make a donation

Why Donate to FLAME?

By supporting FLAME, you help fund our ads in national media, like U.S. News and World Report, The New York Times, The Nation, The National Review, The American Spectator, The Washington Times National Weekly, and others. You help publish our messages in Jewish publications, both in the U.S. and in Israel, among them The International Edition of the Jerusalem Post. Finally, your donation helps us publish our messages monthly in over fifty small-town newspapers, all across the United States and Canada.

Facts and Logic About
the Middle East
P.O. Box 590359
San Francisco, CA 94159
(415) 356-7801

April 9, 2013 Facebook Twitter More...

Peace between Israel and the Palestinians looks currently—if not permanently—impossible.  What should Israel do, what should the U.S. do?

Dear Friend of FLAME:

The prospects for peace between Israel and the Palestinians have never looked bleaker.  This is not because of outright hostilities between the two parties, but because the facts on the ground---in the West Bank and Gaza, and all over the Middle East---are totally antagonistic to peace with Israel.

Let's forget the fact that Palestinian "President" Mahmoud Abbas will not acknowledge the right of the Jews to have a state in Israel---perhaps the most basic of preconditions for peace talks.  (Even President Obama in his recent trip to the region called on Abbas to accept this fundamental fact---but to no avail.)  Let's forget that Abbas has refused for more than two years even to sit down with Israel to discuss peace.

While we're at it, let's forget, too, the fact that Hamas, the terrorist ruler of Gaza, unabashedly stands for the destruction of Israel and the murder of all Jews in the region---and let's forget that Abbas has been trying assiduously and so far unsuccessfully for the last three years to reconcile his Fatah party with Hamas.

That's a lot of forgetting of facts that on their face would make an Israeli Palestinian peace almost inconceivable.

What we can't forget, though, is an instability among Israel's Middle East neighbors that verges on chaos.  No one can say how Syria's civil war will resolve itself, but chances are excellent that radical Islamist forces will prevail.  They've already prevailed in Egypt, but Egypt is almost bankrupt, and violent civil unrest there is growing daily.  Lebanon is controlled by Hezbollah, which maintains its own army with a growing arsenal now numbering tens of thousands of missiles aimed at Israel.  Even the King of Jordan's grip on power seems more tenuous with each passing month.

Naftali Bennett, head of the newly elected Israeli political force, the Habayit Hayehudi (Jewish Homeland) party---and recently appointed by Binyamin Natanyahu as Minister of Industry, Trade and Labor---believes the Palestinians should never have a state.  He and others believe Israel should annex the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), tightly control regional security, and while allowing the Palestinians self-governance, also encourage them to emigrate to Jordan and other neighboring lands.

This week's FLAME Hotline gives you excellent background on why the hope of President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry seems increasingly futile. Written by Israel's former ambassador to the U.S., Zalman Shoval, it also explains why more Israelis are coming to the conclusion that the best solution in a bad situation may be exactly the kind of unilateral action recommended by Naftali Bennett.

Please take a few minutes to read this quietly revolutionary article.  If you have friends, colleagues, and fellow congregants who could benefit from this perspective, please pass it along to them using the "send to a friend" button at the bottom of this email, or using the buttons above to share it via social media. 

Thanks for your continued support of Israel, and thank you for your support of FLAME.

Best regards,

Jim Sinkinson
Vice President
FLAME – Facts and Logic About the Middle East


Have you seen the recent FLAME hasbarah message titled "The Most Practical Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Can the two current proposed solutions bring peace to the region?"  FLAME has published this "modest proposal" in media nationwide, reaching an audience of 10 million, including distribution to all U.S. Senators and Representatives, members of the Supreme Court, and, of course, President Obama. I hope you'll review this bold position paper and pass it on to your friends, members of your congregation and colleagues. If you agree that FLAME's outspoken brand of public relations on Israel's behalf is critical, I urge you to support our publication of such outspoken messages. Please consider giving donation now, as you're able---with $500, $250, $100, or even $18. (Remember, your donation to FLAME is tax deductible.) To donate online, just go to Now more than ever we need your support to ensure that Israel gets the support it needs---from the U.S. Congress, from President Obama, and from the American people.

When there is no peace between Israel and the Palestinians

By Zalman Shoval, Jerusalem Post, April 4, 2013

The catchphrase that "peace is the best security" doesn't sound very convincing to most Israelis, looking around the tumultuous Middle East.

US President Obama has come and gone. In many respects it was a good and important visit, the "reset" in the relationship for one, Turkey and perhaps Iran for another.

Obama also made two speeches about Palestinian-Israeli peace, one before a carefully selected audience of predominantly left-wing students in Jerusalem, the other to a Palestinian public in more restricted surroundings in Ramallah, making an impassioned call for an end to the "65-year old conflict" (actually it's much longer than that). But while the political debate in Israel, and to a lesser extent abroad, usually focuses on whether Israel has a genuine peace partner, the perhaps much more fundamental reason for the lack of progress on the peace front is that, at least at present, there is no viable solution to the problem.

Not that over the years there have been a lack of initiatives, formulas and plans, most of them a choice between the impossible and the undesirable, from the original UN Partition Plan to "two states for two peoples,"but also the "one state for both peoples" of the extreme Left and "Greater Israel" of the ideological Right, either of which would severely, perhaps fatally, subvert the ideals of Zionism and democracy. Then there was Menachem Begin's "autonomy for the inhabitants," "[the] Oslo [Accords]," Ariel Sharon's "disengagement [from Gaza]," etc.

Conventional wisdom in most of the international community regards the "return" of Israel to the pre-1967 armistice lines, a.k.a. the Green Line, with or without minor rectifications, as the key to a solution to the problem, disregarding, among other things, such "small" matters as the Jewish people's historical, moral and legal rights in the areas which Israel is asked to relinquish, but perhaps more to the point in view of Middle Eastern realities, ignoring Israel's dangerous security situation.

The latter reality was expressly recognized by UN Security Council Resolution 242 in its reference to secure borders, as well as by a majority of American presidents since 1967; Ronald Reagan stated that "Israel should never be asked to return to where it was 8 miles wide," Jimmy Carter accepted in the 1978 Camp David agreements and Israel's continued presence in "specified security locations" in the future Palestinian autonomy, and George W.

Bush agreed with Ariel Sharon on the security-based "settlement blocs," not forgetting that it was only because of Arab miscalculations that in 1967 Israel's narrow waist wasn't cut in two and that the links between its capital Jerusalem and the rest of the country weren't severed.

Though, as is often claimed, all the problems pertaining to the "two-state solution" were already addressed in the so-called Clinton Parameters of 2000 (which Yasser Arafat anyway made sure to kill off from the beginning by unleashing the second intifada), the two sides have not come to an agreement on any of them. There is no acceptable formula on refugees, there is nothing resembling a common denominator on Jerusalem and the Temple Mount; the concept of taking the Green Line as the basis for the future border, predicated on land swaps, doesn't specify which land and where, and if there supposedly is a consensus on the settlement blocs, why do the Palestinians, the US and the Europeans object every time Jews build another house within their perimeters?

Furthermore, it is an illusion to assume that any Israeli government, Right, Left or Center, could persuade or force the 100,000 or so Israelis who live in the West Bank outside the settlement blocs to evacuate their homes (even evacuating just 8,500 settlers from Gaza has left an open wound).

Nor indeed has the "partnership" problem been resolved. Mr. Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) may be more moderate than his terrorist predecessor Arafat (no big deal), but just as the former, he has adopted a strategy of avoiding at all costs meaningful talks with Israel, in which, as he realizes, both sides would have to make painful compromises, an eventuality the Palestinian leadership has shirked by all means, and intends to continue to avoid in the future.

In the past they accomplished this by violence and terror, in the present it is by setting preconditions to getting back to the negotiating table (President Obama referred to this in his Ramallah speech), or by going to the UN and other international bodies to obtain international recognition without negotiations. When more or less well-intentioned observers ask why not put Abbas to a test (by temporarily freezing settlement activity, for instance) they forget that he has already flunked this test, more than once, when he refused to renew negotiations in spite of Binyamin Netanyahu's 10-month settlement freeze, and when he failed to respond to Sharon's disengagement from Gaza or to Netanyahu's Bar-Ilan speech underwriting the two-state formula. Abbas even left the ultra-generous proposals by Ehud Olmert dangling in mid-air. In statements since then, Abu Mazen made it clear that he also opposed a formal "end of conflict" declaration and that under no circumstances would he agree to recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people.

Most Palestinians, indeed most Arabs, are still loath ideologically and, often also intellectually, to accept Israel's existence, hoping that one day it might disappear from the face of the earth, as other "conquerors" did. As a recent public opinion poll conducted by Mina Tzemach shows, a majority of Israelis do not believe that the Palestinians are interested in real peace, even if Israel were to give up its claims on Jerusalem and borders.

Moshe Dayan, who opposed both Palestinian statehood and Israeli annexation of Judea and Samaria, but had extensive contacts with Palestinian leaders and opinion-makers, reached the conclusion that there was no way that Israelis and Palestinians could reach a final, formal peace agreement which would be supported by a majority of people on both sides; what Israelis could live with would be anathema to most Palestinians, and vice versa. He, therefore, believed that the best, perhaps the only, way to make progress would be by means of steps, including unilateral ones and practical on the ground arrangements, with the aim of handing the Palestinians almost unlimited authority for running their own lives, but keeping security matters in the hands of Israel, and leaving the question of sovereignty in abeyance.

Much of what Dayan thought 35 years ago still holds true today. Such proposals or similar ones presently making the rounds in think tanks and political quarters may not actually "solve" the Palestinian-Israeli problem, but could at least reduce some of its dimensions and allay its potentially dangerous fallout. There may be other ways as well, perhaps with greater cognizance of developments since the 1978 Camp David Conference.

These could include partial or interim agreements or even unilateral steps. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has stated more than once that he doesn't want to rule over another people, adding, however, that any arrangement would have to take into consideration Israel's security concerns.

The catchphrase that "peace is the best security" doesn't sound very convincing to most Israelis, looking around the tumultuous Middle East.

If you'd like a printer-friendly, text version of this newsletter click the button below.


How many times have you heard someone lament that Israel doesn't have good public relations? By supporting FLAME, you help one of the world's most powerful information efforts to spread the truth about Israel and the Middle East conflict. Please note that because FLAME is a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation, your donation is tax-deductible.


If you know of a friend or colleague who would appreciate learning more Facts and Logic About the Middle East, please forward this issue of the FLAME HOTLINE to them using the link below.

Share |

If you have received this issue of the FLAME HOTLINE from a friend or colleague and you'd like to subscribe, please use the link below.

Our Ads and Positions | Donate | Our Letters to Editors | Our Acquisition Letters
FLAME's Purpose | Subscribe to Hotline Alerts | Home

©2013 FLAME. All rights reserved. | Site Credits | Contact Us

You are receiving this email because you have requested news, facts and analysis about Israel and the Middle East conflict.

Update your member profile. | Click here to unsubscribe.