Sunday, May 28, 2006


The Israeli media is finally admitting that Olmert's U.S. visit wasn't such a roaring success. It's one of those classic "good news/bad news" stories for me.

The good news is that they don't like the plan, but the bad news is the reason why. I don't like Olmert's plan and strategy, because it endangers the security, the very existence of the State of Israel. It's based on a fallacy that by giving away our historic Homeland, the Arabs will give us peace.

According the article I linked to in the first sentence and can be found here, the reason the Americans and the rest of the world don't think Olmert's unilateral (that means doing it for nothing in return) withdrawal isn't good is that:
"A viable Palestinian state," The New York Times on Thursday wrote, "It's long been clear that getting a workable, feasible Palestinian state out of two geographically separate masses of land in the desert will be an uphill battle. Now, because of two culprits and one enabler, Hamas, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and President [George W.] Bush, that hill is becoming a mountain."

That's right. The aim of the world is a "A viable Palestinian state," not a an independent viable State of Israel.

It's about time, or rather late but never, for Israel to face facts. We have no friends and no allies. The United States, England, Europe, United Nations etc are willing to sacrifice us, the State of Israel, for another Arab state, one whose essence, very aim is our very destruction.

This is not something one can negotiate.

Wise up!


Vigilante said...

So you are saying Israel cannot survive, living side by side with a Palestinian state?

Israel can't live without holding on to the West Banks?

Which or both of the above?

Batya said...

The aim of the arabs is to destroy Israel. They haven't changed. All the talk of "peace" is from Israel and Jews.

There is no historical precedent for a country which was attacked and then victorious to give land to the attacker.