Doc's Talk: Israel, Taiwan, and the UN

Friday, September 04, 2009

Israel, Taiwan, and the UN

Moshe Phillips
The mainstream media paid little attention in August when Israel sent much needed aid to Taiwan in response to the deadliest typhoon to hit the Chinese island nation in its history. In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, Raphael Gamzou, director of the Israel Economic and Cultural Office in Taipei, explained that Taiwan's people "are incredibly friendly to Israel... [and] this expression of solidarity of the government and people of Israel will strengthen friendly sentiments." Israel and Taiwan have both experienced excessive abuse at the hands of the United Nations. Both countries have seen U.S. support undergo radical revision. Taiwan's support from the United States reached a peak with the Eisenhower administration and fell during the Nixon/Kissinger years. Israelis saw President George W. Bush as a great friend and now view President Obama as more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli.

In April 2008, news reports about declassified 50-year-old U. S. government documents shed light on just how far some in the Eisenhower administration were ready to go to defend an ally -- Taiwan (officially: the Republic of China). Friends of Israel should take careful note of this period in the history of U.S. foreign policy and especially of how radically and how quickly the American position shifted.

The declassified documents showed that President Eisenhower was committed to defending Taiwan against Mainland China. Ike decided not to authorize nuclear strikes to force Communist China to retreat from a possible blockade of the anti-communist Chinese on Taiwan (the Republic of China). This was no small skirmish in 1958; the Communists fired approximately 450,000 shells at Taiwan during the 1958 conflict.

By 1972 President Nixon completely changed American policy on China. It took just 14 years for the U.S. orientation to be completely reversed. More amazing is how this about face transpired and under whose watch.

Nixon had been Eisenhower's vice-president. Ten years after Ike's military brass sought a nuclear option to confront Red China, Nixon was elected president and the United States was fighting against communists in Vietnam.

In July 1971, Nixon dispatched Henry Kissinger to Beijing where he met with Chairman Mao. The die was cast. It should not be forgotten that Kissinger also sought to encourage Nixon to abandon Israel during the Yom Kippur War.

In October 1971 the UN General Assembly voted to give the Chinese seat to the People's Republic of China ("Red China"). The Chinese permanent seat (one of just five permanent members) on the UN Security Council went to Red China as well.

By 1972 Nixon had normalized U.S. relations with Red China. Before this reversal Nixon had been known throughout his political career as a staunch anti-communist. Nixon visited Beijing in February 1972.

Nixon's Republican administration abandoned the Republic of China on Taiwan and the world followed. Every year since 1992, the Chinese on Taiwan have petitioned for UN membership and their request has been denied. Similarly, the UN has singled out Israel for more criticism than any other nation.

Communist China has of course been no friend of Israel in the UN and has supported Israel's enemies through its powerful position on the Security Council. Communist China was the first non-Islamic country to officially recognize the PLO.

In the aftermath of Beijing's win at the UN, Arafat was infamously invited to address the UN in 1974. It must be noted that Arafat was invited to address the UN when Kurt Waldheim was its Secretary-General.

Arafat was first invited to Communist China in March 1964. He went to Beijing 14 times; his last visit was in August 2001. Arafat and Fatah reciprocated Red China's support. Alliances were stuck between Fatah and Red China's other terrorist clients. Most notoriously Arafat praised Beijing's bloody response to the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989.

The crucial thing for friends of Israel to understand from this 50-year-old story and its aftermath is that the strategic and political approach that the United States takes towards support for her allies can change. Affinity, promises, good sense and fair play can all be forgotten - and quickly.

Israel's strategic value as an ally in a very dangerous part of the world will not be enough to prevent a U.S. president as committed to changing the course of American policy as Nixon was when he went to China in February 1972.

Israel must therefore formulate its policy with this in mind.

No Israeli government should surrender any Israeli held territory. Ever. Israel needs every inch of the strategic depth that it has. America is no guarantor of Israeli security, nor should it be. America remains Israel's strongest ally. All friends of Israel hope that America remains aligned with Israel. But alliances can and do change. The Taiwanese learned this; let's pray that Israel does not. Taiwan is still affected by Nixon's decisions.

Taiwan lost membership in all UN organizations. Taiwan's population of over 23 million has no representation at the UN. The Palestinian National Authority's population was estimated in 2008 to be 4.1 million. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) was established in 1948 and is devoted exclusively to Palestinian Arabs. UNRWA is the only UN agency dedicated to working for refugees in a specific conflict. UNRWA's cash budget for 2008 was over $540 million. It must be made clear that UNRWA has never assisted Jewish refugees who were victimized in Islamic nations and fled for their safety to Israel.

Israel and her supporters should -- at every opportunity -- expose the UN for the fraud that it is. This includes the unjust exclusion of Taiwan. In the Obama era especially, Israel should seek to strengthen ties with those nations like Taiwan that are "incredibly friendly to Israel." History may record Nixon's abandonment of Taiwan as minor compared to Obama's desertion of Israel.

Moshe Phillips is a member of the executive committee of the Philadelphia Chapter of Americans for a Safe Israel / AFSI. The chapter's website is at: phillyafsi.com and Moshe's blog can be found here.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/israel_taiwan_and_the_un.html at September 04, 2009 - 07:39:52 AM EDT

1 comment:

primerica said...: HI,
unfortunately I have to say, everytime Israel do something good, it is not popular for international community to pay attention to that. In case of any incident in Gaza or elsewhere, the newspaper are full of it. I just have the feeling, it is very popular to present Israel as an evil. This is the example, they are helping a lot around the world. Just the world doesnt want to hear about it. lorne; 3:19 PM

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk