Monday, August 20, 2012

JDL Exclusive: The Oslo Years - 20 Years On

JDL Exclusive: The Oslo Years - 20 Years On

Baruch Marzel, third from right. Itamar Ben Gvir, far right

Yesterday was a pretty good day, in some ways. I spent the morning protesting alongside Baruch Marzel and Itamar Ben Gvir outside the Yizhak Rabin Center, a leftist haven, taunting those responsible for the catastrophic Oslo Accords. Then I raced home to send my video to Itamar, only to have the video footage I shot on the evening news, and in most online newspapers.

The only downside to the day was our reason for being there, the leftist establishment in Israel were gathering for the anniversary of the second Rabin administration, in order to celebrate (?) what led to the Oslo Accords.

Attended by the upper echelons of the left, including chief space cadet, President Shimon Peres (who drove past us as we made our way there). Of course, there was no mention of the fact that George Bush Sr. helped engineer the ousting of Yizhak Shamir as PM (by aiding the creation of several rightist groups before the elections, thus destroying Shamir's vote allowing Rabin to win). But it was a rather fitting start to Rabin's government, an administration which would go on to award 'peace' talks with people who made little effort to hide their intent towards Israel. This after the first intifada, several years of rioting (jihad) by the Arabs inspired by the mujahadin's 'victory' in Afghanistan against the Soviets, during that decade. Also too Arafat was finished. His Soviet backers were gone, and his Saudi sponsors angry at him for siding with Saddam against them during the 1991 Gulf War. 

So in effect, Rabin not only brought on Oslo, he revived Arafat and re-armed Arafat's henchmen who were preparing for the 2nd intifada (really a continuation of the jihad), allowing a further 1,000 Israelis to be butchered. The truce for Arafat then was a classic Islamic tactic to buy more time until he was strong enough to continue the jihad, a tactic used by Mohammed himself against the tribe of Hudabiyya.

Then, when Bill Clinton came to office and found that not only was being seen to pursue peace a vote-winner, but the fact that it distracted from sex scandals at home meant Clinton pursued that all important breakthrough at the expense of everything else, including Israel's security.
With Itamar’s banner, he continually threw the fact that over 1,000 Jews have been killed since the signing of the Oslo Accords (and directly because of them), but to no avail. The response from those attending the partyranged from indifference to ridicule to anger (anger that they were being held responsible for their actions).

In the end, and the incident that made headline news was Itamar confronting Rabin’s granddaughter telling her her father’s behaviour was criminal. The ensuing hysteria from Noa Rotman caught everyone’s attention (I was the only one with video rolling).

(Hebrew only for the time being, sorry) 

As Rotman screamed at Itamar, the message behind what she was saying was clear. Because Rabin was assassinated by someone of our political persuasion, we were to blame for his death. But Rabin, who headed the government which signed the Oslo Accords allowing so many thousands of Jews to die as a result, was not responsible. In addition, she was clearly more upset that her grandfather had been killed rather than her grandfather's legacy being thousands of Jews massacred. But why should she even consider it when Yizhak Rabin has been elevated to the level of a deity. It's almost as if we'll next hear that because Rabin was assassinated, peace wasn't achieved.

How sad and narrow is the perspective of those inhabiting the world of the left...

The Oslo years have been 20 of the most bloody in Israeli history, and around here that’s saying something. The figure of over 1,000 Jews killed is true, but that only relates to the 2nd intifada, which raged from 2000 to (around) 2003. In fact from the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1994 until the 2nd intifada, more Jews were killed in that period alone than had been killed by terrorism since the founding of the state (1948 - 1994).

Tom Gross Media
Then, as part of Oslo, democracy was put on hold temporarily as one of the most heinous acts in Israeli politics was ever committed (and in Israeli politics that’s saying something too) with the evacuation of thousands of Jews from their land in Gaza. The rockets haven’t stopped falling since.

But the arrogant indifference shown by those officials yesterday is exactly the same type of callous attitude displayed by Ehud Olmert (PM from 2005-2009) in a TV debate with Meir Kahane (Z”L) in the early ‘80s. Long before Oslo was imposed upon us.

At one point Olmert admits that Jews are killed by Arabs on an almost daily basis. He then states that “within this context when a person like Rabbi Kahane comes along and provokes the emotions of people it has some impact on them.”

So at one and the same time, Olmert not only places blame for Israeli anger at being killed at the feet of Kahane, but there’s the added gem of Stalin-like contempt for the people which says that we’re so stupid, we can’t make up our minds on an issue like being murdered (I don't know about anyone else but I've heard dying is bad for your health).

Here's the whole thing:

Standing there yesterday watching the arguments kind of felt like we were trying to warn people about 9/11 on the 10th of September. But it wasn’t a day before some imminent attack, it is twenty years later. And these politicians refuse to accept any responsibility for the tragic loss of life. Like all the world leaders during the Shoah who knew, but did nothing; like those living in one of the many communist hell holes of the 20th century, everywhere they look is horror, but they have manufactured their own little imaginary worlds in which they do not to see it, in order to continue doing what they do. Unlike the 100 million souls who perished under the tyranny of communist rule, these leaders do have a choice. They can walk away at any time and start representing the interests of the people who put them in power.

But they won't. They’ve repeated the Newspeak to themselves so much that it has become comfortable, in the same way a drug addiction is ‘comfortable’. It is comfortable because it is familiar. Like an exclusive club, and to reject the familiar is to open the door of uncertainty, it would mean immediately being shunned by colleagues and would require searching for new answers. The first and most obvious objection they would have is to admit they have been wrong. The second problem means they would have to look for different answers, which could lead them in the other direction, the path of actually having to fight to defend their country and their people. That would also mean having to admit that we, and Kahane were right all along.