FIGAROVOX/CHRONICLE – Gilles-William Goldnadel returns to the controversy sparked by Donald Trump's decision to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He considers that part of the French press ideologizes and hysterizes the subject without addressing the substantive debate.
Gilles-William Goldnadel is a lawyer and essayist. He is president of the France-Israel association. Every week, he deciphers the news for FigaroVox.
We may know that Jerusalem drives people crazy and that Donald Trump drives people hysterical, but the way in which part of the press reported on the latest news from Jerusalem undermines common sense.
Of course, we have the right to say everything about the controversial decision of the American president, unesco jerusalem, to transfer his country's diplomatic premises from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
One can perfectly think that this decision will throw oil on the embers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for nothing. And the author of these lines is not far from considering it. We can say anything and prophesy. Arguably, it is these prophecies of the worst that are the best fuel for violent passion. That complacently anticipating radicalism is the best way to become its auxiliary. After all, the Jews did not threaten anyone after Unesco (including France) challenged their historical ties to Jerusalem. We can say anything, except anything. Everything, except blatant untruths.
The past week provides a sad example of what ideology is capable of concealing or disguising, even when its job is to inform. How, then, can we hope that the misguided public will be able to form an informed, fair and balanced judgment?
Thus, on December 7, in its severe editorial, Le Monde writes: "If the Israeli government was installed in Jerusalem in 1948, East Jerusalem was entirely Arab until 1967."
This is perfectly true, except that it is singularly missing the essential: if East Jerusalem was "entirely Arab" until 1967, it is because the Jordanian army had expelled thousands of Jews from it during the 1948 war. who had mainly lived there for centuries, their holy places being forbidden until 1967. Hiding this ethnic and religious cleansing while arguing about its consequences is literally dizzying.
The next day, December 8, the same evening daily published a new article on the same subject: “Why is recognition by Donald Trump a problem?”.
Let's read this sentence carefully: “In 1947, the United Nations (UN) voted to divide Palestine into two states: one Arab, the other Jewish. Jerusalem is excluded from this plan and must pass under the control of the UN, which guarantees freedom of access to places of worship. However, in 1949, after the end of the British mandate and a first war with Arab countries, the young State of Israel transferred its capital from Tel Aviv to West Jerusalem. Let's close our eyes to the fact that the newspaper contradicts itself overnight on this "capital" of Tel-Aviv which was never transferred by the Israeli government from 1948 to 1949. Again, the same incredible concealment. Nothing, just a small detail: even though the daily insists on the administrative location of the capital of the Jewish state in West Jerusalem, it forgets to mention that Jordan with its Arab Legion, after having defeated and expelled the Jews, physically occupied East Jerusalem without right while prohibiting them from coming to pray in their largely devastated sacred places.
At this degree of concealment of the facts, the spectator, even if he is committed as the author of these lines, remains powerless to want to reason.
Similarly, the whole of the French press thought it necessary to present the controversial initiative, of the controversial American, as a “recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel”. New untruth. It was the American Congress in 1995, under Bill Clinton, which adopted this legislative provision almost unanimously, consequently ordering the transfer of the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It is only for security reasons that successive American presidents have stalled. Beloved Obama in 2008, during a visit, recalled that for America: “Jerusalem was the capital of Israel”. He did not ignite fire from heaven. Russia last April pronounced the same creed without the sky falling on Putin's head.
We have every right to think and to say that this type of decision upsets the Arab-Muslim party whose rights to the holy city are also inalienable or contradicts the UN partition plan of 1947, so damaged by the Arab refusal to its application. It is perfectly possible to consider that the practical decision taken by the extrovert president is motivated by internal considerations. The comments are perfectly free, but the truth is strictly binding.
Source: Goldnadel: Jerusalem, the confiscated debate?