As a matter of fact, when we are threatened, our spines are
stiffened.
In this instance, I am referring to threats implied by Obama in an
interview with Jeffrey Goldberg for Bloomberg View. It had made news a
couple of days ago that he wanted to be “more directly involved” in those
so-called “peace negotiations.” And so here we are, with the president
demonstrating his “diplomatic skills”:
"What I do believe is that if you see no peace
deal and continued aggressive settlement construction and ... if Palestinians
come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state
is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout
is going to be limited.
“In today’s world, where power is much more
diffuse, where the threats that any state or peoples face can come from
non-state actors and asymmetrical threats, and where international cooperation
is needed in order to deal with those threats, the absence of international
goodwill makes you less safe. The condemnation of the international community
can translate into a lack of cooperation when it comes to key security
interests. It means reduced influence for us, the United States, in issues that
are of interest to Israel...
“The window is closing,” he declared, and it’s time for Netanyahu to “seize
the moment” with regard to Kerry’s framework agreement.
Seize the moment? That means caving on all demands that are
unacceptable to Abbas, so the PA will be accommodating.
And “aggressive” settlement construction? THAT, my friends, is a
truly aggressive statement by Obama.
~~~~~~~~~~
“When I have a conversation with Bibi, that’s
the essence of my conversation,” Obama told Goldberg, “If not now, when? And if
not you, Mr. Prime Minister, then who? How does this get resolved?”
The unmitigated gall of the man, twice
over. It is, first, outrage that he should borrow from the words of our
sage, Hillel, as he attempts to pressure the prime minister of Israel. And
then, that he should put the onus on Israel, as if it is in our hands, alone, to
bring “peace.”
~~~~~~~~~~
All of this is a build-up for the scheduled meeting between Netanyahu and
Obama today.
On getting off the plane in Washington DC, Netanyahu said (emphasis
added):
"The tango in the Middle East needs at least
three. For years there have been two - Israel and the US. Now it needs to
be seen if the Palestinians are also present. In any case, in order for us to
have an agreement, we must uphold our vital interests. I have
proven that I do so, in the face of all pressures and all the turmoil,
and I will continue to do so here as well."
The message: Mr. President, you don’t scare
me.
For this we can tell our prime minister, “Right on, hold strong!”
~~~~~~~~~~
But I say forthrightly that, while I am obviously pleased about Netanyahu’s
declarations of refusal to be pressured, I am not content that it is yet
enough. Before flying to the US, as well, he spoke about Israel’s vital
interests:
“I will stand steadfast on the State of
Israel’s vital interests, especially the security of Israel’s
citizens.
“In recent years the State of Israel has been
under various pressures. We have rejected them in the face of the unprecedented
storm and unrest in the region and are maintaining stability and security. This
is what has been and what will be.”
But are Israel’s interests limited only to issues of stability and
security (as important as these are)?? Are there not issues also of Israeli
rights – rights that are almost never enunciated?
If there were stability in the region and no security threats to Israel,
then it would be OK to pull back behind the “1967 border” (sic) and to share
Jerusalem as a capital with a Palestinian Arab state?
Most unequivocally no and no!
~~~~~~~~~~
The campaign that I co-chair, Legal Grounds: The Campaign for Promoting
Israel’s Rights - http://wehavelegalgrounds.org/ - is determined to change the status quo and
reach the day when the government of Israel speaks for Israeli rights.
Altogether too much time has been lost already, and it is certainly time to
begin.
Let me take a moment, then, to provide legal background on our rights in
the land. This is a brief version, condensed in a manner that will
hopefully provide ready accessibility. It is for your information, and for
you to use in speaking to others, writing letters to the editor, posting on
blogs and websites, and more. The point is that it depends on all of us to
set the legal/historical record straight.
It is broadly drawn from material provided for us by international lawyer
Dr. Harel Arnon (with emphasis added):
_____________________________________
►Judea and Samaria were part of the area designated in
1922 by the League of Nations for the British Mandate of Palestine - for the establishment of a homeland for the
Jewish people only. The Mandate
drew its wording from the decisions of the San Remo Conference of 1920.
►The United Nations General
Assembly voted in 1947 for partition of Palestine. However,
contrary to accepted opinion, this
vote was not a binding decision, but rather a
recommendation. The United Nations Security Council took no action in
response to this recommendation, in part because of objections from the
Arabs. In other words, the status of Judea and Samaria was not changed
following the partition recommendation: It
remained part of the territory which, according to the Mandate,
was intended for the establishment of a home for the Jewish
People.
►Jordan’s entry into Judea and Samaria in 1948 as part of
a military action it had initiated (not for defense purposes), was illegal. By
the same argument, it can also be said that the Jordanian annexation was also
illegal. Even the Arab League condemned Jordan for annexing Judea and
Samaria.
►In 1967 Israel took control of Judea and Samaria from
Jordan, which had annexed the area in contravention of international law. Israel
did this during a defensive war, which makes its actions
legal.
Therefore, during the Six Day War, Israel took control
of areas that were not part of any other legal sovereignty – stateless areas –
and which had, in any case, been designated for the Jewish People. From
a legal point of view, Israel could not be classified as a
conqueror.
►Judea and Samaria are not “Palestinian” as the
“Palestinians” were never a nation.
There has never been a “Palestinian State”. Today there is an argument,
and just an argument, made by the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria,
regarding their right to an independent state. This is a political argument and
Israel is not required to accept it, even if much of the world identifies with
this argument.
►Furthermore, the right to self-determination, in the
legal sense, only took form in international law long after
1967, from the 1980s onwards.
And this even before we begin examining the question as to whether the
Arabs in Judea and Samaria have such a right.
►Laws of occupation apply to a situation in which
territory is taken by one state from another state. For this reason, they are
not relevant and do not apply to Judea and Samaria.
As a result, the settlements are not
illegal.
All the injunctions and restrictions placed on an
occupying nation are not relevant to Judea and
Samaria.
Legal claims regarding Israeli occupation are no more
than the adoption of an Arab national narrative. Nothing more than
that.
___________________________________
One other point to be mentioned here: It is
frequently said that the settlements are a violation of article 49 of the Fourth
Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians (1949). But, as a
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs briefing indicates, “both the text of that
convention, and the post-World War II circumstances under which it was drafted,
clearly indicate that is was never intended to refer to situations like Israel’s
settlements. “ This was intended to apply to situations in which
populations were coerced into being transferred. It was drafted in order
to prevent a repeat of the behavior of the Nazis and the Russians during
WWII.
http://jcpa.org/article/the-settlements-issue-distorting-the-geneva-convention-and-the-oslo-accords/
~~~~~~~~~~
You might also want to see, and share, this
article that cites Dr. Arnon, whom I refer to above.
~~~~~~~~~~
See, as well, Times of Israel editor David
Horovitz with regard to the Obama statements in his Bloomberg interview. “For
Netanyahu, a bombshell battering by Obama” (emphasis added):
“Until he read the breaking
news of President Obama’s earth-shattering interview with
Bloomberg’s Jeffrey Goldberg on
Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might have anticipated that Monday’s
meeting was going to be one of his less confrontational and unpleasant sessions
of frank, allied diplomacy with his good friend Barack.
“Sure, the stakes were
always going to be high: The president was going to be urging Netanyahu to
assent to Secretary of State John Kerry’s framework proposal for continued peace
talks. And the prime minister was going to be urging Obama to toughen his
demands on Iran, to ensure that the ayatollahs are deprived of the wherewithal
to build the nuclear weapons they swear they don’t want to build, just on the
off chance that they might be lying.
“But Netanyahu, his aides
had long been indicating, was ready to accept the framework proposals — as a
non-binding basis for further negotiations. So no need for confrontation there.
And he must have had little hope that he was going to shift Obama’s stance on
Iran, however powerful he believes his arguments to be. So not much point in
confrontation there, either.
“But then came that
bombshell Bloomberg battering.
“The timing could
not have been any more deliberate — an assault on the prime minister’s policies
delivered precisely as Netanyahu was flying in to meet with him, and on
the first day, too, of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC’s annual tour de force
conference across town.
“At the very least,
that might be considered bad manners, poor diplomatic protocol, a resounding
preemptive slap in the face: I’ve just told the world you’re leading
your country to wrack and ruin, Mr. Prime Minister. Now, what was it you wanted
to talk to me about?
“More substantively,
the president’s comments reinforce years of grievance that have accumulated in
Netanyahu’s circles and some distance beyond, to the effect that the president
ignores the inconsistencies, duplicities and worse of the Palestinian Authority
and its leader Mahmoud Abbas, while placing exaggerated blame for the failure of
peace efforts at the door of the Israeli government.
“As they read through the
transcript of the interview, Netanyahu and his aides were doubtless bemoaning
what they see as Obama’s obsession with settlements, to the exclusion of almost
any other issue on which the Israelis and the Palestinians are deadlocked. They
would certainly have been lamenting that the president’s public display of
disaffection will hardly encourage the Palestinians to adopt more flexible
positions on such other core issues as their demand for a ‘right of return’ for
millions of Palestinians to Israel. And they might have been wondering if some
of the Obama ammunition had been fired precisely now as a mark of his
displeasure with AIPAC, the irritating lobby that just won’t keep quiet on
pressuring Iran.
“...That Obama chose to
highlight his concern [about the counterproductive nature of settlements] in
such ominous and pointed terms, going so far as to warn that it would become
harder in the future for the US to protect Israel from the consequences of its
misguided West Bank building, would suggest that he has all but
despaired of Netanyahu’s willingness to rein in construction. Otherwise, surely,
he would have held his fire, and first consulted face-to-face with the prime
minister.
