Israeli Concessions are Seen as Proof Israel is Wrong - Mark Langfan

by Mark Langfan

Concessions are seen as admissions that Israel is wrong, because Arabs do not concede anything in return.

 

Israel must stop acting and thinking as if  “Peace Concessions” buy Israel an ounce of legitimacy.  The reality is that Israel’s “Peace Concessions” only prove to the Muslims, and to the average American viewer, that Israel has no right to exist at all. 

 

Take for instance, a recent speech Israel’s by UN Ambassador Ron Prosor at the UN Security Council.  Ambassador Prosor gave what was an otherwise truly great speech except for one sentence that is directly related to Israel’s Temple Mount-Prayer Ban:  

“Following Israel’s victory in 1967, Israel reunited Jerusalem. Since then, all people – and I mean all people - regardless of religion and nationality can visit the city’s holy sites.

"And while we were victorious and assumed control over all of Jerusalem, Israel extended a hand in peace to the Muslim world.  According to the status quo brokered between Israel and the Waqf, Muslims would enjoy access to pray at their holy sites, while all other religions would be allowed access to the Temple Mount.

"Israel went one step further and decided that Jews would not be allowed to pray on the site.  I want to make sure you understand this. The Temple Mount is Judaism’s holiest place, but we were willing to restrict our own freedoms for the sake of peace.  Can you think of another nation that would make this compromise? Can you think of another religion that would make this sacrifice?”

 

To Ambassador Prosor’s two “rhetorical” questions, the answer is an absolute, definite “no”!  No nation on earth and no religion on earth would ever have agreed not to pray on its holiest site, one that it controlled militarily.  We all agree on that!

It is Ambassador Prosor’s unelucidated logical inference that is the problem. He and all the Israeli “Peace” governments, since Oslo, are under the impression that “because we ‘took this brave’ position and Israel has already sacrificed so much for peace, you all must leave us alone already.” 

 

This is a suicidal delusion. When Jews hear Ambassador Prosor, they think, “Oy, we’ve sacrificed, oy, so much for peace.  Oy, those Arabs.”  But when Muslims hear Ambassador Prosor say “we were willing to restrict our own freedoms for the sake of peace,” they come to the exact opposite conclusion.  Muslims interpret the Temple Mount Jewish Prayer Ban as “You, Israelis, don’t pray on the Temple Mount aka ‘The Noble Sanctuary’ because you, Israelis, know you don’t have any right to pray there.  Therefore, you don’t have a right to be there at all.  Leave now, before we legitimately murder more of you, Israelis, because you are illegal occupiers on our sacred holy site.” 

From the Muslim and any objective observer’s view-point, no government that truly believes its people have the right to pray on the Temple Mount would ever give it up for any purpose, no matter how great.  The Islamic world doesn’t see Israel’s Temple Mount prayer-ban as a “sacrifice for peace,” but as an “admission against interests” that the Temple Mount doesn’t belong to Israel and the Jewish people. 

 

They see it as validating the Palestinian narrative: the Temple Mount is Palestinian, so why should the Palestinians pay for it with any “security” measures that protect Israel?  To Arab thinking, and to others not predisposed to Israel, the real inference from the Ambassador's rhetorical “questions” insures that Israel has already lost its case.

Imagine asking the average American: “Israel doesn’t allow Jews to pray on its holiest site the Temple Mount, but it does allow unlimited Muslim prayer.  Does that mean Israel has a right to the Temple Mount?”  What would any objective person conclude from that?  Anyone would think Israel doesn’t believe it has any right to be there in the first place, otherwise they should do on the Temple Mount whatever they believe they should, especially prayer.  It’s only leftist thinking that makes this statement into a badge of “Peace.”

 

Israel’s entire “Land for Peace” delusion leads to the same results.  Palestinian Arabs and Muslims don’t see the “Peace concessions” that Israelis have conned themselves into believing are “sacrifices.”  Arabs see Israeli concessions as explicit admissions by Israel that Israel doesn’t rightfully belong in Judea and Samaria.  And, who wouldn’t.  

Israel loves to brag about its, “self-restraint” and unilateral “redeployments.”  But, to an objective observer Israel full-scale retreat from Gaza didn’t prove “Israel takes brave risks for Peace.”  It proved to the world and the Arabs that Israel didn’t have the right to Gaza, and hence to Judea and Samaria, for that matter.

And if the Arabs think that Israel made “peace concessions” not due to Israel’s “love of peace,” but because it was afraid the Arabs would get violent, then Israel’s “concessions” have rewarded Arab violence.  And while Israel may fight back here and there, the Arabs see that long-term Arab violence has ultimately successfully forced Israel to unilaterally retreat from everywhere.  So, the Arabs rightly believe Arab violence and extortion are going to work on the Temple Mount and 'West Bank'.  

 

In short, Israeli leaders and diplomats should stop “showing-off” Israeli concessions, and hallucinating that the Israeli concessions make Israel look good.  They just make Israel look like a cheap criminal who wants to cop a plea by coughing off some stolen goods.  Israel’s retreats and concessions weaken Israel and make it look weak.  

Instead, they should ask “Would Washington D.C. allow Muslims in a DC mosque to throw Molotov Cocktails at police?” and “Americans can pray everywhere in America, can’t they?”   For, if Israel loses the Temple Mount, Israel will surely lose Judea and Samaria, and then Tel Aviv proper.  The Temple Mount is truly Israel’s first, and last, line of defense.


Mark Langfan

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/15993#.VGpc98l6h-h

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.