Would Rabin have stopped the 'peace process'?
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.
Twenty years ago tonight was one of those moments that you always remember where you were when you heard about it. Twenty years ago tonight, then-Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin was assassinated at the end of a 'peace rally' in Tel Aviv. (For the record, I was in our apartment on the computer and Mrs. Carl had gone with a couple of the kids to the mall - I think I had the two then-youngest kids at home).
I have written
many times before about the assassination and why I believe that the person sitting in jail for doing it
did not receive a fair trial. But perhaps the more significant question is whether Rabin would have continued the 'peace process' had he lived. Jeff Jacoby argues that Rabin would have
brought that process to an end after the 1996 elections (Hat Tip:
Martin Kramer).
Oslo was a disaster from the outset, arguably the worst
self-inflicted wound in Israel’s history. By 1995, it was widely
regarded as a failure by Israelis; polls showed public approval of Rabin
and his Labor Party sinking to record lows.
Oslo’s architects had promised that empowering Yasser Arafat and the
Palestine Liberation Organization with their own quasi-state in Gaza and
the West Bank was the best way to suppress terror attacks and improve
Israel’s security. Rabin’s government took the gamble, but the “peace
process” didn’t deliver peace. It delivered bus bombings and suicide
attacks.
More Israelis were killed by Palestinian terrorists in the 24
months following the famous handshake on the White House lawn than in
any similar period in Israel’s history.
In public, Rabin professed
to be undaunted, repeatedly insisting that the engagement with Arafat
must proceed: “We have to fight terror as if there were no peace talks,
and we have to pursue peace as if there were no terror.”
But privately, Rabin was having grave doubts.
According to Efraim Inbar, head of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University and the author of “Rabin and Israel’s National Security,”
Rabin was no starry-eyed peacenik. He was a pragmatic leader for whom
peace, in and of itself, was never a core value. The Oslo concessions
could be justified only to the extent that they left Israel more secure.
As it became apparent that instead of land for peace, Israel had
exchanged land for terror, incitement, and hatred, Inbar said Wednesday in a lecture at Boston University, there is good reason to believe he would have pulled the plug.
Others have said the same thing. Dalia Rabin, the prime minister’s daughter (and a former deputy defense minister), recalled in 2010
that she had been told by many of her father’s confidants “that on the
eve of the murder he considered stopping the Oslo process because of the
terror that was running rampant in the streets, and because he felt
that Yasser Arafat was not delivering on his promises.” And Moshe
Ya’alon, who in 1995 was Israel’s chief of military intelligence, was
told by Rabin that he intended to “set things straight” with Oslo after
the 1996 election, since Arafat’s commitments were plainly worthless.
Would
he have done so? Of course we cannot know for sure, but as Inbar notes,
Rabin did believe that Oslo was reversible. When critics expressed
alarm at an agreement committing Israel to arm a Palestinian police
force, he replied that there was nothing to fear.
“There is no danger that these guns will be used against us,” Rabin
said. “The purpose of this ammunition for the Palestinian police is to .
. . fight against Hamas. They won’t dream of using it against us, since
they know very well that if they use these guns against us once, at
that moment the Oslo Accord will be annulled.”
But he waited too long.
Rabin was never a willing participant in Oslo. Shimon Peres sent Yossi Beilin, Ron Pundak and Uri Savir to Oslo to negotiate with the PLO behind Rabin's back. Presented with the fait accomplis, Rabin went along. I think he would have dropped it in a minute.
Labels: Ron Pundak, Shimon Peres, Yigal Amir, Yitzchak Rabin, Yossi Beilin
Delusional fools: 'Solution' can be reached with 'Palestinians' if we 'only' expel 100,000 Jews from their homes
If you're waiting for the fools who invented the Oslo Accords and convinced the 'Palestinians' that one day all Jews will learn to swim in the Mediterranean Sea to
clop al cheit... you'll have to wait a bit longer. A who's who of 'former negotiators' got together in Tel Aviv on Wednesday, and some of them claim that we could reach a 'solution' with the 'Palestinians' in which we would 'only' have to
expel 100,000 Jews from their homes.
Some 100,000 settlers would need to be evacuated for a two state solution to be
executed in the West Bank, according to Gilad Sher who was chief of staff to
Ehud Barak when he was prime minister from 1999-2001.
...
“Any
outline of two states for two people will involve the evacuation of
settlements,” Sher said.
He estimated that this would involve the
uprooting of 100,000 people, slightly less than one third of the West Bank
Jewish population.
It’s not possible at this time for Israelis and
Palestinians to reach a final status agreement, Sher said. The gaps between them
can be bridged, but not now, he said.
He was among a number of speakers
who believed that the best outcome of the negotiations underway would be an
interim agreement. Still, he said, Israel should begin preparation for a
two-state solution by halting building in isolated settlements and preparing a
master plan to evacuate them.
“We have to prepare ourselves in an
organized way, on a national level for the time when the settlers will come back
home to the borders of Israel,” he said.
It could take as long as three
or four years to draw up such a plan, Sher said.
Dov Weisglass, who
served as chief of staff to former prime minister Ariel Sharon, said he too
believed that some 100,000 settlers would have to be evacuated to pave the way
for a two-state solution.
But should Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu
come to an agreement with the Palestinians, he lacks the necessary political
support to turn it into a reality, Weisglass said.
“Netanyahu has crossed
the Rubicon, but he is alone on the other side,” Weisglass said.
Both
Weisglass and former justice minister Yossi Beilin who was among the architects
of the Oslo Accord, said in spite of Netanyahu’s support for a Palestinian
state, he would still not be able to offer the Palestinians terms they could
accept as a final status agreement.
The Palestinians won’t accept
anything less than what was offered to them by former prime minister Ehud
Olmert, Weisglass said, adding that anyone who thought otherwise was deluding
themselves.
Beilin added that Netanyahu, for ideological reasons, would
not agree to divide Jerusalem.
The 'Palestinians' aren't looking to expel 100,000 Jews from their homes - they're looking to destroy the Jewish state. They won't agree to a final status deal that 'only' expels 100,000 - or for that matter 200,000 - Jews from their homes.
And instead of working on a plan to expel more Jews, the State ought to be taking care of the 10,000 Jews it expelled from Gaza eight years ago, most of whom still have no homes and no livelihoods.
Labels: Dov Weisglass, Gaza expulsion, Oslo accords, two-state solution, Yossi Beilin
Report: Morsy didn't really win the elections
How reliable is Yossi Beilin as a source? Beilin, a far-Left Israeli former politician claims that deposed Egyptian President Mohammed Morsy and his Muslim Brotherhood party
didn't really win the June 2012 elections, but that the army feared the consequences of announcing what truly happened.
According
to my source, who asked to remain anonymous, Ahmed Shafik, the former
air force commander and former president Hosni Mubarak's last prime
minister, actually won the race by a narrow margin. But the army
generals -- wanting to ensure that law and order would be upheld
following the elections -- feared that if Morsi was defeated, the Muslim
Brotherhood would refuse to recognize the results and would end up
conducting themselves just as they are now.
The official results,
51.73 percent for Morsi and 48.27% for Shafik, were almost the exact
reversal of what actually happened at the polls. After the results were
published, we barely heard any calls for protest or opposition among the
secular-liberals, while on the religious side -- loyal either to the
Muslim Brotherhood or the Salafi parties -- voters were happy with their
achievement.
Officials thought that
the inexperienced Morsi would accept help from the army and would avoid
crossing any red lines -- regarding Israel, for example. In reality,
what happened was a combination of a pathetic lack of management skills
and a string of efforts to rule by the same ideological orientation
espoused by a quarter of Egypt's population. Morsi tried running the
operation with the help of several associates who were completely
incapable of managing anything.
Many of Col. Gen.
Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi's fellow generals tried to convince him to spring
to action several months ago already, but Sissi wanted to give Morsi,
who favored Sissi over other generals as defense minister and commander
in chief of the armed forces, the opportunity to prove that what had
happened stemmed from the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood president was
an amateur.
Hmmm.
Read it all.
This actually sounds plausible. The problems are that it's too convenient a narrative in light of what has happened, and I don't consider Beilin a particularly reliable source.
Labels: Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Egyptian army, Egyptian democracy, Egyptian elections, Egyptian Revolution, Mohammed Morsy, Muslim Brotherhood, Yossi Beilin
The poodle barks again
Maybe someone ought to let Shimon Peres'
former poodle know what Barack Obama does to poodles he likes. The poodle, Yossi Beilin, is promoting the view that Obama loves Israel. It's Netanyahu's 'interference' in US elections that he hates. And therefore, of course,
it's all Bibi's fault.
“Whether the US administration admits it or not, they see Bibi [Netanyahu] as interfering in the US election and gambling on [Republican candidate Mitt] Romney winning,” Beilin said. “Shapiro says relations between countries are good, which is true. But the relations between the two leaders are very poor. I don’t remember it being so bad before, and Israel will pay a price for it.” [Netanyahu's relations with Romney go back long before Obama took office. CiJ]
Beilin said the Obama administration was upset about the way Netanyahu received Romney in Israel, Romney’s fundraiser in Jerusalem and the prime minister’s close ties with the man spending billions to bring down the president: Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. [For Netanyahu to have ignored Romney would have been unprecedented. Netanyahu would not dictate to Romney - or any other US politician - where he could go and with whom he could meet. And Netanyahu's relations with Adelson - over whom he also exercises no control - go back long before Obama took office. CiJ]
While both countries downplayed the American decision to downgrade a joint drill set for next month, Beilin said it was a message to Netanyahu from Obama and not a technical matter. He said that unlike other prime ministers, Netanyahu cannot call the president when he needs him. [That's probably true. But instead of saying 'other Prime Ministers' it should say 'other Presidents. If Obama has not already eclipsed Jimmy Carters and George H.W. Bush's lows, he most certainly will if he is God forbid reelected. Unless we have a Prime Minister who is God forbid at least as far Left as Beilin. CiJ]
He said a call to save Israelis under siege at the its embassy in Cairo was an exception.
Beilin called Obama “Super Pro-Israel” and said Netanyahu was at fault for the poor relations because he did not accept Obama’s request to continue a 10-month West Bank construction moratorium. But he said he does blame Obama for failing to advance peace talks with the Palestinians and for making such a freeze a precondition for talks.
I stuck a few comments in the text, so if you already saw this story in the JPost, please go back and read my comments. But I want to add a comment about the first sentence in the last paragraph. If this were true, why was Obama so hostile to Israel before Netanyahu turned down the request? Why was he hostile in 2009 and the first half of 2010? For that matter, why was
Obama hostile to Israel before Netanyahu was ever elected?
Be careful Yossi. Obama eats poodles for breakfast.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Campaign 2012, Mitt Romney, Sheldon Adelson, Yossi Beilin
'Palestinians' won't let Beilin be more 'Palestinian' than they are
The late Yitzchak Rabin famously referred to Yossi Beilin, one of the chief architects of the Oslo disaster, as 'Peres' poodle.' Beilin continues to act like a blind follower of 'peace' by publishing a piece in Foreign Policy urging the PLO to
disband the 'Palestinian Authority' in order to put pressure on Israel.
A declaration of the end of the Oslo process -- justified by the fact that the path to a permanent-status agreement is blocked -- is the most reasonable, nonviolent option for putting the subject back on the world's agenda, with the aim of renewing genuine efforts to reach a conclusive solution.
Dissolving the Palestinian Authority and returning daily control to Israel would be an action nobody could ignore. It is not at all similar to a demonstration in front of the Municipality of Ramallah, nor is it similar to appealing to the United Nations for member-state status. This is a step that only you can take, and a step that will demand a response.
I know how difficult it is. I know how many tens of thousands of people depend on the Palestinian Authority for their livelihoods. I am able to appreciate all that you and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad have accomplished -- establishing Palestinian institutions, growing an economy in impossible conditions, and fostering security in the West Bank.
After all these endeavors, however, you still need to beg the government of Israel to release your money from customs, you still need to beg the Republicans in the U.S. Congress to transfer funds to the Palestinian Authority, and you still need to stand, day after day, before your Palestinian critics and explain why your political efforts are failing. Please don't let this be the way you end your political mission -- a mission that seeks to achieve Palestinian independence without the use of violence.
Do not hesitate for a moment! Do not accept the request of President Obama, who merely wants to be left undisturbed before election day. Do not let Prime Minister Netanyahu hide behind the fig leaf of the Palestinian Authority -- impose upon him, once again, the responsibility for the fate of 4 million Palestinians. Remain as the head of the Palestine Liberation Organization, which will give you the authority to lead the political negotiations if and when they resume.
But for the sake of your own people, and for the sake of peace, you cannot let this farce continue.
It is possible, of course, that Oslo's demise will not be followed by the birth of more substantive peace talks. But if that occurs, then at least it will not be you -- the man who stood beside the cradle of the Oslo process -- who is responsible for failing to prevent the complete and utter distortion of that process by its Palestinian and Israeli opponents.
Aaron Lerner - a longtime Oslo opponent - is
encouraged.
Beilin knew that he was selling snake oil. He allowed reporters to claim that the "Beilin-Abu Mazen Agreement" proved a deal could be made. This when those who went to the trouble to ask him point blank (including yours truly) about this got the honest answer that it left many of the hardest issues open by passing them off to committees to resolve.
So now what's going on?
Why the call to Abu Mazen?
In a way this is encouraging.
If this is the only trick left up his sleeve then this may indicate that the fantasy known as Oslo is truly running out of steam.
But even the 'Palestinians' aren't dumb enough to take Beilin's advice. They're not going to
give up all that international funding.
Hana Amireh, member of the PLO Executive Committee, dismissed Beilin’s call, saying it would be tantamount to “political suicide.”
Amireh said the PA had a transitional role to bring the Palestinians to an independent state and achieve their rights.
A PA official in Ramallah said over the weekend that dissolving the PA was not not an option.
The official denied that Abbas had any plans to dismantle the PA because of the stalemate in the peace process.
Abbas is planning to send a letter to Netanyahu in the coming days that does not include such a threat, the official told The Jerusalem Post.
The letter, he added, would hold Israel fully responsible for the current stalemate 
because of its refusal to stop construction in the settlements and east Jerusalem neighborhoods and accept the pre-1967 lines as the future borders of a Palestinian state.
Abbas’s letter, which will be delivered to Netanyahu by PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, will also demand the release of Palestinians who were imprisoned before the signing of the Oslo Accords nearly two decades ago, the official noted.
Amireh is right. Many 'Palestinians'
would rather live in Israel than in a 'Palestinian state.' The 'Palestinian' masses aren't willing to starve themselves to pursue Beilin's holy grail of a 'Palestinian state' (or as Lerner calls it, Beilin's 'secular messianic vision'). And they would rather have food to put on their tables than starve for a 'Palestinian state.' And you thought the Israelis were the rational ones.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Palestinian Authority, Yossi Beilin