“For one thing is
certain, the president’s resort to a newspaper interview on the eve of their
talks to issue near-apocalyptic warnings about the disaster Netanyahu risks
bringing upon Israel is just about the last thing likely to bolster the prime
minister’s confidence in their alliance, and just about the last thing likely to
encourage Netanyahu to further alienate his hawkish home base by taking steps
such as halting building outside the settlement blocs.”
~~~~~~~~~~
A couple of points of clarification here, related to what
was said by Horovitz:
There has been talk, not officially verified, that
Netanyahu had declared himself ready to freeze building in areas outside of the
main settlement blocs. This had lead to a furor raised by the Knesset Land of
Israel Caucus. In light of this (which already indicates more bending than our
prime minister should be doing), the pressure being put on him by Obama is all
the more vile and outrageous.
As to that “framework” agreement, it’s still floating in
the air, incomplete because Kerry hasn’t been able to get it together – for he
finds himself unable to draft a document that both sides would sign on to.
It is said that it would be a non-binding document to which the parties would
have the right to voice “reservations,” a pointless exercise.
There are rumors that it might not be completed by the
end of the allocated nine-month negotiation period, which leads to questions
about an extension of the time frame. There is some very serious talk
about how this situation links to the presumed obligation of Israel to release a
fourth group of Palestinian Arab prisoners (about which there will yet be much
to say).
~~~~~~~~~~
Just four days ago, according to the Times of Israel,
“Abbas ‘exploded with rage’ at Kerry over insane’ framework proposals.”
This happened in the course of a meeting between Abbas
and Kerry in Paris. Abbas was outraged, first, because the framework
proposed that the Palestinian capital would be in one neighborhood of Jerusalem
and not in all of “east” Jerusalem as the PA demands.
Please understand: what is referred to as “east
Jerusalem” is everything over the Green Line (the armistice line of 1949, which
Abbas calls the “1967 border”). And not all of this area is even east of
western Jerusalem – some neighborhoods are to the north or south. What
Abbas is demanding would mean that the Temple Mount and the Kotel, as well as
well established and solidly Jewish neighborhoods such as Gilo and French Hill
would all be part of a Palestinian Arab capital.
And then, Abbas was furious because the framework
suggested there would be settlement blocks in Judea and Samaria retained by
Israel.
”...a Palestinian official who spoke
Friday on condition of anonymity said that the US secretary’s proposals could
not serve as the basis for a framework deal, as ‘they do not take into account
the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.’” (Emphasis
added)
But never fear, the American administration has a default position
regarding what to do when Abbas becomes intransigent: lean harder on
Israel.
~~~~~~~~~~
According Haaretz, the Americans are contemplating different maneuvers in
the face of the obstinate positions of Abbas, with a great deal of dissension in
the State Department and the White House regarding how to proceed.
On the one hand, “senior Palestinians say
that, in light of the poor talks between Abbas and Kerry, the Americans are
considering foregoing a written document and making do with general verbal
agreements.”
On the other, “A senior Israeli official
intimately involved in the talks said some of Obama’s top advisers are
considering a dramatic all-or-nothing move – setting out an American document
with principles for solutions to the core issues. Netanyahu and Abbas will have
to say yes or no to it. If the answer is no, the Americans will leave the peace
process until the parties agree.”
The Americans should only get smart enough to walk away from their attempts
to “make peace.” But the bottom line is that no one yet really knows how
they’re going to play it.
~~~~~~~~~~
The primary reason Prime Minister Netanyahu is in Washington DC is to deliver a speech at the AIPAC Policy Conference tomorrow. Please see here an article about an initiative of Legal Grounds, which took the form of a letter, endorsed by persons and organizations of prominence, urging Netanyahu to speak for Israel’s rights in the course of his AIPAC talk:
~~~~~~~~~~
Because of the time difference between the US and Israel, I will put this
out now and reserve for my next posting all comments about the press conference
likely to follow the Netanyahu-Obama meeting today. In truth, I expect
very little will be said.
My focus next will almost certainly be on Netanyahu’s AIPAC address, and on
Iran. While I am, clearly, very eager for our prime minister to make a
statement about our rights, it is broadly understood that his primary focus will
be Iran.
Yesterday, at the start of the AIPAC Policy Conference, there was a high
profile political panel that discussed the Iranian situation. Avi Dichter,
former head of Shin Bet, declared that, “There is
no debate amongst the intelligence services word-wide about the seriousness of
Iran to build (a) nuclear weapon...If you cannot deal it, kill it.”
You can see the 30-minute panel discussion here:
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner.
This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning
as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced
only
with proper attribution.
If it is
reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be
noted.
This material is transmitted by Arlene
only to persons who have requested it or agreed to receive it. If you are
on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and include your name in the
text of the
message.
No comments:
Post a Comment