It was nice until the last part. 'Autonomy' is not the answer. Until 2000, the P.A. had 'autonomy' in the disputed territories. We all know what happened.

The only solution is population transfer.

Joseph Norland.. Congrats man! Don't forget his excellent early blog work at the now defunct but still invaluable CitCUN:

[Link: citcun.blogspot.com...]

Still searching for Atlantis. Arifish has solution to water infiltration problem as per previous thread.

The only solution is population transfer.

As one of the first advocates of this solution on LGF (which reminds me: where's Dr. Lazarus these days?), I've always seen yet another benefit of Israel acquiring a permanent Jewish majority. Benefit that is actually in direct opposition to Shusteff's God-mongering. Namely, with the state's identity no longer in danger, Israel will be able to finally become a truly secular state, with religion relegated to its proper place, and black-hat tomfoolery curtailed.

Sorry, I'm going to trust the judgement of the overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews on this rather than that of noisy American Jews looking to fight to the last drop of Israeli blood.

Seriously, do these people think they're better military strategists than Ariel Sharon? Tougher than Ariel Sharon? More concerned with Israel's fate than Ariel Sharon?

#1 Population transfer?

Is that another way to say ethnic cleansing?

The President signaled in his speech tonight at the AEI that as soon as the war is finished in Iraq, the screws will again be put on Israel to give the Arabs a "palestinian" state. This is utopian madness. The very idea of a Palestinian state is deeply rooted in the savage Arab desire to kill every Jew and eliminate Israel. Pushing the idea of a Palestinian state helps the backward Arab states to divert their citizens grievances away from the rulers and onto Israel.

Sorry, I'm going to trust the judgement of the overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews on this rather than that of noisy American Jews looking to fight to the last drop of Israeli blood.

Well, if Israelis prefer slow suicide, the ultimate call is theirs, of course. But the least we're entitled to is our opinion.

#6

Nope, just tell them to pack their bags and cross the border to Jordan. Then they're Jordan's responsibility, not Israel.

JG

Why don't they just make the West Bank part of Jordan?

It wouldn't really be appeasing terrorism (because it's not giving them the independent state they ask for), and it would mean that the Palestinians aren't Israel's problem anymore. If cross-border attacks continued then the rest of the world could see that destroying Israel is the real aim of the Arabs (if they haven't already), and it could be presented as a hostile invasion of one sovereign state by another as opposed to getting spun as "resistance to occupation".

Please don't flame me as I'm not trying to be a troll, I just haven't really seen this option discussed much. Would Jordan be likely to agree to it?

#7

Not gonna happen. Once Iraq has the taste of democracy and prosperity (which is coming to Afghan as well), the rest of the ignorant masses will want that too and they'll riot against their leaders.

The liberated Arab countries must recognize Israel's right to existence and then they can work on a Palestinian state.

Otherwise, all it take is one massive terrorist attack on Israel and kiss the Palestinian state bye-bye.

JG

Is 'Yesha' another word for the West Bank?

Re: #12

YESHA: YEhuda (Judea), SHomron (Samaria), Aza (Gaza).

I don't believe the Palestinians should get a state in the West Bank or Gaza.

I am not, however, blind to the tide of history.

This Palestinian state is going to happen no matter how much we convince ourselves that it should not exist.

I say, let it happen. Let the Palestinians have their stinking state and then let them send a suicide bomber across the border.

There is no way to stop it, we might as well roll with this (yet another) punch to the Jewish nation.

I hope this experiment works.

#10 Chris

Why don't they just make the West Bank part of Jordan?

Because Jordan does not want the West Bank until it's empty of Paleostinians. Just like Egypt and Gaza... I read somewhere (can't remember the source...) that the Gaza question was the most heated one at the peace talks in Camp David. Egypt was ready to go back to war rather than taking Gaza back, and Israel was willing, too.

In the end, Israel was screwed and had to take Gaza.

Se non è vero, è ben trovato, Italians would say.

re Q #4

Had a lively discussion with Andrew Lazarus (same one?) on couple of occasions. Lazarus was quoting Akiva Eldar's op-eds from Haaretz to support his points.
Definitely not convincing to me.

I don't see any other outcome besides autonomy for the Palestinians. I wouldn't call it a 'solution,' it won't solve anything, but it is clear that statehood for them can be achieved only if Israel is destroyed, and transfer might ony take place when Israel feels completely cornered and in mortal danger.

#5 if you think that the 'overwhelming majority' of Israelis are crazy about a Palestinian state, think again.

Re Chris: Why don't they just make the West Bank part of Jordan?

Jordan has renounced any claim to the West Bank. I agree that turning it over (minus some strategically vital areas) to Jordan would be far superior to a Palestinian state, but they don't consider the gain of territory and population remotely worth the trouble they'd be taking on.

Same for Gaza. Giving it to Egypt would be an even bigger win, but Egypt understandably doesn't want any part of it.

#6 uhoh

Population transfer?

Is that another way to say ethnic cleansing?

No. The reference is to the population transfer between Greece and Turkey. Not in the ethnic cleansing of Jews in Arab countries after 1948.

OT

just finished watching Rather interview Saddam... it's the most dissappointing interview I've ever seen. We should have had an Iraqi ex-pat in there asking the tough questions...

absolutely worthless.

nik-

I didn't say Israelis are "crazy about a Palestinian state". I said that polls invariably show, even today, that it's the preferred ultimate solution. And that's for a majority even just among Israeli Jews.

Of course they're not jumping for joy over the prospect. It's just the least bad option.

Re: #16

Yep, that's the one.

#7 Stephen Rittenberg

The President signaled in his speech tonight at the AEI that as soon as the war is finished in Iraq, the screws will again be put on Israel to give the Arabs a "palestinian" state. This is utopian madness.

I'm going to do something really stupid here, and trust Saddam to solve this problem. He will shoot some CBW Scuds over Israel. Then gloves are off.

#19 Caton,

I know you said you'd never read my posts again but,

Population transfer?

Is that another way to say ethnic cleansing?

No. The reference is to the population transfer between Greece and Turkey. Not in the ethnic cleansing of Jews in Arab countries after 1948.

The "population transfers" between Greece and Turkey involved, at the very least, many, many hundreds of thousands, most likely millions, of people that were FORCIBLY moved. Sounds an awful lot like the Serbian "transfers" of population during the recent Balkan conflicts. They were and are currently considered ethnic cleansing and I don't believe that Israel would for a second consider them. If Israel lost its common sense and did in fact pursue that policy it would, firstly, lose American support, followed closely, if not precluded, by international condemnation.

Israel is as close as the US is ever going to get to a client state. It simply cannot survive without US patronage and it realizes that America will never accept the expulsion of the Palestinians. As distasteful as it may be for some on this board, that is not an option.

#10,
also, this has been tried before, by Shimon Peres, putting the case before the late king Hussein. Nothing came out of it: there was strong opposition to the idea in Israel, and the Jordanians, like Caton said, don't want more millions of palestinians. Heck, right now there is a Palestinian majority in Jordan, which promises to one day take the reins of the country from the Hashemite dynasty.
IMHO, The worst case scenario is a Greater Jordan (present day + West Bank) which is a terrorist palestinian state. Better to have two palestinian states, one in Jordan and one in the West Bank. This way, Israel will still control the strategic line of the Jordan river.
Problem is, the paleos want the Right of Return, to make three palestinian states. This notion is also popular with Israeli Arabs, though probably they only say so only to spite - I don't see any of them volunteering to live under Arab rule nowadays. As in the case of the Iron Curtain, the flow of Arabs is only in one direction - into Israel. Nobody wants out.

#23

Sigh, it's gonna happen. Just hope the scuds aren't carrying biogerms or chemicals. But agree with you, no more holding back.

I'm sure by now USA and Israel has the technology to track the missles and plot the designation so if it's heading for Palestinian towns (Ramallah and Jenin for example), they won't be wasting Patriot and Arrow counter-missles.

I'm sure I'm not the only one wishing this.

JG

#7, good that you mentioned the President's speech at the American Enterprise Insitute.

I just got through watching it on c-span.org.

Yes, he repeated his call for "a peaceful democratic Palestinian state" after the liberation of Iraq, and you might get the feeling that President Bush, like so many before him, is going to go along with State and try to pressure Israel into accepting something that doesn't meet her security needs. But if you believe that, you would (in the President's occasional mangled delivery tonight) be "mistakened".

There have to be a lot of new "facts on the ground" before there is any "two state solution" in the Middle East, if ever. Whenever you hear the phrase "peaceful democratic Palestinian state" just read it as "hell freezes over" and all will become clear. It certainly won't happen in President Bush's second term, if that's what you're worried about. The Administration seems to regard the War on Terror as a defining struggle on the timescale of the Cold War.

I read just the opposite into that hope for peace between Israel and the Arabs, namely that Israel will be given the green light to take care of its terrorism concerns itself, and with help we can provide from intelligence material gathered in Iraq, and the salutary effect of taking out what passes for their region's military heavyweight on the Arab psyche.

We're going to make an example out of Iraq, the President said, much as we transformed Germany and Japan. Calling for the "peaceful democratic Palestinian state" is a weapon against Arafat and his corrupt thuggish brethren, who are really Saddam Hussein writ small.

Otter,

I'm not sure, but I think I've read that over 50% of Israelis support transfer. They didn't vote Moledet (the transfer party) because they're a one-issue party; still Moledet received more support then ever in the last election.

#26 JG

I'm sure by now USA and Israel has the technology to track the missles and plot the designation so if it's heading for Palestinian towns (Ramallah and Jenin for example), they won't be wasting Patriot and Arrow counter-missles.

I'd agree with that policy, personally. However, Sharon is too much of a dove to do it. On the contrary, knowing that the Paleostinians have not been given gas masks by the P.A. (they spent so much on bombs...), I fear Scuds headed for YESHA will be the first ones targeted.

#6   uhoh 
#1 Population transfer?
Is that another way to say ethnic cleansing?

Golly, ethnic cleansing? I call it a fair trade. Here's some background on the history of ethnic cleansing of the Jews by Muslims across the Middle East (see below). For crying out loud, Jews are not allowed entry into most countries in the Middle East. And no infidel -- Christian, Jew, whatever -- can ever set foot in Mecca. Is there any other culture that bans entry to a city based on religious identity? Talk about racist apartheid! The Muslims commit the worst examples of such bigotry that exists in the world today!

Information comes from [Link: www.factsofisrael.com:...]

Population - Jewish Refugees

In 1945 there were more than 870,000 Jews living in the various Arab states. Many of their communities dated back 2,500 years. Throughout 1947 and 1948 these Jews were persecuted and their property and belongings were confiscated. There were anti-Jewish riots in Aden, Egypt, Lybia, Syria, and Iraq (in Iraq, Zionism was even made a capital crime).

1945-1972 2001
Country - # of Jewish Refugees
Morocco - 250,000
Algeria - 14,800
Tunisia - 50,000
Libya - 35,000
Egypt - 89,525
Lebanon - 6,000
Syria - 4,500
Iraq - 129,290
Yemen and Aden - 50,552
     
Total 629,667
There are no contemporary Jewish Refugees - we now have a home in the State of Israel!

Aproximately 600,000 Jews sought refuge in the State of Israel (Howe & Gershman, op. cit., p. 168.) They lost everything they had and arrived in Israel destitute.

#24 agree with you

Whether its the Serbs and the Bosnians, the Greeks and the Turks, the Nazis and the Jews or the Jews and the Palestinians a "population transfer" is just a sanitized way of saying ethnic cleansing.

#24,
in not so distant history (as late as 1947), population transferswere internationally approved and lauded. More than that, they actually solved problems.
The main reason this solution does not seem applicable in this case is the same reason the refugee camps still exist - the rules are different for Israel, and its enemies must be treated with kid gloves.

Re: #31

More pointless sanctimony. Yawn.

The main reason this solution does not seem applicable in this case is the same reason the refugee camps still exist - the rules are different for Israel, and its enemies must be treated with kid gloves.

Exactly.

#31 uhoh

Whether its the Serbs and the Bosnians, the Greeks and the Turks, the Nazis and the Jews or the Jews and the Palestinians a "population transfer" is just a sanitized way of saying ethnic cleansing.

Oh, nice. So that was UN-sponsored ethnic cleansing in Cyprus?

Question, uhoh #31:

the Greeks and the Turks

After the cessation of this transfer, did Greeks and Turks continue to kill each other?

the Nazis and the Jews

Not comparable. The Nazis were actually using it euphemistically which is not the intention here. It was not what happened with the Greeks and the Turks (after the slaughter, the transfer was peaceful).

#36 Ariel

After the cessation of this transfer, did Greeks and Turks continue to kill each other?

Well, there were still some incidents for a while, as well as lots of distrust. The situation has changed, though. Greece was the first country to send help to Izmit in 1999 and Ankara last year. Greece is the only EU country pushing for Turkey membership. And Greece was the most vocal country in NATO against France, Germany, and Belgium moves to refuse deployment of defensive weapon systems in Turkey.

I don't know what happened to Greece and Turkey. They've been hating each other for centuries, and now they're acting as love-struck teenagers. Oh well...

One vote for removal and resettlement of the Palistineans here. Give them the Empty Quarter on the Arabian peninsula -- after all, it's already empty. Call it ethnic cleansing or whatever scary PC boogey-man word you want, I don't care; just get them the hell out of the West Bank or this war will never end.

#32 Amos,

Just because the transfers were "peaceful" doesn't mean shit. All that means is that the people that were being kicked out of their homes didn't have the means to resist. One of my best friends is a Greek who's family originated from Anatolia and was given the boot by the Turks. They're here in the USA now but do you think that mitigates their anger at being expelled from their ancient home? No.

#35 Caton,

Whether its the Serbs and the Bosnians, the Greeks and the Turks, the Nazis and the Jews or the Jews and the Palestinians a "population transfer" is just a sanitized way of saying ethnic cleansing.

Oh, nice. So that was UN-sponsored ethnic cleansing in Cyprus?

After all the UN bashing on this site do you think that is anywhere near a valid excuse?

#36 Ariel,

It was not what happened with the Greeks and the Turks (after the slaughter, the transfer was peaceful).

Come on man, you're one of the most rational persons here on this site! "After the slaughter, the transfer was peaceful." Are you kidding me?! Are you saying that it was cool for the Turks to kill thousands (or more) Greeks to make the transfers "peaceful?" I hope not.

These were transfers based simply upon language, religion and ethnicity. What in that is excusable? What?

You're right... Greeks and Turks not a good example. Although if we give them time... ???

How about Armenians and Turks?

Bez, uhoh: Please let us know how you feel about, and what you've done about the "ethnic cleansing" Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait and Jordan have done of "palestinians". You know, the ones that were slaughtered if they didn't leave the countries.

Reply: Don't change the subject. We're talking about the Jews.

Regarding Bush, I didn't get the impression that he's gonna crack down on Israel post-Iraq. Came across that he'd expect Israel to negotiate peace and make some concessions after the PLO changes leadership, reforms government, and proves they can live in peace with Israel. He also flat-out stated he expects the other countries in the region to recognize Israel's right to exist.

Sure, in reality it'll be 12 shades of uglier than this vision, but it sounds like he's done well as a friend to Israel. Tough circumstances considered, of course.

Bez #39,

Are you kidding me?! Are you saying that it was cool for the Turks to kill thousands (or more) Greeks to make the transfers "peaceful?" I hope not.

No, of course not. Actually, I meant that the killing preceded the transfer. The transfer separated the rival populations and prevented further war, IMO. (Of course, I may be misremembering this - it is not one of my areas of expertise.)

clarification: Bez, I don't think that "reply" applies to you... but represents the thinking of some sick people who would side for their reasons with your argument. uhoh, not as familiar with you but will extend the same benefit of the doubt.

uhoh:
[Link: jewishinternetassociation.org...]
ethnic cleansing?
You'd rather seek constant conflict, forcing Jews to live with people that seek their destruction with every breath?

#40 uhoh

You're right... Greeks and Turks not a good example. Although if we give them time... ???

They had more than 60 years and... they fell in love.

How about Armenians and Turks?

There was no Armenian population transfer, there was an Armenian genocide organized by Turkey. Trying to equate genocide with population transfer is disgusting and immoral. I guess I shouldn't expect any better from a piece of shit like you.

However, to answer your 'question', Armenia is at peace with Turkey. Not even one border incident since 1920.

#41 Model4,

Bez, uhoh: Please let us know how you feel about, and what you've done about the "ethnic cleansing" Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait and Jordan have done of "palestinians". You know, the ones that were slaughtered if they didn't leave the countries.

Reply: Don't change the subject. We're talking about the Jews.

What I've done? I can't say as I've done anything other than register my opinion on the matter.

I think your equivocating Israel with the states you mentioned is very, very dangerous. A good part of the reason that the US supports Israel is because it is a liberal democracy in the midst of totalitarian, hate filled states. Take away the first part and what is left to support? If Israel was run by a bigoted dictator it would lose support faster than a 10 year old wonder bra, believe it.

I mentioned "the Jews" and I'm sorry, it's just that there's no point in replying without the context.

The whole idea of a Palestinian state depends on what your definition of the word "state" is.

Those on here who are all concerned about Bush's comments at the AEI should just cool their jets. I seriously doubt that neither Sharon nor Bush have any intention of giving the Palestinians a state with any sort of serious military capability. So, in that case, the difference between a state or any other kind of auotnomous area is mostly semantic. Anyone on here who harbors strong objections to what Bush said the other night ought to do a careful rereading of Sun Tzu's The Art of War (that's assuming you read it in the first place, which you should have).

Bez #46,
seems you're one of those who thinks that what is OK for Turkey and Greece, or for India and Pakistan (both successful, bloodless transfers, which ended strife and bloodshed) isn't OK for Israel because... it's Israel.

Also, I never said that transfer is painless. Sure it's difficult. Only, the alternative is continuous war. If you object to a solution because it pains someone, you'll be waiting for the solution forever. It you're against evicting anyone from their homes, you condemns the Jews and Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank to eternal war, unless the Arabs decide to become neighborly... and "Hell freezes over" has already been mentioned in this column.

Pardon the grammar... note to self: always preview.

So when the Kuwaitis kicked all the Palestinians out of their country, was that ethnic cleansing?

#48 Amos,

seems you're one of those who thinks that what is OK for Turkey and Greece, or for India and Pakistan (both successful, bloodless transfers, which ended strife and bloodshed) isn't OK for Israel because... it's Israel.

Perhaps you should reread what I posted. I never said it was ok for Turkey and Greece, or others, to execute these population "transfers." I said it was NOT ok to do so. To call them transfers is to sugar coat them and to call them bloodless is an enormous fallacy. Turkey and Greece killed many of the others citizens before these "transfers" could take place and the conflicts between Pakistan and India have hardly been antiseptic.

I'm simply subjucting Israel to the same test which I measure everyone against. Israel is, and, hopefully, will remain, a liberal democracy which rejects these tactics. Even as a "right-wing" government has taken hold these "transfers" of which you speak have not become the norm, and hopefully will not.

Also, I never said that transfer is painless. Sure it's difficult. Only, the alternative is continuous war. If you object to a solution because it pains someone, you'll be waiting for the solution forever.

This argument has, historically, been used by many to justify their means. They deserve no mention.

As for multiculturalism, I venture to say it can be a good thing but only if all parts share certain Western goals and values. It only works where nationalism is strong and tribalism is weak.

Communism didn't work ultimately because it went against human nature. The same for multiculturalism. Tribalism is part of human nature. As a result attemps to create multicultural societies where there is strong tribalism will not work. Therefore we have many separtist movements. The Left usually support these movements which are the antithesis of multiculturalism. How come. Furthermore it is often foolish to ignore tribal rivalries and force tribes to live together. During the Kosovo war the West kept saying that Serbs and Moslems should live together. In reality it would have been better to separate Kosvo as Muslem from Serbia. Something to that effect has happened. Similarly the Kurds are now autonomous. Separation is the best thing for Israel and the Arabs. Separation is the best thing for Kashmir as it has been for India and Pakistan. The Left argues for the Jews to get out of the territories.(what happened to multiculturalism there).

#48 India and Pakistan were a bloodless and successful transfer?

Huh?

#45 Thanks for demonstrating your poor grasp of history and boorishness in one post. Now I know not to bother reading your crap.

Sorry for the "Greater Israel" crowd's hopes, but Bush said some very specific things.

1st, he called for a Viable Palestinian State. Not a Palestinian State. Meaning in diplomatese, that the State will not consist of a patchwork of Bantustans...isolated from one another by "Israeli Settler-only" roads and buffer areas...it will consist of a geographically connected state.

2nd, he called for an immediate end to ANY Settlement activity when the "Peace Process" shows positive progress. Meaning the Pals end the Stupidfatah...and demand the Quartet have Israel come through, and Israel darn well better stop the next Jewish immigrant headed for his chunk of the West Bank.

3rd, he said America will follow the Road Map of the Quartet as where we think things must head..meaning the end of most Settlements existence, or at least existence under the protection of an occupying IDF Army.

4th, he said that it will entail a need for each Arab nation to declare that they recognize Israel's right to exist and pledge to Israel's right to be left in peace (in it's final borders).

Outside Bush's Policy speech - Obviously, the Right of Return will have to go in the Treaty....and the only way this can happen is if BOTH the claims for Pal and Jewish "Right of Return are eliminated or only apply within each country's final borders with no claims on each other's territory.

#48 Amos

Also, I never said that transfer is painless. Sure it's difficult. Only, the alternative is continuous war.

No. The alternative is plain, old-fashioned genocide.

I'd rather see peaceful population transfer than Yugoslavian ethnic cleansing. I'd rather see Yugoslavian ethnic cleansing than genocide. Others might prefer genocide. That's their problem.

A little forgotten fact... the chap that organized the population transfer between Greece and Turkey, sponsored by the League of Nations, got himself a Nobel peace prize. This, for me, proves population transfer is a bad solution. However, all other 'solutions' are worse and will inevitably lead to genocide.

#53 uhoh

Thanks for demonstrating your poor grasp of history and boorishness in one post. Now I know not to bother reading your crap.

Yeah, boy, and fuck you, too.

#50 DebP

So when the Kuwaitis kicked all the Palestinians out of their country, was that ethnic cleansing?

No, it was expelling the Pal guest workers who had no claims to the land. Quite different than ethnic cleansing the Pals out of the West Bank..their native soil.

And, for those thinking that America is so loyal to Israel that they would stand for the killing or expulsion of the Pals from the West Bank.....

In your dreams.

One thing on which Franklin Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover agreed was that everything west of the Jordan River was for the Jews -- and the Jews alone.
(And that was only 24% of the Mandate designated for "The Jewish National Home")

And, as a short companion piece to Norland's detailed study, try this:
"Twelve Bad Arguments for a State of Palestine" on [Link: www.israel.net...]

#57 Ranbutan

No, it was expelling the Pal guest workers who had no claims to the land. Quite different than ethnic cleansing the Pals out of the West Bank..their native soil.

Let's imagine a 'Palestinian' state happens. Terrorism will not stop, of course. The real difference is that the IDF will not be able to fight terrorism short of an all-out war. So, instead, the borders will be closed to all 'Palestinian' workers. Remember those are now 'guest workers', too, so it's perfectly OK to keep them out.

After 2 weeks, the 'Palestinian' state will starve. Then what? Reopening the borders will only allow more terrorism, until there's an all-out war. Keeping them closed will mean letting the 'Palestinians' starve.

In both cases, a 'Palestinian' state will mean a genocide.

And, for those thinking that America is so loyal to Israel that they would stand for the killing or expulsion of the Pals from the West Bank.....

You mean the U.S. would rather see all the Paleostinians dead rather than transferring them? Well, actually, so would I... But I thought Americans were too soft-hearted for that ?

Just a quick little blurb on Armenia. The reason Armenia has been "at peace" with Turkey since 1920 is manifold. First and formost it is a matter of overwhelming miltary might. Turkey is a nation of 80 million and Armenia has less than 3.5 million. The Turkish military is second to the UK and perhaps France in the region and can asswhomp Armenia. Secondly, we must remember that Armenia was INCORPORATED INTO THE USSR IN 1920! Of course there was peace afterwards because any conflict between the two would have precipitated a nuclear holocaust.

There is still tension between the two nations to this day. This is not an example anyone wants to use of genocide or ethnic cleansing solving a problem.

Methinks uhoh ono is enjoying his feeding frenzy too much.

If Israel wants to be a Jewish democracy, a Palestinian state is inevitable. If they want to be a Jewish Saudi Arabia, then such an abomination is what they should seek.

Of course, should the Israelis do such a thing, the Arabs would wipe them out--no matter what the cost. Israel would have no friends, no allies, no $3B in welfare from the US.

Fortunately, most Israelis are better and smarter than that.

Deacon -
Apparently you've never considered that there already is a Palestinian state... it's called "Jordan" and it has a handsome king and his beautiful Palestinian wife.
Both states, Israel and Jordan, were formed from the land that was called "Palestine".

Bez,
seems I misunderstood you. You are against moving any persons from their home. Fine. Moral, even, on the whole.
Only, it isn't realistic. Sure, I want the US-like palestinian state as my neighbor as much as the next Israeli. Reality is it will still be a Jew-hating dictatorship, and the only persons to be moved from their homes (or die) will be Jews.
In theory, your standard is shining. In effect, the application of its opposite ended wars and saved lives. You have this part of cause and effect backwards a bit. It was not decision for transfer, then bloodshed, then peace. It was bloodshed, then decision for transfer, then peace. Transfer was the lesser evil, not the greater. You, as an idealist, want no evil at all. If only that were possible...
Trasfer is distasteful. However, minus changing palestinian society in fundamental ways, I think anything done will only compound the problem, and cost additional lives along the way - itself a thing of some inconvenience.
Optimism makes me hope Bush will do everything Ranbutan said he would and more. Realism makes me despair of it. When in history has Israel not been left holding the short end of the stick?

#63

Reality check: Israel can create the best possible terms for the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank/Gaza, or Israel is history. Here's what happens if the Israelis expel the Pals:

1. They become too hot for the US to handle. No more aid, no more defense guarantees, no more support at the UN Security Council.

2. The UN would slap severe economic sanctions on Israel.

3. Israel's economy would be crippled.

4. The Muslim world would be enraged. Pakistan slips a few nukes to a country with missiles capable of reaching Israel.

5. Bye bye.

Re: #65

Your glee is very telling, you know.

#65 Deacon Frost

Reality check: Israel can create the best possible terms for the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank/Gaza, or Israel is history.

See #59, a 'Palestinian' state means a genocide. Are you sure that's what you want?

#61 Not really, but thanks for your concern. I always enjoy the links at LGF, but often find the posts disturbing and creepy.

And tonight is no exception!

Sorry to intrude on your hen house.

Deacon Frost #63,

Here's what happens if the Israelis expel the Pals

Did anything like your scenario happen when Kuwait expelled the "palestinians"? No. And you know why? Because nations are governed by interests and not by morality. If Israel's interests align with America's, your dream scenario will never happen.

The fact is, there isn't a country with more intelligence into Arab Islamic fundamentalist terrorism then Israel. Guess what the biggest threat to the US is in the next few years?

#66

Sorry, buddy, but your little ad hominem doesn't fly. The US will drop Israel like a hot rock if it does something like that. That's a cold hard analysis. The Israel that would do such a thing is not a friend of the United States.

As I said, Israel is not going to do this, despite the far-right extremists' desires to the contrary.

Deacon Frost #70,

The Israel that would do such a thing is not a friend of the United States.

So was it OK for Kuwait? Or are they also "not a friend of the United States"?

Deacon Frost, uh oh, Bez,

I'd be curious as to your realistic solutions to solving the Israeli-Arab conflict.

#69

The act of expulsion would cause Israel's and the US' interests to diverge greatly. There would be no reason for the US to protect and bankroll Israel under those circumstances. This stuff about the US and Israel having a perfect alignment of interests is a fairy tale--no two nations have an exact alignment of interests.

Re: #70

You ain't my friend, palooka.

The Muslim world would be enraged. Pakistan slips a few nukes to a country with missiles capable of reaching Israel.
With a West Bank state, it wouldn't be nukes, just the conventional missiles Israel gets hit with daily now: lots of them, with an unbroken pipeline through bordering Arab states. So, what has been accomplished?
The UN will always condemn Israel - so what?
As far as the US leaving Israel flapping in the wind - I seriously doubt this would happen unless the left wing loonies completely take charge of the US government, lock, stock and barrel (which would require everyone from the near left to the far right drop dead). There's enough US skepticism against the UN ever accomplishing anything (let alone anything good), and as long as Israel remains an honest democracy, we will support them. As long as the UN remains on US soil, we have them (keep your friends close and your enemies closer).
Also, to expand a bit more on what Caton said, a Palestinian state will not support itself. There is far too much corruption and neither is their agenda to have a state. They want Israel at all cost.

Deacon Frost #73,

There would be no reason for the US to protect and bankroll Israel under those circumstances.

Yeah there would. As I wrote:

The fact is, there isn't a country with more intelligence into Arab Islamic fundamentalist terrorism then Israel.

Also, now that I think of it, strategically, the US needs Israel as a counterbalance to the Saudi entity. We can always tell the Saud family that we might just let Sharon run wild.

This stuff about the US and Israel having a perfect alignment of interests is a fairy tale--no two nations have an exact alignment of interests.

Of course not. But no two nations have a closer alignment of interests then these two.

#69 - Ariel

The Pals were guest workers in Kuwait. There at the sufferance of the government same as American guest workers are.

Deacon is correct what would happen if America saw Israel attempt ethnic cleansing to take all of the West Bank. And America's reaction...essentially washing our hands of Israel - would be mild compared to the reaction of the rest of the world.

Getting rid of all the West Bank Pals by killing them all or expelling them from their homeland is a Zionist wet dream...but nothing more than that.

And, what intel Israel shares with America is not worth being transformed into a pariah state by way of blind support of whatever Israel wants. In the WoT, regarding finding actual terrorist nests...we actually have gotten better intelligence from the Jordanians, Egyptians, Brits, Germans, and French than the Israelis.

#62 Deacon, you wrote: "If Israel wants to be a Jewish democracy, a Palestinian state is inevitable. If they want to be a Jewish Saudi Arabia, then such an abomination is what they should seek."

I think you have a point there, though not in what you wrote later. Israel exists not because the Arabs did not try enough, but despite their efforts. As for 3B$ per year, if we get out economic shit together (and the new gorenment makes noises that it would), we'll manage without it. I think it will be better for us, too.

However, to your valid point. Israelis are brought up to believe morality is very important. That's why there's automatic resistance to any idea which smacks of immorality. Also, there is the religious fundamentalist part of it. A by-product of Israel taking over the whole area will boost religious fundamentalism, I fear. I'm even not sure if my fear is real, only that such factor should also be taken into consideration.

BTW, as Steve Hall says, many a leader, both Israeli and Arab, have said that Jordan is Palestine. Maybe that's the goal of Sharon - to wait until Jordan is really taken over by the palestinians, and then start a media campaign saying Jordan is Palestine, which would be correct, de facto if not de jure. But the way things are going for Israel, nobody in the world would admit to it, and we'll continue to be up shit's creek without a paddle. O, there might be an international recognition of Jordan as Palestine. There might also be a democratic, US-like Palestine. The odds, I fear, are similarly remote.

#71

The Kuwaitis are not our friends--they are our gas station attendants.

As far as a solution, unilateral disengagement is the only solution. Build a wall, let the Pals rule themselves, and they'll be too busy fighting each other for power to worry about Israel.

However, this is based on the belief that the vast majority of Pals are not biologically fated to remain obsessed with pushing Israel into the sea. Do they hate Israel? Sure. Would separation and segregation reduce their willingness to suicide Israel out of existence? To a certain, but not satisfactory, degree. Would toppling the totalitarian states like the Saudi entity and kleptocrats like Arafat that funnel popular dissatisfaction and anger at the US and Israel go a long ways in making Israel more secure? Absolutely. That's why I think, besides Iraq, Israel has the most at stake in the shaping of a post-Saddam Iraq.

Another, short-term solution might involve Turkish and Indian peacekeepers in the area. Somebody needs to keep a lid on those areas while the Pals build democratic and civil institutions.

Ranbutan #77,

The Pals were guest workers in Kuwait.

Sorry, I believe they had refugee status as well. In any case, they weren't expelled because the Kuwaitis just up and decided to expel them. They were expelled for clearly supporting Saddam as he invaded Kuwait. Just like the "palestinians" in Yesha clearly support Saddam, Hamas, etc.

And America's reaction...essentially washing our hands of Israel - would be mild compared to the reaction of the rest of the world.

Honestly, I can't see that the rest of the world would do much about it. Militarily, outside of the US and the UK, they can't. Economically, sure some damage could be done. But it's not as though that would be a major change from the status quo, where all things Israel are discriminated against in the supermarket.

Getting rid of all the West Bank Pals by killing them all or expelling them from their homeland is a Zionist wet dream...but nothing more than that.

It's not "their" homeland. Also, transfer doesn't necessarily involve forcible expulsion. As many have noted, the plight of the "palestinians" is pitiable. Model villages could be set up in Jordan, with US, Saudi, and Israeli funding. "Palestinians" would migrate their of their own free will, simply to escape the horrors of the Arafatistan style of rule.

In the WoT, regarding finding actual terrorist nests...we actually have gotten better intelligence from the Jordanians, Egyptians, Brits, Germans, and French than the Israelis.

I'll assume that you're not speaking from any source other then your opinion. But let's take your statement at face value: in that case, the US intelligence apparatus is full of idiots. We know that the Israelis know a damn lot about the terrorists so we should be trying to get information from them.

#79 Deacon Frost

Another, short-term solution might involve Turkish and Indian peacekeepers in the area. Somebody needs to keep a lid on those areas while the Pals build democratic and civil institutions.

Forget it.

From 1956 to 1967, U.N. 'peacekeepers' were deployed. The result was that while Israel could not (or, rather, would not) retaliate, the terrorists were allowed to infiltrate.

Today, U.N. 'peacekeepers' are deployed at the Lebanon border. The only thing they do is protecting the Hizbollah.

On the other hand, that blue helmet makes an inviting target.

Deacon Frost #79,

As far as a solution, unilateral disengagement is the only solution.

Did it stop the cross-border attacks from Lebanon? Or did it encourage them?

Another, short-term solution might involve Turkish and Indian peacekeepers in the area.

Except that peacekeepers have been known to watch as Israelis get kidnapped and only make a fuss when Israelis do anything, again, on the Lebanese border. IIRC, they were Indian.

#81

The world was a much different place back then. Back then, tin horn Arab dictators declared war on Israel. Now they just issue press releases and give empty speeches.

Pals build democratic and civil institutions
There's nothing democratic nor civil about the PA now. What, in you opinion, will create this miracle... Allah?
What about those stupid Pali Christians? After supporting their Muslim brothers for so long, they will be gone in weeks! Pali collateral damage?

#82

Last time I checked, the Lebanese border was not the major problem facing Israel. I also haven't heard any suggest that Israel ought to send its tanks back into Lebanon.

#82 Ariel

As far as a solution, unilateral disengagement is the only solution.

Did it stop the cross-border attacks from Lebanon? Or did it encourage them?

There's no wall built on the Lebanese border.

It would be possible for Israel to accept a second, fully-walled 'Palestinian' state, with closed borders. The result, though, would be that all 'Palestinians' would starve to death.

#84

Such institutions need to be built. Obviously, the Tunisian Mafia needs to go. They represent everything wrong with the Arab world. The Pals have no love for Arafat--they only keep him around because it pisses the Israelis off. Build a wall, act indifferent to internal Palestinian politics, and he'll be treated to justice in the streets of the West Bank.

#77 Ranbutan, you wrote: "Getting rid of all the West Bank Pals by killing them all or expelling them from their homeland is a Zionist wet dream...but nothing more than that."

This has been possible in several wars. This has not been done. Thus, I don't know where you're getting these insights. Certainly not from reality. Projection, maybe?

The Zionist dream was to live side by side with the Arabs. Zhabotinsky even wrote that when the PM will be a Jew, his deputy will be an Arab, and when the PM will be an Arab, his deputy will be a Jew. And he meant it. However, repeated massacres made him despair of that. The attempted genocides in 1948, 1967 and 1973 (all declared as meant to wipe out the Jews) also may have something to do with the retraction of this position by later generations.

#85 Deacon Frost 2/26/2003 09:35PM PST

Last time I checked, the Lebanese border was not the major problem facing Israel.

The Lebanese border is one of the major problems facing Israel. It is also the most probable place for the next war.

I also haven't heard any suggest that Israel ought to send its tanks back into Lebanon.

Either you're deaf, or you didn't want to hear. Lebanon forces have annexed disputed territory that the U.N. sponsored agreement decided should be left alone. There's a mediation going on right now. Sharon was very clear, if Lebanon does not withdraw, the tanks will be back.

Deacon Frost #85,

Last time I checked, the Lebanese border was not the major problem facing Israel.

Not the major problem. But a bigger problem then it was before Israel unilaterally disengaged. This is why I asked for *realistic* solutions.

See, for example, cross-border rocket attacks, diversion of water supply, cross-border mortar shells, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

#86

They wouldn't starve. Their Arab brothers would respond with massive shipments of aid. Snicker.

Those who advocate unilateral separation don't do so because they want to help the Pals--people with those sentiments still believe in a negotiated, political solution.

Also, there is the religious fundamentalist part of it. A by-product of Israel taking over the whole area will boost religious fundamentalism, I fear. I'm even not sure if my fear is real, only that such factor should also be taken into consideration.

But couldn't it actually have the opposite effect in the long run?

Build a wall, act indifferent to internal Palestinian politics, and he'll be treated to justice in the streets of the West Bank.
That's what concerns me most. If bumbling, inept Arafish is replaced with someone who could get things done, Israel would never rest... not one second.

While I don't happen to think that Israel should send millions of Arabs packing eastward unless its circumstances become too dire to avoid it, the scenario Deacon Frost tries to frighten us with is -- how to put it gently -- baloney.

The Muslim world is not going to "become enraged" at the expulsion of the Palestinians for two reasons:

1. Nobody in the Muslim world gives two flits about the Palestinians.

2. The Muslim world is permanently "enraged" -- at the existence of Israel in Muslim land, at the domination of the secular "infidels" from the West, at the presense of American troops on Muslim land, at women in short skirts, whatever. Were Israel to expel the Palestinians, the burning hatred amongst Muslims for Israel would remain at the same white-hot temperature we've all come to know and love and mock.

Let's please dispense with the Tom Clancy scenario of a Pakistani nuke. Pakistan doesn't have enough nukes to waste them on countries that pose no threat to it. It certainly isn't going to risk a virtually certain retaliation that would wipe out its defenses, and leave it ripe for India to finish off at the first opportunity. Even if they give a tinker's damn about Arafat's ass -- a scenario that is rather unlikely -- they'll write their editorials, make shrieking speeches at the UN, but otherwise stay out of the conflict. Please, don't take the sheiks' Friday-night fire-breathing so seriously. Impotent shrieking is all they have.

The United States is not going to "drop" Israel simply because it will have no incentive to do so. Neither Araby nor Europe has the kind of leverage that could negate the pro-Israel force of American Jews and Christians, especially if the expulsion is viewed as being justified in the wake of some hideous terrorist attack. Furthermore, the area of the Middle East is strategic, and Israel remains America's strongest and only reliable ally in the region. (Use the term "client state" if you prefer; doesn't change a thing.) Even in the wake of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the United States continued its relationship with Israel, Reagan's bluster to the contrary notwithstanding. In order for Israel to lose the U.S. as its protector, it would have to do something completely unconsionable and unjustified -- e.g., firebombing Ramallah out of the blue.

And even if the U.S. withdraws its sponsorship, Israel is not out of options if it moves quickly. The most obvious next move is an invasion and reoccupation of the Sinai Peninsula, as well as both sides of the Suez Canal. This gives Israel access to enough natural resources to keep its economy going, and a stable income source from the Canal. (Egypt and Syria would be told that either they acquiesce, or their capitals turn into radioactive glass. Nuclear disparity is very handy when invading your neighbors, as Saddam knows quite well.) The Russians no longer sponsor Arabs or give a shit about them (especially in the wake of Chechnya); the Europods couldn't take on Israel, even if they had the wherewithal to try. That leaves the United States, which is rather unlikely to go to war against Israel, especially since Israel wouldn't threaten its strategic interests.

So I'm afraid, Mr. Frost, that you'll have to find something else with which to scare us this evening.

Of course, the big problem with Lebanon is that there is no singular entity known as Lebanon. There's Syria, Hezbollah, and a semi-autonomous enclave surrounding Beirut. It's hard to reach a settlement when there's no one with whom you can reach a settlement.

#91 Deacon Frost

They wouldn't starve. Their Arab brothers would respond with massive shipments of aid.

As they are doing now? Guess that's why the US is paying 40% of the UNRWA budget...

Snicker.

Yeah, boy. Whatever.

Caton #86,

There's no wall built on the Lebanese border.

Well, that isn't the essence of unilateral disengagement, which is to withdraw and hope (cross your fingers real hard) that they will leave you alone. There is a fence on the border, and, IIRC, it is electrified.

Deacon Frost #95,

Of course, the big problem with Lebanon is that there is no singular entity known as Lebanon. There's Syria, Hezbollah, and a semi-autonomous enclave surrounding Beirut. It's hard to reach a settlement when there's no one with whom you can reach a settlement.

Funny, let's try this with word substitution:

Of course, the big problem with "Palestine" is that there is no singular entity known as "Palestine". There's Fatah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas. It's hard to reach a settlement when there's no one with whom you can reach a settlement.

Do you see why I find the situations to be eerily similar? And why I find "unilateral disengagement" to be an unlikely success possibility?

#97 Ariel

Well, that isn't the essence of unilateral disengagement, which is to withdraw and hope (cross your fingers real hard) that they will leave you alone.

Don't remind me, please. I'm still so pissed I could fly to Israel only to kick Barak's ass all the way from Jerusalem to Beyruth.

There is a fence on the border, and, IIRC, it is electrified.

Ah, that's not my point. There's a fence on the Israeli border. Between the two borders are disputed territories that neither country is allowed to annex. There is nothing on the Lebanese border.

In order for Israel to lose the U.S. as its protector, it would have to do something completely unconsionable and unjustified -- e.g., firebombing Ramallah out of the blue.

You mean like the forced expulsion of millions of people?

The nuke was one scenario. It's very possible that it wouldn't happen. However, Israel would become too hot to handle for the US--the US' strategic interests would demand that the US end the client-state relationship. And the trade sanctions would be severe.

And why do people think that the Pals, who you say are obsessed with pushing Israel into the sea, would all of a sudden give up on these goals? And you think starting a war of unprovoked aggression with Egypt would be an answer? Let's see here--ethnic-based human rights abuses, unprovoked war of aggression. Reminds me of the policies of another Middle Eastern state--one whose days are numbered.

#96

My point was that the idea that the Arabs would come to their rescue, without the additional agenda of attacking Israel, is a joke.

#100 Deacon Frost

And you think starting a war of unprovoked aggression with Egypt would be an answer? Let's see here--ethnic-based human rights abuses, unprovoked war of aggression. Reminds me of the policies of another Middle Eastern state--one whose days are numbered.

Except that Israel does not have a nuclear weapons program. Makes a difference.

Anyway, I have to finish drafting a brief in the morning, and I need to sleep. Peace, and let's hope this debate remains purely academic.

#102

Except that Israel does not have a nuclear weapons program. Makes a difference.

No, you don't need one when you've already stockpiled enough nukes to level every major Arab city.

#101 Deacon Frost

My point was that the idea that the Arabs would come to their rescue, without the additional agenda of attacking Israel, is a joke.

Oh, so you do know a 'Palestinian' state will starve to death, and you still support the idea? Interesting...

Deacon Frost #100,

And why do people think that the Pals, who you say are obsessed with pushing Israel into the sea, would all of a sudden give up on these goals?

The "palestinians" would not give up. However, the Jordanians have been known to prevent terrorist attacks from crossing the border into Israel. Also, Israel would have the strategic depth that it wouldn't matter as much. Finally, the "palestinians" would have the opportunity to build new lives, stop deluding themselves that they would return to their "ancient homes" in Tel Aviv, etc. They would also have a physical separation from the Israelis and they might start to let some distance grow into their feelings.

#104 Deacon Frost

Except that Israel does not have a nuclear weapons program. Makes a difference.

No, you don't need one when you've already stockpiled enough nukes to level every major Arab city.

Ah, that's when Israel says, 'no comment'. Good to know you got it, though.

Hide and watch, Frost:
Zech 12: 7 The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah.
8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.
9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

#106 Ariel

The "palestinians" would not give up. However, the Jordanians have been known to prevent terrorist attacks from crossing the border into Israel. Also, Israel would have the strategic depth that it wouldn't matter as much. Finally, the "palestinians" would have the opportunity to build new lives, stop deluding themselves that they would return to their "ancient homes" in Tel Aviv, etc. They would also have a physical separation from the Israelis and they might start to let some distance grow into their feelings.

The most important thing is that the 'Palestinians' would be in the Jordanian education system. While it's far from being efficient, it's a lot better than the current P.A. terrorist indoctrination system. At worst, after a generation things would settle. Just like it happened for Greece and Turkey...

Deacon writes:

You mean like the forced expulsion of millions of people?

No, I mean like the inexplicable killing of millions of people.

Good night, all. Looking forward to continuing tomorrow!

Den Beste has a new essay that I think is worth a read.

[Link: www.denbeste.nu...]
...
Our opponents want America weakened and defeated and for America to no longer have the ability to dominate the world, whether it uses that capability or not. The majority of the voters in the US refuse to accept such limits. There's no common ground between those two positions.

This struggle has been developing for a long time and now it's out in the open. For us as Americans, we cannot expect to convince the opponents of our good intentions. We don't want an empire because empires are boring – but they'll never believe that. So our opponents must be defeated.

That doesn't mean they must all die. But they must be defeated. And since most of their best weapons are words, our best defense against them is to ignore them and get on with the job.

Let's roll.

While the Palestinians are busy fiddling with their booby-trapped model airplanes and indoctrinating their toddlers to murder and maim, Israeli scientists are pushing the frontiers of science: Computer Made from DNA and Enzymes

Maybe this is part of the reason why Israel, and not the Arabs are America's ally in the Middle East?

It's all said here.

In Moral Defense of Israel

We hold that the state of Israel has a moral right to exist and defend itself against attack.

If you don't have a high speed connection, be warned, it's a .pdf.

However, to answer your 'question', Armenia is at peace with Turkey. Not even one border incident since 1920.

Maybe this is sarcasm that's flying over my head, but the Armenians are a stateless people aren't they? The only way their nation has achieved peace was through being destroyed. That's the Catch-22 of the situation, if you will.

#115 Chris

However, to answer your 'question', Armenia is at peace with Turkey. Not even one border incident since 1920.

Maybe this is sarcasm that's flying over my head, but the Armenians are a stateless people aren't they? The only way their nation has achieved peace was through being destroyed. That's the Catch-22 of the situation, if you will.

Well, there's some sarcasm, but not where you are looking.

In 1920 the Soviet Union annexed what was left of Armenia, allocated some pieces of territories to other 'Socialist Sovietic Republics', and re-created Armenia as the Socialist Sovietic Republic of Armenia. Armenians who fleed Turkey were welcome, and actually a lot of them did seek refuge in Soviet Armenia.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Armenia, who had gained indepence in 1991, has been trying to get back one piece of territory (Nagorno-Karabakh) that had been given away to Azerbaijan in 1920 and was still populated by Armenians. Armenian forces today hold not only Nagorno-Karabakh but also a significant portion of Azerbaijan proper.

The border with Turkey is closed over the dispute, but both countries, as well as Azerbaijan, accepted the mediation of the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) and there have been no incidents between Turkey and Armenia. In addition, traditional demands regarding former Armenian lands in Turkey have subsided.

So there you are. The sarcasm is that, from 1920 to 1991, Turkey could not attack Armenia. After 1991, the conflict has not restarted, though.

Huh, just for fun, the OSCE mediation started in May 1994. Still waiting...

Over 100 posts, and no one wishes to state the obvious?

Look, friends: -

Israel has no Constitution.
Israel was created to be a Jewish State.

Israel writes a Jewish Constitution, establishing the State permanently as a Jewish State. Everyone gets to propose laws through their democratic representatives, but only Jews may ratify those laws. {Probably best accomplished by a bi-cameral legislature and Presidential system like US. - To wit: - A lower Congress or Knesset, for all, and an Upper House or Senate/Sanhedrin, Jews only need apply}

Presto, Chango - End of "demographic problem". The rest is details. {All violence against the State becomes criminal, not "war" - so prisons, long sentences without parole, and deportation for supporting violence.} And of course EVERYONE, Jew and any resident Gentile, must swear FEALTY to the State as a Jewish State.

And funny, it's been done before: - Japan, Finland, Switzerland - ONLY ethnic Japanese, Finns, or Swiss may vote on existential issues - and in Japan, you can't even be a citizen if you are not racially Japanese, after all. Not Finland either, if I recall correctly. And VERY few if any in Switzerland, though I believe technically possible.

Oh, ya - Abrogate Oslo Agreements officially, and Annex Yesha. This is all paperwork, there will be a little righteous indignation from the usual suspects, but no one is going to start a shooting war over this.

And so - no forced "transfer" required - end of problem.

IMO - Most Arabs will leave of their own accord as long as Jews keep coming to settle in large numbers, and it's clear that the "disputed territories" are no longer in dispute - that the only way to discuss the issue again is with ALL-OUT WAR AGAINST ISRAEL. Those that stay will not be interested in "political independance", but in the basics of equal opportunity and fair taxation.

That reminds me - Israel should end all personal income tax - raise funds solely with value-added tax, and declare a world-class free-trade free market tax haven - that will end the economic woes, too.

And All Youse Peace Lovin Folk Will Be WELLCOME!!!

Chris 10

Jordan wouldnt take it. Even if it wanted to, it can't

face its Arab brothers after doing that.

Besides, the Jordanians are certainly more likable than the Palestinians, but are not to be trsuted with territory which is vital for israel's survival in the case of war.

After all, Jordan did attack Israel in 1967.

It is interesting that most of the vehement opposers to

transfer the Palestinians for moral reasons, though

maybe not here, are enthusiastic supporters of

transfering the Jews out of the West Bank and Gazza

I also think it would be helpful if everyone here (I'm gonna do it right now, too...) gets up and grabs a map of their home town/city, and a comfortably sized ruler, and just recheck how big Israel really IS, like in comparison.

That's 9 miles, folks - 9 miles wide from the mountains of Yesha to the surf.

Umm....I think maybe Israel just keeps Yesha, yes?

