Thursday, November 24, 2005

Hakol kol Rabin, Ha'yadayim y'dei Sharon (It is the voice of Rabin I hear, but the body of Sharon that I see)

It seems that Ariel Sharon has taken a page out of George Orwell's book as he tries to sell the Israeli public on his latest political gimmick (courtesy of Ha'aretz, and my friend, Mike):
Ariel Sharon will offer the Palestinians independence in exchange for the guarantee of security for Israelis if he is re-elected prime minister... Sharon would not operate on the principle of land for peace.

George Orwell, in his essay "Politics and the English Language" defines political language as follows:
"Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind...".

The political language that emanates from Sharon and the Israeli government today fits this description perfectly, and eerily resembles what life was like in another of Orwell's more famous works, "1984".

* Does anyone really believe that "Independence for Security" is any different than "Land for Peace"?

* Is it possible, that within the "Land for Peace" formula, that the Arabs merely wanted land without the independence, and that that is the reason why they never fulfilled any of their signed agreements and went on to murder and destroy the lives of thousands of Jews?

* Is it possible, that within the "Land for Peace" equation, it wasn't clear to the Arabs that the peace that they were obligating themselves to, in exchange for land, was at the very least security for the citizens of the Jewish State of Israel - and that this is why Oslo literally blew up in our faces?

The only real difference that exists between the "Land for Peace" equation of the Rabin / Peres era with Sharon's "Independence for Security" gimmick is that Rabin & Peres at least tried to fool the People of Israel by (mis)leading them to believe that there was a true "peace partner", and concessions would only be made in return for peace. Sharon, on the contrary, will give away the farm (not his of course - only those belonging to "settlers") and endanger the very existence of the Jewish State of Israel for absolutley nothing in return.

As an aside, there is one way in which I can see this "Independence for Security" equation working - namely, by applying it in reverse.

If the Arabs are willing to grant the Jewish State of Israel independence from the PLO and their murderous ways, then in return, Israel would provide the Arabs of Yesha (Judea, Samaria & Gaza) with security. Of course, if they do not grant the Jewish State independence, Israel would then take measures to make their lives as un-secure as possible until the Arabs of Yesha came around.


YOU ARE SOOO CLEAR.Sharon is willing to set'auschwitz boundaries' for Israel for NOTHING in return.
This country is suicidal.

By Anonymous daat y, at Fri Nov 25, 03:05:00 AM GMT+2  


the use of holocaust imagery and terminology in reference to the policies of the government is unacceptable. Ze'ev, to be credible you should remove the above remark.


By Anonymous H, at Sun Nov 27, 04:39:00 PM GMT+2  

Haim, Auschwitz borders was a term coined by Abba Eban who was a member of the political / ideological left, referring to Israel's pre-1967 boundaries...

This is a term that has been in use in defending Israel's need / right to hold on to Judea, Samaria Aza for decades...

I do not think that there is anything offensive with it...

By Blogger Ze'ev, at Sun Nov 27, 05:01:00 PM GMT+2  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

<< Home

Blogwise - blog directory Blogarama - The Blogs Directory