The magnitude of the number of victims in the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023 tempts people to react with similar wrong decisions as after the New York attack on September 11, 2001. Terrorism as an expression of bitter rebellion should not be confused with regular war which can be ended by using military means. If you force yourself to keep a cool mind despite the atrocities that have been committed, you will realize that it is not the military effectiveness of the October 7th attack that threatens Israel's existence, but the unsolved problem of terrorism. Things were different in the four previous Arab-Jewish wars of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973. In each of them, Israel was only able to prevent genocide thanks to its outstanding military fighting ability, while the Arabs had proclaimed the motto to “throw the Jews into the sea.” In these four wars, the Jewish state asserted itself completely alone and within a short period of time against a large numerical superiority. – On the military level, the fight for Palestine is decided. Therefore, the military aid now spontaneously offered by Western governments is absolutely misplaced and distracts from the actual causes of the problem. History has shown that the liberation or defense of a country by U.S. military regularly involved escalation, excessive delay, maximum collateral damage, and civilian casualties, while euphemistic reporting hid these true circumstances. The present military aid to Israel is in absurd contradiction to the dwindling moral support provided by the media, which instead uncritically publishes absurd comparisons to apartheid and “overlooks” the Western financing of anti-Semitic forces. The fake aid confirms the finding that Israel is being led by the MIC militarists on the same doubly suicidal course on which the other Western nations are currently heading towards World War III in Ukraine. This path consists of unforgiving militarism and its very opposite, appeasement On May 15, 2023, Nakba Day for the Palestinians for the first time was celebrated in the UN. The 700,000 Arab victims of displacement who had lost their homes 75 years earlier were commemorated. May 15, 1948, the day after the proclamation of the State of Israel, was a day of attack – however not by Israel on Arab citizens, but by six Arab states on the approximately 600,000 Jewish settlers at the time. Israel won this very hard war, but had to fight for its existence again in each of the following decades, namely in 1956, 1967 and 1973. According to the old rules of war, the dispute over Palestine would have been over and the clear winner could have finally created a more stable post-war order. But with the entire Arab League, the UN and various Western organizations behind them, the Palestinian side continues to refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist. The EU and other Western donors support this destabilizing attitude by, among other things, continually filling the coffers of the Palestinian Authority. From there, regular payments are made to terrorists imprisoned in Israel and to the families of suicide bombers - based on the motto "pay for slay" - payment for slaughter. The openly celebrated veneration of violent perpetrators as martyrs illustrates the Western-supported “moral” psychological environment in which terrorism thrives. School lessons in the refugee camps cared by UNRWA, also contribute to this, as anti-Israel and anti-Semitic inflammatory propaganda is an integral part of the curricula there. – “Of course” UNRWA, like the entire UN, is mainly financed by the West. The devastating Western interference in the Middle East conflict is still based - apart from a lack of psychological understanding - on insufficient knowledge of the historical context. Reference https://www.frieden-freiheit-fairness.com/en/book/chapter/staged-middle-east-conflict Israel's legal position is clear, based, firstly, on the League of Nations' Mandate Treaty of 1922, which is valid under international law, and secondly, on the right of self-defense (enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter) of a community threatened with genocide by its neighbors. Nevertheless, Palestinians make territorial claims, citing the UN's 1947 partition plan for Palestine. However, this was rejected by the Arab population in a referendum and therefore, and due to the military use of force that followed in 1948, could not achieve legal effect. Therefore, the legal basis for Israel and Palestine as a whole is formed by the Mandate Treaty of June 1922 between the League of Nations and Great Britain, as a result of the First World War. It obliges the mandatory power to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Within the framework of this Jewish community, the civil and religious rights of Arabs are guaranteed. The continued revanchist non-recognition of the Jewish homeland does not harm the Israeli legal position - but it does harm the Arab one. Because this is only protected within the framework of the Jewish homeland by the mandate treaty - an Arab-dominated Palestine does not appear in it. The Jewish settlers who set out for Palestine did so on the basis of permanent legality and not to abandon their historically reestablished community a little more than 100 years after the mandate treaty. Nevertheless, today's moral criticism of the legal situation created by the League of Nations in 1922, would have some justification if the Arab-populated countries had not themselves been involved in the First World War. But they took advantage of the unique historic opportunity to rebel against Ottoman rule alongside Great Britain. Since the Turks had always been more eager to adopt advanced European forms of organization and armament technologies, the Arabs had no chance of freeing themselves from this foreign rule on their own. As a result of World War I, with some delay, all Arab countries received their state independence. Overall, the pact with Great Britain brought freedom for the Arabs from Turkish rule with the downside of the Jewish homeland project in Palestine. This affected less than 0.2% of the Arab territories and was known to everyone involved since the Balfour Declaration of 1917. Yet polarizing Western forces have prevented the intended Jewish Palestine from coexisting in harmony with Arabs within and beyond its borders. These were the Arab League, the UN (which is actually committed to neutrality), western media (for which the same applies) and western politicians (who have reason to show solidarity with the Jewish state) and thousands of NGOs (which claim to be charitable). But first of all, it was the British government that neglected or counteracted ist obligations under the 1922 treaty. Instead of encouraging Jewish immigration as requested, ever new restrictions were placed on land purchases and immigration, so that the demographic transition to a Jewish majority was bound to fail. The lack of physical assistance and moral support for the legitimate project of a Jewish homeland understandably encouraged the Arab residents to resist (including in uprisings of 1936-1939).Since Israel's independence, a polarizing atmosphere of doubt about Israel's legal status has been cultivated in Western politics, the media and charities.The tenor of media commentary shifted from previously cautiously pro-Israel to neutral to now often flagrantly anti-Israel. Even in respected newspapers such as the New York Times, anti-Zionist articles ignore the correct legal position of the Jewish state. According to psychological rules, uncritical support for Palestinian claims does not lead to moderation and understanding, but to radicalization. The growing terrorism therefore has its actual origin in the historically and psychologically blind media environment of the West, which serves the self-image of abused victims among Palestinians and thus provides “moral” support for revanchist rebellion, perpetual hatred, resistance and violence. Israeli politics is by no means innocent of the tensions - but here too, Western influence is proving to be a decisive destructive factor. After the clear military decision in the Six-Day War in 1967 against the numerical superiority of four Arab countries, Israel had the opportunity, despite the extremely unfair UN intervention (Resolution 242, see https://www.frieden-freiheit-fairness.com/en/book/chapter/staged-middle-east-conflict), to establish a clear and final territorial order in Palestine - either with the conciliatory solution of a Palestinian state in the West Bank or with the hard solution of expelling all Palestinians who were not willing to recognize Israel. The latter theoretical consideration shocks, must shock. However, from a neutral perspective that is not influenced by the Western media environment, this spontaneous rejection is put into perspective: Citizens who are “informed” in the Western environment are usually not aware that after the war of 1948 and the Six-Day War of 1967, almost all Jews living in Arab countries were expelled from there - a total of over 800,000. Israel took in most of them and integrated them immediately. This was a unilateral step towards a population exchange, to which Israel could also have reacted with expulsion - in response to the lack of the minimum compatibility for a prosperous coexistence. Israel's renunciation of the rough solution of a mirror-image expulsion of Palestinians has been kept out of the political consciousness of Western citizens. – This meant that for decades the great opportunity to calm emotions by pointing to Israel's conciliatory gesture remained unused. Instead, time was able to work against a peaceful, permanent solution by keeping another fundamental fact outside media attention - the ongoing violation of the principle of responsibility, especially self-responsibility. When 700,000 Arabs fled or were expelled from Palestine in 1948, the Arab countries took in some of the refugees, but refused to allow them to integrate into their societies. On the contrary, later mass expulsions occurred in several countries - Reference - highly recommended! - https://www.meforum.org/ 3391/kuwait-expels-palestinians - A comparison helps to correctly assess this strikingly concerted refusal: After WW II, West Germany (whose area is less than 2% of that of the Arab countries combined) took in around 15 times as many refugees from the lost East and fully integrated them within a few years. With their refusal, Israel's Arab neighbors shirked responsibility for the consequences of a war that they themselves had triggered. However, this irresponsible behavior was only made possible by supposedly good Western interference, which can be identified (but actually is not!) as appeasement.Instead of (if at all) supporting the Arab host countries of the refugees in integrating them into their societies and labor markets, the UN subsidiary organization UNRWA set up around 50 refugee camps, which continue to expand to this day. A good 700,000 refugees in 1948 have now become around 6 million recognized refugees. This increase has an organizational and a psychosocial reason. The organizational aspect is that UNRWA allows refugee status to be inherited, i.e. it considers the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those who fled at the time as refugees. The psychosocial reason lies in the lack of personal responsibility that comes with supervised camp life. This environment provides no incentive for birth control, as observations in other refugee camps around the world confirm. On the contrary, rapid demographic growth is often seen as a means of generating political pressure, i.e. using demographics as a weapon. In 1948, UNRWA took on a responsibility that was not its due and, since the wave of refugees in 1948, it has failed to place this responsibility back into the hands of the people it cares for. There was also failure on the part of Israeli politics. The problematic demographic trend was known, but its connection to the factor of self-responsibility remained fatally ignored.Therefore, in 1967, a Palestinian state was not established, which would have given the Arab population, along with sovereignty, responsibility for their group territory and for themselves. There were and are unjustified security concerns in Israel about an independent Palestinian state. Because if the rules of dealing with external war opponents are consistently applied, a militarily clearly superior state has nothing to fear. These rules have always included the risk that an attacker would have to cede territory in the case of defeat. Thus the annexation of the Golan Heights, condemned by the UN, was a border correction that was necessary in terms of security strategy after incessant shelling of the Galilee. It was morally justified and, given its extent (less than 1% of Syria's area), restrained. When the USA intervened in the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait in 1991, two only marginally democratic states, one of the “incidental” consequences of the Iraqi invasion and American liberation of Kuwait was that around 400,000 Palestinians who had been integrated there fled, others were expelled under the pretext of complicity with the Iraqis - further homeless Palestiniansfor further moral pressure on Israel. Remarkably, this second Nakba received no media attention. But keeping important information out of focus and presenting others with highly exaggerated and biased comments is propaganda, or more accurately an information war against one's own Western nations, including Israel's. In this war by other means against the (still) free democratic nations, two anti-strategies are being pursued. One of them is the suicidal appeasement policy towards the Arab world, which is mainly propagated by supposedly left-wing media. The second anti-strategy represents a supposedly consistent pursuit of national interests, which, however, is led on a suicidal militaristic course under the influence of forces lacking solidarity, which polarizes and destroys reputations. This generally concerns the supposed defense of national interests through tough actions that do not help Israel in the matter but convey an unforgiving message. A simple example is the practice of destroying homes of terrorist families, which can only cause further hatred. It was equally counterproductive to refuse - with strong American support - to recognize Hamas's democratic election victory in the Gaza Strip in 2006 because it is classified as a terrorist group - but as a result of such measures it must remain so. The establishment and expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, which is devastating to Israel's reputation, is also largely financed by billion-dollar American, supposedly pro-Israel NGOs. The action massively violates the law discovered by Niccolo Machiavelli that harsh measures against rivals must always be applied within a very short time, otherwise resistance will be triggered instead of the desired respect. In addition, the mix of new Jewish settlements between existing Palestinian settlements with fences and walls in between offers a target for the growing group of critics who defame Israel as an “apartheid state”. The fact that the separation systems are necessary as protection against attacks is lost in the perceptual perception of media consumers. The outcome of this “moral” dispute is already certain without a restoration of media fairness. - This is already proven by the fact that citizens do not learn anything in the mainstream media about the Palestinian settlements in Area C, which are being constructed in violation of the Oslo II agreement and are financed by the EU. Not only the left-wing political approach, which amounts to endlessly complient appeasement towards the Arabs, is proving to be unsuitable for the future, but also the right-wing approach with settlements in the West Bank without a final, border-shortening territorial order. Israel has the legitimate legal position to establish such an order on its own, namely...
1. the claim of the Jewish state to the entire territory of Palestine as part of the post-war order of the First World War
2. the right to a unilaterally declared post-war order as the winner of 1967, after the UN failed in this function with its rights-bending Resolution 242
3. 56 years or two generations after the 6-Day War and now again under Arab attack, Israel should sum up that its renunciation of the expulsion of the Palestinians as a reaction to the expulsion of almost all Jews from Arab countries was not valued by the Arab side was – “thanks” to the mainstream media.
4. The Jewish state should spread this historical truth and demonstrated conciliatory spirit throughout the world.
5. A warning message must be sent to UNRWA pointing out its massive violations of the principle of self-responsibility. This organization bears responsibility for the original 700,000 refugees, who have become around 6 million due to the birth surplus, until having returned it to the refugees or to the Arab states responsible for four wars against Israel.
6. It should be made clear that self-responsibility includes, in particular, the responsibility for a demographic balance within the available territory as well as in coexistence with other population groups living there.
7. According to UN Resolution 446 of 1979, the “substantial change in the demographic composition” in a territory constitutes an impairment of the rights of other groups that should be warned against. This view was also expressed in Resolution 677 of 1990.
8. A democratic Palestinian state, to be established immediately (if necessary through a unilateral declaration by Israel), must be obliged to accept those Palestinians who are not prepared to integrate into Israeli society.
9. Likewise, the British Government and His Majesty should be reminded that the obligations of the 1922 Mandate Treaty remain unfulfilled.The withdrawal from this treaty in May 1948 had no legal effect because the British Parliament was unable to release the United Kingdom from its international obligations by passing the “Palestine Bill” of April 29, 1948.
10. The latter continue to exist to the Jewish people, who are still suffering from the consequences of the breach of duty at that time. Any possible acceptance of the April 1948 treaty revocation by the UN remains of no legal relevance, as the preamble to its own charter proclaims that it aims “ to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained…”
11. After the end of WW I in 1918, the British government was responsible for managing a post-war order that was correct and stable under international law.Considering the Balfour Declaration of 1917, according to which a national Jewish homeland was to be established in Palestine, the task primarily consisted in a clear demarcation between Jewish and Arab rights and interests.The conditions were perfect for this, as Great Britain's sphere of influence also included the Arab neighboring countries to the east and southwest of Palestine, in particular Egypt.
12. At the psychological-diplomatic level, carrying out this task had required making it clear to the Arab representatives that the price for their liberation from Ottoman rule included to sustain the Jewish homeland. It was therefore a serious violation of the Balfour Declaration to grant Egypt independence in February 1922 without obliging it to accept the emerging Jewish national homeland. The same applies to the independence of Iraq in 1932 and Transjordan in 1946, which also violated the Mandate Treaty of 1922.
13. This appeasement policy led to the attack by six Arab countries on the newly founded state of Israel in 1948 - and to the Nakba