I am very pleased that Olmert said the following today as they were swearing in the new government which he will lead.

anyone who believes in “complete equality of civil rights between Jews and Arabs must understand that a division of the land, with the goal of ensuring a Jewish majority, is Zionism’s lifeline.”

He also said,

“The borders of Israel that will be shaped over the coming years will be significantly different from the territory currently held by Israel. That is the government’s plan, that is the foundation of its existence. That is the promise we gave to the Israeli voter whose trust we asked for and received.”


“Only a person in whose soul Eretz Yisrael burns knows the pain of letting go of our ancestral heritage. But wishing and recognizing a right do not constitute a foreign policy plan. Even if the Jewish eye cries and the heart is torn, we must preserve the main thing. We must maintain a stable and strong Jewish majority in our state, and therefore we must focus on the area where there is a secure and protected Jewish majority.”

I wish him and the hottie next to him (if you looked at the guy with the moustache, I fear for you) the best of luck.

About the author



  • i vote we stop sending money to israel and just send it directly to the israeli jews here on jewlicious.any opinions? instead of my 10000 usd a year to the wzo I can just send it directly to israelis bypassing the govt.And jewliciousniks interested.? Of course, the israeli govt might want to say why its best to give it to them .viva israel

  • All of our contributors are volunteers and ck supports this website on his own, although I guess there is some minimal income from some of the ads to subsidize the cost.

    I know that we have a couple of people here who could use, uh, better paying positions or better opportunities for income. While I don’t suggest diverting funds from charities or Israel, if you have a real and serious position/opportunity where one of these eloquent, intelligent, motivated folks could telecommute, especially on a part time basis, they might have an interest in taking such a position.

    The main email to reach Jewlicious is jewlicious [at ] That address goes right to ck (and Laya?) and I’m sure he/they would pass along any opportunities to the relevant parties.

    Otherwise, enjoy the reading and participate in our discussions. That’s all we ask.

  • Dov, many major Jewish philanthropists have been donating directly to Israeli causes for decades, bypassing the UJA, Jewish Agency, etc., and their bloated payrolls and perks.

    You can contribute directly to shuls, schools, hospitals, communities, causes – you name it!

    Don’t let your charitable contributions trickle down through an Israel government sieve. We Israelis already do that with our taxes.

  • I disagree with one comment, Shy Guy. Most Jewish organizations do not have bloated payrolls or perks. Sometimes the top dog or two might be well paid, but that does make sense if you want good people who have other opportunities to make a good living. However, most rank and file employees, including senior employees, at virtually all Jewish organizations have incomes that tend to be on the low end for comparable work. Money is always tight at many such organizations and they do their best to do good. Also, there are so many charitable organizations that it’s unfair to characterize all of them with the same broad accusation.

    If it all seems mercenary, it isn’t because intentions are wrong or the money is wasted. Rather, it’s that chasing money all the time isn’t a pleasant activity and involves a lot of work and accommodation of the benefactors. Also, some of these centralized organizations, such as the UJF or UJA create great efficiencies – do you really want every hospital and school to have a fundraising director and program, isn’t it better to have one organization collect and distribute funds? It’s not as if these funds are stolen or misused.

    Fortunately, we have a generous community. If we want to keep it that way, it would be best not to dismiss the organizations that receive and use or distribute donations without giving them their fair due. They do a lot of good. I believe half of what the UJF raises goes to Israeli charities and organizations.

  • dov – if you are serious about donating, we have projects off the blog like the Jewlicious @ the beach which we are hoping to expand to the east coast and beyond. Endevors like that need funding and we would be honored to have yours. Please do write us at Jewlicious @ for ck, or laya @ for me.

  • TM, every hospital already has their own fundraising director. So do universities and yeshivas. Now, individual schools are catching on.

    You state that 50% of what the UJF collects goes to charities. Is that your idea of efficiency? I suggest you start reading through the annual reports of major reliable charitable organizations. Managerial overhead should never reach more than 1/4, or at worst, 1/3 of total revenues.

    And with Israeli governmental organizations, the money can trickle down to a secondary government organization.

    Give direct. You’ll often know exactly where your money is going to and this can usually be reserached and verified.

  • Shy Guy, I meant that 50% of the charitable donations go to Israel while the other 50% stay in the United States. If I’m not mistaken, they take their administrative expenses from the 50% they keep. There are a couple of websites that track non-profit organizations and show their administrative costs. I’m afraid that many and probably most large Jewish organizations are competitive in terms of efficiency. You do need people to run these things and you have to fund-raise.

    If you want to discuss waste, it is wasteful to hire all these fundraising directors for every organization out there. I understand hospitals since they require millions of dollars, but overall, all these mini charities and organizations are probably sapping overall community resources because nobody has unlimited resources. Even the wealthiest have to plan their giving and there are limits to what they can contribute.

  • My wife and I personally contribute quite decent sums to numerous charitable organizations here in Israel. We are very selective and our conclusions have been that good organizations fundraise very efficiently.

    Most of the organizations we contribute to have a US based office for tax deductable contributions by US citizins. In such cases, salary and managerial overhead runs at 10% or less with most organizations we contribute to.

    Your statement that 50% of the donations to major Israeli public/governmental organizations stays in the US only confirms my point.

  • there no such thing as israel, everyone knows the zionist is evil so even u have a country doesnt mean everyone will approved! there will come a time when all bad jews will be killed, even stone will speaks is a jews hide behind it.use your brains fascist! if u ever have one, and there also no such thing as holocaust! Anne Frank is a fraud >

  • I am completely confused.

    The UJF fundraises for the entire community. It does do on a local level. Let’s say it raises $100 million dollars in Boston in a year. It will take $50 million of that and send it to charitable organizations in Israel. Then it will use the remainder on Boston charities as well as on paying its own administration. How is this a bad thing? It’s a great score for the Israeli foundations, and it is something many donors would like to see done with their donations.

    Most donors don’t have the resources to check out every Israeli or local charity. As an example, I give to a couple of charities that send me these little calendars and stickers. They claim they are orphanages. Do you think I have actually checked whether they are real? I send it along because I trust and hope that they’re not hucksters with a good gimmick and mailing list.

    So in this example, within the Boston community Jewish charities will vie for the remaining money because usually it represents a significant part of their fundraising. In other words, many organizations cannot survive without this large community subsidy, even if they do some fundraising on their own.

    Finally, in this way, a contributor is allowing professionals to direct funds to those organizations that may need it the most within the overall community. If that person wants to also donate to a specific organization, s/he can and it will or will not affect the size of their contribution to the UJF. This is far more efficient for the individual and for the community. Also, it creates a situation where there is a larger body checking on the smaller organizations because they usually have to meet certain criteria before receiving funds.

    In any case, here is a good resource on finding charities and their efficiency. Good luck on your giving.

  • I misunderstood you when you refered to 50% staying in the US.

    Now, what percentage of the moneys in both the US and in Israel reach there target?

    Yes, I, too have used Have a look there, for example, at UJA Federation NY. This is an organization that handles almost $200M anually, yet their overhead is at 1/3 of revenues. Their CEO’s pay is $377K per annum. Hello!!! That’s your money driving down the street in the shape of a Jag.

    And we haven’t even started dealing with the 50% of the Israeli designated money that goes through Israeli bureaucratic institutions.

    In addition, as an example, UJA gives to some institutions I do NOT agree with. I have practically zero control as to allocations with such organizations.

  • can individual israelis ask for private sponsorship from wealthy american jews? I mean can any israeli just advertise for money and maybe get 15 or 20 grand a year from various sponsors? Can a jew in ny ask for say 30 or 40 grand a year garanteed before he will make aliya? Has anyone ever done this? i mean aliya is from the heart and mind but bills are bills.personally i think the wzo does ok in fund raising too but could you imagine if a webpage appeared where individuals could compete with each other and could advertise themselves and say “if i get 50000USD ill make aliya” or if im garanteed 10000 ayear for life ill move home to israel. Would the mossad get angry

  • The Mossad wouldn’t get angry but the VAT and Income Tax Authorities and the National Insurance Institute will.

  • well, I’ll tell you this much Dov – I know many individuals and young couples who would absolutely make aliyah if they had a guaranteed base of 10k a year, even just for the first few years. If you or people you know are in a position to fund such endeavors, it might be a really interesting 5 year experiment. I could definitely recommend several people for aliyah under those circumstances.

  • Nice dream, Ehud.

    Hope the Arabs will let you get away with it.

    But I expect Kassems in Jerusalem not too long after you implement it.

    And if you have any sense, you will too.

    Didn’t work in Gaza, won’t work in Yehuda and Shomron.

  • Well the Canadians sold citizenship, more or less, when Hong Kong reverted to the PRC. All you had to do is invest a few hundred thousand dollars in Canada and they fastpathed your citizenship.

  • WTF are you talking about, Middle? You’re joking, right? The Kassems from Gaza have been non-stop. It’s only a miracle that they haven’t hit (much of) anything (so far).

    That won’t happen when they’re in the eastern part of Jerusalem that Olmert has just told them they’re going to get on a silver platter.

    This is a disaster waiting to happen.

    But it won’t matter. They will not accept it and it will be war again anyway, no matter what Israel wants or however much the rest of the world pats Olmert on the back for being a good little Yiddel. Hamas means what it says, and when the crunch comes, I hope and pray that Israel will still have the courage to do what needs to be done.

  • Ephraim, how many Israeli and Palestinian lives have been lost or ruined since Israel left Gaza?

    by the way, the number of Qassems has dropped by over 75% since Israel started its artillery bombardments.

    I’m not saying that this was perfect – there were lots of flaws with what happened to the settlers – but Gaza is working out well. As for Qassems in Jerusalem, we’ll see.

  • Yes, Middle, I’m sure we will, unfortunately.

    But the very fact that you can be satisfied with “only” 25% of the original bombardment just shows that you have psychologically accepted the unceasing, if low-level, bombardment of Israel by terrorists, as though this is nothing remarkable.

    If the artillery has reduced the Kassems by 75%, I say keep pounding them until its 0%. Israel should accept nothing less.

    I mean, really, imagine this scenario:

    “US Satisfied With 75% Reduction In Missile Bombardment From Canada, Calls It ‘Big Step Towards Peace’, News At 11”.


  • Ephraim, nobody accepted anything. I am of the mind that the artillery shells keep dropping until they stop 100% of their Qassems. The point is that you have a significant downward trend, no Israeli lives lost (and there would be no Palestinian lives lost to Israelis if they would stop with the Qassems), much smaller military investment of manpower and cost overall, and very few of the hassles and difficult moral circumstances of having young men rule with their guns and tanks over another people who don’t want them there.

    Leaving Gaza was and is a good thing. Leaving most of the West Bank will also be a good thing.

  • It will not solve anything, except maybe temporarily. Eventually, Israel will eventually be forced to re-invade.

    But, perhaps, Hamas will have some sort of Kumbayah epiphany and drop its “Let’s Kill All the Jews” campaign.

    Of course, Salma Hayek also might show up on my doorstep naked moaning “Ephraim! I want you! I need you!”

    So long as we’re indulging in fantasies, they might as well be grandiose ones.

  • Ouch, that comment hurts, Ephraim. I’ll always regret having kicked Salma to the curb.

    Seriously, I’m curious why you think Israel can simply ‘re-invade,’ i.e., force a resolution through exclusively military means. Isn’t this one of the great failures of the Israeli Right– that even Sharon had to concede that the conflict could not be so ended, that a political approach was needed, too?

    Israel invades . . . what, exactly? Territory it already controls? Territory it used to control, but has chosen to excise like a festering boil?

    By way of analogy: think the US can simply level Fallujah and Ramadi, and al-Zarqawi and the Baathists will just melt away? Or surrender like Lee at Appomattox?

    These are insurgencies. We’re not in the 19th C. anymore.

    No political dialogue is possible with Hamas, of course. But that’s not to say that force alone will do the job. Olmert’s exercising Israel’s only real option– in legalese, a self-help remedy, unilateral separation. Build the wall, suffer the occasional rocket, and give Hamas time to fail.

    And avoid Rumsfeld’s mistake of seriously underestimating your adversary.

  • Gotta start worrying when The Muddled One says you’re “right on target”… Tom wrote:

    Isn’t this one of the great failures of the Israeli Right– that even Sharon had to concede that the conflict could not be so ended, that a political approach was needed, too?
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    Well, no – Israel’s Left spent the past 2 decades dragging us through the “political solution”. It was called Oslo, and it manifestly failed.

    Israeli voters learned what Bush and the Americans have learned: aggressors – especially the tightly-wrapped ideological variety – do not reform their ways unless they are unmistakably beaten.

    So we voted overwhelmingly for a hard-line stance towards the Palestinians, throwing off the illusion that one can arrive at “a political solution” with terrorists.

    Sharon then betrayed us.

    The results are clear: the Gaza expulsion weakened Israel from within, and was understood by the wolves circled without as yet another craven giveaway. They have obliged with the expected increase in missile attacks from the evacuated region.

    To repeat the mantra that “there is no military solution” – and to act like we haven’t tried a political solution – and to blame Those Darn Right Wingers ™ for the current post-Oslo meltdown?

    Evidence of Muddled thinking – or narrowcasting reality to fit one’s ideology.

    The one thing that HAS NOT YET BEEN TRIED is the true Right-wing stance: fighting this like we intend to win it.

    So far, it’s worked in Afghanistan and Iraq, and those victories have already left shit streaks in several Arab dictator’s underwear.

