This election is about self-preservation versus self-destruction. A vote for Kadima is a vote to bring hell on earth to the State of Israel. Likud, however, is a party whose policy is to stand strong against Hamas. Kadima has no policy, no ideology, nothing. Olmet’s solution is to uproot Jewish communities and hand over territory to an international organization aimed at the destruction of the State of Israel. Hamas is by its own definition is a terrorist organization. The Palestinians chose Hamas in their elections. Why did they do that? Because they want to destroy Israel. Hamas is connected to Al-Quida, Islamic Jihad, Hizballah, Islamic Brotherhood, Iran, and other terrorist organizations. Its primary goal is to destroy Israel and kill Jews. However it is also part of the global network of Islamic terror organizations aimed at destroying Western Civilization and establishing Islamic fundamentalist rule over the entire world. So why would anyone vote for Kadima when it aims to STRENGTHEN HAMAS BY GIVING THEM STRATEGICALLY IMPORTANT TERRITORY.

Netanyahu wants to scare us into voting for him. If he was PM he would do exactly what Sharon did. If he becomes PM we are stuck with a media "star" who will do anything to further his own interests. Anyone with sense in his head knows that in this age of missiles and nuclear capability territory, whether startegic or not has no security value except in the short run. Therefore, the ONLY option is to vote for a party that is pragmatic, that decides each step on the basis of the facts AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME, and is not led by an ideology that is restricted by its own definitions! KADIMA

Dan, please explain why it is pragmatic to strengthen the hand of your enemy by giving them territory.

B"H Let National Union know what you think about an atmsophere clear of terror: http://www.leumi.org.il/english/Contact.asp Then vote for law and order with National Union today!

Dan, out of curiosity, if territory "has no security value, except in the short run," why did Sharon re-take control of the Jordan Valley when Tel Aviv and Jerusalem residents such as yourself started getting blown up? Might it be that territory is of great security value? If you are so concerned by missiles, why do you support the Gaza expulsion that put missile launchers next to Ashkelon? And, if you don't want to think in the "short run," why do you seem to advocate a "strategy" that amounts to isolated "pragmatic" steps, all of which, since they are taken based on "the facts AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME," are necessarily short-run in nature? Your views seem utterly incoherent to me.

Leaving aside what your fuzzy phrase "except in the short term" means, I think you are utterly wrong regarding the long-run usefulness of territory. In the long run, if all of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza are part of Israel, there can be no "Palestinian" state; therefore, if an attack is to be waged, it will need to be from Egypt, Jordan, or Lebanon. In other words, the attack will come from those who have something to lose. I expect they will think twice.

Pragmatism is doing what needs to be done in order to further your own BEST interests. Sometimes it means adding territory in order to improve your position, and sometimes it means giving up territory you cannot defend. No Israeli Govt. can do as it pleases today - it has to take into account the demographics of a growing Muslim population, the expense (both economic and moral) of policing another people, the security of citizens isolated in a sea of volatile, violent and hating Palestinians who would like nothing better than to drive them all into the sea, world opinion and the effect of world opinion on Israel's economy and, yes, on it's SECURITY as well. Last but not least, every govt. will be faced with the fact that we in Israel love our children more than we hate our enemies, and tire of violence much sooner than do our neighbours - namely because we have a lot more to lose. We are a strong nation, strong enough to give the Palestinians what we in their shoes would also want - their own country. They are weak - that is why they blow up innocent women and children. Their hate strengthens us and weakens them. Giving up a few square kilometers of land is not going to strengthen our enemies. It is going to strengthen us, morally, physically and demographically. Morally because our sons will not have to police another people, physically because we will have a border that we can control and can react without fear of endangering our own people, and demographically so we can be a majority in our own land.

Micha, that was a wonderful example of sloganeering, confusion, and wishful thinking, utterly unconnected to what is measurable. Israel has been a one-trick-pony with its "territorial concessions" since it first liberated Judea, Samaria, and Gaza from Arab occupiers in 1968. Let's leave aside the fact that these areas were supposed to be part of the Jewish homeland (based on the Mandate). Let's also leave aside the fact that Jordan should have been part of Israel too, and that the "Palestinians" are not a separate people, and that they are, in any event, already the vast majority in Jordan, which is already a "Palestinian" state. Finally, let's leave aside the rubbish about the so-called "demographic crisis" that DOES NOT EXIST. LEAVING ALL THAT ASIDE, a 40-year-old policy of territorial contraction (with occasional, temporary re-expansion when you are attacked) has failed miserably. Arabs do not attack you from weakness; they attack you because they feel strong and hopeful. They look at Israelis like you, fooling yourselves decade after decade, and they (correctly) conclude that they are winning. Your suggestion that "giving up a few square kilometers of land is not going to strengthen our enemies. It is going to strengthen us, morally, physically and demographically" is shown to be empirically false by your own world-weariness and that of your acting PM Olmert ("we are tired of winning," etc.). When will you escape from Orwellian doublethink?

In case I was misunderstood: I did not mean that "all" territory has no security value. It is all a question of timing. The Bar Lev line and Sinai were thought to have security value - and they did - for a while. The Jordan Valley has some security value now - in about 20 years it may not - in the long run definitley not. So why lie to us and say we will never give it up. If it helps us - we will give it up. Menachem Begin was a pragmatist - and decided to give up the Sinai in spite of the fact that he previously supported it's "strategic" value. He knew Israel had more to gain by letting go rather than holding on. That is what pragmatism is all about. Making the correct decision at the correct time and not being burdened by an ideology that is based on the false premise that land means security.

I usually am more tidy than this. Sorry.

Dan, I am going to let you read my response #8, which I think you had not seen before you posted #10. Incidentally, Begin was NOT a "pragmatist" by nature. He was a passionate Zionist and a leader of the Irgun. Personally, I am fairly pragmatic: history teaches us that territorial contraction gives hope to the the enemy and gives him beachhead. History also teaches us that the smaller Israel becomes, the worse its diplomatic position becomes. Finally, history teaches us the importance of a leader with strong beliefs (which you call ideology).

OK, let's say he's right about Threat No 1. Let's say that Iran gets its nuclear bomb and decides to use it against Israel. Presumably it will drop this bomb in the heart of TA or J'salem? but surely, any nuclear fallout would quickly reach Pal. areas, and kill as many Pals (not to mention Israeli Arabs) as it would Israeli Jews? So how can they do it? Seems quite unrealistic to me. No-one has explained this. Readers may recall, that the fallout from Chenobyl, reached as far as England!! Or are modern nuclear bombs so efficient that they only kill in a small area?

Elsewhere on Ynet, I just saw something from Sheetrit that bears on my exchange with Dan: "Speaking at a Kadima conference, Education Minister Meir Sheetrit says, ‘we don't have the baggage of the heritage of Zeev Jabotinsky or Berl Katzenelson on our back.' " Hey Dan, doesn't it occur to you that you are (sorry) mindlessly repeating the talking points that spinmeisters have designed to induce the party faithful not to think? Moreover, do you remember that famous PM who was so influenced by Jabotinsky? Yup, Begin, whom you have previously claimed as a "pragmatist." Clearly, Kadima is not "burdened" with the ideology of a Begin.

SK - If you want to ignore the demographic problem and stick your head in the sand and say it does not exist - then you are moulding the circumstances to suit your theories and you cannot then call yourself a pragmatist. The Palestinians do not have a historical right to this land, but they are here now and they will not vanish or emigrate to Jordan, and no ammount of self persuation will make a "transfer" plan possible. You are a good example of someone (mis)guided by an ideology - so much so that you refuse to see the facts and keep quoting the past to try and find justification for beliefs that cannot hold water in the present or future.

My reply was to Art #13 not #17

Dan, I do not "ignore" the demographic problem; I flatly deny it, based on work that has come out in the past couple of years, and that made quite a splash in some quarters about a month ago. Arnon Sofer, the "father" of this fraud, is an ideologically driven hack. Dude, you can ignore all of my points - you are tired, after all, tired of winning, which won't be much of a problem soon - but at least keep up with current work reported (among many other places) in this august newspaper. Do a Google search including the words "ettinger", "demographic problem" and "palestinian" for a start. Also include "glick", who has done a nice synopsis. Look, Dan, I am secular, and I am a political scientist! I "quote the past" because an empirical analysis of policy alternatives requires evidence, and all evidence, by definition, is from the past.

who told you that the iranian want the nuclear weopon for palastin sake yes israil is the enemy to the iranian and if they want to use their weapon against israil they will used it even israil is present inside the kaaba it is not the war of moslem against the other as many like to call it it is iran against israil and if palastinian help in this war it is okey

I have to hand it to Dan & other Kadima voters: both data and theory point AWAY from territorial contraction as an effective way to handle the Arab war against the Jews, but these voters congratulate themselves on their ability to escape "ideology." They have managed to convince themselves that a failure to reason coherently based on evidence as well as theory is actually a great merit. They are all tactics and no strategy. They seriously believe that one wins a war without a strategy. But at least Sharon was a great tactician. Olmert is not even that. And Olmert, as others have pointed out, is full of "ideology," it's just a standard Israeli leftism clothed as "Kadima." Look, Israelis have been bungling their "Palestinian" problem for decades. Every inch of land taken from Jews and given to "Palestinians" has led to more, not fewer, problems. Pre-Rabin/Oslo, terror was relatively rare and poorly armed; post-Rabin/Oslo, terror increased massively and became more deadly. Sharon himself has presided over the worst years in Israeli history in terms of terror. Only leftists' IDEOLOGICAL blinders prevent them from seeing such facts. Given that Israel is clearly losing the diplomatic war, one would think that something new would be tried. Do you know how easy it would be to prevail against the Pals? (1) Annex all of Yesha, without making the Pals citizens. (2) Implement laws that forbid Israeli businesses from hiring Pals, thus forcing them to support themselves. They cannot do this, therefore they will move elsewhere for jobs. (3) Cut all funding or support for the Pals, including electricity and water. (4) Pay them to leave permanently. (5) Surround them with Judaism - they hate it as much as vampires hate the sunlight. (6) Prior to these changes, constrain your joke of a Supreme Court, and select all members by some Knesset-based process. If "Pals" knew that would live forever in a Jewish state, they have already made clear that they couldn’t endure it. Listen to them and give them what they could not stand.

read: http://www.pademographics.com/Jerusalem%20Post%20SDP%202020.htm

Mr. Haber sounds as confused and perplexed as his boss was. I believe that's how half of the Israeli electors are feeling today,confused with no one to show them the way. I remember the confused look on Mr.Rabin's face when that clown Clinton forced him to shake the hand of that murderer Arafat,as if they were misbehaving children on the school playground. By the way ,to all of you amnesia sufferes (mostly from the "left") who sat glued to their TV sets with tears of joy in their eyes...that was the day Israel , ALLOWED ARAFAT WITH 50000 ARMED MEN (armed by Tsahal,on the orders of the US)to move from Tunisia into Israel,INCREDIBLE! MIND BOGGLING!, I believe that Jews are perplexed by nature. Two thousand years of debating every useless iota in the very limited books (3) available to them are to blame for this sad state of affairs in one of the most important elections since 48,which the media is going out of its way to represent as not worthy. One more word to the perplexed. Even if you are incapable at the moment in analyzing who to vote for, just think about this: If Abbas and Hamas and the Arab parties and Meretz and Bush want you to vote for Kadima...just how confused are they?

