Doc's Talk: Dayan: “Kerry better look for an exit strategy”

Sunday, January 05, 2014

Dayan: “Kerry better look for an exit strategy”

By Mazal Mualem, ALMONITOR

Although Dani Dayan, the former head of the settlement umbrella organization Yesha Council, will not admit it, it turns out the settlers bet on the right horse when they decided to take control of the Likud Party. Slowly but surely, they accessed the institutions of the ruling party and became a significant element that must be taken into consideration when determining policy. In his own way, Dayan said the exact same thing when I asked him to assess Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political ability to implement a diplomatic agreement.

“My analysis of the political situation differs from all the commentators who get excited over what [Finance Minister] Yair Lapid or [Economy and Trade Minister Naftali] Bennett will say. Because according to my analysis, Netanyahu can’t do a thing without the Likud. He can build any coalition he wants but the one thing he can’t change is the composition of the Likud faction.”

But does Netanyahu even want an agreement?

“I am not at all sure,” he answers.

Dayan tells me that, every few days, he goes through his iPhone list of 20 Likud Knesset members and, according to his count, thinks that only two of them will support an agreement based on the two-state solution. If the prime minister really exerts himself, Dayan says, he can succeed in recruiting another two or three additional Knesset members.

“In the current composition of the Likud faction, there is no likelihood for concessions,” he claims.

Dayan, one of the most eloquent and key speakers of the right wing, was elected as Yesha Council head in 2007 and filled that role for six years. In those years, the trauma of the 2005 disengagement from Gaza still echoed and the settler community was very worried that then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert would initiate another unilateral withdrawal, this time from the West Bank. Those were the years when the settlers signed up en masse for the Likud in internal party elections. Their strategy was simple: We failed to prevent the disengagement, so we’ll take control of the Likud from inside and wield our influence on the ministers and Knesset members who want our support.

The move proved itself effective in the last internal Likud elections, when the Knesset members who were supported by the settlers were elected to the high positions on the list.

In January, US Secretary of State John Kerry is expected to unveil a document of principles for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The political system is beginning to sizzle, but Dayan does not seem especially perturbed. This time, the diplomatic process catches the settlers when they are politically ready and prepared. Actually, Dayan is convinced that nothing will happen. After he left as Yesha Council head, he established Yesha’s diplomatic arm in Israel and abroad that operates mainly in the United States. It is a kind of small, effective Foreign Ministry with widening command of the social networks. His agenda is full of meetings with diplomats, politicians and journalists from all over the world. Articles written by Dayan have been published in The Guardian and The New York Times. His interview with Al-Monitor takes place a few days before Kerry’s anticipated visit this week to the region. The text follows:

Al-Monitor: According to your political analysis, the settlers in Judea and Samaria can remain calm.

Dayan: A diplomatic agreement with the Palestinians cannot happen in the current Knesset term of office. Netanyahu will not embrace such a far-reaching plan without [Defense Minister Moshe] Ya’alon’s security backing and [Minister of Interior] Gideon Saar’s political backing. I also don’t see political feasibility on the Palestinian side. I don’t think that [Palestinian Prime Minister] Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] wants it, and even if he does want it, he does not have the political power. Therefore, to a great extent, what we have is a mirror image that, in my opinion, transforms the planned declaration of principles to a “mission impossible.” From this aspect, current circumstances bear no resemblance to the days in which Ehud Olmert was elected to the premiership on the platform of his convergence plan [disengagement] or one-sided withdrawal that he fully intended to implement. We are keeping close track of the process, and we are alert.

Al-Monitor: Do you think that something serious is taking place in the negotiation rooms?

Dayan: This entire process is an exercise in futility, based on Kerry’s obstinacy. It is not the correct policy and, therefore, the failure will be greater. It reminds me of the Camp David fiasco in 2000 with [former Prime Minister] Ehud Barak; in my opinion this will end the same way. There is no way that something will happen. The Palestinians won’t agree to recognize the Jewish state; they will not concede the right of return or agree to an Israeli presence in the Jordan valley. Therefore, the Americans had better formulate a harmless exit strategy quickly before this all ends in violence.

When Kerry threatens a third intifada in his interviews to the Israeli media, beyond the chutzpah involved, if an intifada erupts, God forbid, his name will be written on it. Kerry entered this process like a bull in a china shop, and without having an exit strategy prepared in advance. I understand that the American optimism is based on the fact that Hamas is weak, but whoever thinks that this is the decisive parameter does not understand the Palestinian arena. The fact that Hamas is weak will not convince Abu Mazen to concede the right of return. And that shows us that the Americans don’t know how to read the map correctly. That is what happened in Iran as well, in Egypt and now here, in the Palestinian sphere.

Al-Monitor: So what is the correct picture?

Dayan: It is impossible to reach an agreement. I only hope that the Americans come to their senses and start to withdraw gradually from the process, and instead invest in economic cooperative ventures and human rights.

Al-Monitor: What do you suggest instead?

Dayan: There is no solution to the conflict at the moment. One of the reasons for this are the illusions created by Oslo, headed by the two-state solution formula. We can only make progress after we free ourselves from this formula. We face a long interim period that I estimate will take about a generation, in which we have to focus on increasing the governability of the Palestinian Authority and create a situation that the crazy conditions under which we live today will be as normal as possible.

We have a president who was already a high-level government minister in the 1970s. Before he converted to the Oslo religion, he used to talk about a functional compromise versus territoriality and the Jordanian option. I believe that in order to have a solution to the conflict, we have to enlarge the pie to include Jordan. The compromise will be functional — we will not partition territory but only divide powers and authorities. To a great extent we do it even now regarding all kinds of entities such as the Palestinian police. Nowadays we also have to give them certain institutions, but not territorial partition of the territory between the Jordan and the sea. It will not happen now; it will take at least a generation.

Al-Monitor: Why are you so sure that the Americans are wrong this time?

Dayan: The mistake of the Americans is the way they read the overall map in Iran, Egypt and in our region. They are trying to achieve something that is unattainable. When it comes to policy, there is nothing worse than misunderstanding the reality, and that is exactly what is happening now. Today we need here more [former British Prime Minister] Tony Blair and less John Kerry — in the sense that we need more economic projects and human rights and not a plan that cannot be realized.

I understand that this route is less heroic. You don’t get a Nobel Prize for it, but it is effective. Kerry causes damage by insisting on a solution now. It will not happen. The American president who caused the most damage in the Middle East is the man who came with the best intentions. In 1992, Bill Clinton received a more or less stable Middle East and returned it in a state of total chaos. Why did it happen? He raised expectations too much and convened Camp David under impossible circumstances. I am concerned that Kerry is likely to do the same thing and wreak havoc in spite of his good intentions. I also don’t think he is anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli, he simply comes with his extraordinary industriousness.

Al-Monitor: So you think that the supporters of the two-state solution, a large part of the Israeli public, are naive?

Dayan: They err. The two-state solution that appears wonderful at first glance, esthetic and round, is not attainable. The proof of this is one word: Olmert. And in two words: Ehud Olmert. The second problem is that it is not the solution, it only brings another war. The two-state solution is like a fata morgana — an optical illusion in the desert.

Al-Monitor: Have you seen the movie “The Gatekeepers?” In it, six [former] Shin Bet heads argue that the country should be partitioned. Doesn’t that arouse any misgivings on your part?

Dayan: I am constantly re-examining my viewpoints and positions, but I have very little esteem for people who maintained the occupation throughout their careers and built their careers on it, then afterward come and say that it’s more dangerous than the Iranian nuclear project.

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