To date, only Israel has developed a protocol to prevent countries from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Israel’s Successful Approach to Nuclear Proliferation
1
UN’s Confusion on the Legality of Israel’s Blockade of Gaza
In June 2015, the United Nations issued a report highly critical of Israel’s handling of its war against Palestinian attacks. Throughout the report, the committee suggested that the Israeli blockade of Gaza was a major cause for suffering of Palestinians, rather than a result of Palestinian actions, and helped precipitate the war.
Member of the Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza conflict Doudou Diene (L) gestures next to Chairperson of the Commission Mary McGowan Davis during a press conference to present their report on June 22, 2015 at the United Nations Office in Geneva. AFP PHOTO / FABRICE COFFRINI
2015 UN Assertion that
Blockade was Cause for Conflict
In the section of the report that reviewed the background to the 2014 conflict, the report stated that “In the preceding months, there were few, if any, political prospects for reaching a solution to the conflict that would achieve peace and security for Palestinians and Israelis and realize the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. The blockade of Gaza by Israel, fully implemented since 2007 and described by the Secretary-General as “a continuing collective penalty against the population in Gaza” (A/HRC/28/45, para. 70), was strangling the economy in Gaza and imposed severe restrictions on the rights of the Palestinians.” By way of correction and education to the reader, the naval blockade of Gaza only began in January 2009 (not 2007). The land blockade of Gaza began in 2007 after Hamas routed Fatah from Gaza and took complete control of the region.
It is important and significant to point out that this 2015 report suggested that there were “few POLITICAL PROSPECTS for reaching a solution” and that the “blockade of Gaza.. was strangling the economy” and “imposed severe restrictions” on Palestinians. This directly implied that the Palestinians were seeking a political solution and rightfully frustrated with a blockade that was imposed on them (presumably for no reason). Therefore, since a political solution was not available, they were forced to pursue a military response.
That is outrageous on many levels.
- Hamas has stated clearly in its charter and in addresses by its leaders that it seeks the complete destruction of Israel and that it will never enter peace negotiations. (A fact that was never mentioned in the UN report)
- Hamas clearly stated that it would not pursue any “peaceful solutions and international conferences” as seen in its charter, below.
- Hamas’s takeover of Gaza in 2007 is never mentioned in the UN report.
Hamas Charter Article 13: “Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement…. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters… There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”
The UN report inverted reality and ignored that the blockade of Gaza was in response to Hamas’s taking over of Gaza and firing thousands of missiles at Israeli civilians.
2015 UN Report
Call to Remove the Blockade
The UN report concluded with several suggestions which clearly placed the blame for the conflict on Israel’s actions: “The commission calls upon the Government of Israel… to address structural issues that fuel the conflict and have a negative impact on a wide range of human rights, including the right to self-determination; in particular, to lift, immediately and unconditionally, the blockade on Gaza.”
This conclusion and suggestion are in stark contrast to the September 2011 UN “Palmer Commission Report” which clearly spoke of the legal nature of Israel’s blockade of Gaza and spoke to the harm and evil intent of Hamas which necessitated the blockade.
2011 UN Report
on LEGAL NATURE of Blockade of Gaza
To start, the Palmer Report correctly identified the different blockades of Gaza and the reason for them: “the tightening of border controls between Gaza and Israel came about after the take-over of Hamas in Gaza in June 2007. On the other hand, the naval blockade was imposed more than a year later, in January 2009.”
The report continued that “the naval blockade as a distinct legal measure was imposed primarily to enable a legally sound basis for Israel to exert control over ships attempting to reach Gaza with weapons and related goods. This was in reaction to certain incidents when vessels had reached Gaza via sea.”
The report then continued in greater detail on the “structural issues that fuel the conflict” with specific history (as opposed to simply echoing the Palestinian narrative as it did in the 2015 report): “Israel has faced and continues to face a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. Rockets, missiles and mortar bombs have been launched from Gaza towards Israel since 2001. More than 5,000 were fired between 2005 and January 2009, when the naval blockade was imposed. Hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians live in the range of these attacks. As their effectiveness has increased some rockets are now capable of reaching Tel Aviv. Since 2001 such attacks have caused more than 25 deaths and hundreds of injuries. The enormity of the psychological toll on the affected population cannot be underestimated. In addition, there have been substantial material losses. The purpose of these acts of violence, which have been repeatedly condemned by the international community, has been to do damage to the population of Israel. It seems obvious enough that stopping these violent acts was a necessary step for Israel to take in order to protect its people and to defend itself.”
In regard for using a naval blockade to prevent the assault from Gaza on Israel, the report stated “The Israeli report to the Panel makes it clear that the naval blockade as a measure of the use of force was adopted for the purpose of defending its territory and population, and the Panel accepts that was the case. It was designed as one way to prevent weapons reaching Gaza by sea and to prevent such attacks to be launched from the sea. Indeed there have been various incidents in which ships carrying weapons were intercepted by the Israeli authorities on their way to Gaza.”
In sharp contrast to the 2015 report which cited the UN Secretary General’s comment that the blockade was a “collective penalty against the population in Gaza“, the 2011 Palmer Report concluded that “Although a blockade by definition imposes a restriction on all maritime traffic, given the relatively small size of the blockade zone and the practical difficulties associated with other methods of monitoring vessels (such as by search and visit), the Panel is not persuaded that the naval blockade was a disproportionate measure for Israel to have taken in response to the threat it faced.”
The report concluded with clarity: “Israel was entitled to take reasonable steps to prevent the influx of weapons into Gaza. With that objective, Israel established a series of restrictions on vessels entering the waters of Gaza. These measures culminated in the declaration of the naval blockade on 3 January 2009… There is nothing before the Panel that would suggest that Israel did not maintain an effective and impartial blockade…. it is evident that Israel had a military objective. The stated primary objective of the naval blockade was for security. It was to prevent weapons, ammunition, military supplies and people from entering Gaza and to stop Hamas operatives sailing away from Gaza with vessels filled with explosives… It is also noteworthy that the earliest maritime interception operations to prevent weapons smuggling to Gaza predated the 2007 take-over of Hamas in Gaza. The actual naval blockade was imposed more than one year after that event. These factors alone indicate it was not imposed to punish its citizens for the election of Hamas…. As this report has already indicated, we are satisfied that the naval blockade was based on the need to preserve Israel’s security. Stopping the importation of rockets and other weapons to Gaza by sea helps alleviate Israel’s situation as it finds itself the target of countless attacks, which at the time of writing have once again become more extensive and intensive… We have reached the view that the naval blockade was proportionate in the circumstances… The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal… Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.”
Quite a different narrative and conclusion than the UN wrote up in 2015.
Related FirstOneThrough article:
Gaza Blockade versus Cuban Blockade
Share this:
Considering a Failed Palestinian State
Failed Countries
On July 9, 2011, the world welcomed a new country, South Sudan, which separated from Sudan. South Sudan rapidly became a failed state, one in which the central government lost the ability to control the security and economy of the country.
Failed states suffer from many terrible and unstable features: lack of governmental control; factional militias and armies; lack of border integrity and gross poverty. These societies often see rampant human rights abuses as various parties assert control over parts of the country and seek vengeance and control over minorities and local populations.
Consider some reports from South Sudan over the past year:
Ten thousand people have been killed and more than 1.6 million have been internally displaced since civil war broke out in South Sudan in December 2013.
June 2015: South Sudanese army may have caused widespread human rights abuses according to the UN
May 2015: At least 129 children killed, boys castrated and girls raped
July 2014: Food crisis declared worst in the world by UN Security Council
According to Business Insider, the worst failed states include: South Sudan; Sudan; Somalia; Congo; Chad and Yemen. The populations of these countries are forced to flee, suffer or die.

South Sudanese refugees wait to be registered at a crossing into Ethiopia earlier in 2015. (Photo: UNHCR/R. Riek)
Considering a Palestinian State
Many countries in the United Nations would like to see the Palestinian Arabs gain self-determination and have their own country. However, many of the ingredients for a failed state currently reside in the political structure of the Palestinian Authority:
The Palestinian territories have various stand-alone armies and militias including Hamas and Islamic Jihad
No central government, as the west bank of the Jordan River and Gaza strip are administered independently
Internal fighting as witnessed in the 2007 rout of Fatah by Hamas forces in Gaza, and various extrajudicial killings between those parties that continued since then
No border integrity as bedlam prevails in Gaza, Sinai and Israeli towns near the border of Gaza
Lack of functioning economy and widespread unemployment due: to the extremely high percentage of people under 25 years old; and constant war to destroy Israel
No presidential or legislative elections, as they were suspended due to the splits mentioned above. The presidential election was last held in 2005 and the president’s term expired a long time ago.
A country built on this framework would likely deteriorate. Factional fighting to dictate the future of the country would exacerbate. Unemployment would further skyrocket. Cross-border battles with Israel would escalate and also include the area east of the Green Line, EGL/ west bank of the Jordan River. This region, which already leads the world in the “honor killings” of women, would likely continue to see such murders increase.
It would be a country built in chaos, with people’s dreams dying alongside their lives.
Concrete Steps to Avoid a Failed Palestinian State
Should the Palestinian Arabs hope to achieve a functioning state after self-determination, important steps need to be instituted before the state is formed:
Remove all weaponry from Hamas and other groups. A functioning government must only have a single army. There cannot be a society in which various entities wage internal and external wars.
Ban Hamas. No entity which advocates for murder of minorities should be allowed to sit in any elected office, and no country should have any dealings with any country that seeks destruction of another country. As Hamas advocates for the killing of Jews and calls for the complete destruction of Israel, the party should be banned in its entirety until it renounces both positions completely.
Form new Political Parties and Hold Elections. The Palestinian Arabs have not held presidential elections since 2005 and legislative elections since 2006. As Hamas won legislative elections in 2006 and have polled to win future elections, new parties should be organized that can compete in new elections.
These are the basic steps that must occur for the Palestinian Authority to have a functioning government. Once the central authority rests in a representative body, that entity can negotiate a final status agreement with Israel to create a new state. To minimize the chances that it slip into a failed state, the Palestinian government should further consider the following:
Peace Agreement with Israel. A viable government should have a strong economy, including a flow of people and goods. Due to the separation of the Palestinian territories, it would be most efficient for the government to have a good working relationship with Israel to facilitate commerce.
Minimize Incoming Youth. A Palestinian state would likely want to welcome Arabs whose families once lived in the region. As a large population below age 25 often leads to rampant unemployment and instability, the emphasis on incoming people should be on professionally-trained adults.
Transitional control from UNRWA. UNRWA has kept infant mortality, immunizations, life expectancy and literacy of Palestinian Arabs at among the best rates in the world. Over a period of years, the UN should cede control of the schools and hospitals to Palestinian control.
While the world celebrated the founding of a new country four years ago in South Sudan, the declaration proved a hollow victory for the people. It would be a mistake to push forward another declaration for Palestinian Arabs at this time which would ultimately lead to further suffering. Mayhem with a flag benefits no one.
Related First.One.Through article:
A “Viable” Palestinian State
Share this:
The Disproportionate Defenses of Israel and the Palestinian Authority
The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) produced a report in the spring of 2015 about the war between Israel and the Palestinians in the summer of 2014. The UNHRC continued with a debate in June 2015 in which several “delegations strongly condemned Israel’s excessive and disproportionate military aggression against the Palestinians” including from: Egypt; Tunisia; Maldives; Iraq; South Africa; Indonesia; Ireland and Cuba.
This analysis does not directly review “disproportionate force” but disproportionate defense employed by the two sides.
Obligation to Defend
The foremost responsibility of any governmental leadership is to protect its population. Such defense can be implemented in a variety of ways: a police force or army to maintain order; infrastructure to ensure safety; and intelligence which can guide the appropriate use of manpower and equipment. The United Nations has been developing a framework for “The Responsibility to Protect” over the past several years.
In the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, only one side proactively protects its citizens, while the other side uses reactive defenses. One side assumes responsibility via using its own resources and capabilities, while the other side relies completely on outside agents.
ISRAEL – ACTIVE DEFENSE
Protecting Against Incoming Missiles and Armaments
Bunkers and Bomb Shelters: Israel is unique in the Middle East in establishing a policy of bomb shelters throughout the country. In response to being surrounded to hostile neighbors that have attacked and shelled its people and lands since its inception, houses, schools, hotels, hospitals and even playgrounds are built with bomb shelters.
The Palestinians have not built shelters. Instead, they used their cement to build tunnels with which to attack Israel.
Playground shelter in Israel
(photo: Kate Simmons)
Iron Dome. Israel developed a new missile defense system called the Iron Dome, and continues to build new air defense systems to protect the country from incoming missiles.
The Palestinians have neither developed nor imported defensive systems. They have only imported offensive weaponry.
Israeli developed “Iron Dome” Defense System
Blockade of Gaza. Israel imposed a naval blockade around Gaza after the terrorist group Hamas, which is sworn to the destruction of Israel, seized the land. The blockade has successfully kept out many missiles and other arms from reaching Hamas and ultimately causing death and destruction in Israel.
Protection Against Killers
Security Barrier. In September 2000, the Palestinians began multi-year riots which killed over a thousand Israelis through hundreds of attacks. In response, the Israeli government began to construct a security barrier in 2002 to keep out terrorists who mostly emanated from cities in Judea and Samaria/ east of the Green Line (EGL).
The Palestinians have not built any security barriers from the Israelis. There have been no suicide bombers going from Israel into Gaza or EGL blowing up civilians.
Stretch of Security Barrier along highway
(photo: FirstOneThrough)
Airport Security. Well before the world became attuned to airport security after the attacks on the United States on 9/11/01, Israel established an extensive airport security system. The screening of passengers, x-rays of baggage and other methods were in response to a series of airplane hijackings in the 1970s (a method of terrorism created by the Palestinian Arabs).
The Palestinians do not have an airport and therefore no such security concerns.
Palestinians blow up plane, 1970
Protection Against Lethal Plans
Intelligence. Israelis utilize a wide variety of information sources to uncover plans to attack its country. Whether through a network of Israeli spies, Palestinian informants, money tracking, wiretapping and other means, the Israelis gather information and make assessments on potential Palestinian Arab attacks. It is then able to take preventative action before such attacks occur.
PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY AND HAMAS – REACTIVE DEFENSE
Relying on Israeli Sensitivities and Sensibilities
Civilians. As detailed above, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have not instituted proactive tangible means of defending its people. One of the ways it attempts to defend the population is by making it nearly impossible to distinguish between fighters and civilians.
- The fighters do not typically wear uniforms and can therefore not be distinguished from civilians
- Men, women and children are all enlisted in the war against Israel
- Militants fire at Israel from mosques, schools and civilian neighborhoods
Palestinian Arabs hope that Israel will not indiscriminately fire upon everyone. By forcing Israel to take time and extra precautions to target the right attackers, it slows down Israeli defenses during battles.
Destroying its Own Infrastructure. Hamas built an extensive offensive network of tunnels into Israel which originated in many private homes. By relying on Israelis sensitivities to minimize destruction in civilian neighborhoods, Hamas was able to protect many tunnel openings.
Further, Hamas and other Palestinian Arab groups often booby-trapped homes from which they attacked Israel. While the Palestinian Arabs destroyed their own infrastructure, they slowed down and killed many Israelis who looked to root out the attackers.
Relying on Global Bodies like the United Nations
United Nations. One of the principal methods that the Palestinian Authority uses to defend its population is through global bodies AFTER a war. The United Nations includes 57 Islamic countries (in the OIC) and 22 Arab countries (in the Arab League) which align themselves with the Palestinian Arab cause. Many of those countries do not even recognize the State of Israel. They were instrumental in passing the “Zionism is Racism” resolution in 1975 and creating several committees devoted only to Palestinian causes.
The Palestinians turn to the UN to highlight the damage that Israel inflicts on its intentionally defenseless population. It uses deliberate attacks on Israel to provoke premeditated casualties to show the world.
This same UN has not condemned the Palestinian Authority for not properly defending its population. Instead, it recommended the incredulous idea that Israel must give the Arabs the defensive systems like Iron Dome that it developed.
The latest forum that the Palestinian Authority has pursued is the International Criminal Court, the ICC. While it is evident that the Palestinians Arabs definitely committed war crimes in the 2014 War against Israel, it would still sue Israel in the hopes that such action will hurt Israel, further its cause and protect the Palestinian Arabs.
As detailed above the two sides in the Israel-Palestinian Authority conflict have disproportionate defenses.
- The Israelis use several proactive approaches; the Palestinians use reactive methods
- The Israelis rely upon ingenuity and preparedness; the Palestinians rely on Israeli sensitivities and global sympathy
- The Israelis principally depend on themselves; the Palestinians depend on the world
A discussion of “disproportionate force” cannot be made in a vacuum without discussing “disproportionate defenses”. The global community cannot continue to reward the acts of a leadership that deliberately deals in its own premeditated casualties.
Related FirstOneThrough articles:
Israel: Security in a Small Country
The United Nations and Holy Sites in the Holy Land
The International Criminal Court for Palestinians and Israelis
The United Nations Audit of Israel
Share this:
Every Picture Tells a Story: The Invisible Murdered Israelis
In an Instagram and Twitter world, people expect their news in small tidbits. The major media sources have understood this and not only have taken to social media, but have their news stories include more pictures than they had previously. A review of their selection of pictures and captions provides an interesting snapshot of their views of the news.
Over a two week period in June/July 2015, seven major unprovoked attacks on Israeli Jews were committed by Palestinian Arabs. The Washington Post captured the anguish of the attacks with a picture of a grieving family which included a caption “Relatives of Malachi Moshe Rosenfeld, an Israeli settler who died in a car shooting attack on Tuesday near a Jewish settlement in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, cry during his funeral.”
The New York Times had no such pictures or description of Israelis suffering. Even while reporting on the region from many different journalists on June 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and July 1 and 4
On June 27, the NYTimes made a small post without a picture in the World Briefing section in a blurb called “Man is Shot in West Bank After Opening Fire on Soldiers”. (journalist: Diaa Hadid)
On July 1, the NYTimes posted in the World Briefing section a blurb called “Man Died After West Bank Attack”. (Isabel Kershner)
These two attacks on Israeli Jews were completely invisible to a casual reader.
Another World Briefing report on June 24 without picture had a headline “Gazans Denied Access to Mosque.” (Diaa Hadid)
On June 30 Diaa Hadid had another World Briefing “Ship Halted in Blockade Protest”
On June 30, the NYTimes ran a larger article, also without a picture entitled “Worried that a Fasting Palestinian Prisoner Could Die, Israel Releases Him.” While there was no picture, the bold headline might have caught someone’s attention. The details in the article that the Palestinian prisoner was the spokesman for the terrorist group Islamic Jihad certainly would not have been recorded. (by Diaa Hadid)
Here are stories that the Times emphasized with pictures with their own terse storyline captions.
On June 29 the paper had an article which included a small map. The heading was “Israel plans Fence for part of Jordan Border.” (Diaa Hadid and Rick Gladstone)
On June 26, the Times included a small color photograph under an article called “Palestinians Deliver Accusations of Israeli War Crimes to International Criminal Court.” The picture of a group of people had a caption “Riad al-Malki, the Palestinian foreign minister, center, and delegation members on Thursday after submitting what they called evidence of Israeli war crimes to the court in The Hague.” (by Marlise Simmons)
On June 25, the Times posted two large black and white photographs as part of an article “Years after Massacre, a West Bank ‘Ghost Town’ Stirs.” The large picture was of Israeli soldiers walking past a store, while the smaller picture was of a man opening his store before four children. The single caption read “Israeli soldiers patrolling al-Sahla Street passed a reopened granary. Below, children watched as Mohammed Abu Halaweh briefly unlocked his butcher shop.” (by Jodi Roduren)
On July 4, The Times again posted two large black and white pictures alongside an article called “Palestinian, 17, is Killed by Forces from Israel.” The large photograph was of Palestinian women mourning with a caption “Relatives mourned the death on Friday of Muhammad Hani al-Kasba, a 17-year-old Palestinian. He was killed by Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank.” The smaller picture was of an Israeli soldier behind a barricade with two people walking before him. The caption read “Hours after Mr. Kasba was fatally shot, an Israeli soldier stood guard on Friday as Palestinians waited to cross to Jerusalem via the Qalandia checkpoint in the West Bank.” (Isabel Kershner)
There was one news story which had two color pictures, albeit smaller than the two stories above. On June 28, the paper ran an article “Youth Chorus Unites Israelis and Palestinians, at Least for a Few Hours.” The two pictures were of a group of young men and women clapping and laughing. The caption read “Members of the Jerusalem Youth Chorus, above, took a break from rehearsing this month for their first United States tour. Micah Hendler, right, a Maryland native, founded the group.” (by Isabel Kershner)
Contrast in Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs
The balance in the stories overall and in individual news reports was completely lacking in the New York Times.
First, consider the pictures and the stories they told: the Palestinians were dignitaries and everyday people going about life or mourning a death. They had names and professions. However, every Israeli that was pictured was a soldier and nameless. Even more, they were accused of war crimes.
Second, think of the seven attacks on Israelis Jews. They were treated as non-events and received no pictures or mention in the captions. The casual reader would not even know that such attacks occurred.
Third, review a specific story: The July 4 headline, pictures and caption would lead a reader to think that Israeli soldiers simply opened fire on a youth and that soldiers continue to patrol the intimidate the Arab population. The complete news report was that the Arab that was killed initiated an attack by hurling stones at Israeli vehicles, smashed the windows. It was in response to the Arab attack that soldiers got out of their vehicles and shot him. There were many pictures of the smashed car available that the Times could have posted as the second picture to show the complete story of the incident. Instead, it opted to convey a one-sided narrative of Palestinian Arabs as passive victims and Israelis as military oppressors.
The pictures and captions in the New York Times tell a specific narrative time after time after time: the Palestinian Arabs are passive victims under the oppression of the Israeli military. It is only these poor Arabs that suffer – unprovoked. Ordinary Israelis are not stoned, stabbed and murdered and are not subject to attacks by Palestinian Arabs. More, if there is any chance for peace in the region, it will come from Americans who will bring peace to the region.
Related First.One.Through articles
Every Picture Tells a Story, Don’t It?
Every Picture Tells a Story, the Bibi Monster
Every Picture Tells a Story- Whitewashing the World (except Israel)
The New York Times’ Buried Pictures
Share this:
Flip-Flopping on the Felling of Terrorist Groups’ Founders
The New York Times reported on July 3, 2015 that “Tunisia’s most wanted jihadist” was killed in an American airstrike. The New York Times coverage stood in sharp contrast to the coverage that the paper used in covering Israel’s killing of a top jihadist in 2004.
New York Times July 3, 2015 page A6
Headline: The headline from the story in 2015 was “Jihadist From Tunisia Died in Strike in Libya, U.S. Official Says” which clearly labeled the target as a “jihadist”. The way he died was framed in the passive “died” and was attributed to a “U.S. Official” speaking about the incident. This was in sharp contrast to the NYT article “Leader of Hamas killed in Airstrike by Israeli Missile” which did not suggest that the target was a militant but a “leader.” The man was “killed” in an active way, rather than simply stating that he “died”, and the method of the assassination was clearly attributed to Israeli action, rather than news reported by “US Officials.”
Opening paragraphs: A comparison of the opening paragraphs of each article shows the pattern of the Times coaxing its readers to celebrate the assassination of bad jihadists, but questioning the tactics of Israelis.
“TUNIS — Tunisia’s most wanted jihadist, who masterminded a campaign of assassinations and terrorist attacks, including one against the United States Embassy in Tunis, was killed in an American airstrike in Libya in mid-June that had targeted another Al Qaeda leader, a senior United States official said on Thursday.
The jihadist, Seifallah Ben Hassine, also known as Abu Ayadh, was one of Osama bin Laden’s top lieutenants and the leader of the outlawed group Ansar al-Shariah in Tunisia. He had been based in Libya since 2013, according to reports, and ran training camps and a network of militant cells across the region.”
The article clearly spelled out that Ben Hassine was a very bad man from the very start of the article. He was the “most wanted jihadists” who led “assassination and terrorist attacks” including against American interests. If the US took out a man who launched many attacks including against Americans, it would make sense that such person got what he deserved. Heck, the article threw in two references to “Al Qaeda” and “Osama bin Laden” to convince the reader that this was a really, really bad guy.
Let’s compare the article about the targeted killing of the founder of Hamas by Israel in 2004:
“JERUSALEM, Monday, March 22— Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader and founder of the militant Palestinian group Hamas, was killed early Monday by an Israeli missile that struck him as he left a mosque in Gaza City, his family and Hamas officials said. They said at least two bodyguards had been killed with him.
Sheik Yassin, a symbol to Palestinians of resistance to Israel and to Israelis of Palestinian terrorism, was by far the most significant Palestinian militant killed by Israel in more than three years of conflict.“
The article led with the Sheik’s name. He was referred to as the “spiritual leader” who was killed while he “left a mosque.” His demise was reported by “his family.” Overall, he was regarded as much more of a religious human being than the “most wanted terrorist” in the article the attacker against the U.S.
The Times continued that the Sheik was “a symbol to Palestinians of resistance.” This phrase did many things: 1) using the term “symbol” made him appear as an uninvolved player; 2) “resistance” gave credence to a Palestinian narrative. No such equivalence was given to Tunisia’s most wanted terrorist.
While the Times stated that Yassin was the “founder of the militant Palestinian group Hamas”, it did not go on to state that the organization was considered a terrorist group by the US, EU, Israel and many other countries. Yet it did state that the Tunisian terrorist was “the leader of the outlawed group Ansar al-Shariah.”
Don’t worry. The contrasts get worse.
