On May 15, Palestinians and their supporters around the world commemorate the "Nakba" ("catastrophe" or "disaster" in Arabic) in memory of the day they rejected the UN Resolution to form a Jewish state and a Palestinian state between the Jordan river and the sea. The Palestinians, along with 7 Muslim/Arabic countries decided, instead, to attack the new state of Israel, were defeated - and Israel gained lands it couldn't hope to have.
63 years later the Palestinians insist on reminding the world that it was not the "occupation" that started any war - it was the inability of the Arabic countries to accept the idea of a Jewish state in the Middle East. 63 years later the Palestinians insist to remind us that not only they were cruel and possesive - they were also a failure - and as long as they insist on "commemorating failure" - they will remain a failure.
For the best interest of the world, and the Palestinians themselves, it's time for the world to remember: when you attack someone and find yourself defeated, that is not a "Nakba", a "disaster" or "catastrophe"; it is a failure, nothing to be proud of, and it is a lesson for you to learn.
Obviously, failing to learn - is just another type of failure... and that is the real disaster.
May 15, 2011
February 14, 2011
Why is it always about Israel?
Recently I was often asked what is my opinion about the revolution in Egypt, to which I answered that I believe this is a risk to the Western world in general, and obviously to Israel specifically. This answer often resulted in a following question, asking, basically, "why is it always about Israel? Why can't you be happy with what is good for the oppressed Egyptions, and care more about Israel?"
The answer is simple: the Egyptions revolted because it was good for them, not because it was good for anyone else. The same Egyptions, or their forefathers before them, decided to cooperate with the Egyption governments when they decided to attack or threaten Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1970 through 1973. They didn't care about what was good to Israel, and honestly - it doesn't seem like they cared about what's good for the Egyptions - they all blindly followed the cruel regime - which it was that rule Egypt at the given moment.
Mubarak, it is said, was bad for the Egyptions, maybe even very bad, but in a world of insane Islamic terror, Mubarak was an island, or should I say Oasis, of political stability in the Arab world. It was Mubarak who restrained the terrorists, led a tough approach to terrorists, and overall - restrained other unstable countries. Mubarak, it is said, and it is sad, was bad for the Egyptions, but Mubarak kept the Egyptions from going to another pointless against Israel, a war which would probably push Egypt into a much worse condition than it is today. And yes, it is possible, and yes - that risk or threat is back on the table, with people like Ayman Nur, saying there is a need to "revise" the Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt in the name of "Egyption Rights".
When a revolution is intended to give people a better life - no one can condemn it, but if we end up with a scale which has a dictator on one side, and free people who use their freedom to declare war - I'm with the dictator.
So to summerize: if you ask me "why it is always about Israel?" the answer would be clear: "because for Islamic extremists - it is always an opportunity to attack Israel".
The answer is simple: the Egyptions revolted because it was good for them, not because it was good for anyone else. The same Egyptions, or their forefathers before them, decided to cooperate with the Egyption governments when they decided to attack or threaten Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1970 through 1973. They didn't care about what was good to Israel, and honestly - it doesn't seem like they cared about what's good for the Egyptions - they all blindly followed the cruel regime - which it was that rule Egypt at the given moment.
Mubarak, it is said, was bad for the Egyptions, maybe even very bad, but in a world of insane Islamic terror, Mubarak was an island, or should I say Oasis, of political stability in the Arab world. It was Mubarak who restrained the terrorists, led a tough approach to terrorists, and overall - restrained other unstable countries. Mubarak, it is said, and it is sad, was bad for the Egyptions, but Mubarak kept the Egyptions from going to another pointless against Israel, a war which would probably push Egypt into a much worse condition than it is today. And yes, it is possible, and yes - that risk or threat is back on the table, with people like Ayman Nur, saying there is a need to "revise" the Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt in the name of "Egyption Rights".
When a revolution is intended to give people a better life - no one can condemn it, but if we end up with a scale which has a dictator on one side, and free people who use their freedom to declare war - I'm with the dictator.
So to summerize: if you ask me "why it is always about Israel?" the answer would be clear: "because for Islamic extremists - it is always an opportunity to attack Israel".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
