The Reality of the Situation

The commentary linked below is incredibly timely and hits to the heart of matters in the Middle East. It has been a long time since such a politically incorrect yet accurate article has been in print but this one hits the bulls-eye dead center and it is well worth reading in full.

Not surprisingly, it comes from Caroline Glick who seems to have a radar for the truth, despite perhaps being somewhat uncomfortable to read - but that often comes with the truth of certain matters - in this case, Israel. Additionally, most of what is stated in this commentary could appropriately apply to the U.S.

"What the left is really after"

Following the example of its counterparts in the West, for decades the Israeli Left has carefully cultivated its image as the fun side of the political divide.

From the Left's perspective, the peace process between Israel and the PLO was the fulfillment of its promise. It was also its key to a permanent cultural monopoly and control of government.

Israelis who objected to handing control over the country's heartland and capital city to the PLO were nothing more than gloom and doom preaching, messianic extremists. The Right was angry. The Left was happy. The Right was the party of war. The Left was the party of peace. The Right was suspicious and tribal. The Left was optimistic and international.

OK, so good so far. Now she dives into the reality of the situation - a reality conveniently ignored by the masses on the left:

The first blows to the Left's otherwise perfect narrative were cast just seven months after the moment of its greatest triumph. Just seven months after the epic handshake between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993, the first Palestinian suicide bomber made his appearance. On April 6, 1994, the bomber murdered eight Israelis on a bus in Afula.

By the time the peace process was a year old, the image of the suicide bomber had begun to eclipse the image of the balloon-festooned peace the Left sought to embody.

It was at this time that the Left could have been expected to reconsider its commitment to the peace process. But that is not what happened. The Left maintained absolute allegiance to the phony peace process. It simply ditched hope.

She elaborates effectively on this point, but for the sake of brevity, lets move on to her next points:

True, transferring land to the PLO had turned out to be a very bad idea. True life had been better and safer before the fake peace process.

YET EVEN as its plan of surrendering land to jihadists was exposed as so much idiocy, and its demographic doomsday scenarios were proven wrong, the Left remained steadfast on its course. It simply found a new argument.

Beginning around 2006, the Left began threatening that if Israel does not remove itself from Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, the US will abandon us. On Sunday night, former prime minister Ehud Olmert presented this argument in his keynote speech before the Geneva Initiative's annual conference.

Olmert claimed that if Israel does not retreat voluntarily to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, the US will force it to retreat. Israel, he said, has no choice but to voluntarily partition Jerusalem and withdraw from Judea and Samaria. Left unsaid was the assumption that such a retreat will entail turning between 100,000 and a half million Israelis who live in the areas to be ceded into homeless internal refugees.

Now she dismantles this "argument":

Olmert's statement is worth considering not because he said it, but because today it is the Left's central argument for withdrawal. In analyzing this claim, lt us assume at the outset that Olmert is correct and that if Israel does not voluntarily cede Judea and Samaria and partition Jerusalem, the US will try to coerce Israel to do so.

In this scenario Israel faces two possible futures. It can withdraw or it can resist US pressure, try to remain in place and only leave when compelled to do so.

If Israel withdraws it will relinquish defensible borders and clear the way for the emergence of a terrorist-controlled area abutting all its major population centers.

At a minimum, this terror enclave will be in a de facto state of war with Israel as it cultivates warm ties with Syria, Hizbullah, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.

If Israel does not withdraw, its cities will remain secure and its population will not be in crisis. But Israel will have to contend with a hostile US government threatening to take unknown steps to force it to contract to within indefensible borders.

Now the dirty truth on the U.S. involvement:

What will those US threats involve? Washington is already arming and training a Palestinian army. It is already selling the Arabs the most advanced weapons in the US arsenal. It is already providing military assistance to the Hizbullah-controlled Lebanese army. It is already permitting Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Would Olmert and his leftist colleagues have us believe that the US military will invade Israel to force us to exit Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem?

If that is what the Left is hinting, let us assume it is right. But if the Left is right, is Israel better off preemptively dooming itself to chronic wars and strategic vulnerability by accepting indefensible borders than by refusing to do so? At least if we refuse to stick our neck in the noose, the US government will be forced to make the case for destroying Israel to the American people.

Ouch. Genesis 12:3 keeps coming to mind right about now.

More truths:

And then there is the Left's certainty that it can foresee the future. That would be the same Left that promised us peace, demographic destruction, and that Gaza would become the new Singapore after we withdrew. But even if there is a residue of reality in its new threats, why should we squander Israel's security based on a scenario that may or may not play out?

Now we get to the final truths - and the most important points - points that directly apply to the situation in both the U.S. and Israel, something you'll never read in the MSM's slanted commentaries:

THE FACT of the matter is that like the peace fantasy and the demographic fantasy, the international-isolation-and-war-with-the-US fantasy is pure nonsense. None of these leftist scenarios - whether rosy or bleak - have ever withstood the slightest scrutiny.

So what accounts for the Left's behavior? Why is it that intelligent people like Olmert and Kadima leader Tzipi Livni and their comrades in the Labor Party and Meretz and the Geneva Initiative are so quick to make insipid arguments? Why won't they just admit that Israel is better off remaining where it is and not contracting to within indefensible boundaries?

What do they really want?

THAT is the 10 million dollar question, and here it is - like a ton of bricks:

The answer to this last question is as simple as it is insidious. What the Left truly seeks is not peace or even security. In pushing their land surrender policy in the face of a mountain of evidence that it imperils the country, leftist ideologues and political leaders are seeking to destroy their ideological rivals on the Right. That is, they wish to destroy religious Zionism.

It is religious Zionism, which looks to Jerusalem rather than to Tel Aviv, that drives the Left to distraction. It is the hope of destroying religious Zionism by destroying the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem - the Jewish nerve center of the country - that keeps the Left on its path. This truth was exposed in a Haaretz editorial published in July 2005, a month before 10,000 predominantly religious Israelis were expelled from their homes in Gaza and northern Samaria.

As the Left's mouthpiece explained, "The disengagement of Israeli policy from its religious fuel is the real disengagement currently on the agenda. On the day after the disengagement, religious Zionism's status will be different."

The editorial concluded, "The real question is not how many mortar shells will fall, or who will guard the Philadelphi route, or whether the Palestinians will dance on the roofs of Ganei Tal. The real question is who sets the national agenda."

The dispute is between the religious public and the rest of the Israelis."

The bottom line is quoted below and this is the part that applies as much to the U.S. political situation as it does to Israel.

What the Left's move from hope to fear in the service of its plan to destroy its ideological rival shows is that in contrast to its carefully crafted image, the Left is fundamentally out of step with the public. They are not the optimistic side on the political divide. And they are not interested in making our lives better or more fun. They are motivated by hatred of their rivals, not love of country or devotion to peace.

Perhaps the only question then is how many more times they will be allowed to lead us astray before we stop allowing them define the terms of our national debate?

It is that last line that finally puts things in perspective. It explains how someone who embraces and supports views such as radical Islam, with their unbelievable mistreatment of women and children. It explains why this group-think embraces every communist leader from Mao to Castro. It explains why such philosophy embraces terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, despite all evidence of their violent blood lust. It also explains much of the left's hatred of Christians and Jews.

When human government becomes your "religion" and your faith-substitute then it is easy to turn your hatred towards those who oppose you. Two sentences are the most haunting:

"And they are not interested in making our lives better or more fun. They are motivated by hatred of their rivals, not love of country or devotion to peace."

Wow. What can be added to that?

The irony is - there is coming a time, when these dreams - dreams of an all encompassing human government will be applied, on a world-wide basis. Preceding this, the perceived "enemy" - the followers of Christ - will have been removed from the planet. A secular leader will emerge and liberal utopia will reach its final and complete fulfillment. There will even be a temporary period of apparent peace.

But not long after that brief period, the unfortunate truth and reality will set in. For a detailed view of this future, all one has to do is read Revelation 6-18.

For the alternative future - the future of those who follow Christ - that too is found in the Holy Bible: A future which begins with the description given in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 and then proceeds immediately into the description given in Revelation 21-22.

Compare and contrast these two separate futures. Both descriptions contain the truth and the reality of these two separate futures. And both of these futures are coming soon.