In the war of words, The Times is Israel's ally. The paper consistently adopts Israel's language, giving credence to an inaccurate, simplistic and dangerous cliche.
(By Saree Makdisi)
No issue better illustrates Orwell's point than coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the United States. Consider, for example, the editorial in The Times on Feb. 9 demanding that the Palestinians "recognize Israel" and its "right to exist." This is a common enough sentiment - even a cliche. Yet many observers (most recently the international lawyer John Whitbeck) have pointed out that this proposition, assiduously propagated by Israel's advocates and uncritically reiterated by American politicians and journalists, is - at best - utterly nonsensical.
First, the formal diplomatic language of "recognition" is traditionally used by one state with respect to another state. It is literally meaningless for a non-state to "recognize" a state. Moreover, in diplomacy, such recognition is supposed to be mutual. In order to earn its own recognition, Israel would have to simultaneously recognize the state of Palestine. This it steadfastly refuses to do (and for some reason, there are no high-minded newspaper editorials demanding that it do so).
Second, which Israel, precisely, are the Palestinians being asked to "recognize?" Israel has stubbornly refused to declare its own borders. So, territorially speaking, "Israel" is an open-ended concept. Are the Palestinians to recognize the Israel that ends at the lines proposed by the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan? Or the one that extends to the 1949 Armistice Line (the de facto border that resulted from the 1948 war)? Or does Israel include the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it has occupied in violation of international law for 40 years - and which maps in its school textbooks show as part of "Israel"?
Read more here!
{ 2 comments }
This is a very good article, thanks for posting it Haitham. I also read the original article by John Whitbeck which can be found on Google.
I have said before that the recognition of Israel’s “right to exist” in the way it currently defines itself as a Jewish state is in direct conflict with the “right of return” for the victims of the Nakba.
What should be argued, I believe, is that just as the solution of the refugee problem is never set as a precondition for sitting on the negotiations table, the matter of recognizing Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state shouldn’t be set as a precondition for negotiations either.
What ever happened o the right of Palestein to excist?
The Zionist won’t let that happen.
Why not?
Because they occupy lands that the Zionists want. This is after they were removed from their lands and they improved their lands to such a standard that the Zionist wanted them.
The harder the Palestinians try, the more the Zionist steal.
Sorry, I am just a dumb Canadian.
The Zionist steal more land and segregate more Palestinians in the name of terrorists.
And we worry about terrorists here in Canada?
We don’t have terorists here who steal lands and isolate people in the name of democracy.
Oh, and by the way, we are a demomcratic country as long as you are not an Arab.
This attitude is pittiful!