Thursday, April 23, 2009

SOME CONSIDERATIONS AGAINST A PALESTINIAN STATE ON ISRAELI SOIL

Johan Rhodius

1. Israel is the only country in the world that is in daily war. Any media report on the Middle East which does not mention this, is incorrect. There is no country in the world - perhaps with the exception of Switzerland, Taiwan and South Korea - where each house/apartment/store has a safe room. There is no country in the world where everybody is being checked before entering a store, cafe or restaurant. 2. The international community pushes Israel in a corner where there seems only one solution for Israel: to create a Palestinian state on her own soil. Inevitability and inescapable, are the code words to communicate same. These are words used by the one who has no arguments to convey to the one who thinks differently, that no counter-argument exists or is nonsensical. However the international pressure on Israel to accept the two state solution is legally, politically and morally unacceptable

Legally.

a. On March 2 Clinton stated: "The U.S. will be vigorously engaged in the pursuit of a two-state solution every step of the way .... the inevitability of working toward a two-state solution seems inescapable. We happen to believe that moving toward the two-state solution, step by step, is in Israel's best interests. But obviously it's up to the people and the government of Israel to decide how to define your interests". " (my italics). This last sentence was hardly publicized, but is the crux. Sovereignty is the core of a nation. No nation without sovereignty, no international law without sovereign nations.
Any nation that interferes with the sovereignty of Israel crosses the red line of international law. The EU does so explicitly:
- On March 15 EU foreign policy chief Solana warned the Israeli government to be formed: "Let me say very clearly that the way the European Union will relate to an Israel government that is not committed to a two-state solution will be very, very different".
- A few weeks later the Czech Foreign Minister Karel Swarzenberg as rotating EU Chairman said that if a two-state agreement would not be reached the EU's relations with Israel "would certainly become problematic" and spoke about " repercussions "
- On April 8 a Dutch Parliamentarian asked the Dutch government to apply sanctions against Israel in the event "Israel would block a peace arrangement for the Middle East, stating that other faithful allies of Israel, like Germany and Czechia did not exclude sanctions."
The US does so also explicitly by stressing vigorously that the two state solution is the only solution. Therefore Israel is to stress Clinton's 2 March remark:
"But obviously it's up to the people and the government of Israel to decide how to define your interests". "After all is said and done Israel has the final say re the Palestinian state."

b. Secondly, the moderate Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said on 11/11/2007, marking the third anniversary of Arafat's death: "We will continue on the path of the martyred President Yasser Arafat to be reburied in Jerusalem, which he loved... Jerusalem, which he tried to make, and which all our people are trying to make, the capital of the muslim Arab/Palestinian terrorist state." So the nature of the Palestinian state is terrorist. Any legal entity of such nature is in breach with public order and thus void. Therefore the Palestinian state is legally, politically and morally a non-starter. The EU policy is based on quicksand, an assumption (at university I learned "never assume") of Solana "I cannot imagine that the religious imperative, the real religious imperative, can make anybody destroy another country... Therefore that is an abuse of religion... I don't think the essence of Hamas is the destruction of Israel. The essence of Hamas is the liberation of the Palestinians," he added. "The liberation of their people, not the destruction of Israel." (30.10.2006, Jerusalem Post). Moderate Abbas contradicts this assumption.

c. The Arabs have repeatedly refused to have an Arab nation on Israeli soil: in 1948, Barak's offer in 2001 of more land and Olmert's offer of even more land in 2009. The conclusion can be no other that the Palestinians are not interested in a state of their own, but only in the destruction of Israel. They want the whole of Israel.

d. Once an offer has been refused, that offer does not exist anymore.

e. If the Arab side has not kept its obligation - to stop violence - Israel is freed of her obligation to work towards the creation of a Palestinian State.

So Israel is released from all previous agreements unless those allowed for the continued violence from the Palestinian side. And even then international law frees the party - here Israel - from whom it can in all reasonability not be demanded that it keeps its obligations in view of new act(s) of violence.

Morally and politically:

a. The Judeo-Christian concept of peace is the absence of violence or justice. For Islam , which by the way means subjugation, peace means the domination of Islam. The peace process (for instance the two state solution) can only be understood in the light of the Islam concept of peace. Why would Israel otherwise have to take confidence building measures like releasing Arab terrorists who have killed Israeli's, while Palestine to be is a terrorist state!? Which side needs to gain confidence in the other? The terrorist or the victim? Confidence in what? That Islam will dominate?!

b. What is the Arab/Israel problem? The problem is that Arab states and groups like Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, and Al Qaida want to annihilate Israel. That is - again obvious - in breach with international law. So a void problem with logically a void solution. Israel is not the problem. Israel is a sovereign state and has therefore the right to exist. Period. Next question please. The problem has to be solved by the one who has the problem: The Muslims. I am aware that not all Arabs are Muslims and that not all Muslims want to destroy Israel, but, as one does not hear from the probable majority, who just wants to live in peace with Israel, they are not relevant. The problem is not to be and cán therefore not be solved by the one who does not have the problem, Israel. Legal procedures are almost for 100 % decided by the question which party has the onus of proof, the obligation to proof something. If you cannot prove your point, you lose the case. Here the party who has to solve the problem has the onus of proof.

c. The creation of a Palestinian state will have a negative effect on the attitude of - now still - Muslim minorities in EU states. It will prove that terrorism pays.

Sub conclusion: Each of these arguments are sufficient to show the voidability and immorality of the peace process, the two state or any other solution to the Islam problem.

Strategy.
a. Israel should refrain from discussing these solutions. By discussing same Israel appropriates the problem. That is very dangerous. It makes Israel into the problem and Israel into the one who has to solve the problem and, if the problem is not solved, the consequences of the problem are for Israel. See EU repercussions if no peace arrangement is reached. That is the corner in which the Muslims have pushed Israel. And the US, Europe and the rest of the non-Muslim world are so Islamized that they have taken this Muslim view. However, those, who have the problem, should have the blame for not solving the problem. Those are the Muslims, not Israel.

b. Israel should shift like Israel has always done in the wars bring the war to the enemy: here shift the focus from the settlements in Judea and Samaria to the terrorist nature of the Palestinian state.

c. Israel has more allies in and outside parliaments in EU states - perhaps even prime ministers and other cabinet ministers - and in the US against a Palestinian state than she realizes. These allies cannot speak out when Israel does not speak out because then they would interfere with Israel's internal affairs.

d. The sooner the better Israel says no against the Palestinian state. In law expectations play a role. So the sooner there can be no misunderstanding on the position of Israel, the better.

Conclusion:
1. The conflict Muslims have with Israel and with the rest of the non-Muslim world is not a matter of territory but of religion. Islam wants to dominate the whole world. Israel is an obstacle for Islam in reaching that goal. Therefore Islam wants first to "solve" Israel and then the rest of the non-Muslim world, through war or peace.

2 The Muslims are very consistent: They say what they do and do what they say.

3. HarvardUniversityhas proven scientifically that you have to reciprocate that attitude of the other party: kind - kind; tough - tough till the other becomes kind again. ( Negotiation Project and Conflict Management Program Getting to Yes: Roger Fisher and William Ury) The non-Muslim world should react in the same way: if we do not agree with the Muslim view, we should say so and do so. We should agree to disagree.

4. The Islam problem - the wish to destroy the non-Muslim world - will then be solved in due course, as the goal of Islam will prove unattainable and by that very fact the Islam-problem will cease to exist, at least for the time being. This has happened amongst others in Poitiers (732) and Vienna (1683) and there is no reason to believe that it will not happen again.

5. Israel has the expertise, experience and willpower to deal with this problem, as Israel is - like before 1948 and 1967 ( so the problem and thus the solution has nothing to do with the settlements in territories - the front of this jihad. Israel has to lead the non-Muslim world in this by the Muslims declared war and the non Muslim world should this time not be an enemy, but an ally of Israel,
in the interest of Israel and of the rest of the non-Muslim world.

6. That is the only road map to the maximum possible peace in this world.

Johan Rhodius, 16 th April 2009.
Thanks to International Christian Zionist Center

No comments: