Tuesday, January 06, 2009
How the Olmertocracy Came Close to Destroying Israel
Gordon, political science chairman, in the overtly anti-Semitic magazine
'There is something extremely cynical about how Israel explains its use of
humanitarian assistance, and yet such unadulterated explanations actually
help uncover an important facet of postmodern warfare. Not unlike raising
animals for slaughter on a farm, the Israeli government maintains that it
is providing Palestinians with assistance so that it can have a free hand
in attacking them. And just as Israel provides basic foodstuff to
Palestinians while it continues shooting them, it informs Palestinians--by
phone, no less--that they must evacuate their homes before F-16 fighter
jets begin bombing them.'
2. How the Olmertocracy came close to destroying Israel:
Gaza war shows that fortunately for Tel Aviv, there was no West Bank
We are seeing a rare consensus: The slogan .land for peace. has
disappeared. The Gaza disengagement, which created a new equation - .land
for rockets. - left the .peace camp. with a minimalistic objective,
bordering on the primitive: .Changing security realities. . a euphemistic
expression of a notion that people used to disparage: We.ll hit them so
hard that they won.t dare do it again.
Along the way, the mystical belief in negotiations and agreements was also
abandoned. And here.s yet another consensus: We did not embark on an
operation meant to destroy Hamas. The Left says it because it views terror
groups as unbeatable. The Right says it because it realizes that a
defeated Hamas will be necessarily replaced by Fatah, which would enable
the establishment of a Palestinian state and prompt an existential
It isn.t worth it to pay the price of seeing Tel Aviv bombed, Jerusalem
divided, and a small-scale civil war in Judea and Samaria just in order to
teach the Left, the hard way, that there is no difference between Fatah
and Hamas, and that what happened in Gaza will happen in Judea and
Samaria. Should the pulverized Hamas survive, we.ll be spared all of this,
and our Palestinian enemies shall continue to fight each other.
There.s also consensus against taking over the Strip. The Left says it
because the mere mention of .occupation. causes anxiety among its ranks,
while the Right says it because it knows Israel would hand over Gaza to
Fatah, and this is no reason to send our soldiers into battle.
Therefore, why did we embark on the ground incursion? To take over
launching sites? And how long will we hold on to them? The truth is that
the objective is to kill so many of them so that they .learn the lesson..
In the failed Vietnam War they referred to it as .body count.. However,
the other side can also kill, and how many of our own victims compared to
their victims will count as .victory?. The answer is that not even one
Israeli soldier is worth it.
One does not conquer land in order to kill, but rather, for a substantive
and defined purpose. For example, to take over the northern section of the
Strip, or to hold on to areas that would enable us to monitor developments
in Gaza refugee camps, or to take over the Philadelphi Route and the
When the northern section of the Strip was home to the Israeli communities
of Nissanit, Elei Sinai, and Dugit, and when Netzarim separated Gaza from
the refugee camps, and when Gush Katif was the home front of the
Philadelphi Route, there were no rockets being fired at Ashdod and there
were not Hizbullah-style .nature reserves. in the Strip.
Retrospectively, it.s already clear: The settlements in Gaza safeguarded
Beersheba and Gedera, and by defending them the IDF defended the entire
south (using much fewer forces.)
Now look at Judea and Samaria. There has been no second front there, and
the IDF operates there as if it is a man in his own home; fortunately for
Tel Aviv, there was no disengagement here. Meanwhile, the conclusion
regarding the return of the Jews to their communities in Gaza is also
clear, yet it cannot be stated in official media outlets as it is
politically incorrect. Yet nonetheless, the time for it shall come.
3. Why there is no "Two-State Solution":
4. "Restraint" is an obscene word:
5. Still living in the never-never land, where facts and reality must
never be allowed in: