Mispurposeful Language

UK Secretary of State Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Boris Johnson in Parliament at Question Time yesterday:

We supported it only because it contained new language pointing out the infamy of terrorism that Israel suffers every day, not least on Sunday, when there was an attack in Jerusalem. I was glad that the resolution identified that aspect of the crisis in the middle east, 

For Illustrative purposes only

The actual language:

Recalling also the obligation under the Quartet roadmap for the Palestinian Authority Security Forces to maintain effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantling terrorist capabilities, including the confiscation of illegal weapons, 

Condemning all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,  

...Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard, and calls for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism;  

"New language"?

"Infamy"?

Actually the wording is purposeful ("all"; "acts of violence against civilians") in its intent to allow the Arabs to claim Israel is engaged in terrorism.*

He fools himself.  And the British House of Parliament.

Well, at least there was this exchange:

Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)

Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and colleagues to discuss our grave concerns about resolution 2334, which my constituents believe will make peace in the middle east harder to achieve by imposing a complex set of preconditions that the Palestinians will use to avoid serious engagement in negotiation?

Boris Johnson

I am very grateful for that question, and I am happy to offer exactly such a consultation with colleagues. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), has already undertaken to do just that.

*

For those in the dark, the PA considers a "Jewish settler" and a "Jewish settlement" an act of state terror justifying their acts of "resistance" (actually, terror).

The text is quite ambiguous and permits the Arabs to act against Jews.

^

What Israelis Are Thinking

From the December 2016 Peace Index Poll

The cause of the Security Council’s condemnatory resolution: hostility to Israel: A small majority of the Jewish public (53%) thinks that the condemnatory resolution on settlement building in the territories that the UN Security Council recently adopted stemmed mainly from hostility to Israel. Only 28.5% said it stemmed mainly from a principled position in keeping with international law. A segmentation by political camp reveals that on the right as a whole and in the center, the majority ascribed the resolution to hostility to Israel (right—64%, moderate right—64%, center—45%, compared to 40% who thought otherwise).

and

Israel should not refrain from building in the wake of the Security Council resolution: To the question “In the wake of the Security Council’s condemnatory resolution, in your opinion should or should not Israel cease the construction in the territories?” 62% of the Jewish public replied that the building should continue

and

The building in the territories will continue under Trump: Seventy-one percent of the Jewish public assesses that under the Trump administration Israel will be able to keep building in the settlements

and

One state can be both democratic and Jewish: A majority of the Jewish public (58%) rejects U.S. secretary of state Kerry’s assertion in his recent speech that if there is no two-state solution and “the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic—it cannot be both.” 

The Paris Conference and Its Echo from the Past

Everyone is getting very worried about next week's Paris Conference and the plan they might adopt.

According to a draft, its elements include

both sides to restate their commitment to the two-state solution, and to disavow official voices on their side that reject this solution;

each side to independently demonstrate, through policies and actions, a genuine commitment to the two-state solution and refrain from unilateral steps 

restate the validity of the Arab Peace Initiative 

reaffirm that they will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations; also reaffirm that they will distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967;

welcome the prospect of closer cooperation between the Quartet and Arab League members to further the objectives of this Declaration and enhance, if necessary, existing mechanisms;

Rafael Medoff lists 10 previous "plans" that have been proposed by outsiders.

And I found an old echo of all this from 62 years ago, the Alpha Plan.

An early (evidently first) British version of the plan was drafted by Evelyn Shuckburgh—who was in charge of Middle East policy in the Foreign Office—following the conclusion of the treaty with Egypt at the end of 1954. The purpose was to work out an Arab-Israeli settlement...The main principles of the plan were: close co-operation with the United States; ‘visible concessions’ by Israel (territory and refugees [resettlement in Israel of 75,000 Palestinian refugees]); ‘guarantees of security’ by the major powers; an understanding worked out mainly with Egypt; and the definition of the objective as ‘an overall settlement’, not ‘peace’.

The essential elements included these details:

linking Egypt to Jordan by ceding to them two triangles in the Negev without cutting Israel's link to Eilat; ceding to Jordan some 400 square miles of land owned by villages on the Jordanian side of the border; ceding to Jordan certain problematic areas like Mt. Scopus and the Semakh triangle; ceding to Jordan an equivalent area south and west of Hebron should the Gaza Strip be given to Israel; dividing the demilitarized zones between Israel and its neighbours; the repatriation of a considerable number of refugees, to be agreed upon between Israel and the two Western powers; compensation for the rest, financed with international help; an agreement on the distribution of the Jordan waters as well as on Jerusalem; terminating the economic boycott which was based on a state of war; and Western guarantees for the new frontiers. Economic assistance was planned to increase incentives for the acceptance of the plan.

Anthony Eden's Guildhall speech added the pressure. 

Israel, and Egypt, rejected the plan.

A lesson learned.

^

Off the Moral Road With Byroade

I became aware of Henry A. Byroade, chosen in 1952 by President Harry Truman to be Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, due to Dr. Rafael Medoff's articles (here and here).  Here he is:

Credit

So I researched a bit more.

On May 17, 1953, in Lebanon, American State Department officials convened to discuss several matters relating to UNRWA's operations for "Palestinian Refugees".  John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, was present.

Here's an insightful snippet from United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1952-1954. The Near and Middle East (in two parts) (1952-1954) on thre man's thinking:

At another meeting on April 1, 1953, at which time Syrian protests were registered against German reparations being awarded to Israel, Byroade expressed his personal opinion to Syria's ambassador:

Note there the link of a supposed similarity between the situation of Jewish refugees as a result of what Germany did in World War II to the Jews, aka the Holocaust, and the situation of Arabs who were refugees from the Palestine Mandate as a result of them and their allies violating UN decisions and launching a war of eradication and extermination against the Jews of Eretz-Yisrael,  That is an immoral comparison as much as it is historically incorrect but was adopted by a senior State Department official.

That same "balance" was at the root of Prime Minister Menachem Begin's retort to German Chancellor as recorded here:

While visiting Saudi Arabia in April 1981, Schmidt made some unguarded remarks about the Israel-Palestine conflict that succeeded in aggravating the always-delicate relations between Israel and West Germany. Asked by a reporter about the moral aspect of German-Israeli relations, he stated that Israel was not in a position to criticize Germany due to its handling of Palestinians, and "That won't do. And in particular, it won't do for a German living in a divided nation and laying moral claim to the right of self-determination for the German people. One must then recognize the moral claim of the Palestinian people to the right of self-determination." On 3 May, Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin denounced Schmidt as "unprincipled, avaricious, heartless, and lacking in human feeling", and stated that he had "willingly served in the German armies that murdered millions". Begin was also upset over remarks he (Schmidt) had made on West German television the previous week, in which he spoke apologetically about the suffering Germany inflicted on various nations during World War II, but made no mention of the Jews. While flying home from Riyadh, Schmidt told his advisers that war guilt could not continue to affect Germany's foreign relations

And a final (for now) "highlight" of Mr. Byroade, here is part of the transcript of a meeting in Washington on April 8, 1953 with Israel's Foreign Minister Moshe Sharret and Israel's Ambassador to the United States Abba Eban:

Researchers have asserted that

In 1954 he attracted criticism from both Israel and the Arab world for the administration's policy declaration in which he told the Israelis, "You should drop the attitude of a conqueror and the conviction that force is the only policy that your neighbors will understand," and told the Arabs, "You should accept this state of Israel as an accomplished fact."^[1] That same year, he referred to Israel's Zionist ideology and its free admission of Jews through the Law of Return as "a legitimate matter of concern both to the Arabs and to the Western countries."^[2]

So it seems Mr. Kerry in his speech two weeks ago was simply following in the long and failed, and quite biased tradition of State Department officials, seeking to undercut and weaken Israel with little regard to the facts of history and the morality that need be in international diplomacy.

I may return to Byroade in the future.

