This is interesting! Those Jews who have called on Israel to pull out of the West Bank, stop the development of settlements and address the issue of Jerusalem so that it can be shared by both Palestinians and Israelis have been tarred and labelled "self-hating Jews" and "anti Zionist".
So, what to make of Ehud Olmert now saying the same thing? Is Olmert a "self-hating Jew" now too? The NY Times reports:
"Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview published on Monday that Israel must withdraw from nearly all of the West Bank as well as East Jerusalem to attain peace with the Palestinians and that any occupied land it held onto would have to be exchanged for the same quantity of Israeli territory.
He also dismissed as “megalomania” any thought that Israel would or should attack Iran on its own to stop it from developing nuclear weapons, saying the international community and not Israel alone was charged with handling the issue."
Haaretz editorialises that Olmert's epiphany whilst welcome may be too little too late:
"At the age of 63, just moments before his departure from premiership, Ehud Olmert has reached an extraordinary epiphany. In order to make peace with the Palestinians and the Syrians, Israel must withdraw from "nearly all the territories, if not all." As he told Yedioth Aharonoth in a holiday interview, even East Jerusalem must be given to the Palestinians.
Whoa.
What an epiphany: In order to make peace with the Arabs, we must give them land. How come we never thought of that before? And where was Olmert when the Israeli left, and the whole international community, was repeatedly exhausting this claim? Was he really among the screaming spokesmen for the camp opposing all agreements and all compromises? Or was that just the evil child within him, and not actually the real Olmert?
Olmert is repenting now for his sins: For 35 years, he said, "I was not prepared to see reality in all its depth." Now he is regretting his vote in Knesset against a peace agreement with Egypt, as well as his stubborn refusal to annex even a millimeter of Jerusalem's wide border. But most regretfully, he has reached this realization too late for it to have any influence."
Meanwhile, Israel is faced with a serious internal threat - from its settlers. Antony Loewenstein in a nusanced amd sober piece "Besieged from the Inside" in newmatilda.com:
"The New York Times last week revealed the depth of the problem in a rare exposé: "There have been bouts of settler violence for years, notably during the transfer of Gaza to the Palestinians in 2005. Now, though, the militants seem to have spawned a broader, more defined strategy of resistance designed to intimidate the state...Hard-core right-wing settlers have responded to limited army operations in recent weeks by blocking roads, rioting spontaneously, throwing stones at Palestinian vehicles and burning Palestinian orchards and fields all over the West Bank, a territory that Israel has occupied since 1967. They have also vandalised Israeli Army positions, equipment and cars."
The aim of these extremists is to establish a Taliban-style, rabbinical state to replace the current "secular" Israel. It may seem like a pipedream to most — not least the vast majority of Israelis who oppose the occupation project — but the attempt to uproot any major settlement blocs will incur a vicious response. A civil war between the state and radical Zionists is not unlikely in the years to come. And Israel will only have itself to blame."
So, what to make of Ehud Olmert now saying the same thing? Is Olmert a "self-hating Jew" now too? The NY Times reports:
"Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview published on Monday that Israel must withdraw from nearly all of the West Bank as well as East Jerusalem to attain peace with the Palestinians and that any occupied land it held onto would have to be exchanged for the same quantity of Israeli territory.
He also dismissed as “megalomania” any thought that Israel would or should attack Iran on its own to stop it from developing nuclear weapons, saying the international community and not Israel alone was charged with handling the issue."
Haaretz editorialises that Olmert's epiphany whilst welcome may be too little too late:
"At the age of 63, just moments before his departure from premiership, Ehud Olmert has reached an extraordinary epiphany. In order to make peace with the Palestinians and the Syrians, Israel must withdraw from "nearly all the territories, if not all." As he told Yedioth Aharonoth in a holiday interview, even East Jerusalem must be given to the Palestinians.
Whoa.
What an epiphany: In order to make peace with the Arabs, we must give them land. How come we never thought of that before? And where was Olmert when the Israeli left, and the whole international community, was repeatedly exhausting this claim? Was he really among the screaming spokesmen for the camp opposing all agreements and all compromises? Or was that just the evil child within him, and not actually the real Olmert?
Olmert is repenting now for his sins: For 35 years, he said, "I was not prepared to see reality in all its depth." Now he is regretting his vote in Knesset against a peace agreement with Egypt, as well as his stubborn refusal to annex even a millimeter of Jerusalem's wide border. But most regretfully, he has reached this realization too late for it to have any influence."
Meanwhile, Israel is faced with a serious internal threat - from its settlers. Antony Loewenstein in a nusanced amd sober piece "Besieged from the Inside" in newmatilda.com:
"The New York Times last week revealed the depth of the problem in a rare exposé: "There have been bouts of settler violence for years, notably during the transfer of Gaza to the Palestinians in 2005. Now, though, the militants seem to have spawned a broader, more defined strategy of resistance designed to intimidate the state...Hard-core right-wing settlers have responded to limited army operations in recent weeks by blocking roads, rioting spontaneously, throwing stones at Palestinian vehicles and burning Palestinian orchards and fields all over the West Bank, a territory that Israel has occupied since 1967. They have also vandalised Israeli Army positions, equipment and cars."
The aim of these extremists is to establish a Taliban-style, rabbinical state to replace the current "secular" Israel. It may seem like a pipedream to most — not least the vast majority of Israelis who oppose the occupation project — but the attempt to uproot any major settlement blocs will incur a vicious response. A civil war between the state and radical Zionists is not unlikely in the years to come. And Israel will only have itself to blame."
Comments