All those leftist inventions

The education minister's crazy idea, to bring the Green Link back into textbooks, met a solid wall of resistance and is doomed to be buried along with the other odd, leftist whims - peace deals, human rights, international law, etc.

The minister herself joined "Israel's enemies over the generations," in the words of the objectors, and Olmert summed it up nicely: "The government's position and consensus in the country reject a return to the 1967 borders."

Indeed, it is well known that the government and consensus are in charge of truth and lies here; they rule what's a fact and what's a myth. And if the government and consensus decided there is no Green Line, then there's no Green Line, and that's that.

Resisting the consensus is like denying gravity; we can try, but we end up crashing on the ground. In fact, erasing the Green Line is only the first step in the Truth Ministry's new policy. Here's a summary of the next decisions to be taken by the consensus and government, on your behalf:

There are no "settlements," there are "communities." On second thought, there are settlements: The settlement of Nablus, the settlement of Ramallah, and the settlement of Beit-Hanoun. Hopefully soon they too will turn into communities.

There are no illegal outposts. What do you mean "illegal?" Who makes the laws? A bunch of leftist attorneys wearing glasses? What do they know about the law of the earth or the law of the jungle?

There are no roadblocks. There are no obstacles placed between villages and towns. There are no roads for Jews only, no economic isolation of villages along the Green Line, and no expropriation of private land for Jewish construction. No, no, no. Maybe you dreamed about all this, but it's on its way out. In a year or two you will see no word about it in newspapers or books.

There are no negotiations. It's a dirty word, "negotiations." We should get rid of it as soon as possible. It implies, by mistake of course, that there are two sides to the conflict and people on both sides who all have needs and fears, and that we need to talk to each other. But after all, this is merely an illusion. There's only us and our bombs. There's nothing to talk about and nobody to talk to. We only need to pulverize.

There are no "Palestinians." Not every odd and insignificant group of people who decide to unite deserves a name. Tomorrow all the redheaded people with a mole on their shoulder and who love white chocolate will decide to set up a political party. So what, we'll recognize them? We'll write articles about them in the newspaper? We'll give them a platform?

So what's all this commotion about three million Arabs who lack an identity and a home, and who happen to be around in this area for hundreds of years? Who is the idiot who decided to give them a name and put them in textbooks?

There are no Arabs who want peace. There was never a historic decision by the Arab League in 2002 calling for two states for the two people without the Right of Return; there was no proposal from Syria's president for a comprehensive peace in exchange for full withdrawal; there was no approach by the Lebanese prime minister regarding peace talks.

Maybe you read all kinds of reports about this, but you apparently imagined it. And if you didn't imagine, you apparently didn't understand. And if you did understand, you're apparently not part of the consensus. And if you're not part of the consensus - you don't exist.

Soon, all those deviations will be fixed. We have a government, and consensus, and textbooks, and everyone will adopt the new lines – not the 1967 lines; we won't go back to them. We left them far behind, along with all the other foolishness produced by this treacherous mole, reality. (Coming soon: There is no "reality.")