Beyond the Cusp

September 29, 2011

The Hypocritical Racist Anti-Semitic Stand Against Jewish Building

It was recently announced that Israel has approved the building of 1,100 new apartment units in Jerusalem’s Gilo neighborhood. The complaint is that building homes for Jews in an area that is considered to be part of those claimed by the Palestinian Authority for their state must not be allowed to proceed as it is inimical to reaching a peace agreement. This ignores more than just the history that Israel has destroyed numerous Jewish neighborhoods in the name of the pursuit of peace or as a result of a peace agreement. When Israel and Egypt reached an agreement that resulted in the return of all of the Sinai Peninsula, this was enabled by the removal of about 7,000 Israeli settlers and numerous IDF bases and the Alma oil field, which Israel discovered and developed, valued over $100 billion. When taking the unilateral move to remove all Israeli presence in Gaza as a test of what a future peace with the Palestinian State would produce, Israel removed over 8,000 Israelis of which some are currently still being resettled into permanent homes. So, that is the precedent that should the removal of Israelis become necessary that Israel is not only capable, but proven to take even such a distasteful step even should it be against the will of those settlers in order to honor a peace agreement.

But, there is another side to these complaints, and it is a very ugly side when one looks at it without predetermined concepts and simply with honest inquiry. Why is it necessary that Israel not permit any Jews to settle in areas which might be part of a future Palestinian state? The reason is simple and ugly. The reason is the entire world has concurred that a free and independent Palestinian State must be completely free of even one single Jew residing within its borders. The fact that the Palestinian Authority has threatened to murder any Jews who remains within their borders is absolutely monstrous, yet the entire world finds such a concept to be completely logical and acceptable, even understandable. Why is the free world supporting such an obviously racist, anti-Semitic, hateful, distasteful and supposedly universally illegal and reviled actions by Western societies, allowing actionable hatred to fester, survive, and even thrive in a state they are being requested to support? Were Israel to announce the intent to force all the Palestinian Arabs still residing within Israel, despite their having full citizenship, to relocate into the Palestinian state once it is formed because they detract from the Jewish character of the State of Israel, the world of nations would come unglued and the declarations of disapproval and disgust at such a plan would be voluminous beyond measure. Why then are the Palestinian leaders allowed what is basically an identical policy given the respect of acceptance their demand for a state devoid of Jews and requiring any Jews living within, even those who had returned to lands they had owned before Jordan forcibly removed them in 1948, to be forcibly removed. Such unequal treatment and disparate expectations simply is beyond logical or rational thought and completely inconsistent.

Despite even this, it does appear that Israeli leadership would be willing to meet even such demeaning treatment and would relocate those Jews necessitated by a peace agreement. There is one principle that Prime Minister Netanyahu will insist is met by any peace agreement, and that is the publically proclaimed and universal recognition of any peace agreement of Israel as the Jewish State and that the agreement signifies the end of all claims and is a final status agreement. Thus far, the Palestinian Authority appears to be unwilling to meet such a request as they envision the two states for two people agreement as simply the next necessary step towards their final goal of supplanting the Jewish state and the end of Jewish self-rule. The Palestinian Authority has educated their children, purported throughout their media, and proven through their actions and stated intents that they will not end their aggressive attitude and terror activities and other forms of resistance until they have supplanted Israel and suppressed the rights of the Jews into a permanent state of Dhimmitude. This is why they have refused to agree to even the most generous of offered agreements and exactly why they are presently attempting to circumvent negotiations with Israel and petitioning the United Nations to grant them their state unilaterally allowing them to continue their aggressions against the Jews seeking the resultant destruction of Israel and the Jewish presence. The actions by the Palestinians in Gaza since Israel removed all Israeli citizen, IDF troops, police, security forces, and any other Jewish influence simply to suffer virtually continuous bombardment from Gaza supposedly demanding they end their occupation of Gaza. Apparently, removing any Jewish presence in its entirety is not sufficient to end the occupation. Initially, Israel did not place an embargo on the Gaza Strip. The blockade was instituted as a response to the rocket and mortar fire onto Israeli civilians in towns and kibbutzim bordering Gaza. It has become impossible to deny that the Palestinians define Israeli occupation as the mere existence of Jewish self-rule anywhere within what is considered rightly Muslim lands. Thus, the only solution to Israeli occupation is the end of the Jewish State and replacing it with a state where the Jews are not allowed self-rule and are under the rule of Muslims, in this case, Palestinians. Yet, the world demands peace negotiations despite their knowing that the only acceptable peace would be no Israel, much of the world is willing to agree to that requirement for a permanent peace.

Fortunately, there are those who are willing to stand with Israel. To those friends of Israel, I would like to add a small amount of joy with which to end this article. May I take this moment to wish you all Shana Tova, may you have a good and sweet new year.

Beyond the Cusp

September 25, 2011

Abbas Revealed with United Nations Speech

You will hear sufficient people lamenting, praising, critiquing, translating, interpreting and every other “ing” of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s United Nation speech. I will spare you the long winded explanations on what he said, what was true, and what was misdirection, and will concentrate on one simple paragraph, and only one small idea out of said paragraph. First, here is the translation of the paragraph from around the midpoint of Abbas’s speech,
” Yet, because we believe in peace and because of our conviction in international legitimacy, and because we had the courage to make difficult decisions for our people, and in the absence of absolute justice, we decided to adopt the path of relative justice – justice that is possible and could correct part of the grave historical injustice committed against our people. Thus, we agreed to establish the State of Palestine on only 22% of the territory of historical Palestine – on all the Palestinian Territory occupied by Israel in 1967.”

At first glance this seems to be innocuous enough with minimal inflammatory language and no vicious or vindictive claims or statements. The reason is couched within this little piece is the crux and truth of what Mahmoud Abbas wishes to have as the final solution in the formation of a Palestinian State. Where he claims that,” we decided to adopt the path of relative justice – justice that is possible and could correct part of the grave historical injustice committed against our people,” he gives the impression that he is committed to reaching a compromise, that he has the intent to be fair and accept that possibly the Palestinians cannot have all of Israel, which has been their intended claim all along. He continues with, “Thus, we agreed to establish the State of Palestine on only 22% of the territory of historical Palestine,” which has a hidden code that belies the innocence with which he has couched his demand. He finishes by returning to complete painting a false image saying, “on all the Palestinian Territory occupied by Israel in 1967,” thus implying that his desire is simply to regain the lands conquered by Israel in her defensive struggle against Arab aggression which caused the 1947 War. But what is his real claim?

President Abbas claims he will, “establish the State of Palestine on only 22% of the territory of historical Palestine,” which is what appears to be a minimalist demand but is in fact a maximum demand. The key is the terms “historical Palestine,” with which he is actually referring to the entirety of the British Mandate lands which were referred to as the British Palestine Mandate Lands. From these lands, the British were, according to the Balfour Declaration, to establish the Jewish homeland. The British issued the Churchill White Paper of June 3, 1922 which clarified how Britain viewed the Balfour Declaration, thus allowing them to form what is today called Jordan and was referred to as Transjordan in 1922. Transjordan was established on 78% of the British Palestine Mandate Lands which left 22% of historical Palestine to be used for the Jewish State. It matters not what occurred in the United Nations on November 29, 1947 when they passed a General Assembly recommendation for the remaining 22% of the Palestine Mandate to be divided to form an Arab and a Jewish State. What matters is Mahmoud Abbas was not being satisfied with just the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as his capital; he wanted the entire of the lands from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea to be declared as the new state of Arab Palestine totally replacing Israel. This was the slight-of-hand which President Abbas tried to pass off as just a reasonable request to right an injustice. He wished to right what he sees as the injustice that there is any land that is Israel, Jewish, and not under Arab control. Also, remember that Mahmoud Abbas also has declared that once he gets his little state of Palestine, he fully intends to rid it of every single Jew. So, what President Abbas was claiming at the United Nations was the rest of the Palestinian Mandate Lands that do not make up Jordan and then to follow that by wiping every Jew from the rest of the Middle East by genocide or whatever means necessitated. He was not requesting any compromise; he was demanding every inch of Israel be handed to him on a platter.

Beyond the Cusp

September 23, 2011

The Sarkozy Solution to Palestinian Statehood

The saying actually goes, “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.” After reading what French President Nicolas Sarkozy proffered as a solution to the conundrum that is the Palestinian bid for statehood, the statement should now read, “Beware of Francs bearing gifts.” A simple summary of Mr. Sarkozy’s recommendation would be to give the Palestinians most of their desires that they actually hoped to receive with recognition as a non-member state, thus giving their status an upgrade to observer, thus allowing membership in many of the United Nations committees and commissions as well as likely access to the International Criminal Court, and setting a one year deadline for Israel to reach some agreement with the Palestinians or else next year the United Nations will automatically grant them full member status and all related privileges and recognitions. What could go wrong in this instance? I mean, would this really be the disaster many will claim this would produce? Um, well ah, YES!

Well, since my simple superficial rejection of President Sarkozy’s solution would be more convincing with some explanation, let us take it issue by issue. As has been stated here and in other editorials, the reasonable best case solution the Palestinian Authority is actually aiming to attain is not full membership as they know full well that getting such a recommendation from the Security Council is basically impossible. This became a cold hard fact once President Obama clearly stated the United States intent to use its veto power if such would prove necessary to prevent the Palestinians attaining full membership. The Palestinians knew from the outset that their likely best case scenario would include some upgrade to their current United Nations status of non-state observer to non-member state observer. This grants the Palestinian Authority numerous privileges and improved status among the nations and organizations of the world. Depending on the degree of support the Palestinians receive from the other countries as members to the United Nations, the Palestinians could receive sufficient recognition as a state with similar status as the Vatican holds and would allow the Palestinians to establish diplomatic relations with whatever other nations who care to recognize such status leading to the exchange of ambassadors and the establishment of embassies. With sufficient recognition, the Palestinians could be granted status of standing that would allow them to have representation or be eligible for membership in numerous international agencies, committees, organizations, councils, and NGOs. The particular such entities the Palestinians most desire are membership in the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Human Rights Council, numerous other United Nations Organizations, and eligibility to receive loans and grants from the World Bank. Many of these privileges, of which the eligibility to bring charges, accusations, items of dispute or other situations for adjudication before any of the international courts and related committees is the most desirous, are to be fully granted immediately to the Palestinian representatives and leaders.

In addition, setting the deadline of next year’s opening of the United Nations session for final resolution between Israel and the Palestinians for a mutually agreed peace otherwise granting statehood to the Palestinians with their desired borders of the Green Line and half of Jerusalem including the Temple Mount and the entire Old City automatically will not force a settlement; it will guarantee that there will be no settlement. What would be the incentive for the Palestinian side to negotiate at all, let alone in good faith, if by simply continuing to be obstructive towards any necessary compromises or even talks if by just waiting out the next year will lead to the United Nations forcing the Palestinian’s full set of territorial demands upon Israel for them. All one has to do is take an honest look at the history of “negotiations” between the Palestinians with Israel and it becomes evident that the problem that is impeding progress towards a final peace is not that Israel will not be flexible and actually make compromises for peace, the problem is that Israel exists. Just by continuing to exist and demand that it be a Jewish state is sufficient to prevent peace as far as the Palestinian side is concerned. Don’t believe that? Then explain why the map in the pamphlet the Palestinians are handing out describing their honest efforts for peace show Palestine as including Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jerusalem, and all the lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Explain all the evidence that is commonly expressed in Arabic throughout their society including their schools, camps, television, radio, political speeches, political meetings, media, and anywhere one looks that even once they have been rewarded a state based upon the 1949 Armistice Lines, that will simply be the platform for the final confrontations to liberate all of Palestine and the eradication of the Jewish Zionists who now occupy any of their lands.

No, Mr. Sarkozy, you are not offering a compromise. There is no compromise as the Palestinians will not stop their efforts to conquer every inch of their imagined lands and every Jew has been vanquished and washed from the lands between the River and the Sea. Furthermore, Mr. Sarkozy, should you and your fellow appeasers give the Palestinians all of Israel as a sacrifice for peace, it will be as affective at preventing the coming conquest of Europe from within or by force, whichever proves necessary, just as the French and English signing the Munich Conference on September 29, 1938, giving Germany Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland prevented the conquest of Europe and brought “Peace in our time.” Mr. Sarkozy, you are simply playing the role and making the same fateful mistake of your French predecessor, Edouard Daladier. The only answer that might enable peace to result would be a straight forward, unanimous, loud and clear principled answer of “No!” to the Palestinian package of lies and deceit they are asking the United Nations and the world to approve with blessings and well wishes.

Beyond the Cusp

« Previous PageNext Page »

The Rubric Theme Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: