Eydar - Statehood is part of a phased plan

Dror Eydar
Israel Hayom
20 September '11

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=513

The days of Oslo are back – but in reverse. Now, as then, the terrifyingly one-sided media force their political world view on an entire population. Eighteen years have passed, yet nothing has changed for commentators gripped by the mantra that had there only been a diplomatic initiative everything would have been different. Israel wouldn't have been isolated (it isn't). Turkey wouldn't have gone crazy. Egypt would not be hostile. Europe and the U.S. would not be criticizing us. Even his majesty Thomas Friedman would smile down on us from the lofty heights of punditry.

It's been 18 years and we haven't changed the channel. Every diplomatic initiative has worsened our diplomatic and security position, yet we continue to talk about an “initiative” and a “diplomatic process.” This is a pointless whitewash of words that has only led Israel to the brink, from which the current government is trying to save us. The Pravda-like media did not feature an in-depth debate over the danger presented by the Oslo Accords. It mostly tasked itself with denouncing those opposed to the agreement as warmongers, and in perpetrating a massive brainwash on the public in the form of a mad vision of a “New Middle East.”

What am I talking about? Let's just go back six years to the days before the disengagement. Take the half-penny pundits who blindly supported the disengagement. Was there a more ambitious “diplomatic initiative” than the disengagement? Withdrawal, uprooting settlements, risking an internal rift, giving the Palestinian Authority an opportunity to prove its ability to establish an independent state-like entity? Nothing came of it. Nada.

And now Thomas Friedman is being quoted on Army Radio as someone who fears for Israel's future in the absence of a diplomatic vision. The Holy Trinity has struck: The Tel Aviv Army Radio station quotes The New York Times quoting Ha'aretz. What deep insights has Thomas Friedman graced us with in the last year? Just eight months ago he wrote embarrassing postcards from Tahrir Square enthusing about the “Facebook revolution” that did not involve the Muslim Brotherhood and criticizing Israel for its short-sighted opposition to the Arab Spring on the pretext that it may contain unforeseen dangers. Who ended up being right?

Let's go back to first principles, for whoever is willing to listen. The Israeli government has crossed the Rubicon in terms of its intentions – two states for two peoples (yes, one of those is the Jewish people) and freezing construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem for 10 months – as well as in its willingness to negotiate. The Palestinians have not batted an eyelash in response. They are not interested, because negotiations at this stage would signify an end to the conflict and recognition of the Jewish people's right to some part of its historical homeland. From their point of view, this negates their collective raison d'etre, which is to destroy the Jewish state and expel the Jewish people from this part of the region. Otherwise, they would have long ago accepted the many historical compromise proposals, from May 1947 until Olmert in 2008.

Sept. 23 marks another stage in the Palestinian phased plan to destroy Israel that Israeli journalists have taught us to pooh-pooh. Anyone who sidesteps the irresponsible media filter can learn of their intentions from the horse's mouth. The Israeli media, the frightening majority of whom support the Palestinians and blatantly oppose the current Israeli government, are once again shirking their duty. I am certain that the Israeli public today is far more sober than most of its commentators, journalists and bevy of blowhards who have been brought to our doorstep by our impossible diplomatic reality. The main thing we have to remember is not to be afraid.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.