Two evil forces made Holocaust possible but we denounced only one – the other one is still at work. It was evident again during the latest debates at the International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
From the news media:
In his new book, The Genius of Judaism, the French thinker explores the inner demon of modern anti-Zionism and contrasts it with the remarkable reality of the Jewish state.
The fact remains that anti-Semitism exists. Some had thought it dead, obsolete, cast aside. Wrong. It is back. Making new connections. It has even begun to strike and to kill—to growing indifference—in French cities. And, moreover, because observers of the phenomenon often seem blind to its new reality and, believing that they are confronting it, grapple only with its shadows, I see no option but to begin by describing the new guise of the oldest form of hate.
Two evil forces made the Holocaust possible:
(1) The anti-Semitic ideology of the Nazis which was born and became murderous in the Nazis’ Germany and
(2) The anti-Semitic ideology of many among local populations in Germany and in all countries occupied by the Nazi Germany.
For the last seven decades after the end of WWII, beginning with the Nuremberg anti-Nazi Trials, the anti-Semitic Nazi ideology, and the measures of preventing this ideology from the rebirthing, had been demonstrated and validated almost everywhere and by all available political and social tools. It had been done by anti-Nazi laws developed in Europe, by Holocaust-related museums, by the spiritual leaders of Christianity, and of course by the Jews themselves.
The anti-Semitic ideology of many among the local population in countries occupied by the Nazi Germany was the force made the Holocaust possible. This had been conveniently forgotten by the politically-correct politicians and therefore not condemned. It should be condemned since the no-condemnation could bring future holocausts.
· The local population provided the Nazis with names and locations of Jewish citizens – without this local assistance to the Nazis, the great many Jews could be saved.
· The local population provided the Nazis with the local militia forces, which assisted the Nazis in bringing all Jews into ghettos for extermination (some were exterminated bypassing the ghetto phase as was in Kiiv’s Babiy Yar and many other places). Without this local assistance to the Nazis, the great many Jews could be saved.
· In the former Soviet territories occupied by the Nazi Germany, the locals were the real executioners under the guidelines of the Nazi military. Without this local assistance to the Nazis, the great many Jews could be saved.
The reason the local population had been doing all these terrible things was that many of them were the truly spiritual anti-Semites – many among Russians, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians, Moldovans, Polish. They truly believed that the Jews were the people who were “robbing” the local population spiritually and economically, and murdering the Jews may be a good service to their countries and their communities. Now they have many contemporary descendants.
Therefore, the anti-Semitism among the local population as a major force in assisting the Nazis in conducting the Holocaust should be identified, emphasized, deplored and condemned. If this is not done, this force could be a foundation for future holocausts.
From the news media:
Jewish Students Condemn ‘Horrific’ Rise of Anti-Semitic Incidents at Cambridge University.
Student Slams Stanford U for Offering Therapy Over Trump Election While ‘Ignoring’ Anti-Semitism.
The time has come not just to condemn but to begin the work on dispelling the spiritual foundation of the anti-Semitic beliefs through an honest historic fact-based conversation with those who hold anti-Semitic beliefs. It may be arranged if we treat the people whom we consider anti-Semites as open-minded people willing and even eager to challenge their own points of view. It looks like the university spiritual atmosphere is perfectly suited for this discussion.
“Prime Minister of Israel Netanyahu calls PA President Abbas with Eid greeting and says Israel wants peace. PA chief says he wants deal this year”. The problem is that both sides define the peace in a completely different way as could be seen from their Future-for-Palestine narratives.
For us the Jews our Palestinian narrative is clear and Bible-based, and the true Christians support this narrative:
- God gave the Promised Land (with the Holy Center in Jerusalem) now called Palestine, to the Jewish people and provided them with the Law, which is described in the Torah, on how to build a better world for all, Jews and non-Jews, in the Promised Land and beyond.
- The enemies of the Jews have been expelling the Jews from the Promised Land from the very beginning but the Jews were returning to the Promised Land (and Jerusalem) in spite of all threats.
- After the Holocaust, the Jews were returning to the Promised Land in large numbers to escape a murderous Europe and to build a dream-home for the Jews where the Jews themselves are capable to defend themselves from holocausts, pogroms and anti-Semitism.
- The Jews are eager to live in peace with their Arab neighbors if the neighbors agree with the security provisions designed to prevent new attempts to expel the Jews from the Promised Land.
For the Arabs, their Palestinian narrative is clear and Koran-based, and the true Muslims and true anti-Semites support this narrative:
- Allah gave all people the only true religion Islam, and finally the human world have to become Islamic.
- Palestine is the first part of the human world that had become Islamic and therefore, as the Koranic Law says, shall stay Islamic forever.
- After the Holocaust, the establishment of the Jewish State Israel made a part of Palestine de-Islamized and the true Muslims are obliged to reinstate there the Koranic law.
- The true Muslims can accept only a solution to Jewish-Arab conflict in Palestine that makes all Palestine an Islamic one.
An honest assessment of the two narratives makes it clear that there is no way to reconcile them – that is the reason why the “two-state solution” failed in spite of the great and sincere efforts of USA and European governments to find such solution.
That is why I have concluded in the post, “Palestinians have outplayed Israel – what Israel may do now” that the unilateral, one-Jewish-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict outlined by Caroline Glick many years ago is the only solution available for Israel. This Israeli one-Jewish-state solution should preserve an opportunity for the Palestinians to decide for themselves with whom to collaborate politically in the framework of Israeli secure borders – to have their own Arab-Palestinian secure future without violating the Israeli secure future.
The entire Palestine and Middle East history consists of similar one-sided solutions: a more powerful side defeats a less powerful side and imposes its own one-sided solution where a defeated side is not treated equally. The difference between what have happened in the history and what an Israeli one-sided one-state solution intends to do is that Israel is trying to find a solution where both Israelis and Arabs are treated equally.
- Jews and Arabs have lived in Palestine in relative peace until the beginning of the 20th Neither Jews or Arabs had their national states – the Jews lived in communities while the Arabs lived in tribes. The ruling Turks of Ottoman Empire allowed Jews, Christians and Muslim to live in accordance with their own, non-Turkish traditions. Both Jews and Arabs owned pieces of the land where they supported their families by farming and animal stock raising. The land used by the Arabs was owned by tradition and transferred from generation to generation while the land used by the Jews was legally purchased either from the Ottoman government or from private Arab owners.
- There were disputes and even minor military clashes but they were of the same magnitude than the others tribal disputes and clashes in the area like Persians vs. Arabs, Sunnis vs. Shiites, Kurds vs. Turks, or ISIS vs. Yazidis. The tribal/communal relationships remained the same after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WWI, when the foreign European powers – UK, France, Germany, and Italy – became the governing powers in the Middle East.
- However, in the late 1940th and in the 1950th, the foreign governing powers realized that the cost of the Middle East governing is too high, and began creating local artificial states to transfer the governing power to them. Since those artificial states were created not in a normal historic way when – before creating a state – the people find a common ground for a peaceful coexistence, immediately local wars started to reshape the Middle-East map artificially created by the foreign powers.
- Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a part of this general reshaping. The current situation is such that everything is decided by non-peaceful means (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Kurds, ISIS), and Israeli-Palestinian conflict is going to be resolved in the same way with various foreign powers trying to advance their own, not Israeli or Palestinian, interest.
- If it is so, and the history of the region confirms that is the case, it is much more beneficial for Israel to go ahead with own unilateral proposal for secure borders of the state of Israel, providing an option for the West-Bank Arabs to define their political future in the framework of Israel secure borders.
|The readers who prefer a more emotional presentation over a fact-based one can find it on the topic of this post in a video-talk by Pat Condell at|
The Palestinian leadership has recognized that they have got everything, what was possible to advance their anti-Israel agenda, in negotiations with Israel. Now they are trying to advance further their anti-Israel agenda through governments and spiritual leaders of Western countries, and they are successful.
Dr. Saeb Erekat, a member of the PLO Executive Committee and head of the Palestinian negotiating team outlined a Palestinian strategy for a diplomatic struggle with Israel. Its main points include:
- Annulling the PLO’s recognition of Israel
- A diplomatic campaign to recruit international support to coerce an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines
- Insisting on the “right of return” of Palestinian “refugees” along with their descendants
- Rejection of any proposals for a temporary or partial settlement with Israel.
- A legal battle against Israel in the international arena aimed at constraining Israel’s ability to defend itself against Palestinian terror.
- Strategic cooperation with Hamas and Islamic Jihad by integrating them into the PLO’s institutions.
- The waging of an all-out “peaceful popular struggle” against Israel (defined by Palestinian leadership as local terror attacks).
The Palestinian strategy is being successfully implemented. Here are just a few examples of the Palestinian unilateral advances.
- Vatican acknowledges Palestinian Arabs as an independent people in their independent state.
- International Criminal Court intends to take the Palestinians’ anti-Israel petitions as from a legitimate state.
- French government intends to introduce in UN its own recipe for a Palestinian state without consulting Israel and without taking into consideration Israel’s security concerns.
- The Palestinian influence in Europe begins to be stronger than that of Israel as the failure to establish a sisterhood relationship between Tel-Aviv and Amsterdam demonstrates.
- BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) instigated by the Palestinians to delegitimize Israel is growing.
- US Supreme Court joins the pro-Palestinian forces by not recognizing Jerusalem as the Capital city of Israel.
- US President Barak Obama supports the promoted-by-Palestinians 1967 borders between Israel and a Palestinian state which are difficult, or even impossible, to defend, and Obama’s actions help Iran become the hegemon of the Middle East leading the others in destroying the state of Israel.
- UK threatens to arrest visiting Israeli politicians while welcoming Palestinian leaders.
- The Palestinian effort to delegitimize Israel helps to revive European anti-Semitism.
Unfortunately, the Israel leadership is trying to revive a dead body of the past agreements, which are based on the two-side negotiations, instead of advancing its own unilateral security-oriented agenda.
Caroline Glick predicted the failure of the two-state solution long ago – now her “prophecy” is supported by many recent political developments some of which are listed in the above.
It looks like Glick’s ideas have to be revived by the new Israeli government with some modifications that include
- Demarcation of the territory of a sort of autonomous demilitarized Arab-Palestinian enclave within the boundaries of the State of Israel, and
- The opportunity for the Arab-Palestinians in this territory to decide for themselves whom to join politically – either to become a part of Jewish State of Israel or ask Jordan to take them.
Of course, many in Israel and the “international community” will not like this proposal. However, it looks like it the way to go.
The prevailing world opinion on establishing the peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and Israel is that the peace between them cannot be reached if Israel continues building itself as a Jewish state and if it does not abolish the settlement activities. The leaders of the prevailing world opinion proclaim that
(1) if Israel is the Jewish state, the peace cannot be established since the Jewish state cannot provide equal rights to its Arab citizens, and
(2) if the Jewish settlements in the potential territories of a future Palestinian state are built, the peace cannot be established since the settlements there are an indication of Israel’s aggressive intentions to seize more Palestinian lands.
However, both assumptions are wrong and it is not too difficult to prove.
To prove the wrongness of both assumptions we have to define the peace Israel and International community are trying to establish.
A peace treaty between Palestinians and Israel should not only end the state of hot/cold war between them but most importantly should define the proscribed behavior of both parties that prevents the peace treaty from becoming just a cease-fire for preparing a next war.
To ensure the true peace, the proscribed behavior on the part of Israelis should include the following provisions.
I1. The state of Israel should not resist the establishment of the Palestinian state as an Arab state the legal foundation of which would be Muslim Koranic tradition in its non-violent interpretation.
I2. The state of Israel should not deprive its Arab citizens from the same social, human and religious rights that the Jewish Israel’s citizens have, including the right to Islamic worship in mosques and communities (assuming that the Arab citizens would not violate in the public arena the Jewish Torah-based legal foundation of Israel).
I3. The state of Israel should not work against international guaranties on respecting and preserving the Israel-Palestine borders which should be negotiated.
To ensure the true peace, the proscribed behavior on the part of Palestinians should include the following provisions.
P1. The state of Palestine should not resist the state of Israel being officially proclaimed as a Jewish state the legal foundation of which is the Torah and Jewish tradition.
P2. The state of Palestine should not deprived its Jewish citizens from equal social, human and religious rights that all Arab citizens have, including the right to Jewish worship in synagogues and communities (assuming that Jewish citizens would not violate the Arab Koran-based legal foundation of Palestine).
P3. Taking into consideration numerous Palestinian statements where the goal of Palestinian people was proclaimed as elimination of the Jewish state, the state of Palestine should not resist its demilitarized status to make Israel accept its demilitarized independence.
The proscribed behavior of the state of Israel, which is required for the true Israel-Palestine peace, has already agreed upon by the state of Israel while the Palestinian leaders are refusing to accept their proscribed behavior.
Here is what Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu just recently stated:
“We want two states for two peoples: a Jewish state, a Jewish nation state—Israel, living in peace with a demilitarized Palestinian state. Unfortunately, the Palestinians do not negotiate. They ran away from negotiations. They ran away from [Ehud] Barak, they ran away from [Ariel] Sharon, they ran away from [Ehud] Olmert, they ran away from me. … What they do is they refuse to negotiate… run to Hamas, which calls for our destruction, go to the U.N. and try to get sanctions on Israel. They refuse to negotiate and then try to get boycotts on Israel for there not being negotiations, which they refuse to enter.”
The Palestinian authority answered this Netanyahu’s statement in the following way:
“Nimr Hammad, a political adviser to Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas compared Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Nazi Germany’s Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels Thursday. … Netanyahu is using Goebbel’s propaganda strategy in order to persuade the international pubic that the PA is the source of stagnation in Arab-Israeli peace negotiations.”
Thus, the Palestinians are not going to negotiate with the state of Israel. That means they are not willing to accept their proscribed behavior to establish their independent state. Why? The Palestinian National Charter created in 1968 and still being the guidance for Palestinian statehood provides the answer.
- Article 2 of the Charter says that Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate (that is from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea), is an indivisible territorial unit.
That means there is no territory for the state of Israel for the Jews at any borders.
Thus, the Charter forbids the Palestinian leaders to take upon themselves the obligation P1 in the proscribed behavior needed for establishing the true peace with Israel.
- Article 15 of the Charter says that the liberation of Palestine is a national duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. The Charter describes the real Palestinian goal of establishing the Palestinian state – not to accept the Jews as equals in Palestine but expel all of them from Palestine.
Thus, the Charter forbids the Palestinian leaders to take upon themselves the obligation P2 in the proscribed behavior needed for establishing the true peace with Israel.
- Article 10 of the Charter says that Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war that requires war escalation, comprehensiveness, as well as mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts in the armed Palestinian revolution.
Thus, the Charter forbids the Palestinian leaders to take upon themselves the obligation P3 in the proscribed behavior, which is to be demilitarized, needed for establishing the true peace with Israel.
If the Palestinian National Charter forbids the Palestinians from taking upon themselves the obligations needed for the true peace, the only avenue to reach the true peace is for the International community to force the Palestinian leaders to change their Charter and include in it the proscribed behavior needed for the true peace.
The true peace could be advanced only if
(1) the Palestinians agree to accept the state of Israel as a Jewish state (as a response to Israel’s acceptance of the state of Palestine as a non-jihadist, peaceful Muslim state), and
(2) the Palestinians agree to treat the settlement’s Jews as equal citizens of the Palestinian state (as a response to Israel’s acceptance of Israeli Arabs as equal citizens).
Prime-Minister of Israel Netanyahu is accused for changing his mind – before he was against the two-state solution, now he is for this solution.
Those accusations are groundless – Netanyahu is interested not in “a solution” – he is interested in the true security of Israel. He may accept any solution if it brings the true security for the state of Israel and its citizens. So the question we should be asking is “can the two-state solution bring the true security for Israel”.
The true security has two major components. One of them is physical security that is the living in peace with the neighbors. The other one is spiritual security, and the spiritual security for many Jews is to live and worship peacefully in all places of the Promised Land even if parts of the Promised Land are governed by a non-Jewish authority. So the answer to the question “can the two-state solution bring the true security for Israel” is – may be if the Palestinians, the Arabs and the so-called international community reverse their approach on the Jewish settlements in the territories of a Palestinian part of the two-state solution.
The history has proven, and has proven with no uncertainty, when a country or a community is trying to get rid of Jews living among them it spells pogroms – from little ones like the desecration of everything Jewish to large ones like “broken windows” or “holocausts”. Read the rest of this entry