Caroline Glick reminds everyone of the “disengagement”, how Ariel Sharon turned to committing sickening acts of anti-demoncratic behavior and how even the alleged supporters of Israel turned against them, leading to the very terrible fix we’re in now:
After both the Oslo process and the withdrawal from Lebanon left Israel strategically and diplomatically weakened, with its politicians, generals and its very existence brought before international tribunals and targeted by diplomatic pogroms, there was no basis for the empty claim that by withdrawing from Gaza, Israel would gain international legitimacy to defend itself.
By leaving Gaza, Israel was saying – as it had in Lebanon – that it had no right to be there. And if it had no right to be there, it had no right to return.
To force this mad initiative through, Sharon had to explicitly disavow the platform he was elected to implement. Sharon won the 2003 elections by pledging never to surrender Gaza.
After he betrayed his voters, Sharon demonized and, when possible, fired everyone in positions of power and influence who opposed him.
He called a referendum of Likud members to vote on his plan, and when his opponents won the vote overwhelmingly, he ignored it. He fired Lt.-Gen. Moshe Ya’alon, then IDF chief of General Staff. He fired his cabinet ministers. He castigated as “rebels” his party members who opposed his plan.
Moreover, with the active collusion of the legal system, Sharon violently repressed his political opponents. Young girls were thrown into jail without trial for months for participating in anti-withdrawal demonstrations. Privately chartered buses en route to lawful demonstrations were interdicted by police and prevented from traveling.
Protest organizers were arrested in their homes at 3 a.m. And with the active collusion of the media, all debate on the merits of the withdrawal plan was stifled.
As bad as it was in Israel, the situation in the US was arguably even more devastating. Since Oslo, Israeli opponents of the Left’s strategic insanity were intellectually and politically buoyed by their conservative counterparts in America.
The latter helped legitimize political opposition and enabled the conceptualization and maintenance of alternative policies as viable options.
Despite government repression, some 45 percent of Israel’s Jewish population actively participated in anti-withdrawal protests. In the US, virtually no one supported them. The absence of opposition owed to the fact that in America withdrawal opponents were boycotted, demonized and blacklisted by the American Jewish community and the previously supportive conservative media.
During the years of the fake peace process, conservative US Jewish groups and conservative publications led by Commentary, The Weekly Standard and The Wall Street Journal forcefully opposed it. But when Sharon joined the radical Left by adopting its plan to withdraw from Gaza, these formidable outlets and institutions enthusiastically followed him.
Leading voices like former Jerusalem Post editor and Wall Street Journal editorial board member Bret Stephens, Commentary editors Norman Podhoretz and Neal Kozodoy, commentator Charles Krauthammer and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol not only lined up to support the dangerous planned withdrawal. They barred all voices of opposition from the pages of their publications.
To greater and lesser degrees, their shunning of voices that warned against the Gaza withdrawal continues to this day.
So, too, with the exception of the Zionist Organization of America, every major American Jewish organization supported the withdrawal.
Like the editors of Commentary, the Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal, they barred voices of opposition from speaking to their groups.
All commentators who warned of the strategic calamity that would befall Israel in the aftermath of a withdrawal from Gaza were marginalized and demonized as extremists.
In a notable gesture, this week, Stephens along with Commentary’s Max Boot, acknowledged their error in supporting the withdrawal from Gaza. Their recantations are noteworthy because most of their colleagues who joined them in pushing Israel down the garden path and cheered Sharon’s “democracy” as 8,500 Israelis were thrown out of their homes and off their land in order to free it up for a terrorist takeover, continue to deny that they were wrong to do so.
But Stephens’s and Boot’s belated intellectual integrity on Gaza is not enough to make a difference for Israel today.
Of course not. For now, that these so-called defenders of democracy refused in any way, shape or form to speak out against a disgusting man who committed undemocratic behavior in his last days of living is shameful, and puts their support for democracy under a question mark. How are we really supposed to believe that they even want China to become a democracy if they’re going to even remotely support totalitarian movements like the PLO, which has more or less run their own enclaves with sharia tactics? And supposing Sharon made racist statements against blacks? Would they have suppressed that info as well because this is Sharon who might’ve uttered blasphemy? If they did that, they’d be stooping to dark paganism.
If there’s anybody Stephens, Podhoretz, Boot, Kozodoy, Kristol, Krauthammer and even Jonathan Tobin owe an apology to, it’s the Jews once living in Gaza at whose expense they supported this whole sham, and contradicted their alleged belief in democracy as a result. How can they say they support freedom and then fully throw their weight behind the notion of turning Gaza over to an entity that’s more than 99 percent the opposite of that? I’d say they have a lot of explaining to do, and one could reasonably argue that this is exactly why the GOP failed to win the election this year too. Just how do they expect to be truly successful if they cannot take a clear stand on what they believe in? Glick was absolutely correct to take them to task for their own shameful behavior, which is as disrespectful to Americans as it is to Israelis. They shouldn’t even be working as columnists for major papers if they cannot or will not comprehend the real enemies and are willing to sacrifice their beliefs for the sake of dhimmitude. What they did is exactly what Benjamin Franklin considered abhorrent:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
That’s exactly what the so-called conservatives supporting the “disengagement” did, and in doing so betrayed even Arabs in Gaza with common sense.
(Libra Bunda)THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: Gilad Sharon, the son of Ariel Sharon the former Israeli prime minister who was felled by a stoke in 2005, called on the country’s armed forced to crush terrorism in Gaza by laying siege to the Palestinian territory.
Mr Sharon, an activist for the opposition Kadima party said that Israel’s south would only be calm when Israel would be able to declare total victory over Hamas and other radical groups in the city.
Otherwise the alternative would be to reoccupy the territory that his father ordered a withdrawal from in 2005. To do so the army should unleash an all-out assault. “Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn’t stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren’t surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too,” he wrote in the Jerusalem Post.
Mr Sharon, who is also a major in Israel’s reserve forces, said the government should force the leadership of Gaza to capitulate by cutting off all supplies.
“There should be no electricity in Gaza, no gasoline or moving vehicles, nothing. Then they’d really call for a ceasefire,” he wrote. » | Damien McElroy | Monday, November 19, 2012
Like his father he is wrong. Gaza will fight to the death… there will be no surrender. However this is no reason to risk Israeli lives. We have no choice but to bomb Gaza and Obama’s silence on the issue doesn’t help Gaza. The international community is criminal for not stepping in and occupying Gaza themselves and keeping the peace. It is very obvious Europe hates Jews more then they love the children of Gaza
Wishing to avoid an American veto at the Security Council, the Palestinian Authority is considering turning directly to the United Nations General Assembly in September in order to gain international recognition of Palestinian statehood.
Palestinian sources and European diplomats say that the Palestinians will give up their effort to be accepted as a full member of the UN – a move that would require approval by the Security Council – and will seek instead recognition by the General Assembly of a Palestinian State within the 1967 borders, which will not be a full member of the organization. via haaretz.com
Following the failed meeting of the Quartet foreign ministers in Washington last week, the Palestinians recognized that the United States will veto any resolution that will be brought before the UN Security Council for unilateral Palestinian statehood. Moreover, the Palestinians have also concluded that turning to the Security Council with a request for full membership in the UN is a more complicated proposition, largely because of time constraints. Palestinian sources and European diplomats said that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his aides are increasingly leaning toward a direct appeal to the General Assembly of the international organization. Even though the assembly lacks the authority to offer the Palestinians full UN membership, at the General Assembly the United States is unable to use its veto power against resolutions brought before the plenum for a vote. Also, the Palestinians would like the vote to take place during the General Assembly in the last week of September, and for this there is no need for a great deal of preparation. The vote at the General Assembly could be called with as little as 24 hours notice. A vote at the General Assembly is expected to end with a Palestinian victory and a large majority, as some 140 member states are expected to support recognition of a Palestinian state. Even though a General Assembly resolution is “weaker” than one by the Security Council, the Palestinians are comparing such a decision to Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947, in which the General Assembly approved the plan to partition Palestine. Senior Palestinian officials say that without the decision on dividing Palestine in 1947, Israel would not have had the international legitimacy to declare independence in May 1948.
Except that Israel could have done whatever it wanted in 1948 because the Arabs (there were no ‘Palestinians’ in 1948) rejected the partition plan and determined to drive the Jews into the sea. Moreover, Israel was admitted by the Security Council in 1949. more via israelmatzav.blogspot.com
there was a whole lot of verbal attacks on the U.S. for this need for Palestine to settle for less. Catherine Ashton who is the foreign policy head of the E.U. and a member of labor in the U.K. tried to put forward a version that was rejected by the Muslim Arabs for 6o years and would of ignored G W Bush’s promises of facts on the ground to Ariel Sharon.
Obama berates Israel, embraces idea of terrorist-led state of Palestine, indefensible pre-1967 borders for IsraelMay 20, 2011
……… … … ……… … … did any of my Jewish Brothers and Sisters vote for Obama because of what he said on TV?
WASHINGTON (AP) – Exasperated by stalled Middle East peace talks in a season of tumultuous change, President Barack Obama jolted close ally Israel Thursday by embracing the Palestinians’ terms for drawing the borders of their new nation next door. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel rejected the idea as “indefensible” on the eve of his vital White House meeting with Obama.
The U.S. president said that an independent Palestine should be based on 1967 borders—before the Six Day War in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza—as adjusted by possible land swaps agreed upon by both sides. He said Israel can never live in true peace as a Jewish state if it insists on “permanent occupation.” More… via eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com
Here is the full text of Obama’s speech today. In it the President says:
The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.Before I get to some of the reactions, I would first like to address the fact that Obama’s call for a Palestinian state along the 1967 lines (1949 armistice lines) was not new for this administration. (h/t Jeffrey Goldberg)“We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.” – Hillary Clinton 2009Now for the responses.CHALLAH @ IsraelIsrael appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace. Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state.
That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.
Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines.
Those commitments also ensure Israel’s well-being as a Jewish state by making clear that Palestinian refugees will settle in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel.
Without a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem outside the borders of Israel, no territorial concession will bring peace.
Equally, the Palestinians, and not just the United States, must recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, and any peace agreement with them must end all claims against Israel.
Prime Minister Netanyahu will make clear that the defense of Israel requires an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River.
Prime Minister Netanyahu will also express his disappointment over the Palestinian Authority’s decision to embrace Hamas, a terror organization committed to Israel’s destruction, as well as over Mahmoud Abbas’s recently expressed views which grossly distort history and make clear that Abbas seeks a Palestinian state in order to continue the conflict with Israel rather than end it.Mahmoud Abbas has called an emergency meeting to discuss Obama’s speech. Hamas has rejected the speech and has said that the Arab nation does not need advice about democracy.
The ADL has welcomed Obama’s speech.
Jackson Diehl says Obama’s speech is filled with the soaring rhetoric.
Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Allen West are all upset as they believe Obama has thrown Israel under the bus. Roy Blunt says Obama is dreaming if he thinks unilateral concessions will bring peace.
John Bolton is upset that there was not enough of a focus on Iran.
Danny Danon thinks Netanyahu should tell Obama to forget about it.
ElderofZiyon has written a great piece that you should all check out. In it Elder writes: I expected much worse. But I think that the Palestinian Arabs expected much, much more. Their tweets so far are reflecting sheer anger. Given that they regard everything as a zero-sum game, then at least from their perspective this is a huge win for Israel and Netanyahu.
Obama’s speech may be fundamental shift in U.S. Policy – Josh Rogin
Michael Rubin says we should not rush the aid, wait and see how things play out.
The AP makes shit up about Obama’s speech – Charles Johnson
Jonathan Tobin writes: The problem with this strategy is that even this unprecedented move won’t convince those who hate Israel to love America. And by damaging Israel’s diplomatic position and making its isolation more likely, he has also undermined U.S. interests. In another post Jonathan says that Obama’s call regarding the 1967 lines is a radical policy shift.
Yaacov Lozowick says that Obama has clearly learned something as President.
Yisrael Medad says it could have been worse.
Jeffrey Goldberg says the big deal of the entire speech was “Obama’s forthright denunciation of the unilateral Palestinian plan to seek the General Assembly’s endorsement this September.”
Max Boot says that Obama has been mugged by the events in the Middle East.
Senator Kirk says that “Palestinian calls for ‘1967 borders’ should be outweighed by Israel’s need for secure borders to ensure the survival of a critical U.S. ally.”
Walter Russell Mead says Obama has embraced his inner Bush.
Alana Goodman is confused by all the bashing as she thought Obama’s speech was “excellent.”Omri Ceren says that decades of American policy have just been abandoned.
The Republican Jewish Coalition is concerned with some of Obama’s statements.Obama gave the most pro-Israel speech of his life, or at least he thought so.
Obama’s misstep, oh boy says Robert Satloff.
Eli Lake says speech was good for Palestinians and Israel.
Noah Pollak thinks the 2004 Bush-Sharon Letter referenced by Netanyahu will become bigger issue in coming days.
Jeffrey Goldberg doesn’t see where Obama threw Israel under the bus, rather says same view on border as George W. Bush. Hussein Ibish says not exactly the same, a little better.
“No American president has ever used this formulation before,” said former State Department official Aaron David Miller.
Elliot Abrams says Obama’s words will have no real effect.
The USS Enterprise crackdown, like the firing of General McChrystal and the push to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, completely ignore military realities for political objectives. A political military is also a useless military. Stalin’s purges of the Russian Army’s commanders left the Soviet Union completely unprepared for the Nazi attack. And the US military is being shaped along the same lines into a political military overseen by men whose chief credential is that they share the same politics as the politicians whom they serve.
A congressional report now says that the US military has too many white males at the top. Women are being kept out of the highest ranks because they lack combat experience. The report calls on the military leadership to “better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix of American society”. Which is code for affirmative action. If we didn’t have enough incompetents at the top, we can look forward to an affirmative action military in which the generals will be there because of the color of their skin or their gender, not because they’re the best at what they do.
…Such dramatic overhauls of the military usually take place because it is culturally out of step with the government. Would be tyrants, such as Turkey’s Erdogan, go after the military because it represents a barrier to absolute power. Others because the military is a barrier to their agenda. Sharon destroyed the once great IDF, purging its commanders and replacing them with political generals in order to push through his ethnic cleansing of the Jewish communities in Gaza, leading to the disastrous performance in the Second Lebanon War. The Democrats may not have anything as ambitious in mind, but they are determined to bring it culturally into line with their agenda. And that will destroy the military as anything other than a politically correct corps that will occasionally show up for UN peacekeeping missions. This did not begin yesterday. The left has hated the American military because it is a vehicle of national exceptional-ism. A strong military gives the country a sense of independence and confidence that many European countries have lost. During the Vietnam War, the Anti-War movement targeted the military as an institution and the soldier as an individual, in order to destroy America’s ability to take independent military action. Despite the abolition of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the left has continued its vocal opposition to an ROTC presence on campus. When a wounded Iraq War veteran spoke at Columbia, he was booed and jeered. Their excuse is that the military “discriminates” against transsexuals. And when that barrier too is dismantled, then there will be something else. It’s not about gays or transsexuals, it’s about a deep rooted ideological hostility to the military. Not because of any specific policy, but because of what it represents as the defenders of a country and an order that the left would like to see destroyed.