Language is Important

The Waterbury Republican-American published an excellent letter today (December 20, 2007). The letter includes a sober analysis of what in the past has effectively been a land for terrorism and war policy.

The letter also contains one example of how even intelligent analysts fall into the trap of using the misleading terminology anti-Israel propagandists have instilled into the general consciousness.

See whether you can find the misleading terminology in the letter before it's described after the letter. If you find any other misleading terminology besides that which I picked out, I'd like to hear about it.

Israel Should Think Twice Before Ceding More Land to Arabs

2008 will find Israel under pressure to return to the Palestinians the West Bank of the Jordan River, a region Israel captured in 1967. Seeking to bolster his legacy, President Bush will use diplomatic levers to force Israel into an agreement. The European Union, no friend of Israel, will pile on. The world media will do their part by publishing stories critical of Israel.

Before yielding, Israel should remember the consequences of its last two land transfers.

In 2000, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak withdrew Israeli troops from southern Lebanon as a gesture of peace. The troops had been deployed in Lebanon since 1982 to prevent Hezbollah, a terrorist group, from attacking Israel. In 2006, Hezbollah attacked Israel from southern Lebanon. More than 150 Israelis died and hundreds were wounded. Nearly 400,000 people fled northern Israel to escape Hezbollah's rockets.

In 2005, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon returned to the Palestinians the Gaza Strip, another territory Israel captured in 1967. Sharon believed his move would promote peace. Instead, Palestinians use Gaza as a base from which to launch rockets into Israel.

Many Israelis oppose giving up more land until the Arab world embraces democracy, which may not happen for years. Other Israelis shout the slogan "land for peace." Ignoring the results from Lebanon and Gaza, they believe the Arab world will accept Israel once the Palestinians get a homeland.

The political debate in Israel will be harsh. Israelis must look into the hearts of Palestinians to see if they want peace or, more likely, just additional time to wear down Israel.

Mark Shea
Hamden

The misleading language comes up in the very first sentence, which refers to returning the West Bank to the Palestinian Arabs. There is also a later reference to having returned Gaza to the Palestinian Arabs.

Since the Palestinian Arabs have never had possession of the West Bank, which itself would more accurately be referred to as Judea and Samaria, it cannot possibly be returned to them.

Judea and Samaria could be returned to Jordan, which illegally occupied it from 1948 until 1967, but certainly not to the Palestinian Arabs.

Similarly, Gaza was not returned to the Palestinian Arabs, who had never before possessed it; While Gaza could have been returned to Egypt, it was given to the Palestinian Arabs.

The problem involves more than mere semantics; it lies at the heart of some of the negotiations Israel has held, in which there has been talk of an exchange of territory, proposals calling for Israel to give up some of its territory in exchange for the Palestinian Arabs giving Israel territory in the disputed territories on which Israelis are living.

Since the Palestinian Arabs don't possess the territory on which Israelis are living, they can't give it to Israel. The reality is when one talks of an exchange, it's just a way of pressuring Israel to not only give away most of Judea and Samaria, but to also give away portions of what has been part of Israel since its re-establishment in 1948.

Using the misleading language about returning territory leads from a territorial compromise in the West Bank to something that goes way beyond a territorial compromise — a territorial give-away.

Abbas Spokesperson Again Condemns Israeli Self-Defense

The following is excerpted from Abbas agrees to international forces, condemns Israeli airstrikes as reported by the MAAN NEWS AGENCY.

Paris – Ma'an – Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas announced on Tuesday that the Palestinian Authority would agree to the deployment of an international force in the occupied Palestinian territories.

"International forces are absolutely acceptable for us," Abbas said. … Meanwhile Presidential Spokesperson Nabil Abu Rdainah condemned the Israeli airstrikes on the Gaza Strip, which killed 11 Palestinians Monday night and Tuesday, calling them a "terrible crime."

He added, "This dangerous escalation comes hours after the Paris conference aiming to thwart the outcome of the conference and disregarding the international efforts of 90 countries that attended the summit."

No mention is made, of course, of the fact that among those hit in the Israeli strike were not only leading terrorists but some terrorists on their way to launch Kassam missiles at Israeli cities.

Had the Palestinian Authority ever adhered to its commitment to abandon terrorism, those Israeli defensive measures would be unnecessary.

One sign that the Palestinian Authority, including its supposedly moderate leader Mahmoud Abbas, is actually interested in peace would be if it supported Israeli life-saving measures against terrorists rather than condemning them.

Abbas is Right

According to a Jerusalem Post story Abbas presses Israel on core issues, "Abbas warned Tuesday that unless all the issues at the root of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are solved, violence will break out anew in two or three years."

Abbas is right about the need to address the core issues, but he's the one avoiding the core issues.

The core issue remains, as it has for six decades, the unwillingness of the Arabs to accept the existence of Israel and their unwillingness to coexist in peace.

When it comes to the current situation involving the Palestinian Arabs and Israel, the stumbling block is the continued violation by the Palestinian Arabs of their basic commitments under the Oslo Accords. They continue to resort to terrorism, they continue to refuse to negotiate in good faith, they continue to inflame the street with anti-Israel rhetoric, they continue to praise suicide bombers. They continue to refuse to initiate the first step called for under the "Road Map," the destruction of the terrorist infrastructure they built up in the disputed territories in violation of the Oslo Accords.

In the meantime, with incredible chutzpah, "the chief Palestinian peace negotiator, former PA prime minister Ahmed Qurei, said Tuesday there would be no talks with Israel unless a deadline was set for establishing a Palestinian state."


Unless the Palestinian Arabs are disabused of their continued belief, which unfortunately has generally been well-founded, that as long as they obstinately refuse all compromise everyone will continue to pressure Israel and blame Israel for failure, success will remain impossible.

"Palestinian officials have repeatedly said they want a detailed time line for talks that are expected to begin in earnest after the Annapolis parley. The comment by Ahmed Qurei was the first indication that Palestinians could scuttle negotiations altogether if that demand isn't met."

Condoleeza Rice should give Qurei her phone number and tell him to call if and when he's ready to get serious.

The Difference Between Palestinian Arab Moderates and Extremists

At the current time, Gaza is ruled by a group of extremist Palestinian Arab terrorists (Hamas) while the West Bank is ruled by a group of "moderate" Palestinian Arab terrorists (Fatah). One naturally wonders about the distinction between moderates and extremists.

Over the last five years, approximately two thousand Kassam missiles have been launched from Gaza at the nearby Israeli town of Sderot. The population of Sderot is approximately twenty-four thousand, which means there has been one missile launched for every dozen Israelis living in Sderot. This is equivalent to nearly a million missiles launched at New York City.

During this entire period, Israel has continued provide water and power, including electricity, to the Gaza Strip. Israel is now considering reducing the amount of power it supplies to Gaza if those missile attacks continue.

Imagine the following question: Suppose the state of New Jersey received its water and electricity from New York City, yet launched a million missiles at New York a five year period. Do you think New York would continue to supply water and electricity to New Jersey?

Now back to the question about the difference between the moderates and the extremists.

According to the Ma'an News Agency, a Palestinian on-line News agency funded by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, Danish International Development Assistance, the "Buraq Army unit of the Al-Aqsa Brigades, the armed wing of Fatah, warned Tuesday that if Israel deprives Gaza of electricity, the Israeli power generating station at Ashkelon will be bombarded." Furthermore, on Tuesday, "the Al-Mujahideen Brigades, another unit of the Al-Aqsa Brigades, claimed responsibility for launching a rocket at the Israeli town of Sderot."

Fatah, remember, is the "moderate" group.

So, what's the difference between the Palestinian Arab "moderates" and "extremists?"

The "moderates" are secular fanatics while the "extremists" are religious fanatics.

America, after indirectly arming the religious fanatics by transferring arms to Fatah in Gaza so they could be captured by Hamas during the recent coup, is now considering further arming Fatah in the West Bank.

Now, for the most important question, first asked by Pete Seeger: "When will we ever learn?"

Settling Sovereignty

Most people take it for granted that most of the disputed territories must ultimately end up under control of the Palestinian Arabs. For many Israelis, the determining factor is the need to maintain the character of their state as the homeland of the Jewish people while simultaneously maintaining Israel as a democracy.

This may explain why Israelis want to rid themselves of parts of the disputed territories, but it doesn't explain why anyone else would, with the exception of those enemies who really just want Israel to disappear completely.

Historically, Israel certainly has a greater connection to those territories than anyone else.

Legally, those territories were part of the British Mandate over Palestine, intended by the League of Nations to be the Jewish Homeland. Since the Arabs rejected the United Nations Partition Plan, making that proposal null and void, the Palestinian Arabs can't make a claim based on the Partition Plan.

The only legitimate basis for a claim for any of that territory by the Palestinian Arabs is the purely practical one that, for whatever reason, many of them now live there and should have the right to choose their own government and should not be forced to move.

By the same logic, the Israelis living in portions of those territories, for whatever reason, should have the right to choose their own government and should not be forced to move.

In other words, the logic behind any legitimate territorial claims by the Palestinian Arabs also further legitimizes territorial claims by Israelis, leading to a division of the disputed territories.

It's worth emphasizing that's a division, not a swap. There's no legal, historical or moral reason for "compensating" the Palestinian Arabs for not giving them all the disputed territories by also giving them parts of what has been part of Israel since 1948 -- unless Jordan was going to compensate Israel for the portions of the disputed territories given to the Palestinian Arabs by giving Israel parts of what has been part of Jordan during the same period.

Much of the same reasoning applies to the Golan Heights; more on that another day.

'No' to false trappings of sovereignty

Daoud Kuttab is a regular contributor to The Jerusalem Post. He's considered a moderate. (See another blog entry on the absurdity of the way extremist Arabs are labeled as moderate.) I just can't avoid commenting on parts of his June 25 Jerusalem Post column 'No' to false trappings of sovereignty.

Kuttab: One of the paradoxes of the internal conflict in Palestine is that Palestinians are fighting each other without any regard to the fact that the Israeli occupation continues unabated.

Even if one ignores the reality that, for most practical purposes, the so-called occupation ended early during the Oslo fiasco, with the overwhelming majority of Palestinian Arabs in the disputed territories have been living under their own corrupt government for many years, it's utterly absurd to assert the Israeli occupation continues unabated.

Kuttab: Forty years after the 1967 Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank - including Jerusalem - Palestinians have failed to find the magic formula for their liberation.

They've attempted cross border violence (late 60s), Arab and international diplomacy (70s and 80s), the first intifada ('87), secret talks ('93 Oslo) suicide attacks (90s and second intifada), cross border rockets '06 and '07), regional Arab initiatives (2000, repeated 2007), international initiatives and peace envoys (since '67), but nothing has succeeded in cracking the Israel occupation.

The one thing they haven't tried is an honest effort at ending their love affair with terrorism, giving up their dream of destroying Israel and trying to reach a reasonable accommodation with a democratic country that has made it crystal clear it wants nothing to do with running the lives of Palestinian Arabs and just want to live in peace.

Kuttab: With Gazans unable to go to work in Israel and without any resources for economic viability, the Palestinians of Gaza remained totally dependent on Israel &helips;.

Does Kuttab really think Israel has an obligation to let a hostile population cross into Israel? One of the attributes of sovereignty is the right to determine who enters. Of course, Palestinian Arabs had no difficulty entering Israel until the first intifada, when they decided to reverse all the progress they had made since 1967.

Meanwhile, there's no reason for the Arabs in Gaza, or in Judea and Samaria, to be dependent on Israel. They have hundreds of thousands of brethren in the Middle East with tremendous economic resources who could easily help them.

Kuttab: THE FALSE trappings of a state provided to Palestinians as part of the Oslo peace process and the famous White House handshake in 1993 has hurt more than helped Palestinians.

This is correct, since instead of seizing the opportunity and building a viable society, the Palestinian Authority created a terrorist entity and brought up a generation taught to hate. The Palestinian Arab leadership reversed the adage Make Love, Not War with a vengeance.

Despite Kuttab's arguments otherwise, the Palestinian Arabs have enjoyed de facto sovereignty for years. The result has been the creation of two irredentist, terrorist Palestinian Arab entities, thousands of unnecessary deaths and the setting back for decades of any hopes for a true peace and for normal lives.

It's time for the Palestinian Arabs to say 'no' to the self-directed destruction of their society and 'yes' to finally reaching out to Israel in peace.

It takes two to make peace; Israel can't do it alone.

Israel is the World's Canary

The following letter was published in the Waterbury Republican-American, Thursday, June 21. The headline given somewhat distorts the main message, implying that it is Israel that needs support rather than it is the world which needs to support Israel as it fights our battles.

Israel Needs Support from United States in War on Terror

The implications of the Associated Press article, "Israel without ways to prevent rocket attacks," published Sunday, June 10, should be of serious concern to everyone in the Western world.

Time and again, we have paid scant attention as Arab terrorists attacked Israel.

But the weapons used against Israel are always eventually used against us, other Western countries and even the very states that supported their use against Jews in Israel.

Suicide bombings did not stay confined to Israeli cities. Terrorists tried to destroy the tallest building in Israel, the Shalom Tower in Tel Aviv, before destroying the World Trade Center.

Last summer, thousands of rockets and missiles were launched at Israeli cities and towns by Hamas, Hizbullah and other terrorist groups, with the support of Iran and Syria.

Hundreds have been launched from Gaza at the Israeli city of Sderot in the last month, making that city unlivable and causing serious emotional trauma to everyone there.

If this terror tactic continues to be used successfully against Israelis, it inevitably will spread.

For our own good, it is imperative that we support whatever steps Israel takes to defeat these terrorists.

If Israel is reluctant to do what's necessary, the international community should go into Gaza, dismantle the Palestinian Authority, disarm the terrorists and start building a civil society there.

Alan Stein
Waterbury

The writer is president of Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting, PRIMER-Connecticut (www.primerct.org).

In the week and a half between the time the letter was submitted and the time it was published, events somewhat overtook the content, with the Palestinian Authority splitting itself in two, but the need to prevent the spread of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood remains.

Generally overlooked because Fatah is not quite as extreme as Hamas is the fact that Fatah is also an extremist terrorist group; we should have learned from the way all the weaponry we gave Fatah in Gaza fell into the hands of Hamas that it is dangerous to prop up Fatah; we should also remember that when Fatah is not using its weapons against Hamas it is using them against Israel.