|
Tsvi Misinai
May 18, 2002
Table of Contents:
Abstract
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict represents two contradicting
stands in the struggle for the Land of Israel, where each
side has its own rights and justifications. This situation
hurts the residents of the area and creates a major confusion
for them and for the rest of the world. Of late, world
terrorism partially justifies its horrible acts with the
existence of the conflict and as such, increases the severity
of the problem.
Israel’s stand regarding the Palestinian dilemma
has always been defensive, except for the issue of handling
terror. With the legitimization of the terrorists in
the auspices of the Oslo agreements and the continued
support of Arafat by the European community even now,
the objection to terrorism is not as effective as in
the past.
The peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians
in Camp David failed as a result of the Palestinians
raising the issue of the Right of Return. This right
stems from the historical rights of the Palestinian
refugees. In light of the Palestinians basing their
rights on history, Israel must properly answer in this
direction as well. Israel must deviate from its conventional
way of thinking and use an old-new premise regarding
the just solution to the problem. It must use argumentation
which stems from a proper vision of the historical facts
as will be explained further on, and deploy effective
public relations campaign regarding the problem. In
conjunction with smart military activities, this approach
could extricate Israel and the Palestinians from the
current complex situation as well as from the dispute
entirely.
The basis for this premise is the perception of the
historical facts in the Land of Israel over the last
two thousand years, which were raised firstly by David
Ben Gurion and Yitzchak Ben Zvi, which as of today it
is accepted to ignore their existence. This perception
will present the history in a very different light than
currently accepted, with strong implications for the
present and future.
The current historical perspective assumes that the
Jews who remained in the Land of Israel after the destruction
of the Second Temple, were driven out of the country
in several circumstances through the generations, and
in that way enabled the Palestinians to become the majority
in the country until the establishment of the State
of Israel. However, this perspective is incorrect. An
absolute majority of the Palestinians in the Land are
descendants of the nation of Israel who over the years
remained faithful to the Land, but were forced to convert
their religion and over the years became the bitterest
enemy of the Jews.
The above old-new perspective received serious backing
by two genetic research studies that were recently published
and which show that Jews are very close genetically
to the Palestinians, much more than to Arabs and other
nations.
The implications of this correct historical perspective
can go very far regarding the future of the region.
First and foremost, it must be used to reduce the hatred
by showing the blood connection. In addition, it shall
be used to show that Jews, and not Arabs, have the right
to the country.
However, most importantly – even if it requires
tremendous change in today’s accepted way of thinking,
it would be a grave mistake to avoid the historic truth
when dealing with the dispute and its solution. This
is especially so when the Palestinians present historical
rights as a stumbling block to the solution of the dispute
and when for so many years no one has succeeded in suggesting
a solution acceptable to both sides. All that has been
agreed upon, following major efforts of many talented
people, was the path towards worsening the dispute with
potential serious implications for regional and world
peace.
Highlights of the findings
and conclusions
Following is a brief summary for the benefit of those
readers that cannot dedicate the time to read the entire
paper, or would like to know more of what it is about
before investing the time in reading it in full.
Facts:
1. The Palestinians, by raising the issue of the Right
of Return, dragged the negotiations and attention to
historical issues.
2. When we look on the past – the vast majority
of the Palestinians in the Land of Israel (about 2/3)
are descendants of Jews that were forced to convert.
3. This is being supported by evidences from multiple
directions: Historical-Behavioral, Historical-Geographic,
Genetic, Customs and National-Geographic.
4. The Arab settlers to the Land of Israel in the period
1831-1948 are the settlers that really prevent a solution.
They are the main party behind terror and extreme Islam.
5. Yasser Arafat, the leader of Palestinian terror,
is himself an Arab settler, falsely calling himself
a Palestinian.
6. The Palestinian refugees are almost exclusively composed
of these settlers and their descendants.
7. The Arabs as well as other imperialists, and not
the Jews, are the real occupiers and oppressors in the
Land of Israel. Today this oppression continues through
terror.
8. In the 1948 war the Arabs invaded the land of Israel
with the intent to throw the Jews to the sea.
9. In 1948 the Arab countries called the Palestinians
to flee from the areas where hostilities took place.
10. As a result of the war an exchange of population
took place.
11. There were more Jewish refugees from Arab countries
than Arab refugees.
12. The property lost by Arab refugees is by far less
then by these Jewish refugees.
13. The suffering of the Arab refugees is continuing
only because the Arabs want to perpetuate the problem
and use it against Israel, including as a tool to eliminate
Jewish majority in Israel.
14. UN resolution 194 was issued before Jews were expelled
form Arab countries.
15. The UN resolution, that is not a binding one, was
anyhow replaced by Security Council resolutions 242
and 338 that are binding and also relate to the refugees
issue.
16. Islam, according to the Koran, recognizes the rights
of the people of Israel on the land of Israel, and their
right of return to the country.
Conclusions:
17. The aggressors of 1948 have no right to ask for
the reversal of the results of their aggression.
18. The only Right of Return to the Palestinian refugees
is to return to their original countries or, for a very
small minority - to their original people (the Jews).
19. Any financial compensation to refugees shall be
higher to Jews from Arab countries than to Arab refugees.
20. For the sake of solving the conflict, the Palestinians
have to select between historical justice and practical
justice.
21. The practical justice demands negotiations by honest
Palestinians without raising the issue of Right of Return.
22. The historical justice requires the Palestinians
in the land of Israel not to kill and commit suicide
but to rejoin their original Jewish nation.
23. The Palestinians have no right to hate Israel and
use aggression and terror that happen to be the source
of their troubles.
24. Neither any Israeli nor anybody else has the right
to compromise with terror, let alone support it.
25. A Palestinian state at this period will be a major
risk to the security of Israel and of Jordan, as well
as to the stability of the region. It may further prevent
a future comprehensive and just solution.
Part I - Introduction
The Problem
The main problem that stands in the way of achieving
peace and security in the Land of Israel is the feelings
of discrimination, self-pity and hatred of the Palestinians
towards Israel. The problem becomes more severe when
coupled with the loss of faith in the rightfulness of
the Zionist path and the demonstrations of weakness
on the part of some of the Israelis. This explosive
combination of realities on both sides encourages the
leaders of the Palestinian terror and their supporters
to believe in their ability to control, sooner or later
all the areas of the Land of Israel. As a result, any
chance of arriving at a lasting peace between the two
sides is prevented.
The Palestinians’ feelings of discrimination
are supported by a large part of the world, and the
hatred – by a large part of the Arab world. Even
among the Israeli Jewish citizens there are many who
support these feelings of discrimination and few who
even have become haters of their own nation. This wide
support for the Palestinian as a result of their suffering
reached a level that enables the Palestinians to use
aggression and horrible terror, while violating agreements
and implementing acts of deceit, in order to achieve
their goals and hurt Israel and its inhabitants.
As a result of the above, no solution in currently
seen to the worsening dispute. Any peace conference
planned will anyhow lead to a deadlock due to the lack
of agreement on the issue of an immediate establishment
of a Palestinian state. However, such a conference,
even if successfully started, will be interrupted and
aborted by a new horrible wave of Palestinian terror
aimed at pressing the Israelis for concessions.
The Israeli-Palestinian dispute, that represents two
conflicting stands for the control over the Land of
Israel, where each side believes in his justice, hurts
the inhabitants of the area and confuses the entire
world for so many years. The confusion, – while
it is clear to the Israelis that they cannot ignore
the Palestinian rights on one hand, and while on the
other hand the consequences of the dispute remain in
the constant limelight – causes a portion of the
Israelis to lose faith in the rightfulness of the Zionist
path. This in turn causes Israeli weakness, which expresses
itself first and foremost in internal strife, in a lack
of clear goals, and in defective public relations.
From a weak standpoint when the sole desire of Israel
is to have its neighbors leave them in peace, the previous
Prime Minister of Israel got to the point where he was
willing to endanger Israel’s existence, during
the negotiations at Camp David, in order to achieve
such peace. However, it is quite clear today, that even
with the price of tremendous concessions on Israel’s
side, which are totally unacceptable by most of the
Jews, no solution was forthcoming.
As was made clear to the entire world, even if the
problem of Jerusalem was solved, the issue of the Right
of Return is an impassible block on the way to peace.
This issue and the obstinacy regarding its use as a
spring board in order to create a Palestinian majority
in the State of Israel, proves that first and foremost
the Palestinians and their terrorist leaders have not
come to terms with the existence of a Jewish State in
the Land of Israel. In such a realm there is no viable
solution to the dispute in its entirety in the foreseeable
future.
To the above we must add the problem of the Jordan
Valley. Considering the recent behavior of the Palestinians,
only at the record of stupidity could Israel consider
turning it over to them, while they have already gotten
used to the idea that Israel has conceded this land.
The total control of the terrorists over the Palestinians
coupled with the recognition of the suffering of the
Palestinians and the need to solve it, caused Israel
with the support of the majority of the world to give
the Palestinian terrorists a reward for their terror
in the form of the Oslo Agreements. The minute the world
came to terms with the terror and made it worthwhile,
the world received a new generation of Arab terror that
has reached its current peak in the September 11th destruction
in New York. At the moment, it appears that the acceptance
of Hitler’s terror that catalyzed the outbreak
of WWII has repeated itself with the outbreak of world
war against terror and hosting countries. This time
terror has succeeded in reaching the heart of America.
The Path to the Solution
The primary and most immediate question to be asked
is how do we get out of the current situation? The broader
question is how do we defuse the complicated problem
in the Land of Israel?
If we take a look at the history of the Palestinian
– Israeli relationships since 1967, we can see
a pattern. After the Six Day War came the first period
when Moshe Dayan attempted to establish a sensible Palestinian
leadership. The effort was unsuccessful because of the
threats to the life of such leaders by the Palestinian
Liberation Organization (PLO). In this way Israel suffered
its first failure in its first approach to the problem.
Since then, Israel has fought against the PLO and has
caused them serious damage. However, the Palestinian
masses were ignored throughout this long period and
the first Intifada broke out. It placed Israel’s
achievements against the terror in a shadow of the threats
of the extreme Hamas becoming the leading power within
the Palestinians. This was a failure in the second approach
of Israel to the problem.
The result was the necromancy of the PLO and the signing
of the Oslo Agreements. This third approach failed as
well, as was seen more recently.
At this state of affairs many different parties are
suggesting solutions to the problem which rightfully
so are not convincing to the other parties. The simple
minded approaches of the past – continuing the
Oslo process and establishing a Palestinian state, ongoing
war against terror, or unilateral withdrawal by Israel,
all ignore the complexity of the problem. Hence these
should not be simply repeated since they have already
been proven ineffective.
Another possibility to get out of this situation is
by means of a world-encompassing event – a worse
conflict in some other place or a horrible natural disaster,
which will attract the attention of the world. However,
we have already been in that scenario more than once:
The problems in Yugoslavia bought some relative silence
to the Middle East, until they were reduced, and the
attention returned to the Middle East.
The Gulf War shocked the world and ended the first
Intifada, but as a result we got the Oslo Agreements
and today’s dreadful stalemate, which is worse
than the conditions before Oslo.
The attack on the Twin Towers only intensified the
problem. On one hand, Israel did not remain alone in
the war against terrorism, but on the other hand, in
order to garner the support of the moderate Arabs, the
US, let alone Europe, pressure Israel to grant concessions
and expose itself to terror again, which when aimed
at Israel, becomes legitimate in the eyes of many.
The conclusion arrived at from this difficult situation,
is that we cannot wait for another major worldwide war
or disaster in order to solve the problem of the Land
of Israel. When going in this direction there is no
point in simply repeating the past failed solutions.
A combination of basic solutions in various doses can
actualize a path to a solution.
The combination of the war on terror and providing
of rights to the Palestinians was tried a number of
times in recent years although not methodically or consistently.
Actually, this combination was supposed to be the basis
for the Oslo Agreements, while the war on terror was
supposed to be managed by the great terrorist, the “Capo
di tutti Capi” in the words of General Zini. However,
this mistake that was obvious to those who kept their
eyes and ears open, became one big failure: on one hand
nothing was ever done to lessen the hatred, and on the
other hand Arafat proved to be a major crook with no
hope for change.
The intention of giving assets to the Palestinians
through the Oslo Agreements (territory, weapons etc.)
was to weaken their hatred. However, for various reasons
(Israeli hysteria, demonstration of Israeli weakness
against Hizbullah, Israel’s ignoring serious breaches
on the part of the Palestinians, and mainly Arafat’s
behavior) the Palestinians interpreted, many times rightfully,
the Israeli gestures as weakness. In this manner, the
gestures, when combined with the constant aggression
by Arafat and his partners and with the suffering that
Arafat forced Israel to inflict on his people in the
second Intifada – instead of lessening the hatred,
they increased it severely.
What is necessary now is a new element in the combined
solution to the problem, one that will center on the
lowering of the level of hatred effectively and not
by a way of gestures that will worsen the situation.
This element demands getting to the root of a just solution
to the problem. There is no way to avoid this issue
- all of Israel’s attempts to avoid the issue
over the years only worsened the situation. The only
side who profited from this are the terrorists whose
ability to hurt Israel has reached a new record.
The element referred to is connected also to the Israeli
public relations, which has a deciding factor in the
struggle of Israel’s for peace, for security and
more important – for the unity of the people of
Israel and Israel’s long term existence. In order
to succeed in the current conflict Israel must substantially
improve its arguments. The more the people of Israel
are convinced of their rightfulness, the better are
their chances of winning in this struggle. The more
the world is convinced of the rightfulness of Israel’s,
the more Israel will be able to act with determination
in routing out terror. The less the Palestinians are
convinced of the rightfulness of terror and its chances
to succeed, the quicker terror will be extinguished.
However, from where do we enlist new elements? Many
good people have scavenged in every possible source
and have not come up with any new effective elements.
Time is pressing and we cannot drag the matter out any
longer. As such, if a good element exists, it must be
now dealt with and exposed.
When it seems that we have reached a dead end, as we
currently have, there is no choice – we have to
break prejudice and break out of existing thinking patterns.
This is not a trivial process. Usually it is bound by
the ability to let go of brainwashing that has gone
on for years. Whether the brainwashing has occurred
as a result of positive or negative intentions is unimportant.
The importance is actually in the existence of patterns
of thought that it has created.
The reader of this document must be open minded and
patient, in order to accept a revolutionary premise,
which has on one hand received serious strengthening
of late, and on the other hand its importance is increasing
for lack of any other viable solution. Acceptance of
this premise could have been much easier once its benefits
are clarified. However, as a result of the current thinking
convention it may be even difficult to many to realize
that some of the benefits are really benefits. Since
the problem is exceptionally complicated, its solution
demands sophisticated treatment. Hence our request for
the reader’s patience and openness.
Israel’s stand on the Palestinian question has
always been defensive, except for when dealing with
terror. By granting legitimacy to the terrorists in
the auspices of the Oslo Agreements and the continued
support for Arafat by the European community even now,
even an aggressive public relations effort regarding
terror is no longer as effective.
The latest peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians
failed as a result of the Palestinians using the subject
of the “Right of Return” stemming from the
historical rights of the Palestinian refugees. In light
of the Palestinians basing their position and rights
on historical justice, Israel must provide reasonable
answers to this angle. Israel must deviate from its
conventional way of thinking regarding the entire problem.
This, in conjunction with wise military activities,
can get Israel, the Palestinians and the entire region
out of the current complicated scenario.
Israel’s stand on the struggle in the recent
years is based upon the views of their rights versus
the rights of the Palestinians. Within this arena, it
is difficult for Israel to achieve its goals. As will
be explained further, a sizeable portion of the Palestinians
living in the land, have rights to the land, no less
than those of the Jews. However, instead of struggling
with these rights, Israel should use them to its own
benefit, by exposing the historical truth in the Land
of Israel, as will also be explained further.
Israel should change the focus of the struggle over
the rights to the Land of Israel from one of an Israeli
– Palestinian perspective to that of an Israeli
– Arab one. In this perspective, Israel’s
stand is far superior.
Part II –
The Premise
The Basis to the Premise
The basis to the premise explained here are the historical
facts related to the Land of Israel over the last two
thousand years. These facts, that are usually ignored,
present the history in a view different than what is
accepted, with far reaching consequences to the present
and the future.
The unique historical view has been raised in the past
by the fathers of Zionism in the Land of Israel –
David Ben Gurion and Yitzchak Ben Zvi, in a book they
wrote about 90 years ago, for the purpose of presenting
the rightfulness of the Zionist movement. For several
different reasons, which will be delineated further,
the subject was then dropped. However, today when the
situation in the area has reached a dead end and while
this theory has received strengthening from recent genetic
researches done on the Israeli and Palestinian communities,
we must pay this view a revisit.
The history of the last 2000 years seems very far removed
from the problems of the present. The need to redefine
it stems from the complexity of the problem and the
lack of a solution. Just as in the psychoanalysis of
a difficult case, one must delve far enough into the
past in order to find the roots of the present problem.
There are many incidents, which could only be solved
by this approach. In our case the problem is –
how do two nations rightfully see the same land as belonging
to them, and how do we get out of this situation? Following
are the main points of the historical explanation:
Prior to the destruction of the Second Temple the people
of Israel comprised a much larger portion of the world
population than it does today. At that time there were
about three million Jews in the Land of Israel. In addition,
there were Jews in Babylon who had remained there since
the destruction of the first Temple. These figures also
disregard the majority of the people of the ten tribes
of Israel who were a portion of the remaining population
of the world known during that period. The entire population
of the world at that time totaled only tens of millions.
In other words, the Jewish population in the Land of
Israel alone comprised a single digit percent of the
entire world population. Today, the entire Jewish population
around the globe comprises only a few thousandths of
the world population – their relative numbers
have dwindled to approximately a tenth of what their
numbers were 2000 years ago.
The explanation to the dwindling of the relative numbers
of Jews in the world over the last two thousand years
is as follows:
About two third of the people were killed or exiled
by the Romans over several generations as part of their
crushing of the repetitive Jewish rebelling. Over the
last two thousand years out of the remaining Jews in
exile, some were forced to convert or converted by will
due to the repeated problems they faced, some were annihilated,
and the remainder is the majority of the existing Jews
today.
The remainder of the people of Israel after the destruction
and devastation created by the Romans – the weak
classes, who were at a low risk for rebelling against
them, were permitted by the Romans to stay. Many of
them were also forced to convert and some were annihilated.
The component of Jews remaining here is miniscule.
The forced conversions in the Land of Israel began
with the Greek rule – the manifestation of Hellenism.
However, the main occurrences of these conversions began
with the activities and decrees of the Romans in the
period of the rise of Christianity.
As a result of the cruel Roman crushing of the several
Jewish rebellions, whose relative severity is even higher
then that of the Holocaust, the demographics of the
Land changed drastically. From a situation where the
three million Jews were a definitive majority in the
land, their numbers dwindled to one million, such that
they comprised only 40% of the inhabitants of western
part of land of Israel (west to the Jordan river) and
only 30% in all of the historic Land of Israel (including
parts of Jordan).
The remainder of the inhabitants of western part of
Israel at that time were mainly Samaritans, Roman soldiers,
Hellenists and various sects of Christians – many
of them were Jews at the onset.
As far as the Samaritans are concerned – we must
point out that according to Benjamin Tsadka’s
book (A Brief History of the Samaritans) their majority
were descendants of the weak classes of the ten tribes
of Israel who were never exiled by the Assyrians at
the time before the destruction of the First Temple.
Other Samaritans were descendants of the stronger classes
of Cuthites, who were exiled to Israel by the Assyrians
but most of them returned to their homelands at the
fall of the Assyrian empire.
At the time of the Hasmonean kingdom anyone who was
not a Jew or Hellenist was converted to Judaism. In
addition, the Greeks, who arrived during their conquest
of the land, were thrown out by the Hasmoneans during
the process of liberation from the Greeks. In a similar
manner, no other nations remained within the borders
of the Land of Israel such as the Philistines.
From the conclusion of Bar-Kochva’s rebellion
and until the end of the Roman and Christian rule in
the Land of Israel, as the pressures to convert to Christianity
increased and the leadership of the Jews was annihilated,
so the number of Jews who maintained their religion
dwindled. These remained centered mainly in the Galilean
villages and in few cities, while others could not stand
the pressure and became Christians. In spite of this,
the number of Jews who remained at the end of this era
was substantial. In Caesarea alone, with the Arab conquest
(around the year 640), 200,000 Jews were found dwelling
along side 700,000 Romans – most of them connected
to the Roman army, and likewise 30,000 Samaritans.
The next conquest – Arab – with its many
metamorphoses used economic and other pressures on those
living here, in order to convert them to Islam. This
crushed the hopes of the Jews who thought that the end
of the Christian rule would bring them freedom in their
country.
The Jewish hopes at the beginning of the Islamic rule
caused many Jews to immigrate to the Land of Israel,
including those who were driven out of the Arabian Peninsula.
The hopes, became over the years a grave disappointment.
Any Jew or Christian who did not convert to Islam were
taxed a fifth of all of their produce, without taking
into consideration any of his expenses. Anyone who converted
was exempt from paying this tax. In addition, there
was tremendous discrimination to the benefit of Moslems
in matters of other taxes, levies, rights, licenses
and purchasing of goods by the authorities. Many decrees
and disturbances were carried out against the Jews from
time to time.
The peak was in the year 1012, when the Halif Hakam
decreed that anyone who did not embrace Islam must leave
the country. In other words, every Jew or Christian
was given the option: “ Convert or Leave”.
As a result of the pressures that reached their peak
with this decree, the majority of the population, in
a slow process over the hundreds of years of conquest,
converted. Because of the suffering and lack of leadership
– the vast majority converted, including those
who till then had remained Jews such as in the Galilean
villages, such as those who earlier on were forced to
Hellenize or convert to Christianity, and others who
lived in Israel such as the Samaritans.
The converts to Islam in the Land of Israel during
that long period were known as “Mustaarvim”
(Arabized). These were Jews at their roots and passed
this identity on from generation to generation and secretly
practiced some Jewish customs. This was the source of
the name given to them literally meaning “Hidden
as an Arabs”.
Over the generations the connection to Judaism and
the Hebrew language has been diluted. In spite of this,
when the settlement of the Jews was re-established in
the 19th century, the term “Mustaarvim”
remained and referred to those who hid their Jewishness
and did not leave the land. As a result, the remaining
original Jews in Jerusalem who neither left the land
nor their Judaism, remained the only ones in the new
era who were called “Mustaarvim” (as opposed
to the Jews who newly arrived in Jerusalem). In other
words, the term that initially described almost the
entire population was left only with those that both
kept over the many generation the Jewish practice in
secret and were not afraid to reestablish themselves
as Jews when a less risky opportunity was given to them.
With the conquest by the Crusaders, the majority of
the Jews of Jerusalem were massacred after fighting
to defend the city on the side of the Moslems. In spite
of this, the Crusaders were relatively easy on the Jews
in their land, much easier than the European’s
treatment of the Jews. This treatment included the Crusader’s
behavior towards the European Jews mainly in the beginning
of the first crusade. Therefore many Jews emigrated
from Europe with the help of seaworthy transportation
to Israel that was developing in those days by the Crusaders.
Near the end of the Crusaders’ rule the Jewish
center moved to Acre. The Moslems recaptured this city,
when again the Jews joined forces for its defense, and
once again most were massacred by the conquerors.
The above characterized what happened to the Jews in
Israel under various conquerors. The Moslems and Christians
were hurt intermittently depending on whose turn it
was to play conqueror. The Jews almost always suffered.
The period of the Crusades included a number of Holy
Wars and opposing conquering by the Moslems –
parts of the Land of Israel changed hands several times.
During the Arab rule many Arabs migrated from neighboring
countries, mainly Bedouins from the Arabian Peninsula.
This happened at the same time that many Jews left because
of decrees against them. At the time of the Crusades,
just like periods prior to the Arab conquests, Christians
arrived from Europe. Because of the non-stop war in
the Land of Israel, beginning with the first Crusades
and ending with the Mamalouk rule and its crumble, security
and economy disintegrated. To make matters worse, there
were plagues and earthquakes. As a result of all of
this, the majority of the immigrants plus a marked number
of the original inhabitants left.
The Moslems who made up a large part of the immigrants
to the land, as well as among the permanent residents,
just like the small minority who officially kept their
Judaism, emigrated to neighboring countries. To show
the level of immigration out of the country - in approximately
the year 1400 there were still 600,000 “Mustaarvim”
– mostly descendants of Jews. In contrast, with
the Ottoman conquer (1517), not more than 150,000 inhabitants
remained, of which 5,000 were practicing Jews. A smashing
majority were converts to Islam.
As a result of the stabilization of the Ottoman rule
in the Land of Israel, and the return of order and security,
within a short period of time until the mid 1500’s
the population doubled – and reached approximately
300,000. This increase stemmed from immigration, mainly
from neighboring countries. Since the Land of Israel
was not then a major attraction to immigrants, and the
subject of religion was not at its peak, it can be assumed
that the immigrants that did arrive were original inhabitants
who were returning home.
Others, new immigrants, had nothing to look for in
Israel during this period. The original residents had
a historical connection to the land and a continued
loyalty to it. The exceptions were on one hand, the
negligible in size Bedouin minority part of them were
of Jewish origin, a small number of Mamalouk exiles,
and few others.
In parallel, there was an Aliyah of thousands of Jews
who after the Spanish Inquisition hoped that the end
of the Arab rule would enable Jewish prosperity in the
Holy Land. The Turkish rule, as opposed to that of the
Arabs or Crusaders, did not bring with them Turkish
settlers, and based itself upon the existing population
as a source for payment of taxes and funding of the
military, its officers and rulers.
The period from the end of the Mamalouk rule and the
beginning of the Ottoman rule is paramount in the history
of the Land of Israel. Like rats in a sinking ship –
anyone whose connection to the land was not strong enough
left it permanently. Anyone, whose economic or educational
status enabled him to make his way to other countries,
abandoned the land. The minority from the original population
returned or remained, as they were not willing to give
up their connection to the land. These were mainly descendants
of Jews - the centrality of the life of this community
was the land and their loyalty to it.
The Jewish settlement at that time was centered in
Safed. In addition, in various Galilean settlements
(13 of them) mostly villages, Jewish families lived
side by side with Moslems. The most reasonable explanation
that in one village they lived side by side was that
the Moslem families originally belonged to those Arabized
who were originally Jews.
Later, as a result of the pressures of the Turkish
Moslem rule, similar to those of the Christian and Arab
rules, these Jewish families disappeared as well, and
it is reasonable to imagine that they went the way of
the Arabized. Until today there’s a Jewish cemetery
in Kfar Yasif near Acre, with gravestones dating to
the 18th and 19th centuries, in spite of the fact that
there are no Jews living there.
The Jewish hope for redemption with the end of the Arab
rule was even higher than at the end of the earlier
Christian rule (not the Crusaders). The disillusionment
was similar. However, during the period where the hopes
for redemption increased and so after the Spanish Inquisition,
thousands of Jews arrived in Israel and settled in Safed.
Villagers from the area moved to the city in order to
prosper from the Jews who were sustained by donations
from abroad and by their weaving (the Jews had 3,000
looms in the city).
Jewish leaders rose and called for the renewed settling
of the Land of Israel. Even more so, David the Reuveni
called for the establishment of a Jewish army in order
to rebel against the Turks. For tens of years the Jews’
hopes rose and fell intermittently until they were finally
depressed.
An incredible thing happened in Safed in the mid 1500’s.
The number of Jews in Safed around 1560 according to
one report was 70,000 and another report quoted 12,000
while the source for both reports was the same. According
to another report, the Jewish population in the entire
Galilee numbered 40,000. In 1568 2,000 Jews were reported
to be in Safed – mainly elderly who came from
the Diaspora to finish off their lives in Safed. A little
later 14,000 were reported.
Even if we assume that the 70,000 figure was in error
or that it mistakenly referred to Safed instead of the
entire Galilee, the differences are amazing and cannot
be easily explained. It is not inconceivable that with
all the pride in the hopes of the redemption, many of
the Arabized Jews suddenly “remembered”
their Judaism and hoped for a quick redemption. With
the depression of these hopes, as a result of persecution
by the Turks and other problems, these Jews “remembered”
their Islam in order to be saved from the various decrees.
With the worsening of the decrees of the Napa rule
that included Safed, the Jewish center moved to Jerusalem.
Some of the Jews moved to neighboring countries or returned
to the distant Diaspora, some moved to Jerusalem and
the villagers who had moved to the city moved back to
their villages.
Over the next 300 years, the population did not change,
which also shows that the earlier return to the land
was only of those loyal to it, as long as there still
were any. In 1840, there were in the country 10,000
practicing Jews, 25,000 Christians and 270,000 Moslems,
almost unchanged from the mid 1500’s. The exceptions
were thousands of Egyptian railway workers who were
brought to the land in the period of 1831-36.
In the next 160 years immigrants from neighboring countries
joined the population, mainly from Syria and Egypt,
who were added to the now called Palestinians, in addition
to Jews from all over the world. In 1882 there were
24,000 practicing Jews, 45,000 Christians and 380,000
Moslems (total 450,000).
The increase in the number Moslems relative to 1840,
even if influenced by natural population growth was
based mostly on the migration of Arab Moslem immigrants
– about 100,000. Even if we add the Christians
among whom few were Arabs, the non-Jewish immigration
was not more than 120,000 people. However, according
to a number of testimonies, including of those who in
1967 were living in the area of Hebron, some of the
immigrants were tribes from the Arabian Peninsula who
prior to this were Jews who had converted to Islam and
still retained their connection to the land.
In 1914 the Jews numbered between 85,000 and 100,000
of a total population numbering 700,000, mostly in the
western part of the Land of Israel. In order to arrive
at this number, even if we take into account a modest
natural population growth, which is not characteristic
of the Palestinians, approximately 190,000 additional
Arabs migrated (Moslems and Christians), while the number
of Moslems immigrants was smaller.
In 1922, in both the eastern and western portions of
the Land of Israel there were 650,000 Arabs. However,
in 1938, their numbers increased to over one million.
The immigrants came to Israel as a result of prosperity
(sources of income) created by the Jewish settlement.
At the beginning of the War of Independence of Israel
the Arab population within the Green Line was about
860,000 and from both sides of the Jordan River was
approximately 1,200,000. One can assume from these figures
that on the western part of the land they numbered about
one million. It is reasonably sure that these figures
were inflated by the rulers of the British Mandate,
who looked for a demographic justification for their
refusal to uphold the Balfour Declaration.
Even if we accept the above figures as reliable, out
of the increase of 400,000 in the western part relative
to 1914, about 300,000 Arabs immigrated to the western
part of Israel. The balance of the increase stemmed
from a natural population growth as a result of the
improved medical treatment that began during this period.
The British did not impede the Arab immigration. This,
by the way, was in direct contradiction with the mandate
of the Commonwealth of Nations that was handed down
to the British regarding the establishment of a Jewish
homeland in the Land of Israel. They did not block the
Arabs crossing the borders on land, while at the same
time they prevented the Jewish refugees, including holocaust
refugees, from arriving by sea.
Therefore, the total number of Arab immigrants to the
western part of the Land of Israel was approximately
600,000 (120,000 + 190,000 + 300,000) as compared to
a little less than 300,000 original inhabitants from
an earlier period. This is based upon an assumption
of almost zero population growth before WWI. However,
we can take into account the difference of the natural
population growth of the original inhabitants as opposed
to the immigrants in the period before the British rule,
since they were in the majority for most of the period.
Hence we can approximate the number of original inhabitants
vs. the immigrants among the Palestinians in the western
portion of the Land of Israel to 35% original inhabitants
vs. 65% immigrants, as of the year 1948.
Beginning from that year many of the Palestinians refugees
scattered over the neighboring countries. Their population
today in the western portion of the Land of Israel is
approximately 4,000,000 (including the Israeli citizens
among them). The Palestinians claimed about 10 years
ago that there were about 10 million Palestinians in
the world. It seems that the 10 million figure was an
exaggeration meant to be used threateningly to the Jews
of Israel, and the correct figure was actually considerably
smaller. (For similar reasons the Palestinians are inflating
the population figure in the western part of the Land
of Israel). If we accept a more conservative present
number of only 9,000,000, the Palestinians in western
part of the Land of Israel comprise about 45% of the
total number of Palestinians, and the balance who live
in other places – 55%.
Although there are no specific details as to which
of today’s Palestinians are of the immigrants
and who are descendants of the original settlers of
the land we can assume statistically that, “Once
an immigrant, always an immigrant.” That is to
say, the probability is greater that whoever’s
family was true to the land for thousands of years,
will continue in this tradition of remaining in the
land at any price, just as whoever’s family was
used to moving around will continue more easily in this
tradition. Until today the Palestinian villagers’
strong connection to the land is well known. In contrast
to this, it is also known that at the time of the War
of Independence of Israel, for example, many of those
living in Jaffa and the surrounding Arab settlements
that arrived at the most 127 years earlier from Egypt,
fled back to Egypt and other places.
Moreover, It were the Arab countries that called upon
the Palestinians in the face of fights and hostilities
in 1948 to temporary move to more secure areas until
their armies will crush the Jews. Naturally the newer
settlers that originated from the Arab countries and
had strong bonds with these countries and relatives
there listened and fled away. In contrast the original
habitants whose ancestors got already used to wars and
new conquerors, naturally ignored the call to flee from
their beloved land.
It is clear that some portion of the population is
of mixed ancestry, in spite of the fact that the majority
of the original inhabitants were villagers or mountaineers.
These largely married within or among the other villages
or within their towns. This was especially true prior
to 1948, when the roads and methods of transportation
were not yet developed. Even if we take the post 1948
period, then in the part after 1967 which is its bigger
portion, movement from the western part of the land
to Arab countries was not trivial and cross border marriages
were numbered.
Likewise, one must remember that there were Arab immigrants
who were originally descendant from Jewish tribes in
the Arabian Peninsula, that as a result of their love
for the land, there is a strong possibility that they
did not flee during the 1848 and 1967 wars.
On the other hand, on the West Bank and in the Gaza
Strip the immigrants did not need to flee during the
War of Independence and these areas absorbed refugees
from Israel (approximately 400,000 in 1948). However,
from among those that fled and stayed in refugee camps
in West Bank, and likewise from among the regular inhabitants
of that area, 300,000, mainly original refugees, fled
to Jordan in 1967.
In a similar manner, there is no real data on who of
those living in Land of Israel are descendants of Jews
and who is not, but one must remember the majority of
Jews and more so of the people of Israel (Jews and Samaritans)
who were in the land before the beginning of the 2,000
years of suffering. It must be further remembered that
the relative majority of immigrants to the Land of Israel
over the generations, that arrived because of the countries
benefits and holiness, they and their descendants fled
during the many turnovers of authority and other disasters.
To summarize al the above, it seems reasonable then
that among the Palestinians who live in the western
part of the Land of Israel there is a large number who
are descendants of the original inhabitants. Similarly,
among the Palestinian refugees there is a large majority
of immigrants and their descendants. To put it in numbers,
one can easily estimate that about 30% of the original
35% inhabitants out of the Palestinians in 1948 were
descendants of Jews or more accurately the people of
Israel. Furthermore, about 70% of the Palestinians of
then were immigrants who arrived over the generations,
or their descendants. Among these 70%, 65% immigrated
after 1831. The relevance of this is, assuming a constant
birth rate among the Palestinians in different places,
that 2/3 (30% of the 45%) of the Palestinians living
in western part of the Land of Israel today are descendants
of the people of Israel. In contrast to this, among
the Palestinians not living in Israel today (55% of
all Palestinians) a very large majority are of the immigrants
and their descendents.
In his book, “The Oslo Alternative”, attorney
Aylon Yarden arrived at very similar conclusions based
on the idea that was very thoroughly examined by him.
His exact premise is that the mountain dwellers of the
Land of Israel, in the Galilee, Judea, and Samaria,
were those who hardly moved over thousands of years.
On the other hand, according to Yarden, the various
immigrants that came to the country over thousands of
years, settled in the lowlands, valleys and plains.
Sometimes threw out the people who were there first.
Other times they joined those who lived there. Regardless
they settled there for a certain period and finally
continued on their way to other countries for various
reasons. The Palestinians who live in the Triangle (west
to the mountains of Samaria) include a mixture of immigrants
and original inhabitants from the mountainous areas,
who searched for a livelihood close to the center of
the new Jewish settlements where jobs and living could
have been found.
The Premise and Its Validity
What is clear from basic statistical assumptions and
reasonability, is that a very high majority of the 3,000,000
Palestinians who are today on the western part of the
Land of Israel except for the Gaza Strip, are descendants
of people of Israel (mainly Jews). Even if we add the
Gaza Strip to the picture, we still arrive at a 2/3
majority descending from the people of Israel.
It is even clearer that the rights of the Palestinians
who are descendants of Arab immigrants that remained
in the land (1/3) are at best 171 years old (1831-2002)
and even much less for the majority of them. These rights
are negligible in contrast to those of the people of
Israel and the original inhabitants, which are of thousands
of years old.
By virtue of these assumptions, it is even clearer
that a large majority of the Palestinians outside of
the western part of the Land of Israel have virtually
no rights to the land (at the most, less than 140 years
from 1831 – 1967).
This is the summary of the premise. This premise was
known in general by a number of key people for many
years, including the founding fathers of Zionism in
the land of Israel, but rested as an unturned stone.
The innovation in this presentation is in the level
of specifics and explanation brought forward in illustrating
the premise, based on logical assumptions, and statistically
high probabilities.
The probability of the accuracy of the premise is far
greater than the Palestinian claim based on their ancient
rights, as though they were descendants of the Canaanites
and other nations that lived in the Land of Israel prior
to the conquering of the land by Joshua. The biblical
description of the elimination of these nations, aside
from the small group of Givonites, absolutely neutralizes
this Palestinian claim. This is true even if we assume
that the Book of Joshua is slightly exaggerated regarding
the successes of wars of the people of Israel. However,
none of this can remove the any doubt about the correctness
of the claim presented here as result of its being based
to a large extent on assumptions despite of them being
very reasonable.
What has recently aided the premise, are two genetic
studies that were published lately. One of these genetic
studies, which was done in part by Prof. Ariella Oppenheim
of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, was published
in part in the spring of 2000 and its continuation on
November 21, 2001 in the “HaAretz” Israeli
newspaper.
The findings were very clear and could stand on their
own merit. However, combined with the historical premise
they receive tremendous importance. In the study that
was done on the Y chromosome, a very close match was
found between the Palestinians and the Jews, similar
to the match found between various sects of Jews who
were found to match closely relative to the genetic
differences among other nations. It was found that the
Ashkenazi Jews were genetically similar to Palestinians,
much closer than to “other” Arabs, and likewise
there are close to Jews of Middle Eastern descent and
to Kurds.
The above findings do not only strengthen the historical
premise presented here but also negate the Arab claims
that the Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of the Kazars
and therefore have no historical rights to the Land
of Israel.
Another relevant genetic study was published recently.
Its publicity increased as a result of the periodical,
“Human Immunology”, in which it was printed,
instructing its readers to destroy the article because
of the political issues that the researcher inserted
into the article. In this study, which was performed
on the immune system, the Spanish Prof. Antonio Arniz-Vilna
of the University of Complotensa in Madrid and his colleagues
found that the immune systems of Jews and Palestinians
are so close that they strongly indicate a genetic similarity.
These two studies provide the premise with strong backing.
These genetic backings of the premise are most significant
since they lessen the doubt of its accuracy to almost
insignificant. (The surprising genetic closeness of
the Ashkenazi Jews to the Kurds can be explained by
the exile of the tribes of Israel at the time of the
First Temple to the Kurd area of today, which at that
time was close to the center of the Assyrian empire.)
The importance of these studies is the fact that they
were publicized prior to the raising of the premise
and are therefore very far from being affected by the
premise support or objection. The Spanish scientist
went so far as to come to anti-Israeli conclusions that
brought about the instructions to destroy the article.
However, the premise, just like Bilam’s donkey,
changed the curse to a blessing.
The above is especially important, since in order to
deny the premise, Israel’s enemies may fund inexact
studies that are deceiving and they will fund people
in the scientific community, especially in some European
counties, to cooperate with them, just like the lines
of activity of Mengele and his partners that supported
Hitler’s racist theories.
One must also add pointed testimonials such as that
of a Samaritan historian, Ratson Tsadka about an old
Arab woman that lived in the 20th century in the village
of Koofar in the Tul Karem area (Koofar - from the word
“kofrim” (agnostics) that the Arabs named
it after the Jews that lived there in the past). That
woman’s mother taught her to light candles in
hiding every Friday night and she was exercising it
in a valley near the village.
Another source is the author Yehuda Burla in his book,
“In the Eye of a Star”. It is about the
writer’s service as an officer in the Turkish
army and of his “Arab” servant from the
land of Israel. The latter had heard from the writer
of an Arab custom in the land of Israel to cut off Jewish
women’s breast in order to prevent the Jews from
being able to continue their existence in future generations.
He understood from this that his mother who suffered
from this disability was Jewish.
Another case is of the Muhamara clan from the village
of Yata (near Hebron) and another village where they
perform a custom without knowing why, until today, of
lighting candles on Hanukkah. Their neighbors refer
to them as Yahud (Jews) and in 1967 sent them to their
brothers to get water for the village.
Likewise, a number of the residents of the triangle
perform the Jewish custom of Tashlich. More evidence,
circumstantial in nature, is the spoken Hebrew accent
and the use of phrases whose source is Hebrew, by “Arabs”
in the Galilean villages such as Sachnin and Arabeh.
The lawyer Aylon Yarden raises another direction for
the support of the premise. It is the essence of the
problem itself – there is no precedence anywhere
in the world where two totally separate nations believe
and claim that exactly an entire and same land is theirs.
Many local disputes exist and have existed in the world;
Kashmir, Northern Ireland, the Balkan Peninsula, Kurdistan,
Armenia and many more. Most of them are based on religion
and not nationality (Kashmir and Northern Ireland) or
between one nation within its territory and another
within it territory where a dispute exists regarding
the border location. Alternatively it is about the independence
of one of the nations (Armenia, Kurdistan, the Balkan
Peninsula) in part of the territory of another one.
As a result of the exclusivity of the problem in the
Land of Israel, one can claim, based on the support
presented above, that if two nations claim for exactly
the same land, it is a reasonable assumption that these
two nationalities are not really so different.
If someone tries to compare the case of Yugoslavia
to that of Israel, he must have forgotten why the Camp
David summit blew up. The uniqueness of this case is
that the two sides believe that all of the land is theirs
and any attempt at coming to an agreement over a division
of the land in any way failed. (An additional difference,
not connected to our current issue is that there is
a third party relating to the Israeli case – the
Arab countries that created the problem when they conquered
the land in the past. They see the Palestinians as brothers
and are a grave danger to the security of Israel in
the event of territorial compromise with tremendous
concessions.)
The reasons that the premise presented here disappeared
until now stems on one hand from those who returned
to the land at the beginning of Zionism pushed it into
a corner. On the other hand this occurred because of
the large number of generations that elapsed since the
conversion to Islam. This coupled with the strong Arab
influence that was amplified by the Arab language that
became mother tongue to all the Palestinians, caused
a many of Palestinians to forget or ignore their roots.
The Jews that were the first to return to the land
were of an Eastern European mentality and culture, totally
different from that of the Palestinians and Arab mentality
and culture. This caused an unwillingness to believe
in any close relationship. This situation roots itself
and rules in the minds of the Israelis and Palestinians
until today and holds a central part in the hatred between
the two sides.
At that period historians began to examine folk legends
about the
relationship stemming from the premise. More than 100
years ago Israel Belkind assembled evidence, wrote and
taught that the Arabs in the country were in fact blood
brothers of the Jews. But both the religious and Zionist
establishments rejected his views.
The rejection came mainly since the Jews were a minority
in the land at the beginning opposite the large Palestinian
majority of the same period, making the premise known
to the general public was a problem from a cultural
standpoint. In other words, which of the cultures would
overpower and swallow the other. As a result of the
demographic relationship and the unwillingness of the
Zionists to delve into the Arabic culture, the idea
about the close relationship was unacceptable to many
and never took off.
David Ben Gurion and Yitzchak Ben Zvi were attracted
by the premise and found much to substantiate it. They
raised the premise in a joined book of theirs, primarily
in order to justify the Zionist movement, but also in
hopes that Jewish immigration (Aliyah) would change
the demographic situation and the Palestinians would
become a minority. However, as a result of the massive
Arab immigration simultaneously with the Jewish immigration
and the riots that increased the hatred, the situation
did not change and the subject was dropped.
When the land was divided following the War of 1948
and the number of Palestinians in the State was small
as compared to the flow of Jewish immigrants, the subject
did not receive new attention. The Israeli leadership
had to concentrate on the problems of a young country,
absorbing immigrants that lost all of their possessions,
merging exiles and struggling with Israel’s neighbors.
Jordan and Egypt covered the Palestinian problem under
the blanket of annexation of Palestinian territories.
The refugee problem was ignored due to lack of peace
negotiations and no one in Israel dedicated much further
thought to the issue. The only exception was David Ben
Gurion. He even advocated, as a beginning, a campaign
to draw the friendly Bedouins of the country back into
the fold of Judaism. Caught up by internal problems
including those mentioned above, he abandoned the project.
The many wars between Jews and Arabs increased the
mutual hatred, sharpened the differences and distanced
any thoughts of a close relationship between Jews and
what was an accepted portion of the Arabs. We must also
point out that in addition to all these; the revolutionary
approach towards the history of the people in the country
had no genetic support to add to its validity at that
time.
An additional reason for not having raised the premise
is the embarrassment of all the converts in the land
at the time of their forced conversions and the fact
that they were of a low economic and educational level
as well. Under this situation written evidence to the
process of conversion was not created at the time of
that process. Also the Arabs were not proud of the economic
and worse compulsion, and they were not interested in
leaving proof of their deeds and the fact that the inhabitants
in the land were not originally Arabs.
Another reason for ignoring the issue is that the history
curriculum for Israeli schools centers mostly on Europe
and its Jewry, even when speaking of the period prior
to the Arab conquest, and almost totally ignores the
Land of Israel and the region from this period and until
the start of the Zionist movement. The exception is
the crusaders, again with a European emphasis.
Regarding the question of which of Palestinians are
descendants of Jews, who is descendant from Arabs and
others – until today the Arabs have enjoyed ignorance
of the subject that is supported by the current reality
of the Palestinians. In spite of the fact that most
of the Palestinians in the western Land of Israel are
descendants of Jews, the continued Arab and Moslem conquest
in the land of Israel eradicated this fact from the
world.
It is about time to change this reality.
The Significance of the
Premise and Its Importance
The premise is supported from five different directions:
1. Historic – behavioral (explained here in detail)
2. Historic – geographic (Aylon Yarden)
3. Genetics
4. Customs
5. National - geographic (Aylon Yarden)
This strong support makes undisputable the fact that
among the people of Israel exist two groups: One that
left the land and remained faithful to their nation
and religion, and another that left their religion and
remained faithful to the land. Just like in the first
group there were few addendums of converts, in the second
group there were addendums of immigrants (even though
one can assume that the addendums in the second group
were many more).
The difference between the two manners of partial disconnection
from religion, nationality or land does not force each
group to see an enemy in the other. Such a hostile vision
is a tragedy that joins, during the last 100 years,
the tragedies and horrors that transpired to both groups
separately during the previous 1900 years. (The suffering
that was the inheritance of those living in the Land
of Israel since the destruction of the second temple,
and mainly because of the number of conquests and wars
that took place in the land, is not far from the suffering
of European Jewry; not including the Holocaust). The
only difference over the distant past is that in the
last 100 years the two groups are executing the continued
tragedy for themselves and for each other.
Over and above, anyone who thinks that in the existing
circumstances there can be true peace between the Jews
and Palestinians and between Jews and Arabs is sadly
mistaken. As long as the Arabs and Palestinians are
educated on a basis of hatred of the Israelis; as long
as they are jealous of Israel’s successes for
which the Palestinians are used as black laborers; the
bitterness will bring even in a formal peace situation,
if we assumed it can be attained, a situation of non-stop
theft and murder.
Even more so, as long as such deep hatred exists, there
is a danger that any peace agreement will blow up and
spread to a regional war, and there exist many outside
forces that can bring this about. This is especially
true if a peace agreement is signed by Israel from a
defensive or weak stand. The second Intifada is a good
example of how quickly a relatively quiet situation
can turn into the exact opposite with the support of
the majority of the Arab world. However, the largest
ticking time bomb is the Palestinian birth rate, which
promises, as long as it continues, instability in the
land.
The importance of the premise, first of all, is for
Israeli public relations purposes. While basing itself
on the premise, Israel must explain to the world and
first of all to its own people, to the Arabs and Palestinians,
that the Palestinians in the western part of the land
of Israel have been taken advantage of, and there is
no place for hatred between them and the Jews. In fact
the opposite should be the case, if they should hate
anyone at all, it is those imperialists who forced their
conversion.
If we speak of traitors or of collaborators, they are
the Palestinian terrorists who are continuing the imperialist
activities and rape against their own people. They are
not freedom fighters, as they and many in the world
believe. They are people whose horrible acts against
their brethren, continue and try to perpetuate the imperialism
that conquered and forced their forefathers to convert
religion and nationality.
If someone relates to the Israeli “settlers”
negatively let them first relate to the Palestinians
who immigrated to this land without any historical connection
to it and without any rights to it and who complicated
the situation here and whose actions and deeds are far
more problematic than those of the Jewish “settlers”.
This settlement is the one that should be related to
negatively, before they act negatively towards the Jewish
settlers settling their own land from which their ancestors
were deported by many imperialists.
Moreover, according to his official biographer Richard
Hart, as well as the BBC, Yasser Arafat was born in
Cairo on August 24, 1929 and that's where he grew up.
In the same token most of the terrorists, the explosives
producing labs, as well as the suicide bombers, were
recently found in the refugee camps in the West Bank.
Furthermore, the Gaza Strip, where the majority of the
population, especially in the refugee camps, are Arab
settlers and their descendants, is the nest for most
of the snakes of terror and extreme Islam. This clearly
shows that the Arab settlers, including Arafat, who
falsely call themselves Palestinians, are the heart
of the problems and terror.
Without hatred or at least with its lessening and
so with the feeling of closeness and mutual destiny,
the Jews as well as the rest of the world will do much
to help the Palestinians. This will in turn improve
the situation of the Palestinians, and in this manner
the motivation for hatred will decrease even more.
As long as the Arabs are concerned, the Palestinian
problem ceases to be their problem that they must solve
(except that they have to put and end to retaining of
the refugees in refugee camps). When their honor and
interests are not hurt any more with every light touch
on the subject, they will lessen their hatred of Israel.
They will understand that they have no rights to the
land of Israel. They will appreciate the great tragedies
that befell it of which they were partners in its worsening.
Most of their ancestors were conquered and forced to
Islam by the imperialism, the results of this, until
this day do not let the region and lately also the rest
of the world, relax.
The weakening of the Arab support of Palestinian hatred
will also weaken the latter. Even if the Palestinians,
and mainly their terrorist leadership, reject the premise
presented here and fight it, their doubt will begin
to eat at them. As the doubt of the rightfulness of
the Israelis eats at them less, and they demonstrate
more determination and unity, so the doubt of the Palestinians’
stand will eat at them more and will weaken the hatred
that grows within them. In this manner the premise will
present, if adopted, a turning point in the possibility
of finding a solution to the problem and the campaign
necessary to arrive at a solution.
Over and above the continuous process of slowly eliminating
the hatred, the premise has many implications regarding
the solution to the problem of which each party in Israel,
or in the world can choose the appropriate one for itself.
It is not the author’s intention to be drawn into
various arguments. However, we must all remember –
the Land of Israel does not belong to the Arabs! Most
of the Palestinians living in the land do not belong
to the Arabs either! Slogans such as “Continued
occupation” should be implied towards the Arabs
and their terrorist partners and not towards the Jews.
Those who blame Israel for imperialism are the children
of the sole remaining empire in the world - the Arab
empire that extends today over many countries which,
excluding the Arabian Peninsula, were all conquered
by the Arabs. The fact that they are divided into several
countries only increases, along with many other Moslem
countries, their decided control over the United Nations
and other international forums. The fact that they are
split up, weakens them less than the Jews being bitterly
split within their one country.
The above view serves to strengthen Israel’s
other claims and explain, first and foremost to the
Israelis themselves, but to others as well, that the
rightfulness is with the Israelis. It shall further
be used to strengthen Israeli unity and strength in
the difficult struggle standing before Israel. The Israelis
are not the reason for the Palestinian suffering, but
the imperialists of sorts and their terrorist messengers
are. No one has a reason to complain about the Israelis
– the main victims of these imperialists.
Regarding the Arab imperialism - this was a relatively
enlightened imperialism not because of their behavior,
but because their goal was the spread of Islam. In spite
of the ugly sides seen on the part of Islamic believers
and things done in the name of Islam, Islam was far
ahead of the different primitive beliefs that ruled
in the area prior to their conquest.
As long as forced conversion to Islam was being done
to idol worshippers (pagans), this was a blessing except
for the negative part involving the oppression of the
nations. However, in the Land of Israel at the relevant
times, there were virtually no pagans and the imperialism
did not have a leg to stand on. Since the result of
this activity overpowers today the religion from which
Islam was born and created what seems to be an unsolvable
problem, the time has come to close the imperialist
chapter in the history of Land of Israel, including
the results of such imperialism.
In addition to this, the behavior of the Moslem extremists
especially those sending out suicidal bombers with false
promises, are staining Islam in an unforgivable way.
The Koran recognizes the right of the people of Israel
to the Land of Israel and the return to Zion.
Salah-a-Din, the great commander and prominent leader,
who Yasser Arafat insultingly claims to be his successor,
called the Jews to settle Jerusalem after he conquered
it from the Crusaders. He told the Jews in these circumstances
that their “exile had ended”. Even if the
various Moslem conquests were at a time that the Jews
did not rule the country, this is not the situation
today and there is no justice to the Moslem rule over
the Land of Israel except for that the human rights
of all the Moslem Palestinians must be preserved.
The only thing that the Koran says against the Jews
is it’s calling to fight the infidel among the
Jews. However, the Moslems must understand that the
lack of belief today in certain factions among the Jews
is a direct result of the greatest trauma and tragedy
that occurred in the history of humanity.
The greatest terrorist of them all and the greatest
imperialist of the twentieth century caused the tragedy
that next to it everything else is dimmed. His behavior
makes organized Palestinian terror, or Palestinian suffering
as result of this terror acts, look like child’s
play. It cannot be that anyone in the Moslem world will
take advantage of the deep emotional reactions of the
Holocaust survivors and their children to what was done
to them by the Nazis and caused them to lose faith.
The Moslems cannot use this reality as an excuse to
try and hurt those who suffered more than anyone else.
Worse yet is the fact that Hitler’s terrorist
ways serve as a candle to these new horrible Palestinian
terrorist actions.
It is up to the considerable majority of Islam, in
the Arab world and even among the Palestinians, to put
an end to the horrific phenomenon whose beginnings were
of compulsion, and finalize the imperialist-terrorist
chapter in history. This chapter includes people like
Bin Laden and Arafat who with his demoralization, fraud
and hatred has worsened the Palestinians’ poverty
and misery. Arafat uses this deprivation for the purpose
of incitement whose foolish goal is that of destroying
the survivors of the Holocaust. It is the same Arafat
that after signing the Oslo agreement told the Mufti
of Johannesburg that he (Arafat) is God’s messenger
in completing the extermination of the Jews.
It is up to all of the enlightened Moslems in the world
to think of the message that Islam has brought to the
world in the last fifty years aside from the spreading
of horrible terror. This terror together with the terror
supporting nations who develop weapons of mass destruction
become today the main problem to the existence of humanity.
The responsibility of being a light to the nations
of the world has been placed on the people of Israel.
The fact that as a result of the dark problems that
have befallen them over the last sixty years they themselves
can hardly see any light, does not invite anyone else
to be the darkness for the nations.
It is also up to the Europeans who until today support
the terror when it is aimed at the Jews, to remember
that they carry the main responsibility for the tragedies
that have befallen the Jews and Palestinians over the
generations. The unity of Europe makes them all responsible
for the actions of all of European components.
The European responsibility Began with the Greek imperialism,
followed by the Romans who ended the independence of
the people of Israel. In one event they murdered and
exiled one third of the Israeli people. Further they
murdered, in another single incident alone, more than
a fourth of the remaining Jews and exiled another fourth
to Europe.
The European responsibility continued on to the Christian
rule that executed murder and compulsion towards the
Jews. The Crusaders also murdered Jews and their descendants
in Israel and in Europe. This all was followed with
the continuation of the oppression and murder of the
Jews in Europe over the generations, when the European
were the ones who exiled the Jews to there in the first
place. The Spanish Inquisition was the jewel in this
crown of cruelty, torturing, burning and deporting Jews.
The peak of these evil deeds with manifested in the
Holocaust where once again the Europeans destroyed one
third of the Jewish people. Of course it was mandatory
that after this major devastation the British who were
given a mandate to build a Jewish homeland in Israel
continued to deport ships full of holocaust survivors
while they enabled a flood of Arab settlers to the country.
This behavior is now followed with the support and encouragement
of terror and Arafat at its head against the Jews, even
when the terrorists indirectly cause also continued
suffering for the Palestinians who are also descendants
of the people of Israel.
Every honest European who will simply look at what
his forefathers caused the Jews throughout the generations
and how their leadership continues with this direction
even today, can very quickly reach the conclusion that
this situation cannot continue. The European culture,
in which many Europeans are proud, is exposed as far
worse in the extent of its evil than a cannibal-Hotentotic
culture. The only difference is that European only burned
million of Jews to death. They never ate them.
Writers Note:
The continuation, Part III to follow, tries to get into
actual projections of the premise regarding the solution
to the dispute. Various options to the solution are
detailed including the potential influence of the premise.
In spite of the fact that this is not the intention
of the writer, the various options will raise arguments
and many readers will reject some of the options presented.
In order to prevent rejection of the premise in its
entirety, it is recommended for those readers that reached
the limit of their openness thus far, to end the reading
of this article here.
Part III –
Projection and Solutions
Neutralizing the Right
of Return
The headline of the projection of the premise in the
context of possible peace negotiations is the premise’s
strength as a smashing answer to the Palestinian claim
to the Right of Return. This answer is important for
the purpose of removing the claim from the order of
the day to increase the probability of reaching at a
peace agreement. Following are arguments against the
Right of Return, which are only strengthened by our
premise:
A. The Arabs, including the Palestinians, were the
aggressors in 1948. The refugee problem is a negative
result of the war that Israel won. To turn back the
clock, which means to allow the Right of Return, is
not logical. If the aggressor is not punished for his
aggression when he fails, what will stop him from trying
again?
B. What would have happened if the Arabs had succeeded?
Their declaration in 1948 was to throw the Jews into
the sea. If the Jews had not defended themselves who
in the world would speak on behalf of the Jews’
Right of Return?
C. After 2000 years of suffering, destruction, and
oppression the Jews have a right to their own state.
This state is already in danger today as a result of
the exaggerated and unprecedented Palestinian birth
rate.
D. During the War of Independence and immediately after,
population exchanges took place between the Arabs and
Israel. This phenomenon of population exchanges is a
common and accepted result of many wars. What is not
accepted is the attempt to repatriate moved population.
A minority of Israeli Arabs (about 260,000) ran away
and few well expelled to neighboring Arab countries.
An additional 400,000 migrated from state of Israel
to the West Bank (200,000) and to the Gaza Strip (another
200,000). The total number of refugees was approximately
660,000. In 1967 300,000 Arabs fled from the West Bank
to Jordan. Even if we presume that these 300,000 were
not solely from the original refugees to Judea and Samaria,
this would add an additional 100,000 refugees to the
previous total. Even if we ignore the years that passed
and the natural population growth (200,000 originally
from 1948 increased to more than 300,000 by 1967), the
total number of refugees at the time that they fled
did not surpass 760,000.
As opposed to the above, most of the Jews from Arabic
countries - 856,000 refugees, were forced to escape
from their Arab countries because of conspiracies of
the Moslem population and leaders including riots that
peaked during the founding of the state of Israel and
after the 1948 War. Of these, approximately 600,000
reached Israel and were permitted entry.
The Jews that lived in Arab countries for hundreds
or even thousands of years, accumulated there great
wealth and status, They were forced to part with their
possessions that cost substantially more than the possessions
of less Arab refugees, mostly poor, accumulated on the
average of less than a hundred years. Therefore, if
a refugee reparation fund were to be established, most
of the funds would have to be directed to Jewish refugees
from Arab countries.
E. The Palestinians base their Right of Return on the
United Nations resolution 194. Such a UN General Assembly
resolution is just a recommendation and was given at
the time of the 1948 War prior to the expulsion of the
Jews from various Arab countries. Security Council resolutions
242 and 338, which are obligatory, were passed after
the entire refugee picture was clarified. These resolutions
dealt with refugees, regardless from which side they
came. They talked of solving the problem, not of return.
Because of these later obligatory resolutions, Resolution
194 is no longer valid, even as a recommendation.
F. If the Palestinians want justice for their people
by overlooking the present and reaching into the past
to bring back refugees, they should look back further
into the past and based on the premise presented here,
they should return to the people of Israel, which is
their nation to the same extent that the land is their
land. They should do this instead of being used as an
imperialist tool whose method is terrorism.
G. According to (F) above, in order to fulfill the
Right of Return to its fullest, the Palestinian populations
can, as a whole, in part, or individually, convert to
Judaism, and make Aliyah according to the Israeli Law
of Return. There is no need for negotiated treaties
and certainly not for a war, in order to bring forth
a just solution whether individually or collectively.
If they do not wish to accept this path they have a
right to return to the territories that will be in Palestinian
hands following a peace treaty.
H. The Palestinian Diaspora as represented above has
limited rights in the Land of Israel. A portion of them
has fulfilled their Right of Return by returning to
the countries from where they originally came to the
Land of Israel. The special cases and the others who
are interested in the Right of Return are referred to
in paragraphs F and G above. The balance would have
to be satisfied with monetary compensation commensurate
with their loss of wealth. This compensation could be
demanded primarily from the aggressors who caused the
refugee problem as well as profited from Jewish wealth
that was left behind or sold for pennies on the Dollar.
I. Concerning the problem of refugees residing in Arab
countries – the Palestinian refugee problem was
created by Arab countries who did not accept the creation
of the State of Israel and attacked it to perpetuate
imperialism and its results. These Arab nations must
deal with the results of their aggression. The minute
peace will reign in the Middle East the expenditures
for ammunition and armies could be diverted to the solution
of the problem, along with foreign funds.
Many Jews were expelled from Iraq after the 1948 War
and came to Israel. If Saddam Hussein is so concerned
about the Palestinians, and if the Palestinians are
such a burden to Lebanon, then it is fitting that Iraq
should absorb these Palestinians in compensation for
the property and wealth of the Jews who were expelled
from Iraq. Alternatively these refugees should settle
in lands given to the Palestinians within the auspices
of a peace treaty.
The refugees in Syria balance out with the Moslem immigrants
from Syria to Israel until 1948. Most of these refugees
consist of descendants of these Moslem immigrants and
furthermore they balance out with the Jews who were
expelled from Syria.
J. The Palestinians have attacked Israel from before
the creation of the State and until today. The 1967
War that brought about additional refugees is a continuation
to the response to Palestinian terror against Israel
within the 1967 borders. Worse yet, is that the Israelis’
attempt at providing proper housing for refugees in
the Gaza Strip, was blocked by the Palestinians. The
suffering and oppression that they have organized for
themselves cannot be held against Israel.
K. The Arab countries called upon the Palestinian population
to desert areas where there was fighting and hostilities
during the 1948 War. They promised the fleeing people
that after Israel will be crushed, it would be possible
to return. The families originating form and loyal to
Arab countries followed the instruction and fled away.
The original inhabitants, used over generations to reoccurring
changes and new conquerors, continued with their devotion
and their old connection to the country they never left.
The consequence is first that justice was already made
and in most of the cases everybody shall stay where
they are. Moreover, if somebody has complaints he shall
go with them to the Arab countries that had taken responsibility
with their giving of the desertion instruction.
The Possibilities for
a Solution
The implications of the premise for the solution of
the dispute could be far reaching on different levels.
Different factors could arise from different conclusions.
The following will relate only to the main possibilities
confronting us, where one stems directly from the premise
and all the rest exist even without it, however, the
influence of the premise could be quite positive. The
goal of the presentation of the basic possibilities
is to present in a clear manner where the region is
headed including the influence of the premise. This
presentation is being made in order to lessen the mistakes
as much as possible on both sides and by third parties,
for which many people will pay with their lives.
Possibility A (Negotiation and Concessions) –
The chances of this happening soon are relatively small
because of the many mistakes made over the recent years.
The broad significance of this possibility is the end
of the terror and a peace agreement including the end
of the dispute. The probability of the success of this
path is far greater after neutralizing the issue of
the Right of Return and if in the background stands
a lessening of the hatred with a reasonable Palestinian
leadership and a possibility for future improvement
(see Possibility C further on). The possibility of such
an improvement even if it remains within the boundaries
of a far off dream to a complete and just solution from
a historical perspective, will result in the calming
down of those who are not satisfied with the concessions
made through a peace agreement.
Unfortunately a comprehensive agreement will not be
reached in the near future. To begin with, as long as
Arafat is the Palestinian leader, he is not a trustworthy
partner for negotiations and there is no value to coming
to any agreement with him. In addition, Arafat cannot
allow himself to restart the negotiations. If this happens,
the Israeli government will offer much less than what
was offered at
Camp David and Sharm el Sheikh. Even with tremendous
world pressure on Israel, when push comes to shove,
the pressure will have a limit. This is since among
other reasons, Israel will claim that it cannot take
such great risks opposite such an unreliable and aggressive
partner. The world will have to accept this.
It will be clear that not only is Arafat a stumbling
block to peace because again he will not concede, but
that he also dragged the Palestinians to war and casualties
only to worsen their position in the negotiations. This
will present Arafat in the most foolish manner and Arafat
is well aware of this. As a result, he prefers to continue
the terror and avoid returning to the negotiating table.
There is a possibility that Arafat will not be able
to stand up to the pressures from the outside or from
within and he will enter the negotiations as a result
of the consideration that the negotiations, that will
lessen the pressure on him, will also divide Israel
and cause it and the Sharon government more damage than
to him. Such damage to Sharon will include one in world
public opinion as a result of Sharon’s stubbornness
vs. Barak’s flexibility while at the same time
Israel’s poor public relations will continue when
Shimon Peres and the labor party will join Arafat and
attack Sharon.
In the above instance, not only will Arafat not concede
any of his prior demands, but also he will add new ones,
such as the dismantling of all of the “settlements”.
He will do this in order to justify all the Palestinian
sacrifices in the Intifada and also to torpedo the negotiations
for the reasons stated above, while placing the blame
on the Israeli government.
The Israeli Left must at all costs avoid becoming a
pawn in Arafat’s game and make sure from the start
that Arafat or any artificial replacement has come to
negotiate in good faith and with the will to succeed
including all the necessary flexibility. The probability
for such an occurrence, as was explained, is negligible.
And even if we assume for the moment that there will
be an agreement – will Arafat live up to his undertaking?
In light of all this, as long as Arafat, The Arab settler
from Cairo, remains the Palestinian leader, and perhaps
as long as he lives, there is no chance for negotiations
and certainly not for an agreement. Only Arafat successor
will be able to reach an agreement by placing the blame
on Arafat.
Actually Arafat’s only hope is to split the people
of Israel and bring an end to Sharon’s government.
When the Left will rule again in Israel, according to
his hopes, Arafat expects to continue from where the
previous talks with Barak ended. It is up to the wisdom
of the people of Israel and to Sharon’s behavior
to make sure that this will not happen.
A more practical approach is suggested by Sharon –
a long-term Interim agreement. The details of a final
agreement, if and when it finally comes to negotiations
are an argument-raising subject unlike any other. In
order for even the slightest chance of reaching an agreement
between the parties the following must be clarified,
which of course show the complexity of an immediate
comprehensive agreement:
1. Based upon our premise and the Koran, the Land of
Israel belongs to the Jewish people. Every Moslem, if
he is truly a Moslem, who wants to take something from
its rightful owner should better cut off his right hand.
He who is not a Moslem, should decide what he is and
proceed accordingly. The minimal interpretation of this
principle is that if anyone thinks that they are going
to take over the State of Israel by a majority of returning
Palestinian refugees, he shall best think twice before
beginning the negotiations, for the negotiations to
stand a chance. The just solution by virtue of history
to this painful problem was already presented.
2. When Israel lost the Old City Jerusalem during the
1948 War, Israel swore: “If I forget thee oh Jerusalem,
let my right hand forget its strength, Let my tongue
cleave to the roof of my mouth”. This swear originated
by the Jewish refugees after the destruction of the
first Temple. A Jew that is willing to talk about conceding
Jerusalem shall let his tongue stick to his mouth and
shut up. A Jew who leans as far left as the concession
of Jerusalem, it’s best that he cut off his right
hand rather than raise it in a manner that will place
Jerusalem and all its inhabitants in danger similar
to that of the residents of Giloh during the second
Intifada. Any peace agreement can be breached. A rift
in the Jewish nation during negotiations will strengthen
the appetite of the Palestinians and the negotiations
will never end. Those who cause the rift will be personally
responsible for the casualties that will ensue.
3. Israel must promise the future of an independent
Kingdom of Jordan and Israel’s secure eastern
border along the Jordan River. Such border will protect
both Israel and Jordan. The existence of a terrorist
and subversive foundation among the Palestinians and
more so a mutual border between a Palestinian state
and Jordan will likely bring about sooner or later a
Palestinian control over Jordan. Even if we believe
that the terrorist and subversive elements will disappear
in the upcoming years, the large number of Palestinians
in Jordan coupled with the unprecedented Palestinian
high birth rate along with the terrible crowding among
the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza strip will
sooner or later bring about an explosion. The Palestinians,
having learned a lesson from the present war, will turn
their efforts against Jordan who will not be able to
stand up to the pressure.
Even if the Palestinians, as part of an agreement,
undertake not to arm themselves, when they gain control
of Jordan they will claim that this undertaking is not
applicable to Jordan. Europe, the Arabs and others will
support this claim. In this situation, if Israel does
not control the Jordan Valley, the day will come when
a war arsenal from Iranian and Iraqi sources including
manpower from those countries to an extent that do not
threaten Palestinian independence, will be within a
spitting distance from Israeli cities. This issue, with
other considerations as well, negates strongly the wisdom
of an Israeli agreement, through negotiations, to the
establishment of a Palestinian State in the foreseeable
future.
4. Anyone who is opposed to a transfer, and rightfully
so, as a solution to the dispute must apply this principle
to the Jewish settlers as well. In general, and based
on the premise and its significance regarding Israeli
rights to the land in particular, no one has a right
to discriminate against the settlers. If one can discriminate
against someone because of minimal rights, it is against
the Arab settlers who are not descendants of Jews who
settled in the land with no rights to it.
Anyone who speaks of relinquishing the settlements speaks
of a transfer of Jews. This lends legitimacy to the
idea of a transfer of the Palestinians. When the Israeli
Left speaks of transferring Jews, not only are they
talking of a traitorous act, but it drags out and rightfully
so a reaction from the Right of a transfer in the opposite
direction. The Left can only blame themselves for the
reactions they instigate.
In this subject the Israeli Left reveals itself in
its hypocrisy and self-hatred when they are willing
to do to their own people that which they oppose feverishly
to be done to others. Even Hillel the Elder did not
foresee that such foolishness could ever arise within
the people of Israel and did not bother to complete
the Torah on one foot by adding: “Don’t
do unto yourself what you won’t do to others,”
or, “hate yourselves as your friends.” This
principle, without the self-hatred part is not brought
up only to the Left in Israel, but also to anyone who
suggests transferring Jews, including Palestinians,
Arabs and others.
Possibility B (A Continued War on Terror) – This
possibility is much more realistic, short term. Israel
has already adopted it and will continue with it as
long as terror does not stop. This is the possibility
for a continued action on the part of the Israelis,
mainly in the West Bank that is most problematic from
a geographic-security standpoint and where the percentage
of Palestinians who are originally Jews is especially
large. The purpose of such action is to release the
Palestinian multitudes who are suffering from the yolk
of terror that rules, depresses, and instigates them
with lies and leads them from a bad situation to a worse
one, causes tremendous damage to the region and lights
the fire of terrorism all over the world.
According to this approach, the terrorist elements
must be eradicated, especially from the top of the terrorist
pyramid, until a new, reliable leadership arises from
the Palestinians who strives for peace and who will
not allow hatred to blind them. The new premise combined
with this approach will increase the chances for success.
This possibility B is for action and not for a complete
solution. To a large extent its targets were already
achieved recently. But we have not yet seen the end
of it. It leads to several different scenarios and solutions
that will be presented further on.
Possibility C (One State for One Nation) – This
possibility is the most far-fetched. Therefore, it can
be relevant, if at all, only as a later stage to a solution
of the dispute. In this stage, as a result of preconceived
ideas and hatred, the majority will strongly oppose
it. The author of these lines endangers himself of causing
a lot of controversy by virtue of bringing up the subject.
In spite of this, the subject must be raised, first
and foremost to be used as a goat (from the story where
a Rabbi suggests that a Jew bring a goat into his crowded
house and then get rid of it) for both sides in a matter
that will ease the selection of Possibility A, even
if it is not ideal.
Likewise, the goal of the presentation here is of offering
a new alternative to Arafat and his collaborators, one
that is not more terrorist than theirs, and in such
a way to clarify that Arafat is not essential. Clarifying
this issue to Arafat and his partners is essential in
order to attain some flexibility in the negotiations,
to give negotiations a chance to begin and end with
success.
In spite of presenting this possibility in the above
manner, it is not totally disqualified from being a
realistic solution, one that will be successful in the
distant future after the current mode of thought will
change, following years of peace or war in which certain
schisms in the Jewish nation will meld.
This possibility stems directly from the premise, and
was raised by the Lubavitcher Rabbi as a solution to
the problem, in his leaflet to the Palestinian population
in Israel. This possibility involves uniting forces
among two splinter factions in the Land of Israel and
the establishment of a united state in the western part
of the Land of Israel. This outlook is compatible with
the initial goals of the PLO from before the Oslo agreements
and the goals of many of the Palestinians today –
to create a secular state in the areas of the Land of
Israel, but with the exception that this will not create
a bi-national country, which is very problematic.
The realistic and most justified method for this possibility
to happen is the willful rejoining of a considerable
number of Palestinians to the people of Israel. This
is especially relevant to the Palestinian citizens of
Israel and to the residents of the West Bank.
This direction is the most charged of all possible
directions. The usual way to join the People of Israel
is by conversion. This is what was suggested by the
Lubavitcher Rabbi. Even if secular Palestinians accept
this new premise, the conversion process makes this
possibility very unpopular. A possible solution to this
issue is a national conversion: This demands of the
one converting a sufficiently deep recognition of the
culture, history, Bible, tradition, religion and language,
as is accepted by secular Jews, in addition to a swearing
of allegiance to the people and the State of Israel.
That is to say, as far as the secular Palestinians go
– a return to the Israel people without dealing
with the religious matters, however, via abandonment
of Islam.
The decision to deploy this type of conversion can
be done at a later date after it has been accepted by
the majority in Israel, when even the religious sects
will prefer this over the alternative and will participate
actively in its implementation. It must be pointed out
that in order to prevent a flooding of refugee immigrants
and others from different places, the national conversion
process can only be implemented for residents of the
western part of the Land of Israel, with only few and
rare exceptions.
This possibility C is the only one compatible with
the historical justice. This is not necessarily compatible
with the realistic justice. Every Palestinian who is
fighting for what’s right historically and demands
more than Israel can give (Right of Return) must decide
– if the land belongs to him then he belongs to
the Israeli nation and must convert and all of the country
will be his. If the land does not belong to him, he
must sit quietly and not deal in terror, or move somewhere
else.
It must be emphasized here that this article is not
a call to prefer conversion on any other solution. The
call is first and foremost to lay down arms regarding
the historical justice, and moreover, to negotiate a
realistic just solution. Only one, whose mind is set
that the war for a just history is preferable to fair
negotiations for the sake of arriving at a realistic
justice, is called forward here to display the rightful
history in its entirety. In such a way he will fully
achieve his goal in the search for justice and in so
doing he will also avoid the spilling of blood (his
and others).
Everyone must remember that all the recent terrorist
activities are as a result of Palestinian stubbornness
regarding the historical justice. All the matters of
conquest, even if we avoid the question of who is the
true conqueror, are not the reason for the dispute and
the terror. They are used as a means to incite, for
the purpose of arriving at a just history as the Palestinian
view it in their conspiracy to get a Palestinian-Arab
government in the entire the Land of Israel (including
its Eastern part – Jordan). In light of this,
all who fight about the Palestinian issue today are
fighting knowingly or not, only about the historical
justice, or worse yet, about new imperialistic intentions
to be added to the old imperialism.
Many Israelis will tremble when the conversion issue
is raised, as a result of the differences in culture
and the extremely high birth rate of the Palestinians.
They will see it only as an additional problem for the
already split nation including the extremely high birth
rate of the Ultra Orthodox Jews. However the Israelis
must remember that they have already merited the Jews
who came from Arab countries and were deeply ensconced
in Arab culture, to successfully blend into the remainder
of the sects of Israel. The Israeli’s must also
remember, without making a comparison, that there were
once Jews who opposed the Aliyah of Jews from Morocco.
The tremendous rift in the Israeli people today is not
as a result of varied descent. In the current situation,
the people of Israel will be able to stand against the
future challenge, which could possibly promise a long
lasting peace and calm, after thousands of years of
suffering, in a complete (western) Land of Israel.
At the same time as the easing of hatred and the solution
to the dispute will take place a blossoming economy
will be created. A substantial number of Diaspora Jews
will be able to make Aliyah with a quiet heart. They
will balance the melding of a portion of the Palestinians
(however many that may be). Perhaps out of the necessity
stemming from the danger of such a large new mass entering
the throws of the Jewish people, the existing rift among
the Jews will be lessened somewhat – at least
between the secular Right and the Left. In addition,
Palestinians who accept the Israeli secular culture
will decrease their birth rate to that which the rest
of the Israelis are accustomed. All of these are ideas
for the future. Only time can eventually make them acceptable.
Possibility D (Major Disasters) – This is the
worst and most sever possibility. Within the framework
of the search for possibilities we must also think of
the worst-case scenario and prepare answers for it,
in order to overcome it or even eliminate it. According
to this possibility terror will increase with or without
partners from the outside of Israel (direct partners
could be the Hizbullah, Sadam Hussein, at least in the
event of an American attack against him). The number
of sacrifices from among the Israelis will be devastating.
Most of the world hopes that this will not happen, but
the Arab terror (not Palestinian) has already demonstrated
their preparedness to do such things. In such an event,
Israel will be forced to react in the worst possible
manner. Instead of murdering innocent people as the
terrorists do, Israel will not be left a choice other
than to transfer a large number of Palestinians.
Up to a point the solution will be population exchange
between the Palestinian villages, which will complicate
a possible border, and the lone Israeli settlements,
which will also complicate a divisive border. Above
a certain level of continues terror, the transfer will
have to be wider. It will have to include refugee camps
in the West Bank that are the main source for terror
there. A most natural geographical target for the transfer
will be the Gaza Strip, which is a highly contained
area from the security point of view.
In the event of the most horrible terror, the transfer
will have to include complete cities that complicate
the possibility of a total separation, and endanger
the security of the cities in Israel. The transfer will
be an exchange of people where all the Israeli settlements
in the Gaza strip will be evacuated.
Even with this most sever situation the premise can
assist in the lessening of the decree. In light of the
premise, the Palestinians in the West Bank can be given
a choice “Either join the people of Israel or
leave”. In this manner the roles will be reverse
from what the Halif Hakam did 1000 years ago when he
forced conversion to Islam or transfer. The difference
is that the Halif Hakam did what he did without any
provocation, and did it to those who had never been
Arabs or Moslems and lived in the land for thousands
of years. If Israel will do this, it will only happen
after no alternative is left as a result of a mass murder
of innocent people and in a way where the majority of
people under this process will return to their own origins
– people or countries (even if initially they
will be moved only to the Gaza Strip).
This direction is difficult to implement and can only
be done out of no other choice and with a serious public
relations based on the premise and the world’s
opposition to terrorism. The implementation will proceed
in three stages. In the first stage each Palestinian
given the option will have to pledge his allegiance
to the State of Israel and declare his readiness to
accept the Israeli nationality and totally reject Islam
– or transfer. In the second stage every Palestinian
will be given the opportunity for an Israeli education
based on the details given in possibility C above, in
a method similar to the method used for Jewish immigrants
making Aliyah to Israel.
As far as Palestinian children are concerned, they will
receive an obligatory Israeli education as every Israeli
child.
Only those who pass the education will be allowed to
continue to the stage three – military service,
swearing of allegiance to Israel and its people, where
at first these people will be in their own military
units.
Only full military service will allow this public,
except for special severe medical problems, to receive
Israeli citizenship which among others will give him
the right to vote for the Knesset, a marriage license
and social benefits including child welfare subsidies.
Anyone who violates his oath will lose his citizenship.
In severe cases he will be deported and in even more
severe cases will be deported following serving of a
prison term.
In order to prevent discrimination the right acquired
only by serving in the army should be hold the same
prerequisite also with the balance of the Israeli community.
In this manner the various demographic problems in Israel
will be lessened as well.
The recommended method is not original. It is taken
with some liberal changes from one used by Kaiser Joseph
II of Austria. He implemented this method in order to
cause the Jews of the large Jewish center in Galicia
to receive a general education and not suffice with
the traditional education based solely on Torah and
Talmud. The purpose was to broaden the Jewish education
and give the Jews a better opportunity to blend into
their surroundings. This did not, however, cancel the
discrimination, especially the economic ones, inflicted
on the Jews.
When this time it will come as a reaction to massive
terror, it will be done in order to prevent mass killings
and to arrive at an historical justice that the Palestinians
are constantly demanding. Their European cohorts will
not be able to object to Israel’s actions since
they were the originators of this method in its worst
version and without any Jewish provocation. As far as
the Arabs are concerned – we must remind them
of the Halif Hakam’s decree of either convert
to Islam or leave, while Israel’s actions will
be justified as explained above and will come as a means
to prevent bloodshed.
The possible Israeli reactions to a possible Palestinian-Arab
bloodshed is presented here, first and foremost to clarify
to the terrorists among the Palestinians what added
burdens the terror can bring. Nevertheless, regarding
the majority of Palestinians this direction will finally
release them from the terrorist yolk, the decrees and
compulsion they suffered – they and their forefathers
over approximately two thousand years.
Possibility E (One-sided Withdrawal) – This is
the worst possibility yet, which was raised by the Israeli
Left when they realized that Arafat was not a partner.
This speaks of a unilateral withdrawal of Israel from
the territories and implementing a physical separation.
This possibility is brought up here only to explain
why it must be eliminated as an option.
The unilateral withdrawal approach is unacceptable
because first and foremost it surrenders and grants
a prize to terrorism. The claim that the control of
the land is not just and it must end even without negotiations
is based on very short memory and deception by ignoring
the fact that until 1967 Israel suffered from continued
Palestinian terror and aggression even within the Green
Line. The various wars including that of 1967 stemmed
from the need to put an end to the terror.
The implementation of the idea will serve as a successful
phase for the Palestinian terror while the terrorists
will not remove their demand to the Right of Return?
Will not this demand be an additional phase in their
multiphase theory for the elimination of Israel? Will
Jordan not be annexed by the Palestinian State that
will be established? Will Sadam Hussein and Iran not
be able, through an invitation by a large, armed Palestinian
State, with tanks and cannons, to reach Kalkilya and
Tul Karm? And what about Beit Jallah and East Jerusalem?
Will anyone prevent the Palestinians from placing tanks
and cannons there?
Terror will become a horrible joke against the backdrop
of the new threats. Even the opposition by some of the
world and the global war against terror will not benefit
Israel any longer. All the promises about a sharp preventative
reaction to such aggression, similar to what Barak promised
before the unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon, have
already been seen in their nakedness.
Over and above all of that, the Left’s speaking
of separation, places the Palestinians as having Leprosy
and insults them. Certainly this does not serve to lessen
the hatred, not now and certainly not after implementation
of this idea, when Israel will be depending on their
friendliness even more. In a similar manner the separation
will weaken the Palestinians economically and hence
will be a factor that endangers their stability.
The unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon encouraged many
of the Palestinians to join the second Intifada, in
spite of the fact that Arafat planned it already at
the time of the signing of the Oslo Agreements. As such,
the withdrawal from Lebanon can only be seen as damaging
to both the Israelis and Palestinians.
Moreover, additional surrender to the terror will bring
the winning terror to the Palestinians within the green
Line: to the triangle, Wadi Ara, Jaffa, Haifa, the Galilee
and more. The untiring Israeli Left will then suggest
a unilateral withdrawal to Auschwitz. The Palestinians
who are descendants of the nation of Israel just like
the entire people of Israel will forever lose the hope
for redemption.
The Basis for the Solution:
Deciding Whether the Past is Relevant
In order to simplify the various subjects that were
raised and the problem in its entirety, and to enable
a solution, it is imperative that the two sides, especially
the Palestinians, clearly choose one of two approaches:
If the search for absolute rightness based on the past
is primary to someone, he must do it thoroughly –
the time has come to end the tragedy that was begun
by the Roman-Christian Empire and was continued by the
Moslem empire. It is impossible that people that were
faithful to their land, nation and religion for two
thousand years, fought and suffered horrors to as a
result of such loyalty, should continue to suffer from
today’s continued result of this imperialism.
Even more horrific is that today these people are causing
their own suffering only because the real truth has
not reached them.
According to this approach it is up to the residents
of the Land of Israel, the Zionist movement and the
Palestinian national movement to cause the part of the
nation who adhered to the land and left their religion
and nation to return to their roots, just as the part
who maintained their religion and nationality returned
to the land. According to this approach, only this process
will bring forth the completion of the merging of the
exiled of Israel, when the Palestinians, to differentiate
from all the others were exiled from the nation and
not from the land.
What would be more practical at this stage would be
a total separation of the sides from the past in their
view of their different rights. This is essential and
justified in order to prevent further tragedies from
befalling all involved parties. The parties to this
dispute must leave the past behind for the sake of the
distant future. Obviously there are many more problems
on the path to peace. However, once the problem of the
Right of Return is eliminated, the hatred is lessened,
and a spark of hope is lit for a distant future solution
that will implement a complete justice for all parties
there is a hope fro a solution. If the negotiations
will be held with honest Palestinians, we shall then
be able to think of peace.
Possible Scenarios
1. A practical scenario from the point of view of most
of the world is:
1.1 A preliminary possibility B (A War on Terror),
as is currently happening, to be followed by,
1.2 With the support of the entire world, some level
of a peace agreement (possibility A – Agreement),
and
1.3 Optionally, in the very distant future, possibility
C (One Country for One Nation).
On the path towards C (One Nation), the solution could
pass through a phase of a Palestinian/Israeli Confederation.
The scenario of B and then A exists without the premise
and its significance. However, the use of this premise
could increase the chances of this scenario’s
success, to expedite the arrival at A (Agreement) and
in such a manner decrease the suffering, the damages,
and the casualties.
The use of the premise could increase the probability
that after arriving at point A, which was already reached
in the past, it will no longer be necessary to return
to point B (War), which has already taken place more
than once in the past.
With this reality, if it is reached, it will not be
so important, if possibility C is reached – approaching
the original visions of the PLO, and recently Qadaffi
as well, and it will specifically not be important if
it is reached by an official initiative. If we succeed
in arriving at A that will hold for a long period, this
would enable a peaceful and prosperous environment.
While the premise is known, the people will arrive at
C at a snail’s pace by a similar method from a
geographic standpoint to what is described in scenario
2 (following).
As it lately appears the current Israeli government
is rightfully not interested anyhow that step 1.2 above
will include a Palestinian state and desires to leave
the issue to a later step where the potential instability
to be created by a Palestinian state will be diminished.
This means there are three possible sub-scenarios for
steps 1.2 and 1.3:
Sub scenario 1A:
1.2A Interim agreement without a Palestinian state
1.3A Final agreement and a Palestinian state
1.4A Optional - possibility C that is not likely to
initially happen except for a possible confederation
between Israel, the Palestinian state and optionally
Jordan.
Sub-scenario 1B:
1.2B Final agreement and a Palestinian state
1.3B Optional - possibility C or a confederation
Sub-scenario 1C:
1.2C Interim agreement
1.3C Possibility C
2. This is an alternative scenario to 1 above that
is less practical in the face of the world but is more
practical between two parts of world’s most stubborn
nation. According to this alternative terror will continue
for a long time or will be significantly reduced by
Israel. However a Palestinian honest partner to an agreement
will not be found or an agreement will not be reached,
or if reached it will be severely breached again.
In this instance, after a long period of struggle where
no other solution to the dispute is in sight, a new
approach will have to be taken. There could possibly
be a passage in multiple stages, especially in Judea
and Samaria, from:
2.1 Possibility B (War on Terror), which will be long
and drawn out, via
2.2 A unilateral autonomy (as suggested by Eliakim HaEtsni),
till the end of the way at
2.3 Possibility C.
The above means arriving at a relative silence, by
mean of an Israeli military control by necessity in
the Palestinian territories. This will continue for
an extended period, for the purpose of eradicating terror,
without an agreement, since there will not be with whom
to make an agreement. (If there would be, we would be
talking about scenario 1 above.)
Under this reality the influence of the terrorist Palestinians
will be eliminated from within the majority of the residents.
Due to the poor general and economic conditions, as
a result of the lack of any other solution, and the
unwillingness of the Israelis to rule the Palestinians,
a unilateral autonomy will be given to the Palestinians.
At first Israelis will fill key positions and only later
will they be replaced by Palestinians.
The above solution means that there is one state in
the Land of Israel within which exists autonomy for
residents who have no regular electoral rights except
for within the autonomy. Since the solution for residents
without citizenship, in other words no electoral rights
and no obligation for military service, is not a complete
long-term solution, an additional later phase will be
necessary.
With Israel’s encouragement of the dissemination
of the premise, there will be a very slow and drawn
out movement of Palestinians, first of those who are
Israeli citizens today, to rejoin the people of Israel
according to possibility C. In this manner based on
this premise, the Hamas and Moslem extremists will not
be the only alternative to Arafat for the Palestinians.
Obviously, this process could deteriorate in the direction
of D (Major Disasters), for which we have already presented
the reaction. Even in the instances where the terror
does not increase, but remains the same, the solution
in D without the transfer option can be used, only as
a means of joining the majority of Palestinians to the
people of Israel and giving them full equal rights.
The mere discussion of scenario 2 will make the Palestinians
and their leadership understand where they are heading
by use of terror. As a result, the probability of successfully
achieving possibility A (Agreement) is increased. If
the process of understanding takes too long, possibility
A will remain relevant only in the Gaza Strip. The importance
of the premise for this direction and scenario 2 is
that it enables the development of a complete and just
solution acceptable to the world.
We must point out to all those in Israel who vehemently
oppose the conversion of the Palestinians, that the
Palestinian Israeli citizens are today citizens with
supposedly equal rights. The rejoining of even a portion
of them to the people of Israel will lessen the hatred
and strengthen the State of Israel. It will give those
rejoining real equal rights as well as equal obligations,
which if done correctly will strengthen the people of
Israel, and no Jew has anything to lose from this.
Moreover and most crucially: Even if we totally ignore
the current dispute, with optimistic assumptions for
the Jews regarding the reduction of the current birth
rate of the Palestinians, the difference will be 1%
per year to the benefit of the Palestinians. This will
result in an increase of the part of the Palestinian
citizens of Israel over the next forty years from their
current 20% to as high as 30% of the population within
the Green Line. By a pessimistic forecast, the difference
between the birth rates will be 2% per year, which will
bring the Palestinians within the Green Line in forty
years to 35% of the population. This is without giving
the Right of Return to any Palestinian.
The significance of the presented future reality is
36 to 42 Palestinian members of the 120-member Knesset.
As the Palestinians have proven their unity repeatedly
during times of struggle and crisis while the Jews always
split, it is clear who will rule then in the State of
Israel. As such Possibility C (One Nation) within the
Green Line is not only a good option – it becomes
a necessity for the state of Israel. It is the only
alternative to a future apartheid, transfer or loss
of the Jewish character of the only Jewish country!!!
It is mandatory that the Jews understand this severe
future reality early on so they don’t wake up
too late to implement the idea when they will not even
have a majority in the Knesset. It is further important
to understand this situation before coming to solve
the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Even if someone proves that the above scenario will
occur in fifty and not forty years, it is unimportant.
Obviously there are other solutions as well, such as
transferring areas where the majority population is
Palestinian to the Palestinian Authority or state. This
idea is problematic from many angles, such as security
and the need to relinquish East Jerusalem. Barak accepted
this relinquishing because of the demographic problem
presented here. Looking forward for miracles, such as
a mass Aliyah, is a possibility, but it is not a way
to plan the future of a country especially if real peace
is not guarantied.
To return to today’s dispute, after the recommended
process on the Palestinian within the Green Line is
implemented, it may become clear (let us say 20 years
from now) that this process is successful. At that stage
if it is not immersed in controversy as a result of
circumstances, Israel will be able, from a demographic
standpoint, to annex the West Bank and offer all the
residents the same rejoining process, which will give
the majority of them citizenship.
For those who shudder at this direction, may we remind
you that the years and circumstances have already caused
many to change their minds more than once – for
example regarding Arafat, Barak, Sharon, Netanyahu,
Begin and Sadat. For example, regarding the Sinai Peninsula,
the Golan Heights, Jerusalem and Oslo. If we go back
even further – regarding what the various factions
of Jews coming to Israel from many countries thought
of each other. It is not unthinkable that this can repeat
itself in situations such as are described here.
Likewise, anyone in Israel who was prepared for Palestinians
to build his home cannot see them as people from which
one must separate. Obviously, all of the talk of separation
simply insults the Palestinians and intensifies the
hatred.
3. Regarding scenario 3, which includes possibility
D (Major Disasters) all sides must remember what we
must avoid at all cost. If anyone of the Arabs at large
thinks that terror and its supporters will win, he must
be reminded of what Hitler, who rose to power by use
of terror and was initially quite successful, brought
upon Germany. He must be reminded of what the Taliban
and their Moslem terrorist supporters brought upon Afghanistan.
What Sadam brought on Iraq. All the Arabs and Palestinians
must overthrow the terror from within, because neither
their methods nor their goals, as explained here, are
justified.
In conclusion, the inhabitants of the Land of Israel
and its neighbors must ask themselves one question:
What is best? Is it recognizing the old-new truth and
opportunities that it brings, even if it is totally
revolutionary in its way of thinking and demands adaptation
to a degree that most people are not used to? Or, is
it preferable to continue in the old ways that rely
on imperialism and terror and result in the hatred,
casualties and misery without any direction to a solution?
The new approach must begin slowly. However, the more
people accept it, the quicker they will provide to whoever
climbed the tree of hatred and war a reason and a path
to climb down the tree. In this manner more of the sacrifices
brought to the idols of hiding of truth, the hate and
incitement, will be saved.
A practical recommendation
To avoid further reader confusion due to the number
of possibilities for a solution and the multiple scenarios,
the author’s recommendation for a negotiated solution
is as follows:
It is crucial not to destroy future possibilities for
a comprehensive and just solution. It is further crucial
not to create further complexities by implementing a
hasty solution to the very fragile situation. For this
sake the parties shall sign an interim agreement for
a long period that will not end the conflict but will
end the hostilities. In order to have any chance fro
this to occur, it is mandatory to verify that:
1. Arafat is be really neutralized, which may only
happen after a replacing Palestinian leader will be
elected, and
2. No more tricks are being played.
At this stage a Palestinian state will not be established.
This is absolutely required since a Palestinian state
at this period will be a major risk to the security
of both Israel and of Jordan, as well as to the stability
of the region. A state like this may further prevent,
by creating a fact that is very difficult to reverse,
any possibility for a future comprehensive and just
solution. In this manner many people will lose hope
and stability will depart from the region. During the
long duration of this interim agreement, the Palestinian
leadership will strive to build a constructive environment
for their people.
In parallel, the Israeli leadership must act according
to the premise and its very obvious consequences. Though
there may be some sufficient time to debate the matter,
the demographic demon will not wait for anybody. Israel
must continue with the old plan of David Ben Gurion
and enable, as well as strongly encourage, the Palestinian
citizens of Israel to rejoin the people of Israel according
to possibility C above.
Everybody in Israel must realize that the execution
of this direction is mandatory. This will justify using
some of the measures explained above if required, to
moderately sufficiently motivate people to rejoin their
original people. Such measures to be used early enough
are by far better, more humanitarian as well as democratic,
than the later alternative of Apartheid, let alone transfer,
or loss of the Jewish state.
The extent of success of these parallel processes will
determine the nature of the final agreement as will
be then desired by the “parties”. There
is no reason why most of the people in the country,
the real inhabitants of the country will not be interested
in the success if this direction.
Only elements and parties foreign to the country and
having no right to it, may have interests against this
process and against its success. But, the Europeans
and Arabs alike, who received the principles of their
religions and beliefs from the Jews, and successfully
spread them around most of the world, must know when
and where to stop. During about two-millennia, in return
to what the Jews gave them, the Europeans, and to somewhat
lesser extent the Arabs, only gave the Jews mass-murders,
deportations, persecutions and wars. On the rise of
the third millennium, it is about time that these parties
will leave alone the genuine people of the Promised
Land to see the promise finally fulfilled.
|
