Jason Chaffetz tweeted the following on September 23, 2009:
I am outraged by the President's comments at the U.N. His approach to the Israel-Palestinian situation is wrong on many fronts.
President wants discussions "without preconditions." I disagree. We should always stand tall for Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.
Also, the President's characterization that Israel should "end the occupation that began in 1967" is offensive and wrong.
I was a little confused by this.
Ya see, Chaffetz said "I disagree. We should always stand tall for Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state."
But President Obama specifically called for "a Jewish State of Israel, with true security for all Israelis."
Where's the disagreement?
Chaffetz then says that the President is wrong to call the Israeli occupation of land it annexed (and is not legally Israeli territory) an occupation.
But the President isn't wrong. The crux of the modern conflict between Israel and Palestine has been the Israeli-occupied territories. It's called an occupation because that's what it is.
Chaffetz is obviously disagreeing with the President for the sake of being disagreeable (and to get his name in the news again) while simultaneously making himself and the state he represents look like an uninformed horse's ###.
2 comments:
You are spot on, Joseph.
Check out my blog; I write about this extensively:
http://dissentiscool.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/a-very-modern-conflict-the-battle-for-palestine/
Chaffetz, like most Americans, is completely ignorant about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The fact is, the territories are held illegally, should be restored to the Palestinians so they can gain statehood, and our President wants to bring about (for the first time) an even-handed approach to this conflict.
Not only is this a moral imperative, but it will also make the U.S. and Israel safer. So long as Israel maintains control over the terrirtories, the territories will control the destiny of Israel. By creating a Palestinian state, we would remove the single largest grievance held against the U.S. in the Arab world. It would also allow the Arab states to normalize relations with Israel, something they cannot do right now, due to public sentiment against Israel and the U.S. People like bin Laden would have nothing to gripe about.
Long story short, Chaffetz has no clue. How is it "offensive" to describe the occupation of Israel in the occupied territories as an "occupation"? It is an occupation! And, as far as I know, Israel has maintained the longest military occupation in modern times.
Too bad you don't have to know world facts to be elected in my district. sigh...
Post a Comment