 |
 |
 |
Is Israel's greatrest threat ; demographics or indefensible borders?
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/12061
Comments
1
.
BobW
said:
It's the wrong question. Israel's greatest threat is its secular government modeled after Latvia, 1930.
Of course Jerusalem will be represented in the PLC. Of course Jerusalem will be part of the new state of Palestine. Don't forget 70% of Jordan's population deem themselves "Palestinians" and there is talk about an Anschloss. In fact, a Jewish Israeli, in the employ of GOI, offered Abu Dis, Jerusalem to the barbarians as a capital. Thus, there is precedent.
The Israeli Ministry of Defense prefers Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Israel's National Security Council also prefers Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The not too subtle message is clear.
I do not believe al Aqsa Mosque was lost by the Arabs in the Six Day War. After the smoke settled, Jews were forbidden to ascent the complex. Arab Muslims are allowed to. An Israeli General was involved in developing this arrangement. Maybe the bratty daughter wasn't that wrong.
Jerusalem is already divided. The camoflauge was renaming areas. Atarot is now outside Jerusalem. I'm scared to ask about Pisgat Zeev, Mount Scopus and Talplot Arnona.
Demographics and territory are only tangents to the ultimate issue. The barbarians do not want a Jewish presence in the eastern Mediterranian. Not by coincidence, they do not want a Christian presence in this area. The current GOI is a vestage from eastern Europe, circa 1930.
Without a Jewish government, there will be no Jewish presence in the eastern Mediterranian. I offer two comparative examples. Jammu-Kashmir, India went from a 30+% Hundu population to now under 5% Hindu. The differential was filled by Muslims. Singapore, surrounded by Muslims in Malaysia and Indonesia has expanded and grown richer. Singapore is predominently overseas Chinese. They are known as "the Jews of the East".
In Israel the governing class are known as contemporary Commissars.
Only a Jewish government can save the Jews located on the eastern Mediterranian.
Kol tuv,
BobW
Posted by: BobW on January 15, 2006 01:07 PM
2
.
Jeffrey Levine
said:
The West Bank needs to be annexed. Jerusalem shall not be split, or shared.
Give the Arabs in the West Bank a year to move to their favorite Arab country.
This means Gaza can become Palestine if the Arabs can get it together.
End of discussion!
Posted by: Jeffrey Levine on January 15, 2006 02:40 PM
3
.
avi
said:
Annexation does not require giving the Arabian colonists citizenship. They have Jordanian passports and can remain citizens there.
Expulsion need not be harsh.
Make all citizen arabs do a 3 year national service of toilet and road cleaning , and make them sing Zionist songs daily and recite portions of the Koran where Allah gave Israel to the Jews 5 times a day with their prayers.
Posted by: avi on January 15, 2006 03:00 PM
4
.
Leonard
said:
Once Sharon is incapacitated - his party does a U-turn and permits Palestinian elections in East Jerusalem. If Hamas wins, then the whole World knows what Israel has already to her cost found out at great human cost, that you are dealing with a bunch of psychos who promote suicide bombers and have no desire to co-exist with Israel. It doesn't follow that Israel should therefor commit national suicide and grant these animals a terror base in her backyard. A security barrier remains essential to protect innocent civilians from these killers even if it means fencing part of East Jerusalem, but the desire for self-protection and preservation doesn't mean that you are compromising on the sovereignty of your capital, it simply means that this is the best option for the time being. Unfortunately, with Sharon gone , and Kadima likely to become a significant force in Israeli politics if not the next government - any thing is possible with Peres at the helm, judging from his past record. That doesn't necessarily bode well for the future.
Posted by: Leonard on January 15, 2006 05:06 PM
5
.
Ted Belman
said:
ZOA Criticizes Israel For Permitting Jerusalem Arabs To Vote In PA Elections
New York - The ZOA has criticized Israel's decision to permit Palestinian Arab residents in eastern Jerusalem to vote in Palestinian Authority (PA) legislative elections on January 25. Internal Security Minister Gideon Ezra, reversing a previous ban on PA political activity in Jerusalem, signed a government directive yesterday allowing those running in the elections to campaign in the capital. Ezra said, however, that Hamas and other extremist groups would not be allowed to campaign.
The decision came following a meeting of senior Israeli government officials to discuss Israel's policy toward Hamas' participation in the PA elections, amid signs that Israel had softened its opposition to their being held in Jerusalem. On Monday,
PA chief Mahmoud Abbas announced during a press conference in Gaza City that, "Today, for the first time, we received from the Americans assurances that the elections will be held in Jerusalem," he said during a press conference in Gaza City (Jerusalem Post, January 9).
ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, "The ZOA takes issue with Israel's decision to reverse its opposition to permitting the participation of Palestinians in eastern Jerusalem in the forthcoming Palestinian elections. It should be remembered that, unlike Judea and Samaria, eastern Jerusalem is sovereign Israeli territory, having
been formally annexed by Israel. This weakens Israel's long-standing policy that Jerusalem is the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel. In this context, it is very worrying that, despite Ezra's statement that terrorist groups would not be allowed to campaign in Jerusalem , the Prime Minister's Office declined to clarify if this
meant that Hamas representatives will not appear on the printed ballots that will be provided at some Jerusalem post offices.
"The fact that Abbas publicly stated that he received 'American assurances that the elections would be held in Jerusalem' implies that there was US pressure on Israel to make this decision. We surely hope that the Bush Administration had no part in Israel changing its decision on this important subject. If the Bush Administration
pressured Israel to make this concession, it would be flying in the face of the declared will of the Congress, which has passed legislation enacted into law in 1995 stating that Jerusalem is recognized as the capital of Israel and calls for the transfer of the
US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It would also be in opposition to American public opinion which, according to a McLaughlin and Associates opinion poll last June, found that an overwhelming majority of Americans – 67% to 5% – supports Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem."
Posted by: Ted Belman on January 15, 2006 05:40 PM
6
.
Peretz Rickett
said:
If there are to be more "disengagements", thus expelling Jews from their homes, it is only fair (war not necessary) that arabs also be expelled to their side of the border. Even the right-wing would be on-board with such a plan. Expelling Jews only and allowing the arabs to remain is crux of the problem. I'm against any "disengagement" entirely - expel the arabs, let the Jews stay, annex the land, come what may - it's coming anyway.
Posted by: Peretz Rickett on January 15, 2006 06:05 PM
Is Israel's greatrest threat ; demographics or indefensible borders?
By Ted Belman
Israel Fears Landslide Hamas Win in Jerusalem. As a result East Jerusalem will elect four Hamas representatives to the PLC and Gaza will send five. In addition there will be seats bases on proportional representation.
Although in giving consent to the voting in East Jerusalem with restrictions, the fact remains that Jerusalem, just like Gaza, will be represented in the PLC. Who can argue that the PLC won't represent the residents of East Jerusalem. Thus who can argue that East Jerusalem will not be part of "Palestine" when it is created.
In contemplating the significance of Jerusalem, there is no question that the idea of Jerusalem is a Jewish one. It is the heart and soul of Judaism. The Arabs have never had any love for Jerusalem and as a concept it has no place in Islam. Even the al Aqsa Mosque was not highly regarded until it was lost by the Arabs in the Six Days War.
Having said that, Israel has no religious interest in the Arab East Jerusalem and israelis rarely go there.
It appears to me that Israel, by allowing the Arabs to vote in the PLC elections, is recognizing that the Arabs are citizens of the emerging state and that Jerusalem will be divided.
From a demographic point of view, this is a good thing. From a security point of view, how could it work? If a fence is needed throughtout Israel to protect Jews, a wall will be needed separating Jews from Arabs in Jerusalem. A divided city is what used to be and what Jews fought aganst since '67. It is not remotely likely that expelling Arabs from Jerusalem is at all feasible.
Thus we are stuck with an insoluable problem.
In contemplating Israel's choices, assuming the issue has not already been decided by the US and acquiesced in by Israel, Israel can either maintain that Jerusalem is part of Israel (it previously was annexed)
and extend citizenship to the 250,000 Arabs residents thereof. Or it can divide Jerusalem to exclude Arab East Jerudalem with the exception of the Old City. The latter contains about 40,000 Arabs.
Asssume for a moment that the only possible solution is to internationalize the Old City with the exception of the Kotel which will remain in sovereign Israel, and to allocate Arab East Jerusalem to "Palestine". If so, at least it has the advantage of removing 250,000 Arabs from Israel.
Mike Wise the author of the Jewish One State Plan still favours the annexation of the entire West Bank as the preferred solution and has demograpic studies to support that the Jews will outnumber the Arabs 2:1. In other words, he would rather absorb another 1.4 million Arabs including Jerusalem Arabs then give up any of the West Bank.
If you believe that keeping all the land is not worth absorbing the Arabs living there, perhaps you also favour forfeiting the triangle in Israel with all its Arabs to the emerging state.
The choice is very simple. More land, more Arab citizens, less land, less Arab citizens. I am assuming that expulsion is not an option other than in war.
In other words, is Israel more secure with less land and a higher proportion of Jews or more land and a lower proportion of Jews. Is our greatest threat demographics or indefensible borders?
Even this choice is simplistic. Can Israel permit Hamastan to come into existence in the West Bank even if we decided that the demographic threat is the worse threat?
Posted by Ted Belman at January 15, 2006 10:30 AM