Security and withdrawal are mutually exclusive.

I read in the headlines Sarkozy tells Olmert: Israel’s security isn’t up for discussion

Sarkozy told Olmert that France wanted Israel to be creative and make ‘some gestures’ in negotiations with the Palestinians. Sarkozy’s spokesman would not detail what gestures France hopes for from Israel.

Sarkozy ‘indicated that as long as the security of the state of Israel is assured, then one has to show creativity and try to make some gestures,’ Martinon said.

For me that’s not good enough. Any gestures we make put our security at risk. Besides what ever happenned to “secure borders”. Everything else is on the agenda but that.

Besides, Israel has made enough gestures. Where are the Palestinian gestures? Where are the demands for Palestinian gestures?

October 22, 2007 | 5 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

5 Comments / 5 Comments

  1. As I see it there are two impediments to implementing a policy of conquest. They are as follows: 1.)A policy of conquest would be VERY costly. It is unlikely that the US and the free world have the military force structure to pull this off right now. Americans and Westerners must be encouraged to join Israel in expanding and strengthening their armed forces. In order to convince Westerners that this needs to be done, the nature of the threat will need to be explained to them. Many, if not most of them, simply do not understand the nature the threat. As long as people do not understand the nature of the threat, they will be tempted to give in to the siren song of appeasement. This siren song plays VERY loudly. 2.) Many Westerners lack the moral confidence in their civilization to mount an effective defense of it. There seem to be an extrodinary high percentage of these people in positions of leadership with the free world.

    Those who lack the moral confidence to defend their civilization should be told to GET OUT OF THE WAY and allow people who are much better than they are to handle things. If they refuese, they should be forcefully removed. Those leaders who lack the moral confidence to do their jobs and defend their civilizaition should be forcefully removed from power.

  2. Western leaders have often been, correctly in my opinion, been accused of not being creative enough. Mr. Sarkozy provides substantial evidence that this accusation is correct. Making more gestures to the Palestinians can hardly be described as creative. This has been tried over and over again and the results have always been bad. In fact, more gestures would best be described as insane.

    An excellent article by Martin Sherman can be found at

    The theme of this article is Israel can either conquer or they can capitulate. The same thing actually applies to France, the US, and the entire free world. France, the US, and the rest of the free world should be prepared to assist Israel in recapturing the areas turned over to the Palestinians. Now this would be a creative policy.

    In fact, conquering large portions of the Middle East may be the only way to preserve the survival of our civilization. It seems to be the author’s contention that Israel’s leaders lack the ability to pull this off. I’m not sure if that’s true about Israel’s leaders, however, it does seem to be true of the leaders of the US and Western Europe.

    The answer to this is the free world needs to demand new leadership. The sooner this happens the better.

  3. It would seem that Mr. Sarkozy along with most Western leaders is underestimating the enemy. Israel’s security is nowhere close to being secured. In fact, the threats Israel faces are existential threats to Osrael. The same enemy that poses an existential threat to Israel also poses an existential threat to France, Western Europe, the US, and the entire free world.

    By asking Israel to be creative and to make gestures, the French and other Western leaders who advocate Israel doing this are asking the Israelis to place the survival of their countries in even graver danger than they already face. Israel should say “NO” to such insanity.

  4. I believe it was Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, appointed by President Clinton to head an international committee to investigate and determine whether the Israel – Palestinian peace process could be saved, who first used the expression that the Israelis and Palestinians needed to engage in a series of confidence building measures to build trust between them.

    The onus for these confidence building measures weighed most heavily on Israel.

    Israel made various concessions to that end. The concessions the Palestinians made were promises never fulfilled.

    In the result, whether it is Mitchell’s confidence building measures or Sarkozy’s gestures that Israel is called on to make, Israel ought not to make one concession, regardless of how trifling in that regard until the Palestinians for once do their part and prove they are finally capable of honoring their word.

    There is little chance of that, but some people still hope just as they hope to see the day that pigs fly.

Comments are closed.