bloggie

The double standards, bias, racism, antisemitism and cowardliness in the face of Arab terror makes me sick and furious. I know that we have wonderful friends out in the "real world" (and I include all of you here) but where are the governments? As one of the commenters says, "Would Germany share Berlin? Would England share London? Would France share Paris?". Why should Jerusalem be any different? It's not as if Jerusalem was ever the capital of anywhere else.

I'm preaching to the converted here so I shall stop. But I'm still furious.

Annie;

You have every right and reason to be furious.

This is not diplomacy, it is as you said, pure cowardice in the face of not only the enemy, but in the face of reason.

If any of these fools actually believes that negotiating with a fake race (Palestinians) will make a tiny bit of difference (except perhaps to exacerbate) in the global jihad of islam versus civilization, then they deserve to get jobs cleaning up after domestic animals, since they are already so well-acquainted with bullshit.

DWT, thank you for understanding and please excuse my rant.

I don't think it's only cowardliness though. There's something else in there too; I call it antisemitism for that is what it boils down to.

Demanding that Israel "return" the "occupied territories" is a double standard. Certainly parts of the "occupied territories" were earmarked for Israel at partition, for example Gush Etzion (which includes Hebron, Rachel's tomb etc.); and Jerusalem itself was supposed to be an international city. The Arabs invaded in 1948, lost some territory (notably parts of the Negev and Galilee) but gained Gush Etzion and East Jerusalem. Somehow after Israel's victory in 1967 Gush Etzion became "Palestinian territory" though it had belonged to Jordan - not "Palestine" which didn't exist then - for only 19 years - a blink of an eye in historical terms. And everyone seems to have forgotten that Jerusalem wasn't earmarked for the Arabs at all, but for everyone. They forget too that Jordan defied all international law and not only denied access to the Jews to their holy sites, but actively destroyed Jewish holy sites.

If that is not antisemitism, even if just barely disguised, I don't know what is.

Again, I know you and the bloggie comrades realise all this, but I just want it out here for the record. Please excuse my rants.

Annie;

Expounding the truth hardly qualifies as a rant.

Annie - is this the anniversary per the Hebrew calendar?

We had a guest in shul over Shabbos, a professor from Hebrew University, who spoke at Shalosh Seudos about this very topic: the centrality of Jerusalem to Judaism, and the nations of the world's refusal to accept our sovereignty over it.

Frank, Wednesday is the anniversary on the Hebrew calendar.

Regarding Germany's role in this ..

There have been several incidents recently involving our German "friends" who are part of the UN "peacekeeping" forces.

Another one of those weird "coincidences": someone recently forwarded me an essay by a William E. Grim; I found it was actually published back in 2002.

Thanks, Joem.

joem, great link from William Grim, thanks.

This is despicable. I would expect this from Europe, but from America? I'm thoroughly disgusted by the cowardice our own government.

It's funny you guys only pick on NATO members outside the EFTA. That's only 27 (?) compared to 50.

Also, some mention has been made of EU-dissidents (Kaczynski?) who might still pay a visit.

The USA, the so-called big friend of Israel, prefers to stay neutral. And Merkel only farts, when Bush tells her to.

It goes without saying, with Liberation Day still fresh in our mind, that no fucking German has the right to speak for us, nor the illegal puppet regime in The Hague for that matter.

FWIW, the Yediot article that annie linked includes this line:

Among the EU countries there is a difference of opinion regarding the participation in the Jerusalem Day celebrations. Germany decided to send the letter to the official bodies in Israel, but a number of EU countries are considering violating the boycott and taking part in the celebrations.

And the A-7 story that I linked above also includes the line

Despite this, some 20 ambassadors from around the world have said that they will take part, and some EU ambassadors have hinted that they might participate as well.

So it's not that we don't know and appreciate that not all European nations - and certainly not all European people - agree with the President of the EU's actions, just as the US congress and most US citizens wouldn't agree with the State Department's actions.

Yes, I did note that a few Europeans will ignore their governments' boycott calls, and they are noteworthy for that, but it still remains that their official government stance is to boycott the reunification celebrations.

IIRC Keven V had an explanation of this United States position, at least in Foggy Bottom terms. I am too lazy to day to go look for it, however.

My personal feeling is that Jerusalem is 100% Israeli, the capitol of Israel, and always has been, even when ruled by others. AS Annie has stated, there certainly enough archeological and historical evidence to this simple fact.

That said, governments seldom let facts get in the way of a political position. Makes me want to hurl.

EFTA is the European Free Trade Association. It's somewhat similar to the EU but less tightly integrated.

The EFTA Convention was signed on January 4, 1960 in Stockholm by seven states. Today only Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein remain members of EFTA. The Stockholm Convention was subsequently replaced by the Vaduz Convention.

Its original membership was United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland and Portugal.

Finland became an associate member in 1961 (it later became a full member in 1986), and Iceland joined in 1970. The United Kingdom and Denmark joined the European Community in 1973 (together with Ireland), and hence ceased to be EFTA members. Portugal also left EFTA for the European Community in 1986. Liechtenstein joined in 1991 (previously its interests in EFTA had been represented by Switzerland). Finally, Austria, Sweden and Finland joined the European Union in 1995 and hence ceased to be EFTA members.

What this has to do with SM's babbling, I have no clue.

What is the US position on East Jerusalem? Does it view it as "occupied territory" like Judea, Samaria, and the Golan, or does it recognize Israel's annexation?

Turkey, as the OIC leader of Islamic countries, certainly has to look upon this as "occupied territory" to be liberated. It's a paragraph in the list of their OIC-member rules. Maybe they forget about this issue as long as Israel doesn't recognize the Armenian genocide.

Jordan is also an OIC member, so the Israelis have some chutzpah to invite them.

Set complement and intersection is too much to ask of the mathematically-challenged.

Bijt me.

So sad to have State and the Executive putting the US in the camp of the nations against Israel. I'm really sorry to see this.

annie,

that has nothing to do with "double standards, bias, racism, antisemitism and cowardliness in the face of Arab terror".

As long as there is no agreement as far as the negotiation between Israel, the Palestinians and the Quartet are concerned, including the status of Jerusalem, nobody wants to prejudice the result of the negotiations. That will continue until

a) there is some kind of Palestinian state, with or without some part of Jerusalem as a capital

or

b) the world agrees that there should be no Palestinian, making negotiations moot

Martin;

That is, I am sure, the official rationale of those who are pushing the Euro-American diplomatic snubbing of this event.

But an honest read of the history of Israel, both ancient and modern, tells a story of a nation and a people who are being crowded out of their ancestral homeland by the false creation of a formerly non-existant "race."

If the nature of modern diplomacy is to give equal weight to truth and falsehood in the name of a fake peace, then it is past time to create a whole new diplomacy that is more concerned with reality than with realpolitik.

Martin G, this business of "nobody wants to prejudice the result of the negotiations" is what I mean by the double standards. It seems as though the results of the negotiations are known in advance, i.e. that Israel is supposed to give up all the liberated territory in Judea, Samaria and the Golan, as well as East Jerusalem. No allowance is made for the fact that at least parts of these areas were supposed to form part of Israel at partition. The double standard expresses itself when Israel is the only country in the world who wins a defensive war and conquers territory which was used by the enemy in launching attacks against her, and is then expected to hand it back, or even to consider handing it back, to its sworn enemies who still aim and endeavour to destroy her. I don't see any other country being asked to do such a thing.

Even West Jerusalem is on the agenda. For example the US consulate will not register a baby born in West Jerusalem as born in Israel. They will just register "Jerusalem" as if it's a state on its own. Since when is West Jerusalem disputed territory?

And why will no country in the world at elast recognise West Jerusalem as Israel's capital? Why cannot they place their embassies there? What are they scared of? (Do not try answering because I know the answer).

DWT said it so much better than me.

Annie, you said it very well.

annie

It seems as though the results of the negotiations are known in advance, i.e. that Israel is supposed to give up all the liberated territory in Judea, Samaria and the Golan, as well as East Jerusalem.

The point is that the results aren't actually known in advance, and nobody wants that to chnage until there *is* a result.

It is not just about East Jerusalem, or Judea and Samaria, or the people who call themselves Palestinians. You can argue that there aren't really any Palestinians, but national identities (including their 'founding myths') commonly aren't any more substantial and truthful than theirs. On a strictly factual basis you could make a good case that the term 'Palestinian people' is 100% fake, but the same goes for most countries and their populations that allegedly are frged by some common bond into a nation. There also isn't any territory in the world that hasn't changed ownership more than once. If the West would agree that all of Jerusalem, as well as Judea and Samaria belong to present-day Israel because they once belonged to Eretz Israel, we would have no standing to object if, say, Zimbabwe, South Africa and Namibia declared that white people have to business to live there because all of the land there once belonged to native Africans.

So instead of doing anything that might prejudice the outcome, we urge further negotiations, and we'll waffle until ther is some kind of settlement, one way or the other.

Not attending a celebration doesn't amount to crwding Israelis from their rightful homeland. And frankly, a 'fake peace' it is, but most of the world hasn't got aa peace that is any more genuine.

Martin G....

The point is that the results aren't actually known in advance, and nobody wants that to chnage until there *is* a result.

What part of the 1967 and 1973 Wars' outcome is confusing to so many? That *is* the freaking result!!!

This continued "negotation" with the losers is like debating the winner the day after a decisive chess game....what? Make everybody move their board pieces back to some pre-condition? The "If-but" game is childish. It is totally in defiance of even infantile logic...and THAT is the g-d damned double standard annie refers to here.

Israel needs some kind of Palestinian entity to prevent the dilution of Jisrael's identity. That's why there are negotiations in the first place.

Huh?

There are negotiations because Israel has Israel. When Israel doesn't have Israel, nobody wants it.

And a "peace" that consists of one side doing pretty much as it pleases, no matter how vile, (such as blowing up schoolchildren by stealth) with the approbation of over half of the world, while the othe other side is vilified for any action taken either in passive defense (such as the "apartheid" wall) or active defense (such as targeting those who plan and carry out the stealth murders of schoolchildren) is about as fake as a peace gets, don't you think?

Easy enough, if the Palestinians procreate within the borders of Israel, they are going to dilute Israel's jewish identity, so the idea is to put borders (and fences) around Palestinian population centers.

That's not delegitimization, it is refusing to acknowledge Israel's factual ownership of jerusalem, in the interest of keeping the negotiatioons going, so to speak.

And yes, it is a fake peace, but the evil things you mention do happen, if there are negotiations or not, so you might as well negotiate.

Israel needs some kind of Palestinian entity to prevent the dilution of Jisrael's identity. That's why there are negotiations in the first place.

If Israel were more like Europe in fact, they'd act quickly to expell anyone they don't want within their borders, quickly enough so that it was fiat accompli when the heart bleeders from Europe and the Americas showed up to whine. It is the fact they don't do this that makes whiney Yurps and Yanks nuts...because they know in their hearts what they'd do were it them.

It is the alleged "Palestinians" who Need Israel, without her they have no rationale de existance. Were there no Israel, do you suppose the Palestinians would suddenly become productive sef reliant people? If so, based upon what prior behavior pattern? Their landed presense in Jordan doesn't exactly raise much hope of that does it? The 1921 San remo Conference (a gathering of Yurps, right?) designated the "Jewish National Homeland" for a major portion of the Brtisih Mandate....but what happened to it? Fully 75% + of it was handed over to an itinerant Saudi Hasemite King and named Jordan....with all the historical precedent of the Wizard of Oz. The Israelis in fact got only what they grabbed, and increased it each time they were attacked.

That is called "conquest" and pretty much defines national boundries for most nations. What's so different for Israel? That is the double standard...they are expected to be better than the rest of us, and when they are in fact, they are pilloried for it.

They are expected to tolerate daily...repeat daily missle attacks from outside their borders, and negotiate. How long would Paris or Berlin or Boston or San Francisco "negotiate" with an adjacent enemy under similar circumstances?

Donno about you all, but I do know, from personal experience, exactly what I'd do under persistant rocket and mortar fire....go out and kill, by any means necessary, every one of the MF'ers, and anyone with them, firing those munitions. Period.

Quite frankly, I am in awe of the Israelis...a country of contentious politics, fierce soldiers, near indefensible borders, who still manages a level of civility I cannot.

#35Jayce
There are negotiations because Israel has Israel. When Israel doesn't have Israel, nobody wants it.

Jaycee is right, throught history muslims/Arabs have been running jews out of town/cities/villages from Islam inception. No one wanted Israel. It was just a barren piece of land no one wanted and there was no oil to be drilled that would profit anyone. The muslim world could care less about the Palestinians, hell most arab/muslim countries won't let them immigrate to them. they are more usefull as pawns to draw attnetion away from their own problems. If they didnt have the Palestinian so called injustices by the evil jews, then thier populace would look towards the corruption and the fallacy of the ideologgy of Islam that is not a relgionat all, but a politcal movement that is based on lies and deceptions and have little to do with real spirituality.

The arab world doesn't give a damn about Palestine or the people.

As far as the right to return, how about this, give the right to return to all the jews that were forced out of lands in the Arab/muslim world ever since Islams inception and the times of Mohammed. Give the jews back the land that all that oil is on. ok, that is fair. The jews would do a hell of allot with it to better the world than the muslims/Arabs will EVER EVER hope to do.

Your #30:

If the West would agree that all of Jerusalem, as well as Judea and Samaria belong to present-day Israel because they once belonged to Eretz Israel, we would have no standing to object if, say, Zimbabwe, South Africa and Namibia declared that white people have to business to live there because all of the land there once belonged to native Africans.

This is the entirety of my argument. We can leave faith and religion out of it quite easily.

Well said Pamela/Suomi bound.

annie,

I am an awful writer and not articulate. I just know what I know. lots of typos and grammer mistakes up there. I just get so angry at folks like MartinG and all the other Euros and Yanks that just dont' get it, just don't see the forrest for the trees.

MartinG consider this for a moment will you?

from Atlas Shruggs Happy Mothers Day.

and consider this, THIS is how they raise THEIR children. We have generations after generations of haters. The smartest thing we can do is NOT negotiate with these creatures.

THESE are the cartoons they watch

THIS is what OUR kids watch.

WHY ON EARTH DOESN'T THE "EFFIN" WORLD GET IT????

It seems as though the results of the negotiations are known in advance, i.e. that Israel is supposed to give up all the liberated territory in Judea, Samaria and the Golan, as well as East Jerusalem.

Hmm. In fairness, virtually every government since 1967 has agreed to some or all of that. Why would the U.S. - nevermind Europe - stand to the right of the elected Israeli government, which was elected on a platform of surrendering Judea and Samaria, and which has offered the Golan Heights in negotiations?

There also isn't any territory in the world that hasn't changed ownership more than once. If the West would agree that all of Jerusalem, as well as Judea and Samaria belong to present-day Israel because they once belonged to Eretz Israel, we would have no standing to object if, say, Zimbabwe, South Africa and Namibia declared that white people have to business to live there because all of the land there once belonged to native Africans.

Then don't agree on ethical grounds.

Consider the situation as it is: two cultural-religious groups want the same bit of land on the bases of historical ties (of varying credibility).

Pick the one which is most beneficial to your own country's interests. Israel or Hamastan?

Easy enough, if the Palestinians procreate within the borders of Israel, they are going to dilute Israel's jewish identity, so the idea is to put borders (and fences) around Palestinian population centers.

From a local standpoint, it would obviously make more sense for Israel to move the Arabs rather than the borders.

sorry everyone, I just get mad/angry.

abbie,

the Balfour declaration and the UN partition plan included a divided Jerusalem. Israel claims that it also is the legal owner of East Jerusalem for various reasons, but nobody else has ever recognized that unilateral desclaration.

Israel wil have to be content to be with de facto ownership of all of Jerusalem, without having de jure ownership, as far as everybody else is concerned.

annie, not 'abbie' of course, sorry.

The Balfour Declaration made no specification as to the status of Jerusalem (it was only a brief letter).
The UN partition plan specified a united Jerusalem (as an international city).

Your lack of knowledge does not enhance the persuasiveness of your argument.

MartinG, FYI here is the full text of the Balfour Declaration. Please note that it was written in 1917, and so the "Palestine" referred to also includes the area now known as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (about 3/4 of the total area).

Also, there is nothing in either plan that authorized Jordan and Egypt to occupy the Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, respectively, for 18 years.

How convenient to refer to the Balfur piece of paper, a product of illegal British colonialism, after we suffered a minor setback by betting on the wrong horse (Germany) at the time.

Where is Britain now, with its pitiful naval force? A minor power, comparable to France. Of no consequence.

The rest of the Sèvres peace treaty was a waste of paper as well. The Israelis sound like a bunch of spiteful Armenian and Kurdish losers.

Sorry, I 'misspoke'.

I was referring to this and bungled the wording in the heat of the moment:

II) The Palestine Partition Plan: GA Resolution 181(II):

On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted with the full authority of thirty three votes in favor to thirteen against and ten abstentions GA Resolution 181(II), known also as the Palestine Partition Plan. The Plan proposed the following:

1. the establishment of two States, an Arab State and a Jewish State;
2. minority protection guarantees;
3. provisions for individual emigration and citizenship;
4. internationalization of Jerusalem under a "Special Regime";
5. supranational integration through the "Economic union of Palestine".

and further down the document:

In the absence of an official title, Israeli scholars formulated a different argument, the "Void of Sovereignty" claim, to demonstrate that their control over West Jerusalem is legal. According to this claim, Jerusalem, as well as the whole Palestine, was, in legal terms, a terra nullius, open to occupation.

Of course, this originalkly was about internationalisation.

Nevertheless, the Israeli claim to have de jure as well as de facto ownership of all of Jerusalem isn't recognized by the EU nor the US.