UPDATE (9:48 pm): Impending alert sirens for incoming Hamas terrorist rockets from Gaza are now sounding in Sderot.
UPDATE: The citizens of southern Israel were attacked with Palestinian Hamas rockets last night, again, and again, and again. What did the IDF do to stop the rocket fire? Absolutely nothing. In short, it was just a regular night down in the bomb shelters of southern Israel.
How many have times and in what context have you heard the phrase “it is an internal matter”? It is often used by governments to justify the brutalization of their own citizens who disagree with governmental policy–or the brutalization of areas trying to gain (or regain) independence.
How did the Russians justify their brutal crackdown on Chechnya? It was an internal matter.
How do the Chinese justify their continuing brutalization of Tibet? It is an internal matter.
The phrase is also used by governments to justify the brutal actions of other governments against their own citizens.
How did the Russians and Chinese justify their vetos in the Security Council of a resolution that would have condemned the slaughter of Syrian civilians? Simple. The Syrian army assault on the Syrian people is “an internal matter”.
Nowadays, “it is an internal matter” is almost always used to paper over and make acceptable an action that it is immoral and reprehensible.
Yesterday the world was treated to the U.S. Obama Administration speaking through State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland saying this: “As we’ve said many times, questions of Palestinian reconciliation are an internal matter for Palestinians.”
Actually, the United States has not put it in that particular way many times. It is so different in fact, that the U.S. use of the phrase “an internal matter for Palestinians” has been picked up throughout the world this morning from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia to Brazil–all in the context that “Hamas is acceptable”. What the United States has done is signal its imprimatur to the idea that Israel should negotiate with Hamas by using a ‘code phrase’.
Of course Nuland went on to say that “Any Palestinian government must unambiguously and explicitly commit to non-violence. It must recognize the state of Israel and it must accept the previous agreements and obligations between the parties, including the road map.” But guess what? Nobody is paying any attention to that part of the statement.
All Nuland was doing was throwing Hamas a fig leaf. Despite endless statements from the leaders of Hamas that they will never recognize Israel and will work tirelessly for Israel’s destruction until the last Jew is dead, if Hamas will just agree to come nominally under the control of the PLO–then Hamas will make itself acceptable.
For his part, Benjamin Netanyahu was buying none of this as of yesterday (who knows what tomorrow will bring?). He declared that if the PLO-Hamas reconciliation goes forward then it spells the end of the peace process. But again, nobody is listening. In throwing Israel under the bus, the Obama Administration is throwing its support behind Hamas.
The rest of the world has already jumped on the Obama bandwagon. The E.U.–through the notorious Catherine Ashton’s office–was quick to issue this statement on the American declaration: “The EU looks forward to continuing its support provided the new Palestinian government is committed to nonviolence, recognizes Israel and supports a negotiated solution to the Mideast conflict.”
No condemnation of Hamas. No condemnation of the daily attempt of Hamas to kill Israeli civilians. No recognition of the utter immorality of the terrorists in Gaza.
“It is an internal matter.” It is enough to make your humble servant sick.
THIS DATE IN ISRAELI HISTORY:
The Balfour Declaration, dated November 2, 1917, was a letter from the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, to Walter Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community. The letter stated:
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.
What has been forgotten has been the row this statement caused in the British government, a row epitomized by comments made at a luncheon some three months later on February 7, 1918, at which British Colonel Richard Meinerzhagen pointedly asked Arthur Balfour:
Do you regard this declaration as a charter for ultimate Jewish sovereignty in Palestine or are you trying to graft a Jewish population on to an Arab Palestine?
To which Balfour replied:
“My personal hope is that the Jews will make good in Palestine and eventually found a Jewish state. It is up to them now; we have given them their great opportunity.”
(This exchange is quoted from Meinerzhagen’s book, Middle East Diary: 1917-1956.)