THE ISRAEL REPORTNovember/December '99
It is undisputed that everyone wants to live in peace. That noone wants the destruction of Israel (except of course our Arab brethren.) That everyone agrees that Israel's security and survival is the underlying consideration for all of us. Then why is it that we have, and have always had, marked differences among us on fundamental questions of security that Israel perpetually faces?
Take for instance the famous decision that Israel had to make several years ago concerning the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear site. Clinton, now is in the forefront of advising Israel to give up the Golan; then, America was among those who roundly condemned Israel for taking this step which Israel believed to be vital to its own security interest. But America was not alone in such condemnation. Among the Israeli leaders who led the fight in opposition, was none other than Shimon Peres and Ezer Weizman, the present leading propronents of giving up the Golan to Syria. America has since acknowledged that they were completely wrong in the condemnation of Israel at the time, and now recognize that Israel's act was an essential necessity for establishing stability and peace in the Middle East. The bombing and destruction of Iraq's nuclear site did not prevent the Gulf War, but the results of that war would have been far different if Iraq had possessed nuclear capability at the time.
However, the Israeli leaders who proved so utterly wrong in their security estimates, Peres and Weizman, have never owned up to their past misjudgments on Iraq. What is more amazing is that they are right back with us today, freely giving their military advices; they are advocating the giving up to our mortal enemy Syria the strategic Golan Heights. American top military leaders on the other hand have consisently held that the Golan's retention was a vital necessity for Israel's security. Moreover, the Israeli press is conspicuously silent in reminding us of Weizman's and Peres' prior poor advice on such past crucial questions of Israel's security. We have repeatedly been told in the past that Israel cannot afford to make a serious military misjudgment and continue to survive. The giving up of the Golan to an unrepentant enemy, who even now refuses to shake Barak's hand when he is prepared to give up our ancestral homeland, is an action which only the proverbial people of Chelm would approve.
Weizman and Peres are even consenting to the bringing in by Barak of Clinton's public relations firm to manipulate the Jews in Israel to support the abandonment of the Golan. Instead of leaving our citizens to decide after a full disclosure of the facts, they join to stack the deck so that Barak's Chelm-like decision on the Golan is perfunctorily approved. Will the promised pledge of a referendum turn out to be meaningless, and yet another sly deception of Barak? Are not Barak, Peres and Weizman, suitable for the proverbial Chelm leadership? Are they not exceptional candidates to be listed as the Wise Men of Chelm?
Women In Green Website