There?s an envelope that I received in the mail a few weeks ago that I haven?t opened. It uses the colors of my country, blue and white, in a futile attempt to mask the truth behind the ugly words it contains. Printed in Hebrew on the plastic covering of the pamphlet are the words ?Sent to every home in Israel.?
From the media, I already know that it is written in a language I do not understand, and I am not referring to the Hebrew. It addresses a reality that does not exist, not on the ground, not in the settlements, not in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem or Haifa. There is no address on the envelope, and surely it was never intended for me or anyone I know.
It was written by two wannabes to solve a conflict, without addressing the most basic of issues that nourishes the anger and feeds the pain. It ignores history, their most recent actions and our most ancient truths. In short, it is devoid of meaning, empty of hope, and dangerous to the security and future of Israel. The only wonder is how much attention it has garnered, how much money it has wasted, and how much effort has been diverted from the real path to peace, which remains buried under blood and explosives, terror and violence, delusions and corruption.
I?ve held off writing about the so-called Geneva Agreement, because the greatest emotion I feel when I think of it is fury. There have been many agreements in the past, each assuming certain preconditions and posturing would help bring about the desired resolution. Almost all have failed for one reason or another.
On hearing of a possible solution, one should feel hope. Maybe, just maybe, this one will succeed. At least, one might say, at least it shows the human capacity to believe in the future. I didn?t believe in the Madrid Agreements. I thought they were not realistic, but they didn?t make me angry. The Oslo Accord is a castle built in the sand at the very edge of the water line, destined to fall with the first wave of violence; and so it did. The Wye Agreement was an absurdity and the offerings of the Barak government at Camp David an obscenity. Most made me question either the sanity of those who proposed them, or the hearing of those who praised them.
But the Geneva Agreement is different from all of these. The intention of the founders drifts dangerously close to treason, as it seeks to undermine not only the negotiating power of the government, but the will of the people.
Yasser Abed Rabbo and Yossi Beilin do not want peace, but the focus of world attention each has failed to achieve on their own. We did not elect Yossi Beilin, even his own party rejected his leadership. We have rejected his vision as short-sided and ultimately deadly to the fabric of our society. He is an apologist who asks forgiveness for crimes we did not commit, who demands we surrender portions of our soul that he does not understand. By what right does this man dare to speak for Israel?
Never the bride, always the bridesmaid, Beilin?s desperate attempt proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that what drives him is not love of his country, but a self-inflated ego that deserves our utter and complete disdain. In the name of democracy, he does the least democratic thing of all by ignoring the democratically-elected representatives of my country.
It does not surprise me that the agreement has won the support of the French government, who has pumped $7 million into supporting it. That support alone should raise the alarm. In the last few decades, when have the French ever supported anything that was in the best interests of the people of Israel? Even when the rest of the civilized world realized the danger of the Malaysian Prime Minister saying that the Jews control the world and arrange situations whereby others will die for their cause, the French do not see the inherent evil in these words. If the French support the Geneva Agreement, that alone should be enough to tell most Israelis how dangerous this plan could be for our State.
In 1799, the United States Congress passed the Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from negotiating government policy with foreign entities. Too late, the Israeli parliament is now examining the possibility of passing a similar act. If they are successful, they should name it the Beilin Act, and it will become synonymous with the illegal actions of a man who, left unchecked, would have destroyed his country for his own glory.
From the media, I already know that it is written in a language I do not understand, and I am not referring to the Hebrew. It addresses a reality that does not exist, not on the ground, not in the settlements, not in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem or Haifa. There is no address on the envelope, and surely it was never intended for me or anyone I know.
It was written by two wannabes to solve a conflict, without addressing the most basic of issues that nourishes the anger and feeds the pain. It ignores history, their most recent actions and our most ancient truths. In short, it is devoid of meaning, empty of hope, and dangerous to the security and future of Israel. The only wonder is how much attention it has garnered, how much money it has wasted, and how much effort has been diverted from the real path to peace, which remains buried under blood and explosives, terror and violence, delusions and corruption.
I?ve held off writing about the so-called Geneva Agreement, because the greatest emotion I feel when I think of it is fury. There have been many agreements in the past, each assuming certain preconditions and posturing would help bring about the desired resolution. Almost all have failed for one reason or another.
On hearing of a possible solution, one should feel hope. Maybe, just maybe, this one will succeed. At least, one might say, at least it shows the human capacity to believe in the future. I didn?t believe in the Madrid Agreements. I thought they were not realistic, but they didn?t make me angry. The Oslo Accord is a castle built in the sand at the very edge of the water line, destined to fall with the first wave of violence; and so it did. The Wye Agreement was an absurdity and the offerings of the Barak government at Camp David an obscenity. Most made me question either the sanity of those who proposed them, or the hearing of those who praised them.
But the Geneva Agreement is different from all of these. The intention of the founders drifts dangerously close to treason, as it seeks to undermine not only the negotiating power of the government, but the will of the people.
Yasser Abed Rabbo and Yossi Beilin do not want peace, but the focus of world attention each has failed to achieve on their own. We did not elect Yossi Beilin, even his own party rejected his leadership. We have rejected his vision as short-sided and ultimately deadly to the fabric of our society. He is an apologist who asks forgiveness for crimes we did not commit, who demands we surrender portions of our soul that he does not understand. By what right does this man dare to speak for Israel?
Never the bride, always the bridesmaid, Beilin?s desperate attempt proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that what drives him is not love of his country, but a self-inflated ego that deserves our utter and complete disdain. In the name of democracy, he does the least democratic thing of all by ignoring the democratically-elected representatives of my country.
It does not surprise me that the agreement has won the support of the French government, who has pumped $7 million into supporting it. That support alone should raise the alarm. In the last few decades, when have the French ever supported anything that was in the best interests of the people of Israel? Even when the rest of the civilized world realized the danger of the Malaysian Prime Minister saying that the Jews control the world and arrange situations whereby others will die for their cause, the French do not see the inherent evil in these words. If the French support the Geneva Agreement, that alone should be enough to tell most Israelis how dangerous this plan could be for our State.
In 1799, the United States Congress passed the Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from negotiating government policy with foreign entities. Too late, the Israeli parliament is now examining the possibility of passing a similar act. If they are successful, they should name it the Beilin Act, and it will become synonymous with the illegal actions of a man who, left unchecked, would have destroyed his country for his own glory.