Annexation Wins Hands Down over a Two-State Solution

Pages: 1 2

This recognition of Jewish national rights was ratified by the United States on June 30, 1922, when both Houses of Congress issued a joint resolution unanimously endorsing the Mandate and the goal of reestablishing the Jewish national home. The Congressional resolution stated in relevant part:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.

(Joint Congressional Resolution No. 360, the Lodge-Fish Resolution.)

Despite the Jews’ willingness to accept an area comprising less than their traditional homeland, the Arab world refused to accept any expression of Jewish sovereignty and scorned all proposals providing for a modern Jewish state. The U.N. Partition Plan of 1947 was rejected by every Arab-Muslim nation simply because it provided for Jewish autonomy. There was no consideration of Palestinian claims because Palestinian nationality had not yet been invented. In fact, the Arabs altogether rejected the term “Palestine” to describe lands under mandatory control because, as stated by Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi to the Peel Commission in 1937:

“There is no such country [as Palestine]. ‘Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria.” This was the prevailing Arab view at the time.

In light of the resounding Arab-Muslim rejection of the 1947 partition plan, it cannot be relied on as legal precedent to validate Palestinian claims to Judea and Samaria, or for that matter to Jerusalem or Gaza. Moreover, Israel’s right of ownership cannot be impugned simply because she came into modern possession of these lands during wartime. Under internationally recognized legal principles, the seizure of land from belligerent nations during wartime gives rise to legitimate and lawful ownership.

In weighing the lawfulness of land acquisitions during wartime, it is important to distinguish belligerent nations from their victims. The laws of war have long recognized that a country that seizes territory while defending itself from unprovoked aggression has legitimate claims of ownership to lands captured from the aggressor nation. There is no dispute that the Arab nations started the wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973 with the expressed goal of destroying Israel and committing genocide.

There is likewise no dispute that in attacking Israel these nations violated Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter, which provides: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” Consequently, Israel was acting within her legal rights when she captured Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, Golan, Sinai, and Gaza during the Six-Day War.

Just as relevant is the fact that Judea and Samaria were never part of a sovereign nation at any time after the Roman conquest, but rather constituted unincorporated territories that ultimately were occupied by Jordan in derogation of international law. Furthermore, substantial portions of both had been designated under the Mandate for inclusion in the Jewish state. Thus, when Israel took control of these lands in 1967, she was not only liberating them from the illegal occupation of a belligerent nation that had attacked her without provocation, but was in fact enforcing Jewish national rights recognized under the Mandate. Israel’s stewardship of Judea and Samaria is therefore legally defensible. Despite disingenuous attempts by the U.N. to render Israel’s actions unlawful by the passage of ridiculously unbalanced resolutions ex post facto, Israel has legitimate grounds under recognized legal principles to support the annexation of Judea and Samaria and the expansion of so-called settlements.

Security Council Resolution 242 does not Require Israel to Surrender Judea and Samaria

Although U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 is often invoked to demand that Israel withdraw and accept borders based on the 1949 armistice lines, it actually says nothing of the kind. Resolution 242 specifically recognizes that Israel was attacked by Jordan, Egypt and Syria in 1967, and Resolution 242 specifically recognizes that Israel was attacked by Jordan, Egypt and Syria in 1967, and calls on the parties to that conflict to negotiate a “just and lasting peace” based on “secure and recognized borders.” Implicit in this language is the recognition that Israel’s capture of Judea and Samaria, and also Golan, Gaza and Sinai, was legal under international law. If it were not, the resolution simply would have demanded that Israel return all lands captured from her attackers. That is, there would be nothing to negotiate and no imperative for deviating from the 1949 armistice demarcations known as the “Green Line.” It is significant that Resolution 242 does not characterize the Green Line as permanent.

Perhaps even more significantly, nowhere does Resolution 242 require Israel to withdraw from “all” of “the” territories captured from Jordan, Egypt and Syria. As was explained by the late Eugene Rostow, a former U.S. Undersecretary of State who participated in the drafting of Resolution 242, the exclusion of the adjective “all” and the definite article “the” was intentional and indicative of the essential meaning.

Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until ‘a just and lasting peace in the Middle East’ is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces ‘from territories’ it occupied during the Six-Day War – not from ‘the’ territories nor from ‘all’ the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.
. . .
Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from ‘all’ the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable’ Armistice Demarcation Lines [‘Green Line’], but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries …

(“The Future of Palestine,” Rostow, Eugene V., Institute for National Strategic Studies, November 1993.)

Furthermore, the black letter of Resolution 242 applies only to incorporated “states,” not to amorphous groups of people known as “Palestinians,” who did not constitute a state involved in the conflict and who, thus, were not mentioned in the resolution. Although Resolution 242 does mention the issue of refugees, the term as used therein refers to individual Jews and Arabs who lost their homes during the war in 1948, not to a displaced Palestinian nationality that never existed. The Palestinians as a group had no national interest in the land; and to the extent that Jordan conveyed to the Palestinians its interest in Judea and Samaria as part of the Oslo process, it must be remembered that Jordan never possessed lawful title in the first place.
Demographic Reality Favors Annexation

Nearly 60% of Judea and Samaria rests within “Area C,” which has a Jewish population exceeding 300,000 and is currently under Israeli control. (The Oslo Accords established three administrative divisions, known as Areas A, B and C.) In contrast, the Arab population there is calculated only in the tens of thousands.

There are also more than 200,000 Jews living in greater Jerusalem neighborhoods beyond the Green Line. Consequently, despite Arab-Muslim and left-wing propaganda warning of an Arab demographic time bomb, Jews actually comprise the majority in the territories under Israeli control and are not likely to be dispossessed. There is no doubt that these territories were historically Jewish, and that the Arab-Muslim population accrued largely through immigration during the late Nineteenth Century and the British Mandatory period.

There is a two-thirds Jewish majority when Israel and the territories she controls are combined; and based on increasing Jewish and declining Arab population trends, the Jewish majority is likely only to increase in the future. Moreover, the Jewish population in Israel proper is growing as well. As noted by demographer Bennett Zimmerman in a Jerusalem Post interview back in 2007: “for the first time since 1967, Israel has a stable 2-1 Jewish majority . . . [and] a two-thirds Jewish majority in Jerusalem.” The demographic threat appears therefore to be nothing more than politically motivated propaganda, particularly as it relies on conjecture, surmise and doubtful census statistics that overstate the Palestinian population by as much as half.

In addition, analysis of the Arab population shows that it is not composed of a uniform cultural group with common roots in the land. The population in Gaza, for example, is largely Bedouin in origin with no long-standing, sedentary history in the land. In contrast, the population in Judea and Samaria was always more village- or town-centered and is descended from immigrants from other parts of Arab world and the former Ottoman Empire. Thus, the Palestinians do not comprise a singular cultural stock, but rather reflect the heterogeneous make-up of the wider Arab-Muslim world, which is home to disparate and often clashing, religious, ethnic, and cultural groups and minorities.

Indeed, the Arab world is a diverse hodgepodge containing various ethnic groups, such as Arabs, Copts, Kurds, Berbers, Turks, Maronites, Armenians, and Circassians, as well as assorted religious groups, including Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites, Christians and Zoroastrians. Though these groups are often at odds, they have been forced together into modern states that were arbitrarily created by the European mandatory powers. The boundaries of Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, for example, were drawn to include ethnic and religious groups that have been enemies for generations and who continue to persecute and slaughter one another.

The European powers never understood the ethnic and religious complexities of Mideast society during the mandatory era, and today attempt to enforce a dysfunctional dynamic on Israel without regard for the ethnic, cultural and religious differences among those who now call themselves Palestinians.
Considering the irreconcilable intricacies of Mideast culture, and the suspect motivations of the progressive west in attempting to force the creation of a Palestinian state, Israel would be better served by annexing those territories that are integral to her security and continuity as a Jewish state. That is the only reality that will insure her survival.

Formal or Passive Annexation

Although the subject of annexation was made taboo by the political left in Israel and abroad, it has recently become an acceptable topic for discussion. This should not be surprising because Israel has already annexed some of the territory – i.e., Jerusalem and the Golan – that she liberated while defending herself in a war started by Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Jerusalem was formally annexed shortly after the 1967 War, while the Golan was informally incorporated through the extension of Israeli civil law there in 1981.

The concept of incorporating land by either method, or a combination of the two, has been the subject of growing interest – and not only from the settler movement. Those favoring formal annexation believe it would manifest the reality that Israel already controls those territories that are necessary for her survival. Others advocate the formal integration of Judea and Samaria and the extension of Israeli law to the Jordan Valley. Still others advocate de facto annexation by the extension of Israeli civil law throughout Judea and Samaria and the institution of economic incentive programs to integrate the Israeli and territorial economies.
Issues to be determined would include whether to provide Arab inhabitants of the territories with the opportunity for citizenship, grant them permanent resident status, or compensate them for moving elsewhere. However, given that the original intent of San Remo and the Mandate was to restore to the Jews their ancestral homeland, and that an Arab state in Jordan was created on three-quarters of the territory under the Mandate, Israel arguably has no legal or ethical obligation to extend any citizenship benefits, particularly to those who reject her right to exist as a Jewish state.

Regardless of the methods to be employed, Israel certainly has valid historical and legal claims to Judea and Samaria. How she chooses to express those claims are matters to be determined by her and her alone. The international community has shown that it has no intention of supporting Israel’s historical rights or legal interests, but seeks instead to force the creation of a Palestinian state at the expense of those very rights and interests.

Therefore, Israel can rely only on herself to craft a solution that makes legal, historical and moral sense, and which assures her security and continuity as a democratic, Jewish state.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Pages: 1 2

  • Chezwick

    I was once naive enough to be a long-time advocate of the two-state solution. But if Oslo and the unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza have taught us anything, it is that the Arab/Muslim side does NOT want peace and that to them, all agreements are ephemeral.

    Oslo – for example – did nothing to pacify the Palestinian lust for blood. All one need do is remember the suicide bombing campaign that destroyed both the peace process and peace-maker Shimon Peres' political fortunes.

    Then there was Lebanon, where Israel withdrew behind UN-recognized borders (2000), only to have Hezbollah and Syria contrive the 'Sheba Farms' controversy in order to justify future attacks on the Jewish State. Should the Israel ever be extirpated (God forbid), you can bet the bank that Syria will re-assert its claim to Sheba…and that its designation of that region of the Golan as Lebanese was nothing but a cynical ploy to perpetuate the shedding of Jewish blood.

    Finally, we have Gaza, where Israel's unilateral withdrawal (2006) resulted not in a consolidation of the enclave by the PA as an expression of responsible government, but in almost immediate rocket and mortar attacks on Israel, which created nothing but chaos and bloodshed.

    Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank would be more of the same, with much bigger stakes. Palestinian Mortar and rocket fire from the region into Israel's coastal cities would compel many Israeli Jews to emigrate in search of security and could very well be the undoing of the Zionist enterprise.

    The question is, is today's status-quo preferable to annexation? Make no bones about it, annexation will most certainly bring international sanction and war. And what about the Palestinian populace of the region? Should they be incorporated into Israel, thus threatening its demographic future? Should they be expelled, violating international law (Post WW2 precedents notwithstanding) and creating a humanitarian crises?

    Conversely, the status quo just perpetuates irresolution and over time could de-legitimize Israel's claim to the region. Furthermore, impending war and international isolation may very well be in Israel's medium or even short-term future, regardless of how it proceeds.

    • Chezwick

      Yep. And I hear Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy were co-conspirators.

      • V_O

        No way Chez… Everyone knows it was the PLO underground – Pixies, Leprechauns and Orcs really resent Santa and his entourage for grabbing all the credit

    • Vermont Yid

      Calling you a fool would be, at once, both flattering and an understatement.

    • Obama Fodder

      Annexation is the best solution!

      Just go for it, Israel!

  • muchiboy

    Some things in life are simple.The evils of the occupation of Palestine by the Diaspora ,the resulting ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people by Jews and Zionists and the imposition of a Zionist state on the neighborhood. The solution is equally simple.Allow the Palestinian people to return home.To argue that Palestinians do not belong in Palestine is absurd in light of the Zionist argument that allows the European Diaspora a similar "right of return" after how long? Who are you kidding? And what fools do you take us for? muchiboy

    • normtrub

      According tothe 'Peel Commission' which examined and decided on the partition plan to be brought to the UN in 1949, over 300,000 Arabs came from outside countries from the 1880's to take advantage of the work opportunities and high standard of living which the Jews produced in the Palestine mandate. There was never a Palestinian people. No archeological evidence, no Palestinian money, or government or language or culture-NOTHING!!!

    • Snorbak

      Mate, if anything is simple, its your thought process.
      What of the imposition of the Hashemite kingdom & occupation of Palestine by Jordan?
      What of the pogroms & ethnic cleansing of Jews, by Arabs, throughout all Palestine during the 1930's
      No, the Palestinian Arabs have no right to return, they chose their side & they chose poorly, the Arabs lost, suck it up.
      And so i dont have to say it again refer to normtrub's post.

    • RonaldCarnine

      Dear muchiboy, you're evaluation of the "Israel problem" is flawed from the beginning. You are parroting the same made up arguments put forth by the Muslim Arabs. Because of the length required to answer all your objections, which the author does quite well by the way, I will focus on only one thing. The Arabs sided with with the Nazi's in WWII and lost. They were holocaust deniers then they are holocaust deniers now. Please find a copy of the book "Brothers in Battle, Best of Friends" which was written by and for actual Band of Brothers participants. Begin at pg.205. Why do I bring this up? Because as supporters of the Nazi's, deniers still of the holocaust, they lost every right to anything. Israel conquered the land after being attack by combined Arab forces in 1948. Israel tried giving back land at the insistence of a foolish UN but even that didn't satisfy these defeated foes. As Nazi supporters they should have been given nothing. Your arguments are bogus.

    • stern

      muchiboy, I ask you this simple question yet again, in response to your accusation of "ethnic cleansing". Given the following facts, who exactly is guilty of "ethnic cleansing"?

      1. Prior to 1948, Jews and Arabs lived throughout Mandatory Palestine (except, of course, in Transjordan, later Jordan, where the sale of property to Jews has always been illegal).
      2. After 1948, one-fifth of the population of Israel – within the 1949 armistice lines – was Arab; the same proportion holds today.
      3. After 1948, there was NOT ONE SINGLE JEW in Gaza, Judea, Samaria or the Old City of Jerusalem. Not one!

      Tell me again – who is guilty of ethnic cleansing? And who, today, continues to insist that Jews have no place in "Palestine"?

      Your constant repetition of blatant and obvious lies is really becoming tedious.

    • stern

      muchiboy, you never listen, do you. I know I've told you this before, but there is no such thing a "right of return" for anybody, Jew or "Palestinian".

      Israel has a Law of Return. As a democratic country, it has every right to decide for itself who may immigrate. It has chosen to allow any Jew, from anywhere, to become an Israeli citizen without any pre-qualifying residency requirements. Non-Jews may be granted citizenship upon completion of a residency requirement. Do you deny Israel the right to decide its own immigration policies? How dare you!

      As for the "Palestinian's" bogus "right of return", name one other refugee population anywhere – and at any time in history – that has had the "right" to return to its country of origin, or even the right to pass on its refugee status to succeeding generations. It simply doesn't exist.

      So for heaven's sake, stop repeating yourself ad nauseam. You're making us all really, really sick of you.

      • muchiboy

        You know stern,when I say that somethings in life are simple,I mean that truth sometimes shines through like the most brilliant star in the night sky.When a Hamas suicide bomber blows himself and a crowd of Israeli teens to pieces,the truth is at once obvious,simple and unconscionable.The same can be said for what Jews have done,and continue to do,to the Palestinian people.Argue as you may,the kernel of truth is unchanged,and begs for acknowledgement and recognition.muchiboy

        • Sage on the Stage

          Yes, like "the most brilliant star in the night sky", its obvious that the "Palestinians" are murderers, pure and simple. If the "Palestinians" truly desired to live in peace with Israel, there would be an effective, self-governing, peaceful Arab/Muslim state at present, in Gaza. And "the kernel of truth" that is unchanged is that before and during the British mandate(before there was modern Israel), the Turks, and native Bedouins and Arab/Muslims repeatedly rioted, murdered Jews and destroyed their homes; all orchestrated by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hitler's ally and friend. This is the best article I have ever seen on this subject.

        • V_O

          What you really mean is a Hamas Homicide Bomber.
          Or do you contend that nobility is gained from conciously innocents in one's struggle?
          Are you contending that the bomber had a thought of "Gee, it's too bad about these kids… Wish I could state my case without having to murder them" ?
          That might lead one to believe that these people were civilized, had an actual objective other than the annihilation of Jews, and were actively seeking a fair and liveable solution.

          …. Where are the Israeli "suicide" bombers?

          You've been staring at the most brilliant star in the night sky too long.

          • muchiboy

            "What you really mean is a Hamas Homicide Bomber."
            Whatever.I don't have a problem with that.I have seen similar arguments against the use of the term "honor killings" i.e.there is no honor in these horrific murders.I concede their point.But really,it seems that you are merely looking for a fight.We all know what is meant by "suicide bomber".

            "Where are the Israeli "suicide" bombers? "
            While sympathetic to the Palestinian cause,I reject the "Homicide Bombers" as unconscionable.Equally,I find the bombing or shelling by the IDF as unconscionable,given the occupation of Palestine and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people.The IDF have little to no need for such terror tactics,they have the infrastructure and hardware for conventional means and methods.

            "You've been staring at the most brilliant star in the night sky too long. "
            Not possible.I miss the Southern Skies.Besides,we have had more than our share of rainy skies lately.

          • V_O

            Well then the Israeli's are the most inept ethnic cleansers in history. A little over 1 million Arabs in the area called Western Palestine by the British in 1948… Today around 5 million between Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel itself.

            If the IDF consistently shelled and bombed without discrimination, that, I would agree, would be unconscionable. Doing it in defense or in the attempt to ferret out the nests of terrorists initiating attacks on Israeli citizens is quite another thing.

            I'm not looking for a fight… Only seeking truth.

            Sorry about your separation from your Southern Skies.

          • muchiboy

            I would agree that in some ways Israel appears,on the surface anyway,a benign occupier.Very misleading.You claim ,in response to my severe accusation,that "Israeli's are the most inept ethnic cleansers in history".Untrue.From a minority of the population of Palestine to a majority Zionist state in less than a generation,mainly from (European) emigration and occupation,made more complete by de facto ethnic cleansing, hardly qualifies as "inept ethnic cleansers". Now Rhodesians and South Africans (masters of Apartheid) were miserable "ethnic cleansers",and would qualify,honorably I might add,as "inept". Indeed,they were so inept that they lost their countries (give South Africa time).
            As to the morality of IDF actions,defensive or otherwise,they are the actions of an occupier.Paradoxically and tragically,Hamas rocket attacks are the actions/response of the occupied. muchiboy

          • Sage on the Stage

            The bombing and shelling that the IDF carries out–is done in response to the thousands of rockets(185 rockets fired at Beersheba and Sderot last week along) fired at Israel. As a show of good faith, the Palestinians in Gaza should stop the rockets. How would you like it if you lived in a place where everyday sometimes, sirens went off and you had 30 seconds to find suitable cover?
            what if you couldn't find it?? Take a vacation from your job, visit Israel, and go to Sderot, and see the Sderot Indoor Rec facility, with the steel roof. Also notice the room full of junk rockets that they've pried out of the roofs of apartment buildings, with the phrase "Death to the Jews!" on them.

    • Choi

      You are a FOOL for believing what you posted ,muchiboy.
      Your HATRED of Israel and "The Jews" is so blind ,that in your EVIL mind,Good is" bad",right is" wrong",up is "down",east is "west",north is "south",and the sun rises in the west.
      You're not only a FOOL,you're a DAMNED FOOL.

    • Anonymous

      mulch-filled-boy, you asked "what fools do you take us for?"

      Good question. Answer: We take you for the walking pile of excrement mixed together with pig vomit that you are.

    • Endyr

      What fools do I take you for? Well, your foolishness is self-evident by your comments. Go back to the leftist college that indoctrinated you into this delusion and ask for your money back.

    • Asher

      The Palestinian people do not have a right to the land, it was never given to them in the beginning, it was given to Abraham and his descendants by God…Who are YOU Kidding? The two state solution would push Israel out of its land and hinder their ability to defend themselves….Deception is not going to get Palestinians what they Want!

    • aspacia


      Sure they can return home to Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Libya, etc. Jews have been in the disputed land for 3,000 years and they built Jerusalem.

      Oh, muchless, you are one of three huge fools on this site.

  • MikeT

    the reference to "Ramat Rachel" in the text and in view of the paragraphs context should be "Kever Rachel"-
    Rachel's grave about 1 km north of Bethlehem on the main road conecting with Derech Chevron
    at the Pill Box, located at the old green line. Ramat Rachel is a kibbutz on a high point overlooking this road and about 3-4 km north of Rachel's grave.
    ~jerusalem, Israel

  • stern

    While this article is very interesting and contains numerous facts supporting the Jewish claim to the Holy Land, it leaves out a very significant detail.

    The San Remo Conference did more than just create the basis for a homeland for the Jewish people. It divided up all the Ottoman controlled land of the Middle East, in much the same way that an earlier conference in Paris had divided up the European lands previously controlled by Germany.