  • themiddle, you suggest that the Gaza expulsion had good, if not perfect, results. I have no idea where the “75% decrease in missiles” datum comes from that you wave around, but I have included a link that discusses some of the injuries that have come from Gaza-based missiles. (I just did a quick web search.)

    It seems to me, though, that you make a serious, and I mean serious, logical error. If every Jew left Israel, there would be zero Jewish injuries or deaths in the land of Israel. So, yes, when you expel Jews from Gaza, these same Jews can no longer be targeted quite so easily. But that isn’t the issue. In their war against Jews, “Palestinians” will flow into any area that facilitates their attacks. Now Ashkelon is in range, and it has been hit. As Arabs come closer to strategic sites, the expected “value” of each missile fired increases. Even if the missiles do not become more accurate, the peril they represent increases.

    Finally, we already know what terrorial contraction produces: count the number of dead before and after Oslo. We know what Sharon produced: compare the number of dead before and after Sharon was elected. I do not need complicated analysis to conclude that territorial contraction leads to death.

    If you want to expel people, surely it makes sense to expel “Palestinians” from large parts of Judea and Samaria and concentrate them as far away from Jews as possible. Yes?

  • The number I’m waving around camr from the IDF a couple of days ago.

    Second, the logical mistake is yours in thinking that anywhere I advocate Israelis leaving Israel. I understand that you want to define Israel as everything from the ocean to the river, but no matter how much you want to think of it that way, it will never happen. There is no way you’ll be able to remove 3 million Palestinians, and even if you could, there is no way the international community will let you. If you annex them, then you can keep them if you turn your state into a theocracy ruled by Jews or a totalitarian state ruled by Jews. Either way, you might as well close the store if that’s what you want cuz if it ain’t democratic it should be changed.

    Ben David, you can go on with the whining but the opponents of withdrawal tried every single democratic position Israeli law allows to negate what Sharon was trying to do and they failed. This past election was a clear if not resounding show of support for what he had done and you can bet that had he been functioning during this election they would have won 40 seats if not more. That a person like Olmert – on nobody’s shortlist for elected PM 1 year ago – can be elected on Sharon’s platform tells you all you need to know about where the Israelis stand.

    Finally, talking about the “one thing that hasn’t been tried” is quaint, but it hasn’t been tried because nobody would allow it. Who would you attack, their families, their villages, their cities or camps? Who would you attack with your tanks and missiles? Let’s keep attacking their combatants and with that we remain the moral party to this conflict.

  • Muddle: if you were living here you would not talk so blithely about democracy and Israeli law – Sharon’s open Berlusconization of Israeli politics has been remarked upon by many people who are on the left of the political spectrum.

    Thinking that this was a considered, consensus action taken in a stable, well-ordered democracy is at best pollyannaish, at worst self-serving.

    We had a situation in which citizens were arrested and beaten, and police borded private busses and denied people free passage through parts of the country to shut down political speech and assembly.

    We had – and still have – a broadcast media that is a government monopoly, and a press that is concentrated in the hands of a few people.

    We have a judiciary that seriously considered sending young protesters – not the violent ones – to be “re-educated” and broken of their religious and political habits, a la Mao and Stalin.

    To ignore all this – and the enormous parliamentary and legal loopholes that allowed Sharon to upend any semblance of representative government (or even basic party loyalty) – is disingenuous at best.

    The explusion never received a public mandate, nor was it enacted in a democratic way.

    The proof of the pudding is the yawning non-endorsement given to Kadimah at the polls by a population that increasingly feels disenfranchised, and didn’t bother to turn out and vote – because Sharon and now Olmie openly flout any notion of responsive, representative government.

  • Hey, themiddle, the Katif Expulsion didn’t deliver on the promises, not a single one. Look at the border with Egypt, look and see how the US government hasn’t paid a cent to reimburse the cost (and why should it?), and there have been about 2-3 people killed by kassamim since the summer.

    And the future? Probably back to the pre 1967 border at this rate and no closer to keeping a Jewish majority in 2030 than we have now. Expelling Jews from their homes in Judea and Samaria won’t bring masses of Jews to make Aliya and sort of encourages the Arabs on both sides of that border to make one big push to get rid of the rest of us.

    Perhaps you didn’t want or expect much, or perhaps you have little empathy for Jews who want to live in places like Shilo, Beit El or Alon Moreh. Either way, you are only seeing what you want to see.
    Subjectively speaking, the moral high ground comes first in stating that Jews have a right to live in all Eretz Yisrael, and that exercising that right is also moral (and right) especially when it does not entail destroying Arab villages or stuff like that. You perhaps don’t buy that line, but that is because you are biased (as it appears) against what the settlements stand for. (I am of course biased too, but at least I admit it).

