Thursday

Perspective and Proportions

As already stated, Israel consists of less than one per cent of the entire Middle East land mass area. This is a geographical fact, anyone can check it by taking out a world Atlas and see for themselves. The surrounding Muslim and Arabs control Northern Africa from the western shores to the Central Asian mountains, and everything in between, covering large parts of three continents; North Africa, the Middle East and the South East Asia belt, sums up a total of 55 states represented by the organization OIC which is in charge of more than 1,3 billion Muslims spread world wide. Except the tiny micro-sized state of Israel that can hardly bee seen in this ocean of countries, with its five million Jews and one million Arab citizens. For those having trouble understanding this mind game, the protestwarriors at www.protestwarrior.com have come up with a simple way to clarify this:



Of course this isn’t the map being used when media or political representatives report from the disputed areas, claiming that the Arabs have no land, and that the “evil” Israelis are stealing “Palestinian land”. No, when this is the case, the magnifying glass closes in at least 500 times, zooming in on Judea/Samaria, and in an attempt to rename it, first they call it the “West Bank” and lately back to the good old Roman “Palestine”. However, geographic landscape history is static, and cannot be altered no matter how much one wishes to do so, unless one is willing to adopt the art of plain history forgery or claiming that natural disasters have been shifting the areas.

Imagine instead, that the small Swedish island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea was like Israel, surrounded by Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Åland and Norway, and then backed by Russia. And that the tiny island for some strange reason had survived all previous aggression wars and ongoing terror, a large part of that due to the strategically location and the advance of not being directly accessible (like the Israeli mountain walls of Judea/Samaria) and in spite of everything still managed to call itself a democracy. The very thought is mind-boggling, since all the countries in this theory are democracies, and democracies don’t initiate war against other democracies. Israel’s neighbors however, are not democracies. And when the surrounding countries haven’t been busy attacking the small entity, they have been involved in wars against each other, or engaged in civil war, or local domestic disturbances, which is no business of the West, of course.

And while on the subject, during last century, just a few examples: The Algerian civil war during the 1990’s, estimated death toll somewhere around 70 000. The Lebanese civil war, started in 1975 with an estimated death toll somewhere around 100 000. The Syrian massacre in 1982 of the city of Hama, estimated death toll somewhere around 40 000. In Jordan in 1970, Arafat attempted to overthrow the King with an estimated death toll around 10 000. The war between Iraq and Iran, estimated death toll about 1 million. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the estimated death toll around 100 000. The Iraqi killings of the Kurdish people in 1992, estimated death toll 200 000. In the Sudan since the 1950’s, the ongoing ethnical cleansing of the black population, estimated death toll up to around two millions and another four million refugees.
Each and every country in this small passage have killed, persecuted and produced more refugees in separate clashes than Israeli history combined during the last 56 years of wars of self-defense, in total. But still some claim that the democracy of Israel is the major troublemaker in the Middle East region!

Back to the mind example of Gotland. The world would then produce a “roadmap to peace” (that the surrounding hostile nations initially rejected anyway by actions of continued terror), a road map that goes on about dividing the island in a quarter, the removal of that natural defense measure, and to top it, dividing the capital with vague political promises that will certainly foster future peace…. Who in Gotland in their right mind would even consider such a crazy suggestion? Well in Israel the Israeli government has already done it. And several times too, by the way. All with the prospect of future peace in mind. But it seems, still with recent history in mind, rather that some of the Muslim-Arab leaderships and the people they represent, have rejected every one of those Israeli peace proposals. Instead they have been promising and advocating for the destruction of that very democracy, ever since it saw its first reborn light. Last century the various Arab leaderships turned down the proposal for a 23rd Arab state at least three times in a row, for the entire world to see. Israel, on the other hand, was allowed to participate in the trials and errors of creating a “Palestinian state” for the first time ever in history.

1948 – The Arabs rejected the UN partition plans, and instead choose war.
While Arabs thereafter illegally occupied the disputed areas for two decades, looting, stealing and destroying Jewish property, not a sound was heard from the Arabs about any creation of a “Palestinian state”. PLO was formed in 1964 when the disputed areas still was under Arab military control, however at the time they stated that their goal was not to create a country called Palestine, but to destroy Israel.

1967 – Israel tried to hand back, in civilized negotiations, the previous legal spoils of war as in the territory of Judea/Samaria, only to be met by the infamous “three no’s” from the Arab Summit in Khartoum: A) No to peace with Israel, B) No to negotiations with Israel, C) No to recognition of Israel (its right to exist).

2000 – The PA leader Arafat, flat out rejected the Israeli offer of such a state, including the unimaginable partition of Israel’s eternal capital Jerusalem’s eastern parts. Arafat’s answer was no counter negotiations, nothing. Except the invoked and planned Muslim Arab holy war, and the unleashing of a second terror wave that affected the entire Israeli civilian society, much to the decade old promises of Arafat’s own PLO plans from the 1974 and its “two phase plan”. So far these are factual and undisputed historic events that cannot be altered. Since it actually happened. Does it make sense to turn down one’s own stated goals, in return for a new state?



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?