The Middle East conflict explained in five minutes
The Middle East conflict is framed as one of the most complex problems
in the world. But, in reality, it's very simple. Israelis want to live
in peace and are willing to accept a neighboring Palestinian state. And
most Palestinians do not want Israel to exist. As Dennis Prager
explains, this is really all you need to know. In 5 minutes, understand
how Israel was founded, and how, since that auspicious day in 1948, its
neighbors have tried to destroy it, again and again.
Caroline Glick reports that Israel is planning to release 'Israeli Arab' terrorists as part of the next terrorist release to bring the 'Palestinians' to the 'negotiating table.'
On Sunday, Issa Karaka, the Palestinian Authority’s minister for
jailed terrorists, announced that in the next round of terrorist
releases, Israel will release not only Palestinian terrorist murderers,
but Israeli Arabs who murdered Israeli Jews in terrorist attacks.
As late as last week, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was said to
have completely rejected the Palestinian demand. But in response to
Karaka’s statement, Netanyahu’s spokesman said only that the release of
Israeli Arab terrorists would be subject to the approval of the
government. In other words, Karaka was probably telling the truth.
What's changed? Caroline blames US Secretary of State John FN Kerry.
Kerry is the Palestinians’ ace in the hole. He used the US’s
limitless leverage on Israel to coerce Israel into agreeing to pay for
the privilege of speaking to Palestinian negotiators who reject our
country’s right to exist and extol as heroes the terrorist scum who
murder us.
For the pleasure of their company, Kerry forced Israel to agree
up-front to release scores of Palestinian terrorist murderers. And he
did so in bad faith.
According to a high-ranking government official, Israel told Kerry it
would release 82 murderers, none of whom are Israelis. And he
agreed. But then, during a joint appearance with Kerry, PLO chief
Mahmoud Abbas announced that Israel had agreed to release 104
terrorists, including Israeli citizens. Rather than correct him, Kerry
went along, and so locked Israel into a concession it had never made.
And now, with Kerry’s support, Karaka said that if Israel refuses to
release Israeli Arab murderers in the next round of releases, the PLO
will abandon the talks. The EU has already announced that it will blame
Israel for any PLO walkout.
But what's almost worse is the motivation behind the 'Palestinian' desire to free 'Israeli Arabs' - with which Kerry is playing along.
For sovereignty to mean anything, a national government needs to have
the capacity to enforce its laws without prejudice on all of its
citizens. If this does not occur, over time, members of the group toward
which national authorities fail to apply the law will feel less loyal,
less attached and less obligated to that authority and, if there is a
competing authority filling the vacuum, that authority will come to
enjoy more loyalty, attachment and obligation from the spurned or immune
citizens of the weakened national authority.
The PLO’s demand that Israel release terrorists who hold Israeli
citizenship, (or in the case of Jerusalem residents, permanent
residency), is a clear bid to weaken Israel’s sovereignty over
Jerusalem, and over the Galilee and the Negev. More generally it is an
attempt to undermine Israel’s right to assert its sovereign authority
over non-Jews.
By the PLO’s calculations, if Israel’s right to assert its
sovereignty over its non-Jewish citizens and residents is sufficiently
discredited, then over time, the PLO can destroy Israeli democracy and
undo Israel’s national rights and sovereignty.
The
question, though, is whether the ratification of the 1967 border would
entail the end of the dispute. Hopefully, the answer would be yes, with
the United States putting its full weight behind the finality of the
agreement.20 Yet we cannot ignore certain Palestinian
positions which, if they do not change, are likely to generate crises
even after an agreement is reached. For example, in an article posted
prominently on Fatah’s website, the author discussed –
uncharacteristically – the issue of the Jewish refugees. Zionism,
according to this author, deliberately sowed terror in Iraq so as to
frighten the Jews there and, eventually, settle them in Palestinian
areas that were emptied of their residents, who then became refugees.
Thus, the right of return is actually the right to return to lands that
the United Nations allocated to the Arab state in the partition plan.21
What this means is that, from the Palestinians’ standpoint, the
negotiations being held today are about the results of the 1967 war. The
Palestinian state to be established along the 1967 lines is not
intended to absorb the refugees from the 1948 lands; their proper place
will be within the partition-plan borders. After “closing the file” on
the 1967 borders, then, the “refugee file” will be opened, and the
Palestinians will demand their return to the Arab state postulated by
the partition plan. In other words, the real, intended border is not one
along the 1967 lines, but the one of 1947.
