web analytics
June 19, 2013 / 11 Tammuz, 5773
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post
Bicycle in South Pioneers of the Periphery: Olim of the South

Got that pioneering spirit? You’re invited to help build Israel’s periphery by planting roots in southern soil with Nefesh B’Nefesh.



Still Taking Detours To Survival: Obama, Netanyahu And The Twisting “Road Map” To Genocide And War (Part III)


tell a friend
Beres-Louis-Rene

            The State of Israel came into being on May 14, 1948.  The five Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Trans Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq immediately invaded the new microstate.  Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, expressed their combined intention publicly:  “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” In terms of international law, the Arab League thus spoke from the beginning in unhidden support of genocide. This is hardly surprising, especially in view of their candid and warm personal cooperation with Hitler and the Axis against the Allies in World War II.

 

            Israel’s critics maintain that the 1967 War was one of Israeli aggression, rather than a war of Israeli self-defense.  Yet, on May 15, Israel’s Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai, massing near the Israeli border.  By May 18, Syrian troops, too, were preparing for battle along the Golan Heights, 3000 feet above the Galilee, from where they had freely shelled Israel’s farms and villages for years.  Egypt’s Nasser ordered the U.N. Emergency Force (UNEF), stationed in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw, whereupon the Voice of the Arabs proclaimed, on May 18, 1967:

 

                        As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel.  We shall exercise patience no more.  We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel.  The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.  [Emphasis ours]

 


            Two days later, an enthusiastic echo came from Hafez Assad, then Syria’s Defense Minister, who proclaimed: “Our forces are now entirely ready…to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland…. The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.   President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined the voluptuous chorus of genocidal threats:  “The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified.  This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy, which has been with us since 1948.  Our goal is clear – to wipe Israel off the map.” 

 

            …to wipe Israel off the map”? Does this sound familiar, today?

            On June 4, Iraq formally joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The Damascus regime’s commitment to military final solutions for Israel has been described by scholars Ahmed S. Khalidi and Hussein Agha as stemming from “…an apparently strong conviction that the struggle with Israel is no mere political or territorial dispute, but rather a clash of destinies affecting the fate and future of the Middle East.”  Syria’s approach to Israel, say Khalidi and Agha, remains “bound up with the view that force, whether active or passive, is the final arbiter of the conflict with Israel, and the ultimate guarantor of any settlement in the area.” 

 

            Was Israel the aggressor in 1967, as the Arabs and their supporters continue to maintain?  It hardly seems possible.  The jurisprudential correctness of Israel’s resort to anticipatory self-defense was well established in longstanding customary international law, in the “general principles of law recognized by civilized nations,” and in the “teachings of the highly-qualified publicists” (all authoritative sources identified at Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice).
            International law is not a suicide pact.  Israel could not have been expected to wait patiently for its own annihilation.  Indeed, when the Government of Golda Meir decided not to exercise the lawful option of anticipatory self-defense in October 1973, when Egypt and Syria were preparing to launch yet another war of genocidal aggression against the Jewish State, Israel almost paid for it with its own collective disappearance. 

 

            Although Israel eventually prevailed against the Arab aggressors, it did so at a staggering cost in human life. The Yom Kippur War produced 2326 deaths of Israeli soldiers, nearly ten thousand injuries, and hundreds of prisoners.  These costs to Israel were the direct results of A’man’s (Military Intelligence Branch) failure to predict the Arab attack, a failure still known in Israel’s intelligence community as the Mechdal, a Hebrew term meaning “omission,” “nonperformance” or “neglect.”

 

            The Arabs argue that Israel has no legitimate claim on Jerusalem.  Yet, Jerusalem has long been a Jewish city, and calling for an end to Israel’s sovereignty over an undivided Jerusalem is simply a call for an end to Israel.  Ironically, when, in 1947, the United Nations called for an international (U.N.-administered) city, it was not the Jews – but the Arabs – who refused. 

 

            When the Jordanian army seized the Old City during its war of aggression against Israel in 1948, it promptly desecrated all Jewish holy sites in the area, turned Jewish cemeteries and synagogues into urinals, and cruelly murdered all Jews who remained on the Jordanian side of the 1948 armistice line.  Of course, Jordanian control over East Jerusalem from 1949 – 1967 was flagrantly unacceptable under international law. This is the case from the standpoints of both the Arab kingdom’s illegal method of acquisition, and of its subsequently brutal methods of occupation.

 

             Do President Obama and Israel’s own Road Map supporters object to these earlier and egregious violations of international law by the Kingdom of Jordan?  If they do, they are doing it very quietly. To date, they certainly haven’t even mentioned them.

 

            The viscerally fashionable statement that “Jerusalem is holy to all three monotheistic religions” is now generally taken as prima facie true. Yet, for Muslims, even for those who regard the city as their own because of its presumed Canaanite origins, it is not Jerusalem, but the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca, that is religiously paramount.  It is Mecca, not Jerusalem, to which Muslims must pilgrimage at least once. 

 

            For Christians, Jerusalem contains some, but not all, of their holiest shrines.  For Jews, all main holy sites are within the post-1967 Jerusalem municipal borders, or in very close proximity.

