Thursday, December 15, 2005

Who needs Jerusalem, anyway?

All the lines have been crossed.

Advisors of Ariel Sharon have let it become known that Sharon is prepared to make concessions (retreat) to the "Palestinians" on Jerusalem (Courtesy of Yediot Achronot).
American magazine Newsweek quoted pollster Kalman Gayer as saying that Sharon is willing to concede 90 percent of the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem for the establishment of a Palestinian state with a capital in Jerusalem.

Not only has Sharon crushed the dream of Greater Israel, but the dream of a United Jerusalem is about to be shattered, as well.

The logic behind the willingness to abandon certain parts of Jerusalem was summed up by Labor-defector, and new Kadima member, Haim Ramon:
“I do not know one moderate man who wants to keep Arab areas like a-Ram as parts of Jerusalem. That’s a mistake.”

So, what it boils down to is this. Everything is negotiable. The State of Israel has no red lines. Gush Katif is no different from Hebron, and Hebron is no different from Schem, Beit Lechem, the Shomron or Jerusalem.

Our right to a Jewish State in the Land of Israel is no longer a given - not in the eyes of the world, and, increasingly, not within the hearts and minds of the Jewish People.

If our right to a Jewish State in the Land of Israel is based solely on demographic and security considerations, then the founding fathers of Zionism would have been better off settling for Uganda or Argentina.

When the early Zionists began settling Israel, the Jews were hardly a majority, and if not for the fact that hundreds of thousands of Arabs fled during the War of Independence in 1948, the State of Israel would not have sustained a Jewish majority by the time the Six-Day War rolled around in 1967.

If, today, Jerusalem is just another piece of land, as was Gush Katif, as was Schem, Beit Lechem, Jericho and Hebron, then, why not give it away - why should Jewish history and Jewish destiny stand in the way of peace, so long as we can sit in our cafes in Tel Aviv sipping lattes.

If, today, Jewish sovereignty over the Temple Mount is viewed as more of a burden than a blessing, if we are willing to sit idly by while our enemies systematically destroy any Jewish connection to the site, and we are silent as the "Palestinians" openly claim that the Western Wall (the Kotel) is the property of the Muslims, then why not give Jerusalem away to the Muslims who clearly recognize her significance and sanctity more than we do?

If, today, Zionism is all about being a nation like all others, it can be accomplished without a United Jerusalem. If, however, we aspire to be a Jewish State, with all that that implies, then a United Jerusalem is a central component to all that the Jewish State of Israel will represent.

The fate of Jerusalem is in our hands - in the upcoming elections we can choose to have a hand in destroying Untied Jerusalem or to take part in strengthening it, along with our right to the rest of our Homeland - and to a Jewish State.

If we waste this opportunity – a chance to act for the sake of Zion & Jerusalem – we will only have ourselves to blame.


Zeev: So why do you think so many Israelies support Sharon and his Jerusalem division project?

By Blogger Jameel @ The Muqata, at Thu Dec 15, 10:20:00 PM GMT+2  

I dont believe that very many do. However, I do believe that the majority have come to believe that they have no power to change things. This is a message that nearly every PM has hammered home to the general public since the inception of Oslo (and most likely before, as well).

It is this feeling and reality that we must fight against. Not ot simply accept things as they are.

By Blogger Ze'ev, at Thu Dec 15, 11:56:00 PM GMT+2  

I agree. The upcoming elections are desperately important.

I wish I could vote as a diaspora Jew, but then again that means that every other Jew in galus could vote too, and that would probablly be a bad thing (too many leftists out here in the pits).

By Blogger Tovya @ Zion Report, at Fri Dec 16, 06:27:00 AM GMT+2  

i think it is time to plan another lone man march in the lone star state. i need to do a united yerushalayim march this time.

it's actually pretty fun, the muslims curse me, and the goyim stare, what's not to love?

By Blogger Tovya @ Zion Report, at Fri Dec 16, 06:29:00 AM GMT+2  

ZR - I think you need to read the post above.


You need to find the actual quote from Kelman Gayer - he did not actually say that he was willing to give up territory in J'lem - he said that Sharon was willing to compromise.

But you are right - most of Israel do believe that Palestinian areas of East Jerusalem should be given to the Palestinians. Does this mean that we do not believe Israel has a right to exist? Are you joking? We are trying to ensure Israel's existence! We want to keep a Jewish majority here! It is the right wing of this country that is willing to threaten the Jewish character of the state by trying to incorporate within the state's boundaries, huge non-Jewish populations.


By Anonymous H, at Sun Dec 18, 02:03:00 PM GMT+2  

I am not saying that those who want to make concessions on jerusalem do not want Israel to exist, what i am saying is that there is a weaking in the belief that we have a right to exist as a JEWISH State - which means more than having a simple Jewish majority.

By Blogger Ze'ev, at Sun Dec 18, 02:56:00 PM GMT+2  


There is also more than one understanding of what being a Jewish State might mean. According to your Orthodox (Right/Correct WaY), there is only one - yours. But that is not reality. There are many different types of Jew - Rabbinic / Karaite, Orhtodox / Traditional / Progressive / Secular, Ashkenazi / Sephardi / Edot HaMizrah, Rich / Poor, Modern / Pre-Modern / Post-Modern. You may disagree with some of them, you may agree with others - but a Jewish State is one defined as being cast according to the will of the Jewish people. Not according to the will of G-d, who though he doesn't actually converse with anyone in this world can be contacted by his self appointed communications directors, Rabbis Eliashiv, Bakshi Doron, Yosef, etc.

In short - you want a Jewish State to mean a halachic state. But it doesn't.

By Anonymous H, at Sun Dec 18, 04:34:00 PM GMT+2  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

<< Home

Blogwise - blog directory Blogarama - The Blogs Directory