Tidbits - Well Said

1. Martin Peretz has an excellent collection of post-disengagement musings online (free registration required).
2. Ben-Dror Yemini once again plays the part of the sane one (hebrew).
3. Meyrav Wurmser hits the nail on the head.

The End of the Beginning

It's over. The disengagement has been successfully carried out, with little violence, and without the civil war predicted by some, endorsed by others. The precedent has been set.

The question is: Now what? Where do we go from here? Will we follow Condoleesa Rice and the Europeans and make a bee-line for the green line? Will we try to hold on to something? Is there even the slightest chance that this will lead to a quiet modus vivendi (forget peace)? Perhaps more importantly, where are we going as a nation, if we can be called that? Will the post-Zionist train derail, or drive us off the cliff at full speed?

My Obiter Dicta has pointed out that the most pressing issue at the moment is the care for the thousands who have been evicted. It will take time to absorb them and help them fit in. But no-one has the right any longer to duck the pressing issues at hand. We are a badly divided society, with several forces, most on the far-left, and some on the right, trying to pull us into the abyss. The fundamental issues we took for granted - Jewish identity, our right to self-determination, have been called into question.

Moreover, we can no longer delude ourselves that we can hold the entire West Bank indefinitely. We can no longer indulge in fantasies that "it won't happen" or "millions of Jews will come" or "Jordan is Palestine". We must now cut our losses and save what we can. Most importantly, we must reconnect to Israeli society. The tendency to segregate ourselves in "religious only communities", both within and beyond the Green Line must stop. Now.

I am sure that many will disagree, even vehemently, with what I have stated here. But if the disengagement has proven anything, they can no longer afford to ignore it.

Yehi Ratzon She'Yichleh Charon Apo VeNizkeh Le'Geulah Bimhera Beyamenu. AIWAC

God, Not Again

There's been another Jewish terrorist attack on Arabs, this time by the driver of workers at an industrial site. No words exist which can contain the outrage and shame I feel at hearing this incident, the second of its kind within weeks. May his memory forever be erased, as should all those who defile the land with innocent blood, and who desecrate God and use his name in vain.

My condolences to the families of those killed.

Are We Next?

I suppose this is a good a time as any to reveal the fact that I live the Gush Etzion area. That's right, I am a settler, an evil war criminal who derives pleasure from beating and killing Palestinians and uprooting olive trees (If you believe this description, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you, real cheap). The reason I reveal this is because I believe that I should be expecting an eviction notice soon as well.

With the disengagement going into full swing, I can not shake the feeling that we are going to retreat all the way to the Green Line, no exceptions, just as the Europeans desire. This includes, for the uninitiated - the entire Old City, Ramat Eshkol, the Mt. Scopus part of Hebrew University, part of road no. 1 and so forth. This also means that "concensus" settlments such as Gush Etzion, Ma'aleh Edumim, will be on the chopping block as well. This Jewish population living across the Green Line is circa 400,000. Kicking them out will create a human disaster that will make the disengagement look like a cake walk.

I recently expressed this fear with an acquaintance, who told me that Gush Etzion was part of the "concensus" and thus won't be removed. To this I replied that it used to be a concensus that Jerusalem should be undivided - now it's up for grabs. Apparently, the "demographic demon" means that we must forfeit even unpopulated areas like Latrun, or areas that contain archaeological remains of supreme national importance, like Silwan/City of David.

To be sure, I lay some of the blame at our own feet - i.e. the settler community and leadership. There were many territorial compromise plans that would have allowed us to hold on to at least some of the territory gained in the Six-Day War. Then, of course the Green Line did not have the sacred value it has today, nor were people so obsessed with the Nakba narrative of the poor Palestinians. We rejected every one, insisting on holding every inch permanently, ignoring the demographics and fantasising about "millions of Jews" who will come.

Sharon may not really intend to hold the "concensus" Blocs, but we never considerd this to be an option. Recently Dan Diker has tried to argue for a return to the "defensible borders" concept in Azure (free registration required). To this I reply - too little, too late.

Nevertheless, the fact that so much of the intelligentsia and the public probably equates eveything across the Green Line as equally illegitamite - even when this is not so, as I have tried to explain - depresses me to no end. It would seem that even Jerusalem has ceased to be of much importance, and so the "Israeli" has beaten the "Jew". Ben-Gurion must be rolling around in his grave, although I'm sure many are now dancing on our grave.

Was this why we fought, was this why over 20,000 people died in the various wars? So that we could assimilate differently, if as "Israeli" or "Jew-Arab" or "Yiddisher"? Was this why we stayed alive for 2,000 years in exile, so that we could do to ourselves what even the worst of our enemies couldn't do - i.e. make the Jews de fatco disappear?

Deeply depreesed, but still hoping,

AIWAC

Interesting Reading

The first online article from the Fall issue of MEQ is a real eye-opener, making clear the intense antipathy of Europe to the Jewish state, their hatred for Ariel Sharon, and their sympathy for the Palestinians. If this article and the Table of Contents is any indication, the issue promises to be very interesting. Stay tuned.

