Doc's Talk: Israel has decided to give a chance to the Egyptian-brokered talks on a lull in the fighting

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Israel has decided to give a chance to the Egyptian-brokered talks on a lull in the fighting

IICC

Decision of the Israeli ministerial committee for national security

1. On June 11, 2008, Israel's Ministerial Committee on National Security Affairs authorized Defense Minister Ehud Barak “to exhaust the dialogue with Egypt in order to achieve all of Israel's conditions for an actual calm as have been agreed to by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Barak, and as were presented in detail to the Cabinet by Prime Minister Olmert. Included in this framework is advancing the release of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, who has been held by Hamas since June 25, 2006” (Prime Minister's Website, June 11, 2008 ). In addition, the Ministerial Committee instructed the IDF to “ prepare for military action in the Gaza Strip, according to a rapid timetable, should the Cabinet convene and make a decision to this effect” (ibid.). 2. General Amos Gilad, head of the Israeli Ministry of Defense's political-security branch, headed to Cairo in an attempt to reignite the lull talks and present Israel 's decision to Egyptian Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman. Amos Gilad was expected to emphasize Israel's desire to see a progress in the negotiations for the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, even if it does not take place in the first stage of the lull, making it clear to the Egyptians that Israel has to see a progress on that issue before lifting the blockade on the Gaza Strip (Haaretz, June 12).

3. “ Reliable sources” in Egypt told an Al-Hayat reporter that Egypt was making efforts to achieve a lull in the fighting. “A lull is the key to many important issues,” those sources said. “We are trying to broker the lull in the fighting in order to achieve a breakthrough regarding the prisoners' exchange deal by releasing Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held in the Gaza Strip. We are also doing it to make peace between the Palestinian factions and to move the political process forward” (Al-Hayat, June 12).

Escalation on the ground 1

4. In the shadow of the lull talks, population centers near the Gaza Strip are intensively targeted by mortar shells and rockets. Examples follow:

a. On June 11, there were 7 mortar shell hits, three of which landed in a factory in Kibbutz Nir Oz (where Israeli citizen Amnon Rozenberg was killed on June 5), causing minor injuries to a factory worker. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

b. On June 12 , there were 22 mortar shell hits (including 9 122-mm hits) and 15 rocket hits (including 2-3 122-mm Grad rockets) in Israeli territory. As a result, a woman from Kibbutz Yad Mordechai suffered moderate injuries. As a result, several fires broke out.

5. On June 12 at noon , IDF soldiers spotted a suspicious bulldozer approaching the border fence in the northern Gaza Strip, not far from the village of Netiv Haasara . IDF soldiers shot the bulldozer, which stopped and caught fire. A man escaping from the bulldozer was also shot by the IDF soldiers. It seems that it was an attempt to perpetrate a showcase attack using the heavy mortar and rocket fire.

6. In the morning of June 12, IDF forces killed two armed terrorists who were setting an explosive charge near the security fence in the northern Gaza Strip. As they were searching the area, the IDF forces spotted and killed another terrorist who was armed with a Kalashnikov rifle (IDF Spokesman's Website, June 12). On June 11 in the afternoon, the IDF attacked a terrorist squad in the northern Gaza Strip while it was preparing to fire mortar shells at Israeli territory (IDF Spokesman's Website, June 11). A total of seven terrorist operatives were killed on June 11-12.

7. Palestinian media reported that, on June 12 in the afternoon, a massive explosion took place in Beit Lahiya, destroying a house which belonged to Ahmed Hamouda. Seven Palestinians were killed and about 40 were wounded in the explosion. Some Palestinian media falsely claimed that the explosion was caused by an IDF air strike, and Hamas even threatened revenge on Israel . The IDF Spokesman noted that the IDF had nothing to do with the incident, and that no IDF forces were active in the region at the time of the explosion 2.

8. Hamas mouthpiece Al-Risala published an article in which Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operatives boasted of the considerable effectiveness of 120mm mortars , far exceeding that of self-manufactured rockets. They said that the mortars' range was more than 6 km, that they were more precise, and caused more casualties in Israeli population centers (“Zionist settlements”) and IDF outposts (Al-Risala, June 12).

Reactions to the Israeli decision

9. Hamas and Popular Resistance Committees' spokesmen claimed that Israel 's decision to exhaust the lull talks was not serious, accusing it of planning a wide-scale military operation in the Gaza Strip. Several statements follow:

a. Hamas senior Fawzi Barhoum stated that the decision exposed Israel 's desire to conduct a large-scale attack in the Gaza Strip in order to destroy the “resistance” (terrorist organizations), topple the Hamas government, and eliminate the Hamas movement. Fawzi Barhoum called upon Egypt to take a stand with regard to the Israeli cabinet's decision to thwart the lull talks, and noted the determination of Hamas and the Palestinian people to protect the Gaza Strip (Palestine-info, June 11).

b. Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri noted that the Israeli announcement was not serious, saying that the evidence was the continuing, daily Israeli “aggression”, which resulted in the death of five Hamas operatives in the last 24 hours. He added that Hamas was preparing both for a lull in the fighting and lifting of the blockade on one hand and for a military confrontation with Israel on the other (Filastin al-Aan, June 11).

c. The Popular Resistance Committees convened a press conference in which its operatives noted that “the way things are going, an escalation is more likely than a lull”. They threatened to break the blockade on their own should Israel begin a military operation. The spokesmen said that if Israel did that, the case of Gilad Shalit would be closed and that the various organizations would make efforts to capture more Israeli soldiers (Al-Jazeera, June 11).

1 As at 16:00 , June 12.

2 The Fatah-affiliated Pal-Press website reported that Ahmed Hamouda , the owner of the house, was a senior operative of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, and that he was working for Hamas's (weapons) manufacturing unit. This further confirms that the explosion was the result of a “work accident”. Such accidents are fairly common, since Hamas's manufacturing infrastructure is situated inside

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