Flying Pink Unicorns

Israeli Prime Minister Olmert admits I am right.



In a recent New York Times column, disgraced Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that Israel "must withdraw from nearly all of the West Bank as well as East Jerusalem to attain peace with the Palestinians and that any occupied land it held onto would have to be exchanged for the same quantity of Israeli territory."



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/world/middleeast/30olmert.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=olmert&st=cse&oref=slogin



As many of you know, this has long been my position; that Israel should withdraw from the occupied West Bank, forthwith.



Now Olmert has resigned as Prime Minister in order to fight corruption charges; he remains a caretaker Prime Minister until a new government is formed. Its obviously a lot easier politically for him to say these things after he has resigned in disgrace. Still, which position are you more likely to believe represents the true position of a politician: the one he takes before he resigns in disgrace, or the one he takes after that resignation.



Olmert ridiculed traditional reasons for hanging onto the West Bank: "With them it is all about tanks and land and controlling territories and controlled territories and this hilltop and that hilltop. . . . All these things are worthless."



Now I wouldn't go that far. Clearly it would be better to have a buffer against a Jordanian attack. However, all those concerned about Israeli security who stay up nights worried about Jordanian (or Iraqi, or Iranian) tank division cutting Israel in 2 ala France in 1940, please raise your hands. Don't all of you do it at once.



The Sinai proved hugely valuable in 1973 when Egypt attacked (along with Syria) beginning the 1973 Yom Kippur war. If Israel held the Sinai today I would be very reluctant to give it back, because it WOULD be very helpful to Israeli security. Egypt has 80 million people. Jordan has 6.2 million. Egypt HAS tank divisions. Jordan not so much. Jordan does have a piece of an air force, but planes fly real fast and the West Bank isn't that big, so it wouldn't be worth a whole lot against planes. Holding the West Bank, in my view, DOES have some security benefits. It also has, imho, huge security drawbacks. For one thing, Israel is proudly in the business of partially managing the lives of millions of hopping mad Palestinians, with roadblocks, walls, raids, and more. This is comically stupid. If Israel never put in the settlements, it could have built the wall separating Israel from the West Bank (which I support except where Israel is taking more land!) on the 1967 borders and been done with it. Israel wouldn't be in the business of occupying Palestinians, and could focus on actual national security defense (and offense).



But I belabor the obvious, I've said this 1,000 times before.



On Jerusalem I'm actually not as knowledgeable as I should be. My position is that Israel should keep the old city, all of it, and as part of ISRAEL, not some UN protectorate. It should obviously keep that part of Jerusalem that it had before the 1967 war. The rest should be given back forthwith.



The only reason for this post is to point out that a resigning Israeli Prime Minister now agrees with me. Of course, Olmert's national security record is so bad (see Lebanon comma defeat) that his saying this would cause me to rethink my own position if it weren't so strongly held.



In this same article Olmert also poo-pooed the idea of Israel attacking Iran, calling it "megalomania." Now there are certainly reasons for Israel not to strike a large country with significant resources whose leaders often threaten Israel with destruction and which country is building nuclear weapons, but "megalomania" isn't one of them.


Maybe I really should rethink my position about the West Bank.... Nah, a stopped clock is right twice a day. And this is one of those two times.

One last point. Goodbye Olmert, and good riddance. Don't ever come back, don't ever show your face, you sad, disgraceful pathetic excuse for a leader.