Doc's Talk: "Churning Wheels"

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

"Churning Wheels"

Arlene Kushner

I am here and functioning. Intense summer heat, grandchildren sleeping over... other writing to be done... With it all, I took a look each day at what there was to write about and thought, this can wait another day. :-)

But today I felt it was time. Those churning wheels are moving (if at all) very slowly. Abbas is playing the same game, in spite of pressure from Obama. He is refusing to come to the table for direct negotiations unless we agree upfront to the '67 lines as borders, freeze additional construction in Jewish communities past the Green Line, etc. etc. We all know the litany.

He has now received the backing of both Fatah and the PLO for this position.

~~~~~~~~~~

But never mind! Obama is apparently pleased with Abbas and sees the U.S.-PA relationship as "improving." At least this is what we're hearing from the State Department:

Just days ago, the State Department announced that the status of the Palestinian Authority/Palestinian Liberation Organization Mission in the United States will be changed from “bureau” to "general delegation.” This will allow the mission to fly the PLO/PA flag outside of its office. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the change represented an improvement in the U.S. relationship with the Palestinian Authority.

In light of that refusal by Abbas to go to direct talks -- even as this is being strongly urged by Obama -- it is difficult to understand on what basis the “improvement” is being assessed. There has been no mention by the U.S. of “tough decisions” the PA is being expected to make (in parallel with the tough decisions we are expected to make), and there has not even been a stipulation that the PA terminate its blatant and pervasive anti-Israel incitement.

Here we can learn a great deal about U.S. intentions: For anyone hoping that Obama's love offensive with Israel might be serious, this provides food for thought.

~~~~~~~~~~

Abbas made a statement the other day that caught my eye: He said that Israel was creating stumbling blocks to peace; in fact, he claimed, the IDF had entered the West Bank (i.e., Palestinian Arab areas of Judea and Samaria) 900 times in the last three months.

Now, I know that the IDF does nightly incursions into these areas to catch terrorists and uncover weapons caches. But according to Abbas's figure, the IDF is averaging 10 operations per night. This struck me as a bit high, and I currently am awaiting an official answer from the IDF on this. It is a stunning figure if it is true. But in any event the point I want to make here stands:

The very fact that the IDF has to do many operations nightly (be it 10 or 6) into PA areas is one more reason why we cannot pull out. The PA security forces are not, by themselves, equipped (or motivated) to stop terrorism as we do. There would be a serious increase in terrorism, were the IDF to withdraw. This, obviously, is not the case Abbas intended to make. But it stares us in the face.

~~~~~~~~~~

Recently, Foreign Minister Lieberman made a suggestion: Let's wash our hands of Gaza entirely. Build a fence at the border with Gaza so nothing goes in, stop the naval blockade, and permit the EU and whoever else to build electric generators and desalination plants in Gaza. Then tell the people there they're on their own. They'd generate their own electricity (we now supply 70%!), produce their own water (we help in that respect now too), bring in their humanitarian and commercial goods via the sea (instead of our supervising and monitoring by land), and we'd have no more responsibility for anything, and -- in theory -- no headaches.

While I understand the desire to be rid of this situation, I consider this a terrible solution. For the most important goal in monitoring what goes into Gaza is to stop the transfer of weapons. That's what the sea blockade is all about. Were we to take down that blockade, Iran would have a field day, freely transferring sophisticated weaponry to the terrorists of Gaza. The rockets and missiles would sail easily over that fence and we'd have headaches aplenty.

~~~~~~~~~~

I mention this because of a piece written by Yonaton Halevi, a senior researcher on the Middle East and radical Islam for the JCPA, on this very subject. Halevi is looking at an entirely different, and very important, aspect of this situation. For it seems that the PA and Hamas-- who, says Halevi, have an identical goal -- are opposed to setting Gaza free in the fashion described by Lieberman. The Palestinian Arabs, suggests Halevi, want to "keep the lava of the refugee problem at full boil, as this constitutes the key to the ultimate objective of the historic Palestinian odyssey-- the liquidation of the State of Israel as a Jewish state. This is the real reason behind the Palestinian love affair with the "Israeli occupation." (Note: the Palestinian Arabs claim that Gaza is still "occupied.")

This merits a careful read.

http://www.globallawforum.org/ViewPublication.aspx?ArticleId=131

~~~~~~~~~~

A two ship flotilla may be leaving soon from Lebanon, to try, once again, to break the Gaza blockade. In response to a letter addressing this matter sent to the UN by Israeli Ambassador to the UN Gabriela Shalev, UN Spokesperson Martin Narisky said:

“There are established paths for the transfer of goods into the Gaza Strip by land. This is the proper way to transfer aid to the residents of Gaza. We prefer that any additional aid will be sent via land, especially during this sensitive time following the recent proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinians.”

A switch.

~~~~~~~~~~

With regard to the blockade, you might want to see this:

"The Legal Basis of the Blockade of Gaza," by Ruth Lapidoth, Professor Emeritus in International Law at Hebrew University:

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=4402&TTL=The_Legal_Basis_of_Israel’s_Naval_Blockade_of_Gaza

~~~~~~~~~~

I have never found arguments for our retention of the land in Judea and Samaria that are based exclusively on security issues to be satisfactory. For they totally overlook the legal right we have to the land, our history in the land, and all the rest. If doing so doesn't put us at risk from a security perspective, it's OK to give away our heritage?

That said, I concede that there is a certain power (forgive the pun) to this bottom-line argument. It is valid as one reason for not surrendering the land -- one very serious and solid reason. And it has impact in places where arguments about our heritage might not carry the day.

The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and Director Dore Gold in particular, have actively promoted the argument for secure borders.

Recently, the JCPA put out "Israel's Critical Security Needs for a Viable Peace." This is a study of the issues that brought together a group of senior IDF generals. The link below brings you to a page that includes a video, a summary of the study, the assessment of each of the generals independently, and an opportunity to download the full study.

http://www.defensibleborders.org/security/

~~~~~~~~~~
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