Doc's Talk: "The Battles to be Fought"

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

"The Battles to be Fought"

Arlene Kushner

Last week I attended the kick-off event of a new Anglo civic group in Israel called Hadar. Several persons of prominence were invited to address the question ask to whether the UN would accept Israel today. This question was posed with the anniversary of the UN vote to partition Palestine on November 29, 1947 in mind.

With all that has been going on, I have not had a chance to discuss this until now...The consensus, of course, was that the UN would not have us today, so thoroughly has that body changed in the intervening years. But I rather like the comment of Alan Baker, lawyer and former Israeli ambassador to Canada, who said that the real question was whether we would want to belong to such an organization. (The fact that we do already belong being treated as a separate issue.)

Baker pointed out that, as things stand, we are a second class nation at the UN, not included in any regional grouping. We can never be on the Security Council (there are rotating members) or serve on the International Court of Justice. The UN does not observe its own charter, but there is no international body to stop it from how it does conduct itself.

~~~~~~~~~~

Baker says that international law is anachronistic. The last protocols came from the time of the Vietnam war, and do not address today's international terror. Goldstone, he says, applied these outdated rules, such as no firing on churches, which don't account for such phenomena as terrorists who store weapons in mosques and use them as a base for firing.

What seems to be the case, however, is that revising those protocols would not be a simple matter. According to Baker, a new convention on terrorism was brought forth immediately after 9/11, but was tabled within two weeks because it didn't have a clause that pertains to actions against occupying powers. Translation: The Palestinian Arabs we refer to as terrorists aren't really terrorists at all, they are simply acting in a legal and justified manner against the occupier, Israel.

~~~~~~~~~~

Baker, as a lawyer concerned with legal process, spoke about those nations -- e.g., Britain, Switzerland, Spain --that have universal criminal jurisdiction, which permits individuals to initiate actions against Israeli leaders with regard to acts allegedly committed elsewhere. He says that if we carry out bone fide inquiries ourselves, with regard to presumed charges, then legally it neutralizes action against us in criminal jurisdiction cases.

~~~~~~~~~~

Dore Gold -- head of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and former Israeli ambassador to the UN -- sees matters with regard to Israeli inquiries differently. We already have investigative mechanisms in place via the Judge Advocate General's office that offer very strong civilian oversight. The danger with launching inquiries in addition to this is that they may hamper the readiness of the IDF to act: if there is always fear that a legal mechanism in the country will second guess how a soldier acts, he will be afraid to act. This is a situation that would put us at risk.

Baker says we should launch an additional inquiry into the Goldstone Report charges. Gold advises fighting Goldstone in public opinion, not the courts. (My own inclination is to agree with Gold: a further inquiry will appear to be an admission of guilt.) He believes the problem with Goldstone is the mis-use of international law, not the lack of law.

As some of you may be aware, Ambassador Gold debated Goldstone recently at Brandeis University. Here's a link to his remarks from that event, compiled and expanded:

http://www.jcpa.org/text/GoldGoldstone-5nov09.pdf

~~~~~~~~~~

Danny Ayalon, Deputy Foreign Minister, speaking to this issue of public opinion, said that the foreign ministry is intensifying cooperation with the Dovrei Tzahal -- spokespersons for the IDF -- so that information can be disseminated quickly.

However, said Ayalon, the world tends to judge Israel only with regard to our military conflicts and not our merits. Thus the Ministries of Education, Science, etc. must cooperate in informing the world about who and what we are. (My "Good News Corner" is promoted by some of the same logic.)

~~~~~~~~~~

Gold addressed the ways in which the world is attempting to delegitimize us. They challenge our legal and historical rights, which we must assert with vigor.

We must, as well, expose radical networks and make it clear that they represent a risk to the entire West and not just Israel.

~~~~~~~~~~

Our work is cut out for us, and then some.

While November 29 was a focus for the forum, consider what today's news brings us:

Yesterday began "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People" at the UN. Enough to turn your stomach in and of itself. There is no other solidarity day at the UN. Not with Kurds or Tibetans, or any other people. The Palestinian Arabs are very special indeed, it seems. So special that this "day"-- which has been observed since 1977 and is noted as "a time of mourning" -- actually lasts for two days. Scheduled for this year are speeches, an exhibit on the "refugees" and a film. To top this all off, yesterday UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared that a Palestinian state was a "vital" component necessary for regional peace.

Sigh... No, much too mild and tolerant. I take that back. Grrr!

~~~~~~~~~~

Meanwhile there is on-going debate about Israel at the UN General Assembly. (This, it should be noted, is what Anne Bayefsky is most frustrated at not being able to monitor because her credentials have been taken from her, pending a January or February hearing.) Six anti-Israel resolutions are expected.

And once again there is talk that the Palestinian Arabs are going to ask the UN Security Council to declare a Palestinian state with the '67 line as its border and eastern Jerusalem as its capital. I carefully researched the legality of this several days ago, and have already reported on it. What is being proposed, according to international law, should not be possible. The Security Council does not "declare" the existence of states. However, I note Alan Baker's words, above, that the UN does not observe its own charter and that there is no international agency to stop it from how it does conduct itself.

I still seriously doubt that matters will get that far out of hand, but I am clearly unable to say with genuine certainty that what the Palestinian Arabs are planning cannot happen because international law will not permit it. Not when the international community in many regards does as it damn pleases. Ultimately, it might -- in a worse case scenario -- fall to the US to veto a resolution.

~~~~~~~~~~

But let's take a closer look at statement by PA president Mahmoud Abbas that PLO representative to the UN, Riyad Mansour, read at the General Assembly: In the 61 years since the nakba ("catastrophe" in Arabic, meaning the creation the State of Israel), Palestinians "continue to suffer under colonial occupation."

He said more, of course, but this is for me the key statement, and, regretfully, not enough will be made of this -- even though it is the tip-off to the core of the issue.

The Palestinian Arab claim, certainly the purported claim of the Palestinian Authority, is that there should be two states, essentially divided by the Green Line ('67 line). The purported claim is that we are occupiers in Judea and Samaria, which should be theirs for a state. But we haven't been in possession of Judea and Samaria for 61 years; it's been ours again only since 1967, for 42 years.

What the Abbas statement makes clear is that, as we are considered "occupiers" for 61 years, there is no acceptance of us within the Green Line either. All of Israel, in its totality, is considered to be a "colonial occupation." There is no sincerity with regard to the "two state solution." We know that this is the genuine Arab position, but it becomes public in such a statement. And who will pay attention?

~~~~~~~~~~

It's unbearable. Intolerable. I know no other way of saying this. (And no, I'm not laughing now.) At a press conference today, spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry, Qin Gang, said that what's needed to resolve the impasse with Iran is more dialogue, not sanctions. "All parties should step up diplomatic efforts."

So much for the cautiously hopeful observation that China may be growing weary of the Iranian stance.

And next....?

Reports from Washington and London indicate increasing Western anger with Iran, with "sanctions possible next month." We're waiting.

~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk