Doc's Talk: A Farewell to Europe

Sunday, December 13, 2009

A Farewell to Europe

Emmanuel Navon
www.navon.com

This Hanukah eve could hardly be more meaningful to me. I landed this morning from Brussels, where I was surrounded by Christmas decorations and Muslim headscarves. It's nice to be home to celebrate, just in time, a Jewish holiday that commemorates our survival in a proselyte world. My experience this week confirmed the relevance of Hanukah's message that faithfulness and steadfastness shall set us free. I was invited to address Brussels' Jewish community, as well as European journalists and French students. Belgian Jews live in a country where the obvious, militant, and growing presence of Islam can only be believed when witnessed firsthand. More than half of the Socialist Party's representatives at the district parliament of Brussels are Muslims, and one of them was sworn wearing a hijab (something she would not have been allowed to do in her native Turkey). Belgium's public discourse about Israel has become defamatory and reckless.

The situation is not as bad in France, where I arrived swiftly thanks those fast trains that barely leave you enough time to gaze at Europe's grey sky and sinister buildings. But today's dressing code of many French Muslims made it hard for me to recognize my former country. Clearly, the second and third generations of Muslim immigrants to Europe are creating a religious ethos that strikingly differs from that of their parents and grandparents.

Should Israel care if, as Samuel Lewis predicts, Europe becomes Muslim by the end of the century? After all, Jews in Muslim lands were not as badly treated as their brethren in Europe; they were dhimmis but were never sent to gas chambers. Islam, however, is only willing to tolerate Jews as dhimmis, and the Jewish state is the antithesis of dhimmitude. The islamization of Europe should be a matter of concern not only for European Jews but also for Israel, because it is under the pressure of a growing and militant Muslim constituency that a mostly post-Christian and post-modern Europe is allowing the de-legitimization of Israel to permeate its public discourse (certainly in Scandinavia, Britain, and Belgium). And it is under the same pressure that Europe's foreign policy is showing a cavalier contempt for Israel's interests, sensitivities, and claims.

A visit this week of a Belgian business delegation to Israel was nearly cancelled because of the activist protest of Belgium's Muslims. The (Christian) President of Belgium's chamber of commerce pointedly responded that, if human rights were the issue at stake, he was curious to understand why the Muslim community was not up in arms when previous Belgian delegations flew to countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, or Sudan. The courage of this outspoken man, however, is not shared by many. When Israel's ambassador tried this week to arrange a meeting between a visiting Israeli official and her Belgium counterpart, she was told that the Belgian authorities would rather avoid such a meeting so as not to have to deal again with the fuss that has become the norm whenever Belgium officially deals with Israel. This, as the Israeli ambassador correctly replied, is surrender.

Surrender is precisely one of the reasons for Europe's recent Middle East "initiatives." What was the point of Sweden's diplomatic provocation about Jerusalem a couple of weeks ago? To try and appease its own intifada in the Swedish city of Malmö, which is 25% Muslim. Sweden is obviously entitled to be in favor of Jerusalem's division; but opinion is not the true reason for its initiative. Those Swedes who claim to know how to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict know nothing about Jerusalem's history and geography.

Even though the EU Council of Ministers somehow mitigated Sweden's original proposal, the decision it passed on Tuesday is grave. The Council of Ministers declared that it "will not recognize any change in the pre-1967 border" without the agreement of the parties. Since the Palestinians do not agree to such a change, the EU implicitly sides with their position. The Council's decision does not only show contempt for Israel's position. It also ignores the fact that the alleged "pre-1967 border" was in fact a temporary ceasefire line and that UN Security Resolution 242 does not require from Israel to withdraw to those lines and turn them into permanent borders, but to withdraw "from territories" precisely to leave room for negotiations and territorial changes.

My speaking tour to Europe this week confirmed to me that most self-proclaimed experts on the Arab-Israeli conflict know very little about it –to put it mildly. A senior European journalist suggested applying the EU model of building regional peace through economic cooperation to the Middle East. I had to explain to her that the EU model was implemented after Germany had been military defeated and turned into a democracy, and that the EU project would never have succeeded without America's military might, which deterred the Soviet Union for forty years. "If you want your model to work in the Middle East" I told her "why don't you send European troops to topple the region's autocracies and turn them into democracies?" The day before, a student at France's elite School of Government "explained" to me that Israel should "return" the Golan Heights to Syria because they have no strategic value. "Does Alsace-Lorraine have a strategic value for France? Then why don't you return it to Germany? France conquered Alsace-Lorraine by force and kept it for the sole and unique reason that it won, with a little bit of help, the last war with Germany." Silence.

Although the gradual demographic transformation of the Old Continent has a growing impact on Europe's Middle East policy, Israel can only blame itself for barely taking part in the PR contest superbly mastered by Arab propaganda. It would be bad enough if Israel's PR strategy was passive at best and inexistent at worse. But then of course, you have Shlomo Sand and Avraham Burg touring Europe compulsively to "explain" that there is no Jewish people and that Israel is a failed state.

The Maccabees understood that the alternative to action and struggle was disaster. They also realized that the sanity and determination of the remaining few could overcome the dominant blindness and apathy. Their struggle is far from being over, but my stay in Europe thankfully is.

No comments:

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