Doc's Talk: A reminder

Thursday, September 22, 2011

A reminder

O.K., so why did Obama insist on no building from Israel?

"The fact of the matter is that there is nothing in the interim agreement, as such, and under Oslo that prohibits settlement activity."
U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1997
Briefer: JAMES B. FOLEY

U.S: Settlement construction legal within context of Oslo

[With thanks to Lenny Ben-David - IsraelConsult, Inc -- Washington &
Jerusalem
Government & Business Relations - iconsult@netvision.net.il]

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing INDEX WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1,
1997
Briefer: JAMES B. FOLEY QUESTION: Settlements. Does the U.S. Government accept the Israeli
justification for expansion of existing settlements, the concept of natural
growth? That there is a natural growth which - of the population, which
justifies and makes acceptable an expansion in the number of housing units?
MR. FOLEY: We have never accepted that proposition. Our view has
consistently been that the settlement activity is unhelpful and is
counterproductive to the effort to achieve a negotiated settlement of the
Palestinian-Israeli dispute. So there is nothing new on that.
QUESTION: However, in her Today Show interview this morning, the Secretary
was asked if the settlements are legal. And she said, quote, "they are
legal." Was she talking about legal within the context of Israeli law? Or
was she talking about international law, specifically the Fourth Geneva
Convention?
MR. FOLEY: No, she was not talking about international law. Our overall
position on the question of the legality of settlements remains the same. We
are, of course, not taking a legal position on that overall issue. We
believe, as I stated, that settlements are very unhelpful to the peace
process. We are hoping that the peace process itself, if it is allowed to
get back on track and reach culmination, will render these problems moot.
But as to her interview this morning, though, she was answering a rather -
you have to take a look at the context of the question -- but a rather
technical question in a technical way. The fact of the matter is that there
is nothing in the interim agreement, as such, and under Oslo that prohibits
settlement activity. We do not support the settlement activity. We think it
is unhelpful and counterproductive. But as a technical answer, though, the
statement was technically correct. Anything else on the Middle East?
----------------------------------------

Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
Interview by Matt Lauer, The Today Show - NBC TV
New York, New York, October 1, 1997

MR. LAUER: When you talk about the lack of trust and you talk about the
leaders, while you were there you talked about a time-out. You wanted people
to stop doing things that added hostility to the peace process.
Shortly after you held a phone conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu,
he announced that he'd build 300 new homes in Efrat, a settlement near
Jerusalem. He said he planned more settlements in the West Bank. This is
right after you had a phone conversation with him. He mentioned nothing
about that to you. What does that say about your influence, after your call
for a time-out in the region?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, I think I have tried and I will continue to try.
The United States is the only country that can actually help them get
together.
But as I said, Matt, the leaders themselves have to make the decisions. What
I found when I was in the region, the people, the Israeli people and the
Palestinians, want peace. I think it's very important for the leaders to
give that a chance, to make some tough decisions. We are talking more with
them about what the concept of a time-out means, because actions that create
even greater lack of confidence, we've got to avoid those.
MR. LAUER: But do you think you were blind-sided by the Prime Minister?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I wasn't happy. We had had a conversation, and I felt
that going forward with those kinds of buildings was not helpful. It is not
in any way not part of what they can do, but they shouldn't do it.
MR. LAUER: It's legal.
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: It's legal. But I think that, in this kind of an
atmosphere, it's very important not to take actions that are viewed by the
other side as creating more difficulties.
MR. LAUER: As you know, when you announced that the peace process, the
talks, would be ongoing, Hamas came out and said they pledged more violence.
Based on your meetings with Yasser Arafat, do you think he is capable or
willing to stop the violence coming from Hamas?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I think what he has to do is exert 100 percent effort to
try to stop the violence. It's very hard to guarantee 100 percent results,
but we expect 100 percent effort.
I have say that, since I was there, we have seen some steps forward in his
work to try to limit terrorism and work at the infrastructure of Hamas.
There have been some positive steps. Those have been recognized by Israel.
MR. LAUER: Yet recently, at a unity rally, he was seen embracing the leader
of Hamas. How can, on one hand, he say he's looking for serious peace and,
on the other hand, embrace the leader of the organization that has vowed to
end the peace process.
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, that was then, and I spoke to him about that. I
think, since that time, he has taken some steps. He has to take more steps,
because it's very hard to expect anybody to exist -- the Israelis, for
instance -- to live under the threat of terrorism.
Something has to be done in order to stop the violence, and we have pressed
Arafat to do that. But at the same time, it's very important for both
leaders to do everything they can to rebuild confidence. Taking actions that
undermine that confidence, when we're trying to help put it together, is a
complicating factor at this time.
MR. LAUER: What do you make of the step that developed recently where the
Israelis released the spiritual leader of Hamas, a man who had been jailed
but who was in poor health? Was that a significant gesture?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, that is something between the Jordanians and the
Israelis. I think it was a useful thing to do, but we'll have to see how it
plays out.

--------------------------------------------
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.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