http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/148221#.TnzlkezmmBM
In a historic speech before the United Nations General Assembly on Friday, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas officially asked the UN for recognition of a Palestinian state.
Abbas started his speech by referring to Israel as “an occupying power who has committed ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people, pushing them away from their ancestral homeland.” He spoke of the “brutality” of the IDF’s military checkpoints, saying that Israel is conducting a war of aggression in Gaza which includes assassinations and airstrikes against schools and hospitals.
He said that that it is a fait accompli that there will be the “rise of Palestine.”
“Our people will continue their popular, peaceful resistance,” Abbas declared. “This Israeli settlement policy will destroy the chances of achieving a two-state solution and threatens to undermine the structure of the Palestinian National Authority and even end its existence.”
He added that he holds the Israeli government responsible for the expansionist movement of the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, saying that this will destroy chances of peace. Abbas warned that this problem will be transformed into a religious conflict and said that it is “impossible for us to accept unilateral actions” on the part of the Israeli government.
“We urge the UN to declare the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,” Abbas said, adding that he personally and many other Arabs were forced to leave their homes and villages by the Israeli ‘occupiers’ in 1948.
Abbas said that he was willing to compromise for peace in that he is accepting only 22 percent of historic Palestine as a state. He added that his objectives are: realization of inalienable rights of the Palestinian people with East Jerusalem and Gaza as part of a state; resolving the issue of Arab refugees as outlined in UN resolution 194; and releasing PA Arab prisoners, whom he called ‘prisoners of conscience,’ from Israeli jails; His fourth objective, he said, is to have Israel renounce violence by the settlers.
The PA Chairman said that the PA and the PLO would renounce violence as well, adding that the PLO is immediately willing to return to negotiations if these demands are met.
He blamed Israel for shattering every peace initiative, saying that it is far more dangerous to circumvent the issue of Palestinian statehood and there should be “no business as usual” until it is resolved. He confirmed his readiness for immediate independence and said he would be submitting an application for full membership as an independent member state of the UN.
Abbas said there cannot be negotiations for peace without clear parameters and timetables. He claimed Israeli military occupation has altered the borders of a Palestinian state and has changed demographics, and said that is totally unacceptable. He called this a “moment of truth” and added he was waiting for the world to say that they will not allow Israel to “occupy us forever.”
“Enough, enough, enough,” declared Abbas upon speaking about 63 years of tragedy for his people and charging Israel with being “above the law.”
“Are we an unnecessary and unwanted people?” he queried.
Abbas also said that the world is testing the worthiness of the Palestinians and spoke of their desire to be a peaceful nation while maintaining the rule of law and order and enhancing economic self-reliance to reduce the need for foreign aid. He spoke of creating infrastructure projects in marginalized areas as well as of instituting public freedoms, rights for women, and a government of “accountability and transparency.”
He spoke of the “Palestinian Spring”, a time when displaced refugees can return home, a time of independence when men, women and children can lead normal lives, and accused Israel of seizing Palestinian land and burning olive trees.
Abbas then said Palestinian people want to “enjoy a normal life like the rest of humanity.”
Finally, he said that justice is possible and the loss of hope is the enemy of peace. He then confirmed that he is submitting an application for a sovereign and independent homeland. Holding up a copy of the application, he said it contains a request full member nation status in the UN based on the June 4, 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Abbas requested that the UN Secretary General expedite the transmittal of the application to the Security Council. He said that the greatest contribution to peace is by the Palestinians having full membership as a UN nation state.
(Arutz Sheva’s North American Desk is keeping you updated until the start of Shabbat in New York. The time posted automatically on all Arutz Sheva articles, however, is Israeli time.)
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/148223#.TnzmgOzmmBM
Foreign Minister Avigddor Lieberman slammed on Friday the speech by Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in the United Nations and labeled it an incitement.
Lieberman, who walked out as an act of protest during Abbas’ speech, told Israel’s Channel 10 News, “Abbas’ speech was one of most difficult incitement. I’ve never heard such a speech from him before.”
“It was an appeal to the darkest side,” added Lieberman. “He said Israel is deliberately digging underneath holy Arab places, he said that ‘price tag’ groups are sponsored by the IDF, he said the IDF sics dogs on Palestinians. He spoke of Arafat’s ethos and said that all the prisoners are political prisoners. Looks like the murderers of the Fogel family are also political prisoners.”
When asked whether there is a chance of a future return to negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, Lieberman replied. “I guess they have made a strategic decision not to negotiate. Since this government was established, we’ve offered to sit down for negotiations. It was a difficult decision for us to stop building in Judea and Samaria for ten months, but after this speech is clear that the Palestinians have no intention of returning to negotiations.”
Other senior political officials also slammed Abbas’ speech, telling Channel 10 they were sorry that the PA Chairman used his visit to New York to attack Israel instead of meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu.
“We heard nothing but propaganda in this speech,” the officials said.
In his speech, Abbas said he holds the Israeli government responsible for the expansionist movement of the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, saying that this will destroy chances of peace. He blamed Israel for shattering every peace initiative and claimed that Israel has been occupying ‘Palestinian’ territories for 63 years.
He confirmed that he is submitting an application for a sovereign and independent homeland, which he said contains a request for full member nation status in the UN based on the June 4, 1967 borders.
(Arutz Sheva’s North American Desk is keeping you updated until the start of Shabbat in New York. The time posted automatically on all Arutz Sheva articles, however, is Israeli time.)
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/148222#.Tnzm8ezmmBM
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations General Assembly on Friday, just a short time after Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas officially submitted his bid for membership of a Palestinian state in the world body.
Netanyahu began by saying that he extends his hand to peace to all the surrounding nations, including Egypt, Jordan and Turkey with whom relations have been rough lately, and also to Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran.
“But most especially I extend my hand to the Palestinian people with whom we seek a just and lasting peace,” Netanyahu said.
He spoke of Israel’s hope for peace which never wanes, and reminded the audience of all the good things Israel has, such as doctors, scientists, innovators who work to improve the work of tomorrow, and its artists and writers who “enrich the heritage of humanity.”
Netanyahu added, “I know that this is not exactly the image of Israel that is often portrayed in this hall. After all, it was here in 1975 that the age-old yearning of my people to restore our national life in our ancient biblical homeland was branded shamefully as racism. It was here in 1980 that the historic peace agreement between Israel and Egypt wasn’t praised. It was denounced. And it’s here, year after year, that Israel is unjustly singled out for condemnation. It’s singled out for condemnation more often than all the nations of the world combined.”
Netanyahu said that “this is an unfortunate part of the UN institution. It doesn’t only cast Israel as the villain it often casts real villains in leading role. Qaddafi’s Libya chaired the UN Commission on Human Rights. Saddam’s Iraq headed the UN Committee on Disarmament.”
“You might say that’s the past,” he added, “but here’s what’s happening now: Hizbullah-controlled Lebanon now presides over the UN Security Council. This means in effect that a terror organization presides over the body entrusted with guaranteeing world security.”
He recalled what the Lubavitcher Rebbe told him in 1984, when he became Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations. “He said to me, ‘You’ll be serving in a house of many lies’, and then he said: ‘Remember that even in the darkest place the light of a single candle can be seen far and wide.’ Today I hope that the light of truth will shine, if only for a few minutes, in a hall that for too long has been a place of darkness for my country.”
Netanyahu then proceeded to address the conflict with the Arabs, saying: “I came here to speak the truth. The truth is that Israel wants peace. The truth is that I want peace. The truth is that in the Middle East, at all times but especially during these turbulent days, peace must be anchored in security. The truth is that we cannot achieve peace through UN resolutions, but only through direct negotiations between the parties. The truth is that so far the Palestinians have refuged to negotiate. The truth is that Israel wants peace with a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians want a state without peace. And the truth is you shouldn’t let that happen.”
He said that the greatest danger facing the world is militant Islamic fanaticism, such as that of Iran and its president. He warned against Iran arming itself with nuclear weapons.
“Can you imagine that man, who ranted here yesterday, armed with nuclear weapons?” Netanyahu said, referring to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s tirade on Thursday. “The international community must stop Iran before it’s too late.”
“We must do our best to shape the future, but we cannot wish away the dangers of the present,” he said, warning that militant Islam wants to tear apart the peace treaties Israel has with Egypt and Jordan and saying that it “opposes not the policies of Israel but the existence of Israel.”
“Some argue that the spread of militant Islam - especially in these turbulent times - if you want to slow it down, Israel must hurry to make territorial compromises,” added Netanyahu. “The theory sounds simple. It goes like this: Leave the territory and peace will be advanced. The moderates will be strengthened, the radicals will be kept at bay, and don’t worry the pesky details of how Israel will actually defend itself. International troops will do the job.”
Netanyahu noted, however, that Israel has tried that theory and it hasn’t worked. He reminded the audience how in 2000 Israel made a sweeping peace offer that was rejected by then PA Chairman Yasser Arafat, and how former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made an even more sweeping offer in 2008, to which current Chairman Abbas didn’t even respond.
He also reminded the audience that Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza in 2005, moves which resulted in rockets being fired at Israel from north and from south.
Netanyahu said that given the failure of the Gaza expulsion, Israelis rightly ask what’s to prevent this from happening again in Judea and Samaria. He reminded that while most of Israel’s major cities in the south are within a few dozen kilometers of Gaza, in the center of the country, Israeli cities are a few hundred meters or at most a few kilometers from the edge of Judea and Samaria.
“Would any of you bring danger so close to your cities? Would you act so recklessly with the lives of your citizens? Israel is prepared to have a Palestinian state in [Judea and Samaria] but we’re not prepared to have another Gaza there.”
Netanyahu reiterated Israel’s needs to have security solutions and long-term military presence in critical strategic areas, an arrangement that Abbas refused. He stressed Israel’s concern over the fact that the Ben Gurion International Airport is near Judea and Samaria and that without peace airplanes could be targets for terrorists.
“I believe that in serious peace negotiations, these needs and concerns can be properly addressed,” he said. “But they will not be addressed without negotiations….Israel needs greater strategic depth and that’s exactly why Security Council resolution 242 didn’t require Israel to leave all the territories it captured in the Six Day War. It talked about withdrawal from territories to secure and defensible boundaries.”
“These are not theoretical problems,” he emphasized. “They’re very real, and for Israelis they’re life and death matters. All these potential cracks in Israel’s security have to be sealed in a peace agreement before a Palestinian state is declared. Not afterwards. If you leave it for afterwards, they won’t be sealed. The Palestinians should first make peace with Israel and then get their state. But I also want to tell you this: after such a peace agreement is signed, Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member to the United Nations. We will be the first.”
Netanyahu reminded the audience that soldier Gilad Shalit has been held captive for five years by Hamas. He reminded that Hamas is violating international laws by not allowing Shalit to receive visits by the International Red Cross, and said that Shalit is “the son of every Israeli family. Every nation represented here should demand his immediate release. If you want to pass a resolution about the Middle East today, that’s the resolution you should pass.”
He reminded of his Bar Ilan speech in which he outlined his vision of a demilitarized Palestinian state which recognizes the Jewish state, and said it’s about time the Palestinians recognize the state of Israel.
“Israel will always protect the rights of all its minorities, including the one million Arab citizens of Israel,” said Netanyahu. “I wish I could say the same thing about a future Palestinian state, for as Palestinian officials made clear the other day, the Palestinian state won’t allow any Jews in it. They’ll be Jew free – Judenrein. That’s ethnic cleansing.”
He called the PA to give up its fantasy of flooding Israel with millions of Arabs, and dismissed Abbas’ claims that the core of the conflict is the Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria. Netanyahu said that the issue remains the refusal of the Arabs to recognize a Jewish state under any border.
“Ladies and gentlemen, I continue to hope that President Abbas will be my partner in peace,” said Netanyahu. I worked hard to advance that peace. The day I came into office, I called for direct negotiations without preconditions. President Abbas didn’t respond. I outlined a vision of peace of two states for two people. He still didn’t respond. I removed hundreds of roadblocks and checkpoints, but again – no response. I took the unprecedented step of freezing new buildings in the settlements for ten months. Once again, there was no response.”
Netanyahu concluded by calling Abbas to end the generations-old conflict and start negotiating.
“President Abbas, why don’t you join me?” said Netanyahu. “We have to stop negotiating about the negotiations. Let’s just get on with it. Let’s negotiate peace! Now we’re in the same city. We’re in the same building. So let’s meet here today, in the United Nations!”
(Arutz Sheva’s North American Desk is keeping you updated until the start of Shabbat in New York. The time posted automatically on all Arutz Sheva articles, however, is Israeli time.)
G. Grass writes a poem
The Symbol of the Latin Christianity
Guenther Grass in 1944
The Passion inspired by M. Gibson's movie
Christian Communism Logo
Che Guevara and Castro meet
Benedict XVi and Castro meet
The Geocentric Dome of Dome of 13th century Bibi-Heybat Mosque
Azeri Language
Lars Vilks, Jesus-pedophile
Benedict XVi kissing sheikh
K. Wojtyla's Ordination as imam-bishop Cracow 1958
Body-soul (Cp. Paul's Spiritual body). Be ready for cosmic journey!
Bonestell-Landing on the Moon
Lunar-lander
Vishnu
Vishnu as Buddha in the sun and Greek Nature
Baal, Shiva, Aten, Odin - Greek god of Nature
The same greenish Hue
The same greenish Hue
Trident Jesus
Angel Gabriel and Virgin Mary
The Darwinian struggle for Survival at theVatican
The Most Learned canon of Ermland
Hegemonikon or the Ruler of von Lauchen's Heliocentrism
A Graphic Rendition of Copernicus's Book
Such circles deceived Copernicus into believing in heliocentrism
Death of Nicolaus Copernicus
Aisha Qaddafi seeks asylum in Israel
The Committee of 300 or British CHEKA
Black SS-Pope
Pope John Paul II's 'Breviary'
Workers-priests
Communist Pope
Superhubris
Very Evil Pope
Lethal Mix AIDS and Alkoholism
Theology of the Body or by boobs and by crux
Theology of the Body or from Palestine with Love
Justin Martyr: Jesus is an erected phallus, like Egyptian Min
The Phallic Mosque in Jerusalem
Symbol of Islam
Karl Marx monument viewed from back looks like a phallus
Hittite, Phoenician, Kassi cult of the Sun and Cross
The Nicene, evolving cat of Massachussetts
The Nicene Jesus in Trinity
UNSC rejects Palestine's bid for membership
An Italian Poster on the funeral day of pope JP2
Swastika - the Perennial symbol of sun gods
Allah is the sun god. He is Mar Alah, or the sun god Surya
Ethereal body in Hindu religion
Saint Paul, an ancient klansman
Obama, the Enabler
Qaddafi's Corpse
OccupyAurora Protest in Sankt Petersburg
The relics of John Paul II in Odessa
The Afghan Crucifix: Jesus died al kiddush ha-Shem
Wernher, shoot him down
Death to Assad
Nazi and fascist Dictators
Farrakhan with Rev. Pfleger
M. Gibson receives a honorary degree from a Catholic Notre Dame University
The Hate Propaganda sposored by theVatican
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon to me wishing me a happy New Year
Enough is enough
Baal, Ashera with the pagan symbol of Trinity
Jesus with the Pagan Symbol of Trinity
Putin meets Hu Jintao Oct. 12, 2011
Paul and Nancy
The Kurds in Syria demand an independen state of their own
A. Hitler's letter of 1919 postulating destruction of Jews
Who is Confucius but Moses speaking Chinese?
Yassir Arafat Dying of AIDS
The Aryan, heliocentric Ruler of Canaan
Mussolini, a sculpture by Polish artist S. Szukalski
The Jedwabne Monument in Poland Vandalized
Map of the Indo-British Empire of the Sun
Aria in the Behistun Inscription
Aria on Waldseemuler's map o 1507
Madison Grant's Nordic Theory
Moscow - Beijing Express
A New Huge Free Trade Zone in the Making
The Aryan Christ of the Jesuits
The Cosmic dance of Big Bang
Bestiality in Hinduism
Erotic Artwork on the facade of the Lakshmana temple
Buddhist Solar Trinity
Christian Copy of the Buddhist Solar Trinity
the Marriage of Philology and Mercury
Peter-Mercury in St. Peter's Church
The Geocentric Flag of the African Union
Sundisk from Alacohuyuk (Anatolia)
The True Sexist Palestinian
Kill Jesus
The Symbol of the Aryan Trinity AUM within the sun god Surya
A. Hitler's Historical Jesus under the radiant sun
St. Paul's Golden "Calf"
The Whore of Babylon behind the Holocaust
Behind the Holocaust
Holy Ghost in the shape of swastika
A Christian from the catacombs with swastikas
From Emperor Hadrian to Pope Pius XII
Why did he fail to marry?
Iraq buys Czech fighters
Reversed Evolution of Nebuchadnezzar
The Dying children in Warsaw Ghetto
The Warsaw Ghetto Children
Palestinian Children play in water in Gaza Strip
Ammi Hai
M. Gottlieb: Yom Kippur in the Cracow Alte Shul
Obama Scraps the Global War on Terror
H. Clinton has a Crush on Al Jazeerah
Muslim-Obama
Perfect Together
Comrade
the Muslim Brotherhood Flag
The Quartet's Dream
Picture from national Holocaust Memorial Museum
Cartoon from Gaza
Zuckerberg's Intifada
The darwinian Patron Saint of Palestine
The Palestine mandate Flag with the British solar cross and the sun
Prayer to the sun god at Stonehenge, the Temple of the Druids and Masons
Osama Bin laden Dead
The Pentecost under the sungod Surya instead of YHWH
The United States in Burka
They say, Islam will conquer the world
Hamas Jugend
Fatah 11
The Geocentric Seal of Kansas
The Al-Qaeda SS
The Fathers of Modern Atheism
WikiLeaks Watchers over Democracy
After the WikiLeaks
Russian President to visit Israel in 2011
Business as usual
Picture of an early Christian from the catacombs
Jerusalem The Old City
Tea Party
Swastika Koran
Gorbachev: Victory in Afghanistan is impossible
Deauville Summit Supports the Talks
Statue of Confucius, Father of Chinese geocentrism goes up in Russia
Shimon Peres meets guests from China
the Ice Crystals of Auschwitz
Death Fugue
Anna Chapman, a Russian Spy receiving Top Honor
Al Turki in Bejing
The Spider Net
JFK and W. von Braun, SS Major
http://www.angloisrael.com/
In God We Trust - Tea Party
Tea Party on the Horizon
Give them an ultimatum Sept.16,2010
NYT Cartoon: Expect the worse
Burka
Martyrs Brigaes in action
German Award for the Muhammad Cartoonist
Abbas resembling Einstein
Bushehr nuclear power plant
Iran Inaugurates its first bombing drone
Russian 1800 Engraving dpicting the Whore of babylon, Riding the seven-headed monster
William Blake, The Whore of Babylon
Siege and destruction of Jerusalem
J. Pollard on Jerusalem Wall
Friday, September 23, 2011
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Western Hypocrisy
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/10615#.TnJOY-zmmBM
Part I: Western Hypocrisy
In seeking to impose a Palestinian state on Israel, the Obama Administration, European Union, and western media have displayed a cynical contempt for history that is astounding in its breadth and scope.
Pressure is brought to bear solely on Israel, who is expected to sacrifice sovereignty and security in the name of an ideal that is premised on a repudiation of the Jews’ right to self-determination in their ancient homeland. The Palestinians are expected to concede nothing – not even their oft-stated goal of the phased destruction of Israel.
Nothing illustrates the hypocrisy better than a comparison of their demand that Israel accept an Arab “right of return” with their ambition for a state that would be ethnically cleansed of all Jews. Like the Nazis with whom the Mufti and other Arab leaders were so closely allied during the Second World War, they seek to create a Judenrein state as a springboard for the elimination of a Jewish presence in the Mideast.
Ironically, western "progressives" are enabling the process, even though it entails human rights violations that would certainly be illegal in liberal democracies.
The continuing support for the Palestinian cause by the United States and European Union – and their contribution of billions of dollars that fund anti-Semitic propaganda masquerading as school curriculum, line the pockets of the corrupt Abbas regime or end up in the coffers of Hamas – would indicate an abdication of reason if the true goal were to achieve a lasting, substantive peace.
However, such behavior is not incongruous if the real purpose is political realignment with the Arab-Muslim world at the expense of Israel’s integrity as a democratic, Jewish nation. Although Obama and the EU claim only to support the rights of the Palestinians as an indigenous people, they have adopted the cause by uncritically promoting a revisionist narrative that is built on a denial of Jewish history.
However, the Jews’ rights as an indigenous people were recognized historically and under international law long before the term “Palestinian” was ever used to refer to an Arab population that accreted largely through immigration during the sunset years of the Ottoman Empire. The Jewish people originated in ancient Israel; the Palestinians did not.
The Arab-Muslim world’s true intentions regarding peace with Israel should be apparent from its centuries-long oppression and subjugation of Jews in Arab lands and its stated refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish nation. The two-state solution is proffered as a ruse for the destabilization of Israel, and western apologists are complicit in the charade by their refusal to insist on Arab recognition of Jewish historical rights, and by their failure to condemn the Palestinian goal of state building through ethnic cleansing.
The Jews’ rights as an indigenous people were recognized historically and under international law long before the term “Palestinian” was ever used.
Whereas any perceived attempt by Israel to transfer Arab populations would certainly inspire international condemnation, the Palestinians’ open and notorious aim of expelling Jews from historically Jewish lands – lands that were never part of any sovereign Arab nation – is met with conspicuous silence or tacit approval. Indeed,
President Obama’s demand last year for a building freeze in Jerusalem was a blatant attempt to coerce Israel to implement apartheid-like measures against her own citizens in order to limit the Jewish population of her capital.
Jewish habitation in Judea, Samaria, and Israel proper, including Jerusalem, was a fact from antiquity into modern times – until Jordan conquered the territories and dispossessed their Jewish inhabitants during Israel’s War of Independence.
When Jordan (then known as Transjordan) conquered Judea and Samaria in 1948, it expelled the Jews living there, collectively dubbed these territories the “West Bank,” and annexed them in violation of international law.
Israel’s subsequent acquisition of these lands in 1967 in truth effectuated their liberation from foreign occupation; and renewed Jewish habitation thereafter constituted nothing more than repatriation.
Israel’s liberation and administration of Judea and Samaria were perfectly legitimate under prevailing standards of international law, despite Palestinian claims to the contrary. In fact, it is Palestinian land-claims that are dubious, based as they are on Jordan’s transfer of its negotiating “rights” over these territories to the Palestinian Authority as part of the Oslo process. Because Jordan seized these lands illegally, however, it never possessed lawful title in the first place, and accordingly had no legitimate rights to convey to the PA.
In consideration of these facts, it is reasonable to question why Israel should even entertain the notion of a two-state solution, particularly as it requires her to discount the indigenous heritage of her own people and surrender ancestral lands to those who unapologetically call for her destruction.
One must also question the wisdom of negotiating with the PA, which could easily be displaced by Hamas through open revolt or by an Islamist-influenced election such as occurred in Gaza.
This is a particular concern in view of the political upheavals currently sweeping across the Arab world, where popular unrest has reinforced the legitimacy of military juntas and strengthened the political profile of Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
For Part II: Alternative Solutions, Click here.
Part II: Alternatives
In determining the permanent status of Judea and Samaria, many advocates believe Israel instead should be guided by the principles laid out at the San Remo Conference of 1920, during which the Supreme Council of Principal Allied Powers made decisions implicating the future of the territories they liberated from the Ottoman Empire during the First World War.
The Council, among other things, incorporated the Balfour Declaration into its program and recognized that the Jews comprised a people defined not solely by religion, but by nationality and descent as well. Moreover, it recognized that the Jews were indigenous to the Land of Israel and, accordingly, that they had the right to self-determination in their homeland.
The Mandate for Palestine of 1922 further guaranteed the right of “close settlement,” which recognized that Jews could settle anywhere west of the Jordan. No similar recognition was accorded Palestinian-Arab nationality at that time because it simply did not exist.
Rather, the local Arabs considered themselves to be culturally part of the greater Syrian community, and much of their population had accrued through late migration into the area only after the Jews had begun rehabilitating the land and creating economic opportunities that did not exist elsewhere in the Mideast.
The acceptance of the San Remo program by the League of Nations – and the restatement of its ambitions in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine – evidenced an acknowledgment of the Jews’ status as an indigenous people and their right to settle anywhere in their homeland, including Judea and Samaria, and thus underscored the legal basis for the reestablishment of the Jewish state.
Consequently, traditional recognition of the Jews’ indigenous rights should inform any proposals for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. This would be consistent with the ideals set forth in the “Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” voted on by the U.N. in 2007. Of particular relevance is the language contained in Article 10, which states:
"Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return."
Though the true intent of this nonbinding declaration may have been to promote the Palestinian cause at Israel’s expense, it cannot be divorced from the long-standing recognition under international legal conventions that the Jews are indigenous to the Land of Israel. Accordingly, it implicitly reinforces the Jewish connection to lands the Palestinians now attempt to claim as their own, and provides justification for potential resolutions that are premised on legally-cognizable Jewish claims, rather than on politically-motivated or apocryphal Palestinian pretensions.
If a state of Palestine were to be created, any policies requiring the ethnic cleansing of Jewish inhabitants would violate international law as recognized at San Remo and under the original Mandate for Palestine, which the United Nations is currently bound to honor by virtue of Section 80 of the U.N. Charter.
Such ethnic cleansing would also contravene the precepts set forth in the Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other conventions.
In order to exist in compliance with international law, such a state would have to provide for the Jews – as indigenous people – to remain on their ancestral lands in Judea and Samaria. It would also need to recognize the Jewish right of close settlement. Jewish residents of such a state would have to retain Israeli citizenship and be governed by Israeli law, and the Arab state subsuming their communities would have to recognize Israeli sovereignty within their enclaves.
Jews wishing to travel to Israel proper would have to be free to do so without harassment. Such arrangements exist in other parts of the world, for example, in North America, where Alaskans cut off from the mainland United States are permitted to travel through Canada in order to visit the lower Forty-Eight, or in Europe where citizens of EU countries are permitted to travel across national borders unimpeded. Indeed, the Quartet seeks to impose just such an arrangement on Israel by demanding that Gaza be connected by a corridor to a Palestinian State in Judea and Samaria.
It is unlikely, however, that a Palestinian state would recognize any Jewish rights or permit Jewish residency. It is equally unlikely that it would recognize Jewish autonomy or Israeli sovereignty.
A more realistic scenario – if there is to be a Palestinian entity – might be the creation of a federation or confederation in which some of the territories currently under Israeli administration would be linked with Jordan, where a majority of the population already identifies as Palestinian. A “confederation” could be created by ceding some territory for a semi-autonomous region that would then be joined with Jordan under an umbrella government of general, limited powers.
The concept of confederation provides that Jordan and a Palestinian entity would each maintain individual sovereignty and would exercise unilateral powers outside the scope of the general government’s jurisdiction. The authority of the general government would be limited to those powers specifically agreed upon by the constituent entities.
The risk of confederation, however, is that the entities could elect to separate in order to establish an independent Palestinian state.
A similar but distinct concept is “federation,” in which sovereign authority would be constitutionally allocated among the member states and the general government, but in which the structure of government could not be altered by the unilateral acts of its constituents. That is, neither entity could dissolve the union in order to establish an independent Palestinian state.
Such a federation would consist of Jordan and a Palestinian entity created on land transferred from Judea and Samaria, but would not include Jewish towns or population centers. Likewise, Israel would retain control of all land necessary to ensure her security and to protect her water rights in the Jordan valley. These same constraints on land transfers would apply to a confederation as well.
Regardless of the technical form, the resulting Palestinian-Jordanian entity would be independent from Israel and would include no land or power sharing in Jerusalem, which would remain exclusively under Israel’s dominion and control. Jerusalem was never the capital of any sovereign Arab nation, and Jordan’s illegal occupation from 1948 to 1967 does not provide a legal basis for Palestinian claims over the city.
In contrast, Israel does have a lawful historical claim to Jerusalem, in which Jews have constituted the majority population for generations, since long before Israeli independence to the present day. Moreover, Jerusalem was the ancient capital of Jewish kingdoms that were the only sovereign nations ever to occupy the land. Consequently, there can be no justification for dividing the city. Arabs residing in Jerusalem would remain subject to Israeli civil and criminal law, and Israel would continue to protect and facilitate access to all religious sites and shrines as she always has done.
Israel could enforce a similar arrangement between Gaza and Egypt, after which Israel would sever any remaining connection to Gaza. Thus, Egypt would be solely responsible for servicing Gaza’s infrastructure, utility, and humanitarian needs, leaving Israel to concentrate on consolidating and enhancing her security presence along her southern border.
These concepts are not new or unique, but rather were the subject of analysis and debate in the 1990s by the late Daniel J. Elazar, founder of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and others. Proposals involving these and similar models were put forth as alternatives to a free-standing Palestinian state.
A federal model was considered by many to be a more workable paradigm than independent Palestinian statehood for protecting Israeli security, particularly by those who recognized that the Oslo process tended to sacrifice Israeli rights and security concerns. Proponents of some kind of Arab federal union believed that the costs of administering a hostile population would continue to grow, but that an independent state of Palestine would threaten Israel’s security and pose an existential challenge to her long-term survival.
These ideas are regaining currency today in part because the political unrest now rocking the Arab world emphasizes the risk that an independent Palestinian state would be subject to the same destabilizing influences. It is likely that such a state would quickly become a terrorist haven and a hostile military threat, particularly if it were to be created from lands that currently provide Israel with strategic security buffers.
Not everyone believes that the creation of such entities will resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
In fact, there is growing support in some segments of Israeli society for formal annexation of Judea and Samaria, in whole or in part, or for de facto annexation through the extension of Israeli civil law into these territories.
Although there may be disagreement regarding the most appropriate strategy, there is increasing consensus among Israelis that they must create their own solutions based on their own needs and concerns, instead of waiting passively while a two-state plan is foisted upon them by outside powers who have no regard for Israeli sovereignty.
There is increasing consensus among Israelis that they must create their own solutions based on their own needs and concerns.
Despite international pressure for the creation of a Palestinian state devoid of Jews, Israel must be guided by her own priorities, and must not lose sight of the rights of Jews as indigenous people in their homeland, including those rights recognized at San Remo and reinforced by the Mandate.
A Palestinian state created by dispossessing Jews from their ancestral lands would be in violation of international law and would represent a repudiation of history.
Unfortunately, American and European support for a Judenrein Arab state illustrates that international law is not applied equitably when the net effect would be the validation of historical Jewish rights or Israeli national integrity.
Therefore, Israel must resist all calls for her to sacrifice her security needs and Jewish character, and should work instead to expose the double standard underlying the international community’s unjust and unreasonable demands.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/10613#.TnJNw-zmmBM
Is President Obama hostile to Jews and Israel? Let˙s look at the evidence.
Last week, the Obama Administration issued talking points for the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, where it referred to those struck by terrorism˛whether in New York or Nairobi, Bali or Belfast, Mumbai or Manila, or Lahore or London. Conspicuously absent was the name of Tel Aviv,
Jerusalem or Sderot, which have been hit by terrorists, not once, but numerous times.
As a single instance, this omission might be unremarkable. In fact, however, omitting mention of Israel fits a pattern. When running for President,
then-Senator Obama referred in his July 2008 Berlin speech to the need to˛dismantle the [terrorist] networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York.
Again, no Israel.
It seems hard to believe that these omissions could be anything other than intentional. After all, Israel has been a primary target of terrorists
throughout the past decade. Almost 2,000 Israelis have been murdered by terrorists in this period and over 10,000 maimed or disfigured. In per
capita terms, far more Israelis have been murdered by terrorists than Americans were murdered in 9/11.
Obama also omits Israel in other contexts. Thus, when Haiti was struck by a calamitous earthquake in January 2010, Israel˙s relief efforts were exceptional, only matched by those of the United States, and were singled out for praise by former President Clinton. However, in praising these
relief efforts, Obama omitted any mention of Israel, saying only that help continues to flow in, not just from the United States but from Brazil, Mexico, Canada, France, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic, among others.
While Obama has more or less consistently failed to hold accountable or penalize the PA for incitement to violence against Israel, he has been
emphatic and repetitive attacking Jewish housing projects in eastern Jerusalem as an obstacle to peace. His Administration has used the terms condemn,
an insult and an affront when expressing disagreement with Israel on this issue, terms never used about other allies.
That Obama blames Israel, not the Palestinians, for the absence of peace is obvious. In a January 2010 interview, despite Israel˙s acceptance
in-principle of a Palestinian state, readiness to negotiate and instituting an unprecedented 10-month Jewish construction freeze in Judea and Samaria,
Obama said Israel had made no bold gestures.
In a March 2011 meeting with Jewish leaders (attended by Mort Klein), Obama contended that Israel’s [Palestinian] partner is sincere in wanting a peaceful settlement, while asking his Jewish interlocutors to speak to your Israeli friends and relatives and search your souls to determine how badly do you really want peace, and Israelis think this peace process is overrated.
Note also the contrast between his holiday messages to Jews and to Muslims. In his Rosh Hashanah message last year, Obama only once referred to Jews, not once to Judaism, promoted a Palestinian state, and never mentioned the extraordinary contributions of Jews to the U.S.
In contrast, in his August 2010 Ramadan Message, Obama referred to Muslims six times and to Islam twice, stated that American Muslims have made
extraordinary contributions to our country, and praised Islam˙s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings a faith known for great diversity and racial equality
Here, Obama, made no reference to what Muslims must do to achieve peace with Israel.
There are many other indicators of Obama evincing discomfort around Jewish matters. When, in May 2010, Obama signed the Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act, he did not mention that Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter, was beheaded by Islamist terrorists because he was a Jew and that he was forced to state in the video recorded of his gruesome murder that he was an American Jew.
Instead, Obama merely referred to Pearl˙s loss.
And let˙s not forget Obama˙s June 2009 Cairo speech, in which he compared the circumstances of Palestinians under Israeli rule to Jews under the Nazis and blacks under Apartheid.
Nor his September 2009 UN speech, in which Obama couple[d] unwavering commitment to Israel with Israel respecting the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians.
These incidents, some important, some less so, have assumed a troubling pattern. They suggest that President Obama has a distaste or even hostility towards Jews and Israel.
But should we be surprised? He spent twenty years absorbing the anti-Israel sermons of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, whom Obama has called a great man, his friend and Mentor.
Part I: Western Hypocrisy
In seeking to impose a Palestinian state on Israel, the Obama Administration, European Union, and western media have displayed a cynical contempt for history that is astounding in its breadth and scope.
Pressure is brought to bear solely on Israel, who is expected to sacrifice sovereignty and security in the name of an ideal that is premised on a repudiation of the Jews’ right to self-determination in their ancient homeland. The Palestinians are expected to concede nothing – not even their oft-stated goal of the phased destruction of Israel.
Nothing illustrates the hypocrisy better than a comparison of their demand that Israel accept an Arab “right of return” with their ambition for a state that would be ethnically cleansed of all Jews. Like the Nazis with whom the Mufti and other Arab leaders were so closely allied during the Second World War, they seek to create a Judenrein state as a springboard for the elimination of a Jewish presence in the Mideast.
Ironically, western "progressives" are enabling the process, even though it entails human rights violations that would certainly be illegal in liberal democracies.
The continuing support for the Palestinian cause by the United States and European Union – and their contribution of billions of dollars that fund anti-Semitic propaganda masquerading as school curriculum, line the pockets of the corrupt Abbas regime or end up in the coffers of Hamas – would indicate an abdication of reason if the true goal were to achieve a lasting, substantive peace.
However, such behavior is not incongruous if the real purpose is political realignment with the Arab-Muslim world at the expense of Israel’s integrity as a democratic, Jewish nation. Although Obama and the EU claim only to support the rights of the Palestinians as an indigenous people, they have adopted the cause by uncritically promoting a revisionist narrative that is built on a denial of Jewish history.
However, the Jews’ rights as an indigenous people were recognized historically and under international law long before the term “Palestinian” was ever used to refer to an Arab population that accreted largely through immigration during the sunset years of the Ottoman Empire. The Jewish people originated in ancient Israel; the Palestinians did not.
The Arab-Muslim world’s true intentions regarding peace with Israel should be apparent from its centuries-long oppression and subjugation of Jews in Arab lands and its stated refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish nation. The two-state solution is proffered as a ruse for the destabilization of Israel, and western apologists are complicit in the charade by their refusal to insist on Arab recognition of Jewish historical rights, and by their failure to condemn the Palestinian goal of state building through ethnic cleansing.
The Jews’ rights as an indigenous people were recognized historically and under international law long before the term “Palestinian” was ever used.
Whereas any perceived attempt by Israel to transfer Arab populations would certainly inspire international condemnation, the Palestinians’ open and notorious aim of expelling Jews from historically Jewish lands – lands that were never part of any sovereign Arab nation – is met with conspicuous silence or tacit approval. Indeed,
President Obama’s demand last year for a building freeze in Jerusalem was a blatant attempt to coerce Israel to implement apartheid-like measures against her own citizens in order to limit the Jewish population of her capital.
Jewish habitation in Judea, Samaria, and Israel proper, including Jerusalem, was a fact from antiquity into modern times – until Jordan conquered the territories and dispossessed their Jewish inhabitants during Israel’s War of Independence.
When Jordan (then known as Transjordan) conquered Judea and Samaria in 1948, it expelled the Jews living there, collectively dubbed these territories the “West Bank,” and annexed them in violation of international law.
Israel’s subsequent acquisition of these lands in 1967 in truth effectuated their liberation from foreign occupation; and renewed Jewish habitation thereafter constituted nothing more than repatriation.
Israel’s liberation and administration of Judea and Samaria were perfectly legitimate under prevailing standards of international law, despite Palestinian claims to the contrary. In fact, it is Palestinian land-claims that are dubious, based as they are on Jordan’s transfer of its negotiating “rights” over these territories to the Palestinian Authority as part of the Oslo process. Because Jordan seized these lands illegally, however, it never possessed lawful title in the first place, and accordingly had no legitimate rights to convey to the PA.
In consideration of these facts, it is reasonable to question why Israel should even entertain the notion of a two-state solution, particularly as it requires her to discount the indigenous heritage of her own people and surrender ancestral lands to those who unapologetically call for her destruction.
One must also question the wisdom of negotiating with the PA, which could easily be displaced by Hamas through open revolt or by an Islamist-influenced election such as occurred in Gaza.
This is a particular concern in view of the political upheavals currently sweeping across the Arab world, where popular unrest has reinforced the legitimacy of military juntas and strengthened the political profile of Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
For Part II: Alternative Solutions, Click here.
Part II: Alternatives
In determining the permanent status of Judea and Samaria, many advocates believe Israel instead should be guided by the principles laid out at the San Remo Conference of 1920, during which the Supreme Council of Principal Allied Powers made decisions implicating the future of the territories they liberated from the Ottoman Empire during the First World War.
The Council, among other things, incorporated the Balfour Declaration into its program and recognized that the Jews comprised a people defined not solely by religion, but by nationality and descent as well. Moreover, it recognized that the Jews were indigenous to the Land of Israel and, accordingly, that they had the right to self-determination in their homeland.
The Mandate for Palestine of 1922 further guaranteed the right of “close settlement,” which recognized that Jews could settle anywhere west of the Jordan. No similar recognition was accorded Palestinian-Arab nationality at that time because it simply did not exist.
Rather, the local Arabs considered themselves to be culturally part of the greater Syrian community, and much of their population had accrued through late migration into the area only after the Jews had begun rehabilitating the land and creating economic opportunities that did not exist elsewhere in the Mideast.
The acceptance of the San Remo program by the League of Nations – and the restatement of its ambitions in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine – evidenced an acknowledgment of the Jews’ status as an indigenous people and their right to settle anywhere in their homeland, including Judea and Samaria, and thus underscored the legal basis for the reestablishment of the Jewish state.
Consequently, traditional recognition of the Jews’ indigenous rights should inform any proposals for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. This would be consistent with the ideals set forth in the “Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” voted on by the U.N. in 2007. Of particular relevance is the language contained in Article 10, which states:
"Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return."
Though the true intent of this nonbinding declaration may have been to promote the Palestinian cause at Israel’s expense, it cannot be divorced from the long-standing recognition under international legal conventions that the Jews are indigenous to the Land of Israel. Accordingly, it implicitly reinforces the Jewish connection to lands the Palestinians now attempt to claim as their own, and provides justification for potential resolutions that are premised on legally-cognizable Jewish claims, rather than on politically-motivated or apocryphal Palestinian pretensions.
If a state of Palestine were to be created, any policies requiring the ethnic cleansing of Jewish inhabitants would violate international law as recognized at San Remo and under the original Mandate for Palestine, which the United Nations is currently bound to honor by virtue of Section 80 of the U.N. Charter.
Such ethnic cleansing would also contravene the precepts set forth in the Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other conventions.
In order to exist in compliance with international law, such a state would have to provide for the Jews – as indigenous people – to remain on their ancestral lands in Judea and Samaria. It would also need to recognize the Jewish right of close settlement. Jewish residents of such a state would have to retain Israeli citizenship and be governed by Israeli law, and the Arab state subsuming their communities would have to recognize Israeli sovereignty within their enclaves.
Jews wishing to travel to Israel proper would have to be free to do so without harassment. Such arrangements exist in other parts of the world, for example, in North America, where Alaskans cut off from the mainland United States are permitted to travel through Canada in order to visit the lower Forty-Eight, or in Europe where citizens of EU countries are permitted to travel across national borders unimpeded. Indeed, the Quartet seeks to impose just such an arrangement on Israel by demanding that Gaza be connected by a corridor to a Palestinian State in Judea and Samaria.
It is unlikely, however, that a Palestinian state would recognize any Jewish rights or permit Jewish residency. It is equally unlikely that it would recognize Jewish autonomy or Israeli sovereignty.
A more realistic scenario – if there is to be a Palestinian entity – might be the creation of a federation or confederation in which some of the territories currently under Israeli administration would be linked with Jordan, where a majority of the population already identifies as Palestinian. A “confederation” could be created by ceding some territory for a semi-autonomous region that would then be joined with Jordan under an umbrella government of general, limited powers.
The concept of confederation provides that Jordan and a Palestinian entity would each maintain individual sovereignty and would exercise unilateral powers outside the scope of the general government’s jurisdiction. The authority of the general government would be limited to those powers specifically agreed upon by the constituent entities.
The risk of confederation, however, is that the entities could elect to separate in order to establish an independent Palestinian state.
A similar but distinct concept is “federation,” in which sovereign authority would be constitutionally allocated among the member states and the general government, but in which the structure of government could not be altered by the unilateral acts of its constituents. That is, neither entity could dissolve the union in order to establish an independent Palestinian state.
Such a federation would consist of Jordan and a Palestinian entity created on land transferred from Judea and Samaria, but would not include Jewish towns or population centers. Likewise, Israel would retain control of all land necessary to ensure her security and to protect her water rights in the Jordan valley. These same constraints on land transfers would apply to a confederation as well.
Regardless of the technical form, the resulting Palestinian-Jordanian entity would be independent from Israel and would include no land or power sharing in Jerusalem, which would remain exclusively under Israel’s dominion and control. Jerusalem was never the capital of any sovereign Arab nation, and Jordan’s illegal occupation from 1948 to 1967 does not provide a legal basis for Palestinian claims over the city.
In contrast, Israel does have a lawful historical claim to Jerusalem, in which Jews have constituted the majority population for generations, since long before Israeli independence to the present day. Moreover, Jerusalem was the ancient capital of Jewish kingdoms that were the only sovereign nations ever to occupy the land. Consequently, there can be no justification for dividing the city. Arabs residing in Jerusalem would remain subject to Israeli civil and criminal law, and Israel would continue to protect and facilitate access to all religious sites and shrines as she always has done.
Israel could enforce a similar arrangement between Gaza and Egypt, after which Israel would sever any remaining connection to Gaza. Thus, Egypt would be solely responsible for servicing Gaza’s infrastructure, utility, and humanitarian needs, leaving Israel to concentrate on consolidating and enhancing her security presence along her southern border.
These concepts are not new or unique, but rather were the subject of analysis and debate in the 1990s by the late Daniel J. Elazar, founder of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and others. Proposals involving these and similar models were put forth as alternatives to a free-standing Palestinian state.
A federal model was considered by many to be a more workable paradigm than independent Palestinian statehood for protecting Israeli security, particularly by those who recognized that the Oslo process tended to sacrifice Israeli rights and security concerns. Proponents of some kind of Arab federal union believed that the costs of administering a hostile population would continue to grow, but that an independent state of Palestine would threaten Israel’s security and pose an existential challenge to her long-term survival.
These ideas are regaining currency today in part because the political unrest now rocking the Arab world emphasizes the risk that an independent Palestinian state would be subject to the same destabilizing influences. It is likely that such a state would quickly become a terrorist haven and a hostile military threat, particularly if it were to be created from lands that currently provide Israel with strategic security buffers.
Not everyone believes that the creation of such entities will resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
In fact, there is growing support in some segments of Israeli society for formal annexation of Judea and Samaria, in whole or in part, or for de facto annexation through the extension of Israeli civil law into these territories.
Although there may be disagreement regarding the most appropriate strategy, there is increasing consensus among Israelis that they must create their own solutions based on their own needs and concerns, instead of waiting passively while a two-state plan is foisted upon them by outside powers who have no regard for Israeli sovereignty.
There is increasing consensus among Israelis that they must create their own solutions based on their own needs and concerns.
Despite international pressure for the creation of a Palestinian state devoid of Jews, Israel must be guided by her own priorities, and must not lose sight of the rights of Jews as indigenous people in their homeland, including those rights recognized at San Remo and reinforced by the Mandate.
A Palestinian state created by dispossessing Jews from their ancestral lands would be in violation of international law and would represent a repudiation of history.
Unfortunately, American and European support for a Judenrein Arab state illustrates that international law is not applied equitably when the net effect would be the validation of historical Jewish rights or Israeli national integrity.
Therefore, Israel must resist all calls for her to sacrifice her security needs and Jewish character, and should work instead to expose the double standard underlying the international community’s unjust and unreasonable demands.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/10613#.TnJNw-zmmBM
Is President Obama hostile to Jews and Israel? Let˙s look at the evidence.
Last week, the Obama Administration issued talking points for the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, where it referred to those struck by terrorism˛whether in New York or Nairobi, Bali or Belfast, Mumbai or Manila, or Lahore or London. Conspicuously absent was the name of Tel Aviv,
Jerusalem or Sderot, which have been hit by terrorists, not once, but numerous times.
As a single instance, this omission might be unremarkable. In fact, however, omitting mention of Israel fits a pattern. When running for President,
then-Senator Obama referred in his July 2008 Berlin speech to the need to˛dismantle the [terrorist] networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York.
Again, no Israel.
It seems hard to believe that these omissions could be anything other than intentional. After all, Israel has been a primary target of terrorists
throughout the past decade. Almost 2,000 Israelis have been murdered by terrorists in this period and over 10,000 maimed or disfigured. In per
capita terms, far more Israelis have been murdered by terrorists than Americans were murdered in 9/11.
Obama also omits Israel in other contexts. Thus, when Haiti was struck by a calamitous earthquake in January 2010, Israel˙s relief efforts were exceptional, only matched by those of the United States, and were singled out for praise by former President Clinton. However, in praising these
relief efforts, Obama omitted any mention of Israel, saying only that help continues to flow in, not just from the United States but from Brazil, Mexico, Canada, France, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic, among others.
While Obama has more or less consistently failed to hold accountable or penalize the PA for incitement to violence against Israel, he has been
emphatic and repetitive attacking Jewish housing projects in eastern Jerusalem as an obstacle to peace. His Administration has used the terms condemn,
an insult and an affront when expressing disagreement with Israel on this issue, terms never used about other allies.
That Obama blames Israel, not the Palestinians, for the absence of peace is obvious. In a January 2010 interview, despite Israel˙s acceptance
in-principle of a Palestinian state, readiness to negotiate and instituting an unprecedented 10-month Jewish construction freeze in Judea and Samaria,
Obama said Israel had made no bold gestures.
In a March 2011 meeting with Jewish leaders (attended by Mort Klein), Obama contended that Israel’s [Palestinian] partner is sincere in wanting a peaceful settlement, while asking his Jewish interlocutors to speak to your Israeli friends and relatives and search your souls to determine how badly do you really want peace, and Israelis think this peace process is overrated.
Note also the contrast between his holiday messages to Jews and to Muslims. In his Rosh Hashanah message last year, Obama only once referred to Jews, not once to Judaism, promoted a Palestinian state, and never mentioned the extraordinary contributions of Jews to the U.S.
In contrast, in his August 2010 Ramadan Message, Obama referred to Muslims six times and to Islam twice, stated that American Muslims have made
extraordinary contributions to our country, and praised Islam˙s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings a faith known for great diversity and racial equality
Here, Obama, made no reference to what Muslims must do to achieve peace with Israel.
There are many other indicators of Obama evincing discomfort around Jewish matters. When, in May 2010, Obama signed the Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act, he did not mention that Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter, was beheaded by Islamist terrorists because he was a Jew and that he was forced to state in the video recorded of his gruesome murder that he was an American Jew.
Instead, Obama merely referred to Pearl˙s loss.
And let˙s not forget Obama˙s June 2009 Cairo speech, in which he compared the circumstances of Palestinians under Israeli rule to Jews under the Nazis and blacks under Apartheid.
Nor his September 2009 UN speech, in which Obama couple[d] unwavering commitment to Israel with Israel respecting the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians.
These incidents, some important, some less so, have assumed a troubling pattern. They suggest that President Obama has a distaste or even hostility towards Jews and Israel.
But should we be surprised? He spent twenty years absorbing the anti-Israel sermons of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, whom Obama has called a great man, his friend and Mentor.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Hamas vs. PA on teh statehood bid at UN
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-09/14/c_131136744.htm
GAZA/RAMALLAH, Sept. 13 (Xinhua) -- Palestinian National Authority (PNA) Foreign Minister Reyad al-Malki told the Voice of Palestine Radio on Tuesday that the official Palestinian application, including a request for a full UN membership of the independent Palestinian state, is ready to be submitted to the UN chief.
"President Mahmoud Abbas will hand the letter to UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon when they meet on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting on Sept. 20," al-Malki said, adding that any new proposals won't change the Palestinian bid.
The direct peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel had been stalled since October after Israel refused to halt settlement construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. In response, the Palestinians decided to go to the UN and request an international recognition of an independent Palestinian state.
Malki also said he would meet International Quartet's Special Envoy Tony Blair "soon."
Also on Tuesday, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who is on an official visit to Egypt, held talks in Cairo with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
In Gaza, some 110 Palestinian Non-Government Organizations signed on a petition to support the Palestinian attitude of going to the UN to demand an international recognition.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said in a statement on the occasion of the 18 years anniversary for signing the Oslo accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization ( PLO) that the ongoing Israeli government's policies of violent repression against the Palestinians, the expansion of settlement as well as the construction of the isolation wall "made Oslo accords not existing anymore."
"I don't believe that applying to the United Nations would compel Israel to end the occupation or the expansion of settlement as well as raids and assassinations, but it would be part of the Palestinian strategy. It is not the end, it is the beginning of the Palestine territories' return," said Erekat.
Islamic Hamas movement, which has been ruling the Gaza Strip since June 2007, called in a press statement for throwing away the Oslo accords, saying that "the accords was the most dangerous event on our people and their legitimate rights."
http://en.rian.ru/world/20110913/166818122.html
20:57 13/09/2011
Hamas lawmakers urged Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Tuesday to abandon his plans to ask the UN to recognize the independence of the Palestinian state.
Hamas lawmakers urged Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Tuesday to abandon his plans to ask the UN to recognize the independence of the Palestinian state.
Abbas confirmed last week he was planning to submit the application on September 19 and expected it to be formally lodged with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon on September 21 or 22.
The Hamas faction in the Palestinian Legislative Council issued a statement saying the Palestinian leader should avoid "unilateral steps that could harm the Palestinian cause" and concentrate instead on "consolidating efforts to reach national reconciliation and to resist [Israeli] occupation."
The radical Islamic movement, which seized control of the Gaza Strip in 2007 and opposes the existence of Israel, has officially refrained from taking a position on statehood.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned on Monday that the Palestinian bid for UN recognition would "set back peace, and might set it back for years."
Washington has also opposed the UN recognition of a Palestinian state, calling it a unilateral step in a conflict that should be resolved through negotiation. The U.S. administration has made clear that it would veto any Palestinian request to the Security Council for membership as a state.
But a majority at the General Assembly is expected to support the promotion of the Palestinians to the status of non-voting observer state.
GAZA/RAMALLAH, Sept. 13 (Xinhua) -- Palestinian National Authority (PNA) Foreign Minister Reyad al-Malki told the Voice of Palestine Radio on Tuesday that the official Palestinian application, including a request for a full UN membership of the independent Palestinian state, is ready to be submitted to the UN chief.
"President Mahmoud Abbas will hand the letter to UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon when they meet on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting on Sept. 20," al-Malki said, adding that any new proposals won't change the Palestinian bid.
The direct peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel had been stalled since October after Israel refused to halt settlement construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. In response, the Palestinians decided to go to the UN and request an international recognition of an independent Palestinian state.
Malki also said he would meet International Quartet's Special Envoy Tony Blair "soon."
Also on Tuesday, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who is on an official visit to Egypt, held talks in Cairo with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
In Gaza, some 110 Palestinian Non-Government Organizations signed on a petition to support the Palestinian attitude of going to the UN to demand an international recognition.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said in a statement on the occasion of the 18 years anniversary for signing the Oslo accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization ( PLO) that the ongoing Israeli government's policies of violent repression against the Palestinians, the expansion of settlement as well as the construction of the isolation wall "made Oslo accords not existing anymore."
"I don't believe that applying to the United Nations would compel Israel to end the occupation or the expansion of settlement as well as raids and assassinations, but it would be part of the Palestinian strategy. It is not the end, it is the beginning of the Palestine territories' return," said Erekat.
Islamic Hamas movement, which has been ruling the Gaza Strip since June 2007, called in a press statement for throwing away the Oslo accords, saying that "the accords was the most dangerous event on our people and their legitimate rights."
http://en.rian.ru/world/20110913/166818122.html
20:57 13/09/2011
Hamas lawmakers urged Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Tuesday to abandon his plans to ask the UN to recognize the independence of the Palestinian state.
Hamas lawmakers urged Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Tuesday to abandon his plans to ask the UN to recognize the independence of the Palestinian state.
Abbas confirmed last week he was planning to submit the application on September 19 and expected it to be formally lodged with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon on September 21 or 22.
The Hamas faction in the Palestinian Legislative Council issued a statement saying the Palestinian leader should avoid "unilateral steps that could harm the Palestinian cause" and concentrate instead on "consolidating efforts to reach national reconciliation and to resist [Israeli] occupation."
The radical Islamic movement, which seized control of the Gaza Strip in 2007 and opposes the existence of Israel, has officially refrained from taking a position on statehood.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned on Monday that the Palestinian bid for UN recognition would "set back peace, and might set it back for years."
Washington has also opposed the UN recognition of a Palestinian state, calling it a unilateral step in a conflict that should be resolved through negotiation. The U.S. administration has made clear that it would veto any Palestinian request to the Security Council for membership as a state.
But a majority at the General Assembly is expected to support the promotion of the Palestinians to the status of non-voting observer state.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Jedwabne - the Victory of a Lie
מתוך הבלוג "A Soldier’s Mother" -
Forgive me for this post...but I just can't ignore something that was reported in the news today. This isn't about Elie...who was named after one of my husband's uncles - his mother's brother, who was murdered by the Nazis shortly after his wedding. This isn't about Shmulik, who carries the name of another uncle, who collapsed in the forests of Europe and died. But it touches me...something that happened today...and so, I write.
A memorial to Holocaust victims was desecrated in Poland today. I saw the picture and recognized the monument immediately. It was in the tiny town of Jedwabne. Population approximately 3,100 in August, 1941 when the Polish villagers collected their 1,500 Jewish neighbors and murdered them all in a single, bloody attack. One Jewish family had been warned and fled; 2 other young men were able to escape to bear testimony to what their neighbors did. One was a 15-year-old boy. Fifteen, like my Davidi. The boy's father didn't remember, when the neighbors came and forced them from their home, if he'd locked the house. Go back, he told the boy. Go check and then catch up to us. He ran back to the house and then, as he returned, he began to wonder why. Instead of joining the slow moving line of Jews, the boy stayed hidden and watched. Watched as they locked the Jews in a barn...and set it afire. Their neighbors, 1,500 Jews.
After the war, the Poles erected a monument that said, "In memory of the 1,500 Poles murdered by the Hitlerites." No, the Germans had not yet arrived on that miserable day in August, 1941. The Jews, were murdered by the Poles because they were Jews. But the Poles couldn't keep the secret forever. There were those who knew the truth and remembered the hatred.
Finally, after decades of work, the Polish President came to Jedwabne to correct the wrong. The sign, the lie, was erased. They were Jews who were murdered in Jedwabne and they would be remembered as Jews. Finally. And so the memorial was replaced with new words. "In memory of the 1500 Jews who were murdered." But the lie continues, doesn't it? They admit the "Hitlerites" didn't do it...but don't admit they did - at least not on the memorial that stands in Jedwabne.
On a tour of Poland with my oldest daughter in 2004, they took us to Jedwabne as part of an 8-day tour. It is impossible to visit concentration camp after concentration camp, cemetery after cemetery, without breaking down. Why? I demanded. Why do you let them get away with this? The guide answered that were they to put, "To the 1,500 Jews murdered by their neighbors" it would be desecrated. Well, today, it was desecrated anyway.
One of the guides listened and then added that he had been in the town in 2001 when the new monument was unveiled. From the row of houses, he said pointing into the distance, someone put a stereo in the window and began blasting music to disrupt the ceremony. The president of Poland had come, even the Chief of Police of the land - to take part in the ceremony. The Chief of Police sent someone to make them close the stereo. Finally it was quiet and they were ready to begin.
And then, from the other side of town, "the Church bells started ringing, and ringing, and ringing. They had to send someone else to stop them," he explained. I once wrote, "Everyone has a breaking point. It is the point at which you simply feel you cannot take anymore. You cannot cry more, you cannot feel anger and you don't want to feel sadness. You feel that your heart hurts, and you don't want to feel that either." I broke in two places during my visit to Poland. One was in Jedwabne.
I broke at the thought that the hatred of World War II had survived the war and still lived on. I broke at the thought of a half a town rising up to murder the other half, and of a country that would hide this horror generations and generations after.
The truth is denied, even today, by omission, and by the vandals who tried to erase, yet again, the actions of hatred that define this small town. Not a word is written on the monument about who murdered the Jews. Until the sign is correctly written, until Jedwabne recognizes that it was their hatred that murdered their fellow townspeople, the name and town of Jedwabne will carry its shame and we will remember. To the 1500 hundred Jews murdered by the people of Jedwabne out of hatred and anti-Semitism, may your memory be blessed. To the town of Jedwabne, may your town be remembered in shame and to those who vandalized the monument, may all the work of your hands be as cursed, may your souls be cursed for your desecration.
You can read about my other breaking point, if you like, here.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/4726#.TmJwC2rmmBM
Auschwitz: A Breaking Point
By Paula R. Stern
Everyone has a breaking point. It is the point at which you simply feel you cannot take anymore. You cannot cry more, you cannot feel anger and you don't want to feel sadness. You feel that your heart hurts, and you don't want to feel that either. I watched those who accompanied me on a trip to Poland two years ago. Each had their breaking point, some had more than one.
I didn't break in Chelmno beside the grave of a little boy, though I thought I would. He was only a small infant when he died sixty years ago. His remains were hidden under a staircase and unearthed only recently. Chances are that his parents hastily buried him before they too went to their deaths. It was with anger that I stood beside the baby?s grave, and it was with sadness that I left it. He only lived a short time, modern science says two or three days.
