Christians for Israel International
When British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned to London in September 1938 from talks with Hitler and held the written Munich Agreement in his hand, he declared that he had achieved "peace for our time".
"The solution to the Czechoslovak problem, which has now been reached, is in my view only the prelude to a larger solution in which all of Europe can find peace. This morning I had another conversation with the German Chancellor, Mr. Hitler, and here is the document that bears both his and my name. Some of you may have already heard what it contains, but I would like to read it to you: ... We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as a symbol of the desire of our two peoples never again to wage war against each other."
Hitler, of course, had no intention of adhering to it. Within a year, the world was at war.
Written peace agreements are not always worth the paper they are written on. Territorial or other “settlements” imposed by foreign powers in response to the ideologically motivated threat of violence by the aggressor to annihilate a third party are hardly a basis for lasting peace.
Are we witnessing a similar process in the negotiations with Iran? Iran's consistent efforts to destabilize the region include threats to destroy Israel (the Little Satan). The US government intends to rejoin the Obama-brokered JCPOA agreement with Iran, which limits but does not prevent Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons. President Joe Biden wants to bring the US back into the agreement, but only if Iran returns to full compliance. Essentially, Iran is saying, "No, we don't trust you, you go first. We will comply completely once the sanctions are lifted."
UN Secretary-General Guterres intervened this week, urging the US to lift sanctions against Iran and rejoin the JCPOA: "I continue to believe that a full restoration of the plan is the best way to ensure that the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear program remains exclusively peaceful."
The US and the UN are not directly threatened by Iranian aggression or threats of aggression. Israel is. But the new Israeli government also wants to be friends with the US.
Can Iran be trusted?
As Israeli defense expert Kobi Michael recently explained in a webinar , Iran is preparing several locations from which it can attack Israel. One of them is the Gaza Strip. Israel must deal with all these existential threats simultaneously. In recent years, Israel has not only had to contend with Iran's proxies Hezbollah (Lebanon) and Hamas (Gaza), but also with cyberattacks, assassinations of nuclear scientists, and acts of sabotage against Iranian nuclear facilities.
In its negotiations with the US, Israel will certainly not allow itself to be restricted in the exercise of its legitimate right to self-defense. Nevertheless, improving relations with the US is a central component of the new administration's strategy. Eric Mandel, founder and director of the Middle East Political Information Network (MEPIN), describes this dilemma in an article in the US newspaper "The Hill".
Against this background, it is outrageous that former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon published an article in the "Financial Times" that completely ignores the existential threats facing Israel, accuses Israel of apartheid, and portrays Hamas as a victim of Israeli aggression.
Peace depends on respect
Neither written agreements nor the prosecution of Israeli politicians for alleged “war crimes” will bring peace to the Middle East. The real threat to peace comes from those who deny the Jewish people’s right to exist. It is the responsibility of the international community to do whatever is necessary to protect that right – even if that means conflict.
Peace depends primarily on mutual respect. Countries like the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Honduras are showing the way by opening embassies and initiating cooperation with Israel.
