Why Obama-Kerry are preventing a Netanyahu-Abu Mazen meeting even though Netanyahu already conceded almost everything
In an earlier post, I reported that the Obama-Kerry junta has been
preventing a meeting between Prime Minister Netanyahu and '
moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen.
Ben Caspit explains why.
While American sources claimed Abbas’ statement was “inaccurate,”
senior Palestinian and Israeli officials alike confirmed that the
Americans were not enthusiastic about such a meeting taking place. They
believe it would be explosive and cause the situation to deteriorate
even further. The Americans have learned from experience. They bear the
battle scars of countless disappointments. They would therefore prefer
to spend time preparing for such a meeting, honing positions,
coordinating expectations and going for a sure thing.
For the past few months, the Americans have been very concerned that they could lose Abbas. The Palestinian president’s status among his own people is getting weaker by the day,
and demonstrations against him are turning violent. A quiet uprising of
sorts against him is already underway in the refugee camps, and it
erupts every so often. In some instances, there has even been an
exchange of fire between insurgent Palestinians and security forces. The
last thing Kerry wants to see is Abbas resign or be deposed and have
the West Bank slip into administrative and military chaos. He’s already
had enough problems like that.
The real drama is taking place behind the scenes on various fronts. Kerry met recently
with the leader of the Israeli opposition, Knesset member and Zionist
Camp head Isaac Herzog. While both sides deny they discussed the
political situation, it is quite safe to assume that they did not skip
over the topic.
Herzog is in the middle of advanced negotiations
to join the current government.
Netanyahu made him a very tempting
offer in which Herzog’s party would receive the Foreign, Defense and
Justice ministries. Herzog does want to join the government. He knows
that the position of defense minister (offered for just half a term, in
another year and a half) could help him overcome his image as a weakling
and give him that special something he needs to become prime minister.
Before he can join, however, he will have to convince his own party’s
Central Committee to extend his term as chairman until late 2017. That
is what Netanyahu wants in exchange for the deal. The prime minister is
not willing to forego all these strategic assets only to see Herzog
deposed a few months later and replaced with a new party chair who will
lead the Zionist Camp out of the coalition. If that happened, Netanyahu
would be exposed in every direction.
...
Kerry and the peace team he put together (which has since come apart)
are committed to achieving something. They have no interest in leaving
the negotiations in ruins. It is quite possible he would prefer that negotiations were renewed
after Herzog joins Netanyahu’s government and leads it to the political
center. Not only is Netanyahu’s current government incapable of
conducting negotiations, it wouldn’t last the first 15 minutes. Bringing
24 new Knesset members from the center-left into the coalition would
turn this government into something very different. I assume that Kerry
is kept abreast of the secret contacts between Herzog and Netanyahu and
is keeping his fingers crossed for them.
But there is another issue that is even more significant. On Sept. 2,
Al-Monitor revealed that in his meeting with Abbas on March 17, 2014,
President Barack Obama handed Abbas a proposal for a framework agreement with Israel.
This proposal was based on an earlier draft of a framework agreement
reached between the Israelis and the Americans. That agreement was the
outcome of intense negotiations between Kerry, Netanyahu and their
respective staffs, conducted over many long weeks via video
conferencing. The talks took place on an almost daily basis and lasted
for hours. They eventually resulted in a very volatile document in which
Netanyahu agreed to create a mechanism to rehabilitate the Palestinian
refugees. He even agreed to take in a limited number of refugees (to be
determined by Israel), as well as to the principle of the 1967 borders
serving as the basis for each state (with land swaps).
The one point that Netanyahu refused to concede was the status of
Jerusalem. The Americans inserted an especially explosive clause (making
Jerusalem the capital of two states) and presented it to Abbas.
The Palestinian leader has been true to form and has yet to respond
to Obama’s proposal. Kerry seems concerned that in any potential meeting
between Netanyahu and Abbas, this draft will be raised for discussion.
The ensuing explosion would be nuclear. There is no way Netanyahu could
survive politically once that happened. When the Americans informed the
Israelis about their changes to the draft, the Israelis responded with a
shrug. Netanyahu’s adviser, attorney Yitzhak Molcho, told the
Americans, “You can add whatever you want. The Palestinians will still
say no.”
So Netanyahu has already conceded the 1967 lines (1949 armistice lines) as a 'basis for negotiations,' has already conceded '100% land swaps,' has already conceded the 'right of return,' but hasn't yet conceded Jerusalem. The difference between Netanyahu and Olmert 2008 or Barak 2000 is... quite small.
Aren't you glad we elected a 'right wing government'?
Labels: 1949 armistice lines, Abu Mazen, agreed land swaps, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, John Kerry, Palestinian refugees, right of return, Yitzchak Herzog
Know your enemy: BDS aims to destroy Israel and not 'just' the 'settlements'
Here's an interview with
Omar Barghouti, holder of a Master's degree from Tel Aviv University and the founder of the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanctions) movement in the radical Leftist 972 Magazine. For those of you who still believe, against all evidence, that the BDS movement is 'only' targeting the 'settlements' and not Israel itself, perhaps this will convince you otherwise.
Barghouti, 51, refuses to respond to his accusers — he
maintains a boycott of the Israeli media. He was willing to conduct this
rare interview due to my Palestinian identity and under the condition
that it be published first in Arabic, on Palestinian website “Bokra” – although it is also being published in English here on +972 Magazine and in Hebrew on Local Call, where I am a blogger. Unified trilingual anti-Zionism at its best, I must add.
Barghouti explains his choice to not speak with the Israeli media and
the logic behind the more general call for boycott, divestment and
sanctions against Israel as a whole: “In every other situation of
sustained oppression, human rights groups call for punitive measures
against the state and its institutions, not just against a narrow
component of the state that is directly connected to the injustice at
hand. No one called for banning products of Sudanese companies producing
in Darfur in response to the Sudanese regime’s war crimes there. Sudan
as a whole was targeted.
“As Archbishop Desmond Tutu once said, Israel is put on a pedestal in
the West, and treated as if it were above international law. BDS seeks
to end this Israeli exceptionalism and criminal impunity. Israel must be
treated like any other state committing similarly egregious crimes.”
...
BDS calls for: an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian
and other Arab territories since 1967, including dismantling the wall
and colonies; an end to Israel’s system of racial discrimination against
its Palestinian citizens; and respecting the UN-sanctioned, fundamental
right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.
“These three basic rights correspond to the three main components of
the Palestinian people: those in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank,
including East Jerusalem; those in the 1948 territory who live under
Israeli apartheid,
and those in exile”, Barghouti says. He insists that regardless of what
shape the political solution to the conflict takes – it must be based
on these principles.
For those of you who don't get it, the so-called 'right of return' would bring millions of 'Palestinians' who never lived here to live in what is left of Israel, after its separation from 'Palestine,' thereby overwhelming demographically what is left of the Jewish people in its ancient land.
Some BDS activists choose to boycott all of Israel, not
just companies or bodies profiting directly from the occupation. Why is
that?
“The artificial and untenable distinction
between Israel and ‘the occupation’ is political and ideological; it is
not based on practical, legal or moral considerations. It is Israel
that international law regards as the occupying power, and therefore, is
the party responsible for the construction and maintenance of not just
the colonial settlements, but also the whole occupation regime.
“Israel is also responsible for what even the U.S. Department of State has criticized as institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel, and such a system fits the UN definition of apartheid.”
But Israel’s deepest injustice, Barghouti argues, is the denial of
the right of return to Palestinian refugees. Those refugees, uprooted
and dispossessed in 1948, comprise 68 percent of the Palestinian people.
They, too, deserve equal human rights, he insists.
That ought to make it abundantly clear. The BDS movement is about destroying the State of Israel and not 'just' about reaching a 'two-state solution.' But then, if the last 15 years have shown us nothing else, they have shown us that a 'two-state solution' is about destroying Israel too.
Labels: 1949 armistice lines, BDS, Omar Barghouti, Palestinian refugees, right of return, two-state solution
Martin Indyk, are you listening?
A couple of years ago, '
moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen told an Israeli interviewer that he had
no intention of returning to Tzfat (Safed), a town that is located within the Israeli side of the 1949 armistice lines. Of course, he immediately walked back that statement.
His spokesman, Nabil Abu
Rudaineh, tried to explain that the interview with Channel 2 was mainly intended
to “affect Israeli public opinion.”
In other words, the spokesman is
telling Palestinians and Arabs that Abbas is telling Israelis what they like to
hear – namely that Palestinian refugees would not return to their former homes
inside Israel.
Which statement is the truth? Obviously,
the second one.
Palestinian Authority
President Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview with Egyptian newspaper
Akhbar el-Yom over the weekend that there are 6 million Palestinian
refugees waiting to return to their homes and that he was one of them.
The Middle East Media Research Institute
reviewed the statements made by Abbas in the Arabic daily, and found
that Abbas said he would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state because
he believes it would undermine the national interests of Israeli Arabs,
and prevent millions of Palestinian refugees from returning to their
homes. "We cannot recognize a Jewish state," he said, adding, "We cannot
close the door to those who wish to return."
He further said that if the U.N. Security
Council rejects the Palestinian proposal for a two-year deadline for an
Israeli withdrawal to 1967 lines, he may end Palestinian security
cooperation with Israel and even step down and transfer responsibility
for the Palestinian Authority to Israel.
He said that if Israel continues to prevent
the Palestinians from forming an independent state, then it should "take
responsibility for the occupation," including the health and education
sectors as well as all internal affairs.
Martin Indyk, are you listening?
Labels: Abu Mazen, Martin Indyk, right of return, Tzfat
Abu Bluff rules out an end-of-conflict clause
If this story is correct, the 'peace processors' may as well pack up and go home. '
Moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen has
ruled out an end-of-conflict clause. It's inconceivable that Israel will sign any agreement that makes any significant concessions without such a clause.
The report, which first appeared on Israel Channel 2 News based on American and Israeli sources and was reported by The Times of Israel, stated that Abbas had given three unequivocal rejections to the U.S. president:
Specifically, the report said, Abbas rejected Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s demand that he recognize Israel as a
Jewish state. He also refused to abandon the Palestinian demand for a
“right of return” for millions of Palestinians and their descendants — a
demand that, if implemented, would drastically alter Israel’s
demographic balance and which no conceivable Israeli government would
accept. And finally, he refused to commit to an “end of conflict,” under
which a peace deal would represent the termination of any further
Palestinian demands of Israel.
Instead, Abbas stated that his goals in the negotiations were limited
to “working for a solution that is based on international legitimacy
and also the borders — the 1967 borders — so that the Palestinians can
have their own independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital and
so that we can find a fair and lasting solution to the refugee problem.”
...
Skeptics of Palestinian intentions have long turned to the first two
rejections — made consistently by Palestinian leaders over the years —
as proof that PA leaders had never negotiated in good faith, using the
talks as a ploy to legitimize later violence and bolstering the
international movement to delegitimize Israel. Yet with the third
rejection — No to an “end of conflict” clause — it becomes difficult to
understand what the point of talks was in the first place. By stating
from the outset that negotiations will not bring a termination of the
conflict, Palestinian leaders remove nearly all the incentive for
Israeli compromise. Indeed, the absence of an end-of-conflict clause is
widely seen as one of the main failings of the catastrophic 1993 Oslo
Accords.
Thanks Obama and Kerry. We know that you'll pressure Israel to sign anyway. What could go wrong?
Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, end of conflict, John Kerry, Middle East peace process, Palestinian refugees, right of return, territorial compromise, two-state solution
Abu Bluff defiantly sticking to 'principles'
Ahead of his meeting on Monday with US President Hussein Obama, '
moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen is
sticking to his 'principles.'
Abbas’s spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, said that Abbas plans to speak
with Obama on all issues related to the realization of a two-state
solution and the establishment of a just and balanced peace that will
result in the establishment of an independent Palestinian state whose
capital is Jerusalem.
Abu Rudeineh stated that the visit to Washington is taking place
during a sensitive time period and under circumstances of change in the
Arab world, stressing that PA Chairman intends to stick to the
“fundamental Palestinian principles”.
In a speech he gave to the Revolutionary Council of Fatah this past
Wednesday, Abbas said that the Palestinian Arabs are steadfast in their
positions that eastern Jerusalem will be the capital of Palestine, and
that Israelis will remain in the Palestinian state after Israel
withdraws to the pre-1967 borders.
On the issue of the “Palestinian refugees”, Abbas said in his speech
that every refugee who wishes to return to the State of Israel will be
allowed to do so, and declared that all refugees, without exception,
will receive compensation.
The remarks are not surprising, as Abbas has consistently said that unless all his preconditions are met, there will be no peace with Israel.
In a recent appearance
broadcast by PA TV, Abbas clearly stated: no Jewish communities will
remain in the PA, and 5 million “refugees” worldwide, “from Canada to
Japan” – including all of the descendants of Arabs who fled Israel in
1948 – will have the right to “return” to Israel.
It's clear there's not going to be 'peace' in our lifetimes, and that's fine. The bigger issue is what will happen when this 'negotiation' charade ends.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Middle East peace process, negotiations without preconditions, Palestinian refugees, right of return, two-state solution
Abu Bluff: Referendum on Any Agreement among Palestinians Worldwide, No to Jewish State
Does anyone still believe there's really going to be an agreement?
Let's go to the videotape.
Abu Bluff is meeting with President Obama on the day that is Purim in Jerusalem. How appropriate.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, Palestinian refugees, Palestinians, right of return, two-state solution
Abu Mazen responsible for the deaths of thousands of Syrians
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.
'
Moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen is responsible for the death of this child and thousands of other 'Palestinian' refugees in Syria. To see why, go
here.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Palestinian refugees, refugee camp, right of return, Syrian uprising
'Palestinians' demand 'return' of 8 million 'refugees'
The 'Palestinians' are
demanding the 'return' of 8 million 'refugees' as part of the 'peace process.' Most of these 'Palestinians' have never set foot in Israel.
Abbas's controversial remarks about the "right of return" highlight
the difficulties facing U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in his
efforts to achieve a peace agreement between Israel and the
Palestinians. The Palestinian reactions to Abbas's remarks show that the
issue of the refugees remains a sensitive and explosive one that could
torpedo any agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians.
Abbas told the Israeli students that the claim that he was seeking to "flood" Israel with five million refugees was nonsense.
"There is propaganda saying that Abu Mazen [Abbas] wants the return
of five million refugees to destroy the state of Israel," he said.
"This is not true at all. All what we said was: Let's place the issue
of the refugees on the table because it's a sensitive case which needs
to be solved in order to end the conflict and so that the refugees would
be satisfied with a peace agreement. But we are not seeking to drown
Israel with millions in order to change its demography. This is
nonsense."
Representatives of Palestinian refugees rushed to issue condemnations
of Abbas, accusing him of relinquishing the "right of return" of
millions of Palestinians to their former villages and towns inside
Israel.
In Lebanon, where some 450,000 Palestinians live in several refugee camps and are exposed to Apartheid Laws
that deny them access to many jobs and economic, health and educations
services, Abbas's comments were received with deep resentment. During an
emergency meeting in one of the refugee camps in Lebanon, Abbas was
accused of "abandoning the right of return and harming Palestinian
rights."
The refugees said
they were particularly enraged over the fact that protest letters they
sent to the Palestinian Authority embassy in Beirut were totally
ignored.
Dr. Esam Udwan, an expert on refugee affairs, was quoted
as saying that "Abbas's statements have caused damage to Palestinian
rights." Accusing Abbas of providing Israel with concessions in return
for nothing, Udwan said, "These remarks reflect Abbas's conviction that
the issue of the refugees is ineffective and they have no right to
return because this would mean drowning Israel. This is completely
unacceptable. Who said that there are only five million refugees? The
real number is eight million. Abbas mentioned the five million who are
registered with UNRWA and benefit from its services. But there are
millions of others who do not receive services from UNRWA and are not
registered with it. This does not mean that they should be denied the
right of return."
Ali Huwaidi, another expert on refugee affairs, also lashed out at
Abbas: "Regardless of Abbas's statements, the right of return is
guaranteed, individually and collectively, through UN resolutions. The
refugees will not give up their right no matter where they are living
today. Abbas is worried about flooding Israel with five million refugees
while Israel has brought one million people from the former Soviet
Union and no one complained about this. Our refugees will not accept any
alternative to their right to return to their homeland and we do not
care what Abbas's position is."
Many Palestinians said that Abbas was not authorized to make any concessions or speak on behalf of the refugees.
...
The reactions to Abbas's statements concerning the issue of the refugees
show that any agreement that Abbas reaches with Israel under U.S.
pressure will not signal the end of the conflict with Israel. They also
show that millions of Palestinians continue to believe that one day they
will be allowed to move to Israel, regardless of whether a Palestinian
state is established in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem or
not.
You'd think that Abu Mazen actually conceded something. What could go wrong?
Labels: Abu Mazen, John Kerry, Middle East peace process, Palestinian refugees, right of return, UNRWA
Left seethes: Building permits issued in 'east' Jerusalem neighborhoods
The Left is
seething over the issuance of 550 building permits in the Jewish neighborhoods of Neve Yaakov, Pisgat Zev and Har Homa in 'east' Jerusalem.
The newly-issued building permits include 386 units in Har Homa, 136
units in Neve Yaakov and 36 units in Pisgat Zeev, according to AFP.
Issuing permits is one of the last stages before construction begins,
which means building is likely to start in the coming weeks, according
to the far-left Peace Now NGO.
A spokesman for the group expressed his anger at the decision.
"We are talking about building permits, which is really the final stage," spokesman Lior Amihai told AFP.
"It's a shameful decision, at a shameful time. A government that wants a
two-state solution would not issue those amount of permits for east
Jerusalem neighborhoods."
And you thought that '
everyone knows' that all the Jewish neighborhoods of 'east' Jerusalem are going to be ceded to Israel in a 'final status deal' as part of a 'land swap'....
Labels: 1949 armistice lines, East Jerusalem, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, Peace Now, right of return, two-state solution
Jordan continues to insist on 'Palestinian' right of return
Jordan, which is rumored to have strong objections to the 'Palestinian Authority' gaining control of its border crossings into the Jordan Valley, continues to
insist on all 'Palestinians' 'returning' to Israel. Those 'Palestinians' are 70% of Jordan's population.
Regarding the Israeli demand to have the occupied Jordan Valley under its control in the case of a peace agreement,
the premier said Jordan considers these lands and any other area that
Israel occupied on 1967 as Palestinian lands. As for the Palestinian
refugees, Ensour stressed that Jordan believes that all the refugees who came to Jordan during the period 1948-1949 have the right to return and are entitled to compensation whether they are holders of Jordanian nationality or not.
...
Reasserting that Jordan will
not negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians regarding their envisioned
state’s border with Israel, the minister stressed, however, that Jordan will be concerned about its borders and the state that it will share a borderline with.
He also stressed that
any “security-related arrangement” in the Jordan Valley must take into consideration the Kingdom’s national security.
Jordan can't decide what its positions are. My guess is that they really don't want 'Palestinians' immediately across from their border, but that they're afraid to say so.
Labels: Jordan, Jordan is Palestine, Jordan Valley, Palestinian refugees, right of return
Who will make the delivery?
'
Moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen has ordered the
immediate delivery of emergency food supplies to the besieged 'Palestinian refugee' in Yarmouk, Syria (Hat Tip:
IMRA).
President Mahmoud Abbas
ordered Saturday dispatch of immediate food supplies to Yarmouk refugee camp in
Syria due to the difficult situation the camp is going through.
Abbas ordered Palestine’s ambassador to Syria and other
official parties to immediately act to facilitate entry of these supplies.
The president’s decision came following reports that five
Palestinian refugees have died of hunger in the besieged camp.
Yarmouk has been under siege by the Syrian army for several
months. No one has been allowed in or out of the camp since then, including the
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, UNRWA, which is
responsible for all Palestinian refugee camps in the region.
...
UNRWA Commissioner General Filippo Grandi said... that the situation has progressively deteriorated
since the camp, the largest refugee camp in Syria, was engulfed in the Syria
conflict a year ago and that 20,000 Palestinians remain trapped inside it.
“Although very alarming reports of hardship and hunger have
continued to multiply, since September 2013 we have been unable to enter the
area to deliver desperately needed relief supplies,” he said.
Who does Abu Bluff think is going to deliver these supplies? The IDF?
But worse, Abu Bluff is actually the cause of this situation. Israel offered to allow all of the 'Palestinians' in this 'refugee camp' re-settle in Judea and Samaria, provided that they waive any 'right of return' they might otherwise be entitled to receive. Abu Bluff
turned down the offer a year ago without even asking the potential beneficiaries if it was of interest to them.
Labels: Bashar al-Assad, Palestinian refugees, right of return, Syrian army, Syrian uprising, UNRWA
This is rich: Radical Left holds conference highlighting North Tel Aviv's past as a 'Palestinian' village
One of the deep, dark secrets of Israel's Left is that most of North Tel Aviv, the swankiest part of the country with the possible exceptions of Herzliya's Kfar Shmaryahu and Savion, and the most Leftist part of the country with the possible exception of Red Haifa, is largely built on the remains of a 'Palestinian' village called Sheikh Munis, which was abandoned by the 'Palestinians' in 1948. A radical Leftist NGO called Zochrot plans to hold a conference at the Land of Israel Museum in Tel Aviv in September, to address
"practical aspects of the Return of Palestinian refugees." Yes, of course, the Land of Israel Museum sits on land that belonged to the 'Palestinians' of Sheikh Munis. Will the residents of North Tel Aviv return to Russia, Germany and Poland? Or will they just leave their homes to the 'Palestinians' and live in the streets?
The invitation states that the
conference, named "From Truth to Redress," wishes to discuss the
"practical aspects of the Return of Palestinian refugees grounded in the
transitional justice principles of acknowledgment, accountability and a
joint Jewish-Palestinian process of redress."
"The issues discussed in this conference will
focus on the implication of Return for the country's physical, cultural
and economicspace [sic], on the nature of its future society, the status
of Palestinians and Jews living here, the nature of its regime, and
last but not least, the practicalities of returning property after 65
years of refugeehood and the destruction of Palestinian life on the one
hand, and the establishment of a Jewish State and the resulting new
reality on the other," the invitation states.
It also says the "objective of the conference
is not to argue whether the Palestinian refugees have a right to return,
but to see how this right can be realized."
The invitation also includes (in Hebrew) the location of the conference as "Al-Shaykh Muwannis -- E.I. Museum."
According to Zochrot director Liat Rosenberg,
"To hold a conference that addresses the issue of refugee return, which
is taboo, in the heart of Tel Aviv of all places, is a statement in and
of itself. The fact that the conference will be held at the Eretz Israel
Museum, which is built on the remains of the village of Al-Shaykh
Muwannis, also has symbolic value. To hold a discussion on the return of
refugees specifically in a place from which refugees were expelled is
very appropriate."
It should be noted that one of the group's members is Noa Shaindlinger, who a few months ago expressed
joy at the deaths of IDF helicopter pilots in a training accident.
Likud MK Ofir Akunis plans to ask the museum to cancel the event, but the museum says that it's completely legal and that anyone acting legally can rent the museum's hall.
But don't worry. If push ever comes to shove, the rich Leftists of Ramat Aviv Gimmel, Tzahala and Afeka aren't going anywhere. They're not really going to cut off their noses to spite their faces. Giving land to the 'Palestinians' is only for the lesser lights like the 'settlers.'
What could go wrong?
Labels: Judea and Samaria, Palestinian refugees, right of return, Tel Aviv
The 'phased plan' is alive and well
After the Yom Kippur War, the Arab states realized that there was no way they were going to be able to destroy Israel militarily in one fell swoop. Therefore, in 1974, the PLO adopted a new plan which is known as the '
Phased Plan.'
The plan in brief:
- Through the "armed struggle" (i.e., terrorism),
to establish an "independent combatant national authority" over any
territory that is "liberated" from Israeli rule. (Article 2)
- To continue the struggle against Israel, using the territory
of the national authority as a base of operations. (Article 4)
- To provoke an all-out war in which Israel's Arab
neighbors destroy it entirely ("liberate all Palestinian territory").
(Article 8)
When I read this piece by Dr. Reuven Berko, all I could think was that after 40 years, the '
phased plan' is alive and well. Oslo, as many of us believed since the beginning, is just phase 1 of the plan.
The
situation is Kafkaesque: While Israeli leaders are busy preparing a deal
that will provide two states for tow peoples, Ali is protesting with
the people of his village just a few meters away from the land he claims
for himself and his friends. He is waging his battle in and against the
Israeli homefront. With Palestinian flags at his back, he defiantly
flashes the Arafat-like "V" sign (all of this is Palestine) toward the
abashed gazes of Beit Hanania's residents, who shamefully swallow their
outrage. Ali stands proud, in all his democratic glory, while voicing
nationalistic Palestinian slogans, including a few "for the Arab lands
of the Negev."
Something strange is
happening in the Jewish state: Abbas is declaring a "territory free of
Jews" but is demanding the release of Arab-Israeli murderers, those who
have killed Jews in the name of the Palestinian problem but who were
never under any form of Palestinian jurisdiction. Arab citizens of
Israel, protesting with Palestinian flags in their hands, are demanding
state lands that never belonged to them within the 1967 borders, and
Arab MKs are telling their youth to refrain from performing any type of
national service. On top of all this, Palestinian leaders continue to
demand a "return" of refugees, to Israel of all places, which they call a
state of Apartheid, oppression and occupation, and not to the
Palestinian state they are seeking to establish.
The strangest
phenomenon is that in Umm al-Fahm of all places, the hotbed of hatred
toward the Jews and the state, residents are rejecting any proposal that
includes "freeing themselves from the occupation" and transferring,
with their lands and property, to the jurisdiction of an independent
Palestinian state, the same one that will be "clean of Jews."
How pathetic it is to
recall that every time peace efforts have failed and it was apparent
that the Palestinians, despite the generous offers they received, were
neither ready "nor able" to reach an agreement and recognize the state
of Israel (fill in the blank here with the unmentionable). The shocked
and dumbstruck Left would gather itself and again blame the Israeli
negotiators for the failure.
A Palestinian friend
used an Arab allegory to tell me bluntly, "Just as you came empty
handed, so you will leave." In the jails for security prisoners, the
murderers know they will go free. Those who planned and carried out
terrorist attacks know in advance that if they are caught, they will be
released and will return to their activities. The refugees are certain
they will return to Palestine, in other words to Jaffa, Acre and Haifa.
Hamas, the "rejectionist organizations" and the refugees continue to
demand their "return" to Palestine.
If the phased plan did not remain in effect, why would the 'Palestinians' regard the 'Israeli Arabs' as their own? And why would so many 'Israeli Arabs' seek to remain in the Jewish state (so that they can undermine it from within) rather than joining their brethren in a 'Palestinian state' should one be created?
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Israeli Arab, Israeli Arabs are a fifth column, Judea and Samaria, Middle East peace process, Palestinian state, phased plan, right of return
State Department urges 'take it or leave it' plan as MK's realize 'Palestinians' at fault
Senior officials at the US State Department are urging Secretary of State John Kerry to put a '
take it or leave it' plan on the table.
Some in the State Department are concerned that Kerry is
being dragged into blind alleys by the two sides, expending too much energy on
detailed questions about how many Palestinian prisoners Israel would release
before and during the talks, and exactly where a settlement freeze would be
imposed.
According to this school of thought, these arguments could go on
forever and simply wear Kerry down. Instead, Kerry should simply lay down a
formula that would indicate that the talks were to begin with the baseline being
the June 4, 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps, and a Palestinian
recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.
This way,
both the Palestinians and Israel would have to give the other something, and
whatever side was not willing to do so would be pinned with the blame for the
talks’ failure.
I wonder which side would say 'no' faster....
In the meantime, at an event sponsored by the Leftist Geneva Initiative, Yesh Atid MK Yaakov Perry admitted that it's the
'Palestinians' fault there are no negotiations. Perry is a long-time supporter of the Saudi plan, which would have Arab states recognize Israel in return for its agreement to commit suicide.
“At the current time, we have to be honest and say that it seems the
obstacle to renewing talks is on the Palestinian side,” he declared. “I
have to say, I’m sorry about that.”
He explained, “At a time when the Prime Minister of Israel explicitly
declares that he is prepared to return to the negotiating table without
preconditions, and the American Foreign Minister invests all his energy
in attempts to restart the process, and the Quartet is sparing no
effort to build cooperation and an economic framework that will serve as
a basis and support for the diplomatic process, at a time when there is
majority support both in the Knesset and in the Israeli public for
moving the peace process forward – I can’t understand why the
Palestinian Authority continues to refuse to come back to the
negotiating table and give the process a real chance.”
Perry immediately balanced his criticism with an expression of
sympathy for PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. “I am not discounting the
difficulties and complications facing the Palestinian Authority Chairman
as he returns to the negotiating table, both politically, within the
PA, and against Hamas,” he said.
Abbas must also face “the Palestinian public’s deep fear and growing
doubt due to the many years in which [the process] has been frozen,” he
added. However, he said, “there is reason for serious concern that the
failure of the current attempt to restart negotiations could have
serious implications for both sides, in terms of security, politically,
and on the international stage.”
Despite his criticism of Abbas, Perry reiterated his support for the
Arab Peace Initiative, also known as the Saudi Initiative, which
promises that Arab states will normalize their ties with Israel if
Israel will withdraw from Judea, Samaria (Shomron), the Golan and
eastern Jerusalem, including the Old City and Temple Mount. The
initiative also demands an agreement regarding the “right of return” –
the Arab demand that millions of descendants of Arabs who fled pre-state
Israel be allowed to “return” to Israel.
“The Saudi Initiative is one of the currently existing paths the
state of Israel could take to solve the conflict, and it requires
serious thought,” he argued.
“Of course, we cannot accept the principles of the initiative exactly
as they are… But they could definitely be a basis and a starting point
for negotiations, and point out the direction we need to take,” he
continued.
Perry is a member of the coalition.... What could go wrong?
Labels: 1949 armistice lines, Abu Mazen, Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel is a Jewish state, John Kerry, right of return, Saudi plan, State Department obsession with Israel, US State Department
This ought to advance 'the cause of peace'
After all, they've just been so unbiased and helpful....
The Palestine Liberation Organization has called for Israel to recognize the 'right of return' for 'Palestinian refugees' at the United Nations' '
human rights council.'
Israel must “recognize the right of return
of refugees to their homeland, without selectivity or conditionality, including
to the cities they were ejected from,” Imad Zuhairi, the PLO’s deputy charge
d’affairs of its UN Observer Mission in Geneva, told the UNHRC.
He spoke
during Agenda Item 7, in which the UNHRC is mandated at every session to debate
Israeli actions against the Palestinians over the pre-1967
lines.
...
The UNHRC debate showed
that wide gaps still remain in the public discourse on conflict.
You don't say....
Israel
has cut its ties with the council and was not present at the debate. But it has
claimed that the concept of the right of return for Palestinians to the State of
Israel undermines the basic principle of a two-state solution.
Well, yeah. Except that three days ago, the same reporter (Tovah Lazaroff) reported that Israel is now trying to '
reengage' with the 'human rights council.'
It's hard to think of any international body in the world that is less likely to bring peace to our region than the United Nations 'human rights council.' It's time to bury the idea of returning to the council - permanently.
Labels: Palestinian refugees, right of return, United Nations Human Rights Council
Did anyone ask the 'Palestinians'?
Hamas has turned down an offer from Canada to
absorb 120,000 'Palestinians' and give them Canadian citizenship.
