Zion. An island of sanity in an ocean of savagery.
Friday, September 09, 2005
It takes 2 to make war?
Think again: For about a century now, Jews have been trying to live peaceably in what was once called Palestine, and is now Israel. All that time, Arabs have waged war. The only thing that varied was the intensity of the conflict.
During most of that century, the Jews were well aware that most Arabs didn't want them there. And they reciprocated every time, usually in proportion to the attacks made. A sniper attack on a kibutz warranted an equally 'minor' retaliaton, whereas a full scale invasion would be answered by the near annihilation of an entire army group.
One might claim that it was always a reactive form of warfare (except perhaps in 1967), but at least it was warfare. Well, doh, you might rightfully argue, IT WAS WAR!
Right.
So what has changed? When did war actually cease against Israel? And if you have trouble thinking of a precise date, like I do, then explain to me why Israel has stopped waging war? Unilaterally? As in: The other side DID NOT?
Evelyn Gordon has an article in the JPost that touches on this aspect of the lopsided conflict:
If anyone thought that Israel's withdrawal from Gaza would revive prospects for peace, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas scotched that notion last week. Full withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines is insufficient, he declared: Israel must also concede additional territory inside these lines.
She also mentions something I never knew:
Specifically, Abbas demanded land north and east of the Gaza Strip. This land was indeed on the Arab side of the 1949 armistice lines, but Egypt, which controlled Gaza at the time, traded it to Israel in 1950 in exchange for a larger chunk of land that Israel held in eastern Gaza. This new border was subsequently acknowledged not only by UN Resolution 242, but also by the Oslo Accords, which the Palestinians signed. The PA, therefore, has no conceivable claim to this land: Not only did Israel "purchase" it by ceding a larger bit of land to Gaza, but the new border was recognized by both the UN and the PA itself.
Gordon then continues to demonstrate how desperate Abbas in fact appears to create ANY other impression than being willing, ready and/or able to actually live in peace with the Jews. No matter what they do, or give away.
The conclusion is inescapable, though very far from new: It is impossible for the Arabs to live in peace with Israel, if it is left up to them. As long as Israel continues to let itself be beaten and bloodied, with only token retaliation, as long as only Israel gives and the Arabs only takes, as long as Israel persists in giving off signals of weakness, indecisiveness, division and even fear, the Arabs will contine their war. By terrorism, attrition, propaganda and - in the not too distant future - direct attacks from old, declared enemies.
Peace must be forced upon your enemy. He must be left in no doubt about the consequences of continuing war. Look at history to see where peace endured, and where it didn't. Only where decisive victories were obtained did peace ensue.
Israel should have taken Yasser Arafat captive, should have given him a fair trial and then hanged him. With a detailed motivation in the court sentence. It should have been clear to any of his successors what their fate would be had they copied his performance and actions.
He could have served as an example of what happens if you challenge the state of Israel. Now he is an enduring example of what an Arab can get away with. A shining example, judging from Abbas' attitude. Wage war on the Jews, and they won't even acknowledge that they're bleeding and suffering. Murder them slowly, and nothing much happens.
Please read all of Evelyn Gordon's article. In case you were in any doubt, it'll give you a taste of what's to come.
Just the mere fact that an Arab also thinks it should make a sane person think twice. Clearly, sane people are in short supply these days.
God was angry because the US forced Israel to Give Gaza to the Arabs. Or because gay people were about to have a party in New Orleans (seriously!). Or because the US is on a crusade against the peaceful religion of Islam (I wish!).
So how does this work then? God is pissed off, takes a map of the continental US, closes his eyes and sticks a thumtack in a random spot on the chart? "That's where I'll let an earthquake hit those nasty Americans! Oh no, wait, that's right near the coast, a hurricane will do nicely! Let's kill a couple of thousand black people who are totally unrelated to <enter grievance of choice here>!"
Is that how it happened?
It is so sad to see people other than rabid Muslims engage in this sort of insane conjecture.
Israel gave Gaza to the barbarians. It was not America's to give.
Gay people dance and party all the time, everywhere.
The US are NOT on a crusade. Not even against Islam.
The US does not deserve this. Neither does Bangladesh, which gets hit by floods like this one every other day or so.
God had nothing to with it. And people should stop reading their wishes into tragedies. It is sad enough the way it is.
One of Arafat's (I'm sure many) cousins was dragged from his home and shot. His son was kidnapped.
'Corruption' was given as the reason for the assassination. If that were true, Gaza would now be the least populated piece of real estate in the world, not the most crowded.
Nevertheless, a good day. Murdering barbarians turning upon themselves.
Three authors at the JPost ask "Why is Israel betraying India?". I would not go so far yet, but they do have a point.
For most Indians the greatest threat to our country comes from Pakistan, a rogue neighbor armed with the nuclear bomb and governed by a military dictatorship – a scenario with which Israelis are all too familiar. Because of that threat, our military ties were strengthening to the point where Israel is the largest supplier of military technology and arms to India.
Musharraf is a dictator. Of one of the most radical, hate-filled Muslim countries in the world (and that is saying something). The authors make a good point here:
Were you aware that while Gen. Musharraf was in charge of the Pakistani army he supported A.Q. Khan (a metallurgist whom the establishment for years held up as the "father" of Pakistan's nuclear bomb) as he made over 15 trips to share nuclear technology with Iran?
Two weeks ago, Musharraf admitted to the world the links between Pakistan and the Iranian and North Korean nuclear bomb.
The Taliban, the madrassas, the medieval type of society. It would be nice if Pakistan and all of the Muslim world would just recognize Israel and leave things at that. Not gonna happen any time soon. But in the meantime, Israel needs friendship with Pakistan a lot less than it needs friendship with India, which shares with Israel that it is a democracy and virtually under siege from Muslim terroristocracies.
Let alone the vital trade relationship.
So is Israel betraying India? No. But I would not want to even create the slightest impression that I was talking to the worst enemy of what is clearly a good friend.
Dutch minister for administrative renewal' Pechtold compares living in Holland to driving a car: "In traffic we accept risks every day, why don't we do that with regards to terrorism?".
It is simply horrifying that a senior government official is allowed to expose his insanity without immediately getting medicated and locked up. But really, all he does is suggest a course of action which has been decided upon a very long time ago.
Because in fact, this is exactly how the West deals with terrorism. We fight cancer harder than we do the root cause of terrorism, and we know a lot more about the terrorists than we do about cancer.
According to Pechtold, we should treat terrorist attacks like lightning strikes: They happen, they can't be foreseen, and we just have to accept that every once in a while, someone gets killed. They are random events with sometimes tragic consequences, acts of God really (pun intended), and there's no point in asking why, trying to prevent them or fighting them.
As far as lightning is concerned, this is probably correct.
But terrorists can be killed. Preferably before they attack. And their sponsors and controllers can be killed as well.
I am all for accepting things we can't change. But the most important part of that old cliche is "The wisdom to know the difference" (between things that can and cannot be changed).
I guess I should know better than to expect that level of wisdom from a cabinet minister
We search the purses of little old ladies so that recent immigrants from Saudi Arabia named "Mohammed" wearing massive backpacks don't get singled out.
