Why did Prime Minister Ariel Sharon adopt the position of his political opponents, calling for unilateral withdrawal, disengagement and a Palestinian state? Many believe he was persuaded by the "demographic" argument: the Arab population is increasing rapidly; sooner or later they will outnumber the Jews. It's a 'time-bomb' that can and must be defused.
According to that argument, in order to preserve both the democratic and Zionist-Jewish character of the State of Israel and retain a large majority of Jews, Israel should give up Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha), and even some Israeli Arab towns as well, create a Palestinian state, and divest itself (as much as possible) of and separate from Arab populations. If Israel keeps the West Bank and Gaza under its control, it will have to choose between two painful options: either losing its Jewish character or ceasing to be a democratic state.
Proponents of this theory hope that eventually the Arabs will accept Israel's presence, albeit temporarily, even though terrorism and incitement will no doubt continue. Israel will have relative safety and security, they presume, behind a protective fence, with a Jewish majority under Israeli sovereignty and a 'consensus' that will unify the country in common purpose.
The demographic argument, however, is based only on a prediction; there is (of course) no way of knowing what really will happen. Moreover, withdrawal from Yesha does not deal with the "demographic threat" from Israeli Arab and Bedouin populations in the Galilee and Negev. As a basis for the policy decision that will result in a terrorist-based Palestinian state, therefore, it is weak and ultimately self-destructive.
What makes this argument so pernicious is its fundamental fallacy: it ignores Israel's vulnerability. Surrounded by hostile countries and under constant threat from Palestinian terrorists, Israel's withdrawal from Yesha means the loss of a valuable strategic asset - the ability to preempt terrorist attacks and control access to their resources.
Withdrawal from Yesha may preserve Israel's Jewish/Zionist majority and its democratic system for a while longer, but it places Israel at greater risk from Palestinian terrorism. That is national suicide.
A more appropriate question might be: should Palestinian terrorists be given a state? Do they deserve one?
Those who argue that it is immoral to occupy another people and suppress their national aspirations fail to understand that while this form of liberal egalitarianism sounds nice in principle, in the context of terrorism it is lethal.
If a distinct group of people seek a separate national and political identity, and are ready and willing to live in peace, to accept the responsibilities and obligations that attend statehood, then that is legitimate. Terrorism, however, precludes that option.
If "occupation" prevents Palestinian terrorists from achieving statehood and ensures Israel's survival, then occupation is a necessity, regardless of its moral implications. The primary obligation of a state is to protect its citizens. Furthermore, Israeli democracy and its Jewish/Zionist character can be preserved only by insisting that its citizens and residents abandon violence, accept Israel's legitimacy and commit themselves to live in peace.
Advocates of unilateral withdrawal admit that there won't be peace, but "conflict management" (an acceptance of something less than an all-out attack on Israel). They envision that Arabs on the other side of a separation barrier will no longer be able to work or study in Israel and will then emigrate.
What will happen when millions of Arabs from the "refugee camps" in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan flood "the West Bank"? Think about the explosive potential of those demographics. And what about the ecological disaster that will ensue? When Palestinian terrorism explodes on an even larger scale, this time aided by more deadly weapons and troops from foreign countries and other terrorists (like Hizbullah), how will Israel be in a better position to respond?
There are also internal Israeli issues in dealing with the dramatic leap in its Arab population, such as the inane policy of supporting Bedouin families with multiple wives and many children - in violation of Israeli law - and (in the last decade alone) allowing more than 240,000 Palestinians to enter Israel via legal and illegal marriages and "family reunification". In addition, hundreds of thousands of "Palestinians" have moved to "East Jerusalem" (areas which Israel annexed to Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War).
If the demographic argument were applied to the Galilee, where more than half the population is Arab ("Palestinian") and volatile Arab towns increasingly support terrorism, and to parts of the Negev that are exclusively Bedouin, would Israel abandon these areas as well? Recently, Knesset Member Ehud Olmert suggested that East Jerusalem (which includes the Old City, Mount of Olives and the Temple Mount), with its predominant Arab population, become part of the Palestinian entity. Where does the nonsense stop?
Unilateral withdrawal and the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank may postpone, but won't solve, Israel's 'demographic problem'. It will not solve the Palestinian problem, since there will be no "justice for Palestinians" until Israel itself is destroyed and all the "refugees" returned; only then will the perpetual 'victims of Israeli aggression' be vindicated.
Advocating Israel's unilateral retreat from Yesha to solve a demographic problem is like cutting out one's intestines so that a tapeworm will have less to eat.
The "demographic" argument is but a thinly veiled policy of defeat, forced "transfer" of Jews (only) from their homes and the creation of a terror-based Palestinian state. Supporters of this policy have yet to show how this is in Israel's strategic interest.
According to that argument, in order to preserve both the democratic and Zionist-Jewish character of the State of Israel and retain a large majority of Jews, Israel should give up Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha), and even some Israeli Arab towns as well, create a Palestinian state, and divest itself (as much as possible) of and separate from Arab populations. If Israel keeps the West Bank and Gaza under its control, it will have to choose between two painful options: either losing its Jewish character or ceasing to be a democratic state.
Proponents of this theory hope that eventually the Arabs will accept Israel's presence, albeit temporarily, even though terrorism and incitement will no doubt continue. Israel will have relative safety and security, they presume, behind a protective fence, with a Jewish majority under Israeli sovereignty and a 'consensus' that will unify the country in common purpose.
The demographic argument, however, is based only on a prediction; there is (of course) no way of knowing what really will happen. Moreover, withdrawal from Yesha does not deal with the "demographic threat" from Israeli Arab and Bedouin populations in the Galilee and Negev. As a basis for the policy decision that will result in a terrorist-based Palestinian state, therefore, it is weak and ultimately self-destructive.
What makes this argument so pernicious is its fundamental fallacy: it ignores Israel's vulnerability. Surrounded by hostile countries and under constant threat from Palestinian terrorists, Israel's withdrawal from Yesha means the loss of a valuable strategic asset - the ability to preempt terrorist attacks and control access to their resources.
Withdrawal from Yesha may preserve Israel's Jewish/Zionist majority and its democratic system for a while longer, but it places Israel at greater risk from Palestinian terrorism. That is national suicide.
A more appropriate question might be: should Palestinian terrorists be given a state? Do they deserve one?
Those who argue that it is immoral to occupy another people and suppress their national aspirations fail to understand that while this form of liberal egalitarianism sounds nice in principle, in the context of terrorism it is lethal.
If a distinct group of people seek a separate national and political identity, and are ready and willing to live in peace, to accept the responsibilities and obligations that attend statehood, then that is legitimate. Terrorism, however, precludes that option.
If "occupation" prevents Palestinian terrorists from achieving statehood and ensures Israel's survival, then occupation is a necessity, regardless of its moral implications. The primary obligation of a state is to protect its citizens. Furthermore, Israeli democracy and its Jewish/Zionist character can be preserved only by insisting that its citizens and residents abandon violence, accept Israel's legitimacy and commit themselves to live in peace.
Advocates of unilateral withdrawal admit that there won't be peace, but "conflict management" (an acceptance of something less than an all-out attack on Israel). They envision that Arabs on the other side of a separation barrier will no longer be able to work or study in Israel and will then emigrate.
What will happen when millions of Arabs from the "refugee camps" in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan flood "the West Bank"? Think about the explosive potential of those demographics. And what about the ecological disaster that will ensue? When Palestinian terrorism explodes on an even larger scale, this time aided by more deadly weapons and troops from foreign countries and other terrorists (like Hizbullah), how will Israel be in a better position to respond?
There are also internal Israeli issues in dealing with the dramatic leap in its Arab population, such as the inane policy of supporting Bedouin families with multiple wives and many children - in violation of Israeli law - and (in the last decade alone) allowing more than 240,000 Palestinians to enter Israel via legal and illegal marriages and "family reunification". In addition, hundreds of thousands of "Palestinians" have moved to "East Jerusalem" (areas which Israel annexed to Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War).
If the demographic argument were applied to the Galilee, where more than half the population is Arab ("Palestinian") and volatile Arab towns increasingly support terrorism, and to parts of the Negev that are exclusively Bedouin, would Israel abandon these areas as well? Recently, Knesset Member Ehud Olmert suggested that East Jerusalem (which includes the Old City, Mount of Olives and the Temple Mount), with its predominant Arab population, become part of the Palestinian entity. Where does the nonsense stop?
Unilateral withdrawal and the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank may postpone, but won't solve, Israel's 'demographic problem'. It will not solve the Palestinian problem, since there will be no "justice for Palestinians" until Israel itself is destroyed and all the "refugees" returned; only then will the perpetual 'victims of Israeli aggression' be vindicated.
Advocating Israel's unilateral retreat from Yesha to solve a demographic problem is like cutting out one's intestines so that a tapeworm will have less to eat.
The "demographic" argument is but a thinly veiled policy of defeat, forced "transfer" of Jews (only) from their homes and the creation of a terror-based Palestinian state. Supporters of this policy have yet to show how this is in Israel's strategic interest.