Formation of Palestinian State no Solution to Middle East Violence

For the entire twenty years since the fiasco named Oslo was perpetrated on Israel and the entire world we have heard the constant drumbeat droning out the mantra that the founding of a Palestinian State living side-by-side in peace and security with Israel will result in peace and calm over all of the Middle East ending all strife and violence. Even after experiencing over two years of unrest and turmoil of the Arab Spring, more aptly called the Arab Winter, we saw uprisings, violence, protests and revolution replacing longstanding dictators in the hope of founding something better all without even the mention of Israel or the Palestinians. How could it be that we had a popular uprising that replaced the government of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen with further unrest ongoing or soon to come in Syria, Jordan, Mali, and possibly Lebanon and others. Again, none of these will be about Israel or the Palestinians with the possible exception of Jordan whose population largely consists of Palestinians. Yet still we hear the drumbeat droning out the mantra that the Palestinian Statehood being established and carved out of Israel will end all Middle East problems and the world will enter a period of blissful peace.

 

How can anybody expect a thinking person to believe such foolery after witnessing the Middle East of the recent past? The Palestinian leadership itself has demanded that one of the conditions which must be granted when forming a Palestinian State in any form other than having it completely replace the State of Israel that they retain the right to resist and fight against the Zionist existence in the rest of their homeland until all of Palestine from the River to the Sea is liberated from the Zionist influences. So, by granting the Palestinians statehood a country established in all of the lands beyond the Green Line that includes every inch of land lost by Jordan in the West Bank, all of Gaza that Egypt lost, and half of Jerusalem including all of the Old City and the Temple Mount, there still will not be peace because as long as the Jews retain any land which was once under Muslim control there can be no peace. This is not my opinion but is the opinion of the PLO, Fatah, Hamas, Palestinian Authority, Arab League, Hezballah, al-Qaeda, and countless rulers, Imams, and Islamic leaders worldwide. So, it is obvious by their own words of intent that the two state solution as a final agreement is unacceptable to the vast majority of the followers of Islam and that they will only accept the entire eradication of Israel and replacing it with a Palestinian Islamic governance where the Jews will initially be allowed to remain as long as they accept the status of Dhimmi. But, even if this result were to be implemented, would that then lead to complete calm and peace throughout the Middle Easy? I think not and here is why.

 

Does anybody actually hold that should Palestine be formed and meet even the wildest of demands of the most radical of Palestinian leaders that this would result in the end of the violence and uprising in Syria? Of course not. That alone should be sufficient to disprove the claim that all of the violence in the Middle East has as its root cause the Palestinian/Israelii conflict. Would founding Palestine end the violence against Christians and other non-Muslims in Mali or Nigeria? No chance that would end simply because Israel and the Palestinians reached an agreement. Would all the terror induced violence in the West immediately terminate once the State of Palestine was founded and borders were established between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Nope. What about the eternal standoff which flares up with consistent levels of animosity and violence between Pakistan and India over the lands which were formerly Kashmir, would that come to a conclusion after the peace was signed between Israel and the Palestinians? That would rank as highly unlikely. Would stable governance and an end to the conflicts suddenly fall over all of Somalia, especially in its capital city of Mogadishu? Not a chance. Would Iran cease their drive to attain nuclear weapons and establish a Shiite crescent and hegemony over the entirety of Muslim lands and then spread this new caliphate to encompass the entire world? Never happen as their goals would remain unfulfilled. The simple fact is that most of the violence and terrorism which exists or is rooted in the Middle East has nothing to do with Israel or the Palestinians and whatever should come to pass between Israel and the Palestinians would have absolutely no effect on the rest of the Islamic world and those places where they have extended their influence or interests.

 

Solving the impasse between the Palestinians and the Israelis with the intent of solving all the violence and situations currently existing in the Middle East is a fool’s errand which only the most misguided would believe or expect such a result. That begs the question as to why in the world is it taken as fact that solving the Palestinian/Israeli conflict would be the cure-all of all the problems in the Middle East? The reason is the most obvious of reasons. An often used excuse for not addressing a difficult problem or not tackling a pervasive threat is to blame it on some unsolvable problem that is only loosely tied to the situation. The Middle East violence is a pervasive problem which would be extremely difficult to address, let alone solving. Much of the violence in the Middle East is of ancient origins with no resolution as long as the two sides of each conflict exist. The conflict between the Sunni and Shiite Muslims will not reach any conclusion in the foreseeable future. So, blame it on Palestinian/Israeli conflict and its lack of resolution. It does not matter if transferring the responsibility for tackling near impossible conflicts is a total ruse which anybody who takes even a moment to inspect would find the complete insanity of the claim as nobody wishes to see the truth. Seeing the realities as they truly are would require actions that nobody is prepared to undertake. Blaming the Palestinian/Israeli conflict for the entire bundle of turmoil, violence, and conflicts throughout the Middle East and related problems traceable to the Middle East is simply a way of kicking the can down the road, just somewhat more insidious.

 

This begs another question, what would happen if the Palestinian/Israelii conflict were to be resolved? Obviously, those blaming every ill or at least the majority of them, on the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians are counting on that problem never ending which is why there is never any pressure placed on actually forcing a solution. The pressures for solving the Palestinian/Israeli conflict are almost universally placed upon Israel while the Palestinian side rarely has any pressures applied to make concessions towards solving the conflict. The reasons for this is that Israel is actively seeking to meet and solve the problem while the Palestinians do not wish a solution as they are only being paid great amounts of money for as long as their “difficulties” continue. The Palestinian society is setup as being dependent on large infusions of money and on not taking the responsibility for governing themselves and simply blaming Israel. This fits perfectly with the desired situation of an insolvable situation which will continue without end allowing for a plethora of other problems to also be avoided and left unsolved. Making the finding of a solution acceptable to both sides of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict as the prerequisite for tackling the other myriad of problems which is the Middle East is exactly the same as promising to weed your garden after the last rainfall had passed. There will never be a last rainfall within reason thus the garden never needs to be weeded. The Palestine/Israel conflict also will never be resolved as long as the actual only result the Palestinians will accept is the instillation of a Palestinian State over all of Israel replacing the Jewish State and subjugating the Jewish population of Israel at best and an unspeakable alternative at worst. Since the Israelis are never going to submit to Palestinian rule over their entire homeland, the problem will never be resolved. Even if a Palestinian State is formed with recognized borders, the conflict will continue if this recognition includes a Jewish State of Israel existing beside the Palestinian State. That insures that the rest of the world can simply kick the can down the road rather than making the difficult decisions to address the rest of the problems in the Middle East. Simply stated, it is much easier to blame Israel for not completely surrendering to the Palestinians while never expecting them to do so. That is the path of least resistance when one considers that all the other paths are just as insolvable and much more dangerous to become involved. That is why the claim exists that the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is the root of all evil in the Middle East and why there will be no truthful attempts to address any of the plethora of problems involving Islam.  

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Calls for Revolution Will Lead to Undesirable Results

Revolutions are part of the natural cycles of governance and are often required to bring forth change. Change is the one result of revolution that is guaranteed. Desirable change is not guaranteed and is the least likely of all the possible results from a revolution. The one consequence of revolution is unpredictability and such uncertainty is a wicked mistress. The closest analogy of revolution in nature is fire. The great plains and forests of the world left to nature will suffer cleansing fires as that is nature’s way of effecting change. The renewals resultant from these flames is necessary in the cycles of renewal by Mother Nature. The other similarity between nature’s renewal by fire and political renewal by revolution is that each is an extremely dangerous process to all living things within the effects of the sweeping flames of change. The forests and plains then reset to an original starting point from which nature rebuilds eventually reaching the point where the conditions will eventually again reach the point where the conditions are ripe for the next renewal by fire. Governance of man is similar in that the governance that results from any revolution is not guaranteed and, more often than not, the forces in control at the end of the revolution are rarely the same forces that began the revolution. The recent revolutions in the Middle East are perfect examples of this consequence.

 

The originators of the Egyptian uprising, for example, were students and young adults who using the new high tech media began a revolution that presented the opportunity for the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists to step in and reap the rewards from the wind swept flames of change. Similar results followed from what began actually in 2009 Iran where the students and many from the society protested the stealing of the election by Ahmadinejad and were violently oppressed. Their attempt at change failed largely due to the timidity by the rest of the world to support their calls for relief from despotic rule. The next country was Tunisia where a vegetable street vendor reached beyond his limits and revolted by self-immolation. This was the spark that lighted the flames of revolution in Tunisia which then ignited across Northern Africa and beyond. The original protests were demands for freedom, democratic representation, liberty, and an end to economic repressions. The results have thus far been the replacement of nationalistic dictators with the election of Islamic religious leaderships which may result in the imposition of a new dictatorial type of theocratic tyrannies. The freedom expressing youth who wished for modernized democratic governance began these revolutions and the theocratic fundamentalists had the organizational presence to take advantage of an unstable leadership vacuum which they used all their influence and power to fill while displacing the idealistic youth. The history of revolutions will verify the posit that those who initiate revolution are more often than not cast aside by other forces who have the necessary organization in the ready seemingly waiting for just such an opportunity to divert the situation for their own gain.

 

There are those who believe that a revolution may be required in order to reinstitute the original Constitutional limits and reinstate idealistic governance that they believe existed at the birth of the United States and honestly believe that they would be able to control the transformation once the existing governance had been toppled making room for their visions to be realized. Other than the disillusioned truth that even at the time that George Washington was taking the oath of office the constitution was on the verge of being compromised as soon as Congress was seated. The Constitutional standard set forth in the actual document was an idealistic governance for which we were to strive and described a perfection which was to be minded in order to limit the evils to which men fall victim simply due to the fact that all are imperfect and corruptible when compared to a perfection of the vision such as presented in the Constitution. The ideal is near impossible yet is what must be the used definition of governance if society is to have any possibility of resisting the temptations that lead to corrupt ruling leadership that result from partaking of a taste of power. The problem with any revolution, even one with the stated goal of reinstating the original Constitution in its entirety, the temptations of power will work their tantalizations on those who find themselves as leaders. Since revolutions will tend to appoint or have some assume power, they leave the aims of the revolution to become victim of the desires of those trusted with leadership. History has proven that those trusted with leadership often break every vow and trust that was instituted when they first assumed leadership and power. As the old phrase states, “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

 

When looking at the current state of political power in the United States and comparing it to the allocations of power according to the Constitution, one finds the structure which was meant to protect the individual States from an overreaching central government have been completely turned on their head. This is very much a stipulation for change that is made by those who believe the time has come to take whatever steps may be required to reset the governance of the United States back to the originating Constitutional arrangements. The problem is there is far too much risk in attempting to force such a change as those in power will not likely surrender that which they now hold. Forcing the issue would necessitate revolution and the flames of change are usually not kind. The only guaranteed manner of reasserting the limits and doctrines of the Constitution is to go through a period of disciplined change in order to undo over two hundred years of compromise. Such an endeavor would take near inhuman dedication over generations all the while resisting the exact same temptations which caused this problem in the first place. The problem is that each compromise committed to the purity of the Constitution was seen and accepted as an improvement or necessity and was generally approved by the majority at their inception. The perfect example would be the Seventeenth Amendment which called for a change in the manner for the selection of United States Senators. In accordance with the humanistic philosophies of the period where it was theorized that the people as a whole entity were of superior intelligence and pure nature than were the State Governments which were seen as even more corrupt than the Federal Government. This caused the belief that the citizenry would be preferred to be given the power to elect their Senators instead of allowing the State Legislators or Governor to appoint them. This was seen as advantageous and the Constitutional Amendment was presumably ratified as such. The theory that the Senate was to be the house that represented the individual States was set aside and transformed to mean the Senators were to represent the will of the peoples of each State. This was definitely to the advantage of the powers in Washington as it completely removed any vestige of power over the Federal Government actions and laws from the State legislators or other governmental power. This one Amendment may have had the most far reaching affect in subsuming power from the States into the centralized Federal Government. To undo the evisceration of the United States Constitution by two centuries of compromises and cheating performed by the representatives of the people, often despite vocal protests from a minority of strict constitutionalists, the people must be convinced it is in their vital interest to partake of an effort to reassert the original limitations, definitions, identifications, and structures of the Constitution of the Federal Government and all other forms of governance throughout the United States. Even if this should become evident, it would then take transmitting this eminent desire to the ensuing generations very likely for far longer than it took allowing for the constitution to be abridged. That will be one difficult and possibly climbable mountain to conquer, but likely a worthy goal. It is that very difficulty that makes the idea of revolution and quick restoration so tempting, but that allure would likely not produce the desired end. The fires of change tend to burn out of the control of those who lighted the initial flames.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

May We Choose to Liberate the Holy Land for All Religions this Christmas

Today is Christmas and in the city of Jesus’s birth, Bethlehem again this year has even less Christians calling it home while the percentage of Muslims continues to creep closer to 100%. Bethlehem has no Jewish presence as it is completely under the control of the Palestinian Authority. This has been the case since the beginning of the Oslo Accords which spelled the death of Christian rights to a normal life with freedom of worship and free from fear of persecution. Twice a year the city of Bethlehem relaxes its Islamic stranglehold and allows Christians to return as it is during the two holidays, Christmas and Easter, provide the lifeblood for the economy of the shops, stores, restaurants, and inns which have very little business the rest of the year. During these Christian holy days the streets fill with merchants selling Christian themed trinkets and other wares which are displayed solely on these two holiday times. This is the sad truth about Bethlehem today where what used to be a majority Christian city with 80% Christian population has now seen the Christian population dwindle to about 15% and continues to drop every year.

