“Israel’s Strangest self-defeating paradox: Forgetting to teach itself and the world Jewish National Rights in Palestine.” [Dr. Yoram Shifftan, 2004]
“Trump’s Ultimate Plan” or “The Deal of the Century”, as well meaning as it is, may well prove to be a coffin in a series of errors.
As referenced, Dr. Shifftan wrote the subject piece 14 years ago and in reference to today’s politics, he no doubt would not have changed a word. Perhaps, even more to the point, it preceded Sharon’s disengagement from that quagmire, which is Gaza. It was a scholarly appeal by Shifftan to the then Attorney-General , Menachem Mazuz to intercede and annul the proposed actions of Sharon.
Shifftan’s paper is essentially a treatise on international law, commencing with Jewish national rights in Palestine according to the League of Nations Mandate and International law. He points out how the League of Nations agreed to the Mandatory’s [His Britannic Majesty] request “to postpone or withhold” the full application of the Mandate in Transjordan [Jordan of today]. “The Jews were very unhappy that 80% of Palestine was temporarily withdrawn from the Jewish National Home.” In this, he is suggestive of a Jewish attitude of yesteryear being more assertive of time down the years; and British betrayal since “temporarily withdrawn” was “forgotten.”
He quotes from the Mandate of the League of Nations: “Recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country”. Noting that international law forbids the transfer of any part of the land of Palestine out of Jewish control; and how contrary to this fact, [recent] Israeli governments initiated themselves plans such as “Oslo”, the “road map”, “the evacuation of Gaza and North Shomron euphemistically called disengagement” all of which are antithetical to the dictates of international law.
Shifftan draws attention to all pre-Oslo Israeli governments [including Labor] and previous American administrations who were strongly committed against the notion 0f ANOTHER Arab Palestinian state in Palestine contrary to the many assertions of the Arabs and the “Palestinians” themselves. A further observation of his is that an Israel which is unilaterally concessionary and appeasing exampled by Barak’s concessions, and actively conceals its rights according to international law, has produced results that worsened Israel’s position.
Dr. Shifftan’s thinking is therefore not unreasonable to assume that undue foreign interests and influence (and money), and possibly also wishful thinking and psychological warfare, or fatigue, senility and old age, are contributing factors to the passivity, retreat and lack of assertion in all fronts, of Israeli governments since the beginning of Oslo, and therefore it is incumbent upon Israel’s legal system to look into the possibility that alien interests are involved.
Of course, there is also the views of the well known psychiatrist, Dr. Kenneth Levin to consider. Essentially, they fall under the topic of his “The Psychology of Populations Under Chronic Siege” published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs” on July 2, 2006. He explains that the paradigm on the level of individual psychology, is the psychodynamics of abused children, who almost invariably blame themselves for their predicament ; ascribe it to their being “bad”, and nurture fantasies that by becoming “good”, they can mollify their abusers and end their torment. He points to the following examples:
[a] The rhetoric of The Israeli Peace Movement, quoting the essayist Aharon Megged’s 1994 observation, “We have witnessed —-an emotional and moral identification by the majority of Israel’s intelligentsia , and its print and electronic media with people committed to our annihilation.”
[b] Oslo: Embracing the Perspectives of Israel’s Enemies, while not comprehending Arafat’s 1974 “Phase Plan” whereby his intention was to use Oslo to gain whatever territory could be gained through negotiations and using that land as a base from which to pursue Israel’s destruction.
[c] Jewish self-hatred in blaming Zionism for Arab riots.
[d] The Jewish revisionist historians ; re-writing the past of Israel and Zionism.
[e] Jewish self-hatred.
[f] Misplaced trust in the enemies.
An early opposing voice to sufferance of the psyche of the abused as discussed by Levin is presented hereunder :
Dr Yaacov Herzog was a gifted diplomat, rabbi and erudite scholar, a shining star in Israel’s leadership. He served as a close advisor to 4 Israeli prime ministers , and was Israel’s minister to the US, ambassador to Canada and director-general of Prime Minister Eshkol’s office. He became best known for his public debate with the renowned British historian in 1961,who had described the Jews as a “fossilized ” nation and had compared Israel’s military actions against the Palestinians with Nazi atrocities against Jews. It was a debate which deeply impacts the Subject at hand and is fully accounted for in his book, “A People, hat dwells alone.”
Herzog: The Resolution [UN 1948] talks of the return of refugees as soon as practicable and it also talks of those refugees who wish to live in peace. This resolution has been dead since 1948. It died because the Arabs have never announced that they will live in peace with Israel.—-There is no social problem because they [Arab refugees] are living among their people. The Arab living today in Transjordan is not a Pole living in Britain. He is living in his own surroundings, in an environment of rising Arab nationalism, religious, cultural identity of background and psychology.
The problem will never be solved until the Arab governments are prepared to cooperate in a humanitarian solution.—-do you have any other case or precedent of holding hundreds of thousands of people as political hostages in camps – so they can be ready as a political pawn for some ultimate program to exterminate Israel, God forbid. Is that a moral approach? ——-
In Israel now there are 10% of Arabs [200,000]. They enjoy every right with their fellow-citizens. But you want us to take back people who have been nurtured on hate for 13 years on the basis of a Resolution of 1948 talking of those wishing to live in peace. But these have been nurtured on hate, vengeance and destruction; and, if we take them back they can rip us apart. Take them out of a totally Arab environment where they live , where they can create economically , socially and religiously and bring them in to be a minority in the Jewish state – this will help the problem of the Middle East?———-
Only last month, Professor Toynbee, a representative of the Arab refugees appeared at the United Nations. What did he speak about? The destruction of Israel, the extermination of Israel.——–Now to take them back after 13 years, after he says plainly he wants to destroy us. Why not, indeed! Shall we let them come in and rip us apart? Please commit suicide so that the Arab armies won’t have to overwhelm you from without. That, Sir, I think, in the scan of history, you will find no nation prepared to do, and since you said earlier that in certain respects, we belong to the category of all other nations in our behavior, in this respect, too, we will not commit suicide.”
A.M. Rosenthal, a Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign correspondent, who became the Executive Editor of the New York Times in 1977, led the paper’s global news operation through 17 years of record growth, modernization and major journalistic change. On December 20, 1988, he penned, “On My Mind; the anointing of Arafat.”It represents yet another exercise in denial.
From a Kuwaiti newspaper report, Rosenthal informs us that after the American recognition, Abu Iyad, Mr. Arafat’s deputy said that the establishment of a Palestinian state on part of Palestinian land would be a stage toward a Palestinian state on all of it.
“It is just beginning. The pressure will now increase for Israel to risk its very existence. The purpose will be to force Israelis to agree to the creation of a new country that would have a deep political, religious and national drive to expand over the years into all of Israel.” Sounds like today!
Rosenthal continues by pointing out that few countries have been asked to do this – rid nationhood by carving out a piece of territory and handing it to an enemy without a fight. He studiously informs us that not many nations return from the graveyard of surrender and mentions the situation in 1938 Czechoslovakia.
He reminds of the fiasco of how Arafat was suddenly “anointed” after 13 years of American refusal to do so. Apparently, the decision to legitimize him arose after he read aloud an American-prepared statement which differed little from what he had said prior to recognizing Israel and denouncing terrorism.
Rosenthal then debates the pros and cons of what was proposed asking vital questions. He includes the acceptance by the usual cast of characters – the American Jewish leftists. His final words; “The only question at a ‘peace conference’ now would be how much the PLO gets, how fast. Then, how long before Israel became a vulnerable sliver – 10 years, 20?
Israel will not commit suicide. It is reasonable to hope that the new President of the United States will decide that that it is immoral for one country to suggest that any other nation do so.”
In a Times of Israel November 19, 2015 report by Josef Federman, “Abbas admits he rejected 2008 peace offer from Olmert.” One has to wonder whether Donald Trump’s lackeys, Jason Greenblatt and Jared Kushner have studied the reasons given for non-acceptance of what was then universally considered a generous offer. By March 3, 2018, Aaron Klein was reporting in Breitbert, “12 Points the Palestinians claim are inside Trump’s Mideast Peace Plan” as learned from Saeb Erekat.
He stated that while the Trump administration has kept its forthcoming proposal for an Israeli-Palestinian deal tightly guarded, a policy paper made public by a top PLO official claims to reveal the contents of the US deal framework. Also, he did not write how he allegedly obtained the purported draft US plan. Further, he said, “We must not wait until the outlines and content of this liquidation plan are announced.” The 12 main points he claims are as follows:
 Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
 A Palestinian capital in the peripheral suburbs of Jerusalem.
 Israeli annexation of a small portion of the West Bank. Erekat claims that the White House is proposing 10% of the strategic territory he annexed by Israel, while Erekat writes that PM Benjamin Netanyahu wants 15%, including some major settlement blocks. The supposed annexation would take place after a period of 3 months.
 The contours of a Palestinian state would be established.
 Territory would be gradually handed over to full Palestinian control.
 The world would recognize Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people, and the newly formed Palestinian state would be recognized as the homeland for Palestinians.
 Israel would guarantee freedom of worship at all religious holy sites.
 The PA would be allocated sections for use at the Ashdod and Haifa pots and at Ben Gurion International Airport, while Israel would retain security responsibility.
 Israel would retain overriding security control at international border crossings, but the Palestinians would be granted a presence.
 Israel would control territorial waters, airspace and electronic waves, but would ensure Palestinian needs are met.
 A safe passageway under Israeli sovereignty would be created to ensure continuity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
 A solution for Palestinian “refugees” for settlement in a future Palestinian state.
Yet another March 3, 2018 report by Khaled Abu Toameh in Times of Israel, “Top Palestinian official Claims Trump Peace Plan spells ‘liquidation, apartheid'” is indicative of a confirmation of Aaron Klein’s Op-Ed. The additions – A senior Trump administration official told the Times of Israel: ‘There is constant speculation and guessing about what we are working on ‘and ‘White House spokesman Josh Raffel accused those behind the newspaper report, which cited Arab diplomatic sources, of trying to sway critics against the administration.’
The Middle East Eye of May 31, 2018 published, “Palestinians have seen Trump’s ‘Deal of the Century and want Nothing of it.”The given report is rather extensive and complete with a map.”Trump and Netanyahu are planning to terminate the Palestinian cause by removing Jerusalem from any solution, annexing major settlements and finding a capital for us on the outskirts of Jerusalem”, says Saeb Erekat Chief Palestinian negotiator. Ali Jarbawi, political science professor is quoted as stating, “The Americans are planning to have a regional peace deal, and they don’t care if the Palestinians are in or out.”
According to the Guardian of September 5, 2018, “The US has no plan for Middle East peace” as stated by Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat. . He said the US was trying to change terms of reference: “I don’t think they will ever introduce a plan.” Apparently “the ultimate deal” somewhat faded with the US President’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the moved the US embassy there.
The “Palestinians” want to establish a state in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel captured those territories in the 1967 Middle East war and annexed East Jerusalem in a move not recognized internationally. It regards all of the city as its eternal and indivisible capital. Erekat said, “The only thing this US] administration did since it came to office is just to take Israelis and Palestinians off the path of the two-state solution.”
“US Envoy: Neither side will like everything in peace plan” is the title of Arutz 7’s November 10,2018 editorial and references Jason Greenblatt’s illuminating remark. Moral relativism will most certainly not generate anything of consequence. But then, Jason Greenblatt ,who is considered to be the architect of the “initiative” and referred to as Special Envoy is no intellectual-historian Victor Davis Hanson and Jared Kushner referred to as Senior Advisor is no Islamic historian David-Pryce Jones.