The disappearance of President Obama & Netanyahu’s security scam
From almost its beginning the UN was corrupted by the influence Zionism brought to bear to make sure that the Partition Plan got General Assembly approval with the minimum necessary majority of votes. When President Truman learned how Zionism with the assistance of 26 its stooges in the Senate had bribed and threatened the representatives of a number of governments and sometimes their leaders, in order to get their countries to change “No” votes to “Yes” or to abstain, he wrote in a memorandum that the interference of pressure groups and the rigging of votes “will be helping the United Nations down the road to failure.” (The documented detail of Truman’s agony as Zionism called more and more of his policy shots is in President Truman Surrenders to Zionism, Chapter 11 of Volume One of my book).
- As I never tire of saying because it bears repeating and repeating, the General Assembly’s Partition Plan proposal did not go to the Security Council and was vitiated, became invalid. President Truman did not want the Security Council to consider it because he believed that if passed it could only be implemented by force and he was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine. The assertion that Israel was given its birth certificate and thus legitimacy by the Partition Plan is pure propaganda nonsense. Israel’s declaration of independence was a unilateral act in defiance of the will of the organized international community, including the Truman administration, as represented at the UN.
But the greatest corruption of the UN occurred after the 1967 war when with President Johnson’s assistance Zionism was allowed to impose its will on the text of Resolution 242. Because it was a war of Israeli aggression not self-defence, Israel should have been required to withdraw from all the newly occupied Arab territory without imposing any conditions for its withdrawal. In the final text of the resolution Israel’s withdrawal became conditional on the Arabs making peace. Worse still for the prospects of peace and a measure of justice for the Palestinians was Zionism’s success in getting “the” dropped from the final text of 242. The draft text required Israel to withdraw from “the” territories occupied, meaning by obvious implication withdrawal from all Arab land grabbed in the 1967 war. By dropping “the” from the final text, 242 effectively gave Israel the freedom to determine how much of the occupied territory it would withdraw from. Effectively Resolution 242 gave Zionism a veto over any peace process. It also marked the moment when the representatives of the major powers responsible for drafting the resolution concluded that there was no point in trying to hold Israel accountable to international law because it was quite prepared to tell the whole world to go to hell.
In my experience of engagement with the conflict over more than 40 years, there is only one way to interpret almost of Israel’s leaders, and that is to assume that when they speak about making peace, they mean and will do the opposite of what they say. That is certainly so in Netanyahu’s case. Decoded his message to the UN this time around could not have been more clear. Gideon Levy, the conscience of Israeli journalism, put it this way in Ha’aretz: “On Friday night the final curtain fell on Netanyahu’s masked ball of a two-state solution. Hiding behind the curtain are darkness and gloom. And in that lies an event of historical performance. It proved to the world that Israel wants neither an agreement nor a Palestinian state, and for that matter not peace, either. See you at the next war.”
All of Netanyahu’s talk about the grave threat a Palestinian state would or could pose to Israel’s security is a scam (defined in my Chambers Dictionary as “a swindle”). He went as far as suggesting that from within a Palestinian state missiles could be fired to bring down Israeli civilian airliners.
Way back in the 1980′s I asked Yasser Arafat what he made of Israel’s assertions that a Palestinian mini state would pose a threat to Israel’s security. He began his answer by asking me to imagine that there was in existence a Palestinian state on all of the pre 1967 West Bank and the Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem its capital or, better still, with Jerusalem an open, undivided city and the capital of two states. Then he asked me to imagine that there were attacks on Israel from within the Palestinian state. “How do you think Israel would respond?” he asked.
Page 2 of 3 | Previous page | Next page