 

            At prayer anywhere in the world, Jews face toward the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.  Muslims, even those praying on the Mount, face away from it, towards Mecca.  When they pray on the Mount, Muslims have their backs toward the Dome of the Rock, while those praying in the Al-Aqsa mosque also look away from Jerusalem, and toward Mecca. 

 

            In the Jewish Holy Scriptures, Jerusalem is mentioned 656 times. Jerusalem’s well-being is central to all Jewish prayer.  In the Koran, Jerusalem is never mentioned, not even once. With the brief exception of the Crusader period, no conqueror of Jerusalem made the city his capital.  Driven into exile by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C.E., the Jews returned fifty years later, and rebuilt Jerusalem as their capital.  It was the capital of the Jews, yet again, under the Maccabees.

 

            The rights of both Jews and Christians were openly trampled on by the Muslim conquerors of Jerusalem.  Churches were made into mosques.  Slaughterhouses were deliberately established near Jewish places of worship.  Mosques were built next to churches and synagogues just so their minarets could literally “over tower” them.

 

LOUIS RENÉ BERES (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971) lectures and publishes widely on Israeli and US foreign and military policies. He is Strategic and Military Affairs columnist for The Jewish Press.

tell a friend

About the Author: Louis René Beres, strategic and military affairs columnist for The Jewish Press, is professor of Political Science at Purdue University. Educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), he lectures and publishes widely on international relations and international law and is the author of ten major books in the field. In Israel, Professor Beres was chair of Project Daniel.


You might also be interested in:


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

no comments

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Latest Indepth Stories
Dancers celebrating Iran's nuclear holiday in Tehran.

Making Rouhani the president was a brilliant strategic move for Khamene’i.

Rabbi Shmuely Boteach (R.) and Mayor Cory Booker.

Noone, least of all me, wants to see any Arab child suffer, God forbid.

The WOW group praying at the Kotel. Soon, they can pray as they wish, but not at the main Western Wall Plaza

The Sanctuary was built with an ezrat nashim, a separate area for women.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei

The 686 men who expressed their desire to run in Iran’s presidential election were whittled down to 8.

Every American child seems to be on Ritalin and Israelis are imitating them.

The weapons will be given to people whose politics encompass hatred for Jews, Christians, the West generally, and Women.

Rohani’s election positions the regime to cater – superficially – to reform-minded voters in Iran, while improving Iran’s prospects in international negotiations.

The top Israeli advocate for letting the terrorists out of jail is none other than Shimon Peres.

The “Community Democracy” model meets all the criteria of the liberal democratic outlook, but it is based on the Jewish heritage and the Torah.

“The Lord conferred statehood upon His people so that they might defend the enforcement of justice and preserve the truth contained in our Law as handed down by transmission.”

With Iran and Hezbollah openly supporting the anti-Sunni side in Syria, the battle lines have been redrawn, this time according to ancient and familiar traditions.

Yusuf al-Qaradawi knows how to express his ideas clearly and persuasively.

The boys who leave yeshiva to go to work are made to feel like they are second class and this makes it difficult for them to remain chareidi.

At some point I noticed an arresting picture on his wall and discovered that his maternal grandfather was Rav Dovid Lifshitz.

The Obama team included many outspoken advocates of U.S. action against the Bashir regime.

More Articles from Louis Rene Beres
Judge Richard Goldstone

Back in 2009, the now infamous Goldstone Report was first released by the UN’s Human Rights Council.

Many readers have probably seen the film “Sarah’s Key,” a powerful 2010 movie that reminds its viewers of overwhelming French collaboration with the Nazis. Even today it seems widely believed that France carried on more or less heroically under the German occupation, and that the 1942 roundups of Jews in occupied France must have been carried out by the SS or Gestapo directly. In fact, however, as “Sarah’s Key” instructs in understated yet utterly hideous detail, these roundups were executed, more or less enthusiastically, by the regular French police.

Following the Boston Marathon bombing, one crucial point will likely remain overlooked. The most loathsome aspect of this or any other terror bombing attack on civilians will always lie in the inexpressibility of physical pain. While all decent people will abhor the idea of bombs expressly directed at the innocent, whether here or in other countries, none will ever be able to process the very deepest horrors of what has been inflicted.

Everyone who reads newspapers should know at least one thing. Threats to annihilate Israel have always been unremarkable. Almost never, it seems, have Israel’s existential enemies sought any reason for concealment.

In the face of seemingly irrational threats from North Korea, at least one American conclusion should be obvious and prompt: Nuclear strategy is a “game” that sane world leaders must play, whether they like it, or not. President Obama can choose to play this complex game purposefully or inattentively. But, one way or another, he will have to play.

A fundamental inequality is evident in all expressions of the Middle East peace process.

One must presume that President Obama’s most recent calls for Israeli cooperation in the Middle East peace process are balanced, fair, and well-intentioned. Why not? At the same time, unsurprisingly, these all-too-familiar calls are manifestly thin, in the sense that they lack any genuine intellectual content.

    Latest Poll

    Female, Orthodox, Halachic Deciders and Spiritual Leaders (Maharat)









    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/columns/louis-bene-beres/still-taking-detours-to-survival-obama-netanyahu-and-the-twisting-road-map-to-genocide-and-war-part-iii/2010/03/17/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online:

Close