Lets just call it "Lebensraum"

and Johnny #119 - Right. 'Course not. Same way they don't mention the 250-odd illegal ARAB settlements constructed since '67 - versus the 150-odd Jewish "settlements". Arab building is wildly out of control....All on "state" or "Waqf" land, (if you prefer), no permits, no coordination. (Which they COULD seek, just like the Jews - but they don't bother 'cause they know if Israel tears down illegal homes the press will make them into oppressed heroes. - )

#120
Living Space-the one nazi-era term that lefties get their panties jammed over-"ooh, that sounds too German and besides, how much living do those Jews really intend to do-I mean they don't even drink!" .

:-) yup! "schiker issa Goy"...But, then there's the Yarok Party...which I saw as a just fiiiine alternative to Meretz....
least till they unrolled their bedrolls on the policy plank of "legalized prostitution"...

I try not to be toooo judgemental about folks who've lived their whole lives 'under the gun', and hated by all, to boot - and the One Above knows that the last 15 years of radioactive leftism in schools in Israel doesn't serve to nurture "discretion"....
But
There really is NO justification for what Israel is doing there, Being There, in that place, - other than the Jewish Thing. And that's the "Bible" Thing. Morals and Ethics and all....Sort of hard to miss. Even for desperately war weary kids....

A rabbinical debate about whether a "B'Samim" is an Avoda Zora might be interesting, in a sort of idle way. 'Course Israel is not destined ever for "idle ways"....All part of the Blessing and the Curses...

G-d bless the IDF.

Soldiers thwart car bomb attack

Aren't 25% of Israeli's Christians? And when I WAS THERE, I couldn't help notice all the cultures of the world, asian, african, arab, european - not at all like the media portrays it to be. So enough of this crap about Israel trying to be 100% Jewish because that's nothing but hateful propeganda against Israel.

#124 AB

Aren't 25% of Israeli's Christians?

Actually, 90% of Israeli are not religious.

I think my biggest concern in this Iraq conflict is that Saddam would do the same thing he did in Desert Storm - that is, launch SCUDs into Israel, perhaps this time with chemical warheads. I'm pretty sure that Israel has said that they won't be as 'restrained' as they were the last time ... I guess I'm basically wondering if this is still their official position? What do you guys think will happen if Israel lays a whupping to Iraq after being the recipient of a SCUD attack? I'm sure the other Middle East clan-states will start howling, but do you think they would actually mobilize?

W.

this is all nice and interesting, but it seems to me that the lynchpin for any "palestinean" state, and Bush made this perfectly clear, is a true democracy. you will have to excuse me for saying so, but as long as Arafat is alive that will never happen; as long as the PA allows the numerous terror groups to have safe haven in the disputed lands that will never happen; as long as the schools teach the arab children the joys of blowing up jews that will never happen; as long as the mullahs control Iran, the Sauds control SA and the baby butcher controls Syria that will never happen. in a nutshell, there would have to be a sea change in the "pally" world for them to embrace anything resembling a democracy.

RANBUTAN
___________

1st, he called for a Viable Palestinian State. Not a Palestinian State. Meaning in diplomatese, that the State will not consist of a patchwork of Bantustans...isolated from one another by "Israeli Settler-only" roads and buffer areas...it will consist of a geographically connected state.

You should stop parroting Palestinian propaganda. This BANTUSTAN BULLSHIT has been refuted by the man who was there. Dennis Ross. [Link: www.foxnews.com...]
I expect an apology for your lies.

ROSS: Now, that was an Israeli desire. That was not what we presented. But we presented something that did point out that it would take six years before the Israelis would be totally out of the Jordan Valley.

So that map there that you see, which shows a very narrow green space along the border, would become part of the orange. So the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous.

HUME: Cantons being ghettos, in effect...

ROSS: Right.

HUME: ... that would be cut off from other parts of the Palestinian state.

ROSS: Completely untrue.

[Link: www.foreignpolicy.com...] To this day, Arafat has never honestly admitted what was offered to the Palestinians—a deal that would have resulted in a Palestinian state, with territory in over 97 percent of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem; with Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of that state (including the holy place of the Haram al-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary); with an international presence in place of the Israeli Defense Force in the Jordan Valley; and with the unlimited right of return for Palestinian refugees to their state but not to Israel. Nonetheless, Arafat continues to hide behind the canard that he was offered Bantustans—a reference to the geographically isolated black homelands created by the apartheid-era South African government. Yet with 97 percent of the territory in Palestinian hands, there would have been no cantons. Palestinian areas would not have been isolated or surrounded. There would have been territorial integrity and contiguity in both the West Bank and Gaza, and there would have been independent borders with Egypt and Jordan.

wayne...you ask

I'm sure the other Middle East clan-states will start howling, but do you think they would actually mobilize?

sure, they mobilize all the way to New York City and the United Nations.

Arabas arent soldiers or fighters..they manage to get the 'West" to fight their battles, and what arabs do is murder and bomb civillians.

Actually, 90% of Israeli are not religious.

........so the 10% who are religious are the Muslims.?

what a sad state..

RANBUTAN
___________

And this lie about "Bantustans" goes back at least to 1996. It's a lie that you have adopted because you're perverve.

For all I know the Oslo proposals in 1996 did carve up the West Bank. But not the latter ones. But Palestinian propaganda remains same. Is not adjusted once it finds a lie that resonates with people like you.

President BUsh said...

"As progress is made toward peace, settlement activity in the occupied territories must end," Bush added.

does that mean, Bush is advocating a Judenrein "palestinian entity".?

....sigh...

Its true that population transfer is ethnic cleansing but in this instance it will really be an exchange of populations, ie for all the Jews who were truly ethnically cleansed from Arab states.

It will also serve as a useful learning curve for a similar population exchange that may be forced on us, right here in the West.

Ranbuntun #77:

And, what intel Israel shares with America is not worth being transformed into a pariah state by way of blind support of whatever Israel wants. In the WoT, regarding finding actual terrorist nests...we actually have gotten better intelligence from the Jordanians, Egyptians, Brits, Germans, and French than the Israelis.

And from where does your intel come from?

The secret meetings between the above respective intel agencies that you just happen to attend?

but it seems to me that the lynchpin for any
"palestinean" state, and Bush made this perfectly clear, is a true
democracy.

Any time I hear Bush say this, I hope he REALLY means it, because if he does, he might as well say that we will support a Palestinian state just as soon as we land astronauts on the sun.

My thanks to Charles for the reference and to all the readers who bothered to visit the site and comment.

In addition to the Dawson site mentioned by Charles, the article is also available at
IsraPundit.

THE DAMNABLE LIES ABOUT PALESTINIAN BANTUSTANS:

DENNIS ROSS speaks:

“Arafat Missed a Historic Opportunity When He Turned Down the Clinton Proposal”

Yes. It is true that Arafat did not “reject” the ideas the Clinton administration offered in December 2000. Instead, he pulled a classic Arafat: He did not say yes or no. He wanted it both ways. He wanted to keep talking as if the Clinton proposal was the opening gambit in a negotiation, but he knew otherwise. Arafat knew Clinton’s plan represented the culmination of the American effort. He also knew these ideas were offered as the best judgment of what each side could live with and that the proposal would be withdrawn if not accepted.

To this day, Arafat has never honestly admitted what was offered to the Palestinians—a deal that would have resulted in a Palestinian state, with territory in over 97 percent of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem; with Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of that state (including the holy place of the Haram al-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary); with an international presence in place of the Israeli Defense Force in the Jordan Valley; and with the unlimited right of return for Palestinian refugees to their state but not to Israel. Nonetheless, Arafat continues to hide behind the canard that he was offered Bantustans—a reference to the geographically isolated black homelands created by the apartheid-era South African government. Yet with 97 percent of the territory in Palestinian hands, there would have been no cantons. Palestinian areas would not have been isolated or surrounded. There would have been territorial integrity and contiguity in both the West Bank and Gaza, and there would have been independent borders with Egypt and Jordan.

“The offer was never written” is a refrain uttered time and again by apologists for Chairman Arafat as a way of suggesting that no real offer existed and that therefore Arafat did not miss a historic opportunity. Nothing could be more ridiculous or misleading. President Clinton himself presented both sides with his proposal word by word. I stayed behind to be certain both sides had recorded each word accurately. Given Arafat’s negotiating style, Clinton was not about to formalize the proposal, making it easier for Arafat to use the final offer as just a jumping-off point for more ceaseless bargaining in the future.

However, it is worth pondering how Palestinians would have reacted to a public presentation of Clinton’s plan. Had Palestinians honestly known what Arafat was unwilling to accept, would they have supported violence against the Israelis, particularly given the suffering imposed on them? Would Arafat have remained the “only Palestinian” capable of making peace? Perhaps such domestic pressure would have convinced Arafat, the quintessential survivor, that the political costs of intransigence would be higher than the costs of making difficult concessions to Israel.

“Arab Leaders Stand Behind Arafat”

Reluctantly. I have never met an Arab leader who trusts Arafat or has anything good to say about him in private. Almost all Arab leaders have stories about how he has misled or betrayed them. Most simply wave their hands dismissively when examples of his betrayal of commitments are cited—almost as if they are saying, “We know, we know.” The Saudis, in particular, saw his alignment with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in 1991 as proof of his perfidy.

But no Arab leader is prepared to challenge him. All acknowledge him as the symbol of the Palestinian movement, and no one sees an alternative to him. But no one is prepared to go out on a limb for him, either.

Many suggest that in the absence of broad Arab support, Clinton’s proposal was too hard for Arafat to accept. Furthermore, some argue, since the United States failed to secure the support Arafat needed, it bears some responsibility for his inability to say yes. That argument is more myth than reality. First, if Clinton’s offer was so hard to accept, why has Arafat never honestly portrayed it? Why not say he was offered 97 percent, instead of Bantustans or cantons? Why not admit he would have had Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of the state, instead of denying that?

Second, we did line up the support of five key Arab leaders for Clinton’s plan. On December 23, 2000, the same day that President Clinton presented his ideas to Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, he called Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, and Jordanian King Abdullah ii to convey the comprehensive proposal he had just presented to the parties. Shortly thereafter, he also transmitted the ideas to King Mohammed IV of Morocco and President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia. All these Arab leaders made clear they thought Clinton’s ideas were historic, and they pledged to press Arafat to accept the plan. However, when Arafat told Arab leaders he had questions, they backed off and assumed the position they had adopted throughout the Oslo peace process. They would support whatever Chairman Arafat accepted. They were not about to put themselves in a position in which Arafat might claim that President Mubarak or Crown Prince Abdullah or King Abdullah was trying to pressure him to surrender Palestinian rights.

There is a lesson here for today: Getting Arab leaders to fulfill their responsibilities—to be participants and not just observers—is essential. On existential questions in which concessions on the Palestinian side are required, Arab leaders will likely restrict their pressure to private entreaties. But that is not where real leverage is to be found. Pressure in public would be pressure as Arafat defines it. Arafat’s great achievement for the Palestinians has been putting them on the map, producing recognition, giving them standing on the world stage. He embodies the cause, and that is why Arab leaders find it so hard to criticize him in public. Yet he cannot afford the imagery that he and the Palestinian cause are separate. If Arab leaders would say that his being only a symbol and not a leader threatens Palestinian interests, then Arafat’s very identity would be called into question. That would move him.

#125:

Actually, 90% of Israeli are not religious.

But doesn't Israel have a minister for religious affairs or something? This is a rather uncommon thing in a country with so many irreligious people...

OT: British school children are taught now that oral sex helps to prevent pregnancy and are encouraged to act like that. I always considered British school system strange at times, e.g. 50% of their history teachings are concerned with Hitler, many pupils don't even know the names of their kings (not playing Hitler down, but I think you should learn something about your own country as well). But this thing is indeed strange.

"In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties."

George Orwell

too brutal, except for #1 Caton

Hi again ausyankee,

Feel free to add your $0.0002 to the *realistic* solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Hans ze beeman
_________________

Untrue. 55% of Israel is religious. 15% is very religious....Orthodox

#72 Ariel,

What my solution to Israel and the Palestinians would be? Damned if I know. Better men than I have tried and failed to solve it. I think that a virtual apartheid state, which is pretty much the de facto situation, may be the only viable solution. It's not pretty but at least it would get rid of all the talk of mass explusions.

Barak was moving in the right direction before the Palestinians caused everything to blow up in his face. I'd also agree with Sharon and his plan to build that massive security wall. High fences make good neighbors.

I think the unblinking rage directed towards Jews and Israelis by their Arab neighbors really precludes any other solution outside of mass expulsions and full scale war.

#142: I cited Caton in #125, who stated that 90% of Israel is not religious.

Bez #143,

Thank you for your honest answer.

I agree with this:

High fences make good neighbors.

I just think the Jordan River is a great fence. :)

Bez

the essential problem with Israel and Lebanon actually...

is that muslims feel only muslims are entitled to soverignty over former Ottoman lands...

once lands are part of the ummah its against islam to allow them to revert to dar ul harb.

muslims are prepared to live under the most brutal and repressive poverty and slavery..if their 'rulers' are muslims

muslims dont recognize civil and religious rights of non muslims

UNLESS non muslims recognize the superiority of islam and are suitably humbled.

......this script doesnt go over well in western countries, so muslims have become very adept at manipulating abd distorting language.

I can't believe that no one here is really talking about the entire speech last night. I thought it to be pretty impressive.

#146

the essential problem with Israel and Lebanon actually...

is that muslims feel only muslims are entitled to soverignty over former Ottoman lands...

I think that's a bunch of hooey. I'm sure there are people who think like that but I'd be willing to be most don't give a rat's ass. I don't think that Ottoman suzerainty has much bearing on the current Palestinian/Israel situation. I have a friend who's family emigrated to the US from Syria by way of Argentina many years ago and their hatred for the Turks was extreme.

muslims are prepared to live under the most brutal and repressive poverty and slavery..if their 'rulers' are muslims

If this is the case then why do so many die attempting to escape? Why do they come and live in the land of the "infidel?" Maybe they live under those regimes because they have no choice.

#130 ploome

Actually, 90% of Israeli are not religious.

........so the 10% who are religious are the Muslims.?

Oh, no, there are Jewish religious nuts, too. Just check the composition of the Knesseth.

#138 hans ze beeman

But doesn't Israel have a minister for religious affairs or something? This is a rather uncommon thing in a country with so many irreligious people...

Two reasons: first, the Jewish religion is still a very important part of the Jewish identity. I don't believe in God, I'm mostly agnostic, actually an atheist when I have a bad day, and I still go to the synagogue for Kippur.

The second thing is that the Israeli society is really split equally between right and left. With those two blocks totalling 90% of the seats, the swing votes, those of the religious parties in particular, get very important. And that's why the religious parties have a political influence that is way too high given the number of people they represent.

Look at it that way: as far as I know, there never was one coalition in Isreal history that did not include at least one religious party.

#142 dennisw

Untrue. 55% of Israel is religious. 15% is very religious....Orthodox

You mean 55% of Israel lights a candle for Kippur? I thought it was more than that. And the religious parties get less than 10% of the votes altogether.

#139 hans ze beeman

British school children are taught now that oral sex helps to prevent pregnancy and are encouraged to act like that. I always considered British school system strange at times, e.g. 50% of their history teachings are concerned with Hitler, many pupils don't even know the names of their kings (not playing Hitler down, but I think you should learn something about your own country as well). But this thing is indeed strange.

My friends are being told that at school. It sounds crazy, but it is a half way between "don't even touch each other!" and "do what you like!".

As to the history, there is quite a lot on WW2, but more is taught about British history. Tudors, Victorians, Britain 1840-1914 (ignoring Victoria), Vikings, etc. In short, we get taught about our own country, but Hitler gets quite a lot of lesson time too. Given his status in history, I reckon its appropriate. You've caught a lot of flak for Germany's history, and I'm not trying to add to it. I'm sure you'd agree, though, that Hitler is fairly significant.

At the moment (in my year) its about 65% British history, 35% Germany 1918-1945. Last year, it was 60% Cold War, 40% 1920s America. Years 10 and 11 are aimed at explaining what led up to WW2 and the Cold War. Britain takes second place...

To be honest, British history is kinda dull anyway.

#108

Since I'm agnostic, I'm sure you realize that such passages have zero relevance to me.

#117

Let me guess--trolling?

#149: Caton, thanks for the background information. I must admit I'm rather sceptical of religion mingling with political decisions, as religion tends to be something that cannot be discussed, but in Israel the minister of religious affairs seems to have a rather precise job description. And taking into account the importance of religion in Jewish identity, I understand that a lot better.

A few replies to the first 40 comments posted (to be continued):

#1, Caton and #4, “Q”:

“It was nice until the last part. 'Autonomy' is not the answer. Until 2000, the P.A. had 'autonomy' in the disputed territories. We all know what happened.”

The point is to marshal all forces against the second Palestinian-Arab state; the specific alternative is truly secondary.

#5, Otter

“Seriously, do these people think they're better military strategists than Ariel Sharon? Tougher than Ariel Sharon? More concerned with Israel's fate than Ariel Sharon?”

Surely, you are aware that many Israelis, and primarily Netanyahu who was an IDF officer, support the views I have elucidated in the 23-part series in question.

