Doc's Talk: PERES: OBAMA TOLD ME HE'S "VERY IMPRESSED" WITH SAUDI ARAB PEACE PLAN

Thursday, November 20, 2008

PERES: OBAMA TOLD ME HE'S "VERY IMPRESSED" WITH SAUDI ARAB PEACE PLAN

According to Israeli President and former Prime Minister, Shimon Peres, U.S. President-elect Barack Obama told him that he was "very impressed" with the Arab League's 2002 so-called Arab Peace Initiative when the two of them discussed it in July during Senator Obama's brief visit to Israel. Peres, who had just arrived in London for an official visit, made his comments in interviews to be published in the British media (Anshel Pfeffer, 'Peres: Obama told me he was 'very impressed' with Arab peace plan,' Haaretz, November 19, 2008) Earlier this week, prior to Peres' comments, the Sunday Times [London] reported that, "Barack Obama is to pursue an ambitious peace plan in the Middle East involving the recognition of Israel by the Arab world in exchange for its withdrawal to 1967 borders, according to sources close to America's president-elect. Obama intends to throw his support behind a 2002 Saudi peace initiative endorsed by the Arab League … the president-elect said privately it would be "crazy" for Israel to refuse a deal that could 'give them peace with the Muslim world', according to a senior Obama adviser … A bipartisan group of senior foreign policy advisers urged Obama to give the Arab plan top priority immediately after his election victory. They included Lee Hamilton, the former co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Democrat former national security adviser … Brent Scowcroft, a Republican former national security adviser, joined in the appeal … The advisers have told Obama he should lose no time in pursuing the policy in the first six to 12 months in office while he enjoys maximum goodwill … [Middle East adviser Dennis] Ross and Daniel Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Israel, accompanied Obama on a visit to Israel last July. They also travelled to Ramallah, where Obama questioned Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, about the prospects for the Arab plan … Kurtzer submitted a paper to Obama on the question before this month's presidential elections … He argued that trying to reach bilateral peace agreements between Israel and individual countries in the Middle East, was a recipe for failure as the record of Bill Clinton and George W Bush showed. In contrast, the broader Arab plan "had a lot of appeal" (Uzi Mahnaimi and Sarah Baxter, 'Barack Obama links Israel peace plan to 1967 borders deal,' The Times [London], November 16, 2008).

Subsequently, Dennis Ross denied that President-elect Obama supports the Saudi Arab Initiative. However, given the fact that Middle East advisers – Lee Hamilton, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, Daniel Kurtzer – have strongly urged Obama to adopt this policy, followed by Shimon Peres' own testimony today that Obama is very impressed with it – the evidence seems overwhelming that the original Times report that Obama supports the Initiative is accurate.

The 2002 Arab Initiative, originally proposed by Saudi King Abdullah and later adopted by the Arab League, states that Israel would have to surrender all territory beyond the pre-1967 armistice lines, which include, not only eastern Jerusalem with its holiest Jewish sites, but also all of Judea and Samaria, including major communities like Ma'ale Adumim, Ariel, Efrat and as well as the strategically vital Jordan Valley and the Golan Heights, as well as religiously holy cities Hebron and Beit El. There are presently over 450,000 Jews living beyond the 1967 armistice lines. Moreover, the Saudi Initiative insists on the legally-baseless so-called 'right of return' in accordance with the non-binding 1948 UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which has no legal weight and was in any case rejected by Arab powers at the time. This return is to be exercised at Arab discretion, not Israel's, and those who do not return are to be compensated by Israel, meaning that millions of Arabs would be permitted to move into Israel proper, which would render impossible Israel's continued existence as a Jewish state.

The Initiative also rejects any substitute for the 'right of return,' asserting "the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation [sic] which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries," meaning the rejection of proposals for settling the refugees and their millions of descendants in neighboring Arab countries and the granting of citizenship to them. All previous Israeli governments have rejected the 'right of return' as unequivocally unacceptable. The Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saudi Saud al-Faisal and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa ruled out any changes to the Initiative.

The Arab Initiative also contradicts the written assurance provided in 2004 by President George W. Bush to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in which President Bush assured Israel that in any future settlement, Israel should be able to retain major Jewish population centers in Judea and Samaria and that Palestinian refugees would be resettled in Palestinian-controlled territories, not in Israel. This Initiative also makes no demand on Palestinians Arabs and Arabs in general. For example, arrest terrorists, outlaw terrorist groups, end incitement to hatred and murder. It also makes no mention of what is to become of the over 450,000 Jews presently living there.

Caroline Glick, Managing Editor, Jerusalem Post, and Middle East Fellow, Center for Security Policy, Washington, D.C., and recipient of the ZOA's Ben Hecht Award for Outstanding Journalism on the Middle East, has described the problems for Israel contained in the Arab Initiative thus: "This Israeli surrender would enable the formal establishment of a Palestinian terror state. It would also strengthen Iran's principal ally – the Syrian Ba'athist regime … Without Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and the Golan Heights, Israel would be so vulnerable to missile and artillery attack that it could be overwhelmed even before conventional invading Arab armies set foot on its remaining territory … As a reading of the Saudi plan makes clear, it would only be after Israel surrendered all this land and allowed itself to be overrun by millions of hostile Arab immigrants that the Saudis and their Arab brethren would 'establish normal relations with Israel.' That is, the Saudis will be ready to talk to Israelis only after Israel is destroyed" (Caroline Glick, 'Our World: Olmert's Saudi friends,' Jerusalem Post, December 4, 2006).

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, "We view with deep misgivings this latest revelation from Shimon Peres that seems to cast doubt on assurances from Dennis Ross that President-elect Obama was not supporting the Arab Initiative or basing his intended policy planning upon it. It is not possible the President-elect Obama can be both 'very impressed' with the Arab Initiative, as Shimon Peres says, while not supporting it, as Dennis Ross says. The evidence suggesting that President-elect Obama supports the Arab Initiative is in complete contradiction and violation of President Bush's written assurance to the-Prime Minister Sharon. We sincerely hope that Mr. Peres' account does not indicate that an Obama Administration will adopt the Arab Initiative, which fails to truly accept Israel or offer even the possibility of peace until after Israel has made enormous and irreversible concessions, including uprooting more than 450,000 Jews from their homes in Judea and Samaria simply because they are Jews. The American public is entitled to know the true state of affairs and be spared such conflicting testimony. ZOA urges President-elect Obama to immediately, personally and publicly clarify his position on this Saudi Arab Initiative."

Guest Comment: Time to worry: the evidence is mounting against hearsay, like Ross's denial.
I hope you will not be defensive about Obama, and will be concerned about what will happen to Israel.
The Saudi Plan is no more than "soft" Jihad!

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