Doc's Talk: Groundhog Day

Friday, October 30, 2009

Groundhog Day

Ten stories that appear in the papers again and again, but never seem to actually happen.
BY JOSHUA KEATING | OCTOBER 27, 2009

“Hamas in talks over releasing Gilad Shalit”

Ever since Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit was taken prisoner in 2006, the militant group Hamas has seemed to delight in dangling the prospect of his release before an anxious Israeli public. Negotiations over Shalit began almost immediately after he was taken. In October 2006, one of the factions holding Shalit reported that they had agreed to Israel's term and were preparing to release Shalit "within days." Similar reports of "progress" in freeing Shalit have popped up in the Israeli media ever since. Things seemed particularly promising in March 2009 when Israeli negotiators seemed close to a prisoner exchange deal with Hamas at Egyptian-moderated talks, but those too broke down. In September 2009, Israel settled for a video of Shalit in exchange for 20 Palestinian prisoners. Hamas seems in no hurry to give up its most valuable prisoner any time soon.

“North Korea to return to negotiating table”
GREG BAKER/Pool/Getty Images

Since withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1993, and particularly since the first round of "six-party talks" 10 years later, North Korea has excelled at the art of nuclear brinksmanship -- withdrawing from international negotiations and provoking its enemies through missile tests and hostile rhetoric -- then eventually returning to the table, usually in exchange for concessions and aid.

The sixth round of talks appeared to lead to an agreement in 2007, but North Korea failed to follow through on delivering a full accounting of its nuclear stockpile. Since then, Kim Jong Il has at various points promised to return to the negotiating table. Most recently, Kim told visiting Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao that he would consider returning to multilateral talks in October.

"Pakistan finally getting tough with Taliban"
AMIR QURESHI/AFP/Getty Images

It has long been global conventional wisdom that Pakistan's military is far more preoccupied with its security concerns in Kashmir than in routing the country's Islamist insurgency. But dating back to at least the raid on the Lal Masjid mosque in 2007, U.S. observers have sought out reasons to declare that Pakistan was finally "getting tough," or "getting serious" on terror.

President Obama has welcomed Pakistan's apparent growing recognition that "their biggest threat right now comes internally," and journalists like the Washington Post's David Ignatius have praised Pakistan's "savvy" offensives in the Swat Valley and South Waziristan. Trouble is, the insurgency shows no signs of letting up and the Pakistani military is not exactly falling in line with U.S. security goals.

"Israel preparing military strike against Iran"
ATTA KENARE/AFP/Getty Images

In December 2005, then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered his military to prepare for the possibility of a strike on Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities, saying, "We have the ability to deal with this and we're making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation."

Since then it's been regularly reported that Israel was preparing an "imminent" military strike against Iranian facilities, along the lines of its 1981 attack against Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor. Many thought such a strike would occur while Israel still had the "green light" from the Bush administration but the Israeli government's warnings have disappeared away with Obama in office. "Under no circumstances should any option be removed from the table," Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned last week.

"Honduras rivals appear close to deal"
Win McNamee/Getty Images

This is a newcomer on the list, but seems to have the potential for endless repetition. Since the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, in June, his supporters have been "close to a deal" a number of times, according to mediators from the United Nations and Organization of American States.

On Oct. 14, it was reported that the two sides agreed on "nearly everything". Everything that is, except the main thing that they're negotiating in the first place: whether or not Zelaya will return to the presidency. Neither Zelaya nor interim President Roberto Micheletti appears willing to compromise, so it seems a safe bet the standoff will continue into the foreseeable future.

"Dollar to be replaced as global reserve currency"
Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images

The greenback has had a tough couple of years, no doubt about it. But some seem inordinately fixated on the possibility that the dollar will be replaced as the global reserve currency. China's Central Bank Governor Zhou Xiaochuan set off the speculation in March by remarking that it was dangerous for the world to rely on one reserve currency.

Now it seems that every G-8, G-20, or OPEC meeting is another occasion for speculation about the dollar's imminent demise. Proto-blogger Matt Drudge seems particularly fixated on the story. Unfortunately for the dollar fatalists, there's little evidence to suggest that the dollar will be dumped any time soon and it's not even clear that it would be such a bad thing if it did happen.

"New Russian president proposing liberal reforms"
DMITRY ASTAKHOV/AFP/Getty Images

Like his predecessor and benefactor Vladimir Putin, Dmitry Medvedev came into office as a mystery. Reformers in Russia and the West hoped that the easygoing lawyer would prove to be a more moderate leader than Putin, now the prime minister, proved to be.

While few doubt Putin's ultimate influence, observers continue to speculate that Medvedev will become "his own man", and thanks to a few speeches declaring the need for liberal reforms and speculating about his own future presidential intentions, Kremlinologists have been quick to declare that the two are not so chummy anymore. But apart from a few token gestures -- meeting with friends of murdered human rights activists instead of dismissing them -- there's little evidence to date that Medvedev's liberal program is anything but cheap talk.

"Fidel Castro is dying"

ADALBERTO ROQUE/AFP/Getty Images

Sooner or later, retired Cuban dictator Fidel Castro will die. But the leader who has outlived the terms of 11 U.S. presidents also seems to constantly overcome predictions of his imminent death.

The aging leader was first rushed to a hospital in July 2006 with internal bleeding and missed some time at the office but eventually returned (rumors that the leader was on death's door had Cuban Americans dancing in the streets in Miami's Little Havana). Since he stepped down in 2008, rumors about Fidel's health have continued to circulate, but the regime still regularly releases photos of the perpetually tracksuit-clad leader meeting visiting dignitaries and looking -- if a bit worn out -- very much alive.

"Momentum on Doha Round"
JORGE UZON/AFP/Getty Images

In 2001, WTO countries committed to a series of measures to open up their agricultural markets to international trade. Since then, however, progress on implementing the Doha reforms has been hard to find.

Dating back to 2003, talks have fallen apart or stalled every year due to the unwillingness of developing countries to cut their tariffs and the reluctance of rich countries to cut their subsidies. Nonetheless, efforts to salvage the Doha dream continue. At nearly every major international summit, world leaders pledge to make the necessary concessions soon. Most recently, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk predicted "significant breakthroughs in the next few weeks and months." Believe it when you see it.

"Israel and Palestinians reach peace deal"
AHMED JADALLAH/AFP/Getty Images

Perhaps the greatest and saddest of all Groundhog Day headlines. In 1994 Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat were jointly awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the Oslo peace accords and courageously shaking hands on the White House lawn.

Since then, thousands have died on both sides in Israeli military strikes and Palestinian bombings and rocket attacks. Countless summits have taken place during this period, notably the Camp David Summit and the Annapolis Conference. Each time, both sides made bold claims and negotiators -- typically from the United States -- made optimistic predictions. But with the Israelis and Palestinians as far apart as ever, the conflict seems destined to grind on.
Save over 50% when you subscribe to FP.

Joshua Keating is deputy Web editor at Foreign Policy.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/27/groundhog_day?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full

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