Why Not the United States?

 

The Editor,

The  Financial Times,

Fax:  44.71.873  5338

London;

In his brilliant book Hitler and Stalin Parallel Lives, Allen Bullock analyses the policies adopted by the United States and Great Britain regarding Russia. Although Stalin's contribution to the Commencement of the Second World War, as in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement, is undisputed, he led the Western World to agree to the division of Europe. "Central and Eastern Europe was governed by satellite regimes of the Soviet Union, a Stalinist order in place of the earlier, imposed on them by Hitler and the Nazis". All this with the acquiescence and support of the West. The United States and England proved to lack foreign policy. They succeeded when military might was required [Germany] and failed when Diplomacy was the instrument [Russia].

Amazing as it may sound, this phenomenal scheme was repeated through the pages of the twentieth century. Korea, or the Crisis in Cuba, as accurately described by Michael R. Beschloss in his new book Kennedy Vs.  Khrushchev, The Crisis Years, 1950-1963, Vietnam, where a war of a generation, melted in diplomacy. The Paris Peace treaty, orchestrated by Henry Kissinger, did not save the South. The Embassy crisis in Tehran. To add insult to injury, the United States will compensate Iran for military purchasing, not delivered because of the crisis (The New York Times, 20th November, 1991). The United States was diplomatic and gained nothing. The Mullahs won in all aspects; The United States succeeded in a war against Iraq on behalf of Kuwait but failed to see that Syria implemented a similar policy in Lebanon Because Saddam Hussein used force. Haffas el-Assad adopted "diplomacy"; James Baker sat in Paris around the same table with representatives of the Khmer Rouge, and thus recognised the legitimacy of the "Nazis of the East".

If Israel allows the United States to initiate a peace plan, it might end up like Poland after the war, Like the Viet-Nam peace treaty, or like so many American Hostages whose humiliation was never revenged.

Zalli Jaffe

Why Not?

 

The Security Council demanded that Israel receive a delegation to investigate the tragedy on the Temple Mount.

The resolution made no mention of the fact that the incident stemmed from the throwing of stones, rocks, and iron bars at Jews who came to pray and celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles near the Wailing Wall. Why, the resolution refers to the place in its Muslim definition, not mentioning its position in the Jewish religion. Yes, the Secretary of State did say that the resolution condemned the attack on the Jews. Where? Why is there no word about the PLO's incitement of its supporters to kill Jews with knives?

One of the initiators of the condemnation is, of course, Syria. Why didn’t the Security Council condemn Syria for its recent activities in Lebanon, where Syrian soldiers murdered, raped, and robbed Christians? No word was written about the killing of the Shamun family. The Security Council united against Iraq because all the more influential Arab countries supported it. Just as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE did not care about Lebanon, neither did the Security Council.

However, when these influential Arab countries supported an attack on Iraq, the Security Council succeeded. Moreover, when did the whole Arab World unite?

When Zionism was determined to be racist, now, once again, they unite when the Arab countries demand the Investigating delegation.

I would have assumed that the Western World would see to it that the United Nations plays a more just role. It did not. That is why Syria is never attended to. Zionism is racism, and Iraq is condemned because the Arabs so desired.

“Thus we may gather the honey from the weed and make a moral of the devil himself”.

Letter to the Editor- March 1990

The Editor

The Jerusalem Post

Fax: 537527

A petition is being signed by Arab citizens residing in Israel against the immigration of Soviet Jews to Israel.

This brings about another consideration regarding the establishment of a Palestinian State. Among other risks, there is a new challenge facing Israel when considering the idea of a Palestinian State. The risk being that the West Bank is the "first stage" as has been defined by Abu Iyed, further to the Algiers summit. How? There is a distinguished Arab minority residing in pre-1967 Israel. Some Israeli Arabs strongly supported and identified with the Intifada. A small minority adopted "national violence" in the name of the Palestinian cause. Where lies the danger?

Before the annihilation of Czechoslovakia, the Third Reich demanded that the Sudetenland be annexed to Greater Germany and unite the Sudeten Germans with their brothers. The advocates of "appeasement" -by then supported by the media and public opinion were blind to reality. Lord Ruciman was sent to Czechoslovakia to observe and report. With his lordship's report in his pocket, Neville Chamberlain, accompanied by Édouard Daladier, signed on 29th September 1938, the infamous Munich Agreement. President Benes gave in and resigned. Herr Hitler promised “no more territorial demands”. It took six months. On 15th March 1939, Czechoslovakia was proclaimed a protectorate of the Third Reich. England did nothing, nor did France.

Many came to Israel to play the role of Lord Ranciman. Is Israel not justified in fearing another Chamberlain, another Daladier, be they English, French, American, or otherwise? Will the leadership of Israel not betray its responsibilities to the people of Israel if a Sudeten crisis, Middle East style, is not taken into consideration? It did happen in the past. Palestinian leaders do want Acco, Nazareth, and  “all of Palestine,” as confirmed to NBC. Should we not fear the “second stage”?

Zalli Jaffe