He who Forgets the Past
Many demand credit for the dictum, “he who does not remember the
past, is condemned to repeat it”. All should agree to its accuracy.
When
in Zurich, Vladimit I. Lenin defined the aim of the Communist
Revolution. He was not concentrating on the forcing of communism in
Russia, but on efforts to shake the civil and social order worldwide and
the imposition of the “dictatorship of the Prolertariat”, in any
locale, in every possible country. Indeed, in his book, The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire, Brian
Crozier describes in detail the implementation of this policy by Joseph
Stalin. Stalin’s gross mistake was his demand that all will
recognize him as the only leader of world communism. His policy caused
the breach with China under Mao Tze Tung, and Yugoslavia under Marshall
Joseph Tito.
The world failed to understand the danger in Stalin.
So much so, that Winston Churchill felt during the convention in The
Crimea that Stalin’s “word was his bond”.
Lord Alan Bullock in his book Hitler and Stalin Parallel Lives,
compares the aims of Stalin to that of Hitler. Like Stalin, Hitler
wished to ensure the collapse of the world political and social order
existing at the time in Europe.
Hitler’s political success at the
beginning of his crusade was due solely to the failure of the free world
to understand and read his intentions. Neville Chamberlain became the
symbol of ridicule of political understanding, whose appeasement brought
about the collapse of the world.
Both Hitler and Stalin attracted the masses with fear and ideology.
As
King Solomon concluded “What has been will be again, what has been done
will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”
The
greatest mistake of this government’s peace initiative was expressed in
the “unity in the Arab world”. Israel would do better if it had to
attend to one party at a time and “leading” these parties to debate
within themselves, when facing a “conflict of interest”. The prime
example is Jerusalem.
Israel is challenged by a Palestinian demand
to “baptize” East Jerusalem as the capital city of the new entity. I am
not sure Israel can and should face the pressure alone. Saudi Arabia’s interests in Jerusalem could help Israel.
The
Royal family of Saud is entrusted with the governorship of the two
holiest monuments of Islam; Mecca and Medina. All can appreciate
Riyadh’s ambition to dominate the shrine on the Temple Mount [the third
holiest site for all of Muhammad’s followers]. On the other hand, Israel
will not compromise its jurisdiction over the whole city of
Jerusalem. However, the Government of Israel might agree to convert the
Temple Mount to an area with a status similar to that of an embassy,
benefiting Saudi Arabia. The government of Riyadh can then accept the
undertaking as the supervisor responsible for all of Islam’s holy
shrines in the city of Jerusalem.
Such a formula will not deny
Israel its territorial claims ot the city of Jerusalem; yet, The House
of Suad will retain control of the Temple Mount, as if the latter was a
Saudi Embassy. Such a formula will enable the Royal family in Riyadh to
govern all three holiest Islamic sanctuaries, a long standing desire of
that family.
Zalli Jaffe,
Jerusalem
