“We want a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish
state,” Netanyahu said. “How do you get that if you can’t get it
through negotiations? It’s true that the idea of taking unilateral steps
is gaining ground, from the center-left to the center-right. Many
Israelis are asking themselves if there are certain unilateral steps
that could theoretically make sense.”
But he was quick to add
that Israelis -- himself included -- don’t want a repeat of their Gaza
experience. In 2005, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon unilaterally
withdrew Israeli soldiers and settlers from Gaza; it was soon taken over
by the radical Islamist group Hamas, which has since used the territory
to launch rockets at Israeli civilian targets.
Nevertheless,
Netanyahu said that something must be done to prevent the collapse of
Israel as a Jewish-majority democratic nation. “We don’t want a
binational state, and we don’t want a Palestinian-Iranian state next
door,” he said. “There is an emerging consensus that we don’t have a
partner who can challenge constituencies, do something unpopular, do
something that is difficult. Abbas has not done anything to challenge
the prevailing Palestinian consensus."
And Netanyahu still doesn't get that the best thing we can do right now to prevent the collapse of
Israel as a Jewish-majority democratic nation is nothing. Or perhaps he does get it but cannot say it to the likes of Tzipi Livni.
Goldberg also tries to set up his own straw man claiming that the burden is on Netanyahu to show flexibility.
I asked Netanyahu why he simply doesn’t bypass the current impasse
and declare an indefinite settlement freeze, particularly in areas
outside the thickly settled suburbs of Jerusalem and communities near
Tel Aviv. Right now, the burden is on Netanyahu to prove that he is
interested in compromise. Such a move -- while politically difficult --
would shift the onus onto Abbas and restore some of Israel’s
international standing.
“I don’t think it would work. Having
tried once, I saw that it doesn’t work,” he said, referring to the
time-limited settlement freeze during Obama's first term. “The Americans
said the only way Abbas is going to come into negotiations is either
you release prisoners or freeze settlements: Choose. We chose [to
release prisoners]. We made it very clear to the U.S. and to the
Palestinians exactly how much we would build, including in Jerusalem. We
built exactly what we said we would build in every one of the tranches.
It wasn’t that we surprised anyone with extra construction."
There's another reason Netanyahu won't do it: He wouldn't have a government left.
“No matter what the spin is about blaming Israel, do we actually
expect Abbas, who seems to be embracing Hamas, to give a negotiated
deal? In all likelihood, no. I hope he does, but I’m not sure he’s
going to do it,” Netanyahu said.
“There is an emerging consensus
that we don’t have a partner who can challenge constituencies, do
something unpopular, do something that is difficult. Abbas has not done
anything to challenge the prevailing Palestinian consensus. In fact,
he’s doing the opposite: the Hamas reconciliation, internationalizing
the conflict, not giving one iota on the right of return, not giving an
iota on the Jewish state. He wouldn’t deal with Kerry’s framework,”
Netanyahu said.
Now, if only Netanyahu could challenge his constituencies, think out of the box and bring the disastrous 'Oslo process' to an end.
Of course: White House selects Tom Friedman to reveal 'Kerry plan'
It makes perfect sense that the Obama administration would call on Tom Friedman to disclose the details of the 'Kerry plan' for the Middle East.
Here's why. Let's go to the videotape.
So here's what Friedman has to say about the 'Kerry plan.'
The
“Kerry Plan,” likely to be unveiled soon, is expected to call for an
end to the conflict and all claims, following a phased Israeli
withdrawal from the West Bank (based on the 1967 lines), with
unprecedented security arrangements in the strategic Jordan Valley. The
Israeli withdrawal will not include certain settlement blocs, but Israel
will compensate the Palestinians for them with Israeli territory. It
will call for the Palestinians to have a capital in Arab East Jerusalem
and for Palestinians to recognize Israel as the nation state of the
Jewish people. It will not include any right of return for Palestinian
refugees into Israel proper.
Kerry
expects and hopes that both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel
and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will declare that despite their
reservations about one or another element in the U.S. framework, they
will use it as the basis of further negotiations.
For this we're negotiating? This sounds remarkably like 'what everyone knows' the solution is supposed to be, and if we've proven nothing else going back to the Clinton parameters from the end of 2000, it's that everyone doesn't know.
From there, Friedman veers off into Fantasyland.
This
is where things will get interesting. U.S. and Israeli officials in
close contact with Netanyahu describe him as torn, clearly understanding
that some kind of two-state solution is necessary for Israel’s
integrity as a Jewish democratic state, with the healthy ties to Europe
and the West that are vital for Israel’s economy. But he remains deeply
skeptical about Palestinian intentions — or as Netanyahu said here
Tuesday: “I do not want a binational state. But we also don’t want
another state that will start attacking us.” His political base, though,
which he nurtured, does not want Netanyahu making a U-turn.
Which
is why — although Netanyahu has started to prepare the ground here for
the U.S. plan — if he proceeds on its basis, even with reservations, his
coalition will likely collapse. He will lose a major part of his own
Likud Party and all his other right-wing allies. In short, for Netanyahu
to move forward, he will have to build a new political base around
centrist parties. To do that, Netanyahu would have to become, to some
degree, a new leader — overcoming his own innate ambivalence about any
deal with the Palestinians to become Israel’s most vocal and
enthusiastic salesman for a two-state deal, otherwise it would never
pass.
Well, yeah, the coalition would fall apart. But Netanyahu is not going to make that U-turn, because at this point, if he does, he will have no base in the Likud. And while Netanyahu saying no (which he will at least hopefully be smart enough to hold off doing until the 'Palestinians' inevitably say no - something that Friedman ignores) may precipitate Yesh Atid leaving the coalition, Netanyahu's alternative is to run behind Yair Lapid as Yesh Atid's number 2... and that's not going to happen.
Most Israelis (aside from those who never wanted a deal with the 'Palestinians' in the first place) would answer yes to all of these questions posed by Friedman.
In
essence what Kerry is daring to test is a question everyone has wanted
to avoid: Is the situation between Israelis and Palestinians at five
minutes to midnight or five minutes after midnight, or even 1 a.m. (beyond diplomacy)?
That
is, has Israel become so much more powerful than its neighbors that a
symmetrical negotiation is impossible, especially when the Palestinians
do not seem willing or able to mount another intifada that might force
Israel to withdraw? Has the neighborhood around Israel become so much
more unstable that any Israeli withdrawal from anywhere is unthinkable?
Has the number of Israeli Jews now living in East Jerusalem and the West
Bank become so much larger — more than 540,000 — that they are
immovable? And has the Palestinian rhetoric on the right of return
become so deeply embedded in Palestinian politics? So when you add them
all up, it becomes a fantasy to expect any Israeli or Palestinian leader
to have the strength to make the huge concessions needed for a
two-state solution?
Yes, Tom, read the polls here. Most Israelis believe it's beyond diplomacy. Some of us have believed that for the last 20 years (at least).
Friedman writes that if Kery says the conflict cannot be resolved, Israel will make a 'unilateral withdrawal.' The United States is far more likely to withdraw from Louisiana in such an instance than Israel is to withdraw from Judea and Samaria. It won't happen.
Israel's former head of Military Intelligence... insane?
Insanity, as I'm sure you all know, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Israel withdrew unilaterally from Lebanon in 2000, and now we have 60,000 or more rockets pointing at us courtesy of Hezbullah. Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza in 2005 (and expelled the Jewish population), and the strip was taken over by Hamas and is now a base for shooting rockets at Israel. Now, former Military Intelligence chief Amos Yadlin is advocating doing the same thing again in Judea and Samaria. Insane? You bet 'ya.
With the chances of success in the Israeli-Palestinian talks "very
small," and as the Palestinians have a detailed Plan B for when the
talks fail, Israel needs to be proactive and consider a "coordinated
unilateral" withdrawal to lines it deems suitable, Amos Yadlin said
Monday.
Yadlin, a former chief of Military Intelligence who today
heads the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, said that
although unilateralism got a "bad name" in Israel because of the 2005
withdrawal from Gaza and the 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon, "it is not
necessarily a bad strategy" if done right.
Yadlin, speaking at a briefing marking his think tank's publication
of its 2013-2014 Strategic Survey for Israel, and a day prior to the
organization's annual two-day international conference, said that a
unilateral step in the West Bank would not be Israel's first option, and
that it would prefer an agreement. But if that is not possible, Israel
should consider withdrawing to the security barrier, leaving some 15
percent of the West Bank – including the Jordan Valley – in its hands.
He
said that one of the lessons learned from the Gaza withdrawal was that
it was a mistake to withdraw from 100 percent of the territory, because
then there is no incentive for the other side to continue to negotiate.
Why would we unilaterally give up territory that everyone agrees has strategic value? What would we accomplish by doing this aside from worsening our position and endangering our lives? How would people in the Jordan Valley get back and forth to any other part of the country if the IDF is not there to protect them? And if we give the 'Palestinians' 85% of the territory for free, why wouldn't they just wait for the rest?
Surprise: Vast majority of Israeli Jews opposes terror release
I have mentioned a number of times that 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen is demanding the unilateral release by Israel of some 100-120 'Palestinian' terrorists being held in Israeli prisons for terror attacks in the years leading up to the Oslo Accords. A new poll finds that a huge majority of Israeli Jews is opposed to that demand. 85% of Israeli Jews say that the 'Palestinian' terrorists should not go free in exchange for a resumption of the 'peace talks.' I didn't think 85% of us could agree on anything.
Asked whether they would support releasing terrorists as a
gesture to bring the Palestinians to the negotiating table, 57% said they would
strongly oppose it, 28% said were against it, 13% said they supported it and
just 2% said they were strongly in favor of such a move.
The poll of 407
respondents representing a sample of the Jewish population of Israel was taken
last week and has a 5% margin of error.
The survey also asked how
withdrawing from Judea and Samaria would impact the security situation in
Israel. It found that 68% of Israelis believe it would harm Israeli security and
21% believe it would improve it.
The poll was taken in honor of the
[Knesset Land of Israel] caucus’s launch on Tuesday.
It is to consist of 35 MKs plus the outside
support of several cabinet ministers who cannot join caucuses.
That's a huge majority. But the reality is that if the government were to release terrorists and withdraw from Judea and Samaria, it's unlikely that would cause anyone to vote differently in the next election.
Dr. Ben Carson on White liberals... and Israeli Leftists
Dr. Ben Carson is a pediatric neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, who has gotten a lot of publicity since this speech about two months ago.
In the quote above. Carson is saying that 'affirmative action' is wrong because it dumbs down black people.
The behavior of White liberals in the US is very similar to the behavior of Israeli Leftists. The Leftists argue that we need to have a 'two-state solution' so that 'we'll be over here, and they'll be over there.' Except that they'll be over here too, so we really haven't solved anything other than making ourselves insecure.
Why is President Obama in Israel anyway? Good question. Caroline Glick goes through all the reasons why he really didn't need to come here and then takes an educated guess as to why he's here. It's not pretty.
It is possible that in addressing the unelected radical Left in
Jerusalem, Obama seeks to undermine the legitimacy of the Israeli
government. But if that is the plan, then it would bespeak an
extraordinary contempt and underestimation of Israeli democracy. Such a
plan would not play out the same way his Egyptian speech did.
There
are two possible policies Obama would want to empower Israel's radical,
unelectable Left in order to advance. First, he could be strengthening
these forces to help them pressure the government to make concessions to
the Palestinians in order to convince the Palestinian Authority to
renew negotiations and accept an Israeli peace offer.
While
Obama indicated in his interview with Channel 2 that this is his goal,
it is absurd to believe it. Obama knows there is no chance that the
Palestinians will accept a deal from Israel. PA chief Mahmoud Abbas and
his predecessor Yasser Arafat both rejected Israeli peace offers made by
far more radical Israeli governments than the new Netanyahu government.
Moreover, the Palestinians refused to meet with Israeli negotiators
while Mubarak was still in power. With the Muslim Brotherhood now in
charge in Cairo, there is absolutely no way they will agree to negotiate
- let alone accept a deal.
This leaves another
glaring possibility. Through the radical Left, Obama may intend to
foment a pressure campaign to force the government to withdraw
unilaterally from all or parts of Judea and Samaria, as Israel withdrew
from the Gaza Strip in 2005. If this is Obama's actual policy goal, it
would represent a complete Europeanization of US policy toward Israel.
It was the EU that funded radical leftist groups that pushed for
Israel's unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005.
And in the past week, a number of commentators have spoken and written in favor of such a plan.
Citing an unconfirmed report from the World Tribune, the Times of Israel is reporting that President Obama may demand a timetable for Israel's suicide (unilateral withdrawal of all troops and expulsion of all revenants) from Judea and Samaria... or else(Hat Tip: MFS - The Other News).
The report indicated that the president had
made clear to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that his upcoming visit
to Israel, his first since becoming president, “is not about photo-ops,
but the business of Iran and a Palestinian state.”
The Times of Israel could not independently
confirm the report, which contradicts official American comments ahead
of the trip, which has been described as a solidarity and consultative
mission.
“The implication is that if Israel won’t give
him something he can work with, then he’ll act on his own,” the website
quoted one source as saying. According to the report, an Israeli pullout
plan could form part of an imminent US push to form a Palestinian state
in the West Bank in 2014.
The World Tribune is a conservative American
news website that was founded in 1998 by Robert Morton, a former editor
at the Washington Times. The New Yorker has called it ”something between a newspaper and a rumor-mongering blog.”
Last week, it was rumored that Obama may cancel his scheduled trip
if Netanyahu is unable to form a governing coalition by March 16. So
far, the prime minister has only been able to sign up Tzipi Livni’s
Hatnua party, with its six Knesset seats, for the next government, but
most political sources believe he will beat the March 16 deadline.
Outgoing Defense Minister Ehud Barak, speaking at the AIPAC conference in Washington on Sunday night, said that, in lieu of a final-status peace deal with the Palestinians, Israel “should consider unilateral steps” in order to prevent the “dangerous” eventuality of a bi-national state.
And Netanyahu is about to enter into a coalition agreement with Yair Lapid, who believes in 'unilateral withdrawal' and to put Tzipi Livni in charge of 'negotiations' with the 'Palestinians'?
Mr. Magoo: Sharon was ready to abandon two thirds of 'West Bank'
All of you who grew up in the US in the 1960's, tell me he doesn't look like Mr. Magoo.
Rafi Eitan, who has been persona non grata in the US ever since he was exposed as Jonathan Pollard's Mossad handler, claims that Ariel Sharon was ready to withdraw from two thirds of Judea and Samaria in 2006, before God decided He had other plans. Eitan now says that Prime Minister Netanyahu should surprise President Obama by offering to do the same.
A month before prime minister Sharon suffered a
stroke, in January 2006, he was on the phone with Eitan. Four months
after Israel’s unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip, the two
discussed a preliminary plan to leave the West Bank as well, while
maintaining the maximum number of Israeli settlements under Israeli
control.
“Sharon knew that we must disengage from the
Palestinians in the West Bank too; that we can’t continue occupying a
foreign people,” Eitan told The Times of Israel.
Sharon dubbed his plan “the
mosaic separation,” because it left most Israeli settlements intact,
allowing isolated Palestinian villages access to large urban centers
through an intricate system of underpasses and tunnels.
“Arik [Sharon] said: Let’s divide Judea and
Samaria and take roughly one-third for ourselves, leaving two-thirds for
the Arabs,” Eitan said. “Under this plan, the Jordan Valley and the
Judean Desert would remain ours.”
With the Palestinian body politic divided
today between Gaza and the West Bank — while internal rifts within the
PLO prevent “even the signing of an interim agreement” — Eitan said he
would advise Netanyahu to implement the Sharon plan immediately.
“We must disconnect from them [the
Palestinians] as much as possible,” Eitan said, adding that he would
even favor a plan attributed to former foreign minister Avigdor Liberman
of handing over the area known as “the Triangle” in northwest Israel —
with its 300,000 Arab citizens — to the future Palestinian state.
It was a lousy idea in 2006, and subsequent events have made it an even lousier idea. Mr. Magoo should go back to making cartoons.
I probably get calls from pollsters twice a week in this country. None of them know I'm a political blogger. As soon as I figure out it's a poll (or a consumer survey), I hang up the phone. Perhaps others with brains in their heads react as I do and that's why you get polls like this one:
Almost half of the Israeli population supports a unilateral withdrawal
from the Palestinian territories on the basis of the 1967 lines,
according to a poll conducted by Rafi Smith for the Blue and White
Future movement. Forty-five percent of respondents answered they would
back a unilateral withdrawal so long as settlement blocs were
maintained.
In a similar survey conducted in June, only 38% of respondents supported such a withdrawal.
Eighty
percent of respondents supported leaving an IDF presence in the West
Bank in the case of unilateral withdrawal until a final status agreement
is signed. All Yahadut Hatorah supporters answered "yes" to this
question, while on the other side of the political spectrum, 64% of
Meretz supporters also answered in favor of IDF security measures.
Seventy-six
percent of those surveyed supported the principle of compensating
settlers who agree to evacuate voluntarily, with 95% of both Yesh Atid
and The Tzipi Livni party supporters favoring this idea.
Meanwhile,
68% of respondents backed early preparations by the state to absorb
settlers now living east of the security barrier, in order to facilitate
implementation of the process, down 10% from the June survey. This 10%
decrease was mostly attributed to right-wing and Orthodox respondents.
The percentage of Bayit Yehudi supporters who answered in favor of unilateral withdrawal rose by 16% since June to 41%.
Okay folks, what's missing in this poll? How many people did they survey? What questions did they ask? What percentage of the respondents were Arabs? What percentage live over the 1949 armistice lines? In what area did they say they proposed to unilaterally expel the Jews? (It's a funny thing about these polls: They all say 'yes' until you ask 'Maaleh Adumim? No. Givat Zev? No. Gush Etzion? No. Beit El? No.' So where are they willing to expel the Jews? Somewhere...). Here is another indication of how biased this poll is: 41% of Bayit Yehudi respondents in favor of 'unilateral withdrawal'? If that were true, it would have happened already.
Oh yes, and who sponsored the poll?
Co-chairman
of the Blue and White Future movement Gilad Sher said that the Israeli
public is beginning to internalize the idea that a Jewish democratic
state requires withdrawing from the Palestinian territories, with or
without an agreement.
You may recall that ten days or so ago, Defense Minister Ehud Barak suggested that Israel unilaterally withdraw from much of Judea and Samaria, as it did in Gaza seven years ago. 'Palestinian' journalist Khaled Abu Toameh writes that such a unilateral withdrawal is a recipe for disaster.
Fatah lost the 2006 parliamentary election mainly because of its leaders' involvement in the embezzlement of public funds. Since then, Fatah has failed to draw the conclusions from its defeat and has not even been able to come up with a new list of capable candidates that could attract Palestinian voters.
The same Fatah men who lost the vote are, in fact, continuing to run the show in Ramallah -- as if they had never lost.
Even if the Islamists do not take over the West Bank in the aftermath of a unilateral Israeli pullout, it is almost certain that the Palestinian Authority would not be able to prevent local gangs and clans from seizing power.
The case of Jenin, a city in the West Bank, is a good example of the weakness of the Palestinian Authority security forces, especially with regard to imposing law and order: Palestinian Authority officials have admitted that Jenin has been controlled over the past two years by Fatah militiamen and thugs who worked closely with many top Palestinian security officers, imposing a reign of terror and intimidation on the city's residents.
A unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank could mean that Palestinian cities like Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin, Bethlehem and Hebron would fall either into the hands of Hamas or armed Fatah gangs.
Abbas and Fayyad would not be able to do much to prevent a return to scenes of anarchy and lawlessness that were once prevalent on the Palestinian street.
The chaos and violence inside the Palestinian cities would also spill over into Israel, forcing it to launch another "Defensive Shield" type of operation, like the one in 2002, to clear the area of armed gangs.
Some of us warned of terrorists taking over Gaza in 2005 and using it as a platform to launch rockets against Israel. They didn't listen to us then. Why should they listen to us now?
On Wednesday, I reported that Defense Minister Ehud Barak told a conference here in Israel that we should unilaterally withdraw from much of Judea and Samaria because we can't reach an agreement with the 'Palestinians.' The 'Palestinians' immediately came out against the idea, because there is no way we could give this spoiled 'people' enough to satisfy them, and they don't want to create any expectations that they might ever live in peace with us. Now, Hillary Clinton agrees with the 'Palestinians': There is no substitute for negotiations.
"We have discouraged unilateral action from both sides," said Clinton when asked about the possibility during a press conference while on trip to Denmark. "The United States believes there is no substitute for direct talks between the parties."
...
Clinton, however, said the new political environment in Israel gave some hope for movement in the peace process and that the US would be pushing for such momentum.
"This new coalition government in Israel provides the best opportunity in several years to reach such a negotiated agreement," she said.
Clinton noted that she had called both Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to press them to take advantage of the "new opening" created by Israel's broad coalition.
"We’re going to continue to urge them to do so," she emphasized, pointing also to Israel's return of 91 bodies of Palestinian suicide bombers as another sign of potential progress.
I wonder whether Secretary Clinton also considers the 'Palestinian' celebration of the 'heroes' return to be another 'sign of potential progress.'
Let's go to the videotape. Keep in mind that each of those coffins contains a suicide bomber or other terrorist.
Barak has been through everything and learned nothing
Just a few moments ago, I received an email from his yeshiva about an event marking 30 years since the 'disappearance' of Zechariah Baumol in the battle of Sultan Yaqub. That battle was commanded by none other than the current Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, who is rumored to have gone to sleep while the battle was raging. Baumol is one of five soldiers from that battle whose fate was unknown for many years. He is one of three from that battle who are still missing.
Barak - along with Shimon Peres - is a politician about whom it can be said that he has been through everything and learned nothing. It was Barak who fled a training accident at Tzehilim, leaving IDF soldiers to die as he left in his helicopter. It was Barak that tried unsuccessfully to reach a deal with Yasser Arafat at Camp David twelve summers ago and got a violent intifada in return for his flexibility. It was Barak who left an IDF soldier to die while he sought 'permission' from Yasser Arafat to rescue the soldier on Rosh HaShanna twelve years ago. It was Barak who continued to try to give away the store to Arafat, while that intifada raged, in a bid to save his seat as Prime Minister. And it was Barak who, as Defense Minister, passed on the opportunity to finish off Hamas during Operation Cast Lead.
I suppose we should not be surprised that Ehud Barak now wants to 'unilaterally withdraw' from Judea and Samaria.
Israel should consider a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank if negotiations with the Palestinians fail, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on Wednesday.
Barak received support for his position from Amos Yadlin, the former head of Military Intelligence who now serves as director of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) in Tel Aviv.
Yadlin presented a report at a conference at the think tank claiming that the chance for a peaceful negotiated resolution with the Palestinian Authority was not attainable in the near future and therefore needed to consider a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank.
Yadlin said that INSS decided to recommend unilateral action due to an understanding that the PA leadership was not willing to compromise on the right of return for refugees and was also unlikely to recognize Israel's identity as a Jewish state.
"If it turns out that it is not possible to reach an agreement, we need to consider an interim arrangement or alternatively a unilateral step," Barak said at the conference. "Israel cannot permit this to remain in deadlock."
Presidential spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh Wednesday told WAFA that any Israeli unilateral measure leading to the establishment of a state with temporary borders is unacceptable.
Abu Rudeineh’s statements came in response to earlier statements by the Israeli Minister of Defence, Ehud Barak, that Israel should consider unilateral moves and withdrawal from the West Bank if negotiations with the Palestinians failed.
This Israeli policy leads to the continuation of the conflict; it does not lead to a solution, rather it ends the concept of the two-state solution, added Abu Rudeineh.
He emphasized that the Palestinians are “committed to a just and comprehensive solution of a state within 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital and without Jerusalem nothing will be accepted.”
In 2009, we were told that Prime Minister Netanyahu 'needed' Ehud Barak to show that his was not 'just' a rightist government. But Barak now controls only five Knesset seats, and is the leader of a party that is unlikely to pass the threshold in the next Knesset election. And so, unless he is taken into the Likud, he will not even be an MK after November 2013. In light of Barak's continued argument for Leftist positions that most of the current government opposes, and in light of the presence in Netanyahu's own party of Moshe 'Boogie' Yaalon, who is also a former IDF chief of staff, one has to wonder why Barak remains Defense Minister.
Unless, of course, Netanyahu really is a closet Leftist.
I don't normally feel obligated to post everything (or anything) Haaretz's Aluf Benn writes. But in this case, reader Racquel R did such a good job of fisking him that the post writes itself:
Dear Tom,
I want to thank you for sending this, because it shows the fallacies of the so-called left.
Secondly, let me show where the article flat out lies.
When he regained the prime minister's post, he discarded his predecessor's peace proposals and refused to discuss "core issues" with the Palestinians.
This is a LIE. I know for a FACT that Bibi did not "discard" his predecessor's revolting 'peace' (i.e., surrender) proposal. By disgusting, I mean that Olmert offered to not only divide Jerusalem, he offered to give up the Temple Mount, including the Kotel, and have a limited 'right of return.' Of course, Abbas did not accept this deal because he does not want a state. He just wants to retain his mafioso quasi-government and stay alive.
Now that said, while Olmert's deal was basically a surrender deal, it was Abbas who discarded all peace talks. When Obama took office, he decided to offer the 'Palestinians' far more than they were expecting (including essentially saying that all areas east of the "green line" were illegitimate), and so Abbas refused to even bargain! Moreover, he would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state or give security assurances. So in short, he offered nothing. To blame this on Bibi - despite the fact that it was Abbas who reneged on everything, is absurd.
But let me go on to prove how misleading Aluf Benn really can be.
The new Israeli peace initiative presented by leading figures in the business and academic communities undermines the central foundation of the Netanyahu-Barak government, which is that there is no Palestinian partner. The prime minister's popularity is damaged when he is occupied with explaining his lavish travels around the world. It is increasingly reminiscent of Ariel Sharon's forlorn autumn that led him to the disengagement policy.
What "new Israeli peace initiative"? What "business and academic communities"? He doesn't even explain what this is, who has put this forward, or whether the public at large accepts or even knows about this. And yes, Israel is unpopular abroad. But he does not explain why that is not the fault of anti-Israel lies in the "mainstream media" of "Western" countries, as well as antisemitism, rather than Bibi. The "international community" has hated and isolated Israel for quite some time. None of what we see here is new or specific to Bibi. The "Goldstone Report" was commissioned when Olmert was in charge. And need I remind you of the "Zionism is racism" UN resolution?
The prime minister is considering throwing the governments of the West a bone in the form of the transfer of territory in the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority without harming the settlements. In return, the Americans and Europeans will ease their pressure on Israel and refrain from recognizing a Palestinian state, and will convene an international conference where Netanyahu will be presented as a statesman and peacemaker rather than as a stubborn politician.
The amount of anti-Israel incitement (and particularly anti-Bibi incitement) in the "West" has reached such a fevered pitch, that it is far more likely that if you give a finger, they expect a hand. If Bibi thinks that conceding to the "West" and "international community" will prevent further action by the so-called "international community," then he is sadly mistaken.
The party of the disengagement, Kadima, will be forced to support Netanyahu in his concessions. Its support will neutralize the growing threat of early elections against the backdrop of the expected indictment of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman [Lieberman was indicted on Wednesday CiJ]. The left will praise Netanyahu, the investigation over his trips abroad will be shelved, and the right wing will criticize him but swallow the withdrawal out of concern over falling from power.
To that I say...maybe? But so what? Does this prove that if Bibi decides to give up land for nothing that he will be acting in Israel's interests? No. So much for his "statesmanship" if he surrenders.
It sounds perfect, but there's a problem here. Netanyahu's new policy is not rational. If the territories are important for Israel, as he has argued up to now, why give them up for a deferral of a U.N. vote or for a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama? And if the territories are not important, why hold on to them? If Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is refusing to negotiate and the PA has engaged in incitement, as Netanyahu has argued, how can they be given more territory? And most importantly, let's assume Netanyahu gets through September and buys the deferral of a UN vote with a few thousand dunams of land. What will he do in October?
The world will not abandon its aspiration for an end to the occupation and independence for the Palestinians, and the pressure on Israel will continue.
There is no reason to carry out a miserly withdrawal without a quid pro quo just to buy more time.
Wow, this I agree with Aluf Benn about.
There is a logic in a unilateral process that creates fundamental change on the ground and ultimately establishes a new border, such as was done in Gaza. The public will understand and the world will support a major withdrawal that includes the evacuation of dozens of settlements and heralds the end of the occupation while maintaining military control over the Jordan Valley. But such a decision requires courage and political ability on Sharon's level, and it is not enough to be a good speechwriter.
I don't know that the Israeli public would support this necessarily. [It would not. CiJ] And he hasn't proven that it is good for Israel, or would lead to increased safety and security for Israel. The "West Bank" is not the same as Gaza, and it is much closer to big Israeli population centers. Plus, much of it is the high ground. We see how well "disengagement" worked out for Gaza, and so why exactly would it work out for the "West Bank"? Aluf Benn has not shown one scintilla of evidence to explain how this could work. Thus, he has not shown where this action would be "courageous," rather than an action of capitulation to the "international community," which would still demand more, anyway.
Five and a half years later, Israeli teenagers clueless about Gush Katif
It's been five and a half years since Israel expelled the Jewish residents of Gush Katif, and many Israeli teenagers are clueless about what happened.
To the best of your knowledge what is Neveh Dekalim? Tel Aviv neighborhood 21% Herzelya hotel 9% Biblical period city 8% Largest community in Gush Katif 17% Don't know/other 45%
Where is Gush Katif located? South of Ashkelon 36% Judean Hills 14% Southern Golan Heights 12% Don't know/other 38%
To the best of your knowledge, what year was the disengagement plan carried out in Gush Katif? 2005 41% 1948 3% 1995 8% 1982 6% Don't know/other 42%
Who was prime minister at the time of the disengagement from Gush Katif? Olmert 12% Ben Gurion 0% Rabin 4% Sharon 61% Don't know/other 23%
To the best of your knowledge, how many residents lived in Gush Katif before the disengagement? One community of around 150 families 2% 1,000 3% 9,000 11% Over 9,000 28% Don't know/other 56%
To what extent would you be interested in receiving additional information via a film or school discussion about life in Gush Katif before the disengagement? Not interested 27% Doesn't matter to me either way 29% Interested 27% Don't know/other 17%
This afternoon, we had someone whom the media would term a 'militant settler' in our house. He's in his early 30's (we've known him since he was a teenager), and lives in one of the Samarian towns that's outside the 'security fence.' He reads this blog regularly.
After I gave him a 5-minute summary of Palileaks, which he had not yet been following, he came out with a quote that surprised me, and he gave me permission to share it with you.
He said, "[A] lot of my neighbors might disagree with me, but if I really believed that leaving my home in x would bring peace, I'd do it in a minute. But it wouldn't bring peace. It would bring rockets on the airport and on Tel Aviv. Southern Lebanon and Gaza prove that. Most Israelis today seem to understand that."
A report indicates that Prime Minister Netanyahu may offer a 'West Bank pullout' in coordination with the United States.
A political source in Jerusalem has said that the US is leading the way for a new route to continuing negotiations with the Palestinians which include examining the option of offering the Palestinians an additional Israeli pullout in Judea and Samaria and transferring defense authority to the Palestinian Authority.
"The steps are being coordinated with Israel", said the senior source, "the goal for both sides is to find a route that will lead to a year of continuous talks which will end with an agreement."
Here is a response from UNIFIL spokesperson Neeraj Singh to a report that the residents of Ghajar are not happy that the IDF will be withdrawing from the northern half of the town.
Asked about protests against the decision by the town’s residents, he said that “the priority for us is the Israeli army’s withdrawal according to Resolution 1701.”
Aren't you glad UNIFIL cares? Don't you wish everyone did?
Ghajar evacuation meant to press Hezbullah to disarm
In the comments, in my last post about Ghajar, someone suggested that the withdrawal from Ghajar was meant to pressure Hezbullah. And in fact, that's exactly what the JPost says, after quoting Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.
UNFIL political adviser Milos Strugar told The Jerusalem Post that according to UN resolution 1701, Israel was suppose to withdraw from all Lebanese territory, and had done so, with the exception of the northern part of Ghajar.
He said that in UNIFIL,"We have been actively engaged with all the parties on how to facilitate the withdrawal. Recently we forwarded some ideas for the withdrawal to Israel." An Israeli withdrawal could set the stage for more tension between Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri's Western-backed political bloc and its Shiite Hizbullah rivals, who have extended their political influence in Hariri's shaky coalition government and maintain the country's strongest military arsenal.
Hariri's allies would likely use the pullout to argue that Hezbollah no longer needs its weapons and that disputed land can be regained with the help of the international community instead. Hizbullah, which refuses to disarm, is already saying its military power would be to thank for any Israeli pullout.
Sorry folks, but this isn't going to get Hezbullah to lay down its arms. As implied above, Hezbullah will instead take credit for having forced Israel out of Ghajar, as is already happening.
Hizbullah on Sunday positioned itself to claim victory for any pullout.
"If the withdrawal happens, it (Israel) won't be doing it for free but because of fear of the resistance and Lebanon's strength through the resistance," Hizbullah legislator Nawar Saheli told The Associated Press in Beirut.
Moreover, Hezbullah has plenty of other excuses for keeping arms aside from Ghajar. There's Shaba Farms and there are the seven former Shiite villages that are now in Israel. Not to mention Israel itself.
No, it's not about Ghajar, and Israel withdrawing from Ghajar won't make Hezbullah give up its arms. We've already done the 'unilateral withdrawal' thing twice before - Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza and Northern Samaria in 2005. Not only didn't it bring peace, it brought war. Now, Netanyahu and Lieberman want to do it again.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
