Powered by WebAds

Monday, November 05, 2007

Who is using stronger drugs - Olmert or Rice?

On the same day that the country's top police investigator recommended that he be indicted for corruption and bribery charges arising out of the Bank Leumi affair (that doesn't mean he will be - follow the link to see why), Israel's Prime Minister Ehud K. Olmert bids to save his position by vowing that he will reach an agreement with the 'Palestinians' by the end of 2008:
"If we act decisively together, we and the Palestinians, there is a chance for us to reach real achievements, maybe even before the end of President (George W.) Bush's term," he said at the Saban Forum think-tank in Jerusalem.

"There is no intention to drag out the negotiations without end. There is no reason to again hit the foot-dragging that characterised our talks in the past," the premier said.
To get an idea of how preposterous this statement is, I wonder if Muqtedar Khan was there, given that Olmert served in the IDF. How are we going to make 'peace' with people who mostly refuse to talk to us or acknowledge that we exist?

But the second half of that statement is even more preposterous than the first, as John Hinderaker points out at Powerline:
Foot-dragging? What foot-dragging? At Oslo, Israeli diplomats raced to give away the store, and a lot of good it did them. Let's not confuse "foot-dragging" with the genocidal patience with which the Palestinian Arabs and their supporters have plotted the destruction of Israel for two generations.
John's right. The only "foot-dragging" is the insistence that the 'Palestinians' fulfill their commitments before we move forward, and if Olmert's not going to insist on that, we may as well start swimming now.

And then we have the equally delusional US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice as she continues in her quest for the Holy Grail Legacy.
At the same event US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice vowed to defend Israel as it pushes ahead with the peace process, saying that it was time for all sides to make the difficult decisions necessary for a lasting peace.

"All Israelis should be confident that America is fully behind you, that we are fully committed to your security and that you can thus be bold in your pursuit of peace," she said.
To which John responds:
Let's see: just how committed is the U.S. to Israel's security? Are we prepared to deal with Iran's mullahs? Or, more to the point, how exactly are we going to protect Israel's pizza parlors and taverns from mass murder, or its soldiers from cross-border raids? Does anyone believe that we have any intention of doing anything concrete--even assuming that we have the ability to do anything concrete--to stop terrorist attacks against Israel?
Of course not. The US is unwilling to do anything to investigate - let alone stop - terrorist acts against its own citizens working on its behalf in Israel. So why would anyone think that the US would do anything to stop terror attacks against Israel? And as an Israeli, I'd rather have my own government be responsible for my security than a foreign government, although I will be the first one to stand up and cheer when - and if - the US acts in both of our national interests and bombs Iran. If Condi gets her way, that will never happen.

This is followed by Condi's usual mantra about the terrible things that will happen if there is no peace piece by piece agreement.
Rice, on her eighth visit to the region since the begining of the year, warned that if peace efforts between Israel and the Palestinians flounder, extremists would take over the Palestinian leadership.

"If we do not act now to show the Palestinians a way forward, others will show them a way forward," Rice said. "Failure is simply not an option."
And again, John hits back:
What? "Extremists" might "take over the Palestinian leadership"? But when have the Palestinians ever been led by anyone who was not an extremist? Was arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat not an "extremist"? No, wait, I forgot his Nobel Peace Prize. Are Fatah and Hamas not extremist groups? If advocacy of genocide over a period of decades does not make one an extremist, what does?
John apparently missed the part when Condi and Ehud tell us all that 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen is not like Arafat - he's a 'moderate.' But they're wrong. He's anything but a 'moderate'.
Abu Mazen is not a man of peace. He is an anti-Semite and at least an accessory to murder. Abu Mazen is a Holocaust denier. He wrote his doctoral thesis in 1982 at the Moscow Institute for Oriental Studies. The heading of his doctoral thesis was: "Zionist leadership and the Nazis." The introduction dealt, among other topics, with a loaded issue: How many Jews perished in the Holocaust. In the Soviet period, especially in the anti-Israel institute that Abu Mazen attended, they often dealt with such questions. The Soviet Union, more than any other country, was addicted to Holocaust denial. The victims were not recognized by their origin, but rather by their nationality. And this is what the diligent researcher Abu Mazen wrote:
World War Two caused the death of 40 million people from different parts of the world. Ten million Germans, 20 million Soviets, and more…Rumors at the end of the war said that 6 million of the world's Jews were among the victims in the war of extermination that was waged against the Jewish people and later on against other peoples. The fact is that no one can confirm this number or deny it. The number could be 6 million, but it could be much smaller, perhaps even smaller than one million.
"Many researchers who discussed the number reached the unconventional conclusion that it is no more than several hundred thousand," he wrote. Later on, Abu Mazen quotes a Holocaust denier who claimed that "at first the Zionists spoke about 12 million Jews who were killed in the death camps. They later narrowed the number down to 6 and to 4 million. It is not possible that the Germans murdered more Jews than existed in the world at the time." He quotes another Holocaust denier who counted 896,000 Jewish victims in all. Abu Mazen has consistently refused to distance himself from his thesis.


I am sure that you remember as vividly as I do watching eleven Israeli athletes being held hostage at the Munich Olympic games in 1972 and their eventual murder by their 'Palestinian' kidnappers. But perhaps you never knew that Abu Mazen, whom you now call a 'man of peace' financed that terror attack and has never expressed any remorse for it. In case you have forgotten, I am enclosing a picture of one of the terrorists on the balcony outside the room in the Olympic village where the Israeli athletes were held. I'm sure you recognize it. It was taken from ABC television's live coverage of the 'event.'
And if any of you think Abu Mazen has changed his stripes, here are some of his recent statements:

On October 3, 2006, Abu Mazen told al-Arabiya and 'Palestinian' television, "It is not required of Hamas, or of Fatah, or of the Popular Front to recognize Israel." He doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist!

On January 11, 2007, Abu Mazen was reported by the Jerusalem Post to have said, “We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation ... Our rifles, all our rifles are aimed at The Occupation.” And on February 5, 2007, Abu Mazen said, “We must unite the Hamas and Fatah blood in the struggle against Israel as we did at the beginning of the intifada. We want a political partnership with Hamas.” Is that a 'rejection of violence'?

On January 11, 2007, referring to the so-called ‘right of return’ of 'Palestinian refugees' and their millions of descendants which, if implemented would end Israel as a Jewish state, Abu Mazen said, "The issue of the refugees is non-negotiable.” Is that supporting a two-state solution?

According to a statement that he made on May 26, 2006, Abu Mazen regards terrorists as heroes and in January 2005 he said that disarming them is "a line that may not be crossed." Is that compliance with prior agreements?

And then AFP concludes with this gem:
"The statements of some Israeli officials that consider Israeli security more important than the establishment of a Palestinian state hinder an agreement," Abbas spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeina told AFP.

"The establishment of a Palestinian state is what will guarantee the security and stability of the whole region," he added.
As John points out, the first statement is actually true - if Israelis weren't insisting on our security, if we were only willing to roll over and die, there would be a 'Palestinian' state reichlet already. And Olmert may be willing to have us roll over and die to save his government keep him in power and out of jail. But a 'Palestinian' reichlet will only guarantee more terror in this region and not 'security and stability.' It certainly won't guarantee Israel's security and stability. As John points out:
Why on earth would establishing a "Palestinian state," assuming that would be materially different from the currently disgraceful condition of the Palestinians, "guarantee the security and stability of the whole region?" What possible effect would a Palestinian state have on Iran's regional and global ambitions; on the conflicts that beset Iraq; on Syria's nuclear ambitions or its desire to control Lebanon; on al Qaeda's campaign to drive "infidels," a category that includes pretty much everyone, from the Middle East and ultimately from the planet; on Turkey's concerns about its Kurdish minority; or on any of the other conflicts that make the Middle East a perilous region? The answer is, no effect whatsoever. This is, really, the defining fantasy of our time: the idea that giving the Palestinians a "state" will magically cure the dysfunctional and dangerous condition into which the Arab world, and much of the Muslim world, has fallen.
But what's more important? Keeping Olmert out of jail and giving Rice a legacy, or keeping seven million Israelis secure? The answer should be obvious.

By the way, Israel Radio reports that Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu responded to Olmert's statements by saying that Olmert is "detached from reality." I'd say that's a fair statement and that it describes Condi Rice too.

Read John's entire post.

Please vote for Israel Matzav in the Best of the Top 251-500 Blogs category in the 2007 Weblog Awards contest once per day per computer. Thanks.


Post a Comment

<< Home