RADICAL ISLAMIC GROUP AND ISRAELI-ARAB COEXISTENCE

Jerusalem Issue Brief
Institute for Contemporary Affairs
founded jointly with the Wechsler Family Foundation

Vol. 8, No. 24 20 March 2009


The Role of Radical Islamic Groups in Israel:
Implications for Israeli-Arab Coexistence

Lt.-Col. (res.) Dr. Mordechai Kedar

Many in the Arab world felt deep humiliation due to George W. Bush. The Islamic view is that Islam came to the world to replace Judaism and Christianity, and all of the sudden comes a religious Christian president and occupies Iraq, the capital of the Islamic Abbasid Caliphate and the beating heart of Arab history. So when Bush left office, this was viewed as a victory for Allah over the modern Crusaders.

The core question is to whom does this country belong? According to the Arab narrative, this has been an Arab Islamic state since the days of Omar, the caliph who conquered the country in the seventh century. According to Islamic tradition, he declared that the country between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River is waqf land, meaning it belongs forever to Muslims all over the world, and no one else could ever have it.

According to Islam, land can only go one way, to become Islamic, and it can never go the other way, just like Spain, Sicily, and parts of the Balkans, which at different stages of history were lands of Islam. This is why Hamas and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood cannot even begin to consider recognizing the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state on the land of Palestine.

At the same time, Jews feel that this country belongs to them. From the Jewish perspective, this country was populated by Jews and two Jewish kingdoms were here until 1900 years ago. We Jews were expelled with no justification and we came back to our country. This is what gives justification to the Jews having our state here and not in Uganda, Argentina or Birobijan. It even appears in the Koran that this country had been given to the Jews.

In 2006 a document approved by the Committee of Arab Local Authorities in Israel - entitled: "The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel and their Relations with the State" - opened with the statement: "Israel is the outcome of a colonialist action which was initiated by the Jewish-Zionist elites in Europe and in the West."

To call Israel a colonialist state means a total denial of Jewish history, and echoes the Islamic approach to Jewish history. According to this approach, since Islam came to the world in the year 622 CE with the hijra of Mohammed from Mecca to Medina, all of history before that time lost any meaning or significance.

The End of the Bush Administration - A Victory for Allah

Some in the Arab world were very satisfied with the American election because to them it meant the end of the Bush administration. Many in the Arab world felt deep humiliation due to George W. Bush, above all else. The Islamic view of the world is that Islam came to the world to replace Judaism and Christianity, not to live side-by-side with them. Then, all of a sudden, comes a religious Christian president and occupies Iraq, the beating heart of Arab history, the capital of the Abbasid dynasty, which for 500 years ruled the Islamic empire. After a few days of fighting in Baghdad, this city came under American infidel rule.

Bush said right after September 11, 2001, that the Americans were on a "crusade." Immediately, his advisors told him not to use that word because it reminds Muslims of the Crusader Kingdom of 800 years ago, which the hero Saladin wiped out. But his statement was recorded and Al-Jazeera kept showing it. Muslims look at this from a religious point of view and many see what is going on in the region as some kind of test of whose god is more powerful: Allah or the Christian God. This is how too many people in the Middle East are viewing this now. So when Bush left office, this was viewed as some kind of victory for Allah.

One of the major differences between the Middle East and Western societies is the role of religion. We were brought up on the notion of a division between church and state, that the state is for everybody and religion is within your heart. This may be correct in the West, but it is not correct in the Arab world. In the Middle East, almost everything is connected to religion.

The Arab Minorities in Israel

Inside Israel, there are a number of different Arab minorities. There are Muslims, Druze, and Christians, from the religious point of view. There are Bedouins who live in the desert, which is one culture; rural peasants, which is another culture; and those who dwell in cities, either in Arab cities or in mixed cities, which is yet another kind of culture. So you cannot look at the Arab minorities in Israel as one package. You have to relate to them in different ways because they are different and they don't consider themselves as one group of people.

You can see this in the percentage of those who vote. The percentage of Arabs who vote for Arab parties in the Knesset is only 50 percent. The Arab sector in Israel altogether is about 20 percent of the population, which means in theory that Arab parties could have 24 members, or a fifth of the 120 Knesset members. However, the actual number of Arab Knesset members is around 10, and has been like this for years. Many Arabs do not even vote; they do not see the Knesset as a body that can represent them. In addition, the radical part of the Islamic movement is constantly calling on their people not to vote for the Knesset because that gives some kind of seal of approval to the Israeli state, which has no legitimacy to exist in their eyes.

