Peace in our Time

Speech given in Defense of the Munich Agreement, 1938 Neville Chamberlain
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs36.htm

(Any similarities you may notice are not coincidental but are because you may have learned something from past history.)

The Prime Minister:
Before I come to describe the Agreement which was signed at Munich in the small hours of Friday morning last, I would like to remind the House of two things which I think it very essential not to forget when those terms are being considered. The first is this: We did not go there to decide whether the predominantly German areas in the Sudetenland should be passed over to the German Reich. That had been decided already. Czechoslovakia had accepted the Anglo-French proposals. What we had to consider was the method, the conditions and the time of the transfer of the territory. The second point to remember is that time was one of the essential factors. All the elements were present on the spot for the outbreak of a conflict which might have precipitated the catastrophe. We had populations inflamed to a high degree; we had extremists on both sides ready to work up and provoke incidents; we had considerable quantities of arms which were by no means confined to regularly organised forces. Therefore, it was essential that we should quickly reach a conclusion, so that this painful and difficult operation of transfer might be carried out at the earliest possible moment and concluded as soon as was consistent, with orderly procedure, in order that we might avoid the possibility of something that might have rendered all our attempts at peaceful solution useless. . . .
. . . To those who dislike an ultimatum, but who were anxious for a reasonable and orderly procedure, every one of [the] modifications [of the Godesberg Memorandum by the Munich Agreement] is a step in the right direction. It is no longer an ultimatum, but is a method which is carried out largely under the supervision of an international body.

Before giving a verdict upon this arrangement, we should do well to avoid describing it as a personal or a national triumph for anyone. The real triumph is that it has shown that representatives of four great Powers can find it possible to agree on a way of carrying out a difficult and delicate operation by discussion instead of by force of arms, and thereby they have averted a catastrophe which would have ended civilisation as we have known it. The relief that our escape from this great peril of war has, I think, everywhere been mingled in this country with a profound feeling of sympathy.

[Hon. Members: Shame.] I have nothing to be ashamed of. Let those who have, hang their heads. We must feel profound sympathy for a small and gallant nation in the hour of their national grief and loss. Mr. Bellenger: It is an insult to say it.

The Prime Minister: I say in the name of this House and of the people of this country that Czechoslovakia has earned our admiration and respect for her restraint, for her dignity, for her magnificent discipline in face of such a trial as few nations have ever been called upon to meet.

The army, whose courage no man has ever questioned, has obeyed the order of their president, as they would equally have obeyed him if he had told them to march into the trenches. It is my hope and my belief, that under the new system of guarantees, the new Czechoslovakia will find a greater security than she has ever enjoyed in the past. . . .

I pass from that subject, and I would like to say a few words in respect of the various other participants, besides ourselves, in the Munich Agreement.After everything that has been said about the German Chancellor today and in the past, I do feel that the House ought to recognise the difficulty for a man in that position to take back such emphatic declarations as he had already made amidst the enthusiastic cheers of his supporters, and to recognise that in consenting, even though it were only at the last moment, to discuss with the representatives of other Powers those things which he had declared he had already decided once for all, was a real and a substantial contribution on his part. With regard to Signor Mussolini, . . . I think that Europe and the world have reason to be grateful to the head of the Italian government for his work in contributing to a peaceful solution.

In my view the strongest force of all, one which grew and took fresh shapes and forms every day war, the force not of any one individual, but was that unmistakable sense of unanimity among the peoples of the world that war must somehow be averted. The peoples of the British Empire were at one with those of Germany, of France and of Italy, and their anxiety, their intense desire for peace, pervaded the whole atmosphere of the conference, and I believe that that, and not threats, made possible the concessions that were made. I know the House will want to hear what I am sure it does not doubt, that throughout these discussions the Dominions, the Governments of the Dominions, have been kept in the closest touch with the march of events by telegraph and by personal contact, and I would like to say how greatly I was encouraged on each of the journeys I made to Germany by the knowledge that I went with the good wishes of the Governments of the Dominions. They shared all our anxieties and all our hopes. They rejoiced with us that peace was preserved, and with us they look forward to further efforts to consolidate what has been done.

Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe, for the removal of those suspicions and those animosities which have so long poisoned the air. The path which leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous. Now that we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity.

From Great Britain, Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Vol. 339 (October 3, 1938)

Property Rights and Jewish Economics

Unto these the land shall be divided for an inheritance according to the number of names. To the more thou shalt give the more inheritance, and to the fewer thou shalt give the less inheritance.' (From this week's Torah portion, Pinchas; Number 26: 53-54).




Property rights are a basic value in the Torah. Our Forefathers were all wealthy men. Jacob even endangers himself and re-crosses the Yabok stream to retrieve some small belongings. Our Sages teach us that righteous people hold their money as dear as their bodies. An entire Talmudic tractate deals with the minute details of a "strange" law that does not exist in any other legal system; the laws of returning lost property. While non-Jews may turn in items they have found to their local police station, they do it out of a healthy sense of ethicality - not because it is the law. For Jews, though, the connection between a person and his property is holy. Returning lost items rectifies the world and is a Torah obligation.

The Land of Israel is also considered the private property of the Children of Israel. It is divided equally on a sliding scale to every person aged 20 and up. That is the directive of the Creator of the world. Land is personal property. It is so linked to its owner that even if he loses it in a bad business deal, the land will be returned to him in the Jubilee year. Land and personal property are meant to help the Nation of Israel fulfill its lofty purpose. The Jew who uses his personal property according to the Torah's instructions, elevates the land and his belongings to a state of holiness. Even small items forgotten on the other side of the Yabok cliff are worth the effort and danger involved in retrieving them.

It is a pity that there are leaders in the faith based public who do not understand this fundamental principle. It is a pity that certain rabbis are captivated by populist socialist clichés that theorize that property and economic success necessarily testify to a low ethical standard.

"The Land of Israel belongs to G-d," a well-known spiritual leader explains, "and so we must oppose privatization of land." People speak in the name of Judaism while they actually promote state-supremacist, paternalistic values at the expense of personal liberty. It is a soft form of fascism - diametrically opposed to Jewish values. Afterwards, these same people cannot explain what the problem is with destroying settlements. After all, if the State built them, it can also destroy them.

The foundations of socialism can be found in Christianity; the Christian deity kicks over the table of the money changer near the Temple in Jerusalem. Communism is a distilled form of socialism. Without "God", Communism descends into the murderous atheism of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Those who nullify the sanctity of property ultimately nullify the sanctity of life. Capitalism tempered by the Jewish cultural values of faith and loving kindness is the Jewish economic method.

We must be on guard to ensure that Netanyahu does not use his privatization plan to privatize national property to monopolies and to power/wealth clans in Israel. Manhigut Yehudit is currently preparing a legal proposal for the Knesset that will reserve plots of land for young couples who have completed their army and national service. The guiding principle is the Torah, "Unto these the land shall be divided."


Shabbat Shalom,

Moshe Feiglin

Linkage: The Mother of all Myths

There have been dozens of conflicts and countless coups in the Middle East since Israel's birth in 1948, and most were completely unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Many of these conflicts were long, bloody, and very costly...
Since the origins of so many regional tensions and rivalries are not connected to the Arab-Israeli conflict, it is hard to see how resolving it would unlock it.
In addition, as tragic as the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has become, it has not spilled over to destabilize the Middle East. (IMRA)
July 8, 2009
EXCERPT
‘Myths, Illusions, and Peace’
By DENNIS ROSS and DAVID MAKOVSKY
Linkage: The Mother of all Myths
Of all the policy myths that have kept us from making real progress in the Middle East, one stands out for its impact and longevity: the idea that if only the Palestinian conflict were solved, all the other Middle East conflicts would melt away. This is the argument of “linkage.” Neoconservatives have always rejected it, given their skepticism about Arab intentions and their related belief that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be resolved. While realists have been the most determined purveyors, this myth transcends all others and has had amazing staying power here, internationally, and in the Middle East. In fact, few ideas have been as consistently and forcefully promoted – by laymen, policymakers, and leaders alike.
One need not look too far for examples of linkage’s pervasiveness. Note the words of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak in early 2008 when, standing next to George W. Bush at a joint press conference following their talks in the Sinai resort town of Sharm al-Sheikh, he recounted their conversation: “I emphasize that the Palestinian question, of course, is the core of problems and conflict in the Middle East, and it is the entry to contain the crisis and tension in the region, and the best means to face what’s going on in the world, our region – I mean by that, the escalation of violence, extremism and terrorism.”
King Abdullah of Jordan made much the same argument during an interview with an American television network in 2006: “I keep saying Palestine is the core. It is linked to the extent of what’s going on in Iraq. It is linked to what’s going on in Lebanon.”
Not only Middle Eastern leaders see the Palestinian issue at the heart of all other regional problems. Brent Scowcroft, former national security advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, echoed this basic point of view in an essay published in early 2007:
A Vigorously renewed effort to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict could fundamentally change both the dynamics in the region and the strategic calculus of key leaders. Real progress would push Iran into a more defensive posture. Hezbollah and Hamas would lose their rallying principle. American allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states would be liberated to assist in stabilizing Iraq. And Iraq would finally be seen by all as a key country that had to be set right in the pursuit of regional security.
Similarly, the Iraq Study Group, cochaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, placed special emphasis on the idea of linkage: “To put it simply, all key issues in the Middle East – the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq, Iran, the need for political and economic reforms, and extremism and terrorism – are inextricably linked.
Such bold statements are rarely qualified. In effect, they are guided by a central premise: that ending the Arab-Israeli conflict is prerequisite to addressing the maladies of the Middle East. Solve it, and in doing so conclude all other conflicts. Fail, and instability – even war – will engulf the entire region.
The major problem with this premise is that it is not true. There have been dozens of conflicts and countless coups in the Middle East since Israel’s birth in 1948, and most were completely unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict. For example, the Iraqi coup of 1958, the Lebanon crisis of 1958, the Yemini civil war of 1962-68 (including subsequent civil wars in the 1980s and ‘90s), the Iraqi Kurdish revolt of 1974, the Egyptian-Libyan Border War of 1977, the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88, the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91 (including Iraqi Kurdish and Iraqi Shiite revolts of the same year), the Yemeni-Eritrean and Saudi-Yemeni border conflicts of the mid-1990s, and the US-Iraq War, begun in 2003.
Many of these conflicts were long, bloody, and very costly. The Iran-Iraq War along lasted eight and a half years, cost in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and took between six hundred thousand and one million lives. Yet this conflict, like the others listed above, would have taken place even if the Arab-Israeli conflict had been resolved.
Since the origins of so many regional tensions and rivalries are not connected to the Arab-Israeli conflict, it is hard to see how resolving it would unlock other regional stalemates or sources of instability. Iran, for example, is not pursuing its nuclear ambitions because there is an Arab-Israeli conflict. Sectarian groups in Iraq would not suddenly put aside their internal struggles if the Palestinian issue were resolved. Like so many conflicts in the region, these struggles have their own dynamic.
In addition, as tragic as the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has become, it has not spilled over to destabilize the Middle East. There have been two Palestinian Intifadas, or uprisings, including one that lasted from 2000 to 2005 and claimed the lives of 4,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis – but not a single Arab leader had been toppled or a single regime destabilized as a result. It has remained a local conflict, contained in a small geographical area. Yet the argument of linkage endures to this day, and with powerful promoters. Why does it persist? And why has it been accepted among top policymakers as if it is factually correct?
Reprinted by arrangement with Viking, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., from “Myths, Illusions, and Peace” by Dennis Ross and David Makovsky. Copyright © 2009 by Dennis Ross and David Makovsky.

Let the Perception Battle Begin


by Joel Bainerman

Talk about the day after the 'two-state solution'.

While the dati-leumi ("national-religious") camp knows full well that an IDF evacuation of territory east of the security fence is bad and are against it, the problem is that the Left has turned the issue of what will happen when the IDF evacuates these areas into, "Are you for a two-state solution?" That assumes an IDF evacuation of territory, but doesn't bring that issue, or what will happen in these areas after the IDF withdrawal, up for discussion. The Left is putting forth the idea that the "two-state solution" is worth having the IDF evacuate territories, but without backing up their position with any solid proof, or clear indication that such a move would bring peace and regional stability.

This is where the battle over Israeli public perception begins. It is based on one core issue: If the IDF evacuates the territories east of the security fence, what will occur afterwards? Will these actions result in peace and regional stability? What if the IDF evacuates the territory, 70,000 Israelis are expelled, and the result is not peace and regional security, but a third Intifada?

What must be made clear to the Israeli public is that for peace and regional stability to occur after an IDF withdrawal, the Palestinian Authority must be at peace with Israel, within the PA and its security forces, and with Hamas. The PA must create enough economic growth (homes and jobs) to satisfy the existing population and the needs of the refugees, all at the same time - and in a relatively very short period of time - as maintaining stability and economic prosperity over many years, even decades. Unless the PA (in its current configuration) can do this, the territory Israel evacuates will become unstable and the IDF will be forced to re-conquer these areas.

In the Knesset, a law needs to be passed which will make it illegal for an Israeli government to order the evacuation of IDF troops from land it currently controls without a national referendum on the issue. All the citizens of Israel would participate in the decision on this very important issue. Just having the Knesset vote on it is not enough. A national referendum is required, because an evacuation of territory will effect all of the Israeli public, not just those Israelis who will have to be resettled. During the Second Intifada, for example, the Israeli public inside the Green Line paid a heavier price than the residents in Judea and Samaria.

Any Knesset Member who opposes this law will be accused of acting in violation of the basic right of the Israeli people to decide their own fate and express their democratic will as free citizens.

The focus of any PR campaign in this regard must be to convince the Israeli public that an IDF withdrawal from the eastern portion of Judea and Samaria will lead to the same result as the Oslo Accords - instability and the absence of peace. All Israelis know Oslo was a disaster. What the Left is currently proposing is another round of Oslo, which most accept will lead to yet another round of violence, this time with a much better trained PA army.

The Left must be forced to explain why every time the Israeli public agrees to hand over areas or political power to an Arab party the result is bad for Israel. Leftists should be challenged to public debates in communities, so the public can hear the vapidness and illogic of the basic premise of the Left that by evacuating territories, peace and security will prevail.

In public and private discussions, all Israelis need to be confronted with these two core issues:

1) Do you agree that peace will only be possible if Israel agrees to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state?

2) Do you agree that if the IDF evacuates its forces east of the security fence, then the new political entity that would be created there will be prosperous, stable, at peace with itself, with Israel and with Hamas?

This battle is about public perception. And the field is wide open to anyone who can dismiss the current perception and replace it with an alternative view. What is encouraging is that the vast majority of Israelis, not just dati-leumi, do not think that evacuating territories for Arab political entities results in peace and security. No Israeli believes anything good came out of Oslo; and what is being proposed is Oslo: Act II.

Joel Bainerman is the founder of the Judea-Samaria Chamber of Commerce (www.jscc.org.il) and Azorim-Regional Government in Israel (www.azorim.org).

PLO respects Oslo Agreement regarding Joseph's Tomb

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Text: PLO respects Oslo Agreement regarding Joseph's Tomb [though allowed it to be vandalized]

[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: One has to wonder about Gershon Baskin's sense of humor. He gets a PA official to claim in a letter that the PLO respects the Oslo Agreement vis-a-vis Joseph's Tomb when he knows that the PA not only allowed the holy site to be ransacked, burned and worse back in October 2000 - they allowed for gross elements of the carnage to remain at the site for many years following the attack.]

Palestine Liberation Organization

Palestine National Authority

Office of the President

18 April 2009

Mr. Gershon Baskin
Israel/Palestinian Center for Research and Information (ICPRI)

Dear Mr. Baskin,

The PLO sticks by the Oslo agreement as the framework for Israeli-Palestinian interim bilateral relations. Therefore, and since "Joseph's Tomb" is recognized as a Jewish Holy place in the Oslo Agreement, the PLO reiterates and respects what has been agreed upon in the Agreement with regards to that site. At the same time, the PLO expects that Moslem holy/historic places in the Ma'man Allah (Mamilla) Islamic Cemetery in Jerusalem be respected and not be removed under any pretext.

Yours sincerely,
Rafik Husseini

[Bureau chief to Mahmoud Abbas]

In Oct. 2000 Arab mobs ransacked the historical burial place of Biblical Joseph son Of Jacob. "Raising from the Ashes" is a short documentary film with detailed updates on Jewish efforts to restore Joseph's tomb (or Kever Yosef in Hebrew) to its rightful honor. For more details on how to have the full presentation shown in your community contact David Ha'ivri haivri@gmail.com

Why Isn't Gilad Shalit Home Yet?

Why Isn't Gilad Shalit Home Yet?

By Moshe Feiglin
6 Tamuz, 5769 (June 28, '09)

The painful history of soldiers who have fallen into the hands of terror organizations did not begin with Gilad Shalit. First we must remove businessman Elchanan Tannenbaum from the list of captives. Tannenbaum was an unusual case. PM Sharon, for his own corrupt reasons, pressured his ministers into paying an exorbitant price for Tannenbaums' release. But barring that aberration, the last time that soldiers returned alive from terrorist captivity was in the Jibril deal in 1985.

