Thursday morning, June 3, 2004, I woke up to a most disturbing news article in the Jerusalem Post, headlined "Bush Backs Gaza Withdrawal."
The day before, President Bush had again thrown his support behind Ariel Sharon's plan for a unilateral withdrawal from the Biblical Gaza Strip and parts of the Biblical Judea and Samaria.
According to the Jerusalem Post, senior US officials said that the administration is trying to help Sharon win approval for the plan in the Israeli cabinet.
What happened to President Bush's desire for democracy in the Middle East, one of the reasons he went to war in Iraq? As far as democracy in Israel is concerned, Prime Minister Sharon has made himself a virtual dictator. He is the head of Israel's largest party, the Likud, with forty Knesset Members out of a total of 120 Knesset Members. Sharon's own party voted overwhelmingly against his withdrawal plan: 59.5% against and 39.7% for (a 19.8% difference).
Before the referendum vote Sharon stated the he would definitely abide by the results. As soon as it became apparent that the results were hugely unfavorable to him, he changed his mind, in his dictatorial fashion.
One is reminded of what Prime Minister Golda Meir once said about Sharon, whom she did not want to become IDF Chief of Staff. She said that if he were appointed and the Knesset did not do what he wanted, he would surround the Knesset building with tanks until it did his bidding. Is Sharon insisting on his unilateral retreat plan simply because he wants to have his own way?
Even Sharon's late wife, Lilly, of blessed memory, cautioned against Ariel Sharon being elected Prime Minister. Lilly Sharon said this to an unimpeachable source in the Golan many years ago. Lilly Sharon gave her reason as the parable of Jotham (ninth chapter of the book of Judges), but refused to elaborate further.
What motivates President Bush to call Sharon's undemocratic behavior "a courageous step toward peace", during a speech devoted mostly to the war on terrorism and Iraq at an Air Force Academy Commencement Ceremony? Doesn't President Bush consider Sharon's behavior in disregarding a referendum vote, which he himself initiated, clearly undemocratic?
The most upsetting of President Bush's remarks at the Air Force Commencement Ceremony was the following:
"His [Sharon] decision provides an historic moment of opportunity to begin building a future Palestinian state. This initiative can stimulate progress toward peace by setting the parties on the 'Road Map', the most reliable guide to ending the occupation that began in 1967." [Emphasis mine - RM]
How can Jews "occupy" their own Land, promised to them by the L-rd? How can a supposedly Bible believing Christian President speak in such terms? Doesn't President Bush realize that the Jews cannot possibly occupy a fictional country "Palestine", inhabited by a fictional people, "the Palestinians"?
At this point, some historical background is critically valuable. The following was sent to me by Gilbert Simons from his as-yet unpublished book on this subject:
"How did this artificial Arab country of Palestine come into being? Ahmed Shuqairy, a lawyer, created it out of thin air, at the bequest of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. From his pen came the Palestine National Covenant, a historical revisionist document creating a mythical state, concurrently eliminating Israel from the history books. He then created an organization, the Palestine Liberation Organization (the PLO), to destroy the reborn state of Israel, while 'liberating' his fictitious Arab Palestinian state, a circular tour de force. Nasser appointed him the PLO's first Chairman. No 'Palestinians' were involved.
"In his memoirs, Shuqairy reminisces: 'Firstly, I started by laying down the Palestinian entity on paper, like the engineer who traces the plan of a building with all of its foundations, details and measurements. I wrote, altered, erased and changed the order of the articles until I formulated the "National Covenant" and the "Fundamental Law" of the Palestine Liberation Organization.' (From the Summit to Defeat, With the Kings and the Presidents) Ahmed Shuqairy himself acknowledged before the Security Council: 'It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria [which itself was not a nation, but a province of the Ottoman Empire for about 700 years until the Empire was carved up by the victorious Allies in 1918].'
"PLO Claim: Ahmed Shuqairy, the author of the PLO Covenant or Charter, set down in Article 4: 'The Palestinian personality is an innate, persistent characteristic that does not disappear, and it is transferred from father to son....' Article 7 reads: 'The Palestinian affiliation and the material, spiritual and historical tie with Palestine are permanent realities.' But then, Shuqairy ran into a problem. Creating a Palestinian identity on paper was one thing, but getting Arabs to behave as if it was real was another. Arabs had to be taught these 'innate characteristics', an oxymoron. Blithely ignoring the contradiction, in the same Article 7, quoted above, Shuqairy added: 'The upbringing of the Palestinian individual in an Arab and revolutionary fashion, the undertaking of all means of forging consciousness and training the Palestinian, in order to acquaint him profoundly with his homeland, spiritually and materially, and preparing him for the conflict and armed struggle, as well as for the sacrifice of his property and life to restore his homeland, until the liberation - all this is a national duty.'
"Another contradiction which did not bother Shuqairy was to claim that the Arabs of the area were uniquely 'Palestinians', while simultaneously asserting that 'The Palestinian people are a part of the Arab Nation,' (Article 1), thus no different from the Arabs of the Middle East and North Africa, which of course is a fact."
There has never been a distinct-Arab Palestinian culture, literature, dialect or national consciousness. Zuhayer Muhsin, head of Sa'iqa (a sub-group of the PLO), in an interview with James Dorsey for Trouw, 31 March 1977, put the whole matter in perspective, admitting: "It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity, because it is in the interest of the Arabs to encourage a separate Palestinian identity in contrast to Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is there only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new expedient to continue the fight against Zionism and for Arab unity."
In 1968, after the Arabs were defeated in the 1967 Arab-Israel War, the Palestinian National Charter of 1964 was supposedly revised. In the 1968 Palestinian National Charter, however, the clauses are virtually the same as in the 1964 Charter. The only major difference is that Article 24 of the 1964 Palestinian National Charter was eliminated. No wonder it was eliminated; I want to remind you what Article 24 was all about:
"This organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah area. its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields."
Dear friends, the Arabs living in the Holy Land are the only group of people in this whole world whose openly declared national objective is to destroy the country of Israel, and to slaughter its people, the Jews. It is of utmost importance that the American people, who live in the greatest democracy in the world, influence their Government to abandon the idea that a fictional "Palestinian people" is entitled to regain a fictional homeland called "Palestine". The Jewish People "occupy" only their own Land (and not even all of that land) promised to them in the Judeo-Christian Bible. No support of an American President for an Israeli Prime Minister who has abandoned all pretence of democratic government will change this everlasting Word of G-d.
The Arabs are not only trying to occupy the Holy Land, but attempting to transfer the Jews from the communities they have so passionately built in their regained Homeland. The Jewish "settlers" are not, and never were, an obstacle to peace. In fact, the Hebrew word mitnachlim has been mistranslated as "settlers". The true meaning of the word mitnachlim is not "settlers", but "inheritors".
The "inheritors" are not going to allow themselves to be evicted from their homes, schools, factories, hothouses and synagogues in Biblical Gaza, Judea and Samaria.
At this critical juncture in history, it is incumbent on each and every one of us to make it clear to Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, US President George W. Bush, and the rest of the leaders of the Western world, that it is counterproductive in the war against the Global Jihad of the Muslims to offer G-d's Promised Land as a gift to pacify the Muslim wolves. This would only intensify the Muslim war against Judeo-Christian Western Civilization. The Muslim extremists would rightly understand that terror pays, and that worldwide terror would bring even greater dividends.
The day before, President Bush had again thrown his support behind Ariel Sharon's plan for a unilateral withdrawal from the Biblical Gaza Strip and parts of the Biblical Judea and Samaria.
According to the Jerusalem Post, senior US officials said that the administration is trying to help Sharon win approval for the plan in the Israeli cabinet.
What happened to President Bush's desire for democracy in the Middle East, one of the reasons he went to war in Iraq? As far as democracy in Israel is concerned, Prime Minister Sharon has made himself a virtual dictator. He is the head of Israel's largest party, the Likud, with forty Knesset Members out of a total of 120 Knesset Members. Sharon's own party voted overwhelmingly against his withdrawal plan: 59.5% against and 39.7% for (a 19.8% difference).
Before the referendum vote Sharon stated the he would definitely abide by the results. As soon as it became apparent that the results were hugely unfavorable to him, he changed his mind, in his dictatorial fashion.
One is reminded of what Prime Minister Golda Meir once said about Sharon, whom she did not want to become IDF Chief of Staff. She said that if he were appointed and the Knesset did not do what he wanted, he would surround the Knesset building with tanks until it did his bidding. Is Sharon insisting on his unilateral retreat plan simply because he wants to have his own way?
Even Sharon's late wife, Lilly, of blessed memory, cautioned against Ariel Sharon being elected Prime Minister. Lilly Sharon said this to an unimpeachable source in the Golan many years ago. Lilly Sharon gave her reason as the parable of Jotham (ninth chapter of the book of Judges), but refused to elaborate further.
What motivates President Bush to call Sharon's undemocratic behavior "a courageous step toward peace", during a speech devoted mostly to the war on terrorism and Iraq at an Air Force Academy Commencement Ceremony? Doesn't President Bush consider Sharon's behavior in disregarding a referendum vote, which he himself initiated, clearly undemocratic?
The most upsetting of President Bush's remarks at the Air Force Commencement Ceremony was the following:
"His [Sharon] decision provides an historic moment of opportunity to begin building a future Palestinian state. This initiative can stimulate progress toward peace by setting the parties on the 'Road Map', the most reliable guide to ending the occupation that began in 1967." [Emphasis mine - RM]
How can Jews "occupy" their own Land, promised to them by the L-rd? How can a supposedly Bible believing Christian President speak in such terms? Doesn't President Bush realize that the Jews cannot possibly occupy a fictional country "Palestine", inhabited by a fictional people, "the Palestinians"?
At this point, some historical background is critically valuable. The following was sent to me by Gilbert Simons from his as-yet unpublished book on this subject:
"How did this artificial Arab country of Palestine come into being? Ahmed Shuqairy, a lawyer, created it out of thin air, at the bequest of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. From his pen came the Palestine National Covenant, a historical revisionist document creating a mythical state, concurrently eliminating Israel from the history books. He then created an organization, the Palestine Liberation Organization (the PLO), to destroy the reborn state of Israel, while 'liberating' his fictitious Arab Palestinian state, a circular tour de force. Nasser appointed him the PLO's first Chairman. No 'Palestinians' were involved.
"In his memoirs, Shuqairy reminisces: 'Firstly, I started by laying down the Palestinian entity on paper, like the engineer who traces the plan of a building with all of its foundations, details and measurements. I wrote, altered, erased and changed the order of the articles until I formulated the "National Covenant" and the "Fundamental Law" of the Palestine Liberation Organization.' (From the Summit to Defeat, With the Kings and the Presidents) Ahmed Shuqairy himself acknowledged before the Security Council: 'It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria [which itself was not a nation, but a province of the Ottoman Empire for about 700 years until the Empire was carved up by the victorious Allies in 1918].'
"PLO Claim: Ahmed Shuqairy, the author of the PLO Covenant or Charter, set down in Article 4: 'The Palestinian personality is an innate, persistent characteristic that does not disappear, and it is transferred from father to son....' Article 7 reads: 'The Palestinian affiliation and the material, spiritual and historical tie with Palestine are permanent realities.' But then, Shuqairy ran into a problem. Creating a Palestinian identity on paper was one thing, but getting Arabs to behave as if it was real was another. Arabs had to be taught these 'innate characteristics', an oxymoron. Blithely ignoring the contradiction, in the same Article 7, quoted above, Shuqairy added: 'The upbringing of the Palestinian individual in an Arab and revolutionary fashion, the undertaking of all means of forging consciousness and training the Palestinian, in order to acquaint him profoundly with his homeland, spiritually and materially, and preparing him for the conflict and armed struggle, as well as for the sacrifice of his property and life to restore his homeland, until the liberation - all this is a national duty.'
"Another contradiction which did not bother Shuqairy was to claim that the Arabs of the area were uniquely 'Palestinians', while simultaneously asserting that 'The Palestinian people are a part of the Arab Nation,' (Article 1), thus no different from the Arabs of the Middle East and North Africa, which of course is a fact."
There has never been a distinct-Arab Palestinian culture, literature, dialect or national consciousness. Zuhayer Muhsin, head of Sa'iqa (a sub-group of the PLO), in an interview with James Dorsey for Trouw, 31 March 1977, put the whole matter in perspective, admitting: "It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity, because it is in the interest of the Arabs to encourage a separate Palestinian identity in contrast to Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is there only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new expedient to continue the fight against Zionism and for Arab unity."
In 1968, after the Arabs were defeated in the 1967 Arab-Israel War, the Palestinian National Charter of 1964 was supposedly revised. In the 1968 Palestinian National Charter, however, the clauses are virtually the same as in the 1964 Charter. The only major difference is that Article 24 of the 1964 Palestinian National Charter was eliminated. No wonder it was eliminated; I want to remind you what Article 24 was all about:
"This organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah area. its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields."
Dear friends, the Arabs living in the Holy Land are the only group of people in this whole world whose openly declared national objective is to destroy the country of Israel, and to slaughter its people, the Jews. It is of utmost importance that the American people, who live in the greatest democracy in the world, influence their Government to abandon the idea that a fictional "Palestinian people" is entitled to regain a fictional homeland called "Palestine". The Jewish People "occupy" only their own Land (and not even all of that land) promised to them in the Judeo-Christian Bible. No support of an American President for an Israeli Prime Minister who has abandoned all pretence of democratic government will change this everlasting Word of G-d.
The Arabs are not only trying to occupy the Holy Land, but attempting to transfer the Jews from the communities they have so passionately built in their regained Homeland. The Jewish "settlers" are not, and never were, an obstacle to peace. In fact, the Hebrew word mitnachlim has been mistranslated as "settlers". The true meaning of the word mitnachlim is not "settlers", but "inheritors".
The "inheritors" are not going to allow themselves to be evicted from their homes, schools, factories, hothouses and synagogues in Biblical Gaza, Judea and Samaria.
At this critical juncture in history, it is incumbent on each and every one of us to make it clear to Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, US President George W. Bush, and the rest of the leaders of the Western world, that it is counterproductive in the war against the Global Jihad of the Muslims to offer G-d's Promised Land as a gift to pacify the Muslim wolves. This would only intensify the Muslim war against Judeo-Christian Western Civilization. The Muslim extremists would rightly understand that terror pays, and that worldwide terror would bring even greater dividends.