The New Islamist War
The root cause of the Second Lebanon War was neither the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 nor the Israeli "occupation" of the disputed territories of the West Bank and Gaza following Israel's defensive war in 1967. Rather, it can be traced to 1979 when Iranian revolutionaries began to inspire and later to actively direct and finance Islamic radicals through out the world. They galvanized the leaders of Hizbullah and Hamas, and inspired other Jihadis, including PLO leader Yasser Arafat, who was one of the first Arab leaders to visit the newly triumphant Ayatollah Khomeini soon after the 1979 Iranian takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
Today, despite the deployment of thousands of UNIFIL and Lebanese forces following Hizbullah's reluctant agreement to yield to UN Security Council Resolution 1701, southern Lebanon is still essentially a Hizbullah-ruled province of Iran. Hizbullah has maintained its weapons caches and continues to receive truckloads of short- and long-range missiles and anti-tank weaponry from Syria. IDF Intelligence Assessment Chief Brig. Gen. Yossi Baidatz noted in October 2006 that the army also has proof that the smuggling of weapons from Syria to Lebanon continues with the knowledge of Damascus. Hizbullah's underground networks of tunnels and bunkers are still operating despite the presence of UNIFIL and Lebanese armed forces south of the Litani River. Hizbullah is not hiding its postwar intentions. On October 12, 2006, Nabi Beri, Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament, leader of the Shiite Amal party, and a Hizbullah interlocutor,said, "Hizbullah will remain armed and fully operational in southern Lebanon, despite the newly deployed UN forces. The UNIFIL presence will not hinder Hizbullah defensive operations. The resistance doesn't need to fly its flags high to operate. It's a guerrilla movement; it operates among the people.
For its part, Iran invested some one to two hundred million dollars per year in Hizbullah war preparations for a total of between one and two billion dollars as of July 2006. Iran also maintains a representative office in Lebanon for nearly every one of its major government ministries including intelligence, social welfare, housing, transportation, and infrastructure.
Iran's financial and operational assistance and training of Hizbullah terrorists peaked in recent years. That was evident during the summer 2006 war against Israel. Hizbullah was very well equipped with a wide variety of short, medium and long-range Syrian and Iranian rockets, and highly sophisticated weaponry including a generous supply of anti-tank ordinance. Up to 250 of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' (IRGC) best trainers were on the ground in Lebanon assisting Hizbullah units. According to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), the Iranian C802 radar-guided missile that hit an Israeli warship during the firstweekofthewarwas launched from Lebanon by members of the IRGC. Iran has also trained up to 3,000 Hizbullah fightersinTehransince2004,including nearly all mid- and senior-level Hizbullah officers.
Further south, Iran also offers financial and operational support to the Hamas-led government in Palestinian-controlled Gaza. Palestinian terrorists have received Iranian weapons, technological know-how, and money, as evidenced by the $50-100 million commitment Iran made at the end of a terror summit in Tehran on April 14-17, 2006.
Moreover, between August and October 2006, nearly twenty tons of weaponry including anti-tank and anti-aircraft rockets was smuggled from Egyptian Sinai, under the noses of the Egyptian authorities, into the Gaza Strip. Numerous reported meetings between Hamas political bureau leader Khaled Mashaal and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, both during and in advance of the recent Lebanon war and immediately following the January 2006 Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections, were previews of this dangerous alliance.
Concerns over the relationship between Iran and Hamas are well-founded. On December 11, 2006, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah, known as more moderate than Mashaal, said following a visit with President Ahmadinejad in Tehran that Iran had stepped up its commitment to the Hamas-led PA, pledging $250 million. Iran even committed to pay the salaries of 100,000 Palestinian Authority employees for six months. The Haniyah-Ahmadinejad meeting carries additional significance. Previously, Hamas' relationship with Iran had been brokered exclusively by the Damascus-based Mashaal. Israeli military intelligence expressed concern that the Haniyah-Ahmadinejad meeting reflected an upgraded strategic relationship between Iran and Hamas. Haniyah confirmed Israel's assessment when he said, immediately following his return from Tehran in December 2006, that "Iran has provided Palestinians strategic depth." Upon Haniyah's return, he was found to be carrying $35 million in cash in several suitcases.
Despite the longstanding and violent sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shiites that is being played out today in Iraq, Iranian-led radical Shiites and their Sunni adversaries share a common commitment to destroying the State of Israel on the way to defeating the West as a whole.
Syria, Iran's junior partner, continues to host Hamas and other Jihadi leaders, allowing them to order terrorist attacks against Israeli targets from the safety of Damascus. Syria may not be an Islamist state, but its leader, Bashar Assad, clings to power through the manipulation of anti-Western sentiment and pro-Iranian Shiite loyalty. The ruling Alawites were given the blessing of Iranian Shiite cleric Musa Sadr in 1973, a move that fomented enmity among Syria's Sunni majority and placed the Syrian regime squarely inside the Iranian Shiite camp.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Monday, May 07, 2007
Moshe Yaalon- Former IDF Chief of Staff
We are beginning a 7-part series by Moshe Yaalon, former IDF Chief of Staff. Having had a personal conversation with General Yaalon, he granted us permission to offer this series on our blog. We thank him and the Jerusalem Center for Public affairs for allowing us to re-post this crucial message.
The Second Lebanon War: From Territory to Ideology
By Moshe Yaalon
2007
Part One
Introduction
If there remains doubt over the underlying reasons for the ongoing violence in the Middle East, the Second Lebanon War is one of the clearest illustrations in many years that "the Middle East conflict" does not stem from Israel's "occupation of Arab or Palestinian lands." This longstanding "root cause" argument has been popular in many international circles and even among some quarters in Israel. The strategic assumption has been that, since 1967, the Middle East's myriad problems can be traced to Israel's "occupation" of lands from which the Jewish state was attacked: the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and southern Lebanon.
But the summer 2006 wars – that included 4,228 Iranian- and Syrian-sponsored rocket assaults against Israel's home front and the kidnapping of one IDF soldier by Hamas and two IDF soldiers by Hizbullah – is perhaps the most recent evidence that this argument continues to be fundamentally flawed. The two-front war opened against Israel in 2006 – firstbyHamasfromGazaonJune26, 2006, and then by Hizbullah across Israel's northern border on July 12, 2006 – was launched from lands that are not under Israeli occupation. Israel had withdrawn unilaterally in both cases, from Gaza in September 2005 and previously from southern Lebanon in May 2000. Furthermore, the assessment that Hizbullah's assaults stemmed from unresolved border disputes over the Shaba Farms is unfounded. Lebanon's Hizbullah as well as Syrian claimants deny Israel's existence as a Jewish sovereign state within any borders.
In fact, the summer 2006 assaults against Israel are not remarkable in their lacking any clear territorial pretext. Since the 1920s there has been an unrelenting Arab Muslim rejection of any Jewish sovereign entity in the Middle East region, despite the international popularity of the notion in recent years that ending Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza and solving Palestinian refugee and border conflicts would spawn regional peace and stability. Quite remarkably, on September 19, 2006, only a month after the UN-brokered cease-fire ended Iran's two-front proxy assault against Israel via radical Islamic groups (Hamas and Hizbullah), UN Secretary General Kofi Annan told the General Assembly at the opening of its 61st session: "As long as the Security Council is unable to resolve the nearly 40-year (Israeli) occupation and confiscation of Arab land, so long will the UN's effort store solve other conflicts be resisted including those in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Notwithstanding Annan's fundamental misassessment, there are clearly different "root causes" that have been and currently are the main obstacles to Middle East peace and stability – namely, a regional Jihad led by Iran, enabled by Syria and the radical Islamists that both states sponsor. In fact, according to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khomeini and Iran's Syrian partners, the Second Lebanon War launched by Iran's Hizbullah proxy was a hostile probe of U.S. reflexes via the engagement of Israel, which for Iran and Syria is a direct extension of Washington's power and influence in the Middle East. To be sure, the Second Lebanon War was not launched against Israel for any specific national grievance.
In fact, Iran's goals in the Lebanon theatre go well beyond destroying Israel. Iran and Syria have for years used Hizbullah as a terrorist arm of their respective foreign policies against Western regional interests. Hizbullah's 1983 suicide attack that killed 241 U.S. Marines near Beirut is one example. Its 1985 hijacking in Beirut of TWA Flight 847 and murder of a U.S. Navy diver is another. The 1996 attack by Hizbullah's Saudi branch, Hizbullah al-Hejaz, on behalf of the Iranians that killed 19 U.S. Army personnel at Saudi Arabia's Khobar Towers is yet another case.
The Iran-Syrian-Hizbullah axis then is a partnership whose fundamental objective is to project Iranian power and influence across there going from Tehran, through Baghdad, via Damascus into Lebanon in order to achieve regional hegemony. Iran's offensive on two fronts, against both U.S. and Iraqi government forces in Iraq as well as against Israel, a key U.S. ally, reflects Tehran's strategic interest in neutering America's regional influence as a prelude to defeating the West. Syria, Iran's Arab ally and regional facilitator, has hitched its future to Ahmadinejad's strategy of becoming the region's hegemonic power under the protection of a nuclear umbrella as it marches toward a possible nuclear confrontation with the U.S. and the West.
The more the United States and it allies hesitate to confront Iran's current regional threat under a possible nuclear umbrella, the more emboldened Jihadi confidence becomes. The December 6, 2006, Iraq Study Group (Baker-Hamilton) Report proposal recommending a "softer" diplomatic approach via a U.S.-led diplomatic engagement of Iran and Syria, and Israel's reengagement of the Assad regime and the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, may paradoxically accelerate the process to military confrontation with Iran. Rather, full diplomatic and economic isolation, and, if necessary, military defeat of Iran and Syria, would pave a more secure road for the Middle East and the international state system.
The Second Lebanon War: From Territory to Ideology
By Moshe Yaalon
2007
Part One
Introduction
If there remains doubt over the underlying reasons for the ongoing violence in the Middle East, the Second Lebanon War is one of the clearest illustrations in many years that "the Middle East conflict" does not stem from Israel's "occupation of Arab or Palestinian lands." This longstanding "root cause" argument has been popular in many international circles and even among some quarters in Israel. The strategic assumption has been that, since 1967, the Middle East's myriad problems can be traced to Israel's "occupation" of lands from which the Jewish state was attacked: the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and southern Lebanon.
But the summer 2006 wars – that included 4,228 Iranian- and Syrian-sponsored rocket assaults against Israel's home front and the kidnapping of one IDF soldier by Hamas and two IDF soldiers by Hizbullah – is perhaps the most recent evidence that this argument continues to be fundamentally flawed. The two-front war opened against Israel in 2006 – firstbyHamasfromGazaonJune26, 2006, and then by Hizbullah across Israel's northern border on July 12, 2006 – was launched from lands that are not under Israeli occupation. Israel had withdrawn unilaterally in both cases, from Gaza in September 2005 and previously from southern Lebanon in May 2000. Furthermore, the assessment that Hizbullah's assaults stemmed from unresolved border disputes over the Shaba Farms is unfounded. Lebanon's Hizbullah as well as Syrian claimants deny Israel's existence as a Jewish sovereign state within any borders.
In fact, the summer 2006 assaults against Israel are not remarkable in their lacking any clear territorial pretext. Since the 1920s there has been an unrelenting Arab Muslim rejection of any Jewish sovereign entity in the Middle East region, despite the international popularity of the notion in recent years that ending Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza and solving Palestinian refugee and border conflicts would spawn regional peace and stability. Quite remarkably, on September 19, 2006, only a month after the UN-brokered cease-fire ended Iran's two-front proxy assault against Israel via radical Islamic groups (Hamas and Hizbullah), UN Secretary General Kofi Annan told the General Assembly at the opening of its 61st session: "As long as the Security Council is unable to resolve the nearly 40-year (Israeli) occupation and confiscation of Arab land, so long will the UN's effort store solve other conflicts be resisted including those in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Notwithstanding Annan's fundamental misassessment, there are clearly different "root causes" that have been and currently are the main obstacles to Middle East peace and stability – namely, a regional Jihad led by Iran, enabled by Syria and the radical Islamists that both states sponsor. In fact, according to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khomeini and Iran's Syrian partners, the Second Lebanon War launched by Iran's Hizbullah proxy was a hostile probe of U.S. reflexes via the engagement of Israel, which for Iran and Syria is a direct extension of Washington's power and influence in the Middle East. To be sure, the Second Lebanon War was not launched against Israel for any specific national grievance.
In fact, Iran's goals in the Lebanon theatre go well beyond destroying Israel. Iran and Syria have for years used Hizbullah as a terrorist arm of their respective foreign policies against Western regional interests. Hizbullah's 1983 suicide attack that killed 241 U.S. Marines near Beirut is one example. Its 1985 hijacking in Beirut of TWA Flight 847 and murder of a U.S. Navy diver is another. The 1996 attack by Hizbullah's Saudi branch, Hizbullah al-Hejaz, on behalf of the Iranians that killed 19 U.S. Army personnel at Saudi Arabia's Khobar Towers is yet another case.
The Iran-Syrian-Hizbullah axis then is a partnership whose fundamental objective is to project Iranian power and influence across there going from Tehran, through Baghdad, via Damascus into Lebanon in order to achieve regional hegemony. Iran's offensive on two fronts, against both U.S. and Iraqi government forces in Iraq as well as against Israel, a key U.S. ally, reflects Tehran's strategic interest in neutering America's regional influence as a prelude to defeating the West. Syria, Iran's Arab ally and regional facilitator, has hitched its future to Ahmadinejad's strategy of becoming the region's hegemonic power under the protection of a nuclear umbrella as it marches toward a possible nuclear confrontation with the U.S. and the West.
The more the United States and it allies hesitate to confront Iran's current regional threat under a possible nuclear umbrella, the more emboldened Jihadi confidence becomes. The December 6, 2006, Iraq Study Group (Baker-Hamilton) Report proposal recommending a "softer" diplomatic approach via a U.S.-led diplomatic engagement of Iran and Syria, and Israel's reengagement of the Assad regime and the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, may paradoxically accelerate the process to military confrontation with Iran. Rather, full diplomatic and economic isolation, and, if necessary, military defeat of Iran and Syria, would pave a more secure road for the Middle East and the international state system.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Transforming the Narrative
by
Alexander Arndt
In Communist East Germany, anti-Zionist indoctrination was part of our curriculum. A classmate of mine in elementary school was almost kicked out of school for drawing a Star of David - whatever his intentions were; it was considered an "imperialist symbol". During the first Intifada we had to make posters about Israeli human rights violations. The Berlin Wall became history in
1989 but my belief that Israel was a cruel dictatorship lingered on until my parents took me there in 1992. Needless to say, I was reluctant to go. But my perception of the Jewish state changed drastically from then on - for the better.
Times change and we change with them. Today, Germany is presiding over the EU Council while the world in general and Israel in particular are severely challenged by global Jihad and Iran's nuclear ambitions. The Bertelsmann Foundation, a well-respected German organization associated with one of the worlds largest media companies, has just released a new study on the German-Jewish relationship seventeen years after the reunification.
Prior to 1990, both Israel and West Germany had worked on forming a special relationship, something that was all but self-evident after the Shoah. When the Cold War order disintegrated not altogether smoothly, right-wing extremism soared in Germany with Jewish cemeteries desecrated and xenophobic riots lasting for days on end. Our politicians were quick to assert that we had learned a lesson from our past: "Never again war."
During this turbulent transition Israelis had a reason to be concerned. When asked in 1991, almost 80% of them saw the reunited Germany threatened by right wing extremism. True, more than a third of the Germans agreed that "the Jews had too much influence in the world" and almost a half believed that the Jews were responsible for being hated. These embarrassing numbers were not exactly a cause to celebrate when "the end of history" (Fukuyama) was announced.
But history has moved on. Germany has proven to be a strong democracy and is, as president of the EU Council, committed to furthering its special relationship with Israel.
Many Germans, including myself, had hoped for the success of the Oslo peace process. For some, including myself, its failure has been a wake up call. Still, many things can be said about Europeans living in denial about threats against Israel's security.
Some of the findings of the new Bertelsmann study provide reasons for concern. While Israelis see the new democratic Germany in a far better light than before, wouldn't it be great if the Germans would have left any sort of anti-Semitism - open, secondary, or anti-Zionist - behind them?
Alas, if anti-Semitism is waning, it is doing so very slowly. Still, one of three Germans believes in a disproportionately high Jewish influence in the world and only 58% can bring themselves to "absolutely disagree" with the appalling notion that the Jews are responsible for being hated.
Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. Consider this: only one of four strongly disagrees that Israel is waging a "war of extermination" against the Palestinian people, and even less reject the idea that Israeli treatment of Palestinians equals Nazi treatment of Jews. In light of this, it doesn't come as a surprise that some German bishops on a recent visit immediately compared Ramallah to the Warsaw Ghetto. This gross inversion of Holocaust memory reveals that many Germans tend to transfer guilt on the grounds that the moral lesson of the Shoah is "Never again war."
I was born in a society where young people were indoctrinated to dislike Israel. For the root cause of Nazi crimes was imperialism - a narrative that helped to deflect German guilt to the Western camp, Israel included. Similarly, Jewish victim hood was minimized. These views had some significant influence on West Germany's public discourse since the 1967 Six-Day-War and the rise of the student left in 1968.
Today, aforementioned "moral lesson" and full acknowledgment of the Holocaust are integral parts of the German self-image. But the Israeli lesson is the refusal to ever become victims again. Thus, what seems imperative is to help the German public to understand the existential threats Israel is facing. Whoever wants to prevent war must also secure peace.
The Bertelsmann study reveals that there is room for change of perception. German sympathies for the Israeli situation have increased significantly. Sure, only half of the Germans support the deployment of German troops to Lebanon, but one should not forget that the public debate in Germany centered around the fear of having to shoot at Jewish soldiers. Already almost two thirds of Germans realize that the Iranian nuclear program poses a severe threat to Israel, although dislike for military action is widespread.
I don't want to underestimate the disturbing findings on the prevalence of anti-Semitism in Germany. This has to be taken seriously and confronted appropriately. But I believe in the chance to transform the German narrative. If Germany is taking its moral lessons seriously, it has to move beyond the "never again war" with a vested interest in peace and security for Israel guided by its special relationship.
Alexander Arndt is a PhD-candidate at the University of Potsdam, Germany, and research associate for Knowing Israel, a study-tour program for European journalists.
by
Alexander Arndt
In Communist East Germany, anti-Zionist indoctrination was part of our curriculum. A classmate of mine in elementary school was almost kicked out of school for drawing a Star of David - whatever his intentions were; it was considered an "imperialist symbol". During the first Intifada we had to make posters about Israeli human rights violations. The Berlin Wall became history in
1989 but my belief that Israel was a cruel dictatorship lingered on until my parents took me there in 1992. Needless to say, I was reluctant to go. But my perception of the Jewish state changed drastically from then on - for the better.
Times change and we change with them. Today, Germany is presiding over the EU Council while the world in general and Israel in particular are severely challenged by global Jihad and Iran's nuclear ambitions. The Bertelsmann Foundation, a well-respected German organization associated with one of the worlds largest media companies, has just released a new study on the German-Jewish relationship seventeen years after the reunification.
Prior to 1990, both Israel and West Germany had worked on forming a special relationship, something that was all but self-evident after the Shoah. When the Cold War order disintegrated not altogether smoothly, right-wing extremism soared in Germany with Jewish cemeteries desecrated and xenophobic riots lasting for days on end. Our politicians were quick to assert that we had learned a lesson from our past: "Never again war."
During this turbulent transition Israelis had a reason to be concerned. When asked in 1991, almost 80% of them saw the reunited Germany threatened by right wing extremism. True, more than a third of the Germans agreed that "the Jews had too much influence in the world" and almost a half believed that the Jews were responsible for being hated. These embarrassing numbers were not exactly a cause to celebrate when "the end of history" (Fukuyama) was announced.
But history has moved on. Germany has proven to be a strong democracy and is, as president of the EU Council, committed to furthering its special relationship with Israel.
Many Germans, including myself, had hoped for the success of the Oslo peace process. For some, including myself, its failure has been a wake up call. Still, many things can be said about Europeans living in denial about threats against Israel's security.
Some of the findings of the new Bertelsmann study provide reasons for concern. While Israelis see the new democratic Germany in a far better light than before, wouldn't it be great if the Germans would have left any sort of anti-Semitism - open, secondary, or anti-Zionist - behind them?
Alas, if anti-Semitism is waning, it is doing so very slowly. Still, one of three Germans believes in a disproportionately high Jewish influence in the world and only 58% can bring themselves to "absolutely disagree" with the appalling notion that the Jews are responsible for being hated.
Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. Consider this: only one of four strongly disagrees that Israel is waging a "war of extermination" against the Palestinian people, and even less reject the idea that Israeli treatment of Palestinians equals Nazi treatment of Jews. In light of this, it doesn't come as a surprise that some German bishops on a recent visit immediately compared Ramallah to the Warsaw Ghetto. This gross inversion of Holocaust memory reveals that many Germans tend to transfer guilt on the grounds that the moral lesson of the Shoah is "Never again war."
I was born in a society where young people were indoctrinated to dislike Israel. For the root cause of Nazi crimes was imperialism - a narrative that helped to deflect German guilt to the Western camp, Israel included. Similarly, Jewish victim hood was minimized. These views had some significant influence on West Germany's public discourse since the 1967 Six-Day-War and the rise of the student left in 1968.
Today, aforementioned "moral lesson" and full acknowledgment of the Holocaust are integral parts of the German self-image. But the Israeli lesson is the refusal to ever become victims again. Thus, what seems imperative is to help the German public to understand the existential threats Israel is facing. Whoever wants to prevent war must also secure peace.
The Bertelsmann study reveals that there is room for change of perception. German sympathies for the Israeli situation have increased significantly. Sure, only half of the Germans support the deployment of German troops to Lebanon, but one should not forget that the public debate in Germany centered around the fear of having to shoot at Jewish soldiers. Already almost two thirds of Germans realize that the Iranian nuclear program poses a severe threat to Israel, although dislike for military action is widespread.
I don't want to underestimate the disturbing findings on the prevalence of anti-Semitism in Germany. This has to be taken seriously and confronted appropriately. But I believe in the chance to transform the German narrative. If Germany is taking its moral lessons seriously, it has to move beyond the "never again war" with a vested interest in peace and security for Israel guided by its special relationship.
Alexander Arndt is a PhD-candidate at the University of Potsdam, Germany, and research associate for Knowing Israel, a study-tour program for European journalists.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Political Correctness is Killing Us-Part Two
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
April 22, 2007
It is as though we believe that political correctness (PC) has always been present; at least one generation of Americans has now “grown up” in a culture awash with PC language and behavior becoming acculturated with the belief that one must never speak or act in a manner that offends another human being. A minimal search on the Internet yields over 1.3 million story possibilities on the topic of PC examples-trust me; we live in a PC world. There are multiple groups who monitor language for purposes of identifying such language. For example, Language Monitor produces annual word and phrase lists for our edification.
The lists transcend politics, religion, education, business and daily conversation. This is not only specific to the USA the following are other examples:
· New Zealand- Parliament erected a fake Christmas tree with no lights to avoid any fire risk, and took off the angel to avoid offending non-Christians.
· Australia- “I grieve for the rise of the new political correctness—the hypocritical demand of the conservative establishment in this country for civility in political debate.”
· Great Britain- the (British) Daily Mail, reports on “Samaritan’s Purse” a Christian charity bringing Christmas cheer to needy children abroad, that this year has banned “Jesus, God and anything else connected with its own faith” in case Muslims are offended.
· USA- The Democrats represent full-throttle political correctness while Republicans stand ready to advance political correctness just a little bit more slowly.
Finally, I imagine you have all been privy to some or all of these:
midget = vertically challenged gay = different
fired = laid off tall = person of height
homeless = residentially flexible Indian = Native American
poor = financially inept perverted = sexually dysfunctional
blind = visually challenged body odor = non-discretionary fragrance
Enough you say and I gladly join in your refrain. However, I cannot resist sharing one final example. What perhaps began with the best of intentions has now become more often than not somewhat laughable. Just some days ago in Poole Hospital in Dorset, England the staff was 'banned' from serving hot cross buns on Good Friday to avoid offending non-Christians (code for Muslims). Curiously, the hospital management, after some pressure from patients and workers did serve the hot cross buns on Easter Sunday. Of course, the tradition for centuries was to have them served on Good Friday. Ridiculous extremism or neurotic actions taken by a few who at best can be called appeasers?
Language is important as it is used to express ideas, thoughts and feelings. What is said and how it is expressed is important. Implicit and complicit with the concept of political correctness is a belief that one’s language can make someone else or others think, feel and act in a particular manner. I refer to this as the “makes-me-believe structure”, the essence of which is that a person’s words are responsible for making another person act, think, and/or feel fine, sad, happy, excited, in control, out of control, troubled, secure, and so many additional other thoughts, feelings and actions. This can be a powerful social and political device when employed in a diligent manner. It says that you are not responsible. As a matter of fact, it tells you that someone or something else is in control. This can lead you to believe that you are not responsible for your reactions to the people, events, and other things in your life. Therefore it is disabling to you. We see the results of a “makes-me-believe structure” every day and everywhere. Daily we hear the following:
· You make me so angry, I am going to …
· Driving on the freeway makes me so nervous, I sometimes …
· If I had a BMW, I would be accepted by …
· Must be the club that sliced the ball out of bounds
· Using the incorrect words or phrases will offend someone and hurt their feelings …
This structure works in two directions: if you accept that you can make someone …than you speak and act in a like manner toward that someone. Reverse the direction; you actually believe that someone or something outside of you can make you feel, act and think a certain way. Has it ever happened that you get a flat tire, get out of the car, kick the flat or use some four-letter words to describe your feelings and then blame the tire for causing you to feel angry? The power and control lies outside of yourself and you have entered the world of irresponsible actions, feelings and thoughts.
Here is the danger of such a belief structure: you give the power of control and responsibility to someone or something else. You act consistently in this manner and accept what others say as the truth. Political correctness has become so dominant in our culture due to this makes-me-believe structure. Here is an example: Individuals actually believe that they are responsible for another person’s feelings, thus you cannot say anything that may offend someone. Allow me to suggest that you are not responsible for anyone’s feelings. An individual’s feelings belong to each person and each of us can either own the feelings or blame them on others. Imagine the power one has if you subscribe to the latter point of view! Contrary to popular belief and myth is that a person can control one’s feelings-it is not possible. Go ahead, test this out-right now feel euphoric-do so for 30 seconds-now stop and feel profound sadness. The truth is that we all have feelings-own them and learn to deal with them in a responsible way.
The entire structure of political correctness operates upon a faulty belief system and yet it has become the dominant social and political tool used by groups today.
When someone says something to you, you have a choice as to how you will perceive it, think about it, and respond to it. The PC crowd has taught you to perceive/think/respond in a particular manner and the rest of us have allowed this to occur. I say–no more! The most common refrain I hear and read from Islamists should anyone dare to ask critical questions is that “we are offended/your words are offensive to Islam/you have insulted Islam” are among but a few thrown in our direction. There is a PC expectation that follows the “I am offended” statement. First an apology must be forthcoming, penance must be demonstrated, and finally repentance must be enjoined. Others and I are not responsible for offending Islamists; we are, however, responsible for what we say. Given my intention is to ask critical questions then how these are perceived and the resultant choice by the listener as to how he/she will hear the question the responsibility lies with the listener. The assumption is that the listener is willing to be held accountable for his/her own thoughts, feelings and actions.
Of course the PC groups do not want us to wake up and see through their faulty thinking and/or arrogant behavior. They count upon us to stand down when the “O” word is thrown at us. The result has been a most interesting and dangerous political and social engineering within the western countries. People have become afraid to state their personal values, stand up for these values and take the necessary actions to ensure that our culture we so love remains intact. The final Part Three of what has amounted to a short treatise will present additional strategies to counter the dangers of political correctness. A case study will be used to demonstrate additional strategies that can be used to combat the dangers of PC.
End Notes
1. The Top Politically InCorrect Words for 2006: http://www.languagemonitor.com/wst_page20.html
2. No Offence: Political Correctness in New Zealand
3. New Correctness August 26, 2002 http://www.australianpolitics.com/news/2002/08/02-08-26.shtml
4. POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD”, Nov 22,2006
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000801.html
5. The gods of Political Correctness, Thursday, March 15, 2007
http://thisisrich.blogspot.com/2007/03/gods-of-political-correctness.html
6. Political correctness urban style
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=political+correctness
7. JAMES MILLS, “Hospital that 'banned' hot cross buns to avoid offending non-Christians”, April 10, 2007, Daily Mail.
Special acknowledgment and thank you to my editor Chana Givon
Online: http://writingtw.blogspot.com/ & http://docstalk.blogspot.com/
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
April 22, 2007
It is as though we believe that political correctness (PC) has always been present; at least one generation of Americans has now “grown up” in a culture awash with PC language and behavior becoming acculturated with the belief that one must never speak or act in a manner that offends another human being. A minimal search on the Internet yields over 1.3 million story possibilities on the topic of PC examples-trust me; we live in a PC world. There are multiple groups who monitor language for purposes of identifying such language. For example, Language Monitor produces annual word and phrase lists for our edification.
The lists transcend politics, religion, education, business and daily conversation. This is not only specific to the USA the following are other examples:
· New Zealand- Parliament erected a fake Christmas tree with no lights to avoid any fire risk, and took off the angel to avoid offending non-Christians.
· Australia- “I grieve for the rise of the new political correctness—the hypocritical demand of the conservative establishment in this country for civility in political debate.”
· Great Britain- the (British) Daily Mail, reports on “Samaritan’s Purse” a Christian charity bringing Christmas cheer to needy children abroad, that this year has banned “Jesus, God and anything else connected with its own faith” in case Muslims are offended.
· USA- The Democrats represent full-throttle political correctness while Republicans stand ready to advance political correctness just a little bit more slowly.
Finally, I imagine you have all been privy to some or all of these:
midget = vertically challenged gay = different
fired = laid off tall = person of height
homeless = residentially flexible Indian = Native American
poor = financially inept perverted = sexually dysfunctional
blind = visually challenged body odor = non-discretionary fragrance
Enough you say and I gladly join in your refrain. However, I cannot resist sharing one final example. What perhaps began with the best of intentions has now become more often than not somewhat laughable. Just some days ago in Poole Hospital in Dorset, England the staff was 'banned' from serving hot cross buns on Good Friday to avoid offending non-Christians (code for Muslims). Curiously, the hospital management, after some pressure from patients and workers did serve the hot cross buns on Easter Sunday. Of course, the tradition for centuries was to have them served on Good Friday. Ridiculous extremism or neurotic actions taken by a few who at best can be called appeasers?
Language is important as it is used to express ideas, thoughts and feelings. What is said and how it is expressed is important. Implicit and complicit with the concept of political correctness is a belief that one’s language can make someone else or others think, feel and act in a particular manner. I refer to this as the “makes-me-believe structure”, the essence of which is that a person’s words are responsible for making another person act, think, and/or feel fine, sad, happy, excited, in control, out of control, troubled, secure, and so many additional other thoughts, feelings and actions. This can be a powerful social and political device when employed in a diligent manner. It says that you are not responsible. As a matter of fact, it tells you that someone or something else is in control. This can lead you to believe that you are not responsible for your reactions to the people, events, and other things in your life. Therefore it is disabling to you. We see the results of a “makes-me-believe structure” every day and everywhere. Daily we hear the following:
· You make me so angry, I am going to …
· Driving on the freeway makes me so nervous, I sometimes …
· If I had a BMW, I would be accepted by …
· Must be the club that sliced the ball out of bounds
· Using the incorrect words or phrases will offend someone and hurt their feelings …
This structure works in two directions: if you accept that you can make someone …than you speak and act in a like manner toward that someone. Reverse the direction; you actually believe that someone or something outside of you can make you feel, act and think a certain way. Has it ever happened that you get a flat tire, get out of the car, kick the flat or use some four-letter words to describe your feelings and then blame the tire for causing you to feel angry? The power and control lies outside of yourself and you have entered the world of irresponsible actions, feelings and thoughts.
Here is the danger of such a belief structure: you give the power of control and responsibility to someone or something else. You act consistently in this manner and accept what others say as the truth. Political correctness has become so dominant in our culture due to this makes-me-believe structure. Here is an example: Individuals actually believe that they are responsible for another person’s feelings, thus you cannot say anything that may offend someone. Allow me to suggest that you are not responsible for anyone’s feelings. An individual’s feelings belong to each person and each of us can either own the feelings or blame them on others. Imagine the power one has if you subscribe to the latter point of view! Contrary to popular belief and myth is that a person can control one’s feelings-it is not possible. Go ahead, test this out-right now feel euphoric-do so for 30 seconds-now stop and feel profound sadness. The truth is that we all have feelings-own them and learn to deal with them in a responsible way.
The entire structure of political correctness operates upon a faulty belief system and yet it has become the dominant social and political tool used by groups today.
When someone says something to you, you have a choice as to how you will perceive it, think about it, and respond to it. The PC crowd has taught you to perceive/think/respond in a particular manner and the rest of us have allowed this to occur. I say–no more! The most common refrain I hear and read from Islamists should anyone dare to ask critical questions is that “we are offended/your words are offensive to Islam/you have insulted Islam” are among but a few thrown in our direction. There is a PC expectation that follows the “I am offended” statement. First an apology must be forthcoming, penance must be demonstrated, and finally repentance must be enjoined. Others and I are not responsible for offending Islamists; we are, however, responsible for what we say. Given my intention is to ask critical questions then how these are perceived and the resultant choice by the listener as to how he/she will hear the question the responsibility lies with the listener. The assumption is that the listener is willing to be held accountable for his/her own thoughts, feelings and actions.
Of course the PC groups do not want us to wake up and see through their faulty thinking and/or arrogant behavior. They count upon us to stand down when the “O” word is thrown at us. The result has been a most interesting and dangerous political and social engineering within the western countries. People have become afraid to state their personal values, stand up for these values and take the necessary actions to ensure that our culture we so love remains intact. The final Part Three of what has amounted to a short treatise will present additional strategies to counter the dangers of political correctness. A case study will be used to demonstrate additional strategies that can be used to combat the dangers of PC.
End Notes
1. The Top Politically InCorrect Words for 2006: http://www.languagemonitor.com/wst_page20.html
2. No Offence: Political Correctness in New Zealand
3. New Correctness August 26, 2002 http://www.australianpolitics.com/news/2002/08/02-08-26.shtml
4. POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD”, Nov 22,2006
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000801.html
5. The gods of Political Correctness, Thursday, March 15, 2007
http://thisisrich.blogspot.com/2007/03/gods-of-political-correctness.html
6. Political correctness urban style
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=political+correctness
7. JAMES MILLS, “Hospital that 'banned' hot cross buns to avoid offending non-Christians”, April 10, 2007, Daily Mail.
Special acknowledgment and thank you to my editor Chana Givon
Online: http://writingtw.blogspot.com/ & http://docstalk.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Only in Israel
By Don Morris
As a non-Jew living in Israel these past 9 years, I continue to be struck each year with the power of the Holocaust Remembrance Day. Beginning yesterday at sundown, most of the Israeli TV channels ceased programming-the day of remembering had begun. I watched several shows about the Holocaust and the most powerful ones interviewed survivors and their stories. To not be moved by these words is to demonstrate a callous disregard for your fellow human being or an amoral attitude toward life.
Today, as I was returning home along the sea, the sirens went off, precisely at 10 am-we all stopped, some bowed their heads in prayer, others had tears rolling down onto their cheeks and I felt and experienced yet another day of remembering. You know, it is truly something to be privileged to be in this country at any time but especially today. I invite all of my colleagues,
friends and family to one day join us-if you have an ache in your heart and/or a concern that we are losing our sense of humanity, come to Israel and be renewed in faith and spirit.
I read today that worldwide violence against Jews is surging and that global antisemitism is spiraling upward, this found in a research study by the Tel Aviv University. So many of my friends and colleagues do not believe this is true-I can assure you it is-I know from personal experience as we travel in Europe. As one examines the data, you understand that the danger of such
planned, orchestrated violence portends much for those living contently in the West.
The one place in the world, where one can safely be a Jew is here in Israel. Regardless of your perceived identity as Jewish, you are safe here. Not only is this a land for all of the religious Jews, it is here for those secular Jews who embrace their “Jewishness” as well as those who seem to loathe theirs. I know of no other place, including the USA, where this can be said as a truth. My friends, it is this spirit and tolerance that should be recognized by all the world’s nations!
Online at http://www.israpundit.com/2006/
http://docstalk.blogspot.com/
By Don Morris
As a non-Jew living in Israel these past 9 years, I continue to be struck each year with the power of the Holocaust Remembrance Day. Beginning yesterday at sundown, most of the Israeli TV channels ceased programming-the day of remembering had begun. I watched several shows about the Holocaust and the most powerful ones interviewed survivors and their stories. To not be moved by these words is to demonstrate a callous disregard for your fellow human being or an amoral attitude toward life.
Today, as I was returning home along the sea, the sirens went off, precisely at 10 am-we all stopped, some bowed their heads in prayer, others had tears rolling down onto their cheeks and I felt and experienced yet another day of remembering. You know, it is truly something to be privileged to be in this country at any time but especially today. I invite all of my colleagues,
friends and family to one day join us-if you have an ache in your heart and/or a concern that we are losing our sense of humanity, come to Israel and be renewed in faith and spirit.
I read today that worldwide violence against Jews is surging and that global antisemitism is spiraling upward, this found in a research study by the Tel Aviv University. So many of my friends and colleagues do not believe this is true-I can assure you it is-I know from personal experience as we travel in Europe. As one examines the data, you understand that the danger of such
planned, orchestrated violence portends much for those living contently in the West.
The one place in the world, where one can safely be a Jew is here in Israel. Regardless of your perceived identity as Jewish, you are safe here. Not only is this a land for all of the religious Jews, it is here for those secular Jews who embrace their “Jewishness” as well as those who seem to loathe theirs. I know of no other place, including the USA, where this can be said as a truth. My friends, it is this spirit and tolerance that should be recognized by all the world’s nations!
Online at http://www.israpundit.com/2006/
http://docstalk.blogspot.com/
Friday, March 30, 2007
New Feature
Letters to the Editor
Spanish into English
*Israel y los medios* http://www.laopinion.com/editorial/tribuna.html?rkey=00000000000001399691 26 de marzo de 2007
Aggie Hoffman, Los Ángeles, California.
Resulta chocante que el informe sobre "El nuevo gobierno palestino" (19 de marzo 2007) se refiere a la plataforma del nuevo gobierno de unidad como una coalición más moderada. Peor es que esta característica, una creación editorial de la agencia de noticias AP, fue repetida por La Opinión como si fuera un hecho.
No menos triste es el intento de los medios de enturbiar la verdad, atribuyendo moderación a la negativa constante de reconocer el derecho de existir de Israel y a la "resistencia" de la ocupación israelí. La "resistencia" aludida no es en este caso más que un eufemismo para describir al terrorismo. Ignora en su totalidad la incitación diaria a matar judíos, que es parte de los medios de comunicación palestinos, de los sermones de imams al servicio palestino, y de libros de texto que claman falsamente que Palestina, desde el río Jordán hasta el Mediterráneo, pertenece a los árabes.
Este gobierno "moderado" no perdió tiempo en demostrar sus objetivos cuando Hamás reclamó ayer responsabilidad de un disparo contra un empleado de la empresa de electricidad israelí cerca del cruce fronterizo con Gaza y cuando en el cruce israelí egipcio mismo, un potencial suicida fue arrestado con una bomba.
El gobierno de unidad no tiene moderación, solo iguales partes de maldad.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________-
It is shocking that the report El Nuevo gobierno palestino (19 de marzo de 2007) refers to the platform of the new unity government as a more moderate coalition. Worse is that this characteristic, an editorial creation of AP, is repeated by La Opinion as if it were fact. Equally sad is the attempt of this press to whitewash the truth—attributing moderation to the continued refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist and "resistance of Israeli occupation. Resistance is nothing less than a euphemism for terror. Also ignored in its entirely is the daily incitement to kill Jews that is part of the Palestinian controlled media, sermons of imams on Palestinian payroll, and textbooks that falsely claim that Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, belongs to the Arabs.
This new government wasted no time in demonstrating its goals when Hamas claimed responsibility yesterday for shooting an Israeli electrical worker near the Gaza border crossing and at the Egyptian crossing into Israel, a would-be suicide bomber was arrested.
There is no moderation in the unity government; there is only an equal amount of evil.
Letters to the Editor
Spanish into English
*Israel y los medios* http://www.laopinion.com/editorial/tribuna.html?rkey=00000000000001399691 26 de marzo de 2007
Aggie Hoffman, Los Ángeles, California.
Resulta chocante que el informe sobre "El nuevo gobierno palestino" (19 de marzo 2007) se refiere a la plataforma del nuevo gobierno de unidad como una coalición más moderada. Peor es que esta característica, una creación editorial de la agencia de noticias AP, fue repetida por La Opinión como si fuera un hecho.
No menos triste es el intento de los medios de enturbiar la verdad, atribuyendo moderación a la negativa constante de reconocer el derecho de existir de Israel y a la "resistencia" de la ocupación israelí. La "resistencia" aludida no es en este caso más que un eufemismo para describir al terrorismo. Ignora en su totalidad la incitación diaria a matar judíos, que es parte de los medios de comunicación palestinos, de los sermones de imams al servicio palestino, y de libros de texto que claman falsamente que Palestina, desde el río Jordán hasta el Mediterráneo, pertenece a los árabes.
Este gobierno "moderado" no perdió tiempo en demostrar sus objetivos cuando Hamás reclamó ayer responsabilidad de un disparo contra un empleado de la empresa de electricidad israelí cerca del cruce fronterizo con Gaza y cuando en el cruce israelí egipcio mismo, un potencial suicida fue arrestado con una bomba.
El gobierno de unidad no tiene moderación, solo iguales partes de maldad.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________-
It is shocking that the report El Nuevo gobierno palestino (19 de marzo de 2007) refers to the platform of the new unity government as a more moderate coalition. Worse is that this characteristic, an editorial creation of AP, is repeated by La Opinion as if it were fact. Equally sad is the attempt of this press to whitewash the truth—attributing moderation to the continued refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist and "resistance of Israeli occupation. Resistance is nothing less than a euphemism for terror. Also ignored in its entirely is the daily incitement to kill Jews that is part of the Palestinian controlled media, sermons of imams on Palestinian payroll, and textbooks that falsely claim that Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, belongs to the Arabs.
This new government wasted no time in demonstrating its goals when Hamas claimed responsibility yesterday for shooting an Israeli electrical worker near the Gaza border crossing and at the Egyptian crossing into Israel, a would-be suicide bomber was arrested.
There is no moderation in the unity government; there is only an equal amount of evil.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Political Correctness is Killing Us-Part One
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
March 27, 2007
How many times have you wanted to say something but thought better of it? I’m not talking about being polite or executing long held social graces-I am specifically referring to withholding comments because someone might be offended by your words. You knew if you spoke you would be labeled some form of –ist, e.g., racist, sexist, and the like! You quietly bite your tongue and remain “inoffensive”, regardless of how offensive the other person’s comments are. Join the plurality of Americans who exercise political correctness every single day! According to several of our military leaders, PC is killing us around the world.1 I suggest that it is time to address head-on this polarizing and dangerous social practice.
Let’s be clear about the meaning of political correctness. No more “dodging the issue” or pretending that it does not cause harm. Here are a few definitions worth paying attention to:
• A trend that wants to make everything fair, equal and just to all by suppressing thought, speech and practice in order to achieve that goal2.
• Avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude, or marginalize, or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against3.
• Political correctness (often abbreviated to PC) is a term used to describe language or behavior which is intended, or said to be intended, to provide a minimum of offense, particularly to racial, cultural, or other identity groups. A text that conforms to the alleged ideals of political correctness is said to be politically correct … Those who use the term in a critical fashion often express a concern about the dilution of freedom of speech, intolerance of language, and the avoidance of a discussion of social problems.
Political correctness has been with us for decades although no one is certain about its origins. For example, Barbara Epstein suggested that it was publicized after the Western Humanities Conference was held back in 19905. This was an interdisciplinary forum entitled “Political Correctness and Cultural Studies” at the University of California at Berkeley. She offered that it was initially a wry joke on the Left that became a rigid standard against which both liberals and conservatives were being measured—by themselves and by each other.
No one knows for sure when PC began and this is not an essay on the origins of political correctness. Can we at least agree that it has seeped into our daily lives as well as our institutions?
Rather than enabling open and complete discussion with regard to important issues today, just the opposite has occurred; regrettably it continues to this day. Many of us understand the dangers of PC behavior. I offer but a few of these dangers for your consideration:
• Individuals are constantly censoring their remarks and losing their freedom of speech for fear of PC repression. Do you know what happens when people withhold their concerns, upsets and beliefs over time?
• Cultural icons long held dear to Americans have come under attack; Santa was barred from a December, 2001, festival in Kennsington, Md because two families objected to the Santa icon-the erosion of cultural values and demonstration of an unwillingness to stand up for what we believe leads America down the proverbial “slippery slope”.
• Professors in our universities are attacked when they express a point of view that differs from left-leaning colleagues; critical analysis is being replaced with uni-directional criticism.
• In the workplace we see the idea of “diversity” resulting in less qualified individuals being hired while incompetent workers cannot be fired-imagine the erosion in product and service quality during the coming years.
• Criticism of terrorists, identification of their affiliation has lead to social and legal recriminations-in turn policies have been directed and implemented due to our own fear. This, repeated often enough over the next years, will erode America.
Political correctness disables a democracy and cripples its very nature. Our Western Culture is by design meant to be civilized. This manifests itself by interpersonal respect and our effort to correct injustices. Not only is it our national collective culture to embrace freedom, we have for decades demonstrated tolerance for all points of view as well. We have led the world in supporting the individual rights of all human beings rather than for a select group. Our legal system, once admired by most of the international community, was founded upon Judeo-Christian values and we were proud of this; so seems were millions of others who have flocked to our shores. These values created a culture that has produced economic, educational, and social climates that so many others also desire. However, we seem to be unable to stand up today and withstand the onslaught from our enemies who use political correctness as the divisive verbal weapon it is today.
The U.S.A. is awash with a dangerous and insidious social paradigm: the double standard of social and political will. It is time to address this concern and it will require courage. Our founding fathers would wonder why we did not stand up to the enemies of the democratic paradigm they so cleverly created over 200 years ago. They would be aghast that their names were stricken from the history standards of the New Jersey Department of Education in 2002. They would be understandably angry when middle school students in a California school were allowed to pretend they were warriors fighting for Islam but prevented from praying as a Christian or as a Jew. You can add to this insensitive list of injustices.
The challenge is before us. If one is afraid to pronounce to others what he or she believes to be true, what justice and civilized behavior should look like, it is no wonder that our policy makers become nothing more than a reflection of our fearful beliefs. Although much has been written about this culture of defeatism spurred on by ratcheting up the controlling notion of PC, it is time for us to stand up and declare war upon political correctness. Decisions in the USA and abroad have been made and that are attempting to be made are not only killing citizens but will ultimately leave a culture for our grandchildren that is anything but correct.
Part Two explores strategies for turning the tide of this path.
End Notes
1. General Tom McInerney, Intelligence Summit, St. Petersburg, Fl, March 6, 2007
2. www.information-entertainment.com/Politics/polterms.html
3. wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
4. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
5. Epstein, Barbara “My friend and mentor”, Slate, June 19,2006
Thank you to my editor, Chana Givon
Viewed on http://docstalk.blogspot.com/
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
March 27, 2007
How many times have you wanted to say something but thought better of it? I’m not talking about being polite or executing long held social graces-I am specifically referring to withholding comments because someone might be offended by your words. You knew if you spoke you would be labeled some form of –ist, e.g., racist, sexist, and the like! You quietly bite your tongue and remain “inoffensive”, regardless of how offensive the other person’s comments are. Join the plurality of Americans who exercise political correctness every single day! According to several of our military leaders, PC is killing us around the world.1 I suggest that it is time to address head-on this polarizing and dangerous social practice.
Let’s be clear about the meaning of political correctness. No more “dodging the issue” or pretending that it does not cause harm. Here are a few definitions worth paying attention to:
• A trend that wants to make everything fair, equal and just to all by suppressing thought, speech and practice in order to achieve that goal2.
• Avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude, or marginalize, or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against3.
• Political correctness (often abbreviated to PC) is a term used to describe language or behavior which is intended, or said to be intended, to provide a minimum of offense, particularly to racial, cultural, or other identity groups. A text that conforms to the alleged ideals of political correctness is said to be politically correct … Those who use the term in a critical fashion often express a concern about the dilution of freedom of speech, intolerance of language, and the avoidance of a discussion of social problems.
Political correctness has been with us for decades although no one is certain about its origins. For example, Barbara Epstein suggested that it was publicized after the Western Humanities Conference was held back in 19905. This was an interdisciplinary forum entitled “Political Correctness and Cultural Studies” at the University of California at Berkeley. She offered that it was initially a wry joke on the Left that became a rigid standard against which both liberals and conservatives were being measured—by themselves and by each other.
No one knows for sure when PC began and this is not an essay on the origins of political correctness. Can we at least agree that it has seeped into our daily lives as well as our institutions?
Rather than enabling open and complete discussion with regard to important issues today, just the opposite has occurred; regrettably it continues to this day. Many of us understand the dangers of PC behavior. I offer but a few of these dangers for your consideration:
• Individuals are constantly censoring their remarks and losing their freedom of speech for fear of PC repression. Do you know what happens when people withhold their concerns, upsets and beliefs over time?
• Cultural icons long held dear to Americans have come under attack; Santa was barred from a December, 2001, festival in Kennsington, Md because two families objected to the Santa icon-the erosion of cultural values and demonstration of an unwillingness to stand up for what we believe leads America down the proverbial “slippery slope”.
• Professors in our universities are attacked when they express a point of view that differs from left-leaning colleagues; critical analysis is being replaced with uni-directional criticism.
• In the workplace we see the idea of “diversity” resulting in less qualified individuals being hired while incompetent workers cannot be fired-imagine the erosion in product and service quality during the coming years.
• Criticism of terrorists, identification of their affiliation has lead to social and legal recriminations-in turn policies have been directed and implemented due to our own fear. This, repeated often enough over the next years, will erode America.
Political correctness disables a democracy and cripples its very nature. Our Western Culture is by design meant to be civilized. This manifests itself by interpersonal respect and our effort to correct injustices. Not only is it our national collective culture to embrace freedom, we have for decades demonstrated tolerance for all points of view as well. We have led the world in supporting the individual rights of all human beings rather than for a select group. Our legal system, once admired by most of the international community, was founded upon Judeo-Christian values and we were proud of this; so seems were millions of others who have flocked to our shores. These values created a culture that has produced economic, educational, and social climates that so many others also desire. However, we seem to be unable to stand up today and withstand the onslaught from our enemies who use political correctness as the divisive verbal weapon it is today.
The U.S.A. is awash with a dangerous and insidious social paradigm: the double standard of social and political will. It is time to address this concern and it will require courage. Our founding fathers would wonder why we did not stand up to the enemies of the democratic paradigm they so cleverly created over 200 years ago. They would be aghast that their names were stricken from the history standards of the New Jersey Department of Education in 2002. They would be understandably angry when middle school students in a California school were allowed to pretend they were warriors fighting for Islam but prevented from praying as a Christian or as a Jew. You can add to this insensitive list of injustices.
The challenge is before us. If one is afraid to pronounce to others what he or she believes to be true, what justice and civilized behavior should look like, it is no wonder that our policy makers become nothing more than a reflection of our fearful beliefs. Although much has been written about this culture of defeatism spurred on by ratcheting up the controlling notion of PC, it is time for us to stand up and declare war upon political correctness. Decisions in the USA and abroad have been made and that are attempting to be made are not only killing citizens but will ultimately leave a culture for our grandchildren that is anything but correct.
Part Two explores strategies for turning the tide of this path.
End Notes
1. General Tom McInerney, Intelligence Summit, St. Petersburg, Fl, March 6, 2007
2. www.information-entertainment.com/Politics/polterms.html
3. wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
4. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
5. Epstein, Barbara “My friend and mentor”, Slate, June 19,2006
Thank you to my editor, Chana Givon
Viewed on http://docstalk.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
What Hypocrisy?
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
February 24, 2007
Hezbollah remains on the USA's terror list. The international community continues to support the United Nations Resolution 1701. Do you remember this resolution? In part it states the following:
"Hezbollah and other terrorist elements must be disarmed as stipulated in the Taif Accord (1989) and in the relevant Security Council resolutions. The resolution also states that the Lebanese government, with the assistance of UNIFIL, should exercise its authority across its entire territory and, within that context, to rid south Lebanon of the presence and arms of Hezbollah and the other terrorist organizations. Likewise, the resolution forbids transporting arms to Hezbollah (and the other terrorist organizations) by land, sea, and air."
Yet, Hezzbollah, in defiance of the Lebanese government and UNIFIL (and, in fact, the entire international community), which bears the responsibility to implement the resolution ignores international law and rearms itself. It does so in physical view of UNIFIL troops.
I am not the only one who knows these facts. The media possesses this same information as does all of the international community including our very own government. Yet Israel has,once again, been condemned by the UN. Syria continues to illegally transport weapons to these terrorists, under the vigil of UNIFIL.1 On February 16, 2007, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah gave a belligerent, arrogant speech in a ceremony held in south Beirut (in the neighborhood of Al-Rawis) on the anniversary of the killing of two senior Hezbollah figures. In his speech, Nasrallah admitted that his organization was rearming and secretly smuggling arms and ammunition to south Lebanon. Here is a partial translation of his speech:
"Hezbollah is rearming: "We are being very clear and we are saying that we have arms. We are not lying and [we are] telling it to the whole world. We have arms [Nasrallah stresses the word "arms"]… of all shapes and sizes… The resistance [i.e., Hezbollah] has arms. It is saying it in public, adding that it is rearming and increasing the scope of its armament in order to get more dangerous arms…"
"Hezbollah is secretly transporting arms to the Israeli front: "The resistance [i.e., Hezbollah] notes that it is transporting the arms to the front. We do not hide it. Doing it in secret is only natural. Could we do it openly? How?… We concealed our arms because we wanted to conceal them from our enemies… We are transporting the arms in secret because it is our right… We are transporting the arms secretly and in straw trucks so as to not embarrass you [the Lebanese government]…"1
The response from the West is resounding silence. The justification is Hezbollah is the defender of Lebanon and this trumps any international order. Thus there is no behavioral action or consequence for Hezbollah's or any other terrorist group when they thumb their nose at international law! It is not Hezbollah who is acting hypocritically, it is the international community and especially the West lead by Britain, France, Germany and the United States. As long as we do not hold accountable groups, nations or individuals professing to represent a sovereign nation, then we can never expect peace. Our behavior is one of appeasement and until we stand up to the strategy our enemies use we shall fail. They use our own legal system and conscious against us and we willing march toward the cliff of doom. Words either have meaning or they do not; until we are willing to support our words with behavioral consequences we expect all terrorist groups to use the following types of arguments against us:
"…We stress our commitment to the resistance [i.e., the way of violence and terrorism], to the cause of the resistance and to the project of the resistance that defends the homeland… I am saying that we will remain on the border, in Beirut , and everywhere in Lebanon . We are Lebanese, and this country is our country… Every clod of earth in the south is to us a drop of a shahid's blood. Every rock in the south is to us a shahid's body… Every olive tree in the south is to us the loving and sparkling soul of the jihad warriors of the resistance… and Hezbollah… is willing to wage jihad and persist with its struggle for justice in all areas…"1
For those in the West who still act as though we can dialogue and/or solve the problems of the Middle East through words, I submit it is a choice you are making to justify your lack of will and determination to stand and fight. History is repeating itself and we are none the wiser. For me, I am rapidly loosing confidence in the West's ability to preserve its way of life for my grandchildren. Our behavior is a disgrace-what pray tell should I say to my children?
End Notes
1. February 23, 2007, Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center report
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
February 24, 2007
Hezbollah remains on the USA's terror list. The international community continues to support the United Nations Resolution 1701. Do you remember this resolution? In part it states the following:
"Hezbollah and other terrorist elements must be disarmed as stipulated in the Taif Accord (1989) and in the relevant Security Council resolutions. The resolution also states that the Lebanese government, with the assistance of UNIFIL, should exercise its authority across its entire territory and, within that context, to rid south Lebanon of the presence and arms of Hezbollah and the other terrorist organizations. Likewise, the resolution forbids transporting arms to Hezbollah (and the other terrorist organizations) by land, sea, and air."
Yet, Hezzbollah, in defiance of the Lebanese government and UNIFIL (and, in fact, the entire international community), which bears the responsibility to implement the resolution ignores international law and rearms itself. It does so in physical view of UNIFIL troops.
I am not the only one who knows these facts. The media possesses this same information as does all of the international community including our very own government. Yet Israel has,once again, been condemned by the UN. Syria continues to illegally transport weapons to these terrorists, under the vigil of UNIFIL.1 On February 16, 2007, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah gave a belligerent, arrogant speech in a ceremony held in south Beirut (in the neighborhood of Al-Rawis) on the anniversary of the killing of two senior Hezbollah figures. In his speech, Nasrallah admitted that his organization was rearming and secretly smuggling arms and ammunition to south Lebanon. Here is a partial translation of his speech:
"Hezbollah is rearming: "We are being very clear and we are saying that we have arms. We are not lying and [we are] telling it to the whole world. We have arms [Nasrallah stresses the word "arms"]… of all shapes and sizes… The resistance [i.e., Hezbollah] has arms. It is saying it in public, adding that it is rearming and increasing the scope of its armament in order to get more dangerous arms…"
"Hezbollah is secretly transporting arms to the Israeli front: "The resistance [i.e., Hezbollah] notes that it is transporting the arms to the front. We do not hide it. Doing it in secret is only natural. Could we do it openly? How?… We concealed our arms because we wanted to conceal them from our enemies… We are transporting the arms in secret because it is our right… We are transporting the arms secretly and in straw trucks so as to not embarrass you [the Lebanese government]…"1
The response from the West is resounding silence. The justification is Hezbollah is the defender of Lebanon and this trumps any international order. Thus there is no behavioral action or consequence for Hezbollah's or any other terrorist group when they thumb their nose at international law! It is not Hezbollah who is acting hypocritically, it is the international community and especially the West lead by Britain, France, Germany and the United States. As long as we do not hold accountable groups, nations or individuals professing to represent a sovereign nation, then we can never expect peace. Our behavior is one of appeasement and until we stand up to the strategy our enemies use we shall fail. They use our own legal system and conscious against us and we willing march toward the cliff of doom. Words either have meaning or they do not; until we are willing to support our words with behavioral consequences we expect all terrorist groups to use the following types of arguments against us:
"…We stress our commitment to the resistance [i.e., the way of violence and terrorism], to the cause of the resistance and to the project of the resistance that defends the homeland… I am saying that we will remain on the border, in Beirut , and everywhere in Lebanon . We are Lebanese, and this country is our country… Every clod of earth in the south is to us a drop of a shahid's blood. Every rock in the south is to us a shahid's body… Every olive tree in the south is to us the loving and sparkling soul of the jihad warriors of the resistance… and Hezbollah… is willing to wage jihad and persist with its struggle for justice in all areas…"1
For those in the West who still act as though we can dialogue and/or solve the problems of the Middle East through words, I submit it is a choice you are making to justify your lack of will and determination to stand and fight. History is repeating itself and we are none the wiser. For me, I am rapidly loosing confidence in the West's ability to preserve its way of life for my grandchildren. Our behavior is a disgrace-what pray tell should I say to my children?
End Notes
1. February 23, 2007, Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center report
International Law and Israel's Rights
Understanding the Fourth Geneva Convention
By
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
SPME Board of Directors
Wingate Institute/Zinman College
Mar.7, 2005
Revised March 2007
It was a warm September day here in Israel. My friends were either at the beach, sitting at a café or enjoying their family and IT all began, again! The IT I am referring to is the second Intifada. This was a planned, premeditated action by the Palestinian leadership (1) and for many of us it continues to this day. We welcome the new leadership indicating peace may now be possible, we listen to the words of the terrorist groups who indicate they will honor the cease-fire, and we are cautious with our optimism. We have been down this road before. Our wanting to believe is laid on top of our memories of the most recent past. The quiet time served only as a re-stocking, repositioning, reenergizing by all interested terrorist groups and Israeli children, mothers and fathers have paid the price for wanting to believe.
How did we arrive at this point in time? Some would have you believe that IsraelÕs occupation of Palestinian land is the reason why the conflict began and still rages on. If Israel would simply leave the territories the bloodshed would stop, peace would reign supreme. In a previous paper I shared an opposing point of view (2).
To legitimize the support of Palestinian terror, people and nations have turned to UN resolutions, international agreements and documents to make Israel wrong, in so doing the result is that the Palestinian positions are correct-even honorable. One such document that has found favor among those convinced that terrorism is a sanctioned activity is the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention document.
There has been so much written about this document. However, many of the articles provide only a snapshot of the Fourth Geneva Convention and intentionally do so to support a political position. This kind of reporting clearly offers a singular and often simplistic perspective of events here in the Middle East. Let us examine context and perspective as they apply to the fourth Geneva Convention.
Historical context in a capsule:
The Geneva Conventions consist of treaties formulated in Geneva, Switzerland that set the standards of international law for humanitarian concerns. The conventions were the results of efforts by Henri Dunant (1862), who was motivated by the horrors of war he witnessed at the Battle of Solferino (1859).
The conventions, their agreements and two added protocols are as follows: First Geneva Convention (1864): Treatment of battlefield casualties and creation of International Red Cross Second Geneva Convention (1906): Extended the principles from the first convention to apply also to war at sea.
Third Geneva Convention (1929): Treatment of Prisoner of war.
Fourth Geneva Convention (1949): Treatment relating to the protection of civilians during times of war "in the hands" of an enemy and under any occupation by a foreign power.
Protocol I ( 1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts Protocol II (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts.
In summary, the first three conventions were revised, a fourth was added, and the entire set was ratified in 1949; the whole is referred to as the "Geneva Conventions of 1949" or simply the "Geneva Conventions". Later conferences (Protocols) added the provisions prohibiting certain methods of warfare and addressing issues of civil wars. (3)
All of the preceding conventions occurred after the horror of war had once again dealt its misery upon human beings. One can notice over time that people attempted to make war less painful and less grotesque by attempting to get the world community to adopt more humane behavior and actions specific to the title of each convention. This paper makes no attempt to describe any of the preceding documents; rather, it is important to note that for nearly 150 years many in the world community have attempted to sanitize human war behavior and in so doing suggest to the non-warring people that war has rules that must be followed, during battle and after cessation of a war.
War is an ugly business. For thousands of years, this has remained the case. Finally the Geneva Conventions came along in 1948, and the nations of the world joined hands to transform war from an ugly business into an ugly-business-described-by-solemn-buzzwords-and-unenforceable-guidelines, which allowed countries taking part in war to disavow the ugliness of the business without actually having to conduct the business in any meaningfully different manner. This is what we call "civilization."(4)
Thus, one of the first things the newly formed U.N. did was sit down in Geneva, Switzerland, and try to find a kinder, gentler way to wage war. In December 1948, the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide passed the first article of what would be known as the Geneva Conventions. Genocide was defined as murder "committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." This convention drew up a list of punishable crimes "genocide; conspiracy to commit genocide; direct and public incitement to commit genocide; attempt to commit genocide; [and] complicity in genocide." Other articles were added and produced the document we know as the Fourth Geneva Convention. The history of the Geneva documents is well worth studying. One discovers that each new set of guidelines has attempted to appease groups of violated people as well as trying to civilize an otherwise uncivil set of human behaviors. What happens when the rules are broken?
Accusations of violation of the Geneva Conventions on the part of signatory nations are brought before the International Court of Justice at The Hague. The International Court of Justice (known colloquially as the World Court or ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Established in 1945, its main functions are to settle disputes submitted to it by states and to give advisory opinions (non-binding) on legal questions submitted to it by the UN General Assembly or UN Security Council, or by such specialized agencies as may be authorized to do so by the General Assembly in accordance with the United Nations Charter. The Statute of the International Court of Justice is the main constitutional document constituting and regulating the Court (5).
The Court resides in The Hague, the Netherlands. It is composed of fifteen judges elected by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council from a list of persons nominated by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Judges serve for nine years and may be re-elected. No two may be nationals of the same country. One-third of the Court is elected every three years. Each of the five permanent members of the Security Council ( France, the People's Republic of China, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have always had a judge on the Court.
Questions before the Court are decided by a majority of judges present. Article 38 of the Statute provides that in arriving at its decisions the Court shall apply international conventions, international custom, the "general principles of law recognized by civilized nations". It may also refer to academic writing and previous judicial decisions to help interpret the law, although the Court is not formally bound by its previous decisions. If the parties agree, the Court may also decide ex aequo et bono, or "in justice and fairness", in which the Court makes a decision based on general principles of fairness rather than specific law (5). The ICJ hears two distinct types of cases upon which the court may rule: contentious issues between states in which the court produces binding rulings between states that agree and advisory opinions, which provide reasoned, but non-binding, rulings on properly submitted questions of international law, usually at the request of the United Nations General Assembly. Please note that the court only hears contentious issues between states when both parties agree to participate in the court activity. If one nation does not agree to participate, the outcome is not binding; although historically the outcome has been used for political gain. I provide the preceding information for several reasons.
First, it is useful to note that the United Nations serves as the judge and the jury for international behavior transgressions-fortunately it has no power or authority to be also the executioner. The Fourth Geneva Convention was the result of the newly created United Nations, just after WWII, to ensure that future wars be more humane. The ICJ, the legal interpreter/arm of the United Nations, operates within its auspices and structure thus serving as judge and jury. It is also useful to understand this direct relationship between the Geneva Conventions and the ICJ. From the very same organization who created the Geneva documents come the representative individuals who sit in judgment of misbehavior. They are therefore not independent agents. Is it possible they may have a vested political interest in the outcome of the arguments presented to the court?
Second, although it is true that most countries have signed onto the Geneva Conventions, it is important to note that even the United States did not sign onto the two additional protocols in 1977. There is no international law or court of law that has supreme jurisdiction over each and every country's behavior. There are no international police that enforce any of the Geneva judgments. Yet most civilized countries today do their best to adhere to the humanitarian language found within the Geneva documents.
Third, the Fourth Geneva Convention for all practical purposes is an advisory set of rules for the world community to operate within, it is truly not, in a practical manner, binding. However, the world, the media, the pundits and most of academia act as though it is mandatory. Countries call into question the behavior of some other (but not all) countries that do not meet the Fourth Geneva Convention specifications as they interpret them. The key is as they interpret them. Herein lies the crux of the matter.
Perspective: Political Currency
Again, it is beyond the scope of this paper to offer all of the interpretive arguments all sides have presented. However, it may be instructive to demonstrate the relationship that exists between such interpretation and the gain of political capital by the international community of nations.
One of the more recent FGC (Fourth Geneva Convention) interpretations that illustrate this concept is the ruling by the ICJ regarding Israel's security barrier. This event clearly demonstrates all of the afore-mentioned considerations from interpretation to political motivation. The following is a general summary of the events surrounding the case of the security barrier and the 4th Geneva Convention: The traditional approach to international arbitration would have barred the ICJ from entering into this international conflict. Palestine, since it is not a recognized state, cannot sue before the ICJ in its own name. Israel did not consent to let the legality of the fence be decided by the ICJ. However, this did not stop the international community.
December, 2003: The statute of the ICJ provides that the Court may only decide disputes submitted by states and then only with the consent of the states that are parties to the dispute. Israel chose not to participate. The U.N. General Assembly, at the prompting of Arab states, asked the Court to provide an "advisory opinion" on the dispute over the fence. The U.N. Charter allows for this procedure, but only in regard to "legal issues" and only in conformity with the overall scheme of the Charter. Here, the General Assembly was effectively asking the ICJ to endorse its own political conclusions, with its resolution describing the fence as a "wall" (most of it is, in fact, chain-link construction) on "occupied territory including East Jerusalem." The General Assembly was also seeking to have the ICJ do an end-run around the Security Council, which is supposed to have primary responsibility for resolving threats to peace (while at the same time circumventing the legal requirement that Israel consent to be judged in a case to which it was a party) (6).
The Court had many legal grounds for refusing to decide this case. The Israeli government and also the U.S., Russia, the European Union and a majority of EU member states pressed such arguments on the Court. In other words, all the sponsors of the "road map," urged the Court to stay out of this heated political conflict. Many other governments around the world took the same view.
The Court's own authority observed that the lack of consent to the Court's contentious jurisdiction by interested states has no bearing on the Court's jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion. So it went ahead anyway and provided an advisory opinion. A lengthy opinion piece emerged that addressed the political sound bites the Palestinians have used for months, e.g., occupation, location of the fence, freedom of Palestinian movement to name but a few. The political currency gained by this public performance resonates to even this day.
Given the membership of the Court, where states hostile to Israel are plentifully represented, condemnation of the fence was to be expected. Most regrettable and upsetting, however, was that all five judges from EU states (UK, France, Germany, Netherlands, Slovakia) went along with the majority. Only the American judge, Thomas Buergenthal, argued against taking this step and he also dissented on the essence of the arguments.
Thus, a case that need not be heard by the Geneva's Convention legal court (ICJ) was encouraged by the Arab states and ultimately other countries to play out on the international stage. For those who do not understand how the Geneva Convention and ICJ work, they became willing recipients of what amounted to misinformation and disinformation about Israel's rights under international law. The belief one is left with is that Israel has no legal right to protect itself via a security barrier and that Israel continues to break the rules of the 4th Geneva Convention-nothing could be further from the truth yet the public relation damage had been done. Once again, the Palestinians were portrayed as victims of the Israeli government and its people.
This is but one example how certain countries have pronounced the legal rights and wrongs of the Mid-East conflict. European governments, already so eager to distance themselves politically from Israel have fallen lock step in this action with many other nations of the world.
The use of The Fourth Geneva Convention served to validate the Palestinian tactic of using the international community, and the United Nations in particular, as a forum for airing grievances against Israel, rather than resolving such matters through bilateral negotiations and the Oslo peace process. There are other examples of Geneva Convention interpretations being used for political gain. The following example is a common other point of view argument employed by Israel's detractors.
Israel ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention with effect from 6 July 1951. The convention is considered to have been elevated to the status of "customary international law", which means it applies irrespective of whether a State has ratified it. Apart from Israel, the entire international community, has unambiguously accepted the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to those territories captured and occupied by Israel in the 1967 war, which include the West Bank and Gaza.(7).
The authors then move into all of the violations of the Fourth Geneva convention by Israel and they do so using technical legal language. This is done not to offer clarity to the reader, rather it is done to impress the reader as well as to confuse the reader. At no time do these authors or others who employ this reporting strategy offer the counter argument still present today: the Geneva convention does not apply to the territories of Gaza and the West Bank. Thousands and thousands of articles have been written with the basic assumption that it is common knowledge that the Convention is applicable to these lands and under these documents Israel is in violation of international law. It is curious that the international community does not hold the Palestinians to these same opinions and ignores their daily violations of this same document. For example by deliberately placing young Arab children in the front of large mobs that advanced menacingly upon Israeli soldiers, Palestinian leaders openly committed major violations of the Law of War. There is, in fact, a precise legal term for these violations, a term that applies equally to the Palestinian tactic of routinely inserting scores of gunmen among the lines of children. This codified crime under humanitarian international law is called "perfidy."(8)
The truth is that even to this day, the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention is being argued and challenged. For example, Dore Gold offers "The Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable in the West Bank and Gaza because previous occupants [Jordan and Egypt] entered those territories illegally in 1948 during the Arab invasion of Israel." Since the Fourth Geneva Convention seeks to protect the sovereign from the occupying military power, and there has not been a recognized sovereign in the territories aside from the Jewish people since 1920, there is no factual basis for its application to the territories (9).
The Fourth Geneva Convention, composed in 1949, is the document, which most addresses the rights and obligations of Occupying Powers. Many argue that the Palestinian Arabs are not citizens of a country that has agreed to the Convention, but it is universally accepted that all of the articles that relate to the treatment of the civilian, non-combatant population still apply.
Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign." In fact, prior to 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip; their presence in those territories was the result of their illegal invasion in 1948, in defiance of the UN Security Council. Jordan's 1950 annexation of the West Bank was recognized only by Great Britain (excluding the annexation of Jerusalem) and Pakistan, and rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states. At Jordan's insistence, the 1949 Armistice Line, that constituted the Israeli-Jordanian boundary until 1967, was not a recognized international border but only a line separating armies. The Armistice Agreement specifically stated: "no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations" (8).
Given that some argue that since Palestine is not a state, neither internal conflict nor international conflict applies (those are the only things the four Geneva Conventions apply to). Some argue that Israel is an occupying power in the West Bank and Gaza. If this is the case, then there are specific laws concerning occupation in the Fourth Geneva Convention and customary international law. Under this convention, Palestinians who are residents of the Occupied Territories are considered protected persons. Protected persons have certain rights and immunities. If they choose to fight, however, they are not entitled to prisoner of war status. They would be subject to the laws or military orders of the occupying power. The debate is endless.
As of this date with respect to the rules of war the Geneva Convention is a multi-faceted set of documents that represent the sum total of humans' thinking. It should be of some interest to note that the US signed all four Geneva Convention agreements, and Congress ratified all but the two amended protocols of 1977. Similarly, Israel has also not signed the additional protocols, and these are not considered customary law. So, using international law neither the US nor Israel has committed "grave breaches" or any other violations. In the years since its adoption, the Fourth Geneva Convention was convened only to discuss Israel, and never once met to deal with world atrocities including those in Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Sudan, Congo, and Tibet.
Since 1997, the Arab group at the United Nations has been trying to invoke the Fourth Geneva Convention against Israel, claiming that it applies to settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Again in February 1999 this group managed to get the General Assembly to adopt a resolution calling for a special UN session in Geneva to examine "persistent violations" by Israel. Although reduced in scope by the United States, a special UN meeting held in Geneva on July 15, 1999 unanimously passed a resolution stating that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply to Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. The closed-door meeting lasted a mere 45 minutes.
When the Second Intifada started in September 2000, the Arab group renewed its demand for a full reconvening of the High Contracting Parties. In response, Switzerland (the Depository for the Fourth Geneva Convention with the responsibility to convene meetings), in consultation with other countries, drafted a declaration that was critical of Israel, but was far more moderate than the draft document submitted by the Organization of Islamic Conference. Continuing their political maneuvers on December 5, 2001 (request of Arab states), Switzerland again reconvened a meeting of the High Contracting Parties of the Fourth Geneva Convention to discuss alleged Israeli violations of the Convention in its treatment of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The United States, Israel and Australia boycotted the meeting, because, as Israel warned that the meeting would be used "as a blunt tool for political attacks" against Israel. This meeting lasted a mere two hours, the expected result by the assembled parties adopted a resolution censuring Israel for alleged violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention in its treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Curiously this meeting was held in the shadow of deadly campaign of Palestinian homicide terrorism, which killed at least 25 Israelis. Does this not demonstrate the absurdity of the one-sided focus on alleged Israeli violations?
Actions produce responses and additional actions-there is cause and effect. The reconvening of the High Contracting Parties served to legitimize the Palestinian strategy of using the international community, and the U.N. in particular, as a forum for airing grievances against Israel, rather than resolving such matters through bilateral negotiations. Moreover one can argue that the reconvening of High Contracting Parties to discuss these issues dangerously politicized and violated the spirit of the Geneva Convention and its important humanitarian purpose.
The international hypocrisy over the application of the Fourth Geneva convention needs to be discussed in detail. I will only open this discussion door in this paper. Given that those in the world community of nations have used the document to make political points against Israel, these same countries have also accepted that all of the articles relating to the treatment of the civilian, non-combatant population still apply. For example, did you know that Article 23 Allows Occupying Powers to limit the free passage of medical and other critical consignments when such materials may give direct or indirect aid to enemy fighting forces? Were you aware that Article 49 Allows Occupying Powers to transfer, in part or in total, the occupied civilian population when there are imperative military reasons? Did you also know that Article 46 Allows for restrictive measures regarding personal property of civilians? The Fourth Geneva Convention does not define these measures. Perhaps you didn't know that Article 53 Allows Occupying Powers to destroy personal property where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations. Based upon this language Israel has the right to its actions; has this information been withheld from the common reader? This information contradicts what you have been led to believe is true. Selective use of the convention's language has been used for years by Israel's enemies. For what purpose? There is no real power behind the charges except the power of public opinion and resultant actions by their nations' government. If you can convince people that Israel is the prime reason for all of the Palestinians problems, then governments can sell their anti-Israel policies. In addition, this takes the spotlight off of any Arab country or even Western country with respect to its own internal difficulties. Finally, it once again demonstrates how the Palestinians have been victimized for decades-this resonates well in many of the world's countries. With the help of the media, academia, and international governments this misrepresentation of the truth continues to this day. We all pray that the Second Intifada of physical harm is over; please understand the Intifada of revisionism of history and misrepresentation of facts continues unabated. This helps keep the conflict brewing. Is it not time to change the rhetoric, to sit quietly and seek the truth? We are all truly insane to think things will change if we keep repeating the past and expect different results.
Notes
1. December, 2000 Speech by Emmad El-Faluji, Minister of Communications, PA
2. Understanding Occupation-paper appearing on SPME website, February, 2005
3. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war
4. http://www.rotten.com/library/history/ war-crimes/geneva-conventions
5. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war
6. Rabkin, Jeremy. Lawfare, The Wall Street Journal. July 13, 2004
7. Richard Kuper and Daniella Jaff-Klein,Israeli and International Law, published by Jews for Justice for Palestinians, December, 2004.
8. Beres, Louis Rene, Israel and Gaza, Washington Post, May 27, 2004
9. Gold, Dore. FROM "OCCUPIED TERRITORIES" TO "DISPUTED TERRITORIES" No. 470 3 Shvat 5762 / 16 January 2002
By
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
SPME Board of Directors
Wingate Institute/Zinman College
Mar.7, 2005
Revised March 2007
It was a warm September day here in Israel. My friends were either at the beach, sitting at a café or enjoying their family and IT all began, again! The IT I am referring to is the second Intifada. This was a planned, premeditated action by the Palestinian leadership (1) and for many of us it continues to this day. We welcome the new leadership indicating peace may now be possible, we listen to the words of the terrorist groups who indicate they will honor the cease-fire, and we are cautious with our optimism. We have been down this road before. Our wanting to believe is laid on top of our memories of the most recent past. The quiet time served only as a re-stocking, repositioning, reenergizing by all interested terrorist groups and Israeli children, mothers and fathers have paid the price for wanting to believe.
How did we arrive at this point in time? Some would have you believe that IsraelÕs occupation of Palestinian land is the reason why the conflict began and still rages on. If Israel would simply leave the territories the bloodshed would stop, peace would reign supreme. In a previous paper I shared an opposing point of view (2).
To legitimize the support of Palestinian terror, people and nations have turned to UN resolutions, international agreements and documents to make Israel wrong, in so doing the result is that the Palestinian positions are correct-even honorable. One such document that has found favor among those convinced that terrorism is a sanctioned activity is the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention document.
There has been so much written about this document. However, many of the articles provide only a snapshot of the Fourth Geneva Convention and intentionally do so to support a political position. This kind of reporting clearly offers a singular and often simplistic perspective of events here in the Middle East. Let us examine context and perspective as they apply to the fourth Geneva Convention.
Historical context in a capsule:
The Geneva Conventions consist of treaties formulated in Geneva, Switzerland that set the standards of international law for humanitarian concerns. The conventions were the results of efforts by Henri Dunant (1862), who was motivated by the horrors of war he witnessed at the Battle of Solferino (1859).
The conventions, their agreements and two added protocols are as follows: First Geneva Convention (1864): Treatment of battlefield casualties and creation of International Red Cross Second Geneva Convention (1906): Extended the principles from the first convention to apply also to war at sea.
Third Geneva Convention (1929): Treatment of Prisoner of war.
Fourth Geneva Convention (1949): Treatment relating to the protection of civilians during times of war "in the hands" of an enemy and under any occupation by a foreign power.
Protocol I ( 1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts Protocol II (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts.
In summary, the first three conventions were revised, a fourth was added, and the entire set was ratified in 1949; the whole is referred to as the "Geneva Conventions of 1949" or simply the "Geneva Conventions". Later conferences (Protocols) added the provisions prohibiting certain methods of warfare and addressing issues of civil wars. (3)
All of the preceding conventions occurred after the horror of war had once again dealt its misery upon human beings. One can notice over time that people attempted to make war less painful and less grotesque by attempting to get the world community to adopt more humane behavior and actions specific to the title of each convention. This paper makes no attempt to describe any of the preceding documents; rather, it is important to note that for nearly 150 years many in the world community have attempted to sanitize human war behavior and in so doing suggest to the non-warring people that war has rules that must be followed, during battle and after cessation of a war.
War is an ugly business. For thousands of years, this has remained the case. Finally the Geneva Conventions came along in 1948, and the nations of the world joined hands to transform war from an ugly business into an ugly-business-described-by-solemn-buzzwords-and-unenforceable-guidelines, which allowed countries taking part in war to disavow the ugliness of the business without actually having to conduct the business in any meaningfully different manner. This is what we call "civilization."(4)
Thus, one of the first things the newly formed U.N. did was sit down in Geneva, Switzerland, and try to find a kinder, gentler way to wage war. In December 1948, the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide passed the first article of what would be known as the Geneva Conventions. Genocide was defined as murder "committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." This convention drew up a list of punishable crimes "genocide; conspiracy to commit genocide; direct and public incitement to commit genocide; attempt to commit genocide; [and] complicity in genocide." Other articles were added and produced the document we know as the Fourth Geneva Convention. The history of the Geneva documents is well worth studying. One discovers that each new set of guidelines has attempted to appease groups of violated people as well as trying to civilize an otherwise uncivil set of human behaviors. What happens when the rules are broken?
Accusations of violation of the Geneva Conventions on the part of signatory nations are brought before the International Court of Justice at The Hague. The International Court of Justice (known colloquially as the World Court or ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Established in 1945, its main functions are to settle disputes submitted to it by states and to give advisory opinions (non-binding) on legal questions submitted to it by the UN General Assembly or UN Security Council, or by such specialized agencies as may be authorized to do so by the General Assembly in accordance with the United Nations Charter. The Statute of the International Court of Justice is the main constitutional document constituting and regulating the Court (5).
The Court resides in The Hague, the Netherlands. It is composed of fifteen judges elected by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council from a list of persons nominated by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Judges serve for nine years and may be re-elected. No two may be nationals of the same country. One-third of the Court is elected every three years. Each of the five permanent members of the Security Council ( France, the People's Republic of China, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have always had a judge on the Court.
Questions before the Court are decided by a majority of judges present. Article 38 of the Statute provides that in arriving at its decisions the Court shall apply international conventions, international custom, the "general principles of law recognized by civilized nations". It may also refer to academic writing and previous judicial decisions to help interpret the law, although the Court is not formally bound by its previous decisions. If the parties agree, the Court may also decide ex aequo et bono, or "in justice and fairness", in which the Court makes a decision based on general principles of fairness rather than specific law (5). The ICJ hears two distinct types of cases upon which the court may rule: contentious issues between states in which the court produces binding rulings between states that agree and advisory opinions, which provide reasoned, but non-binding, rulings on properly submitted questions of international law, usually at the request of the United Nations General Assembly. Please note that the court only hears contentious issues between states when both parties agree to participate in the court activity. If one nation does not agree to participate, the outcome is not binding; although historically the outcome has been used for political gain. I provide the preceding information for several reasons.
First, it is useful to note that the United Nations serves as the judge and the jury for international behavior transgressions-fortunately it has no power or authority to be also the executioner. The Fourth Geneva Convention was the result of the newly created United Nations, just after WWII, to ensure that future wars be more humane. The ICJ, the legal interpreter/arm of the United Nations, operates within its auspices and structure thus serving as judge and jury. It is also useful to understand this direct relationship between the Geneva Conventions and the ICJ. From the very same organization who created the Geneva documents come the representative individuals who sit in judgment of misbehavior. They are therefore not independent agents. Is it possible they may have a vested political interest in the outcome of the arguments presented to the court?
Second, although it is true that most countries have signed onto the Geneva Conventions, it is important to note that even the United States did not sign onto the two additional protocols in 1977. There is no international law or court of law that has supreme jurisdiction over each and every country's behavior. There are no international police that enforce any of the Geneva judgments. Yet most civilized countries today do their best to adhere to the humanitarian language found within the Geneva documents.
Third, the Fourth Geneva Convention for all practical purposes is an advisory set of rules for the world community to operate within, it is truly not, in a practical manner, binding. However, the world, the media, the pundits and most of academia act as though it is mandatory. Countries call into question the behavior of some other (but not all) countries that do not meet the Fourth Geneva Convention specifications as they interpret them. The key is as they interpret them. Herein lies the crux of the matter.
Perspective: Political Currency
Again, it is beyond the scope of this paper to offer all of the interpretive arguments all sides have presented. However, it may be instructive to demonstrate the relationship that exists between such interpretation and the gain of political capital by the international community of nations.
One of the more recent FGC (Fourth Geneva Convention) interpretations that illustrate this concept is the ruling by the ICJ regarding Israel's security barrier. This event clearly demonstrates all of the afore-mentioned considerations from interpretation to political motivation. The following is a general summary of the events surrounding the case of the security barrier and the 4th Geneva Convention: The traditional approach to international arbitration would have barred the ICJ from entering into this international conflict. Palestine, since it is not a recognized state, cannot sue before the ICJ in its own name. Israel did not consent to let the legality of the fence be decided by the ICJ. However, this did not stop the international community.
December, 2003: The statute of the ICJ provides that the Court may only decide disputes submitted by states and then only with the consent of the states that are parties to the dispute. Israel chose not to participate. The U.N. General Assembly, at the prompting of Arab states, asked the Court to provide an "advisory opinion" on the dispute over the fence. The U.N. Charter allows for this procedure, but only in regard to "legal issues" and only in conformity with the overall scheme of the Charter. Here, the General Assembly was effectively asking the ICJ to endorse its own political conclusions, with its resolution describing the fence as a "wall" (most of it is, in fact, chain-link construction) on "occupied territory including East Jerusalem." The General Assembly was also seeking to have the ICJ do an end-run around the Security Council, which is supposed to have primary responsibility for resolving threats to peace (while at the same time circumventing the legal requirement that Israel consent to be judged in a case to which it was a party) (6).
The Court had many legal grounds for refusing to decide this case. The Israeli government and also the U.S., Russia, the European Union and a majority of EU member states pressed such arguments on the Court. In other words, all the sponsors of the "road map," urged the Court to stay out of this heated political conflict. Many other governments around the world took the same view.
The Court's own authority observed that the lack of consent to the Court's contentious jurisdiction by interested states has no bearing on the Court's jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion. So it went ahead anyway and provided an advisory opinion. A lengthy opinion piece emerged that addressed the political sound bites the Palestinians have used for months, e.g., occupation, location of the fence, freedom of Palestinian movement to name but a few. The political currency gained by this public performance resonates to even this day.
Given the membership of the Court, where states hostile to Israel are plentifully represented, condemnation of the fence was to be expected. Most regrettable and upsetting, however, was that all five judges from EU states (UK, France, Germany, Netherlands, Slovakia) went along with the majority. Only the American judge, Thomas Buergenthal, argued against taking this step and he also dissented on the essence of the arguments.
Thus, a case that need not be heard by the Geneva's Convention legal court (ICJ) was encouraged by the Arab states and ultimately other countries to play out on the international stage. For those who do not understand how the Geneva Convention and ICJ work, they became willing recipients of what amounted to misinformation and disinformation about Israel's rights under international law. The belief one is left with is that Israel has no legal right to protect itself via a security barrier and that Israel continues to break the rules of the 4th Geneva Convention-nothing could be further from the truth yet the public relation damage had been done. Once again, the Palestinians were portrayed as victims of the Israeli government and its people.
This is but one example how certain countries have pronounced the legal rights and wrongs of the Mid-East conflict. European governments, already so eager to distance themselves politically from Israel have fallen lock step in this action with many other nations of the world.
The use of The Fourth Geneva Convention served to validate the Palestinian tactic of using the international community, and the United Nations in particular, as a forum for airing grievances against Israel, rather than resolving such matters through bilateral negotiations and the Oslo peace process. There are other examples of Geneva Convention interpretations being used for political gain. The following example is a common other point of view argument employed by Israel's detractors.
Israel ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention with effect from 6 July 1951. The convention is considered to have been elevated to the status of "customary international law", which means it applies irrespective of whether a State has ratified it. Apart from Israel, the entire international community, has unambiguously accepted the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to those territories captured and occupied by Israel in the 1967 war, which include the West Bank and Gaza.(7).
The authors then move into all of the violations of the Fourth Geneva convention by Israel and they do so using technical legal language. This is done not to offer clarity to the reader, rather it is done to impress the reader as well as to confuse the reader. At no time do these authors or others who employ this reporting strategy offer the counter argument still present today: the Geneva convention does not apply to the territories of Gaza and the West Bank. Thousands and thousands of articles have been written with the basic assumption that it is common knowledge that the Convention is applicable to these lands and under these documents Israel is in violation of international law. It is curious that the international community does not hold the Palestinians to these same opinions and ignores their daily violations of this same document. For example by deliberately placing young Arab children in the front of large mobs that advanced menacingly upon Israeli soldiers, Palestinian leaders openly committed major violations of the Law of War. There is, in fact, a precise legal term for these violations, a term that applies equally to the Palestinian tactic of routinely inserting scores of gunmen among the lines of children. This codified crime under humanitarian international law is called "perfidy."(8)
The truth is that even to this day, the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention is being argued and challenged. For example, Dore Gold offers "The Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable in the West Bank and Gaza because previous occupants [Jordan and Egypt] entered those territories illegally in 1948 during the Arab invasion of Israel." Since the Fourth Geneva Convention seeks to protect the sovereign from the occupying military power, and there has not been a recognized sovereign in the territories aside from the Jewish people since 1920, there is no factual basis for its application to the territories (9).
The Fourth Geneva Convention, composed in 1949, is the document, which most addresses the rights and obligations of Occupying Powers. Many argue that the Palestinian Arabs are not citizens of a country that has agreed to the Convention, but it is universally accepted that all of the articles that relate to the treatment of the civilian, non-combatant population still apply.
Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign." In fact, prior to 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip; their presence in those territories was the result of their illegal invasion in 1948, in defiance of the UN Security Council. Jordan's 1950 annexation of the West Bank was recognized only by Great Britain (excluding the annexation of Jerusalem) and Pakistan, and rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states. At Jordan's insistence, the 1949 Armistice Line, that constituted the Israeli-Jordanian boundary until 1967, was not a recognized international border but only a line separating armies. The Armistice Agreement specifically stated: "no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations" (8).
Given that some argue that since Palestine is not a state, neither internal conflict nor international conflict applies (those are the only things the four Geneva Conventions apply to). Some argue that Israel is an occupying power in the West Bank and Gaza. If this is the case, then there are specific laws concerning occupation in the Fourth Geneva Convention and customary international law. Under this convention, Palestinians who are residents of the Occupied Territories are considered protected persons. Protected persons have certain rights and immunities. If they choose to fight, however, they are not entitled to prisoner of war status. They would be subject to the laws or military orders of the occupying power. The debate is endless.
As of this date with respect to the rules of war the Geneva Convention is a multi-faceted set of documents that represent the sum total of humans' thinking. It should be of some interest to note that the US signed all four Geneva Convention agreements, and Congress ratified all but the two amended protocols of 1977. Similarly, Israel has also not signed the additional protocols, and these are not considered customary law. So, using international law neither the US nor Israel has committed "grave breaches" or any other violations. In the years since its adoption, the Fourth Geneva Convention was convened only to discuss Israel, and never once met to deal with world atrocities including those in Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Sudan, Congo, and Tibet.
Since 1997, the Arab group at the United Nations has been trying to invoke the Fourth Geneva Convention against Israel, claiming that it applies to settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Again in February 1999 this group managed to get the General Assembly to adopt a resolution calling for a special UN session in Geneva to examine "persistent violations" by Israel. Although reduced in scope by the United States, a special UN meeting held in Geneva on July 15, 1999 unanimously passed a resolution stating that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply to Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. The closed-door meeting lasted a mere 45 minutes.
When the Second Intifada started in September 2000, the Arab group renewed its demand for a full reconvening of the High Contracting Parties. In response, Switzerland (the Depository for the Fourth Geneva Convention with the responsibility to convene meetings), in consultation with other countries, drafted a declaration that was critical of Israel, but was far more moderate than the draft document submitted by the Organization of Islamic Conference. Continuing their political maneuvers on December 5, 2001 (request of Arab states), Switzerland again reconvened a meeting of the High Contracting Parties of the Fourth Geneva Convention to discuss alleged Israeli violations of the Convention in its treatment of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The United States, Israel and Australia boycotted the meeting, because, as Israel warned that the meeting would be used "as a blunt tool for political attacks" against Israel. This meeting lasted a mere two hours, the expected result by the assembled parties adopted a resolution censuring Israel for alleged violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention in its treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Curiously this meeting was held in the shadow of deadly campaign of Palestinian homicide terrorism, which killed at least 25 Israelis. Does this not demonstrate the absurdity of the one-sided focus on alleged Israeli violations?
Actions produce responses and additional actions-there is cause and effect. The reconvening of the High Contracting Parties served to legitimize the Palestinian strategy of using the international community, and the U.N. in particular, as a forum for airing grievances against Israel, rather than resolving such matters through bilateral negotiations. Moreover one can argue that the reconvening of High Contracting Parties to discuss these issues dangerously politicized and violated the spirit of the Geneva Convention and its important humanitarian purpose.
The international hypocrisy over the application of the Fourth Geneva convention needs to be discussed in detail. I will only open this discussion door in this paper. Given that those in the world community of nations have used the document to make political points against Israel, these same countries have also accepted that all of the articles relating to the treatment of the civilian, non-combatant population still apply. For example, did you know that Article 23 Allows Occupying Powers to limit the free passage of medical and other critical consignments when such materials may give direct or indirect aid to enemy fighting forces? Were you aware that Article 49 Allows Occupying Powers to transfer, in part or in total, the occupied civilian population when there are imperative military reasons? Did you also know that Article 46 Allows for restrictive measures regarding personal property of civilians? The Fourth Geneva Convention does not define these measures. Perhaps you didn't know that Article 53 Allows Occupying Powers to destroy personal property where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations. Based upon this language Israel has the right to its actions; has this information been withheld from the common reader? This information contradicts what you have been led to believe is true. Selective use of the convention's language has been used for years by Israel's enemies. For what purpose? There is no real power behind the charges except the power of public opinion and resultant actions by their nations' government. If you can convince people that Israel is the prime reason for all of the Palestinians problems, then governments can sell their anti-Israel policies. In addition, this takes the spotlight off of any Arab country or even Western country with respect to its own internal difficulties. Finally, it once again demonstrates how the Palestinians have been victimized for decades-this resonates well in many of the world's countries. With the help of the media, academia, and international governments this misrepresentation of the truth continues to this day. We all pray that the Second Intifada of physical harm is over; please understand the Intifada of revisionism of history and misrepresentation of facts continues unabated. This helps keep the conflict brewing. Is it not time to change the rhetoric, to sit quietly and seek the truth? We are all truly insane to think things will change if we keep repeating the past and expect different results.
Notes
1. December, 2000 Speech by Emmad El-Faluji, Minister of Communications, PA
2. Understanding Occupation-paper appearing on SPME website, February, 2005
3. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war
4. http://www.rotten.com/library/history/ war-crimes/geneva-conventions
5. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war
6. Rabkin, Jeremy. Lawfare, The Wall Street Journal. July 13, 2004
7. Richard Kuper and Daniella Jaff-Klein,Israeli and International Law, published by Jews for Justice for Palestinians, December, 2004.
8. Beres, Louis Rene, Israel and Gaza, Washington Post, May 27, 2004
9. Gold, Dore. FROM "OCCUPIED TERRITORIES" TO "DISPUTED TERRITORIES" No. 470 3 Shvat 5762 / 16 January 2002
Let's not confuse the truth with facts
Understanding Israeli Occupation
By
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
February 7, 2005
Revised March 2007
March 31, 2003: It was 3:30 am in California (I was back in the states for work) and received a phone call-now we all know to receive such a call in this hour usually means bad news, the following is what I was told: at 12:40 pm Israeli time, members of my family headed to our weekly group brunch at our favorite outdoor café, the London in Netanya, Israel. It was simply another day, the weekend had arrived, Spring was in the air and the sun was warmly shining upon everyone. Soon a good meal and lots of laughter with our group was to begin. For some reason that morning, as she exited our bank (part of our Friday morning routine) my mate decided to call the group and suggested they move to another outdoor restaurant. Twenty minutes later eyewitnesses reported that a soldier saw a suspicious-looking Arab attempting to enter the crowded London Cafe in Independence Square, and prevented him from doing so. This terrorist then turned to a group of soldiers walking close by the London, and blew himself up adjacent to them. Dozens injured, many who severely suffer to this day. Intuition saved my mate's life and those of our friends. So much pain, so much destruction, all done on a beautiful Spring day-no one thought as they awoke this morning that a few hours later they would be lying in their own blood and that of many others. How did we arrive at this barbaric act?
The justification for the preceding act of terror and horror is Israel's occupation of Palestinian land. No matter who speaks on behalf of the Palestinian people, its leaders, its terrorist groups or its people, we are told that the illegal occupation by Israel is THE cause of the problems in the area. Before addressing this issue, let the preceding vignette into your mind's eye that one group justifies attacking and murdering innocent civilians as well as soldiers because they say that Israel is illegally on their land. This is normal human behavior? Furthermore, the international community has assisted this kind of thinking by accepting a particular point of view not grounded in fact or truth. If you question Westerners, really quiz them about the context and the perspective surrounding the occupation you discover that many do not know the history, nor do they have a basic understanding of this region of the world. However, they do feel comfortable repeating revisionist history, misrepresented legal statements, and manipulated news stories.
So much has been written about occupation-an internet search alone yields over 2,100,000 hits. With very few exceptions there is always something missing in these pieces-context and perspective! Most of the reports provide only a snapshot of the phenomena called occupation and intentionally do so to support a political position. This kind of reporting clearly misrepresents historical facts and legal documentation.
A gentle reminder before proceeding: reality is a person's perception of events. It does not matter if this perception is supported by the facts or by truth. This is precisely what has occurred with the concept of Israeli occupation. Perception can be managed, even altered by intentionally framing any circumstance, situation or event in a manner that supports an individual or a group's position. Much of the world leadership has acted in accordance with the misperception and misrepresentation of facts-their motivation is self-interest.
Dore Gold1 suggested the following reasons why distortion of the truth serves the Palestinian cause: Three clear purposes seem to be served by the repeated references to "occupation" or "occupied Palestinian territories." First, Palestinian spokesmen hope to create a political context to explain and even justify the Palestinians' adoption of violence and terrorism during the current intifada. Second, the Palestinian demand of Israel to "end the occupation" does not leave any room for territorial compromise in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as suggested by the original language of UN Security Council Resolution 242. Third, the use of "occupied Palestinian territories" denies any Israeli claim to the land: had the more neutral language of "disputed territories" been used, then the Palestinians and Israel would be on an even playing field with equal rights. Additionally, by presenting Israel as a "foreign occupier," advocates of the Palestinian cause can de-legitimize the Jewish historical attachment to Israel.
Let us put into context two primary arguments supporting the idea that Israel illegally occupies Palestine: history of the region and international law that purports to sanction Palestinian positions.
For purposes of this paper the historical timeline begins 1947/1948 and yet what occurred prior to this date is also necessary as it provides an expanded context for events that took place after 1948. Let's begin by agreeing that Jews and Arabs resided in what is known today as Israel Proper as well as in the territories called Gaza and the West Bank during this time.
History tells the tale:
On November 29, 1947 Palestine's Arab leadership rejected the United Nations' plan to partition the country into a Jewish and an Arab state.
On May 14, 1948 Israel became a sovereign country recognized by the United States and many other countries as a member of the world community of nations. The British (recognized legal controlling agents of this area) left the country- Five Arab armies (Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq) invaded Israel.
The Arab countries were defeated and then they signed armistice agreements with Israel in 1949, starting with Egypt (Feb. 24), followed by Lebanon, Jordan and Syria (July 20). None of the Arab states would negotiate a peace agreement.
Roughly 650,00 Arabs left Israel and around 650,000 Jews were expelled from surrounding Arab countries during the War of independence (numbers vary depending on your political connection). The Jews were absorbed into Israel while the abandoned Arabs were intentionally not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands they ran to in spite of the vast Arab territory adjacent to Israel.
Crucial to note two distinctions: the Arabs were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders who promised to rid the land of Jews while the Jews were expelled, they lost everything, homes, monies, clothing, books-everything. Fleeing Arabs lost as well. Please note that 68% of the Arabs left Israel never seeing an Israeli militia or soldier. Second distinction to note is that of the 100,000,000 refugees created since WWII, the Arab (Palestinian) group is the ONLY ONE in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples' lands. Please also note that 150,000 Arabs did remain inside Israel Proper (now numbering 1.2 million) and they were granted Israeli citizenship. These Arabs have their own political parties, are members of the Israeli Knesset, and have all the citizenship privileges as Jews in Israel. The freest Arabs live in Israel!
An observation by a Palestinian who was a child in 1948- Sarah El Shazly2: The fact is that the Arab world warned us against staying with the Jews. They also warned us that Arabs were going to fight the Zionists and that Palestinians should leave to avoid getting hurt. Many trusted these Arab leaders and left as instructedÉmy family stayed homeÉJews begged Arabs to stay and live with themÉthe ones who remained still live there today and prosper.
Her next remark bares repeating and remembering: Palestinians have gotten the short end of the stick in Arab society. It suits Arab leaders to keep this group in a state of poverty and conflict and to channel all resentment toward the Jews. You don't believe me? Ask yourself why Jordan or Egypt or Syria never gave the Palestinians a country?
Up until 1948, Gaza and Judea and Samaria (West Bank) were part of the British Mandate. Let's get history correct-both Egypt and Jordan illegally occupied the respective territories of Gaza and the West Bank from 1948-1967. Jordan illegally annexed this territory-neither international law nor the Arab countries recognized Jordan's annexation.
From 1948/1950 until 1967 Egypt and Jordan controlled and ruled over their respective territories. They established refugee camps for the fleeing Arabs, never developed an infrastructure for them and life was difficult.
Another observation by Sarah El Shazly: Let's go to the refugees ... (the Arabs) they stuck Palestinians in camps with deplorable living conditions. Why didn't they (Jordan and Egypt) leave them alone in their homes? Why promise them refuge and reward them with nothing more than prison camps? And most of all why didn't they provide Palestinians with homes in the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights when Arabs had control over them?
It is crucial to note that not once, during this occupation by Arab states was there a move toward Palestinian nationalization. Not until 1967 did Arab refugees begin to identify themselves as part of a Palestinian people-this is 20 years after the establishment of the state of Israel and under the administration of fellow Arabs.
In 1967, after the six-Day War, these territories (originally meant for the Jewish nation's homeland according to the British mandate charter) returned to Israeli control.
Yes, Israel has been inside the two territories from the 1967 War until today. A reminder, Israel was attacked by Arab nations; all sovereign countries-Israel defeated them in six days. This gets us to the legal myths that surround these same territories.
International Law explains why Israel is allowed into these disputed territories:
If one uses international law and/or resolutions to justify its claim, then one must be prepared to accurately clarify his/her position given the provided documents. In addition, when others or I call into question the interpretation or truthfulness of the use of these same documents, be prepared to defend the position rather than misdirect the conversation to another topic. Policy based upon lies, revisionist history and misrepresentation of the truth is illegal, immoral and unethical. In order to truly understand the rationale for a law or resolution you must also place this within the historical context of the time; there is a cause and effect relationship.
Former Chief Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court3 wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure application of the fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of Gaza or of the West Bank. Why? Illegal occupation is based upon the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign. Thus, those who use the Geneva Convention to justify Palestine's current status are incorrect; if they continuously use this argument they are lying. Why? There was and currently is no such country known as Palestine. It is important to understand that in many other cases in recent history (Cyprus, Kurile Islands, Abu Musa) in which a country's border was crossed due to armed conflict and had its sovereign territory seized, the term of occupation was never used-it seems only when it comes to Israel that the stigma as Israel the aggressor has gained wide spread acceptance.
From Hanan Ashrawi, Palestinian spokesperson and darling of CNN to Mustafa Barghouti, Marwan Barghouti (jailed head of PLO Fatah), university professors and TV's commentators, they all repeat the mantra of illegal occupation as the root cause of the problems. Curiously, if you listen carefully or read with due diligence you are often hard pressed to learn which international law they are referring. If they do refer to some international law they either talk in generalities, never addressing the specific part of the law that justifies their position or they misrepresent a document as being international law, e.g., UN Resolution 194.
I am not an international lawyer so read my comments as one who examines the world critically and carefully after having thoroughly examined the presented material. It is safe to say that international jurists make a clear distinction between situations of aggressive conquest and territorial disputes that are the result from a war of self-defense. The noted former Head of the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Stephen Schwebel4, wrote in 1970: Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title. This statement requires an accurate accounting of historical events in order for the truth to be told. There is a direct and binding relation between international law and facts on the ground. Historical sequence of events is critical to understand resultant legal documents. For Judge Schwebel's statement to matter, understand that June 5, 1967, Israel only entered the West Bank after repeated Jordanian artillery fire as well as ground movements across the armistice borders. Jordan began their action at 10 am, Israel warned Jordan via the UN at 11 am, the attacks continued. Therefore, at 12:45 pm Israel took proper military action. Jordan's actions had revoked the validity of the armistice signed with Israel. This alone gave Israel legal right to enter the West Bank.
The most abused resolutions used against Israel are UN Resolutions 194 and 242. Palestinian leaders, its people and other supporters use these documents regularly to claim that these resolutions give Palestinians the right of return to Israel and right of the land in the territories. These claims are inaccurate, incorrect and baseless. Those who say otherwise are ignorant, intellectually lazy or intellectually dishonest, or have a political agenda contrary to Israel's rights in these same territories.
UN resolutions fall into two categories: those emanating from the General Assembly and those coming out of the Security Council. Resolutions from the General assembly are not binding legally and serve only as recommendations, e.g., UN 194. Those resolutions exiting the Security Council are binding, e.g., UN242/338 and the international membership of the United Nations have agreed to honor such resolutions. For specifics on each of the afore-mentioned resolutions much has been written-go to the internet and you will find hundreds of thousands of sites.
UN Resolution 194
Created December 11,1948 to address the refugee issue which was the result of Israel's War of independence-it was a non-binding document.
It recommended that the Arab states and Israel resolve all outstanding issues through negotiations
The UN recognized that Israel could not be expected to repatriate a hostile population that could endanger its security. Thus, the suggested solution to this problem, like in all previous refugee problems, would require at least some Arabs to be resettled in Arab lands.
At this moment in history, Israel did not expect the refugees to be a major issue; Israel thought the Arab states would resettle the majority of the people and that compromise on the others would be forth coming.
Arab states rejected this UN resolution!
Interesting that at the time in history when this resolution was created, Arabs flat out rejected it. Now, it is the resolution they hang their hat on when it comes to justifying their actions.
The current dispute over the territories is allegedly the result of Israel's decision to occupy, rather than as a result of a war imposed upon Israel by the coalition of Arab states in June of 1967. However, UN Resolution 242, which serves as the basis for the 1991 Madrid Conference, precursor to Oslo, and the so-called 1993 Declaration of Principles, gave Israel rights within the territories. I know this is contrary to what is common knowledge and accepted belief. This resolution has been the corner stone of the PA's stance toward occupation. To put this politely, the PA and almost all other Arab nations and some Western nations have intentionally misled the public with regards to what the resolution said and required of all parties.
UN Resolution 242
Created November 22,1967 to serve as guidelines for a peace settlement to the 6-day war.
The most controversial clause in UN 242 is: Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict-this is THE portion of the resolution that Palestinian and other Arabs use to justify that Israel is illegally occupying their land.
It is worth repeating that the words the or all and the June5, 1967 lines were not used in the language of this resolution. The history of this document is a paper unto itself and the topic is worth re-visiting to best understand my words. Thus 242 only speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of the withdrawal-this according to Arthur Goldberg, American Ambassador to the UN in 1967. This implicitly indicates that Israel has rights in these same territories.
Clearly stated in this resolution is the notion that Israel would not be required to withdraw without prior agreement of peace. In other words, the resolution does not make Israel leave as a prerequisite for Arab action.
UN 242 does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up
The resolution clearly requires Arab states to make peace with Israel and demands secure and recognized boundaries.
Finally, it is important to remember that Palestinians are NOT mentioned anywhere in this resolution. Nor does it require that Palestinians be given any territory or political rights. On Oct. 15, 1968 the PLO rejected UN 242.
Fact :the use of the generic term refugees. This was used to deliberately acknowledge there were two refugee problems-the Arabs and the Jews.
These are but the highlights of a few of the legal arguments used to falsely claim that Israel is illegally occupying the territories. It is true that Israel had taken up occupancy in the West Bank and Gaza territories as was and is their legal right to do so. Israel is well within her legal rights to be in these areas according to the UN resolutions I have presented as well as some documents I have not shared due to limited space. Couple the documents with historical statements and behavior (context), and you can better understand the truth. How do today's PA leaders, media analysts and university professors reconcile the following examples of occupancy discourse with their own justifications? The PLO's first leader an Egyptian, Ahmed Shukairy is remembered for saying on May 31, 1956, to the UN Security Council: It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria.
Is this not another disconnect from the revised history you have learned? I find it amazing that using the PLO's own words of record, using their own published documents that the world has remained so gullible.
Additionally, upon examination of the PLO Charter, Article 24, the claims that the West Bank or Gaza are part of "historic Palestine" are nonsense-here is, in part, what their own document says: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, [or] on the Gaza Strip...
There is ample international legal evidence, legal opinion and legal testimony that has established Israel's legal rights to these territories. From the 1922 League of Nations mandate, to the United Nation's Article 80 of its Charter, to UN resolution 181, through to UN 242. As interpreted by a multitude of legal scholars, Israel has justification for its case concerning the territories of Gaza and the West Bank. I do find it most interesting that the international community has chosen to look the other way or use other self-serving interpretations for events that have happened in the following locales: Kashmir, Azerbaijan, Western Sahara, and many others.
Oslo Accords (I & II)
Signed September 13, 1993 the Oslo Accords were signed and they provided an opportunity for resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Accords clearly gave Israel permission to be in the territories that are in dispute to this day.
It is crucial to understand that the Oslo Accords were yet another attempt to develop a peace agreement with the Palestinians -these accords are a continuation of decades old process that had their start after the 6-day war in 1967 with continuation after the 1973 war-two wars in which Arab countries attacked Israel.
On September 28, 1995 Israelis and Palestinians signed yet another deal known as the "Interim Agreement" or "Oslo 2." This agreement allowed for a second stage of autonomy for the Palestinians, giving them self-rule in the cities of Bethlehem, Jenin, Nablus, Qalqilya, Ramallah, Tulkarm, parts of Hebron and 450 villages, while allowing Israeli-guarded Jewish settlements to remain.
The Oslo 2 agreement divided the West Bank and Gaza into three areas, each with distinctive borders and rules for administration and security controls: Areas A (the Palestinian Authority now has full responsibility for internal security and public order, as well as full responsibility for civil affairs), B (Israel maintains overriding security authority in order to safeguard its citizens and to combat terrorism), C (Israel retains full responsibility for security). This agreement, signed by the Palestinian leadership, gives Israel overriding security authority in order to safeguard its citizens and to combat terrorism.
Furthermore, on Oct. 26, 1994, Jordan relinquished West Bank control to Israel and just with this fact alone, one cannot authentically argue that Israel is an occupier.
Note that 98 per cent of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip has come under Palestinian jurisdiction and has also transferred 40 spheres of civilian authority to the PA. With these agreements Israel was granted legal rights to the territories and was and continues to be legally allowed to be inside these same territories.
International law (Geneva Convention, article 6; Hague Regulations) land is considered occupied when it is under the actual control of the occupier. Even the most reluctant observer must admit that since Oslo, Israel has not occupied the territories
To this day, the agreed upon stages of the Accords (Interim Plan) have yet to be realized. A second Intifada is currently being waged against Israel, Road Map not withstanding.
You can't abuse and misrepresent international agreements to justify your position and then turn around and dismiss these same agreements as anti-Arab and/or as anti-Muslim when we challenge the Palestinian interpretation and contradictory use of these same agreements.
We live in a world committed to co-existence. For this to occur we either all live by a set of common agreements or we live in anarchy produced through terrorism, fear and war. I understand that today's generation of Palestinian youth and young adults as well as much of generation X in the West believe that Palestine has been illegally occupied by Israel-why? There are two reasons: the Palestinian leadership made a conscious decision to teach and preach revised history, they made Palestinians victims, they distorted the legal facts and have intentionally misled two generations; it is time for the truth to be told. For politicians to act as they do, this is another story, well worth an explanation!
Additionally the press has not served as the critical voice the public deserves or expects from its media and it accepted revisionist history thereby erroneously creating an improper context of events as they have unfolded here in our area of the world. Although true that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion; however, you are not entitled to make up your own facts!
Notes
1 Gold, Dore, From occupied Territories to disputed territories, posted Jerusalem Letter, Jan.16, 2002
2 El Shazly, Sarah, What Really happened in 1948?, posted Front Page magazine, December 28, 2004
3 Shamgar, Meir, Former Chief justice of Supreme Court argued in contrast to President Carter's position subsequently the Reagan and Bush administrations changed the legal determination in the 1980's
4 Schwebel, Stephen, International Court of justice, as reported by Dore Gold, Jan.16, 2002
By
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
February 7, 2005
Revised March 2007
March 31, 2003: It was 3:30 am in California (I was back in the states for work) and received a phone call-now we all know to receive such a call in this hour usually means bad news, the following is what I was told: at 12:40 pm Israeli time, members of my family headed to our weekly group brunch at our favorite outdoor café, the London in Netanya, Israel. It was simply another day, the weekend had arrived, Spring was in the air and the sun was warmly shining upon everyone. Soon a good meal and lots of laughter with our group was to begin. For some reason that morning, as she exited our bank (part of our Friday morning routine) my mate decided to call the group and suggested they move to another outdoor restaurant. Twenty minutes later eyewitnesses reported that a soldier saw a suspicious-looking Arab attempting to enter the crowded London Cafe in Independence Square, and prevented him from doing so. This terrorist then turned to a group of soldiers walking close by the London, and blew himself up adjacent to them. Dozens injured, many who severely suffer to this day. Intuition saved my mate's life and those of our friends. So much pain, so much destruction, all done on a beautiful Spring day-no one thought as they awoke this morning that a few hours later they would be lying in their own blood and that of many others. How did we arrive at this barbaric act?
The justification for the preceding act of terror and horror is Israel's occupation of Palestinian land. No matter who speaks on behalf of the Palestinian people, its leaders, its terrorist groups or its people, we are told that the illegal occupation by Israel is THE cause of the problems in the area. Before addressing this issue, let the preceding vignette into your mind's eye that one group justifies attacking and murdering innocent civilians as well as soldiers because they say that Israel is illegally on their land. This is normal human behavior? Furthermore, the international community has assisted this kind of thinking by accepting a particular point of view not grounded in fact or truth. If you question Westerners, really quiz them about the context and the perspective surrounding the occupation you discover that many do not know the history, nor do they have a basic understanding of this region of the world. However, they do feel comfortable repeating revisionist history, misrepresented legal statements, and manipulated news stories.
So much has been written about occupation-an internet search alone yields over 2,100,000 hits. With very few exceptions there is always something missing in these pieces-context and perspective! Most of the reports provide only a snapshot of the phenomena called occupation and intentionally do so to support a political position. This kind of reporting clearly misrepresents historical facts and legal documentation.
A gentle reminder before proceeding: reality is a person's perception of events. It does not matter if this perception is supported by the facts or by truth. This is precisely what has occurred with the concept of Israeli occupation. Perception can be managed, even altered by intentionally framing any circumstance, situation or event in a manner that supports an individual or a group's position. Much of the world leadership has acted in accordance with the misperception and misrepresentation of facts-their motivation is self-interest.
Dore Gold1 suggested the following reasons why distortion of the truth serves the Palestinian cause: Three clear purposes seem to be served by the repeated references to "occupation" or "occupied Palestinian territories." First, Palestinian spokesmen hope to create a political context to explain and even justify the Palestinians' adoption of violence and terrorism during the current intifada. Second, the Palestinian demand of Israel to "end the occupation" does not leave any room for territorial compromise in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as suggested by the original language of UN Security Council Resolution 242. Third, the use of "occupied Palestinian territories" denies any Israeli claim to the land: had the more neutral language of "disputed territories" been used, then the Palestinians and Israel would be on an even playing field with equal rights. Additionally, by presenting Israel as a "foreign occupier," advocates of the Palestinian cause can de-legitimize the Jewish historical attachment to Israel.
Let us put into context two primary arguments supporting the idea that Israel illegally occupies Palestine: history of the region and international law that purports to sanction Palestinian positions.
For purposes of this paper the historical timeline begins 1947/1948 and yet what occurred prior to this date is also necessary as it provides an expanded context for events that took place after 1948. Let's begin by agreeing that Jews and Arabs resided in what is known today as Israel Proper as well as in the territories called Gaza and the West Bank during this time.
History tells the tale:
On November 29, 1947 Palestine's Arab leadership rejected the United Nations' plan to partition the country into a Jewish and an Arab state.
On May 14, 1948 Israel became a sovereign country recognized by the United States and many other countries as a member of the world community of nations. The British (recognized legal controlling agents of this area) left the country- Five Arab armies (Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq) invaded Israel.
The Arab countries were defeated and then they signed armistice agreements with Israel in 1949, starting with Egypt (Feb. 24), followed by Lebanon, Jordan and Syria (July 20). None of the Arab states would negotiate a peace agreement.
Roughly 650,00 Arabs left Israel and around 650,000 Jews were expelled from surrounding Arab countries during the War of independence (numbers vary depending on your political connection). The Jews were absorbed into Israel while the abandoned Arabs were intentionally not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands they ran to in spite of the vast Arab territory adjacent to Israel.
Crucial to note two distinctions: the Arabs were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders who promised to rid the land of Jews while the Jews were expelled, they lost everything, homes, monies, clothing, books-everything. Fleeing Arabs lost as well. Please note that 68% of the Arabs left Israel never seeing an Israeli militia or soldier. Second distinction to note is that of the 100,000,000 refugees created since WWII, the Arab (Palestinian) group is the ONLY ONE in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples' lands. Please also note that 150,000 Arabs did remain inside Israel Proper (now numbering 1.2 million) and they were granted Israeli citizenship. These Arabs have their own political parties, are members of the Israeli Knesset, and have all the citizenship privileges as Jews in Israel. The freest Arabs live in Israel!
An observation by a Palestinian who was a child in 1948- Sarah El Shazly2: The fact is that the Arab world warned us against staying with the Jews. They also warned us that Arabs were going to fight the Zionists and that Palestinians should leave to avoid getting hurt. Many trusted these Arab leaders and left as instructedÉmy family stayed homeÉJews begged Arabs to stay and live with themÉthe ones who remained still live there today and prosper.
Her next remark bares repeating and remembering: Palestinians have gotten the short end of the stick in Arab society. It suits Arab leaders to keep this group in a state of poverty and conflict and to channel all resentment toward the Jews. You don't believe me? Ask yourself why Jordan or Egypt or Syria never gave the Palestinians a country?
Up until 1948, Gaza and Judea and Samaria (West Bank) were part of the British Mandate. Let's get history correct-both Egypt and Jordan illegally occupied the respective territories of Gaza and the West Bank from 1948-1967. Jordan illegally annexed this territory-neither international law nor the Arab countries recognized Jordan's annexation.
From 1948/1950 until 1967 Egypt and Jordan controlled and ruled over their respective territories. They established refugee camps for the fleeing Arabs, never developed an infrastructure for them and life was difficult.
Another observation by Sarah El Shazly: Let's go to the refugees ... (the Arabs) they stuck Palestinians in camps with deplorable living conditions. Why didn't they (Jordan and Egypt) leave them alone in their homes? Why promise them refuge and reward them with nothing more than prison camps? And most of all why didn't they provide Palestinians with homes in the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights when Arabs had control over them?
It is crucial to note that not once, during this occupation by Arab states was there a move toward Palestinian nationalization. Not until 1967 did Arab refugees begin to identify themselves as part of a Palestinian people-this is 20 years after the establishment of the state of Israel and under the administration of fellow Arabs.
In 1967, after the six-Day War, these territories (originally meant for the Jewish nation's homeland according to the British mandate charter) returned to Israeli control.
Yes, Israel has been inside the two territories from the 1967 War until today. A reminder, Israel was attacked by Arab nations; all sovereign countries-Israel defeated them in six days. This gets us to the legal myths that surround these same territories.
International Law explains why Israel is allowed into these disputed territories:
If one uses international law and/or resolutions to justify its claim, then one must be prepared to accurately clarify his/her position given the provided documents. In addition, when others or I call into question the interpretation or truthfulness of the use of these same documents, be prepared to defend the position rather than misdirect the conversation to another topic. Policy based upon lies, revisionist history and misrepresentation of the truth is illegal, immoral and unethical. In order to truly understand the rationale for a law or resolution you must also place this within the historical context of the time; there is a cause and effect relationship.
Former Chief Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court3 wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure application of the fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of Gaza or of the West Bank. Why? Illegal occupation is based upon the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign. Thus, those who use the Geneva Convention to justify Palestine's current status are incorrect; if they continuously use this argument they are lying. Why? There was and currently is no such country known as Palestine. It is important to understand that in many other cases in recent history (Cyprus, Kurile Islands, Abu Musa) in which a country's border was crossed due to armed conflict and had its sovereign territory seized, the term of occupation was never used-it seems only when it comes to Israel that the stigma as Israel the aggressor has gained wide spread acceptance.
From Hanan Ashrawi, Palestinian spokesperson and darling of CNN to Mustafa Barghouti, Marwan Barghouti (jailed head of PLO Fatah), university professors and TV's commentators, they all repeat the mantra of illegal occupation as the root cause of the problems. Curiously, if you listen carefully or read with due diligence you are often hard pressed to learn which international law they are referring. If they do refer to some international law they either talk in generalities, never addressing the specific part of the law that justifies their position or they misrepresent a document as being international law, e.g., UN Resolution 194.
I am not an international lawyer so read my comments as one who examines the world critically and carefully after having thoroughly examined the presented material. It is safe to say that international jurists make a clear distinction between situations of aggressive conquest and territorial disputes that are the result from a war of self-defense. The noted former Head of the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Stephen Schwebel4, wrote in 1970: Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title. This statement requires an accurate accounting of historical events in order for the truth to be told. There is a direct and binding relation between international law and facts on the ground. Historical sequence of events is critical to understand resultant legal documents. For Judge Schwebel's statement to matter, understand that June 5, 1967, Israel only entered the West Bank after repeated Jordanian artillery fire as well as ground movements across the armistice borders. Jordan began their action at 10 am, Israel warned Jordan via the UN at 11 am, the attacks continued. Therefore, at 12:45 pm Israel took proper military action. Jordan's actions had revoked the validity of the armistice signed with Israel. This alone gave Israel legal right to enter the West Bank.
The most abused resolutions used against Israel are UN Resolutions 194 and 242. Palestinian leaders, its people and other supporters use these documents regularly to claim that these resolutions give Palestinians the right of return to Israel and right of the land in the territories. These claims are inaccurate, incorrect and baseless. Those who say otherwise are ignorant, intellectually lazy or intellectually dishonest, or have a political agenda contrary to Israel's rights in these same territories.
UN resolutions fall into two categories: those emanating from the General Assembly and those coming out of the Security Council. Resolutions from the General assembly are not binding legally and serve only as recommendations, e.g., UN 194. Those resolutions exiting the Security Council are binding, e.g., UN242/338 and the international membership of the United Nations have agreed to honor such resolutions. For specifics on each of the afore-mentioned resolutions much has been written-go to the internet and you will find hundreds of thousands of sites.
UN Resolution 194
Created December 11,1948 to address the refugee issue which was the result of Israel's War of independence-it was a non-binding document.
It recommended that the Arab states and Israel resolve all outstanding issues through negotiations
The UN recognized that Israel could not be expected to repatriate a hostile population that could endanger its security. Thus, the suggested solution to this problem, like in all previous refugee problems, would require at least some Arabs to be resettled in Arab lands.
At this moment in history, Israel did not expect the refugees to be a major issue; Israel thought the Arab states would resettle the majority of the people and that compromise on the others would be forth coming.
Arab states rejected this UN resolution!
Interesting that at the time in history when this resolution was created, Arabs flat out rejected it. Now, it is the resolution they hang their hat on when it comes to justifying their actions.
The current dispute over the territories is allegedly the result of Israel's decision to occupy, rather than as a result of a war imposed upon Israel by the coalition of Arab states in June of 1967. However, UN Resolution 242, which serves as the basis for the 1991 Madrid Conference, precursor to Oslo, and the so-called 1993 Declaration of Principles, gave Israel rights within the territories. I know this is contrary to what is common knowledge and accepted belief. This resolution has been the corner stone of the PA's stance toward occupation. To put this politely, the PA and almost all other Arab nations and some Western nations have intentionally misled the public with regards to what the resolution said and required of all parties.
UN Resolution 242
Created November 22,1967 to serve as guidelines for a peace settlement to the 6-day war.
The most controversial clause in UN 242 is: Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict-this is THE portion of the resolution that Palestinian and other Arabs use to justify that Israel is illegally occupying their land.
It is worth repeating that the words the or all and the June5, 1967 lines were not used in the language of this resolution. The history of this document is a paper unto itself and the topic is worth re-visiting to best understand my words. Thus 242 only speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of the withdrawal-this according to Arthur Goldberg, American Ambassador to the UN in 1967. This implicitly indicates that Israel has rights in these same territories.
Clearly stated in this resolution is the notion that Israel would not be required to withdraw without prior agreement of peace. In other words, the resolution does not make Israel leave as a prerequisite for Arab action.
UN 242 does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up
The resolution clearly requires Arab states to make peace with Israel and demands secure and recognized boundaries.
Finally, it is important to remember that Palestinians are NOT mentioned anywhere in this resolution. Nor does it require that Palestinians be given any territory or political rights. On Oct. 15, 1968 the PLO rejected UN 242.
Fact :the use of the generic term refugees. This was used to deliberately acknowledge there were two refugee problems-the Arabs and the Jews.
These are but the highlights of a few of the legal arguments used to falsely claim that Israel is illegally occupying the territories. It is true that Israel had taken up occupancy in the West Bank and Gaza territories as was and is their legal right to do so. Israel is well within her legal rights to be in these areas according to the UN resolutions I have presented as well as some documents I have not shared due to limited space. Couple the documents with historical statements and behavior (context), and you can better understand the truth. How do today's PA leaders, media analysts and university professors reconcile the following examples of occupancy discourse with their own justifications? The PLO's first leader an Egyptian, Ahmed Shukairy is remembered for saying on May 31, 1956, to the UN Security Council: It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria.
Is this not another disconnect from the revised history you have learned? I find it amazing that using the PLO's own words of record, using their own published documents that the world has remained so gullible.
Additionally, upon examination of the PLO Charter, Article 24, the claims that the West Bank or Gaza are part of "historic Palestine" are nonsense-here is, in part, what their own document says: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, [or] on the Gaza Strip...
There is ample international legal evidence, legal opinion and legal testimony that has established Israel's legal rights to these territories. From the 1922 League of Nations mandate, to the United Nation's Article 80 of its Charter, to UN resolution 181, through to UN 242. As interpreted by a multitude of legal scholars, Israel has justification for its case concerning the territories of Gaza and the West Bank. I do find it most interesting that the international community has chosen to look the other way or use other self-serving interpretations for events that have happened in the following locales: Kashmir, Azerbaijan, Western Sahara, and many others.
Oslo Accords (I & II)
Signed September 13, 1993 the Oslo Accords were signed and they provided an opportunity for resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Accords clearly gave Israel permission to be in the territories that are in dispute to this day.
It is crucial to understand that the Oslo Accords were yet another attempt to develop a peace agreement with the Palestinians -these accords are a continuation of decades old process that had their start after the 6-day war in 1967 with continuation after the 1973 war-two wars in which Arab countries attacked Israel.
On September 28, 1995 Israelis and Palestinians signed yet another deal known as the "Interim Agreement" or "Oslo 2." This agreement allowed for a second stage of autonomy for the Palestinians, giving them self-rule in the cities of Bethlehem, Jenin, Nablus, Qalqilya, Ramallah, Tulkarm, parts of Hebron and 450 villages, while allowing Israeli-guarded Jewish settlements to remain.
The Oslo 2 agreement divided the West Bank and Gaza into three areas, each with distinctive borders and rules for administration and security controls: Areas A (the Palestinian Authority now has full responsibility for internal security and public order, as well as full responsibility for civil affairs), B (Israel maintains overriding security authority in order to safeguard its citizens and to combat terrorism), C (Israel retains full responsibility for security). This agreement, signed by the Palestinian leadership, gives Israel overriding security authority in order to safeguard its citizens and to combat terrorism.
Furthermore, on Oct. 26, 1994, Jordan relinquished West Bank control to Israel and just with this fact alone, one cannot authentically argue that Israel is an occupier.
Note that 98 per cent of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip has come under Palestinian jurisdiction and has also transferred 40 spheres of civilian authority to the PA. With these agreements Israel was granted legal rights to the territories and was and continues to be legally allowed to be inside these same territories.
International law (Geneva Convention, article 6; Hague Regulations) land is considered occupied when it is under the actual control of the occupier. Even the most reluctant observer must admit that since Oslo, Israel has not occupied the territories
To this day, the agreed upon stages of the Accords (Interim Plan) have yet to be realized. A second Intifada is currently being waged against Israel, Road Map not withstanding.
You can't abuse and misrepresent international agreements to justify your position and then turn around and dismiss these same agreements as anti-Arab and/or as anti-Muslim when we challenge the Palestinian interpretation and contradictory use of these same agreements.
We live in a world committed to co-existence. For this to occur we either all live by a set of common agreements or we live in anarchy produced through terrorism, fear and war. I understand that today's generation of Palestinian youth and young adults as well as much of generation X in the West believe that Palestine has been illegally occupied by Israel-why? There are two reasons: the Palestinian leadership made a conscious decision to teach and preach revised history, they made Palestinians victims, they distorted the legal facts and have intentionally misled two generations; it is time for the truth to be told. For politicians to act as they do, this is another story, well worth an explanation!
Additionally the press has not served as the critical voice the public deserves or expects from its media and it accepted revisionist history thereby erroneously creating an improper context of events as they have unfolded here in our area of the world. Although true that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion; however, you are not entitled to make up your own facts!
Notes
1 Gold, Dore, From occupied Territories to disputed territories, posted Jerusalem Letter, Jan.16, 2002
2 El Shazly, Sarah, What Really happened in 1948?, posted Front Page magazine, December 28, 2004
3 Shamgar, Meir, Former Chief justice of Supreme Court argued in contrast to President Carter's position subsequently the Reagan and Bush administrations changed the legal determination in the 1980's
4 Schwebel, Stephen, International Court of justice, as reported by Dore Gold, Jan.16, 2002
Sunday, November 19, 2006
ABBAS: THE DISTORTION THAT IS KILLING US
By GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
Once again the latest distortion has made the rounds of most pro-Israeli writers:
The new article blaming Jews for "fanning the flames of evil and provoking wars" has appeared in the Palestinian Authority's official newspaper, Al Hayat Al Jadida , the paper owned by the Palestinian Authority and controlled by Fatah,--under Abbas’ direct control.
It is incongruous that words such as those quoted in Al Hayat Al Jadida can be viewed as representing the 'moderate' Mahmoud Abbas. Yet, time and again, from the Arab world across the Pond to America, this is the adjective used to describe the man upon whom the West rests its policy, hopes, and strategies – while the lives of innocent human beings hang in the balance. Is it not within reason to question the veracity of this assessment? How much do we really know about Mahmoud Abbas vs. what have we have been told about him by individuals whose political agenda requires the creation of a 'moderate' Abbas? Is it really in our best interest to believe that Mr. Abbas is ‘moderate’?
In truth we have been led down a pathway of misrepresentation and deceit. The first step down this path is to be convinced that only a “moderate Palestinian” leader can become a peace partner. Who and why does anyone believe and accept this as though it were the “Holy Grail”? If this is true, how does one explain the German and Japanese leaders who signed peace agreements with us at the conclusion of WWII or must we believe that they, too, were moderates? It is time to get beyond this kind of thinking.
Let us first examine his background in order to have accurate perspective of the man called Mr.'Moderate' Arab. The following are some brief facts:
· Mahmoud Abbas was born in what is now Israel; he left in 1948 to settle in Syria
· Taught school for a while, graduated from the University of Damascus and moved to Egypt where he studied law
· As a young man in his twenties Abbas worked in Qatar. Now known also as Abu Mazen, he joined Yasser Arafat and the small group of men who founded the terrorist group, Fatah, in 1959, with the stated aim of destroying Israel. As Arafat moved about over the years, Abbas went with him – to Jordan, Lebanon, and to Tunis.2
· Abbas remained at Arafat's side thereafter as a trusted key aide in Jordan, Lebanon, Tunis and, of course, the Palestinian Authority.
· He has held the most senior posts under Arafat including Secretary of the PLO Executive Committee, member of Fatah's Central Committee, head of the PLO Department of International Relations, and, in March, 2003, Abbas was Arafat's choice as the first "Prime Minister" of the Palestinian Authority.
· The 'moderate' Mahmoud Abbas took a doctorate from Oriental College in Moscow. His thesis was published as a book entitled The Other Face: The Secret Connection Between the Nazis and The Zionist Movement. It contained statements such as: "Regarding the gas chambers, which were supposedly designed for murdering living Jews: A scientific study ... denies that the gas chambers were for murdering people, and claims that they were only for incinerating bodies, out of concern for the spread of disease and infection in the region."3
· Mahmoud Abbas , alias Abu Mazen, is a Holocaust denier, to this day!
Context is everything! For nearly 4 decades, Abbas stood beside Arafat. Arafat, dressed in his ill fitting, worn out “military outfit”, scruffy beard, disheveled, and slobbering when he spoke –usually in an abrasive manner. This was the visual treat we saw day after day. His appearance, coupled with his actions, policies, and deceitful language , was observed for all of these same years. How many times did we catch Arafat in a lie, an intentional distortion? He would give a message to the West in English and then minutes later turn to the Arab media and say just the opposite.
Perhaps one of the most egregious moments was September 13, 1993, on the White House lawn. There stood Arafat, after shaking Rabin’s hand and declaring he would now strive for peaceful coexistence. Within 24 hours he was on Jordanian TV saying just the opposite. I remember when he concluded his talk with these words, “When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us”.
The West cried nary a tear with Arafat’s death. The concern was now who would step in and fill the void? Waiting in the wings was Mahmoud Abbas. We needed a new leader, one whose behavior and appearance was the anti-thesis of Arafat. Remember the international community’s concern, Hamas terror group, was positioned to take over unless…………Iraq was “starting to go south “and President Bush’s Mid-East policy was in trouble. A new leader was needed - someone acceptable to the West; Mahmoud Abbas was chosen. He dressed the part-always in a suit and properly coiffed, appropriately, calm, polished social behavior, and moderate in demeanor. He was the “new Palestinian leader” who would finally take them “home”.
Worn down by Arafat, we wanted to believe; we wanted to embrace this man. But at the end of the day he was Arafat’s buddy – someone who shared goals and values with him. To this day Abbas has no more intention of relinquishing that terror card than Arafat did.2 Here in Israel he is known as 'Arafat in a suit'.
Words are certainly important. The mark of a human being is the action associated with the spoken words. Congruency between speaking and actions equals integrity. Let us see if Mr. 'Moderate' is such a man. I will present words defining him as a “moderate” and then follow them with his own behavior.
Our Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has emphasized US support of the Palestinian people by increasing the American foreign aid to the Palestinians to $468 million and by putting in place an international mechanism which will allow transfer of financial assistance to the Palestinians without going through the Hamas government.
The Secretary of State also stressed the importance of backing 'moderate' leaders
in the Arab world – such as Mahmoud Abbas in Palestine.
Abbas behavior: Let's look at President Abbas' "commitment." In 2005, Abbas refused to disarm the armed wing of his own Fatah party, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (photos), much less Hamas. Today both terrorist groups are fighting for dominance of the Palestinian Arabs. Worse still, not only is the U.S. sending aid to the Palestinians (which indirectly supports Hamas by freeing up their resources for waging terror), but we are also directly arming the ' moderate' Abbas.2
President Bush: In a White House meeting last Friday (July, 2005) and in a meeting with Jewish leaders the day before, Abbas presented himself as a 'moderate' and a “supporter of a peaceful”, two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"I’m gaining confidence in the Palestinian prime minister and the great Cabinet," Bush said, describing them as "people who do what they say."
After this date and in early 2006, the Administration officially sanctioned a policy put together by US Army Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton to expand by up to 70 percent Abbas' presidential guard and personal army, Force 17. The administration wishes to raise some $20 million to fund the training, arming, and expansion of Abbas' army from 3,500 to 6,000 soldiers. This move comes after the US transferred 3,000 rifles and 1 million bullets to Force 17 in June (2006).
Abbas behavior: He knows Force 17 is a terrorist army led by terrorists. Furthermore, the militant, Abu Yousuf, hinted that any new weapons provided by the U.S. to his group could be shared with the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror organization, the declared "military wing" of Abbas' Fatah party. Abu Yousuf, like several Force 17 members, is also a member of the Brigades.
Read on, Abbas did not stop here
There is a chance that Israel will attack the Palestinian territories, and in this case, these weapons and others provided [by the U.S. to Force 17] will be directed towards the (Israeli) 'occupation', Abu Yousuf said. Abbas, the 'moderate', cleverly raised funds, munitions, and weapons - courtesy of the USA. Right after he received the weapons shipment, Abbas appointed Mahmoud Damra commander of the force. Damra, who like many of the Force 17 officers and soldiers, is a Fatah terrorist wanted by Israel due to his direct involvement in the terrorist murder of at least 15 Israelis.
PM Olmert: Once Shalit is freed, Olmert will invite Abbas, a 'moderate' from the Fatah Party, to talks based on the internationally backed "road map" peace plan, Peres told Army Radio.
Abbas behavior: He asked and received Israel's permission to let an unspecified number of troops from the Jordan-based Badr Brigade enter PA areas-to buoy up Fatah against Hamas-extreme political pressure was exerted by the USA to mandate that Israel permit the return into the disputed territories of a terrorist group it had expelled for its viciousness many years ago.
The list of contradictions is endless. Yet, the US continues to uphold Abbas as a 'man of peace', a ' moderate' and a 'respectable' leader that the Bush administration wishes to strengthen. To this end, the Bush administration has 'whitewashed' Abbas' clear support for terrorism. It has excused his constant appeals to merge his Fatah terror group with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. It has ignored the fact that his Fatah terror group has committed more acts of terror than Hamas and that Fatah's involvement in terror and the sophistication of its attacks has only increased since Abbas replaced Arafat after the latter's death in November 2004.4
The Bush Administration knows Abbas is as much a moderate as Nancy Pelosi is now a centrist. Unfortunately, most Americans are unaware of the fact that daily operational policies enacted by Abbas are literally killing Israelis. The collective Western governments rush to define this chameleon in a manner meant
to calm and appease their respective populations has led to open smuggling from Egypt into Gaza. Actually, it can really no longer be called smuggling; it is open commerce. America’s “friends” the Russians are able to supply Israel’s enemy with the latest Russian made antitank missile Metis-M9. Guess whose hands they ‘fell into'? The plan is to use them not on Israel’s tanks; instead of firing rockets, Hamas intends to open a barrage of around-the-clock heavy fire on Israel, using antitank missiles, short-range ground-to-ground missiles and artillery fire – similar to what Hizballah used during the Lebanon war – and mortar fire. So, Abbas also is arming Hamas, the organization with whom he is theoretically at odds.
If we still believe that the man Mahmoud Abbas aka Abu Mazen is a 'moderate', then we must also believe that peace in the Middle East is around the corner. Perhaps we have succumbed to the adage: if one is told a lie often enough one ultimately comes to believe it. Please, a rose by any other name, is still a rose. Abbas is not the beautiful petal, he is indeed the dangerous thorn.
End Notes
PA paper: Jews fan flames of evil, http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3321651,00.html
Kushner, Arlene, “Abu Mazen: Beneath the Moderate Veneer,” FrontPageMagazine.com February 25, 2005
Roger A. Gerber, “THE CHIMERICAL MODERATION OF MAHMOUD ABBAS”, April 02, 2005, http://mideastoutpost.com/archives/000151.html
Glick,Caroline http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=24887
Special Thanks to my editor Hannah Givon
http://docstalk.blogspot.com/
By GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
Once again the latest distortion has made the rounds of most pro-Israeli writers:
The new article blaming Jews for "fanning the flames of evil and provoking wars" has appeared in the Palestinian Authority's official newspaper, Al Hayat Al Jadida , the paper owned by the Palestinian Authority and controlled by Fatah,--under Abbas’ direct control.
It is incongruous that words such as those quoted in Al Hayat Al Jadida can be viewed as representing the 'moderate' Mahmoud Abbas. Yet, time and again, from the Arab world across the Pond to America, this is the adjective used to describe the man upon whom the West rests its policy, hopes, and strategies – while the lives of innocent human beings hang in the balance. Is it not within reason to question the veracity of this assessment? How much do we really know about Mahmoud Abbas vs. what have we have been told about him by individuals whose political agenda requires the creation of a 'moderate' Abbas? Is it really in our best interest to believe that Mr. Abbas is ‘moderate’?
In truth we have been led down a pathway of misrepresentation and deceit. The first step down this path is to be convinced that only a “moderate Palestinian” leader can become a peace partner. Who and why does anyone believe and accept this as though it were the “Holy Grail”? If this is true, how does one explain the German and Japanese leaders who signed peace agreements with us at the conclusion of WWII or must we believe that they, too, were moderates? It is time to get beyond this kind of thinking.
Let us first examine his background in order to have accurate perspective of the man called Mr.'Moderate' Arab. The following are some brief facts:
· Mahmoud Abbas was born in what is now Israel; he left in 1948 to settle in Syria
· Taught school for a while, graduated from the University of Damascus and moved to Egypt where he studied law
· As a young man in his twenties Abbas worked in Qatar. Now known also as Abu Mazen, he joined Yasser Arafat and the small group of men who founded the terrorist group, Fatah, in 1959, with the stated aim of destroying Israel. As Arafat moved about over the years, Abbas went with him – to Jordan, Lebanon, and to Tunis.2
· Abbas remained at Arafat's side thereafter as a trusted key aide in Jordan, Lebanon, Tunis and, of course, the Palestinian Authority.
· He has held the most senior posts under Arafat including Secretary of the PLO Executive Committee, member of Fatah's Central Committee, head of the PLO Department of International Relations, and, in March, 2003, Abbas was Arafat's choice as the first "Prime Minister" of the Palestinian Authority.
· The 'moderate' Mahmoud Abbas took a doctorate from Oriental College in Moscow. His thesis was published as a book entitled The Other Face: The Secret Connection Between the Nazis and The Zionist Movement. It contained statements such as: "Regarding the gas chambers, which were supposedly designed for murdering living Jews: A scientific study ... denies that the gas chambers were for murdering people, and claims that they were only for incinerating bodies, out of concern for the spread of disease and infection in the region."3
· Mahmoud Abbas , alias Abu Mazen, is a Holocaust denier, to this day!
Context is everything! For nearly 4 decades, Abbas stood beside Arafat. Arafat, dressed in his ill fitting, worn out “military outfit”, scruffy beard, disheveled, and slobbering when he spoke –usually in an abrasive manner. This was the visual treat we saw day after day. His appearance, coupled with his actions, policies, and deceitful language , was observed for all of these same years. How many times did we catch Arafat in a lie, an intentional distortion? He would give a message to the West in English and then minutes later turn to the Arab media and say just the opposite.
Perhaps one of the most egregious moments was September 13, 1993, on the White House lawn. There stood Arafat, after shaking Rabin’s hand and declaring he would now strive for peaceful coexistence. Within 24 hours he was on Jordanian TV saying just the opposite. I remember when he concluded his talk with these words, “When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us”.
The West cried nary a tear with Arafat’s death. The concern was now who would step in and fill the void? Waiting in the wings was Mahmoud Abbas. We needed a new leader, one whose behavior and appearance was the anti-thesis of Arafat. Remember the international community’s concern, Hamas terror group, was positioned to take over unless…………Iraq was “starting to go south “and President Bush’s Mid-East policy was in trouble. A new leader was needed - someone acceptable to the West; Mahmoud Abbas was chosen. He dressed the part-always in a suit and properly coiffed, appropriately, calm, polished social behavior, and moderate in demeanor. He was the “new Palestinian leader” who would finally take them “home”.
Worn down by Arafat, we wanted to believe; we wanted to embrace this man. But at the end of the day he was Arafat’s buddy – someone who shared goals and values with him. To this day Abbas has no more intention of relinquishing that terror card than Arafat did.2 Here in Israel he is known as 'Arafat in a suit'.
Words are certainly important. The mark of a human being is the action associated with the spoken words. Congruency between speaking and actions equals integrity. Let us see if Mr. 'Moderate' is such a man. I will present words defining him as a “moderate” and then follow them with his own behavior.
Our Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has emphasized US support of the Palestinian people by increasing the American foreign aid to the Palestinians to $468 million and by putting in place an international mechanism which will allow transfer of financial assistance to the Palestinians without going through the Hamas government.
The Secretary of State also stressed the importance of backing 'moderate' leaders
in the Arab world – such as Mahmoud Abbas in Palestine.
Abbas behavior: Let's look at President Abbas' "commitment." In 2005, Abbas refused to disarm the armed wing of his own Fatah party, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (photos), much less Hamas. Today both terrorist groups are fighting for dominance of the Palestinian Arabs. Worse still, not only is the U.S. sending aid to the Palestinians (which indirectly supports Hamas by freeing up their resources for waging terror), but we are also directly arming the ' moderate' Abbas.2
President Bush: In a White House meeting last Friday (July, 2005) and in a meeting with Jewish leaders the day before, Abbas presented himself as a 'moderate' and a “supporter of a peaceful”, two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"I’m gaining confidence in the Palestinian prime minister and the great Cabinet," Bush said, describing them as "people who do what they say."
After this date and in early 2006, the Administration officially sanctioned a policy put together by US Army Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton to expand by up to 70 percent Abbas' presidential guard and personal army, Force 17. The administration wishes to raise some $20 million to fund the training, arming, and expansion of Abbas' army from 3,500 to 6,000 soldiers. This move comes after the US transferred 3,000 rifles and 1 million bullets to Force 17 in June (2006).
Abbas behavior: He knows Force 17 is a terrorist army led by terrorists. Furthermore, the militant, Abu Yousuf, hinted that any new weapons provided by the U.S. to his group could be shared with the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror organization, the declared "military wing" of Abbas' Fatah party. Abu Yousuf, like several Force 17 members, is also a member of the Brigades.
Read on, Abbas did not stop here
There is a chance that Israel will attack the Palestinian territories, and in this case, these weapons and others provided [by the U.S. to Force 17] will be directed towards the (Israeli) 'occupation', Abu Yousuf said. Abbas, the 'moderate', cleverly raised funds, munitions, and weapons - courtesy of the USA. Right after he received the weapons shipment, Abbas appointed Mahmoud Damra commander of the force. Damra, who like many of the Force 17 officers and soldiers, is a Fatah terrorist wanted by Israel due to his direct involvement in the terrorist murder of at least 15 Israelis.
PM Olmert: Once Shalit is freed, Olmert will invite Abbas, a 'moderate' from the Fatah Party, to talks based on the internationally backed "road map" peace plan, Peres told Army Radio.
Abbas behavior: He asked and received Israel's permission to let an unspecified number of troops from the Jordan-based Badr Brigade enter PA areas-to buoy up Fatah against Hamas-extreme political pressure was exerted by the USA to mandate that Israel permit the return into the disputed territories of a terrorist group it had expelled for its viciousness many years ago.
The list of contradictions is endless. Yet, the US continues to uphold Abbas as a 'man of peace', a ' moderate' and a 'respectable' leader that the Bush administration wishes to strengthen. To this end, the Bush administration has 'whitewashed' Abbas' clear support for terrorism. It has excused his constant appeals to merge his Fatah terror group with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. It has ignored the fact that his Fatah terror group has committed more acts of terror than Hamas and that Fatah's involvement in terror and the sophistication of its attacks has only increased since Abbas replaced Arafat after the latter's death in November 2004.4
The Bush Administration knows Abbas is as much a moderate as Nancy Pelosi is now a centrist. Unfortunately, most Americans are unaware of the fact that daily operational policies enacted by Abbas are literally killing Israelis. The collective Western governments rush to define this chameleon in a manner meant
to calm and appease their respective populations has led to open smuggling from Egypt into Gaza. Actually, it can really no longer be called smuggling; it is open commerce. America’s “friends” the Russians are able to supply Israel’s enemy with the latest Russian made antitank missile Metis-M9. Guess whose hands they ‘fell into'? The plan is to use them not on Israel’s tanks; instead of firing rockets, Hamas intends to open a barrage of around-the-clock heavy fire on Israel, using antitank missiles, short-range ground-to-ground missiles and artillery fire – similar to what Hizballah used during the Lebanon war – and mortar fire. So, Abbas also is arming Hamas, the organization with whom he is theoretically at odds.
If we still believe that the man Mahmoud Abbas aka Abu Mazen is a 'moderate', then we must also believe that peace in the Middle East is around the corner. Perhaps we have succumbed to the adage: if one is told a lie often enough one ultimately comes to believe it. Please, a rose by any other name, is still a rose. Abbas is not the beautiful petal, he is indeed the dangerous thorn.
End Notes
PA paper: Jews fan flames of evil, http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3321651,00.html
Kushner, Arlene, “Abu Mazen: Beneath the Moderate Veneer,” FrontPageMagazine.com February 25, 2005
Roger A. Gerber, “THE CHIMERICAL MODERATION OF MAHMOUD ABBAS”, April 02, 2005, http://mideastoutpost.com/archives/000151.html
Glick,Caroline http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=24887
Special Thanks to my editor Hannah Givon
http://docstalk.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)