Key words and phrases when thinknig of the Disengagement
Remember we are not Giving Back land, we are Giving Away land.
Now I just looked up some Golda Meir Quotes so here they are in realtion to that, although you can find thousands of quotes to the same effect
"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."—Golda Meir
Are we really giving back land to "Palestinians"? NO! they are a mix of arabs, considering they are in Gaza many are probibly egyptian
"There were no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the First World War, and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist." - Golda Meir
This is NOT "Land for Peace"; This is also NOT "Land as a reward for terror"; This is NOT "Land for free"; and certainly NOT "Land becuase we are wimps and you chased us out" I will get back to you when I come up with somethign good to call it. Right now I am just getting tired of all the people saying that "ok, maybe I could accept land for peace halachikally and politically, but this is just giveing in to terror for no reason." That is not looking beyond what is happening at the very tip of the surface.
posted by seraphya @ 8:57 PM
5 Comments:
This post seems to contradict your last. Gold Meir, though not someone whose ideology I personally admire, was right on the money when she assessed the existence of a Palestinian nation. They are Arabs, they were never an autonomous nation. And the disputed territories are not disputed between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, but between Israel and Jordan or Syria or Egypt -- i.e. sovereign nations. There are plenty of quotes from these "Palestinian" Arabs from about 30 years ago which reject out of hand the idea of being called a "Palestinian." They were Arabs. Jews were the Palestinians. To be accurate today, when one refers to these people, either call them Arabs, or if you believe they somehow became a nation in the last 30 years or so, call them "Palestinian Arabs." After all, there are also Palestinian Jews (though who were born in pre-state Israel, which was known as Palestine. To simply call them "Palestinians" is inaccurate and ascribes to them the same right to the Land as the Jews, which is false and detrimental to your Jewish nationalism as proscribed by the Torah and the Talmud, as well as countless scholars and the entire Zionist movement, secular and religious. The Arabs have been trying to erase the Jewish history and connection to the land, and have been presenting themselves as the Jews in many ways (for example, their propaganda machine has spewed out Holocaust imagery, but using Arabs instead of Jews, and Israelis instead of Nazis). They are striving for equivalency, both moral and historical, and by using the terms that they choose, we are letting them succeed.
I put the word Palestinians in quotation marks for a reason, of corse I agree with most of what you said. I was using the word "palestinians" in a sarcastic sort of way, my whole point was that it is a misnomer that when you must use it should be known as such
Isn't it amusing how naive liberal Jews are? Take Wolfensohn, for example. He raised 14 million dollars (half a mil out of his own pocket) to purchase the Jewish greenhouses for the Arabs who were to take over Gaza. Only once they got there, they began their pillaging rampage and destroyed not only 26 synagogues, but also those $14 million greenhouses. Talk about schaudenfraude.
Anyway the issue here is not whether or not there was or ever will be a "Palestinian" nation or state apart from the rest of the Arab world, but rather giving up parts of Israel. Thanks to Sharon, we gave away parts of our homeland for which many Jews lost their lives to defend, and for which many Jews dedicated their lives to cultivate. It doesn't matter that Gaza was not occupied by Arabs before the Jews got there. What does matter was that it was part of Eretz Yisrael, and by giving it away we not only committed a huge chillul Hashem, but we destroyed thousands of Jews' lives and livelihoods, and have created a new stronghold for terror (welcome to Gaza, Al Qaeda). The argument that it was indefensible territory is extremely weak, as giving up this territory has just created a closer frontier for attacks (which, unfortunately, we are seeing every day now). And besides, if this was the reason, explain why the 4 communities in Northern Shomron had to go. It was a stupid move, but hey, at least Sharon and sons got to stay out of jail...
Yah, I am very against the whole move out of the Shomron, but what would you do with Gaza?
Unfortunately the point is moot. Of course I am against expelling Jews from their homes anywhere in the world, and I am against appeasing terrorists under any circumstances. I was and am 100% anti-disengagement plan. My point with the comment about the Shomron was that Sharon carried his plan out (very shrewdly I might add) not for strategic reasons (his own Chief of Staff found out about the plan over the Internet, and his top intelligence director said it was a poor strategic move - it clearly wasn't fully thought out from that angle), but rather for political reasons. It wasn't because it was the will of the people, despite what some of the varying public opinion polls might have said, as the people elected Sharon into office on the basis of his anti-disengagement stance (70% of the Knesset seats were won by anti-disengagement parties in that election). His own Likud voted him down and he pushed through with his plan anyway. The only plausible explanations for his move have nothing to do with strategy or democracy, but rather with keeping him and his sons out of jail. Either that or he was a closet Laborite the whole time. Which do you think more probable?
Post a Comment
<< Home