RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/a-bloody-quarter-century-later-the-jury-is-in-on-the-two-state-solution/

Martin Sherman is the founder and CEO of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies, and served for seven years in operational capacities in the Israeli defense establishment. He holds undergraduate degrees in physics and geology, an MBA, and a PhD in political science. Sherman’s publications include The Politics of Water in the Middle East (1999), Despots, Democrats and the Determinants of International Conflict (1998), as well as numerous essays.

Here is a December 25, 2018 quote from Israel’s Major General (res.) Gershon HaCohen, spoken just days after I conducted the interview with Martin Sherman that follows:

It is mind-boggling how proponents of West Bank withdrawal so cavalierly ignore the likely threats attending this move. So strong is their fixation on the necessity of withdrawal to the pre-June 1967 lines that it has made them totally oblivious to realities on the ground.

—————————-

David Levy: What is one to make of the so-called two-state solution? Makes little sense today. Did it ever make any sense? The Fatah and Hamas charters are and have always been very clear in their advocacy of a one-state solution: A Palestine from the river to the sea that would replace Israel. Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah never speak of two states.

How is it that there are, even now, prominent Israelis who see this mythical two-state solution as a resolution of the conflict?

Martin Sherman: I certainly identify with the skeptical tone of your question and I certainly have never been able to understand why people chose to go along that route. Apparently many were taken in by its seductive allure. I think in many ways Israeli political parties that opposed the two-state notion were at fault, because they did not offer a sufficiently persuasive case for the alternative view.

I think you are right about Fatah and Hamas. In fact, if you look at the Fatah constitution, if anything it is more explicit about eradicating the the “Zionist entity” than Hamas.

While the United States has long been willing and able to support its allies, with a massive debt and prosperous friends refusing to sufficiently fund their defense, the costs have become unreasonable. For many American partners, several generations without experiencing armed conflict has set a low standard as to what should be expected of them in both their own security and that of the broader Western world. Israel has been a bright spot in America’s pursuit of like-minded nations who pay their fair share and play a constructive military role in safeguarding mutual interests.
Discarded Priorities

Currently responsible for over one-third of the world’s military expenditures, Americans have grown restless with the financial outlays expected of them in maintaining global order. Though representing 35 percent of NATO’s population, and under half its GDP, the U.S. accounts for 70 percent of its defense spending. This has amounted to roughly 3.5 percent of GDP in America while other NATO members have collectively spent below 2 percent since 2000. This is to say nothing of the non-NATO European states that are granted de-facto protection given their location, or that several NATO allies still profit greatly from their arms industries (which for instance, together exported more equipment than the United States between 2007 and 2011). America is also treaty-bound to defend Japan – which is the world’s third-largest economy yet spends only 1 percent of its GDP on security.

Unlike so many other allies who have thrived under American patronage while refusing to adequately contribute to their defense, Israel has long sacrificed to ensure it can protect itself. Its military spending was 9 percent of GDP between 1957 and 1966, 21 percent between 1968 and 1972, and 26 percent between 1974 and 1981. Throughout the 1970s, its defense commitment was four times the rate NATO countries and five times that of Warsaw Pact countries. Though able to relax its spending since then, Israel’s 5.5 percent defense allocation is today still the highest in the Western world. While over one-fifth of all U.S. service personnel were stationed abroad between 1950 and 2014, and Israel was heavily outnumbered in all four of its major wars, its compulsory military service has ensured that no American soldier would ever be called upon to fight on its behalf.

Though a large beneficiary of American aid, Israel is not at all alone. Beginning with the Marshall Plan, which provided over $103 billion to Europe between 1948 and 1952, the United States has used aid as a strategic means to retain alliances. The United States has given more than $109 billion to Afghanistan and over $70 billion to Pakistan, while Arab countries combined received 50 percent more aid than Israel between 1946 and 2013. These figures do not include (and indeed pale in comparison to) the trillions spent all together on military operations within those countries. Further, with Israel’s aid from the United States between 1946 and 1966 representing one-fourth of Turkey’s, one-third of Pakistan’s, and less than either Egypt or Iran, substantial American support did not arrive until the late 1960s when Israel had proven itself to be the region’s focal anti-Soviet actor.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/01/israels_sovereignty_on_the_golan_heights_why_now.html

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made a public declaration of Israel’s interest in having the United States recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Senators Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz have introduced legislation urging just that.

Why now?

There is no “peace process” – certainly none that involves Syria – and little push in international circles to force Israel to cede the territory to the war criminal Bashar Assad. The U.S. has even taken a stand against the annual U.N. resolution condemning Israel’s presence on the Golan, calling it “useless” and “plainly biased.” Is it possible that someone, somewhere, thinks that as the Syrian civil war calcifies and the players jockey for new semi-permanent positions, this is a good time to “settle” the Golan as well?

Well, yes. The prime minister.

Two things are worth understanding: U.N. Resolution 242 and Israel’s “right to exist.”

Among those opposed to recognition of Israel’s sovereignty on the Golan are some notable friends of Israel – including former U.S. ambassador Daniel Shapiro – who believe that under the terms of UNSCR 242, Israel is required to give up the Golan at some point (not now, Shapiro says adamantly) because countries cannot acquire territory by force. That is incorrect. The text says, “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war…”

War, not force, and the difference is meaningful.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-israeli-minister-admits-spying-for-iran-11547049367?mod=cx_picks&cx_navSource=cx_picks&cx_tag=contextual&cx_artPos=2#cxrecs_s

TEL AVIV—A former Israeli minister pleaded guilty to spying for the country’s bitter enemy Iran and faces an 11-year prison sentence, in a case that has gripped the public as Israel tries to thwart Tehran’s attempts to entrench on its border.

Gonen Segev, a former energy and infrastructure minister, admitted to espionage and passing sensitive information to Iran, Israel’s Ministry of Justice said Wednesday. A plea deal was reached after a monthslong closed-door trial and Mr. Segev’s sentencing has been set for Feb. 11.

In May, Israeli authorities arrested Mr. Segev—who served in Yitzhak Rabin’s Labor-led government during the mid-1990s—and accused him of being an active agent for Iranian intelligence.

Israeli said Mr. Segev made contact with the Iranians through their embassy in Nigeria in 2012, and since then twice visited Iran. He was arrested after he attempted to enter Equatorial Guinea and was transferred to the Israeli police at their request.