Ariel Sharon:
“Concessions in the ‘Territories’,
Even if only Partial Ones,
Are a Surefire
Formula for National Suicide”
Editorial
It is well known that politics is supposed to be the
second oldest profession in the world. Based on
my experience I’m afraid that that is an insult to
the oldest profession.
Ronald Reagan
|
The ability of the common politician simultaneously to say one thing and its
converse is famous. However the inexhaustible ability of the Israeli Prime
Minister to deceive his nation, his voters, his party and himself regarding
issues, which go to the very essence of his country’s existence, is a quality
unique to the people residing in Zion.
It was Menahem Begin who
vowed, orally and in print, with characteristic pathos, that: “If I am asked
to sign an agreement transferring the Sinai Desert to the disciple of that
oppressor…I, Menahem Begin, will never sign such an agreement, which, for
all intents and purposes, is a war treaty”. Only a few months later, he most
certainly signed. As a bonus in gratitude to Jimmy Carter “who is as great
as Jabotinsky”, he took the opportunity to establish ex nihilo the
“Palestinian people”, possessor of “legitimate rights”, and destroyed the
Sinai settlements.
The failures of his
successors, Shamir, Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu and Barak are too numerous to
mention, and the patient reader is invited to peruse a recounting of their
exploits in the various issues of Nativ.
Nevertheless, when they face
the trial of history, and they will face trial, they can claim extenuating
circumstances:
-
Begin, in his characteristic
style of the head of the Catrielivka Community Council, will contend in his
defense that first of all: The fear of the American boss overwhelmed him, and,
second, the calculated risk in relinquishing Sinai was a sacrifice required
for the opportunity to make peace with the largest of the Arab countries.
-
Shamir will claim in his
defense, that even though he shirked his duty as prime minister during the
SCUD nights of the winter of 1991, and further entangled his people with the folly
in Madrid – the forbearer of Oslo, at least he did not lie publicly and
fundamentally was and remains a decent person. That is no mean feat in
comparison to his professional colleagues.
-
Rabin will claim that he fell
into a trap set for him by the leftists in his party led by Peres, “that
indefatigable underminer” and Beilin “his poodle”, and that they led him
astray; and that in any case, whatever may be, fate settled the score with
him on that November 5.
-
Shimon Peres will claim that
before he changed his stripes, he sought and discovered a “New Middle East”.
Even though his book by the same name is more fanciful than the delusions of
Baron Munchhausen, he was in the throes of euphoria at the time, and
euphoria, as we know, is a clinical condition, and therefore he will seek to
be exonerated on the basis of the temporary insanity defense.
But how will Ariel Sharon
respond when confronted with that column in the Jerusalem Post, which
is the essence of his spiritual world and his strategic-political
philosophy, which he wrote and spoke about on a daily basis ever since. It
is a set philosophy, in which the man unequivocally asserts that
“Concessions in the ‘territories’, even if only partial ones, are a surefire
formula for national suicide” and continues to assert that “The
establishment of a Palestinian state will lead to the liquidation of Israel
in one strike or through an extended, painful demise.”
And lo and behold, he is
still talking and the other Sharon appears speaking of the tidings of the
Palestinian state, the withdrawal from sections of Judea and Samaria and the
beginning of the destruction of the settlements. The reader, who has
maintained his sanity, and has not yet collapsed under the tidal wave of
Orwellian language from the school of the local peace mongers, no doubt
understands that the same Sharon, who just yesterday cautioned and warned of
the threat of the destruction of the Third Temple and a new holocaust, is
the same Sharon who today is explicitly declaring that he is about to wreak
destruction on his country.
Well, what is the difference?
As opposed to his predecessors, Sharon was fortunate enough to see that
everything that he warned against in the aforementioned column and others
like it came true. Fourteen hundred fatalities, thousands of casualties, an
economy on the brink of disaster, an unprecedented political nadir, waves of
anti-Semitism laying the groundwork for national destruction, the Prime
Minister of a democratic country required to stand trial for crimes against
humanity... All these and others are a consequence of a campaign of
defeatism at whose foundation lie a betrayal of Zionism and auto
anti-Semitism from the school of the extreme Left. Thus, the conclusions,
which he reaches, are to flee Judea and Samaria and to establish a
Palestinian state. Two disasters, against which he warned, are now being
completely realized.
It would be an insult to the
intelligence of the average reader, and especially to a Nativ
reader, to outline a long list of facts indicating that Israel’s condition
has deteriorated in every area, with no exception, ever since Sharon wrote
what he wrote. Thus, the question is: How can an Israeli Prime Minister sell
out his entire spiritual world, his integrity and his faith, to deceive
repeatedly the general public and especially his voters, his party and, first
and foremost, himself, and to go on as if nothing happened?
A.S.
|