Doc's Talk: Ya’alon: No Negotiations with this PA Leadership

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Ya’alon: No Negotiations with this PA Leadership

Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya’alon in a Rosh Hashanah interview: Facing this PA leadership there are no prospects for peace.
By Elad Benari, Canada
First Publish: 9/29/2011

Israel’s Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Strategic Affairs, Moshe Ya’alon, gave a special interview to Arutz Sheva on Wednesday for Rosh Hashanah. During the interview Ya’alon summed up last week’s events in the United Nations and said that Israel should not conduct negotiations with the Palestinian Authority as long as its current leadership remains the same. Arutz Sheva: One can summarize the events at the UN and say that you are quite satisfied with Netanyahu’s speech.

Ya’alon: We’re satisfied not just with Netanyahu’s speech but also by the Palestinians’ failure to make their unilateral move. The Palestinians have been consistently avoiding negotiations since the dawn of Zionism. It was seen in Arafat’s response to Barak’s offer in 2000, it was seen when Abbas avoided Olmert’s offer in 2008, and now Abbas is avoiding negotiations by going to the United Nations unilaterally. We are also satisfied by the fact that all these threats and scenarios of a tsunami, international isolation and an intifada did not come true, and the move appears to be a failure.

Is it indeed a failure? They are going to the Security Council and promoting it there. We’re relying on an American veto. It’s not exactly a failure.

Unfortunately in the United Nations, with us being the only Jewish state alongside 22 Arab countries and more than 50 Muslim countries, there is no place to look for justice, and yet the Palestinians have no majority in the Security Council to pass their application. There is an important American stance here which is going to veto, a stance which, by the way, was changed due to Israel’s actions, and now the U.S. is in the same position as us, that the unilateral move is unacceptable and will bring about a second Hamastan. We need to see Obama’s speech as a significant process of change since he took office.

How much will we have to pay politically for this embrace? We already heard Netanyahu saying in the United States that he is willing to talk about freezing construction.

We talk about entering negotiations without preconditions and say that we are ready to talk about everything, but the fundamental questions we raised were answered with a resounding ‘no,’ for example of a future consent, not a condition for beginning negotiations, to recognize Israel as a Jewish nation, and we were told that it will never happen. So what can we talk about? Abbas is asking what will happen with the Arabs of 1948 and what will happen with the ‘right of return.’ Barak revealed the face of Arafat, Olmert revealed the face of Abbas even though he and Livni claim that the process was stopped because of the elections, which is a lie. With our demand for recognition we exposed Abbas’ true face and we did it without it even costing us a political price.

As someone who knows the PA’s internal dialogue very well, do you believe that there is one PA leader who could accept this demand and stay alive?

If that’s the situation then we would be better off not to ignore it or sweep it under the rug. It has been my contention ever since I was head of Military Intelligence in 1995, when I realized that even in Oslo they did not recognize Israel’s right to exist within borders of any kind, and that the entire move was meant to be a Trojan horse that will allow them to enter ‘Palestine’. It is good that the people of Israel know this and not fool themselves. One of the worst things that happened to us is that we adopted their narrative and we covered up the fact that never have they had a leadership that was willing to recognize Israel’s right to exist.

So this demand for recognition is only to expose their faces? It’s not a real requirement for negotiations?

This is a genuine and basic demand, because without it any agreement we sign would be just another stage in the conflict. People ask why we did not demand this from the Egyptians and the Jordanians and the answer is simple: because they have no claim on Sheikh Munis, Haifa, Akko and Ashkelon. In contrast, the Palestinians view Israeli Arabs as being part of them so they are not prepared to see a return to 1949 armistice lines as an end to the conflict.

Do you believe that there is some sort of outline of an agreement that ensures the Palestinian state will be demilitarized and that Hamas would not take over it the next day?

We’re not there yet, because of their lack of willingness to recognize us. After all, in his speech Abbas denied the connection of the Jews to their land. He spoke only of the Muslim and Christian connection to Israel. He argues that there is no Jewish nation. Does anyone think we can sign an agreement with them when their young generation is brought up according to such perceptions?

It appears from what you are saying that you do not really believe there are any prospects to these negotiations.

In this situation facing this leadership there definitely are no prospects, and it’s better that all of us know this. It’s important that an Israeli majority that recognizes reality take shape, without illusions of peace now or disengagement. When we are united, the world opinion will be with us.

The left and the world say that the Netanyahu government has a credibility problem. Maybe they’re right, because here you are proving how little chance such negotiations have and yet you’re still talking about the vision of two states.

We say that we do not want to rule over them. They have political independence and we are ready to strengthen it in those areas for which they are responsible, but if they do not respect our right to exist, why should we start talking with them about territory? We are ready to have them conduct their lives in their area of autonomy.

And given all this, when will the Likud government fulfill its nationalist platform and finally build after so many years in Judea and Samaria?

Because of the sensitivity of the situation which we received, of political processes that previous governments conducted, we have been cautious. We had to accept commitments of previous governments, including a commitment not to establish new Jewish communities, but insisted on continuing construction. So there are periods of sensitivity but construction continues and the number of residents in Judea and Samaria is growing.

Before the events at the UN there was talk of the possibility of annexing Judea and Samaria as a response to the PA’s move. Is it feasible?

There is no doubt that the Palestinians going to the UN is a gross violation of the Oslo Accords. We held discussions about the possibilities that lie in our hands in response to this move. We are considering our options. We will hold discussions with the Prime Minister about both the Quartet’s offer as well as the Palestinian move on and make our decisions.

As a member of the ministerial team on Migron, do you know what exactly happened that night of the destruction, and why?

It was clear that the three homes were built without permits. Minister Begin and I were in talks with the residents of the community about some ways to deal with the problem. Unfortunately, we were surprised with a move that was decided by the defense minister. The issue is being clarified among the ministers and the prime minister and the defense minister. I hope that lessons can be learned from that incident, too.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, and I wish to take this opportunity to wish you and all the people of Israel a Shana Tova, a good new year.

(Arutz Sheva’s North American Desk is keeping you updated until the start of Rosh Hashanah in New York. The time posted automatically on all Arutz Sheva articles, however, is Israeli time.)

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