THE TRUTH ABOUT LAND FOR PEACE AND "THE SETTLEMENTS":
The New York Sun, a relatively recent addition to NYC's newspaper mix which usually has an editorial page somewhere in the sensible range, meaning it doesn't print some of the far left socialist rubbish usually found in the other papers that comprise the mainstream media. But in a recent June 3, '03 editorial on the settlements and the "peace process" in the middle east, the paper was something to the left of Osama Bin Laden or "Baghdad Bob" [as Iraq's infamous information minister had been nicknamed during the Iraq war].
In the editorial, it was argued that the fears of civil unrest in Israel over the issue of uprooting israeli citizens, in order to appease Palestinian the terror machine and its advocates, were overblown, and Israelis wouldn't come to blow -- or shots -- over uprooting their own, despite obvious differences of opinion on the issue, especially from the "settlers'" viewpoint [duh, who wants to be uprooted?]. This is an issue because many of the left-wing appeasers in the mainstream media have called for Israel's borders to shrink back to what they were before it was attacked -- just as the Palestinian Authority and its terrorist proxies have called for Israel to shrink out of existence entirely.
The irony here is that Israel is the only western nation in the middle east, the only one that presents any political freedom to its citizens, be they Arab, Jewish, or whatever. In Arafat's P.A., it is a somewhat different story to say the least, with those who do not toe the pro-terror line risking being accused of "collaboration" with Israel and shot in impromptu executions. Yet, the leftist mainstream media consistency focusses on the "plight" of the Palestinians and speaks of "Israeli aggression". The press overseas is even worse, making most in the mainstream [liberal] American media look level-headed by comparison.
Why should Israeli citizens living on israeli land be forced to move? That is at the heart of this settlement issue, and an even more basic issue than the question of whether or not forcing them to move would prompt civil unrest amoung pissed off Israelis. The argument is that they should be moved to appease the terror mongers, that if Israel doesn't "settle" the land on its own borders, it won't antagonize terrorists and nearby countries who wish that land was theirs. Yet, what good is it for one to own land that can't be settled or developed? This is the real point, because the ultimate issue isn't about just giving the settlers the boot, it is about divesting Israel of much of its current land and giving it back to antagonistic countries that lost it in the first place when they started an unprevoked war against Israel. Getting rid of the settlers is just a start; the real plan is the downsize Israel, giving the Palestinains, and nearby Arab countries a reward for their history of past and current beligerence in the hopes that it will prevent future Arab attacks. The name for this insane scheme: Land for peace.
It isn't a new scheme, of course. Neville Chamberlain tried it with Germany in 1938, when he signed a deal to endorse the giving of a chunk of land to the Nazis in echange for Hitler's promise to leave everyone else alone. We know how well that worked. Land for peace has a distinct -- but very bloody -- history.
The Sun is wasting ink by trying to mollify fears of Israeli unrest. The fact is, the Israelis should be pissed if their government sells them down the river in order to appease terrorist agitators. Why should the settlers have to move? These "settlements" aren't tent towns, they are thriving cities. One such settlement, of over 10,000 population, was dismantled years ago in order to appease Egypt -- but to this day Egypt's press foments anti-Israeli and anti-American discontent and applaud terrorism, and Egypt has been used by terrorists for far more material support. Why should these efforts produce anything less than the same total lack of productive results?
Moreover, the very idea that some arbitrary distinction can be made, to single out a portion of a legitimate, western nation as a "settlement" -- with the implication being it is temporary and not legitimate -- is absurd. Saying that land that has been within Israeli borders for 30 years, just because someone else allegedly lived there first, is like saying that New York is a settlement because before Americans, it was peopled with American indians and later, dutch colonists! Many of these settlements are indeed permanest sites, and the land itself has been a part of Israel for years. If the "palestinians" and their middle east allies really wanted to hold onto it, maybe they should have thought of that before they attacke dIsrael thirty years ago. It was, after all, the so-called Palestinians' arab allies who lost them this contested territory, by starting a war they figured they could win -- and lost.
That they are still fighting that war, via terrorism and at the bargaining table, does not give any legitimacy to their claims. In fact, their employment of terrorism that blows up innocent women and children removes any legitimacy fromt heir claims, and reinforces Israel's right to hold onto its own land, but also the added motive of desiring to hold onto it, for security reasons. I'm sure Hamas and other butchers would just love to get their hands on even more choice real estate from which to stage terrorist attacks.
The difference is in the end one of good and evil. The settlers represent not judiasm, but something more important -- western civilization, which is the only one to really come up with a secular, representative government. That in certain ways that government has of late neglected its origins and become burdensoem and abusive [such as in NJ], does not invalidate the basic premises of individual rights on which it was founded, especially since that though even in America some unjust laws do pervade, the overall system of law is one designed to minimize this. The west represents rational, secular government and individual rights. The terror mongers, on the other hand, represent despotism, destruction, irrational fanaticism, and envy. Why should anything in the middle east matter? Because the same people going after Israel ultimately desire to attack western civilization generally, including the U.S. After 9-11, we can no longer regard Islamicist terrorism as someone else's problem. It does impact us, especially when we are seen as weak by the terrorists, as we are every time we push Israel to negotiate and make concessions.
Land for peace is a fraud. Let the settlers be. They build cities. The terror mongers, on the other hand, build suicide bomb kits. It is obvious to all with an ounce of sense which is the real obstacle to "peace".
