by Akiva at Mystical Paths
YNetNews Opinion - Martin Sherman (excerpted...)
• Initially the Left claimed that Israel should withdraw from the "territories" on the basis of a negotiated settlement "because there is someone to talk to" on the Palestinian side. However, when this proved unfounded, rather than admit error, the Left then insisted that Israel should withdraw unilaterally without negotiation "because there is no one to talk" to on the Palestinian side. So first the existence, and then the non-existence, of a Palestinian negotiating partner were invoked as the rationale for its policy of concession.
• Originally the Left claimed that Israel could afford to relinquish territory, because she was strong enough to contend with the risks involved in giving it up. Later when it was clear that conceding territory did not produce the desired results, rather than admit error, the Left insisted that Israel should continue to relinquish territory because she was not strong enough to contend with the risks involved in retaining it. So first Israel's strength, and then her lack of strength, were invoked as the rationale for its policy of withdrawal.
• Prior to the initiation of the Oslo "peace process" the Left averred that the terror attacks were the acts of extremists, precipitated by the frustration at the "lack of a peace process." However, after the initiation of the Oslo "process," when the terror attacks not only continued unabated, but escalated to unprecedented levels, the Left again refrained from admitting error. Instead, it now insisted that the "process" must continue; for now terror attacks were dubbed the acts of extremists, precipitated by a desire to halt the "peace process." So first the extremist anger at that absence of a "peace process", and then extremist anger at its presence, were invoked as the rationale for its policy of appeasement.
Politicians, Truth. Never found in the same room.
Posted at Mystical Paths. Read it elsewhere? Stop by the source.
Monday, May 21, 2007
// 5/21/2007 //