Invitation to Fisking

Prof. Charles D. Smith, author of what is often hailed as an 'objective' history of the Israel-Palestine conflict, has recently thrown his facade to the winds with this very uninformed screed. As others are probably more informed on the subject of Islam, and its relationship to the Jews, I leave it to them to dissemble this 'expert'.

Update - 'David's Palace'

It is interesting to compare this even-handed article in the JPost on the subject with the NY Times' hatchet job (BTW, I think it is a black mark on Israeli academia that Mazar is considered a 'black sheep' for having objected to the destruction of artifacts on the Temple Mount).

I think it is important to be careful with the subject nonetheless. Prof. Reich is right - it will take much more time, including a full excavation of the building and its surroundings, as well as examination of the artifacts, before we can argue whether or not this is really the fabled palace of David.

Nevertheless, the discovery is very important. For years archaeologists have argued whether or not Jerusalem really was a capital city during the tenth century (David and Solomon's time) or simply a 'small village'. The dearth of published pottery from this period seemed to support the nay-sayers. Recently, it was proved that there WAS pottery from this period in various later houses.

The discovery of a building this extensive from the 10th century - even if it is 'only' an administrative building - gives us not only evidence of the importance of the city at the time but also an idea of where the 'nerve center' of Jerusalem was located. So champagne is called for in any event.

I Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself

Prof. Barry Rubin rips apart the NYT's disgusting attempt to pooh-pooh Dr. Eilat Mazar's important archaeological findings. It seems they haven't improved since the good old days of WWII, when the Holocaust was constantly downplayed. Well worth the read.

Finding Your Way in Israel

"...and now for something completely different" - Monty Python

Do you have trouble finding places in this country or getting proper directions? You might want to make use of the E-Map Israel service, now available in English. A real time-saver.

The Next Blood Libel

Just in time for the nine days, the PA would seem to have officialy accepted the "Arafat was poisoned" theory (Hebrew link), which is spreading across its media as we speak.

Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

Tidbits - Good News

1. The largest desalination plant in the world is now operational in Ashkelon. Now we can rest a little easier about our water supply.
2. Yad Ben Zvi has come out with an English-language album-style history of the Land of Israel, written by top scholars. Perfect as a gift or a souvenier.
3. Shai has gathered together all his "Weekend Miscellaneous Pop Culture Entry" posts in honor of its "50th anniversary". Highly recommended.
4. My Obiter Dicta's back, with some interesting insights.
5. ...and you can check out the official website of the Tell Es-Safi excavation project, where I recently spent a week as part of my degree requirements.
6. ...or check out the possible discovery of King David's palace (notice the NY Times' efforts to bend over backwards and poo-poo the whole thing).
7. ...or enjoy some of Martin Kramer's choice lectures.
8. ...and finally, a hilarious blog on Syria.

"Always look on the bright side of life" - Monty Python

Thou Shall Not Kill

I am ashamed beyond words at hearing this, and even more so at the equivocating and glorifying of his friends (How dare they call this killer one of the Aseret Harugei Malchut?). Murder is murder is murder. Period. No ifs, and or buts about it. My condolences to the families of those killed.

The Great Demography Debate

Many of you familiar with the various debates over Zionism, and "Palestine" during the late 19th and early 20th century, have probably come across the "empty land" agument. To make a long story short (and it's a VERY long, complicated issue), pro-Zionists and pro-Palestinians argue whether or not the area was sparsely or densely populated from the advent of Zionist settlement onward. By extension, they also debate what caused the great increase in the Arab population, especially during the Mandate, when it more than doubled itself in 30 years. Some of the pro-Zionists will argue that there was substantial immigration into the country during the 19th and 20th century, while pro-Palestinians will insist that the country was densely populated almost solely by locals, and grew only by natural increase.

The current consensus by top Israeli scholars is that while the country was not empty, it WAS sparsely populated during the '70s and '80s of the 19th century[1]. Moreover, this population was not evenly distributed - the main concentrations of settlement were in the hill country and nearby ports, while many of the valleys and lower areas (such as the Sharon) were relatively spare in people[2]. Moreover, while it is generally agreed that immigration played only a small part in the overall increase in the Arab population in the country, at least since the 1870s onward, there are now studies that show that immigration constituted as much as 20-25% in the population increase in areas along the coastline, i.e. the main areas of Zionist settlement.

Until now, only Prof. Moshe Brawer's study[3] (and to some extent Prof. Arnon Soffer's presentation in a 1986 conference on demography) could serve as evidence for this phenomenon. Now, in the most recent issue of Cathedra, the leading Land of Israel Studies journal, we have another study on the Arab population growth in the Sharon area, which also argues for such a proportion of immigrants in that area. It will be interesting to see further study done on this issue.

That's all for now, folks. AIWAC

[1] See for instance, Yehoshua Ben-Aryeh's articles in various issues in Cathedra on the subject.

[2] David Grossman, Ha-Uchlusiyah Ha-Aravit Ve-haMa'aHaz Hayehudi (The Arab population and the Jewish Foothold) (Hebrew), Jerusalem: Magness Press 20o4.

[3] Moshe Brawer, Immigration as a factor in the increase of the Arab village in Palestine (Hebrew), Merhavim 2 (1975), p. 72-81.