What’s it all about? The Future of Israel's Borders: International Law and Islamic Law. Part I
The proposals are part of the ‘Plan for Peace’ currently being received with shock, horror, righteous indignation and anguish from the usuals.
I know that this blog may not be the ideal platform to drone on monotonously about an arguably minority interest topic, but since Jeremy Bowen, who isn’t currently on location, and may not even be on duty, has been Tweeting approvingly about Tom Bateman’s recent article about “Palestinians in despair” I will go ahead.
What I’d really like to watch on TV one day is a conversation between Mr MacEoin and Mr Bowen.
Since the entire BBC contingent’s default position on this and all other Israel-related matters is based on whipped up emotion rather than ‘scholarship’ (or even comprehension) and the Beeb’s powers-that-be are satisfied with its correspondents superficial, agenda-driven reporting, it would be good to hear what Bowen had to say for himself. Because his grasp of the whole Israel - Palestinian conflict is shallow and the BBC’s ‘that’ll do’ approach to it won’t do at all.
In this article Denis MacEoin gives an example of a common misconception put out by (and I’d even say created by) BBC reporting - and which it gets away with ‘because it can’.
“…….. it is common today to find references to Palestine as a mainly Muslim Arab state that was supposedly "stolen" by Jews, or promised but not given to those people who describe themselves as Palestinians. That is an immense misconception, albeit one that seems to influence political and legal thinking internationally, especially among people who would like to believe it.
Your use of terminology “Occupied Palestinian Territories,” espoused by the Palestinians, proves your bias. You are not a disinterested journalist whose reports on the region can be trusted. The area is “Disputed” having been taken from Jordan, who held it illegally from 1948.— Jeffrey Allen (@365Jeffrey) June 29, 2020
The following extract concerns the annexation plans that are causing the Palestinians such despair:
“It is not surprising, therefore, that the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), with its existing and locked-in bias against Israel, should condemn Israel for its plan to extend Israeli law to disputed lands, in line with the US peace plan revealed in 2020. The rejection of the US plan by the UNHRC and others ignores the reality that it is one of the most balanced documents drawn up in favour of peace and the creation of a viable State of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza.
Plans designed to bring about peace between the state of Israel and the Palestinians have been multiple, yet none has succeeded -- in all instances because of Palestinian rejectionism. The worst case was President Clinton's offer to the head of the PLO, Yasser Arafat, that would have required the Israelis to hand over about 90% of the lands to help create a State of Palestine. Arafat seemed to agree, then walked away and, from 2000-2005, waged against the people of Israel a campaign of terrorism known as the second intifada.
Peace plans and treaties only work when both sides sincerely want to make them do so, and then can require one or more generations of young people who learn the benefits of an end to violence. Sadly, that is still a remote hope. Today's Palestinian children are taught to hate Jews and glorify -- and handsomely profit from -- violence against them.
There is every reason not to feel hopeful about yet another plan for peace. Even if the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank could be persuaded to act in its own self-interest (and there is little sign of that), the intransigent Islamist terror movements in Gaza -- Hamas and Islamic Jihad -- would most likely still not be brought around in the manner advocated in the plan as the only way to improve the lives of the Palestinians living there.”
What would Jeremy Bowen have to say to that?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.