[Prefatory Note: Below is the text of an Open Letter to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon alleging his inappropriate responses to the carnage and massacres taking place in Gaza, and by his behavior undermining respect for and the authority of the United Nations and international law. Given such a performance, the challenge posed to the highest ranking UN official is to revise his past comments on the Israeli attack or to resign his office. The peoples of the world, and not just the Palestinians, have a paramount interest in holding morally, legally, and politically accountable the UN and those who lead and represent the organization in response to such breaches of the peace and acts of aggression in accordance with law and justice, and never more so than when such unlawful behavior is directly responsible for a grave humanitarian catastrophe of the kind that has befallen the civilian population of Gaza since July 8. Instead of supporting Israel spurious claim of acting in self-defense, Mr. Ban Ki-moon should have been using his office to insist on an immediate ceasefire accompanied by the unconditional lifting of the blockade imposed on Gaza since mid-2007 that has constituted the essence of the collective punishment of the 1.8 million people encaged in the Gaza Strip without even a sanctuary for children, women, the disabled, the elderly, non-militants to escape from the combat zone by crossing the border or finding safety within Gaza itself. The shelling of UN facilities being used to shelter those desperately seeking safety exemplifies Israeli criminal conduct during this savage military operation. Please read the text below, prepared by Badil (an NGO devoted to Palestinian refugee rights that enjoys a world reputation for the quality of its work and the dedication of its staff) and endorsed by a large number of Palestinian civil society actors; please disseminate this text as widely as possible, and call independently for a response by the Secretary General, as well as further action if a response is not forthcoming.]
Open letter to Mr. Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon: stand for law and Justice or resign!
5 August 2014
For humanity and the little remained credibility of international law:
Un Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, stand for law and Justice or resign!
- Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon,
We, the under signed Palestinian human rights and community-based organizations are extremely disappointed by your performance, notably by your biased statements, your failure to act, and the inappropriate justification of Israel’s violations of IHL, which amount to war crimes. Until today, you have taken no explicit and tangible measures to address the recent Israeli attacks in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) since 13 June. Moreover, your statements have been either misleading, because they endorse and further Israeli false versions of facts, or contrary to the provisions established by international law and to the interests of its defenders, or because your words justify Israel’s violations and crimes.
You have undeniably assumed a biased position toward the current attack on Gaza and Israeli violations in the West Bank by failing to clearly condemn Israeli unlawful actions in the OPT, while, on the other hand, not hesitating to accuse – sometimes mistakenly – Palestinian combatant in Gaza of violations of international law. This bias can be noted in the following excerpts:
The Secretary-General strongly condemns the killing today of at least 10 Palestinian civilians in shelling outside of an UNRWA school in Rafah providing shelter to thousands of civilians. The attack is yet another gross violation of international humanitarian law, which clearly requires protection by both parties of Palestinian civilians, UN staff and UN premises, among other civilian facilities.
Such statement, by failing to name the perpetrator (Israel), is not only biased, but also offensive to UNRWA, itself a UN agency, as well as to other UN agencies and international organizations the struggle to provide relief and protection to Palestinians in Gaza. UNRWA, which has lost nine staff in Gaza since the beginning of Israel’s Operation Protective Edge, hosts around 270,000 internally displaced (25% of Gaza’s population) in its shelters. UNRWA’s preliminary analysis on a previous attack against one of its schools has indicated that it had been hit by Israeli artillery, constituting an indiscriminate attack and likely a war crime.
Moreover, by condemning the storage of weapons in UNRWA schools without offering a complete details and a proper account on international law, your statements endorse Israeli excuses to unlawfully, indiscriminately target such civilian objects.
In addition, by condemning
the reported violation by Hamas of the mutually agreed humanitarian ceasefire which commenced this morning. He is shocked and profoundly disappointed by these developments,
the Secretary-General reveals a reckless endorsement of Israeli version of facts, blaming Hamas for violating the cease-fire, even though admitting that “[t]he Secretary-General notes that the UN has no independent means to verify exactly what happened”, and, still, demanding “the immediate and unconditional release of the [falsely allegedly] captured soldier”.
The following statement further illustrates the Secretary-General’s ignorance of facts on the ground:
The Secretary-General has learned with concern that leaflets are reportedly being dropped by the Israeli Defence Forces in the northern Gaza Strip this evening, warning tens of thousands of residents to leave their homes and evacuate to Gaza City.
If true [our emphasis], this would have a further devastating humanitarian impact on the beleaguered civilians of those areas of the Gaza strip, who have already undergone immense suffering in recent days.
The drop of leaflets had been a known practice since the beginning of the Israeli operation in Gaza, contributing to a scenario of more than 480,000 internally displaced.
In the same statement,
The Secretary-General strongly urge[d] all sides to avoid any further escalation at this time[, noting] that all sides must meet all obligations under international humanitarian law, both towards civilians ahead of impending attacks, as well as maintaining proportionality in any kind of military response,
Revealing an undue equalization of the two sides of the conflict and failing to address the greater impact of violations committed by Israel, which has killed at least 1,814 the vast majority of whom are civilians, during its operation in Gaza.
- Secretary-General,
When you make no distinction between oppressors and victims, in all your statements,
When you name Palestinian combatants as perpetrators of violations and war crimes while you ignore naming Israel, as you used to do in referring to specific actions,
When you avoid codifying Israeli actions amount to war crimes, while you insist on prescribing Palestinian reactions as grave breaches of IHL,
When you always advocate unlawfully the Israel right to self-defense, while having not pointed out the Palestinians legitimate and legal right to resist occupation, colonization and institutionalized discrimination,
When you adopt and advocate Israeli false stories, while not mentioning Palestinians’ narrative,
When you disregard facts on grounds clearly resulting from Israeli attacks, while you seek the immediate and unconditional release of a falsely captured soldier who was in the battle field,
You do not maintain peace and security; nor do you ensure human rights.
By reviewing yours statements, it becomes evident you have not been fulfilling your mandate. In contrary, your statements have not only allowed the continuance of Israel’s killing our people, but also, encouraged States to continue providing Israel with impunity. As you cannot say the truth,we advise you to either drastically change your positioning – not only in words, but also in your efforts to, through the UN, effectively end the current conflict – or to resign. For us, if you continue playing this role, you prove what our people feel, that you are a partner in, or at least an enabler of, the ongoing violations of international humanitarian law committed by Israel against our, families, children, women, elders – against our people.
—————- Signatures —————-
Individuals: • Richard Falk Former United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 • Luisa Morgantini Former Vice President of the European Parliament • Ahmad Muhaisen – President of The association for twining French cities and Palestinian refugee camps • Breyten Breytenbach Poet, writer, painter and activist • John Pilger is a journalist, film-maker and author
Palestinian and international human rights and civil society organizations: • BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights – Bethlehem • Occupied Palestine and Syrian Golan Heights Advocacy Initiative (OPGAI) – Biet Sahour • The Alternative Information Centre (AIC) – Biet Sahour • ADDAMEER Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association – Ramallah • Palestinian Non-Governmental Network (Umbrella for 133 organizations) • Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions • General Union of Palestine Workers • General Union for Health Services Workers • General Union for Public Services Workers • General Union for Petrochemical and Gas Workers • General Union for Agricultural Workers • Union of Women’s Work Committees • Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions National Committee (BNC). The Committee includes the following organizations: Council of National and Islamic Forces in Palestine, Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO), Palestinian National Institute for NGOs, Global Palestine Right of Return Coalition, Palestinian Trade Union Coalition for BDS (PTUC-BDS), Federation of Independent Trade Unions, General Union of Palestinian Workers, Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions, General Union of Palestinian Women, Union of Palestinian Farmers, General Union of Palestinian Teachers, General Union of Palestinian Writers, Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees (PFUUPE), Union of Professional Associations, General Union of Palestinian Peasants, Union of Public Employees in Palestine-Civil Sector, Grassroots Palestinian Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign (STW), National Committee for Grassroots Resistance, Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), National Committee to Commemorate the Nakba, Civic Coalition for the Defense of Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem, Coalition for Jerusalem, Union of Palestinian Charitable Organizations, Palestinian Economic Monitor, Union of Youth Activity Centers-Palestine Refugee Camps, Occupied Palestine and Syrian Golan Heights Initiative. • The Joint Advocacy Initiative of the East Jerusalem YMCA and the YWCA of Palestine (JAI) – Biet Sahour • Baladna- association for Arab Youth – Haifa • Hamleh – Arab center for media development – Haifa • Al Zahra’ Society for Women Empowerment – Sakhnin • Assiwar- The Feminist Arab Movement in Support of Victims of Sexual Assault – Haifa • Association for the defense for the Rights of the Internally Displaced in Israel – Nazareth • Alsebat association for heritage Preservation – Nazareth • The Alternative Tourism Group (ATG) – Beit Sahour • Yabous Cultural Center – Jerusalem • The Edward Said National Conservatory of Music – Jerusalem • Palestinian Students’ Campaign for the Academic Boycott of Israel • Gaza BDS Working Group • University Teachers’ Association in Palestine • Medical Democratic Assembly • Pal-Cinema (Palestine Cinema Forum) • Youth Herak Movement • Union of Women’s Struggle Committees • Union of Synergies—Women Unit • Union of Palestinian Women Committees • Women’s Studies Society • Working Woman’s Society • One Democratic State Group • Youth Against Israeli Settlements – Hebron • Health Work Committees – Biet Sahour • Land Research Center (LCR) – Hebron • Ramallah Center for Human Rights Studies – Ramallah • Popular Struggling Coordination Committee (PSCC) – Ramallah • Lajee Center, Aida Refugee Camp – Bethlehem • The EJ-YMCA Rehabilitation Program and the Beit Sahour YMCA – Beit Sahour • Ibrahim Al Khalil Society – Hebron • The Palestinian Prisoners Society – Bethlehem • The Palestinian Center of Youth Action for Community Development (LAYLAC) – Dhiesheh Refugee Camp – Bethlehem • Palestinian Grassroots Anti-apartheid Wall Campaign (Stop the Wall) – Ramallah • Palestinian Center for Rapprochement Between People – Biet Sahour • Amaan Center for social health, Counseling and Development – Hebron • Popular Committee for Refugees, Qalqeliah • Popular Committee for Refugees, Salfit • Social Youth Center, Aqbat Jaber Refugee Camp – Jericho • Social Youth Center, Aida Refugee Camp – Bethlehem • Social Youth Center, Al Arroub Refugee Camp – Hebron • Al Arroub Popular committee – Al Arroub Refugee Camp – Hebron • Progressive Youth Union – Al Arroub Refugee Center – Hebron • The Phoenix Center – Al Arroub Refugee Camp – Hebron • Al Fawwar Social Center – Al Fawwar Refugee camp – Hebron • Social Youth Center, Far’a Refugee Camp – Nablus • Shu’fat Child Center – Shu’fat Refugees Camp – Jerusalem • Shoruq Association, Dhiesheh Refugee Camp – Bethlehem • Al Awda Center for Youth and children Rehabilitation – Tulkarem • Ansar Center, Al Walajeh – Bethlehem • Center for Defense of Liberties and Civil Rights “Hurryyat” • The Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committee – Bethlehem • Bethlehem Farmers Society – Bethlehem • Ibda’a for the Development of Children Capacity, Dhiesheh Refugee Camp – Bethlehem • The popular committee – Dhiesheh Refugee Camp – Bethlehem • The women Centre – Dhiesheh Refugee Camp – Bethlehem • The popular committee – Al Azza Refugee Camp – Bethlehem • Al Phoenix Center – Dhiesheh Refugee Camp – Bethlehem • Al Walaja Women Center – Al Walaja – – Bethlehem • Not to Forget – Jenin Refugees Camp – Jenin • Environmental Education Center – Beit Jala • The National Charitable Society – Al Khader • The Right of Return Committees in Bethlehem – Bethlehem • Al Walaja Popular Committee – – Bethlehem • Al Walaja Sports Club – Al Walaja – – Bethlehem • Al Walaja Agriculture society – Al Walaja – – Bethlehem • The Palestinian anti-Wall and Settlements committees – Ramallah • MA’AN Development Center – Ramallah • The Association of Palestinian prisoners and x-prisoners – Bethlehem • Susya Popular Committee – Hebron • Dair Abu Misha’al Popular committee – Ramallah • Al Tawasul Forum Society – Gaza Strip • The International Solidarity Movement. • The Refugees Rights Center –‘Aidoon – Lebanon • Association Najdeh – Lebanon • Ajyal Association – Lebanon • The Refugees Rights Center –‘Aidoon – Syria • Union of Arab Jurists – Jordan • The National Institution of Social Care & Vocational Training – Jordan • Australians for Palestine – Australia • Women for Palestine – Australia • Collective urgence Palestine – Switzerland • Palestina Rossa – Italy • Fronte Palestina – Italy • The Association of Humanitarian Lawyers • International Educational Development, Inc • International Lawyers – Switzerland • Tamkeen-Arab group – Switzerland • The BDS campaign in France – France • The association for twining French cities and Palestinian refugees camp – France • The International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (EAFORD) • International society for Human Rights • Czech Friends of Palestine • Initiative for a just peace in the Middle East – Czech Republic • Nord-Sud XXI • International Association Against Torture • The Palestine Solidarity Allegiance South Africa • Palestine Legal Action Network • Russell Tribunal on Palestine • Campaign BDS France, • 14 Friends of Palestine (Marin, CA) • Canada Palestine Association • Voice of Palestine • People for Peace, London, CA • United States Palestinian Community Network • Labor for Palestine NY • Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network • US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel • Palestine Human Rights Campaign Auckland • Al-Awda NY • Jews for Palestinian Right of Return • Jews Against genocide • Palestine Solidarity Alliance, South Africa • Assopace • Boycott! Boycott From Within • Boycott Israeli Apartheid Campaign – Vancouver • BDS Switzerland
Palestinian Refugees and IDPs: Background
Ongoing Nakba Education Center
- Resources for Visitors, Journalists & Activists
- Resources for Refugee Lawyers
- Publications on PayPal
- Badil Library
- Press Releases
Mobilization and Intervention
- Civil Society – Refugee Actions & Campaigns
- Legal Advocacy
- Youth Education & Activation
- Annual Al-Awda Award
- Comparative Study Visits
© 2010 BADIL. All rights reserved. Developed by hawsib. Hosted at myvhosting.
Global Justice in the 21st Century 
Reblogged this on Ukfpi's Blog and commented:
Please share
Ban Ki moon should resign. Because of his actions and US complicity, UN has lost all credibility. To whom now can the beleaguered Palestinians appeal? And please don’t insult our intelligence by saying Israel is acting in defence.
This is truly pathetic. The only UN body that discredits the UN is its Human Rights Council, whose members are among the greatest violators of human rights in the world and which has dedicated itself to targeting Israel instead of such criminal members as Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Cuba. Condemning the Secretary-General for daring to suggest that Israel has a right to defend itself epitomizes very nicely the blind hatred of those who signed this letter. In the meanwhile, Hamas had renewed the fighting. I await the appropriate response from its advocates, since they claim that Hamas’s rocket attacks are feeble and ineffective while Israel’s response is massive and destructive, and will therefore have to explain, since Hamas is nonetheless continuing the negotiations in Egypt, what Hamas hopes to accomplish by again firing rockets at Israel other than causing more suffering to the people of Gaza.
Fred…..I agree with one thing…Israel is not a country that respects human rights…IT IS IN THE SAME CAMP AS Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Cuba.
Then wht aren’t they investigated by the Human Rights Council? Is it hypocricy? A double standard? Israel hatred? You tell me.
To Fred Skolnik:
Sometime ago I indicated that I would respond to your May 15th article in the Israel National News, “Choosing Sides: The Arab-Israel Conflict
in US Eyes.” I think it does convey a good sense of how you derive your basic interpretation of people like myself, considering that I am a Jew and
generally on the left, and critical of Israel’s policies and practices toward the Palestinians. I think the key sentences in your approach are the
following: “..It is also natural, in the Arab-israel conflict, for a Jew to be pro-Israel and an Arab to be pro-Arab or pro-Palestinian. Conversely,
it is unnatural for a Jew to be pro-Arab and for an Arab to be pro-Israel.” I think here you badly, perhaps deliberately, confuse what is ‘natural’ with what
is ‘common.’ Certainly most Jews are pro-Israel, most Arabs pro-Palestinian. But as you suggest, to embrace an ‘unnatural’ position is not so much a matter of
ideology as it a question of psychology, and as you suggest, ‘abnormal psychology’ that includes the impulse to destroy the hated tyrannical father figure.
This kind of psycho-babble disconnected from the substantive perceptions in relation to moral and law are merely inflammatory. I feel no ‘hatred’ toward
Israel, however much I oppose what they have done from the beginning to the Palestinians, and to the extent I look at the conflict through Jewish eyes it is
with an expectation that Israel would act justly toward a victimized and dispossessed people, but I acknowledge that I look mainly with ‘human’ eyes that react to
abuse and wrongdoing regardless of ethnic or religious identity. It is a question of ‘species identity,’ not ethnic or nationalist identity that underpins my
judgement. There is nothing ‘unnatural’ about such a perspective, and indeed I regard as more natural, although sadly far more uncommon, that are the wide variety of sub-species
identities that validate the kinds of crimes we have been witnessing in Gaza. Ethnic reductionism to divert one’s gaze from such a crucible of crime is not the
way forward. Indeed, it is an endorsement of the worst features of the human experience.
