The plan announced by President Barack Hussein Obama for the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians is a masterpiece of bias.
According to his plan, from the get-go, before negotiations are even to be allowed, he puts Israel into a great hole, by requiring Israel to base negotiations on a return to 1967.
That means, before negotiations begin, Israel has to give up the Western Wall, the holiest place that Jews have for their prayers. Apart from Mr. Obama's extreme bias, by any logic the Western Wall would be Israel's. He indicated that the negotiations would address the non-emotional issues. Yet a poll a few years ago showed that 96% of Israelis that were polled would rather that Israel keep the Western Wall than have peace. Non-emotional for whom?
That means, before negotiations begin, Israel has to give up the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. Does Obama know that for the past 1000 years, except for the period of the 18 years from 1948 to 1967, when forces led by Britain's John Glubb, involving British officers and troops of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, carried out an aggression by crossing over the Jordan River, and conquering the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, and massacring its residents, expelling the survivors, and exiling the Jews, and occupying the land -- except for that interval of 18 nightmare years Jews have lived in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City for the past thousand years? By what logic, other than Mr. Obama's bias, does that belong to the Palestinian Arab Muslims led by the Hamas terrorists and their Fatah partners? Is it a legitimization, celebration, and reward for the massacre that occurred and the expulsion of the Jews that occurred, which seems to be preferred over the liberation?
That means, before negotiations begin, Israel has to give up half of its capital city, Jerusalem. And expel the 250,000 Jewish residents who are living in the chunk of the city that was conquered in 1948 by John Glubb and his army of Transjordanian soldiers and held for 18 years before the liberation and re-unification of the city. These Jerusalemites that Obama would turn into illegal aliens and expel, are citizens of Israel, living in the capital of the Jewish state, and expelled from their homes and communities for the crime of being Jewish. These victims of Obama are never addressed by the president as actual people, with aspirations (as the Palestinians have aspirations), with rights (as the Palestinians have rights), and with needs (as the Palestinians have needs, and as Obama has spoken of the needs of the people of Gaza). No, the ObamaVictims are dehumanized, and treated as abstractions, not as actual people. This is the opposite of Obama's policy in the US of giving amnesty to illegal aliens, giving them a path to citizenship, and allowing them to stay in this country, for humanitarian reasons. Rather, for inhumanitarian reasons Mr. Obama's plan is to take 250,000 citizens of a foreign country Israel, who are legal residents of its capital city, and turn them into illegal aliens and expel them. By what logic is he driving to do this injustice and inhumanitarian deed, apart from his extreme bias?
That means that before negotiations begin, Israel has to give up all of Judea and Samaria. This used to be called disputed territory. Apparently now it's no longer disputed, but all of Israel's claims are rejected by Mr. Obama, and all of the Palestinian claims are granted by Mr. Obama.This has no logic except for his extreme bias. And it means that 320,000 residents of Judea and Samaria are to be expelled for the crime of being Jewish. Again, this is the reverse of Obama's program of amnesty for US illegal aliens for humanitarian reasons, turning citizens of a country into illegal aliens and expelling them for inhumanitarian reasons. There is no logic to this apart from his extreme bias. They join the 250,000 people to be expelled from Jerusalem because they are Jewish, to form the more than 500,000 ObamaVictims driven from their homes and communities for the crime of being Jewish.
Mr. Obama has made it plain that he has great love for the Palestinians. For Israel, he offers only one word: "security". Not actual security, but the word "security", just the lip service. For his plan is that before the negotiations begin, Israel has to go back to pre-war 1967, to indefensible boundaries, with territory merely 9 miles wide. The territory is indefensible, and Mr. Obama's plan is indefensible, and utterly inconsistent with his word that he offers the Israelis, "security". There is no offer of security when they are offered a forced retreat to indefensible boundaries only 9 miles wide. There is no logic behind it except Mr. Obama's extreme bias.
But not only is Israel required to give up its most valuable rights and assets, and defensible boundaries. Before the negotiations start, Obama's demand that Israel promise to return to 1967 for the start of the negotiations means that Israel also gives up all of its negotiating chips before the negotiations. These are the chips that Israel would have liked to exchange for Palestinian concessions for peace, but if Israel has to give up these chips in advance of negotiations, it cannot use them to draw out Palestinian concessions for peace. For example, then-President George W. Bush sent a letter to then-Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon, indicating that US policy is for Israel to retain the settlement blocs, and the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem, and that the solution of the Arab refugee problem has to be found outside of Israel. But Obama has trashed all of that policy of his predecessor. His Secretary of State has even claimed that the agreements and understandings (and even the letter?) don't really exist at all! Under Obama's plan, since Israel is required to give up all of its negotiating chips in advance of the start of negotiations, there will not be any Palestinian concessions for peace. There will not be any Palestinian agreement to solve the Arab refugee problem outside the boundaries of Israel. There will not be any Palestinian agreement that they accept a Jewish state. There will not be any Palestinian agreement that a treaty will end the dispute. There will not be any Palestinian agreement that they will teach their children in their schools, and in the mosques and in the media, that the war is over, that Israel has a right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people in the Jewish people's homeland, and that the Arab refugee problem has to be solved outside the boundaries of Israel. No, there will not be any elimination of the pretext for war, and the indoctrination for war will continue. This plan of Obama's will not lead to Land for Peace, but rather to Land for War.
Obama's plan for a peace process is all process and no peace. Not a chance for peace. Nor will there be in place the most important requirement for Israel's security -- a security envelope around the Palestinian entity, including a long-term Israeli military presence in the Jordan River Valley for the indefinite future as long as there is the threat of war and terrorism and rocket and missile fire. Without this security envelope, there will be an unchecked deluge of weapons flowing into the Palestinian entity, including rockets and missiles, including missiles that could knock out planes landing at Israel's airport coming from the US and elsewhere. How would Americans who may want to some day fly to Israel to see the holy land like to fly into an airport where there is the threat of being shot down by terrorists armed with shoulder-fired missiles? The rockets and missiles would also threaten all of Israel's population centers. From time to time, when the problem becomes unbearable, Israeli forces would have to enter the Arab towns in the West Bank and look for the stored rockets and missiles, but that would be like looking for needles in a haystack. Much better to block their entry into the Palestinian entity in the first place, by having a security envelope, including an Israeli military presence in the Jordan River Valley, to prevent the smuggling of advanced weapons into the Palestinian entity.
Yes, Obama has promised to provide Israel with more Iron Dome missiles. This is a plan to knock out incoming rockets and missiles out of the sky before they can do damage. But if the Palestinian IED-type Qassam rockets cost only a few bucks, say 5 or 10 bucks apiece, it is unsustainable to knock them out with missiles at a million dollars a pop. No matter how many missiles Israel has to defend itself, the Palestinians can easily acquire more than that, and therefore exhaust the supply of defensive missiles. And when the flood gates are opened to more advanced offensive missiles, by taking away Israel's security envelope, the Palestinians can acquire advanced weaponry in massive numbers. Hizbollah has some 50,000 missiles at present, because nobody is stopping them except the joke that is the United Nations. If the Palestinians acquired 100,000 or 200,000 missiles, it would be impossible for Israel to acquire the defensive missiles necessary to shoot these out of the sky at a million dollars a pop. Better to stop these right at the border, with an Israeli security envelope, including an Israeli military presence in the Jordan River Valley.
But Obama's plan has ruled out a long-term Israeli military presence in a security envelope. Not in exchange for Israeli concessions of any kind, and not for any deal under the sun. Obama's plan doubly kills Israeli security also by requiring Israel to give up its negotiating chips in advance of all negotiation. So according to Obama's plan, the essential requirement that Israel has for a security envelope is off the table and the subject cannot even be raised, and Israel's negotiating chips are taken away prior to the negotiations anyhow. This plan for a peace process is all process but no peace. It is a plan for a rocket and missile nightmare, shot at planes coming into Israel's airport from the US and elsewhere, and at Israel's population centers. When the warnings go off, Israelis will have a few seconds to find shelter from the missiles. Is that any way to live? That's what Obama offers in his peace process, which is all process, with a process stacked against Israel and stacked against peace, and no peace at all. It is not land for peace, but land for war.
Showing posts with label land for war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label land for war. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Rigged
The best single word to describe the latest idea for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations proposed originally by Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas and endorsed recently by President Obama is "rigged".
First, Israel would be required to accept negotiations based on the pre-war 1967 lines. That means that before the negotiations actually begin, Israel would have to promise to reset the clock to pre-war 1967, and accept that as the situation for the start of the negotiations, as the goal for the final result, and as the mediator's accepted position for mediating the negotiations. If Israel did this, it would mean that Israel is put into a deep hole, without the means for getting out, and would be required to negotiate after first giving up its negotiating chips.
Israel's basic negotiating position concerning territory is that "the settlement blocs will remain within the state of Israel and Jerusalem will remain its united capital", summarizing the territorial part of Netanyahu's speech to the Israeli Knesset, in the words of correspondent Elad Benari of Israel National News. This is a position that the entire Israeli coalition government agrees on, and that the main opposition party, Kadima, also agrees on. It is the Israeli position. There is a letter from then-President George W. Bush affirming support for Israel keeping the settlement blocs. There is a congressional resolution affirming the unity of Jerusalem under Israeli control. There is a congressional resolution affirming support for Bush's letter.
But the Abbas-Obama demand is that before the negotiations even begin, Israel must agree to the 1967 lines. That means Israel gives up the Western Wall, gives up the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, gives up half of its capital Jerusalem, and gives up all of the settlement blocs. The demand is for Israel to retreat to indefensible borders only 9 miles wide. But it gets even worse: the Abbas-Obama demand is for Israel to give up all of its negotiating chips before the negotiations start. Israel's plan is for some of the territory that Israel gained in the 1967 war in Judea and Samaria be given up by Israel as negotiating chips, but since the Abbas-Obama demand is for Israel to agree to lose all of this territory in advance of the negotiations, Israel would be losing its negotiating chips before negotiations start.That is the first way that the negotiations are rigged.
The second way the negotiations are rigged is that Israel's basic demand for security requires an Israeli long term presence along the Jordan River. When this would end cannot be predicted in advance, because that depends on the state of relations between Israel and its neighbors. This is necessary in order to prevent the smuggling of arms, including rockets and missiles, into areas of Judea and Samaria that would be controlled by the Palestinians. It would be necessary also in order to prevent the infiltration of terrorists and other jihadis into areas of Judea and Samaria that would be controlled by the Palestinians. It is not possible to know now which regimes are going to survive in the long term, and when regime change will take place. The Muslim Brotherhood is growing in strength in the region. Al Qaida is also determined to overthrow what it considers to be "apostate" regimes that are not governing according to Sharia. There have been Arab-Israeli wars in the past, and they could happen in the future also. An Israeli long term presence is needed along the Jordan River in order to delay an incoming invasion from across the Jordan River, if the friendly regime across the river is ever overthrown by Islamist forces, or if an invasionary force uses Jordan's territory to carry out its intended invasion into Israel. But Obama's speech, which he wants to make the basis of negotiations, rules out such an Israeli long-term presence along the Jordan River. It doesn't say that this is even negotiable. It just rules it out.
Obama's decision on the final result of the negotiations states: "The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated." Full withdrawal with a defined period of transition, as Obama requires of the final result of the negotiations, means that if Israel agrees to Obama's terms for the final result of the negotiations, it would be denied a long-term military presence on the Jordan River, and denied effective means of stopping the smuggling of weapons including rockets into the Palestinian entity, denied effective means of stopping the infiltration of jihadis and terrorists, and denied effective means of holding up an invasionary force that crosses the Jordan River. That is a denial of Israel's basic security needs, and it does not allow Israel to even negotiate for this necessity. That is the second way the negotiations are rigged.
The third way that the proposed negotiations have been rigged is for Israel's essential requirements for ending the conflict to be taken off the table at the time Israel makes its territorial concessions. That means that these will not even be discussed. These requirements are, according to Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu (in the summary words of correspondent Elad Benari):
1. "The Palestinians must recognize Israel as the Jewish nation's state."
2. "The treaty must be an end to the conflict."
3. "The Arab refugee problem must be solved outside of Israel's borders."
But these will not even be considered when Israel makes territorial concessions, because Obama has taken them off the table.
They are essential for ending the conflict, but they will not be addressed, certainly not with the needed concessions by the Palestinians, because Israel will be deprived of negotiating chips long before they are discussed, if ever.
The conflict goes on for a root cause reason that Obama has never acknowledged. The Muslim states, the states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, to which Obama has sent a US ambassador, has territory that sweeps from the Atlantic Ocean, across north Africa, and to the Persian Gulf and beyond the Persian Gulf. This Islamic territory has in its midst a small piece of territory controlled by infidels, the Jews, who have no desire to convert to Islam, and have the desire and need to keep the Jewish state. This is a part of the Dar al Harb that is within the territory that the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists consider to be Islamic. For example, Hamas, the terrorist Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood, considers all of the territory of Israel, whatever its dimensions now or in the future, to be part of an Islamic trust, that must be ruled by Sharia. Plainly, it is clear that there will not be peace with the Palestinians until they change their approach by recognizing Israel as the Jewish nation's state, and take on the task of educating their children that Israel is the Jewish nation's state and is entitled to exist. But this issue has been taken off the table by Obama while Israel makes territorial concessions, so the root cause of the endless war will not be resolved.
There are millions of descendants of the 1948 Arab refugees, including great-grandchildren, and the mass of people that the Palestinians consider to be "Arab refugees" includes these descendants and other relatives. If they were to inundate Israel, the country would cease to be a Jewish state. If there is a 22nd Arab state of Palestine, and if these millions of foreign Arabs who are hostile to Israel were to immigrate to Israel, that would turn it into the 23rd Arab state. That is not what is meant by a "2 state solution", both Arab states. It would mark the end of the aspirations, rights, and needs of the Jewish state of Israel. And yet Obama has decreed in his speech that this issue would be taken off the table while Israel was making territorial concessions. That means that the necessary concessions that the Palestinians need to make to end this Arab refugee issue, which has been a cassus belli or pretext for war, would not be made. The pretext for war would continue, and the wars and terrorism would continue, and this whole matter would not be resolved.
Israel's requirement for peace is that the process results in a treaty that is the end to the conflict. But this has not been put on the table for the time that Israel makes territorial concessions. So it will not be addressed, and the Palestinians, who have wanted to have endless war (as the Hamas charter makes clear, and even the Fatah charter, and the PLO charter), will not make the necessary concession to even state in the treaty that the conflict is ended (let alone carry it out). Therefore, there is no chance that this will lead to anything but irredentist war, war continuing indefinitely.
The Abbas-Obama plan for negotiations rigs the negotiations so that right at the start, before negotiations start, Israel loses its rights and its valuable assets, and loses defensible borders, and in the final result loses the essential ingredient for security -- a long term presence along the Jordan River (which was blocked by Obama), and doesn't address the issues necessary for ending the war. It is a formula for slicing and dicing Israel, to make it even more attractive for war against it by the Islamists, and its result, just as the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip turned out to be, is a land-for-war result.
First, Israel would be required to accept negotiations based on the pre-war 1967 lines. That means that before the negotiations actually begin, Israel would have to promise to reset the clock to pre-war 1967, and accept that as the situation for the start of the negotiations, as the goal for the final result, and as the mediator's accepted position for mediating the negotiations. If Israel did this, it would mean that Israel is put into a deep hole, without the means for getting out, and would be required to negotiate after first giving up its negotiating chips.
Israel's basic negotiating position concerning territory is that "the settlement blocs will remain within the state of Israel and Jerusalem will remain its united capital", summarizing the territorial part of Netanyahu's speech to the Israeli Knesset, in the words of correspondent Elad Benari of Israel National News. This is a position that the entire Israeli coalition government agrees on, and that the main opposition party, Kadima, also agrees on. It is the Israeli position. There is a letter from then-President George W. Bush affirming support for Israel keeping the settlement blocs. There is a congressional resolution affirming the unity of Jerusalem under Israeli control. There is a congressional resolution affirming support for Bush's letter.
But the Abbas-Obama demand is that before the negotiations even begin, Israel must agree to the 1967 lines. That means Israel gives up the Western Wall, gives up the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, gives up half of its capital Jerusalem, and gives up all of the settlement blocs. The demand is for Israel to retreat to indefensible borders only 9 miles wide. But it gets even worse: the Abbas-Obama demand is for Israel to give up all of its negotiating chips before the negotiations start. Israel's plan is for some of the territory that Israel gained in the 1967 war in Judea and Samaria be given up by Israel as negotiating chips, but since the Abbas-Obama demand is for Israel to agree to lose all of this territory in advance of the negotiations, Israel would be losing its negotiating chips before negotiations start.That is the first way that the negotiations are rigged.
The second way the negotiations are rigged is that Israel's basic demand for security requires an Israeli long term presence along the Jordan River. When this would end cannot be predicted in advance, because that depends on the state of relations between Israel and its neighbors. This is necessary in order to prevent the smuggling of arms, including rockets and missiles, into areas of Judea and Samaria that would be controlled by the Palestinians. It would be necessary also in order to prevent the infiltration of terrorists and other jihadis into areas of Judea and Samaria that would be controlled by the Palestinians. It is not possible to know now which regimes are going to survive in the long term, and when regime change will take place. The Muslim Brotherhood is growing in strength in the region. Al Qaida is also determined to overthrow what it considers to be "apostate" regimes that are not governing according to Sharia. There have been Arab-Israeli wars in the past, and they could happen in the future also. An Israeli long term presence is needed along the Jordan River in order to delay an incoming invasion from across the Jordan River, if the friendly regime across the river is ever overthrown by Islamist forces, or if an invasionary force uses Jordan's territory to carry out its intended invasion into Israel. But Obama's speech, which he wants to make the basis of negotiations, rules out such an Israeli long-term presence along the Jordan River. It doesn't say that this is even negotiable. It just rules it out.
Obama's decision on the final result of the negotiations states: "The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated." Full withdrawal with a defined period of transition, as Obama requires of the final result of the negotiations, means that if Israel agrees to Obama's terms for the final result of the negotiations, it would be denied a long-term military presence on the Jordan River, and denied effective means of stopping the smuggling of weapons including rockets into the Palestinian entity, denied effective means of stopping the infiltration of jihadis and terrorists, and denied effective means of holding up an invasionary force that crosses the Jordan River. That is a denial of Israel's basic security needs, and it does not allow Israel to even negotiate for this necessity. That is the second way the negotiations are rigged.
The third way that the proposed negotiations have been rigged is for Israel's essential requirements for ending the conflict to be taken off the table at the time Israel makes its territorial concessions. That means that these will not even be discussed. These requirements are, according to Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu (in the summary words of correspondent Elad Benari):
1. "The Palestinians must recognize Israel as the Jewish nation's state."
2. "The treaty must be an end to the conflict."
3. "The Arab refugee problem must be solved outside of Israel's borders."
But these will not even be considered when Israel makes territorial concessions, because Obama has taken them off the table.
They are essential for ending the conflict, but they will not be addressed, certainly not with the needed concessions by the Palestinians, because Israel will be deprived of negotiating chips long before they are discussed, if ever.
The conflict goes on for a root cause reason that Obama has never acknowledged. The Muslim states, the states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, to which Obama has sent a US ambassador, has territory that sweeps from the Atlantic Ocean, across north Africa, and to the Persian Gulf and beyond the Persian Gulf. This Islamic territory has in its midst a small piece of territory controlled by infidels, the Jews, who have no desire to convert to Islam, and have the desire and need to keep the Jewish state. This is a part of the Dar al Harb that is within the territory that the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists consider to be Islamic. For example, Hamas, the terrorist Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood, considers all of the territory of Israel, whatever its dimensions now or in the future, to be part of an Islamic trust, that must be ruled by Sharia. Plainly, it is clear that there will not be peace with the Palestinians until they change their approach by recognizing Israel as the Jewish nation's state, and take on the task of educating their children that Israel is the Jewish nation's state and is entitled to exist. But this issue has been taken off the table by Obama while Israel makes territorial concessions, so the root cause of the endless war will not be resolved.
There are millions of descendants of the 1948 Arab refugees, including great-grandchildren, and the mass of people that the Palestinians consider to be "Arab refugees" includes these descendants and other relatives. If they were to inundate Israel, the country would cease to be a Jewish state. If there is a 22nd Arab state of Palestine, and if these millions of foreign Arabs who are hostile to Israel were to immigrate to Israel, that would turn it into the 23rd Arab state. That is not what is meant by a "2 state solution", both Arab states. It would mark the end of the aspirations, rights, and needs of the Jewish state of Israel. And yet Obama has decreed in his speech that this issue would be taken off the table while Israel was making territorial concessions. That means that the necessary concessions that the Palestinians need to make to end this Arab refugee issue, which has been a cassus belli or pretext for war, would not be made. The pretext for war would continue, and the wars and terrorism would continue, and this whole matter would not be resolved.
Israel's requirement for peace is that the process results in a treaty that is the end to the conflict. But this has not been put on the table for the time that Israel makes territorial concessions. So it will not be addressed, and the Palestinians, who have wanted to have endless war (as the Hamas charter makes clear, and even the Fatah charter, and the PLO charter), will not make the necessary concession to even state in the treaty that the conflict is ended (let alone carry it out). Therefore, there is no chance that this will lead to anything but irredentist war, war continuing indefinitely.
The Abbas-Obama plan for negotiations rigs the negotiations so that right at the start, before negotiations start, Israel loses its rights and its valuable assets, and loses defensible borders, and in the final result loses the essential ingredient for security -- a long term presence along the Jordan River (which was blocked by Obama), and doesn't address the issues necessary for ending the war. It is a formula for slicing and dicing Israel, to make it even more attractive for war against it by the Islamists, and its result, just as the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip turned out to be, is a land-for-war result.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)