Yesterday, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, speaking at a J Street conference in Washington, said of the West Bank:
"An occupation that has lasted for 50 years must end."
But what didn't Obama's hatchetman say?
- Did he mention historic Jewish ties to the land compromising the West Bank? Not a chance.
- Did he mention that the West Bank was occupied by Israel after Jordan attacked Israel during the 1967 Six Day? Not a chance.
- Did he mention that Palestinian suicide bombers crossed from the West Bank into Israel a decade ago and killed hundreds of Israeli civilians? Not a chance.
- Did he mention the danger of Iranian-made missiles being fired from the West Bank at Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Netanya and Haifa? Not a chance.
Me? I favor a two-state solution, i.e. the creation of an independent Palestinian state that will live in peace and prosperity alongside Israel. But for there to be such a Palestinian state, both Fatah and Hamas must recognize Israel's right to exist. Hamas must repeal its charter, which rejects a negotiated settlement with Israel and calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis. Fatah, among other things, must make certain that the minds of Palestinian children attending West Bank schools are not poisoned by textbooks expressing incitement against Israel and the foulest forms of anti-Semitism. And without a doubt, the West Bank must be demilitarized.
McDonough? A pity he is not demanding that Iranian calls for the annihilation of Israel must end before any nuclear arrangement with Khamenei is signed. Meanwhile, the Iranian press is gleefully reporting his J Street commentary.
Back in October 2000, Ze'ev Schiff, an Israeli journalist for the left-leaning Israeli newspaper Haaretz, said of Arafat in an article entitled "Some Lessons from the Riots," written after the onset of the Second Intifada:
"He has brought us back to recognize our strategic reality: Israel is still a nation at was, and it needs to behave like one when it weighs its options and considers the limits of its concessions."
Sadly, this reality has not changed.
While I have occasionally heard American officials refer to an Israeli 'occupation,' this is the first time I have ever heard an American official refer to an 'occupation' starting before 1967 (2015 - 50 = 1965).
ReplyDeleteIs the Obama administration now asserting - as Fatah and Hamas do - that Israel's very creation constitutes an 'occupation' of Arab land?
If yes, that's not likely to bring about a whole lot of trust for the Obama administration. And that's the least of the problems.
As to 'pro-Israel' J Street, no one should be surprised to see them applauding that assertion.
So many frozen conflicts and/or territorial disputes to choose from, not including any claims from Mexico against the USA, or Finland's claim to end the Russian occupation of Karelia:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes
Any chance the Jewish State of Israel can petition to be annexed as an autonomous province of India?
Then this WH would go ballistic scrambling to conflate Kashmir and the Durand Line with the "Zionist Occupation"
all because Likud won an election. so very embarrassing for America to have such putzes on an open microphone...
k
Let's all make a pact to banish the term "Palestine" and "Palestinian" from our language. It obfuscates, creating the illusion that, as Anonymous said above, the creation of Israel constitutes the occupation of arab land. Likewise, we must begin to call the areas Judea and Sumeria instead of "West Bank." When will we stop legitimizing their narrative?
ReplyDelete