Doc's Talk: "No Caving Here"

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

"No Caving Here"

Arlene Kushner

This news is only hours old, and too important to be missed:

Prime Minister Netanyahu has informed Secretary of State Clinton that there will be no apology to Turkey for the killing of nine Turkish citizens associated with a terrorist group last year, when the Mavi Marmara -- a ship flying under a Turkish flag -- participated in a flotilla attempt to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza. When Israeli soldiers boarded the ship, Turkish members of IHH, a radical Islamic group with ties to Hamas, attacked them.

~~~~~~~~~~

Clinton had been pushing our government to make that apology because it was ostensibly going to improve relations between Israel and Turkey -- something that the US was eager to facilitate, in the face of the deteriorating situation in Syria.

(So eager was the US for Israel to apologize that, according to YNet, Israeli diplomats in Washington reported that US officials even suggested that without such an apology it would be difficult for the US to persuade other nations to reject the Palestinians' UN appeal for recognition as a state. One more bit of unmitigated nonsense.)

It should be noted that every serious analyst of the situation rejected any notion that an apology, which would have been limited and carefully worded in any event, would have had any effect on the Israeli-Turkish relationship. Turkey, which was once a secular Muslim state of some moderation, has gone significantly Islamist.

The evidence for this is clear: In response to the announcement, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan declared, "As long as Israel does not apologize, does not pay compensation and does not lift the embargo on Palestine, it is not possible for Turkey-Israeli ties to improve." Lift the embargo on Palestine?

~~~~~~~~~~

It is gratifying to know that the prime minister has stood his ground. Appeasement simply weakens us, and this is a time when the last thing we can afford is to appear weak. The fact is that we were right.

I would like to suggest that you thank Prime Minister Netanyahu for his resolve and his strength on behalf of Israel. (Folks, a very short message is best, please.)

Memshala@pmo.gov.il

~~~~~~~~~~

This decision is gratifying for yet another reason. I've been watching the tug of war between the various ministers of the government on this issue -- advising pro and con.

It was, unsurprisingly, Defense Minister Barak who had been promoting the idea of a limited apology. While Foreign Minister Lieberman and Minister of Strategic Affairs Ya'alon were adamantly opposed.

I do not know the degree to which the prime minister kept his own counsel in this matter, but I have hopes that those with their heads screwed on properly were the ones who held sway in making their case to Netanyahu. In my humble opinion, there is no ministerial office staffed with more intelligent, "with-it" people than the Ministry of Strategic Affairs. The more influence they have on the prime minister, the safer our nation will be.

~~~~~~~~~~

I note this in particular today because it was with enormous disgust and trepidation that I read about Barak's suggestion that -- if you can believe this! -- Israel should offer the PA a series of "goodwill" gestures in an attempt to get Abbas to back down from going to the UN next month.

"This would be a way to get the Palestinians to understand that they have a lot more to gain by working together with us, as opposed to making unilateral moves," one defense official is quoted as having said.

I'm almost ashamed to write this, because I find it so pathetic. Just how many times are we supposed to offer those "gestures" -- with removal of roadblocks, possible release of Fatah prisoners, and increase in the number of Palestinian Arab workers allowed daily into Israel proposed this time.

Can it really be that it hasn't dawned on Barak and company that the PA really doesn't want to work with us? Are their memories so short that they have already forgotten how such gestures in the past have ill served us -- at the worst inviting increased terror attacks and weakening our position -- to no real avail?

~~~~~~~~~~

Much more on the mark is the campaign that MK Danny Danon (Likud) is about to institute, promoting unilateral annexation of the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria.

"The Palestinians need to know that they have a lot to lose by taking a unilateral approach."

In general terms, Minister Ya'alon has supported this approach, as has Minister of National Infrastructure Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beitenu) and Minister of Science and Technology Daniel Hershkowitz (Habayit Hayehudi).

~~~~~~~~~~

The Quartet is not happy with Israel. Again. This time it's because of the announcement that we will be constructing 277 new housing units in Ariel in Samaria. We're at a "critical juncture," you see, in efforts to restart negotiations.

Let strength foster strength, here in Israel. And let the Quartet be unhappy. Again.

For the record, the city of Ariel, with a population of close to 20,000, is what is usually referred to as "one of the major settlement blocs" -- although I shun the term "settlement." Under no circumstances is it something that would be turned over to the Arabs even if there were negotiations done in good faith. Established in 1978, it is known as the "Capital of Samaria," and today boasts a university with a diverse student body.

The building that is now approved will merely allow for the completion of an existing neighborhood where construction had been stopped due to US pressure. Ariel's mayor, Ron Nachman, says that, "It is the first time in 10 years that we received such a permit."

(Dare I feel some hope here? That after ten years of bowing to US pressure by various Israeli governments on this issue, there is enough backbone to proceed?)

~~~~~~~~~~

The Palestinian Arab approach to this news -- which can only be considered "cart-before-the-horse" or "point-the-finger-in-the-other-direction" spin -- is laughable:

Nabil Abu Rudainah, a spokesman for Abbas, called the announcement "an Israeli attempt to obstruct and destroy what is left of any effort to revive the peace process."

"Once again, these Israeli settlement measures represent a strong reason calling on us to go to the United Nations and the Security Council to request membership for the state of Palestine and to halt these Israeli measures."

Is there anyone, anywhere, who really believes this stuff? Certainly Rudainah cannot.

~~~~~~~~~~

Elliot Abrams has a viable suggestion with regard to the Quartet: Disband it.

"The last time the Middle East Quartet met, on July 11, it was unable even to issue a statement about the key issue before it—the Palestinian effort to get the UN General Assembly and Security Council to declare Palestine a state and admit it to membership. Nor has the Quartet been able to issue a statement about the attacks the Assad regime has been carrying out this week against Palestinian refugee camps in Syria, which have led thousands of Palestinians to flee their homes.

"But it did on August 16 get itself organized to address what it apparently saw as a graver issue and a greater threat to peace, Israel’s announcement of plans to construct additional housing units in Jerusalem and Ariel.

"Nowadays the Quartet seems able to reach agreement on only one thing: criticism of Israel. This is the lowest common denominator among the United States, EU, United Nations, and Russia, and it is pretty low indeed. If this is the only function of the Quartet, the better path would be to disband it now—for the statements it is making and the statements it seems unable to make combine to bring discredit on all participants.
http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2011/08/16/quartet-statements—and-quartet-silences/

~~~~~~~~~~

This is something that cannot be ignored. It perhaps represents a new low for the Obama administration.

I've written already about the case of Menachem Zivotofsky, an American citizen born in Jerusalem, who was denied the right by the State Department to have a passport that read born in "Jerusalem, Israel." The passport reads only "Jerusalem," because the US refuses to recognize any sovereignty over Jerusalem. (This fact has always boggled my mind as we're talking about western Jerusalem within the Green Line -- this means the US entertains Arab claims to Jerusalem within the Green Line.) The case will be heard by the US Supreme Court in November.

In anticipation of this, the Obama administration recently arranged for the term "Israel" to be removed from all pictures in a White House photo gallery showing Vice President Biden in Jerusalem.

Charges were then made by supporters of Obama, that during the Bush administration, there was no acknowledgement that Jerusalem was in Israel. That turns out to not be the case, as digitally archived and frozen documents indicate.

But what the Obama administration has done has been to alter Bush-era State Department reports stored on State Department servers to which the Obama administration has access. This is particularly the case with regard to the State Department’s FY 2002 and FY 2003 Performance and Accountability Reports. As Omri Ceren describes in Commentary, "When they were originally written they both had appendices identifying the location of the Jerusalem consulate as 'Jerusalem, Israel.' Some time in the last two weeks that location was changed to 'Jerusalem.'"

How low can it get? Rhetorical question.

You can see the details, and the way to track this for yourself, here:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/08/16/obama-bush-jerusalem/#more-764046

~~~~~~~~~~

King Saud of Saudi Arabia has called on Syria's president Assad to "stop the killing machine."

What is more, he has re-called the Saudi ambassador to Syria, and Bahrain and Kuwait have followed suit.

And so, let me digress from the major point I had wanted to make here to ask a question: Has Obama recalled the US ambassador to Syria? Not last I looked (though he was in the States recently for meetings).

How is it that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait are more pro-active on this issue? I am quite familiar with the US argument -- that more influence can be wielded from inside by "engaging." You will notice how much influence the US has on murderous Syrian policies. Much-to-be-regretted evidence of the impotence of the US in this part of the world today.

~~~~~~~~~~

Michael Singh, writing in Foreign Policy yesterday, says:

"When the story of the Arab Spring is written in Arabic, it is unlikely to reflect well on the United States. In his speech about the Middle East on May 19, US President Barack Obama attempted, and rightly so, to place his administration squarely on the side of pro-democracy activists. As seen from the region, however, US actions are hard to square with the message of May 19; instead, the hallmarks of US policy have been hedging and hesitation. (Emphasis added)

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/16/the_us_needs_to_speak_clearly_on_syria

~~~~~~~~~~

Jennifer Rubin makes some very disconcerting additional charges with regard to Obama administration passivity today in her blog in The Washington Post : "Obama tolerates terror operations run out of Syria's embassy [in the US]."

"Syria is taking its war against President Bashar al-Assad’s political opponents global, using diplomats in Washington, London and elsewhere to track and intimidate expatriates who speak out against the Damascus regime...

"Syrian embassy staffers are tracking and photographing antiregime protesters and sending reports back home... Syrian diplomats, including the ambassador to the US, have fanned out to Arab diaspora communities to brand dissidents 'traitors' and warn them against conspiring with 'Zionists.'

"What has the administration done about protecting its own citizens and those already in peril in Syria? Well the FBI has investigated. But all we’ve done, as far as I can tell, is — you guessed it — taken 'very seriously' these reports, according to a State Department flunky."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obama-tolerates-terror-operations-run-out-of-syrias-embassy/2011/03/29/gIQAEyUTLJ_blog.html

~~~~~~~~~~

As to my major point: It may be that Israel and the Western world have a friend in Saudi Arabia (oh irony of ironies). There are reports indicating that King Saud is looking for an opportunity to cripple Hezbollah by taking down Assad, who has long been directly involved in arming the terrorist group. A weakening of Hezbollah would work against the strength of Iran, which the Saudis loathe and fear. What King Saud is said to be hoping for is a rise of Sunni power in Syria, which would shift the dynamic of the region.

~~~~~~~~~~

© 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.

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