#6, uhoh

“Population transfer? Is that another way to say ethnic cleansing?”

A typical ploy of the Arab propaganda machine: sloganeering, as in “ethnic cleansing”. Why was it not “ethnic cleansing” in Cyprus, 1974, and in the other examples my article cited? Why does it only become “ethnic cleansing” when it’s time for Israel bashing?

#7, Stephen Rittenberg and #11, JG

The President signaled in his speech tonight at the AEI that as soon as the war is finished in Iraq, the screws will again be put on Israel to give the Arabs a "palestinian" state.

... Which is why Israel’s supporters should unite in a campaign to derail the sovereignty notion: rallies, letter campaigns, the works. Let’s go!

#10, Chris

Why don't they just make the West Bank part of Jordan?

I dealt with this option in my article. The big Q is this: why would the Jordanians want another collection of terrorists as their citizens? These are the same people who murdered King Abdullah, ya know.

#14, AG in Houston

This Palestinian state is going to happen no matter how much we convince ourselves that it should not exist.

“Things happen” only if people remain inactive. If we marshal our forces (all LGF readers and some from other sites...), this nightmare could be obviated.

#30, QueenEsther

The question of refugees (Jews from Arab countries and Arabs from the former Palestine) is dealt with in Part #21 of the 23-part series to which Charles alluded.

#31, uhoh

Whether its the Serbs and the Bosnians, the Greeks and the Turks, the Nazis and the Jews or the Jews and the Palestinians a "population transfer" is just a sanitized way of saying ethnic cleansing.

Population transfer, like birth, may be a gory affair but it does result in LIFE. If you are to squeamish to participate in birth, you should not have views about the future of mankind.

As my article pointed out, the Jordanians engaged in ethnic cleansing with relish: the entire population of the Old City of Jerusalem was expelled, plus the survivors of the Arab massacre in the Etzion Block.

Among the Palestinians expelled from Kuwait was the woman who is now the queen of Jordan.

Was she a guest worker, too?

Correction to the last paragraph of #153

Should read:

"the entire Jewish population of the Old City of Jerusalem was expelled, plus the survivors of the Arab massacre in the Etzion Block.

My apologies.

#150:

Given his status in history, I reckon its appropriate. You've caught a lot of flak for Germany's history, and I'm not trying to add to it. I'm sure you'd agree, though, that Hitler is fairly significant.

I agree, no doubt, British pupils should learn about that dark period in detail. But still, I found an article (in German) that says even Ofsted were a bit concerned with this issue. Their survey "History in Secondary Schools" states that British pupils learn more about the 3rd Reich than all other history teaching in British schools summed up. Simon Schama states that British teaching plans include nothing but "Hitler and the Henrys". This might be an explanation for the British sport of kraut-bashing. See here: 'Hitlerisation' is damaging pupils' historical knowledge.

I don't like that word autonomy. Autonomy is what the Basques in Spain have, and the situation over there isn't exactly peaceful.

#153 Joseph Alexander Norland

The point is to marshal all forces against the second Palestinian-Arab state; the specific alternative is truly secondary.

Hmm. I see. I'm not sure I agree with this strategy. We put ourself in this mess when we faked acceptance of a two-states solution and welcomed the PLO instead of flatly refusing to compromise. Recent history says, 'compromise' means our interests are compromised. You'll understand why I want to remember that 'No' is a complete sentence...

Now you think we should do it again. What will be the result this time?

I need to think about it. It stinks, but it could be the right strategy.

#156 hans

There is an element of truth in that. But the emphasis is on world history, specifically the history of the West. British history only comes in to this in detail a few times, so isn't really relevant. To be honest, I'd rather know what role my country played in the status quo than know my country's history in depth.

About 20% of the Israeli population are Arab citizens of Israel. Approximately 20-30% of the Jewish population is "religious" which includes everything from the Modern Orthodox and Religious Zionists to the Charedim. However surveys of actual religious activity show that nearly all Israeli Jews participate in some religious activity. Nearly all attend Passover Seders, virtually 100% of Jewish Israeli boys are ritually circumcised, most families celebrate bar mitzvahs etc.

It's more complicated than saying that most Israelis are not religious.

#160 ronnie schreiber

It's more complicated than saying that most Israelis are not religious.

OK, let me explain what I meant and rephrase it.

Like many Israeli, when I hear 'religious Jew' I understand the Chareidim. In an August 2002 poll, 90% of the Israeli stated they were anti-chareidi. 20% thought the anti-chareidi agenda was paramount, and a full 10% rallied Shinui's 'Stop the Chareidim' slogan. The results of the last elections show that more and more Israeli are not only not religious: they are anti-religious.

Now, what I should have said is, 90% of Israeli do not consider themselves religious.

Off topic but the quote below really hit me hard. It makes damn proud to be an American and damn proud to have G.W. Bush as my president.

He called it "presumptuous and insulting" to believe that the Muslim world would not welcome freedom and democracy."There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A750 5-2003Feb26.html

Mr. Norland,

Perhaps you could elaborate on the idea of population transfers relating to the forcible removal by the IDF of Israelis living in the Sinai as part of the Camp David Accord for those who aren't familiar with the concept.

Israel, in withdrawing from the Sinai, was required to dismantle several settlements in Sinai. The settlers were forcibly removed and relocated elsewhere. While there were scattered protests, the settlers were for the most part, peacefully relocated.

Any part of a peaceful settlement between Israelis and Palestinians will require groups to be moved. I've suggested on my own site, Suite101.com Peace Process, that settlements could easily be converted for Palestinian purposes and people relocated in existing settlements and housing construction to satsify any military, political, and economic settlement.

Also, most Palestinian supporters conveniently forget that nearly 1 million Jews were expelled from Arab/Islamic countries because of the establishment of Israel. They too are covered by international law and deserve reparations. The notion of refugees is poor cover indeed.

#128 - Dennisw

Regarding Dennis Ross. After US diplomatic service, Ross is now the first chairman of a new Jerusalem-based think tank, the Institute for Jewish People Policy Planning, funded and founded by the Jewish Agency.

Can you say "Food Chain?" How about "paid mouthpiece" for the Jewish Agency - which is deeply involved in creating the Settlement Colonies. And you use HIM as a credible source for "Whoops, no problem here folks...Settlements are a blessing to all..Jews and Pals!" Yuck, yuck, Dennisw!

On the "Bantustanization" of Arab areas, below is a link on the strategy:

Modern Planning for Colonies

If you reject the concept of Bantustans, check out the modern map prepared by an Israeli Human rights group that is accepted by the US State Department as the most accurate in detailing the current West Bank land control. And the map does no show the the "Arabrein" bypass roads used to limit Arab travel and commerce enough to "encourage" them to migrate.

B'Tselem Map Of Arab-Israeli Controlled Areas of the West Bank

Green/Blue/Black is "Jews Only", Orange/Yellow (less than 50% of the West Bank) is what's left so far as Pal Arab set asides. Sure looks like the Israelis have carved the Pals up into Bantustans to me, and US State Dept recognition of the Israeli strategy led Bush to use that crucial word "viable" in context of the future Pal State. (Along with it being pounded into US heads by the UK, non-aligned nations, Russia, the Euros, and obviously the Muslims)

Here is the summary.

Summary on Settlement, Palestinian Displacement Policy

If the average American saw this map, and read what has been going on...my guess is that they would call for an end to this crap, or 3 billion + in US taxpayer aid helping it happen.

Your demand for an apology, Dennisw, is the typical conniving dissembling we have seen from expansionist Zionists since the mid-70's....(oddly about the same point in time Israel began losing it's world-wide admirers.) Only the US is now left to "rah-rah" for Israel, and part of that is because American media has not focused on this issue like Israeli or media in other parts of the world. Our American culpability in this land grab process is part of the reason why America is having such a hard time in global relations at present to the point it is beginning to affect our economic and national security.

As evidenced by Bush's speech calling for "viability of a Pal State", hewing to the Quartet's "Road Map", the notion of Settlements as a driver of inequities that cause terrorism.....Bush has recognized that bringing political reform to the region and eliminating terrorism... calls for more than billions to Israel and JDAMs on everyone else. It appears that the "American Likudnik" faction now in the Bush Administration that used to work for Netanyahu lost out to Colin Powell's faction big time.

I'm not going to defend the shortcomings of the charedi community, but Tommy Lapid's rhetoric during the campaign was apalling. He even borrowed themes from out and out Jew haters, like Kosher supervision as a "Jew tax". Demogogues like Lapid will not solve the problems of integrating Charedim into the economy.

#165 ronnie schreiber

I'm not going to defend the shortcomings of the charedi community, but Tommy Lapid's rhetoric during the campaign was apalling. He even borrowed themes from out and out Jew haters, like Kosher supervision as a "Jew tax". Demogogues like Lapid will not solve the problems of integrating Charedim into the economy.

I'm not going to defend Lapid's rhetoric, either. But Sharon's talk about a civil marriage for people not allowed to marry under Jewish law was a step in the right direction for the whole Israeli society. And we both know where the idea comes from.

Ranbutan,

Dennis Ross' position shouldn't take away from the fact that he was there at the peace talks. And his version of the story is backed by many others, e.g. Clinton.

The fact that the "palestinians" live in areas that are separated from each other is their own fault. Their areas were more contiguous before they chose to go to war. Their areas would have been contiguous had they chosen peace. B'tselem's map of the current situation is nice, but ultimately not relevant.

is the typical conniving dissembling we have seen from expansionist Zionists since the mid-70's

Typical conniving dissembling, eh? So the "palestinians" have been very honest, say, about their interpretation of Res. 242 or what happened in Jenin, eh? Interestingly ahistorical, mon ami.

Our American culpability in this land grab process is part of the reason why America is having such a hard time in global relations at present to the point it is beginning to affect our economic and national security.

How is America culpable? Do you truly believe that the Iranians (for example) hate the US because we support Israel? Is that why they call us the Great Satan and the Israelis the Little Satan? How about the French? Do they hate us because we support Israel or simply because it is in their craven self-interest to try and bring down the hyperpower? Come on, Ranbutan.

calls for more than billions to Israel and JDAMs on everyone else.

How is that you continuously harp on the billions to Israel, most of which go right back to the US defense industry yet are mysteriously silent on the billions to Egypt, none of which do? No JDAM's going to Egypt, mon ami. (At least, not yet)

Another great thread at LGF. I haven't yet read Mr. Norland's series so my apologies if it addresses the following concerns. I keep coming back to the religious-political nexus. It just seems to me that unless this issue is not specifically addressed at the highest levels, and piblicized in some fashion, it will be "talked around" for reasons of political correctness and diplomatic sensitivities.

While this discussion rightly centers on the political component, the underlying religious beliefs on the Muslim side always appear to me to present a foundation for disagreement.

I wonder if we (the country, not this website) shouldn't be a bit brutal philosophically in our discourse, for a while, or periodically, to bring these issues up and so force wider discussion in the Muslim world.

I mean, for example, let's push, throughout media outlets, a series of stop and start dates of several days in duration. Acknowledge that we are attacking some of the fundamental Islamic beliefs. Force Muslims to defend them in discussion and discourse. State that this is the alternative to physical combat. Allow periods for ideas to develop and be prepared for presentation.

In my opinion, we will be doing this regardless, but without talking about it, and hoping and expecting that the two sides can come to a common understanding. This will probably happen, but will take longer, will be based more on force and persuasive coercion and financial inducement, and will not lead to as deep a mutual understanding or respect.

Unless we start talking about the TRADING OF ISRAEL for Iraq and for the principle of PC-"Evenhandedness" and put a stop to this--then the weakness of the West will be internalized and acted upon by Islam. I cant believe that the West hasnt learned yet that this behavior sends a clear message to Islam. Some of us have been warning ...but they dont want to listen.

The question lots of people need to be asking outloud is: Is Israel to be Traded for ALLOWING the US to shut down Iraqs Nukes?

Your demand for an apology, Dennisw, is the typical conniving dissembling we have seen from expansionist Zionists since the mid-70's....(

LOL! Not quite you ego tripping fool. You are a loathsome Jew baiting troll. That's why you come here. To irritate not to discuss. Go apologize to your god if you have one. Though I'll bet you're a stone atheist.

Ariel.

Why is it I suspect your sarcasm tags surround "mon ami".

No, my saying that the expansionist element of Israel has engaged in persistent, disingenuous statements and codswalloping propaganda is a fact in it's own right. That the Arabs have a healthy compliment of pathological liars is another fact in it's own right.

Their areas were more contiguous before they chose to go to war. Their areas would have been contiguous had they chosen peace. B'tselem's map of the current situation is nice, but ultimately not relevant.

B'Tselem's map is relevant indeed because it shows the current reality...which is that the Arab areas ARE in fact carved up into Bantustans. Which the US seems to be finally acknowledging along with the rest of the world...in calling for a VIABLE Pal State...code word recognition that the last "sucha deal I got for you" offer to His Toadliness Ararat...was one for a non-viable fragmented Palestinian Nation.

That you claim that they wouldn't be subject to territorial disintegration if they had only been nicer in 1967 is the irrelevancy proffered....since it is only an historical abstract of little bearing on the present situation or solutions the Quartet is seeking. The Pals can't avail themselves to a "Way-Back" Time machine to fix historical errors that hurt them anymore than Jews can.

How is that you continuously harp on the billions to Israel, most of which go right back to the US defense industry yet are mysteriously silent on the billions to Egypt, none of which do?

Amusing and deceitful, Ariel. The only reason Egypt gets the Eternally Entitled Welfare Queen Ying Check to Israel's Welfare Queen Yang check is that it is ALL ABOUT ISRAEL. We pay the Egyptians, not the Sudanese or Algerians huge money as part of Dhimmi Carters "peace bribe" so they won't attack Israel. And Egypt's welfare check (military purchases) is required to be spent on 100% US defense goods, compared to only 74% of the Israeli defense welfare check being required to be spent on US stuff. Israel, unlike Egypt, gets the money up front, and also has been the recipient of 10's of billions in "forgiven" US loans.

Strategically, our massive subsidies to Israeli Jews, the copious private US dollars going to the Settlements, and our reflexive backing of Israel's policies convince the world that America is an unfair, dishonest broker in the ME...and yes, that does piss the Arabs, Iranians, Europeans, Russians, Brazilians, Japanese, and even Indians off as the US underwriting Israeli colonialism.

RANBUTAN
_________

Your 3 links are absurd and irrelevant. Of course Israel is making settlements. What do you expect Israel to do you idiot! The Palestinians are engaged in demographic warfare and Israel's response is to make settlements... More accurately increase the size of present settlements. Palestinians are making new settlements too with their demographic Jihad

But all of this could have been changed and a lot reversed, most reversed, if the Palestinians had been honest negotiators. Instead Arafat left negotiations to make intifada to emulate Hizbollah success making the IDF leave Southern Lebanon. Put your arrogance aside, reread the Dennis Ross piece and learn something.

MAPS. The proof of how mistaken you are. Maps showing what exactly your Palestinians were offered thorough the years. Each year it got better and better but never good enough for your 3rd world revolutionary heroes. Funny how you Buchanan guys get suckered by 3rd world and Muslim propaganda.

#170 - You claim the Bantustan argument is a lie, Dennisw...then you demand an apology from me for repeating the claim.

I include maps and documents showing the West Bank is indeed carved up more than most Americans would imagine, and it does mirror the South African strategy to create a fragmented, impoverished scattering of "Sowetos" as the Palestinian areas.

You don't like that, or likely the fact that the US State Dept and Bush hold the map and much of the B'Tselem analysis to be valid information, or revelation that your Dennis Ross is in fact a paid PR flack for the Settlers, now.

That you are conniving and dissembling is an unfortunate truth....but understandable in the context since both the Israelis and the Arabs (and their partisans) have concocted reams of dubious propaganda over the years to advantage their side.

As America realizes they have been systemically misled on the true state of affairs in the Occupied Territories....by certain Israel governments, by the Pals, by well-meaning Jews in America, and an uncritical American media.....it tends to erode the moral authority of those involved. The Pals already have a firm reputation as odious liars from pushing BS propaganda too hard..Pls ensure that you don't join in their tattered credibility by attempting to deceive the American public.

Apologize to my god for telling the truth, dennisw? You are getting a bit loopy, I'd say. No, I'd say that I hope Israel remains a Jewish Nation-state for another 2,000 years and has a great illustrious history..but that history will show the overall Settlements drive, and the West Bank land planning conducted by the Israeli agencies...was a nefarious strategy aimed at breaking the Pal natives ability to remain there...and it took a long time to stop this evil machination, but that Israel finally saw the light.

RANBUTAN
_______________

Of course in the final maps it's the Jews left in West Bank "Bantustans". And of course you're a fool for Muslim propaganda that's been crying out Bantustans for years even as Oslo negotiations were giving the Pallies better and better deals.

You Pat Buchanan types have no love for brown skinned 3rd worlders except when you can pit them against Israel.

RANBUTAN
_____________

Screw the apology. Go look at the maps little man and tell me what you see. In the final maps and negotiations I see Jews left in West Bank "Bantustans".

Thus you are indeed lying when you repeat the Arafat canard of Palestinian Bantustans. It's a stone lie and you fall for it, want to fall for it. Only time you like the 3rd world is when you can use it as a battering ram on Irsael.

No, I'd say that I hope Israel remains a Jewish Nation-state for another 2,000 years and has a great illustrious history..but that history will show the overall Settlements drive, and the West Bank land planning conducted by the Israeli agencies...was a nefarious strategy aimed at breaking the Pal natives ability to remain there........

That's a lie. That's your fantasy and it's disproven by all that Barak was going to give away ....JUST FOR SOME PEACE!!!

Until there is peace I want as many settlements as possible. Establish facts on the ground! You bet I like settlements most of which are just suburbs of Jerusalem.

Anytime they want the Palestinians can get a good peace treaty. But they're too crazy and inbred to know a good thing when they see it. They prefer conflict and chaos.

Ranbutan,

Why is it I suspect your sarcasm tags surround "mon ami".

No sarcasm tags, actually. More just like when Canadians end their sentences with "eh?". Well, OK, a little bit of sarcasm.

No, my saying that the expansionist element of Israel has engaged in persistent, disingenuous statements and codswalloping propaganda is a fact in it's own right. That the Arabs have a healthy compliment of pathological liars is another fact in it's own right.

Hmmm... I'd challege you to find examples of the former. And, in any case, I'd reject your hypothesis that this has anything to do with Israel's position in the world. If that were true, we would expect the "palestinians" position in the world to be at least as bad, since, as you say, they have a "healthy compliment [sic] of pathological liars". That's clearly not the case, ergo your hypothesis fails.

Which the US seems to be finally acknowledging along with the rest of the world...in calling for a VIABLE Pal State

So the David-Taba giving of >90% of Yesha to the "palestinians" was not contiguous? It was not viable? Interesting, that. Just about every participant who left there must be a liar, then.

That you claim that they wouldn't be subject to territorial disintegration if they had only been nicer in 1967 is the irrelevancy proffered....since it is only an historical abstract of little bearing on the present situation or solutions the Quartet is seeking. The Pals can't avail themselves to a "Way-Back" Time machine to fix historical errors that hurt them anymore than Jews can.

I was talking 2000-2001. They had David-Taba to work things out. Or to do anything at all. They chose to go to war instead. They had, in other words, a non-Bantustan choice and they rejected it, since it failed to include a long border on the Mediterranean.

And Egypt's welfare check (military purchases) is required to be spent on 100% US defense goods, compared to only 74% of the Israeli defense welfare check being required to be spent on US stuff. Israel, unlike Egypt, gets the money up front, and also has been the recipient of 10's of billions in "forgiven" US loans.

FALSE.

Most of Egypt's check is non-military aid. Even in only 74% of Israel's check is required to be spent stateside, much more of it is. Egypt doesn't get the money up front? How do they get it? What???

Strategically, our massive subsidies to Israeli Jews, the copious private US dollars going to the Settlements, and our reflexive backing of Israel's policies convince the world that America is an unfair, dishonest broker in the ME...and yes, that does piss the Arabs, Iranians, Europeans, Russians, Brazilians, Japanese, and even Indians off as the US underwriting Israeli colonialism.

So which is it: Is it that Jews... oops, Israelis... are all liars? Or is it that the US supports the only democracy in the region?

Strategically, Israel provides the only reliable counterbalance to the Sauds, Nasserites, Ba'athists, etc.

Ranbutan Ariel

codswalloping propaganda

Wow look at Ranbu using that cool word "codswalloping". I am so in awe of your Ranbutan! (/sarcasm)

#177 Ariel

And, in any case, I'd reject your hypothesis that this has anything to do with Israel's position in the world. If that were true, we would expect the "palestinians" position in the world to be at least as bad, since, as you say, they have a "healthy compliment [sic] of pathological liars". That's clearly not the case, ergo your hypothesis fails.

Except that the Pals are not the ones stealing water rights and bulldozing hills inside Israel proper for colonies. Or, bulldozing the homes of those who cross them.

There are lots of nations that engage in frequent lies, deceptive propaganda....but they aren't colonizing another people at the present time. So they get a "victim pass", or a on the sidelines "French pass".

You simply offered a false analogy, not a hypothesis rebuttal.

As for the David-Taba map, maybe the Pals should have taken it...but found the features of continued Israel military presence deep in the Pal territory, the remaining bypass roads, the continued control over West Bank utilities, access problems for the West Bank/Gaza to be insurmountable. As too, the Israeli colonies left shotgun patterned throughout what was ostensibly "sovereign" Pal land, but defacto still accessed and protected by Israeli forces.

Since the collapse of the talks, Israel pushes more Settlements and says that the last best offer is off the table.

So, despite past hypothetical maps and proposals, we have the current reality of the West Bank Bantustans.....and the reality that the Quartet is becoming more and more serious about an imposed "Road Map" that betters the David-Taba offer, but one that also obliges all Arab nations to formally declare peace and normal relations with the Israel that has final borders agreed to by all parties.

Dennisw seems to be losing his cool a bit.

Pray tell, Dennis..what "demographic warfare" are the Pals doing? Having large families? In contravention of what law?

And, is importation of a million + foreign Jews to settle in Israel or the occupied lands demographic warfare or is it not?

Dennis, who cheers when an IDF soldier shoots an 8-year old stone-thrower as self-defense thinks his critics secretly hate "brown people" except when they are aligned against Israel.

No, in fact, the US and the world has paid waaaaay too much attention to a crappy little corner of the planet of scant strategic value. And, the US has spent 1/2 of it's foreign aid on the local "squeaky wheels", and inordinate foreign policy attention - while ignoring more needful areas in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Kashmir, the AIDs pandemic in Africa, N Korea, major Latin American instabilities, Cambodia, Burma....and the global economic ills. Time to focus on environmental, energy issues with attention to sustainable resources and growing global order.

Time to settle the Israeli-Pal mess, put up walls, and move on to 21st Century issues facing America.

In a sense, the French ambassador to the UK had it partially right...we have focused to much on two little shitty countries of no strategic value, but of moral value to us ......while ignoring major issues in areas of Great Importance.

Ranbutan alters the truth (#171),

Israel, unlike Egypt, ...has been the recipient of 10's of billions in "forgiven" US loans.

That's a flat-out lie. Israel has never had a penny "forgiven" and has never defaulted on a penny. Egypt, on the other hand, had billions forgiven in 1991; it's price for being gracious enough to let us fight Saudi Arabia's battle against Saddam.

Au contraire, James. Israel loans forgiven as well by Congress. Scads of them.

Anyways...the reality is Powell just came out with the EU Reps, and affirmed what Bush said last night. America and the EU are now in agreement on the Roadmap and the Quartet going for a Final Status Agreement.

Not a good day for buying that future retirement condo in Hebron.

Ranbutan #179,

Except that the Pals are not the ones stealing water rights and bulldozing hills inside Israel proper for colonies. Or, bulldozing the homes of those who cross them.

Yes, they're just 'sploding. And guess what? If it works in Israel, guess where the next country they'll try the tactic will be? Yup, that's right the USA! Won't that be fun? Mr. Kennedy and Mrs. Kennedy walk to their suburban mall and watch as some crazed Arab 'splodes the store in front of them, fortunately before they enter. It's OK, Mr. Kennedy says to Mrs. Kennedy, it's just because we supported Israel in the 90s that they're 'sploding in our malls in the 2030s. Too bad we lost our grandson in the lost bombing, Mrs. Kennedy says, as she cries, remembering.

There are lots of nations that engage in frequent lies, deceptive propaganda....but they aren't colonizing another people at the present time. So they get a "victim pass", or a on the sidelines "French pass".

Again, your initial hypothesis is rejected by you. It seems that other criteria trump what you initially said. Basically, if the person is Jewish, it's a no-go. Because "palestinians" colonizing land... hell, there's no problem with that!

As too, the Israeli colonies left shotgun patterned throughout what was ostensibly "sovereign" Pal land, but defacto still accessed and protected by Israeli forces.

Except that that's not true, as just about every single person from David up through Taba will tell you, if you read their op-eds.

and the reality that the Quartet is becoming more and more serious about an imposed "Road Map" that betters the David-Taba offer, but one that also obliges all Arab nations to formally declare peace and normal relations with the Israel that has final borders agreed to by all parties.

Let's just say your solution happens. What then when the Arabs launch their next genocidal war? Do the Israelis finally gain the right to claim territory from the Arabs? Or is that only a non-Jewish right?

A summary of the arguments against a Palestinian state is here. Norland's essays develop each of these in detail -- those who intend to read through them all might find it helpful to read the summary first.

A rather neglected argument, IMO, is B2-6: The size and the lack of resources in Judea, Samaria and Gaza do not permit a viable sovereign state to develop.

Ariel - you are engaging in "what ifs" and being hyperbolic.

Genocidal Wars?

1948 War had both sides screaming to kill everybody on the other side. It was the Arabs that fled in terror, not the other way around.

The 1956 "Genocidal War" was started by the Brits, Israel, and France as a last gasp venture in Colonialism. As you may recall, the US and the Soviets called on the aggressors to knock it off or else..and the 3 backed down.

The 1967 "Genocidal War" was given casus belli by Arab saber-rattling, but sealed by Israel striking first.

The 1973 "Genocidal War" was fought entirely on land Israel took from the Arabs in the '67 war.

AS for the safety of all, a stable peace is better for safety than continued repression and land thefts. And, any Peace Treaty has terms and penalties - If Israel is again smart - a rare event...they will insist on demilitarization of the Pals except small arms and have consequences for violations up to and including annexation of land.

If America was concerned with the same "what ifs" you are, we would have stayed in Germany, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan and built colonies for those immigrating to America.....in those places. Israel has played the "security card" for 35 years as an excuse for inaction and more Settlements in the West Bank to retake "their" ancient land from the Pals.

The fact is that Israel sort of likes the status quo and is in no big hurry to forgo the annual US billions, Lebensraum considerations, and don't honestly think the Pal natives have any claims to their soil or water.

The US and EU just agreed it is time to light a fire under Israel's butt.

#184

Please reference Singapore, Hong Kong, Luxemburg, Switzerland, Mauritius.

Ranbutan #185,

Too easy, mon ami.

1948 War had both sides screaming to kill everybody on the other side. It was the Arabs that fled in terror, not the other way around.

Well, let's see. Israel won. So, did they kill everyone? Is the Israeli Arab population a figment of my imagination? Did my family, and one million others, flee Arab countries?

I'll skip 56, b/c it's the war I know the least about.

67: As you say, they started the war with their causus belli. They also were calling for driving the Jews into the sea.

73: IIRC, the Arabs got much farther then the disputed territories. Not only that, but they were calling for driving the Jews into the sea.

Sure, a peace treaty would be dandy. Peace-loving Arabs singing "Kumbaya" while holding Jewish hands all together would be lovely. But it might not be realistic. So, let's focus on *realistic* solutions.

Maybe Israel should have democratized the territories. In fact, that was their intention. After intifada one, they started to do so. Then Bush 41 decided to impose the Tunisian occupation on the whole situation. In Arafatistan, democracy was a shell and the vote was a joke. That wasn't the Israeli intention either - Arafat was supposed to hold elections almost immediately and failed to do so.

Ranbutan #186 -

How could you neglect the once mighty City-State of Venice? But Venice, like Hong Kong and Singapore, grew rich and prosperous through trade. What will "Palestine" trade in?

The key factors are economic and political, here is Norland's detailed argument.

The dismal economic prospects that Palestinians face if their own leaders get their way is obviously no surprise to anyone. I doubt anyone seriously envisions a Palestinian state that is anything more than a squalid refugee camp with its own seat in the UN. That's exactly what Israel's enemies want: they don't want happy prosperous Pals, they want desperate ones who will serve as cannon fodder.

These figures are from Chaim Potok's Wanderings:
War of Independence: 7,000 Israelis killed
"...another thousand killed in the 1956 Sinai campaign and the 1967 Six-Day War"
1973: 3,000 Israelis killed

1948 War had both sides screaming to kill everybody on the other side. It
was the Arabs that fled in terror, not the other way around.

Actually all the Arab states declared war within days of Israel being declared a state. The refgee Arabs fled in terror, not due to screaming genocidal Jews, but screaming genocidal Arabs exhorting them to get out of the way, come help out in the war effort, and then come back and get the primo properties after the war is over (and by the way if it doesn't work out, your Arab brothers will take care of you (LOL - 50 years later still living in refugee camps as political weapons)) And, if the Jews in 1948 were equally as genocidal as the Arabs, why are there Israeli Arabs today?

Your moral equivalence arguments are just not backed up by facts.

The fact is that Israel has the ability to be genocidal; The Arabs have the intention. If the ability and the intention are ever matched up, their will be a massacre.

#153 norland

Please answer a few basic questions about your population transfer:

1. How many Palestinians do you seek to remove? Numbers, please.

2. Would you remove them by force if they resist?

3. Would Palestinian landowners be expelled along with Palestinian refugees?

4. Would you simply drop them off at the border -- without preparations for their housing and welfare?

5. What if Jordan, Lebanon & Egypt mass troops at the border to prevent the transfer?

6. What is the estimated cost of resettlement? Who would pay for it?

well let me state the bleeding obvious -- there will not be peace until both sides perceive that justice has been done. Highly charged religious perceptions are intimately involved.

First of all, as an American-Australian, the uncanny call for a pogrom that started this fascinating thread is just creepy. We in America think we left that shit behind long ago, buddy, and you better pack up your gear and go back to where you come from. See, to call for a pogrom is cheap justice.

I am a buddhist, so I am not biased for or against the claims to divinity and the possession of truth either side might have, nor their demonisation of their racially identical opponent.

So what is justice, for LGF people? What justice do the Jews require? Is it the seizure of the Temple Mount and the East Jerusalem area, as Sharon's coalition partners say? Americans and many other Israelis (an active, voting majority I hope) are not cool with that, I wouldn't think. Unless your name is Irving Moskowitz.

What about the Palestinians? What is their claim to Justice?

some of the more extreme voices in this debate are just doing what Bin Laden did -- denying the humanity of the "enemy" because of their felt indignity, their felt lack of justice as they watch their shops and homes being bulldozed into the ground in turn justifies mass murder.

Selected responses to comments 41 - 80 (Continuing my comments in #153)

#44, Steve

You'd rather seek constant conflict, forcing Jews to live with people that seek their destruction with every breath?

There are more fallacies here than there are words. First, not one Jew is forced to live in the disputed territories; second, if Jews are allowed to live and own property in LA, why not in the disputed lands? Third, why is it OK to uproot and “ethnically cleanse” 200,000 Jews who live in the disputed territories, but it’s not OK to transfer the Arab population that occupied the area designated by the League of Nations as the Jewish National Home?

#47, Rodger Dodger

The whole idea of a Palestinian state depends on what your definition of the word "state" is. Etc..

No, the question is not one of semantics and definitions. Not at all. We know from the experience of Germany in the 1930's that any attempt to seek comfort from “demilitarization” is a farce, unless one is ready to enforce it with a military force, in which case we’re talking of an invasion of a sovereign country, etc. It has to be clear from the outset: no sovereign Palestinian-Arab state; period.

#54, Ranbutan

Sorry for the "Greater Israel" crowd's hopes, but Bush said some very specific things.

1st, he called for a Viable Palestinian State.

That is an oxymoron. The article series in question has an article exactly on the economic aspects of a sovereign state - not a chance. Just today there was an announcement that US $700 Bill were ‘pledged’ by donor countries, on top on what the EU and the US pour into that corrupt system monthly. Yes, and my own Canadian government is not much better.

2nd, he called for an immediate end to ANY Settlement activity when the "Peace Process" shows positive progress.

How about the Palestinian Arab settlements? Since the Jews built 140 communities, the Palestinian Arabs have built 260, plus countless structures in the existing settlements. Are only Jews prohibited from building in the land assigned to them by the League of Nations?

I’ll leave it to others to address the other points in your comments, but I will add this: US obstruction of the Zionist endeavour is not the first in a series; the Brits did the same for 30 years. The Jews just went on building and building, and today we can see an National Home for Jews that is a model democracy.

#57, Ranbutan

Quite different than ethnic cleansing the Pals out of the West Bank..their native soil.

Here goes the Arab propaganda again. It is not their native soil. I addressed this in my article series, but Joan Peters in From time immemorial, has done a much better job. These Arabs are mostly immigrants who came to Western Palestine from neighbouring countries because of the Zionist enterprise that created jobs and economic prosperity. Churchill confirmed this in his famous statement. The Arabs are usurpers, not native sons of Western Palestine.

#62, Deacon Frost

If Israel wants to be a Jewish democracy, a Palestinian state is inevitable.

Another piece of trite Arab propaganda. Clearly, you have not read the series of article to which this thread refers. A second Palestinian Arab state is the destruction of Israel - with or without democracy.

#77, Ranbutan

Deacon is correct what would happen if America saw Israel attempt ethnic cleansing to take all of the West Bank.

That depends on what you mean by “America”; it definitely does not include Dick Armey or Jeanne Kirkpatrick. But what one can deduce from your comment is that the pro-Israel forces have much PR work to do. That is why I posted my articles, that’s why we have LGF and that’s why we should mobilize and marshal our forces.

