A good Cartoon often tells the story in a better way than 1000 words.
Cartoon of the day # 207
Both Muslims and Christians tried to «liberate» Vienna in 1683
Islam has twice invaded Christian Europe. In 1683 the Ottoman Empire tried to «liberate» the city of Vienna. Or is it more correct to say that the city was liberated from an Islamic siege and occupation?
The question of liberation or occupation is seldom about land. Its most likely a question about values. Its also a question about ideology and faith.
Few Europeans are aware that Islam was close to take over the Austrian capital of Vienna as late as the year of 1683. The Muslim army that attacked central Europa through the Balkans, was obviously portraying them self as «freedom fighters». They came to «liberate» Central Europe.
The Christians in Vienna did not want to be «liberated» by the Muslims. They looked on the Islamic forces as hostile. They represented a real threat of an unwanted Islamic occupation.
The Jews that lives in Judea and Samaria today feels the same way.
They do not want to be liberated by Islam. They feel that a two-state-solution will bring their freedom to and end, and the two Jewish districts will be given back to the previous Islamic occupiers.
Why do I use the term «Islamic occupation»?
Because before the liberation of Judea and Samaria in 1967, the two districts were under Islamic occupation. Even from 1917 to 1948 the land was free from Islamic oppression, controlled by the United Kingdom. The Britishers had «liberated» the land from an «occupation» by the Ottoman Empire that had lasted 400 years.
Today, the European Union wants to put the liberated Jewish settlers back under the same yoke of Islam, it self was fighting to be liberated from in 1683.
Since the city of Vienna needed to be protected from the threat of an Ottoman Islamic occupation, why should the same forces be allowed to reign over the Jewish homeland?
Is it the Jews or the Muslims who have liberated people in the Middle East, and particular inside the state of Israel?
The Ottoman control of Judea and Samaria has to be branded as an Islamic occupation, Likewise the Jordanian control over Judea and Samaria from 1948 to 1967.
People fight wars to either liberate others, or to get rid of their own occupation. After the six day war in 1967, Judea and Samaria was liberated. Still, most of the Biblical heartland of Israel is free from occupation. But the International community has already forced Israel to give some of the liberated Jewish land back to its previous occupiers.
First Published, September 11th, 2009.
Written by Ivar
With Goldstone´s logic Winston Churchill was a war criminal
According to Goldstone’s standards, Winston Churchill himself should have been placed in the defendant’s seat as a war criminal.
On the eve of a European Parliament debate on the Goldstone Report, Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin warned its 736 MEPs on Tuesday against «allowing Goldstone’s new morality to take over international law».
European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek said the debate was a sign of his institutions growing interest in the Middle East.
«The European Union wants to be a player [in the Middle East] and we are doing it very seriously», said Buzek on Tuesday at a press conference in Brussels.
«Tomorrow we will discuss the Goldstone Report, the next signal that the European parliament and institutions are interested in solving the Middle East problem», said Buzek.
Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin gives the EU a stern warning:
«According to Goldstone’s standards, Winston Churchill himself should have been placed in the defendant’s seat as a war criminal, as would American and British generals who have killed thousands in Iraq», Rivlin said.
«In the meantime, it is Israel alone that pays the price of the double standard, which does not differentiate between the victim and the attacker or between terror and self-defense. If the trend is not changed, next in line will be British and American military personnel, and those of the rest of the free world».
He warned that the «new and crooked morality will usher in a new era in Western civilization, similar to the one that we remember from the [1938] Munich agreement, which allowed a dictatorship to spill the blood of the free world, and almost brought about its defeat».
Source: Jerusalem Post.
My comment:
If the EU had invited Hitler to explain why the Jews are bad people, I am sure the European commission would have come up with a solid report of 200 pages. The list of Nazis that would have given «eyewitness accounts» would surely have been long.
But would such witnesses have been trustworthy?
What kind of credibility do Hamas have?
Do people who behead and slaughter even their own Muslim brethren, have any role to play in the International court of Justice?
Global onslaught of lies claims state of Israel is the occupation
To claim that the so-called West Bank is «Arab» land, will, followed to its logical conclusion, undermine the legitimacy of Israel itself.
The conviction that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal is now so commonly accepted, it hardly seems as though the matter is even open for discussion.
But it is. Indeed, the analysis underlying the conclusion that the settlements violate international law depends entirely on an acceptance of the Palestinian narrative that the West Bank is «Arab»land. Followed to its logical conclusion, this narrative precludes the legitimacy of Israel itself.
For several hundred years leading up to World War I, all of Israel, Jordan, and the putative state of Palestine were merely provinces of the Ottoman Empire.
After British-led Allied troops routed the Turks from the country in 1917-18, the League of Nations empowered Britain to facilitate the creation of a «Jewish National Home» under a mandate while respecting the rights of the native Arab population.
Following World War II, the League of Nations’ successor, the UN, voted in November 1947 to partition the land into Arab and Jewish states.
While the Jews accepted partition, the Arabs did not and five Arab countries invaded the fledgling Jewish state. Those Jewish communities in the West Bank that had existed prior to the Arab invasion were demolished, as was the Jewish quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem.
Eugene Rostow, former dean of Yale Law School and undersecretary of state for political affairs in 1967 during the Six-Day War, argued that the West Bank should be considered «unallocated territory», and that Israel had the status of a «claimant to the territory».
To Rostow, «Jews have a right to settle in it under the Mandate» a right he declared to be «unchallengeable as a matter of law». In accord with these views, Israel has historically characterized the West Bank as «disputed territory».
All legally authorized Israeli settlements have been constructed either on lands that Israel characterizes as state-owned or «public» or, in a small minority of cases, on land purchased by Jews from Arabs after 1967.
Source: Commentary by David M. Phillips. The writer is a professor at Northeastern University School of Law. US.
ivarfjeld.com 