Doc's Talk: "Where Are We?"

Friday, August 28, 2009

"Where Are We?"

Arlene Kushner

That is, with regard to the settlements and a deal with the US on freezing building; and with regard to "peace negotiations."

If I could say with certainty, I would be a multi-millionaire -- for I'd know something no one else knows. Everyone is playing his cards very close to the chest. There is spin, and the rumors are flying fast. As to rumors, or unconfirmed reports that cite anonymous leaks as their source, I will simply say that while they may provide a remez -- a hint -- of what's coming, and thus signal a need to watch a situation, they do not merit alarm. We'll all make ourselves crazy if we overreact to every rumor.

~~~~~~~~~~

There is one rumor that made it into the Guardian in London, and was then picked up by other places, that I do want to discuss in some detail:

It was reported in the last couple of days (with US, European, Israeli and Palestinian sources reportedly cited) that Israel would agree to a "partial and temporary settlement freeze" and in return the U.S., Britain and France would push the UN Security Council to expand sanctions on Iran to include its oil and gas industry.

This reportedly would break the stalemate between Israel and the PA with regard to negotiations, which would then be able to begin.

~~~~~~~~~~

These are the elements to consider:

[] Is this something that Netanyahu might do because he is genuinely concerned with the danger of Iran and is thus willing to make concessions in other areas that will help stop Iran? He has long hinted at this.

Or do we see this as spin, with Netanyahu the original source of this leak, which he is using as cover? THE big worry here, THE big fear, is that Netanyahu will cave to US pressure on the settlements, as he has demonstrated weakness in the crunch before. Saying he is doing it because it helps prevent an existential threat against us makes it seem more palatable.

MK Aryeh Eldad certainly sees this as spin:

"Netanyahu is hiding behind these rumors in order to avoid the troubling questions that are directed at him today: why is he freezing the settlements. It is unbelievable how the Palestinians are humiliating the government of Israel, we give them gestures in exchange for their willingness to sit down with us."

And indeed Eldad is right on this. The Palestinians are supposed to want a state (they don't). They should run to the negotiating table, and yet they are holding out for a complete freeze -- even though they didn't demand this from Ehud Olmert. Obama has given them the option of squeezing us harder, and they're taking advantage of it.

~~~~~~~~~~

[] The next question is precisely what is meant by a "partial freeze." (And, as Abbas has demanded a full freeze, would this bring him to the table at any rate?)

Netanyahu laid out two red lines, as he made his way to Europe this week for talks with Mitchell and Brown in London and then with the Germans.

He said that eastern Jerusalem is part of the eternal capital of Israel and thus no freeze applies. (Never mind that the de facto freeze on issuing building tenders in eastern Jerusalem that has been in place for the last four months weakens this claim.)

According to Haaretz, Obama has now conceded on this. But actually this is not quite the case:

"According to both Israeli officials and Western diplomats, U.S. envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell has recognized the fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cannot announce a settlement freeze in [eastern] Jerusalem. The officials said the U.S. will not endorse new construction there, but would not demand Jerusalem publicly announce a freeze."

The way I read this, it means the US would allow Netanyahu to save face with the right wing here, while likely demanding a privately agreed upon freeze. The duplicity of it. Totally unacceptable. For this is not about allowing Netanyahu to save face, but rather about saving Jerusalem. Netanyahu should say nothing doing unless it's clear and upfront that there will be no Jerusalem freeze. And he should then give the order for tenders to go out.

Then, Netanyahu has said that "normal life" in the settlements cannot be interrupted. "Normal life" is the new term of preference, instead of "natural growth." It allows for expansion within a settlement, without taking more land, to build structures necessary for continuing life in the settlement.

~~~~~~~~~~

[] Another serious question to be asked is whether Obama would be serious in promising to push for more stringent sanctions against Iran. That is, would he really push, with all the leverage at his disposal, or would he make a tepid effort and claim he tried. Sanctions on gas and oil (refined is the issue) would be enormously damaging to Iran. But saying the US, Britain and France will "push the Security Council" is no guarantee of anything, and what we've seen to date, which has been pathetic, is a willingness of certain nations to trade with Iran in spite of everything. Is this going to stop? Iran could have been brought to its knees a long time ago.

How does Obama feel about this? No more than a semi-educated guess: Not long ago I would have expected him to be opposed, as he was in full appeasement mode, eager to tread softly, and not upset Iran, which, it was hoped, would negotiate with the US. But Iran has been anything but forthcoming on this score, and American backs are starting to go up. Is Obama ready to get tougher?

One thing we know he doesn't want is Israel attacking Iran. The Israelis are saying time is running out. Would Obama endorse sanctions to stall Israel?

~~~~~~~~~~

The point here, of course, is if Obama sees that Iran is not forthcoming and that it's time for sanctions, he would be doing this for the sake of US interests and presumably would do it whether Netanyahu froze settlement building or not.

~~~~~~~~~~

Are we confused yet?

~~~~~~~~~~

From Germany late in the day today, Netanyahu insisted that rumors regarding a deal struck between Israel and the US are not true.

However, the Haaretz article cited above does not say this. What is says is that Netanyahu made a proposal to Mitchell in London yesterday, and that the US will not respond until next week, when Israeli officials will meet Mitchell in Washington. So, no deal has been struck, but maybe it's true that Netanyahu has laid out what would be acceptable to him:

Reportedly, his offer is for a freeze in Judea and Samaria for nine months that does not include construction on 2,500 units currently going on (as the result of tenders issued more than four months ago), and some special cases for "normal life," such as the need for a new school.

[] The other big issue for Netanyahu is a clear exit plan: "the freeze is a confidence-building measure that must be matched by reciprocal steps from the PA and Arab states. If these fail to materialize, Israel wants an American guarantee that it will not oppose renewed building."

This is a huge issue, because once something like a "temporary" freeze is put in place, it very quickly becomes permanent. What irritates me is that it is suggested that we need an American guarantee. I don't think we should freeze building at all, but within this context, how about if we told the Americans: This is what we will give. Maximum. If there is not reciprocity to our satisfaction within nine months, WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO PROTECT OUR INTERESTS AND START BUILDING AGAIN.

Of course at the end of nine months, Obama will push for more. The initiative would have to be ours.

Last question here: precisely who determines if there has been SUFFICIENT reciprocity? There's an enormous amount of wiggle-room here.

~~~~~~~~~~

On a related issue: Netanyahu has been babbling about having optimism that we can start negotiating with the PA in late September.

This is pure, unadulterated appeasement. For I fail to see a single reason why this would be a source of genuine optimism for Israel. After the hardened line that came out of the Fatah Conference in Bethlehem, at which they embraced the right to violent resistance, whatever name they gave it?

Where is Netanyahu on this? Why isn't he screaming bloody murder and making demands? We have to freeze settlements, but they can embrace terrorism, and this is good news? Heaven help us!

~~~~~~~~~~

At any rate, Abbas, undoubtedly at Obama's urging, has now said he will meet with Netanyahu on the sidelines of the UN. It's not negotiations, you understand? Just talk. And Netanyahu say, Gee, this is fantastic, now we can move along.

~~~~~~~~~~

Rest assured, there is a great deal more to say...

~~~~~~~~~~

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