It is impossible to discuss what is wrong with practically every of Mr. Beilin statements. This is guy is so far off-the-wall, up-the-river and out-in-left field that all the cliches in the book couldn't describe his Mishiginer ideas. One point that Yossele should consider - a small Israel is a choked Israel. We are already one of the most densely populated areas of the world (the useless Negev excluded). We are choking in traffic jams, have less land to farm and no place to bury our dead. We live crowded one on top of the other instead of living each in a nice private home with a white picket fence around it. We are using up our natural resources and we ain't got a lot of water in tiny Israel to satiate us all. The bottom line is despite all the other considerations bandied about, for a Jewish state to function and thrive and for it to be able to provide comfortable homes for the millions of more Jews we want to come and live here - WE NEED MORE LAND. You give that up, we will end up crushed and trampled by our own over-crowdedness.

Yossela logic means we should have taken Uganda. After all forget the history of the land of Israel. Today its not pratical.

Yossi Beilin is absolutely right. Unless the chosen people behave themselves and act in civilised manner, then how idea of Israel will be destroyed. There will be no more State of Israel unless Israel begins to act morally right now. Up to 1967 Israelis knew peace. Since then they have been living in state of constant war with Palestinians and the wider Arabs world. There needs to more democracy practised in Israel. And a bit less oppression.

Time to revive the Transfer debate. If Jews can be kicked out - in theory- by the tens of thousands then Arabs can be too. Bennie Elon's Transfer plan is still the best answer to our problems. My suggestion: Start implementing it today! PS: the PA-Arabs could also lay claim to all those homes that the hundreds of thousands of Jews were forced to leave behind in Arab countries.

that is, suicide much faster and in a much more permanent way than what beilin hypothesizes. when dealing with an enemy that is the size and character of the muslim world is going to come at a price - either israel pays that price (which the islamists adn the euro left is happy to let happen) or israel defends herself in the most moral fashion she can tolerate. self-loathing is exactly what everyone wants israel to do. it will get you awards and speaking engagements but it will weaken israel to the point of irreversible defeat. but, then again, if you loathe yourself, it is exactly what you believe you deserve. the problem is that not many in israel subscribe to that stale point of view anymore.

Exactly what will happen by listening to the likes of Yossi "surrender monkey" Beilin

It's a freaking lie, Yoss, there is no "demographic" threat. Oh and, BTW, your surrender party LOST.

Who said there was peace before 1967? What sort of myth is that?

Why don't you just quit politics, you are a defeatist and the last person Israel needs at this time. Because of your position in the governement, I have been following your policies and I am ashamed of what you represent with respect to the state of Israel. No one needs your illogical cowardly opinion. Shame on you!

Palestinians have voted for their own parliament since 1994 and will vote for their own parliament until the end of days.

Yosi Beilin secretly wants to convert to Islam and go down on Muhamad Abbas like Abbas went down on Arafat all his life

I had to stop halfway through because it was making me sick. He is at best a delusional defeatist coward. I will not read his future columns.

B"H Yossi, I think you are seeing the endpoint to negotiations as a democratic Jewish state and a democratic Arab state, side by side, in your statement, "the Palestinians will come to us with a simple demand: One man, one vote. They will tell us not to worry about taking down settlements, dividing Jerusalem, creating a Palestinian state or anything else." I am telling you that there is no such wish among the Arabs living in the vicinity. Sadly, there is a ballistic hate of Jews from some murderers living there, but most of those Arabs voted for Hamas, an organization rooted in Syria. In other words, there are no "Palestinians" who are separate from Syria. Syria sponsors Hamas which in turn leads the parliament building established in Ramalah. In other words, it is not one vote of people living in their own land. It is a vote on which country to be submissive to, based on people living under a regime outside of Israel's territory. Further, you state "This, in turn, will create one, large state between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, but it will not be the State of Israel." In the Arab eyes that elected the Hamas platform, there is no Israel. There is already one large state between the Mediteranean Sea and the Jordan river, and that state is the extension of Syria which sponsors the Hamas organization. "After the Six Day War we had big eyes. We wanted Sharm al-Sheikh and the Golan Heights and Gaza and the West Bank. We settled these areas at the expense of our poor, and we became occupiers..." The Hamas of Syria also became an occupier of the Arab heart. "The expense of our poor" most elegantly characterizes the poor Jews that remained outside of Israel and its territory. Settlement greatly benefited Israel's poor with assistance but many Jews still suffered outside of Israel's territory. Second, Jewish settlement has not incurred any "stiff international and economic price"; the Israeli economy is much better than that of any of the regions abandonned, or any neighboring country. Therefore I caution you that the abandoment of the territory east of the Olmert fence to a Syrian Hamas regime will provide you no greater benefit for the poor, for your economy, or even for peace. Indeed, the replacement of innocents with murderers just fosters violence. Productivity does not flourish in a violent atmosphere as is amply demonstrated by the deep poverty in Gaza as well the rocket fire sponsored by Hamas against Sderot, land inside the 1967 boundaries of "relative prosperity and security." I encourage you to reconsider your statement, "Whole Land of Israel question debate between Zionist realists, post-Zionist dreamers". I am not asking for Israel to take on the defense of the country and its territories. However, I do expect that scope to be defined and that a Jew would be able to visit in either place without discrimination against Jewish religion and American Nationality. Therefore, I would appreciate it if Israel could create a "green card" process for those of other nationalities besides Syrian Hamas supporters to legitimately live in these territories, to foster peace and good-will with Israel, instead of the current Syrian Hamas violence. If Israel is looking to relocate troops behind a fence, I would hope at least that it would establish a process for Jews to properly settle these territories called in the Western world "Israeli" from various nationalities for two years at a time, as an expression of the Jewish right of return, a right to sojourn in the territory of Israel. Certainly peace loving people from abroad would not be any more difficult than criminality based in Syria, right? I think the Jewish right of return, independent of nationality, needs more serious consideration in terms of official processes within the Israeli bureacracy, and anything you could to to facilitate that process would be greatly appreciated.

If anything, this article and some of the talkback commentary point to a simple fact: The Zionist "solution" appears to be failing, no matter how many nuclear warheads the "State" does possess.

B"H I see the aim to create a democracy, modeling after the major government systems of the world, as something Israel is putting in place for the sake of defense of it citizens from Arab attack. It is a dispute resolution system to allow a cohesive and productive government to function, and that is great for Israeli citizens. It is something that Israel is also trying to setup for the Arab population separately, because of its unique needs. It is something that needs facilitation and is not presently in place for the Arabs. I am not seeing it as a failure, but a matter of definition of the limits of the democracy. I am just hoping that outside those bounds, that since the territories are currently "Israeli" that Israel would clean up its bureacracy so that Jews of various nationalities would be able to exercise their "right of return", to sojourn a year or two in these areas. I see the issuance of "green cards" for example one of the typical methods used by major democracies to allow non-residents to live in territories for several years and then to return after making their contribution to the world outside of their host countries.

Beillin's argument is fallacious. Israel has existed for the past 4000 years since their forefathers-Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And there will always be Israel. The historic and biblical homeland of Israel is still relevant in the 21st century. Without it there will be no Israel. Just as what Spain and Eastern Europe had done in the Medieval in defending and regaining their historic homeland from the Islamist occupiers, Israel has all the RIGHTS in the world to defend and regain her historic and biblical homeland from the Islamist occupiers and squatters. The fact is for 4000 years the Jewish people have shed their blood in defending their historic and biblical homeland. The Arab Islamist-Jihadists came from Southeastern Arabia in 700 A.D. They are the occupiers of the historic and biblical homeland of Israel. Israel has all the RIGHTS to defend and regain her historic and biblical homeland from the Islamist occupiers which they achieved in 1967. The Arab Islamist nations have vast swaths of land that stretch from Yemen all the way to Morocco. Israel, on the otherhand, is only a tiny piece of land compared to what the Arab Islamist countries have. They latter should therefore be accommodating those Arab Islamists squatting in Israel instead of attacking Israel for defending her historic and biblical homeland. It is the duty and responsibility of the government of Israel to protect her citizens and defend Israel from internal and external attacks. It is not their concern to please or appease their enemies. It is not their concern to meet the interests of her enemies and other countries. It is the business of the government to meet the interests of her citizens and insure the security and existence of the historic and biblical homeland of the Jewish people--Israel.

First: Why would be "sinful"the transfer proposal related to arabs ,and it is not sinful related to your brothers Jews? Why a land that has been fought with SO MUCH blood,love,fierce,utter necessity would not be Jews possession? It is an ancient possession,but it is a MERITED and DESERVED possession as well. We,in the diapora,pray in our sinagogues,in Rosh Ha Shana:"Next year,Be Yerushalaim!".So,what about more than 2000 years praying for the same deep desire? On the other hand,your arguments are VERY,VERY weak,since you know that few days after Israel declared its independence,it was attacked. Hence,your thought is delusional,because you believe that leaving territories you will have peace;YOU WILL NOT!You will keep in war,but now with less protected borders;quassams will fall more and more to the center and arabs will acquire ,sooner or later,more modern weapons. Do you speak about being "ethical",but it was not ethical deal OSLO without full agreement and comprehension of your People;it is not ethical to create an insidious propaganda against Religious Jews in order to achieve VERY DOUBTFULL political goals. I consider Israeli People being cheated! Nothing can be more unethical than that,NOTHING! You( gov't) are spiting in your brothers in order to be "ethical" to your enemies! And about land,YES,you need much land. Don't forger the history,Beilin-Jews needed to leave the countries that once hosted them MANY TIMES throughout the History,hence ,don't get deluded that this is impossible to happen again. We need the Land to shelter Jews that actualy live in Israel and those that sooner or later will arrive;we need land to expand tecnologies and progress. In my view,you have a blind and sick and suicidal mentality.Sorry for my sincerity! PS:The only solution for Israel survival and happiness and infinitit progress ,and for the arabs that live actually in Gaza and WB and "inside Israel" too,is to relocate them to an Arab State,eventually helping them to find their own way and happiness far from Israel. Israel has a Mission that must be accomplished and it MUST do it. This is my view and understanding.

