-3

From CNN's November 8, 2023 White House warns Israel over post-war plans for Gaza

CNN: I wanted to play for you sound from Jordan's Queen Rania, she's been very outspoken. She's also, ah, Jordan is a very critical ally in the region for the United States. Take a listen:

QUEEN RANIA: If you manage to eliminate all of Hamas, what next? The root cause of this conflict is an illegal occupation. It is routine human rights abuses, illegal settlements, a disregard to U.N. resolutions and international law. If we do not address these root causes, then you can kill the combatant, but you cannot kill the cause.

She is of Palestinian descent.

note 1: She says "an illegal occupation" which could suggest Israel itself rather than several expansions and occupations (plural).

Question: What is the illegal occupation of which Queen Rania speaks? Is it all of Israel, or just some parts - perhaps settlements or expansions beyond some 20th century established boundaries?

note 2: It will likely be necessary to find the source from which CNN has taken this clip without context (I triedl but failed), and/or to examine her position(s) from other of her numerous speeches and writings, in order to generate fact-based answers.

uhoh
  • 16,541
  • 3
  • 76
  • 172
  • 2
    Jordan has recognized Israel and has a peace treaty so... the answer seems a bit obvious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Jordan_peace_treaty – the gods from engineering Nov 07 '23 at 21:47
  • @Fizz No, not at all! I have not asked about Jordan's official position, I've asked about the position of a specific public figure. Unless you're asserting that she's a puppet... – uhoh Nov 07 '23 at 21:49
  • 1
    Do you really think she's going to have (and publicly state) a different position than the official one? Why do you think she would do that? – the gods from engineering Nov 07 '23 at 21:50
  • @Fizz what I think is not important here. She says "an illegal occupation" which is singular, which suggests to me that it's NOT about several smaller occupations, but Israel itself. (I'll point that out in the question) She seems well educated and well spoken in English - use of singular doesn't appear to be an accident. So I'm asking for clarity by finding context. "Why do you think she would do that?" That's exactly what we don't do here, we don't try to get into people's heads. Let's find the fulll statement and additional context and get a fact-based answer. – uhoh Nov 07 '23 at 21:52
  • 5
    @Fizz "I didn't find the answer in five minutes therefore nobody could ever find or know anything further" is a characteristic of Politics SE that is not replicated in other SE sites. If we don't know the answer, we wait and see what the other smart folks in the community might contribute. Voting to quickly prevent anyone from answering just because we don't know the answer is not what the feature is for. "and/or to examine her position(s) from other of her numerous speeches and writings, in order to generate fact-based answers." – uhoh Nov 07 '23 at 21:59
  • 1
    It's perfectly grammatical in English to collectively refer to the occupation of e.g. Gaza and the West Bank (by whatever definition) and any other non-contiguous territory in the singular. Example. I guess it's reasonable to ask if Rania regards Israel in toto as an illegal occupation (to which the answer seems to clearly be no), but the question seems based on a misapprehension. – Stuart F Nov 08 '23 at 15:10
  • @StuartF No the question is not based on that, it's just what got me wondering. Thus I asked the question "Does Queen Rania of Jordan characterize all of Israel as an illegal occupation, or just some parts?" in order to find out. It's helpful to the answer authors to include some background, and to answer the "Why do you think...?" comments that appear almost immediately if you don't include such things. Once you get some experience asking questions in this site, you'll see what I mean. – uhoh Nov 08 '23 at 15:15
  • "is a characteristic of Politics SE that is not replicated in other SE sites". Perhaps you (and the other 4 people who upvoted that comment) should visit History.SE more. There's a 'too basic' closure reason there. Here it's sometimes hard to know whether someone really didn't know or find easy to find stuff or are just trying to make a point. – the gods from engineering Nov 08 '23 at 16:04
  • 1
    @Fizz Mind-reading is indeed a challenge (when push-detecting, or just reading/watching the news), and it's even harder for some of us than others. For me sometimes even when apparently articulate people say things in a way that some folks would characterize as plainly, I still can't get their gist because I lack some specific context, linguistic skill or some cluster of synapses that neurotypical people have. But I think I've worked hard here and elsewhere to avoid being an actual "pusher" or even appearing like one.

    I might have encountered some "too basic" & anti-push in History SE:

     – uhoh Nov 09 '23 at 21:30
  • Fair enough. The part that was raising some question marks [with me] is when you said "unless you're asserting that she's a puppet". Often people don't explicitly re-assert stuff that they agree with, but it can be deduced from context. – the gods from engineering Nov 09 '23 at 21:34
  • @Fizz How is History SE not like Skeptics SE? and this but here in Politics SE sometimes I just don't understand something and need help finding my way throuth the words, for example What exactly is the "Trout" in this D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion? Does it suggest a political motive of a judge? – uhoh Nov 09 '23 at 21:35
  • @Fizz and Help understanding Justice Breyer's “If A can do it, B can do it." and How does Florida's Governor DeSantis explain that Common Core is bad for Florida & why are Math textbooks referencing it rejected for use there? – uhoh Nov 09 '23 at 21:35
  • I'm generally not fond of Qs that ask for super-explicit statements when [I think] it's unreasonable to expect those or a waste of time to search for them. See my comment under https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/82420/did-the-u-s-administration-give-an-official-reason-as-to-why-it-opposes-an-isra for instance. – the gods from engineering Nov 09 '23 at 21:36
  • @Fizz as for "unless she's a puppet" I felt that automatically assuming that Queen Rania would always faithrully parrot Jordon's foreign policy positions and not allowing for the possibility that being from Palestinian descent her own views might be at least nuanced was not a productive comment. I'm asking about her position, and you replied with state policy as if there could be no light between them. – uhoh Nov 09 '23 at 21:42
  • @Fizz if you're not fond of a question, why not just leave it alone and wait for the next question (they come very quickly here) and let others who may like it better have a go? I don't know about you, but for people who have notifications or feeds or whatever those are turned on start taking each question notification personally since it ends up on their personal device screens. – uhoh Nov 09 '23 at 21:43
  • I see. Alas it's not hard to read your response as implying most Palestinians want a Hamas-type solution of erasing Israel. – the gods from engineering Nov 09 '23 at 21:44
  • @Fizz there are several ways to interpret "an illegal occupation", some of which could be startling, some of which could be nuanced, some of which could be simple. From time to time a question or a comment can have a Rorschachian effect, people see them as impling something that they're already "on the lookout" for. It's why exchanges in short ASCII blurbs can often go sideways. Anyway, hopefully over enough time and enough ASCII we generate some reputation for trying to ask and comment in good faith. – uhoh Nov 09 '23 at 21:49

2 Answers2

4

  • "The root cause of this conflict is an illegal occupation." You're mistakenly assuming she construes "conflict" there to refer just to the 2023 war or just to the conflict between Hamas and Israel. It's not unheard of for [somewhat] pro-Palestinian voices to refer to the background (wider conflict) to this round of fighting as necessary to understand it. They can phrase that in various ways, see the UN chief or Obama.

  • "illegal occupation" and not "illegal occupations" because "illegal occupation of Palestinian territories" is a common phrase and she is clearly speaking rather fast there, so it's not unexpected to hear incomplete expressions. (You seem to be just as befuddled as Fox News is [or pretends to be] when Obama uses that shorthand "occupation" expression, by the way.)

  • In her longer CNN interview with Amanpour, Queen Rania refers to the Wall in the West Bank as being illegal (with allusion to the 2004 ICJ decision) and so forth. And even in the short bit you've quoted, she adds 'illegal settlements', which is another shorthand for the often argued-about expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. (Israel has dismantled their settlements in Gaza, right before their 2005 ground-troops pullout.)

“Most networks are covering the story under the title of ‘Israel at war.’ But for many Palestinians on the other side of the separation wall, on the other side of the barbed wire, war has never left,” she said.

“This is a 75-year-old story, a story of overwhelming death and displacement to the Palestinian people. It is a story of an occupation under apartheid regime, that occupies lands, that demolishes houses, confiscates lands, military incursions, night raids.”

  • Jordan has signed a piece treaty with Israel, so they do recognize Israel. There is little reason to assume Queen Rania does not, or even if she somehow thinks that that she'd publicly contradict the official position of Jordan on that, given her quasi-official status as a speaker. (She [approvingly] refers to speeches of her husband often enough in her interviews, in general agreement.) Likewise, it's been the long-standing policy of Jordan to seek a two-state solution to the Palestinian problem, although they want Israel to make some territorial concessions [to the Palestinians--that matter is not settled by the Jordan-Israel treaty]:

The latest violence - which broke out when Hamas militants assaulted Israel at the weekend - showed the region would not "enjoy stability, security or peace" without a sovereign Palestinian state on land that Israel had captured in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, he [the king] said.

That is with reference to the pre-67 armistice border.

the gods from engineering
  • 158,594
  • 27
  • 390
  • 806
1

There are two distinct territories where the majority of Palestinians are currently forced to live - the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

The "singular" illegal occupation she is referring to is to the territory of Gaza strip that Israel occupied and still blockades (in effect, still controlling it). This can be inferred from her earlier reference to Hamas, who dominate the area and operate from there. And her later statements specifically referencing the citizens of Gaza.

References:

  1. Hear what Queen Rania of Jordan said about Hamas and the 'root cause' of the conflict

  2. Israel must lift illegal and inhumane blockade on Gaza as power plant runs out of fuel

  3. Who are Israeli settlers, and why do they live on Palestinian lands?

sfxedit
  • 8,898
  • 1
  • 23
  • 50