Doc's Talk: Is the British government about to vote for a Palestinian state?

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Is the British government about to vote for a Palestinian state?

Melanie Phillips
Daily Mail

The impending UN General Assembly vote on the declaration of a Palestinian state has little to do with the establishment of anything that bears any relation to reality. Such a state will be a Potemkin polity with no political coherence, fixed shape or legal legitimacy. The unilateral declaration is demonstrably an aggressive stunt and an act of purposeful hostility against Israel. One might indeed say that, if the GA votes in favour of this incendiary gesture, this will effectively be the GA’s declaration of war upon Israel. There are very real fears that the declaration will be used as the pretext to ignite the Arab world into a fresh campaign of violence against Israel. Already, Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah party has urged mass marches in cities ahead of the UN vote. Few can have any confidence in the pro-forma calls for non-violent protests. Far from being a gesture towards peace, this declaration sounds the drumbeat for war. Even if no violence occurs, this unilateral initiative rips up previous treaty undertakings made with Israel by the Palestinian Authority and obviates any possibility of a negotiated settlement of the Middle East impasse.

For that reason, the Obama administration has said it will veto the proposal in the Security Council. And so what will Britain do? Until now, its position has been one of studied refusal to say how it will vote. This coyness was briefly shattered last May by a crude threat made by Prime Minister David Cameron that if Israel didn’t engage in a ‘meaningful peace process with the Palestinians’ – an extraordinary thing to say in itself since it is the Palestinian Authority that is refusing point blank to talk to Israel, which has said it is ready to talk without preconditions -- the more likely it was that Britain would endorse the unilateral declaration of a state of Palestine.

Since then we have heard nothing about the UK government’s intentions. Earlier this week, however, Cameron chose to open up a little more – on Al Jazeera, no less. I have obtained from Downing Street a transcript of this part of his interview with Sir David Frost. This is how it went:

INTERVIEWER
There’s a major issue coming up of course at the UN in a couple of weeks’ time from now, which is obviously Palestinian attempt, passionate attempt to achieve Statehood and so on, and all of the members of the UN will have to vote on that. How will Britain vote on that?

PRIME MINISTER
Well obviously we’ll have to see what exact proposition is put forward. But we’ll be guided by some very clear principles. I mean first of all we do support the ambition of the Palestinians to have statehood. I want to see a two state solution. A secure Israel and a State of Palestine. Now it seems to me the key to what happens at the UN is does what is going to be discussed move the peace process ahead? Because at the end of the day it’s not the UN that can confer statehood on the Palestinians. The only way statehood is going to happen is for the Israelis and the Palestinians to sit down and negotiate and agree the terms of the Israeli State and the Palestinian State. That is what has to happen and that is what I think Britain should be -

INTERVIEWER
That’s much more important than the debate at the UN?

PRIME MINISTER
So the test for me is does what we’re about to debate and vote on, does that move the peace process ahead? Does it commit the parties to negotiation? Does it mean that we’re going to get closer, not to a state in theory, but a state in practice? That is what needs to happen and Britain will judge whatever comes forward with our allies according to that rule.

INTERVIEWER
So, but it’s quite conceivable in a vital issue like this that UK and US might vote differently? That you might vote yes for Britain and the USA might abstain?

PRIME MINISTER
Well we will…

INTERVIEWER
That’s possible isn’t it?

PRIME MINISTER
We will judge what comes forward on its merits. On the issue of settlements, Britain and America didn’t vote the same way. I’m very clear that the growth of settlements is unacceptable. It’s making a two state solution more difficult to achieve. It’s altering the facts on the ground. And there have been occasions, Britain and America are very, very strong allies. We work together on so many things. In this job you really see the benefits of the huge cooperation and the work that we do. But on this issue there have been times when we’ve voted in different ways, particularly on the settlement issue, and Britain will always do what it thinks is right.

The first half of this exchange seemed to suggest that Cameron was leaning towards the US position. But his statement that he would not make up his mind how to vote until he saw the small print prompted Frost to suggest that the UK might break with America. Cameron chose not to refute this suggestion; and the last part of this exchange suggested that the UK would indeed vote for the unilateral declaration.

So at the end of all this, we are left none the wiser about what the UK will actually do. But the fact that the British government is even now -- with a week to go before the General Assembly session opens -- refusing to condemn this cynical stunt is deeply shocking in itself.

First, it means the UK is contemplating supporting an initiative that tears up binding treaty obligations and thus makes a mockery of international law.

Second, given that the vote is already being used to whip up mob hysteria against Israel on its borders, the British government’s refusal to condemn this initiative – or worse still, if it actually supports it -- risks making the UK an accessory to any violence that this vote may bring in its train.

Third, Cameron is considering endorsing the creation of a racist state which is committed to the eradication of its neighbour. For Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly said he will never accept Israel as a Jewish state – the actual casus belli of the Arab war against Israel. He has thus declared in effect that the war against Israel will continue. Last month Nabil Sha’ath, head of foreign relations for Fatah, declared that the Palestinians would never accept two states and that the establishment of a state of Palestine would enable them to pressurise Israel to pack up and leave. A state of Palestine must therefore be considered to be an intrinsically belligerent entity that poses a direct threat to innocent Israeli lives.

Moreover, Abbas has also said repeatedly that not one Israeli will be permitted to live in this state of Palestine (as well as no Jewish soldiers in any NATO troops stationed there). That is why the Israeli ‘settlers’ living beyond the 1948 cease-fire lines are deemed to be the obstacle to such a state – because it will be ethnically cleansed of every single Jew.

The Prime Minister should be asked in the House of Commons just why the British government is so gung-ho for a racist Palestinian state ethnically cleansed of Jews, led by a Holocaust-denier and committed to the destruction of the Jews’ national homeland – and why it is even considering endorsing the repudiation of international law to bring it about.

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