The Acre Riots of October 2008: Why Didn't They Spread?

In the mixed city of Acre in October 2008, a car driven by an Arab went into a Jewish neighborhood on the night of Yom Kippur. This triggered five days of violence, demonstrations, breaking into shops, and burning apartments and houses.

At the time of the riots, Islamic Jihad and Hamas called on the Arabs in Israel to do the same thing in all the other mixed cities like Jaffa, Ramla and Lod. They tried to inflame the whole situation, but it didn't work. The calls to spread the riots to other places in Israel were not answered. Why didn't the riots spread to other cities? Because at the end of the day, both Jews and Arabs realize that coexistence is better than fighting.

To Whom Does the Country Belong?

In Jaffa, right next to Tel Aviv, there are processes that the Arabs don't like. Property is being taken by the state and given to contractors who are building new luxury housing near the sea, mainly for Jews, and this creates much resentment among the Arabs living there. This illustrates the key, bottom line question: To whom does this country belong? Every other question is derived from this.

According to the Arab narrative, this has been an Arab Islamic state since the days of Omar, the caliph who conquered the country in the second quarter of the seventh century. According to Islamic oral tradition, he declared that the country between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River was waqf land, meaning it belonged to Muslims all over the world, and no one else could ever have it. So how could the Jews come in the nineteenth or twentieth centuries and buy land there and establish an independent Jewish state, one that has no legitimacy to exist on Islamic soil? It was just like Spain, Sicily, and parts of the Balkans, which at different stages of history were lands of Islam. According to Islam, land can only go one way, to become Islamic, and it can never go the other way.

The wings of the Muslim Brotherhood believe that the Israeli state or the Jewish state has no right to exist to begin with. This is why Hamas and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood cannot even begin to consider recognizing the right of Israel to exist. A temporary peace of ten or twenty years can be given to infidels when Muslims are not powerful enough to conquer their lands, until Allah gives the Muslims the ability to do so.

The Muslim Brotherhood looks at the Jewish state in Israel as if the Jews occupied the country and removed it from the bosom of Islam in which it existed until 1948. When you ask to whom the country belongs, this is the basis of the Islamic perspective.

At the same time, Jews feel that this country belongs to them. From the Jewish perspective, this country was populated by Jews and two Jewish kingdoms were here until 1900 years ago. We Jews were expelled with no justification and we came back to our country. This is what gives justification to the Jews having our state here and not in Uganda or Argentina or Birobijan. It even appears in the Koran that this country had been given to the Jews.

We say today that the two narratives are fighting. The Islamic narrative says that this country is Islamic, and the Jewish narrative states that this country in its entirety belongs to the Jews. However, while we want to keep the Jewish nature of our state, most of us are not willing to kick out the Arabs who live here.

The struggle of narratives is a problem that we all have to live with. There are problems in life which cannot be solved, and the contradiction between those two narratives cannot be solved.

The Future Vision of Palestinian Arabs in Israel

In 2006 a group of forty modern Arab intellectuals, politicians, and university lecturers published a very interesting document in both Hebrew and Arabic. The document, which was approved by the Committee of Arab Local Authorities in Israel - the most significant organ of Arabs in Israel - was entitled: "The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel and their Relations with the State."

Its opening statement reads: "Israel is the outcome of a colonialist action which was initiated by the Jewish-Zionist elites in Europe and in the West, was established with the help of colonialist states, Britain and France, and was strengthened by the influx of Jews into Palestine, especially in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust." At least they recognize the fact that there was a Holocaust. In many other places Arab deny even that.

In addition, Sheikh Ibrahim Sarsour, chairman of the United Arab List, the largest Arab party in the Feb. 10, 2009, elections for the Israeli Knesset, said in a speech: "Participating in the elections to the Knesset does not abolish our ideology according to which the rule on earth, or at least on Arab and Islamic land, should be Islamic and headed by the Caliph."1 The party won 113,954 votes and 4 seats.

In the Muslim Narrative, History Only Begins in 622 CE

To call Israel a colonialist state is to undermine Israel's legitimacy as the state of the Jewish people who see themselves as the owners of this country. It means a total denial of Jewish history, and echoes the Islamic approach to Jewish history. According to this approach, since Islam came to the world in the year 622 CE with the hijra of Mohammed from Mecca to Medina, all of history before that time lost any meaning or significance. Even the prophets - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, Jesus - all became Muslims, according to the Islamic narrative. So since Islam denies what happened before Islam, they can say that Israel is an outcome of a colonialist action because the fact that Jews were here 1900 years ago, before Islam, has no meaning anymore since that was before Islam came into the world.

This leads us back to the way Islam as a religion looks at the State of Israel and its existence in this waqf land. The document of the Arabs in Israel, which we mentioned before, is replete with expressions of how Israel is an illegitimate entity and how the Arabs are the natives. This is the way they look at the state where they live.

What other states have to contend with the fact that a significant minority is challenging the very legitimacy of the state? Even Arabs and Muslims in Britain or France are not yet challenging the legitimacy of those states, but here, in Israel, they feel free to do it.


Are the Palestinians Really the Natives?

But are the Palestinians really the natives? Many Palestinians, even in Israel, bear names like al-Masri (referring to Egypt) or al-Iraqi or al-Tarabulsi (referring to Tripoli in northern Lebanon). The minister of refugees in the Palestinian Authority was Abdallah al-Horani, meaning that either he or his parents came from al-Horan in southern Syria. They are not originally from this place. They immigrated here and their family names reflect the name of the place they came from. Since when are they Palestinians?

What about the Palestinians who live today in Lebanon and the West Bank and are still in refugees camps sixty years after 1948? Where else in the world do you see refugee camps for sixty years? But where do they have the right to return to, those who came from Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria? To Haifa, where they worked for a few years for the British who brought them from Syria to work in the harbor, or to Syria and the other Arab countries where they originally came from? The world has bought this slogan of Palestinian refugees without checking where they came from originally.


The Only Arabs Who Live in a Democracy Live in Israel

Most Arabs today live either in Arab dictatorships or in democracies but in exile. No Arab state is a real democracy. The only significant group of Arabs who live in a democracy are the Arabs in Israel. Yet I would say the vast majority do not want to turn this state into an Arab state. Very few of them want to live in an Arab state. Everyone in Israel is free to emigrate, but there are no Arabs lining up to emigrate to other countries. They know exactly what the situation is because they see what goes on everywhere in the Arab world on Al-Jazeera, day and night: In Egypt, half of the population lives in unplanned neighborhoods with no running water, electricity, sewage, infrastructure, paved roads, or health care. Hardly anyone in the Arab sector in Israel lives in such conditions, except for some of the Bedouin in the Negev who willingly choose the culture of the desert.

The Arab sector in Israel does not want to change where they live into an Arab state. Maybe some in the Islamic movement would like to have an Islamic state here just like they want to have an Islamic state everywhere, to kick out the Arab regimes and establish a caliphate instead. But the majority of Arabs in Israel still prefer the current situation since, despite whatever discrimination they may experience, living in Israel is still far better than living in any Arab country in the Middle East.

The Arabs in Israel are much more clever than their brothers in the Palestinian Authority. The Muslims in Israel look at what happens in Gaza and do not envy those who live there. They don't envy the people of Iran under the regime of the ayatollahs either, where 95 percent of the Iranians are secular. And they don't want to live like the Shi'ites in Lebanon. Arab Israeli citizens are much wiser than that. They know exactly what the alternative is.

* * *

Note

1. See http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3216531,00.html and http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/ 0,7340,L-3217055,00.html. The issue of a caliphate is not mentioned in the party's formal platform.

* * *

Lt.-Col. (res.) Dr. Mordechai Kedar served in IDF Military Intelligence for 25 years, specializing in Arab political discourse, Arab mass media, Islamic groups, and the Syrian domestic arena. Dr. Kedar teaches in the Department of Arabic at Bar-Ilan University and is a research associate at the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies. This Jerusalem Issue Brief is based on his presentation at the Institute for Contemporary Affairs in Jerusalem on November 5, 2008.

This Jerusalem Issue Brief is available online at:
http://www.jcpa.org

JDL - THE JEWISH DEFENSE LEAGUE - 40 YEARS LATER

JDL - 40 years later

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212041488760&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Jun. 5, 2008
Libby Kahane ,
THE JERUSALEM POST

My husband Rabbi Meir Kahane founded the Jewish Defense League precisely 40 years ago in New York City. He did so in response to a rise in violent crimes committed by African Americans who were doubtlessly reacting to difficult socioeconomic conditions.

Nevertheless, crimes like purse snatching and muggings were an everyday event. Robberies increased 70 percent from 1967 to 1968, and assaults went up 25%. Like many New Yorkers, I never went out at night alone, and when I shopped I kept my cash in an inside pocket. New York City was typical of other American cities. In fact, in 1967 and 1968, blacks rioted in over 150 cities in the United States.

Black - and Puerto Rican - crime often had distinctly anti-Semitic overtones. In New York City, Jewish teachers were assaulted in the public schools, cemeteries were desecrated and synagogues defaced and firebombed. Jewish neighborhoods were hit the hardest because Jews and minorities often lived side-by-side and Jews had a reputation for not fighting back.

The JDL aimed to change the image of Jews from patsies to fighters. Meir often said, "To turn the other cheek is not in our Bible." So the JDL organized classes in judo, karate and riflery, and its members patrolled high-crime areas.

The media were intrigued by Jews who defied the Jewish stereotype. Newspapers, TV and radio carried reports about the JDL's training camp, and about its daring confrontations to protect Jewish teachers and shopkeepers. JDL chapters were formed in cities throughout America.The JDL also opposed preferential quotas in college admissions and employment. We maintained that quotas discriminated against Jews, whose hard-won advancement was based on merit.Meir challenged the quotas in the courts, and to publicize their unfairness, JDL members picketed the offices of the New York Mets baseball team. They carried signs demanding that the Mets hire enough Jews to make up 26.2% of their roster - the percentage of Jews in the city at the time.
WHILE MIDDLE and lower-class Jews appreciated JDL efforts to counter crime and discrimination, leaders of the Jewish establishment were only concerned with maintaining their respectable image. They called Meir a rabble-rouser and termed the JDL a vigilante group.

It hurt to hear my husband insulted, but I knew they were wrong. Regular police protection was inadequate, and American cities had become jungles. No one could deny the need for self-defense groups. Leaders of the Jewish establishment never had to walk alone at night in a rough neighborhood.

That establishment's oft-repeated criticism was that the JDL's violent means were "un-Jewish."

Meir refuted this: "...From the days that our father Abraham went to battle against the four kings in order to save his nephew Lot, to the moment that Moses smote an Egyptian rather than create a committee to study the root causes of Egyptian anti-Semitism; from the Maccabees... to the students of Rabbi Akiva who were sent from their studies to fight in Bar Kochba's army... Jewish leadership has taken an active and violent part in the struggle for freedom."

THE IDEALS that Meir taught JDL members were based on Torah. An important tenet was ahavat Yisrael, loving one's fellow Jews and helping them. Ahavat Yisrael motivated JDL patrols and confrontations, and it applied to any Jew in trouble, even one far away in the Soviet Union.

During the Cold War, there was no contact with Soviet Jews. Only in 1964 did information begin to leak out about their oppression. Circumcision was forbidden, and it was illegal to teach a Jewish child about his religion or to bake matzot for Pessah. No Soviet citizen was allowed to emigrate, so a Jew could not even practice his religion elsewhere. Official Soviet papers like Pravda fanned anti-Semitism by blaming the Jews for the Soviet Union's severe economic problems.

It was to solve their economic problems, and to buy American wheat at low prices, that the Soviets sought friendly relations with America. Meir saw the window of opportunity. He wrote:"...Wracked by economic problems, [the Soviet Union] desperately needs friendship with the United States... If we can challenge this era of good feeling... it is possible that the Soviets will consider it not worth the bother of persecuting their Jews...

"We must make headlines, and they are made only by audacious and dramatic activities. If need be, these activities cannot be confined to sweet respectability and legality... It is not a pleasant task... This is not a job for people who fear getting their hands soiled."
In 1964, when Meir wrote this, few were willing to "get their hands soiled." By 1970, however, JDL members were accustomed to disregard "respectability." They were ready to bring the plight of Soviet Jews to the attention of the American public.

They disrupted Soviet ballet performances with shouts of "Freedom for Jews" and "Let my people go." At a performance in Chicago, someone threw a tear gas bomb, forcing the audience of 3,500 to leave. In Philadelphia, mice were let loose in the auditorium. Jews held rowdy demonstrations, shouting "Two, four, six, eight, let our people emigrate!"

AFTER A demonstration that blocked a vital Manhattan intersection for 20 minutes, Meir was arrested. This was not his first arrest, and I had learned not to worry; he was usually out on bail in the morning. More important: an arrest brought media interest. That morning he told a nationwide NBC TV audience, "We lost 6 million Jews 25 years ago. We have no intention of losing three and a half million more to national genocide. There is not the slightest doubt that after 53 years, the Soviet-Jewish issue is now on page one."
Numerous dramatic JDL demonstrations did indeed put the issue on page one. They moved American public opinion to support basic freedoms for Soviet Jews, and this pressured the Soviet Union to release its Jews. Beginning in 1971, an average of 22,000 Jews emigrated each year.

In those years, "violent" JDL demonstrations for Soviet Jews were condemned by the establishment. Today, most people recognize the important role of the JDL. As Glenn Richter, director of the Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry, stated: "Rabbi Kahane propelled the issue of Soviet Jewry into the headlines in a way we, with our less confrontational demonstrations, could not."

Meir was right about self-defense and Soviet Jewry. Will it take another 40 years to realize that he was also right about much, much more?

The writer is the author of Rabbi Meir Kahane: His Life and Thought, Vol. I 1932-1975 www.urimpublications.com

mrslkahan@yahoo.com

DO THE MATH - THEY'VE GOT TO GO!!!

Have them go

Israeli rulers are racists. They agree to the Palestinian state because they don’t want Arabs from the territories to inundate Israel, dismantling its Jewish identity. The inevitability of the Arab demographic threat to Jewish state, however, is a scapegoat.
For one, Israel is not a state of Jews even now. Arabs already constitute 34% among her youngsters, and there are 19% of Slavs with ephemeral connection to Judaism. Other non-Jews constitute 6% of Israeli population. Additionally, there are huge swarms of Arab residents of Israel who won’t move voluntarily to the pauperized Palestinian state when it is created, and Israel lacks the political will to revoke their residence permits and expel them. Even after a Palestinian state is created, Jews would hardly constitute a third of the young Israeli population. Arab international family reunions would drive the percentage of Jews still lower. This cannot be emphasized enough: Jews are already a minority in Israel.

Israel is not a Jewish state. If, incredibly, the government would come up with some scheme of creating a Jewish majority in Israel: say, by purging birth records of Israeli Slavs, Israel would remain an un-Jewish state. A state which doesn’t honor Sabbath or other basic tenets of Jewish religion, which abandons the Temple Mount to Muslims, cannot be meaningfully called Jewish.

The Allies at Potsdam Conference explicitly sanctioned “orderly population transfers” of ethnic Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia after WWII for a total of about 12 million. The Treaty of Lausanne provided for Greeks and Turks expelling each other’s minorities a little earlier. The world did not care when Arab countries pushed out their Jews. The world accepted the Jews running out the Palestinians in 1948, and generally supports the Jews in refusing them back in. The world is sensible, and would tolerate expulsion of Arabs from Judea and Israel. The one thing the world hate, are calls for compassion, especially from TV screens. So whatever Israel does about the Arabs has to be done swiftly and irreversibly; no refugee camps.

The Arab problem is not really so big. Israeli government prevents the West Bank Arabs from emigrating. Instead, teach them useful employment, and they would move out. Young Palestinians, educated as doctors or engineers, will move to other Arab countries in search of a better pay. A simple measure of distributing free condoms would considerably reduce the Arab birth rate. Boycotting Arab labor in Israel would push able males to emigrate, and their families will later join them. At least, crack on the illegal labor market; forced to pay Israeli taxes, economically inefficient Arabs would emigrate. Reining in the theft-based Palestinian economy would cripple the Arab industries dependent on stealing electrical power, building materials, and other goods from Israel.

The number of Arabs in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza is grossly overstated. Mortality is officially almost non-existent in Palestinian communities: Arabs receive the UN and EU subsidies for their long-dead relatives. For the same reason, the reported infant mortality in refugee camps and Palestinian towns is unusually low, much lower than in the similar places in the Third World. There are many documented cases of fake births, when Palestinian women borrow babies from each other to register more children and receive more subsidies.
Many Arabs are counted twice: as Israeli Arab residents and inhabitants of the West Bank, sometimes thrice when a part of their family lives in Gaza. Arabs who moved from one West Bank town to another are often counted in both places. Illegal emigration from the West Bank and Gaza to Arab countries is not accounted for. Realistic estimates put the Arab population of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza at 1.5 to 2.5 million. Close to 60% in Judea and Samaria is virtually empty, settled by mere 1% of the total Arab population.

Basic enforcement of Israel’s laws on Arabs, such as making them pay taxes, serve in the army, and razing their massive illegal construction would make Israel unattractive to Arabs. Property buyouts at fair value would also induce some Arabs to leave Israel for cheaper neighboring countries. After Israel pushes some Palestinians out by economic policies, induces others to emigrate through compensations, the number left to be expelled won’t be huge.

Israel will be in existential danger regardless of the policies concerning her Arabs and the Palestinian state. A Jewish state among the sea of Muslims can never be safe, especially considering the Islamic prohibition of non-Muslim statehood in the Middle East.

In any major conflict, Palestinians will be a fifth column because they are normal people and would like to have back the land they consider theirs. There is no reason for Jews to refrain from expelling the Palestinian Arabs.

Orthodox Union Reaction to Annapolis Conference

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations Reacts to
Opening Statements at Annapolis Peace Conference

Nathan J. Diament - Nov 27, 2007
Orthodox Union


"The Re-Division of Jerusalem is neither ‘inevitable’ nor necessary."
"There is no Israeli Action equivalent with Palestinian terrorism."
In reaction to the opening session at the Annapolis Peace Conference, the following statement was issued by the leadership of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (aka: the “Orthodox Union”) the largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization in the United States, in reaction to the statements made by Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian President Abbas, as well as the Joint Understanding of the two leaders announced by President Bush:

Amid the commendable efforts by President Bush and Secretary Rice to settle the Israeli-Arab conflict, we are deeply concerned that this latest effort has been launched with a focus more on speed than substance. The Palestinian leadership appears more committed to regaining control of Jerusalem than on restraining terrorists in both the West Bank and Gaza.

We are also concerned that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert did not explicitly resist Palestinian President Abbas’ claim to a piece of Jerusalem. In fact, Mr. Olmert indicated in his address that “the reality created in 1967 will change greatly” and that such a process “is inevitable.” We disagree – the re-division of Jerusalem is not inevitable, nor is it necessary.

In addition, we are deeply troubled that the “Joint Understanding” issued by the Israeli and Palestinian leaders refers to a mutual commitment to “confront terrorism...whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis.” There has been no Israeli action against Palestinians that can possibly be equated with the suicide bombings, roadside shootings, or rocket attacks that have been inflicted on thousands of Israelis in the past several years. The onus for restraining terror is squarely on the Palestinians – and they have so far failed miserably to do so.

For further commentary and news about the views and advocacy by the Orthodox Union on Annapolis Conference related issues, please visit www.oujerusalem.org





3965 W. 83rd. Street #292 Shawnee Mission, KS 66208 I Phone: 913.648.0022 I Fax: 913.648.7997
This site is designed for standards compliant browsers. If your browser is not standards compliant, download one here.
Website copyright © 2006. Unity Coalition for Israel.

The Reaction Policy

By Rabbi Brad Rosen, B'nai Elim

Recently in the news we witnessed 69 soldiers attacked and wounded in yet another Kassam Rocket attack on Jewish land from Gaza. Ehud Olmert has a personal policy known as the Reaction Policy. Its not that we can ever go on the offense and reconquer Gaza or go in for massive incursions both air, water and ground, and its certainly not that we can ever wipe away the terror organizations in Gaza and Judea and Samaria for once and for all. There’s also a policy that the Government wants to prevent Jews from living on their own land in Hebron and the liberated territories. Olmert only decides to slightly react to any attack on Sderot or the Negev.

What have we come to? Oh, how we continue to retreat in the face of defeat. Unfortunately, Ehud Olmert is in power and unfortunately he stays in power and this is the trajedy. We let a leader like this make peace deals with our worst enemies , which hardly gives any peace to Israel and most certainly give the Palestinians a piece of our land, a piece of our security government, guns and soon that piece won’t be called Israel anymore, it will have another name Palestine.

The only way we can surely provide a safe haven for all time is if we promote and finalize the removal of the Arabs of Eretz Yisrael. This can surely be done in one simple step as we can compensate each Arab family one year’s worth of salary for every member over 18 years of age. The salary would be commensurate with the country of choice’s economy for their trade. Now, of course Israel will have to pay each country a particuliar wage for incurring new Arab immigrants. This will be a costly endeavor, yet it will be peaceful and it will be monitored by the Police and Army so nothing will go out of hand. There will be busses set up and airplanes if we choose to use them.

This certainly is not a new idea and I do not take credit for coming up with it. If we want to protect the only land we have, the one Jewish land amongst 22 countries we must do as the Torah tells us and throw our enemy forever out of our land. And just as the Tochacha says then we can have the land forever and it will be good and we can build it Bezrat Hashem for the true final part of the final redemption with the bringing of Moshiach and the building of the Beis Hamikdash. CONTINUED