Doc's Talk: What a Real Middle East Peace Process Would Look Like

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

What a Real Middle East Peace Process Would Look Like

August 18, 2009
Sultan Knish

As the Obama Administration tries to drag the rotting corpse of the peace process out from under the table and into public view, accompanied by the expected Israel bashing and phony rhetoric about everyone learning to get along, it might be time to revisit why the peace process failed in the first place
Unlike the accord with Egypt, the "Middle East Peace Process" expected Israel to negotiate not with a country, but with the PLO terrorist organization, as supposed representatives of the Palestinian Arabs living in Gaza and the West Bank, who were to be given an autonomous territory in exchange for an end to the violence. Though the violence did not end, only escalated, the autonomous territory became a state. Now the PLO/Fatah is fighting for its life against Hamas, and the only thing keeping it in power is American and Israeli backing. The day America and Israel withdraw their support is the day that Abbas, or whoever is running the giant fraud and terror network of the Palestinian Authority that has siphoned off billions from the U.S. and the EU, had better have a fast jet waiting on a nearby airfield.

It's news to no one that the PLO template of the peace process has failed. Arafat and his henchmen had no ability to govern and no interest in ending the violence. By the end of his term, even President Clinton, who built his legacy on Middle East Peace, was forced to admit that Arafat did not want peace. The process had failed long before that. It was kept alive and is being kept alive like a zombie, by foreign governments and left wingers who insist on the important of a peace process, while being completely detached from the reality of its failure.

The Clinton administration, the two Bush administrations and now the Obama administration have expected Israel to negotiate with a bunch of terrorists, give them a state, and assume that will solve all the region's problems. As usual this is one of those cases where a four year old would quickly understand what most diplomats and politicians deliberately choose not to understand, because it is in their professional interest not to understand it.

But by way of contrast, let's take a look at what a real Middle East Peace Process worthy of the name would look like, not from a pro-Israel perspective, and without laying blame, but from the perspective of practical problem solving oriented diplomacy.

The current situation involving Israel and the Arab world is the product of two wars, in 1948 and 1967.

Seven nations participated in the 1948 war, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Israel. (Representing the Palestinian Arab side was the Jaysh al-Jihad al-Muqaddas militia under the Mufti of Jerusalem, a former Hitler ally, but not as a nation.)

Five nations participated in the 1967 war, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Israel. (The Palestinian territories had been annexed by Egypt and Jordan in the aftermath of the 1948 war.)

It is clear that any serious Middle East Peace Process has to involve at least five of these nations, preferably all seven, hammering out a resolution to any lingering problems, and agreeing to a long term regional accord. The problems to be discussed include mutual hostility, the regional arms race arise from it, and the status of refugees displaced by mutual hostilities between the parties. The resolution would involve an end to such hostilities and the agreement of all parties to work together to resolve regional issues and problems that arose from their former exchange of hostilities.

Because of the prolonged history of these hostilities, no individual problem can be put at the doorstep of only one party or one nation. Nor can any solution involve only one party or one nation. Solutions must be mutual and involve reciprocation. One party cannot be expected to shoulder the burden alone, or do what the other party will not.

Just as an end to hostilities must be mutual, all other agreements must be mutual as well. So if the Arab states believe that a Palestinian state is vital for peace, they must also be prepared to contribute land to the creation of such a state. This applies most glaringly to Jordan, which was also formed out of the territory of the former Palestinian Mandate, and to Egypt, which had run Gaza for decades. A Palestinian state composed of the territory of three nations, and administered by three nations, would be a far more stable and tenable entity. It would also shift the scenario from one of aggression to one of mutual cooperation.

The mutual hostilities have in turn created a flow of refugees out of Israel and to Israel, with Palestinian Arabs fleeing Israel, and Jews from Arab lands fleeing to Israel. There are two solutions to such a problem, their absorption by their new land, or their return to the land they fled from. If the nations in the pact agree to the latter, then they must be willing to provide territory or financial compensation to those refugees, across the board.

If Israel must provide land or compensation for Palestinian Arabs who fled, the Arab nations must provide land or compensation for the Jewish refugees who fled or were expelled from their countries. If not only the living refugees, but all of their descendants, must likewise be accommodated, the same solution would have to be applied across the board.

The number of Palestinian Arab refugees and Jewish refugees from Arab lands has both been capped at below a million at the time. Their descendants are both estimated at being somewhere in the several million range. The problem is roughly equivalent on both sides. The solution would have to be roughly equivalent as well. It might take the form of Israel contributing more land for a Palestinian Arab land, and in turn receiving land from Arab nations for the Jewish refugees it absorbed. It might take the form of all sides agreeing to a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" to call an end to past issues, and agree to absorb whatever refugees are residing in their country at the present, with financial compensation provided by the country of the refugee's origin, to both the refugees and their new nation.

Such an approach might actually yield a legitimate regional solution, one based on mutual recognition, a mutual end to hostilities and a commitment to mutual problem solving. This is in contrast to the present day process which is utterly incapable of solving anything, because it enables the Arab nations' neglect of their end of the problem, while forcing Israel to negotiate with terrorist organizations that serve as proxies for the ongoing Arab and Iranian hostilities with Israel.

Such a process does not address either regional problems or regional participants, dooming it to fail, and to prolong the misery of everyone involved by promoting terrorism, bigotry and the use of Palestinian Arabs as pawns in a larger war between the regional powers. By eschewing a real Middle East Peace Process, the United States and Europe are prolonging the regional conflicts in favor of a microcosmic approach that expects Israel to shoulder the burden alone, while expecting nothing from the region's other powers. If they seek real peace, they must be willing to push for a process that fosters mutual responsibility and accountability, rather than striving to ignore it. Only such a process has any hope of bringing peace.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Sultan Knish, a blogger, columnist and freelance photographer born in Israel, maintains his own blog, Sultan Knish.

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