Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Self Restraint

It's true you can never know what to expect from politics or politicians in Israel. Far too often personal issues (such as internal party threats, legal threats, and other petty politics) can overly influence important policy decisions.

For instance, one minute Ehud Barak is trying to rip down all outposts, the next day he says he's stopped. What changed? Who knows.

On the other hand Bibi pulled an Israbluff when he permitted only very limited and specific (old) construction to happen, while still prohibiting new construction in most settlements. (How he chose where it would be allowed is worthy of a post by itself).

But to the outside world, Bibi stood up to Obama with that decision.


One thing is very clear though. If Israel stands firm, and delivers a strong unwavering message, then it can certainly restrain US policy against us.


Unfortunately Obama is verbally still ignoring the Jewish right to live and rule in Eretz Yisrael when he says "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements" and then demanding an "independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967" (which of course includes the Kotel, Har Habayit, the Mount of Olives, half of Jerusalem, my home in Judea, and the homes and land in Hebron that my extended family lost to Arab terrorism in 1929).

Yet on the ground, where once George Mitchell was vehemently describing only Israel and the settlements as obstacles to peace, while working hard to force Obama's Judenrein policies on us, Mitchell now stutters, backtracks and says there are many obstacles.

In Mitchell's recent press conference, the reporters were repeatedly calling him on the Obama adminstration backtracking, while Mitchell repeatedly denied that his and Obama's actual position and focus had changed.

From the questions repeatedly asked and rephrased on Obama's new position on the Settlements and if they are still obstacles and the primary focus, it was clear to all that the reporters weren't accepting Mitchell's denials of no flip-flopping in the Obama administration.

Clearly Obama hasn't changed his desires (just like the Palestinians who still want to destroy and replace the Jewish State), but his failure to implement them have forced him to try new tactics. I guess that's called change.

Personally, I am also perplexed by Obama's comparison of the "Palestinian boy in Gaza who has no clean water" to the "Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the middle of the night."

Both are the results of actions and decisions by Hamas and the Palestinians in general, so while he blames it on the "conflict", it is primarily a conflict created and perpetuated by one side (theirs). I guess that is another example of his moral egalitarianism.

In the meantime, we Jews (Settlers) have no plans to let Obama (or Bibi) restrain us.


No signup fees. No annual fees.
Earn El Al tickets to Israel and other rewards with the
HAS Advantage Credit Card!


Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

4 comments:

NormanF said...

Moral relativism. There are no good guys and no bad guys.

The proper term is revanant not settlement. Israelis living east of the Green Line are revananters. Its sounds better than settler!

Neshama said...

Do you have a special recipe for waffles in the succa?
Are they with syrup? Or are they piled hi with icecream?

Or maybe you just make a sorta pancake with a sauce of musroom, leeks, mushroom soup (to make it saucie) & seasonings ala canapé!

JoeSettler said...

Moral Relativism is perhaps the right term as Obama has justified Palestinian terrorism in the past (see his pre-election JPost interview) and only questioned if Palestinian terror (fighting) is the best method for achieving their goals.

“Israel may seek "67-plus" and justify it in terms of the buffer that they need for security purposes. They've got to consider whether getting that buffer is worth the antagonism of the other party.”

and

“The Palestinians are going to have to make a calculation: Are we going to fight for every inch of that '67 border or, given the fact that 40 years have now passed, and new realities have taken place on the ground, do we take a deal that may not perfectly align with the '67 boundaries?”

But I like the term Moral Egalitarianism, where everyone is morally equal compared to one another, no matter what their actions, history, methods, or reasons.

That seems to be what happens every time someone compares Israel defending itself to Hamas attacks on civilians, or calls for a "Two-State Solution" and a removal of Jews from their homes.

Actually it's not very egalitarian at all as the onus is still placed on Israel.

Hmmm.

Arthur said...

Do you guys really think you're fooling yourselves? You're smart people, you know full well you're not going to be able to fool yourself like this.

No one is justified. All who live do so because they are actively being protected by murderers.

Who is the enemy? Hamas. Hezbollah. Israel. America. The enemy is us.

There are no answers. But the least we can do is admit that we're not on the good guy's side.

"Great men are almost always bad men."
-Lord Acton

Search the Muqata

Loading...

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails