Painting A Picture That Is Totally False

Sara Carter posted an article today about the media’s misreporting on the recent destruction of buildings in Israel. The media has totally misrepresented the events.

The article explains a few facts the media ignored:

– The land on which the buildings stood is not under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, but, as explicitly provided by the Oslo Accords, under the jurisdiction, for security purposes, of the Government of Israel
– Instead it was included inside Israel’s security barrier at the request of the very Arabs who are now complaining;
– The Arab complainants had the benefit of years of due process, which they flaunted by continuously disobeying orders of the Israeli courts that required both the Army and the Arabs to maintain the status quo until the courts could assess the legal merits of the Arabs’ claims;
– The Arabs chose to build right up against Israel’s security barrier even though they had clear notice that such construction was illegal because it impeded the Israeli army’s ability to defend Israel’s citizenry from Arab terrorist attacks.
The fact that these realities are completely ignored by all of the outraged international “authorities” is a disgrace.

The article continues:

Israel follows the rule of law. Seven years ago it passed a law which, for security reasons, prohibits the building of a structure within 250 meters (820 feet) of the Security Barrier

The Barrier was built starting in the early 2000s after the second Palestinian Arab Intifada (“Uprising”). Hundreds of suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks murdered and maimed more thousands of Israeli civilians during that Uprising. Those acts of terrorism were committed by Arabs sneaking into Israeli cities and towns and blowing up buses, cafes, pizzerias, and ice cream stands. Once Israel commenced building and patrolling the Barrier, terrorism dropped dramatically, ultimately leading to a 90 percent decrease in terrorism within Israel.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It clearly illustrates the bias in the media concerning Israel. Israel lives in a bad neighborhood. The actions it has taken in preventing construction in certain areas and building walls have allowed the country to survive in that neighborhood.

Mugged By Reality

“Mugged by reality” was the expression used by Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent for the Jerusalem Post Herb Keinon to describe Israel when he spoke at the Ahavath Torah Congregation’s Memorial Lecture Free Speech Series. The Free Speech Series lectures are always enlightening, and the speakers are always people who have been involved with their subjects for many years. Mr. Keinon has lived in Israel for 28 years. He has a first-hand perspective on current events in the Middle East as well as friendships with many of the key players.

He reminded us that many of the events in Israel over the past twelve years are the result of the Second Intifada, which began in September 2000 and ended roughly around 2005. The Second Intifada began a few months after the July 2000 Camp David Summit failed to bring a negotiated peace between the Palestinians and Israelis.  In July 2000, Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat was offered probably the best deal possible by the left-leaning government of Israel, and Arafat turned down the offer. Mr. Keinon stated that the terrorism that the Palestinians inflicted on Israel during the Second Intifada permanently influenced the minds and viewpoints of Israelis. The events created a sense of insecurity and vulnerability that changed the nation. One example of this is that the government of Israel, which tended to be center left, has now moved toward the right.

Mr. Keinon pointed out that the Israelis embraced the Oslo accords of the 1990’s, believing that negotiations were the path to peaceful co-existence with their Palestinian neighbors. The Israelis have always wanted peace; it seems as if the Arabs only wanted Israel. When the Palestinians went to the United Nations last year in an attempt to force a settlement without negotiations, that ended the possibility of further negotiations.

Mr. Keinon dealt with current events (will Israel attack Iran?) and stated quite frankly that no one really has the answer to that question. He provided a lot of insight into the impact of terrorism on Israel and the feelings of Israeli families in dealing with the threat. Sometimes when we look at world events, we forget that there are actual people involved.

The Free Speech Series put on by the Ahavath Torah Congregation is always an evening well spent.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Anti-Semitism In England

Yesterday Scott Johnson at Power Line posted a story about protests that took place in London last Thursday when the Israeli Philharmonic, led by Zubin Mehta, participated in the annual eight-week summer season of daily orchestral classical music concerts known as the Proms. The concert by the Israeli Philharmonic was disrupted to the point that the BBC cut off its live broadcast.

The New York Times reported:

…the repeated disruption of its (the Israeli Philharmonic) concert at Royal Albert Hall in London on Thursday night by pro-Palestinian demonstrators, to the point that the BBC cut off its live broadcast and played recordings of the evening’s program instead. 

Stephen Pollard in the UK Telegraph had a slightly different take:

But Thursday night’s events can only be understood in the context of anti-Semitism. When have there been similar protests against “violations of international law and human rights”, as was chanted on Thursday, by any other country? And this in the middle of the Arab Spring, when genuine protesters for human rights are daily risking their lives in Syria against a murderous dictatorship.

If, indeed, this was a protest against the actions of the Israeli government, rather than against Jews, where have been the similar disruptions of performances by Russian, Chinese, Turkish, Iranian or any number of other nations’ musicians? What about disruptions of British national companies, in protest at British human rights abuses? To pose the question is to answer it. There’s little doubt in my mind that this was an action motivated specifically by the fact that the performers were playing in the national orchestra of the Jewish state. 

If the Jews are the canary in the coal mine, we need to pay attention–the gas is rising. As the day nears when Palestine will unilaterally declare itself a state–regardless of the fact that it has never adhered to the Oslo Accords, we can expect to see more accusations against Israel and more anti-Semitism under the guise of supporting human rights. This is the same kind of upside down logic that has been used in the past to persecute Jews. We need to our own research on what is happening rather than believing everything we see in the news.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Law Of Unintended Consequences At Work

CNS News reported today on some of the unintended consequences of the Palestinian Authority’s decision to go to the United Nations next month and ask to be recognized as a state. The article points out that since 1975 the United Nations has recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.” If the United Nations recognizes the Palestinian Authority as a state, the Palestinians’ representation will change from the PLO to a “state of Palestine.” All Palestinians living outside the boundaries of the “state of Palestine” will no longer be represented at the United Nations.

The article further points out:

Goodwin-Gill  (Oxford University professor of public international law Guy Goodwin-Gill, an expert on refugee issues) also cited problems relating to the ability of the P.A. to assume greater powers. (Established under the Oslo Accords as an interim body to administer the self-rule areas, the P.A. is not empowered to conduct foreign affairs, a role that was left to the PLO.)

The academic said in the brief that the P.A. is a subsidiary entity set up by the PLO with “limited legislative and executive competence, limited territorial jurisdiction, and limited personal jurisdiction over Palestinians not present in the areas for which it has been accorded responsibility.”

There is another issue–Palestinian representation in Washington, D.C. The article points out:

The PLO has been permitted to maintain an office in Washington since 1994. Because of the PLO’s long history of involvement in terrorism, presidential waivers have been required by law every six months to allow its continued operation.

“Would that waiver henceforth be permitted, or be exercised?” Abrams wondered. “But if the PLO office is closed, would the United States accredit an embassy for the State of Palestine? Obviously not, as it would be the American position that there is no State of Palestine, not yet anyway.”

I don’t support a Palestinian state until the Palestinians agree to the existence of Israel. I also don’t believe that the Palestinians are entitled to any part of Jerusalem–Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel since King David–it should not be given away. The difficulties in creating a Palestinian state show that the idea has not been well thought out and might have results that are not good for anyone.

Enhanced by Zemanta