18 Novembre 2003

[On demande des volontaires (compétents) pour traduire les deux très importants articles qu’A. Soued joint à son article (voir plus bas). Contacter cje@pi.be avant de commencer la traduction.]


Peu de gens en dehors d'Israël ont lu l'intégralité des "accords de Genève". Et même en Israël, c'est grâce à une diffusion insolite de ce document de plusieurs dizaines de pages (70) à l'ensemble de la population, que certains ont pu le lire. Mais tout le monde n'est pas juriste, même si "nul n'est censé ignorer la loi"; ainsi, si un jour, par malheur ou par crédulité des Israéliens, ce document devient réalité, ses auteurs pourront dire "pourtant on vous l'avait distribué à domicile!"

C'est vrai, et selon de simples calculs, cette opération de distribution à domicile aura coûté plus de 20 millions d'euros, payés par l'Europe… Cette Europe, qui paye déjà Yossi Beilin depuis fort longtemps, pour le maintenir à flot, artificiellement, malgré ses déboires politiques et électoraux en Israël, pourquoi a-t-elle tant de sollicitude?

La journaliste du Jerusalem Post, qui a couvert la guerre d'Irak, Caroline Glick s'est penchée sur la question, a analysé la situation et elle constate qu'Israël est "immolé" par l'Europe sur l'autel de la réconciliation politique avec les Etats-Unis. Je m'explique. "Les affinités entre la culture européenne et celle des Etats-Unis sont plus fortes que leurs dissensions; et si on résolvait la principale dissension, qui concerne l'existence d'Israël, tout rentrerait dans l'ordre". Israël pourrait donc retrouver sa place du "bouc émissaire" de la réconciliation Europe-Etats-Unis. Et comment? En appliquant les accords de Genève. N'oubliez pas que le Département d'Etat américain et C. Powell y sont favorables, mais pas George Bush, pour le moment.

Alors que disent les accords de Genève?

Tant Caroline Glick qu'Arno Weinstein ont analysé ce document juridique, qui risque de devenir, un jour, "la loi". C'est un document difficile à lire, et malgré toute ma bonne volonté, je ne l'ai pas lu entièrement. En scrutant simplement quelques points essentiels, on découvre un complot de grande envergure, confirmé par les deux journalistes cités qui ont tout lu et tout analysé et dont les articles en anglais suivent.

- Retour aux frontières du 4 juin 1967, avec des modifications territoriales sur la base 1/1, comme si Israël n'avait jamais été agressé depuis sa création (Israël renoncerait, pour la première fois dans les accords internationaux, à son droit de conquête, alors qu’il a été agressé à plusieurs reprises).
- Israël est responsable de la réinstallation de ses ressortissants, qui seraient obligés de déménager, et il reconnaît le statut de réfugiés au peuple palestinien et les droits qui en découlent! On ne parle nulle part des 900.000 juifs chassés des pays arabes manu militari, et ayant perdu tous leurs biens, et on reconnaît un certain droit au retour des Palestiniens! De plus, on ajoute des dizaines de milliers de nouveaux déplacés juifs!
- On créera un "couloir" entre Gaza et la Cisjordanie, qui coupera Israël en deux!
- Les arrangements de sécurité sont garantis par une force multinationale, ce qui mettrait Israël, pieds et poings liés, entre les mains de l'Onu, et lui enlèverait toute souveraineté sur son territoire, en lui octroyant un statut de "protégé par mandat de la société des Nations"!
- La souveraineté sur le Mont du Temple et sur une grande partie de Jérusalem est donnée à l'Etat palestinien qui en assurera lui-même la sécurité (on ne demande pas l'avis des Chrétiens, ni des Musulmans qui souhaitent rester sous souveraineté israélienne!)
- Sous certaines conditions, les Israéliens seraient "autorisés" à visiter leurs lieux saints.
Etc. etc.

Il s'agit en fait d'une reddition sans condition, résultant d'un complot européen ourdi en connivence avec des "transfuges israéliens", sans que l'adversaire ait à lever le petit doigt !

Yossi Beilin prétend représenter 40% des Israéliens; il en représente moins de 15%, en y incluant, bien sûr, les Arabes israéliens.

Albert Soued www.nuitdorient.com

Mis en ligne le 19 novembre 2003 sur le site www.upjf.org

----------------------

The European solution

By Caroline Glick – Jerusalem Post - Nov. 14, 2003

What does Europe want from the Jews?
Greek composer Mikis Theodorakis's Hitlerian rant this week was the latest expression of the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. To an audience which included the Greek ministers of culture and education he asserted that the Jewish nation "is the root of evil. It is full of self-importance and evil stubbornness."
Theodorakis has a long personal history of hating Jews and Israel matched by a long history of support for the PLO – support which led to the PLO's decision to have him compose the Palestinian national anthem. Because of this, the fact that he feels the way he does about Israel and the Jews is no surprise.
What is interesting about Theodorakis's remarks is that they come but a week after we learned that 59 percent of Europeans believe that Israel is the single largest threat to peace in the world. And the publication of the EU poll came but a week after the EU, under French leadership, refused to condemn the anti-Semitic screed uttered by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammed at the Islamic Summit Conference where he said that "the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them."
In Israel, Theodorakis's remarks, like the EU poll results have been greeted with red headlines and a shallow public discussion of what Israel has done to cause this rash of Jew hatred. Is our army's treatment of the Palestinians responsible? Are the Israelis who live in Judea, Samaria and Gaza to blame for Europe's steadily rising comfort level with public expressions of anti-Semitism?
Underlying all of this gratuitous and vain soul searching has been another running subtext.
What has Israel done to defend itself against the resurgence of anti-Semitism as a cultural and political force in the West and why have these actions, such as they are, failed so abysmally?
Under the gun of media scrutiny, Israel's public diplomacy gurus launched their breathless defense. Led by Foreign Ministry Deputy Director-General for Public Diplomacy Gideon Meir, they whined that they don't have enough money to launch a successful campaign to defend Israel abroad. The decision to close Israeli embassies due to budget cuts also adds to the Foreign Ministry's failure to defend the country and indeed the Jewish people from constant vilification, we were told. And, aside from these tired excuses, the Foreign Ministry and the Prime Minister's Office found a scapegoat on which to pin their failure.
Danny Seaman, who has headed the Government Press Office for the past three years, was informed Monday night by a reporter that a decision had been made to replace him. Seaman, whose crime has been his staunch and unprejudiced enforcement of Israeli laws towards the foreign press, we are told, is responsible for the biased reporting that characterizes the media coverage of Israel. If he hadn't made foreign news organizations hire Israeli cameramen and if he hadn't ended the policy of accrediting Palestinian journalists, Israel would never be in the mess it is in today.
Of course this is ridiculous, as are all of the Foreign Ministry's excuses for its failure to mount even a modicum of defense for the state in the international media and towards foreign governments.
The real cause of Israel's abject failure to combat anti-Semitism in Europe is our failure to see the big picture. Anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe because many members of the European political and intellectual elite believe that vilifying Israel and the Jews advances their interests. And what are these interests that are served by anti-Semitism? They have to do with the enhancement and projection of European power.

How has this been manifested? A month before the September 11th attacks on the US, French policy wonk Dominique Moissy published an article in Foreign Affairs under the title, "The Real Crisis over the Atlantic."
Moissy, an advisor to the French Institute for International Relations and a member of the Trilateral Commission explained that the rift between the US and the EU has to do with how Europe defines its role in the world. Using the example of European rejection of the US's right to use the death penalty, Moissy explained, "Traditional state-centered concerns are no longer as relevant in this age of interdependence. Instead, domestic issues such as the death penalty and abortion have emerged on the foreign policy agenda."
Moissy's argument, at base, was that the US needs to accept European cultural supremacy if it wishes to maintain its Atlantic alliance with a self-confident New Europe. Two and a half years later, after the "New Europe" which Moissy described prevented the US from going to war in Iraq under UN Security Council or NATO aegis, many argue that the EU-US rift that was already apparent before the September 11th attacks has turned into an unbridgeable break. .. In Moissy's words, "The road to reinvent the West goes through Jerusalem". Moissy urged that Europeans and Americans work together to force Israelis to accept the European financed Geneva "peace formula" which he claims "is the only way out of the abyss into which the region is falling." The Geneva initiative calls for the institution of an international regime to include military forces from the EU, UN, US, Russia and indeed, Mahathir's Organization of the Islamic Conference that will take over the role of sovereign from the government of Israel. The international forces will be responsible for settling all disputes between Israel and the Palestinian state and will oversee everything from the security of Jerusalem to the use of airspace and the protection of borders. In short, the Geneva initiative that the EU stands so squarely behind, calls for the end of Jewish sovereignty in Israel and the reinstitution of an international mandate like that of the League of Nations.
(Nota: Dominique Moissy est sans doute Moïsi qui façonne à l'IFRI et à la Trilatérale la future politique européenne…)
It has been evident for years that many European governments view Israel's right to sovereignty as conditional upon our enemies' acceptance of our right to exist. European block voting in favor anti-Israel resolutions in the UN is case in point. So too, data indicating that levels of anti-Semitism in Europe reached an all-time low during the Oslo years are proof of this fact. As long as the PLO said it was okay to recognize Israel, the Europeans went along. The minute that Arafat renewed his call for the destruction of Israel, the Europeans, again, followed his lead.
But the current European hostility towards Israel, that is manifested as much in its policies as in its overt expressions of anti-Semitism is not simply a matter of never fully accepting Israel's right to exist. This conditional European acceptance of Jewish sovereignty is now linked to European aspirations to cultural hegemony over America.
There is a direct connection between Europe's anti-Semitism and its anti-Americanism. European anti-Americanism stems from cultural envy of American independence and power. Europe wants America to accept its cultural superiority and in so doing, hitch US military and financial might to European visions of social engineering and global governance.
Anti-Semitism plays an enormous role in the New Europe's attempt to force the US to adhere to its cultural dictates. If the US can be convinced that Israel is the gravest danger to world peace, as the vast majority of Europeans believe, then the US will effectively abandon its right to make moral distinctions for itself and come to rely on European guidance in its application of its military might.
If Israel, the archetype of the nation state is accepted as a rogue nation, then the US will hardly be able to argue with Europe's self-proclaimed right to interfere in its own internal debates about issues like the death penalty, abortion rights, genetically modified crops or global warming. Europe will have proven its point. According to the European logic, America, after abandoning Israel, will have been brought to cultural heel.
When seen as part of an overall European push for cultural hegemony over the West, the resurgence of anti-Semitism stops being a matter of simple public diplomacy. And our self-indulgence in blaming European anti-Semitism on loyal civil servants or on Jewish settlements is also unmasked as so much self-destructive nonsense.
To be successful, public diplomacy, like traditional diplomacy must be based upon what is actually happening in the real world. Israel has become a European pawn in its power bid to force its norms on America. If we wish to combat European anti-Semitism, we must understand that it has nothing to do with our actions. Rather, the resurgence of Jew-hatred in Europe has to do with the European quest for power.

The Geneva Conspiracy

by Arno Weinstein- Nov 16, 2003 / Arouts 7

Imagine this: a group of Americans, say presidential candidate Howard Dean, Senators Ted Kennedy, Fritz Hollings and Robert Byrd, go to the wilds of Pakistan and meet with the lieutenants of Usama bin Laden. They carry with them a “peace” proposal hammered out with various al-Qaida supporters in the United States calling for the unilateral withdrawal of American forces from all Islamic countries. They present the proposal to terror agents representing bin Laden, work out the kinks and arrive at an agreement aimed at ending the conflict between al-Qaida and the United States. What would the overwhelming majority of Americans say? In unison, the outcry would be: “Treason!”

This difficult-to-imagine scenario is taking place in the State of Israel, involving key figures of the political Left. A group of Israeli and Arab radicals, with the help of the Swiss government, have formulated what they call the "Geneva Agreement." Many of the same figures responsible for the Oslo debacle have again colluded with a foreign government to bypass the democratic process and undermine the Israeli government. There have been shouts and accusations concerning this treasonous behavior; however, no legal action has been taken by the Sharon government against the political mutineers. The Left so dominates every aspect of Israeli life on the ground that the elected government of the state fears asserting its own authority.

The fact is that any Israeli citizen who engages in “talks” in the form of “negotiations” (or is it the other way around?) with a foreign power in order to cede sovereignty over any portion of the land of Israel to a foreign entity is in violation of and subject to prosecution under the Israeli Penal Code, Sections 97, 99 and 100. The charge is treason.

The “Geneva Agreement” Advocates

The chief Israeli conspirator behind the “Geneva Agreement” is former Knesset member, Prof. Yossi Beilin. A “golden child” of former Prime Minister Shimon Peres, Mr. Beilin is the darling of both the far Left in Israel and the European Union. He was the leading instigator of the Oslo Peace Accords just over ten years ago. It was Yossi Beilin who, to facilitate the Oslo Accords, illegally met with PLO representatives in Norway, when doing so was an act punishable with imprisonment. And this is the same Yossi Beilin who receives much of his financing from the European Union coffers that support Yasser Arafat and the terror factories of the Palestinian Authority.

In fact, Mr. Beilin continues to vigorously promote the “process” of Oslo, disregarding the on-going war Oslo brought to Israel and the United States. Unable to coalesce a viable political party on his own (through the Shahar [Dawn] Movement), Beilin joined the extreme left Meretz Party, but failed to garner a Knesset seat in the last election. As a result, Prof. Beilin has resorted to his extralegal activities without governmental cover.

Beilin’s comrades in the Geneva conspiracy are the ever-ready leftist elite, including the former speaker of the Knesset, Avraham Burg, and the politically discredited former leader of the Labor Party, Amram Mitzna. As for Mitzna, his political views are so untenable that the far-left Labor Party ousted him as their leader soon after he assumed the top position. Mitzna’s mantra throughout the campaign for the January 2003 16th Knesset election was unilateral withdrawal by Israel from the lands gained during the 1967 Six Day War. His leadership gave the Labor Party one of its greatest defeats at the polls. Yet this man, along with fellow travelers of the political Left, has the audacity to openly break the law and flaunt their disreputable notions in the face of all Israelis.

The Arabs who have publicly identified themselves with Beilin’s Geneva conspiracy are part of the Palestinian Authority’s infrastructure. Although the plan has not been overtly embraced by Yassir Arafat (rumors abound as to Arafat’s support or lack thereof), it is clear that his sanction is upon the effort. Yasser Abed Rabbo (Abu Bashir) is the front man for the Arab side of the “negotiations.” Abu Bashir is a sixty year confidante of Yasser Arafat’s and an off-and-on cabinet minister within the Palestinian Authority. Regarding the negotiating process of the Geneva conspiracy, Abed Rabbo said to the al-Quds daily newspaper on October 13, 2003 that Yasser Arafat had called him to congratulate him on signing the draft agreement.

Yet another member of the Palestinian Authority’s senior leadership involved with the “Geneva” conspiracy is Fares Kadura. He is worth mention only because Kadura, as opposed to the many other architects of the “Agreement,” is of the old school. That is, he states his intentions right up front. As reported by Israeli news source Israel National News (October 14, 2003 (www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=51110), “according to... Fares Kadura, who took part in the negotiations, the agreement is provocative in nature. He said its only purpose was to cause internal squabbling in Israel. Kadura even denied any intention of recognizing Israel as the Jewish State.”

Any number of conclusions can be drawn regarding the Geneva conspiracy based solely on the main players. However, much more is known of this perfidy than merely the criminal cabal who created it. The Geneva conspiracy is unquestionably and horribly “Oslo Resurrected.” It is the same disaster, the same death mill revisited. There is great chutzpah in those whose reign of terror (both Israeli leftist and Arab) has claimed so many lives over the years, now, through illegal means, restarting that which should be dead and buried forever. Oslo is directly responsible for the Palestinian “culture of death” that will plague this world for generations to come.

The Geneva Agreement Exposed

In addition to the overt funding of the “Geneva Agreement” by the Swiss government, the aid of France and Belgium has been offered. Revealed during an Israeli cabinet meeting on October 26, 2003, by Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, was the fact that members of the European Union are offering large sums of money to promote the positions articulated in the Geneva conspiracy. Shalom was quoted by Israeli media as asserting that the foreign ministers of both France and Belgium have offered a combined sum of seven million dollars to Yossi Beilin exclusively for the marketing of the “Geneva Agreement” to the international community. This money is separate and in addition to the untold dollars required for the meetings, the writings, the consultations, the additional meetings, the press junkets, the jobs and the security details required to get the conspiracy done. Further, it has been floated that a copy of the “Geneva Agreement,” an envisioned 70-page document, will be delivered to every Israeli household. Total costs remain known only by Yossi Beilin and his European backers, but the highly fungible money will certainly aid the retirement funds of the many conspirators.

It is worthwhile studying the “Geneva Agreement,” to fully appreciate the extent to which the “negotiations” seek to resurrect the Oslo Accords and ensure the continuation and intensification of the Oslo War. What follows is only the briefest hint of the dangers posed by this perfidious conspiracy.

The Agreement calls for the resolution to the conflict between Israel and the Arabs in the creation of an independent “Palestine” from within the sovereign state of Israel. The Agreement is to be “facilitated” by the so-called Quartet (U.S., Russia, the EU and the UN) and “other parties, both regional and international, to be agreed on by the Parties.”

“[T]he border between the states of ‘Palestine’ and Israel shall be based on the June 4th 1967 lines with reciprocal modifications on a 1:1 basis.”

“The state of Israel shall be responsible for resettling the Israelis residing in Palestinian sovereign territory outside this territory.”

There will be established a “corridor” between Gaza and Judea-Samaria to connect “Palestinian” territory.

The “Agreement” calls for security arrangements that are, in fact, less enforceable than those outlined in the Oslo Accords. Some examples are:

“Without prejudice to freedom of expression and other internationally recognized human rights, Israel and Palestine shall promulgate laws to prevent incitement to irredentism, racism, terrorism and violence and vigorously enforce them.”

“A Multinational Force (MF) shall be established to provide security guarantees to the Parties, act as a deterrent, and oversee the implementation of the relevant provisions of this Agreement.”

“Israel shall withdraw all its military and security personnel and equipment, including landmines, and all persons employed to support them, and all military installations from the territory of the state of Palestine. The stages (of withdrawal) shall be designed subject to the following principles: i. The need to create immediate clear contiguity and facilitate the early implementation of Palestinian development plans....”

Jerusalem is to be the capital of the two states, while the holiest site in Judaism, the Temple Mount (Compound), will be ceded completely over to “Palestinian” sovereignty.

“The state of Palestine shall be responsible for maintaining the security of the Compound and for ensuring that it will not be used for any hostile acts against Israelis or Israeli areas.”

“The only arms permitted on the Compound shall be those carried by the Palestinian security personnel and the security detachment of the Multinational Presence.”

Israel is to recognize the refugee status of the “Palestinian” people and the rights therefore bestowed upon them. “Refugees shall be entitled to compensation for their refugeehood and for loss of property. This shall not prejudice or be prejudiced by the refugee's permanent place of residence. The Parties recognize the right of states that have hosted Palestinian refugees to remuneration.” Each refugee shall make a “free and informed choice” as to how they will “terminate” their refugee status. “Permanent Place of Residence options from which the refugees may choose shall be as follows; (a) The state of Palestine... (b) Areas in Israel being transferred to Palestine in the land swap... (c) Third Countries.. (d) The state of Israel... (e) Present Host countries.... Priority in all the above shall be accorded to the Palestinian refugee population in Lebanon.”

The Agreement details the ability for Jews, be they Israeli or otherwise, to access “sites of religious significance” (note the refusal to sanction anything Jewish as a holy site) to the Jewish People. Among the “sites of religious significance” are “inter alia, to the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem, and Nabi Samuel [the grave of the Prophet Samuel].” An obnoxious procedure of permits, shuttles and inspections to the sites are detailed by the “Agreement”, which calls on the parties to “protect and preserve the sites of religious significance.”

Conclusion

It is clear that the Olso Accords failed. The Oslo Accords brought the Oslo War, which claims lives at the hands of terrorists daily, and the conflict rages on. Oslo failed because it was premised upon a set of notions that were essentially and terminally flawed. Terror can only be defeated; it cannot be managed, negotiated with or cajoled. This is not the place to unravel the mess of tangled logic created at the Madrid Conference in October/November 1991, which eventually led to the illegal talks from which Oslo materialized. It is sufficient to say that Oslo failed because Oslo capitulated to the rejectionist (a merging of Pan-Arabists and Islamists, who reject any presence of a non-Arab/non-Islamist presence in the Middle East) Arab view of a Jewish presence in the Land of Israel. If the Arab world wanted peace in the Middle East, they would cast from their midst the rejectionist position, embrace the repatriation of their Arab brethren (who have been left in the squalor of refugee camps or kept without a national identity because Arab countries have refused to absorb them - all in order to force the issue that Jews have no right to the land of Israel). Arab countries could, tomorrow, begin a process of normalization with Israel and, within months, true peace in the Middle East would be the world’s latest miracle. However, true peace is not the will of the Arab countries, nor is it the desire of the Muslim World, whose Islam has become dominated by the Wahhabist doctrines of the Saudi regime.

While Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is said to have dismissed the Geneva conspiracy as nonsense, he nonetheless chose to comment on it. The Prime Minister has apparently decided that his refusal to enforce the laws of Israel might lead observers to think he passively supports the initiative. To that end, the Prime Minister, in the form of a Cabinet Communique of October 26, 2003, instructed, “that efforts must be made against the adoption of the ‘Geneva Agreement’ and the aid given to it by various European countries.” The Communique continued, “He [Ariel Sharon] called on Foreign Minister Shalom to continue diplomatic activity to this end.”

According to press reports, the main players in the conspiracy, Beilin, Mitzna and Burg were initially planning to sign the agreement “on behalf” of Israel around the eighth anniversary of Yitzchak Rabin’s assassination. They seek the link of continuity between the Geneva conspiracy and the legacy of the Oslo Accords. In search of even deeper connections to Israel’s prior “peace” efforts, the Geneva conspiracy has picked up the public support of former President Jimmy Carter.

One note of consequence requiring further explanation beyond that stated by the “Agreement” itself is the transfer of Jews from parts of Israel. While the political Left has no compunction against the transfer of whole communities of well over 100,000 people, as long as they are Jews, as clearly stated in the Geneva conspiracy, they call racist those who insist the only answer to Israel’s security problem is “transfer.” Those who advocate “transfer”, or the completion of the exchange of populations, propose repatriation of the Arab population living in Israeli controlled lands. This, in exchange for the 850,000-some-odd Jews either forcibly or voluntarily displaced from Arab countries they had inhabited for hundreds of years before the creation of the Jewish State. At the first utterance of this position, the political Left shouts, “Racism!” They claim the removal of a population from a given piece of land based upon ethnic or religious identification is ethically untenable and racist bigotry. Yet, the very same politically correct crowd has no difficulty whatsoever imposing such measures on Jews. In fact, they find it ethically agreeable and see the mass migration of Jews from Arab countries some decades ago as positive, with no need of recompense. It is clear that this racist canard is just that and is an illusion created by the Left, in order to stifle any solutions that might actually aid in Israel’s survival.

In an opinion piece published in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz entitled, “They Are Afraid of Peace”, on October 16, 2003, former Labor chief and a prime mover of the Geneva conspiracy, MK Amram Mitzna, made his case for the moral justification of his crime. He compared the Geneva “initiative” with the founding of the Jewish state in 1948, stating that his “initiative” was the more important of the two. His reasoning? The declaration of 1948 was “unilateral”; whereas, the “initiative” is international in its creation. In a truly bizarre world-view, Mitzna articulates, in the first two sentences of his piece, that the state of Israel will finally have confirmation of its existence by “agreement” (a euphemism for international approval) through the Geneva conspiracy. His is, of course, a world where life is attained through death. For there can be little question as to the future of Israel should men like Mitzna, Beilin and Burg be allowed to recklessly trade away the birth right of the Jewish People.

What Mitzna calls fear of peace is what he equates with incitement. He asserts that the citizens of Israel have been the victims of “brainwashing” through the “incitement” of those who fear peace. What an accusation! Is this man, along with his minions, charging criminal liability against those not willing to completely submit to terrorists? The self-importance they presume in their truly demented view of human relations is without parallel. Should these thugs of the political Left ascend back into power, rest assured, acts far less provocative than that of formulating the Geneva conspiracy will guarantee arrest and imprisonment.

The proper application of the Israeli Penal Code is the right thing to do. The Geneva conspirators are subject to these criminal statutes and it is time that political fears of the Left’s wrath are put aside. Prosecute the conspirators. Save Israel from its own demons. And what of the foreign demons? The European Union, most particularly, Switzerland, France and Belgium, are guilty of meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. After a formal Israeli diplomatic request to Switzerland asking it to desist from aiding anti-government activities in the form of funding opposition leaders, the Swiss refused. Perhaps the United Nations could occupy itself with this cause (i.e., censuring nation’s interfering in the internal affairs of the sovereign State of Israel); after all, the European Union is usurping the raison d'etre of the scores of UN organizations created exclusively for the purpose of destroying the Jewish State.