The above editorial, from The Dominion Post of March 18, 2010, is sadly typical of the Western mainstream media’s comments on the Israel/Palestine issue. From the first sentence, with its reference to the (fraudulent) “peace process”, it is disingenuous if not actually deceitful.
Israel’s announcement of a new Jewish housing development in East Jerusalem “also raise[s] questions even among those sympathetic to Israel [about] whether its current leadership has any intention of reaching a negotiated settlement”, the editorial says – as if some other leadership might act substantially differently on the issue of the expropriation of Palestinian land in the Occupied Territories.
By now, one thing should be clear to everyone: the ultimate goal of Zionism is the annexation of the territories and the expulsion of all the Palestinians, by means of what is euphemistically referred to as “transfer”. There is no “settlement” that would satisfy the Zionists, short of one that gives them everything they want. In the Zionist vision, there is no place for the Palestinians in historic Palestine – except, perhaps, in a scattering of walled ghettos, in which they might have a role as slave laborers for the Zionist state.
Next we have the truly staggering statement: “The more houses the Israelis build in disputed territory, the less likely it is that they will relinquish control of that territory in any future negotiations.” For crying out loud, Mr/Ms Editorial Writer, have you only just worked that one out? It’s to make a return of the Occupied Territories impossible that the houses are being built. That’s the whole purpose of the creeping land grab, of the process of creating what the Israelis call “facts on the ground”. And by the way, Mr/Ms Editorial Writer, the land in question is not “disputed territory” (a Zionist term); under international law, it is occupied territory. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.
The above statement about Israel’s building in “disputed” territory leads to a fatuous elaboration of the earlier questioning of Israel’s sincerity: “It throws into doubt the depth of the current Israeli regime’s commitment to following a peace process built on a two-state solution.” It is an established fact, the editorial writer would have us believe, that the Israeli regime has a commitment to a two-state solution; it is only the depth of that commitment that is doubted. You would never imagine that everything that Israel has done during the past three decades or so has been designed to make a genuine two-state solution impossible.
But that is not, of course, the full extent of the nonsense. It never is. In the Zionist narrative – or the quasi-Zionist narrative of this editorial and other, similar writings – it is de rigueur to pin on the oppressed Palestinians at least some of the responsibility for their plight. Thus, we have: “Palestinian violence against Israel and vows to wipe it from the map do nothing to promote the peace process either. Nor have the Palestinians showed (sic) any inclination to offer tradeoffs of their own to get the talks started again.”
You would never imagine, from the above, that Israel was an invader and occupier of the territories of a people who were in no way responsible for the events (in 1967) that led to the invasion and occupation. You would never imagine that an occupied people, whose lands are being settled (in contravention of international law) by citizens of the occupying power, have a right to resist. You would never imagine that there has been an Arab Peace Plan on the table since 2002 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative), which the Palestinians would certainly have to abide by if it were implemented. (Israel has “never formally accepted or rejected” this plan, as the Wikipedia article points out.) And finally, you would never imagine that the Palestinians have already lost so much (see map below), it is downright insulting to suggest that they should be prepared to surrender even more.
Visit my other blog at adilbookz.com.