It’s all over, folks.
The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is dead. For there to be peace among the Israelis and the Palestinians the occupation must end, but the occupation will not end and nothing Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or George Mitchell can do will change that. The reason for this is because there are two possible ways for Israel to end the occupation, but both have already been tried and both have already failed. The first possible way is through a negotiated settlement. The second possible way is through a unilateral withdrawal. History has shown that neither will work and, furthermore, Barack’s counterproductive call for a total settlement freeze has killed any likely chances for meaningful negotiations in the future.
Negotiated Settlement:
The idea behind a negotiated settlement, of course, is that Israeli officials would sit down with Palestinian officials, presumably Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, and hammer out the details of a workable two-state solution. Unfortunately, if we have learned anything, it is that Palestinian leadership has never shown the slightest inclination toward accepting a two-state solution.
For example, in 1937, the British Peel Commission, formed to find a possible solution to the Arab Uprising of 1936 to 1939, originally recommended two states, an Arab state and a Jewish state. The Jewish leadership accepted the offer, while the Arab leadership refused.
In 1947, of course, the United Nations passed resolution 181, also calling for a two-state solution and again the Jewish leadership accepted and the Arab leadership refused. The Arabs of the Palestinian Mandate (they were not yet called “Palestinians”) then launched a civil war against the Jews prior to the British withdrawal in May of 1948 and were defeated.
Between 1948 and 1967, Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip. At no time during this period did any Arab leadership call for a “Palestinian” state on this land and neither did the Palestinians, themselves. It was only after Israel acquired both territories during the 6 Day War, a defensive war on the part of the Jewish state, did Palestinian nationalism gain ground and we began to hear Palestinian calls for a Palestinian state.
Since then, however, the Palestinian leadership still consistently refused to accept a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel. In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, offered Yassir Arafat 100 percent of the Gaza, over 90 percent of the West Bank, and the Arab sections of East Jerusalem, as a capital. Arafat refused the offer and refused, even, to make a counter offer.
Just recently, in 2007, PM Ehud Olmert offered Mahmoud Abbas a similar offer that also included land-swaps to bring the Palestinian holdings of the West Bank to something close to 100 percent, but he, too, was turned down flat.
What can this possibly mean other than that the Palestinian leadership is still not ready to accept the two-state solution?
What more can they possibly want beyond 100 percent of the Gaza, something close to 100 percent of the West Bank, and the Arab parts of the East Jerusalem as a capital?
The right of return?
The right of return, of course, is entirely a non-starter for Israel because it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. It would mean that, yet again, Jews would have to live as a minority among a hostile population that has consistently sought the destruction of the Jewish community in its traditional home. The Knesset could never accept any such condition, nor should they.
Unilateral Withdrawal:
While the Palestinian leadership has never accepted a negotiated settlement, nor have they accepted Israeli unilateral withdrawal from occupied territory. In 2005, under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the entirety of the Gaza strip. In a move that traumatized Israeli society, the IDF turned Jewish rifles on Jewish settlers in the Gaza and forced about 10,000 of them to leave their homes in order to clear the way for Palestinian sovereignty over the Gaza.
At the time, the Gazans had an opportunity. Israel did precisely what virtually everyone throughout the world had been calling on it to do, end the occupation. And they did so, but, yet again, the Palestinian leadership showed itself unwilling to allow the end of that occupation.
At the time, the Palestinian people could very well have raised up a political party calling for peace, future prosperity, and normalization, but they refused. They could have raised a political party that might have said something along these lines. “Since what we desire above all else is peace, the potential for prosperity for our children and grandchildren, and for sovereignty over our own land, we call upon our neighbor to the East to join us in creating an atmosphere that might encourage those goals. Because Israel has ended the occupation of Gaza, we declare an end of the war against Israel and for full economic cooperation between our two peoples.”
Instead, they increased rocket fire by a magnitude of 10-fold against southern Israel and elected Hamas, an organization that calls quite specifically for the genocide of the Jews, which is precisely why both Israel and Egypt blockaded the Gaza shortly thereafter. It is for this reason that Israelis now find themselves less inclined to withdraw from the West Bank, because they do not want to see such a withdrawal result in thousands upon thousands of Qassam and Katyusha rockets potentially falling on Tel Aviv.
Operation Cast Lead, tragic as it was, and however unfashionable it might be to say so within western left-liberal circles, was a direct result of that decision by the Palestinian leadership and its people.
The Obama Administration:
As I have written before, Obama’s big mistake, if he was hoping to actually bring about peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, was calling for a total settlement freeze in both the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The demand for total settlement freeze, even within blocs that would likely end up as part of Israel, has resulted in a number of negative consequences that undermine even the slim possibility of a negotiated settlement.
The first negative consequence is that by calling for a total settlement freeze, Obama placed a precondition on negotiations at a time when he should have avoided any move that might decrease the likelihood of the two sides sitting down at the negotiating table. When Obama called for total freeze, Abbas took it as an opportunity to avoid negotiations and insisted that the Palestinians would never sit down with the Israelis until Israel met that demand.
