Doc's Talk: The “peace process” is a loser’s game

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

The “peace process” is a loser’s game

Ted Belman

Often our efforts are to no avail and unfortunately we must be reminded of that time and again.

American Friends of Likud just held a worldwide conference on “Israel at the Crossroads: The Palestinians and Gaza in the Shadow of Iran” featuring MK Yuval Steinitz, Maj. - Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror and Dan Diker. Their remarks were recorded and available HERE.

In essence they advise the current government on its pursuit of peace through the peace process, that “Es vet dir gournisht helphen.”. More importantly, they argue it will hurt you/us.

Iran, through its proxies Hamas and Hezballah is intent on dominating the Middle East, not just Israel. While Nasser tried to mobilize the Arab world against Israel in a more secular age, Ahmedinejad seeks to mobilize the Islamic world against, first Israel, then the “moderate” Arab states and then the world.

Israel had two very bad options; fight them now or fight them later. Instead the Government of Israel is hoping to avoid the war by giving away the farm. In some misguided way it believes that if Israel is generous with its concessions, the international community and the Arabs will be more generous in return. Unfortunately the more Israel gives, the less respect Israel receives for its rights.

The international community recognized Israel’s “historic rights to the land” in the Palestine Mandate. Since then Israel’s historic rights have been replaced with the Palestinian narrative as the dominant principle.

In Res 242, the Security Council authorized Israel’s occupation of Judea and Samaria until it had negotiated secure and recognized borders. It was understood by all that Israel must have defensible borders and thus had the right to retain some of the land for that purpose. That’s why the Arab states unanimously rejected Israel at the Khartoum Conference. They voted for “no recognition, no negotiations, no peace”.

They finally accepted Res 242, or at least their interpretation of it, as a prelude to the Oslo Accords. Because of the Arab Intifadah, Oslo morphed into the Roadmap, the key condition of which was, its phases, requiring the end to incitement and violence before final status issues were to be discussed. Israel was thus protected from negotiating such issues under fire. But the price exacted by the Roadmap was that the Saudi Plan was part of it, though it denied the true meaning of Res 242.

I remember telling Joseph Alexander Norland, the founder of Israpundit, that I was concerned that this protection might be abandoned. This surprised him as it was clearly agreed to by all.

Sharon departed from this Roadmap by bulldozing through the Disengagement. Aside from all the false assurances we were given about how the international community would love us more or that if the Gazans acted up we would retaliate in force, we were also given the false assurances in the two Letters from Bush that suggested that there would be no right of return and that the major settlement blocks would be retained.

The problem with the Roadmap as the peaceniks saw it, was that progress was being held hostage to the requirement that all violence stop first. This was intolerable to them because they wanted to reach a peace agreement more than they wanted to protect Israel from violence. They believed that only an international agreement would secure Israel. As Stalin might have said, “how many divisions does a peace agreement have.” I say the same.

Annapolis was born out of two considerations, namely, the desire to reach an agreement and the need to isolate Iran.

With respect to the later issue I commented Everyone is switching to the radicals, US included indicating it didn’t work and two days later Of “moderates” and radicals. suggesting there was no difference.

Dr Steinitz said while there may be differences, they all agree on the destruction of Israel. Furthermore he asks how can we demand the world stand up to Iran and do something while Israel is bowing down to Hamas?

Maj-Gen Amigdor stressed that although Egypt and S Arabia both consider Iran a threat, such perception doesn’t prevent them from supporting Hamas, Iran’s proxy, to arm itself against Israel. Israel must plan and act against the regional threat, i.e., Iran Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria. He totally rejects the agreement with Hamas, written or unwritten, negotiated through third parties or not. Israel’s choice is to fight now at great cost or fight later at greater cost.

Dan Diker was the most interesting speaker. He argues that a peace agreement should not drive Israeli policy but the need for security, should.

He warns that the Declaration of Principles is intended to sound the death knell for Israel’s quest for or right to defensible borders.

Yet Bush and Cheney have both emphasized Israel’s security. Nevertheless Israel is accepting the green line as Israel’s border.

Apparently Israel has already agreed to the return of 100,000 Arab refugees.

It has also agreed to a division of Jerusalem with Arab sovereignty over the Old City.

Even though all these terms are to be in a “shelf agreement” it will cast a big shadow. Having abandoned the protection of the Roadmap requiring the end of terror before discussing core issues, it is a small step to expect Israel to forgo the end of violence in favour of implementing the Declaration of Principles.

He warns that the more Israel gives concessions in the hope of getting more international support the less support Israel gets.

He demands Israel move from concession-based diplomacy to rights-based diplomacy.

When asked about US support, he said that support in Congress and Senate for Israel is greater than it is in the Knesset. He also said the US have told him it will back any Israel demands for security. Yet Israel still pursues a peace agreement.

He also said that Israel must shift the paradigm from a two state solution to a regional based solution. He believed that the US would support such a shift and that Egypt would also benefit from it. The stronger Hamas becomes, the more vulnerable Egypt and Jordan will be. They understand this.

I discussed this new paradigm in early February in Time for a new and different Palestine Mandate

Diker said the fact that 10 Arab heads boycotted the Syrian Anti-Israel conference is significant. Yet Israel ignored this and ignored the tirade by PM Siniori against Syrian interference. Yet Israel just invited Syria in from the cold.

The last speaker said Bush really is a friend of Israel. But he is being mislead by the State Department, a Saudi proxy, by Abbas who speaks nicely in English and finally by the Government of Israel who also misinforms him.

BRING DOWN THIS GOVERNMENT.

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