Doc's Talk: The Disastrous Outcome of the “Peace Negotiations”

Wednesday, April 02, 2014

The Disastrous Outcome of the “Peace Negotiations”

Isi Leibler
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=5038

As anticipated, the Obama administration’s efforts to impose a peace settlement have proved to be a disastrous failure. It is immaterial whether the negotiations formally break down or a face saving “framework agreement” is adopted which is non-binding and incorporates sufficient reservations to make it meaningless. Regrettably, the US intervention has only exacerbated the situation and even undermined the chances of low profile interim progress and economic cooperation.

The peace settlements between Israel and Egypt and Jordan were achieved because both parties sought to come to an accommodation. The US did not then seek to impose solutions. It only became involved as a facilitator and honest broker after both parties had taken the initial steps and invited them.

The flawed initiatives by the Obama administration have resulted in the standing of the US in both Israel and the Arab world plummeting to its lowest level.

US Secretary of State John Kerry has blustered and zigzagged between intimidating and occasionally placating Israel. The pressure was exerted overwhelmingly towards Israel whilst the Palestinians, who were treated with kid gloves, refused to make a single meaningful compromise. This generated enormous frustration and resentment of the US amongst Israelis.

The positive memories of Obama’s visit to Israel and the ongoing defense support and co-operation – now at an all-time high - were overshadowed by Israeli anger against the US for bullying its government into releasing brutal mass murderers who were subsequently glorified as heroes by the PA.

The PA demanded this as a prerequisite to even agreeing to negotiate. An uninformed observer would assume that Israel was the supplicant and would be unaware that the territories were acquired only after Israel vanquished an Arab conglomerate which had initiated a war to annihilate it.

American and European leaders still delude themselves that the Israeli Palestinian conflict relates to two hostile people fighting over real estate. They seem unaware that both Arafat and Abbas rejected Israeli offers of 95% of territories over the green line, without even making a counter offer.

By now, they should recognize that the objective of the Palestinian leaders is not the acquisition of land, but end of Jewish sovereignty in the region. This explains their adamant refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

The US administration ignores the reality that the corrupt and duplicitous PA chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, even if he desired, has no mandate to make any concession and if he deviated, would likely be assassinated.

The persistent pressure on Israel to make unilateral concessions without reciprocity has merely empowered the Palestinian extremists who smugly demonstrate that intransigence pays off.

The US policymakers also fail to appreciate that the differences between the PA and openly genocidal Hamas are primarily tactical. The PA believes that their strategy of diplomacy and the dismantling of Israel in stages is a far more effective tactic than terrorism (to which they repeatedly threaten to revert). But both the PA and Hamas share the same goal – the elimination of Israel.

It is now time for the Obama Administration to accept the reality that the PA has evolved into a criminal society. How else to define a regime which brainwashes kindergarten age children into believing that Israel and the Jews are evil parasites and continuously calls for the elimination of the Jewish state? This demonization of Israel is reinforced daily by the mullahs in the mosques and the PA controlled media. In addition, terrorists are sanctified, treated as heroes and awarded state pensions. There are obvious similarities between the Nazi brainwashing of the German people and what Arafat and now Abbas have imposed on the Palestinians.

Due to Obama’s initial personal intervention, the settlements - a mere 3 to 4% of territories over the green line - have now become a central issue. While Israelis differ over the role of settlements in remote areas, they are frustrated that home constructions in Jewish suburbs of east Jerusalem and within the settlement blocs that will remain in Israel generate infinitely greater global condemnation than the mass slaughter in Syria.

Yet despite all the efforts and concessions Israel has made, there are signals that the Obama Administration will cast the blame on us for the failure of negotiations, which we realized from the outset were doomed as a hopeless charade. The recent histrionic US attacks against Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon for expressing concerns with aspects of American foreign policy impacting on Israel testify to this.

That Israel is again being pressured over prisoner releases is scandalous. The government was bludgeoned by the US into releasing these mass murderers on the clear understanding that the four phases of release would only be fulfilled if there was progress in the negotiations. Abbas has made it abundantly clear that he will not compromise on anything and yet the Americans persist in exerting pressure. There are unconfirmed reports that the Americans are even considering the release of Pollard to make the terrorist release more palatable to the Israeli public and induce Netanyahu to include Arab Israeli terrorists (which Israel had never endorsed) in the final phase. If Pollard, who by any benchmark should have been released a long time ago, is now to be used as a pawn to pressure Israel to release more mass murderers, it reflects an abominable, almost obscene, lapse in morality on the part of the Obama Administration.

To add to this madness, Abbas demands further that even if we release the last batch of murderers, he will not proceed with further “negotiations” unless Israel undertakes to release more killers and freezes all construction over the green line. Even Tzipi Livni despaired, agreeing that under such circumstances the final phase should not be implemented.

Our government must be aware that irrespective of what concessions Israel makes, once the Palestinians feel that they have squeezed to the maximum, they will then proceed to the United Nations and canvass the international courts at The Hague to charge us with breaches of international law in order to initiate boycotts and delegitimize us.

We are not privy to the threats the government is facing from the US Administration. But Netanyahu must now consider biting the bullet, rejecting American pressure and, if necessary, presenting our case directly to the American people.

We would reiterate that there is no desire to rule over Palestinians – emphasizing that the overwhelming majority are effectively already ruling themselves.

It must be stressed that Israel is located in a regional scorpion’s den, drawing attention to the barbaric and bestial crimes in which over 150,000 people were butchered in Syria. Missiles are still being launched against our civilians from neighboring Palestinians.

We should remind them that we face barbarians at our gates and that our principal concern is to ensure the security of our children and grandchildren. For that reason, if we cannot reach a meaningful agreement, we must reluctantly live with the status quo.

Israel will continue to promote economic relations with the Palestinians, hoping that in the course of time, new leaders will emerge who are willing to make concessions and recognize our security requirements. Then the two state solution could become an overnight reality and joint Israel Palestinian co-operation would enable us all to prosper and enjoy a bright future. This is the distant dream to which most Israelis still aspire but alas, as of now, is not even on the horizon.

The writer’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com.
He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com
This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom
Some of my recent articles:
The Radicalization of the Haredi World (March 26, 2014)
Putin, Ukraine and the Jews (March 17, 2014)
Bashing Israel and Journalistic Integrity (March 11, 2014)
Obama and Netanyahu Rift is Unbridgeable (March 10, 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