Why truth beats diplomacy

It is time for Israel to break with British and American insistence on appeasement

By Melanie Phillips, March 18, 2010

The Obama administration's fury at Israel over the "insult to the US" of building more homes in east Jerusalem has provoked what is described as the worst crisis in US-Israel relations for more than three decades.

Leave aside, for the moment, the notable absence of "insult to the US" caused by the Palestinian Authority a day or so later, when it named a square after a terrorist "martyr" who not only slaughtered dozens of Israelis, but also in 1978 murdered the American niece of a US Democratic senator.

Leave aside also the fact that the US had previously expressly agreed with Israel that it would continue building in east Jerusalem while stopping building in the West Bank, an agreement for which it was warmly praised by Hillary Clinton.

Let us instead stand back and look at the underlying premise of what the US and the rest of the West are saying to Israel. For the most astonishing thing is how Israel meekly plays along with a vicious and quite hallucinatory farce.

Consider: Israel is the victim of six decades of uninterrupted aggression from its Arab neighbours. Yet, unlike in any other conflict on the planet, it is required to make territorial concessions to its attackers, even as they continue to attack it. Anywhere else, this would be seen as forcing a victim to surrender. Anywhere else, the claims of aggressors are deemed to be forfeit through their behaviour. So why does Israel go along with these unique demands that it should reward its enemies?

Why does Israel go along with these unique demands for it to reward its enemies?

It is Israel alone that has ever made territorial concessions to those enemies. Yet it is Israel alone that the US and the rest insist must make still more. Yet they make no such requirement of the Palestinians who repeat they will never accept the existence of a Jewish state. So why does Israel go along with this appeasement process?

The US and the rest blame Israel for thwarting a two-state solution. But the reason the two-state solution has not been achieved is that, from the beginning, this was a two-state problem.

Two states were indeed provided in 1920 when Churchill split land already promised to the Jews by giving three quarters of Palestine to the Arabs to create Jordan.

The world community ordained that, within the remainder - what is present-day Israel and the West Bank and Gaza - the Jews should be "closely settled" to re-establish their national homeland.

The Arabs refused to accept this two-state solution. When they turned to terrorism to destroy the nascent Jewish state, instead of holding the line for law and justice, the British offered them half of what remained of Palestine. They refused it then and have done so ever since, because their real aim remains unchanged: one state of Palestine, with Israel destroyed.

I have a revolutionary suggestion to break the Middle East logjam. It is that Israel stops going along with the diplomatic fictions and starts telling the world some home truths. Such as that America and Britain are still doing today what the British have done from the start - rewarding the Arabs for their aggression against the Jews and thus providing rich incentives for the terror to continue.

Such as that, if any country has torn up international law in the Middle East, it is Britain, which reneged on its legal obligation to settle Jews in Palestine while turning a blind eye to illegal Arab immigration.

Such as that, while America and Britain continue to reward and incentivise Arab aggression against Israel, they are the reason the conflict continues without end.

There can never be peace without justice, and there can never be justice without truth. As the Obama administration throws Israel under the bus, should not Israel finally rip away the camouflage to reveal the true ugliness of its false "friends"?

Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist

Last updated: 4:51pm, May 21 2010


Peter Simon

Tue, 03/30/2010 - 00:32

Rate this:

0 points

'... while turning a blind eye to illegal Arab immigration.' Again, she peddles the myth that Palestinians are immigrants to the land, attempting effectively to airbrush them from their own history. The only immigrants are the Jews who continue to arrive pursuant to the racial supremacist 'Law of Return'.

As for ceding territory, Israel will continue to expand its borders - however gradually - given that its whole intellectual basis lies in Jewish religious fundamentalism, in particular the Abrahamic Covenant - the dream of [or put less romantically: the self-righteous belief in entitlement to] a land between the Euphrates and the Nile. As Israel gains in power - and it is now by far the most powerful country in the Middle East, especially militarily - it will become ever more assertive, indeed arrogant, with America, Britain and anyone else who stands in the way.

Melanie Phillips will get her wish unless and until the world acts in concert to halt this evil ideology.


Tue, 03/30/2010 - 10:44

Rate this:

0 points

Peter Simon asserts a number of things here that I must wholeheartedly disagree with:

a) Israel will continue to expand its borders

Israel's borders have not changed since the 1973 Yom Kippur war when it was attacked by Egypt and Syria and subsequently annexed the Golan Heights. Given the size of Israel (including the disputed territories) your assertion that Israel "expands its borders" is laughable and nonsensical.

b) Settlement movement is based on religious fundamentalism

Well if true, given the choice between one form of religious fundamentalism that drives people to murder civilians and commit terrorist atrocities, and another that drives people to build homes in the desert, it is not a difficult moral choice as to which one should triumph.

The settler movement is not an "evil ideology" Peter, it is peoples' wish to live in the land that they consider to be their cultural heritage. You may not agree with that desire, and you may not think it is justified. However, it is one thing to take sides on who is morally entitled to live on that land (personally I think you have no right to make that judgement) - to call peoples' desire to live their "evil" is twisted and sick. Perhaps when you are looking for evil you should first look in the mirror Peter.

c) Israel is the most powerful country in the Middle East.

On what metric do you base this fact? Population? Military size? Economic output? Regional influence? International influence? Land size? Natural resources?

You do realise that the "Middle East" is not just Israel and the disputed territories don't you?

You have heard of Saudi Arabia haven't you Peter? If not I kindly suggest you buy yourself an Atlas, or easier still hop over to Google Maps.


You must be logged in to post a comment.