Shimon Peres z'l has recently died. His stature in Israeli history was equal to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who died in January 2014. A posthumous assessment of Peres' peer as an Israeli PM (after Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by Jewish terrorist Yigal Amr) Ariel Sharon's contribution to peaceful coexistence between Jews and gentiles, Israelis and Palestinians, makes this post somewhat topical again.
http://proxy.montgomerylibrary.org:2048/docview/409584654?accountid=47412
In his Jan. 31 [2004] op-ed column on Jordanian opposition to the Israeli security fence ["Building a Wall, Breaking a Relationship"], David Ignatius repeated the popular misconception that the Hashemite kingdom has been "famously accommodating" toward Israel.
Famously accommodating, as in its attempt to destroy Israel in 1948, its liquidation of the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and its desecration of captured Jewish holy sites?
Accommodating as in its artillery barrage on civilian areas of Jerusalem at the start of the 1967 war, after Israeli leaders begged King Hussein to remain neutral?
Perhaps it was accommodating in its unprovoked attack on Israeli forces on the Golan during their defense against Syria's invasion in 1973.
Or was it accommodating in its harboring and support of Palestinian fedayeen and PLO terrorists from 1948 to 1970?
And let's not forget Jordan's helpful support of Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
On top of this, consider Jordan's illegal occupation of the West Bank from 1948 to 1967, during which time it never considered creating the Palestinian state now so much desired in that territory.
King Abdullah, like his father, Hussein, denies the Palestinian Arab majority in his country the political rights that Arab citizens of Israel take for granted. Jordan now demands that Israel halt construction of the security fence while it represses its own militant Palestinian population with means that would be illegal in Israel.
The Hashemites ought to go into the public relations business.
JONATHAN F. KEILER
Bowie
I sent a letter in response, back in 2004, that the Wash Post didn't publish.
Jonathan Keiler has repeated some more misconceptions in his rebuttal of the Jan. 31 David Ignatius column claiming Jordan accommodated Israel.
True, and beyond the pale by any international law or standard of respect for religious sites, Jordan destroyed and desecrated Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem from 1948-1967.
Was Israel accommodating when it allowed Jewish fundamentalists (Judaicists to match the new term of violent religious extremism Islamists?) like the Temple Mount Faithful between 1988 and 1990 to intermittently protest near Muslim holy sites calling for their destruction and building a third Jewish Temple? Israel police that guarantee Jews, Christians and Muslims access to holy sites kept the Judaicists away from the plaza above the Wailing Wall. But those police advised (allowed) Israeli leaders like Ariel Sharon to walk right up to the Al-aqsa mosque on Sept 28, 2000 inciting a riot, and in part, (however downplayed) the current Palestinian uprising [second intifada]. Even if Sharon kept his mouth closed the sight of a man approaching a holy site who is poorly regarded by people observing their religion at the same site would generate a hostile reaction more understandable in different circumstances. An example of a different circumstance would have Yasser Arafat replacing Ariel Sharon in the holy site visit and the Al-aqsa mosque Sharon approached being replaced by a synagogue visit Arafat approached.
http://tzemachdovid.org/Facts/camera.shtml warning site may have viruses and other malware infecting it. That is why the link is inactive.
On Oct 10, 2000 the director of the camera. org National Letter-Writing Group sent out an email to group members that read in part:
1. WHEN DID THE VIOLENCE BEGIN? The violence did not begin with Ariel Sharon's Thursday, September 28th visit to the Temple Mount. The evening before, on Wednesday, September 27th, an Israeli soldier was fatally injured by a roadside bomb at the Netzarim Junction in Gaza.
While there was heckling and pushing and shoving, there was no serious violence during Sharon's visit. Later that day, on Thursday, another bomb was set off near an Israeli army vehicle patrolling the border between Gaza and Israel, but fortunately no one was harmed. Not so lucky was an Israeli officer serving in a joint patrol with Palestinians in the West Bank town of Kalkilya. One of his Palestinian "partners," without any provocation by the Israeli, shot him dead.
The intense violence between Israelis and Palestinians didn't start until Friday, the next day, when Muslims were falsely told that the Jews wanted to tear down their mosque.
The camera. org email team director later included this sentence in the same email:
Since Sharon is Barak's opposition, and does not represent the elected government of Israel, it is especially odd for such a violent reaction against Israelis in general.
What is really odd is the Camera National Letter-Writing Group director's selective knowledge of how opposition leaders, even when out of power in a democracy, still seek to build new support bases to 'run again' (or 'stand again' as people in the UK describe seeking elected political office) for public office within a government of a self-declared democracy.
And Benjamin Netanyahu quit his position, in the cabinet formed by then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in 2005 because he opposed Ariel Sharon's withdrawal, and end of internal occupation (external occupation by way of Israeli military effective control of movement of people and goods continues), from Gaza. The struggle between Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu, both on the Israeli right, is more to blame for continued conflict as Israel has a greater position of power in their relationship with Palestinians, shown by prioritizing security for Jewish Israelis over non-Jewish Israelis or Palestinians under occupation, over Palestinians' freedom of movement of people and goods (meaning of occupation) than either Fatah or Hamas for any rejection, of what by 2013, became known as a Jewish and democratic state of Israel among Palestinian or other Arab states.
In January 2014 when Ariel Sharon died the Washington Post printed a letter, by Michael Berenhaus of Potomac, continuing the dispute, started by the Camera National Letter-Writing Group director on Oct 10, 2000, of whether Ariel Sharon's Temple Mount visit stopped final status peace negotiations and started the second intifada
In the Jan. 12 front-page obituary, “Warrior Sharon defended Israel,” The Post again repeated the media-inspired canard that Ariel Sharon’s “controversial visit in September 2000 to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount . . . helped trigger a second Palestinian uprising that smothered hopes for a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.”
that once again emphasized the choice that the camera. org National Letter-Writing Group director preferred of when the media should 'start the clock' (h/t fair.org Counterspin episode http://fair.org/counterspin/sarah-anderson-on-fix-the-debt-martin-lee-on-smoke-signals/ Nov 16, 2012 3:35-40 for 'start the clock' phrase) when reporting on the "intense violence" between Israelis and Palestinians namely an attack on Israeli soldiers at Netzarim, occupied Gaza strip, not Sharon's temple mount visit, for the violence that started Sept 27, not Sept 28, 2000. The violence was an inevitable result from the failure of peace negotiations, and little material improvement in the majority of Palestinians' lives and continued settlement expansion, when Netanyahu replaced Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres (after Rabin was assassinated by Jewish terrorist Yigal Amir) as Prime Minister by 1996.
When reading the actual David Ignatius column "Building a wall, breaking a relationship" that Jonathan F. Keiler wrote in response to, the key phrase "famously accommodating," referred to Jordan trying to be more of an 'honest broker,' than the USA by way of statements from the State Department and Presidents that try to position the USA as, for peace between Israelis and Palestinians within a regional Middle East context. Keiler's listing of all the wrongs done by Jordan to Israeli and American Jews since 1948 were another example of focusing too much on one word or phrase to distract readers from a broader context the words were used in. I have written about the excessive focus on one word or phrase on this blog
http://www.eyeonthecamera.blogspot.com/2012/04/distraction-by-focusing-on-terminology.html
before where a letter I quoted from by Ronald Sheinson focused excessively on the use of the word 'militant' not 'terrorist.'
Sharon's problem is that the Palestinian issue is leaching away Israel's security -- not militarily, but politically and strategically. Most Israelis want a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians that will allow Israel to become part of a thriving Mediterranean community. But as long as they continue to occupy the West Bank and dot it with settlements, the Israelis will have increasing trouble getting along with even their famously accommodating neighbors, the Jordanians.
And where is the Bush administration, as this potentially dangerous rift develops between two key strategic allies in the Middle East? Given its track record in dealing with the Palestinian issue, it's right where you would expect: sitting on its hands.
The administration's [Bush's and Obama's to update a 2004 column to a 2016 time context] lack of forceful diplomacy on the Palestinian issue is unfair most of all to the Israelis. This problem isn't going away. The options for all sides are getting more unpalatable by the month, and the security fence plan is making things worse. The United States should press Israel to find more positive ways to achieve security.
