Ahh my legacy, this will read great in the history books, well, if the end of the world wouldn't have ruined all that for me ...
Posted on 11/27/2007 9:19:19 AM PST by Scythian
Did you make up that title?
I can't imagine Benjamin Netanyahu including a New Testament citation in an article like this.
One critical difference that is not identified in this writing is that Israel is a democracy, and as such faces a threat from the increasing number of voting Muslims in Gaza/West Bank.
That’s the real thrust behind the “right of return” movement for the so called Palestenians. It would tilt the democratic balance measurably in the Muslim favor. And the terror attacks are not so much intended to kill as to create the image of insecurity to stifle Jewish immigration to Israel and promote Jewish emigration from Israel.
Israel is trapped between a rock and a hard place simply by being a democracy.
Funny - the original article doesn’t mention FReepers.
The foregoing comments by Benjamin Netanyahu were excerpted from his book published in 1993.
It is astonishing how the Western press has swallowed the PLO line that they are “the oppressed people struggling to be free,” that Israel is the aggressor, that forcing Israel to withdraw from its strategic defenses will bring peace, and that the survivors of the Holocaust are now the “bad guys.” Amazing.
Yet this is consistent with Biblical prophecy. Jerusalem is prophesied to be “ a cup of trembling” to all nations round about ... all that burden themselves with it will be torn to pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.”13
Are you stoned?
Uh...no offense meant, but the Mods get kinda cranky when you alter the title like that. Makes it hard to search for.
I don’t know what Netanyahu’s point was. What audience was that book aimed at?
Where are the pictures of Bibi?
Please list them.
What are the “silly and erroneous points” you mention?
The article seems to me to be a rather accurate outline of events from 1938/39. The parallels with current events in the ME are not exact but the general trend of events is similar enough to the past events to show just how things might work out if the west and particularly America pulls a second Munich and abandons Israel. It should be noted, I think, that the result of Munich was almost 6 years of total war, most of Central and Eastern Europe in ruins and something like 40 million dead.
Anyone who thinks that the destruction of Israel will result in peace in the region is a fool. The destruction of Israel is but one step in the drive of militant Islam for domination first in the region then into Europe, India and beyond. The next fight would likely be on sectarian lines within Islam and result in disruption of oil supplies leading to economic turmoil - and heaven-only-knows what the fallout from that would be. Once a single power emerges as dominant it will be nuclear-armed and almost certainly driven by Islamic fanaticism.
Catastrophes like WWII come around like clockwork every century or so. They are entirely the result of stupidity, cowardice and short-sighted avarice on the part of the people charged with oversight of their nations and cultures.
I can easily see an American administration pulling the rug out from under Israel. Such a move would be fully justified and trumpeted by the MSM propaganda machine and while many would exclaim against it loudly (as they did in 1938) the majority will support the act or be indifferent to it. Until gas hits $10 a gallon as the region goes up in flames and the fire spreads into Europe and the rest of Asia. At that point reality, which has a nasty habit of intruding on fantasy, will have hit home. And the cost will be counted in trillions of dollars and millions of dead.
Ping!
Well said scory, we (the United States, particular our current President) are making a horrible mistake, the death of 10 of millions in fact. The blue print is there is the article “Too demand so much we can never be satisified”
bump
bump
1. The notion that mountainous terrain provides any kind of strategic advantage in this day and age -- especially in a geographic area as small as Israel -- is ridiculous. Aerial warfare has rendered this kind of "mountain barrier" concept obsolete, and modern high-tech (and nuclear) warfare has made a ground assault on Israel futile. For someone in Israel to complain about the close proximity of foreign enemies in this context is sort of like a guy with an arsenal capable of supplying a U.S. Army division complaining that his next-door neighbor has a biq knife.
2. Comparisons to the situation in Czechoslovakia are aimed at raising serious warnings to the outside world, but they are pointless and silly. Czechoslovakia was created out of the remnants of World War I and was never really a unified country for any extended period of time. In fact, one of the rationales used by western countries to support its creation in 1918 was their aim at diminishing the influence of ethnic Germans in this region (mostly in the area known as Bohemia) by diluting them in a larger population group comprised of Czechs and Slovaks. The unsettled union of the two distinct ethnic groups was formally severed in 1993.
3. The reaction of many western countries to Germany's predations in Czechoslovakia in the late 1930s wasn't based on a delusional policy of appeasement. Rather, it was based on: (a) a candid assessment of their own limited military capability to deal with Germany's military might, and (b) their desire to let Germany and the Soviet Union vie for dominance in Eastern Europe with little or no intervention by France, Great Britain, etc. If "the West" were to adopt the same stance towards Israel today, it would be based primarily on our candid assessment that a small, unsustainable country in the Middle East isn't worth saving.
4. The greatest threat to Israel's existence is not Arabs -- it's Israel itself (through radical secularization and loss of religious/cultural identity). For example . . . abortionists in Israel kill more Jews in a typical month than Arab terrorists have killed in all of modern Israel's history.
The folks at the site need to update the editor’s note - his comment on the rebirth of Israel is off by a mere decade plus, and while I’d like to be 29 again, sadly, the 6 day war was over 40 years ago now.
Today, late 2007, a similar appeasement conference is being held. Israeli territory is the sacrificial lamb, this time to an IslamoNazi enemy, who would love to finish the Shoah, one large section of Israel after the other.
Actions of the current, crooked collection of controlling Israeli Kadima & Labour Party sell-outs seem ever determined to make the IslamoNazi enemy's goal of destroying Israel - much easier. So which area of Israel is first on the Annapolis Appeasement List? Samaria, Judea, the Golan, or Israel's capital city, Jerusalem?
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.