Doc's Talk: Poll: Support for Direct Negotiations in Case Cessation of Settlement Construction

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Poll: Support for Direct Negotiations in Case Cessation of Settlement Construction

IMRA

In a question about how the Palestinians identify themselves, the results
reveal that 61% identify themselves as 'Muslims first", 20% as
'Palestinians first', and 15% as 'human being first', and 3% as 'Arabs
first.' RAMALLAH, October 13, 2010 (WAFA - PLO news agency)- A recent opinion poll conducted by Near East Consulting (NEC) shows that 27% of Palestinians support direct negotiations with Israel under any circumstance, compared to 43% who support direct negotiations only on the condition that settlement activities are halted, while 30% oppose the direct negotiations under all
circumstances.

The survey was carried out between the second and fifth of October on a
random sample of 900 Palestinians over the age of 18 from both sexes, in the
West Bank and the Gaza Strip, including East Jerusalem. The margin of errors
is +/-3.4% and the confidence level is 95%.

Following the suspension of direct negotiations between the Palestinians and
the Israelis after the resumption of Israel's settlement activity, the
results show that the majority (90%) of the Palestinians believe that
Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is 'not serious' in reaching a
peace agreement through negotiations, compared to only 10% who think that
Netanyahu is serious. Still, 68% of the Palestinians support reaching a
peace agreement with Israel, compared to 59% in July of this year. In this
context, 62% called on Hamas to change its position towards the elimination
of Israel.

The findings also reveal that 19% of the Palestinians expect a Palestinian
state in the near future, 5% believe that this independent state will see
the light within one year, 10% said that it will take 2-5 years, while 21%
are of the opinion that the state will take more than 5 years for its
creation, and 46% don't expect an independent Palestinian state to ever
materialize.
As for factional trust, the popularity of Fateh has increased to 50%
compared to 44% in July 2010, so did the popularity of Hamas (from 7% to 9%
during the same period) , while the percentage of those who do not trust any
faction decreased from 45% in July 2010 to 37% nowadays.

The respondent were also asked about the faction closest to them
politically, 55% said Fateh, 11% said Hamas, and 5% said another faction,
while 29% insisted that there is no existing faction that represents their
political views.

According to NEC's previous surveys the level of support for Fateh may not
necessarily translate into the ballot boxes as it appears. This is due to a
number of reasons. First, as a pluralistic organization, Fateh, unlike
Hamas, is perceived as an umbrella organization that promotes different
views and ideologies. As such, means different things to different people.

Second, the negative perception that people have about many of Fateh's
leaders will probably alienate a large percentage of voters from voting for
the official Fateh candidates thus fragmenting the Fateh vote.

Third, Fateh will gain support from the non-partisans who comprise more than
one third of the population only if concrete progress is made on the
Palestinian-Israeli front. Lack of progress will shift the support to Hamas
especially as the majority of the non-aligned respondents seem to be
ideologically more in tune with Hamas than with Fateh.

Still, 51% of the respondents prefer Fateh's strategy compared to 9% that
prefers the strategy of Hamas while 40% prefer neither. President Mahmoud
Abbas kept his popularity as compared with Ismael Hanieh (52% versus 11%
respectively), while 38% refused to answer the question.

On the other hand, the results highlight the remarkable progress on the
level of support for Dr. Salam Fayyad's government, when compared with that
of Hanieh in Gaza, where 62% said that Fayyad's government is the legitimate
government in the oPt, while 15% said Hanieh's. Still, 24% believe that
neither government if legitimate. This result probably testifies to the
effective impact the Fayyad Government had on the Palestinians' daily life.

In a question about how the Palestinians identify themselves, the results
reveal that 61% identify themselves as 'Muslims first", 20% as
'Palestinians first', and 15% as 'human being first', and 3% as 'Arabs
first.'

According to the results, there is an improvement in the sense of security
of the Palestinians towards themselves, their families and their properties,
(56% feel secure compared with 44% feel insecure).

Still the proportion of anxiety is high for the majority of the
Palestinians. Slightly more than 90% feel concerned about the situation in
general. The main source of concern remained to be the economic condition of
the household (39%), followed by the internal dispute (24%), and the Israeli
occupation with 7% - noting that this option is not mentioned to the
respondents- 18% attributed their concern to the absence of security, and 5%
to family problems.

As for their psychological condition, 52% of the Palestinians are deemed as
frustrated, versus 39% are not and 9% are regarded as on the line. The
frustration rate is based on a set of five questions related to the
Palestinians daily life. These questions are used in the past by many
organizations to analyze the rate of depression of the population in areas
of conflict, wars and occupations.

Al Jazeera Satellite station is the most trusted by the majority of the
Palestinians, (44%); followed by 21% who trust Palestine TV, 15% trust
Al-Arrabiyah, while 6% said that they don't trust any of the TV stations. It
is noted here that there is improvement regarding the trust of the Palestine
TV, (from 15% in April to 21% now) and a significant drop in the level of
trust in Al-Jazeera, despite the fact that they continue to be ranked number
one.

As for the newspaper that the Palestinians trust more, Al-Quds newspaper
occupied the first position (46%), followed by Al Ayyam newspaper (13%),
while 14% expressed their lack of confidence in any newspaper.

The respondents were also asked about their assessment of some organizations
and agencies on a scale from zero to ten, where zero means very negative and
ten means very positive. UNRWA got 6 out of ten , 5 for the European Union,
2 for the Obama administration, the PLO , the Palestinian Authority , the
Presidential Office and the Fayyad government got 6, while the Hamas
government got only 3.

It is worth mentioning that Near East Consulting monitors the Palestinian
public perceptions on political, social and economic issues on a monthly
basis in addition to its various political, social, and economic studies
that are carried out on behalf of local and international organizations.

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