Friday, January 10, 2014

For Israel, Realism is a Paranoid Pessimism

Simply put:
The world, including the United States Government is against us and doesn't care if we fall, fail, cease to exist.
Honestly, I don't see it any other way.  It's foolish to rely on wishful sentiment.  History shows that we Jews have absolutely no allies and never did.

The writers and researchers and expert pundits I trust have no problems seeing the "holes" in the Obama-Kerry framework sic.  I highly suggest reading Arlene Kushner's article that appears in Israel Resource Review, Is John Kerry Behind European Boycotts of Israel?.
The government is laboring mightily to make sure it does not appear that we are the ones who are the stumbling block to “peace.” The problem, of course, and always, is that it will be our fault no matter how we labor to make it otherwise. Note what the “government sources” cited above say: “As soon as the peace talks fail [Kerry] intends to...spur on full blown international boycotts.” Failure will be our fault. No wonder, then, as well. that Ya’alon talks about the possibility of extending the talks.
No wonder, either, that the Israeli people are suffering a great deal of anger and depression.
The pivotal figure, however, is Netanyahu, not Kerry. We need a prime minister who - recognizing that we cannot win in this situation - will opt to be done with it already.
On this, see Michael Freund’s recent article, “Can Israel say 'No' to the US? Yes, we can!”
Another writer I agree with is Ruthie Blum who blasts Ehud Olmert in her latest Israel Hayom article:
Though Olmert's talk was titled "Media Challenges of Prime Ministers in Times of War and Terror," he took the opportunity of the figurative and literal podium to accuse Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of not wanting peace with the Palestinians."Only a dumbbell wouldn't make peace," he said, eliciting chuckles from the Hebrew-speaking audience for his slangy and puerile choice of epithet (the Hebrew word he used, "tembel," can also be translated as "dunce," "moron" or "blockhead")."Even a dumbbell of a prime minister would receive positive media coverage," he continued. "But a dumbbell of a prime minister wouldn't make peace, and a prime minister who makes peace wouldn't be a dumbbell."How profound.But this paled in comparison with Olmert's simultaneous insistence that he had not come to the conference to criticize Netanyahu "at this critical juncture" -- you know, with Palestinian statehood a hair's breadth away, if not for the "dumbbell" running the Israeli government.
The third writer I suggest you read and follow is Caroline Glick.
Since its inception, pan-Arab leaders always saw Israel as the scapegoat on which to pin their failure to deliver on pan-Arabism’s promise of global Arab power and influence.
Israel changed its position on pan-Arabism drastically over the years. Once, Israel could see the dangers in pan-Arabism and Arab nationalism.
But since 1993, says Haivri, Israel’s national strategy has been based on appeasing the secular authoritarian pan-Arab leaders by offering land for peace to Syria and the PLO.
Haivry notes that Shimon Peres is the political godfather of Israel’s accommodationist strategy, which is rooted in a mix of perceived powerlessness on the one hand, and utopianism on the other.
The sense of powerlessness owes to the conviction that Israel cannot influence its environment.
That the Arabs will never change. Israel’s neighbors will always see themselves primarily as Arabs, and they will always want, more than anything else, Arab states.
At the same time, the accommodationists hold the utopian belief that Israeli appeasement of Palestinian Arab nationalism will break through the wall of pan-Arab rejection, end hatred for the Jewish state, and even lead the Arabs to invite Israel to join the Arab League...Even worse, the official policy of the Netanyahu government appears based on this irrelevant Leftist view of the region. This is the implication of Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman’s defeatist speech at the Foreign Ministry’s annual conference of ambassadors on Sunday.
Liberman’s speech has been rightly viewed as the supposedly right-wing politician’s formal break with his ideological camp and his embrace of the Left. In his remarks Liberman let it be known, that like the Left, he now bases his positions on a complete denial or avoidance of reality.
For this, he was congratulated for his “maturity” by Peres who was sitting on the stage with him.
In his speech, Liberman acknowledged that the Obama administration’s peace plan for Israel and the Palestinians is horrible for Israel. But, he said, it is better than the European Union’s peace plan.
Never considering the possibility of saying no to both, Liberman said he thinks we should accept the bad American deal. His only condition is that he insists that the PLO accept towns in the Galilee and their 300,000 Israeli Arab residents.
Food for thought... Why is it that all of these writer pundits I trust and agree with are women?  Can it be that we females have a much better knack for seeing the truth than men?  As anybody with even a superficial knowledge of the Bible can tell you, that's true.  It was Sarah, not Abraham who saw that Ishmael was no only unqualified to inherit as Abraham's successor, but that he should be kept away from Isaac. And it was Rivka who understood that the studious, quiet Jacob and not the physically strong Esau who should inherit leadership and G-d's covenant with the Jewish People. And the Biblical leaders described as "blind" were all male, Isaac, Samson, Eli etc.

The Jewish Laws of Prayer are based on the Biblical Chana and how she prayed in Shiloh.  We all must pray that the men ruling achieve the wisdom of women or let us women lead!!


Leah said...

Why is it women? Maybe the men fear because of a lack of emunah? Men do speak up. I have read in places of those who do speak up. Are they the ones in office? Unfortunately not.

Batya said...

The personality and character traits that get people elected weed out those willing to take risks for principles.