[Part 1 of this article can be read at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=3838; Part II at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=3843.]
Protecting Jerusalem
There was never a Palestinian state; there has always been a Jewish presence in what the British called Palestine. Jerusalem was never the capital of any Arab country; it has always been home for the Jews.
Just because there are mosques is no reason for Israel to give up or share Jerusalem. Sharing a capital with friends is bizarre, weird. Sharing it with enemies is suicide, a prelude of worse things to come. Is Israel really willing to share Jerusalem and agree to depend on Yasser Arafat's goodwill to pray at the Western Wall (without blowing the shofar, of course)? Can a Prime Minister who agrees to discuss the status of Jerusalem at all be trusted to withstand worldwide pressure to share the city at the end of the negotiations?
The question is actually irrelevant, because, in a democracy, eventually another party will take power and decide to do so - again. The Palestinian Arabs know that. Nations abroad care nothing about right and wrong, historical truth or inventions. Why does Israel allow Arafat to appoint a mufti to Jerusalem? And why has Israel surrendered control of the Temple Mount? Has she gained anything but contempt? What message does it send? Could a new system of government succeed here? I think so. I hope so.
The Palestinians over and over tell us out loud that they will never give up Jerusalem. They and the Arab leaders have indoctrinated their populations that Jerusalem is theirs, period. Arafat knows that he can get Jerusalem by repeating the claim to it. Sports commentators say that the team that wins the championships final game is the team that wanted it the most. Right now the Palestinian Arabs seem to want Jerusalem the most. It's in their "constitution" already. Where is the Israeli government?
In 2003, it was reported that the Waqf had built a new mosque on the southeast side of the Temple Mount, it had destroyed archeological evidence of the Jewish Temple and it was considering filling in two old Jewish Temple cisterns with "holy" water from Mecca. Talk about facts on the ground. If the PM and the minister responsible couldn't care less, why don't the concerned citizens raise the issue with their Congressman? Because there isn't one.
No one owns Israel. No one owns Jerusalem. It is not up to any PM to give it away or share it. It belongs to the Jewish people and can't be toyed with in different ways by whoever turns out to be the PM. Our people waited 2,000 years only to hold the holy sites for less than 40? Isn't it odd?
The issue of surrendering land, and in particular, sharing Jerusalem, are good examples of an outdated form of government. Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon - each leader has his views and these are apparently subject to sudden change due to pressure or negotiations. How could Jerusalem be protected?
Jerusalem could be protected with the one-two punch proposed previously - a single plebiscite that includes approval for two actions: becoming a constitutional republic and creating a constitution. One of the two initial articles in the Constitution would assert that Israel's capital is the whole of Jerusalem. Otherwise, we had better add the word "half" in front of the word "Jerusalem" in the national anthem Hatikva.
Forcing an Israeli-Centered Vision of What's Good For Israel
The PM has accepted President George Bush's vision. But after fifty-five years of conflict since independence, can't an Israeli leader come up with his/her own vision? Israel should give or not give territory away, allow or not allow a Palestinian state or autonomy, based on her own security and other needs. Bush is a foreigner, elected to run the US government, with a myriad of interests in the world. Israel is supposed to be an independent country. She can be a best friend to the US by keeping her dignity and respect. Golda Meir had a better vision - wait for the Arabs to like their children more than they like war.
Israel faces a Road Map with input from hostile countries and individuals like the Saudi Arabian king. The present "vision" is to divide the Holy Land. Israelis didn't vote for Bush's vision. No good mechanisms exist to check the PM on this. Foreigners decide it. Worse, the PM was "too busy" not meeting foreign leaders who see Arafat to spend time influencing the contents of the Road Map prior to its release; yet not too busy to accept it right away.
The construction of the fence, whether one agrees with the concept or not, should not take so long. Key areas remain unfinished. In the meantime, having the US determine the minimum distance necessary to protect the airport violates the nation's sovereignty. This is not surprising, considering that both the UN and the EU have their representatives in Israel working freely against the elected government.
Legacy Problems
In the US, the President's priority is to get reelected, and then establish a legacy that makes him look good in the eyes of the public and historians. American politicians are employees of the US people, and will always look out for number one. The President and his advisers will be making lots of money after leaving office, in the form of books and speeches. And there is always the odd Nobel Peace Prize. Plus the need for oil. They have to show results, and if the PM of Israel is willing to comply, why not?
In Israel, the existing system aids ego gratification. Not only are there no term limits, but Israelis also must face the fact that their PMs have a "legacy" problem. Ariel Sharon is getting old, and a legacy of peace seems very attractive to him (and to other "professional" politicians). Shimon Peres seems more eternal than ever.
Even if this Road Map is not to be taken seriously, it creates a serious precedent - accepting a Palestinian state with not even one tangible concession at hand. Maybe Israel is "lucky" sane people do not lead the Palestinian Arabs. In the meantime, the Israeli people are being unnecessarily subjected to a political roller coaster. How can Israel accept directives that are not in her interests: don't kill this one, don't expel that one, don't react to this, don't react to that, just bury the dead. The PM's main goal should always be to protect and better the State. Making peace is noble, but not a valid goal, in Israel's circumstances. Attempting to make peace or attempting to avoid war by doing one's best, while protecting the State, are valid goals. This is because the country doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Reacting to Non-Compliance of a Treaty Partner
The proposed new system of government would have made it harder to maintain the policies that allowed not only Arafat and his terrorists to return and remain, but also to violate all agreements, including by: bringing in all kinds of weapons; creating a terrorist infrastructure; lying through their teeth; and organizing a culture of hate; all while preaching a Muslim Palestinian state from the river to the sea.
The end result of ignoring Arab violations is tacit admission that an Israeli life is worth less than an American's, since the magnitude of Israel's response to attacks is determined by an outside power's interests. It also encourages the Arabs to ever more outrageous acts of terror.
When the number of terrorist organizations in the area approaches the number of political parties in Israel, to me it means the situation is very serious.
The good news is that each time Europe and the UN criticize, ostracize and demonize Israel, we know it is because she's attempting to do something right to defend herself. It's valuable feedback, free of charge. The bad news is that any concessions do nothing to reduce entrenched anti-Semitism worldwide.
Summary
Belgium is a more dangerous place for Sharon than Israel is for Arafat. How can a PM push for increased Jewish immigration to Israel when he is not willing to exercise his full power to protect and avenge her citizens, whatever the cost? Then why give him so much power?
Sharon's leadership is just an example of what a poor government structure allows. The majority of Israel's politicians are way too busy to protect the citizens adequately. They're so thirsty for power, all they can see is a mirage - an imaginary oasis of peace to quench their thirst - delusions supported by an obsolete system of government. A new system is required. Ultimately, it is up to individual Israelis to take action, regardless of their political affiliations. Is there anything stopping concerned journalists, academicians, and even politicians from proposing a conference on this subject as a starting point? It is a more patriotic action than the Geneva Understandings.
A reconstruction and repartitioning of the government, which more properly reflects the will of the people and that is written into a constitution, is likely to have these benefits:
* It will strengthen Israeli democratic institutions;
* It will enhance the independence of the State;
* It will improve the well being of the people of Israel; and
* It will protect the nation's leaders from unfair and hostile pressure.
[Part 3 of 3]
Protecting Jerusalem
There was never a Palestinian state; there has always been a Jewish presence in what the British called Palestine. Jerusalem was never the capital of any Arab country; it has always been home for the Jews.
Just because there are mosques is no reason for Israel to give up or share Jerusalem. Sharing a capital with friends is bizarre, weird. Sharing it with enemies is suicide, a prelude of worse things to come. Is Israel really willing to share Jerusalem and agree to depend on Yasser Arafat's goodwill to pray at the Western Wall (without blowing the shofar, of course)? Can a Prime Minister who agrees to discuss the status of Jerusalem at all be trusted to withstand worldwide pressure to share the city at the end of the negotiations?
The question is actually irrelevant, because, in a democracy, eventually another party will take power and decide to do so - again. The Palestinian Arabs know that. Nations abroad care nothing about right and wrong, historical truth or inventions. Why does Israel allow Arafat to appoint a mufti to Jerusalem? And why has Israel surrendered control of the Temple Mount? Has she gained anything but contempt? What message does it send? Could a new system of government succeed here? I think so. I hope so.
The Palestinians over and over tell us out loud that they will never give up Jerusalem. They and the Arab leaders have indoctrinated their populations that Jerusalem is theirs, period. Arafat knows that he can get Jerusalem by repeating the claim to it. Sports commentators say that the team that wins the championships final game is the team that wanted it the most. Right now the Palestinian Arabs seem to want Jerusalem the most. It's in their "constitution" already. Where is the Israeli government?
In 2003, it was reported that the Waqf had built a new mosque on the southeast side of the Temple Mount, it had destroyed archeological evidence of the Jewish Temple and it was considering filling in two old Jewish Temple cisterns with "holy" water from Mecca. Talk about facts on the ground. If the PM and the minister responsible couldn't care less, why don't the concerned citizens raise the issue with their Congressman? Because there isn't one.
No one owns Israel. No one owns Jerusalem. It is not up to any PM to give it away or share it. It belongs to the Jewish people and can't be toyed with in different ways by whoever turns out to be the PM. Our people waited 2,000 years only to hold the holy sites for less than 40? Isn't it odd?
The issue of surrendering land, and in particular, sharing Jerusalem, are good examples of an outdated form of government. Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon - each leader has his views and these are apparently subject to sudden change due to pressure or negotiations. How could Jerusalem be protected?
Jerusalem could be protected with the one-two punch proposed previously - a single plebiscite that includes approval for two actions: becoming a constitutional republic and creating a constitution. One of the two initial articles in the Constitution would assert that Israel's capital is the whole of Jerusalem. Otherwise, we had better add the word "half" in front of the word "Jerusalem" in the national anthem Hatikva.
Forcing an Israeli-Centered Vision of What's Good For Israel
The PM has accepted President George Bush's vision. But after fifty-five years of conflict since independence, can't an Israeli leader come up with his/her own vision? Israel should give or not give territory away, allow or not allow a Palestinian state or autonomy, based on her own security and other needs. Bush is a foreigner, elected to run the US government, with a myriad of interests in the world. Israel is supposed to be an independent country. She can be a best friend to the US by keeping her dignity and respect. Golda Meir had a better vision - wait for the Arabs to like their children more than they like war.
Israel faces a Road Map with input from hostile countries and individuals like the Saudi Arabian king. The present "vision" is to divide the Holy Land. Israelis didn't vote for Bush's vision. No good mechanisms exist to check the PM on this. Foreigners decide it. Worse, the PM was "too busy" not meeting foreign leaders who see Arafat to spend time influencing the contents of the Road Map prior to its release; yet not too busy to accept it right away.
The construction of the fence, whether one agrees with the concept or not, should not take so long. Key areas remain unfinished. In the meantime, having the US determine the minimum distance necessary to protect the airport violates the nation's sovereignty. This is not surprising, considering that both the UN and the EU have their representatives in Israel working freely against the elected government.
Legacy Problems
In the US, the President's priority is to get reelected, and then establish a legacy that makes him look good in the eyes of the public and historians. American politicians are employees of the US people, and will always look out for number one. The President and his advisers will be making lots of money after leaving office, in the form of books and speeches. And there is always the odd Nobel Peace Prize. Plus the need for oil. They have to show results, and if the PM of Israel is willing to comply, why not?
In Israel, the existing system aids ego gratification. Not only are there no term limits, but Israelis also must face the fact that their PMs have a "legacy" problem. Ariel Sharon is getting old, and a legacy of peace seems very attractive to him (and to other "professional" politicians). Shimon Peres seems more eternal than ever.
Even if this Road Map is not to be taken seriously, it creates a serious precedent - accepting a Palestinian state with not even one tangible concession at hand. Maybe Israel is "lucky" sane people do not lead the Palestinian Arabs. In the meantime, the Israeli people are being unnecessarily subjected to a political roller coaster. How can Israel accept directives that are not in her interests: don't kill this one, don't expel that one, don't react to this, don't react to that, just bury the dead. The PM's main goal should always be to protect and better the State. Making peace is noble, but not a valid goal, in Israel's circumstances. Attempting to make peace or attempting to avoid war by doing one's best, while protecting the State, are valid goals. This is because the country doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Reacting to Non-Compliance of a Treaty Partner
The proposed new system of government would have made it harder to maintain the policies that allowed not only Arafat and his terrorists to return and remain, but also to violate all agreements, including by: bringing in all kinds of weapons; creating a terrorist infrastructure; lying through their teeth; and organizing a culture of hate; all while preaching a Muslim Palestinian state from the river to the sea.
The end result of ignoring Arab violations is tacit admission that an Israeli life is worth less than an American's, since the magnitude of Israel's response to attacks is determined by an outside power's interests. It also encourages the Arabs to ever more outrageous acts of terror.
When the number of terrorist organizations in the area approaches the number of political parties in Israel, to me it means the situation is very serious.
The good news is that each time Europe and the UN criticize, ostracize and demonize Israel, we know it is because she's attempting to do something right to defend herself. It's valuable feedback, free of charge. The bad news is that any concessions do nothing to reduce entrenched anti-Semitism worldwide.
Summary
Belgium is a more dangerous place for Sharon than Israel is for Arafat. How can a PM push for increased Jewish immigration to Israel when he is not willing to exercise his full power to protect and avenge her citizens, whatever the cost? Then why give him so much power?
Sharon's leadership is just an example of what a poor government structure allows. The majority of Israel's politicians are way too busy to protect the citizens adequately. They're so thirsty for power, all they can see is a mirage - an imaginary oasis of peace to quench their thirst - delusions supported by an obsolete system of government. A new system is required. Ultimately, it is up to individual Israelis to take action, regardless of their political affiliations. Is there anything stopping concerned journalists, academicians, and even politicians from proposing a conference on this subject as a starting point? It is a more patriotic action than the Geneva Understandings.
A reconstruction and repartitioning of the government, which more properly reflects the will of the people and that is written into a constitution, is likely to have these benefits:
* It will strengthen Israeli democratic institutions;
* It will enhance the independence of the State;
* It will improve the well being of the people of Israel; and
* It will protect the nation's leaders from unfair and hostile pressure.
[Part 3 of 3]