Motzei Shabbat (After Shabbat)
And in this case, just shortly after Rosh Hashana as well.
“Facing the Future”
For those of us who are observant Jews, the world of news has shut down for the last three days.
I wept as I prayed this Rosh Hashana. How could one pray from the heart for the defeat of our enemies and not weep?
And I note the date: 9/11. It’s been nine years. Also cause for weeping, twice over. For what happened on that horrendous day, and for the failure even now of Americans to fully grasp the import of that attack. If anything, the understanding has dissipated over the years.
In memorial observances today, as I understand it, much of the focus has been on the Ground Zero mosque. I will not deal with that now. Before turning to other matters, I prefer to share the posting on the subject of 9/11 by Daniel Greenfield (writing as Sultan Knish ) — “The Day the Sky Fell”:
“That Tuesday we faced a new world. A world in which the sky fell. And some of us rose to face the challenges. And some of us fled into the comforts of the Monday that had [come] before, and all the days and years before it. Escaping history. Fleeing destiny. Forgetting that the world had changed, and no amount of politics as usual could make it stay the same.”
(With thanks to Gary A. for calling this to my attention.)
I’ve picked up rumors of a plan that may be advanced by PM Netanyahu with regard to “peace negotiations”: Sign an agreement now, and implement it in stages over the next 30 to 40 years. Unless this has been put out by a comedian, seeking to poke fun at the whole process (and I don’t believe that), it is breathtakingly stupid — whether it truly belongs to our prime minister or is being floated by someone else seeking to advance an idea.
What this represents is a colossal admission that establishing a “Palestinian state” within the parameters routinely touted (viable, democratic, etc. etc.) is a total impossibility. And not something that can be established in a short time (two years? five years?) either. We’re talking generations here. Thirty or 40 year might be realistic (putting aside the question of whether there should be a Palestinian state on our land at all).
Why, then, even think about coming to an “agreement” now, if it cannot be implemented? To make Obama and the larger international community happy. If that isn’t stupidity, I confess that I don’t what is. Who knows what might happen during those years. Besides which, once the terms were to be set out in writing, it’s almost a sure thing that the Palestinian Arabs would come around to demanding implementation sooner. Either the PA is in a position to establish a state, or there should be nothing to talk about.
But, alas, Netanyahu is planning to show up in Sharm el-Sheikh this week to continue those “negotiations.”
I wrote the other day about a PLO demand for all of Jerusalem, rather than just “eastern” Jerusalem. Now reader Jerome V. has sent me a piece from JPost of August 8 of last year, when the Fatah (the controlling party of the PA) held its conference:
“The sixth Fatah General Assembly decreed on Saturday that the return of both east and west Jerusalem to Palestinian control was a ‘red line’ which was nonnegotiable…Israel Radio reported.
“According to the report, a document adopted by the delegates of the assembly declared that Fatah would ‘continue to sacrifice victims until residents of Jerusalem are free of settlements and settlers.’ The document went on to state that all of Jerusalem, including the surrounding villages, belonged to the Palestinians, and lands conquered following the Six-Day war shared the same status as those located within the green line.” (Emphasis added)
I stated the other day, and say it again here: The call for “eastern” Jerusalem is bogus — a stage in the infamous PLO “Strategy of Stages” — with the ultimate intention being to take all of our city.
I confess that I entirely missed this, when it happened. That’s because I was very focused on the fact that the Fatah, at its conference, also voted not to remove the clause about “resistance” (i.e., violence) against Israel from its charter.
Our “peace partner.”
Egyptian foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, said last week that making sure that a Palestinian state was “sustainable” would cost the international community some $50 billion.
This is for the state that’s supposed to be “viable.” The PA probably has the worst collective case of “welfare mentality” the world has ever seen. It has already received more in international assistance, per capita, than any other group or nation. Why should anyone have confidence that they’ll ever be viable?
U.S. National Security Advisor James Jones is promoting the idea that a multinational force should be placed in Judea and Samaria to expedite the possibility of Israel pulling back. This is an overt acknowledgement that the PA security forces are not ready to handle matters (i.e., prevent a Hamas takeover or major Hamas infiltration and step-up of terrorism) on their own.
These are worrisome variations on a theme: The Palestinians cannot cut it on their own. But the international community, infuriatingly, wants to create that state for them and buoy them up in a host of different ways. This state has become some sort of holy grail of the diplomatic community.
The IDF is opposed to the use of international forces, and with very solid reason. UNIFIL, for example, has done zero with regard to preventing the re-arming of Hezbollah.
See Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror on this issue:
See JINSA Report# 1,020 on why the “peace talks” will fail.
“Senator Mitchell said there is a ‘window of opportunity’ now. With due respect, it is not a window but trompe l’oeil – the French decorating trick that ‘fools the eye’ by drawing outdoor scenery on solid walls…”
The Report then provides a hypothetical conversation between Netanyahu and Abbas that manages to shed a good deal of light on Abbas’s real concerns.
Aaron Lerner, who directs IMRA, is of the opinion that Netanyahu is playing games (he calls them a “striptease”) with regard to negotiations, but expresses some very serious concerns as to the dangers of doing this:
“Now if the post talk scenario indeed turns out to be an indefinite stalemate in which the Palestinians are blamed for their short sightedness while Israel gains points as it implements a series of measures to improve the lot of the Palestinians…then there might be some logic to an Israeli ‘striptease’ before the music stops.
“But that’s a huge ‘if.’
“Because the Palestinians are gearing up for a very different post talk scenario.
“They anticipate an internationally imposed ‘solution’ in the wake of the breakdown in the talks. A ‘solution’ that would take into account the Israeli and Palestinian positions at the failed talks.
And if the PA walks before there is sufficient negotiation to have put Israeli positions on the table?
Closing tonight with the latest from Caroline Glick’s Latma satire: