The Zionist Conspiracy

A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Thursday, January 15, 2004
Haaretz Columns

There are two columns worth commenting on in today's Haaretz, from opposite sides of the political spectrum.

First, Nehemia Strasler charges that "Sharon stopped thinking about Israel and began thinking only about himself and his family a long time ago."

Strasler also writes, "Sharon succeeded in effectively delaying any diplomatic initiative, including the Saudi one of April, 2002, which did not mention the Palestinians right of return."

That's false. Section 2 of the Saudi Plan explicitly "calls upon Israel to affirm... [An] Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194." Resolution 194 "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return."

The other Haaretz article is from Israel Harel, who eloquently expresses opposition of withdrawing from the Golan. Harel's most important statement is that:

It is difficult to accept the assault on the government, from both the opposition parties and the media, which have accused it of foot-dragging. More than the critics - who, in their great wisdom, declare in advance that "the Golan is Syrian," - want peace, they are hell bent on a withdrawal for its own sake, when this means the destruction of the settlement effort in the Golan.

In their personal dealings, these critics probably know how to bargain and earn the highest profits, particularly if their negotiation partner is desperate and on the brink of bankruptcy. The same is not true, according to their reasoning, when the national interest is at stake. Considering their declarations that we have no business being in the Golan, the Syrians will have difficulty agreeing even to Israeli control at the precipice line.

To me, this is the strongest argument against the Left. It's one thing to support territorial compromise in exchange for peace, and even to criticize the government for not aggressively pursuing negotiations with Syria. I disagree with the latter position, but it's a legitimate one. But to undermine Israel's ability to negotiate effectively - as the Left has done with respect to the Golan and to Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria - is unforgivable.