Thursday, July 26, 2012



Some further considerations:

The 1967 lines are not "borders" and were never intended as such. Lord Carradon and his American counterpart, who together devised them,

were adamant on that point. They were merely the position at which the Israeli army agreed to halt in its victorious response to the invasion by Arab powers, which was openly designed to eliminate Israel altogether, but was, thankfully, defeated. "To the victors, the spoils" has been the fundamental rule throughout history. Without it, wars would never end, since the combatants would simply return to their starting positions, the aggressor as ready to inflict war as before. Was Hitler's Germany given back the lands it had conquered but been evicted from by the victorious Allies in WW2? Of course not. Must Israel be the only exception?

No, the real permanent frontiers, under UNR 242, have yet to be resolved, via "permanet negotiations." These have failed to be concluded because one side repeatedly deserts the negotiating table, showing that it is not content to abide by the United Nations decision. That side, putting the spanner continually in the wheel, is not Israel.

Moreover, Israel has alreay yielded all but 18% of the territory promised by the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Agreement which endorsed it and the League of Nations decision that confirmed Israel's right to "close settlement" of all the land, subject only to safeguarding the rights of existing inhabitants. Yet this is still not enough for Israel's enemies! Yet, the Jewish people first "settled" in their Promised Land nigh on four thousand years ago, under Abraham, the first man to recognise and obey the one God, as the Bible describes. And Jerusalem became David's capital and the site of his son Solomon's Temple over 3,000 years ago: more than sixteen hundred years before Mohammed created Islam. Are there more ancient title deeds legitimising any other peoples than that?

But, unlike the surrounding Arab countries (fifty times the area of Israel, with sixty times tiny Israel's population) Israel does not restrict other ethnic elements and consequently 20% of the population are Arabs.

Since Israel is the only democratic government in the entire region, too, and for thousands of miles around, and has granted full freedoms to all citizens, Jews and non-Jews, including freedom of speech and religion, regardless of gender (a situation unknown in the Muslim countries) and, in addition, Arab citizens become MP, diplomat, Supreme Court judge, etc, etc, there's actually no legal, moral, political or geographical case for a separate Palestinian state, particularly because one already exists. Jordan - a country illegally carved out of territory designated by the League of Nations as part of the Jewish National Home - is populated "Palestninians."

Even in this definition, there are further injustices. Palestine was the name given to Judea and Samaria by invading ancient Romans (after the long-departed Greek people called Philistines) as a punishment for the Jews, who had fought against the desecration of their holy Temple. They hoped to eradicate the memory of the accursed Judea (origin of the name "Jew") and Samaria, where they had faced such obdurate Jewish fighters. Unfortunately, they have been only too successful The misnomer stuck. So, In more modern times, the term Palestinian was a term used for Jews who lived in that country, running such Jewish institutions as the Anglo-Palestine Bank, etc, etc. Arafat filched the name as recently as 1964, however, to give it a whole new life, ceasing to designate Jews altogether but applied to Arab residents of the Holy Land. So the Jewish bank had to become Anglo-Israel Bank, and so on with other names. And "Palestinian" no longer refers to Jews. But a change of name does not change facts or alter history. Ask any crook who decides to use a nom de plume in the hope of deceiving honest people.

Unfortunately, the world can stomach injustices to Jews better than it can deny false claims by Arabs. The latest example is the discriminatory treatment of Israel by the BBC in the misleading descriptions of its Olympic Games guide. Which people will have read about elsewhere.


No comments:

Post a Comment