Ehud Flavius
December 8, 2003
Do you have any idea what Deputy Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert and Hamas leader Shech Ahmed Yassin have in common?
A couple of days ago Yassin stated that “a two
state solution will never work,” because all of Eretz Yisrael, the State of
Israel, is occupied Arab land, and of course, armed resistance will continue
until all the “occupied land” is liberated. So, he suggested that the “Jewish
state” be moved, to Europe. In other words, Yassin’s stated goal is the
annihilation of the State of Israel.
On Friday, Ehud Olmert, who holds numerous
cabinet positions, as well as being Sharon’s deputy, told the Israeli daily
Yedioth Achronot that Israel must unilaterally transfer somewhere in the
vicinity of 40,000 ‘settlers’ uproot dozens of ‘settlements’ and accept smaller
borders in order to insure survival of a “Jewish state” with a Jewish majority.
Some view Olmert as having walked the Likud
plank in the same direction as Roni Milo and Dan Meridor, both of whom made a
sharp Left turn and found themselves political outsiders. However, yesterday,
Olmert reacted, saying that his declaration was exactly what a majority of
Likud supporters believe, but were always afraid to say.
What lies behind Ehud’s apostasy? There are a
couple of possible factors involved:
1. Olmert considers himself to be crown prince
and has to distance himself from his main rival, Bibi Netanyahu. Despite the
unpopularity he now faces within the Likud, Olmert expects that within a few
years a majority of Likud voters will side with him, due to continued Arab
terror and Jewish blood shed.
2. Olmert is Ariel Sharon’s shofar, testing
the waters and preparing the way. This isn’t the first time. Not too long ago,
at a memorial for David ben Gurion, Olmert started talking about unilateral
Israeli measures, paving the way for Sharon’s own remarks.
Olmert is considered to be Sharon’s closest
confidant within the government, and it’s believed that he wouldn’t make such
far-reaching statements without coordinating them with the Prime Minister. He
is also very close to Sharon’s son Omri, whose left-wing ideology is no secret.
He and his father are said to be grooming Olmert to follow in Sharon’s
footsteps to the Prime Minister’s office.
It is very important to note the distinction
being made between the right and the left. The left is willing to separate from
Yesha because, to them, it is insignificant and has little value to the Jewish
people. Olmert and Sharon, on the other hand, are openly declaring that Judea,
Samaria and Gaza are definitely integral elements of Eretz Yisrael, that they
are OURS, but must be sacrificed for the good of the Jewish people. In other
words, in their view, the land is ours to do with what we want – to take it or
leave it.
It is nauseating to read the conversation that
took place about Hebron at yesterday’s cabinet meeting. Sharon, when asked
about Hebron, said that during normal times, every Jewish school child and
every foreign visitor should visit Hebron “which has our forefather's graves
and righteous Jew's grave which we cannot give up on.” “Could anyone imagine a
Hebron without Jews?” To that, Shinui Minister Avraham Poraz responded, “yes”
that Jews should be removed from Hebron because “there are only a handful of
Jewish settlers up against thousands of Arabs”. Shinui Minister Yossi Paritzky
added, "There are also Jewish graves in Prague but that doesn't mean that
we have to be there."
How did Sharon react? He was quoted as having
said, “In the framework of difficult concessions Israel will not give up the
Jewish community in Hebron," but added that even if the city is
handed over to the Palestinians, Israel would continue to hold on to the
Ma’arat HaMachpela, the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs.
Where does this leave us? Sharon’s seeming
reluctance to part with Hebron, but his willingness to abandon others areas of
Yesha is despicable. Surely it doesn’t leave me breathing a sigh of relief. It
is clear from Sharon’s remarks that he would not hesitate to evict Hebron’s
Jewish community, leaving a small garrison to guard Ma’arat HaMachpela. But
secondly, how can he even consider forsaking Shilo, site of the ‘mishkan’ the
sacred Tabernacle, following the exodus from Egypt and entrance into Israel,
for 369 years [http://www.telshilo.org]. And what about Beit El, which we read
about in the current weekly Torah portions? The list goes on and on.
Yesterday Minister Meir Shitrit, presently
Bibi’s helper in Treasury, said on Kol Yisrael radio that it is “intolerable
that people should take hilltops wherever they want, install electricity and
pave roads.” “What, can anyone settle wherever he wants in Eretz Yisrael,” he
exclaimed.
It really is difficult to understand these
people. After all, this is what Zionism was, (and, contrary to popular opinion,
still is,) all about. Settling the land, our land, all of it, forever. This is
exactly how the land was settled, against world opinion, and against British
dictates. Without this kind of settlement I’m not sure if the State of Israel
would have come into existence. And today, without this kind of settlement, we
know what else will come into existence.
Current talk of unilateral withdrawal from
Yesha, eviction and transfer of tens of thousands of Jews, destruction of
dozens of communities is, a reward to terror, a victory for the
terrorists, and a Beilin – left-wing triumph. But it is much worse than just
that. It is a signal to our enemies to continue on their trail of killing, for
if such huge Israeli concessions can be gained without any sacrifice on their
part, the full conquest cannot be far behind. Just as Yassin declared, “a
two-state solution will never work.”
That is what Ehud Olmert and Ahmed Yassin have
in common. They are both working, in their own ways, to bring about the end of
the Jewish state of Israel. Olmert is not the first high-ranking Jew to walk
this road, changing his mind in the middle of the battle for his own good. In
keeping with his notorious forerunner, he should be renamed: Ehud Flavius
