Search This Blog

Wednesday, December 17, 2008


This should be clear and obvious to all. By definition a democracy is one in which the participants agree to equality. Equality is not defined merely by "one man, one vote", where the intent of a special class of voters lacks genuine democratic values and uses the system to then tear it apart. This is what is known as "sedition".

The USA enacted the "Alien and Sedition Acts" in 1798 to protect the USA from alien citizens of enemy powers (in 1798 America was engaged in undeclared naval warfare with France), and those Acts are still in force and are utilized today. A Movement such as Hamas and it's political party are by definition anti-democratic (they do not respect, accept, or permit equality of all persons, freedom of religion, freedom of speech or thought, existential rights, etc.).

Instead of looking at the Arabs as an absolute demographic nightmare, manifesting that nightmare itself by identifying all Arabs as being of one terrorist anti-Jewish mind, Israel should look to those Arabs, who genuinely love Israel, or who at least prefer Israel to the existing Arab alternatives. Israeli life has not been entirely an history of negative relations with all Arabs. In fact there are thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands of Arabs, who would stand strongly in one united Israel against Hamas.

It makes sense beyond doubt for Israel to annex the Golan, Sheva Farms, and Judea-Samaria. It makes sense as well to deport the largest possible numbers of Fifth Column elements. Israel knows the Arabs, be they Israeli Arab Citizens or not, who are strongly tied to Fifth Column movements such as Hamas. If Israel does not have it's own Alien and Sedition Acts, then Israel should enact them and use them to deport even hundreds of thousands of such persons to Gaza, where they can live out their own vision of their lives, as seen through the black rose colored spectacles of Hamas.

Let this then satisfy this week's UNSC Resolution calling for a "two-state solution" based on the principles of "Annapolis 2008", where the "Palestinian State" would be "Gaza", where Israel would be one nation, where in that context the "Security Fence" could come down, division of Jerusalem would no longer be an issue, "settlement" would no longer be a political soccer ball, and the "right of return" could be established on a case by case and in a pragmatic way free of the rhetoric of politics.

And on the heel's of this week's UNSC Resolution, let me raise one question, "Must Gilad Shalit waste away in his cell until a peace agreement exists between Israel and Arabia?"