|
Featured Story The end of Israel? By Cal Thomas Aug. 4, 2005 http://www.JewishWorldReview.com In the H.G Wells novel and subsequent film, "The Invisible Man," the main character takes a dangerous drug and slowly disappears. That is a metaphor for what is happening to Israel as it plans its latest unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, which it once "occupied" for security purposes. Israel is slowly disappearing, and the twin drugs of appeasement and self-delusion are responsible. The "disengagement" later this month (which is actually a retreat and is seen that way by Israel's enemies) will not be the end, anymore than previous retreats, concessions, "good will" gestures and written documents have produced security or peace in the region. Only after Israel is destroyed will the West realize what it did and failed to do, but it will find convenient and comforting explanations to absolve itself from any blame. Jews, you see, are always responsible not only for the world's problems, but for bringing destruction upon themselves by virtue of their being Jews. Some Israelis are placing faith in a formal "letter of assurance" that President Bush addressed to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on April 14, 2004, in which the president assured Sharon that the United States would back Israel's claim for defensible borders, which Israelis take to mean the West Bank. The Palestinian and Arab sides have not agreed to any borders. Israel trusts the word of the president, even as the State Department continues its pro-Arab ways and pressures Israel into real concessions while accepting as gospel empty promises from the Palestinian side, a side that has lived up to only one pledge: to eradicate the Jewish state. Does anyone doubt that the moment (or even before the moment) the last Jewish "settler" is dislodged from Gaza and the last thriving business closed, that Hamas and its legion of demons will rush into Gaza, expand their terror operation and begin close-up attacks on Israel? Who will stop them? It won't be the Europeans, or the Palestinians, or any Arab state that helps subsidize them. When the next formal war is launched against Israel, will the United States send troops and planes? With so little land left to defend, it is likely such a war will be over soon after it starts with Israeli cities reduced to rubble and casualties running to perhaps tens of thousands, or more. No responsible business owner would give something to his customers without receiving something in return, or he would not remain in business for long. Why should Israel be required to do all the giving and none of the receiving? Have we forgotten what produced the Israeli "occupation" of the Gaza Strip? In May, 1967, the armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria gathered on Israel's borders in another attempt to eradicate Israel. These armies enjoyed backing from several other Arab countries, much as Hitler's "final solution" enjoyed similar support from some of the same Arab states. Israel's pre-emptive strike allowed it to gain control of Gaza and the West Bank. Has anything changed in the Palestinian and Arab world? Has the rhetoric in mosques, schools and media cooled toward Israel or the objective of eliminating it? It has not. If anything, the rhetoric has become even more volatile. The Israelis are held in such contempt that they must dig up their dead from cemeteries in Gush Katif, including six graves of area residents murdered by terrorists, to avoid the desecration they've experienced in the past. Not a single Jew, living or dead, will be allowed to remain. Based on past performance, once Israel's retreat is finished, the Palestinian-Arab side may digest its latest prey like a giant boa constrictor swallowing a large mouse. But after swallowing, it will want more. Look for another intifada and then look for the State Department and the rest of the administration to again pressure Israel to "do more." The formula is wrong. Just as the character in "The Invisible Man" was unable to find an antidote and restore what he had lost, Israel's slow disappearance from the region cannot now be reversed. Assurances, agreements, promises and documents will not be able to bring her back. The West, having failed 60 years ago to save millions of Jews from the murderous ways of the Third Reich, will have new blood on its hands which history will not, and should not, allow it ever to wipe clean. |
