Beyond the Cusp

November 9, 2016

Hubris Thy Name is France

Filed under: 1949 Armistice Line,1967 Borders,1967 War,2016 Elections,Absolutism,Amalekites,Anti-Israel,Anti-Semitism,Anti-Zionist,Appease Islamic Interests,Appeasement,Arab Appeasement,Arab Authority,Arab League,Arab World,Binding Resolution,Blood Libel,Borders,Chapter Seven Security Council Resolution,Civilization,Condemning Israel,Conflict Avoidnce,Divided Jerusalem,Donald Trump,East Jerusalem,Egypt,Elections,European Governments,European Pressure,European Union,Hate,Hevron,History,IDF,International Politics,Islam,Islamic Pressure,Islamic State,Islamists,Israel,Israeli Capital City,Israeli Interests,Jerusalem,Jordan River,Jordanian Pressure,Judea,Judean Hills,Khartoum Conference,Kotel,Leftist Pressures,MENA,Middle East,Muslim World,Myth,NATO,Negev Desert,Nepal,New Testament,Old City,Old Testament,Palestinian Authority,Palestinian Pressures,Peace Process,PLO,Politicized Findings,Politics,President,Promised Land,Promised Land,Prophets,Recognize Israel,Samaria,Saudi Arabian Pressure,Secular Interests,Security Council,Shechem,Six Day War,Statehood,Support Israel,Temple Mount,Temple Mount,Three No's,Torah,Two Millennia of Exile,Two State Solution,United Nations,United Nations Presures,United States,United States State Department,West Bank,World Opinion,Zionism,Zionist — qwertster @ 2:37 AM
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

French diplomats told Haaretz, describing the situation after the meeting between French envoy Pierre Vimont and Israeli officials Monday where the Israelis restated their refusal to cooperate with the French peace plans, the French representatives stated, “Envoy Pierre Vimont’s discussion with Israeli government representatives in Jerusalem was sincere and difficult. The negative Israeli response was predictable, and we will take Israel’s position into consideration. However, we plan to carry on promoting our peace initiative.” Apparently the French establishment is determined to pursue their designs on formulating a peace proposal based on the defunct two state solution, which they feel and believe is fair and acceptable to the nations they are able to gather by year’s end even if Israel is not included in the formulation of the solution. Israeli refusal is based on the insistence for direct party to party negotiations to resolve any differences. Since Israel rejected the French proposals, the Palestinian Authority (PA) accepted the French proposal and is seeking for the Arab League and Nonaligned Nations (NAM) joining the French negotiation in order to formulate a proposal which will facilitate the eradication of Israel through Arab Palestinian refugee and their descendants right to return to within Green Line (1949 Armistice Lines), all five to eight million making Israel just one more Arab majority state which will vote to deport, murder or otherwise deal with their Jewish minority. The PA is simultaneously seeking a preferably binding Security Council Chapter Seven resolution making all Israeli existence beyond the Green Line illegal under International Law believing that United States President Obama will not veto and might even propose such a measure in his closing weeks before the new President, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, a decision still being voted upon as we write, is inaugurated and such returns to being a dicey issue which remains a third-rail issue.

 

The French, with Egyptian assistance, have already made one run at this which started to be setup back in February 2016 and held in June, with no agreement being accepted by the attending nations and the French vowing to hold a follow-up by the end of the year. France is intending to form a coalition of the willing to reach a completely fleshed-out agreement accepted by and signed onto by the majority of the attending nations whether either concerned party, the Israelis or PA, approve or even accept the invite to join and assist in the drafting a resolution. The French believe that their record as world leaders stretching back century after century to the modern day giving them the right to design, implement and enforce any solution resolved by their conference. The first failed attempt consisted of largely European, Arab and Muslim nations plus the United States breaking-up with acrimony and disagreement leaving the French empty-handed with no two-state agreement to implement by any and all means necessary. How the French plan on forcing any agreement has also not been discussed with some believing that the French conference would be the first step to a Security Council Chapter Seven initiative then enforced using troops under the United Nations command relieving the French of posting an enforcement military contingent. The French even had to pull from the military contingent of NATO as they were unable to continue to provide their share, despite the limited demands being asked, and preferred to sit snug realizing there could be no actual threat to their nation as the Soviet Union threat was gone and any other threat would require hitting France’s neighboring countries thus giving them ample warning time to seek a solution.

 

All this still begs whether the world is ready to place military troops inside Israeli borders engaging the IDF in a general state of war? Would Russia sign on to a second front in the Middle East against the one nation capable of assisting their efforts in what remains of Syria and working against the Islamic State? What about China? China and India are both trading partners with Israel and potential recipients of military and dual use technologies as well as advanced in crop production, irrigation, resource management, computing sciences and numerous other scientific and social areas of research and development from Israel and these trade and sharing relations, to quote a song, have only just begun. Neither nation is to be expected to turn against Israeli interests making an antagonistic enemy out of a developing friendly nation. Other nations from the Middle East are currently so involved in internal conflicts that their participating in any joint military endeavor is next to or absolutely impossible. Examples include but are not limited to Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan and others. Whether the United States would be even approachable to participate depends heavily on who becomes the next President and which party controls Congress. Canada is currently one nation which can be expected not to attend any such conference, let alone actively participate in any actions against Israel. There are other nations which would never act against Israel even if simply because of emergency aid received often starting early after the emergency and almost always remains being amongst the last to depart and giving a level of aid only matched by the United States. Such nations would include Haiti, Japan, Philippines, Nepal and others. These facts might make fielding a military force capable of engaging the IDF adequately with sufficient force to alter the current realities on the ground. Further, placing troops for making an assault against Israel might be problematic as Jordan and Egypt both have peace treaties with Israel which would preclude their permitting any military force to be mounted from their fronts, their borders.

 

The dream the French envision will not only be a nightmare for Israel should some agreement be concluded but also a nightmare for any and every nation choosing to join in being resolved to force any two state solution which addresses also the right for the Arab Palestinian refugees being relocated within Israel and splitting Jerusalem. Those opting to provide troops will be on the front lines of the war prophesized to incur the greatest casualties of any war throughout history making the blood and bodies to be piled deep upon the plains at Megiddo and others being cut to pieces against the sharp shards of the injurious bolder which is Jerusalem. The New Testament relays the story in Revelations which describes a final battle between good and evil. This is, in appearance, exactly the plan by the French as they appear to include initiating a war solely for and by themselves where no others are pressed into war. But even if France is foolhardy enough to initiate such a war believing that such a conflict would not soon balloon up and explode in their faces, then they are horribly ignorant or simply foolhardy to such a point taking risks beyond any an informed and sane person would pursue. But then again we are speaking about the forcing of an Arab Palestinian State, which would soon fall to Hamas or Islamic State if not a marriage of the two, against Israel so completely losing one’s sanity is all but required when addressing this problem.

 

Armageddon Before and After

Armageddon Before and After

 

Where the French may dare to go has been covered by their leadership though there does appear to be minimal wiggle-room such that they could back down from the threatened result even should the French proposals fail to gain any traction. This determined alternative was stated as France officially recognizing a Palestinian State and potentially delivering them with France even recognizing the actual borders. Should France take such a foolish direction it would all but guarantee a raised level of conflict and a far lesser possibility for the two parties negotiating one with the other. The PA has always had a singular goal from its very start as the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization, a terrorist group) back in 1964, a full three years before the Six Day War of June 1967 when the perverse concept that Judea and Samaria along with Eastern Jerusalem including the Old City, the Kotel and the Temple Mount were being occupied by Israel, not liberated from the nineteen years of Jordanian occupation; and that is, was and continues to be the destruction of Israel, all of Israel by any and all means necessary. The reality is that Judea and Samaria were Jordanian occupied lands before their liberation by Israel in the Six Day War. That is the dirty little lie the world has swallowed and used to attempt to assist the Arabs in destroying Israel. Each time a nation recognized an Arab state anywhere in Judea and Samaria and especially any part of Jerusalem the possibility that the Arabs, many of whom were placed there by Jordan during their occupation from 1949 through June 1967 were and remain the real “settlers” as they were in many cases forced to resettle so as to create the appearance of Jordanian ownership. In some cases they were moved into the homes the Jews lost when they were forced from their homes, lands and businesses by the Jordanian troops as Jordan refused to permit a single Jew to remain on their lands during the occupation. That is the reality which in far too many cases is driven by anti-Semitism in the form of either anti-Zionism or anti-Israelism; the three are interchangeable as to hold any one implies your support for the other two.

 

France is not forwarding anything new and the PA is continuing with their enforcement of the Khartoum Resolution of 1 September 1967 which included the Three No’s. These Three No’s are, no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel. This was broken by Egyptian martyred President Anwar Sadat. He broke the silence and negotiated peace with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin while United States President Jimmy Carter was presumably facilitating but later it was learned that Carter kept pressing Sadat to demand more of Israel and almost cost the two nations’ peace. President Carter was a virulent anti-Israel politician and thought Egypt should have demanded the Israelis return every inch of land and admits the Arab refugees and their children and children’s children making Israel simply another Arab state. Sadat was more interested in making a real and lasting peace. He attained his vision before the Muslim Brotherhood had succeeded in assassinating this man with a vision. That has been a problem in the Arab and much of the Muslim lands, few leaders have visions of peace and there lies the wall the French will hit. The question is will they learn or simply recognize a state where the sole desire is the destruction of an existing state and after that returning to their respective tribes leaving the land barren again, as it was in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century when the first Zionists returned joining the remnants of the Jewish Israelite civilization still residing in Jerusalem, Hevron, Shechem and throughout the Galilee, Judea, Samaria and even the Negev Desert. There is another reality; the land was mostly empty until the Jewish Zionists constructed the waterworks irrigation systems. After much of that work had been accomplished, the Arabs arrived for the better economy and that is their reason for remaining. Should the world end their payments to these terror masters, they would leave never to be seen again. The few who would remain would be those willing to work and make something with their lives and with those Israel will be capable of negotiating a lasting peace. Think about that France, if you can see past your hatreds and anti-Semitism.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

*Tomorrow Reaction to President Elect Donald Trump and what that entails for the future.

 

 

 

Advertisements

1 Comment »

  1. Reblogged this on Oyia Brown.

    Like

    Comment by OyiaBrown — November 11, 2016 @ 10:14 AM | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.