Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Dershowitz: "The U.N. Gangs Up on Israel- Again"

 
The U.N. Gangs Up on Israel-Again

Only a U.S. veto can prevent the adoption of a resolution that will make
peace harder to achieve.

By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ 
      Wall Street Journal  January 26, 2011 

Although I have opposed Israel's civilian settlements in the West Bank since
1973, I strongly believe that the United States should veto a resolution
currently before the U.N. Security Council that would declare illegal "all
Israeli settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territory." This
condemnatory resolution is being supported by all members of the Security
Council other than the U.S. So it will pass unless the U.S. exercises its
veto power.

There is a big difference between a government action being unwise, which
the Israeli policy is, and being illegal, which it is not. Indeed, the very
Security Council resolution on which proponents of the condemnation rely
makes it clear that the legal status of Israel's continued occupation isn't
settled.

Passed in 1967, Resolution 242 (which I played a very small role assisting
then-U.N. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg in drafting) calls for Israel to return
"territories" captured during its defensive war of 1967. The words "all" and
"the" were proposed by those who advocated a complete return, but the U.S.
and Great Britain, which opposed that view, prevailed.

Even partial return of captured territories is conditioned on "termination
of all claims of belligerency" and "acknowledgment of the sovereignty . . .
of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure
and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

Resolution 242 does not mention the rights of nonstates, such as the
Palestinian Authority, Hamas or Hezbollah, the latter two of which do not
accept the conditions of the resolution. (Nor do Iran and several other
states in the region.) It would be wrong for the Security Council
retroactively to rewrite Resolution 242, which is the foundation for a
two-state solution-Israel and Palestine-44 years after it was enacted.

But the real reason the U.S. should veto this ill-conceived resolution is
that it is inconsistent with U.S. policy, which has long advocated a
negotiated resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. As Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton has put it: "We continue to believe strongly that New
York is not the place to resolve the longstanding conflict."

A negotiated resolution will require the Palestinian Authority to
acknowledge that some of the land captured by Israel from Jordan, after
Jordan attacked Israel, rightfully belongs to Israel. These areas include
the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and the Western Wall-which were illegally
captured by Jordan in its aggressive and unlawful 1948 war calculated to
undo the U.N.'s decision to divide the area into Jewish and Arab homelands..
Additionally, there will have to be land swaps that recognize the realities
on the ground. Areas such as Ma'ale Adumim and Gilo, for example, have
become integral parts of Jewish Jerusalem.

Finally, Resolution 242 explicitly requires that Israel have "secure and
recognized boundaries," an implicit recognition that its pre-1967 boundaries
were neither secure nor recognized. Some territorial adjustments will be
essential if Israel is to remain more secure than it was in the lead-up to
the 1967 war.

The Palestinian Authority seems to understand at least some of these
realities, as reflected in the recent disclosure of 1,600 internal documents
by Al Jazeera. In one 2008 document, Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qurie is
quoted proposing that Israel annex all settlements in Jerusalem, with the
exception of the Jewish areas of Har Homa and part of the Old City of
Jerusalem. Some on the Security Council, however, clearly don't understand.

The current draft of the proposed resolution condemns "all Israeli
settlement activities." Read literally, this condemnation would extend to
the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, the Western Wall, and those areas that even
the Palestinian Authority concedes must remain under Israeli control. Israel
will not, and should not, return "all" such territories. The U.S. does not
believe it should, nor do reasonable Palestinians.

So what then is the purpose of the utterly unrealistic resolution now under
consideration? It simply gives cover to those Palestinians who do not want
to sit down and negotiate directly with Israel. It is also a stalking horse
for the Palestinian effort to secure a further U.N. resolution unilaterally
declaring Palestinian statehood-a result that neither Israel nor the U.S.
would recognize.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has offered to negotiate without
any preconditions. He promises generous proposals, which could lead to
Palestinian statehood relatively quickly. The Palestinian Authority,
however, has set preconditions to any negotiations, most specifically a
second freeze on all West Bank and East Jerusalem construction. While I
favor such a freeze, I do not believe that it should be a precondition to
negotiations.

Let serious discussions begin immediately about the borders of the two
states. As soon as the borders are decided, Israel will stop building in all
areas beyond them. This is the only way toward peace. A Security Council
resolution unilaterally deciding the central issue of the negotiations will
only make matters worse.

Mr. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. His latest novel is "The
Trials of Zion" (Grand Central Publishing, 2010).




Dershowitz: "The U.N. Gangs Up on Israel- Again"


 
The U.N. Gangs Up on Israel-Again

Only a U.S. veto can prevent the adoption of a resolution that will make
peace harder to achieve.

By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ 
      Wall Street Journal  January 26, 2011 

Although I have opposed Israel's civilian settlements in the West Bank since
1973, I strongly believe that the United States should veto a resolution
currently before the U.N. Security Council that would declare illegal "all
Israeli settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territory." This
condemnatory resolution is being supported by all members of the Security
Council other than the U.S. So it will pass unless the U.S. exercises its
veto power.

There is a big difference between a government action being unwise, which
the Israeli policy is, and being illegal, which it is not. Indeed, the very
Security Council resolution on which proponents of the condemnation rely
makes it clear that the legal status of Israel's continued occupation isn't
settled.

Passed in 1967, Resolution 242 (which I played a very small role assisting
then-U.N. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg in drafting) calls for Israel to return
"territories" captured during its defensive war of 1967. The words "all" and
"the" were proposed by those who advocated a complete return, but the U.S.
and Great Britain, which opposed that view, prevailed.

Even partial return of captured territories is conditioned on "termination
of all claims of belligerency" and "acknowledgment of the sovereignty . . .
of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure
and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

Resolution 242 does not mention the rights of nonstates, such as the
Palestinian Authority, Hamas or Hezbollah, the latter two of which do not
accept the conditions of the resolution. (Nor do Iran and several other
states in the region.) It would be wrong for the Security Council
retroactively to rewrite Resolution 242, which is the foundation for a
two-state solution-Israel and Palestine-44 years after it was enacted.

But the real reason the U.S. should veto this ill-conceived resolution is
that it is inconsistent with U.S. policy, which has long advocated a
negotiated resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. As Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton has put it: "We continue to believe strongly that New
York is not the place to resolve the longstanding conflict."

A negotiated resolution will require the Palestinian Authority to
acknowledge that some of the land captured by Israel from Jordan, after
Jordan attacked Israel, rightfully belongs to Israel. These areas include
the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and the Western Wall-which were illegally
captured by Jordan in its aggressive and unlawful 1948 war calculated to
undo the U.N.'s decision to divide the area into Jewish and Arab homelands..
Additionally, there will have to be land swaps that recognize the realities
on the ground. Areas such as Ma'ale Adumim and Gilo, for example, have
become integral parts of Jewish Jerusalem.

Finally, Resolution 242 explicitly requires that Israel have "secure and
recognized boundaries," an implicit recognition that its pre-1967 boundaries
were neither secure nor recognized. Some territorial adjustments will be
essential if Israel is to remain more secure than it was in the lead-up to
the 1967 war.

The Palestinian Authority seems to understand at least some of these
realities, as reflected in the recent disclosure of 1,600 internal documents
by Al Jazeera. In one 2008 document, Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qurie is
quoted proposing that Israel annex all settlements in Jerusalem, with the
exception of the Jewish areas of Har Homa and part of the Old City of
Jerusalem. Some on the Security Council, however, clearly don't understand.

The current draft of the proposed resolution condemns "all Israeli
settlement activities." Read literally, this condemnation would extend to
the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, the Western Wall, and those areas that even
the Palestinian Authority concedes must remain under Israeli control. Israel
will not, and should not, return "all" such territories. The U.S. does not
believe it should, nor do reasonable Palestinians.

So what then is the purpose of the utterly unrealistic resolution now under
consideration? It simply gives cover to those Palestinians who do not want
to sit down and negotiate directly with Israel. It is also a stalking horse
for the Palestinian effort to secure a further U.N. resolution unilaterally
declaring Palestinian statehood-a result that neither Israel nor the U.S.
would recognize.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has offered to negotiate without
any preconditions. He promises generous proposals, which could lead to
Palestinian statehood relatively quickly. The Palestinian Authority,
however, has set preconditions to any negotiations, most specifically a
second freeze on all West Bank and East Jerusalem construction. While I
favor such a freeze, I do not believe that it should be a precondition to
negotiations.

Let serious discussions begin immediately about the borders of the two
states. As soon as the borders are decided, Israel will stop building in all
areas beyond them. This is the only way toward peace. A Security Council
resolution unilaterally deciding the central issue of the negotiations will
only make matters worse.

Mr. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. His latest novel is "The
Trials of Zion" (Grand Central Publishing, 2010).






--
Posted By Mark Finkelstein to F-Y-Eye at 1/26/2011 04:35:00 PM

Dershowitz: "The U.N. Gangs Up on Israel- Again"

The U.N. Gangs Up on Israel-Again

Only a U.S. veto can prevent the adoption of a resolution that will make
peace harder to achieve.

By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ 
      Wall Street Journal  January 26, 2011 

Although I have opposed Israel's civilian settlements in the West Bank since
1973, I strongly believe that the United States should veto a resolution
currently before the U.N. Security Council that would declare illegal "all
Israeli settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territory." This
condemnatory resolution is being supported by all members of the Security
Council other than the U.S. So it will pass unless the U.S. exercises its
veto power.

There is a big difference between a government action being unwise, which
the Israeli policy is, and being illegal, which it is not. Indeed, the very
Security Council resolution on which proponents of the condemnation rely
makes it clear that the legal status of Israel's continued occupation isn't
settled.

Passed in 1967, Resolution 242 (which I played a very small role assisting
then-U.N. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg in drafting) calls for Israel to return
"territories" captured during its defensive war of 1967. The words "all" and
"the" were proposed by those who advocated a complete return, but the U.S.
and Great Britain, which opposed that view, prevailed.

Even partial return of captured territories is conditioned on "termination
of all claims of belligerency" and "acknowledgment of the sovereignty . . .
of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure
and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

Resolution 242 does not mention the rights of nonstates, such as the
Palestinian Authority, Hamas or Hezbollah, the latter two of which do not
accept the conditions of the resolution. (Nor do Iran and several other
states in the region.) It would be wrong for the Security Council
retroactively to rewrite Resolution 242, which is the foundation for a
two-state solution-Israel and Palestine-44 years after it was enacted.

But the real reason the U.S. should veto this ill-conceived resolution is
that it is inconsistent with U.S. policy, which has long advocated a
negotiated resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. As Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton has put it: "We continue to believe strongly that New
York is not the place to resolve the longstanding conflict."

A negotiated resolution will require the Palestinian Authority to
acknowledge that some of the land captured by Israel from Jordan, after
Jordan attacked Israel, rightfully belongs to Israel. These areas include
the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and the Western Wall-which were illegally
captured by Jordan in its aggressive and unlawful 1948 war calculated to
undo the U.N.'s decision to divide the area into Jewish and Arab homelands.
Additionally, there will have to be land swaps that recognize the realities
on the ground. Areas such as Ma'ale Adumim and Gilo, for example, have
become integral parts of Jewish Jerusalem.

Finally, Resolution 242 explicitly requires that Israel have "secure and
recognized boundaries," an implicit recognition that its pre-1967 boundaries
were neither secure nor recognized. Some territorial adjustments will be
essential if Israel is to remain more secure than it was in the lead-up to
the 1967 war.

The Palestinian Authority seems to understand at least some of these
realities, as reflected in the recent disclosure of 1,600 internal documents
by Al Jazeera. In one 2008 document, Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qurie is
quoted proposing that Israel annex all settlements in Jerusalem, with the
exception of the Jewish areas of Har Homa and part of the Old City of
Jerusalem. Some on the Security Council, however, clearly don't understand.

The current draft of the proposed resolution condemns "all Israeli
settlement activities." Read literally, this condemnation would extend to
the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, the Western Wall, and those areas that even
the Palestinian Authority concedes must remain under Israeli control. Israel
will not, and should not, return "all" such territories. The U.S. does not
believe it should, nor do reasonable Palestinians.

So what then is the purpose of the utterly unrealistic resolution now under
consideration? It simply gives cover to those Palestinians who do not want
to sit down and negotiate directly with Israel. It is also a stalking horse
for the Palestinian effort to secure a further U.N. resolution unilaterally
declaring Palestinian statehood-a result that neither Israel nor the U.S.
would recognize.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has offered to negotiate without
any preconditions. He promises generous proposals, which could lead to
Palestinian statehood relatively quickly. The Palestinian Authority,
however, has set preconditions to any negotiations, most specifically a
second freeze on all West Bank and East Jerusalem construction. While I
favor such a freeze, I do not believe that it should be a precondition to
negotiations.

Let serious discussions begin immediately about the borders of the two
states. As soon as the borders are decided, Israel will stop building in all
areas beyond them. This is the only way toward peace. A Security Council
resolution unilaterally deciding the central issue of the negotiations will
only make matters worse.

Mr. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. His latest novel is "The
Trials of Zion" (Grand Central Publishing, 2010).




Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Ackerman blasts JStreet support for UN Condemnation of Israel

Top House Democrat Gary Ackerman: JStreet is not an organization with which I wish to be associated http://scr.bi/g578Ea   Blasts J-Street Support for UN Condemnation of Israel.

US State Dept characterizes Turkel Report as credible

Flotilla Violence Was Self Defense, [Israeli] Panel Finds
 
MR. CROWLEY:  ...We have been supportive of this effort by Israel, and there has been a – we think that this is an independent report, credible and impartial and transparent investigation that has been undertaken by Israel.
 
 
 
Erdogan dismisses Turkel report

Netanyahu, of opposite opinion, says 'every time Israel must defend itself it is accused of war crimes'

AP and Roni Sofer

Latest Update:  01.23.11, 19:51 / Israel News
 

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan MK slammed the results of the Turkel committee probe into the events of the May 31 IDF flotilla raid, saying it had "no value or credibility", while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed his content with the results.

 

 
 

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Reut: BDS Movement promotes delegitimization against Israel

A report, issued in June of 2011 by the Reut Institute on the so-termed
'Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions" Movement targeting Israel's
legitimacy. Reut asserts that BDS measures go beyond legitimate
criticism of Israeli policies and that even partial BDS measures serve
the end goal of, bluntly, removing Israel as the Jewish state. Their
full report is online at
http://www.reut-institute.org/data/uploads/PDFVer/20100612%20ReViews%20-
%20BDS%20Issue%2016_1.pdf
-- Mark Finkelstein, jcrc@dmjfed.org

The BDS Movement Promotes Delegitimization against Israel

The wave of cancellations by international artists and the increasing
calls to boycott Israel are being led by the BDS Movement which under
the disguise of a progressive liberal movement is in practice promoting
delegitimization. The issue of Reviews reveals the true nature of the
BDS Movement.

In theory, the BDS Movement promotes human rights, international
justice, and peace. In practice, it advances the delegitimization of the
State of Israel by undermining - whether explicitly or implicitly - its
right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state.

Since Operation Cast Lead in early 2009, there have been increasing
efforts within global civil society to isolate Israel. The BDS Movement
- an umbrella organization composed of loosely coordinated
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and individuals - stands behind
these attempts to isolate Israel. These efforts - which consist of
pressure on individuals and organizations to economically or culturally
boycott Israel, institutions and organizations to divest from Israel,
and governments to sanction Israel - peaked in the aftermath of the
flotilla affair on May 31, 2010.

It is very probable that many, and maybe even most, BDS supporters do
not consider themselves to be delegitimizers, and genuinely aim to
criticize Israeli policies. Their association with the Movement results
from a purposeful effort advanced by the BDS Movement catalysts to
depict it as apolitical and akin to progressive human rights movements,
in order to harness the liberal European and North American elite and
enlist wide public support.

However, in this document we seek to demonstrate how the BDS Movement
Catalysts are clear delegitimizers, in many cases stated outright, and
in others demonstrated by their: consistent singling out of Israel,
efforts to undermine Israeli-Palestinian cooperation, promotion of the
right of return, and comparison between Israel and apartheid. In
addition, as far as BDS Movement catalysts are concerned, even selective
or partial boycotts serve the overall goal of delegitimization.

Source:
http://www.reut-institute.org/Publication.aspx?PublicationId=3868

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Iowa to Israel for Free: Jewish individuals ages 18-26 via Des Moines Partnership With Israel and Birthright Israel

 
 Parents, Grandparents:  Help get the word out!
 
From: Jewish Federation of Greater Des Moines and our Consortium's Partnership With Israel    logo partnership
Re:  A free trip to Israel this summer for Jewish individuals ages 18-26
 
A Guaranteed seat on the Consortium's summer trip to Israel for all who qualify for Birthright Israel/Taglit and have an Iowa connection.
 
The free* Birthright Israel trips to Israel are very popular.  In fact, there are thousands of qualified individuals who have been wait listed! 
 
In fact, the Hillel at the University of Iowa has been allocated only 5 seats for the summer trip.  However... those who qualify for Birthright Israel  and have an Iowa connection will be guaranteed a seat on the Central Area Consortium's trip.   But... applications are due  February 15, 2011.   [Use the taglit.IsraelExperts.com website]
 
For information about Birthright Israel see  www.birthrightisrael.com    *The trips are free but for domestic air connections, some meals, and gratuities. ( Questions? Contact Jerry Soroking, U Iowa Hillel Director,  gerald-sorokin@uiowa.edu)
 
 **** Who should apply to this special offer?
  • Any Jewish student who studies or works in Iowa, ages 18-26
  • Any Jewish student whose family resides in Iowa but who may be studying or working elsewhere.  ( We can even extend this offer to a close Jewish friend or relative of the applicant, if they qualify for birthright Israel!)
Registration opens February 15th.   At this stage, applicants should  join the  mailing list http://taglit.israelexperts.com/registration/mailing-list. They should choose the option for the Central Area Consortium trip. Once they sign up, participants will automatically receive information in the coming weeks about the registration process.

 They can also see an outline of the registration steps here: http://taglit.israelexperts.com/registration/registration-steps. But the actual registration for the summer trips opens only on February 15th. Again, those on our mailing list will get reminders and instructions for registration.

 PLEASE take advantage of this WONDERFUL opportunity! 

For information about the Central Area Consortium of Partnership With Israel, see www.westerngalillee.org.il  

For those who would like to sponsor a trip for a random student, contact elaine@dmjfed.org

 Shalom,

 Jacob Lederman, Chair, Des Moines Partnership With Israel  lederman71@msn.com    

 For info, contact: Mark Finkelstein,  P2K Staff, jcrc@dmjfed.org            

 Elaine Steinger,  Executive Director, Jewish Federation of Greater Des Moines   elaine@dmjfed.org