 |
Reuven Koret is the publisher of Israel Insider and the CEO of Koret Communications.
|
|
|
|
By Reuven Koret
May 5, 2006
I had to read about it in the newspaper:
"Government sources confirmed to The Jerusalem Post on Thursday that there were discussions afoot to change the English translation of the name of Olmert's plan to unilaterally withdraw from much of the West Bank and beef up a few large settlement blocks contiguous to the Green Line, called hitkansut in Hebrew, to something that makes more sense in English than 'convergence.'"
The report goes on: "One official admitted that the problem with "convergence," the name that came directly from the Prime Minister's Office, is that the word doesn't really mean anything. Indeed, it sounds more like a geometric term than a diplomatic one. " And the alternative? "'Consolidation,' however, signifies what is being discussed -- consolidating the existing settlement blocs."
Thank you, Jerusalem Post. Thank you, "government officials."
Dear colleagues, I quote from the Israel Insider newsletter of April 14:
"Note to Olmert spinmeisters: 'Convergence' is a stupid name. Converging to what? The vanishing point? 'Consolidation' or 'Ingathering' would have been a lot better, but hey -- you guys limp along with your poor PR. See if I care."
Well, actually, I do care. I offered my advice freely, but if I am not going to get credit, or cash, at the least you guys owe me to listen a little further. You see, I was a proponent of "consolidation" from the get-go. To wit "Gush Katif First" from May 14, 2004, in which I argued that Israel should not be fleeing ["disengaging"] from Gush Katif but consolidating isolated Jewish settlements in Gush Katif:
"What the disengagement proponents will not say is that what makes sense in Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") -- consolidating Israeli settlement blocs that Israel intends to keep in any conceivable settlement, and relocating those in isolated areas to within those blocs -- makes even more sense in Gaza. Why not start with Gush Katif?"
I argued that isolated, difficult to defend outpost like Netzarim could be consolidated with larger blocs in Gush Katif (in the south of the Gaza Strip) and the northern Gaza settlement bloc (already contiguous with Israel).
I pointed out that Yitzhak Rabin, just a month before his murder, advocated holding on to Gush Katif. Apparently, that kind of view contributed to his assassination.
Now, you may think that this kind of consolidation is in fact the policy of the Olmert Administration. Think again. Yesterday, we had Shimon Peres repeating his mantra that resources should be shifted away from Judea and Samaria and to the Negev and the Galilee. Indeed, he is now a Minister in charge of just that sort of siphoning.
Instead of strengthening the settlement blocs -- Gush Ariel, Gush Etzion, the Jordan Valley, Maaleh Adumim, and Kiryat Arba/Hebron, the government -- at least that part of the coalition represented by Peres -- is committed to drying up these vital strategic areas, destroying these communities and driving out their residents, to be replaced by cockamamie schemes with no chance of success, to which the government would be expected to pour billions as it did in the wake of the "Oslo" debacle.
No. Knowing what we know now, and what I and other non-Peresites said all along, can anyone argue that Israel is now better off without the vibrant communities of Gush Katif and northern Gaza? As Kassam rockets rain daily further and further north and east, is this a precedent we really wish to repeat in Judea and Samaria, especially now that the really party in power among the Palestinians, for the foreseeable future, is Hamas?
The Post, in its article on the impending name change for "conversion," cites one perceived disadvantage of the (Koret-) proposed alternative: "One problem some are having with the word 'consolidation,' however, is that it sounds too military, too much like what an army does before waging battle. "
Hello? Attention Shoppers: We are at war. We have been at war. We will be at war with those who vow and work and kill for our destruction. Consolidation is only justified if there is a military value for consolidating. We should relocate nothing unless there a clear benefit from so doing, and the relocation strengthens the existing settlement blocs. Because we are going to be waging battle against those who would destroy us for years to come.
The demographic argument is not the issue. No one is planning to offer Palestinian Arabs citizenship. The greater demographic problem for Israel's future as a Jewish state is with the Negev Bedouin and Galilee Arabs, whose birthrates more than double their Jewish counterparts and who represent already half or more of their regional populations. Shimon Peres has no plan to deal with that. Indeed, his indiscriminate projects will attract more Arab capital and people into the Negev and the Galilee, defeating Israel's demographic goal of remaining a Jewish democratic state.
Two replacements for "convergence" that are not being considered in government circles are 'disengagement' and 'withdrawal,' the Post piece concludes: "'Disengagement' was ruled out because, unlike the disengagement from the Gaza Strip, the objective now is to set the country's final borders, and not just to leave one geographic area. And 'withdrawal' was ruled out, one official said, because it sounds too much like surrender."
Indeed, it does. If Prime Minister Olmert allows himself to be led by those nose by Peres and his financiers, as were Sharon and Rabin was before their untimely demises, then surrender and flight is exactly what we will get, with the same kind of consequences we see in the southern Lebanon WMD missile-launching pads and the northern Gaza rocket-launching pads.
If this government had any sense, its consolidation plan would be strengthening the settlement blocs of Judea and Samaria, not gutting them. It would be draining the Galilee and the Negev of hostile anti-Israel pseudo-citizens and encouraging them economically to relocate in the Palestinian areas or other states. It would be fighting an uncompromising war to drive out Palestinians terrorist fish and their supportive sea from their strongholds near our population centers to place where they can be contained. If the loyal Jews of Gaza, Judea and Samaria can be forcibly relocated for national objectives, certainly Arab terrorists can as well.
But no. We now have Amir Peretz as Minister of Defense. The joke goes that the new Defender of the Nation was advised by the Chief of Staff to approve a strike on Iran, and he decided instead to threaten a warning strike unless the wages of Iranian workers were raised.
We have to wage a war for national survival, and our national intelligence is out on strike.
I have a phrase for this state of affairs, and I offer it freely, since the Olmert Administration won't be able to afford to pay me after it shells out the reported NIS 250 billion ($55,555,555,556) tab for convergence, soon to be called, thanks to me, "consolidation."
The phrase is "retreat from reality."
This time I expect credit.
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
