Forum

profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

exchange with Deborah Orr re Israel and Palestinains

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> your letters
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
joe emersberger



Joined: 24 Jan 2004
Posts: 513
Location: Windsor, Onatrio, Canada

Post Post subject: exchange with Deborah Orr re Israel and Palestinains Reply with quote

RE: "The Death of Children and Common Sense"
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/deborah-orr/deborah-orr-the-deaths-of-children-ndash-and-sense-1418244.html

Dear Deborah Orr

You wrote of the Palestinians that

"The majority now realize, belatedly, that the two-state solution offered at Oslo is the best deal they, or their children, are ever likely to get."

and felt justified in stating that in 1948 "...the 700,000 [Arabs] wanted to be allowed to return to their homes, and it also has to be remembered that many of those were as opposed to the existence of Israel then as Hamas still are." You don't bother to recall that UN resolution that created Israel forced Arabs to be an almost 50% minority in a Jewish state - hardly unreasonable grounds for Arab victims in 1948 to object especially after their worst fears had just been realized..

You article also suggests that Palestinians have only recently come around to the idea of a two state solution.

The facts are that since at least 1976 the Palestinians have accepted the two state solution. See the excerpt below from a draft UN Security Council Resolution of 1976. The PLO backed it, and attended the debate at the UN. Israel refused to even attend the debate and the US used its veto to torpedo the resolution which would otherwise have passed. This pattern has repeated itself numerous times since then.

In other words Israel has consistently refused to recognize Palestine's right to exist and has gotten away with it thanks to US support. Palestinians will get a fair deal when these facts are widely known in the West.
Why not help out with that?

Joe Emersberger


S/11940
23 January 1976
The Question of Palestine
Including the Right of Refugees to Return to their Homes and Receive Compensation

Draft Resolution Sponsored by
Benin, Guyana, Pakistan, Panama, Romania and United Republic of Tanzania

The Security Council,

Having considered the item entitled "The Middle East problem including the Palestinian question", in accordance with its resolution 381 (1975) of 30 November 1975,

Having heard the representatives of parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, representative of the Palestinian people,

Convinced that the question of Palestine is the core of the conflict in the Middle East,

Expressing its concern over the continuing deterioration of the situation in the Middle East, and deeply deploring Israel's persistence in its occupation of Arab territories and its refusal to implement the relevant United Nations resolution,

Reaffirming the principle of inadmissibility of acquisition of territories by the threat or use of force,

Reaffirming further the necessity of the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the region based on full respect for the Charter of the United Nations as well as for its resolutions concerning the problem of the Middle East including the question of Palestine,

1. Affirms:

(a) That the Palestinian people should be enabled to exercise its inalienable national right of self-determination, including the right to establish an independent state in Palestine in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;

(b) The right of Palestinian refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours to do so and the right of those choosing not to return to receive compensation for their property;[res 242 only called for a "just settlement of the refugee problem"]

(c) That Israel should withdraw from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967;

(d) The appropriate arrangements should be established to guarantee, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all states in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries;

2. Decides that the provisions contained in paragraph 1 should be taken fully into account in all international efforts and conferences organized within the framework of the United Nations for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;





Post a Response



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Re: email to Deborah Orr of Independent
Posted by Don MacKeen (donmackeen) on January 17, 2009, 11:24 am, in reply to "email to Deborah Orr of Independent"

hi joe

hope you don't mind, but i wrote to deborah orr just to see if she was planning on answering your questions - to which she wrote back (my reply to her is first):

Hi Deborah

Joe has posted his email to you on the Medialens message board, and after reading it I was really curious to see what your reply would be.

I'm struggling to see why the deaths of over a 1000 people - 300 children - elicits such odd responses from British journalists, always with massive historical inaccuracies.

Sincerely

Don MacKeen

From: "D.Orr@independent.co.uk"
To: Don MacKeen
Sent: Saturday, 17 January, 2009 10:22:24
Subject: Re: "The Death of Children and Common Sense"


Dear Don McKeen
Thanks for your e-mail. I'm struggling to understand why the timing of my private correspondence is your business. You might find it more convenient to adress your queries to Mr Emersberger. Thanks again.
Deborah Orr


"The Death of Children and Common Sense"



Don MacKeen
to:
d.orr
17/01/2009 09:41

DEar Ms Orr

When will you be replying to Joe Emersberger's email (see below)?

Sincerely

Don MacKeen

RE: "The Death of Children and Common Sense"
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/deborah-orr/deborah-orr-the-deaths-of-children-ndash-and-sense-1418244.html

Dear Deborah Orr

You wrote of the Palestinians that

"The majority now realize, belatedly, that the two-state solution offered at Oslo is the best deal they, or their children, are ever likely to get."

and felt justified in stating that in 1948 "...the 700,000 [Arabs] wanted to be allowed to return to their homes, and it also has to be remembered that many of those were as opposed to the existence of Israel then as Hamas still are." You don't bother to recall that UN resolution that created Israel forced Arabs to be an almost 50% minority in a Jewish state - hardly unreasonable grounds for Arab victims in 1948 to object especially after their worst fears had just been realized..

You article also suggests that Palestinians have only recently come around to the idea of a two state solution.

The facts are that since at least 1976 the Palestinians have accepted the two state solution. See the excerpt below from a draft UN Security Council Resolution of 1976. The PLO backed it, and attended the debate at the UN. Israel refused to even attend the debate and the US used its veto to torpedo the resolution which would otherwise have passed. This pattern has repeated itself numerous times since then.

In other words Israel has consistently refused to recognize Palestine's right to exist and has gotten away with it thanks to US support. Palestinians will get a fair deal when these facts are widely known in the West.
Why not help out with that?

Joe Emersberger




Post a Response



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




response from Orr and my reply
Posted by emersberger on January 17, 2009, 3:13 pm, in reply to "Re: email to Deborah Orr of Independent"

In a message dated 1/17/2009 5:19:32 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, D.Orr@independent.co.uk writes:
Dear Mr Emersberger,
Thanks for your e-mail. The Palestinian leadership continued to press for a two-state solution in combination with the right to return (as guanteed in 1948) for some time after 1976. They were morally right to do so. This failure to address the right to return was the main reason why the Oslo Accords were rejected by Arafat. Because this aspect of the talks was little publicised, Israelis are able to get away wth pointing out that it was the Palestinians who rejected the two state solution at the Olso Accords. My own feeling is that this is the important point that must be got across, as it explains the failure of the deal and the launching of the second intifada, which to many onlookers seems, wrongly, inexplicable. It is important, I believe, to stress that the two-state solution is a significant Palestinian compromise. Thanks again.
Deborah Orr



Dear Deborah Orr
You say "Arafat rejected". Israel's best offer to the Palestinians was disconnected and unviable fragments of land. There wasn't anything to reject. A two state solution was never offered. Jimmy Carter explained in his book

"The best offer to the Palestinians [at Camp David in December 2000]--by Clinton, not Barak--had been to withdraw 20 percent of the settlers, leaving more than 180,000 in 209 settlements, covering about 10 percent of the occupied land, including land to be "leased" and portions of the Jordan River valley and East Jerusalem.

The percentage figure is misleading, since it usually includes only the actual footprints of the settlements. There is a zone with a radius of about four hundred meters around each settlement within which Palestinians cannot enter. In addition, there are other large areas that would have been taken or earmarked to be used exclusively by Israel, roadways that connect the settlements to one another and to Jerusalem, and "life arteries" that provide the settlers with water, sewage, electricity, and communications. These range in width from five hundred to four thousand meters, and Palestinians cannot use or cross many of these connecting links. This honeycomb of settlements and their interconnecting conduits effectively divide the West Bank into at least two noncontiguous areas and multiple fragments, often uninhabitable or even unreachable, and control of the Jordan Valley denies Palestinians any direct access eastward into Jordan. About one hundred military checkpoints completely surround Palestinians and block routes going into or between Palestinian communities, combined with an unaccountable number of other roads that are permanently closed with large concrete cubes or mounds of earth and rocks.

There was no possibility that any Palestinian leader could accept such terms and survive, but official statements from Washington and Jerusalem were successful in placing the entire onus for the failure on Yasir Arafat. (pp. 151-2)"
. .
I would also like to point out that these are public, not personal matters we are discussing. The public has every right to engage journalists in open debate.

Joe Emersberger
Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:28 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> your letters All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
    printer friendly
eXTReMe Tracker