When you say, "Illegal," do mean that the Jews ought be forbidden to use the same lands as the PLO does, as if they had a State but just were not admitting it???
Actually we don't need Israel at all. Israel is an often convenient ally, but we don't need Israel. I think we should support Israel- up to but not including the settlements in the occupied territories.
Drill this directly into your cranium... there is no <OCCUPIED TERRITORY> this is the <land of Israel from time immemorial> The Arabs were/are the conquerors since the time of Mohammad... In fact, it seems to me that I am wasting my good time explaining things that are found in history books... <GO OPEN A BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>
Wrong, the IDP Protocol requires the UNHCR responsible for the care and protection of Internally Displace Persons. Not the host nations. Further the IDP Protocol does not take effect without the permission of the host nation. Without the permission the IDP Protocol does not come into play. You need to remember distortions are not facts.
Neo-Zionists can yell, (*)(*)(*)(*)(*), and moan all they want. The international community believes the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are ILLEGAL and we shall act accordingly. No amount of legalistic sophistry by Neo-Zionists can change this.
Where are the 'Canaanites' sport, demanding their land back???????????????????????? The answer is historical... they were absorbed/inter married through the years with the Israelites... Read something by the Historian Zev Vilnay Land of Canaan Canaanites, In the Old Testament, original inhabitants of the land of Canaan. According to the Book of Judges, the Israelites, during the 2nd millennium BC or earlier, gradually subjugated the Canaanite cities. By the end of the reign of Solomon, king of Israel, the Canaanites had virtually been assimilated into the Hebrew people, among whom they appear to have exerted a reactionary religious influence. The Canaanite religion itself was based on the worship of the divinities Baal and Ashtoreth. Biblical scholars now believe that the Hebrew language was derived from Canaanite sources, and that the Phoenician language was an early form of Hebrew. Recent discoveries indicate that, before the Hebrew conquest of the south of Canaan, the Canaanites and the Phoenicians constituted a single nation, and that the people now known as the Phoenicians subsequently developed as a separate nation Any Encyclopedia would have given a somewhat restricted description of Jewish antiquity since it derives mostly from the Bible and some from Josephus Flavius (our turncoat). The Septuagint, Greek Ancient writings and Archeology tend to give a fragmentary analysis on Canaan and the Philistines (Trude and Moshe Dothan <People of the Sea> the search for the Philistines). As this is a very interesting theme to those that would want to augment their knowledge… I will G-d willing try to expand on the subject matter and write some more at a later stage. I hope what follows will give you in the meantime a satisfactory picture, quote:- The “Land of Israel” had many names and was called by many names in Antiquity… in between; it was called the “Land of the Jordan”, after the large river, which flows through its entire length (Psalm 42:7), and also “Land of Carmel” (Jer. 2:7). The term “Land of Zion”, the poetic name of Jerusalem, appears in modern literature. The ancient peoples who lived there before and during the Israelite conquest also gave the Land their names: “land of Canaan” or the “land of the Canaanites”, after the ancient people who lived in the northern part of the country, and “land of the Amorite”, after those who dwelled in the south. The prophet Amos, speaking in the name of the Lord, said: “I brought you up... to inherit the land of the Amorite” (Amos 2: 10). The Sages added: "There is no people harder than the Amorite; a hard person is called an Amorite" (Tosefta, Shabbat 7,23). Also “land of the seven peoples”, as in the Book of Joshua: “…He will dispossess for you the Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Girga(*)(*)(*)(*)es, Amorites, and Jebusites” (Josh. 3:10). The Jebusites lived in Jerusalem; hence the ancient name “city of the Jebusites”. The Midrash uses the term “land of the ten peoples”, and gives their names: the Kenites, Kenizites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Refaim, Amorites, Canaanites, Girga(*)(*)(*)(*)es, and Jebusites (Genesis Rabbah 48,27). The Israelite tribes settled in the Land and gradually overcame these various peoples until with passing generations the other peoples disappeared, and the entire land became the Land of Israel. The sages of the Talmudic period, who spoke Aramaic, rendered the names of the Land in that Language, and said: “The Lord's presence does not dwell outside the Holy Land” (Zohar Exodus, Terumah, p. 170b). The residents of Babylonia, to the east of Israel, called the Land “West” and its inhabitant’s "children of the West": "The sons of the West read the Torah during a three-year period" (Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 29a). The Land was called "mother"; other lands, “alien”. The Sages said of one who left the Land: “He left his mother's bosom and embraced an alien bosom” (Jerusalem Talmud, Mo'ed Katan 3). Of one who died in the Land and one who died elsewhere they said: “One who gives up [his soul] in his mother's bosom is unlike one who does so in an alien bosom” (Jerusalem Talmud, Ketubot 12). The Land of Israel is called “home” and the other lands “outside” (Psalms Midrash, “Shoher Tov”, 68:4). Scholars who live in Babylonia (“here” are different from those of the Land of Israel (“there” (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 5a). The Midrash calls the Land “world”: “Why 'world' (Tevel)? Since it is involved (m’tubelet) in all”. [Play on the Hebrew word “tevel”] (Sifrei Deut. 37, Proverbs, 8:26). Another name is strength as the ancient said: “there is no strength but the Land of Israel”. The name “Palestini”, from the Greek and Roman “Palestina”, appears in ancient Jewish literature. On the words of the Torah "there was famine in all the lands" (Gen. 41:54), the Sages said: "In three lands, one of them “Palestini” (Genesis Rabbah 90,6). On the Philistine city of Gath, which according to the Bible is in the South (Amos 6:2), it is said: “Those are the hills of Palestini” (Leviticus Rabbah 5,3). The Rabbis also refer to the Roman governors a high official in the Land of Israel, as “ruler of Palestini” (Yalkut Shimoni, Amos, 145). The name “Palestine” was also used by the early Zionists. The first Zionist bank established in England was called the “Anglo-Palestine Company” (A.P.C.). The bank, which became the nucleus of today's "Bank Leumi", printed bills with this name. Hebrew pronouncements during the early part of the British Mandate used the term “Palestina”. The British were later convinced, after great effort, to add in parentheses the name “Land of Israel”, and then only in abbreviation. Many terms for the Land exist in other languages. The English call it “Palestine”, and the Germans “Palastina”, having adopted the name through the course of generations from the Greek and Roman inhabitants of the Mediterranean coast. As seagoing peoples, the Greeks and Romans first discovered the Land of Israel through direct contact with its Philistine inhabitants, who lived in their coastal country of “Philistia” - From there, the name spread to the entire country. During the period of Roman rule the land was divided into districts: “Palestina Prima” in the South, “Palestina Secunda” in the central portion, and “Palestina Tertia” in the southern part of Transjordan. The English also called the country “the Holy Land”, and the French “Terre Sainte”, from the Latin “Terra Sancta”. The State of Israel issued a special medallion bearing the words "Terra Sancta" for non-Jewish pilgrims. The English "Land of Israel" and the French "Pays d'Israel" appear in Christian literature, and writers have called their books on the Land by these names. Another name common among non-Jews is “the promised land”, found in Latin literature and maps of the country. The English and Germans also use the names “land of the Bible” and “land of the Holy Scriptures”. “Das Gelobte Land” (the praiseworthy land) appears in German literature praiseworthy for the great events, which occurred during the time ancient Israel dwelt in the homeland of the Holy Scriptures and cradle of Christianity. In Arabic literature, the Land of Israel appears once in the Koran, as “Ard al Makdasa” (the Holy Land) in the Islamic version of Moses' words to the people of Israel: “Enter, my people, the Holy Land which Allah has assigned for you” (Koran, 5, “The Table”, 24). The Emir of Mecca called it <Ard Ibna’a Ihal Aslyin> =<Land of the original Owners> Ref. The Jews. Today the Arabs call the land “Falestin”, the Arabic version of “Palestina”, appearing in ancient Jewish literature. This name is found also in medieval Arabic literature, where it designates only a part of the Land of Israel, the southern district and its capital Ramla, corresponding to the ancient Roman “Palestina Prima”. Between medieval and modern times, the Arabs also called the Land of Israel, together with neighboring Syria, “A-Sham”. During the modern period, after the end of World War I, nationalist Arabs called the Land, including Transjordan, “Suria a-Jenubiyeh” (southern Syria). This was also the name of an Arabic newspaper published in Jerusalem. These nationalists hoped to annex the Land of Israel, then under British rule, to Syria, where an Arabic kingdom had been established. When the French, who had been promised the mandate over all of Syria and Lebanon, put an end to this kingdom, the term “southern Syria” disappeared. Bibliography Zev Vilnay
and the Israelites intermarried-converted with the Romans, Byzantines, and other non-Jews that took over Plaestine after AD 135. This is all proven by the fact that Jews and Palestinians bare a striking genetic resemblence. Listen bro, the fact is the world considers Israel's rule over the West Bank and East Jerusalem to be illegitimate and we shall act accordingly. You guys can cry and moan all you want.
None that I have heard of have formed a body known as Canaanites and have done so at this time so, we can surmise they will unlikely do in the near future so we should simply stand behind the oldest known entity and peoples to legally occupy the area which are the Jews.
The international community has legal ground to place sanctions upon Israel. Violations of the 4th Geneva Conventions. War crimes. Crimes against humanity. Genocide. Theft.
In fact... Professor Efraim Inbar projects a different view, a more pragmatic one as he realizes that the Partner for Peace has wiggled out of the equation. Respond Firmly to Palestinian Blackmail ~by Prof. Efraim Inbar April 6, 2014 BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 241 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In response to the latest Palestinian attempt to squeeze Israel, Israel’s government should kick the habit of paying the Palestinians for their participation in peace talks. Instead, Jerusalem should remind the Palestinians, through tough countermeasures, that Israel is the stronger party and can inflict much greater pain on the Palestinians than the Palestinian Authroity can inflict upon Israel. The Palestinians need to internalize the lesson that adhering to maximalist political goals is counterproductive. Last week, Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas blew off the US-brokered peace talks with Israel and slapped Washington in the face by re-launching a diplomatic war against Israel through international institutions. Several lessons should be drawn from this turn of events. First, the breakdown of the talks is a reminder of the stubborn reality that so many prefer to ignore: The gap in the positions of the two sides is too large to bridge even by a creative diplomacy backed by a superpower. Both Israel and the Palestinians still possess tremendous energy to fight for things that are important to them. Peace and coexistence are not the most important goals of the two warring societies. Therefore, the conclusion to be drawn from this is that attempts to broker conflict resolution between the parties needs to be replaced by a more realistic approach of conflict management. The good intentions of the international community should be directed towards attaining partial understandings and minimizing the suffering on both sides, rather than pursuing an elusive end to the conflict. At the same time, Israel should seriously rethink the wisdom of continuing to go along with the preferences of the international community – implementation of the two-state paradigm – when evidence mounts that this paradigm is not workable. The attempt to impose a statist rationale on the Palestinian national movement in the hope that a proto-statist structure, such as the Palestinian Authority, would behave like Jordan or Egypt, has failed. The opposite is true. The PA has failed to meet the main test of statehood – monopoly over use of force. It lost control over all its territory to Hamas rule in Gaza, where radical terrorists are hardly building a friendly state. Furthermore, the PA has developed into a dictatorial and corrupt political entity, hardly deserving the aid of enlightened states. More importantly, it is educating its children to hate Jews, with suicide bombers the role model for Palestinian youth. Thus, the chances of the PA developing into a responsible and peaceful state are slim. In fact, a huge majority of Israelis fully understand that the current Palestinian leaderships in the West Bank, and obviously in Gaza too, are not real partners for peace. Under such circumstances, Israel’s interest in making concessions to the Palestinians just to maintain their participation in useless talks – is questionable. After all, the Palestinians need Israel more than vice versa. Abbas is still ruling primarily due to the efforts of Israeli forces in ridding the West Bank of Hamas and jihadist elements that are trying to take over the PA. Moreover, without its economic umbilical cord to Israel, the PA is not viable. Therefore, Israeli concessions and gestures to keep the Palestinians talking without any Palestinian quid pro quo make little sense. Releasing convicted terrorists, in particular, is counterproductive. It undermines Israel’s deterrence and justice system; it puts back on the streets individuals intent on harming Israelis; and it radicalizes Palestinian society that welcomes them as national heroes. Furthermore, since 1993 the Palestinians have shown zero diplomatic flexibility, refusing to budge from their maximalist demands. They still insist on a division of Jerusalem, they reject key Israeli security requirements, and they refuse to acknowledge Jewish national rights and commit to an end to the conflict. Unilateral measures and threats should be answered in kind. After all, Israel is the stronger party and can inflict much greater pain on the Palestinians than the PA can inflict upon Israel. Perhaps the PA needs to be reminded of this. Raw power politics is what everybody understands in the Middle East. In this region, fear is a better political currency than compassion and fairness. The Palestinian threats to challenge Israel at the UN and in international organizations are empty. Nothing can change the reality on the ground without the acquiescence of Israel. For example, the acceptance of Palestine by UNESCO did not change the lives of the Palestinians one iota. Israel should also stop fearing Palestinian accusations at the International Criminal Court. Regular concessions to the Palestinians for not taking this course of action expose Israel to continuous blackmail. It is time to call the Palestinian’s bluff and make the PA face the consequences. Hopefully, Israel’s government will kick the habit of paying the Palestinians for their participation in sham peace talks. Rather it is high time to remind the Palestinians that decisions in Jerusalem, to a large extent, determine their fate, and that only real negotiations and compromise with Israel can give them the state they desire. Prof. Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is a professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University, and a fellow at the Middle East Forum. ================== BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family ________________________________________ IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Lets see what was written in the 4th Geneva, shell we? This Convention shall not apply to the West Bank- Israel is not occupying a foreign territory, and its relation to legal territory, not canceled since the granting of the mandate. Also, the Geneva Convention deals with an area occupied another country, while in the West Bank Never existed other legitimate sovereignty (Recall Jordanian occupation In 1948-1967 was not recognized as legitimate). Israeli settlements are not illegal even under the Convention- Geneva Convention includes only forcible transfer, According to precedent Nazi resettlement. Privacy civil initiatives, such as internal migration and Purchase Are denied in the Convention. Besides, the Convention does not preclude the establishment of settlement and population transfer for security purposes if the fabric of the existing population is a danger to the occupier. Furthermore, in Oslo agreement the PLO and Israel agreed about several issues: * Israel will transfer responsibility to the Palestinians and the security will remain Israeli- done * The PA will be in control until a perement agreement will be signed- done. * in the Arab cities Israel will transfer responsibility to polce forces that the PA will create- done * after a perement agreement will be signed the Israeli Civil Administration will be dismantled.- still waiting for the perement agreement * a spaciel comitee that will coordination and cooperation in civil matters will took place in Gaza and in Judea and Samaria- done (the Israeli Civil Administration) * Government offices will be located in Palestinian areas in Gaza and n Judea and Samaria- done * in Palestinain areas elections will take place- done * The executive power of the Palestinian Council shall extend On all matters within its jurisdiction, It shall include the power to formulate and implement Palestinian policies- done (Palestinian Covenant) * Accordance with the Declaration of Principles, Council will not have powers And responsibility in the field of foreign relations- its been violeted by Abu-Mazan when he went to the UN * The first phase of redeployment of military forces of Israel Will cover populated areas in the West Bank as Cities, towns, villages, refugee camps and hamlets- done * Further redeployments of Israeli military forces to locate to specified military areas- done * Palestinian police will be and assume responsibilities Public order and internal security for Palestinians- done
I am retorting to give meaning to what you have written. Into the fray: To my colleague Caroline, a caveat (This is a very IMPORTANT read, take the time to go through it slowly). Mike Wise is the person who crafted Glick’s Israeli Solution some 10 years. I remember because we used to discuss the ideas contain in it at that time. Sherman’s attack on Glick’s thesis is also an attack on Mike’s thesis because he entirely agrees with Caroline. I have had many discussion with both Sherman and Wise on their differing views. When they debate each other, neither relents. For my part, I am not comfortable with either view and prefer to back Bennett’s Plan instead.Ted Belman ~By MARTIN SHERMAN, JPOST I strongly concur with Caroline B. Glick’s diagnosis of the fatal failings of the two-state formula, and disagree just as strongly with the prescription she offers to remedy them. The mechanics of the policy are fairly straightforward. Israel will apply its laws to Judea and Samaria and govern the areas as