An internal, strategic document formulated in the office of
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, and posted on Palestinian websites
in 2013,22 states that the aim of the talks is not to reach
an agreement but, rather, to create an alibi for imposing a solution on
Israel. According to this document, the Palestinians agreed to enter the
talks only after receiving a written commitment from Kerry to support
the Palestinian position on the 1967 lines, and after publication of the
European Union’s statement that Israel is to be penalized for the
settlements – meaning Europe’s recognition of the 1967 lines is to be
imposed on Israel. It turns out, then, that the Palestinian strategy is
not to reach an agreement with Israel but, instead, to create breaches
in its relations with the United States, after already fostering
Israel’s dispute with Europe.
Moreover, there have been repeated signs that the Palestinian
leadership has claims to Israeli territory within the 1967 lines. In
1999, when Yasser Arafat tried to revive Palestinian territorial demands
on the basis of the Partition Map that appears in UN General Assembly
Resolution 181, the PLO Observer, Nasser al-Kidwa, wrote an official
letter to Secretary-General Kofi Anan in which he stated:
Israel must still explain to the international community the measures
it took illegally to extend its laws and regulations to the territory
it occupied in the war of 1948, beyond the territory allocated to the
Jewish state in Resolution 181 (II).23
The PLO at the time was planning to replace the Oslo Accords with
Resolution 181 and thereby extend Palestinian territorial claims. This
was explained by the Palestinian minister Nabil Sha’ath, who said that
it was his hope that the Palestinians would also seek to obtain land in
Western Jerusalem and not just in Eastern Jerusalem.
This claim is being sustained to this day. PLO Executive Committee
member Hanan Ashrawi told Radio Palestine on January 8, 2014, that on
the Jerusalem issue the Palestinians will also raise the matter of
Palestinian properties in Western Jerusalem inside the 1967 lines.
Palestinian sources have told this author that the files on Palestinian
properties in Western Jerusalem were already prepared at Orient House by
the late Feisal Husseini.
Abu Ala, who served as the speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Assembly and as a key Palestinian negotiator, stated in al-Hayat al-Judida
on December 21, 1998: “It shall be emphasized that the [Palestinian]
state has internationally recognized borders set in the [1947] partition
resolution.”24
Palestinian reliance on UN General Assembly Resolution 181 continued
under Mahmoud Abbas. In September 2011, Abbas spoke at the UN General
Assembly and explained that he was applying for UN membership “on the
basis of the 1967 borders.” But in the formal Palestinian submission to
the UN, in which the Palestinian Authority sought membership, there is
no reference whatsoever to the 1967 lines but only to Resolution 181
from 1947. There is a second reference to the 1988 Declaration of
Independence that also was based on Resolution 181.25 Thus,
there is considerable, cumulative evidence that the Palestinian
leadership is maintaining claims to Israeli territory within the 1967
lines.
I'm not sure that the Americans believe this is the end of the 'Palestinian' claims either - Kerry and Obama would be happy to see the 'Palestinians' claim more....
Several years ago, Professor Steven Plaut wrote a parody of what would happen the day after an Israeli agreement with the 'Palestinians.' That parody rings true.
The morning after the Palestine
Independence Celebrations, the message arrived in the Israeli parliament,
brought in by special messenger.
The newly formed government of
Palestine had only a small number of issues it would like to discuss with
Israel. It proposed that peaceful relations be officially consummated, as soon
as Israel turned over the Galilee and the Negev to Palestine. Israeli cabinet
ministers were nonplussed. We thought we had settled all outstanding
territorial issues by giving the Palestinians everything, they protested. The
spokesman for the Palestine War Ministry explained: the Galilee was obviously
part of the Arab homeland. It was filled with many Arabs and in many areas had
an Arab population majority. Israel was holding 100% of the Galilee territory,
and Palestine none at all, and surely that was unfair. As for the Negev, it
too has large areas with Arab majorities, but is in fact needed so that
Palestine can settle the many Palestinian refugees from around the world in
lands and new homes.
Israel’s government preferred
not to give offense and sour the new relations, and so offered to take the
proposal under consideration.
Within weeks, endorsements of
the Palestinian proposal were coming from a variety of sources. The Arab
League endorsed it. The EU approved a French proposal that the Galilee and
Negev be transferred to Palestine in stages over 3 years. Within Israel, many
voices were heard in favor of the proposal. Large rallies were held in the
universities. The Israeli press endorsed the idea almost in full unison, with
only some regional weeklies from the north and south dissenting. Israeli film
producers began turning out documentaries on the sufferings of Galilee and
Negev Arabs under Israeli rule.
