|
|
|
Jewish World Review January 4, 2008 / 26 Teves, 5768 The rape of Israel By Caroline B. Glick
To offset the public's demand for his resignation which an Israeli government report will likely cause, Olmert has worked overtime. To this end, he courts Syria, advocates Israel's withdrawal from Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem, refuses to take action against either Iran, or the burgeoning Iranian-trained Hamas army in Gaza
And certain Jewish elements in the Jewish State couldn't be more thrilled
On September 10, at a dinner at the home of US Ambassador Richard Jones,
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with a group of Israeli "elites."
Among the elitists was Ha'aretz editor David Landau. According to the Jewish
Week, Landau "referred to Israel as a failed state' politically, one in
need of a US-imposed settlement. He was said to have implored Rice to
intervene, asserting that the Israeli government wanted 'to be raped' and
that it would be like a 'wet dream' for him to see this happen.
When questioned by the paper, Landau claimed this account of his comments
was inaccurate, but then confirmed saying that 'Israel wants to be raped'
into a settlement and said he told Rice it was his 'wet dream' to address
her on the issue. He added that several people came up to him afterwards and
congratulated him for his remarks, claiming that, "I articulated what many
Israelis feel."
Actually, almost no Israelis feel what Landau expressed. But his views are
shared by his newspaper and by a significant portion of the elitists who
dominate the country.
The pro-rape crowd's influence, which rose after Israel's defeat in the war
with Hizbullah in 2006, became decisive over the past few months as the date
of the publication of the Winograd Commission of inquiry's final report on
the war approaches. The report, set to be issued later this month, is
expected to find Prime Minister Ehud Olmert responsible for Israel's failure
to defeat Iran's foreign legion in Lebanon.
To offset the public's demand for his resignation which the report will
likely cause, Olmert has worked overtime to woo the Landau crowd. To this
end, he courts Syria, advocates Israel's withdrawal from Judea, Samaria and
parts of Jerusalem, refuses to take action against either Iran, or the
burgeoning Iranian-trained Hamas army in Gaza.
Then too, a week before US President George W. Bush's first presidential
visit to Israel, Olmert gave an interview to the Jerusalem Post where he
went out of his way to prove that Landau is right. His government does wish
to be "raped" by the US.
Sounding more like a Palestinian spokesman than the leader of Israel, Olmert
attacked his own country claiming that it isn't abiding by its obligations
to the terror-supporting Palestinians. In his words, "There is a certain
contradiction… between what we're actually seeing and what we ourselves
promised. We always complain about the [breached] promises of the other
side. Obligations are not only to be demanded of others, but they must also
be honored by ourselves."
Olmert argued that Israel must withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines with
minor modifications not because doing so will ensure peace with the
Palestinians, but because if we don't we'll lose our Jewish majority.
The Prime Minister's contention is questionable for two basic reasons.
First, the 1949 lines are not demographic borders but ceasefire lines. On
the eastern side of the line live a half million Jews, and on the western
side live one million Arabs. Second, the ceasefire lines are indefensible.
So while not solving any demographic problem, withdrawing to the 1949 lines
will imperil Israel militarily.
Beyond that, there is the fact that Olmert's dark demographic projections
are based on falsified census data published by the Palestinian Authority in
1997. As the American-Israeli Demographic Research Group proved conclusively
in January 2005, the PA's numbers were inflated by some fifty percent.
Although demography is a problem, Israel is in no immediate danger of losing
its Jewish majority.
The immediate danger Israel faces stems not from demography but from the
ideology of jihad that has convinced the Arab and Islamic world to seek
Israel's destruction rather than accept it. Shrinking into indefensible
borders will only exacerbate that problem by telling the jihadists that
Israel can be destroyed through violence and terror.
Olmert also argued that Israel must give up its sovereignty over Jerusalem
because Israel's supporters want it to. In his words, "the world that is
friendly to Israel...that really supports Israel, when it speaks of the
future, it speaks of Israel in terms of the '67 borders. It speaks of the
division of Jerusalem."
So in an English interview, the week before Bush's arrival in the country,
Olmert essentially asked Israel's friend in the White House to pressure
Israel to concede its vital national rights and interests.
In the same interview with the Post Olmert acknowledged that his putative
peace partner — Fatah leader and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas — does not
recognize Israel's right to exist and demands the so-called "right of
return" for millions of foreign descendants of Arabs who left Israel in
1948. But, he soothed, this is not a cause for worry.
Olmert's not worried, because Olmert can see into Abbas's soul. As he put
it, "If you ask [Abbas] to say that he sees Israel as a Jewish state, he
will not say that. But if you ask me whether in his soul he accepts Israel,
as Israel defines itself, I think he does."
For Olmert, intent as he is on securing the support of the pro-national rape
crew, his faith in Abbas's peaceful soul is more important than the visible
reality on the ground. And that reality is not merely reflected in the fact
that Fatah and Hamas are rhetorically indistinguishable from one another.
That reality is also reflected in the fact that the three Israelis murdered
in the last six weeks - Ido Zoldan, David Rubin and Ahikam Amihai — were
all killed by official, Abbas-commanded PA security forces.
The three terrorist murders show clearly that the PA itself, rather than
Hamas, is the most lethal terrorist group in Palestinian society. And the
same PA security organs involved in killing Israelis are funded and armed by
Israel and the US — which together with the Europeans and the Russians also
trains them.
Rather than contend with this sordid reality, the Olmert government makes
excuses for it. On Thursday, Olmert's spokesman
Mark Regev told the
Post that while Israel will raise the involvement of PA security forces in
the murder of Israelis with Bush, he took pains to underplay the
significance of the fact that the PA security forces themselves are the ones
killing Israelis. He referred to the killers as "rogue, extremist elements
inside the Fatah machine and the Palestinian security apparatus," and so
sought to distance them from their leaders who encourage and celebrate their
behavior.
Through their actions as statements, the Palestinians themselves show daily
that there is no difference between Abbas and Hamas Prime Minister Ismail
Haniyeh or between Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. None of them are
interested in peaceful coexistence with the Jewish state - whatever they may
or may not feel in their souls. Just as happened in Gaza, so in Judea and
Samaria and Jerusalem, any land that Israel transfers to their authority
will be used as a base for operations against Israel. Any Israeli community
relinquished will be transformed into terror training bases and missile
launching pads.
But then, the reality of war doesn't have much to recommend itself under the
looming specter of the Winograd report. The only reality that interests
Olmert is the reality of his quest to survive in office. And to stay in
office, Olmert needs Landau and his friends. And so Israel's strategic
straitjacket grows tighter by the day.
This week, Iranian strongman Ali Larijani paid an official state visit to Egypt. He met not only with President Hosni Mubarak and Foreign Minister Ahmad Gheit, but with Egypt's chief cleric, the head of the Al Azhar Mosque and Islamic University Sheikh Muhammad Tantawi. During his visit he offered nuclear collaboration with Egypt. He also worked to settle religious disputes between Shiite and Sunni Islam to facilitate jihadist collaboration against the common enemies of all Muslims.
On the heels of Larijani's visit, Mubarak broke on his pledge to Defense
Minister Ehud Barak from a week ago not to allow the thousands of Hamas
terrorists seeking to return to Gaza after traveling to Saudi Arabia to
enter the Gaza Strip through the Rafah crossing where Israel has no security
presence. Wednesday the terrorists marched across the border unopposed. Some
were reportedly carrying over $100 million in cash which they received from
Iran and Saudi Arabia. Others were returning after receiving military
training in Iran.
The Olmert government had nothing to say about Egypt's open collusion with
Israel's enemies. And how could it? Admitting that Egypt is an enemy state
would harm the pro-national rape gang's peace narrative. For them, Egypt is
the head of the "moderate camp."
Rather than acknowledge this reality, Olmert showers Mubarak with praise. In
his interview with the Post, he said, "When I even think of how things
would be if we were dealing with people other than Mubarak, well, I pray
every day for his well-being and good health."
The truth is that so far, Olmert's gambit has been successful. All the
public's attempts to force him to resign - over Lebanon, over Gaza and over
allegations of Olmert's massive corruption — have been scuttled. Guarding
their man, the pro-national rape camp has given little to no media backing
to popular calls for his removal from office. Landau and his friends are
fully willing to lose wars and be led by morally impaired, incompetent
leaders if doing so facilitates the international rape of their country.
Take Landau's Ha'aretz employee, columnist Yoel Marcus for example. In his
December 14 column, Marcus called for Olmert to be forced from office. Just
one week later, emphasizing the importance of the peace process, Marcus said
that Olmert must stay in power after the Winograd report is published.
There are officials in Washington who claim that Bush is angry at Olmert.
They say that Bush expected Olmert to stand up to Rice when she became
overtly hostile to Israel in the lead up to the Annapolis conference. These
officials argue that if Olmert were just to stand up to Rice, the president
would finally have the opportunity to push her aside and marginalize her.
It is hard to know what to make of this claim. Unfortunately, we won't see
it tested any time soon. Controlled by the rape Israel crowd, Olmert needs
Rice's pressure. And so he told the Post that Bush, (and by extension
Rice), is "not doing a single thing that I don't agree to. He doesn't
support anything that I oppose."
Bush's first presidential visit to Israel could have been a great
opportunity for the country. But in his interview with the Post, a week
before Bush's arrival Olmert made clear that the visit will be a disaster.
Whether Bush wants to or not, ahead of the pubicatio of the Winograd report,
Olmert will leave him no choice. Bush will be forced to rape Israel.
JWR contributor Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Comment by clicking here.
| ||||||||||
