Powered by WebAds

Saturday, February 28, 2009

Hamas clenches its fist (again) and Israel's 'Right' extends its hand

Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.

Hamas is managing to destroy all the goodwill in its favor from the United States and the 'Palestinian Authority.' US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Saturday regarding Hamas
They must renounce violence, recognize Israel, and abide by previous commitments, otherwise, I don't think it will result in the kind of positive step forward either for the Palestinian people or as a vehicle for a reinvigorated effort to obtain peace that leads to a Palestinian state.
'Moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen at least knows on which side his bread is buttered, and has piped up in agreement with Clinton.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday said that a Palestinian unity government with Hamas must support a two-state solution, reiterating a call by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the Islamic group to recognize Israel.

In a Ramallah speech, Abbas said progress was being made toward establishing a Palestinian unity government "that will be committed to our values and will respect agreements previously signed by the Palestinian Authority," Army Radio reported.
But Hamas spokesman Aiman Taha says that his group will never agree to sit in a 'government' that recognizes Israel.

Meanwhile, those who claim to be Israel's 'Right' are falling all over themselves to show the Americans their commitment to a 'Palestinian' state reichlet. This is from an interview with Israel's likely next Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, in Saturday's Washington Post:
What do you say when asked if you believe in a two-state solution as George Bush outlined in 2002?

Substantively, I think there is broad agreement inside Israel and outside that the Palestinians should have the ability to govern their lives but not to threaten ours.

Didn't you say that the recent Gaza operation did not go far enough and that Hamas should be toppled?

Hamas is incompatible with peace.

So what do you do about that?

I hope that the Palestinians in Gaza find the ability to change this regime because we want to have peace with all the Palestinians. Right now, what we should do is enable humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza but not in such a way as it enables Hamas to buy more rockets.


You're not the right-wing hawk they describe in the papers?

I'm the person who did the Wye agreement and the Hebron agreement in the search for peace. I think a lot of people at the time thought the problem was the Israeli government, specifically my own, and that Arafat was the solution and not the problem. That view has undergone some changes since then.
And then there's Avigdor Lieberman, who has decided that he wants to be foreign minister (told you so!).
What portfolio would you like?

I think I can hold every portfolio—defense, finance and Foreign Ministry. I think personally I'd like the foreign office.

Do you think you would have a problem with the international community, living in a settlement and having very hard-line views?

I've met everybody—Condoleezza Rice, Tony Blair, Javier Solana. They know me. I don't see that it would be an obstacle.

But you have George Mitchell here as the special envoy for Middle East peace, who wrote a report in 2001 calling the settlements an obstacle to peace.

We must explain to Mr. Mitchell that his … is the wrong view. [Settlements are] only one part of the problem.

If you become foreign minister in Benjamin Netanyahu's government, will you continue the peace process?

Of course, but we will put things in the right line. Not to start with a final agreement, [but] to [go] step by step. You can't start with Jerusalem or the evacuation of the settlements. You must start with the security and the economy. You must strengthen the Palestinian Authority.
And then there's this interview in Sunday's Washington Post with Lieberman (all three interviews were with the same writer):
Do you agree with President Bush that there should be a two-state solution?

It was a big dispute between Prime Minister [Ariel] Sharon and me before disengagement [in 2005]. I said you go to establish a Palestinian state without even one Jew, we will become a binational state with more than twenty per cent minority. It won't work. . . . It is really a state and a half for the Palestinians and a half-state for the Israelis. . . .

Our proposal was exchanging territory and population, exactly like the Cyprus model.

You would take the territory where the Jews live in settlements on the West Bank and Israeli Arabs live and swap them?

Of course. Here is a picture of my settlement behind you, Nokdim, in the Judean Desert. I even agree to vacate my settlement if there really will be a two-state solution. What does the leader of the Israeli Arabs say? They're not interested in any Palestinian state. Even the Palestinians aren't interested in a Palestinian state.

You think they want all of Israel?

They want one country from the Jordan River to the sea. [Defense Minister Ehud] Barak gave a very crazy proposal to go back to the 1967 borders. [Yasir] Arafat said no. Also, Sharon gave up all of the Gaza Strip. And at [the] Annapolis [peace conference in 2007], a left-wing government gave very strange and crazy proposals. Even so, the Palestinians didn't accept. Prime Minister [Ehud] Olmert tried to jump from the first stage [of the roadmap] to the final stage. It didn't work, it's impossible.
Lieberman almost seems to get it at the end there. This dispute is not about land. If it was, it probably would have been settled a long time ago. This dispute is about the existence of a Jewish state on the historic Jewish homeland. The 'Palestinians' Arabs cannot accept any Jewish state. Abu Mazen would wipe out the Jewish state in a second if he could. The only difference between him and Hamas is a tactical one. Every Arab country would like to wipe out the Jewish state (yes, including Egypt).

On the other hand, giving up land in Judea and Samaria would place Israel's cities within short missile range of 'Palestinian' terrorists and within easy flight range of the Arab countries. This is from a US Joint Chiefs of Staff report from 1967:
Israel would need a defense line generally along the Bardala-Tuba-Nablus-Bira-Jerusalem axis, and then to the northern part of the Dead Sea. This line would widen the narrow portion of Israel and provide additional terrain for the defense of Tel Aviv.

The report also provides support for a united Jerusalem under Israeli control. To defend Jerusalem, the Joint Chiefs concluded, Israel would need to have its border positioned to the east of the city.
That's pretty much all of Judea and Samaria.
Israel's return to its pre-1967 borders, which the Arab states want to reimpose, would sorely tempt potential aggressors to launch attacks on the Jewish State — as they did routinely before 1967. Israel would lose the extensive system of early-warning radars it has set up in the hills of Judea and Samaria. Were a hostile neighbor then to seize control of these mountains, its army could split Israel in two: From there, it is only about 15 miles — without any major geographic obstacles — to the Mediterranean.

At their narrowest point, these 1967 lines are within 9 miles of the Israeli coast, 11 miles from Tel Aviv, 10 from Beersheba, 21 from Haifa and one foot from Jerusalem.
It's not politically correct to say it, but agreeing to a 'Palestinian' state is signing Israel's death warrant.


At 3:47 AM, Blogger NormanF said...

Agreed, Carl. The Palestinians don't want it even IF Israel agreed to go back behind the 1967 lines. They won't accept a Jewish State within ANY conceivable set of borders. That's why a Palestinian reichlet isn't going to happen any time soon.


Post a Comment

<< Home