27 October 2000 Sacrifycing Reality
By Pavel Kollar
Is palestinian question so urgent today that it deserves sacrifycing
so many people. What will say the future generations? Will be admired or
ashamed with the history? Today the so called Palestinian Arabs(in reality
Jordan valeey Arabs) want state on the land which is obviously ancient
Israel land. What if one day there will be only one Arab state, with Cairo
as capital for ex. and this state will accept them also? The are some things
which cannot be decided today although many things can be decided for ex.
not to run war.
Sovereignty is a collective or national phenomenon, based on the principle
that the state who won the last war is the legal and solely owner of the
land and of the conquered nation. According this principle Israel could
be the owner of the West Bank and Gaza. But this sovereignty principle
today is constrained with recognition of Palestinian nation by more states
and also with human rights, so it has no absolute value. Nationality is
part of personal identity and it cannot be operated out of personality.
Life requires space and time. So, right on land is also human right, what
means indirectly also a part of identity. This part of personal identity
is protected by Civil Code. If so, then the sovereignty principle is in
conflict with Civil Code and war can be measured according Civil Code also,
not only with some International Law. So far the 'theory', now how to apply
it on the concrete case. I think there are sufficient historical facts
which prove that the Arabs are the last invaders of the Jewish state, that
the land of West Bank and Gaza strip originally belonged to Jewish state.
Many places which are today in West Bank are known as Jewish places not
as Arab places. If this is measured according the Civil Code, Arabs cannot
be considered as owners of any Jewish land today. The conclusion from this
is: that Arabs can live there as individuals, but as collective (organized
in state) they cannot own the land(only as individuals yes). Jews lived
under these conditions in Europe for centuries. So, the roots of the dispute
are not in people, their religion or customs, but in contradictory principles.
According the pure sovereignty principle, the alternatives for Arabs are:
either live there with constraint identity or risk war. Sovereignty comes
out of war and can be lost in next war. According the principle which is
more near to human rights and Civil legislation, Arabs have right on own
administration on a common territory(as geographic entity), shared with
other nation. But the problem with this second possibility is that these
views are not legalized today, these are possible only ideas for the future,
today all states follow the old authoritarian principle based on the sovereignty
on land. And Arabs, in spite of their propaganda that their human rights
are violated by Israel occupiers(an advertisement of lies) of 'their' land,
in reality follow also the old authoritarian principle. And if they will
continue so, there will be really a war. What is happening now in Mid East
is a beginning of this war.
Regarding the statement in IHT that Arafat is not behind the spontaneous
uprising, I would say that the tactic of this Arafat's revolution has more
phases: the first phase is indoctrination of masses what already happened
in the past and in this phase the leaders are in the forefront of activities.
The second phase is the uprising, the folk is in foreplan the leaders are
hidden, behind the activities. After success and overthrowing, leaders
will come again up.
Arafat in Gaza, after Israel helicopter attacked the uprisals he said
to his public ' ... we are going to Jerusalem ....'. This is a coded message,
a short cut but understandable by those who were indoctrinated in the past
and is the best motivator for them. Remember, Russian soldiers in WWII
knew only one slogan '... na Berlin ....'('to Berlin' ... 'we are going
to Berlin ....).
Tribunal for crime and for bad policy because bad policy motivates
Arab world today, when denouncing Israel they are 'brother' state,
but when accepting refugees they are not brothers. Then who they are ?
This problem has no solution in the frame of present sovereign state,
but neither the religion of one God can offer solution because the authoritarian
thinking in policy is a consequence of that religious principle.
To find solution one must create another frame: state based on human
rights and on a liberal religion.
Sharon came back because he was invited by Arafat. Arafat never went.
But Sharon went already several times.
©Copyright 2001 Pavel Kollar
26 October 2000 Regarding CNN
Message Board, Mid East
It seems truth does not exist. Every argument is contered with opposite
argument. Then possible the language is different. I am not sure that different
participants understand the same under same terms. Arabs still argue the
land is their and Israel is an occupier of their land. But what they understand
under land and ownership on land? Arabs disagree with Jewish settlements
on 'their land' (IHT Oct 26, an article also on this line ...). If they
still argue that the land is their then they falsify the history.]
Today Israel must clear its standpoint:
- whether it wants to enlarge the territory under its control
- or whether it doesn't want a neighbour state under Arafat and similar
What's the territory, Israel can annex 100% of West Bank and Gaza and
explain this with history: These were ancient territories on which Jews
lived. No arguments could be posed against this.
What's the second question, the Palestinian Arabs couldn't be considered
as those who has friendly attitudes to Israel state and to Jews in general.
And this is partially valid also for other Arab or Islamic states. Arafat
delivered evidence many times that he is a source which is the main contributor
to these attitudes today(aside other sources, religion, ...). So, Israel
is living in a rather dangerous environment and has right on defence. Why
should Israel deliver one part of its ancient land to enemy?
How to formulate the problem? Basically all people living there, Jews
and Arabs have right on security, on institutions, on identity., on history.
This is something close to human rights. And this is something closer to
administration than to land. Israel already allowed Palestinian administration
on its land. And probably this will remain so. But Arafat wants much more.
He wants sovereignty on land which once in the past belonged to Israel.
And in exchange for this he is not offering a change in Arab attitudes
to Jews. So, he wants a chance to be 100% on his side, the risk 100% on
Israel side. This is not a base for any deal. So, at the moment Arabs should
be satisfied with administration and give up the sovereignty. This will
not be a faithful or cordial relation between leaders but a relation in
the interest of both people.
But there is also a question about the quality of Arafat's administration.
Principally every nation has right on his administration to enable life
for the group. This can be constrained only by the quality of people to
make such administration function able. Palestinians at the moment have
more warriors than administrators. Their administration functions improperly.
They cannot satisfy even the basic needs of their people. Then, for them
it would be better to accept Jordan administration.
The solution here is based on reason. There could be problems with
implementation, for reason of strong emotional interference by one part
Settlements, refugees and inhabiting of land, using water should be
regulated on the basis of bilaterally relations between the two administrations.
©Copyright 2001 Pavel Kollar
~ 25 October 2000 Regarding IHT, Mid
The argument was that Arafat was not behind the violence, that the
violence is spontaneous, not under his control ...
Here is my opinion:
And why should he steer or govern the events now when he automatized
the people in the past lessons of indoctrination. He is in focus of his
public already 35 years. He made the main job in the past, now it functions
also without his direct interference. I do not know why US is forgetting
who has been the young Arafat. An exponent of communism and so on the payroll
of communist states. His main teacher of revolution was Tito. Intifada
is a partizan type war from the textbook of ex-Yugoslav marshal Tito. He
grasped the idea of communist revolutions good. The essence of this idea
is that the preparation of main attack has different phases. The first
is indoctrination of masses. This made Arafat in the past by involving
Israel in his conflict with Jordan. The next phase is preparation of military
attack. Arafat started this with terrorism. What is today, this is only
an acceleration of spreading of the basic idea. And this goes automatically.
In 1967 Israel acted not only to defend itself from Arafat, but also to
prevent creation of one more communist state in the region. I think the
crucial questions that should be answered are: Why Arafat did not fell
when communism fell 10 years ago? Why was he accepted as partner in 1993?
Why is Arafat still in power when the last bastion of communism in Europa
has fallen several weeks ago?
Regarding The Times, Mid East ........
In this article there was stated that the stone throwers were trained
in special camps for this type of warfare but shooting on them by Israel
soldiers even with rubber coated bullets, tier gas and similar things could
be considered as violation of human rights of these demonstrators. I was
not ready to buy this completely.
Here is my comment:
The latter is not very persuasive. Imagine they will not shoot on them,
allowing them to come close. What can happen to soldiers? Will they not
be lynched? So the soldiers are infront of choice: either shoot and keep
them on distance or let them come close and die. The arguments of Arabs
could be that they assassinated an armed soldier. But is a soldier who
is armed but not fairing, an armed soldier? And then: the phases of lynching
and the dieing .... the soldier will at first loss the conscience under
the strong hits with stones. So, in this phase he won't be able to activate
his gun. But will the stone throwers let soldiers so unconscious or will
they finish them. In Ramallah they finished them. But is an unconscious
soldier a threat for attacker? Is not finishing an unconscious man a killing?
If the answer on the first question is no and if the soldier will be finished,
the attacker committed criminal. So, these stone throwers are no simple
demonstrators, they are also soldiers in action of warfare, in action of
attack, so those who are attacked have right to defend themselves. Another
question is why these soldiers are there. This is a political question.
Possible Israel's decision in 1967 was wrong but Israel that time did not
act completely without reason. Had Arafat not appeared on the political
scene and had Arab world treated Israel differently that time, then possible
Israel would be today what it was after 1948. There are no signs that Israel
had territorial aspirations to neighbours that time. Even today territory
is not a big issue for them. Then what remains is the behaviour of Arabs
against Israel as the only source of conflict.
©Copyright 2001 Pavel Kollar
22 October 2000
Regarding CNN Message Board, Mid East
The tactic of Arab participants: with bombardment with details to create
a dense forest so make another side to loss overview of the whole.
Some Arabs are making remarks about the way how Israel was founded:
Hitler kick them out of Europe, they begged by UN
' ...give us state ....'. This is not true because Zionists movement
started much before, beginning the century. They stress this in comparison
to their way how they got there, by wars and conquering, and so arguing
the land belongs to them. But Jews were in the WWII on the side Alliance
and fought also but they had no state. They fought under many flags. In
Europe, where they suffered greatest losses, they were not able to do anything
just for lack of this organization. So, Jews payed this their present land
which they got after the end of WWII with 6.0 mil lives or about 70% of
their nation, the highest price any nation, participant in the war, payed
for freedom. Taking this in account, if Israel gives back to Palestinians
a 0% land, this will be also untestable and reasonable, taking in account
the high price payed for this state. This is the reason. All other are
technical problems. The Arabs must consider also this possibility. It is
only seemingly so that the present Israel did not come out of the wars.
UN resolution only approved what came out of the war. On which side were
Arabs in WWII?
Arabs are adapting history on their present needs in expectation this
will deliver them arguments for future. Future depends on alternatives,
history cannot give any, it is unchangeable, it cannot be decided about
history. Alternatives are to be created. This is future.
For the future there are many good alternatives for both sides. A greater
problem is lack of politicians who would be able to translate ideas into
After WWII there was created one world order, which lasts even today,
with small adaptations. But if Arabs will press with their expansion then
they will soon come in conflict with this order, with unclear consequences
for them. It would be better for them to apply restraint.
Great problem of all Arab states is interference of religion into political
decision making. They would make good if separate the two. UN Assembly
will make a good step if start discussion about the ideological situation
in Arab countries. There is one religious saying: 'Who is throwing on you
stone, you throw on him/her bread'. What is now happening in Mid East is
just this: Arabs are throwing stones on those who are giving them bread.
©Copyright 2001 Pavel Kollar
20 October 2000 Regarding CNN Message Board,
Israel in 1967 in reality liberated Palestine from communism.
Settlements today are direct consequences of Arafat's foreign policy.
There are two things that are to be distinguished:
- inhabiting of land and rights from this .... who is the owner of
the area as collective entity ... right on settlements and right of living
in settlements together with others
- administration of one human group living on land that means institutions
for satisfaction of human needs ....
Several years ago, in the occasion of his visit to India, Arafat said:
Israel wants war. This was the time when Netanyahu came to power. Why Arafat
went to India that time? India is a nuclear power. Home, he started with
demonstrations against Israel, his soldiers demonstrated with posters with
swastika = david's star. He succeeded to remove Netanyahu, to bring back
Labour, his originally partners, but he refused a very good deal for some
unimportant detail. Then what he wants? Revolution?
In Cairo, Arafat said ' ... we need permanent, honest peace ....'.
But he refused it. Possible this means 'A Mid East without Israel'.
The Arab and Jewish history are different. And they have different
©Copyright 2001 Pavel Kollar
18 October 2000 Regarding CNN Message Board, Mid East
Many Arabs from America, American citizens, are supporting Arafat's
case and denouncing Jews. What to tell about them? They are possibly young,
born in America, about their original land knowing only from media. They
react only with emotions. The basic instinct of blood relative remained,
this blocking thinking and making blind of some facts?
Someone with german surname reacted on my comparison of Arafat with
Nazis, that one must forgot and forgive the past but allowed that history
can repeat. He or she was possibly a young who learned history from books,
not from personal experience. But the statement is contradictory, suggesting
forgoteness but allowing repetition of history. If life is a continual
learning process than knowledge about the past can help not to repeat the
same mistakes in present. My message in which I expressed this comparison
was later removed from the board, although such and similar messages, expressed
especially by Arab participants, were lot on the board in days before I
posted my message.
One young (with great probabbility Arab) reproached to one older that
they are teaching young generation to hate their fellow young of another
nation. But this depends on social system. In such a social systems where
patriarchalism is value, this is a common practice. Young follow the opinions
of older. In more liberal societies young can form their opinion freely,
without influence of parents either, not to say some old charismatic leader,
the father of nation, being in this role for generations. It is today about
35 years that I have seen first time Arafat's picture in one magazine,
with his traditionally shall on head and with MG in hand. He gave interview
and his tone was in style of leaders of communist revolutions, .... liberation
of folk from imperialism ......He is still in his role of communist revolutionary,
repeating his credo to ever broader public. Tell me one Western leader
who was in some leading role 35 years ago, and is still in position!
Those Jews who opposed Barak's deal with Palestinians are really not
against peace with Arabs, they are simply against Arafat. But it is pity
that many Arabs did not observe this difference.
The rock-throwing diplomacy of Arafat ....Rock ... if you are rock
then better roll yourself ... don't flay through the air because you can
hit somebody in face .... so better be rock - and -roll
Rabbi Ovedia said that Jews in Europe sinned ... that is why happened
them. And here are their sins(in my interpretation):
- they educated their children in decalogue , without cynicism
- they educated their children that knowledge and work are the basic
principles of life
- that authority should be estimated, not rebelled
- to be in good relations to and appreciate those who are different
in religion, race, ....
But this was not sufficient to save them from ..... They perished because
they haven't had organization to resist.
Many religious people appel on religious unity ... Christendom, Judaism
and Islam ..... Does belief in the same God worked in the past? The WWII
was also covered with religion. Christendom against Judaism. In Bibles
for Christian scholars from about 1920 the Judaism and Liberalism were
quoted as enemies of Christendom. This was changed only in second half
of last century when Pope announced that they will not more treat Liberalism
as enemy, and some improvement with Judaism came only recently when Pope
visited Mid East or Israel ...In recent past there are manifestations of
anti-Christianism by Moslems. Today Islam is against Judaism. I think these
religion contribute to fire more than to extinguishing.
Arabs now motivate themselves from falsified history. Possible they
do not know at all that they were invaders in Jewish state(although not
directly ... they occupied the state of occupier of Jewish state). .
If Arabs deny the existence of Israel on that land in the past, then
they indirectly deny the Christendom also. Christendom was devised by a
Jew just on that land.
Palestinians call the mosque build on the place of destroyed temple
in Jerusalem as Holy site of Islam. But they argue that their religion
is tolerant to others. Then why mosque just on that place. If so, it only
reminds that holiness is authoritarianism. But this is in opposition with
the statement about tolerance.
Palestinians want a war in which they will be winner, Israel loser.
If Arabs want to be great nation they should give back all land to
Israel which they are holding now(although Israel asked only part of it).
Intifada is a communist type revolution. Then isn't it so that Israel,
by keeping these territories away from Arafat's hands is really protecting
Islam values in front of communism.
Palestinians, on an allegedly holy insult by Sharon, responded wit
communist revolution. Then what kind of Islamists they are?
Intifada is a copy of communist revolution. Go back several decades
and you will see who is Arafat., who supported him and brought him to power
..... Possible this will explain why Israel entered these territories in
©Copyright 2001 Pavel Kollar
17 October 2000 Regarding CNN Message
Board, Mid East
Message board participants are losing time on questions which had to
be solved by politicians many years ago. Politicians are always behind
the public opinion. Why? Their institutions are too rigid to change on
In every war there is an element of criminal. And this on both sides,
how on the side of the aggressor so on the side of the defender. If one
want to remove criminal then one would make good if start with the change
of the system which makes possible war(or better said, necessary, as something
without what it cannot exist).
Arafat, as all other big manipulators of this world, gained supporters
promising them something what they cannot exactly understand or define,
but the suggestion was that this is something important. Translated into
another words, he promised them a miserable life and the promise was delivered
in a miserable way of communication. But the influence functioned and people
trusted him. Why? Because he played on values of those whom he addressed
the promise. Possibly according Muslim religion to live in misery and die
for misery is a value. But why they complain when they are shot by those
whom they provoked to shoot on them? Do they really dislike life? But there
is a problem, they prefer to die but in the same time pulling with them
also those who do not share their values. Then what they really prefer
is war, not peace. War is their life style. They do not like to go to school
and to go to work, but to war. This attitude was manifested also by some
groups in several Yugoslav wars.
They are taking the religious messages of their religious teachers
too literally, without interpretation. In a liberal society, reading some
text does not mean an obligation to follow it.
Today there is a big contradiction between the Civil Code and the International
Law. Behaviour which is according the Civil Code coercible is usually a
value according the International Law, and is awarded.
Every terrorist act of Arabs on others is evidence that they want to
enforce their rules to others.
Jews are not warriors. They are traders. But in spite of this they
became a hatestick of the world. This is coming from propaganda. The anti-Jewish
propaganda was very successful.
But it is interesting that also those who hated Jews for their values,
later accepted a good part of their values, naturally not openly but rather
in latent form, but the hate and the disgust to Jews remained much less
on the same level.
One Arab said that at the moment Arab world is in delay in some cultural
fields in comparison to developed world ..... some other said this being
in knowledge especially .... but that they have a bright future .... there
are 1.5 billion Arabs and that their potential is great..
Here is my comment:
In what? In number of people ...? And how they see their bright future
..... with accepted values of the democratic world or with democratic world
conquered by Arab values? Such generalizations contribute to misunderstanding
Arafat is Sacrifycing his People for his Personal Interests
For Arafat the anti-Jewish propaganda is of greater value then a decent
life of his folk. He is sacrificing his folk for some his private values,
similar as Milosevic. If Arabs were clever, they would follow the example
of Serbs who finally came on the source of evil and removed it. Possible
many Arabs do not know that Arafat founded his ideology learning Titoism,
which found its continuation in Milosevic. But Titoism finally failed several
What Arafat's followers call liberation of Palestinian folk from Israel
occupants is optical illusion, deceiving the people. It is a propaganda.
Beneath the surface is the reality: Their appetite on Israel. What they
were not ably to produce, they want now to take from other. The truth is
that they have nothing to liberate from anybody because their land has
never been occupied by anybody. Jews which are now there, the soldiers
and the inhabitants are just on the land which belongs them. Palestinians
were only the last occupants of Israel's land. They can live in Israel
but it seems that they want much more, to be the solely inhabitants there.
Rock throwing diplomacy under Oslo Nobel Peace Committee. This is Mid
If you publish your opinion, you never know who will read it and how
it will be interpreted. For some people your opinion could be advising,
for another chill ...
The Ownership on Land
The Israel - Palestinian dispute over the land ....:
- Palestinians argue that the land is their because they were there
before the majority of present Israelis came after 1948 ... so they base
their claim on the fact that they were in majority there before 1948
- Israelis argue the land is their because they were the original owners
before Arab-Palestinians came, invaded their land around 1600 ....
So there are two criterions:
- the Palestinian one, according which the land belongs to the one
who won the war and occupied the land of its adversary, equally how this
adversary got the land, legally or illegally, and equally who was the previous
- Jewish, which is based on original ownership, that is, that the land
belongs to people which inhabited it first and to which it was the first
The difference between the two criterions is:
- Palestinian criterion is based on wars, on conquering other nations,
and considering all wars are containing an element of criminal, it is based
- Jewish criterion is based on individual rights of people of one ethnical
group to live on their original land which was not taken away from another
group by war. This is not a war criterion.
So, Jewish criterion is based on the basic values of present civilization
that the source of wealth of one nation is work, on the contrary Arab criterion
which is based on values which are considered as negative values in present
The original land of one nation which was occupied by other should
be treated on the same way as cultural or artistic goods which were stolen
by other nation during the warfare and on which is applicable the UN or
UNESCO document about giving back these goods to the original owner.
So, these are principles. On the bases of these principles, UN should
establish techniques which will comply with these principles. These techniques
should advise procedures of implementation and accomplishing of returning
of land, going to very details: organization of administration, compensation
for land if some land must be given up, relocation of settlements, creation
of new settlements, financing of different programs, etc.
Intifada is a Communist-type Revolution
Some people simple repeat the Palestinian arguments about the latest
clashes, taking them as truths. But Palestinians already learned to create
arguments which would seem as plausible and purchasable by some readers.
This is a constituting part of their tactic. In the last 30 years they
have done nothing else than creating such a man made arguments against
Jews. They learned this from Yugoslav textbooks for communist revolution
and partisan warfare. Later these techniques advanced to techniques of
PSY war, for influencing masses and creating own images on the account
of images of another. According these techniques, funerals are not 'burials
of deaths', but a collective ceremonies for expressing and enforcing loyalties
to leaders and devaluating the image of an adversary.
If a child is identified as shot death by a soldier, is it really impossible
to determine the identity of the killer, and the circumstances under which
the case happened?
The Bugs of Israel
Israel made a mistake that it kept too long this land under military
control without determining its legal status. UN resolutions still consider
this land as 'Palestinian land occupied by Israel' what is false. In reality
what happened was that Israel occupied a part of Jordan to prevent creation
of a Palestinian state under the Arafat, because it considered Arafat as
terrorist and future destroyer of Israel and a communist infiltrator in
Mid East. Israel's move in 1967 was in accord with international law and
other legal practices, but the wrong was that international community accepted
Arafat as partner, starting negotiations with him about his state. This
is the mistake of UN and the governments of many countries that they accepted
Arafat as representative of Palestinian folk, instead of treating him what
he really was: a terrorist and communist revolutionary. It is not accidentally
that Arafat came up with help of communist countries. He was an important
element of communist strategy to conquer the world. European Communism,
which promoted Arafat, has fallen 10 years ago and the last bastion of
communism in Europe(although already partially, not totally) has fallen
also several weeks ago, but the eternal Arafat is still in power governing
this world in old way, by means of terror and manipulation. Why? If Palestinians
have no power to remove him, this is not argument for international community
and UN to accept him as partner. So, for those who want to know why are
Israel soldiers in the West bank and Gaza(and why they were in Lebanon,
Golan, Synay, ...): the reason was and is now Arafat and PLO and its affiliates.
If these elements will be removed from Arab society then the soldiers will
return home. Israel showed more times that it does not need these territories,
despite that these are Israel's historical lands. But Israel will probably
require right to settle these territories also with Jews, similar as there
are Arabs in Israel. And possible in some future organization of state
this will be irrelevant because the land will be considered as one whole
inhabited with two nations, every with own administration and equal rights
on territory. If Palestinians cannot accept this solution than they should
look for another land to create their state there. But one is sure, Israel
will never give up its state to any Palestinian or Arab state, so giving
up its identity. Those who will try to do this with force will risk war.
I am so radical that I propose International Court for Mid East(similar
as those for Rwanda and Yugoslavia) to investigate all crime against ...
since 1948(or possible before) .. to find all those mass graves of Palestinians
who were executed ....... Bad political decisions, .... creating suffering
of millions are also crimes against humanity.
The Values ....
Many reproach Jews that they follow only monetary values. It is true
that they appreciate money but they are taking in account also other values,
not expressible in money. Their stay in West Bank and Gaza and Golan was
clear monetary plait. That they were there and are there today, is evidence
that they follow other values also.
To give state to Arafat only so, without any condition is perverting
the basic principles of present civilization, recognizing that war with
robbery and crime are the bases of human relations, not work and trade.
If one recognizes that Arafats are right today, then I advise you not
to work at all. Go to the street, stripe the first whom you met of all
what the fellow has, call police and the police will legalize you as owner,
advising the stripped to follow your example.
There existed one social system in which the basic value was ' ...
everyone from everyone steals and everyone is rich .....'. The truth was
that a small group was really rich, the great majority was poor. At the
end, they asked humanitarian help from those who did not follow their credo.
Finally they turned off their credo and returned to work, but lost many
years and sacrificed generations for one false idea. Guess which land was
Some European customs against Jews, based on prejudices of the folk
or better on interpretation of New Testimony by sone Christian cynics:
- in some countries there was a custom to beat Jews for Christmas
- and the decalogue of Old Testament was adapted on new one in following
"You shall not lie
..... with exception of Jew"
"You shall not steal
... with exception from Jew"
"You shall not kill
... with exception of Jew" ...........
(the latter I heard in second part of last century)
©Copyright 2001 Pavel Kollar
16 October 2000
CNN Message Board, Mid East
Arafat is sacrificing present for future.
One Arab said that if Israel pulls out 100% from West Bank, Gaza, East
Jerusalem then there will be no more hostility(of Arabs) against Jews ...
then there will be no more threat of destruction of Israel
Here is my comment:
Nice, Arafat refused 90%-95% of the land with explanation he wants 100%.
So, for him this 5%-10% of land, mostly consisting of holy sites not of
inhabited spots, is of greater value than the rest of 90% or 95% of the
land. For this 5%-10% of land he will still destroy Israel, that means
hostility 100%(or peace 0%, not 90% or 95%). Is this guarantee that there
will be peace 100% if he receives 100% land? So, the conclusion could be
that Palestinians already had the required land near completely, but they
refused it. What remained is following: Palestinian want 200% of land for
0% of peace. Nice deal. So, all what they say is a common lie. No deal
This problem of Temple is very simple. This is a square with one mosque
in the mid, another in one corner and Wall what remained of Jewish Temple.
Aside the fact that the mosques were built much later on the piece of land
where there was the Jewish Temple before, the ownership determination is
not more complex than a real estate deal: The mosques are Arab, the wall
is Jewish. The pavement can be divided similarly. Arafat requires all,
also the wall. What a feeling of justice from one man awarded with Nobel
Prize for peace!
So, the problem has no solution in the present institutional framework.
The present institutional system is based on the authoritarian principle
of sovereignty which considers the head of the state as the father of the
family, owning one territory(usually gained in a war with the adversary,
the other such father) and who distributes this land to his followers or
subordinates or children in return for loyalty to him or as a reward to
them for participating in war. If there is necessary any redistribution
of the whole land between fathers, this can occur only by means of war.
To look any peaceful solution in this system is a nonsense. The Mid East
is an example for this.
The problem will become solvable only in the frame of one new definition
of the state. This new definition has base not in fathers but in children,
considering them as free adult owners of the land, every his/her own piece
of land. This is based on Human Rights not on so called International Law
of the present which is in reality law approving war as problem solution
mean in international relations(mostly redistribution of land and other
Palestinians reproach Israel for settling Jews from Poland, Russia,
... in Mid East, so denying their ethnicity(=nationality). If ethnicity
matters, and those were not Pole, Russian, ....but Jews(they were considered
as Jews in Pole, Russia ...) than their right place is Mid East, not Russia.
The present states are not only authoritarian states but in the same time
ethnical or national states, in which other ethnicities can live only as
national minorities without right on forming institutions. One can see
today that Palestinians are also applying this principle, not allowing
national minorities on territories which they claim as theirs. So, if the
land on which they are living today is really the land on which existed
Israel state in the past, then after reestablishment of Israel state on
this land, they can be only national minorities(regardless their number
and proportion to Jews) in Israel state, not a nation forming the governing
institutions. This is the present International law. Jews in Poland, equally
their number and proportion, can be only ethnical group, to have some cultural
rights, a limited right on own institutions but no right to cerate a state
on Polish territory. If so, then Palestinians also do not have right to
create state on Israel territory. UN has only to recognize that Jewish
territories are also West Bank and Gaza strip, a trunk territories(although
Jews can live also in Iraq, but this is not their trunk territory - I do
not know exactly whether they had state there or no - and similar Arabs
can live in West Bank, but this is also not their trunk territory).
Arafat brought down Netanyahu. After this, his appetites rouse. He
wants now to bring down the International Order which was established after
WWII and replace it with his order according which the last owner of the
land is the real owner, not the original one. This means approving war
as a mean for solution of international problems, what is just contrary
of Charter of UN(and contrary to Arafat's Nobel Prize for peace). He is
calculating that 25% of inhabitants of this planet are Arabs and Muslims,
and that the combination of these two factors will be sufficient to win
a future war(mostly consisting of terror, blackmail, ...), considering
the rest of the world will not be willing to fight back because this can
deteriorate their image. So, he is playing on the same card as Milosevic.
To motivate poor of this world against rich. This is possible in fathers'
societies. All big warriors promised to their soldiers that they will have
occasion to plunder, to rape, ...Hitler promised to every soldier a piece
of land in Russia with several villages of slaves, on which they will be
gubernators, and a VW small car(Hitler's helmet) to can travel to Germany
or elsewhere. It is clear that with such promises it is not possible today
to motivate inhabitants of rich countries to fight some war or even to
resist terrorism of Arabs. The leading image today is that rich is evil,
poor is saint. This is the state of mind playing in hand of such leaders
as Milosevic, Arafat, Saddam, Ajjatolach, ....
What Arafat wants: peace, war, or both or neither of them?
Muslim religion today became a barrier in understanding reality. They
are trusting only lies. Arafat is falsifying history similar as Serbs falsified
their history and built their motives on this falsified history. But recent
events are showing that lies have end. This is good. Possible one day Arabs
will recognize that they made mistakes in their history.
©Copyright 2001 Pavel Kollar
14 October 2000 Regarding
CNN Message Board, Mid East
My personal experience what's the rules under which one must live ....this
calls also 'loyalty to ... authority' ..... I lived until now in six countries
under the status either national minority or refugee. I have never been
full-blood citizen in any country(similar as my predecessors for who knows
how many generations) and I ever followed my own rules. I do not know what
means 'loyalty ...' .... possibly paying bribe to somebody .....and I really
do not know what are really the 'rules' of society .....These my rules
were very simple ... think free and regard the freedom of others .... and
with this, one can live unless one encounter people who do not share this
rule but require something 'extra'. From the amount of this 'extra' depends
the decision of stay or leave(sometimes flee).
Negotiating some special peace with Palestinians(which are only a part
of Arab nation on the Mid East) has some legal obstacles. Accepting them
as partner, Israel will weaken its legal base which is the UN document
from 1947 and what was later agreed on the basis of this document. Palestinians
did not exist that time as separate entity. Signing an agreement with Palestinians
now would mean a replacement of legal base of Israel state, moving from
international law based on UN document to international law based on bilaterally
agreement with one nation which is rather hostile to Israel. Besides this,
the Palestinian state, as proposed today is a product of the Cold War in
Europe, and its promoter, the communist block of Europe, does not exist
today. Even Russia today do not encourage Arafat to proclaim the statehood.
Resolution of UN 242 was brought under the communist pressure of that time.
I think Barak's proposal to Arafat to give him 95% of territories is
not in interest of Israel neither of broader international policy. This
will create a negative precedence for solving of similar problems in Europe
or elsewhere. This will put international institutions in the role desires
fulfillers of ambitious politicians who are ready to blackmail everybody
in order to achieve their personal goals, often in contradiction with the
interest of nation which they allegedly represent. Arabs know well that
the West Bank and Gaza strip are ancient Israel territories and if they
will push with the creation of Arab state on these territories then this
is recognizing that war and robbery are the base of gaining territories
and nation forming. I think this is in opposite with the international
order which came out of WW II and which was institutionalized with the
creation of UN. I agree that this system is not perfect, that it needs
improvement, but the way how Palestinians want to create their state is
not the way in direction of improvement. Some Arabs are forgetting that
Europe has several such 'hot points' and if the sides in conflict will
try to apply similar principles as Palestinians in the solution of these
problems then the UN will collapse before it can elaborate itself for solution
of similar problems.
PA is recalling UN resolutions condemning Israel to support its case
against Israel. Really sorry that such resolutions exist because UN was
the really 'founder' of Israel. So, to recall history. In 1948 there were
created two states, one for Israelis, another for Arabs. Jordan violated
the resolution giving West bank to Palestinians in 1967. A great mistake
of Jordan. In 1948 Israel state was created on Israel land, not on Palestinian
land. And this not on the whole land of Israel, only on one part of it.
Another part went to Jordan. Arafat disregards this fact today, arguing
opposite. Then who violated the UN as first? Should Israel wait in 1967
until Ararat accomplishes his promise, to destroy Israel, and only thereafter
to complain to UN? Did you hear dead man walking to Court to accuse the
assassin? With promise he put Israel that time in front of choice: either
attack or perish. In period before WWII communists in some Central European
countries made the same promises. Many bagatellized their threat. They
became aware of the danger only after communists accomplished what they
promised. But this was too late. In 1948 by the creation of Israel state
history was important. Why not today? Because Arafat wants to rewrite it?
Palestinian state is a communist idea. Arafat learned it from his mentor,
Tito. Today, besides religion, sometimes the water is the argument for
claiming the whole Israel for Arabs. Great problem! Did you hear that water
cannot flow through pipelines, only oil.... and that water cannot be bottled,
only wine, cola, ....In 1948 the International community, which approved
Israel, made this under the supposition that Jews will live in Israel,
Arabs in Jordania. Today 600000 Arabs still live in Israel but Arafat wants
ethnically pure West Bank and Gaza, without any Jew, despite that these
pieces of lands are also Israel lands. Why not 600000 Jews in West Bank
and Gaza? In 1948 it was supposed by the Great Powers that Jordan, as a
state for the Arab inhabitants of Mid East, will integrate Palestinians
who did not want to live in Israel. This did not happen. Instead, those
Palestinians remained refugees until now serving as cause for Arafat's
This conference in Egypt is really irrelevant how for Israelis so for
Palestinian. They will continue to live with their own images what is right,
what not. This conference won't contribute to changing of these images,
especially on the side of Palestinians, what is more important for peace
than a show conferences. If there will be some agreement this will help
Clinton to book one more success and will enable Arafat and Saddan to prepare
the 'final solution of Jewish question'.
The first visitor who will be cordially welcomed in the new created
Palestinian state will be surely Saddam and the agenda will be some Palestinian-Iraqian
Federation which will enable Saddam to come on Israel border. He will be
also the first honorable doctor of Ramallach University.
For solution of Mid East problem there are more alternatives:
- one could be reintegration of West Bank into Jordan and Gaza into
Egypt, but in both to be allowed Jewish settlements up to 600000 to 1000000
Jews, for reason that these are basically Jewish lands. Jerusalem to be
capital of Israel. This solution is based on the present concept of sovereign
state and can be applied only as transitional solution until a broader
context of inhabiting the Earth will be prepared.
- another alternative is based on one complete different concept of
state, as different from the present 'sovereign' or authoritarian state
based on idea of captured land in wars. This concept is based on the definition
of nationality as human group, as family of families sharing same culture
and language, equally on which territory they are living, and the concept
of territory as place of living for more nations. According this concept
the whole Mid East would be considered as one territory inhabited with
more nations and every nation with its own administration. For the inhabiting
of territory there will be a Council created from representatives of all
nations which will set rules for inhabiting the territory at micro level(Something
as local UN).
If Palestinian won't be satisfied with any of these alternatives, than
they should be advised to create their state on their originally land.
I think that creation of International Court for Mid East is an actual
issue. When there are courts such as in The Hague for Yugoslavia and in
.... Africa for Rwanda then why not for Mid East also. The first client
of this Court should be Arafat of course, then Saddam and several Khomeinis
and all their followers as Hammas, Hezbollach, Jihad, PLO and similar.
Their coefficient of evilness and also their deals are not smaller than
of those who are today accused by similar courts.
I think UN should be active in secularization of Arab World. This is
a long run issue if the vision of future is a world without wars. This
is a long run process but it deserves to be taken seriously.
Anoter important issue is an International Commission(under UN) for
compensations of refugees. But is it posssible a world without refugees
at all? To create such a world it will be neccessary to redefny the concept
of sate Today a majority of refugees consist of groups which were considered
as ethnical minorities in their original syates. So they are products of
present concept of state. I am not sure whether it will be possible one
day to stop migrations at all, but I think that migrant need not be refugee.
Arafat is playing false. He is asking UN protection in order to have
reason to escalate war. His tactic is at first to ask UN for protection
and possibly expecting that he won't get it, so to have reason to turn
Arab states to receive such a protection. And this is war. Iraq already
is preparing 6.0 mil fighters. Similar Iran.
It is quite possible that some Jews are infected by Arafat syndrome
but this is because of long exposition to it.
UN is already too long a propaganda machine of Arab world.
©Copyright 2001 Pavel Kollar