John R. Houk
© September 14, 2018
Here’s something in the news cycle you probably have not
read or heard about due anti-Trump media bias and anti-Trump
media platform bias.
National Security Advisor John Bolton issue a stern warning
to the International Criminal Court (ICC) if they unjustly go after the USA or
our nation’s allies – SUCH AS ISRAEL – with fake accusations of global crimes
merely because the alleged crime is a thumbing of the nose to the evils of
Multiculturalism or National self-preservation. AND in conjunction to the Bolton
warning, the U.S. has booted the Palestinian Authority out of Washington DC and
set up the U.S. Embassy to Israel in Jerusalem.
KEEP IN MIND there never has been a Palestinian nation or
people of Arab ancestry in world history. The designation of a “Palestinian
People” ONLY came as the now defunct Soviet Union and the Arab League nations
created them as a result of failed multiple
Arab nations invasions of Israel between 1948 (Israel reclaims
their heritage via independence) and 1973.
The pretext for future Arab invasions of Israel was the of
liberating Arab-Palestinians from
Israel. Hence the Arab
League nations and the Communist
USSR formed the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964. The Arab nations
NEVER had any intention of setting up a so-called Palestinian nation.
They wanted to invade and fight over who got what land for their own nation’s
National Interest. A great analysis of Arabs vs. Jews in what is now Israel is
at Stratfor
which should be read in entirety but for the purpose of this post – here is a
tidbit of relevant info:
Palestinian nationalism's first
enemy is Israel, but if Israel ceased to exist, the question of an independent
Palestinian state would not be settled. All of the countries bordering such a
state would have serious claims on its lands, not to mention a profound
distrust of Palestinian intentions. The end of Israel thus would not guarantee
a Palestinian state. One of the remarkable things about Israel's Operation Cast
Lead in Gaza was that no Arab state moved quickly to take aggressive steps on
the Gazans' behalf. Apart from ritual condemnation, weeks into the offensive no
Arab state had done anything significant. This was not accidental: The Arab
states do not view the creation of a Palestinian state as being in their
interests. They do view the destruction of Israel as being in their interests,
but since they do not expect that to come about anytime soon, it is in their
interest to reach some sort of understanding with the Israelis while keeping
the Palestinians contained.
The emergence of a Palestinian
state in the context of an Israeli state also is not something the Arab regimes
see as in their interest — and this is not a new phenomenon. They have never
simply acknowledged Palestinian rights beyond the destruction of Israel. In
theory, they have backed the Palestinian cause, but in practice they have
ranged from indifferent to hostile toward it. Indeed, the major power that is
now attempting to act on behalf of the Palestinians is Iran — a non-Arab state
whose involvement is regarded by the Arab regimes as one more reason to
distrust the Palestinians. (The
Geopolitics of the Palestinians; Stratfor Worldview; 5/15/11
05:00 GMT)
Israel
Hayom posted a great editorial on John Bolton, the USA
position, Israel and the pseudo-Palestinians (includes cut funding to UNWRA
which aided Hamas terrorism in Gaza). I am cross posting from Israpundit where I
discovered the editorial.
JRH 9/14/18
In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.
**********************
By Ariel Kahana
Originally at Israel
Hayom
September 14, 2018
Twelve hours and an ocean separated two important speeches
this week. On Monday, U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton addressed the
Federalist Society in Washington. The next day, European Union foreign policy
chief Federica Mogherini spoke before the EU Parliament in Strasbourg, France.
Bolton made an unprecedented attack on the International
Criminal Court in The Hague, saying, “The United States will use any means
necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust
prosecution by this illegitimate court,” he said.
“If the court comes after us, Israel or other US allies, we
will not sit quietly,” Bolton said, adding that ICC judges and prosecutors
could face personal sanctions from the U.S., including being banned from
entering the U.S. and/or prosecution in the U.S. justice system.
Little was said about Bolton’s speech in Israel but the
appreciation for it was as great as the silence about it. The ICC is a major
concern for the country’s leaders. The threat of Israelis being tried in The
Hague hangs like a sword over their heads. IDF soldiers and commanders could be
tried for actions taken as part of their military service, and any approval of
construction plans in Greater Jerusalem or on the Golan Heights or in Samaria,
could be defined by the ICC as a war crime. This is the widely held position in
the ICC, which is exactly where law and politics meet.
Over the years, Israel has taken steps to prevent ICC
intervention, but as with any other legal measure, it is hard to know whether
they were sufficient. Therefore, we need another level of defense, which Bolton
and U.S. President Donald Trump have just supplied. The defense tactics of one
small Middle Eastern country bear no similarity to explicit threats from the
only superpower in the world. Because the ICC, like all international law,
includes both law and politics, there is no doubt that the American threats are
having an effect. For years, the ICC has been trying to increase its
international legitimacy. Western Europe and Japan are behind it, but the U.S.
is not a member, and plenty of other countries criticize its approach and
policies.
The ICC might have responded to Bolton’s speech by saying
declaring it would continue to work undeterred, but even in The Hague they know
that while if you spit in America’s face, it gets wet, but if America spits
back, you’ll drown.
Less than a day after Bolton spoke, Mogherini stood up
before the EU Parliament. She also discussed justice, the law, and Israel, but
took a slightly different line, saying: “The Israeli High Court last week
rejected the petitions by the residents of the Palestinian village of Khan
al-Ahmar. … [The demolition] would be contrary to Israel’s obligations under
international humanitarian law [AK: a misleading statement, the High Court of
Justice spent a decade reviewing the petitions and is obligated to
international law]. … The demolition of Khan al-Ahmar, together with plans for
further settlement expansions in the same area, would also severely threaten
the viability of the two-state solution [AK: untrue].”
Mogherini added that the evacuation and demolition of Khan
al-Ahmar would have “grave humanitarian consequences.”
Mogherini and Bolton are an ocean apart, and not only in the
geographical sense. A thousand years would be insufficient for the continent in
whose name Mogherini speaks to pay its historic debt to the Jewish people. And
still, the EU foreign policy chief stands at the head of the anti-Israel front,
mixing up politics with law and justice in accordance with traditional European
hypocrisy. On the one hand, she allows illegal African migrants to drown at sea
or be slaughtered by Libyan militias. On the other, she preaches morality to
Israel. And only to Israel.
The Europeans, who owe us so much, bandy around some very
lofty talk, but as usual are fanning the fires of hatred. The U.S., which
doesn’t owe us a thing, is supplying us a shield the likes of which we have
never enjoyed in the name of justice and freedom. That’s the unbridgeable gap
between Europe and the U.S.
Under Trump, America and Europe are growing farther apart,
and not only when it comes to Israel. In any case, we can predict who will win.
America doesn’t need Europe. Europe, on the other hand, really does need the
U.S. Sooner or later, the old country will call in the new one, as it did twice
last century. We can only hope it won’t be because of World War III.
Mogherini’s hostile speech did, however, contain one
accurate sentence. “The two-state solution is today under serious threat – more
than ever before.” Indeed, the U.S. announcement that it was closing
the PLO mission in Washington is a death blow to the
Palestinian movement.
To understand how serious a move it was, we need to go back
in history. From its founding in 1964 until now, the Palestine Liberation
Organization (under Yasser Arafat and now Mahmoud Abbas) has sought
international support. The hypocritical Europeans aligned themselves with it in
the 1970s in what later turned out to be “protection” for the PLO not carrying
out terrorist attacks on the continent. The U.S. was the only country who
refused at the time to give legitimacy to the biggest killer of Jews since the
Holocaust. As a nation of values, it saw terrorism as unacceptable and refused
any ties with the PLO. Aside from one small “information office” in New York
and, of course, intelligence ties, the American response to the organization
was boycott.
The tough U.S. stance was effective and was one of the factors
in Arafat declaring at the end of 1988 that he was turning away from terrorism
and would recognize Israel. Then-President Ronald Reagan, who was at the end of
his second term, fell into the trap.
“The initiation of a dialogue between the United States and
PLO representatives is an important step in the peace process. … The United
States’ special commitment to Israel’s security and well-being remains
unshakable. Indeed, a major reason for our entry into this dialogue is to help
Israel achieve the recognition and security it deserves,” Reagan declared on
Dec. 14, 1988. The rest of that dialogue never happened, but the U.S.
recognition of the PLO was already a fait accompli. Five years later, when the late
Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin signed the Oslo
Accords, the Clinton administration upgraded the PLO office to the
status of an official delegation. In 2010 former President Barack Obama boosted
it a step higher on the diplomatic ladder.
