The Europe Hezballah Affair

Europe and Hezballah are running headlong into conflict on two fronts and from all apparent indicators, Hezballah will likely route the Europeans in both contests. The first is just the next chapter and verse of the European’s desperate attempts to ignore the obvious and avoid any possible consequence from actually recognizing Hezballah to be a terrorist entity. Their reasoning which they hold to is that Hezballah is actually the ruling political party of the nation of Lebanon. In doing this they completely ignore the numerous terrorist attacks and activities, the assassinations of political opponents, Western diplomats, the French and American troops and delegates within Lebanon in the 1980s, and their attacks, terrorism and wars with Israel or that the coalition through which they hold power was assembled as much by threats and assassinations more so than politically. Instead the Europeans cling to the thread that Hezballah has two wings, one a military wing and the other a social welfare wing which runs hospitals, schools, children’s camps and other social functions. Never mind that in the end all these social functions are utilized in order to supplement, acquire and train new recruits for their military wing in order to further there grand Jihad. Yet, despite all the requests from the United States, Israel and some anti-terror NGOs, the European Union will very likely still refuse to classify Hezballah as a terrorist organization and continue to pretend their own truth all the while hoping the crocodile eats them last.

 

On the other front is the slow and inexorable creep of the Syrian Civil War into Lebanon where some European soldiers are currently serving as part of UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon). UNIFIL was tasked with the mission of preventing Hezballah from rearming and assuring they did not return and refortify in southern Lebanon south of the Litani River or restock their weapons caches as part of the treaty which brought the Second Lebanon War between Hezballah and Israel. The European nations, currently France and Italy, which have their troops patrolling in Lebanon, have witnessed the conflicts which have erupted involving the UNDOF (United Nations Disengagement Observer Force) stationed on the Syrian side of the truce lines in the Golan Heights. There have been occasions where Syrian rebel forces have reportedly kidnapped members of the Philippine troops participating in the UNDOF monitors and thus far have released them without harming them. This has caused some degree of concern with the European nations, especially those with troops scheduled to be posted in UNIFIL. This has led to private discussions where they have considered withdrawing their support for UNIFIL. Again, when facing a choice of facing down the Hezballah terror organization the Europeans appear ready to choose flight over their responsibilities.

 

In London this past week the Europeans were treated to an example of what happens to a people who refuse to fight for their civilization against threats posed by a competing civilization. An unarmed soldier was run over by two Islamist extremists who then proceeded to stab him to death and behead him in broad daylight with at least a dozen people standing witnessing the entire slaughter. The Islamists likely figured, unfortunately quite correctly, that the civilized British citizens would not react and aid their soldier and their attack would serve to intimidate. They even had the gall to make a statement demanding that one of the women who had watched the horrifying events record his declaration that he and those other Muslims who follow the same violent brand of Islam he and his fellow companion in murder will never stop their war, their Jihad, against the entirety of the Western World. His chilling declaration, even with the apology of sorts that women witnessed their barbarity, is a threat that is little different from the declarations made by Hasan Nasrallah in Arabic when speaking to the Hezballah membership which he commands. There is absolutely no difference between the perpetrators of the brutal slaying of the British soldier on a London Street and the Hezballah members and there is no difference between the military wing of Hezballah and those presumably peaceful and caring political Hezballah members, they just have different preferences on how best to kill infidel but when push comes to shove both will kill a nonbeliever. To believe any different will prove fatal in time, something some like Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg, among others, found out just before they were also beheaded. Will the leaders of Europe awaken before all is lost? That I doubt but I have greater faith in the people of Europe and that leads to only one thing, an eventual level of violence comparable to the worst of the Crusades this time fought on European soil exclusively.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Argument Against Claims Israel Occupying Palestinian Lands

In a recent article discussing how Prime Minister Netanyahu should respond to any pressures from President Obama if he should demand or simply pressure Israeli leadership to provide a schedule for the withdrawal of Israelis from Judea and Samaria, aka the West Bank, my advice was that Prime Minister Netanyahu should “refuse to give the withdrawal even the dignity of discussion.” A comment posted in reaction to the article Rumor Obama Will Demand Timetable for Israeli Withdrawal West Bank Looking Credible insisted that I withdraw the word ‘dignity’ from my article. But they were not finished with my dressing down as they went on stating, and I quote the whole of the comments exactly as written, “I think you should remove the word dignity. Regardless of your views, which seem to be(this is not an absolute statement) pro-Israeli at any costs, there is still the case of an occupation that never ends. Occupation is not a picnic, it’s a horror trip, no matter how much we try to doll it up. And refusing discussion of any kind is the worst advice anyone can receive. Israel is a super-power, not some half-starved wannabee state with Katuscha fireworks, stop pretending that it isn’t. Unfortunately, anyone who doesn’t support the occupation regime(policy) is immediately set upon, whether friend or foe: the world does not support it – it’s wrong and unbecoming of the Jewish/Israeli people. Talking/Dialogue is always the right way forward, and anyone who says otherwise, is a warmonger.” Well, let us look at the reality according to treaties, agreements and other pertinent items and see if I truly must be considered a warmonger.

The crux of the commenter’s argument is bound to the opinion that Israel is in occupation of lands which belong to some other nation and that Israel is the militarily superior power in the region possessing immense military and in comparison we see, and I quote, ‘some half-starved wannabee state with Katuscha fireworks.’ Apart from the misrepresentation of the presumed limited firepower possessed by the Palestinian terror forces who, in addition to the presumably harmless Katyusha fireworks, which are actually dangerous and potentially deadly rockets and not merely harmless fireworks, also have rockets capable of carrying payloads of up to a one ton warhead with a range capable of reaching the outskirts of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem from their launching grounds in Gaza. Should one actually be fully honest they would also need to include the rocket stores held by Hezballah in Lebanon which will someday very likely be loosed on Israel which include scud rockets provided by Syria and Iran which are capable of being armed with chemical or biological warheads supplied by Syria’s President Bashir Assad. The representation of the forces allied against Israel as being represented solely by the Palestinians, or even including Hezballah, is a misrepresentation as the reality is that Israel’s enemies include numerous other Arab and Muslim countries some of which are still in a state of war with Israel. What is commonly ignored is that of the countries who declared war on the nascent state of Israel in 1948 only Jordan and Egypt have made a technical peace with Israel. That means that Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Algeria, Sudan, Lebanon, and the entirety of the Arab League nations remain in a state of war with Israel. In addition to these countries which continue to hold themselves as in a state of war with Israel since her founding in 1948, we must add the name of Iran as they have declared themselves in a state of war with both Israel and the United States but have simply chosen to not turn from their declared cold war into an active hot war. Stating that the entire conflict between the Arab and Muslim world and Israel consists of just the Palestinians is ignoring the larger threats which are very real and will be acted upon should the situation ever appear to favor these forces being able to defeat Israel. Should these other nations decide to renew active warfare with Israel we can assume with a fair amount of confidence that Egypt and very likely Jordan will renege on their peace treaties with Israel and join the assault. So, the truth is that Israel’s adversaries when viewed in their true entirety are armed with far greater sized military forces than Israel could ever dream of fielding.

But what can be said about this so-called occupation? I believe my commenter is referring to the misconception that Israel is in occupation of the Palestinian people and refusing to permit their constituting their country of Palestine. For Israel to be in occupation of a nation called Palestine it would have been necessary for Israel to have been at war or in a state of hostilities with a country called Palestine and have defeated them and taken over their recognized lands. But Israel has never been at war with a country named Palestine; not now and not even in antiquity. Israel did have a period where there was a state of war between the Israelis (also known then as the Hebrews) with the Philistines from the nation of Philistine. This conflict has been settled history for over three-thousand-years and the Philistine people melted into the pages of history and no longer are a recognized people. The Palestinians, despite modern mythology, are Arab peoples originating from Syria, Egypt, Iraq and small numbers from other Arab nations. The mislabeled West Bank was given this false name by Jordan after they conquered Judea, Samaria and the eastern half of the city of Jerusalem during the 1948 war of annihilation declared by several Arab nations who intended to completely erase the newly formed Jewish State from existence. Israel, through a miracle from Hashem, managed to survive this onslaught but lost some lands which included Judea, Samaria and the eastern half of the city of Jerusalem lost to Jordan, the Golan Heights lost to Syria, and the Gaza Strip lost to Egypt. Egypt never claimed Gaza so there was no international decision as to whom Gaza actually belonged. Syria claimed the Golan Heights and was recognized as rightfully possessing the land. Jordan claimed what they called the West Bank to obscure the Jewish roots of the actual names of the lands they held. The rest of the Arab world did not recognize the Jordanian claim and neither did the majority of nations. The only countries which recognized the Jordanian claim were Great Britain and Pakistan. So, Jordan was seen as an occupying force when they held what they called the West Bank.

That begs a question; whose lands did Jordan occupy when they claimed the lands of Judea and Samaria along with the eastern half of Jerusalem? Jordan was occupying Israeli lands as the lands from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea were the recognized borders for Israel when the Arab League refused the partition plan refusing to establish an Arab state side by side with Israel in 1948. So, as Jordan was occupying Israeli lands after the 1948 war, when Israel reestablished control over Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem they were liberating these lands and reestablishing their rightful ownership. By International Law the Arabs who were residing in the areas of Judea and Samaria along with eastern Jerusalem who moved there after the end of the 1948 War along with any residents who took the Jordanian offer of citizenship would be returned to their country of origin and would be resettled in Jordan. Those who resided on these lands before the 1948 War would be eligible to petition for Israeli citizenship and if accepted be Israeli citizens and if refused could remain on the lands as legal foreign residents where they would own their land and would be permitted limited rights including being allowed to seek employment and if doing so to pay taxes, they would not be granted full citizenship and would not be granted the vote. Israel is not occupying any lands as they liberated what were previously their lands from Jordanian occupation. Even the presumed granting the Jordanian rights to the land to the Palestinians are meaningless as Jordan never rightfully owned these lands.

The final argument over the rightful ownership of the lands of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem we need to look back at the history of treaties and other legal documents and edicts. The original division of the lands was declared in the Balfour Declaration which set aside lands between the Mediterranean Sea and the border with Iraq for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people. The League of Nations ratified the Balfour Declaration and codified it as an International Agreement including setting up the Mandate system from which many of the countries in the Middle East were formed. These included but not limited to Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Oman. The Jewish homeland was initially including everything from the Mediterranean Sea and the border with Iraq. The British decided to renege on this agreement and approached the Zionist leadership and made them an offer which they were not in any position to refuse as the English were a world power and the Zionists were a committee and some settlers without any military might. The agreement was written out in the Churchill White Papers taking the area of the British Mandate Lands from the Jordan River to the Iraq border and founded Transjordan which is known today simply as Jordan. That removed seventy-eight-percent of the lands originally intended for the Jewish State. The British and the member States of the League of Nations promised that the remaining twenty-two-percent of the Mandate Lands, including all from the Jordan River west to the Mediterranean Sea, were to be held sacrosanct and indivisible for the Jewish homelands. The founding of the United Nations included in its Charter in Article 80 the full recognition of the Mandates and all that was formed from these lands which had been tasked to France and Britain to dispense and establish nations. The only treaty which pertained to the lands of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem subsequent to the United Nations Charter was the Jordanian Israeli Peace Treaty in which Jordan recognized the return of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem to Israeli control. As an afterthought and in recognition of Yasser Arafat and his efforts against Israel, the King of Jordan claimed that he had actually deeded the lands of the West Bank to the Palestinian people to establish their own State in the treaty with Israel. No such denotation is written in that peace treaty where it states that the lands which Jordan referred to as the West Bank, also known as Judea, Samaria and eastern parts of Jerusalem, were ceded back to Israeli control.

One is not a warmonger to claim that the contested lands rightfully belonging to Israel. The Arab League could have established an Arab country on half of the lands in 1948 but instead opted to use an attempted war of genocidal aggression to erase the Jewish State and murder its peoples. The combined Arab armies were, blessed be Hashem, unsuccessful and only managed to steal some of the lands. Among the stolen lands are the contested lands that my commenter believes belong to a mythical people who populated a nation called Palestine which was subsequently conquered through Israeli reactions to aggression, as if it existed and had lost a war of aggression against Israel. Even if this were a reality, Israel would still be entitled to retain the lands under International Law which allows any State which gains lands responding to the aggressions of another State is entitled to retain those lands. So, even if the lands belonged to Jordan or anybody else, since the war in which they fell to Israeli control was brought upon Israel and she fought a defensive war against efforts of aggression, then Israel still retains the lands and there is no occupation. No matter how one approaches the ownership of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem, International Laws and agreements and treaties all grant Israel sovereignty over the lands if she so chooses to exercise her rights under International Laws and Agreements.

Beyond the Cusp

Time for Apologies for Such Slanders and Libels has Passed

This past Sunday the London Times published a  political cartoon authored and Illustrated by Gerald Scarfe which was defaming, insulting, offensive, and disrespectful of Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu specifically and Israel and Jews in general. The caricature of a Jewish Leader performing the vile act and inference of abuse of power to act out hatreds was reminiscent of the cartoons from the Nazi era newspapers in Germany and the rest of the Third Reich and other anti-Semitic cartoons over the centuries. Depicting Jews building or benefiting from the pain and suffering of others is exactly the depiction of the greedy Jewish banker or money lenders that permeates throughout European history. This cartoon was so far beyond the pale that it should have set off alarms throughout the entirety of the long and winding path it needed to travel from the artist’s first sketch to the printer’s setting of the type and picture for the actual printing that somebody had to have at least thought to challenge whether such an insult was or should be worth printing. The fact that nobody along the way found the cartoon worth objecting and at least asking the question as to whether the London Times would wish to put their name and reputation by approving and printing this cartoon is simply astonishing. And to print this on International Holocaust Remembrance Day is just another knife in the back under the cover of night to the Jewish people, citizens of Israel, and all people of principle and moral upbringing. The fact that a number of people attached to the London Times have come out and apologized begs another question, where were they when this horrid cartoon was approved for publication and on International Holocaust Remembrance Day at that.

The acting editor of the Sunday Times newspaper, Martin Ivens, met with members of the Jewish community in Britain on Tuesday and apologized after they had filed a complaint with media regulators. Mr. Ivens stated, “The last thing I or anyone connected with the Sunday Times would countenance would be insulting the memory of the Shoah or invoking the blood libel. The paper has long written strongly in defense of Israel and its security concerns, as have I as a columnist. We are however reminded of the sensitivities in this area by the reaction to the cartoon and I will of course bear them very carefully in mind in future.” One would think that the acting editor would have had to approve any cartoon to be printed on the editorial page in order to perform his duties or they should be released for incompetence. So, we can likely assume that Mr. Ivens must have seen the cartoon in question (you should go back and look at it if you have not yet done so) and not seen any reason not to publish the offensive image on what has to be possibly the worst timing in history as the rest of the world is remembering and honoring the victims of one of the worst atrocities ever committed by human beings on their fellow human beings. Mr. Ivens protestations seem quite incredulous with his comments of his history of articles supporting the Jewish people and citizens of Israel which makes this beyond logic or reason unless Mr. Ivens was in full agreement with the cartoon and found it perfectly presentable. His might have given, though I cannot say definitively as I do not know Mr. Ivens, the emptiest apology ever if he actually approved the printing of the cartoon in question as one should have observed the pure anti-Semitic hatred that had to be present for such a hateful imagery to be authored and one would think also present to authorize its publication.

Rupert Murdoch’s apology, which he posted on Twitter, “Gerald Scarfe has never reflected the opinions of the Sunday Times. Nevertheless, we owe major apology for grotesque, offensive cartoon.” Still, even this apology begs a few questions such as if, as Mr. Murdoch posted, “Gerald Scarfe has never reflected the opinions of the Sunday Times.” Why his cartoon was even accepted for consideration? One might also want to know if Gerald Scarfe has ever had other of his editorial cartoons posted on the Times and even if not, why was this particular cartoon not vetted with an even more critical eye since his work was not consistent with the Sunday Times opinions. Also, is this the new way of making apologies, posting a blurb on Twitter? One would also have hoped that Mr. Murdoch would have written a more lengthy and heartfelt apology, if not on the front page of the next issue of the Times, at least on the editorial page where this insult first appeared. Perhaps Mr. Murdoch might place an apology in this week’s Sunday Times. How about it, Mr. Murdoch?

There is a line we will draw on whose apologies we will not accept as there is no possible reason on Earth that an apology from Gerald Scarfe, the author of this insult could possibly be sincere and thus worth even the time it would take to hear it. Nothing Scarfe could ever say would mitigate the senselessness and cruel hatred displayed by this editorial cartoon. The evident malice, vindictiveness, and vile cruelty towards the Israeli Prime Minister and through the degrading, insulting and offensive anti-Semitic motif of this cartoon to all Israelis and Jews is so beyond acceptable that it is doubtful anyone who took insult from this cartoon could accept any manner of apology or repentance by its author. Anything Gerald Scarfe would offer in an effort to mitigate the insult would be seen as empty and contrived, and as such, unacceptable. Should his career of writing editorial cartoons come to an abrupt end due to this cartoon, that would be a minimal result but likely the only one acceptable to our polite society. It is due to this polite society that this cartoon takes on an even more offensive stench. By the way, did I mention that I am greatly disturbed by this cartoon and its author, Gerald Scarfe?

Beyond the Cusp