To: Michael Oren: Ambassador of Israel From: Michael Caciopoli Re: For Israel and America, a Disagreement, not a Crisis Date: 18 March 2010 Dear Mr. Oren, As an American I support the nationhood and integrity of every country. But this support has conditions and for me is limited to nations that abide by international law. I was a young boy when the State of Israel was created by a United Nations decision. My support for the State of Israel is for the state that was defined by that decision and is no smaller or larger than that decision defined at the time in November1947. My support for the State of Israel does not extend to a state that confiscates property that it does not have a legal right to annex. In your op-ed piece for the New York Times refers to land ?incorporated into Israel in 1967? without reminding readers that that illegal confiscation took place after the Arab-Israeli war that year. However far back the policy of confiscation goes does not make it right, moral or legal. It is clear to this American that Israel takes risks not for peace but for its own self aggrandizement at the cost of the lives of real people who must be displaced to achieve its national goals that disregard the original mandate of 1947 as well as the basis for the armistice of 1949. Incorporation by any name is confiscation, and the people of Israel, whose ancestors have a long history of property being confiscated, should have a keen sense that this is the wrong thing to do. And Israel can not rely on continued support from Americans and the United States government when its policies fly in the face of international standards for nationhood. The state of Israel can not rationalize its illegal activities because it has ?frozen new construction projects in the West Bank?. The construction should not have started in the first place. If Israel has expectations for the Palestinians, it should be clear that we Americans have expectations for Israel and that the Palestinians also have expectations. These expectations are ignored by Israel at great cost to a sense of trust that must exist between nations and their peoples. One state can not impose its will and expectations, especially since the United Nations mandate of 1947 did not assume similar expectations for Israel. It is possible to envision a scenario when Israel is not ?a fundamental national self-interest on the part of the United States?. Israel has responsibilities to maintain its status with the people of the United States.
11-year-old wounded in suspected stabbing in central Israel (Haaretz)
from the article: U.S. general: Israel-Palestinian conflict foments anti-U.S. sentiment
Plan recognizes that two-state solution is not imminent, seeks to separate dozens of Jerusalem-area Palestinian villages from the city itself among other measures.11:26 08.02.16 | 0 comments