Kushner - From Israel: Imminent Now?

Arlene Kushner
Arlene from Israel
21 September '11

The various projected doings at the UN are, perhaps, almost upon us. But here I want to provide some significant background regarding the issues surrounding a Palestinian Arab state.

Earlier this week, I attended a conference sponsored by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and the World Jewish Congress on the subject of "The Rights of Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People in International Diplomacy."

Participants (in no particular order) included:

- Ambassador Dore Gold, who heads the JCPA
- Minister for Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon
- Dan Diker, Secretary-General of the World Jewish Congress
- Professor Ruth Lapidoth, Professor Emeritus of International Law, Hebrew University
- Ambassador Alan Baker, former legal adviser to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs
- Advocate Irit Kohn, President of the International Association of Jewish lawyers and Jurists
- Professor Nicholas Rostow, Distinguished Research Professor, US National Defense University

There was overlap in the various presentations, certainly -- as well as consideration of topics I've touched on many times here. I will summarize by subject matter, noting sources as relevant, and limiting myself to the more significant facts and insights. There is considerable value to the material offered here.

~~~~~~~~~~

Dore Gold opened by sharing the fact that in private communication with a Palestinian Arab involved in current proceedings, he was told that the PA goal is to change perceptions, more than it is to change the law: There is an attempt to do away with ideas about Jewish rights. The PA wants the world to see Judea and Samaria as automatically Palestinian land, rather than disputed territory to which Israel has the most solid claim. Etc.

Thus, nothing is more important than our emphasizing both our historical and legal rights.

To that end, the JCPA and World Jewish Congress have collaborated in producing a book that is an authoritative exposition of "The Rights of Israel," as explored by several key experts. You can see it here:

http://jcpa.org/text/israel-rights/index.html

And you will be able to order it, hard copy. For anyone wishing to be solidly informed in order to defend Israel, this is an invaluable resource.

~~~~~~~~~~

Moshe Ya'alon says that with regard to our dispute with the PA, we have the claim to moral, legal, historical, and security justice. The problem is that so many are oblivious to this. When he talks about how pervasive PA influence has been internationally -- so that even some Jews have bought the Palestinian Arab line -- he hits upon a very important issue:

THE BEGINNING IS OUR BELIEVING IN OURSELVES. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that right in our conflict is determined by an international poll. And so, for example, just because a great many people -- and the influential NY Times -- firmly believe that we are "occupiers" in Judea and Samaria, does not make it so. We are not.

Among the PA lies that Ya'alon discussed are:

- That the conflict is territorial, when in fact it is existential.
- That Israel in intransigent, when in fact it is the PA.
- That Israel exaggerates her security requirements -- which can be resolved via a third party, when in fact we have experienced 1,000 deaths by terror in return for concessions we've already made, and have had only bitter experience with third party forces who don't protect Israel.
- That Israel should be more "flexible," when in fact what is demanded of Israel disregards legitimate security requirements.
- That settlements are illegal and illegitimate, when in fact Israel is not an occupier and has built legally on disputed land (more on this below).
- That the Israeli-Palestinian Arab conflict is the reason for unrest in the ME and Arab hostility to the West, when in fact historically there are multiple conflicts in the area -- Sunni/Shia, attacks against the Alawites and the Kurds, etc.

~~~~~~~~~~

Ya'alon pointed out that Netanyahu is the first prime minister who has specifically demanded that the PA recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. In light of the PA position, this is actually critically important. As Ruth Lapidoth observed, this would run counter to a theme that is central to the Palestinian Arab narrative.

Why There Won't Be Peace Anytime Soon

Yaacov Lozowick
Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
12 July '10

The Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs (JCPA) has a new book about Israel's security needs. You can download it, or view various other materials, films, maps and so on, here. Or you can read Lee Smith's summary, as published at Tablet Magazine, here.

I recommend spending some time looking at their materials. By and large they are right about Israel's security needs, and the more people understand this, the better.

They are also wrong. Their conditions for peace are so far from anything the Palestinians will ever accept as to be effectively non-starters; indeed, they don't seem particularly interested in how their positions will impact a future Palestinian state. This is the reason Ehud Barak departed from the positions of his predecessors exactly ten years ago, in July 2000 at Camp David. He thought he was approaching the end of the negotiations, he expected to reach an agreement with the Palestinians to end the conflict, to partition the joint homeland, and to live in peace. This peace, he felt, would override many of the security imperatives which had informed Israel's positions until that moment.

There was an important precedent for Barak's gamble, his willingness to abandon long-held security considerations in the hope that this would enable a peace that would nullify them: The abandonment of the eastern part of the Sinai in the late 1970s. Israel went to war twice over the Tiran Straights, at the southern tip of Sinai, in 1956 and in 1967; a broad consensus of Israelis agreed that in any future peace agreement Egypt would have to accept Israel's presence at Tiran. Then, in 1978, Begin broke the mold and we've had peace with Egypt ever since. Not European-style peace, but a total lack of killing, which isn't bad. Begin accepted that peace would happen only when both sides felt they were getting an acceptable deal; the JCPA papers don't offer that to the Palestinians, so they aren't truly conditions for peace.

Yet Begin's precedent, as emulated by Ehud Barak and in 2008 by Ehud Olmert, is no longer relevant. Look at the picture used by the JCPA: a simple, stark image, which says far better than any potential set of 1000-words why there can't be peace:




That's Tel Aviv, as seen from the West Bank. Would you risk putting enemy guns on the hill the picture was taken from? And if you would, can you at least comprehend why we're not going to take your opinion very seriously, even if you're the president of the United States?

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

On the Lookout for Bias at NPR

Steven Stotsky
CAMERA Media Analysis
31 December 09

National Public Radio's (NPR) news coverage of the Middle East often leaves the impression that Jewish settlement in the West Bank and Jerusalem is the main obstacle to an accord between Israel and the Palestinians. Meanwhile the unrelenting villification of Jews by Arab media, religious leaders and government institutions remains a largely taboo subject at the public network. During the Second Intifada, NPR's coverage had become so unbalanced that it prompted a flood of complaints from members of the Jewish community, who traditionally were staunch supporters of the public network. CAMERA produced numerous studies documenting the tilted coverage and ran full-page ads calling attention to the issue. The blatantly one-sided reporting diminished in the face of sustained public protest and NPR began to provide more balanced coverage, including more segments highlighting facets of Israeli life separate from the grinding conflict with the Palestinians. But recent examples make clear, the temptation to revert to old habits is ever-present and the need for constant vigilance in holding NPR accountable remains.

Again, NPR (falsely) blames Israel for housing discrimination

An All Things Considered segment by NPR's Jerusalem bureau chief, Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, on Nov. 26, 2009, describes the eviction of Palestinian families from the Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan. In a familiar scenario, a Palestinian spokesman's allegations are amplified by a human rights organization and an oft-quoted Israeli activist. Token balance is supplied by including a brief statement by an Israeli official that fails to address the specific charges leveled. Genuine balance could be provided by Israeli experts who have studied the problem, but they are not called upon. The story promotes the charge that Israel uses discriminatory practices to uproot Arabs from their neighborhoods in East Jerusalem in order to establish a stronger Jewish presence. Garcia-Navarro generalizes a specific dispute over the demolition of illegally built homes into the accusation of a broad pattern of Israeli discrimination.