March 7, 2011
"Between Two Poles"
The good and the bad.
And today I begin with the good, for it is Rosh Chodesh Adar -- the beginning of the month of Adar (the second Adar, actually, as it is a leap year with two Adars). We are taught, in the Talmud, "Mishenichnas Adar marbim b'simchah" -- when Adar comes in, joy increases. Adar brings us the tumultuously happy holiday of Purim, but so great is our joy that it cannot be contained in one day. All of Adar is to be joyous.
Remembering this keeps us sane and provides perspective. For Purim celebrates our victory over an enemy who would have destroyed us. And it teaches us, further, that even when G-d's face is hidden, he is there, but we are bidden to also act on our own behalf.
So let us sing: http://www.aish.com/h/pur/mm/48971716.html
~~~~~~~~~~
And the bad? The evil. Ironically, today is also the first day of the 7th Israel Apartheid Week, in which defamation and delegitimization of Israel is pushed on college campuses. Please see my piece about this, on American Thinker, here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/israel_apartheid_week_language.html
~~~~~~~~~~
There are rumors flying, and questions being addressed to me, regarding plans that Netanyahu has for his new "initiative." As it's all rumor, and there is nothing definitive, there is little to say. I've learned from long experience to be wary of panicked rumors. But this is not to deny the anxiety.
What I have learned is that our prime minister did not meet with his Inner Cabinet, the Septet, as he was scheduled to do last week. Not a good sign, for, as Minister Ya'alon indicated in his recent interview, the Septet was negative on the possibility of an agreement with the Palestinian Arabs.
And, which is most disconcerting, it is said he is working closely with Barak.
~~~~~~~~~~
The other one to watch here is Minister of Intelligence Dan Merridor, who is definitely to the left within Likud. In an Army Radio interview yesterday, he said that a Palestinian state within 1967 lines is "unacceptable" and that "the world has already recognized that the main settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria would stay in Israeli hands."
Nonetheless, "it is an Israeli interest of the highest degree" to transfer more Judea and Samaria to Palestinian control: "Without an initiative, the whole world will recognize a Palestinian state with 1967 borders."
Wait! Why would he say this when he just said the world recognizes the settlement blocs as Israeli?
He went on to suggest that uninhabited parts of area C, under Israeli control, be transferred to Palestinian Authority control as part of area A.
In response to this, MK Tzipi Hotovely said that these ideas are not accepted by most of Likud.
~~~~~~~~~~
But, in spite of all the rumors and all the talk, Netanyahu has not himself alluded to a new initiative and certainly has provided no hints as to what it might include.
The good news, such as it may be, is that his own Likud party members, as Hotovely suggested, are determined to keep him from moving in the wrong direction. Said MK Danny Danon, "We won't let Netanyahu get away with a leftist diplomatic plan."
Additionally, there is action from the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria (the Yesha Council). "We feel Netanyahu shouldn't be left alone to fight this battle internationally," said Council director-general Naftali Bennett.
"President Obama has proven that he lives in lalaland with his whole approach to the Middle East. He paved the way for engaging with the Muslim Brotherhood (more on this below) in Egypt. This is the guy we should trust to secure Israel? Netanyahu should remember that Israelis voted for him because they thought he could say no to Obama. They don't want him caving to a president who clearly knows nothing about the Middle East."
~~~~~~~~~~
There are people who are declaring with alarm that Netanyahu is about to pull a "Sharon," by which is meant that he is about to surrender Judea and Samaria. I don't see this, for a variety of reasons. The electorate is much more wary today, precisely because of all that has transpired since Sharon pulled out of Gaza, and his party is prepared to buck him in a way that did not happen with Sharon.
What is more, pulling everyone out of Judea and Samaria (Heaven forbid!) would be a gargantuan task relative to the expulsion of 8,000 from Gush Katif (who to this day have not received their due) -- and would meet with violence, I have no doubt.
This does not mean that lesser concessions are OK.
~~~~~~~~~~
Barry Rubin has been doing a good deal of excellent writing with regard to Obama and his take on the turmoiled Middle East. I was going to cite a recent article in which he described Obama's foolishness in saying that the new Egyptian government "should" have a good relationship with Israel, and that things are positive. Oi vey.
But today's piece by Rubin, "Beyond Appeasement," is even stronger:
"In a moment, I'll present what might be the most frightening paragraph in the modern history of US foreign policy. But first, here's one that's among the most deplorable. It's from a Washington Post article: 'The Obama administration is preparing for the prospect that Islamist governments will take hold in North Africa and the Middle East, acknowledging that the popular revolutions there will bring a more religious cast to the region's politics.'
"...'The administration is already taking steps to distinguish between various movements in the region that promote Islamic law in government. An internal assessment, ordered by the White House last month, identified large ideological differences between such movements as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and al-Qaida that will guide the US approach to the region.' (Emphasis added)
"Get it? Al-Qaida is bad because it wants to attack US embassies, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
"But the Muslim Brotherhood is good because it just wants to transform Egypt into an Islamist state, rule 90 million people, back Hamas in trying to destroy Israel, overthrow the Palestinian Authority, help Jordan's Muslim Brotherhood overthrow the monarchy and sponsor terrorism against Americans in the Middle East.
"I'm sure you can see the difference.
"This is the nonsense the administration has been working toward for two years. It is the doctrine pushed by the president's adviser on terrorism, elements in the CIA and White House ideologues. The State and Defense departments are probably horrified. (Emphasis added)
"'We shouldn't be afraid of Islam in the politics of these countries,' said a senior administration official in the article. 'It's the behavior of political parties and governments that we will judge them on, not their relationship with Islam.'That first phrase is correct. We shouldn't be afraid of Islam in the politics of these countries. Islam has always been present in Egypt and Jordan, Saudi Arabia or post-Saddam Iraq, and even in Iran before its revolution, and Afghanistan not under the Taliban. But we should be very afraid of Islamism in the politics of these countries.
"We should judge them on their relationship to Islam. Are they merely pious Muslims who advocate conservative social policies and protecting Islam's institutional position in their countries? Or are they revolutionary Islamists who want to transform their societies and make Islam – in their strict, strident interpretation – dictator over every aspect of life? Note, too, the dangerous idea of letting the genie out of the bottle to see if it devours us.
"...If al-Qaida is the measure of all things, then everyone is going to look moderate in comparison... (Emphasis added)
"And this is why we've been subjected to the whitewashing of the Muslim Brotherhood, to make it acceptable to the American people and Congress... (Emphasis added)
"Then there's Iran, which is not really viewed as too much of a threat... And the bloody, repressive regime in Syria is also okay in this worldview. Turkey is positively wonderful, since its Islamist regime gives the appearance of being moderate...
"Why object to Hezbollah taking over Lebanon, or the Muslim Brotherhood playing a major role in Egypt? This gives the Islamists a chance to show they are moderate, and to be moderated by a taste of power.
"Their definition of moderate is someone who is willing to participate in elections. If they knew any history, they'd be aware that both communists and Nazis participated in elections.
"This policy approach is juvenile."
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=211038
This policy approach is also terrifying. I can only pray that the majority of Americans will open their eyes and see it.
~~~~~~~~~~
A typo correction regarding yesterday's posting. The San Remo Conference was held in 1920, not 1930.
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner , functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Technorati Tag: Obama and Netanyahu.
No comments:
Post a Comment