____________________

One more item, from a 1957 memorandum mentioning his 1954 speech on immigration to Israel:

^

It Wasn't Kerry Who Said This

This, on May 22, 1989 at AIPAC, from Sec'y of State James Baker III:

The portion of the speech that seemed to upset the audience most was Mr. Baker's call for Israel to abandon ''the unrealistic vision of a greater Israel,'' and to ''forswear annexation; stop settlement activity; allow schools to reopen; reach out to the Palestinians as neighbors who deserve political rights.''
...Israel's Defense Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, who met with Mr. Baker immediately after his speech, made clear he did not think some of the Secretary of State's remarks were helpful.
''I didn't write the speech,'' Mr. Rabin said. ''Had I been the one, I would have written it in a totally different way. I would have directed the calls more toward the Palestiniains and less toward Israel.''

Earlier in his January 1989 confirmation hearings, for the record, Baker stated

We continue to believe, however, that an independent Palestinian state will not be a source of stability or contribute to a just and enduring peace. 

^

^

Kerry's "Jewish" and "Democratic" State

In his remarks on December 28, 2016, John Kerry, United States Secretary of State addressed the Arab-Israel conflict and the lack the the achievement of peace.

Paying close attention to his words, I noticed that he mentioned the term "Jewish" twelve times and "democratic" nine times and together, as the "Jewish and democratic state", twice and once as "Jewish democratic".

I picked them out:

That’s what we were standing up for: Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state

if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic – it cannot be both – and it won’t ever really be at peace. 

Is ours the generation that gives up on the dream of a Jewish democratic state of Israel living in peace and security with its neighbors? Because that is really what is at stake.

And here are mention of Israel's Jewish identity:

Israelis are fully justified in decrying attempts to legitimize [sic. that should be delegitimize'] their state and question the right of a Jewish state to exist.

Nearly 70 years ago, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 finally paved the way to making the State of Israel a reality. The concept was simple: to create two states for two peoples – one Jewish, one Arab – to realize the national aspirations of both Jews and Palestinians. 

Principle two: Fulfill the vision of the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of two states for two peoples, one Jewish and one Arab

Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state has been the U.S. position for years

That’s why it is so important that in recognizing each other’s homeland – Israel for the Jewish people and Palestine for the Palestinian people – both sides reaffirm their commitment to upholding full equal rights for all of their respective citizens.

There is one odd, even strange, use of 'democratic':

And we understand that in a final status agreement, certain settlements would become part of Israel to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 49 years – we understand that – including the new democratic demographic realities that exist on the ground. 

That, I think could be a result of Kerry's meandering of mind and tongue although it could indicate that Kerry is quite well aware that the decisions to revitalize Jewish life in the historic regions of the Jewish homeland was done through a very democratic process in that election after election, governments were established, except in very short time periods, that all supported, encouraged and engaged in activities that increased the Jewish population in Judea and Samaria and, until 2005, in Gaza as well.

Incidentally, refugees are mentioned in a formulation that actually disengages the issue from the existence of Israel in this way:

Provide for a just, agreed, fair, and realistic solution to the Palestinian refugee issue, with international assistance, that includes compensation, options and assistance in finding permanent homes, acknowledgment of suffering, and other measures necessary for a comprehensive resolution consistent with two states for two peoples...The international community can provide significant support and assistance. I know we are prepared to do that, including in raising money to help ensure the compensation and other needs of the refugees

That set off the PLO's Executive Committee member Hanan Ashrawi who declared on television: 

"The six principles that [US Secretary of State John] Kerry presented are undeniable Zionist principles that serve Israeli interests...he said 'a Jewish state,' giving them [Israel] a great prize. We have refused and still refuse to say that Israel is a Jewish state... Even on the issue of the refugees, he [Kerry] automatically denied them the right of return, and said that it is necessary to reach a just solution of compensation and resettling and the like. In other words, there is no right of return."  [Official PA TV, State of Politics, Jan. 3, 2017]

Of course, Jewish refugees were not included in his speech.

But getting back to the issue of Kerry deciding for Israel what "Jewish" and "democratic" mean and why they are important, we can note there also her words

he said 'a Jewish state,' giving them [Israel] a great prize

Prize?  Or a simple recognition of what Israel is?

On January 6, in an interview, Kerry returned to that matter and expounded:

I believe in the state of Israel’s dream to be the democracy and the Jewish state it wants to be. But the simple reality is you cannot be a unitary, one state, with more non-Jews than Jews and remain a democracy or a Jewish state. It’s impossible. You can’t do it. David, Ben Gurion, the first president of Israel, said that. Rabin said it... moving towards a single state without resolving this two-state issue, which is why everybody has supported it until today, is leading Israel to a very dangerous place of perpetual conflict and it will not be a Jewish state.

Besides being contradicted by Ashrawi, I would wish to point out the chutzpah of someone defining for us Jews what is 'Jewish" and how that state is to be as a 'democratic' one.  I am sure Kerry is predicating himself of J Street's ideology, among other left-wing Jewish groups, as well as Peter Beinart's thinking, most more radical than the next.

I could argue that the demographic outlook is not as Kerry thinks it is and that his projected minority status or threatened minority status are in error.

But is think it could be summed up so:

Dear American Jewish Liberal-Progressives:

You Can Be Either Jewish

or Liberal.

You Cannot Be Both.

Let's make that a poster:

Of course, that is as true as they intend their slogan of "Israel can either be Jewish or democratic – it cannot be both" is.  They cannot have it both ways.

They have moved far off the Jewish quotient scale and have supplanted their liberalism, what is actually a universal assimilationist progressivism, as have Jews before them, for a foreign ideology which is destructive to Zionism, the Jewish national movement.

Those who join them risk losing their Judaism, no matter how they define it in practical religious terms.  They are 'lost at sea'.  They do not realize, or refuse to do so or worse, reject, that Israel and its Zionism is their anchor.

______________

Tangentally, here is Melanie Phillips on "Real liberals must shun Palestinian colonialism".

And something similar.

^

Belated But Published

This letter was originally sent in on November 11.

Munib al-Masri reveals that as a child he was engaged, during the British Palestine Mandate period, in derailing trains with rocks on the tracks, with a success rate of 80% ("The journey of one of the wealthiest Palestinians", Nov. 11).

Given that indeed these acts of his took place, we must assume that this was in the time of the Arab Disturbances of 1936-1939, years which the 1946 Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry termed were those of "the Arab campaign of murder and sabotage" as between 1940-1947, there were no similar violent anti-British actions by Arabs. 

Since he was born in 1934, at the most, he was perhaps five-years old when fighting the British and obviously was a child of physical talent and capability.  That is, if his tale is true.

It now has appeared in today's Jerusalem Post Weekend Magazine.

Better late than never.

Thanks.

^ 

Going Through Papers

Do I have proof of my involvement with the Free Jonathan Pollard campaign?

That I served as the coordinator of the Knesset's Jonathan Pollard Lobby?

How are these two examples?

The answer is yes.

Starting in 1987 until, officially, some time in 1996, I was the Lobby's coordinator under MKs Geula Cohen and Edna Solodar, visited him twice in prison in 1990 and 1993 and remained in contact with the family and others until today.

^

Hiking History

The Israel Antiquities Authority wants us to know that during the Hanukkah Holiday and Christmas Holiday Festivities engravings of a Seven-Branched Menorah and a Cross were Discovered by Hikers in an Ancient Water Cistern in the Judean Shephelah

From the press release: 

Last weekend touring enthusiasts Mickey Barkal, Sefi Givoni and Ido Meroz, who are members of the Israel Caving Club, went out to visit hidden caves in the Judean Shephelah. According to hiker Ido Meroz, “We heard there are interesting caves in the region. We began to peer into them, and that’s how we came to this cave, which is extremely impressive with rock-carved niches and engravings on the wall. Just before we were about to return we suddenly noticed an engraving that at first glance seemed to be a menorah. When we realized this is an ancient depiction of a menorah, we became very excited. Its appearance was quite distinct. We left the cave and reported the discovery..”.

The menorah engraved on the wall of the cave has a base with three feet, and it evidently portrays the menorah that stood in the Temple during the Second Temple period. 

A cross was engraved near the menorah. 

Another engraving was found on the side of the cave which seems to resemble a type of key that is characteristic of antiquity, as well as other engravings that were noted, some of which have not yet been identified. 

According to Sa'ar Ganor, the District Archaeologist of Ashkelon in the Israel Antiquities Authority, “There are buildings and hiding refuges from the time of the Bar Kokhba uprising (second century CE) at the site and buildings that date to the Byzantine period. It is rare to find a wall engraving of a menorah, and this exciting discovery, which was symbolically revealed during the Hanukkah holiday, substantiates the scientific research regarding the Jewish nature of the settlement during the Second Temple period”.  Ganor added, “The menorah was probably etched in the cistern after the water installation was hewn in the bedrock – maybe by inhabitants of the Jewish settlement that was situated there during the Second Temple period and the time of Bar Kokhba – and the cross was etched later on during the Byzantine period, most likely in the fourth century CE.

The menorah is a distinctly Jewish symbol of the Second Temple period. To date, only two engravings of menorahs are known in the region of the Judean Shephelah: one on oil press at Bet Loya where the same style menorah is depicted, and the other in a burial complex in the vicinity of Bet Guvrin. Other menorahs are portrayed on clay lamps from Beit Natif.   

And there was no crescent symbol.

^

You Know It's Bad When...

You know it's bad when a left-wing progressive Jew enthusiastically quotes Ze'ev Jabotinsky.

Here is Rabbi David Seidenberg 

"...If I have to listen to right-wingers, I’d rather listen to someone honest, like Zeev Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism. Jabotinsky never drooled on about “a land without a people for a people without a land.” Rather, he spoke about building an “iron wall” of military defense to protect Palestinian Jewish communities. As he wrote in “Jewish War Front,” “only an immensely superior force could compel Arabs or anyone else to accept the occupation of their country.”

I know Jabotinsky’s politics were dangerous, and it’s going to make my friends’ heads spin to see me quote him. But so much of Jabotinsky’s shock value comes from his candor about how Israel would affect the Arabs of Palestine. He recognized that achieving Jewish aspirations meant carrying out an occupation — something contemporary apologists for the settlements think they can hide by not using the O-word.Jabotinsky also adamantly opposed expelling Arabs from Israel. Yes, he loved a wall, but it was a metaphorical wall, not a physical one like the wall of Trump’s speeches. Jabotinsky thought Jews should have the will and means to defend Jewish communities against attack. As he said, “Better to have a gun and not need it, than to not have a gun and need it.”We ought to listen carefully to Jabotinsky’s words. It’s no joke to say we need to build an iron wall today, to stop even the first steps to fascism in the U.S...."

David teaches text and music, Jewish thought and spirituality, in their own right and in relation to ecology and the environment and has ordination from the Jewish Theological Seminary and from Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi.

That quote about having a gun and needing or not to use it comes from Mordechai Anelewicz, who before joining HaShomer HaTzair in Warsaw was in Betar.

And that quotation about "occupation" and "an immensely superior force" does not appear in the Jewish War Front.  Here, check.

^

Kerry Demands "All Three" in Jerusalem

As Jordan announces officially (h/t=IMRA), its government via State Minister for Media Affairs Mohammad Momani, 

strongly condemned Israel for allowing settlers [are all Jews "settlers"?] to enter the courtyards of Al Aqsa Mosque-Haram Al Sharif in occupied East Jerusalem, saying it violates the sanctity of the mosque, and harms the feelings [what about Jewish feelings harmed by Muslim behavior and attitude?] of Muslims worldwide.

...the Jordanian Government, holds Israel, as an occupying power, responsible for any violations against Al Aqsa Mosque-Haram Al Sharif.  Momani, who is also the government spokesperson, said any attempt by Israelis to storm or enter the Haram Al Sharif compound, is illegal [like living in the Land of Israel?] and an aggressive act against Islamic holy places and the feelings of Muslims.

And

The minister also reaffirmed Jordan's stance on maintaining the status quo at Al Aqsa Mosque/Haram Al Sharif.

Actually, he was echoing John Kerry's remarks this past week:

...Principle four: Provide an agreed resolution for Jerusalem as the internationally recognized capital of the two states, and protect and assure freedom of access to the holy sites consistent with the established status quo.

Now, Jerusalem is the most sensitive issue for both sides, and the solution will have to meet the needs not only of the parties, but of all three monotheistic faiths. That is why the holy sites that are sacred to billions of people around the world must be protected and remain accessible and the established status quo maintained. 

Not only is that "status quo" discriminatory and basically a fiction, but Kerry inserted internationalization again, asserting that the solution to Jerusalem must meet the needs 

of all three monotheistic faiths

This is an invidious return to November 29, 1947 and to allow the Arabs, once again, to point to a basis of diplomacy that will enable them to wrench all of Jerusalem from Israel's sovereignty and to submit Judaism's religiously historical ties in the city and to the city and its sacred places to an equal footing to other religions.

It's a throwback to the 1928-1929 dispute in essence.

I hope Israel's diplomats and world Jewish  leadership pay careful attention to this sleight-of-words.

UPDATE

Consider this from 2010.

And this map.

On the idea of a 'holy zone, see here.

And here.

UPDATE

Some have noted to me that this is actually "old news".

While factually correct, the point is that:

a. some of us who know that history do not know that people under 30 simply do not.  it's new news to them. 

b. Jerusalem is a great wedge instrument on our behalf. speaking of "division", any "division", more (all the "East" from the "West") or less (only the Holy Basin) works to our advantage.

c. the point is that actually SC 2334 + Kerry's speech was a double division. 1st - east/west and 2nd - Holy Basin which becomes internationalized. once we can highlight subterfuge and sneak diplomacy, that is, SC saying one thing and US policy statement taking that and furthering the lessening of Israel's connection to, not to speak of administration of, Jerusalem gives us a leverage.

^

Revenant Justified

In 2004, over twelve years ago, I published an op-ed advocating replacing "settler" with "revenant".

You can read it here and it contains this:

But what should we term the Jews who live in the territories? A substitute for the word “settlers” has been hard to come by. I once introduced myself to a British Foreign Office Official at an appointment I had arranged at its London’s King Charles Street complex as a “Jewish civilian resident of a community located in Samaria”. Puzzled momentarily, he quickly interjected “but I thought I was to converse with a settler”. True, that was too many words, and therein is the problem. I think, though, that a more accurate noun perhaps has been found, one that is more relevant to the reality. 

It is revenant. 

According the American Heritage Dictionary, a revenant is one who returns after a lengthy absence. A revenant can be any person who shows up after a long absence such as those who come back to their ancestral home after years of political exile. This is the classic definition although Sir Walter Scott used it in his novel the Fair Maid, to denote a ghost. It stems from the French "revenir," which means simply "to return". 

Jews lived in the hills of Judea and Samaria for over 3500 years, as nomads, as tribal chieftains and as kings, priests and prophets. They were dispersed once and returned. They were exiled and returned....Eighty years ago, the world recognized unabashedly and with no disagreement the right of Jews to reestablish their historic homeland as a political entity. And following a brief 19 year long hiatus, Jews are once again living there. 

This, then, may be the word we need to employ. One word, of course, does not a victory make. Terminology is never terminal. Nevertheless, a major part of Israel’s Hasbara problem, especially in the medium of the electronic media and in academic and other political forums is its lack of ability to create a neutral space for discourse. Once the term “occupied” is tossed out in any gathering, any adequate response forces the speaker to deal with eighty years of detailed history, intricacies of international law and the interpretation of this or that Convention. 

If one is referred to as a settler, immediately the audience is disposed to consider the object as a near-monster, an oppressor, one who doesn’t belong and so forth. The person described as a “settler’ loses his humanity. He is a stereotype. Those who contend that Jews possess no rights in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, what should be called properly Yesha, have an easier task if they talk about a “settler”. A revenant, on the other hand, belongs. He has rights to the land, both his personal location and the collective geography. 

If one needs a humorous moment in the debate, the religious residents of Yesha could be referred to as reverent revenants. There are also irreverent revenants. Other residents could be irrelevant to the situation. 

Good linguistic advice is that to own a word, one should use it ten times. I have employed it seven times in this article. Perhaps you will join with me in multiplying its use? 

Also read this.

And now?

Merriam-Webster note:

Here are nine more notable words that sent people to the dictionary in 2016:Revenant

I rest my case.

^ 

Another Beinart Bummer

In this clip at CNN, at around 3:50, Peter Beinart (who is grossly repetitive, interrupts and acts as if it is his own interview show) "explains" his position contra "settlements", Jewish ones, that is, what are Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, Yesha, the heartland of the historic Jewish national homeland recognized by the world as the place where Jews were to be safeguarded the right to "close settlement".

He notes that Arabs residing in Judea and Samaria are under military law, lack free movement, are not citizens in the state they live and lack the right to vote for the government of their country and which Jews have all those rights. And see his imaginary 'Point F' here as well as this view:

the reality of what happens when you hold millions of people for more than 40 years as noncitizens in the places in which they were born."

He goes further and pushes the line that many of the communities are built on land individually owned by private Palestinians and that land is taken from them which is, he asserts, morally wrong and bad for Israel.

By the way, at 9:10 he claims Binyamin Netanyahu has "not put a map on the table".

Of course, the last map placed on the table for the Arabs was Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas ignored it and never came back to negotiate on it.  And Beinart ignores the 10-month long moratorium on construction in the Yesha communities by Netanyahu that did not in the least motivate Abbas and other terrorists to negotiate.

For Beinart, as I understand him, Zionism has become corrosive, untenable from a liberal outlook.

I have dealt with other issues he raises and I have left comments at his previous OpenZion site, so I'll be brief.

This latching on to a 'citizen' construct is false.  To take it to the extreme, millions of American expats do not necessarily vote in their residential countries but they are not oppressed.  Well, they might be if they tried to turn part of England into America or take up arms to fight for some consumer privilege and sabotage grocery stores.

Arabs resident in Judea and Samaria are not citizens of Israel. True.

But they do vote, when Abbas wishes, for their "own government" which is the Palestinian Authority. Even outside of Area A, the Arabs could vote is Abbas would stop, for a decade, putting elections off, even indefinitely.

Of course, if Israel extended its sovereignty to all are parts of the area, that would solve one civil rights concern of Beinart but he is opposed to that out of his love for Israel's future.

The military law is in place not because of Israel but due to the lack of willingness of the leadership of the local Arabs to engage in serious negotiations (in fact, ever since the 1920s onwards). They have rejected a legislative council, several partition plans, an Allon Plan, a Begin autonomy plan, Madrid maneuvers, Clinton parameters, Barak and Olmert surrenders and more.

As for the last point of private ownership, most of the land was state or waste land, being, in 1948, at least 75% of the total.  Claims otherwise are obfuscation on the part of Arabs, many who hold so-called deeds to collectively-held village land or tracts handed out by a previous very illegal occupier: Jordan.

Again as usual, starting with his book, one that has been criticized and by many, Beinart plays a liberal/progressive trope which is one that is misrepresented and hollow.

Why do too many follow his piping?

_________________

UPDATE

I caught this at CAMERA on the issue of whether the vote was a precedent or not mentioned in the on-air discussion:

First, the new resolution is not really new – it is in many ways a repeat of Resolution 465 (1980), though the 1980 resolution actually went further by demanding that Israel dismantle settlements. Specifically, in Res. 465 the Security Council:

5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;
7. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion with settlements in the occupied territories;

The Carter administration voted for the resolution, though a few days later President Carter claimed that this was due to a communications error, and that he had wanted his ambassador to abstain (meaning the resolution would have still passed). See also here for Secretary of State Cyrus Vance's explanation.

^