The Kerry parameters
Caroline Glick reports that unless Prime Minister Netanyahu finds the spine to stand up to him, US Secretary of State John FN
Kerry plans to impose a 'peace plan' on Israel that should lead to our destruction - God forbid - within 5-15 years.
Like the Clinton and Bush plans, the Kerry
parameters will involve Israeli surrender of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount to
the PLO , which rejects the historical fact that two Jewish temples were built
at the site that was and remains the cradle of Jewish civilization and history
and holiest site to Judaism.
They will involve the mass expulsion of
hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria
to make room for an anti-Semitic, Jew-free state that maintains its devotion to
the destruction of the rump Jewish state.
Kerry’s framework deal will
involve the mass immigration of hundreds of thousands of foreign-born Arabs, who
have been living in al-Qaida-, Hamas- and PLO -controlled UN-run “refugee
camps,” for the past four generations.
Kerry’s plan will require Israeli
society to destroy its cohesion through the dismemberment and destruction of
hundreds of Jewish communities. As occurred before the Gaza withdrawal, it will
require the government to oversee the demonization and criminalization of well
over three million law abiding, patriotic Israeli citizens who oppose the mass
expulsions.
Kerry’s parameters will require Israel to surrender its
ability to defend itself against foreign aggression and Palestinian attacks. As
for the Palestinians, implementation of the Kerry parameters will guarantee that
all moderate elements in their society, including among Israeli Arabs, will be
overwhelmed and destroyed. The PLO state in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, like
the Hamas state in Gaza, will be breeding grounds for global jihadists. They
will actively incite, organize and oversee an armed insurrection of the Arabs of
the Galilee and the Negev, meting out punishment for all dissenters.
As
for the US forces that Kerry proposes deploying to the Jew-free PLO state, they
will be targeted by the Palestinians, just as the Palestinians and the Syrians
attacked US Marines in Beirut 30 years ago. And like the Marines in Beirut, they
will be withdrawn in humiliation and defeat, but the lesson – that the Arabs
perceive the Americans and Jews as enemies of equal weight – will not be
learned. And, at any rate, unable to defend itself after agreeing to Kerry’s
parameters, Israel will cease to be a strategic ally and be transformed into a
strategic basket case. Its destruction will interest Kerry and his supporters
just as much as the destruction of South Vietnam interested them in
1975.
Aside from being a more anti-Israel version of the Clinton
parameters and Bush’s framework, Kerry’s parameters, and framework deal, have
one other unique and particularly dangerous feature. Until now, US peace plans
followed former prime minister Ehud Barak’s dictum that “nothing is agreed to
until everything is agreed to.”
That is, no hypothetical Israeli
concession on Jerusalem, for instance, will be binding unless a final deal is
concluded.
Kerry indicated at the Saban Forum that his goal is to coerce
Israel into making irrevocable concessions up front, before the Palestinians
agree to peaceful coexistence.
As he put it, “A basic framework will have
to address all the core issues – borders, security, refugees, Jerusalem, mutual
recognition, and an end of claims. And it will have to establish agreed
guidelines for subsequent negotiations that will fill out the details in a
full-on peace treaty.”
For the past five and a half years, Netanyahu’s
strategy for dealing with US President Barack Obama has been to try to survive
him. He’s withstood Obama’s constant demand for Israeli national suicide for
“peace” by giving the bare minimum of revocable concession possible to keep
Obama at bay.
But with Kerry poised to shove his lethal parameters down
our throats, parameters that will require Israel to irrevocably accept terms of
peace that will destroy the country, it is obvious that Netanyahu needs to adopt
a longer-term strategy. Our goal cannot be limited to waiting out Obama. Our
goal must be to extricate Israel from the two-state trap.
Yes, Israel
will pay a huge price for jumping ship. For 20 years, non-leftist Israeli
leaders have been trying to go along to get along with the Left, and the
Americans and their ever-escalating demands. But Kerry’s obsessive harping, and
his insistence on pushing forward with his disastrous framework deal forces our
hand.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Annapolis process, Barack Hussein Obama, Bill Clinton, Binyamin Netanyahu, Camp David II, Clinton parameters, George W. Bush, John Kerry, Middle East peace process
Olmert offered everything, the 'Palestinians' never answered
In an interview with the Tower over the weekend, former Prime Minister Ehud K. Olmert revealed the stunning details of the
sweeping peace offer he made to the 'Palestinians.'
Revealing never before heard details of talks with Palestinian
Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Olmert was referring to the proposal
for a peace agreement that he presented to Abbas in the afternoon hours
of a Tuesday, September 16, 2008 meeting in the Prime Minister’s
residence in Jerusalem.
“At the end of the meeting” Olmert recalled this week, “we called
Saeb Erekat [chief negotiator for PLO] and Shalom [Shalom Turjeman,
Olmert's diplomatic adviser]. We asked them to meet the following day,
Wednesday, together with map experts, in order to arrive at a final
formula for the border between Palestine and Israel.”
But that Wednesday, Erekat called Turjeman and said they could not
meet to finalize the peace deal because they “had forgotten that Abbas
had to go to Amman!” Erekat said they would meet the following week.
“I’ve been waiting ever since,” Olmert said with a smile.
...
Among the historic concessions, Olmert offered an unprecedented
compromise over the Holy Basin, which includes the Temple Mount, the
holiest place in Judaism. He proposed that in the context of a permanent
peace agreement, a special committee with representatives from five
countries – Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, the United States, and
Israel – would administer the critical area.
As his advisors gathered around him, Abbas told them that the Israeli
Prime Minister had presented him not only the details of the agreement
but also a large map, which laid out the borders of the future
Palestinian state.
Abbas silenced those present so that he could concentrate. He wanted
to sketch out Olmert’s map from memory. The Israeli Prime Minister had
told him that as long as Abu Mazen did not sign his initials to the map
and endorse it, Olmert would not hand over a copy. Abu Mazen took a
piece of letterhead of the Presidential Office and drew on it the
borders of the Palestinian state as he remembered them.
Abbas marked the settlement blocks that Israel would retain: The
Ariel bloc, the Jerusalem-Maaleh Adumim bloc (including E1), and Gush
Etzion. A total of 6.3% of the West Bank. Then Abbas also drew the
territories that Israel proposed to offer in their place: In the area of
Afula-Tirat Zvi, in the Lachish area, the area close to Har Adar, and
in the Judean desert and the Gaza envelope. A total of 5.8% of the West
Bank. Abu Mazen wrote on the left side of the letterhead the numbers as
he incorrectly remembered them (6.8% and 5.5%), and on the back he wrote
the rest of the details of the proposal: Safe passage between Gaza and
the West Bank via a tunnel, the pentilateral committee to administer the
Holy Basin, the removal of the Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley
and the absorption of 5,000 Palestinian refugees, 1,000 each year over
five years, inside the Green Line.
Abbas’ hand-drawn map, sketched on the stationery of the Palestinian Office of the President and obtained by TheTower.org in the course of this investigative report about the clandestine negotiation between Olmert and Abbas, was published here
yesterday exclusively. The two men met 36 times, mostly in Jerusalem
and once in Jericho, and arrived at a formula that was to be the basis
for a lasting agreement between the two parties. But in the end, peace
accords between Israel and the Palestinians were not signed, despite the
far-reaching proposal made by Olmert. As an official matter, the
Palestinian Authority has not responded.
...
TheTower.org: But between the last meeting and the Gaza Operation there were three months. Why didn’t you answer Olmert during that period?
The official preferred to avoid answering that question. Chief
Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erekat confirms that these were the details
of the proposal Olmert offered as they were shown to the Palestinian
side. “But Olmert’s memory concerning the last meeting has been rather
foggy,” he insisted. ”We too showed Olmert a map that spoke of handing
over 1.9% only of the West Bank to Israeli sovereignty.
“I know all of their arguments,” said Olmert. “They say that Abu
Mazen agreed with Bush that Erekat would meet with Turjeman in early
January in Washington, but that was a few days before Bush left the
White House and we received no such invitation. They claim that it was
because I was finished politically, so he hesitated. But that is an
excuse after the fact. They [the Palestinians] were very worried. Abu
Mazen is not a big hero. They were afraid. Erekat was worried. In the
end they thought that maybe after the American elections they would get
more from President Obama.”
Read the whole thing.
Today, five years later, Jonthan Tobin argues cogently that most of the world
ignores the lessons of Olmert's failure.
Abbas couldn’t take yes for an answer.
Indeed, the Palestinian leader wouldn’t even initial the hand-drawn
map of the deal. Nor did he ever dignify this generous offer with a
response. As Olmert puts it, he’s still waiting for a phone call from
Abbas with his answer.
The reason for that is not exactly a secret. Abbas could not say yes
because doing so meant recognizing the legitimacy of the Jewish state
that would remain in the parts of the country Olmert had agreed to give
up. And that is not something he could do and survive in the violent
world of Palestinian politics. Since Palestinian nationalism was founded
out of the desire to reject Zionism, it is simply impossible for it to
make its peace with a Jewish state no matter where its borders might be
drawn.
Olmert’s proposal is vulnerable to criticism because it creates a new
divided Jerusalem that would be an unbearable mess. So, too, would his
limited right of return for Palestinians and the tunnel he wanted to dig
between Gaza and the West Bank. But the real problem is that, like Ehud
Barak, who also tried to give the Palestinians almost everything they
said they wanted, he got nothing in exchange for offers that compromised
Israel’s rights.
In Olmert’s view the only conclusion to be drawn from this failure is
that Abbas is, “no hero.” He’s right about that, but the lesson from
this episode goes deeper than Abbas’s lack of heroism. If a Palestinian
leader couldn’t bring himself to take an offer like that—one, I might
add, that gives up far more in Jerusalem than most Israelis thought
acceptable—than what this shows is that the 36 meetings Olmert had with
Abbas was a charade. The only point of this process for the Palestinians
is to use any concessions they get as the floor for future negotiations
and demands. The result is that Israel continues to abandon its
rights—including not just West Bank settlements but the most sacred
places in Judaism—while getting neither peace nor security.
Olmert says he’s proud of his efforts, but all he really accomplished
was to demonstrate once again that real peace with the Palestinians
remains an illusion for the foreseeable future.
We Israelis can only hope and pray that we never again have a government that is foolish enough to offer anything near what the 'Palestinians' have already rejected.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Annapolis process, Condoleeza Rice, Ehud K. Olmert, George W. Bush, Holy Basin, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Judea and Samaria, Middle East peace process, Palestinian state, Saeb Erekat
Abu Bluff offers nothing again
Speaking to an Arab League meeting in Qatar - at which there were of course no Jews (someone asked earlier today in the comments) - '
moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen offered to resume 'peace talks' where they left off with
Ehud K. Olmert in 2008 (which means he's just pocketing Olmert's concessions and asking for more), in exchange for
a six-month 'settlement freeze.' Look for Prime Minister Netanyahu to reject that offer in 3... 2... 1....
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Sunday proposed
holding negotiations with Israel for six months, during which time the
Israeli government would freeze construction in the settlements.
Abbas
said that the negotiations should start from the point where they ended
during the era of former prime minister Ehud Olmert.
The negotiations would lead to agreement on the core issues and an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines, he said.
And what if we don't reach an agreement in six months? And why should we repeat the exercise of a 'settlement freeze'? And why should the 'Palestinians' get to keep Olmert's ridiculous concessions when the deal was that either all was agreed or nothing was agreed and that the concessions would be off the table?
What could go wrong?
Labels: Abu Mazen, Annapolis process, Binyamin Netanyahu, Ehud K. Olmert, Fatah, Hamas, negotiations without preconditions, two-state solution
Gallup: Maybe Israel is better off without a 'peace process'?
A new Gallup survey out this week shows that
most Americans support Israel over the 'Palestinians.'
Americans' views toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict held fairly steady over the past year, with a near record-high 63% continuing to say their sympathies lie more with the Israelis. Seventeen percent sympathize more with the Palestinians.
In measuring Americans' sympathies toward the disputants in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since 1988, Gallup has found support for Israel consistently exceeding support for the Palestinians. However, the percentage who are neutral -- saying they sympathize equally with both, sympathize with neither, or expressing no opinion -- has shifted, with corresponding changes in support for Israel. While the reasons for these changes are not always evident, public neutrality was generally higher in the 1990s as the Palestinians and the Israelis often met at Clinton administration-sponsored peace summits.
Conversely, support for Israel increased during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, as well as immediately after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and during the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war -- all events that may have enhanced Israel's perceived value to the U.S. as a Mideast ally. Sympathy toward Israel was also higher in polling conducted shortly after Hamas' victory in the 2006 Palestinian elections compared with the year prior, perhaps for the same reason.
The new results are from Gallup's Feb. 2-5, 2011, update of the annual Gallup World Affairs survey, conducted as the citizen uprising in Egypt was unfolding.
Read the whole thing.
I find it curious that support for Israel jumps whenever there is no 'peace process,' while support for neutrality jumps whenever there is one. For example, support for Israel fell from 2004 to 2005 (when we were giving away Gaza and getting 'peace'), rose from 2005 to 2007 (when it was clear that we did not get peace by giving away Gaza, but before Annapolis started), was flat from 2007-09 (while Annapolis was going on), and rose starting in 2009 (when the 'Palestinians' slammed the door on direct negotiations). See the chart below.
Maybe we're better off without a 'peace process'?
Quick -
someone tell Bibi.
Labels: Annapolis process, Binyamin Netanyahu, direct talks, Gallup, Gaza expulsion, Middle East peace process
