The new world order that threatens Western culture and civilization.

By Neville Berman

In 1982, in response to attacks by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) from Lebanon, Israel launched a military campaign against the PLO in Lebanon. Within days Yasser Arafat, the head of the PLO, announced that Israel had killed 20,000 people in Lebanon.  Newspapers throughout the world led with the headline ” Israel kills 20,000 in Lebanon.” The world was outraged. A few days later, a reporter from an international news agency arrived in Lebanon and asked to be taken to see the bodies or graves of the 20,000 people who had been killed. He discovered less than 300 people were actually killed. Not a single newspaper published an apology on their front page. The few apologies that were published were buried deep inside the publication. Fake news was seen to be very profitable. What everyone remembers is that Israel killed 20,000 people in Lebanon. I mention this as the phenomenon of reporting without any verification of the accuracy of the report has become widespread.

Every reporter in Gaza understands that he needs to report what Hamas wants him to report. Reports published by a reporter that are not approved by Hamas, are usually the last report of that reporter from Gaza. The fear of losing access to breaking news that millions of people want to see and read about in Gaza, results in zero verification of facts before publication. An excellent example was the report by the Gaza Health Ministry in October 2023, that Israel had bombed a hospital in Gaza and had killed 500 civilians. Every newspaper and TV channel in the world immediately headlined the report. No one thought of checking if the story was factual. What actually happened was that a rocket fired from Gaza at Israel, misfired and landed in the Al Ahli parking lot of the hospital and killed less than 50 people. Israel did not fire the rocket, the hospital was not bombed, and 500 people were not killed. The story that was carried by every news agency was completely false.  

Hamas has tried every conceivable way to convince the world that they are victims and need to be supported. They first maintained that Israel had placed a blockade on Gaza. This must have been the worst blockade in human history. The southern border of Gaza is with Egypt. Thousands of tons of concrete used for building hundreds of kilometers of tunnels, and thousands of missiles that were fired at Israel, all came directly from Egypt into Gaza. In addition, Israel supplied food, water, electricity and fuel to Gaza. Hundreds of people from Gaza came to work daily in Israel. Obviously, there was no blockade.  

They then claimed that Israel was an apartheid state. Every citizen in Israel over the age of 18 has the right to vote regardless of sex, race or religious beliefs. Arab citizens are elected into the Israeli parliament known as the Knesset. Arab citizens use the same hospitals, the same maternity wards, the same beaches, attend the same universities, and have senior positions within the bureaucracy of Israel. Clearly, Israel is not an apartheid state.

They then claimed that Israel was a colonial state. The truth is that Jews have lived in the Middle East for over 3,000 years and Israel is the ancestral home of the Jewish people. The First and Second Jewish Temples were built in Jerusalem. To claim that Jews are colonialists is a total fabrication. 

They then claimed that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians. The Palestinian population in Israel has grown annually for decades. If Israel was committing genocide, then the Palestinian population would be decreasing and not increasing. It does not take a genius to understand that Israel is not committing genocide.     

Hamas is now claiming that Israel is causing starvation in Gaza. The truth is that hundreds of trucks of humanitarian aid sent to Gaza are stolen at gunpoint by Hamas. The aim of Hamas, not Israel, is to starve the children of Gaza in order to get the world to accuse Israel of starvation. To prove that starvation is taking place, pictures of malnourished and emaciated children in Gaza are distributed by reporters from Gaza and published worldwide. The New York Times, like most newspapers, recently featured a large picture of a starving child on its front page. The United Nations immediately reported that it was outraged at the monstrous starvation that Israel was causing in Gaza. The condemnations of Israel became a torrent of threats even by friends of Israel. A few days later The New York Times issued an apology. The medical records of the child had been found and proved that the child was suffering from a debilitating genetic problem from birth, and that his malnourished appearance had nothing to do with lack of food.  A check of the original picture shows both the mother and the brother of the starving child looking completely healthy. False news has become an industry that is spreading hatred around the world.

There is no doubt that news stating or implying that Israel is committing crimes against humanity and genocide is what the majority of the 2.4 billion Christians and 2 billion Muslims want to read about, hear about on social media, and see on their TV screens. It is a 24 /7 onslaught against Israel perpetrated by the vast majority of the news media of the world. It is a hate campaign based on 2,000 years of Christian blood libels against Jews, and an Islamist view of Muslim domination of the world. Whether the news is true or false is of absolutely no concern. Israel is guilty, no matter what Israel does.

European appeasement is back in vogue. Appeasement has proven to be a disaster in the past and it is worthwhile to carefully contemplate its implications for the future. Let’s look at what Khaled Mashal, one of the leaders of Hamas stated:

 “The (Palestinian) state will come about from resistance not negotiation. Liberation first, then statehood. Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concessions on any inch of land. We will never recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation, and therefore there is no legitimacy for Israel. We will free Jerusalem inch by inch, stone by stone, Israel has no right to be in Jerusalem. ”

I suggest that the European leaders who are now calling for the recognition of a Palestinian State, carefully read the above statement and reconsider what they are contemplating. The genocidal policies that both Hamas and the PLO openly call for in their respective Charters is available for anyone to read in English. All you need to do is google Hamas Charter or PLO Charter to read exactly what the Palestinians want. They are not interested in a two-state solution at all. What they want is one Palestinian State from the river to the sea in place of Israel. That is why they have rejected every offer of a Palestinian State living side by side with Israel. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al -Husseini stated that even if Israel is the size of a postage stamp, the Arabs will reject it. Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, has stated that not a single Jew will be allowed to live in the State of Palestine. You cannot appease this kind of thinking. It is a fool’s errand.

Supporting a Palestinian State will inevitably have unintended consequences.  Voting in order to appease the growing Muslim population in the West, could end up being a one-way street leading to the obituary of Western culture and civilization in the very countries that are now announcing their support of a Palestinian State.

One should be very careful what you wish for.

About the writer:

Accountant Neville Berman had an illustrious sporting career in South Africa, being twice awarded the South African State Presidents Award for Sport and was a three times winner of the South African Maccabi Sportsman of the Year Award.  In 1978 he immigrated to the USA  to coach the United States men’s field hockey team, whereafter, in 1981 he immigrated to Israel where he practiced as an accountant and then for 20 years was the Admin Manager at the American International School in Even Yehuda, Israel.  He is married with two children and one granddaughter.

While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves.  LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).

Why are Palestinians being reoffered what they have time and again rejected?

By Peter Bailey

The leading question in answer to the European intent to recognise a mythical State of Palestine is the location of the undeclared borders of a Palestinian State, and who gets to define those borders.

The idiom “be careful what you wish for” is an earnest warning to consider the law of unintended consequences, before making impulsive utterances that could have results totally opposite to the desired outcome. 

French President Macron and many of his European partners assert that they  will recognize the State of Palestine in September. Such recognition could well fall victim to the aforesaid law of unintended consequences. The whimsical recognition of a state without defined borders by the Europeans, offers far less than the recognition and borders offered by Israeli prime ministers Ehud Barak in 2000, and Ehud Olmert in 2008, both of  which were spurned by the Palestinian leadership. 

Our friends in Europe should not forget that Fatah, with Yasser Arafat as one of its founders, was established in 1957, 10 years before Israel captured the West Bank during the Six Day War of 1967. The PLO, currently in control of the Palestinian Authority, and the potential rulers of an independent State of Palestine, was founded by the same Arafat in 1964, also before the Six Day War. Both Fatah and the PLO were not interested in a Palestinian state in the West Bank, but in the destruction of the State of Israel. While Hamas was established much later, in 1987, one of its objectives was the dismantling of the State of Israel,  and replacing it with an Islamic Brotherhood state ruled by Sharia Law. Nothing to do with the West Bank or Gaza, which are merely stepping stones in its quest for the end of the Jewish homeland, Israel, the realisation of the  Zionist dream.

Between 11 and 25 July 2000,   Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and U.S. President Bill Clinton at Camp David, in an effort to end the ongoing Israel-Palestine dispute. While reports differ as to the precise final offer on the table, there can be no doubt that this was a serious and significant offer of peace by an Israeli Prime Minister and for the establishment of an independent Palestinian State within a very large part of the West Bank. Barak recalls that Arafat never negotiated, but continually said “NO” to every offer or concession. Barak and Arafat met again in December 2000 and January 2001, in  a last-ditch attempt at peace  again chaired by President Bill Clinton. This was  shortly before Israel’s election on 6 February 2021, with Barak dependent on a peace agreement to have any chance of re-election. 

The Jewish Virtual Library presents a long article on the December 2000/January 2001 meeting, featuring a portion of President Bill Clinton’s autobiography, “My Life”, published in 2005. In the excerpt from Clinton’s book that follows, he is scathing of Arafat’s refusal to accept a peace deal saying  “Arafat’s rejection of my proposal after Barak accepted it was an error of historic proportions. However, many Palestinians and Israelis are still committed to peace. Someday peace will come, and when it does, the final agreement will look a lot like the proposals that came out of Camp David and the six long months that followed.”

The full article can be viewed at:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/president-clinton-reflects-on-2000-camp-david-summit

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud   Abbas in Jerusalem in September 2008 to discuss peace and the establishment of a Palestinian State. Olmert recalls that he presented a plan which included  withdrawal from almost 95% of the West Bank, while Israel would retain 6.3% of the territory in order to keep control of major Jewish settlement blocs. He further offered to exchange about 5.8% of Israeli land in return for the settlement blocs. The offer also included a land bridge connecting the West Bank with Gaza. During a 2015 interview on Israel TV Channel 10, Abbas is reported to have said of his reaction to Olmert’s offer “I did not agree, I rejected it out of hand.”

The European leaders who seem obsessed with a State of Palestine within undefined borders, but presumably within the area Jordan named as the West Bank after Israel’s 1948 War of Independence, seem unfazed by the Palestinian rejection of all and any offers for a State of Palestine within the West Bank and Gaza. The rejection of the principle  of ‘Two States’ as a solution to the problem was made obvious 78 years ago, when the League of Arab States, speaking on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs, refused to accept the  1947 United Nations partition Vote, which the Jewish authorities  did accept, albeit with great reluctance. The Arab League chose instead to wage war on the nascent State of Israel immediately after its Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948. It should be clearly understood that the war was for control of the area now popularly defined by pro-Palestinian activists as the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean coast. There can be no doubt that Israel ended up with far more territory after the 1948 war than it would have had, were the Arabs to have accepted the partition plan.    

 Following the 1948 war with the nascent State of Israel, Jordan illegally occupied, and then on 24 April 1950, illegally annexed the territory, naming it the West Bank (of  Jordan), to distinguish it from rump Jordan, east of the Jordan River. The illegal annexation by Jordan was  only ever recognised by Great Britain and Pakistan, and ended with Israel occupying the entire West Bank during the 1967 Six Day War. Between 1918 and 1948, the sovereign power had been Great Britain in terms of its Mandate over Palestine. Britain’s relinquishment of its Mandate in 1948, left no sovereign power in control of the region, hence Jordan’s vain and illegal attempt at annexation. Then, with Jordan’s King Hussein on 31 July 1988 renouncing all claims to control of the West Bank, it effectively ended Jordan’s illegal occupation of the territory since the Armistice Agreement signed  with Israel on 23 March 1949. This effectively reversed Jordanian occupation, bringing the entire former Mandate of Palestine territory west of the Jordan River under Israeli control. This would have been the de jure situation after Britain’s withdrawal  from Palestine, followed by Israel’s Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948, had the Arabs not attacked Israel. 

Then, as has happened so often with Israel’s wars since 1948, the Western European nations, the Soviet Union and the United States brought intense pressure to bear on Israel  for a cease fire and an end to the war. Prime Minister Ben Gurion steadfastly refused to recognise the Jordanian occupation or annexation of the West Bank. Israel has never referred to the Armistice Line with Jordan – dubbed the Green Line – as an actual border. This approach remains an unchanging  factor of Israeli policy with regard to the West Bank, which Israel regards as Judea and Samaria, including the Jordan Valley.  Notwithstanding this, numerous offers with differing minutiae have been made for the establishment of a Palestinian State, all of which have been spurned by the Palestinian leadership.

The calls for the recognition of a State of Palestine in the wake of the 7 October 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas, is incomprehensible, as it will  result in all of Israel being subject to threat by a Hamas type insurgency sometime in the future. There can be little doubt that the calls for the recognition of a Palestinian State within the non-existent pre-1967 so called borders, is a response to the global mass hysteria calling for “Palestine to be free, from the river to the sea”, effectively negating the existence of the State of Israel. European recognition of the State of Palestine  is thus nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to populist calls for an end to the State of Israel, in the vain belief that this will satisfy the pro-Hamas constituency in their own countries. European leaders need to internalise that Arafat in 2000, and Abbas in 2008, refused very generous offers to accept a Palestinian State in the West Bank, simply because they wanted all of Israel, not just the West Bank, and that remains the case today.

The migration of Muslim Arabs to Europe has changed the population demographics and created political realities far removed from traditional European politics. The modern-day anti-Israel fanatics across the world,  who have been activated by Hamas, the PLO, Iran, Qatar and others, to call for a State of  Palestine between  the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea will not be satisfied with a State of Palestine in the West Bank. They want it all with no Israel. European leaders beware; the route you are choosing is littered with obstacles and pitfalls beyond your worst nightmares. European meddling  in the borders of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Israel over the last 100 years, have brought bedlam, mayhem and war to the region. Ignoring the lessons of history, the current crop of European leaders are rushing in where angels fear to tread. They must face one reality, the Palestinian leaders do not want a state within the West Bank, they’ve said so often enough, so start believing them. 

About the writer:

The writer, Peter Bailey, a military history buff, was a Major in the South African Army Reserve before making aliyah in 2013.  He is the author of two books: Street Names in Israel; and Men of Valor: Israel’s Latter Day Heroes. 

While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves.  LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).