The NY Times then went on to praise the murder of the Tunisian terrorist:
“His death, if confirmed, would be an important victory for Tunisia in its struggle to contain a persistent insurgency in its western border region and a growing threat to its urban centers. Just last Friday, 38 people, most of them British, were massacred at a beach resort in the town of Sousse. In March, 21 people were killed when militants attacked the national museum.
The government has attributed many of the attacks to sleeper cells established by Mr. Ben Hassine when he founded Ansar al-Shariah after Tunisia’s revolution in 2011.”
The Times gave its readers the conclusion of the operation: it was “an important victory”. The people of Tunisia were struggling against a “persistent… and growing threat.” What about Israel?
“Black smoke curled over Gaza City as Palestinians began burning tires in the streets and demonstrators chanted for revenge. Mosque loudspeakers blared a message across Gaza of mourning for Sheik Yassin in the name of Hamas and another militant group, Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades.”
The Times reported that the assassination was not a step forward but a step backward. The killing of the founder of a terrorist movement in Tunisia was a step towards stability while the killing of founder of the Palestinian terrorist group was just a move to escalate a cycle of violence.
The Times emphasized the point by reporting on the recent attacks in Tunisia on tourists at a beach resort and a national museum (anyone in the world could have been one of those tourists, which elicits global sympathy). The Times failed to report on the multi-year Second Intifada which started in September 2000 in which Palestinians killed thousands of Israeli civilians. Just before the Israeli strike, Hamas took credit for two bombings at the Port of Ashdod which killed 10 people. No mention of the incident until much later in the article.
I leave the rest of the two articles for you to read. You will note that one article describes a military attack against a man with a long history of terrorist activities. The other article describes a Palestinian community in grief over the death of a “quadriplegic” without any mention of the hundreds of attacks and thousands of civilians murdered by Hamas.
It is not a coincidence that the article about Tunisia on July 3rd was next to another with a headline “Egypt fights back in Northern Sinai after Deadly Assault by Militants.” The Times has taken to reporting that much of the world responds to militants while Israel attacks civilians and “spiritual leaders”. The world’s responses will lead to victory and peace, while Israeli actions escalate violence.
Pretty amazing conclusions
- from a country that has been waging wars for fourteen years, killing hundreds of thousands of people,
- about a country that sits in the middle of region that is embroiled in civil wars and terrorist attacks that have also killed hundreds of thousands of people,
- that is fighting against a group that has declared loudly and proudly its intentions of destroying its state
Related FirstOneThrough articles:
Double Standards: Assassinations
The New York Times wants the military to defeat terrorists (but not Hamas)
Strange difference of opinion on Boko Haram and Hamas in New York Times
Why the Media Ignores Jihadists in Israel
Share this:
The Narrative that Prevents Peace in the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Everyone has a perspective.
Marcus Aurelius, the Roman emperor, was credited with saying “Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.”
Our opinions and perspectives are shaped by many things including our backgrounds and biases. When two people look at the same incident at the same time, it is quite possible that they take away very different stories. When two people do not see things first-hand, but hear histories second and third-hand, the narratives of each could appear to describe two different events and worlds.
Yet, those strange worlds can coexist and the parties with alternative truths can get along. The reason is not solely because some events in question are not in direct conflict, but because those events do not define each party.
Many histories remain in the past and do not touch the present. Other narratives reach out from history and impact decisions and views of people in the present. The deepest – and potentially most dangerous – narratives are those that are embedded in a person’s psyche, which can distort history, make people act against their own interests and mar the future.
Arab-Israeli “Neutral” Narratives
There are many narratives that contradict each other in the Middle East. Some are conflicting perspectives and some have alternative facts. Here is just a small sample of events from pivotal moments in 1948, 1967 and 2000 from an Arab perspective, followed by an Israeli view:
- The creation of Israel in 1948 was a “Nakba” (catastrophe) // the founding of the state was a celebration
- During the “Nakba”, 711,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled by Israeli forces from their homes // Palestinian Arabs were encouraged to leave where they lived by their leaders, as the armies of five neighboring Arab states invaded Israel
- Five Arab armies came into Palestine to defend the Palestinians from Israeli attacks // five Arab armies invaded Israel in an effort to destroy the nascent state
- In 1967, Israel attacked Egypt, Syria and Jordan // Israel preemptively attacked Egypt and Syria after the parties made clear their intentions to attack and destroy Israel; Jordan then attacked Israel and Israel responded in self-defense
- The West Bank has always been Palestinian land and cannot be settled by Israelis // Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”) were always home to Jews and mandated under international law to be a homeland for Jews in 1922; only under the Jordanian expulsion were Jews barred from the land. International laws related to taking land in a defensive war is not the same as taking land in an offensive war
- In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon went to the Al Aqsa Mosque in an attempt to claim control over Islam’s third holiest site, which brought about the Second Intifada // Sharon visited the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site during regular visiting hours; the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat launched the Second Intifada because he was unhappy with the “near-final” peace agreement with Israel
Consider the opposing narratives. Some can reside comfortably in history books, while others actively influence each party’s actions today.
Acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas
(photo: Reuters)
PAST: Some of these points may be found in either an Arab or Israeli history book. Palestinian textbooks may write about forced expulsions from Palestine during the “Nakba”, while Israeli textbooks may write about Palestinian Arabs being encouraged to leave their homes by their leadership while the armies from five supportive Arab countries attacked Israel in an effort to destroy the country and drive the Jews into the Mediterranean Sea. The arguments are not subtle differences of opinions, and each side holds onto their account of history with examples of stories of a family here, a village there, or quotes from Israeli and Palestinian leadership at that time to underscore their version of history.
Arguably, this is something for historians to debate and a thoughtful person would probably conclude that there are elements of truth to both sides. Whether it is 80/20% or 20/80% for the parties is beyond the point of this discussion. The thrust is that their narratives are stories of the past. While Arabs and Israelis will invariably bring up their point of view in a debate, it need not dictate the debates nor compromise the conversations of the future of the region. A “starting point” of the here-and-now can be established to find a solution for the future.
A second example is the conflict between Egypt and Israel. Each side’s view of who was the belligerent party in 1967 did not impede a path forward to a different future leading to a peace treaty.
PAST AND PRESENT: Some splits in narratives run throughout time. The past can consume the present and the versions of history touch daily dialogue.
Many Arabs argue that a state of Palestine has always existed, but has been occupied by various parties including Israelis, Jordanians, Egyptians and British. They carry placards to “Free Palestine” from current Israeli occupation. For their part, Israelis note that Palestine never existed as an independent country. It was never ruled by a local Palestinian Arab government. The parties are in negotiations to potentially “Create Palestine,” while dismissing the Arab narrative as factually incorrect. The competing narratives are in conflict, but needn’t prevent the parties from moving towards a future that is in alignment.
PRESENT: A last example of a “neutral” clash of each side’s take on history is current history. Israelis and Palestinian Arabs argue forcefully about who started the Gaza war in 2014 and which party is responsible for many civilian deaths. Politicians and people will argue their points forcefully and recommend actions to punish the other side and improve their own position. Ultimately, the war and responses will become part of the past. The parties could opt to move forward with plans for a future OR they could use the war as an excuse to undermine a future peace.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
(photo credit: Ariel Jerozolimski)
Arab-Israeli “Toxic” Narratives
The term “Toxic Narrative” is meant to describe the inability of the two sides to ever establish a true peace; it is not intended to suggest that a narrative is inherently evil.
PAST, PRESENT and FUTURE: The best example of competing viewpoints of the past that stretch into the future, is the Balfour Declaration (1917) and its incorporation into the San Remo conference (1920) and then the international law established by the League of Nations in the British Mandate of Palestine (1922). The two sides’ competing opinions impact the ability of the parties to establish peace for the future.
International Law: The Palestinian Arabs argue that the League of Nations had no right to declare a homeland for the Jews in Palestine. They contend such international decision was made without the approval of the local Arab population in Palestine, and as such, the law itself should be null and void. They further argue that the imposition of such mandate was an effort to colonialize Palestine. The Palestinian Arabs took many steps to halt the implementation of that mandate for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…and facilitate Jewish immigration…and close settlement by Jews on the land.” The most significant actions were the riots of 1936-9 which enabled the Arabs to get the British to issue the 1939 “White Paper” which would limit the Jewish population in Palestine to one-third of the country, leaving an Arab majority population and facilitate Arab rule.
The Israeli perspective is that the League of Nations (precursor to the United Nations) made a law specifically recognizing the Jewish right to a national homeland in Palestine. They do not believe that such international law was illegal in 1922, and when the United Nations voted in 1947 to only grant a small portion of the Mandated land as a Jewish State, the Jews were disappointed but voted in favor of the proposal anyway. The Arabs rejected the 1947 proposal, just as they rejected the 1922 Mandate.
Historical Connection: As part of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, the international community recognized the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine.” The history of the Jews in the land goes back 3700 years and the Jews were the only people to ever be self-governing in the land. They were also the only people to make Jerusalem its capital, which they did for the third time in 1950.
The history of the Jews has also been challenged by the Palestinian Arabs who continually deny Jewish history in the region and insist that Israelis are attempting to “Judaize” the country, and that Jewish presence in the region is a recent phenomenon. (They have even advanced that Jesus was a Palestinian, not a Jew, even though Arabs did not come to the holy land en masse until the Muslim invasions hundreds of years later).
In short, the two conflicting narratives relate to the RIGHTS of Jews to REestablish a Jewish majority in the land and be self-governing again.
The Palestinian contention is that the entire Zionist enterprise was illegal from the start: The call for Israel’s creation in 1922 was illegal; the declaration of the state in 1948 was illegal; and the assumption of additional land in 1967 was illegal. They view the entire region as “Arab land” and Jewish presence and rule is illegitimate and directly undermines the Arab rights in the land.
The Roadblock to Peace
The Future: Some argue that despite such widely held opinion by Palestinian Arabs, acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas has stated that he would recognize a state of Israel as part of a peace agreement. As such, the debate of narratives and facts is not truly “toxic” as the Arabs are willing to look past their past.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu maintains that is not so.
Netanyahu claims that a de facto recognition of Israel as a country that exists today will not prevent a war tomorrow. A de facto peace treaty that does not recognize Israel’s RIGHT to exist is a flimsy veneer. Over time the veneer will come off, and the underlying Palestinian Arab contention that Jews have no rights to live and rule on Arab land will lead to further war and bloodshed. Without a break from the storyline that Jews have no history, no legal authority, nor basic rights to live and pray and be self-governing in Israel, there will never be peace. No amount of land-for-peace swap could resolve an illegal Jewish claim until the entire state of Israel is under Arab rule.
The Palestinians have not been able to accept such a break with their narrative of the rights of Jews in Palestine. They could not accept such vision of Jewish rights in 1922 and have been unable to accept it today, as Abbas has repeatedly stated he will never recognize Israel as a “Jewish State”.
As such, the seemingly innocuous request for Palestinians to recognize Israel as the Jewish State has potentially become a roadblock to final settlement talks. A statement that would have no practical impact (compared to tangible matters such as borders or “right of return”), has touched a key nerve in the Palestinian psyche. They would rather forgo a brighter future than negate their narrative as the sole rightful owners of the land.
People typically speak of the Arab-Israeli conflict and refer to events at important time periods like 1948, 1967 and 2000. While those events helped shape the present, they need not dictate the future. Each side can maintain many narratives without destroying the prospects for peace.
The toxic narrative that prevents peace revolves around the rights of Jews to their historic homeland established in international law in 1922. It is that narrative that must be addressed for the parties to arrive at a long-term peaceful future together. It has been almost a century, and well past time for Arabs to recognize the legal and legitimate rights of Jews to live in the holy land and to be self-governing.
Related First One Through articles:
Names and Narrative: Palestinian Territories/ Israeli Territories
Names and Narrative: The West Bank / Judea and Samaria
Share this:
Absolute and Relative Ideological Terrorism in the United States
Summary: The New York Times has sought to educate people to fear Republican terrorists more than Muslim extremists.
“Right-Wing” versus “Muslim Extremism”
In June 2015 the New York Times ran some articles and editorials claiming that domestic terrorism was more of a problem than radical Islamic terrorism.
- A June 16 op-ed “The Growing Right-Wing Terror Threat” quoted a police officer that “said that “militias, neo-Nazis and sovereign citizens” are the biggest threat we face in regard to extremism’”. The paper quoted statistics from The Global Terrorism Database which counted 65 attacks at the hands of “right-wing ideologies and 24 by Muslim extremists since 9/11”. It added another source, “the International Security Program at the New America Foundation identifies 39 fatalities from “non-jihadist” homegrown extremists and 26 fatalities from “jihadist” extremists.”
- On June 24, the NYTimes had an article entitled “Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11”. The paper stated that “Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims: 48 have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim, including the recent mass killing in Charleston, S.C., compared with 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists, according to a count by New America, a Washington research center.” That data looks to be the same as the International Security Program, but included the nine black church-goers who had just been gunned down. Another statistic in the article stated that “Non-Muslim extremists have carried out 19 such [ideological] attacks since Sept. 11, according to the latest count, compiled by David Sterman, a New America program associate, and overseen by Peter Bergen, a terrorism expert. By comparison, seven lethal attacks by Islamic militants.”
The Washington Examiner questioned the definition of “right-wing terrorists” to include a very broad group of people. How did neo-Nazis and racists get lumped in with the “right-wing”? Before exploring the Times deliberate grouping of all non-Muslim extremism under a single banner, consider a brief education about relative numbers versus absolute numbers.
Main cover story in the New York Times
Absolute versus Relative
A cursory review of numbers could lead to a quick conclusion: 48 people killed is a greater total than 26 people killed. A total of 19 attacks is more than seven attacks. As such, the quotes in the article such as “Law enforcement agencies around the country have told us the threat from Muslim extremists is not as great as the threat from right-wing extremists” would appear accurate on its face as there were more than two times the number of attacks and almost twice the number of fatalities from non-Muslim attacks.
However, a review of the statistics on a relative basis would yield a very different result.
According to the Pew Research Center, Muslims accounted for 0.9% of Americans in 2014. That means that there are 99 times more non-Muslims than Muslims in the US. If one were to assume that the percentage of Muslims who are radical that would commit an act of terror is the same as the broad group of right-wing and anti-government terrorists within the non-Muslim population, one would expect the right-wing terrorists to have 99 times the number of attacks and fatalities, not two times. This implies that an average Muslim is 49 times more likely to commit an act of ideological terror than a non-Muslim in the United States.
(By the way, the statistics deliberately exclude the jihadist terrorism of 9/11 which killed nearly 3000 people.)
The New York Times Warning of Terrorism by Conservatives
After the Times led its readers to focus on “homegrown extremism” as the actual threat of terrorism (compared to jihadists), it lumped all of those non-Muslim fanatics into the Republican party:
“On several occasions since President Obama took office, efforts by government agencies to conduct research on right-wing extremism have run into resistance from Republicans, who suspected an attempt to smear conservatives. A 2009 report by the Department of Homeland Security, which warned that an ailing economy and the election of the first black president might prompt a violent reaction from white supremacists, was withdrawn in the face of conservative criticism.”
Even if one were to use the liberal paper’s biased assumptions that all anti-government and racist fanatics must exclusively come from the Conservative and Republican parties (which account for roughly 45% of the population according to a June 2015 Gallup poll), it would still suggest that an average Muslim is over 20 times more likely to commit an ideological attack as a “homegrown [Conservative] extremist.”
That would suggest one of the following conclusions:
- Non-Muslim terrorists have nothing to do with the Conservative/ Republican parties; OR
- An average Muslim is much more likely to commit acts of terror than an average non-Muslim
Either way -or both – these are the exact opposite conclusions that the New York Times sought to convey in its articles.
Related FirstOneThrough article:
Ramifications of Ignoring American Antisemitism
Share this:
Palestinians agree that Israel rules all of Jerusalem, but the World Treats the City as Divided
The Palestinian Arabs and Israelis last managed to negotiate an agreement in September 1995. That agreement, Oslo II, was intended to be an interim agreement after which a permanent resolution was to be reached in five years. However, five years later in September 2000, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat walked away from the Israeli peace proposal and launched multi-year riots which claimed thousands of lives.
The terms of Oslo II still live on, decades later.
Rabin and Arafat sign maps prior to the Oslo II signing ceremony at the White House, as US president Bill Clinton, Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Jordan’s King Hussein look on, September 28, 1995 (photo credit: GPO)
Goals of Oslo II
Oslo II was meant to set in place an interim Palestinian Authority which would become the basis of a Palestinian political structure. Oslo II had NO calls for an independent Palestinian state, but stated the goal of the negotiations was to lead “to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.”
- Security Council Resolution 338 was declared after Egypt attacked Israel in the Yom Kippur War. The goal was to stop hostilities and commence peace negotiations. The thrust of SC 338 was to implement SC 242 to establish “a just and durable peace”
- Security Council 242 was drafted after the Six Day War in 1967. In that war, Israel preemptively attacked Egypt and Syria that were readying an attack on Israel, and Israel defended itself from an attack from Jordan.
Without delving into the nuances of SC 242 here, the thrust of the resolution was to have Israeli armed forces pull back from some territories which it won in the 1967 War and that all states respect “the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area… free from threats or acts of force.” It also proposed “a just settlement of the refugee problem.”
Oslo II built on these UN Security Council goals with an interim roadmap. It began with Israel’s handing over certain territories to the Palestinian Authority (Gaza and Jericho) as well as other major Palestinian cities.
Status of Jerusalem in Oslo II
Jerusalem is mentioned eight times in the Oslo II Accords. In every instance, the entire city is referenced, not just the eastern half that Israel acquired from the Jordanians and Palestinian Arabs in 1967.
The first six times “Jerusalem” appeared in the Oslo II agreement relate to future Palestinian elections in which Palestinian Arabs located in Jerusalem would be able to participate. The remaining two times specifically state that Jerusalem is a point for final status negotiations:
- ARTICLE XVII Jurisdiction
1. In accordance with the DOP, the jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory as a single territorial unit, except for:
2. issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, specified military locations, Palestinian refugees, borders, foreign relations and Israelis; - ARTICLE XXXI Final Clauses
5. Permanent status negotiations will commence as soon as possible, but not later than May 4, 1996, between the Parties. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.
According to the agreements executed by the Palestinians and Israelis:
- Jerusalem is not part of the West Bank, as it is broken out separately
- Jerusalem is not a “settlement”, as the agreement stated later that “settlements” are entities in the West Bank and Gaza – “For the purpose of this Agreement, “the Settlements” means, in the West Bank the settlements in Area C; and in the Gaza Strip – the Gush Katif and Erez settlement areas, as well as the other settlements in the Gaza Strip, as shown on attached map No. 2“
- Israel controls Jerusalem – “Israel shall continue to exercise powers and responsibilities not so transferred”
There is therefore no basis for any of the United Nations, the EU or the Unites States to claim that Jerusalem is a settlement and that Jews should have any restrictions from living anywhere in the city. Should there be any modifications to the Israeli rule of the city, it will be made by mutual consent in permanent status negotiations.
Yet, the world ignores the Oslo II foundation document of a peace agreement.
United Nations Ignores Oslo II on Jerusalem
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon made an address on the “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People” in 2013:
On Jerusalem’s Jewish “settlements”: “All settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem must cease. Measures that prejudge final status issues are not to be recognized.”
“Announcements of thousands of new housing units cannot be reconciled with the goal of a two-state solution and risk the collapse of negotiations”
These statements ignore Oslo II in many respects: it broke apart “East Jerusalem” as a distinct entity; it claimed that Jews living in “East Jerusalem” were in “settlements”; it called for a two-state solution (while not in Oslo II, both the Israelis and Palestinians later agreed to such plan); it suggested that Jews living in “East Jerusalem” hurt a two-state solution.
On Palestinian homes in “East Jerusalem”: “Of particular concern are developments in East Jerusalem, where this year alone, some 100 [Arab] structures have been demolished, displacing 300 people. Hundreds more Palestinians are at risk because their homes were built without Israeli-issued building permits”
The UN leader voiced concern with more Jews moving into eastern Jerusalem and not enough Arabs being accommodated there.
On the Permanent Status Negotiations of Jerusalem: “Jerusalem is to emerge from negotiations as the capital of two States, with arrangements for the holy sites acceptable to all”
Ban Ki-Moon voiced a conclusion not made in Oslo II and “prejudged” an outcome that Jerusalem must be divided, even though Israel already divided the UN’s “Holy Basin” when it gave Bethlehem to the Palestinian Authority 20 years earlier. Amazing commentary from someone who is concerned with “prejudging final status issues.”
European Union Ignores Oslo II on Jerusalem
The EU has taken positions adopted by the Palestinian Authority which are outside of the agreements reached by Israel and the PA in Oslo II:
On Jerusalem’s Jewish “settlements”: “EU considers that settlement building anywhere in the occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under international law, constitutes an obstacle to peace and threatens to make a two-state solution impossible.”
On Palestinians in “East Jerusalem”: “The EU supports [Arab] institution building work in East Jerusalem, notably in the areas of health, education and the judiciary.”
On the Permanent Status Negotiations of Jerusalem: “the EU has repeatedly confirmed its deep concern about accelerated settlement expansion in the West Bank including East Jerusalem. This expansion prejudges the outcome of final status negotiations and threatens the viability of an agreed two-state solution”
“The EU considers that the peace negotiations should include the resolution of all issues surrounding the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of two states. The EU will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties.”
Like the United Nations, the EU ignored the mutual recognition of both Palestinians Arabs and Israel that only Israel administers all of Jerusalem, and any modification to such arrangement must be made by mutual agreement. Oslo II made no suggestion that the holy city be divided.
The United States Ignores Oslo II on Jerusalem
On Jerusalem’s Jewish “settlements”: Jen Psaki, Spokesperson for the US Department of State said on October 27, 2014: “we continue to make our position absolutely clear that we view settlement activity as illegitimate and unequivocally oppose unilateral steps that prejudge the future of Jerusalem. Israel’s leaders have said they would support a pathway to a two-state solution, but moving forward with this type of action would be incompatible with the pursuit of peace”
On the Palestinian Authority in Jerusalem: While the US does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel or any country (and therefor does not maintain on embassy in Jerusalem), it has nevertheless decided to establish an office for Palestinians in Jerusalem. The United States Security Coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority (USSC) sounds like it services both Israel and the PA, but its mission is to serve and assist the PA in meeting its security needs. “The USSC directs all facets of U.S. security sector assistance to the Palestinian Authority and synchronizes international supporting efforts…The USSC assists the Palestinian Authority to transform and professionalize its security sector.”
The US decided to place such office to assist the PA in Jerusalem, rather than Bethlehem or Jericho. The address is home of the Consul General of the US in Jerusalem which serves US citizens from Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.
On the Permanent Status Negotiations of Jerusalem: Back in 2009, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made a point that recognized that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations, but said he was opposed to construction in “East Jerusalem”. “The United States opposes new Israeli construction in East Jerusalem. The status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved by the parties through negotiations and supported by the international community. Neither party should engage in efforts or take actions that could unilaterally pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations. Rather, both parties should return to negotiations without preconditions as soon as possible. The United States recognizes that Jerusalem is a deeply important issue for Israelis and Palestinians, and for Jews, Muslims, and Christians. We believe that through good faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome that realizes the aspirations of both parties for Jerusalem, and safeguards its status for people around the world.”
There have been very few agreements between the Palestinian Arabs and Israelis throughout history. When the parties last mutually agreed to move forward with a peace process, they agreed that all of Jerusalem was controlled by Israel. The agreement had no caveats about what Israel could or could not do anywhere in the city. It made no suggestion that the city was or would be divided.
Despite that reality, a new perception has taken hold in world bodies that Israel should prohibit Jews from living in parts of their capital and holiest city. It is being repeated more frequently and with greater force: at one point, world bodies opposed Israel building new neighborhoods in the eastern part of Jerusalem; now they decry Jews moving into existing homes that they legally purchased privately.
How can Israel expect to negotiate a final status agreement if the world rejects the agreements Israel makes with Palestinian Arabs as it did with Oslo II? How can Israel enter negotiations when the world advances a prejudged outcome to such negotiations to which Israel never agreed?
Related First One Through articles:
Real and Imagined Laws of Living in Silwan
Nicholas Kristof’s “Arab Land”
Obama supports Anti-Semitic Palestinian Agenda of Jew-Free State
The Israeli Peace Process versus the Palestinian Divorce Proceedings
Share this:
A Simple Question for Hillary Clinton on Israel
In June 2015, Hillary Clinton claimed to have been a strong ally for Israel. Without getting into the history of her tenure as Secretary of State, (when she could claim she was following the orders of US President Barack Obama), here is a simple question for Hillary on her presedential run: will she reintroduce the pro-Israel Democratic platform that was present in 2008, but abolished under Obama in 2012?
Hillary Clinton speaks at her first campaign rally in New York City
June 13th, 2015. Photograph: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
Specifically, will she reintroduce the pre-Obama Democratic platform that called for:
- The isolation of Hamas until it renounced terrorism. As declared in the 2008 Democratic platform: “The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and abides by past agreements.”
- The settlement of the descendants of Palestinian refugees in a new Palestinian State, not Israel. “The creation of a Palestinian state through final status negotiations, together with an international compensation mechanism, should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel.”
- Dismissing the concept that borders should be based on the 1949 Armistice Lines. “All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.”
- Recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel.” The party removed the statement, and then reinstated it after a bitter fight on the convention floor.
Obama made his pivot away from Israel very clear in his 2012 presidential run. What are Hillary Clinton’s intentions?
Related First.One.Through articles:
International-Domestic Abuse: Obama and Netanyahu
