Despite Moshe Yaalon's backtrack, the public agrees with his prior opinion
1. What was the uproar in the media this week all about? Was it about the statements of Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, or about the description of John Kerry as "acting out of misplaced obsession and messianic fervor"?Yaalon was correct, and western governments shouldn't be deluding themselves, nor should they be spending so much money that only ends up in the hands of murderers.
Most of the media was busy pointing fingers at Ya'alon. The talks with the Palestinians are a fundamental principle of the catechism of left-wing orthodoxy, and nobody should oppose them or, worse still, accuse the messenger who is forcing an agreement upon us of caring more about his Nobel laurel than about the facts. In revealing the statements made off the record, Yedioth Ahronoth sought to undermine the defense minister's ability to withstand the enormous pressure the United States has placed on him to surrender to the plan that will mortgage our future.
But Ya'alon's analysis was sober and realistic. In his view, the American security plan is not worth the paper it is written on, and will bring neither peace nor security. The Palestinian Authority lives on the army's bayonets. The moment we remove our protection, Hamas will rise -- literally. It will tower over us at spitting distance from the international airport and over the entire center of the country. When that happens, what good will sensors and satellites do? Will they stop suicide terrorists wearing bomb belts?
Ya'alon also said that talks are not really taking place between ourselves and the Palestinians, but actually between ourselves and the Americans. We are the only ones who are giving, while the Palestinians are ratcheting up the incitement against us. Ya'alon has been saying for some time that Mahmoud Abbas "is not a partner to an agreement" and is "entrenched in his opinions." Was he making this up? Is this not a realistic view of the situation? Deal with that, not with the small stuff.[...]
Here it is, explicitly: The leader of the "moderate" Palestinian faction is saying that he has no authority to discuss the right of return because it is an individual matter. In other words, no Palestinian leader has the right to sign on to the "end of the conflict." Then what is to be discussed with them? Was Ya'alon mistaken, then, when he said that the talks were actually taking place between Israel and the U.S.? These are talks about Western fantasies, about how to use empty words to solve a conflict that is not (and has never been) territorial, but rather existential.
Speaking of which, how can Canadian PM Stephen Harper say he's pro-Israel and then offer $66 million to the PLO? I'm afraid this is problematic, since he could've rejected the politically correct view of a Muslim society called "palestinians" existing, much like Newt Gingrich did, and said that the Muslims world shouldn't be feeding this kind of indoctrination to their subjects. Sooner or later, Harper and others like him are going to have to ask if they can keep on with this tommyrot, which is only costing a lot of good people their hard-earned money.