THE PITIFUL ISRAELIS
by Jan Willem van der Hoeven
Director International Christian Zionist Center
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000
How is it possible that the usually clever Israelis are so void of understanding when it comes to relating to their enemies death wish upon them? It is much like the Jews in Europe who, by continually trying to accommodate the ever increasing measures of enmity by the Nazis, thought that they would thus placate their enemies maybe to let them live their lives in peace however humiliated and abused. Like a battered woman running after the one that again and again beats her hoping against hope that one day he will live in peace with her.
How is it possible whereas there is such manifold and clear proof and documentation of this that still Israeli politicians and journalists can believe in the stupid assertion that only through negotiations such as Oslo, Camp David, etc, can their finally come peace to this region. Whereas it is clear for anyone who is willing to see that even if an Israeli government would offer more than Ehud Barak did at Camp David there would still not be peace because all the main sections of the Palestinian side still want the destruction or dissolving of all of Israel as the only way to peace in this region.
How is it that Israelis refuse to see and reckon with this absolute clear reality? How much further have they come in resisting and overcoming the death wish of their enemies all of them, including Egypt than the poor Jews of Europe that felt that in order to have a chance to live they had to give in until it was too late!
What nonsense is this often-repeated mantra: In the end there is no other way than to go back to the negotiating table. We cannot choose our partners for peace; we just have to find a way to live with them. What nonsense is this? Did we say that concerning our neighbours in Europe? Did we say in Holland, Denmark and Norway, "We just have to learn to live with Adolf Hitler. We cannot choose our neighbours; we just have to live with them"?
There is peace in Europe now for over fifty years because we did not accept Hitler or his Nazi's. In the end we allowed the Allied Armies to win a war not just a battle and endless ceasefires with even more endless negotiations with an unwilling enemy Hitler. We won a war and therefore with God's help and mercy we won a peace that has now lasted for more than half a century. If only Israel's leaders could be as wise as those Western leaders that even when the Nazi's sent their clever 'peace ploys' - men like Rudolf Hess - to Britain to weaken the Allied forces resolve on the way to victory. They were totally ignored and a peace was won not by peace negotiations but by a war that was won.
Peace you do not make with enemies, war you make with enemies and when you win then your enemies will make peace with you! That is the lesson of the histories of war and peace. You have to win a war in order to achieve a peace, Mr. Peres!
It was the unwillingness of most European Jewry especially their own leaders that made them such easy victims and objects of Nazi aggression. And if after all we have seen and suffered there are still Israelis who do not believe that the great majority of Muslim Arabs and Palestinians are so pro-Germans or should we say pro-Nazi's - because deep within their hearts they aspire to the same aims as the Nazis the "it bah el Jahud" syndrome the time so fervently hope for by nearly all of them that Israel will be no more then why do they not listen to what they say among themselves? Why is it that most have no serious problems with what Hitler had done? Why is "Mein Kampf" still required reading in many of their universities and the Holocaust denied?
I want to end with one of the recent expressions of this 'Hitler-like' aim versus the sovereign Jewish state as reported by the Middle East Media and Research Institute (MEMRI) on 21 November 2000, "Three Palestinian Viewpoints on the Intifada and the Future of the Palestinian State":
Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based Arabic news channel, recently hosted a debate on the future of the Intifada and the Palestinian state. (1) Three Palestinian figures participated in the program, representing the three leading political viewpoints of the Palestinian public today. PA Minister of Information, Yasser Abd Rabbo represented the PA's official position, Deputy head of Hamas' political bureau, Musa Abu Marzuq represented the position of the militant Islamic movement, and Bilal Al-Hassan, an analyst with the London-based daily, Al-Hayat, represented the position of the Palestinian left.
Abu Marzuq explained that Hamas has no objection to such a state and even said, "A State within the borders of the West Bank and Gaza would be considered an achievement at the present stage." However, he promptly added, "it is clear that if a state is established within the 1967 borders, these will not be its final borders. We must further aspire for borders that will include Palestine in its entirety."
PA Minister Abd Rabbo, on the other hand, refused to elaborate on what will happen once a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders is established. "There is almost a consensus among Palestinians that the direct goal is to reach the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the June 4, 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital," he said, "[but] regarding to the future after that, it is best to leave the issue aside and not to discuss it."
Bilal Al-Hassan: "at this stage we talk about a state within the 1967 borders, but this is not the end of the story." This unified Palestine, once the Palestinian state is established, can come about in one of two ways: through peace, or through war. It can be established through peace, if the Israelis accept the logic of a [unified] democratic Palestinian state. If they don't accept this logic, then the logic of history will lead to a confrontation."
So if after all this, there are still politicians who want to prove that they were right and will continue nevertheless with the so-called 'peace process' than let us realise that even if they bring about such a 'peace agreement' by offering in a next Camp David-like meeting Arafat even more: that is a Palestinian State on all the area occupied by Israel since the Six Day War with East Jerusalem as its sovereign capital! Even then that would not be the end of the conflict, it would be yes an acceptable intermediate phase for most Muslims and Palestinians till they would feel strong enough to take the rest of Israel. So why negotiate at all if all it means that we make it easier under the present circumstances for our enemies to finish off what will be left of us?
Table of Contents