#79, Deacon Frost

As far as a solution, unilateral disengagement is the only solution.

Did Arafat ask you to insert this line? Nothing would please him more! This panacea was tried in Lebanon - with devastating results. S. Lebanon now is probably the largest arsenal one can imagine; when Hizbullah gets its marching orders from Iran, the consequences of the “unilateral withdrawal” will be there for all to see.

TBC

Thought poppped into my mind, and I keep thinking, "nah, it's too simplistic" ... but it keeps popping up again, so I'll throw it out, being absolutely certain that all the brilliance around about here will totally and forever blow it out of the water:

What would happen if the United States agreed to let countries around the world become states of the United States of America if a major majority of their population voted to do so?

Not just 51% but a MAJOR majority, like 90%.

So that if Israel wanted to become the 51st state, they could, with all that would entail of being protected by our military and expected to conduct themselves as American citizens.

Same for Palestinians. They wouldn't have their very own country to run into the ground, but they'd have a made-to-order state which would receive a Federal tax base, National Guard police until they got their own cops up and running,and an expectation of being law-abiding and educated and productive.

Afghanistan -- US state #52 or #53. We've already talked about all of Canada being their own state ... and all of Mexico, too (United States of America, Mexican Division).

You know we're gonna have to pay to civilize the uncivilized somehow or other any way AND to keep on paying to protect them from whatever they need protecting from ... why not at least have an expectation of some tax-payer return in the future? And have it all written down in a Constitution upfront what the expectations are.

Now, all you pickers of nits -- fire away!

Ranbutan
________

Pray tell, Dennis..what "demographic warfare" are the Pals doing? Having large families? In contravention of what law?

Of course that's the Islamic demographic war and I have plenty who agree with me. Jihad is propelled by Islamic doctrine and exploding populations. Gaza is one of the most crowded places on earth and the birthrate is sky high too. Damn straight Israel brings in immigrants in the face of such high birthrates.

So you are the wise guy atheist Ranbutan. Figures. You haven't a clue about the religious dimensions of this conflict.

Ranbutan

I include maps and documents showing the West Bank is indeed carved up more than most Americans would imagine, and it does mirror the South African strategy to create a fragmented, impoverished scattering of "Sowetos" as the Palestinian areas.

Yes idiot. Your maps are OK. But you must look at my maps which show what the Palestinians were going to get from Oslo. What you have yet to figure out is that with Oslo talks Arafat had a chance to radically change those maps. So that the Jewish settlers would end up in the "Bantustans". But Arafat felt one upped by Hizballah and made his Intifada instead. Arafat is an ego tripper just like you.

Take a look these maps which expose your lies about Palestinian Bantustans being the end result of Oslo.
[Link: freepers.zill.net...]

#151 Deacon Frost re: - #117

- Trolling? Gee, I hope not. You?

RAMBUTAN - #171

- What racial stereotype is indicated by the phrase "...code word recognition that the last "sucha deal I got for you" offer..."

#184 - Glen Wishard

- A very much overlooked fundamental flaw in all discussion of a putative and future "palestinian" entity, indeed. Beyond Norland's extensive handling of the issue, Boris Shusteff has a two-part article that deals in great detail with the theme - land availability, water, agricultural potential, resources, pollution, demography, etc. They will likely be found on Arutz Sheva or Gamla in archives, titled "The Still-Born Palestinian State".

Joseph Alexander Norland #153 - KUDOS! KUDOS!

- I am floored by the erudition, sheer data acquisition, and generally Herculean effort embodied in your 23 Part (!!!) series. As an individual who has had an ongoing familiarity with the issues as a historical "generalist" for the better part of 35 years, and coming out of an intensive 30 month study of the issues, I can confirm that you have left 'few stones unturned'. It would also be my hope that your efforts would inspire a concerted focus of 'resistance' in your readers to any continuation of the Oslo "Death Train" - now re-routed onto the Road Map of the "Quartet".

While outside of the purview of your effort, you have mentioned in closing only a couple of alternative solutions to the Conflict. Earlier (yesterday), and in all seriousness, I posted (#117) a quite serious (though perhaps not well articulated) re-visitation of some of our basic assumptions as regards the Israeli position, in the hope that someone would pick up the proposition for examination.

[I've shot myself in the foot here - having just accidentally deleted a rather long post recapitulating this idea for examination. At risk of missing the flow of the debate, I will post this now, beg your forebearance, and abridge my comments... to the best of my memory]

#184 - Glen Wishard
- I forgot to mention - Shusteff points out that at present rates of "family unification" immigration and ongoing birthrates, Gaza will exceed, in some 10 years, the human density of Hong Kong by a factor of some two or three, as I recall (I can check if you need). This, without the faintest semblance of a 'self-sufficient' economy, be it in ANY sector. Without constant billions of international investment, (Constant = pretty well forever) annually, the enterprise will collapse, on purely economic terms. Doesn't seem to me a worthwhile course for investment, save in Armageddon...Is there an alternative? Well, yes....Hopefully I can elucidate. {The situation of 'Aza must be taken as a "special case" in regards to resolution of the conflict - due to the extreme population densities, and the heretofore 'reluctance' of Egypt to engage themselves in concrete steps to ease the dilemma. Indeed, 'au contraire']

Tiburon wrote:

Joseph Alexander Norland #153 - KUDOS! KUDOS! - I am floored by the erudition, sheer data acquisition, and generally Herculean effort embodied in your 23 Part (!!!) series.

I second that. This is the kind of thing we need more of.

(if anyone has a suggestion, save composing off-line, to saving one's posts before sending - in order to recheck the thread's flow....please do share! AGAIN! 6 paragraphs...Here we go again - well, exercises in 'brevity', then.)

ps - thanks Glen - little recognition for this over the last 200 posts, eh? ya, some...but not enough

Go Norland!!

OK - Let's do a little thought experiment - an extension of my suggestion yesterday that everyone (hey! I did it!), get out their Atlases and review, geographically, what we are talking about here.

Let's go for a little tour around our neighbourhood, how 'bout two hours out and two back.

As we walk, imagine every 20 minutes we meet crowds of teenagers who pelt us with rocks. Every 40 minutes, we better look out! Because we are subject to sniper fire. And let's remember to include at least one 50 block detour, 'cause if you go in there, you'll be lynched and dismembered.

Ah, at last home - safe and sound. Imagine you have a very powerful military pledged to protect you as a citizen. How would YOU vote?

Despite the foregoing, some 20% of Israelis would vote to relinquish legitimate claim to the areas of your walkabout, in return for nothing, not even a modicum of reduction in the level of violence.

One day, (a time of peace to come), books will be written about the mentality of a self-aware People subjected to 55 odd years of constant warfare - for the time being however, let's ignore this 20%, and concentrate on the majority. Relinquishing these areas due to simple irredentist (sp!) violence would be tantamount to abandoning South-Central LA to gang warfare!!

Oh...sorry...that's been done, right?

One entry found for irredenta.

Main Entry: ir·re·den·ta
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'den-t&
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian Italia irredenta, literally, unredeemed Italy, Italian-speaking territory not incorporated in Italy
Date: 1914
: a territory historically or ethnically related to one political unit but under the political control of another

However absurd the "historical" or "ethnical" claims....

Lest I, and we - lose sight of the original question.
Is there a 'third alternative' to the present challenges?

(and Glen - I'll return later, if you are about, to the now over one hundred smuggling tunnels (found and destroyed by IDF in the last 30 months) from present Egyptian territory into 'Aza, right in crosshairs of the Egyptian military, transporting literally tons of armament (rail cars, even) into the hands of Hamas, the PA, the whole "Motley Crue"....Gotta spend those Saudi and Iraqii bucks SOMEWHERE, eh? And from there, to the inevitable participation of Egypt in the resolution of the "special case" situation in Gaza - especially as the El Arish oil and gas fields (conceded by Israel concurrent with Yamit) are an ideal adjunct to an economic 'rescue' for these be-nighted souls, the "Ancient Palestians" of Gaza.
I pray, yes, for "Cowboy" Bush to couch the choice in just these terms to the Egyptians - "Fine - Cold Peace with Israel? Time to pull your weight, Boys!")
(I ought to say, it's "inevitable" only if Egypt doesn't 'stonewall'. If they do, 'the balloon' WILL go up, and Israel will recapture Sinai, and pay the 'rescue' for the Gaza Arabs themselves, with newly recaptured resources [and no, not part of "Biblical Israel" - just pure pragmatic "expansionism"]. IMO, this WILL happen, absent the Jewish Constitutional solution I'll be able to present in a moment, hopefully...,
(Former General Rafi Eitam's "plan", for a "Palestinian State" in Sinai, may be prescient, yes, but IMO and in light of present circumstance, seems a fantasy...)

Seems I'm all who's awake on the east coast on this old thread. Hence

Israel has no Constitution
Israel has a set of legislatively unremarkable laws termed "Basic Laws"
If Israel formulates a Jewish Constitution, stipulating that Israel is a Jewish State, all demographic challenges will vanish.

Like a number of other Nation States, Israel will take the position that their territory is for the People of Israel, that is, the descendants of Jews from around the world. As such, all "existential" legislation will be handled ONLY by Jews, - as has been proposed, through an Upper Legislative Chamber - a "Senate" or "Sanhedrin" - composing only naturally born or convert Jews. The Lower Chamber - a "Congress" or "Knesset", would comprise of all loyal citizens and residents, Jew and Gentile. They would formulate laws for the consideration of the Upper Chamber.

There are numerous nuances in this, not least questions of the "world-class activist" Israeli Supreme Court role, but in substance, in concert with an American form of Presidential Government - Full Checks and Balances - a divorce between the Executive and Legislative branches of government - ....in sum, Israel would be forever freed of the "demographic threat", at least in terms of a "ticking clock" of birth rate and illegal and "family unification" immigration on the part of the Arabs.

The rest is details, yes...borders...how to design an economy that can attract the millions of world Jews to return home...But the pressure would be off.

Period

(save of course the "pressure" of immanent destruction by the "confrontation states", but there one would think one could look to the Hegemon par Excellance - America.)

Addendum: -

Mr. Norland - #193 - "...a model democracy."

- I must demure. Granted the pluralism of the Israeli body politic is astonishing, for good or evil (and yes, I use these morally unrelativistic terms), and the outcome is a People, of all denominations, that are very democratic in orientation, to a degree "per capita' that would beggar belief in the "West".
But Israel, in comparison with the democracy of the United States of America is a, and I say this advisably, "Fascist Oligarchy". Therein "lies the rub".

Israel requires a social and political revolution to survive it's travails - representative democracy (non-existant, practically speaking), an a-politicized High Court (a dream, today), ....the list goes on. This is all irrespective of Israel's relations with the International Community, you understand. In those terms, Israel is indeed a "shining beacon". But without two things, -
1) The enfranchisement of expatriot Israelis
2) Massive and ongoing immigration of all world Jewry, especially American Jewry with their American VALUES

Israel has every chance of disappearing as an independant State.

WITH, points 1 and 2....Voting Jews will outnumber any projected increase in Arab numbers in the region, basically well out of the 21st Century. And how "unique" -Israel, representing all the world's Jews, gives no right to it's OWN CITIZENS to vote, while living abroad.

#191 Uhoh

In answer to your fourth question: - NO. Of course not. But all residents of Israel, Jew and Gentile, must swear fealty and allegiance to the Jewish State, subsequent to a Jewish Constitution. Seems fair to me, and not much different than America, for that matter. One need not hearken in this instance to the example of Japan, for instance - where foreign ownership is EXTREMELY circumscribed.

Ausyankee - #192

"Is it the seizure of the Temple Mount and the East Jerusalem area, as Sharon's coalition partners say?"

I want to be exceptionally graceful and kind here, Aussie...
I'm sure you'll recall, post "posting" your comment, that there is NO HISTORICAL LINKAGE to the "Temple Mount" among any sect of Araby, except that that has emerged in the last 30-odd years. Christians and Jews, yes, can lay claim to a religious and historical relationship, obviously more the latter. While obviously, in this context, the term "repossession" would be more appropriate than "seizure", you might have some more contemporary questions.

Well, I have just in front of me a book, published in in Vienna and Berlin, basically a demographic study, with detailed cartography - showing Jerusalem as it was in that Year of (your) Lord - 1921. Directly stated, there is no East Jerusalem. None. Nada. Zip. Bupkiss.

Sorry bro', - the East Jerusalem of 1921 consisted of about five or six remote pastoral villages of a couple of hundred people. That's it.

You have to remember, that for hundreds of years, one would take one's life in one's hands to venture outside the Walls of Jerusalem, due mostly to the predations of Bedouin. (A Muslim people I can relate to - having lived somewhat among them in my past...direct and unashamed "tribal interests"...cool by me. - Just remember the "3 day rule"...and know where YOU stand!)

Heretic #194

- IM IN!! WHERE DO I SIGN UP! Just one thing though, a caveat: - No Jew may be allowed to be State Governor!

DennisW #195

- Actually, and no, without digging I can't give you the exact numbers - but something like 100, 000 Arabs have re-entered Yesha and married/joined extended family in Israel proper, under grounds of "family re-unification", since the Oslo accords. (and significant numbers before then, post "67) This has been Israeli, (Labour and Likud) policy, to allow this, for decades.

Good Policy? I haven't really considered. Like weather, I watch the Unfolding. I suppose that those Arabs that make the effort are committed to living in Israel regions, mostly - those that aren't terrorist agents, which I must hope are in the minority. They counter-balance the Arabs that leave, and are eager to leave, lacking true roots or emotional connection to the region. When I consider these Arabs, those who just want to live - I am reminded that "forcible transfer" will carry too much injustice in human terms to be acceptable for the Israeli Jewish State.

As I've said above - with a Jewish Constitution, it will be Totally Unnecessary.

OH, last comment for tonight, unless I'm flamed - - :-)

IMO - Oslo Agreements should be immediately abrogated, and Yesha should be immediately Annexed.

Now.

immenant....advisedly...(sorry)

Immanent

One entry found for immanent.

Main Entry: im·ma·nent
Pronunciation: -n&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin immanent-, immanens, present participle of immanEre to remain in place, from Latin in- + manEre to remain -- more at MANSION
Date: 1535
: remaining or operating within a domain of reality or realm of discourse : INHERENT; specifically : having existence or effect only within the mind or consciousness -- compare TRANSCENDENT
- im·ma·nent·ly adverb

#92 ausyankee

First of all, as an American-Australian, the uncanny call for a pogrom that started this fascinating thread is just creepy.

Well, you are talking about my opinion, and you are being an ass.

A 'Palestinian' state will still have Hamas, Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad elements waging a terrorist war against Israel. So Israel will close its borders, and a 'Palestinian' state will starve, until the last Paleostinian has eaten the last-before-one. This is what a 'Palestinian' state means. Or, it could end up with an all-out war and Israel having to conquer the 'Palestinian' state just to keep its citizens safe. And then the whole thing would restart... until, effectively, Paleostinians are left to starve.

Population transfer has already be implemented peacefully, and in more than one occasion. The two last examples are Cyprus and the Greece-Turkey post-war settlement.

Please explain how advocating for a population transfer instead of starving the whole lot until they eat each other out has something to do with a call for a pogrom.

Mmmm., yes - basically well said
Caton - #127

- but, again - why the need for ANY transfer. Let me extend my earlier case. Let's say, post-Jewish Constitution, (and I've gleaned, Caton, that beyond your a-religious stance, that you Are of the Jewish Persuasion?), that post said Constitution, Israel declares a Homestead Act over the Disputed Territories. Territories that are clearly under International Law, the last "un-owned" lands on the Planet.....and invites, (without prejudicing the rights of ANY interested and "stakeholding" party to participate in the same action - funded of course by their own sources, not Israel...), all Jews from the world to come and make a claim - a horse, mule, and 40 acres. With reference to water aquifier considerations, infrastructure and the like - all Jewish applicants will be given access. It needs saying, also - that all "open lands" would be defined as those lands without ownership - the "Waqf" or "church" or "State" lands that have stood abandoned without owner since the Second Commonwealth...and are now under putative Israeli/PA jurisdiction, (Jordan long since having abandoned it's claims). To begin with , the Homestead Act could apply only to those areas under full Israeli control, under the present status quo - pre-Annexation. Later, when it becomes apparent that no Arabs are responding to the "Call From Palestine" to immigrate to PA areas, Israel might consider opening a "dual" call for these areas....
[while punching the living daylights out of the thugs]

Do you think this will bring a million Jews from around the world?

Do you think that the Arabs, even with long foreknowledge, will take up the torch for their "repatriation"?

Think about this strange psychological and so-very-physical experiment, Caton. In one fell swoop the world will see the END of the supposed "burning need" of the refugee grandchildren from '48 to return to Israel.

And of course, practically - 1.3 million Jews in Yesha. "Facts on the Ground".

Qualification: -
By without "owner", I mean lands without resident or non-resident owner, for the practical purposes of abode, cultivation, commerce, rent or speculation. Those "lands" under the "Waqf" - some 90% of the Empty Glorious Hills that "they" considered worthless, for some 2000 years.

#208 Tiburon

- but, again - why the need for ANY transfer.

There's no need. I'm perfectly willing to kill Paleostinians right where they are. I'm not willing to let them continue killing civilians.

(and I've gleaned, Caton, that beyond your a-religious stance, that you Are of the Jewish Persuasion?)

No, motherfucker, I'm a Jew and proud of it.

You have joined Bez & Rambutan on my "ignore all posts" list.

Ah, so sorry, Caton....

Don't be precipitate - Didya READ any of my posts? EXAMINE my postulates?

Maybe you ARE one of those Jewish People, who are able to keep Shomrei Shabbat, Glatt Kosher, to guard the ways of Taharas Mishpacha - and lay tephillin precisely in the window of time after dawn.

I am not. Yet.

I, too, am persuaded. But just because I CAN carry a gun, and know quite well how to use it, fast - several types of weaponry, mark you - doesn't mean that I'm willing to gun down all passerby on sight.

Quite the contrary, actually - and so I would counsel you, had you the internal calm to hear me....

It's hard to remember, for we are both victims and targets of the media storm - there seems little relief -
that there are in fact several tens, - nay - perhaps 200, 000 Arabs in Yesha who wish us NO HARM - on the contrary, long for us to oust the demons.

The Trick, you see - is to Save Them, while "removing" the rest.....by whatever means....

Read my earlier posts before you judge me, friend. I've had a glass of wine, I suspect you as well....

Tiburon --

I understand you're an Israeli expatriate and feel alienated because Israel doesn't give you the right to vote abroad.. but what's your justification for calling Israel a 'fascist oligarchy' and lacking a representative democracy?? (#204 ) How is Israel less democratic than America? How about the UK? Israel has one of the highest voter turn-out rates in the world. And instead of being stuck with two parties Israelis have a huge variety of parties representing each group in the diverse population.

Ranbutan -- Pray tell, Dennis..what "demographic warfare" are the Pals doing?

Arafat: "The Arab woman's womb is our chief weapon." l

Any more questions?

Tiburon:

Pls contact me, dt804@yahoo.ca

Charles: I'm sorry to use the comments privilege as a bulletin board, but Tiburon gave no e-mail address.

#212 - nik

....This thread is getting somewhat dated, but hope you'll check back: -

"Fascist Oligarchy" -

Excellent Question!

This is actually the 'heart of the matter', the structure of Israel's system of government. I'll try to give you the kernel of truth here, but for the full grown tree there are far more articulate spokesmen than myself, and I'll give reference, if I may. BTW, I am not an Israeli expatriate, though I have lived there at various times. I guess one would say I'm pretty widely travelled, spending time (decade +) in Europe and Far East, Middle East, etc. I am pretty disappointed that Israel does not allow it's Citizens to register with their embassies abroad and participate in elections. Many expatriots spend over a thousand dollars to fly back solely for elections - not everyone can afford this, of course.

Out of more than 70 "democracies" in the world, Israel alone has no "representative democracy". In Israel, one votes for a PARTY, and votes are tallied and seats allocated on a proportional basis.
IN ISRAEL, ONE DOES NOT VOTE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATIVE, EVER. The whole country is one electoral district.
What this means, practically, is that you, as a voter, have ABSOLUTELY NO SAY in who will go into the Knesset from the Party you choose to vote for. Furthermore, if whomever the Party chooses to put into the Knesset breaks trust with the Party's voters - changing platform, making alignment with other Parties that might completely oppose the expressed PRE-ELECTION views of the Party you voted for - you have as a voter absolutely no influence whether this person will remain in government. You CANNOT vote them out next election, because they were appointed only by the Party - it is solely the Party's choice. You cannot even protest to this Knesset Member directly, as he does not represent any region or town or ward or county or whatever....the whole country is ONE DISTRICT. You can, obviously, choose not to vote for this particular Party in the next national elections, but in the meantime they can do whatever they like, with NO repercussions.

This is WHY and HOW, for examples: -

1) The Oslo Agreements were passed by ONE VOTE in the Knesset (in other words, opposed by 59 of 120 Knesset members - ) a vote that is generally acknowledged to have been "bought", in that the individual who said yes and carried the vote, was on record as opposing the Agreements, but changed his vote and was given Ministerial responsibilities that included a new Mitsubishi car. Astonishing? What part of it, nik? That a vote on such a fundamental question of Israel's existence needed only a bare "1%" majority to carry, or that a Mitsubishi is worth our Holy Land's safety?

2) The Rabin Labour government, which had been elected on a platform TO NEVER NEGOTIATE WITH THE PLO, was able to completely make an "about face" and support the traitors in their own party who negotiated the Oslo Death Train (Peres, Beilin, Pundak, others) and WITHOUT NEW ELECTIONS, manouveur and manipulate for the votes they needed to impose the Agreements on the country.

3) The government never needed to go back to the electorate in order to agree to a) Let Arafat and his thugs into the country b) GIVE THEM GUNS - Fully automatic rifles, jeeps, light armour/machine guns - to the tune of 20,000 rifles alone (now, with smuggling - estimated by the Shin Bet at better than 45,000 weapons, plus bombs, mortars, rockets, RPG's, anti-tank weapons, explosives, etc., and which they've collected less than 4000 in 30 months of bloody fighting)

4) Shimon Peres, who has been Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Head of the Labour Party, on and on since Ben Gurion's time....HAS NEVER ONCE WON AN ELECTION IN HIS LIFE (that is, even when he was head of Party, he never won), and yet has been in pretty well the majority of governments over the last 30 years.

5-500+) I could write a book strictly on examples like this.

You see, this system of government is a RECIPE FOR CORRUPTION. It is why Israelis are often referred to as "Vote Beasts" - They vote every few years, but have ZERO control between elections as to what happens, and no one to punish afterwards. For example, sometimes when a Party is destroyed by having betrayed it's voters in too unforgiveable of a way, the actual Knesset members of this Party simply move over to another Party, again, all in "back room deals", and appear in the next Knesset when this second Party is voted in.
To paraphrase an old saying, "If this is "Representative Democracy", give me Albania!"

Keep in mind, this system is unique among more than 70 democracies.

Compounding this state of affairs, due to a lot of complex history - (you have to remember that Israel was established with a lot of "socialist" ideas, by mostly West European Jews, who were also secular humanists, almost to a man. They weren't the first to begin the Return to Zion, the religious Zionists were first, but they came in greater numbers, and they took and held power for better than 30 years - basically until Begin and the Likud) - there is a small group of "families", power groups - in construction, industry, utilities, the Histraduth national union, and the Media - numbering between 60 and 80 families, depending on the exact definition, that control over 90% of the economy. They pay for the Parties, they choose, through the Parties - who goes into the Knesset, and they filter and censor and edit information to the Public through their control of the Media. Generally, when political, they are VERY Leftist, anti-religious, and firm believers in centralized control - which of course favours their interests. And because the Government appoints the Police bureaucrats, there have been ugly incidents as well.
This is by definition, an "OLIGARCHY'. And when the individual voter has NO EFFECTIVE CONTROL over the decisions of Knesset - the definition of this is "FASCISM" - that is, if you are not part of the Party, if you are on the outside - you are meaningless, politically.

Recently, we can see this in action. Sharon was elected (by direct election of Prime Minister - the first step towards reform of this crippled and grossly sick system, now unfortunately cancelled, BY THE KNESSET) on a platform to effectively answer and end Arab violence from the PA. Far more Jews have died under his watch, however, than under Barak's, and he is constantly "measuring response" to Arab Murder.

And now, with 2/3rd's of the Likud Central Commitee deadset against even DISCUSSING a "Palestinian State", Sharon, as leader of the now powerful Likud, is going to give them a state anyway.

Anyway, that's sort of some basics and anecdotes - but to really understand what's going on it is mandatory that those who care about Israel read: -

"Jewish Statesmanship - Lest Israel Fall" - by Professor Paul Eidelberg.

He is one of the world's leading Constitutional theorists (he has written major works on the US Constitution, and has presented the First Jewish Constitution for Israel to all the Parties. - This is, in light of the above, an uphill battle), and a brilliant genius political philosopher. Prof Louis Beres calls him THE GREATEST JEWISH POLI-SCI TODAY.
In this book, simple to read and understand, (relatively), you will see described the exact structure of Israeli government, and clear remedies.

You may also visit his website at [Link: www.yamin.org...] and see many of his papers at the site of the Ariel Center for Policy Research (ACPR) [Link: www.acpr.org.il...]

There are other issues, - the electoral threshold for instance (1.5%), which is absurdly low - leading to dozens of Parties, many elected on single issues - when what Israel needs is 5 or 6 Parties with a clear and broad focus on NATIONAL INTERESTS!

Thank you for your kind attention - please follow the links, and I'll check back here over the coming days while this thread is still here, or meet you on a more recent thread if you prefer. Lest we lose sight of it: - KUDOS TO NORLAND!!!

Tiburon - thank you for your lengthy and piquant response.

First off, I completely agree that Oslo was a catastrophe brought on by ignoble and thoroughly undemocratic means. Worst of all, there was no Jewish majority (in the Knesset) in favor of Oslo.

I also agree that Israel does not have a perfectly representative democracy -- only party members choose the Knesset list, and votes go to the party, not to individual representatives. But in the previous election, (Barak vs. Netanyahu) the PM was elected seperately. As we all know, this gave too much influence to small parties, basically putting the agenda into the control of parties like Shas. Was this system really more democratic than the present system? I think the reason seperate elections for PM and Knesset were repealed is to make the system more democratic, not less.

And where in the world does real representative democracy exist? Certainly not here in the US. Here we have the hegemony of two parties. Personally I find the agenda of both unpalatable, yet I do not have any real alternatives when I vote. If I was in Israel, I would be able to express my will much more effectively since there are parties that cover pretty much the whole political spectrum. If I wanted to vote for the Herut/Yamin platform, I would vote for the party, and not Likud or Avodah. If the same situation as in the US was in Israel, there would be only Likud and Avodah. If I was a Herutnik I would feel completely enstranged.

Also, in Israel the party elects the Knesset list, and each voter knows which people he is voting for. He knows which people will occupy the Knesset and can usually even predict which people will be given which ministries. And Israel may be one electoral district, but the two major Israeli parties always try to include representatives from all the different regions of the country.

You say that the 'individual voter has no effective control over the decisions of the Knesset.' Well, is it otherwise in the US, or in any other democracy? Once my congressman or senator gets elected, the only repercussion which he would face if he hoodwinked me would be the loss of my vote in the upcoming election. Once he is in office, I have absolutly no leverage over his actions, besides the threat to vote for the opposing party come next election. Is this not he same as in Israel?

You say that the Israeli government never needed to go back to the electorate to sign Oslo. Does the congress need to go back to the electorate when making any of its decisions? I don't think I even need to bring up the multitude of cases when US Presidents, who have been elected on a certain platform, performed an abrupt 'about-face' on the electorate. You say that Sharon does not listen to 2/3 of the Likud Central Commitee. Why then did they elect him? They had an alternative in Netanyahu, yet these same people who oppose the Palestinian state in fiery speeches voted for Sharon, well after Sharon made the (Herzliya?) speech, agreeing to the Palestinian state in principle.

Furthermore, I understand there is now a law in Israel which says that any territorial compromise must be approved by referendum. Wouldn't this prevent the tragedy of Oslo from ever repeating? (if Oslo was indeed not supported by the majority of Israelis.)

As for the 'oligarchy' in Israel, the same could be said about the US. Here the top 1% own 46% of the wealth. Does this 1% have a general political agenda? By and large, yes. Does the 1% have a disproportionate influence on the government? Definitely yes.

Israel's democracy is far from perfect, and perhaps deeply flawed. But the same flaws exist in every democracy on earth. The problem of the over-representation of the rich and the problem of imperfect representation of the electorate exist in every democratic country, in varying degrees.

It is convention to compare the economic statistics of countries relative to the US numbers, the US being the world economic leader. Perhaps the same should go for the comparison of political systems. If the standard is the US and not the unrealistic ideal of perfect democracy, then Israel is a proper democracy. No country can achieve the ideal, but in my opinion few countries are closer than Israel.

Dear Nik,
Thank you yet again for presenting the critical postulates. I'm at odds with myself how to respond.

First of all, I'm not even certain it is appropriate. While my positions have been influenced by numerous writers and thinkers, (and of course, as we all, by ongoing events) - One "Thinker", Professor Paul E. Eidelberg, has done more to open my eyes to fundamental truths in regards to the Israeli Political System.
I believe it was Rabbi Akiva who said, "It is better to be the Tail of a Lion than the Head of a Fox".
You have presented the core, normative responses to the ideas I have attempted to put forward in my posts here. Your last post is very comprehensive in this regard, but short of literally doing a "sentence by sentence mark-up" of your post, I don't see that I can address them cogently and comprehensively. Such a response would surely, as I struggle with 'brevity' and don't wish to simply make "provocative" statements, but rather to RESOLVE understandings, very much exceed the format of this commentary line (several 8000 word posts would be required! :-))
It is very much my wish, given what I see as an active and well-centered sensitivity to the general position of Israel in the world today, to disabuse you of some (most) of your assumptions as to the viability of the Israeli System. I wish to say further that I feel great empathy to where you are in your understandings. This was EXACTLY where I was, despite being relatively very well educated to the history and contemporary circumstance of Israel, up to about 5 years ago, when I first discovered Eidelberg.
I wish there was a short cut to this, the "learning curve" involved, nik. Indeed, my posts here were an exploration of the possibility of moving this germaine debate into this, more popular, realm. To the degree that I can "capsulize' ideas that I have garnered from the 'great lights' who deal with these issues, I suppose there is a place for this. But as I've said - You have presented too much to be answered in brief, nor do I believe it would even be "polite netiquette" to do so in such detail - your ideas are in common currency. Why should you be picked out for the practical equivalent of a "Fisking"? You are, evidently, firmly on the 'right side' of the issues, generally.
Look. Let me STRONGLY and URGENTLY recommend that you take an hour and visit the following site URL, and read the first four essays under the headings Constitition and Institutions. I realize this site simply appears as a Herut (or Herut/Yamin) site, but I know a little of it's provenance, and it is not only this. The essays that you see here by Eidelberg are an outgrowth of a decade of work that he has done with the "Foundation for Constitutional Democracy in Israel", and the ideas you see presented are a mere fraction of the exquisitely detailed address that is available on this subject through Eidelberg's work.
[I have archived over 500 articles by the Professor since March 2000 alone. He carried a byline in the world's largest Jewish Weekly (one million readers) for well over a decade (titled: - "Metapolitics"), while producing landmark tomes dealing with issues of Governance and Political Philosophy. Among his many books: -

"Jewish Statesmanship - Lest Israel Fall" - mandatory reading - much a "manifesto" and very approachable, while still covering in deeply referenced style, the facts of the situation.

"Demophrenia - Israel and the Malaise of Democracy" - an extremely well researched and profound examination of the impact of the 'philosophy' of moral relativism on the West and on the structure and conduct of Israeli Institutions, through the lens of Ignacio Matte-Blanco's work on conscious and unconscious thought.

"Judaic Man" - As the title implies, a trans-historical examination of the modern world, and man's socio-political evolution, leading to the inescapable conclusion that humankind's 'salvation' lies rooted in classical Jewish Attitudes, Law, and Thinking.

Nik, - These books, especially "Statesmanship" - now published in Hebrew Russian English and I believe soon French - are rapidly changing the terms of debate at the levels you and I are presently engaged. They are also moving large numbers of educated people to search for radical alternatives to the status quo.

PLEASE: - Go now to the URL. I am posting a secondary email address to this message for you, if you wish to discuss further directly - I would enjoy and appreciate that. I will undertake to try to ferret out from the immense archives articles on questions that may emerge for you (from your preliminary reading of the four essays), or try to abbreviate direct answers to you from their import.

www.yamin.org/yamin_policy_papers.htm

www.yamin.org/yamin_policy_papers.htm

You'll also be able to find a number of critical essays by Eidelberg on the Ariel site (see above post #215). See especially, "A Democratic but "Racist" Solution to the Palestinian Problem" (might have to pay to get full access - but I have this in archives and can email it to you open html.)

Finally - I DID get through about half of an off-line "markup" of your post #216, :-D. You DO have "reasonable positions" and good questions, you see!....It's just that the answers as they apply to Israel are NOT what you expect, nor are they particularly pleasant. If you would like, I'll finish it over the coming week and email it to you, as I appreciate that some of your points are quite specific and may not be directly addressed by Eidelberg in the 4 essays I have referred to you.
It may be that there will emerge an opportunity to carry the core of this debate into the Israpundit forum, so do keep an eye out there over the near future.

Tiburon - I understand and sympathize with your reasons for not answering #216. I agree that this isn't the best medium to 'resolve understandings,' especially since I am quite out of my league, so to speak, in this debate. I have never lived in Israel and my understanding of the Israeli system is quite shallow and commonplace. My post wasn't aimed at defending the 'normative' position as much as at hearing your response, as I find your position quite intriguing.

I will try to find time to study the articles you refer to.