Doc's Talk: "What Is Going On??"

Monday, January 04, 2010

"What Is Going On??"

Arlene Kushner

With Netanyahu, that is, and his purported acquiescence to "67 lines with adjustments" as the basis for negotiations, which is making press in various quarters. The concept of "67 lines with adjustments" is not new, but was advanced in the current context in November by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The idea, which I will return to in more detail soon, is that everything beyond the Green Line (or '67 line) belongs to the Palestinian Arabs -- which is most certainly is not the case. This formulation, it is being said, would be great for Israel, because we would be allowed to retain major settlement blocs and, in return, would just have to give the Arabs land in the Negev or elsewhere inside the Green Line. The stuff of nightmares. But close to what Abbas wants: recognition that Judea and Samaria (and eastern Jerusalem ) are "theirs."

And now, this proposition is being floated as part of Mitchell's "terms of reference" for resuming negotiations.

~~~~~~~~~~

The statements regarding Netanyahu's alleged concession on using this as the starting point for negotiations are coming from Palestinian Arab, US, and Egyptian sources. A PA official, for example, spoke yesterday in Ramallah about "encouraging signs" that peace talks may begin soon.

There is not so much as a leak from inside of Israel.

Netanyahu went to Cairo last week and consulted with Mubarak regarding ways to jump start negotiations. At that time Netanyahu apparently proposed that Mubarak host a meeting between himself and Abbas; Abbas will be seeing Mubarak this week.

After Netanyahu left Cairo, he declared, "It's time to move the peace process forward."

Caroline Glick, on Friday, wrote, "The most sympathetic interpretation of Netanyahu's proclamation is that he was engaging in political theater. It was a low and dishonest statement..." She said nothing about any concessions he had made.

~~~~~~~~~~

My take is similar. And I think Glick's description -- "theater" -- is on the mark. I believe Netanyahu is playing a game. An exceedingly stupid, dangerous, and cowardly game:

He is not taking stands that should be taken, not drawing lines that must be drawn in bright red, and publicly. Instead, he is being deliberately vague -- engaging in studied ambiguity -- so that it cannot be said that he (perish the thought!) is responsible for stopping movement forward on the peace process. He is, once again, seeking to avoid confrontation with the Obama administration. But he is doing this without having made any firm commitment on "'67 lines with adjustments" or any other specific formulation. He just lets others draw conclusions, hear what they are oh so eager to hear.

I am convinced that at the end of the day, with all of the game-playing, he continues to bank on the assumption that Abbas doesn't even want to come to the table and in any event has not the leverage or clout within his own party to close a deal. I believe that he considers this game "safe."

I don't. Not because Abbas will cut a deal, but because precedents may be set that should not be set. Things may be acknowledged, even implicitly, that should never be acknowledged. And somehow, once again, we are perceived as being the ones who have to "give more."

~~~~~~~~~~

I would like to cite from an article in today's Post by Khaled Abu Toameh:

When Netanyahu was in Cairo, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said that Netanyahu discussed positions that "surpass in our estimate what we've heard [from the Israelis] in a long time. I can't say that he has come with changed positions, but he is moving forward."

How does Prime Minister Netanyahu do this? That is, leave people with the impression that he is "moving forward," even as he brings no changed positions? But the fact that he hasn't brought new positions should not be missed.

~~~~~~~~~~

I've consulted others whom I respect who offered the same take on what's going on. Quite frankly, I truly hope I'm correct here, not because I need to be right, but because if I'm wrong, things are even worse.

~~~~~~~~~~

The irony is that I believe Abbas is playing a game as well. I am convinced that he doesn't want to come to the table -- PA statements about "encouraging signs" notwithstanding -- and could not possibly benefit from doing so: There is no deal he could strike that would satisfy his basic (maximalist) demands. Were he to settle for less, he would jeopardize his shaky political position and quite possibly his life. for the tenor of Palestinian Arab politics is growing ever more extremist.

It was not politically correct to condemn the terrorist attack by members of Al Aksa on Rabbi Chai, and so he did not. But when the IDF shot those terrorists, after they refused to surrender, he sent an envoy to tell their families that he had named them as "Shahids [holy martyrs] of the Palestinian revolution." Now he is talking about breaking off all security cooperation with Israel.

~~~~~~~~~~

For a different model of how an official in Israel responds to the current situation, we can look to Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

Lieberman called a conference of Israeli ambassadors last week (calling them home from their posts for this), and, as their boss, said the following to them:

"In the acceptable codes of the Middle East, concepts such as 'national pride' have a very important value. You don't have to provoke or incite, but there must not be an attitude of groveling or self disparagement.

"I have seen some ambassadors who identify with the place in which they serve so much that they keep trying to explain the other side. This is the wrong approach. The time of groveling is over, we will not look for pretexts for conflict or friction, but we will not turn the other cheek.

"...every thing [must] have a response, this is the policy I demand of you ambassadors. The ambassadors must have good relations and respect the hosting party, and should not look for provocations, but we will not tolerate insults and abuse." (emphasis added)
Blessings upon him! He understands how much is lost when representative of our nation fail to exhibit national pride. No more groveling.

~~~~~~~~~~

As to the PA, Leiberman said:

"Enough hypocrisy. We do not have to pay any additional price in order to talk with [Mahmoud Abbas]. We have paid enough, and have made many gestures and steps, but we have received nothing in return."

~~~~~~~~~~
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