web analytics
November 24, 2014 / 2 Kislev, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘demographics’

Jews Less than 0.2% of World Population

Thursday, September 20th, 2012

According to a study by Hebrew University’s Professor Sergio DellaPergola, the global Jewish population reached 13.75 million in the past year, with an increase of 88,000 people. Israel’s Maariv newspaper published excerpts of the study last week, reporting that one out of every 514 people in the world is Jewish, less than 0.2 percent of mankind.

About 43% of the world’s Jewish community lives in Israel, making Israel the country with the largest Jewish population. The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics reported on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, 5773, that the total population of Israel in 2012 grew to nearly 8 million. About 73% of the population is native born.

The Israeli Jewish population stands at 5,978,600, up 1.8%; the Arab population numbers at 1,636,600, up 2.4%; and the rest of the population including Christians and non-Jews reached 318,000 people, up 1.3%. Israel’s Jewish population makes up 75% of the state’s total people.

In all, the Jewish state’s population increased by 96,300 people in 2012, a growth rate that did not diverge from the average rate in the past eight years.

Part of Israel’s population increase comes in part of the new immigrants that have arrived to the country. In 2011, Israel welcomed 16,892 new immigrants as citizens, with the largest populations coming from Russia (3,678), followed by Ethiopia (2,666), United States (2,363), Ukraine (2,051) and France (1,775).

Israel’s population is relatively young compared to populations in other western countries, with 28% of the population aged 0-14. Israel’s life expectancy is one of the highest of the international Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) 34 member states, with Jewish males’ life expectancy 4.2 years higher than their Arab counterparts.

The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics also found that 40% of Israel’s population lives in the center of the country, with Tel Aviv as Israel’s densest region, while 17 % lives in the north, 14% in the south, 12% in Jerusalem and Haifa, and 4% in Judea and Samaria.

Over 47,885 couples married in Israel in the past year, of which 75% were Jewish and 21% Muslim. In 2011, there were 166, 296 babies born in Israel.

The world’s principal religious populations divide as follows according to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 2012: Christians at 33% or 2.1 billion, Muslims at 24% or 1.65 billion, Hindus at 14% or 900 million, and Buddhists at 6% or 350 million. At least one billion people in the world do not ascribe to any religion at all.

Jerusalem Demographics 1800-1922

Thursday, September 13th, 2012

Jerusalem, we’re informed, is an “Arab city”.  It must be the “capital of Palestine”.

On the issue of demographics, the numbers make things quite clear that even before modern Zionism began, the city was Jewish and only Muslim repressive policies artificially kept the numbers of Jews down before the mid-19th century.

Here are the charts from Yehoshua Ben-Arieh’s book:-

More here.  And also here.

And how, for example, did the Jerusalem look in 1912?  Here’s looking out over the area then below the Jewish Quarter (later tore down at 1967) towards the Temple Mount:-

Visit Yisrael Medad’s blog, My Right Word.

Confronting the Unpleasant Truth about Two States

Wednesday, August 29th, 2012

Sometimes the truth is more than just ‘inconvenient’. Sometimes it is downright unpleasant, even ugly. But nevertheless, it is what is and we need to deal with what is, not what we would like it to be.

Martin Sherman sees the unpleasant truth and, unlike so many others, draws the logical conclusions. He has written a series of articles in the Jerusalem Post in which he has exposed the sheer insanity of the Left’s two-state solution (TSS), as well as the failure of the Right to propose real alternatives.

Now Sherman has taken up the challenge to provide a practical alternative. In his most recent article — which I urge you to read in its entirety, since I can’t do justice to it with a few snippets — he writes,

To survive as the permanent nation-state of the Jewish people Israel must address two fundamental imperatives:

• The geographic imperative • The demographic imperative

It is self-evident that if either of these is inadequately addressed, Israel’s status as the nation-state of the Jewish people will be gravely jeopardized, eventually becoming unsustainable.

The mainstream discourse invariably – and deceptively – presents Israel’s only choice as being between accepting the TSS – which would make Israel untenable geographically, or the OSS (one-state solution) – which would make it untenable demographically.

Neither comprises an acceptable policy-paradigm for anyone whose point of departure is the continued existence of Israel as the permanent nation-state of the Jews.

This, as we will see, compels us to the inexorable conclusion that between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea there can – and eventually will – prevail either exclusive Jewish or exclusive Arab sovereignty…

While addressing the geographic imperative requires Israel to maintain control of all Judea and Samaria (or at least of sufficiently large segments to make the TSS unviable), addressing the demographic imperative means that the Arab population of these areas cannot be permanently incorporated into the population of Israel…

We are left to confront a brutally simple choice: Either forgo the Jewish nation-state or address the need to significantly diminish the scale of the Palestinian-Arab population.

Whether one relates to this stark dilemma with a sense of moral outrage or equanimity will not affect the inexorable logic that led to its deduction, or the necessity to acknowledge its inevitability. Trying to evade the bleak nature of this inescapable choice by reformulating it in less forbidding terms would be no more than an exercise in hypocrisy or self-delusion…

So, for those who find the prospect of forgoing the Jewish nation-state unacceptable, the grim decision is whether to address the problem of diminishing the Palestinian-Arab population by coercive or by non-coercive means.

Right now the screaming about racism, transfer, ethnic cleansing, etc. begins. I won’t discuss why this automatically follows any discussion of Arabs moving but not Jews, nor the numerous Palestinian expressions of their intention to have a Jew-free state if the TSS is implemented. I’ll only emphasize that the alternative is no Jewish state at all.

If your idea of morality is such that yet another Jewish diaspora — undoubtedly accompanied by a bloody war — is preferable to some Arabs living between the river and the sea moving to one of the 22 Arab Muslim states in the region, then you have chosen sides and I don’t have anything to say to you.

Sherman believes, and promises details in a forthcoming article, that a non-coercive population transfer — yes, I am using that word because that is what it is — is the morally preferred option and that it can be made practical.

I have my doubts about the practicality of such a solution. But I am convinced that Sherman is right and that survival of a Jewish state requires both geographical and demographic domination of the area between the river and the sea. I remain to be convinced that this can be accomplished peacefully.

Originally published at FresnoZionism.org.

When Governments Elect Another People

Wednesday, July 18th, 2012

http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/when-governments-elect-another-people.html

Elections are won by demographics. No soup company blindly dumps cans of its newest “Turkey Coconut Bouillon with Nutmeg and Omega 3″ in Aisle 6 of the supermarket without testing to see what demographics such a hideous concoction might appeal to. Will the product appeal to lesbian single mothers, divorced Asian firefighters or eccentric Latvian millionaires? Politics is no different.

A political party has its base, definable groups who groove to its message, who eat up the red meat that its candidates toss their way. It has the demographic groups which will always vote for it and those who might swing its way. It knows them by race, gender, age, class, sexuality, home ownership and a thousand other statistical slices of the pie. It has those numbers broken down by states, cities and neighborhoods so that it has a good estimate of its chances in a given place and time based on the demographics of the people who live there.

This kind of information is helpful for winning elections– but showing up to play the electoral hand you’re dealt is for suckers. And by suckers, I mean conservative parties.

Breaking down the demographics is like looking at the cards in your hand. Once you’ve done that, the only remaining variable in a static game are your opponent’s cards. With election demographics, players can see all the cards everyone has. That makes the game static. Hands will inevitably be won or lost… unless you can draw some new cards.

The most obvious way to play the demographic game of thrones is with gerrymandered districts. A gerrymandered district is shaped to include a majority of the winning demographic leading to a nearly automatic victory for the party. It’s the political equivalent of stacking the deck.

Gerrymandered districts are of dubious legality, except when shaped to create a majority minority district, in which case it becomes an obligation under civil rights laws. This stacks the deck, creating permanent sinecures for some horribly incompetent politicians and permanent seats for the Democratic Party.

