Negotiating for What?

Peace talks can achieve nothing at this time, so why not consider other options?

by Moshe Dann

Insisting that the Palestinian Authority engage in negotiations rather than appeal to the United Nations for recognition is based on the belief that an agreement that will end the conflict is possible. However, both sides know that Israel cannot offer anything that will satisfy Palestinian demands and that the Palestinians refuse to agree to minimal Israeli requests.

Why then pretend they will? If the emperor has no clothes, why call for a fashion designer?

The idea that creating a second Arab Palestinian state will solve the problem not only defies reality, it prevents other options and undermines Israel's legitimate claims.

Why not consider other options? Because anything less than a Palestinian state and full sovereignty negates the Arab resistance movement that has sought Israel's destruction for the last 63 years.

Variations of a "two-state solution" – "land for peace,” which produced the Oslo Accords and fueled Palestinian demands for statehood - assumed the conflict was over territory ("the occupation"), not Israel's existence. And both Israeli and Arab negotiators at the time were careful to avoid core issues, which would have blocked an agreement and since then have remained to haunt and destroy.

After Israel broke the terrorist infrastructure, allowing modest cooperation, despite ongoing terrorism - and with Arafat no longer around - there seemed to be hope. But Hamas’ rise, a massive campaign of de-legitimization financed by Arabs and many European countries, a hostile US Administration, and spreading unrest throughout the Arab world have radically shifted the balance against Israel. Nothing can be taken for granted any more - even solemn peace treaties and international agreements.

The lid is off and the pot is boiling over.

The belief that Palestinian Arabs deserve a state is a powerful idea; if so, why not give it to them? And if negotiations will not lead to that state, why engage in them? For Israel, the illusion of negotiations buys time in the hope for recognition and acceptance; for the Arabs, negotiations only postpone their goal – Palestinian statehood and Israel’s elimination.

Alternative to 2-state plan

The problem is what constitutes that state; what are its permanent borders, can it be stable and will it end claims against Israel and end the conflict? Arab leaders have refused to commit to any answers - leaving the problems open, and the possibility of future violence a clear and present danger.

The only way Israel can rescue itself from this self-defeating position and avoid another policy failure is by offering an alternative to the "two-state" plan for another Palestinian state. This assumes that Israel must act in its self interest, independent of what Palestinian Arabs do, or don't do. It removes decision-making from the prison of false promises and addictive hopes to doing what is necessary to ensure Jewish survival.

Policy makers need to confront what is, not what they would like. That means understanding what Arab and Palestinian leaders really want, and how they try to get it.

For Arabs, it is about recognition and legitimacy for Hamas as a negotiating partner; it is about "the Nakba" of 1948 – the establishment of Israel and "the occupations" of 1949, and 1967. It is about core issues: "the Palestinian Right of Return," "al Quds" (Jerusalem), and complete Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria – for starters.

Since the Oslo Accords, Israeli diplomats, led by Shimon Peres, made a Palestinian state the cornerstone of Israeli policy. That has been a proven mistake. It led directly to the Palestinian bid for international recognition. Instead of reducing Palestinian Arab demands, it inflated them. Instead of moving towards accommodation, it led to conflict. Rather than promote reality, it encouraged the fantasy of Israel's demise.

As visions of a new Middle East sink into quicksand swamps of revolutions and counter revolutions throughout the Arab world, those concerned about Israel's survival must focus not only on the dangers of a Palestinian state, but Israel's needs.

Israeli policy can remain committed to peace without another Palestinian state. This requires a paradigm shift, a bold and imaginative new direction based on Jewish and Israeli – not Palestinian - sovereignty. This policy entails refuting charges of "illegal occupation," "illegitimate settlements," racism, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing. These accusations cannot be avoided by shifting attention to Israeli achievements in technology and science.

Shifting the focus from external form – statehood and symbols – to internal substance – values, purpose and transparency - moves the question to fundamentals: Will a Palestinian state be a force for stability and safety, or a combustible mixture primed to explode?

Advocates for another Palestinian state need to explain why those who are concerned about Israel's survival and regional peace need not be worried. Only then can negotiations become a play instead of a ploy.

The author is a PhD historian, writer and journalist living in Israel



Ynet News

Obama's Next Failure

President fails to understand that PA has no desire, ability to secure deal with Israel.

by Moshe Elad

The electoral defeat suffered by US President Barack Obama is not supposed to be connected to events in the Middle East. Seemingly, his downfall was a result of domestic policy failures. However, when examining Obama's relationship with Abbas and Netanyahu, it's hard not to conclude that on this front too, the US president can expect to lick some wounds.

Obama and his advisors fail to understand that that the Middle East crisis cannot be resolved with "Yes we can" slogans. Several previous presidents realized that the issue is complex, problematic, and beyond their abilities, thereby taking a step back. But not Obama. He will continue to exert pressure until he prompts a collapse, which would mean either a new flare-up, or escaping Palestinian Authority leaders.

What is misleading Obama and his people to such extent? Seemingly, the West Bank presents a positive, encouraging façade: Security calm for the most part, hundreds of projects being built on the ground, reduced unemployment, and a growth rate that hasn't been seen in years. However, all these optimistic indications, most of which are economic, are only the storefront.

Behind the Palestinian façade we discover a very grim picture of despair and frustration. On the one hand, the Palestinian Authority has neither the desire nor the ability to reach a historic compromise with Israel. On the other hand, the PA is having trouble withstanding the American and European pressure to implement such compromise.

Obama fails to understand that as long as Hamas breathes down Abbas' neck, the latter would not be able to realize America's objectives.

Why so?

The name of the game in the territories is zeal. To our regret, at this time the zeal is not found among Abbas and his people, but rather, among Hamas members. We saw it already in the June 2007 events in Gaza. The PLO is perceived as satiated, corrupt and anachronistic, while the Palestinian public is eager for hungry, thin leadership with zeal, regardless of the ideology it represents. For example, should Ahmadinejad present a Palestinian alternative, even he could represent the Palestinians.

Obama and his people are pushing Abbas to stop the incitement against Israel. How exactly can this be done? After all, generations of incitement cannot be erased with mere declarations. Abbas himself does not believe in putting an end to incitement, as it would quickly prompt greater support for Hamas.

Israel to pay price
Very few Palestinians believe Abbas when he proposes, with US encouragement, the handover of areas under Israeli security control to the PA. Most Palestinians understand that the moment the IDF leaves any West Bank town, it may fall into the hands of Hamas, which will enlist the help of apolitical gangs.

Obama's gamble on Abbas as the Palestinian leader disregards not only his failure to control the Gaza Strip, but also his inability to fully control the West Bank. There are towns and villages in the West Bank that President Abbas, is afraid to go into – mostly traditional Hamas strongholds or areas controlled by gangs. This isn't a president – it’s an "exiled ruler."

A harsh debate emerged following the 'You have a partner' campaign, where Israeli elements presented PA leaders as friends of Israel. This campaign provoked great displeasure among residents of the territories and further eroded the PA’s status. 'How can you call for ongoing armed conflict against peace partners?' Abbas was asked by those who wanted to highlight the doublespeak custom he adopted, just like his predecessor Arafat.

Meanwhile, the sight of security personnel destroying settlement products prompted ridicule, at most, among many Palestinians. 'After all, there isn't one settlement in the West Bank that was not built by the Palestinians,' say those who object to these ostentatious moves, adding that 'some senior PA officials made their fortunes through 'banned trade with settlers, so who are you trying to fool here?'

The underground current simmering in the territories threatens to turn into a huge wave that would topple Abbas and his people. Some more pressure from Obama would see Abbas declaring 'let me die with Palestine.' And then, the American president will dispatch his spokesman to say: We tried, but it didn't work. We'll have to fix it.

In any case, Israel will be paying the price for it.




Ynew News

Direct Talk About Direct Talks

by Paul Lademain

Barry Rubin makes some good points:

The big story of the moment is the announcement that there will soon be direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). We will see if this new round of negotiations actually happens or not.

The other thing we need to see are the terms for the talks. Are they designed as a give away to whatever the PA demands? Are they well-organized in some coherent structure? Is this a set-up to allow the Obama Administration to claim credit for getting direct talks going (after messing up and contributing to their not getting started for about 16 months?)

Israel's one-year freeze on building inside settlements is coming to an end. For making this concession, Israel received nothing. Now it will be "rewarded" with the opportunity to renew the freeze. How is there going to be a "democratic, and viable Palestinian State living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors" when about half of that supposed state — the Gaza Strip — is based on a radical Islamist regime that seeks genocide against Israel?

I suggest that someone in the media and politics actually begins to talk about what Israel wants out of a negotiated agreement. We hear constantly about Palestinian demands — a state, 1967 borders, east Jerusalem, return of refugees — as if these were the only things on the table. Yet if Israel's demands — recognition of Israel as a Jewish State, security guarantees, resettlement of refugees in Palestine, non-militarization of a Palestinian State, end of the conflict — are ignored that will sabotage the talks.

Even assuming there was a negotiated settlement, Hamas, Hizballah, Syria, Iran, and the Muslim Brotherhoods, among others, would try harder to wreck it. The level of terrorism and conflict would rise even more. Iran, for example, would not stop developing nuclear weapons. The ideas that everything is linked to the Arab-Israeli conflict or that resolving the conflict would bring stability and moderation to the region are simply not based on a serious consideration of the area and its politics.

Good points. But how 'bout a fresh approach?

Israel tasks Hillary for a change. First, she will be obliged to produce a list of what she wants Israel to concede, sacrifice, donate, to the arab invaders.
Second, Israel will go deaf, instead of groveling and haggling. Groveling, begging, and haggling invites people to view Jews as guileful chiselers - e.g., nobody respected or admired Barak when he offered Arafat most of Israel's lands in exchange for "recognition" and "peace." You want to know the truth? People here in the US were nauseated by Ehud Barak's craven behavior; Albright was in over her head; Bill Clinton's eye was on the Saudi's mega-million dollar promise to fund his presidential library and of course Hillary benefited from that by proxy.

Israel will stand up straight and respond to Hillary's hubris with its own demands: Israel will demand the complete restoration of all lands recognized as part of the Jewish Homeland by the San Remo Resolution and this land encompasses Judea and Samaria, the Golan Heights, Gaza, and all the land that has since then been handed to the arabs. Jerusalem will be controlled in its entirety by Israel. Israel will keep in reserve its demand for restoration of the Transjordan region to Israel. (For Gossake, Israel has always had Transjordan as a bargaining chip, but it lacked decent, strong-minded statesmen to use it!) *** It appears that Israel's PM loves to bargain, which makes him a soft target for extortion and pressure, which he cannot handle because he loves flattery and "love" more than he values respect.

Israel will expel all illegals and remove the arab seditionists from its parliament (Knesset). The tunnels into Israel will be sealed. Gaza will be restored to Israel and all of Israel's politicians who agreed to give Gaza to the arabs will be prosecuted or fined. Islamics who want to create a new state and who want to be known as "palestinians" will be transfered to Jordan and they will form a separate state within the boundaries of "Jordan".

Restoration of the Temple Mount. Removal of all Waqf from the Temple Mount. Should Jordan balk at Israel's reasonable demands Islamics will be barred from the mosque that remains wrongfully ensconced atop Israel's holiest monument. Anyone who bars Jews from standing atop their Temple Mount will be arrested or fined. Israel will build a new Temple atop the Temple Mount as a symbol of their conquest over the arab invaders. (Do Jews have the stomach for standing up straight and celebrating their own faith? Or are they innately weak, cantankerous and rude? Demanding control over the Temple Mount will be a litmus test.)
Syria will abandon all claims to the Golan Heights or else Israel will demand the right of return for all Jews driven from Syria.

Israel will abandon all of its past feckless attempts to ask, beg, grovel, humiliate itself for peace. (Let old Peres furrow his oily brow and weep tears for his dear sweet jihadis all by himself.) Remember: Israel as an ally is more beneficial to the US than the US is capable of being useful to Israel. Israel will do unto its antagonists as its antagonists have been doing to Israelis. (God will love this.) Jews will abandon their conceits and regain self respect and honest pride without superstitious doubts about God smiting them down. Israel will declare that it has no obligation to prove itself to anyone except to its own citizenry. Any arab who cannot swear allegiance to Israel will be removed to the new state of Islamic Palestine to be formed within the boundaries of Jordan.

Can a Jew demand this? Of course, a real Jew can. (And should.) Israel will need new leaders. Pulpy, pampered, overfed, cowardly, frightened Jews should stay away from the US State Dept. or any other organized body that attempts to meddle into or curtail Israel's sovereign rights. Foreign or NYC Jews who belong to the NIF or TIP need not apply. Soft-skinned, emotionally needy, servile, exhausted, crooked, avaricious, vain, corrupt Jews need not apply. No Madoffs allowed.
Invite the Belgians to attend a ten-thousand missile salute and a flotilla landing to take place in their capital.

Viva Israel from the Secular Christians 4 Zionism!

Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net.



Gloria Center

Obama, We’re Not Suckers

Obama may mortgage America’s future, but we won’t let him do the same to Israel
By: Avi Trengo

This past week, the cat was out of the bag and the American president’s infinite arrogance came bursting forth. Unlike his European colleagues, whose statements made sure to minimize their involvement to “ending the occupation of 1967,” President Obama (via a State Department spokesman) revealed his intention to bring an “end to the conflict.”

Does Obama really know how to “end the conflict?” We got the answer two days later, when a document published in the media revealed the US Administration’s intention to secure a final-status agreement within a year, while implementing it within 10 years. In other words, Obama wishes to win all the glory while mortgaging the future (our future, not his.)

After all, this is Obama’s specialty. The president “saved” the US economy by printing more than $3 trillion, most of which were poured into the American economy via the acquisition of inflated mortgage-backed securities. He’s leaving the bill for his successors.

Americans may be willing to clean after Obama and believe that he saved them from collapse (they will find the fractures and skeletons in a few years,) but the State of Israel cannot take such chances. We live in the present and not in promises for a rosy future; hence, the US president would do well to show a little modesty: Learn about the roots of the conflict, understand why there is no solution for it at this time, and most importantly, premise any proposal for an interim agreement on realities on the ground.

If Obama wishes to use the “implementation in 10 years” card to shove a “deal” premised on the types of dreams he’s selling to his own people down our throats, we have news for him: We’re not your highness’ suckers. If you wish to propose something that would be implemented in 10 years, you’re invited to come back for a visit nine years from now. Any attempt to look even just one year into the future is dangerous in our neighborhood.

The real core issue
The talks Obama organized for us are seemingly supposed to focus on what he (mistakenly) refers to as the core issues – including refugees, borders, and Jerusalem. Yet his preoccupation with all these issues shows that President Obama has no understanding whatsoever of the real core issue.

The only genuine core issue is the ideology that refuses to accept the existence of a national home for the Jewish people in the Middle East (within any borders.) Islamic imperialism seeks to spread in all directions, while the tiny Israel is like a thorn in its side at the heart of its home base, the Middle East.

Israel and the Jewish sovereignty over its territory is the only core issue. All the rest are excuses. Two generations after 1948, the issue of refugees has remained an excuse, just like the “humanitarian supplies” on board the Gaza-bound Turkish ships were merely an excuse.

In order to understand the arrogance inherent in his desire to “end the conflict," Obama would do well to look at two elements expressed aboard the Mavi Marmara: What was the song, “Khaibar, Khaibar,” sang by activists while they prepared the metal rods used to assault IDF soldiers? And how did these activists know that IDF troops – supposedly members of the brutal occupation army – will not use any arms while raiding the ship?

Khaibar is an ancient town on the Arabian Peninsula. In 629, Mohammad’s soldiers attacked the Jews barricaded in the city. A year earlier, Mohammad signed the Treaty of Hudaybiyya with the Jews, promising them to live in peace while telling his followers this was the right path: Sign agreements when the Jewish enemy is strong and bide your time.

When Mohammad conquered Khaibar, he executed all the men, the women (including the girls) were brutally raped, and boys were sold to slavery. This event was deeply etched in Islamic imperialism’s consciousness, and the song “Khaibar, Khaibar, oh Jews, Mohammad’s army shall return” has been used as a battle cry since 629 and until the Mavi Marmara days.

Accepting Jewish sovereignty
This leads us to the next question: How did the activists know it was a good idea to prepare bats in order to counter the region’s most powerful army? The answer is simple: They knew that the de-legitimization campaign against Israel would prompt the IDF to fight with its hands tied behind its back. Israel cannot use the weapons it holds for fear of the international condemnation that follows every new provocation against it.

Palestinian Authority President Abbas is right to say that he should not be asked to characterize the State of Israel as the Jewish people’s state; however, he is wrong when he tells us to “define yourselves any way you want.” We already did it, in line with a UN resolution dating back to 1947 and a League of Nations resolution dating back to 1922. We established the Jewish national home at the heart of the Islamic Middle East.

And this leads us to the real question: Is Abbas, as well as all the leaders and leading clerics in Islamic states, willing to absolutely recognize the Jewish people’s right for sovereignty in its land? Much before we try to draw the borders, we need to ask whether the Muslims are willing to accept our sovereignty here on any plot of land.

This is the first core issue, to be followed by the second core issue: Are all Islamic states willing to accept that any violation of the final-status agreement planned for us by Obama will receive an immediate response on the ground? That is, would the State of Israel have the right to remove any hostile element from any territory used to attack us?

If the answer to those two questions is affirmative, we have something to talk about. However, if the answer is negative, then even presidential pledges to protect Israel under an American nuclear umbrella would not guarantee our existence here. The State of Israel, whose breadth ranges from 12 to 50 kilometers, cannot afford to sustain even one Iranian nuclear bomb.

And so, we do not intend to put out trust in promises, but rather, to defend ourselves – against the Iranian bomb, and against Palestinian demography.


Ynet News