To end Islamic fanaticism, solve Israeli-Palestinian dispute? © 2005 Laurence A. Elder The prime minister's statement angered Israelis and comforted Palestinians. What caused all the ruckus? According to the Associated Press, Prime Minister Tony Blair, in a radio interview, said the solution to Islamic terrorism turns on solving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. One slight problem. Blair never said it. The AP retracted the story, calling it "erroneously reported." Here's the con: Murderous Arab extremism either results from, or will be solved by, the failure or success of "resolving" the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. Arab scholars, intellectuals, writers and politicians join with many Americans in reciting this nonsensical mantra. But do Palestinians and Arab Muslims honestly and truly want a two-state solution? After all, Egypt and Jordan signed peace accords with Israel. And Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries do not abut Israel. Israel, of course, continues its territorial disputes with Syria and Lebanon, but much of the Arab world claims no land from Israel. So why do they care? The customary answer is that Muslims feel a keen solidarity with their Palestinian brothers, who reside in a "Holy Land" with "Holy sites," thus making Palestinian statehood a cause for Muslims everywhere. Indeed, Judea Pearl, the father of murdered reporter Daniel Pearl, wrote about a mid-May World Economic Forum in Jordan. "According to The Economist," wrote Pearl, "speaker Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, barked: 'Palestine!' every time Liz Cheney, an assistant secretary in the U.S. State Department, mentioned the vision of an 'Arab democratic spring.'" When Pearl attended the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Qatar in mid-April, he wrote, "Strikingly, there was hardly a Muslim speaker who did not tie implementation of [Muslim] reforms to progress toward settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." But do they mean it? At another East-West conference held during April in Malaysia, Pearl wrote, "[T]he Malaysian prime minister reportedly stated that Israel should cease to be 'an exclusively Jewish racist state,' and ... the overwhelming majority of participants, representing 34 countries, demanded that Israel be dismantled." Pearl also wrote about a Muslim Student Union meeting at University of California at Irvine titled "A World Without Israel," and quoted an Egyptian newspaper editor: "[T]he Egyptian people will never recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli entity." The former Syrian prime minister, in his 1972 memoirs, candidly wrote: Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees ... while it is we who made them leave ... We brought disaster upon ... Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave ... We have rendered them dispossessed ... We have accustomed them to begging ... Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson and throwing bombs upon men, women and children – all this in the service of political purposes ... In 1960, King Hussein of Jordan admitted: "Since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner ... They have used the Palestine people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and, I could say, even criminal." What about Osama bin Laden? He claims to pursue jihad, at least in part, because of Palestinians. But according to "Globalized Islam" author Olivier Roy, "Abdullah Azzam, [Osama] bin Laden's mentor, gave up supporting the Palestine Liberation Organization long before his death in 1989 because he felt that to fight for a localized political cause was to forsake the real jihad ..." It's not like this is a secret. Many Palestinian terrorists speak openly and bluntly about their intentions. "Moderate" Yasser Arafat aide Faisal Husseini said in 2001, "Our ultimate goal is the liberation of all historical Palestine from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] Sea, even if this means that the conflict will last for another thousand years or for many generations." The New York Times interviewed several Hamas leaders in Gaza three years ago. Dr. Mahmoud al- Zahar, a surgeon, told the Times the Jews could remain, but living "in an Islamic state with Islamic law. From our ideological point of view, it is not allowed to recognize that Israel controls one square meter of historic Palestine." Abu Shanab, an engineer, said, "There are lots of open areas in the United States that could absorb the Jews." Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi, a medical doctor (later assassinated by Israel), said, "[W]e in Hamas believe peace talks will do no good. We do not believe we can live with the enemy." Do these remarks reflect the sentiments of "the Palestinian streets"? Unfortunately, yes. According to the latest polls by the Jerusalem Media & Communication Center, 49.7 percent of Palestinians support "suicide" bombing against Israel, and 45.5 percent believe the Intifada's purpose is to liberate all of historic Palestine. Every victim needs a victimizer – someone who you believe wishes to destroy you. Israel provides that role for the Palestinians and the larger Arab world. But the real victimizers are those Muslim leaders, politicians, scholars, intellectuals and teachers who exploit the legitimate concerns of the Palestinians in order to divert attention from their own corrupt, oppressive, failed states. So who's really the victimizer? Read Larry Elder's columns on WorldNetDaily |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Global News. In Depth. For Redemption.