Doc's Talk: "Some Progress"

Friday, February 20, 2009

"Some Progress"

Arlene Kushner

We're not home free, on any score. But this is how matters stand on some major issues as I return to my computer:

It appears that President Peres indeed will select Likud head Binyamin Netanyahu to form the new government. At this point, the entire right wing block (totaling 65 mandates) has chosen him.
This now includes Lieberman of Yisrael Beitenu, who had held out to the last minute. Likud has been more than a little put out by Lieberman because of excessive demands. In the end, Lieberman's ability to make those demands was diminished by the fact that it had become clear that there was no way that Livni could form a coalition, as 77 MKs have indicated they wouldn't support Livni. I.e., some not for Netanyahu specifically -- the Arabs parties, Labor and Meretz -- were also saying they wouldn't join a Kadima-headed coalition either and were opting to be in the opposition no matter what).

Likud did agree in the end to several Lieberman stipulations, such as seeking ways for those who are not halachically Jewish to have civil marriage, toppling Hamas, and reforming the electoral system. But I have not seen anything that stipulates what ministries would go to Yisrael Beitenu -- if that has been agreed upon at all.

~~~~~~~~~~

Lieberman has indicated he would like to see a broader-based unity government, and reports are that Peres will be calling in Netanyahu and Livni, perhaps even tomorrow, to discuss this. But Livni is adamant that she will not sit in an "right wing extremist" government.

Allow me to define "right wing extremist": A government that doesn't want to give away our country.

Said Livni: "We need to provide an alternative of hope from the opposition. Kadima will continue to fight for its beliefs and its path - an agenda based on two states for two peoples."

If I should live to be 120, I would never understand this thinking, because it's so very clear to all those who will open their eyes that there is no partner on the other side. How Kadima members imagine they might pursue this effectively is a mystery.

~~~~~~~~~~

But sometimes, people on the left actually do wake up, at least a little. Yesterday, at a gathering here in Jerusalem of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, President Shimon Peres said:

"What will happen in the future, we shall not repeat the wrongs we did in leaving Gaza. It should have been done otherwise. I was for leaving Gaza. I feel myself as one of the persons mistaken."

Will wonders never cease?

~~~~~~~~~~

The matters of seeking the release of Gilad Shalit and negotiating a ceasefire with Hamas have taken some interesting turns.

The Security Cabinet yesterday voted to keep crossings into Gaza closed, except for humanitarian supplies, until Shalit is returned. And, what is more, the decision was made not to enter into a formal ceasefire with Hamas.

According to one official source cited by the Post, "Israel is not interested in any deal with Hamas above and beyond getting Shalit...If there is quiet, we will respond with quiet. But if Hamas acts to destroy the quiet, if it shoots rockets at Israel, or engages in arms smuggling, or in any other aggression, we reserve the right to respond."

~~~~~~~~~~

I only wonder why all of this wasn't stipulated at the start. In many respects this is excellent. We should not be in a position of being restrained by an agreement in terms of how we respond to Hamas.

There is a note of great concern, however. And that is the sort of deal that would be made for Shalit -- with the projected release of terrorists responsible for many Jewish deaths, terrorists who should never, ever again be free.

With regard to this, please read "An open letter to the prime minister," by Rabbi Stuart Weiss, who lost his son Ari, a member of Sayeret Nahal anti-terrorist unit, in a battle against Hamas in 2002.

"...But now we are on the brink of what I fear will be a catastrophic moment in Israeli - and Jewish - history. The freeing of hundreds of terrorist murderers - in particular, the two Barghouti butchers who, between them, murdered hundreds of pure Jewish souls and perpetrated the terror massacres at Sbarro, Moment Cafe and the Park Hotel - will be a terrible blow to law and order in Israel, setting a precedent that will certainly result in many, many more tragedies.

"WE APPRECIATE the pressure on you to free Gilad Shalit. It must be enormous. But know that there is another side to this issue, as well.

"That is the deep feelings of thousands of Israeli family members who paid the ultimate price to the state, who gave up their loved ones in the course of our struggle. To free these Palestinian murderers with so much of our blood on their hands would do more than just insult and demoralize the bereaved families; it would destroy us, and cause us to lose all faith in our country and its leaders.

"Everyone - including the Shalit family - agrees that there are prices too high to pay to secure Gilad's release...Setting hundreds of bloodthirsty killers loose on the Israeli public - where they, without a shadow of a doubt, will kill time and time again - is...a price far too high to pay.

"...We already have one yahrtzeit for Ari. Please, we implore you, do not bring another one upon us."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304819977&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

~~~~~~~~~~

The decisions described above are causing a bit of commotion. Egypt officials have their noses very much out of joint, as they wanted to successfully conclude cease-fire negotiations. And, amazingly, Amos Gilad, of the Defense Department, who was doing the negotiations with the Egyptians on behalf of Barak, has taken Egypt's side: "I don't understand what they are trying to do. Insult the Egyptians?

Some harsh words ensued between Olmert and Gilad, because of Gilad's public criticism of the government's position.

~~~~~~~~~~

There are rumors (stomach-turning rumors that I pray are wrong, but are cited by Khaled Abu Toameh) that we may release Marwan Barghouti as a "gesture" to Abbas, instead of as part of a deal with Hamas to secure Shalit. Remember, Abbas was worried that if Hamas was able to bring Barghouti out of prison, when Fatah never could, it would diminish Fatah.

How crazy can things get?

The point here is that Barghouti should never be released to anyone. Then we wouldn't have to worry about how his release affects one faction or another.

~~~~~~~~~~

Just days ago I wrote about the naiveté of Obama in thinking a US delegation, by participating in the plans for Durban 2, can change matters. Anne Bayefsky has now written a major piece on this for National Review, called, "Obama Naiveté at the U.N." It is dated February 16.

"In a major foreign-policy decision taken over the weekend, President Obama has decided to legitimize the United Nations’s 'anti-racism' forum known as Durban II. State Department officials announced in a press release buried on Saturday, that starting today the United States will attend for the first time the preparatory meetings of this controversial U.N. conference...

"The searing images of the demonization of America and Jews on the U.N.’s global stage...should have made joining this revived forum for U.N.-driven hate inconceivable. But President Obama seems intent on learning the lessons of history — and the relationship between hatemongering and violence — the hard way.

"The State Department announcement claims that participating in Durban II preparations still leaves open the possibility of refusing to attend the April conference itself. The claim is completely disingenuous...It is the decision to attend at all which represents a huge shift in American principles and priorities. For the past seven and a half years, the United States has boycotted Durban follow-up activities and voted against every Durban-related U.N. resolution.

"Moreover, the very objective of Durban II is 'to foster the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Program of Action.' This is non-negotiable and cannot be changed by U.S. participation, period. In addition, all U.N. states attending these preparatory sessions have already agreed to 'reaffirm the Durban Declaration.' Since the U.S. walked out of Durban I in disgust (along with Israel) and rejected the Durban I Declaration, joining negotiations now means agreeing to its provisions for the first time.

"...In truth, this Obama trip to the U.N. represents an abandonment of Israel. All his campaign promises to the contrary, sacrificing Israel for the sake of currying favor with others — demagogues included — is clearly at the top of the new president’s agenda. Israel asked Obama not to attend. Canada also pulled out of Durban II and expected American support. Instead, today’s American foreign policy leaves America’s closest ally and its biggest trading partner out in the cold.

"The speed at which President Obama is selling off American assets is breathtaking. The speed at which he is selling them out is even faster."

Read the entire alarming piece, please. If you still think what Obama is doing is OK, think again! And if you're alarmed, start screaming loud and long, before it is truly too late for America.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODcyODBjZTFjYWNlNTA0OTk1OTM4ODQ2YTAzYWUyOTU=

~~~~~~~~~~

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