Doc's Talk: Why pass this resolution now or at all?

Sunday, March 02, 2008

Why pass this resolution now or at all?

Ted Belman

I was shocked to receive a note from Dr Paul Eidelberg advising that The Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) had endorsed for the first time a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The umbrella organization representing 14 national Jewish groups and 125 local Jewish community relations councils, resolved that

“the organized American Jewish community should affirm its support for two independent, democratic and economically viable states — the Jewish state of Israel and a state of Palestine– living side-by-side in peace and security.” The JCPA includes, inter alia, the Orthodox Union (OU) and the American Jewish Congress. I wrote to all members of the Coordinating Council for Jerusalem, an umbrella organization dedicated to preserving Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.,

By endorsing this resolution is the OU and the others saying they support a two-state solution regardless if it necessitates the division of Jerusalem? Or do they mean they are only endorsing it if Jerusalem remains undivided? Unfortunately the resolution implies the former.

Furthermore, how can one support a solution that is unachievable?

If the resolution is nothing more than wishful thinking or a platitude, why bother?

What motivated the need to support this resolution now?

Who is behind this effort?

To my mind this resolution is very detrimental as it makes it harder for alternates to be forwarded.

Within minutes I was advised by Nathan Diament, the OU Director of the Institute for Public Affairs, of the following CLARIFICATION: OU POSITION AND ROLE ON JCPA RESOLUTION

The Orthodox Union is a member agency of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) and participated in its annual conference this week.

As reported in the media, the JCPA debated and adopted a resolution with regard to the Israeli - Palestinian peace process. The media report, however, did not fully and accurately present the Orthodox Union’s position and activities with regard to the resolution; we do so here.

The OU delegation engaged in the debate over this resolution by proposing and/or opposing provisions of or amendments to the resolution text. The following were the actions of the OU on this matter:

The OU attempted to remove the resolution’s text which would have, for the first time, put JCPA on record in support of the “two state solution” - but we were defeated by a vote of the delegates to the JCPA.

The OU succeeded in inserting into the resolution’s text the statement that “Israel’s repeated offers to establish ‘two democratic states living side by side in peace and security’ have been met, time after time, by violence, incitement and terror.”

The OU attempted to remove the resolution’s text calling for American Jewish support for any negotiations by the Israeli government over the re-division of Jerusalem - but we were defeated by a vote of the delegates to the JCPA.

The OU succeeded in inserting into the resolution text which calls upon the American Jewish community to support Israel’s insistence upon being recognized by the Palestinian Authority as a “Jewish state.”

The OU succeeded in defeating a proposed amendment to the resolution text which would have stated that the American Jewish community views the establishment or expansion of Israeli settlements as an “impediment to peace.”

At the conclusion of the debate and amendment process, the OU delegation abstained from the vote on final passage of the resolution and informed the JCPA of our intention to file a formal, written dissent from the portions of the resolution with which the OU disagrees.

I was satisfied with this position. I then send the same note to key officials with the American Jewish Congress and David Twersky, its Director of International Affairs, wrote back within minutes with its position. He then asked me not to use his statement because he wanted to amend it and I asked him to call which he did.

I advised the OU and everyone on the CCJ of our conversation,

David’s position and that of the American Jewish Congress is that if Israel doesn’t cut a deal that we will be confronted by demands for a bi-national state. So in effect they support Olmer/Livni/Rice/Bush approach. So does the JCPA. The only issue is whether the US should impose a solution of leave it to the parties to dance around.

He believes that the two-state solution is the least worst of all “solutions”.

I am not satisfied that all the alternatives have been fully considered.

Perhaps the status quo is the best option at the moment. I also recognize that there is no such thing as a status quo. It is always changing. It is imperative that Israel channel that change in ways that st5rengthen its claims rather than weaken it claims. At the moment it is trying to enable facts on the ground in Jerusalem which will facilitate dividing it rather than keeping it al.

I suggest that we should hold some king of conference to fully air the status quo and all options.

In my conversation with David Twersky we had a major disagreement. He was adamant that the Saudi Plan offer a peace agreement and I was equally adamant that it only offered the possibility of normalization after Israel withdrew to the ‘49 Armistice Lines.

Ami Isseroff suggested I look at the The Arab Peace Initiative in which the Arab League,

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries

5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighbourliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity

A quick reading would suggest that Twersky is right but do not be taken in.

The Middle East Intelligence Bulletin entitled Syria and the Saudi Peace Initiative in 2002 discussed the amendments to the Saudi plan as a result of Syrian protestations.

The Summit Resolution

The Arab League summit transformed Abdullah’s simple declaration of principles into a more convoluted resolution that is less likely to achieve a breakthrough with Israel. Although Syrian efforts to replace the term “full normalization” with “complete peace” were unsuccessful, they were able to reduce it to the watered-down phrase “normal relations” (alaqat tab’iyya), which carries a very different connotation in Arabic - meaning the establishment of relations that are not unusual, rather than a process of improving political, economic, and cultural ties.

A far more critical amendment to the Saudi proposal concerns the status of Palestinian refugees from within Israel’s pre-1967 borders. The resolution added the demand for a “just solution to the Palestinian Refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194″ and, at the insistence of Syrian and Lebanese delegates, a phrase affirming “the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.”

The reason for this added amendment was that Resolution 194 refers to compensation for refugees “choosing not to return,” implying that they should be given a choice. The phrase “special circumstances” refers to the Lebanese constitution, which bans the patriation of refugees. Thus, with respect to the 350,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, the Arab League resolution calls not for their “right of return” (as the Palestinian delegation lobbied for), but mandates that they must be settled in Israel.

I never understood what para 4 (Palestinian patriation) ’til now.

Totally aside from the fact that there is no way Israel will accept these terms for any number of reasons, which means there will be no “normal relations” or peace agreement in the offing, there is no recognition here of Israel as a Jewish State.

In this regard, the PA has been adamant that it will not relent in its demand for the right of return and will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Nor will it relent on its demand for East Jerusalem to be its capital.

Since it provides for the return also of the Golan, Syria effectively has been given a veto.

This is not news to the people involved in negotiations as can be seen in my article “Annapolis” is a separation process, not a peace process.

That being the case, how do we understand yesterday’s resolution,

“the organized American Jewish community should affirm its support for two independent, democratic and economically viable states — the Jewish state of Israel and a state of Palestine– living side-by-side in peace and security.”

We don’t. It is an affirmation of the goal of the Roadmap with the word “contiguous” left out consciously or otherwise, and it is silent on Jerusalem and the right of return. It seems to me that there was no need for such a statement but my guess is the Government of Israel wanted it to counter the Arab threat to withdraw their initiative or to undermine the position of the CCJ and the Israeli public which is demanding no division of Jerusalem. In effect, it gives approval for the continuation of negotiations for a two state solution knowing that there is no deal other than the Saudi Plan which is just a mirage as I have pointed out. To my mind, to support the two-state solution is to support the Saudi Plan, because there is no other way it will come into being.

James Woolsey Jr, former Director of the CIA recently spoke in Toronto and said “Two-state Solution out of reach”. Read the article because he had other important things to say on the Middle East.

From my point of view, the JCPA should have sided with the people and not with the Government or should have stayed on the sidelines.

I suspect that this resolution was initiated by Olmert who created the controversy over whether Jews in the Diaspora had a right to a say on Jerusalem. He has in effect co-opted them to be supportive of the peace process.

Ted Belman

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