculous that the term transfer (which is after all a euphemism for ethnic cleansing) would be applied by some folk to the dismantling of illegal settlements and the relocation of the settlers to Israel. Mind you, I've seen people trying to claim that it would be genocidal to dismantle the settlements, which is an even more ridiculous claim than that of transfer....

Violet...

[Jack Rabbit]

17. I don't think that's what my colleague meant

I do not believe The Magistrate specified any reason for the Palestinian hostility to settlers.

Some Palestinians are anti-Semitic. They don't need a reason to attack Jews.

Others have been victims of settler violence with too often goes unpunished. Many of these people will seek revenge and take matters into their own hands. They won't necessarily seek out specific wrongdoers. For many, a settler is a settler is a settler.

In short, we must not make any assumption that Israeli settlers will be safe if they remain in Palestine after a peace accord is reached. For whatever reason, the settlers will not be welcome to remain. It would be wise to remove them from harm's way.

[The Magistrate]

18. Thank You, Sir

Pogrom may have been the wrong word, though it would certainly be the word used in Israel to describe any pattern of attacks against Jewish settlers remaining a state of Arab Palestine. My own view is that such attacks would be motivated by a mixture of motives, the most prominent of which would be a desire for revenge, collectively applied in the clan tradition, and that motive would be a most understandable one, given the past acts of many settlers. By now, of course, there will certainly be, on both sides, a good deal of unreasoning bigotry felt toward the other: war has a way of bringing out and reinforcing such feelings in people.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. It was the wrong word...

No maybes about it. As we all know that Israel tries to label criticism of its policy in the Occupied Territories as anti-Semitism, it stands to reason they'd also call any future attacks on settlers if a Palestinian state were ever to come into being pogroms. That doesn't mean that we should start using those terms just because that's what's said in Israel. As you believe that the most prominent motive would be a desire for revenge (which I agree with), then wouldn't it have been more accurate to say: 'Israel could hardly be expected to stand by and allow revenge against settlers within sight of its borders.'? I'm also wondering why if you believe people would attack the settlers not because they're settlers, but because they're Jewish, why have Jews like Amira Haas, Uri Avnery (who's spent time in the Occupied Territories), and the Samaritans (who are recognised as Jewish under Israel's law of return)remained unscathed?

Violet...

[Classical_Liberal]

14. Let the settlers stay, as long as they agree to be resident

aliens or citizens, but the territories should be Palestinian.

[Gimel]

10. Politics aside

forced relocation is forced relocation. If you call it "transfer" for Arabs, then it must be "transfer" for the Jews as well. As for open borders, why didn't they say that from the beginning? No, they forced closed borders on Palestine, the hunted Jews as they started arriving in numbers. I don't believe it now. Or for the future.

[tinnypriv]

11. As I said

It's a talking point:

Fantasies about it being preferable to transfer Jews rather than do the same to Arabs (it's "forbidden" in the latter case): http://images.maariv.co.il/cache/cachearchive/26022004/ART656183.html (Rachel from Ofra)

The transfer of Jews will set a "precedent" for the transfer of Jews from the Land of Israel - http://images.maariv.co.il/cache/cachearchive/02052004/ART701231.html (Avi Greenstein, Tel-Aviv)

This is repeated so often as to be a joke, and usually the people saying it are in favor of transfer of Arabs.

As for "forced relocation", you seem to have no problem with "forced location", so you can hardly be a rational commentator on the point. If you were, I'd conceed that perhaps the charge of parity has some slight merit.

[Gimel]

13. I prefer to speak my views

not in line with any political party. As it is, "talking points" change from week to week. I am more with an individual humanistic viewpoint.

Here's a good read, by the way:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/424210.html

It is quite clearly objective.

[Mattforclark]

15. Why don't they make a plan to stop killing people?

Wouldn't that be easier?