Alone he remained, until he was reunited with his parents some 61 years later. When I first learned about the Chelmno baby, I asked where he was reburied, and was shocked to hear that they'd buried him in Poland. What right did they have to bury him there? He should have been brought home. As a parent, it is what I would have wanted for my child. But the Poles would not allow it, I was told, and that angered me more. Who are they, after all they did and all they did not do, to determine where a Jewish child is buried?
At Chelmo, I felt deep anger. Anger at the Germans who had murdered this little baby, only three days old. Fury at the church that towered nearby, that witnessed the daily murder and was used by the Germans when they couldn't kill Jews fast enough. And pain. Sadness because a world allowed this to happen and pain that only a woman can feel at the thought of a woman giving birth and then losing her child. Perhaps it is a pain that even another mother can't understand. I tried imagining a woman, just three days after giving birth, who was taken with her infant and killed. Despite all these emotions, I didn't break in Chelmno.
I didn't break in Maidanek either. Like Chelmno, it was very close. I was overwhelmed by the piles and piles of shoes. More than 800,000 shoes. Each pair represented a life, a story, a person. So many lives...but there too...I knew I had to continue, see more, learn more, feel more.
There were many places that I didn't break. Cemeteries and forests that hid mass graves. The children's forest...that holds the graves of hundreds of Jewish children, and their parents grave on the other side of the hill. Everywhere, I observed, I took pictures, I was deeply saddened, and committed to seeing and understanding what happened in each place. It was a learning experience, this was why I came to Poland. To see, to feel. It took days to build up to the point that I felt I couldn't stand being in Poland for even another moment, time to understand that the evil that remained was stronger than I was, stronger than I could ever be. In Israel, the evil cannot defeat us, but in Poland, the evil is all that remains for a Jew. Poland is a beautiful land...but not for the Jews.
I wanted Poland to be cold and dark. I was shocked to find it warm and sunny, filled with forests and green fields and streams. But there was a coldness that I felt down to my bones. The green fields didn't hide the blood and bones. It didn't even bother me when a drunken Pole yelled out "Auschwitz" as if that were the worst curse he could think of...and it probably was. The Jews are all dead (except a few...who don't understand why they remain, who welcomed us and smiled sad, confused smiles...and then watched us go). There were places I cried, places I felt a deep anger and a deep hatred. I argued with myself, reminded myself of then and now, the realities are different, hopefully the people are too. It worked for a while. Then they took us to Birkenau, to Auschwitz.
I broke in Auschwitz. It was so vast, so evil. The sun was shining beautifully, tourists from South Korea came and asked some of the Israeli girls (carrying the Israeli flag) to pose with them. Evil can be ignored when you only see the buildings, the broken rails, the decaying barracks. What harm could have been done in such a place? Fields of green grass, not a cloud in the sky. A cafeteria at the entrance and clean bathrooms. Post cards and books and film and candies can be bought in the "museum" entrance, all cheerfully manned by smiling Poles. Our Polish guide laughed and flirted with the bus driver. She was happy...employed for another day in a country where the people need work.
Some of the Israeli girls in our group smiled into the camera as the South Korean boys took their picture, and I was ashamed for them all. It wasn't my place to tell them, and yet I was one of only a few mothers on the trip, so quietly, in Hebrew, I asked them to remember. "We are in Auschwitz," I said to them, and that was all it took. They understood right away.
This was a place of ugliness, of death, of evil. You have to look past the green grass and the tall trees. Back to a time when it wasn't green, when it was so cold, explained one survivor, that the water from the brief shower the Nazis permitted them to take in the morning, froze on their bodies when they were forced to run back to their barracks without clothes. We saw the communal toilets...just a long slab of cement with holes in it...all meant to degrade, to dehumanize, to humiliate. I almost broke there, but not quite. I thought I could manage the rest, after seeing that. It couldn't be worse than that, I thought.
They took us to the collection rooms. Mountains of hair. Prayer shawls. Suitcases with names of those who came, but didn't go and a hill of artificial limbs. Which sick minds, I wondered, required the collection and sorting of these items? If you haven't seen it, you can't imagine the horror of those rooms. And yet, even if you do see them, you still can't know the stories behind each item. The anger was back, disgust stronger than ever. I could defeat Auschwitz, I told myself. I'd come here strong and aware and I would defeat this place of evil. It wouldn't break me. They took us out along the path that millions had walked. I remembered what our Israeli guide had told us the first time he took us into a gas chamber, just a few days before. "Remember," Haim said, "remember, you are going to come out." I came out.
But what we were seeing was all wrong. There was no grass growing in 1944, explained the survivor that came with us. The inmates of the concentration camp, those who were not murdered immediately, would eat the grass. There was so little to eat, he said, and so the land was cold and barren and empty, not like what we were seeing at all. The crematoria have been destroyed. They are only rubble now. You can only imagine that the crumbled cement and twisted metal once served the Germans well. Moshe, our survivor, talked about his mother, and the train that he was on...that should have come to Auschwitz, but had to turn around because someone had destroyed the tracks. He took out 7 small cards engraved with the names of his family and placed them on the ground. Then he took out a bag of soil from Israel and spread it next to the cards.
I didn't want to bring soil from Israel to place at Auschwitz. It is a custom that some follow - to take holy soil and place it on the graves of Jews buried outside of our land. The soil serves as a marker - here lies a part of our people. But I couldn't bring myself to place our soil in that land, and so I brought with me a picture of the Western Wall. It was taken during my son's bar mitzvah and I thought of it as a way to show my son's great grandparents, great aunts and uncles, that their descendent had found his way home. They died in Auschwitz, but my son, who carries the name of one of them, the great grandson of four of them, was alive and strong and tall and handsome...in Israel.
They gave us a few minutes to stand beside the rubble of one of the crematoria by ourselves. Some recited Psalms. Others talked quietly. I took out the picture of my children, the one I'd carried with me throughout Poland. It was my rope to sanity. I took out the picture of my son's bar mitzvah celebration at the Western Wall, the Kotel. And then, amid the twisted metal of the destroyed crematorium, under a small overhang that I hoped would protect it from the rain, I tucked the picture behind a metal bar pressed into the cement.
I stepped back, realizing for the first time, that I was really going to leave it here. The Kotel, the last remnant of the holiest site in Judaism, where we'd celebrated my son's bar mitzvah, an everlasting symbol of our past...and the rubble of the crematoria, another symbol. I thought of my mother-in-law, who'd been put in a gas chamber in Auschwitz. I don't know if it was that one or one of the others, but it hardly matters. She was lucky because she was taken out at the last second when the Nazis realized they needed more women for a work detail. I thought of my grandfather, who'd lost his mother and sisters here, where I was standing or very close by. I thought of my husband, who had never known the special love of a grandparent, because Hitler had a plan. It was very hard to leave the picture there.
I looked at the rubble of the crematorium, all that is left of the nightmare and there, in the place that had known such horrors, I couldn't hold back the tears. I wanted to go home, away from this place. I had reached the breaking point. I couldn't stop crying. During the days before we'd come to Auschwitz, I'd tried to comfort several girls, as I tried to comfort my own daughter when I saw she needed it. Many times, I hugged one of them, offered them some tissues, told them to think about home. But this time, it was the girls who came to me. Auschwitz.
For a moment, I thought of retrieving the picture. Maybe I shouldn't leave it there. I knew they'd throw it out the first time they came to clean the place. What would they care? The Poles call Auschwitz a museum and as good curators they'll want to clean the place. But I didn't care. I wasn't leaving the picture for the Poles. I was leaving it for Raiza and Shmuel, for Shaye Zev and Benyamin Elimelech, for Esther Chaya. I wanted them to have it.
May they long be remembered, and may the names of those who put them there be erased from all time ... not the memory of what they did, but all that they wished to accomplish, all that they wanted, all that they planned. May their identities as individuals be blurred by the collective evil they inflicted upon so many.
January, 2004
http://www.paulasays.com/articles/about_the_holocaust/auschwitz_a_breaking_point.html
Forgive me for this post...but I just can't ignore something that was reported in the news today. This isn't about Elie...who was named after one of my husband's uncles - his mother's brother, who was murdered by the Nazis shortly after his wedding. This isn't about Shmulik, who carries the name of another uncle, who collapsed in the forests of Europe and died. But it touches me...something that happened today...and so, I write.
A memorial to Holocaust victims was desecrated in Poland today. I saw the picture and recognized the monument immediately. It was in the tiny town of Jedwabne. Population approximately 3,100 in August, 1941 when the Polish villagers collected their 1,500 Jewish neighbors and murdered them all in a single, bloody attack. One Jewish family had been warned and fled; 2 other young men were able to escape to bear testimony to what their neighbors did. One was a 15-year-old boy. Fifteen, like my Davidi. The boy's father didn't remember, when the neighbors came and forced them from their home, if he'd locked the house. Go back, he told the boy. Go check and then catch up to us. He ran back to the house and then, as he returned, he began to wonder why. Instead of joining the slow moving line of Jews, the boy stayed hidden and watched. Watched as they locked the Jews in a barn...and set it afire. Their neighbors, 1,500 Jews.
After the war, the Poles erected a monument that said, "In memory of the 1,500 Poles murdered by the Hitlerites." No, the Germans had not yet arrived on that miserable day in August, 1941. The Jews, were murdered by the Poles because they were Jews. But the Poles couldn't keep the secret forever. There were those who knew the truth and remembered the hatred.
Finally, after decades of work, the Polish President came to Jedwabne to correct the wrong. The sign, the lie, was erased. They were Jews who were murdered in Jedwabne and they would be remembered as Jews. Finally. And so the memorial was replaced with new words. "In memory of the 1500 Jews who were murdered." But the lie continues, doesn't it? They admit the "Hitlerites" didn't do it...but don't admit they did - at least not on the memorial that stands in Jedwabne.
On a tour of Poland with my oldest daughter in 2004, they took us to Jedwabne as part of an 8-day tour. It is impossible to visit concentration camp after concentration camp, cemetery after cemetery, without breaking down. Why? I demanded. Why do you let them get away with this? The guide answered that were they to put, "To the 1,500 Jews murdered by their neighbors" it would be desecrated. Well, today, it was desecrated anyway.
