Doc's Talk: "And Now What?"

Monday, February 02, 2009

"And Now What?"

Arlene Kushner

Yesterday morning, a Grad Katyusha rocket was launched near Ashkelon.

Early this morning, three Kassams were launched into the south; one landed between two kindergartens in the Eshkol Regional Council.

Shortly after, shots were fired at IDF soldiers near the Kissufim Crossing.

And then, four mortar shells were fired at the Sha'ar Hanegev Regional Council area, wounding three.

Following this, a Kassam landed in Sderot. Olmert's response: "We've said that if there is rocket fire against the south of the country, there will be a disproportionate Israeli response to the fire on the citizens of Israel and its security forces."

~~~~~~~~~~

There were reports earlier coming from the Rafah and Khan Younis region in southern Gaza that residents had been warned to move away from tunnels and areas where weapons are stored.

As I write, there are preliminary reports of an air strike in the Rafah/Khan Younis region with no specifics yet as to what has been hit or how seriously.

~~~~~~~~~~

The assessment of chief of Military Intelligence, Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin, in the report he gave to the Cabinet earlier today is worth noting:

"Hamas has internalized the extent of the physical and moral blow inflicted upon it. Unlike arrogant statements sounded in the media, the organization is conducting serious soul-searching on its strategic mistakes and operational failures.

"Two weeks after the cease-fire began, terrorists not belonging to Hamas are challenging the organization and carrying out attacks in order to bring on another escalation. Hamas is deterred and respecting the cease-fire, but not doing enough to discourage the others."

~~~~~~~~~~

Interesting...

I don't remember how many times I've read statements by Barak and Olmert claiming that it doesn't matter who is actually launching the rockets -- Hamas is in charge of Gaza and we hold Hamas responsible for what happens there.

We have to see how significant the air strike turns out to be -- I'm guessing it won't be major. For I fear that ever so subtly the government may be in the process of cutting Hamas some slack: Look, it's not them, they've learned their lesson. In fact I even read some commentary claiming that the response shouldn't be disproportionate, since it's not Hamas that is responsible. And so, I have a vague unease about which way the wind is blowing. Is this the mark of a government that is reluctant to escalate significantly right before an election? There will be no deterrence if we go easy now.

Especially am I uneasy in light of the statements by Defense Minister Barak reported in Arutz 7:

“...the time may come for a new confrontation with Hamas but that time has not yet arrived.”

As to ministers calling for a strong IDF reaction, he declared, “Leave it to the Chief of Staff, to the OC [Southern] Command and with all modesty, to me as well. We know better what to do and when.”

When is the last time Barak was modest?

A watch and see situation...

~~~~~~~~~~

I will note the obvious here (and this has such a strong sense of deja vu): It doesn't matter if it is Hamas or another group launching the rockets, there can be no cease fire unless all launchings will stop. Saying that Hamas wants a cease fire but other renegade groups are shooting does not a cease fire make, and we must not pretend that it does.

~~~~~~~~~~

Meanwhile according to the Arabic Al-Arabiya TV station, Hamas has agreed to a one-year truce in return for the opening of the Rafah crossing into Egypt.

Mark Regev, spokesman for PM Olmert, has categorically denied this. "This is Hamas disinformation," he said. He does not expect Rafah to be opened any time soon.

~~~~~~~~~~

With regard to the above, PA maybe-president Mahmoud Abbas, according to the Palestinian news agency Maan, cancelled plans to go to Europe and quickly traveled to Cairo when he heard there might be progress on a ceasefire agreement that involved the opening of crossings.

Analysts were quick to note that this is because Abbas wants to be part of the action -- involved in planning and participating in the outcome as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

There is considerable Palestinian backbiting with regard to the issue of precisely who does represent the Palestinians and what groups should be a constituent part of the PLO.

~~~~~~~~~~

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has sent the Spanish government a set of documents related to the lawsuit against named Israelis with regard to the assassination of terrorist Shehadeh; it was it was hoped this would end the issue. Foreign Minister Livni let her Spanish counterpart know that she was disturbed that a court decision had been made before the documents were in hand.

But the last I heard on the matter (which may not be the end of the matter at all) Spain -- while saying it would seek to change the rules for the future -- is declining to get involved in "a legal matter." Theirs is a nation of the rule of law, they say.

Diplomatic efforts continue to be pursued.

~~~~~~~~~~

And now Mohammed ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has weighed in with charges that we "violated the rules of international law." This is because we bombed an alleged Syrian nuclear reactor in September 2007. What we should have done, you see, is notify his agency and allow him to check on the situation.

This makes perfect sense, since he's done such a splendid job handling Iran.

I've indicated previously that he is close to worthless in my book. But now I'll say he's not worthless, he's dangerous.

In the course of an interview with the Washington Post, he said he believed that Iran didn't want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, but only wanted a one-state solution.

Never mind that this is blatantly not when Iran has been calling for, when his interviewer noted that a one-state solution would end Israel's status as a Jewish state, he responded, "I'm not taking sides on that."

~~~~~~~~~~

Diplomatic relations between Israel and Turkey have fallen to a new low after an incident at the Davos World Economic Forum last Thursday, when Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan came to the podium and attacked Israel vociferously with regard to our operation in Gaza.

Cannot say this was totally unexpected, in light of statements he had made earlier in defense of Hamas. But his attack in this forum -- as Israeli President Shimon Peres was sitting on the podium with him as part of a panel -- was reported to be most disrespectful and undiplomatic in tone and blatantly distorted the truth of what had gone on. He charged Israel, among other things, with "barbaric acts."

Peres then rose to defend Israel. When Erdogan tried to respond again, his remarks were curtailed by the moderator and he stormed off the stage.

Now our foreign ministry officials are saying that as long as Erdogan is prime minister Turkey cannot play the role of mediator in indirect talks with Syria. They are indicating that this represents a blow to those indirect talks.

That's bit of good news, especially as Syria is putting out feelers about picking up on those talks.

~~~~~~~~~~

There is no end of things to report during this enormously crazy time here. Tomorrow is another day...

~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info.

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