T. Belman. So the Arabs are invading our beaches and then some. The Left says “so it should be” whereas the right says “what can we do about it.” Moshe Feiglin and Martin Sherman advocate paying the Arabs to leave. There is no question that that is the best solution.
In the meantime, the Arabs present a problem. Jews want to have exclusive Jewish communities and schools and, yes, beaches. But they are prevented by our activist Court who worships equality. But even if we got rid of the Court’s intervention, how far would the right go to keep us separate?
I believe in having exclusive areas for Jews or Arabs and public areas where all are welcome. The trick is where to draw the line.
By Shmuel Sackett, JEWISH LEADERSHIP BLOG
I would imagine that in most parts of the world, if you want to know what is happening, you need to read the newspapers and talk to experts. In Israel, however, that is not what you do. For years, people found out the real news from taxi drivers but today, in the modern world, the #1 expert to talk to is… the lifeguard at the beach!
I don’t go to the beach too much, so talking to lifeguards is not something I usually do, but last week I attended the bar mitzvah of a close friend’s son and one of the guests was Itzik, the lifeguard at the separate beach in Herziliya. My friend introduced us and for the next 30 minutes I found myself listening to a man who had incredible insights into life. As soon as he heard my American accent he insisted on speaking in broken English, even though I understand Hebrew perfectly. He told me that he is “the lifeguard at religion beach” (yes, that is a direct quote) and works all week but not on Shabbat. He has been a lifeguard since 1985 and told me things that proved what I had been saying for years.
The beach in Herziliya is 7.5 kilometers long and for all the years that Itzik worked there (over 30 years already!), the Arabs who came to enjoy the beach always bathed at the farthest northern point. There is actually a mosque at that location and it is next to the historical Apollonia National Park, which contains the remains of a Crusader city, built around 1250. While never officially declared the “Arab section of the Herziliya beach”, it was in fact the unwritten rule that Arabs go there. This happens to be a very nice section of the beach, with an official lifeguard, as well as all the comforts that exist everywhere else. Itzik told me that all that changed about 3 years ago.
He said that 3 years ago he noticed how Arabs began coming to all the areas of the beach – including the separate beach! He saw busses and busses of Arabs and found out that these Arabs were being bussed in from Hebron and Ramallah. He couldn’t understand what happened so he asked one of the Arabs whom he befriended, and this is what the guy told him; “The leaders of the Palestinian Authority told us not to go to the northern part. They told us to spread ourselves over the entire beach to show that this is our land and we can go wherever we want.” The Arab then told him that the leaders said, “Only the Jews remain in ghettos and small areas but we will show that all of Israel is ours.”
I want you to read that last paragraph again… and then again. The Arabs are not just talking or writing emails. They are acting and conquering even when they go to the beach! Stay in a corner?? Not us, they say! The entire land is ours, we are the home owner – the “Ba’al Ha’Bayis” -and nobody tells the Ba’al Ha’Bayis where to sit in his home!
Just a minute, please…. Itzik wasn’t finished yet. “My Arab friend told me another unbelievable thing. He said that those same Arab leaders told them that when they shop in the malls in Israel, they are not to speak in Hebrew (which they speak very well), but only in Arabic. These leaders said that they want the shoppers and store owners/workers to know that they are Arabs and that, once again – just like the beach – they can walk freely in any mall and shop in any store.”
I left my discussion with Itzik the Lifeguard and wondered; how many people realize this? What he said was nothing new to me… but I’m sure it will be revolutionary to most others. Too many people have their head in the sand and refuse to see the non-politically correct truth, but here it is: The Arab of today is not the Arab of yesterday. He is not apologizing. He is not making excuses. He is not hiding… and he is at war with the Jewish state 24/7, in everything he does.
The Arab of today declares to the entire world that Israel is his, and when he says “Israel” he doesn’t just mean Gaza, Jenin and East Jerusalem. “Israel” includes Herziliya and Ra’anana and Tel Aviv. It is all his and this is why he swims near the 5-star hotels and not near some Crusader ruins from 760 years ago. This is also why he shops in the fanciest malls in Ramat Aviv, Petach Tikva and Netanya and talks Arabic the whole time. He is not “undercover” nor is he a member of an illegal “underground” movement. He is proud and very vocal about his beliefs.
And the most important lesson of all? He wants the entire land of Israel – which is what I have said for over 40 years – and not just a small strip of land like some fools would have you believe. My blessed Rav, the great Rabbi Meir Kahane ztz”l said, “I understand the Arabs and they understand me but neither of us understand the Jews!” How true that comment was in 1980 and how true it still is in 2016.
People who supported the horrific “Gaza Disengagement Plan” believed that the Arabs would be happy with Gaza and that this would bring peace. Those people are fools yet most of them now support “The Two-State Solution”. I guess it’s true that fools never learn.
We need to talk straight and clear; The Arabs want one state and they want it Judenrein. They want every Jew out, even the ones that help them, and they will never be satisfied until their “Final Solution” has been successfully implemented, G-d forbid. You need to know this if you want to seriously deal with the issues confronting Israel today. Only strong, proud leaders who are not afraid to say this will be successful in leading the Jewish nation to greatness. All others are part of the problem and will never have a hand in the solution.
My advice to those weak, impotent and politically correct Jewish leaders is simple. Grab a towel, sun screen and a cold beer and talk to Itzik the Lifeguard. That beach experience can change your life.
Shortly after Shmuel’s article was published, we received this email from a reader:
“Last Friday we went to the beach with our Daughter, her Husband and our grandchildren. We arrived about 9:30 AM. For a few minutes all seemed normal. Then busload after busload of Arabs started coming. Most of them young men who were making a show of their strength, running in packs of 15 or 20 up and down the beach showing off and making lots of noise. They were looking at the few Jews there, us included with hatred and at my grandchildren like they were something to eat. My daughter was getting physically sick with fear. I was just pissed off that there was nothing I could do but leave with my family to protect them and ease their fear. We had driven an hour to get to the beach paid 80 NIS for chairs, and 20 NIS to park and left less than an hour after we arrived. The Arabs were not renting chairs or buying any drinks or snacks, they were just destroying the local businesses there by driving away paying customers. It just happened to be at the stretch of beach Shmuel Sackett mentions in his article, the finest beach at Herziliya with the 5 star Hotels along the beach. Can you imagine what this going to do for tourism in Israel as well? I have never seen so many people on the beach at once, there were over a dozen packed busloads of Arabs out there, somewhere about 1,000 of them. More buses were arriving as we left. My wife and I talked about this on the way back home, we were quite sure this was an orchestrated happening designed to “take over” the beach and to show strength. The evidence in my opinion was the huge numbers of bussed in Arabs and the fact that the overwhelming majority were young men with attitude.”
Felix Quigley Said:
I also, as long as a sentence doesn’t end in a proposition or a preposition.
Honeybee…Every person has something to say that reflects reality and I am always prepared to listen and to agree if it makes sense
This does not imply total political agreement and that is what discussion is for
Felix Quigley Said:
I looked over Ca’s book list from which he quotes. It is the library of a “Skinhead” . Is this whom you wish to align yourself?
Bear Klein Said:
not cultural… its shariah.. adherence to a creed which transcends cultural, ethnic national and racial divides. A political, military, mind control domination cult with robots and parrots as adherents.
these folks think its cultural too
but a comment noted this glaring error in their evaluation:
LOLROFLMAO… in a shootout with the honor killers the muslim cop will likely shoot his infidel partners in the back… at least thats what sharia would want him to do. Apparently that reaction would be a surprise and shock to them….. I cant fathom why.
The strong issue is intermarriage. Israel does not allow it, now. (Neither do the Muslim Arabs).
This prohibition prevents assimilation in Israel as it prevents the usual method of assimilating one group into another.
Therefore if you want to peaceably dwell apart, you will have to dwell alone.
This is not a criticism or a recommendation. It is a clear observation.
Mike
Jews want to be Jews and not assimilate into Christendom.
That is not really issue unless one is wants to convert Jews or hates Jews because that they do not accept the Jesus persona as a godlike entity.
Jews as Jews have many friends with other peoples. Some out of mutual interest and some out of friendship and other motivations.
I do not have a problem with that.
I think it would be wiser to start the buyout furtively, without arousing suspicion; but if you want to more obviously breakup the mafias, then go ahead. I only think it will slow things down, but that is not a signature issue to me.
Thanks
Explain!
…
I have no problem with that. THE PLO/FATAH and HAMAS are facades. They have no real political power, no control over their coastlines, borders. They are only violent mafias. They are the Halal version of the Lucchese and Genovese Mobs as far as I am concerned. Break them up.
Israel however wants these mafias to exist because if Israel did not allow the PLO/FATAH and HAMAS to exist, then Israel would have to take over in a more obvious fashion; and in doing so, would be forced to deal with the issue of Arab enfranchisement. Also, the USA and the EU subsidize these mafias, which if they did not, Israel would lose an inflow of cash into the regional economy as the Arab do buy Israeli products.
Ultimately, the problem is this: The Jews want to be a people who shall dwell apart … so much apart, that Israel does not presently allow civil intermarriage.
This is no minor issue. Intermarriage is the most common historical way that other nations have assimilated the other group into the majority. Where there is no intermarriage there is little hope of social stability. Hence multi-ethnic societies can intermarry into social peace – (Chile for example is Spanish, Italian and German) – but interracial societies (cross racial intermarriage is a bigger obstacle) are usually divided and unstable. Brazil, Mexico, and India for ex.
However, Orthodox Judaism frowns on intermarriage without conversion.
The USA and France have secular governments and do not require conversion. You can have parents of two different religions; but the rabbis in Israel would never allow this, nor would most Jewish parents. So Israel has shut out the most common method of arriving at social peace.
Hence, the “other” group in a “Jewish State” will always be outsiders to one degree or another. This is inevitable.
Hence, this is a recipe for friction; and given the Arab temper, eventual violence.
So Israel has to find a way to approach the ideal reasonably pure Jewish demographic. of 95 – 99% Jewish. … Ideally 100%, but that would never occur.
This means either violent or re-imbursed removal of the Arabs. All other policies are a waste of time.
Violent removal will make Israel a pariah.
So, if Israel wants to be a people who will dwell apart, Israel will have to be a people who will dwell alone.
How Israel effects that “alone”ness is the issue. Payment or expulsion.
I say payment.
There, does that sound so bad to most of the people on this board. They accuse me of falsehoods; but in reality, I am not opposed to their end results, only the method by which they arrive at their desired goal.
I say most. Ted already agrees with re-imbursement. Ted and I only disagree on polemics.
THE FIRST STEP IN EVERYTHING IS TO BREAK UP PA, FATAH/PLO AND HAMAS AND REST FOLLOWS
Shmuel Sackett makes some great points. The essence in what he says seems to me to be that Islam is on the warpath. It pushes forward in all directions. It is that kind of phenomenon. The latest I have been looking at is the desire of a 14 year old girl to marry an adult, this in Germany, and the ensuing German judges in Bavaria rewriting the law book to accomodate this. Well known case. But as I say they take 14 year old, then it will be 12, then 10 and so on. This issue of beaches true or not true is the same issue in content.
There can be no living with Arabs on the Jihad warpath.
To have peace this Jihad has to be repulsed.
But I am with American here in that the ideas put forward by Ted are wrong and in my opinion are an expression of political bankruptcy…in this precise manner.
The idea of paying Arabs to find a home elsewhere is a good idea but as a thing in itself is bankrupt and dangerous
I criticise Liberman today and his empty words on the Tel Aviv shooting.
In response to both, pay to leave, Liberman and Netanyhau re Tel Aviv shooting…I say the first step is to completely break up and expel PA, PLO/FATAH AND HAMAS
The issue will not end there but I insist THAT is the first step.
That step is left out always by Curious American, Ted and Martin Sherman
But hat is the essential step
Without that step being taken all is evasion
email received:
An acquaintance of mine is a Jewish professor who has taught at al Quds U decades. He writes:
He is basing his criticism on his belief that the lifeguard is not telling the truth. I have written to Sackett for more info. I believe the lifeguard’s account.
Also the lifeguard is corroborated by the added account from another person.
Not equivalent in value, but having interesting similarities.
We are going to have to politely agree to disagree on this. Montague in Britain felt the British were indeed bound by the Hussein-McMahon correspondence and there was a furious debate. I understand why you feel San Remo is superior. I can understand why an Arab would disagree.
My disparagement of San Remo is not meant to deny Jewish claims. As noted, I base Jewish claims on stronger and irrefutable evidence.
1) History
2) Archaeology
3) Anthropology
4) the Bible (even if only used as history)
I understand why you, a lawyer, might place greater weight to a legal covenant; but one of the principles mentioned by the covenant (the local Arabs) were not even consulted, and Balfour admitted it.
By going to my 4 reasons, one avoids the problems of San Remo altogether. But I will end this particular subthread, and let you have the last response on this subthread.
I won’t even touch the issue of Transjordan for now. We Americans do not have such nasty historical legal consequences of Empire like the British.
I am not meaning to be annoying, but trying to discuss.
@ CuriousAmerican:
I disagree. Our legal claim is solid. A promise which wasn’t binding on Britain pales in comparison. Besides, the jews were also betrayed when Britain removed western Jordan from the Mandate and partitioned the rest. The Arabs got more of what they were promised than the Jews. They got Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Saudia Arabia.
The Arab help to Britain was extremely small.
You work too hard to make both sides equivalent when they are’t. Its very annoying.
CuriousAmerican Said:
@ CuriousAmerican:
I was informing Ted of what I knew. It is not relevant to me what you believe or think. Sorry!
In the real world once someone is inside of Israel they can move around pretty freely. So you are ideas are not relevant to an actual reality.
Eres ciego
That is one of the roots of the problem. Both sides feel betrayed by the British and both sides were.
If you defend your claim to Israel on these grounds:
1) History
2) Archaeology
3) Anthropology
4) The Bible (even as only a historical record)
then you have a claim which cannot be easily contested by the Arabs.
If you put a shovel in the soil, you will find Jewish artifacts.
However, Britain’s machinations are so mixed up that appealing to anything Britain promised is a hornet’s nest.
Of course, you still have to justify taking possession of land against the wishes of the Arab inhabitants, but that is another matter.
Britain, Balfour, and San Remo are poison to use. Appealing to a legal structure that Britain vitiated by her deceptions will not win anyone over.
The list again:
1) History
2) Archaeology
3) Anthropology
4) The Bible (even as only a historical record)
is much harder for the Arabs to contest and reduces your problems.
CuriousAmerican Said:
“I calls them the ways I see”um” .
None of the above, buy you are perilously close, mi dulcita.
If that be the case, then you can stop the harrassment, by either stopping the busses OR by confining them to certain sections of the beach by pre-agreement, under the rubric that they cannot be allowed to escape into the city.
@ Bear Klein:
Is CA just mistaken, ignorant, stupid or a lair ?
@ CuriousAmerican:
Yes I was confused for a moment.
Briton agreed to grant the Balfour Declaration in return for the efforts of the Jews in Britain led by Weizmann who promised to get the Americans to join on Britain’s side and the Russians to stay allied with Britain. Everyone assumed he could do this through Jewish influence in America and the Jewish influence in Russia. It was felt that the Balfour Declaration would incentive them to make this happen. But Russia withdrew after the Communist revolution.
So Britain ended up promising both the Arabs and the Jews.
Westerners are just recently learning the cultural problems Arab Muslims have with the issue of sex and women. Reality says you would not in your right mind leave your teen age daughter, wife, sister alone on a beach with Muslim Arab Men. This would be seriously dangerous. Sounds very racist to the ignorant I am sure but check out a few articles on the internet and I am sure you may not think I am racist but pointing out the actual truth.
There are many examples. I cited the above articles because when the ignorant and naive tell people in the middle east how to deal issues of both security and western style integration of populations they should actually get to know something of actual cultures of the places they making suggestions about.
Since most in the west will never actually live extensively in Israel (no vacation for two weeks does not count sorry) they really can not make up for this with reading internet blogs or articles.
@ Ted Belman:
I have heard of Arab busloads to the beach are from Judah/Samaria organized as a goodwill gesture as many of these people have never seen the beach. The organized nature also allows the bus to be checked security wise.
Israeli Arabs can go to the beach anytime they want and to any public beach.
Huh?!
1918, which is what I was talking about, was WW I not WW II. Mixing apples and oranges. During WW I, the Germans were the Central Powers, not the Axis. I was talking about the Hussein-McMahon correspondence of WW I, which has nothing to do with WW II.
But to your point:
After WW I, The British and French radically mistreated the Arabs; and reneged on the promises given to the Arabs during WW I when they refused to grant independence to the Arabs, per the Hussein-McMahon correspondence – and instead carved up the Mideast according to imperial designs, in the Sykes-Picot agreement.
After the Communists took over in Russia, the Reds published the Sykes-Picot agreement which they found in looted Tsarist records. The Tsar had been in on the deal and Lenin wanted to embarrass the Entente (Allies). What a disaster that was to British efforts in the Mideast. Lawrence (of Arabia) had a panic trying to explain that to the Arabs.
The Arabs wanted a unitary state from with from the Arabian Peninsula to Turkey, with Damascus as its capital. They were furious to find that Britain, France, (and Czarist Russia) had agreed to carve up the area.
What became the Iraqis and Syrians wanted the British out altogether from day I. The French and British both had to crush revolts. The British had attacked Iraqis in 1922, when all the Iraqis wanted was the freedom promised to them in 1915.
Then the British refused to leave unless humiliating oil and military concessions were made to British Petroleum. The British forced the Iraqis to give oil concessions to British Petroleum; and to host a British Air Base in 1932. This was not independence; and the Arabs were furious.
So the Iraqis hated Britain. This lead to the short-lived pro-German revolution on 1941.
But a lot of pro-German sentiment by the Arabs during WW II was a consequence of British and French treachery, just as Avraham Stern and Ytzhak Shamir viewed the British as treacherous. Had this treachery not occurred, the parties might not have been pro-German.
The only exceptions to this were the Maronite Catholics and Syrian Alawite who got along well with the French, because the French protected them from Muslims.
But do not mix WW I with WW II. Arab behavior in WW II is largely a response to British and French treachery after WW I.
Now, back to WWI: What promise did Israel give in the Balfour Declaration?!
CuriousAmerican Said:
The Arabs were more in support of the Axis powers though they gave a promise to Britain. Israel also gave a promise and stood by it.
To paraphrase Dr. Eugene Kontorovich. International Law is slippery.
The Arabs were victors in 1918. They fought the Turks, too. The British did not have a right to deceive their Arab allies.
I am not opposed to Israel, but an appeal to International Law or San Remo will fail, and will not convince any Arab.
There are better arguments.
This is a good point, but Germany is not denying a franchise to approximately 33% of the people under her rule. Neither is France.
Most of the West does recognize your right to exist. If you want to adopt the Russian or Chinese model, you may find that it does not suit you.
The right of conquest is actually a very good argument PROVIDED you fully enfranchise the Arabs, which is the flip side of the right-of-conquest claim.
Israel, for obvious reasons does not do this; and this is why the “right of conquest” is not brought up.
Possession does count for a lot, indeed, but again with conquest comes the requirement of enfranchisement.
When Russia conquered Crimea two years ago, full enfranchisement was offered to the Tatars and local Ukrainians. The latter would not accept it. When the USA conquered Northern Mexico, full enfranchisement was offered to the local Hispanics. Most took the offer.
When Germany conquered Alsace-Lorraine, the local Teutons were offered enfranchisement.
Now, Israel wants the land but not the crazy locals on it.
This is why I keep on saying: Payment to leave is the only option out of this mess.
Yes, the Arabs want to destroy Israel, just as the Bar Kochba wanted to destroy Roman rule, and for the same reasons. Bar Kochba saw the Romans as invaders, even though by his day Roman rule had been there for over a century; and the Arabs see the Jews as invaders.
I have stated innumerable times that Islam is evil and Arabs are nuts.
But throwing legalese at the Arab – which he knows is based on deception – will not win him over.
Einstein said insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. No matter how many ways you rephrase and explain San Remo, it was a deceptive lie, and the Arabs know it.
If you honestly based your claim on the Abrahamic Covenant,superior civilization, or conquest, while it would seem bitter, it would be honest.
No matter how many times you tell the Arab about San Remo, you will never convince him that Britain had the right to give “his” land to the Jews.
From Jabotinsky
I do not want maniacal Arabs to win, but appeals to a fraudulently arrived at document will not help your case. This is not sanctimony on my part either.
For 70 years Israel has been telling the San Remo line. It worked at first when most people had not read the history. But when the internet came out and the documents surfaced, it became clear that San Remo is a liability.
You have to get a better argument.
Daniella Weiss, whom you probably know, may come across as arrogant, but at least she avoids the trap of San Remo.
I think Israel has a right to the land, but not by dint of San Remo.
San Remo ignored the 1915 Hussein-McMahon correspondence, which even Curzon and Montague (who was Jewish) admitted gave the land to the Arabs. Sykes-Picot, and later Balfour, reneged on promises made to the Sherif of Mecca Hussein. There is good evidence that the British Cabinet knew of the deception and admitted it.
Curzon and Montague both noted:
Again, I am not opposed to Israel, but the official narrative is weak. So appeals to the official narrative as justification fall apart.
If Israel has a right to the land, then it must base that right on something other than the fraudulent actions of the British government; which was sold to the Europeans and forced on the Arabs under San Remo.
See below:
Under examination, the official narrative collapses with little effort.
In the 1930s, the British finally had to admit they gave away land they had promised to Hussein; and did so deceptively.
Again, while I am not opposed to Israel, the official narrative is flawed. The Arabs know they were lied, and feel abused over it.
You would be better off sticking to the Abrahamic Covenant, as stated by Daniella Weiss, who has enough sense not to base her claims on San Remo.
Daniella Weiss admits that She and Sharon worked to make a two-state solution impossible (set to right time) Click Here
So while claiming to operate under Oslo, Israel was undermining it. Maybe a wise move; but again deceptive, thus voiding complaints about Arab deceptions.
I know Islam is evil, and the Arabs are nuts; but that does not undo the fact that San Remo is terribly and fatally flawed. It is easy to rip apart San Remo in a few minutes. I have given you the links that show inherent British fraud.
Jabotinsky – whom I know you admire – was more honest. He admitted it was conquest. He admitted all natives resisted.
After being told the official narrative for years, American students go to college and learn the truth about the shady history of the agreements.
By avoiding appeals to these deceptions, and basing Israel’s claim on sturdier facts, Israel would avoid disenchanting college youth.
It is not too hard to defend Israel apart from San Remo. It can be done if one is willing to forego the self-justifications of legalisms.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Let’s cut to the chase. Do you agree that the Arabs want to destroy the Jewish state? If so, you are wrong to ignore this while giving us advice or telling us what the Arab’s think. Like we don’t know.
That is a stretch. Europeans have a say in their elected national governments. France can build airports. Can the PA build an airport?
Europeans can elect representatives to their General EU parliament, which controls their borders, the E-M spectrum, their currency, their airports, immigration, their passports, population registry.
The PA cannot elect member to the governing body (the Knesset) which controls their borders, their airspace, airports, immigration, population registry, etc.
At best, Israel will only offer the PA, the equivalent of a non-enfranchised reservation. Maybe that is all Israel can safely offer.
But at least admit it.
To compare EU enfranchisement to PA enfranchisement is bait and switch, apples and oranges.
The western model is no longer solidly in place. In Europe nationalism is on the rise. The invaders are being opposed. Citizens want to protect their culture. This is what Israel is doing. So rather than Israel having to follow the western model, the West is leaning toward the Israel model. The elites are not there yet.
The West should recognize our right to self determination. They shouldn’t dictate to us what is in our best interests or what to be. The West, because of the western model is now in decline. The East including China, India and Russia don’t care about the western model. Israel is just fine by them and they are on the rise.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Quite so. What evidence do you have that the Arabs in all the Arab countries want to be enfranchised. They don’t. As Kedar points out, they are tribal. They follow their tribal leaders.CuriousAmerican Said:
I don’t deny it but we have the legal right to it, which they don’t recognize, and the right of conquest (’67) which no one recognizes. What right the Arabs have now is governed by Oslo which they agreed to. We also are in possession of it. That counts for a lot.
So what if the Arabs see it as Arab land. They also see southern Spain as Arab land. History is all about people losing land to an invader. That’s how the Arabs captured the “Arab land” in the first place. What right do they have to keep it. They were the aggressors.
They gave up the right to resist when they signed Oslo. Besides resistance comes at a price.
CuriousAmerican Said:
The answer to all your questions including this one, is by international law. By international law, the victors have the right to dispose or keep the land acquired as they saw fit. San Remo and the Mandate recognized the Jews the right to “reconstitute” what was. End of story.
CuriousAmerican Said:
They are enfranchised, more than Europeans are enfranchised. They can build anywhere the PA allows them to build in A and B. They agreed to no building rights in C. Yes I expect cooperation, not confrontation. The Bedouin, whether in Israel or in Area C are a different problem. We are quite happy to build for them in both places (New cities) but they don’t want to live in them. They want to spread out all over as they wish. What western nation would accept this. They cannot expect to continue their old way of life (nomadic). No one can.
@ Bear Klein:
Thanks for the support. We are on the same page.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Obviously there is no easy solution and Israel is struggling with the issue of what to do. We don’t have a majority for “pay to leave” perhaps in part because we don’t have a leader who sells the idea.
It wasn’t clear to me in reading Sackett’s article whether the busloads came from Israel or J&S. I would guess the latter. If so Israel is doing them a favour by letting them in for this purpose. Israel could also insist the bus loads go to Gaza.
Without the western model, the West will not support Israel.
I understand that. I am not going to argue against it; but do not expect Western support to be flowing once that statement becomes well known. Israel sells itself as a democracy, not as a nation which is not a state of all its citizens.
I am not your problem, the problem is the Westerner who says … “Whoa! Israel is not a state of its citizens?!”
When you mess with Jefferson, Locke, the French Revolution, you lose much of Western sympathies.
Now, maybe Kahane was right. Israel is in the Mideast, not the Midwest; but the West still expects democratic states to place democracy as the primary goal.
Maybe wrongly so … but they do.
You can only realistically expect cooperation if you enfranchise them, and give them building permits. No one is going to cooperate in his own house demolition or land confiscation, or with a government that disenfranchises them. They do not even cooperate with their own Arab governments, because Arab governments do not properly enfranchise people in true democracy.
I understand why this is not doable for Israel – demographics – but to the extent it is not doable, asking for co-operation is illusory. I do not ask you to enfranchise them, but with that non-enfranchisement, comes no cooperation.
Islam is an aggravant. But the Arabs see Israel as a thief of their Arab land. 100 years ago, it was 90% Arab. That cannot be denied.
Jabotinsky noted that all natives resist. The Arabs are doing what everyone else does: resist. The only difference is the irrational method of resistance which is keyed to Islam. But resistance is not Islamic.
The Poles fought to be free of Russia and Germany. They were not Islamic.
The Irish fought to be free of England. They were not Islamic.
Sweden fought to be free of Denmark. Not Islamic.
The problem is that the Arabs perceive Israel as invalid. Islam adds fuel to the flame, but it is not the spark.
There is no easy answer.
The Arab asks three questions:
1) By what right did Britain have to give away a land which was not Britain’s, to another people the majority of who were not in Palestine, but in Europe? After it had promised the land to the Arabs!
2) By what right did the UN overrule a 2/3rds majority of the population in Palestine to divide the land against the will of the local Arab majority who offered to enfranchise the Jewish minority in Palestine (The Arabs did make the offer at the UN, but Israel wanted a Jewish, not a federated state).
3) Name one other people who goes back after 1800 years of abscence from a land to claim supremacy over the natives?!
3a) Do the Anglo-Saxon English have a right to return to Denmark they left 1600 years ago?
3b) Do the Bretons of NW France/Brittainny have a right to return to Wales they left 1600 years ago?
3c) Do the Yugoslavs have a right to return to Iran they left only 1400 years ago?
If not, they why do Jews think they have a right to return after 1800 years and kick out the natives.
Look, I am not opposed to Israel, but these are the questions the Arabs ask on the internet, on the media, and on YouTube.
You may not like the Arab position, but these are powerful questions. Israel has not properly and fully addressed them.
Islam aggravates the methods their resistance, their suicide bombing, their killing of civilians, but there would have been resistance – albeit saner – had they been Danish Lutheran Christian.
The fact is: Jabotinsky determined that the Arabs see this as a conquest, and therefore the Jews must act like conquerors. Yamit woudl agree.
There is no easy solution.
Jews may have a right to the land, but to expect the natives not to resist … Even Jabotinsky knew better than that.
I understand your misgivings.
But the way to do this is to privatize part of the beach and sell it to a Jewish Club. Otherwise, you will not be able to dodge the charge of Apartheid.
As for the Arabs and the issue of sovereignty:
1) You can keep out buses from Ramallah and Hebron.
2) The Arabs inside Israel are a different matter.
3) Oslo was no prize for the Arabs either. Before Oslo, J&S was called “the territories” and Israel had a hard time to explaining to Western Media why Israel had a right to settle in any of it. Now Israel says Oslo gives them control over area C, which is 3/5ths of J&S.
Pay them to leave.
There is no easy solution
Does anyone in the west ever ask why do the Arabs insist on a Jew Free East Jerusalem or Jew Free Judah/Samaria? No in fact the western liberals go along with this demand by the Arabs. Many Arabs want a Jew Free Israel (see Hamas and their many supporters).
What if African Americans where told like in the 1950s you can only live in certain parts of certain cities. That would be racial discrimination and would not be accepted. Yet they want Judein Frei (Jew Free) areas in the land of Israel.
So as far as I am concerned I am not very interested in their views.
Prior to Oslo things were better for Jews and Arabs. Many Arabs will tell you this also. Work wise and travel wise. There is highly visited tourist Area at the edge of the Golan called “El Hamma” (it is a hot spring). Kibbutz Afiq where I lived ran this together with some other kibbutzim. Mostly we had Israeli Jewish visitors. However Arabs from Judah/Samaria also visited. Their cars were searched before they came in but after that was the end of it.
They picnicked by themselves and they did not bother anyone and no one bothered them. Yes they were a small minority in the place. Yes if the place would have been 2/3rds Arab it would not have been conducive to being there.
Before Oslo I went to Bethlehem a few times. Once on some Israeli official business. The other times visiting and buying wine at monastery (best wine I ever drank. I felt safe and welcome there.
Now Israeli Jews are not allowed to go there as it is in the PA. It is not safe at all. Does anyone in the liberal west know or care.
So I am fine with Arabs who wish to co-exist in peace with Jews. I am also an advocate of finding a way for the others to be somewhere else in the world.
At the moment, Arabs and Jews share our beaches and parks. I have no problem with that. Sackett describes a situation where the Arabs invade the beaches in mass numbers to ruin it for the Jews. That is their purpose. Similarly if the Arabs in J&S would cooperate with us rather than confront us, we can get along. The problem is the confrontation in Israel and in Europe.
@ CuriousAmerican:
I don’t want Israel to follow the western model. I want it to be the nation state of the Jews and not a state of all the citizens. We live in a tribal world and Zionism is also tribal. the EU can have their Muslim hordes. I don’t want them.
Read my preface carefully. Sacket is my point of departure. I asked for certain exclusive areas and also public areas whether on the beach or in the cities. The Issue for me is how and where to draw the line.
My purpose is to start a conversation.
Understand that I understand your apprehension at Arab claims.
So I will not criticize the Jewish response.
But the practice of separate beaches is hard to defend, when Israel is trying to squash the BDS claim of Apartheid.
I suspect that since more and more Jews claim the right to settle in Arab neighborhoods in the Eastern side of Jerusalem, the Arabs will now counter-claim the right to go wherever on the beach they deem fit, under their theory that if you intrude on their space, they will do likewise on your space.
There is no way you can defend against this in Western media, today.
Segregation would have worked well up until the 1960s; but after so many American Jews worked for integration in the USA in the 60s, it will not sell well if Jews want separation in Israel.
Belman and Sherman are right: Pay them to leave.
Even if you think beach segregation is right – and it may be justifiable under your security circumstances – it will not sell in the West; and you will NOT be able to avoid claims of Apartheid. Michael Oren will not be able to explain away beach segregation no matter how good he is.
You can keep Arabs from Hebron and Ramallah out, though; but the Israeli Arabs will present a problem.
Ted, Steve & Curious American,
I think you are missing the point of Shmuel Sackett’s article. It is not about separation, it is about sovereignty! The beach is just one example of how the Arabs are systematically claiming sovereignty over areas of Israel. They are not interested in sharing the land with the Jews or even separating from the Jews (ie – a Palestinian state), they want one state with all the land and no Jews!
If this is only a security issue, then better policing is in order. If this is not a security issue, then you will have a hard time defending this in the Western media, not that you care.
SEPARATE SECTIONS OF THE BEACH?!
Even if you are right, you are not going to be able to defend this in the West. Michael Oren is going to squirm when asked about separate sections of the beach.
In 1948, Samuel Goldwyn made a very famous movie with Gregory Peck:
GENTLEMEN”S AGREEMENT decrying the exclusion of Jews from rental apartments in New York.
IT WON 3 OSCARS! All about the evils of exclusion and discrimination.
Jews deplored exclusion in the Western World, yet now require it in Israel!
Separate sections of the beach?! The Arabs will not remain in their own section! You are going to have a real hard time defending this, whether you are right or wrong.
Yet, the Arabs are so violent that I will not condemn this. I have no idea how you will defend this.
I am sure none of you, care.
Israel had better get their act together and REMOVE the M’s or the M’s will take over the entire country by shear numbers. Soon there will be too many of them to pay off to move – there isn’t that much money in Israel. There is another way, and Israel had better do it soon. Go back to the way of separation according to YOUR Torah. Shabbot Shalom.