With a tailwind of support from Obama and the Europeans
crossing their fingers, the Palestinians persuaded the entire world to turn
around them. They were surrounded by economic aid and moral, political, and
media support from every direction. This development hit two peaks: one when
the U.N. General Assembly recognized
Palestine as a nonmember state in 2012, and the other when the
U.N. Security Council passed Resolution
2334, which condemned Israeli settlements as illegal and deemed the
Western Wall “occupied territory,” to massive applause. This was the core of
the Obama legacy, which tried to taint Israel and set parameters for any future
peace deal.
Then Trump arrived. By the end of 2017, the president and
then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson were already threatening not to extend
the PLO’s mandated presence in Washington. They did so partly because of the
Palestinian boycott of the administration, but also because the PLO had
violated an American law that explicitly forbids the PA to appeal to
international entities such as the ICC. But the Palestinians failed to heed the
warnings and didn’t realize that Trump meant what he said.
Now Bolton has appeared and finished the job. By closing the
PLO mission, Trump, Bolton, and all the rest of the president’s men have rolled
the Palestinian issue 30 years back in time to where it stood in the
1980s. Things the Palestinians and the world as a whole took for
granted – like a future Palestinian state or a demi-embassy on American soil –
slipped from their grasp. Trump dropped them to the bottom of the barrel and
has called the legitimacy of what has become known as the “Palestinian struggle”
into question.
In all this, Israel is like a small child surrounded by toys
he never thought he’d actually get. The U.S. recognition of Jerusalem last
December and the relocation of the U.S. Embassy to the capital this year, as
well as the U.S. cuts to funding for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, cuts to
money that goes to pay Palestinian terrorists, and a total hands-off policy
when it comes to criticizing Israel – not to mention shutting down the PLO
mission and threatening the ICC – are just a partial list, and Trump hasn’t
even been in office for two years.
But a lot of the recent American steps went over Israel’s head, without it knowing about them or even despite some mild objections by its diplomatic officials. At the end of the day, the Trump administration is grinding all the paradigms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into dust. This daring approach leaves those who until recently were considered local experts on the conflict and peace process speechless.
It’s not only the people in the peace industry who are left
embarrassed in the face of the lavish gifts from Uncle Sam. The Israeli Right,
including those factions represented in the cabinet, doesn’t really know what
to do with all this abundance. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is justifiably
proud of withstanding the Obama currents, is finding it hard to ride the Trump
wave.
Instead of walking around grinning, the government should
lay a list of historic and irreversible steps in front of Trump that would
anchor our vital interests in Judea and Samaria. The first should be to link
Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim. Netanyahu, as well as his predecessors, recognized
how crucial it is for Israel to build in E1 as a way of keeping a permanent
hold on Jerusalem. Thus far, the government hasn’t presented the Trump
administration with any plan of that kind, U.S. Ambassador David Friedman told
Israel Hayom in an exclusive
interview last weekend.
And it’s not only Jerusalem. The first Netanyahu government
decided in 1988 to define the areas of Judea and Samaria that were of strategic
importance to Israel. Now it’s time to lay them before the Americans. And we
should also kill the idea of a Palestinian state. Trump declared when he first
took office that he didn’t care if a peace deal entailed two states or one.
Because Trump’s
“deal of the century” for peace between Israel and the
Palestinians isn’t moving forward, and now that it’s been made clear that the
president isn’t afraid to put the Palestinians in their place, it’s time for
Israel to drop the two-state idea. Ever since Trump took office, Netanyahu has
refrained from a clear statement on the issue, or from asking Trump to make a
binding statement. But who knows when this opportunity will present itself
again?
Trump has at least two years left in the White House. His
successor could be as hostile to Israel as Trump is supportive. So Netanyahu
needs to take advantage of the remaining time to diplomatically fortify Israel
so that whoever comes after Trump won’t be able to harm us. But for that to
happen, we cannot remain passive spectators. This time, Netanyahu must be
proactive.
___________________________
Bolton Gets ICC and
Palestinian Authority Attention
John R. Houk
© September 14, 2018
____________________________
Putting the PLO in its
place
No comments:
Post a Comment