[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: No, this is a parody.

Yoel Marcus actually accepts that Syria could very well change from a
secular state to a fanatic Islamic state. But instead of taking this as an
argument against "land for (peace) paper", Marcus argues that Israel should
hurry before the change may take place.

Please take note: Marcus in no way argues that giving the Syrians the Golan
would insure that the regime does not change.

If one were to apply new Marcus logic to investments that motto would be
"hurry and deposit your savings in bank XYZ before it goes under".

That Yoel Marcus should see fit to share this "wisdom" on the pages of
Haaretz serves as a clear warning as to just how micron thin the depth of
the thinking of Israeli withdrawal supporters really is.]
==========

On popes and pullouts
By Yoel Marcus Haaretz 29 September 2006
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/768717.html

It is disconcerting to watch Pope Benedictus XVI twist and squirm over
having quoted some Byzantine emperor who said that the Prophet Mohammed
commanded Islam to be spread by the sword. It is hard to believe that the
leader of a billion Catholics would take fright at his own words and do
somersaults to soften their impact and appease the Muslims (nearly 20
million in Europe alone).

After the attack on the Twin Towers, New York Times columnist Thomas
Friedman described the situation as a clash of civilizations. Maybe it is
that, too. But anyone who has read the work of Bernard Lewis, a man who
knows Islam better than anybody, will realize that a clash of religions is
more like it. In principle, the Byzantine emperor was right in his own
times, and he is also right today. Islam today is even more violent, more
radical and more confrontational than it was in the Byzantine era.
Religious fanaticism is a contagious disease. When the president of Iran
says that Israel must be wiped off the map and makes no effort to hide that
we are first on his atomic bomb hit list, it is only natural for our own
extremists to start crawling out of the woodwork.

This week, a political observer known for his moderacy stated in no
uncertain terms that Israel must not go back to the 1967 borders. Why this
sudden deviation from the international consensus? Because, he said, the
noose of Islamic fundamentalism is tightening around us. What are the words
that suicide bombers say before they murder Jewish women and children? Allah
akbar - God is great. The backdrop is Islamic, not political. They see us as
infidels in the heart of an Islamic region, and they do not want us in any
shape or form - not as a political entity, and certainly not as a religious
one.

The Oslo Accords were a political agreement. But Yasser Arafat soon turned
this agreement into a holy war. The signatories on the Palestinian side were
waging the battle of fundamentalist Islam. Islamic fundamentalism is
worrying the whole world, and we should be especially worried. Why? Because
fundamentalism is nearby, and it is in our midst.

But for us, it is important that political conflicts of interest not be
wrapped in religious clothing. When Ariel Sharon told us that the dream of a
Greater Israel would have to be renounced, he was excising the religious
element from the political system. Unilateral disengagement was meant to be
a political move, a kind of proof of our goodwill. It was a way of showing
that political accords and ceding territory are possible. But like Israel's
unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon, the pullout from Gaza backfired. Instead
of promoting agreements based on Bush's vision of two states and the
Quartet's plan, our readiness to compromise only intensified the anti-Israel
activity of Islamic extremists.

Hezbollah, deploying along our border, launched unceasing attacks on Israel.
On top of that, after Gaza was evacuated, the vacated territory became a
base for firing Qassam rockets at us. Not only did the disengagement not
lead to negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, but it brought Hamas to
power - an extremist wing that takes orders from the outside and is linked
to fundamentalist Islam and Al-Qaida.

Now, a growing number of Israelis are saying that even if we return to the
1967 borders, Israel will continue to be a target of terrorism and missile
attacks. The foregone conclusion seems to be that disengagement and
unilateral withdrawal are dead, and the right-wing religious extremists in
our camp pose a hovering threat.

But things could be different if we developed closer ties with moderate,
secular Islamic countries like Egypt, Jordan and Turkey and treated the
Saudi initiative, which has been around for two years, with greater
seriousness. Things could be different if we were wiser in our actions: if
we came to a decision that it might be worthwhile to give up the Golan in
return for full peace with Syria, a secular state, before it, too, falls
into the clutches of fanatic Islam.

It is also possible that a permanent accord with the Palestinians, a
withdrawal to the 1967 borders as set out in the road map, and peace with
the ring of moderate countries around us will not end the Islamic
fundamentalists' desire to throw us into the sea. What we need to strive for
is a situation in which the Arabs, too, renounce a dream.