Israel, From the Mediterranean to the Jordan?

By Ted Belman

President Moshe Katsav in a recent interview underscored that, more then any time in the past, the upcoming election will be a referendum on Israel’s borders and so it will.

All parties are prepared to withdraw to varying degrees and on different preconditions. In effect, Labour and Kadima accept the two-state solution as envisioned by the Roadmap and Likud is paying lip service to it because its preconditions are unlikely to be fulfilled.

The desire to withdraw is driven by a widely disseminated demographic myth that the Arabs outnumber Jews west of the Jordan. Most people are unaware of a Demographic Study completed this year which concluded that there are only 1.4 million Arabs in Judea and Samaria of which it is estimated between 100,000 and 300,000 have already infiltrated into Israel. If Israel were to annex these territories, the Jews would constitute 67% of the combined population. This is a percentage that has remained constant since ’67.

Furthermore in embracing the two-state solution no one seems to factor in the Looming Demographic Catastrophe thereafter.

“Once a provisional Palestinian State is declared on the West Bank, 500,000 Arabs will be immediately and easily absorbed. As the Arab population in that Palestinian State grows, Israeli Arabs will recognize the long-term trends and the ultimate Palestinian demographic dominance of the area between the Jordan River and the Sea and they will begin to exert increasing pressure on the Israeli government. Demands for special rights, rejection of the Jewish State and the wish to be identified with their brothers and cousins living on the other side of the Wall will mount; identification with Palestinian nationalism, flag and anthem will grow. The ongoing infiltration of illegal immigrants into Israel will expand.”

“A demand that Israel relinquish all territory captured through “military adventurism and aggression” will be heard throughout the world and in the UN. The green line will be identified not as an international border but solely as the 1948-1949 armistice line. No formal treaty ever recognized and no Arab entity ever accepted Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State. No Palestinian Arab entity ever relinquished claims to its part of the 1947 partition plan, or indeed to all of “Palestine”. The international community, especially in light of the long-term claims that Israel forcefully evicted civilians from their homes in 1948, will decide to no longer recognize the acquisition of land through military conquest. Pressures will increase on Israel to cede control of parts of the Galilee and Negev to the Palestinian State.”

The One State Plan

In recognition of the above, Dr. Michael Wise, a co-author of the Demographic Study, proposed a Jewish One State Plan not to be confused with a secular Bi-National State.

A Bi-National State would only come about as a result of a negotiated Constitution which would include the right of return for Arabs. Dr. Wise's plan will be unilaterally created.

According to this Plan, Israel would formally annex the territory west of the Jordan River exclusive of Gaza and make it an integral and irreversible part of Israel. Arabs residents would then be offered options regarding citizenship and or permanent residency which will be phased in over a fifteen year period to allow for adjustment to the mentality of the somewhat hostile population and to facilitate a smooth transition. The PA would be dissolved and all members of terrorist organizations would be expelled.

Dr Wise goes so far as to recommend a subsidy for all those choosing to emigrate.

To ensure Israel remains a Jewish state, he recommends a new constitution which would establish a Senate, like in the US, comprised of 60 representatives from 15 districts, 4 of which would be predominantly Arab and the remaining 11 would be Jewish. Just as in the US, where each state has varying populations, there is no need for these districts to be equal in population. Yet such a division will create Arab representation proportionate to their population. Matters of national concern and security will require the approval of both Houses. The Knesset will be reduced to 60 seats. The intent of the Constitution would be to preserve the Jewish nature of the state.

To affect this plan, Israel would have to

  • adopt a new constitution which would inter alia create the Senate and reform the courts
  • formally annex the territories
  • dismantle the PA
  • outlaw all terrorist organizations
  • outlaw all hate speech including anti-semitic speech
  • outlaw the promotion of martyrdom in any way
  • disband and disarm all Arab security forces
  • outlaw all guns and ammunition and explosives in unlicensed private hands
  • replace all Arab textbooks
  • provide welfare for all Arab residents in the absence of international aid. (This would be a lot cheaper then spending $12 billion to evacuate 80,000 Israelis)
  • A self-governing, autonomous political unit

    An alternative to such a constitution would be to provide Palestinian Arabs with a self-governing, autonomous political unit similar to Puerto Rico. Autonomy was provided for in the Camp David Accord and by the Oslo Accords. The Palestinian Mandate created by the League of Nations and inherited by the UN reserves to the Arabs “civil and religious rights” but not political rights.

    “Palestine”, to be or not to be.

    The Roadmap provides for

    “A two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will only be achieved through an end to violence and terrorism, when the Palestinian people have a leadership acting decisively against terror and willing and able to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty, and through Israel's readiness to do what is necessary for a democratic Palestinian state to be established, and a clear, unambiguous acceptance by both parties of the goal of a negotiated settlement as described below.”

    These preconditions will never be satisfied and we all know it.

    The Arab objective, back to 1920, has been the destruction of the Zionist project. This objective is enshrined in the Charters of the PLO and Hamas or is reflected in the constant incitement and vilification of Israel and Jews in the Arab schools, media and mosques. Given the state of the Arab world and its support for terrorism, there is absolutely no reason to believe or even hope that “Palestine “ would abandon this objective or the use of terror and incitement to achieve it.

    It would be suicidal for Israel to allow itself to be surrounded by Hamas on the west, Hezbollah on the north and the Fatah on the east. Iraq, Jordan and Syria are all unstable and Iran is building the Bomb. This is no time to add to the instability by creating the 23rd Arab state.

    It is certain that “Palestine” will not be demilitarized whether the PA agrees to it or not. Just look how the US is forcing Israel to open a deep seaport and airport in Gaza,

    The PA has shown time and time again that it will not abide by any agreement it makes.

    Due to the endemic corruption among the ruling elite, the lack of natural resources, the absolute dedication to create a culture of hate, the rule by gun and not by law, the devotion to the cause of destroying Israel rather then of building “Palestine”, it is certain that “Palestine” will be a failed state.

    Both “Palestine” and Israel would share the available water resources which are in short supply. “Palestine” could not be counted to abide by her agreement and would invite all the refugees to return thereby increasing their need for water.

    “23 Reasons” by Dr Joseph Norland makes the case that the Arabs in Judea, Shomron and Gaza have no right to a state at all.

    Creating "Palestine" would be worst of all possible solutions.

    Demographic Considerations

    "Arab fertility rates are high but declining. The current population of Israel is 6.9 million, of which 1.1 million are Moslem Arabs. There are fewer than 1.4 million Moslem Arabs in the West Bank ( If half of the West Bank Arabs eventually become citizens, there would be a maximum of 1.8 million Moslem Arab citizens out of a total population of 8.3 million. Creation of 4 Moslem Districts out of 15 Districts is more than representative.

    "The One State Plan will provide the opportunity for all people living in Israel including those living in Moslem Districts to prosper and receive the benefits offered by the Modern State of Israel. Modernization and westernization will influence birth rates.

    "In the One State Plan, many new factors will affect emigration and immigration. A peaceful and stable Israel will attract new Jewish immigrants. Arabs who prefer to live in an Arab state or in a Moslem republic will have the opportunities to do so. Subsidies will be available to Arabs who choose to relocate. Government policies will encourage reduction in birth rates following guidelines set down by international organizations and successfully implemented in several neighboring states including Iran and Egypt. Large family subsidies would be available through private entities." Dr. M. Wise


    The Arab League and the countries that make it up will howl like hell. They will argue that such action violates the Roadmap (true), that it violates Res 242 which emphasized “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war “, that the expanded Israel will be an apartheid state and so on. They will also continue to try to ferment trouble and encourage an “insurgency”, such as many of them are doing in Iraq, to destabilize Israel’s efforts to make the absorption of Palestinian Arabs work.

    The Palestinian Arabs will have to decide whether to participate in the solution or be part of the insurgency. Israel must prove that the future is with the solution and not with the insurgency. Anyone participating in the insurgency will be killed in battle or expelled on capture. Anyone complicit will also be expelled. Israel will succeed in quelling the insurgency whereas the US is struggling to do so, because Israel has better control of its borders, better intelligence and a much smaller territory to manage.

    This battle will be greatly assisted by the termination of all forms of incitement and propaganda. Israel must insist on this and must strengthen and enforce its laws on treason, incitement and the like. Once again anyone violating these laws must be incarcerated or expelled.

    Hezbollah will step up their activities under instructions from Iran and Israel will finally make good on its warnings. A devastating blow must be delivered. Israel must proceed boldly and reestablish the IDF as a deterrance.

    As always the Arabs will be aided and abetted by the EU. But the real question is, what will the US do. Will it make do with protestations or will it really try to stop this plan with economic sanctions and mandatory resolutions at the Security Council. It will be under intense pressure by Old Europe and the Arab League to do so. In all probability Israel will have to rally the American people including Congress and Senate to support it and forestall the State Department actions to prevent it. Keep in mind that such an effort will take place in an election year in the US which will auger well for Israel.

    The UN will vociferously resist the unilateral annexation because it would be a direct assault on its role in the creation of a Palestinian state. Entire UN bureaucracies depend on it. It won’t go quietly into the night. The UN resolutions which just passed give further evidence that Israel should not play into their hands. Israsel must turn its back on the UN.

    The anti –Israel coalition who see Israel as the bad guy will be enraged because Israel will be consolidating its gains.

    Finally the refugees will finally have to be dealt with rather then to be kept in perpetual limbo as a means to undermine Israel.

    The best antidote to all this opposition is success. Israel must proceed boldly and unapologetically.


    The benefits of such a Plan highly recommend it in place of the unworkable Two State solution.

    Simply put, it would end the occupation, end the incitement, end the border dispute, end the need to “deal” with Jerusalem, end the need for population transfers, end the conflict experienced by Arab Israelis vis a vis their Arab brethren in Judea and Samaria, solve the viability problem and allow Israel to get on with building a Jewish democratic state, from the Mediterranean to the Jordan.
    Adam's Blog, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Cat, Basil's Blog, Right Wing Nation, Third World County

    Posted by Ted Belman at December 2, 2005 12:14 PM

    Trackback Pings

    TrackBack URL for this entry:


    1. Ted Belman said:

    Israpundit intends to promote this idea and to publish a Symposium consisting of responses from leading pundits.

    The question to be put to the pundits is currently being drafted.

    If you can assist in propogating this idea or can recommend someone of note that you could get to provide a response please advise by email

    Posted by: Ted Belman on November 28, 2005 02:25 AM

    2. BobW said:

    Dr Michael Wise wrote the most important item needed by Israel; district elections for representatives (why 4 per unit?) He said it clearer than I could.

    To dismantle the PA requires a war. The PA is a provisional government. It has substantial international recognition.

    It approaches the impossible to outlaw martyrdom. It can be done but not in Israel's environment.

    Let's look at the environment.

    The US Government, that is the Buch Administration, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and other key elements support a new Arab state incorporating Gaza and the West Bank with contiguity. This US Government foreign policy has the support of America's Arab creditor nations. This new Arab state also has the support of what constitutes America's Jewish leadership.

    PM Sharon already won reelection under his new party name. I'm sure some foreign financing of this is involved. Histaudrut is no longer needed and they will witness some overseas funding sources dry up.

    Would the world's nation's recognize an Israeli annexation of the West Bank? Would there be repercussions? Does the Dr Wise plan address Bethlehem's complexion change from Christian to Muslim?

    There are merits to rereading and reflecting on Dr Michael Wise's plan. I did. I see some longshot possibilities. I still see the same huge roadblocks. They are not the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Over 50 million Americans can be mobilized over Bethlehem being reconfigured into a garbage dumpster. Over 50 million Americans would also address Jerusalem as not warranting internationalization or being run by the Islamofascists.

    One major roadblock is Rabbi Eric Yoffie and his Union of Reform Judaism. An examination will show they do not want Israel to continue in existence. It is a threat to their upper middle class wellbeing in America. Their portfolios are at risk while Israel exists.

    Joffee and his organization do not stop at Israel. They pronounce major national policy positions in the name of a large Jewish organization. They're recently spoken out on reproductive rights and Supreme Court nominees. Middle America listens and watches. They will react accordingly. If not positioned to act, they will support those who do.

    Timing can be important in domestic politics and international relations. Is now the time to seek support for Dr Wise's plan when ADL and the American Jewish Committee submitted legal briefs in the lawsuit to support deleting "Under God" in the Declaration of Independence?

    There are other radical groups besides Yoffee and Abraham Foxman's. It is not just the "reform" groups.

    The most difficult - and most distasteful - problems are not being addressed.

    Don't plan on the West Bank becoming sovereign Israeli territory.

    Kol tuv,

    Posted by: BobW on November 28, 2005 07:35 AM

    3. Ted Belman said:

    I note with interest Bob that you don't criticize the Plan itself. You chose instead to argue that it can't be implemented. Well that's a start.

    I believe that if given a choice to live in such a state or what Palestine would have to offer, the Pallies would choose Israel. In fact humdreds of thousands are squeezing into Israel to avoid being on the wrong side of the fence. I believe Israel could easily subdue the intransigent ones by focussing its strength on one small region at a time. The problem would be to train a new police force among the Arabs who can be trusted to keep the peace. The second problem is get rid of teachers who continue to teach the old propaganda and to replace them. Perhaps Arabs from Israel could be used for both purposes.

    If the problem goes away then perhaps the world will be mollified. Unless of coarse they want Israel to go away. If so, Israel must pick its own battlefield.

    Two problems would remain; the Arab refugees and Gaza. Will these problems increase pressure on Israel to accomodate them? Perhaps. Will Israel be stronger so that resisting will be easier. I think so.

    Posted by: Ted Belman on November 28, 2005 09:22 AM

    4. Ted Belman said:

    Israel's choice is the one state solution, or the two state solution or the status quo. Which is the least worst of all?

    Leaving aside the status quo, Israelis should have the choice of whether they prefer annexation and the absorbtion of 1.2 million Arabs or the fence line as the border without the right of return.

    We are trying to determine the size of the constituency for annexation along these lines.

    Posted by: Ted Belman on November 28, 2005 09:40 AM

    5. Ed D said:

    I, wholely, agree with this version of Israel from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, with some minute changes. So far as the Left Wing Jews, the US the EU and the other members of the corrupt United Nations are concerned, the people of Israel must have the strength to tell them to stuff it. Every other nation does what is good for their interest and so should Israel. The majority of Americans, I believe, would support this move with the exception of left wing extremist. By the majority, I mean the Christians and the Jews, who believe in their faith and love Israel. Every country that I'm aware of that has grown in size, did so by conquest and the world accepts this. So far as the EU and the UN is concerned, they are powerless. The biggest obsticle are the Israelis themselves.

    Posted by: Ed D on November 28, 2005 02:44 PM

    6. Bill Levinson said:

    Re: Ed D "Every country that I'm aware of that has grown in size, did so by conquest and the world accepts this. So far as the EU and the UN is concerned, they are powerless. The biggest obsticle are the Israelis themselves." The Palestinians have REPEATEDLY proven themselves unwilling or unable to keep peace agreements and treaties. Their leaders have even said that the truces are hudnas (phony peaces) designed to buy respites in which to plan further terroristic violence (

    Israel should annex the West Bank and Gaza, and expel the two-legged locusts. Sure the world would scream bloody murder but the injury would be forgotten in a few months. Machievelli said that, if you have to do something nasty, you should do it all at once instead of dragging it out as Israel has done since 1967.

    By the way, how do you think the U.S. got most of the Southwest, and then Puerto Rico and Guam??? True, the enemy provoked the wars in both cases but the provocation was tiny in comparison to what the Arabs have done to Israel.

    Posted by: Bill Levinson on November 28, 2005 06:26 PM

    7. Bill Narvey said:

    Dr. Michael Wise's co-authored Demographic Study, proposing a Jewish One State Plan, for all the positives, while recognizing certain realities, ignores others.

    I do not see much more hope for a 2 state solution any time soon. Increasingly, it seems that if the U.S. continues its pressure and Israel continues to cave to that pressure, Israel will have its peace in the sense that it will be left to die in peace, because it will not have been left with enough to survive.

    Speaking of a One State Solution however I see that doomed to failure as well.

    The plan to have a greater Israel that incorporates Palestinians as opposed to a bi-national state would be more galling than Israel's existence is to the rest of the Muslim nations from North Africa to Pakistan.

    Little Israel is a speck on the map of a chain of Muslim nations from Mauritania on the east coast of Africa to Pakistan. That speck of land being Israel is seen by Muslims as defiling the sanctity of the Islam lands.

    According to the tenets of Islam, a land once conquered becomes holy land and therefor conquest is an sanctifying act. The land of Israel and Jerusalem in particular was under Islamic authority until after WWI. Muslims want that land back!

    If Muslim nations cannot tolerate Israel as it is, it is less likely to tolerate and accept an expanded Israel under any circumstances.

    Another problem with the Wise plan is that population growth is much greater amongst Muslims than Israelis. So too is the infant mortality rate, but that rate would decline as Palestinians had access to greater health care. What happens to the existing order of an Israeli area majority vote over the non-Jewish areas, once the Muslim population of a one State Israel exceeded the Jewish population?

    In terms of being self and peer motivated to succeed in all spheres of life, there are cultural differences between the Palestinian/Arab populations and Israelis. Beyond the success that money brings oil producing nations, the Muslim citizenry experience the greatest illiteracy rate in the Middle East. One can just imagine that to incorporate Palestinians into the new Israel One State, at least until Palestinians could catch up to enable them to compete at all levels, they would represent the bottom tier of the Israeli economic strata, many, if not most of whom would need social assistance to just be able to live. This would create a tremendous drain and strain on the Israeli economy.

    It is as unlikely in a One State Scenario as in a Two state secenario that Palestinians and Arabs are going to abandon their Jew hatred culture any time soon. I do not see how Palestinians/Arabs are going to fulfill the citizenship requirements laid out by Dr. Wise, in as short a time as 15 years, if at all.

    In the result, for a long time, Israel will by allowing Palestinians to remain within their expanded borders on the basis of a hope that at some point in future they will fit in as equal peaceful and contributing citizens. These same potential citizens however, until they meet all the pre-conditions for full citizenship represent a very large 5th column within Israel.

    Finally a One State Solution compromises the rights of Jews to their own homeland as it was 2,000 years ago. No other nation has been forced to share their sovereignty. That is what is being asked by those who propose a two state solution and that is being asked even more by those who propose a one state solution.

    Though I understand where Bill Levinson is coming from, for Israel to unilaterally annex Judea and Samaria and start deporting Palestinians, to where he doesn't say, Israel would be met with far more than the world's and Muslims' screams of bloody murder. It is virtually certain that such unilateral Israeli action would propel the Middle East into another all out war against Israel.

    To return to the so called Peace Process, be it a one or two state solution, what is not readily admitted is that it is not an Israel - Palestinian conflict. Rather the conflict is an asymetrical unconventional new kind of war declared on Israel, first by the Arabs and since 1967, the Arabs newly named Palestinians, who are the proxy warriors in the ongoing war declared by the 500 million Arabs against Israel in 1948 and which war, while enjoying various hudnas to use an Arabic word, ever since, has never really ended.

    I do not hold out much hope for either a one state or two state solution that has a happy ending for Israel, if things keep going the way they have.

    Posted by: Bill Narvey on November 28, 2005 07:20 PM

    8. Joseph Alexander Norland said:

    Circa 1948, the Arab cause had little international support. With patience and steadfastness - coupled with petrodollars, the ascent of the pernicious left, and other factors - the Arabs succeeded in marshalling international support of unprecedented scope.

    Israel should learn from the Arab strategy, especially since she now has as little support as the Arabs had in 1948. Israel cannot hope for the oceans of petrodollars the Arabs use, but Israel has rivers of support among the Christian Zionists. What Israel lacks is steadfastness - the Iron Wall about which Jabotinsly wrote. If she stands by her line, that all of the former Palestine belongs to the Jewish people by international law, let alone basic decency and history, then Israel could have the one state solution - a Jewish one state - as an acknowledged right. But it takes a backbone, defeat of the Israel neo-Comms, and, above all, relegating Abu Omri to the junk heap of history.

    Remember: Theodore Herzl started with much less than Israel now has in order to complete the Zionist project in the former Palestine. Have a little faith, for crying out loud!

    What I don't understand is why nobody raises the option of one sovereign Israel state from the river to the sea, with Arab autonomy.

    Finally, let us stop talking about the non-existent "Palestinian people" - they are but Arabs of the former Palestine, residing currently in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. If we ourselves succumb to the enemy terminology - what hope is there?

    Posted by: Joseph Alexander Norland on November 28, 2005 09:23 PM

    9. A Time to Speak said:

    Recent "governments" in Israel are guilty of aiding and abetting if not inspiring the US administration's pro-PLO pro-PLO state "vision".

    A large majority of the American people oppose this strongly. It is very likely that majorities in the Senate and the House would not approve if IF ISRAEL DID NOT APPROVE IT. One cannot reasonably expect them to resist the "Bush vision" if the officials of Israel accept it.

    If Israel gets a new government that is on Israel's side -- for a change -- much can be done to rally US opinion against chopping up Israel to invent a PLO Terror State.

    So the job has to be done in both Israel and America.
    In Israel to get in a patriotic Jewish regime, and in America to get to the people and the Congress -- That means having to make an end run around the stupid mass media and the corrupt educational system.

    Rabbi Hillel said "If it is not for you to finish the job, neither is it for you to put it down".

    Posted by: A Time to Speak on November 29, 2005 08:52 AM

    10. Ted Belman said:

    Never heard or read that quote before but love it.

    Posted by: Ted Belman on November 29, 2005 10:07 AM

    11. M. Tovey said:

    In the ever-ensuing rush to solve the Middle East question, there is the distinct observation that needs to be made, yet seems to be avoided. That is the coming Final Solution to the Middle East Crisis. Whether we debate a one state Israel, (the most promising, but least likely course to pursue), the two state partition plan (giving deference to the misguided notion that an independent “Palestine” with no real history of its own can exist side by side with Israel), or some other variant to these, none which do not recognize the original plan can hope to stand.

    Some several thousand years ago, the deed to the locale once and now known as Israel was described and conferred to its designated recipient, Abraham. Subsequently, these lands have been through significant changes that most students of history will confirm are most decidedly controversial, yet if correctly discerned, will lead back to the programmed conclusion. Israel belongs to the Eternal Sovereign, the land, the people, and most importantly, its throne in Jerusalem.

    The acquisition and subsequent relinquishment of these lands by the heirs of Abraham are by their own doing, not heeding the provisions appurtenant to the decree. In order to keep the possession of the land, the heirs of Abraham were to “keep the faith”. Honor in love the Almighty Sovereign that gave them the land, and be obedient to the command to love one another. To disobey would bring untold repercussions, and eventually eviction. The people of Israel did not lose ownership; they lost possession.

    History tells their tragic story. There is the glory of David, the greatness of Solomon and his edifice to the Eternal of Israel lost to disobedience. The rebellion continued to the Babylonian exile, during which commenced the loss of the Divine glory of the Temple. The secular administrations that came and went, the first arrival and rejection of their Davidic royal line in over five hundred years, and then came the eventual destruction of the last of the historical Temples by the Romans in the First Century CE. Since that time, the land has languished as foretold by the lawgiver in the hands of foreigners, each succession claiming some imperfect form of right to the land. All have been in error.

    There is only one entity that can now rightly lay its claim to the land, and none of the current claimants can finalize the deal. The closest is Israel, yet not in its present form.

    In its original form the deed was presented by parole, that is by a verbal decree of transferring title by the Eternal Sovereign. In later times, this was superseded by a written edict whereby title was conferred to the final successor in interest, the final reigning member of the Royal family, the King of Israel.

    Now, the deed is secured, but possession is not a reality yet. We see lines of possession delineated here and there by those who have no right to make any such determination. When the time comes, the One who does have the right will make His determination and settle the possession by all accounts.

    Then everything we see today will be lost to the age and the petty squabbling of so many will be vanquished by one simple truth, found in the Holy Scripture in its Book of Isaiah, Chapter 55, verse 11……"So shall my word be that goes forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."

    So, when the Eternal said Israel shall be my people, and He shall be their God, who among men will be able to contravene His Word and prevent it from happening? No matter which way one cuts it, the land is Israel’s and no one can stand against the Word of the LORD to say it is not so.

    Posted by: M. Tovey on November 29, 2005 03:18 PM

    12. Ed D said:

    Yeah, I'm a hawk and a veteran of two wars, including my fighting in the '73 Yom Kippor War. I'm, also, an advocate that the Israelis initiate a combat for all the marbles and not tit for tat. We could defeat the Pals without too much difficulty, providing we leave all weapons on the table. Over a long period of time, deportation would take place, either in Jordan or another Arab country, where Israel, the US and others would help develope economic enticements for the deportees. Deportation would go at the speed of this developements. We, I believe, would create more anti-semitism; however, I don't believe Israel would have so many problems that they couldn't handle it. Remember, all of these countries that are anti-semetic, have grown through their own conquests.

    Posted by: Ed D on November 29, 2005 05:02 PM

    13. Ted Belman said:

    Simon McIlwaine writes

    I have read this with great interest. The demographic argument has been critiqued all too rarely, and if the revised projections are correct, the plan has great merit.

    I take the view that those who are calling for a "Two state solution" should be reminded that they are seeking a second Arab Palestinian state. The other practical flaw is that there is no basis for expecting such an entity to be an honest, democratic and peaceful neighbour, and as such, the Security Fence is likely to have to remain, unless the PA is dismantled.

    The only moral and practical alternative has to be integration of the territories and the granting of Israeli citizenship to those Arabs who desire it. I have already indicated that Israeli citizenship for Arab Christians may be the only way of protecting them from the Islamicisation of the territories. To reassure law-abiding Arabs, a new written Constitution, guaranteeing the Jewish democratic character of Israel, will be necessary, but at the same time making it very clear that the rights of non-Jewish citizens to equal treatment by the State and freedom of worship and promotion of their own belief systems (unless, of course, this involves glorifying terrorism!)are guaranteed and will be upheld by the Courts. This will entail us recognising that the Supreme Court, sitting as the High court of Justice, will have the task of protecting those rights-even though Justice Barak's occasional forays into Judicial activism are troubling for those of us (myself included) who adhere to more traditional jurisprudence. Nonetheless, we have to look at the bigger picture.

    This, I think will make it clear that Jewish values and parliamentary democracy are no more in conflict that the fact that the Church of ENGLAND is the Established Church here in England somehow precludes us in the UK from being a pluralist democracy!

    It is important however that the Jewish character of the State must not be watered down, nor Israel's unique-in my view Divinely ordained-role as the Refuge and Home for the Jewish people forgotten.

    The great advantage of this One state plan is that it changes the paradigm completely and ends the status of "occupation". It would also expose the real agenda of Israel's critics-her destruction!

    I would be interested to see other people's views.


    Posted by: Ted Belman on November 30, 2005 10:42 AM

    14. Bill Narvey said:

    Dr. Wise's one state plan is premised on his initial statement "the One State Plan ensures that Israel remains a democratic Jewish State".

    In terms of Palestinian citizenship, there would be a phased in 15 year plan. Though I anticipate all Palestinians within Israel would be immediately given many, if not all practical equal rights, until full citizenship is given, there would be at least a perception in the Palestinian mind of being a second class citizen.

    There are a number of very fundamental flaws in the one state solution balloon now being floated.

    Some of those flaws are based on wishful thinking that current cultural Jew hatred related realities and Palestinian aspirations, bound up in the destruction of Israel can and will change. Much however has been written by pessimists in that regard that tend to dash the hopes of a most committed optimist.

    The one state solution is conceived in optimism, but that optimism is far more hope, than reality based.

    Another flaw is thinking that Palestinians will ever accept living in a state that will forever be a Jewish state with majority power forever in the hands of Jews, even should Muslims become the majority within Israel.

    It would be perceived by Palestinians and indeed all Arabs that pull so many Palestinian strings, that they as a Palestinian Muslim people would be condemned to live in an eternal state of dhimmitude, which for Muslims is a lesser state of being reserved for those non-Muslims under the thumb of Islam. Palestinians would find this to be eternally humiliating subjugation under the Jews.

    While a goal of two independent states living side by side in peace is more rooted in reality, that goal too crashes head on with a number of the same realities that make a one state solution an unattainable dream.

    The U.S. with European support is pushing Israel to concede more and more. Israel is already dangerously close to having conceded more than it can afford to concede and still have a reasonable chance to survive.

    At some point, I expect Israel will recognize it just has no more to give and the situation will have become one of the immovable force meeting the immovable object. In such scenarios, something inevitably has to give.

    As Israel concedes more and more, the Arab world sees Israel becoming weaker and weaker.

    It is very conceivable that at the point when Israel finally refuses to give any more, the Arabs and Palestinians may have by then become emboldened enough to believe Israel is weak enough that a fifth Arab genocidal war against Israel has an excellent chance of success.

    Posted by: Bill Narvey on November 30, 2005 11:31 AM

    15. Bill Levinson said:

    I agree with Ed D's position.

    In baseball, it's three strikes and you're out. Imperial Japan was out after one strike (Pearl Harbor), with several of its major cities incinerated by napalm and atomic bombs.

    Israel should unilaterally annex Gaza and the West Bank, while laying out the Palestinians' litany of broken truces and peace agreements (including the current PA's tolerance and even encouragement of terroristic violence contrary to the Oslo Agreements). In ordinary law, a contract is broken when one side violates a significant provision and the Palestinians have done so repeatedly.

    Palestinians who are willing to live in peace should then be allowed to remain as legal residents but most of the two-legged locusts should be expelled.

    Re: "It is very conceivable that at the point when Israel finally refuses to give any more, the Arabs and Palestinians may have by then become emboldened enough to believe Israel is weak enough that a fifth Arab genocidal war against Israel has an excellent chance of success." Then you give them nothing to begin with. As for a "genocidal war against Israel," the filth in dirty nightshirts should be reminded that it is heap bad medicine, heap bad juju, for Turd World sand apes to threaten genocide against a country that has nuclear weapons. They keep threatening to kill all of us (Western Civilization) and maybe they need to be reminded the hard way that we can in fact kill all of them.

    Posted by: Bill Levinson on November 30, 2005 12:44 PM

    16. Al Gordon said:

    The trouble with the One-State idea is that I cannot think of any historical precedent of taking a society with dysfunctional, violent, imperialistic, expansionist values -- values that have been bred in the bone -- and making it civilized with anything short of total military defeat. Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany are two prime examples that needed to be nearly totally destroyed before it was possible to replace their value systems with something that could co-exist peacefully with the modern world.

    On top of it all, there is the Law of Unintended Consequences. In a move of this magnitude, the unintended consequences are impossible to predict, but we can already see a dozen ways that it could go off the rails. So when a plan has this many unknowns and is not reversible once the unintended consequences emerge, it is not a plan for which a case has been made.

    The best plan that I can see -- and the one with the fewest unknowns -- is simply having Israel draw its own border around as many settlements as it believes is practical, then defining the new border with a barrier (not a fence), and using military muscle whenever it is breached. Liberals will be offended, but so what? Palestinians will not be satisfied, but neither will they be satisfied with anything short of the complete destruction of Israel (it's right there in their charter for anyone to read).

    Taking the West Bank Palestinians into Israel would be like injecting yourself with cancer cells and hoping that your immune system can fix their defective DNA. It won't happen!

    Al Gordon

    Posted by: Al Gordon on November 30, 2005 04:53 PM

    17. Gerald A. Honigman said:

    To My Esteemed Friends...

    We have all seen various combinations of proposed solutions for over a half century now.

    I cannot endorse the one-state scheme for Jews any more than I would condemn Kurds to forever live among Arabs.

    Regardless of the demographic numbers, forcing determined jihadist Arabs to live in a Jewish State will only prove deadly to Jews. While only 20% of Iraq's population, look at the havoc Sunni Arabs have waged for decades there.

    And Israel will not have the cohones to deal with the jihadists as they need to be dealt with when they act up--as they assuredly will--for fear of continuing (even worse now that Arabs didn't get their additional state) international pressure...especially from the U.S.

    Israel needs to separate itself from the cancer. And it is a cancer.

    It needs to insist on what it's entitled to via and recognized borders.

    Arabs will never consent to that.

    But neither will they consent to the One State solution either...unless it's designed to allow a massive "return" of millions of alleged refugees in order to overwhelm the Jews.

    So, we need to demand a reasonable compromise over the territories. Israel then draws its own lines and annexes what it needs...something along the old Allon Plan or such. Those Arabs who agree to pledge loyalty can then obtain Israeli citizenship. Those that won't must get the boot...expel to Gaza, Jordan, or wherever...even though Jordan won't be too thrilled about this.

    If Arabs want another entity on what's left, who cares? As long as Israel does what it must do regarding it: As soon as the manure starts to be flung from the Arabs' now sovereign lands under their full control, Israel must issue an ultimatum. When that is ignored, it must wage a massive war of self defense against the now sovereign state which has launched aggression against its neighbor.

    If Israel does this--and it won't get any more negative worldwide response than if it tells the phony Pals that they can't have their additional state--it will be alright.

    Separation is a must. Israel is making a mistake now by caving in to State Dept. and not extending security barrier much further east. Or, at least it must make sure that when it draws up the final border, the barrier is moved further east to accommodate the compromise mentioned above.

    Unrealistic? It's more realistic than expecting the world and Foggy Bottom to consent to the One State idea as Jews see it (not the Arab version).

    Of course there's that other idea that no one talks about any more...

    Posted by: Gerald A. Honigman on December 1, 2005 12:25 AM

    18. Aryeh Zelasko said:

    The Wise plan is not a bad one as these go. It addresses many of the systemic and existential issues we have in Israel. It is, however, not complete and not the pertinent plan. The pertinent plan is the one that works out HOW to obtain the political power to implement this or any other of the many good plans moving about. Until that minor point is solved, the best plans in the world will simply sit on the shelves gathering dust.

    I am aware of only two such programs in progress to gain political power. There is the Feiglin attempt to take over the Likud and there is the "Right Wing" efforts to be elected to the Knesset. Both see election to the Knesset as the vehicle to political power. The underlying assumption is that Israel is a parliamentary democracy and that the Knesset is the source of political power in Israel.

    I am sorry to inform you that this is a hoax. Israel is and has been even before its independence a dictatorial, police state. The true power in Israel lies in the hands of Israel's ruling elite who in turn have power by virtue of their present or past position within Israel's security apparatus. It is the Generals, Policemen, SHABBAKNIKS and others like them, ex or active, that rule Israel. The real power of a Knesset Member comes from there. So you may ask, why bother with the fiction of a parliamentary democracy? Why have a Knesset and all the filmy flam? Good question. Why does a prostitute bother to wear cloths? It is just what is done. I guess it make the rulers feel a bit better about themselves some how.

    The reality nevertheless is that even if all 120 MKs were all loyal nationalist, they would not be in control of the country until they were in control of the gunmen and the clerks. The Sharon Pogrom clearly showed that no one in the Army, Police, SHABBAK or civil service is willing or even interested in sacrificing the nice polish on his shoes for the future of the Jewish people. This would not magically change if nationalist factions were in control of the Knesset and Government. There would have to be massive replacement of key personnel who would not react very sympathetically to being replaced.

    Plans are important. Without a plan a person or idea is tossed around by whatever forces he encounters. The plan, however, must be a complete one to work and part of it must be how and who will implement it.

    Posted by: Aryeh Zelasko on December 1, 2005 09:48 AM

    19. Rob Muchnick said:

    Let's face it. Even this plan is a copout of us asserting our rights. If the land is ours, it's ours; whereas if it's not ours, let's get the hell out of there because then we really are "colonialists".

    And if it's ours, we MUST make the hard choices to do what we must do in order to keep it Jewish. You all know what these choices are. Can't we see that no compromise on our basic rights will work.

    Do we only want to survive and to be left alone, or do we deserve to live as we want and to thrive in OUR land?

    Counting on the decline of the Arab birthrate to secure our JEWISH state is insane.

    You all realize that no Arab would EVER compromise on anything when it comes to Israel - they'll only pay lip service and make promises but NEVER ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING. Doesn't anyone remember Mohammed's treaty of Ad-Houdibaya?

    Therefore, this plan fits quite nicely into the PLO's 1974 Phased Plan for our destruction, and you must be delusional if you think you can appease the monster by doing this. Even the "esteemed" Tom Friedman wrote in his book "From Beirut to Jerusalem" that the only rules the Arabs follow are "Hama Rules" (Hama being the town that Hafez Al-Assad literally bulldozed in 1984 killing all 20,000 inhabitants because the Muslim Brotherhood had established a stronghold there.).

    This plan brings to mind a wonderful quote from Benjamin Franklin:


    Wake up and have some pride.

    Visit the following website for the answers:

    Posted by: Rob Muchnick on December 1, 2005 11:02 AM

    20. Gilad Gevaryahu said:

    I suggest some textual changes in CAPSas follows:

    To effect this plan, Israel would have to:

    Adopt a new constitution which would inter alia create the Senate and reform the courts

    Formally annex the territories

    Dismantle the PA

    Outlaw all terrorist organizations JEWISH AND PALESTINIANS

    Outlaw all hate speech including anti-Semitic speech JEWISH AND PALESTINIANS WHICH CALL FOR ELIMINATION OF ONE RACE OR ANOTHER.

    Outlaw the promotion of martyrdom in any way

    Disband and disarm all security forces OF THE PA AUTHORITY

    Outlaw all guns and ammunition and explosives in private hands UNLESS LICENSED BY THE STATE

    Replace all Arab AND ISRAELI textbooks WHICH INCLUDE HATE SPECH.

    Posted by: Gilad Gevaryahu on December 1, 2005 11:25 AM

    21. Dr. Moshe Stroe said:


    The Wise plan has many positive features like pointing out the demographic hoax which was the 'logical' basis for pushing sharon's Judenrein plan for Gaza and the Northern Shomron. However we have to take into account the enormous forces pushing the sharon mafia puppets to continue their evil deeds to please their u.s. council of foreign relations, eu and vatican masters (the quartet, sextet or whatever they choose to call themselves)!

    Posted by: Dr. Moshe Stroe on December 1, 2005 01:08 PM

    22. Ed D said:

    I think that I have finally figured out what's wrong with the Labor party, Sharon's new party, self hating Jews, peaceniks who are mostly LEFT WING cowards and idiots. They remind me of many Jews that I know in the states who fit this description. They are afraid for their own lives. Most of those that I know have never even had a fist fight in their lives and allowed bullys to push them around. The history of the concentration camps, where the Jews followed like lambs even though they knew that they were going to die, has followed these left wingers, both in the US and in Israel. The US says jump and the Jews say how high. Using Arabia to finance the war in Iraq was the choice of the US and not Israel. It's time for all Jews , worldwide, to become aware of the choice they must make. Like Benjamin Franklin said, "those that turn their swords into plow shares will be plowing fields for those who did not". We ,the Jews, have provided the International communities, including the US, with more than they have received from them. Become fearless and conquer the whole of Israel, deport the murderers back to Arab countries, allow Israel to become a Jewish state. Without terror, with the extra land, Israel would have land for natural growth, room for heavy industry so as not to be dependant on others for our needs, land for agricultural growth to supply many nations, land for major companies from the free world who would wish to build in Israel. Israel has it all for the betterment of human kind. Let's do it.

    Posted by: Ed D on December 1, 2005 03:21 PM

    23. Salomon Benzimra said:

    Since the Arabs introduced the notion of a “Palestinian people whose land is illegally occupied”, Israel has been on reactive mode. The question is: are we going to continue pandering to Arab myths or are we, finally, going to stop this self-delusion? The answer to that question will determine the type of peace plan that Israel should follow.

    Michael Wise’s plan is somewhere in between: he proposes to annex the “West Bank” to Israel but the Arab population will remain in place. For this plan to succeed we must assume:
    a)that the Arab demographics actually are, and will remain, as projected,
    b)that the Arabs will abandon their dream of a contiguous, independent state,
    c)that the Arabs will forgo their goal of destroying Israel.

    Under the best circumstances, Israel’s Jewish population will drop to about 65% (from the present 80%). Moreover, I fail to see how, under this plan, the three fundamental charters of the Palestinians (PLO, Fatah and Hamas) calling for the destruction of Israel would be suddenly abrogated.

    I would rather have Israel declare the Oslo process officially dead. After 13 years pursuing this “land for peace” track, Israel has only known bloodshed and Arab violations of most signed agreements. Israel should revert to proactive mode and put forward a new set of principles based on incontrovertible facts:

    1.The “West Bank” has been no more occupied since 1967 than Beersheba and Western Galilee have been since 1949.
    2.Available census data show that a substantial portion of the Palestinian Arabs presently living in the “West Bank” migrated from neighboring Arab countries no earlier than the late 1920s.
    3.Israel is not bound to accommodate every Islamic myth on its purported holy sites, especially Jerusalem.
    4.Israel should stop referring to the “Israeli-Palestinian” conflict and call it the “Israeli-Arab” conflict, as it has always been. This is more than mere semantics since it holds the belligerent Arab nations at least partly responsible for the solution.
    5.The withdrawal from territories called for by UNSC Resolution 242 has already been carried out to the tune of 90% of the total area. But the “secure and recognized borders” are not in sight yet.
    6.After centuries of Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Crusader, Mamluk, Ottoman and British occupation, the year 1948 must be seen as the end of the longest colonization in history (let the anti-Israel leftist crowd mull over this contradiction of their cherished principles of self-determination of peoples).
    7.No military aggression should be rewarded in any way, as stated in the UN Charter.

    While Jordan lost the (illegally annexed) “West Bank”, and Syria lost the Golan Heights, Egypt recovered the whole territory lost through three successive aggressive wars and has benefited from billions of dollars in U.S. aid since 1979. To redress this anomaly and accommodate the Palestinian Arabs, Israel should pursue the following:

    1.Allocate about 1/3 of the Sinai Peninsula (about 20,000 sqkm), contiguous to the Gaza border at Rafah, for a future Palestinian state, free of Jews, to respect their ideology of “ethnic purity”.
    2.Considering that the G8 nations alone are prepared to raise $3b per year for three years for Palestinian development, there is ample funding to finance the required infrastructure in this territory for a population of several million people. Additional funds from the World Bank and other sources would even allow a significant number of ‘refugees” to relocate to this land.
    3.Provide for a reasonable time table for the relocation of the Palestinian Arabs presently living in the “West Bank” to develop and move to this area. Substantial Israeli funds will also be provided against existing Palestinian assets left behind.
    4.This Sinai development, together with the projected development of the Negev by Israel, should provide an opportunity for peaceful constructive cooperation between the two states.

    To my knowledge, this plan is the only one which could meet the main three demands of the Palestinian Arabs:
    a)contiguity (between Sinai and Gaza)
    b)viability (the final area will be as large as Israel)
    c)“right of return” (since area, transportation and “Jew-free” territory are warranted)

    As for the practicality of such a scheme, the first hurdle is to overcome the blemish associated with population transfers. But this is exactly what hundred of thousands of Jews have gone through since the early 1950s without any outside assistance.

    More problematic is the current political trend in Israel. If Sharon and his new Kadima party, together with a significant number of ex-Labour supporters, find themselves in a majority government in March 2006, chances are they will pursue the same old track of “land for peace” with minor variations. More “disengagements”, more terror, more threats to the heartland of Israel. Even Charles Krauthammer, who has always been on the moderately “hawkish” side, is now talking about relinquishing 92% of the “West Bank” with additional land swaps! The future is bleak indeed.

    Posted by: Salomon Benzimra on December 3, 2005 02:46 AM

    24. Nannette said:

    It would be a lot cheaper for all the hostile Arabs (including some Israeli MKs) to be expelled from a single-state Israel, and for the international community to pay for them to go to the Islamic states. It's costing them tens of billions in international aid to fund terrorism, but this will be a one-off payment, a lot cheaper... and less threatening.

    The Israel demographics would then be a lot more balanced and Israel could have safe and secure borders.

    Posted by: Nannette on December 3, 2005 07:56 AM

    25. Ted Belman said:

    Desire and Leadership
    By Ted Belman

    As you know I have been advocating a One State Plan entitled Israel from the Mediterranean to the Jordan. Check it out for the most up to date version.

    Over the weekend a number of community leaders and pundits have exchanged views on the plan. What follows is their exchange in chonological order.

    I am indebted to Yoram Ettinger, Aaron Lerner and Lori Lowenthal Marcus for keeping the faith.


    At a glance, I’m dubious.

    In the end, it would mean many more Israeli Arabs, they’d demand “equal rights,” anything less would be called apartheid, they’d want to bring in relatives, to move from the West Bank to other parts of Israel, their birthrate would be higher than for the Jewish population undermining the Jewish character of the state over time …I’m not convinced this wouldn’t, in the end, be as perilous as the bi-national state approach.
    Lori Lowenthal Marcus replies

    I'm not surprised by [your] very reasonable initial response. However, I think the arguments he raises are the same ones that can be raised both about the current Muddle East configuration and any proposed two state solution that doesn't require ethnic transfer of all Arabs from the Jewish State.

    Further, I have never understood how those who swallowed the demographic doomsday scenario could not see that it would apply, over time, to little bitty Israel unless, again, no Arabs are permitted to live there.

    My slight spin on the plan as Mike and Ted have articulated it, is that in addition to the 'no terrorism' clauses, there must be a very, very stringent treason law, one that encompasses a definition of terrorism (which would obviously have to be included in the plan whether or not this suggestion is incorporated), and the punishment must be permanent exile (perhaps of the entire immediate family?).

    Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see as one of the key points in the Plan that Israel remain a Jewish state. That concerns me. We should not be hiding from that point. A related concern is about the proposed embrace of a written constitution. It is likely you folks know the people at ICI and I don't, but I remember reading that they are intent upon having Israel be a secular state, and that would be written into the constitution. We obviously don't have to adopt the ICI plan, but I wonder what kind of pressure those proponents could/would bring to bear.

    But a two-state solution, in which Israel gets what it needs and has been promised – secure borders – would also presuppose Israeli retention of key parts of the West Bank, but also, perhaps, there would be some land swaps, particularly Israeli territory now inhabited largely by Arabs.

    That does seem to me to offer benefits: a larger Jewish majority in an Israel that has defined and secure borders.

    Under such circumstances, too, over time, the Arabs on the West Bank might well see that it’s in their interest to federate with Jordan.
    Ted Belman writes

    The essential choice for Israel is whether she would prefer the fence as a defacto border with no more Arabs in Israel to contend with or the Jordan as a border with an additional 1.3 million Arabs to contend with.

    In both cases there will not be an "end of conflict" agreement. Each has its risks for destablization. These are to be evaluated.

    One person suggested that Israel will get defensible borders. I beg to differ. It seems to me that this requirement has been dropped from public discussion so much so that JCPA had to take a special initiative to keep it alive.

    The current idea is that defensible borders are inherent in peace not territory. The Quartet is pushing for '67 borders with an exchange of territory and is not at all talking about defensible borders.

    Two quick points for now:

    1) I agree that secure, defensible borders for Israel are not now being discussed. But I would argue that means it has to be re-introduced into the discussion. Dore Gold has made this his priority.

    2) Ultimately, I take the view that a decision on a policy like this must be made by Israelis. As an American, I don’t feel that I can or should do more than offer advice if asked (and I don’t know why they’d ask me). In the end, I think I have to support whatever policy Israelis adopt, whatever set of risks they prefer to assume.

    Gerry Gordon writes to Ted Belman

    I understand that this is a work in progress and reflects some of the comments of others.

    When you have the rationale for the One State Plan worked out, that would greatly assist in the line of reasoning for the presentation. I would assume you would precise the contending alternatives and point out their deficiencies so that you can posit the One State Plan "solution."

    The impediments section, tip toe around something that I developed in the way of comments on the earliest version; that is, the Israel has to make fundamental changes in its welfare system that provides negative incentives for fertility. I refer to the euro style family assistance grants system taken advantage of not only indigenous Arab populations, but also Haredi Jews. I was polite in my comments, but that simply has to be eliminated to provide a positive incentive for developing a population tractable for work skill education and country's economic development.

    Fertility in developed countries dropped rapidly with urbanization, industrialization and the economic realization that children of farm families thus transformed were not producer durables as we say in economics.

    The other elephant in the room is prodding Islamic adherents in the idealized Jewish state to reform from within. This is a very difficult problem when Koranic Islam doesn't recognize separation of mosque and state ergo political Islam in all its virulent manifestations including jihad ism. Israel if it professes adherence to western ideals of religious tolerance would be caught in a dilemma of its own making, if certain changes were not made as a minimum.
    • Israel has to outlaw polygamy that Islam condones because the latter is antithetical to development of a modernizing economy.and its violates Israel's purported and our western values of equality of treatment of the sexes;
    • Israel must bar Islamic sharia law as being in violation of whatever articles of human rights and religious tolerance provisions in the written Constitution that would perforce emerges under your proposed One State Plan.
    • Israel's Education Ministry must approve all educational curricula in state-supervised institutions, including Cheredi yeshivot and Muslim Madrasses that purport to provide Muslim children with a general and religious education.
    • All able bodied citizens as of age 18, regardless of sex and religion, would be subject to a universal mandatory term of national service-military or substitute.
    If these appear to be draconian measures, then so be it. They are far less than , for example, the original Kemalist doctrines that suppressed Islam in modern Turkey, only unfortunately to have it re-emerge in the 21st century. Maintaining a Jewish character is one thing. being a theocracy is quite another.

    This is my view only and I don't wish to impede your express purposes of developing a palpable alternative.


    Ted Belman to Jerry

    I totally agree with your comments. The challenge is enormous. It will take a committed and unified Israel to accomplish such a transformation.

    There are really two challenges;

    1. Can Israel find the will to do what is necessary to make the absorption of the Arabs work

    2. Can Israel resist world pressure which may go beyond words to sanctions.
    Ted Belman-
    Al Gordon writes

    It's interesting as a provocative piece, but the risk/reward ratio is all wrong. First, it is based on the assumption that the Palestinians have been exaggerating their population in the West Bank, and that the real population is 40-50% below their claims. Well, what if they aren't as far off as you think? Don't you need an accurate measure of population before you can even propose such a thing? Do you have an accurate measure of the Arab population?

    Since when does size matter (in countries, I mean)? Look at the productivity of Japan. Luxembourg has the highest per capita GDP in the world. What about Hong Kong? It is not the size of the country, but the quality and values of the people. By reducing the values and quality of the population of Israel, you have diminished your most important asset in exchange for territory. If territory were the stuff of success, Russia and Sudan would lead the world.

    Don't give the Arabs what they want, because that will not satisfy them. Grab the main settlements and put them on the Israeli side of the barrier. But do not absorb any more Arabs into Israel. Israel will get creatures hard-wired for hatred and dependence, a lot different from the current Israeli Arabs.
    Those strike me as strong and rather persuasive points.


    Ted Belman writes to Mike Wise

    I have come to the conclusion that the one state solution as proposed by you is both not attainable and too risky a proposition. Al Gordon's remarks are telling.

    I have no problem with finalizing the article and getting YNET and Jnewswire to publish it. But I think ultimately it will be a non-starter.

    Rather I think our efforts should be to back a platform of no further withdrawal until a final agreement is reached how ever long it should take.

    It seems that because of the recent poll even Kadima is going to take this position.

    What do the rest of you think?
    Jerry Gordon writes

    Al's comments come closest to my earliest ones on any solution. That is no further withdrawals, completing E-1 and not negotiating in advance of the March elections and Jordan being the de facto "Palestinian" state..

    My comments to you this morning that dealt with the difficulty of "assimilating" an unassimilable Islamic minority whether "moderate" or more likely radical given what has occurred in both the west bank and the former Gaza territories doom absorption. look at Bat Ye'or's EUrabia.

    Further, we have evidence of continuing and growing security violations in Gaza and will know soon enough if the January PLC elections are realized or pushed off still yet again. It is inevitable that Fatah and Hamas will be in a viper like struggle for control of what passes for governance in the PA.

    Yoram Ettinger to Al Gordon

    1. Demography has never been a consideration for Zionist statesmen (from Founding Father Abraham up to Shamir, who is – so far - the last statesman heading Israel's gov't). Zionist statesmen were motivated – as have all statesmen throughout the globe – by a long term (eternal in the case of the Jewish People) vision and by faith. Statesmen do not allow tenuous predicament to derail their pursuit of vision/strategy. Statesmen draw national lines in accordance with history and security requirements, and not in accordance with demography. While history is permanent, demography is tenuous – are we to expect a change in Israel borders each time we find a substantial change in demography (due to wars, economy, drop of price of oil which has played a major role in Palestinian demography, etc.)?

    2. Demography is controllable by human beings (economy, bureaucracy, changing child allowance regulations, enforcing law when it comes to Bedouin marriage with illegals from Gaza, Aliya, anti-Semitism, regime change in Moscow, etc.). On the other hand, the topography and the geography of the over towering eastern and western mountain ridges of Judea & Samaria (the Golan Heights of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Israel's Soft Belly; the best tank obstacle in the area and a dream platform of invasion into the slim coastal waistline) are fixed and absolutely non-controllable by human beings. Geo-strategically, no two Arab states could co-exist west of the Jordan River, and certainly no co-existence would be possible there between a Jewish state and an Arab state.

    3. The determination that the conventionally-accepted number of Palestinians in Gaza, Judea and Samaria is inflated by 50%+ is a conservative finding of the demographic study, which is soon to be published (and has been scrutinized and approved by the American Enterprise Institute, which has posted it on its own website). Unlike the Prophets of Demographic Doom, our study is NOT based on projections, assessments and postulations. It is based on an audit of the conventionally-accepted number, which has been corroborated by Palestinian, Jordanian and Israeli sources. Expressing my own private opinion – as a member of the team which researched the findings of the study – the actual number (2.5MN and not 3.8MN) is probably lower. More important than the current number is the current demographic trend, which bodes well for a sustained Jewish majority (

    4. The size of the Jewish State is not the issue. The conflict with the Arabs has never been territorial. The conflict is not over the size of Israel; it is over the existence of the Jewish State. Unlike Luxembourg, Israel is surrounded by enemies, which wish to eradicate it, as evidenced by history and by the hate-education in EACH Arab country, including Jordan and Egypt.

    5. Judea and Samaria have been irreplaceable as far as the existence of the Jewish State on historical and security grounds, especially during the era of modern weaponry and ballistic missiles.

    6. The Land-For Peace formula has radicalized Arab expectations and has exacerbated terrorism (please see attached document).
    Bob W writes to Ted Belman

    A proposed one-state solution is a direct challenge and confrontation with the Bush Administration.

    The world's Jews have 3 enemy blocs: the Arab Muslims, the ADL, Conference Of Presidents, etc and those Westerners who were purchased by Arab petrodollars.

    Nothing will occur until a small, but powerful national organization is launched to discredit the Rabbi Yoffies, et al., call for alternatives to Arabs ruling Bethlehem (a major theme of mine. The Christian Zionists have the infrastructure and resources to approach Congress; who else does?!) and get placed on record for diligent efforts to move from Arab oil to other fuels. There are potential allies out there in the marketplace. The American Petroleum Institute and ARAMCO will not support Jews regardless of what Jewish professors write in their professional journals.

    America's visible Jews are aligned on the wrong side of the political battlefield. This AM I posted a comment at IsraPundit referencing Bella Abzug. She was the first to call for Nixon's impeachment. Middle America questions where Jews stand on matters. Nixon's junior appointees are now at senior levels. Push is coming to shove and Senator Schumer from NY does not enhance the safety of a Jewish Israel.
    Al Gordon writes to Yoram Ettinger

    Let's just say the One-State solution (Mediterranean to the Jordan River) is viable for the reasons you suggested. How do you bring it about?
    Yoram to Al

    Very(!) briefly (and in that order):

    1. A traumatic and a swift (a shorter version of the Six Day War) destruction of the political, ideological/educational, financial and operational infrastructure of Palestinian terrorism, which has been led by the PA (which is the only way to derail the Oslo-Hebron-Wye-RoadMap-"Disengagement" suicidal process).

    2. A major expansion of transportation, communications, electricity, water, sewage and community infrastructure in Judea and Samaria (including the Jordan Valley), with the aim of rapidly increasing the number of Jewish residents there.

    Both milestones aim at signaling to the domestic and external fronts that the Jewish State has turned the clock forward to the pre-Oslo reality, resurrecting its 1948-1992 spirit and (following a 12 year very costly bend-backward-period) adopting the American norms of combating terrorism (no coexistence with terrorists, no ceasefire with terrorists, no defense but offensive on the terrorists own ground, focusing on the demolition of the political and ideological infrastructure). President G.W. Bush's Vice President Cheney's and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld speeches would be paraphrased – and shared with the US Congress and key target audiences in Washington, DC and throughout the US - in order to demonstrate Israel's adherence to American norms.

    3. A complete(!) overhaul of Israel's political system, adopting most of the US political system (which is based, to a large extent on the Old Testament), especially when it comes to the bicameral Legislature, district/regional representation (which would lead Israel closer to a two-five party system) and citizenship and loyalty requirements. At this stage, Israel's regulations concerning citizenship and loyalty are more lenient than most European countries!

    4. Once the three milestones would be achieved, a process of annexation would proceed.

    5. The choice facing the Jewish State is a gradual suicidal process (which has been in place since Oslo) or survival by turning the clock forward to the pre-Oslo days. The odds facing the Jewish State today are significantly less horrific than the odds faced by Ben Gurion (when the Dep't of State, the Pentagon and the CIA pressured him to accept a UN Trusteeship), by Eshkol (when LBJ pressured him against pre-empting) and Begin (when Reagan pressured him against bombing Osiraq). Today's Israel is much more powerful militarily and economically, today's base of support in the post-9/11 USA is much more solid, and today's global atmosphere is substantially less hostile (when Americans are killed daily by Arab terrorists, when London is afflicted by Arab terrorism, when France is traumatized by Muslim riots and when Scandinavia, Holland and Belgium reassess their policy toward Muslim migrants and residents, etc.).
    Lori Lowenthal Marcus writes

    So when the going gets tough everyone gets going? The arguments against the One State Plan are no more intractable than are the arguments for the Two State Plan. And it's time we started pushing back against the tide or we really will have a divided Jerusalem and indefensible - even for Israel - borders.

    I'm disappointed that you are ready to fold because this is really hard. Do you think the Arab Palestinians and all the anti-Zionist Jews, etc. gave up because the creation of a Palestinian state was so far beyond the realm of being conceivable that the obstacles should have seemed insurmountable?

    What, are you ashamed of having really smart pundits disagree with the concept and suggest that it's impossible? They may be right, but what if they're wrong? We're not a little government issuing policy, we're a bunch of pro-Israel thinkers trying to broaden the communal mindset.

    All I can say is Thank G-d the Israelis didn't decide it was impossible when someone came up with some cockamamie plan to blow up Osirik.
    Aaron Lerner writes to Ted Belman

    Thanks for sending me a description of a gerrymandered one-state solution as an alternative to a Palestinian autonomy with Palestinian
    self-determination continuing to be realized via participation in elections within the autonomy.

    I am not going to speculate how a gerrymandered one-state solution would be received - Jordan does this in its parliament in order to try and reduce the weight of the Palestinians, for example.

    But gerrymandering only works if the new Israeli citizens residing in
    the Palestinian voting districts are not permitted to change their place of residence - a restriction that would not hold up in the Israeli courts. Add to this the rights of Israeli citizens to have their families join them under family reunification and the demography threat snowballs.

    And speaking of Israeli courts - given the composition of our supreme court it would be a safe bet to expect that the gerrymandered district lines would be redrawn on a regular basis so that people get fair representation in the Knesset. Add to this the ever present possibility that political interests unite to change our rules once again so that we have direct elections for prime minister and .......?

    A generation of Israeli leaders - including Rabin and Peres (even AFTER they started Oslo) were convinced that the best of the available solutions to Palestinian self-determination was autonomy.

    They were right then - and the answer hasn't changed.

    What has changed is our determination.
    Ted Belman writes

    Aside from the questions of what it will take to accomplish it and how to organize it thereafter, Yoram highlights a very important issue.

    How much does Israel want to keep Eretz Yisroel?

    There is no question that Jews want to keep it but are inclined not to fight for it. This has a lot to do with the vilification they are constantly subject to and the array of forces, (UN, US, EU, Arabs, Leftists) they have to contend with. This includes the Left in Israel.

    What Israel needs is a leader who can insire everyone to fight to keep what is rightfully theirs. With great leadership and a unified country, they will fight to keep it. Just give them a plan.
    Al Gordon to Yoram Ettinger

    Yoram, I absolutely love the fact that you are thinking big. Too many Israelis and supporters of Israel are satisfied with crumbs. That certainly is the case with the Canadian mainstream. So I find your assertiveness incredibly refreshing.

    Do you think Israel could rule with the kind of iron fist that characterized Saddam Hussein or the House of Saud? Because the experience in most other Arab countries is that it takes that kind of brutality to maintain order among Muslims. Was is Saddam's rule that made the Iraqis what they are today? Or was Saddam's rule the only thing that would work with a Sunni/Shia population? In other words, which is cause and which is effect?

    I can't help but believe that it will take that kind of oppressive government to maintain any order over the fanatical and parasitic population of the West Bank who have enjoyed billion of dollars in handouts from the West, and who have no sense of earning their keep.

    The idea of saying to the Palestinians, "Sign this pledge of allegiance, or you're out of here" can be defeated by their mass refusal to do so, which would most certainly be the case. And then what? Throw them all out?

    So before this was to go ahead, its executioners would need to have a viable plan for (1) mass refusal by the Palestinians to sign a pledge of allegiance, (2) massive upsurge in terrorism as thousands of Hamas, al-Aska and other savages are moving relatively freely within Israel, (3) Arab population turns out to be a lot closer to "official" number than expected, (4) huge increase in welfare, social assistance and security costs as a violent, dysfunctional culture is now Israel's responsibility, (5) Israelis can't stomach their government being forced to act like Saddam, and (6) the hundred other things that may not go according to plan.

    Yeah, yeah, I'm being tactical and maybe missing the big picture. But in my experience of starting and running companies, the real strategy grows out of the tactics as much as the other way round.
    Yoram to Al,

    Israel did not rule with an iron fist until Oslo. In fact, Israel displayed restraint of an unprecedented proportion, while achieving a level of security and co-existence, which resembles a relative paradise, in comparison to today's relative hell.

    Al, we're talking about the Mideast, where the only peace attainable (in a context of no inter-Arab comprehensive peace during the last 1,300 years!) would be a deterrence-driven peace, and where concessions and retreats have fueled violence.

    The population in the West Bank has NEVER enjoyed billion of dollars from the West. They have benefited greatly from Israel during 1967-1993, with infant mortality and life expectancy rising dramatically (over some inner cities in the US!) and with standard of living and freedom of _expression expanding unprecedently.

    Israel has a long way to go to reach the strict citizenship and loyalty regulations established by the US and most European countries. Citizenship and loyalty regulations are normative throughout Europe and certainly in the US, where minorities do not intend to destroy the host countries (although some may suggest that some Muslims have such an intention in mind). Such regulations are certainly required in a country like Israel, with a large minority, which constitutes a blood relative of enemies surrounding Israel. Those who would not comply with the regulations would be treated accordingly, as befits a democracy, which protects itself against anarchy and against enemies.

    Terrorism was minimized before Oslo (when the virus of cut and run, "disengagements", appeasement, moral equivalence and apologies plagued Israel's hard disc) and maximized as a result of Oslo-Hebron-Wye-RoadMap-"Disengagement". Steadfastness – in the Mideast in particular and in the globe in general – has been a prescription for stability, which vacillation has been an incentive for further violence.

    "Disengagement" from 85% of Gaza (1994) and from 40% of Judea and Samaria (1995-1998) tripled the number of security personnel in the Gaza area and tripled the cost of sustaining Israel's security there. Overall cost of controlling the whole of Gaza and Judea and Samaria was dramatically lower than the cost of the giveaway.

    The track record of the last 12 years is very clear and resembles a combination of the Titanic and the Ship of Fools: A journey to suicide. A drastic change of course must take place; as drastic as the Oslo Process but in reverse, if the Jewish State wishes to stay alive in the worst neighborhood in the world.

    Sovereignty entails the cost of engaging in unpleasant tasks such as policing and fighting. A fish which does not like the daily survival challenges in the sea may find the aquarium routine more pleasant. Jews spent too many years in aquariums, and paid a brutal price.

    Dr Fred Leder writes

    Ted has very effectively outlined the dangers of the present two state solution and has projected a very likely outcome if a state of Palestine were implemented. Just look at Gaza if you need any more proof. I won't dwell on this option any longer.

    The problem with any and all one state solutions is the fundamental world dynamic between Islam and the western democracies. The issue is not about how much land Israel holds, the issue is about Israel being there. There are enough books and references that I needn't cite them here that make the point that world-wide Islamic fascism is hell bent on the destruction of the west, let alone Israel. There are clear cultural and philosophical links between the international terrorist organizations, the terror states, e.g. Syria and Iran, and Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad who are arming for the destruction of Israel. So, I don't see any basis for a structured compromise like the one-state solution.

    You couldn't even get the one-state solution off the ground because the Arabs have already said they will not accept a cantonized Bantustan in Judea and Samaria. So what we are doing here is engaging in an exercise in which we are negotiating with ourselves. With no input whatsoever from the Arabs we are deciding how much land and freedom and civil participation in Israeli affairs we are prepared to give them. When our best offer is not enough we will improve it. If, God forbid, they should take such and offer it will only be the starting point for additional dismemberment of Israel.

    Let's dispatch the argument that the Jews have been 67% of the overall population since 1967. This only works if you can bring in a million Russians every so often. The influx of Russian Jews distorted the balance in favor of Jews. I don't see another million Jews coming in soon. On the other hand, the Arabs can bring in a few million folks to settle the Holy Land anytime they want to. Do you want to try to prevent that?

    Which takes us back to the current Israeli situation. Labor wants to negotiate peace. There will be no negotiation because the Arabs won't seriously negotiate. They will make demands which the Laborites and peace-niks will try to accommodate. Then there will be more demands.

    Sharon will declare the barrier as the border and withdraw from lands outside the barrier. This will make Washington very happy. Then the Arabs will demand land inside the barrier. Sharon will have accomplished nothing except to deny all Jewish claims to Judea and Samaria, outside the barrier, just as he did in Gaza.

    This leave Likud who say when the Arabs stop terrorism and begin serious negotiation we will be here to talk. Since both side know this is never going to happen the situation is frozen in time, and I'm afraid this is the best we can do.

    Some day when oil is not the first fuel of choice for developing and for modern economies, say in 50- 100 years, and when the western democracies have destroyed Islamic fascism, say in 50 years, there will be a chance for peace between Israel and its neighbors. Right now any talk of complex local arrangements is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's of no real consequence.

    Posted by Ted Belman at December 4, 2005 07:52 AM

    Trackback Pings
    TrackBack URL for this entry:


    1. Bill Narvey said:

    I am frankly surprised that all the opinions offered regarding Dr. Wise's proposal for a one state solution, were premised on how such one Jewish state solution incorporating all the Palestinians could work or why it could not, which negative views flowed from the perspectives of injecting oneself with a virulent cancer to creating a tremendous strain and drain on the Israeli society and economy.

    None of the opinions derived from the question, would a one Jewish state solution regardless of how it was conceived and structured, be acceptable to the Palestinians under any circumstances?

    As I had pointed out in my earlier posts on the subject, no matter how attractive a Jewish state might be to the Palestinians in terms of advantages they otherwise would not have in their own independent state, they would forever be living as dhimmis in Israel.

    A one Jewish state solution, no matter how what form it would take, would still be a Jewish state and for that reason alone, it would be a non-starter for the Palestinians.

    Posted by: Bill Narvey on December 3, 2005 11:17 PM

    2. Anne Maurer said:

    After reading "Israel from the Mediterranean to the Jordan" and reading all your impressive comments, what jumped off the page for me were two things;
    "The conflict is not over the size of Israel; it is over the existence of the Jewish State." And, "how much does Israel want to keep Eretz Yisroel?"
    We can conjecture until we are blue in the face, but until the Israelis elect a strong and honest leader, we here in the Galut can only sit by watching helplessly.
    Yoram are you listening?
    Anne Maurer

    Posted by: Anne Maurer on December 4, 2005 05:13 PM

    Posted by: Ted Belman on December 6, 2005 06:41 PM

    26. Ted Belman said:

    Negotiating with ourselves
    Dr Fred Leder replies (Dr Wise's comments interspersed)

    Ted has very effectively outlined the dangers of the present two state solution and has projected a very likely outcome if a state of Palestine were implemented. Just look at Gaza if you need any more proof. I won't dwell on this option any longer.( thus Fred agrees that twostate solutions/road maps are suicidal paths and should not be accepted by or forced upon israel.)

    The problem with any and all one state solutions is the fundamental world dynamic between Islam and the western democracies. The issue is not about how much land Israel holds (the one state solution is not a land grab..,) the issue is about Israel being there (the issue is what should Israel now do to enhance its probability of existing in two generations). There are enough books and references that I needn't cite them here that make the point that world-wide Islamic fascism is hell bent on the destruction of the west, let alone Israel. (agreed. Therefore, Israel must seek a viable existence option.)

    There are clear cultural and philosophical links between the international terrorist organizations, the terror states, e.g. Syria and Iran, and Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad who are arming for the destruction of Israel. So, I don't see any basis for a structured compromise (no one is talking about a structured or negotiated compromise. The status of occupation ends. Israel proclaims one state. A jewish state with the right of return available to jews only. Regional representation etc. read the plan.) like the one-state solution.

    You couldn't even get the one-state solution off the ground because the Arabs have already said they will not accept a cantonized Bantustan in Judea and Samaria (this is not a cantonized Bantustan. we are creating four connecticuts. Furthermore, no one is asking the arabs what they want. The precedent of Unilateral decisions has been established by Sharon.) So what we are doing here is engaging in an exercise in which we are negotiating with ourselves (we are seeking to determine a structure that assures israel’s existence for the next two generations. Kindly propose another one and we would surely examine it). With no input whatsoever from the Arabs we are deciding how much land (We are not giving anybody land and freedom and civil participation in Israeli affairs (we are creating a state-like structure such as Connecticut, rhode island, new jersey and vermont.) we are prepared to give them.

    When our best offer is not enough we will improve it (again, no reference is made to negotiations. As Sharon has said, “there is no partner to negotiate with”). If, God forbid (you are the first one that brought god into this discussion, no doubt he will take care of everything in his own way. But the onus on us is to maximize our potential for success) they should take such and offer it will only be the starting point for additional dismemberment of Israel (the starting point began a long time ago. We are trying to put a halt to that process. Please provide a better alternative solution!)

    Let's dispatch the argument that the Jews have been 67% of the overall population since 1967. This only works if you can bring in a million Russians every so often (wrong. Birth and growth rates are slowing dramatically in the region. Indeed iran and Egypt have witnessed the most dramatic decline of birth rates on the planet. Global growth rates are also collapsing. The demographic experts workld-wide have reduced their recent 12B populatyion forecast for 2050 to 9 billion!) The influx of Russian Jews distorted the balance in favor of Jews. I don't see another million Jews coming in soon. (Agreed. But if you leave the status quo or agree to two-state terrorist induced solutions, a million jews will run for the hills of Connecticut! And elsewhere!)

    On the other hand, the Arabs can bring in a few million folks to settle the Holy Land anytime they want to (wrong again. In a onestate solution the area between the Jordan and the sea will be closed to all but jewish immigation. Of course in all two state solutions millions of arabs will rush from refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and from elsewhere and arrive first to the Palestinian state and from there continue infiltrating westward!!! Do not forget that israel’s “peaceful and democratic” neighbor will supply labor etc. for the jewish state( Do you want to try to prevent that? (Of course. Now we begin to understand part of the thrust of the one state plan!)

    Which takes us back to the current Israeli situation. Labor wants to negotiate peace. There would will be no negotiation because the Arabs won't seriously negotiate. (Correct. They will negotiate and receive a non-viable palestinian terrorist state of modest dimensions) They will make demands which the Laborites and peace-niks will try to accommodate. Then there will be more demands (agreed. Let’s not go there).

    Sharon would declare the barrier as the border and withdraw from lands outside the barrier (and unilaterally declare a Palestinian terrorist state on the east-side of the demographic barrier.) This will make Washington very happy. Then the Arabs and the Israeli arabs will demand (to be reunited with their brothers and cousins! –please read the “looming demographic catastrophe for a very reasonable staged scenario will demand )land inside the barrier. Sharon will have accomplished nothing except to deny all Jewish claims to Judea and Samaria, outside the barrier, just as he did in Gaza (I am in total agreement. But it is worse than that. Not only will he have not accomplished anything but we will have set the framework for a guaranteed catastrophe and major war.)

    This leave Likud who say when the Arabs stop terrorism and begin serious negotiation we will be here to talk. Since both side know this is never going to happen the situation is frozen in time, and I'm afraid this is the best we can do (let’s bring god back into the pictue. God forbid! The status quo is a non-starter. You mentioned Bantustans before. The status quo of road blocks, un votes, international courts, expanding division and hystreria inside of Israel, etc. guarantees that Israel will be pushed further and further into a south African posture. Lose-lose proposition. All agree that the status quo is not now tenable and certainly not for another 50 years or two generations).

    Some day when oil is not the first fuel of choice for developing and for modern economies, say in 50- 100 years (that will probably happen much sooner than you can imagine. Subject for a different discussion,) and when the western democracies have destroyed Islamic fascism, say in 50 years, there will be a chance for peace between Israel and its neighbors (Israel had a problem before Islamic fascism reached current dimensions. Occupation and status quo was an insane policy, why continue it?). Right now any talk of complex local arrangements (much simpler plan than the current totally convoluted ad-hoc status) is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. (The iceberg is coming, so let’s run like hell! And stop thinking and building!) It's of no real consequence (I have heard the same argument from many messianists. Let’s sit on our hands and do nothing. Fortunately, today we have sonar and hopefully the arrogance and luxury of saying “don’t worry, everything will be ok” is unacceptable).

    Posted by Ted Belman at December 4, 2005 08:28 AM

    Posted by: Ted Belman on December 6, 2005 06:44 PM

    Post a comment

    If you have a TypeKey identity, you can click here to sign in (recommended).

    Remember Me?

    (you may use HTML tags for style)