Doc's Talk: Israel's Frozen Chutzpah

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Israel's Frozen Chutzpah

Emmanuel Navon
www.navon.com

As I was ordering breakfast with my son, this past Friday, in a new café its very existence is "illegal and constitutes an obstacle to peace" according to the canard-turned-Universal Truth, I got a call from France 24 ("The French CNN") to comment on the new "Police Academy" set up by Hamas in Gaza a month ago. "This is the pride of Hamas" explained the journalist before showing the report of his colleague Radjaa Abou Dagga. The latter explained that Hamas was proving that it is competent enough to run a state "without the help of anyone." And Hamas was compelled to start this academy "because of the blockade" imposed by Israel.

In other words, if Hamas can run West Point it can surely run the West Bank.

Then came my turn.

"Does this mean Hamas wants to establish a state without Fatah?" (Translation: Don't you understand you have to deal with Hamas?) asked the journalist. "Without Hamas and without Israel" I replied. "Hamas' ideology is to wipe out Israel. Hence the support it gets from Iran, which is probably funding this academy" I added. "Is there a Palestinian leader that can forge an understanding between Hamas and Fatah?" (Translation: Don't you understand you need to free Bargouti?) continued the journalist. "Well, that certainly wouldn't be Mahmoud Abbas, who rejected Ehud Olmet's generous peace offer in 2008 and who now refuses to negotiate with Israel despite Israel's gestures. By making peace unlikely, Abbas paves Hamas' success." The journalist felt he had to come to Abbas' rescue before "thanking" me. "Well" he said before abruptly ending the interview "this is because Abbas asked for a complete settlement freeze, which he didn't get."

The journalist was obviously aware of the fact that Israel had announced a settlement freeze two days before. But since the PA declared that Israel's move was irrelevant since it does not include Jerusalem, and since most mainstream media side with the Palestinians on whatever they say, the decision Israel made last week failed to call the Palestinians' bluff. This is just another example of Israel's wishful thinking. The text of the "Disengagement Plan" presented by Sharon to Likud voters in 2004 said that "after disengagement, the international community will no longer be able to say that the Gaza Strip is an occupied territory." Dream on: the international community can say whatever it wants. And, indeed, since Palestinian propaganda has "declared" that Gaza is actually still occupied, most international media toe to the party line. Israel didn’t really end its occupation of Gaza. Israel didn't really freeze construction beyond the green line. Etcetera, etcetera.

Netanyahu probably knew that the PA would respond to his move the way it did. But he needs to keep his coalition intact, and Ehud Barak had to show his rebelling party that he is not a rubber stamp in a right wing government. This is unfortunately the typical price Israeli Prime Ministers have to pay for our dysfunctional political system.

If Israel were to announce that the construction freeze applies to east Jerusalem as well, the Palestinians would likely reply that the freeze should also apply to west Jerusalem since the 1947 partition plan (which the Palestinians rejected but have no problem evoking for their propaganda needs) called for Jerusalem to be a corpus separatum. This claim would then be supported by the UN and by so-called NGOs (so-called, since they receive funding from governments to implement political agendas), and become the accepted truth in the media and in western chancelleries. This is endless.

Meanwhile, the price Netanyahu paid to keep Barak in his collation and make Labor's prima donnas feel good about themselves is affecting the daily lives of thousands of citizens who were encouraged by previous Governments (including Labor Governments) to settle areas that are officially labeled "consensual" (such as Gush Etzion and Maale Adumim).

Alternatively, if the Security Cabinet's decision to announce a construction freeze was the result of intensive American pressures, then Israel made a strategic mistake by not demanding reciprocal concessions from the PA and by not exposing Barack Obama's double standards.

Israel did not commit to freeze its building activities beyond the green lines in the Oslo Agreements. The PLO, by contrast, committed to recognize Israel and to end terror. In subsequent agreements (such as the Wye Agreement), the PA committed to end anti-Semitic incitement and to repeal the PLO Charter. The PA has not honored any of those commitments. The PA's media are full of anti-Semitic hatred, and PA schoolbooks keep indoctrinating Palestinian children by denying Jewish history and by hiding any connection between the Jews and the Land of Israel. Speakers at Fatah's convention a couple of months ago kept insisting (in front a map of "Greater Palestine" and not of the West Bank and Gaza, of course) that Fatah never recognized Israel and that it never abandoned the "armed struggle." As for the PLO Charter, it was never repealed. Israel should not have announced a settlement freeze without demanding that the PA finally fulfills its most basic commitments under the Oslo Agreements, after systematically violating them for the past sixteen years.

Likewise, Israel could have used the public diplomacy card by pointing out to Barack Obama's double standards when in comes to his alleged commitment to human rights. During his recent trip to Asia, Obama shamefully let China and Myanmar get away with their human rights violations. While in China, Obama said that America believes fundamental human freedoms are universal; but he refrained from openly saying that China does not respect those very freedoms. Obama's refusal to meet the Dalai Lama before his trip to China sent out the clear message that America's support for the rights of the Tibetans and for human rights in general is just a bargaining counter. Indeed, this is precisely what China has been saying for years.

Of course, Israel is not China. We are not a country of 1.5 billion people that holds $800 billion of US government debt and that is emerging as a superpower competing with America's global clout. This is precisely why Obama keeps talking about the Palestinians while ignoring the Tibetans. In other words, peoples' rights can count on America's support as long as those rights don't collide with America's interests.

We know that. This is what the French call raison d'État and what the Germans call Realpolitik. In simple English, it's called realism. Admitting that international relations are all about interests is a sign of maturity. But keeping our mouths shut when hypocrisy overflows is a sign of servility. While Israel is blessed with an abundance of home-made chutzpah, Israelis behave like wimps with foreign leaders. If we are going to put up with reality, at least let's do it with panache.

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