It’s always Munich in The U.S. Dept. of State.
The Munich Agreement allowed Nazi Germany to take over portions of Czechoslovakia which the Nazis renamed “Sudetenland.” Nobody had ever called them that before Hitler decided they were part of the fatherland. The agreement was negotiated in Munich, Germany, among the major powers of Europe, without the presence of Czechoslovakia.
Sounds familiar? Of course, every right wing newspaper and website has been using the Munich deal as a metaphor, complete with those pictures of British Prime Minister Arthur Neville Chamberlain waving a piece of paper and promising long term peace.
But the Czechs and Slovaks did not call it the Munich Agreement. They called it the Munich Dictate (Mnichovský diktát).
We’re looking into a new peace dictate.
Because, let’s face it, the two-state solution is absolutely the worst possible solution imaginable to the conflict between Arabs and Jews in Eretz Israel. And every singe time it was suggested, starting with the 1937 Peel Commission report, it was followed by rivers of blood. This one will, too. And as has been the case since the first time that stinker has been released from the box, Arabs will suffer worse than Jews.
Look at what Obama is saying about Abbas: he’s urging Israel to make a deal with the Palestinian Authority chief because he’s coming on in years, and who knows who would replace him.
That’s not a recommendation, it sounds more like the due diligence guy recommending not to touch this deal. Sign with this guy before he dies and we have no idea who would replace him, that’s the plus side? Are we thinking before we’re talking, Mr. President?
And then, naturally, Obama pushes the tired, outdated, non-think line of the left circa 1993: “Do you resign yourself to what amounts to a permanent occupation of the West Bank? Is that the character of Israel as a state for a long period of time? Do you perpetuate, over the course of a decade or two decades, more and more restrictive policies in terms of Palestinian movement? Do you place restrictions on Arab-Israelis in ways that run counter to Israel’s traditions?”
This supposedly caring, Israel-friendly question, repeated by both Kerry and Obama, is not pro-Israel at all. It appears to be coming from a position of worrying that Israel would have to lose its democratic state values to survive the ever burgeoning Palestinian population, or it would soon be under water demographically.
But this is not a caring appeal at all, it’s a vicious lie. For one thing, Arab birth rates have been plummeting, for a variety of reasons, urbanization and a better life style being two of them. The most stunning birth rate is on the Jewish side, specifically the settlers, who are way ahead of everyone else in the birthing Olympics, including the Haredi team, and certainly ahead of the Arabs.
But that’s not such a vicious lie, it’s more like willful ignorance on the part of politicians living off the 1980s stats.
You know what’s vicious? The line of thinking that says, Israel is already increasing its unfair and undemocratic methods, its apartheid system, against the Palestinians – imagine how bad things could get in a few years. How soon before there are Soweto-like enclaves across Israel, with roundups and beatings and hanging—and then, obviously, the Palestinian Auschwitz, complete with gas chambers. It’s only a matter of time.
It’s vicious because the trend has been in the opposite direction. The IDF has been laboring to make the checkpoints it’s been using more dynamic and less permanent—to improve Palestinian civilian life. Palestinians in Judea and Samaria are experiencing a renewed wave of prosperity. There are new Palestinian millionaires, employment figures are improving, education levels are on the rise. Arabs lucky enough to be working for Israeli companies or doing business with them are doing much better. If anything, the trend is in the opposite direction, with reduced rather than added restrictions on Palestinians—so why would this dystopia of Israel going Nazi unless there’s a 2-state solution be so ever present in the Obama White House narrative?