    In doing this, San Remo gave the Arabs ALL of Mesopotamia – today's Iraq and Saudi Arabia – all of Lebanon and all of Syria. So it's not as if it was all about the Jews. It was more than fair to the majority population of the area, giving them huge swathes of land. This was a very logical process, undertaken by the Supreme Allied Commanders, the ultimate decision-makers in the world at the time.

    For more about the San Remo conference, its decisions and ramifications, see

    In summary, Dr. Jean Gauthier, a non-Jewish French Canadian international lawyer, has spent 25 years studying the San Remo Conference and has written a 1,300 page legal treatise proving beyond any doubt that Israel has full claim to all of Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and, believe it or not, Jordan!

    I say, let the Palestinians have Jordan. It's pretty much theirs anyway, even if it is ruled by Hashemites imported by that great impartial (sarcasm!) power, Britain.

  • Willy Rho

    A two state "solution" is perpetual war. Israel should take everything from the Jordan to the sea. Expose Palestine Idea as a Fraudulent perpetual wound in Israel's side.

  • Willy Rho

    The Moo Slims all hate Israel. They are a demonstration that the One True G-D loves the Jews, and they hate that and them with all of their Evil Being. There is no satiating that Lust for Destruction which is at the center of their Religion. And their end is the only end that will end it.

    • Asher

      Genesis 32:28 "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome." 1 Samuel 13:14 "The Lord has sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him, (David) leader of his people.

  • Freet

    Technology will decide humanity’s fate, not god. In less than 1000 years, most of the middle east will be little more than badlands with roving bands of animal like bipeds, aka humans, killing each other for sport and survival. Israel, along with a few other small colonies scattered over the planet, will be islands of beauty and happiness, the inhabitants genetically enhanced super humans. Ironic isn’t it?

  • Attila The Hun

    The truth is for 2000 years the land of Israel has been desolated and belonged to one. After force Jewish explosion the people who lived on that land were transient migrant such as Bedouins who had no legion to the land. Except for few hardy Jewish souls who never abandoned their homeland. Calling migrant Israeli/ west bank Arabs as genuine indigenous people i.e Palestinians is nothing more than modern day display anti Jewish hatred. For the last 2000 years the world has been trying every which way possible to eradicate The Jews from the face of the earth. Fortunately we have survived due to stubbornness not to abandon our 4000 years history. If the Arabs or the rest of the world think that now that we are back home we will give it up our historical rights , they are dreaming.

    • Choi

      Not only are they DREAMING,but they are still learning that "NEVER AGAIN" is not just a phrase.
      As far as Iran and it's Terrorist Agents:If Iranians and Israelis should run into each other ,in some dark alley somewhere,DON'T BET on the Iranians walking out .

  • dougjmiller

    Carving up Israel into slivers of Jewish and Arab/ Moslem sovereignty will not result in peace. It will end with the annihilation of Israel and the extermination of the Jewish people. Anti-Semites throughout the world and the Arab/ Moslems occupying land in and around Israel understand this very well. They are not interested in, nor will there ever be, a 22nd Arab/ Moslem dominated country. Their desire and the whole focus of their pathetic lives is to kill the Jews. Israel must remain strong and vibrant and stay put on all of her sacred territory if she wants to survive and to flourish.

  • dougjmiller

    Actually there already is a "two state solution." It's called Israel and Jordan.

    • muchiboy

      Certainly, for the foreseeable future,and perhaps beyond,the idea of a single state solution will be just that,an ideal,really,in the hearts and minds of a displaced and wronged (tragically and paradoxically wronged by the most wronged people ever,the Jewish people) people,the Palestinian people.But the single state solution,the ideal,most fair,if not most difficult and anethemic solution to Zionists,is hardly out of the question,given the historical and ethical wrongs of the recreation of this ancient,biblical,racist,de facto Apartheid-like entity and the realities of the neighborhood and region.Firstly,there is a large,native Palestinian population within Israel,that will serve as a kernel for a single state,comprising both Jews and Palestinians.Israel (i.e.Jews) will try ,by hook and crook,to further enhance and complete the de facto ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people in any future treaties as land trades/swaps (i.e. "land (populated by Israeli Palestinians) for peace"). Hopefully the Palestinians will see this for what it is,and refuse any and all such "people swaps".
      Hopefully,the Palestinian diaspora will not have to wait as long as the Diaspora had to wait to return home.Maybe it will take that long for both wronged peoples to find the magnanimity to accept each other as valued members of a single state.muchiboy

      • dougjmiller

        Mucousboy, you are obviously a virulent anti-Semite whose goal is the genocide of the Jews. There are 21 Arab/ Moslem controlled countries spread out over a few million square miles of mineral rich terrirtory. There is only one Jewish state confined to 8000 square miles. Tell your Arab friends to take in the Arab/ Moslems who are occupying land in and around Israel. Then there will be peace and justice.