normal parts of Israel… Contingent on security concerns… Palestinians will have the right to travel and live anywhere they wish within Israeli territory… … Palestinians will have the same legal and civil rights as the rest of the residents and citizens of Israel… Those that receive Israeli citizenship in accordance with Israel’s Citizenship Law will also be allowed to vote in national elections for the Knesset. … suddenly reducing the Jewish majority from 75 percent to 66 percent will undoubtedly have unforeseeable consequences on Israeli politics. – Caroline Glick, The Israeli Solution: A One- State Plan for Peace in the Middle East (2014) Caroline Glick is a journalist of exceptional ability. As readers of The Jerusalem Post well know, she is an astute, articulate analyst of political realities in Israel, the wider Mideast and the US. She has penned countless columns, courageously – at times caustically – critiquing unfolding events and ongoing processes with incisive insight. I have long been a dedicated follower and avid admirer of her writings, which have made her one of the most widely read Israeli columnists in the English language today. But it is precisely because of her wide readership and her significant influence that any errors in judgment or flaws in assessments on her part should be addressed rapidly and resolutely. Excellent analysis, erroneous conclusion Regrettably, I feel this is the case with her new book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, which has received a warm reception among leading rightwing and conservative circles. The book has considerable value for two reasons. First, it represents a welcome, and much needed, challenge to the monopolistic stranglehold the two-state approach has had on much of the public discourse on the Palestinian issue. Second, it provides a penetrating historical review of how this choke-hold developed, particularly regarding the formulation of US Mideast policy, and of why this detrimental impediment should be removed. However, while I strongly endorse her admirable analysis of the pernicious pervasiveness of the two-state principle, I strongly disagree with the conclusions she draws from that analysis. I therefore find myself compelled to take issue with her prescription for the measures with which the problem should be confronted, and with the nature of the alternatives she proposes to replace the dysfunctional paradigm that hitherto dominated the discourse. Lebanonization of Israel? I concur with Glick on virtually everything she rejects, but reject much of which she urges us to accept. I certainly agree that the establishment of a Palestinian state would gravely undermine Israel’s security and its ability to survive over time. Likewise, I share her skepticism regarding the feasibility some solution involving Jordan; and her assessment that “the Hashemites [or any other successor regime – M.S.] cannot be considered viable partners with Israel for governing Judea and Samaria.” But I have grave reservations – to understate the case – regarding what is, in fact, the center-piece of her book: Her proposal that Israel not only annex the entire area of Judea and Samaria, extend Israeli sovereignty over these territories and apply Israeli law to them, but incorporate the Arab population there as permanent residents of Israel, and offer them a path to citizenship. It would require more than a gigantic leap of unsubstantiated hope to believe that such a measure could precipitate any result other than “Lebanonization” of Israel. Implausible and imprudent “Lebanonization,” as the noted New York Times columnist, the late William Safire, explained, refers to the [situation] within a single country so riven with religious and other disputes that [it] becomes impossible to govern”; and should be distinguished from “Balkanization,” which refers to splitting a country into several separate – usually rivalrous – countries.” Were Glick’s prescription to be adopted, it is difficult to see how internecine inter-ethnic strife, which has become the hallmark of Israel’s northern neighbor, would not afflict Israel itself. Even if her demographic calculations are correct, it would induce almost intolerable pressures on the socioeconomic fabric of the country, were it to attempt to maintain itself as the nation-state of the Jewish people. Glick does seem to be aware, at least partially, of the severity of the problems implementation of her policy prescription is likely to generate. She writes: “The main price Israel will pay for applying its laws to Judea and Samaria… will be the demographic burden of increasing its potentially hostile Arab minority by 1.66 million people.” Elsewhere she acknowledges that there will be an “initial shock that [Israel’s] economy will likely absorb following the sudden, steep rise in the number of applications for its welfare rolls after it grants permanent residency to