Doc's Talk: "Slogging Through"

Sunday, March 06, 2011

"Slogging Through"

Arlene Kushner

The going is tough because we're in such tremendous flux: Blink your eyes and the situation -- which lacked clarity in any event -- has shifted once again.

Perhaps toughest of all is the fact that rational thinking has been abandoned in many quarters. Our by-word might be "They can't really mean that, can they?"

And so, we slog through...

~~~~~~~~~~

Last week I wrote that Netanyahu was meeting with the Inner Cabinet -- the Septet -- to decide whether to send a representative of the government -- chief negotiator Yitzhak Molcho, to be precise -- to Brussels to meet with members of the Quartet; they were seeking clarification of the positions of Israel and the PA with regard to "peace negotiations."

The fear was that the Quartet, after having heard both sides, would end up making a statement regarding a Palestinian state with the '67 armistice line as border. Well, we didn't send anyone to Brussels, but Quartet representatives are coming here this week -- oh joy! -- and we can hardly refuse to talk to them.

The members of that Quartet -- the US, the UN, the EU, and Russia -- definitely qualify for a "They can't really mean that, can they?" question. The unhappy fact, however, is that they DO mean it.

Whatever their obviously ulterior motives, how they imagine we can negotiate "peace" when:

* The PA is courting Hamas
* The PA is expressing rage at the US
* Fatah is eager to get rid of Fayyad, the darling of the West and said to be the most moderate

is one of the great unknowns of the moment. Especially while so much is on fire here, and there is a great deal else to attend to.

~~~~~~~~~~

The big question, then, is how we, here, will handle ourselves.

Minister of Strategic Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon recently gave an interview to Besheva magazine. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142671

In that interview, he said, in part:

“No minister among the seven [the Inner Cabinet] believes that an agreement with the PA can be reached in the foreseeable future. We have seen it in their refusal to accept our three conditions - a willingness to recognize Israel as a Jewish nation, a willingness to recognize the arrangement reached as the end of the conflict, and a willingness to accept our security needs... These requirements have been met with absolute refusal.

"The ball is in their court...

“We said that we do not want to control them, and indeed they conduct their own civil affairs. If they do not have a clear willingness to recognize our rights, then we won’t mention even a millimeter of concession. The question is whether there is a willing partner in the process who will prove himself as serious, with an ability to govern, manage the economy and especially educate their youth to accept Israel's existence, or whether they prefer to educate them to explode on us. Now they prefer to educate them to explode, they deny our existence, and their maps are all covered with the flag of Palestine, so there is nothing to discuss regarding conceding space or, G-d forbid, dividing Jerusalem. It is clear that any paper we sign will be lit with the fire of terrorism.

“Our intention is to leave the situation as it is: autonomous management of civil affairs, and if they want to call it a state, let them call it that. If they want to call it an empire, by all means. We intend to keep what exists now and let them call it whatever they want.

“As you can see we have already been serving for two years as a government, despite the left opposition parties criticizing us when there is no progress in the negotiations, and unfortunately their perception of progress is an Israeli withdrawal. Our approach is completely different. Our approach is steadfastness, development, construction, strengthening and so on. This is our approach and this is what we do as a government.”
~~~~~~~~~~

Fervently do I wish Ya'alon spoke for all of the government. But if Defense Minister Ehud Barak were giving the interview, it would sound quite different. And, whatever the official policy, there is no question that construction has been slowed. It's not all as clear and as positive as it would seem here.

And yet..and yet.. This interview is encouraging, especially when Ya'alon says that no one in the Septet believes an agreement with the PA can be reached in the foreseeable future. "No one" includes the prime minister.

But does Netanyahu convey steadfastness and strengthening? I would be hard put to find anyone who thinks so.

~~~~~~~~~~

The simple truth is that Prime Minister Netanyahu's way of handling matters is of singular and primary importance.

The word has gone out that he is "seriously considering" a new proposal. He will be going to the States for the AIPAC convention in late May, and is said to be looking for an opportunity to address Congress with regard to this proposal.

Since Netanyahu is well known for what we might call creeping concessions, rather than steadfastness, there is vast unease about the prospect of another proposal from him. It's been said that he will suggest something interim, because a full agreement is simply not possible now. And from some quarters I've picked up hints that he will propose something in the nature of an autonomy, along the lines of what Ya'alon was describing. But until we hear the proposal, we don't know.

~~~~~~~~~~

Yet, I do not think it necessarily the case that making a proposal is a bad move.

~~~~~~~~~~

I have a confession to make here: I am startled by the persistence and the apparent strength of Abbas, in terms of how he is handling himself. He is coming out on the offensive, after it had been predicted in several quarters, including right here, that he was finished.

With everything else he has contended with, including severe unrest inside of Fatah, it was the Al-Jazeera leaks, which made the PA leaders look more conciliatory in negotiations than they were commonly thought to be, that was said to have finished him. He was accused of betraying his cause.

What he's doing now is showing how tough he is, to counter that damage. And, he gets away with it because the Quartet lets him -- even with regard to courting Hamas. The other day, Caroline Glick made the point, which I cited, that Abbas knows that the US and EU need him because of internal politics. This gives him courage to act as he wishes without fearing repercussions.

Abbas had already let it be known that he won't accept any "interim" plan. And just today he made a demand that the Quartet "force Israel to end occupation of our lands...Our people deserve freedom and independence so that they could live in their homeland like the rest of the people in the world."

By September, he says, he wants a Palestinian state to be a full member of the UN. (This issue I will table for another day.)

~~~~~~~~~~

Netanyahu hopes to be able to say to the international community, and most specifically the US, that while Israel cannot agree to what Abbas demands, we are not a stumbling block, but, rather, have our own proposal intended to move matters forward.

He certainly wants to shift the onus to the PA. Plus, I would imagine, he wants to give the Quartet something to hold on to, so that they can tout "progress." De-fang them a bit, if you will.

~~~~~~~~~~

I am quite familiar with the line of thought that suggests we simply stand tough and tell the world "no."

But there is a problem with this -- a problem that is at least in part of our own making. The war against the Arabs is being fought on the PR level as well as on a terrorist battlefield. Since, damn it, we have not advanced our own narrative with strength these past several years, the world believes what the PA says.

The world, not having been provided with solid and consistent information, for example, showing that the '67 line -- the Green Line -- was only a temporary armistice, actually believes that it was a border and that everything to the east of the Green Line "belongs" to the Palestinian Arabs.

Because the world believes that we are "occupiers" (we're not), and because the PA has accused us of apartheid (I'll come back to this, as well), the world, or certain portions of it, talks about treating us the way the apartheid government of South Africa was treated -- with the hope that we can be brought down via boycotts, divestment, and sanctions. It is the delegitimizing of Israel that must be fought.

~~~~~~~~~~

And so, on the face of it, addressing the Congress is not a bad idea -- depending, of course, on what is said.

If the position presented by Netanyahu is simply one of further concessions, then he will be making the Arabs' case for them. And that is what he must not do.

Whatever interim proposal he may advance, I believe he should begin with a solid statement about our rights and the historical misrepresentations that have prevailed.

~~~~~~~~~~

In the coming days, I hope to return to this theme. It is THE theme that matters for us.

~~~~~~~~~~

© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.

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