Posted on 03/18/2005 5:04:47 AM PST by SJackson
By the way, July 20 is my birthday. This is also the day when the Jewish government of Israel officially begins uprooting Jews from Gaza and elsewhere.
Why? Just for the heck of it, as far as I can figure. Are the leaders of Israel really Jewish? Somewhere in the Talmud it says that if a person, claiming to be Jewish, behaves a certain way, we must doubt his pedigree. I am, therefore, doubting. (Can I get arrested for this? Administrative detention, maybe?)
The Talmud - again by the way - was the first blog. Those sages were bloggers. Sparkling wisdom throughout, but sometimes random riffs and asides (like today's Internet blogs), yet it all falls into place, distills, and somehow reaches marvelous coherence and finds the Source from which everything begins and ends. Shlomo was right. There is nothing new under the sun.
July 20 is also the day when the generals tried to assassinate Hitler, and missed. Same day, different year, we landed on the moon.
All that for July 20. What does it all mean? Why ask me? I know nothing. But it is spooky. Perhaps the rabbis can explain.
Do I need this? Another date that will live in infamy - on my birthday? I ask this favor from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon - change the date. Do that for me.
Make it, like, a thousand years from now. Okay? But not July 20, even then. (Can I get arrested for saying this? Who is that knocking at my door?)
Maybe it's about the stars being aligned a certain way, speaking of July 20. Let the astronomers explain. Better not. Abraham was into astronomy before the Almighty told him to forget the stars; Israel (and only Israel) is ruled directly by God. We shall see, I suppose, what happens on my birthday. My bet says that something good will happen. Yes, divine intervention. Ani Ma'amin.
To prove how much I know of nothing, what's this about a friendship between Natan Sharansky and President George W. Bush?
We keep being told that Bush is big on Sharansky. They met and Bush said they are soul-mates, even share the same DNA. The mutual admiration society began when Bush read Sharansky's book (co-written with Ron Dermer), a book called The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom To Overcome Tyranny and Terror.
Did something get lost in translation?
Sharansky was invited to the White House and the two became pals, mostly on account of that book and its call for the power of freedom, which is now the Bush doctrine in the Middle East. That sure gives Sharansky much honor and much clout, you would think.
The Sharon doctrine, incidentally, is to arrest the entire Jewish population of Israel, and even to detain American Jews, also Gentiles, who arrive in Israel to dispute the Sharon plan to make the land fertile for terrorism. Even visiting US Congressmen are subject for questioning, if not quite detention. As yet, there are no plans to arrest the entire US Congress if it declares itself against deportation of Jews.
Back to Sharansky. This former refusenik is a genuine hero, regardless. If I have to explain why, it's too late. But he is certainly my hero. So, if he has so much pull with Bush, why is Bush calling for the destruction of Israel? This is not a direct quote.
But I am reading that Bush insists on a "contiguous" Palestinian state, that he wants all of Judea and Samaria cleansed of Jews, so that thousands, even millions, of terrorists can move in and have the power of freedom; yes, freedom to murder Jews and destroy the Jewish state. Again, this is not a direct quote. But it is the gist.
Rid the world of terrorists and move them where? They need a place to go. Move them into Israel, that's where. Some plan this is.
Seems that the president misunderstood Sharansky. Sharansky's "power of freedom" means power to live in freedom, not empowerment to kill in freedom.
I wish Sharansky would hurry up and straighten this out, before it's too late, if he does have all that clout with the president, who seems to have it all backwards.
If anyone is getting the benefit of the Bush doctrine when it comes to Israel, it is not Israel, but the killers of Israel. Please tell him, Mr. Minister.
Sharansky is usually identified as a "minister without portfolio." Did he do something wrong to be without a portfolio? Why do all the other ministers have portfolios and him not? Maybe that's his weakness. I will look this up and get back.
And what does "contiguous" mean? This is not a word we use around the house. I will look this up as well, and get back.
Meanwhile, Abu Mazen, also known as Abu Mazen, is whining (to a beckoning world) that Israel broke the "truce" when it took out one of his terrorists who murdered five Israelis in Tel Aviv several weeks ago. Here is how it was written in the New York Times: "Israel Kills Militant, Raising Questions About Truce".
Let me translate. It's Israel's Fault!
Are Palestinian Arabs ever at fault? Never. Do they ever "raise questions about truce"? Absolutely not.
Another day at the office and business as usual when Palestinian Arabs murder innocent Israeli civilians.
May Israel retaliate to defend itself? Are you kidding? Verboten. Where does this lead?
Here is a terrible question, and God forgive me, but it is the first thought that came to my mind when I heard that Israel has built another Holocaust museum, alongside Yad Vashem. Leaders from around the world, including Kofi Annan, came along to grin, kvell and celebrate the unveiling of this new edifice.
Who is it there for, Prime Minister Sharon, this new gallery of holy remembrance that is gladdening the world? Has it been installed for the Six Million of yesterday, or has it been built for the six million of tomorrow if, God forbid, your plans go through? In other words, are we talking about a new museum for a new Holocaust?
Further, do you and Kofi and all the rest know something we don't know? Why is the world so delighted with this new place?
I hear them chuckling, Mr. Prime Minister.
The timing of all this is just too suspicious.
I expect God to forgive me for such terrible thoughts. But how many months of administrative detention are in store for me?
July 20 (13 Tammuz) is also propitious in that it means the three weeks between the 17th of Tammuz (breaching of the walls of Jerusalem) and Tisha B’Av (destruction of the Temples), typically a time of mourning, will be spent expelling Jews from Gaza
If this author really believes this...then his understanding of Israeli history doesn't go past what he had for breakfast.
It's a little detail called UN Resolution 242....
Let's state the obvious and get it out of the way.... 242 does not call for a separate Palestinian state to be created from the territories. That came later. Oslo gave the Palestinians autonomy but not a state. Camp David 2000 gave the Palestinians a state. That genie is out of the bottle, and Israel can not stuff it back in. There will be a Palestinian state because it is the inevitable outcome of 242.
Let's state another obvious... UN Resolution 242 makes sure that Israel does not go back behind the Green Line - the 1967 borders. That is why 80% of the of Israeli settlements are along the Green Line. Those settlements will remain because they are consistent with 242.
Let's state another obvious... The British Mandate gives the Jews the right to live in the Mandated area. So, if there are settlements in Gaza and in the Jordan Valley that want to remain after a Palestinian state is created...then, by law, they have every right to exist. Trouble is...and I realize that this is nothing but a huge anti-semite hypocritical... the Palestinians don't want Jews in their country. Ethnic cleansing is perfectly acceptable to the West as long as it only concerns Jews.
Furthermore, as much as I think Israel is in the right in this struggle with the Arabs, she can not just whily-nily change 242 whenever she wants. To keep the victory that 242 gave her after the 1967 war, she must hold to the limitations 242 gave her. 242 was changed during the Likud period... in hopes of establishing a Greater Israel. If that is Israel's intention, then she must be prepared to renounce 242, annex the land, and prepare to make the Palestinians citizens... If she is unwilling to do that, then she must be willing to give the territories back upon the Arab fulfilling their end of the 242.
Ah, another rub.... And this is the main rub. This one trumps all the other. For the territories to be returned, then all Arab belligerency must end. THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED.... And from the signs Abu Mazen is emanating...it will not happen in the future. The terror, from the Palestinians, Hizbollah, and the threats from foreign terror groups, and Iran must stop. Until that happens, the West should not be hearing about Palestinian rights.
Unfortunately, the West (especially Europe) sides with the Palestinians against Israel. This is a breaking of 242 even more egregious than settlements in Gaza and the West Bank.
But many diplomats believe that peace in the Middle East and a major complaint from terror groups will only come when the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is solved. Since there is only one reasonable party in the conflict...that party (Israel) is hammered to keep her end of 242 while ignoring the fact that the Arabs have no intention of keeping their's. (Or at least they give lip service to their responsibility)
So, if Sharon, a noted hawk, believes that he has a partner in peace in Mazen, and believes that moving the settlers out of Gaza helps in the ends... then the settlers, who should have known that 242 was a Damocles sword hanging over their heads when they moved in, need to realize that, according to geopolitical realities of the world, it is time to move back into Israel proper.
He's an author writing an editorial. Clearly it's not happening "for the heck of it" but rather as a defensive measure, the sucess of which we'll see over time.
I don't see 242 as an issue in the withdrawl. As you note a withdrawl to the 67 borders is not called for, as a deliberate result of the negotiations at the time. The Arabs haven't thought of complying with their obligation to recognize Israel or stop incitement. Israel has negotiated with the beligerant parties, Jordan and Egypt not the palestinians who didn't exist, and reached peace terms with both, which resulted in the return of over 90% of the territory occupied, and of course uprooting Jews who lived in the Sinai.
I don't see how you can blame the settlers. They went there with the encouragement of their government. As you note they have every right to live there. It seems to me the forseeable risk would have been living as Jews in an Arab state, should negotiations result in that. Expulsion or murder really isn't an option they should be facing. I think Sharon realizes that the "state" about to be created will be a bed of terrorism. Perhaps it's time for the administration to consider whether a state run by terrorists which bars Jews from her territory is really consistant with the "democratic" ideals we're spreading.
As for your arguments in your written paragraph 2 - I believe you are arguing for points I made my reply.
The Arabs have not stopped their belligerency. Israel has been negotiatibng with the Arabs, who have not fulfilled their end of 242. I am fully aware that Israel has returned over 91% of the land. That is not the issue at hand. I also realize that Israel uprooted settlements in Egypt.
I don't think I'm blaming the settlers per se, but any settler who goes into the territories, except for the settlements along the Green Line, had to realize that one day, Israel would have to enforce 242 unless Israel planned to annex the territories. Since Israel has not annexed the territories, the settlers, in the hopes of building a Greater Israel and contrary to 242, moved into a place where, one day, they would be forced to leave by their government's complaince with 242, or the fact that the Arabs don't want them. This is nothing new to the settlers. This isn't being "sprung" on them. They knew these realities when they went into the territories. It's the pumpkin hour...unfortunately.
Yes, Likud encouraged them to go...but the settlers aren't deaf, blind, or dumb. They realized what they were doing. They realized that this day might come if Labor or Likud decided to negotiate peace for land.
If Sharon believes that the Palestinian state would be a bed of terrorism, then it is up to Sharon not to negotiate until he finds a partner for peace. The Bush administration did not make Sharon deal with Arafat. If Mazen proves to be Arafat in a suit, I do not believe that the Bush administration will make Sharon deal with him.
Perhaps, you need another argument besides the tired old chestnut of American culpability in forcing Israel to do what Israel doesn't want to do. I really don't think that dog hunts anymore.
Now there's an answer to the age old question.
I wasn’t disagreeing with you, though I don’t think 242 is the reason for the withdrawal. IMO it’s the first stage of an essentially unilateral solution to the conflict, in the event that a “peace partner” doesn’t emerge. Presuming the Palestinians refuse to disarm the terror groups, I’d expect to see the delineation of defacto borders in the West Bank as well, accompanied by a similar withdrawal. As to the US, I don’t think we’re pressuring Israel in Gaza, that’s essentially an Israeli initiative, though I’m sure GWB is pleased. My point was that the fact that the new state must be Judenrein argues against the probability that a successful “democratic” state will emerge, defining “democratic” as preferably pro-Western but at least non-expansionist, rather than the terrorists get to elect a terrorist government.
To Carton253...Resolution 242, and all other resolutions, became null and void from the moment the Palestinians began strapping on bomb belts and blowing up Israelis four years ago. Through this terror war against Israel, which has taken 1,500 Jewish lives, plus thousands more permanently wounded, the Arabs have forfeited any rights to 242 and other such legalisms. The author, Jack Engelhard, makes his point swiftly and brilliantly, as usual. What did you have for breakfast?
In the world of diplomacy, it didn't, though it generally misrepresented. From a common sense perspective, I completely agree with you.
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.