The Letter Netanyahu Should Send to the EU

Posted By Steven Plaut On July 19, 2013 @ 12:04 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 3 Comments

Editor’s note: The letter below was formulated on behalf of the Israeli Prime Minister by Steven Plaut:

Dear Leaders and Commissioners of the European Union:

As Prime Minister of Israel I would like to thank you for sharing your thoughts with the world about how Israel should solve the Middle East conflict, namely by agreeing to “return” the “occupied Palestinian” lands to the “Palestinians.”

Always willing to be of public service, I have composed a small list of minor preconditions that must be met in order for Israel to agree to return to the “Palestinians” of the “occupied territories” that are “theirs.” These are really just minor corrections in your own plan. After all, why should Israel be the first and the only country to “return” lands to the original inhabitants from which they “seized” these lands in “occupation”?

So here goes:

It goes without saying that the Americans and Canadians must lead the way and show Israel the light by returning all lands that they seized from the Indians and the Mexicans to their original owners. The Anglo-Saxons, meaning the English, will be invited to return the British isles to their rightful original Celtic and Druid owners, while they return to their own ancestral Saxon homeland in northern Germany and Denmark. The Danes of course will be asked to move aside. In fact, they will be asked to move back to their Norwegian and Swedish homeland, to make room for the returning Anglo-Saxons.

But that is just a beginning. The Spanish will be called upon to leave the Iberian peninsula that they wrongfully occupy and return it to the indigenous Celtiberians. Similarly, the Portuguese occupiers will leave their lands and return them to the Lusitanians. The Magyars will go back where they came from and leave Hungary to its true owners. The Australians and New Zealanders obviously will have to end their occupations of lands that do not belong to them. The Thais will leave Thailand. The Bulgarians will return to their Volga homeland and abandon occupied Bulgaria. Anyone speaking Spanish will be expected to end his or her forced occupation of Latin America. It goes without saying that the French will surrender all their lands, starting with Corsica, to their rightful owners. The Turks will go back to Mongolia and leave Anatolia altogether. The Germans will go back to Gotland. The Italians will return the boot to the Etruscans and Greeks.

That leaves the Arabs and Iranians. First, all of northern Africa, from Mauritania to Egypt and Sudan, will have to be immediately abandoned by the illegal Arab occupiers and squatters and returned to their lawful original Berber, Punic, Greek, and Vandal owners. Occupied Syria and Lebanon must be released at once from the cruel occupation of the Arab imperialist aggressors. Iraq must be returned to the Assyrians and Chaldeans. Southern Arabia must be returned to the Abyssinians. The Arabs may retain control of the central portion of the Arabian peninsula as their homeland. But not the oil fields.

Oh, and the Palestinian infiltrators, usurpers and squatters will of course have to return the lands they are illegally and wrongfully occupying to their legal and rightful owners – the Jews.

While we are fixing world problems, let us also return all of Iran to its rightful owners. I of course mean the Mongolians.

True, Iran was conquered or liberated from the Persians by the Mongols militarily starting in 1219. Iran then became a legitimate part of the Mongol homeland. Tamerlane, who was part Mongol, also ran the place. All in all, the Mongol liberation of Persia lasted for two and a half centuries, not much different from the length of the period of Arab rule of “Palestine,” after which Iran was “lost” to Turkic tribes. I guess that means the Turks also have a legitimate claim to a homeland there.

Now if the fact that some Arab armies once conquered the Land of Israel is thought to confer upon them rights of sovereignty and even statehood, why should not the Mongol conquest of Iran do the same? After all, Iran was once a Mongol state, as recently as 550 years ago, whereas the last time the Land of Israel was an Arab Palestinian state was, well, never.

Not only should Mongol rule be restored to Iran as the only legitimate rulers of the place, but these days the Mongols make far better neighbors than do the ayatollahs. The Mongols have no nuclear plans and have never met with the anti-Semitic pagans from the Neturei Karta. The Mongols would surely put the Persian Gulf petroleum to better use than do the Holocaust Deniers in Iran these days, like developing yak milk production capacities.

So, I say, end these illegal occupations once and for all and return these lands to their rightful owners!

And right after all this, Israel will be happy to implement your proposals in full.

Thanks you for hearing me out.

Sincerely yours,

Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel

It’s all fine and good to point out various times in history where land has changed hands. But in all those cases official claims of ownership have been made and/or annexations have taken place.

Israel is different in that it has never claimed formal ownership of the West Bank. East Jerusalem and the Golan have been annexed, but not the West Bank. Why? Demographics.

Under international law, annexation grants citizenship to people on the land being claimed. That means 2.6 million Arabs would become citizens of Israel and would serve to shift the demographics heavily the Arabs’ favour (currently 20% of Israel). In other words, Israel wants the land but not the people on it.

So that leaves several options:

1) Annex the land and withold citizenship from the Arabs. This would open up Israel to even more charges of “apartheid” and would heighten her isolation.

2) Annex the land and expell the Arabs. But ethnic cleansing is really bad PR.

3) Retain the status quo: keep the status of the West Bank in libmo while continue importing settlers to gradually shift the demographics in the Jews’ favour. This could take a while since the Jews are heavily outnumbered.

It seems Israel is opting for #3. They’re hoping for ultimate victory though they don’t know how or when that’ll happen.

Furthermore, it was pretty good land back when the Azteks and Mayans had it. The Conquistadors crapped up their infrastructure and left it to rot.

Same thing with the Muslims. Per Yitzhak ben Tzvi, the Mamluks had a deliberate policy of letting all coastlands go to hell, so that the Maltese privateers could not have a base on their mainland. The Ottomans, while they did have an agricultural program, did not even attempt to rehabilitate the coastal plains because it was beyond their ability; they were malaria infested swamps throughout. The Christians discovering they could circumnavigate the African continent also put an end to all income from the spice trade, and left the only revenues from pilgrims going to Mecca, also impoverished by Vasco de Gamma and Columbus’ end run. So the demise of the Ottoman Empire was a foregone conclusion even before it was established. They had a desolate coastal plain, no trade except with other impoverished Muslims on their way to Mecca, and a moribund agriculture. Now that we’ve fixed it all up, they want it “back” so they can crap it up again. Seneca’s “He maketh a dessert and calls it peace” is turned on its head.

As per East Jerusalem (wikipedia):

Although the Israeli Supreme Court recognized that East Jerusalem had become an integral part of the State of Israel, it rejected in 1969 the argument that the imposition by Israel of its laws and administration on East Jerusalem was equivalent to annexation. According to lawyers, annexation of an area would automatically make its inhabitants Israeli citizens. This, however, did not happen. Arab inhabitants of East Jerusalem were offered Israeli citizenship, but most have refused, not wanting to recognize Israeli sovereignty.

So even Israel knows what annexation entails when it comes to citizenship, so there's no need for you to pretend that they don't.

Can you think of any examples in recent times of formal annexations NOT including citizenship? Notice that most attempts at annexation (Armenia taking chunks of Azerbaijan in the 90s, territorial claims in the Balkans etc) come after extensive expulsions. There's a reason why this is done: those seeking to claim the land don't want the "enemy" population living on it because they know what that would mean in terms of demographics. Israel is no different.

So why in your opinion does Israel not annex the West Bank? It's Jewish land, the locals are squaters, God commands it....seems a pretty slam-dunk case of ownership. So what's the hold up? Why no official claim as to where Israel's eastern border is?

In my opinion, Israel doesn't annex the land because it doesn't want 2.6 million more Arabs living in the state of Israel. Simple as that. In areas where the Arabs are seen as a relatively small, manageable population (E Jerusalem, Golan) citizenship was offered in accordance with what Israel saw as its legal duty.

NO CITIZENSHIP except from the nations THEIR ancestors came from, i.e., Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, etc....

By that "logic" half of Israelis would have European citizenship instead of Israeli, as would most Americans.

Give them status as non-citizens who can work and OBEY THE LAWS OF ISRAEL, or get out.

Yet Israel doesn't annex the land and announce this requirement. Why?

Funny, it wasn’t “ethnic cleansing” when the Poles sent a million plus Germans out of the Sudentenland at the end of WW2. It wasn’t “ethnic cleansing” when India and Pakistan swapped millions in population during their partition.

I'm pretty sure it was actually. In fact most historians agree that the expulusion of 12 million Germans at the end of WWII was the largest single act of ethnic cleansing of the 20th century.

Palis on West Bank are approximately 1.5 million vs 700,000 Jews.

If true then that makes the demographic threat less than feared. All the more reason then for Israel to annex the place then. But it doesn't. Why?

They and many of us have read The Book; we know the ending.

So God is on their side. Wonderful. All the more reason to annex the place. But they don't. Why?

Good grief, tone down the hysterics and juvenile insults, will you?

I’m not an enemy of Israel, though I’m certainly not as emotionally invested in the conflict as you appear to be. I believe in a strong, secure Israel, and central to that security is demographics.

The only point I’ve been making is that Israel has not annexed the West Bank due to demographic considerations – the fear that Jews will one day be only a slim majority, if not a minority, in Israel itself.

Instead of challenging my claim you hurl trash about me being "pro-Nazi" and wanting to kill Jews. Total lunacy.

You can blame the citizenship issue on left-wing commie judges if it makes you feel any better, but it’s a widely understood and acknowledged reality of territorial annexation (hence the ethnic cleansing that usually accompanies such land claims).

Don’t think Israel understands this? Allow former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to explain (from Dec 2003):

Israel will soon need to make a strategic recognition… We are nearing the point where more and more Palestinians will say: 'We're persuaded. We agree with [Avigdor] Lieberman. There isn't room for two states between the Jordan and the sea. All we want is the right to vote.' On the day they reach that point we lose everything.

Get it? Israel ceases to be Israel if it becomes a majority non-Jewish state. This is what best explains Israel’s reluctance to annex what they think is theirs. It's been the thinking of every government since 1967.

As for the rest of your sorry rant...

Are you too dense to know that if Israel commits social and political suicide, AMERICA GOES NEXT?

America existed long before 1948 and America will exist long after any foolish Israeli policies condemn Jews to minority status in Israel. Because that is the most likely way Israel will be destroyed – not by some suicidal nuclear war by the Muslims or by military invasion (Arab military incompetence and Israeli nukes rule out both options).

COMPLETING THE POPULATION TRANSFER...IS THE ONLY FAIR SOLUTION...THE MUSLIMS NEED TO BE KICKED OUT OF ISRAEL.

Wow, your CAPS LOCK is ON and you’re ready for Israel to clean house!

Why do you suppose it’s taking Israel so long to get things going? Perhaps they’re just a little more civilized than you appear to be.

And most historians do call 12 million people forced from their home "ethnic cleansing." Those who carry out such acts always dress them up as "repatriation" or "transfer," and in some cases the victims really did "have it coming" (the Germans themselves know why the events of 1945-47 happened). But that doesn’t change the fact that large-scale forced expulsions of a people who have been living on the land for centuries is indeed "ethnic cleansing" by any rational definition, regardless of what the perpetrators care to call it. By the way, the Germans of the Sudetenland were driven out by the Czechs, not the Poles.

I’ll let you have the last word. Maybe you can make the entire post in CAPS this time just to really emphasize how unstable you are.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.