Posted on 06/13/2006 9:02:53 AM PDT by Alouette
Whole Land of Israel question debate between Zionist realists, post-Zionist dreamers
If we stick to the idea of the complete Land of Israel, we will soon be left with no State of Israel, and if we are left with no State of Israel, we will be left with no Land of Israel. In the best case scenario, we will become beholden to the good graces of a Palestinian state that will include the Whole Land of Israel.
That's the whole story. It is also the reason that Ariel Sjharon changed his mind, and Ehud Olmert changed his mind, as did Tzipi Livni, Dan Meridor, Tzachi Hanegbi, Michael Eitan and many other "Whole Land of Israel" proponents both in and out of the Knesset.
These people fought against us in election campaign after election campaign and portrayed us as defeatists, as people who lacked a real connection to our national roots. But eventually they came around to see just how wrong they really were. 39 years of mistakes and waste, of settlement and bloodshed.
Democracy or nothing
Either we will have a Jewish democracy here, with a stable Jewish majority and equal civilian rights for all – or we will have nothing. And sinful ideas such as transfer, or proposals to have Israeli and West Bank Arabs vote for the Jordanian parliament, or limiting Israeli citizenship to those people who sing Hatikva and wave the flag on Independence Day are baseless, unethical and impractical.
The Zionist idea has not taken root on the map. Our historical borders have changed occasionally. Like all nations, we have a tendency to particularly remember the short moments, like when King David ruled over wide swaths of land. But this has no relevance to the 21st century.
We would have been happy with the mini-state we were offered in 1936, before the Peel Commission decided to rescind the offer to create two countries here. We also could have saved at leased some victims of the Holocaust if we'd had such a state at that time.
We danced all night when the U.N. decided to establish a Jewish state without Jerusalem, Jaffa or Nahariya in 1947, and when we expanded our borders during the War of Independence, we were thrilled. From 1956- 1967 we even enjoyed relative prosperity and security.
From victory to danger
After the Six Day War we had big eyes. We wanted Sharm al-Sheikh and the Golan Heights and Gaza and the West Bank. We settled these areas at the expense of our poor, and we became occupiers – "enlightened" at first, not-so-much later on, instead of unilaterally setting our borders and getting out of most of the territories.
Six days of illustrious victory has brought us to a point where our very existence is in danger. The danger to stay in the territories has become our biggest curse. We have paid a stiff international and economic price for this mistake, and suffered much bloodshed – especially during the Yom Kippur War. That war would never have happened if we had left most of the territories immediately after occupying them.
The argument about the Whole Land of Israel is an argument between post-Zionists willing to stick to every centimeter of the Land, with or without Jewish sovereignty, and between Zionists who believe a Jewish state is correct and proper even today and that this country has a Jewish majority – and who therefore support dividing the land.
Saving the state
The Land of Israel west of the Jordan River will have a Palestinian majority in another four or five years. If we continue to rule this entire area (directly or indirectly), the Palestinians will come to us with a simple demand: One man, one vote. They will tell us not to worry about taking down settlements, dividing Jerusalem, creating a Palestinian state or anything else.
This, in turn, will create one, large state between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, but it will not be the State of Israel.
The Whole Land of Israel – or in other words, Israeli control of the western portion of the Land of Israel – is not an alternative to a Jewish state in part of that territory. Apart from the ethical questions, legal and security questions involved, the Whole Land of Israel is simply impractical.
Dr. Yossi Beilin is the chairman of the Meretz party
Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.
Since national suicide is the certain result of this misguided "humanitarianism", and we can't question their patriotism, the only thing left to question is their sanity.
The nature of the enemy is crystal clear and in no way theoretical. The terrorist "palestinians" keep reminding Jews and Israelis as to what their ultimate goal is, in both deeds and words. If you can't believe them, who can you believe?
That perfectly describes my in-laws..................
Yossi falls for the "demographic threat" LIE
In any normal nation, this guy, who helped resurrect the PLO when they were on the ropes after the Gulf War, and invited them to move into Israel, and is responsible for all the shed blood, would be ashamed to come out into the sunlight, much less opinionate.
In a normal nation, if he still had no shame, the public would force it on him.
Let's look at a comparison, the USA along a timeline.
Is the USA expected to give back the south western states to Mexico? Yes, but homicide bombers and rocket attacks are not tolerated. How about Alaska, it should be Russian, right? After all the Tsar didn't really have the right to sell it cheap, right? Hummmm, well then, the Louisiana purchase belongs to Vichy France doesn't it? Where's the discussion? Maybe the Tennessee territory, or those thirteen colonies stolen by force of arms, the Tudors own 'em. I don't see anybody talkin' about that.
The Jews bought Israel cash on the barrelhead and acquired the rest of their territory by fortunes of war after defending from military attack. But the Jews gotta give it up, why, 'cause they're younger and in the modern world we don't do that any more? Do things like defend our lives, families, race, religion, or nation?
The Palis are close to civil war now.
The demographic threat is no lie. I never, ever thought I would say this, but this time Yossi Beilin is absolutely right, and he explains the change of position by Prime Ministers Sharon and Olmert, and many formerly right wing Likud MKs quite well. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Yossi Beilin is right less frequently than that but this time he is spot on.
To those who say otherwise, rather than quoting ancient Bible text that doesn't directly relate to today's situation, how about giving an alternative. Explain to me how Israel can keep all of Judea and Samaria and Gaza, keep ruling over 3.5 million hostile Arabs, and remain a Jewish democracy. That has been my challenge to the religious Zionists for a long time and nobody has answered that challenge in a logical, sensible way.
In 1967 when most Israelis celebrated our great victory in the Six Day War my father saw nothing to celebrate. His words were (in translation): "Occupation. Bad business." 39 years later he's been proven prophetic in his words.
I agree.
For example, the West Bank was less defensible as each day went by, removing settlers was a tragedy, but there was more danger and less security as each day went by. I realize it was everything they had and they had every right to settle the land, but that does not mean that the land can be defended, only that it should be. Get them out alive, that means the most.
I don't see these pullbacks as cowardice or surrender (that's the description for the UN activities) but rather necessary pragmatism. Israel is not omnipotent and cannot defend everywhere, Let them defend where they can do it best.
You've got it right but we are in a minority on Free Republic. Of course, in Israel, our view is still the majority view.
Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.
..................
You'll break your arm patting yourself on the back, but in fact Olmerde's party only won the vote of at most 25% of the population. Because of Israel's f#%&ed up election laws and multi-party system he squeaked in on a plurality.
How great has this disengagement convergence realignment been working out?
The realignment has worked just as well as any other appeasement - which is to say, not at all.
Alas, the Arab was described with exquisite accuracy by Winston Churchhill in his The River Wars. That was published in 1899. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Or read, I might add.
"The Arab is at your throat or at your feet"
I assume you've forgoten how to count votes because the results don't fit the agenda you preach. Just in case you haven't learned to count yet:
Parties that favour unilateral separation:
Kadima -- 29 mandates
Labour/Meimad -- 19 mandates
Arab lists -- 10 mandates
Gil -- 7 mandates
Meretz -- 5 mandates
That adds up to 70 mandates. Fully 60 mandates, or exactly half of the Knesset, are Zionist parties which favour withdrawal. Then you have the religious parties which sit in coalition and whose opposition is soft at best:
Shas -- 12 mandates
UTJ -- 6 mandates.
Now we're up to 88 seats out of 120.
Yisrael Beitenu proposes giving up territory, including territory within the green line, the so-called Arab triangle, but only in return for something (what isn't stated) from the Palestinians. That's 11 more mandates.
It seems the hard opposition to withdrawal (Likud and Ichud Leumi/Mafdal) have all of 21 seats. You want to tell me again how it's a bare plurality that is in favour and a majority in opposition?
I'm not being self-congratulatory. Every poll in Israel says the same. The only answer people like you have is to claim the polls are biased even when you roundly lose an election.
How is it working out? The Palestinians are killing each other in a near civil war and by mining their own beaches. Jewish deaths tha used to be a regular feature of life in Gaza have been greatly reduced. The Palestinians are increasingly isolated in the world and are receiving less financial supoort than ever.
Is it a good situation? No, it isn't. It is better than the alternative.
What I never get from the far right national religious crowd is a reasonable solution to the problem. Trying to rule over 3.5 million hostile Arabs has never worked and can never work.
What I never get from the far right national religious crowd is a reasonable solution to the problem. Trying to rule over 3.5 million hostile Arabs has never worked and can never work.
How about winning the war and then dictating terms of surrender?
Dare I utter the "T" word?
What do you propose to do when the Arab population in the Galilee reaches the "tipping point"? Withdraw from the Galilee?
"The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets...."—Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
The Holocaust Chronicle ~
"Palestine is the wrong name for their State. It should be called Anarchy."—FReeper sgtbono2002
"Then let's wait and see what the Arabs do after they take Gaza. There's nothing like Arab reality to break up a Jewish fantasy."—FReeper Noachian
A student told his professor he was going to "Palestine" to "fight for freedom, peace and justice,"—Orwellian leftist code words that mean "murder Jews."
The Nature Of Bruce ~
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.