As I count down the time until Yom
Kippur (the Day of Atonement, which begins tomorrow at sundown), I find myself
grieving over the state of this world of ours. In the course of Yom
Kippur, we recite Viddui -- communal confessional prayers --
several times, beating our chest with our fist as we do so.
I am of the opinion that a
world-wide Viddui with a great deal of breast-beating is in order.
Forgive us, our Creator, for we have sinned. For the world is without
moral compass.
On Wednesday, the day of Yom
Kippur itself, Ahmadinejad will be addressing the General Assembly of the
UN. He will not be barred from entering the US, and he will not be
arrested for inciting to genocide. The Israeli government is asking at
least that representatives of nations present in the hall get up and leave when
he speaks. I have no illusions that any but a miniscule number of
representatives will do so. Because the world is without a moral
compass.
~~~~~~~~~~
Because I am very careful to avoid
sharing undocumented rumors, there are stories that make the rounds
that I am reluctant to touch -- even as there is a growing conviction within me
that they may be true. But sometimes I reach a tipping point at which
I know it's time to write.
One of those stories has to
do with how US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens was killed. The story we
were given after his death is that he was fleeing the Consulate with
others on his staff and the car they were in was bombed.
But this is patently false,
because I, along with millions of others, have seen the pictures of Stevens'
body. It was not dragged from a car that had been
burned, Stevens had apparently died in the Consulate. People on
the scene dragged him out of a window, some shouting Alahu Akhbar -- the "God is
Great" cry used by those who have attacked and killed an enemy of Islam.
I do not claim to have all of the
answers. I do not know the truth of all the stories regarding
what may have been done to Stevens or whether his body may have been dragged
through the streets. My unease is that the Obama government is not interested in
all of the answers, because those answers -- exposing what was done to an
official representative of the US -- would require a far harsher response
than Obama is interested in.
~~~~~~~~~~
I have picked up this
statement attributed to Secretary of State Clinton, alluding to a time
before Stevens was named Ambassador this past May:
"I asked Chris to be our envoy to
the rebel opposition. He arrived on a cargo ship in the port of Benghazi and
began building our relationships with Libya's
revolutionaries."
If this is so, a whole lot of
questions must be asked.
~~~~~~~~~~
This is what analyst Barry Rubin
had to say about the situation vis-a-vis Libya and the US in a piece
he wrote yesterday. He has answers to the questions that Obama won't ask,
at least not publicly (emphasis added):
"It is amazing how events in
international affairs that would have been easily and accurately understood a
decade ago are now surrounded by obfuscation and misunderstanding. Such is
the case with Libya and the U.S. role there. Forget Obama's Cairo speech
and all that bowing, apologizing, appeasing, and empathy. All of that is
meaningless now.
"The facts are clear. Along with its NATO allies, the
United States helped overthrow the dictatorship of Muammar Qadhafi in Libya and
installed a new regime. This government, non-Islamist, technocratic, and led by
defected old regime politicians or former exiles, won the election and is now in
power.
"What does this mean? Simple....In the eyes of many Arabs
and Muslims—especially the radicals but not just them—Libya is now an American
puppet state. Most important of all it is not an Islamist Sharia state. The
revolutionaries—a group including the Muslim Brotherhood, radical small groups,
and the local al-Qaida affiliates--want to change that situation.
"How do you do that? One way is to
attack the regime’s institutions...Another way is to assassinate officials. A tempting way to
build popular support is to murder Americans.
The killing of the ambassador and five other Americans...has
nothing to do with a video made in California. It has everything to do with the
Libyan Islamist revolution...It is nothing short of amazing that U.S.
leaders don’t seem to recognize this.
"Have no doubt that the revolutionaries—including the
Muslim Brotherhood—and a lot of others view Obama as just as bad as
Bush. Obama’s attempts at appeasement have further convinced
them that America is finished and easily bullied. In his speech of
September 2010 calling for revolution in Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood leader
Muhammad al-Badi explicitly said that.
~~~~~~~~~~
"U.S. leaders don't seem to
recognize this": I would suggest that these leaders have consciously
chosen not to recognize it.
So where is the US? The
obsequious, fawning Obama in the end has made no friends in
the radical Muslim world -- in fact they see him as being as "bad" as
Bush. However, they don't see him as being as strong as Bush -- that
obsequious, fawning behavior has simply convinced them that he's
weak. Bad AND weak. A lethal combination.
Way to go, Obama!
~~~~~~~~~~
Lest you imagine that I believe it
is only people outside of Israel who are daft, allow me to disabuse you of that
notion here. I have in mind Ehud Barak, who is, Heaven help
us, supposed to be our Defense Minister.
Barak has given an interview with
Israel Hayom (to be published in full tomorrow) in which he proposes that
the large settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria of Gush Etzion, Maaleh
Adumim and Ariel be retained by Israel, along with strategic areas in the
Jordan Valley and Samarian hills, and that dozens of other communities be
evacuated and the land given to the Palestinian Arabs for a state.
"It would be best to reach an
agreement with the Palestinians, but barring that, practical steps must be taken
to begin the separation," he said.
"It would help
us not only with the Palestinians, but with all the countries in the region,
with the Europeans and with the American administration, and of course it would
be beneficial to us."
~~~~~~~~~~
This man, you should forgive me,
is out of his gourd, to use the vernacular. The Palestinian Arabs are
demanding everything past the '67 line and the EU and the US are strongly
supporting that demand, as ludicrously unreasonable as it is.
Why does he imagine Israel's
relationship with the Arabs and their supporters will improve if we say
considerably less is all we're going to give them? Israel would only be
attacked.
In fact, why would he even
predicate such a move on the need to improve relationships with
the Palestinian Arabs and their supporters instead of considering what is
proper for Israel and protects Israel's rights? It is axiomatic --
satisfying the PA and its supporters requires making dangerous
concessions.
The PA is weak politically
and economically and is in no position to establish a viable state.
What is more it is radicalized and riddled with support for terrorists. What we
would have at our east in short order, were we to pull back, would be
a terrorist state ruled by the likes of Hamas or worse. And the rulers
that would emerge would not content themselves that they "had" a state.
They're not about to say, Nu, it's
small but we can live with it. Rather, they would consider the area they
controlled no more than a launching pad for attacks designed to bring down
"the Zionist entity" so that they might rule all of "Palestine" under
Sharia law.
Our Defense Minister's memory is
so short that he has forgotten what happened when we pulled out of Gaza
unilaterally?
~~~~~~~~~~
This "plan" -- whatever its
particulars -- is not going to fly here in Israel. I believe Barak full
well knows this. His goal is a political one, as he courts the left here
in this country and abroad by making this "bold" proposal.
This man cannot be retired soon
enough for me.
~~~~~~~~~~
Let it simply be said that we
don't owe the Palestinian Arabs anything and they have no "right" to a
state. They have blown every opportunity to acquire one legitimately
and via serious state-building.
In theory (and it's only theory),
the only way to achieve a peaceful situation with a Palestinian Arab state
would be via extensive, good-faith negotiations in which matters such as borders
were ironed out and mutually agreed upon. Absent this, there are ways to
manage the Arab population in Judea and Samaria without giving
them a state.
The Levy Report (about which I
will be saying a great deal more) recognizes anew what many of us
have known all along: We are not occupiers in Judea and Samaria. We
have a right, based on historical and legal precedents, to build in these
areas.
~~~~~~~~~~
©
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.
This material
is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to
receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and
include your name in the text of the
message.
No comments:
Post a Comment