Poll: 75% of Israeli Jews oppose 'Palestinian state' on '67 lines,' redivision of Jerusalem
A new poll indicates that
75% of Israeli Jews are opposed to a 'Palestinian state' based on the 1949 armistice lines and to the redivision of Jerusalem.
According
to the latest poll conducted on October 12-14, 2014, by
Shivukim-Panorama for the Jerusalem Center, 75% of the Israeli Jewish
public continue to oppose Israel’s withdrawal from the Jordan Valley and
the division of Jerusalem.
Moreover,
the rise of the Islamic State in the Middle East has made the Israeli
public even less ready for territorial concessions in the West Bank.
While 70% report that the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) has not
affected their position, 17% say it has made them less ready for
concessions, while 5% say they are more ready for concessions.
Some
75% of Israeli Jews oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state if
it means an Israeli withdrawal from the Jordan Valley. A similar
percentage would oppose the replacement of the IDF with international
forces in the Jordan Valley. Notably, 52% of Israelis who identify with
“the left” oppose the replacement of the IDF with international forces
in the Jordan Valley.
Overall,
74% of Israeli Jews oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state on
the 1967 lines, while 76% oppose a Palestinian state if it means the
division of Jerusalem.
Full poll numbers
here.
Labels: 1949 armistice lines, Israeli polls, Jerusalem, Jordan Valley, two-state solution
IDF realizes it made a mistake with Lt. Col. Shalom Eisner
I'm sure many of you recall Shalom Eisner, the IDF Lieutenant Colonel who was
caught on camera slamming his rifle butt into the face of a Danish
'peace activist' member of the terror-supporting International Solidarity Movement who was part of an illegal 'bike ride' in the Jordan Valley. Eisner has been sued in a civil action by one of the terror supporters who was hurt in the incident. And the State of Israel is taking
the unusual step of defending him.
A military court in December convicted Lt. Col. Shalom Eisner, in a
plea bargain, of beating five Palestinians and foreign activists with
both his rifle and fists during a demonstration in April 2012. Some of
the demonstrators, including Naim Shakir, 36, of Al-Sawiya, needed
medical treatment. Al-Shakir filed a suit in June seeking 16,000 shekels
($4,620) in medical costs, plus 60,000 shekels ($17,320) to cover his
lost earnings.
Eisner – then a deputy brigade commander – hit
Shakir in the back with the butt of his rifle, according to the military
court verdict, during a confrontation between demonstrators protesting
Israel's presence in the West Bank and soldiers. As a result, Shakir
said in his suit, he needed physiotherapy. He also still suffers pain
that affects his functioning and has impaired his ability to work in
construction.
At his sentencing hearing last December, Eisner
acknowledged he had “made mistakes” during the confrontation, but noted
that the demonstrators had injured him as well: He suffered a broken
hand.
The state denies Shakir's right to compensation. "The
claimant's injuries, if they occurred at all, are exaggerated and not
related at all to the actions of the defendant," the state asserts. If
the plaintiff receives any financial compensation, the defense statement
reads, "The defendants have the right to deduct for damages caused to
them, including damages to Defendant 1 (Eisner) … including pain,
suffering and emotional distress."
The state asserts that Shakir
was an integral part of the rioters, "who violated law and order
maliciously and intentionally in a violent way." The defense counter
concludes that therefore Shakir should not only be held accountable for
his own injuries but also for "much greater bodily damage" caused to Lt.
Col. Eisner.
...
The state took an unusual step in defending an officer convicted of
beating demonstrators in a civil suit. When policeman Salman Abu Asla
was convicted of beating two demonstrators at an illegal settlement
outpost in 2007, the state refused to represent him in a damages suit
filed over the same incident. Similarly, it refused to defend a border
policeman convicted of beating an ultra-Orthodox demonstrator in Beit
Shemesh in another civil suit.
Maybe because the State finally recognizes that it made a mistake in dismissing, and in not defending Lieutenant Colonel Eisner. Most Israelis believe
it was wrong to dismiss him. Much more on Eisner
here.
Labels: IDF ethics, International Solidarity Movement, Jordan Valley, Palestinian terrorism
Usual suspects blast Israel
If you want to get an idea of the kind of visceral hatred for Israel that exists in the American national security establishment, have a look at
this piece in Politico from
Zbigniew
Brzezinski, Frank Carlucci, Lee Hamilton, Carla A. Hills, Thomas Pickering and Henry
Siegman (Hat Tip: MFS - The Other News). With the exception of Siegman, who is just another self-hating Jew, and Hamilton, who is a former Congressman, the rest are all former Secretaries of State and/or National Security Advisers.
The word 'terror' doesn't appear in this piece. To give you a flavor, this is how they dismiss Israel's security concerns:
The United States has allowed the impression that it
supports a version of Israel’s security that entails Israeli control of
all of Palestine’s borders and part of its territory, including the
Jordan Valley. Many former heads of Israel’s top intelligence agencies,
surely among the best informed in the country about the country’s
security needs, have rejected this version of Israel’s security. Meir
Dagan, a former head of the Mossad, dismissed it as “nothing more than
manipulation.”
Israel’s confiscation of what
international law has clearly established as others’ territory
diminishes its security. Illegal West Bank land grabs only add to the
Palestinian and the larger Arab sense of injustice that Israel’s
half-century-long occupation has already generated, and fuels a
revanchismthat sooner or later will trigger renewed violence. No
Palestinian leader could or would ever agree to a peace accord that
entails turning over the Jordan Valley to Israeli control, either
permanently or for an extended period of time, thus precluding a peace
accord that would end Israel’s occupation. The marginal improvement in
Israel’s security provided by these expansive Israeli demands can hardly
justify the permanent subjugation and disenfranchisement of a people to
which Israel refuses to grant citizenship in the Jewish state.
Here's a very different perspective on Israel's national security.
Let's go to the videotape.
More
here.
One more point. Get a load of this:
Although Palestinians have conceded fully half of the territory assigned
to them in the U.N.’s Partition Plan of 1947, a move Israel’s
president, Shimon Peres, has hailed as unprecedented, they are not
demanding a single square foot of Israeli territory beyond the June 6,
1967, line.
Remind me please which side rejected the 1947 partition plan? Why should they have any right to even mention it now? June 6 line? I thought the war broke out on June 5 and we usually talk about the June 4 line. And as to 'Palestinian' demands on that territory, you can bet they will come
right after a 'treaty' is signed.
Do you still wonder why America's foreign policy establishment hates us even though the American people love us?
Labels: 1947 partition plan, Israel's critical security needs, Jordan Valley, Lee Hamilton, self-hating Jews, Zbigniew Brzezinski
Bennett misses the point
Naftali Bennett made a nice sound byte by cynically suggesting that we
replace the IDF with an early warning system for the entire country.
In a Facebook posting Thursday, Economics Minister Naftali Bennett
questioned the wisdom of relying on technology to ensure Israel's
defense, as supporters of an Israeli withdrawal from the Jordan Valley
are suggesting. With cameras, electronic alarms, and other gadgets
“protecting” Israelis, asked Bennett cynically, “who needs the IDF”?
...
If those defenses will work in the Jordan Valley, how about in the
rest of the country, Bennett asked facetiously. “They want us to trade
in the IDF for 'smart' defense systems in the Jordan Valley.
“Here is another idea: Let's first install these systems on the Gaza
border, and see how effective these systems are in halting the ongoing
barrage of rocket attacks on southern Israel that we have experienced
since we gave up Gaza to the Palestinians. It would be like a pilot
program for the Jordan Valley surrender,” Bennett said.
And if it works in Gaza, would Bennett suggest that we withdraw from the Jordan Valley, which is topographically different?
The point is that the Jordan Valley is a stalking horse for what's really most problematic: Turning the high ground in Samaria over to the 'Palestinians.' That would be dangerous the day it God forbid happens. Turning over the Jordan Valley would be relatively less dangerous so long as Abdullah of Jordan remains in power. But Netanyahu is afraid to say that we can't turn over the populated areas of Samaria, so he's hiding behind the thinly populated Jordan Valley.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Jordan Valley, Jordanian King Abdullah, Middle East peace process, Naftali Bennett, Palestinians, Samaria
Do we intend to 'keep' Jerusalem?
I doubt that any of you will be too surprised at this, but US Secretary of State John FN Kerry's 'framework agreement' includes an Israeli '
settlement freeze.' But what's puzzling about this report is what it says about Jerusalem.
Officials in Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's office have yet to
officially respond to the request, Army Radio reported. While there has
been no official response from Jerusalem, government officials have
resigned themselves to the fact that Israeli gestures are necessary in
order to entice Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas back to
the negotiating table.
According to Army Radio, Israel would declare an "unofficial" freeze to
all construction in the isolated Jewish settlements that lie outside of
the major population centers under Israeli control in the West Bank.
While an official freeze on construction requires a government edict, an
unofficial freeze could be implemented by placing bureaucratic
obstacles and red tape on building plans or having the defense minister
order the Civil Administration, which is charged with approving
construction plans in the territories, to cease deliberating on such
plans. In addition, the interior minister could instruct the Jerusalem
Building and Planning Council to halt all plans in sensitive areas of
the city, and the prime minister could order the housing minister to
cease publishing tenders.
An unofficial freeze would enable government officials to deny its
existence while in practice halting all construction, according to Army
Radio.
Emphasis added is mine. Two questions here: First, there are 'Jewish settlements' that are not isolated but that lie outside of the major population centers under Israeli control in the 'West Bank.' For example, anything in the Jordan Valley. Or the Beit El - Shilo - Ofra area (which was not originally considered a 'major settlement bloc' but Netanyahu has hinted that it might be considered one). Or the Hebron area.
Second, if the only place in which we are being asked to freeze 'settlement construction' is in 'Jewish settlements' that lie outside of the major population centers under Israeli control in the 'West Bank,' why would we have to halt construction anywhere in Jerusalem? Is it not under our control? Is Jerusalem not an area that Israel intends to keep (another criterion given earlier in the same article)?
Hmmm.
Labels: Beit El, East Jerusalem, Hebron, John Kerry, Jordan Valley, Judea and Samaria, settlement blocs, settlement freeze, Shilo
Oh wow! New poll puts Likud-Beiteinu at 46 Knesset seats
A new poll indicates that the options are on the table in Israel for Binyamin Netanyahu, and not for Barack Hussein Obama or the United States. The poll finds Netanyahu's Likud-Beiteinu party would rise to 46 seats from its current 31 in the 120-member Knesset if new elections were to be held today. The reasons for that rise are popular support for what is seen as Netanyahu's
tough stances against the Iranian nuclear program and against the 'Palestinian Authority.'
Regarding Iran, a recent poll shows that Israelis align with Netanyahu in distrusting the current round of Western engagement and talks with Iran, figures that are in line with a November poll finding broad skepticism regarding the then-ongoing Geneva talks.
Some 52.5% support Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s
position regarding tensions with the U.S. over Iran. A new survey has
found that the majority of Jewish Israelis believes the government’s
hard-line position regarding the Iranian threat is justified and that if
need be, Israel is capable of mounting a unilateral strike on the
Islamic republic’s nuclear facilities.
More than half of those interviewed — 52.5% — said they supported
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s position against the U.S. over the
Iranian nuclear negotiations. The prime minister’s policy garnered
support from participants across the political spectrum, and in all age
groups and income brackets, with significant support noted especially in
the religious sector (84.4%). Some 57.6% of those defining themselves
as ultra-Orthodox said the supported Netanyahu’s policy on Iran as well.
Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, a recent poll found overwhelming support for maintaining a security presence along the border with Jordan in the context of a final comprehensive agreement. A report published last
week by the Daily Beast disclosed that the Obama administration has
established something of a lobbying presence inside Israel to “prepare
the Israeli public” to make compromises to the Palestinians. The article
specifically outlined efforts by the administration to mobilize support
for an agreement that would exclude an Israeli security presence from
around the Jordanian border.
Sounds like Obama is enjoying great success.... Heh....
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli attack on Iran, Israeli polls, Jordan Valley, Likud party, Middle East peace process
Netanyahu vows no explusions from Jordan Valley, but what about the rest of Judea and Samaria
Prime Minister Netanyahu vowed on Friday that he
would not expel Jews from their homes in the Jordan Valley. But whether he would expel Jews from their homes elsewhere in Judea and Samaria is less clear.
"I have said it before and I repeat it today: I'm not going to evict a
single community, I am not going to uproot any Israeli from his home,”
Netanyahu said at a press conference following his meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos.
He added that a peace agreement is not on the table at the moment and that even a framework agreement is not being discussed.
"The Americans are talking about a suggestion for a framework for
negotiations. This is not an agreement, but a path to making progress,”
said Netanyahu, according to NRG/Maariv, adding that his meeting with Kerry had been very good.
The issue of the Jordan Valley has become a point of contention in
the talks between Israel and the PA, which insists on full control of
the Jordan Valley – along with all other land that was under Jordanian
control from 1948 to 1967. Israeli experts have warned that the area is strategically critical.
Recent reports indicated that Kerry was pushing the sides to agree to
a deal that involves a slow transition from IDF patrols over the region
to PA forces, with an international presence.
IDF drones would also be
deployed over the area, as a means of gathering information about
potential terrorist activity. Israel has reportedly rejected this idea,
explaining that drones are not a suitable replacement for the presence
of Israeli troops in the region.
And the high ground in Samaria can be protected by drones?
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Jordan Valley, Judea and Samaria
Photo of the week
Yes, the gun was in the knapsack. And yes, the knapsack belongs to a 'Palestinian.' Just like your kids go to school, no?
Pamela Geller
explains.
This photo of the week best illustrates the “Palestinian” culture. It
is antithetical to the Jewish culture (which is why it was hidden
there, I am sure).
“IDF Forces Discover Firearm Hidden inside of Child’s Backpack,” IDF, January 23, 2014
Last night, IDF forces found an
improvised firearm during a search in the Jordan Valley. The Palestinian
suspect had concealed the weapon in a child’s bookbag, which the forces
discovered inside of his vehicle.
Late Tuesday evening, a battalion from the IDF’s Kfir Brigade discovered
an improvised firearm and ammunition inside of a Palestinian vehicle
during a routine inspection in the Jordan Valley. The weapon was found
inside of a child’s bookbag at a checkpoint not far from the driver’s
home. “The driver aroused suspicion after a preliminary search,” said
Captain Sefi Mor, an IDF company commander involved in the inspection.
“He seemed anxious, so we decided to perform a comprehensive search of
the vehicle.”
Read the whole thing.
The next generation of 'Palestinians' is being well-trained for co-existence, isn't it?
And come to think of it, where have I
heard of the
Kfir Brigade before?
Labels: IDF, Islamic child abuse, Jordan Valley, Kfir Brigade, Palestinian children, Palestinians
'Palestinians' plan to reject Kerry plan, attack Israel in every international forum
I suppose we could have guessed
this months ago, couldn't we? Israel's Channel 2 reported on Friday night that the 'Palestinians' are gearing up to reject US Secretary of State John FN Kerry's 'peace plan' and to go to war with Israel in every conceivable forum.
The Palestinian Authority is currently setting up teams to wage
diplomatic war against Israel in “every conceivable” forum, including
pushing for boycotts of Israel and seeking legal rulings against Israel
via international courts in The Hague, Israel’s Channel 2 news reported
Friday night.
Unless Kerry significantly changes the current formulation of his
proposals, the report said, the Palestinians will reject his overtures,
confident that much of the international community will consider them to
be the injured party and hold Israel responsible for the failure of
peace efforts.
The Palestinians are furious that Kerry is offering them a state
“with no borders, no capital, no [control over] border crossings… and
without Jerusalem,” the TV report said, quoting Palestinian sources.
On Jerusalem, rather than the complete control that Palestinian
Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is demanding over all areas of the
city captured by Israel in the 1967 war, including the Old City, Kerry
is merely offering the Palestinians a capital based in one of the city’s
outlying neighborhoods such as Isawiya, Abu Dis (where construction of a
Palestinian parliamentary building was begun in 2000), Beit Hanina or
Shuafat.
The TV report came a day after the former Palestinian
negotiator Nabil Shaath made plain the Palestinians’ anger with Kerry,
by publicly accusing the secretary of endorsing Israel’s demands on two
central issues in the peace talks: The recognition of Israel as a Jewish
state and a continued Israeli security presence in the Jordan Valley.
The PA has repeatedly rebuffed these two demands. “The two issues have never been in our agenda: the Jewishness of the state [of Israel] and the Jordan [Valley],” Shaath said.
Palestinian sources told AFP in
early January that Abbas rebuffed pressure from Kerry to recognize
Israel as a Jewish state. They also said the secretary was proposing a
joint Israeli-Palestinian presence to control the West Bank-Jordan
border, where Israel has insisted on continued IDF control. Abbas
previously sought an international military presence on the border, with
no Israeli involvement.
Last month, the Palestinians reportedly rejected a proposal by Kerry
for an Israeli security presence in the Jordan Valley for the first 10
years after the signing of a peace deal.
Neither Kerry’s security proposals, nor his evolving framework deal
for ongoing talks, have been made public, but leaked details indicate
Israel and the Palestinians are at odds over almost all key issues —
notably including the status of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugee demands,
border demarcations, land-swap arrangements, and security proposals.
Current talks are set to end in April; Kerry wants the framework deal
inked in the near future, as a basis for extending the talks.
You mean Kerry's about to fail just like everyone else before him? I'm so totally shocked....
Labels: Abu Mazen, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, John Kerry, Jordan Valley, Middle East peace process, Palestinian refugees
Report: Jordan wants Israel on its border
MK Ofir Akunis (Likud), who is considered a close confidante of Prime Minister Netanyahu, told a townhall meeting in Tel Aviv on Saturday that
the Kingdom of Jordan is quite nervous about sharing a border with a state of 'Palestine.'
MK Ofir Akunis told a town hall gathering in Tel Aviv on Saturday
that Israeli officials have received feedback from their Jordanian
counterparts who are alarmed at the prospect of an Israeli withdrawal
from the boundary that separates the West Bank from the Hashemite
kingdom.
“The Jordanians are opposed to an Israeli withdrawal from the Jordan
Valley out of fear that if a Palestinian state arises and is taken over
by extremist elements like Hamas and Al-Qaida, this would endanger the
king’s rule, not just Tel Aviv,” Akunis said.
Netanyahu met last week with Jordan’s King Abdullah in Amman for what was described as a “surprise” visit.
But the Jordanians are apparently more afraid of the Arab League than they are of the 'Palestinians.' They can't say what Akunis said.
Jordanian Prime Minister Abdullah Ensour said earlier this month that
the Israeli annexation of the Jordan Valley would be contrary to the
peace agreement signed between the two countries in 1994.
Speaking to a gathering of parliament members, he said that Jordan
“categorically rejects any Israeli intention in this regard and will not
stand idly by, but will act diplomatically,” according to a report on
Thursday in the London-based daily Al-Hayat.
So the Jordanians are happy to have this remain unresolved forever. Well, at the moment there are no realistic better options anyway.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Jordan, Jordan Valley, Jordanian King Abdullah, Middle East peace process, Ofir Akunis
Netanyahu slams EU hypocrisy
Prime Minister Netanyahu has
slammed the European Union after Israeli ambassadors in London, Paris and Rome were summoned over Israel's construction plans in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.
"This is hypocrisy. The EU calls our ambassadors in because of the
construction of a few houses? When did the EU call in the Palestinian
ambassadors about incitement that calls for Israel's destruction?"
Netanyahu asked foreign correspondents at his annual new year reception.
"It's time to stop this hypocrisy," he said. "This imbalance... doesn't advance peace, I think it pushes peace further away."
The European move was apparently coordinated.
Foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told AFP that
Israeli ambassadors in London, Rome and Paris were summoned "in protest"
over the settlement plans, which were unveiled last Friday.
Palmor said that the move was coordinated between the three
governments and that it was possible other European governments might
have matched the move.
A spokesman for the British Foreign Office told AFP the Israeli ambassador was summoned "over the Israeli government's recent decision to announce new settlement tenders".
Foreign Office permanent under-secretary Simon Fraser "made clear
that settlement announcements had a detrimental impact on an atmosphere
conducive to productive talks. The UK urged Israel to refrain from
further such announcements," the spokesman said.
I keep saying we should stop announcing it and just do it....
JPost adds:
Calling the claim that settlements are an obstacle to a peace agreement
“bogus,” Netanyahu – speaking at an annual reception in Jerusalem for
foreign journalists – blasted the EU move, and asked when was the last
time the EU countries called in the PLO ambassadors to “complain about
incitement to Israel’s destruction,” or to protest that security
officers from the Palestinian Authority were participating in terrorist
attacks against innocent Israelis.
...
The prime minister, who took only three questions on topics he was
informed about in advance, stressed that the settlement announcements
did not breach any commitment that Israel took upon itself when it
entered the talks with the Palestinians last July.
It was clear
to both the Americans and the Palestinians that Israel undertook no
restraints on construction, the prime minister said. This was an
unspoken, unwritten part of the deal that was very clear to everyone,
he said.
“Adding a few houses will not change the map an iota,” Netanyahu said.
He asked if the Palestinians were looking to create an “ethnically cleansed state.”
The article goes on to describe Prime Minister Netanyahu's Wednesday meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah, and says that Jordan is not opposed to Israel remaining present in the Jordan Valley.
Diplomatic officials said that Jordan was very concerned about the
future security arrangements in the Jordan Valley, and according to
some reports was not opposed – as the Palestinians are – to an Israeli
security presence there following a peace accord and establishment of a
Palestinian state.
I'll bet.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, European anti-Semitism, European Union, Jerusalem construction, Jordan Valley, Jordanian King Abdullah, Judea and Samaria construction
Indyk orchestrating campaign of former generals to 'convince' Israel it can give up Jordan Valley
It's no coincidence that we've been seeing stories all week that one former IDF general after another is suddenly claiming that we can give up the Jordan Valley. Former US ambassador to Israel and 'peace process' babysitter
Martin Indyk is orchestrating an organized campaign using former IDF generals to pressure Prime Minister Netanyahu to give the Jordan Valley to the 'Palestinians.'
A report in Maariv Thursday said the the State
Department had drafted many military officials who have worked with IDF
officers, at various levels, in an orchestrated campaign to pressure the
Israelis that there is no danger in surrendering the region in order to
sign a deal with the Palestinian Authority.
The report said that the effort was being orchestrated by
former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk. The plan is to build a
lobby among Israeli security officials to support a major American push
for Israel to agree to surrender the Jordan Valley. Between external
pressure from the U.S. and internal pressure from the Israeli lobby and
the media, Kerry hopes to be able to push Israel into making the
decision, without which the Palestinian Authority will not agree to the
peace framework he is pushing.
That pressure campaign was allegedly behind Defense Minister Moshe 'Boogie' Yaalon calling US Secretary of State John FN Kerry an 'obsessive messianic' on Tuesday. Yaalon made his comments in a private setting and apparently did not expect them to be quoted in the media. Yedioth Aharonoth, which broke the story, is the second most Leftist newspaper in Israel after the Hebrew 'Palestinian' daily Haaretz.
Meanwhile, military historian Aryeh Yitzhcaki argues that substantively,
Indyk's generals are wrong.
“A storm of Arab unrest is raging to the east,” said Yitzchaki,
as just one look at the situation in Iraq shows. Muslim radicals have
made great advances there, and the country is on the verge of being
turned into a terrorist state. In the past, Israel was concerned that a
strong Iraqi army could join with Jordan and Syria in attacking Israel.
That danger still exists – as does the danger that Iraq could export its
radical revolution to those countries as well, he added.
Rebels in Syria are working with their comrades in Iraq, with
the aim to build a united Arab nation, called “A-Sham.” If they succeed,
there is little chance Jordan could survive in its current form, and
Israel will be facing on its eastern border a huge, and very hostile,
Arab terror state, he said.
“We are headed for a very 'hot summer' on our eastern border,”
Yitzchaki said. “Those in charge of our defense must look at the
situation from all angles, and understand that without a presence in the
gateway to the Land of Israel, the Jordan Valley, Israel's security
will be compromised. Immediately to the east things look calm, but 100
kilometers beyond a monster is being built.”
And perhaps this is the place to deal with the substance of Yaalon's comments on Tuesday. After a detailed explanation of how the media work in Israel, why Yedioth published the story and how it got out of hand, JPost's Herb Keinon writes that
there are an awful lot of Israelis who agree with Yaalon (including yours truly).
Through it all, what was lost was what Ya’alon said: that Kerry is
obsessed with the Israeli-Palestinian issue; that he approaches it like
someone on a messianic mission; that the negotiations are being
conducted not between Israel and the Palestinians, but by each side
with the Americans, not a healthy way to negotiate; and that the
security arrangements the US is recommending are simply not acceptable.
Save
the characterization of Kerry as being motivated by a messianic
sentiment, and that he should just “take his Nobel Prize and leave us
alone,” Ya’alon’s sentiments are neither illegitimate nor crazy. Nor are
they his alone.
Many have asked why Kerry seems to be focusing
like a laser beam on the Israel-Palestinian situation, when there are
so many other, even more pressing issues, in the region. As Fouad Ajami
wrote last week in The Wall Street Journal: “The ground burns in Iraq,
Syria and Lebanon. Borders are being contested, and militant Islamists
have all but overwhelmed secular authorities.
Yet America’s
chief diplomat, Secretary of State John Kerry, was in the neighborhood
this week, for the 10th time, on an expedition to Israel and the
Palestinian territories.”
Ya’alon’s comment that it was unwise to
run the negotiations through the Americans, rather than directly
between the sides, is not outlandish, nor is his claim that Israel
seems to have made all the concessions up until this point. Is a pledge
not to wage diplomatic war with Israel in diplomatic forums around the
world – what the Palestinians “gave” to enter the talks – equal to
Israel’s release of 104 convicted terrorists? And as to Ya’alon’s
remark about the unacceptability of a US security plan for the day
after an agreement is signed, is it not his job, as defense minister, to
voice his reservations? His problem is that he voiced them in the
wrong way, and in the wrong forum.
But no one should be mistaken:
What Ya’alon said rather inelegantly, many other Israelis – both
inside and outside the corridors of power – are thinking.
Read the whole thing. We all know why this is happening (which Keinon does not discuss): The Obama administration needs an 'achievement,' Israel is the Middle Eastern country most susceptible to American pressure, and if the parties negotiated directly they would never reach an agreement. And you thought an international conference was a bad idea?
Over the last few weeks, my daily Talmud class has been learning about the scapegoat, the goat that was pushed off a cliff each year on Yom Kippur to atone for the Jewish people's sins. I'm identifying more and more with the scapegoat these days.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, John Kerry, Jordan Valley, Martin Indyk, Messianics, Moshe Yaalon, Obama's obsession with Israel, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, State Department obsession with Israel
Surprise (not): Former Generals say we can do without the Jordan Valley
In an earlier post, I told you that I believe that what Israel really needs for its security is the
mountainous areas of Samaria and not the Jordan Valley. A group of
former IDF Generals has now confirmed that. Well, sort of confirmed that.
The retired
generals, all members of the Council for Peace and Security, cast doubt on the
claim that the Jordan Valley is today an essential strategic
asset.
Maj.-Gen. (res.) Shlomo Brom, former director of the Strategic
Planning Division of the General Staff and a senior researcher at the Institute
for National Security Studies, called for “leaving the slogans behind” and a
purely strategic discussion of the consequence of leaving the Jordan
Valley.
Classic military threats from the east, characterized by an
invasion of organized Arab armies, vanished by the early 1980s, he argued, and
in recent years, “the reality has changed completely.”
Iraq as a military
power has disintegrated, and it will take “many years” before it can reappear on
the military map.
The threat of an Iraqi task force moving through Jordan
to attack Israel is nonexistent.
“There are no Iranian army divisions
threatening us. Iran does not have the ability to project ground-based military
power,” Brom said.
“It bought some Russian tanks, but most of its
investment is in surface to surface missiles, its navy, and its nuclear
program,” he added.