One of the guides listened and then added that he had been in the town in 2001 when the new monument was unveiled. From the row of houses, he said pointing into the distance, someone put a stereo in the window and began blasting music to disrupt the ceremony. The president of Poland had come, even the Chief of Police of the land - to take part in the ceremony. The Chief of Police sent someone to make them close the stereo. Finally it was quiet and they were ready to begin.
And then, from the other side of town, "the Church bells started ringing, and ringing, and ringing. They had to send someone else to stop them," he explained. I once wrote, "Everyone has a breaking point. It is the point at which you simply feel you cannot take anymore. You cannot cry more, you cannot feel anger and you don't want to feel sadness. You feel that your heart hurts, and you don't want to feel that either." I broke in two places during my visit to Poland. One was in Jedwabne.
I broke at the thought that the hatred of World War II had survived the war and still lived on. I broke at the thought of a half a town rising up to murder the other half, and of a country that would hide this horror generations and generations after.
The truth is denied, even today, by omission, and by the vandals who tried to erase, yet again, the actions of hatred that define this small town. Not a word is written on the monument about who murdered the Jews. Until the sign is correctly written, until Jedwabne recognizes that it was their hatred that murdered their fellow townspeople, the name and town of Jedwabne will carry its shame and we will remember. To the 1500 hundred Jews murdered by the people of Jedwabne out of hatred and anti-Semitism, may your memory be blessed. To the town of Jedwabne, may your town be remembered in shame and to those who vandalized the monument, may all the work of your hands be as cursed, may your souls be cursed for your desecration.
You can read about my other breaking point, if you like, here.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/4726#.TmJwC2rmmBM
Auschwitz: A Breaking Point
By Paula R. Stern
Everyone has a breaking point. It is the point at which you simply feel you cannot take anymore. You cannot cry more, you cannot feel anger and you don't want to feel sadness. You feel that your heart hurts, and you don't want to feel that either. I watched those who accompanied me on a trip to Poland two years ago. Each had their breaking point, some had more than one.
I didn't break in Chelmno beside the grave of a little boy, though I thought I would. He was only a small infant when he died sixty years ago. His remains were hidden under a staircase and unearthed only recently. Chances are that his parents hastily buried him before they too went to their deaths. It was with anger that I stood beside the baby?s grave, and it was with sadness that I left it. He only lived a short time, modern science says two or three days.
Alone he remained, until he was reunited with his parents some 61 years later. When I first learned about the Chelmno baby, I asked where he was reburied, and was shocked to hear that they'd buried him in Poland. What right did they have to bury him there? He should have been brought home. As a parent, it is what I would have wanted for my child. But the Poles would not allow it, I was told, and that angered me more. Who are they, after all they did and all they did not do, to determine where a Jewish child is buried?
At Chelmo, I felt deep anger. Anger at the Germans who had murdered this little baby, only three days old. Fury at the church that towered nearby, that witnessed the daily murder and was used by the Germans when they couldn't kill Jews fast enough. And pain. Sadness because a world allowed this to happen and pain that only a woman can feel at the thought of a woman giving birth and then losing her child. Perhaps it is a pain that even another mother can't understand. I tried imagining a woman, just three days after giving birth, who was taken with her infant and killed. Despite all these emotions, I didn't break in Chelmno.
I didn't break in Maidanek either. Like Chelmno, it was very close. I was overwhelmed by the piles and piles of shoes. More than 800,000 shoes. Each pair represented a life, a story, a person. So many lives...but there too...I knew I had to continue, see more, learn more, feel more.
There were many places that I didn't break. Cemeteries and forests that hid mass graves. The children's forest...that holds the graves of hundreds of Jewish children, and their parents grave on the other side of the hill. Everywhere, I observed, I took pictures, I was deeply saddened, and committed to seeing and understanding what happened in each place. It was a learning experience, this was why I came to Poland. To see, to feel. It took days to build up to the point that I felt I couldn't stand being in Poland for even another moment, time to understand that the evil that remained was stronger than I was, stronger than I could ever be. In Israel, the evil cannot defeat us, but in Poland, the evil is all that remains for a Jew. Poland is a beautiful land...but not for the Jews.
I wanted Poland to be cold and dark. I was shocked to find it warm and sunny, filled with forests and green fields and streams. But there was a coldness that I felt down to my bones. The green fields didn't hide the blood and bones. It didn't even bother me when a drunken Pole yelled out "Auschwitz" as if that were the worst curse he could think of...and it probably was. The Jews are all dead (except a few...who don't understand why they remain, who welcomed us and smiled sad, confused smiles...and then watched us go). There were places I cried, places I felt a deep anger and a deep hatred. I argued with myself, reminded myself of then and now, the realities are different, hopefully the people are too. It worked for a while. Then they took us to Birkenau, to Auschwitz.
I broke in Auschwitz. It was so vast, so evil. The sun was shining beautifully, tourists from South Korea came and asked some of the Israeli girls (carrying the Israeli flag) to pose with them. Evil can be ignored when you only see the buildings, the broken rails, the decaying barracks. What harm could have been done in such a place? Fields of green grass, not a cloud in the sky. A cafeteria at the entrance and clean bathrooms. Post cards and books and film and candies can be bought in the "museum" entrance, all cheerfully manned by smiling Poles. Our Polish guide laughed and flirted with the bus driver. She was happy...employed for another day in a country where the people need work.
Some of the Israeli girls in our group smiled into the camera as the South Korean boys took their picture, and I was ashamed for them all. It wasn't my place to tell them, and yet I was one of only a few mothers on the trip, so quietly, in Hebrew, I asked them to remember. "We are in Auschwitz," I said to them, and that was all it took. They understood right away.
This was a place of ugliness, of death, of evil. You have to look past the green grass and the tall trees. Back to a time when it wasn't green, when it was so cold, explained one survivor, that the water from the brief shower the Nazis permitted them to take in the morning, froze on their bodies when they were forced to run back to their barracks without clothes. We saw the communal toilets...just a long slab of cement with holes in it...all meant to degrade, to dehumanize, to humiliate. I almost broke there, but not quite. I thought I could manage the rest, after seeing that. It couldn't be worse than that, I thought.
They took us to the collection rooms. Mountains of hair. Prayer shawls. Suitcases with names of those who came, but didn't go and a hill of artificial limbs. Which sick minds, I wondered, required the collection and sorting of these items? If you haven't seen it, you can't imagine the horror of those rooms. And yet, even if you do see them, you still can't know the stories behind each item. The anger was back, disgust stronger than ever. I could defeat Auschwitz, I told myself. I'd come here strong and aware and I would defeat this place of evil. It wouldn't break me. They took us out along the path that millions had walked. I remembered what our Israeli guide had told us the first time he took us into a gas chamber, just a few days before. "Remember," Haim said, "remember, you are going to come out." I came out.
But what we were seeing was all wrong. There was no grass growing in 1944, explained the survivor that came with us. The inmates of the concentration camp, those who were not murdered immediately, would eat the grass. There was so little to eat, he said, and so the land was cold and barren and empty, not like what we were seeing at all. The crematoria have been destroyed. They are only rubble now. You can only imagine that the crumbled cement and twisted metal once served the Germans well. Moshe, our survivor, talked about his mother, and the train that he was on...that should have come to Auschwitz, but had to turn around because someone had destroyed the tracks. He took out 7 small cards engraved with the names of his family and placed them on the ground. Then he took out a bag of soil from Israel and spread it next to the cards.
I didn't want to bring soil from Israel to place at Auschwitz. It is a custom that some follow - to take holy soil and place it on the graves of Jews buried outside of our land. The soil serves as a marker - here lies a part of our people. But I couldn't bring myself to place our soil in that land, and so I brought with me a picture of the Western Wall. It was taken during my son's bar mitzvah and I thought of it as a way to show my son's great grandparents, great aunts and uncles, that their descendent had found his way home. They died in Auschwitz, but my son, who carries the name of one of them, the great grandson of four of them, was alive and strong and tall and handsome...in Israel.
They gave us a few minutes to stand beside the rubble of one of the crematoria by ourselves. Some recited Psalms. Others talked quietly. I took out the picture of my children, the one I'd carried with me throughout Poland. It was my rope to sanity. I took out the picture of my son's bar mitzvah celebration at the Western Wall, the Kotel. And then, amid the twisted metal of the destroyed crematorium, under a small overhang that I hoped would protect it from the rain, I tucked the picture behind a metal bar pressed into the cement.
I stepped back, realizing for the first time, that I was really going to leave it here. The Kotel, the last remnant of the holiest site in Judaism, where we'd celebrated my son's bar mitzvah, an everlasting symbol of our past...and the rubble of the crematoria, another symbol. I thought of my mother-in-law, who'd been put in a gas chamber in Auschwitz. I don't know if it was that one or one of the others, but it hardly matters. She was lucky because she was taken out at the last second when the Nazis realized they needed more women for a work detail. I thought of my grandfather, who'd lost his mother and sisters here, where I was standing or very close by. I thought of my husband, who had never known the special love of a grandparent, because Hitler had a plan. It was very hard to leave the picture there.
I looked at the rubble of the crematorium, all that is left of the nightmare and there, in the place that had known such horrors, I couldn't hold back the tears. I wanted to go home, away from this place. I had reached the breaking point. I couldn't stop crying. During the days before we'd come to Auschwitz, I'd tried to comfort several girls, as I tried to comfort my own daughter when I saw she needed it. Many times, I hugged one of them, offered them some tissues, told them to think about home. But this time, it was the girls who came to me. Auschwitz.
For a moment, I thought of retrieving the picture. Maybe I shouldn't leave it there. I knew they'd throw it out the first time they came to clean the place. What would they care? The Poles call Auschwitz a museum and as good curators they'll want to clean the place. But I didn't care. I wasn't leaving the picture for the Poles. I was leaving it for Raiza and Shmuel, for Shaye Zev and Benyamin Elimelech, for Esther Chaya. I wanted them to have it.
May they long be remembered, and may the names of those who put them there be erased from all time ... not the memory of what they did, but all that they wished to accomplish, all that they wanted, all that they planned. May their identities as individuals be blurred by the collective evil they inflicted upon so many.
January, 2004
http://www.paulasays.com/articles/about_the_holocaust/auschwitz_a_breaking_point.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)