Sudetenization
(Continued from p.4)
self-determination as well, much as the Arabs have
always made it clear that Palestinian statehood would
not preclude the necessity of granting self-determination
to the Arabs living within the Green Line (i.e. Israel
within her pre-1967 borders).
On March 12, 1939, there were German demonstrations in all the remaining Czechoslovakian cities with a German population. On March 15, the German army completed the destruction of Czechoslovakia. Not a single country lifted a finger.
The Czech historian Luza has observed: "The Sudeten German problem was not a cause of the conflict but its pretext. The true reason, according to the Germans themselves, was a refusal of the Czechoslovakian state to become a German vassal [emphasis in original]." Hitler confirmed this on January 23, 1942, when he said, "To put it briefly, the Czechoslovakians are a foreign body in the midst of the German community. There is no room both for them and for us. One of us must give way."
When the Arab world discovered the sudden need for the Palestinians to achieve "self-determination" after 1967, it also made it clear that achieving such "self-determination" in the West Bank and in Gaza would merely be a precondition for reaching a settlement with Israel, not a settlement in itself. Just as Germany continued to demand further concessions from Prague for the Czech Germans remaining behind in the rump partitioned Czechoslovakia after Munich, so, too, once a Palestinian state arises in the West Bank and Gaza, the PLO and the Arab world will demand self-determination for the Arabs of the Galilee, the Negev, the Triangle, and then for those in Ramle, Haifa, and Jaffa. No doubt a Galilee Liberation Organization will be the lead item on the agenda.
Arab aggression towards Israel has never had the slightest connection with any Arab concern over the rights and treatment of Palestinians, as their own treatment of their own Arabs makes clear. The Arab world's behavior towards the non-Arab minorities living amongst them is among the worst in the world. The Arab assault on Israel is based on nothing other than their determination to drive Israel out of their Lebensraum.
* * *
There are, of course, important differences
between the campaign for Palestinian
self-determination and that for Sudeten self-determination in the
1930s. Unlike Nazi Germany, most Arab countries and the
PLO have never pretended that the relinquishing of
territories by Israel would satisfy their demands. The
Western democracies have never signed mutual defense
treaties with Israel, as they had with Czechoslovakia.
Unlike Israel, the liberated Czechoslovakia at the end
of World War II immediately expelled virtually all of
the Sudeten Germans from its territory, and has refused
ever since to even think about negotiations for their return
or their compensation, a "transfer" of population the rest
of the world has long forgotten.
But the most important difference is that Czechoslovakia was unable to defend itself militarily in 1938, to counter-attack and drive back the Nazi military, while Israel retains the ability to overcome the Arab aggressor. But if Israel continues on its present path much longer, the parallel will be perfect.
Arie Stav
(The following is an excerpt from a first-rate analysis by Arie Stav, editor of the Israeli magazine Nativ, entitled "Czechoslovakia 1938--Israel Today" and published by the Ariel Center for Policy Research. In it, he outlines not only the pressures and betrayals by England and France, but the serious political mistakes Czechoslovakia made.)
Historical analogy between two states distinct from each other in many variables is extremely complex. However, on the path to a comparison between Czechoslovakia at the end of the 1930s and Israel at the end of the 1990s, there are two additional obstacles. One is the lack of historical perspective concerning the Jewish state, the other is the Jewish anomaly which requires criteria diverging from what is conventional among ordinary nations.
However, despite the great difference in conditions and in the reality of the two periods, a basis exists for comparison between the two historic events. The fundamental objective conditions for national destruction are chillingly similar. Israel is repeating all the errors that Czechoslovakia made and is adding original touches of her own. Hence, Karl Marx's epigram nicely fits the Israeli situation: History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.
Israel's economic well being imbues its citizens with an illusion of security and prosperity that conceals from most of the public the fact that their state is on a track toward national suicide. Only a radical, unexpected stop (such as a major war) might check Israel's running amok toward its end. Hence, discussing these matters is rather macabre in character. This, in turn, creates
(Continued on p.9)
May 1998 - 5 - Outpost