Thomas R. Nides: Another clueless American Ambassador to Israel?

• Published date: 10 April 2022
• Publication title: Israel National News (Israel)

"Unlike those sent to virtually every other country on the planet, American ambassadors to Israel are not there to foster better relations between the two governments. Instead, they act as imperial proconsuls whose task is to order client states around. Instead of helping Israel, they have sought to treat its democratically elected governments as wayward children who don't know what's best for them and to impose harmful policies on them regardless of the will of the Israeli people….." Jonathan S. Tobin

In keeping with this offensive, patronizing and injurious tradition, of which the Trump administration was a welcome breath of fresh air, Thomas R. Nides, the newest American ambassador to Israel, apparently believes it is his right and duty to dictate how Israel should conduct her affairs. And he is quite adamant and arrogant about his responsibility to do so. Why? Because, as he said in an Americans for Peace Now webinar, "I care deeply about this country and its people." And after all, " I just want to do the right thing."

Ambassador Nides clearly has impressive mangerial experience, but apparently has minimal knowledge about the history of the region. Below are a few examples of his failure to understand the nature of the conflict. He might start by remembering that former president Trump and former PM Binyamin Netanyahu proved by actions, that it is possible to strike warm peace agreements with Arab countries in the region without regard to any of the "Palestinian" issues that seem to concern so many diplomats.

Using the Term West Bank Instead of Judea and Samaria

During the Mandate (1920-1948), Judea, Samaria, and Gaza were the official names of these areas, designated "Districts," according to Paul S. Riebenfeld, a political scientist and international jurist. The terms were used by the Arab and Jewish population, the Mandate administration, the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations, and mentioned in the Report of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine in 1947. These are not archaic or antiquated terms, even though they are biblical names, as the media delights in constantly repeating.

Using the names Judea, Samaria, and Gaza Riebenfeld adds was the natural result of the historical link expressed in the reconstitution of Palestine conveyed in the preamble of the British Mandate: "Recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." It is important to note, "The Romans renamed the Jewish state Palaestina after conquering Judea perhaps in a failed effort to sunder its connection to the Jewish people."

The term "West Bank" Riebenfeld noted, originated in 1950 when Jordan illegally annexed Judea and Samaria to differentiate it from the East Bank, which is Jordan. The Arab states and the US did not recognize the annexation; only Britain and Pakistan did.

Pushing A Two State Solution

Not long after the Six Day War, Jacob L. Talmon, a Hebrew University history professor, raised the question at a meeting of leading Arab and Jewish intellectuals in Jerusalem who met rather regularly, if there had ever been another case in history, where the victor has been expected to withdraw from conquered territory before the defeated party agreed to discuss peace terms, where the vanquished had openly avowed he would never make peace under any circumstances, would never recognize the right of the victor to exist… but would continue to pursue his mission to destroy and annihilate the victor until he succeeded? [**is this a quote or a paraphrase?**]

How does one justify that Israel is the only state expected to give up their own land in the hope the Arabs will reciprocate by agreeing to live in "peace?" These territories were acquired in defensive wars, while other states are permitted to retain territories conquered in wars of aggression. It is acceptable for countries to defend themselves against aggressors. When Israel defends herself, however, Jewish self-defense is labelled aggression.

Not asking: Do the Arabs Really Want A Separate Arab State?

Do the Arabs living in Israel, Gaza or Judea and Samaria even want a separate Jewish and Arab state? The answer is clearly no. Nothing has changed since Jamal el-Hussein, representing the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, wrote to UN Secretary-General Trygve Lie on February 6, 1948: "The Arabs of Palestine … will never submit or yield to any Power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out—man, woman, and child," which is precisely what the Arabs had planned for the Jews.

The goal to annihilate Israeli Jews is still very much an imperative. In an article published on January 21, 2020, Itamar Marcus, founder and director of Palestinian Media Watch, said that Palestinian Arabs believe the Jewish threat to humanity can only be stopped by exterminating every Jew.

When the PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas was asked to recognize the Jewish state, he said, "Don't order us to recognize a Jewish state. We won't accept it." As far as he is concerned, Israel can call itself "The Zionist republic, the Hebrew, the National, [or] the Socialist [Republic] call it whatever you like. I don't care."

After four Israelis were murdered in a terror attack in Beersheba on March 3, 2022, PA TV and Facebook called the terrorist a shaheed. and re ongoing incitement: Mahmoud al Habash, advisor to Abbas, stated on radio Filastin that Israel is...