politinfo

Trying to make sense of a meshuga planet

Alan Caruba’s excellent analysis

Alan Caruba has an excellent post in Faith Freedom: Israel in the Crosshairs.

In one short piece, he briefly delves into history, reviews Aaron Klein’s latest book “The Late Great State of Israel” and concludes this way:

For now I will take some small comfort that Benjamin Netanyahu is once again Israel’s Prime Minister, but unless Israel is prepared to assert its right to its ancient and re-conquered land;

Unless it destroys the Iranian nuclear facilities for an America too weak or unwilling to address this necessity;

Unless it refuses the wrongful demands to turn over Jerusalem, its holiest sites, and other Jewish cities to their control;

Israel’s future may disappear in a nuclear cloud. There has been one Holocaust in my lifetime. I do not want to witness another.

At stake is more than Israel’s right to exist. The failure to support and protect Israel puts the entire basis and future of Western civilization at risk.

May 12, 2009 Posted by | Israel | , | Leave a comment

Autonomy, state, sovereignty explained

Mahmoud Abbas 2009-03-22:

“Don’t we deserve independence? Don’t we deserve a state? We will keep struggling and will do so until we get them back”

How do you “get back” something that never existed in the first place?
Sorry to break this to a PhD holder from Moscow Oriental College (let’s discuss his antisemitic PhD thesis some other time), but the fact is, there never existed any independent Palestinian Arab state, kingdom, republic or autonomy: not before nor after the geographic region of Palestine (also known as the Eretz Israel) was captured by Islamic conquest, then under the Caliphates, Mamluks, Ottomans, Jordanian/Egyptians, British Mandate, nor ever. So, there is nothing to “get back“.

In regards to “Don’t we deserve”, here’s an informative article in Foreign Affairs Mag:

Who Gets a State, and Why? The Relative Rules of Sovereignty by Stephen Krasner

International recognition is not contingent on such physical attributes as geographic size or population. Nor does it depend on effective governance or even complete political autonomy. Andorra, for example, is a full member of the United Nations, yet the country — which is sandwiched between Spain and France — covers little more than 300 square miles and has a population of only 83,000. Its joint heads of state are the president of France and the bishop of Urgell in Spain. Two of the four members of its constitutional court are appointed by France and Spain.

Taiwan, meanwhile, a well-governed and prosperous political entity with a population of more than 20 million, is recognized by only about 20 states (out of more than 190).

Palestine faces an even bigger challenge to achieving sovereignty. Once again, however, the problems preventing a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict relate not to population size or geography, but to the political interests of key actors. One crucial issue is security. Regardless of the demarcation of borders, Israel will reject any agreement that does not allow for Israeli or third-party authority over security operations inside Palestine. A recognized Palestinian state would thus not enjoy complete autonomy.

The international environment is too complex for any set of rules, including those regarding sovereignty, to be applied rigidly across all cases.

Hat Tip: Shmuel Rosner

April 2, 2009 Posted by | History | , | Leave a comment

The Two-State solution is 87 years old. What did it bring?

Victor Sharpe, author of Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish State, has an excellent article in Am Thinker:
The Two-State Solution is 87 Years Old

In 1920, Great Britain was given the responsibility by the League of Nations to oversee the Mandate over the geographical territory known as Palestine with the express intention of reconstituting within its territory a Jewish National Home.

The territory in question stretched from the Mediterranean Sea to the eastern boundary of Mandatory Palestine, which was a border that would separate it from what was to become the future state of Iraq.

The League of Nations created a number of articles, which were in line with the original intent of the Balfour Declaration of November 29th, 1917. At the last minute, however, a new article was introduced by the British Colonial Office: article number 25.

At first the sudden addition of this article was not a cause for alarm but gradually it became apparent that its inclusion directly enabled Great Britain in 1921 to tear away all the territory of geographical Palestine, east of the River Jordan, and give it to the Arab Hashemite family; the territory to become Trans-Jordan and led by the emir Abdullah.

This was the first partition of Palestine and created a brand new entity 87 years ago covering some 35,000 square miles or nearly four-fifths of the geographical territory of Palestine. Immediately Jewish residence in the territory was forbidden and it became in effect judenrein – the German term for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from a territory.

