Ten Minutes After Taking Office

For one man to decide to turn over a chunk of his country to a foreign power would be the same as George Bush one day waking up and deciding to turn over the State of Texas to his good friend President Fox of Mexico because, he believed, it historically belonged to them and was the 'right' thing to do.

Arlene Peck

OpEds לבן ריק
לבן ריק
Arutz 7
Lord, what happens to Israel's leaders just ten minutes after taking office? They all turn into "Barak" and want to give away the store. Is it because they want to be loved so much ? Well, dear Israel, it's not working. No matter how much you give in, newspapers like the Los Angeles Times, and many more, are going to insist that it's not enough. We'll get to that in a minute.

I used to think that it was only Yasser Arafat, the European Union and the United Nations who were determined to chop up Israel into little pieces, like slicing salami. However, that was before I watched with dismay how Ariel Sharon turned into a dictator, against his own people, no different from the ones who surround him in the third-world Arab countries.

In addition, I will be frank with you. I live in a state, California, where we are flooded with referendums to vote on every issue from three-strikes-and-you're-out for criminals to making ferrets legal. The absolute power a few tired, retired, retreaded or retarded politicians are able to wield amazes me. Hey, even our governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, was brought into power by a dissatisfied constituency. Therefore, knowing that, it is obvious why I have been conditioned to think that a vote by the people is the only way to go.

For one man to decide to turn over a chunk of his country to a foreign power would be the same as George Bush one day waking up and deciding to turn over the State of Texas to his good friend President Fox of Mexico because, he believed, it historically belonged to them and was the 'right' thing to do. Furthermore, it actually might not be such a great loss.

However, we could not just do things like that in this country. An action such as a state giveaway would cause riots and chaos in our streets, and there are people who would even miss Texas.

So, that brings me back to the 'love issue'. Hey, as a journalist, I've traveled to Gaza a few times and saw for myself what a disgusting, filthy nest of hate it is. There are hordes of barbarian, savage terrorists living there as a result of the largesse of their Arab brothers. All they have to do with their time is burn tires, smoke that 'laughing water' and plan how they can get into Israel for their homicide bombings of innocent civilians. Personally, to my way of thinking, it is a cancer in the middle of the country and needs to be cut out by transferring the Arab population. However, I never envisioned the transfer to be that of the Jews from the Jewish State. But, it is a problem. If they can't be expelled, and they can't be controlled, then let them stew in their own filth.

So, let me tell you guys outside of the United States how this issue is playing out with the editors in my city. The Los Angeles Times reported Ariel Sharon's and the Knesset's actions as, "A step toward a lasting peace between the Jewish state and the Palestinians. But much more is required: the actual evacuation of those settlers and many more in the West Bank."

Get that guys? No matter what Israel offers, too much is never enough. The PLO supporting Los Angeles Times also wrote in that searing editorial, "Several hundred other settlers will be removed from the West Bank under the plan, but more than 200,000 Israelis will remain -- a major stumbling block to the peace process."

Personally, knowing their anti-Semitic leanings, they would not be happy until the entire state of Israel was given over to the PLO - and I am not sure even that would be enough. Folks, they do not love Israel.

All the Arabists who are on the payrolls of the Arab states from our State Department would probably agree with the editorial when the Times wrote, "The government [Israel] should work with the Palestinians, to let them cross into Israel for the jobs they need: Gaza is heavily dependent on foreign aid, with more than half the population living on $2 a day or less."

Why, in heaven's name, is it Israel's responsibility to put these terrorists to work in the Jewish state and they don't feel the burden should go to any of the surrounding Arab states? Those states have put the Gazan Arabs into their deplorable situation with their 'refuge camps' for fifty years, instead of absorbing them into the population.

A follow-up editorial in the Los Angeles Times continued in this vein: "If Arafat is replaced with a transitional interim government, Israel can offer support by negotiating with it and letting more Palestinians into Israel to work, helping to relieve the poverty that has increased greatly since the renewal of fighting four years ago."

How about their Arab brothers offering to transport some of these carefully trained terrorists into their cities on a "guest worker program", as George Bush wants to initiate here? Whose fault is it that they are living in poverty? I remember before their revered leader Arafat turned up the flame of terrorism - after they turned down all that Ehud Barak offered, which was pretty much everything - thousands came into Israel to work. They pretty much changed that when they used that opportunity to work to blow up everything in sight.

Anyway, the Times continued, "Israel should also agree to demolish more West Bank settlements. Many nations [wow, could that be their good friends in the United Nations?] believe that all of them are illegal because they were built on land seized in the 1967 war, and this territory is needed for a functioning Palestinian nation."

The ink is not even dry on Sharon's giveaway and the reaction from the world is in. It is just not enough. Bring the bulldozers in and clear out all the Jews from that 'occupied territory'. No, I don't see any love there.

A little later in the same editorial in the Los Angeles Times, they speak of the civilians who were killed, Arab civilians naturally, as nothing was mentioned about the victims of Arab terrorism in greater Israel. They do give Sharon credit though for his "regret for the loss of innocent Palestinian lives, which was an important olive branch from a man known as one of the country's warriors."

Oh, if the Knesset vote was not enough for the day's editorials, they also slipped in a few choice comments about the "barrier" between the "occupied territories" and Israel. Wow, do they mean that security barrier that has been proven to save lives?

Frankly, I wish my local papers would write a few of their editorials about how we ought to have such a barrier on our borders, to stop the flow of illegal aliens flooding California.

If Sharon wants love, he's looking in all the wrong places. Maybe he should join a dating service.