To What State Does that Artifact Belong?

I read that the U.S. – Jordan Cultural Property Agreement was signed on December 16, 2019.  It aims to "restrict the import of Jordanian artifacts to the United States of America, which includes coins, manuscripts, stones, minerals, ceramics, glass, mosaic plates and ancient bones, seashells and human, animal and plant remains, whose history ranges from about 1.5 million years BC to about 1750 AD".  It also stresses the "need to return Jordanian artifacts that was confiscated in the United States of America to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan".  In addition, there is the goal of "increasing awareness of the Jordanian civilizational and cultural heritage".

Far be it from me to interfere with archaeological preservation but I am wondering about a problem.

Up until 1922, the territory of that kingdom by the desert was part, and so it was known, of Palestine. 

If there is an artifact in the US from, say, 1100 BCE, does it belong to Jordan, a future Palestine or, perhaps, Israel, the state that ruled the area at that time? Please recall, it was named Palestine by the Romans only in 135 CE.

This is confounding me.

Did Assistant US Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs Mrs. Marie Royce who signed the document or her superiors give a thought about that?

^

Stephen Wise's 'Fallacious Reasoning"

In this September 23, 1929 Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs, Gardiner Howland Shaw, who rose to become Deputy Secretary of State, some 7 weeks after the riots in Mandate Palestine, he details being contacted by Rabbi Stephen S. Wise. Wise, then head of Keren Hayesod, wanted to know the views of the Secretary of State, Henry L. Stimson, no friend of Jews and Zionism, "with respect to the American Zionists retaining the services of a prominent American lawyer to assist in presenting the Jewish point of view before the Shaw Commission of Investigation".

Wise pointed out that as American citizens had been murdered during those riots and their property damaged, "this move would be eminently proper". 

The response:

The Secretary said he could see no objection to Rabbi Wise’s suggestion, it being distinctly understood that the American lawyer chosen had no official status and that the steps necessary to enable him to appear before the Shaw Commission should be taken by the American Zionist Organization in collaboration with the Jewish Agency in London and the British Colonial Office. 

It was pointed out to Rabbi Wise that the presenting of the Jewish or Zionist point of view before the Commission of Investigation was one thing and the presentation before the competent authorities of private claims for damages on account of the killing of American citizens was something quite different and the two should not be confused. It was suggested to Rabbi Wise that to argue that because eight American citizens had been killed in Palestine therefore the American Government was under some sort of obligation to assist in presenting the Zionist side before the Commission of Investigation was clearly fallacious reasoning. 

Why should the American Government assist in presenting either the Jewish or the Arab side? If on the other hand the competent Zionist authorities desired to retain the services of an American, a German or a Polish lawyer to assist Sir F. Boyd Merriman, that was entirely a matter to be settled through the Jewish Agency and the Colonial Office.

The reply was marked “O K” by the Secretary of State.

^

A Consulate Visit to Jericho

This picture was uploaded to the official Instagram account of the Consulate General of the United States in Jerusalem:

And you can read my comment there.

As you know from my previous blogging on the Consulate, they don't use Hebrew much, if at all.  Check all their social media accounts like Twitter and Facebook.

So, here's what the Arabic there says:

US Consul General Karen Sasahara visited Hisham Palace and took a photograph beside the famous star in the palace, which has become the symbol of the city of Jericho.

More here.

As for being a "symbol" of Jericho, I hope she visits the archaeological Tel there where the walls were.  The walls that Joshua is reported to have caused to fall down. Where he "fit". An even older symbol. And there are some urban planning problems there.

I would guess, too, that perhaps she met with Saeb Erekat who lives in Jericho.  No Jews live there, though. Prohibited.  There are, however, nearby Jewish communities like Vered Yericho, Kibbutz Na'aran, Hogla, and up above with a beaiutiful view, Mitzpeh Yericho. There is the Shalom Al Yisrael Synagogue and the Hasmonean Palaces.

I am sure this was just a first outing into the field (the previous CG even trekked about) and I trust eventually, even Tel Shiloh will be visited.

But you notice the other comment there?

khaledazzunHope they will recognize the state of Palestine. 🇵🇸 But the US is so prejudice and ignorant to care about Palestine and Palestinians.

Oh, well. 

^

When the US Information Agency Referred to "Palestine"

As I, and others, have consistently pointed out, the United Nations SC Resolution 242 does not mention "Palestine" as a state.

It does mention "the refugee problem" but without characterizing any specific nationality.  As we now know, some 60,000 Jews were cause to be refugees as a result of the 1947-49 hostilities, initiated by the Arabs, not to mention several thousands more expelled and ethnically cleansed from their homes in locations throughout Judea, Samaria and Gaza during the Mandate years, also by Arabs in a terror campaign.

Below, I have found, perhaps, the first mention of "Palestine" in what could be called, in a very qualified manner, a "state".  

The document is a "talking points" summary, dated August 7, 1967. It was composed or at least authorized by Leonard Marks, director of the US Information Agency at the time.*  It was presented to Averell Harriman, Ambassador at Large, under cover of an attached August 9 typewritten note informing him that the Talking Paper had been “released for us in all posts on the U.S. position in the Middle East.” The note indicates that copies of the Talking Paper were also sent to Walt Rostow and Eugene Rostow.

The questions he poses, and then provides answers for, are illuminating in that they largely reveal that rumor, bias and misinformation seems always to be at the basis of attacks on Israel.

The 18th question is formulated:

What about the Arab refugees from Palestine?

That might, to some people, to indicate a state of "Palestine" existed.

But reading the answer, it is obvious that that is not the case:

ANSWER: Secretary of State Rusk proposed that the refugees have a free and private choice of their future. The U.S. is firmly opposed to permanent eviction of the refugees, and to barring their return.

It is probable that not all would want to return to the Palestine area—especially if they were offered an opportunity for resettlement, with the required financial backing, in other Arab states.

It should be remembered that the United States has contributed over a third of a billion dollars to Palestinian refugee relief since 1950. This is about 70 per cent of the total funds made available for this purpose. So it cannot be said that the U.S. is not interested in the welfare of the refugees, or in a permanent solution of their problems.

In other words, the "Palestine" referred to is just an "area" and it is obviously the former Mandate area. "Arab states" are mentioned, but not a "Palestine". Moreover, the only framework for discussing those persons from an area called "Palestine" are "refugees".

Incidentally, question 19, deals with Jerusalem.  The question is phrased

The U.S. didn’t vote for condemnation of the Israeli annexation of Jerusalem by the U.N. General Assembly. Does this mean the U.S. concurs in the Israeli annexation?

The talking point reply notes that 

The United States has made it clear that the U.S. will not accept Israel’s unilateral action as a determinant of the future of Jerusalem.

However, it also notes that

The Israeli Government has said that its arrangements for the administration of Jerusalem were not an annexation. It seemed to the United States that the proposed U.N.G.A. resolution, which condemned annexation and called for its recision, was not directed to the situation on the ground.

On that, see here where official US statements are quoted, among them

On June 19, President said: “There must be adequate recognition of the special interest of the three great religions in the Holy Places of Jerusalem”. A White House statement on June 28 said that the President “assumes that before any unilateral action is taken on the status of Jerusalem there will be appropriate consultation with religious leaders and others who are deeply concerned … The world must find an answer that is fair and recognized to be fair. That could not be achieved by hasty unilateral action and the President is confident that the wisdom and good judgment of those in control of Jerusalem will prevent any such action.” 

Interestingly, the religious rather than the political and diplomatic aspects are paramount.

That is evident in the words of UN Ambassador Goldberg quoted there:

“During my own statement to the General Assembly on July 3, I said . . . the safeguarding of the holy places and freedom of access to them for all should be internationally guaranteed and the status of Jerusalem in relation to them should be decided not unilaterally but in consultation with all concerned. These statements represent the considered and continuing policy of the United States Government.”

There is there, however, this, too:

We do not recognize Israeli measures as having effected changes in formal status of Jerusalem.(a)Israelis are in that city, as they are in other recently occupied territory, as a result of hostilities last month.(b)Israel may thus be said to be an occupying power with duty under international law to conform its administration as closely as possible to existing local law.(c)Israeli action to establish a unified municipal administration of Jerusalem cannot be regarded and will not be recognized as a valid annexation, or a permanent change in legal status of Jerusalem in any sense.(d)It should be considered an interim administrative measure to provide a more convenient and efficient occupation regime for area formerly under Jordanian control, using Jordanian police and other officials wherever possible.(e)Government of Israel has made it clear that it does not claim that its unified administration of Jerusalem is an annexation.

President Trump's decision altered that policy, but not completely.

P.S.  Already way back when, they knew internationalization was wrong for Jerusalem and the Partition Plan was really dead.


_____________________________
* By the way, Marks foresaw the rise of alternative media in that 

he once implemented an unusual plan to explain US policy directly to the Vietnamese.

He wrote in his 2004 memoir, ``The President Is Calling," that ``the Vietnamese household was well served with gossip and information when the women gathered each morning at the fish market and swapped stories about local events. At the suggestion of one of our employees, I retained the services of talented storytellers who, each day, would compose stories describing the issues of the Vietnam conflict and report on the progress being made in repulsing the communist invaders.

``At night, singing troubadours would go to Vietnamese guesthouses, churches, and other gathering places. We eliminated daily newspapers and replaced them with live fish market correspondents."

^

On The Merging of the Consulate with the Embassy

Many are writing on the various aspects, political and diplomatic, of the merging of the US Jerusalem Consulate with the Embassy, now located after 70 years in Jerusalem, too. There will be no downgrade of the American representation in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. 

BTW, 

Following the merger of @usembassyjlm and @USCGJerusalem, a new Palestinian Affairs Unit will continue to conduct a full range of reporting, outreach, and programming in the West Bank and Gaza as well as with Palestinians in Jerusalem.

I have been on the activities of the Consulate for, well, decades.

To highlight my specific concerns as to possible ramifications of this move, consider this Facebook post by the Consulate:

Are you a Gaza-based student in 9th or 10th grade? Are you looking for an amazing adventure in America?...Apply for the Kennedy-Lugar YES study abroad program via the link below. The deadline is November 1

This is an admirable and positive program. But is it restricted? I mean, can Jewish residents in Judea and Samaria apply?

So, I went to the web site of the Kennedy-Lugar Youth Exchange and Study Program (YES) and I read that it 

is seeking Palestinian secondary school students to participate in a study-in-the-USA initiative for high school students during the 2019-2020 school year.

Does "Palestinian" exclude Jews?

If that is a geographical term, technically Jews in the 150 Jewish communities are 'Palestinian', in a physical sense.

But I continued to read:

Kennedy-Lugar Youth Exchange and Study Program (YES) scholarships, funded by the US Department of State, give secondary school students in many Arab and Islamic countries an opportunity to study at American high schools and live with American host families for one academic year.  Students will be enrolled in a full academic year, involving ten months of high school study in the US, attending classes, labs and extracurricular programs with their American classmates. 

So, is that program racial-based? That one need be "Arab"?

Is it religious-based?  That one need be Islamic?

I sought out further eligibility requirements and found this

to participate in the YES, students:
Be enrolled in 9th or 10th grade at a secondary school at the time of application;
Must be born between February 1, 2001 and August 1,  2004;
Meet a minimum English proficiency requirement, which will be measured by a test;...
Must not be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, or have been born in the United States;
Be a resident of the West Bank, Gaza, or East Jerusalem

So, if a Jewish school pupil is resident of the "West Bank", which is actually Judea and Samaria (check out the UN's 1947 Partition Scheme borders and other documents which use those exact terms), can he/she apply?

Based on my experience, the answer is no.

This is a sort of American apartheid policy. No Jews allowed.  Even if we live less than a kilometer one from the other or drive on the same roads. American taxpayer dollars at work indicating to the Palestinian Authority that Jews don't belong in the territory of their historic Jewish homeland.  And that, perhaps, the peace they seek, the one in which, like in Sinai and in Gaza, no Jews remain behind, is obtainable.

In that, there seems to be a wrong-directional merging, one with the prejudicial Palestinian Authority's anti-Jewish national identity ideology.

___________________

P.S.

Back in 1951, these principles were fixed:

 E. The Arab States and Israel
3. Economic Aid.
(b)  The programs should be administered on a regional basis and the principle of impartiality must be followed.

