Doc's Talk: Obama Appeasement Will Result in Disaster

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Obama Appeasement Will Result in Disaster

Isi Leibler
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=4764

Reviewing Israel’s political situation after two weeks abroad is a disconcerting exercise.

As anticipated, the Arab Spring has devolved into a bloody nightmare that has engulfed Egypt, leaving Israel surrounded by a sea of violence and barbarism with no prospect for stability on the horizon. Yet whilst hundreds of people are being brutally killed daily, the international community remains obsessed with condemning Israel for allowing the construction of homes in the Jewish suburbs of East Jerusalem.

Meanwhile, the disproportionate levels of energy and passion invested by US Secretary of State John Kerry and other Western leaders in the Israeli-Palestinian imbroglio can only be described as surrealistic. Despite realities on the ground providing irrefutable evidence to the contrary, Kerry continues to chant the absurd mantra that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict represents the principal obstacle to stability in the region.

There is little doubt that Kerry gave a wink to the Europeans to encourage them to initiate the most recent campaign against the settlements. With his outrageous remark and worrisome threat to Prime Minister Netanyahu that if peace talks break down “there will be a delegitimization campaign ‘on steroids’ against Israel,” the Obama Administration is signaling that it is intent on imposing a settlement. One shudders at the thought of other messages that are likely to be conveyed, including suggestions that the US abstain from or even support one-sided Security Council condemnations and boycotts against Israel that it has previously vetoed.

The venom directed against us is inexplicable when we consider the facts: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has refused to make a single, meaningful concession or gesture toward Israel; Palestinian media, religious institutions and educational systems continue to preach feral anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism; the liberal West remained silent when President Abbas proudly proclaimed that ethnic cleansing will be implemented in a Palestinian state to ensure that not a single Jew is permitted to live in Judea or Samaria; and Hamas, the terrorist entity occupying Gaza with which Abbas has pledged to reunite, remains violently opposed to any peace process.

But the most troubling phenomenon is the intensity of American pressure that has forced our government to consider releasing brutal murderers to “boost the morale of the Palestinians” and induce them into “engaging in negotiations”. Never in history has a nation that vanquished those seeking to destroy it been forced to release prisoners under such circumstances. To pressure us to release monsters (who are hailed as heroes and will receive state pensions) before negotiations commence is one of the most appalling concessions to terror ever made; it incentivizes future terrorists and traumatizes Israelis, especially families of terror victims.

If that was not enough, the government even abrogated its jurisdiction by conceding to demands from Abbas to include Israeli Arab terrorists amongst those to be granted amnesty.

The demand that we release these prisoners as a “goodwill gesture” calls into question the entire peace process and those who insist that we make compromises in order to win the “blame game” to secure public opinion.

Israel’s concession-making has never borne positive consequences. The Oslo Accords, Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert’s extraordinary offers to withdraw from virtually all the disputed territories and the Gaza disengagement, all failed to achieve productive results. Instead, these unilateral concessions only raised the benchmark so that the Americans are now effectively proposing that the basis for a peace agreement be the indefensible 1949 armistice lines “with swaps.” If, as in the past, we are unable to reach an agreement on land swaps, the Palestinians will demand that they retain control of all of East Jerusalem and the major settlement blocs, repudiating UN Resolution 242 and disavowing the President Bush’s commitment to Prime Minister Sharon after the Gaza disengagement.

What does this portend for the future? If President Obama has succeeded in bludgeoning Israel into conceding on such a contentious and emotional issue as the release of murderers -- something no sovereign state, least of all America, would ever contemplate -- future prospects for the peace process are chilling. Can we expect even handedness from Kerry’s envoy Martin Indyk, whose contempt for Israel’s sovereignty was displayed not so long ago when he ingratiated himself with the President by viciously denigrating Israel at the height of Obama’s confrontation with Netanyahu?

Moreover, our giving into American pressure will cause Israelis to quickly forget Netanyahu’s successful diplomatic tightrope walk with Obama during his former term of office and encourage expressions of no confidence and calls for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s resignation.

The early Mapai leaders, who were in a much weaker position than today’s government, would not have capitulated. David Ben Gurion stood up against the world when the state was created. One can hardly imagine Golda Meir conceding to such pressures. Yitzhak Rabin, despite his failed gamble with the Oslo Accords, defied Jimmy Carter. It would have been inconceivable for Menachem Begin to grant amnesty to murderers of innocent Jews.

Yet it is easy for an armchair observer, who is neither privy to the pressures exerted on the Prime Minister nor obliged to make decisions affecting national security, to condemn this concession out of hand. It is possible that when the facts emerge, we may retrospectively become convinced that our leaders had no choice. It is unlikely that Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, hardly a dove, would have endorsed a concession that runs completely counter to his outlook unless there were grave security issues at stake. Some have suggested, albeit unconvincingly, that the alternative would have been even worse - a complete settlement freeze on Jerusalem and the major settlement blocs. There have also been hints that Iran was a part of the equation.

But even if the government was obliged to make this draconian unilateral concession, our fears remain justified. Tzipi Livni, a failed politician who described Netanyahu’s release of terrorists as “a courageous act”, will over the next nine months be leading secret negotiations on behalf of Israel behind closed doors. Without substantial public pressure to boost his resolve, Netanyahu may capitulate to American pressures. Ultimately, we may be faced with a fait accompli -- a “take it or leave it” scenario accompanied by threats of what to expect if we “leave it.”

What are we to do? We must loudly publicize the fact that after failing to undermine us by terror and violence, the Palestinians are working to diplomatically dismantle us by stages. We must make the case that we are not another Czechoslovakia and there are limits to our willingness to compromise in this asymmetrical environment. Our government must stress that whilst the vast majority of Israelis remain committed to working toward peace and have no desire to rule over Arabs, peace cannot be achieved with neighbors whose leaders incite hatred against us and we will not gamble the lives of our children by compromising on security needs at a time when half the Palestinian population is controlled by Hamas, a terrorist entity that regularly launches missiles at us.

It is time for us to call on our allies and friends, especially American Jewish leaders, to demand that Kerry and the Obama administration confront the Palestinians on the issues that are central to genuine peace negotiations: their recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, abrogation of the Arab right of return, an end to anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic domestic propaganda, and education of their people toward peaceful co-existence.

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:
Distinguishing between critics and adversaries (August 4, 2013)
Indyk: a Disastrous Choice for Mediator (July 26, 2013)
Europe Hypocritically Lashes Out Against Israel (July 21, 2013)
Claims Conference: Has it No Shame? (July 17, 2013)

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