Israel Matzav

More funny 'Palestinian' population statistics

Yesterday 50,000 students went back 2 school in the West Bank.Follow #Back2School campaign 4 more on UNRWA education pic.twitter.com/yipWrunY8D

— UNRWA (@UNRWA) August 29, 2016

Labels: demography, Gaza, Judea and Samaria, Palestinian lies, UNRWA

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:53 PM 2 comments

Gaza is a funny place

Efforts by Palestine Gov., UN agencies, NGOs, Int'l donor community for 2 years resulted in rebuilding 78 hospitals & 252 schools in #Gaza

— UNRWA (@UNRWA) August 27, 2016

Did you know around 263,200 students will attend 267 schools in the Gaza in the 2016/17 academic year?#Back2School pic.twitter.com/ZCfhiv7SgO

— UNRWA (@UNRWA) August 28, 2016

Labels: demography, Gaza, UNRWA

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:40 PM 2 comments

My college classmate, Donald Trump's Israel adviser, eviscerates Reform leader Jacobs

"It ought to be time to at least take a fresh look at this," Friedman said, adding that he believes even many Arabs in the West Bank may prefer Israeli rule to a Palestinian state. "The two-state solution might be one answer, but I don't think it's the only answer anymore." 

Friedman was the Trump adviser who told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz two weeks ago that Trump may be open to Israel annexing part of the West Bank, which is counter to stated U.S. policy.

These reports raise a number of significant concerns and more than a few questions, such as:

• Under what circumstances can you imagine another “answer” would be preferable?
• What would another “answer” look like? How would it be developed? Implemented?
• How would any other “answer” provide peace and security for Israel?
• How would any other “answer” provide peace and security for the Palestinians?
• Do you believe Israel can have peace and security without the Palestinians having the same?

I ask these questions because it seems axiomatic that the alternative to two states is one state. Such a state would either be a Jewish state that would cease to be a democracy and disenfranchise millions of Palestinian souls, or it would be a democracy and cease to be Jewish. It would put the fate of the Jewish State of Israel in the hands of extremists on all sides, exposing the region to an endless cycle of violence. Are either of these alternatives acceptable to you? They are not acceptable to us, and that is why the Reform Movement has a longstanding position in support of a two-state solution.

I write with a sense of deep concern. As I hope and trust you know, a two-state solution has been a bedrock of American foreign policy for decades, supported by every American President – Democratic and Republican alike – since at least President George W. Bush in 2002. It is also the policy of the Israeli government, and has been the policy of every Israeli government since Prime Minister Rabin signed the Oslo Accords at the White House in 1993.

Only two states for two people can end the conflict and offer hope and security to a part of the world that needs and deserves them, a region that is of vital interest to the United States in all of our nation’s foreign policy concerns.

No one familiar with the current reality can doubt that there remain significant obstacles to achieving a two-state solution, but that doesn’t mean it is no longer the preferred solution. Any comments suggesting otherwise undermine responsible Middle East policy.

For all these reasons and more, I was taken aback to read Mr. Friedman’s suggestion that another “answer” might make more sense, especially because he did not offer any ideas about what such an alternative might be. To talk about discarding such a fundamental tenet of both U.S. and Israeli policy, without offering any alternative, suggests either a lack of understanding or a lack of seriousness. Either way, the statement calls for your urgent clarification.

  July 6, 2016

Dear Rabbi Jacobs,

In your letter earlier today to Donald J. Trump and me, you state that you were “taken aback” by my comment that a “two state solution was an answer, but not the only answer,” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  I am happy to engage in a discussion with you on the subject, which I believe is more detailed and complex than either your letter, or my response below, can do justice. Nonetheless, I am happy to offer some brief summaries of my views.

That a two-state solution has been a part of American foreign policy for some length of time – something you place great weight upon -- is, to me, entirely irrelevant. The wars in Vietnam and Iraq were also part of American foreign policy and I have no doubt that these were policies you opposed. As I’m sure you recognize, and as we witnessed this past week with the brutal murder of Hallel Ariel as she lay sleeping in her bed, followed the next day by the murder of Rabbi Michael Mark, a father of 10, the numerous proposals and initiatives for a two-state solution over the years have brought neither peace nor security to the State of Israel.

The issue confronting both the Israelis and the Palestinians is fundamentally humanitarian in nature. It is not political and it is not geographic. Both peoples are entitled to live in peace and dignity, and both peoples are being deprived of those fundamental rights because of one thing and one thing only – radical Islamic jihadism, a cancer that infects Israel and much of the rest of the world. No re-allocation of land will cure this scourge, and, indeed, Israel knew no peace from 1948 to 1967 when it did not even control Judea and Samaria.

