Doc's Talk: The Importance of the Jordan Valley Corridor

Thursday, January 30, 2014

The Importance of the Jordan Valley Corridor

The Israeli demand for a security presence along the Jordan River was again raised last month in the Kerry-brokered peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Its objective would be to stop Palestinian and global jihad terrorists from infiltrating into Israeli territory and to prevent the smuggling of rockets, explosives and other weapons which would be used by the Palestinians to attack Israel along its eastern border.
The Jordan River border east of Israel becomes especially important, as the Arab Spring fades into a Winter of Chaos, creating uncertainty about future in neighboring Arab states to the east of Israel. These Arab states likely will be destabilized and their identities will change, influencing their objectives and leading to an increase in hostility and preparations for future aggression against Israel.

The threat is worsened by the rise in power of radical Sunnis in the Arab countries seeking to take over regimes whose hostility toward Israel is legendary, but still less than that of the Sunni extremists trying to overthrow them. The regimes (among them the monarchies like Jordan and the Gulf States that survived the Arab Spring) are uncertain and worried by dissent and the threats to their stability, and are currently preparing for the worst case scenario, that is, a putsch.
That situation brings Israel into the equation, especially in view of Iran's ongoing threat to destroy it. Israel cannot ignore the axis of hostile Shi'ite regimes - from Tehran and Baghdad to Damascus and Beirut - currently forming and closing Jordan and Israel from the north and east. For years, Israel's threatened eastern border has been in a state of military preparedness, fearing the arrival of forces from Iraq and other Islamic countries..
Israel's eastern border is difficult to defend because of its geostrategic structure, being Israel's "narrow waist" of 12 kilometers, or barely 7.5 miles. Israel's center, which is its most densely populated urban area, has no depth. A military or terrorist attack against Israel from the east would expose not only most of the population but main strategic facilities (military, industrial and civilian) to an unprecedented threat.
Controlling the Jordan River corridor, demanded by Israel as part of the peace agreement with the Palestinians, would provide a partial, but insufficient solution by creating a buffer zone which would prevent Palestinian terrorists and offensive weapons from entering the area, and increased response time in the event of a future ground attack. Israel's demand for control over the Jordan valley is the result of Egypt's recent bitter experience with its Gaza Strip border in Rafah. Despite the Oslo Accords with their provision for the cessation of hostilities, and despite the negotiated peace agreement, and despite Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip (now not subjected to any form of occupation whatsoever), Palestinians attack civilian Israeli targets with rockets, anti-tank missiles, mortar shells, sniper rifles, assault rifles, knives, cars, front loaders, stones, Molotov cocktails, IEDs and EFPs, car bombs, pipe bombs and remote-controlled bombs. Attacks against Israel from both Gaza and the Sinai Peninsula increased exponentially once the PLO's rule of the Gaza Strip collapsed and was replaced by an independent Palestinian regime run by the Islamist terrorist organization Hamas.
What happened in Gaza can easily happen again in Judea and Samaria. According to their rivals, Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority do not enjoy a legal consensus, and their opponents in Judea, Samaria and Gaza claim that any agreement signed by the Palestinian Authority isn't worth the paper it is written on because the Palestinian Authority does not enjoy either legal status or grassroots support. Egypt, in spite of its peace agreement with Israel, turned a blind eye to the passage of terrorists and weapons streaming into the Gaza Strip to attack Israel. Currently the Egyptian government is trying to eradicate terrorism in the Sinai Peninsula, but its questionable success makes it imperative to ask about the ability of Jordan, a friendly country, to prevent terrorists and weapons from entering Judea and Samaria from the east. Jordan was one of Israel's worst security headaches during the 1970s, and the IDF pursued hundreds of terrorists from Jordan who crossed the river to carry out atrocities against Israeli civilians.
Members of the Israeli security establishment disagree regarding the value of the settlements strung along the Jordan River corridor and their contribution to the defense of Israel. Veterans of the old "tower and stockade" settlements that founded the Jewish Yishuv in a sea of Arab hatred and hostility before the State of Israel was established in1948 claim that the settlements are themselves a permanent defensive system, based on agriculture and peopled by idealists with tremendous motivation to withstand the perils of confrontation. Their basic assumption is that settlers provide an initial operative military response in halting attacks. That approach relates to the settlements as a fundamental, critical asset in the daily logistics of military forces operating in a supportive environment instead of a hostile region which will immediately be created in the vacuum left by the evacuation of the settlements.
Opponents claim that the settlements lying along the Jordan River corridor have no operative value, and in a military confrontation will only burden the security forces, which will have to defend and secure them, and evacuate the civilians (women and children). That is what happened in 1973 when the Syrians invaded the Golan Heights settlements during the Yom Kippur War. All the Israeli civilians in settlements would have to be evacuated from their own country being, unfortunately, the designated targets of Islamist terrorism, as are Tel Aviv and the Ben-Gurion International Airport.
As part of a proposed final status agreement, the Palestinian state will be demilitarized and not have military security forces. But the Palestinians are trying to ensure that their future state will have all the trappings of sovereignty, including weapons for "self defense." One way or another, they do not accept Israel's demand to control the Jordan River crossings, the skies over Judea and Samaria, and the eastern border, and continue to plot a political campaign that will isolate Israel and represent it as an obstacle to peace. All the signs indicate that neither Jordan nor Israel is eager to place the Jordan River corridor in Palestinian or international hands. The Jordanians have not forgotten how the Palestinians under Arafat tried to depose King Hussein, and the fierce battles waged against them during the "Black September" of 1970, which led to the expulsion of the leaders of the Palestinian terrorist organizations from Jordan to Lebanon. Jordan, most of whose population is Palestinian, is aware of the potential dangers of a Jordanian-Palestinian contact line along the Jordan River. Likewise, the Israelis have not forgotten how the Palestinians crossed the Jordan on foot to slaughter Israeli families, their creativity in putting weapons and explosives in double doors and car tires.
Thus the Israelis will not agree to Palestinian or international oversight of the Jordan River corridor. They learned the hard way that only the IDF can provide security. The collective memory of Israel's leaders is hard-wired not to forget the conduct of foreign observers in various past conflict arenas, and how they fled at the first hint of fighting, abandoning their posts and jettisoning the mandate they had received. Israel and Jordan have a mutual interest in overseeing the water line between them in its present form as they consider the pretensions to sovereignty of the planned Palestinian state, which so far has proved itself as generally unreliable.

Many long years of building trust have to pass before terrorism, cynically referred to as "resistance," ceases to serve as a realistic and legitimate option for the Palestinians. Many long years of building trust will have to pass before the series of defaults, lapses. Many long years of building trust will have to pass before Israel forgets that the first thing Yasser Arafat, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, did when he set foot in the Gaza Strip after the Oslo Accords was to smuggle terrorists and weapons in his own car, in direct violation of the agreement. Abbas's Palestinian Authority continues to sanctify terrorism, to name town squares for "martyrs" like Dalal Mughrabi (one of the terrorists who murdered 38 Israeli civilians on a bus in 1978), and to joyously receive released terrorist prisoners as "heroes." Can that Palestinian Authority leadership seriously be expected to patrol the Jordan River corridor and stem the tide of Islamist terrorists and their weapons who come from all over the world to wage jihad against Israel?
Israel is deeply mourning the death of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, a war hero and a daring political leader who devoted his life to serving the State of Israel. Before he lapsed into a coma eight years ago, George W. Bush wrote him saying that the solution to the problem of the Palestinian refugee camps was to settle them only in the future Palestinian state, that the border of that state should be determined according to Israel's security needs with an eye to Israel's main population centers, and that Israel not be required to withdraw to the Green Line.
Abbas says that he will control security in the Jordan River corridor, but what he more likely will do is give a free pass to terrorists and weapons on their way to the Palestinian Authority targeting Israeli civilians and territories. There is an old Arab saying, hamiha harmiha, "The guard and the thief are one and the same." The "miracle of peace" Abbas is trying to market to an unfortunately gullible international community is nothing but fraud and slight-of-hand. He continues to harp - endlessly - on the so-called "right of return" of the Palestinians to the territory of the State of Israel, refuses out of hand to recognize the State of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, and has added a snag to the already twisted Gordion Knot of negotiations by demanding control of the Jordan River corridor.
He doesn't intend to end the conflict and he is not planning to establish peace and coexistence with the State of Israel. He is planning to inundate it with a tidal wave of terrorism.

Dr. Reuven Berko has a PhD in Middle Eastern studies, is a commentator on Israeli Arabic TV, writes for the Israeli daily newspaper Israel Hayom and is considered one of Israel's top experts on Arab affairs.

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