When it comes to Arabs, ?transfer? is an ugly word. When it comes to Jews, it is barely important news.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ? entrusted with being leaders and protectors of the citizens of Israel ? are abandoning G-d?s covenant with the Children of Israel for their Holy Land, sometimes called ?Promised Land?, by transferring Jewish citizens and residents of the ancient biblical and modern Israel.
But G-d forbid anyone ?transfer? the Arab ?settlers?, most of whom came to Jewish ?Palestine? (today called ?Israel?) from their native lands of Egypt, Jordan and Syria during the 1920?s for economic reasons.
Under a recent plan to ?relocate? and ?uproot? so-called ?settlers? of the Jewish religion, Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, former mayor of the holiest Jewish city, Jerusalem, has announced and decided that ?tens of thousands of settlers may be relocated.?
First Migron [since replaced by Ginot Aryeh as the populated community due for removal - ed.]. What?s next on the agenda? Hebron?
?Tens of thousands of settlers might have to move if Israel implements plans to separate itself from the Palestinians,? according to Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. What Olmert forgets to mention is that the so-called ?Palestinians? (actually ?Arabs?) already have a home created by the Palestine Mandate ? Transjordan, or what today is called Jordan. Everyone, especially our Israeli leaders, seems to have forgotten the historical homeland for the Arab ?Palestinians? and their ?right of return? to their legal and natural homeland.
Why? Is it more convenient and expedient to transfer Jews from their G-d-given ?Promised Land? than to ?transfer? Arabs to theirs? This is a terrible tragedy.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon presented his plans for unilateral steps, during a speech at the Herzliya Conference. The un-Solomon like initiative ? which would be implemented if the so-called ?Palestinians? (actually ?Arabs?) fail to keep to the ?Road Map? to Middle East peace ? is based on moves by the government to allegedly reduce Arab ?Palestinian? economic dependence on Israel and to strengthen economic ties between the territories and the neighboring Arab states of Jordan and Egypt.
But Olmert wisely warned that any relocation of settlements ? home to some 220,000 Israelis ? would lead to a serious confrontation with so-called ?settlers? and their supporters: ?I have no doubt there will be a very painful, difficult, heartbreaking process and a confrontation of unknown proportion in the life of this country.?
One can only recall too vividly the painful experience of ?uprooting? so-called ?settlers? after signing a ?Land for Peace? agreement with Egypt.
?It?s a serious crisis,? Olmert said, ?There?s no doubt about it. I expect it to be very emotional and very confrontational.?
The proposal also includes a plan to relocate isolated settlements and dismantle uninhabited outposts, as well as to speed up construction of the security fence, making it part of a makeshift border with the Arab ?Palestinians?.
?It is certainly a lot more than in the thousands. It?s probably in the tens of thousands,? Olmert, who also holds the communications and industry and trade portfolios, told a news conference in Jerusalem.
Why call it ?transfer? when it refers to Arabs and ?disengagement? or ?relocate? or uproot? when it comes to Jews? Why not be honest and call it what it truly is? Transfer. An ugly word.
Why should it be questionable to ?transfer? Arabs to their legal, natural homeland, but not to transfer Jews from their ancient, biblical and modern homeland?
If the two peoples can not co-exist living peacefully side-by-side, then one people must go. That is the only logistical, practical and reasonable solution to the current Arab-Israeli (not Israeli-Palestinian, as so popularly politicized) conflict.
The Children of Israel shall never ever be ?disengaged? nor ?uprooted? from their ancient, biblical and modern Holy Land ? including Jerusalem, Hebron, Bethlehem, Efrat, Shechem (wrongly called ?Nablus? today), and Shiloh. If we part first with Migron, the Arabs will never ever be satisfied until they get it all ? including two of the holiest Jewish cities, Jerusalem and Hebron.
There are those proponents in favor of ?transfer? of the Arabs - so-called ?Palestinians? - to their ancestral homeland, Trans-Jordan, today called Jordan, as well as neighboring Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. The Arab ?Palestinians? deserve a true ?right of return? into the Arab portion of the Palestine Mandate. The proposal is not only a legal one, it is also a practical and realistic one.