Prof. Falk
I appreciate your response but it seems to me that you are rationalizing your ideology. The key sentence in what I wrote is “Politics comes from the belly.” It is extremely naive to think that political positions derive from a reasoned analysis of the rights and wrongs of a given case without reference to an emotional predisposition. It is also naive to think that people who uncritically accept any statement that attacks Israel are exercising rational and impartial judgment. Psychobabble is a media word whose ultimate logic is that human beings do not act for psychological reasons.
I really don’t feel that you hate Israel. My sense is that you bear it considerable animosity and resentment, but it would be presumptuous of me to apply what I think is generally true to a given individual.
I do remember Roth’s Portnoy in Israel and I remember thinking that Roth had gotten it just right.
None of this is meant to suggest that a left wing or right wing political position can’t be just and true independently of its psychological ground. The giveaway, for me, is always the language. If you cannot recognize the intensity of the hatred that emanates from some of the comments that you attract, then something is seriously wrong with your sense of language and of people. The hypocrisy, in the plain and simple meaning of the word, is another giveaway. You will not convince me that people who have not thought to say a single word about the real genocides taking place in the world have lit upon the Israel-Arab conflict by chance. Israel would not be hated if it was not Jewish. You are trying to tell me that what I see as Israel hatred is valid criticism. From here it is very easy to arrive at the conclusion that there is no such thing as Israel hatred, just as one can apply this logic to argue that there is no such thing as antisemitism, just valid criticism of Jews.
Species identity is unnatural when it is accompanied by alienation from what is closest to you. To love mankind and hate your father or brother is certainly unnatural. To love mankind and hate your own country is also unnatural. It is unnatural in the sense that for such an ideology to take root there must already be a considerable degree of alienation from what is closest to oneself and naturally commands one’s affection.
Fred,
I appreciate your long polite reply to Richard without the use of any personal slurs on him. That said, I think you are wrong in every instance of your argument.
Not everyone who is critical of Israeli policies are haters of Israel. Sometimes people just recognize wrong, unjust policies and feel they have to call them to account. I, for one, am very critical of that country’s policies and the government that designs them. Just as I am of US policies which support them. But I don’t hate either.
As for criticizing others such as Syria and Libya, it is as easy to criticize them as it is Israel. The difference is that Israel has been perpetrating its crimes for a much longer period – from its inception in 1948. Syria and Libya, for all the distaste of the dictatorships that have governed them, have not been in the same category that Israel has occupied. It is only since the turn of the present century that these countries have begun come apart, and that thanks to the interference of the US and Israel.
I too have read Roth. Contrary to you, I never thought he ever got anything right. Especially Israel. His solipsism is too typically “Jewish” for me to stay with anything he has written for very long. But I can see how you would wish to extol him. He is a better writer than you, but his ideology is similar.
What is happening in the ME today is no accident. And it is not due solely to sectarian hatred. It is by design to keep the area in chaos and at war. Israel and the US are the culprits, and no matter how you twist your arguments to the contrary, peace will not come until the world wakes up to this and demands it ends.
Not surprisingly, we agree.
I appreciate your thoughtful response, and I understand better our points of difference. BTW I knew Philip Roth, although not
well, as he spent a year as a writer in residence at Princeton where I was teaching, and liked much of his writing, but not
especially his sensibility that was both cynical and at that point very much shaped by ethnic identity and his particular background.
I also understand your sense that it is easier for those of us living beyond the circumference of danger, and that it may seem irresponsible.
At the same time, those who see from a distance may understand the overall ‘justice’ of the situation better than those who caught up in
the immediacies of such an inflammatory confrontation.
Finally, in our world of nuclear weapons and climate change, the future for all nations rests, in my judgment on species identity and a species
will to survive. At this point there are powerful national and even civilizational wills to survive, but not a political will to address problems of
global scope.
Hamas rocket fire would have been massive and could have possibly murdered thousands of people. However, the iron dome shot down all the rockets that were about to enter highly populated areas.
Read, approved, and disseminated as widely as possible.
Looks like, from the above, that Fred must have received his hasbara check this month.
That’s a little pathetic too. To be sarcastic you have to have a little wit.
As the article in this link refers directly to Prof. Falk, I thought it might be worth reading. Especially for you, Fred.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/08/the-occupation-is-forever/print
Denying human rights to the people of Gaza is absolutely outrageous, Israel wants to eliminate the Palestinians and take the land for themselves. This is ridiculous and the fact that no one who can do anything about it wants to stand up for justice is completely hypocritical and cowardly.
Bani ki moon please resign as you have done nothing for the GAza?
A reflection:
“Ha, ha, ha: what was done for Africa and still is not done—what are you going to do about that and what are you going to do about China? Please step down…” (That would be Bani ki-moon’s response?)
A note: people like Bill Gates come and preach mass immunization for Africa @ UN, instead about mass starvation & economic suffocation that is on and on issue – are they not devil directed and unethical? Good old devil-ethical always was and were so? I cannot help for an in public religious-mock: “ ‘he’he’he’ ”…
You cannot let lay-peoples ethical conviction’s outside the substance impact the UN as whole in its mission.
UN does health & immunization; lay people cannot do that for them. UN will however take all cash & goods (that are not manipulated) that it can get from Bill Gates & all like him in their ethical convictions.
Rice (as food) delivery to the poor should be forbidden; it is illegal. It has to be replaced with the legal nurturing substance.You can not allow lay-people give Ecclesiastical people whatever they feel is right and want…
It is impossible for Bani ki-moon to deal with all residents of Sheol in his way – but I am sure that all of you are able and can? Or perhaps he can?
Professor Falk,
Thank you for posting this open letter. Honestly, I feel ashamed at my UN leadership brethen’s continued support for Israel’s horrid, genocidal acts, the continued theivery of Palestinian land, the erasure of Palestinian suffering and the false equivalency that is the “norm” when it comes to “leaders” in the UN and the US. When will they actually pay attention to what’s really going on and act accordingly? When will we see true justice and peace?
Anyway, a sincere thanks for your work and a hope that we can actually be a part of positive change in all of the ME.
If Hamas never fired missiles into Israel then the current war would have never occurred. Also if Hamas is such an angel, then why did they kidnapped and subsequently murder three young teenager?
To: Fred, Gene and Prof. Falk,
I hate to break into a very good conversation, but I think that what I have to say is germane. The terms “pro-Palestinian” or “pro-Israel” are no longer relevant. In fact, they’re misleading. What does it mean to be “pro-Israel”? If it means supporting the West Bank settlers and their political champions, or endorsing every policy of the current, or any, Israeli government, I’m not “pro-Israel”. But it doesn’t. Similarly, does being “pro-Palestine” mean supporting those in the Palestinian community and political echelons who seek to annihilate Israel and drive the Jews into the sea? If so, I know lots of Palestinians who aren’t “pro-Palestine.”
Looking at this from my own personal perspective: I’m committed to achieving a Palestinian state that is secure in every way which will be built by the current inhabitants of the Occupied Territories together with masses of returning refugees. This should qualify me as being pro-Palestinian. But I’m also pro-Israel. In fact, I firmly believe that the freedom, security and prosperity of both states is essential to the freedom, security and prosperity of either. As the old song puts it: “you can’t have one without the other,”
This issue rends both the Palestinian and Israeli communities. Each is divided into segments: one rejects compromise while demanding total victory, and pursues a vicious zero sum game; the other seeks compromise with the objective of achieving peaceful co-existence, and are willing to pursue it in a grey area where both rights and wrongs on both sides are acknowledged.
In a strange sounding but profound sense, the West Bank settlers are allies of Hamas, and Fatah is the ally of the 70% of Israelis who express a willingness to make concessions for peaceful co-existence with Palestine, and the centrist political parties that represent them. At present and for the foreseeable future, these intra-communal rivalries are more critical to the future than anything Israelis and Palestinians do to one another in battle. If the rejectionists prevail, the dreadful experience of these past weeks will be repeated endlessly. Neither side is leaving the scene anytime soon. If the moderates prevail, solutions can and will be found to obstacles that appear insurmountable in the current environment which is permeated by mutual distrust and hatred. Amazing things can happen when you open your eyes and mind.
I don’t think this blog can make a contribution to the Middle East peace process. It’s just not positioned to do so. But it can contribute to its participants’ understanding of the situation and each other. This will require some re-orientation. When discussion focuses almost exclusive on assigning blame—the so-called blame game—the “facts” put on the table are specifically selected, and too often distorted, to make the other side look bad. I don’t always agree with Prof. Falk’s posts, but they are always erudite. Not so for the “zingers” we throw at one another. Gene, please forgive me for singling you out as an example, but was there any reason to disrupt a constructive exchange of differing views to reiterate for the umpteenth time the silly allegation that the Israeli governmeny pays Fred to post on this blog.
The late Robert F. Kennedy used to say: “Some people see poverty and misery and ask ‘why?’. I imagine prosperity and happiness and ask ‘why not?’” For a change, let’s not focus on assigning blame for a troubled past and present. Instead, can we explore ways of achieving a just and secure peace?
For openers, Prof. Falk has made intriguing but too-brief statements that merit expansion and discussion.
1. His preference for a One State Solution. An overwhelming majority of observers, including me, believes that this can’t work. Why does he think it can? (Apropos, we might also discuss whether a Two State Solution can work.)
2. His assertion that the genocidal affirmations in the Hamas Charter are only “vague aspirations”, that the organization can be a partner for peace, and that he had met Hamas officials (in Cairo) whose ideas impressed him. Frankly, I hope he’s right, as do many Israelis. Michael Oren, the former Israeli ambassador to Washington who now unofficially speaks for the government, recently wrote that a de-militarized Hamas would be welcome at the negotiating table.
3. Perhaps Fred could write an analysis of where the Israeli government stands.
Of course, there are many other threads that might be pursued. Choosing among them would remain Prof. Falk’s prerogative.
n.b. I’m not suggesting that anybody refrain from criticizing current developments should he/she believe criticism is warranted. But let’s not make negativity the exclusive theme of the blog, and also try to avoid nasty slurs.
Prof. Falk. You are a renown tennis player so I’ll end by speaking in that context. “Sir, the ball is in your court.”
Ira
For those who disagree with the head of the UN:
Why not speak plainly about Hamas? Why ignore what THEY say? Why try to be so “politically correct” and act like “nice guys and gals”? Why don’t you just take them at their word and judge them by their deed? Why continue to play this game? They lie, shoot rockets which land they know not where, have a goal to destroy Israel, kill Jews and ignore and now prolong the suffering of those in Gaza. The Jew left Gaza. The Hamas was not happy with that. For them it is not political but religious. Why don’t you just believe that and recognize that with that type of mentality there no reasoning. You can not change this type of mind.
The head of the UN understands this. The lemmings of prof. Falk do not and that part of the problem. But “off with his head anyway”, I guess.
I have a reflection:
We back to religious ethics that are not so ethical for Hamas?
You see; it is a cycle when religious issues are there where they should not be. What do you do with them, so that you can have a budge for all other involved?
I agree with you, Ira. The terms pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel aren’t relevant. As you say, one can be both. What we should be talking about here is pro-justice. But justice for one is not necessarily justice for the other.
How is it possible to seek justice if there is such asymmetry between the two sides seeking it? Obviously the stronger will impose his sense of justice on the weaker. In the present case, justice for Israel is the total elimination or complete subjugation of the Arab Palestinians. Unfortunately, the Palestinians do not see it that way. For them, getting their land back, the return of the refugees, the right to self determination and the end to the slaughter of their children is justice.
Israel lost its freedom, and security when it decided to create a Jewish state at the expense of the indigenous population. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, Israel is also a very prosperous state, thanks to the support of the United States, without which it would be just another backwater desert country.
For all your attempt to rationalize the Israeli position and denigrate the Palestinians, and HAMAS in particular, you are not very convincing. HAMAS is the democratically elected representative of the Palestinian people, and is the entity with which Israel should negotiate if negotiations and agreements are to mean anything. Fatah is a poodle to the Israelis. Abbas no longer even has a mandate. His presidential term ran out a long time ago and there hasn’t been a new election since. The Israelis keep him around and provide with all the perks of power except power itself. He likes the life, compared to that of his fellow countrymen, so he sits up when told.
I also disagree with you about this blog being able to make a contribution to the peace process. It is only sources such as this blog, and experts like Richard Falk and others, who are in the forefront of informing and educating the public, without which justice will not prevail.
Gene,
Thanks for your thoughtful note. I’ll respond in kind when I have an opportunity, hopefully later today. For now, I’m running off to Shabbat Torah study (unlike some people I know, I haven’t resigned from Judaism. (I’ve never learned how to put smiley faces on my e-mails, but consider one as being at the end of that last comment.)
Well you are a Rabbi, after all. I’m surprised you still are running off to Torah study. I should think you’d know it by now. Or are you teaching it?
Actually, if you had read my Declaration, you would see that I had never really belonged to Judaism. And what I read of Torah wasn’t very enlightening. To each his own 😉
Rabbi
You omitted one possible solution that Professsor Falk had not considered – the Jordanian option – but which he thought had merit.
Professor Falk stated:
“Your strong point has to do with Jordan,.. As I have said before the Jordan historical dimension of the Palestinian reality is your trump card, but it is unlikely to be persuasive given all the developments since then,
including awarding the Jewish homeland a majority of the 1947 territory when it was a minority in that reconstituted reality of ‘historic Palestine.’
My response to Professor Falk:
“Returning to Jordan the major part of the West Bank it lost in 1967 must surely be a very attractive option given the conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza over the past three weeks and the closure of Ben Gurion Airport that has completely removed any hope of creating a Palestinian Arab State between Israel and Jordan.
With respect the territory allocated to the Jewish State in 1947 was 56.47% – but 60% comprised the arid Negev desert which was thought to be uncultivatable. The other 43.53% was allocated for the Arab (not Palestinian) State.
How “historic Palestine” that included Transjordan in 1922 can become a “reconstituted reality” that excludes Transjordan in 1947 is really attempting to gild the lily.
You have not elaborated any other reasons for adopting the view that returning the major part of the West Bank to Jordan would be unlikely to be persuasive.
Perhaps you would like to do so.
Given the way things are now – every effort should be made to get Israel and Jordan to negotiate directly before the current conflict escalates out of control.”
Professor Falk never responded.
Maybe you and others would like to take the the opportunity to do so.
Mr Singer:
I have not forgotten this mention of the Jordan option, and I am trying to find ways to raise it without
seeming to vindicate and reward Israel for decades of unlawful accumulation of facts on the ground. Also,
such a proposal to have political credibility must come with Palestinian blessings. At this stage, after so
much suffering at the hands of plans devised by external actors, it is appropriate to respect the Palestinian
ownership of their own right of self-determination.
Professor Falk
The Palestinian Arabs ownership of their own right of self-determination would not disappear with the successful conclusion of negotiations between Israel and Jordan. Such right of self-determination would then become a matter of negotiation with Jordan – not Israel.
Given the history of 20 years of failed negotiations between Israel and the PLO – negotiations with Jordan – presently 78% of Mandatory Palestine (to become about 80% after negotiations with Israel) – would seem to offer the Palestinian Arabs far better prospects for success.
Mr. Singer, I would question your logic here. Jordan already hosts so many refugee Palestinians, they would be afraid siding with them would be a threat to the kingdom. Abdullah, as his father before him, is terrified of the Palestinians and fears for his crown. Hence Jordan’s close relationship with Israel.
Gene
Jordan’s central role in resolving the Jewish – Arab conflict should be readily apparent when considering the following facts:
1. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Charter claims that “Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.” Jordan is 78% of that territorial unit.
2.Jordan and Israel are the two successor States to the British Mandate.
3. Stuck between them is the West Bank – 4% of the Mandate territory – which was:
(a) conquered and occupied by Transjordan in 1948 after having being called “Judea and Samaria” from biblical times until United Nations Resolution 181 (II) in 1947
(b)then renamed “the West Bank” after being unified with Transjordan in 1950 to create a new territorial entity renamed “Jordan”
(c) lost to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.
4. Abu Iyad – deputy chief and head of intelligence for the PLO – ranking second after Yasser Arafat in Fatah – the major faction within the PLO – told the Kuwaiti News Agency as long as 15 December 1989:
“You cannot make a distinction between a Jordanian and a Palestinian. It is true that we encourage unity between Arab peoples, but the relationship between Jordan and Palestine in particular is clearly distinctive; all those who tried in the past and are still trying to create divisions between the Jordanian and Palestinian people have failed. We indeed constitute one people … When the Palestinian state and unity is established…the Jordanian will be a Palestinian and the Palestinian a Jordanian”
I can furnish you with many quotes from Arab leaders over the years affirming these highly significant comments.
5. “West Bank” Arabs became “Jordanians” with Jordanian citizenship and passports between 1950 and 1988.
6. Jordan’s Prince Hassan Bin Talal – the uncle of Jordan’s current King Abdullah – succinctly summed up Jordan’s pivotal position in 1982:
“Small as Jordan is, our country is politically, socially, economically, militarily and historically inseparable from the Palestinian issue.”
7. Small as Jordan might be – Israel is much smaller – fitting into Jordan almost five times.
Jordan’s land mass could help resolve two thorny issues by:
(a) Making land grants to the PLO to compensate it for land retained by Israel in the West Bank
(b) Assisting in resettling Palestinian Arab refugees from other Arab countries.
8. Israel and the PLO have locked horns for the last 20 years unsuccessfully trying to reach an agreement on the West Bank. Any prospect of that ever happening has been virtually ended with the current conflict in Gaza. It is time for a new direction – one that involves Jordan as the largest landholder in Mandatory Palestine becoming part of the solution.
9. The Hashemites have ruled in Jordan for 90 years and done far more for the Palestinian Arabs than any other of their failed leaders – preserving intact almost 80% of Mandatory Palestine as an exclusive Arab Homeland and State for the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine for all of that time.
10. History, geography and demography all point to the Palestinian Arabs aspiration for self-determination being realised in a reunified West Bank/Jordan entity – where no one Jew or Arab would have to leave his current home.
Well, yes, David. Your analysis is all good and well. Except that Abdullah doesn’t want to give up his throne, nor do the Israelis want him to, so long as he can keep the refugee Palestinians quiet. What may seem right to most, is wrong for the Israelis. Ultimately, it will all belong to Israel, including Jordan. Or at least that seems to be the plan.
Gene:
I think the restoration of the status quo as existed at 4 June 1967 – after taking into account the changes on the ground since then and Security Council Resolution 242 – would amount to a very magnanimous offer by Israel.
This should not be too difficult to negotiate. It involves redrawing the international border between Israel and Jordan – two countries that have enjoyed a signed peace treaty since 1994.
What then happened with the territory returned to Jordan after those negotiations were concluded would be for Jordan to determine.
Given the disarray in which the Arab world finds itself – this solution represents the best offer Israel can make. If it were rejected then Israel could possibly act unilaterally to annex at least Area C where only 5% of the West Bank Arab population currently resides.
David,
Sorry if I seem so cynical, but the word “magnanimous” is not to be found in Israel’s dictionary.
Gene
How can you say that such an offer would not be magnanimous and that “magnanimous” is not in Israel’s dictionary ?
Israel withdrew from Sinai.
Israel withdrew from Gaza.
Israel withdrew from 4 settlements in the West Bank.
Israel no longer exercises administrative control over 95% of the West Bank Arabs nor the 40% of the West Bank in which they are located.
Israel made offers in 2000/1 and 2008 which were rejected.
If it makes a deal with Jordan – it will end up withdrawing from probably at least 70% of the West Bank – from an area in which close Jewish settlement was to be encouraged under Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter.
Israel has already withdrawn from some 93% of the territory it captured in the Six Day War – handing over oil fields discovered by it and airfields it constructed.
If a successful deal was done with Jordan – some 97% of the territory lost by Egypt and Jordan in the Six Day War would have been returned by Israel.
I despair at seeing any resolution of the 130 years old conflict when an off-handed comment such as yours is made without any substantiation whatsoever.
Very disappointing indeed.
I would hope that Professor Falk disagrees with you. If he doesn’t then the future for both Jews and Arabs looks very bleak indeed.
To Gene & David Singer: The apparently sincere use of the word ‘magnanimous’ in such a sentence suggests to me why David Singer’s approach
is one more Israeli effort to swallow up most of the West Bank, and satisfy those Zionists in Israel and around the
world that embrace a maximalist conception of the Zionist project. The main flaw, aside from being one more attempt by external actors
to decide what is ‘good enough’ for the Palestinians (and thus is a new rendering of the Balfour Declaration and the UN Partition
Plan) is that it ignores Palestinian rights under international law and the established sovereignty of Jordan and the extreme unlikelihood that legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people could contemplate such a path to their quest for self-determination. At the same time, I acknowledge that no path to a sustainable
and just peace appears to exist at present, and that is by itself demoralizing. Jeff Halper, the dedicated and clear thinking Israeli activist
and author proposes a carefully conceived bi-national state that mixes self-governing spheres with nationally unified governing spheres.
@ David,
Need more be said? Thank you Richard.
Professor Falk
Why must the bi-national state proposed by Jeff Halper – “the dedicated and clear thinking Israeli activist and author (who) proposes a carefully conceived bi-national state that mixes self-governing spheres with nationally unified governing spheres.” – be formed by the unification of Israel with the West Bank?
Doesn’t it make far more sense for such a bi-national State to be formed by the unification of the West Bank with Jordan?
You must know Halper’s option will never happen.
A Jordan/West Bank bi-national State has a good chance of happening between Palestinian Arabs and Jordanian Arabs – for the following reasons enunciated by Arab spokesmen:
“Palestine and Jordan are one…” said King Abdullah in 1948.
“The truth is that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan,” said King Hussein of Jordan, in 1981.
“Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is only one land, with one history and one and the same fate,” Prince Hassan of the Jordanian National Assembly was quoted as saying on February 2, 1970.
Abdul Hamid Sharif, Prime Minister of Jordan declared, in 1980, “The Palestinians and Jordanians do not belong to different nationalities. They hold the same Jordanian passports, are Arabs and have the same Jordanian culture.”
“There should be a kind of linkage because Jordanians and Palestinians are considered by the PLO as one people,” according to Farouk Kaddoumi, then head of the PLO Political Department, who gave the statement to Newsweek on March 14, 1977.
You once wrote that Jordan was my trump card – and so it still remains.
Jordan remains the key to resolving the conflict.
It can happen if people of influence like you are prepared to work to make it happen.
David Singer: I would like to see whether it is possible to explore this Jordan option in a way
that seemed more sensitive to Palestinian rights as understood from the time of the GA 181. Your
way of phrasing the Jordan option resembles the Sharon approach to a solution, and is a version
of Zionist maximalism. This is as unlikely to happen as is Jeff Halper’s conception. I would agree
that unlikeliness at this point should not be a criterion. We want to work toward something that
is perceived as sufficiently fair to both sides to be sustainable over time, and this would mean
some important Israeli reformulations of their positions on Jerusalem, settlements, demilitarization,
and mutual security. There has to be a sense of equality and a regional peace framework, as well as
some sort of vision that Palestinians would be prepared to endorse as their own preferred outcome.
Are you willing to approach the Jordan Option in this spirit? I know you have done a lot of thinking
and are knowledgeable about the history, but I also believe that you have consistently tried to support
Israel’s partisan, and to me unconvincing, narrative. Can we find common ground?
Professor Falk
I appreciate your co-operative approach.
I do not think it is appropriate for us to try and preempt the outcome of negotiations or to predetermine the agenda for those negotiations
I see our role as trying to get Israel and Jordan to enter into direct negotiations to resolve the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank (and hopefully Gaza) on terms mutually acceptable to them
Each party will have its own demands and preferred outcomes that they will bring to the negotiating table which they will have to iron out and finalize face to face.
The Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty 1994 already sets out negotiating parameters on issues such as Jerusalem, water, refugees, terrorism, and freedom of navigation and access to ports
The void left by the breakdown in negotiations between Israel and the PLO, the war in Gaza during the past month and the instability in Syria, Iraq and Libya make it imperative that serious attempts be made to restore the status quo existing at 4 June 1967 – taking into account changes on the ground since then and Security Council Resolution 242.
If we can get Jordan and Israel to sit down together – that will be an important first step in trying to end the Jewish-Arab conflict that has so far proved insoluble.
David Singer:
This proposed diplomacy is even worse than I imagined. How can you propose
at this time that there take place negotiations without the participation of
Palestine and Palestinians as equal political actors with their own set of
grievances and their own rights that deserve protection and implementation?
Surely you must have something more balanced in mind?
Perhaps Mr. Singer, like Golda Meir before him, believes that the Palestinians don’t exist?
Professor Falk
The PLO and Israel have had inconclusive negotiations that have spanned 20 years without reaching any successful outcome – despite three offers made by Israel being rejected by the PLO during that period.
My idea for direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan to allocate sovereignty in the West Bank between their two respective States is step one in a two-stage process.
When the first stage is successfully concluded – Jordan and the PLO will then be able to negotiate on a solution acceptable to them within the area of the Mandate then vested in Jordan’s sovereign control.
Of course if Israel and Jordan both agree – then your suggestion to compress the two stage process into one could be another option.
However given that Israel and Jordan have a signed peace treaty – whilst the PLO has no such treaty with either Israel or Jordan – the likelihood of trilateral negotiations being successfully concluded seems rather small when compared to the likelihood of success under the two stage process.
David Singer:
I know you are serious about stressing this approach, and now give your rationale for ignoring the Palestinian claims
to participate, but such a view of the conflict is without any political prospect of being endorsed at an international
level even if Israel and Jordan were to agree to such a process. Palestine was declared a non-member observer state on
29 November 2012, and is considered to be alone acceptable as representative of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian
refugee community in Jordan, which is over one million, is itself not treated with equality within Jordan. For the Jordan
Option to be of any interest it must have two features that you overlook: 1) Palestine must participate as an equal actor;
2) Israel must accept the idea that the settlements, wall, and settlement roads were established in violation of IHL and
contrary to the spirit of SC Res. 242. And ideally a third feature: a negotiating auspices that was perceived as impartial.
It also must include a regional security dimension as a second stage of diplomatic process.
Professor Falk
You appear to be pre-empting what the international response would be to the two stage process before the parties have even agreed to it.
We need to go step by step.
The PLO will participate as an equal actor in the Stage 2 negotiations with Jordan.
Attempting to impose preconditions as a prelude to commencing negotiations under either stage should be ruled out. This has been tried before and failed.
The parties will negotiate the matters to be placed on the respective agendas in each of the two stages.
The urgent need is to put in place the two-stage process and get the negotiating process underway.
To summarise: What I see as the way to go forward is a two stage negotiating process:
Stage 1: Unconditional negotiations between Israel and Jordan to allocate sovereignty in the West Bank between their two respective States
Stage 2: Unconditional negotiations between Jordan and the PLO to negotiate on a solution acceptable to them within the area of the Mandate then vested in Jordan’s sovereign control.
What I am trying to say is that except from a purely Israeli statist viewpoint, put forward
years ago, such an approach to determining the future of the West Bank is a complete political
non-starter, and any attempt to exclude the PLO/unity government at the first stage will be seen
as a ploy worse than anything attempted via Oslo and Camp David failures. Unless we can agree on
this there is no basis for thinking that your Jordanian Option has any relevance to finding a
solution. At best, it becomes a somewhat disguised form of hasbara.
Professor Falk
The inclusion of a PLO/Hamas Unity Government Delegation to attend Stage 1 of the two stage process is most unlikely to be approved by Israel.
Netanyahu has made that clear:
“I call on all responsible elements in the international community not to rush to recognize a Palestinian government which has Hamas as part of it and which is dependent on Hamas,” Netanyahu, who has said such an administration would be a front for the Islamist group, told his cabinet.
“Hamas is a terrorist organization that calls for Israel’s destruction, and the international community must not embrace it. That would not bolster peace, it would strengthen terror,” Netanyahu said in public remarks at the cabinet meeting.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/02/us-palestinians-israel-idUSKBN0EC1C520140602
That viewpoint in my opinion is not going to disappear.
You are therefore postulating a process that has no possible chance of getting off the ground.
That means there will be a continuing void in any further negotiations of any kind whatsoever.
This could lead to unilateral actions by both Israel and the PLO/Hamas Unity Government which could have disastrous consequences for the civilian populations of Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan.
Shouldn’t every effort be made to prevent this happening?
Bringing the PLO/Hamas Unity Government into the Stage 2 Process with Jordan at least has a chance of working.
I am disappointed that you should consider my proposal “a somewhat disguised form of hasbara”
Direct negotiations between Jordan and Israel – the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine -.to determine sovereignty of the last remaining territory of the Mandate still unallocated between them – accords with the history, geography and demography that commenced with the Mandate and remained undetermined and unresolved between Israel and Jordan at 4 June 1967
Direct negotiations subsequently held between Jordan and the PLO/Hamas Unity Government presents the opportunity to resolve the issues of sovereignty in the expanded area of the West Bank/Jordan left undetermined and unresolved between Jordan and the PLO at 4 June 1967.
Crucial to these Stage 2 negotiations will be article 24 of the 1964 PLO Charter which provided:
“Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial field”
Issues such as this would be properly dealt with under Stage 2
If we cannot agree on a joint approach – then by all means proceed with your proposals and see if they are taken up by Israel, Jordan and the PLO/Hamas Unity Government.
If they are – I will be the first to congratulate you on achieving a wonderful breakthrough.
Is our exchange of ideas regarding the Jordanian option at an end? I have had no response from you to my last communication on 13 August at 5.47am.
Mr. Singer:
I find the Jordan Option of no relevance if it is structured to bypass the Palestinians in
its first phase; it is the Palestinian people who have been dispossessed since 1948, and it
is their rights that have been denied. The internal status of Palestinians in Jordan is also
a cause of concern from the perspective of Palestinian self-determination.
Professor Falk
It is a pity that you continue to espouse the position you do.
As I previously stated:
“If we cannot agree on a joint approach – then by all means proceed with your proposals and see if they are taken up by Israel, Jordan and the PLO/Hamas Unity Government.
If they are – I will be the first to congratulate you on achieving a wonderful breakthrough.”
Are you going to take up the challenge of trying to make the Jordanian option happen ?
I have a reflection:
At least Palestinians should understand what they did. When they did break off from Jordan did they understand what they did?
Do they understand now what they did?
Do they understand why they are under consequences and no blessing as they are attempting to achieve the justice for themselves?
They have to raise issues about their chronological patterns as people, and go back to the point when they became Palestinians without Jordan.
I believe that they are in a paralyzed condition to go about self-determination with a “state” inside the Holy Land.
I do not believe it is about rewarding Israel, but rather giving acceptable justice to Palestinians; meaning, redirecting them back toward Jordan, first.
Alternatively, they can integrate with Israel without resistance—and forget who they were as Jordanians.
Kata
Permit me to re-post a part of my recent response to Gene which is relevant to your queries:
Abu Iyad – deputy chief and head of intelligence for the PLO – ranking second after Yasser Arafat in Fatah – the major faction within the PLO – told the Kuwaiti News Agency as long as 15 December 1989:
“You cannot make a distinction between a Jordanian and a Palestinian. It is true that we encourage unity between Arab peoples, but the relationship between Jordan and Palestine in particular is clearly distinctive; all those who tried in the past and are still trying to create divisions between the Jordanian and Palestinian people have failed. We indeed constitute one people … When the Palestinian state and unity is established…the Jordanian will be a Palestinian and the Palestinian a Jordanian”
I can furnish you with many quotes from Arab leaders over the years affirming these highly significant comments.
I have a reflection:
It seems that “Palestinian” self-determination may not have been a legit undertaking / self-realization and self-determination of the people, considering that they removed star from Jordan flag, and became Palestinians over the night with a new one (according to conclusion of Arab dialogue) – following what? I do not know, still I do wonder.
If Jordanians have, in fact, played trickery in order to get rid of the Jews in the region – they are under visible consequences. With that, contemporary Palestinians (former Jordanians) would have to answer to Jordan. Then, Jordan and Israel (under spiritual authority of Jews that are exiles) would have to answer to each other. I think that this would be in a natural order.
What is not in a natural order is appearance of Palestine and condition of Palestinians in Holy Land (stuck betwixt Jordan and Israel). One has to think this: Why is that, and how did come so?
Why Palestinians in a “state” should be stuck between Jordan and Israel when both belongs to them, entirely. People have to come to self-realization and self-determinations that lead to acceptance of the existence with others. The times that we find ourselves request that.
I believe that David is right. I do not believe that this is not about Zionist project. I do believe, however, that Israel and Jordan have to settle their disputes, and possibly outside the UN and US decision-making & courts, as much as possible. Meaning let these who have spiritual authority over both peoples decide what is best for them. Meaning, Jews as exiles and Jordan.
Palestinians are Jordanians, and it has to be corrected what they have done. Israel will be corrected by Jews that are exiles.
Truly, both Jordan and Israel as autocracies have cleaning up to do in order to achieve valid “Kingdom” and /or theocracies for themselves.
A note to David:
David, I believe that you are right.
I also believe that brawling with the prophets is not without consequence – the quotes that you provided may have been spoken by Arab-man who are under prophetic anointing, and it is wise not to dismiss what they have to say.
Dear Rabbi Youdovin,
I agree with your current political statements. However, you must realize that you are from an organization that was initially very hostile to the state of Israel in 1948. The reform movement rejected the creation of the state and ironically only the orthodox movement (not satmar) supported it!
Thanks very much for posting this. I sent a copy with a cover letter – email – of my own to the Secretary General letting him know just how badly he has damaged the UN by his cowardly – or worse, willingly complicit – behavior. No one any longer believes that the United Nations works for anyone other than the United States. And of course the United States government is packed with the shills of Israel.
I noticed as well – counterpunch.org has reposted it – an excellent assessment of the present sorry state of affairs and of the real path that exists to bring the US/Israel War Criminals to justice by Majorie Cohn, and similarly have forwarded a copy of it to the ICC, together with a similar letter castigating the ICC Prosecutor for his cowardice/complicity in the face of the US/Israeli genocide of the Palestinians.
These are shameful times indeed, and they underline just how corrupt “western” leadership really is … all of our institutions are absolutely rotten to their very cores.
It’s up to all of us to at least put their ‘leadership’ on notice that we see them for what they are. And then to throw out all the present leadership, repopulate our institutions with leaders who are ordinary, decent human beings, and see to the restructure of those institutions so that the words ‘Never Again’ become something more than a fundraising slogan for genocide.
I think everyone ought to do the same.
Important reflections that point up the deeper need to reinvent both democracy
and the democratic state; the ideals of the republic have become hypocritical realities..
So folks who oppose the views of Mr. Lee and prof. Falk are cowards? I think not. So our system of government rather than a political party in it needs to be reinvented? I think not. So it is “western leadership ” alone which is corrupt? I think not. So the stated goal of a governing Muslim entity (and not just Hamas) seeking the genocide of all Jews (unless you are a compliant one per the requirements of the Quo’ran ) should be ignored? I think not. That the humanity of Israel in treating the Muslims injured by the craziness of Hamas, those hurt by the war in Syria, the medical care given by Israel to Palestinians seeking it (including care given to a grandchild of a Hamas leader), etc. should be ignored? I think not.
Miss use of words such as genocide, apartheid , ethnic cleansing, Nazi and similar nonsense just promotes the theory of Himmler : tell a big lie often enough and soon that becomes the reality.
Unless you can see both sides of an issue, you should not judge. I say again, Israel is not always right, but neither is she always wrong. Why can’t you admit, at least once in a while that the Palestinians are wrong? Isn’t random shooting of rockets at civilian population centers (even if they get shot down) something to criticize? Especially when 15 percent hit your own population? Why use a weapon which kills far more of your own population than the enemy? Perhaps by as much of a ratio as 100+ to 1? Isn’t that a war crime? Isn’t that suicide!
Ban Ki-moon is right in this case. If you look at all of the facts, you are not. Get over it.
Mahmood Jaludi:
I read this, and I have piercing chills all over my back.
Why is that?
Are you in relationship with radical-jihad?
I agree 100% with you.
It appears that the UN Human Rights Commission’s nasty habit of omitting inconvenient truths from its narrative of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been seized for deployment against the UN’s Secretary General.
The Open Letter from a consortium of Palestinian agencies and a handful of non-Palestinian influentials cites the following statement as grounds for demanding his resignation:
“The Secretary-General strongly condemns the killing today of at least 10 Palestinian civilians in shelling outside of an UNRWA school in Rafah providing shelter to thousands of civilians. The attack is yet another gross violation of international humanitarian law, which clearly requires protection by both parties of Palestinian civilians, UN staff and UN premises, among other civilian facilities.”
What’s wrong with the statement? The letter says that it fails to specifically name Israel as the perpetrator which makes it not only biased, but also offensive to UNRWA, itself a UN agency.
This is what the Secretary General actually said, as reported by Reuters:
“The UN chief has called a new Israeli airstrike on a Gaza UN school that killed 10 and injured 35 a “moral outrage and a criminal act.” Ban Ki-moon called for investigation as official death toll keeps rising.”
Other accusations, while not duplicitous, are nevertheless ridiculous.
“The Secretary-General strongly urge[d] all sides to avoid any further escalation at this time[, noting] that all sides must meet all obligations under international humanitarian law…”
Why is this “undeniable evidence” supporting a demand for the Secretary General’s resignation? Because it “reveals an undue equalization of the two sides of the conflict and failing to address the greater impact of violations committed by Israel.” My word, the man wasn’t writing a detailed analysis of the conflict. He was crying out for restraints on both sides.
However, there is one astounding and inadvertent admission in the letter:
“You [the Secretary General] have undeniably assumed a biased position toward the current attack on Gaza and Israeli violations in the West Bank by failing to clearly condemn Israeli unlawful actions in the OPT, while, on the other hand, not hesitating to accuse – sometimes mistakenly – Palestinian combatant in Gaza of violations of international law.”
Even Hamas’ patrons admit that its fighters violate international law.
To me, the letter elicits sadness more than anger or frustration. It expresses the desperation of an organization that has won a pyrrhic victory on the Palestinian street but is unable to leverage its gains because its National Charter, which affirms genocide and ethnic cleansing, dictates its making unrealistic demands opposed not only by Israel and the United States, but also by most of its Arab neighbors. At the same time, Hamas is rejecting a seat at the negotiating table and easing the blockade in return for accepting de-militarization. At this point, it can’t and it won’t. So it returns to doing what comes naturally, killing and complaining.
There’s no question this time about who fired the first shot. Hamas did so just as the cease fire expired. And it defamed the UN Secretary General, a good man committed to peace. Meanwhile, Gazans continue to die, having been put in harm’s way by Hamas bellicosity. And Hamas’ patrons, who should know better, do nothing to steer the organization away from its genocidal/suicidal course.
Rabbi Ira Youdovin
Mahmood Jaludi appears to be in the middle of his spiritual exercises without spiritual director – and that in public.
His reason for the accusation would be interesting to hear.
To me a scare sound sound a bit demonic … perhaps he does not know.
He sounds like that girl on Forth Carson that tempts ACS AFTB Course takers take her little bewitching and Army enlisting vow.
I laughed at her – so demonic. In fact, she sounded exact like that reporter that Walker B. Percy mentioned, a while back.
RICHARD,
Well done! It’s a fine letter.
BUT you might have mentioned that subsequently, many more will have less respect for UN, for statements from government and the media, that reducing respect for democratic scenarios and for the truth will do lasting damage to life on earth and to human existance. Best wishes,
Francis Oeser
Dear Ira
You are right that the blog is not really going to contribute to peace in the Middle East. It is mostly a forum for letting of steam and venting a lot of spleen on the anti-Israel side and for defenses of Israel on the pro-Israel side that naturally falls on deaf ears. As the conflict at this stage has reduced itself to one between Israel and the terrorist organizations whereas it began as a conflict between Israel and the surrounding Arab countries and then, after the Six-Day War and the treaties with Egypt and Jordan, to a conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, this is perhaps a positive sign. To be pro-Israel means essentally to believe that Israel is in the right in its war against the terrorists and to be pro-Palestinian now means to justify and rationalize the acts of the terrorists. I agree that insofar as the issue is real peace, these definitions do not apply. Israel has a basic position, the Palestinians have theirs, and the differences must be negotiated. You asked me to speak for the Israeli government and I have in fact outlined what I perceive as its position a number of times, and I think this position is clear to anyone who is equipped to follow and understand the political and public debate in Israel.
Israel will offer an exchange of territory that will involve around 5% of West Bank land and leave 75% of the settlements inside Israel (the so-called settlement blocs, the three big towns astride the border – Modiin, Betar Illit and Maaleh Adumim – and the new neighborhoods of Jewish Jerusalem. I don’t know what will be offered in exchange. Wadi Ara with a population of 200,000-300,000 Israeli Arabs has beeen mentioned as a possibility but it is known that Israeli Arabs will refuse to submit themselves to Palestinian sovereignty, for reason that are pretty clear, and if it came to that there is no doubt that the Israeli Supreme Court would strike down the move. I imagine that the dismantling of the remaining settlements would involve a process running to around 5 years.
Israel would agree to a token return of refugees – something like 30,000-40,000, which happens to be the number of original refugees, but maybe more, maybe even 100,000. I won’t go into the rationale of Israel’s position – the self-evident one that a wholesale return of refugees would mean the end of the State of Israel but also the fact that an equal number of Jews were displaced from Arab countries during the 1948 War and taken in by Israel so there exists a de facto population exchange similar to the one that took place between India abd Pakistan, and also the fact that the status as refugees of descendants of refugees has never been recognized in international law.
The question of Jerusalem would conceivably have to be postponed if no imaginative solution was proposed.
Whatever the outcome of negotiations, Israel’s security would have to be guaranteed, namely that “Palestine” would not become another Iraq or Syria.
Hamas could become a partner in negotiations, like the PLO if it disavowed the use of terror to achieve political aims and recognized the State of Israel.
There is a general feeling in Israel that Abu Mazen cannot deliver such a peace and certainly that Hamas isn’t interested in one. It may be that the current round of fighting will create some new alignment among the Palestinians and new involvements in the international community that could facilitate negotiations. I really don’t know.
These exchanges are pretty wearying and I hope I will not feel compelled to return to them and be able to concentrate on my own writing, though I am not as good as Philip Roth, as Mr. Schulman gratuitously remarks, no doubt to get back at me for some imagined slight, I also have the feeling that if he has read Philip Roth it was not very attentively. There is nothing in “The Counterlife” or anything else he has written that shows any great love or support of Israel. In fact I did a little parody of Roth in Israel in my novel “The Other Shore.”
I tend to agree with Fred Skolnik’s view that this blog website can not provide auspices for a constructive
dialogue that seeks the common ground needed for a negotiated solution. The asymmetry of perceptions is too great.
Just one example: FS never refers to Hamas and Palestinian resistance without using the inflammatory language of ‘terrorism,’
while never noting Israeli reliance on ‘state terror,’ or abandoning the language of terrorism altogether in favor of a consideration
of political goals and comparative rights under international law. What I have been saying is that there are parallel viewpoints that
are being constantly re-articulated in my posts and the comments, and very little convergence or overlap. This sense that the other
‘just doesn’t get it’ is what explains the vitriolic tone and the compulsion to personalize pro and con. I have struggle against these
tendencies, as have some others who take part, but with only intermittent success. From the perspective of the parallel viewpoint the
other side is so wrong that they must be deluded or in bad faith or have terrorist or genocidal sympathies. This is my best understanding
of why there hovers over attempts at constructive interaction an aura of frustration often masked as anger. I am not ready to give up as
a commentator writing from my worldview on Israel-Palestine, as well as on other regional and global issues, but I am also not ready to
abandon my sense of the true path to peace and justice for both peoples.
Prof. Falk
Not that I wish to go over this ground again, but I find it astounding that you should label as “inflammatory” the definition as terrorists of people who blow up busses and restaurants or exclusively target a civilian population with a barrage of 3,000 rockets. On the other hand, you are taking the commonly understood term “state terrorism” and expanding it for the sole purpose of applying it to Israel, just as you have done with such terms as Nazi, genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid.
The degree of our disagreement is reflected in our choices of appropriate language. Just
as you believe I employ inflammatory words to reflect an anti-Israeli framing of the conflict,
I feel you are doing precisely the same thing to achieve a pro-Israeli framing. What you
find ‘astounding’ I also find ‘astounding’ but in reverse.
Richard,
I never cease to be amazed at the amount of patience you have. Mssrs Skolnik and Youdovin. et al. constantly bang you over the head with insults and, if not outright lies, at least disinformation about the subjects you write about in this blog. And yet you are always polite in your responses to their comments.
It seems to me a hopeless task to argue with these people. They are so indoctrinated in the Zionist narrative, they wouldn’t alter their thinking no matter how much proof is laid before them. I am convinced that many of them, Skolnik in particular, is a hired gun of the Jewish lobby assigned to hassle and heckle you, and cover Israeli crimes by exaggerating anti-Semitism and attacking Islam as evil incarnate. Any reasonable person can see that all is not black or white. But in my estimation, these are not reasonable people, and I wouldn’t waste my time or give them the dignity of a response. I know so many others who spew the same propaganda. They all sound alike and always use the same talking points.
We who agree with and respect you will continue to stand behind you in this war for truth.
Dear Gene, your conviction that I am being paid is at the same level of rationality as your other conspiracy theories and places you in the very special category of people who have lost touch with reality.
Well, if you’re not getting paid, then you are a bigger fool than I thought. I can’t imagine you really believe the stuff you spew.
You make yourself look very bad, Gene, when you try to match wits with anyone, Stick to the referencing. That’s my sincere advice to you.
You’re becoming repetitive again, Fred. I’ll follow the advice I suggested earlier, and waste no more time with you.
I have a reflection:
Vatican/ Church in Rome did something very wrong at gathering at the Garden for inter-Faith prayers. When Pope invited inter-Faith prayers to Rome — this should have been inside of the Church and /or Sanctuary areas – the prayers for the Peace in the Middle East.
Church Charismatic is fatigued of dead-end work that ends up given over to Satan because of invalid ordination and works of the priesthood & bishops, archbishops & cardinals that act in their will-power, and their conscience—all they do is restrict the move of God’s Spirit—they quench the Spirit and after that see the spirit-realm & natural realm consequences.
I just realized what they did wrong.
Pope should not send his envoy to Iraq– he should just get all Christians out of there, and I am dead-serious about this.
Who said and/or has suggested that inter-Faith prayers were to be outside Church and /or Sanctuary areas, and Garden’s areas instead? They may re-ordain him, and I am dead-serious about this.
I have a reflection,
Israel will take Iraqi Christians, as refugees permanently.
Bosnia & Herzegovina will take Christian, Jewish and Muslim refuges (from any land) as refugees to stay or return at any time.
Macedonia will take refugees, as well as refugees to stay or return at any time.
Montenegro will do as well.
This is not the first time this has happened.
AMBASSADOR RICE’S MAY 4 TELCONS WITH UN SECRETARY-GENERAL ON GAZA BOARD OF INQUIRY REPORT
1. (C) Ambassador Rice spoke with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon three times on May 4 to discuss concerns over the Board of Inquiry’s report on incidents at UN sites in December 2008 and January 2009. Rice called the Secretary-General to register concern about the scope of the report. She cited in particular recommendations 10 and 11, saying it set a bad precedent if the report of a Board of Inquiry expands beyond its terms of reference. Given that those recommendations were outside the scope of the Board’s terms of reference, she asked that those two recommendations not be included in the summary of the report that would be transmitted to the membership. The Secretary-General said he was constrained in what he could do since the Board of Inquiry is independent; it was their report and recommendations and he could not alter them, he said.
2. (C) Ambassador Rice urged the Secretary-General to make clear in his cover letter when he transmits the summary to the Security Council that those recommendations exceeded the scope of the terms of reference and no further action is needed. The Secretary-General said his staff was working with an Israeli delegation on the text of the cover letter. Ambassador Rice asked the Secretary-General to be back in touch with her before the letter and summary are released to the Council.
3. (C) Ambassador Rice spoke with the Secretary-General two additional times. In the second conversation, she underscored the importance of having a strong cover letter that made clear that no further action was needed and would close out this issue. Secretary-General Ban called her after the letter had been finalized to report that he believed they had arrived at a satisfactory cover letter. Rice thanked the Secretary-General for his exceptional efforts on such a sensitive issue. Rice
Secretary-General’s Summary of the Report of the United Nations Headquarters Board of Inquiry into certain incidents in the Gaza Strip between 27 December 2008 and 19 January 2009
Recommendation 10
The Board recommended that the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, should ensure the timely investigation of the other incidents involving death or injury to UNRWA personnel, on or off duty, and/or physical damageto UNRWA premises that were not included with the Board’s Terms of Reference.
Recommendation 11
The Board noted that it was restricted to examining the nine incidents specified in its Terms of Reference. It further noted that it was not within its scope or capacity to reach conclusions on all aspects of these incidents relevant to assessment of the responsibility of the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of international humanitarian law. The Board specifically recalled in this regard that it had been unable to investigate fully all circumstances related to the deaths and injuries occurring in the immediate vicinity of the UNRWA Jabalia School, which involved the greatest loss of life of any of the incidents included in its Terms of Reference. It also referred to the incident involving the deaths of nine trainees from UNRWA’s Gaza Training Centre which occurred on 27 December 2008 immediately across the road from the UNRWA compound in Gaza city. It went on to state the view that the deaths, injuries and damage caused by the firing of smoke projectiles containing white phosphorus into populated urban areas of Gaza, including in the incidents at the UNRWA Field Office Compound and UNRWA Beit Lahia School, also required further examination in relation to the rules and principles of international humanitarian law. More generally, the Board noted that it was deeply conscious that these are among many incidents during Operation Cast Lead involving civilian victims and stated that, where civilians have been killed and there are allegations of violations of international humanitarian law, there should be thorough investigations, full explanations, and, where required, accountability.
*It accordingly recommended that these incidents should be investigated as part of an impartial inquiry mandated, and adequately resourced, to investigate allegations of violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza and southern Israel by the IDF and by Hamas and other Palestinian militants.*
+++
His Excellency
Mr. Vitaly Churkin
President of the Security Council
New York
…
As for the Board’s recommendations numbers 10 and 11, which relate to matters that largely did not fall within the Board’s Terms of Reference, I do not plan any further Inquiry. Regarding recommendation number 10, where it addresses further incidents of death or injury to UNRWA personnel and damage to UNRWA premises that were not within the Board’s Terms of Reference, I intend to address these incidents on a case by case basis, where appropriate and through dialogue with the Government of Israel, in so far as such incidents relate to Israel and the United Nations.
…
I would be grateful if you would bring the present letter and its attachment to the attention of the members of the Security Council for their information.
Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.
BAN Ki moon
I put my name on this Letter.
Free Palestine!!! Israël commited crime against Humanity and HAS to be panished! All who helped to Israël has to panished too whoever it is!
Two key points contended here are:
1.The present crisis derives from the decision to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein on a false premise and that the overriding motivation of the influential neo-conservative group within the Bush administration was to destroy Iraq to benefit the state of Israel.
2.The present crisis is an extension of the war against the Syrian government of Bashar Assad which was manufactured by outside powers for the following ends:
■To destroy a government with an anti-Israel stance.
■To replace the minority Alawite government of Assad with a Sunni one which would comply with Saudi, Qatari and Turkish plans to build a natural gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey which would supply Europe with natural gas.
■Destroying Alawite power in Syria would weaken Iran (and break its link with Hezbollah in Lebanon); the Iranians being the current existential threat to the Israeli state that Saddam and Nasser once were. The Shi’ite Iranians are the chief competitors of the Sunni Saudis for influence in the Middle East and of course the Iranians do not follow the dictates of Washington.
Richard falk, a member on the Council on foregin relations and enemy of Gaddafi, Assad, Iraq, IR but support the trojan hosre of US, Turkey, and paint a war criminal and a terrorist, Erdogan, cooperate with US/Turkey/Israel plan.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/debacle-of-a-great-game-the-islamic-state-is-and-americas-war-on-iraq-and-syria/5395402
Reblogged this on Nick Robson's Blog.
Reblogged this on Britain Isn't Eating.