Israel Matzav

What Israel was willing to do for peace in 1967

Yaacov Lozowick posts a summary of recently declassified deliberations of Israel's cabinet ten days after the Six Day War.

Yet while their perspective was different than ours, the positions they staked were mostly cool-headed – the parts they agreed on, and the parts they didn't. They all hoped there would be no more wars. They intended the new conditions to be leveraged into a stable and just coexistence with the Arab world. They assumed the fate of the Arab refugees from 1948 was the irritant that was motivating the conflict and that it could now be resolved.

They implicitly accepted that land could not permanently be taken from sovereign nations by act of war. So they all accepted that the Egyptian Sinai and Syrian Golan would eventually be returned to their owners. Syrian-born Eliyahu Sasson, one of only two non-Ashkenazi ministers and the only one who explicitly grounded his position in a life-long acquaintance with Arab culture, insisted that since no Arab government would make peace with Israel, the Golan and Sinai should be returned for something less than full diplomatic peace. Stringent demilitarization and freedom of Israeli shipping should be enough. Most of his colleagues didn't want to be so pessimistic, but interestingly, Menachem Begin agreed. When in 1978 he agreed to evacuate Israeli forces from the entire Sinai, pundits the world over hailed his flexibility and willingness to change course. Well: read the transcript and you'll see that Begin actually got more in 1978 than he had expected in 1967. In 1967 he was willing to evacuate the Sinai for less than full diplomatic recognition and peace.

In the event, the resolution at the end of the meeting was that both areas would be held until peace was agreed. The West Bank and Gaza were another matter, however.

...

Many of the speakers felt the previous 20 years had shown there had to be Israeli forces on the River Jordan, but refused to countenance Israeli control over the large number of Arabs on the West Bank. Minister of Justice Ya'acov Shimshon Shapira was implacable on the matter of citizenship. Israel can give citizenship to the Arabs it controls or it can stop controlling them, but there's no third way. Most of his colleagues accepted this. Some thought the entire area should be handed back to Hussein, while a few thought it could be split along demographic lines, with the sparsely populated Jordan valley under Israeli control but the crowded mountain area to Hussein. A number of speakers so disliked the thought of handing territories to Hussein, that they suggested finding some local Arabs to hand it over to – what would later be called the two-state solution. Menachem Begin was the only speaker who demanded the entire area remain part of Israel, but even he didn't know what to do with the local Arabs, suggesting merely that the question be revisited in "6 or 7 years". Yigal Allon presented the first outline of the plan that would later bear his name: the Jordan Valley and the Hebron area should be annexed to Israel while the populous northern part of the West Bank should be either returned to Hussein or somehow handed to the locals. He was the only speaker who explicitly recommended creating Israeli settlements; even Begin didn't go that far. Levi Eshkol sardonically summed up the diversity of opinions: You do realize you're playing chess with yourselves, don't you?

Jerusalem: everyone in the room agreed Jerusalem must remain united in Israeli hands, even if this meant Hussein would refuse to reach an agreement which would take the Arab population off Israel's hands in return for some sort of peace. The lines of the city had not yet been drawn, and the official decision would be taken later that month, but those were (important) technicalities. Left to right, atheists to believers, no-one had any doubts. If there was any apprehension regarding Jerusalem, it was that the Christian world would refuse to countenance Jewish control of the city and would relaunch the demand for internationalizing the city.

Gaza: Seen from our perspective, the deliberations about Gaza were the strangest. As with the West Bank, no-one regarded Gaza as Egyptian. Yet nor did anyone see it as part of a future Palestinian State, since no-one, anywhere, including at the UN, had such a State in mind. So everyone agreed that Gaza must be annexed to Israel. Many of the speakers accepted this to mean the Gazan populace would be given Israeli citizenship, but others thought those among them living in refugee camps could perhaps be resettled: to the West Bank (and thus handed to Hussein or whoever); to the El Arish area of the northern Sinai, or perhaps even to other Arab countries. Eshkol shot down all these proposals. Why do we need Gaza and its population, he asked. There's no water in El Arish, you can't settle them in the mostly empty Jordan Valley and dream of holding on to it simultaneously, no far-flung Arab country will even give you the time of day. He speculated, rather wistfully, that if a general agreement with the Arab world could be achieved perhaps the Lebanese might be willing to pipe water down to the West Bank to help settle the refugees, but by the time the meeting moved to concrete proposals he had dropped that idea. No better one appeared, and the Gaza part of the discussion sort of petered out.

Today, Israel has given away Sinai. It continues to hold Judea and Samaria although many would (unfortunately) like to give them up. The Golan, if anything, seems the least likely to be given away. And Gaza is gone.

Hmmm. Read the whole thing.

Labels: East Jerusalem, Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria, Sinai, Six Day War, Three no's of Khartoum

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:16 PM 0 comments

Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler

Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Thursday, June 21.

1) Fouad Ajami on Obama and Syria

Fouad Ajami begins America, Russia and the tragedy of Syria with:

The ordeal of Syria has been a rebuttal of what the diplomacy of Barack Obama once promised and stood for. It is largely forgotten now that Syria and Iran were the two regimes in the Greater Middle East that Mr. Obama had promised to "engage."
Back when he was redeemer in chief, Mr. Obama had been certain that the regime in Damascus would yield to his powers of persuasion. He cut Damascus a wide swath, stepped aside when the Syrian regime all but laid to waste the gains of the 2005 Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, assassinating and terrorizing its way back into its smaller neighbor.
When the storm that broke upon the Arabs in early 2011 hit Syria, the flaws of the Obama approach were laid bare. It took five months of hesitation and wishful thinking before Mr. Obama called on the Syrian ruler to relinquish power. That call made, he had hoped that the storm would die down, that the world's attention would drift from the sorrows of Syria.

Early in the Obama administration, Omri Ceren pointed out that President Obama didn't even wait to enter office before embarking on his engaging diplomacy:

Any meetings that happened between November and the inauguration – that was merely Obama circumventing and potentially undermining a sitting Commander In Chief. But the stuff that happened before the election – that’s egregious. Remember that Obama’s main line of attack on Bush and McCain was that they weren’t offering sufficient “strong carrots” to get Iran and Syria to change course. While he was launching those attacks, his surrogates were sitting down with those cretins and talking about all the extra concessions they could expect if they dragged their feet until Obama’s inauguration. Some people might consider that a straightforward betrayal of US interests.

(Given this history it's more than a little ironic that President Obama is complaining that the Romney campaign is making an issue of his handling of foreign policy!)

Currently, though, Jonathan Spyer writes that the tide might be turning against Assad (h/t Legal Insurrection):

A reporter for McClatchy Newspapers, embedded with Free Syrian Army fighters in Homs governate, noted that the rebels have now expelled government troops from the towns of Rastan and Talbiseh, north of Homs city.
The rebels are also battling for Qusayr, to the south of Homs. The FSA unit engaged in this area is the Farouq Brigade, one of the best organized of the free army formations.
An individual identified as a former captain of Assad’s army captured by the FSA expressed his surprise at the rebels’ strength. “We didn’t imagine they had these numbers and so much equipment,’ he told McClatchy.

Michael Herzog and Soner Cagaptay write in How America Can Help Its Friends Make Nice, that the United States could use Syria as a way to seek conciliation between Israel and Turkey:

Turkey seems interested in intervention inside Syria only if America and NATO back such an endeavor. A Turkish-Israeli dialogue on Syria could bolster Israel’s interest in regime change and enlist Israel to generate American support. A normalized Turkish-Israeli relationship would also open opportunities for cooperation against the Assad government, with the Turks taking the political and regional lead and the Israelis providing intelligence and additional practical assets. The parties could also address shared concerns over the fate of the huge suspected chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria.
Any Israeli contribution would, of course, have to be invisible in order not to create a sense that Israel was behind the Syrian uprising. This makes Turkish-Israeli cooperation against Mr. Assad even more valuable, for it would allow Israel to provide untraceable assets to support Turkey’s efforts to undermine the Assad government.

I'm not optimistic with Herzog's and Cagaptay's opinoin that an Israeli apology for the Mavi Marmara would change anything.

Herzog used to be Ehud Barak's chief of staff. Does this op-ed in any way represent Barak's way of thinking.

2) J-Street's pro-Israel follies

In late May the New York Times published a news report press release, Divergent Path on Israel Helps Lobby Group Grow (originally titled "J Street, a Lobbying Group, Builds on Moderate Stance on Israel.")

While aggressive defenders of Israel still dominate the debate, more moderate voices in the Jewish community — led by J Street, a Washington lobbying group — are expanding their ability to generate money and political capital for pro-Israel candidates who favor a less confrontational approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other issues.
...
Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street, said in an interview that “the assumption has always been that to run for office, you have to run to the right on this issue with a relatively hawkish view on Israel and the Middle East — the ‘Israel right or wrong’ position.”
“We’re changing that calculus,” he said. “We are beginning to organize a very, very large network of people in the middle.”

Last week Alan Dershowitz, wrote J-Street undercuts Obama policy on Iran:

Enter J Street. J Street is a lobby in Washington that advertises itself as "pro-Israel and pro-peace." But its policy with regard to Iran is neither pro-Israel nor pro-peace. It is categorically opposed to any "military strike against Iran." It is also opposed to maintaining any credible military threat against Iran, through "legislation, authorizing, encouraging or in other ways laying the ground work for the use of military force against Iran." This is according to their official policy statement that can be read at http://jstreet.org/policy/policy-positions/iran. They favor sanctions and they recognize that "Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would pose a very serious threat to America and Israeli interests." But they believe that diplomacy and sanctions alone can deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons. By advocating this path, they are totally undercutting the policy of the Obama Administration. They are sending a message both to Iran and to Israel that there is no credible military threat, and that if Iran is prepared to withstand sanctions and diplomacy, they will have nothing further to worry about if they move forward with their nuclear weapons program.

In an interview with Adam Kredo, Dershowitz went even further in his criticisms of J-Street.

Kredo also observed the other day that even as Hamas was once again escalating rocket attacks against Israel, J-Street was advocating further Israeli concessions to make peace with the Palestinians.

Finally, Elder of Ziyon observed that a Congressman, Rep. David Price, who sponsored an anti-Israel resolution considered by the North Carolina Democratic Party, was enthusiastically endorsed by J-Street.

Consider J-Street's record in just the past two weeks:
1) It is undermining effort to reduce the Iranian threat to Israel.
2) It ignores increased terror against Israel.
3) It endorsed a Congressman who is demontratably anti-Israel.

The New York Times article about J-Street began:

There was a time not so long ago when political contributions from Americans supportive of Israel inevitably veered toward those Congressional candidates who were the most hawkish and outspoken in defending Israel and its security.
No longer.

Given J-Street's recent record that should have been written:

There was a time not so long ago when political contributions from Americans supportive of Israel inevitably went to candidates who supported Israel's right to defend itself, opposed its enemies and countered its critics.
No longer.

3) Rapacious Zionists

To read the likes of J-Street and other "informed" critics of Israel, one would assume that in the aftermath of the Six Day War, 45 years, rapacious Zionist quickly sought to colonize the newly captured territories and dispossess the Palestinians. Well it didn't quite happen like that. Yaacov Lozowick has summarized the discussions of the Israeli government after the war, based on some recently declassified documents.

Sometime in the 1980s the general perception of the conflict changed. No longer seen as Arab rejection of a Jewish State, the conflict was understood as a conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, which the Arab world would maintain only until the two central protagonists reached an accommodation. Since the Israelis and Palestinians have not yet reached accommodation this proposition has never been tested, a fact which contributes to its explanatory power. 1967, however, was before the 1980s, and participants and observers the world over saw the conflict as an Arab-Jewish conflict, with the local Arabs playing a subordinate role; they were not generally referred to as Palestinians.
I know this is hard to believe, but it's true.
This dissonance of historical perspectives is essential to understanding the discussion about the future of the territories. Israel's entire Cabinet in 1967 agreed that Egypt and Jordan had no more claim to Gaza and the West Bank than Israel did, as all three had conquered them through war; since Israel was now in possession it had superior claim. There were serious disagreements, however, as to what that meant. Many ministers were wary of returning the area to King Hussein, assuming that his long-term chances of survival were not good and whoever overthrew him wouldn't respect his commitments. (Hussein died on the throne in 1999 and his son is still there. Forecasting the future is tricky).
Many of the speakers felt the previous 20 years had shown there had to be Israeli forces on the River Jordan, but refused to countenance Israeli control over the large number of Arabs on the West Bank. Minister of Justice Ya'acov Shimshon Shapira was implacable on the matter of citizenship. Israel can give citizenship to the Arabs it controls or it can stop controlling them, but there's no third way. Most of his colleagues accepted this. Some thought the entire area should be handed back to Hussein, while a few thought it could be split along demographic lines, with the sparsely populated Jordan valley under Israeli control but the crowded mountain area to Hussein. A number of speakers so disliked the thought of handing territories to Hussein, that they suggested finding some local Arabs to hand it over to – what would later be called the two-state solution. Menachem Begin was the only speaker who demanded the entire area remain part of Israel, but even he didn't know what to do with the local Arabs, suggesting merely that the question be revisited in "6 or 7 years". Yigal Allon presented the first outline of the plan that would later bear his name: the Jordan Valley and the Hebron area should be annexed to Israel while the populous northern part of the West Bank should be either returned to Hussein or somehow handed to the locals. He was the only speaker who explicitly recommended creating Israeli settlements; even Begin didn't go that far. Levi Eshkol sardonically summed up the diversity of opinions: You do realize you're playing chess with yourselves, don't you?

Lozowick's concluding paragraph drives home Eshkol's point:

The Americans were informed of Israel's positions. It is not known if they relayed them to any Arab leaders. In September the Arab leaders convened in Khartoum and rejected any possibility of peace with Israel. The paradigm Israel's leaders thought they were operating in was irrelevant, and the reality developed in directions they hadn't foreseen. But that's a story for another day.

In Why is the peace process dead?, Hisham Jarallah - identified as a journalist located in the West Bank - concludes:

The peace process is dead because a majority in the Arab and Muslim world still has not come to terms with Israel's right to exist.

This shows how little has changed since Khartoum.

4) Ehud Barak's Washington Post Interview

Lally Weymouth interviewed Defense Minister Ehud Barak in the Washington Post. In response to a question about the seriousness of America in preventing Iran from gaining nuclear capabilities, Barak answered:

And you feel the U.S. means it?
At least on a technical level, there are a lot of preparations. But it’s not a secret that America prefers that it will be solved through diplomacy. We all hope that [diplomacy] will be successful, but time is not unlimited in this regard. Iran is not just a challenge for Israel — it remains a major challenge for whoever is willing to look reality in the eyes. Iran is a radical Muslim theocracy that is trying to reach nuclear military power. It also tries to hegemonize the whole [Persian] Gulf. Talk to the leaders of the Gulf. They are terrified by the possibility that Iran will turn nuclear. A nuclear Iran will be the end of the nonproliferation regime: Saudi Arabia will turn nuclear immediately, Turkey within several years, and probably the new Egypt will start moving to do it. Not to mention the potential of weapons-grade material leaking into the hands of terrorist groups from Iran.
Then comes the issue of terror. The Iranians are sponsoring terror among the Baluchi tribe in Afghanistan, among the insurgents in Iraq — they are everywhere. They are trying to raise their profile in Cuba, in Nicaragua and Venezuela, of course. They have a global aspiration, and the world won’t be the same place once they turn nuclear. Whoever thinks that it’s complicated to deal with Iran right now, as some think-tank leaders are writing: Just close your eyes and think what it will mean to deal with these very same issues once Iran turns nuclear as a result of an absence of political will. It will be much more dangerous, much more costly in terms of human lives and financial resources. And it will become nuclear if the world will not be tough enough to stop it.

5) Let me show you how it's done

The other day, Charlie Daniels tweeted:

Theres going to be a mess in Egypt before this cycle is over. The Camp David Accords have been shredded Israel has another border to watch

This shows that he is more perceptive than many so-called experts.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bashar al-Assad, Ehud Barak, Iranian nuclear threat, J Street, Middle East Media Sampler, Russia, Six Day War, Soccer Dad, Syrian uprising, Three no's of Khartoum, Turkey

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:07 PM 0 comments

Source of European idea to undermine Israeli control of Area C?

In an earlier post, I reported that the European Union has decided to undermine the agreed Israeli sovereignty over Area C, in violation of the Oslo accords, and hinted that the United States was likely to follow suit in the event that Barack Hussein Obama is reelected (God forbid) later this year. I have since come upon a source who may have inspired the Europeans. He is none other than Dennis Ross, Obama's former adviser on Iran and a long-time peace processor who is now at the Washington Institute for Near East Peace, a think-tank that is considered pro-Israel. This is from last Friday's Washington Post.

What could demonstrate to the Palestinians that the occupation is receding? Examples are not hard to come by. Since the interim agreement of the Oslo process was finalized in 1995, the West Bank has been divided into non-contiguous areas known as A, B and C — with the Palestinians having putative control in Area A and Israel retaining overall responsibility in the two other areas. From the fall of 1995 to the spring of 2002, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) largely stayed out of Area A, which constitutes about 18 percent of the territory and includes all the major cities in the West Bank. According to the Oslo agreements, the Palestinians are to have civil and security responsibility in this area.

But in 2002, at the height of the second intifada and the horrendous suicide bombings that Palestinians were executing in Israel, the IDF began operating in Area A again to try to stop the attacks. Though the intifada ended in 2005 and Palestinian security forces have been generally effective in preventing terror attacks, the IDF still carries out periodic incursions into Palestinian cities to reinforce local security efforts. This grates on Palestinians, reminding them who remains in control.

So, one meaningful step would be either to stop all such incursions in Area A or, if there are continuing security concerns, to phase them out based on the security situation. Gabi Ashkenazi, former chief of staff of the IDF, has consistently said that “as the Palestinians do more on security, we will do less.” A gradual ending of incursions in Area A would certainly be consistent with that axiom.

In Area B, about 22 percent of the West Bank, Palestinian police maintain law and order but are not permitted to deal with terrorist threats. Israel could allow their presence to grow. From my discussions with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, I know that he is open to increasing the number of Palestinian police stations and broadening the areas where Palestinian security personnel operate. Now would be a good time to take these steps, as any such expansion would certainly be noticed, and welcomed, by the Palestinian public.

Finally, in Area C, which is about 60 percent of the West Bank, Palestinians’ security and police forces have no access, their economic activity is extremely limited, and Israel retains civil and security responsibilities. There is no practical reason that the Palestinians cannot be permitted dramatically more economic access and activity in this area.

To give one example, there are Palestinian stone masonry factories in Area A, but Palestinians have limited access to the rock quarries in the West Bank, which are in Area C. In a case brought against Israeli ownership of the rock quarries, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled late last month that no additional quarries should be Israeli-owned. That ruling creates an opening for private Palestinian ownership, should any new quarries be established — and there clearly is room for more.

Expanding the Palestinians’ economic opportunities in Area C would do wonders for job creation and the overall Palestinian economy. (In the West Bank, unemployment has come down in recent years but remains at about 16 percent.)

From reading former Prime Minister Rabin's last speech to the Knesset in 1995, it seems likely that what Rabin intended was to set up a 'Palestinian autonomy' in Area A, leave Area C in the hands of Israel, and to reach some sort of compromise about Area B. At the time, Rabin's opponents warned that he would not be able to put a stop to the concessions, and that Israel would eventually face demands to retreat to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, and to acquiesce to a 'Palestinian state.'

Rabin's opponents are being proven correct. What's worse is that it is happening without any Arab recognition of the right of Jews to a state anywhere on Israel's territory - just like the three noes of Khartoum: No recognition, no negotiations, and no peace with Israel.

And all this under the guidance of one of our supposed 'friends.'

What could go wrong?

Labels: 1949 armistice lines, Dennis Ross, Three no's of Khartoum

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:56 PM 1 comments

Repeal Oslo now!

The time has come for Prime Minister Netanyahu to propose, and for the Knesset to ratify, the repeal of the 'Oslo Accords.' It's time for Israel to stop with the charade that they have any meaning left to them and to adapt its policies accordingly. It's time to acknowledge the reality that the 'Palestinians' do not deem themselves bound by them, and that we should not deem ourselves bound by them either. (Hat Tip: Ashley R).

ANYONE PAYING attention knows that Oslo has been over for quite some time. The second intifada defamed it, disengagement exposed it, Annapolis was in spite of it and now Abbas has renounced it.

Inevitably, the reality Oslo hoped to create could not keep up with onthe- ground realities. What makes Abbas’s repudiation of Oslo so significant is that he did the one thing that cannot be reversed – he went public. Why would the “moderate” Abbas/Fayyad administration take the step that Arafat would not? An answer can be found in Arafat’s 1974 negotiation strategy, known as the “piece plan.” It was a tactic to grab whatever he could through dubious diplomacy. More famously known as the “phased plan,” it continues to be embraced, engraved momentously in the PLO Covenant, which to this day has not been revoked. This scheme states plainly its aim to “adopt a political solution of establishing a National Authority over any territory from which the occupation withdraws,” buttressed with a negotiation to extract as much as possible by simply taking “the ceiling of the last negotiation as the floor for the next.

It is no wonder that Abbas’s declaration makes no concrete reference to actual borders, resources and neighbors. The reason is now obvious; the Palestinians are not interested in compromise with Israel because they want to supplant Israel. They intend to do this through refugees, demanding indefensible borders and perpetuating attrition-styled conflict on Israel’s population. If the current bid at the UN should fail, we can presume that the strategy will continue with the “Quartet” to try to get a large international power to impose Palestinian terms on Israel. Whatever the outcome of this gambit, the breach of Oslo is irreversible, trust severed and the bilateral framework no longer a viable option.

DESPITE THIS, many of Israel’s brightest thinkers cling warily to the two-state solution, neglecting an clear reality that exposes the absence of a credible negotiating partner. Israel, schooled in the art of pragmatism since its inception, has sustained a Palestinian status quo undeserving of being so dutifully propped up. Even Netanyahu continues to operate as if what happened at the UN created just another stalemate.

For Israel to adopt policies that are consistent with reality, Netanyahu is obligated to reframe the national conversation under the assumption that the Palestinians still refuse to recognize basic Jewish sovereignty on its historic land. Moreover, it is incumbent upon Netanyahu to take the commensurate step to repeal Oslo – and subsequent agreements ratified by the Knesset. Repealing Oslo is not only strategically sound, it is now a matter of principle for the government he represents, which has acted throughout in good faith only to be humiliated, cheated and bamboozled by the Palestinians.

For Netanyahu to continue at the helm of Likud – a party that wrestled with Oslo from the beginning – this repeal is a political opportunity he cannot afford to forsake. He must act on his UN speech, which maintained that Israel would no longer be the party always expected to recognize the rights of others. Instead, the Jewish state’s rights must be recognized.

Those that do not will be identified publicly. Repealing Oslo is the first step in shifting this process to a more leveled diplomatic exchange between Israel and its neighbors and toward a new era in international relations.

Israel should expect some considerable international backlash, in repealing this defunct accord.

However, this official act is the only one that can provide the sort of closure the people of Israel desperately need. Here Netanyahu should not follow the Palestinians in squandering opportunities. By closing this chapter, there is the promise of a new one.

Read it all.

Labels: Abu Mazen, Oslo accords, Palestinian Authority, phased plan, Three no's of Khartoum

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:44 AM 2 comments

'Palestinians' offended over AP fact check

The 'Palestinians' are offended that al-AP actually had the audacity to check some of the facts in Abu Mazen's UN General Assembly speech.

However, the Associated Press has decided not only to provide news but also its own opinions and terminology, thus misrepresenting its own reported news and adopting the discourse of one of the parties to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; that of the occupier. We the Palestinians have been greatly disappointed about AP regarding several news reports, including their last “fact check” or opinion piece on the historic speech delivered by president Mahmoud Abbas at the United Nations.

It is greatly unfair and undemocratic for AP in its capacity as a news agency to distribute its commentaries, ideas, and erroneous fact checks, while it refuses to allow rebuttal through the same channel. Respectable news agencies in a democratic and transparent mode of behavior are accountable to the public. They cannot be beyond accountability. If they misquote, disseminate erroneous news, or editorialize, they must allow correction, apologies, and provision of equal space for rebuttal.

And what did the AP find and say that so offended the 'Palestinians'?

The Associated Press opinion piece questioned the historic speech of President Abbas. We believe that the so-called fact checks raised by AP are mostly ideological and not factual. AP adopts the Israeli language, and misinterpretation of facts. Some of the responses to President Abbas' speech were:

-- In response to “we are the last people living under occupation”, AP says “The world is full of ethnic minorities that might claim to be ruled by occupiers, ranging from Tibetans living under Chinese rule, to Kurds in Turkey, Basques in Spain, Chechens in Russia and Muslim separatists in Indian-ruled Kashmir.”

Our case cannot be compared to any of those (honoring the legitimacy that every people have). We are not an “ethnic minority” aiming to separate from a bigger country that we have been part of for centuries. We are the indigenous population of this land that has been colonized by illegal foreign occupiers. In 1917, we were colonized by Britain, which helped deliver 78 percent of our land to the Israelis in 1948, who in 1967 occupied the rest of our country i.e. the West Bank and Gaza. It is not up to a news agency to decide who we are; the world has already accepted the fact that we have been living under colonial rule for the past decades.[No they're not an ethnic minority, but they're not indigenous either. CiJ].

-- In response to a reference of Palestinian prisoners being prisoners of conscience and struggle for freedom, AP says “Abbas did not mention that most Palestinian prisoners are being held because of alleged involvement in violence against Israelis. Israel's prison service says it's holding some 6,000 "security" prisoners, many of them involved in planning or carrying out deadly attacks on civilians.”

With this response, AP has officially recognized the legitimacy of Israeli military tribunals over Palestinian civilians. International law is clear, civilian prisoners deserve a fair trial that cannot be guaranteed by the State of Israel, the occupying power. Military prisoners should be treated as prisoners of war, under the Geneva conventions. AP omits that since the Israeli occupation began in 1967, almost 900,000 Palestinians have been detained by Israeli forces. One wonders if you think that the majority has been involved in what Israel calls "security" offenses. Under Israeli military laws, the Israeli army can detain any Palestinian without any justification. Thousands were imprisoned under "administrative detention" regulations requiring no declared pretext, or legal reasons. AP accepted unquestionably the Israeli claim. [So is a 'Palestinian' suicide bomber in civilians clothes military or civilian? And who is responsible for blurring the distinction? CiJ]

-- AP criticized President Abbas for not stating the ties of the Jewish religion with the Holy Land.

This statement is purely ideological. President Abbas was representing the rights of his people. Palestine shows great respect for all peoples and religions that have passed though Palestine, including Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. [But not Jews who have had a continuous presence in what he calls 'Palestine' for 3,000 years. CiJ].

To blame President Abbas for not explicitly stating the Jewish connection with the Holy Land is for AP to officially adopt the Israeli position and to impose it on its readers. [No news agency can impose anything on its readers. You are always free to question, although in the 'Palestinian Authority' and in most other Arab and Muslim countries, you may not, or you may be restricted in doing so openly. CiJ] President Abbas did not say that Palestine is exclusively for the followers of Christianity or Islam, whereas Mr Netanyahu wants Israel to be exclusively for the Jews, thus jeopardizing the rights and future of 1.5 million citizens, comprising 22 percent of the population of Israel, all of whom are indigenous native Christian and Muslim citizens and not settlers imposed by the force of military occupation on their land. [No, they are not indigenous. If anything, the Jewish claim to the land goes back far before any Christian or Muslim claim - or even existence. And by the way, why does Israel have to accept Arab citizens - which it said it would do - if the 'Palestinians' insist that 'Palestine' be Judenrein. CiJ]