Prime Minister Netanyahu, however, could not meet that demand even if he wanted to because it would have meant tearing apart his governing coalition. The demand for total settlement freeze was really nothing less than a demand that Netanyahu step aside and allow his government to fall. Naturally, this he refused to do and while Obama has back-pedaled on this requirement, the damage has already been done. Abbas refuses to negotiate and Netanyahu knows that he has no friend in the White House.
Furthermore, if the United States is to broker a two-state settlement, it is imperative that the Israeli public have at least a little faith in the good will of the American president. They do not. Recent polls have shown that a grand total of 4 percent of Israelis believe that Barack Obama is a friend to the Jewish state. In Israel, Obama is about as popular as Swine Flu because he made serious demands upon Israel and virtually no demands upon the Palestinian leadership.
This means that the Israeli people do not trust Obama to broker a negotiated settlement and no Israeli PM can make peace without at least some level of trust by the Jewish Israeli citizenry toward the American broker.
Conclusion:
A confluence of factors has now led to the end of the peace process and to a no-win situation for the Israelis and the Palestinians. Israel cannot negotiate an end to the occupation, nor can it act unilaterally to do so without serious risk to its people, as the Gaza withdrawal proved in 2005.
Israel should, despite all, take that risk.
Negotiations have proven, time and again, to be absolutely pointless. The status-quo is simply intolerable because Israel cannot indefinitely maintain the occupation. Thus, the only thing for Israel to do is declare its final borders, remove the IDF behind those borders, and be the first country to welcome the state of Palestine among the brotherhood of nations.
And when the rockets start raining into Israel, again?
Well?
As always, Israel will defend itself… as well it should.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Maps, Maps, and More Maps
If there is one area of agreement within Daily Kos I-P, it is that the occupation of Palestinian lands must end. Everyone agrees. The pro-Palestinian advocates want the occupation to end, as do the pro-Israel advocates. The difference is that the pro-Palestinian advocates always, and forever, blame the occupation on Israel. While it is obviously true that Israel does hold responsibility for the occupation, it does not hold sole responsibility for it.
The Palestinian leadership, both now and historically, also hold responsibility for the occupation. The reason for this is because they have never accepted any of the offers for statehood and were it not for that intransigence there would be no occupation today.
For example, in 1937 the British Peel Commission suggested partitioning Palestine, sans Trans-Jordan, into a Jewish state and a Palestinian Arab state. The Palestinian leadership rejected the proposal.
In 1947, of course, the United Nations enacted Resolution 181; another partition plan, accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Palestinians. It was 181, needless to say, that resulted in recognition of the state of Israel by the world body.
In 2000, during the Camp David Accords between Israeli PM, Ehud Barack, PLO President, Yasser Arafat, and US President, Bill Clinton, the Palestinian leadership was again offered a state and, yet again, they refused. Apologists for Palestinian intransigence on Daily Kos often claim that Barak's offer was not good enough. That it divided the WB into "cantons" that would have represented nothing so much as a "rump state."
This is false.
Dennis Ross was the chief US negotiator during the negotiation process and in his 2004 book, The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace, he includes the maps shown below.
The text next to the map on the left reads as follows:
This map reflects a map proposed by the Israelis early at Camp David, but it inaccurately depicts Israeli security zones carving the West Bank into three cantons, and includes Israeli settlements in the proposed Palestinian state. Official Palestinians now cite this map as the final offer they turned down at Camp David. (The initial Israeli proposal called for a Palestinian state in 87% of the West Bank. This map shows that state comprising only 83% of that territory.
The map on the right shows the actual offer. The text reads:
While no map was presented during the final rounds at Camp David, this map illustrates the parameters of what President Clinton proposed and Arafat rejected: Palestinian control over 91% of the West Bank in contiguous territory and an Israeli security presence along 15% of the border with Jordan. The map actually understates the final Camp David proposal because it does not depict the additional territorial swap of 1% that was offered from Israeli territory.
The map, of course, also does not show that along with 100% of Gaza, over 90% of the West Bank in contiguous territory, the Palestinians were also offered the Arab sections of East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state.
This is what Yasser Arafat rejected in 2000.
This next map shows the UN partition plan, under Resolution 181, in November of 1947:
The area in blue represents the proposed Jewish state, which the Jews of the Yishuv accepted. Notice anything unusual?
It is 3 clearly distinct and separate cantons! There is a small region in the north-east, a strip along the Mediterranean Sea between Haifa and Tel Aviv, and the Negev desert in the south.
The offer did not include Jerusalem.
Yet this is what the Jews accepted. This offer was, in fact, far worse than what the Palestinian leadership rejected in 2000. But the Jews accepted because they were determined to gain their independence, their autonomy, and to build a state for their nation. And they did so.
Yet here we are, lo these many decades later, and the Palestinian leadership, under Mahmoud Abbas, cannot even bring itself to negotiate the possibility of statehood, allegedly because of settlement construction within blocs that will end up part of Israel in any likely negotiated settlement, anyway.
Netanyahu has called for negotations and Abbas has rejected that call.
The Palestinian leadership continues to reject any possibility of a Palestinian state next to Israel. This is what they rejected in 1937, when offered by the British. It is what they rejected in 1947, when offered by the United Nations. It is what they rejected in 2000, when offered by the Israelis. And it is what they continue to reject.