Hamas movement renewed its affirmation that the right of return for
Palestinian refugees to their homeland from where they were forcibly
evicted is a sacred right.
It said in a press release on Friday that no power on Earth could
revoke that right, adding that the Palestinians were forced to live in
other countries on temporary basis and would never relinquish the right
of return.
Hamas was responding to statements attributed to Canada’s Foreign
Minister John Baird that his country was ready to absorb 120,000
Palestinian refugees where they would be granted Canadian citizenship
and live there forever.
Hamas said that it absolutely rejects all solutions tabled by Israel
and other international parties to dissolve the Palestinian refugees’
rights and asks all international parties to stop such “suspicious
attempts” that only serve Israel and its schemes and deepen the
Palestinian people’s suffering.
I wonder if anyone bothered to ask 120,000 'Palestinians' whether they'd like to move to Canada. I'd bet an awful lot of them would like to move. But most of the 'international community' will continue to back Hamas' quest to destroy Israel through the 'right of return' instead.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Canada, Palestinian refugees, right of return
The Netanyahu - Abdullah lovefest
So much for all those Leftists who believe that King Abdullah hates Binyamin Netanyahu and would gladly see Israel replaced by a 'Palestinian state.'
The King is much smarter than all that, reports Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
Israel, in some ways, is Jordan’s most important ally. As the guarantor
of quiet on Israel’s eastern front, and as the defender of the peace
treaty that King Hussein forged with Yitzhak Rabin in 1994, Abdullah’s
Jordan is essential to the Israelis. Jordan and Israel are also working
together to prevent the chaos of Syria from spilling into their
countries. The king would not talk about joint Jordanian-Israeli
operations, but several sources in Amman and Tel Aviv told me that
Israeli drones are monitoring the Jordan-Syria border on Jordan’s
behalf, and that military and intelligence officials from the two
countries are in constant contact, planning for post–Bashar al‑Assad
chaos.
Even as Abdullah envisions ceding more of his power, he draws one red
line: “I don’t want a government to come in and say, ‘We repudiate the
peace treaty with Israel.’ ” He is cautious when speaking about the
Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom he is reportedly
in regular communication. He would say only that his relationship with
Netanyahu is “very strong. Our discussions have really improved.”
Abdullah says he is pessimistic about Israel's future.
Though he acknowledges the role Netanyahu plays in maintaining
Jordanian stability, he is not optimistic about Israel’s future. King
Abdullah is known as an advocate of two states for two peoples—Israel
secure in its pre-1967 borders, Palestine to be established in Gaza and
the West Bank—but when I asked him in January how much time he thought
was left to implement this idea, his answer surprised me. “It could be
too late already for the two-state solution,” he said. “I don’t know.
Part of me is worried that is already past us.”
If it were too late, what would that mean?
He responded with a single word: “Isratine.” That’s a neologism
popularized by the late Muammar Qaddafi to describe his vision of a
joint Arab-Jewish state. If Israel doesn’t agree to a Palestinian state
quickly, Abdullah said, “apartheid or democracy” will be its choice.
“The practical question is, can Israel exert permanent control over
Palestinians who are disenfranchised ad infinitum, or does it eventually
become a South Africa, which couldn’t survive as a pariah state?”
There are some Israelis, I said, who value Israel more as a Jewish
state than as a democratic state. “The only way you’re going to have a
Jewish part is if you have a two-state solution. That’s the Jewish
part,” he said.
Abdullah is smart enough to understand that Israel's continued existence is the only thing that ensures that his country will not be overrun by its 'Palestinians.' Given that is the case, one has to wonder why Abdullah does not do more to bring about the conditions for a 'settlement.' For example, he could make the 'Palestinian refugees' in Jordan citizens of his country rather than holding them for a 'right of return' that he knows will never happen.
I have the impression from reading Goldberg's piece that perhaps Abdullah would like to do just that but is prevented from doing so by the Bedouin tribes on whom he is dependent to maintain his power. In any event, a 'two-state solution' and the 'right of return' which would demographically extinguish Israel don't go together. Abdullah is smart enough to understand that.
I wonder whether he's discussed this with Netanyahu, or perhaps their discussions have been limited to other areas of mutual interest like Syria and Iran.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Jordanian King Abdullah, Palestinian refugees, right of return, two-state solution
The real obstacles to peace
There are two real obstacles to peace between Israel and the 'Palestinians.' One cannot be dealt with by Israel, for it requires Arab (including 'Palestinian') acceptance of Israel's existence as a Jewish state in the Jewish homeland. The other, however, could be broken down by
western countries who continue to fund the delusion known as the 'right of return.' A conference in New York City this past week attempted to make inroads on that problem.
“No one will admit it... the real
obstacle [to a two-state solution] is the right of return for millions of
Palestinian refugees,” Prosor said. The “refugees problem is the main obstacle
to peace, not settlements.”
The return of Palestinian refugees “would
cause Israel’s destruction,” Prosor said.
In 1950, there were some
700,000 Palestinian refugees. The current figure stands at more than 5.1
million, though that depends on who is counting.
Historically, refugees
who become citizens of another country lose their status as refugees; a large
percentage of Palestinians live in Jordan or Syria, though those in Syria are
now experiencing an entirely new refugee crisis.
Many participants at the
event asserted that double standards applied to Palestinian refugees, in sharp
contrast to this general rule of thumb.
Prosor sees UNRWA policy to allow
Palestinians to “transfer their refugee mileage to their children” as misguided.
“Israel deeply opposes UNRWA’s political agenda, but supports its humanitarian
agenda,” he said, adding that “not one Arab country appears on the top-10 list
of UNRWA’s donor,” and that its funding comes mainly from Western
countries.
Although Arab countries are “saturated with petro-dollars,”
they are not donating adequately to UNRWA, he charged.
According to
Prosor, the ration of staff to refugees at the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees, which covers non-Palestinian refugees, is 1 to 4,400. UNRWA has a
ratio of 1 to 172.
Former Labor and Independence MK Einat Wilf said it is
important to debunk the widespread image of Palestinian refugees “huddled in
tents."
She cited an EU diplomat who told her: “Do not tell anyone – I
know middle class families in Ramallah.”
She said the “EU says
Palestinians know they won’t return to Israel” but urged to the EU “to start
telling them that.”
The two obstacles are really related, because if one understands that the 'Palestinians' will never 'return' to their former homes, one also understands that the Jewish state is a permanent fact that cannot be destroyed demographically.
Of course, one cannot expect the 'Palestinians' or their Arab brothers to accept this fact easily. But at least the West could be smart enough to stop paying for their intransigence.
In case you're wondering, here's a list of the
top 20 donors to UNRWA in 2012 as put out by the organization itself. The US is number 1, the EU is number 2, but the next 5 are also European countries (UK, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Netherlands). The Islamic Development Bank comes in at number 8, but the next four are Switzerland, Denmark, Australia and Belgium. 'Our friends the Saudis' finally become the first Arab country to check in at number 13, with just over $12 million (a drop in the oil bucket!). They are followed by France, Ireland, Brazil, Turkey and Finland, before Iran steps in at number 20.
So the top 20 contributors include two Muslim countries (one of which is Arab) and one Islamic bank.
Why does the West continue to fund this effort at Israel's destruction when it claims to want peace? Could it be anti-Semitism?
Labels: Palestinian refugees, right of return, UNRWA
Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Tuesday, January 15.
1) Israel's right turn?
It was a throwaway line in a New York Times editorial last week:
There are many threats to a two-state solution, including an Israeli
government that could become even more hard-line after the Jan. 22
election.
No doubt we will continue to see "analyses" (or more accurately, cliches) like this over the next week and coming months.
David Weinberg argues in Israel: Wary not bullheaded that not as much has changed in Israel as the editors of the New York Times (and like-minded people) think.
In fact I would argue that Israelis are pretty much where they have
been since the early Oslo days when it comes to acceptance of
Palestinian statehood, except that the world has never quite understood
what we mean by Palestinian statehood.
The Palestinian state that Israelis can support in Judea ,Samaria and
Gaza cannot threaten Israel’s security – meaning that it must be truly
demilitarized, cannot form hostile foreign alliances, will bring Hamas
to heel, renounce terror, agree to Israeli or American monitors on its
borders, and accept a permanent Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley.
The Palestinian state that Israelis can support in Judea, Samaria and
Gaza must be a reasonable neighbor and willing to compromise – meaning
that will not contain any large Israeli settlement blocs, will not have
sovereignty over Jerusalem, and must share its airspace and natural
resources with Israel. The Palestinian state that Israelis can support
in Judea, Samaria and Gaza agrees to a permanent end to all conflict and
claims on Israel – meaning that it renounces the right of return, stops
all incitement, and recognizes Israel as the nation state of the Jewish
People.
Unfortunately, the world community has not bothered to relate to these
outlines for a realistic peace agreement. Instead, the Europeans and
other Western leaders (along with Iran, Syria and now Egypt) have helped
ratchet-up Palestinian expectations to unrealistic, maximalist levels
and have encouraged Palestinian extremism. After all, the world
community is prepared to “recognize” Palestinian statehood on the 1949
lines even in the absence of any Palestinian concessions to reality;
even though Palestinian leadership is unwilling to negotiate directly
with Israel, never mind compromise with it!
In The Israeli Elections and Political Reality Rick Richman summarizes what's convinced Israelis to be wary over the past 19 years:
The “dramatic imminent shift” is not a shift, but a realization; not
imminent, but rather what happened over many years; and not dramatic,
but rather the slow accumulation of many events: (1) the barbaric terror
war against Israeli civilians, commenced after the first Israeli offer
of a state; (2) the Palestinian rejection of the Clinton Parameters,
after Israel formally accepted them; (3) the Palestinian failure to
carry out even Phase I of the three-phase Roadmap; (4) the
transformation of Gaza into Hamastan after Israel withdrew every settler
and soldier; (5) the election of Hamas in 2006 and the Hamas coup in
2007; (6) two rocket wars from Judenrein Gaza, and the continuing
prospect of more; (7) the year-long negotiation in the Annapolis Process
that produced still another offer of a state, from which Abbas walked
away; (8) Abbas’s announcement in 2009 that he would do nothing without a
construction freeze, followed by his doing nothing after he got one;
(9) the continual “reconciliation” attempts by Abbas with the terrorist
group he promised to dismantle; (10) his failure to give a Bir Zeit
speech to match Netanyahu’s Bar-Ilan one; (11) the inability of the
Palestinians to hold an election, much less build the institutions of a
peaceful democratic state; (12) the violation of their express Oslo
commitments with repeated end-runs at the UN; (13) a Palestinian
society, media and educational system steeped in anti-Semitism; (14) et
cetera.
But regardless of why Israel's next government is relatively more "right
wing" or "hard line" than the current one, would it really that "right
wing" in absolute terms?
Two years ago Elder of Ziyon linked to one of PM Yitzchak Rabin's final speeches to the Knesset. Elder of Ziyon's observations about some of PM Rabin's ideas are worth recalling:
The hawk that gave this speech was none other than Yitzchak Rabin, weeks before he was assassinated in 1995.
Yes, the sainted, Nobel-peace prize winning Rabin was far more hawkish in his positions than Binyamin Netanyahu is today.
Something to think about as people continuously attack Netanyahu for being so intransigent and "hawkish."
And while you are thinking about it, think about how the PLO's policies
have changed between 1995 and today in regards to what they are willing
to do for peace.
The answer is, of course, nothing.
2) The false premises of Middle East peace
Two of the most common premises about the Arab/Israeli conflict are that
it is central to solving conflict in the Middle East and that
settlements are the primary obstacle to peace. Following from these
premises is the conclusion that Israel must end settlements and offer
enough to convince the Palestinians to give up their grievances.
A number of recent, disparate stories demonstrate how wrong these perceptions are.
Recently, This Ongoing War asked Can salad vegetables tell us something about the Arab/Israeli conflict?
It was discovered that peppers being sold in a Lebanese grocery chain
may have been packaged in Israel. This led to a major investigation as
to how these vegetables got there. The blogger comments:
It would be nice to laugh, or even just to smile knowingly, about the
gravity hinted at in this news item. But let's dwell briefly, before
getting too amused, about how the presence of these packaged peppers
required the forensic interventions of (a) the Lebanese army, (b) its
military intelligence, (b) the Lebanese national police and (d) the
military judiciary.
...
Anyone who shops in European supermarkets knows that quality peppers
increasingly means Israeli peppers. An angry "boycott Israeli goods"
website which we will not quote here (why give them the attention or the
traffic?) resentfully sings the praises of Israeli peppers and their
success in penetrating discerning markets. Such is life. Israeli
agriculture does a really good job of producing winning fruits and
vegetables. But before checking for leaks in the border fence, it would
not be surprising to learn that the peppers that infiltrated Spinneys
originated with a European wholesaler.
But more seriously, think about what this tells us about Lebanon and the
Arab world, and about the ongoing conflict. How good are the chances
for a better understanding on both sides of the dispute when the
presence of one word on a printed label, whether accurately placed there
or not, triggers the big-time involvement of the military, the police
and the judiciary? And that's just on the day of the "discovery". What
might be coming next? Is the Lebanese government going to fall? Will a
minister resign? Will Lebanon retaliate and if so, what form will that
take? And why is this not already in front of the UN Security Council or
the World Health Organization?
If the word "Israel" printed on a package possibly is a treasonous act,
how can it be that settlements are the cause of conflict? Hating Israel
isn't due to resentment of settlements, which would be - at worst - a
political issue, it is something that must be much deeper seated.
To the degree that occupation is the source of conflict, Dore Gold recently observed that Turkey's settlements in Cyprus don't cause much consternation in Europe (h/t Eugene Kontorovich).
Anyone flipping through cable television channels with his or her
remote control has undoubtedly come across programs about British and
other retirees from Northern Europe seeking to escape the harsh climate
where they live by venturing to one of the well-known vacation spots
along the Mediterranean coast. The difficult problem that these buyers
face is the soaring prices of properties over the last decade in places
like Marbella, Spain, the French Riviera, or Italy's Amalfi Coast, which
leads many to look for more economical alternatives. As a result, many
European buyers after 2002 have been flocking to Northern Cyprus, where a
villa with a swimming pool can be bought at discount prices.
The main legal question that is not addressed with this new European
property boom is the legal status of the area where these new homes are
being built. It should be recalled that in 1974 the Turkish army invaded
Cyprus, which had been an independent state since 1960 and took over 37
percent of the island. Tens of thousands of Greek Cypriots were
expelled in this period in what they viewed was a deliberate policy of
ethnic cleansing by the Turkish army. In the aftermath of the invasion,
the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 353 which demanded "an
immediate end to foreign military intervention" and called for "the
withdrawal without delay from the Republic of Cyprus of foreign military
personnel."
The Turkish Cypriots declared their independence in 1983 by forming the
"Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus," an act that the U.N. condemned as
"null and void." Over the years, an estimated 160,000 "settlers" who
came from Turkey moved into Northern Cyprus. In many cases, properties
that had been left behind by Greek Cypriot refugees were given by the
Northern Cyprus administration to Turkish Cypriots and to the Turkish
settlers, who sold them to European buyers. To date, some 5,000 British
citizens have purchased homes in Northern Cyprus despite it being a
clear-cut case of an "occupied territory." According to a BBC report, as
many as 10,000 foreigners have bought up former Greek Cypriot
properties in Northern Cyprus.
But is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict really the main source of instability in the Middle East? David Weinberg writes in Counting the dead in Syria:
The figure of 60,000 dead is also a historic marker. Because 60,000
dead is double the estimated casualty count of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict over the past 45 years.
Add them all up over all the years of the “occupation”: combatants,
civilians, and indirect casualties of conflict – on both sides of the
Palestinian-Israeli divide. Add in all Palestinians killed by
intra-Palestinian violence and/or executed by Hamas and Fatah as
“collaborators.” Add in Israeli victims of Palestinian terror. Add them
all up. And still, the total casualty count in Israeli-Palestinian
conflict doesn’t hit half the number of Syrians slaughtered by other
Syrians over the past two years!
Only by inflating the importance of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict
does it become necessary to pressure Israel for ever more unreciprocated
concessions.
Finally, Elder of Ziyon noted a recent comment by Mahmoud Abbas the overextended President of the Palestinian Authority:
Following a meeting with Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, Abbas
said that he had appealed to the UN to intercede on behalf of
Palestinian refugees living in Syria and demand that Israel allow them
to enter the West Bank and Gaza.
Abbas said Ban was told Israel “agreed to the return of those refugees
to Gaza and the West Bank, but on condition that each refugee ... sign a
statement that he doesn’t have the right of return (to Israel).”
“So we rejected that and said it’s better they die in Syria than give up their right of return,” Abbas told the group.
Contrast the bluster of the Palestinian leader with what some Israelis troops recently did. (h/t Meryl Yourish)
Soldiers of the IDF's haredi battalion Netzah Yehuda managed to
rescue three Palestinian men before the fierce currents washed over
them. Ynet obtained a documentation of the rescue.
The IDF troops were called to an area near the Nablus River, where, they
were told, cars were stranded with their drivers trapped in a
constantly intensifying current.
The storm was too severe for helicopters to arrive at the scene, and the
battalion commander resorted to utilizing a Palestinian's tractor that
was passing by.
By paying too much attention to Israeli settlements and hyping the
importance of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would be do-gooders the
world over likely make peace less likely For one thing, they ignore the
role of antisemitism in the fueling the conflict. It also leads them to
ignore what Israel actually does and the apathy Arabs actually show to
the Palestinians. Most importantly it means that they allow Palestinian
grievances veto power over any possibly peaceful solution.
Labels: Knesset elections 2013, Middle East Media Sampler, Middle East peace process, occupation, right of return, Soccer Dad, Syrian uprising, Turkish occupation of Cyprus
'It's better they die in Syria than give up their right of return'
'
Moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen has rejected an offer from Israel to re-settle 'Palestinian refugees' from Syria in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, because it would require those 'refugees' to sign a statement saying that
they have no right to 'return' to parts of Israel within the 1949 armistice lines.
Abbas said he asked U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon last month to seek Israeli
permission to bring Palestinians caught in Syria’s civil war to the
Palestinian territories. The request came after fighting between Syrian
troops and rebel fighters in Yarmouk, the largest Palestinian refugee
camp in Syria. About half of the camp’s 150,000 residents have fled,
according to a U.N. aid agency.
Abbas told a group of Egyptian journalists in Cairo late Wednesday that Ban contacted Israel on his behalf.
Abbas
said Ban was told Israel “agreed to the return of those refugees to
Gaza and the West Bank, but on condition that each refugee ... sign a
statement that he doesn’t have the right of return (to Israel).”
“So we rejected that and said it’s better they die in Syria than give up
their right of return,” Abbas told the group. Some of his comments were
published Thursday by the Palestinian news website Sama.
I wonder if anyone asked these 'Palestinian refugees' whether they'd prefer to die in Syria rather than to give up their 'right of return.' What a silly question. Of course they didn't.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Palestinian refugees, right of return, Syrian uprising
