For your perusal, my latest INTO THE FRAY column:
Trump: Can Israel seize the moment?
(Kindly consider “liking”, sharing, tweeting – please use hash-tag #IntoFray)
Will the Israeli leadership remain captive to old molds of thought—thus proving a constraint rather than a catalyst, impeding rather than inducing, the opportunities the Trump administration may afford?
It appears this week on the following sites (in alphabetical order):
ISRAELI FRONTLINE: http://www.israelifrontline.com/2017/01/into-the-fray-trump-can-israel-seize-the-moment.html
ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/20092
ISRAEL NEWS ONLINE: https://israelnewsonline.org/into-the-fray-trump-can-israel-seize-the-moment/
ISRAEL’S VOICE: http://www.israelsvoice.org/2017/01/26/fray-trump-can-israel-seize-moment/
JEWISH PRESS: (To be posted)
“There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.” –– William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act IV, Scene 3.
“If I am not for myself, who is for me?…And if not now, when?” — Hillel the Elder, Ethics of the Fathers, Ch. 1:14.
In the first few days of his presidency, Donald Trump has acted with remarkable resolve to promote a number of his more strident campaign pledges, and to dismantle much of the edifice his predecessor had hoped to leave as his …To date, there seems to be only one central pre-election commitment that the new administration appears uncharacteristically hesitant in embracing: the promise to transfer the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem… Of course, not all this regrettable reluctance can be blamed on the Trump administration….After all, the Israeli government itself has not been overly enthusiastic in promoting the embassy relocation…
… By not relocating the embassy even to the western portion of Jerusalem, the US is, in fact, taking a partisan stance against Israel. For, in effect, this endorses the Palestinian/Arab position disputing Israeli sovereignty over any part of the city, including the portion that was under Israeli control prior to the Six-Day War. After all, if the US does not dispute Israeli sovereignty of the city within the pre-1967 lines, surely there should be no reason to refrain from establishing the embassy there. Or am I missing something here?…
….Israel must prepare. It must formulate a cogent, comprehensive paradigm to replace the two-state folly, which addresses both its geographic and demographic imperatives for survival — lest it promote a proposal that threatens to make it untenable geographically or demographically — or both….This is now becoming an urgent imperative, lest we miss the flood tide and find ourselves “bound in shallows and in miseries” that a lapse will inevitably entail