From 1948 through 1966 Bethlehem was closed to Christians while it was under Jordanian rule. It was not until the Six Day War and Bethlehem being liberated by Israel that Christians were free to travel to Bethlehem, one of the holiest places for Christians. After the June liberation in 1967 Bethlehem’s Christians entered a golden age where they were free to live in safety and peace and practice their religion free of fears. During the Christian holidays Bethlehem teemed with Christians making the annual pilgrimage to celebrate in the city of Jesus’s birth. This all came to an abrupt end with the enactment of the Oslo accords which turned the rule and security responsibilities for Bethlehem over to the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the PLO, under arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat. Since then the Christian presence and flavor of Bethlehem has been stifled and slowly the city has become an Islamic city where Christians are treated as second class humans and often are victims of persecutions, forced marriages, stores stolen or looted, and houses destroyed or stolen. Should this continue within a decade Bethlehem will become totally devoid of Christians and all references to Jesus or Christianity will have completely disappeared possibly never to return should the Palestinian Authority ever be granted total rule and ownership over Bethlehem.

If this news makes you feel as if there has been a great miscarriage of Justice, welcome to the world of the Jews who have witnessed their holy sites which are found in areas under Palestinian control and rule be destroyed repeatedly and requiring IDF security forces escort Jews to visit such sites stealing in and out under the darkness of night to avoid riots. Kever Rachel and Kever Yoseph (Tomb of Rachel and Tomb of Joseph) have been repeatedly burned to the ground with the holy objects smashed, and if made of valuable materials, stolen with Palestinian Arabs rioting and celebrating the defacement. This will soon become the fate of the Christian churches and other holy sites which will be within areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority.

The propaganda which comes to the fore at this time of year and around Easter is always the same lies that it is the Jews who are destroying the Christian societies in Bethlehem and other Christian cities and towns. How this can be believed is beyond any logical thought as Jews are not permitted to enter Area A of the West Bank within which Bethlehem stands. Any Jew who would be caught in Bethlehem would suffer the same fate as <a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/969778.stm target=blank> two Israeli reservists who took a wrong turn and ended up in Ramallah and were gruesomely lynched in October of 2000.</a> There are numerous Christian members of the clergy or officers of churches who echo the condemnations of Israel and the Jews blaming them for the plight of the unfortunate Christians who find themselves under Palestinian rule or in Muslim majority towns such as Nazareth has become. The easiest way to find the truth is to simply search and find the population figures for Christians in a number of countries throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa. In every case where there existed a sizeable Christian population in 1950 you will find the Christian population has dramatically decreased over the years in an ever increasing speed with one exception, Israel. The Christian population of Israel within the Green Line has grown steadily over the entire period from 1950 to the present. The few examples within Israel where Christian populations have fallen, such as in Nazareth, you will find that the area has a definitive Muslim majority population and that the Jewish population has declined in similar numbers as have the Christians.

While the Christian numbers have grown within Israel, the Christian populations in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and most especially in Lebanon have fallen and fallen until their numbers are now a mere fraction. What has also escaped mention in the world press is that since the United States “liberated” Iraq its Christian population has begun to flee from increasing Muslim persecution. The Arab Winter (Spring) has also led to drops in the numbers of Christians in each country which has presumably been freed from the horrible rule of their several dictators. These dictators may have had their evils but they had protected the minorities under their rules as they were secular and not Islamist as are the governments being voted into office to replace them. The awakening of Islam throughout the Middle East and North Africa has had a devastating effect on Christians leading to the slow death of their populations. Likely the most devastated Christian population has been Lebanon where once there existed a majority Christian population. The ever increasing disappearance of the Lebanese Christian community began with the civil war which was instigated by Yasser Arafat and his Palestinian Liberation Organization terrorists who fled to Lebanon after being routed and discharged from Jordan after the Black September coup which failed to overthrow the Jordanian monarchy. The disappearing Christian population in Lebanon has increased in speed since the takeover of Lebanon by Hezballah with their Syrian and Iranian influence.

This begs what is the future of Christians in the Middle East? If the Christians desire to continue to have any presence in the Middle East and to have access to their holy sites in and around Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth and the rest of Biblical Israel, their only choice is to pray that Israelis retain all of the lands from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Only under the Jewish Israeli rule have the Christian holy sites been open year round to Christian visitors. Should the world force the existence of a Palestinian State which has control over any of the Christian and Jewish Holy Sites they will either be torn asunder or transformed into Mosques and be recognized by the United Nations as Muslim holy sites and they will be lost to the Christians and Jews. Already the Palestinian Authority has petitioned UNESCO to grant them sole possession and control over the Great Mosque in Bethlehem, the one Christians might have thought was the Church of the Nativity. The Palestinians have similar plans for the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem on the Temple Mount, which they are also claiming is actually a mosque, the whole Temple Mount they are claiming as a Mosque. The same fate of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople is awaiting every holy site which the Palestinians and their allies can place claim upon and they are sure that there is nothing in this world that can prevent their eventual possession of all of Biblical Israel. The only saving grace for both the Jews and the Christians is the salvation and liberation of all of Biblical Israel under Israeli and Jewish control as only in this manner will all three religions be allowed to access their holy sites. That will actually include the Muslims as well as Christians and Jews while if these sites fall under Islam they will be lost forever.

Beyond the Cusp