Israpundit Digest

Support Israpundit


USD

ILS

CAD

Syndication

Blog Traffic

Pages

Pages|Hits |Unique

  • Last 24 hours: 0
  • Last 7 days: 0
  • Last 30 days: 0
  • Online now: 0
Los Angeles SEO

Recent Comments

Sponsors

Sponsor

Dry Bones
Dry Bones

”souvenirs”

Archives

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

LIVE HEADLINE NEWS FEEDS
THERE IS NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION

Support Israpundit

USD

ILS

CND


  • April 10, 2011

    The repercussions of a UN recognition of Palestine

    By Ted Belman

    The PA has been hard at work of late lining up votes in the UNGA for the recognition of the state of Palestine with pre ’67 borders with the eastern part of Jerusalem as its capital.

    They intend to use the “Uniting for Peace” procedure to avoid a possible UNSC veto regardless of whether the procedure is legal. (See; The UN Charter Cannot Support GA Resolution 377). Were they to get such recognition the repercussions would be significant.

    Alan Baker, who was legal counsel for Israel in the drafting of the Oslo Accords and is currently associated with the Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs, recently published The Palestinian UN Gamble – Irresponsible and Ill-Advised. He summarized his article as follows

      “While such a resolution would not have the authority to alter the legal status of the territories, the negative consequences of such a course of action would nevertheless serve to void the very basis of the peace process. It would undermine the legal existence of the Palestinian Authority and violate commitments by Yasser Arafat to settle all issues by negotiation.

      “Such unilateral action outside the negotiation process would constitute a fundamental breach of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement, thereby releasing Israel from its reciprocal commitments.”

    This would go so far as to release Israel from the confines of UNSC Res 242. How so?

    According to the Palestine Mandate passed in 1922, Great Britain, the Mandatory power, had the following obligation with respect to all of that part of Palestine lying west of the Jordan River.:

      “The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency. referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”

    The Plan of Partition (Res 181) passed by the UNGA in 1947, though it violated this provision, was accepted by the Jews and paved the way for the recognition of the state of Israel six months later. Had the Arabs accepted this resolution, they too would have had a state and that would have been the end to Jewish rights of close settlement in Judea and Samaria (West Bank). But they didn’t and so Jewish rights to same didn’t end.

    So why isn’t The Government of Israel asserting those rights now?

    The answer finds its origin in UNSC Res 242 passed in 1967 which authorized Israel to remain in occupation until she had secure and recognized borders. Israel’s acceptance of this resolution effectively waived Jewish Mandate rights in exchange for such borders. Israel obviously preferred such borders over exercising her rights of “close settlement” which would have necessitated managing the Arab population in these lands. Once again the Arabs rejected this resolution preferring instead “no negotiation, no recognition and no peace” as resolved in their Khartoum Conference in Sept 1967.

    Notwithstanding this, Egypt broke ranks and made peace with Israel in 1979 as did Jordan in 1994.

    In 1993 Rabin and Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn, which aimed to

      “establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, the elected Council (the “Council”), for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.”    

                                                                                                  ‘

    As a pre-condition to this mutual declaration, Arafat delivered two letters to Rabin promising to amend the Charter of the PLO which called for the destruction of Israel and Rabin delivered a letter to Arafat confirming his intention to allow normalization of life in the territories. Arafat and the PLO never did amend their Charter. For that matter, Fatah and Hamas have similar provisions in their Charters even to this day.

    This Declaration made no mention of a Palestinian state as the goal, nor did it call for a cessation of Israeli settlement activity.

    In 1995, Israel and the Palestine Authority (PA) entered into an Interim Agreement which provided, inter alia, for the creation of the PA and for its exercise of power.  It obligated both parties “to carry out confidence building measures as detailed herewith”. Those details involved Israel releasing prisoners in stages. No other confidence building measures were required.  That never stopped the US from continually demanding that Israel offer more “confidence building measures”.

    Article XXXI provided;

      “Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice or preempt the outcome of the negotiations on the permanent status to be conducted pursuant to the DOP. Neither Party shall be deemed, by virtue of having entered into this Agreement, to have renounced or waived any of its existing rights, claims or positions.

      “Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.”

    Both of these agreements became know as the Oslo Accords.

    As Baker points out, such a move by the PA would clearly be a fundamental breach of this provision. To my mind there have been numerous fundamental breaches by the PA which include their daily incitement, their Intifadas and their massive rocket attacks from Gaza. In these instances over the years, Israel chose not to declare the Oslo Accords null and void. But not this time. For example, Israel has mooted the idea of annexing part, if not all, of Judea and Samaria (West Bank), were it to happen.

    It may be argued that if the Agreement is abrogated, that Israel’s Mandate rights still apply.

    By demanding the armistice lines as borders subject to mutual exchanges, the PA is rejecting  Res 242 which provides for “secure borders” otherwise described elsewhere, as “defensible borders”. Likewise the Arab League has similarly rejected Res 242 in putting forth their initiative which was based on the armistice lines rather than “secure borders. By demanding 100% of Judea and Samaria, they are demanding that Israel retreat from all of the territories which is also contrary to the intent and meaning of the resolution.

    Thus it would appear that not only will the Oslo Accords be no longer binding on Israel, neither will Res 242 because the Arabs have never accepted it.

    The Obama Administration understands the risks of the UN granting recognition to the state of Palestine.  Dennis Ross, speaking to the ADL recently on behalf of the US said,

      “We have consistently made it clear that the way to produce a Palestinian state is through negotiations, not through unilateral declarations, not through going to the UN.  Our position on that has been consistent in opposition.”

    The Obama Administration would rather keep Israel shackled to the Oslo Accords while at the same time pressuring Israel to capitulate.  In reality, the US has abandoned Res 242 and the Oslo Accords, de facto, by pressing Israel to accept security guarantees in place of secure borders and by pushing the Arab League Initiative. She is also pushing for the division of Jerusalem which is not required by the Oslo Accords.

    It remains to be seen if the EU will follow the US lead on keeping Israel shackled. Angela Merkel during her recent meeting with PM Netanyahu said, “We are in favor of two states for two nations.  It is not certain that unilateral recognition will contribute to promoting peace, and this will be our position in September.

    Regardless, the PA seems bent on following through with bid for UN membership. Some people think the recognition of the state of Palestine would be a disaster for Israel while others think not.

    Caroline Glick recently wrote,

      “The fact is that while acceptance of “Palestine” as a UN member state will be a blow, it will mark an escalation not a qualitative departure from the basic challenges we have been facing for years.”

    But at least, Israel will be free to act.

    Israel will have no legal obligation to refrain from annexing Judea and Samaria in whole or in part. Her right to settle all of this land and to establish a national home on all of it for the Jews, which has been recognized by international law, will be legally unassailable. Furthermore as conquerors of this land, pursuant to a defensive war, international law entitles her to keep it. When Israel conquered the land, no one had sovereignty over it including Jordan and the Arabs living there. In effect this war was a continuation of the ‘48 war. Thus it put an end to the Armistice Agreement and the armistice lines which the parties had agreed would not be the final borders in any event.

    After coming this far in my reasoning, I had a conversation with Baker because I wanted him to reconcile for me the provision in the Interim Agreement calling for a settlement based on Res 242 and Article XXXI which provides “Neither Party shall be deemed, by virtue of having entered into this Agreement, to have renounced or waived any of its existing rights, claims or positions.” In my reading of these two clauses, I thought that the second was limited by the first.

    He advised to the contrary, noting that Israel could assert any right she might have. I asked if that included our right to settle the land pursuant to the Mandate.  He advised that the Mandate rights ended in the creation of Israel in 1948. I begged to differ, arguing that that would have been the case had the Arabs accepted a state on the rest at that time. But what do I know. He has been involved in this process for close to 20 years.

    He did say that even if a state is declared, the PA will still have to negotiate borders and everything else so he isn’t fearful of such recognition. With this, I agreed. But the chances of reaching agreement after 25 years, are slim. A recent poll reported that 78% of Likudniks oppose the creation of a Palestinian state.

    In the meantime, Israel should build as much as she wants and should extend Israeli law to all communities in Judea and Samaria in which her citizens live.  Aside from providing housing for its citizens, it would put pressure on the Palestinians to compromise. If Israel were to continue with the de facto freeze, the Palestinians would have no incentive to make peace and could wait a hundred years while they build throughout Judea and Samaria and continue their campaign to demonize and deligitimate Israel.

    Accordingly, Israel should welcome the recognition of a Palestinian state and the abrogation of the Oslo Accords.

  • Posted by Ted Belman @ 10:07 am | 35 Comments »

    35 Comments to The repercussions of a UN recognition of Palestine

    1. oao says:

      Israel’s problem is not legal in character, but political. The so-called int’l community which now includes the US does not care about Israel’s rights. It is intensely hostile to Israel and it won’t refrain from any means, legalities notwithstanding, to create a Pal state and inhibit Israel ability to defend itself. The decision to ignore the Goldstone recant and continue to push for the report through the UN is a clear indicator of what the real problem is and where things are going.

      An additional problem is the lack of leadership in Israel and the failed strategy of appeasing the West instead of winning the war with the Pals, as the latest events in Ghaza attest. But the West cannot be appeased and failing to undertake a winning strategy is dooming Israel.

      The combination of these two factors is lethal and if Israel does not wake up, it will be dismantled.

    2. David says:

      This is great! Let it all hang out SWEET Chariot come’in for to carry me home!

      LET THIS BREACH.. BY THE PA’S DOING… serve to negate all peace accords. It’s a flipping lie anyway.. a sad joke in a game played by delusionals on BOTH SIDES.

      Let it all hang out.. and how do we get even for the bombing of the bus and the 16 year old kid who is critically wounded? END THE PEACE ACCORD. IT’S A LIE.

    3. oao is correct. Israel had the opportunity to assert its legal rights many times in the past and failed to do so. Instead, it has pursued a quietly-quietly diplomatic policy with successive US administrations mistakenly believing that America would ultimately save her from the Arab swarm. The Palestinians in the mean time, have successfully gone about winning over the rest of the world, including the media and the Jewish left-wing.

      With the most hostile American President in history now in the WH, all previous agreements between the US and Israel, explicit and implied, have been taken off the table and, with the exception of the American people and their representatives in Congress, Israel is on her own.

      If the Pals are successful winning recognition on the Armistice Lines and Israel attempts to annex, Israel will face a a multi-front war with Hamas and Hezbollah along with a new Palestinian intifada. That would open the door for a Samantha Power-driven R2P initiative involving NATO.

      Note that the Arab League is about to request a “no-fly” zone over Gaza. This could be the model for what is to come.

    4. Per says:

      You say:

      The answer finds its origin in UNSC Res 242 passed in 1967 which authorized Israel to remain in occupation until she had secure and recognized borders. Israel’s acceptance of this resolution effectively waived Jewish Mandate rights in exchange for such borders

      I’m afraid this is based on misunderstandings. There is no way the UN, or the Israeli Government for that matter, can waive or otherwise undo the legal settlement of the First World War, of which the Mandate is a part. Only the Jewish People may amend its own ties to the land they were allotted by the Mandate. The UN has no authority in its Charter to determine borders or create states.

    5. Gabriel Barber says:

      The first comment, was very good. Only problem is that the US did not “recently” join the world against Israel, it has been against Israel since at the very least, President George Bush. Bush is the grandson of the Nazi, Senator Prescott Bush, who literally participated in, and proffited from the Holocaust, specifically the Concentration Camp, Dachau. (How in the hell any American can justify “Bush”, is beyond me…) America was against Israel during the Bush administration. I point out this FACT because in the coming elections, a “Republican” is better then a Democrat, so that is likely what is coming. And I am very, very sure that the Bush’s plan o9n getting another Nazi Bush in office as President, specifically “John (Jeb) Bush”, the ex-governer of Florida who murdered a girl because she was sick, and hospitalized. I forget her name, but Bush had her killed because she could not talk to defend herself. EXACTLY as the Nazis did to the ill in Germany before WWII> The Bush family are literally German, and they are Nazi liberals. YOu better be careful on them. George Bush fought to have Jerusalem removed from Israel’s possession, for the 9-11 terrorists. Bush supported all terrorists, and he forced us, the Americans, to support them and finance them. He is r4sponsible for the death of more then four thosuand American soldiers whose lives he threw away by taking Iraq for Iran. Yes, for the scum that America has always been forced to support, the president of Iran Ahmadnijihad.

      That is how bad things are. What is worse, is the fact most Americans know this inside already. And yet they still support evil trsah like the Nazi Bush family, who conquered America in this continuation of World War II.

    6. Ted Belman says:

      Per, you are right. But my point is that the GOI does not claim such Mandate rights for Israel or Jews.

      There is some support for the argument that the GOI speaks for the Jews just as the Jewish Agency did.

    7. Allan Edwards says:

      The San Remo Conference approve on July 24, 1922 a legally binding document called the Mandate for Palestine laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. These terms were finalized and unaminously approved by the Council of the League of Nations which was comprised at that time of 51 countries, and it became operational on September 20, 1923.
      On April 18, 1946, when the League of Nations was dissolved the legal force of the League of Nations “Mandate for Palestine” was transferred over to the United Nations.
      On the basis of this Mandate, Israel should encompass all the land west of the Jordan River as Israel proper. and should not wait for another Palestinian state to be established. The true Palestinian state is already in existence east of the Jordan River. Those arabs living there who do not wish to become Israeli citizens should be financially compensated and allowed to leave.

    8. Marlene k. says:

      Why is Israel sleeping and not acting what they are supposed to do. President Perez said on Charle Rose show that America has to be involed in the peace proses. How is it the President who does not have any power in Israel talkes about how the piece proces whould be . We know we can only depend on ourself alone and our friends, which we have very few.The repesentative of United Nations is still not at the United Nations . I cannot see that. The Hasbara is not functioning. Marlene

    9. Nina M. Lawrence says:

      It really blows my mind that the small sliver of land called Israel is causing such a fight and a stir. There are much larger countries all around Israel, so why don’t some of them give land to the Palestinians? And how long is the world going to take to remember that Israel is God’s land, and it is not up for negotiations? My heart aches for Benjamin Netanyahu, because he is between a rock and a hard place. My prayer is that he will be strong and not give in to the countries pulling against him. We certainly are living in the days when our Messiah, Jesus Christ, will appear. We pray for Israel every day.

    10. DennisCHP says:

      Gabriel, what have you been smoking? What a bunch of delusional claptrap. And I’m a Democrat. Bush put the terrorists in Gitmo and the idiots Obama & Holder want to move them into your backyard.

    11. david frankel says:

      i blame the problem on the corrupet israeli leaders 1967 after the war they should annext judia and samira insteade those spinnless leaders declaed it millitery zone thus the so called pslestininas people were created shame on them

    12. Vlad says:

      Dear Mr Gabriel Barber:

      We have already understood that for whatever reasons you hate, gate, hate the “infamous” family of these “nazis” of Bushes.
      Do you have anything of substance to say?

    13. David says:

      Shame that in all these considerations, nobody bothered to look into our Ancient Legal
      and Binding Law which contains the Deed to the Land of Yisrael. It belongs to Only One; and He is The God of Israel… and to the Children of Israel who are co-inheritors as per His Covenants with The Patriarchs. Case Closed.

      If we are foolish enough to give credence to the Dead Rat Arafat, and the Current Offspring of that Viper… than we are more ignorant than they are; and worse, unworthy to call the land Holy.

      It is time to choose. Whoever is on the Lord’s side, Stand with Him.

    14. harry freedman says:

      can somebody tell me what is wrong in having the Palestinians achieving statehood?
      I appreciate that Palestine would then become a member of the United Nations, but what are the other issues that Israel is concerned about. I had hoped this article would set out the points clearly.

      I am often asked by my non jewish friends and acquaintences what is the basis for israels opposition to the suggestion, but i have not been able to articulate it properly.

      hoping to hear from someone

      chag sameach

    15. This is another great article, Ted. I wish it were required reading for every Congressman/woman and the American public. I agree with you that Mandate rights have never been legally abrogated.

      As I read the news, often I am discouraged, troubled, terrified. Or disgruntled with leaders who seem to equivocate instead of acting. But sometimes I am almost excited. Why? Because when the chips are really stacked against Israel, that’s when we remember to turn to the Source “from whence cometh our help.” And that’s when the gentle citizens of the world once again shake their heads and mutter, “Can it be that G-D is truly with Israel?”

      And why would G-D be with Israel? From Solomon’s prayer of dedication in I Kings 8:60– “To the end that all the people of the earth may know that the LORD alone is G-D, there is no other.” (JPS)

      Still, as the daughter-in-law of Holocaust survivors, I tremble in these times. I pray for leaders to have wisdom… and for serious analyses as in this article to be spread abroad.

      (Note: “Gentle” is not a typo.)

    16. Glenda says:

      What you are suggesting sounds all very well on paper, but in reality it will never work. The world will not allow it, the world judges Jews and Israel by very different standards, that we all know. What gives you the idea that even if international law is on the Jewish side, that the world at large will recognise that and acknowledge it? It is a pipe dream. Fact is that the arabs have all the international support, have the funds, and the death cult to continue the fight. We need to look at this with fresh eyes and fight for what is possible and keeping the major Jewish population areas in Judea and Samaria as well as Jerusalem is possible. The rest is wishful thinking. Jews cannot afford the luxury of dreaming, we need to be pragmatists. It is an anti semitic world out there, Jewish life accounts for very little. Just look at the total disinterest in any of the countries in attempting to free Gilad Shalit.

    17. I’ve never understood this emphasis on international law and all of this legal posturing. Glick basically has it right. It’s not and never has been about law or morality. It’s about power and political interests. If we’re strong and aggressive and push our interests and play dirty politics the way the Arabs do we have a chance of winning. If we’re conciliatory and try to be reasonable and get along we’ll get steam-rolled, which is what’s been happening for the past 20 years. This isn’t an academic debate at Oxford, it’s a medieval Arab shuk.

    18. yamit82 says:

      Robert S. Barnes says:
      April 11, 2011 at 10:13 am

      I’ve never understood this emphasis on international law and all of this legal posturing. Glick basically has it right. It’s not and never has been about law or morality. It’s about power and political interests. If we’re strong and aggressive and push our interests and play dirty politics the way the Arabs do we have a chance of winning. If we’re conciliatory and try to be reasonable and get along we’ll get steam-rolled, which is what’s been happening for the past 20 years. This isn’t an academic debate at Oxford, it’s a medieval Arab shuk.

      Couldn’t agree more. It’s us who are the problem not them. They smell our projected weakness if not outright cowardice and like all animals of prey press their advantage.

      “Nice guys finish last”… May apply to individuals but when applied to small nations under existential mortal threat it’s suicidal. only a fool believes and acts according to “restraint is a form of strength” Attributed to: Rabin, Peres, Sharon, Olmert, Livni but BB is by his actions the biggest advocate of that concept by his actions.

    19. yamit82 says:

      Published: 04/11/11, 11:58 AM
      Speech to the Flemish Parliament
      by Professor Hillel Weiss

      The author was asked to address the Flemish Parliament on a visit to Europe of Judea and Samaria leaders. Here, in his clear and uncompromising fashion, he talks of Jews and Islam, Israel and the Arab Nations.

      Distinguished Colleagues,

      The various freedom-loving parties of Europe have rallied to rescue the West from the Islamic take-over of the continent by sword, a continent which in the past was threatened by barbarian invasions which were stopped in Spain and in Vienna. Today without the arrival of military force, conquest and occupation are taking place by means of the millions of immigrants whose actions make clear their ambition to impose the rule of Islam as a religion and as a political culture – on all of the countries of Europe by force, and not just by gradually changing the religion and culture.

      We Jews were here in Europe once. We were exterminated by the millions in the nineteen forties. Despite that, by the mercy of the Almighty God who guards us, a national homeland for the Jewish people has been built in the Land of Israel, as prophesied in our Holy Scriptures where it says that God will restore us to the land of our forefathers, will gather in all of our exiles, and will re-build the Temple in His holy city of Jerusalem, which will be called a house of prayer for all the nations of the earth. Read More

    20. yamit82 says:

      “Jewish Al-Jazeera” News Network on the Horizon
      http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/143484

      “I feel the persecution of Jews on my skin. We can’t just be indifferent. Every year the situation gets worse, and we monitor it. People tend to think that the American Congress members know the truth about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it’s not true. All their information comes from the media. Seventy percent of what the international media reports in terms of the conflict is of an anti-Israel nature. We check the ‘anti-Semitism index’ in 27 countries, and there is definitely a rise in anti-Semitism, which I believe is a direct result of what the media reports”.

      One of the first to comment on Dr. Mashkevich’s announcement of the formation of a pro-Israel news channel is Dr. Phyllis Chesler, Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies at the City University of New York and op-ed contributor for Arutz Sheva. In her article of April 8th that appeared on the “NewsRealBlog” web site, Prof. Chesler said, “I hope [he] and his advisors understand that this new channel must be far better than Al-Jazeera, not only in terms of truth-telling but in other ways as well”.

      Adding that “Al-Jazeera broadcasts only in Arabic and English, and is only now preparing to broadcast in Turkish and Urdu,” she said, “The ‘Jewish Al-Jazeera’ must appear in many more languages simultaneously: Arabic, Turkish, Persian, Kurdish, Urdu, Punjabi, Sindhi, Bengali, Pashto, the Indonesian and Malaysian languages, as well as in all the European, East European, and former Soviet languages. Why? Because all the Big Lies and blood libels about Israel and the Jews are being told 24/7 in every language on earth. I wrote about this in 2003, in my book The New Anti-Semitism.”

    21. Bill Narvey says:

      Legal arguments invariably beget counter legal arguments, leaving it for a judge to decide the issue. In the matter of the various legal cases posited for Israel and Jews, in which court and to which judge, is that case to be brought for a fair judicial binding determination? We all know the answer to that one, so no further explanation is necessary.

      When it comes to resolving hot button issues like the Israel vs. Palestinian/Arab ongoing war, efforts amongst nations, be it at the UN or the machinations of the world’s nations outside the ambit of the UN, efforts are primarily governed by the principle “might makes right”.

      Even granting that the legal arguments advanced for Israel and Jews and against Palestinians/Arabs are unassailable, they are only incontrovertible in theory.

      Neither the UN nor its members are interested in according any attention, let alone credence to international law that favors Israel and Jews when to do so, would conflict with their perceptions of what is in their own best interests and undermine their consequent words, policies and deeds in furtherance of those perceived interests as regards Israel and the Palestinians/Arabs.

      It is not that the Palestinians/Arabs have been better at advancing their case than Israel and Jews. It is a matter of the world simply being far more receptive to what they say, even though the case they make is more accurately described a propaganda based on the big lie. It helps Palestinians/Arabs immensely when the world ignores Palestinian/Arab lies, broken promises, treachery and terrorism.

      The problem Israel and Jews have in making their case, is not however only with nations willfully blind to the rights, needs and aspirations of Israel and Jews. It runs much deeper to influence the thinking of nations’ citizens.

      We are all aware that antisemitism and thus anti-Israel animus that is rampant in much of the Muslim world, including Palestinian society, plays a signficant role in Western based left wing ideology.

      Consider as well however, that concern and sympathy for the plight of Palestinians is also evident in conservative pro-Israel factions of Western society, where pundits and ordinary citizens while supporting Israeli and Jewish rights, needs, interests and aspirations rarely fail to express concern for the plight of Palestinians, even while pointing out Palestinian/Arab wrongs that contribute significantly to that plight and the need for a fair and just peace between Israel and Palestinians.

      Finally, Israel and Jews themselves are deeply divided on the issue of Israeli rights, interests, needs and aspirations, contrasted with and measured against those Palestinians claim for themselves.

      That divisiveness only adds to the painfully heavy double standard the world singularly imposes on Israel and Jews in so many respects.

      If there is any lesson for Israel and Jews to learn from this, it is that resorting to moaning under the weight of the evil double standard and presenting cogent, formidable and intellectualy unassailable arguments in law, fact, reason and logic, all geared to winning sympathy, understanding and acceptance of Israel’s and Jews’ rights, interests, needs and aspirations, simply are not enough.

      Something much more, different and bolder in the way of advocacy/activism is what is required. What that something is is limited only by the limits of imagination.

    22. dan friedman says:

      Narvey:

      It is not that the Palestinians/Arabs have been better at advancing their case than Israel and Jews. It is a matter of the world simply being far more receptive to what they say, even though the case they make is more accurately described a propaganda based on the big lie. It helps Palestinians/Arabs immensely when the world ignores Palestinian/Arab lies, broken promises, treachery and terrorism.

      I beg to differ on this very point, In an age of hidden cell phone cameras and social internet, the bullying tactics that were resorted to in dealing with Pals civilians were there for all to see.The use of phosphorus laden weapons that created terrible burns amongst non combattants provided excellent anti -Israeli propaganda in recent Gaza incursions.

      In the long run we (Israelis) were and still are our own worst enemies.

    23. Bill Narvey says:

      Couldn’t disagree with you more Dan.

      Were these photos of phosporous burns or something else? Even if these Palestinian civilians were harmed as charged by the Israeli attack, were they forced to be human shields or did they willingly volunteer? Were these really civilians or Palestinian terrorists, dressed in civilian garb? These and other related questions are rarely canvassed by those shocked into believing what the photos show as if those photos show reality and truth.

      The Palestinians have time and again staged things to misrepresent reality and present lies. Knowing this, whether it be Jew or non-Jews we should treat such evidence offerings of Israeli wrongs with the greatest of skepticism unless and until all the facts and truth emerges.

      As for Israelis being their own worst enemies, world pressure and Israel’s own folly at times, have contributed to giving credence to that charge.

      As with your reference to evidence from cell phone cameras and social internet, however Israel appearing to be her won worst enemy, does not as I noted, necessarily represent truth or the whole truth.

    24. yamit82 says:

      Bill Narvey says:
      April 11, 2011 at 3:49 pm

      Couldn’t disagree with you more Dan. HYMIE

    25. Shy Guy says:

      yamit82 says:
      April 11, 2011 at 5:43 pm

      Couldn’t disagree with you more Dan. HYMIE

      I don’t think it’s him.

    26. Dan says:

      Nous juifs de la diaspora nous ne devons jamais aller dans le sens contraire des décisions prises par les gouvernements et la population israeliens.
      Notre devoir est de soutenir nos frères en Israel et les aider à ce que des résolutions contre Israel à l’ONU Cessent. Nous sommes déjà desavantagés par le nombre de sieges qu’occupent tous les états arabes et musulmans ne parlons pas des sieges des états qui dépendent du pétrole comme de l’oxygene.
      Le meilleur exemple Est le rapport goldstone qui a été baclé et publié sans réflexion aucune.Le juge goldstone a été l’idiot utile de tous les ennemis d’Israel
      J’appelle tous les juifs et tous les chrétiens à prier pour que les islamistes ne prennent jamais le pouvoir dans les états musulmans.

    27. dan friedman says:

      Narvey:

      Were these photos of phosporous burns or something else? Even if these Palestinian civilians were harmed as charged by the Israeli attack, were they forced to be human shields or did they willingly volunteer? Were these really civilians or Palestinian terrorists, dressed in civilian garb? These and other related questions are rarely canvassed by those shocked into believing what the photos show as if those photos show reality and truth.

      Now you are twisting yourself into a veritable pretzel to make a point. Who are you attempting to convince of the accuracy of what you write? YAMIT!

      Yes, I know the whole world hates Jews. But you forget that prior to 1967 the west celebrated the birth of Israel and completely forgot about the Palestinians. How did the world become so very, very antisemitic in just a few decades? WHY, Bill, WHY? This is a fine point that is not being addressed.

      Perhaps it is the sense of superiority and inability of Israelis to understand that the Pals just do not want to be kicked around, as undoubtedly they have.

    28. WhiskeyX says:

      harry freedman says:
      April 11, 2011 at 4:00 am
      can somebody tell me what is wrong in having the Palestinians achieving statehood?
      I appreciate that Palestine would then become a member of the United Nations, but what are the other issues that Israel is concerned about. I had hoped this article would set out the points clearly.

      I am often asked by my non jewish friends and acquaintences what is the basis for israels opposition to the suggestion, but i have not been able to articulate it properly.

      hoping to hear from someone

      chag sameach

      They achieved statehood a long long time ago. The state is known as Jordan, which was carved out of the area originally promised to the Israelis. The Islamic Arab goal is to eliminate all Jewish presence by further reducing the extent of israel a piece at a time, until there is no more Israel and the Jewish people they regard as infidels have been exterminated.

    29. Dan, you’re wrong. The world was just as anti-Israel, even more so prior to Israel’s show of strength in 1967. For example, immediately prior to the outbreak of the six day war the US and Europe tried to force Israel to cede the Negev to Egypt as a solution to coming outbreak of war. Just as funny historical trivia, IIRC the effort was spear headed by Al Gore’s father, Senator Gore. See Ambassador Michael Oren’s book, Six Days of War. For another example, see the famous interview of Abba Eban by Mike Wallace in 1958. You can watch it on Youtube. Arab-Israeli conflict: The Mike Wallace Interview – Abba Eban 1958 (1 of 3) In it’s anti-Israel hostility it sounds like it could have occurred last week. Everyone should watch this interview.

    30. dweller says:

      “Israel will have no legal obligation to refrain from annexing Judea and Samaria in whole or in part. “

      “Israel should welcome the recognition of a Palestinian state…”

      Afraid I don’t understand, Ted.

