We've been hearing about the "concessions" that Fatah -- the PLO under a new name -- was prepared to make to Israel. Fine word, "concessions," But before we get to that word to see if it is relevant, a brief review in history class is called for. Remember, the midterm on the Middle East is coming up. Study hard, and good luck!
So here's that review:
The Jews in the nascent state of israel defeated the armies of seven Arab states in the 1948-49 war. However, Ben Gurion decided not to press his advantage, and called for a halt in hostilities when the army of Jordan (trained and armed by the British, who also armed, and to some degree trained, the armies of Egypt and Iraq, but before the war broke out had ruthlessly enforced a complete arms embargo on the Jews of Mandatory Palestine) was in possession of parts of Judea and Samaria in Western Palestine (The British had already lopped off all of Eastern Palestine, unilaterally rejecting the application of the terms of the Mandate for Palestine for any part east of the river Jordan).
After nearly 20,000 separate fedayin attacks from Egypt, Israel went to war in 1956 and gained the entire Sinai, which it proceeded to yield after the Great Powers supposedly extracted certain promises from Nasser -- some of which promises be broke within 24 hours of the withdrawal of Israeli forces.
In mid-May 1967 Nasser demanded of U Thant that he remove the U.N. peacekeepers in the Sinai, and he mobilized his army, and addressed crazed Cairene crowds of hundreds of thousands, promising them the imminent destruction of Israel. Egyptain ships blockaded the Straits of Tiran, Israel's shipping life-line.
The Six Day War ended with Israel in possession, for the second time, of the entire Sinai, and of Gaza, and of those parts of Judea and Samaria that the Jordanians had seized, and held onto, from 1949 to 1967, territories that the Jordanians had renamed the "West Bank" so as to attempt to efface the Jewish connection -- obvious in such toponyms as Judea and Samaria -- to that land. Curiously, Egypt had never bothered to change the name of Gaza, and that "Biblical name" -- a phrase with which shallow reporters like to impliedly take Israel to task, as if there is something wrong with using names as ancient as those in the Bible -- but what then of such toponyms as "Arabia" and "Egypt"?
The Yom Kippur War began with Egyptian and Syrian forces in a surprise attack on Israel. The attack was not only beaten back, but Israel managed to win what was surely not the largest, but the greatest, tank battle in history, near Mount Hermon, and in the Sinai, Sharon's forces surrounded, and could have destroyed, the Egyptain Third Army, had Kissinger not stepped in to pressure Israel into holding back, and letting the Egyptians escape.
For more than four decades "peace-making"-- beginning with Kissinger's shuttling, and the Rogers Plan, and then there was James Baker, and the four horsemen of the apocalypse, Dennis Ross, and Martin Indyk (as Amerian ambassador to israel strutting around like a viceroy), and Aaron David Miller and Richard Hass, all of them believing that "everyone knew" what "a settlement will look like" -- everyone, that is, except those who understaood that there was no "solution" to what is an endless Jihad against Israel, and no matter how you mix-n'-match what Miller and Hass and Ross and Indyk (and so many others too, who just can't stay away from the topic, but just can't be bothered to figure out, much less factor in, Islam) securityjerusalemsettlementsrefugees, or refugeessetllementsJerusalemsecurity, or settlementsJerusalemrefugeessecurity -- oh, go ahead, share with us the order you'd like to stack that deck, play n choose k to your stochastic-processes heart's content, do -- but don't wake us, at this point, till it's over.
Now we are coming to the apotheosis of idiocy, in The Guardian, and the BBC, with the notion that the "Palestinians" were offering "concessions."
What?
The "Palestinians" have no "concessions" to offer. It is Israel that is currently, by force of arms, in possession of the territories to which it has title, by the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine, and by Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, which requires the U.N. to accept, and not change, the undertakings of the League of Nations as its predecessor.
The "Palestinians" are not making "concessions" when the Slow Jihadists of Fatah -- both more patient and realistic, in their differences on matters of tactics and timing with the Fast Jihadists of Hamas -- contemplate, if indeed they do contemplate, not repeating in private the maximalist and ridiculous positions they insist on in public. No one should be impressed with the farrago of lies and half-lies and semi-truths and possible full-truths, which may madden Hamas, but which the Anti-Israel (and necessarily pro-Islam) lobby in the West uses as yet another stick with which to beat Israel for not, you see, "responding" -- which apparently means Israelis, even if they have at long last grasped the significance of the history of all their previous treaty-making with Muslim Arabs, and furthermore, have come in greater numbers to understand, even if those always pressuring them do not, the central relevance of Islam, which makes it folly to rely on any "Peace Treaty" which is not only not the same thing as "Peace," but almost certainly will lead to the very opposite of peace.
Did the Nazis make "concessions" to the Allies in June 1945? Did the Japanese make "concessions" to the American government in September 1945? No? Then why should anyone claim that the "Palestinian" Arabs, the shock troops of the Jihad against Israel, are the ones making "concessions"? Only Israel has ever made "concessions" that counted. No Arab state has yet sacrificed anything, the way Israel has, for example, not once but twice, given up the entire Sinai, though it was not obligated to under international law, and in doing so with Sadat, gave up real claims, and real land, land given not for "peace" but for "promises" of an end to hostilities, and an encouragement by the government of Egypt of friendly relations, which encouragement never came. ,
The only "concessions" being made are those being made by Israel. The local Arabs are giving up nothing.Their words are to be understood as they, and other Muslims, understand the words and promises of Muhammad made to the Meccans in 628 A.D. at Hudaibiyya. That is the model for Muslim treaty-making with Infidels. The Israelis are Infidels. Israel is an Infidel nation-state. Its existence, the very idea of its existence, cannot be tolerated. But some are willing to wait, to go in for the kill, and others not willing. Therein lies the whole fight between the Fast Jihadists and the Slow Jihadists. Sympathizers with the former no doubtr released documents to embarrass the latter. But the embarrassment should only be among Muslim Arabs. We who are neither Muslims nor Arabs should take no interest in, no notice of, what is essentially meaningless, missing-the-pointness, if one looks not to "treaties" but to Darura -- the "necessity" for Arabs not to go to war if Israel remains overwhelmingly, and obviously, stronger in a military sense. In all other senses, Israel is, and always will be stronger. There is no moral question here, but only a military one.
So here's that review:
The Jews in the nascent state of israel defeated the armies of seven Arab states in the 1948-49 war. However, Ben Gurion decided not to press his advantage, and called for a halt in hostilities when the army of Jordan (trained and armed by the British, who also armed, and to some degree trained, the armies of Egypt and Iraq, but before the war broke out had ruthlessly enforced a complete arms embargo on the Jews of Mandatory Palestine) was in possession of parts of Judea and Samaria in Western Palestine (The British had already lopped off all of Eastern Palestine, unilaterally rejecting the application of the terms of the Mandate for Palestine for any part east of the river Jordan).
After nearly 20,000 separate fedayin attacks from Egypt, Israel went to war in 1956 and gained the entire Sinai, which it proceeded to yield after the Great Powers supposedly extracted certain promises from Nasser -- some of which promises be broke within 24 hours of the withdrawal of Israeli forces.
In mid-May 1967 Nasser demanded of U Thant that he remove the U.N. peacekeepers in the Sinai, and he mobilized his army, and addressed crazed Cairene crowds of hundreds of thousands, promising them the imminent destruction of Israel. Egyptain ships blockaded the Straits of Tiran, Israel's shipping life-line.
The Six Day War ended with Israel in possession, for the second time, of the entire Sinai, and of Gaza, and of those parts of Judea and Samaria that the Jordanians had seized, and held onto, from 1949 to 1967, territories that the Jordanians had renamed the "West Bank" so as to attempt to efface the Jewish connection -- obvious in such toponyms as Judea and Samaria -- to that land. Curiously, Egypt had never bothered to change the name of Gaza, and that "Biblical name" -- a phrase with which shallow reporters like to impliedly take Israel to task, as if there is something wrong with using names as ancient as those in the Bible -- but what then of such toponyms as "Arabia" and "Egypt"?
The Yom Kippur War began with Egyptian and Syrian forces in a surprise attack on Israel. The attack was not only beaten back, but Israel managed to win what was surely not the largest, but the greatest, tank battle in history, near Mount Hermon, and in the Sinai, Sharon's forces surrounded, and could have destroyed, the Egyptain Third Army, had Kissinger not stepped in to pressure Israel into holding back, and letting the Egyptians escape.
For more than four decades "peace-making"-- beginning with Kissinger's shuttling, and the Rogers Plan, and then there was James Baker, and the four horsemen of the apocalypse, Dennis Ross, and Martin Indyk (as Amerian ambassador to israel strutting around like a viceroy), and Aaron David Miller and Richard Hass, all of them believing that "everyone knew" what "a settlement will look like" -- everyone, that is, except those who understaood that there was no "solution" to what is an endless Jihad against Israel, and no matter how you mix-n'-match what Miller and Hass and Ross and Indyk (and so many others too, who just can't stay away from the topic, but just can't be bothered to figure out, much less factor in, Islam) securityjerusalemsettlementsrefugees, or refugeessetllementsJerusalemsecurity, or settlementsJerusalemrefugeessecurity -- oh, go ahead, share with us the order you'd like to stack that deck, play n choose k to your stochastic-processes heart's content, do -- but don't wake us, at this point, till it's over.
Now we are coming to the apotheosis of idiocy, in The Guardian, and the BBC, with the notion that the "Palestinians" were offering "concessions."
What?
The "Palestinians" have no "concessions" to offer. It is Israel that is currently, by force of arms, in possession of the territories to which it has title, by the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine, and by Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, which requires the U.N. to accept, and not change, the undertakings of the League of Nations as its predecessor.
The "Palestinians" are not making "concessions" when the Slow Jihadists of Fatah -- both more patient and realistic, in their differences on matters of tactics and timing with the Fast Jihadists of Hamas -- contemplate, if indeed they do contemplate, not repeating in private the maximalist and ridiculous positions they insist on in public. No one should be impressed with the farrago of lies and half-lies and semi-truths and possible full-truths, which may madden Hamas, but which the Anti-Israel (and necessarily pro-Islam) lobby in the West uses as yet another stick with which to beat Israel for not, you see, "responding" -- which apparently means Israelis, even if they have at long last grasped the significance of the history of all their previous treaty-making with Muslim Arabs, and furthermore, have come in greater numbers to understand, even if those always pressuring them do not, the central relevance of Islam, which makes it folly to rely on any "Peace Treaty" which is not only not the same thing as "Peace," but almost certainly will lead to the very opposite of peace.
Did the Nazis make "concessions" to the Allies in June 1945? Did the Japanese make "concessions" to the American government in September 1945? No? Then why should anyone claim that the "Palestinian" Arabs, the shock troops of the Jihad against Israel, are the ones making "concessions"? Only Israel has ever made "concessions" that counted. No Arab state has yet sacrificed anything, the way Israel has, for example, not once but twice, given up the entire Sinai, though it was not obligated to under international law, and in doing so with Sadat, gave up real claims, and real land, land given not for "peace" but for "promises" of an end to hostilities, and an encouragement by the government of Egypt of friendly relations, which encouragement never came. ,
The only "concessions" being made are those being made by Israel. The local Arabs are giving up nothing.Their words are to be understood as they, and other Muslims, understand the words and promises of Muhammad made to the Meccans in 628 A.D. at Hudaibiyya. That is the model for Muslim treaty-making with Infidels. The Israelis are Infidels. Israel is an Infidel nation-state. Its existence, the very idea of its existence, cannot be tolerated. But some are willing to wait, to go in for the kill, and others not willing. Therein lies the whole fight between the Fast Jihadists and the Slow Jihadists. Sympathizers with the former no doubtr released documents to embarrass the latter. But the embarrassment should only be among Muslim Arabs. We who are neither Muslims nor Arabs should take no interest in, no notice of, what is essentially meaningless, missing-the-pointness, if one looks not to "treaties" but to Darura -- the "necessity" for Arabs not to go to war if Israel remains overwhelmingly, and obviously, stronger in a military sense. In all other senses, Israel is, and always will be stronger. There is no moral question here, but only a military one.
No comments:
Post a Comment