So what should we do? Should we continue to force a square peg into a round hole and demand that Israel cede land to Palestinians in exchange for a naked promise that the Palestinians will change their behavior? Are you not concerned that Mahmoud Abbas has no electoral mandate (his term expired six years ago), and that his justification for not calling for new elections is that he will be replaced by an even more violent jihadist? Are you not concerned that Mr. Abbas presides over ceremonies honoring Palestinian terrorists or that he has been accused of massive fiscal corruption? Are you not concerned that Palestinians teach their children to hate and murder Jews, even putting on school plays enacting such despicable behavior? Are you not concerned that the Palestinian Authority has no ability to control the Hamas factions in Hebron, Jenin and Nablus, which continuously assault and kill Jewish people? Are you not concerned that the Palestinian Authority pays generous stipends to the families of terrorists who are jailed or killed after murdering Jews? Are you not concerned, after seeing the disastrous results of Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, that a Palestinian state on the West Bank will bring missile attacks to the entire population of Israel?

I know that you have no doubt that the People of Israel want peace and that they are overwhelmingly well-intentioned, well-informed, and non-hateful. Given that, are you not concerned that your desire to divide Israel in two, leaving it without defensible borders, is solidly rejected by a super-majority of Israelis? Indeed, even many Palestinians now sensibly prefer Israeli rule to a nascent Palestinian state. Where but in Israel do Arabs have educational opportunity, first class healthcare, social and religious freedom and civil rights for women?

There are – and there must be -- other “answers” to a two-state solution, some short term, some longer. I would begin by making appropriate demands upon the Palestinians to end terror, incitement and hateful indoctrination. I would condition further US funding on meaningful progress in this regard.  I would also encourage significant economic investment in Palestinian communities – a challenge given the difficulty of identifying non-corrupt leaders but still worth pursuing – to strengthen the Palestinian middle class. I would improve infrastructure and commit resources to enhance the quality of life for every inhabitant of the region. Simply put, I would focus on what most Palestinians and Israelis care the most about – better living conditions and better opportunities. If and when those initiatives bear fruit and tensions are reduced, talks could continue about long term solutions.

But, even then, I must reject categorically your statement that Israel must either be a democratic state or a Jewish state. The numbers simply do not support that conclusion. The Jewish population of pre-1967 Israel is now about 6.3 million out of 8.4 million people – about 75%. The Jewish population of Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem is another 700,000 people out of about 2.4 million people (it may be lower as many think the Arab population is overstated). Thus, the Jewish population of the entire region is about 7.0 million out of 10.8 million – still a solid 65% majority. (By the way, many people quote all kinds of numbers for the West Bank population – these are, I believe, the most accurate)

I’m not saying, one way or the other, that a “one state solution” is the correct path. That is a decision for the Israeli people to make in consultation with the Palestinians. But it is simply not true that Jews will become a minority in their own land if a two-state solution is not implemented. Indeed, given the demands of the Palestinians for a return of so-called “refugees,” even the two-state solution they envision would provide no demographic certainty to Israeli Jews. 

Let’s not grandstand this issue any more with “open letters” that I can’t help but feel have more to do with American politics than doing what’s best for Israel. Let’s have a cup of coffee (or some Israeli wine) and continue the dialogue.

Respectfully,
David Friedman  

Labels: Caroline Glick, demography, Donald Trump, one-state solution, rabbi Rick Jacobs, two-state solution, US presidential campaign 2016, Yoram Ettinger

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:35 PM 2 comments

The one-state solution is on our doorstep

In the background of the region’s disrupted demographics, a great demographic change overshadows the actions of all the contenders. That is decline of Muslim fertility, and the unexpected rise in Jewish fertility. The fall in Muslim birth rate is most extreme in Iran and Turkey, with different but related consequences. When Ayatollah Khomeini took power in 1979, the average Iranian woman had seven children; today the total fertility rate has fallen to just 1.6 children, the sharpest drop in demographic history. Iran still has a young population, but it has no children to succeed them. By mid-century Iran will have a higher proportion of elderly dependents than Europe, an impossible and unprecedented burden for a poor country. Iran’s sudden aging will be followed by Turkey, Algeria, and Tunisia.

...

Israel is the great exception to the decline in fertility from North Africa to Iran, as I argued in a 2011 essay for Tablet magazine. The evidence is now overwhelming that a Jewish majority between the Jordan River and the sea is baked in the cake.

The CIA World Factbook estimates total fertility of Arabs in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza at just 2.83 in 2014, versus 3.05 in 2011. The total fertility of Israeli Jews, meanwhile, has risen above three children per female. Yakov Faitelson reported in the Middle East Quarterly:

From the beginning of the twenty-first century the TFR of Israeli Muslims decreased considerably, from 4.7 in 2000 to 3.5 children per woman in 2011. The TFR of all Arabs decreased still further to 3.3 children per woman, very close to the 3.09 for Jews born in Israel. In November 2011, a new comprehensive ICBS projection was published in which the government office admitted that in the past it had overestimated Israeli Arab fertility and underestimated Jewish fertility.

Jewish immigration is consistently positive and accelerating, while Palestinian emigration, at an estimated 10,000 per year since 1967, is reducing the total Arab population west of the Jordan River. Palestine Authority data exaggerated Arab numbers in Judea and Samaria by about 30 percent, or 648,000 people, as of the 1997 census. As Caroline Glick observes in her 2014 book The Israeli Solution, Jews will constitute a 60 percent majority between the river and the sea, and “some anticipate that due almost entirely to Jewish immigration, Jews could comprise an 80 percent majority within the 1949 armistice lines and Judea and Samaria by 2035.”

Israel therefore has little fear demographically from annexation. Net Jewish immigration and net Arab emigration will combine with higher Jewish fertility to establish a Jewish supermajority over time. The character of the West Bank population is changing: It is becoming older and more educated, and increasing numbers of Arabs are benefiting from the strong Israeli economy. Over time, West Bank Arabs may embrace Israeli citizenship—when it is offered—as firmly as their counterparts inside the Green Line. The so-called apartheid issue is a canard. Israeli Arabs lived under martial law between the end of the War of Independence in 1949 and 1966, and no one spoke of apartheid. Israel’s most pressing problem in the near future may be Arab refugees trying to get in.

As a non-Israeli, I do not wish to recommend a particular course of action to Israel’s government. But the notion that the Palestinians could stay clear of the riptide that has engulfed their neighbors was fanciful to begin with and has now been trampled by events. Over the past two decades, since the Oslo agreements were signed, the Palestine Authority shown little ability to govern anything. After Egypt’s military government suppressed the Muslim Brotherhood, it turned viciously against the Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing, Hamas, and blockaded Gaza. If the PA were capable of ruling the West Bank, it would have allied with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to further isolate Hamas: Instead the PA formed a national unity government with Hamas. Events have shown that the PA cannot rule without Hamas, and it cannot rule with Hamas; it can neither support nor suppress terrorism on the West Bank. The inability of the Palestine Authority to govern, the inability of Hamas to distance itself from its patron in Tehran, and the collapse of the surrounding states eventually will require Israel to assume control over the West Bank. This time the Israelis will stay.

Israel can’t rely on the PA to conduct counterterrorism operations against Hamas, its coalition partner. Israel’s border with the Hashemite Kingdom in the Jordan Valley, meanwhile, has become a strategic pivot. ISIS is now operating in strength at the common border of Israel, Syria, Jordan, and occupied Iraqi-Syrian border towns close to the common frontier with Jordan. Jordan’s own security requires a strong IDF presence on its western border.
When Israel absorbs Judea and Samaria—and it is a when, not an if—the chancelleries of the West will wag their fingers, and the Gulf States will breathe a sigh of relief.

The historical homeland of the Jewish people will pass into Israeli sovereignty not because the national-religious will it to be so, or because an Israeli government seeks territorial aggrandizement, but because Israel will be the last man standing in the region, the only state able to govern Judea and Samaria, and the only military force capable of securing its borders. It will happen without fanfare, de facto rather than de jure, at some moment in the not-too-distant future when the foreign ministries of the West are locked in crisis session over Iraq or Syria. And it will happen with the tacit support of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

Israeli authority will replace the feckless regime of the Palestine Authority in order to maintain public order and ensure that the electricity works, and the roads are secure, and that bands of jihadist marauders or Shiite terrorists do not massacre entire villages; this action will elicit the reflex condemnation from bored and dispirited Western diplomats. The realization of the Zionist dream will then be consummated not with a bang, but a whimper; the bangs will be much louder elsewhere.

Labels: demography, Egypt, Iran, Israel is a Jewish state, Jordan, Judea and Samaria, Libya, one-state solution, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:26 PM 3 comments

Meet the demographic doomsayer

Labels: Arnon Soffer, demography, Israel is a Jewish state, Yoram Ettinger

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:25 PM 0 comments

Netanyahu tells Goldberg he'd consider unilateral steps in Judea and Samaria

“We want a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state,” Netanyahu said. “How do you get that if you can’t get it through negotiations? It’s true that the idea of taking unilateral steps is gaining ground, from the center-left to the center-right. Many Israelis are asking themselves if there are certain unilateral steps that could theoretically make sense.”

But he was quick to add that Israelis -- himself included -- don’t want a repeat of their Gaza experience. In 2005, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon unilaterally withdrew Israeli soldiers and settlers from Gaza; it was soon taken over by the radical Islamist group Hamas, which has since used the territory to launch rockets at Israeli civilian targets.

Nevertheless, Netanyahu said that something must be done to prevent the collapse of Israel as a Jewish-majority democratic nation. “We don’t want a binational state, and we don’t want a Palestinian-Iranian state next door,” he said. “There is an emerging consensus that we don’t have a partner who can challenge constituencies, do something unpopular, do something that is difficult. Abbas has not done anything to challenge the prevailing Palestinian consensus."

I asked Netanyahu why he simply doesn’t bypass the current impasse and declare an indefinite settlement freeze, particularly in areas outside the thickly settled suburbs of Jerusalem and communities near Tel Aviv. Right now, the burden is on Netanyahu to prove that he is interested in compromise. Such a move -- while politically difficult -- would shift the onus onto Abbas and restore some of Israel’s international standing.

