He writes
Seize?
I'm having a seizure myself.
Progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace will help thwart Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. Both developments will improve Israel’s security. But Israel’s top officials are not yet convinced..
What has one to do with the other?
And he takes a wrong turn:
...the road to dealing with Tehran goes through Ramallah, and that time is running out not only for halting Iran’s nuclear weapons program but also for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
One has nothing to do with the other.
Iran has no real interest in the issue of "Palestine" except as it presents an instrument. Iran opposes us - period.
And then he gets weird:
...Israel should be taking independent steps to create the outlines of a two-state reality on the ground. It should declare that it has no sovereignty claims over areas east of the security fence it built in the West Bank. It should enact a voluntary evacuation and compensation law for the settlers who live in these areas. The future of those settlers who decide to stay will be determined when a final status agreement is signed. An in order to avoid repeating the failure of Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, the Israel Defense Forces would maintain control in the areas being voluntarily evacuated, until the agreement is reached.
Er,
Palestinian National Economy Minister Jawwad Naji told Anadolu Agency..."The Palestinian leadership rejects any Israeli step that seeks to establish control over the Jordan Valley, which constitutes 29 percent of the West Bank,"...^
Posts
1 comment:
Ami Ayalon doesn't answer the question of whether the Palestinian Arabs would make peace with Israel if Israel throws in the towel and gives them everything they want.
He knows the answer to that question is "no." What incentive would an independent "Palestine" have to end the conflict if Israel is not going to stand up for its own interests? It won't happen.
Ayalon doesn't mention Hamas once. What's his solution if Hamas were to take over "Palestine" - either through elections or via a coup d'etat? He doesn't offer one.
Iran is hostile to Israel, period. That is not going to change regardless of whether or not progress occurs on the peace track. Israel will still face dangers, only if Ayalon has it his way, from a far worse and more dangerous strategic position than the one the Jewish State possesses today.
"Blue White Future" is mistaken in its assumption Israel can unilaterally get the Arabs to drop their opposition to Zionism and the State Of Israel by voluntarily giving up the heart of the Jewish homeland. On the contrary, Jewish weakness would only serve to convince the Arabs the Jews are on the run and the only thing left for them to do is to shove them into the sea.
This is a peaceful future? One wonders after reading Ayalon's tripe, how he ever rose to be the head of the Shin Bet. We can call the theme of his op-ed "Cut And Run Zionism." It fits.
Post a Comment