My main reason is that I do not believe that there is any way to incorporate the 'west bank' Arabs into Israeli society, and I do not want Israel to ever have a non-Jewish majority - preferably not even a sizeable non-Jewish minority.
Another reason for favouring a partial retreat is because of security issues.
Retreat, put up a fence between Israel and the Arabs, and then whack anybody who crosses the frontier.
Naturally, I do not believe that the pre-1967 lines have any bearing on the "still-to-be-determined" border.
Yes, I know the international community insists that the retreat be to the pre-1967 line. But they can go fly a kite. Made out of a pre-1967 map.
Or, if they are so inclined, they can do with the map what a relative of mine recommended another relative could do with his airplane: "fold it until there's nothing left but sharp corners, shove it up ......., and pound sand after."
In short, bulgar the international community.
In a previous posting (http://atthebackofthehill.blogspot.com/2006/01/israeli-unilateralism.html) I wrote: "Those of us who believe it is right to hold onto ALL of Shomron will make it a very bitterly yielded concession indeed - an indisputably, very evident to everybody, agonizing amputation."
And that is what is happening at present. The bitter and painful retreat from Jewish lands is being fought out in our days, and there is incredible suffering and heart-ache.
Which these photos on Jameel's blog show: http://muqata.blogspot.com/2006/02/amona-it-hurts-so-bad-updated.html
Please, click on the link, and look at the pictures. Look at the pictures. Look at the pictures. Look at the pictures. !!!!!!!!!!
Now, I know some of my readers are inclined to whine about how the Palestinians have also suffered blah blah blah, and blah blah blah.
Frankly, I don't really care about the Palestinians.
I try not to forget that they are human also, but I'm sick of them and their supporters, and that ultra progressive sense of outrage over what has happened to those poor innocent little victims etcetera etcetera. Buncha sainted bloody Gandhis and all that.
Eleven tenths of their misery is entirely due to the actions of their own warlords, bullies, murderers, and thieves.
Whatever the Arabs do to each other (such as shoving each other into camps and maintaining a system of apartheid for over fifty years) does not really mean much to me. Sure, it's sad, or whatever, but my piles do not bleed for them.
Not when they stick it to each other with such abandon. Not when more Arabs have been killed by Arabs since the end of the Ottoman empire than by all the non-Arabs combined. Not when Arabs happily riot and kill over idiotic minor matters. Not when clan-feuds, corruption, and sadism seem to be the primary political currency in the Arab world.
I have no issue with their tribal brutality. They do it so well.
And like the international community, they too can go bulgar themselves - or, more likely, each other.
--- --- --- --- ---
As an afterthought, I can almost hear some of you acting horrified at my disparagement of the international community. "But what about the quartet?" some of you will ask.
What about the quartet?
The quartet comprises the United Nations (mostly failed states and gangster regimes), the Europeans (allegedly better than the U.N., but with a far worse record vis-à-vis Jews and Muslims), Russia (a failed economy, a failed political system, and a failed society - which has never shown impartiality or lack of bias), and (drumroll please) the United States (big oil, small minds, and military-industrial interests all combined).
All parts of the quartet have such beautiful records of keeping self-interest out of the equation.
The United Nations and Europe said jacksh.. about the annexation of Timor L'este for a quarter of a century. They haven't done crap-all about Kashmir. How about the Kurds? Tutsis? Any other noticeable successes?
And if Clinton hadn't pushed the Euros against the wall, they and Russia and the UN would have happily sat back while the Serbians pogrommed Bosnia and Albania off the map.
The only logical reason to include Europeans and Russians (as interested parties) in the process might be because of the absolute importance of Jerusalem. Which ab initio should mean that the status of Jerusalem is not negotiable.
What about Jerusalem?
The Temple Mount is only of very minor importance to Muslims. Yes yes, I know that the prophet Thingummybob is alleged to have ascended to heaven on lailat el qadr from there, but that's a load of horse pucky -- the dome of the rock was built to mark conquest and dominance, and then named Al Aqsa to assert a claim to the place and to mark the extent of Muslim power at the time; no connection whatsoever to the night journey.
The city is the very heart of two of religions, but at best merely the spleen of a third. An only comparatively recently discovered spleen at that. And it appears that that third group have a plurality of spleen in any case.
Why should the Arabs have any part of Jerusalem?
No comments:
Post a Comment