The Gulf Arab states are in a form of partnership
with Israel, and Jordan itself has an interest in maintaining a strategic
partnership with Israel that goes beyond the peace treaty, Brom said. Syria may
have thought of using Jordan as a staging ground to strike at Israel in the
past, but this threat is gone, too.
At the same time, Brom said, the IDF
has been at the forefront of a revolution allowing it to observe and strike
targets at a distance like never before.
He stressed the rapidly changing
nature of firepower and maneuvering, the introduction of long-range, standoff
weapons available to a range of platforms, and intelligence capabilities that
allow Israel to observe developing threats in real time; meaning that a future
threat can be dealt with differently.
“This changes the way of thinking,”
Brom said.
Asked about the threat of Jordan becoming a failed state, allowing
hostile military or terrorist forces to transit through it towards Israel, Brom
said that in such a scenario, the whole of Jordan would become a
battlefield.
Developing threats should be struck well before they reach
the Jordan Valley, he added. “It [the Valley] is today an artificial strategic
asset,” he said.
“My impression is that even [Prime Minister Binyamin]
Netanyahu and [Defense Minister Moshe] Ya’alon understand this.”
What about the Philadelphi corridor scenario of weapons smuggling? Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
The
second type of threat inherent in leaving the Jordan Valley centers on the
possibility that it will turn into a second Philadelphi Corridor, like that on
the border between Gaza and Sinai, under which countless weapons have been
smuggled into the Strip. Not only weapons might cross the Jordan Valley, but
also “information and terrorists as well,” Brom warned.
This can be
answered through the introduction of a third party, a reliable military force
like NATO, to staff border passages, and to respond to intrusions along the
border in between the passages. As for the border areas between passages, Brom
envisaged a gradual process, in which Israel would first control the border,
then international forces, and finally, after years, Palestinian forces would
control their own border, after Israel becomes convinced that they are capable
and willing to do so.
“In the first years, Israel must be there to see
what is happening. If things works out, it can relinquish control to a
third party,” he added.
“If you look at who staffs border passages, who
is there? Police and customs, not military. Customs finds smuggled
goods,” Brom said. A reliable third party wouldn’t endanger itself or fight, and
Israel can monitor events through surveillance, he added. “This has to be done
correctly. If entities like NATO take part, it will underline the international
commitment to border security.”
Just like EUBAM maintained security in the Philadelphi corridor and
ran away as soon as Hamas arrived. International forces are mostly useless in this region. If anything, they're a hindrance because they become human shields.
The Council for Peace and Security is a Leftist organization with an agenda. They're at least partly right about the Jordan Valley but aren't even being asked about maintaining the high ground of Samaria - which is much more important.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: EUBAM Rafah, Gaza, Hamas, Jordan Valley, Judea and Samaria, NATO, Philadelphi corridor, Samaria
Overwhelming majorities of Jews say there won't be an agreement and we won't give up Jordan Valley
A new poll of Israeli Jews finds that 80% don't expect an agreement between Israel and the 'Palestinians,' and
73% aren't willing to leave the Jordan Valley for the sake of
peace a piece of paper.
The survey was conducted by Maagar - Interdisciplinary Research and
Consulting Institute Ltd., managed by Professor Yitzhak Katz. The survey was
conducted by telephone 8-9 January 2014 of a sample of 507 respondents,
constituting a representative sample of adult Israelis (including Israeli
Arabs).
Results published in Makor Rishon and Maariv on 10 January 2014.
Statistical error +/- 4.5 percentage points.
Will the negotiations today via the USA lead to a peace agreement between
Israel and the Palestinians?
No 80% Yes 9% Other 11%
Are you ready to forego the presence of the IDF in the Jordan Valley as part
of a peace agreement with the Palestinians?
No 73% Yes 20% Other 7%
Would you support a peace agreement based on the retention of the settlement
blocs in Judea and Samaria, exchange of territories - Arab communities in
the Triangle in exchange for territories in Judea and Samaria - recognition
of Israel as a Jewish State and staged withdrawal from the Jordan Valley?
Support 34% Oppose 53% Other 13%
I guess someone forgot to tell John Kerry.
Labels: agreed land swaps, Jordan Valley, Judea and Samaria, Palestinians, two-state solution
Jordan continues to insist on 'Palestinian' right of return
Jordan, which is rumored to have strong objections to the 'Palestinian Authority' gaining control of its border crossings into the Jordan Valley, continues to
insist on all 'Palestinians' 'returning' to Israel. Those 'Palestinians' are 70% of Jordan's population.
Regarding the Israeli demand to have the occupied Jordan Valley under its control in the case of a peace agreement,
the premier said Jordan considers these lands and any other area that
Israel occupied on 1967 as Palestinian lands. As for the Palestinian
refugees, Ensour stressed that Jordan believes that all the refugees who came to Jordan during the period 1948-1949 have the right to return and are entitled to compensation whether they are holders of Jordanian nationality or not.
...
Reasserting that Jordan will
not negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians regarding their envisioned
state’s border with Israel, the minister stressed, however, that Jordan will be concerned about its borders and the state that it will share a borderline with.
He also stressed that
any “security-related arrangement” in the Jordan Valley must take into consideration the Kingdom’s national security.
Jordan can't decide what its positions are. My guess is that they really don't want 'Palestinians' immediately across from their border, but that they're afraid to say so.
Labels: Jordan, Jordan is Palestine, Jordan Valley, Palestinian refugees, right of return
Netanyahu's coalition to be a sacrifice for peace?
There are signs that Prime Minister Netanyahu's coalition may be on its way to becoming a 'sacrifice for peace.' The first sign is this video of MK's supporting residents and construction in the Jordan Valley.
Let's go to the videotape.
Meanwhile, a group called the Rabbinical Congress for Peace is urging ministers to
prepare resignation letters rather than agreeing to give up land for a piece of paper.
