By Barry Shaw
Barry Shaw lives in Netanya, Israel. He relates that he is releasing a new book in April entitled "Israel Reclaiming the Narrative," explaining "Anyone active with supporting Israel, or frustrated with not having the answers to the "Hate Israel" campaigners must arm themselves with a copy of this book. It is a prosecution of the liars and hypocrites by exposing who they are, details their deceit, and highlights their hidden agenda."
Barry may be reached by email at netre@netvision.net.il.
In an era in which the main battlefield against Israel is the campaign to delegitimize the very existence of the Jewish state it is of vital importance to challenge the false narratives that are being thrown into the public discourse and gradually being accepted by governments and also, as a consequence, by a wider audience.
The narrative tells of a dispossessed Palestine whose rights have been usurped by colonial invaders who have conquered their land through the Zionist enterprise. They are, in is claimed, made to suffer by the imposition of a European Holocaust which has left them paying the price. Driven out of their land by Jewish interlopers the remnants have been occupied and oppressed by a brutal 'Nazi-like regime.
That, in a nutshell, is the Palestinian case that has resounded around the world. Magnified by its repetitive telling, it has gained ground in mainstream thinking. The Israeli response has been prevarication, ranging from reminders of biblical heritage to the opinion that Jewish Israel does not need to stake any claim for possessing its own land. The time has come to address and pronounce the legitimacy of Israel.
No country has a greater legitimacy, under international law, to exist than Israel. If Israel does not possess that legal right to sovereignty then no nation on earth can claim greater legitimacy than Israel. To fully understand this, one needs to fully understand the unfolding of modern history and the international resolutions that give Israel its full and exclusive right to sovereignty.
Current perceptions have been formed partially to defray a troublesome region of the Middle East that has seen nothing but war, terrorism, and upheavals for decades. Statements have been made and accepted, resolutions have been passed, without taking into consideration legal rulings that give clear status to disputed territories.
Central to the Israel-Palestinian issue is the matter of Jerusalem. Khaled Mashal, the Hamas representative in Damascus, said that "Jerusalem's fate will be settled by holy war." Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority, said in Bethlehem in 2009 that East Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine and that this is a red line that no Arab may cross. President Obama has declared that East Jerusalem must become the capital of Palestine and Jewish settlements there are illegitimate. The Arab League has said that all the territory up to the 1967 border must go a new Palestinian state. The United Nations has stated that all the territory is not Arab but Palestinian territory. Iran says that all of Palestine must be liberated. Hizbollah's Nasrallah has declared that Palestine is part of the Islamic nation and jihad is the only way to redeem it. All these statements are false in legal terms.
To say that the West Bank is occupied is correct. It was occupied by the British as part of their obligation as a Mandated power. It is today occupied by Israel as part of the Jewish territory legally bestowed upon it by international law. To fully understand the legal implications that have been swept under the rug by interested parties let me take you back in history and show you the unfolding of events.
If you go back to the maps of Jerusalem from Roman times, when the might of Rome defeated the Jewish kingdom, you will see the outline of the Old City of Jerusalem not dissimilar to today's contours. Examining maps and lithographs throughout the ages show a remarkably similar pattern. There was virtually no construction outside the ancient walls of Jerusalem for centuries. True Jerusalem is the Old City of Jerusalem.
For those that say that there was never a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (and this is an essential part of the Palestinian and Islamic narrative) not only defies Judeo-Christian history and heritage, it also defies concrete evidence to the contrary. One need not believe the findings of centuries of archeologists and historians to justify the claim of Jewish Jerusalem dating back to Roman times. Simply go to Rome and visit the triumphant Arch of Titus. There, carved into the stones, are scenes depicting the removal of the Jewish menorah, stolen from the Jewish Temple, being brought by Jewish slaves, defeated and exiled from their homeland, to Rome.
The prayer to return to Zion has resounded throughout many centuries, captured in liturgies and recited in prayers. "Next Year in Jerusalem" repeated year by year as a cornerstone of the Passover service in Jewish homes. The breaking of the glass at Jewish wedding ceremonies reminds the celebrating participants of the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. All this longing to be delivered back to an ancient homeland proves and unbreakable bond, but it does not give legal legitimacy. This came later.
Modern Zionism began in the Nineteenth Century. Moshe Hess in 1862 insisted that Jews had to keep alive the hope of the rebirth of the Jewish people and the restoration of the Jewish state. The suffering of the Jewish people in Europe throughout the years highlighted their statelessness and lack of belonging in any of the European nations. Anti-Semitism attacked them even in places that should have appreciated their contribution to society. Things were little different in Arab cultures where Jews were kept in dhimmi status when they were not being victimized and persecuted. Such anti-Semitic attacks generated the secular Theodor Herzl to understand that Jews would not find an expression of self determination and freedom except in their own country. He wrote "Der Judenstaat" (The Jewish State) and became the first international public diplomat for the Jewish cause that became Zionism.
One needs to understand that the right to exist as a Jewish People in our National Home is not the problem of the Jews. It is the problem of the nations that should be ashamed of themselves for the despicable way they persecuted their Jews. Today, many of those nations, and other that did not exist themselves at that time, want to remove what belongs to us. It may be worth reminding them that their legitimacy is on shakier ground than that of Israel.
Herzl dies and Chaim Weitzman takes over the mantle of the Zionist cause. His work led to the famous Balfour Declaration which declared;
Foreign Office, November 2nd, 1917.
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of the object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious' rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,‚
(Signed) Arthur James Balfour
This was a pledge from the British Government to support the creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, given in 1917 at the time of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Those that say that the British did not have the right to give what was not theirs to give would be correct. The Balfour Declaration was not a legally binding document.
Everything turned around from a legal standpoint in 1919. The Paris Peace Conference at the Quai d'Orsay was the setting where all the claimants to territories held by the Ottomans could state their case before the principle Allied Powers. For six months different parties put their claims for parts of the post Ottoman territories. Concentrating on the Arab and Jewish claims, the Arabs were led by the Hashemite family, father and three sons. The Jewish claim was put by the Zionists led by Chaim Weitzman. Feisal met with Weitzman in Paris and they entered into an agreement. They agreed that the Jewish and Arab claims were national and not imperialist. The Arabs wanted a large contiguous Arab state. The division of land to be agreed was that the Jews would receive Palestine from the Mediterranean Sea and including what is today Jordan, and the Arabs would receive the Arab Peninsular and what is today Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq (Mesopotamia at that time).They wanted this large tract of territory so much that they were willing to support the Jewish claim in respect of Palestine. Feisal went so far as to write in a letter to Felix Frankfurter, President of the Zionist Organisation of America, on March 3, 1919,
"The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper."
Both Feisal and Weitzman determined to work jointly for the mutual development of both the Arab and the Jewish states;
Agreement Between Emir Feisal and Dr. Weizmann
3 January, 1919
His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their natural aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following:
Articles:
Article I
The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding, and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in the respective territories.
Article II
Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto.
Article III
In the establishment of the Constitution and Administration of Palestine, all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government's Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917.
Article IV
All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.
Article V
No regulation or law shall be made prohibiting or interfering in any way with the free exercise of religion; and further, the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall ever be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
Article VI
The Mohammedan Holy Places shall be under Mohammedan control.
Article VII
The Zionist Organization proposes to send to Palestine a Commission of experts to make a survey of the economic possibilities of the country, and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will place the aforementioned Commission at the disposal of the Arab State for the purpose of a survey of the economic possibilities of the Arab State and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will use its best efforts to assist the Arab State in providing the means for developing the natural resources and economic possibilities thereof.
Article VIII
The parties hereto agree to act in complete accord and harmony on all matters embraced herein before the Peace Congress.
Article IX
Any matters of dispute which may arise between the contracting parties hall be referred to the British Government for arbitration.
Given under our hand at London, England, the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen
Chaim Weizmann and Feisal Ibn-Hussein.
Feisal did make one reservation that his agreement was pending on the Arab independecne in other territories being honoured by the British Secretary of Foreign Affairs. More of this later.
The Allied Powers, representing the United States of America, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, met to listen to all the claims to territory. It is important at this stage to point out that there was no Palestinian delegation. There was no Arab claim to Palestine. It was clear to the Jewish representatives that, given the hope that they would be awarded Palestine on which to re-establish the Jewish National Home, they did not have the funds, the infrastructure in place, the immediate manpower, to fully and immediately create a nation. They were aware that this venture needed to be nurtured and developed over time. Palestine had to be given the political, administrative, economic conditions to ensure the modern establishment of the Jewish National Home and ultimately render possible the creation of an "autonomous Commonwealth."
There was no decision taken in Paris. They decided to reconvene in San Remo, Italy, not to accept any new claimants but to decide on the applications received in Paris.
According to the minutes taken at the San Remo Conference at the Villa Devachan on April 25, 1920, it was agreed that;
The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
The wording of this resolution reflects accurately the text of the Balfour Declaration on 1917. This, in effect, converted the Balfour Declaration into a binding legal document. It was no longer the whim of a British Government with no rights but now incorporated into international law by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers. There is no veracity to the notion that such a body has no right to initiate internationally binding laws. One only has to look at many other binding decrees by other Principle Allied Powers in other stages of recent history to see that such an instrument is, indeed, legally binding.
The Balfour Declaration was adopted at San Remo for the Mandated administration of Palestine. Borders were not fixed at San Remo but an order was given that historical cartographer, George Adam Smith, should delineate the boundaries according to the ancient biblical outlines. They were later used by General Allenby and David Lloyd George to define the territory of Palestine.
The Mandated areas of Syria and Mesopotamia were also approved at San Remo. It is also most significant to stress that Israel does not draw its legal existence solely out of the United Nations Partition Plan Resolution on 1947 but from the San Remo Resolution which led to the Treaty of Sevres and then confirmed and legally stamped at the League of Nations in 1922.
The clauses of the San Remo Declaration were inserted into the Treaty of Sevres four months later on August 20, 1920 which legally vested the administration of the various territories into Mandatory powers. It is important to note that no specific people or nation was defined with regard to the administration of the Mandated Syrian and Mesopotamian regions. Those areas only referred to "people of the area." It was only the Mandate of Palestine, in Article 2, that specifically noted that the territory was to be for the Establishment of the National Home of the Jewish People "as laid down in the preamble", and the development of self-governing institutions. This is highly significant. The preamble becomes a key component of international law;
"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historic connection of the Jewish people within Palestine and to the grounds for re-constituting their national home in that country."
Were the legally granted territorial rights of the Jewish People honoured by the Prinicipal Allied Powers? No. Winston Churchill placated the Hashemites by carving a huge chunk out of the Mandated Palestine designated to become the new Jewish state and appended it to Emir Feisal to become Trans-Jordan.
Weitzman explained in 1947, "A postscript was also included in this treaty. This postscript relates to a reservation by King Feisal that he would carry out all the promises in this treaty if and when he would obtain his demands, namely, independence for the Arab countries. I submit that these requirements of King Feisal have at present been realized. The Arab countries are all independent, and therefore the condition on which depended the fulfillment of this treaty, has come into effect. Therefore, this treaty, to all intents and purposes, should today be a valid document."
The San Remo Declaration and the Treaty of Sevres were confirmed unanimously by the fifty one states at the League of Nations on July 24,1922. The unanimous declaration repeated the text of the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Resolution and the Treaty of Sevres, namely;
"Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."
The Mandate for Palestine became international law. The right of legal ownership of Palestine, the right of sovereignty, was legally and invested in the Jewish people.
Article 2 of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate states;
"The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."
Article 4 states;
"An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population of Palestine and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country."
An abbreviated addition to Article 4 states;
"The Zionist Organisation shall be recognized as such agency. It shall take steps to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."
Articles 5 and 6 are particularly important in the current circumstances. They clearly state;
"The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign power."
"The Administration of Palestine...shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency...close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."
The Mandatory administration passed into the hands of the State of Israel and the restriction of not allowing any ceding or leasing of any territory to any foreign power could be defined as including a Palestinian Authority that had no existence at the time of the enacting of this international law and, therefore, could be construed as being a foreign power.
The second clause clearly gives legal rights for the Jews of Israel to establish settlements of all lands defined as Palestine, the national home of the Jewish people. It certainly contradicts all claims that Jewish settlement is illegal.
This, in itself, gives sufficient grounds to prove that Israel possesses exclusive sovereignty rights to the territory under international law, a law that has not been rescinded since. But there is more, much more, that strengthens Jewish legitimacy to all the territory that was known as Palestine.
With the violent objection of the Arabs to the Jewish progress towards statehood and self determination in Palestine and what was to become the Jewish State of Israel, The United Nations decided to impose a partition plan on the parties, thereby reducing the land legally granted under international law to the Jewish people. On November 29, 1947 the General Assembly of The United Nations passed Resolution 181 that would divide the territory of what was left of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. Reluctantly Israel agreed to the unfavourable decision. The Arabs rejected the proposal. However, war broke out and the partition plan was never implemented by the Security Council. On March 5, 1948, the United Nations Security Council reached an impasse when it refused to pass a resolution which would have accepted the partition plan as a basis for Security Council action.
It is worth pointing out that for any United Nations Resolution to be enacted into law it must pass in to the Security Council and be voted on. Resolution 181 reached an empasse when it reached the Security Council on March 5, 1948. They refused to vote on the Resolution effectively making the partition proposal null and void. UN Resolution 181 therefore, has no relevance in international law despite all claims to the contrary. All statements denouncing Israel's "illegal" construction is incorrect. Similarly, all statements claiming that Palestinians have legal or sovereign rights to any of the territory are legally incorrect.
The rejection of UN Resolution 181, and its failure to progress in the Security Council, leaves the League of Nations 1922 law in effect to this day.
The Jewish people have never renounced their rights to Jerusalem. They have never formally abandoned their rights to title and sovereignty. The Jewish people have the legal right to live and remain in every part of the territory which was part of the Mandated territory of Palestine, now Israel. They have the right to give up what is legally theirs, but they cannot be forced out. Any other claim to legal title is fraudulent and has no standing in international law that can replace the existing Jewish claim. Nations may refuse to accept Israel's legitimate rights because of other political or vested interests but these defy Jewish justice and legitimacy. Neither is it possible to retroactively apply legal principles that remove prior standing in international law. The nations have reneged on the obligation they embraced at the 1922 League of Nations. Under the law of nations, under international law, Israel has a solid, valid, claim which ought to be honoured by the nations of the world today.
The international community, led by the anti-Israel hardliners, have taken Israel's historic rights and international legitimacy for self determination in their land and thrown it into the garbage bin of history as if it was irrelevant. They have replaced international law by ignoring it and replacing it with a contrary narrative. They have promoted this invention for decades and have persuaded a naive Western world and a broader international community to invest billions of dollars into creating a fiction that has become a political nightmare. They have pressured a pliant Israel into making high risk concessions that expose its very existence to jeopardy.
Israeli governments, for their sins, have failed to state the legal justifications for its total sovereignty. It has failed to prosecute the lie of Palestinian rights to the land. They don't have any. It's as simple as that. By not doing so they have opened themselves up to the charge that Israeli actions, development, construction, expansion, population of the land is illegal. This claim needs to be, must be, refuted vigorously. To reclaim legitimacy is to reclaim the narrative. Reclaiming the narrative is to reclaim justice to Israel and expose the lies and hypocrisy that have fooled the world for decades.
It is quite appalling that successive Israeli governments have failed to impose Israel's clear legal rights and sovereignty. Nor have they demanded that these rights be fully recognized as a precondition for any negotiations with regard to territory. It is only by international acknowledgement of Israel's legal rights to sovereignty and to exist as the recognized Jewish State of Israel, including by Palestinian Arab representatives, that any pragmatic progress be made in any future peace talks.
It is the rejection of this legal fact that has kept the region, and the world, in turmoil for decades and threatens to keep it there for decades to come.
Friday, February 25, 2011
If Egypt becomes real democracy, it can keep Sinai
 |
| Ed Berns |
This article by Ed Berns was published as an op-ed in The New Haven Register on February 22, 2011. It is posted here with the permission of the author.
There is a cartoon making the rounds about the democratization of Egypt. It poses the question: If Egypt breaks the peace
agreement with Israel, does Israel get back Sinai.?
This raises an interesting point: Israel has given much in its quest for peace with its neighbors, the Sinai Peninsula included, and it is entitled to the benefit of its bargain.
Under Hosni Mubarak's rule, Israel enjoyed peace with Egypt. An autocratic, Mubarak-led Egypt might have been better for Israel than the new Egypt will be. Realistically, Israel's relations with its Arab neighbors reflect a balance between those who tolerate the Jewish state and those who believe its existence remains the ultimate Arab humiliation. The great unknown is where a revamped Egypt will fall on that scale.
The Sinai is emblematic of the risks Israel has proven it is prepared to take for lasting peace. Captured from Egypt during the 1967 Six Day War, the 26,000-square-mile peninsula was returned to Egypt as part of the peace treaty with Israel.
The exchange was an enormous gamble that is taken for granted today. By giving up land that represented a huge defensive buffer against the strongest of the Arab armies, Israel also displaced its citizens and returned oil fields that would have provided it energy independence.
The Sinai Peninsula isn't the only land Israel has exchanged for peace. There is also Gaza.
Gaza also was captured by Israel in the 1967 war. Within two weeks of cessation of hostilities, Israel offered to exchange all the land it captured for peace with its Arab neighbors. The Arab response was the notorious "three nos" of the Khartoum Resolution: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel.
Having conquered Gaza, Israel was stuck with it. Golda Meir, Israel's prime minister then, expressed national frustration by asking: "How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."
In 2005, pursuant to the Oslo Accords, Israel pulled out of Gaza, uprooting more than 8,500 of its citizens. Even the Jewish cemeteries were removed.
Following internecine fighting, the Palestinian Authority was overthrown by the popularly elected Hamas, an avowed enemy of Israel and designated as terrorist by the United States.
What did Israel get for its transfer of Gaza? From 2005 through 2008, more than 8,600 rockets were fired indiscriminately into civilian areas of Israel from Gaza. Despite countless warnings and with no alternative, Israel reluctantly sent its army into Gaza to stem the attacks. Ultimately, there was a drastic reduction of the attacks.
Yet, in an impressive feat of reverse engineering that has proven as frustrating to refute as trying to nail Jell-O, Israel's defense of its citizens has been intentionally mischaracterized by anti-Israel factions as evidence of Israeli oppression of Gaza .
Last year, Robert L. Bernstein - founder of Human Rights Watch, which is frequently critical of Israel - gave a lecture at the University of Nebraska that went far to set the record straight. He took to task Human Rights Watch and similar organizations for their treatment of Israel compared to other countries in the Middle East. "If you talk about freedom of speech, the rights of women, an open education and freedom of religion, there is only one state in the Middle East concerned with those issues: Israel," he said.
Israel represents the role model for which millions of democracy-seeking citizens of Arab nations, most recently Egypt, dream.
As demonstrated by the advent of rule by mullahs in Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, change in the Middle East seldom bodes well for Israel. If history is a guide, Egypt's transition to a democracy is far from a sure thing.
Still, as Sallai Meridor, Israel's former ambassador to the United States recently commented in The Washington Post, if a real democracy, committed to the values of freedom and peace, were to emerge, Israelis would overwhelmingly support it.
And, Egypt could keep Sinai.
Edward J. Berns is chairman of the Israel Affairs Committee of Temple Beth Sholom in Hamden. He may be reached by email at redberns@sbcglobal.net.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
A Non-Dialog With a Wall
On Saturday, January 8, 2011, The New Haven Register published a "Faith Matters" op-ed by Jimmy E. Jones under the title "Slaughter of innocents as self-defense, retribution: Sept. 11 terrorism, Gaza warfare."
The New Haven Register provides the following information about Jones: "Jimmy E. Jones is president of Masjid Al-Islam and associate professor of world religions at Manhattanville College, where he is founding coordinator of the Center for Middle East Understanding. Write to him at 624 George St., New Haven 06511. E-mail: jonesyahya@yahoo.com."
Jones has written a number of articles for The New Haven Register in which he touches on the Arab-Israeli conflict. They have been universally heavily biased against Israel and have generally contained significant factual inaccuracies.
After Saturday's article, I sent some comments to the PRIMER mailing list and also sent a letter to the editor in response. I sent a copy to Jones, which prompted a reply from him, leading to an exchange that lasted several days until it was beyond pointless to continue.
After a few more comments, we include here the comments sent to the PRIMER mailing list (which give some idea of the content of Jones' article), the letter sent to The New Haven Register, and the texts of the exchanges, edited to remove repetition and thus improve clarity. In some cases, the reply was interspersed with the text of the email to which it was in reply; in those cases, the portions from the latter are in italics. (As is typical in email exchanges, most of the emails contained the texts of all the previous emails, making things rather confusing.)
Comments
1. As is typical of anti-Israel activists, Jones repeatedly falsely accuses Israel and its supporters of sins of which its enemies are guilty.
2. As is also typical of critics, Jones repeatedly refuses to offer any alternatives - even unreasonable alternatives - to the Israeli policies and actions he unfairly attacks.
3. As is also typical of Israel-haters, Jones includes obvious factual errors in addition to more understandable misrepresentations and distortions in his letter.
Comments Sent to the PRIMER Email List
Jones falsely refers to Operation Cast Lead as a "slaughter of innocents." As is typical of critics of Israel, he gets things backwards, falsely accusing Israel of the crimes of its enemies.
Israel's purely defensive action was undertaken to end the attempted slaughter of innocents by Hamas and its allied terror groups controlling Gaza.
CAMERA has an excellent "Timeline and Causes of “Operation Cast Lead” in Gaza" which may be viewed at http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=52&x_article=1581.
Among the illuminating facts in that report, totally ignored by Jones, is that during 2008, no fewer than 1,571 rockets from Gaza struck Israel. Despite that onslaught, Operation Cast Lead was not launched until the very end of the year, on December 27.
Note that 1,571 rockets in one year amount to an average of more than four per day - in a year which included a six month "calm!!!"
Those rockets have no guidance system, being purely terrorist weapons aimed at murdering innocent civilians. Imagine the outcry if even a single rocket hit an American city from a nearby, hostile entity!
CAMERA also has a useful report "Myths and Facts about the Fighting in Gaza" which may be viewed at.
Jones also praises and misuses the infamous "Goldstone Report." CAMERA also has a devastating critique of that, "The Goldstone Report: A Study in Duplicity," available at http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=52&x_article=1736. (Many other organizations have also intelligently analyzed the Goldstone Report.)
Jones falsely refers to "more than 1,000 innocent lives lost." As almost always happens, the figures given by Hamas and other Arab groups have proven to be wildly inflated while the figures given by Israel have proven to be accurate.
Hamas itself admitted as much, although the news went largely unreported in American newspapers. Check "Hamas's Revelation Undermines Key Conclusion of Goldstone Report" at http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=52&x_article=1952, which begins with the information "Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hamad's admission that Hamas and affiliated militias lost 600-700 fighters in the Israeli 'Cast Lead' military operation undermines the central accusation of the Goldstone Report that the Israeli operation was 'premised on a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed ... [at] the civilian population.'"
Indeed, Israel Ambassador to the United States has observed that the proportion of civilian casualties Gaza during Operation Cast Lead was incredibly low, far lower than in virtually any other instance of urban warfare, where generally the vast majority of casualties are civilian. This despite the deliberate use of civilians as shields by Hamas.
Jones' perverted perspective may be symbolized by his recommendation of a book, "Popular Resistance in Palestine," by Mazin Qumsiyeh. Qumsiyeh is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. He is fanatical about the fictitious "right of return" of descendants of Palestinian Arab refugees to the land of Israel in which they never lived. If even a small proportion of Palestinian Arabs share the extreme views he spews out on his website http://www.qumsiyeh.com and his book "Sharing the Land of Canaan" (which may be read on his website), any reasonable peace in the foreseeable future is a pipedream.
(The references to CAMERA's studies are for convenience; similar information is available from numerous other sources. The reference to Qumsiyeh's website is to encourage readers to educate themselves about the fanaticism and duplicity of anti-Israel activists. Those who are actually committed to peace - for Israel and for its neighbors - need to be aware of the forces arrayed against peace.)
The Letter Sent to The New Haven Register
A copy of this letter was sent to Jones with the introduction:
"Most charitably, I found your recent Forum column horribly misguided and demonstrating tremendous gullibilty. To help set the record straight, I have sent the following response to The New Haven Record and am sending you a copy.
"I hope you will better inform yourself in the future before spreading misinformation that has been contradicted even by its source."
In his Faith Matters piece, Jimmy Jones did what so many critics of Israel do: he inverted the truth.
When it comes to the slaughter of innocents, that is precisely what Hamas and its allied terror groups based in Gaza are doing. They fired 8,000 rockets at Israeli civilians before Israel finally responded in December 2008. Nearly 1,600 rockets were fired in 2008 alone, despite the fact that year included a six month long "calm!" Sderot, the closest Israeli city, was hit by more than one rocket per family.
Imagine how New Haven would react if West Haven was ruled by a "democratically elected" terror group pledged to destroy it and fired even a single rocket at a school or kindergarten!
Jones also repeats the Hamas lie, one of the bases of the infamous Goldstone Report Jones misleadingly praises, that more than 1,000 innocents were killed in Gaza. That lie has recently been refuted even by Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hamad, who admitted Hamas and its affiliated "militias" lost between 600 and 700 fighters in the operation.
Michael Oren, a noted historian and currently Israeli ambassador to our country, has pointed out that in urban warfare it is typical for 80-90 percent of the casualties to be civilian. In Gaza, the proportion of civilian casualties was probably the lowest in the history of urban warfare, despite Hamas' deliberate policy of putting civilians in harm's way for propaganda purposes.
Israel should be lauded, not condemned, for its virtually unprecedented efforts to avoid casualties among enemy civilians.
The following is the exchange of emails, in order.
Jones to Stein
I have made it clear in many places (,verbal and written, here in the US and abroad), that I unequivocally abhor the slaughter of innocents particularly in the name of Islam by Hamas or anyone else. My record in this regard is clear and open for all to see. What saddens me most about your letter is that you want to rationalize what even many Israelis (not just Judge Goldstone) view as the unconscionable killing of (by your minimizing count) at least 300 innocent Gazans like the daughter and nieces of the courageous Dr Abuelaish as "typical" Have really became this callous that mutual infanticide is our ONLY possible response to terror? This is indeed a very sad way to promote Middle east understanding particularly as we prepare for the Martin Luther King weekend.Please, please do not distort my views in order to advance yours.
Stein to Jones
I did not distort your views in any way, although you have now distorted mine - I did not give any count, minimizing or otherwise, of innocent Gazans killed. I merely pointed out that a Hamas leader contradicted the incorrect figures you used in your letter; while one can be sure the number of terrorists killed was no fewer than the number he gave, it's likely it was significantly higher.
In any war, there will be civilians killed; it's unavoidable. As I pointed out, what was amazing in Gaza is that so few were killed.
What I did not write, although it's true, is that the responsibility for those deaths lies with the party which forced the war - the Palestinian Arabs in Gaza. Hamas and its allied terror groups also did their best to maximize civilian casualties for their own despicable purposes. One of the signs of the absurdity of the conflict is that Israel has shown a far greater interest in keeping Arabs alive than the Arab leaders.
I would suggest, given that you are so bitterly opposed to anything and everything Israel ever does to keep its own citizens from being slaughtered, you might suggest some reasonable alternatives. I have yet to hear a single reasonable suggestion from any of those who, like your, are so critical of everything Israel does.
Jones to Stein
All I ask is that you not jump to conclusions about what I have done/think based on an article (and your rather fixed pre-conceived position). If you are really interested- we can talk about what I have done over the years to try to stop this sens less bloodshed- just because you do not know about it does not mean it is not going on.
Stein to Jones
Are you disavowing what you've written? You have a pretty consistent record of one-sided, misinformed op-eds over the years. If you do not wish people to reach conclusions based on what you write, I suggest you include a disclaimer with each of your columns.
The violence may seem senseless to you, but it's certainly not senseless to Hamas, which thrives on it; indeed, its charter demands it - as does the charter of Fatah, and the charter of the PLO, all of which still call for the destruction of Israel.
I'd be happy to talk to you, but it will have to wait until I return from Israel, which has already been hit by more than a dozen rockets and mortars fired from Gaza so far this year. Three rockets fell on Ashkelon, where Rabbi Shaul Praver of Newtown has a home, just yesterday. What do you think New Haven would want our government to do if it was hit by three rockets in one day?
Perhaps you have tried to do some things to "stop this senseless bloodshed," but your writing clearly does the opposite. I would certainly be interested in helping to educate you and to help you become productive rather than counterproductive.
Jones to Stein
My question to you is have you really read what I wrote? This is very sad. What you write here confirms what I wrote - especially about whether such incursions end up making Israelis and Americans safer - we are all less safe because of these policies. Like you, I have been there and talked to both sides (do you talk to palestinians while there?)- my basic pont is that 2 wrongs do not make a right. As for your discussions of Hamas,et.al, please show me where I have ever defended or rationalized any thing they have done as you insist on doing with Israel. I await your return so that we can talk about these issues more fully.
Stein to Jones
My question to you is have you really read what I wrote?
Yes, I have.
This is very sad.
I agree.
What you write here confirms what I wrote - especially about whether such incursions end up making Israelis and Americans safer - we are all less safe because of these policies.
One can debate the wisdom and effectiveness of what you call "incursions" (itself loaded terminology indicating a biased agenda rather than any objectivity), but to blindly criticize anything and everything America and Israel to attempting to defend themselves and their citizens without offering any alternatives is unfair and irresponsible.
Like you, I have been there and talked to both sides (do you talk to palestinians while there?)- my basic pont is that 2 wrongs do not make a right. As for your discussions of Hamas,et.al, please show me where I have ever defended or rationalized any thing they have done as you insist on doing with Israel.
You basically ignore them (and all the other Arab and Muslim terror groups, which still include Fatah and the PLO despite our attempts to pretend otherwise) while blasting Israel for whatever it does in reaction.
As it is said, if the Arabs had no weapons there would be no war, while if Israel had no weapons there would be no Israel. He who, like you, ignores that basic reality becomes part of the problem.
I've answered your question about whether I really read your columns. I'm still waiting for you to make some -- any -- realistic alternatives for Israel to try to carry out its most basic obligation, protecting the lives of its citizens against the genocidal attacks of Hamas and its allied terror groups.
Jones to Stein
This is even sadder - please talk to the IDF about the word "incursions"- I got it from them - that 'is why I put the quotation marks. Your characterization of me because of that IDF word shows who really is the "blind criticizer." Further, you try to paint me as a terror sympathizer with no proof other than the fact that I have had the audacity to criticize Israeli policies ( I have also criticized hamas Egypt and others). You seem like a decent person but you are not being fair or just to me. By now it is clear that the only people you seem to care about are your own and anyone who dares criticize the Israeli government had better watch out. Sad-sad-sad - I still say we should talk.
Stein to Jones
Israel has been hit by more than 8,000 rockets fired from Gaza, rockets with no military purpose, designed purely to wreak terror on innocent civilians. Thousands of them have been launched since Israel completely left Gaza in 2005, turning it completely over to the Palestinian Arabs. They even ethnically cleansed Gaza of any Jewish presence. The Arabs there had a choice, completely their own:
a. With virtually the entire world, including Israel, wanting to help them, make Gaza into a paradise.
b. Turn Gaza into a terrorist de facto state.
They chose b.
I asked you what you would suggest Israel do. Still waiting.
Jones to Stein
Are you kidding? This is no place for cheap debating tactics - the issue is far too serious..
1. If something is wrong like killing innocent children on a regular basis and blaming the other side (both hamas and the IDF do this regularly).Where is you heart??? This needs to stop!
2. There are smarter people than myself (including Judge Goldstone) who have suggested other strategies. As you know there is a robust debate going in Israel as we are typing- are they all "misinformed" as well? I think people there in the ME (both sides) need to bring this to an end-I see my role as speaking out against excesses rather than cheer leading or rationalizing infanticide as some easily do.
I am simply not what you try to make me out to be. BTW-the event that got me re involved in this issue was the murder of two young IDF soldiers in Ramallah in 2000.
Too too sad- I am still waiting to hear what think of the word "incursion' now. Sad-sad
Stein to Jones
To respond to specific points in your email:
Are you kidding? This is no place for cheap debating tactics - the issue is far too serious.
I agree. So why are you doing that?
If something is wrong like killing innocent children on a regular basis and blaming the other side (both hamas and the IDF do this regularly).Where is you heart??? This needs to stop!
Hamas and the other Arab terror groups deliberately target innocent children and dance in the streets when they succeed.
Israel tries very hard to avoid harming innocent people, although it's very difficult and often unavoidable because of the Arab tactic of placing their bases and launching attacks from residential areas and even from hospital, schools and mosques. So sometimes innocent people are harmed. When that happens, Israel typically expresses regret, investigates, when possible modifies its methods to avoid a repetition, and in the rare cases where soldiers deliberately acted inappropriately punishes the soldiers involved.
There's a world of difference, both practically and morally.
There are smarter people than myself (including Judge Goldstone) who have suggested other strategies.
Such as?
Goldstone, by the way, admitted that the information he used as the basis for his report would not have been sufficient to make a case in any court of law. And, of course and as I pointed out, the figures he used have since been contradicted even by Hamas officials. In other words, Goldstone has no credibility.
As you know there is a robust debate going in Israel as we are typing- are they all "misinformed" as well? I think people there in the ME (both sides) need to bring this to an end-I see my role as speaking out against excesses rather than cheer leading or rationalizing infanticide as some easily do. I am simply not what you try to make me out to be.
In that case, why do you write what you write?
There certainly is a spirited debate going on in Israel. It is of a totally different quality than the debate going on Arab circles.
In Israel, the debate is about how to bring about peace, something virtually everyone wants, and how prevent Arabs from killing Israelis and how to keep Arabs from successfully forcing Israelis to accidentally kill Arabs.
Among the Palestinian Arabs, they still don't even have a serious debate about whether peace is desirable. Their goal (read not just Hamas, but read what's put out by the Palestinian Authority. Check the Palestinian Media Watch website) is still to destroy Israel.
Too too sad
I agree.
I am still waiting to hear what think of the word "incursion' now.
I regret what I wrote about that and retract those comments.
I'm still waiting to hear from you any suggestions about what Israel could or should do differently. If I don't hear about that from you, I will assume you are what you seem to be, being interested only in propagating anti-Israel propaganda, and won't waste any more time responding.
The ball is in your court.
Jones to Stein
You typed - "If I don't hear about that from you, I will assume you are what you seem to be, being interested only in propagating anti-Israel propaganda, and won't waste any more time responding."
I finally get it-You really are serious about sticking to this distortion of my position. Why don't we leave it at you misrepresenting me and call it a day- You are probably, like me , very busy. If you are really interested in what I REALLY think - Please give me a call - Meanwhile, I will continue to work with those Jews, Israelis, Christians , Muslims and whomever are genuinely interested in peace as opposed to distorting each other's views in order to demonizs the other. This has been a valuable learning experince and reminder of the tough work ahead. I wish you the best
End of Non-Dialog
The New Haven Register provides the following information about Jones: "Jimmy E. Jones is president of Masjid Al-Islam and associate professor of world religions at Manhattanville College, where he is founding coordinator of the Center for Middle East Understanding. Write to him at 624 George St., New Haven 06511. E-mail: jonesyahya@yahoo.com."
Jones has written a number of articles for The New Haven Register in which he touches on the Arab-Israeli conflict. They have been universally heavily biased against Israel and have generally contained significant factual inaccuracies.
After Saturday's article, I sent some comments to the PRIMER mailing list and also sent a letter to the editor in response. I sent a copy to Jones, which prompted a reply from him, leading to an exchange that lasted several days until it was beyond pointless to continue.
After a few more comments, we include here the comments sent to the PRIMER mailing list (which give some idea of the content of Jones' article), the letter sent to The New Haven Register, and the texts of the exchanges, edited to remove repetition and thus improve clarity. In some cases, the reply was interspersed with the text of the email to which it was in reply; in those cases, the portions from the latter are in italics. (As is typical in email exchanges, most of the emails contained the texts of all the previous emails, making things rather confusing.)
Comments
1. As is typical of anti-Israel activists, Jones repeatedly falsely accuses Israel and its supporters of sins of which its enemies are guilty.
2. As is also typical of critics, Jones repeatedly refuses to offer any alternatives - even unreasonable alternatives - to the Israeli policies and actions he unfairly attacks.
3. As is also typical of Israel-haters, Jones includes obvious factual errors in addition to more understandable misrepresentations and distortions in his letter.
Comments Sent to the PRIMER Email List
Jones falsely refers to Operation Cast Lead as a "slaughter of innocents." As is typical of critics of Israel, he gets things backwards, falsely accusing Israel of the crimes of its enemies.
Israel's purely defensive action was undertaken to end the attempted slaughter of innocents by Hamas and its allied terror groups controlling Gaza.
CAMERA has an excellent "Timeline and Causes of “Operation Cast Lead” in Gaza" which may be viewed at http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=52&x_article=1581.
Among the illuminating facts in that report, totally ignored by Jones, is that during 2008, no fewer than 1,571 rockets from Gaza struck Israel. Despite that onslaught, Operation Cast Lead was not launched until the very end of the year, on December 27.
Note that 1,571 rockets in one year amount to an average of more than four per day - in a year which included a six month "calm!!!"
Those rockets have no guidance system, being purely terrorist weapons aimed at murdering innocent civilians. Imagine the outcry if even a single rocket hit an American city from a nearby, hostile entity!
CAMERA also has a useful report "Myths and Facts about the Fighting in Gaza" which may be viewed at
Jones also praises and misuses the infamous "Goldstone Report." CAMERA also has a devastating critique of that, "The Goldstone Report: A Study in Duplicity," available at http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=52&x_article=1736. (Many other organizations have also intelligently analyzed the Goldstone Report.)
Jones falsely refers to "more than 1,000 innocent lives lost." As almost always happens, the figures given by Hamas and other Arab groups have proven to be wildly inflated while the figures given by Israel have proven to be accurate.
Hamas itself admitted as much, although the news went largely unreported in American newspapers. Check "Hamas's Revelation Undermines Key Conclusion of Goldstone Report" at http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=52&x_article=1952, which begins with the information "Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hamad's admission that Hamas and affiliated militias lost 600-700 fighters in the Israeli 'Cast Lead' military operation undermines the central accusation of the Goldstone Report that the Israeli operation was 'premised on a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed ... [at] the civilian population.'"
Indeed, Israel Ambassador to the United States has observed that the proportion of civilian casualties Gaza during Operation Cast Lead was incredibly low, far lower than in virtually any other instance of urban warfare, where generally the vast majority of casualties are civilian. This despite the deliberate use of civilians as shields by Hamas.
Jones' perverted perspective may be symbolized by his recommendation of a book, "Popular Resistance in Palestine," by Mazin Qumsiyeh. Qumsiyeh is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. He is fanatical about the fictitious "right of return" of descendants of Palestinian Arab refugees to the land of Israel in which they never lived. If even a small proportion of Palestinian Arabs share the extreme views he spews out on his website http://www.qumsiyeh.com and his book "Sharing the Land of Canaan" (which may be read on his website), any reasonable peace in the foreseeable future is a pipedream.
(The references to CAMERA's studies are for convenience; similar information is available from numerous other sources. The reference to Qumsiyeh's website is to encourage readers to educate themselves about the fanaticism and duplicity of anti-Israel activists. Those who are actually committed to peace - for Israel and for its neighbors - need to be aware of the forces arrayed against peace.)
The Letter Sent to The New Haven Register
A copy of this letter was sent to Jones with the introduction:
"Most charitably, I found your recent Forum column horribly misguided and demonstrating tremendous gullibilty. To help set the record straight, I have sent the following response to The New Haven Record and am sending you a copy.
"I hope you will better inform yourself in the future before spreading misinformation that has been contradicted even by its source."
In his Faith Matters piece, Jimmy Jones did what so many critics of Israel do: he inverted the truth.
When it comes to the slaughter of innocents, that is precisely what Hamas and its allied terror groups based in Gaza are doing. They fired 8,000 rockets at Israeli civilians before Israel finally responded in December 2008. Nearly 1,600 rockets were fired in 2008 alone, despite the fact that year included a six month long "calm!" Sderot, the closest Israeli city, was hit by more than one rocket per family.
Imagine how New Haven would react if West Haven was ruled by a "democratically elected" terror group pledged to destroy it and fired even a single rocket at a school or kindergarten!
Jones also repeats the Hamas lie, one of the bases of the infamous Goldstone Report Jones misleadingly praises, that more than 1,000 innocents were killed in Gaza. That lie has recently been refuted even by Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hamad, who admitted Hamas and its affiliated "militias" lost between 600 and 700 fighters in the operation.
Michael Oren, a noted historian and currently Israeli ambassador to our country, has pointed out that in urban warfare it is typical for 80-90 percent of the casualties to be civilian. In Gaza, the proportion of civilian casualties was probably the lowest in the history of urban warfare, despite Hamas' deliberate policy of putting civilians in harm's way for propaganda purposes.
Israel should be lauded, not condemned, for its virtually unprecedented efforts to avoid casualties among enemy civilians.
The following is the exchange of emails, in order.
Jones to Stein
I have made it clear in many places (,verbal and written, here in the US and abroad), that I unequivocally abhor the slaughter of innocents particularly in the name of Islam by Hamas or anyone else. My record in this regard is clear and open for all to see. What saddens me most about your letter is that you want to rationalize what even many Israelis (not just Judge Goldstone) view as the unconscionable killing of (by your minimizing count) at least 300 innocent Gazans like the daughter and nieces of the courageous Dr Abuelaish as "typical" Have really became this callous that mutual infanticide is our ONLY possible response to terror? This is indeed a very sad way to promote Middle east understanding particularly as we prepare for the Martin Luther King weekend.Please, please do not distort my views in order to advance yours.
Stein to Jones
I did not distort your views in any way, although you have now distorted mine - I did not give any count, minimizing or otherwise, of innocent Gazans killed. I merely pointed out that a Hamas leader contradicted the incorrect figures you used in your letter; while one can be sure the number of terrorists killed was no fewer than the number he gave, it's likely it was significantly higher.
In any war, there will be civilians killed; it's unavoidable. As I pointed out, what was amazing in Gaza is that so few were killed.
What I did not write, although it's true, is that the responsibility for those deaths lies with the party which forced the war - the Palestinian Arabs in Gaza. Hamas and its allied terror groups also did their best to maximize civilian casualties for their own despicable purposes. One of the signs of the absurdity of the conflict is that Israel has shown a far greater interest in keeping Arabs alive than the Arab leaders.
I would suggest, given that you are so bitterly opposed to anything and everything Israel ever does to keep its own citizens from being slaughtered, you might suggest some reasonable alternatives. I have yet to hear a single reasonable suggestion from any of those who, like your, are so critical of everything Israel does.
Jones to Stein
All I ask is that you not jump to conclusions about what I have done/think based on an article (and your rather fixed pre-conceived position). If you are really interested- we can talk about what I have done over the years to try to stop this sens less bloodshed- just because you do not know about it does not mean it is not going on.
Stein to Jones
Are you disavowing what you've written? You have a pretty consistent record of one-sided, misinformed op-eds over the years. If you do not wish people to reach conclusions based on what you write, I suggest you include a disclaimer with each of your columns.
The violence may seem senseless to you, but it's certainly not senseless to Hamas, which thrives on it; indeed, its charter demands it - as does the charter of Fatah, and the charter of the PLO, all of which still call for the destruction of Israel.
I'd be happy to talk to you, but it will have to wait until I return from Israel, which has already been hit by more than a dozen rockets and mortars fired from Gaza so far this year. Three rockets fell on Ashkelon, where Rabbi Shaul Praver of Newtown has a home, just yesterday. What do you think New Haven would want our government to do if it was hit by three rockets in one day?
Perhaps you have tried to do some things to "stop this senseless bloodshed," but your writing clearly does the opposite. I would certainly be interested in helping to educate you and to help you become productive rather than counterproductive.
Jones to Stein
My question to you is have you really read what I wrote? This is very sad. What you write here confirms what I wrote - especially about whether such incursions end up making Israelis and Americans safer - we are all less safe because of these policies. Like you, I have been there and talked to both sides (do you talk to palestinians while there?)- my basic pont is that 2 wrongs do not make a right. As for your discussions of Hamas,et.al, please show me where I have ever defended or rationalized any thing they have done as you insist on doing with Israel. I await your return so that we can talk about these issues more fully.
Stein to Jones
My question to you is have you really read what I wrote?
Yes, I have.
This is very sad.
I agree.
What you write here confirms what I wrote - especially about whether such incursions end up making Israelis and Americans safer - we are all less safe because of these policies.
One can debate the wisdom and effectiveness of what you call "incursions" (itself loaded terminology indicating a biased agenda rather than any objectivity), but to blindly criticize anything and everything America and Israel to attempting to defend themselves and their citizens without offering any alternatives is unfair and irresponsible.
Like you, I have been there and talked to both sides (do you talk to palestinians while there?)- my basic pont is that 2 wrongs do not make a right. As for your discussions of Hamas,et.al, please show me where I have ever defended or rationalized any thing they have done as you insist on doing with Israel.
You basically ignore them (and all the other Arab and Muslim terror groups, which still include Fatah and the PLO despite our attempts to pretend otherwise) while blasting Israel for whatever it does in reaction.
As it is said, if the Arabs had no weapons there would be no war, while if Israel had no weapons there would be no Israel. He who, like you, ignores that basic reality becomes part of the problem.
I've answered your question about whether I really read your columns. I'm still waiting for you to make some -- any -- realistic alternatives for Israel to try to carry out its most basic obligation, protecting the lives of its citizens against the genocidal attacks of Hamas and its allied terror groups.
Jones to Stein
This is even sadder - please talk to the IDF about the word "incursions"- I got it from them - that 'is why I put the quotation marks. Your characterization of me because of that IDF word shows who really is the "blind criticizer." Further, you try to paint me as a terror sympathizer with no proof other than the fact that I have had the audacity to criticize Israeli policies ( I have also criticized hamas Egypt and others). You seem like a decent person but you are not being fair or just to me. By now it is clear that the only people you seem to care about are your own and anyone who dares criticize the Israeli government had better watch out. Sad-sad-sad - I still say we should talk.
Stein to Jones
Israel has been hit by more than 8,000 rockets fired from Gaza, rockets with no military purpose, designed purely to wreak terror on innocent civilians. Thousands of them have been launched since Israel completely left Gaza in 2005, turning it completely over to the Palestinian Arabs. They even ethnically cleansed Gaza of any Jewish presence. The Arabs there had a choice, completely their own:
a. With virtually the entire world, including Israel, wanting to help them, make Gaza into a paradise.
b. Turn Gaza into a terrorist de facto state.
They chose b.
I asked you what you would suggest Israel do. Still waiting.
Jones to Stein
Are you kidding? This is no place for cheap debating tactics - the issue is far too serious..
1. If something is wrong like killing innocent children on a regular basis and blaming the other side (both hamas and the IDF do this regularly).Where is you heart??? This needs to stop!
2. There are smarter people than myself (including Judge Goldstone) who have suggested other strategies. As you know there is a robust debate going in Israel as we are typing- are they all "misinformed" as well? I think people there in the ME (both sides) need to bring this to an end-I see my role as speaking out against excesses rather than cheer leading or rationalizing infanticide as some easily do.
I am simply not what you try to make me out to be. BTW-the event that got me re involved in this issue was the murder of two young IDF soldiers in Ramallah in 2000.
Too too sad- I am still waiting to hear what think of the word "incursion' now. Sad-sad
Stein to Jones
To respond to specific points in your email:
Are you kidding? This is no place for cheap debating tactics - the issue is far too serious.
I agree. So why are you doing that?
If something is wrong like killing innocent children on a regular basis and blaming the other side (both hamas and the IDF do this regularly).Where is you heart??? This needs to stop!
Hamas and the other Arab terror groups deliberately target innocent children and dance in the streets when they succeed.
Israel tries very hard to avoid harming innocent people, although it's very difficult and often unavoidable because of the Arab tactic of placing their bases and launching attacks from residential areas and even from hospital, schools and mosques. So sometimes innocent people are harmed. When that happens, Israel typically expresses regret, investigates, when possible modifies its methods to avoid a repetition, and in the rare cases where soldiers deliberately acted inappropriately punishes the soldiers involved.
There's a world of difference, both practically and morally.
There are smarter people than myself (including Judge Goldstone) who have suggested other strategies.
Such as?
Goldstone, by the way, admitted that the information he used as the basis for his report would not have been sufficient to make a case in any court of law. And, of course and as I pointed out, the figures he used have since been contradicted even by Hamas officials. In other words, Goldstone has no credibility.
As you know there is a robust debate going in Israel as we are typing- are they all "misinformed" as well? I think people there in the ME (both sides) need to bring this to an end-I see my role as speaking out against excesses rather than cheer leading or rationalizing infanticide as some easily do. I am simply not what you try to make me out to be.
In that case, why do you write what you write?
There certainly is a spirited debate going on in Israel. It is of a totally different quality than the debate going on Arab circles.
In Israel, the debate is about how to bring about peace, something virtually everyone wants, and how prevent Arabs from killing Israelis and how to keep Arabs from successfully forcing Israelis to accidentally kill Arabs.
Among the Palestinian Arabs, they still don't even have a serious debate about whether peace is desirable. Their goal (read not just Hamas, but read what's put out by the Palestinian Authority. Check the Palestinian Media Watch website) is still to destroy Israel.
Too too sad
I agree.
I am still waiting to hear what think of the word "incursion' now.
I regret what I wrote about that and retract those comments.
I'm still waiting to hear from you any suggestions about what Israel could or should do differently. If I don't hear about that from you, I will assume you are what you seem to be, being interested only in propagating anti-Israel propaganda, and won't waste any more time responding.
The ball is in your court.
Jones to Stein
You typed - "If I don't hear about that from you, I will assume you are what you seem to be, being interested only in propagating anti-Israel propaganda, and won't waste any more time responding."
I finally get it-You really are serious about sticking to this distortion of my position. Why don't we leave it at you misrepresenting me and call it a day- You are probably, like me , very busy. If you are really interested in what I REALLY think - Please give me a call - Meanwhile, I will continue to work with those Jews, Israelis, Christians , Muslims and whomever are genuinely interested in peace as opposed to distorting each other's views in order to demonizs the other. This has been a valuable learning experince and reminder of the tough work ahead. I wish you the best
End of Non-Dialog
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Are Palestinians committed to peace?
This letter was published on New Year's Day 2011 in the Waterbury Republican-American.
The Dec. 20 article "Abbas meets with Israeli lawmakers," quotes Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas saying he "opposes violence and is committed to reaching a peace deal."
A peace agreement will require negotiations between the Palestinian Arabs and Israel and compromises by both sides. Yet Abbas has energetically avoided negotiations for the last two years, repeatedly insisted he will never compromise on any important issue, and even admitted his inflexibility prevented a peace agreement from being signed long ago.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority he leads continues to demonize and incite against Israel, so much so that the Palestinian Media Watch YouTube channel showing items that had been broadcast on Palestinian Authority television was temporarily shut down because YouTube mistakenly thought PMW was promoting the hate speech coming out of the PA rather than exposing it.
Israel desperately wants to make peace with its neighbors, but it needs partners equally "committed to reaching a peace deal." Abbas may have just said he qualifies, but he certainly hasn't acted like that.
Sheila Morisette
Waterbury
The Dec. 20 article "Abbas meets with Israeli lawmakers," quotes Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas saying he "opposes violence and is committed to reaching a peace deal."
A peace agreement will require negotiations between the Palestinian Arabs and Israel and compromises by both sides. Yet Abbas has energetically avoided negotiations for the last two years, repeatedly insisted he will never compromise on any important issue, and even admitted his inflexibility prevented a peace agreement from being signed long ago.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority he leads continues to demonize and incite against Israel, so much so that the Palestinian Media Watch YouTube channel showing items that had been broadcast on Palestinian Authority television was temporarily shut down because YouTube mistakenly thought PMW was promoting the hate speech coming out of the PA rather than exposing it.
Israel desperately wants to make peace with its neighbors, but it needs partners equally "committed to reaching a peace deal." Abbas may have just said he qualifies, but he certainly hasn't acted like that.
Sheila Morisette
Waterbury
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Playing Make Believe
This was submitted to the Connecticut Post as a request for a correction, but instead was published as a letter to the editor.
Between the lines: Everybody's pretending that Mahmoud Abbas is the elected leader of the Palestinian Authority, with the authority to negotiate an agreement, but everyone also knows he's no longer "president" and, besides obviously having no interest in reaching any reasonable peace agreement - he's effectively pointed that out himself by repeatedly saying he'll never compromise and that an agreement would have been reached long ago had he any flexibility, he has no authority.
The news item "Quest for peace," published Monday, contained an obvious factual error that should be corrected.
The item incorrectly stated " Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' term expires next month." Abbas was elected to a four-year term in January, 2005 and his term in office legally ended January 8, 2009.
There are some who believe the Palestinian Authority's legislature had the authority to extend his term by one year, but that's highly disputable.
It's equally disputable that it was ever done since the legislature hasn't effectively met since the Hamas coup in Gaza, and even then his term would have ended January 8, 2010. (There are understandable reasons why various parties are pretending otherwise, but those do not change the fact that Abbas' term ended long ago.)
Alan H. Stein, Connecticut president PRIMER - Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting, www.primerct.org.
Between the lines: Everybody's pretending that Mahmoud Abbas is the elected leader of the Palestinian Authority, with the authority to negotiate an agreement, but everyone also knows he's no longer "president" and, besides obviously having no interest in reaching any reasonable peace agreement - he's effectively pointed that out himself by repeatedly saying he'll never compromise and that an agreement would have been reached long ago had he any flexibility, he has no authority.
Palestinian president's time in office disputed
The news item "Quest for peace," published Monday, contained an obvious factual error that should be corrected.
The item incorrectly stated " Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' term expires next month." Abbas was elected to a four-year term in January, 2005 and his term in office legally ended January 8, 2009.
There are some who believe the Palestinian Authority's legislature had the authority to extend his term by one year, but that's highly disputable.
It's equally disputable that it was ever done since the legislature hasn't effectively met since the Hamas coup in Gaza, and even then his term would have ended January 8, 2010. (There are understandable reasons why various parties are pretending otherwise, but those do not change the fact that Abbas' term ended long ago.)
Alan H. Stein, Connecticut president PRIMER - Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting, www.primerct.org.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Emek story: An Angry Girl and Her Bodyguard
Avital is a highly intuitive medical clown therapist – or Dream Doctor (known to all as Tila). Amit is a ten-year old girl who was seriously injured in an automobile accident and lay in Emek’s Department of Pediatric Surgery. One day she awoke in horror to find a fresh scar from her breast bone to her navel, from emergency surgery to repair her torn intestines and to save her life. Amit … immobile, angry and mistrusting anyone who came near her was refusing infusions and anything offered – whether medical or of a personal nature. The energy in her isolated room reeked of confrontation.
Enter Tila. Within milliseconds (seeing the little girl’s angry face and no words having been spoken) she understood the forces overwhelmingly apparent in Amit’s room and she went into action. Tila pantomimed extreme anger towards everyone in the room; Amit’s mother, a nurse and a physician – reflecting Amit’s behavior. She stood between the girl and the others and blocked anyone from coming near. Tila refused cookies or sweets and acted as if she wanted nothing from anyone. Seeing her own anger being acted out by Tila, Amit cracked a smile. The nurse noticed the change and mentioned it. Big mistake. Tila began ranting against the nurse and how dare she speak of a smile that was not hers to speak of. Tila forced everyone out of the room and stood defiantly with her arms crossed in the doorway. In those frantic moments she had become Amit’s bodyguard and a delicate ballet of trust was set in motion.
The doctor reentered and was immediately accosted by Tila who threatened him with a red and yellow plastic gun, demanding to know what he wanted and why he was there. Amit saw this and the color returned to her face, her anger having been vented through Tila. The doctor, fearing for his life, said that he was there to treat Amit. Tila asked the little girl who still refused his presence and he was forced to again leave the room, followed by Tila who whispered for him to return in about five minutes.
Tila defiantly returned to Amit’s bedside and asked the girl what she wanted. Amit said that she wanted to leave, but she couldn’t move. Tila pulled out a multi-colored note pad and matching pen and began drawing a map and explained how she knew of an escape route they could take to get out. Amit then said that she wanted to go home, but without a hole in her stomach. The little girl and her bodyguard then began a discussion about what needed to be done to fix the hole and Tila pretended not to understand. She called the physician back in and threatened him with the gun as he explained what needed to be done so Amit could go home without a hole in her stomach. The doc spoke only to the clown and was not allowed top speak directly with Amit. Upon completion of his explanation, Tila threw him out of the room.
The medical team soon returned to the room and was ordered by Tila to do exactly what needed to be done. The atmosphere had changed dramatically as the little girl became self confident, felt that she was in control of her fate and that she was not alone because she had a bodyguard.
When the nurse said that she needed an enema, Tila demanded that she too wanted one. Tila complained that Amit got all the attention, was jealous of her impressive scar and that Amit was allowed to have an enema while she was refused. Amit laughed that her bodyguard couldn’t get what she had.
Amit was hospitalized in Emek for three long months, but she had a friend and protector. They took walks together and Tila said to the girl’s mother (with a hidden wink), “We don’t want you to walk with us!” One day the girl’s infusion vein clogged and she screamed in pain – refusing to let a new physician come near her. Tila had the girl touch his hands to prove that he really was ok and only then was he allowed to reinsert the needle. On the day of Amit’s release to go home, Tila made her a party complete with balloons and gifts for everyone. Amit slowly walked, still bent over, from room to room with a bubble gun – shooting iridescent spheres into the air to make other children smile.
As Amit was packing to leave, Tila was sad and complained that she had to stay. She played it until the end.
Tila didn’t come to that little girl to tell jokes, act silly or to try and make her laugh. Her mission was far more sophisticated.
Tila (Avital) has a Masters degree in The Performing Arts. When you support Emek 4 Kids, you also expose our children to the genius of the Dream Doctor.
Thank you.
Director of Development
International Patients & Public Relations
Phone in Israel
Mobile in Israel
Phone in New York
Fax in Israel
Email ... rich_l@clalit.org.il
Mailing address:
Afula 18101
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Letter to the Hartford Courant
This letter was submitted to the Hartford Courant December 4, 2010, but was never published.
To the editor:
I had to laugh at the way, according to the article "Abbas: Self-rule at risk," published Saturday, December 4, the Palestinian Arab leader yet again threatened to dissolve the Palestinian Authority if the "U.S.-backed peace negotiations broke down."
There are no peace negotiations to break down, since Abbas refuses to engage in peace negotiations with Israel.
Through many years and through many governments, Israel has proven it is committed to peace, making many concessions and expressing the willingness to make even more.
Unfortunately, Israel can't make peace alone; it needs a partner prepared to meet it partway. Even Mahmoud Abbas has effectively said he is not that partner, recently admitting that if he was willing to show "flexibility on these issues the peace agreement would have been signed a long time ago."
Sincerely,
Alan Stein
To the editor:
I had to laugh at the way, according to the article "Abbas: Self-rule at risk," published Saturday, December 4, the Palestinian Arab leader yet again threatened to dissolve the Palestinian Authority if the "U.S.-backed peace negotiations broke down."
There are no peace negotiations to break down, since Abbas refuses to engage in peace negotiations with Israel.
Through many years and through many governments, Israel has proven it is committed to peace, making many concessions and expressing the willingness to make even more.
Unfortunately, Israel can't make peace alone; it needs a partner prepared to meet it partway. Even Mahmoud Abbas has effectively said he is not that partner, recently admitting that if he was willing to show "flexibility on these issues the peace agreement would have been signed a long time ago."
Sincerely,
Alan Stein
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Helen Thomas’ Shameless Attacks on Israel and Jews
This was submitted as a letter to the editor of the Detroit Free Press. Additional letters may be submitted to oped@freepress.com.
To the editor:
The letters regarding Helen Thomas in the Sunday, December 12 Free Press were very frightening because of the blatant anti-Semitism and excuses for Helen Thomas’ shameless attacks on Israel and Jews.
One-letter skirts around Thomas’ unashamed hate with “… Thomas' principled accomplishments over a lengthy period of time stand above the questionable, politically motivated attempts to dismiss her and diminish all the good that she represents.” Excuse me; what good does she represent except to those that gave her a standing ovation during her anti-Jewish, anti-Israel rant?
Another letter glosses over the bigotry that is alive and well with “She has been out in this world much more than a normal person, and she has been exposed to many more things than the average American, so she just may know more than many” Does her age and experience allow her to revile Jews to an adoring crowd?
Another “I have traveled to Israel and the West Bank, and what I witnessed was an anathema to my American values.” Rather than generalities like “anathema to my American values” let’s see the writer’s examples of an "anathema to my American values" in another letter and while he is at it some examples of the incessant anti-Jewish and Anti-Christian media and school frenzy in the West Bank, Gaza, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab world that encourages Arab children to murder Jewish and Christian children.
These letters didn’t disguise the letter writers feelings. It wasn’t undercover – it was blatant anti-Semitism of the first order right there for all to see. Joseph Goebbels must be smiling.
Ed Kohl
West Bloomfield, MI
To the editor:
The letters regarding Helen Thomas in the Sunday, December 12 Free Press were very frightening because of the blatant anti-Semitism and excuses for Helen Thomas’ shameless attacks on Israel and Jews.
One-letter skirts around Thomas’ unashamed hate with “… Thomas' principled accomplishments over a lengthy period of time stand above the questionable, politically motivated attempts to dismiss her and diminish all the good that she represents.” Excuse me; what good does she represent except to those that gave her a standing ovation during her anti-Jewish, anti-Israel rant?
Another letter glosses over the bigotry that is alive and well with “She has been out in this world much more than a normal person, and she has been exposed to many more things than the average American, so she just may know more than many” Does her age and experience allow her to revile Jews to an adoring crowd?
Another “I have traveled to Israel and the West Bank, and what I witnessed was an anathema to my American values.” Rather than generalities like “anathema to my American values” let’s see the writer’s examples of an "anathema to my American values" in another letter and while he is at it some examples of the incessant anti-Jewish and Anti-Christian media and school frenzy in the West Bank, Gaza, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab world that encourages Arab children to murder Jewish and Christian children.
These letters didn’t disguise the letter writers feelings. It wasn’t undercover – it was blatant anti-Semitism of the first order right there for all to see. Joseph Goebbels must be smiling.
Ed Kohl
West Bloomfield, MI
Netanyahu Simply Echoed U.S. Remarks on Jerusalem Status
This letter was published December 16, 2010 in the Waterbury Republican-American.
The Dec. 13 article "Israeli: Jerusalem ours," includes the opinion that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's affirmation of his government's commitment to continue Jerusalem's status as the united capital of Israel, open and shared by all, is "likely to increase friction with" the U.S. government.
Our president and secretary of State expressed the same commitment. I was in Washington, D.C., on June 4, 2008, and heard then-Sen. Barack Obama insist "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." A year earlier, his now secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, wrote "an undivided Jerusalem as (Israel's) capital ... must never be questioned." Israel's leader essentially reiterating the words of U.S. leaders should not cause any friction between the two countries.
In sharp contrast, we hear little of the repeated assertions of Mahmoud Abbas, the so-called "moderate" leader of the Palestinian Authority, that he will never make any concessions on any of the core issues pre venting an Arab-Israeli peace agreement. Abbas' statements go to the heart of the conflict and the reasons the Palestinian Arabs repeatedly have refused to establish their own state living in peace with Israel. They should not remain ignored.
Alan Stein
Waterbury
The writer is president of Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting (www.primerct.org).
The Dec. 13 article "Israeli: Jerusalem ours," includes the opinion that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's affirmation of his government's commitment to continue Jerusalem's status as the united capital of Israel, open and shared by all, is "likely to increase friction with" the U.S. government.
Our president and secretary of State expressed the same commitment. I was in Washington, D.C., on June 4, 2008, and heard then-Sen. Barack Obama insist "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." A year earlier, his now secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, wrote "an undivided Jerusalem as (Israel's) capital ... must never be questioned." Israel's leader essentially reiterating the words of U.S. leaders should not cause any friction between the two countries.
In sharp contrast, we hear little of the repeated assertions of Mahmoud Abbas, the so-called "moderate" leader of the Palestinian Authority, that he will never make any concessions on any of the core issues pre venting an Arab-Israeli peace agreement. Abbas' statements go to the heart of the conflict and the reasons the Palestinian Arabs repeatedly have refused to establish their own state living in peace with Israel. They should not remain ignored.
Alan Stein
Waterbury
The writer is president of Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting (www.primerct.org).
Monday, December 6, 2010
Abbas Threatens - Again - To Dissolve the Palestinian Authority
A recent Associated Press article reports that Mahmoud Abbas has threatened to dissolve the Palestinian Authority he leads, forcing Israel to re-occupy the West Bank, "if troubled peace talks fail."
The article, like almost all others in a similar vein, fails to mention there are no peace talks to fail and that Abbas has often made the same threat.
During the last two years, except for a brief, three week interlude in September, there have been no peace talks for the simple reason that Mahmoud Abbas has refused to sit down with Israel and negotiate. That three week interlude came near the end of Israel's unilateral and unreciprocated ten-month moratorium on Jewish construction in the disputed territories and was proceeded by an Abbas threat to walk out in less than a month - which he promptly did.
That Abbas refuses to negotiate is rather curious, since a prime focus of negotiations is the establishment of the Palestinian Arab state he claims to crave. On the other hand, one wonders whether he really wants an Arab state, given that he spurned an offer from former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert to establish one on the equivalent of all the disputed territory. He acts as if his true goal - as spelled out in the charters of both the Fatah and PLO groups he also leads - remains the destruction of Israel.
His threat to force Israel to re-occupy the Palestinian Authority governed areas serves as a reminder that, for all practical purposes, the so-called Israeli occupation ended in the mid-1990s with the formation of the Palestinian Authority and that Israeli leaders have repeatedly made clear Israel does not want to rule over the Palestinian Arabs.
Ironically, forcing Israel to resume governing the Arabs in the disputed territories, while unwelcome by Israel, would probably be beneficial to the Palestinian Arabs. People tend to forget how much better life got in Judea and Samaria when Israel captured those areas after being attacked by Jordan, which had occupied them from 1948 until 1967.
In what used to be recognized as the most benign occupation in history, schools, hospitals and roads were built. Colleges and universities were opened after none existed under Jordanian occupation. Living conditions improved and life expectancy soared.
These improvements abruptly ended with the outbreak of the first intifada in the late 1980s. Things got worse when the Palestinian Authority took over in the 1990s and then really nosedived in 2000 when Yasser Arafat rejected the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state and launched his brutal terror offensive.
The situation in the West Bank has improved slightly the last few years, after Israel broke the back of the terror offensive which, while aimed at terrorizing Jews, hurt the Arabs more than the Israelis.
One other highly pertinent piece of information was omitted from the article: Abbas doesn't even pretend to have any role in Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas, a terrorist group even more radical than Fatah. Thus, even if Abbas had the will to negotiate peace (which he clearly doesn't) and the authority to negotiate peace (which he lacks, since he is no longer the legal leader of the Palestinian Authority), he clearly has no ability to implement a peace agreement.
Ultimately, these are just details which help illuminate the basic, underlying reason the Arab-Israel conflict continues to defy the most dedicated efforts of outsiders trying to help resolve it: peace requires the consent of both sides. While peace has been an overriding goal for Israel since its reestablishment in 1948, it can't make peace unilaterally. As Golda Meir sagely observed, peace will come when its Arab neighbors prize the lives of their children more than they hate Israel.
The article, like almost all others in a similar vein, fails to mention there are no peace talks to fail and that Abbas has often made the same threat.
During the last two years, except for a brief, three week interlude in September, there have been no peace talks for the simple reason that Mahmoud Abbas has refused to sit down with Israel and negotiate. That three week interlude came near the end of Israel's unilateral and unreciprocated ten-month moratorium on Jewish construction in the disputed territories and was proceeded by an Abbas threat to walk out in less than a month - which he promptly did.
That Abbas refuses to negotiate is rather curious, since a prime focus of negotiations is the establishment of the Palestinian Arab state he claims to crave. On the other hand, one wonders whether he really wants an Arab state, given that he spurned an offer from former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert to establish one on the equivalent of all the disputed territory. He acts as if his true goal - as spelled out in the charters of both the Fatah and PLO groups he also leads - remains the destruction of Israel.
His threat to force Israel to re-occupy the Palestinian Authority governed areas serves as a reminder that, for all practical purposes, the so-called Israeli occupation ended in the mid-1990s with the formation of the Palestinian Authority and that Israeli leaders have repeatedly made clear Israel does not want to rule over the Palestinian Arabs.
Ironically, forcing Israel to resume governing the Arabs in the disputed territories, while unwelcome by Israel, would probably be beneficial to the Palestinian Arabs. People tend to forget how much better life got in Judea and Samaria when Israel captured those areas after being attacked by Jordan, which had occupied them from 1948 until 1967.
In what used to be recognized as the most benign occupation in history, schools, hospitals and roads were built. Colleges and universities were opened after none existed under Jordanian occupation. Living conditions improved and life expectancy soared.
These improvements abruptly ended with the outbreak of the first intifada in the late 1980s. Things got worse when the Palestinian Authority took over in the 1990s and then really nosedived in 2000 when Yasser Arafat rejected the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state and launched his brutal terror offensive.
The situation in the West Bank has improved slightly the last few years, after Israel broke the back of the terror offensive which, while aimed at terrorizing Jews, hurt the Arabs more than the Israelis.
One other highly pertinent piece of information was omitted from the article: Abbas doesn't even pretend to have any role in Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas, a terrorist group even more radical than Fatah. Thus, even if Abbas had the will to negotiate peace (which he clearly doesn't) and the authority to negotiate peace (which he lacks, since he is no longer the legal leader of the Palestinian Authority), he clearly has no ability to implement a peace agreement.
Ultimately, these are just details which help illuminate the basic, underlying reason the Arab-Israel conflict continues to defy the most dedicated efforts of outsiders trying to help resolve it: peace requires the consent of both sides. While peace has been an overriding goal for Israel since its reestablishment in 1948, it can't make peace unilaterally. As Golda Meir sagely observed, peace will come when its Arab neighbors prize the lives of their children more than they hate Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
