woensdag 28 april 2010

Het Zionistische debat: Judea en Samaria of Israel?

 
Ami Isseroff heeft natuurlijk gelijk met onderstaande kritiek, al is het geen prettige conclusie.  
 
Most important, however, is that Taub ignores the really big problem that is driving a lot of Israelis away from the "peace process:" The peace process has not worked, and many of its most ardent supporters, including myself, have had to admit that giving up "land for peace" has not led us closer to peace and there is no sign that it will. Aaron David Miller, a leading American protagonist in the "Peace Process" now has admitted that it is not going anywhere - it is a "false religion." He has not taken the next step, which is to understand that in the current situation, Israeli concessions are not likely to result in peace, but rather in a Hamas- controlled Islamist terror state.
 
It is not as if we have a choice between keeping the settlements or having peace. We have a choice only between keeping the settlements and gaining some probably temporary American and European approval. The history of disengagement from Gaza shows how ephemeral even this approval will probably be. Israel was lauded for withdrawing from Gaza, but when it turned sour, the EU, the Americans and the UN were quick to condemn Israel.
 
Het zou heel erg helpen als de internationale gemeenschap niet alleen eisen aan Israel stelt, maar het ook steunt als het aan onze eisen tegemoet komt en een en ander dan toch wat anders uitpakt. Het feit dat veel Israeli's hun vertrouwen en hoop in het vredesproces en in concessies aan de Palestijnen om tot vrede te komen hebben verloren valt ook de EU, de VN en de VS aan te rekenen. Misschien moeten we daarom de hand eens in eigen boezem gaan steken.
 
RP
--------------
 
 
 
I have to agree with Gadi Taub (The Zionist debate) that we should not be jeopardizing the state of Israel or sullying the Zionist idea for real estate. He also does well to remind the world that the "faithful of the Temple Mount" and similar groups are not the only Zionists, and certainly do not represent all of Zionism.
 
Some of the advocates of Greater Israel and "no compromise" are avowedly not Zionists at all. They have a religious motivation, rather than the secular political goal of reconstituting the Jewish people as a free nation in our own land. And retaining the settlements in the West Bank, AKA Judea and Samaria, wll produce an enormous demographic headache for israel. The Arabs who live there are not going anywhere, and anyone who thinks otherwise is engaged in wishful thinking.
 
On the other hand, there is always another hand. We should not sacrifice Zionism for Judea and Samaria, but what about Jerusalem? If we give up the old city of Jerusalem, the "real" historic Zion, will we still have achieved our goal? Will the Arab states and the world finally recognize that the 2000 year-old exile of the Jewish people is over? Will the Jewish people who live in the Diaspora realize that as well? Or will Israel go back to its pre-1967 status, when it was viewed at best as a shelter for refugees and poor relatives, and at worst as a temporary aberration like the Crusader kingdom?
 
Most important, however, is that Taub ignores the really big problem that is driving a lot of Israelis away from the "peace process:" The peace process has not worked, and many of its most ardent supporters, including myself, have had to admit that giving up "land for peace" has not led us closer to peace and there is no sign that it will. Aaron David Miller, a leading American protagonist in the "Peace Process" now has admitted that it is not going anywhere - it is a "false religion." He has not taken the next step, which is to understand that in the current situation, Israeli concessions are not likely to result in peace, but rather in a Hamas- controlled Islamist terror state. 
 
It is not as if we have a choice between keeping the settlements or having peace. We have a choice only between keeping the settlements and gaining some probably temporary American and European approval. The history of disengagement from Gaza shows how ephemeral even this approval will probably be. Israel was lauded for withdrawing from Gaza, but when it turned sour, the EU, the Americans and the UN were quick to condemn Israel.
 
No matter what the borders or the rights of a new Palestinian state, it will never satisfy the Iranians or the Libyans or Al Qaeda or Hamas or others who insist on wiping out Israel. It is certain that they will try to use that state as a base for destroying Israel, and if the lessons of Gaza and Lebanon are a guide, it is nearly certain that they will succeed. The Goldstone report demonstrates vividly that in the almost certain eventuality that the "peace process" goes sour, Israel will not be allowed to fight the terror state that would be created by it. 
 
Ami Isseroff  
 
 

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie plaatsen