But that is just a matter of rearranging the cards in the deck. What if you could bring in cards from outside the deck? What if you could change the value of some cards? Then you would be on the way to being the best card sharp in Washington D.C. or London or Paris.

Sure you could win elections by creating a few gerrymandered districts, but you couldn’t win a country that way. To do that, you have to change the national demographics.

Suppose you were running our fictional soup company and you discovered that “Turkey Coconut Bouillon with Nutmeg and Omega 3″ isn’t popular with key demographics. The only people who like it are unemployed Pakistani immigrants, lesbian single mothers and divorced Asian firefighters.

Sure you could take a shot at putting out another flavor, but damn it, you like this one. And you also spent your entire advertising budget for the next three years promoting it, and thanks to your ad campaign, everyone now associates your company with “Turkey Coconut Bouillon with Nutmeg and Omega 3″. And if people don’t like it, then your company is doomed.

You could try to change people’s minds, or you could try to change the demographics to ones that favor your soup. To do that, you would have to bring in a lot of Pakistani immigrants, create a poor economic climate, promote divorce and homosexuality, and create some public sector jobs.

Luckily, no soup company can do that sort of thing. But governments can.

That’s the neat thing about governments, if they want to change national demographics, bring in more immigrants, create more single-parent families and more unemployment; they can do all those things easily.

Suppose, for example, that instead of running a soup company, you are a UK Labour politician. They say you’re bright, and while that may be debatable and some time later the very people who said it will spit in disgust at the idea, but you are young and you can see the writing on the wall. After Thatcher, there’s no future for the kind of cheap labor radical who threatens to take the workers into the streets at every opportunity. The working-class vote that your party identified with is on the way out. And even if it wasn’t, it won’t survive the leftward drift of your party.

The One Jewish State Solution

Friday, May 25th, 2012

“I shall not drive them away in a single year lest the land become desolate…little by little shall I drive them away from you, until you become fruitful and make the Land your heritage…” Exodus, 23:29-30.

It is almost 19 years since the infamous Oslo handshake on the White House Lawn. Shimon Peres, fool in chief, stated for all the gullible, “No more war, no more terror, no more violence… we are beginning a new era of the Middle East..” He was right – a new era of willful Jew slaughter was to begin when Israel revitalized a Jew murderer, gave his killers weapons and after signing what turned out to be a worthless agreement, Jews began to get slaughtered on the streets of Israel while the three not-so-wise men, Clinton, Rabin, and Peres looked like those three cartoonish monkeys – one covering his eyes, one covering his mouth and one covering his ears… reckless fools leading Israel to the first seven years of a Jewish bloodbath. The age of premeditated suicide bombers didn’t take long to begin, for on April 6, 1994 in Afula the first of the bus bombings began.

With short memories, too many Jews have forgotten the first 600 slaughtered Jews from 1994 to 2000. Next came the cowardly attempt by the little piano playing, cross dressing, most decorated General Ehud Barak who tried desperately to give away 94% of Israel’s historical homeland to terrorists – before Ariel Sharon took a stroll on the Temple Mount followed by what was” artistically” to be called the second intifada leading to another 1,000 slaughtered Jews. How many intifadas since 1948 add up to almost 23,000 dead Jews in Israel.

