Doc's Talk: FYI: When America Forsakes its Palestinian Ally

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

FYI: When America Forsakes its Palestinian Ally

Bilal Hassen
Asharq Alawsat

US planning, European pressure, Arab complacency, and fragility of the Palestinian negotiator; these are the four factors that have made the racist right-wing government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, seem as if it is the victorious power that can impose everything it wants in the farce of the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. Now, we have reached the verge of direct negotiations, which will take place completely in accordance with the formula Israel wants. Israel's formula is negotiations without any prior conditions, i.e. negotiations in which the Palestinian side concedes all its demands. This means that the Palestinian negotiator is facing two possibilities, with no other alternative: The first possibility is to capitulate completely to Israeli negotiation formula, and to accept the establishment of a Palestinian State that lives within Israel's grip, and that will be an organizational structure subordinate to Israel; the second possibility is that the negotiations will be negotiations in which President Mahmud Abbas will repeat the previous ones he conducted without having any alternative for the expected failure.

For a long time, the eternal Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, has been singing in our ears the long series of Palestinian demands, without which there is no going to negotiations. Whenever he was told that these are prior conditions, he used to articulate the explanation: These are not prior conditions, but they are the commitments of the "Road Map," which are laid down by the United States itself. Whenever he reiterated this on television screens, he seemed a firm negotiator, who knew his ground. However, here we are now witnessing Saeb Erekat himself at the forefront of the television screens, as usual, but he has forgotten "the commitments of the Road Map," and there is no longer any mention of them in his talk.

Also President Mahmud Abbas has been singing in our ears his emphasis on Palestinian conditions to move from indirect negotiations to direct ones. These conditions are: Halting all settlement activities, particularly in Jerusalem, and specifying a reference point for the negotiations on the basis of the Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders. However, here we are now witnessing him completely silent about any mention of the condition of halting the settlement activities, and about the issue of Jerusalem.

In Jerusalem, the settlement activities have escalated to the level of evicting people from their homes, considering the city as part of the "State of Israel" and not territories occupied in 1967, and applying the Israel Absentee Property Law to the population of the city living outside it, along the lines of what happened with the Palestinian refugees in 1948. What is new here is that the absentee from Jerusalem is a Palestinian who lives, for instance, in Ramallah; a student studying abroad, whose travel permission has lapsed; a wife who traveled to join her husband in another place; or a struggler whom Israel prevents from residing in Jerusalem. All these have become "absentees" in the "democratic" State of Israel." The homes and properties of all these people have become subject to the Israel Absentee Property Law, while these people are inches away from these properties.

The latest negotiation game played by the Palestinian negotiator is insisting on a statement to be issued by the International Quartet, which mentions the 1967 borders, and specifies a time limit for the negotiations. However, also this game started to lead to nothing. The Quartet statement will not be in the form of conditions for negotiations, because of a very clear reason, namely that Emperor Netanyahu refuses this. Therefore, the Quartet statement will talk about the 1967 borders, will mention the issue of the time frame of the negotiations, and will bring the glad tidings of agreeing to establish a Palestinian State (from which Netanyahu will cut off half the West Bank). However, all this will be an expression of "opinion," "aspirations," and "intentions" of the Quartet, but will never be binding "conditions" for the negotiations to which both the Palestinian and Israeli sides adhere. Therefore, the Quartet statement will turn into nothing.

We have seen this picture repeatedly and it is boring, especially when we sink into its details. However, it acquires special importance and gravity when we put it in its strategic context that is drawn up by the United States, and that the United States works to impose on all. Herein lies the significance of the hard-line attitude practiced by Netanyahu, an attitude that is supported by Washington and all the European capitals in the form of pressure on the Palestinians and the Arabs.

Within this context, the following strategic issues come to the fore:

First: The US pursuit of keeping Israel as the prevailing political, military, and strategic power in the region. Within this pursuit, Israel should not retreat in a confrontation with the Palestinians, and should not seem weak under international pressure or in front of the Arabs. Therefore, Israel must impose its conditions on the negotiations. In order to support this Israeli stance, Washington agrees to sell Israel new and very advanced aircraft, which will place Israel in a dominating strategic position (as from 2017). These are the same aircraft that aroused a great deal of commotion in Washington against Saudi Arabia's attempt to buy similar aircraft, especially as these aircraft are attack and not defensive ones,

Second: The US Administration encourages Israel's pursuit to establish new rapprochement with Greece in order to compensate for the alienation that occurred recently between Israel and Turkey. This Israeli-Greek rapprochement includes military exercises and intelligence work. This is because it is well known that Israel always needs a wide airspace (outside its own airspace) to train on the advanced types of long-range aircraft; in the past this training used to take place with Turkey, but as from now it will take place with Greece.

Third: The US Administration, particularly through President Obama, carries out communications with the Turkish leaders and threatens them. The Administration tells the leaders that the policy of hostility toward Israel and rapprochement with Iran will lead to reducing the US arming of Turkey. It is well known that Turkey voted against the UN resolutions to impose sanctions on Iran. This is not because Turkey supports Iran as a military nuclear power, but because Turkey was a primary mediator, together with Brazil, in the pursuit of securing international control over the enrichment of the Iranian uranium so that it would not be used for military purposes, but Washington stood against this pursuit and hindered it. Therefore, it was logical that Turkey would continue its diplomacy, and vote against the sanctions resolution. Nevertheless, Washington keeps threatening Turkey.

Fourth: The direct, fast, and crude US bias in favor of Israel after the Israeli-Lebanese border clashes, and the US rushing to threaten Lebanon to stop arming it. Then there is the emergence of an intensive Israeli campaign saying that the Lebanese Army has fallen under the control of Hezbollah, merely because the Lebanese Army resisted an Israeli aggression against a tree in the south.

These four issues reveal a strategic vision of continuing the US control over the Arab region and its regional environment. Israel takes the first place in imposing this strategy on the region. Because of this major US goal, it is logical to support Israel in its negotiations with the Palestinians, so that it remains strong and victorious. The retreat of Israel here expresses weakness, and hence it should not occur.

This has been the policy of the neo-conservatives, and here is Obama continuing to implement it, whatever he says, and whatever nice words he might use.

Comment: Note the consistency in message. No diversion, all say the same-they are united in focus. Problem is all is based upon either illogical logic and/or lies. Remember, there are no such thing as 1967 borders-yet even this re-known Palestinian writer cannot abandon the lie.

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