[Letter to South China Morning Post]:
James Quinn says the recent US veto of an anti-Israel resolution at the UN was “disgraceful” (“Wrong time to be triumphalist”, Letters, March 02 -- see below*). But that veto was simply in keeping with long-standing US bipartisan policy of vetoing any resolution critical of Israel that was not also critical of terrorism or which did not appeal to all parties for a political settlement of the conflict.[**]
When you think about it, this makes sense.
What is called for in any swap of “land for security” is something tangible (land) for something intangible (a promise). Israel is asked to give up “real” estate, rather difficult to get back, in return for security – “unreal”, a promise easy to break.
Any movement on the issue needs a copper-bottomed guarantee of that security for Israel. Yet all the pressure from bien pensants the likes of Mr Quinn, is on Israel. Rarely do we hear of pressure on the Palestinian side for verifiable guarantees of security.
Israel was ready for such a verifiable swap way back in November 1967. It said it would abide by UN Resolution 242, which would have returned the territories captured in the war, in return for acknowledgment of Israel’s right to exist. The latter was never forthcoming – at least till recently and then in various ways qualified.
It’s about time more of the heat were directed to the Palestinian side of this unequal equation.
Yours, etc,
PF
[**] Negroponte doctrine.
James Quinn says the recent US veto of an anti-Israel resolution at the UN was “disgraceful” (“Wrong time to be triumphalist”, Letters, March 02 -- see below*). But that veto was simply in keeping with long-standing US bipartisan policy of vetoing any resolution critical of Israel that was not also critical of terrorism or which did not appeal to all parties for a political settlement of the conflict.[**]
When you think about it, this makes sense.
What is called for in any swap of “land for security” is something tangible (land) for something intangible (a promise). Israel is asked to give up “real” estate, rather difficult to get back, in return for security – “unreal”, a promise easy to break.
Any movement on the issue needs a copper-bottomed guarantee of that security for Israel. Yet all the pressure from bien pensants the likes of Mr Quinn, is on Israel. Rarely do we hear of pressure on the Palestinian side for verifiable guarantees of security.
Israel was ready for such a verifiable swap way back in November 1967. It said it would abide by UN Resolution 242, which would have returned the territories captured in the war, in return for acknowledgment of Israel’s right to exist. The latter was never forthcoming – at least till recently and then in various ways qualified.
It’s about time more of the heat were directed to the Palestinian side of this unequal equation.
Yours, etc,
PF
* Quinn's letter:
Wrong time to be triumphalist
I refer to the letters by Des Moriarty ("Manning's treatment exposes US' hypocrisy", February 20) and the reply by Chris Exline, of Republicans Abroad Hong Kong ("Manning no freedom fighter", February 25).
I do not wish to comment on the subject of Bradley Manning per se but rather make an observation on the tone adopted by Mr Exline.
While it is accepted that the US Constitution is indeed a very worthy document, I feel he has chosen the wrong time to be so triumphalist about the sentiments expressed therein.
In particular, about how America stands by "citizens coming together to encourage their voice to be counted".
To claim that the US "responds to those who stand for freedom" so soon after the disgraceful use of the veto at the United Nations - against the resolution that Israeli expansion of the settlements is an obstacle to peace - is at least chutzpah and at worst cynical hypocrisy.
This craven submission to the all-powerful Jewish lobby in America directly contradicts any number of recent utterances by among others US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice-President Joe Biden
Let us qualify the claim and say America stands by these people in a very selective way.
I am sure that paragon of liberty, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, would nonetheless applaud this stance.
James Quinn, LammaReference:
[**] Negroponte doctrine.
