Boxlike thinking: Abu Bluff turns down 5x larger 'Palestinian state' because it's outside '67 borders'
'
Moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen has turned down an offer for a 'Palestinian state' five times the size of Gaza, because it would have required him to
drop the '67 borders' (1949 armistice lines).
Egyptian president General Abdel Fatah A-Sisi has offered
Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas to cede 160 square kilometers
of the Sinai Peninsula adjoining Gaza to the PA, thus creating a
Palestinian state five times the present size of Gaza. In return, the PA
would stop demanding that Israel return to the 1967 borders.
The offer was revealed on IDF Radio.
A-Sisi reportedly suggested that Palestinian "refugees" be allowed to
settle in the new, much enlarged Gaza, which would be demilitarized.
The Palestinian cities in Judea and Samaria would enjoy autonomy and
be fully run by the PA, according to the plan, which would leave the PA
with even more territory than it would have if Israel ceded all of Judea
and Samaria.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was aware of the offer and the
United States gave a green light, according to the military radio
station's sources.
Abu Bluff turned down the offer.
A similar proposal was made by Israel's
Giora Eiland when Hosni Mubarak was in power, but at the time Egypt turned it down.
What's perhaps most significant here is the level of cooperation between Israel and Egypt. The Obama administration and the 'Palestinians' are probably tearing their hair out over it.
Oh yes, and that once again the mantra that there is 'no solution other than the two-state solution' is proven false.
Labels: 1949 armistice lines, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Abu Mazen, Binyamin Netanyahu, Gaza, Giora Eiland, Palestinian state, two-state solution
Former National Security Council chief: Instead of attacking Hamas, we should have attacked the State of Gaza
Former National Security Council chief Giora Eiland has written an op-ed on YNet in which he argues that there is no difference between the civilians of Gaza and Hamas (as was the case with Hezbullah in Lebanon eight years ago) and therefore,
Israel should have attacked the State of Gaza and not Hamas (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
The story we are telling
in this conflict is similar to the one we told in Lebanon in 2006. In
this story we are fighting a terror organization, and only a terror
organization, while the population the organization is operating from is
not the enemy. Moreover, during the fighting we even feel obligated to
supply Gaza's residents with food, fuel and electricity.
Why is that wrong?
Because a state cannot defeat an efficient guerilla organization if the
following three conditions exist: We and they are on two sides of a
border; the organization enjoys the full protection of a state; their
state or its citizens are not an accountable side. Whoever fails to
understand that is entering a war without an ability to win.
We are seeing now that despite the IDF's impressive fighting,
despite the absolute military supremacy, we are in a sort of "strategic
tie."
What would have been the right thing to do? We should have
declared war against the state of Gaza (rather than against the Hamas
organization), and in a war as in a war. The moment it begins, the right
thing to do is to shut down the crossings, prevent the entry of any
goods, including food, and definitely prevent the supply of gas and
electricity.
In a war between states, each side is entitled to use its
ability to pressure the other side. The fact that we are fighting with
one hand and supplying food and energy to the enemy state with the other
hand is absurd. This generosity strengthens and extends the ability of
the enemy state of Gaza to fight us.
You probably have two
questions now. First, why should Gaza's residents suffer? Well, they are
to blame for this situation just like Germany's residents were to blame
for electing Hitler as their leader and paid a heavy price for that,
and rightfully so.
...
Because we want to be
compassionate towards those cruel people, we are committing to act
cruelly towards the really compassionate people – the residents of the
State of Israel.
This is relevant not only to the lessons of the conflict but
also to what is expected to happen tomorrow. It's reasonable to assume
that as soon as the fire ceases, we will be under heavy pressure to open
up the crossing, restore the electricity lines to Gaza and help rebuild
buildings and infrastructure. Israel can and should agree, but only if
the other side agrees to demilitarize the Strip of heavy weapons.
The only thing that bothers me about this analysis is the fact that Hamas says that there are no Israeli civilians every time that they set off a suicide bomber on a crowded bus. I agree with closing the crossings and I agree with not supplying food, water, electricity, gas and concrete. I don't agree with targeting civilians unless they're hiding terrorists. I don't think Eiland is arguing for targeting civilians, but I can see where the argument that Gaza's residents are equally as responsible as Hamas can lead to that eventuality.
Labels: civilian casualties, Gaza, Giora Eiland, Hamas, human shields
Deja vu all over again?
Received by email (since I am not in Israel and not listening to Reshet Bet Israel Radio).
Giora Eiland - IDF Major General, former Israeli National Security Advisor, etc - was interviewed on Israel's noon-time
Reshet Bet radio show, about the overnight rocket Hamas rocket barrages
from the Gaza Strip. Short version: Israel is working very hard to
deescalate the situation, but unless things calm down in the next few
days there will be no stopping an escalation. Israel would be forced to
launch a major operation to stop the rocket fire. Quick, rough
translation:
“I assume it’s a matter of days for us to know if we
succeeded [together with other parties] to create the required calm, or
if not we will certainly be prepared to carry out a larger process than
the [current] spontaneous responses... a hard/harsh Israeli action
against Gaza would be accepted, maybe not with encouragement, but with
great understanding in Washington and most places in the world... Hamas
knows this and therefore there is a structure of deterrence... [without
deescalation] I estimate that there will be an Israeli action, or at
least there will be a call for an Israeli action that is much more
massive – like Operation Pillar of Defense maybe even bigger than it, in
order to achieve a renewed deterrence for another period of a year or
two.”
Hmmm....
Labels: Gaza, Giora Eiland, Hamas rockets, IDF, Operation Cast Lead, Operation Pillar of Defense
Former NSC Chief Eiland: Obama nixed Netanyahu's attack on Iran
Former National Security Council Chief Giora Eiland says that Prime Minister Netanyahu had decided to attack Iran, but
called it off due to pressure from President Hussein Obama (Hat Tip:
Sunlight).
The Mida website quoted statements reportedly made by Eiland, the
former head of the National Security Council, in a closed conference on
defense.
According to Eiland, “The Prime Minister thought that we had reached
the point where a decision had to be made on Iran, and he planned an
attack.”
“In principle, Israel does not need American authorization for
military action, unless the Americans demand unequivocally that we
refrain from an action,” he continued.
That is what happened in this case, he said. Netanyahu presented his
plan to American leaders, and was told that it was not acceptable to
them. This led him to shelve the plan.
According to the report, Eiland threw his support behind Netanyahu’s
original plan. Israel still must decide how to deal with Iran, he said,
“now with less time, when the decision is between bad and worse.”
Mida reported that Eiland confirmed his statements in an interview
with the site. In the interview, Eiland clarified what he said regarding
American vetoes on Israeli missions.
“Israel can act for itself regarding many, many issues. [When it
comes to] building in Jerusalem, or strikes in Gaza, or other issues
pertaining to our region, we don’t need to ask the Americans, even if
they don’t like it,” he explained.
“However, if the matter pertains to American interests, we cannot go against their opinions,” he stated.
Eiland claims that Israel is capable of destroying Iran's nuclear program. We ought to do it sooner rather than later.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Giora Eiland, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli attack on Iran
And again: Israelis unhappy Obama confirmed Syria strike
In 2007, Israel allegedly destroyed the Syrian nuclear reactor at al-Kibar. For months, bits and pieces leaked but no one in the Israeli government or in the US government ever confirmed them. To this day, Israel has never officially acknowledged destroying the reactor. That has given the Syrians space not to retaliate and inflame the entire region.
In 2009 and 2010, Israel and the NSA collaborated on Stuxnet, which attacked Iran's nuclear facilities. While the NSA's role may have just been disclosed by Edward Snowden last week, the fact that Israel and the United States developed Stuxnet together has long been known. The Obama administration confirmed it.
Earlier today, I reported that the Obama administration has done it again, confirming Israel's strike on Russian-supplied Yakhont missiles in Latakia last week. And
Israel is pretty ticked off about it.
"Israel can attack many
targets in Syria, but according to foreign reports it chooses quality
targets, such as the Fateh-110 missile, as well as the SA-17 and Yakhont
missiles, which can fall into the hands of extremist elements," former
National Security Council chief Giora Eiland
explained on Sunday.
...
Eiland said the "range
of the attacks is very measured, in a way that is not perceived as an
intervention in the civil war." He said the attacks in Syria
"are clean in that they do not leave fingerprints and are conducted in
a way that does not allow the Syrians to photograph the plane or ship
which attacked, and in a way that does not push (President Bashar) Assad
into a corner."
However, Maj.-Gen.
(res.) Eiland warned that "there can always be one Israeli attack too
many, and then Assad will respond and we will have to ask ourselves
difficult questions. The American leaks (regarding alleged Israeli
operations in Syria) are problematic and concerning, although Israeli
officials also do such things on occasion."
The former National Security Council head estimates that Assad may decide
to retaliate "in a limited manner" at any moment. "In Syria there are
hundreds of rockets and missiles that are pointed at Israel and are
controlled by the regime. Some of them can reach the Golan Heights,
while others are capable of hitting central Israel," he said.
"Assad can order his forces to launch two surface-to-surface
missiles with conventional warheads at northern Israel, and even if such
an attack causes zero damage, it will pose a problem because Israel
will have to ask itself how it wants to respond."
The most transparent administration evah has finally found a place to be transparent. What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bashar al-Assad, Giora Eiland, Syria, Syrian army, Yakhont land to sea missile
Haaretz: Netanyahu trying to persuade cabinet to authorize Iran strike
In an earlier post, I noted hints from Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Interior Minister Eli Yishai that a strike against Iran
might be imminent. But Haaretz comes right out and says it: Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to get the cabinet to approve an
Israeli strike on Iran (Hat Tip:
Mememorandum).
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are trying to muster a majority in the cabinet in favor of military action against Iran, a senior Israeli official has said. According to the official, there is a "small advantage" in the cabinet for the opponents of such an attack.
Netanyahu and Barak recently persuaded Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who previously objected to attacking Iran, to support such a move.
...
Senior ministers and diplomats said the International Atomic Energy Agency's report, due to be released on November 8, will have a decisive effect on the decisions Israel makes.
The commotion regarding Iran was sparked by journalist Nahum Barnea's column in Yedioth Ahronoth last Friday. Barnea's concerned tone and his editors' decision to run the column under the main headline ("Atomic Pressure" ) repositioned the debate on Iran from closed rooms to the media's front pages.
Reporters could suddenly ask the prime minister and defense minister whether they intend to attack Iran in the near future and the political scene went haywire.
Western intelligence officials agree that Iran is forging ahead with its nuclear program. Intelligence services now say it will take Iran two or three years to get the bomb once it decides to (it hasn't made the decision yet ).
According to Western experts' analyses, an attack on Iran in winter is almost impossible, because the thick clouds would obstruct the Israel Air Force's performance.
Some cabinet members are complaining that public discussion of the possibility of a strike against Iran are
reckless.
Minister-without-Portfolio Benny Begin slammed the Israeli media's conduct surrounding talk of a possible IDF strike on Iran, in an interview with Army Radio Wednesday morning. "There has never been a breakdown of responsibility and a campaign of recklessness like there is today," Begin said.
...
The media attention, Begin said, "pales in comparison to the acts of Anat Kamm, for which she was sentenced to four and a half years in prison," echoing sentiments expressed by Intelligence and Atomic Energy Minister Dan Meridor Wednesday in a Ma'ariv op-ed.
Seemingly referring to former Mossad chief Meir Dagan's push in recent months to discredit the necessity of a military strike on Iran, Begin said that public servants "swore to guard state secrets forever, also after they leave their positions."
Making such discussions public, he added, "can present real damage to the government's abilities to make decisions."
But former National Security Council chief Giora Eiland regards such discussions as 'natural.'
"It's hard to take a topic that the prime minister declares to be the most important to the state of Israel and then prevent public debate about it," Eiland told Army Radio.
"It is only natural that the media took an interest in it," he added.
YNet reports that Begin had
much harsher words for Dagan than the previously linked article reported:
Begin hinted to former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan's comments on a possible strike in Iran, saying that they constituted "a dangerous breach of trust, verging on megalomania. It's just despicable."
Civil servants, he added, "Are obligated to protect state secret they were privy to regardless of time. These kind of acts are very severe."
Clearly, something is going on. But if the weather is really an issue, the hit will have be soon or it will have to wait for the spring. And how do you maintain an element of surprise with all this discussion going on?
What could go wrong?
Labels: Avigdor Lieberman, Benny Begin, Binyamin Netanyahu, Eli Yishai, Giora Eiland, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli strike on Iran, Meir Dagan
