---Yeah, how about that? Being hard line against genocidal terrorists while the rest of the world, including U.S. President Barack Obama, is demanding you push back your borders to 44-year-old lines that will make you more vulnerable to those same genocidal terrorists.
Well, the rest of the world that is, except Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who sees very clearly what the bottom line is: You don’t offer yourself up for slaughter by people who have stated in their charter that their goal is to kill you.
In Canada, the equivalent would be to suggest a return to pre-Confederation borders — a scenario that would see Sir John A. Macdonald’s fears about the threat of U.S. annexation, absent the geographical cohesiveness of Canada and compounded by the American doctrine of Manifest Destiny, revived.
“I say that there is a deliberate conspiracy, by force, by fraud, or by both, to force Canada into the American Union,” Macdonald said in a speech he gave to the Academy of Music in Toronto in 1891. Two years before Confederation, Macdonald wrote in a letter that he would be quite willing to leave the vast western part of Canada “a wilderness for the next half-century, but I fear if Englishmen do not go there, Yankees will.”
Jason Kenney also announced last year that Canada will not take part in Durban 3 this fall in New York.
“We will not be part of this event, which commemorates an agenda that promotes racism rather than combats it,” Kenney said then.
So Harper is sticking to his guns because he sees the truth — that a two-state solution in the Middle East must never be contingent upon Israel making itself more vulnerable to those who want to annihilate it. No other country in the world, fighting for its very life, is asked to lie down and offer itself up to attack by a terrorist juggernaut as a condition for creating “peace.” That is a recipe for genocide, not for peace. It’s also madness. It’s like suggesting, in our post-9-11 world, that we make peace overtures to al-Qaida by cutting back on airport security.
As Netanyahu’s top security adviser, Maj.-Gen. Yaakov Amidror, said Monday: “Those are borders that place our ability to defend ourselves in question and it would be a mistake to return to them.”
In a 2005 paper he wrote on Israel’s need for defensible borders, Amidror stated: “Israel is an embattled democracy that historically has had to defend itself repeatedly against the armies of neighbouring Arab states whose declared goal was Israel’s eradication. While other nations, like France or Kuwait, have been overrun, occupied and have survived to reconstitute themselves, Israel cannot depend on obtaining a second chance.”
He also wrote in his report, published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs: “How is it possible to evaluate whether a border is defensible? To make such a determination, a simple question may be asked: If Israel were to come under attack by a conventional army, or some combination of ground forces, ballistic missiles and terrorist cells, would the border and the space behind it be sufficient to allow the Israel Defence Forces to fulfil their defensive mission with a high probability of success? The answer to this question must be based purely on military considerations.”
He added: “Without Israeli control of the relevant territory east of the 1967 line, there is no way the Israel Defense Forces can prevent the firing of rockets and mortars from the hills dominating Ben-Gurion International Airport. One mortar shell per week in its vicinity will be enough to stop air transport completely.”
Within the 1967 borders, Amidror wrote, “Israel loses the ability to defend itself.”
Those clamouring for Israel to withdraw to those borders either harbour some hopelessly warm and fuzzy western dream of making peace with terrorists, or else that is exactly what they wish to see — Israel losing the ability to defend itself and its subsequent annihilation
Read more:
thank you battleskin88
No comments:
Post a Comment