Canada Backs Israel’s Survival

Here we go again.  Obama has fallen into the logical trap ofthinking it is ethical to reverse history in order to change a presentreality.  Every revisionist uses thisgarbage logic.

A revisionist view of postcontact western history would have all immigrant folk return to their originalhomeland and return the vacated cities to the ‘first nations’.

The harsh reality of Israel is that a global super ethnic communityknown as Jewry used a historical reality to justify and promote the effective recolonisationof part of what we know as the Holy Land.  They succeeded because of several factors intheir favor.

1                   Collapse of the long time Islamic Empire and its messy replacementwith Western sponsored Nation States.

2                   An ongoing flood of escapees from European anti Semitismand the economic failure of communism.

3                   A modern western society able to defend itself with maturewestern military doctrines.

The present situation is that Israel iseconomically and militarily secure as an urban society of several million.  It is opposed by a Palestinian population operatinga pre modern economy that has brain washed itself into a belief system thatsupports only the out right genocide of the Israeli State.  This is presently expressed geographically indiminishing Palestinian lands within the whole of Israel,but particularly in the West Bank.

The failure to compromise by the Palestiniansis setting the stage for another war to settle the issues.

Such a war will plausibly see thefull expulsion of the Palestinian population from Gaza,Southern Lebanon and the West Bank into theState of Jordan.  This is similar to thefinal settlement of the German Polish conflict imposed by Stalin.  My point is that is what is really at stakehere.  The HashemiteBedouin Kingdomwould disappear into history and a true ‘Palestinian state would then occupythe East Bank of the Jordan.

Forty years ago, I thought suchan outcome to be totally improbable. Today, I am not so sure.  Such a Palestinian State would and couldswiftly reform itself and rethink its role in the middle East and be inposition to enter a successful settlement with the Israeli reality.  It would be one of the great turning pointsin the history of the region.

It would also come just as thegeneral nature of Islamic social economic failure is to be fully revealed bythe sudden end of the Oil Age.  This hasbegun as we write and will unfold over the next decade..

The present reality, rather thanhistorical fantasies is of a failed Palestinian enterprise hijacked by anideology of hate, not unlike Nazism.  Appeasementis not a viable option and we can applaud Canada as the only State to seethis clearly and to stand alone among the G8.

Canada Backs Israel’s Survival

Posted by P. David Hornik on May 30th, 2011 andfiled under Daily Mailer, FrontPage. You can follow any responsesto this entry through theRSS2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently notallowed.

P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator in Beersheva, Israel.He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/30/canada-backs-israels-survival/

Reuters reported onFriday that Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper prevented the G8 fromcalling for Israel’sretreat to the 1967 borders in a communiqué. The group of eight leadingindustrialized countries was meeting in Deauville, France.

All the other seven countries—including the United States—favored calling forthe Israeli withdrawal. But “the Canadians,” a European official told Reuters,“were really very adamant, even though Obama expressly referred to 1967 bordersin his speech last week.”

Instead, the communiqué said:

Negotiations are the only way toward a comprehensive and lastingresolution to the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict.

The framework for these negotiations is well known. We urge bothparties to return to substantive talks with a view to concluding a frameworkagreement on all final status issues.

To that effect, we express our strong support for the vision ofIsraeli-Palestinian peace outlined by President Obama on May 19, 2011.

The G8, then, appears to be implicitly opposing the Palestinian plansfor a unilateral declaration of statehood at the UN in September—withoutexplicitly demanding that Israelcommit territorialsuicide.

Israel’s Haaretz furtherreported on Sunday that Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahuhimself had called Harper last week to request that he keep the 1967 bordersout of the G8’s statement—and that Netanyahu had done so after his speech toCongress on Tuesday.

Netanyahu’s appeal to Harper was, of course, no accident. TheConservative prime minister, reelected with a solid majority earlier this month,is a staunch supporter of Israelwho stated lastyear:

When Israel,the only country in the world whose very existence is under attack, is consistentlyand conspicuously singled out for condemnation, I believe we are morallyobligated to take a stand.

Reuters also reports that“Canada’s strong backing forIsrael was cited by diplomatslast year as one reason why Ottawafailed to win a rotating two-year seat on the United Nations Security Council.”

Notable here is that the other G8 countries—the United States, Russia,France, Britain, Germany, Italy, and Japan—were all prepared to stipulateIsrael’s return to the “Auschwitz borders” even despite the Israeliprime minister’s fervent, publicly expressed opposition to it both after his meeting with Obama onMay 19 and in his speechto Congress last week. By returning to those lines, Israel—situated in the heart of the Middle East and surrounded by Muslim-Arab countries—wouldshrink from its current width of 45 miles to 9-15 miles.

Here are the (maximum) widths in miles of those seven G8 countries(minus Canada):

United States   3300

Russia            4800

France             620

Germany         400

Britain             350

Italy                 200

Japan               140

Also notable—and lamentable—is the rarity of a national leader takingsuch a principled stand on Israelas Harper has.

The administration of George W. Bush, for instance, was—like Harper—onthe conservative side of the fence and considered strongly pro-Israel. Yet itfrequently hectored Israel about building plans for Jews in Jerusalem. Along withRussia, the UN, and the EU—and without inviting Israel to the gathering—itproduced the 2003 “road map for peace,” which laid out a path to a Palestinianstate even as Palestinian suicide bombers were besieging Israeli cities. In2001 Bush’s policy led then-Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharonto declare angrilythat Israel would not be“sacrificed” like Czechoslovakiabefore World War II.

Israelis are well aware that, as Harper put it, their “very existenceis under attack” and yet that they are “consistently and conspicuously singledout for condemnation.” They are also aware that other democracies—sometimeseven including the one that is their major ally—are often willing to throw Israel to thewolves of their own perceived interests. In such a world Stephen Harper standsout like a beacon.