By Yuval Steinitz - August 24, 2001
European commitment to Israel's existence seems solid and stable. You would hardly find a European
statesman or thinker who expresses explicit support for the annihilation of Israel.
Yet a careful analysis of two common European positions - the support for the Palestinians' "right of return"
and the objection to almost any Israeli defense operation - suggests that Israel's adversaries in the Middle East
might find some hidden partners to their aim of destroying the Jewish state.
Let's start by analyzing the prevalent European support for the Palestinians' "right of return." Should we be so
charitable as to assume that enlightened people in Europe indeed fail to understand that the "right of return"
formula means the extinction of Israel?
Of course, most advocates of this Palestinian demand would base their position on a purely moral ground. The
fact that the refugee problem is a result of the refusal of all Arab nations, including the Palestinians, to accept
the 1947 UN resolution on establishing both a Jewish and a Palestinian state, seems entirely irrelevant to their
humanistic approach. Even the ensuing Arab offensive, which was explicitly aimed at destroying the embryonic
Jewish state and exterminating its people, is not the issue.
The only thing that does appear to matter to some Europeans is that, according to their views, the rights of
Arab-Palestinians who left their homeland 53 years ago are fundamentally superior to the rights of Jews who
left their homeland almost 2,000 years ago.
Ignoring, for the sake of argument, the dubious validity of the above reasoning, since our aim is not to refute it
but rather to explore its cultural background, two important aspects emerge. First, that by advocating the above,
those Europeans, in fact, withdraw their historical support for the 1947 UN resolution on the establishment of
the State of Israel.
Second, this humanistic approach reiterates one of the key principles of classical European anti-Semitism: that
Jews are foreigners by nature, and hence, they are inferior vis-a-vis the natives, whether in Europe or in the
Middle East.
The claim that many Europeans see the Jews of Israel as fundamentally inferior in their national rights to their
Arab neighbors, exactly as they used to be inferior to their European neighbors in the past, is supported from
yet another perspective. Most European leaders vehemently criticize Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria,
which means that they negate the Jewish right of return to central territories of their historical homeland. The
main justification for their demand to freeze the settlements is that they might "jeopardize the forthcoming
Palestinian state."
Yet many of the same leaders do support the Palestinian right of return to territories inside Israel, thus
supporting the Palestinian demand that freezing Jewish settlement in the territories will be accompanied by the
process of sending hundreds of thousands of Arab-Palestinians to settle inside the Jewish state.
Can they innocently ignore the presence of a symmetrical threat jeopardizing the Jewish state?
As a former activist in the Peace Now movement I, together with my friends, shouted the slogan "two states for
two people!" in the name of justice and equality. In our innocence, we never imagined that, concomitant with the
process of establishing the Palestinian national homeland, we would be asked by some of our former European
allies to slaughter - in the name of the selfsame principles of justice and equality - the precious lamb of the
Jewish national homeland.
Another issue that might shed some light on the real intentions of some European leaders toward Israel is their
overwhelming objection to the right of Jews to protect themselves whenever required. Of course, it will be
difficult to find a public figure in Europe who explicitly asks the Jews to sacrifice themselves without fighting
back, as they did in the Holocaust. Yet, despite some general statements about Israel's natural right of defense -
like any normal state - there is hardly an Israeli military operation that escapes their condemnation, while all
the while refusing to take into account the brutal terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, or the bold violations of
all arms-control commitments by the Palestinian Authority.
If Israeli soldiers return fire on Palestinian policemen who are shooting at a neighborhood of Jerusalem, our
European friends express "sorrow" concerning "the violence on both sides." If Israel's F-16 airplanes target
proper military installations as a response to the massacre of civilians in a shopping mall near Netanya, the
European reaction is that it is "an improper excessive use of force, that might lead to unnecessary casualties."
When Israel shifts its policy to pinpointing and striking at prominent terrorists, in an effort to minimize the
danger to the entire Palestinian population, they consider it "execution without trial." When Israel imposes a
closure on the territories to prevent suicide bombers from entering the country, they feel "uncomfortable" with
"collective punishment."
In short, Israel enjoys the universal right of self-defense, but not in a concrete way. Here again, one can observe
the double standards of many Europeans, who would hesitate to dispute the right of other nations to fight their
enemies, and all the more so when their civilians are being purposely targeted. When it comes to Israel,
however, it is only restraint that derives some consent. It would thus seem that the old habit of seeing helpless
Jews persecuted by their adversaries might still play some role, albeit unconsciously, in some modern minds.
No doubt anti-Semitism is out of fashion nowadays in enlightened European circles. But if one can disguise a
good old tradition under the cover of humanistic support for the Arabs in the Middle East, why not give it a try?
(The writer, a Likud MK, is chairman of the Knesset Subcommittee for Defense Planning and
Policy.)
©2001 - Jerusalem Post
dennisw said it so well yesterday..something like "its the European's fault that they drove us out to Palestine where we have to deal with the psycho Palestinians."
................Simply put, Europe is dominated politically by the same Vatican that aligned itself closely with The Third Reich. To understand european antisemetism, one has remember that 'the city set on seven hills' has historically contributed much to that work of darkness.
Catholicism, in its bogus claim to be the 'inheritors' of God's promises to the descendants of Abraham, is doctrinally opposed to the restoration of a Jewish State.
If the Bible means what is says throughout the Old and New Testament, God is not done with His plans for The Chosen People. And the guy with the 'fish-god hat on his head' is more the modern day high-priest of the pagan deity 'Dagon' than 'The Vicar of Christ'.
Jesus of Nazareth wept over Jerusalem, understanding that the religious leaders of his day were far more concerned with social status and political influence than repentance. His tears were shed knowing the suffering that would come upon his people as the result of their obstinance. His words to his fellow Jews were, "you shall not see me again until you say, 'blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord'.................Meaning that He would return as the Messianic King of Israel in fulfillment of a major theme of prophetic scripture.
The attitude of the Vatican is completely opposed to God's plan for the world. Rather than the King of the Jews reigning from Jerusalem they wish to install their own 'anointed' King of Jerusalem, Juan Carlos of Spain..........(welcome to the european faction of the emerging NWO)