Doc's Talk: "Gratitude"

Sunday, March 23, 2008

"Gratitude"

Arlene Kushner

Gratitude first on a national level. We seem to have gotten through Purim without a major terror attack, which is no small thing. (Purim is was over Friday night every where but the walled cities of Jerusalem and Sefat, which celebrated Sushan Purim today.)

There was a time when Purim was a prime choice of terrorists for launching their evil plans upon us. And always during Purim the country is on high alert.

And then, I am grateful beyond words for the simcha (joy) I experienced this Purim with my kids and 10 grandchildren. Such moments of pure happiness are rare in life and must be savored and appreciated. Vice President Cheney is here.

While I remain mindful of the fact that he does represent the Bush administration and Bush policy, the truth is that, knowing his background with regard to Israel, I trust him in a way I would never trust Rice.

Last night Cheney said: "America's commitment to Israel's security is enduring and unshakeable, as is our commitment to Israel's right to defend itself always against terrorism rocket attacks and other threats from forces dedicated to Israel's destruction...The US will never pressure Israel to take steps that threaten his security."

What I say about this is that I'm reasonably confident that if it were up to him, there would be no pressure on us that threatens our security. Haval (a pity) that it's not solely up to him.

Then...sigh... he did go on to talk about the "peace process." Yes, he said that peace "requires painful concessions." (That again -- it seems to be considered de rigeur. But he said it in Ramallah after meeting with Abbas.) And that, citing the president, a Palestinian state is "long overdue." But even so, he also went on record as saying that while "we continue to work for peace, we must not, and shall not, ignore the darkening of shadows of the situation in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Syria and in Iran, and the forces there that are working to derail the hopes of the world."

While he is dealing with the "peace process" during his brief visit, my impression is that the priority in Cheney's discussions with Israeli officials is Iran. He met with Olmert last night, this morning met with Peres -- who warned that if the Golan were returned to Syria it would end up in Iran's hands -- and Netanyahu -- who warned that withdrawal from any part of Jerusalem would make room for Iran to move in. Then on to Ramallah for meetings, and returning to meet one more time with Olmert.

~~~~~~~~~~

This is a time when definitive reporting is difficult because so much is unresolved and rumors fly so fast. Let us look here at major issues on the table:

The Fatah-Hamas meetings in Yemen. Fatah wants Gaza returned to its control. Hamas wants Haniyeh restored to the position of prime minister of the PA (moving out Fayyad, who was appointed by Abbas in place of Haniyeh after the Hamas takeover in Gaza). From my perspective it seems that if they are interested in the status quo ante in one respect they have to accept the whole package -- when Fatah controlled Gaza, Haniyeh was PM -- and yet each party seeks only what is perceived as advantageous to its own strength.

So, what we've heard in the last few days is that they were close to an agreement, and then that they'd run into stumbling blocks. That Fatah almost walked out. That Hamas is balking.

Now a report has come from Yemen that they've signed an agreement, at a ceremony in San'a, the capital, at which Yemeni president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, was present. The agreement, which is being referred to as the "San'a Declaration," says that they "accept the Yemeni initiative as a framework for resuming dialogue" that will enable them to "to return the Palestinian situation to what it was before the Gaza incidents."

This does not mean that the issues have been resolved, but rather that they intend to try to resolve them. Dialogue is supposed to resume in April in San'a, and will be based on the Yemeni initiative, which includes a unity government and merged "national" security forces.

~~~~~~~~~~

The implications of this are huge.

There is the possibility that Rice and members of the EU will twist themselves into pretzels trying to find a way to continue the peace process even though Hamas doesn't recognize Israel. There was a time when I would have thought this ridiculous, but so much has transpired that is incredible, I am no longer certain.

Can anyone imagine Rice getting up forthrightly and saying, "We misjudged. Abbas is not the man who thought he was and he certainly does not merit continued support from the US. Any notion of promoting a two-state solution now is not viable." Nah...

But this is not likely to play well with Congress, which was sold a bill of goods about Abbas needing US largesse to serve as a bulwark against Hamas radicalism.

As I see it, in any event, if there is an agreement Hamas will come out the victor, given more credibility and the latitude to call the shots to a large degree. Fatah is weaker than it was when the first unity government was established, and Hamas was dominant then.

~~~~~~~~~~

With all this, however, a new state of affairs may emerge that provides Israel with the latitude to assume a different, far more realistic posture. From the beginning Israel stated unequivocally that there would be no negotiations if Abbas dealt with Hamas.

An unnamed Israeli official has reported that a message has been sent to Abbas informing him that final status negotiations would stop if a unity government was to be formed. Israel didn't say that as he's talking with Hamas that is itself enough justification for halting negotiations. This would only be the case if there was a unity government, which hasn't yet been established by this agreement.

As I'm fond of saying, we will have to watch this closely.

~~~~~~~~~~

Right now there is also the whole issue of the efforts by Egypt to negotiate a truce between Hamas and Israel.

From the Israeli side comes indication that this is highly unlikely, in part because weapons smuggling is continuing. But also -- I must believe -- because Hamas is seeking a "comprehensive" truce that includes Judea and Samaria, and just at a time when Hamas is gaining strength there.

Certainly top IDF officials are opposed to a truce, some fearing that Hamas would see this as a "reward." Their preference is for additional operations such as the one the IDF did two weeks ago.

But from Hamas and Islamic Jihad sources come reports of such a truce being close, with Egypt having delivered word of this on behalf of Israel. What is being said is that Israel will offer a one year truce if Hamas stops firing rockets. But this doesn't meet Israel's stipulations. Meanwhile, Al Hayat reported today that the Egyptians said that while Israel preferred a truce only in Gaza, they were willing to consider a "compehensive" deal. I don't believe everything I read, but I remain cautiously skeptical.

What amused me today was this: Abu Toameh reports that Egypt summoned Hamas and Islamic Jihad to an urgent meeting last night and "warned" them to stop smuggling weapons. The thrust of this message is that a deal will be possible if they stop. But we are not so foolish. Israel has stipulated, at a minimum, that Egypt had to seal the border with Gaza so there could be no smuggling. A "warning" does not suffice.

~~~~~~~~~~

Yet another -- related -- issue must be mentioned here: That is the question of who supervises crossings into Gaza. Hamas monitoring, which is a joke, is not acceptable to Israel. But neither is Fatah monitoring, as this would lead to Hamas control of the situation. Even when Fatah was stronger, and in control of Gaza, it allowed Hamas to smuggle weapons. And now?

Egypt is said to be working out all sorts of deals on this issue.

Of course, ultimately a unity government may have to be factored into this equation.

~~~~~~~~~~

Hezbollah claims to have "100% proof" that Israel is responsible for the murder of Mughniyeh. The traditional 40 day mourning period has just ended and Israel intends to maintain high alert at all international Israeli installations such a embassies and consulates, as well as at the border with Lebanon.

~~~~~~~~~~

A recent Palestinian poll shows that 84% of the people approved the massacre at Mercaz Harav, and 64% support rocket attacks.

~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk