You are here: Home / Archives for Israel

The Gingrich Who Stole Palestine

December 14, 2011 By Leave a Comment
VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 7.0/7 (3 votes cast)

Gingrich Stole
“We have invented the Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs…..” Newt Gingrich on The Jewish Channel (Cable TV), December 12, 2011

“The Palestinian people does not exist,…only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of the Palestinian people.” Zahir Muhsein, Member of the PLO Executive Committee, 1977

The former House Speaker apparently agrees with Mr. Muhsein that Arabs living in the former Palestine Mandate territory do not constitute a separate people, but are merely a segment of the Arab people in one geographical area. He also agrees that the term “Palestinians” was invented to create an Arab state in place of the Jewish State of Israel.

The basic historical facts are not in dispute. The first time “Palestini” occurs in world literature is in the work of the Greek historian Herodotus, who wrote in the 5th century BCE. The land which is now Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Gaza was named “Syria Palestina” by Roman Emperor Hadrian about 165 CE after he crushed the Bar Kochba Revolt in Judaea. The Arab newspaper Filasteen referred to its readers as “Palestinians” around 1911, and the first Syrian-Palestinian Congress met in 1921. Residents of the Palestine Mandate (both Jewish and Arab) were referred to as Palestinians in Article 7 of the League of Nations Mandate. (Wikipedia)

The British severed the eastern part of Palestine in 1922 to form the Kingdom of Transjordan, now Jordan. In November 1947, the UN voted to partition western Palestine into a Jewish state (Israel) and an Arab state. During the ensuing war the West Bank of the Jordan River was seized by Jordan, and Gaza by Egypt, so Palestine disappeared from the maps of the world altogether. But Arabs continued to refer to all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean as Palestine, and several terrorist organizations were formed to “liberate Palestine” from the Zionists (Jews). In the course of the 1967 Six Day War Israel conquered both Gaza and the West Bank, bringing nearly 4 million Arabs under Israeli rule. Israel offered to withdraw from these territories in exchange for peace and recognition, but until 1977 no Arab nation agreed. The peace treaty with Egypt made that year left the Palestine question open to subsequent negotiation.

The Arab League had 19 years (1948 to 1967) to establish a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, but did not do so. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), formed by Yassir Arafat in 1964, explicitly denied any designs on the lands held by Egypt and Jordan; the goal was to replace Israel with an Arab state. In 1993 Arafat and PLO agreed to recognize Israel and accept Gaza and the West Bank as the “new Palestine,” but he made it clear to his fellow Arab leaders (but not to Israel or the US) that this was merely a first step toward the ultimate goal of one Arab state in the entire land. Israel assisted in setting up the Palestine Authority (PA) in Gaza and the West Bank, and offered in 2000 to establish a State of Palestine there. Arafat rejected this offer, and his successor Mahmoud Abbas rejected a similar offer in 2008. Meanwhile Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza, which was quickly taken over by the fanatical Islamist Hamas regime, which rejects any peace with Israel.

By building a fence around Gaza and the West Bank, Israel has essentially severed both lands from “Israel proper,” even though several hundred thousand Jews live in the West Bank among over two million Arabs, who call themselves “Palestinians” (even if Gingrich won’t). The US Government, under both Presidents George W Bush and Barack Obama, have sought to establish an Arab state in the two territories, much as the UN proposed back in 1947. Israel also supports the concept, but with several security caveats. Yet Israel and the PA are very far apart on issues such the future of Jerusalem, the West Bank settlements and possible rights of Palestinian Arabs to settle in Israel.

I contend that the PA dares not accept any deal to which Israel could possibly agree, so no State of Palestine will be established in the foreseeable future. Obama foolishly promised the Palestinians a state of their own in 2009, and now he cannot deliver one. Meanwhile, his carping crticism of Israel over expanding the settlements has alienated Jewish voters, who supported him overwhelmingly in 2008.

Although Newt Gingrich has repudiated the position of Republican President George W Bush, his rejection of Palestinian nationhood is politcally smart. This stance will appeal to both Jews and evangelical Christians, and the latter are important in Republican primaries and caucuses, especially in the early states of Iowa and South Carolina. If Gingrich is nominated, he will pull crucial Jewish votes away from Obama in New York and Florida.

In the unlikely event that Newt Gingrich becomes President,. at some point he will have to explain to the Palestinians and their allies in the Arab world why he does not believe they exist.

Gerald S Glazer
_____________________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 7.0/7 (3 votes cast)
Filed Under: Guest Post Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Democracy: Path to Peace?

December 7, 2011 By Leave a Comment
VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Democracy Path To Peace
Philosopher Immanuel Kant once wrote that the majority of people would never go to war, except in self-defense. If so, an increase in democracy should lead to a more peaceful world. President Woodrow Wilson made this principle a key goal in World War I.

The history of the past century would appear to confirm this view. The nations that provoked the great wars of that century were either empires (Austria-Hungary, Wilhelmine Germany and Japan) or fascist dictatorships (Nazi Germany and Italy). Moreover, since World War II the dictatorial regimes that started the War were replaced by democracies, and all have kept the peace. Russia today, although not fully democratic, does not pose the threat to Europe that its Communist predecessor did. Similarly, the new democracy in Iraq is no threat to peace, in sharp contrast to the tyrannical regime of Sadam Hussein.

A drive to replace dictatorship with democracy has swept the Middle East in 2011; but will that mean a more peaceful region in the future?

Egypt, the largest and most powerful Arab state, has been under military rule since the overthrow of King Farouk in 1952 by Col. Gamal Abdul Nasser. Nasser embarked upon an aggressive policy: seizing the Suez canal in 1956, sending troops to Yemen in the early 1960′s, and deliberately provoking two wars with Israel (1956 and 1967), both of which Egypt lost. After his death in 1970, his successor, Anwar Sadat, launched another war against Israel in 1973, but made a peace treaty with the Jewish state in 1977, for which he was assassinated in 1981. The assassins were aligned with the miitant Muslim Brotherhood, which had been ruthlessly suppressed by both Nasser and Sadat.

Hosni Mubarak, who succeeded the slain Sadat, maintained Sadat’s policies of peace with Israel and suppression of the Islamists. But the overthrow of Mubarak earlier this year has given the Brotherhood and allied Islamic parties the opportunity to run for seats in the parliament, and perhaps the presidency. The first round of parliamentary elections last week was won by these parties.

If Kant and Wilson were right, the majority of Egyptians will opt for peace, so democracy in Egypt will be good for Israel and other nations in the region. But polls have shown that most Egyptians hate Israel with a passion, and only the repressive rule of the military has maintained the peace. It is significant that since Mubarak was forced out, the military junta now in power has opened the border with Gaza in response to popular sympathy with the Palestinians. In Egyptian politics, hostility to Israel is a major theme, like anti-communism was in the US in the early 1950′s.

In the western democracies the role of religion in setting national policies has declined over the past century, but in the Middle East the power of militant Islam is rising. At first it was the overthrow of the Shah of Iran by the ayatollahs in 1979, then the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, now the victories by militant Muslim parties in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt. Unlike Christianity, which espouses “Peace on Earth”, the branch of Islam embraced by Al Qaida, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood extols jihad (holy war) against the infidels (non-Muslims). That is why the conclusions of Christians like Kant and Wilson do not apply to Muslim countries: democracy may well empower jihadists, who will use the powers of government to provoke wars.

The best hope for peace in the Middle East is that the Arab masses will recognize that peace is in their interest, and they will curb the jihadists among them.

Gerald S Glazer

————————————————————————————-
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)
Filed Under: Guest Post Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Israel Is The Issue

September 21, 2011 By 3 Comments
VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 6.3/7 (2 votes cast)

“(Obama has been) throwing Israel under the bus!” Former Gov. Mitt Romney. (1)

“The Obama administration has appeased the Arab street…” Gov. Rick Perry (1)

These candidates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination have pounced on one of President Obama’s major vulnerabilities: his tepid record of support for Israel. Since Evangelical Christians are strong backers of the Jewish state, both candidates are also appealing to this group, which can play a significant role in GOP primaries.

But are they right about Obama? Although the President has consistently supported and approved aid to Israel (as promised by previous presidents) and gave it the Iron Dome missile-defense system ($200 billion paid by the US), Obama has tilted American policy toward the Palestinian cause three ways:

1. The Cairo Speech. Obama declared American ties to Israel “unbreakable,” but also promised the creation of a Palestinian state on land won by Israel in 1967. Since this promise was not contingent upon any concessions by the Arab side, the Palestinians have held out for their maximalist demands, assured as they were of American support.

2. The 1967 Borders. The President called for negotiations based upon the pre-Six Day War borders, with “swaps” of some land. But the Palestine Authority has executed Arabs for selling land to Jews, so it will never voluntarily transfer any land (especially in or near Jerusalem, a city holy to Islam) to Israel—so there will be no “swaps.” And Israel will not withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, which the present government deems indefensible.

3. Jerusalem. Eastern Jerusalem was annexed by Israel in 1968, and it includes the Old City and Temple Mount, where Jews intend to rebuild the Beth HaMikdash (Temple) in Messianic times. There is virtually no chance than any Israeli government, now or in the foreseeable future, will cede any substantial part of this city to the Palestinians. In 2008 Barack Obama assured the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that Jerusalem would be the “undivided capital of Israel”, but subsequently complained incessantly every time Israel has even proposed building housing in East Jerusalem. This has encouraged the Palestinians to stiffen their demands about “settlements” in Jerusalem and the West Bank.

As a result, Jews are abandoning Obama, who garnered about 78% of their votes in 2008. The Republican victory in Anthony Weiner’s former congressional district, perhaps the most Jewish in the nation, is a sign that Jewish antipathy toward Obama is strong enough to sink other Democratic candidates. Without a big Jewish vote, Obama cannot carry New York in 2012, and without New York’s electoral votes, Obama cannot be re-elected. (No Democrat since Truman has won the presidency without New York.)

Even if he orders that the US veto a Security Council resolution recognizing the State of Palestine later this month, it may be too late for Barack Obama to win back crucial Jewish support. If he is the Democratic nominee, he will not only lose the presidency, but may also drag down other Democratic nominees for the Senate and House with him. So, if Obama really cares about health care, jobs and taxes, he should decline to seek the Democratic nomination for another term, so that a more popular Democrat (probably Hillary Clinton) can be nominated and go on to win. President Hayes declined to run in 1880, and his party kept the presidency. (2)

Gerald S Glazer

—————————————————————–

(1) Associated Press, Sept. 21, 2011.

(2) The Republicans nominated James Garfield, who won. Hayes was the last president to decline to seek renomination after only four years in the White House.

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not be verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 6.3/7 (2 votes cast)
Filed Under: Guest Post Tagged With: , , , ,