Panetta's Pointless Warning to Israel

Jonothan S. Tobin of Commentary Magazine:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Israel yesterday that its increasing isolation in the region means it must take “risks for peace.” This shot fired over the bow of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was made in comments to reporters traveling with Panetta, who is on his first trip to the Jewish state since assuming the leadership of the Pentagon.

But it is not likely to make much of an impression with the Israeli people for the simple reason that, unlike either the Obama administration and the international press corps, they understand Israel has been taking risks for peace for 18 years. Panetta’s statement, like so much of the rhetoric that has come out of the administration, seems to reflect a mindset that treats the events of the last 18 years as meaningless.

After the Oslo Accords, the peace offers that both Yasir Arafat​ and Mahmoud Abbas rejected and the withdrawal from Gaza that turned that area into a terrorist state, how can any American speak as if Israel has stood pat all this time rather than, as the historical record proves, taken terrible risks for which it has gotten little reward?

The Panetta visit is meant to reassure the Israelis who are understandably worried about the way in which the Arab Spring has led to more hate for the Jewish state rather than democracy for the Arabs. It is an unfortunate fact that there is nothing Israel can do to repair relations with countries like Turkey and Egypt, whose governments are whipping up antagonism for reasons that have little to do with the policies of the Netanyahu government. As dangerous as this is, it is the helplessness of the United States in the face of these trends that is most troubling.

President Obama came into office hoping to curry favor with the Arab and Muslim world by distancing the United States from Israel. While that policy shift helped fuel Palestinian intransigence and doomed the already slim hopes for Middle East peace, it did nothing to make America loved. But as the situation in the region deteriorates, Obama still has no answers other than to blame Israel and to demand it take “risks.”

While it is to be hoped Panetta will reaffirm the U.S. security cooperation with Israel that has survived Obama’s predilection for picking fights with Netanyahu, there is reason to worry the administration is looking to set the stage for a new round of pressure on the prime minister. Despite the pledges that the United States will work to preserve Israel’s military edge over its hostile neighbors, the timing of the visit may mean Washington is looking to demand payment for its veto of Palestinian independence at the United Nations.

But even if Netanyahu were to make the concessions on settlements and Jerusalem that Obama wants, there is little reason to believe the Palestinian Authority is interested in signing any peace deal. Rather than muscling Israel, the administration needs to make it clear to the Palestinian Authority, whom Panetta is said to be hoping to “re-engage,” that they cannot continue to be the beneficiaries of American largesse while at the same time doing everything in their power to torpedo the peace process.

Weakening Israel or creating the impression the United States is seeking to undermine its government only makes it less likely the Palestinians and other nations in the region will work for peace. By arriving in the region demanding Israel take “risks” they have already undertaken, rather than making it clear to the PA they will get nothing from their refusal to talk, Panetta has only ensured the standoff will continue.

Not all was bad though.  Panetta reaffirmed the U.S.' committment to a secure Israel and a stable country in the everchanging Middle East.

The most important thing I bring with me is the continuing commitment to the security of Israel. We have been strong allies, we have been strong partners. We have always made a commitment to do everything we can to support the security of Israel and as the Secretary of Defense, I intend to continue that commitment. I think it's important for us to say to this region that when it comes to the difficult issues we face we stand together to try to confront our difficult and common challenges.

International troops in Israel - learn FROM history

George Santayana once said that those who can not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

We see that all the time.  Whether it's raising a large banner in Poland that says "Jihad" when the Hapoel Tel Aviv team is playing in Poland, or whether it's the Arab Spring taking the same course as the French Revolution.  It shouldn't surprise anyone all that much.

But yet, the world just can't learn from history.  I'm not talking about sitting down in a social studies class, taking notes, and studying fora test.  I mean just knowing basic facts about history, the past, and how to avoid such a thing in the present/future.

From Dore Gold of Israel Hayom:

It has become almost axiomatic for Western leaders who are aware of Israel's acute military vulnerability to suggest that international forces be deployed to address the  Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It has even been suggested that the IDF withdraw from strategically vital parts of the West Bank, like the Jordan Valley, and instead let international forces take their place. This was in fact proposed in the past by General Jim Jones, President Barack Obama's first national security adviser. 

Some Israelis have also proposed this idea; former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told The New York Times earlier this year that he wanted to deploy international forces in the West Bank, though he suggested they be led by the U.S. The last major experiment with international forces was actually attempted under the Olmert government at the end of the 2006 Second Lebanon War, with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701. It is worthwhile to look back five years to see how that international force actually functioned before more proposals of this kind are put on the table in the future by the international community.

At the time, Israeli diplomacy was focused on instituting security arrangements that were intended to prevent the return of the military conditions along Israel's northern border that had contributed to the outbreak of hostilities to begin with. Thus Resolution 1701 called for the creation of a larger UNIFIL force with a much more more robust mandate than before. It was not supposed to be just another U.N. force with underpaid third world soldiers, but rather European forces from France Spain, and Italy, like those who make up NATO, were deployed instead.

The resolution also reiterated the importance of UNIFIL actually disarming Lebanese militias, like Hezbollah, in accordance with past U.N. resolutions. Resolution 1701 sought to prohibit the transfer of arms into Lebanon that were not authorized by the Lebanese Government, thereby making any further Iranian arms transfers to Hezbollah a violation of a U.N. Security Council Resolution. In order to implement this arms embargo, German naval ships were deployed to monitor the Lebanese coastline in September 2006.   

But clearly the most important innovation that Resolution 1701 proposed was the establishment of a special area between the "blue line," which demarcated the Israeli-Lebanese border, and the Litani River, in which the only weapons and military personnel permitted would be those of the Lebanese Army or UNIFIL. It was a kind of internationally sanctioned security zone, without Israeli troops. This last provision was supposed to keep Hezbollah units away from the Israeli border and make it more difficult for them to open fire on Israeli patrols or to kidnap Israeli soldiers right across the border.

Before the Second Lebanon War, there were approximately 5,000 Hezbollah terrorists in this area who were equipped with 10,000 rockets. Hezbollah had another 5,000 rockets north of the Litani River. These weapons would have to be completely eliminated from the security zone south of the Litani. At the time, Resolution 1701 was hailed in Israel as a great diplomatic achievement.  

But what happened five years later to Resolution 1701 and the new, more robust international forces that it created? First, Hezbollah has returned to South Lebanon with a force similar to what it had prior to the Second Lebanon War. There are now close to 40,000 rockets in Hezbollah's total arsenal in Lebanon, of which 30,000 are located south of the Litani, in the zone that was not supposed to have any weapons other than those of UNIFIL or the Lebanese Army.

Second, in late March 2011, the Washington Post published IDF maps showing that Hezbollah had established not just a few military positions in southern Lebanon, but rather hundreds of military sites throughout its villages, sites that contained weapons, storage facilities, underground bunkers and observations posts. In some villages, like al-Khiam, a Shiite village that is only four kilometers from the Israeli border, these facilities have intentionally been placed next to schools and mosques as well as within civilian homes. 

According to Resolution 1701, UNIFIL should be going into the Shiite villages of southern Lebanon to remove the Hezbollah weaponry that is being stored there in violation of the provisions in Resolution 1701. The chances that even European troops would be willing to risk their lives and move into Shiite villages to take out weaponry is almost nil. Already in July 2011, France's UNIFIL force came under attack, leading President Nicolas Sarkozy to threaten that he was going to pull out his troops from southern Lebanon.

What does this experience mean for international forces in the Jordan Valley safeguarding the demilitarization of a Palestinian state? If UNIFIL cannot guarantee the de-militarization of Southern Lebanon, how will international forces help guarantee the de-militarization of a Palestinian state in the West Bank? 

Certainly, one of the main lessons of the Gaza Disengagement was that it was a cardinal error for Israel to withdraw from the Philadelphi Route. The Route became a corridor for Hamas to import huge quantities of rockets, explosives and even SA-7 anti-aircraft missiles into the Gaza Strip. Hamas used small, locally-made Qassam rockets before disengagement, but it only attacked Israel with longer-range Grad rockets for the first time in 2006, after the IDF was no longer operating against the smuggling in the Philadelphi Route.

In the case of the West Bank, the failure of UNIFIL in Southern Lebanon is only the latest reminder of why Israel must retain the IDF in the Jordan Valley as the front-line of its defense to the east. Anyone who proposes that Israel make its security dependent on international forces only has to look at what has happened in southern Lebanon over the last five years.

You may not want to learn from history.  That's fine.  But don't expect Israel to sit there and let history repeat itself.  Don't expect us to accept an invitation to suicide.  Don't expect us to sit idly by and learn nothing from the past - just 5 years ago.

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon - "Palestinians are using settlement issue as distraction"

JPost:

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said on Sunday that the Palestinians are using the issue of settlement construction in order to distract the world from the so-called Quartet of Middle East mediators' demand to renew peace talks, according to Israel Radio.

Speaking during a tour of Gilo for foreign journalists, Ayalon added that construction plans for the east Jerusalem neighborhood are not a matter of "political timing," but rather a response to the needs of residents.

Israel on Sunday formally accepted the Quartet's proposal for re-starting negotiations with the Palestinians, following a meeting between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his senior ministers.

"Israel welcomes the Quartet's call for direct negotiations without pre-conditions with the Palestinian Authority, which was already suggested by US president Barack Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, even though Israel has a number of reservations which it will bring up in the negotiations."

Israel received rebukes from European and American diplomats over the plans in Gilo, with the US calling the move "counter-productive" and Europeans, including European Foreign Affairs chief  Catherine Ashton, saying it was the kind of "provocative" action that should be avoided as per the Quartet's statement. 

Ashton called on Israel to "reverse" its decision to build 1,100 new housing units in Gilo.

The government, however, has insisted that construction in the Jewish neighborhoods of Gilo is standard Israeli policy, and that Gilo is not a settlement nor should construction there be considered settlement development.

The statement called on the PA to enter negotiations without delay.

A fellow blogger, Elder of Ziyon, confirms this tactic by showing multiple maps and pictures of Gilo in relation to the Green Line and Arab villages, and shows that Gilo isn't a settlement but rather a neighborhood on area that would be kept as Israel in any peace agreement.

But once again, the Palestinians must always seek an excuse as to why they can't enter into negotiations.

"It's Israel's fault, they want to actually negotiate, instead of giving up everything in preconditions! This isn't something we will accept!"

"It's Israel's fault, they're building homes for residents of Israel in areas that would remain Israel in any peace agreement!"

"It's Israel's fault for building settlements! The settlements are the obstacle to peace! That's why terrorism against Zionists started in the 1920's, and the 1948 and 1967 war, and many acts of terrorism, took place before 1967 - before any settlements!"

"It's Israel's fault for refusing to give into our lunatic demands that Israel commits suicide! Israel doesn't want to negotiate!"

"Israel is the obstacle to peace! Our incitement of hatred on Palestinians T.V., newspapers, indoctrination of youth, declaring all of Israel as "occupied," refusal to accept any peace talks - including the very generous Olmert offer in 2008 -, training our children to become terrorists, throwing stones at Israelis which led to the death of Asher Palmer and his infant son, have nothing at all to do with the failure to establish peace!"

Speaking of Danny Ayalon here, check out his excellent video, "The Truth about the West Bank," to learn more about the West Bank and the settlements.

Turkish leader Erdogan is playing with fire

Ynet:

The Turks are playing with fire. It appears that Turkey’s Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is crossing the fine line between verbal escalation coupled with a diplomatic fight against Israel and the facilitation of military confrontation. This man, whom everyone believed was engaged in methodical, well-planned anti-Israel conduct with clear aims, is starting to go with his gut. The psychiatric aspects in the Israel-Turkey crisis are starting to overcome logic.


Over the holiday, the Turks published a report about what they characterized as “Israeli military provocation.” They claimed that Israeli fighter jets hovered above the Turkish Navy’s taskforce securing the gas drills planned by Turkey near Cyprus. The IDF denied the report, but it makes no difference. This is the message the Turks convey: Physical friction exists between Israel and us.

Meanwhile, Israeli officials are starting to monitor Turkish naval moves in the Mediterranean with special attention. A few weeks ago, a medium-sized Turkish battleship sailed in the Mediterranean’s eastern basin, from north to south, taking the same route as the Marmara did while moving abnormally close to Israel’s shores. While the ship did not enter Israel’s territorial waters, it sailed in ranges where military vessels usually update friendly states about their presence in order to avoid misunderstandings.

This set off alarm bells in Israel: Could it be that Erdogan, using the Turkish Navy, is checking Israel’s alertness and conduct?

On September 20th, a Turkish Navy taskforces sailed to the drill site near Cyprus. The force comprised frigates, missile boats, a supply ship, a tugboat, and apparently two submarines as well. This did not look like a security presence, but rather, as a force heading towards “hostile” states such as Cyprus, Greece and possibly Israel as well.

US warnings, Erdogan’s hubris

Generally speaking, Turkey has boosted its operations in the Mediterranean theater, both in the air and at sea, for no reason and without any perceptible strategic threat. The flights performed by the Turkish Air Force in the region are different than what we saw in the past.


A senior Turkish Foreign Ministry official recently summoned Arab ambassadors in Ankara and boasted about scrambling jets on several occasions and chasing away Israeli fighter jets flying near Syria’s shores. Regardless of whether these are half-truths or fantasy, one thing is clear: Turkish rhetoric has shifted from cursing to war games.

These games could end up badly. Senior NATO officials pled with their Turkish counterparts, deploring them to stop playing with fire. The Turkish officers responded that as far as it depends on them, there will be no military clash. However, Turkey’s military leaders are scared of Erdogan. Turkey’s public sphere is also different than Israel’s, and Erdogan’s acts and conduct are not transparent and are not under constant scrutiny. He can feel quite confident in the face of domestic public opinion – which in any case perceives Israel as an insane state that goes with its gut.

The Americans are also warning the Turks: Should you continue playing these games, you could end up losing a ship. However, Erdogan’s hubris is leading to military escalation.

Under such circumstances, Erdogan should not be surprised to see a Turkish or Israeli pilot, who suddenly feel threatened, pressing the button and firing the missile. The distance between provocation and a regional flare-up could be several seconds long. So who will be stopping Erodgan?

Well, the Ottoman Turks were defeated after World War I. So it seems the solution is simple. You want to defeat Turkey? Start a world war.

Or, what seems in this case, a Middle East war.  As the article says, Erdogan is moving closer and closer to war.  Iran is an evergrowing threat.  Hamas still incites violence and still launches missiles - although fewer in recent weeks, partly because of their economic issue.  Syria and Lebanon would also be part of this war.  And if the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt, then expect another '73.  It'll be just like the old times - multiple Arab countries vs Israel (the size of New Jersey), Israel wins, the Arab countries are humiliated, Israel captures some land, Israel gives up the land even though they won the war, and then the cycle repeats itself.

Maybe Israel will break their record and win this war in less than 6 days.

Although hopefully, there won't be a war.  War isn't fun.  People, on both sides, die in war.

How the Palestinian Leadership is Ignoring History

Alan Dershowitz (a professor of Harvard law school and advocate for Israel; wrote numerous pro-Israel books such as "The Case for Israel"):

The Palestinians are in the process of seeking sovereignty from the United Nations, but in doing so, they are asking for more than what was offered them in any prior negotiation with Israel—including during the talks involving President Clinton and Ehud Barak in 2000 and 2001. Rather than more, it is imperative that the Palestinians get less.

It is imperative to world peace that the Palestinians pay a price—even if it’s only a symbolic price—for rejecting the generous Clinton/Barak offer and responding to it with a second intifada in which 4,000 people were killed. It is also important that Israel not return to the precise armistice lines that existed prior to the 1967 war. If the Palestinians were to achieve a return to the status quo prior to Jordan’s attack on Israel in June of 1967, then military aggression will not have been punished, it will have been rewarded. That’s why Security Council Resolution 242—which was essentially the peace treaty that resulted from the end of the Six Day War—intended for Israel to retain territory necessary to give it secure boundaries (Indeed, in the formal application submitted by Abbas, he sought membership based on UN General Assembly Resolution 1810-11 of November 29, 1947, which would put the borders where they were before the Arab armies invaded the new Jewish state in 1948. This would reward multiple aggressions.)

Yet, however important it is that aggressive and unjustified violence not be rewarded, the international community seems bent on doing just that. If the end result of Jordan’s 1967 attack on Israel—an attack supported by the Palestinian leadership and participated in by Palestinian soldiers—is that the Palestinians get back everything Jordan lost, there will be no disincentive to comparable military attacks around the world. If the Palestinians get more than, or even as much as, they rejected in 2000 and 2001 (and did not accept in 2007), then further intifadas with mass casualties will be encouraged. A price must be paid for violence. That’s how the laws of war are supposed to work and there is no reason to make an exception in the case of the Palestinians.

I support a two-state solution based on negotiation and mutual compromise. But the negotiations must not begin where previous offers, which were not accepted, left off. They must take into account how we got to the present situation: The Arab rejection of the UN partition plan and the attack on the new Jewish state that resulted in the death of one percent of Israel’s population; the attack by Jordan and its Palestinian soldiers against Israel in 1967, which resulted in Israel’s capture of the West Bank; Israel’s offer to trade captured land for peace that was rejected at Khartoum with the three infamous “no’s”—no peace, no recognition, no negotiation; Israel’s generous offer of statehood in 2000-2001 that was answered by violence; and Olmert’s subsequent, even more generous, offer that was not accepted by President Abbas.

Efforts to achieve peace must look forward but they must not forget the past. A balance must be struck between not rewarding past violence and not creating unreasonable barriers to a future peace. But the Palestinians made it clear last week that they reject such balance.

I was at the United Nations on Friday when President Abbas made his speech demanding full recognition of Palestine as a state with the borders as they existed just before the Jordanians and Palestinians attacked Israel. In other words he wants a “do over.” He wants the nations that attacked Israel to suffer no consequences for their attempt to destroy the Jewish State. He wants to get back The Western Wall, The Jewish Quarter, and the access road to Hebrew University. Only then will he begin negotiations from this position of strength.

But why then negotiate if the UN gives him more than he can possibly get through negotiation? Will he be in a position to seek less from Israel than what the UN gave him? Will he survive if he is seen as less Palestinian than the UN? Abbas blamed Israel for the self-inflicted wound the Palestinians cynically call the Nakba (the catastrophe). He denied the Jewish history of the land of Israel and he quoted with approval his terrorist predecessor Arafat. He refused to acknowledge Israel’s legitimate security needs. Abbas’s message, in sum, left little or no room for further compromise.

I also sat in the General Assembly as Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered to begin negotiations with Abbas, with absolutely no preconditions, in New York, at the United Nations, that very day. He said he would come to Ramallah to negotiate with him or keep the door of his Jerusalem office open. He did not even require as a precondition to negotiations that the Palestinians acknowledge what the UN recognized in 1947—namely, that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people.

Although many in the international communities and on the editorial pages of newspapers claim that Abbas wants to negotiate a two-state solution, while Netanyahu has refused to do so, the truth was on full and open display at the General Assembly on Friday: Netanyahu wants to negotiate a peace now, whereas Abbas wants to win recognition from the United Nations before any negotiations begin. As Netanyahu put it: “Let’s stop negotiating about negotiating and let’s just start negotiating right now.”

If the Palestinians accept Netanyahu’s offer to negotiate a peaceful two-state solution, it will get a real state on the ground—a state that Israel, the United States, and the rest of the international community will recognize. It will not be on the pre-1967 borders because the Palestinians are not entitled to such borders and because such borders are not conducive to peace, but it will be close. The Palestinians will get a viable state and Israel will get a secure state.

If, on the other hand, the UN were to reward nearly a century of Palestinian rejectionism and violence by simply turning the clock back to 1967 (or 1947), it will be encouraging more cost-free rejectionism and violence. The Palestinians must pay a price for the thousands of lives their rejectionism and violence have caused. The price must not be so heavy as to preclude peace, but it must be heavy enough to deter war.

Why did Abbas go to the U.N.?

Charles Krauthammer:

While diplomatically inconvenient for the Western powers, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s attempt to get the United Nations to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state has elicited widespread sympathy. After all, what choice did he have? According to the accepted narrative, Middle East peace is made impossible by a hard-line Likud-led Israel that refuses to accept a Palestinian state and continues to build settlements.

It is remarkable how this gross inversion of the truth has become conventional wisdom. In fact, Benjamin Netanyahu brought his Likud-led coalition to open recognition of a Palestinian state, thereby creating Israel’s first national consensus for a two-state solution. He is also the only prime minister to agree to a settlement freeze — 10 months — something no Labor or Kadima government has ever done.

 

To which Abbas responded by boycotting the talks for nine months, showing up in the 10th, then walking out when the freeze expired. Last week he reiterated that he will continue to boycott peace talks unless Israel gives up — in advance — claim to any territory beyond the 1967 lines. Meaning, for example, that the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem is Palestinian territory. This is not just absurd. It violates every prior peace agreement. They all stipulate that such demands are to be the subject of negotiations, not their precondition.

Abbas unwaveringly insists on the so-called “right of return,” which would demographically destroy Israel by swamping it with millions of Arabs, thereby turning the world’s only Jewish state into the world’s 23rd Arab state. And he has repeatedly declared, as recently as last week in New York: “We shall not recognize a Jewish state.”

Nor is this new. It is perfectly consistent with the long history of Palestinian rejectionism. Consider:

●Camp David, 2000. At a U.S.-sponsored summit, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offers Yasser Arafat a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza — and, astonishingly, the previously inconceivable division of Jerusalem. Arafat refuses. And makes no counteroffer, thereby demonstrating his unseriousness about making any deal. Instead, within two months, he launches a savage terror war that kills a thousand Israelis.

●Taba, 2001. An even sweeter deal — the Clinton Parameters — is offered. Arafat walks away again.

●Israel, 2008. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert makes the ultimate capitulation to Palestinian demands — 100 percent of the West Bank (with land swaps), Palestinian statehood, the division of Jerusalem with the Muslim parts becoming the capital of the new Palestine. And incredibly, he offers to turn over the city’s holy places, including the Western Wall — Judaism’s most sacred site, its Kaaba — to an international body on which sit Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Did Abbas accept? Of course not. If he had, the conflict would be over and Palestine would already be a member of the United Nations.

This is not ancient history. All three peace talks occurred over the past decade. And every one completely contradicts the current mindless narrative of Israeli “intransigence” as the obstacle to peace.

Settlements? Every settlement remaining within the new Palestine would be destroyed and emptied, precisely as happened in Gaza.

So why did the Palestinians say no? Because saying yes would have required them to sign a final peace agreement that accepted a Jewish state on what they consider the Muslim patrimony.

The key word here is “final.” The Palestinians are quite prepared to sign interim agreements, like Oslo. Framework agreements, like Annapolis. Cease-fires, like the 1949 armistice. Anything but a final deal. Anything but a final peace. Anything but a treaty that ends the conflict once and for all — while leaving a Jewish state still standing.

After all, why did Abbas go to the United Nations last week? For nearly half a century, the United States has pursued a Middle East settlement on the basis of the formula of land for peace. Land for peace produced the Israel-Egypt peace of 1979 and the Israel-Jordan peace of 1994. Israel has offered the Palestinians land for peace three times since. And been refused every time.

Why? For exactly the same reason Abbas went to the United Nations last week: to get land without peace. Sovereignty with no reciprocal recognition of a Jewish state. Statehood without negotiations. An independent Palestine in a continued state of war with Israel.

Israel gave up land without peace in south Lebanon in 2000 and, in return, received war (the Lebanon war of 2006) and 50,000 Hezbollah missiles now targeted on the Israeli homeland. In 2005, Israel gave up land without peace in Gaza, and again was rewarded with war — and constant rocket attack from an openly genocidal Palestinian mini-state.

Israel is prepared to give up land, but never again without peace. A final peace. Which is exactly what every Palestinian leader from Haj Amin al-Husseini to Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas has refused to accept. Which is why, regardless of who is governing Israel, there has never been peace. Territorial disputes are solvable; existential conflicts are not.

Land for peace, yes. Land without peace is nothing but an invitation to national suicide.

Netanyahu accepts Quartet's peace proposal - Abbas doesn't

From Jpost:

Israel on Sunday formally accepted the Quartet's proposal for re-starting negotiations with the Palestinians, following a meeting between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his senior ministers.


"Israel welcomes the Quartet's call for direct negotiations without pre-conditions with the Palestinian Authority, which was already suggested by US president Barack Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, even though Israel has a number of reservations which it will bring up in the negotiations."

The statement called on the PA to enter negotiations without delay.


Asked about Netanyahu's acceptance of the Quartet's initiative, Nabil Abu Rdainah, a spokesman for PA President Mahmoud Abbas, said "returning to negotiations requires Israel to commit to stopping settlement."


Abu Rdainah said that Israel also must recognize the "1967 borders" lines that existed before its occupation of the West Bank in a Middle East war that year.


Following Netanyahu and Abbas's speeches to the UN last month, during which Abbas said he was filing a request to the Security Council for full UN membership for "Palestine," the Quartet issued a formula for renewing talks.



The statement urged the parties "to overcome the current obstacles and resume direct bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations without delay or preconditions." It proposed a "preparatory meeting" between the parties within a month to agree to an agenda and "method of proceeding in the negotiation," and suggested that the two sides commit to the objective of reaching an agreement "within a timeframe agreed to by the parties but not longer than the end of 2012."


The statement also said the expectation is that the parties will come up with a comprehensive proposal on territory and security within three months, and to have made "substantial progress" within six months. To facilitate this, an international conference will be held in Moscow "at the appropriate time."


Netanyahu has in the past objected to the idea – as presented in the Quartet proposal – of isolating security and territories from the other core issues of Jerusalem and refugees, saying that if an agreement on the territorial issue was reached, the Palestinians would have no incentive to compromise later on the issues of refugees and Jerusalem. Rather, his position in the past was that all issues should be discussed simultaneously.

As mentioned in my previous post, Fatah has refused this offer.  They stress that Israel must abandon all settlement construction - including neighborhoods in annexed East Jerusalem - before any negotiations can take place.  This is interesting, considering that in multiple U.N. resolutions and agreements such as the Oslo Accords, it states that the future of the settlements/Judea & Samaria will be discussed in future negotiations.

What the PA is saying is basically, "Give up settlement construction, we'll give you nothing in return, and basically, we'll have nothing to negotiate about, since what we're supposed to negotiate about you already gave up."

Doesn't make much sense... You don't think that Netanyahu has some reservations about the Quartet proposal? Of course he does! It states it in the article.  But that doesn't stop him from accepting a proposal for peace.  And any reservations he has, he will bring it up in negotiations, and he will negotiate about them. Any reservations Abbas has, such as settlement construction, he should bring up in negotiations and negotiate about them.  Then, maybe they'll sign an agreement which says "Israel will abandon all settlement construction, signed: Netanyahu + Abbas" or "Israel is allowed to continue all settlement construction, signed: Netanyahu + Abbas" or something similar.

That way, both parties agree on something.  I think that's the definition of negotiations, no?

Durban III Ring Circus - Review and Pictures

          On September 22nd, the U.N. hosted the Durban III conference to commemorate the 10 year anniversary of the notorious anti-Semitic Durban I conference.  At Durban I, what was supposed to be a conference against racism quickly turned into a conference for promoting racism – specifically, against Israel, as well as Western countries.  Speakers included Palestinian leader terrorist Yasser Arafat, and a coalition of Arab dictators who are in no position to even discuss racism, when their laws are the most racist in the world.  The event prompted walkout from a few countries, and was quickly followed up by Durban II in 2009, where Iranian tyrant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad bashed Israel, bashed America, and denied the Holocaust. 

          Impervious to all of this – or perhaps because of this (the U.N. countries all need someone to hate) – the U.N. allowed it to take place again in 2011 – Durban III, in New York City, just days after 9/11, just days after Americans remembered the terrorist attacks which claimed nearly 3,000 lives.  This is a scandal - a complete outrage.

          The U.N. has once again lost more shreds of legitimacy.

Large demonstrations were held against both Durban III and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s arrival to NYC.  A coalition of 25 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) critical of the conference, led by UN Watch, has organized a parallel human rights summit with the stated aim of drawing attention to flaws in the UN system and promoting reform. A similar counter-conference organized by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel and human rights scholar Anne Bayefsky will feature scholars and public figures.  Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, the United Kingdom, and the United States have boycotted Durban III. They explain that the Durban process has been used to promote racism, intolerance, anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, and to erode freedom of speech and Israel's right to exist. The same countries, excluding Austria, Bulgaria, France and the United Kingdom, also previously boycotted the Durban Review Conference in 2009.

Without the major world countries, Durban III was a “flop.”  Former New York mayor Ed Koch, who spoke at the counter-Durban conference “The Perils of Global Intolerance” in New York on Thursday, said, “Durban III has been a flop. There is no media. People on the street aren’t interested. They have failed in their efforts and their PR strategy,” according to a JTA report.

Anne Bayefsky, an authority on the UN and human rights, as well as the main organizer of the anti-Durban conference, has exposed a decade of efforts by anti- Western and radical Islamic countries to use Durban as a mechanism to strip Israel of its legitimacy. This year’s meaningless Durban can be viewed as a kind of crowning achievement of Bayefsky’s tireless work to debunk a racist endeavor dressed up as anti-racism.  In a New York Daily News opinion piece in August titled  “Meet the UN's anti-Israel 'anti-discrimination' czar, Navi Pillay (the UN Human Rights High Commissioner)”, Anne Bayefsky, the expert on the UN, wrote that Pillay has “ been distracted by her anti-Israel and anti-American agenda since taking office in 2008. Pillay is perhaps best known for her unremitting defense of the notorious Goldstone report and for having questioned the legality of the killing of Osama Bin Laden.”

The UN-sponsored Goldstone report accused Israel of war crimes in 2008/2009 during operation cast lead in the Gaza Strip. The report's main author, lawyer Richard Goldstone, has retracted the finding of war crimes against Israel and shifted the blame to Hamas, the terror entity that controls Gaza, as the responsible party for transgressions of human rights and interna  tional law

The Libyan tyrant Muammar Gaddafi, “great friend of human rights”, was a key supporter of the Durban process. Authoritarian regimes such as Castro’s Cuba and the Islamic Republic of Iran have championed Durban. Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez, whose anti-Israel views carry great currency in Iran, is a fan of Durban. Predictably, last week, Lebanon, Cuba and Iran launched tirades against Israel at the Durban III event.

But the mere fact that such a conference was allowed to take place to commemorate Durban I and Durban II is a scandal that should never have happened.  Just like with Durban II, counter-conferences and rallies took place.  At Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, different groups protested against Durban III and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s arrival to NYC. 

Standwithus hosted a circus-themed rally, to show that the U.N. is led by clowns.  Protestors were told to wear clown costumes, and the best costume won an iPad.  Israel Awareness Commission Members Tomer Kornfeld and Tzvi Vilinsky both won iPod Nanos for being runner-ups.  Banners and Ahmadinejad masks were handed out at the event, and the protestors yelled “Booooooooooo” whenever Ahmadinejad’s name was spoken.

          The rally turned out to be a huge success, and Durban III was a flop.  But everyone should be well aware about the dangers facing society today.  Do the words “Never again” mean nothing to the U.N.?Because they mean a lot to us.        

Here are some pictures from the event:



Another demonstration against Ahmadinejad and in support of a free and democratic Iran was set up next to us.  At the end of the day, we both had the same goals and wishes in mind, and our cause was the same.





Simon Deng, who escaped from slavery, explained why he especially appreciates freedom and why he stands with Israel.  Simon Aban Deng is a Sudanese human rights activist living in the United States. He is a victim of child slavery. He explains that thousands of Sudanese refugees - among them Muslims - have flocked to Israel, out of all the Arab countries of the Middle East, as refuge. And people have the nerve to say that Israel is Apartheid?  Simon Deng was truly inspirational.









Roz Rothstein, CEO of Standwithus, speaks.






A nearby protest against the Assad regime in Syria.  Why didn't Durban III condemn Assad?



At the forefront were three people dressed up as Ahmadinejad, Assad, and Gaddafi, and pretending to get married.  They were quite comical.



Ah, missiles next to a wedding, a perfect choice for these dictators!

See Standwithus' press release to learn more about the event, and to see a few photos that they took.

Special thanks to commission co-head Raquel Lifshutz for the pictures.

Congress freezes $200 in aid to PA

From Ynet:

United States Congress has blocked nearly $200 million in aid for the Palestinian Authority, threatening projects such as food aid, health care, and support for efforts to build a state, The Independent reported Saturday.

The decision to freeze the funds runs counter to the wishes of the Obama administration and reflects Congressional anger at Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who defied US wishes by taking his UN membership bid to the Security Council.

According to the British newspaper, the freezing of the funds, which were to have been provided in the US fiscal year that ends Saturday, is the most tangible sign yet of the seriousness of Congressional leaders' threats of an even wider halt to funding in the coming year if Abbas continues with his actions at the UN.

Republicans at Congress recently demanded to withhold up to $600 million from the Palestinians – the average amount given by the US every year since 2008 – in the next financial year over the PA bid. The US has already announced it will veto any Security Council resolution recognizing an independent Palestinian state.

It's good that they're keeping their word on this matter, and showing the PA that they can't just bypass negotiations and humiliate America at the UNSC without paying their price.  The Palestinians receive the second-to-most aid in the world - the first being Sudan.  They receive tons more aid per capita than any country in the world, as seen in this report.  This is a serious threat to the PA, as it could cause the collapse of the PA, and hopefully, this will convince the PA to return to the negotiating table without any pre-conditions - everything's out on the table to negotiate about.

And they really need the money, you know, for their luxurious water parks that Hamas burns down (somehow, I imagine that's Israel's fault?).  And for their grand hotels.  And for the Gazan landscape and buildings. And because Israel's generous offer of 1,200 truckloads of goods and aid and gas to Gaza every week isn't enough (and yes, that's very generous considering the U.N. Palmer Report upholds their blockade as legal, since Hamas has launched 12,000 rockets at Israel and wants Israel destroyed and carries out terrorist attacks against Israel). 

But hey, the poverty that you will find in Gaza and Judea & Samaria (the West Bank) - just remember, that's Israel's fault, for their cruel, legal blockade, and for the dozens of checkpoints Netanyahu removed, and the vast "wall" (96% fence, 4% wall, but hey, the media would never tell you that, click the link for more info) that Israel created.  Surely, the Palestinians didn't inflict it on themselves, you know, by rejecting peace offers in 2000 and launching the Second Intifada and scores and scores of violence...

U.N. To Do List:
Condemn Israel for defending their citizens - DONE
Condemn Israel for defending their citizens - DONE
Condemn Israel for defending their citizens - DONE
Condemn Israel for defending their citizens - TO DO
Condemn Israel for defending their citizens - TO DO
Condemn Israel for defending their citizens - TO DO
Condemn Israel for defending their citizens - TO DO

Fatah refuses Quartet peace proposal

From Ynet:

The Palestinians are stressing that they will not enter into lengthy negotiations with Israel: Fatah official Nabil Shaath said Saturday that Palestinian leaders are in agreement over the Quartet's proposal for the resumption of peace talks. Shaath said there are major differences between the current announcement and statements issued in recent months.

The Quartet's recent statement does not mention a settlement construction freeze, but does note the Road Map. Shaath claims that the fact that the Quartet has decided that both sides will have to interpret the statement as they see fit – without outlining any concrete steps – is the reason that negotiations have been going on for two decades and may be the reason why they stall again.

"The international community must take harsh and clear steps to point out the terms of negotiations and take harsh steps against those who violate them; but we, the Palestinians, are the only ones being punished when we break the terms," he said.

The Fatah official described the proposal as "very vague" and called for clear terms: "If the Quartet does not want clear terms it means it has given up on the Road Map and UN resolutions 242 and 1515."

He further said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu interpreted the Quartet statement one way while the Palestinians interpreted it as dropping the demand for a settlement construction freeze. "Israel's statement about plans to build 1,100 housing units in Gilo effectively abolished the Quartet statement.

"We do not intent to accept this statement unless Netanyahu accepts it publically as we understand it. Netanyahu must immediately suspend settlement construction, including that for natural growth."

He insisted on explicit statements to that effect from Netanyahu himself and said that if both parties would be left to interpret the statement themselves negations will take another 20 years.

"Netanyahu must tell his people that he is freezing settlement construction so that talks based on 1967 borders and land swaps can commence. He must do this for the future of the people in Israel, not for the Palestinians."

You can read the rest here.

Once again, the Palestinians prove to us how much they want peace.  By saying that Netanyahu must interpret it however they want, they are not taking the step forward towards peace and arriving at a mutually agreed upon decision. 

What has Netanyahu done for peace?  Not much.  Besides for removing dozens of checkpoints and roadblocks, and installing a 10 month settlement freeze in the hopes that Abbas would resume peace talks.  That's called taking a step in the direction of peace.

The Palestinians can go on and on about how much the settlements are the obstacle to peace.  At the end of the day, the facts on the ground are:

• Terrorism against Israel (or more correctly, the Zionists in the British Mandate of Palestine) started since the 1920's.
• That means there was terrorism before 1967 - before any "settlements."
• Both the 1948 and 1967 war, which were meant to destroy Israel, were before any "settlements."
• Israel uprooted all their settlements and their own citizens from Gaza.  As a "thank you," the Palestinians from Gaza launched 5,000 rockets at Israel, and then condemned Israel for taking measures during Operation Cast Lead.  Hamas has launched approximately 12,000 rockets so far since Israel disengaged from Gaza.
• Netanyahu created a 10 month settlement freeze for Judea & Samaria (the West Bank).  He asked that Abbas resume negotiations during this time period.  Abbas failed to do so.

We see clearly that the settlements are not the issue.  The issue is wanting all of Israel.

Perhaps the Quartet should've been more specific.  But the Palestinians could've taken that step towards peace, and they could've allowed Israel to build in neighborhoods in Jerusalem - which aren't even settlements.  It's something regular that Israel does all the time - East Jerusalem is part of Israel, and Israel builds in Israel.

Or they could've asked the Quartet to clarify what they meant, or discussed it with Israel, instead of saying "It's not clear so we'll just abandon it."

It's a pretext to avoiding negotiations.  Plain and simple.

The PLO doesn't want a two state solution.  Nabil Sha'ath - the same person in this article - has said that before, as seen in this short video that I made here.  When will people finally listen to their words?