Tag-Archive for » Israel «

Novus Europa: An Idea Whose Time Has Come

17
Nov 2012

The re-election of Barack Obama in the USA has made even the most optimistic of European-American activists realize that demographically speaking, the jig is up in America.

However, almost the same scenario is playing itself out in Western Europe. Third World immigrants and their descendants played a decisive role in the recent French presidential elections; in the UK, non-whites will soon (possibly within 20 years) form the majority of children under the age of 18; and similar scenarios are underway in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, and most other Western European nations. There is an inexorable eroding of the European base of a number of traditionally white nations through mass immigration and natural reproduction rates among already present immigrants.

The 2012 US presidential election has mapped out the reality—and middle-term future—of America, Canada, Western Europe, Australia and Canada. It bodes ill for the long-term future of our race.

1. Introduction: The Premise

Demographically, it is no longer possible to win politically. There are sufficient numbers of white liberals (not to mention the fact that counted as white, especially in the US, are large numbers of groups implacably hostile to our race) who will always vote with non-whites to bring in Obama clones from now on.

What then is the solution?

Part of it is continued political activism, to reach as many increasingly alienated white people as possible and inculcate them with a sense of racial self-consciousness.

But that is only half the struggle. What to do with these people, how to keep them motivated, and the long-term solution to the problem, are the real deal-breakers in the conundrum.

Without an ideal, without a practical goal, and without real results, even the most racially-conscious group will ultimately dissipate. This is especially so when surrounded by a sea of non-whites. The vanishing of the Aryans of India, the ancient Egyptians and numerous other examples bear deadly testimony to this fact.

If we do not offer a real alternative to our people, and, even more importantly, deliver on that alternative, then the game is well and truly over.

2. The Only Alternative

T. Lothrop Stoddard wrote in his book, Racial Realities in Europe, that “nationality is what people think they are, race is what they really are.”

Bearing this in mind, we will have to accept that the presently existing states in North America and Western Europe (at least) are going to vanish.

Whites in those states must start thinking in terms of their race, and not their nationality.

The solution therefore, requires a quantum leap in thinking and a total break with the current system.

The historical record shows clearly that the only way in which a race can preserve its identity is through the creation of an ethnically homogenous heartland.

This then, a “European homeland,” offers the only way in which our race can be preserved.

The very concept sounds far-fetched and almost in the realm of fiction.

Where? When? How? Are the obvious questions which spring to mind.

Is it even remotely possible?

Before dismissing the idea out of hand, cynics should rather consider the alternative: the total destruction of the European people, their civilization, and culture.

Posited against that scenario of endless night, the idea of a European homeland seems quite tame.

3. The Zionist Model

The best model for the creation of a homogenous homeland for a defined people is unquestionably the state of Israel.

It is true that there are a number of circumstances surrounding the creation of Israel, both positive and negative. Positive factors included the power of the Jewish lobby, the unity of the Jewish people, while negative factors include the displacement of and resultant conflict with the Palestinian and Arabs.

It is not, however, these factors which should be the focus of our attention. Rather, we should look at and see the methodology which the Zionist movement used to create the Jewish state, and then simply replicate that, avoiding the pitfalls into which they fell.

The Zionist movement was formally launched by Theodor Herzl in 1896, although the first agitation for a Jewish state started several decades earlier.

Herzl, however, was the first to put together a coherent plan, which was then taken up by fellow Jews and ultimately became the World Zionist Movement which created Israel.

Herzl’s plan, which he put down in his 1896 book, Der Judenstaat, contained six chapters:

I. Introduction

II. The Jewish Question

III. The Jewish Company

IV. Local Groups

V. Society of Jews and Jewish State

VI. Conclusion

Chapter I deals with the basic concept of the demand for a Jewish state.

Chapter II deals with anti-Semitism, and outlines the justification or need for a Jewish homeland to bring an end to Jewish-Gentile conflict.

It also discusses the question of “where”, with the two main options being Argentina or Palestine, his conclusion is that the Jewish state would be “what is selected by Jewish public opinion.”

Chapter III sets out the core of the project: the creation of a formal organization, which he called the Jewish Company, to physically raise the money, buy land, promote Jewish immigration, the creation of industry, and so on. This “Jewish Company” became the Jewish Agency, which did indeed approach the colonization of Palestine as a business.

Chapter IV discusses how Jews would immigrate in organized groups rather than leaving it up to scattered individuals.

Significantly, Herzl pointed out that anti-Semitism, or persecution of the Jews, would be one of the biggest “push” factors which would drive Jews to the Zionist state. This is of bearing to us, given what will be the increasingly anti-white nature of many of the collapsing states.

Chapter V discusses the set-up of the Jewish state, its constitution and infrastructure, and even suggested a flag.

Chapter VI is the grand conclusion, and ends with these powerful words:

“But we must first bring enlightenment to men’s minds. The idea must make its way into the most distant, miserable holes where our people dwell.

They will awaken from gloomy brooding, for into their lives will come a new significance. Every man need think only of himself, and the movement will assume vast proportions.

And what glory awaits those who fight unselfishly for the cause! Therefore I believe that a wondrous generation of Jews will spring into existence. The Maccabeans will rise again.

Let me repeat once more my opening words: The Jews who wish for a State will have it.

We shall live at last as free men on our own soil, and die peacefully in our own homes.

The world will be freed by our liberty, enriched by our wealth, magnified by our greatness.

And whatever we attempt there to accomplish for our own welfare, will react powerfully and beneficially for the good of humanity.”

3.1 Herzl therefore accomplished a number of things:

3.1.1 He laid out the moral justification for the creation of a Jewish state (anti-Semitism, the demand for self-determination and so on—in other words, all the essential arguments to make the case presentable and justifiable to world opinion.)

3.1.2 He mapped out a realistic plan, which, he said, might take decades to fulfil. This plan was followed to the letter, starting immediately after the foundation of the World Zionist Movement.

3.1.3 This plan entailed the holding of conferences which:

3.1.3.1 Announced the project to the world and gathered up Jewish support for the project;

3.1.3.2 Laid the intellectual effort which went into identifying the Jewish homeland, morally justified its existence, and worked on a political level to bring the state about;

3.1.3.3 Established the Jewish Agencies; and

3.1.3.4 Launched real immigration policies in tandem with Jewish support agencies from the immigrants’ originating countries.

4. The European Homeland: “Novus Europa”

Working on the Herzl model, there are therefore four significant steps which have to be undertaken.

4.1 A seminal work outlining the idea has to be published.

This work must, like Der Judenstaat:

4.1.1 Outline the reasons why a state is necessary (e.g. the threatened genocide of the European people; their moral right to survival, and so on).

4.1.2 It must be phrased and delivered in such a way that it can be argued before any audience, anywhere, and justified as a plan which does not result in the infringement of the rights of any people on earth.

In this way, accusations of “white supremacism” and the nonsense about wanting to be supreme rulers over others can be deflected.

Also, because of the majority population nature of a homeland, racial segregation will not be necessary (for example there is no segregation in China—they don’t need it…)

4.1.3 This work must also, like Der Judenstaat, call for the creation of a “European Company” to take charge of the financial and logistical backing of the enterprise. This will entail the setting up of a company with trusted directors, shareholders, etc.

4.1.5 This work must then either map out, or at the very least, call for, proposals on where the European homeland should be.

4.2 Announce the project to the world, possibly by way of a Congress (a la World Zionist Congress) at which maps and details can be discussed. The advent of the World Wide Web has facilitated the exchange of ideas and concepts so that it is possible to bring in the most sensible ideas and proposals first, even before a public launch.

4.3 The creation of a Novus Europa Company, which would fulfil the duties of a European version of the Jewish Agency, as outlined above. Critical to the planning of such a company would be the solicitation of investment in industry to create manufacturing-based jobs in the “the territory.” Without that pull factor, there will be no growth point to which people will be attracted.

5. Implementation

The final step in the process is implementation. Without real progress in this regard, the project will come to nothing and dissipate. Critical to this step is, therefore, the selection of an area which can be majority occupied.

This is possibly the most difficult of all, because, unlike at the time of the creation of the state of Israel, there were no empires on the point of dissolution, the number of independent states was far lower, and, most importantly, there appear to be no “open” territories left.

This is a real problem, of which a possible answer is suggested below.

6. The Territory

Given the above—that there are no “new” areas to be opened up (even those sparsely inhabited are now parts of existing states), there appears to be only two options:

6.1 A number of territories, located in different nations, can be selected as target immigration areas. This would allow for the ultimate creation of several proto-states, of which some might be more successful than others.

For example, we could look at selecting a town in rural America, and embark on a deliberate campaign of colonization by “our” people. Eventually, a series of towns could possibly link up. This could also be done in other nations: Canada, Australia, and of course the western European nations as well.

This would solve the twin problems of (a) identifying areas which impinge upon existing states, and (b) the issue of cross-national immigration for many people, but would have to be done with the understanding that this would then be a long-term project which would very likely only result in full proper independence once the “rest” of the “host” nation had collapsed into Second or Third World anarchy. This is, by the way, the plan behind the Orania project in South Africa.

6.2 Following the Zionist example (where Herzl lobbied the British, the Americans, the Ottoman Empire, and the German Kaiser, among others), a direct political approach might possibly be made to one or more Eastern European states which are, of all currently existing nations, the most receptive to such an idea and who are all suffering from serious population decline problems—which they would possibly want to address by promoting inward European immigration.

Once again, before this is dismissed as a fantasy, the geo-political realities of those nations should be overviewed by any cynics. Many of the former Soviet bloc Eastern European nations are seriously concerned about population declines and have seen what has happened in Western Europe—and have launched pro-white birth-rate population drives of their own.

7. Conclusion

The idea of a European homeland may sound far-fetched, but then again, so did the idea of a Jewish homeland sound farfetched when Herzl wrote his book. In fact, one of the wealthiest potential backers from who Herzl sought help, the Rothschilds, dismissed him out of hand.

Rather than focusing on the nay-sayers, thoughtful activists will consider what the alternatives are.

And realistic activists will have to agree: essentially there are no alternatives to geographic consolidation. The historical record is clear: those people who do not possess a territory in which they form the majority population, are doomed to extinction.

The challenge is open. Will we have what it takes to survive, or will we perish?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Category: General  Tags: , , , , , , ,  Leave a Comment

How the BBC got Duped by Anti-Zionist Blogger Richard Silverstein

17
Aug 2012

Richard Silverstein is one of the more shrill and dishonest commentators in a very crowded anti-Zionist blogosphere and – as the title of his blog, Tikkun Olam, (To heal the world) suggests – continues to make a mockery of such self-styled progressive bloggers.

Several months ago, for instance, he thought nothing of exposing the identity of a Zionist blogger – including his address – potentially placing his entire family at risk.

For those unfamiliar with his brand of “liberalism” and “social justice”, it includes expressions of support for a one-state solution, defenses of terror groups like Hamas, and characterizations of IDF soldiers as “bestial” and “subhuman“.

He has even likened Israel to Nazi Germany.

More recently, Silverstein engaged in a horrendous smear of Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard, suggesting that The JC knowingly associated with BNP member  Carlos Cortiglia - a claim which is beyond ludicrous and grossly defamatory.

Silverstein’s original story about the row over Cortiglia (which he later slightly revised) even suggested that the BNP candidate had been hired as “a columnist” by The JC. In fact, as we reported at the time, The JC originally had an open blogging platform which allowed literally anyone to post, including Cortiglia.  But, as soon as Pollard was alerted to the BNP membership affiliation of Cortiglia they immediately barred his access to The JC site.

Even the revised post at Silverstein’s blog still shamelessly claimed (in the caption under the photo of Cortiglia) that The JC “offered” the white supremacist a blogging platform, which was a complete lie.

So, with such a disgraceful record of smears, distortions, outright lies (and various false “scoops”) – in the service of his anti-Israel political agenda – why on earth would any mainstream, “respectable” media outlet legitimize Silverstein?

Well, perhaps we should ask the BBC which, on Wednesday, saw fit to publish a story lending credibility to Richard Silverstein’s post “Bibi’s secret war plan” – a post which he claims was based on information he received from a high-level Israeli source.

The report at the BBC claims that Silverstein has been leaked a document from the IDF detailing the possible methods of an upcoming attack on Iran.

“…a US blogger has published what he says are Israel’s attack plans.

Richard Silverstein told the BBC he had been given an internal briefing memo for Israel’s eight-member security cabinet, which outlined what the Israeli military would do to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons.”

The BBC then details, per Silverstein’s “briefing”, the detailed plan of Israel’s “planned” 30-day war against Iran.

As The Commentator explains:

“The problem is, while Silverstein is quick to publish information he ‘receives’, the veracity of such information can of course never be verified. The BBC has not seen the so-called documents that Silverstein purports to have, nor has it double-sourced any information of the sort.

It appears that Silverstein has been duped into thinking that some text on a Hebrew forumwas some kind of coded message or secret document, though he excuses the fact that he is quoting almost verbatim from the forum [which used open source information] by stating on his blog that, ‘My original IDF source may have leaked the post to someone at Fresh [forum].  But whoever published it there embellished it with much material that is not in the original document.’”

The BBC, despite being unable to verify any information beyond that of a blogpost, has run full pelt with the story, interviewing Silverstein on several occasions and quoting him widely.”

Regarding his post’s overlap with the Hebrew forum, Silverstein responded by writing:

“Contrary to claims made by many in the hasbarafia at sites like Harry’s Place and CIF Watch, anyone who actually reads the Fresh post and compares it to what I translated & published would see that there is very little overlap. Of the entire 500 word (in English translation) document, perhaps 100 words are in the Fresh post, which itself is quite long, probably over 1,000 words (I haven’t checked).”

As Editor of CiF Watch I can testify, that our first reaction to the latest Silverstein row followed his response, so I don’t know what claims he is referring to. (I guess he has CiF Watch on the brain.)

More importantly, as Israellycool revealed today, contrary to Silverstein’s claims that a “Fresh member wrote a largely fictional account that included very limited portions of the actual document which I published in full”, the Fresh post contains Silverstein’s entire document with a few minor, grammatical changes.

Aussie Dave published a comparison of the Forum text with Silverstein’s, provided by Harry’s Place.

So, more broadly, what was Silverstein’s motivation for the post?

Well, commenting on Bibi’s alleged “war plan” on his blog, Silverstein explained:

“[It is] the product of the Israeli dream factory which manufactures threats and then creates fabulist military strategies to address them.

Remember Bush-era Shock and Awe? Remember those promises of precision-guided cruise missiles raining death upon Saddam Hussein’s Iraq? Remember Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” ceremony on the deck of the USS Lincoln, only six or seven years premature? Remember the promises of decisive victory? Remember 4,000 U.S. dead, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?

Now, think of what an Israeli war against Iran could turn into. Think about how this sanitized version of 21st century war could turn into a protracted, bloody conflict closer to the nine-year Iran-Iraq War.”

Interestingly, this isn’t the first time Silverstein has run interference for Israel’s foes.

The New York Times reported in September 2011 that the blogger to whom Israeli-born Shamai Leibowitz (who was working for the FBI) gave sensitive information including details of a potential strike on Iran – which he heard from FBI wiretaps of the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C. – was none other than Richard Silverstein.

The NYT reported that Leibowitz was working as a Hebrew translator for the FBI when he became concerned about Israeli lobbying efforts in Washington as well as a potential Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Silverstein, who admitted publishing posts on his blog using the information he received from Leibowitz, discussed the case with The NYT out of what he said was a desire to prove that Leibowitz, though in violation of federal law, was acting out of a sense of justice.  Wrote Silverstein:

“I see him [Leibowitz] as a…patriot and a whistle-blower, and I’d like his actions to be seen in that context…”

Leibowitz has since been charged under the Espionage Act and is now in a Federal custody.

So, it seems that Silverstein sits there in his Seattle home with the supreme belief that Israelis are children who do not understand either their own interests nor the true nature of foreign threats and must be rescued from their leaders’ malevolent designs.  Such unenlightened Jews must, it seems, be liberated from their evidently fantastical belief that Iran represents an existential threat to the Jewish state.

Silverstein represents a perfect example of the supreme hubris - present to varying degrees on the American left – which informs the belief that Israelis must be “saved from themselves” by the more sophisticated.

Such imperiousness regarding the Jewish state manifests itself consistently among the British media elite and it comes as no surprise that the BBC decided to hitch their wagon to Silverstein’s anti-Zionist far-left agitprop.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Category: General  Tags: , , , , , , ,  Leave a Comment

As Muslim Brotherhood’s rises to power, struggle begins for Egypt’s press

10
Aug 2012

The mood is turbulent on Al-Galaa Street in Cairo, especially in the skyscraper that is home to the government’s flagship newspaper, Al-Ahram. Fierce controversy erupted on Wednesday when the committee selecting new editors for the government media decided to appoint Abdel Nasser Salama as the newspaper’s new editor-in-chief.

The appointment received President Mohammed Morsi’s blessing and some of the paper’s journalists welcomed the new editor, but dozens of others began a sit-in strike on Thursday protesting the move. The protesters say that the highly experienced Salama, who wrote against the revolution in its early days, actually represents the old regime; he is no more than a “pen for hire” and will fail to revive the government press.

Al-Ahram journalists aren’t the only ones concerned about the move. Last Wednesday’s decision to appoint 53 new editors angered the current editors, members of the Supreme Press Council, the 7,000-member journalists’ union and protest activists. They view the decision as another step in the Muslim Brotherhood’s attempt to take over the press, following the appointment of Brotherhood activist Salah Abdel Maqsoud as the country’s new information minister.

The new appointees are not solely Brotherhood-supporting journalists; as a matter of fact, most of them are rather veteran and relatively unknown journalists. Still, all of the new editors will undoubtedly be indebted to those who appointed them, even if they themselves aren’t Brotherhood supporters.

The five large publishing houses, which print dozens of newspapers and periodicals, were nationalized in 1960, as part of Gamal Abdel Nasser’s drive to dictate the public discourse and set the limits of information the public is allowed to get. President Anwar Sadat continued this policy, but allowed the publication of party newspapers when he allowed new parties to become openly active. Print journalism enjoyed a renaissance of sorts under Mubarak, when dozens of new newspapers, mostly unregistered, flooded the streets and breached censorship rules.

When the revolution first took to the streets in January 2011, and even before, when the Internet and social media became the most reliable source of information, the regime continued to follow a deliberately vague policy. On the one hand, the unregistered newspapers continued to thrive, and on the other, the regime adhered to the severe press laws that allowed it to arrest, punish and even jail journalists at will.

The revolution posed a serious dilemma for the government papers. For the first two weeks, they continued to toe the official line, which described the demonstrators as lawless hoodlums and gangs bent on destroying Egypt. Then, when Mubarak decided to resign, all the papers, almost overnight, changed their editorial line; from a stubborn defense of the regime, they suddenly went on the offensive. Photos of the martyrs made the front pages, headlines spoke of the corruption of the president and his family, and editorials went out of their way to praise the “heroes of the revolution.”

Some of the editors-in-chief were replaced within months, and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces appointed new editors. Still, among intellectuals and among all opposition parties, including the Brotherhood-affiliated Freedom and Justice party, it was clear that these changes were temporary and that the government press would have to undergo a revolution. This meant that not only would editors have to leave, but the entire character of journalism would have to change.

Nonetheless, this change could not be realized as long as the emergency laws were still in effect and as long as the press laws that inhibit freedom of expression were not changed. Many hoped that when the new parliament convened, new laws would be formulated and the press that formerly served the regime would begin to serve the public.

When parliament was dissolved in June by the constitutional court, once again questions arose about whether the press could wait until new elections and the formulation of a new constitution, or whether the newspapers themselves should undergo immediate change. The Shura Council, the upper house of parliament, which controls the Supreme Press Council, opted for immediate change. It appointed a committee to select new editors that supposedly represented the various media outlets, but in reality, most of its members where Justice and Freedom Party supporters and activists.

Soon enough it turned out that the committee was a cover for the Brotherhood to foment an ideological revolution in the newspapers. Salah Montaser, one of Egypt’s most prominent journalists, resigned from the committee; in his long and detailed resignation letter, he complained, among other things, of the criteria set by the editor selection committee, which determined that every candidate must submit his resume, his “career portfolio” and his plans for reform of his newspaper. The committee determined how many points each section was worth, and the candidate was judged according the points he accumulated.

Montaser was especially livid that well-known veteran journalists were forced to be lumped together with junior journalists and present their portfolio or propose reforms. He pointed out that Muslim Brotherhood committee members did not bother to show up at meetings, raising the suspicion that the whole process was preordained.

Other journalists joined Montaser’s criticism and some of them submitted a judicial appeal against the new appointments. One argument raised in the appeal was that several of the new editors were tainted by their ties with Israel, either by visiting Israel or writing pieces that could be interpreted as supporting normalization with Israel.

Supporting normalization with Israel is forbidden under journalists’ union regulations and it is inconceivable that someone who breached the union’s rules could serve as editor of a national newspaper, the appeal contended. Furthermore, the Shura Council is, as yet, still unauthorized to appoint editors, since it is still unclear if the new elections will also include elections to the Shura Council, it said.

The struggle against the new appointments is not personal. Rather, it is the beginning of a battle to shape the public discourse and the manner in which the Muslim Brotherhood will attempt to promote its agenda.

Still, considering the new media reality in Egypt (which is being fully exploited by the Brotherhood) in which the media dominate the determination of the public agenda and satellite television stations are capable of imposing political decisions, the battle for the control of the government press will be of major importance only in shaping the “intellectual elites.”

In the era of Mubarak and his predecessors, these elites played a central role, since with the support of the “regime’s intellectuals,” the president could claim civil legitimacy. The status of these intellectuals, including senior writers and pundits, could now be diminished as the government press is taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Category: General  Tags: , , , , , , ,  Leave a Comment

Obama Administration Draws Closer to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood

23
Jul 2012

The cozy relationship between the United States government and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood should be cause for concern both to Americans and to Israelis.  U.S. lawmakers are calling for an investigation into President Barack Obama’s administration to determine whether some associations with Islamists could be detrimental to the security of the United States.

U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann and several other lawmakers are asking federal officials to conclude whether there are potential Islamist infiltrators interacting with American agencies, including front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood.  (See also: “‘Gentlemen’s Club’ Gangs Up on Bachmann.”)

The Obama administration has displayed considerable favor towards the Muslim Brotherhood, beginning with the rejection of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak during the peak of the Egyptian revolution last year.  Bachmann, along with U.S. Representatives Trent Franks, Lynn Westmoreland, Louie Gohmert, and Thomas Rooney, wants to know why this favor has increased since Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi took office.

They are questioning how Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, received a security clearance to work for the State Department.  Some Middle East analysts conclude that Abedin, who has close family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood (see also “Saleha Abedin and the Muslim Sisterhood“), could be influencing U.S. foreign policy, especially if she is privy to classified information.  It has also been reported that Hani Nour Eldin, an Egyptian lawmaker with close ties to a U.S.-designated terrorist group, met with Obama administration officials in June 2012.

Just how much influence do sympathizers of the Muslim Brotherhood have in the formation of American foreign policy in the Middle East?

If U.S. foreign policy is driven by links to Islamists, this complicates the U.S. Strategic Cooperation Agreement with Israel.  Israeli officials have put their trust in the Obama White House to keep Israel’s interests in mind during this transitional period in Egyptian politics.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his great concern that the newly elected Egyptian president will keep the peace treaty intact, has depended on American diplomacy to deliver the right message to Morsi — one that will benefit America’s main ally in the Middle East…Israel.

Yet a recent meeting among Clinton, Morsi, and the latter’s foreign minister has revealed a new and worrisome development.  During a news conference in Cairo, Clinton stated:

More than three decades ago, Egypt and Israel signed a treaty that has allowed a generation to grow up without knowing war. And, on this foundation, we will work together to build a just, comprehensive, regional peace in the Middle East based on two states for two peoples with peace, security and dignity for all.

For the first time, the U.S. has publicly linked the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty to a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, as noted in Clinton’s remarks.  This is exactly what Morsi has stipulated in his public remarks, and it is a dangerous precedent set by the United States.

In the future, pressure on Israel to succumb to Palestinian aspirations may become an even greater demand of the Obama White House based on the influence of Islamists working within the American government.  Obama could have the strong backing of not only the State Department, but also other government agencies as he insists that Israel comply with certain Palestinian ultimatums in order to move the peace process forward.  Already, Israel is being asked, once again, to work on new concessions in order to bring the Palestinians back to the peace table.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is sticking to his declarations that Israel must halt construction in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and East Jerusalem, must accept a two-state solution based on the pre-1967 lines, and must release more than 100 Palestinians in Israeli jails.

A re-elected President Obama would have more leverage on Israel in his second term in office, because he would not have to depend on American Jewish support, as he does now leading up to the November 2012 election.  If Obama’s current Middle East policy continues, linking the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty to a comprehensive peace deal in the Middle East (foremost with the Palestinians), it will force Israel’s hand to comply not only with Palestinian demands, but also with Egyptian demands.  It will become a point of contention and increased friction between the Israeli and Egyptian governments.

At the recent news conference in Cairo, Egypt’s Foreign Minister Kamel Amr proclaimed that President Morsi “has repeatedly reaffirmed, and on all occasions, that Egypt continues to respect all treaties signed as long as the other party to the treaty respects the treaty itself.”

Does this mean that Morsi will look for an excuse to re-examine the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty because he feels that the Israeli government is not respecting the agreement in its refusal to meet Palestinian demands?

In his statement to the media, Foreign Minister Amr reiterated Morsi’s remarks regarding Egypt’s treaty with Israel and Egypt’s understanding of peace, “that it should be comprehensive, exactly, as stipulated in the treaty itself. And, this also includes the Palestinians, of course, and… their right [to] have their own state on the land that was – the pre-June 4th, 1967 borders – with Jerusalem as its capital.”

This statement strongly indicates that a newly formed Egyptian government can be expected to pressure Israel in order for peaceful relations with Egypt to continue.  This linkage is a clear sign of trouble ahead for Israel.  Morsi could accuse Israel of not adhering to the tenets of the Egyptian peace treaty because the Jewish state is unwilling to sign a comprehensive peace deal — not only with the Palestinians, but with other countries in the region as well.

What is unconscionable is that Obama is already aligning his foreign policy with Morsi’s, to the detriment of Israel.

Egypt has always been the leader of the Arab world and, until the country’s recent upheaval, has demonstrated its diplomatic power throughout the Middle East.

The last time Israel seriously entered into comprehensive peace negotiations was with Syria, brokered by Turkey, during former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s reign.  Now, diplomatic relations between Turkey and Israel have soured, and the Syrian government is about to fall.  That leaves Egypt, and a much weaker Jordan, to pick up the mantle of brokering a Middle East comprehensive peace deal.

Meanwhile, Israeli leaders should be protesting to U.S. officials privately, even if they are keeping a low profile publicly, about Obama’s foreign policy in regard to Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood.  U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns visited Morsi in early July.  He underscored America’s commitment to building a new partnership with a new democratic Egypt.  But there is serious doubt that Morsi’s vision for Egypt includes the formation of a democratic state in the way that America understands democracy.

Morsi, whose first official state visit was to Saudi Arabia, is expected to get needed financial aid to help Egypt’s ailing economy.  He also welcomes U.S. aid, but not in a way that will interfere with his ideology.  Obama seems to be ignoring this fact, hoping that U.S. influence will work in Egypt.  He recently invited Morsi to visit him in September.

Morsi is currently in a political battle with the ruling Egyptian army, which is delaying efforts to write and complete a new Egyptian constitution.  Secular Egyptians are not in agreement with Morsi’s Islamic doctrine, which was revealed in his campaign speech before supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood in May 2012.

At the time, Morsi proclaimed:

The Koran is our constitution. The Prophet Muhammad is our leader. Jihad is our path. And, death for the sake of Allah is our most holy aspiration. And, most of all, Allah is our goal. The Sharia; then the Sharia; and, finally the Sharia. This nation will enjoy blessing and revival only through the Islamic Sharia. I take an oath before Allah and before you all, that regardless of the actual text [of the constitution], Allah willing, the text will truly reflect [the Sharia], as will be agreed upon by the Egyptian people, by the Islamic scholars, and by legal and constitutional experts. Rejoice and rest assured that these people will not accept a text that does not reflect the true meaning of the Islamic Sharia as a text to be implemented and as a platform. The people will not agree to anything else.” (MEMRI video translation, 5/2012)

Obama’s Middle East policymakers have been misled in their appeasement of radical Islamists like Morsi, despite no guarantees that Egyptians will live in a free democratic society.  For Obama administration officials to fully embrace Morsi, knowing that he is not fully committed to the peace treaty with Israel, is a White House slap in the face to Israeli leaders.

Another concern is the increased favor Hamas has with the new Egyptian president and the parliament, which is dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood — the parent organization of Hamas.  Morsi and his government can be expected to turn a blind eye to the increased smuggling into Gaza of advanced weapons systems, whether supplied by Libyan operatives or Iran.  Recently, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal met with Morsi in Cairo and said that Morsi’s presidency was the start of a new era for Egypt and the Palestinians.  He confirmed Egypt’s leadership role in the Arab world.

Now, it is up to Morsi to show respect for all Egyptian citizens, whether secular or religious; to keep the peace with Israel regardless of Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians or neighboring Middle East countries; and to accept American economic aid in exchange for a peaceful transition to a free and democratic society.  That scenario is unlikely as Islamists take control of the Arab Spring and exercise their power in the Middle East.  It is time for American officials to stop their appeasement policies, wake up, and see the handwriting on the wall.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Category: General  Tags: , , , , , , ,  Leave a Comment

It Happened in January Donald Neff

17
Jul 2012

It was 23 years ago, on Jan. 18, 1974, that Egypt and Israel signed an armistice agreement officially ending their 1973 war. The agreement became known as Sinai I because it was signed in the Sinai peninsula and involved Israel’s occupation of that strategic desert. Sinai I had been achieved after a heavily publicized week of shuttling between the two countries by [Jewish] Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who for his efforts was hailed in the U.S. media as the Superman of diplomacy. It was only later that American taxpayers would learn that Sinai I laid the groundwork for the start of unprecedented massive aid to Israel by the United States, which continues to this day.

The aid program to Israel has amounted to the largest voluntary transfer of wealth and technology in history, far more than all American aid given to rehabilitate Western Europe under the Marshall Plan after World War II.

Sinai I was widely hailed in the West as a major diplomatic accomplishment. The Arab world more realistically considered it merely a modest first step in ending Israel’s occupation of Arab lands, held since 1967 and some of which remain under Israeli occupation today. Under the pact, Israel agreed to withdraw its forces west of the Suez Canal, thus liberating the Egyptian Third Army, which had remained surrounded by Israeli troops since the October war, and withdraw all its forces back 15 miles from the eastern side of the canal to positions west of the Gidi and Mitla passes. Between the two armies would be stationed a U.N. peace force.

While Kissinger’s diplomatic prowess was loudly credited in the United States for Sinai I, it was actually a secret agreement that he signed with Israel that had achieved the breakthrough. This secret commitment foreshadowed what was to become America’s huge aid program to Israel. The covert Memorandum of Understanding contained 10 detailed points, the most important being a far-reaching pledge that Washington would be responsive to Israel’s defense needs on a “continuing and long-term basis.”

The potential massive dimensions of that pledge began to become clear less than two years later when Kissinger, after another highly publicized shuttle between Cairo and Jerusalem, achieved what became known as Sinai II, signed on Sept. 4, 1975. The agreement was especially favorable to Israel, and considerably less so to Egypt. The major article involving Egypt committed that most powerful of Arab countries to abstain from the use of force to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, meaning in the words of scholar Abdel Safty: “Thus, the agreement marked Egypt’s military abandonment of its commitment to the right to liberate occupied Arab territories.”

