This excerpt is from the One Jerusalem blog:
One Jerusalem’s conclusion is based on a Jerusalem Post article.
The article has Olmert openly musing that it is not reality to keep Jerusalem and discharge control of (what the West calls) the West Bank. Olmert’s reasoning is based on Liberal thinking.
Olmert believes for there to be a viable Jewish State it must create a viable Arab state. The alternative being keeping control of the West Bank and Gaza and making the Mohammedan Arabs second class citizens as they demographically grow to out number people of a Jewish heritage (i.e. religious, secular or atheistic) in a one nation situation. That is the Western Left’s current accusation against Israel.
Another alternative Olmert finds unacceptable is to have one nation granting full citizenship to Mohammedan Arabs. Olmert finds this unacceptable because then the Jewishness of Israel (Eretz Israel) would be submerged again in demographics; i.e. the Mohammedan Arab population would be the majority population in a Western style democracy that would give Mohammedans the legal ability to end a Jewish Israel and eject the name “Israel” and replace it with Palestine. In essence this “Palestine” would be a Mohammedan land and Sharia Law would relegate Jews to second class citizens in their own land.
So for Olmert the only alternative to keep Eretz Israel (the Land Israel) is to disengage into a two State solution without a right of return for the Mohammedan Arabs that fled in 1948 believing that invading Arabs would eradicate Jews and restore them to their homes. At least Olmert is against the so-called “Right of Return.”
There is another solution that would be beneficial to Israel yet would bring an international uproar from the West and threats of war from Arab nations. That solution is based on what Egypt, Jordan and Syria as well as the unanimous vote of then Arab League: Create Arab refugees rather than repatriate them into the various losing Arab invaders thus creating a perpetual reason to war and find a way to terminate the Land of Israel.
Israel could unilaterally uproot the refugees that call themselves Palestinians by the brainwashing of their fellow Arabs and move them to a weak nation that could not stop such an uprooting. That nation is the current Lebanon. In justice the nations that should accept the full citizenship of the Arab refugees are the principle invading nations that created them: Egypt, Jordan and Syria. You know that is not going to happen because unofficially that would be a threat to the ruling elites of those nations and officially it would be branded as Israeli aggression against Arabs. Indeed the father of the current King of Jordan ejected the military wing of the Palestine Liberation Organization out of fear it would depose the Hashemite Royal Family. It was an actual battle between Arab entities for control of land in Jordan.
There are other alternatives for Olmert to take to keep Jerusalem (the city of David) as one under Jewish/Israeli rule.
The splitting up of Israel to accommodate Mohammedan Arabs will lead to another war to eradicate Israel anyway. Olmert (or another tough minded Prime Minister) just needs the cajones to move the Arabs out as King Hussein of Jordan did in 1970.
In an interview before President Bush's trip to Israel, Prime Minister Olmert stated that Israel must come to terms with dividing Jerusalem and giving up more land in Judea and Samaria.
Olmert's defeatist attitude is the clearest indication that he envisions Israel continuing the process of giving up precious land even though this tactic has only succeeded in bringing Israel's enemies closer to Israel's heartland.
Olmert's mindset is defeatist and will further endanger the people of Israel.
One Jerusalem’s conclusion is based on a Jerusalem Post article.
The article has Olmert openly musing that it is not reality to keep Jerusalem and discharge control of (what the West calls) the West Bank. Olmert’s reasoning is based on Liberal thinking.
Olmert believes for there to be a viable Jewish State it must create a viable Arab state. The alternative being keeping control of the West Bank and Gaza and making the Mohammedan Arabs second class citizens as they demographically grow to out number people of a Jewish heritage (i.e. religious, secular or atheistic) in a one nation situation. That is the Western Left’s current accusation against Israel.
Another alternative Olmert finds unacceptable is to have one nation granting full citizenship to Mohammedan Arabs. Olmert finds this unacceptable because then the Jewishness of Israel (Eretz Israel) would be submerged again in demographics; i.e. the Mohammedan Arab population would be the majority population in a Western style democracy that would give Mohammedans the legal ability to end a Jewish Israel and eject the name “Israel” and replace it with Palestine. In essence this “Palestine” would be a Mohammedan land and Sharia Law would relegate Jews to second class citizens in their own land.
So for Olmert the only alternative to keep Eretz Israel (the Land Israel) is to disengage into a two State solution without a right of return for the Mohammedan Arabs that fled in 1948 believing that invading Arabs would eradicate Jews and restore them to their homes. At least Olmert is against the so-called “Right of Return.”
There is another solution that would be beneficial to Israel yet would bring an international uproar from the West and threats of war from Arab nations. That solution is based on what Egypt, Jordan and Syria as well as the unanimous vote of then Arab League: Create Arab refugees rather than repatriate them into the various losing Arab invaders thus creating a perpetual reason to war and find a way to terminate the Land of Israel.
Israel could unilaterally uproot the refugees that call themselves Palestinians by the brainwashing of their fellow Arabs and move them to a weak nation that could not stop such an uprooting. That nation is the current Lebanon. In justice the nations that should accept the full citizenship of the Arab refugees are the principle invading nations that created them: Egypt, Jordan and Syria. You know that is not going to happen because unofficially that would be a threat to the ruling elites of those nations and officially it would be branded as Israeli aggression against Arabs. Indeed the father of the current King of Jordan ejected the military wing of the Palestine Liberation Organization out of fear it would depose the Hashemite Royal Family. It was an actual battle between Arab entities for control of land in Jordan.
There are other alternatives for Olmert to take to keep Jerusalem (the city of David) as one under Jewish/Israeli rule.
The splitting up of Israel to accommodate Mohammedan Arabs will lead to another war to eradicate Israel anyway. Olmert (or another tough minded Prime Minister) just needs the cajones to move the Arabs out as King Hussein of Jordan did in 1970.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment