Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Truth Or Dare: How Palestinian Groupies Twist 'The Narrative'

As I mentioned earlier, there's a letter that was sent to the White House imploring President Obama to have the US vote in favor of sandbagging Israel at the UN. It came signed by the usual Arab Lobby fixtures, foreign policy establishment types,former diplomats (many of them currently on the Arab payroll), Leftist Academics and Israel bashers like Andrew Sullivan and Peter Beinart. Oh, a couple of Rabbis for Obama as cover. Gotta have those...acts as an insurance policy certain nasty accusations.

The letter itself is profoundly ridiculous and shows you exactly how such people are willing to soil them selves in public for the sake of their employers and their own bigotry.

I'll reproduce this letter in full and show you why it's such utter garbage and advocates a position detrimental to the US and it's security:

Washington, DC -- 18 January 2011

Dear Mr. President,
In light of the impasse reached in efforts to revive Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and as the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) moves to consider a resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territory, we are writing to urge you to instruct our Ambassador to the United Nations to vote yes on this initiative.

The time has come for a clear signal from the United States to the parties and to the broader international community that the United States can and will approach the conflict with the objectivity, consistency and respect for international law required if it is to play a constructive role in the conflict's resolution.

While a UNSC resolution will not resolve the issue of settlements or prevent further Israeli construction activity in the Occupied Territory, it is an appropriate venue for addressing these issues and for putting all sides on notice that the continued flouting of international legality will not be treated with impunity. Nor would such a resolution be incompatible with or challenge the need for future negotiations to resolve all outstanding issues, and it would in no way deviate from our strong commitment to Israel's security.

If the proposed resolution is consistent with existing and established US policies, then deploying a veto would severely undermine US credibility and interests, placing us firmly outside of the international consensus, and further diminishing our ability to mediate this conflict.

If the U.S. believes that the text of the resolution is imperfect, there is always the opportunity to set forth additional U.S. views on settlements and related issues in an accompanying statement. The alternative to a Resolution - a consensus statement by the President of the UNSC - would have no stature under international law, hence this option should be avoided.

As you made clear, Mr. President, in your landmark Cairo speech of June 2009, "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."

There are today over half a million Israelis living beyond the 1967 line - greatly complicating the realization of a two-state solution. That number has grown dramatically in the years since the peace process was launched: in 1993 there were 111,000 settlers in the West Bank alone; in 2010 that number surpassed 300,000.

The settlements are clearly illegal according to article 49 of the Fourth Geneva convention - a status recognized in an opinion issued by the State Department's legal adviser on April 28, 1978, a position which has never since been revised.

(This is rich. Article 49 refers to 'the Occupying Power'. There was and never has been a country called ' Palestine' that owned the area in question and in fact the area in question was illegally occupied by Jordan in 1948, the Jewish inhabitants ethnically cleansed and no member states of the UN except for the UK and Pakistan recognized Jordanian sovereignty over the area. A state of war did in fact exist continuously from 1948 -1967 that time, Jordan attacked Israel in 1967, was subsequently defeated and has since given up all claim to the areas of Judea and Samaria ( AKA the West Bank) including Jerusalem. Hence there is no occupying power since the area was disputed and never officially a part of any country.

Moreover, the article states that "the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand." If Israel was in fact the Occupying Power, it thus had every right to transfer large numbers of the population to Jordan after Arafat's War against Israel's civilians.)

That official US legal opinion describes the settlements as being "inconsistent with international law". US policy across nine administrations has been to oppose the settlements, with the focus for the last two decades being on the incompatibility of settlement construction with efforts to advance peace. The Quartet Roadmap, for instance, issued during the Bush presidency in 2003, called on Israel to "freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth."

( And President Bush provided assurances to Ariel Sharon, Israel's Prime Minister modifying this position as a condition of Israel signing on to the Road Map. Moreover, construction by Israel or the 'Palestinians' was never an issue in any peace negotiations until President Obama made it one and pushed the 'Palestinians' up a tree they now can't climb down from.)

Indeed, the US has upheld these principles, including their application to East Jerusalem, by allowing the passage of previous relevant UNSC resolutions, including: UNSCRs 446 and 465, determining that the settlements have "no legal validity"; UNSCRs 465 and 476, affirming the applicability of the Fourth Geneva convention to the Occupied Territory; UNSCRs 1397 and1850 stressing the urgency of achieving a comprehensive peace and calling for a two state solution; and UNSCR 1515, endorsing the Quartet Roadmap.

(Interesting. 446,465 and 476, 1397. 1850 and 1815 are not Chapter VII binding resolutions and thus have no force under International Law. This is appropriate, since they ignore the fact that Jews were forcibly deprived of their legally purchased property not only in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem but all over the Arab world in th eperiod after 1948.

Additionally, if the fourth Geneva Convention was not invoked against Jordan in that country's illegal occupation and forcible removal of inhabitants, why should it be invoked against Israel, with far less cause? Again, one must also point out that the UN is now dominated by the 52 member Organization of Islamic Conference and other Muslim countries, the UN has a an historic bias against Israel and Zionism. Does anyone doubt that the UN Security Council could likely pass a Resolution that Jews have horns on their heads if it were not for the US veto?)

At this critical juncture, how the US chooses to cast its vote on a settlements resolution will have a defining effect on our standing as a broker in Middle East peace. But the impact of this vote will be felt well beyond the arena of Israeli-Palestinian deal-making - our seriousness as a guarantor of international law and international legitimacy is at stake.

America's credibility in a crucial region of the world is on the line - a region in which hundreds of thousands of our troops are deployed and where we face the greatest threats and challenges to our security. This vote is an American national security interest vote par excellence. We urge you to do the right thing.

(In fact, making such a decision would severely impact our credibility. Endorsing or abstaining from a UN Resolution dubbing Israeli construction in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem would violate both the Oslo Accords and the Road Map, both of which the US is a signatory to. The canard that adhering to our agreements in this regard would endanger US security is a narrative that has been actively pushed by certain vested interests for some time now,but the fact remains that if Israel were to magically disappear tomorrow, nothing would change. Iran would still be seeking nuclear weapons, fomenting terrorism and aiding and abetting our enemies. Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda, Abu Sayef, Jama'al Islamiah, the Taliban, Lashkar e Taiba and other bad actors inthis part of th e world would still exist and still be a threat to US security.

What would change is that America would have lost a crucial ally.)

Respectfully yours,
Amjad Atallah, Co-Director, Middle East Task Force, New America Foundation
Bruce Ackerman, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale University
Rabbi Leonard I. Beerman, Leo Baeck Temple, Los Angeles
Peter Beinart, Associate Professor of Journalism and Political Science, the City University of New York; Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation
Landrum Bolling, Senior Advisor, Mercy Corps
Hon. Everett Ellis Briggs, former US Ambassador, Portugal, Honduras, Panama; former special advisor to President George H.W. Bush, National Security Council; former President, Americas Society and Council of the Americas
Hon. Frank Carlucci, former US Secretary of Defense
Hon. Wendy Chamberlin, President, Middle East Institute; former US Ambassador, Pakistan
Steven Clemons, Founder and Senior Fellow, American Strategy Program, New America Foundation; publisher, The Washington Note
Hon. Walter L. Cutler, former US Ambassador, Saudi Arabia
Hon. John Gunther Dean, former US Ambassador, Cambodia, Lebanon, Thailand, India
Michael C. Desch, Professor of Political Science, University of Notre Dame; Contributing Editor, The American Conservative
Hon. James Dobbins, former Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs
Hon. Joseph Duffey, former Director, US Information Agency
Hon. Wes Egan, former US Ambassador, Jordan
Hon. Nancy H. Ely-Raphel, former US Ambassador, Slovenia; former Counselor on International Law, Department of State
Dr. John L. Esposito, Professor of International Affairs and Islamic Studies, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
Rabbi Tirzah Firestone, Board of Directors, Rabbis for Human Rights - North America
Hon. Chas W. Freeman, Jr, former US Ambassador, Saudi Arabia; former President, Middle East Policy Council
Hon. Edward W. Gnehm, Jr., Professor of Gulf and Arabian Peninsula Affairs, George Washington University; former US Ambassador, Jordan, Kuwait
Hon. William C. Harrop, former US Ambassador, Israel, Guinea, Kenya, Seychelles, Zaire
Hon. Carla Hills, former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and former US Trade Representative
Hon. Roderick M. Hills, former Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Hon. H. Allen Holmes, former Assistant Secretary of State, European Affairs; former Assistant Secretary, Political-Military Affairs; former US Ambassador, Portugal
Hon. Arthur Hughes, former Deputy Chief of Mission, Israel; former Deputy Assistant Secretary, Department of Defense; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Near Eastern Affairs
Robert Jervis, Professor of International Affairs, Columbia University; former President, American Political Science Association
Christian A. Johnson, Professor, Hamilton College
Michael Kahn, Professor Emeritus of Psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz
Hani Masri, Publisher, The Palestine Note
Hon. David Mack, Vice President, Middle East Institute; former US Ambassador, UAE; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Near Eastern Affairs
Hon. Richard Murphy, former Assistant Secretary of State, Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs; former US Ambassador, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Mauritania
William Nitze, former Assistant Administrator for International Activities, Environmental Protection Agency; Trustee, the Aspen Institute
Hon. Robert Pastor, former Senior Director, National Security Council; Professor of International Relations, American University
Hon. Thomas Pickering, former Undersecretary of State, Political Affairs; former US Ambassador, Russia, India, Israel, El Salvador, Nigeria, Jordan, United Nations
Paul Pillar, former National Intelligence Officer, Near Eastern Affairs; Director of Graduate Studies, Security Studies program, Georgetown University
Hon. Anthony Quainton, former US Ambassador to Kuwait and Peru; former Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security; former Ambassador-at-Large and Coordinator for Counter Terrorism, State Department
William B. Quandt, Professor, Middle East history, University of Virginia; former National Security Council Middle East Assistant, President Carter
Hon. Roscoe Suddarth, former US Ambassador, Jordan; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs
Andrew Sullivan, Senior Editor, The Atlantic; Editor and Publisher, The Daily Dish
Hon. Nicholas Veliotes, former Assistant Secretary of State, Near East and South Asian affairs; former U.S. Ambassador to Egypt and Jordan; former Deputy Chief of Mission to Israel
Hon. Edward S. Walker, Jr., former US Ambassador, Israel, Egypt, UAE; former Assistant Secretary of State, Near Eastern Affairs
Hon. Allen Wendt, former US Ambassador, Slovenia; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, International Energy and Resources Policy
Hon. Philip Wilcox, President, Foundation for Middle East Peace; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Middle Eastern Affairs; former Ambassador-at-Large and Coordinator for Counter Terrorism, State Department
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (USA, ret), former Chief of Staff, Department of State; Visiting Professor, College of William & Mary
James Zogby, President, Arab American Institute

I'll let you do your own searches on some of these people and find out where their extremely vested interests lie..although some of them are simply down for the anti-Israel agenda.

What's ironic is that almost all of them would solemnly tell you about the all powerful 'Jewish Lobby' at the drop of a kefiyah.

please helps me write more gooder!


B.Poster said...

The big problem with this settlement issue, as I see it, is Mexico claims as its own Texas, as well as all lands lost in the Mexican American war. If Israel is forced to cede lands it won in a defensive war, then might the US be next. Might they come after the US and try and force it to return certain lands to Mexico that it lost in the war. I think so.

To support this sets a very bad precedent. Ordinarily people understand things like this but, in the case of Israel, it aopears that an anti-Israel ideology blinds some folks to reality.

The US will certainly face tremendous pressue from many of the world's most powerful countries to act a certain way. We should pray that America's leaders have the will and courage to resist this pressure.

Perhaps a bit off topic but the UN Securtiy council was formed along time agao. The US, France, Britian, The Soviet Union, and China were selected to this council as permanent members because they were the most powerful countries on earth at the time. Presumably Russia is still there because it is the successor of the Soviet Union. The current make up of the Security Council's permanent members on longer supports geo political realities.

As the world's two most powerful countires, Russia and China will likely remain on the council for the foreseeable future. The US and Britian are no longer among the world's five most powerful and influential countries and France likley isn't either. Given the fact that the problems faced by the US are far more acute than those faced by France and Britian, this means the US position is by and away far more tenuos than Britian or France. As such, I look for the US to be replaced on the council before Britian or France are. The US will be given the choice of stepping down or stepping out of the US or perhaps both. France and Britian will likely be replaced next.

I would expect the US to be replaced on the security council within a year or so and Britian to be replaced within two years and France within three years. By 2015 I would expect the permanent members of the Security council to be Russia, China, India, Saudi Arabia, and possilby Iran. In any event, having the US, UK, and France on this council doesn't reflect the current geopolitical realities. Of course all of this assumes the UN still exists in three years.

Independent Patriot said...

It would be interesting to know which ones of the signatories are on the Saudi retirement plan. Something tells me that the majority owe quite alot of their income, either as consultants or their professorial chairs, to Arab money of some kind or the other. As far as the Jews on that list, its the same self-hating, self-righteous egocentric entitled individuals who pop up on every "Jew who hates Israel" list.Sadly none of them see themselves for the hypocrites that they are.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hello IP,

These people connect up in a fairly incestuous way. You'll notice how many of th estate department types are ex Saudi, Jordanian and UAE ambassadors. And the ones who served in Israel, like Pickering,are noted for their acrimony and adversarial relations with the Jewish State.

Other keys are the Carlyle Group ( Carlucci,the Hills) the Soros-Funded Left wing think tank The New America Foundation, The American Iranian Council and the Foundation for Middle East Peace.