Israel Matzav: What's the change?

What's the change?

I've seen a lot of comments out there on the net claiming that it's not such a big deal that Obama wants the 'Palestinian state' to be based on the '1967 borders' (really the 1949 armistice lines), because Olmert and Barak both offered that in the past.

Well, it is a big deal. Here's why.

There is certainly something very new in the US endorsement of the 'Palestinian' position that the 'Palestinians' are presumptively entitled to sovereignty over all Mandatory areas captured by the Arab League in its invasion of Israel in 1948 and held by the Arab states until 1967, and therefore Israel has to compensate them one for one for anything it keepsu agreement reached between Israel and the PLO that endorses that position, and there is no previous US endorsement of that position. The Israeli position, which is quite reasonable under the agreed-upon negotiating framework of Resolution 242, is that borders should be “secure and recognized” rather than based upon where the Arabs reached in 1949. The US position used to be that borders had to be agreed upon. No more.

There is a major difference between Israel offering to establish a border on the basis of the 1949 armistice lines and the US claiming that negotiations must be based on that Israeli concession. In fact, one of the major requirements for both Barak and Olmert was that nothing was agreed upon until everything was agreed, i.e., that Israeli concessions regarding the borders could not be pocketed but would only be valid when coupled with various 'Palestinian' concessions that Barak and Olmert (foolishly) expected to receive. If Obama is now endorsing the 1949 armistice lines, he is essentially giving the Palestinians the offered Israeli concessions in exchange for nothing.

But the point for the general audience isn't what Obama endorsed, it's the language he used. No president has ever said the words "antagonism toward Israel" in a policy speech, nor have US presidents spoken of the "'Palestinians' suffering under occupation" by Israel.

What this will sound like to most people is that Obama took a position on one of the key points to be negotiated, meaning that the US has taken a giant step away from acting as a comparatively neutral mediator. There is a big difference between accepting an Israeli negotiating position, and announcing that the US will tolerate only that specific negotiating position.

Bush referred to 'Palestinian suffering' and so did Clinton. But neither of them spoke of the Palestinians suffering "the humiliation of occupation by Israel." Neither Bush nor Clinton targeted Israel as the source of 'Palestinian' suffering or humiliation. Obama explicitly did.

Israel Matzav: What's the change?

Love of the Land: Obama ensures that terror has no consequences

Obama ensures that terror has no consequences

Elder of Ziyon
26 March '10

From YNet:

The Obama Administration is demanding that Israel hand over more West Bank land to exclusive PA control, including the Abu-Dis area adjacent to Jerusalem, Palestinian sources told Ynet Thursday.
According to the US vision, the move will take place as part of reverting to the state that prevailed in the West Bank before the outbreak of the last Intifada.

"The most significant demand is to restore the situation to what it was on the eve of the Intifada," one source said.

Because what could possibly be wrong with turning back the clock to the day before a war began that killed a thousand Israeli civilians?
Starting and losing a war has consequences in every part of the world except for one. Since 1967, the world - and "international law" as interpreted by most - is fixated on the idea that the Arabs can start all the wars they want against Israel. If they lose, international pressure will ensure that the previous status quo can be returned to, so there are no consequences for losing.

We have seen Egypt, Syria, the PLO, the PLO again, Hezbollah and Hamas start wars with Israel, secure in the knowledge that they will not lose anything of consequence if they lose the war. Just expendable people who are less important than "The Struggle" and perhaps a few years of negotiations and pressure.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Obama ensures that terror has no consequences

Love of the Land: The “Peace Partners” Who Never Were

The “Peace Partners” Who Never Were

Joe Kaufman
Frontpagemag.com
24 February '10

On February 14th, all of the major Palestinian terrorist factions met at the offices of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) for peace talks. But this was not about peace with the Israelis. No, this was a meeting to reconcile differences, in order to direct all energies in a violent manner against Israel. While the West has been obsessed with locating a “peace partner” for the Jewish state, none would be found here.

The Palestinian people, for the most part, can be divided into two camps: one, a religious terrorist camp and two, a secular/nationalist terrorist camp. Members of Palestinian society usually side with one or the other, whether it’s through politics, community affairs or violence. There is little grey area, in this respect.

The religious terrorist camp is made up of organizations which spawned from the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun, a group created in the 1920s that merged fundamentalist Islam with an extremist political agenda. Palestinian organizations that fit into this category include Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). PIJ, while deriving its existence from the Brotherhood, however, was established in 1979 with a greater attachment to the more violent methods of the Iranian Revolution of the same year.

The secular terrorist camp consists of groups that fall under the umbrella of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The two main groups that make up the PLO are the Palestinian National Liberation Movement or Fatah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). Unlike Fatah, though, which uses some Islamic imagery, the PFLP operates solely as a Marxist-Leninist organization.
All four of these organizations, in addition to nine others, held a joint meeting this month at the PFLP headquarters. The meeting came at the foot of an Egyptian initiative for reconciliation between the parties and what was being termed a “restoration of national unity.”

But according to the PFLP, this was less about restoring unity among the Palestinian groups and more about fighting Israel as a unified force.
As stated by PFLP leader Rabah Muhana, following the meeting, “An atmosphere of placing national interest ahead of factional interest had prevailed. All of the factions agreed on the urgent need to end division in order to confront the occupation.”

(Read full story)

Love of the Land: The “Peace Partners” Who Never Were

Love of the Land: The Palestinian Authority and the Jewish Holy Sites in the West Bank: Rachel's Tomb as a Test Case

The Palestinian Authority and the Jewish Holy Sites in the West Bank: Rachel's Tomb as a Test Case

Nadav Shragai
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Originally published
22 Kislev 5768 / 2 December '07

HEBRON, February 22, 2010 (WAFA- PLO news agency) - Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) condemned an Israeli decision to add the holy sites Ibrahimi Mosque in the West Bank city of Hebron and Bilal Ben Rabah Mosque (Rachel's Tomb) in Bethlehem to the list of Israeli heritage sites.

Rachel's Tomb lies on the northern outskirts of Bethlehem, about 460 meters (about 500 yards) south of the Jerusalem municipal border, and for more than 1,700 years has been identified as the tomb of the matriarch Rachel. "The building with the dome and olive tree" became a Jewish symbol, appearing in thousands of drawings, photographs, and works of art and depicted on the covers of Jewish holy books. However, today the little domed structure has been encased in a sleeve of reinforced concrete with firing holes and defensive trenches, and covered with camouflage netting.

According to the armistice agreement signed on April 3, 1949, Jordan was to allow Israel "free access to the Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives." In practice, Jordan did not allow Jews free access to their holy places, and for 19 years, until 1967, Jews could not go to the Western Wall, Rachel's Tomb, the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Joseph's Tomb in Shechem (Nablus), or other sites sacred to Jews which remained in Jordanian hands.

The Gaza-Jericho Agreement signed in May 1994 stated: "The Palestinian Authority shall ensure free access to all holy sites in the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area." The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement, signed on the White House lawn on September 28, 1995, dealt with the status of 23 places holy to Jews. The Palestinians promised to assure freedom of access to those places. However, the Palestinians either made access extremely difficult or prevented it entirely.

In October 2000, Joseph's Tomb in Nablus was attacked, set ablaze and desecrated. Druze Border Police Corporal Yusef Madhat bled to death on October 4 because Palestinians refused to allow his evacuation. The "Shalom al Israel" synagogue in Jericho was also attacked. Holy books and relics were burned, and the synagogue's ancient mosaic was damaged.

In 2000, after hundreds of years of recognizing the site as Rachel's Tomb, Muslims began calling it the "Bilal ibn Rabah mosque" - a name that has since entered the national Palestinian discourse. The Palestinian claim ignored the fact that Ottoman firmans (decrees) gave Jews in the Land of Israel the right of access to the site at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Israel's experience since the Oslo agreements has shown that the responsibility for Jewish holy sites or the roads leading to them should remain in Israeli hands.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: The Palestinian Authority and the Jewish Holy Sites in the West Bank: Rachel's Tomb as a Test Case

Love of the Land: Roger Cohen And Wishful Thinking, Part 974

Roger Cohen And Wishful Thinking, Part 974

Eamonn McDonagh
Z-Word Blog
13 February '10

As readers of this blog know, Roger Cohen is not a wise man. His latest column in the New York Times gives further evidence of this.

Domestic U.S. politics constrain innovative thought - even open debate - on the process without end that is the peace search.

Open debate constrained, eh? Come on Roger, don’t be a tease. You mean the evil and oh so long tentacles of the Israel lobby are reaching into campuses, news rooms and the very halls of Congress to prevent people saying what they really think, and you know, you’re really sure, that what they’d say if the evil Zionist manipulators would only let them, bears a striking resemblance to what you think yourself.

Centuries of persecution culminating in the Holocaust created a moral imperative for a Jewish homeland, Israel, and demand of America that it safeguard that nation in the breach.

And if Jews had never been persecuted and never been victims of genocide I guess that would mean that they would have no right to self determination? Let’s try thinking about this another way. During the 19th century the idea began to gain traction among Jews in Europe that they were as entitled to their own nation state as anyone else. The same idea started to gain presence among many other peoples without states at the same time. Eventually the Jews got their state. Not all were so lucky.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Roger Cohen And Wishful Thinking, Part 974

Love of the Land: Hamas is Threatening Who?

Hamas is Threatening Who?

Tariq Alhomayed
Asharq Al-Awsat
01 February '10

Following the assassination of Qassam Brigades leading figure Mahmoud al Mabhouh in his [hotel] room in Dubai, the leaders of Hamas came out threatening and promising to avenge his death. This is understandable and only expected due to the nature of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; however what was not clear was whether Hamas was threatening revenge on Israel or was threatening to violate the land of Arab countries.

Some Hamas leaders began to remind us of the history of the intelligence war between the Palestinian Liberation Organization [PLO] and Israel in the past and it seems that for the first time Hamas is acknowledging the PLO’s struggle and what it did for the Palestinian cause, as Hamas mentioned conflicts that took place in Cyprus for example. Mahmoud Zahar, a leading Hamas figure, went further than that when he openly threatened that “we send a clear message to the Arab countries with ties to the Zionist side to learn from the lesson of this crime that was committed.”

He added, (and this is the crux of the matter), “Today, the incident has been repeated in the UAE, and I believe that the UAE and other [states] must realize that the Zionist side does not respect the sovereignty of any Arab country nor of any state in the world, and that its own interest takes precedence over all interests of nations. [In this regard] there must be reconsideration of ties between the Zionist enemy and the states and [there must be] evaluation [of ties] in light of the crimes committed by the occupying state against the Palestinian people.”

The first mistake is that the UAE does not have ties with the “Zionist side” to use Zahar’s terms. Is Hamas trying to say that Mossad agents are moving around freely in UAE territory for example and that this is known to the authorities there? If Mahmoud al Mabhouh himself – the Hamas commander who was assassinated in Dubai and who was assigned the task of liaising between Hamas and Iran – entered the UAE from Damascus on what was said to be an Iraqi passport (but that is another story altogether) and using a different name, and the UAE authorities did not know at the time that he was a leading figure of the Qassam Brigades or that he was wanted by Mossad for 20 years, then how would the UAE security authorities or others know whether or not those coming to the UAE are agents of Mossad or other apparatus?

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Hamas is Threatening Who?

Love of the Land: Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority President

Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority President

John Perazzo
Frontpagemag.com
27 January '10

Click here to view the full Mahmoud Abbas profile.

Excerpts from the Mahmoud Abbas profile:

In the mid-1950s Abbas became involved in underground Palestinian politics, and joined a number of exiled Palestinians in Qatar. While there, he recruited numerous people who would become key figures in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and was one of the founding members of Fatah in 1957.

Through the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, Abbas travelled with Yasser Arafat and the rest of the PA leadership-in-exile to Jordan, Lebanon, and Tunisia. Widely regarded as a pragmatist, Abbas is credited with initiating secretive contacts with leftist and pacifist Jewish organizations during the 1970s and 80s, and is considered by many to have been a major architect of the 1993 Oslo peace accords (evidenced in part by the fact that he traveled with Arafat to the White House to sign the accords).

Love of the Land: Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority President

Love of the Land: Mahmoud Abbas, drama queen

Mahmoud Abbas, drama queen

Elder of Ziyon
14 January '10

Mahmoud Abbas is really big on making big, dramatic statements that get headlines but are meaningless.

The most famous recent example was when he claimed he would not run for President again. He said this with the full knowledge that there will be no elections in the near future, and that the president of the PA is subservient to the chairman of the PLO - which just so happens to be Mahmoud Abbas. He has no intention of relinquishing power any time soon, but when he makes threats like these (and he has done it numerous times before) he gets headlines and a modicum of support from the Fatah faithful (for whom he is also the leader.)

Today, he came up with a new one. He told an Egyptian newspaper that it is possible that Israel will assassinate him, just like they assassinated Arafat. He compared himself to Arafat by saying that just like Arafat was a man of peace who signed agreements with Israel, so is he, and just like Israel killed Arafat, so might he be killed by Israel. But he believes in Allah so it's no biggie.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Mahmoud Abbas, drama queen

Love of the Land: A road map leading nowhere

A road map leading nowhere

Moshe Arens
Haaretz
12 January '10

It is now close to 17 years since Israel's ill-fated decision to recognize the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and the Oslo Accords. Despite the accords, or possibly because of them, during those years much blood has been shed and no significant progress was made toward peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

There was no absence of good intentions on the part of Israel. But as was shown repeatedly, good intentions are not enough to resolve the seemingly intractable issues that separate the parties. On the contrary, on many occasions, suggestions and proposals offered by Israel actually created obstacles to any progress in the negotiations. Far-reaching concessions offered by Israel, although rejected by the Palestinians, only served to establish what the Palestinians from then on insisted would have to be the starting point for future negotiations, actually creating a pitfall on the road map for any progress.

Ehud Barak's egregious concessions offered at the Camp David talks in 2000, and the additional farcical proposals made by the Israeli delegation at the continuation of these talks in Eilat, only served to establish a roadblock on the way to peace.

Why would an Israeli offer of concessions end up being a roadblock to further progress? For the simple reason that if these concessions are not supported by the majority of the Israeli public they cannot be implemented, while a Palestinian demand that these concessions become the starting point of any further negotiations blocks the resumption of negotiations.

The prime minister or government that offers these concession might well argue that they are the democratically elected government and have the perfect right to offer concessions that they consider appropriate. And they do have that right, but if they are aware of the fact that the Israeli public would not support these concessions they should know that they cannot be implemented, and therefore they are actually doing a disservice to the very peace process they claim to be pursuing by offering these concessions to the Palestinians.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: A road map leading nowhere

Love of the Land: Quiz

Quiz

You probably don't recognize the name Dalal Mughrabi, but Palestinian children certainly will.

Back in 1978:
Dalal Mughrabi was a Palestinian terrorist.

In March of 1978 she led one of the most cruel and deadly terror attacks in Israel’s history. She and her fellow terrorists landed in rubber boats on a beach near Tel Aviv. On that beach, photographing rare birds was American photographer Gail Rubin. After first questioning her, the terrorists then murdered her in cold blood and went on to hijack a bus on the nearby coastal road, killing 37 civilians, 12 of them children.

Now, in 2009:
The Palestinollowian Authority, under the control of the Abbas government, has set up a modern new computer center. It will be named "after the martyr Dalal Mughrabi," the female terrorist who led that deadly 1978 attack. The new center is funded by Abbas's office, which receives Western aid money.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Quiz

Love of the Land: It's Really Hamas versus Fatah

It's Really Hamas versus Fatah

JINSA Report #948
17 December 09

While the Europeans were busy recasting Jerusalem in the image of Cold War Berlin complete with a wall and two governments-one free and one not-the Palestinians were busy revealing what their presumed state would look like. Follow the threads.

In June, Fatah reaffirmed "the right of armed resistance" (terrorism) in "Palestine." Last month, Abu Mazen said he would not run in the planned January election. This week, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) "indefinitely" extended his term and that of the Palestinian parliament, which has not met since 2007. To celebrate, Abu Mazen announced, "We will renew negotiations [with Israel only] if the settlements are completely halted and the 1967 borders recognized as the borders of the Palestinian state."

That was just to throw you off the trail. Israel is not his problem; Hamas is his problem and it is getting bigger. And the United States is heavily invested in the run up to a potential Palestinian civil war.

Hamas described the extension of Abu Mazen's term a "coup against the Palestinian constitution." Spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said, "This is an illegal decision and a political bribe to cover up for the fact that Abbas' term in office had expired a long time ago." Hamas celebrated its 20th anniversary with huge demonstrations and an announcement that it will "liberate all of Palestine." Starting with the West Bank.

According to the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, the Hamas websites contain a 61-page document entitled, "Exclusive and Unique Research: The Detention Philosophy of the Abbas-Dayton Security Apparatuses and Methods of Dealing with Them," authored by people identifying themselves as "Hamas prisoners in Israel."

The phrase "Abbas-Dayton security apparatuses" should worry Americans. The United States and Israel have been touting the Palestinian Authority (PA) security forces trained by American Lieutenant General Keith Dayton as key to a future peace between Israel and "the Palestinians." Five battalions have been trained and a sixth will start in January, including 2,500 officers trained since 2008-all with American tax dollars. The Obama Administration is planning to finish off ten PA battalions and has allocated another $100 million for the coming year.

The PA security forces have restored a semblance of law and order to the West Bank, permitting increased economic activity and growth, and the removal of dozens of Israeli "checkpoints." But who are "the Palestinians"? To whom do those forces belong-and to whom will they be loyal under and what circumstances? (Questions with which JINSA readers are familiar.)

(Read full report)

Love of the Land: It's Really Hamas versus Fatah

Love of the Land: Oslo - not the "occupation" is undermining Israel's ethical, democratic and diplomatic foundations

Oslo - not the "occupation" is undermining Israel's ethical, democratic and diplomatic foundations

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
17 December 09

"The truth is harsh. The occupation is destroying Israel. It is undermining Israel's ethical, democratic and diplomatic foundations."

So claims Haaretz Correspondent Ari Shavit in today's edition.

I would suggest that, in retrospect, much of the activity surrounding Oslo - rather than the "occupation" - has been "undermining Israel's ethical, democratic and diplomatic foundations."

Oslo corrupted our respect for human life. Soldiers and civilians alike became no more than pawns in a game of peacemaking under the gun. And today, after sinking up to our noses in the mire of Oslo, with politicians often ultimately treating brutal murders as temporary insignificant inconveniences, we find a dramatic increase in murder, violent crime, even violence in the schoolyard.

Oslo corrupted the very top of Israel's intelligence system. Some allowed their ideology to seriously cloud their judgment as they naively thought they could sub-contract Israel's security to their Palestinian pals who they wined and dined on open expense accounts. Others, with an eye on their career track, opted to present reports and analysis that supported the "process" rather than what they really thought. And it didn't stop there. Some of these top Israelis entered into a web of business relations with their Palestinian counterparts. Money - the ultimate corrupter.

Oslo corrupted the political system, with it becoming acceptable to make bare-faced lies to the Knesset, as was the case when Shimon Peres denied the existence of his "Jerusalem Letter", and later when time and again the explicit policy choices made by the citizens was ignored after election day. But it wasn't just the lies and the vote buying. Oslo introduced brazen and open foreign interference in the Israeli democratic process with money from the European Union and other nations financing various leftist groups in Israel and even some politicians.

Oslo so corrupted respect for the democratic process that the ruling government even went so far as to use the services of the State's intelligence apparatus to undermine the standing of their political rivals and silence them rather than engage them in serious debate. To this day serious public debate is marred by the efforts to silence voices with charges of incitement and the "extremist" label.

Oslo corrupted the news media as reporters abandoned their critical "watchdog" role, opting to either distort or ignore the truth as their contribution to the "peace process".

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Oslo - not the "occupation" is undermining Israel's ethical, democratic and diplomatic foundations

Love of the Land: Hamas still wants to liberate 'all of Palestine'

Hamas still wants to liberate 'all of Palestine'

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
17 December 09

"The truth is harsh. The occupation is destroying Israel. It is undermining Israel's ethical, democratic and diplomatic foundations"
Hamas still wants to liberate 'all of Palestine' By Ari Shavit, Haaretz

So claims Ari Shavit.

I would suggest that, in retrospect, much of the activity surrounding Oslo has been "undermining Israel's ethical, democratic and diplomatic foundations."

Oslo was, from the first day, a story of tremendous corruption - both financial and professional - among Israeli officials involved in the "process".

- many of the Israelis involved with the Palestinians made personal fortunes in business deals that they made - at times with the very same Palestinians that they interacted with on a profffessional basis - that were related to the PA.

- many of the Israelis involved seriously and consciously distorted the assessments that they provided to policy makers so that their careers would not be hurt by being identified as an "enemy of the peace process".

- democratic values were ignored or abused in moves to push through various policies and programs that were at odds with the mandates given the elected leadership as expressed in the results of elections in which the candidate and parties promised that a vote for them was a vote against those very policies and programs.

- Oslo took Yasser Arafat and his PLO off the dungheap of history (wallowing in Tunis after being thrown out of Lebanon) - leading ultimately to the diplomatic challenge we face today.]

Love of the Land: Hamas still wants to liberate 'all of Palestine'

Love of the Land: Negotiations (1973)

Negotiations (1973)

Today's Golden Oldie is a Dry Bones cartoon done in 1973.
I thought I'd post a really old "Golden Oldie" today, so I checked to see what was happening in the very first December in which I was doing Dry Bones cartoons, 36 years ago ...and discovered that nothing much seems to have changed!

Love of the Land: Negotiations (1973)

Love of the Land: Phased Plan Enshrined on UN-Hosted Website

Phased Plan Enshrined on UN-Hosted Website

FreeMiddleEast.com
December 09

Chapter One, Article One, Paragraph One of the UN Charter states the chief purpose of theUnited Nations:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

The word “peace” is mentioned no less than five times in the opening paragraph alone! It should come as a surprise that only a few clicks away on the official website of the Palestinian Observer to the UN, hosted at www.un.int, the official site for member states, you can find the full text of the PLO Phased Plan. It is a document which advocates “armed struggle” and a “combatant national authority”, diametrically opposed to the UN charter.

The Palestine Liberation Organization will employ all means, and first and foremost armed struggle, to liberate Palestinian territory and to establish the independent combatant national authority for the people over every part of Palestinian territory that is liberated.

For the full text please visit Palestine’s UN web area.

Love of the Land: Phased Plan Enshrined on UN-Hosted Website

Love of the Land: Questions people are afraid to ask Salam Fayyad

Questions people are afraid to ask Salam Fayyad

David Bedein/Arlene Kushner
JPost/Opinion
28 November 09

In his column of November 20, "Salam Fayyad builds Palestine," Jerusalem Post Editor-in-Chief David Horovitz describes "two staunch Jewish supporters of Israel" - Sen. Joe Lieberman, former vice presidential candidate, and Rep. Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee - "nodding their encouragement" at a recent Ramallah press conference, where Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad explained how he was preparing Palestinians for statehood. The piece goes on to outline a Palestinian state in formation, regarding security forces, the economy and civic institutions, with an optimistic sense of what the PA is achieving.

Regrettably, Lieberman and Berman did not use the press conference to raise some troublesome questions.

Since these American elected officials let that opportunity pass, perhaps it was Horovitz's journalistic responsibility to explore these matters, to offer a more balanced picture. Instead, he alluded to "staunch supporters of Israel nodding their agreement" - conveying the notion that, except for some technical problems, all is well.

Questions that Lieberman, Berman or Horovitz could have asked would have included:

• Renunciation of the PLO state of war with Israel.

The charter of Fatah - the predominant element in the PLO and the PA - to this day continues to call for the destruction of Israel. Written in 1964, before Israel controlled the West Bank and Gaza, it uses the term "Palestine" to refer exclusively to Israel within the Green Line. The charter declares that "Liberating Palestine is a national obligation," and that "Armed public revolution is the inevitable method" for doing so. This cannot be dismissed as an irrelevant anachronism. Last August, Fatah held its first General Congress in 20 years. Hope was held out for a charter revision, with violence officially renounced, but it never happened. Instead, Fatah continued to unambiguously embrace "armed resistance" to liberate Palestine. Why is this so?

• Cessation of incitement via changes in PA-produced textbooks.

(Continue reading...)

Love of the Land: Questions people are afraid to ask Salam Fayyad

Love of the Land: PLO Problem (1989)

PLO Problem (1989)

Today's Golden Oldie is a Dry Bones cartoon done 20 years this month. Back then the handwriting was on the wall and the rise of Islamist fascism was evident to all. Now, twenty years later Arafat's heir, Mahmud Abbas, head of the PLO faces the same grim reality.

As a cartoonist I must confess that Arafat was a dream to draw!!

Love of the Land: PLO Problem (1989)

Love of the Land: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: What’s It Really About and Why Does it Continue?

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: What’s It Really About and Why Does it Continue?

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
23 November 09

It is always the same theme: Palestinians are the victims of Israel. They want an end to the “occupation,” which in a real sense has not existed for 15 years, and are desperate for a state of their own. Help us! Help us! Help us!

But the funny thing is that it doesn’t turn out that the Palestinian political leaders behave as if they actually believe this stuff. Between 1948 and 1988, the Palestinian leadership explicitly rejected negotiations with Israel, rejected any two-state solution, and openly sought total victory. This was true for two decades after Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Indeed, in 1979, for example, when local Palestinian notables indicated an interest in negotiating with Israel for a state (in the framework of the Egypt-Israel Camp David agreement), PLO leader Yasir Arafat told them they’d be traitors and die if they did any such thing.

In 1988, the PLO said it wanted a state of its own but did so with such double-talk language that it was all too clear this was intended only as a springboard for a second round in which Israel would be destroyed. Then the PLO opened a dialogue with the United States based on its agreement to stop terrorism. Though the United States bent over backwards to ignore terrorist attacks (it’s only a specific member group in the PLO attacking so it doesn’t count, said the State Department), Arafat so blatantly broke his promise that the dialogue was broken off.

Then Arafat supported Saddam Hussein of Iraq in his invasion of Kuwait and the Palestinian leader expressed the hope that Iraq would defeat the United States.

What followed at the PLO’s moment of weakness—Saddam defeated; the angry Kuwaitis and Saudis cut off his money—was an act of what they hoped would be enlightened generosity by Israel and America: now that the PLO was so defeated, they reasoned, it would see that victory was impossible and make peace. The result, the Oslo peace process, proved the Palestinian leadership didn’t want a stable peace with a two-state solution. Arafat repeatedly broke his commitments.

And when the moment of truth came, both at Camp David and in the Clinton plan during 2000, the Palestinian leadership (now the Palestinian Authority, PA) turned down offers of a state. Instead, Arafat launched an armed terrorist assault on Israel that went on for five years until the Palestinians were defeated.

(Continue reading...)

Love of the Land: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: What’s It Really About and Why Does it Continue?

Love of the Land: Palestinians may declare state. So?

Palestinians may declare state. So?

FresnoZionism.org
15 November 09

The latest Palestinian threat is that they will unilaterally declare a state:

Bethlehem – Ma’an/Agencies – The Palestinian Authority is mobilizing international support for declaring statehood, chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat said on Saturday.

“The idea is clear and understandable,” Erekat told the Palestinian daily newspaper Al-Ayyam. “Now we mobilize.”

Palestinians will bring the issue to a vote before the United Nations Security Council, which would declare a Palestinian state on the 4 June 1967 border with Israel, he explained.

This is supposed to strike fear into the heart of PM Netanyahu and his (not really so) right-wing government. But imagine the conversation:

Saeb Erekat: We are unilaterally declaring a state.

Binyamin Netanyahu: A state? But you could have had one in 2000. Why didn’t you accept it? Or what about the offer that Olmert made last year, supposedly even worse — I mean, more generous — then the Camp David and Taba ideas? He offered you 98.1% of Judea of Samaria plus a connecting passage through Israel from Gaza, most of East Jerusalem, and to allow 5,000 ‘refugees’ to enter Israel. Why didn’t you say ‘yes’ to that?

SE: Because we want all of East Jerusalem and all of Judea and Samaria. And we want all 5 million Arab refugees to have the right to return to their homes in Israel even if they never lived in them. And we aren’t going to say that Israel belongs to the Jewish people because it belongs to the Arabs that live there now and the ones who will return.

BN: That’s absurd. We’d never agree to that — it would mean the end of the Jewish state.

SE: Bingo.

BN: Well, declare whatever you want. But then you won’t get any land swaps, we won’t evacuate any settlements, and you won’t get ‘contiguity’ to Gaza. You will be in violation of all the agreements that you signed, and you’ll freeze the map as it is today, with no more territory in your hands. You’ll be Foreign Minister of Ramallah.

SE: But the Security Council will protect our new state. The UN will come and kick all 500,000 Jewish settlers [he's including the Jewish population of E. Jerusalem -- ed.] out of our land!

BN: So you are telling me that even the Obama administration wouldn’t veto a resolution to send UN troops to fight the IDF? Because that’s what it would take.

SE: We’ll have our capital in Holy Jerusalem!

BN: But if you won’t negotiate, you’ll get none of East Jerusalem. Even my administration, which is not as right-wing as some say, would agree to negotiate Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. Declare a state unilaterally and you’ll just make the present status quo permanent. Is that really what you want?

SE: (losing it) What we really want is to end the occupation, from the river to the sea!

BN: Bingo. But you aren’t going to get that. So you can either keep things as they are today — either by unilaterally declaring a state or by just continuing to refuse to talk — or you can finally accept that “two-state solution” means that one of those two states will belong to the Jewish people, and make a deal.

(Continue reading)

Love of the Land: Palestinians may declare state. So?

Love of the Land: Is a Palestinian State even Possible?

Is a Palestinian State even Possible?

Sultan Knish

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com

09 November 09

Last week Obama phoned Abbas, the chairman of the PLO terrorist organization and of the US taxpayer subsidized Palestinian Authority, which is run by the PLO. Obama's first phone call to a foreign leader after taking office had been to Abbas, and his latest phone call was meant to reassure the terrorist leader that despite the complete lack of progress, he was still committed to creating a Palestinian state.

There is of course no question that the United States is deeply committed to creating a Palestinian state. The United States has provided billions to the PLO's Palestinian Authority through USAID alone, and billions more through various other channels, including the UNRWA and a collection of other agencies. The first Bush Administration forced Israel to negotiate directly with the PLO. The Clinton Administration created the Palestinian Authority inside Israel, armed and trained its terrorist militias and funded them from top to bottom. Four Presidents have made creating a Palestinian state a major priority of their administrations. More so than freeing Tibet or creating a country for any particular group, not counting the Clinton Administration's war on behalf of a Muslim Kosovar Albanian state, who rewarded us with slave trafficking, terrorism and burning down every church they could find.

The question now however is whether a Palestinian state is even possible? For one thing there is no longer a single Palestinian state, but two states, one run by Hamas in Gaza, and a second run by Abbas in the West Bank, despite the fact that his term in office legally ended around the time Obama was sworn in. The Obama Administration nevertheless continues to fund Abbas, even though under the rules that the US helped set up, he has no right to hold office without an election.

For another thing, both the West Bank and Gaza are run by dueling militias composed of PLO and Hamas terrorists. Iran and Syria fund the Hamas militias, while the US and the EU fund the PLO militias. While Iran is more open about simply calling them terrorists, the US State Department calls them "police" and provides them with weapons and training. The militias work for whichever faction or sub-faction is paying them at the moment. In between they do "odd jobs" such as drug dealing, kidnapping and the old protection racket-- a major reason why all the plans for outside investment in the PA quickly collapsed into nothing.

(Continue reading...)

Love of the Land: Is a Palestinian State even Possible?