Doc's Talk: Peres, Abbas, and Kerry: Fantasies and Realities

Friday, May 31, 2013

Peres, Abbas, and Kerry: Fantasies and Realities

Isi Leibler
May 31, 2013
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=4663

Earlier in the week, I participated in “Breaking the Impasse”, an event held in Jordan under the auspices of the World Economic Forum. It was attended by some 300 Israeli and Palestinian leaders of commerce and industry who represent over 25% of the GDP of Israel and the Palestinian region. Some of the most prominent Israeli business personalities were present.

The concept was the initiative and brainchild of Israeli hi-tech guru, Yossi Vardi, who persuaded a number of like-minded giants of industry and commerce to join him. He was supported by his Palestinian friend, Munib Masri, chairman of the powerful Padico oil and gas group, who encouraged major Palestinian business leaders to participate in effort project to promote the two state approach as a means of ending the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

The stated objective was not to analyze the past or propose specific terms but to leverage politicians to move forward. The Israelis made every effort to depoliticize the discussions.It was indeed an edifying experience to meet numerous Palestinians who seem genuinely enthusiastic about developing friendly relations with Israel and committed to ending the conflict. Were Palestinians of this caliber directing policy or even having a significant input into the political process, a settlement could probably be achieved in a matter of days.

Alas however, the expressions of goodwill and desire to live in peace displayed at the gathering represented a far cry from the reality on the ground.

There is indeed a broad Israeli consensus which agrees to painful compromises provided security is ensured and there is a genuine Palestinian peace partner.

However the Palestinian Authority is a dictatorial regime and even were its constituents not imbued with hatred of Israel - as is the case – their attitudes would have little impact on political decision-making.

The Israelis endeavored to instill a positive atmosphere into the event, avoiding any negative references to the past such as the Arab military aggression, the rejection of previous generous offers by Israeli Prime Ministers, anti-Semitic incitement, and ongoing terror. The organizers also sought to relate to both parties as though they were two national entities merely engaged in a dispute over land related issues.

Yet when PA President Mahmoud Abbas addressed the gathering, he launched into a vitriolic diatribe. Despite having refused for years to engage in direct negotiations, he accused Israel of exclusive responsibility for the impasse. He even had the gall to deny that his administration engaged in incitement. He demanded the release of prisoners, referred to the Saudi peace plan in the context of the 1949 armistice lines and also canvassed for the return of the Palestinian refugees which he knows no Israeli government would ever concede.

Abbas was adamant that unless Israel accepted all his demands, there would be no progress. He explicitly rejected temporary borders, interim agreements or schemes to economically enhance the living conditions of the Palestinians prior to a settlement.

He culminated his confrontationist remarks by fantasizing about a future democratic Palestinian state in which the rights of women and freedom of worship for all religions would be guaranteed.

Speaking immediately after Abbas’s tirade, Peres nevertheless nonchalantly addressed the PA leader as “my dear friend”, a man of peace and a genuine partner. But he then scrapped his prepared address and pleaded with Abbas to return to the negotiating table. Earlier in the day Peres had endorsed the 1949 armistice lines with swaps as the basis for a settlement, despite being aware that the government and the majority of the people oppose this.

The last speaker, US Secretary of State, John Kerry, called on Palestinians and Israelis to move swiftly to implement the two state solution. The climax of his speech was the unveiling of a bizarre economic plan to be coordinated by the Quartet’s special envoy, Tony Blair, in which the private sector would invest $4 billion dollars in the Palestinian economy. Kerry predicted that this would increase the Palestinian GDP by over 50%, reduce unemployment over a three-year period from 21% to 8%, increase wages by 40% and triple tourism. He failed to explain how this revolutionary economic transformation - which he insisted was no fantasy - could be implemented. The Palestinians have since stated that “bribes” from Kerry would not lead them to compromise goals such as obtaining the right of return to Israel for Arab refugees and their descendants.

The Kerry formula for peace epitomized the flight from reality which prevailed throughout the event and left me wondering how senior leaders of commerce and industry could engage in delusions so completely out of sync with the reality surrounding them.

When Abbas rants and concedes nothing, they convince themselves that his views are motivated by his need to placate his domestic constituency and should therefore not be taken seriously. They naively insist that Abbas is inherently genuine and will deliver.

None of the participants even once referred to Hamas, the genocidal terrorist group which adamantly reiterates its determination to wipe Israel off the map and with which Abbas repeatedly proclaims he intends to merge.

Also unmentioned was the devastating regional slide towards barbarism in Syria and the strengthening power of fanatical Islamic groups like the Moslem Brotherhood which not only creates volatility on the borders but makes dictators like Egypt’s Mubarak and possibly even Syria’s evil Assad appear relatively benign.

In this environment, our business leaders should ask themselves whether they are entitled to “gamble” children’s lives by relying on a corrupt anti-Semitic Palestinian leadership. They should be reminded of the outcome in Gaza when we unilaterally traded land for “peace”.

Yet, this in no way detracts from the kudos that Yossi Vardi and his team deserve for having invested so much time, effort and resources into creating such an initiative. It is precisely in this troubling environment that we need such meetings with friendly and enlightened Palestinians in order to resist the temptation to abandon the idea of a two state solution.

Despite all the recent debates over demography, annexation of the disputed territories would lead to the absorption of masses of Arabs as Israeli citizens. This would not merely create unbearable tensions but could extinguish the vision of the Zionist founders by transforming Israel into a binational state.

We must hold firm and despite setbacks, remain steadfast in our long-term commitment towards a two state solution. We must continue awaiting the era when new Palestinian leaders will emerge, willing to respect our security concerns and coexist with us. And “Breaking the Impasse” must encourage us to continue striving to fulfill the dream in which Jews and Arabs live peacefully side by side in a region in which social and economic collaboration leads to major progress in our quality of life.

In the meantime our President should not condemn or accuse of cynicism those who refuse to repeat his mantras about peace which have no bearing on reality. If we are to maintain our sovereignty, we must face the fact that unless Mahmoud Abbas and his associates dramatically change their approach and display a willingness to engage in reciprocity and genuine compromises, they are not peace partners and we are dangerously deluding ourselves if we place any trust in them.

The writer’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com.
He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com
This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom
Some of my recent articles:
A Global Tsunami of Anti-Semitism (May 28, 2013)
Claims Conference Leaders must Resign Now! (May 22, 2013)
Exposed: Devastating New Claims Conference Scandal (May 18, 2013)
Déjà Vu: “Peace in Our Time” (May 14, 2013)If you wish to forward this email please use the 'Forward to a Friend' button at the end of this email. Comments are welcome on this article please click 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