Doc's Talk: "Nothing Good to Speak Of"

Sunday, May 02, 2010

"Nothing Good to Speak Of"

Arlene Kushner

So much is opaque these day -- with diverse news reports often contradicting each other, and a great deal that remains hidden under the surface.

PA president Abbas stated in an interview last week that there are no plans to declare Palestinian statehood unilaterally. His statement was seen as countering an interview given to Haaretz by Fayyad earlier in April in which he hinted at the possibility of a unilateral declaration.
But other reports indicate that Israel is worried that Abbas indeed might move unilaterally. A lead article on Friday in the JPost written jointly by David Horovitz, editor, and Khaled Abu Toameh declared that "concern is growing among some in the Israeli government that the PA is planning to marginalize the diplomatic process...

"There is a rising conviction among some in the Netanyahu government...that the PA is aiming to secure a new UN Security Council Resolution, updating 1967's Resolution 242, providing for the establishment of Palestine and fudging the refugee issue." This Palestinian state, some believe, would not be established to make peace with Israel, but, rather, to continue the conflict from a place of greater strength.

~~~~~~~~~~

But wait! What is clear to most top level decision-makers in our government is that Abbas is not prepared to negotiate "viable" terms for peace with Israel.

It is what makes the very notion of "peace negotiations" a joke. Thus, embracing Abbas's willingness to negotiate -- which is supposed to be a "relief" for us -- at one level constitutes a farce, no more than a game that the world is willing to go along with.

If, indeed, Abbas is planning on a unilateral declaration, he would do it in any event after these negotiations "failed," with a preface about how he tried, but how Israeli intransigence requires him to resort to other means.

I will return to this in a bit.

~~~~~~~~~~

The statement by Abbas contradicting the Fayyad position on a unilateral declaration is just one indication that tensions between Abbas -- along with his Fatah party -- and Fayyad have increased. Fayyad is the independent, the darling of the West, who holds the position he does not because of a solid political base, but because Western funds would dry up if he were not in that position.

But Fatah -- which has been glad for the funding and the favor that Fayyad has accrued in the West for the PA -- has begun to become restive about this situation: Fayyad is now seen as a threat to Fatah control of the PA. And so reports surfaced recently of a demand by the Fatah Revolutionary Council that the portfolios for interior, finance and foreign affairs, currently held by Fayyad loyalists, be turned over to Fatah members.

Additionally there is unease within Fatah because of indications that Abbas is suffering health problems; the party is demanding that Abbas appoint a deputy president to prevent a power vacuum should he be unable to carry out his duties.

According to Abu Toameh, "Many Fatah officials see Fayyad as a major threat to their faction's status, and some are convinced that he has his eyes set on the presidency.

"'Only Fatah will decide who the next president is,' a member of the Revolutionary Council said, 'We won't allow the Americans or the Europeans or the Israelis to choose our president.'"

~~~~~~~~~~

Abbas, for his part, has now secured the approval of the Arab League to begin those "proximity talks," and Mitchell will be coming to the area very soon to do the shuttling back and forth.

Perhaps I didn't lead off with this news because I am decidedly unenthusiastic about it. I see no good coming of this in any event.

In his Friday column, David Horovitz outlined the issues that were holding up these talks. There was more at stake than the hullabaloo about the Ramat Shlomo housing start, even though the impression was commonly given that this was at the heart of the matter. Reports have surfaced regarding a dispute between Israel and the PA regarding the nature of these talks -- with Israel having assumed that they would be brief and lead quickly to face-to-face talks, and the PA expecting them to continue in this mode for some months. (Undoubtedly the working assumption of the PA is that the longer the US mediates, the more they can rely on the Americans to pressure Israel.)

Additionally there was the question of core issues and whether they would be discussed in indirect talks, with Israel maintaining these difficult issues could only be dealt with face-to-face.

~~~~~~~~~~

OK, so now Abbas, having relinquished his right and responsibility as "leader" of the PA to make independent decisions regarding negotiations, has gotten the go-ahead for indirect talks from the obstructionist Arab League. (One commentator noted that it was the League that originally founded the PLO back in 1964, so that this represents a step backward.)

What are we going to see happen as talks are set to begin? Indications are that there have been concessions on the part of our government.

One Israeli official was quoted as saying, "We are willing to discuss the core issues in the framework of the proximity talks, but it has to be only a preliminary discussion of the core issues."

Oh, I see...

The "core issues" routinely alluded to are Jerusalem, refugees and borders. This official added a demilitarized state and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

As to timing, Israel expresses hope that the movement to direct talks can take place fairly quickly, but it is being acknowledged that this process may proceed for some months.

~~~~~~~~~~

And what of the issue: the demand that we do no building in eastern Jerusalem?

Our government is still saying that we will be building. And it has been announced that the Jerusalem District Planning and Construction Committee will be convening this week to discuss a "limited number of housing starts" in eastern Jerusalem, although details on where and for whom these houses would be has not been announced.

So, perhaps it indeed is true that we have not frozen all construction for Jewish housing in eastern Jerusalem. Indeed, Horovitz, in his column, acknowledges -- as have other analysts -- that the US may have accepted the fact that this is Netanyahu's red line and persuaded the PA to enter the talks anyway. (A possibility I advanced recently.)

However, there is a great deal that is still very obscure.

A letter of some sort was sent by Obama to Abbas providing, it is said, certain assurances that made it possible for Abbas to move ahead. The US government will not discuss the contents of this letter. What the PA claims it addresses, including assurances on a construction freeze, is meaningless -- in the absence of an American statement they can say what they wish to cover themselves.

Left hanging in the air is the Abbas insistence, even now, that these talks will proceed only if there is no building in eastern Jerusalem.

Stay tuned.

~~~~~~~~~~

A few observations with regard to this "peace process" and our prime minister's role in it:

He professes pleasure in the fact that it's "moving ahead" and expresses an eagerness to be part of it, all of which is heartburn-inducing.

But what's crystal clear is that he knows that no "two state solution" is going to result, with peace breaking out. My perception is that all of this is part of his diplomatic style of playing the game, on the precipice of that slippery slope. He wants to be able to say, "See, we did our part, to the utmost, and failure to reach peaceful resolutions must be laid at the door of the PA leaders." He's watching over his shoulder -- watching Obama and the Quartet, the UN and the EU.

In particular, I would say, he wants this as a foil against possible PA plans for a unilateral announcement. He is attempting to garner sufficient US approval so that it would veto a Palestinian state in the Security Council.

In addition to this, there is the hope that, even if nothing ultimately results, the negotiations will force the PA leaders to focus their energies on this rather than the UN -- in essence taking the wind out of their sails.

I -- going way out on a limb -- cannot help but ponder what would happen if we played it the other way. If we refused to negotiate because the PA is blatantly inciteful, still supports terrorists, etc. etc. And then, if the PA unilaterally declared a state and used it as a base to attack us, we informed the world of the fact that this was illegal according to the Oslo agreement that created the PA, and then went to war and finished it clean.

This, however, will never be Netanyahu's style.

~~~~~~~~~~

Here I refer to a recent piece by Daniel Pipes. He has a peace plan, he says. "It's simple: Israel defeats its enemies.

"Victory uniquely creates circumstances conducive to peace. Wars end, the historical record confirms, when one side concedes defeat and the other wins."

It should only be!

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/04/29/daniel-pipes-towards-an-israeli-victory.aspx

~~~~~~~~~~

I call your attention, as well, to an opinion piece by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, "Real peace cannot be imposed," which appeared in the JPost on Friday.

Is he a loose canon, as some suggest? Or, as seems to me more likely, does he speak with sanction from the prime minister?

States Lieberman, "The Great British statesman Edmund Burke once said, 'Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing.' The Palestinians and Syrians are being taught by the international community that their hypocrisy and inflexibility is costing them absolutely nothing. They reject every gesture and demand ever more concessions."

After cataloguing failings of the PA that I addressed above, in terms of continued PA glorification of terrorism, he moves to a history lesson on the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia:

"ISRAEL WILL not become another Czechoslovakia and will not succumb to international pressure to compromise its vital interests."

Ariel Sharon said something similar. Let this government mean it.

http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=174339

~~~~~~~~~~

The Obama administration this past week has been courting the Jewish community with all sorts of declarations of respect for and devotion to Israel's wellbeing. There are those, of course, who see in this good things and evidence of a genuine shift in the president's approach. Our defense minister, just returning from Washington, is one of them.

But I don't trust Obama even as far as I could throw him. As far as I am concerned, he is responding disingenuously to pressure put upon him, notably by AJC's Ron Lauder and ADL's Abe Foxman. The lesson for the American Jewish community is that political pressure works on the president and should be increased.

~~~~~~~~~~

Here, at last, I provide the link to the Horovitz piece that I've referred to in the course of this posting. For he addresses this issue as well, and lays out the continuing failure of the Netanyahu and Obama administrations to see eye-to-eye on important matters regarding "peace":

"..the plain, unfortunate fact remains that not only are Israel and the Palestinians deeply and predictably at odds, so are Israel and the Obama administration.

"...The most profound difference...relates to the gauging of Abbas's peacemaking intentions.

"Although it concedes the possibility that Abbas is only entering the proximity talks in order to create a sense of momentum and then blame Israel for an inevitable breakdown, Washington believes Abbas is prepared to endorse viable terms for peace. (Huh?) Jerusalem does not."

http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=174339

~~~~~~~~~~

The New York Times reported recently that Obama had suggested the US, if displeased with us, might no longer exercise its veto in the Security Council against anti-Israel resolutions.

However, a senior administration official who spoke to the pan-Arab paper Al-Sharq il-Awsat has denied this. He says the US will continue to defend Israel's right to self-defense and will continue to stand against selective criticism targeting Israel. While good to learn, this, of course, tells us nothing about a veto of a resolution for a Palestinian state.

With this I end a lengthy posting, mindful that there is a great deal more to explore, and that tomorrow is another day.

~~~~~~~~~~
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