Doc's Talk: Proposed PA – Hamas Union Based on Common Objectives

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Proposed PA – Hamas Union Based on Common Objectives

Isi Leibler
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=5074

The timing of the PA intention to merge with Hamas may have caught many by surprise. But it was evident that Israel would not reach understandings with a Palestinian Authority headed by the intransigent Mahmoud Abbas, who refused to make a single compromise. In fact, even when the US pressured Israel into making unilateral concessions as a prerequisite to merely agreeing to negotiate, the response from Abbas was to raise new demands.

In the context of the criminal society created by Arafat and maintained by Abbas, there is no ideological conflict concerning the future of Israel between the PA and Hamas. As Palestinian Media Watch has noted, Abbas says categorically: “There is no disagreement between Fatah and Hamas ...About belief? None! About policy? None! About resistance? None!” Besides promoting cultures of martyrdom and sanctifying as heroes those engaged in killing Jews, both have generated the expectation amongst their people that the elimination of Jewish sovereignty in the region is a goal that will be achieved.

There is merely a difference in tactics. The PA recognizes that it can achieve greater success utilizing diplomacy rather than terror as a means to destroy Israel in stages.

To this end, Abbas speaks with a forked tongue: to the outside world, he denounces terror and commits to peaceful negotiations whilst internally he orchestrates vicious incitement, glorifying, feting and financially rewarding murderers of women and children, including the killers recently released by Israel.

In contrast, the genocidal Hamas proudly proclaim their Islamic fundamentalism. They are in every sense the equivalent of Al Qaeda, having praised Osama bin Laden and condemned the United States for killing him.

Not only does Hamas reject the existence of the state of Israel and pledge to bring about its destruction, their covenant explicitly exhorts followers to kill Jews wherever they may be.

They are the pioneers of suicide bombings and take pride that they have launched over 10,000 missiles at Israeli civilian targets. These war criminals will be the partners of Abbas in the new PA leadership.

Ironically, Abbas has indirectly resolved Netanyahu’s internal coalition conflicts which threatened his government. The Prime Minister’s announcement to the world that he would never negotiate with a group which incorporated the genocidal Hamas has reunited the coalition and would be supported by the vast majority of Israelis. In this BBC interview (click here for link) Netanyahu does an excellent job in explaining the problems with the Hamas - PA union.

As anticipated, there was some criticism by the post-Zionist Israeli daily Haaretz which argued that the merger should be considered by Israel as a positive step towards achieving peace. However, its prime correspondent, Ari Shavit, did a remarkable turnabout and, instead of blaming Netanyahu, documented the duplicity of Abbas since the onset of the Oslo accords, noting that “Twenty years of fruitless talks have led to nothing. There is no document that contains any real Palestinian concession with Abbas’s signature. There never was, and there never will be”.

Those who had hoped that under the leadership of Yitzhak Herzog , Labor would return to its traditional labor Zionist roots were disappointed in his lack of statesmanship. He blamed the government for the breakdown and alluded to possible long term benefits bringing Hamas into negotiations.

One would have assumed that, under such circumstances, Western leaders would have an ethical obligation to condemn Palestinian intransigency and guile.

Yet, despite being directly affronted by Abbas, the Obama administration failed to respond adequately even after their incessant pressure on Netanyahu to make unreasonable concessions. The State Department merely expressed “disappointment” and in subsequent remarks, President Obama referred to the PA-Hamas pact as “unhelpful” but still declined to condemn Abbas and once again blamed both parties for the breakdown.

The Administration will now be obliged to review its relationship with the PA to conform with legislation by both houses of Congress which unequivocally prohibits the United States from providing financial support to terrorist organizations. Hamas is clearly classified in that category. The Palestinians currently receive more financial aid per capita than any other people and since 1966 received over $5 billion from the US alone.

Rep. Nita Lowey (Dem) and Rep. Kay Granger (Rep) who head the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee have announced that they would be moving to defund the Palestinian Authority of its US aid package unless it annulled its pact with Hamas. They were supported by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Republican Chair of the Middle East and North African Subcommittee who had framed the 2006 law banning funding to Hamas.

Yet despite this, I predict that Israel will soon again be facing renewed pressure from the Obama Administration.

Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign policy head , who issued a Holocaust Memorial Day press release some months ago which adroitly omitted any reference to Jews, unequivocally welcomed the merger, blithely remarking that it would help promote peace negotiations. She omitted to mention that the EU itself classifies Hamas as a terrorist organization.

The UN Middle East envoy, Robert Serry, blandly stated that he was assured that a merged PA Hamas entity would remain committed to peace and that the UN welcomed the reunification of the West Bank with Gaza “under one legitimate Palestinian Authority”.

Abbas is assuring the world that Hamas agrees to the conditions laid down for its legitimization– accepting and recognizing Israel and abandoning violence and terror. Yet Saeb Erekat, the PA spokesperson, stated explicitly, only a few days ago in a Sky TV interview in Arabic, that Hamas is not obliged to recognize Israel and that “Hamas is not and will never be a terrorist organization to us”.

In a further cynical effort to dupe Western public opinion, Abbas - whose Moscow doctoral thesis promoted Holocaust denial - had the gall to release a message on the eve of Israel Holocaust Remembrance Day describing the Shoa as the “the greatest single tragedy in modern-day history” whilst simultaneously embracing those who openly exhort their followers to complete the Nazi Final Solution.

There are already mutterings that Israel should agree to negotiate and seek to “coax” Hamas into becoming more moderate. Yet, if Hamas were to be accepted as a negotiating partner, it must formally recognize Israel, renounce terrorism and publicly annul its charter which calls for the murder of Jews. Furthermore, the leaders must accept all previous agreements negotiated with the PA and relinquish their stockpile of rockets obtained from Iran and other sources. If Hamas agreed to this, they would qualify as a peace partner. But pigs will fly before that happens. In the meantime, Israel cannot negotiate with a PA led by active terrorists and war criminals committed to its destruction.

This is the time for the government to launch a passionate global campaign to disseminate the truth. The PA- Hamas union is still far from implementation. The personal hatred between the leaders remains intense and the negotiations could fall apart at any time. Israel would again face renewed pressures to make further concessions to the “moderate” Palestinians. As of now, our case can be presented in absolute black-and-white terms and we should maximize this opportunity.

The government must rally all the resources of the Jewish people including the Foreign Ministry, the Jewish Agency, global and national Jewish organizations and Jewish personalities and all friends of Israel.

The Prime Minister should consider convening a global conference, along the lines of the successful gathering inaugurated by the Shamir-Peres national unity government which invited Jewish and non-Jewish friends of Israel to Jerusalem to demonstrate solidarity with the Jewish state. Ideally, this should precede the UN General Assembly convening in New York in October - which the Palestinians will undoubtedly seek to transform into a bigger than normal hate fest against us.

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
Worth Seeing: Netanyahu on the BBC
Recent articles:
Incentives for Murdering Jews (April 23, 2014)
Jewish Leaders Down Under not intimidated (April 15, 2014)
Blaming Israel for the Collapse of the Peace Negotiations (April 6, 2014)
The Disastrous Outcome of the “Peace Negotiations” (April 1, 2014)

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