Doc's Talk: New freeze expected to pass security cabinet by one vote

Monday, November 15, 2010

New freeze expected to pass security cabinet by one vote

TOVAH LAZAROFF, REBECCA ANNA STOIL
11/15/2010

Right threatens stiff opposition; Ya’alon says American proposal is a "honey trap;" Obama calls measure positive step, says Netanyahu "is serious."

By a margin of one, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is expected to pass his proposal for a 90-day settlement freeze when he brings the matter before the 15-member security cabinet.

US President Barack Obama on Sunday said the proposed freeze was a “very constructive step” that he hoped would lead to serious peace negotiations soon. “I think it’s a signal that he [Netanyahu] is serious,” Obama said.

But before those talks with the Palestinian Authority begin, Netanyahu must defeat stiff resistance by right-wing opponents who believe they can overcome his narrow margin in the security cabinet.

According to a count done by The Jerusalem Post, right now, seven security cabinet members support the measures, and six oppose it. It would not apply to east Jerusalem.

The critical element that would appear to allow the proposal’s passage is the expectation that the two Shas ministers in the security cabinet will abstain from the vote.

Interior Minister Eli Yishai, who heads Shas, said his party would support it only if east Jerusalem construction could continue as normal during the 90-day period and if Obama promised in writing that at the end of the freeze, settlement building would resume throughout the West Bank.

Right-wing Likud MKs threatened on Sunday to fight Netanyahu in the Knesset and said they would consider parliamentary sanctions against their own party, should Netanyahu succeed in pushing the freeze through the security cabinet.

The most painful blow that these coalition backbenchers could deal to the government would be to mount opposition to the upcoming votes on the state budget and its accompanying economic arrangements bill.

To plot this strategy, the Likud MKs, including coalition chairman Ze’ev Elkin, planned to meet in the Knesset on Monday. Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein and MKs Danny Danon, Yariv Levin and Tzipi Hotovely are all expected to attend.

Separately, MK Uri Orbach, who heads the Habayit Hayehudi Knesset faction, threatened to act within his party to force it to leave the coalition, a move that would reduce the coalition from 74 to 71 mandates.

Even without Habayit Hayehudi, Netanyahu would retain a clear majority in the 120-member Knesset.

On Sunday, the prime minister presented the full cabinet with the plan to halt new settlement construction for 90 days in exchange for US security and diplomaticguarantees.

The draft of the proposal was hammered out on Thursday during a seven-hour meeting in New York between Netanyahu, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and members of their staff.

Netanyahu told the cabinet that the proposal was an preliminary one and that a final text was still under discussion.

It’s expected that US and Israeli officials will hold face-to-face meetings in the coming days to hammer out the details. Only then will Netanyahu bring the matter to the security cabinet.

In a bold gamble that it can push both Israelis and Palestinians to resolve the issue of borders in 90 days, Washington has pledged not to pressure Israel to continue its settlement freeze after that period of time.

If imposed, the freeze would reinstate the moratorium on new settlement construction and would be retroactive to September 26; as such it would halt all building that has begun since then.

Construction that was started before November 26, 2009, can continue, as it did during the earlier 10-month moratorium.

Before Sunday’s cabinet meeting, Netanyahu said, “I insist that any proposal meet the State of Israel’s security needs, both in the immediate term and vis-à-vis the threats we will face in the coming decade.”

He added that during his talks with Clinton and earlier with Vice President Joe Biden last week, as well as with other US politicians and officials, “I raised – first and foremost – the need to stop the Iranian nuclear project.

This is the greatest threat to both world peace and the security of the State of Israel.”

But many ministers were unswayed by his talk of Iran.

Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon (Likud) called the American proposal a “honey trap that will plunge us into another crisis with the Americans in the future, in three months or maybe even before then.”

Vice Premier Silvan Shalom (Likud) warned that approving the proposal would be a “strategic” mistake because the expectation is that during the 90-day freeze, the two sides would agree on a permanent border that could involve a withdrawal from most of Judea and Samaria.

On Sunday night, Danon held an emergency meeting with regional and local council heads from Judea and Samaria, and with dozens of Likud activists to plot their strategy to sabotage the proposed freeze.

“The idea of Freeze II is another bad film from the Obama production company,” Danon said at the meetings. “It is strange that the election results in the United States didn’t light a giant warning light for Obama that the way to justify his Nobel Prize is not through pressuring Israel.”

Likud backbenchers were not the only members of the ruling party to slam the moratorium.

“This is not a question of three months, but a process that will ultimately bring about the determination of final borders,” warned Deputy Minister for Negev and Galilee Development Ayoub Kara (Likud). “The American ‘commitment’ to a veto [of a unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood] in the UN Security Council, which is restricted to a year, is a serious strategic error. This is the time frame dedicated to a final agreement, and if, God forbid, we don’t meet the conditions, the veto that was taken for granted in the past will turn into something uncertain.”

Kara dismissed the American offers of increased military and budgetary aid as “temptations that do not make the situation any better.”

“As long as the conversations with [PA President Mahmoud] Abbas aren’t being held in Gaza, there is no reason to continue the negotiations, and as long as Abbas isn’t able to step on Gazan soil because the rulers there don’t yield to temptations and stick to the benefits offered by 72 virgins, we can’t be pulled along after baseless promises,” Kara said.

Elkin and MK Arye Eldad (National Union) sent a letter on Sunday to the right-wing members of the government calling to oppose the US freeze proposal. The pair called on MKs to “stand with them in this testing time, to oppose every additional freeze and to demand a renewal of building, as the cabinet decided.”

The letter continued, “No security package can be as valuable as the security provided by the hills and the Jordan Valley.”

But opposition MKs in Kadima warned that refusing to accede to the American request for another moratorium could have bad consequences.

“Ideological stubbornness and political stubbornness will bring about a binational state,” warned MK Otniel Schneller (Kadima). “We must first and foremost maintain our national interests, of which settlement is just one, and to accept the American proposition that will ensure the continuation of the peace process alongside building in the settlement blocs.”

“We in Kadima,” added Schneller, “honestly intend to support the diplomatic process on the basis of two national states, to be partners in maintaining the national interests of Israel, and to join a unity government on a basis of ideology and national responsibility.”

AP and Jerusalem Post staff contributed to this report.

Comment: Another mistake by Israel. This also signals a radical change in nature of support for Israel by USA. The conditions placed upon us fall into "my rules or we support your enemy". Ya'alon is correct, this will come back to bite us-it will be used by our enemy in every future negotiation-how short sighted we have become.

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