Freedom of Movement for ‘Pals'(sic)? Israel: Self-Respecting Nation or Banana Republic?

Benchmarks for a Bloodbath, by Evelyn Gordon (Jerusalem Post)

Excerpts;

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is not purposely trying to destroy all of Israel’s hard-won security gains of the last five years. But if she were, she could hardly have improved on her new benchmark proposal. The proposal comprises two parallel sets of “benchmarks”: steps (mainly Israeli) to increase Palestinian freedom of movement, and steps (mainly Palestinian) to combat Palestinian terror. However, it does not make either track conditional on the other. Thus should Israel accept the proposal, it would be pledging to fulfill its own side of the bargain regardless of whether the Palestinians honored theirs. And since increased freedom of movement for Palestinians includes increased freedom of movement for terrorists, that essentially means an Israeli pledge to facilitate terrorist operations even if the Palestinian Authority makes no compensatory effort to thwart such operations.

NOR IS there any doubt that Gazan terrorists would make the effort. Israeli intelligence agencies have long warned of the terrorist organizations’ feverish preparations for war.

In an astonishing report in Sunday’s Haaretz, veteran Arab affairs correspondent Danny Rubinstein cited Palestinian acquaintances in Gaza as saying;

Intelligence reports significantly understate the scope of the preparations, which include massive arms smuggling and recruiting and training hundreds of additional “troops.” Given a chance, the terrorists would certainly launch a similar build-up in the West Bank in order to force Israel into a two-front war.

Indeed, Hamas publicly rejected the benchmark proposal last week precisely because the organization is “preparing for battle,” to quote one of its leaders, Khaled Mashaal. Why should Israel facilitate this effort?

For Rice, desperate to buy Arab and European support on Iraq with “progress” on the Israeli-Palestinian front, higher Israeli casualties may well be a price worth paying. But no responsible Israeli government could concur.

The only proper response to Rice’s proposal can thus be summed up in one word: No.

To read the entire article by Evelyn Gordon, click here.

Commentary;

Evelyn Gordon’s summation is right on the mark as far as it goes. This author will go still further. As stated countless times on this blog, no self-respecting nation, no self-respecting Jewish nation would forfeit it’s security to the machinations, expediancies and subordinations of ANY 3rd party. Hashem is above so-called super-powers. MB

Author’s Note:
Numerous searches for the report of Haaretz correspondent Danny Rubinstein cited by Evelyn Gordon have been fruitless, not having found a direct link to the article.

Uncategorized