Fwd: From Israel: Slip Sliding Away

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Arlene from Israel" <arlene@arlenefromisrael.info>
Date: Nov 29, 2017 12:44 PM
Subject: From Israel: Slip Sliding Away
To: <faigerayzel@gmail.com>
Cc:

From Israel: Slip Sliding Away November 29, 2017 It has been two weeks since I've posted – an inordinate amount of time for me. But I have been hard

From Israel: Slip Sliding Away November 29, 2017 It has been two weeks since I've posted – an inordinate amount of time for me. But I have been hard at work on my new, upgraded website, which I hope to unveil within days. Today is November 29, kaf tet b'november – an auspicious time to pick up on my posting: In 1947, on this date, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 181. This is popularly known as "The Partition Plan," even though this is something of a misnomer. The popular misconception is that the UN proposed two states – one Jewish and one Arab – within Mandate Palestine (that is, within land area that was recognized under international law to be Jewish Homeland). Wikimedia The reality was far more complex, as what was proposed was a federation of two states that would involve a complex set of conditions – shared currency, postal service, transportation and more. Please see a more detailed explanation on the Legal Grounds website: https://legalgroundscampaign.org/en/information-alert-70-years-since-resolution-181/ ~~~~~~~~~~ To this day, Palestinian Arabs and their supporters point to this resolution as evidence of their "right" to a state. They could not be more wrong: This is so first because General Assembly resolutions are only recommendations, and are not binding under international law. And then, because, while Israel accepted, the Arabs refused. Once they refused, according to international law, they have no right to benefit from what they rejected. The federation that was recommended by Resolution 181 required the active involvement of the UN to put it in place, with all of the various parameters necessary. To that end, a commission was appointed, but it never met and was ultimately disbanded. The Jews accepted the plan as it was spelled out with regard to the union of two federated states with all of the defined parameters. But as arrangements for that union were never set in place, it was all null and void. Certainly Israel has no obligations with regard to this resolution today. ~~~~~~~~~~ One other important point to be made: Israel was not established by virtue of this resolution. Jews rejoiced at the vote. GPO Archives But this was because it acknowledged the right of Jews to establish a state. The right existed: the land was ancient Jewish homeland dating back millennia, and the Mandate for Palestine had already established this fact within international law. But the acknowledgement by the international community at that particular point in time was important, paving the way for it to more readily become reality. There was no way for the international community to deny Jewish rights to a state, primarily because of the Mandate, but also because of Jewish readiness to cooperate in 1947. The following May 14, 1948 (the 5th of Iyar 5708), David Ben Gurion proclaimed independence, thus establishing the modern State of Israel. ~~~~~~~~~~ It is just slightly over a year since the presidential election. I do not regret that it was Donald Trump who was victorious. Matters would have to be a whole lot worse (Heaven forbid!) for me to feel that way — for the alternative, Hillary Clinton, would, in my opinion, have been a (Palestinian Arab friendly) horror. Yet it is Donald Trump's no-nonsense position, which I welcomed in many respects, that I now see "slip sliding away." This is more than simply disappointing, it is distressing and worrisome. For a short while, Trump appeared to be tough, most notably, with the PA's Mahmoud Abbas. Back last spring, he demanded that the PA stop salaries for terrorists in Israeli prisons, which Abbas adamantly refuses to do. When Trump met Abbas in Bethlehem in May, reports were that he was angry and yelled at Abbas for having "tricked him," by leading him to believe that he supported peace when in fact he was inciting. Photos from that meeting showed a disgruntled Trump. Israelandstuff And so it was possible to think that finally someone had Abbas's number. ~~~~~~~~~~ Yet that did not last long. Before we knew it, members of a Trump team – Jared Kushner; Jason Greenblatt; Ambassador David Friedman; and Dina H. Powell, an Egyptian American from the Bush administration and a rising star in the Trump administration – had started their "fact-finding" visits to the region to explore the possibility of "peace negotiations." There were, we learned, also consultations with the consul in Jerusalem (whose consulate serves as an unofficial embassy to the PA). Anyone thinking straight had to wonder what Trump could have in mind: He KNEW Abbas was a lying bum who wasn't promoting "peace." He knew it, and yet he sent members of his team to Ramallah to talk things over. ~~~~~~~~~~ By early November we were told that the team had completed their "fact-gathering," and were going to put together a concrete plan that would address all of the issues. To be announced in a few months. That there will be no final peace agreement is a given, because the Palestinian Arabs do not want one. They want to weaken and delegitimize Israel. Any Palestinian Arab leader who signed on for cessation of hostilities and recognition of a Jewish state would likely be signing his own death warrant. There will always be an excuse, a reason to walk away. But before that happens, a great deal that is troubling can transpire. We are dragged down a fruitless dead end. In recent weeks we have been seeing signs of pressure from the White House, however subtle, that brought Netanyahu to backtrack on building plans. He didn't want to cross an "Israel-friendly" administration, he said. And so there were reports that he wanted plans to be checked first with the White House – which is not how matters ought to be in a sovereign state. What the parameters of the "new peace plan" will be are as yet unknown. The Trump administration has said this will be different, and that it may require years of work. A NY Times report, which the White House disavowed, described a plan much like others we have known. ~~~~~~~~~~ There has been a great deal of speculation as to why Trump would go this route, attempting, with consider hubris, to resolve a conflict that demonstrably cannot be resolved. There is speculation that he is the ultimate deal maker who is determined to take on the challenge precisely because it is a challenge. Perhaps. But I see something else, with regard to Trump's courting of the Sunni Arab world, most notably the Saudis, in a move against Iran. Credit: Boston Globe ~~~~~~~~~~ Whatever his motivation, in recent days there has been more slip-sliding of a serious nature by the Trump administration. On November 18, reports surfaced with regard to the PLO office in Washington DC (which is a "mission" – similar to, but less than an embassy, as the US does not recognize a Palestinian state). Google maps A US law passed in 2015 requires that the Secretary of State certify to Congress every six months that the Palestinian Authority is working vigorously towards a just and lasting peace. Penalties are to be applied if the Palestinian Authority pursues prosecution of Israel via the International Criminal Court. Secretary of State Tillerson indicated that he was not able to provide certification because in September at the UN General Assembly Abbas urged the ICC to "open an investigation and to prosecute Israeli officials for their involvement in settlement activities and aggressions against our people." https://www.npr.org/2017/11/18/565095140/u-s-says-plo-office-must-close-after-palestinians-call-to-prosecute-israel Credit: i24News ~~~~~~~~~~ The State Department let it be known that this was a "technical move," one over which they had no control. (Read: we really don't want to do this.) Hope was expressed that the office would not have to be closed long: The president is empowered to open it again in 90 days if there is a demonstration of good will towards working on peace. A State Department official made further attempts to soften this action, explaining that: "We are not cutting off relations with the PLO, nor do we intend to stop working with the Palestinian Authority." He reiterated that American intention to work for peace remains strong. What the administration was looking for was a gesture by PA officials to show that they wanted to work for "peace." What they got from the PA, however, was just the opposite. Figuratively, the PA spit in the face of the Americans: PA foreign minister Riyad al-Malki said that the PA would not give in to "extortion" from the Americans, and declared that "The ball is now in the American court." https://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinians-reject-extortion-in-face-of-us-move-to-close-plos-dc-office/ A couple of days later, Abbas put out an order "regarding closing down all communication lines with the Americans." "In practice by closing the office they are freezing all meetings and we are making that official," declared Malki. That certainly was not true, and later there was a slight backtracking on this. It was not, however, a positive message that was being delivered. ~~~~~~~~~~ So how did the Trump administration respond? They responded by reversing themselves and announcing that the office would not be closed. Along with the announcement there was a face-saving proviso. A State Department official explained that the U.S. had "advised the PLO Office to limit its activities to those related to achieving a lasting, comprehensive peace between the Israelis and Palestinians." weclipart ~~~~~~~~~~ Of course, it's not really a laughing matter at all, because now the Americans have the clout of a wet noodle. A watching world will be inclined to brush off the Americans from this point on. Terribly unfortunate, in this troubled time when a serious US stance of deterrence against radicalism is so badly needed. ~~~~~~~~~~ All of this, to appease the PA leaders so they will keep talking to the Americans about the "peace process." The State Department expressed a hope that within 90 days there would be serious negotiations going on. This leads me to ponder whether – in spite of all Trump's claims about having no deadlines – 90 days is now a goal they've set for themselves for getting the parties to the table. ~~~~~~~~~~ Yesterday, at an event to mark the 70th anniversary of Resolution 181, Vice President Mike Pence spoke. The US, he announced, was "actively considering moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem." mdfgeorgia Been there, done that. Is this a move to help the administration appear balanced? Trump came into office insisting that he would move the embassy. Then he hedged, and hedged some more. The stumbling block was the objection of the PA, at a time when the president had decided to "make peace." He will still do it, he said, but not yet. Peace first. I never have been able to figure out why a US embassy in western Jerusalem should interfere with "peace" plans, when the Palestinian Arabs ostensibly claim only eastern Jerusalem. Or more accurately, why the US should respond as if it did interfere, instead of calling the Arabs on this. And so, my response now is, Sir, please do not tell us. Show us. ~~~~~~~~~~ For those of you who once enjoyed Simon and Garfunkel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNt5FnMK2sM ~~~~~~~~~~ © Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by independent journalist Arlene Kushner. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution. ©2017 Arlene from Israel | arlene@arlenefromisrael.info Web Version   Forward   Unsubscribe     Powered by GoDaddy Email Marketing ®

Fwd: Palestinians and Internationalization: Means and Ends

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Middle East Forum" <mefnews@meforum.org>
Date: Nov 29, 2017 12:42 PM
Subject: Palestinians and Internationalization: Means and Ends
To: "Robin Ticker" <faigerayzel@gmail.com>
Cc:

View this email in your browser Palestinians and Internationalization: Means and Ends by Alexander H. Joffe BESA Center Perspectives November 26, 2017 http://www.meforum.org/7041/palestinians-and-internationalization-means Share: Be the first of your friends to like this.   In the 1920s, Jerusalem Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini launched a global fundraising campaign emphasizing the threat to Islamic holy places allegedly posed by Jews. The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement represents itself as a grassroots Palestinian effort to mobilize global support against Israel. In reality, it is a loosely coordinated effort by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the Muslim Brotherhood, and the global left, purporting to speak in the name of the Palestinian people. In American parlance this is "Astroturf," a fake grassroots movement. This latest iteration of elite Palestinian efforts to internationalize their conflict with Jews, Zionism, and Israel is emblematic of the Palestinian elites' century-long effort to mobilize international support in place of, and as a means of, nationalizing the Palestinian masses. In the process, however, they lost control over these processes, which became partially driven by the political needs and inherent anti-Semitism of Arab and Islamic countries, as well as by global geopolitics. Internationalization was evident from as far back as the 1920s, the early age of pan-Muslim and anti-colonial politics. The emerging narrative of "al Aqsa is in danger" from the Jerusalem Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini saw a global fundraising campaign to restore the mosques atop the Temple Mount that emphasized the threat allegedly posed by Jewish encroachment. As head of the Supreme Muslim Council, the Mufti orchestrated the Western Wall disturbances of 1929 and an Islamic conference that met in Jerusalem in 1931. Palestinian efforts to internationalize their conflict with Jews & Zionism date back nearly a century. The general strike orchestrated by the Mufti at the beginning of the 1936-39 mass violence included a call for Arab intervention. Though this was an unlikely prospect, it unnerved the British authorities and prevented the imposition of martial law, saving the rebels and prolonging the conflict. Criticism from Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his All-India Muslim League carried particular weight with Britain. Though the Peel Commission, established in response to the Palestine violence, proposed to abandon the League of Nations mandate for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine and to partition the land into two states – one Jewish and the other Arab, the idea was vehemently rejected by the Mufti, who intensified the rampaging violence. One result was the Bloudan Conference of 1937, which featured Arab ... figures such as Riad al-Sulh of Lebanon and Muhammad Ali Alluba Pasha from Egypt. The conference called for a boycott against all "Jewish goods and activities" and against those of Britain. It was followed by a second, secret conference of Arab nationalists in Damascus and conferences in Cairo and Brussels in 1938. In all these, the Palestinian question was much discussed but mostly acted as an instrument for other nationalist movements. The Palestine issue was at once central and nominal.   Participants in the 1937 Bloudan Conference included former Egyptian Minister of Waqfs Muhammad Ali Alluba (front row, 2nd from left), Palestinian journalist Mohamed Ali Eltaher (front row, 3rd from left), and future Lebanese Prime Minister Riad al-Sulh (front row, 5th from left). In the age of pan-Arabism, there was similar interplay between the question of Palestine and the needs of Arab states. The creation of the Arab League in 1945 formally put the Palestinian issue at center stage. Among its first acts was to boycott Jews in Arab countries where they had lived for millennia. Another Bloudan conference in 1946 included a call from the Mufti's Arab Higher Committee for the Arab states to commit themselves to creating a unified army to prevent a Jewish state. Yet Arab leaders demurred, until the outbreak of civil war between Palestinians and Jews in 1947 began to force their hand. Military intervention, disaster, disgrace, and dispossession followed. During the period of revolutionary nationalism, the Palestinian desire to broaden the conflict by enlisting Arab and Muslim allies was behind the Arab League's creation of the PLO in 1964. But Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser was the real force behind the organization's founding, and it was the KGB that maneuvered Yasser Arafat and his Fatah movement into leadership of the PLO after 1967. Liberating Palestine through "armed struggle" – the PLO's euphemism for terrorism (and to a minor extent guerrilla warfare) – represented a form of magical thinking, but the "romantic" notion of revolutionary Palestinian nationalism, guided and funded by external forces, shaped the Palestinian nation and set back the cause of coexistence with Israel for decades. The PLO was positioned as the quintessential liberation movement during the era of anti-imperial and anti-colonial warfare, and entered into alliances with the African National Congress, SWAPO, the Sandinistas, and a host of other "indigenous" movements. But standing behind these were the Soviet Union and its satellites, which provided training, funding, and support for what were essentially proxy wars against the US and its allies. The Palestinian cause quickly took center stage from most movements except the South African cause, while constructing a kleptocracy centered around Arafat and his inner circle. International terrorism and bloody low-intensity warfare were the primary results. West Bank and Diaspora Palestinians were relegated to a secondary position, even after the Oslo Accords. The 'Palestine Question' became a central focus of the UN system from the mid-1960s onward. Another direct variation of the internationalization scheme was the coopting of the UN system, the centerpiece of postwar liberal internationalism. By riding the crest of Third Worldism, anti-imperialism, and anti-colonialism (trends backed in part by the Soviet Union), and with the explicit backing of Arab, Muslim, and Communist states, the "Palestine Question" became a central focus of the UN system from the mid-1960s onward. UNRWA, of course, has been the health, education, and welfare arm of the Palestinians since 1950. But numerous other parts of the UN system provide moral, legal, and practical support. The General Assembly's support for the Palestinians began in 1969 and 1970 with Resolution 2535, which "reaffirms the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine;" and 2672, which also states Palestinian "inalienable rights" and which added the "Question of Palestine" to the General Assembly's agenda in 1974 (where it has remained to this day). Other UN resolutions lent practical support: 3375 recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization as the "representative of the Palestinian people," 3376 created the "Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People," and 3379 "Determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination." All three were passed on the same day in 1975. Resolution 3240 in 1977 created the Special Unit on Palestinian Rights within the UN Secretariat and the "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People." Renamed the Division of Palestinian Rights, this unit supports the "Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People" through international meetings, liaison with NGOs, studies and bulletins, and training programs. Support for the Palestinian cause is provided by more than 50 other committees or offices, including the Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, the Special Coordinator in the Occupied Territories, disengagement observer and truce forces, the Human Rights Committee and the Human Rights Council, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the Committee on Jerusalem, the Register of Damage caused by the Construction of the Wall, the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices, the "Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the OPT," and the Conciliation Commission for Palestine, founded in 1948. The absurd degree to which Palestine dominates the UN is reflected by the Fourth Committee, which deals with "a variety of subjects which include those related to decolonization, Palestinian refugees and human rights, peacekeeping, mine action, outer space, public information, atomic radiation and University for Peace." The BDS movement is a red-green synthesis in which Palestinians are figureheads. Finally, in the age of leftist anti-globalization, there is the BDS movement. Ostensibly a product of the 2001 UN World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance in Durban; the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) of 2004; and the 2005 "Palestinian Civil Society Call for BDS;" the true origins of the movement go back at least to the 1940s. The Arab League boycott and American Arab anti-Zionism are important foundations, as are the contributions of the General Union of Palestinian Students (founded in Cairo in 1959 to make Palestine the focus of Arab student life in the Middle East and then Europe) – out of which Students for Justice in Palestine emerged in 2000. The Socialist German Student Association (SDS) spearheaded the New Left's turn against Israel in the late 1960s. But the contributions of the New Left and especially the Jewish left of the late 1960s and 1970s (partially co-opted by the KGB and the PLO), and the American Muslim Brotherhood network, which has effectively taken over American Muslim institutions since the 1980s, cannot be ignored. The Communist-backed Palestine Solidarity Campaign, founded in London in 1982, and the Hamas (and thus Brotherhood) creation of the Palestine Return Centre in Britain in 1986, are also important. The BDS movement is thus a red-green synthesis in which Palestinians are figureheads. Arguably, the movement is merely the spearhead of a larger anti-Western juggernaut, in which the dialectic between Communism and Islam remains unresolved. In this sense, the Palestinian cause matters little, except as a means to gain entry and thus dominate institutions such as the UN, international labor, churches, and educational systems. Shared anti-Zionism is a thin fig leaf for shared anti-Semitism and anti-liberalism, messages consumed with increasing vigor by hollowed out Western institutions. But why internationalization? Early episodes had the benefit of honesty regarding motives and audiences. Pan-Islamic and pan-Arab rhetoric expressed fundamental ethnic and religious objections to Jewish nationalism, which both compensated for the lack of local national identities and, in turn, helped generate and define them. Jewish nationalism and Jewish sovereignty defied religiously mandated Muslim supremacy, and imperial ethnic requirements that demanded Arab domination. But the cost of internationalization was handing key levers for Palestinian identity and self-determination over to Arab and then international leaders, who gave lip service to the cause of Palestine but who had other agendas. Arab politics were in turn chained to pressure from the "Arab street" about Palestine; activated by demagoguery, it could support or undermine local leaders. At the heart of Palestinian internationalization is a weak Palestinian national identity. Subsequent variations of internationalization grafted Palestinian nationalism onto ascending international tides and movements: nationalism, Third Worldism, international organizationalism, human rights, as well as "resistance" and terrorism. Gradually, elements of these were incorporated into Palestinian national identity; they sustain and define Palestine to a degree not seen with other ethno-national groups. And in turn, partly because Palestinian nationalism appeals to latent anti-Semitism, each of these tides and movements was converted to the Palestinian cause. In the process, their effectiveness and credibility were undermined. At the heart of Palestinian internationalization is a weak Palestinian national identity that is in constant need of support from other causes and other rhetoric. Palestinian nationalism is secondary or reactive, coming into being notionally as part of larger waves of nationalization but mostly as a negative response to Zionism. Until positive dimensions are developed that take the movement beyond "resistance," "steadfastness," and anti-Semitism, Palestinian internationalization is likely to continue. Alexander H. Joffe, a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a historian and archaeologist. Related Topics:  Arab-Israel conflict & diplomacy, Palestinians  |  Alexander H. Joffe Copyright © 2017 *Middle East Forum, All rights reserved. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list