February 22: Resolution rumblings

The PA declared war against America with its deliberate refusal to soften an appeal to the UN Security Council regarding Israeli settlements.

Resolution rumblings
Sir, – Regarding “PA calls day of rage after US vetoes UN resolution condemning settlements,” the Palestinian Authority declared war against America with its deliberate refusal to soften an appeal to the UN Security Council regarding Israeli settlements in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. The PA knew America would veto the resolution; it was a deliberate attempt to weaken the US in the eyes of the Muslim world.
The fact that Britain and France, two permanent members of the council, voted for the resolution only demonstrates their contempt for Israel and the Jewish people.
Britain has excellent relations with other countries, such as India and Pakistan, both of which threw off the yoke of British rule and to this day have a violent disagreement over Kashmir, in which Britain has never taken sides. But it has never forgiven the Jews for their forced abandonment of the British Mandate.
France, with its large Muslim population, is frightened about the prospects for its own identity, as are many other countries in Europe that are watching events in the Middle East and wondering whether their own large Muslim minorities will flex their muscles.
Beit Shemesh
Sir, – Whenever people condemn Israel’s presence in the West Bank or categorically call Jewish settlements illegal, it seems they either don’t know or choose to ignore certain facts that explain what happened in the past.
They disregard the fact that throughout history, in war it’s always the winning side that keeps territory or determines what to do with it. And in a war of defense, as was the case with Israel, this principle is even more applicable.
They ignore the fact that prior to 1967 Israel didn’t occupy the West Bank, and that this was actually the second time Arab countries invaded Israel. And they ignore the San Remo Conference that was validated by the UN Charter (Article 80), which authorizes Jewish settlement anywhere in Palestine and has never been abrogated.
Also studiously ignored is the fact that UN Security Council Resolution 242 calls for the right of all states to live in peace and remain free from threat and attack.
If people want to say that Jewish settlements in the West Bank go against the spirit of the Oslo Accords, it’s a matter that merits serious consideration. But when people categorically insist that Israel has no right to be in Judea and Samaria, or that Jewish settlements are unquestionably illegal, they are indulging in double standards and ignoring a number of very significant factors.
That’s dishonesty. And dishonesty never solved anything in the long run.
Sir, – Aside from news on the UN resolution against settlements, the front page of your February 20 paper tells how Libyan soldiers fired upon and killed demonstrating and mourning Libyan citizens (“Army snipers fire at Libyan mourners, killing at least 15”).
We can see how the the UN and its member states know their priorities.
Beit Shemesh
Sir, – How stupid can the whole world be? Nearly the entire Middle East is in turmoil, and what is the most important issue at the UN Security Council? None other than the condemnation of building a few houses in the “settlements” here in the tiny democratic State of Israel.
But we should have known that, right?

Sir, – The Security Council resolution was an example of diversionary politics.
The Palestinians are frantic to focus on anything but the actual problem that is preventing fruitful peace negotiations with Israel: Half the Palestinian polity is under Hamas’s thumb.
There will never be reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, so the Palestinians gore Israel.
Tel Aviv
Sir, – The headline regarding the PA’s call for a “day of rage” caused rage to boil inside me.
It is we who should be declaring outrage at the chutzpah of the UN entertaining a resolution to condemn Israel. Further, we should say “thanks” to the US for the veto, but “no thanks” for the practically screaming declaration by Ambassador Susan Rice that Washington considers settlements illegal.
Resolution 242 calls for the recognition of Israel’s right to exist, an end to the state of war maintained by the Arab world against Israel, and secure and recognized boundaries for Israel. It does not require Israel to return to the nonsecure borders of pre-1967.
Even a nano-smidgin?
Sir, – The bigotry, hypocrisy and disloyalty that resonates throughout “Angry Arab MK: Obama can go to hell” (February 20) stands in need of appropriate comment and response.
Ostensibly, the above quote was prompted by the recent American veto cast in the UN Security Council.
MK Ibrahim Sarsour, however, chooses to totally ignore the cogent truth behind the veto (i.e., that a peace agreement is achievable only through direct negotiations and cannot be imposed on either side).
Sarsour accuses former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and former Tunisian leader Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of being American agents, yet no criticism of their dictatorial rule and corruption has been heard from any Arab MK in the past 40 years.
It is worth noting that Sarsour is a member of Israel’s parliament, having been chosen through Israel’s completely democratic electoral system, yet unable to find even a nanosmidgin of good in any aspect of Israel’s behavior. He prefers to write of our “ongoing crimes against the Palestinian people, land and holy places.”
Would it not be a wonderful and non-controversial gesture if Israel’s Arab MKs joined in the humane and decent gesture calling for Hamas to release Gilad Schalit? The Arab world won’t know true democracy until a Jew is elected to an Arab parliament and free to accuse that country of heinous crimes against humanity.
Petah Tikva

Column One rules
Sir, – If Caroline B. Glick (“Lara Logan and media rules,” Column One, February 18) really does read the international press, she should be aware that it is unknown who was responsible for the brutal assault on the CBS newswoman. Yet she insists on blaming the demonstrators in Tahrir Square.
Perhaps she should reflect that in the relaxed atmosphere in the square after the resignation of former president Hosni Mubarak, there was less concern as to who was joining the celebrations.
It is more likely that the thugs who assaulted Logan were Mubarak loyalists who had displayed their violence a few days before when they entered the square on horses and camels, armed with vicious weapons.
And, by the way, the mob was shouting “Israeli, Israeli!” and not “Jew, Jew!” Glick criticizes CBS News for not reporting the incident. Is she unaware that Logan’s family requested privacy? This was not a cover up, as Glick claims, but an example of how the media can be sensitive to peoples’ feelings, something they are often criticized for lacking.
It was not the demonstrators who wanted to brutalize representatives of the Western media, but this does not fit into her agenda, so why not just change the facts for the convenience of the argument.
Glick should wake up to the fact that the real criminals were loyalists of the brutal Mubarak regime. It’s hard, because it suited Israel for him to stay. But it didn’t suit the 80 million downtrodden Egyptians who want to live in a democracy like the one that Israel is so proud to have.