START NUSHDADDY'S POST
--------------------------------------------
Somewhat like Tim Curry in Rocky Horror Show, when I opened my Jerusalem Post this morning, I was trembling with anticip-ation. The question that had been uppermost in my mind for the last week was about to be answered ... Would Caroline Glick make it three strikes in a row, so we could call for her to be expelled from the game?Unfortunately, it wasn't a strike, more like a foul ball, so she'll live to fight another day.
What was it that I was waiting for? Two weeks ago, she wrote in her Friday "Column One" a piece about the options facing Israel in the coming months. She talks of "the demographic threat that a Palestinian state would constitute to Israel " and then (correctly, IMHO) set out the basic options as a choice between three diverse courses. "...the choice is among a democratic Jewish Israel, a theocratic, racist Israel or a non-Jewish democracy." On the basis of these three choices, she then sets out why she thinks everything the current government is doing is wrong. She also gives us the reasons why she rejects the third option (a single state) when she says "The demographic argument, therefore, is not about numbers but about intentions." Since Sharon's policies are clearly leading to option one (separation into two states and Israel retaining its Jewish nature), we have to assume that she is opting for choice number two (status quo ante), and a great deal of my anticipation was coming from seeing how she would justify it.
However, much to all of our surprise (I don't think), the following week's column took her own demographic argument used in rejecting option three, and simply threw it out. The demographics are all a lie, she says. Instead of there being roughly 3.2 million Palestinians, some have been "double counted" into the Israeli Arab count, so the number is about 10% less. All of this means, in her view, that Israel has nothing to fear from the explosion in the Arab population over the past 50+ years.
OK, you may say. So what's the big deal. Let's get her reasons for opting for choice 2. But sadly she's skipped that one and this week goes of on a completely irrelevant tangent. Could it be that option two, racist Israel (dare I say apartheid state) is probably the most untenable, even repulsive, contemplation that even an adept dodger of reality like Glick couldn't bear to try and justify. So what we are left with is Caroline Glick - the eternal nagging mother-in-law. She's always ready to tell you what you're doing wrong. But you'll never hear from her a word about what you could do right. Heaven forbid that she would ever be constructive in this way - it's not in the nature of harridans like her to build something up, always criticize, criticize, criticize!
Just to return for a moment to the demographics argument that she (John Kerry where are you?) has first voted for, now voted against. There are now two major issues in this respect. Firstly, the study that produced the reduced Palestinian statistics has been presented by politically motivated individuals who have a particular drum to beat. It has never been subjected to normal scientific study or peer review. To build a national policy on such figures would be ludicrous, if not criminally negligent. Secondly, this study, and all the others that try to view the statistics optimistically (from a Jewish standpoint) are missing a vital element. The general conclusion reached is that Jewish and Arab populations have grown more-or-less in step. Israel started off with about 80/20 split between Jews and Arab, and that has stayed pretty much constant over the life of the state. Similarly, the overall ratio of Jews to Arabs in "greater Palestine" has been constant since 1948.
The conclusion drawn from this "stability" is the Israel doesn't face a major threat of being swamped by non-Jews anytime in the foreseeable future, so the question of demographics can be excluded from any decision on the direction to be taken. This "stability" however, is a total myth. Israel started off with a tiny Jewish population ,and over the decades has receive major infusions of new migrants in order to reach the numbers we see today. First came the refugees from Europe, then the Jews expelled by the Arab countries after foundation of the State. Next came the vast numbers from the crumbling Soviet Union. Without these, if Israel had been Jewish by natural growth alone, we would be outnumbered by two or three to one. Yet on the other side, Arab population growth both inside Israel and in the "refugee camps" has been entirely natural. The birth rate is completely out of balance, and there's no reason to suppose that is going to change soon.
So, my question to Ms Glick (if she's capable of hearing anything over the noise of her own voice) is .. What's your choice out of your threee options? Two states, apartheid Israel, or Arab Israel? Keep it simple. Don't tell us what's wrong with them, tell us which one you choose and why
--------------------------------------
END NUSHDADDY'S POST
--------------------------------------
END NUSHDADDY'S POST
