Leave a Reply

6 Comments / 6 Comments

  3. This is a good interview. I don’t think that most Palestinians would be willing to accept ‘rule of law’ as Glick described. 4 solutions as to where they could go.

    1) For those that have no record of ties to terrorism and wish to remain in Israel under the ‘rule of law’ could stay.
    2) One way path to where they came from – Jordan. It doesn’t matter if Jordan doesn’t accept them back. The UN can fund their new refugee camps outside of Jordan.
    3) One way path into the Dead Sea, or any Sea. For the ones who have suicide on their brain they are welcome to it but cannot take any Jews with them.
    4) or….They can get ready to be obliterated

  6. If Glick’s premise, that Israel annex J & S and offer Palestinians living there a path to citizenship, is as simple and complete as expressed in this interview, it is as fraught with danger as much as going out of J & S and enabling that territory to become an independent Palestinian state.

    Generations of Palestinians have been indoctrinated in Jew-Israel hatred and in dreams for Israel’s ultimate demise, if not in one genocidal onslaught by Palestinians, then in staged onslaughts.

    Assuming Israel could effectively annex J & S as Glick proposes, it would mean incorporating into Israel’s body politic, over a million potential quislings and of that number, 10’s of 1,000’s of potential terrorists still moved by what they have been indoctrinated to believe.

    While one can imagine these Palestinians having such Jew-Israel hatred being bred out of them, it will not happen any time soon, but probably would take a generation or two for that to happen.

    There is a huge security issue therefore inherent in Glick’s peace proposal through annexation of J & S, perhaps as great as the inherent risk to Israel Glick speaks of if she agrees to a TSS.