Doc's Talk: Abbas's UN Bid

Monday, October 17, 2011

Abbas's UN Bid

Mudar Zahran
October 17, 2011

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's bid for statehood, or at least an upgraded status, for the Palestinian Authority at UN General Assembly a few weeks ago, is now under consideration at the United Nations.

Abbas's move provoked many of his American allies in particular, and at the same time sent waves of further distrust throughout Israel that each time it signs an international agreement, it turns out to be worthless. UN Security Resolution 1701 of 2006, for example, in which the International community guaranteed Israel that it would never again allow Southern Lebanon south of the Litani River to become armed, has, of course, proven just that: Southern Lebanon is now encrusted with more weapons than ever. Abbas might have had a good reason to go ahead with his plan. His rebuffing the US and its allies, who had asked him not to proceed with this bid, has made him immune, at least for the time being, to a potential "Palestinian Spring" against him by many Palestinian who had previously assumed he was a puppet of the West.

Regardless of what the outcome of Abbas's statehood bid will be, his pursuit of statehood recognition in the UN means that the Palestinian Liberation Organization [PLO] has again violated UN Security Council Resolution 242, which states that the Palestinians are only to resolve their dispute with the Israelis through direct negotiations.

This is not, in fact, the first violation that the PLO has committed. The first day of the Oslo agreement, Arafat violated the agreement by trying to smuggle under the seat of his car a man whom the Israelis had prohibited from entering Israel. People who objected to violations at the time, such as the continued incitement or the continued violence, were told they were "ruining the chances for peace." Under the Oslo Agreement, the PLO should have not sought full diplomatic representation to other countries; nevertheless; the PLO acknowledges all of its offices in Arab countries as "diplomatic missions." And started opening up "embassies" in South and Central America last years.

The most recent change of rules that Abbas is trying to bring about is the death of the Oslo Accords, both de facto and du jure.

If the Oslo Accords continue to be violated by the PLO, the Israelis will have every legitimate reason to end the agreement and consider all of its specifications null and void. The PLO's statehood bid should have handed the entire peace process a death certificate.

It is not clear to what extent Israel will utilize the current situation against the PLO, especially as Israel has a history of its own – as well as American-imposed -- tolerance of the PLO's provocations. So far, however -- before, during and after Abbas's UN-bid -- Israel announced that it was willing to return to negotiations with no preconditions, and a willingness to discuss the pre-'67 borders; so far the Palestinians have refused to negotiate for over two years, and have not suggested a counter-offer.

Israel cannot now be legally blamed for any political, diplomatic, or economic action it takes against the PLO. Israel, for example, collects tax and tariff money on behalf of the Palestinian Authority; should it choose to treat Abbas on a tit-for-tat basis, it can simply choose not to give those to him: Israel is not sure if he represents Palestinian legitimacy as his term as president expired two years ago without any re-election even in the offing; and Israel is not sure if he will use the money to fund terrorist organizations such as Hamas (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/u-s-prods-israel-over-intended-freeze-of-palestinian-tax-money-1.359242).

The least significant matter is the one introduced by US President Barack Obama: the issue of Israeli settlements. Israelis have historically viewed building settlements in Judea and Samaria as a legitimate right; there was not a word about housing construction in the Oslo Accord, the Camp David Accord or any other accord. Once Obama proposed it, however, the Palestinians could hardly seem less Palestinian than the president of the United States.

Some of this land, including Jerusalem, is land to which they Israel was entitled under the UN's Partition Plan of 1947, as well as many earlier British and international agreements. Much of this land was taken away from Israel by Jordan, along with four other countries, in an invasion in 1948, the day after Israel was declared a State, presumably to try to kill Israel before it even began. in 1967, in another defensive war, Israel merely retook some of the land that had been illegally seized by Jordan, plus more which Israel immediately offered to trade for peace several times over the years, starting with the Khartoum Conference of 1967. Israel was met with three famous "No"s: no peace, no negotiations, no recognition.

This view does not belong to the PLO alone; Jordan King's Abdullah, for example, seems to strongly support the three "No"s as well. The much-touted Saudi plan called for "right of return" of Palestinian refugees, a plan to overwhelm Israel demographically with Muslims.

At the moment, and after the PLO's statehood bid with the UN, Israeli settlements should rightfully revert to being a non-issue again, although, once a foot has been installed in a mouth, it is not likely to be extracted unless a different administration arrives. Housing construction, moreover, especially in a nation's capital, is an internal affair: how would France or the US react if a foreign leader ordered it not to build any more apartments in Paris or Washington DC? No other country in the world has to explain housing projects on its own soil.

What is Israel to do, then? Hold all of the land for its attackers in perpetuity, until perhaps one day they might feel like showing up to collect it? Should there be no cost at all to invading a UN member nation, not only once but again and again?

The real problem, however, with the PLO's view of the settlements as illegal, and therefore "an obstacle to peace " --- as can clearly be seen from the PLO's charter, its maps, and its incitement [www.pmw.org] as well as from latest Abbas's speech before the UN -- is that to the PLO, the entire country of Israel is one big settlement.

If not, why has P LO avoided stating that negotiated borders would mean "the end of the conflict"? And why has the PLO avoided negotiating altogether for so long, despite Israeli prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's repeated invitations to negotiate "today" with no preconditions?

The PLO is most likely hoping that it can get concessions for free, without having to trade anything for them. It is most likely hoping that it can be given the pre-'67 borders, and a state or an upgrade, and at least some of Jerusalem, by the International community without having to give up any land; any ability to continue its incitement against Israel; any restrictions on overwhelming Israel with Palestinian refugees at some later date; any promises for Israel's security, and most especially any promise to end the conflict.

The PLO seems to have decided that if it cannot obliterate Israel militarily, it can at least try to do so politically by delegitimizing Israel with lies – aided by financing primarily from Europe – and then takinf before every unaccountable global forum in sight -- the UN, the UN Human Rights Council, the International Court at the Hague, and the International Criminal Court-- so that all the despots on the planet can collectively paint the only Middle Eastern democracy – which guarantees racial equality, political equality, educational equality, medical equality, and equality under the law for Jews, Arabs, Christians, blacks, whites, women children and individual rights-- as the "New 'Apartheid' South Africa."

If the Palestinians are trying to change the rules of the game, maybe it is high time for Israel to start changing the rules of the game as well?

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