New Zealand to Save the Middle East and Establish World Peace Forever

by NORMAN SIMMS November 2, 2015

Here it is hot off the press:

The headline of an article in the Waikato Times (Hamilton) on 31 October 2015 declares "NZ Aims to Break Middle East Deadlock".  The report is credited to Fairfax NZ news corporation. 

On the same date (which is a day behind by local New Zealand time), Yael Klein writing for JerusalemOnline via claims "Russia supports New Zealand resolution on Israeli-Palestinian peace talks." 

What is going on?

Using its non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council takes up its now usual position of so-called "even-handedness" in dealing with the problems between Israel and its Arab neighbours; this means that New Zealand's delegation takes the representatives of the non-existent state of Palestinian, whose flag now flies outside the monumental buildings in Manhattan, at their word that Israel is the aggressor in the conflict and the Palestinians-always civilians and now always spontaneously outraged into stabbings and car-attacks in Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv-innocent victims. 

All the loaded code-words are set forth in the Waikato Times article. 

Sentence 1:  "New Zealand has drafted a United Nation Security Council resolution that calls for Israel to stop building settlements in occupied territories and for the Palestinians to refrain from referring cases to the International Criminal Court."  Even-handedness, indeed!  Israel is blamed for all the troubles because of the co-called (or mythical) "occupation," whereas in a supposedly balanced move, the Palestinian Authority will cease trying to charge Israel with war crimes at the International Criminal Court.  In this skewed perspective, the Palestinians have done nothing wrong, are passive victims, and will bite their tongues in the hope of gaining their long-sought-after peace in the region: or rather, to translate a little differently, of gaining their larger piece of the region, i.e., all of Israel.  No one dares say that it might be the Palestinians who are the aggressors, the occupiers of Jewish ancestral land, or that the United Nations and its absurdly constituted human rights and criminal courts the machinery driving anti-Israel actions in the region.

Sentence 2: "The two-page draft also asks both sides to avoid provocative acts and to not question the ‘integrity or commitment of the other party or its leaders.'"  What in the world?!?  Here again, to begin with, each side is granted "moral equivalence", as though stabbing attacks or crashing automobiles into crowded streets, let alone launching many hundreds of not-very-well-guided missiles out of Gaza into Israel in the last two months alone were in any way the same as defending innocent civilians from such attacks.  But then the whopper: each side should avoid provocations and casting aspersions on the "integrity and commitment" of the other's leaders. On the other side of Lewis Carroll's looking glass words mean whatever the reporter wants them to mean, and to be politically correct one must always doubt the sincerity and seriousness of Jewish claims to be under attack by fanatical groups and individuals, who are, by the way, constantly roused to action by sermons, television programmes, and political speeches, not lone-wolf responses to unbearable pressures of "the occupation."  At the same time, and in the same post-modernistic distorting lens, whatever the Palestinian leaders say must be glossed over as mere rhetoric and interpreted as anguished pleas for help by delicate adolescent sensibilities.

Sentence 3: (Here I skip a few lines for the sake of brevity and come to the crux of this statement.) "New Zealand UN Ambassador Gerard Van Boehen said the aim was ‘to try and get the council to speak with a united voice, even if in a relatively modest way'."  Again these are words which descend from Aristophanes' ancient loud-Cuckoo Land.  Though the United Nations General Assembly and its various committees that regularly condemn Israel for every wrong in the world without ever dealing with real disasters, wars and human rights violations (how could they when the worst abusers are the constituent members of these groups?) always speaks in a unified voice in censuring Israel and the United States, the Security Council is often stymied by dissenting votes of those permanent members who hold veto rights.  Little New Zealand now thinks it can, as of right as a little country, to win a "modest" but unanimous resolution since it castigates Israel by denigrating it to the same level as the terrorist and undemocratic fabrication called the Palestinian state.

Sentences 4-5.  "'There's been a worrying deterioration on the ground, and we're stuck with nothing happening in the peace process and no commitment in the council to do anything,' van Bohemen said. ‘We have to find a starting point, and that's what we're trying to do'."  You can just hear the frustration in the man's voice, as this poor innocent representative from a very small country comes head on with the realities of world power politics.  Because of the "deterioration on the ground," whatever that means, "nothing" is happening.  Aren't their rules to follow, he seems to exclaim.  It isn't fair.  Not cricket.  Everybody should be nice to everyone else. By golly, you see, this man really believes there has been a peace process going on, a roadmap to follow, a well-intentioned meeting of sides to negotiate. He thinks, though, that the Israelis have not been sincere or serious, while the Hamas-niks, Fatah-folk and other rugby teams have eagerly pushed for a fair and just resolution to the conflict caused by "the occupation."   But wait for it...

Sentence 6: "The council is generally deadlocked on the Israel-Palestinian conflict which UN diplomats say is due to the United States' determination to protect its close ally Israel."  There, you see, it is all the Great Satan's fault that the Little Satan has not yet been wiped off the map.  The reporter knows, as presumably the little representative of the small country knows, because unnamed "UN diplomats say [so]."  But then, afraid that someone might think he was intruding into a place where he shouldn't be or his nation's policies misconstrued as bully tactics, he cries out...

Sentence 7: "‘This is not about New Zealand trying to assert ownership or leadership of the Middle East peace process,' van Bohemen said."  Thank goodness he said that.  The Great Powers might be otherwise worry about tiny little New Zealand trying to take over the game, as though they were the ALL Blacks in the World Rugby Cup, where indeed the kiwis are a mighty force to be reckoned with, and scare their opponents with a tremendously resounding Maori haka before each game begins.  But I am sure the reporter, the editors and the readers of the Waikato Times are secretly thinking that it would be nice if New Zealand could solve all the world problems just as they overwhelm the French, the Welsh, the Australians and the Tongans in rugby. That makes sense, doesn't it?

Sentence 8.  "We do not feel as a member of a council that's been unable to do anything on the front for a long time, we at least ought to try."  The agony in his voice is palpable.  Why or why doesn't the world listen to us, we who are so eager to help and see everything so clearly: everybody should be nice to one another!

And then comes the explanation, all set out in supposedly objective terms, to remind the readers of the newspaper of what the issues are.  In this explanation, there are no complications, and it really is simple if everyone would just play by the rules of the game.

Sentence 9.  "Palestinians seek a state in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, lands Israel captured in 1967."  Well, anyone who knows history would say, not quite.  Hold on a minute.  Gaza was returned to the Palestinian Authority a few years ago, as was more than 90% of the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, well, in a way that is also a contested place.  Moreover, Israel did not "capture" those territories, it liberated them from Jordan who had occupied them after the war of Israeli independence in 1947.  More than three-quarters of the old League of Nations Mandate had been hived off to form Transjordan, and then the remainder was further divided to give Jews only a small proportion by the United Nations.  If, by the way, Yasha Arafat, the PLO, Fatah and their replacement terrorist organizations really wanted a state of their own, surely they would have accepted the offers made to them.  But they wanted it all, as their Palestinian Charter indicates, and their official maps: all of the old Mandate Palestine, including Jordan.  Uprisings, intifadas, terrorist attacks, katusha-rocket attacks, and all the rest began before the current palaver about "occupation" and have gone on after the return of much of the lands behind the old Green Line. The Palestinians are not looking for a two-state solution, but a one state solution, and that will be called Palestine.  Perhaps, not too far into the future, if the signs are being read correctly, that one-state Palestine will disappear into the Islamic Kalifate.

Sentence 11.  "Settlements that Israel has built on territory in 1967 are considered illegal by the United Nations under international law."  I beg your pardon!  Which settlements?  All or some of those in Judea and Samaria (the ancient names and current designations under Israeli law; there are none in Gaza any more, not for a long time. Which international laws, based on what treaties made with the Turks and the League of Nations, or general principles of relations between sovereign states?  This is all muddle and myth. What it certainly is, at most, is subject to negotiation, not hard and fast fact.  But after a few more loins in this vein, the reporter goes on to cite some passages from the draft resolution prepared by New Zealand and now backed China, another wonderful authority on how to deal with occupied territories, such as Tibet, or international law, as witnessed in its expanding of some contested reefs in the South China Seas for a claim on international water ways.

Sentence 12: "The draft resolution declares that stalled talks are ‘unacceptable and calls on all parties to take the necessary steps to rebuild trust...and to prepare to return to negotiations.'"  Amazing what wishful thinking can do.  Despite almost daily calls by Netanyahu and the Israeli diplomats to return to the negotiating table and Palestinian refusal to do so unless conditions are met that are based on Jewish concessions and Palestinian refusals to budge, New Zealand dreams that trust can be "rebuilt" though there were ever were such a thing.  When have the PLO and the Hamas-run regime in Gaza ever done anything to indicate they are willing to negotiate seriously?

Sentence 13. "In frustration at the stalemate, the Palestinian Authority joined The Hague base international Criminal Court in April, a move opposed by Israel."  The nightmare version of history continues.  The efforts by the whole gaggle of Arab states and their allies, including many politically-correct so called western states, to blame Israel for its recent operations in Gaza to stop the daily (and nightly) bombardment of its towns and cities by rockets and mortars, is here seen as a principled and objective stand by a victim people (a terrorist organization that manipulated its election to power and murdered most of the former government in the city and territory).  Unlike the regime in the so-called West Bank, the PA, where the Hamas government is into the twelfth year of its four year electoral mandate, the Gaza terrorists have not changed their Charter (modelled on the 1929 Muslim Brotherhood principles of destroying all Jews and never recognizing a Jewish state).  And Israel is supposed to "trust" these people!?!

Sentence 14.  "Violence has flared again in the last month, partly triggered by Palestinian anger over what they see as Jewish encroachment on Jerusalem's al-Aqsa mosque compound, which is also revered by Jews as the site where two biblical Jewish temples once stood."  More myth and more mythology.  First of all, the incomplete passive syntax: "has flared", as though there had not been months (and years) of propaganda viciously spewed out of the mullahs' mouths and the terrorist leaders machinery.  As though there were no actors in the violence, only the violence itself.  Then, in what seems like a reasonable concession, where there might be two sides to the story (but not three or eight or a million), this violence "is partly triggered by Palestinian anger"... and the fabrication that the Temple Mount, under control by the Jordanian religious authorities, and where Jews may visit but not pray, and have been harassed each time they come to visit, including American Jewish tourists, by young men and women who taunt them, throw stones at them, and more recently throw Molotov cocktails that have been stored up inside the mosque.   In the last few weeks, Palestinian proxy delegates at the UN have attempted to introduce an interpretation of what constitutes a holy site by claiming the Kotel or Western or Wailing Wall of the Second Temple is a part of the al-Asqa shrine.  Who provokes whom?  Who distorts history?

Sentence 15.  "The draft resolution that both parties take the necessary steps to end the violence, avoid incitement and protect civilians, including publicly urging restraint in their own communities."  Back to the rugby game.  Everything is equal, morally the same, and the bad children on both teams need to be restrained.  If everyone was nice to one another and played by the rules, everything would be peachy-keen and lovey-dovey. The naughty boys should therefore go home, tell their unruly friends to behave and shake hands. 

How I do wish that were so!

Norman Simms has just published the first volume of a new book, Jews in an Illusion of Paradise: Dust and Ashes (Cambridge Scholars Publisher.  Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, UK).  It is available from the publisher as well as and other online bookseller sites.  The second volume may be out before the end of this year    

blog comments powered by Disqus

FSM Archives

10 year FSM Anniversary