Yisrael Medad, in Israel since 1970, Hebrew U. MA, resides in Shiloh and is an activist for Zionism and Judea & Samaria.
- 2.The Jewish Problem - From anti-Judaism to anti-SemitismWed Aug 27, 2014
Fri,Aug 29,2014 3 Elul 5774
First, it was President Barack Obama who initiated a new phased semantic war against Israel. The Jewish communities beyond the Green Line are, in his lexicon, “illegitimate”. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quickly adopted that language in July 2009 and again in August, saying:
the continuation of settlement activity in the occupied territories is not only illegal and illegitimate, but also does not help restore faith or generate this needed environment.
And in November, in Egypt, she said
"We do not accept the legitimacy of settlement activity and we have a very firm belief that ending all settlement activity, current and future, would be preferable,"
Jim Lowe, of the Interpress Service, asked State Dep’t. spokesperson Crowley this question on the issue:
Initially, the United States called the settlements illegal right through the Carter Administration. That changed with Reagan, who called it an obstacle, and that was adopted by subsequent administrations. This Administration has used the word, illegitimate, which seems to suggest, if you take the Latin root, that we’re headed back toward the illegal part under international law. I don’t want to put you on the spot, but what does legitimate with respect – or illegitimate with respect to the settlements mean exactly?
and received this curt response:
You are quite right, that we have challenged the legitimacy of settlements. I’m not going to parse the words of the President of the United States and the Secretary of State from this podium.
As for the ramifications of the use of the vilification of “illegitimate” in any diplomatic context, I discussed them previously here. But now, Mrs. Clinton has upped the language to a fulminating level She spoke at the Saban Center on December 10 and stigmatized my Zionist efforts as "corrosive". This tongue-lashing is beginning to get petty. I am sure that some people would consider actions that have occurred with the Clinton name attached to them to be illegitimate, and with much more justification. Others still would challenge that vile denouncement. But beyond this “sticks-and-stones” diplomacy, what other content does the US Secretary of State mouth?
Well, she announced in front of Ehud Barak and Tzipy Livni that "The United States will always be there when Israel is threatened.”
Besides asking yourself, if there is peace, why should Israel be threatened, let's stick to what actually happens under her watch. Last month, North Korea attacked South Korea killing dozens of people. What prevented the US from really helping out South Korea? If it is the nuclear weaponery controlled by some psychotic in Pyongyang,
Moreover, isn't this basically the scenario we currently face with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in South Lebanon? And if Iran goes nuclear, what then? If the US does nothing now, why should Israel place itself willingly in a future scenario that is exactly what South Korea suffers from today?
But let us continue to analyze her remarks and I've extracted some of her pronouncements below.
...I want to focus tonight on the way forward, on America’s continuing engagement in helping the parties achieve a two-state solution that ends the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians once and for all
"Once and for all"? Given the essence of Palestinianism, the nature of the ideological positions of the Arabs, their Hadith-based orientation, there is no "once and for all". It simply cannot be a target. Assured security is the best that can be hoped for.
The United States will always be there when Israel is threatened. We say it often, but it bears repeating: America’s commitment to Israel’s security and its future is rock solid and unwavering, and that will not change.
Since this is a reference to the aid extended to Israel for the Carmel fire, well, it took the US a bit of a time for that one plane to reach us so, to send a military strikeforce to assist in a surprise attack by a combined enemy - for that is what will be eventually - of US-trained PA units from the East, Hezbollah from the north and Hamas/Iran/Al Qeida from the south, at the least, is a buit of a bold promise - and worthless in a practical sense, ignoring the potential missle attacks from Iran and Syria that will also make up that future battle.
...Our security relationship has grown broader, deeper, and more intense than ever before. And we have not just worked to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge. We have increased it through new advances like the Iron Dome, a short-range rocket defense system that will help protect Israeli homes and cities. And our military continues to work closely with the IDF through exchanges, training, and joint exercises.
That still will not work properly and adequately in the above scenario.
...let me restate clearly: The United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons...Iran’s leaders face a clear choice, one of those tough choices that Strobe mentioned as the theme of this forum: Meet your international responsibilities or face continued isolation and consequences.
Sorry, Madam Secretary, but the recent past indicates a problem with that. Under Obama's "engagement" policy, nothing has really improved on this front. Iran continues.
...The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians...denies the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people and it poses a threat to Israel’s future security. It is at odds also with the interests of the United States.
Hillary, the conflict is, in truth, the "legitimate expression" of the Arabs in the former territory of the Palestine Mandate. Here are the PLO Charter's elements which are relevant even until this day: "Article 7: ...It is a national duty to bring up individual Palestinians in an Arab revolutionary manner...the Palestinian...must be prepared for the armed struggle and ready to sacrifice his wealth and his life in order to win back his homeland and bring about its liberation. Article 8: The phase in their history, through which the Palestinian people are now living, is that of national (watani) struggle for the liberation of Palestine...Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Thus it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it...Article 10: Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war.
If, Hillary, you refuse to recognize that aspect, that fundamental truth, we are far from peace.
...The long-term population trends that result from the occupation are endangering the Zionist vision of a Jewish and democratic state in the historic homeland of the Jewish people...
Not really. And basing one's self on demographic prognostications is very dangerous.
We also look at our friends the Palestinians, and we remember the painful history of a people who have never had a state of their own...
Now, that is an important contribution to the propaganda war. Why did they never have a state? Were they always under occupation or - were they never possessed with a distinct nationalist feeling?
Significantly, both sides decided together to pursue a framework agreement that would establish the fundamental compromises on all permanent status issues and pave the way for a final peace treaty.
Excuse me but what compromise, any compromise, originated with the Arab side?
...The United States will not be a passive participant. We will push the parties to lay out their positions on the core issues without delay and with real specificity. We will work to narrow the gaps asking the tough questions and expecting substantive answers. And in the context of our private conversations with the parties, we will offer our own ideas and bridging proposals when appropriate.
How hard does Hillary expect to push?
...let me say a few words about some of the important aspects of these issues we will be discussing. First, on borders and security. The land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean is finite, and both sides must know exactly which parts belong to each. They must agree to a single line drawn on a map that divides Israel from Palestine…Security arrangements must prevent any resurgence of terrorism and deal effectively with new and emerging threats. Families on both sides must feel confident in their security and be able to live free from fear.
"Finite"? Sorry, but according to the Medad Mathematical Model, without territory included from Jordan, there is not enough territory to divide between those who term themselves "Palestinians" and citizens of Israel. And, Hillary, can Jews live in "Palestine" no less than Arabs reside in Israel?
...Palestinians must appreciate Israel’s legitimate security concerns. And Israelis must accept the legitimate territorial aspirations of the Palestinian people. Ignoring the other side’s needs is, in the end, self-defeating… Demonizing the other side will only make it harder to bring each public around to an eventual agreement.
Like Palestinian Authority-sponsored media incitement? Educational programs encouraging hatred of Jews? Who is doing the demonization, Hillary?
...Provocative announcements on East Jerusalem are counterproductive. And the United States will not shy away from saying so.
Why is construction in Jerusalem "provocative"? Is there anything we can do given this pejorative mindset?
Now, in America, there is a system of checks-and-balances in place, constitutionally.
Eric Cantor, the second-highest-ranking member of the House of Representatives and its first Jewish majority leader, spoke on Dec. 12 in Manhattan’s 92nd Street Y and the five-term Virginia Republican criticized Obama’s Cairo speech to the Muslim world in 2009.
“The inherent message was that Israel is to blame. I thought it was very dangerous,” he told moderator Thane Rosenbaum, a lawyer and novelist. The congressman also said, “There is something about this administration’s policy that misses that point. It dismisses the strategic nature of the partnership. We have got to be there for our ally.”
Yes, Hillary, there is a Congress. You will need to be more careful with your incorrect and perjorative comments on the Jewish right to live, reside, develop and grow in in Jewish national homeland.