[(Continued from p.11)]
is right. Tobin takes off on diaspora critics, left and right. He writes that in claiming Oslo has not been a failure, outfits like the Israel Policy Forum and Peace Now show they are in an ideological time warp. As for right-wing critics, writes Tobin, to say that "American Jews can be more Zionist than a nationalist Israeli government is ludicrous...Do we really think that American right-wingers know more about Israel's security than a man like Sharon who spent his whole life defending it and building settlements thoughout the land of Israel?" Tobin's position that Sharon, besieged from both extremes, is in the right, is reminiscent of the stance of the New York Times and CNN when they are accused of anti-Israel bias. Hey, we're criticized from both right and left, ergo we're fair and balanced.There is no better way to see the folly of the notion that the Israeli government knows best than to remember Oslo. This catastrophic policy (which may well have sealed the doom of the Jewish state) was fashioned by an Israeli government. Israel was not being pressured to act by a U.S. "road map" but rather seasoned Israeli leaders had come up with an initiative they deemed in the state's best interests. The very few -- and AFSI was the only U.S. organization to our knowledge -- who denounced Oslo were correct, not the Israeli government.
Tobin might object that he referred to "a nationalist Israeli government" not a Labor government when he said criticism from the right was ludicrous. He was talking of Sharon, not Rabin or Peres. But if that is the case, will the real Ariel Sharon please stand up. Which Sharon is beyond criticism? The one who after 1993 hammered away in his column in the Jerusalem Post on the theme that Oslo was a disaster and a Palestinian state meant the end of the Jewish state or the one who now claims such a state is inevitable? The two Sharons cannnot both be right (unless Sharon means to say that the end of the Jewish state is inevitable).
While it is understandable that Sharon seeks to maintain good relations with President Bush, endorsing the fantasy that a Palestinian state will bring peace with Israel is indefensible. Here are just a few of the questions -- posed by Israeli journalist Nadav Shragai -- that Sharon has not answered, has not even permitted to become part of the debate within the Likud:
"Who will prevent the ongoing and insane arming of the Palestinians, when even today, despite being in control of and able to act almost as it pleases in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Israel Defense Forces has only succeeded in limiting it? What intelligence will be at our disposal in order to thwart terror attacks when we are no longer in the territory intended for a Palestinian state? What will be the extent of freedom of action and the military's ability to maneuver when the IDF and the security forces face a sovereign state, any infiltration into which will be considered by most of the countries of the world to be a blow to its sovereignty? Who really believes that a Palestinian state will do what the Palestinian Authority has not done, and fight Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, and perhaps also al-Qaida, whose operative tentacles have, according to the defense minister, already stretched into the territories?"
Unnecessary worries? There will be a new reformed democratic peaceful Palestinian leadership? Did you say Peace Now was in an ideological time warp?
Americans For a Safe Israel
1623 Third Ave. (at 92nd St.) - Suite 205
New York, NY 10128
Outpost - 12 - February 2003