Doc's Talk: Kadima must form a unity government, now

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Kadima must form a unity government, now

Isi Leibler
November 11, 2009
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=1894

Ill winds are blowing. Tensions with the Obama administration are escalating. The odious Goldstone Report has provided a massive boost to the global campaign to delegitimize and brand us all as war criminals. Its full impact has yet to emerge. Many believe that the time has now come to suspend our traditional political squabbles and create a unity government. Until now, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has succeeded even beyond the wildest expectations of his supporters. Notwithstanding his reliance on the support of small, one-dimensional parties, he achieved a broad consensus and enjoys unprecedented support from the people.

Against all odds, Netanyahu navigated a diplomatic tightrope, delicately averting a total confrontation while resisting the unreasonable American demands to impose a total construction freeze on all settlements and Jerusalem. The harsh tactics employed by the Obama administration and its repudiation of the understandings reached with the Bush administration concerning the retention of the major settlement blocks, encouraged Israelis to unite in support of their prime minister.

But storm clouds are gathering and there are no grounds for complacency. The Obama administration failed disastrously in its efforts to engage or appease rogue states. Yet, those who initiated this policy still retain the reins of power and will no doubt regroup and try again. The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to President Barack Obama will only intensify pressure on him to achieve results in the Middle East. Hitherto such efforts amounted to offering Israel as the sacrificial lamb to appease Muslim extremists.

In line with the administration's determination not to antagonize the Muslim bloc, the US failed to vigorously condemn the Goldstone Report, remaining silent during the debate at the UN General Assembly. There is not even a hint that it is reconsidering its membership in the morally compromised UN Human Rights Council. Nor does it employ its clout to make the UN aware that there are limits to US patience with an organization which systematically tramples over human rights violations and concentrates most of its efforts on demonizing and delegitimizing Israel.

Nor do the vibes from the administration following the contrived tantrums by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas bode well. Hillary Clinton's praise for Israel's "unprecedented concessions" in relation to the settlements was reversed the next day following Palestinian accusations that she had sold out to the Zionists. Obama's stalling to confirm a meeting with Netanyahu in Washington until the last moment was an additional affront which, despite reassurances to the contrary, exemplifies the deteriorating relationship.

HOWEVER, THE die in this matter is not cast and two factors are likely to influence Obama. The first is the extent to which he can intensify one-sided pressure on Israel without alienating the 80 percent of American Jews who voted for him. The other is whether he will continue to hearken to advisers who encourage him to believe that he can succeed in persuading Israelis to bring about a change of government.

Currently, Netanyahu enjoys a unique national consensus based on acceptance of a two-state policy incorporating a demilitarized Palestinian state with future concessions being dependant on reciprocity.

But the pressures will surely escalate and Netanyahu will soon be obliged to make difficult decisions in relation to the Iranian threat which shows no signs of abating. The convergence of all these factors has existential implications and has led to increasing calls for the creation of a national unity government.

The obstacle remains Kadima. Its leader Tzipi Livni was obsessed with becoming prime minister and mistakenly convinced herself that the Netanyahu government would crumble in a matter of months.

Now with Netanyahu's endorsement of a two-state policy, setting aside the eccentric policy reversal by former hard-liner Shaul Mofaz, who proposes entering negotiations with Hamas, there are no ideological barriers to a rapprochement between Likud and Kadima. The majority of Kadima's founders were not ideologues but primarily former Likud members or those who joined Ariel Sharon because they regarded the new party as a stepping stone toward personal political advancement.

Livni was a senior member of the Olmert government which launched Operation Cast Lead. Yet at this time of national crisis, instead of acting as a responsible opposition leader, she simply rails against the government, conveying personal venom and frustration.

Ironically, many Israelis would argue that Livni's description of Netanyahu as "a small time politician," only concerned "with speeches and photo ops," more accurately depicts how she is perceived since the elections. She relates to Netanyahu's commitment to a two-state policy as the "height of hypocrisy." She castigated him for his UN address which most Israelis and Jews alike supported. At one stage, she even criticized him for conceding too much to Obama's demands for a settlement freeze. Instead of offering to support the government in resisting the global demonization of the Jewish state in the wake of the Goldstone Report, she accused Netanyahu of being responsible for Abbas's turnabout in supporting a UN censure of Israel for war crimes.

The extent of Livni's bitterness and lack of judgment were exemplified by her recent Knesset speech when she ranted at Netanyahu: "You have managed to beat the president of the United States, Israel's greatest friend... you have managed to humiliate the only partner for a peace settlement Israel has... We have beaten America, humiliated the Palestinians, isolated ourselves. Raise your head from the small politics and see what has happened. See that Israel is excommunicated. Today Turkey, yesterday Britain, before that Europe."

Livni seems unaware that most of the issues she accuses Netanyahu of botching had their genesis in the former Kadima government.

In these critical days, more so than at any time since 1967, increasing numbers of Israelis believe that the time has come for politicians to suspend their differences and unite to face the real dangers threatening the Jewish state. A national unity government would not merely be a great boost to national morale, but would also enormously strengthen our relationship with the US as well as our general standing in the international arena. The question remains: Can Kadima led by Livni overcome petty partisan political considerations and act in the best interests of the state?
ileibler@netvision.net.il

This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post

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