| |
 |
|
|
We hope that
you'll feel our website is worthy enough to contribute a few pounds to
the bandwidth bills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Last
uploaded : Wednesday 3rd Apr 2002 at 11:34 |
| Contributed
by : Martin Wasserman |
|
I was recently speaking with an acquaintance of mine, an Egyptian-born Jew who was among tens of thousands of Jews driven out of Egypt in the 1950?s. Having experienced Arab attitudes about Jews first hand, he?s under no illusions about their intentions toward Israel today. We agreed that there?s no chance of a real peace agreement with the Palestinians, simply because they have no interest in peace and are only interested in destroying the Jewish state. However, when I suggested that Israel abandon negotiations and seek peace through military victory rather than through appeasement and compromise, he was less sure. He felt that even though Israel could probably conquer all of the Palestinian-controlled territories, it would then have to rule over a large, hostile population and face constant threats and terrorism.
I then said that if Israel can?t live peacefully with the Arabs, and doesn?t want to rule over them, maybe it should simply force them to leave, just as Arab states have forced long-time communities of Jews to leave. After all, we have precedents dating all the way back to Joshua. However, my friend was opposed to this. He argued that such a move would cause an increase in anti-Semitism around the world and endanger Jews everywhere.
I argued that anti-Semitism rises in response to Jewish weakness, not Jewish strength. I said that every time Israel tries to appease its enemies, anti-Semitism increases, it does not decrease. I pointed out that in 1967 Israel crushed several Arab armies and conquered large tracts of land, including some that had never been part of historic Israel. Yet, not only was it not condemned by the world, but most nations responded with respect and admiration, and the voices of the anti-Semites were nowhere to be heard. Today, on the other hand, when Israel bends over backwards to satisfy every Arab demand and even puts the city of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount itself on the bargaining block, it earns nothing but vilification and contempt. Today, the shouts of the Jew-haters are louder than ever. The fact is, the world respects winners, not losers, and strength, not weakness. Israel would do far better to adopt a strong, principled position and stick to it, rather than to constantly shift its position just to be in agreement with the so-called international consensus.
I don?t know if I convinced my friend or not. Old thinking habits are not changed easily, but it seems clear that Israel?s present predicament is the result of offering too much, not too little. For example, since Israel?s leaders have now accepted the concept of an independent Palestinian state, the whole world is endorsing this idea. God forbid that such a thing will ever come to pass. It?s clear that the only purpose of such a state would be to wage war against the Jews. When all of Israel?s leaders finally realize that such a state would be nothing but a deadly trap for them and they declare the idea unacceptable, the world will then have new reasons to condemn them.
Israel would have done far better to say at the very beginning of the conflict that all of the Land of Israel belongs to the Jews, that there will be no Arab sovereignty over any part of it and that any Arab who is unwilling to accept his status as a member of a religious minority in a Jewish state must find a new home elsewhere. If Israel would now adopt this position, and stick to it regardless of any international pressure, its "complicated" situation would become much simpler and the outcome much better.
----------------------------------
Martin Wasserman is a software developer and former radio show host in California?s Silicon Valley. He can be reached at DeeperLook@aol.com.
****************************
This article originally appeared on Arutz 7:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com
 
|
|
|
|
|
