Til: mona.sandringham@usa.net <mona.sandringham@usa.net>
Emne: THE UGLY FACE OF ANTISEMITISM "The cause of the Jews
would be half won i
Dato: 6. februar 1999 03:16
THE UGLY FACE OF
ANTISEMITISM
"The cause of
the Jews would be half won if only their friends brought to their
defense a little of the passion and the perseverance their
enemies use to bring them down". (Jean-Paul Sartre,
anti-Semite and Jew)"
On the 13th of November 1997 the world community committed a
crime against the Jewish people and the Jewish State. An
emergency special session of the UN General Assembly voted for a
resolution that urged Switzerland to prepare for a conference of
the parties from the Fourth Geneva Convention (which bars
settlements on occupied land), to enforce the convention "in
the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem."
In blatant violation of its own Charter, the UN labels as
"occupied" the territory of Judea, Samaria and Gaza,
knowing very well that only the Jewish state and the Jewish
people have legitimate rights to this land. In 1946, when the UN
was established, there were still several places in the world
under the League of Nations mandate system. To allow the
continuation of the existing mandates Article 80 was included in
the UN Charter. It states that "nothing...shall be construed
in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of
any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international
instruments to which Members of the United Nations may
respectively be parties."
On July 4, 1997 the Australian lawyer David Zinger wrote in A
Mandate for Peace that Article 80 "was incorporated into the
Charter as a result of intense Zionist lobbying...to ensure that
the terms of the Mandate for Palestine were
fully implemented...and not allowed to die with the League of
Nations." He further recalled the fact that, based on this
article, "the International Court of Justice in an Advisory
opinion on South West Africa (1950 I.C.J Reports 128) decided
that the substantive obligations of the Mandate over that
territory continued in force despite the dissolution of the
League of Nations. The Court affirmed that these obligations
remained the essence of the sacred trust of civilization despite
the dissolution of the League of Nations."
On the 13th of November 1997 the sacred trust of civilization was
broken. The UN, successor of the League of Nations, has
disregarded the only existing legally binding document that
pertains to the territory of Judea, Samaria and Gaza -- the
British Mandate which, in Article 6, required the mandatory to
"encourage...close settlement by the Jews on the land."
It is exactly this Article that facilitated the reestablishment
of the Jewish State.
True, in November of 1947, UN General Assembly resolution 181 was
issued, recommending a "Plan of Partition" of
Palestine. The Arabs rejected the resolution outright and Azzam
Pasha, secretary-general of the Arab League,
proclaimed that "the partition line shall be nothing but a
line of fire and blood." The terrorist operations that began
against Jewish targets on the day after the UN vote escalated
into a full-scale aggressive war against the newborn state. It
was Jordan, and not Israel that occupied the land of Judea and
Samaria as a result of this war. Like the Romans, who changed the
name Eretz Israel to Palestine in order to obliterate the name of
the Jewish state from the memory of mankind, the Jordanians
introduced the term "West Bank" trying to convince the
world that they had always owned both banks of the Jordan river.
When Israel liberated Judea and Samaria in 1967 justice was
restored -- the only lawful owner of the land regained possession
of it. It is ridiculous to say that Judea, Samaria and Gaza are
"occupied territories' as these areas are, in fact, areas of
the Mandate, where the Jews were and are encouraged to settle.
Any arguments that this land should be transformed into an Arab
state, as was recommended by resolution 181, are absolutely
immoral. One cannot wage an aggressive war for 50 years, lose it,
and then come back and demand the return of territory that one
lost as a result of this war. One cannot arbitrarily pick and
choose only those international agreements which suit ones needs
today, but were rejected the day before. One cannot turn back the
wheel of history. Today is not the year 1947. The train has left.
The Arabs did not want to catch the train then; it is immoral and
unjust to assist them in getting on it now.
Anyone using Resolution 181 as an argument in defending the Arabs
desire for one more state has to bear in mind that, using the
same kind of logic, Israel can demand to return to the year 1922.
It is then that Britain, in violation of the Mandate, pushed
through the League of Nations the creation of Trans-Jordan,
chopping off 76% of the territory designated for the
reestablishment of the Jewish State. Israel not only has the
moral right to do so, but legal rights as well. Article 22 of the
Mandate, which was used as an excuse to create Trans-Jordan,
provided only for the "postponement or withholding" of
certain provisions of the Mandate that could have been
"considered inapplicable to existing local conditions."
The words "postpone" and "withhold" signify
temporary delay; they do not mean "abrogate forever."
Therefore, any claim that Judea and Samaria should be transformed
into an Arab state can be easily met by an Israeli demand to
resume the provisions of the Mandate relating to the
establishment of the Jewish national home in the territory of
Jordan.
It is even more despicable to attach the adjective
"occupied" to Jerusalem. No other international body
has desecrated the eternal capital of the Jewish people more than
the General Assembly and the agencies of the United Nations, with
their resolutions. Yosef Tekoah, the Israeli ambassador to the
UN, at the time when the city was reunited, after nineteen years
of suffering under Jordanian rule, used all of his eloquence in
explaining to the world community that Jerusalem and the Jewish
people are inseparable. This is what he said on April 27, 1968 in
a statement to the Security Council:
"Jerusalem is too precious to all of us to wrong it.
Jerusalem is too central and too significant a part of the entire
Jewish saga...for the Amman Government to play with it as if it
were just another weapon in the campaign of hate in the hostility
against Israel on which Jordan subsists. Those with an
understanding of history, those with a feeling of justice and a
respect for equity, will know that the Jordanian complaint is but
a malicious attempt tocreate new tension and misunderstanding. If
Jordan's belligerency, negativism and intransigence continue
unchecked, there can be little prospect for peace in the area.
Jordan seeks again encouragement to persist in its war against
Israel. If Jordan finds such encouragement, it will of course,
draw the appropriate conclusions, and the Middle East will have
to brace itself for more hostility and conflict. As on numerous
occasions in the past, the present situation calls for clear,
unequivocal summons to disavow belligerency, to terminate
warfare, to move onward to peace--the only hope for the nations
of the Middle East."
One has only to replace "Amman Government" and
"Jordan" with "PLO" and "Palestinian
Authority" respectively and Israeli Ambassador to the UN
Dore Gold has a ready rebuke to the latest UN resolution.
Not a single country, of the 139 countries that voted for the
resolution, existed at the time when Jerusalem became the capital
of the Ancient Jewish State. After it was barbarously destroyed,
for two thousand years, every day, three times a day, Jews all
over the world have prayed;
"From Thine abode, our King, appear and rule over us, for we
await thee. When wilt Thou again reign in Zion. Soon in our day
Thou shalt dwell there forever. Thou shalt be magnified and
sanctified in Jerusalem, Thy City, for all generations, forever
and ever. And our eyes shall behold thy kingdom, as said in songs
of thy glory sung by David, Thy truly anointed one."
The struggle of the Jewish people for survival is as ancient as
the world itself. The latest UN resolution is only one new
manifestation of anti-Semitism. Dennis Prager and Joseph
Telushkin wrote in their book, Why the Jews?,
"Jew-hatred and its latest incarnation, Israel-hatred, are
the price Jews pay for their role in history. They pay it often
unwillingly and they live the role, for the most part
unwittingly. But as the great French Catholic theologian Jacques
Maritain noted: 'Israel...is to be found at the very heart of the
worlds structure, stimulating it, exasperating it, moving it.
Like an alien body, like an activating ferment injected into the
mass, it gives the world no peace, it bars slumber, it teaches
the world to be discontented and restless as long as the world
has not God, it stimulates the movement of
history...It is the vocation of Israel which the world hates.
'"
To escape the anti-Semitism of non-Jewish societies the Jews
abandoned them. They returned to Eretz Israel and reestablished
the Jewish state. They were not nave and understood very well
that the anti-Semitism would not disappear all at once.
Anti-Semitism must be fought. It is a long and difficult
struggle. As Prager and Telushkin wrote, The only solution to
anti-Semitism is for the Jews to affect the values of non-Jews.
All other attempts to end anti-Semitism are doomed to failure.
They only buy time until the next eruption."
The UN does not hold anti-Semitism in contempt. On the contrary,
it is notorious for its anti-Semitic position. It has passed
hundreds of anti-Israeli resolutions. When, in 1975, it passed a
criminal resolution equating Zionism with racism, the UN delegate
from Costa-Rica noted that the resolution "was an invitation
to genocide against the Jewish people."
It is a shame that so many countries are following in the wake of
the UN's anti-Semitic policy.
It is time to repeat for them what Zeev Zhabotinsky wrote in
1911. "...Nobody is old enough to call on us to answer. We
came before them and will leave after them. We are what we are,
we are good for ourselves, we will not change
and we do not want to."
Bibliography: - Boris Shusteff 11/16/97