Last Friday there was a major accident along highway 38 outside of Bet Shemesh. A car crossed the centre line and hit another car head on. 6 people were killed in the accident. Palestinian main stream media also reported this tragedy.
The problem with the Palestinian news source is that they reported Bet Shemesh as being a settlement. Bet Shemesh is located in Israel proper by any definition. The intentional misuse of terminology is a great cause for concern.
There is an old expression that the winners write the history books. With today's technology the truth goes to whoever can spin their side of the story the best before history has a chance to sort the facts out. Truth can easily be lost in the rush for a good story. A simply placed wrong word creates the impression that Bet Shemesh is to be included in the demand to stop settlement growth. The Palestinian Authority has repeatedly said they want the 1967 borders no more, no less. However, when it comes to actually negotiating are they going to try to claim Bet Shemesh is a settlement and demand it as part of negotiations. After all their media reports that it is a settlement.
The Palestinians have rejected as a non-starter having the Old City of Jerusalem being declared an International City under the United Nations. Some Palestinian officials have responded that they want a 'United' Jerusalem to be the capital of a Palestinian State. Not only do they want full control over the Kotel (the spiritual centre of the Jewish people) but they are willing to claim territory that they do not have a claim to.
For people who may face having their homes traded in for an empty peace deal, this careless use of language are cause for concern. Those who live in this part of the world who have to live with the fallout of an agreement have cause for concern. How can there be trust when terminology can so easily be changed in an attempt to cease more territory?
4 comments:
According to them the whole country is a settlement. Do you still believe this conflict is about land or sovereignty? They want it all.
At one point the Charter specifically did (and disclaim the land captured after 1967), see here -
http://muqata.blogspot.com/2009/07/plo-charter.html
Mark - Thanks, I read the Muqata article when it was first published. The PLO gave up claim to the land when it was convenient. That does not change the fact that when I went to Kever Yehoshua it had to be done by cover of night with an IDF escort only on certain days of the year.
At this point it is impossible to pull up a document from 1964 that has since been edited and zehoo to everything else.
Wanna Saab - The claims of simply being denied a homeland heard in the West are a red herring.
I would still like this conflict to one day go away. I recognize their might be some painful choices for this goal but our red lines should be has hard and fast as theirs.
Financial properity brings a kind of peace. The question is how many will strongly hold their nationalistic ideals when it means sacrifices their ability to support their family. West Bank has been mostly quiet. Is there a way to parlay that into a long term reasonable solution?
Post a Comment