Who will be the victims of the ugly word ?transfer?? Arabs or Jews?
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ? entrusted with being leaders and protectors of the citizens of Israel ? are abandoning G-d?s covenant with the Children of Israel for their Holy Land, sometimes called ?Promised Land?, by transferring Jewish citizens and residents of the ancient biblical and modern Israel.
But G-d forbid anyone ?transfer? the Arab ?settlers?, most of whom came to Jewish ?Palestine? (today called ?Israel?) from their native lands of Egypt, Jordan and Syria during the 1920?s for economic reasons.
Under a recent plan to ?relocate? and ?uproot? so-called ?settlers? of the Jewish religion, Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, former mayor of the holiest Jewish city, Jerusalem, has announced and decided that ?tens of thousands of settlers may be relocated.?
First Migron [since replaced by Ginot Aryeh as the populated community due for removal - ed.]. What?s next on the agenda? Hebron?
?Tens of thousands of settlers might have to move if Israel implements plans to separate itself from the Palestinians,? according to Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. What Olmert forgets to mention is that the so-called ?Palestinians? (actually ?Arabs?) already have a home created by the Palestine Mandate ? Transjordan, or what today is called Jordan. Everyone, especially our Israeli leaders, seems to have forgotten the historical homeland for the Arab ?Palestinians? and their ?right of return? to their legal and natural homeland.
Why? Is it more convenient and expedient to transfer Jews from their G-d-given ?Promised Land? than to ?transfer? Arabs to theirs? This is a terrible tragedy.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon presented his plans for unilateral steps, during a speech at the Herzliya Conference. The un-Solomon like initiative ? which would be implemented if the so-called ?Palestinians? (actually ?Arabs?) fail to keep to the ?Road Map? to Middle East peace ? is based on moves by the government to allegedly reduce Arab ?Palestinian? economic dependence on Israel and to strengthen economic ties between the territories and the neighboring Arab states of Jordan and Egypt.
But Olmert wisely warned that any relocation of settlements ? home to some 220,000 Israelis ? would lead to a serious confrontation with so-called ?settlers? and their supporters: ?I have no doubt there will be a very painful, difficult, heartbreaking process and a confrontation of unknown proportion in the life of this country.?
One can only recall too vividly the painful experience of ?uprooting? so-called ?settlers? after signing a ?Land for Peace? agreement with Egypt.
?It?s a serious crisis,? Olmert said, ?There?s no doubt about it. I expect it to be very emotional and very confrontational.?
The proposal also includes a plan to relocate isolated settlements and dismantle uninhabited outposts, as well as to speed up construction of the security fence, making it part of a makeshift border with the Arab ?Palestinians?.
?It is certainly a lot more than in the thousands. It?s probably in the tens of thousands,? Olmert, who also holds the communications and industry and trade portfolios, told a news conference in Jerusalem.
Why call it ?transfer? when it refers to Arabs and ?disengagement? or ?relocate? or uproot? when it comes to Jews? Why not be honest and call it what it truly is? Transfer. An ugly word.
Why should it be questionable to ?transfer? Arabs to their legal, natural homeland, but not to transfer Jews from their ancient, biblical and modern homeland?
If the two peoples can not co-exist living peacefully side-by-side, then one people must go. That is the only logistical, practical and reasonable solution to the current Arab-Israeli (not Israeli-Palestinian, as so popularly politicized) conflict.
The Children of Israel shall never ever be ?disengaged? nor ?uprooted? from their ancient, biblical and modern Holy Land ? including Jerusalem, Hebron, Bethlehem, Efrat, Shechem (wrongly called ?Nablus? today), and Shiloh. If we part first with Migron, the Arabs will never ever be satisfied until they get it all ? including two of the holiest Jewish cities, Jerusalem and Hebron.
There are those proponents in favor of ?transfer? of the Arabs - so-called ?Palestinians? - to their ancestral homeland, Trans-Jordan, today called Jordan, as well as neighboring Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. The Arab ?Palestinians? deserve a true ?right of return? into the Arab portion of the Palestine Mandate. The proposal is not only a legal one, it is also a practical and realistic one.
Who will be the victims of the ugly word ?transfer?? Arabs or Jews?