Doc's Talk: US asks Israel for additional settlement freeze

Friday, October 28, 2011

US asks Israel for additional settlement freeze

Army Radio: U.S. Ambassador Dan Shapiro delivers latest request for Judea and Samaria building freeze during a visit with Interior Minister Eli Yishai • Ultra-Orthodox paper: U.S. may free Jonathan Pollard if Israel agrees to a construction freeze.

Israeli Hayom Staff and News Agencies

The U.S. has asked the Israeli government to initiate another settlement freeze in Judea and Samaria in order to help America's effort to thwart the Palestinian push for independence at the U.N. and expedite the possibility of resuming peace talks, Army Radio reported Thursday. Israel stopped settlement building for 10 months in 2010, the first nine months of which the Palestinian Authority refused to return to talks, calling the freeze "irrelevant." However, as the freeze was entering its final phase, the PA demanded it be extended. Israel has long argued that a settlement freeze has not led to the desired result of getting the Palestinians back to the negotiating table, and that Palestinian intransigence on recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is the real reason for the diplomatic deadlock. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said in response to the report that a settlement freeze is not a precondition to the resumption of talks, but an obligation the Israeli government has to carry out.

On Thursday, Army Radio reported that U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro delivered the latest request for a settlement freeze during a visit with Interior Minister and Shas Chairman Eli Yishai on Wednesday. According to the radio account, Shapiro told Yishai that the Obama administration would object to the Palestinian bid for unilateral independence at the U.N. in any case, and would use its veto if necessary, but that to make it easier to get European nations to also block the Palestinian move, the U.S. would be helped if Israel once again froze construction in Judea and Samaria, even partially.

Yishai responded that no previous Israeli government had been required to freeze settlement construction as a precondition to peace talks, and that therefore there was no reason why this government would agree to such a formula.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Israel Hayom on Thursday that the request for a settlement freeze was not raised in discussions between Israeli officials and representatives from the Quartet held Wednesday. The spokesman added that Netanyahu had made his position clear that there would be no further construction freezes, and that the appeal to Yishai was an attempt to circumvent the regular channels.

According to reports in the Israeli media earlier in the week, the U.S. plan would see Israel halt the construction of new neighborhoods but could continue building in existing settlements. The idea is that Israel would refrain from any construction outside current settlement boundaries, reminiscent of a similar arrangement between the Bush and Sharon governments. There would be no U.S. condemnations if there is construction only within existing settlements, according to the latest plan.

The PLO's Erekat said Tuesday that the U.S. had not officially informed the Palestinian leadership of any proposal to partially freeze settlement building.

In what may be a related development, the U.S. could release convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, who is serving a life sentence in a North Carolina prison, in exchange for Israel agreeing to a settlement freeze, the local Jerusalem ultra-Orthodox newspaper BaKehila reported Thursday morning. According to the report, the details of the deal over Pollard's release have already been finalized by the U.S. and Israel. The U.S. reportedly said it would agree to free Pollard on humanitarian grounds due to his poor health, and in return Israel will agree to commit to a temporary freeze on settlement construction in Judea and Samaria. The Pollard deal is expected to be signed in the coming weeks, the report said.

Earlier this week, Netanyahu met with Shas spiritual advisor Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, and the two reportedly discussed Pollard. Yosef apparently urged Netanyahu to advance the issue of the Israeli spy's release.

Meanwhile, international mediators on Wednesday failed to make any breakthroughs in their quest to bring Israeli and Palestinian officials back to the negotiating table, but in a small sign of progress, they announced that both sides would present "comprehensive proposals" for resolving key aspects of their conflict within three months.

Representatives from both sides met envoys of the Quartet -- made up of the U.S., Russia, EU and U.N. -- after previous attempts to jump-start peace negotiations had fallen short. The Palestinians turned down a request for face-to-face talks with the Israelis, so negotiations were held separately with each side.

"The parties agreed with the Quartet to come forward with comprehensive proposals on territory and security within three months in the context of our shared commitment to the objective of direct negotiations leading toward an agreement by the end of 2012," a U.N. official said on behalf of the Quartet.

The Quartet envoys also called on the sides to "resume direct bilateral negotiations without delay or preconditions" and said they would meet the parties regularly over the next 90 days.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said in a statement, after his top negotiator Yitzhak Molcho met the Quartet envoys, that Israel was interested in restarting direct talks without preconditions.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, after meeting the Quartet officials, said in a statement that the Palestinians were "prepared to sit at the negotiating table as soon as the Israeli government freezes all settlement construction and accepts clear terms of reference, specifically the 1967 borders. Anything short of that will simply put us back on the failed track that we have been on for the last 20 years."

Expressing his frustration with the Palestinian leadership, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Wednesday denounced Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as the "greatest obstacle to peace" and said his resignation would be a "blessing."

It was the second time in two days that Lieberman had attacked Abbas, sparking a furious denunciation by his Palestinian counterpart, Riyad al-Malki, who accused him of "incitement to murder."

"Abu Mazen's resignation would be a blessing because he represents the greatest obstacle to peace," Lieberman told Israel's Army Radio, using Abbas's nom-de-guerre.

"He has decided to sacrifice the interests of the Palestinians for his own benefit, to defend his place in history," said Lieberman, referring to Abbas's attempts to secure U.N. membership for the state of Palestine.

Comment: There is much more behind this story. It is a smoke and mirrors justification the USA is using to get us to halt construction-their stated reasons are not tru at ll. We, Israel, need some critical hardware that a specific country sold us and now is about to with hold-we do this for America, they continue on with the sale. It is never what it seems over here.

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