Posted on 12/09/2003 11:46:08 PM PST by yonif
At a time of rising anti-Semitism and ongoing Palestinian terror, there is nothing quite like a healthy dose of diplomatic defeatism to further dampen the nation's spirits.
This past Friday, Industry, Trade, and Labor Minister Ehud Olmert did just that when he formally joined the chorus of despair, singing the blues about Israel's future in an interview with Yediot Aharonot.
Turning his back on his ideological upbringing, Olmert came out in support of unilateral withdrawal from most of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, arguing that Israel has "no choice" but to turn over large portions of the Land of Israel to its foes.
The former mayor of Israel's united capital even hinted at a readiness to divide Jerusalem, suggesting that some of the city's eastern neighborhoods might be placed under Palestinian control.
"The choice is between the line presented by [Yossi] Beilin, and the right-wing line that I am presenting," Olmert said. "These are the two options. There are no others."
And then, without a trace of irony, Olmert asserted that his scheme was one of "hope," as though withdrawal and retreat should be causes for optimism, rather than concern.
Predictably enough, the remarks have caused a ruckus, if only because Olmert is considered one of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's closest confidantes, and is unlikely to have spoken so bluntly without first getting a green light from his boss.
Construction and Housing Minister Effi Eitam of the National Religious Party rightly condemned Olmert's comments, while his colleagues in the Likud denounced his willingness to give in to Palestinian terror.
But perhaps the most egregious aspect of Olmert's remarks is his insistence on inflicting upon people of Israel despondency and gloom, falsely maintaining that they will have to choose between withdrawal from the territories and withdrawal from the territories, as though there were no other possible options.
That is not leadership – it is fear-mongering and frailty. Olmert's ideas are neither revolutionary nor bold. They are little more than a repackaging of Oslo, one that will bring neither peace nor security in their wake.
The fact of the matter is that there is an alternative. There is a way out of the current morass. But it is one that requires faith in the justness of our cause, something that Olmert seems to have abandoned long ago.
After 10 years of retreat, it is time to try something else. Instead of running away from the problem, as Beilin suggests, or building a wall to hide from it, as Olmert would like, Israel must at last do what it should have done long ago: reassert complete military control over Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
TOPPLE THE Palestinian Authority, arrest and try its leadership, and once and for all declare that this land is rightfully ours and we shall never again abandon it.
In other words, take it back, take it all back, and don't ever give it up again.
For if, as Olmert himself suggests, Israel must decide unilaterally what its future borders will be, and if, as he also states, irrespective of where that border is drawn, Israel will face harsh criticism from abroad, then we have little to lose by going all the way and taking back what we should never have given up in the first place.
Those preaching withdrawal seem to forget that we have been there and done that, and look where it has gotten us. We turned over land to Palestinian control in the Oslo Accords, the Gaza-Jericho Agreement, Oslo II, Hebron and Wye. We have repeatedly trodden down the path of concessions, but it is a path that led only to more violence and greater bloodshed.
Those, such as Beilin and Olmert, who nevertheless insist on retreat, are asking us to believe that our neighbors' appetites will be satiated on or near the 1967 border. They are willing to displace hundreds of thousands of Jews in the territories, tear away parts of our ancestral homeland, shrink the size of the state and endanger its future, all in the dubious belief that it will bring about a possible end to the conflict.
More importantly, though, they are asking us to toss aside the Zionist dream, to tear up the promises of the prophets, and to forgo the heartland of our ancient patrimony. In effect, they are asking the Jewish people to declare defeat. Is this their idea of leadership?
In his memoirs, Ronald Reagan describes the mood prevalent in America in the run-up to the 1980 presidential election. "During the summer and fall of 1980," he writes in An American Life, "there were many problems facing our nation But to me none was more serious than the fact America had lost faith in itself."
As Reagan saw it, there was only one possible way out: "We had to recapture our dreams, our pride in ourselves and our country, and regain that unique sense of destiny and optimism that had always made America different "
"If I could be elected president," he said, "I wanted to do what I could to bring about a spiritual revival."
That, after all, is what leadership is about – revitalizing the spirit of a nation, reinvigorating its sense of purpose, and laying out a path for it to follow as it moves toward its ultimate destiny.
We, too, have such a destiny. But only if we are guided by confidence and conviction, rather than capitulation and despair, can we ever hope to possibly achieve it.
The writer served as deputy director of Communications & Policy Planning in the Prime Minister's Office under former premier Binyamin Netanyahu.
"If I could be elected president," he said, "I wanted to do what I could to bring about a spiritual revival."
That, after all, is what leadership is about – revitalizing the spirit of a nation, reinvigorating its sense of purpose, and laying out a path for it to follow as it moves toward its ultimate destiny.
Excellent Column and Columnist.
Oh right, that will sure help the peace process. Not.
In other words, take it back, take it all back, and don't ever give it up again.
That reminds me of La Raza's slogan
“For The Race everything; for those outside The Race, nothing”
Divisive and collectivist at the same time!
Ha ha, very funny. Everyone knows that the roadmap is American foreign policy and Israeli law.
Oh, goodness, don't you think that's a little brash? I mean, think of the repurcussions and all. People could get really upset!
< /sarcasm>
If you'd like to be on or off this
Christian Supporters of Israel ping list,
please FR mail me. ~
There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had
spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass. (Joshua 21:45)
Letter To The President In Support Of Israel ~
'Final Solution,' Phase 2 ~
Arik knows how to "translate" this.
take it back, take it all back, and don't ever give it up again.
That reminds me of La Raza's slogan
“For The Race everything; for those outside The Race, nothing”
Divisive and collectivist at the same time!
I obviously make this statement against Raza-ism and collectivism.
Funny that it in *your* ethnocentric view, the comment seemed all about the Semites, just like to Raza folk it would seem like an anti-Hispanic thing to say.
Here is some clarification from America's goddess of individualism, Ayn Rand (aka Alyssa Rosenbaum):
The notion of ‘collective rights’ (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that ‘rights’ belong to some men, but not to others – that some men have the ‘right’ to dispose of others in any manner they please – and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority. Nothing can ever justify or validate such a doctrine – and no one ever has. Like the altruist morality from which it is derived, this doctrine rests on mysticism: either on the old fashioned mysticism of faith in supernatural edicts, like ‘The Divine Rights of Kings’ – or on the social mystique of modern collectivists who see society as a super-organism, as some supernatural entity apart from and superior to the sum of its individual members.
That long, long before 9/11 and the W. doctrine. If you haven't yet heard, "We are committed."
One problem with this farce is that many Russians dislike Jews and now there are now neoNazis running around.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.