Posted on 08/30/2002 9:29:17 AM PDT by eclectic
IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Moshe Yaalon granted an interview to Ari Shavit of Ha'aretz, which was published today. A Makor Rishon analyst noted that the terms "People of Israel" and "Nation of Israel" flowed off his tongue in a refreshingly spontaneous way. Excerpts: "If the concept 'conquest' [referring to Israel's presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza] ever had any relevance, it lost it as far as I'm concerned in the year 2000. Israel presented a proposal that was supposed to remove the Palestinians from off our back, but instead [of getting off], they started stabbing us… I [therefore] maintain that the story is not 'conquest,' but rather the lack of recognition of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State. "The Palestinians have three stories. Their narrative in Arabic is one of mobilization for a war of jihad, non-recognition of Israel's right to exist, rejection of any attachment between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel, and mobilization of the Palestinian people for a war with the goal of bringing about Israel's collapse. In English, the story is different: occupation, colonialism, apartheid. Those are completely irrelevant terms, which are intended to furnish the Western world with familiar terminology that clarifies who the good guys are here and who the bad guys are. "In Hebrew, they have a third story: the peace of the brave. But I know the details and I say that Arafat… saw Oslo as a Trojan horse that allowed the Palestinian Authority people to enter the country, and Sept. 2000 was the date that they came out of the horse. Today, as well, the ideology of Fatah is to cause the State of Israel to disintegrate from within. They do not want to 'end the conflict,' but rather to turn Israel into a Palestinian state…"
Asked whether Oslo was a mistake, Yaalon said, "You can't speak in terms of a mistake or not a mistake… After what we have gone through in the last nine years, I have many less question marks and more exclamation points. For me, ethical clarity has been created."
Dismantling Yesha settlements and unilateral Israeli withdrawals are "dangerous moves [that will] give the Palestinians strength to continue… I said this when the question of withdrawing from Joseph's Tomb arose. It was clear to me that leaving the Tomb would just give the Palestinians a push. Whoever thought that leaving the site would neutralize a point of friction was thinking like an Israeli, not like a Palestinian… Every withdrawal under violence and terrorism will only strengthen the way of violence and terrorism, and will endanger us." He agreed that even if a large military force is sometimes required to protect an isolated town, a much larger force would have to be kept there if the town were to be dismantled."
He said that the proposed partition wall separating the Arab-populated areas of Yesha from the rest of Israel "will not solve all the problems… If I had that money, I would invest it somewhere else."
"The key point here is the staying power of the Israeli society. That is the most important factor that is being put to the test at this time, and will continue to be put to the test in the near future. That is what the campaign is about. When the Palestinians initiated the confrontation, their evaluation was that Israel would not be able to withstand even a few dozen casualties. They were surprised. Operation Defensive Shield showed them that they were dealing not with a spider web, but with a tiger. But if they see cracks and a chance of [Israel's] disintegration, a prospect of Israeli capitulation, that achievement will be erased... "We must understand: The Palestinians have returned us to the War of Independence. Today it is clear that the State of Israel as a Jewish state is still an alien element in the region. It will take generations until various elements in the region accept its existence. Therefore, we have to go back to the ethos of standing fast, not because I am enamored of that ethos, but because there is no choice. It is an ethos of no choice."
Then God can openly take visible action to bless Israel again.
Arab crazies don't have the faintest idea what well armed Jews will do when push comes to shove. There is also a Jewish crazy factor the Mohammedans ignore at their own peril. Nuking Mecca/Medina/Q'um will be on the chessboard. Will be an option.
I hear ya!
Like I said, the Arab Muslims ain't seen Jewish crazy yet. Which direction do they pray when Mecca/Kabba is a smoking crater?
Whoever thought that leaving the site would neutralize a point of friction was thinking like an Israeli, not like a Palestinian… Every withdrawal under violence and terrorism will only strengthen the way of violence and terrorism, and will endanger us."
The same holds true with American and European liberals. They seem unable to understand that most of the world does not think in terms of western liberalism, however much their diplomats may use the terminology to frame the debate to their own advantage.
And that contradiction is evidence of serious flaws in religious moralities.
For me, a rational ethics -- free from religion -- is the only morality worthy of that name.
Aristotle produced a simplistic rational ethics based on virtues visible in respected people, and vices visible in non-respected humans. And teaching Aristotle's non-denominational ethics in public schools would be a great idea, but ... We'd be turning out individuals with the same moral upbringing of Alexander the Great, and that wouldn't do in a liberal world.
Even better is Ayn Rand's ethics. Her's is an ethics metaphysically based in reality and epistemologically based in reason; making it a clear and concise rational ethics that makes sense. Ayn Rand's ethics is clearly also what America's founding fathers had in mind when writing the founding documents that recognized and moved to preserve individual freedom -- the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
Well duh, if they risk less and us more, it only strengthen them and makes them make us risk more and them less.
Bttt. And the Chief of Staff has seen the light of reason and reality.
Then Aristotle didn't "produce" it, but merely "described" it. The morality was already on display, so that people could be categorized into "respected" and "non-respected". Man doesn't produce moral law, he struggles to obey it.
Even those who deny the source of moral law, rather than wallow in immorality, inconsistently argue that they're as "moral as everyone else".
What are you going to do when you've based your morality on Ayn Rand, and someone comes along who doesn't believe in Ayn Rand's morality? Are you going to force your morality on him, or appeal to a higher authority?
I know, I know - anyone as intelligent, rational, and clear-thinking as you would know that it is irrational to disagree with you, since through pure reason you have found pure truth.
Zechariah 12
6In that day I will make the governors of Judah like a firepan in the woodpile, and like a fiery torch in the sheaves; they shall devour all the surrounding peoples on the right hand and on the left, but Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place--Jerusalem.
7"The LORD will save the tents of Judah first, so that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem shall not become greater than that of Judah. 8In that day the LORD will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; the one who is feeble among them in that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the Angel of the LORD before them. 9It shall be in that day that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
tick...tock...tick...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.