Canada Backs Israel’s Survival

Here we go again.  Obama has fallen into the logical trap of thinking it is ethical to reverse history in order to change a present reality.  Every revisionist uses this garbage logic.

A revisionist view of post contact western history would have all immigrant folk return to their original homeland and return the vacated cities to the ‘first nations’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such a war will plausibly see the full expulsion of the Palestinian population from Gaza, Southern Lebanon and the West Bank into the State of Jordan.  This is similar to the final settlement of the German Polish conflict imposed by Stalin.  My point is that is what is really at stake here.  The Hashemite Bedouin Kingdom would disappear into history and a true ‘Palestinian state would then occupy the East Bank of the Jordan.

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

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

The present reality, rather than historical fantasies is of a failed Palestinian enterprise hijacked by an ideology of hate, not unlike Nazism.  Appeasement is not a viable option and we can applaud Canada as the only State to see this clearly and to stand alone among the G8.

Canada Backs Israel’s Survival

Posted by P. David Hornik on May 30th, 2011 and filed under Daily Mailer, FrontPage. You can follow any responses to this entry through theRSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

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 on Friday that Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper prevented the G8 from calling for Israel’s retreat to the 1967 borders in a communiqué. The group of eight leading industrialized countries was meeting in Deauville, France.

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

Instead, the communiqué said:

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

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

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

The G8, then, appears to be implicitly opposing the Palestinian plans for a unilateral declaration of statehood at the UN in September—without explicitly demanding that Israel commit territorial suicide.

Israel’s Haaretz further reported on Sunday that Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu himself had called Harper last week to request that he keep the 1967 borders out of the G8’s statement—and that Netanyahu had done so after his speech to Congress on Tuesday.

Netanyahu’s appeal to Harper was, of course, no accident. The Conservative prime minister, reelected with a solid majority earlier this month, is a staunch supporter of Israel who stated last year:

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

Reuters also reports that “Canada’s strong backing for Israel was cited by diplomats last year as one reason why Ottawa failed 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 stipulate Israel’s return to the “Auschwitz borders” even despite the Israeli prime minister’s fervent, publicly expressed opposition to it both after his meeting with Obama on May 19 and in his speech to Congress last week. By returning to those lines, Israel—situated in the heart of the Middle East and surrounded by Muslim-Arab countries—would shrink 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 taking such a principled stand on Israel as Harper has.

The administration of George W. Bush, for instance, was—like Harper—on the conservative side of the fence and considered strongly pro-Israel. Yet it frequently hectored Israel about building plans for Jews in Jerusalem. Along with Russia, the UN, and the EU—and without inviting Israel to the gathering—it produced the 2003 “road map for peace,” which laid out a path to a Palestinian state even as Palestinian suicide bombers were besieging Israeli cities. In 2001 Bush’s policy led then-Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon to declare angrily that Israel would not be “sacrificed” like Czechoslovakia before World War II.

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