RCP rabbis warned Tourism Minister Uzi Landau and Agriculture
Minister Yair Shamir that they sense a complacency similar that prior to
the "Disengagement" from Gush Katif.
"It’s not enough to verbally oppose the current negotiations or vote
against it, but you and all those ministers and coalition members who
share your views must announce that you have submitted a letter of
resignation from the government that will take effect the moment the
government agrees to territorial concessions," pressed the RCP rabbis.
“I have no doubt that once (Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu) will
feel that he is losing support of his right wing flank it will deter
him," reasoned Rabbi Avrohom Shmuel Lewin, Executive Director of RCP.
"He won’t want to form a more left-wing coalition now especially when
the nation is furious over his release of arch-terrorists. Stop this madness now.”
...
The ministers tried to justify staying in the coalition saying they
can "minimize damage" from within, whereas leftist parties could replace
them if they left.
RCP Chairman Rabbi Joseph Gerlitzky shot down their argument, saying
"every bad thing can ister Ofir Akunis be worse. Would you remain in the government if you
know it is ready to give up half of Eretz Israel out of fear that if
you leave they will give up all of Eretz Israel?"
"There must be a red line that will prevent you from being part of a
government that leads to bloodshed G-d forbid," added Rabbi Gerlitzky.
"What are you waiting for? That the Arabs should control the1967 borders
and then you’ll leave?! Won’t you find an excuse then to also say 'if
we leave it will be worse?'"
This sounds remarkably like the lead-up to Gush Katif where everyone stayed in the government until after the expulsion had been approved.
All of which leads Netanyahu confidante and deputy minister Ofir Akunis (Likud) to warn that there may be '
changes' to the coalition.
"The main problem threatening coalition unity is Kerry," claimed
Akunis. "The problem is only growing amid a one-sided agreement, which
harms the coalition's existence in its current formation, even after
concessions Israel would make."
Were the coalition to break apart, Shas Chairman MK Aryeh Deri has
said just this Thursday that his party would not step in as a "safety net"
to form a new coalition, enabling territorial withdrawals. Meanwhile a
Rabbinical Congress for Peace delegation met Knesset ministers
Wednesday, urging them to threaten resignation and a collapse of the coalition to thwart Israeli concessions.
Akunis reports that Kerry's proposed deal "expresses an assertive
American position." His comments come as Kerry is set to launch a
January diplomatic "offensive" to force Israeli concessions.
"For whatever reason (US President) Barack Obama and Kerry don't
understand that precisely things done under the strongest American
pressure, such as releasing murderers and ceding the (Jordan) Valley,
leads to the exact opposite results of what was expected by the State
Department," declared Akunis.
Akunis stressed that there is a wide Israeli consensus concerning the
strategic necessity of maintaining a Jordan Valley presence.
Despite this, "the Americans are doing the exact opposite and hitting
the most sensitive points of the Israeli public," warned Akunis. "It's a
lack of understanding regarding Israeli society, and as I said, it puts
the current coalition formation in danger."
If Akunis is right, why is Netanyahu allowing this to continue?
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Gaza expulsion, Gush Katif, John Kerry, Jordan Valley, Ofir Akunis, Uzi Landau
The Jordan Valley obsession
Maariv, a Hebrew-only daily, reports that the Defense Ministry has told the United States that it cannot accept the American '
security plan' for Israel and the 'Palestinians.'
The US's security plan
involves a slow transition from IDF patrols over the region to
Palestinian Authority (PA) forces, with an international presence,
according to reports. IDF drones would also be deployed over the area,
as a means of gathering information about any terrorist activity that
could potentially develop there.
The Israeli government has insisted that the region is of crucial
importance to Israel's future, and has been critical of plans to hand
over the area to the PA. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has insisted
that in the event that Israel withdrew from Judea and Samaria, as per Kerry's plans, the Jordan Valley be kept under Israeli control.
The US's plan is based on the 1967 "Allon Plan," which received wide
acclaim at the time. The plan insists that the Jordan Valley is the key
to Israel's security, even in the event of a withdrawal to 1949
Armistice Lines; however, analysts have noted that the rest of Judea and Samaria is actually more crucial to Israel's security than the Jordan Valley itself.
Despite this, the Israeli government has insisted that its only "red
line" would be maintaining its presence in the Valley. On Sunday, a
Ministerial Cabinet approved a bill to annex the Valley on that premise.
Read the last clause of the second sentence of the third paragraph again:
however, analysts have noted that the rest of Judea and Samaria is actually more crucial to Israel's security than the Jordan Valley itself.
If that's true - and one look at a topographical map makes it very obvious why that's true - why is Israel obsessing with the Jordan Valley. In my view, it's a gamble to kill the deal altogether. If Israel were insisting on the high ground of the Samarian mountains (which is what really is critical from a security perspective), then you could in theory reach a compromise on the borders.
But if we insist on the Jordan Valley - and on what would be a logistical nightmare of transiting people between Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley through the 'Palestinian state' on a regular basis - I believe that insistence is grounded in the hope (at least at the Defense Ministry - I believe that Netanyahu genuinely wants a deal) that it will cause the 'negotiations' to bog down and collapse.
Right now, that potential collapse of the 'negotiations' may be our best hope.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, borders and security, defensible borders, interim borders, Jordan Valley, Judea and Samaria, secure borders, temporary borders
Labor seeks to stop Jordan Valley annexation
The Left wing Labor party has come up with its own answers to concerns about Israel's security: It proposes to
put the 'Palestinians' in charge.
A bill preventing Israel from unilaterally annexing territories will
be brought to the Ministerial Committee for Legislation for discussion
on Sunday and will be brought to a Knesset vote next Wednesday.
The "Two States Bill," proposed by Labor MK Hilik Bar, is a response to Likud MK Miri Regev's bill proposal to annex the Jordan Valley and apply Israeli law there.
