This post will be a little different from my usual posts. Instead of using an essay format, I'll use a point-by-point "fact check" format to evaluate Benjamin Netanyahu's recent speech to the UN regarding the Iran nuclear deal and the ongoing Palestinian issue. (To watch the speech, go here) This post will have two sections. In the first sections, I'll look at claims that Netanyahu made, that are not strictly speaking false, but are seriously misleading. Secondly, I'll take a look at some outright falsehoods in the speech. To ensure fairness to Netanyahu, I've avoided using documentation from sources that are openly anti-Israeli or pro-Palestinian or Iranian (with the single exception of one link to Mondoweiss, which is a pro-Palestinian source). In fact, careful readers may even note one link to the official website of the Mujahidin i Khalq, a (mostly exile) Iranian dissident group whose opposition to the Iranian regime could hardly be stronger. One final bit of housekeeping: I've used quotation marks to distinguish Netanyahu's claims from my responses. The use of quotation marks doesn't necessarily imply that I'm directly quoting Netanyahu, since I've had to condense some of his points. (If you suspect I may have misrepresented him in any way, please feel free to "check my work" by watching the speech for yourself ;) ) So, without further ado, let's begin.
a. Misleading claims
1. "I am prepared to immediately resume direct peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority without any preconditions whatsoever."
Of course, given that this is a claim about the future (or at least about the Netanyahu government's current intentions for the future), it's impossible to say whether it is true or false. However, what should be noted is that "no preconditions", coming from the mouth of an Israeli politician, primarily means no guarantee of a halt to settlement growth (as any guarantee would be a "precondition" to negotiations). Under Netanyahu's leadership, Israel has continued to expand the settlements in the West Bank steadily, and the population of the settlements has grown much more quickly than the population of Israel behind the 1967 borders. Furthermore, Netanyahu has explicitly stated that he "does not intend to evacuate any settlements." (see here) Of course, "no preconditions" is supposed to sound reasonable and show Netanyahu's openness to discussion. In reality, however, it shows Israel's determination to continue to create "facts on the ground" and confine the Palestinians to smaller and smaller "Bantustans" in the West Bank, all the while carrying on the pretense of negotiations intended to create a Palestinian state on the very land the Israelis continue to occupy.
2. "Israel expects the PA to honour its commitments."
It would normally be assumed that someone moralizing in this vein would be representing an entity that had a fairly good record of keeping its own agreements. However, Israel is one of the most practiced violators of treaties in the Middle East. To avoid getting bogged down in details, it's enough to note that Israel agreed to withdraw from the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza Strip after the 1967 war, by explicitly agreeing to UN Resolution 242. (See the Wikipedia article here) This was almost 50 years ago. Although Israeli representatives have, rather lamely, attempted to argue that, since the resolution reads "withdrawal from lands occupied..." rather than "withdrawal from the lands occupied...", it implies no obligation to withdraw from the entire West Bank. In addition to the fundamental silliness of this argument, it should be noted that the French text of the resolution contains the definite article, and is equally binding with the English text.
3. "In 2014, the UN passed 20 resolutions against Israel, and only 1 resolution concerning the Syrian crisis, despite the fact that the Syrian civil war has caused far more deaths than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
There are two fundamental problems with this claim. Firstly, it ignores the nature of the UN. Although the UN, in recent years, has extended its attention to intra-state issues (especially under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine), its fundamental and original purpose is to regulate international relations between states, and particularly to oversee compliance with treaties. Therefore, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, involving as it does the occupation of land which is not recognized as part of Israel by international law, lies closer to the UN's core mission than does the Syrian crisis, which is occurring within Syria's internationally recognized borders. Secondly, counting resolutions is not a particularly good way of measuring the UN's treatment of a given nation. Instead of looking at resolutions, it would be more helpful to look at practical actions that the UN has taken against a given country. Looking at matters in this light makes it apparent that, far from being treated worse by the UN than other countries, Israel is actually treated better than average. (How many countries, other than the Great Powers, can so openly disregard the UN, without any practical consequences whatsoever?)
b. Falsehoods
1. "The Christian community in Israel continues to grow and thrive."
Funding for Christian schools in Israel last year only covered 29% of tuition, whereas private, non-state Jewish schools are funded at a level of 100%. Although, in response to a strike and strong public pressure, the Israeli government has increased funding to Christian schools, this will only allow tuition to be reduced by about 25%, and is only guaranteed for one year. (See here) Furthermore, since the Christians of Israel are overwhelmingly Arab by ethnicity, they face significant economic and political discrimination (see here and here). Growing? Yes. Thriving? Certainly not in political and economic terms.
2. "Israel respects the religious claims of all."
Israel has failed to extend the protection to Christian and Muslim religious sites that is mandated by its own law. (See here). Furthermore, Palestinian access to religious sites is often arbitrarily limited. (For one example, see here).
3. "MGen Salehi, Iran's army chief, has promised to 'execute Ayatollah Khamenei's order to destroy Israel.' This constitutes a threat of genocide."
Salehi said no such thing, nor has Khamenei ever given any such order. Western politicians and media outlets routinely engage in this sort of misrepresentation. References to the "Zionist regime" are changed into references to "Israel" as such, then the intention to destroy "Israel" (which was never expressed in the first place) is, without any justification whatsoever, taken to mean an intention to physically annihilate its people. (For one example of the process, see here. For another, see here, and be sure to notice, within the same article, the switch from "Israel" in the editorial summary to "the Zionist regime" in the direct quote) The first step of this equation is a flat lie. The second step is an unjustified and unsupported extrapolation. Even the intention to engage in a war of conquest to destroy a state in no way implies an intention to commit genocide against the people of that state, and, in any case, Iran has never expressed any interest in any such war. Instead, Iran has held a policy of promoting "regime change" in Israel. Of course, this is still a hostile and aggressive stance, but it cannot in any way be honestly construed as a "genocidal" or even imperialistic one.
4. "Iran has threatened to topple Jordan"
The actual quote was a response to Jordan's holding a meeting for Iraqi opposition groups, and runs, "Holding such conferences and official sessions in Jordan not only brings no immunity for this country, but in fact it places it on the cliff of insecurity." (See here) This could, of course, be taken as somewhat menacing, but to (as Netanyahu does) summarize the whole exchange by saying that Iran had threatened to "topple" Jordan is highly dishonest, especially given that no Iranian official has ever explicitly threatened any kind of military action against Jordan.
5. "I remain committed to a vision of two states for two peoples."
Netanyahu has explicitly stated that no Palestinian state will be allowed to exist while he is in power. (See here) Either he was lying then, or he is lying now.
It's significant that these points are not simply matters of opinion or disagreements concerning interpretation. They are simple matters of fact, which Netanyahu routinely distorts to achieve his political objectives. If he is this unreliable in regard to issues we can check and verify, what should we make of his statements regarding issues that are not open to this kind of public verification?
No comments:
Post a Comment