Doc's Talk: The Declaration of Principles should be avoided at all costs.

Monday, July 28, 2008

The Declaration of Principles should be avoided at all costs.

INSS Insight no. 65, July 27, 2008
Benn, Aluf

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s legacy vis-à-vis the occupied territories will be a strengthened Israeli hold on the settlement blocs west of the security fence, in particular around Jerusalem. Olmert’s fundamental approach views the security fence as Israel’s de facto border, and is the basis of his decisions regarding new construction in the territories and his positions in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. “Dividing the land in order to ensure a Jewish majority is the lifeline of Zionism,” Olmert declared when presenting his government to the Knesset in May 2006.

[It was Sharon’s strategy to sacrifice Gush Katif and certain settlements in Judea and Samaria in exchange for the right to keep the settlement blocks. Olmert is following this policy.]

Since the Annapolis summit, government tenders for construction of thousands of apartments east of the Green Line have been made public. Almost all of these are located in Jerusalem’s outlying Jewish neighborhoods and in the settlements close to the city, including tenders for 428 housing units in Har Homa, 760 in Pisgat Ze’ev, 440 in East Talpiyot, 350-550 in Givat Ze’ev, 286 in Beitar Illit, 52 in Elkana, and 48 in Ariel, and there is reportedly a plan for building another 80 units in Efrat. In addition, the Regional Planning and Construction Committee in Jerusalem approved submission of a plan to build 3,150 housing units in Givat Hamatos and 393 in Neve Ya’akov. No tenders were published for construction east of the security fence.gsdmorris@hotmail.com

While the extensive building plans have aroused international criticism of Israel, including from the American administration, for fear that construction is liable to impact negatively on the political negotiations with the Palestinians, this criticism has not been translated into actual pressure on Olmert’s government to change its policies.

When elected prime minister in the spring of 2006, Olmert’s primary stated objective was to establish a defined border between Israel and the future Palestinian state, and evacuate the residents of the settlements east of the border. Analysis shows that the government has acted to advance this objective, albeit at a slow pace. The government sought to establish the route of the security fence as Israel’s de facto border, while avoiding confrontation with the settlement population and the international community. The principal tools were extensive building within the settlement blocs and an attempted freeze on construction east of the fence. Though not official government policy, the line of the security fence served Olmert and Minister of Defense Ehud Barak as the guideline for new building permits in the settlements.

The Olmert government has shied away from discussing its policies on the settlements in larger forums (the government, the cabinet). The prime minister has generally avoided making public reference to construction beyond the Green Line, and has preferred to speak about the political process and the peace efforts. Minister of Housing Ze’ev Boim has positioned himself as the great promoter of strengthened settlements blocs and Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. Within his authority as defense minister, Barak either approved or rejected construction plans for the West Bank. The involvement of the prime minister in building permits remained behind the scenes, which spared Olmert direct international criticism.

Olmert has also avoided evacuating settlements from the West Bank, whether by force or by offering compensation to those leaving voluntarily. Once he embarked on a political course, he presented the settlements east of the fence as a bargaining chip in his negotiations with PA president Mahmoud Abbas. Olmert proposed that Israel withdraw more or less to the fence line, or somewhat westward, and evacuate the settlements east of it in two stages. With the signing of the agreement of principles and determination of the future border, the Voluntary Evacuation-Compensation bill will be passed and the settlement residents offered a chance to move to Israeli territory. The rest of the settlement population would be evacuated once the agreement is implemented and the Palestinian state is established. In exchange, the Palestinians will agree to Israel building and developing the settlements west of the yet-to-be-determined border, i.e., in the area to be annexed to Israel with Palestinian agreement.

With the start of negotiations at Annapolis, the rate at which permits for large building projects in the settlement blocs were issued increased, and the Palestinian Authority, with international support, accused Israel of undermining the talks. However, the criticism was muted and Olmert apparently figured that as long as there are talks about the establishment of a Palestinian state and the United States is in the midst of a presidential election campaign, the international community is not about to confront Israel over new construction in the settlement blocs. And indeed, the criticism of Israel has come in very low doses and has not exceeded the familiar lip service of “the settlements are an obstacle to peace.”

The Bush administration tacitly accepted Ariel Sharon’s notion that Israel be allowed to build in the settlement blocs if it avoids expanding the settlements beyond the fence and avoids controversial projects, first and foremost the neighborhood planned for the E-1 area near Ma’ale Adumim. Olmert has upheld this agreement; he has avoided development of E-1 except for the construction of a police station that began during Sharon’s tenure.

Like his predecessor, Olmert has repeatedly dodged promises to the American administration to dismantle the illegal outposts in the West Bank. Since the violent clash in the Amona outpost soon after he succeeded Sharon, Olmert has avoided other evacuations by force. This position enjoyed the support of Minister of Defense Barak and the heads of the IDF, the General Security Service, and the police. The government also made several requests to the Supreme Court to postpone the evacuation of the largest illegal outpost, Migron, which was ostensibly established on private Palestinian land.

Instead of confrontation, the government – through the Minister of Defense – has tried to reach an agreement with the settlement leadership about voluntary evacuations in exchange for moving the residents to approved settlements. To date, four of the twenty-six illegal outposts established after March 2001 – which Israel promised to evacuate in fulfillment of its roadmap obligations – have been evacuated in this manner. However, the process is moving along at a snail’s pace, and the American administration has avoided exerting pressure on Olmert to fulfill his promise to evacuate the illegal outposts.

During its two years in office, the Olmert government has acted to establish the line of the security fence as Israel’s de facto border. However, by avoiding confrontations with the settlement population, it has chosen the easy route of strengthening Israel’s hold west of the fence. Meanwhile, decisions regarding maintaining settlements beyond the fence and the extent of those settlements are on hold.

The Declaration of Principles Must be Avoided at all Costs

By Ted Belman

I see merit in this strategy because until the declaration of principles is signed, Israel is strengthening the settlement blocks east of the greenline but west of the fence. But I think he means to sign a declaration of principles this year. This should be opposed with all vigour. At a minimum Israel will continue to strengthen the blocks with out giving anything away. It is hard to imagine Abbas agreeing to this construction as part of the D of P especially with Hamas breathing down his neck. Remember his term as President ends in January ‘09 and Hamas and Fatah are attempting to reconcile.

My guess is that he will sign this agreement without an explicit commitment from Abbas consenting to the construction. What is not clear to me is how this will impact on Jerusalem Does this construction suggest that Jerusalem will not be divided. Accordingly the shelf agreement is of huge significance, It casts a giant shadow over what is going to happen.

Furthermore Olmert’s plans ignore the growing threats. As I have suggested, Annapolis is a separation process, not a peace process. What Olmert wants is to consolidate the settlements behind the fence. This scenario says nothing about ending the occupation because it won’t end. The west and Jordan wants Israel to maintain control. But with the settlements gone the roadblocks can be lifted.

This analysis doesn’t comment on what is to happen to Maaleh Adumin and Ariel. Nor does it comment on the need to move the fence further to the east around Ben Gurion Airport and the Highway to Jerusalem.

So now you know what its all about.

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