Into the Fray:Preserving the Jewish state – Post-Paris imperatives?

Check Also

From Israel: “Give No Quarter!!”

The world is in horrendous shape.  And yet, yet the focus is on us, here …


  1. Essentially, this article makes the point that the least-bad solution
    will become a variant of an apartheid concept, i.e., not everyone
    gets to vote. That doesn’t mean the restriction of other rights.
    It’s not good, I agree with the left on that one. I don’t like going
    there. But if the situation becomes dire, one has to look at all
    possible options and it’s better than (i) constant threat of
    annihilation or (ii) losing control of the state. Essentially, it
    gets down to the idea that it’s probably survivable for longer than
    (i) or (ii), as unpalatable as it is. The problem is, it’s likely not
    survivable long-term. But it may be survivable long enough for the
    surrounding situation to change enough to lead to long-term survival
    of the Jewish/Israeli people.

    The question is, how to make it as palatable as possible. My take on
    this would be Palestinian self-rule areas, with local democracy under
    “supervision”. Something in practice similar to British Dependent
    Territories or Puerto Rico.

    Oh, wait, that’s pretty much the situation now! Meaning that in
    reality, the best of many bad options right now is to kick the can
    down the road.

    It may, for example, be possible to do something like conditioning
    the right to vote for the national government upon service in the
    army, causing most Palestinians to *self*-select OUT of this, while
    keeping rights to vote for regional government. Likewise, the
    Rhodesians didn’t formally forbid blacks from voting: they just had
    educational requirements that meant that in practice, most could only
    vote for a few members of Parliament. Looking closer to Israel,
    Lebanon has/had a parliamentary split along religious lines that is
    somewhat of an analogous idea.

    Let it be clear that I don’t like any of these types of ideas. I just
    like the idea of having Tel Aviv within shelling range even less, and
    the idea of not having a significant Jewish majority even less than

    Many things may happen down the road:

    1) Radical Islam may die down, possibly as the result of a
    confrontation with what is left of Western civilisation. If
    Arab-Muslim society became “normal” then either a two-state or
    possibly a one-state solution wouldn’t be problematic in itself.

    2) The situation in parts of Europe may become worse than it is in
    Israel, and they will likely implement some form of territorial
    division or Apartheid in the end. We’d be talking about a world
    environment where currently unacceptable solutions would become

    3) The examples of Apartheid and the (much kinder, not formally
    racist in theory for much of its duration) regime in Rhodesia show
    that it actually *is* possible to maintain control with 5-10% of
    the population in the ruling group, unless heavily pressured from
    outside. In the Israeli scenario, we’re talking in the range of 50%,
    at worst. That means that it’s totally controllable militarily.

    I don’t think that the numbers of people that will leave either from
    the Palestinian or Israeli areas will be significant enough to
    seriously affect the demographic balance. A form of Apartheid, most
    ideally by self-selection, may thus end up being the *least*-bad and
    hopefully temporary solution, sadly. I really think that if it’s
    largely based on *self*-selection, it wouldn’t be anywhere near as
    morally reprehensible.

    An even less morally reprehensible scenario to conditioning the right
    to vote upon service in the army would be to allow a SECOND vote for
    anyone who has served.

    But really, kicking the can down the road is a much better option at
    this point.

    As an aside, look at it this way: aren’t the ultra-left right that
    borders are a form of Apartheid?