I don't think that anyone sees Ramalla or Nablus as becoming Israeli cities anytime in the foreseeable future so that Beilin essentially raises a straw man argument. The question at hand regards places where Jews live now or is land under our control. Somehow everyone who pushes the explulsion of Jews from their homes in order to give "contiguity" to the nascent PA state have no problem with that state composing of two parts: Gaza and WB that are disjoint. So why is it necessary to remove Beit El or Alon Moreh? It isn't. It is just a ploy that both the post-zionist left and their PA allies play to delude the Israeli center. Perhaps Beilin should start thinking like a Jewish leader who wants a viable Israel.

He supports having dialogue with the murderers of his own people, Hamas. Get him out of Israel.

Israel will be in danger.The deaths of over a thousand Jews should be on his head. his oslo death treaty and bring harafat and his terrorist gang here.Arming them! Look at what we got since 1993. This creep is a danger to the survival of Israel.But do not worry.If the palis came and said theyw ant one manone vote,we will eliminate them and their votes.

It is written: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways saith Ad-ni." Isaiah 55: 8ish or thereabouts - (That's in the TNK, by the way) - We know that despite how much of Israel you "clever people" carve up and give away, tiny Yaakov will be vindicated and given back all her land.

Yossi Beilin suggests that by giving away judea and Samaria, we will prevent the Demographic take over of the jewish State by the Arabs. However, MK Beilin fails to recognize the Iarab-israeli population within 67 borders as another Demographic Problem for the Jewish State. Furthermore, he states the sinful ideas of transfer as unethical (in a Jewish Democratic State). Well, the expulsion of israeli citizens in a democratic country isn't sinful?! In fact, no democratic country in the world ever expelled its own people. Furthermore, to blame the bloodshed including the Yom Kippur war on the holding onto Judea and Samaria is beyond intellectual honesty and logic. All israelis want peace. I wish I had a month I would rip this column to pieces. But ,I will end with this: I believe all Israelis want peace,myself included. Yet , i would like a real geniune peace defined by the Dictionary, not my personal definition of peace. It appears MK Beilin wants to have a peace of mind. This type of peace Israel can't afford.

1) Demographics: What difference does it make that the Arabs are not a majority (including the Arabs in Israel), even now, if we have people like Beilin voting like Arabs? And what's so unethical about drawing boundaries so that we no longer have a demographic worry in the world, with Um El FAchem and Beilin's neighborhood as part of a Palestinian state with its capital in Ramallah? 2) If we had the kind of wall to wall unity that the Arabs have (which they enforce with the death penalty) when they refuse EVERY offer we make for peace, perhaps we wouldn't have had to make even the concessions we have made. Mere stubborness can be a successful foreign policy, as the Arabs have proven. All we have to do is threaten to destroy the oil distribution network of the world, and we'll get whatever we want. Even better, let's find a way to get rid of the world's dependence on oil by using our brain resources to invent a cheap alternative. 3) Much less even than allowing us to be victorious, Beilin won't even give us a chance to grab defeat from the jaws of victory (as he claims we did by winning the war in 1967), because he believes that when Jews are victorious, they've done something "unethical". Is there ANY other nation in the world who thinks this idiotic way? To succeed is for the Jew, in Beilin's eyes, by definition a "failure". 4) Beilin and his groups' unwillingness to back the rest of his countrymen in steeling our backbone in order to win our confrontation with our enemies, and his countrymen's recognition that without unity we cannot maintain a rightist stance based on the law BEFORE it devolved at the hands of the UN visigoths to undermine the Jewish claim to Israel, is not a testament to the right's being wrong, but to the left's lack of faith in the concept of a Jewish state. 5) Our success is measured by what the Umot Ha'olam think of us? Why would any foreign power be a proponent for a safe Israel when Israelis like Beilin define a safe Israel as one that cannot defend herself, but rather depends on the good wishes of her neighbors? Didn't he learn anything from recent history about what happens when we leave ourselves with no way to defend ourselves? Under these circumstances, of course, you can't expect France (as only one of many examples) to value our lives more than we do. Why would they? Of course we have to ask permission from the Arabs to live if we ourselves don't believe we don't need to earn that right by being "ethical" and "moral". Do the Arabs think that ethical and moral behavior is a prerequisite for their right to live? Ask all those who complain about Israel's "state terrorism", defined as firing on Palestinian terrorists preparing to launch missiles into Sderot. Ask all those who lie about their history, recent and past, to support the lie of an Arab claim to this Land. 6) In the end, Beilin is counseling that we use his version of Realpolitik to advance our cause, because he thinks all other paths cause our fate to worsen. The evidence has shown that EVERY time we make compromises we worsen our fate. He claims because we didn't compromise enough, I claim because no compromise is ever enough for them. So the best thing Beilin can do if he wants to "contribute" is either butt out or stand tall and recognize that Begin, not Beilin, is the best leader modern Israel has ever had and follow his lead.

