tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7014209.post6663668396940595040..comments2024-03-28T14:55:27.949+02:00Comments on My Right Word: How Bad Was Ms. Hotovely?YMedadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14333122797414935958noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7014209.post-30681495217227742522017-11-16T07:07:16.520+02:002017-11-16T07:07:16.520+02:00And now I see this:
"Transportation Minister...And now I see this:<br /><br />"Transportation Minister Moshe Carmel...said, 'If we sit 20 years, the world will get used to our being in those territories, in any case no less than they got used to [Jordan’s King] Hussein being there. We have more rights; we are more identified with these territories than he is'.”<br /><br />That was in December 1967. We have more rights.<br /><br />https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.823075<br /><br />Levi Eshkol: We’ll Deprive Gaza of Water, and the Arabs Will Leave’<br />Ofer Aderet15.11.2017<br />Declassified minutes of inner cabinet sessions in the months after the Six-Day War show government ministers who were at a loss to deal with its implicationsYMedadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14333122797414935958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7014209.post-58018384405033928832017-11-15T15:56:22.040+02:002017-11-15T15:56:22.040+02:00Melanie, I do not think we disagree. I think you a...Melanie, I do not think we disagree. I think you are absolutely correct that much more could have been done. And probably an native English-speaker would have been more adept at picking up the nuances. And that she did miss opportunities. Perhaps we disagree on the degree of the inadequacy displayed. An yes, what you've stressed is crucial. I think over the past decades in op-eds and blog posts I have zeroed in on that.<br /><br />One point though that you now stressed: "the right to settle in the disputed territories was given to the Jews alone by the inter[n]ational community which enshrined it in international law." Here I am going to be contrary.<br /><br />Article 6 of the Mandate decision reads in full: "The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes." While political primacy is awarded to the Jews in that non-Jews were only to have their "civil and religious rights" and "position" not prejudiced, that wording of the Article does not disallow settling, owning property or the such of non-Jews. Unless I misunderstood your wording, I do not think the Mandate enshrined such discrimination between the various populations. It adds an new extra responsibility to the Mandate Power: to encourage close Jewish settlement (and yes, the areas involved surely included all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza at that time).YMedadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14333122797414935958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7014209.post-24439898724614932412017-11-15T11:16:22.557+02:002017-11-15T11:16:22.557+02:00I am sorry we disgree on this as I have much respe...I am sorry we disgree on this as I have much respect for you. I believe, though, that you have missed the point just as Tzipi Hotovely missed it. There was a double sting to the BBC accusation: that Israel was denying the Palestinians rights granted to Israelis (the claim that lies beneath the “apartheid” canard) and that this contravened the safeguard of non-Jewish “rights” in the Balfour Declaration. <br /><br />Hotoveley failed to identify and nail the falsehoods on which these accusations are based. She failed to make the crucial point that Israel’s “occupation” is justified many times over in international law and the obvious legal and democratic reasons why Arabs who aren’t citizens of Israel aren’t entitled to the same rights as Israeli citizens. She failed even to mention the Balfour Declaration and failed to point out the selective misrepresentation of its wording that had just been hurled at her; and she failed to mention that the right to settle in the disputed territories was given to the Jews alone by the interational community which enshrined it in international law. <br /><br />Vague references to thousands of years of Jewish history, general statements of the right to a homeland and observations about Palestinian rejectionism are all worthy points but wholly inadequate to the task she faced: to call out and forensically destroy the core falsehood used against Israel, that through its very inception and subsequent behaviour it has deprived of their rights the indigenous people of the land. The key point which Hotovely (like so many Israelis) fails to grasp is that the core of the western animus against Israel is the entrenched belief that the “Palestinians” have rights which Israel is denying them in contravention of international law and history. These are the falsehoods that lie behind every hostile claim made about Israel, and which every Israeli spokesman who is thus attacked must directly address and destroy by specific reference to the truths of law and history. Hotovely conspicuously failed to do so on this occasion.Melanie Phillipsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7014209.post-77139799643325932772017-11-15T08:13:39.345+02:002017-11-15T08:13:39.345+02:00I agree to Yossi's observation. D.Minister Hot...I agree to Yossi's observation. D.Minister Hotovelly is a diplomat. Yet we need to stop being on the defense and start asserting OFFENSIVLY. The Balfour declaration gave us 100 years ago on a golden platter ALL areas west of the Jordan River. This 51 country decision MUST be repeated AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN. There was NO OCCUPATION, NO ARAB LANDS designated <br />Many aspired to that but the ONLY international AGREEMENT ratified was on the JEWISH HOMELAND borders. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17754684991266597058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7014209.post-51483469751396698372017-11-15T00:49:41.575+02:002017-11-15T00:49:41.575+02:00I listened to the segment. Tzipi Hotovely is a law...I listened to the segment. Tzipi Hotovely is a lawyer, but she spoke as a diplomat and a politician. So to say she was interested to stress her own points and to narrow down Robinson’s biased approach. I think Tzipi addressed the average BBC radio listener and she succeeded to explain to him her points. Melanie Phillips could be right if it wasn't just an interview but international negotiations. Yosi Birnbaumnoreply@blogger.com