Report: Kerry security plan accepts most Israeli positions
A report on Army Radio claims that US Secretary of State John FN Kerry's 'security plan' accepts most Israeli positions.
Accroding to the Army Radio report, the US is prepared to give Israel
full control of the Jordan border, as well as the ability to spy and
collect intelligence in the West Bank.
Kerry also proposed that a
massive fence be built along the length of the Jordan Valley, similar to
the current West Bank separation barrier, placing the proposed
Palestinian state between the two fences, Army Radio reported.
According
to the report, the US security proposal also allows for Israeli drones
to fly over the West Bank, collecting intelligence and spying on
terrorist activities. Jordan border patrols will initially be carried
out by IDF soldiers only, for the first few years, and will eventually
be made cooperative with Palestinian security forces and Jordanian
forces.
While Israel reportedly sees the proposals as a basis for negotiations, both Abbas and the Arab League have effectively rejected the US plan, stating that here could be not one Israeli soldier in the territory of a future Palestinian state.
Israeli withdrawals in the plan appear to include large parts of
Judea and Samaria, as the new report mentions Kerry's intentions to
build a massive border fence in the area.
Regarding the security threat, of what is feared by many to become a
terror state in Judea and Samaria, Kerry's plan would have the IDF
deploy drones over the area to monitor terrorist activities and gather
information.
Apparently the presence of drones in Judea and Samaria is the
"creative security solutions" Yedid spoke of, when he noted that Israeli
security sources added such "solutions" to meet US demands when
submitting the plan to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
'Palestinians' may declare 'peace talks' a failure or Abu Mazen may meet with Netanyahu
Good afternoon from Boston where I collapsed over my computer last night and the morning did not quite go as planned. By the way, if anyone knows how to score tickets for Sunday's Game 2 of the ALCS, please email me.
Last night it was reported that the 'Palestinians' were considering declaring the 'peace talks' a failure (did anyone ever think they'd be anything but?), as they accused Israel of seeking to 'win time' through the talks.
Hanna Amireh, a member of the PLO Executive Committee, said that this
was one of the scenarios that were discussed during the last meeting of
the Palestinian leadership.
Amireh accused Israel of seeking to “win time” and blame the Palestinians for the failure of the US-sponsored talks.
Israel,
he said, is benefiting from the prolonged negotiations in order to
“impose more facts on the ground and dictate the outcome of the talks.”
Amireh
criticized Justice Minister Tzipi Livni for stating that the talks with
the Palestinians may extend beyond the nine- month deadline set by the
US Administration.
He said that Livini’s remarks were in violation of the agreement reached with the Americans.
The two sides met for the 9th time since July in Jerusalem on Wednesday, and Israel refused to comment on the meeting. Of course, the 'negotiations' won't take more than nine months since Israel will just give in on everything....
About an hour ago, Khaled Abu Toameh reported that 'Moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen 'might' agree to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu.
The official was quoted by the Palestinian Quds Net News Agency as
saying that Abbas has dropped his previous pre-conditions for holding a
summit with Netanyahu.
The official did not specify the nature of
the pre-conditions. Abbas had said in the past that he did not want a
meeting with Netanyahu to serve as a photo-up opportunity that would
serve Israel's interests alone.
"The US Administration played a
big role in exerting pressure on Abbas to agree to a meeting with
Netanyahu," the official disclosed. "We expect the meeting to take place
in Jerusalem in the next few days."
In response, a source in
Abbas's office said it was "premature" to talk about a summit between
the two. The source acknowledged that Washington had suggested to Abbas
to meet with Netanyahu in the context of efforts to boost the peace
process.
Meanwhile, PLO Executive Committee member Hanan Ashrawi added her voice to those calling on the PA leadership to pull out of the peace talks with Israel.
"There
is no benefit in the negotiations after the force of occupation emptied
them from their goal," Ashrawi said in a statement.
She accused Israel of seeking to destroy the prospects for peace and the two-state solution.
I would not hold my breath waiting for that meeting to happen. But I don't think that the 'Palestinians' will rush to declare the talks a failure either.
'Palestinians' ultimatum: Cancel housing tenders or talks are off
I expected this to happen, but I thought the 'Palestinians' would at least wait until they get 24 terrorists back on Tuesday. The 'Palestinians' have delivered an ultimatum to the United States: Either Israel cancels the tenders for 1,187 new Jewish homes (mostly in Jerusalem) that were announced on Sunday or the talks are off.
The Palestinian Authority (PA) is demanding that Israel cancel its decision to market about 1,200 new housing units in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, even before the next round of “peace talks” scheduled for Wednesday.
Voice of Israel public radio quoted an anonymous senior PA official
as saying the PA leadership has informed the United States of this
decision and is awaiting a response. The official said that if this is
the way Israel wants to reach peace, then there is no need for
negotiations and “let Netanyahu make peace with [Bayit Yehudi head
Naftali] Bennett.”
Voice of Israel notes that the announcement regarding the tenders was
made just as PA head Mahmoud Abbas was meeting U.S. Mediator Martin
Indyk in Ramallah.
Voice of Israel also said that PA negotiator Saeb Erekat said that
Israel does not want the PA to come to the negotiating table, and that
it may succeed in achieving this. Erekat was speaking to Al Arabiya, in
response to the announcement of new tenders by Israel.
Let them cancel the talks. But at least let them do it before we release 24 murderers.
This is incredible. With 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen not having compromised on anything, the Washington Post lists 'Israeli intransigence' as what makes John Kerry's mission here 'urgent.'
Among the things that Kerry believes make this time different is the
urgency of the situation. The area is engulfed in crises that threaten
to spill over borders; international weariness of what is seen as
Israel’s intransigence has grown, manifested in a disinvestment movement
and dwindling sympathy in Europe; and the Palestinians have been unable
to put their political and economic house in order. This has led Kerry
to warn repeatedly that the “window is closing” for meaningful talks.
Really?
So, according to DeYoung, it's Israeli "intransigence" that's holding
up a peace deal. But her evidence is hardly convincing. The
anti-Israel boycott drive has been a big flop.
Israeli trade is up
with regional and global countries, including Turkey. As for "dwindling
sympathy" for Israel in Europe, that's hardly a new factor. If Israel
had to depend on European "sympathy" for its existence and security, it
would have folded a long time ago.
Far
more telling is the fact that, far from indulging in "intransigence,"
Israel is on the same page as Kerry and the White House in calling for
prompt renewal of negotiations without pre-conditions.
The
real fly in the ointment, the real "intransigence," belongs on the
Palestinian side, where President Mahmoud Abbas finds himself
increasingly isolated from the U.S. in demanding a host of major Israeli
concessions -- release of Palestinian prisoners, a construction freeze
in eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank -- before talks even get under
way.
DeYoung,
however, is oblivious to Abbas's "intransigence," reporting only that
the "Palestinians have been unable to put their political and economic
house in order." Failure to put the Palestinian house in order doesn't
begin to tell the tale.
Brings to mind a conversation I once had with a kibbutznik during the early, heady days of Oslo. Ruben, a thin, middle-age European immigrant with pepper-gray hair and round glasses that somehow accentuated his bursting intellect, would sometimes vent about Big Media’s fixation with Israel. But in a moment of candor, Ruben observed that it would be more painful to him if the world were indifferent to Israel. He broadly swept his hand to the right — overdramatically, I thought — as if to draw my attention to The Rest Of The World, as he emphatically told me:
“This tiny little country matters to the people out there.”
The problem isn't the disproportionate coverage of Israel; it's what constitutes that coverage. Israel has plenty of accomplishments that reporters could report on if they wanted to. The problem is that reporters and columnists see Israel as a "moral Disneyland" in Charles Krauthammer's formulation, from 24 years ago, at the beginning of the intidfada.
Israel's critics, so concerned about its soul, would have a little more credibility if they displayed equal concern for Israel's body. After all, it is that body - its right to mere existence - that has been the burning issue for 40 years now. Israelis don't crave the tears of the West's moral vacationers. They crave life. Any Arab negotiating partner who, like Sadat, fully declares that life to be an absolute given, will soon find across the table the kind of Jewish soul for which the moral nostalgics so ostentatiously pine.
So, what’s going on here? A smokescreen, I suspect. Netanyahu–who is opposed to a Palestinian state–is trying to draw attention away from illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank, which continue to grow and threaten the possibility of a two-state solution. He is also playing to the minority of American Jews who support neoconservative positions, especially the notion that Iran having a bomb would be somehow different, and more threatening, than Pakistan having a bomb–the idea that Iran is run by mad mullahs, who behave irrationally.
I’ve been traveling to the Middle East as a journalist for the past 30 years. During that time, Israel has grown into an ethnically diverse, economically successful country with a strong (internal) tradition of democracy, free speech and the rule of law–a tradition not always extended toward its Palestinian neighbors, especially when Likud governments are in power. And during those same 30 years, governance on the Palestinian side has been an unrelenting disgrace–until recently, when Salam Fayyad, a U.S.-trained economist reformed the government on the West Bank and, with US help, created a tough security force that insisted on the rule of law in the Palestinian territories and was respected by the international community, including the Israelis. But Fayyad was fired in the new accord between the two main Palestinian factions, Fatah and Hamas. This is terrible news. It changes everything.The success of Fayyad’s government was one reason why I was not entirely pessimistic about a two-state solution in the Middle East. Israel had always demanded, and deserved, a responsible negotiating partner. Fayyad had created conditions amenable to negotiation; the Israelis responded positively, in a limited way, shutting down checkpoints on the West Bank, but not nearly as positively as they should have–with a moratorium on new settlement construction. His firing has undermined those of us who had hoped for a more positive Israeli response to the Palestinian reforms.
Aside from his cheap shot about how Israel treats Palestinians, his praise of Israel as a society is welcome. But he overstates the importance of Fayyad. Fayyad never had a significant base of support. Over the past 30 years (actually more) Palestinian extremism has been praised and encouraged. Even Likud governments did more to promote peace with the Palestinians than "moderate" Fatah politicians - Fayyad included - did to encourage peace with Israel.
It would have been better had Klein not focused on Fayyad and noted that an agreement between Fatah and Hamas effectively rejects the Oslo Accords. Still it is something that he acknowledged the problem.
On Monday, government forces using tanks and machine guns shelled a makeshift medical clinic and residential areas in Homs, a major center of protests. Since Friday, an estimated 240 people have been killed in perhaps the bloodiest episode in the 11-month-old uprising. Moscow and Beijing now have the blood of Syria’s valiant people on their hands as well. Both argued that the resolution, endorsing an Arab League initiative, would expand the conflict. That is nonsense. The real explanation is that these two authoritarian governments fear any popular movement and, after the ouster of Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya, are determined to deny the West another perceived victory.
Israel Television reports in its nightly news magazine that Qatari-based Muslim Brotherhood leader Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is considered one of the most important Sunni Sheikhs in the world, has issued a fatwa calling for a boycott of Russia and China over their vetoes of a UN Security Council resolution on Saturday that would have condemned Bashar al-Assad's regime. Qaradawi called Russia and China the 'enemies of the Arab people.'
4) Room for debating Assad?
A regular feature of the New York Times is "Room for Debate," in which typing heads discuss the important issues of the day. Incredibly, there is room for Life After Assad Could Be Worse by Ed Husayn.
It is impossible to tell whether Assad’s time is running out. Educated and Westernized friends of mine in Syria who once opposed Assad on political grounds and sought reform now support him because they fear the prospect of an all-out civil war between tribes, cities, Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites, Druze, Ismailis, Catholics, Protestants and assorted Orthodox Christians. Syria is a complex nation. Containing – not fanning – the current conflict is in everybody’s interests.
But the slide into anarchy is more starkly observed in Homs City in central Syria, where for weeks loyalists have been pounding restive neighborhoods with mortars and heavy artillery. On the eve of the U.N. vote, indiscriminate bombardment killed more than 250 residents of the Khaldiyeh neighborhood. Loyalist gangs have committed cold-blooded massacres of entire families, including women and babies, in their effort to spread fear among the protesters and push them out of the city — a development that could usher in a larger-scale drive for ethnic cleansing in Homs City and a number of coastal communities, where sectarian tensions continue to rise. Despite the international outcry, Russia and China went ahead with their veto, which the regime has taken as a green light to continue its crackdown.
To the credit of the New York Times, not everyone debating is an apologist for the Assad regime, Andrew Tabler contributes A new resistance with new results:
Ultimate change is much more likely to come from below. In contrast to the situation in 1982, regime opponents aren’t cowed: their numbers are simply far too high and continue to swell. In the 10 years after the Hama massacre, Syrians stayed home out of fear, and a population boom began, making Syria among the 20 fastest-growing nations. Today it is one of the youngest populations in the Middle East. The Syrian Awakening, like so many uprisings and revolutions elsewhere in the Middle East and beyond, presents, perhaps, the best example of authoritarian regime karma. But the question remains: Will the international community stand by and do nothing, as it did in 1982? And if not, what can it do to help Syrians end the 40-plus years of the Assad family’s brutal and incompetent rule and bring about a leadership capable of dealing with the needs of the next generation?
Regarding Klein, I would add that Netanyahu did actually freeze 'settlement construction' for ten months - which no Prime Minister had done before. But Abu Mazen waited until nine of those ten months were up and then went to the negotiating table to try to get Netanyahu to extend them. Enough is enough!
Abu Bluff threatening to 'walk out' of talks he's never been in
'Moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen is threatening to 'walk out' of talks with Israel over a 'two-state solution' if there is no 'progress' by January 26. As usual, 'progress' is defined as Israel giving the unelected 'Palestinian leader' everything he wants, while the 'Palestinians' give nothing in return. And there really have not been any 'talks' from which the 'Palestinians' might walk out.
PA President Mahmoud Abbas told Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store that the Palestinians are prepared to resume direct peace negotiations with Israel once the Israeli government halts construction in the settlements and east Jerusalem and accepts the two-state solution.
A PA official in Ramallah said that Abbas briefed the Norwegian minister on the outcome of the last two meetings in Amman between PLO and Israeli officials.
According to the official, Abbas stressed that unless Israel accepted the two Palestinian demands, he would not agree to the resumption of the direct talks.
Ah yes, Jonas Gahr Store, the perfect mediator.
Abbas said that the talks in Jordan would continue with the hope of narrowing the gap between the two sides before January 26, when the three-month deadline set by members of the Quartet expires.
Last September, the Quartet, which consists of the US, EU, UN and Russia, gave the two sides three months to come forth with proposals that would pave the way for the resumption of the direct negotiations.
Well, yes, except that according to both the US and Israel, those proposals were to have been presented in direct talks between the parties and those direct talks have not happened and are unlikely to happen.
A Washington Post editorial says that Abu Mazen is more responsible for the impasse over 'negotiations' than Prime Minister Netanyahu (Hat Tip: Soccer Dad via Twitter).
Of the two, the Palestinian stance is more objectionable, and not only because it prevents any process from going forward. By his own account, President Mahmoud Abbas’s hard-line stance on the settlement issue is unfounded: He has said more than once that he adopted it only because he felt obliged to match a similar demand by President Obama. Mr. Obama, however, has dropped that condition; and as the Palestinians know, the matter is purely symbolic — both sides agree that Israel will annex the Jerusalem neighborhoods and West Bank settlements where most of the building is going on. For example, during a previous round of negotiations, Mr. Abbas’s negotiators specifically agreed to Israeli annexation of the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo; yet an announcement of new construction there last week prompted theatrical denunciations by those same Palestinian officials, as well as criticism from the Quartet.
Mr. Abbas’s insistence on preconditions allows him to continue his separate campaign for recognition of Palestine by the United Nations: He is about to embark on a global tour in search of votes on the Security Council. His cynical obstructionism ought to be enough to persuade undecided governments, such as Colombia and Portugal, to withhold support — or at least to require that Mr. Abbas fully accept the Quartet’s initiative before they back his.
They have Abu Mazen down pat. Too bad they didn't quite do the same for Netanyahu.
In an interview last Friday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton complained that 'nothing has happened' since 1998 and therefore it is hard for the 'Palestinians' to come back to the conference table.
(1) In 2000, the Palestinians were offered a state by Israel, and turned it down; (2) in 2001, the Palestinians rejected the Clinton Parameters; (3) in 2002, the U.S. endorsed a Palestinian state if the Palestinians built a practicing democracy (today the putative state is ruled half by a terrorist group and half by a party that hasn’t held an election in nearly six years); (4) in 2003, the Palestinians accepted the Roadmap but have yet to complete any of its three phases; (5) in 2004, Israel adopted a plan to hand over Gaza to the Palestinians; (6) in 2005, Israel removed every settler and soldier from Gaza, which the Palestinians turned into Hamastan in one week; (7) in 2006, the Palestinians elected a terrorist group to control their legislature; (8) in 2007, the U.S. convened the Annapolis conference to “accelerate” the Roadmap; (9) in 2008, after a year of final status negotiations, the Palestinians rejected still another Israeli offer of a state; and (10) in 2009, Israel offered the Palestinians negotiations again, which they refused, and initiated an unprecedented construction moratorium, which they ignored.
A fairer assessment of what has happened since 1998 is that Israel has beaten its head against the wall trying to satisfy the 'Palestinians' while the 'Palestinians' have done nothing but say "no." Maybe it's time to find a new paradigm.
Europe realizing that it will have to accommodate 'intransigent' Netanyahu
Binyamin Netanyahu can be a nasty dude. He lectured President Obama in front of the news cameras in May. He refused to renew a 'settlement freeze' that was laid to waste by the 'Palestinians.' And unfortunately, he sent special forces to dismantle the Jewish town of Migron a few weeks ago. But give him credit for one thing: His stubbornness is making some European countries rethink their positions and realign their expectations with respect to Israel and the 'Palestinians.' This is from Evelyn Gordon.
In July, France became the first European country to publicly adopt a positionevery Israeli government has deemed essential for Israeli-Palestinian peace, but which Europe consistently refused to endorse: that any agreement must result in “two nation-states,” including “the nation-state of Israel for the Jewish people.”
And last week, one of the most pro-Palestinian countries in Europe not only followed suit, butbroke new ground. Addressing the UN General Assembly on Saturday, Spanish Foreign Minister Trinidad Jimenez first declaredSpain’s “commitment” to Israel as “a homeland of the Jewish people” – a position Madrid opposed as recently as July. Then she added something that, again, all Israeli governments have deemed essential for peace, but Europe has never been willing to state openly: Any solution to the Palestinian refugee problem must “be just and agreed,” while also “allowing the preservation of Israel’s current character.” In other words, the Palestinian goal of relocating the refugees to Israel is out.
It’s hard to overstate the significance of this shift. For years, the EU has demanded a host of specific Israeli concessions on final-status issues (borders, Jerusalem, etc.) while adamantly refusing to demand any Palestinian concessions. Hence, every statement it issued reiterated a formulacarefully crafted to avoid offending Palestinian sensibilities. It called for two states, Israel and Palestine, with no elaboration on the nature of the former, thus leaving open the possibility of an “Israel” transformed into a binational or Palestinian-majority state by an influx of millions of refugee descendants, as Palestinians want. And it urged “an agreed, just, fair and realistic solution” to the refugee issue, without specifying that the Palestinians’ preferred solution of resettling them all in Israel doesn’t qualify.
Read the whole thing. I still don't see the Europeans going and out and pushing the 'Palestinians' to make concessions. It may be a start, but it's a very small start.
Prime Minister Netanyahu told the Bulgarian Foreign Minister on Sunday that the Europeans need to stop treating the 'Palestinians' need to like a spoiled child.
Some leaders in Europe treat the Palestinians “like a spoiled child” and instead need to “tell the Palestinians the truth,” Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Sunday during a meeting with visiting Bulgarian Foreign Minister Nikolay Mladenov.
According to government sources, Netanyahu told Mladenov, considered one of the friendliest foreign ministers toward Israel in the EU, that there were individuals in the EU who never hesitated in telling Israel what they expected it to do, but were very reticent to take the same liberties with the Palestinians.
He was specifically talking about a reluctance by some in the EU to call explicitly for the Palestinians to give up on a “right of refugee return” and to recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, even though these Europeans had no qualms about calling clearly for Israel to agree to a Palestinian state along the 1967 lines and to redivide Jerusalem.
By not speaking with the same determination or frankness with the Palestinians, Netanyahu said, these leaders were “doing a disservice to those individual Palestinian leaders who are ready for compromise and deserve their support.”
The government sources named neither the Europeans nor the Palestinian leaders to whom Netanyahu was referring.
Israel's policies based on the Prime Minister's speeches
Here's what I understand to be Israel's foreign ministry's latest take on our current policies based on Prime Minister Netanyahu's latest speeches. I do not necessarily support everything stated here, so please don't shoot the messenger.
Israel Policy Update
PM Netanyahu's 7 Points for Peace:
1. Mutual recognition of the Jewish state and the Palestinian state is necessary for peace.
“President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I said… "I will accept a Palestinian state." It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… "I will accept a Jewish state." Those six words will change history. They will make clear to the Palestinians that this conflict must come to an end. That they are not building a state to continue the conflict with Israel, but to end it. They will convince the people of Israel that they have a true partner for peace. With such a partner, the people of Israel will be prepared to make a far reaching compromise. I will be prepared to make a far reaching compromise.” [Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress, 24 May 2011]
“You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about… In recent years, the Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli Prime Ministers, to establish a Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six Day War.” [Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress, 24 May 2011]
“So I say to President Abbas: Tear up your pact with Hamas! Sit down and negotiate! Make peace with the Jewish state! And if you do, I promise you this. Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations. It will be the first to do so.” [Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress, 24 May 2011]
2. Israel recognizes that a Palestinian state should be independent and viable.
“We recognize that a Palestinian state must be big enough to be viable, independent and prosperous.” [Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress, 24 May 2011]
“We will be very generous on the size of a future Palestinian state.” [Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress, 24 May 2011]
3. The Palestinian state should be fully demilitarized and there should be an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River.
“But Israel on the 1967 lines would be only nine miles wide. So much for strategic depth. So it is therefore absolutely vital for Israel’s security that a Palestinian state be fully demilitarized. And it is vital that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River. Solid security arrangements on the ground are necessary not only to protect the peace, they are necessary to protect Israel in case the peace unravels. For in our unstable region, no one can guarantee that our peace partners today will be there tomorrow.” [Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress, 24 May 2011]
4. The settlement blocs and areas of critical strategic and national importance will remain a part of Israel.
“This compromise must reflect the dramatic demographic changes that have occurred since 1967. The vast majority of the 650,000 Israelis who live beyond the 1967 lines, reside in neighborhoods and suburbs of Jerusalem and Greater Tel Aviv.” [Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress, 24 May 2011]
“These areas [settlement blocs] are densely populated but geographically quite small. Under any realistic peace agreement, these areas, as well as other places of critical strategic and national importance, will be incorporated into the final borders of Israel.” [Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress, 24 May 2011]
5. In any peace agreement, some settlements will end up outside Israel's borders.
“The status of the settlements will be decided only in negotiations. But we must also be honest. So I am saying today something that should be said publicly by anyone serious about peace. In any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders. The precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated.” [Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress, 24 May 2011]
“This is not easy for me. I recognize that in a genuine peace, we will be required to give up parts of the Jewish homeland.” [Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress, 24 May 2011]
“I am willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace. As the leader of Israel, it is my responsibility to lead my people to peace.” [Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress, 24 May 2011]
6. The solution to the Palestinian refugees will be found outside Israel.
“President Obama rightly referred to Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, just as he referred to the future Palestinian state as the homeland of the Palestinian people. Jews from around the world have a right to immigrate to the Jewish state. Palestinians from around the world should have a right to immigrate, if they so choose, to a Palestinian state. This means that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel.” [Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress, 24 May 2011]
7. Jerusalem will remain Israel's united sovereign capital.
“As for Jerusalem, only a democratic Israel has protected freedom of worship for all faiths in the city. Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel. I know that this is a difficult issue for Palestinians. But I believe with creativity and goodwill a solution can be found.” [Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress, 24 May 2011]
“Israel is the cradle of our common civilization. It's the crucible of our common values. And the modern state of Israel was founded precisely on these eternal values. And this is why Israel's more than 1 million Muslims enjoy full democratic rights. This is why the only place in the Middle East where Christians are completely free to practice their faith is the democratic State of Israel. And this is why Israel, and only Israel, can be trusted to ensure the freedom for all faiths in our eternal capital, the united city of Jerusalem.” [Netanyahu Address to AIPAC, 23 May 2011]
Unilateral Declaration of a Palestinian State:
Palestinian attempts to impose a settlement in the UN will not bring peace.
“Peace can be achieved only around the negotiating table. The Palestinian attempt to impose a settlement through the United Nations will not bring peace. It should be forcefully opposed by all those who want to see this conflict end.” [Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress, 24 May 2011]
Palestinian Unity Pact:
Hamas is not a partner to peace and Israel calls on the Palestinian Authority to reject its accord with this terrorist organization.
“Peace cannot be imposed. It must be negotiated. But it can only be negotiated with partners committed to peace. And Hamas is not a partner for peace. Hamas remains committed to Israel's destruction and to terrorism. They have a charter. That charter not only calls for the obliteration of Israel, but says ‘kill the Jews wherever you find them’.” [Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress, 24 May 2011]
“Those who wish to obliterate us are no partners for peace. A Palestinian government with half its members declaring daily that they plan to annihilate the Jewish state is not a partner for peace. Those who say - and I am familiar with the saying - that "peace is made with enemies" must add a small but important qualifier: peace is made with an enemy, but with an enemy who has decided to make peace.” [Netanyahu Address to the Knesset, 16 May 2011]
Incitement:
Palestinian incitement is an impediment to peace.
“They [the Palestinians] were simply unwilling to end the conflict. And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees.” [Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress, 24 May 2011]
Iran:
The greatest danger facing humanity is a militant Islamic regime armed with nuclear weapons.
“When I last stood here, I spoke of the dire consequences of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Now time is running out, and the hinge of history may soon turn. For the greatest danger facing humanity could soon be upon us: A militant Islamic regime armed with nuclear weapons.” [Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress, 24 May 2011]
“A nuclear-armed Iran would ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It would give terrorists a nuclear umbrella. It would make the nightmare of nuclear terrorism a clear and present danger throughout the world.” [Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress, 24 May 2011]
“The more Iran believes that all options are on the table, the less the chance of confrontation. This is why I ask you to continue to send an unequivocal message: That America will never permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons.” [Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress, 24 May 2011]
“As for Israel, if history has taught the Jewish people anything, it is that we must take calls for our destruction seriously. We are a nation that rose from the ashes of the Holocaust. When we say never again, we mean never again. Israel always reserves the right to defend itself.” [Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress, 24 May 2011]
US-Israel Relations:
Israel and the US stand together to defend democracy, advance peace and fight terrorism.
“Israel has no better friend than America. And America has no better friend than Israel. We stand together to defend democracy. We stand together to advance peace. We stand together to fight terrorism.” [Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress, 24 May 2011]
“In an unstable Middle East, Israel is the one anchor of stability. In a region of shifting alliances, Israel is America’s unwavering ally. Israel has always been pro-American. Israel will always be pro-American.” [Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress, 24 May 2011]
“You understand that Israel and America stand shoulder to shoulder fighting common enemies, protecting common interests.… Israel and America have drawn from these deep well springs of our common values. We forged an enduring friendship not merely between our governments, but between our peoples. Support for Israel doesn't divide America. It unites America. It unites the old and the young, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans….” [Netanyahu Address to AIPAC, 23 May 2011]
One more AIPAC tape. Here's House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va) speaking at the AIPAC convention. The speech is in two parts. The part I really want you to see starts around the 4:00 mark of the second tape and watch the crowd reaction.
Here's Part 1. Let's go to the videotape.
Here's Part 2. Let's go to the videotape.
A few observations. First, I think the American people are starting to get the idea that the conflict is existential and not about borders. Certainly Cantor gets that.
Second, I don't think Cantor or anyone else expects Abu Bluff to stop teaching hatred and accept Israel's right to exist. I think he's calling Abu's bluff.
Time's Joe Klein reports on the March 15 movement, which is meant to capitalize on what happened in Egypt in February through the use of non-violent methods.
The young Palestinians don't seem as pragmatic as all that; they are somewhere beyond wildly idealistic. "The goal is to liberate the minds of our people," says Najwan Berekdar, an Israeli-born Arab who is a women's-rights activist. "We want to get past all the old identities—Fatah, Hamas, religious, secular, Israeli and Palestinian Arab —and create a mass nonviolent movement." Berekdar has touched on an idea that might prove truly threatening to Israelis: a "one state" movement uniting Palestinians on both sides of the current border. But the young Palestinians have not focused on anything so specific. Their current political plan is to go back to the future—to achieve Palestinian unity by resurrecting and holding elections for a body called the Palestinian National Council, which took a backseat after the Oslo accords created the Palestinian Authority and its parliamentary component. This seems rather abstruse—the basic rule for people-power movements is, Organize first, bureaucratize later — and it would be easy to dismiss these young people as hopelessly naive but for two factors. The first is that they've seized the Palestinian version of a suddenly valuable international brand: the Tahrir Square revolution. "We cannot discount their importance," a prominent Israeli official told me. "Not after what happened in Egypt."
I don't believe this will happen for a number of reasons. First, to date, the 'Palestinians' have always defined 'non-violence' as including stone throwing. We all know that stone throwing is violent.
Second, for nearly all Israelis, a 'one-state solution' is a non-starter (unless there were to be a mass exodus of Arabs first). That's even more true on the Left than on the Right. The problem with Israel's Left is that they don't want to live with Israel's Right - and especially the religious population - either. But that doesn't mean that they're willing to have one state, only that they're willing to give more for a 'Palestinian state' to prevent the religious and the Right from having the territory.
Third, once you get off the 'one-state solution' you come back to the same problem you've had for the last 20 years: Israel is negotiating with itself. The 'Palestinians' have never made a single concession, and because of the harsh backlash that got out when they talked about trying, they're not likely to make any concessions in the foreseeable future. I don't see any concessions from March 15 yet either.
Fourth, the 'Palestinians' have been indoctrinated with violence for the last seventeen years. Note that most of the heroes of the group that Klein describes have spent substantial time in the US. They're an elite and they're not representative of the 'Palestinian street.' In the best case, they might be good 'community organizers.' But they aren't in a position to mobilize the 'Palestinian' masses. Remember the last time a group from abroad tried to take over the 'Palestinians' (Arafat and his gang from Tunis)? That didn't work out too well, did it?
I've been hearing stories of a non-violent 'Palestinian' movement that's going to cause problems for our security forces at least since I made aliya in 1991. It's not going to happen.
What if we went ahead and set up a 'state' and they refused to run it?
This has got to be one of the dumbest ideas I have heard in a long time. The 'Palestinians' are refusing to 'negotiate.' So, reports the New York Times, Israel is going to set up a 'state' for them anyway. And then? What if they refuse to run it? Why are we rewarding them for refusing to come to the table? Does anyone in this country think before they go mouthing off to the media?
Instead of a final accord on Palestinian statehood by fall, Israel is now floating the idea of an interim arrangement as a step toward a two-state solution, even without Palestinian agreement.
An Israeli official said that the government was “seriously considering an initiative” that would represent a “phased approach to reaching a final peace accord.” The official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the proposal because it was not finalized, added that “Israel would have preferred a negotiated agreement on final status issues, and that remains the case today. But when the Palestinians consistently refuse to negotiate, that becomes impossible.”
...
Israeli officials have not offered any details on the initiative, but have said that Israel is talking about it with “relevant parties,” including the Obama administration.
With the Middle East in turmoil and the West eager to encourage moderate forces in the region, Israel is under pressure to show some movement on the Palestinian issue.
Several Israeli policy makers have put forward ideas. Shaul Mofaz, a former army chief and defense minister who is now a legislator in the opposition, has been pushing his plan for a provisional Palestinian state in 60 to 65 percent of the territory of the West Bank, in addition to Gaza, without initially removing any Israeli settlements.
Israel’s foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has also said that he is working on a plan for an interim arrangement involving the West Bank.
Who is going to run this 'state'? Who will pick up its garbage, clean its streets, provide it with electricity and running water, educate its children and secure its borders?
Former Bush administration diplomat Elliott Abrams rips the Obami some new body parts for their bungling of the 'Palestinian' resolution condemning Israeli 'settlements' at the Security Council.
The Palestinian Authority began to talk about this resolution months ago. The United States could then have adopted a clear position: put it forward and it will be vetoed. That very clear stand might have persuaded the Palestinian leaders and their Arab supporters to drop the effort early on, when it could have been abandoned with no loss of face. Instead the Administration refused to make its position clear until the final day. In its Friday edition the New York Times was reporting that “the Obama administration was trying Thursday evening to head off an imminent vote in the United Nations Security Council that would declare Israel’s settlement construction in the West Bank illegal, but would not declare publicly whether it was prepared to veto the resolution.” It seems clear that the Administration was desperate to avoid a veto, indeed desperate to go four years without spoiling its “perfect record.” But a “perfect record” in the UN requires vetoes, given the persistent anti-Israel bias of the organization. The Administration’s desire to avoid vetoes only served to reduce its bargaining power, for the credible threat of a veto has long served American diplomats seeking to achieve an outcome more favorable to our interests.
...
Abbas rejected the Clinton and Obama appeals and/or ignored their threats, in itself a sign of reduced American diplomatic influence. The American veto will have angered Palestinians even more. But it will not have gained the Administration any thanks from Israel or from supporters of Israel in the United States, who were appalled by the Administration’s search for a bad compromise.According to the New York Times,the Administration proposed that instead of a resolution the Security Council issue a “presidential statement” that“would condemn settlements but also call on all sides to resume negotiations. That statement would be paired with a Russian proposal for a fact-finding mission on settlements, and a proposed change in how the quartet, the international group that deals with the Middle East peace process, defines the basic building blocks of negotiations ranging from borders to the political status of Jerusalem.”
So the Administration was content with condemning settlements, happy to establish a new UN fact-finding mission, and willing to redefine the role of the Quartet. All that just to avoid a veto of the sort American presidents have been ordering for decades.
Feeling guilty about its veto the Administration then issued an extraordinary “explanation of vote,” read by UN Ambassador Susan Rice....
This is amazing language for a diplomat: “folly,” “illegitimacy,” “devastates,” “corroded,” and so on. It’s hard to recall such a vehement statement against Israel, nor one that contains so many conclusions that are, to say the least, highly debatable. Has construction in and around Jerusalem or in Ma’ale Adumim, for example, “undermined Israel’s security?” Given that the Israelis and Palestinians concluded the Oslo Accords and the numerous other agreements while construction activity was far greater than it is today, what is the basis for saying that it “devastates trust?” No doubt the Administration decided that as it had vetoed it would “make it up” to the Arabs with this statement. But emotive language such as Amb. Rice employed serves no purpose. Arab newspapers will headline the veto—assuming of course that they have space in their pages tomorrow after covering the revolts in Tunisia, Yemen, Algeria, Libya, Bahrain, and Egypt—and are very unlikely to cover her speech. Only Israelis and supporters of Israel in the United States will study her language, and remember it.
The Washington Post blames the failure of the 'peace process' on the right party.
Mr. Abbas's stubbornness might seem spectacularly self-defeating - but only if one assumes that he is genuinely interested in a peace deal. In fact, the U.N. gambit allows him to posture as a champion of the Palestinian cause without having to consider any of the hard choices that would be needed to found a Palestinian state. It enables him to deflect criticism from the rival Hamas movement about his friendly relations with the United States. It might even allow him to head off a popular Palestinian rebellion against his own autocratic behavior - Mr. Abbas has failed to schedule overdue elections, including for his own post as president.
The Obama administration has all along insisted that Mr. Abbas is willing and able to make peace with Israel - despite considerable evidence to the contrary. If the U.N. resolution veto has one good effect, perhaps it will be to prompt a reevaluation of a leader who has repeatedly proved both weak and intransigent.
Indeed. Not that I would have expected Abu Bluff to do otherwise.
'Palestinians' disbanding Negotiations Support Unit
The 'Palestinian Authority' has decided to disband and restructure its European-funded Negotiations Support Unit, which was the source for the Palileaks documents published by al-Guardian and al-Jazeera. The documents were apparently stolen from the office of Saeb Erekat by members of the unit, which brought about Erekat's resignation. The unit is to be placed under 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen's direct supervision.
But how's this for outrageous bias in reporting the story from the Jew-haters at AFP?
The files, which Erakat charged had been "deliberately" tampered with, show Palestinian negotiators offering unprecedented concessions during peace negotiations, including on the ultra-sensitive subjects of Jerusalem and refugees, with nothing in return from Israel.
They also show the Palestinian leadership closely cooperating with Israel in its fight against the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas, Fatah's bitter rival which rules the Gaza Strip.
As to the paragraph about Hamas, the first obligation of the 'Palestinian Authority' under both the Oslo accords and the 'road map' was to disband the terror organizations. Hamas - in case the boobs at AFP can't figure it out - is a terror organization. There is certainly nothing wrong with cooperating with Israel in trying to disband Hamas. Israel has much more experience than the 'Palestinian Authority' has in fighting terrorists.
The disbandment of the Negotiations Support Unit - which is being mourned today all over Europe and in elitist circles in the Arab world - actually makes the chances of peace slightly (albeit not enough) better. In case you didn't deduce it already from the Unit's being the source of Palileaks, the Negotiations Support Unit had been urging the 'Palestinians' to take harder positions and not to compromise with Israel. Disbanding the Negotiations Support Unit won't bring peace, but it's a step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, the Palestinian position during these 17 years has not moved one inch from its maximalist demands. Isn't it time that the Palestinians are asked directly and openly if they are prepared to make any concessions? Are they prepared to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and the Jewish connection to the Western Wall and Temple Mount? Are they prepared to recognize that there are Jewish refugees in Arab states, and that Israel has very real security concerns?
While the world has unfortunately focused on settlement building, it has gone largely unnoticed that Palestinian leaders are retreating from previously accepted positions, especially the need for a two-states-for-two-peoples solution. I witnessed this firsthand when Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad refused to sign a meeting summary that included that terminology.
The Palestinians have been extremely successful at presenting Israel as the obstructionist party, even as they have been engaged in a consistent cycle of evasion and rejectionism that has replicated itself many times over almost two decades.
The cycle begins with the Palestinians looking for any excuse not to arrive at negotiations. They run away from an open and honest process, and yet place the onus on Israel for the breakdown of peace talks.
The Palestinians also threaten to unilaterally declare their own state, and on a number of occasions, they have threatened violence against Israel. They have embarked on a political campaign to assault Israel's legitimacy, abusing international forums, such as the United Nations, to try to create anti-Israel momentum.
...
For the peace process to move forward and succeed, the international community has to make a historic and brave decision to ignore the pressures of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Conference in international forums, which provide the rejectionists a prize and push the Palestinians further from the negotiating table. The international community also must reject Palestinian excuses and threats.
But there's no chance of that happening, is there? So why are we beating our heads against the wall? The 'Palestinians' are a bunch of spoiled children waiting to have their wish fulfilled and whining and crying all along the way.
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