the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria.” But apart from glib acknowledgment of their existence, I could find no indication of how Glick proposes that the grave societal strains she mentions (and the many that she doesn’t) will be resolved, other than an expression of optimism that they will be. It is difficult to avoid the impression that it is a proposal that is both implausible and imprudent. “Steady diet of pure hatred…” Glick correctly warns of the dangers to Israel should there be an influx into the country of the Palestinian diaspora currently resident in surrounding Arab states: “For sixty-six years the United Nations, the PLO, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and governing regimes have fed them a steady diet of pure hatred toward Israel.” She cautions: “With such populations immigrating to the Palestinian state, pressure for Israeli concessions… will only grow, along with the Palestinians’ ability to threaten Israel…” However, she identifies precisely the same pernicious influences among the very population she advocates – somewhat paradoxically – incorporating permanently into Israel: “Just as devastatingly, Arafat built a Palestinian school system and media and appointed imams in mosques that fed Palestinian society a steady diet of jihadist and Nazi-style anti-Semitism…” Today, the same Judeophobic indoctrination and Judeocidal incitement continues unabated. Yet Glick, with unflustered equanimity, appears to recommend their almost seamless inclusion into Israeli society, by little more than an administrative decree With enviable optimism, she predicts that “an Israeli assertion of central authority over the areas will likely have a significant moderating impact. Once the population feels there is a central governing authority in place, that sense of order will likely neutralize a significant amount of opposition momentum spurred by anti-Israel animus.” Really? I, for one, can envision, with at least equal plausibility, a far more perilous scenario unfolding. Perilous blueprint For it is difficult to see how Glick’s blueprint could allow Israel to forge its permanent population into anything remotely resembling a coherent, cohesive societal entity. The specter of a country riven by ethno-religious rivalries and domestic unrest seems far more plausible. For her blueprint ignores the very essence of nationhood and contravenes what leading liberal scholars have long identified as the most central component of viable nations – a sense of fellow-feeling. After all, nations are more than a random amalgam of individuals, bound by no more than the coincidence of their current location in a given area. It was French philosopher Ernest Renan who in What is a Nation? (1882) noted: “[A] nation, is the culmination of a long past of endeavors, sacrifice, and devotion.” Elaborating on this, Renan stipulated: “A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things… constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One lies in the past, one in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present- day consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received in an undivided form…” Perilous (cont.) This is particularly true if one wishes to maintain democratic governance and representative institutions. Thus, in his seminal treatise On Representative Government (1861), John Stuart Mill, who essentially concurs with Renan as to the essence of nationhood, cautions that without such fellow-feeling, “Free institutions are next to impossible… [and] the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist.” Mill identifies the strongest components of this indispensable “fellow-feeling” as an “identity of political antecedents; the possession of a national history, and consequent community of recollections; collective pride and humiliation, pleasure and regret, connected with the same incidents in the past.” This clearly is the antithesis of the realities that would prevail were Glick’s blueprint to be implemented – as can be vividly illustrated with a single example of one “incident in the past” – say the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. For Jewish Israelis, this is a source of pride and pleasure; for the Arabs, humiliation and regret. Note that this is not a marginal incident, but a seminal event in the collective memory of the two groups, and is but one example of the antithetical attitudes of Jews and Arabs in relation to a host of socio-cultural issues in the past and the present. In light of such stark ethno-nationalist discordance, can anyone seriously posit a stable, functioning state, unless one group has overwhelming numerical dominance over the other? As the relative sizes of the discordant groups converge – even if the dominant one maintains its (dwindling?) majority – the internal situation will become increasingly unmanageable, especially if, as is highly likely, there exist large disparities in their