C'mon, Dan. The bit of hand waving ("abra cadabra, we still have a demographic problem") you linked to is neither a "study" nor a "refutation." It certainly isn't current, as it does not include the recent HARD data originating from the PA election that provides further support for the Eittinger side of the argument. It does, however, continue to accept as truth various assertions from the same PA that claims that Jews never lived in Jerusalem! You know, about five years ago I read a paper from the sainted Sofer himself. What a laugh. It wasn't peer-reviewed, of course, because even politicized demographers wouldn't stake their reputations on such stuff. The methodology was abysmal. He took two numbers (it was unclear at the time where he got them, but now we know he got them from the PA), drew a straight line between them, and extrapolated what the "demographic problem" would be from his two data points. Amazing. Let's pretend, though, that he actually had good data and modeled these data in a respectable way. Demographic projections are themselves dubious. The reason is that population growth is "endogenous," meaning that it can be seen as an OUTCOME of a series of factors, many of which can be manipulated. Consider that those we call "Pals" mostly originate from outside the Mandated area of Israel. Their presence now is predictable from no "demographic" analysis, as it was CAUSED largely by the lure of jobs offered by the Jews. Now if people can cross into Israel to look for jobs, there is nothing stopping them from crossing back to look for jobs. This is merely one example of looking at population issues from a scientific perspective. Dan, I have written many lines in our exchange. I do not feel you have seriously addressed any one of my many points, certainly not the central one that territorial contraction is a bad idea because it has led to bad outcomes. The basic choice is between the current no-man's-land of ceding Jewish territory to the Arabs, then retaking, then ceding it again, then retaking it, and so on. Or, actually annexing it for good. As contraction has not worked, and as there is no reason for it magically to work in the future, rational people would try something else. Incidentally, take a look at the linked article below. Glick is a political scientist by training. It will show. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0106/glick012606.php3

I responded but Ynet apparently found my language too extreme. Take what you wrote - quote: "Do you know how easy it would be to prevail against the Pals? (1) Annex all of Yesha, without making the Pals citizens. (2) Implement laws that forbid Israeli businesses from hiring Pals, thus forcing them to support themselves. They cannot do this, therefore they will move elsewhere for jobs. (3) Cut all funding or support for the Pals, including electricity and water. (4) Pay them to leave permanently. (5) Surround them with Judaism - they hate it as much as vampires hate the sunlight. (6) Prior to these changes, constrain your joke of a Supreme Court, and select all members by some Knesset-based process. " Unquote. Replace "pals" with Jews, and Israelis/Judaism with Aryans. Remind you of anything? This is where your "ideology" has brought you. Too bad! I feel sorry for you!

Dan, given that Ynet will print almost any language, your unprinted reply must have been a doozy. Now your leftist ideology has reduced to likening my suggestions to the agenda of Hitler, real arguments failing you yet again. Don't feel sorry for me - my life will probably not end with a missile strike, and if it does, at least I will have fought back. You continue to rely on cliches and sloppy analogies - which you need to do, because you do not have evidence or coherent argumentation to back you up. As for the Nazi business, Jews in Nazi Germany did not blow up teenagers in pizza parlors or shoot babies in the head. They did not try to seize Germany and proclaim it "Israel." They did not deny that their non-Jewish neighbors belonged there. For my part, I am not suggesting a "final solution" to the Pals, as I do not recommend that they be gathered up and killed in Israel proper, let alone elsewhere in the Middle East. The Pals, though, students of Hitler since the Grand Mufti Haj Muhammad Amin al-Husseini, do indeed attempt to implement such a final solution. My suggestions are perfectly straightforward, and they basically implement the Mandate, with some adjustments for what the Arabs have done in the intervening years (e.g. like starting multiple major wars, killing Jews ruthlessly, and perpetrating a war of attrition since 1973). There is no reason on earth for Israeli Jews to fund the Pals or to provide them with anything. It is not only anti-Jewish to do so, but it is foolish and counterproductive. In a sense, I recommend the ultimate and true "disengagement." Evidently, you fully support expelling Jews from parts of Israel. Your complaint is simply that you do not wish to apply the gentler measures I suggest to the Pals.

watch out for social gaps. people breaking into rich homes will be the least of your worries. Low classes provide people who are willing to take a gun and fight out of despair.