“I don’t think it would work. Having tried once, I saw that it doesn’t work,” he said, referring to the time-limited settlement freeze during Obama's first term. “The Americans said the only way Abbas is going to come into negotiations is either you release prisoners or freeze settlements: Choose. We chose [to release prisoners]. We made it very clear to the U.S. and to the Palestinians exactly how much we would build, including in Jerusalem. We built exactly what we said we would build in every one of the tranches. It wasn’t that we surprised anyone with extra construction."

“No matter what the spin is about blaming Israel, do we actually expect Abbas, who seems to be embracing Hamas, to give a negotiated deal? In all likelihood, no. I hope he does, but I’m not sure he’s going to do it,” Netanyahu said.

“There is an emerging consensus that we don’t have a partner who can challenge constituencies, do something unpopular, do something that is difficult. Abbas has not done anything to challenge the prevailing Palestinian consensus. In fact, he’s doing the opposite: the Hamas reconciliation, internationalizing the conflict, not giving one iota on the right of return, not giving an iota on the Jewish state. He wouldn’t deal with Kerry’s framework,” Netanyahu said.

Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, demography, Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, Jeffrey Goldberg, Middle East peace process, Palestinian terrorists, Tzipi Livni, unilateral withdrawal

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:28 PM 1 comments

Bitter old man whines

"The parties, although both showing flexibility in the negotiations, do not feel the pressing need to make the gut-wrenching compromises necessary to achieve peace," Indyk said. "It is easier for the Palestinians to sign conventions and appeal to international bodies in their supposed pursuit of 'justice' and their 'rights,' a process which by definition requires no compromise. It is easier for Israeli politicians to avoid tension in the governing coalition and for the Israeli people to maintain the current comfortable status quo."

"If we, the United States, are the only party that has a sense of urgency, these negotiations will not succeed," Indyk added.

In an expansive account of the talks, which began last July, Indyk minced few words while placing blame on both parties for what he prescribed as a "breakdown" in negotiations.  

...

Indyk said that Israel would only remain the Jewish state if its leadership showed bravery with the Palestinians. Should Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu cave to the politics of the day— to the settler movement, as Indyk described— than Israel faces a future as a "de facto binational state."

"Rampant settlement activity– especially in the midst of negotiations— doesn’t just undermine Palestinian trust in the purpose of the negotiations," Indyk said. "It can undermine Israel’s Jewish future."

"If this continues," he added, "it could mortally wound the idea of Israel as a Jewish state. And that would be a tragedy of historic proportions."

And yet Indyk said the "final step" in the breakdown of negotiations was the announcement of reconciliation deal between Fatah, the party of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and Hamas, a terrorist organization as listed by Israel, the European Union and the United States.

"Signing accession letters to fifteen international treaties at the very moment when we were attempting to secure the release of the fourth tranche of prisoners was particularly counterproductive," Indyk said. "And the final step that led to the suspension of the negotiations at the end of April was the announcement of a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation agreement while we were working intensively on an effort to extend the negotiations."

Indyk warned of a "dangerous spiral" should relations deteriorate further. At the end of the talks, the Obama administration declared a pause in negotiations, stubborn that negotiations were over after an aggressive effort on Kerry's part.

In a plenary session after the speech, Indyk said that Abbas has been in search of a legacy, in bad health and old age— and sought reconciliation with Hamas for this purpose.

Israel's leadership recognized this opportunity, he suggested, and upon recognizing the talks were doomed, sought to force blame for their failure on to the Palestinian leadership.

Perhaps legitimizing the suggestion that the talks were at a pause— and had, in fact, not collapsed— Indyk raised the specter of talks between Israel and Egypt, moderated by the US, in 1975.

At that time, the secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, took a five month pause in talks before resuming negotiations between the parties. That diplomacy led to the Sinai II agreement, and ultimately, the Camp David Accords.

Labels: demography, lies, Martin Indyk, Middle East peace process, Palestinian lies, Think Tanks, two-state solution

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:35 PM 2 comments

The real demographic balance between Israelis and 'Palestinians'

Labels: Caroline Glick, demography, Middle East peace process, one-state solution

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:40 PM 0 comments

Tom Friedman's gall has no bounds

And now Iran has an ally: Sheldon Adelson — the foolhardy Las Vegas casino magnate and crude right-wing, pro-Israel extremist. Adelson gave away some $100 million in the last presidential campaign to fund Republican candidates, with several priorities in mind: that they delegitimize the Palestinians and that they avoid any reference to the West Bank as “occupied territories” and any notion that the U.S. should pressure Israel to trade land for peace there. Both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney took the money and played by Sheldon’s rules.

In case you missed it, the R.J.C., the Republican Jewish Coalition, held a retreat last weekend at an Adelson casino in Las Vegas. It was dubbed “the Sheldon Primary.” Republicans lined up to compete for Adelson’s blessing and money, or as Politico put it: “Adelson summoned [Jeb] Bush and Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey, John Kasich of Ohio and Scott Walker of Wisconsin to Las Vegas. ... The new big-money political landscape — in which a handful of donors can dramatically alter a campaign with just a check or two — explains both the eagerness of busy governors to make pilgrimages to Las Vegas, and the obsession with divining Adelson’s 2016 leanings.

Adelson personifies everything that is poisoning our democracy and Israel’s today — swaggering oligarchs, using huge sums of money to try to bend each system to their will.

Christie, in his speech, referred to the West Bank as “occupied territories” — as any knowledgeable American leader would. This, Politico said, “set off murmurs in the crowd.”

Some Republican Jews explained to Christie after he finished that he had made a terrible faux pas. (He called something by its true name and in the way the U.S. government always has!) The West Bank should be called “disputed territories” or “Judea and Samaria,” the way hard-line Jews prefer. So, Politico reported, Christie hastily arranged a meeting with Adelson to explain that he misspoke and that he was a true friend of Israel. “The New Jersey governor apologized in a private meeting in the casino mogul’s Venetian office shortly afterward,” Politico reported. It said Adelson “accepted” Christie’s “explanation” and “quick apology.”

Read that sentence over and contemplate it.

I don’t know if Israel has a Palestinian partner for a secure withdrawal from the West Bank, or ever will. But I know this: If Israel wants to remain a Jewish, democratic state, it should be doing everything it can to nurture such a partner or acting unilaterally to get out. Because, I’m certain that when reports about the “Adelson primary” reached the desk of Supreme Leader Khamenei in Tehran, a big smile crossed his face and he said to his aides: “May Allah grant Sheldon a long life. Everything is going according to plan.”

Labels: Chris Christie, demography, Jewish anti-Semitism, New York Times, occupation, Sheldon Adelson, Tom Friedman

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:32 PM 3 comments

John Kerry's sandstorm

Labels: demography, Middle East peace process, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, United Nations, Yoram Ettinger

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:47 AM 1 comments

Caroline Glick previews her book

Israel’s fervent and committed supporters at AIPAC have been told that Israel needs a Palestinian state more than the PLO does. Only by bringing such a state into existence in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem can Israel get the Palestinian demographic albatross off its neck.

These committed supporters of the Jewish state have been sternly lectured that Israel is doomed if it doesn’t give the Palestinians an outlet for their political impulses outside of Israel, because within a year or two there will be more Palestinians than Israelis west of the Jordan.

The same day AIPAC’s delegates meet with members of both houses of Congress, my new book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East will be released by Crown Forum, a division of Random House.

In my book, I show that the demographic time bomb is a dud, and a malicious one at that.

In 1997, the head of the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics Hassan Abu Libdeh told The New York Times that he was carrying out a census which would serve as a “civil intifada,” that is, as a statistical terror assault.

And he was right. The goal of terrorism is to force a target population to take actions it otherwise would not have taken. The goal of statistical warfare is to manipulate numbers to coerce a target society into taking actions that it would otherwise not take.

The Palestinian census claimed that by 2015, Arabs would be the majority west of the Jordan River. And once Jews were the minority, the Arabs could destroy Israel just by demanding the vote.

The Clinton administration, the US Jewish leadership and the Israeli Left rushed to embrace the findings, even though they were totally inconsistent with annual Palestinian population surveys the Israeli military government conducted from 1967 through 1996.

All crowed that true, the PLO still supports terrorism, but if Israel didn’t cough up the territories, it would be demographically overwhelmed.

...

In The Israeli Solution, I fill in the blanks that plague the American discourse on Israel and the Palestinians.

I provide a 360-degree analysis of a policy that I call The Israeli One-State Plan. That plan involves applying Israeli law – and through it Israeli sovereignty – throughout all of Judea and Samaria.

I divide the discussion into three parts. Part One provides the 90-year history of failure that has attended the two-state model, from the end of World War I through the present day. I also show how the US’s embrace of the two-state model has worked to blind US policymakers from both parties to the realities of the region and so guaranteed the failure of US Middle East policies.

Part Two presents the case for Israeli sovereignty from the perspectives of demography, international law, history and civil liberties.

Far from transforming the areas into a race-based state, as Israel’s opponents threaten, such a move by Israel will free the Palestinians from life under the PLO’s terror supporting kleptocracy and provide them with full civil and legal rights as permanent residents of Israel.

They will also have the right to apply for Israeli citizenship.

Even if all the Arabs of Judea and Samaria were to become Israeli citizens, Israel would retain a strong two-thirds Jewish majority. And it would avert the only real demographic threat. That is the threat posed by a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria which would permit millions of hostile, foreign-born Arabs from Lebanon, Jordan and Syria to immigrate to its territory.

In Part Three, I discuss the probable responses of the Palestinians, the larger Arab world and the EU to a decision by Israel to apply its laws to Judea and Samaria and abandon the two-state policy model.

I also discuss how such a move will impact Israel and the United States.

Labels: AIPAC, Caroline Glick, demography, one-state solution, two-state solution

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:51 PM 0 comments

American Jewish 'leaders' circle the wagons for Kerry

“As American advocates for a strong, Jewish and democratic Israel, we have been heartened by Secretary of State John Kerry’s extraordinary resolve to advance this process consistent with America’s unwavering commitment to Israel’s security,” said the letter sent Wednesday and initiated by the Israel Policy Forum.

“We believe Secretary Kerry’s determined diplomatic effort offers an unprecedented opportunity to ensure Israel’s security, to enhance its prosperity, and to avoid the existential threat to the Jewish state posed by bi-nationalism.”

Among the letter’s signatories are Jewish leaders who are noted for their outspoken defense of Israel and at times of Netanyahu’s government, among them Alan Dershowitz, the legal expert and author; Deborah Lipstadt, the Holocaust scholar; Mel Levine, a former Democratic congressman; Michael and Susie Gelman, major philanthropists and leaders in the Washington community; Rabbi Steve Gutow, the president of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism; and major fundraisers for Democratic political campaigns, including Marvin Lender, Alan Solow and Alan Solomont.

Labels: Abe Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, Alan Solomont, Binyamin Netanyahu, demography, John Kerry, Middle East peace process, rabbi Rick Jacobs

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:02 AM 1 comments

Livni: Kerry first foreign diplomat to defend Israeli interests in the international arena

Justice Minister Tzipi Livni blasted on Thursday Israeli "hypocrites" whose actions could threaten to derail the ongoing peace process with the Palestinians, Israel Radio cited her as saying Thursday at a conference at Bar-Ilan University.

There are critics in the government who claim to support peace, but in actuality use the argument of security as a cover for ideological opposition to a peace agreement, the chief Israeli negotiator said.

"I am ready to fight with the world on the important issues for all of us, to convince of the righteousness of Zionism, and Israel's security needs and preservation of the settlement in Israeli territory," Livini said.

However, she added that she was "not ready for us to pay the price for the ideological minority that prefers isolated settlement blocks."

Firing back at critics, Livni lauded Kerry as the first foreign diplomat to defend Israeli interests in the international arena.

Without naming names, Livni said that ministers who are not prepared to concede land are “hypocrites” – and, if they get their way, will ultimately destroy Israel as a Jewish state.

“We all want peace. But there is a price that whoever really wants peace must pay,” she declared, speaking at an event at the Bar Ilan University Law Department.

“This is the choice we have: if we want to protect the Jewish, democratic state - or the entire land of Israel, which will not be Jewish, and will not be democratic,” she argued. The only way to keep Israel both Jewish and democratic is through negotiations for the creation of an Arab state in Judea and Samaria, she said.

“If we don’t come to a decision, the world will decide for us,” warned Livni, who heads the Israeli negotiating team.

Still today, Kerry, Livni, Lapid and their fellow travelers seek to intimidate us by constantly telling us that continued Israeli control over Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem will bring about Israel’s demographic demise.

But the lie at the heart of their argument is no longer possible to ignore.

As demographic expert Yoram Ettinger wrote last week in Yisrael Hayom, Jewish Israeli fertility rates are higher than Palestinian fertility rates in Judea and Samaria. In 2013, the Palestinian fertility rate was 2.91 children per woman and the Israeli Jewish fertility rate was 3.04 children per woman.

Today Jews make up 62-66 percent of the population in Judea, Samaria and sovereign Israel. With a two to one majority, a higher birthrate, and positive immigration rates, far from being a strategic threat to Israel’s national viability, demographics are one of Israel’s strategic assets.

The only threat to Israel’s demographic stability is the two-state formula. A Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem would permit the unlimited immigration of millions of foreign Arabs into its territory. Rather than securing Israel’s Jewish majority, a Palestinian state would place millions of hostile Arabs on the outskirts of a rump Israel’s major cities.

With their threat of demographic ruin losing its traction with the public, purveyors of the two-state plan now raise the threat of economic strangulation and ruin at every opportunity.

Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Caroline Glick, demography, John Kerry, Middle East peace process, settlement blocs, Tzipi Livni, Yoram Ettinger

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 3:28 PM 2 comments

Why Yair Lapid is threatening Israel's economy

For 17 years, the Left has been relying on a falsified 1997 Palestinian census that exaggerated the Palestinian population by 50 percent, as a means of scaring Israelis into going along with its phony peace process.

Still today, Kerry, Livni, Lapid and their fellow travelers seek to intimidate us by constantly telling us that continued Israeli control over Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem will bring about Israel’s demographic demise.

But the lie at the heart of their argument is no longer possible to ignore.

As demographic expert Yoram Ettinger wrote last week in Yisrael Hayom, Jewish Israeli fertility rates are higher than Palestinian fertility rates in Judea and Samaria. In 2013, the Palestinian fertility rate was 2.91 children per woman and the Israeli Jewish fertility rate was 3.04 children per woman.

Today Jews make up 62-66 percent of the population in Judea, Samaria and sovereign Israel. With a two to one majority, a higher birthrate, and positive immigration rates, far from being a strategic threat to Israel’s national viability, demographics are one of Israel’s strategic assets.

The only threat to Israel’s demographic stability is the two-state formula. A Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem would permit the unlimited immigration of millions of foreign Arabs into its territory. Rather than securing Israel’s Jewish majority, a Palestinian state would place millions of hostile Arabs on the outskirts of a rump Israel’s major cities.

With their threat of demographic ruin losing its traction with the public, purveyors of the two-state plan now raise the threat of economic strangulation and ruin at every opportunity.

They understand that given the public’s refusal to be drawn into their fantasies about “peace dividends,” the only path before them is a mix of intimidation and political subversion. They hope that together these two tactics can force Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to submit to Kerry’s dictates for Israeli territorial surrenders.

Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, demography, John Kerry, Middle East peace process, Yair Lapid

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 3:42 PM 1 comments

'Democracy' is not a reason for a 'Palestinian state'

The problem with the democracy argument is that it is entirely disconnected from reality. Israel does not rule the Palestinians. The status quo in no way impeaches Israel’s democratic identity.

It is true that the Palestinians are not represented in the Knesset. But Israeli residents of Judea and Samaria are similarly not represented in the Palestinian Legislative Council. Simply put, both the Palestinians and Israelis vote for the legislature that regulates them. That is democracy (though obviously it does not play out as well in the Palestinian political system).

The Palestinians have developed an independent, self-regulating government that controls their lives as well as their foreign policy. Indeed, they have accumulated all the trappings of independence and have recently been recognized as an independent state by the United Nations. They have diplomatic relations with almost as many nations as Israel does. They have their own security forces, central bank, top-level Internet domain name, and a foreign policy entirely uncontrolled by Israel.  

The Palestinians govern themselves. To anticipate the inevitable comparison, this is not an Israeli-puppet “Bantustan.” From their educational curriculum to their television content to their terrorist pensions, they implement their own policies by their own lights without any subservience to Israel. They pass their own legislation, such as the measure prohibiting real estate transactions with Jews on pain of death. If Israel truly “ruled over” the Palestinians, all these features of their lives would be quite different. Indeed, the Bantustans never won international recognition because they were puppets. “The State of Palestine” just got a nod from the General Assembly because it is not.

Whether the Palestinian self-government amounts to sovereignty is irrelevant and distinct from the question of whether Israel is denying them democracy. Indeed, Israel’s democratic credentials are far stronger than America’s, or Britain’s–the mother of Parliaments. Puerto Rico and other U.S. controlled “territories” do not participate in national elections (and this despite Puerto Rico’s vote last year to end its anomalous status). Nor do British possessions like Gibraltar and the Falklands. These areas have considerable self-rule, but all less than the Palestinians, in that their internal legislation can ultimately be cancelled by Washington or London. The Palestinians are the ultimate masters of their political future–it is they who choose Fatah or Hamas.

To be sure, Israeli security forces operate in the territories under Palestinian administration. But that has nothing to do with democracy; it is about security. Democracy does not give one political entity a right to harm others. And that is why American security forces conduct raids–assassinations, even–in countries around the world. While many object to America’s aggressive policies in these countries no one thinks it has anything to do with the democratic credentials of one side or another. Similarly, the Palestinian military operates throughout Israel–through rocket and missile strikes from Eilat to Ashdod. Yet no one suggests Palestinian military activities in Israel–which determine when there will be school in Beersheva and when not–mean that they have deprived Israel of democracy.

This is no longer a dispute about democracy; it is a dispute about territory. The Palestinians have their own government; now their demand is to increase the geographic scope of their legislative powers to “Area C,” where 100 percent of the Jewish settlers live, some 400,000 people, and only 50-75,000 Arabs. The Palestinians want their “no Jew” law to apply there as well.

Palestinian self-determination is one of the biggest developments that no one has noticed.

Labels: democracy, demography, Israeli democracy, Palestinian democracy

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:03 PM 0 comments

Obama lets the truth slip

But during his remarks at the Saban Forum on Saturday, Obama let the cat out of the bag. Gaza, he admitted, is a separate entity. A peace deal, he explained, “is going to have to happen in stages.”

As he sees it, a peace deal will involve an Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria. A post-Israel Judea and Samaria will be so wonderful that the Gazans will decide to join it.

Obama explained, “If there is a model where young Palestinians in Gaza are looking and seeing that in the West Bank Palestinians are able to live in dignity, with self-determination, and suddenly their economy is booming and trade is taking place because they have created an environment in which Israel is confident about its security and a lot of the old barriers to commerce and educational exchange and all that has begun to break down, that’s something that the young people of Gaza are going to want. And the pressure that will be placed for the residents of Gaza to experience that same future is something that is going to be I think overwhelmingly appealing.”

...

Israeli demographics and Palestinian nationalism have been the basic assumptions upon which the peace process has been based. But the Obama-recognized fact that Gaza is a separate political entity demonstrates the emptiness of both.

The truth is that the “demographic time bomb” is a PLO-concocted lie. In its 1997 census, the PLO falsified its data and inflated the number of Palestinians by 50 percent.  They then projected natural growth and immigration rates that bore no relation whatsoever to reality.

In truth, demography is one of Israel’s strongest advantages, not an existential threat. Were Israel to absorb the Palestinian populations of Gaza and Judea and Samaria tomorrow, Israel’s Jewish majority would be reduced from 78% to well over 50%. While Israel’s Jewish identity would not be in doubt, it would be weakened.

On the other hand, without Gaza, there is no demographic threat to Israel’s Jewish majority. If Israel applies its sovereignty over Judea and Samaria and offers a path to citizenship to its Palestinian residents, Israel would still retain a two-thirds Jewish majority. And if current fertility and immigration rates hold, within 15 to 20 years, Jews could well restore their 80 percent majority overall.

Then there is the Palestinian nationalism issue.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Caroline Glick, demography, Middle East peace process, two-state solution

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:42 PM 1 comments

Kerry promotes 'demographic time bomb' myth again

Israel faced not one, but two existential threats, Kerry concluded: Iran, and the "demographic time bomb" that is the Palestinian question.

"Force cannot defeat or defuse the demographic time bomb. The only way to secure Israel’s long term future is through negotiations,” he said.

Should Netanyahu decide to move forward with a final peace accord, he added, the Arab League stands ready to fully recognize Israel within borders that accommodate "realities" on the ground that have shifted since 1967.

And Israel's gross domestic product could jump by as much as 6 percent should a deal be reached, Kerry claimed.

The United States has proposed to the Israeli government a security plan for new borders with a future Palestinian state that games out an exhaustive list of possible threats, US Secretary of State John Kerry told the Brookings Institution's Saban Forum on Saturday.

Overseen by US retired general John Allen, the plan "guarantees" that the Jordan River will remain secure for years after any deal is signed, Kerry said.

"We approach this challenge believing that Israel has to be strong to make peace," Kerry said, "but that peace will make Israel stronger."

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, demography, John Kerry, Jordan Valley, Middle East peace process, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, secure borders, two-state solution

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:46 AM 0 comments

Demographic study: Jewish birthrate skyrocketing, Arab birthrate nose-diving

Labels: demography

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:38 PM 1 comments

Jewish birthrate in Israel now exceeds Arab birthrate?

In the first 12 years of the current century the number of Arab births in Israel has almost completely flatlined at around 40,000 per annum. This despite the growing size of the Arab population, which means that the Arab birth rate – births relative to population size – has fallen. Over the same period, Jewish births have risen from 95,000 to 130,000. In the first four months of 2013, the most recent period for which data is available, Jewish births were up 38 percent during the same period for 2001, and Arab births down 6%.

This means that the Arab share of Israeli births, at a little over 22% of the total, is now not much higher than the overall Arab share of the population, at a little under 21% of the total, and well down from its peak of around 30%. The birth rates of Arabs and Jews in Israel are close to converging. This is both significant and unsurprising.

It is significant because it represents a dramatic drop in Arab fertility rates. Since the Arab population is younger and has more women of child-bearing age relative to its size than the Jewish population, it would be expected to have a higher birth rate. The fact that the birth rates of the two communities are close to convergence means that we are nearing the point, if we have not already passed it, when the average Jewish woman in Israel must be having more children than the average Arab woman.

It is unsurprising, at least in terms of falling Arab fertility rates, because it reflects well-documented trends elsewhere. In the period between the early 1960s and 2005-2010, the UN reports that the average woman in Egypt went from having more than 6.5 children to having fewer than three. In Lebanon, over the same period, the fall was from more than 5.5 to around 1.5, well below replacement level. In Jordan and Syria, too, declines in fertility were dramatic, from eight and 7.5 children per woman respectively in the early 1960s to around three and 3.5 in the 2005-2010 period.

...

The surprising factor has been the steady rise of the fertility of Israel’s Jewish women. At around three children per woman, this is a fertility rate of twice or more the level of Russia, Poland and Germany and half as many again as those of France, the UK and the US. It is an unprecedented level of child-bearing for women in a developed country.

And although the haredim (ultra-Orthodox) certainly contribute to this trend, the latest evidence from experts Evgenia Bystrov and Arnon Sofer suggests that childbearing among haredim is falling while among the secular population it is slowly rising.

These trends are having a major impact beyond the Green Line, too. According to Neve Gordon, a geographer at Ben-Gurion University, and Yinon Cohen, an academic at Columbia, births to Jews living in the West Bank have grown five-fold in the past 20 years, while Jews moving to the West Bank have more than halved in number. Overwhelmingly today, the growth of the Jewish population in the settlements is organic and due to a high birth rate rather than to arrival from pre-1967 Israel. Gordon and Cohen’s work suggests that the fertility rate of the burgeoning ultra-Orthodox population in Judea and Samaria is now no less than two-and-a-half times that of the local Arab population.

Labels: demography

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:25 AM 2 comments

The 'sword of Damocles' has been picked up by the other side

Is the “peace process” is worth pursuing? Would a two-state solution end the conflict? These demographic trends can’t answer such questions. What they can do is remove the artificial pressure on Israel to do something — anything — before the sword of Damocles falls. And maybe, just maybe, they can open a few eyes among those who have been waiting, like Arafat, for “the womb of the Arab woman” to put an end to the Jewish state. Israel, now home to nearly half of the world’s Jews, is a permanent fact of life in the Middle East. Any genuine peace process starts with the acceptance of that reality.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, demography, John Kerry, Middle East peace process

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:22 AM 0 comments