Posted on September 30, 2009 at 02:35:27 EST
by Benyamin B.
Copyright © 2003-2014 The Anti-Terrorism Coalition. All rights reserved.
This past spring, the Israeli government finally decided to bulldoze eighty "Palestinian" homes illegally constructed on Jewish owned land. However, before Israel could do so, intense American pressure forced it to abandon this decision (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=94265). At the same time, the American government has also supported the Israeli government’s demolition of certain Israeli settlements and has demanded that no additional settlements be built anywhere.
One member of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration stated: "This was very frustrating to us. Can you imagine if a foreign government came in and told a city office in the U.S. not to tear down a house that was illegally constructed on someone else's property?"
Then, in late June, news broke that "the Obama administration told the PA that the 'golden era' of Israeli construction in sections of Jerusalem and the strategic West Bank will soon come to an end". Indeed, not long afterwards, the Obama administration demanded that Israel stop building new homes for Jews in eastern Jerusalem.
The Obama regime now joins the long list of governments, nations, organizations, groups and individuals that have dictated to Jews where they can live. For the last two thousand years, everyone from the Roman Empire to countless Islamic nations to Germany to Britain to Russia has dictated to Jews where they can live, where they can build homes and of course, forced them to relocate countless times. However, now, Jews are being told where they can live in their own nation!
All of this raises a greater question: What right does one sovereign nation have to force another sovereign nation where it can build homes and where it can demolish homes on its own land?
Who are Hillary Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, George W. Bush (yes, the Bush administration also pressured Israel in this manner, though to a lesser extent than the Obama administration) or anyone in the American government to tell Israel where it can build and demolish homes? Why shouldn’t Israel be able to tell the American government to demolish some homes in Texas, for example? Or how about in Chicago, Illinois?
Israel is a sovereign nation and the Israeli government is elected by the Israeli people to represent them and to protect them. When the property rights of Israeli citizens are violated, it is the Israeli government’s job to protect them. It doesn’t matter what reason people who don’t own the property built homes on it for. What matters is that it was not their property and the owners of the property never consented to any homes being built there. Thus, the Israeli government has every right to demolish those homes. There is not one law or moral standard that doesn’t uphold this action.
Yet, a foreign government – in this case, the American government – seems to think that it has a right to dictate to the Israeli government that it does not have the right to protect the property rights of its citizens. Even though the US has no jurisdiction and no right whatsoever to take this kind of action, it still does. It claims that it is doing so in the interest of promoting peace between Israel and the "Palestinians".
Let’s examine that for a second: The US is promoting peace between Israel and the "Palestinians" by tolerating illegal "Palestinian" occupation of Israeli land and forcing Israel to demolish settlements in the West Bank (built on empty land or land bought from Muslims)? In other words, demolishing Jewish homes is okay, but demolishing Muslim homes is not okay?
Of course, this is all part of a greater campaign of Islamic terrorist appeasement going back to the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War. During the Yom Kippur War, America sent emergency shipments of weapons to Israel. Shortly after the end of the war, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) instituted an oil embargo against the West. Since then, the US has been more eager to "mediate" between Israel and Islamic countries. The first notable example of this was the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, for which Israel ceded the Sinai Peninsula (which it had conquered in the Six Day War) along with its oil fields back to Egypt, in exchange for Egyptian recognition of Israel and peace between the two nations. However, what is less known is that the Islamic world saw this as a symbolic victory and a huge amount of American aid (including weapons) has been pouring into Egypt ever since. To this day, there is strong anti-Israel sentiment in the nation, including among government-run or pro-government media. Worst of all, Egypt is now stronger than ever before. Finally, the biggest consequence of this "peace treaty" is that Israel has been giving up land ever since.
Every single time the US has stepped in as a mediator between Israel and the "Palestinians", Israel has only been forced to retreat, give goodwill gestures and so on, while the "Palestinians" have been given more land, more control over the West Bank and Gaza, hundreds of millions of American and Israeli taxpayer dollars (it’s well into the billions by now), American weapons and so on. The result: more terrorist attacks against Jews.
When former Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat all of Gaza and most of the West Bank, he and other "Palestinian" leaders responded with the Second Intifada – a major terrorist campaign against Israel. Even when former Prime Minister Olmert offered the "Palestinians" all of Gaza, 93% of the West Bank, 5.5% of Israeli land to make up for the remaining 7% of the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem, the "Palestinians" refused.
Of course, American appeasement of Islamic terrorists to the point where it has involved meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations does not only apply to Israel. When Serbia (then Yugoslavia), along with Serbian forces in breakaway republics of Yugoslavia, tried to defend themselves from Islamic terrorism, the US, along with NATO and some other nations, not only supported the Islamic terrorists, but enforced no fly zones and took part in bombing missions over certain areas of Bosnia and Serbia. The first of these actions occurred in Bosnia during the Yugoslav Wars of the mid-1990s. The second action, which was not even authorized by the UN, was a massive NATO bombing campaign of all of Serbia due to Serbia's actions in Kosovo.
In the case of Bosnia, Serbian paramilitary groups aligned to Yugoslavia and opposed to Bosnia and Croatia breaking away from Yugoslavia were accused of committing genocide, displacement of non-Serbs and other war crimes; while Yugoslavia was accused of supporting the Serbian paramilitary groups. The UN imposed sanctions on Yugoslavia in 1992. In reality, hundreds of thousands of Serbs were deported from Croatia and some were even killed. Similarly, in Bosnia, countless war crimes were committed by Muslim Bosnians (Bosniaks) against Serbs. Yet, the West accused only Serbian paramilitaries of committing war crimes and sided with the Croatians and Bosniak terrorists.
In the case of Kosovo, there had been a massive influx of illegal Albanian aliens for several decades. In 1998, when the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and other Islamic terrorist groups (including Al-Qaeda) began to commit frequent terrorist attacks there, the Serbs decided to deport the several hundred thousand illegal aliens back to Albania. However, once again, the West sided with the Islamic terrorists and blamed the Serbs for everything.
On a side note, the idea of stealing Kosovo away from Serbia and handing it over to Albania goes back to WWII, when Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy created the "Greater Albania" plan. The NATO Bombing of Kosovo was the first time that the German Luftwaffe was involved in military action since WWII.
It is interesting to note that a massive propaganda campaign was conducted against Serbia. Western media went even as far as fabricating facts and evidence. During both conflicts, when Serbian forces would kill terrorists, there were cases when Western journalists would take away their weapons and then take pictures of them. Later, they would claim that "innocent civilians" had been killed and use these pictures as evidence. There were also reports of Albanian terrorist groups ordering hundreds of thousands of Albanians to run away to Albania, after which they would claim that these people had been forcibly deported by the Serbs.
Yet, where was the West when the Rwanda Genocide happened? Why isn’t the West currently doing anything about the Islamic genocide against Christians and other non-Muslims in southern Sudan or even about the Muslim on Muslim genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region? In each of these conflicts, one million people have died – and the conflicts in Sudan are still ongoing. On the other hand, even Islamic terrorist estimates of Bosniak deaths place the figures at 100,000, while in reality, no more than 20,000 – 30,000 Bosniak civilians are believed to have died, many of which died as a result of the war and not a deliberately organized campaign directed at them.
Thus, there is no doubt that the West clearly had an agenda when it went into Bosnia and Serbia and it was not there to stop "genocide" and other "war crimes". So on what grounds did the West have a right to meddle in the affairs of foreign nations?
Furthermore, supposing the West did have a right to intervene in the case of genocide or other war crimes, who decides whether or not war crimes are being committed? As we can see in the case of the Yugoslav Wars, Serbian atrocities against non-Serbs were greatly exaggerated – perhaps almost entirely fabricated – by Western media and governments, while atrocities against Serbs by Bosniaks and Croatians were almost entirely ignored by the very same media and governments. Thus, the minute we okay foreign intervention in other nations – even if only in the case of war crimes – we often depend upon biased parties with agendas of their own to decide whether war crimes are indeed being committed there.
In addition to that, these so-called world police forces often do not know enough about the conflicts they are attempting to police. For example, how many people actually know the history of the country or region they want to police in enough detail to be able to properly understand the current conflict? How many people know the roots of the current conflict? In the case of Serbia, if one knows the history, they will see that it is the victim; as what is now Bosnia and the Serbian province of Kosovo were both part of Serbia, until it was invaded, terrorized and occupied by the Ottoman Turks. The Bosniaks are mostly descended from Serbs who chose conversion to Islam over death. In the case of Kosovo, it was the medieval heartland of Serbia and most of its population was Serbian until the Ottoman Empire and its Albanian allies squatted and murdered the Serbs out; so how can anyone say that Kosovo is not an integral part of Serbia?
What role should nations, with no connection to a specific conflict, have in that conflict? Who gives them the right to get involved? Who do they think they are?
What we are seeing today is nothing short of imperialism and/or appeasement, for if the West was even truly concerned about policing the world and stopping genocide, it would have sent troops to Rwanda and Sudan. It would’ve taken on Maoist China while those socialist terrorists were sending 100 million of their own people to their deaths – and continues to do so. It would’ve liberated North Korea, which has killed millions of its own people – and continues to do so. It would’ve liberated Cuba. And it would not have joined forces with Islamic terrorists – the very same terrorists who attacked American on 9/11 – as Serbs were bravely defending themselves from the latest battle against Islamic terrorism in a war that has lasted for over 600 years; neither would it have supported Croatia over Serbia, as it is a nation that collaborated with Nazi Germany during WWII and exterminated 800,000 Serbs and tens of thousands of Jews and Gypsies, and in the 1990s, under fascist dictator Franjo Tudjman, it proceeded to finish what it started.
The idea of policing other nations means that there must be a power above other nations. This means that either certain nations will have more "rights" or there should be some sort of world governing body that does so. Of course, this means that national sovereignty would lose its significance. Is this really the road we want to take?
Imagine if a warrant for the arrest of an American citizen could be issued in some country for crimes he or she did not commit there. In fact, there is no need to imagine this because it has already happened. The most recent case actually involves high ranking members of the Bush Administration, who have been indicted by a Spanish court for "torture" – in other words, some leftist judge in Spain is angry that Bush authorized the water boarding and sleep deprivation of a couple hardcore terrorists. What right does Spain have to meddle in American affairs?
What if someone half way around the world fabricated accusations against regular Americans and demanded their prosecution in some "international court"? Most Americans would certainly be outraged. After all, what right do foreigners have in telling America what to do, and especially prosecuting its citizens for crimes they did not even commit in those nations – or in some cases, crimes they did not even commit at all?
This isn’t about justice. This is about the destruction of national sovereignty. The incidents of foreign meddling in sovereign nations in the past sixty years has set precedents that have brought about international courts; all of which will lead to the institution of an organized world court system; followed by a world governing body; followed by a one world government.
Over two hundred and thirty years ago, American colonists grew sick and tired of being governed by a tyrannical regime on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean and they launched a revolution against it. Then, they built a nation – a constitutional republic – which protected individual rights and freedoms, guaranteed security and allowed for the people to be represented in their government. In order to truly protect individual rights, strict limits on the role of federal government were imposed and states were given considerable rights.
Today, not only has America denied the citizens of other harmless nations – in some cases, even friendly nations – the right to self-determination and self-governance, but it is on the verge of allowing foreign nations to deny the American people these very same rights.
Categories: "Freedom go to Hell", America: Red, Red & Red, Anti-Terrorism, Barack Hussein Obama, Big Brother on the March, Capitalism, Christianity, Collectivism vs. Individualism, Communism, Conservatism, Democrats, Demoralization, Divide and Conquer, Equal rights for you, more rights for me, Eurabia, European Soviet Union, Fascism, Fatal Dependency, Freedom isn't Free, Freedom of Speech, Geert Wilders, George W. Bush, Globalism, Hinduism, India, Internationalism, Islam, Israel, Judaism, Leftism, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Minarchism, Naziturkistan, Never Again, New World Order, North Pakistan, One World Socialist Hell, Party for Freedom, Plutocracy, Racism, Religion, Rightism is Right, Serbia, Sharia, Socialism, Terror in the Holy Land, Terrorism, The Axis of Dhimmitude, The Axis of Evil, The Battle of Kosovo 2, The Global Gulag, The Globalist Axis, The Hindu Genocide Continues, The Threat from Within, Theocratic Fascism on the March, United Islamic States, United Socialist States