700 new homes for eastern Jerusalem: Part 2: Analysis
Unlike most NY Times articles, this one gives more of the historical background of how territory was distributed. I find this background obscuring the full story almost as much as does the usual absence of background.
For example, referring to Israel’s policy on Jerusalem, reporter Ethan Bronner wrote, “its assertion that the reunified city would remain under its control as the capital, has won almost no support worldwide.” What does not having world support mean? Does it mean that most countries assiduously follow international law and practical solutions? We know that half the countries break international law. Truth is, foreign governments take positions out of prejudice or economic interest. They distort the meaning of international law in order to justify their positions.
As for practicality, we know that foreign governments propose as solutions impractical schemes, such as the International Atomic Energy Association that did not detect members’ nuclear proliferation and may have fostered it. Another example is as the original proposal for the second partition of what was left of the Palestine Mandate by 1947. The rump, isolated pieces that it suggested form a Jewish state would have been non-viable. When Jerusalem was divided, the Arabs used their nearness to Jewish neighborhoods to fire into them. To want to return to such a situation is foolhardy.
Is the U.S. really interested in peace? Then why does it arm Arab belligerents, who repeatedly commit Intifadas, terrorism, or major wars? Why does it demand that Israel withdraw from areas, although earlier withdrawals led to war? Why does it demand that Israel give up areas that would provide the secure borders required by UN Resolution 242 and advised by the U.S. Chiefs of Staff study? Why does it encourage the P.A. to raise its demands upon Israel? What did Israeli building in the Territories have to do with negotiations, until Obama demanded that Israel cease, and Abbas felt he had to make it a condition of negotiating? (For more on that, click here ) How can there be peace when the jihadists prefer conquest? Has the New York Times ever admitted that it and the State Dept. traditionally are anti-Zionist?
Mr. Erekat’s comment is disingenuous. He knows that Israel announced a freeze in areas outside the State of Israel. He pretends that housing built inside annexed parts of Israel violates the freeze.
He and the State Dept. should be asked why the freeze does not apply to building by Arabs? Why does the State Dept. object to “unilateral” steps by Israel and not by the Arabs? Religious discrimination?
If President Obama understood Israeli history and studied a map, he would know that Jewish housing does make Israel safer. It blocks P.A. expansion and keeps terrorists further away from Israeli population centers. It provides an anchor for the Army and a breakfront against the waves of jihadists.
In the background material, the newspaper reverted to its vague statement of how the 1947 war started -- it “broke out.” No, the Arabs of Palestine and volunteers from Syria and Iraq attacked Jews. Soon foreign official Arab armies invaded. If the New York Times frankly attributed to the Arabs the start of that and the other wars, it would not be so easy for anti-Zionists to get away with claiming that Israel started the wars. Thus the Times, which knows better, withholds the information, leaving others not to know.
It is true, as stated, that Jordan held the eastern part of Jerusalem. Unstated is that such seizure was another act of aggression. Therefore, the eastern part of Jerusalem had not been part of a country since it was part of Judea, the ancient Jewish country there. Therefore, Israel is not an occupier.
Still cagey in wording, Bronner puts it that in “1967 – when Israel took the rest of Jerusalem from Jordan.” Might have mentioned, in “1967, when Jordan opened fire upon Israel and advanced its army for another invasion…” That would give a fuller picture and show who is responsible for what.
At least he admitted that Jordan barred Jews from “the Old City, the site of the ancient Jewish temple” [that the P.A. denies exists, because that denial is convenient for its writing the Jews out of Palestinian history and themselves into it (12/29, A4).
http://www.examiner.com/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~y2009m12d30
-700-new-homes-for-eastern-Jerusalem--Part-2-Analysis