socioeconomic conditions. Withholding full voting rights from a sizable portion of the sizable ethnic minority, as Glick seems to suggest, would inevitably exacerbate these internal tensions – and external pressures. And the daunting prospect of Lebanonization will become increasingly tangible. Size does matter The kind of socio-political entity Israel would be varies greatly depending on the size of the Jewish majority in the country. So do the societal processes and socio-cultural dynamics that could be sustained and justified. Thus, if Israel is designated to be a Jewish state, with an overwhelming Jewish majority, a whole array of aspects of public life in the country can be justified as having a sound sustainable, national rationale. For example: The blue and white Star of David on the national flag; the Menorah as the state emblem; the national anthem referring to the Jewish soul yearning for Zion; the calendar, celebrating/commemorating Jewish holidays and events relating to Zionist heritage; Hebrew as the dominant lingua in commerce, law and academia; the designation of Saturday as the day of rest, Judeo-centric legislation such as Law of Return… All of these are essential elements that make up the fabric of life in a Jewish state. However, none of these makes any sense – i.e., is justifiable and sustainable – if between 35 percent and 40% of the population not only is unable to identify with them, but – having been fed a “steady diet of pure hatred” – harbors considerable hostility toward them. Under such circumstances, a wide-ranging assault on the state’s Jewish character will soon be under way. It will be almost impossible to resist. Mirror images of despair? I have barely touched on the myriad of ways that more than doubling the Muslim population of Israel will adversely impact socioeconomic realities in the country and gravely undermine its ability to preserve itself as the Jewish nation-state. Such an exhaustive analysis must be deferred for another occasion. However, in this regard I would refer readers to several earlier columns in which I discuss in greater detail some of these dangerous consequences – see “What’s wrong with the Right – Parts I & II” (August 16 & 23, 2012); “Brain dead on the Right?” (June 26, 2013); “Sovereignty? Yes, but look before you leap” (January 9, 2014). As I mentioned last week in my critique of Michael Oren’s policy proposal, in many ways calls for a single state and offering permanent residency/citizenship to the Arabs of Judea-Samaria constitute a mirror-image of those calling for unilateral withdrawal. Both attempt to disguise what is essentially intellectual surrender by a false display of hubris – portraying them as bold Zionist initiatives, when in reality either would doom – or at least, gravely imperil – the Zionist enterprise they profess to preserve. While the former purports to address Israel’s geographic imperative by making it demographically untenable – even if a Jewish majority is maintained; the latter purports to address Israel’s demographic imperative by making it geographically untenable – even if it does not involve a full withdrawal to pre-1967 lines. Both would set in motion a deteriorating Jewish demographic dynamic —the former because of the deteriorating socioeconomic situation it will inevitably engender; the latter because of the equally inevitable deteriorating security situation it will engender. For these reasons – and many others – I would earnestly call on my colleague Caroline to rethink her call for “A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East” as the preferred “Israeli solution.” Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.net) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. (www.strategic-israel.org)
No, this clearly means the Palestinian land being illegally settled by Israeli squatters. Dozens of UN resolutions condemning Israel for this practise is ample evidence of the continuing theft which even Israel's main beneficiary, America, has condemned as being the main obstruction to a peaceful solution to the problem.
A Zionist historian! No hint of any partisan bias there Bendor You can whine about 'patrimony' and scream 'since time immemorial' as loud as you like; you can show us all the archaeological artefacts you like but you have one problem. None of the aforegoing has any relevance or legitimacy in law; and law along with Israel's arrogant dismissal of it, is all that matters. You can take that to the bank.
I have the right to criticize Israel. YOU however do not have the right to personally attack me, unless you wish to be banned from this forum.
Why can't you handle an Israeli that is different from what Jews used to be in the past ? You need to admire the lad.
If the shoe fits then wear it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There was NO personal attack... this was a generalization and an honest OVERALL STATEMENT that is a TRUISM!!!