    As for a long range political solution, there are other options ( maybe a canton system?) but Olmert won’t get us to them. Why, because he has copted out on the the moral right and has given Hamas the right to claim not only a tactical victory, but to press on the claims that Israel is a foreign entity with no rights at all in “Palestine”. Evidently Olmert believes them. Do you?

  • Schlomo tries his hand at something Ben-David hasn’t mentioned: a “long range” vision of what Israel/OT will look like. (hell, how ’bout a short range vision?)

    Faulting Middle arguendo for not viewing Hamas as posing an existential threat, one that must resisted by any and all means: precisely how is this to be done? And what can one expect as an aftermath?

    B-D, what has the US Gov’t done with my tax dollars (sorry– blame proximity to 4/15) in Iraq? Labor mightily to muster a domestic political process that (hopefully) will win the investment of a majority of Iraqis . . . While minimizing the US military ‘footprint’ in the country. Is such an approach available to Israel? Similarly, does Israel have a Karzai, a Palestinian ally with at least a pretense of credibiity, to preside over re-occupied Palestinian lands?

    (OK, warning: Vietnam War metaphor alert.) We had a hell of lot more troops in RVN in the ’60s than we do in Iraq, and the US project there failed for lack of a regime and democratic process appealing enough to win ‘hearts and minds.’ Hell, we tried to bomb the holy crap out of SE Asia, and we all know where that got us.

    Again: what will the morning after an all-out Israeli military assault look like? This small matter escaped the attention of our Secretary of Defense in the case of Iraq.

  • Gotta love the “canton” reference– evoking as it does cuckoo clocks and overpriced chocolate. Sure beats “homelands.”

    Final point re Ben-David: any use of force will be open to the criticism that it’s not working because it’s not enough. But look at Iraq: does anyone seriously think that double, or triple, the number of US troops would stop suicide bombing or the Baathist insurgency?

    Massive military force and the killing enormous numbers of people, taken alone, has never been enough to produce meaningful, lasting victory. Not since the destruction of Carthage, anyway.

  • Judging from reports, it appears that Hamas and Fatah may finally, thank G-d, be on the verge of killing each other for real. It cannot happen too soon.

    I don’t think a re-occupation of paleostinian population centers will be necessary. But killing at least 10-20 terrorists whenever a Kassem is launched seems like a damn good idea. It shouldn’t be that hard. I am sure Israel knows where all of their camps are. All your base are belong to us, baby.

    All people like Middle and Tom are saying is that there may be no military solution. Fine. Let us accept this as a working proposition for a moment (even though I don’t believe it). Is there a political solution? Not that I can see.

    So, a certain kind of low-level warfare appears to be inevitable. Israel could up the ante a bit by responding more forecefully to attacks. Why just a measly one or two dead terrorists? Why not a full scale attack on their training camps? The Israeli pusillanimousness is just maddening.

    If everyone agrees that there is no solution in sight, either political or military, at least in the near term, then the least the Israelis could do is kill more terrorists and make the territories a living hell so the paleos will leave on their own. That is what the paleos are trying to do to the Israelis, so Isreal might as well return the favor.

    But, like I said, it appears that Hamas and Fatah are finally at dagger point. It may be that for now the best thing Israel can do is leave them alone and let them kill each other off like the rats they are. After that, perhaps the paleos who are left might be willing to talk sense.

    I’m hoping for a real bloodbath here, by the way. Just as it was necessary for the Union to kill practically every rebel male of military age before the Civil War coulld end, Hamas and Fatah have got to go if there is ever to be peace. If we are lucky, they will take care of each other without Israel having to do anything.

  • Tom: How about cantons for Jews? I am not against it in principle, although I know that the Arabs would never accept having Jews remain in Shilo (and neither in Yafo or Lod for that matter). Any way, if cantons remind you of chocalate, the Oslo agreements look like pigeon droppings to me.

  • Well said, Shlomo– touche! Ephraim– let the Israelis kill as many terrorists as they can lay their hands on, including terrorist infrastructure, targeted assassination etc., I’m all for it. Would, however, that one could mass them all on a clear-cut field like Antietam or Gettysburg and get rid of them in a weekend.

  • From your lips to G-d’s ears, Tom.

    More good news from the “Holey Land”: apparently, Hamas attacked a Fatah funeral procession in Gaza(don’t know if it was of the kind staged for gullible Western media types where the “body” falls out of the “coffin” and then gets back in).

    I tell you, you can’t make this shit up.

    Faster, please.

Leave a Comment