For the Arabs, there was the bitter realization that Israel’s continued occupation of their territory was against official U.S. policy and the major instruments guiding international civilized behavior since World War II: the U.N. Charter and the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Yet it was Israel, not Egypt, that profited far more from Kissinger’s diplomacy.

Kissinger made no effort to demand that the occupation end in exchange for the treasury he was about to give Israel. Instead he assured Israel a level of annual aid at around $2 billion for the next five years and opened to Israel a cornucopia of other U.S. assets never imagined by the average U.S. taxpayer. The irony was that the amount of aid was of such magnitude that it allowed Israel to maintain the very occupation that the United States said it opposed.

It goes without enumeration that the staggering amount of money given to Israel would have been of significant impact in helping America address its own domestic problems, especially those in the ghettos of the crumbling cities.

Secret Understandings

Kissinger’s series of secret understandings included a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Israel in which he committed the United States to “make every effort to be fully responsive … on an on-going and long-term basis to Israel’s military equipment and other defense requirements, to its energy requirements and to its economic needs.” This was made at a time when the U.S. economy itself was reeling under the staggering costs of the oil boycott, which in turn had been imposed as a direct result of Washington’s ostentatious support of Israel during the 1973 war.

The memorandum also officially committed American support against threats by a “world power,” meaning the nuclear-equipped Soviet Union, and among other things promised:

     *America would guarantee for five years that Israel would be able to obtain all its domestic oil needs, from the United States if necessary.

     *America would pay for construction in Israel of storage facilities capable of storing a one-year’s supply of reserve oil needs.

     *America would conclude contingency planning to transport military supplies to Israel during an emergency.

     *America shared Israel’s position that any negotiations with Jordan would be for an overall peace settlement, that is, there would be no attempt at step-by-step diplomacy on the West Bank.

     *In a secret addendum to the secret MOU, America promised that the administration would submit every year to Congress a request for both economic and military aid for Israel. It also asserted that the “United States is resolved to continue to maintain Israel’s defensive strength through the supply of advanced types of equipment, such as the F-16 aircraft.” In addition, America agreed to study the transfer of “high technology and sophisticated items, including the Pershing ground-to-ground missile,” which is usually used to deliver atomic warheads.

     *In another secret memorandum, Kissinger committed America not to “recognize or negotiate with the Palestine Liberation Organization as long as the Palestine Liberation Organization does not recognize Israel’s right to exist and does not accept Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.” This language was passed into law by Congress in 1985.

     *The United States would coordinate fully on strategy for any future meetings of the Geneva Conference. Thus, with Israel and the United States refusing to recognize the PLO and with powerful groups within the PLO refusing to accept Resolutions 242 and 338, the stalemate on the West Bank was set in concrete, much to Israel’s satisfaction.

     *In a separate secret letter signed by President Ford, the United States promised Israel that it would not put forward any peace proposals without first discussing them with the Israelis. This was a significant concession since it gave Israel, in effect, a direct input to formulation of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

     *In addition, President Ford signed a secret letter promising that the United States “will lend great importance to Israel’s position that any peace treaty with Syria must be based on Israel’s remaining on the Golan Heights.”

For this colossal commitment of U.S. wealth, technology and diplomatic support, Israel agreed to withdraw its forces between 20 to 40 miles east of the Suez Canal. This left well over half of Sinai under continuing Israeli occupation. Israel’s major concession was to give up Egypt’s oil fields, which lay on the western edge of the Sinai. The withdrawal resulted in Israeli forces being deployed east of the Gidi and Mitla passes, which were turned into observation posts. The United States pledged to set up and pay for stations manned by two hundred Americans to protect both sides from violations. The arrangement replaced U.N. peacekeepers, who Israel opposed as being prejudiced against it even though U.N. reports from the field had proved to be rigorously objective over the decades.

Defense Minister Shimon Peres summed up the benefits to Israel of Sinai II: “The … agreement [assures] us arms, money, a coordinated policy with Washington and quiet in Sinai … We gave up a little to get a lot.”

Indeed, there is no example in history when one nation granted to another such enormous amounts of wealth and array of commitments as Henry Kissinger’s Sinai II agreement. This perhaps helps explain the tantalizing reference to Kissinger in the memoirs of Yitzhak Rabin, prime minister at the time of Sinai II, in which he wrote: “The story of Kissinger’s contribution to Israel’s security has yet to be told, and for the present suffice it to say that it was of prime importance.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

Category: General  Tags: , , , , , , ,  Leave a Comment
« Previous Entries