  • RiverFred

    The Palestinians' most profound dreams do not involve national self-determination or a state of their own. They instead dream of the destruction of Israel, the creation of Palestine from the River to the Sea. All one has to do is look at Gaza. Unfortunately Obama is totally blind.

  • UCSPanther

    If Palestine doesn't stop being nothing more than a shoddy construct where gangs of terrorists fight over power and money, it will be no more than a memory.

    • Larry

      You just described the entire arab world, where the countries are nothing but but shoddy constructs where gangs of terrorists fight over power and money.

  • rachaelamb

    I totally agree with this article. Annex Judea and Samaria,and let the Jewish people live wherever they want. They should especially be able to live in Hebron, and Bethlehem the City of King David. As a Christian who believes in the Bible,I would much rather have the Jewish people living there who lived there during the time of Jesus,and his family. Rather than Arabs who claim they did,but really didn't,and claim to be Christian,yet act the opposite by their cruel,hateful support of the evil murderers of defenseless Jewish women and children.

  • Sage on the Stage

    Best article I've ever seen on this subject; should be made required reading in American and Israeli public high schools.

    • V_O

      I agree, Sage. However, these kinds of facts rarely see the light of day in the average left-ist classroom. Academia is much too busy re-writing history according to what they think to be bothered by what actually happened.

      On a different note, I almost fell over when I heard Bill Maher declare that Islamists were a dangerous, crazy people. Now if he could just carry that thought over to what's happening in this and all other conflicts over there… never mind…. I'll shake off the fairy dust now.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    No matter what configuration Israel decides on the Islamist Nations are going to attack and
    that means a fight for survival and on a grand scale. Israeli leaders must think beyond mere
    survival to continue the unending assault against the Israeli people and create boundaries that
    are defensible and historically correct. I would prefer the lands that were promised to Abraham
    in Scripture, what Jews must return to is their original promised land and faith, relations with
    man have proved a failure, turn back to the Almighty and His Covenant, it is still waiting for
    completion. Sitting back watching the duplicity of the Nations and the history of Israel it
    is glaringly obvious Arabs-Islamists will never accept peace unless it is forced on them
    and they are made unable to continue their murderous conduct. Israel must make all of
    the decisions that are necessary and enforce them without allowing leftist, antisemetic
    interference to come into anythng. It is on Israel to eliminate the Islamist curse………..William

  • muchiboy

    "Tell your Arab friends to take in the Arab/ Moslems who are occupying land in and around Israel. Then there will be peace and justice. "

    The Arab states did not occupy Palestine,the Diaspora ,read European Jews,did.muchiboy

  • Ephraim Shomer

    These are words that must be said. All of Eretz Yisrael belongs to the Jewish people, and it is our biblical imperative to claim it. It is long past time we in Israel realize that the "Palestinians" will never be satisfied with anything less than the total destruction of the Jewish State and her people. These people need to be transferred to Jordan, where they belong. Barring that, they should be eliminated. It's a matter of Jewish survival, us vs. them. Arab life is cheap, as the Arabs themselves demonstrate on a daily basis. Kahane (HY"D) was right!

  • Western Spirit

    The reason the Left is against Israel is because as Jesus said, if Satan's house is divided against itself it cannot stand.
    Thus the Left and the Moslem's are on the side of evil and that's why they have an unholy alliance.

    Also God gave His people all of the land, land that belonged to Him to give, and sent Ismael away with instructions he was not to inherit with Isaac. Now Ismael is demanding Isaac's inheritance and must be denied it once again.

    At least that's my perspective as a Christian.

  • ML/NJ

    Asking a two-stater whether he believes one of the two states should be Judenrein usually causes him to abort the conversation.

  • hmurveit thetruth

    GREAT GREAT GREAT ARTICLE, thank you Mr Matthew M. Hausman

  • Hammad Aamir

    Great! Concerte