Radical Islam terrorizes the western nations. Nevertheless, western policies create an anger in Middle East Muslims, which is slowly spilling over to worldwide Muslim protest, that compound the threats. A catastrophe that portends the destruction of an indigenous Arab people foments possible worldwide upheavals, assassinations and terrorism as responses from those who feel they have been victimized.  The Middle East nations lack military power, but have economic clout to severely disturb western interests. Oil delivery is a potential weapon. The worldwide investment from petroleum income can be directed to unsettle financial institutions. The growing population and wealth of Middle East nations can be used to prejudice markets. A never ending Israel drive that increases antagonism is producing a fear that a nuclear catastrophe can occur from the clash with Israel's attempt to secure a dominant position in the Middle East.

Should the world's international institutions, including the European Union, take immediate measures and forcibly prevent Israel from accomplishing its purpose?

Middle East leaders don't agree on many issues, but one issue in which they seem to concur is that a just solution of the Israel/Palestinian conflict precedes resolution to other Middle East political problems. Fifty nine percent of the European Community (EU) in a 2003 EU poll selected Israel as the major threat to world peace. Shouldn't the EU listen to its citizens and respond to their pleadings?

What do nations and world authorities recommend when it has been indicated that crimes against humanity, uninterrupted killing and destruction of a community have been documented. United Nations Resolutions, institutional reports and International Court of Justice decisions have agreed that Israel has committed grevious crimes against the Palestinian people. Shouldn't the world's institutions act as they have always proposed to act against severe transgressions on human rights and possible genocide – sanctions, trade embargos, nullification of treaties, denial of economic and social assistance, end of diplomatic relations, support for the oppressed, and war crime tribunals - harsh language for harsh oppression.

The initial injustice was the dispossession by a newly formed Israel government of Palestinian land, bank accounts, businesses and other assets. UN Resolution 181 clearly stated:  No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be paid previous to dispossession.

The constant attempt by Israel authorities to depart from the original UN resolution and create a Jewish state from immigration while ignoring the rights of its Arab citizens aggravates the injustices. Although the UN Resolution characterized the two states as Jewish and Arab, the thrust had a Jewish state initially composed of a Jewish majority and an Arab state initially composed of an Arab majority, and "Persons over the age of eighteen years may opt, within one year from the date of recognition of independence of the State in which they reside, for citizenship of the other State."  The Israel administrations have demonstrated an arrogance and lack of gratitude for the world community's creation of the Israel state. The UN partitioned the land so that the Jews, who composed only 1/3 of the area's population, and most of whom had arrived in the area in the previous 20 years, received 56% of Mandatory Palestine. This included the Negev, which housed few Jews, and which the Zionist claimed they needed for expansion, but have used for military purposes. Samioh K. Farsoun in his classic book: Palestine and Palestinians, P.88, estimated that Jewish and Zionist organizations owned about 24% of the arable land and 7% of the total land. Most Jews lived in the cities of Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem. If the UN proclaimed a Jewish only state and population transfers occurred, the Jews would have had less than ½ of their allotted territory. The Zionists never contemplated transfer of Jews to a Jewish only state – just the opposite – they succeeded in the transfer of Palestinians out of the Jewish state, the incorporation of most of the planned Arab state into the Jewish state and the transfer of almost all Arabs out of their own planned state.

U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the distinction between a state designated as Jewish and a Jewish state when he recognized the new state. The U.S. president changed several words in the original document. The document:

Nations and international institutions behave more responsibly and act more effectively when they recive an impetus from their citizens.  Chauvinism and cultural preference impede many who consider themselves progressive and champions of human rights from recognizing the perilous situation and responding to its tragic appearance. Human rights is not a selective mechanism where wrongs can only occur outside one's camp.  Permitting an oppression to its ultimate conclusion qualifies as permitting any crime, any injustice, any transgression on human life.

The solution starts with each individual recognizing the horrific consequences of the present trajectory of the crisis and being aware of the elements governing it:  

Unproven narratives that are contradicted by history and archaeology are not factors in decisions. Biblical claims, even if true, are not relevant in the 21st century. Nevertheless, history and archaeology contend the biblical narrative that the Hebrews were a significant civilization in the Middle East and that Jews are definitely a common people, all of whom trace their heritage directly from biblical Hebrews.

Solutions to the crisis have always been biased towards consideration of effects on Israel and ignored the catastrophic effects on the Palestinians. The media constantly declares that Hamas will not recognize Israel, which is their right, but does not note that Israel has never recognized Hamas and has always tried to destroy the elected Palestinian leadership.

Stateless and displaced Palestinians cannot continue languishing in refugee camps in Lebanon as non-citizens and in Syria as limited citizens. Isn't the right of return for dispossessed persons a legitimate right that is protected by UN General Assembly Resolution 194?

Religious extremists cannot have a role in resolution of the crisis. The Religious Right and Jewish extremists who quote prophecy to validate their positions cannot objectively seek a solution; they can only impede a solution.

Justice must prevail and injustices corrected. Isn't that a given in the civilized world?

The solution evolves from the world governments and its citizens understanding the choices and forcing a decision. The international community has the choice of forcing Israel to return to the nation that the United Nations declaration intended or allowing an eventual destruction of the Palestinian people and worldwide disturbances. The former choice resolves the crisis. The latter choice provokes it forever. The provocation divides the world into those who want to preserve life and those who don't care if they lose their soul.

Recommend this article...

Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:

Be first to comment this article

Write Comment

Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed. Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button. Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
BBCode:
Comment:
Code:*
	I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4