The bill also requires that the final status of Judea and Samaria be
determined only within the framework of a two-state solution agreement
with the Palestinians.
The bill was a joint effort of Bar, the
grassroots movement OneVoice and diplomacy experts, and was signed by
MKs from Labor, Meretz and Shas.
Annexing the Jordan Valley would
"sabotage Israel in the diplomatic negotiations, harm the efforts of the
prime minister to come to a two state solution, deepen the rift that
already exists between us and the US, and permanently destroy the
chances for the two state solution, which is the only solution that will
guarantee Israel’s future as a Jewish, Zionist and democratic state," a
statement issued by Labor said.
Bar, the chairman of the Knesset
Caucus to Resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, said the bill will
determine "once and for all" whether the coalition parties were for or
against the two-state solution.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Israel's suicidal Left, Jordan Valley, Labor party
Poll faked!
No, this post is not about the poll in the previous post.
It's about another poll that claimed that Jewish residents of the Jordan Valley would like to leave.
That poll was a lie.
Left-wing organizations are waging a psychological war on Israelis
living in the Jordan Valley, activist Danny Dayan, the former head of
the Yesha (Judea and Samaria) Council, has accused.
Dayan revealed a recent incident in which one organization tried to
rally support based on a poll showing that most Israelis living in the
Jordan Valley want to leave – a poll which, he says, turned out to have
been a complete fabrication.
“They called me from Reshet Bet. The group ‘Atid Kachol
Lavan’ [‘A Blue and White Future’, which promotes a withdrawal from
Judea and Samaria - ed.] was going to present the results of a survey
conducted among residents of the Jordan Valley showing that most wanted
to evacuate with or without a diplomatic agreement [between Israel and
the Palestinian Authority],” he recalled.
“’Would you like to reply on air?’ they asked. ‘Yes, definitely. It
sounds very strange to me,’” Dayan continued. “'It’s a poll done by Mina
Tzemach,' they announced happily."
Mina Tzemach is widely renowned as a political pollster.
“So we went on the air. The chairman of that organization, and me. He
said that according to the poll by Mina Tzemach, so-and-so many people
want to leave the Jordan Valley,” Dayan said.
“I saw there was clear manipulation, because the results contradicted
reality – which is that new residents are moving to the Jordan Valley.
‘It can’t be true,’ I said. ‘But Mina Tzemach did a poll!’ was his
unequivocal response.
“A poll that nobody in the Jordan Valley heard about?” Dayan
wondered. “After all, a poll would need to include at least 500
households. In the Jordan Valley, news [of the poll] would spread like
wildfire.”
Dayan’s skepticism led him to conduct his own investigation. “I asked
them to speak to Mina Tzemach, and she said, ‘I haven’t done any recent
poll about the Jordan Valley. I have no idea what they are talking
about,’” he reported.
The incident with the fake poll is a sign of things to come, he
warned. “In the near future, we – residents of Judea and Samaria in
general, and of the Jordan Valley in particular – are likely to face
psychological warfare against us from the extreme left, in an attempt to
weaken us, to delegitimize us, to cause us to despair,” he said.
After all, all is fair in the war against the Jews. I just have to wonder why they messed up by forgetting to ask Mina Tzemach to cover for them.
Labels: Israeli polls, Jordan Valley, psychological warfare
Whom does Jordan want controlling its border with Israel/the 'Palestinians'
With all of the discussion about the Jordan Valley in recent weeks, one question that has largely been ignored is the preference of the party on the other side of the border. Whom does Jordan want to see in control of the Jordan Valley and its western border: Israel or the 'Palestinians'? The answer - from
Khaled Abu Toameh - might surprise you.
In private off-the-record meetings, top Jordanian officials make it
crystal clear that they prefer to see Israel sitting along their shared
border.
...
It is no secret that the Jordanians have long been worried about the
repercussions of the presence of Palestinians on their border.
In a recent closed briefing with a high-ranking Jordanian security
official, he was asked about the kingdom's position regarding the
possibility that Palestinians might one day replace Israel along the
border with Jordan.
"May God forbid!" the official retorted. "We have repeatedly made it
clear to the Israeli side that we will not agree to the presence of a
third party at our border."
The official explained that Jordan's stance was not new. "This has
been our position since 1967," he said. "The late King Hussein made this
clear to all Israeli governments and now His majesty, King Abdullah,
remains committed to this position."
Jordan's opposition to placing the border crossings with the West
Bank under Palestinian control is not only based on security concerns.
...
Besides the security concerns, the Jordanians are also worried about
the demographic implications of Palestinian security and civilian
presence over the border.
Their worst nightmare, as a veteran Jordanian diplomat once told
Israeli colleagues during a private encounter, is that once the
Palestinians are given control over the border, thousands of them from
the future Palestinian state would pour into Jordan.
The Jordanians already have a "problem" with the fact that their
kingdom's population consists of a Palestinian majority, which some say
has reached over 80%. The last thing the Jordanians want is to see
hundreds of thousands of Palestinians move from the West Bank or Gaza
Strip into the kingdom.
Although the Jordanians are not part of the ongoing peace talks
between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, they are hoping that
Israel will not rush to abandon security control over its long border
with the kingdom. Understandably, the Jordanian monarchy cannot go
public with its stance for fear of being accused by Arabs and Muslims of
treason and collaboration with the "Zionist enemy."
The Egyptians today know what the Jordanians have been aware of for a
long time -- that a shared border with Fatah or Hamas or any other
Palestinian group is a recipe for instability and anarchy.
King Abdullah is motivated by his instinct for self-preservation. We should be no less motivated by the same instinct.
Labels: Jordan, Jordan is Palestine, Jordan Valley, Jordanian King Abdullah, Palestinian Authority