If the Palestinian people want their freedom, they can have it. All that is required is that their leadership finally accept an offer of statehood. I very much hope that they will some day.
I am not optimistic, however.
The Palestinian leadership, both now and historically, also hold responsibility for the occupation. The reason for this is because they have never accepted any of the offers for statehood and were it not for that intransigence there would be no occupation today.
For example, in 1937 the British Peel Commission suggested partitioning Palestine, sans Trans-Jordan, into a Jewish state and a Palestinian Arab state. The Palestinian leadership rejected the proposal.
In 1947, of course, the United Nations enacted Resolution 181; another partition plan, accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Palestinians. It was 181, needless to say, that resulted in recognition of the state of Israel by the world body.
In 2000, during the Camp David Accords between Israeli PM, Ehud Barack, PLO President, Yasser Arafat, and US President, Bill Clinton, the Palestinian leadership was again offered a state and, yet again, they refused. Apologists for Palestinian intransigence on Daily Kos often claim that Barak's offer was not good enough. That it divided the WB into "cantons" that would have represented nothing so much as a "rump state."
This is false.
Dennis Ross was the chief US negotiator during the negotiation process and in his 2004 book, The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace, he includes the maps shown below.
The text next to the map on the left reads as follows:
This map reflects a map proposed by the Israelis early at Camp David, but it inaccurately depicts Israeli security zones carving the West Bank into three cantons, and includes Israeli settlements in the proposed Palestinian state. Official Palestinians now cite this map as the final offer they turned down at Camp David. (The initial Israeli proposal called for a Palestinian state in 87% of the West Bank. This map shows that state comprising only 83% of that territory.
The map on the right shows the actual offer. The text reads:
While no map was presented during the final rounds at Camp David, this map illustrates the parameters of what President Clinton proposed and Arafat rejected: Palestinian control over 91% of the West Bank in contiguous territory and an Israeli security presence along 15% of the border with Jordan. The map actually understates the final Camp David proposal because it does not depict the additional territorial swap of 1% that was offered from Israeli territory.
The map, of course, also does not show that along with 100% of Gaza, over 90% of the West Bank in contiguous territory, the Palestinians were also offered the Arab sections of East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state.
This is what Yasser Arafat rejected in 2000.
This next map shows the UN partition plan, under Resolution 181, in November of 1947:
The area in blue represents the proposed Jewish state, which the Jews of the Yishuv accepted. Notice anything unusual?
It is 3 clearly distinct and separate cantons! There is a small region in the north-east, a strip along the Mediterranean Sea between Haifa and Tel Aviv, and the Negev desert in the south.
The offer did not include Jerusalem.
Yet this is what the Jews accepted. This offer was, in fact, far worse than what the Palestinian leadership rejected in 2000. But the Jews accepted because they were determined to gain their independence, their autonomy, and to build a state for their nation. And they did so.
Yet here we are, lo these many decades later, and the Palestinian leadership, under Mahmoud Abbas, cannot even bring itself to negotiate the possibility of statehood, allegedly because of settlement construction within blocs that will end up part of Israel in any likely negotiated settlement, anyway.
Netanyahu has called for negotations and Abbas has rejected that call.
The Palestinian leadership continues to reject any possibility of a Palestinian state next to Israel. This is what they rejected in 1937, when offered by the British. It is what they rejected in 1947, when offered by the United Nations. It is what they rejected in 2000, when offered by the Israelis. And it is what they continue to reject.
If the Palestinian people want their freedom, they can have it. All that is required is that their leadership finally accept an offer of statehood. I very much hope that they will some day.
I am not optimistic, however.
Israel's Response to UN Human Rights Counsel
I received this email from the brilliant Neal Lazarus. I thought it would be useful in our debates over a Daily Kos.
Statement by H.E. Aharon Leshno Yaar
Permanent Representative
Permanent Mission of Israel to the UN in Geneva
12th Regular Session
United Nations Human Rights Council
Agenda Item 7
29 September 2009
Transcript:
Mr. President,
Yesterday, on Yom Kippur, Jews all over the world - in Jerusalem, Sderot, here in Geneva - commemorated Yom Kippur, the most holy day of the Jewish calendar. It is the day when, according to Jewish tradition, our fate is determined for the coming year: "Who will live and who will die, who will be raised up and who brought low". Not only for individuals but also for States, this is a decisive time. In the words of our prayers: "Which for war and which for peace, which for famine and which for plenty".
For the States in this Council this is indeed a fateful time. Today's debate is a real test of the integrity and purpose of this body. But more than that, the response to the challenge presented today will have a clear effect on our ability - collectively and individually - to face some of the greatest challenges in the year ahead.
Five years ago, in a remarkable gesture reaching out for peace, Israel removed every one of its soldiers and over 8000 civilians from the Gaza Strip. We withdrew hospitals and kindergartens, synagogues and cemeteries, leaving only the greenhouses we had struggled to build in the hope that these would be the start of a productive Palestinian society. And you, the States of this Council, applauded this unprecedented measure. You told us in no uncertain terms that in the nightmare scenario that terror would take root, you would back us in our inherent right to self-defense.
Five years later, the greenhouses had been ransacked by Hamas thugs, over 8000 rockets and mortars had been fired on schools and kindergartens in Sderot and other Israeli towns, and an unceasing supply of weaponry was being smuggled through tunnels into Gaza from terror-sponsoring states like Iran. Israel's urgent appeals to the international community were to no avail, and our attempts to extend a fragile cease-fire were met with new, increased barrages of missiles from Hamas. And all the while the range of the attacks was increasing. Now Ashkelon and Beer Sheva were within reach. One million Israeli children, women and men had to live every moment of their lives within seconds of a bomb shelter.
The decision to launch a military operation is never an easy one. It is even more challenging when we have to face an enemy that intentionally deploys its forces in densely populated areas, stores its explosives in private homes, and launches rockets from crowded school yards and mosques. These are new and horrendous challenges, and we sought to deal with them responsibly and with humanity. Yet when we dropped millions of leaflets and made tens of thousands of phone calls to warn civilians in advance of operations, we were witness to the callous and deliberate Hamas tactic of sending women and children onto the roofs of terrorist headquarters and weapons factories. In such cases, again and again missions were aborted, letting the Hamas terrorists escape, Israel protected Palestinian civilians that Hamas had put at risk.
In grappling with these dilemmas we seek the guidance of other states. We may not have all the right answers but we struggle to ask the right questions. And in discussions between officials charged with securing the lives of their civilians we hear genuine admiration for our restraint. For example, when Colonel Richard Kemp, Commander of British forces in Afghanistan was asked about Israel's conduct in Gaza, he replied: "I don't think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF in Gaza."
In complex urban warfare, though, civilian casualties are tragically inevitable. There also may have been incidents in which soldiers did not always maintain the standards that we expected of them. The true test of a genuine democracy is how it deals with such cases, and how it examines its own failings. Following the Gaza Operation, Israel has opened over 100 separate investigations into fundamental operational questions, like damage to UN centers and medical facilities, as well as specific allegations of misconduct. Of these investigations 23 have already resulted in criminal proceedings. And this process continues. Any decision regarding whether to open criminal proceedings can be appealed by any Israeli or Palestinian to Israel's Supreme Court - a court which has been cited with respect and admiration throughout the democratic world.
Israel struggles to deal with these tough questions, raised by terrorists acting within civilian centers. Sadly, these are questions which also occupy many other democratic countries and which they and we will have to continue to grapple with.
But these questions, apparently, do not occupy the authors of the shameful Report which has been presented to this Council.
Like many of the States in this Council, we could not support a resolution which only addressed one side of the conflict, and which established four separate mechanisms to condemn Israel and not even one to examine Hamas.
Like many of the distinguished individuals who rejected invitations to head the fact finding mission with its one-sided mandate, we objected to a mission which, in the words of Mary Robinson, was "guided by politics not human rights". While Israel has cooperated with dozens of inquiries and investigations from international organizations and NGO's into the events in Gaza it refused to cooperate with this Mission. And the Report presented today fully justifies that decision.
Even prior to the start of any investigation one member of the Mission went on public record stating that Israel's defense of its civilians against Hamas' attacks was "aggression not self-defense". The document submitted today simply reiterates that prejudice.
Mr. President
This is a report - 575 pages - in which the right of self defense is not mentioned, in which the smuggling of weapons into Gaza through hundreds of tunnels deserves not a word.
A report based on pre-screened Palestinian witnesses, not one of whom was asked about Hamas terrorist activity or the abuse of civilians, hospitals and mosques for terrorist attacks.
A report which is based on carefully selected incidents, cherry picked for political effect. As Justice Goldstone revealed in an open correspondence: "We did not deal with the problems of conducting military operations in civilian areas. We avoided having to do so in the incidents we decided to investigate."
A report which gives credibility to every allegation or hearsay against Israel, and none to even direct admissions of guilt by Hamas leaders. Indeed which sometimes accepts the same source as authoritative as against Israel, but somehow unreliable vis-à-vis Hamas.
Mr. President
The authors of this "Fact-finding Report" had little concern with finding facts. The Report was instigated as part of a political campaign, and it represents a political assault directed against Israel and against every state forced to confront terrorist threats. Its recommendations are fully in line with its one-sided agenda and seek to harness the Security Council, the General Assembly the International Criminal Court, the Human Rights Council, and the entire international community in its political campaign. In so doing it seeks to inject these bodies with the same political poison that has so undermined the integrity of this Council.
M. President,
Unlike the Hamas terrorists who rejoice with every civilian death, Israel regards every civilian casualty as a tragedy, Israel is committed to fully examining every allegation of wrongdoing. Not because of this Report but despite it.
For let there be no doubt. This Report will do nothing to ease the lives of those in Sderot and Gaza City, Kiryat Shemona and Jenin. In providing support and vindication for terrorist tactics, it is a betrayal of Israelis and moderate Paelstinians alike.
In the final analysis, the true test of such a Report can only be whether in future armed conflicts it will have the effect of increasing or decreasing respect for the rule of law by the parties. Regrettably this one-sided report, claiming to represent international law but in fact perverting it to serve a political agenda, can only weaken the standing of international law in future conflicts. This report broadcasts a troubling - and legally unfounded - message to States everywhere confronting terrorist threats, that international law has no effective response to offer them, and so serves to undermine willingness to comply with its provisions. At the same time, it signals an even more troubling message to terrorist groups, wherever they are, that the cynical tactics of seeking to exploit civilian suffering for political ends actually pays dividends.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we want to find a way to live in peace with our neighbors. This is the ultimate question that Prime Minister Netanyahu asked the General Assembly in New York last week
:
"The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us ... of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense? [...] Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists? Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.
"
Thank you very much.
Regards,
DKW
Statement by H.E. Aharon Leshno Yaar
Permanent Representative
Permanent Mission of Israel to the UN in Geneva
12th Regular Session
United Nations Human Rights Council
Agenda Item 7
29 September 2009
Transcript:
Mr. President,
Yesterday, on Yom Kippur, Jews all over the world - in Jerusalem, Sderot, here in Geneva - commemorated Yom Kippur, the most holy day of the Jewish calendar. It is the day when, according to Jewish tradition, our fate is determined for the coming year: "Who will live and who will die, who will be raised up and who brought low". Not only for individuals but also for States, this is a decisive time. In the words of our prayers: "Which for war and which for peace, which for famine and which for plenty".
For the States in this Council this is indeed a fateful time. Today's debate is a real test of the integrity and purpose of this body. But more than that, the response to the challenge presented today will have a clear effect on our ability - collectively and individually - to face some of the greatest challenges in the year ahead.
Five years ago, in a remarkable gesture reaching out for peace, Israel removed every one of its soldiers and over 8000 civilians from the Gaza Strip. We withdrew hospitals and kindergartens, synagogues and cemeteries, leaving only the greenhouses we had struggled to build in the hope that these would be the start of a productive Palestinian society. And you, the States of this Council, applauded this unprecedented measure. You told us in no uncertain terms that in the nightmare scenario that terror would take root, you would back us in our inherent right to self-defense.
Five years later, the greenhouses had been ransacked by Hamas thugs, over 8000 rockets and mortars had been fired on schools and kindergartens in Sderot and other Israeli towns, and an unceasing supply of weaponry was being smuggled through tunnels into Gaza from terror-sponsoring states like Iran. Israel's urgent appeals to the international community were to no avail, and our attempts to extend a fragile cease-fire were met with new, increased barrages of missiles from Hamas. And all the while the range of the attacks was increasing. Now Ashkelon and Beer Sheva were within reach. One million Israeli children, women and men had to live every moment of their lives within seconds of a bomb shelter.
The decision to launch a military operation is never an easy one. It is even more challenging when we have to face an enemy that intentionally deploys its forces in densely populated areas, stores its explosives in private homes, and launches rockets from crowded school yards and mosques. These are new and horrendous challenges, and we sought to deal with them responsibly and with humanity. Yet when we dropped millions of leaflets and made tens of thousands of phone calls to warn civilians in advance of operations, we were witness to the callous and deliberate Hamas tactic of sending women and children onto the roofs of terrorist headquarters and weapons factories. In such cases, again and again missions were aborted, letting the Hamas terrorists escape, Israel protected Palestinian civilians that Hamas had put at risk.
In grappling with these dilemmas we seek the guidance of other states. We may not have all the right answers but we struggle to ask the right questions. And in discussions between officials charged with securing the lives of their civilians we hear genuine admiration for our restraint. For example, when Colonel Richard Kemp, Commander of British forces in Afghanistan was asked about Israel's conduct in Gaza, he replied: "I don't think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF in Gaza."
In complex urban warfare, though, civilian casualties are tragically inevitable. There also may have been incidents in which soldiers did not always maintain the standards that we expected of them. The true test of a genuine democracy is how it deals with such cases, and how it examines its own failings. Following the Gaza Operation, Israel has opened over 100 separate investigations into fundamental operational questions, like damage to UN centers and medical facilities, as well as specific allegations of misconduct. Of these investigations 23 have already resulted in criminal proceedings. And this process continues. Any decision regarding whether to open criminal proceedings can be appealed by any Israeli or Palestinian to Israel's Supreme Court - a court which has been cited with respect and admiration throughout the democratic world.
Israel struggles to deal with these tough questions, raised by terrorists acting within civilian centers. Sadly, these are questions which also occupy many other democratic countries and which they and we will have to continue to grapple with.
But these questions, apparently, do not occupy the authors of the shameful Report which has been presented to this Council.
Like many of the States in this Council, we could not support a resolution which only addressed one side of the conflict, and which established four separate mechanisms to condemn Israel and not even one to examine Hamas.
Like many of the distinguished individuals who rejected invitations to head the fact finding mission with its one-sided mandate, we objected to a mission which, in the words of Mary Robinson, was "guided by politics not human rights". While Israel has cooperated with dozens of inquiries and investigations from international organizations and NGO's into the events in Gaza it refused to cooperate with this Mission. And the Report presented today fully justifies that decision.
Even prior to the start of any investigation one member of the Mission went on public record stating that Israel's defense of its civilians against Hamas' attacks was "aggression not self-defense". The document submitted today simply reiterates that prejudice.
Mr. President
This is a report - 575 pages - in which the right of self defense is not mentioned, in which the smuggling of weapons into Gaza through hundreds of tunnels deserves not a word.
A report based on pre-screened Palestinian witnesses, not one of whom was asked about Hamas terrorist activity or the abuse of civilians, hospitals and mosques for terrorist attacks.
A report which is based on carefully selected incidents, cherry picked for political effect. As Justice Goldstone revealed in an open correspondence: "We did not deal with the problems of conducting military operations in civilian areas. We avoided having to do so in the incidents we decided to investigate."
A report which gives credibility to every allegation or hearsay against Israel, and none to even direct admissions of guilt by Hamas leaders. Indeed which sometimes accepts the same source as authoritative as against Israel, but somehow unreliable vis-à-vis Hamas.
Mr. President
The authors of this "Fact-finding Report" had little concern with finding facts. The Report was instigated as part of a political campaign, and it represents a political assault directed against Israel and against every state forced to confront terrorist threats. Its recommendations are fully in line with its one-sided agenda and seek to harness the Security Council, the General Assembly the International Criminal Court, the Human Rights Council, and the entire international community in its political campaign. In so doing it seeks to inject these bodies with the same political poison that has so undermined the integrity of this Council.
M. President,
Unlike the Hamas terrorists who rejoice with every civilian death, Israel regards every civilian casualty as a tragedy, Israel is committed to fully examining every allegation of wrongdoing. Not because of this Report but despite it.
For let there be no doubt. This Report will do nothing to ease the lives of those in Sderot and Gaza City, Kiryat Shemona and Jenin. In providing support and vindication for terrorist tactics, it is a betrayal of Israelis and moderate Paelstinians alike.
In the final analysis, the true test of such a Report can only be whether in future armed conflicts it will have the effect of increasing or decreasing respect for the rule of law by the parties. Regrettably this one-sided report, claiming to represent international law but in fact perverting it to serve a political agenda, can only weaken the standing of international law in future conflicts. This report broadcasts a troubling - and legally unfounded - message to States everywhere confronting terrorist threats, that international law has no effective response to offer them, and so serves to undermine willingness to comply with its provisions. At the same time, it signals an even more troubling message to terrorist groups, wherever they are, that the cynical tactics of seeking to exploit civilian suffering for political ends actually pays dividends.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we want to find a way to live in peace with our neighbors. This is the ultimate question that Prime Minister Netanyahu asked the General Assembly in New York last week
:
"The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us ... of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense? [...] Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists? Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.
"
Thank you very much.
Regards,
DKW
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Contempt
The predominant stance of the Daily Kos I-P community regarding Israel can be summed up in that single word. Contempt. There is not a day that goes by without numerous people within Daily Kos spreading hatred toward the Jewish state.
For example, Assaf, an Israeli citizen, has a diary, published yesterday, Friday, September 25, calling for sanctions against his own country.
Mainstream Israeli Analyst: Only Sanctions will Make Israelis Care
The general idea behind this diary is that the Israeli people, 80 percent of whom are Jewish, are so vapid, are such moral pygmies, are such worthless human beings, that the only thing that motivates them is their own personal convenience and paltry desires.
As Assaf writes:
personal convenience is really all Israelis care about nowadays.
In his call for sanctions and boycotts of Israeli goods and cultural products, Assaf then goes forward to reduce terror attacks, suicide bombings, Qassams and Katyushas aimed at S'derot and Ashkelon, to examples of the kind of inconvenience that motivates Israelis.
He writes:
If what disrupts this convenience are terror attacks, then the public pressures the military to "do something about it" (e.g., crackdowns, Barrier, etc.) - as indeed has happened repeatedly during this decade. But if the convenience is disrupted by an international economic boycott - then what? Call an air force strike on Madrid?
In Assaf's mind, apparently, the murder of innocent Israeli civilians, including children, is merely an inconvenience to the callous Israelis who care for nothing whatsoever beyond satisfying their own petty personal desires. This is how morally bankrupt he would have us believe that Israelis truly are.
Given the fact that Daily Kos is a website devoted to getting Democrats elected throughout the United States, and given the fact that a strong majority of registered Jews are Democrats, one would think that the comments would reflect revulsion at the idea that Israelis are such vile and disgusting creatures. Needless to say, this is not the case.
Most of the comments, in fact, are supportive of Assaf in his quest to punish Israel and dehumanize its citizenry.
It should also be noted that after calling for such punishment, and after making such horrendous claims about the character of Israeli citizenry, he then feebly explains that the true truth is that he is doing no such thing:
This is not about punishing or branding an entire nation. This is about making the Occupation stop being so damned convenient.
The general idea seems to be that the loathsome Israelis like the occupation and wish it to continue. Never mind that Israel, not to mention Britain and the United Nations, has on numerous occasions offered the Palestinian leadership statehood, offers which are always, and forever, apparently, never good enough to accept. Never mind that Israel ended the occupation of Gaza in 2005 only to be rewarded with thousands of rocket attacks into the southern portion of that country. Never mind that the children of southern Israel often suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, due to what those rockets have done to their lives. Never mind that Israel, more than any other country on the planet, must expend a disproportionate amount of its financial capital and human resources to keep its citizenry safe.
Forget all that. The occupation is "convenient," according to Assaf.
I think that it's fair to say that it was because of the preponderance of attitudes such as this toward the Jewish state by so many people within Daily Kos I-P that this site was created to begin with.
Sometimes it's important to be blunt.
And the blunt truth is that Daily Kos I-P tends to view the country of Israel, as well as its perpetually harassed people, with poisonous contempt.
For example, Assaf, an Israeli citizen, has a diary, published yesterday, Friday, September 25, calling for sanctions against his own country.
Mainstream Israeli Analyst: Only Sanctions will Make Israelis Care
The general idea behind this diary is that the Israeli people, 80 percent of whom are Jewish, are so vapid, are such moral pygmies, are such worthless human beings, that the only thing that motivates them is their own personal convenience and paltry desires.
As Assaf writes:
personal convenience is really all Israelis care about nowadays.
In his call for sanctions and boycotts of Israeli goods and cultural products, Assaf then goes forward to reduce terror attacks, suicide bombings, Qassams and Katyushas aimed at S'derot and Ashkelon, to examples of the kind of inconvenience that motivates Israelis.
He writes:
If what disrupts this convenience are terror attacks, then the public pressures the military to "do something about it" (e.g., crackdowns, Barrier, etc.) - as indeed has happened repeatedly during this decade. But if the convenience is disrupted by an international economic boycott - then what? Call an air force strike on Madrid?
In Assaf's mind, apparently, the murder of innocent Israeli civilians, including children, is merely an inconvenience to the callous Israelis who care for nothing whatsoever beyond satisfying their own petty personal desires. This is how morally bankrupt he would have us believe that Israelis truly are.
Given the fact that Daily Kos is a website devoted to getting Democrats elected throughout the United States, and given the fact that a strong majority of registered Jews are Democrats, one would think that the comments would reflect revulsion at the idea that Israelis are such vile and disgusting creatures. Needless to say, this is not the case.
Most of the comments, in fact, are supportive of Assaf in his quest to punish Israel and dehumanize its citizenry.
It should also be noted that after calling for such punishment, and after making such horrendous claims about the character of Israeli citizenry, he then feebly explains that the true truth is that he is doing no such thing:
This is not about punishing or branding an entire nation. This is about making the Occupation stop being so damned convenient.
The general idea seems to be that the loathsome Israelis like the occupation and wish it to continue. Never mind that Israel, not to mention Britain and the United Nations, has on numerous occasions offered the Palestinian leadership statehood, offers which are always, and forever, apparently, never good enough to accept. Never mind that Israel ended the occupation of Gaza in 2005 only to be rewarded with thousands of rocket attacks into the southern portion of that country. Never mind that the children of southern Israel often suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, due to what those rockets have done to their lives. Never mind that Israel, more than any other country on the planet, must expend a disproportionate amount of its financial capital and human resources to keep its citizenry safe.
Forget all that. The occupation is "convenient," according to Assaf.
I think that it's fair to say that it was because of the preponderance of attitudes such as this toward the Jewish state by so many people within Daily Kos I-P that this site was created to begin with.
Sometimes it's important to be blunt.
And the blunt truth is that Daily Kos I-P tends to view the country of Israel, as well as its perpetually harassed people, with poisonous contempt.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
A Note to the Movement for Palestinian Justice
{This is a lengthy comment that I left at Daily Kos to a Palestinian professor who hopes to bring on American Jewish support for his movement.}
Jews represent the single most liberal and progressive demographic in the United States.
And, I have to say, on a personal level, it is hard for me to describe the sadness that I felt when I realized the nature of the movement for Palestinian justice, within the progressive movement.
If you want the help of American Jews there are few things that your movement must overcome before most of us would be willing to throw you our support... but I've told you this before.
I keep hoping that you might start listening, but your failure to do so probably has as much to do with me than it has to do with you.
Here's the thing. Most American Jews would love to see the Palestinian people thriving and free within their own state and at peace amongst themselves and with Israel. Who wouldn't want that?
Well?
Anti-Zionists don't. That's a huge problem if you want to bring liberal American Jews into your movement. We can quibble about what, exactly, "anti-Zionism" means, but virtually all Jews understand that the movement for a single state solution, if successful, would mean the dissolution of Israel as a Jewish state.
We absolutely oppose that. We may be liberal, but we're neither crazy, nor stupid. Given the history of the Jewish people there is no way that you will bring large numbers of American Jews into a movement that houses, so to speak, a significant number of anti-Zionists. You'll get some fringe ideologues, such as Jon, but you'll never get significant numbers of Jews to join such a movement.
And then you've got the problem of large numbers of people within your movement who always and forever lay the blame for everything I-P at the feet of Israel. This is alienating for most American Jews, not to mention historically inaccurate.
So, while it's true that we do tend to favor liberalism and humanism, we are also generally pragmatists and care about the future well-being of our children. We will never trust the future well-being of Jews to anyone but Jews, because history has shown us on countless brutal occasions that we cannot. Thus anti-Zionism is anathema.
And while we usually recognize that Israel has most certainly done some rotten things in the past, even in the very recent past, we refuse to wear the hair shirt, if you get me. We expect our allies, if they really are our allies, to be critical of Israel, without demonizing it.
If the movement for Palestinian justice would like more help from the American Jewish community then it needs to dump the anti-Zionists and the haters. Until then, most of us will either stay out of, or actively oppose, your movement.
Posted by Karmafish
Monday, September 21, 2009
Goldstone Speaking Out Of Both Sides Of His Mouth
Goldstone in the New York Times last week:
Goldstone on Israeli TV yesterday:
Regards,
DKW
"Unfortunately both Israel and Hamas have dismal records of investigating their own forces… While Israel has begun investigations into alleged violations by its forces in the Gaza conflict, they are unlikely to be serious and objective."
Goldstone on Israeli TV yesterday:
Speaking on Channel 2, the South African judge who headed a UN commission that recently published a harsh report on alleged war crimes Israel committed during the Gaza operation reiterated his outrage over Israeli claims that the report would encourage terror, and insisted that an internal Israeli probe would have sufficed as far as the world's demand to investigate its actions during warfare.
"Israel can [investigate itself], it's done it before," he told the television network.
Regards,
DKW
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Daily Kos Ridicules Son of Herman Wouk
Joseph Wouk, the son of writer Herman Wouk, lives in Tel Aviv. As an American, an Israeli, and a resident of Tel Aviv, he is deeply concerned about the possibility of Iranian nuclear weaponry pointed at his town.
Wouk, however, made the mistake of letting his concerns be known on Daily Kos.
The Kossacks were having none of it.
Although Wouk's diary was not very well fleshed out, it certainly did not deserve the ridicule that it received.
Zannie, not surprisingly, was particularly blunt in the insensitivity of her response:
take a chill pill.
That comment nicely sums up the feelings of the Daily Kos I-P community, as a whole. Because Mr. Wouk is concerned that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually means what he says when he threatens Israel with annihilation, he was ridiculed, demeaned, and generally spat upon.
Another commenter put it this way:
Oh ahmadenijad is denying the holocaust again? yawn.
Because denying the Holocaust and threatening Israel with destruction is such a "yawn," apparently. Rather boring, in fact. Who cares, really?
Even Volleyboy1, a strong supporter of Israel, got into the act.
This diary and this comment are both ridiculous.
Right. Because what could be more ridiculous than a person who lives in Tel Aviv being concerned about the possibility of Iranian aggression? Joseph Wouk was not calling for a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. He was expressing his heart-felt fear that Iran might do precisely what Iran has threatened to do. The very notion of it, tho, is apparently "ridiculous."
Furthermore, anyone who expresses that fear must be a hard-line, right-wing conservative.
Which party are with? Are you Likud? Are you Yisrael Beitanu? Are you a hold over from Kach.... Which is it?
Given that Joseph Wouk was a chairman of SDS at Columbia University in the early 1970s, such a charge is absurd on its face and demonstrates the ideological rigidity of many within dKos I-P. Anyone who dares to venture off the ideological beaten path just must be a member of the screaming far right. There is no other possible explanation. Disagree with the general mood of Daily Kos I-P and you must, therefore, be some sort of combination of Benjamin Netanyahu, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck.
In any case, the reception of Mr. Wouk's diary on Daily Kos is fairly indicative of how they feel about Israeli concerns over potentially being nuked.
Take a chill pill, stupid Israelis.
Wouk, however, made the mistake of letting his concerns be known on Daily Kos.
The Kossacks were having none of it.
Although Wouk's diary was not very well fleshed out, it certainly did not deserve the ridicule that it received.
Zannie, not surprisingly, was particularly blunt in the insensitivity of her response:
take a chill pill.
That comment nicely sums up the feelings of the Daily Kos I-P community, as a whole. Because Mr. Wouk is concerned that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually means what he says when he threatens Israel with annihilation, he was ridiculed, demeaned, and generally spat upon.
Another commenter put it this way:
Oh ahmadenijad is denying the holocaust again? yawn.
Because denying the Holocaust and threatening Israel with destruction is such a "yawn," apparently. Rather boring, in fact. Who cares, really?
Even Volleyboy1, a strong supporter of Israel, got into the act.
This diary and this comment are both ridiculous.
Right. Because what could be more ridiculous than a person who lives in Tel Aviv being concerned about the possibility of Iranian aggression? Joseph Wouk was not calling for a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. He was expressing his heart-felt fear that Iran might do precisely what Iran has threatened to do. The very notion of it, tho, is apparently "ridiculous."
Furthermore, anyone who expresses that fear must be a hard-line, right-wing conservative.
Which party are with? Are you Likud? Are you Yisrael Beitanu? Are you a hold over from Kach.... Which is it?
Given that Joseph Wouk was a chairman of SDS at Columbia University in the early 1970s, such a charge is absurd on its face and demonstrates the ideological rigidity of many within dKos I-P. Anyone who dares to venture off the ideological beaten path just must be a member of the screaming far right. There is no other possible explanation. Disagree with the general mood of Daily Kos I-P and you must, therefore, be some sort of combination of Benjamin Netanyahu, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck.
In any case, the reception of Mr. Wouk's diary on Daily Kos is fairly indicative of how they feel about Israeli concerns over potentially being nuked.
Take a chill pill, stupid Israelis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)