TT sprider falsk information, förvränger Reuters telegram.

I dagens TT-telegram kan man läsa:

Premiärminister Ariel Sharon säger i en intervju publicerad på söndagen att Israel kommer att behålla sina stora Västbanksbosättningar, i trots mot amerikanska invändningar.

Telegrammet signerat TT-Reuters, men i det motsvarande Reuters-telegrammet står det:

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said in a published interview on Sunday that Israel would keep building in its large West Bank settlements after a Gaza pullout, despite expected U.S. objections.

På sådant sätt förvränger TT amerikansk position om stora judiska bosättningar på Västbanken. USA invänder inte alls att Israel ska behålla stora judiska städer. Denna position uttrycktes tydligt bl a i George Bushs tal från den 14 april 2004:

As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders which should emerge from negotiations between the parties, in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. And all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

Reuters-telegrammet säger helt korrekt att det kan förväntas att USA ska invända mot att man bygger nya hem i de judiska städerna så länge gräsdragningen mellan Israel och palestinierna inte förhandlats fram. TT:s påstående att USA invänder mot att de stora judiska städer på Västbanken ska bli en del av Israel är däremot helt falskt.

Publicerat av TT-kritik 2005-09-11 kl. 11:46.

13 Svar till “TT sprider falsk information, förvränger Reuters telegram.”

  1. # Anonymous Guardian

    I vanlig ordning så har inte TT-kritik speciell ordning på händelserna.
    Att Bush uttaldade sig så är korrekt, dock tvingades han genast backa inför en ursinning kritik.

    "The twin moves are meant to offset the outrage in the Arab world provoked by Mr Bush's promises to Ariel Sharon last month that validated continued Jewish presence in settlements in the West Bank and denied Palestinian right of return to homes in what is now Israel. Mr Bush has distanced himself from earlier assurances that Israel could keep some West Bank territory.",3858,4919462-103681,00.html  

  2. # Anonymous Anonym

    Bushs inställning gäller fortfarande, trots ovanstående utdrag ur vänstertidningen Guardian. USA:s politik går att läsa på administrationens hemsidor, och hos State Department. Ingen annanstans görs den bedömning som tidningen Guardian gör. Det bästa är att lyssna direkt till hästens mun, som man brukar säga.  

  3. # Anonymous Guardian

    Aha ”Anonymus” slår till igen, det är verkligen fantastiskt med dessa israelmegafoner, som inte ens vågar ha ett nick…

    Oavsett så pratar du strunt, läs själv:

    “As I have previously stated, all final status issues must be negotiated between the parties in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. And the United States will not prejudice the outcome of those negotiations.”

    Hästens mun var det…..  

  4. # Blogger TT-kritik

    "United States will not prejudice the outcome of those negotiations"

    Översatt från diplomatispråket betyder det att USA inte ska diktera var gränsen ska gå. Frågan ska lösas genom förhandlingar. Observera även att citaten i brödtexten samt citaten i guardians inlägg tyder klart att U.S. inte betraktar resolutionen 242 på sådant sätt att Israel ska överlemna alla territorier som intogs under Sexdagarskriget.  

  5. # Anonymous Anonym

    Revisionisten Guardian gör bort sig igen. Bushs uttalande var bl.a. ett svar till kung Abdullah av Jordanien (leta gärna fram detta på Google), och arabvärldens förhandlingsposition, där de kräver att Israel ska retirera till vapenstilleståndslinjerna från 1949.

    Bush menar att detta inte är rimligt. Gränserna ska förhandlas fram, precis som resolution 242 och Färdplanen förespråkar.  

  6. # Anonymous Anonym

    Guardians lögner:

    "[Kofi Annan] remains firmly committed to the search for a just, comprehensive and lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, negotiated between the parties on the basis of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and the principle of "land for peace," and fulfilling the vision affirmed by the council last week in Resolution 1397 of "a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders."
    Spokesman for the Secy. General
    United Nations
    New York, March 21, 2002"  

  7. # Anonymous Anonym

    Utdrag ur artikel av Eugene W. Rostow, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State and former Dean of the Yale Law School. Han deltog i framtagandet av resolution 242:

    "It is common even for American journalists to write that [United Nations] Resolution 242 is "deliberately ambiguous," as if the parties are equally free to rely on their own reading of its key provisions.
    Nothing could be further from the truth. Resolution 242, which as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs between 1966 and 1969, I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces "from territories" it occupied during the Six-Day War - not from "the" territories, nor from "all" the territories, but some of the territories...
    Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from "all" the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the "fragile" and "vulnerable" Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called "secure and recognized" boundaries agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreement, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.
    ...The heated question of Israel settlements in the West Bank during the occupation period should be viewed in this perspective. The British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish People to "close settlement" in the whole of the Mandated territory. It was provided that local conditions might require Great Britain to "postpone" or "withhold" Jewish settlement in what is now Jordan. This was done in 1922. But the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine, west of the Jordan River, that is in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated, and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the UN Charter, "the Palestine Article," which provides that nothing in the Charter shall be construed… to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments…"
    ...Some governments have taken the view that under the Geneva Convention of 1949, which deals with the rights of civilians under military occupation, Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal, on the ground that the Convention prohibits an occupying power from flooding the occupied territory with its own citizens. President Carter supported this view, but President Reagan reversed him, specifically saying that the settlements are legal but that further settlements should be deferred since they pose an obstacle to the peace process.... [Reagan] said, "I have personally followed and supported Israel's heroic struggle for survival since the founding of the state of Israel thirty-four years ago: in the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again."
    Yet some Bush [Sr.] administration statements and actions on the Arab-Israeli question... betray[ed] a strong impulse to escape from the Resolutions as they were negotiated, debated, and adopted, and award to the Arabs all the territories between the 1967 lines and the Jordan River, including East Jerusalem. The Bush [Sr.] administration seem[ed] to consider the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to be "foreign" territory to which Israel has no claim. Yet the Jews have the same right to settle there as they have to settle in Haifa. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never parts of Jordan, and Jordan's attempt to annex the West Bank was not generally recognized and has now been abandoned. The two parcels of land are parts of the Mandate that have not yet been allocated to Jordan, to Israel, or to any other state, and are a legitimate subject for discussion…"  

  8. # Anonymous Anonym

    För den som har svårt att fatta juridisk text (ex. Guardian), finns det en enkel pdf-bild med kommentarer från dem som utarbetade res. 242.

    Klicka här och förstora bilden. I bildens högermarginal finns kommentarer från dem som skrev resolutionen.  

  9. # Anonymous Guardian

    ”På sådant sätt förvränger TT amerikansk position om stora judiska bosättningar på Västbanken. USA invänder inte alls att Israel ska behålla stora judiska städer.”
    ***Eftersom länken till GP var fel, hittade jag texten på DN:

    Frågan är nu alltså delvis om meningen som TT-Kritik hakade upp sig på denna gång är en felöversättning eller inte och vad den amerikanska ståndpunkten är..

    Värt att notera är att TT-Kritik inte säger är att textcitatet är en ingress till resten av artikeln. En ingress brukar i allmänhet berätta lite vad artikeln innehåller.
    Reuters artikel saknar ingress…

    För att bena ut saker och ting behöver man se på lite vad dom olika ståndpunkterna är, och här kan man genast se att TT-Kritik, väljer en gammal referens från 14/4 2004….

    För det första, vad är den amerikanska ståndpunkten?
    Så här sa Bush när Palestiniernas President Abbas var på besök den 26/5 2005:
    “Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.”

    Och vad var det som Ariel Sharon sa?
    enligt TT
    ”SHARON SÄGER till Washington Post inför arméns reträtt från Gazaremsan att han håller fast vid sin avsikt att behålla stora bosättningsblock på Västbanken, vilka fredsavtal som än ingås i framtiden. Byggandet på dem ska fortsätta såsom Israel anser lämpligt, tillade han.”

    Enligt Reuters:
    Sharon, speaking to the Washington Post newspaper on the eve of an army withdrawal from Gaza, reiterated his intention to retain large West Bank settlement blocs under any future peace deal and continue construction in them as Israel sees fit. "The major (settlement) blocs will stay as part of Israel ... yes, we have small-scale construction within the lines. ... even now there is construction," he said in comments likely to anger Palestinians who want the West Bank and Gaza for a state.

    Asked how he thought Washington would react to building in the occupied West Bank, which runs counter to a U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan, Sharon replied:
    "I don't think they will be too happy, but they are the major blocs, and we must build. We don't have an agreement with the United States about this, but these areas are going to be part of Israel."

    Det man enkelt ser är att Ariel Sharon säger att Israel tänker behålla massa bosättningar oavsett.
    Den amerikanska ståndpunkten är att de enda förändringarna som ska ske är dom som är gemensamt överenskomna med Palestinierna. Med andra ord finns det amerikanska invändningar mot att Israel ensidigt ska behålla dom stora bosättningsblocken, precis som TT rapporterade….  

  10. # Anonymous Magnus Hjort

    Tack TT-kritik för ännu ett bra avslöjande. TT är ingen nyhetsbyrå utan en samling palestinasjalar och en och annan Förintelseförnekare. TT måste läggas ned och byggas upp från grunden. Deras politiserade agenda gäller inte bara Mellanstern utn också USA och andra frågor där den antisemitiska extremvänsterns åsikter krockar med demokratiförespråkarnas.  

  11. # Blogger TT-kritik

    För att sätta punkt i diskutionen med "guardian":

    Dagens AP-telegram:

    Envoy: U.S. to Back Israeli Settlements

    JERUSALEM -- The outgoing U.S. ambassador to Israel said in an interview broadcast Sunday that President George W. Bush will back a request by Israel to keep larger West Bank settlement areas under its control in a permanent peace agreement with the Palestinians.  

  12. # Anonymous Guardian

    Så vitt man vet så är inte avgående israel-ambassadör Kurtzer samma person som President Bush…

    Vidare så är det bara att läsa innantill från artikeln…
    Kurtzer's language went slightly further than the original Bush letter, which did not speak of Israel retaining territory it captured in the 1967 Middle East war but said only that a return to the prewar borders of 1949 was unlikely.  

  13. # Anonymous Anonym

    what the hell are you talkin about one even knows what he/she is saying.
    HHHH lol  

Skicka en kommentar

© TT-kritik

website stats