RUTHFULLY YOURS

TEL AVIV — Over the summer, Trump administration officials Jason Greenblatt and Jared Kushner visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority to renew efforts to resolve the conflict over the West Bank—as the international community and the Israeli left refer to the land Israel seized in fending off Jordan’s attack in the Six Day War. In dealing with this vexing challenge, the Trump team should reject the contention increasingly pressed by progressives in and out of Israel—and backed by U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334, which, in December 2016, the Obama administration regrettably declined to veto—that legal considerations settle the matter.

Fifty years since Israel’s astonishing victory in the Six Day War over Syria and Egypt as well as Jordan, more than 400,000 Israelis live in the territories the Israeli right prefers to call by the Biblical names Judea and Samaria. While the Palestinian Authority governs most aspects of the daily lives of the vast majority of the approximately 3 million West Bank Palestinians, Israel continues to exercise effective military control over the territories.

The left cogently argues that ruling over a Palestinian population against its will threatens Israel’s existence as a Jewish and democratic state. The right plausibly maintains that withdrawing from the heart of biblical Israel exposes Israel to unacceptable security risks. It adds that uprooting Israeli settlements betrays the Jewish people’s ancient heritage and the Zionist aspiration to rebuild the Jews’ ancestral homeland.

Notwithstanding the weighty political arguments on both sides, many intellectuals in Israel and abroad believe that legal considerations should decide the controversy. Several Israeli professors debated the issue this summer in Haaretz—a newspaper something like the New York Times of Israel. Conducted mostly in Hebrew, the debate exhibits the richness—and the vehemence—of public discourse here. It also illuminates the dangerous propensity of liberal democracies, against which Tocqueville warned 180 years ago, to transform political questions into legal ones.

The “juridification of politics”—to borrow a term from the French thinker Alexandre Kojève—erodes citizens’ civic habits by depriving them of the opportunity to resolve political controversies through democratic give-and-take. It also distorts those controversies, which are inextricably bound up with conflicting interests and perceptions, contingent events, and prudential judgments. To subject them to legal reasoning that purports to yield rational, objective, and necessary judgments is to pretend that one right answer is available for disputes that can only be managed through compromise and mutual accommodation.

In early July, Hebrew University professor of law emerita Ruth Gavison, an Israel Prize winner and eminent center-left voice, expressed sympathy for “the spirit of the occupation’s opponents, Jews and Arabs, who have despaired of the chance to change the situation through politics and are therefore trying to turn the question of the occupation into a legal one (with the justification that the occupation is illegal and must end immediately) or one of human rights (with the justification that the Palestinians have the right not to live under occupation, so Israel must end it immediately).”

She also forcefully warned against it. A legal resolution to the controversy, Gavison argued, “does not advance the end of the occupation but actually deepens the deadlock.” That’s because the resort to legal reasoning obscures “the crucial political, social, cultural and religious processes in Israeli and Palestinian society” and “weakens, on both sides, the fortitude needed for painful concessions based on an agreement between the people and their leaders on what’s the best outcome under the present circumstances.”

In addition, the translation of the conflict into the language of law and human rights perverts the claims of both. “From the perspective of international law, the Palestinians have no ‘right’ to end the occupation—which was the result of a defensive war—and Israel has no obligation to end it without a peace agreement,” Gavison maintains. “This isn’t just an interpretation of the legal situation. It’s the necessary conclusion from the UN efforts to create incentives against the unjustified use of force.”

The critics responded sharply. Mordechai Kremnitzer, deputy president of the Israel Democracy Institute, accused Gavison of putting forward a proposal “to ignore the legal and moral aspects” of the occupation. Yigal Elam, a professor of the history of Zionism and the state of Israel, compared her insistence that the dispute between Israeli and Palestinians was fundamentally a political one to the mindset of German judges who upheld the Nazis’ Nuremberg Laws, which stripped German Jews of citizenship and prohibited them from marrying or having sex with Germans.

A fraternity of terrorists. And Hamas, which has a genocidal charter is now called a “militant” group. Yup, just like calling Dahmer the serial killer cannibal a “culinary innovator.”….rsk

Militant group Hamas said it agreed to conditions demanded by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for reconciliation with his Fatah party, a move aimed at mending a decadelong rift between the two dominant Palestinian factions.

Hamas, which rules the impoverished Gaza Strip, said Sunday it would endorse national elections in the West Bank and Gaza, and allow the Palestinian Authority to administer the strip. Mr. Abbas, whose government helps fund Gaza’s economy, has for months financially pressured the group to cede control.

Reconciliation would mark a significant step forward for the Palestinian national movement, which has been at a stalemate since 2007, when Hamas took control of Gaza after an armed conflict. But such a rapprochement is likely to face significant obstacles.

Mr. Abbas and Hamas’s leadership have repeatedly spoken about a national government in the Palestinian territories comprised of both factions, but have failed to implement such an agreement. Hamas made no mention in its statement of handing over security of the strip to the Authority, a key demand by Mr. Abbas’s government in mending the rift.

Hamas’s new leadership in recent weeks has said it is eager to work with Iran, which vows Israel’s destruction, and restore ties with Palestinian politician Mohammed Dahlan, a former ally-turned-enemy of Mr. Abbas that is backed by the United Arab Emirates and lives in Abu Dhabi. Mr. Abbas is unlikely to want to work with either of those parties.

A spokesman for the Palestinian Authority couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on Sunday’s announcement.

U.S. President Donald Trump has earmarked Israeli-Palestinian peace as a key foreign policy goal, but won’t negotiate directly with Hamas over the fate of Gaza. The group is considered a terrorist organization by both the U.S. and Israel. CONTINUE AT SITE

“Dr Liam Fox (U.K. International Trade Secretary) announcing himself as “a very public and proud friend of Israel”, said that relations between the two countries had never been closer, and noted that after the Brexit referendum vote in June 2016, Israeli companies had “flocked” to the UK, “creating jobs and prosperity.” Tel Aviv, he said, was a “city that punches far above its weight”, both economically and culturally.”

More than 1,000 revellers packed out Camden Town’s Roundhouse arts complex on Thursday night for the gala opening of TLV in LDN, a four-day cultural festival bringing the best of Tel Aviv to the British capital.

Three years in the planning, the celebration of food, music, arts and fashion was the suggestion of then London mayor Boris Johnson to the former Israeli ambassador, Daniel Taub. As Marc Worth, chairman of the 2017 event, recalled, “The ambassador leapt at the opportunity”.

Ambassadors and politicians move on but the central concept remained, the possibility of bringing the Tel Aviv culture and spirit to London, the city with which — despite the weather — there is much in common.

And on hand to record and admire the connections between the two cities were Britain’s Liam Fox, Secretary of State for International Trade, Israel’s Gilad Erdan, currently the Israeli minister for public security, information and strategic affairs, and mayor of Tel Aviv, Ron Huldai.

The festival opening, hosted by Israel Channel Two’s Sharon Kidon, featured a gloriously tongue-in-cheek film of Israelis, miming to Matisyahu’s song, Sunshine. Every sort of Israeli citizen joined in this enterprise, from singing nuns to dancing builders, a welcome shot of “down-homeness” after an introductory appearance by the pianist, composer and conductor Gil Shohat.

Avishai Cohen’s jazz trio formed the backdrop for a parade of fashion models dressed in the latest creations by the now revived label, Maskit, the brand founded by the widow of Moshe Dayan, Ruth Dayan. Mrs Dayan is now over 90 and was unable to travel to London for the show; the label is now run by designers Sharon and Nir Tal, and is enjoying new success, with Maskit planning a trunk show in London in the next few months.

Top Israeli chef Shaul Ben Aderet, who runs three restaurants in Tel Aviv, offered a menu for the gala opening and is due to run hot ticket cooking workshops over the weekend.

Dr Fox, announcing himself as “a very public and proud friend of Israel”, said that relations between the two countries had never been closer, and noted that after the Brexit referendum vote in June 2016, Israeli companies had “flocked” to the UK, “creating jobs and prosperity.” Tel Aviv, he said, was a “city that punches far above its weight”, both economically and culturally.

Mr Erdan, among whose briefs is the combating of the boycott, chose to attack those who would delegitimise Israel on the cultural front. He expressed gratitude to the UK leadership which had made it plain that it rejected the boycott.

Among the Israeli artists due to take part in the festival were the band Infected Mushroom and the top international DJ, Guy Gerber. Also on the programme were singer Dana International, a Tel Aviv beach party and a “pianathon” featuring four different Israeli pianists playing classical, jazz, and pop music. The whole programme has been curated by Ori Gersht.

The United Kingdom will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the issuance of the Balfour Declaration “with pride,” a British Cabinet minister said on Monday.https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/09/12/british-cabinet-minister-uk-will-celebrate-100th-anniversary-of-balfour-declaration-with-pride/

At a meeting in the British capital with a visiting World Jewish Congress delegation, Sajid Javid — the secretary of state for communities and local government — stated, “Someone said we should apologize for the declaration, to say it was an error of judgment. Of course that’s not going to happen. To apologize for the Balfour Declaration would be to apologize for the existence of Israel and to question its right to exist.”

In the Balfour Declaration, which was published in November 1917, the British government announced its support for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”

Last year, the Palestinian Authority said it intended to sue the UK over the declaration, claiming it had led to a “catastrophe” for the Palestinian people. And last September, PA President Mahmoud Abbas — during a UN General Assembly address – called on the UK to apologize for the declaration.

In his remarks on Monday, Javid — a member of Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative Party — highlighted the ongoing failure of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement to harm UK-Israel ties.

“I’ll be 100 percent clear,” he said. “I do not support calls for a boycott, my party does not support calls for a boycott. For all its bluster, the BDS campaign is most notable I think, for its lack of success.”

“Trade is booming, tourism is soaring,” he continued. “The media campaign is full of sound and fury, but to the majority of Britain today it signifies nothing.”

“As long as I’m in government, as long as I’m in politics, I will do everything in my power to fight back against those who seek to undermine Israel,” Javid vowed.

Addressing the same delegation, House of Commons Speaker John Bercow cautioned that Jews across the globe still faced a “pernicious and insidious” danger.

According to the Palestinians, the two US envoys seem fully to have endorsed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s positions instead of representing the interests of the US. Why? Because they are Jews, and as such, their loyalty is to Israel before the US.

Perhaps this view is a projection of what many Muslims would do if the circumstances were reversed.

What we are actually witnessing is the never-ending search for excuses on the part of the Palestinian Authority and its president, Mahmoud Abbas, not to engage in peace talks with Israel.

The Palestinians do not like US President Donald Trump’s envoys to the Middle East. Why? The answer — which they make blindingly clear — is because they are Jews.

In the Palestinian perspective, all three envoys — Jared Kushner, Jason Greenblatt and US Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, cannot be honest brokers or represent US interests because, as Jews, their loyalty to Israel surpasses, in the Palestinian view, their loyalty to the United States.

Sound like anti-Semitism? Yes, it does, and such assumptions provide further evidence of Palestinian prejudices and misconceptions. The Palestinians take for granted that any Jew serving in the US administration or other governments around the world should be treated with suspicion and mistrust.

Moreover, the Palestinians do not hesitate to broadcast this view.

Take for example, the recent Palestinian uproar over statements made by Friedman in an interview with the Israeli daily Jerusalem Post.

One phrase that Friedman said during the interview has drawn strong condemnations from the Palestinians and some other Arabs. According to the Jerusalem Post: “The Left, he explained, is portrayed as believing that only if the ‘alleged occupation’ ended would Israel become a better society.”

Specifically, it was the use of the term “alleged occupation” that prompted the Palestinians to launch a smear campaign against Friedman — one that includes references to his being a Jew as well as a to his being a supporter of Israel. This, as far as the Palestinians are concerned, is enough to disqualify him from serving as US Ambassador to Israel or playing any role whatsoever as an honest and fair mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

One political analyst with close ties to the Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership in Ramallah called for removing Friedman from his job altogether.

Commenting on the interview with the US ambassador, Palestinian political analyst Omar Hilmi Al-Ghoul wrote: “David Friedman is known to the Palestinian people and leadership as an ugly Zionist colonial who arouses revulsion.” Al-Ghoul called on President Trump to recall his ambassador to Israel and to instruct the State Department to start searching for a replacement. He said that the Palestinians are “have the right” to demand the removal of any ambassador or envoy who “trespasses diplomatic protocols.”