Doc's Talk

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Understanding the Importance of Perspective

GS Don Morris, Ph.D.

June 6, 2006

May 4, 2006 marked the beginning of another Israeli government. This time however, the government coalition consists of 4 distinct political parties that provided the new Prime minister, Ehud Olmert, with 67 MK’s (Member of Knesset). According to diplomatic sources, Olmert will seek to broaden his coalition to 80 MKs in order to give his government the necessary breadth, lasting more than the two years necessary to support his “convergence plan.” Such plan proposes that settlements beyond the separation fence would be evacuated and attached to the large settlement blocs of Ma'aleh Adumim, Ariel, Greater Jerusalem and Gush Etzion. The IDF would be given free reign in the West Bank and the Jordan Valley would be Israel's eastern border. More on these two items in a moment. As will be shown, based on the language or prior UN resolutions, the Oslo Accords, and general principles of international law, Israel has every legal right to remain in Judea and Samara, aka the West Bank.

Despite the legal basis of Israel’s presence in the West Bank, support for Mr. Olmert’s plan comes from the MKs of Kadima, Labor, the Pensioners, and Meretz, a total of 60 parliamentarians backed by some additional Arab party representatives. Mr. Olmert is also doing his best to bring into the government the six representatives of United Torah Judaism.

We should remember that Mr. Olmert has declared that the last election was a mandate for his so-called “convergence plan”. It is useful to read Mr. Olmert’s expressed thoughts on the subject communicated on May 4 in the Knesset:

"The achievements of the settlement movement in main concentrations will forever be an integral part of the sovereign state of Israel, along with Jerusalem, our united capital …
I, too, like many others, dreamed and wished that we could safeguard all of the territories of the Land of Israel for ourselves, and that the day would not come when we would need to give up parts of our land. Only those for whom the Land of Israel burns in their souls, know the pain of the concession, the farewell to the land of our forefathers."¹

Contrary to media propaganda, Mr. Olmert did not receive a mandate from the Israeli people and thus no such mandate for the “convergence plan” can be stated unless one nods his head and winks his eye… in your direction[1]. “If one only examines the percentage voter’s numbers for this year’s elections, a little over half of the citizens voted while historically nearly ¾’s of the voters typically vote in elections. Mr. Olmert’s party, Kadima, garnered 29 seats, but a mere 24% of the total Knesset seats available during this last election, while the Labor Party earned 19 seats, representing but 16% of the available seats.”¹

If Mr. Olmert believes he really has the support of most Israelis, why then is the semantic game afoot here in Israel? Specifically, I refer to the “morphing” of the term convergence into “consolidation.” It is significant that the unilateral withdrawal from the “West Bank” and adding to the size of a few large Israeli communities, aka settlements, to make everything contiguous with the Green Line was the more favorable term for a few days. Why is this occurring now? The answer is simple. The leaders abandoned the word “withdrawal” because it sounded too much like surrender, while convergence did not mean anything to anyone. The newly appointed Prime Minister has therefore decided that we shall “consolidate” our territory. But wait, even this term came under scrutiny because to certain government officials this term sounded too militaristic. As predicted, the morphing has continued and Olmert’s plan is now called the realignment plan.

Lest anyone think that language is unimportant, it is precisely the ill-begotten use of words and terms that has allowed the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to continue for some 30 years. Certainly, our enemies understand that the use of language is key to persuading and changing people’s opinions, producing policies over time. I suggest that the change in language is due to an absence of mandate, impelling this government to search for a less offensive word to neutralizing an action that is unpalatable to the Israeli public. In America we call it “political correctness”.

Having personally worked closely with the IDF, I understand that Mr. Olmert’s claim that the IDF will be given “free reign in the West Bank and the Jordan valley” is nothing less than double-speak. Allow me to explain. The “new” West Bank will not include the areas within its jurisdiction today. The so-called realignment plan creates Israel’s new borders and indirectly also forming the Palestinian state. An immediate reaction will be protests and cries by the Palestinians to the international community, claiming imperialism and illegal invasion, followed by a Hamas sanction justifying attacks on our IDF forces. Is there anyone who believes otherwise? Does Mr. Olmert disclose that the IDF will not only patrol the portion of the West Bank which he will declare as ours, but also continue to a presence in the newly formed Palestinian area? It is disingenuous of Mr. Olmert to provide an illusion of security in the West Bank due to continued IDF presence that will in reality be disallowed by the Palestinian leadership and will be the source of added aggression. Such a position by Mr. Olmert is simply language manipulation used by a politician to retain support for his ill fated “realignment plan”.

With respect to Mr. Olmert’s dreams and wishes, a history lesson might re-kindle hope and provide him with the necessary energy to follow through with already existing international mandates. Apparently he has forgotten that Israel is also entitled to lands within the “West Bank”. It is no wonder that he may have forgotten or perhaps chosen to forget this fact after 29 years of revisionist history being taught here and abroad. Coupled with the same amount of media distortion about Israel’s rights to land inside the disputed territory known as the West Bank, one can understand how difficult it must be for the Israeli Prime minister to stand his ground and defend Israel’s rights. Might this be why Mr. Olmert complained recently that “we are tired of fighting …”? He did speak for himself and does not speak for the Israelis I know. Yes, Mr. Olmert, it is tiring, day after day, month after month, and year after year to insist on the truth, demanding that the world’s “distortioners” be corrected and/or silenced. This would take unshakable commitment and a belief in doing the ethical and moral thing in the face of significant adversaries. When one has such a commitment, as did those who fought so many years for the existence of a Jewish state, it is not a drain; rather it is a motivating force.

It is an act of resignation to back away from our history and the diligent work of previous leaders. Historically, resignation within sovereign nations has led to their downfall and demise. The Jewish people have fought too long and with too much zeal and with too many sacrifices to have their hopes, dreams, and accomplishments undermined by weak leaders. It is crucial that this government, the media, Western leaders and citizens of the world remember that the below mandates were signed by both Israel and the Palestinian leadership, and recognized by the international community. They remain legally binding mandates and agreements, often overlooked or misread. A refresher is in order.

UN resolution 242 (following the 1967 war in which Israel was attacked by multiple Arab states and had to engage in a defensive war that it won):

This is Security Council resolution, not merely advisory, but a binding mandate. It has two main components:²

1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

a. Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

b. Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity:

a. For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
b. For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
c. For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones

The ultimate goal of 242, as expressed in paragraph 3 is the achievement of a "peaceful and accepted settlement."² This means a negotiated agreement based on the resolution's principles rather than one imposed upon the parties.

It is clear from the language that Israeli’s withdrawal from any of the territories is not a prerequisite for Arab action of terminating belligerency. Additionally, Resolution 242 does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. The Security Council did not say Israel must withdraw from "all” or from “the" territories occupied after the Six-Day war. The omission of these words was quite deliberate.

The following history clearly spells out why this resolution chose such specific words to address the required actions by all participating parties. “The Soviet delegate wanted the inclusion of both words, arguing that their exclusion meant "that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands." The Arab states pushed for the word "all" to be included, but this was rejected. They nevertheless asserted that they would read the resolution as if it included the word "all." The British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution, Lord Caradon declared after the vote: "It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear."[2]

Following the final language of 242, the British Foreign Secretary informed the House of Commons on October 29, 1969 that the withdrawal envisaged by 242 would not be from "all the territories." When later asked to explain the British position, Lord Caradon said: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial.” ²Significantly, the territories taken were not part of a sovereign country.

Similarly, U.S. Amb. Arthur Goldberg explained: "The notable omissions-which were not accidental-in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'.... The resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal."²

It is important and crucial to note that the Palestinians were neither identified nor mentioned anywhere in Resolution 242. They are only alluded to in the second clause of the second article of 242, which calls for "a just settlement of the refugee problem." Nowhere does the language require that Palestinians be given any political rights or territory, an assertion that for decades has been misreported, misrepresented or intentionally revised for political purposes. The outcome has been international policies built upon deceit. I now call on the world leaders to reconcile this discrepancy.

I draw your attention to one final correction. Note that a generic term “refugee” was used in the resolution. This was intentional as it acknowledges that two groups of refugees were created by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--one is Arab and the other Jewish. The latter is seldom mentioned. This is no doubt because Israel immediately moved to accept, resettle and integrate the 850,000 Jewish refugees who were expelled from various Arab countries. In contrast, the Arab refugees continue to linger in camps, without any resettlement efforts, festering like an open sore without sympathy and minimal, if any assistance form their brethren in 22 Arab countries.

UN resolution 338:

Another binding Security Council resolution calls on both sides to begin implementation of Resolution 242. This resolution was the result of the 1973 Yom Kippur war, when once again attacked by multiple Arab countries. Israel was again victorious.

The language of 338:

1. Calls upon all parties to the present fighting to cease all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, in the positions they then occupy, and to do so no later than 12 hours after the adoption of the resolution.

2. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the ceasefire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts;

3. Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the ceasefire, negotiations start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices, aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.²

It was not until September of 1993 that the existing leadership of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (“PLO”), agreed that UN 242 and 338 should be the basis for negotiating with Israel. It took nearly a quarter of a century but the Palestinian leadership did agree as part of the Declaration of Principles (“DOP”).

To explain what has happened in the world media in reacting to the above history, I am going to coin a new phrase-- “media mythology.” Beginning with the Yom Kippur War in 1973, media mythology aided and abetted by “academic agnostics,” has done its best to justify revisionist history with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, thereby supporting and giving some form of “credibility” to this mythology. For multiple reasons (beyond the scope of this article) the mainstream media has misrepresented the actual language of the preceding resolutions and has consequently confused subsequent generations about the intentions of the resolutions and the “on the ground” implementation of the respective responsibilities of the parties.

With the development of the Euro-Arab political and economic strategy during the past 30 years, forming what is called the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD), a strategy was designed, developed and implemented to undermine Israel.[3] As part of the scheme, the expanding faculties at many of the Western universities and colleges have chosen to believe and promote the Arab side of the ongoing conflict. Such stance has necessarily been based upon false, misleading and/or revisionist historical information. These “academics” have become well organized and continue to this day with their revisionist activities. As detailed below, they ignore the language of the 1993 signed Olso Accords, resulting in a misrepresentation of the roles and responsibilities of each of the parties as required in the documents.

It is important to understand that Oslo I, signed on September 13, 1993,created the Palestinian Authority (“PA”) as the governing arm of the PLO. Let us examine some of these legal documents and required responsibilities of the Israelis and Palestinians as set forth in the DOP.

Oslo I: Based on the agreement worked out in Oslo a joint Israeli-Palestinian DOP was signed by the two parties in Washington, D.C. It outlined the proposed interim self-governing terms for the Palestinians. The terms and conditions of the DOP include (1) immediate Palestinian self-rule in Gaza and Jericho, (2) early empowerment for the Palestinians in West Bank, (3) self-government and the election of a Palestinian council. This later became known as Oslo I. Implicit within the agreement was the cessation of attacks upon Israel. A partial summary of this agreement follows.²

· Transfer of Powers to the Palestinians:

The DOP features an agreement in principle regarding a transfer of non-military power and responsibilities to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, so that they may have control over their own affairs.

· No Pre-judgment or Pre-emption of Permanent Status:

The DOP specifically excludes permanent status issues of Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements and final borders.

· Security Remains an Israeli Responsibility:

During the interim period, Israel will remain responsible for security along the international borders and the crossing points to Egypt and Jordan. Israel also retained responsibility for the overall security of Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza, the Israeli population centers in Jericho and Gaza and freedom of movement on roads.

· Implementation of the DOP:

Details of the implementation were signed in Cairo between Israel and the PLO on May 4, 1994, known as AGREEMENT ON THE GAZA STRIP AND THE JERICHO AREA and provided the following:

Gaza-Jericho: Self-rule for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and Jericho including a withdrawal of Israeli forces from those areas is to serve as a first step in the implementation of the DOP. Both parties agreed to the terms of this document.

Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities: In the rest of the West Bank, five specific spheres -- education and culture, health, social welfare, direct taxation and tourism – were to be transferred to Palestinian representatives through early empowerment; all were accomplished by December 1994.

The Interim Agreement and Elections: A modalities agreement regarding the election of a Palestinian Council and a comprehensive Interim Agreement specifying the structure and powers of the Council was to be negotiated. The Interim Agreement detailed the self-governing arrangements in the West Bank and Gaza. Concurrent with the elections, Israeli forces were to be redeployed to the outskirts of these populated Palestinian communities. The Palestinian Council was to have a strong police force in order to guarantee public order and its internal security.

For more complete information on the terms of the DOP and its implementation, visit any one of a number of internet sites including http://www.mfa.gov.il/. Suffice it to say, any reader who studies the terms and conditions of Oslo I and Oslo II will conclude that Israel had security control inside the disputed territories, gradually turning self rule over to the PA. It is also clear from the terms that the Oslo agreements that Israel, as the victor in the 1967 war, retained its right and claim to maintain a high presence in the territories.

Oslo II: On September 28, 1995, the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip was signed in Washington, D.C. The main object of the Interim Agreement was to broaden the rule of Palestinian self-government in the West Bank under the aegis of the PA by means of an elected self-governing authority -- the Palestinian Council. Again history demonstrated the degree to which the Palestinians failed to honor this agreement.[4]

Since 1995, additional peace initiatives have been proposed, signed, and their implementation attempted. Not a single one was adhered to by the Palestinians-not the cessation of hostilities, not the end of incitement, and not the teaching of peace. The details of these subsequent agreements can be found in the Wye Memorandum, the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum , the Camp David 2000 Summit and the "Road Map".

It is critical to understand the terms of the signed agreements, because at this writing, the Palestinian leadership (Hamas, PA and any other so-called leaders) continues to state that the premise of their unrest and terrorist acts is Israel’s illegal presence and operation within “West Bank”. This is a completely false premise. Any intellectual or respectable member of academia or media cannot, and must not, ignore the plain language of signed treaties and legal documents dating back to 1967, the provisions of which have been neither voided nor superseded. In plain and simple terms, Israel has retained rights to parts of the remaining disputed territory the people outside the Middle East call the West Bank. To state otherwise is not only incorrect, it is an intentional distortion of the truth. In my neighborhood, we called this a lie. The media and my collegial academic agnostics from this moment forward will be held accountable for their unfounded statements and their actions.

Some final observations:

The beginning of this paper stated that Israel is embarking on another attempt to reconcile its situation with the Palestinians. Mr. Olmert has mistakenly said that his election is a mandate from the people to implement his convergence plan. I have argued it is not! Already, in a matter of a few short days one can notice confusion as to what to even call this “Olmert’s plan.” and there are many, including this writer, who oppose such action.

Additionally, one must understand what has covertly been withheld from the general population of Israel: full disclosure of the Negev Plan and its role to the decision of the government to withdraw from Gaza, and still further from Judea and Samaria. Simon Peres, who now occupies the position of Vice Premier in Olmert’s new government, is also head of the ministry for the Development of the Negev and Galilee. This office was established in January 2005 and has a 10-year, NIS 17 billion strategic planning budget. The goal is to transform these unproductive and desert areas into flourishing communities of commerce and recreation. The secondary purpose is to provide an environment of prosperity and equality for Jewish and Arab Israelis alike, and create commerce with Jordan, the PA and Egypt. An important perspective on the Negev Plan can be gleaned from the remark of Mr. Peres to the Jerusalem Post.[5] Now that Israel has started to leave the territories, funds and resources that once went to Judea, Samaria and Gaza can now be used for the Galilee and the Negev. Mr. Peres further stated, “We are leaving the territories and building the country. We are going home.” This comment alone merits another paper.

We all know the adage, “follow the money” and we believe that the handwriting is on the wall. Mr. Peres indicated that last year alone, the government allocated NIS 50 million and the project spent 2 billion. This was done by convincing other ministries to go along with this project. He also indicated there were some private institutional monies made available. Perhaps it is only we who do not understand the extent to which the project was rolling forward. Perhaps it is only we who did not know how much money has been spent and how much more is to be spent. One can reasonably question the motivation of Olmert and company to remain in Judea and Samaria given the linkage between the territory and the monies need for development of the Negev area. This clearly adds to a perspective regarding what some consider a primary motivation for demolishing the lives of 60,000-80,000 Israeli citizens who are slated to also uprooted and displaced.

You now have information that we believe will add to your point of view. Perhaps you have a new found perspective.

End Notes

1. Morris, GS Don, “Mandate-Really?” posted on PRIMER web site April 16, 2006

2. Bard, Mitchell, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org.

3. Ye’or Bat Eurabia-The Euro-Arab Axis, Madison:Farleigh Dickinson University Press,2005

4. http://www.mfa.gov.il/

5. “Still Mapping It Out”, story in the Frontlines Section of Jerusalem Post, May 5, 2006.

Special thanks to editing by Ms. Aggie Hoffman.

[5]

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.