      If the “Palestinians” were given a state other than in Y/S/A, where could they put it — in the Sudetenland?

    31. Ted Belman says:

      The issue is what will the borders be. The EU and the PA are pushing us to accept ’67. I say no . We will keep our settlements and our security requirements. I do not base our policy on getting them to leave J&S. Thus they will have a limited state.

    32. Ted Belman says:

      1. The Palestinians don’t want statehood. They want to destroy Israel.
      2. They insist on all of the territories and are unwilling to compromise.
      3. They can’t have a state unless they recognize Israel as the Jewish state and agree to be demilitarized. They reject both of these.

      Nothing wron with them having a @state@ but it must have restricted borders and must be demilitarized.

    33. dweller says:

      “Nothing wrong with them having a state, but it must have restricted borders and must be demilitarized.”

      Nothing wrong with a “kosher pork chop” either, if you can find one.

      “Under international law, sovereignty permits government a latitude forbidden to non-state entities/organizations. For example, a state can invite foreign soldiers (and the toys they like to play with) onto its own soil to make it easier to get up-close-and-personal with its new, or old, neighbors — should the occasion just happen to present itself. Know what I mean? Not a damned thing the neighbors can do about such cordiality (or its acceptance by the invitee) from the standpoint of law.

      “What’s more (just in case anybody’s thinking this way), there’s absolutely no such thing as a “demilitarized state” — not in the real world, where it amounts to an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. (Think ‘kosher pork chop.’ Got the picture?)

      “Recall the unconcealed contempt in Stalin’s memorable reply to the observation that the Pope was, after all, like himself, a chief of state: ‘How many divisions has he got?’ No individual leader, and no body of leadership, is going to hear himself, or itself, formally recognized as the legitimate representative or governing structure of a sovereign state and not insist on direct access to, and control over, an armed establishment to enforce that state’s ultimate prerogatives.

      “And such an expectation would be entirely understandable under those circumstances.

      “Moreover, and let’s have no illusions about this: Even an entity that began its diplomatic existence as a ‘demilitarized’ state would most certainly not remain so. Once it were recognized as a state, there would be no stopping its ‘graduation to prime time,’ paper promises to the contrary notwithstanding. We mustn’t kid ourselves; life’s never long enough to sweep up all the wreckage left in the wake of decisions made under the influence of wishful thinking. Desire makes a magnificent energizer, but she’s a piss-poor counselor — and a jaundiced judge…”

      More: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/middle_east_peace_insoluble_do.html

      I know you’ve seen this, Ted.

      You ran it a while back.

      What am I — and this writer — overlooking?

    34. Ted Belman says:

      I wrote that there was nothing wrong in creating a state, I should have added “in principle”. Furthermore I limited the kind of state that I was talking about. That was to answer the question what’s wrong with giving them a state. The questioner should thus understand the problem why it wont happen.

      Even if “Palestine” entered an agreement not to militarize etc they will violate the agreement. I realize that. But let us assume for a minite that an end of conflict agreement is signed on our terms, we will no longer be occupiers and if they declare war through terrorism. we can go to war with them and leave them wishing they didn’t.

      So we must ask if an agreement on our terms is worth signing even if they will violate it and militarize. You tell me.

      But it will never happen.

    35. dweller says:

      “So we must ask if an agreement on our terms is worth signing even if they will violate it and militarize. You tell me.”

      Well, as long as you’re asking — no, it isn’t worth it.

      It would only underscore our (continued) emotional unpreparedness to

      call the game,

      something we should’ve done long ago.

      I mean, how many times can you pay for the same old Oriental Carpet

      in the same shouk

      without ever getting to “take delivery” of the merchandise –

      and still expect the neighborhood

      to ever change its opinion

      of how to relate to you?

    Site Membership



    Google Site Search

    Editor

      Ted Belman

      tbelman3-at-gmail.com

    Mission

      News and Views on Israel, the Middle East, the war on terror and the clash of civilizations.

    Polls

    Why doesn't Bibi want to go "all the way"

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    RECOMMENDED BOOKS

    LOVE




    Tolerism2

    Iran islam

    Sharing

    mandate4

    Daily Archives

    July 2014
    S M T W T F S
    « Jun    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  

    Selected Israpundit Articles

    Polls

    Why doesn't Bibi want to go "all the way"

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    Miscellaneous Info

      All Politic Sites