Sociologists from around the
world produced studies showing that these Arabs were victims of horrible
discrimination and that Israel is characterized by institutional racism.
Israeli poets and novelists wrote passionate appeals for support of the
Galilee and Negev ‘Others’.
When Israel’s cabinet rejected
the proposal, the pressures mounted. A Galilee and Negev Liberation
Organization was founded and immediately granted recognition by the UN General
Assembly. It established consulate facilities in 143 countries. Weeks later,
the infiltrations began. Squads of terrorists infiltrated the borders between
Palestine and Israel, and suicide bombers produced a carnage of 75 murdered
Jews a day.
The border fences that Ariel
Sharon had constructed were reinforced, but to no avail. The US State
Department proposed that Israel defuse the situation by considering compromise
on the matters of the Galilee and Negev.
In both Jerusalem and Ramallah on Thursday, US Secretary of State John FN Kerry called on both Israelis and 'Palestinians' to 'compromise for peace.'
“Our hope is that the leaders in
both Israel and the Palestinian Authority will find a way to compromise,” Kerry
told President Shimon Peres.
...
Kerry
responded, “It’s not me, Mr. President. It’s really a question of whether
Israel and the Palestinians make the choices.”
But the 'Palestinians' gave their answer to Kerry three times in the last two weeks (May 10, May 14 and May 21) - most recently on Tuesday - via this video broadcast on official, government controlled 'Palestinian Authority.' Television.
Each text appeared on the screen with pictures of mostly unidentified
old buildings, implying that they, like Jaffa mentioned in the last
statement, are inside "Palestine" and that the PA is claiming them.
Also significant are the political messages that the PA will neither agree to a truce nor compromise.
Maybe Mr. Kerry thinks that Israeli prosperity is stopping the 'Palestinians' from compromising too.... For the record, Jaffa is part of Tel Aviv....
UPDATE 10:25 AM
Almost forgot to mention this.... When Kerry arrived in Ramallah on Thursday, dozens of 'Palestinians' demonstrated outside Abu Bluff's office protesting US 'bias' in favor of Israel. Rumors that the protests were orchestrated by George Soros and J Street could not be confirmed.
Remember the scene in Fiddler on the Roof, where Tevye is debating whether to let his eldest daughter marry. "On the one hand... on the other hand..." as he can't make up his mind. Meet Tevye Netanyahu.
Netanyahu acknowledges the reality that our conflict with the 'Palestinians' is existential. It's not about land.
"The root of the conflict is not territorial," he said at the
meeting, his first with the Foreign Ministry since the elections and his
assumption of the foreign ministerial mantle until the fate of Avigdor
Liberman is determined in court.
"It started long before 1967. You
saw what happened when we left Gaza. We uprooted the last settler, and
what did we get in return? Missiles," he said.
Netanyahu's
comments came just days after the Arab League officials indicated, after
meetings in the US with Vice President Joe Biden and US Secretary of
State John Kerry, that they would accept in their Arab Peace Initiative a
slight modification to the 1967 lines as part of an Israel-Palestinian
peace accord.
"The unwillingness of the Palestinians to recognize
Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people is the root of the
conflict," he said. "If we reach an agreement I want to know that the
conflict does not continue, that there are no other Palestinian claims
afterward."
Netanyahu urged the Foreign Ministry workers to stress
that the root of the conflict is Acre, Jaffa, and Ashkelon. "You need
to say that," he said. "There is no need to apologize, you need to tell
the truth."
But on the other hand....
Israel needs to reach peace with the Palestinians to prevent becoming a
bi-national state, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Wednesday,
stressing – however – that that the core of Israel's conflict with the
Palestinians is not territory, but a Palestinian unwillingness to
recognize Israel's legitimacy within any boundaries.
Hey Bibi - when someone doesn't accept your legitimacy within any boundaries, there is no 'other hand.' Even Tevye eventually figured that out.
US Secretary of State John FN Kerry doesn't get it, and until he does, he will not even be able to articulate the problem in this area, let alone work on solutions.
Kerry has adopted the 'Palestinian' narrative that it's all about borders and security. But Carlo Strenger points out that there's a much bigger problem, and that problem is existential.
[I]t's important to clearly state the main reasons
why simply getting Israel and Palestine to the negotiating table is
likely to lead to another resounding failure:
The
first is that no Israeli Prime Minister will be able to retreat to the
1967 lines in the foreseeable future without a dramatic change in
Israel’s security situation. Israelis are too traumatized by the second
intifada and the rocket attacks from Gaza that fell after Israel’s
withdrawal. They want assurances that Israel’s population centers will
not be subject to such rocket attacks in the future.
The
second reason is that no such assurances can be made as long as Hamas
is committed to the destruction of Israel. Israel’s position is that as
long as Hamas refuses to recognize Israel, no peace agreement with the
Palestinians is worth the paper on which it's written.
The
third is that Netanyahu and much of Israel’s right thinks that the
world misinterprets the Middle Eastern conflict as being about Israel
and Palestine, whereas it is really about the Arab world not accepting
Israel’s existence. Hence no peace agreement with the Palestinians truly
safeguards Israel’s long-term future.
Four:
Most observers in the Western world underestimate the power of the
Palestinian national ethos. Many Palestinians indeed do not see
establishing a state in the 1967 borders as the end of conflict. The
refugees’ right of return is deeply entrenched in the Palestinian ethos
and no Palestinian leader will have the legitimacy to renounce their
right of return. But without such renunciation, no Israeli Prime
Minister can sign anything. Israelis are afraid that after retreating to
the 1967 borders, Palestinians will begin a new process of demanding
the right of return into pre-1967 Israel, and that the retreat will have
done nothing to resolve the problem. This is why Netanyahu insists that
Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state, i.e. that they
renounce any rights to pre-1967 borders.
Five:
Kerry may be underestimating the strength of those in Israel who oppose
any Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. This is the official
position of Naftali Bennett’s Habayit Hayehudi party and at least half
of Likud MKs, all of whom openly reject the two-state solution.
But this is Obama's last term in office, and he really, really wants a solution.
'Palestinians' removed monument that eliminated Israel for Obama visit
Before President Obama went to Bethlehem, the 'Palestinians' removed from the route his party took a monument consisting of a map of 'Palestine' that replaced the State of Israel.
After the UN vote in November 2012, the PA built a monument in a central
square in Bethlehem called "The State Monument," which shows the "State
of Palestine." However, the model of "Palestine" also includes all of
Israel, thereby erasing it completely. The monument celebrates the UN
vote on statehood as well as the first PLO/Fatah terror attack against
Israel in 1965, which is seen as the beginning of the Palestinian
"revolution" and Fatah's anniversary date. The words on the map-shaped
monument are:
"Birth certificate of the State of Palestine - Nov. 29, 2012,
The outbreak of the glorious revolution - Jan. 1, 1965"
The monument it turned out was on President Obama's route in Bethlehem,
so in order to prevent him from seeing it, the PA had the monument
removed before he arrived, the official PA daily reported. This,
however, outraged the local Palestinians who witnessed its removal:
"In the city, there are those who not only welcome the visit of the
American President, but are willing to go even further... Residents were
surprised to find that a model of the map of Palestine engraved with
details about the Nakba ("Catastrophe" i.e., Israel's creation) and an
olive tree were removed from the Al-Karkafa Square, to be replaced by a
model of what was described as a peace dove. This enraged many people
who gathered there."
...
In response to the popular anger that the PA daily had reported, the PA
then tried to deceive its own people as to the reason for the removal of
the monument. Two days after the first story appeared, the paper
reported on a press conference held by the Bethlehem District Governor
with the Mayor of Bethlehem, at which they claimed that the monument was
removed in order to be "redone" and expanded. The fact that it was
immediately before Obama's visit was coincidental, according to the PA.
In the words of the District Governor: "Everyone knows that Americans do
not dictate any Palestinian decisions."
Read it all. Two questions: Does Obama know about this? Does he care?
The Washington Post reports that at a meeting last week, American Jewish leaders advised President Obama that if he really wants to press a re-set button with Israelis, he's going to have to acknowledge Israel's historical claim to the land of Israel. Leo Rennert wonders whether the President is capable of doing that.
So
it would seem that Obama finally could be on the right historical track
if, during his Jerusalem visit later this month, he substituted the
Bible for the Holocaust as the real genesis of Zionism.
Well,
not quite. Pointing to the Bible as the fundamental undergirding of
Jewish nationhood would be a big step forward for Obama. But as
history, it would still fall short -- at best a single or a double, to
use baseball jargon. If Obama were aiming to score a homer, he would
have to add evidence more attuned to secular minds in the 21st century. And there's plenty of that as well -- especially in Jerusalem where archeology and the Bible validate each other.
Or
Obama could point as far as Rome and the Arch of Titus with its frieze
of Roman legionnaires returning triumphantly from their destruction of
the Jewish Temple, carrying the Temple's golden seven-branch menorah.
That happened 2,000 years before the Holocaust.
Why
is all this crucial as addenda to the Bible to support Jewish
sovereignty? For one thing, from Mahmoud Abbas on down, Palestinians
keep denying any historic Jewish ties to Jerusalem, clinging instead to
the anti-Jewish Ahmadinejad formula that Israel is a recent colonial
implant. For another thing, physical archeological evidence is as
crucial as -- if not more so than -- biblical accounts in an
increasingly secular world. If non-believers shrug off biblical
evidence, they cannot avert their eyes from a profusion of graphic
empirical evidence.
When
Obama delivers his major address in Jerusalem, it will be interesting
to hear whether he realizes the huge errors of his 2009 Cairo speech and
how far he is willing to go to give the world a full account of
Israel's sovereignty claims -- backed up not only by the Bible, but also
by irrefutable empirical evidence.
In other words, will Obama finally deliver a historically kosher speech?
I wouldn't bet on it. I think he'll just skip the Holocaust reference and try to fudge it.
Abu Mazen criticizes Khaled Meshaal for not being as good a liar
Reports emanating out of Turkey, where 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen is currently visiting, claim that Abu Mazen has criticized Hamas for refusing to 'recognize' Israel's 'right to exist.'
“I don’t agree with Khaled Mashaal’s statement on the non-recognition
of Israel because we, in fact, recognized it in 1993,” Abbas told
reporters in Ankara following a two-day visit to the country.
“A
four-article agreement between [Fatah and Hamas] stipulates a two-state
vision. And Mashaal approved of this agreement,” he added, according to
the report.
Mashaal on Saturday reiterated his movement’s refusal to “give up one inch of the land of Palestine.”
But what does that 'recognition' mean? What does recognizing a country's 'right to exist' mean? Name me one other existing country whose 'right to exist' is even an issue (you won't find any).
The 'Palestinian Authority's 'recognition of Israel' is a fraud for many reasons. First, because it binds the 'Palestinian Authority' but it does not bind the PLO. Second, because it does not include an end of conflict statement, which means that the day after the 'two-state solution' is implemented (were it ever to be implemented) the 'Palestinians' would come back with more claims. And it doesn't include recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, which means that the 'Palestinians' are reserving the 'right' to flood whatever would be left of Israel after a 'two-state solution' with 'refugees.'
The truth is that the platitudes mouthed by Abu Mazen about recognizing Israel are for the benefit of the 'international community.' And that's his real criticism of Khaled Meshaal. Meshaal doesn't do as good a job as Abu Mazen of deceiving the 'international community' (or at least those members of it who would not be complicit with an outright plan to extirpate the Jewish state). Meshaal is not as good a liar as Abu Mazen.
Abbas is in fact searching for any excuse not to return to the negotiating table with Israel.
His demand that Israel stop building in the settlements sounds more like a joke: has he just discovered that there are settlements in the West Bank?
Why did his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, negotiate for many years with Israel while the construction in the settlements was continuing? And why did Abbas also negotiate with Israeli leaders before Benjamin Netanyahu was elected prime minister more than three years ago -- while the construction work was continuing?
By demanding that Israel recognize the pre-1967 lines as the borders of a future Palestinian state, Abbas is actually asking that Israel commit itself in advance to giving him everything -- even before the negotiations have resumed.
Abbas's two new conditions - the release of prisoners and import of weapons - came as a surprise even to some Palestinians in the West Bank. It is not even clear how the release of Palestinians who were involved in terror attacks would advance the cause of peace.
It is also not clear how bringing additional rifles and pistols into the Palestinian Authority-controlled territories is supposed to help achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Abbas is right in saying that the peace process is "clinically dead." The peace process has been dead for some time now.
It died the day a majority of Palestinians voted for Hamas in a free and fair election in 2006.
The peace process died when Hamas expelled the Palestinian Authority from the Gaza Strip and established an Islamic emirate in the area.
The peace process died even long before that. It passed away the day Yasser Arafat said no to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at the botched Camp David summit in 2000.
...
The peace process is dead because a majority in the Arab and Islamic world still has not come to terms with Israel's right to exist.
It's not 'Islamophobia' when they really are out to get you.
With all the catastrophes that have occurred in the world, you would think that there must be at least one that tops the creation of the State of Israel (which I would not classify as a catastrophe at all). But no. According to the head of Egypt's Islamofacsist Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Badie, the creation of the State of Israel is the greatest catastrophe ever to hit mankind.
The statement – the existence of which was revealed Wednesday by the Investigative Project on Terrorism blog – reminds Brotherhood followers of the movement’s decades-long “sacrifices” in efforts to destroy the Jewish state.
“On this day, like every year, the Arab and Islamic nations remember the worst catastrophe ever to befall the peoples of the world,” Badie wrote in the text, translated by The Jerusalem Post. “We demand the international community rectify the historic injustice [of 1948] and pressure the government of the Zionist entity to withdraw from the land of Palestine.”
Note: 'withdraw from the land of Palestine.' No 1949 armistice lines. No Judea and Samaria. No 'West Bank.' The 'land of Palestine.' For the Muslim Brotherhood and its followers Israel has no 'right to exist' anywhere.
The statement portrays the Arab revolts of the last 18 months as part of an inexorable process to “liberate” land now in the State of Israel.
“We have toppled the most repressive regimes with purpose and determination,” Badie wrote. “We have begun the era of liberation of all peoples, first of all the Palestinian people, [suffering from] the worst occupation known to man – the Zionist occupation.”
I wonder how many Syrians in Hula consider the 'Zionist occupation' to be 'the worst occupation known to man.' Something tells me they might - just might - think Bashar al-Assad is worse.
Uriya Shavit, a lecturer in Tel Aviv University’s Department for Arabic and Islamic Studies, said those acquainted with the Brotherhood’s history will find the message unsurprising.
“The idea that the Brotherhood doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of Israel, and the call to eradicate it at some point, is something the group has never denied. It’s been in Brotherhood literature from its founding in 1928 until this very day,” Shavit said.
“What they have tried to do, not just during the Arab Spring but before, is to try to reconcile the ideology of never recognizing Israel, or the 1979 Egypt- Israel peace treaty, with the understanding that if they’re to be in power, they have to be realistic,” he added. “That’s why they offer statements like ‘We realize we will have to recognize agreements signed by previous governments,’ but then always add a ‘but.’”
But of course, in the euphoria to make 'peace' thirty years ago, the Brotherhood's existence, and the idea that Israel was making peace with Anwar Sadat, who would not live forever - and not with the Egyptian people - was ignored and swept under the rug.
And for those who claim that Islam has nothing to do with this:
Badie’s Nakba Day message repeatedly cites passages from the Koran to explain political events. The Arab revolts showed popular will can topple “corrupt regimes which knelt at the feet of the Zionists,” he wrote, adding the Koranic verse, “They are those with whom thou didst make a covenant but they break their covenant every time.”
“The idea is there is no point in signing treaties with Jews – not Israelis, by the way, but Jews – because the Koran tells you just how unreliable they are,” Shavit said. “This is rhetoric even Hamas has used less in the past year, because it’s seen in the West as plain anti-Semitism, albeit in Islamic garb.”
In other words, they regard this as 'Islamic land' and won't tolerate any other religion in the region, and certainly not in 'Palestine.' Some day, they hope to apply this to Andulasia (southern Spain) too.
Why does this matter? It matters because the Muslim Brotherhood's representatives, who take what Badie says quite seriously, control Egypt's legislature and may yet control its Presidency. Egypt is a neighboring country with which we share a border, and is supposed to be at peace with us. What does this sort of statement say about the wisdom of Israel entering into peace treaties with its neighbors? It suggests that entering into peace treaties is not a good idea, because the Muslims regard any peace treaty as being a temporary truce until they feel that they are strong enough to win, God forbid.
So let's just sign another treaty with the 'Palestinians.' What could go wrong?
LATMA's tribal update: Is Channel 10 too big to fail? Peace Now's Yariv Googleheimer goes out to work
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.
Here's LATMA's tribal update in which the director general of Israel's Channel 10 (which is on the verge of bankruptcy) explains how everyone has debts, and how fake 'investigations' and poor content justify the Channel's continued existence for the sake of market competition and due to the need for energetic journalism. And Peace Now's Yariv Googleheimer discovers what it means 'to work' with the help of Alon Gal, who comes to help him as a result of the new contribution law. Also, a new secret unit works to save Israel from a new threat to its existence.
Richard Landes argues that liberal cognitive egocentrism - as reflected by the insistence that 'Palestinian' mothers are just like our own - is a weapon in the cognitive war that Islam wages against us.
I remember hearing the same from Ted Koppel at the outbreak of the intifada. Hosting a program in which he had to have the Israelis separated from the Palestinians – on the insistence of the Palestinians – he responded to one Israeli claiming that the Palestinians wanted war: “I don’t believe that for a minute. A Palestinian mother cares about her children every bit as much as an Israeli mother.”
It was indeed these dogmatic kinds of politically correct statements that led me to formulate the expression “liberal cognitive egocentrism.” This kind of thinking, which Edward Saïd insisted we – not the Arabs – adopt, is a major element in the cognitive war that Islam wages against us, and creates an extensive epistemological confusion in which we cannot identify the problems or analyze how to resolve them. The editors of the NYT, and their major columnists like Friedman, Kristof, and Cohen, all participate in this liberal, PC dogma, and accordingly, find themselves constantly ignoring reality and coming up with ludicrous solutions. (As Pierre Taguieff pointed out long ago, when all the fishes swim in the same direction it’s because they’re dead.”)
Indeed, as long as you believe that the Palestinians are “just like us” and all they want is a state of their own, and their terror is a sign of the desperation at not getting what everyone else has (rather than aspiration to destroy someone else’s), then obviously, Bibi (and any other Israeli leader who doesn’t retreat to the 67 boundaries) is responsible for the impass which – everyone knows – could be resolved, in the words of one BBC commentator, by email. Never mind that in the real world, people who pursue these satisfying if fantastic solution end up looking – at best – like keystone cops.
The key word here is “final.” The Palestinians are quite prepared to sign interim agreements, like Oslo. Framework agreements, like Annapolis. Cease-fires, like the 1949 armistice. Anything but a final deal. Anything but a final peace. Anything but a treaty that ends the conflict once and for all — while leaving a Jewish state still standing.
After all, why did Abbas go to the United Nations last week? For nearly half a century, the United States has pursued a Middle East settlement on the basis of the formula of land for peace. Land for peace produced the Israel-Egypt peace of 1979 and the Israel-Jordan peace of 1994. Israel has offered the Palestinians land for peace three times since. And been refused every time.
Why? For exactly the same reason Abbas went to the United Nations last week: to get land without peace. Sovereignty with no reciprocal recognition of a Jewish state. Statehood without negotiations. An independent Palestine in a continued state of war with Israel.
...
Israel is prepared to give up land, but never again without peace. A final peace. Which is exactly what every Palestinian leader from Haj Amin al-Husseini to Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas has refused to accept. Which is why, regardless of who is governing Israel, there has never been peace. Territorial disputes are solvable; existential conflicts are not.
This conflict is existential. That's what the World refuses to get. Instead, they are preparing a recipe for war to continue in perpetuity.
Khaled Meshaal, the chairman of Hamas' politburo, has told a conference in Tehran that the 'Palestinians' 'only option' is 'resistance.' So what else is new? (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
"Palestinians must resort to resistance no matter how costly it is, until Palestine is free and Israel is destroyed," Meshal said.
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who also spoke at the conference on Saturday, assailed a two state solution for Israel and the Palestinians, saying the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations is doomed to fail.
Khamenei told the conference, which was attended by other by senior Palestinian militant leaders as well as Mashaal, that the Palestinians should not limit themselves to seeking a country based on the pre-1967 borders because "all land belongs to Palestinians."
"Our claim is freedom of Palestine, not part of Palestine. Any plan that partitions Palestine is totally rejected," Khamenei told the conference.
"Palestine spans from the river (Jordan) to the sea (Mediterranean), nothing less."
Khamenei claimed that a two state solution would mean "giving in to the demand of the Zionists" and that it would "trample the rights of the Palestinian people" to live on their land.
Khamenei also called Israel a "cancerous tumor" that should be removed.
Hamas has repeatedly expressed its opposition to the Palestinian bid for statehood in the UN, led by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Last week, Gaza’s Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh accused Abbas.of relinquishing Palestinian rights by seeking recognition for a state in the pre-1967 borders.
"The Palestinian people do not beg the world for a state, and the state can't be created through decisions and initiatives," Haniyeh said. "States liberate their land first and then the political body can be established."
Don't kid yourselves. Most of the 'Palestinian Authority's supporters think exactly the same way. They just won't vote for Hamas because they don't want to live in a Caliphate. This is not a minority view among 'Palestinians.' This is their standard. The desire to destroy Israel is why there is no peace - and there will not be peace for the foreseeable future.
Melanie Phillips has a lengthy feature about the flotilla of fools and the legal battle being waged against them on her new blog. While I strongly urge you to read the whole thing, I want to highlight for you this 'straight from the horse's mouth' talk by Adam Shapiro - who co-founded the 'International Solidarity Movement' with his wife Huweida Arraf - about the true motivations for the flotilla.
Well, the true aim was actually spelled out by Adam Shapiro, co-founder of the International Solidarity Movement and a board member of the Free Gaza Movement (which is behind the flotilla), at a meeting last November at Rutgers university in New Jersey to raise money to fund an American flotilla boat. I have obtained a video of this address (no link, I’m afraid). This is what Shapiro said:
What we’ve been doing over the last ten years with the International Solidarity Movement, Free Gaza, and all the other outgrowth organisations and movements and groups is to ...work with Palestinian society to ramp up the resistance. This is all part of a Palestinian movement for Palestine...This is truly an international movement ... It’sonly Palestine, this cause that has been going on for over 60 years, that generates this kind of activism, this kind of resistance...
Free Gaza is but one tactic of a larger strategy, to transform this conflict from one between Israel and the Palestinians, or Israel and the Arab world...to one between the rest of the world and Israel... [applause]
It’s not just the conflict, it’s not just the siege, it’s not just the home demolitions, it’s not just the wall on the West Bank, it’s not just the effort to continue to dispossess Palestinians of their land...it’s also the attempt to define a place where 20 per cent of the population is Palestinian, to define the land underneath their feet as Jewish, to further dispossess them and subject these people to permanent second third or fourth class citizenship...Free Gaza is a tactic...all of it is part of a strategy now to transform the conflict and internationalise it and really undermine Israel where it gets its most support...
Our ground is the whole world. And that’s where our resistance has to be. The whole world... We already have a third intifada. It’s going on right now. It’s going on all over the world. [my emphasis]
So from the horse’s mouth we learn that the prime aim of the flotilla is not to provide humanitarian supplies to Gaza. It is not even to protest Israel’s ‘siege’ of Gaza. It is instead a tactic in a campaign to undermine Israel itself on account of its 60-plus year existence as a Jewish state. In other words, the flotilla is part of a strategy designed to destroy Israel altogether.
These people are still fighting the 1948 war and are still fighting Israel's 'right to exist.' Anyone who thinks the flotilla is about a 'siege' on Gaza or that our dispute with the Arabs is about the 'occupation' ought to rethink their assumptions.
It's been seventeen years since Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty pursuant to which Jordan dropped all territorial claims against Israel and agreed to make peace in exchange for land. And on June 5, the 44th anniversary of the outbreak of the Six Day War, an op-ed appeared in the Jordanian daily al-Dustour, which admitted that the Arab (not 'Palestinian' - Arab) struggle against Israel is existential.
"The events of history, both ancient and recent, have proven that the Arab ummah has no other path to ensure its survival, to repel the Zionist aggression, and to liberate the land, Jerusalem, and Al-Aqsa Mosque but [the path of] unity, the unification of fronts, the use of force, the utilization of the ummah's resources toward [resolving] its issues, the strengthening of democracy, and respect for human rights. It has already been proven that dictatorship, oppression, and corruption are incapable of state-building or of repelling aggression. They have been and will remain instruments of destruction rather than of construction, and the main cause of the long series of defeats suffered by the ummah.
"Arab Jordan, under its illustrious Hashemite leadership, has worked toward building Arab solidarity and [resolving] inter-Arab disputes as the only path by which to unite fronts and [solidify] a unified and effective stance that can stand up to the Zionist genocidal enterprise, which poses a threat to the entire ummah. Jordan has invested all its diplomatic and material capabilities in supporting its brother Palestinian people and that people's just struggle to realize its national and historical rights, its right to establish an independent state on its national land with holy Jerusalem as its capital, and [the right of] return for refugees.
"On the 44th anniversary of the Zionist aggression against the ummah on June 5, 1967, the eternal facts are verified: The struggle with this enemy is an existential struggle rather than a territorial one, and it requires the ummah to adopt all means and measures that will lead to victory and repel the Zionist invaders...
"After four decades, it has been proven that the entire ummah has no enemy other than the Zionist enemy that insists on banishing the Palestinian people from its homeland, despoiling [its] holy places, and Judaizing Jerusalem."
And the Obama administration and the European Union want us to trade more land for more 'peace' like this?
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
