Doc's Talk: Be firm in Washington

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Be firm in Washington

Isi Leibler
May 19, 2011
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=2948

Isi Leibler will be in New York from May 22nd until June 2nd. He can be contacted via email at ileibler@netvision.net.il

The threats arising from the chilling empowerment of radical Islamic movements in the wake of the "Arab Spring" and the reunification of the openly genocidal Hamas with Fatah shatter any remaining dreams about the short-term prospects of reaching a settlement with the Palestinians.

Under the circumstances, rather than prostrating himself before President Barack Obama and making further unilateral concessions, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the Knesset on Monday suggested he has decided to take the offensive against those misguidedly seeking to offer us as a sacrifice to appease the Islamist world.

In his Washington dialogue with the American people, he should reiterate our desire not to rule over Arabs, and willingness to abide by UN Resolution 242, but insist that so long as the Palestinians who rejected Olmert's extraordinary offers and refuse to even negotiate, no further concessions will be forthcoming. Indeed, it would now be timely to deplore efforts to make us act like supplicants with the Palestinians.

There is no example in history of a state begging for peace from neighbors vanquished after repeatedly unleashing wars aimed at its destruction.

Particularly with some of their leaders boasting of their intention to try again.

Netanyahu should deplore the morally repugnant double standards applied to us.

He should contrast the recent commendations from every government concerning the targeted assassination of Osama Bin Laden with the hysterical condemnations directed against us in 2004 when we carried out a similar action against Hamas leader Sheikh Yassin. The UN, the EU and most governments then railed that "extra-judicial killings are contrary to international law," and that our action was "unlawful, unjustified and counterproductive."

The liberal US president who endorsed the targeted assassination of a mass murderer will not be called before a UN investigative committee, summoned to the International Court, or subjected to hypocritical condemnations.

Netanyahu should also deplore the fact that despite the IDF's unique code of ethics and extreme actions to minimize civilian casualties, it continues to be accused of war crimes by the odious Human Rights Council, dominated by Islamic and rogue states such as Iran and until recently Syria and Libya.

Even setting aside the duplicitous behavior of Abbas and the PA, the union with Hamas enables Netanyahu to conclusively expose the fallacy of the assertion that the Palestinians are "moderate peace partners."

He must denounce any reluctance to condemn the PA after Mahmoud Abbas proclaimed its merger with Hamas - the terrorist organization whose charter explicitly calls for the murder of every living Jew. Particularly so when Hamas immediately reaffirmed that it would never recognize Israel or renounce terror.

NETANYAHU should especially condemn those European countries which refused to denounce the Hamas-Fatah union. He should note that such behavior is like the attitudes countries displayed when the Nazis embarked on their genocidal campaign.

In fact, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton (who attended the signing ceremony), UK Prime Minister David Cameron and the Russians even praised the Fatah-Hamas union. And French President Sarkozy hinted that in September, France would recognize a PA/Hamas state.

Netanyahu should also point out that Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, with his organization's parent body, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, condemned the US slaying of Osama Bin Laden, the "Arab holy warrior," as an extension "of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood."

More significantly, despite Abbas applauding the demise of Bin Laden, his own military wing, the Al Aqsa Brigade, described the killing as a "catastrophe," and referred to "the martyr's death of the Sheikh, Jihad fighter Osama Bin Laden, in a treacherous manner, by the gangs of the heretics..."

After being criticized, Fatah withdrew a statement that it would remain "neutral."

AS IT appears that President Obama will now address AIPAC, it would seem that he will not be following the advice of his advisers, who had urged him to confront Netanyahu with an imposed solution based on the indefensible 1949 armistice lines.

Nonetheless, Netanyahu must stand firm. Other than reiterating the danger of a xenophobic, nuclear Iran, he should concentrate on demonstrating the folly of endorsing a Palestinian state whose leaders would include many with a worldview matching Osama bin Laden's. He must explain the devastating consequences not only for Israel, but also on the global battle against Islamic terror.

He should urge that a fully-fledged Palestinian state be sanctioned only if and when we have a genuine partner for peace, which it recognizes Israel as a Jewish state, meets our legitimate longterm security requirements, and forgoes the Arab "right of return."

Until then, he should caution our friends not to be deluded by our adversaries, and urge that they be denied any support which could be exploited to harm our citizens.

Democratic Congressman Gary Ackerman has already noted that "President Abbas now appears to be writing off his partnership with the US."

Some congressional leaders have demanded that US taxpayers cease funding the PA, a large proportion of whose leaders still shamelessly proclaim their genocidal objectives.

Netanyahu should also announce that if the Palestinians unilaterally proclaim a state based on the 1949 armistice lines, Israel would consider this an abrogation of the Oslo Accords, and would solicit US support for immediately annexing the major settlement blocs in accordance with understandings reached with the Bush administration.

In the current climate, Netanyahu is likely to find most Americans supportive if he reiterates that Israel will never capitulate like Czechoslovakia did in order to create "peace in our time."

He should remind them that pro rata, Palestinian terrorists have murdered a far greater percentage of Israeli citizens than Americans, and that we will not go along with the fantasies of those who believe the West will end its conflict with Islamic extremists by appeasing them at our expense.

Netanyahu must emphasize that his government shares the opinion of President Obama, who when announcing the execution of Bin Laden stated: "As a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened, nor stand by idly when our people have been killed. We will be relentless in defense of our citizens."

ileibler@netvision.net.il

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