Bush Channels Rice; The BBC Channels Itself

From the BBC:

Bush urges Israeli occupation end

US President George W Bush has said Israel must end its occupation of some Arab land to enable the creation of a viable Palestinian state.

Odd. Since Gaza and the West Bank has never been under Palestinian sovereignty. Instead, prior to 1967 it was under Egypt and Jordan whose control was never internationally recognized, before whom it was under British control under the Mandate before which it was under the control of the Ottoman Empire--and the Turks are Muslim, not Arab.

Also, the since the land was acquired as the result of a war that not initiated by Israel, legally the land is disputed--not occupied.

Meanwhile, the BBC channels...well...the BBC:

Most recent attacks on Israel have come from inside Gaza, which is run by the Islamic militant group Hamas, and not Mr Abbas.

This conveniently overlooks the recent shootings of Israelis by men under Abbas's control.

Meanwhile, the BBC offers a helpful list:

OBSTACLES TO PEACE

History of negotiations

Jerusalem

Water

Refugees

Borders and settlements

Why is water an obstacle to peace? Martin Asser enlightens us:

The Six-Day War in 1967 arguably had its origins in a water dispute - moves to divert the River Jordan, Israel's main source of drinking water.

...Israel says the 1967 war was forced upon it by the imminent threat of hostile Arab countries and there was no intention to occupy more land or resources.

But the war's outcome left Israel occupying an area not far short of the territory claimed by the founders of the Zionist movement at the beginning of the 20th Century.

In 1919, the Zionist delegation at the Paris Peace Conference said the Golan Heights, Jordan valley, what is now the West Bank, as well as Lebanon's river Litani were "essential for the necessary economic foundation of the country. Palestine must have... the control of its rivers and their headwaters".

In the 1967 war Israel gained exclusive control of the waters of the West Bank and the Sea of Galilee, although not the Litani.

Having implied that Israel started the war, Asser does not explain how Israel tricked Nasser into closing the Straits of Tiran and kicking out the UN peace force.

Also, the only reference to the Litani at the Paris Peace Conference made no refer on controlling it but rather on how to share it:

Some international arrangement must be made whereby the riparian rights of the people dwelling south of the Litani River may be fully protected. Properly cared for, these headwaters can be made to serve in the development of the Lebanon as well as of Palestine.

Likewise, the proposal included a resolution adopted the previous year that would

assure under the trusteeship of Great Britain, acting on behalf of such League of Nations as may be formed, the development of Palestine into a Jewish Commonwealth; it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which shall prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in other countries." [emphasis added]

Since there was never any sovereign country called Palestine but rather assorted Jewish and Arab communities under Turkish rule, the goal was to create a country with the boundaries and resources that would allow all of its citizens--Jewish and Muslim--to thrive.

The articles on the other "obstacles to peace" are also somewhat one-sided. On Oslo, the BBC intones:

There was an exchange of letters in which Yasser Arafat stated: "The PLO recognises the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security." Yitzhak Rabin said: "The Government of Israel has decided to recognise the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people."

Hamas and other Palestinian rejectionist groups did not accept Oslo and launched suicide bomb attacks on Israelis. There was opposition within Israel from settler-led groups. Oslo was only partially implemented.

Again, describing all opposition to Oslo as originating with rejectionists and "settlers" overlooks the fact that the number one rejectionist was Yasser Arafat himself:

On 10 May 1994, Yasir Arafat gave what he thought was an off-the-record talk at a mosque while visiting Johannesburg, South Africa. But a South African journalist, Bruce Whitfield of 702 Talk Radio, found a way secretly to record his (English-language) remarks. The moment was an optimistic one for the Arab-Israeli peace process, Arafat having just six days earlier returned triumphantly to Gaza; it was widely thought that the conflict was winding down. In this context, Arafat's bellicose talk in Johannesburg about a "jihad to liberate Jerusalem," had a major impact on Israelis, beginning a process of disillusionment that has hardly abated in the intervening years.

No less damaging than his comments about Jerusalem was Arafat's cryptic allusion about his agreement with Israel. Criticized by Arabs and Muslims for having made concessions to Israel, he defended his actions by comparing them to those of the Prophet Muhammad in a similar circumstance:

I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh in Mecca.

Arafat further drew out the comparison, noting that although Muhammad had been criticized for this diplomacy by one of his leading companions (and a future caliph), `Umar ibn al-Khattab, the prophet had been right to insist on the agreement, for it helped him defeat the Quraysh and take over their city of Mecca. In a similar spirit,

we now accept the peace agreement, but [only in order] to continue on the road to Jerusalem.

In the five years since he first alluded to Muhammad and the Quraysh, Arafat has frequently mentioned this as a model for his own diplomacy.

But nothing so epitomizes the sloppiness of the BBC as their description of Security Council Resolution 242:

The resolution called for the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict", and "respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force".

The resolution is famous for the imprecision, in English, of its central phase concerning an Israeli withdrawal - it says simply "from territories".

The Israelis said this did not necessarily mean all territories, but Arab negotiators argued that it did.

Imprecision?

CAMERA has a long list of quotes from those responsible for the wording of Resolution 242:

Lord Carrington, chief drafter of the resolution:

...if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.

and

Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong.

and

We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately.

and

we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to

Eugene Rostow, who helped draft the resolution

Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word “the” failed in the Security Council. It is therefore not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the Cease-Fire Resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation Lines.

and

Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from “all” the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the “fragile” and “vulnerable” Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called “secure and recognized” boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.

Arthur Goldberg, who also helped draft the resolution:

Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no.

Baron George Brown, who helped draft the resolution:

I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said “Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,” and not from “the” territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.

J. L. Hargrove was Senior Adviser on International Law to the United States Mission to the United Nations, 1967-1970

...the omission of “the” was intended on our part, as I understood it at the time and was understood on all sides, to leave open the possibility of modifications in the lines which were occupied as of June 4, 1967, in the final settlement.

Granted the situation is complex, but doen't anyone know their history?

Technorati Tag: Israel.