With the Middle East at an historic crossroads, a pullback to the 1967 armistice lines is a risk we simply can’t afford to take, and which the likes of Hamas are all too eager to exploit.
The Middle East is in the midst of an historic upheaval. But despite the Arab street’s clear demands for regime change, there are still those who insist that a withdrawal from the West Bank is the recipe for regional stability.
They could not be further from the truth.
In reality, moves to delegitimize our presence in Judea and Samaria, and ultimately to hasten our withdrawal to the 1967 armistice lines, would prove catastrophe for democratic hopes in the region. If there is to be any progress, it must be grounded in the concept of defensible borders.
As the world waits for Libya to become the latest tyranny to tumble, it is far from certain that democracy will follow Muammar Gaddafi’s exit. Similarly, the path to freedom and truly representative government in Egypt and Tunisia is paved with uncertainty.
Democracy ranks alongside military rule, theocracy and numerous other shades of autocracy as possible outcomes.
Lebanon is the most recent reminder, if one were needed, that the Middle East version of democracy is tenuous at best, forever at the mercy of antidemocratic forces. Lebanon is a regional rarity, enjoying free elections for a multiparty parliament.
Yet in January, the Iranian-backed Hezbollah engineered the dismantling of prime minister Saad Hariri’s government, replacing him with a stooge for the Shi’ite terror movement. Abusing the tools of democracy, Iran has strengthened its stranglehold on the country. Only five years ago, Lebanon appeared poised for freedom after its “Cedar Revolution” had ousted Syria. It doesn’t take a vivid imagination to picture the “Jasmine Revolution” and the “Facebook Revolution” deteriorating in similar fashion.
ISRAEL TOO has been guilty of placing its faith in half-baked democracies. The unconditional withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 was heralded as an opportunity for the Palestinian Authority to institute freedom, prosperity and the rule of law. Instead, previously thriving industries in Gaza were left to rot, and poverty remained. Seizing the opportunity, another Iranian proxy, Hamas, seized the reins of power, violently overthrowing Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah, whose officials fled for their lives. More than five years later, the Negev still faces Hamas rockets.
With Hamas dedicated to our destruction, the international community urges greater trust to be placed in the hands of Abbas. Yet his regime is anything but a model of good government. Abbas’s term as PA president expired more than a year ago, and parliamentary elections are similarly overdue. Abbas, seemingly terrified his tenuous rule will be the next target of Arab uproar, scrambled to call elections last week.
And yet this failed democracy is the regime that so many insist we empower by withdrawing from the West Bank.
Even if Abbas were willing to genuinely reform his authority, introducing genuine checks and balances and democratic principles, the clear danger remains that Hamas, backed by its Iranian patrons, will repeat its Gaza trick.
With the Middle East at an historic crossroads, a withdrawal to the indefensible 1967 armistice lines is a risk we simply can’t afford to take, and which the likes of Hamas are all too eager to exploit. A pullout from the West Bank would surely only encourage the Iranian- inspired fundamentalists who hope to add our eastern flank to the trophies of Gaza and Lebanon. Regionally, other extremist forces such as the Muslim Brotherhood would gain inspiration from a perceived Israeli capitulation, fuelling their own appetite for power in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and other countries whose futures have yet to be determined.
Withdrawal threatens not only Israel, but also Western illusions of peace and democracy in the Middle East. A pullback to the 1967 lines would leave the region’s only genuine democracy exposed at a time of immense uncertainty.
In doing so, reconciliation and genuine peace would become even more unlikely. Any future Israeli-Palestinian talks must therefore be predicated on the necessity of defensible borders.
If not, the dream of a democratic triumph will become more distant than ever.
The writer served as bureau chief to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and is currently president of 3H Global Enterprise.
Interesting. Edom is a branch of Arabs. America plays to many games with Israeli lives. Has nothing to do with Church at Rome. We to allusioned with our power.
In Jewish tradition, Esau is Edom, Esom is Rome, Rome is the Church. The Church is the Christian West and today is lead by America.
Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated.
Its like arguing with a kid – grow up already.
Factually wrong, as usual. The last time I checked, which was a minute ago, this is an open worldwide forum.
My support as an American is for Israel. Nothing I have ever suggested would diminish or weaken Israel. Thus you have no point.
I don’t want to stop you because, unlike you, I believe in freedom of speech. I only want to expose you.
The only mission you have accomplished is to TRY and weaken Israel – and you are failing because I am here to prevent you by exposing what you are up to, regardless of your pious protestations.
Since my objective is to support Israel and yours seems to be to weaken it, this is exactly what we can expect you to write.
Whatever he suggests is the wrong thing to do in every situation.
Junkie
There you go – perfect! This is an Israeli forum, talking about the Israeli side of things. Who gives a flying F what America thinks about it? You do – and thats why you blow your arrogant horn around here so much. Its not about caring for Israel – its about caring for AMerica. Thank you for making my point.
How are you going to stop me? By coming on this forum and showing the world what an idiot you are? Mission accomplished!
What you need to get right is that you will not be allowed to support the weakening of the Israeli-American alliance.
Yes, this was egregious as well – which is why I’m working hard to boot Imam Obama. However, it is even more egregious for American Semites to vote for an anti-Semite, don’t you think?
On the one had you think you can survive without America. On the other hand you keep whining about America forcing its will on poor, helpless israel which cannot make its own decisions, according to you whiners.
Fortunately, Israel is a sovereign country that has always made its own decisions, regardless of what their friend America may think.
Fortunately, you don’t get to choose. Wiser Israeli leaders do – thank Allah for that.
You and the Hamas guys both want to weaken the Israeli-American alliance. To anyone with more than half a brain, this puts you both on the same side as far as America is concerned. Who gives a crap about your cockamamie and paranoid reasoning and whining about Israel being forced to ake decisions against their will, which is such a crock.
Let me get this straight…By “attacking opponents of Imam Obama like yourself” I am “making excuses for Jews that voted for him”. Great logic there buddy – have another scotch and call it a day.
“Jews voting for obammy is far more egregious because they’re semites and he’s an anti-semite” But the fact that Americans voted for an anti-american is not egregious to you at all. The Jews voting for him – thats the important part!
Not a fact at all, another made up lie by you. I don’t want america forcing its will upon us. If america would be willing to be an ally and not force her will upon us, I would have no problem with Israel & America’s relationship. But thats not the reality, so if I have to choose between their arms and their rules or no special relationship – I choose no special relationship. This would be better for Israel in the long run. You don’t agree, but that doesn’t equate with us being on the same side as hamas. You’ve been told this repeatedly by many others, yet you wont quit the lying.
Of course you do, by supporting Yamit’s attacks on those who criticize the Jews who voted for Imam Obama and by attacking opponents of Imam Obama like myself.
This is not a problem because it is a falsehood. I do not only look at Jews. However, their support is far more egregious because as Semites they voted for an anti-Semite.
My real feeling is support for Israel and opposition to anyone who weakens it – which includes Imam Obama and those misguided Israelis like Yamit and yourself. You can protest all you like, but the fact remains that you and Hamas are on the same side where the US is concerned. They LOVE you guys for your support.
Another lie in the long string of lies from arrogant parrot. I make no excuse for Jews that voted obammy – I actively fought against them when I was in the US – including my own family. The problem is you only look at the Jews as the reason he was elected, no other group. This is a strong outward sign of your real feelings. Deny it all you like, everyone here has read it many times and I’m not going to let go of it until you shut your face and stop making it a Jewish thing.
Not at all. I think so because Imam Obama’s approval among American Jews is down to 52% from the absurd 78% in 2008. This is still 52% too high but I’m working on it against opposition from Yamit, Yonatan and Shy Guy who make excuses for them – apparently because they are Jews and I am not.
It always amazes me that there are some Jews who will make excuses for Jews who harm Israel while attacking a non-Jew who supports Israel.
In addition, Imam Obama’s disapproval has been consistently and significantly above his approval among likely American voters as you will see in the link below. The independent Rasmussen poll uses likely voters in its polling samples because they are the only ones who count in making political changes.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
American Eagle said:
That’s pretty naive and overly optimistic don’t you think? Liberal American Jews, like Thomas Friedman, George Soros, etc. think Israel should give, give, give to her enemies until there is barely anything left for her own and some even believe Israel has no right to exist at all.
Idiot of the
dayhourIt’s so hard to keep up with them all.
“Let’s boldly face that int’l isolation”
Ehud Barak is pishing in his pants to promote Palestine. Nothing a BIG kidney stone can’t fix.
Land for peace is indefensible. Withdrawl will make Israel indefensible. I agree with Polland. Arab Palestinians are in the West Bank and Gaza not to make peace or a Palestinian State but to exact violence towards Israel.They are there only because Israel in 1967 allowed them to stay. The are called Palestinians only because Yasser Arafat called them that . They do not have a right to any of the Land. Sooner or later they will force Israel into a war; then they must go.
The whole “land for peace” principle was
based on camp David, and now we see, for
those who have no foresight, that it failed to the
point where we havent felt the full consequences yet.
If the government continues with this treachous policy
then there is no need for the eilks of a government
that act like as an American proxi for US
policy in the Middle East. There something we
could learn from the Arabs of Tunisia. Egypt, and Libya.
When there is no choice, because of the moral bankruptcy
of the goverment, then the people must
cause a change.
Calm down, HCQ. Please stop hyperventilating. Dr. Polland is right.
Imam Obama will be gone in 2 years now that many of the liberal American Jews have learned a lesson and will help the rest of us this next time. After the bitter lesson of Gaza, Israel is not going to do anything unless the Palis accept it as a Jewish state which will happen sometime after hell freezes over.
Israel should do what every Arab nation has done in response to the same UN resolutions:
Shoot the UN a bird and tell them to STFU.
Here’s a challenge to anyone in the audience.
Name a single UN Security Council Resolution issued in response to wars launched against Israel that the Arabs did not violate?
SCOREBOARD:
UNSC 181 Calling for the partition of Mandated Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab State.
Jews: YES. Arabs: NO.
UNSC 242 Calling for an end to hostilities against Israel and neighboring states, a negotiated settlement that includes establishing defensible borders, the return of territories (it intentionally DOES NOT SAY “ALL TERRITORIES”) “occupied in the conflict” (cannot legally call them “Occupied” because no sovereign nation had a legal claim on them EXCEPT Israel), resettlement of refugees (NOT BACK IN ISRAEL), and other matters to be decided during final status negotiations.
Jews: YES Arabs: NO.
And the list goes on. The Arabs want all of Israel. There cannot be any peace agreement unless the Arabs admit they are the foreign occupiers, not the Jews, and that an exchange of populations occurred in 1948 with the Arab League responsible for both.
There will be NO TERRITORIAL CONCESSIONS MADE except to return Jeiwhs land back to its rightful owners after tearing down the hundreds of thousands of ILLEGAL ARAB settlements.
Closer to Home it is more like Esau Hates Jacob.
Parashat Toldot
Rebekah gives birth to twins, Esau and Jacob, who struggle with each other, engage in bargaining and deception to obtain the birthright and Isaac’s blessing.
Vayishlach(Genesis 32:4-36:43)
Our parsha tells of Jacob’s reunion with his brother Esau after a 22 year interval.
Jacob had fled from Esau 22 years earlier because of Esau’s threat to kill him. At this reunion Jacob feared that Esau, if he still harbored his anger, would kill Jacob and wipe out his entire family. The encounter of the two brothers produced a surprise ending. Genesis 33:4
“And Esau ran towards him (Jacob) and he embraced him and fell upon his neck and he kissed him and they cried.”
Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai explains: It is a given law – it is known that Esau hates Jacob. But at this time his mercy was aroused and he kissed him with all his whole heart. Rashi says he didn’t really kiss him – for he did so without a true feeling.
There are laws of countries and laws of nature. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai is saying something very profound. Esau’s hatred of Israel – Gentile anti-Semitism, is akin to a law of nature. It is immutable. It is everlasting. It need not be rational to be. It just is. Each generation of Jews has experienced anti-Semitism in one form or another for over three thousand years. Each generation tries to understand why the nations of the world have an antipathy for Jews. Once it is explained as being due to the Jews being rich (as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion claimed – “Jews control the powers in the whole world”); sometimes it is because Jews are poor and always begging. Sometimes it’s because they are materialistic capitalists; sometimes because they are revolutionary communists. Sometimes because they are backward and uncouth; sometimes because they are too cultured and high society. Sometimes because they are parasites in foreign lands and have no country of their own; sometimes because they do have a country of their own. On and on it goes.
The phenomenon of anti-Semitism defies any rational attempt to explain it. It is not rational just as any law of nature is not rational. It just is.
Rashi had said before that Esau’s mercy was aroused when he saw Jacob bow down to him so obsequiously.
That is the explanation! When Israel prostrates itself before Esau, when he surrenders all claim to independence, all claim to self-hood, then Esau is truly a friend of Israel! That’s what happened here. Jacob flowered Esau with servile prostrations. Esau then felt warm mercy, true feelings of “brotherhood” for his poor subservient sibling.
The Sages criticize Jacob for being so servile to this brother with murderous intentions.
The “law” of human nature is still with us. We must learn to perceive its actuality and not think it’s a passing fad. We must learn to live with it and learn to fight it.
The writer says that withdrawal is indefensible?
That’s interesting, considering that for years he has supported the Establishment Likudniks who brought us withdrawal and wish to bring us further withdrawals, while at the same time helping said Establishment leaders to marginalize the pro-Land of Israel leadership in the Likud, and in particular, Moshe Feiglin.
Right. Israel’s leaders always get worn down eventually by the arabs and arabists. Their leaders may talk all big at first but eventually they all succumb to the pressure. What’s crazy is, their leaders know the truth; it isn’t about the land so much as it’s about arabs wanting the extermination of Jews. Tale as old as time. Cain hates Abel and wants him dead.
Whatever Netanyahu does, he does with the acquiescence of Shas, the Hareidis and Beiteinu, and whatever the Religious Zionist party calls itself. Netanyahu is behaving like Sharon, but Beitenu is behaving like Netanyahu. Olmert? Who’s Olmert? Wasn’t he just a bad burp? And Shas keeps the yeshivas going, and going, and going, and the country goes to hell in a handbasket. It’s all so boring: more of the same, over and over again.
Anticipation and Revolutions
By Moshe Feiglin
(excerpt)
Amona was the beginning of Olmert’s end. If Netanyahu will allow those same dark forces to continue to lead the nation in the direction we saw this week on the Gilad Farm, it will be the end of his government, as well.
Olmert had calculated that if Sharon expelled the Jews from Gush Katif and his political base strengthened as a result, he would do the same. And if Sharon acted with determination, then he – Olmert – would do even better and act with cruelty. But Olmert misread the map. The public was disgusted by the pictures from Amona. His popularity clearly began to erode from the day that his troops descended on Amona until it dissipated into oblivion.
Netanyahu is not the same type of scoundrel as Olmert. As he explained in the Likud faction meeting, he is under strong international pressure, to which he has apparently succumbed. Netanyahu left the conditions of surrender to others. It is reasonable to assume that it suited him well to allow Ehud Barak, Shai Nitzan and their cohorts to stage this week’s war against the hilltop pioneers; settlers and builders of the Land of Israel, in an attempt to lay new ground rules for dealing with them.
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Manhigut-Yehudit-Weekly-Update--27-Adar-Aleph--5771--March-3-.html?soid=1101491163077&aid=j-CigcK9WHIJudging from the answers Danny Ayalon has given to his Q & A submissions, the State of Israel has already agreed to the concept of “2 states for 2 people”. So it’s not a matter of if but when and the rest is just details. If this is the case then it is highly disingenous for the State of Israel to continue issuing building permits, allowing for the expansion of settlements and just plain blowing smoke up the arse of settlers.