Olmert's self-delusion continues
Last night, I told you all that according to a new survey, some 70% of Israelis are against Ehud Olmert'sBut this is Israel. Our Knesset is not directly representative of the people; the members are responsible only to their own political parties. Therefore, that change in thought is unlikely to be reflected by anything other than a new Knesset. And so, Ehud Olmert can continue to delude himself and endanger all of us by pushing ahead with his 'plan.'
The Jerusalem Post is reporting this morning that Olmert now admits that his 'plan' will not bring security. So he is trying to sell its 'other advantages.' And what might those be, you ask? I'll tell you that I became more and more furious as I read this article. Quite simply put - there are none. All of Olmert's 'advantages' are either intangible (they'll make the Israeli left feel good) or based on delusion (that there's a demographic 'problem' that needs to be solved and this will solve them). The security dangers, on the other hand, are real and only getting worse. To describe Olmert as a danger and a menace to the people of Israel is - if anything - understating the case. He seems determined to make the entire country Judenrein.
When Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met Tory leader David Cameron in London last week, Cameron asked a question that - in light of everything happening in Sderot and Gaza - is heavy on the minds of many Israelis: How will Israel be able to prevent similar Kassam attacks from the West Bank after realignment?
According to reports on that meeting, Olmert didn't answer directly. Rather, he admitted that the realignment plan was not ideal, but that considering the overall situation it was the most realistic option available. [Why is this the 'most realistic option available'? Why isn't sitting still and waiting until the 'Palestinians' are ready to make peace - in whatever century that might occur - a more realistic option? CiJ]
Olmert said it was unlikely the Palestinians would accept the plan, but that there was a chance the "intensity" of the conflict would decline following a withdrawal from most of the West Bank. Ninety-five percent of the Palestinian population, he told Cameron, would no longer be under Israeli control. [And for a 'chance' that the 'intensity of the conflict' might decline the dumb *&%^ is going to give away all of our strategic assets? CiJ]
Regarding Jerusalem, Olmert said Israel would not make any compromises regarding its sovereignty over the Temple Mount, but that this would not be the case regarding some of the east Jerusalem neighborhoods. [That's just great - how many more Gilos will there be the next time the 'Palestinians' start shooting in Jerusalem? CiJ]
Realignment, he told Cameron, was born of a "need to separate" and to "reduce the friction." [Isn't the need to stay alive a bit more important than the 'need to separate' and to 'reduce the friction'? CiJ]
...
Olmert, his top aides say, has articulated a general "vision" regarding realignment, but the nitty-gritty details have not yet been worked out, such as which settlements will be included in the settlement blocs. There are other major points still to be decided.
For instance, no decision has yet been taken regarding whether the IDF will retain a presence in the West Bank after the plan is implemented and some 60,000 to 70,000 settlers are evacuated. Senior Israeli officials say there are a number of options available, but that the prime minister is nowhere near making a decision. [How the heck does he decide to surrender without any operational details? He doesn't even know whether it's feasible - it seems not to be! What kind of 'decision-making process' is he using? CiJ]
...
[The more I read this article, the more furious I am becoming. CiJ].
Some of Olmert's political critics are aghast that at a time when Gaza is in chaos, Sderot is under fire, and there is a real danger of a major military escalation, Olmert is still peddling a plan that sounds as if he is simply transferring the Gaza model of disengagement to the West Bank; a transfer that that takes for granted that disengagement from Gaza was a resounding success.
Ask those around Olmert whether they feel disengagement was a success and they will say it's important how one defines success. If the only parameter for judging success is security, then it would be tough to call disengagement a success, considering all that Sderot residents are going through.
But Olmert's advisers argue that security is not the only measure of success. They say that disengagement, and therefore the future realignment, needs to be judged by different parameters: whether they will improve Israel's demographic situation [The 'demographic situation' is a non-existent problem that was invented by taking the 'Palestinians' population count at face value. CiJ]; whether they further the vision of a two-state solution [Even for those who think we 'need' 'two states' other than Israel and Jordan - and I do not count myself as one of them - are they willing to commit suicide in order to attain that 'goal'? CiJ] ; whether they improve Israel's international standing [Israel's
'international standing' won't improve unless we go like sheep to the slaughter. We're Jews! Accept it! CiJ]; whether they improve Israel's strategic relationship with the US [The US thinks we're a bunch of dumb &^#@'s. CiJ]; whether they reduce friction and help Israel separate from the Palestinians [See comments above. CiJ].
It is precisely because Olmert believes there are so many different parameters involved when judging disengagement that he feels comfortable trying to sell an additional withdrawal at this time - even while the last disengagement is being accompanied, not by the drums and fifes of good Palestinians governance, but rather by the thuds of falling Kassam rockets.
Olmert seems to be determined to make Judea and Samaria - and the rest of Israel - Judenrein.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:22 AM
2 Comments:
Dear Friend,
When are you going to start thinking "Outside-the-Box"? As long as you take the red-herrings handed out as "justifications" for these unilateral retreats into insecurity and self-destruction at face value, you'll never see the logic in them. Only when you start looking for other "products/results" from such self-destructive initiatives do you stand a chance of understanding the true motivation behind Oslo-Disengagement-Whatever.
Read Yoram Hazon's "The Struggle for Israel's Soul" to see the entire Post-Zionist movement in its historical context.
I'll give you a hint as to what I sincerely believe is the "target" of the primary consequences to all these related initiatives: Which sector in Israel is likely to become a serious contender for political power over the next twenty years?
Yoel Ben-Avraham
Shilo, Benyamin
I've read Hazony's book. I've read the first 100 pages (the most important part) more than once. The sectors that is most likely to contend for political power in Israel in the next twenty years are the Arabs and the Haredim. The Haredim are almost unanimously against Olmert's plan (the leadership is not but they cannot go into the voting booth with the voters). You think Olmert's pandering to the Israeli Arab vote? I think not. Unlike Sharon (whom I believe was acting to keep his butt out of jail), I think Olmert has become a true believer thanks to his wife and kids. And that makes him even more dangerous.
Post a Comment
<< Home