Jerusalem Declaration [Archives:2004/762/Opinion]

On October 12-14, 2003, the International Zionist Movement and their neo-conservative friends from Israel, the United States and elsewhere got together at the King David Hotel, Jerusalem to lay out their vision for the world over the next era. Needless to say, it is now Israel that is actually determining the course of the world and what American foreign policy and the policies of many other states should be based on, as our friend Richard Melson of the United States stated in his editorial contribution to Al-Jazeera English version on the Web on August 1, 2004, and who was kind enough to send us the text of the “Jerusalem Declaration”.
The conference, which included speakers from the United States, Israel and other countries, all of whom are well known for their sympathy to the Zionist cause or their advocacy for the Zionist cause in the United States and elsewhere, dealt with a number of topics. Many are significantly well placed political dignitaries or academicians. All the themes discussed were meant to show that the International Zionist Movement is in a position to dictate to the world the course that the international community should follow. In addition the declaration that came out of the so-called “Summit”, the “Jerusalem Declaration” unabashedly ensured that such course fully corresponds with Zionist goals and aspirations, irrespective of the impact on the others that should follow along with this hate filled agenda. (Full text could be obtained in Al-Jazeera web site (Archives of August 1, 2004)
The overriding tone of the Jerusalem Declaration is that the world should brace itself for the war against what it calls “Radical Islam”, and actually equates “Radical Islam with the “challenges” confronted by the “civilized” west, namely Communism and Fascism, which the West has defeated before. (Zionists view all forms of institutionalized or politicized Islam as radical). Moreover, the Declaration sets out a new world order, which, for all intents and purposes does away with the United Nations, all the international organizations that advocate for human rights and humanitarian behavior (including the Red Cross / Red Crescent, though not citing names outright but the implication is clear) and even all the international conventions and tribunals that have been painstakingly set up to bring some semblance of international regulations: “Existing international organizations provide virtually no effective moral compass”. According to the Declaration, a new world “Council of Civilizations” is to be set up which includes only the “principal civilizations” (Europe, the United States, Latin America, etc) It is not clear why Latin America should be given this prominence. The UN should only concern itself with “humanitarian functions”, and leave everything else to the COC is what the Declaration says.
On the other hand, the key to the harmony for this new COC should be, guess what? Israel, of course! “Israel's unique spiritual experience enables it to find a golden mean between the fault of lines dividing civilizations: between tradition and modernity, religion and science, authority and democracy”. In fact, if Israel is destroyed by “Radical Islam”, says the declaration, ” there will never be peace, and Western civilization will fall to Jihad as well”.
On the practical side, the declaration has done away with a Palestinian state altogether: “Supporting the creation of a PLO state in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank and Gaza have no existence in Zionist literature) is a historical injustice of colossal proportion”. The Declaration therefore calls on the COC to “Encourage Israel to establish full sovereignty throughout the land of Israel”.
In possible anticipation of Mr. George W. Bush no longer leading the world in the “War on Terror” or, if elected, give someone else a try, “We call on the government of Israel to provide moral leadership to the world in the struggle against terror” (Mind you, major speakers at the Conference included Mr. Richard Perle, member of the Defense Policy Board and a neo-con icon!). Can you imagine Israel actually being the source of moral guidance to the world? If that is not the biggest farce, both from a historical perspective (Israel's history is less than sixty years) and its horrendous track record of continuous persecution of an entire indigenous people it has uprooted from their domicile for thousands of years, then what is?
Amidst a number of meaningless general phrases, cliches and justifications, the declaration sets out the right directions the world should take in various fields, political [“the ideology of Jihad must be declared a form of racism and genocide (i.e. there is no legitimacy to resistance to Israeli occupation)]”, military (collateral damage is sanctioned if it means wiping out terrorists in the midst of civilians); economical [oil money should be used towards “dismantling the so-called refugee camps, which are currently the hotbeds of terrorists (i.e. for relocating the Palestinians that are in the West Bank and Gaza, most of whom are or will be living in refugee camps, as Israel continues its ongoing systematic ethnic obliteration of the Palestinian communities); media (“We are appalled by the media attempts to establish moral equivalence” between the blood of innocents murdered by terrorists and the casualties among civilians used by terrorists as a protective shield”); academia (“we must reject moral relativism and confront “anti-Zionism” on Western campuses). Zionist advocates are now insisting that anti-Zionism is synonymous with anti-Semitism.
In conclusion, the Declaration stresses that the West's Defense of Israel from “radical Islam is the West's only hope for survival, otherwise Jihadists will prevail and the West will be doomed”. While much of the Declaration lacks any real valid arguments and elaborations as to how this War against “Radical” Islam is to be waged, it nevertheless does emphasize that Israel should provide the guiding light. It also suggests the right of the COC to foment revolution in Islamic countries “to do away with dictatorships”, etc, while this would not be so imperative for non-Moslem dictatorships, including those of Africa and Latin America. So brace yourself world, as Jerusalem becomes the operations room for a new era of international chaos. The International Zionist Movement need not work behind the scenes ior through its network of powerful lobbies in determining the “Games Nations Play”. For all intents and purposes the Road Map to Peace is over and done with, and the world will just never be the same again!

A Reply to Mr. Samawi
Dear Br. F. Samawi
Thank you very much for your interest in the YT and the regretfully declining interest in my column. No harm done, one cannot please all. However I would like to point out that the “freedom of the press” is quite restricted as it does not allow us to mention names or specifics, as much as we would certainly like to. From time to time, Common Sense still does look at domestic matters pro and con, as well as other themes other than Mr. Bush. However, it is imperative that we make the outside world understand the general public mood vis a vis the policies of the United States, which have a strong influence on the regional scene. Needless to say, Mr. Bush has done quite a lot that has shaken the stability of the region and created a lot of uncertainty about its future. There are a lot of American readers who have expressed an eagerness to know the views of the people in the region, including those of Yemenis, from both the pro Bush camp and the anti-Bush camp. For your information, I can cite two American regular op-ed columnists of the New York Times, Paul Krugman and Maureen Dawod, and all they ever write about is George W. Bush and his domestic and international fumbles. I can assure you “press freedom' in Iraq is not all that free either (remember Bremer's order to close down the Hawza newspaper of Muqtada Al-Sadr and I am not at liberty to discuss the extent of press freedom in Palestine, but I could imagine it to be more freer than most of the Arab States. Thanks for your feedback anyway
(By the way, a direct response was sent to address you gave, but it came back saying addressee unknown!)
Regards.
——
[archive-e:762-v:13-y:2004-d:2004-08-09-p:opinion]