The Gypsy and His Horse
Once upon a time there was a gypsy whose only real treasure was
his horse. The gypsy was poor and each new day presented him with
the challenge of finding food for the animal. One day a brilliant
idea came to him. He decided to gradually decrease the daily amount
of food that he gave to the horse. He reasoned that the horse
would become used to smaller and smaller rations, and eventually
there would be no need to feed it at all. The experiment proceeded
remarkably well. Each day his horse accepted the smaller amount
of food he gave it. Everything seemed to be working great, and
the gypsy was almost ready to celebrate his success, when just
one day before he planned not to feed the horse at all, it unexpectedly
the parable about this gypsy and his horse is being reenacted
in Israel. A year ago a "brilliant" idea came to Israeli
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who decided to gradually relinquish
the primordial Jewish lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza to the
Palestinian Arabs. He reasoned that the Jews would become used
to the disappearance of lands that the Jewish state gained in
the 1967 War, and Israel would be quietly squeezed into the "Auschwitz
borders," as Abba Eban termed the 1949 armistice lines. Since
that is the real destination of the Quartet’s Road Map, the world
community will happily encourage this policy, the Arabs will applaud
it too, and Israel will thereby achieve peace. The only problem
with the plan is that the kind of peace that Israel will achieve
with this approach is the peace of the graves. Like the horse,
Israel will perish after the abandonment of these lands is complete.
anyone thinks Sharon’s "Gaza first" plan will not become
a policy of "the rest of Judea, and Samaria too," they
are bitterly mistaken. This will happen not only because Ehud
Olmert clearly explained in his interview with The Jerusalem Post
on December 30, that after abandoning Gaza "Israel will continue
to progress, by carrying out unilateral moves, including the possibility
of further withdrawals that are in the interest of the state."
And not because Olmert was the first Israeli minister who alluded
to the currently planned "disengagement" and two weeks
later Sharon came out publicly with his "transfer the Jews"
plan. And not because Shimon Peres, even before Olmert, told The
Sunday Times on December 12, that he feels that Sharon "will
eventually be prepared to withdraw from more West Bank land than
the small amount designated in his disengagement plan." It
will happen first and foremost because the fence that Sharon is
building along the 1949 armistice lines will become nothing else
but Israel’s new border.
who disagree and say that the fence can be moved even after it
is built are absolutely correct. It will be moved to coincide
with the 1949 armistice lines, at locations where it is currently
to the east of them. You would have to be naíve to believe
that today Israel is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into
building the fence, just so it can be dismantled tomorrow.
Zik, a talk-show host on the Arutz Sheva radio station, wrote
in the B’Sheva newspaper in mid-December 2004, "The fence
is not a security barrier, it is meant to be an international
border between Israel and Palestine. Gaza is just the first step."
He explained that "facts on the ground" are created
you travel today along the Jordan Valley road, where it meets
the green line [near the Beit She’an Valley on Israel’s eastern
flank, adjacent to Jordan], you can see the actual border crossing
[between Israel and the future Palestinian state] which has been
built there, ready for use. Bus service from Kiryat Shmona to
Jerusalem through the Jordan Valley has already been cancelled.
Buses serving Jordan Valley communities now come only once every
two hours. Development funds for the Jordan Valley have been frozen
completely. All of Judea and Samaria is being prepared for expulsion
in the next phase. While Gush Etzion may be inside the fence for
the time-being, everyone outside the fence is slated for uprooting
his Fifth Herzlia Conference speech on December 15, 2004 former
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak matter-of-factly noted that
everything that will not be encircled by the fence will be lost
for Israel. He explained that time is of the essence for the construction
of the fence and said that if it was easy not long ago to place
Ariel and Kedumim inside it, today it is already much more difficult.
The reason we should be paying attention to Barak’s words on this
matter, is that it was Barak, and not Ariel Sharon, who originally
came up with the concept of unilateral separation. Already on
January 8, 2001, in a closed-circuit television address to U.S.
foreign policy opinion leaders Barak said that, "if there
is no agreement Israel will impose a unilateral separation because
we do not intend to rule over another people."
course, one might say that Sharon is not Barak or Olmert, and
has different things in mind. Especially since after Olmert’s
interview the Prime Minister’s Bureau released a statement saying
that "there will be no further disengagements, that there
is no such plan, and that the only peace program Israel will be
a party to is the Road Map drawn up by the Bush Administration."
it is exactly this statement that should make it 100% clear that
Israel WILL BE retreating into the Auschwitz borders. The statement
consists of two parts. The first one was written for the consumption
of the overwhelming majority of people, who gladly buy everything
at face value. It is akin to U.S. President Bush, Sr.’s famous
"Read my lips, no new taxes." The tax increase that
followed was unexpected only to those who wanted to believe that
something could come out of nothing. The fact that Sharon is no
better than Bush in this regard can be deduced simply from the
fact that, though today he is doggedly promoting the expulsion
of the Jews from the Gaza strip, including Gush Katif, a mere
two years ago, he solemnly promised that not a single settlement
would be abandoned and even placed the importance of Gush Katif
on par with Tel Aviv.
the second part of the Prime Minister’s Bureau’s statement completely
contradicts its first "no further disengagements" portion,
though apparently not many people realize it. The point is that
it confirms that Israel will be "a party to the Road Map."
As Loius Rene Beres, Professor of Political Science and International
Law at Purdue University, put it in his article "Avoiding
the Road Map after Arafat," "Should Israel follow the
Road Map, [it will follow] a route leading directly to its own
extinction." The reason for this is that the main goal of
the Road Map is the creation of a Palestinian Arab state through
the "end [of] the occupation that began in 1967."
put it differently, after the abandonment of Gaza and northern
Samaria, in order to "end the occupation" Israel will
be forced to perform further disengagements including partially
abandoning Jerusalem. The Road Map explicitly states on this subject
that the parties will "reach final and comprehensive permanent
status agreement that … includes … a negotiated resolution
on the status of Jerusalem that takes into account the political
and religious concerns of BOTH SIDES [emphasis added], and protects
the religious interests of Jews, Christians, and Muslims worldwide."
Since currently Jerusalem is completely under Israel’s control,
it is obvious that Israel is the one side that will have to give.
should be particularly clear in spite of any pronouncements to
the contrary from any Israeli leaders, due to Sharon’s complete
turnaround on the issue of "disputed" vs. "occupied"
land. Just three years ago, he referred to the lands of Judea,
Samaria and Gaza according to their official international status
– as disputed lands. Today, in his preparation for the Gaza withdrawal,
Sharon continues repeating that Israel must abandon the Gaza strip
completely, so that there are no grounds whatsoever to say that
they are still "occupied."
student of elementary logic can easily detect a huge flaw in Sharon’s
reasoning. If he is so concerned with removing from Gaza the status
of "occupied" territory, how can he substantiate his
position of "no further disengagements?" For almost
a year Sharon has tried to convince his opponents that it is absolutely
vital to demonstrate to the world community that Israel "ended
the occupation of Gaza." But what about the remainder of
the "occupied lands?" Since it is the perception of
the world community that seems to count most, what kind of excuse
will Israel invent in order not to proceed with further retreats?
only "hope" is the prolongation of murderous Arab terror
against the Jews. Otherwise, the Road Map requires him to continue
giving land to the Arabs. As Professor Beres writes,
would be very hard for Israel to deny claims for Arab self-determination
in the West Bank/Gaza if the Palestinians were to show ‘good faith’
by stopping their wanton murders of Jewish women and children.
The world would never allow Israel to stand in the way of a Palestinian
state in such seemingly conciliatory circumstances. Surely not
when Israel`s Prime Minister himself continues to speak openly
in terms of uprooting Jewish settlements."
The abandonment of Judea and Samaria, and the loss of the historically
Jewish part of Jerusalem, which will inevitably follow the retreat
from Gaza, will achieve the first of two Arab goals. Mohammad
Heikal, editor in chief of the Egyptian Al-Ahram, and a confidant
of Anvar Sadat’s clearly expressed these goals in a February 25,
1971 editorial: "There are only two well-defined goals on
the Arab scene: erasing the traces of the 1967 aggression by Israel’s
withdrawal from all areas occupied by it in that year and erasing
the aggression of 1948 by Israel’s total and absolute annihilation."
"two well-defined goals" have never changed. The Arabs
have simply became more politically correct in order to enlist
the help of the Western world for their cause. And although the
Arabs have tried to conceal their true intent from the West, they
are much more explicit among themselves. Thirty years after Heikal’s
statement, Feisal Husseini, one of the most dovish Palestinian
leaders, admitted in his last interview given to Egypt’s Al-Arabi
newspaper: "The Oslo accords were a Trojan horse; the strategic
goal is the liberation of Palestine from the [Jordan] river to
the [Mediterranean] sea…"
his plan of gradually abandoning Judea, Samaria and Gaza, Sharon
will help the Arabs "to erase the traces of the 1967 aggression,"
thereby making the Arabs’ final push towards Israel’s annihilation
much easier. The Arab world will bring its final military blow
to a strategically weakened Jewish state at a time when the Jews
will be preparing to finally celebrate the establishment of peace.
And for many, Israel’s demise will be unexpected, as was the death
of his horse for the gypsy.