Is Berlin pulling Romanian strings over Jerusalem?

If Klaus-Werner Iohannis, the Romanian State President, Berlin or the EU refuse to relocate their embassies to Jerusalem, then it is obvious that some put the interpretation of international law above Israel’s long-lasting security. The ignorance of western capitals demonstrates that the consequences and territorial gains of two crucial and existential wars that Israel was pulled into are simply not accepted. The present form of the Pax Germanica, also means enforcing a change of perceptions, upgrading the perpetuator of two world wars to the role of a peacemaker. Will insisting with obstinacy on international law, sooner or later force Israel to make territorial concessions? Why are some blocking the relocation of the embassy, if they truly admit to who the winner was in the Arab-Israeli wars? The simple refusal of the Romanian Head of State, to move the Romanian Embassy to Jerusalem without providing solid reasons is disrespectful. It indicates that in his view Israel might have the relevance of a small remote island, one has never heard of, not worth an explanation. Or simply that he is not able to, in case the instructions, as speculated recently, come from Berlin. We know that for twelve years Iohannis was the president of the FDGR (German Democratic Forum in Romania), which declared itself during his presidency, the legal successor of the GEG (Deutsche Volksgruppe), a former prohibited Nazi organisation. Likewise as its status stipulated that the political decisions belong to the German NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) might his decision today be taken in Germany as well.

US President Donald Trump made an overdue step regarding the US embassy relocation to Jerusalem and the recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. It is unacceptable that colonial frontiers in the Middle East are still an issue as an anti-Israel coalition has attempted in several wars to destroy Israel. For decades Europe has debated about a peace which is simply not happening, because it would, as an unspoken fact, oblige Israel to retreat from occupied territories in exchange for peace. This mantra has been cut short by Donald Trump. He opposes Berlin’s view, spoiled by its economic dominance in Europe, that a besieged Germany which demonstrates the arrogance of a winner, exports its peace concept to the Middle East. For a Pax Germanica in the Middle East through the back door could be translated as encouraging some of Israel’s hostile neighbours to attempt to threaten the country’s existence, because there will be no price to pay. Furthermore, the noticeable German law of obedience has always been an instrument to serve as an excuse for almost everything from Genocide to Realpolitik. It is a formula to allow long-established historical German-Arab ties to continue in an undetectable manner.

Just like Max von Oppenheim, the German spy and agitator in the Middle East at the end of the 19th century, who was nicknamed “Abu Jihad”. He proposed to the emperor that to endear Berlin to the Arab tribes, he should build a mausoleum for Saladin in Syria. The political canonisation of an old Arab warrior did not go unrewarded. The Arabic press even wondered whether his majesty might have converted to Islam. But the lesson was a valuable one, because more than a century later, Berlin is following the path advised by Oppenheim and guaranteeing for itself the privilege of friendship with the Islamic world through flattery.

The malicious seed that was planted by agent Oppenheim, which combined the principle of holy war with the German thorn known as “self-determination”, has remained firmly embedded in the desert sands to the present day. Berlin’s agent suggested to the emperor: “The brotherhoods must be brought to the fore by religious means. Lots of little coups d’état and attacks to ensure a harsh response which will generate heavy collateral damage.” These words look as if they might have been spoken a few years ago, when, through small “Arab springs”, the Middle East region was destabilized.  Much of the useless peace process so far looks similar to Oppenheim’s recommendations. America’s step towards bringing clarity and an alternative to a blocked peace process obliges others now to either follow Washington’s example or to frankly admit their own preferences with their hostile historical baggage. Israel should require from Europe to be recognized as the winner of those wars in which it was successful. Only a besieged country will make territorial concessions.