Honest debate, and Israel's alternative
As a blogger I'm sometimes asked (words to the effect of), "why do you write about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Its because you hate Jews isn't it?"
I tend to resist the urge to ask such people whether they'd attribute the anti-apartheid movement or the civil rights movement to hatred of White people, or opposition to the USSR to anti-Russian racism. Instead, my reply tends to be something along the lines of how the UK gives military, political and diplomatic support to Israel so I share responsibility for what's done with that support. Plus, if I talked about the crimes of others before I talked about the ones I share responsibility for I'd be what a wise and famous Jew once described as a "hypocrite" (Matthew 7:1-5, I believe).
Of course, there's another reason why the Israel-Palestine issue needs to be discussed and returned to repeatedly, which is that apologists for the Israeli government keep lying about it.
After all, as Norman Finkelstein shows in "Beyond Chutzpah", the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not enormously complex. The history is largely uncontested by scholars and there is a broad consensus on what a just peace would involve. The obstacle is US-Israeli rejectionism, and the epic propaganda effort made by apologists for this position to obscure the facts in service of the cause (the cause being the maximisation of the Israeli and US interests, no matter what the human costs borne principally by the Palestinians).
The moral and intellectual poverty of the US-Israeli position is nowhere better demonstrated than by the sheer audacity of the mendaciousness employed. It is as though those responsible are reduced to hoping that if they say black is white often enough and with enough conviction someone somewhere might believe them. The latest effort from the Israeli embassy in London is a case in point.
In last week's Guardian, Ahmad Samih Khalidi - a senior associate member of St Antony's College, Oxford - wrote in favour of a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Khalidi sees the only two-state solution that's currently on offer as "largely a punitive construct devised by the Palestinian's worst historical enemies; Israel and its implacable ally, the US. The intention behind the [proposed Palestinian] state today is to constrain Palestinian aspirations territorially, to force them to give up on their moral rights, renege on their history and submit to Israel's diktats on fundamental issues of sovereignty".
Instead of this, Dr Khalidi proposes a single state covering all of what is now Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, with equal rights for all its citizens: Jew and Arab alike. He calls for "equitable and fair resolution that is built on a different basis; one of mutual respect, equality and mutuality, and a sense of genuine partnership in sharing the land".
Today, on the Guardian letter's page, the Israeli embassy in London exercised its right of reply. Lior Ben-Dor writes:
"While moderate Palestinians, headed by the President Mahmoud Abbas, have accepted that Israelis are here to stay and adopted the vision of a two-state solution, Khalidi rejects it outright. But what alternative is Khalidi suggesting? Further terrorism, bloodshed and perpetuation of the conflict?"
Take the first of these sentences. On the one hand, we have "moderate" Palestinians who "have accepted that Israelis are here to stay and adopted the vision of a two-state solution". On the other hand we have Khalidi. The sentence is cleverly worded. It presents Khalidi as someone who has not "accepted that Israelis are here to stay" without explicitly attributing that view to him in so many words. There's a reason for that. He never said it. And the embassy, unless the staff responsible for the letter are functional illiterates, knows he never said it. Because not only did he not say it, he said the opposite, and quite explicitly - i.e. that he wishes to engage Israelis on the basis "of mutual respect, equality and mutuality, and a sense of genuine partnership in sharing the land"
Then, take the second and third sentences: "....what alternative is Khalidi suggesting? Further terrorism, bloodshed and perpetuation of the conflict?". Why ask? Nowhere does Khalidi suggest violence as an alternative to the two-state solution. He suggests the opposite: a democratic, one-state solution as an egalitarian peace settlement. Again, the embassy either knows this very well or the staff responsible for the letter are functionally illiterate.
By contrasting the "unpragmatic" Khalidi with the "moderate" Abbas, those who offer peace with those who "suggest the alternative" of violence, those who wish to live "side by side" with those who fail to accept that "Israelis are here to stay", all of which bears no relation whatsoever to the article the embassy is ostensibly replying to, Israeli diplomats are making a tacit admission: that they have no response to the substance of Khalidi's argument. They have no intellectual response and no moral response; at least none that they believe the British public will find persuasive. Their preferred response therefore is to lie about what Khalidi wrote, hoping that the lie will stick with at least some of those who read it. They can't respond to the argument Khalidi makes, so they invent a fake argument, attribute that to him (using language that might just sneak past a judge in the libel courts) and then argue with that instead. The only alternative explanation is that the embassy staff responsible for the letter are functional illiterates, since the question of a honest, literate person interpreting Khalidi in this way plainly does not arise.
We now read that the Israeli embassy is planning an "aggressive new strategy in Britain, making Israel’s case more actively in the media", which one might describe as 'public relations' or, more accurately, as propaganda. Those willing to confront this "aggressive" propaganda effort should take heart from the embassy's pathetic display on the Guardian letter's page this morning; from its effective admission of its own fear of the truth, and from its palpable desperation. Today's shoddy effort is indicative not only of the Israeli government's arch cynicism but also of its profound weakness outside of the realm of violence. That being the case, the just peace so feared by the state of Israel and its backers - be it two equal states or one state of equal citizens - can not be so far away. In the battle of ideas and principles, the government of Israel has nothing.
I tend to resist the urge to ask such people whether they'd attribute the anti-apartheid movement or the civil rights movement to hatred of White people, or opposition to the USSR to anti-Russian racism. Instead, my reply tends to be something along the lines of how the UK gives military, political and diplomatic support to Israel so I share responsibility for what's done with that support. Plus, if I talked about the crimes of others before I talked about the ones I share responsibility for I'd be what a wise and famous Jew once described as a "hypocrite" (Matthew 7:1-5, I believe).
Of course, there's another reason why the Israel-Palestine issue needs to be discussed and returned to repeatedly, which is that apologists for the Israeli government keep lying about it.
After all, as Norman Finkelstein shows in "Beyond Chutzpah", the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not enormously complex. The history is largely uncontested by scholars and there is a broad consensus on what a just peace would involve. The obstacle is US-Israeli rejectionism, and the epic propaganda effort made by apologists for this position to obscure the facts in service of the cause (the cause being the maximisation of the Israeli and US interests, no matter what the human costs borne principally by the Palestinians).
The moral and intellectual poverty of the US-Israeli position is nowhere better demonstrated than by the sheer audacity of the mendaciousness employed. It is as though those responsible are reduced to hoping that if they say black is white often enough and with enough conviction someone somewhere might believe them. The latest effort from the Israeli embassy in London is a case in point.
In last week's Guardian, Ahmad Samih Khalidi - a senior associate member of St Antony's College, Oxford - wrote in favour of a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Khalidi sees the only two-state solution that's currently on offer as "largely a punitive construct devised by the Palestinian's worst historical enemies; Israel and its implacable ally, the US. The intention behind the [proposed Palestinian] state today is to constrain Palestinian aspirations territorially, to force them to give up on their moral rights, renege on their history and submit to Israel's diktats on fundamental issues of sovereignty".
Instead of this, Dr Khalidi proposes a single state covering all of what is now Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, with equal rights for all its citizens: Jew and Arab alike. He calls for "equitable and fair resolution that is built on a different basis; one of mutual respect, equality and mutuality, and a sense of genuine partnership in sharing the land".
Today, on the Guardian letter's page, the Israeli embassy in London exercised its right of reply. Lior Ben-Dor writes:
"While moderate Palestinians, headed by the President Mahmoud Abbas, have accepted that Israelis are here to stay and adopted the vision of a two-state solution, Khalidi rejects it outright. But what alternative is Khalidi suggesting? Further terrorism, bloodshed and perpetuation of the conflict?"
Take the first of these sentences. On the one hand, we have "moderate" Palestinians who "have accepted that Israelis are here to stay and adopted the vision of a two-state solution". On the other hand we have Khalidi. The sentence is cleverly worded. It presents Khalidi as someone who has not "accepted that Israelis are here to stay" without explicitly attributing that view to him in so many words. There's a reason for that. He never said it. And the embassy, unless the staff responsible for the letter are functional illiterates, knows he never said it. Because not only did he not say it, he said the opposite, and quite explicitly - i.e. that he wishes to engage Israelis on the basis "of mutual respect, equality and mutuality, and a sense of genuine partnership in sharing the land"
Then, take the second and third sentences: "....what alternative is Khalidi suggesting? Further terrorism, bloodshed and perpetuation of the conflict?". Why ask? Nowhere does Khalidi suggest violence as an alternative to the two-state solution. He suggests the opposite: a democratic, one-state solution as an egalitarian peace settlement. Again, the embassy either knows this very well or the staff responsible for the letter are functionally illiterate.
By contrasting the "unpragmatic" Khalidi with the "moderate" Abbas, those who offer peace with those who "suggest the alternative" of violence, those who wish to live "side by side" with those who fail to accept that "Israelis are here to stay", all of which bears no relation whatsoever to the article the embassy is ostensibly replying to, Israeli diplomats are making a tacit admission: that they have no response to the substance of Khalidi's argument. They have no intellectual response and no moral response; at least none that they believe the British public will find persuasive. Their preferred response therefore is to lie about what Khalidi wrote, hoping that the lie will stick with at least some of those who read it. They can't respond to the argument Khalidi makes, so they invent a fake argument, attribute that to him (using language that might just sneak past a judge in the libel courts) and then argue with that instead. The only alternative explanation is that the embassy staff responsible for the letter are functional illiterates, since the question of a honest, literate person interpreting Khalidi in this way plainly does not arise.
We now read that the Israeli embassy is planning an "aggressive new strategy in Britain, making Israel’s case more actively in the media", which one might describe as 'public relations' or, more accurately, as propaganda. Those willing to confront this "aggressive" propaganda effort should take heart from the embassy's pathetic display on the Guardian letter's page this morning; from its effective admission of its own fear of the truth, and from its palpable desperation. Today's shoddy effort is indicative not only of the Israeli government's arch cynicism but also of its profound weakness outside of the realm of violence. That being the case, the just peace so feared by the state of Israel and its backers - be it two equal states or one state of equal citizens - can not be so far away. In the battle of ideas and principles, the government of Israel has nothing.
Labels: Israel/Palestine
posted by David Wearing at 3:02 PM
25 Comments:
Sadly, however, a lot of people seem to have been taken in by the propaganda. I think it's safe to say that, in terms of the Israel/Palestine conflict, the most important external influence is the United States. Unfortunately, the evidence is that most Americans have bought the line that the Israeli occupation is a response to Palestinian terrorism, not vice versa. Once that central canard is destroyed (which can be done fairly easily, intellectually speaking - hence the extent to which apologists for the occupation must resort to spin and obfuscation to distract from the facts) I think the rest should follow quite promptly.
The propaganda is certainly potent and certainly has some success. My point is simply that this should not discourage us.
We can take great comfort from the fact that Israel has to resort to such desperate displays of trasparent fib-telling as the example I referred to. It suggests that the imbalance in public opinion may prove temporary, with a bit of patient work on our part. There's every indication that this is precisely what Israel fears.
well written david!
i think ur point on shifting opinions holds in europe, but probably falls short in the US where corporate news-media still firmly set the agenda.
certainly mendacity and distortion have never been an obstacle to high viewer-ratings here.
Israelis are also very adept at combining the facade of a 'process' or 'reconciliation' to speed up the consolidation of control. as with accelerated settlement building now in jerusalem or the violent attacks on gaza. the rejectionism you rightly describe is occluded by a sham, vacuous posturing.
in any case very good blog!
What gives the lie to your entire analysis is the Hamas Covenant. Hamas represents a large group and they reject equality as a matter of principle. As they state, peace can only come under the wing of Islam. Last I read, that group won the last Palestinian Arab election and then managed to take over the entire Gaza.
No. What you write is simply wrong. The one state solution means the end of rights for Jews. As in other parts of the world where two groups vie for the same territory, the only solution is division.
Nasser and Neal - thanks for your comments.
Neal - if you're interested in the position of Hamas then you'll be interested not just in what it said 20+ years ago but what it says now. Hamas leaders have spoken of their acceptance (albeit grudging) of a two state solution for many years, contradicting their infamous charter.
http://www.counterpunch.org/loewenstein06122006.html
Hamas is indeed a large movement, as you say. Like all large movemetns it resists caricature and simplification. We are now seeing it evolve in ways that open the door toward a possible peace settlement
http://conflictsforum.org/briefings/Hamas-Debates-the-Future-monograph.pdf
If we're genuinely interested in peace we'll look to explore that.
For the record, I personally have serious reservations about a one-state solution. My point was not about the merits of Khalidi's opinion so much as about the Israeli embassy's willingness to lie about or misrepresent it.
Best wishes
David
Some Christmas cheer for "supporters of Israel" (or as Noam Chomsky calls them: "supporters of the moral degeneration and ultimate destruction of Israel").
David,
The CounterPunch article does not show a change of heart by the Hamas. What, in fact, the Hamas supports is a hudna - i.e. a truce for no longer than 10 years. As terms for offering that truce, they expect the Israelis to cede land and take in the children of refugees - but with nothing offered to the Israelis. That is miles behind what Fatah offered since the Fatah offer includes the idea of ending the dispute.
My source for this is not the misinformed Ms. Loewenstein but the leader of Hamas, who wrote his views in The Washington Post. You might consider reading the article.
Here is a portion of his article:
If Israel is prepared to negotiate seriously and fairly, and resolve the core 1948 issues, rather than the secondary ones from 1967, a fair and permanent peace is possible. Based on a hudna (comprehensive cessation of hostilities for an agreed time), the Holy Land still has an opportunity to be a peaceful and stable economic powerhouse for all the Semitic people of the region.
That sounds quite a bit different from what you claim the Hamas position is.
SK - thanks for that. I'm not sure we need a think tank study to tell us that Iran is incapable of wiping Israel off the map (perhaps later studies will reveal that the Pope practises catholicism at that bears tend to defecate in woodland areas) but its good to see the point made and demonstrated nonetheless.
Neal - thanks for your response
You say:
"The CounterPunch article does not show a change of heart by the Hamas. What, in fact, the Hamas supports is a hudna - i.e. a truce for no longer than 10 years."
I wonder, did you read the article? The 9th paragraph reads
In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer four days after the PLC elections, the new Hamas Foreign Minister, Mahmoud Zahar (considered the party's hard-liner) remarked, "We can accept to establish our independent state on the area occupied [in] 1967." Like Haniyeh and other Hamas members, Zahar insists that once such a state is established a long-term truce "lasting as long as 10, 20 or 100 years" will ensue ending the state of armed conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.
100 years was longer than 10 years last time I checked.
You say:
"My source for this is not the misinformed Ms. Loewenstein but the leader of Hamas"
But Loewenstein's sources are...er...the leaders of Hamas. Seems a bit silly to try and make out that your quoting Hamas is somehow different from her quoting Hamas.
In the quote you give Ismail Haniyeh describes "permanent peace" between the "Semitic peoples". Last time I checked, "permanent" was longer than 10 years.
You say that Hamas "expect the Israelis to cede land and take in the children of refugees - but with nothing offered to the Israelis".
I must admit, its not particularly clear to me how one can "cede" territory that one has illegally conquered through force of arms. If I beat you up and stole your wallet and then later agreed to give it back, could I legitimately claim to be making some painful concession by "cedeing" the wallet?
Nor is it clear to me how the Palestinians cedeing around 80 per cent of their historic homeland - as Hamas is effectively offering to do by accepting the 67 borders - can be described as "nothing [being ]offered to the Israelis".
Is there ambiguity in the Hamas position? Certainly. But I agree with the International Crisis Group analyst Mouin Rabbani, who Loewenstein quotes as saying:
"On Hamas I would not hesitate to say that the organization as a whole has essentially reconciled itself to a two-state settlement as a strategic option but has not formally adopted this as an organisational position. Yasin, Rantisi, Abu Shanab, Mashal, etc. have all made such statements. Have they made others that contradict them? Of course. But I think it can safely be concluded the strategic decisions have been made, the tactics remain unresolved and the formalities will come last." ...It would be as naive to take [Hamas] statements on faith as it would be foolish not to put them to the test."
As Loewenstein says, "The question for us is whether or not we will give Hamas the chance to translate their words into actions". If we are interested in peace then we will. If we are not interested in peace then we will look for excuses to ignore Hamas, as you appear to be doing.
David,
I, in fact, read Ms. Loewenstein's article - and other articles by her - when it was written. I, in fact, have corresponded with Ms. Loewenstein.
I, too, can cite all sorts of interviews and articles by Hamas officials saying all sorts of things, including refusing the idea of Israel. So, I do not take such articles seriously. I take well considered statements far more seriously.
By way of example, on March 12, 2007, Hamas issued a communiqué stating (translation by MEMRI):
Hamas is a Salafi movement of jihad and resistance, and will remain so as long as there is [even] one inch of Palestine [still] under occupation... We shall not betray our covenant with Allah, which compels [us] to proceed on the path of jihad and resistance, until Palestine - all of Palestine - is liberated.
That sounds pretty clear, does it not? And, it is not consistent with what you write. Must I cite to innumerable recent interviews where Hamas leaders say that they mean to destroy Israel - the sooner the better?
Here is a problem for you to ponder, David. Groups say all sorts of things, especially when talking to outsiders. How do you explain the plethora of statements that are not consistent with what appears in Ms. Loewenstein's article?
In this regard, I note that - and I do not mean this as a direct comparison but only to note a well known example - that Hitler gave all sorts of interviews espousing peace and many people - just like you - believed such statements notwithstanding his actions and statements directly to the contrary. And, his book (i.e. what might be called his covenant) set out exactly what he had in mind and his actions were consistent with what he had in mind, not the occasional statements issued to mislead people. I suggest to you that Hamas issues occasional interviews that sound peaceful enough - although offering a Hudna is, by definition, not an offer of peace but an offer to postpone war - in order to mislead people.
For the record: a Hudna runs for ten years but, if the Muslim side does not consider itself strong enough to defeat the opponent, it can be renewed. But, the entire purpose of the Hudna - which is why the Hamas uses the word - is to advance a war aim. That is its use, both in theory and historically.
Now, the fact is that the Hamas party has not altered its founding covenant. That says a lot. And, that covenant - in the tradition of the Muslim Brotherhood - does not accept non-Muslim governance as legitimate but, instead, holds that peace can exist only under the wing of Islam. Were Hamas to prefer a different image, the group could and no doubt would change its Covenant.
Consider the image that Hamas projects in its Covenant. The Hamas Covenant explicitly advocates genocide. One might think that the group, if the Hamas really wanted the image you have projected onto it, would not want to be known as a group which openly espouses genocide. Don't you think so? Maybe that sort of change in image might even mean something to the Israelis - the group which the Hamas, if it really wants peace, would have to accept and live with. Don't you think so? Or, do you think the Israelis should ignore the founding covenant of a group which openly vows to extirminate Jews across the globe?
Come now, David. Wishing something were so is not the same as it being so.
thanks, Neal. You've brought up nothing here that I haven't already addressed in my last post, so I'm content to leave it there.
David,
You may say what you want. But consider: you do, at some point, need to explain how it is that the Arab side makes so many pronouncements that entirely contradict your position.
yes, Neal. I've covered this already
David,
No, you have not addressed my point. Rather, you have quoted Ms. Loewenstein who speaks for herself, not for the Hamas.
And, you misinterpreted the Hamas statement. They do not offer permanent peace and the Washington Post article said no such thing. Permanence requires - and nothing in the article disagrees with this point - that non-Muslims live under what Hamas calls "the wing of Islam" (to quote from their covenant). What Hamas, in fact, offered is a hudna - a truce which, in Islamic jurisprudence, is a temporary arrangement. Why, pray tell, would Israel cede land to reach a truce? That is insane.
You also say that the Israelis illegally conquered the land. That, unless you are saying the UN is mistaken, is incorrect. Read UN 242. It says nothing about anything being legal or illegal. Rather, it suggests that the two sides negotiate with an aim - as the UN debate on the subject, most particularly as explained by your country's ambassador on the floor of the UN - of addressing both sides' concerns. And, as he explains, the Israelis wanted secure and recognized boundaries which, according to your country's UN ambassador, meant coming to an agreement on where Israel's boundary would be. That, by logic, means that Israel could retain at least some land conquered. The Arab side wanted the Israelis to withdraw from land won at war, which, in turn means, that such might be the result of negotiations but such, just like the Israeli preference, was something that may or may not result from negotiations.
The Soviet Union's ambassador objected to UN 242 on the floor of the UN on the ground that it made Israel's conquest legal, since it allowed the Israelis to negotiate which parts of the land would be retained by Israel.
In fact, it was universally agreed by all who commented on UN 242 that such resolution made Israel's conquest legal.
So, I suggest you not read propaganda. Instead, read primary sources, not non-sources like Ms. Loewenstein.
Neal - with respect, I'm afraid to say that you're just wasting my time.
"No, you have not addressed my point. Rather, you have quoted Ms. Loewenstein who speaks for herself, not for the Hamas".
I have cited Loewenstein who quotes Hamas
You say
"[Hamas]do not offer permanent peace".
The International Crisis Group - quoted by Loewenstein, as you know very well - says
"In a March 1988 meeting with Foreign Minister Peres, and then with Defence Minister Rabin in June 1989, Hamas leader Mahmud Zahhar explicitly proposed an Israeli
withdrawal to the 1967 boundaries, to be followed by a negotiated permanent settlement.."
http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/middle_east___north_africa/21_dealing_with_hamas.pdf
How Hamas would expect to force people on the Israeli side of the 67 borders to live "under the wing of Islam" escapes me.
And yes, Hamas have made contradictory statements. And again, you know very well that I covered this point in my last substantive post, quoting Mouin Rabbani. I'll repeat myself for the final time: the recent statements made by Hamas do indeed contradict the 20 year old charter. If we doubt the sincerity of Hamas' recent statements on the 67 borders (as of course we should) then we'll engage them and put their words to the test. That's if we're interested in peace. If we're not interested in peace then we'll do what you do, and search desperately for any weak excuse not to explore the opportunity.
You say:
"You also say that the Israelis illegally conquered the land. That, unless you are saying the UN is mistaken, is incorrect. Read UN 242.".
I have thank you, Neal. The third line of the resolution begins
"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9fb163c870bb1d6785256cef0073c89f/7d35e1f729df491c85256ee700686136!OpenDocument
So "inadmissibility" means "might be admissible" according to you?
You could try reading the UN Charter as well.
Hilarious that you ignore the primary source, base your argument on the secondary source of (your own representation of) peoples comments about the primary source, and then tell me that I ought to "read primary sources" instead of propaganda.
In fact, I suspect you know yourself that the meaning of 242 - and the Charter - is perfectly well understood and accepted by all, save for the most desperate and creative of Israel's apologists.
Now having already said that I would end this exchange I'm disappointed to have responded to you again. Your views appear to be not so much based on reason and facts as on your inability to read plain English (or your unwillingness to when it doesn't suit your position). That relieves me of any obligation to engage with you further. I'm sure I've not persuaded you of my views but, to be honest, I think I can live with that.
David,
I have now read the ICG account. It refers to a Hudna leading to a permanent settlement. It does not state clearly what the permanent settlement means to the Arab side. If, in fact, the Israelis withdraw to the Green line, that ought to be the end of the matter, if Hamas actually meant peace. So, I think your position and the ICG is not accurate and does not reflect the Hamas view. I think it ignores what the word Hudna means.
Again: Hudna is a religious term. It has a very particular meaning. And, no believing Muslim enters into a Hudna in order to reach a permanent settlement in which the other side remains in place. That, no matter how you spin it, is a fact.
So, why does Hamas use the word Hudna, if they mean to reach a permanent settlement? That is not explainable on the terms described by the ICG because they refuse to examine what words mean. Rather, they play loosy goosy with language, which is a dangerous thing to do. Again: in Arabic, the Hamas speaks of one thing in particular, namely, Israel's ultimate destruction. That, my friend, is why they use the term Hudna.
Now, as for your interpretation of UN 242. You have read the preamble. Try reading the rest of the document. It refers to the creation of secure and recognized boundaries and it calls for negotiations. If, pray tell, Israel had to withdraw to the green line, why not state so explicitly? And, why did the Soviet ambassador to the UN complain, before UN 242 was passed, that such did not require Israel to withdraw to the Green line? Surely, he knew the meaning of the language, just as the author of the resolution, Lord Caradon did, when he explains its purpose just before it was voted on.
But again: it is nice to rely on preambles. But, here is the actual resolution:
The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
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;
Affirms further the necessity
For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
Note that the resolution refers to two guiding principles, not just one. Note also that the resolution does not state that Israel must withdraw from all lands conquered. Note also that the resolution calls for negotiations. Presumably, the purpose of the negotiations was to reach terms on boundaries and recognition so that the Israelis could withdraw to secure and recognized boundaries.
So, in fact, what you state is simply not so, except in the world where the meaning of words is ignored.
Were the matter as you suggest, the resolution would have followed the Soviet proposal, a proposal which was voted down.
Again: Israel needed only to withdraw to secure and recognized boundaries, not in the abstract. And, since the resolution does not set the boundaries, such was to be part of the negotiations.
Note: Israel did negotiate with Jordan. Jordan did not insist that Israel withdraw to the Green line. So, on what basis can you say that Israel has an obligation to do what the affected state - i.e. Jordan, a country which, in fact, attacked the Israelis in 1967, as in the Jordanians shot first - did not demand in negotiations on the subject? I do not see where it says in UN 242 that Israel has to withdraw in the abstract. Rather, I see a bunch of guiding principles which Israel and Jordan followed.
This is not to suggest that Israel ought not cede land in order to reach a settlement with Palestinian Arabs. However, there is no document that requires Israel to withdraw to the Green - i.e. Armistice - line from the 1948 war, a line which the Arab side explicitly rejected, as soon as the Armistice was reached, as an International boundary.
CORRECTION.
If you carefully read the ICG account, they state that even they doubt the sincerity of what Hamas states. In fact, they wonder whether Hamas would even respect the democratic process.
Consider: Hamas has, in fact, staged a coup of sorts in Gaza. That contradicts what Hamas said they would do. And, while they won the election and Fatah played games, Hamas did not really have a majority of voters with them, only a strong plurality. So, it is rather difficult to take what you write seriously.
The fact is that the Hamas is a religious group which has made Israel's destruction a religious obligation. Most of the statements by its leaders have been that Israel must be destroyed, if not now, eventually.
On my side of the Atlantic, where the papers do not root as fans for the Palestinian Arab side, there is some realism about the aims of the Islamist groups. Such groups aim for restoration of societal privileges over non-Muslims and for eventual conquest, not peace.
And, by the wing of Islam is meant the traditional Islamic view of non-Muslims under Islamic rule, namely, as dhimmis. As an example of what that means, one should read this recent post on the BBC:
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7154134.stm
Note this at the end of the post:
I thought how this reflected the situation in Gaza in Christmas 2007 - that while the muezzin were on loudspeaker, the church bells here are played from a cassette tape.
A nervous young nun adjusted the volume - loud enough to peel through the church but not to penetrate its walls - it might risk offending Muslim Gazans passing by.
Lest you might do some historical research, you will note that Christians were traditionally not permitted to play bells in a manner that they might be heard outside of churches. Such did not change until the 19th Century when Europeans, by force of arms and political pressure, forced changes in this regard. Such changes, which also included permitting non-Muslims to give testimony in court against Muslims, were bitterly resented by the Muslim side. Those of that cast of mind happen also to be those who found their way, after the elimination of the Caliphate, into the early Islamist movement led by Mr. al Banna. The loss of these societal privileges were and remain very important, which is a major reason why there are demands that Christians back down from activity deemed to offend Muslims.
thanks for quoting 242, Neal. The text refutes everything you say about it, all by itself. No comment from me required (beyond congratulating you on your creativity).
how long do you intend to keep this up?
David,
Well, the authors of the resolution disagree with you. That includes the US, UK and USSR ambassadors. And, the language disagrees with you.
But, you are free to believe what you like. But, no rational person could hold the view you hold based on the language of the text. I might add even the Economist, which is not friendly to Israel, holds the view I hold on UN 242.
Neal is an infamous troll. Here's Gabriel Ash's healthful advice:
Trolls need a special low-content diet. Please, please, those of you who feed the trolls--you know who you are--don’t!
sk - thanks. However, I'm always wary of accusing people of trolling. Unless you're psychic, you can't be certain someone's acting in bad faith. Neal may very well believe what he says.
Neal's saying that a Hudna can only be for ten years when, in the very Hamas quotes we were discussing, a Hudna of up to 100 years was explicitly described, could very well be evidence of his arguing in bad faith, I'll grant you.
But it could also be evidence of him being functionally illiterate.
Or it could be evidence of his being so invested in his political position that he simply blocks out whatever facts don't suit him and ploughs on regardless - which, in a certain warped sense, would make his arguments honest, if not to himself.
Any of these would also describe his amusingly creative reading of UNSC242.
But I'm not psychic, so its impossible for me to say which of these explanations is the right one. Or if something else explains it.
But I would agree with you insofar as to say that any of these explanations relieve me of the obligation to engage with him, as I've said.
David,
I am no troll. This is a field in which I have considerable knowledge.
Turning to your version of UN 242, this is what the US Ambassador to the UN said at the time the resolution was being debated regarding the meaning of the resolution, as it relates to withdraw. Note his point that Israel did not have a recognized boundary. Hence, that was the issue to be worked out by those involved because without its resolution, there was no recognized boundary to which Israel could withdraw. Why? Because no boundary was recognized, most particularly, by the surrounding Arab states.
As he stated it (and this is from the UN's own records of 15 November 1967):
65. Now I cannot emphasize too strongly that those principles are interdependent. There is nothing artificial about this interdependence. We did not manufacture it. It is in the nature of the situation and of the history of this conflict. To seek withdrawal without secure and recognized boundaries, for example, would be just as fruitless as to seek secure and recognized boundaries without withdrawal. Historically there have never been secure or recognized boundaries in the area. Neither the armistice lines of 1949 nor the cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered that description, although the General Armistice Agreements explicitly recognize the necessity to proceed to permanent peace, which necessarily entails the recognition of boundaries between the parties. Now such boundaries have yet to be agreed upon. An agreement on that point is an absolute essential to a just and lasting peace just as withdrawal is. Secure boundaries cannot be determined by force; they cannot be determined by the unilateral action of any of the States; and they cannot be imposed from the outside. For history shows that imposed boundaries are not secure and that secure boundaries must be mutually worked out and recognized by, the parties themselves as part of the peace-making process.
Lord Caradon, of the UK, stated, the same day:
37. The Arab countries insist that we must direct our special attention to the recovery and restoration of their territories. The issue of withdrawal is to them of top priority. The Arabs want not charity but justice. They seek a just settlement to end the long and bitter suffering of the refugees. There is a recognition on all sides that a new, comprehensive, imaginative plan, as we have advocated, to deal with this desperately urgent problem is essential.
38. The Israelis tell us that withdrawal must never be to the old precarious truce. It must be to a permanent peace to secure boundaries, to a new era of freedom from the use or the threat or the fear of hostility and force.
39. Both are right. The aims of the two sides do not conflict. They converge. They supplement and they support each other. To imagine that one can be secured without the other is a delusion. They are of equal validity and equal necessity. The recent consultations which have been going forward so energetically and continuously strongly reinforce my conviction that we in this Council now have a supreme opportunity to serve the interests of all those concerned. Every day it is more clear what should be done. Every day it is more apparent that we are not dealing with conflicting interests but with complementary interests. Justice and peace are not in conflict; they are as inseparable as they are indispensable. One must go hand in hand with the other.
This is what the Syrian Ambassador stated on the floor of the UN, on the very day that UN 242 passed:
11. While there is a mention of the withdrawal of Israel forces, this reference is almost nullified by the absence of any time limit or any modus operandi for ensuring this withdrawal. No clearer proof could be given to illustrate the ambiguity of this withdrawal than its description by Israel-Zionist sources. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency's Daily News Bulletin of 20 November describes it in these words:
"Israelis are known to have indicated unofficially that Israel 'could live' with the British formula. The draft does not spell out Israel's withdrawal as to timing, nor does it say that the withdrawal is to be to the pre-June 5 armistice lines."
12. Moreover, this mention of withdrawal is made subject to a score of concessions to be imposed on the Arab countries, thus coupling it with conditions amounting to the liquidation of the whole Palestine question, a question which is basically and primarily the product of colonialism in the area. All of this is done purposely with a view to ignoring the will and rights of the Palestine Arab people. Even in the very mandate entrusted to the special representative-to-be, the call for withdrawal of the Israel occupying forces is not provided for. He is merely asked to: "proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution" [S/8247].
So, even the Syrian ambassador disagrees with you.
As for your comment about a Hudna, historically, a hudna could only be for 10 years. But, it can be renewed indefinitely until such time as the Muslim side believes it is advantageous to end it.
Must I cite Muslim scholars from the classical period to show you that I am correct?
I'm sorry to say this, Neal, but you're plainly out of your depth. Your misreading of this is woeful, and your repeated citing - with much triumphant fanfare - of sources that in no way support your argument make me almost embarrased for you.
1. no commentary or interpretation of 242 defines what 242 means. 242 defines what 242 means. 242 states explicitly that aquiring territory by force of arms is inadmissable. In doing so, it simply reminds us ("emphasises") what international law says, i.e. that armed conquest is forbidden. The statements of ambassadors do not define international law, do they Neal? What a crashingly stupid argument to make.
2. the question of recognition has nothing to do with overruling international law and making Israel's conquest of territory admissible, quite obviously. The point is that after the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" (quoting 242) the Arab states should recognise Israel on those boundaries.
As for your pitiable wriggling on the point of the Hudna, what can one say?
So I ask again, how long do you intend to keep this up?
Neal - I've now responded to you twice more when I'd said that I wouldn't. I'm disappointed with myself to have done so. I've wasted quite enough time debating non-points with you. There will be nothing more from me on this. Feel free to write whatever you please from this point on. The fact that every point you make collapses upon the slightest examination has already been amply demonstrated, so no further responses from me are required
David,
Well, I have had enough. Consider, though, that you cite to the preamble of UN 242, not to its substance, which are the the two principles, i.e. withdraw and the creation of secure and recognized boundaries. The two, as stated by their authors - i.e. the people who wrote the resolution in order to get other countries to vote for the resolution and in order to explain its seemingly ambiguous terms, stated what they had in mind.
You, however, are free to read only the preamble, as if it were the entire resolution. But, consider: the words I cite to exist. So does the explanation - made on the floor of the UN - give life to what was meant.
And, as I said, the Syrian Ambassador agreed with the US interpretation, which is why he spoke of it so bitterly.
Your view assumes a normal situation, where a country has a recognized boundary. The situation was one where, before the Six Day War, the Arab states were in a state of war with Israel and did not recognize it on any land. Hence, the UN Security Council determined that the issue of determining boundaries for the state had to be completed so that Israel would have secure and recognized boundaries to return to. You are free to believe whatever you want. But frankly, even those who want Israel to withdraw without recognized and secure boundaries realize that the preamble to the resolution has no legal significance. It is, rather, pablum.
Post a Comment
<< Home