|HOME||May-June 2009 Featured Stories||Background Information||News On The Web|
From all sectors of the media, we have become accustomed to such terms as the "2 state solution", "peace process", disproportionate", "cycle of violence", and "peace is made with one's enemies" when referring to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Indeed, in contemporary language, "Pro Israel" has come to mean acceptance and indulgence in the idea of yet another Arab sovereignty to be named Palestine. With the emergence of the Obama era, breathing moderation into Muslim terrorist leaders has gained greater emphasis. It is as if child psychology has found a new avenue in the world of what is loosely referred to as "real politic". It is therefore of interest to review two foundation documents: the Hamas Charter, which can not be revised because it is anchored in the Koran, and the PLO, which is a political document, subject to revision.
In Judea Pearl's brilliant piece, "Daniel Pearl & the Normalization of Evil," he notes that the ideology of barbarism is celebrated in European and American universities, fueling rally after rally for Hamas, Hezbollah and other heroes of "the resistance". He goes on to observe that civilized society appears to be so numbed by violence that it has lost its gift to be disgusted by evil. Towards the article's conclusion, Mr. Pearl asks what it is about the American psyche that enables genocidal organizations like Hamas the charter of which would offend every neuron in our brains to become tolerated in public discourse. One can perhaps express the question differently: why are human rights activists ignoring the driving force of terrorism, the Hamas and revised PLO Covenants? Are they forgotten or have they been conveniently ignored? A serious study of these documents absolutely refutes the idea of negotiating with terrorists.
The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement first appeared on 18 August 1988 and became known as the Hamas Covenant 1988 [aka the Hamas Charter]. It stresses the need to destroy Israel via armed struggle as part of a more comprehensive struggle against the Jews. We find in it descriptions of the Jew as a hoarder of money, war monger, the founder of secret societies, and instigator of revolutions. The Covenant calls for Jihad against the Jew in various forms and constantly alludes to Zionist influence. It stresses the requirement for the Jews to recognize the superiority of Islam and convert to it. Failure to do so will seal their fate. The Covenant rules out the option of peace agreements or compromise. It consists of 36 numbered clauses, a few of which, selectively chosen, appear below:
As part of the preamble, we read these statements:
Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Binna, of blessed memory).
"The Islamic Resistance Movement emerged to carry out its role through striving for the sake of its Creator, its arms intertwined with those of all the fighters for the liberation of Palestine."
"Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts."
The theme continues in the next Segments: "Definition of the Movement", "Objectives", Strategies and Methods", and "Our Attitudes Towards:". Here are some of the assertions from these segments.
"The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: 'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews [killing the Jews], when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Harked tree, [evidently a certain kind of tree] would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.'" [Related by al-Bukhara and Moslem].
"... Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered; it, or any part of it, should not be given up."
"There is no solution for the Palestine question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with."
"The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised. To do this requires the diffusion of Islamic consciousness among the masses, both on the regional, Arab and Islamic levels. It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.
"It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses)."
"For a long time, the enemies have bee planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realization of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist Revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there."
They were behind World War 1...They were behind World War 2... It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it."
"We should not forget to remind every Moslem that when the Jews conquered the Holy City in 1967, they stood on the threshold of the Aqsa Mosque and proclaimed that 'Mohammed is dead, and his descendents are all women'.
"Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and Moslem people. 'May the cowards never sleep'"
"The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.
"Leaving the circle of struggle with Zionism is high treason, and cursed be he who does that, 'for whoso shall turn his back unto them on that day, unless he turneth aside to fight, or retreateth to another party of the faithful, shall draw on himself the indignation of Allah, and his abode shall be hell; an ill journey shall it be hither.' (The Spoils verse 16). There is no way out except by concentrating all powers and energies to face this Nazi, vicious Tatar invasion."
The final Segment "The Testimony of History" of the Charter assures us that "Palestine is the navel of the globe and the crossroad of the continents. Since the dawn of history, it has been the target of expansionists. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, had himself pointed to this fact in the noble Hadith in which he called on his honourable companion, Ma'adh ben-Jabal, saying: O Ma'ath, Allah throw open before you, when I am gone, Syria, from Al-Arish to the Euphrates. Its men, women and slaves will stay firmly there till the Day of Judgement. Whoever of you should choose one of the Syrian shores, or the Holy Land, he will be in constant struggle till the Day of Judgement." [For the 400 years that Mandated Palestine belonged to the Ottoman Empire -- until the Ottomans chose to side with the Germans, the losers in World War I -- it was not a political entity but was simply part of their Syrian province.]
By its focus and its passion, the Charter clearly asserts Hamas has
one mission: to destroy Judaism. It also is an interesting example of
what the psychologists call projection: attributing to the Jews
the evil they themselves have and are doing.
PERHAPS THE MOST EXHAUSTIVE SUMMARY ON THE HAMAS COVENANT [also referred to as Charter] was given by Professor Raphael Israeli of Hebrew University in an interview by IMRA on March 26, 1996. It was configured around Israeli's translation of the Covenant as it appeared in his 1990 work "The Charter of Allah: The Platform of the Islamic Resistance Movement."  As an introduction, Professor Israeli explains that while the PLO Covenant is a political document which can be amended, the HAMAS Charter is presented as a religious document, based on the Koran and with many references to sacred texts, which cannot be changed once it has been published. His study is broken into five Parts in chronological order: Part 1. Knowing the Movement; Part 2. Objectives; Part3. Strategies and Methods; Part 4. Our Position vis-à-vis the Islamic Movements; and Part 5. The Testimony of History. A few of his comments on the articles of the Hamas charter follow:
Hamas regards Nationalism [Wataniyya] as part and parcel of the religious faith. Nothing is loftier or deeper in Nationalism than waging Jihad against the enemy and confronting him when he set foot on the land of the Muslims. And this becomes an individual duty binding on every Muslim man and woman; a woman must go out and fight the enemy even without her husband's authorization, and a slave without his master's permission...
The problem of the Liberation of Palestine relates to three circles; the Palestinian, the Arab and the Islamic. ... the liberation of that land is an individual duty binding on Muslims everywhere ...
...The Nazism of the Jews does not skip women and children, it scars everyone----As we face this misconduct, we have no escape from establishing social solidarity among the people, from confronting the enemy as one solid body, so that if one organ is hurt the rest of the body will respond with alertness and fervor
Article Twenty Seven:
The PLO is among the closest to the Hamas, for it constitutes a father, a brother, a relative, a friend ... the PLO has adopted the idea of a Secular State ... Therefore, in spite of our appreciation for the PLO and its possible transformation in the future, and despite the fact that we do not denigrate its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, we cannot substitute it for the Islamic nature of Palestine by adopting secular thought. For the Islamic nature of Palestine is part of our religion, and anyone who neglects his religion is bound to lose.
...Jihad means not only carrying arms and denigrating the enemies. Uttering positive words, writing good articles and useful books, and lending support and assistance, all that too is Jihad in the path of Allah, as long as intentions are sincere to make Allah's banner supreme. "Those who prepare for a raid in the path of Allah are considered as if they participated themselves in the raid. Those who successfully rear a raider in their home are considered as if they participated in the raid." (Told by Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi).
Article Thirty One:
..."Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions; Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety. Safety and security can only prevail under the shadow of Islam...
..."The Nazi Zionist practices against our people will not last the lifetime of their invasion, for "States built upon oppression last only one hour, states based upon justice will last until the hour of Resurrection."...
Article Thirty Five:
the current Zionist invasion had been preceded by a Crusader invasion from the West; and another one, the Tatars, from the East. And exactly as the Muslims had faced those invasions and planned their removal and defeat, they are able to face the Zionist invasion and defeat it...
The constitution of the PLO requires an entirely different analysis to that of Hamas because, unlike the Hamas Charter, which can not be changed, it encompasses commitments to revision, alleged modifications, questionable statements and elements of confusion. As recently as May 2009, the writer addressed this question to the Librarian of the Yale Law School [The Avalon Project], "Did the PLO Covenant ever get revised?" The answer was: "The current status of the PLO Covenant is a matter steeped in controversy, as is the issue of its revision." Indeed it is and, as noted by the Internet site Wikipedia, it has almost disappeared from the Israeli discourse and debate. "To a growing degree, especially after the electoral victory in the Hamas movement in the Palestinian elections of 2006, Israeli attention shifted to the Hamas Movement's own Covenant and the positions taken by the Hamas-dominated Palestinian Government."
The Palestine National Covenant is the founding charter of the PLO, adopted at the PLO's founding congress in May 1964. The Covenant sets forth the organization's stated aims and goals. Almost all of the articles in the Covenant explicitly or implicitly deny Israel's right to exist and reject any peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. For example, these articles:
Article 19: The establishment of Israel is fundamentally null and void, whatever time has elapsed...
The Covenant also denies the existence of the Jewish people as a nation and any ties that it might have to the Land of Israel [Article 20: "Nor do Jews constitute a single nation"]. It declares in Article 9 that "armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine".
With such inflammatory language, which in summary called for the destruction of the State of Israel, no Israeli government would entertain the PLO as a serious "partner for peace". In a letter dated September 9, 1993 integral to the Oslo Accords, Yasser Arafat agreed that:
However, no revision took place, but Arafat confirmed the obligation in a further letter to Rabin attached to the May 4, 1994 Agreement on the Gaza Strip and Jericho Area [Cairo Agreement]. Here again, no activity followed. The 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Agreement [Oslo 2] made the requirement more specific in that the necessary changes were to be effected within 2 months.
On April 24, 1996 there was a vote by the PLO's Palestine National Council, which was widely reported by the media as having annulled the clauses of the PLO Covenant denying Israel's right to exist and calling for its destruction through violence. Unbelievably, both the US and Israeli governments considered it to have been a fulfillment of the requirement on changing the Covenant. Of course, this was not the case but merely a statement to undertake the revision at some undefined time.
After winning the Israeli election in May 1996, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared the failure to revise the Covenant to be a violation of the agreements by the Palestinians. In the 1997 Hebron Agreement, we find that the PLO was committed to, "complete the process of revising the Palestinian Charter." In the presence of President Clinton on December 14, 1998 and in accordance with the Wyes Memorandum, the Palestinian National Council convened in Gaza. They voted to reaffirm their decision to amend the Covenant, another act of window dressing. Obviously, voting to do something can never be considered a substitute for actually doing it.
Al-Hayat Al-Jadida reported on February 3, 2001, PNC Chairman, Salim Za'anoun as stating in the official Palestinian Authority newspaper that the Covenant remained unchanged and was still in force. This led former CIA Director James Woolsey to remark, "Arafat has been like the Lucy with the football, treating the rest of the world as Charlie Brown. He and the PNC keep telling everyone they've changed the charter, without actually changing it."
In his April 22, 2004 interview with the Jordanian newspaper Al-Arab, the PLO minister still living in Tunisia Farouk Kaddoumi said that the PLO Charter was never changed so as to recognize Israel's right to exist. "The Palestinian national charter has not been amended until now. It was said that some articles are no longer effective, but they were not changed. I'm one of those who didn't agree to any changes." He said also: "...the national struggle must continue. I mean the armed struggle... Fatah was established on the basis of the armed struggle and that this was the only way to leading to political negotiations that would force the enemy to accept our national aspirations. Therefore there is no struggle other than the armed military struggle... If Israel wants to leave the Gaza Strip, then it should do so. This means that the Palestinian resistance has forced it to leave. But the resistance will continue. Let the Gaza Strip be South Vietnam. We will use all available methods to liberate North Vietnam."
Fatah, the main faction of the PLO to which Abbas belongs, displays its constitution on its web site. The most contemporary published version is dated July 19, 2005. Article 12 speaks of "Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military, and cultural existence." Article 13 uses the words, "Complete sovereignty of all Palestinian lands" and Article 19 states that "Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated."
On September 30, 2007, David Bedein, President, Center for Near East Policy Research Ltd. reported in a discussion, "Preventing a Terror State," in Arutz Sheva, that "the Fatah Charter to this day calls for the destruction of Israel via armed resistance, and that the PLO charter calling for Israel's destruction was never actually amended, in spite of the pretense that it had been"
As recently as April 9, 2008, we have from Abbas Zaki, Palestinian Authority representative in Lebanon
(NBN TV); "The PLO... has not changed its platform even one iota... the Israeli ideology will collapse in its entirety, and we will begin to progress with our own ideology, Allah willing, and drive them out of all of Palestine."
One can conclude this summary of PLO/PA obsessive hatred by
expressing the thought that there is little difference in revising or
not revising the PLO Covenant. Clearly, the hatred and violence
directed against Israel did not originate with the given document and
extends well beyond it.
IT IS TRULY UNBELIEVABLE GIVEN THE ACCOUNT OF UNQUESTIONABLE ARAB OPPOSITION to the State of Israel that Jews, both in Israel and in the rest of the world can entertain the idea of the establishment of yet another hostile Arab country, even more so, one to share a border with. It is even more credible to have witnessed how well understood "red lines" have been evaporated by weak Israeli governments.
One very seldom finds an exposure to the forgotten covenants, be it in political quarters or the media and perhaps if it were otherwise, the public would be far less conciliatory in even contemplating discussion on any thoughts of solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict beyond that of resettling the Arabs within the domain of "greater Arabia".
Writing in the Jerusalem Post of May 15, 2009, feisty Sarah Honig interestingly reviewed what she termed "choice charter selections from the PLO Covenant" and makes the definite statement "We've been pretending for over a decade that we won Palestinian recognition, though cognitively we know the PLO Charter calling for Israel's destruction was never abrogated." Characteristically, Abbas specifically will not entertain the words "Jewish state" while displaying agreement to the use of the word "Israel" for the naming of the State of Israel! Of course such acceptance would capitalize on the potential of a democracy, where Arabs could become the majority thus facilitating the obliteration of a Jewish Israel. Interestingly, in the same edition of the Post, Daniel Gordis draws attention to the Hamas Charter in its calls not only for the destruction of Israel, but for Islamic war on Jews everywhere. He asks what should long before now have been the obvious question "Why do we consistently refuse to believe that Hamas means what it says?"
UN Resolution 242 adopted following the Six Day War includes these words, "... respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." This implied understandings and negotiations between Israel and her neighbors. Nowhere is the word "Palestinian" or "Palestine" mentioned, nor for that matter a requirement to establish a state called "Palestine". In a report to the Secretary of Defense in 1967, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote that at a minimum, "Israel would need a defense line generally along the Bardala-Tuba-Nablus-Bira-Jerusalem axis, and then to the northern part of the Dead Sea. This line would widen the narrow portion of Israel and provide additional terrain for the defense of Tel Aviv." The report also provides for a united Jerusalem under Israeli control. To defend Jerusalem, the Joint Chiefs concluded, Israel would need to have its border "positioned to the east of the city".
In Camp David Accords terms, Israel had ceded over 90% of the conquered territory to Egypt, but apparently that was not enough for the Arab world. While this realized a cold peace between Israel and Egypt, terrorist attacks continued.
During the Yitzhak Rabin era, we were introduced to the wisdom espoused in the repetitive expression of "not making peace with one's friends, but with one's enemies". This lead to the laundering of Arafat, an individual who personified evil in the extreme and whose skills had manifested themselves in some ingenious concepts of terrorism befitting a modern day Hitler. It is beyond all logic to comprehend Israeli desperation to have sanctified acceptance of such a person and a willingness to entertain life endangered agreements with him.
The history of Israeli appeasement since the country's inception would require the publication of an entire book. If one elects to set aside attendance at the Madrid conference, Yitzhak Shamir is perhaps the lone figure among Premiers not to indulge in such action. The ultimate act of appeasement was undoubtedly that of the withdrawal and brutal evacuation of Gaza by Sharon. Here again, our ever confident leadership was not slow in answering skeptics when challenged with the prospect of a failed disengagement with the notion that we would return to Gaza if this ever happened. We simply had to "give peace a chance" as if Oslo, Hebron et al was not enough. Is it any wonder that Syria is now encouraged to consider negotiations with Israel?
We have all heard the insidious claim that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" while the powerful rebuttal to this kind of moral relativism made by the late Senator Henry Jackson does not appear to have adequately impacted the world's political elites. His statement bears repeating today: "The idea that one person's 'terrorist' is another's 'freedom fighter,'" "cannot be sanctioned. Freedom fighters or revolutionaries don't blow up buses containing non-combatants; terrorist murderers do. Freedom fighters don't set out to capture and slaughter school children; terrorist murderers do. Freedom fighters don't assassinate innocent businessmen, or hijack and hold hostage innocent men, women, and children; terrorist murderers do. It is a disgrace that democracies would allow the treasured word 'freedom' to be associated with acts of terrorists." So spoke Scoop Jackson while others sought to find more agreeable definitions of this barbarism.
Funds have been raised over and over again by Israel, the UN, the EU and the USA to establish a country to be named the State of Palestine. In acknowledgment of history and the known facts, could this money not have been more realistically allocated to relocating the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza to the surrounding Arab countries? Countries, where they would enjoy the same culture, language, religion and heritage and where they should be able to prosper in (imperfect) harmony in areas, where they could readily support their natural population growth as a result of unlimited land expanse.
As one traverses the long and bitter history of the Jew, one cannot help but wonder, what will it take to arouse this people en masse to regain the proper perspective of a nation displaying the necessary dignity befitting this expansive history? That this people cannot show any signs of having learnt the lessons of the Holocaust, treating it more as celebration than commemoration, is indeed both disgusting and mind boggling.
Celebrated Revisionist historian, Benny Morris, the fount of Israeli contemporary liberalism has emerged in recent times as an example of how an intellectual is capable of challenging his life-long beliefs.
Morris's early years were much influenced through his participation in the socialist Hashomer Hatza'ir youth movement. He expressed support for the Palestinians with the commencement of the first intifada in the late 1980's. It manifested itself in a refusal to serve in the IDF resulting in his being jailed in 1988. Following the publication of his first book, the conclusions resulted in him being branded as a radical leftist and an Israel hater, even being boycotted by the Israeli academic establishment. He has defended his actions by proclaiming himself a Zionist who had consistently voted Labor or Meretz or Sheli before 2000.
Benny Morris deeply reacted to the Palestinian rejection of President Clinton's 2000 peace accords and the beginning of the second intifada. He named it a "political-terrorist assault on Israel's existence...". Apparently, his critical research at Ben Gurion University on the Zionist establishment resulted in his identifying with them. Nowadays, his disillusionment with the peace process has caused him to increasingly make statements resembling those of Israeli right wing advocates. However, in all this, there remains certain confusion in that he still adheres to the idea of a two state solution albeit that he is of the belief that his generation will not enjoy peace. On the subject of Israel's Arab citizens, Morris has surprisingly stated:
"The Israel Arabs are a time bomb. Their slide into complete Palestinization has made them an emissary of the enemy that is among us. They are a potential fifth column. In both demographic and security terms they are liable to undermine the state. So that if Israel again finds itself in a situation of existential threat, as in 1948, it may be forced to act as it did then. If we are attacked by Egypt [after an Islamic revolution in Cairo] and by Syria, and chemical and biological missiles slam into our cities, and at the same time Israeli Palestinians attack us from behind, I can see an expulsion will be justified."
Today, Benny Morris recognizes the facts on the ground when viewing the Middle East landscape and yet cannot be convinced that should there be a 2 state solution, which will run counter to his many assertions. Consider his reaction to a Haaretz reporter who referred to the 1948 Palestinian exodus as "ethnic cleansing; "there are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide the annihilation of your people I prefer ethnic cleaning".
In calling the Israel-Palestinian conflict an element of a global clash of civilizations between Islamic fundamentalism and the Western World, he says, "There is a deep problem in Islam. It's a world whose values are different. A world in which human life doesn't have the same value as it does in the West, in which freedom, democracy, openness and creativity is alien. He also notes that revenge plays a central part in the Arab culture. Therefore the people we are fighting and the society that sends them has no moral inhibitions". Amazing! Despite this comprehension, Morris would have an enclave of such people configured into a state alongside of Israel.
Contrary to Benny Morris's earlier works, on February 21, 2008,
writing in the Irish Times, he makes the definite statement,
"There was no Zionist 'plan' or blanket policy of evicting the Arab
population, or of 'ethnic cleansing'" and that "the demonisation of
Israel is largely based on lies much as the demonisation of the
Jews during the past 2,000 years has been based on lies. And there is
a connection between the two."
Morris has criticized Ben-Gurion for not carrying out such a plan,
saying "In the end, he faltered... If he had carried out a full
expulsion rather than a partial one he would have
stabilized the State of Israel for generations." Perhaps an apology
to Rabbi Meir Kahane Z'LB is overdue. He has also voiced his opinion
on the issue of Iran in a New York Op-Ed piece dated July 21, 2008
in which he said that "Iran's leaders would do well to rethink their
gamble and suspend their nuclear program." Failure to do so would
materialize in an Israeli conventional air assault with thousands of
Iranian casualties and an Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland.
AS ONE TRAVERSES HISTORY, SEVERAL QUESTIONS EMERGE. How many leading politicians, journalists considered Middle East experts have been exposed to the subject covenants? Of those who have, and yet persist in their confidence in another hate-filled Arab state bordering Israel, how is one to comprehend their mindset? Why does President Obama maintain that Islam contains a negligible minority given to terrorism, particularly as they feature so significantly in Islam's hierarchy?
In summary, there is a common strain which manifests itself in asking, how did liberalism of yesteryear turn into the liberalism of today? It would seem that contemporary liberalism convinced itself that it was the font of all moral rectitude because of its stands on civil rights and Vietnam. It then assumed the belief that anything else it supported was morally right and that those who disagreed were morally inferior. Basically, it began to believe its press clippings, an always delusional approach.
Writing in the Jewish World Review of September 7, 2008, Suzanne Fields explores the subject more fully in an article entitled, "Feeding the Crocodile". She notes,
"The 1930s were 'a time when a certain cynicism and moral confusion set in among the Western democracies.' Men and women who should have known better refused to see what was writ large and plain before their eyes, and what Winston Churchill meant when he said that accommodating Hitler was 'a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.' The analogy to modern appeasement is not exact, but the faint-hearted who demand a quick withdrawal from Iraq are trying to appease a hungry crocodile. The French, as the Germans of the Weimar Republic had before them, wore blinkers looking at the crocodile. Those most blinded to the evil threat of Hitler were exactly those with the most to lose.
"Many intellectuals and Democratic politicians of our own time resemble the Germans so soothed by rhetoric and intoxicated by the creativity of the 1920s and early 1930s that they could not see how all they held dear could be destroyed by Hitler. The Germans were afflicted with a terminal naïveté, confronting the emerging fascists in their country, just as many Americans are confronting the 'new fascism'."
Does this not describe the mood and behavior of so many in Israel who will entertain the "2 state solution" despite having given "peace a chance" in the form of the Gaza withdrawal, the obvious failure of Oslo, the ongoing terrorism since Oslo, which has cost more Israeli lives than the rest of worldwide Jewry, and the violent reaction to every act of appeasement?
Returning now to Judea Pearl's Op-Ed, we find an observation which truly describes the mentality which pervades the liberal world view.
"But somehow, barbarism, often cloaked in the language of "resistance," has gained acceptance in the most elite circles of our society. The words "war on terror" cannot be uttered today without fear of offense. Civilized society, so it seems, is so numbed by violence that it has lost its gift to be disgusted by evil."
 The complete Hamas charter, "The Covenant of the Islamic
Resistance Movement, 18 August 1988" is available as a Yale University
Avalon Project Document at
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp We use the Avalon translation in this essay.
 Professor Raphael Israeli, "The Charter of Allah: The Platform of the Islamic Resistance Movement" in Y. Alexander (ed), "The 1988-1989 Annual on Terrorism" (Martinus Nijhoff, Netherlands).
 http://www.palestinefacts.org/ pf_1948to1967_plo_backgd.php
 http://www.palestinefacts.org/ pf_1991to_now_plo_charter_revise.php
PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=%22henry+jackson%22+%22freedom+fighter%22+ terrorists&source=bl&ots=CV6-WSI83O&sig= 7epkg34rLy6awGCu6zQQNyj45Ro&hl=en&ei=4l9YSq5smZ63B6D15N0K&sa =X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
Alex Rose is an engineering consultant. He was formerly on the Executive of Americans for a Safe Israel and a founding member of CAMERA New York. He made Aliyah in 2003 and now resides in Ashkelon, Israel. Contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org
|HOME||May-June 2009 Featured Stories||Background Information||News On The Web|