Before 1967 there was a humanistic Jewish ethic. It opposed racism and the opression of the week by the strong. Since we were counted among the oppressed, most Jews subscibed to that ethic. Alas, that Jewish ethic has been essentially murdered in post-1967 Israel, and those who still follow it, like Yossi Beilin, are the subject of abuse. How sad!

Why do they magically forget about the rise of "Israeli" Arab population WITHIN THE GREEN LINE? Yea, the ones with citizenship? They talk about dumping Judea and Samaria as if it will solve the demographical problem. There cannot be a bigger lie. Today there's 1.5 million Arab citizens of Israel. They multiply twice as fast as Jewish citizens. Do the math, Yossi. Another 20-30 years, and your "democracy" will be an ARAB majority democracy WITHIN the Green Line. But I know you don't look out that far. And acknowledging this would put a big hole in your "demographics argument".

There are 2 contemporary Zionisms i see operating. One of the secular "pre-1967" Zionists, as tom segev put it in may 2006's Foreign Affairs article, and religious zionists, the post-67. What 1967 did for secular Israel was initially a positive thing. Totally hostile, ever expanding, arming and amassing pan-arab war threats had been set back. This is in the context of the cold war proxy & client state relations of the soviet union and those ties had been put under pressure. Israel's 60's recession no longer mattered. A sense of optimism and rebirth (with some arrogance too) flooded Israel and the jewish world at large. However, the goal of Jerusalem had come with extra burdens. Even though the new borders where based around the natural topography of greater Israel and technically would be easier to maintain as a natural border, Golan, Jordan River but also biblical sinai up to the western bank of the suez. It would have taken an aliyah of millions immediately after and huge investment to do it. This of course, never happened. The reality is, and something that religious Zionists, with all due respect, must chew on, that it was "land for peace". To bargain with. To end the arab-israeli conflict. To let jews have their sliver of Israel and at least be ignored if not at peace with their neighbours. Due to a large proportion of Jordan citizens calling themselves Palestinians, as well as the refugees from 48, the western bank of the jordan river always posed a security threat in terms of maintaining an Israeli identity in Samaria. Let alone the eastern bank with its cultural ties. Palestinians just dont want to be Israelis and they dont want to leave. So they have to be given "neighbour status" but not just for us to throw the rubbish in each others back-garden and complain about the noise to each others governments. The secular zionists, who feed Israel (the kibbutziim) i hasten to add, are the essence of modern Israel. In many way its whole reason for existence. Religious and irreligious (not even secular jews) are vying for expression in Israel's society as it is, when it connects up to policy issues with palestinians it distorts a practical Israeli political vision that really should be the mainstay of the foreign ministry and border police and not internal Knesset parties. Its an apparatus of state post to be dealing with these issues. Not "settler parties" theyneed to get a bit more left-wing in organisation and not sacrifice their religiousity in doing so. To Lobby the PA for their right to be citizens in Samaria. Possibly. Either way its up to them, but it would be a huge testament to trust between the two peoples. Israelis and Palestinians. The 1967 borders arent realistic. But greater Israel isnt either. so, something in the middle has to be changed and I certainly feel that removing arabs from Israel isnt a good idea. In fact it simply isnt. Jews need to also be living elsewhere in the middle east and as long as there is conflict, the religious Judeans and Samarians wont be able to live in those places. The demographic of Israel is 80% Jewish. So there are no worries there. IF peace could be guarenteed, maybe the PA wouldnt object to Jews living in Hebron. Why not? after all, Arabs live in Uhm Fahm and Acco. Think of the expense. Im not talking money. Jews CAN live on the land of greater Israel, only not within the Israeli political structure. But certainly not far away. A few miles maybe, nothing more. That should be the goal.

the secular, the religious and the irreligious. 1967 Israel was mostly secular. nowadays?