Yesterday the German Bundestag voted on a resolution about Israel’s move to assert full sovereignty over a portion of Judea and Samaria, a.k.a. the West Bank. The AfD (Alternative für Deutschland, Alternative for Germany) was the only party that did not vote to condemn the Israeli decision.
In the following video Dr. Anton Friesen speaks on the floor of the Bundestag for the AfD. Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
The following article from Politically Incorrect was also translated by MissPiggy:
Debate on Two-State Solution in the Middle East
AfD is the only party to reject condemnation of Israel in the Bundestag
July 1, 2020
All parties except the AfD have submitted motions to the Bundestag session this afternoon to condemn Israel for the alleged “annexation” of Judea and Samaria, the home of the Jewish people. The AfD will be the only party to reject all these motions.
The first parliamentary director of the AfD, Bernd Baumann, said at the press conference this morning: “The position of the AfD is that we do not give advice to Israel from the AfD. Given our basic historical position, we will not give advice to Israel.” The AfD will therefore be the only party in the German Bundestag that does not condemn Israel.
The MEP for the AfD, Joachim Kuhs, already described on PI-NEWS why Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria is not an “illegal occupation”. In a recent video from Brussels, Kuhs, who is a member of the AfD board and chairman of the “Christians in the AfD”, said: “ARD and ZDF want viewers to believe that the Israeli provinces of Judea and Samaria are ‘illegally occupied territories’. Last August, I was able to visit Judea and Samaria with a delegation of ‘Jews in the AfD’ and form my own opinion.”
Below are excerpts from an article published by Arutz Sheva about the debate over Judea and Samaria in the Bundestag and the historical background for it:
The EU Must Recognize Israeli Sovereignty in Judea and Samaria
Israel wants to go from military to civilian administration in Judea and Samaria. The Bundestag is expected to condemn it. I disagree.
“Israel moves to annex illegal settlements in West Bank” howl the mainstream media in Germany. The framing already tells us what the “right” opinion on this heinous crime is. Other views are not heard in Europe. As a member of the European Parliament, I say it is high time to end this one-sided view of the disputed territories, end EU boycotts of Judea and Samaria, and stop funding the Palestinian terror apparatus with taxpayer Euros.
In EU think tanks and European media, it is a given that “Jewish settlements” in Judea and Samaria are “illegal under international law” — a false claim based on one-sided propaganda, which ignores the historical facts.
In the Ottoman Empire, there was neither Israel nor Palestine. The region was called South Syria, and was mostly barren and void due to Ottoman mismanagement and exorbitant property taxes. The inhabitants were mostly nomadic shepherds. In the year 1882, approx. 141.000 Muslims lived on the territory that became Israel, “of which at least 25% were newcomers,” as historian Ernst Frankenstein wrote, and there were approx. 60.000 Jews.
With the onset of the Zionist Movement in 1871, Jews began moving to the territory and legally buying land. The settlers brought economic prosperity to the barren land, which created a “pull effect”, attracting thousands of Arabs from neighboring countries and swelling the Arab population to half a million in 1947. Thus, most of the Arab population of Israel are also “settlers” bearing Egyptian, Syrian and Iraqi names, as Joan Peters documents in her book “From Time Immemorial”.
With the end of the Ottoman Empire after WW I, Great Britain and France divvied up the Middle East. In the Balfour Declaration of Nov. 2, 1917, British Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour declared: “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” This formulation was adopted by the San Remo Conference on April 18-26, 1920, where the future shape of the former Ottoman Empire was decided. This formulation was ratified by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922, creating the Mandate of Palestine as “national home for the Jewish people” on the territory extending from the Mediterranean to Iraq, covering all of modern Israel and Jordan.
The Arab delegate at the Paris Peace Talks 1920 was Emir Feisal, who welcomed the plans for a “national home for the Jewish people”: “We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement… We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home.” Feisal was made King of Iraq and “agreed to abandon all claim … to Western Palestine” (modern Israel), as T.E. Lawrence wrote to Winston Churchill in 1921.
Such is the foundation of the State of Israel in international law. According to Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, the UN is bound to the League of Nations resolutions: “Nothing in this Charter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner … the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.”
Nonetheless, on November 29, 1947, the United Nations passed Resolution 181, the “Partition Plan for Palestine.” The Jews, who were technically entitled to a “national home” from the Mediterranean to the Iraqi border, nevertheless agreed, settling for much less than they were due under “international law.” The Arabs in Mandatory Palestine and the neighboring states rejected Resolution 181, even if they today cite it as justification for demanding a state of Palestine “in the Borders of 1947.”
The war against the Jews began on the day after ratification of Resolution 181…
|00:00||Dr. Anton Friesen.|
|00:07||Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen deputies, dear citizens.|
|00:11||Well, Mr. Foreign Minister, you neglected to say the most important thing.|
|00:14||Namely, that within the European Union, up until now|
|00:17||there has been absolutely no consensus on a policy towards Israel.|
|00:21||There is none. Plain and simple. We’ll have to see whether Germany manages to establish one|
|00:26||within the framework of the European Council Presidency.|
|00:29||That’s precisely the difference between Germany and Israel.|
|00:32||The Jewish state pursues a nationally oriented, realistic policy. Germany pursues an irrational,|
|00:38||virtue fundamentalism which it calls foreign policy.|
|00:43||That’s why public opinion and the political class in Germany is so Anti-Israeli.|
|00:49||The German opinion-makers and politicians start sweating bullets|
|00:52||on their foreheads just from thinking|
|00:55||about a policy that represents national interests.|
|00:59||How dare they? How can Israel dare to do something|
|01:03||that is so obviously in the national interest of Israel?|
|01:07||The so-called West Bank, or Judea and Samaria,|
|01:12||consists of three areas A, B and C according to the Oslo treaties.|
|01:17||Israel has now decided, in a non-partisan consensus,|
|01:20||both by Benjamin Netanyahu and by those who supported it,|
|01:23||to apply Israeli civil law to area C, which has been administered|
|01:28||by the Israeli military administration since the Six Day War.|
|01:34||Initially for the Palestinians living in this area, this brings good news.|
|01:40||They are made equals under Israeli law and can even obtain Israeli citizenship.|
|01:46||This means they can consider themselves as lucky in the Arab world as well,|
|01:50||since they are some of the few Arabs who can enjoy human and civil rights.|
|01:56||Even better, the Trump plan, so deeply renounced by the political class in Germany,|
|02:01||finally brings movement to the Middle East conflict after years of stagnation|
|02:07||and strengthens the prospects for a Palestinian state without endangering the existence of Israel.|
|02:13||According to the Trump plan, the city is to be built|
|02:16||on about 70 percent of the territory of Judea and Samaria.|
|02:20||Many Arab states haven’t been loudly and publicly opposed to this plan, as alleged by some,|
|02:27||but have been very sympathetic to it. Saudi Arabia, Egypt,|
|02:31||the United Arab Emirates, and even Jordan.|
|02:34||None have really taken a strong public stand against it. The only ones who have taken a clear stand|
|02:40||against it are the Palestinian leadership. Obviously they are afraid|
|02:44||of losing your rich profits from the EU and Germany.|
|02:48||I wonder where the Palestinian proposals for a peace plan are?|
|02:53||Of course you can oppose it, you can block it|
|02:57||and reject everything, but where are the proposals|
|03:00||from the Arab world? From Palestine? From the Palestinians themselves?|
|03:03||There is one! —Israel is taking action and using|
|03:06||this window of opportunity that Trump’s plan offers.|
|03:10||Of course we could stand aside and shout evil, evil, evil!|
|03:14||That would be world politics at the kindergarten level.|
|03:17||Or we can try to accompany this process with sound judgment|
|03:21||and at the same time give new approaches the chance they need.|
|03:26||As well as and gladly in the context of an entire|
|03:29||Middle East conference for security and cooperation. As we’ve proposed.|
|03:32||Thank you very much.|
|03:42||So, now for the CDU/CSU faction, Colleague Jürgen Hardt has the floor.