Powered by WebAds

Monday, May 08, 2006

Retreat from Reality

On Friday, I told you all how Ehud Olmert has decided to change the name of his surrender plan from 'convergence' to 'consolidation,' the theory being that 'convergence' sounded too much like surrender, while 'consolidation' almost sounded like a military strategy.

Over at Israelinsider.com, publisher Reuven Koret has largely the same problems I have with Olmert's (lack of) 'strategy.' But he's much funnier about it than I am:
Dear colleagues, I quote from the Israel Insider newsletter of April 14:

"Note to Olmert spinmeisters: 'Convergence' is a stupid name. Converging to what? The vanishing point? 'Consolidation' or 'Ingathering' would have been a lot better, but hey -- you guys limp along with your poor PR. See if I care."

Well, actually, I do care. I offered my advice freely, but if I am not going to get credit, or cash, at the least you guys owe me to listen a little further. You see, I was a proponent of "consolidation" from the get-go. To wit "Gush Katif First" from May 14, 2004, in which I argued that Israel should not be fleeing ["disengaging"] from Gush Katif but consolidating isolated Jewish settlements in Gush Katif:

"What the disengagement proponents will not say is that what makes sense in Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") -- consolidating Israeli settlement blocs that Israel intends to keep in any conceivable settlement, and relocating those in isolated areas to within those blocs -- makes even more sense in Gaza. Why not start with Gush Katif?"


Instead of strengthening the settlement blocs -- Gush Ariel, Gush Etzion, the Jordan Valley, Maaleh Adumim, and Kiryat Arba/Hebron, the government -- at least that part of the coalition represented by Peres -- is committed to drying up these vital strategic areas, destroying these communities and driving out their residents, to be replaced by cockamamie schemes with no chance of success, to which the government would be expected to pour billions as it did in the wake of the "Oslo" debacle.

No. Knowing what we know now, and what I and other non-Peresites said all along, can anyone argue that Israel is now better off without the vibrant communities of Gush Katif and northern Gaza? As Kassam rockets rain daily further and further north and east, is this a precedent we really wish to repeat in Judea and Samaria, especially now that the really party in power among the Palestinians, for the foreseeable future, is Hamas?

The Post, in its article on the impending name change for "conversion," cites one perceived disadvantage of the (Koret-) proposed alternative: "One problem some are having with the word 'consolidation,' however, is that it sounds too military, too much like what an army does before waging battle. "

Hello? Attention Shoppers: We are at war. We have been at war. We will be at war with those who vow and work and kill for our destruction. Consolidation is only justified if there is a military value for consolidating. We should relocate nothing unless there a clear benefit from so doing, and the relocation strengthens the existing settlement blocs. Because we are going to be waging battle against those who would destroy us for years to come. [Gee, this is exactly what I said. CiJ]


If this government had any sense, its consolidation plan would be strengthening the settlement blocs of Judea and Samaria, not gutting them. It would be draining the Galilee and the Negev of hostile anti-Israel pseudo-citizens and encouraging them economically to relocate in the Palestinian areas or other states. It would be fighting an uncompromising war to drive out Palestinians terrorist fish and their supportive sea from their strongholds near our population centers to place where they can be contained. If the loyal Jews of Gaza, Judea and Samaria can be forcibly relocated for national objectives, certainly Arab terrorists can as well.

But no. We now have Amir Peretz as Minister of Defense. The joke goes that the new Defender of the Nation was advised by the Chief of Staff to approve a strike on Iran, and he decided instead to threaten a warning strike unless the wages of Iranian workers were raised.

We have to wage a war for national survival, and our national intelligence is out on strike.

I have a phrase for this state of affairs, and I offer it freely, since the Olmert Administration won't be able to afford to pay me after it shells out the reported NIS 250 billion ($55,555,555,556) tab for convergence, soon to be called, thanks to me, "consolidation."

The phrase is "retreat from reality."

This time I expect credit.
Read the whole thing.


Post a Comment

<< Home