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

 

Obama and the Middle East Dilemma

While everyone stares at the ever shifting, ever blurring Syrian Chemical Weapons red line which is now befuddling the White House, the Syrian civil war continues to wind on and on eventually to determine who will prove supreme, bad or worse. There is no good side to choose in this fight. It now comes down to Assad backed by Iran and Hezballah, the Syrian Free Army which is backed largely by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the al Nusra Front which represents al-Qaeda and even should Bashar Assad be toppled there will still be Hezballah allied with the IRGC guerilla forces attempting to preserve the influence of their Iranian masters. As far as the United States is concerned there is no actual good guy for them to back though President Obama has appeared to have a soft spot for the Muslim Brotherhood in the past.

 

The one democratic country which is very concerned over the eventual results and intermediate activities in Syria is, of course, Israel. While the Israelis are not particularly fond of any of the players, their previous knowledge of Assad may make him the least troublesome of the evils for Israel. Do not misunderstand that Assad would make Israeli leaders overjoyed as they have fought three conflicts against his forces; one in the Six Day War in 1967, once again when both Syria and Egypt launched the Yom Kippur War in 1973, and their final conflict was an air war over the Bekaa Valley in 1982 where the Israelis knocked sixty Syrian fighters from the skies in two days of dog fights losing absolutely no planes themselves. For the memory of these defeats Bashar al-Assad might be sufficiently gun shy that would make his remaining in power preferable to having to teach a new leader the perils of engaging the IDF from scratch.

 

Whatever the eventual result of the civil war in Syria the one thing Israel absolutely cannot allow is for Iran or anybody else to funnel new and more dangerous weapon systems to Hezballah in Lebanon. This is what spurred the recent air raids by the Israelis on Damascus and along the Syrian-Lebanon border over the past week. The Israelis were removing transports carrying new weapon systems which would have posed a serious increase in the threat potential of Hezballah. One can only imagine what such systems might have entailed as Hezballah already possesses at a minimum sixty-thousand rockets of various ranges with which to threaten Israel. Despite such a seemingly overwhelming threat potential, Iran has still decided it is worth the possible losses to attempt to further arm Hezballah in order to turn their threat into a certainty that Tel Aviv would be decimated in return for any actions taken against the Iranian nuclear program. Iran has made it very certain that it matters not who attacks their nuclear program, Israel will receive the brunt of the Iranian response through Hezballah and Hamas and Syria providing Syria is still a part of the Iranian Shiite Crescent across the Middle East.

 

Meanwhile, back in Washington DC President Obama is doing a number of pirouettes on the head of a pin trying to avoid being pinned down to his red line should Syria use chemical weapons threat. Syria has, according to Israeli, French, British and even most United States sources, already deployed Sarin nerve agent against the rebel forces and civilians. There have been reports of multiple usages yet President Obama continues to squirm and wrestle with these facts attempting to twist them into a cloud of doubts in order to back away from the precipice and avoid actually being forced to act. The problem President Obama is facing is that he really miscalculated when making a threat he never expected to have to ever face. Now that reality has not only caught up but has swept past his threat of action crossing over his red line, President Obama must now fudge the facts and blow enough smoke that he can claim that his red line was more flexible and has remained inviolate, but with his red line not only crossed but rather obliterated, President Obama has been left appearing completely toothless in all ways concerning Syrian use of chemical weapons.

 

There is one huge problem beyond the simple fact that President Obama has been rendered impotent concerning events in Syria; all of his threats and posturing over the Iranian nuclear program are now mute and meaningless. This can only serve to make the Iranian nuclear weapons threat even more potent as it is now obvious that President Obama never actually intended to ever take action in order to prevent the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons. This leaves all of Europe as well as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the other nations within the GCC, and anyone else who Iran may see as an opponent directly in the crosshairs of a potential nuclear Iran. What makes things even more clouded is that now all of the intelligence information which originated with the United States or was heavily influenced by the United States now cannot be considered to be anything other than a ruse to prevent the appearance of a need to act. This is very likely to cause a complete reevaluation of the entire Iranian situation by Israel at the very least. The backing away from his red line by President Obama has resulted in the entire world now realizing that they are on their own when it comes to the Iranian threats. This can only lead to a more dangerous Middle East, like anybody thought such was even possible.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

The Ignored Reason There is no Palestinian State Already

Ask any European leader or politician and the odds are you will hear that the reason there is no Palestinian State is due to Israeli refusals to make peace and the Israeli settlements. They will speak of how the Palestinians are thirsting for peace and crave their own State and have made generous offers if only Israel would compromise. They will never mention the refusals over the decades by the Arab League, Yasser Arafat, and Mahmoud Abbas to every offer beginning with the initial offer from the United Nations to found the Palestinian State on the more select and prime farming lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea leaving only a thin strip of land along the Mediterranean Sea, another along the northwest at the bottom of the Golan Heights and over half of the land being the southern lands of the Negev Dessert. The Zionists accepted this hardly equal or fair division while the Arab League refused to allow this partition as it still allowed the Jews to rule themselves and demanded that all the land be relegated to Arab rule and they would allow the Jews to remain as long as they behaved like good Dhimmis. The United Nations and the world simply left the offer to stand in hopes that the Arab League would accept the plan, but come the middle of May, 1948, Israel declared their nationhood and seven Arab nations’ armies declared a war of annihilation against the Nascent Jewish State of Israel. Miraculously, the small newly found State of Israel managed to survive and even gain lands by pushing the combined Arab armies back taking the western half of Jerusalem within hours of the declared ceasefire taking hold. At this point there was no Israeli presence in the lands of Gaza, Judea, or Samaria with Egypt retaining control of Gaza and Jordan retaining control over Judea and Samaria which they refused to call by their historic names substituting the less descriptive and un-Jewish name of West Bank. Jordan even attempted to annex the lands they called the West Bank and made the Arabs living within Jordanian citizens. This seemed natural as the Arabs living in the area mostly had relatives either in Jordan or in either Syria or Iraq as most had arrived over the past two generations as the economy offered better employment. Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank was not recognized not even by the other Arab nations or the Arab League and was recognized solely by Great Britain and Pakistan in the entire world. Jordan also forced the Jewish residents within their areas of control to leave their property behind and expelled them into Israel. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Ben-Gurion offered for the Arabs living within Israel to remain and join in building a future. Despite this invitation many Arabs fled into neighboring Jordan, Egypt or Syria where they eventually ended up placed in camps, denied citizenship largely due to their not joining in the war against Israel; causing them to be seen as less loyal.

During the next decade over three-quarters of a million Jews were stripped of their wealth, lands, businesses and were deported from the majority of the countries of the Arab League with the majority finding a new home and a place to restart their lives in Israel while some went to Europe, the United States and other destinations. The Jews who were ejected from their homes often with only the clothes on their backs or a suitcase or two were welcomed in Israel and were granted citizenship and full rights and today they and their descendants make up approximately half of the Israeli population. This makes the claim by many Palestinian and Arab spokespersons that Israelis should be returned to the lands from whence they came in Europe and the United States ignores that half of the Israelis lived originally in the Arab world. One must wonder if these countries would open their arms and accept the descendants of the Jews they ejected. Somehow I just cannot see that ever happening.

Since 1948 Israel has been attacked by her Arab neighbors a number of times. Resulting from the first conflict where France, Great Britain and Israel declared war of Egypt after Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal and refused to allow European shipping to pass through the canal, Israel took possession of the entire Sinai Peninsula during this conflict but returned every inch of the lands to Egypt as part of the peace treaty that also saw the reopening of the Suez Canal to international shipping. United Nations peacekeepers were also stationed in the Sinai Peninsula to prevent another conflict from erupting. In late May, 1967, Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser ordered the peacekeepers removed from the Sinai Peninsula, massed troops on the Israeli southern border, closed the Straights of Tiran and massed Syrian troops on the Israeli northern border threatening to annihilate the Jewish State. The closing of the Straights of Tiran was an internationally recognized casus belli of war. Israel responded to this declaration and defeated both armies driving almost to the outskirts of Damascus and taking the entire Sinai Peninsula once again. Close to the beginning of the war upon hearing of great Arab victories that Egyptian and Syrian radio and television broadcast they were executing against the Israelis, Jordan declared war in the hopes on taking their part in the glorious victory. The Israelis pleaded for Jordan not to enter the conflict warning them that the broadcasts were untrue and were simply propaganda. Jordan did not trust the Israelis believing they were simply frightened of another Arab army entering the war which would definitely contribute to the end of the Jewish state. The results of the Six Day War are well known and by the end of the conflict, in response to the United Nations and World pressures, Israel halted their advances also now having driven the Jordanians back east of the Jordan River liberating occupied Judea and Samaria (one must recall that Jordan illegally occupied the so-called West Bank which was originally believed to be part of Israel). During Yom Kippur of October, 1973 Egypt and Syria once again attacked Israel hoping to reclaim the lands lost in 1967 and destroy the Jewish State. After initial gains the war ended with Israel retaining all of the Sinai Peninsula and having crossed the Suez Canal and approaching Cairo as well as approaching Damascus in Syria. When hostilities ended, Israel agreed to return to the borders which had existed since the 1967 conflict returning lands to both Egypt and Syria lands gained during the closing days of the conflict. Eventually Israel and Egypt made peace (for those who claim Israel must return some of the lands they gained in the 1967 war remember the following) with Israel returning all of the Sinai Peninsula once again, an expanse of land greatly larger than all of Israel. Egypt refused any claim to Gaza which was relented to Israeli sovereignty. Further on in time Jordan and Israel also reached a peace accord in which Jordan surrendered the previously Jordanian occupied lands to Israel liberating the lands and allowing many Jewish families to reclaim their lands and homes they had left when Jordan forcibly removed them in 1948.

Somewhere the world acquiesced to the invention of peoples whom had never existed in all of history and was admitted by even Yasser Arafat they were necessarily invented in order to have a political wedge with which to remove the Jews from Arab sovereign lands, namely Israel. This twist of history beyond recognition of any historic accounts dated previous to 1920 has gained great recognition and a life all its own in Europe as well as throughout the Arab and Muslim lands. Historically, before 1948 the use of the title Palestinian had several different forms, Palestinian Arab was used to define Arabs living within the British Mandate, Palestinian Jews or simple using Palestinian alone was used to refer to the Jews living within the British Mandate. In 1922 the nation of Transjordan, later renamed simply Jordan, was founded with the issue of the Churchill White Paper where Transjordan was granted for rule by the Hashemite family repaying them for their assistance against the Ottomans in World War I and they were to rule over a Palestinian State. This was the British reaction in response to Arab insistence for a country of their own within the British Mandate. The Arab demands implied they should have their country formed over all of the British Mandate but the British still had their obligation stemming from the Balfour Declaration, the Peel Commission, Article 80 of the United Nations Charter and numerous other treaties and agreements to found a Jewish homeland. The White Paper which established the Palestinian Arab State of Transjordan also guaranteed that the lands west of the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea would remain never to be divided and remain as whole and in its entirety as the Jewish Homeland. This accord was also ratified by motions and legislations in the League of Nations, the United States and several European nations. That is the history; the future is far less resolute and will likely be a thorn as intended by Yasser Arafat and those who initiated the demand for another Arab nation in place of the only Jewish nation on Earth. This desire to replace Israel with one or two new Palestinian Arab states, whichever becomes necessary by events to come, is understood as the inevitable aim of the Arab world but is never spoken of as to admit to knowing this would reveal all the duplicities, animosities, hatreds, and lies which are the realities of the negotiations the world calls the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process, originally the Arab-Israeli Peace Process but renamed in order to mask the ultimate aim of the destruction of Israel.

Beyond the Cusp