Doc's Talk: US: Settlement activity undermines peace efforts

Thursday, June 07, 2012

US: Settlement activity undermines peace efforts

TOVAH LAZAROFF

06/07/2012

State Dep't spokesman says United States "doesn't accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity."

Photo: REUTERS/Nir Elias

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Wednesday authorized the construction of 851 West Bank Jewish homes, hours after he blocked passage of legislation designed to save unauthorized settler homes from demolition.

Construction and Housing Minister Ariel Attias (Shas) said that his office planned to market homes in the following settlements: 300 in Beit El, 144 in Geva Binyamin (Adam), 117 in Ariel, 114 in Efrat, 92 in Ma’aleh Adumim and 84 in Kiryat Arba.

The US criticized the decision within hours after of its announcement.

“Continued Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank undermines peace efforts and contradicts Israeli commitments and obligations including the 2003 road map,” a State Department spokesman said.

“The US position on Israeli settlements is clear,” he said.

“We do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity. We also oppose any effort to legalize settlement outposts.”

The move also immediately sparked Netanyahu’s next coalition crisis, with Kadima Party chairman Shaul Mofaz protesting the construction in Kiryat Arba, which is outside the large settlement blocs.
News of the planned homes followed a long, emotional day in which parliamentarians rejected, 69- 22, a bill to legalize unauthorized Jewish West Bank construction that was presented to the Knesset by MK Zevulun Orlev (Habayit Hayehudi).

The vote was a stinging defeat for the settlement movement and the political Right, which lobbied on this issue for months, with phone calls and parlor meetings.

Nine days ago, four activists went on a hunger strike in support of the legislation and manned a protest tent near the Supreme Court. By Tuesday night the number of hunger strikers had grown to 44.
Activists on Monday embarked on a two-day march from the Ulpana outpost, located on the outskirts of Beit El, to the capital, which ended on Wednesday in front of the Knesset.

Supporters of the bill, and of a similar pending one submitted by National Union chairman Ya’acov Katz, held a rally near the Knesset on Tuesday night and again on Wednesday during the plenum debate.

Some of the events turned slightly violent. Police detained two demonstrators at the Supreme Court for trying to block the road. At the western entrance to the capital, protesters tried to block the road and burned tires.

Before the vote on a preliminary reading of Orlev’s legislation, Netanyahu threatened to fire any minister or deputy minister who supported it.

Ministers who had promised to vote for the measure changed their minds and opposed it, but only after securing pledges from Netanyahu with respect to measures he would take to support the settlements, and specifically the 30 families who live in the five buildings facing demolition in the Ulpana outpost.

The High Court of Justice last month ordered the state to demolish, by July 1, the five stone apartment buildings in which they live, because they were constructed without permits on what is classified as private Palestinian property.

Orlev and Katz (whose bill is expected to be defeated in the Knesset plenum next week) had hoped their legislation would prevent that demolition and three others scheduled for this year as the result of petitions to the High Court of Justice by Peace Now and Yesh Din – Volunteers for Human Rights.
Orlev plans to re-file his bill, but it is unlikely that it would come back to the plenum in time to save Ulpana.

Settlers have now promised to take their struggle to the streets. They ended the hunger strike, took down the protest tent by the Supreme Court, and instead have begun to set up tents in Beit El, in advance of the demolition.

Already on Tuesday night, MK Michael Ben-Ari (National Union) said that the prime minister had divorced himself from the National Camp by blocking the bill.

In a brief press conference on Wednesday evening, Netanyahu defended his actions by saying he had sought a course of action that would both respect the court decision and strengthen the settlements.
He added that the five Ulpana apartment buildings would be relocated and that he would create a ministerial committee on settlements to implement his policy to strengthen Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

“The State of Israel is a law-abiding democracy, and as the prime minister of Israel I am committed to upholding the law and I am committed to upholding the settlement enterprise, and I tell you that there is no contradiction between the two,” he said.

Netanyahu reiterated his belief that the bills proposed by Orlev and Katz would harm the settlement movement if they became law.

“The outline that I have decided upon – the expansion of the community, moving the homes, and legal defense against any precedent – strengthens settlement,” he said.

The prime minister said he opposed the outpost legislation after receiving a legal opinion from Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein in support of his plans for the settlements and with assurances that the Ulpana case would not set a precedent.

Katz says that left-wing groups can continue to file petitions against settler homes, because there are 9,000 homes with the same legal status as the Ulpana apartments.
Netanyahu, however, cited from a letter by Weinstein.

“The verdict set no law and in any case does not constitute a precedent. Nothing may be construed from it regarding other cases,” the prime minister said as he read from the letter.
He then addressed the settlers and referred to them as his “brothers and sisters.”

“I understand your pain, and I share it. I met several of the families. I saw the people. I saw the children and I would like to tell you what I told them,” Netanyahu said.

“There is no government that supports, or will support, settlement more than my government. I also say that there is no government that has withstood such heavy pressures, which could have hurt settlement, and it must be understood that ours is a very complex diplomatic, national and legal environment. And in this complex reality, one must navigate wisely, sagaciously and responsibly,” he said.

Attias said the construction of 851 homes was a worthy compromise.

But left- and right-wing activists immediately criticized Netanyahu.

Peace Now said that the “outpost bill” becoming law would have been preferable to a new wave of construction.

He charged that Netanyahu continued to destroy any hope of a twostate solution by caving in to threats of violence from the settlers.

Dani Dayan, chairman of the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, said that of course he was pleased to hear of any new building in Judea and Samaria.
But he said that it did not take away his anger at Netanyahu for blocking the outpost bill and supporting the demolition of Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria.

“I cannot accept that under a Likud government one needs to sacrifice homes to get homes. It is sad that construction occurs only after a terrible judicial decision, the Palestinians pursue unilateral statehood or a terrible murder happens in Itamar,” Dayan added.

He said the prime minister had misrepresented the situation because it was his government that set the policy under whose guidelines the court had ordered the demolition of the Ulpana homes.
A statement issued by Weinstein’s office on Wednesday night, confirmed that the High Court of Justice ruling on the Ulpana was based on the state’s notification to the court in May 2011.
In a press release it explained Weinstein’s position on Ulpana and efforts to retroactively legalize West Bank Jewish construction, that he presented to Netanyahu.

In that May notification, the state said it intended to execute demolition orders against the Ulpana structures, Weinstein said. At the time, the state said the buildings were constructed outside the boundaries both of Beit El and the military seizure order for the community, according to Weinstein.
The state was responding to a petition to the court that it enforce the state’s demolition order against homes that were illegally built, Weinstein said. The Ulpana ruling was also issued in compliance with the government policy that construction on private Palestinian property, which was not seized by the state, should be removed, Weinstein said.

The court, Weinstein said, recorded the statement. As a result of the statement, the court decided there was no reason to debate the substance of the claim. The ruling was not based on the position of the parties or the merits of the case, it said.

Because of this, Weinstein said, the ruling was not applicable to other cases.
Melanie Lidman, Lahav Harkov, Hilary Leila Krieger and Gil Hoffman contributed to this report.

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