Open Letter from a European Non-Jew to the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini
Endowed with the authority of a Top Diplomat as EU Foreign Affairs Chief, you travelled to the Holy Land. There you called to divide Jerusalem and demanded the partition of Israel.
Your words were: “I think Jerusalem can be and should be the capital of two states.” You also said: “We need a Palestinian state – that is the ultimate goal and this is the position of all the European Union.”
And then — what? What does the EU expect to happen next? After the partition? Do you expect the Palestinians will stop their incitement and all attacks against Jews once they have a state?
You said: “We need a Palestinian state – that is the ultimate goal and this is the position of all the European Union.” Fact is, not even the Palestinians themselves think they need one, or they would have accepted the numerous offers for a state from the Israeli side. All the Palestinians need is the destruction of Israel. Even during your visit to Israel, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called on Saturday for the destruction of Israel, whereby he used the term an end date for “Israeli occupation.”
In case you had not known: The end of the “Israeli occupation” is the term the Palestinian Arab world uses to describe the destruction of the state of Israel. With the use of the term “Israeli occupation” they mean the entire state of Israel. Before June 1967 the Arabs were attacking Israel and fighting against what they called “Israeli occupation”, even though before 1967 there did not exist a single “Israeli settlement”. The Arab attacks culminated in the Six-Day-War in June 1967.
All the partition of Jerusalem and Israel would bring about, is an easier way for the Arab world to try to destroy the state of Israel.
Is there at least one indication that a Palestinian State will bring about peace? If so, what is it?
According to a recent survey almost 2/3 of Palestinians want a two-state solution to be part of “a program of stages” to liberate all Palestine “from the river to the sea” (Source: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, June 25, 2014). A clear majority (60% overall, including 55% in the ;West Bank; and 68% in Gaza) say that the five-year goal ‘should be to work toward reclaiming all of historic Palestine, from the river to the sea.’ These are remarkable findings.
Fatah refers to all Israelis as “settlers”; Palestinian Authority TV on a regular basis refers to all of Israel as “occupied Palestine” and depicts a world without Israel. The Palestinian Authority makes no attempt to educate its people towards peace and coexistence with Israel. On the contrary, from every possible platform it repeatedly rejects Israel’s right to exist, presents the conflict as a religious battle for Islam and perpetuates a picture of the Middle East, both verbally and visually, in which Israel does not exist at all. Israel’s destruction is presented as both inevitable and a Palestinian Arab obligation.
These are well-known facts. The Palestinian Arabs do not even bother to hide their true intentions. What exactly makes the EU think the opposite? What is the basis for the hypothesis of the EU that a partition of Jerusalem and Israel will bring about peace? Is there at least one indication that a Palestinian State will bring about peace? If so, what is it?
Neither you nor any other EU-official has ever answered that question as yet.
Actually, Mrs. Mogherini, your speech as EU foreign Affairs Chief was cryptical, when it dealt with the consequences of a partitioned and divided Israel. For you used the term “challenge”: “The challenge is to show that Jerusalem can be shared in peace and respect.”
In 2006 Gaza was a challenge too. And an experiment. A challenge is always an experiment. If there ever was a political challenge and an experiment, then the disengagement from Gaza was one. How peaceful has Gaza become after that experiment?
Furthermore, when in Israel, you pointed out that the world “cannot afford” another war in Gaza. Indeed, the world should not afford another war in Gaza. That is why financial support for Gaza should always be linked to a disarmament of Gaza and to no more digging of terror-tunnels from Gaza into Israel. I missed that part in your press conferences.
When speaking with Israeli politicians, you called for a return to peace talks. You said: “It is also worrying that after the ceasefire was reached in Cairo in August, we are still having difficulties in advancing with the direct talks.”
Whom are you calling to the negotiating table? Do you not know that the Palestinians do not want to negotiate with Israel?
And this leads back to the initial question: Why exactly does the EU believe that land-for-peace should work? In other words: What is the basis of your faith that peace will be brought about by a divided Holy City Jerusalem and by the partition of the state of Israel?
This is a clear and simple question, and those who care for the peace of Jerusalem and Israel have every right to expect answers.
Meanwhile even Israel’s rejection to divide the capital Jerusalem is held against her, when the opposite should be the case. For you see, no one who really loves Jerusalem would want the Holy City to be divided.
There is a story in the Bible called the verdict of King Solomon. In that story the question was asked, who is the real mother of the baby child. The real mother did not want her child divided, the false pretentious mother wanted the child to be divided.
The same applies to Jerusalem: Those who really love and care for the Holy City would never want Jerusalem to be divided.
@ bernard ross:
You are correct of course but Israeli leadership and those who preceded it during the Mandate were faced with a big problem.
Understand most of the pre State jewish authoritiews the Jewish Agency for Israel were functionaries appointed by Britain and paid by the British. Most never wanted or expected a sovereign Jewish State but sought to be a semi-autonomous colony of Britain. Giving in to the Great Empire of Britain then is little different than giving in to the Great USA for Israeli leaders. Add a large dose of corruption to the leadership mix and the influence of Big financial interests in Israel and Abroad you wind up with something like we have today.
Sure what I say here is over simplified but essentially factual as far as it goes.
yamit82 Said:
My understanding is that much of area C is vacant land and if so it is even more outrageous to claim that vacant land they don’t live upon also belongs to the pals. Only the Jews were specifically noted in International agreements to be the ones to be “encouraged and facilitated to immigrate and settle west of the jordan river.” It’s absurd Orwellian doublespeak and the Jews don’t even mention it, especially those Jews leading the state of israel who was meant to be the successor representative of the Jewish people.
Depose the hashemite puppets and many problems can be solved.
Questioning the Jewish right to the land ignores the crucial issue: what right do Arabs have to it?
Jews bought land from individual Palis. No one was evicted, nor was private ownership violated.
Much of the Palis territory was unused desert and marsh before the Jews made the land productive and valuable, acquiring the right of homestead.
As for state control of unused, untitled land, the Palis never had a state—the Turks, then the British, controlled the land—nor were the Palis recognized as a nation, a recognition which would have let them claim tribal sovereignty over the land.
By the time the colonial powers turned the territory over to the locals, they de facto included not only Palis but Jews as well.
The Israelis did not seize the land from Palis; neither had a formal claim on it.
Just a few questions.
“We”? — why do Europeans need a Pali state?
I thought it was the Palestinians who (supposedly) ‘need’ a state.
If it IS the Palis who need a state, WHY do they need one?
— whom do they need a state to protect them FROM? — Jews???
If the Palis need a state, why does it have to be west of the River? If they need protection from Jews, wouldn’t they be safer EAST of the River, where Jews aren’t allowed?
If it’s the Euros who ‘need’ a Pali state, why — exactly — do THEY ‘need’ a Pali state?
Don’t they have enough of their own states? Why do they ‘need’ a Pali state too?
— Do they want to live there? — under Pali sovereignty? (Have they ever visited Gaza, just to see what they’d be in for?)
If the Euros have to have a Pali state, why does it have to be situated west of the River?
Why couldn’t a European Pali state be located in Europe? (wouldn’t that be more logical?)
— couldn’t the Euros put it right smack dab in the geographic CENTER of Europe, so ALL Euros could have equal & ready access to it?
They could even give it a cool, sexy name like. . . ooh, dunno. . .how ’bout, maybe, the Sudetenland?
“Ultimate goal”? — why ultimate? HOW, ‘ultimate’?
— what’s ‘ultimate’ about it?
And what happens after THAT?
Just a few questions.
Appeasement at any prize to delay the inevitable. Mass of genocidal and fanatical Muslims are willing to die.
What makes the writer assume Europe actually believes such actions will lead to peace? Europe’s motive is purely to sacrifice Israel in the false belief it will buy itself safety. It is not peaceful coexistence Europe seeks, they know that won’t happen. It is to appease the Muslims by handing Israel over to them to destroy.
here is my letter to europe: When Europe burns to the ground everything will be solved in Israel