-- In response to the reference made regarding the Gaza Strip and President Abbas' condemnation of Israel for committing war crimes against the civilian population of Gaza, AP considers that Hamas' actions ends Gaza's relationship with Palestine, giving Israel the right to kill 1,400 of its civilians, injuring 50,000, many with phosphorus bombs, and destroying 20 percent of its homes. [Huh? And by the way, about 1,100 of those killed were proven to be Hamas militia. If you think that 300 civilian casualties (at most) out of 1,400 is a high percentage, check those statistics against US-caused civilians deaths in Iraq or NATO-caused civilian deaths in Bosnia, among others. CiJ] AP disqualifies President Abbas from condemning the Israeli actions deemed as war crimes by the UN, and its investigating committee led by Richard Goldstone. [Except that Goldstone recanted.... CiJ]

-- AP says that “The Palestinians did not accept two Israeli peace offers, in 2000 and 2008, that offered them a state in the vast majority of the territories they claim. Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has repeatedly offered to launch negotiations -- but refused to accept minimum outlines of a peace deal endorsed by the Palestinians and the international community. He has also not met the Palestinian condition of a settlement freeze for the duration of the talks.”

AP once again has adopted the official Israeli line of blaming the Palestinian side for not accepting to sign these Israeli "peace offers" requiring the Palestinians to accept a state without international borders, no control over air space, electromagnetic sphere, natural resources nor access to our capital Jerusalem as well as no solution to the Palestinian refugee issue. AP fails to mention the countless Palestinian attempts to have meaningful negotiations, the Palestinian Peace Proposal of 1988, the Arab Peace Plan of 2002, and all the other proposals made by the Palestinian side. Regarding the 2008 offer, we point out that AP failed to mention that Mr Olmert, the former Israeli prime minister, refused to continue the negotiations because of his war on Gaza and later on for his Israeli legal problems. When Mr Netanyahu spent 19 hours negotiating with President Abbas during the month of September, 2010 shuttling between Washington, Sharm el-Sheikh and Jerusalem, he refused to negotiate any of the major six core points, which outline all our joint negotiating effort, insisting that he had no mandate to do so until President Abbas accepts his two preconditions:

1. Accepting the exclusive Jewish character of Israel and

2. Accepting Netanyahu's defense doctrine of maintaining indefinitely the Israeli occupation of the Jordan Valley, and territories 10 kilometers deep into the western borders of the West Bank.[Please.... When I searched 'Palestinian peace proposal of 1988, the first result I found was this. And as to the Saudi plan, it basically says, "give us all the land, let us flood what's left with 'refugees' and then we'll talk." Some peace plan. There's never been a real 'Palestinian' peace plan and there's never been a 'Palestinian' response to an Israeli one. CiJ].

-- AP also claims that the settlement freeze is a Palestinian precondition to negotiate, while in reality it is an Israeli obligation according to the Road Map, the same way that East Jerusalem is not “disputed” but internationally recognized as occupied (another regular misrepresentation made by AP reporting). [AFTER the 'Palestinians' shut down all the terror organizations. We're still waiting on that one. CiJ]

AP’s so-called fact check continues this line of argument by stating: “Israel might argue — as Netanyahu did in his rebuttal Friday — that Arab enmity to Israel long preceded the settlement of lands occupied in 1967".

AP thus completely misrepresents the history of Palestine. The two-state solution, adopted officially by the PLO in 1988, has been the greatest step to peace. However, allowing Israel to continue its colonial settlement project in the occupied Palestinian territory is illegal, unfair, and makes the two-state solution impossible to implement. President Mahmoud Abbas was also clear that the injustice against the Palestinian people began with our exile in 1948 rather than only with the 1967 occupation. The catastrophe of the 1948 Nakba and forced transfer of our refugees has been unveiled by Israel's own prominent historians such as Benny Morris, and recognized by the Israeli negotiating paper on refugees in Taba, 2001. We would like to ask the so called "fact-checkers" how this Netanyahu false interpretation of history makes settlements legal, and its continuation acceptable, despite international rulings, and the Road Map. [He's changing the subject. Hebron 1929. The 1936-38 riots. The Peel Commission. Let's just revise history. CiJ]

Last but not least, AP omits to say that Israel is the only country in the United Nations whose acceptance as a member was conditional to the respect of two UN resolutions: 181 (two states) and 194 (right to return). Israel has not implemented any of these requirements. [Three no's of Khartoum anyone? In any event, they weren't requirements and Israel was accepted to the UN by the General Assembly (Resolution 273 (III)) and the Security Council (Resolution 69) and not by 181 or 194. CiJ].

Sorry not many links in this one. If you put in the comments that you want to see them, I will try to find them, but all of these things have been discussed here before. Click the labels.

Labels: 1929 Hebron massacre, 1947 partition plan, fourteen reservations, Peel Commission, Three no's of Khartoum, UN General Assembly Resolution 273(III), UN Security Council Resolution 69

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:41 PM 2 comments

The 3 no's of Ramallah

In the immediate aftermath of the Six Day War, Israel hoped to trade much of its newly liberated territory for peace with the Arab world. Instead it was met with what is known as the 3 no's of Khartoum.

Finally, the leaders of thirteen Arab states gathered at a summit conference in Khartoum, Sudan from August 29 to September 1. There they pledged to continue their struggle against Israel. Influenced by Nasser, "their conditions were quite specific: no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and 'maintenance of the rights of the Palestinian people in their nation.' The Khartoum Declaration was the first serious warning to the Israelis that their expectation of an imminent 'phone call' from the Arab world might be a pipe dream" (Sachar).

The three no's of Khartoum remained in effect until the Egyptians broke ranks more than twenty years later and signed a treaty with Israel. For that 'crime,' Egypt was expelled from the Arab League and its President, Anwar Sadat, was murdered. Israel has (foolishly) been trying to trade 'land for peace' ever since.

Over the weekend, the 'moderates' of Fatah met and formulated the three no's of Ramallah, thereby effectively putting the kibosh on any 'land for peace' deal in the foreseeable future. The three no's - summarized across the masthead of Sunday's paper edition of the JPost: No to Israel as a Jewish state, no to interim borders, and no to land swaps.

The Fatah Revolutionary Council concluded its fifth convention in Ramallah over the weekend by declaring its refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

The council also urged the Palestinian Authority leadership to work toward foiling a new Israeli law requiring a referendum before any withdrawal from Jerusalem and the Golan Heights that has not been passed by two thirds of the Knesset.

The Palestinians are opposed to any understandings between Israel and the US that could harm their interests, the council said.

“The council affirms its rejection of the so-called Jewish state or any other formula that could achieve this goal,” said a statement issued by the council.

“The council also renews its refusal for the establishment of any racist state based on religion in accordance with international law and human rights conventions.”

...

In its statement Saturday, the Fatah council said it was categorically opposed to proposals for a land swap between Israel and the Palestinians under the pretext that “illegal settler gangs can’t be put on an equal footing with the owners of the lands and rights.”

Israel has long assumed that any final status agreement would include land swaps.

The Fatah leaders said they supported PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s policies, especially with regard to the peace process with Israel.

“The council salutes President Mahmoud Abbas for adhering to the basic rights, first and foremost the right of return for Palestinian refugees,” the statement said. “Also, the council salutes President Abbas for standing up against pressure aimed at resuming the peace talks without achieving the demands of the Palestinians.”

The council dismissed plans to supply Israel with weapons in return for reviving the stalled peace talks. It added that the Palestinians would not accept any understandings between Israel and the US which could “harm Palestinian rights and prolong occupation.”

The reported US package of incentives to Israel does not serve the cause of peace, the Fatah council cautioned.

...

In its sessions, the council also reiterated its opposition to the idea of creating a Palestinian state with temporary borders. A PA official said there was no change its position on this issue.

“The PA leadership dismisses the idea of a state with temporary borders, the official said.

“We insist that the issue of borders and security be the first to be discussed when the negotiations resume.”

And the Israeli government response?

An Israeli government official on Saturday night called on the Palestinians to resume direct negotiations without any preconditions.

“Let us meet and talk,” he said.

The official said he was disappointed by the council’s statement with respect to a Jewish state.

“I would ask the Palestinians the following question: If the Jewish state is fundamentally illegitimate in your eyes, what sort of peace are you offering us? “It is clear that their refusal to recognize the Jewish state’s legitimacy is the true obstacle to peace and reconciliation,” the official added.

The blame for this state of affairs can be laid at the doorstep of the Obama White House. Before President Arrogant took office in January 2009, the 'Palestinians' were apparently on the verge of agreeing to an arrangement that included a land swap. Obama took office with a 'fierce moral urgency' to reach a solution, and promptly demanded an Israeli 'settlement freeze' that no Israeli government could give. Abu Mazen could not let Obama be more 'Palestinian' than he is, and so adopted Obama's position as his own. As Jennifer Rubin wrote on Friday,

Unlike the Bush team, which actually had the parties talking to each other, this crew can only bicker about what it is that they offered Israel in order to induce the PA to return to the table. If there has been a less competent Middle East negotiating team, I can’t recall it.

Indeed. It's time for Israel to shut down the 'negotiations' altogether until there's regime change - in Washington.

Labels: interim borders, settlement freeze extension, territorial exchange, Three no's of Khartoum, Three no's of Ramallah

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:22 PM 3 comments