Cultural Jihad on Jerusalem at UNESCO

When UNESCO passed a Decision on Jerusalem in October last year, it did more than repeat the now too-usual anti-Semitic diatribe. It attacked the whole basis of Judeo-Christian civilization. The resolution tried to maintain that only Arabic/Muslim names were valid for Jerusalem. It simply wrote out any mention of any previous civilizations that attached their names to the Holy City.

The UNESCO Decision calls for a further report on this at UNESCO’s Executive Board meeting in Paris 17 April to 5 May. It is marked as agenda item 30 on “Occupied Palestine”.  

Both Europeans and Israelis should be made well aware at this affront to their history and culture. Especially omitted from last year’s resolution were any names evoking the ancient Israelite and continuous Jewish heritage of the City. These should be well-known to all educators, scientists and all cultures familiar with the People of the Book.

The resolution at the World Heritage Committee and UNESCO blamed “Israel, the Occupying Power” and its “so-called Antiquities Department”, while making no mention of more than forty truck loads of artifact-laden earth the Muslim Waqf has removed and disposed of without archaeological permission, examination or concern.

It prefers to mention fabulous Muslim events that have no factual basis. It omits all mention of Hebrew artifacts containing names of kings and their ministers showing continuous cultural achievements over three thousand years.

                                                           Gold bell of the High Priest's robe

Who came up with all this? The draft was submitted by Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, and Sudan, at the behest of the PA’s policy of cultural nihilism. This turns UNESCO’s role on its head. Such obscurantism is just what UNESCO was set up to oppose.  

Irina Bokova, the Director General of UNESCO in a speech transmitted to the European Parliament on 30 March said:

“Jerusalem puts us in front of a radical choice. … To deny, conceal or erase any of the Jewish, Christian or Muslim traditions undermines the integrity of the site, and runs counter to the reasons that justified its inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage list.”

She added: “The protection and better understanding of the Heritage of Jerusalem is part of a broader vision for peace. It is part of a wider vision to fight against all forms of denial of Jewish history, de-legitimization of Israel, and anti-Semitism.  This work is essential, as European know too well the ravages of war and anti-Semitism.” 

                                                               Seal Bulla of King Hezekiah

   

So why did so few European States, who owe their very civilization to the Book, vote against the Resolution? Why did so many simply abstain? That gave tacit support for undermining the foundations of Western civilization. Only five States voted against the Resolution. How could eight States including France, Italy and Spain just abstain on such a serious matter?

European foreign policy on UNESCO is coordinated by the EU’s European External Action Service, EEAS. What do they have to say? A group of concerned citizens requested all the working documents of EEAS leading up to this cultural catastrophe. They took the name Jerusalem Educational, Scientific and Cultural Office, JESCO.

The JESCO Freedom of Information request pointed out that Israel is the legitimate occupying power by law and history. (The attempt to use the term “Occupying Power” derogatorily is as invalid as saying that a person who legal bought a house is an occupier.)

 “The site was temporarily conquered by Arab, then Turkish and the British in WW1, but this does not give these groups present-day legality to property or other rights,” the request said.  “The League of Nations and the UN recognized this area as Jewish Homeland.” Under international law military conquest does not alter property rights.

What was the response of EEAS? All documents were refused.  The Memorandum of Understanding between the European Union and UNESCO is however a public document. As might be expected  many of the 27 articles in the three-page Memorandum stress the importance of respect for openness, human dignity, freedom, democracy, the rule of law and in particular freedom of expression and the media. It also mentions intercultural dialogue, raising awareness about the importance of education. How is it that not only UNESCO but European Union Member States have failed so miserably in their duties?

When formulating public policy, European States as democracies, should have open documents arrived at publicly. There is no excuse for secrecy that ends up in anti-Semitism and undermining Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

The JESCO appeal against this refusal to supply basic information is still awaiting a reply from EEAS. In the meantime, Europeans and Israelis should be aware of the forthcoming meeting of the UNESCO Executive Board and contact their UNESCO representatives. They should make sure the appalling lapses at UNESCO are reversed.  Expunging factual history and replacing facts with fables is not UNESCO’s mission. Nor is turning UNESCO into an instrument of cultural jihadism.

EU's Two State Solution for Israel and Palestine is a plan for war.

We live in unprecedented times of peace.
For those in the Middle East that may seem a quite extraordinary statement to make.
Europe has created a peace system that has produced the longest peace in all its history. Since the end of the Second World War western Europe has experience a period of 71 years of peace. The longest period of peace in all two thousand years of written history before then was shy of 50 years. Usually it was a matter of a few decades. Quite often there were wars simultaneously burning across western Europe.
Is this an example that the European Union’s External Action Service (EEAS) is aware of ? Does it treasure it as its most valuable asset?
Is the EEAS really interested in peace in the Middle East?
You certainly would not believe it from the latest Quartet report at the beginning of the month. (The Quartet is composed of the EU, UN, Russia and USA) here is an extract of what the Quartet report says:

“The Quartet reiterates that a negotiated two-state outcome is the only way to achieve an enduring peace that meets Israeli security needs and Palestinian aspirations for statehood and sovereignty, ends the occupation that began in 1967, and resolves all permanent status issues.”

Europe’s peace did not come from a Two State Solution, TSS. So why does the Quartet believe such a solution — that others consider to be suicidal for the Jewish State — is an example for the Near East? Not only does the Quartet believe the TSS is A solution, it says it is the ONLY solution.
Europe tried the Two State Solutions for two thousand years. They all failed. You can take almost any two States and see if they ever learned to live in peace. Usually one State went to war with another. It took territory. It weakened its opponent. The victor thought that it would be able to live off these fruits for ever. That always proved impossible. The rich victor grew fat and oppressive. The vanquished took the challenge of its defeat to rise from the ashes and keep fit and lithe. Eventually it could take on its former enemy in war. Often it won and took back its land and other lands too.
The European Community was as radically different from this sad record of war and peace and temporary Two State Solutions. It was as different as classical physics is from Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.
When I asked the Commission spokesperson why they were unable to recommend Europe’s own peace process — one that evidently worked for seven decades — they were unable to give a rational explanation.
“It remains our conviction that a two State solution is the only way forward.”
Does the EEAS then have a much deeper problem?
Unfortunately yes. The Spokesperson was also unable to provide a well-argued case about who illegally occupied the area the UN used to call Judea and Samaria before 1967.Wasn’t it occupied illegally by Jordan?
‘I wouldn’t go into the historical debate about the conflict itself because the report is looking towards the future and trying to move the talks into the direction of a solution.’
That “Solution” is in direct conflict with peace. 2000 years of European experience proves it. The direction is that which always produced the international equivalent of a car crash in the past.
If there are not enough people with historical background in peace studies inside the very institution that has achieved peace, are we to suspect that they want a car crash?
It is within the lifetimes of many people to recall the events of 1967. They will be celebrated next year as the 50th anniversary of the Six Day War. The land of what the EU calls the West Bank was then illegally occupied by Jordan. Jordan itself was and is a State carved “temporarily” out of the British Mandate territory for the Jewish Homeland. It was recognized by treaty by the UK and Pakistan. Why? Because other States were ashamed that this murky deal had been made — or like some States such as Saudi Arabia — they did not want to associate a State with the Hashemite dynasty that the Saudis had kicked out of Mecca and Arabia.
For decades and centuries, in fact millennia, before 1947 the term “Palestinian” meant JEW! Israeli war hero Moshe Dayan’s family were called Palestinians in their British passports! Arabs come from Arabia!


What can be done for the EU’s so-called Action Service? Should it be better to call it the Act, Don’t-Think Service? It had better wake up quick! Bloody hands, motivated by Islamic Jihad, are now attacking Europe!
Seventy years ago, on 14 July 1946 Winston Churchill and Robert Schuman laid the foundations of Europe’s astounding peace. The EEAS should get to know its own story before it preaches about peace plans (that don’t work) elsewhere!

Eretz3: Northern Ireland, Jihad and my unpublished Reply to a "Palestinian diplomat"

Today Queen Elizabeth sealed the Irish peace process with a handshake and a private talk with Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness. He was the former chief of the IRA, responsible for mayhem and the murder of Earl Mountbatten, the Queen's cousin. This peace was acknowledged by the Irish Nobel Peace Prize winners as owing a great deal to European reconciliation, supranational law and the recognition of Human Rights. Much more can yet be done with properly functioning European institutions.

In contrast to the Irish peace process, the 'Peace Process' of the Israel government and Arab States has been going nowhere for two decades. There are little indications other than that the 'Palestinian' side will always refuse any offers Israel makes for peace. Its media encourage children to become suicide-bomb fodder, they name squares after bombers and the celebrate vicious killers who blow up innocent people on buses. Meanwhile 'president' Mahmoud Abbas remains unelected. Although the multi-millionaire is rather 'poorer' than billionaire, terrorist Yasser Arafat, he has not had the charity to condemn the 1972 Munich killing of Israeli athletes for which he was partly responsible. Nor has he withdrawn the circulation of his doctorate on Holocaust denial.

Has the EU nothing to say to Arab forces about this? How about: GET REAL! OR THE WORLD WILL END IN FLAMES!

Below I give my reply made last week to a blog published by the 'Blogactiv team'. I was surprised that the Euractiv organisation had prepared an article full of elementary factual and historical mistakes. It is called The Palestinians and the “Piece” of the Process.
I replied only later to find out later it was written by Fadi Elhusseini, described as 'a Diplomat at the Embassy of the State of Palestine in Turkey, responsible for Political and media affairs.' That was a shock. I didn't know there was such a thing as the State of Palestine. Palestine is the land of the Philistines, a nation that is long extinct. Fraud is no basis for democracy or world peace.

My comment is still 'awaiting moderation'. As this may take a long time yet, I am publishing my response here.

You’re right the whole peace process is a fraud. It was foisted on Israel by the West because Saudi Arabia wanted it. The West needs oil. Arafat called it the Two Stage solution to destroy Israel. I didn’t see in this article a reference to the 13,000 rockets (around 360 500 this year) from Gaza, Sinai, that have been launched at Israeli cities in this period of the ‘Saudi Plan’. Why? If a European country was subject to such a barrage and children lived in terror in any European democratic country wouldn’t this be covered in the news? I do not see why Jews cannot build garages, extend housing or build homes in a country that was deeded to the Jews by international law in 1922 at San Remo, was recognized by all member States of the League of Nations and was then re-affirmed in the Statutes of the United Nations. After WW1 with the defeat of the Ottoman empire, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Iraq and other Arab nations were founded by the same laws. What is most objectionable is Jew-free policies funded by the EU.

I do not see anything here about the huge problem of illegal Arab settlements (building without permission) in Judea and Samaria. Why? See:
http://democracy.blogactiv.eu/2011/09/23/eretz2-how-to-tell-a-fraud-call-your-nation-palestine/ Why has the EU not dealt with race-hate in subsidized text books and TV for kids that encourages them to become suicide bombers?
Europeans should be applying European principles of justice to the dispute not encouraging Nazi-like policies of ‘Jew-free’ territories, exclusive enactment of the most extreme Sharia law that excludes Christians and Jews, and extols terrorism and race hate and religious exclusivism see: http://democracy.blogactiv.eu/2011/05/03/jihad4-eu-must-reverse-its-nazi-like-support-for-holocaust-denial-jew-hatred-and-jihadi-terrorism/

What is called the West Bank and was called Judea and Samaria in the original UN documents was illegally occupied in 1948 by Jordan and other armies. It does not belong to Jordan nor to other Arab States including far-way Saudis. Jews were also called Palestinians before 1948 because this anti-Semitic term ‘Palestine’ was invented by the Romans to describe the land of Israel. To call the PNO/PLO Palestinians is a fraud see http://democracy.blogactiv.eu/2011/09/13/eretz1-the-declaration-of-a-second-palestine-is-declaration-of-war/ When will Europe cease fooling itself for oil? http://www.schuman.info/diplomacy1.htm

While that response is still awaiting acknowledgement and publishing with the article, I might add the following additional factual corrections for the attention of the European External Action Service and European democrats.

1. It is not just a 60-year conflict. That only dates back to the time when six Arab armies ILLEGALLY invaded the Mandate territory, defying the laws, and resolutions of both the League of Nations and the United Nations.

2. Long before 1948, peaceful Jewish residents were killed and massacred by mobs led by ideologues. During most of the time of the British Mandate Jews were targeted and the British reacted inadequately. In 1929 59 people were killed in Hebron, a city that was the home of Jews and Israelites for nearly 4000 years.

3. The idea of Palestinian nationhood, that is, an identifiable Arab people is a fiction, invented by the Egyptian dictator Abdul Nasser. He hired Yasser Arafat, an Egyptian-born militant to become the third leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The Syrian dictator Assad would not speak to Arafat because he was convinced by Arafat's Egyptian accent that he was just an Egyptian agent planted to cause trouble. At that time the so-called West Bank was occupied illegally by Jordanians! What liberation?? At no time in the last 2000 years has there ever been any entity called a Palestinian State. There is no Palestinian culture which is any different from a Syrian or an Egyptian culture because most of the so-called 'Palestinians' came from Egypt or Syria to work in the Jewish Mandate territory.

4. Just before getting the Nobel Prize, Arafat said in Stockholm to Fatah supporters that 'We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state.' He added 'We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. Jews will not want to live among Arabs.' That is the same policy today as articulated in Arabic by a female Fatah official.

5. The idea of Palestinian State is to destroy the Jews and then the West. In Arabic on Al-Hekma TV on 23 March 2012, Hamas Minister of the Interior and of National Security Fathi Hamad angrily shouted out the truth to his Egyptian brothers. He said that "Palestinians" originate from other parts of the Middle East. 'Palestinian nationhood' is a total fraud. 'Palestinians' do not come from 'Palestine'!!

According to Gazan minister Hammad. 'Every Palestinian, in Gaza and throughout Palestine, can prove his Arab roots - whether from Saudi Arabia, from Yemen, or anywhere. We have blood ties.'

"Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis," he exclaimed. "Thus, the conspiracy is very clear. Al-Aksa and the land of Palestine represent the spearhead for Islam and for the Muslims. Therefore, when we seek the help of our Arab brothers, we are not seeking their help in order to eat, to live, to drink, to dress, or to live a life of luxury. No. When we seek their help, it is in order to continue to wage Jihad."

6. With the Muslim Brotherhood holding the presidency in Egypt and Hamas the militant arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, Europe and the Mediterranean is in increasing danger. One aide of the new Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, Safwat Hajari, told roaring crowds that he wanted to make Jerusalem the capital of Egypt!

WHEN WILL EUROPE SAY 'NO MORE' AND EXPOSE LYING PROPAGANDA?

REAL PEACE HAS FLOURISHED IN EUROPE AFTER MORE THAN 2000 YEARS OF WAR.

PEACE HAS BLOSSOMED IN IRELAND AFTER CENTURIES OF SECTARIAN STRIFE.

WHEN WILL EUROPE'S LEADERS SOUND OUT THE TRUTH ABOUT REAL PEACE IN A WORLD OF LIES?

The paucity of today's diplomacy for Europe is revealed by the SCHUMAN DECLARATION

Most people would not judge from its diplomacy that the EU is the world's largest economic power, far outstripping the USA. Europe should obviously have adequate diplomatic representation worldwide. But how? It is not a question of what is desirable but what is realistic, effective and well-founded. Can Europe speak with one voice? Will the European External Action Service (EEAS) provide coherent, consistent action?

In the past various European States tried one of two methods: alliances or conquests. The leaders thought they would thus have one dominant voice for the Continent. It did not work. Or at best the conquerors like Hitler and Stalin were soon defeated. Peaceful or wartime alliances fell apart because of human greed and injustice. Neither Fist nor Fudge will provide the basis for lasting foreign policy.

After a few centuries of not getting their act together, Europe finally hit on a solution. It was a supranational one with a revolutionary concept of democracy. It was not conquest, not a threat of domination, nor flimsy intergovernmentalism. That solution arrived the moment when Six countries created the European Community. It started functioning on 10 August 1952.

The first foreign policy act of this European Coal and Steel Community was to have diplomatic representation with such States as the United Kingdom and the USA. With the British this took the form an association agreement as the country was not a Member State of the Community. Britain became the first Associate Member of the Community.

With the Americans, the European Community established diplomatic relations. The High Authority of the Community was able to take out a US loan that helped set the European Community on a firm footing of independence. The big governments could not control the strings of finance and thus lord it over the smaller European States. Neither could an autocrat who took over a major country like France or Germany dictate his foreign policy to the first Commission, the High Authority.

The core of that supranational Foreign Policy system has never been broken. Not that haughty governments haven't tried their hardest.

The two treaties of Rome give Europe more extensive diplomatic powers. The Euratom treaty is designed to give Europe diplomatic muscle in the non-proliferation of atomic bombs. Today, when some states are arming themselves and are driven by religio-political ideologies and their mobs are shouting 'Death to the world-devourers!' --it is not used. Why? Ask the "leadership" of Europe's diplomacy!

Will Euratom only start to be considered as an instrument of diplomacy whem some fanatic acolyte-martyr explodes an atomic device in one of Europe's cities? Europeans have already experienced murderous bombings in Paris, London and Madrid. Do European diplomats imagine they could then solve such a problem by closing their eyes beforehand and then afterwards by reacting with massive force? That's just not practical against the real ideological culprits. It can also be counter-productive as the West should have found out already following the 9/11 attacks on Washington and New York.

Europe's third treaty, the European Economic Community succeeded in creating a foreign policy in its own sector. For example, Europe had a single trade policy for GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and now has one for the later WTO (World Trade Organisation). That single voice can speak out only because it was based on a supranational Community. The European Coal and Steel Community did this sort of job in the years before the "Common Market".

After many years of successful application of these principles, short-sighted politicians forgot the basis on which Europe had created its own foreign policy. Or they did not want to be reminded. The party politicians ignored the Europe Declaration of the Founding Fathers that said the policy must be agreed by people who are free to choose. They thought they could do the trick by themselves. They devised a new treaty, the Constitutional Treaty, also known as the Lisbon Treaty, where foreign policy is not based on a supranational Community but guess what? Intergovernmentalism. The failing system of the past! It did not stop the Napoleonic wars. It is unable to meet the potentially catastrophic challenges that the planet faces today. To act we need a stronger democratic consensus not less. And it is no use to have foreign policy coming from party politicians who have lost the trust of society.

That is a big step back from a supranational Community system towards pure internationalism or inter-governmentalism. It relies on secret political collusion in the Council of Ministers without real democratic supervision. Supranational Community diplomatic representation is based on sound, long-lasting principles and the European rule of law. It is not perfect but it is light-years away from the sad experience of previous centuries.

The BIG mistake that the party-based creators of this system are making relates to their incomprehension that Europeans should be creating a diplomatic system NOT based on the past. It has to be based on the totally new age that started with the Schuman Declaration. Europe is living in a period where, as Schuman said 60 years ago, for Europe 'War is not only unthinkable but materially impossible.' Unfortunately it is not only thinkable but being rendered more and more possible elsewhere. Europe is under attack and the object of financial and economic blackmail. Party politicians do not seem to understand that such a system, never known in Europe's several milleniums of history, requires new thinking.

Instead of correcting their bad record so far, governments are trying to sweep it under the carpet. Member State governments still have not fulfilled their treaty obligations to make this European diplomacy really effective. For example after nearly sixty years they have not once held a Europe-wide election for the European Parliament. It is required in the 1951 Treaty of Paris and those of Rome, 1957. However, a supranational Community is still the only really effective basis for creating a common policy for 27 disparate democracies.

Intergovernmentalism rests on the shaky sands of governments, who at every election or collapse of coalition, change their policy positions. This is equivalent of the Americans trying to create a diplomatic service based on a consensus of 50 States. The Americans long ago decided they needed a federal system to ensure diplomatic representation. However, European leaders seem to have decided that the eighteenth century is their ideal model. Can diplomacy be accomplished just by hiring 5000 or 7000 diplomats among national civil services and party hacks?

An effective new European diplomatic service cannot succeed based on a failed philosophy. It is also turning its back on the key event of all Europe's history. Europe's new diplomacy that began in August 1952 was based potentially on two things: democracy and a new European order of law. The real strength of foreign policy is where it can rely on democratically backed European supranational law. What the Lisbon EEAS system is trying to do is twofold: deny the democratic potential of the Community such as the elections the governments promised in the treaties and secondly base it on Council based fiat-law which is hollow.

Cutting out the powers of the democratic institutions won't work. Replacing them with a political cartel in the Council and shutting the doors behind it will not cut the mustard.

Conclusion: A solid European diplomatic representation needs to be based on an in-depth supranational Community system. Today Europe should be concerned with the world challenges that threaten both itself and the planet. Intergovernmentalism by fiat will not suffice.

If the European leaders are serious about acting diplomatically for the planet they need to go back to their history books. A further Community needs to be created on democratic and supranational principles to meet the Climate and Energy challenges. A European Energy Community is the way to tackle the most urgent planetary problems facing Europe. The Copenhagen Climat Change conference showed the paucity of the European anti-supranational, neo-Gaullist system.

The planet needs some action from Europe. Europe needs to activate its democracy.