The Abuse of History.

Tony Elliot - Resident of Israel and UK

It is possible to take details from history (or omit them) and distort present day reality. This is happening regarding the peace process in the Middle East at the time of writing.

Viewing Israel through the prism of contemporary history can be used to create the wrong impressions. The conflict in the Middle East needs a context. Part of that context is the historical facts.

“The past must not be consigned to irrelevance. Unbroken historical continuities contextualize current events. Nothing springs forth from a vacuum. What takes place began back there”

-           Sarah Honig  

To paraphrase:  If we ‘airbrush out’ or ‘spin’ aspects of history we lose integrity and distort reality.   

On the 13-03-2014  Secretary of State. John Kerry addressed the House of Foreign Affairs Committee. He made the point that Israel was deliberately making things difficult for the Palestinians by insisting they recognise Israel as a Jewish State. This he intimated was an un-necessary stumbling block being put before the Palestinians because their recognition had been endorsed in the 181 Resolution back in 1947. Basically he was telling Israel to stop ‘banging on about it’.

Quote  “They (Israel) keep raising it again and again as a critical decider of their attitude towards the possibility of a state and peace and we’ve obviously made it clear”

This statement is either a mistake or worse a dangerous and deceptive manipulation of historical fact. It is true that in Resolution 181 Nov29th 1947 the words ‘The Jewish state is mentioned 40 times’. However Mr Kerry misses out one important fact: The Arabs never accepted Resolution 181. Their response to Resolution 181 was to mobilise 7 armies with the intention of exterminating the Jewish people. Gen Abdul Rahman Azzam Pasha articulated Arab priorities. Quote  “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre”.  That sentiment remains today.

Israel insists the Palestinians recognise the Jewish State of Israel because it is stated in the UN Resolution 181. To Israel the present day reality and the historical facts cannot be separated. Nor should they be!  What the Arabs rejected 67 years ago must be accepted today. The issue should not be ‘airbrushed’ away.  It is the central issue in the search for a lasting peace.    

Another example of interpreting history through a contemporary prism appears in Robert Fisk’s book ‘Pity the Nation’ quote:

‘……….Yad Vashem is not so much a memorial as a political statement. Its documents, photographs, dictate its theme: That the holocaust produced the state of Israel and that anyone who opposed the creation of that state is on the level of the Nazis’

The historical context tells a different story. By this statement he makes three insinuations:

1.       That Yad Vashem is more a political statement.

2.       That the Holocaust produced the State of Israel.

3.       Anyone who opposes the creation of the State of Israel is a Nazi.

1.Yad Vashem has two functions: First and foremost as a memorial to 6 million men, women and children, who were denied the right to live. Secondly as a place of study and research into the subject of genocide. To reduce Yad Vashem to the level of a political statement is an abuse of the historical facts and an insult both to the memory of those who perished and the integrity of Israel’s government.

2. The State of Israel was long in process before the Holocaust.  Mr. Frisk ‘airbrushes’ over the facts and creates a distorted picture. The vision for a Jewish homeland existed as early as 1809. A London Missionary group supported by people like William Wilberforce had an agenda which worked towards the physical restoration of the Jewish people to Eretz Israel.  

In 1895 Theodor Herzl wrote Der Judenstaat (the Jewish State).

“The Jews who will it shall achieve their State. We shall live at last as free men on our own soil, and in our own homes peacefully die. The world will be liberated by our freedom, enriched by our wealth, magnified by our greatness. And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind."

To suggest that the Holocaust produced the State of Israel is either ignorance or a deliberate manipulation of the facts.

3. Mr. Fisk’s third insinuation does contain some relevance to historical fact because, Hajj Amin al Hussieni, the grand Mufti of Jerusalem (1921-1948) actually joined the Nazis party. He vehemently opposed the creation of the State of Israel.  However Mr. Fisk uses the word ‘anyone’ to infer that Israel is in the business of stereo typing ‘anyone’ who disagrees with its politics as ‘Nazis’. Another example of a misleading interpretation.

Contemporary history needs the context of past history.  It is dangerous to pick and choose aspects of history in order to push an agenda.

Kerry Misleads the Palestinians

FACT:-   Israel never agreed to releasing pre-Oslo Israeli Arab terrorists as part of the 4th round of releases and Secretary of State John Kerry misled the Palestinians and told them that Israel had agreed to release them.

This is not something told reporters by tertiary sources. It isn't even something told on background not for attribution.

It is something that senior Israeli ministers have said for attribution. Further, they have said this in interviews broadcast on Israel Radio over the past week.

Again:  the 4th release as far as the Palestinians are concerned includes the Israeli Arabs.  And this wasn't going to happen in a vacuum.

PM Netanyahu made this clear from the start.

This is a mess caused by Secretary of State Kerry's decision to apparently make the assumption that he could easily force PM Netanyahu to release the Israeli Arabs.

But PM Netanyahu was absolutely honest in explaining that it would take very special and unique circumstances to make it possible for the Cabinet to approve the release of the Israeli Arab terrorists.

Abbas to Kerry: Please Beg Me More!

Khaled Abu Toameh  April 4, 2014 

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4248/abbas-kerry-beg

Abbas is convinced that it is only a matter of time before U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry rushes back to the region in yet anther desperate effort to "salvage the peace process."
In recent weeks, according to Palestinian officials, Kerry has literally been "begging" Abbas to agree to an extension of the peace talks after the end of April.

Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have concluded that the Obama Administration is prepared to do almost anything to show some kind of "victory" in the peace process between Palestinians and Israelis. Palestinian demands therefore have continued to increase almost every day.

Palestinian Authority [PA] leader Mahmoud Abbas is now waiting to see what the U.S. Administration will offer him in return for refraining from pursuing his bid to join various international treaties and institutions.

In recent weeks, according to Palestinian officials, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has literally been "begging" Abbas to agree to the extension of the peace talks after the end of April.

Hours after Abbas signed the applications for joining a number of international bodies and treaties, he received an urgent phone call from Kerry asking him to refrain from further moves that could "derail" the peace process.

Abbas is convinced that it is only a matter of time before Kerry rushes back to the region in yet another desperate effort to "salvage the peace process."

On Wednesday night, Abbas and the PA leadership received the first sign that the U.S. Administration was nervous and confused following the PA's surprise decision to join 15 international organizations and treaties.

Kerry's envoy, Martin Indyk, invited Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat and Israeli Justice Minister Tsipi Livni to an emergency meeting in Jerusalem to find ways of preventing the "collapse" of the peace talks in the wake of Abbas's decision to apply for the memberships.
The meeting lasted for several hours and, according to Palestinian sources in Ramallah, Indyk and Livni "reprimanded" Erekat for surprising Israel and the U.S. Administration with the new decision.

So far, however, Abbas does not seem to be satisfied with what his emissary, Erekat, heard from Indyk and Livni. Abbas is therefore expected to step up pressure on the two parties in the coming days and weeks, if he can, in the hope of extracting as many concessions as possible.Abbas dispatched Erekat to the meeting to see what the Americans and Israelis are prepared to offer him in return for suspending this bid.

Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have concluded that the Obama Administration is prepared to do almost anything to show some kind of a "victory" in the peace process between Palestinians and Israelis. Palestinian demands have therefore continued to increase almost every day.

Realizing how desperate Kerry is to achieve an extension of the talks, Abbas decided that this was the right time to set new conditions, such as the release of jailed Fatah militia leader Marwan Barghouti and Ahmed Sa'adat, Secretary-General of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Barghouti is in prison for his role in terrorist attacks against Israelis during the second intifada. Sa'adat is serving a lengthy prison term for his role in the assassination of Israel's Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze'evi.

As Kerry increased his pressure on the Palestinians to agree to an extension, Abbas added two more conditions: the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners and a complete cessation of construction in settlements and east Jerusalem neighborhoods.

Abbas has also made it clear that his decision to join international organizations and treaties does not mean that he is interested in a "clash" with the U.S. Administration.

Abbas is right. Of course he does not want a "clash" with President Barack Obama and Kerry. Rather, Abbas wants the two men to continue begging him not to walk out of the peace process and turn their entire Middle East policy into another blunder. He wants them to exert pressure on the Israeli government to accept both his old and new demands.


Abbas apparently thinks he is moving in the right direction, and that Obama and Kerry have no choice but to accept his demands and intensify U.S. pressure on Israel. Abbas does not want totally to walk out of the peace talks at this stage. He feels that he can still extract further concessions from the Israelis and Americans, and that his decision to join 15 international organizations and treaties has left the U.S. Administration in a state of panic that the peace talks might fail. Now he is waiting to see what price Obama and Kerry are willing to pay to avoid that scenario.

Back to Square One

cross posted from TbT (Truth be Told) by Zvi Haris Green   - http://wp.me/p3tFkj-N

US Secretary of State, John Kerry’s tireless efforts to energize a peace process between Israel and her Arab neighbors seem destined for failure and only because of Mohammed Abbas’ refusal to recognize Israel as the National State of the Jewish people. Such recognition is fundamental to any just and lasting peace. Without it, there can be no real peace. For the peace process to move forward, both de jure and de facto recognition of Israel by the Arab world is essential.

How can the Arab leadership “sell” any deal to their people if they, themselves, don’t believe the Jewish people have a right to establish their National State within negotiated borders? What moral right will they have to call on their citizens to lay down their arms? How will they justify ending the hate speech, inflammatory rhetoric and incitement against Israel? By not recognizing Israel’s right to exist as a National State, Israel will continue to be perceived as an occupying power. Without de jure recognition the peace process can’t survive. Hostilities and incitement will resume immediately after any negotiated concessions are implemented.

We have, of course, already been there.

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 calling for the establishment of two National States in what remained of the British Mandate of Palestine. The Jews implemented this resolution and established a state which guarantees full civil rights to all its citizens regardless of race, religion or creed. The Arabs refused to accept this resolution and declared war on Israel. Following cessation of hostilities, Jordan annexed that part of the territory not controlled by Israel – an act regarded as illegal by the international community including the Arab League.

The Arabs never attempted to establish an independent Arab state in these territories. They may not have been satisfied with their slice of the cake, but, by the same token, the proposed Partition Plan fell way short of Jewish aspirations after 78% of the territory earmarked by the Balfour Declaration and endorsed by the League of Nations for the establishment of a Jewish National State, was consumed by the Trans Jordan Protectorate which later became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

If only the Arab world had a leader of Nelson Mandela’s stature. Somebody who could appreciate the significance of a historic reconciliation between Jews and Arabs. Imagine how many lives and how much bloodshed and suffering could have been saved had the Arabs complied with UN Resolution 181. Billions of dollars that could have been spent on education, health and social services, were spent creating sophisticated military infrastructures.

Why can’t the Arab leadership get their act together and take the necessary decisions to enable a lasting peace for all the peoples of the region?

Abbas Cannot Make Concessions on Any Core Issue

Khaled Abu Toameh March 10, 2014

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4204/abbas-concessions

"The dispute with Israel is not only over recognizing Israel as a Jewish state.The dispute is over Jerusalem, settlements, refugees and borders." — Mohamed Shtayyeh, Member of Fatah Central Committee.

Abbas is not authorized to make concessions on any of these issues. Today it is clear that the Palestinian Authority is preparing to hold Israel responsible for the failure of the peace talks because of its refusal to comply with all of the Palestinians' demands.

Even if the Palestinian Authority recognizes Israel as a Jewish state, the gap between the two parties remains as wide as ever over most of the core issues.

As the Americans and Israelis continue to demand Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, a senior Palestinian Authority official revealed that this issue was no longer the main obstacle to reaching a peace agreement between the Palestinians and Israel.

Mohamed Shtayyeh, member of the Fatah Central Committee and former member of the Palestinian negotiating team, said that gap between the two parties now remains wide over major issues such as settlements, Jerusalem, borders and refugees.

Shtayyeh and other senior Palestinian officials insist that the only way to move forward with the peace process is by forcing Israel to accept the Palestinian demands regarding these major issues.

"The dispute with Israel is not only over recognizing Israel as a Jewish state," Shtayyeh said. "The dispute is over Jerusalem, settlements, refugees and borders."

The Palestinians say that the real problem facing the peace process is the refusal of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to accept the fact that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is not authorized to make any concessions on any of these core issues.

"The Americans are behaving as if this is a personal dispute between President Abbas and [Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu," said a senior advisor to Abbas in Ramallah. "Obama and Kerry think that once Abbas signs an agreement or accepts Israeli and American demands, all the Palestinians would take to the streets to support the peace process."

"Abu Mazen [Abbas] remains fully committed to the Palestinian national rights and he will not succumb under any form of pressure," explained Palestinian political analyst Hani Habib.

Habib said that despite their weakness, the Palestinians are determined to go to the United Nations to seek recognition of a Palestinian state once the talks fail. He also said that the Palestinian Authority has plans to file complaints against Israel with the International Criminal Court.

Abbas, who is expected to meet with Obama in Washington on March 17, will once again make it clear that without accepting all Palestinian demands on the core issues there would be no agreement with Israel.

Abbas's position on the core issues was relayed to Obama and Kerry on a number of occasions over the past few months.

On the issue of Jerusalem, Abbas continues to insist on a full Israeli withdrawal from east Jerusalem, including the Old City, and turning it into the capital of a future Palestinian state.
As for the borders, Abbas has made it clear that the pre-1967 lines would become the borders of a Palestinian state, with "minor" amendments that take into consideration new facts created on the ground over the past four decades.

With regards to the settlements, the Palestinian position is also very clear: Israel must remove all settlements and settlers from the West Bank.

And on the explosive issue of the refugees, Abbas continues to insist on the "right of return" for those Palestinians who wish to move to Israel. True, Abbas recently declared that he does not wish to "flood" Israel with millions of refugees. However, this is out of the conviction that most of the refugees would agree to accept financial compensation or resettlement in Arab and Western countries. Representatives of the refugees have responded by criticizing Abbas, arguing that he is not authorized to make any concessions on the "sacred right of return."

Nabil Sha'ath, a senior Palestinian official, reaffirmed the Palestinian position this week when he accused Israel of rejecting the "foundations for peace."

Sha'ath stressed that Israel's refusal to accept the Palestinian demands regarding the core issues would lead to the failure of the peace talks.

Today it is clear that the Palestinian Authority is preparing to hold Israel responsible for the failure of the peace talks because of its refusal to comply with all of the Palestinians' demands.

The peace talks are scheduled to end in late April in accordance with Kerry's nine-month deadline. But the Palestinian Authority leadership has no plans to wait until then to declare the failure of the peace process.

Palestinian officials in Ramallah say that the talks with Israel have already failed, but Obama and Kerry continue to live in denial. There are no direct talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. Rather, each side is conducting separate negotiations with Obama and Kerry.

The latest statements from Palestinian Authority officials show that the issue of Israel's Jewishness is only a secondary issue compared with the sensitive issues of Jerusalem, refugees, borders and settlements.


Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is not going to bring the two sides closer to reaching agreement on any of these core issues. This is what Obama needs to take into consideration when he meets with Abbas. He also needs to take into consideration what many Palestinians are saying – that Abbas is not authorized to make concessions on any of these issues.