Netanyahu has a hard time juggling all the different balls in play, of keeping his eye on Israel's enemies, on Lebanon, on Iran, on Egypt, and on Gaza and Judea and Samaria, just to name the most immediate threats to Israel's security.
Netanyahu has also had a number of jousting sessions with that other enemy of Israel, its avowed 'friend' Obama and his various side-kicks. Kerry's new 'peace' initiative is of course anything but that, just another attempt by Obama to revive his failed attempt of a couple of years ago, to push Israel back into indefensible 'borders', i.e. the armistice lines of 1948.
It's interesting to see that Hamas has totally rejected this plan. Hamas finds it hard to even play the double speak that Abbas and his Fatah boys find so rewarding:
One thing we can be pretty sure of, is that no matter what plans the enemies of the Jewish People cook up, they will sooner or later be frustrated.
And just to avoid any doubt about Hamas' intentions:
Of course a " historic land of Palestine" never existed, unless Hamas is talking not of Israel, but of Mandatory Palestine from 1917-1948. This included Transjordan as it was known after Britain created it in 1921. Arabs however they describe themselves are welcome to Jordan, unless they attack Israel again from there, so maybe there will be some room for compromise over that land, at a future date.
With Israel's growing population safe borders might mean not just keeping all its ancestral lands, but,should arabs again make war on Israel, mean taking more defensible high ground that belonged to the jewish people in bible times on the east bank of the Jordan and north of Rosh Haniqra. This is the message that Netanyahu needs to give Obama and its other enemies. Just as with Russia of 2008, if you attack us, we will not shrink our borders, but expand them. Germany, Hungary and Roumania understood this after 1945, just as Armenia mercilessly drove its enemies from its borders in 1991.
As with the Gaza retreat which brought only arab attacks, so with Egypt. There was no need to give the Sinai to Egypt. The Sinai never belonged to Egypt before the British came along and annexed it to British occupied Egypt at the turn of the 20th century. Britain confiscated it from Turkey so as to defend its own occupation of the Suez Canal, the lifeline defending the route to India, the so-called 'Jewel in the Crown'.
In 1973 Israel had two egyptian armies at its mercy. Thanks to US pressure it fed them rather than destroy them. People say that the Peace Treaty with Egypt has kept the peace for 30 years, but this is untrue. Israel's might, and Sadat and Mubarak's fear of a new war kept the peace. The Muslim Brotherhood is a new gang in town, and is not frustrated in its wishes to wage war on Israel by the peace treaty which Morsy has on a number of occasions indicated, means nothing to him. Egypt can not make war because of the turmoil in the arab world mixed with the dire state of Egypt's finances. Israel should however of course still keep a close eye on Egypt.
Arabs should know that time is on Israel's side, that if they don't want peace, but just wish to wage war not only amongst themselves, but against Israel whenever they feel strong enough, they must take into account the possibility that they will find themselves territorially even further away from achieving their objectives.
If Israel has in the past talked about 'Land for Peace', rejected every time by arabs, in 2001 under Barak and lastly in 2008 under Olmert, Israel's enemies should be told in no uncertain terms that 'Land in exchange for Aggression and War' is also an option in future.
The message should be, 'continue to make war on Israel and you will lose more land'. Thankfully such a scenario of another 1973 style attack on Israel is a thing of the mid to distant future. Arabs are too much involved in massacring themselves at the moment to think too much about the jews, that is except Hamas, and even they understand the new rules of the game. Hamas is talking tough, but reigning in the kassam missile firings.
Netanyahu has also had a number of jousting sessions with that other enemy of Israel, its avowed 'friend' Obama and his various side-kicks. Kerry's new 'peace' initiative is of course anything but that, just another attempt by Obama to revive his failed attempt of a couple of years ago, to push Israel back into indefensible 'borders', i.e. the armistice lines of 1948.
It's interesting to see that Hamas has totally rejected this plan. Hamas finds it hard to even play the double speak that Abbas and his Fatah boys find so rewarding:
GAZA, (PIC)-- Political analyst Dr. Naji Batta said that Hamas movement had unequivocally rejected the Arab initiative, and said that "it does not meet the minimum rights of the Palestinian people."The "minimum rights of the Palestinian people" just so happen to mean the destruction of Israel.
Batta told PIC on Saturday that the Arab initiative and the idea of land swaps crossed red lines and pointed to more concessions.
"The Arab initiative is originally rejected, because Palestine is not for sale or rent," the political analyst said, stressing that no one has the right to give up any part of the land of Palestine.
One thing we can be pretty sure of, is that no matter what plans the enemies of the Jewish People cook up, they will sooner or later be frustrated.
And just to avoid any doubt about Hamas' intentions:
"Our borders are the historic land of Palestine. The land belongs to us, and we refuse the Arab initiative," Haniyeh said.
He stressed that the new Arab position that supports the exchange of land represents an unacceptable waiver and encourages the occupation to continue the settlement activity.
Gaza Premier called on the Palestinian people to adhere to the option of resistance as it represents the strategic choice.
"What was taken by force can only be restored by force. Negotiations can never be the way towards the liberalization," he said.
Of course a " historic land of Palestine" never existed, unless Hamas is talking not of Israel, but of Mandatory Palestine from 1917-1948. This included Transjordan as it was known after Britain created it in 1921. Arabs however they describe themselves are welcome to Jordan, unless they attack Israel again from there, so maybe there will be some room for compromise over that land, at a future date.
With Israel's growing population safe borders might mean not just keeping all its ancestral lands, but,should arabs again make war on Israel, mean taking more defensible high ground that belonged to the jewish people in bible times on the east bank of the Jordan and north of Rosh Haniqra. This is the message that Netanyahu needs to give Obama and its other enemies. Just as with Russia of 2008, if you attack us, we will not shrink our borders, but expand them. Germany, Hungary and Roumania understood this after 1945, just as Armenia mercilessly drove its enemies from its borders in 1991.
As with the Gaza retreat which brought only arab attacks, so with Egypt. There was no need to give the Sinai to Egypt. The Sinai never belonged to Egypt before the British came along and annexed it to British occupied Egypt at the turn of the 20th century. Britain confiscated it from Turkey so as to defend its own occupation of the Suez Canal, the lifeline defending the route to India, the so-called 'Jewel in the Crown'.
In 1973 Israel had two egyptian armies at its mercy. Thanks to US pressure it fed them rather than destroy them. People say that the Peace Treaty with Egypt has kept the peace for 30 years, but this is untrue. Israel's might, and Sadat and Mubarak's fear of a new war kept the peace. The Muslim Brotherhood is a new gang in town, and is not frustrated in its wishes to wage war on Israel by the peace treaty which Morsy has on a number of occasions indicated, means nothing to him. Egypt can not make war because of the turmoil in the arab world mixed with the dire state of Egypt's finances. Israel should however of course still keep a close eye on Egypt.
Arabs should know that time is on Israel's side, that if they don't want peace, but just wish to wage war not only amongst themselves, but against Israel whenever they feel strong enough, they must take into account the possibility that they will find themselves territorially even further away from achieving their objectives.
If Israel has in the past talked about 'Land for Peace', rejected every time by arabs, in 2001 under Barak and lastly in 2008 under Olmert, Israel's enemies should be told in no uncertain terms that 'Land in exchange for Aggression and War' is also an option in future.
The message should be, 'continue to make war on Israel and you will lose more land'. Thankfully such a scenario of another 1973 style attack on Israel is a thing of the mid to distant future. Arabs are too much involved in massacring themselves at the moment to think too much about the jews, that is except Hamas, and even they understand the new rules of the game. Hamas is talking tough, but reigning in the kassam missile firings.
No comments:
Post a Comment