‘The Alleged Occupation’ … This is America’s Position?!
Published in Al-Jarida
(Kuwait) on 13 September 2017
by Saleh Al-Qlab (link to original)
(Kuwait) on 13 September 2017
by Saleh Al-Qlab (link to original)
Translated from
by Jacob Leppek.
Edited by Tiana Robles.
If an ambassador to any state, from any country, said the United States did not exist, and the land that the country was founded on was not America’s but the Native Americans’, then I wonder: Would Washington respond by not judging the world, and sit quietly? Of course not, without exception, as the U.S. is the greatest, best and strongest state. It would declare war on the ambassador’s state, and indeed, would not cease until that state was thoroughly beaten, despite no interrogation or trial … with no questions or answers?!
David Friedman, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, describes the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land that was taken in the June 1967 war – despite the U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 – as an “alleged occupation.” Yet Washington has taken no action against him nor published a contradictory statement, not even a minor reprimand. It should be assumed that this ambassador should not stay in his role a moment longer, as he took a position contrary to the state he represents; furthermore, his statement was never announced “publicly,” even to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who does much more in the West Bank than deny the occupation.
Strangely, Arab, Muslim and other self-respecting countries of the world have not published [statements] about it, even if it is merely a symbolic gesture, to be beyond reproach. Knowing that the objections of the Palestinian Authority were merely low “grumbles,” and defeated on their own, God help them, this may encourage even some of their “friends” to allow their ambassadors to say more than what David Friedman said.
This Friedman demanded the transfer of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to occupied Jerusalem even before he became the U.S. ambassador to Israel. Friedman also chose to live in the occupied holy city. In addition to this, he went to the “Wailing” Wall, adjacent to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, supervised by paid cameras in a show that aims to provoke Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, and all people of conscience across the four winds of the Earth.
Friedman may resign from being the U.S. ambassador to Israel, take his Israeli passport from his pocket and announce his “Israeliness” by himself, and finally nominate himself as prime minister of the occupying state. At this point, there is no pressure on Washington to remain silent. But as its ambassador describes the occupation of 1967 in the “court” of Benjamin Netanyahu, it is expected that America, as a state, rejects the statement as against the U.N. Security Council Resolution 242. Yet this description remains in place, and as such, this adds to the humiliation of the Arabs, as well as those who reject the occupation and those who support the international resolution.
This American ambassador must be confronted with his arrogance, if only by a minor reprimand. But the suspicious silence is unacceptable, especially as it will encourage others to describe the occupation of Palestinian land as an “alleged occupation!”
David Friedman, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, describes the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land that was taken in the June 1967 war – despite the U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 – as an “alleged occupation.” Yet Washington has taken no action against him nor published a contradictory statement, not even a minor reprimand. It should be assumed that this ambassador should not stay in his role a moment longer, as he took a position contrary to the state he represents; furthermore, his statement was never announced “publicly,” even to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who does much more in the West Bank than deny the occupation.
Strangely, Arab, Muslim and other self-respecting countries of the world have not published [statements] about it, even if it is merely a symbolic gesture, to be beyond reproach. Knowing that the objections of the Palestinian Authority were merely low “grumbles,” and defeated on their own, God help them, this may encourage even some of their “friends” to allow their ambassadors to say more than what David Friedman said.
This Friedman demanded the transfer of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to occupied Jerusalem even before he became the U.S. ambassador to Israel. Friedman also chose to live in the occupied holy city. In addition to this, he went to the “Wailing” Wall, adjacent to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, supervised by paid cameras in a show that aims to provoke Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, and all people of conscience across the four winds of the Earth.
Friedman may resign from being the U.S. ambassador to Israel, take his Israeli passport from his pocket and announce his “Israeliness” by himself, and finally nominate himself as prime minister of the occupying state. At this point, there is no pressure on Washington to remain silent. But as its ambassador describes the occupation of 1967 in the “court” of Benjamin Netanyahu, it is expected that America, as a state, rejects the statement as against the U.N. Security Council Resolution 242. Yet this description remains in place, and as such, this adds to the humiliation of the Arabs, as well as those who reject the occupation and those who support the international resolution.
This American ambassador must be confronted with his arrogance, if only by a minor reprimand. But the suspicious silence is unacceptable, especially as it will encourage others to describe the occupation of Palestinian land as an “alleged occupation!”