The list of soldiers kidnapped by terrorists is long and merciless. Ron Arad; Givati fighters Rachamim Alshich and Yosef Fink; the soldiers kidnapped from Har Dov – Omar Suweid, Benny Avraham and Adi Avitan; Nissim Toledano; Ilan Sa'adon; Avi Sassportas; Yaron Chai; Nachshon Wachsman; Aryeh Frankental; Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. With the exception of Nachshon Wachsman, Israel employed the same method of extended negotiations to bring its soldiers home. Not one of them came back alive. Israeli is currently employing the same method in Gildad Shalit's case.

Until the reprehensible Jibril deal, Israel's captive policy was completely different. The main option was military action. Sometimes that action failed – as was the case with the hostage children of Avivim. Sometimes military action succeeded – as in Entebbe. Generally, no negotiations were conducted. And if there were negotiations, the price paid for the release of prisoners was reasonable – as prescribed by Jewish law. Israel paid for dead bodies with dead bodies.

We can certainly claim that the Jibril deal and the wholesale release of terrorists that ensued was the main catalyst for the first Arab intifada that began a short time afterwards. The number of Israeli citizens either directly killed by the newly released murderers or indirectly killed by the murderous momentum created by that release is frighteningly disproportionate to the number of soldiers that came home as a result of the deal.

Paradoxically, in the 24 years that have passed since Israel decided to pay "any price" to save its captive soldiers, it has not brought one soldier home alive. But it has brought about the cruel deaths of almost two thousand Israeli citizens – men, women and children.

"Any price" means all the terrorists imprisoned in Israel. It does not mean military action, because, after all, war is negative. So "any price" is not any price at all. I am not sure that the protesters for Gilad Shalit would be willing to bomb Gaza and deal with all the international condemnations and boycotts that we would have to face until the Hamas would release him. Israel isn't even willing to cut off the electricity in Gaza to bring Gilad home. "Any price" is really a euphemism for any pacifistic action that will appease the extreme left while affording media star status to the politicians who pay it.

If we take the facts of the past 24 years into account we can safely say that whoever demands to free Gilad "at any price" is actually sentencing him to death. I hope that I am wrong, but the real meaning of "any price" is that there is no price. The terrorists understand that time is on their side. The more cruel that they are, the more that they conceal information and even if they G-d forbid murder their captive and bargain for his body – the price that they will exact from Israel will only rise.

Furthermore, due to the fact that the price that Israel is willing to pay for Gilad does not include war and the fact that the continued incarceration of terrorists (in luxury conditions) does not bother the enemy very much, the optimal choice as far as they are concerned is to perpetuate the current status quo. After all, the situation in which Israel is daily humiliated and demeaned will end when Gilad is released. So why release him?

"Nothing to kill or die for" sang John Lennon. This approach has developed deep roots in Israel since the first Lebanon war. The infamous demonstration of 400,000 (that number is extremely inflated) leftists and the entire leftist movement that reared its head during that war heralded the dubious post modern pretense that war is absolute evil and meaningless and that all we have to do is to imagine a different reality and then everything will work out.

The highly acclaimed film, "Waltz with Bashir" that portrays the first Lebanon war projects this pretense. It describes a war with no rhyme or reason. I was an officer in the first Lebanon war and I can say that this was not the feeling of the soldiers that I encountered. Just like any other facet of life, one sees war through the lenses that he brings with him from home.

Since the first Lebanon war, the Left has fitted the Nation of Israel with glasses that see war as illegitimate and shameful – no matter what. From that time on, preserving the lives of Israel's soldiers became the supreme value. When the enemy realized this after the Jibril deal, the odds for returning captive soldiers home alive plunged. As soon as Israel declared that its main goal is to "return its soldiers home alive and well" no captive has returned.

Something else happened exactly 24 years ago. Israel betrayed and abandoned its agent, Jonathan Pollard, to American captivity. There is an intrinsic symmetry between Israel's full cooperation with Pollard's captors and our inability to bring other captives home. The Nation of Israel is one body, whether in Israel or in the Diaspora. When the betrayal virus attacks one organ, it quickly spreads throughout the body.

Jonathan Pollard saved us from a nuclear Iraq because we are Jews. But we have abandoned him because we prefer to see ourselves as Israelis and to see him as an American traitor. As soon as we turned our backs on our Jewish identity, we lost the ability to remain loyal to our Israeli identity, as well.