The other day I wrote about wrapping up my work for the "winter" season, and that I was about to hang up my barometer -- which I did. For those of you unfamiliar with the phrase, please see here: (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hang%20up%20the%20guns). Basically, it means that I stopped looking out the window, as there isn't really any place to put ones barometer but on the wall.
Oh, what complaints did I get! First, we had a family Brit to attend to, which took place outside (because of Coronavirus protection regulations). The wind blew so strongly and fiercely that chairs blew away, and those fortunate to survive the gale had to be treated for hypothermia. Might have "you at least issued a warning and suggested a different venue?"
Then, a few days later, we lay sweltering under high heat and humidity. I can understand the heat, but humidity in Jerusalem? "Why wasn't the air conditioning turned on," I was asked?
The upshot is that I am back working -- back out off of summer vacation -- like an old butler called back to set the Queen's palace back on track.
The weather turned a tad on the chilly side, but we didn't see any of the rain that the global forecasts indicated for last week -- at least until last week arrived and we realized that it would justt be unseasonably cool. We're looking again for a chance of showers as Shabbat and early this coming week rolls around, as unseasonably cold weather arrives in the form of low pressure in the lower and upper atmosphere. The storm won't have a lot of mid-level moisture, so it is hard to see how there will be anything more than a passing shower.
After the passage of our upcoming "storm," there will a brief mid-week warm up. Beyond that, the calendar shows that I may truly be able to return to a well-deserved vacation. Basically, no weather is expected the last week of June.
We're all also keeping an eye on the calendar for other reasons: July 1st is the day our Prime Minister says he will bring a motion to declare sovereignty over parts of the West Bank, and oh what an uproar there is against this (e.g., https://www.timesofisrael.com/
In "Remember the Rogers Plan and Israel''s forgotten war" -- the war of attrition -- the writer quotes our previous Prime Minister, Golda Meir, who once wrote: "One cannot and must not try to erase the past, simply because it does not fit the present." For a meteorologist, the present (weather) always fits the past, even if we fail to forecast it.
But, what about the rest of the world that simply closes its eyes to the past? Or decides that the present ended at the inception of the State of Israel in 1948?
For us, the past is pretty straightforward. After most were exiled from our land by the Romans in 70 CE, we (the Jewish People) spent the years dispersed among the nations. The land (renamed Palestine) remained fairly desolate, was conquered by the Islamic Caliphate in 637, conquered by the Christians in 1099, conquered by the Khwarezmi Turks in 1244, the Ottomans in 1517, and the British in 1917. Through this time, there was a Jewish presence in the land, but it waxed and waned depending on the circumstances of who ruled the land.
And there history ends, or so we're supposed to believe. Oh, there is a bit more, but it is apparently meant very little when it came to the Jewish people. True, the British set aside a comparatively large parcel of land for Jewish settlement (i.e., the Balfour Declaration), and were given the mandate for Palestine by The League of Nations, which was transferred to the United Nations in 1946. Supposedly, the mandate included the provisional recognition of communities as individual nations until they could stand alone (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp#:~:text=ARTICLE%2022.&text=Certain%20communities%20formerly%20belonging%20to,are%20able%20to%20stand%20alone.).
Yet, not wanting to waste any time, Britain quickly created an independent state east of the Jordan River in 1921 -- except it is called Jordan and wasn't for the Jewish people.
Eventually, despite the Briish, the area west of the Jordan River was provisionally divided in 1947 after World War II among the local Arab and Jewish populations (Resolution 181), but it was rejected by the local Arab populations and the surrounding Arab countries, who sent their armies to snuff out the newly declared Jewish State of Israel -- with British help. Having failed, they tried again in 1967 and 1973 (although Hizbullah, Hamas, and Iran are still actively trying today). In the meantime, Israel came into position of the Old City and Judea and Samaria (or the "West Bank") during the 1967 war, and close to 600,000 Israelis now live in both areas.
Except they shouldn't. You see in the minds of the International Community, Israelis living in these areas are doing so in contradiction to "International Law." (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/30/opinion/sunday/west-bank-israel-annex.html). Besides being illegal, The New York Times says that it would be bad policy, as it would they say encourage radicalism among the Palestinians and create a number of unstable "Bantustans." The editors do admit, though, that the current US Administration does not view the "settlements" as illegal and that there are legitimate arguments for accepting Jewish residency in the "West Bank", contrary to the headline of their editorial.
Moreover, they fail to mention (and the international community ignores) a letter sent to their editorial board by Eugene Rostow (https://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/19/opinion/l-israel-s-settlement-right-is-unassailable-170524.html) who authored UN Resolution 242, which noted that Israel should withdraw from territories captured in the 1967 war, but not THE territories. Hence, Israeli retention of some of the territory in the West Bank would be consistent with UN Resolution 242, and acceptance of the Trump Plan would still leave at least 70% (or more) of the land mass for the creation of a Palestinian state.
Recently, The New York Times fired their editor for allowing the publication of an opinion piece by Senator Tom Cotton: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.html.
The remaining editors published a note stating:
1) "Given the life-and-death importance of the topic, the senator’s influential position and the gravity of the steps he advocates, the essay should have undergone the highest level of scrutiny. Instead, the editing process was rushed and flawed, and senior editors were not sufficiently involved.
2) "For example, the published piece presents as facts assertions about the role of “cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa”; in fact, those allegations have not been substantiated and have been widely questioned.
3) "The assertion that police officers “bore the brunt” of the violence is an overstatement that should have been challenged."
These are strong reasons for firing the editor, right? Yet, how many times has The Times published articles and opinion pieces about Israel that substitute opinion (or are those wishes?) falsely declaring that Israel is an Apartheid state, that it illegally occupies the West Bank, and has no "right" to exist. When it comes to the State of Israel, the rules that govern day to day life and judgement do not apply. And, it is not just The Times, but the EU has even warned Israel about the possibility of imposing sanctions (https://www.timesofisrael.com/eu-says-will-work-to-discourage-any-israeli-annexation-initiative/). The King of Jordan warns of massive unrest and that his government will consider all options (https://www.timesofisrael.com/jordans-king-warns-of-major-clash-if-israel-annexes-land-in-west-bank/) -- if Israel annexes (actually declares civil law) over any part of the Judea and Samaria.
In refusing the accept any changes to the armistice line, it's not just that Jews shouldn't have settled over it, or shouldn't live there, but in the minds of the naysayers it's as if there are no Jewish towns and villages, and even if they flew over them and looked down, they wouldn't see us as people -- in the present we simply don't exist.
Recently, I had a conversation with a friend who said the problem is that we shouldn't make any unilateral decisions -- that it all has to be done by negotiation. This seems to be the position of the German Foreign Minister (https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-israel-german-fm-calls-annexation-illegal-but-doesnt-threaten-sanctions/). Yossi Klein Halevi writes that any annexation will "undermine the core commitment Israel has made for decades: our willingness to negotiate over disputed territory" (https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-plea-to-gantz-ashkenazi-israel-and-its-friends-need-you-to-block-annexation/). He concludes that we (Israel) will be viewed as the rejectionists (regardless of how many potential peace agreements the Palestinians have already rejected, including the Trump Plan).
All this may be true, but it is a position contrary to common sense based on the means by which Israel came into possession of the land, its past ownership of the land and its historical rights, the recognition of its need for secure borders, and the length of time Israeli towns have existed over the old Armistice line.
If you miss my point, keep in mind the following recent announcement of the approval of the "Open Skies Agreement" (https://www.timesofisrael.com/eu-okays-landmark-israel-open-skies-aviation-deal-despite-annexation-tensions/) includes the following: "“the application of this Agreement is understood to be without prejudice to the status of the territories that came under Israeli administration after June 1967,” and that such territories are not part of the State of Israel. The Foreign Minister of Jordan: "“If annexation occurs, it will kill the two-state solution and destroy all the foundations on which the peace process was based. It will deprive the residents of the region of their right to live in peace and stability,” he said (https://www.timesofisrael.com/
There you have it: i) Don't you forget it: Airplanes may fly over it, but it isn't part of the State of Israel, ii) Annexation (ANY!) will kill the two state solution, iii) Israelis, of all people, should know not to steal.
I think the explanation for this hypocrisy is simple: for the vast majority of the world's peoples, but especially European and Arab nations, it was bad enough that the State of Israel survived its war of Independence long enough to reach an Armistice agreement (which explicitly stated that the "Green Line" was not an international border). Hence, for the government to extend Jewish sovereignty over even more territory is simply an a-front that cannot go unchallenged. Basically, the ingrained (and sometimes spoken) belief is that we the Europeans allowed you to survive as a people in your own sliver of land until now -- don't make us regret it even more than we do.
Still, there is room for optimism. If we go ahead and declare sovereignty, the same Luxembourg FM says that his country will recognize the State of Palestine, and so will others. Why is this good? Because once they do, in the minds of the EU statesmen, the argument will be one over borders, and they might, just might, forget that they don't want us to exist at all.
Barry Lynn
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.