RUTHFULLY YOURS

From June edition of Mideast Outpost http://www.mideastoutpost.com/archives/capital-losses-by-ruth-king.html

Promises! Promises! One cannot count the number of times that our leaders, from the White House to Congress, have issued the call to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel’s capital city Jerusalem. Those empty words fill the air during election cycles. Nonetheless the American Embassy remains in Tel Aviv.

What is an American Embassy on foreign soil? Here is how the State Department describes it:

“The mission of the United States Embassy is to advance the interests of the United States, and to serve and protect U.S. citizens. An embassy is the nerve center for a country’s diplomatic affairs within the borders of another nation, serving as the headquarters of the chief of mission, staff and other agencies. …“Embassy staff interact with host governments, local business and nongovernmental organizations, the media and educational institutions, and private citizens to create positive responses to U.S. policy and the U.S. in general.”

There is absolutely nothing here that precludes placing the American embassy in Israel’s capital. Moreover, an embassy implies recognition of a country’s sovereignty and its status as a nation.

The United States currently does not have embassies in North Korea, Iran, and Bhutan. In Taiwan, there is no longer an embassy, but, rather, an “American Institute in Taiwan” located in the capital Taipei. Here hangs a cautionary tale for Israel, demonstrating how an embassy’s location impacts a host nation’s legitimacy.

In order to appease China’s tyrants, heeding Henry Kissinger’s advice, Nixon visited China in 1972, accepted mass murderer Mao’s “one China” policy and opened the door to more diplomatic ties. These were fully implemented in 1979 when President Jimmy Carter broke diplomatic relations with Taiwan and moved our embassy in Taipei to Beijing. In short order Taiwan lost its seat on the Security Council and was ousted from the United Nations. Its security and sovereignty have thus been weakened.

Out of the 192 UN member states, 161 currently recognize Israel. Thirty-one Arab/Moslem nations have no diplomatic exchanges with Israel.

There are currently over 86 embassies in Tel Aviv (not including honorary consulates). Due to America’s implied pressure, of the thirteen nations (Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Netherlands, Panama, Uruguay , Venezuela) that had earlier established embassies in Jerusalem, none remain.

As justification, the U.S. State Department claims that Jerusalem is “disputed territory.” This is balderdash, and the fully staffed United States embassy in Kosovo proves the hypocrisy of this argument.

In Kosovo, although 114 nations offered recognition in 2008, there are only 21 embassies in Pristina, the U.S. among them. Many nations question the legitimacy of Kosovo which was historically part of Serbia, and is considered “disputed territory.” Accordingly, Kosovo is not a member of the United Nations.

Why does the U.S. have an embassy in Pristina and not in Jerusalem? This upside-down diplomacy can only be explained by a stubborn anti-Israel bias that has always existed in the State Department swamps.

President Trump made lavish promises to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem. Will he do it?

In the movie, the Allied commandos sneak through Nazi-occupied Yugoslavia to the bridge they were assigned to blow up. After the requisite setbacks, our heroes enter the internal machinery of a dam upstream of the bridge and detonate their explosives. Then… nothing. Unperturbed, the explosives expert says, “Wait. It is the accumulation of vibrations that does it.” Indeed, the smallish explosion causes cracks; the cracks cause more cracks; water begins to seep through the dam. Then, more water, more pressure, more cracks, more water. The bridge sways, and then collapses with a satisfying crash, sending the Nazi tanks and their crews into the drink.

Friends of Israel have known for years that regardless what the Palestinian Authority (PA) says in diplomatic circles, in truth it rejects the legitimacy of Israel in the region and encourages violence against Israelis. The evidence is easily accessible: the Middle East Research Institute (MEMRI) translates material from across the Arab world into English. NGO Monitor tracks nongovernmental organizations and their support for Palestinian violence and intransigence. Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) studies Palestinian society through its media and textbooks.

Those are the vibrations, and in the presence of a blunt American president, they appear to be accumulating. President Trump’s White House statement to PA President Mahmoud Abbas laid down an unmistakable American marker:

There cannot be lasting peace unless the Palestinian leaders speak in a unified voice against incitement to violence and hate. There’s such hatred. But hopefully there won’t be such hatred for very long. All children of God must be taught to value and respect human life, and condemn all of those who target the innocent.

Abbas responded that Palestinian children are “raised in a culture of peace.” That was demonstrably false and was so demonstrated. By the time the President went to Bethlehem, it appears that he had seen enough to lambaste Abbas for lying to him. The President also, “raised concerns about the payments to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails who have committed acts of terrorism, and to their families, and emphasized the need to resolve this issue,” according to the White House press secretary.

Another crack in the dam and the water is beginning to rise.

PMW had already documented the Palestinian Authority’s veneration of Dalal Mughrabi -– a female terrorist involved in the Coastal Road massacre in which 37 civilians, 12 of them children, were killed and more than 70 others wounded. PMW notes that in the West Bank, there are three schools and a computer center named after her, and Abbas held a birthday celebration for her. But when the “Martyr Dalal Mughrabi Center: A cultural and social center and youth center in partnership with the Burqa village council and the Women’s [Technical] Affairs Committee,” was found to have Norwegian government and UN money behind it, the bridge began to sway.

As we approach the centenary of the Balfour Declaration, although it is six months away (see below), it seems to me that it is important to start talking about it and what it does say and what it doesn’t say, as well as trying to make clear its status and impact.

The actual Declaration itself is but one sentence in a letter sent to Baron Rothschild: brief to the point of being easy to miss. As Wikipedia notes:

The Balfour Declaration was a single paragraph in a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. It read:

His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

The text of the letter was published in the press one week later, on 9 November 1917. The “Balfour Declaration” was later incorporated into both the Sèvres peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire, and the Mandate for Palestine.” [Wikipedia]

The Balfour Declaration

It was, of course, the culmination of a long campaign by the Zionist Federation (ZF) (and by Chaim Weizmann in particular). Weizmann was especially influential in this, largely because of his scientific work, as a research chemist, and especially his development of the extraction of acetone (vital for the munitions industry) from maize during the First World War on behalf of the Allies. This meant that the British Government of the day was particularly beholden to him, and Weizmann used this influence wholeheartedly on behalf of the Zionist Federation. (The Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on Weizmann is particularly informative on this period of his life.) It is important to note developments such as the San Remo Conference of Allied Powers (1920), which confirmed the Balfour Declaration and awarded the Palestine Mandate to Great Britain (Britannica, ibid).

It is as important, at this point, to remember that phrase from the Declaration that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” This will be returned to below.

To move on, it is possible to argue that the Peel Commission recommendations of 1936 come close to allocating much the same territory to each side as did the 1947 UN Resolution on the ending of the British Mandate. Remember: I said “much the same” not exactly the the same, though it’s a moot point, as the Arab side rejected the Commission’s recommendations outright, despite earlier agreements between at least some Arab leaders and the Jewish Agency.

All that said, the British Government failed, consistently, to live up to the wording of the Declaration. From the San Remo Conference onwards, despite that Conference’s agreement that

Britain was charged with establishing a ‘national home for the Jewish people’ in Palestine [although] Terroritorial boundaries were not decided until four years after (http://www.cfr.org/israel/san-remo-resolution/p15248),

Britain did nothing to establish any boundaries, then or later, including after World War 2 and, indeed, after the 1947 UN Resolution ending the Mandate. The British didn’t even take steps to establish Transjordan, although they much favoured its creation. As a result, it is hardly surprising that the Arabs, both those in the Mandate territory and the independent nations outside it, utterly rejected the 1947 Resolution.

On Thursday, President Barack Obama’s last waiver pursuant to the Jerusalem Embassy Act will expire. Absent a new waiver by President Trump, the provisions of the law will go into full effect. Trump promised during his campaign to move the embassy, a policy embodied both in federal law and the Republican Party platform. But since he came into office, Trump’s promise seems to have lost some momentum.

This piece will examine the mechanics of the Embassy Act waiver — it is not actually a waiver on moving the embassy. The details of the law make it a particularly convenient way for Trump to defy now-lowered expectations and not issue a waiver on June 1.

First, some context. Many commentators have sought to cast a possible Trump waiver as proof that Obama’s Israeli policy is really the only possible game in town. But whether or not a waiver is issued, Trump has succeeded in fundamentally changing the discussion about the U.S.-Israel relationship. Waivers under the 1995 act come twice a year, and for the past two decades, they have hardly warranted a news item. Under the Bush and Obama administrations, they were entirely taken for granted.

Now everyone is holding his or her breath to see whether Trump will sign the waiver. If he does, it will certainly be a disappointment to his supporters. But if he does not, it is not the end of the show — he will have seven more waivers ahead, with mounting pressure as his term progresses. Under Obama, speculation focused on what actions he would take or allow against Israel (and even these waited until very late in his second term).

***

The waiver available to the president under the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 does not waive the obligation to move the embassy. That policy has been fully adopted by Congress in the Act (sec. 3(a)(3)) and is not waivable. Of course, Congress cannot simply order the president to implement such a move, especially given his core constitutional power over diplomatic relations.

But Congress, having total power over the spending of taxpayer dollars, does not have to pay for an embassy in Tel Aviv. The Act’s enforcement mechanism is to suspend half of the appropriated funds for the State Department’s “Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad” until the law’s terms are complied with. The waiver provision simply allows the president to waive the financial penalty.

What this means is that by not signing a waiver, Trump would not actually be requiring the embassy to move to Jerusalem, moving the embassy or recognizing Jerusalem. That could give him significant diplomatic flexibility or deniability if June 1 goes by with mere silence from the White House.

Less than 24 hours after the Abbas-Trump meeting in Bethlehem, in which Abbas promised Trump and his representative, Jason Greenblatt, to cease all forms of incitement against Israel, the Palestinian Authority (PA) government in Ramallah resumed its vicious rhetorical attacks on Israel.

The Palestinian denial of Jewish ties and history to the land also continues full blast, despite Abbas’s pledge to Trump that Palestinians are not in conflict with Jews or Judaism.

Hard on the heels of Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas’s assurances to US President Donald Trump that he is raising Palestinians on a “culture of peace,” he continues to glorify terrorists who have Jewish blood on their hands.

Abbas, who met with Trump in Bethlehem on May 23, told reporters that he was committed to working with the new US administration to achieve a “historic peace deal with Israel.” Abbas also announced his readiness to become a “partner in the war on terrorism in our region and the world.” He claimed that he and his Palestinian Authority have been promoting “tolerance and coexistence, and spreading a culture of peace and renouncing violence.”

US President Donald Trump talks with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on May 23, 2017 in Bethlehem. (Photo by PPO via Getty Images)

Abbas’s sweet talk, however, did not last long. Just hours after Trump left the region, Abbas and his PA returned to their anti-Israel incitement. This stands in blinding contrast to what Abbas told Trump and his Middle East envoy, Jason Greenblatt, with whom Abbas met 48 hours after his get-together with Trump in Bethlehem.

At a meeting of Fatah leaders in Ramallah on May 25, Abbas described Palestinian prisoners held by Israel as “heroes.”

His remarks came in response to the hunger strike of more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, many of whom are serving lengthy terms for murdering or wounding hundreds of Israelis. The hunger strike, which began on April 17, is led by Marwan Barghouti, a senior official with Abbas’s Fatah faction who is serving five life terms in prison for his role in a spate of terror attacks that killed five Israelis during the Second Intifada (2000-2005).

Referring to the convicted terrorists as “our heroes,” Abbas lashed out at the Israeli government for its refusal to surrender to the demands of the hunger strikers.

“We will stand with them and support them,” Abbas said, referring to the convicted terrorists. “We will emerge triumphant and we won’t allow [Israel] to defeat or humiliate the prisoners.”

Abbas’s powerful message flies in the face of his promise to Trump and his representative, Jason Greenblatt, to cease all forms of incitement against Israel.

By describing the convicted terrorists as “heroes,” Abbas is in fact sending a message to all Palestinians that murdering Jews is a noble and heroic act.

Such rhetoric prompts Palestinians to launch terror attacks against Israelis. It is a clear call by Abbas for Palestinians to follow in the footsteps of terrorists and murderers.

Is this Abbas’s way of promoting a “culture of peace” among his people? Is this his version of encouraging Palestinians to renounce violence?

It is an inconvenient truth that under international law, it’s not illegal to win a territorial fight. Media rhetoric pummels hearts and minds and rallies a false cause, and the United Nations depicts the people of Israel to be a pariah, a hated “occupier,” and routinely takes steps to sanction the occupier. The Middle East, an area of 8,804.395 square miles – equivalent to about ninety percent of the contiguous United States – considers Israel undeserving of the right to exist on the original, tiny 10,875 square miles unanimously granted by the League of Nations and upheld by the U.N.

International laws of war, declared or undeclared, are ignored. Ignorance prevails around the globe. Pertinent laws are eye-opening – not a seductive read, but easy to understand and necessary for discovering truth, whatever your moral imperative, which fails to replace law.

Is Israel an “occupier,” and if the answer is yes, is the “occupation” legal according to international law? Consider the following:

1) Egypt has never held or claimed sovereignty (ownership) over the Gaza Strip.

2) Egypt has occupied (established authority over) the Gaza Strip.

3) Jordan has never been sovereign over the West Bank.

4) Jordan has occupied the West Bank.

5) Jordan claimed sovereignty over the West Bank but abandoned the quest after failing to convince Arab neighbors or any nations, other than Pakistan and Britain, of a legitimate claim.

6) Syria is sovereign over the Golan Heights, although Israel gained a portion of the territory in the 1967 war. That portion of the Golan remains under Israeli control. Syria accuses Israel of “illegal occupation” as Syria’s own Iranian-funded military occupies Lebanon. Israel shares a border with Lebanon, from which Hezb’allah, an internationally recognized terrorist organization, attacks Israel, forcing Israel to respond to protect its citizenry.

The definition of a territorial “occupier” has existed, unchanged, since the early 1900s. “Customary” warfare law is settled law.

1. The purpose of the 1907 Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land:

Hague Article 42, in part: The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Hague Article 43, in part: The authority of the legitmate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

2. The Fourth Geneva Convention, August 1949: “After WWII this body examined “occupation” through a more focused lens and added to the Hague. The definition of occupation did not change. Hague remained and continues to be customary law. The Geneva purpose shifted from protecting the sovereign to protecting civilian populations.”