They say that the truth can come from the most unlikely places. Recently a member of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party said: "Every war ends with diplomacy, and this one will too after Ukrainian victory." The Chairwoman of the US Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), made this statement after her caucus released a letter calling for a negotiated settlement to the Russia-Ukraine War, prompting massive blowback.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Let's place Jayapal's statement in another context: "Every war ends with diplomacy, and this one will too after Israeli victory." How many on the international stage would agree with that statement? Israel and Ukraine's wars of survival are not so different. Over 100 years ago, as the Jewish people's struggle to regain sovereignty over their ancestral and indigenous homeland gathered apace, the Arabs in the Land of Israel, whose ancestors had conquered and colonized the territory, rose up to try and quell the Jewish national liberation movement through violence and incitement.

In 1948, half a dozen foreign armies unsuccessfully attempted to destroy the State of Israel upon its rebirth. Every attack on Israel since then is part of this ongoing war, whether they are terrorist attacks, rocket launches or a global delegitimization campaign. This war was not caused by Israel, but by violent Palestinian rejectionism. This is borne out by the statements and actions of the Palestinians themselves, which point to the war aim of ending Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people.

Israel has tried the negotiated settlement route countless times. In 1936, 1947, 1967, 2001 and 2008, to name just a few times when Israel either made substantial and generous offers to resolve the conflict or accepted outside mediation along similar lines. At every opportunity, the Palestinians rejected these offers. They did so because accepting them would also mean accepting that their war of rejectionism was at an end and they would have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

There is a reason why Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas repeatedly says he will never accept Israel as a Jewish state, even while calling for the acquisition of territory and other demands that were offered him in 2008. All of this proves that Jayapal's formulation fits the Israel-Palestinian context perfectly. Only after Israel wins the war against Palestinian rejectionism will the defeated come to the table and accept a negotiated settlement. That is how wars have ended throughout history. One side wins, one side loses and the losing party accepts the terms of defeat in negotiations.

It is clear that the Congressional Progressive Caucus wanted to endorse the tired and failed paradigm that only negotiations end wars. But its leaders quickly understood that this sounded bad to an American electorate that understands who is the aggressor and who is the victim in the Russia-Ukraine War. Moreover, most Americans clearly understand the absurdity and plain bad policy of calling for a negotiated settlement to the conflict. The Caucus' about-turn shows the reasonableness of the victory paradigm. It demonstates that if the case can be made, decision-makers will understand that diplomacy can only take place when a war has ended, the aggrieved party has won and the aggressor has accepted defeat.

Israel must demonstrate to its American friends that this is indeed the case in regard to Israel's struggle against Palestinian rejectionism, as it is in Ukraine. An Israeli victory is the only path to peace because it ends the bloodshed and violence once and for all by sending a clear message to the Palestinian aggressor that the jig is up, and they cannot achieve their war aims. Despite claims that it is intractable, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can end peacefully and immediately if Israel and others in the international community, led by the US, put enough pressure on the Palestinians to accept the legitimacy and permanence of the Jewish state. Through such an acceptance, the raison d'être​​ of the Palestinian war would be ended. It would be a victory for Israel and all those who seek an end to the conflict and bloodshed.

 Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post When progressives admit they want Israel to succeed appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The recent relatively unprecedented approval by the Israeli government to build 900 new Palestinian homes in "Area C," which is under IDF military and civil control, at the same time as announcing more than 2,000 Israeli homes in Judea and Samaria, is the result of at least three cases of political pressure.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

The first clearly comes from the White House. Hopefully, a great reward awaits Israel in return for this move –one so far unbeknownst to the public.

Even if such a prize is on the horizon, however, this is a dangerous precedent that links Israeli and Palestinian construction at a very high ratio of around two Israeli homes for every Palestinian home that is built in "Area C." This area was placed under full Israeli control in the Oslo Accords, a recognized international agreement.

For years and on many occasions, Israel has struggled to prevent illegal Palestinian construction there –construction directly funded by global players like the European Union, in direct violation of the accords.

The second case likely stems from an Israeli desire to strengthen the Palestinian Authority vis-à-vis Hamas. This, too, is probably a result of American pressure and has been openly stated as a US interest by the Biden administration. Here, too, the price is very high.

It should be remembered that the United States is simultaneously demanding other gestures, including a reopening of its consulate in eastern Jerusalem, which would be another very significant gift to the P.A. It would constitute a return to the pre-Trump policy of de facto dividing Jerusalem into two service areas for two populations –Jewish and Arab.

The third and arguably most critical case of political pressure is that which exists within the government. This has arisen out of a need for balance between right and left in the coalition, and to ensure its survival at all costs, especially in the critical days ahead of the approval of the budget.

Lest one imagine that the reward for the above pressure will have been worth it –particularly as Israel engages in an almost daily battle with Iran and its proxies, such as Hezbollah – a US State Department spokesman announced on Friday that approving the construction of thousands of housing units in Jewish towns and cities in Judea and Samaria "fundamentally undercut[s] efforts to advance a negotiated two-state solution."

This predictable and rote announcement possibly contradicts the assumption that there is a deal behind the scenes that provides Israel with a significant reward in return for its precious tribute to the PA.

Otherwise, why would the State Department express dissatisfaction? It is possible that the White House, through the State Department, is paying lip service to those who oppose this quid pro quo, such as the EU, Iran and the progressives in the Democratic Party?

If so, this is bad news, because it indicates that the White House is unable, or unwilling, to openly back Israel, without fear of reaction or recrimination.

Another possibility is that the Israeli government made the gesture unilaterally, without an agreement and now finds that it did not sufficiently satisfy the White House.

The problem here might be the result of internecine strife. Perhaps Defense Minister Benny Gantz approved this decision without Prime Minister Naftali Bennett's approval, in order to lead a policy and weaken the premier.

A third possible scenario is that Bennett consented to Gantz's approval of Palestinian construction, so as to make him the settlers' enemy, thus weaken his negotiations with former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to form an alternative government.

Whatever the reason, the damage has already been done, and it's very severe. Now, anyone who wants to put pressure on Israel understands that it works.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Apart from the unprecedented nature of approving so many Palestinian homes in Area C – a prize that is crucial to the P.A.'s goal of holding onto vast swathes of Judea and Samaria – it is a display of Israeli weakness that emboldens the P.A. and international figures who seek to lessen Israel's presence in its historic heartland, which is so important for its security.

Furthermore, it emboldens Palestinian militant aspirations and drives Israel further away from ultimate victory over violent rejectionism.

The final lines in this episode have yet to be written, but the balance of power in Judea and Samaria might already have been irrevocably broken.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post An irrevocable power shift in Judea and Samaria? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

It's abundantly clear that the Palestinian elections, called for May, are a farce meant simply to placate the new US administration.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

The Palestinian Authority and its aging leader, Mahmoud Abbas, have not suddenly become democrats after abjectly refusing to hold presidential, parliamentary or municipal elections for 16 years. The whole exercise is purely a public-relations stunt.

Unfortunately, so far, the main target of the farce – the international community – is buying it.

A few days ago, the PA sent an official letter to the White House claiming that all factions, including Hamas, were committed to the establishment of a Palestinian state along the pre-1967 lines, with eastern Jerusalem as its capital.

This has been held up as proof of a Palestinian commitment to a "two-state solution," and of Hamas's having signed on to such a commitment. Neither has made such a commitment, however. The rhetoric is merely a smokescreen mimicking an old Palestinian tactic that harks back decades.

In 1974, the Palestinian National Council approved the Palestine Liberation Organization's Ten-Point Program, known as the Phased or Salami Plan. The program called for the establishment of a national authority "over every part of Palestinian territory that is liberated," with the aim of "completing the liberation of all Palestinian territory."

In other words, the program implied that the liberation of Palestine could be partial, in stages, using armed struggle, but that the ultimate goal remained the destruction of Israel in its entirety. This program has never been annulled or repudiated. On the contrary, it is still alive and well.

The agreement signed in 1974 was repeatedly used and mentioned by PLO chief Yasser Arafat to justify his involvement in the Oslo Accords. This slower and more phased destruction of Israel remains the Trojan Horse that the Palestinians have constantly and consistently used to disguise the simple fact that their long-term goal remains the same.

Then, as now, there is no mention of living alongside Israel peacefully or recognizing the Jewish people's rights to sovereignty in their ancestral and indigenous homeland. Then, as now, large parts of the international community are claiming disingenuously that the latest agreement is a victory for moderation and a historic moment.

The State of Israel must not be confused; it has to act independently of international acquiescence.

Firstly, it must not allow Hamas to take part in the PA elections. Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections because of international pressure, most prominently from then-US President George W. Bush, who pushed for the genocidal terrorist organization to be allowed to take part.

This was a major mistake for which the residents of Israel's south are still paying. Hamas's success in those elections emboldened and allowed it, through violence, to establish an Islamist stronghold on Israel's southern border and – as it has shown repeatedly in the intermittent years – to create a sophisticated rocket arsenal capable of reaching most of the Jewish state.

Israel must not make the same mistake. It must declare loudly to the Palestinians and the international community that no armed group that threatens it will be allowed to take part in the elections. Any and every group that does want to take part must commit itself to explicitly recognizing the State of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people, without equivocation.

To many in the international community, this will seem like bullying tactics, but if the Palestinians are truly committed to a "two-state solution," this should be an easy commitment, as recognizing the nature and permanence of the other state is in line with previously signed agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.

Most importantly, it will put an end to the tactic formulated in 1974, which created the principle for Israel's destruction in stages. It will mean that the more-than-100-year Palestinian war of violent rejectionism against Jewish sovereignty is finally at an end.

It will mean its defeat and Israel's victory.

This is an important opportunity for Israel to establish this principle and expose Palestinian hypocrisy. The Palestinians have been very good at playing the international community, by manipulating language and persuading it of Palestinian moderation.

Israel needs to use this occasion to expose the Palestinian end game for what it remains – the ultimate destruction of the Jewish state. Israeli leaders should be using the country's extensive diplomatic apparatus to send this message to the international community. Only groups who lay down their weapons and recognize Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people will be allowed to participate in these upcoming Palestinian elections.

This must be a sine qua non.

It is a reasonable demand, but one that no Palestinian faction, regardless of its perceived moderation or pragmatism, will be able to achieve. It will expose, once and for all, the ultimate Palestinian war aims, regardless of tactical differences, which are still held by groups across the Palestinian political spectrum.

Then, when the true face of violent Palestinian rejectionism is exposed, Israel should be given a freer hand to forcefully use all of its diplomatic, economic and military power to impose its will and finally defeat this rejectionism.

Such a tactic will give the Palestinians a choice: either end their war against Israel of their own volition, or Israel will end it for them. Then, and only then, can negotiations begin to ensure a safer and more secure region for all.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Seizing an opportunity to expose violent Palestinian rejectionism appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Using Einstein's definition of insanity as it relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been so overused to the point of being trite. Unfortunately, this doesn't make it any less true.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

Over the past few weeks, we have witnessed the administration of US President Joe Biden resurrect the careers of all manner of officials with a long and storied history of failure in resolving the conflict.

One example is the new US State Department's deputy assistant secretary for Israel-Palestine, Hady Amr, who previously served as US Deputy Special Envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations from 2014 to 2017.

You might want to read that last part again. Amr was an envoy for negotiations that did not exist. In other words, he wasn't even able to achieve the basic criteria of his own job description.

Sadly, the irony of this is not reflected in the new US administration's approach to the Palestinians.

"The suspension of aid to the Palestinian people has neither produced political progress nor secured concessions from the Palestinian leadership," State Department Spokesman Ned Price said at a recent press briefing.

The State Department is thus attacking a policy that, to its officials' minds, was not successful for four years, and replacing it with a policy that was an even greater disaster for almost 25 previous years.

The fact remains that since the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian position has not progressed a single inch. While Israeli leaders have openly and constantly accepted the premise of a "two states for two peoples" solution, made overly generous offers of peace, surrendered territory, recognized that all issues are on the table and have agreed to negotiate anywhere at any time, the Palestinian position has merely hardened.

The Palestinian Authority even rejected former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's offer of 100 percent concessions on almost all issues, as PA leader Mahmoud Abbas refused to sign the "end of claims" and "end of conflict" clauses that would be written into a subsequent agreement.

This one simple fact should reverberate with anyone interested in solving the conflict. It is the singular barrier and obstacle to its end.

Until the Palestinians understand that the conflict is over and that they have lost, nothing is possible. History and facts have amply demonstrated this.

Returning to the failed Oslo paradigm of offering more aid and political goodwill in exchange for Palestinian concessions has simply not worked, ever. There is no evidence whatsoever of its effectiveness of moving the needle one millimeter.

The opposite is true. Offering concessions and compromise only incentivizes Palestinian bad behavior and obstinance.

We saw this with the deadly Second Intifada that was launched immediately after former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's generous offer in 2000. The 2006 Second Lebanon War was launched not too long after Israel completely withdrew from Gaza during the 2005 disengagement and rocket barrages rained down on Israel – leading to 2008's Operation Cast Lead in the aftermath of the Annapolis Conference.

On the diplomatic front, the Palestinian position has not evolved to meet Israel's; it has regressed.

The Palestinians refuse to countenance the "two states for two peoples" solution. They refuse to recognize Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people and continue to talk openly about ultimate victory over the Jewish state. This rejectionism is amplified in the political, diplomatic, religious, educational and even entertainment spheres.

The Palestinians still proudly talk of Sumud, meaning "steadfastness," which is the root of this violent rejectionism. It is the attitude that underpins every action taken by the Palestinian leadership, and what must be broken to end the conflict.

The PA will not see these steps taken by the Biden administration as goodwill gestures, but rather an acknowledgment that their strategy persists. They don't need to give an inch to gain a lot. This is demonstrably proven, time and again.

Only when the Palestinians understand that not only will they not gain, but they will lose, will their determination to continue fighting to be broken. That should be the goal.

The carrot has been tried repeatedly and has failed to even bring the Palestinians to the negotiating table. It's time for the stick.

A stick that breaks their will to continue the conflict is one that will deliver peace and security to Israel and a better future to the Palestinians, free of the burden of the conflict.

The fact that the failures of the past are about to be repeated does not bode well for Israel's security, nor for a brighter Palestinian future.

Unfortunately, paradigms are hard to break, even if they fly in the face of fact.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

In the results-oriented business world, someone in charge of negotiations who was unable to even bring two parties together would be immediately removed from his position, with his reputation in tatters.

Amr's appointment is a paradigm for failure that will ultimately be repeated.

Expecting different results from the exact same failed policies is insanity, but it is also deadly since more lives will surely be lost as a result of this madness.

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Einstein's definition, despite the cliché, unfortunately still rules.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post The insane repetition of failure appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.