Doc's Talk: Op-Ed: The Lie that Broke Israel's Back

Thursday, December 06, 2012

Op-Ed: The Lie that Broke Israel's Back

‘Palestinian Arab territory occupied by Israel’ is more than a risible lie of history. It had the power to alter history. The international community took to the idea and so did leftist Israelis.

Steve Apfel, South Africa

The writer is director of the School of Management Accounting, in Johannesburg and is the author of, 'Hadrian's Echo: The whys and wherefores of Israel's critics.' SBPRA 2012, and a contributor to a new book: "War by other means: Israel and its detractors." Israel Affairs, 2012

Israel now has a quasi-state to contend with. “A victory for the values of truth,” exclaimed Sudan’s UN diplomat after the General Assembly voted to admit Palestine as a non-member observer.

A victory for the Palestinian camp perhaps, but for truth it was a defeat of historic proportions. Recalling one thing and reaffirming another, the resolution the GA voted on was packed with lies. Most were blatant. One lie – you could say the catchphrase of the Palestinian perpetual show – enjoyed the sanctity of accepted wisdom.

“The Palestinian territory occupied since 1967” appeared, in one form or another, some dozen times in the UN resolution. Fantasy, told often enough, will merge with reality. A plot may turn into policy. This whopper of an old lie made Israel’s defeat at the UN a long time coming. One might say that it made Israel’s defeat historically inevitable.

No one in that chamber of double-dealing and double-speak battered an eye. Israel’s ambassador had eyes only for his country’s ignominious defeat. Already sold and bought forty years ago, the lie slipped into the skin of truth with scarcely a sigh.

Now you see it, now you don't. ‘Occupied Palestinian Territory’ (OPT) is a thing of smoke and mirrors, the stuff of mumbo jumbo.

Historically it never happened, legally there never was Palestinian territory for Israel to occupy. Israel took the territories from Egypt and Jordan in 1967, and there’s no getting away from that.

So today it has more right than Jordan to be occupying the "West Bank", and more right than Egypt to be occupying Gaza (if Israel's blockade may be called occupation.) Palestine never enters the equation. Turn Middle East wars and laws upside down and any way you like, but if the territories belong to any UN member, or quasi member, they belong to Israel.

Not even the famous UN Resolution 242 can help. It told Israel to withdraw from territories once held by Jordan, illegally, and Egypt, and it envisaged their return to those two countries. Palestine never got a mention in Resolution 242. For a couple of good reasons.

Palestinians were not one of the belligerents involved in the Six-day War. Anyway, the people who were going to stake claim to a nation they would call Palestine were a year away from being born. After all, you cannot have territory for a nation before you have the nation.

More than anyone, King Hussein of Jordan understood perfectly that a cart before the horse never gets off the blocks. So he told the 1988 Arab League summit in Amman. “The appearance of a distinct Palestinian national personality comes as an answer to Israel’s claim that Palestine is Jewish.”

The Hashemite monarch was explaining to fellow potentates why a Palestinian nation had to be conceived in 1968. If it were not, then Judea, Samaria and Gaza would be Israel's by dint of war and law. Arab armies had been vanquished in six days, and the territories lost to Israel.

That made it imperative for the PLO to revise its covenant, which it did on July 17, 1968. The PLO meddled with Article 24, erasing the old declaration that the West Bank and Gaza were not occupied, and now insisting that they were. With that sleight of hand a newborn nation came into the world. With a newborn bastard illegal occupier.

Armed with nothing but chutzpah, the PLO lost no time cementing the lie that the Jewish state had usurped the foundling's heritage. From there to the accepted wisdom of ‘Occupied Palestinian Territories,’ took no more than a quickstep.

For all that, ‘Palestinian Arab territory occupied by Israel’ is more than a risible lie of history. It had the power to alter history. For one thing, the international community took to the idea.

For another, a goodly proportion of American, and even Israeli-Jews nailed their colours to that mast.

For a third, an economic bubble has OPT to thank. Monthly pay slips for untold hundreds of UN staffers depend on that fallacious real estate. Hundreds of NGO entities and staffers would be the poorer without it.

And remember, OPT is the article of faith on which anti-Zionists peg their zeal. Their god demands little: hate Zionism and revere OPT. Hence the daily invocations. Label products from ‘occupied territories.’ Boycott Israel and divest because of OPT.

Then there is the UN, and its dependency on OPT. Some UN organs were custom made for it – embedded OPT in their names. One of those organs has a bona fide legal expert at the helm, sporting a grand title, but no salary, for he plays the part out of conviction. And what is that conviction but the creed of the anti-Zionist faithful, the ‘Israel-may-not-be-found-innocent’ creed. It’s right there in this UN lawman’s sonorous title:

Special Rapporteur to the UN Council on Human Rights on violation of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.’ Amen to that.

So Israeli crimes are pre-supposed, and the UN lawman tours a land of the UN's own making to hunt them down.

But for the OPT whopper the world would be a different, if quieter place. And Israel with its settlement enterprise would not now be under UN – complicit threat.

Guest Comment:

Israel "occupation" is a myth; "settlements" are illegal in another myth; the entire Israel government must recite this ad nauseam. This is the message that has to come from the entire Right in Israel and eventually from Netanyahu himself, at his upcoming AIPAC speech and next September at the UN, if Israel will still chose to remain a member of this humiliating cesspool.

This is the factual story how Israel regained her land from the illegally occupying Jordanians and Egyptians. Not debunking the lie about "illegality" has brought Israel to where she is at today, a semi-pariah state. So here is a meyvin laying it all out, as is, no sugar coating. With the new building announcement, Israel should state, and thus educate the world:

"We took no foreign land as our own, and no foreigners' property for ourselves, but our forefathers legacy homeland, which was in our enemies' hands, in that time, that without trial was conquered. When we had the opportunist time we returned to ourselves our forefathers homeland." (Shimon Chashmonaim letter to Antiochus according to Macabbeen or Hasmonean Chapter 1 page 342-4)

Israel does not hold any "occupied" territories. It is critical that the Government of Israel recognizes this and acts according to this, and that it never to accept such an incorrect characterization. To do otherwise would be to degrade its very capacity to endure.

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