Thursday, March 28, 2024
Thursday, March 28, 2024
Get the Daily
Briefing by Email

Subscribe

“PEACE PROCESS”: PALESTINIAN LEADERS STILL REFUSE TO ACCEPT JEWISH STATE

Why Won't Abbas Accept "Two States for Two Peoples"?: Alan M. Dershowitz, Gatestone Institute, June 12, 2017— There is a widespread but false belief that Mahmoud Abbas is finally prepared to accept the two-state solution proposed by the U.N. in November 1947 when it divided mandatory Palestine into two areas: one for the Jewish People; the other for the Arab People.

Why Trump’s Delaying, But Won’t Forget, His Israeli Embassy Promise: Lawrence Solomon, National Post, June 5, 2017 — President Trump prevented the U.S. embassy in Israel from moving to Jerusalem last Thursday, his deadline for doing so under a U.S. law that every six months gives the president the right to thwart Congress’s desire to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Ehud Barak: Blatantly Ignoring Danger: Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen, BESA, May 31, 2017 — US President Donald Trump’s visit to Israel seems to have triggered a new campaign over the future of the Jewish people in the land of its forefathers, and former Prime Minister Ehud Barak has joined the ranks of those whose hopes for Israeli concessions in Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem have been rekindled.

Six Days and 50 Years of War: Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2017— In June 1967 Arab leaders declared their intention to annihilate the Jewish state, and the Jews decided they wouldn’t sit still for it.

 

On Topic Links

 

Ex-UN Envoy Bolton: Trump has no Chance at Ultimate Peace Deal: Yonah Jeremy Bob, Jerusalem Post, May 29, 2017

Precursor for Victory – A Diplomatic “Iron-Dome”: Dr. Martin Sherman, Arutz Sheva, May 12, 2017

Could Israel’s Bennett Become Next Leader of the Right?: Mazal Mualem, Al-Monitor, Apr. 28, 2017

Cutting Abbas Down to Size: Ruthie Blum, Jerusalem Post, June 11, 2017

 

 

 

WHY WON'T ABBAS ACCEPT "TWO STATES FOR TWO PEOPLES"?

Alan M. Dershowitz

Gatestone Institute, June 12, 2017

 

There is a widespread but false belief that Mahmoud Abbas is finally prepared to accept the two-state solution proposed by the U.N. in November 1947 when it divided mandatory Palestine into two areas: one for the Jewish People; the other for the Arab People. The Jews of Palestine accepted the compromise division and declared a nation state for the Jewish people to be called by its historic name: Israel. The Arabs of Palestine, on the other hand, rejected the division and declared that they would never accept a state for the Jewish people and statehood for the Palestinian people. They wanted for there not to be a state for the Jewish people more than for there to be a state for their own people.

 

Accordingly, they joined the surrounding Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and drive its Jewish residents into the sea. They failed back then, but over the years, and to the current day, they continue to want no state for the Jewish people more than they want a state for Palestinian Arabs. That is why Abbas refuses to say that he would ever accept the U.N. principle of two states for two peoples. I know, because I have personally asked him on several occasions.

 

In a few months, Israel will be celebrating the 70th anniversary of the historic U.N. compromise, but the leaders of the Palestinian Authority still refuse to accept the principle of that resolution: two states for two peoples. President Trump, for his part, has expressed an eagerness to make "the ultimate deal" between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This has propelled discussions about the dormant peace-process back into the spotlight. Shortly before travelling to the Middle East – where he met with Prime Minister Netanyahu in Israel and President Abbas in Bethlehem – Trump invited the Palestinian leader to the White House. Abbas was last at the White House in March 2014 shortly before the Obama administration's shuttle diplomacy efforts –led by Secretary of State John Kerry – fell apart.

 

Leading up to his meeting with President Trump in Washington, Abbas said to a German publication: "We're ready to collaborate with him and meet the Israeli prime minister under his [Trump's] auspices to build peace." He then went on to voice his support for a two-state solution, saying, "It's high time to work on the requirements for it." This was interpreted as a willingness on Abbas' part to accept the idea of a state for the Jewish people. Generally speaking, the international community supports the idea of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with two-states for two-peoples: a state for the Jewish people alongside a state for the Palestinians. Yet presenting Mahmoud Abbas as a supporter of the two-states for two people formulation is to deny truth. The general idea of a two-state solution – which Abbas has nominally supported – does not specify that one state would be for the Jewish people and the other one for the Arabs. Over the years President Abbas has expressed a commitment to a two-state solution – stating that he supports an Arab state along the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital – but has so far refused to accept the legitimacy of a nation state for the Jews existing by its side.

 

Consider President Abbas' own words. In a 2003 interview he said: "I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I will never recognize the Jewishness of the state, or a 'Jewish state.'" When asked about Israel being the nation state of the Jewish people (in the context of Ehud Olmert's generous peace proposal in 2008) the PA leader said: "From a historical perspective, there are two states: Israel and Palestine. In Israel, there are Jews and others living there. This we are willing to recognize, nothing else." And in a later interview with the Al-Quds newspaper Abbas reiterated this refusal to recognize that Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people: "We're not talking about a Jewish state and we won't talk about one. For us, there is the state of Israel and we won't recognize Israel as a Jewish state. I told them that this is their business and that they are free to call themselves whatever they want. But [I told them] you can't expect us to accept this."

 

The list of such pronouncements from the man at the head of the Palestinian Authority goes on and on. Not only has Abbas refused to accept the formulation "Jewish state," he adamantly refuses to accept the more descriptive formulation "nation state of the Jewish people." Abbas is of course committed to Palestine being a Muslim state under Sharia Law, despite the reality that Christian Palestinians constitute a significant (if forcibly shrinking) percentage of Palestinian Arabs…

 

Writing for the New York Times on the advent of the 50th anniversary of the Six Day War, Israel's former Ambassador to Israel, Michael Oren said: "The conflict is not about the territory Israel captured in 1967. It is about whether a Jewish state has a right to exist in the Middle East in the first place. As Mr. Abbas has publicly stated, 'I will never accept a Jewish state.'" Oren argues that until Abbas and other Palestinian leaders can say the words "two states for two peoples," no reasonable resolution will be reached…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

 

 

                                                           

Contents                

WHY TRUMP’S DELAYING, BUT WON’T FORGET,

HIS ISRAELI EMBASSY PROMISE

Lawrence Solomon

National Post, June 5, 2017

 

President Trump prevented the U.S. embassy in Israel from moving to Jerusalem last Thursday, his deadline for doing so under a U.S. law that every six months gives the president the right to thwart Congress’s desire to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. In denying the move, Trump lost an opportunity to determine the true intentions of the Palestinians toward Israel.

 

Are Palestinians willing to share Jerusalem with the Jews, as they have privately assured Trump and previous U.S. presidents? Or do they want Jerusalem entirely in Palestinian hands, and Israel wiped off the map, as they tell their people publicly in Arabic and as they depict in Palestinian schoolbooks? If Palestinians truly believe in the two-state solution — an Israeli and a Palestinian state living side by side in peace, with each having its capital in different parts of Jerusalem — they would have no principled reason to resent a U.S. embassy in an Israeli neighbourhood of Jerusalem.

 

Although Trump lost this opportunity to flush out the Palestinians’ true negotiating position, and in the process to please his base by fulfilling his campaign promise to move the embassy, he wisely did not do so on Thursday. Thursday was the day Trump fulfilled another campaign promise, one that is also highly important to his base and one that couldn’t wait: ripping up the Paris climate accord, which interferes with Trump’s desire to deregulate the U.S. economy. Had Trump fulfilled both promises in close proximity to each other, he would have muddled his messaging and failed to maximize the political credit that would come of honouring both. Much better to keep the Jerusalem asset in his vest pocket, and pull it out at a time and place that provides maximum political effect…

 

Trump sees the embassy decision, and Jerusalem’s status, as major bargaining chips in negotiating a final settlement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He gained an additional negotiating advantage when he angrily confronted Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem with evidence that Abbas had been inciting hated against Israel, contrary to what Abbas had told Trump in their earlier meeting in Washington, D.C. “You tricked me in D.C.! You talked there about your commitment to peace, but the Israelis showed me your involvement in incitement,” Trump reportedly shouted during their meeting, stunning Abbas into silence for several minutes before he recovered his composure. Abbas’s attempt at explanations didn’t wash. Banging his fist on the table, Trump irritatedly added: “You can talk about how much you want peace, but that’s empty (rhetoric).”

 

Trump’s upper hand was strengthened last week when he learned how much Palestinian terrorists in Israeli jails and their families had received as incentives to attack Jews — more than US$1 billion over the last four years, paid mostly by Western aid. When the two met in Washington, Trump had specifically told Abbas to “resolve this issue,” likely having no idea of the scale of payments involved. One good reason to move the embassy soon — to determine the Palestinians’ true intentions — may no longer be necessary. Given Abbas’s duplicity towards him, and the Palestinians’ billion-dollar commitment to terrorism, Trump may feel he already knows the deal to be struck won’t come of an honest negotiation, but of an imposed settlement.

 

In announcing the delay in moving the embassy, the White House explained that “President Trump made this decision to maximize the chances of successfully negotiating a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, fulfilling his solemn obligation to defend America’s national security interests. But, as he has repeatedly stated his intention to move the embassy, the question is not if that move happens, but only when.”

 

The most logical “when” is at least a year from now, probably two or even three. First, Trump must give Abbas every opportunity to live up to the commitments to peace he has given Trump, no matter how improbable they may now seem. But Abbas will know that the clock is ticking. To win re-election and remain in power, Trump will again need the evangelical vote, for whom the embassy move is paramount. Well before the end of his first term as president, whether or not the Palestinians have proven themselves desirous of living in peace with the Jews, Trump will be able to make his move in good conscience.

                                                                                   

 

Contents   

                       

EHUD BARAK: BLATANTLY IGNORING DANGER

Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen

BESA, May 31, 2017

 

US President Donald Trump’s visit to Israel seems to have triggered a new campaign over the future of the Jewish people in the land of its forefathers, and former Prime Minister Ehud Barak has joined the ranks of those whose hopes for Israeli concessions in Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem have been rekindled. In a piece published in Haaretz last week that sharply criticized author Micah Goodman’s book Catch 67: The Ideologies behind the Disagreements Tearing Israel Apart, Barak sought to weigh in on the question of whether Israel can properly defend itself in the event it withdraws from Judea and Samaria.

 

Barak’s answer was decisive: Israel’s refusal to separate from the Palestinians and withdraw to the 1967 lines – with certain exceptions for the big settlement blocs – is “a definite threat to the future of the Zionist project,” while the threats that may arise following a withdrawal are “military technical risks.” He was dismissive of the Right’s premise that such territorial concessions are potentially extremely dangerous, arguing that “Israel is the strongest country in the region militarily, strategically and economically and – if we craft our relations with the United States skillfully – also diplomatically.” According to Barak, if Israel succeeds in navigating the moves it is expected to pursue, it would be able to deal with any military threat that may rear its head.

 

But history has proven that even superpowers can fail. One needs to look no further than the Russians and the Americans in Afghanistan. Since the 2005 disengagement from the Gaza Strip, Israel has a clear point of reference as to the nature of the potential threat a Palestinian state may constitute. By similar logic, one can argue that what happened in the Gaza Strip – i.e., the terrorist threat it poses to the border-adjacent communities – could happen in Judea and Samaria, only this time, it would be the majority of the cities in Israel’s center and coastal plain that would be targeted.

 

Barak and his supporters promise that the future Palestinian state will be demilitarized. It is worth exploring whether this objective is attainable and to what extent, especially in an age when global arms proliferation is available to the highest bidder, as seen by the unabated arms smuggling to Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, and given both groups’ increasing domestic weapons production capabilities. The other approach, which Barak utterly dismisses as an unfounded right-wing view, argues that establishing and maintaining Palestinian demilitarization is essential if Israel is to maintain its ongoing security efforts and a thriving civilian presence throughout Judea and Samaria.

 

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that rightists have a mixed set of ideologies, as Barak claims. That does not change the fact that the need for strategic depth on Israel’s narrow coastline was not the Right’s brainchild. In his 1978 book And Now Tomorrow, then-Labor party leader Shimon Peres wrote, “If a separate Palestinian state is established, it will be armed to the teeth. It will also have bases for the most extreme terrorist forces and they will be equipped with anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles that will endanger not only passersby but every plane and helicopter flying in Israel’s skies and every vehicle traveling on the main highways of the coastal plain. … The main problem is not agreeing on demilitarization, but upholding such an agreement in practice.”

 

Like many of those supporting the notion of withdrawal, Barak has based his arguments on the fact that many in the defense establishment share his views. While the numbers may be in his favor, what does it really mean? Galileo taught us that progress depends on open and critical scientific thinking. Arguing that one’s view is akin to scientific truth simply because it is the majority opinion belongs in a church or the rabbinical establishment. Neither Albert Einstein nor Nobel laureate Dan Shechtman had the support of the scientific community in the early days of their research.

 

We now have the opportunity to validate the expertise professed by these defense officials when they address strategic questions. Early in the 1948 War of Independence, during a situation assessment with the IDF’s General Staff, then-Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion stated that “we will adhere to the experts’ advice on the technical issues, but the experts will not have the final say on everything – that is up to the people’s representatives. It is not up to the experts to decide whether to wage war or not, and whether to defend the Negev or not.”

 

The same is true of the question of Israel’s future in Judea and Samaria. Experts are welcome to express their opinion, but one must remember that when it comes to this issue they are not politically impartial professionals, and unlike on technical matters, the experts are not familiar with the ins and outs of strategic issues…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]    

 

Contents                                                                                                           

SIX DAYS AND 50 YEARS OF WAR

Bret Stephens

              New York Times, June 2, 2017

 

In June 1967 Arab leaders declared their intention to annihilate the Jewish state, and the Jews decided they wouldn’t sit still for it. For the crime of self-preservation, Israel remains a nation unforgiven. Unforgiven, Israel’s milder critics say, because the Six-Day War, even if justified at the time, does not justify 50 years of occupation. They argue, also, that Israel can rely on its own strength as well as international guarantees to take risks for peace. This is ahistoric nonsense.

 

On June 4, 1967, the day before the war, Israel faced the fact that United Nations peacekeepers in Sinai, intended as a buffer with Egypt, had been withdrawn at Cairo’s insistence; that France, hitherto Israel’s ally, had imposed an arms embargo on it; and that Lyndon Johnson had failed to deliver on previous American assurances to break any Egyptian blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat. On June 5, the first day of the war, the Israeli government used three separate diplomatic channels to warn Jordan — then occupying the West Bank — not to initiate hostilities. The Jordanians ignored the warning and opened fire with planes and artillery. Some 6,000 shells landed on the western side of Jerusalem alone.

 

On June 19, 1967 — nine days after the end of the war — the Israeli cabinet decided it would offer the return of territories conquered from Egypt and Syria in exchange for peace, security and recognition. The Arab League categorically rejected peace with Israel at its summit in Khartoum later that year. In 1973 Egypt and Syria unleashed a devastating surprise attack on Israel, puncturing the myth of Israeli invulnerability.

 

It took a decade after 1967 for the Egyptian government of Anwar Sadat finally to accept Israel’s legitimacy. When he did he recovered every inch of Sinai — from Menachem Begin, Israel’s right-wing prime minister. Syria remains unreconciled.

 

It took another decade for Yasir Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization to recognize Israel and formally forswear terrorism. But its pledges were insincere. Only after the Soviet Union’s collapse and Arafat’s disastrous support for Saddam Hussein in the gulf war did the P.L.O. finally seem to get serious. It led to the Oslo Accords of 1993 and further Israeli withdrawals. In 2000, at Camp David, Israel offered Arafat a state. He rejected it. “I regret that in 2000 he missed the opportunity to bring that nation” — Palestine — “into being,” was Bill Clinton’s bitter verdict on the summit’s outcome. Within two years Arafat was calling on a million “martyrs” to march on Jerusalem.

 

In 2005, another right-wing Israeli government removed its soldiers, settlers and settlements from the Gaza Strip. Two years later Hamas seized control of the territory and used it to start three wars in seven years. In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered a Palestinian state in Gaza and 93 percent of the West Bank. The Palestinians rejected the proposal out of hand. This is a truncated history. Israel is not a nation of saints and has made its mistakes. The most serious of those is proliferation of West Bank settlements beyond those in historically recognized blocs. But before we fall prey to the lazy trope of “50 years of occupation,” inevitably used to indict Israel, let’s note the following:

 

There would have been no occupation, and no settlements, if Egypt and its allies hadn’t recklessly provoked a war. Or if the “international community” hadn’t fecklessly abandoned Israel in its desperate hours. Or if Jordan hadn’t foolishly ignored Israel’s warnings to stay out of it. Or if the Arab League hadn’t arrogantly rejected the possibility of peace. A Palestinian state would most likely exist if Arafat hadn’t adopted terrorism as the calling card of Palestinian aspirations. Or if he hadn’t rejected the offer of a state 17 years ago. Or if he hadn’t renounced his renunciation of terror.

 

A Palestinian state would also most likely exist if Arafat’s successor, Mahmoud Abbas — now in the 13th year of his elected four-year term — hadn’t rejected it again nine years ago, and if Gazans hadn’t turned their territory into a terrifying model of Palestinian statehood, and if the United Nations didn’t treat Hamas’s attacks on Israel as a nuisance but Israel’s self-defense as a crime against humanity.

 

The cover of a recent issue of The Economist purports to answer the question “Why Israel Needs a Palestinian State.” The argument isn’t wrong. It just isn’t wise. Israel needs a Palestinian state to safeguard its democratic future — in the long term. But the character of such a state matters at least as much as its mere existence. The Middle East doesn’t need another failed state in its midst. Israel doesn’t need another Hamastan on its border. Palestinians in the West Bank don’t need it over their heads. In 1967 Israel was forced into a war against enemies who then begrudged it the peace. Egypt, at least, found its Sadat. The drama of the Six-Day War will close when Palestinians find theirs.

 

Contents

On Topic Links

 

Ex-UN Envoy Bolton: Trump has no Chance at Ultimate Peace Deal: Yonah Jeremy Bob, Jerusalem Post, May 29, 2017 —There is no chance President Donald Trump will secure a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton told The Jerusalem Post on Monday.

Precursor for Victory – A Diplomatic “Iron-Dome”: Dr. Martin Sherman, Arutz Sheva, May 12, 2017—Wars usually end when failure causes one side to despair when that side has…accepted defeat, and when that defeat has exhausted its will to fight – Daniel Pipes, A New Strategy for Israeli Victory, Commentary, December 14, 2016.

Could Israel’s Bennett Become Next Leader of the Right?: Mazal Mualem, Al-Monitor, Apr. 28, 2017—When the chairman of HaBayit HaYehudi, Minister of Education Naftali Bennett, entered the polling station on the morning of April 27, he was greeted by his supporters who shouted, "Who's there? The next prime minister!"

Cutting Abbas Down to Size: Ruthie Blum, Jerusalem Post, June 11, 2017—On Thursday, Bloomberg quoted a Palestinian Authority official saying that PA President Mahmoud Abbas is willing to forgo his usual preconditions for negotiations with Israel – such as a freeze on all settlement construction – in order to give the administration in Washington “a chance to deliver.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Donate CIJR

Become a CIJR Supporting Member!

Most Recent Articles

Day 5 of the War: Israel Internalizes the Horrors, and Knows Its Survival Is...

0
David Horovitz Times of Israel, Oct. 11, 2023 “The more credible assessments are that the regime in Iran, avowedly bent on Israel’s elimination, did not work...

Sukkah in the Skies with Diamonds

0
  Gershon Winkler Isranet.org, Oct. 14, 2022 “But my father, he was unconcerned that he and his sukkah could conceivably - at any moment - break loose...

Open Letter to the Students of Concordia re: CUTV

0
Abigail Hirsch AskAbigail Productions, Dec. 6, 2014 My name is Abigail Hirsch. I have been an active volunteer at CUTV (Concordia University Television) prior to its...

« Nous voulons faire de l’Ukraine un Israël européen »

0
12 juillet 2022 971 vues 3 https://www.jforum.fr/nous-voulons-faire-de-lukraine-un-israel-europeen.html La reconstruction de l’Ukraine doit également porter sur la numérisation des institutions étatiques. C’est ce qu’a déclaré le ministre...

Subscribe Now!

Subscribe now to receive the
free Daily Briefing by email

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

  • Subscribe to the Daily Briefing

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.