Doc's Talk: Time for Truth-time to change the lexicon

Friday, September 11, 2009

Time for Truth-time to change the lexicon

GS Don Morris, Ph.D.

“Forget the settlements. If the world truly wants to identify an obstacle to peace, it could do much worse than cast its eyes toward Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa”1
AThomas L. Friedman wrote in October 2000: "This war is sick but it has exposed some basic truths." In particular, Friedman wrote, "To think that the Palestinians are only enraged about settlements is also fatuous nonsense. Talk to the 15-year-olds. Their grievance is not just with Israeli settlements, but also with Israel. Most Palestinians simply do not accept that the Jews have any authentic right to be here.2

At the same time, President Obama is wrong to consider "settlements" as an obstacle to peace… In September 2005, Israel uprooted 25 Jewish communities from Gaza and Samaria. Gaza became Judenrein, in order to, ostensibly, advance peaceful coexistence…President Obama defines "settlements" as the root cause of Arab hostility toward the Jewish State. However, the Arab-Palestinian offensive against the Jewish State was not ignited by "settlements." In fact, "settlements" were established in Judea and Samaria after the wars of 1967, 1956 and 1948, after the sustained 1949-1967 campaign of Arab terrorism, after the 1964 establishment of the PLO, after the 1929 slaughter of the Hebron Jewish community and the 1929 expulsion of the Gaza Jewish community, after the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s slaughter of the Jewish community of Gush Etzion, etc3

Who and what are we discussing? Settlers are Israeli citizens choosing to live inside the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria (J&S). We no longer live in the other disputed territory known as Gaza. Israel, founded and recognized as a legal country in 1948, has engaged in multiple wars since its inception. Jordan illegally “annexed” J&S shortly after the creation of the Jewish state and held control of it until we defeated them during the 6-DayWar in 1967. Since the 1967 Arab - Israel War, successive Israeli governments have promoted the settlement of the West Bank and Gaza Strip by Israeli citizens. The initial movement was known as the Allon Plan, after its initiator Deputy Prime Minister Yigal Allon. The settlement blueprint was a minimalist one aimed at constructing a line of agricultural settlements along the new eastern border in the Jordan valley. This was part of a concept that assumed that civilian settlements contributed to the defensive posture of the country and that it was necessary to ensure defensible borders between Israel and Jordan. The Allon Plan also proposed the establishment of additional settlements around Jerusalem and in close proximity to the Green Line border as a means of ensuring future territorial changes in favor of Israel.4

It is important to remember that at that time the Jordan Valley was sparsely populated other than Ramallah and Jericho. One should also acknowledge that this territory was not part of any sovereign state and was initially labeled as “disputed” and legally continues to be so identified today. Accurate reading of UN 242, often cited as justification Israel is an occupying nation, demonstrates just the contrary. Let’ briefly review two parts of UN 242.

1.b. Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Part c. For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones.

Thus “Statements 1b and 2c of resolution 242 are clearly the responsibility of the Arab states that don't acknowledge Israel's existence to a large extent. These resolutions were not unilateral - Israel was to pull out on the condition that the Arab responsibilities were fulfilled.”5

The Arabs to this day have not fulfilled their responsibilities.

I am addressing the nature of Israeli citizens living in disputed territories. One must be clear that even today these remain disputed areas and Israel has legal rights to this land, as do Arabs. It is worthwhile remembering Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law, who was the Chairman of the Interdepartmental Control Group responsible for preparing, proposing, and supervising the execution of the U. S. Government's plans for dealing with the Middle East crisis at this time in history. Rostow explained, "one of the things the international community said clearly in Resolution 242 was that this time Israel would not be required to withdraw without a prior agreement of peace". 6

Peace continues to be elusive. This fact does not dismiss Israel’s claim to lands in these disputed territories of Judea and Samaria. For historical perspective I remind you that following the Arab - Israel War of October 1973, a new religious nationalist movement, Gush Emunim ("Bloc of the Faithful"), was established with the objective of promoting settlement throughout the West Bank and Gaza.4 Settlement activity took off vigorously in the early 1980s when the planning regulations and restrictions were lifted to make it easier to create suburban communities as an alternative to agricultural and socially controlled small settlements. Under the slogan of "five minutes from Kfar Saba," Israelis were now able to build detached houses on large land plots which they received at a low cost and, at the same time, retain their places of employment in the Tel Aviv and Jerusalem metropolitan centers. During the 1980s and 1990s, the road and transportation infrastructure linking Israel to the West Bank was improved, thus enhancing the appeal of the region for many Israelis who were attracted to settle there for economic rather than ideological or political reasons.4

It is important to understand that the new villages, towns and now cities were offered and developed by ascending Israeli governments, i.e., they promoted development in these areas as they knew they were disputed and according to international law Israel had rights to these properties.

From after the1967 war until the present time the legal battles have raged. So much deception and intentional misrepresentation of data, history, social and cultural distortions have plagued this part of the Middle East. If you use International law as your basis for supporting your argument, proper interpretation of these laws clearly support Israel’s right to some of this still disputed land.

The concept of “ownership” deserves a separate post and I’ll do so soon. If you use biblical resources as your basis of support the clear archeological evidence falls again with Israel. This does not mean to say or imply that Arab peoples also have no historical claims to parts of this area-they do. It is accurate and fair to say that both Jews and Arabs have inhabited these areas for hundreds and hundreds of years. With respect to the concept of state or national sovereignty it would be useful to settle on the vehicle one uses to make such declarations.

This notion of a state is clearly a human idea and has evolved over centuries. The current status of this concept requires application of agreed upon international rules. When addressing property rights and/or borders this assumes and requires nation states status-there is no sovereign state called Palestine-it is only a term used to define a geographic area. Furthermore, the land under question belongs to no current sovereign state and has been properly labeled “disputed territory”. For political purposes this essential fact has been deliberately distorted over time. So many trees have died in order that pundits expound volumes on this alone. It is in the best interest of groups of people to continue using this same argument-the end game is power, money, control and employment.

The use of the “settlement issue” is clearly driven by political reasons and ultimately care about populations of people really do not matter-lip service can and is given to “the people” but the outcome is contrary to the words. The terms “settlements and settlers” have negative connotations. The words have a stigma attached to them and have been repeated time and again for such purposes. They are meant to inflame and incite so that the readers cannot “see past” the words. Fact is these terms establish the mind set stage for all as a story is read; a segment is viewed or listened to in the media. How many times have I heard many of my academic colleagues use the terms for purposes of demeaning and invalidating these people? Instead of listening one has been programmed to hear the message in a manner consistent with what one’s negative view is of these good people. Next time you hear a tag line wait for the lead statement. Yet these individuals serve in the IDF at a disproportionate rate from Israeli proper population. They promote the national Israeli identity and work diligently for their families. Ask our corporations who our best, most efficient and effective workers are! All of this occurs and the pity is the greater message(s) is (are) lost as people are programmed to listen and hear incorrectly. You want to contribute socially to Israel? You do not have to march, protest or yell out on side walks-simply use correct language from this moment forward-Israeli citizens live in the disputed territories.

In an ongoing “good grief” moments the following data points indicate how inane certain arguments are with respect to Judea and Samaria.
· Settlements make up less than 2 percent of the West Bank.
· Settlements do not block the eventual establishment of a contiguous Palestinian entity.
· The Settlements are consistent with Resolution 242
· Settlements are consistent with the Geneva Conventions

Yes, each of the preceding points have been, are currently and I am sure in the future will be refuted by our antagonists. You are entitled to your opinions and when you write me argue from clarity rather than emotion.

Why all of this information if my main point is we should once and for all stop using the terms of settlements and settlers? Citizens from Israel have settled in towns and cities in the disputed territories. If one authentically wants resolution to this problem, then use the correct terms. To continue using politically charged terminology signals to the entire international community you are not serious about change. I have argued that Israeli citizens were encouraged by their government to inhabit land that legally remains in limbo and for all intended purposes is disputed territory according to all human designed laws. These Israelis are by definition citizens of Israel and ceased being “settlers” long ago. I have always found it curious that these terms are never used with any of the Arab peoples who also settled in the area and/or have recently moved into the disputed territories. I encourage the leaders, media and academic types to begin addressing these people in the proper dignified manner they deserve. In another “good grief” moment I have had writers tell me they agree with me but cannot get their pieces published unless they use these archaic terms. So our enemies are served and nothing changes. The beginning of a solution to this problem is to admit the truth, insist upon it being used every day-otherwise you reinforce inaccurate information and reward their political gamesmanship. You my dear friends and colleagues remain part of the problem-please do not go smugly into the night!

End Notes
1.Obstacle to Peace-Op-Ed http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251804521506&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull 9-9-09.
2. Jeffrey Helmreich, Diplomatic and Legal Aspects of the Settlement Issue, Vol. 2, No. 16 19 January 2003
3. Ettinger, Yoram, “But, Settlements Obstruct Peace”, YNET, 6-14-09
4. Israeli Settlements, Newman, David. "The Territorial Politics of Exurbanisation: Reflections on Thirty Years of Jewish Settlement in the West Bank." Israel Affairs 3, no. 1(1996): 61 - 85.
5. United Nations-Model Organization?
6. Boris Shusteff (FREEMAN CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES),” The Truth Of 242” http://middleeastfacts.com/Articles/the-truth-of-242.php

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