A new article by Erik Arnold:
“As the Constellation roared into the dark toward teeming Asia, I heard excited voices discussing Palestine.
“No matter what they do, they won’t be able to keep the Jews off that agenda,” a man said.
“Whether they let us raise the question of Jewish aggression or not, we are going to raise it!”another man shouted.
“Their crimes will not be covered up–The Jews are the greatest racists on earth and I’ll prove it!” a dark faced man with a thin moustache shouted above the roar of the plane’s four engines…
“What are these?” I asked.
“Photos of Arab refugees driven by Jews out their homes!” he said. “There are nine hundred thousand of them, homeless, starving…”
“Are you a delegate to the Asian-African conference?” I asked him.
“No. I’m a journalist.
“Is Palestine coming up for discussion at Bandung?” I asked.
“We are going to raise it,” he swore. “The world must know what has been done! It’s our duty to make the world know…”…
Though the conversation about the alleged aggression of the Jews in Palestine raged up and down the aisles of the plane, I could hear but little of it; all I could make out was that the Jews would come under sharp and bitter attack at Bandung, and that they had enemies who had a case and knew how to present that case at the bar of world opinion…
I recalled that six million Jews had been gassed, hounded, slaughtered, and burned by German Hitlerites, and I knew that that people, hapless and haunted, had yet more suffering and trials to bear in this world.
(Richard Wright, The Color Curtain, 1956, pgs.76-78)
The above passage, written by the American author Richard Wright just prior to the start of the Bandung Conference of Non-Aligned Nations held in April, 1955, could as easily have been written by someone today; the aforementioned gathering was the precursor of what may be termed “The New Imperialism”, an attempt by Third World nations to impose their collective will in a way that they couldn’t do on an individual basis. The danger that this new imperialism, along with its reinvigorated European counterpart, poses to Israel is very grave indeed.
It has now become common practice for Western European governments, with ample backing from the underdeveloped nations, to apply a universal standard of law in judging and punishing both individuals and states deemed guilty of “crimes against humanity.” What this law really consists of, or what universally objective touchstone is used as its base, however, is a mystery. In an era when the idea of “diversity” in every way, shape, and form is being constantly championed, the notion of a supra-national law applicable in all countries and circumstances seems somewhat contradictory.
Nevertheless, the individual found “guilty” by these governments and their transnational representatives, such as the Hague Court, is liable to be seized, tried, and, if found culpable, imprisoned if and when he sets foot on European soil. An impressive list has already been compiled that includes everybody from Bosnian Serb generals to ex-Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. Israeli political figures, and indeed the entire State of Israel, seem poised to join the roster in the near future.
Ominous signs are already on the horizon, and they have been growing more sinister from year to year. In 2001 the European witch hunt against Prime Minister Ariel Sharon began in earnest. According to the British television program Panorama, Sharon bore direct responsibility for the 1982 massacre of Muslims by their Christian Arab brethren. The fact that an Israeli commission of inquiry held at the time found him only indirectly responsible, as well as his successful libel suite against Time Magazine regarding similar charges, apparently was irrelevant to the show’s producers. The Prime Minister also faced the possibility of being indicted by a Belgian court on the same charges.
Yet another example involved the hysteria over the appointment of ex-Shin Bet head Carmi Gillon as ambassador to Denmark, with the concomitant threat of his arrest and trial when he arrived in that country. Current defense minister Shaul Mofaz faced a similar problem later when he made a visit to London.
Among organizations representing the collective world community the situation is much the same. The United Nations’ poor record regarding both Jews and Israel, with its consistently pro-Arab bias, is too well known to require further elucidation. The Durban Conference on Racism, where Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, in the very midst of a brutal purge of white farmers from his realm, was given a standing ovation, saw fit to condemn the Jewish State as bigoted and oppressive. The recent Hague Court verdict against Israel’s security fence, with the possibility of coercive measures being used to enforce this ruling, is just the latest in a uniform pattern of accumulated antagonism. There is no telling where it will end.
Perhaps the entire Jewish population of Israel will be put on trial for “crimes” committed by its citizen soldiers; most Jews serve in the army, therefore, there is no reason why the New Universal Law cannot find fault with them as well. These attitudes are reinforced by prejudicial thinking that depicts Zionism as a kind of precursor to Nazism. For instance, a passage on Theodor Herzl in the Spanish-language Enciclopedia Alfabetica reads as follows:
…Impresionado por el proceso a Dreyfus, reclamo la creacion de un estado judio que debia basarse en la pureza racial de sus ciudadanos.
(Impressed by the Dreyfus trial, he demanded the creation of a Jewish State that would base itself on the racial purity of its citizens.) Enciclopedia Alfabetica, 1994, volume 5).
That the cosmopolitan Viennese Herzl, who envisioned an important role for Arabs in his Jewish State, could be depicted in such a completely false light leads to the conclusion of either complete ignorance or deliberate distortion on the writer’s part.
Europe’s desire for Israeli cession of territory to the Arabs is somewhat similar to its treatment of the “Sudeten German Question” of the thirties.
In the one instance as in the other, the imperial nations blithely moved ahead with “peace plans” while lacking all understanding of the realities of each situation. Their simplistic views of immediate solutions to complicated circumstances only served to further inflame those problems they sought to allay.
Czechoslovakia’s German minority, complaining of alleged mistreatment and discrimination at the hands of the Czech majority, made increasingly stronger demands for political and cultural autonomy which began to threaten the integrity of the Czech state. These charges were soon followed by acts of terrorism and general political violence. As the Great Democratic Powers of France and Britain decided it was better to placate Hitler and Sudeten leader Konrad Henlein rather than risk an “escalation” in the area, it was agreed at Munich to give the Sudetenlad to the Reich. Czech President Benes was not even invited to be present at his country’s dismemberment. Not long afterwards, the bulk of the now hyphenated rump state of Czecho-Slovakia was annexed directly to Germany. Thus was the most politically and economically advanced of the Eastern European states sacrificed on the altar of Chamberlain’s “peace in our time.”
The “New Imperialism” of the Third World is basically an attempt by these countries to flex their joint muscles, whether it be at international forums, such as the U.N., or assemblies on the level of Bandung and Durban.
In each one of these cases, Israel is always one of the prime topics for discussion. These parleys are used as arenas for Third World nations to play on the West’s bad conscience, to tap into its still very much extant anti-Semitism, and to raise the specter, as after the Yom Kippur War of 1973, of a world oil embargo.
Zionism is conveniently denounced as an Occidental subterfuge, ignoring the fact that half of Israel’s Jews have roots in the Middle East and that all Jews have a longer historical connection with the land than any other group. The Arab role in the mass Jewish exodus from the Muslim world to Palestine is never dealt with; thus, the Arabs escape all responsibility.
It is much easier for them to be self-righteous than to deal with their own numerous sins.