^

Foreign Aid Reduces Terrorism? Nope

This article seems to confirm what I have been telling foreign diplomats stationed in Israel or visiting "peace team" leaders who confer with me and that is if your aid money is limited to bequeathing wealth, for all the good reasons in the world, on the Arabs-called-Palestinians, but do not insist on joint cooperative programs with the Jewish residents or do not seek to influence internal democracy, you can forget about it.

The abstract:

Is foreign aid effective in reducing terrorism? 

The existing evidence is mostly negative. 

We argue that this pessimistic outlook on the efficacy of aid as a counterterrorism tool is partly a function of focusing on only one type of aid: economic aid. Governance and civil society aid can dampen the participation in and support for terrorism by altering the political conditions of a country. 

We expect countries that receive high levels of governance and civil society aid to experience fewer domestic terrorist incidents than countries that receive little or none. Using a sample of aid eligible countries for the period from 1997 to 2010, we find that governance and civil society aid is effective in dampening domestic terrorism, but this effect is only present if the recipient country is not experiencing a civil conflict. Our findings provide support for the continued use of democracy aid as a counterterrorism tool.

I was right all these years decades.

^

Unconsolable About the Consulate.

First of all, Caroline Glick mentions me, as "exhaustive", in her most recent piece on the US Jerusalem Consulate and writes

while the PLO missions are pushing the BDS agenda in the US, the US consulate in Jerusalem is implementing it on the ground in Israel.

So, let's check up on their non-consular activities (passports, visas, birth certificates, social security, etc.) which provide the extras: programs, donations for projects, student grnats and stipends and trips to the States, visiting delegations, exhibitions, et. al).

Under the auspices of the Consulate, on October 30, 20 Palestinian youth, including 12 YES Alumni - West Bank came together at the Amideast- West Bank office in Ramallah for a full day of training called, “The Idea of Belonging.”  Ms. Stephanie Fox, the Middle East Director for One Solution Global, trained the participants to explore the ideas and feelings of belonging. 

I wonder what they belong to.

Remember that story of conserving Solomon's Pools which the Consulate-General originally promoted as part of "treasured antiquities" of "Palestinian heritage"?  There's a follow-up about a revival of West Bank reservoirs.  We now read that Consul Donald Blome said:

“We share the hope that this site can be a source of pride, hope and discovery for people of every culture, religion and background. Places of this sort of antiquity should stir and inspire all of us to come together and celebrate their beauty” 

The project is defined so:

Restoring the pools could help area Palestinian communities flourish. Economic empowerment of Palestinians is a pillar of U.S. support

The funds, one million dollars, "are designated to make emergency repairs, protect the canals between the pools and create safe walking paths for visitors" as the "project hopes to revitalize the pools and turn them into a West Bank tourist site."

Efrat is quite close. Wouldn't a joint-project further coexistence and peace?  Or is it always to be almost equal but quite separate out here?

The Consulate is also supporting three Palestinian entrepreneurs to participate in the Global Entrepreneurship Summit (GES) in India. The Summit "empowers innovators, particularly women, to take their ideas to the next level". 

And did you know that the Consulate has an office that helps Palestinian companies do business with American companies? Recently, four Palestinian businessmen went to Dallas to attend the ASIS International annual trade show featuring all sorts of security products like X-Rays, alarms, smoke detectors, and more.

I could go on. For now, I won't. 

Let me be clear. I have no opposition to improving the lives, economic circumstances, social experiences and skills of my Arab neighbors. That is laudable and I would hope that Israel's Civil Administration is doing the same, if not with an American budget at its disposal.

But the United States State Department's policy of excluding Jewish residents in the same geographic region from participating and benefiting by not allowing them to join in these very same programs, which, being non-political, would integrate and adjust the two populations and thereby construct a foundation for peace based on mutual recognition, appreciation and respect, is a major error. 

I have making this point to by now almost two dozen political officers at the Consulate who maintain contact with we "settlers". Some wryly agree but point to those "in charge". 

I am unconsolable over this. Peace could have been so much closer. 

What a consular failure. 

 ^

America's Public Affair

Here is the raison d'etre of the United States Consulate in Jerusalem:

Welcome to the Public Affairs Section of the U.S. Consulate General, Jerusalem. As the public diplomacy arm of the U.S. Consulate, the primary goals of our office are to support the peace process between Palestinians and Israelis, strengthen democratic institutions by supporting civics and rule of law programs, promote a free and professional media, encourage economic growth and regional commerce, advance the empowerment of women, and promote understanding of American values and society among Palestinians. To achieve these goals, we have at our disposal a wide variety of programs, working with all levels of society. We oversee programs in education, press/media, culture, civil society, conflict resolution, foreign policy, American political, economic and social systems, and much more –- all areas of importance to the U.S.-Palestinian relationship. Our public affairs activities in the Palestinian Territories and in the United States promote professional exchanges between U.S. and Palestinian individuals and institutions with the aim of cultivating mutual understanding and cooperation at the people-to-people level.
Our specific programming responsibilities are limited to Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.

Screen snap: 

No Jewish Israelis, seemingly, reside in those "Palestinian territories" since we do not get to share in those programs with other residents in the area nor are we invited to benefit from them or the accompanying coexistence possibilities that should develop from working together with fellow residents. I have blogged many times on this issue and that what results from such an approach is:

a) Arabs assume the US does not want the Jewish communities to exist - out of sight, out of mind.

b) If America acts in a semi-apartheid fashion, why not them.

c) If those are the "Palestinian territories", is that because they were the Palestine Mandate or they belong to a supposed national grouping called "Palestinians" as opposed to "Israelis"? And that group legitimately excludes Jewish residents?

d) "Among Palestinians" means not among Jewish Israelis?

Some affair.

Limited to Arabs only.

^

I Reject Any Conspiracy Theory Concerning Daniel Shaprio

I doubt the outlandish idea that President Barack Obama ordered or suggested to his Ambassador to Israel to remain in the country to make sure the incoming Administration's overtly pro-Israel orientation will be sabotaged.

On the other hand, one cannot ignore the constant interference Daniel Shapiro provides.

In the Wall Street Journal on October 24, he published an op-ed, "Move the Embassy to Jerusalem and Promote Peace", containing these lines:

Mr. Trump must be clear on two points: The embassy will relocate to West Jerusalem, the area of the city under undisputed Israeli sovereignty. He also must explain that East Jerusalem’s status will need to be negotiated, and the U.S. expects the outcome to include a Palestinian capital in the city’s Arab neighborhoods, as part of a unified city.

Since 1948, and under Obama, the United States refused not only to move its embassy to the city but quite ridiculously refused to recognize Israel's undisputed sovereignty over any part of the city.  As I blogged previously, that policy ignores the facts on the ground, ignores the fact that as it is based on the internationalization of Jerusalem recommended by the UN in November 1947, before there was a state in Palestine at the end of the Mandate, an idea the Arabs rejected - and went to war over - and thus was a dead letter the moment it was voted on and ignores the plebiscite element in the corpus separatum plan after a decade in which Jerusalem's residents were to vote to which state it would join - the Jewish or the Arab one.

Can anyone think what the results of that vote would have been?

As for the rest of his content, the US need not expect a Palestinian capital.  It could suggest the autonomy plan or one of a federation or another. The negotiations are between Israel and its possible peace partner which could even be Jordan.  The Arabs who refer to themselves as 'Palestinans' seem not to be quite able to make peace among themselves.

In addition, that Arab neighborhoods reference, a throwback to the Clinton parameters and the Holy Basin idea, should be rejected. The Arabs should be thwarted from their habit of demanding the most, refusing to back down and even after achieving some success, expect not to be punished for their diplomatic refusals and terror and again and again, raise their maximalist demands.

Too bad INSS provides Shapiro with a platform.

^

Conservation in Judea and Samaria, Too? --- UPDATED

I've just read this:

U.S. Consul General Launches Conservation Project at Solomon’s Pools in Bethlehem
Jerusalem – Consul General Donald Blome joined Palestinian officials and dignitaries to launch a major conservation project to protect and preserve the famous Solomon’s Pools archaeological site in Bethlehem. The USD $750,000 project consists of a $500,000 grant from the State Department’s Ambassador Fund for Cultural Preservation (AFCP) and a complementary $250,000 grant from Consulate General Jerusalem. Both projects will be implemented through a partnership with the Solomon’s Pools Preservation and Development Center (SPPD). The program will help protect this historic site, damaged in recent years by erosion, and support tourism and the Palestinian economy. The project includes a supporting conference and other events.
In his remarks, Consul General Donald Blome said, “This contribution from the U.S. government not only underscores America’s respect and admiration for Palestinian heritage and its treasured antiquities, but also the imperative of supporting the Palestinian economy as an essential element for peace.”...
The U.S. Government, through the Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation, supports the preservation of cultural sites, cultural objects, and forms of traditional cultural expression in more than 100 countries around the world. 

I don't think I need to be too verbose in my reaction.

First of all, thanks for conserving a Jewish engineering site.

The pools were part of a complex ancient water system, initially built between sometime around 100 BCE and ca. 30 CE.

...The growing water needs of the Jerusalem Temple and the pilgrims it attracted during the later part of the Second Temple period, led to efforts to create a conduit able to reach the relatively high top of the Temple Mount by gravity alone...The water system gradually created consisted of two aqueducts feeding the pools, which themselves acted as a collection and distribution facility, and of three further aqueducts carrying the water north to Jerusalem (two) and to Herodium (the third one). Together, the five aqueducts totalled some 80 kilometres in length.

...evidence suggests that the lower pool was probably constructed during the Hasmonean period, between mid-second and mid-first century BCE....A second phase occurred when Herod the Great, using Roman engineering and in connection with his rebuilding program of the Second Temple, created the sophisticated Wadi el-Byiar Aqueduct, which fed the upper pool...In a third phase, Roman prefect Pontius Pilate built 39 kilometres (24 mi) of aqueduct bringing yet more water to Solomon's Pools from the large collection pools at Arrub to the south.

Of course, there's always an alternative "fake archaeological facts" version:

"The pools were named for Ottoman Sultan Suleiman al-Kanuni [Suleiman the Magnificent], who renovated and expanded them," Palestinian archeologist Nour Taha told Anadolu Agency, in reference to the three ancient water cisterns in the village of Al-Kahder located some 5km south of Bethlehem in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. The Ottoman sultan restored the pools in 1536 and extended the aqueducts that supplied the walled city of Jerusalem with water.

And this:

some Palestinians and others involved with the renovation of the poolsbelieve that the traces found through excavation in the last centuries point only as far back as the first century AD

Secondly, are you sure the area is actually a "country"?

In 1931 (view from the west and notice how densely populated the area):

Third, there are other sites that need US support in that region including Tel Shiloh, Tel Hebron, Herodian, Sebastia and others.  Just ask me.

Until then, is the US Consulate insistent in ignoring Jewish needs and rights?

As my friend EG wrote of Blome's words:

This statement is an acceptance of the UNESCO/Arab position. Jewish antiquities are renamed as "Palestinian heritage"

_____________________

UPDATE

Jewish Press:

We wrote the following to some State Department officials here in Israel:

We'd like to receive a clarification from the State Department and the Embassy regarding the recent statement by the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem vis-a-vis Solomon's Pools.

In a statement Consul General Donald Blome said, "This contribution from the U.S. government not only underscores America's respect and admiration for Palestinian heritage and its treasured antiquities, but also the imperative of supporting the Palestinian economy as an essential element for peace."

We'd like the State Department to please clarify exactly how Solomon's Pools -- built by a Jewish king to service the Jewish Temple in the Jewish city of Jerusalem at a point in history approximately 2,000 years prior to Arab Palestinians -- could possibly be considered any part of a "Palestinian heritage."

Considering the recent withdrawal of the United States from UNESCO, due to the one-sided and historically inaccurate positions UNESCO has taken against Israel, will Consul Blome be offering a retraction and/or apology?

We received the following response:

Thank you for raising this to our attention.  The statement you cited had been included in an earlier version of remarks, but then removed after a discussion on the history of the site.  It was not delivered in remarks and should have been removed from the press release - it was left in due to a clerical error.

We are removing the press release from the website and will issue a corrected copy.  Thank you for flagging.

Best regards,

Clayton Alderman

U.S. Consulate General

Press Officer

The Arabic however still reads:

وسينفذ هذا المشروع الذي يجمع ما بين القطاعين العام والخاص إصلاحات طارئة لجزء من الجدار والصهريج الذي انهار في العام الماضي. وسيقوم أيضا بإعادة تأهيل البركة للحد من مخاطر الانهيار في جدرانه ومنصاته. سيقوم المشروع بإصلاح وحماية القنوات وإنشاء مسارات المشي المخصصة وذلك لحماية العناصر الأثرية المحيطة وفي نفس الوقت سيسمح للزائرين بالتجوال في الموقع دون تعريضه لاي ضرر.
"This contribution from the US government not only confirms the American respect and admiration for the Palestinian heritage and its precious effects, but also the need to support the Palestinian economy as an essential element of peace," said US Consul General Donald Blum.

SECOND UPDATE:

The Consul's office has now posted a new, corrected version in both English

We share the hope that this site can be a source of pride, hope, and discovery for people of every culture, religion, and background. Places of this sort of antiquity should stir and inspire all of us to come together and celebrate their beauty.”

and Arabic.

 ^ 

Subversion 1943 (Updated)

Have American State Department officials ever intervened to subvert and sabotage official Israel government policies by either disseminating their views with favorable recommendations rather than just plain information or by intervening and actively suggesting that oppositionists by assisted and even brought to the United States?

Sure. It happened with Judah Magnes* and here is another instance from an internal State Department memo written by the Minister in Egypt, Alexander Kirk, to the Secretary of State Cordell Hull, in Cairo and sent on January 23, 1943:

On the Jewish side in Palestine there are fortunately also certain individuals and groups that increasingly realize the necessity of working out a peaceful solution with the Arabs. Among these are Mrs. Henrietta S. Zold of the Youth Immigration Bureau, Dr. J. L. Magnes, President of Hebrew University, and Mr. Bendashov [Mordechai Bentov, editor Al HaMishmar - YM], leader of one wing of Jewish labor movement, Hashon Mirhatzair [HaShomer HaTzair - YM]. Dr. Magnes has outlined his ideas of a compromise in the current January issue of Foreign Affairs. I suggest that these moderates also be allowed to visit the United States to develop their case. In doing so they would, I believe, gain support of many American Jews who favor additional home for the Jews in Palestine, but who do not favor extreme Zionist position of the Jewish Agency.

*

...I told Dr. Magnes that this was the most straightforward account on Palestine I had heard, and asked him if he had an appointment to see the President. He replied that he had not but very much hoped it would be possible to call at the White House. I asked McClintock to make arrangements for Dr. Magnes to see the President.

As Dr. Magnes was leaving, he asked permission to direct a very blunt question: “Do you think there is any chance to impose a solution on Palestine?”. I replied that imposition of a regime implied the use of force. It was clear as daylight that other governments were eager to sidestep and leave Uncle Sam in the middle. I did not think it was wise for the United States alone to take the responsibility for military commitments in Palestine but I would be glad to give this matter further thought. (A memorandum of May 5 toy McClintock to Carter indicated that the ribbon copy of this memorandum of conversation, marked “Preliminary Draft”, was sent to Clifford for the President’s information prior to his meeting with Magnes that morning. (501.BB Palestine/5–548. The ribbon copy is in the Truman Papers, President’s Secretary’s File. Magnes’ account of his meeting with the President, as subsequently related to McClintock, is contained in a memorandum by McClintock to Secretary Marshall, May 5 (501.BB Palestine/5–548).

And the memo that preceded this Washington meeting from The Acting Secretary of State to the Consulate General at Jerusalem:

Washington , April 10, 1948—2 p. m.
For Wasson from Henderson. 

Unless you perceive some reason for not so doing it is suggested that you make arrangements at once to see Magnes and give him orally following confidential message from me:

“Gravest danger exists that unless success is achieved in UN efforts to bring about truce and an arrangement whereby interim governmental machinery will be provided for Palestine after May 15 chaotic conditions involving great loss of life and property will prevail in Palestine. At no time has there been a greater need for courageously conciliatory attitude such as yours on part of both Arabs and Jews. If such attitude is to prevail cooperation on part of moderate and conciliatory Arabs and Jews is essential. It is therefore hoped that you either alone or accompanied by such other Jewish leaders as you may consider appropriate will come to US at earliest possible moment.”

Lovett

And by the way, from an internal 1938 memo:

It should be borne in mind that while Dr. Magnes is admitted, even by those Jewish leaders who differ with him, to be one of the most distinguished intellectuals in American, as well as international Jewry, his outspoken views on the subject of the National Home in Palestine for the Jewish people have for years been a cause of resentment and even bitter attack on the part of extreme Zionists. Dr. Magnes’ thesis is and always has been that there will never be a satisfactory solution of the Palestine problem in the absence of a serious effort in which the Jews should take the leadership to arrive at a settlement through conciliation and compromise with the Arab leaders. He has emphasized that the Jews, by reason of their greater intelligence, and particularly in as much as they are seeking to impose a practically unlimited immigration of Jews into Palestine, contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming mass of the established population there, should take the lead and spare no effort in coming to an early settlement that would be acceptable to the Arabs.

And does this not remind you of Oslo? Negotiating with Arab Higher Committee, the Mufti's organization which parallels the PLO in 1993?

The Consul General at Jerusalem ( Wadsworth ) to the Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs ( Murray )
Jerusalem , June 9, 1938

Dear Wallace: Further to the mention made in my letter of May 3143 to the so-called Magnes–Nuri conversation of February 6, last, I am now able to report fully to you personally the substance of a two hours’ conversation I had this morning with Dr. Magnes. He spoke freely but in strict confidence.

The genesis of the matter is to be found in the discussions and final resolution of the Jewish Agency Council meeting held in Switzerland last August following the World Zionist Congress. At this meeting, you will recall, the non-Zionist members, notably the so-called Warburg group, insisted that an effort be made to bring Jews and Arabs together on a solution other than Partition (please see my despatches Nos. 286 and 297 of August 20 and September 3, last44). The final resolution, while empowering the Executive to ascertain the precise terms for the establishment of a Jewish State, approved the convening of a conference to explore the possibilities of settlement “in an undivided Palestine”.

There followed informal Jewish (non-Zionist) efforts, both here and in the United States and in London, to explore the field opened by this resolution. The most successful were those made in London by Mr. Albert Hyamson, formerly Palestine Commissioner for Migration. Speaking for the group of English non-Zionists headed by Lords Samuel and Bearsted, he discussed the problem at length with Colonel S. S. Newcombe, Treasurer of the Arab Information Bureau in London and British representative of the then still-recognized Arab Higher Committee.

The result was the so-called Hyamson–Newcombe draft of a “suggested basis for discussion between Jewish and Arab representatives” dated October 9, 1937. Its text is the first of the three drafts annexed to Dr. Magnes’s letter of February 23, 1938, to Nuri Pasha (sent you as an enclosure to Knabenshue’s letter of March 3).

...On December 15 Dr. Magnes consulted with Bishop Graham-Browne and Dr. Izzat Tannous (leading Christian member of the Mufti’s party), with both of whom earlier conversations had been had, as to the most efficacious method of approaching the Mufti who had meanwhile established himself in Lebanon. It was decided that the Bishop should lay the matter before the Palestine Government. This he did, and the latter, by implication at least, gave the endeavor its blessing by authorizing Dr. Tannous to act as a go-between in arranging that the proposed discussions be held with the Arab (Mufti group) leaders in Beirut.

On December 22, Dr. Tannous having made the necessary arrangements, the Bishop went with him to Beirut. Nothing, however, came of this visit, for on the same day the Palestine press carried the Jewish Agency public denial of Arab-Jewish parleys and statement that the Arab assumption that the Jews would accept permanent minority status “ab initio voids the possibility of negotiations” (please see my Press Review of January 10, 193845). The Mufti, according to Dr. Magnes, “waved these reports in the Bishop’s face” and was “vigorously forthright” in declining to discuss the proposal until assured anew as to the Agency’s bona fides.

This Dr. Tannous was able to do and a meeting was finally set for January 12. It had first been arranged for January 4 but was postponed because of announcement that the British White Paper would be published on that date.

Here I should interpolate that Dr. Magnes assured me he at no time has personally seen or discussed the compromise proposals with the Mufti or with any of the fugitive members of the Arab Higher Committee. The Bishop was his willing intermediary.

Thus, on January 12 the Hyamson–Newcombe draft was for the first time seriously discussed with the Mufti by the Bishop and Dr. Tannous. The result was the Beirut counter-draft of that date, i. e., the second draft enclosed with Knabenshue’s above-mentioned letter to you...