This betrayal by none other than Winston Churchill, the Colonial Secretary at the time, was a devastating blow to the Jewish and Zionist leadership, which now saw the promised Jewish homeland reduced to the remaining narrow territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan – an area barely 50 miles at its widest.

Shortly after, in 1923, the British and French colonial powers also divided up the northern part of the Palestine Mandate. Britain stripped away the Golan Heights (ancient biblical Bashan) and gave it to French occupied Syria.

The succeeding history of the remaining one fifth of the original territory promised to the Jewish people by Lord Balfour and the British government was one of continuing British betrayal as each successive Mandatory administration displayed pro-Arab and anti-Jewish policies.

During its administration up until 1947, Britain severely restricted Jewish immigration and purchases of land while turning a blind eye to massive illegal Arab immigration into the territory from neighboring Arab states.

Britain’s sorry record of appeasement of the Arabs, at the expense of Jewish destiny in the remaining territory, culminated in the infamous 1939 White Paper, which limited Jewish immigration to just 75,000 souls for the next five years. This onerous and draconian policy, coming as it did on the eve of the outbreak of World War 2, was a death blow to millions of Jews attempting to flee extermination by Nazi Germany.

In 1948, Trans-Jordan, renamed the Kingdom of Jordan since 1946, had joined the other Arab nations in invading the Jewish state, illegally annexing the Biblical and ancestral Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria and renaming it the West Bank. Only Britain and Pakistan recognized the annexation.

The war ended in tortuous armistice lines resulting in an Israeli border a mere nine miles wide at the most densely populated area, which stretched from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordanian occupied West Bank. Israel’s late Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, described these dangerously vulnerable armistice lines as the Auschwitz borders.

Nineteen years later the Arab states declared again their imminent intention to destroy Israel. In the June 1967 Six Day War Israel liberated Judea and Samaria from Jordan in a defensive war. Israel offered to give away the newly liberated West Bank to the Hashemite regime in Jordan and the Gaza Strip to its erstwhile Egyptian occupiers in return for a full and lasting peace. But the Arab League, meeting in Khartoum in August, 1967, delivered the infamous three No’s: No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel.

It is within the narrow territory remaining for the Jewish state, if one includes Judea and Samaria, that the world now demands the establishment of yet another Arab state. Hamas controlled Gaza would be included in this future state to be called Palestine; a state which has never existed before by that name in all of recorded history – certainly not as an independent Arab state.

Gaza has already been given to the Arabs and they have turned it into a terror base from which they have launched a lethal missile blitz against Israel numbering to date over 10,000 rockets.

Sadly, Israeli governments have become notoriously fearful of rejecting outright the deadly trap inherent in the so called two-state solution. Their muted responses have merely encouraged world leaders to repeatedly breathe new life into the discredited plan. The searing tragedy is that the two-state solution may presage for the Jewish people another Final Solution.

Perhaps the Secretary of State prefers to remain oblivious to the stark fact that the Arabs, whom she embraces and who today call themselves Palestinians, are as committed as their parents and grandparents before them to destroy the Jewish state; whatever size or shape its borders. The fact is that this is not a dispute over borders; this is a religious war and the Arabs, so long as the overwhelming majority remain Muslim, will never accept the existence of a non-Muslim state in territory previously conquered in the name of Allah -whatever the size or shape of its borders.

Only just recently, Muhammad Dahlan, speaking on behalf of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, declared on PA TV that the PA will not recognize Israel — one of the primary demands made upon the Palestinian Arabs in the Oslo Peace Accords. Indeed, Dahlan admitted that the only reason they meet with Israelis at all is in order to continue receiving the immense flow of international funds.

I wrote about Dahlan’s speech here. Note how Arab leaders consistently reject any partition that allows any Jewish state in the Middle East. That is what happened in 1937, 1947, 1967, 2000, etc.

Hat tip: Israel Matzav, who calls this is a “must read” (I agree) and also links to a great commentary by Melanie Phillips: The essential history.

March 30, 2009 Posted by | Arab-Israeli Conflict, History, UK | , , , | Leave a comment