A Prescription for War & Genocide -- Stop the Annapolis Conference Now!!!
The history of international conferences and congresses --with or without the "peace" label-- is not one to inspire confidence. Think of the conferences of Berlin [circa 1878], Versailles [circa 1918-1920], and Munich [1938]. They only laid the groundwork for future wars and massacres, the Second World War in the case of the Munich Conference. Today US secretary of state, Condoleeza Rice, arrived in Israel to pressure the basically unfit, incompetent, corrupt olmert government of Israel to make more concessions to the Arabs. She does this in the name of setting up a "palestinian state" for a fictitious people known as "palestinians" in the international media and diplomatic circles, claiming that such a state would bring peace with Israel in its wake. Yet, there never was a "palestinian" people in all history. Those now called palestinians are in fact Arabs and call themselves Arabs. The charter of the PLO states in Article I that the "Palestinian Arab people is part of the Arab nation and Palestine is part of the great Arab fatherland." So they consider themselves Arabs first of all. Only Judeophobes pretend that they are a separate people.
Rice wants to set up another Arab state, to be called "palestine," in Judea-Samaria, the very heart of the ancient Jewish homeland. This area was, however, allocated as part of the Jewish National Home set up by the San Remo Conference [1920], part of the post-World War One peace conferences. The Jewish National Home principle was ratified by the League of Nations in 1922. The borders of the National Home, as finally delineated in 1925, included both sides of the Jordan. But Britain, which committed itself to fostering development of the Jewish National Home by accepting the League of Nations mandate, violated its commitment, the mandate that had been entrusted to it. Britain limited Jewish immigration to the Jewish National Home when the Jews most needed a home, before and during the Holocaust, through the 1939 "Palestine White Paper." Very few Jews fleeing the Nazis were allowed into the National Home by the British governing authorities from 1939 to Israel's independence in 1948. So here we have a major Western power that violated a commitment to the Jews at a time very vital for saving Jewish lives. Moreover, the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission found that the UK government had violated its mandate. However, the British government did not change its policy.
We see frequent violations of commitments to the Jewish people and of commitments to international law on the part of major powers. Just a few years ago the the USA, the EU [including the UK], the UN and Russia issued the so-called Road Map. This document indicated stages to go through before an Arab state called "palestine" would be set up. The first stage included disarming of all militias that were not officially part of the Palestinian Authority armed forces, such as the militias [= terrorist groups] of Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. This has not been done. The first stage also included ending the incitement to kill Jews, hate Jews, make war against Israel, on the palestinian authority media. This too has not been done.
Yet, Rice now wants to forget all about the commitment of the US, EU, UN, and Russia, as well as the palestinian authority, to the Road Map's principles. The Arabs have shown very clearly that they do not want peace with Israel. Abu Mazen makes more and more demands which do not deserve to be met --and he does not deserve to be called a "moderate." Fools or liars [take your pick] like olmert, Rice, tsipi Livni [Israel's mentally defective foreign minister], and others persist in calling Abu Mazen [Mahmud Abbas] a "moderate" despite all of the evidence. It turns out that the secretary of state [= foreign minister] of the US president who proclaimed a "War on Terrorism" is now aiding and encouraging terrorism -- and not merely terrorism against Israel. After all, if other Arab and Muslim factors see that the terrorism, the acts of mass murder, of Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad go unpunished, or even seem to be rewarded by the mighty Western powers, then they will be tempted to use terrorism against other targets of their hatred, prejudice, greed, and so on.
The violation by Rice of the Road Map in setting up the Annapolis Conference [May it fail!!] is reminiscent of Britain's violation of its commitment to the Jewish National Home principle in 1939 by issuing the White Paper. Now, if major Western powers cannot be relied upon to honor their commitments, then what is the purpose of Israeli concessions when the other side so lightly violates its commitments? When I say, "the other side," I am not talking merely about the Arabs, notorious for violating commitments, but about the Western powers which are not reliable either. Of course the powers may offer Israel "international guarantees" in return for concessions. But there really is no such thing as an "international guarantee." The very offer of such a guarantee is a hostile act. These "international guarantees" are easily violated and forgotten like other international commitments.
Therefore, why should Israel give away tangible strategic assets, like the strategic Judea-Samaria north-south mountain ridge, in exchange for paper concessions from the Arab side, concessions that can be easily revoked, if they are ever honored, like an ending to ethnic and religious incitement, which the Arabs were to have done long ago, as per the 1998 Wye Plantation accords????
Further, we should draw a comparison with Czechoslovakia's situation up to 1938. The mountainous Sudetenland, forming a natural boundary around the Czech lands, was a strategic area for the country's defense. Yet, the area was mainly populated by ethnic Germans, who began demanding --starting in 1933-- separation from Czechoslovakia and attachment to Hitler's German Reich. The British government was very sympathetic to the Sudeten German irredentist demands, which were encouraged and fully backed by Hitler, who even instructed the Sudeten German leadership [led by Konrad Henlein] to constantly add or increase demands on the Czechoslovak government so that their demands could never be satisfied by the Czechoslovak government. The British even prepared a "report" called the Runciman Report which remarkably contained accusations against the Czech government that are echoed nowadays by charges made against Israel by Arabs and their Western supporters and other supporters throughout the world. One such charge was that the Czechs were unjustly putting "colonists" in colonies or settlements in the Sudetenland. This reminds us of the revulsion in the circles of international diplomacy and the media over Israeli settlements in Judea-Samaria. This is actually a racist position that means to exclude Jews from parts of the ancient Jewish homeland and of the internationally approved Jewish National Home. It is a violation, perhaps unwitting, of the true international law on this matter. The anti-Jewish settlement sentiment today, like Lord Runciman's anti-Czech colonist arguments in the 1930s, justifies war by the allegedly wronged party [Germans then, Arabs today] against Czechoslovakia then and Israel now. Can we rightly draw an analogy between the Runciman Report on one hand, and the Baker-Hamilton Report, the Jimmy Carter tract falsely charging Israel with "apartheid," the walt-mearsheimer agitprop farrago, and the Christiane Amanpour "God's Warriors" series on CNN, on the other hand??
Another question is whether the remainder of Israel could withstand attack from that mountain ridge if it were in Arab hands. Would Israel's more vulnerable geostrategic situation tempt the Arabs to make war on Israel if all of Judea-Samaria were in their hands, including the mountain ridge??? If the Arabs won the war would they spare Jewish lives anymore than the Ottoman Empire, a Sunni Muslim empire which included Arabs among its loyal troops, administrators, and decision-makers, spared the lives of Armenians during World War One??? The Armenian massacre, properly called a genocide, was perpetrated by Muslim troops of the Empire, not merely by Turks but by Arabs and other Muslims. Or consider how the Greeks of the Smyrna region were literally driven into the sea by Ataturk's jihad troops in 1922 [Ataturk was still fighting in the name of Islam in 1922], while the Armenians in Smyrna who had survived the massacre were finally finished off.
Is it significant that in a relatively short period of time, from 2001 to 2007, a whole series of verbal attacks have been launched against Israel, from the 2001 Durban Conference, ostensibly against "racism" but in fact Judeophobic [in which the Ford Foundation funded Judeophobic propaganda by NGOs], the Baker-Hamilton Report, the Polk-McGovern Report, the carter tract [is carter really capable of writing a book by himself?], the walt-mearsheimer libel, not to mention the usual BBC anti-Israel agitprop, the CNN propaganda film by Amanpour mentioned above, etc??? Are these ostensibly separate writings and broadcast productions part of a concerted psywar campaign to besmirch and destroy Israel in public opinion before literally destroying Israel physically??? Was this campaign meant to prepare for an "international peace conference," such as the one that Condi Rice is now working on?
SOURCES:
J W Bennet, Munich, Prologue to Tragedy (New York 1964) [contains The Runciman Report].
Elliott A Green, "International Law Regarding the Land of Israel and Jerusalem," Midstream magazine (New York, February-March 1999). See here on the Internet.
Howard Grief, Legal Rights and Title of Sovereignty of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel . . . in International Law (Sha`arey Tiqvah, Israel: Ariel Center for Policy Research, 2003). See here.
Lord Runciman's Report, contained in Bennet's book, also British White Paper, Cmd. 5847, no. 1.
Arie Stav, Czechoslovakia 1938 -- Israel Today (Sha`arey Tiqvah, Israel: Ariel Center for Policy Research, 1997 ). See here and here.
- - - - - - - -
Coming: British journalopropagandist enthuses over walt-mearsheimer, Jews in the Land of Israel, Jerusalem, Hebron; peace follies, propaganda, etc.
Rice wants to set up another Arab state, to be called "palestine," in Judea-Samaria, the very heart of the ancient Jewish homeland. This area was, however, allocated as part of the Jewish National Home set up by the San Remo Conference [1920], part of the post-World War One peace conferences. The Jewish National Home principle was ratified by the League of Nations in 1922. The borders of the National Home, as finally delineated in 1925, included both sides of the Jordan. But Britain, which committed itself to fostering development of the Jewish National Home by accepting the League of Nations mandate, violated its commitment, the mandate that had been entrusted to it. Britain limited Jewish immigration to the Jewish National Home when the Jews most needed a home, before and during the Holocaust, through the 1939 "Palestine White Paper." Very few Jews fleeing the Nazis were allowed into the National Home by the British governing authorities from 1939 to Israel's independence in 1948. So here we have a major Western power that violated a commitment to the Jews at a time very vital for saving Jewish lives. Moreover, the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission found that the UK government had violated its mandate. However, the British government did not change its policy.
We see frequent violations of commitments to the Jewish people and of commitments to international law on the part of major powers. Just a few years ago the the USA, the EU [including the UK], the UN and Russia issued the so-called Road Map. This document indicated stages to go through before an Arab state called "palestine" would be set up. The first stage included disarming of all militias that were not officially part of the Palestinian Authority armed forces, such as the militias [= terrorist groups] of Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. This has not been done. The first stage also included ending the incitement to kill Jews, hate Jews, make war against Israel, on the palestinian authority media. This too has not been done.
Yet, Rice now wants to forget all about the commitment of the US, EU, UN, and Russia, as well as the palestinian authority, to the Road Map's principles. The Arabs have shown very clearly that they do not want peace with Israel. Abu Mazen makes more and more demands which do not deserve to be met --and he does not deserve to be called a "moderate." Fools or liars [take your pick] like olmert, Rice, tsipi Livni [Israel's mentally defective foreign minister], and others persist in calling Abu Mazen [Mahmud Abbas] a "moderate" despite all of the evidence. It turns out that the secretary of state [= foreign minister] of the US president who proclaimed a "War on Terrorism" is now aiding and encouraging terrorism -- and not merely terrorism against Israel. After all, if other Arab and Muslim factors see that the terrorism, the acts of mass murder, of Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad go unpunished, or even seem to be rewarded by the mighty Western powers, then they will be tempted to use terrorism against other targets of their hatred, prejudice, greed, and so on.
The violation by Rice of the Road Map in setting up the Annapolis Conference [May it fail!!] is reminiscent of Britain's violation of its commitment to the Jewish National Home principle in 1939 by issuing the White Paper. Now, if major Western powers cannot be relied upon to honor their commitments, then what is the purpose of Israeli concessions when the other side so lightly violates its commitments? When I say, "the other side," I am not talking merely about the Arabs, notorious for violating commitments, but about the Western powers which are not reliable either. Of course the powers may offer Israel "international guarantees" in return for concessions. But there really is no such thing as an "international guarantee." The very offer of such a guarantee is a hostile act. These "international guarantees" are easily violated and forgotten like other international commitments.
Therefore, why should Israel give away tangible strategic assets, like the strategic Judea-Samaria north-south mountain ridge, in exchange for paper concessions from the Arab side, concessions that can be easily revoked, if they are ever honored, like an ending to ethnic and religious incitement, which the Arabs were to have done long ago, as per the 1998 Wye Plantation accords????
Further, we should draw a comparison with Czechoslovakia's situation up to 1938. The mountainous Sudetenland, forming a natural boundary around the Czech lands, was a strategic area for the country's defense. Yet, the area was mainly populated by ethnic Germans, who began demanding --starting in 1933-- separation from Czechoslovakia and attachment to Hitler's German Reich. The British government was very sympathetic to the Sudeten German irredentist demands, which were encouraged and fully backed by Hitler, who even instructed the Sudeten German leadership [led by Konrad Henlein] to constantly add or increase demands on the Czechoslovak government so that their demands could never be satisfied by the Czechoslovak government. The British even prepared a "report" called the Runciman Report which remarkably contained accusations against the Czech government that are echoed nowadays by charges made against Israel by Arabs and their Western supporters and other supporters throughout the world. One such charge was that the Czechs were unjustly putting "colonists" in colonies or settlements in the Sudetenland. This reminds us of the revulsion in the circles of international diplomacy and the media over Israeli settlements in Judea-Samaria. This is actually a racist position that means to exclude Jews from parts of the ancient Jewish homeland and of the internationally approved Jewish National Home. It is a violation, perhaps unwitting, of the true international law on this matter. The anti-Jewish settlement sentiment today, like Lord Runciman's anti-Czech colonist arguments in the 1930s, justifies war by the allegedly wronged party [Germans then, Arabs today] against Czechoslovakia then and Israel now. Can we rightly draw an analogy between the Runciman Report on one hand, and the Baker-Hamilton Report, the Jimmy Carter tract falsely charging Israel with "apartheid," the walt-mearsheimer agitprop farrago, and the Christiane Amanpour "God's Warriors" series on CNN, on the other hand??
Another question is whether the remainder of Israel could withstand attack from that mountain ridge if it were in Arab hands. Would Israel's more vulnerable geostrategic situation tempt the Arabs to make war on Israel if all of Judea-Samaria were in their hands, including the mountain ridge??? If the Arabs won the war would they spare Jewish lives anymore than the Ottoman Empire, a Sunni Muslim empire which included Arabs among its loyal troops, administrators, and decision-makers, spared the lives of Armenians during World War One??? The Armenian massacre, properly called a genocide, was perpetrated by Muslim troops of the Empire, not merely by Turks but by Arabs and other Muslims. Or consider how the Greeks of the Smyrna region were literally driven into the sea by Ataturk's jihad troops in 1922 [Ataturk was still fighting in the name of Islam in 1922], while the Armenians in Smyrna who had survived the massacre were finally finished off.
Is it significant that in a relatively short period of time, from 2001 to 2007, a whole series of verbal attacks have been launched against Israel, from the 2001 Durban Conference, ostensibly against "racism" but in fact Judeophobic [in which the Ford Foundation funded Judeophobic propaganda by NGOs], the Baker-Hamilton Report, the Polk-McGovern Report, the carter tract [is carter really capable of writing a book by himself?], the walt-mearsheimer libel, not to mention the usual BBC anti-Israel agitprop, the CNN propaganda film by Amanpour mentioned above, etc??? Are these ostensibly separate writings and broadcast productions part of a concerted psywar campaign to besmirch and destroy Israel in public opinion before literally destroying Israel physically??? Was this campaign meant to prepare for an "international peace conference," such as the one that Condi Rice is now working on?
SOURCES:
J W Bennet, Munich, Prologue to Tragedy (New York 1964) [contains The Runciman Report].
Elliott A Green, "International Law Regarding the Land of Israel and Jerusalem," Midstream magazine (New York, February-March 1999). See here on the Internet.
Howard Grief, Legal Rights and Title of Sovereignty of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel . . . in International Law (Sha`arey Tiqvah, Israel: Ariel Center for Policy Research, 2003). See here.
Lord Runciman's Report, contained in Bennet's book, also British White Paper, Cmd. 5847, no. 1.
Arie Stav, Czechoslovakia 1938 -- Israel Today (Sha`arey Tiqvah, Israel: Ariel Center for Policy Research, 1997 ). See here and here.
- - - - - - - -
Coming: British journalopropagandist enthuses over walt-mearsheimer, Jews in the Land of Israel, Jerusalem, Hebron; peace follies, propaganda, etc.
posted by Eliyahu m'Tsiyon at
3:16 PM
2 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Anonymous, at 6:36 PM
foul language does not belong here-- this is the caliber of Israel's enemies
By
Eliyahu m'Tsiyon, at 5:59 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home