All along the way you could see the flashbulbs popping after more worthless agreements were signed and you could hear the despicable spin calling dead Jews “sacrifices for peace.” Pile up the dead Jews and let the big shots give their trite eulogies filled with platitudes telling our people how horrible it is that Jews have to die for peace, and going on to the next Kodak photo-op, the next Nobel Peace Prize moment – the next confrontation with those who spoke out demanding accountability but the only words they got from the machers du’jour was the infantile labeling as “enemies of peace”. Too many with thick wallets had too much invested to deal with the reality- easier to blame those who asked for truth. That these mentally deranged could obscenely accuse fellow Jews who were asking obvious questions as Jews were blown up on buses, blown up at seders, blown up at discotheques and pizza parlors, to look at the bloody reality. These peace pimps, in truth, were the real enemies of peace. So sure were they that peace was at hand, so invested in the charade they refused to see the joy in the eyes of the murderers, or listen to the words of the Arafatian inciters. They refused to read the school books filled with hatred as the next generation was being educated on vile lies and blessed martyrdom, virgins and sainthood for Jew killing. The arrogant peace mongers, the ignorant purveyors of perversity, those that refused to acknowledge they were wrong refused to see that this was a war not peace – they, the disgusting peace pimps – shrouded in shame refused to admit they were wrong.

Not long ago I heard a Rabbi in the middle of his sermon say “… we of the peace camp…” Can you imagine that after almost 1700 dead Jews that this ignoramus was still stuck on “… we of the peace camp…” I laughed out loud and he was infuriated. What he should have said for the assembled was, “We of the peace camp have come to apologize and beg the families of the Jewish victims for forgiveness” – but even today there are some that have yet to give up their delusions. This Rabbi of the “peace camp” is now safely in Chicago while his former home of Ashkelon is being bombed with Hamastan “peace camp” missiles and the children of Ashkelon and Sderot scurry into concrete bunkers on a daily basis.

It is time to face the reality, stop the insanity of blaming Israel for the failure of Oslo and the other worthless agreements. Its time to stop all the lies. Oslo never was about peace. It was about a lie tailored for the gullible. Even the lawyer who meticulously wrote the original agreements that Rabin and Arafat signed – a leftist in every bone in his body, Joel Singer, a Jew- boy doing his duty, realized shortly after the signing it was all a lie. But in a way I believe that Israel and Jews had to go through another deadly exercise to understand, with no excuses of political correctness, the reality and power of the Arab dream of the destruction of Israel. Has the world changed that much since the 1930’s?

Rabbi Avi Shafran And The Jewish Press

Friday, June 28th, 2002

We are saddened by some assertions made by Agudath Israel of America spokesman Rabbi Shafran in last week’s Forward newspaper. We have, until now, avoided any editorializing on the continuing and animated exchange of opinion that has appeared for several weeks in our Letters To The Editor section, preferring to let our readers explore the issue of Agudath Israel’s non-participation in the recent Washington rally in support of Israel. And we will not now address the controversy. However we cannot leave unremarked some of Rabbi Shafran’s comments.

The Forward quotes Rabbi Shafran as saying, “Jewish Press readers, to a large part, are more centrist or Modern Orthodox readers. They may have a pre-existing animus for Agudath Israel and used the rally to jump on us and to both misconstrue and misrepresent us.”

Rabbi Shafran should better have focused on the message rather than the messengers. He did not help his cause by laboring so hard to suggest that the demographics of our readership somehow skewed the totality of the commentary that appeared in our paper. After all, “a large part” of our readership is not “most of it”. Nor is the notion that our readers “may have a pre-existing animus for Agudath Israel” all that persuasive. Of course, Rabbi Shafran knew that the demographics are not what he tried to communicate to Forward readers. These sort of contrivances should be beneath a national organization that acts out of principle.

More important, Rabbi Shafran also left unaddressed the signal fact of Agudath Israel’s participation in the 1974 mass demonstration in Dag Hammarsjold Plaza against the PLO, despite his having claimed that Agudath Israel stayed away from the Washington rally because of a “longstanding policy” against such involvement. Indeed, The Jewish Press did not create the statement of Rabbi Moshe Sherer, a”h, on the importance of Agudath Israel’s demonstrating “wall-to-wall” support for Israel despite the organization’s dissent from some of what went on there. We just reported it.

Rabbi Shafran apparently feels that Agudath Israel is uniquely shielded from having to explain anything it does. But he must now know that there are consequences to such a posture.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/editorial/rabbi-avi-shafran-and-the-jewish-press/2002/06/28/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: