How Can One Compromise with Those Holding Such Positions?

One of the leading representatives with Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, Jibril Rajoub, was giving an interview on Lebanon’s Al-Mayadeen TV when he allowed the truth to leak out. Mr. Rajoub when queried as to whether the Palestinian would ever plan to return to negotiations with the Israelis replied that negotiations would be considered only if the Palestinian Authority’s preconditions are met. It was in further explaining what he viewed as the Palestinian Authority’s desire in place of negotiations that he stated, “Listen. We as yet don’t have a nuke, but I swear that if we had a nuke, we’d have used it this very morning.” Rajoub is the Deputy Secretary of the Fatah Central Committee and chairman of the Palestinian Authority Olympic Committee. This should make for some serious doubts as to the sincerity of any position including compromise with the Israelis the Palestinian leadership express in interviews given to western media outlets. As many other as well as we have pointed out, if only the world would take the time, investing some effort even if only to satisfy curiosity and translate what the Palestinian spokespeople express when speaking in Arabic translating and placing them in their reports with equal prominence they give their articles denouncing Israeli efforts at self-defense, the public would be well served in making an informed and balanced evaluation of the realities of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. Unfortunately, it appears that truth and honest reporting are the first two casualties in the mainstream media coverage of virtually all things concerning the Middle East and its relevance and importance to the current world struggles.

 

In another recent television appearance, another senior PA official, Sultan Abu al-Einein on Palestinian Authority TV stated about the recent stabbing murder of Evyatar Borovsky by a Palestinian terrorist recently released from Israeli custody, Salam al-Zaghal, “We salute the heroic fighter, the self-sacrificing Salam al-Zaghal. He insisted on defending his honor, so he went against the settler and killed him. Blessings to the breast that nursed Salam Al-Zaghal.” Such comments being broadcast on Palestinian, Lebanese, Egyptian and other Arabic broadcast media are far from being the exception, they are by far the rule. It is solely due to the willful negligence of our Western mainstream media that prevents such claims from being widely known and the hidden truth behind who are the true impediments to peace being more broadly recognized. When covering the Middle East much of the media either omits information or represents misinformation unchallenged as if it were fact. There is a near constant drumbeat claiming that the presence of Israeli communities on established Palestinian claimed land which prevents any possibility for peace and stands in the way of negotiations. What is not explained are the facts that the Palestinians not only claim the areas known as the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem but also the rest of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, the Galilee and all of the land that makes up Israel, every single square inch. The Palestinian leadership reserves the right to continue the resistance until all of Palestine is freed which is an actual declaration that the terrorist attacks must continue even after any peace accord which may be signed in the future. Whenever this fact is admitted in the Western media it is portrayed as belonging only to Hamas and Fatah and the Palestinian Authority are represented as being moderates who are willing to make peace. The unfortunate truth is that the Fatah, the PLO, the Palestinian Authority and the entire Arab League all hold fast to their claim to replace all of Israel with an Arab state and the eradication of any trace of Judaism as their only acceptable goal. Since the Khartoum conference of 1967 the entire Arab World has held to the Declaration of the Three No’s; No peace, No negotiations, and No recognition. Such a position does indeed make holding peace talks rather difficult.

 

The truths which are lost because of the ruse known as the Palestinian’s claim to reconstruct their ancient homeland called Palestine are that there never was in all of history such a place as Palestine, the British used the term Palestinian to describe the Jews who resided within the British Mandate, The Balfour Declaration addressed the rights of the Arab populations residing within the British Mandate, Transjordan (currently called Jordan) was created as the Arab State for those Arabs living within the British Mandate and required the Jews to relinquish their legal claim to 78% of the British Mandate, Israel was not required by UNSC Resolution 242 to relinquish any of the West Bank but to relinquish only those lands acquired as a result of the 1967 War that were not determined by Israel to be vital for secure borders. Of the lands under UNSC Resolution 242 Israel has already relinquished well over 75% of the area by returning the Sinai Peninsula to the Egyptians, and lastly the original conflict was never between the Israelis and the Palestinians but between the Arab World and Israel.

 

Even should one look at the Oslo Accords one would almost immediately draw some interesting conclusions. The Oslo Accords drew three distinct areas within what is often referred to as the West Bank, and was historically referred to as Judea, Samaria and Benyamin (which kind of explains why those wishing to prevent Israel from claiming these areas had to rename them), into three separate areas, A, B, and C. Area A was given over to complete control of the Arabs under the auspices of the PLO and Yasser Arafat. Area C was given over to total Israeli control. Area B was jointly controlled by both the Arabs and the Israelis. This makes an obvious demarcation suggesting the intended solution originally was that Israel required all of Area C as their minimum needs to have basic security and the Arab population already, as it existed, was concentrated within Area A. This left Area B which held some concentrations of Arab villages and farms, some open lands, and some lands claimed by Jews who had their lands confiscated by the Jordanians after the 1948 war which the Arabs referred to as the war to eradicate the Jews and Israel calls their War of Independence, which gives some insight to the perspectives of the two sides. Since Area B was placed under dual control one might be led to think that these were the lands disputed between the two sides as originally observed when the Oslo Accords were enacted. It also would be prudent to believe that the negotiations should have been over where the border should be placed in order to fairly divide the lands within Area B. Instead we have muddied the original intents to the point that there have been discussions of granting the Palestinian Arabs a corridor across the Negev Desert so that their areas near the Jordan River have easy access without entering Israel to Gaza and the Mediterranean Sea, never mind that by doing such Israel is cut in two and is no longer contiguous, as long as the Palestinian areas are contiguous everything should be wonderful. There was a period when Mahmoud Abbas felt he had such a strong position he began claiming the entirety of Jerusalem as the capital city for the Palestinians. Fortunately, somebody managed to disavow him of such a felonious concept. All of this is a prime example of how far removed today’s perceived realities are from the original ideas of the Oslo Accords, let alone from the decisions, treaties, conferences, and even the White Papers which were all ratified soon after World War I and blessed by the League of Nations, the United States, Russia, and even the leadership of the Arab World, King Faisal. Sometimes time worsen wounds, not heals them.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Do Not Tell Me There’s No Intifada

The going line concerning the rocks, firebombs and attacks against Jews that have been escalating in Judea and Samaria has been that although such events are taken seriously and fully investigated, nobody would honestly believe that these incidents warrant being called an Intifada. After all, these attacks are nothing like the murderous times during the first half of the last decade. The problem with this line of reasoning is these are exactly the types and numbers of attacks which eventually built into the First Intifada in the years leading up to the 1990s. They are also indicative of the lead up to the eventual extreme violence which became known as the Second Intifada which studies have suggested could have been less severe with far fewer fatalities and other casualties had forceful intervention been taken earlier that was eventually called to resolve what became a desperate situation. The current denials will serve the exact same purpose that the evasions served in allowing the ramping up of violence during the previous Intifada. If those tasked with protecting the people and keeping order would step to the plate and act with serious purpose now rather than allowing the violence to become intolerable, then perhaps we can avoid the inevitable this time. We should have learned this lesson after the last episodic violence.

 

 

Of course it is all well and good for some editorialists or even some politicians to sound the alarm, but it will serve no good purpose if the warnings are not resoundingly given repeated calls by the people forcing the issue in the Prime Minister’s office and in his Cabinet meetings. Until the leadership decides to take action rather than trying to sell verbal bromides to calm the nerves of the populous the violence will continue to grow more and more intense until the people demand the necessary actions be initiated. It is not like what is occurring is a new experience which has never before been witnessed as all who were of knowable age remember the growing violence starting the fall of 2000 building until action was finally taken in 2005. Would it not be preferable to have action be taken as early in the process as possible and not allow things to go from bad to worse just in an effort to seek approval before acting? Waiting for the world to agree that the violence has reached a level where an Israeli response would be considered reasonable by the rest of the world is an act of insanity. The world will never believe that any act of self defense by Israel is justifiable so why waste time and allow the fatalities and grievous wounded numbers to grow to unacceptable levels before acting. The violence will not abate by itself and allowing the terrorist rock throwings, fire-bombings, stabbings, shootings, and eventually suicide-bombings to continue to climb is nothing short of inducing self-inflicted violence on the Israeli citizenry.

 

 

Hesitation before the use of force is understandable in any society which holds all lives to be valuable. Hesitation to use force to prevent further violence and threats to life and limb is counterproductive especially against a society which openly brags about their worship of death being superior to your love of life. In such cases those who value life will serve life best by intervening with sufficient force to prevent further threats to life by those who willingly serve violence. The world as a whole will never come to Israel’s defense no matter how reasonable the action or how dire the situation. Waiting for the approval of those who would just as well, if not preferably, desire to see as much carnage dealt to the Jewish population living in Judea and Samaria is beyond farcical and well into absurdity. It is actually even worse, such inaction is criminal and against the teachings of Torah. To quote Rabbi Hillel, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? And, if not now, when?” Why, please why, are you waiting before defending the defenseless and, if not now, when?  

 

 

 

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

 

Looking to the Future and the Completion of the Peace Process

Reflecting on the entirety of the period after the liberation of Judea, Samaria, Benyamin and reunified Jerusalem I have realized how drastically things have changed since June of 1967. There was great hope and joy that came with the reunification of Jerusalem and having the Old City once again available for Jews and Christians to visit and enjoy their holy sites throughout the Old City and in the eastern heart of Eretz Yisroel. Looking back at that period using that hindsight which is always 20/20 vision coming from crystal clear thought I realize that Israel should have simply annexed whatever lands would have best served the future of the country. Instead Israel limited their annexations to the rest of Jerusalem and its immediate surroundings including the Mount of Olives and the historic cemetery as well as the vital Golan Heights. In hindsight it becomes clear that Israel should have simply annexed all of Judea, Samaria, Benyamin and anything else which made up the areas liberated from Jordanian oppression. Annexing the Golan Heights was wise and it might have even been expedient to have also annexed a mile or so of the lowlands east of the Golan Heights so as to be able to assure that no obstacles, tunnels or other structures of a military nature would even compromise a clear field of view and security from snipers or encroachments for the forces stationed along the heights. And finally it might have served Israel to also have retained at least part of the Sinai Peninsula, in particular the eastern sections from the easternmost mountain range to the eastern fork of the Red Sea assuring that the Straights of Tiran are never again used to cut off Israel’s seaway to all of Asia and the eastern coast of Africa. But that was not the path chosen and it is far too late now to concern ourselves with such fantasies.

 

The greatest error made after the reunification of Jerusalem was allowing the Muslim Waqf to retain control and enforcement of their will over the Temple Mount. This error in judgment has resulted in the destruction of countless priceless archeological artifacts dating back to the periods of both the First and Second Temples. This Jewish heritage has been permanently lost for all times. That mistake pales compared to the most grievous error and mistaken policy decision very likely in all of history. I am referring to allowing Yasser Arafat to return and granting that arch terrorist to hold any position or power. Allowing anyone with the moral depravity to dispatch youths with murderous vests filled with explosives into restaurants, malls, and other venues with the intent of murdering as many innocents as possible to hold any office which commands respect is a miscarriage of decency. The irony of pretending that Yasser Arafat, and after him, Mahmoud Abbas, were people with whom a peace could be negotiated was a fools folly. The vision of bringing two nations into existence living together in mutual peace, security and cooperation was beautiful even if it ended up being a futile venture. The idea was noble but the actual implementation was a completely different matter in which there would be no beauty to be found. After such disappointment and with the realization that an impasse has been reached, now what are the available options and which should be Israel’s target going forward?

 

The question is, knowing what is now known, what path is open which actually can be obtained and how would Israel be best served in reaching whatever goal is deemed to be the most equitable while still providing for a real and enforceable peace along with security for Israel and her citizenry. The first item that has to be resolved in order to begin is to understand precisely what the honest and actual position the Palestinian leadership would be willing to accept. In order to accomplish this not so small a feat one would be required to research and actually listen to speeches, broadcasts, editorials, and even school lessons which are shared between the Palestinians in their private conversing. This is actually something which is seldom taken into account by the Western mainstream media, European Union, European governments, and the American mainstream media and government. For reasons that escape all sanity, apparently there are almost no people in the Western World who are able to translate Arabic into English, French, German or any other native Western language thus their usual suppositions and position on all things concerning the Arabs and Palestinians relating to Israel are simply based on the propaganda which Mahmoud Abbas, Salam Fayyad and other Palestinian and Arab spokespeople relay in interviews and speeches made in English, French, German, or any language other than Arabic or Farsi. We know that in the European languages that the Palestinian positions are simply that they desire peace above all else and are completely willing to make peace if Israel would simply stop being so stubborn and agree to some simply items which Abbas often claims are just responsibilities which the Israelis need to perform and then negotiations may proceed and peace would be right around the corner. These minor little items actually fit well with what these same spokespeople say in Arabic, and what is that exactly? Let’s see.

 

The preconditions include but are not limited to, release all of the Palestinians held in Israeli prison system with an emphasis on those who are convicted terrorists or security risks, complete Israeli building freeze in West Bank and East Jerusalem, Netanyahu to submit a map of the proposed Palestine and having the map be acceptable to Mahmoud Abbas, remove all IDF and Border Police from Palestinian claimed areas, allow free import of weapons for Palestinian Security Forces, allow training exercises between Palestinian Security Forces and Arab countries’ militaries, agreement from Israel for utilizing the pre-1967 War Armistice Lines as the basis for Palestinian State allowing for exchanges if and only if Abbas approves of them, Israeli accept the Right of Return for all Palestinian refugees into Israel with full citizenship and with or without Israel acceptance the Palestinians demand the right to continue resistance until all of their land has been liberated. Once one takes these demands and digests them it becomes apparent that the only final situation the Palestinians are willing to accept is a one state solution with such state being the Palestinian state and that state must be rendered free of any Jews. What makes this even more obvious is that once you translate what is said between the Palestinians and their allies in the Arab world, you quickly realize that the sole acceptable solution is a Palestinian Arab state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, every single iota of what they believe is Palestine without any Israel. It is the way it is drawn in their textbooks and on the map in Mahmoud Abbas’s office; it is the way the Arab League depicts the final solution; it is the way many in Europe and at the United Nations believe to be perfectly acceptable if not preferable.

 

Once Israel and Israelis fully understand that as long as there is any semblance of Palestinian governance they will not have peace, then Israel will be able to decide exactly what their path going forward should be. Should the Israelis, and the Jewish people, decide that they will continue to live in their own lands where their ancestors resided and are the lands depicted in the Bible, then they too will realize the same thing the Palestinians already have realized, the only solution will eventually be a one state solution. Even if there were sufficient arable land for two viable nations, there is no existing politics which would permit such. Should the day ever arrive where a Palestinian state were founded alongside of Israel, it would simply become the end of the first phase of the conquest and deportation, or worse, of the Jews and their state, Israel. Once this is recognized as the truth of the situation, then it also becomes apparent that for the Jewish state of Israel to survive, it much first prevail in a struggle which has but one possible resolution, a single state where the winner of the conflict takes all of the land and the other side is either deported or murdered. This realization makes the next step painfully obvious; the people of Israel will need to decide whether or not the existence of their state is worth the efforts it will take to keep the land upon which it sits. If the answer is as expected, in the affirmative, then the Israelis will need to implement and execute whatever responses are necessitated in order to establish Israel as the existing state and decide if the Arab populations which are currently considered to be Palestinians is allowed to remain as legal alien residents, deported with compensation for loss of properties, or given a path by which they would attain Israeli citizenship.

 

My preference, though fortunately it is not my place to decide, would be to allow a path for those Palestinians who wished to be able to become Israeli citizens, those who would prefer to remain but not become Israeli citizens should be allowed alien status and those who want no part of the Jewish state of Israel should be given a parting gift and transportation to their desired destination provided the destination country is willing to accept them. The one additional provision which would probably be a necessity is to establish a law that should a member of a family commit an act of terror, the entire family will be deported and the individual perpetrating the act of terrorism will not be eligible to receive compensation for loss of property along with whomever resided in the same location as the terrorist. If Mother and Father live with a young adult who commits an act of terror, then their claim to compensation would initially be voided. Of course some legal challenge might be allowed in exceptional cases, but such would need to be evaluated on an individual basis. Such may not be even close to resembling the perfect solution, but the fact that the Palestinians as an entirety refuse to accept the existence of the Jewish state in any size, manner or form is the impetus forcing such measures. Should the Palestinians wish to avoid such an inevitability, they would be advised to make a real and lasting peace and accept sharing rather than insisting on removing all vestiges of Jewish presence.

 

Beyond the Cusp