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

 

End the Charade and Annex Judea Samaria and Jordan Valley

The time has come to make one last stab at a valid and viable peace with the Palestinians. Present Mahmoud Abbas with that map he has demanded of exactly what Israel envisions the borders for their state of Palestine. The map should be based purely on Israeli desires and interests where Israel retains all of Jerusalem, all of the Jerusalem suburbs, all of Area C, the north-south corridor of the Jordan River Valley, all of the Israeli towns and settlements, and the undeveloped and Israeli developed parts of Area B leaving the Palestinians all of Gaza and Area A with some minor additions in which to make their state. It makes no difference whether the map offered is unacceptable as Mahmoud Abbas and the rest of the Palestinian leadership have given ample proof that nothing short of replacing Israel would be acceptable. Once this offer has been rejected, as have been all offers previously attempted, Israel should annex the entirety of Judea, Samaria, Benyamin, the Jordan Valley, and Jerusalem also making sure to stress this annexation includes Hebron, Shechem, Kever Yosef, Kever Rachael, the Cave of the Patriarchs and every single place which has any biblical mention or records. Then the Israeli leadership will need to prepare for the onslaught of indignant and shocked world leaders. Israel’s answer to the ruckus that is sure to follow this declaration should simply state that the Palestinians negated the Oslo Accord Treaty when they went to the United Nations seeking recognition of statehood and thus Israel has taken the resulting steps in accordance with their treaty with Jordan which ended hostilities between the two states.

 

 

 

There will most certainly be those within Israel who will be at least, if not more, incensed by such a move as any anywhere around the world. Let them say what they will and if necessary allow for new elections so the people of Israel can have their vote on this position. It is my belief that Israel would never have and never will see a stronger electoral victory affirming the people’s support for the complete annexation of what in reality are rightfully ours. Such a move would require the repatriation of those Palestinians in the refugee camps on foreign soils as well as the deportation of those who are in the leadership of Fatah, the PLO, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, Islamic Jihad, members of any terrorist group, and others who are known to be opposed to the existence of the state of Israel as the Jewish state. The general
Palestinian population who have not already been granted Israeli citizenship should be allowed to petition for such status and a method of evaluation leading to citizenship once completed will need to be made into law. It should also be made clear that should any member of a family be convicted of terrorism their entire family will be deported if the family is found to have had knowledge of the plans and not reporting such in a timely and effective manner. Such will definitely be viewed as a draconian approach but the scope of the potential terrorism problem Israel faces makes such an approach necessary. The route required for those wishing citizenship should take a number of years not to exceed ten but of a minimum of five years so as to allow a full vetting of the candidates. Should any Palestinians wish to remain in their homes, farms, lands or other abodes, they should be permitted to remain as legal alien residents and be subject to the same laws as any other resident alien. Palestinians who choose to relocate outside of Israel should be granted generous compensation for any lands or properties they would necessarily need to relinquish their ownership. All of the many details can be addressed as they present themselves with the eventuality of a unified Israeli state kept in mind as the end reality.

 

 

 

There will be almost immeasurable blowback from all corners of the Earth. Israel very likely will be ejected from the United Nations which may be a favor more than a punishment. Some will argue that such a move would cause the world to despise Israel. Truth is that much of the world already does despise Israel. Sure Israel would not gain friends from such a move but it would establish most definitively who are Israel’s true friends, assuming there are such. The only true difference between the world’s attitude before the annexation and the world’s attitude after the annexation would be the amount of honesty being represented. Annexing those lands that at a minimum should have been annexed on June 13, 1967, will only serve to clarify and focus Israeli friends from that point forward. Any friends Israel might lose due to acting honestly on Israeli interests were never a trustworthy friend to begin with. An easy measuring stick for determining Israel’s true friends and honest critics would be to compare their view on Israeli annexation of those lands which were the biblical heartland of ancient Israel and lands liberated in a defensive war brought against Israel and their view and comfort level with the Chinese occupation and annexation of Tibet since their conquest of the Tibet in 1951. If they have no problems with the rape of Tibet and they are throwing fits over Israel, simply pay them their due attention, none.

 

 

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Palestinian State a Concealed Islamic Arab Weapon

Bring up the subject of a Palestinian state and you are virtually guaranteed to begin a heated debate at any gathering. Everybody has their own idea of who is to blame for the frozen negotiations, what it would take to restart the negotiations, where to place borders, all the way to whether the Palestinians who resort to violence terrorists or freedom fighters and millions of arguments inbetween. What is almost never discussed is the period after such a state would be formed and what a future with a country Palestine formed and independent alongside of Israel. This should be a situation that should be given serious consideration before even thinking of entering any negotiations which could result in allowing such a state to come into existence.

 

Everybody gets all stuck on things such as placement of borders, control over the Holy Basin and the Old City of Jerusalem. Another important debate concerns the Right of Return of Palestinian refugees into Israel, a really hot button issue. But it is rarely discussed except as an alternative to the Right of Return is allowing the refugees to return into the newly founded Palestinian state. This issue should not be seen as an alternative to the Right of Return for refugees to inside Israel but what allowing them to return from the numerous camps into Palestine would mean going forward. The Palestinian state will have sufficient problems becoming economically viable with its current population but should another five plus million Palestinian refugees who likely have few employable skills after spending their entire lives sequestered in camps where they were denied virtually all basic rights with extreme limitations on employment positions that were permitted. The plight of the Palestinian refugees who were kept almost in prison camp conditions in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and others have been denied any opportunities to live a normal life. Considering the population of Palestinians currently in the West Bank and Gaza is currently approaching five million so if all the refugees kept in camps in other countries were to return the population would basically double. With the current unemployment in the Palestinian population approaching twenty percent, adding in such a large number of new refugees who would also pose a challenge to find appropriate employment along with the fact that once the Jewish businesses are moved back behind the borders, many of the Palestinians employed in these industrial parks will end up losing their jobs as the border between Palestine and Israel will not likely be very porous. But the real problem would come much later down the road.

 

The one prediction which many people hold is that whatever form the Palestinian state ends up taking, if it is designed to be a stand-alone entity then it very likely will become a nonfunctional state as the foreign aid from the world began to dwindle. As the state began to experience life without the financial support it currently enjoys there would be those who would turn to terrorism as old habits die hard. Should things get really bad, desperate even, and terrorism rose to a level similar to either intifada, then it may become necessary that Israel make an incursion into the Palestinian state even if it meant causing a war. The likelihood of such  becoming a reality is increased when one recalls that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Salafist groups, and even Fatah and the PLO which make up much of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank have all reserved the right to continue the struggle until they have liberated all of Palestine from the River to the Sea. That alone is a guarantee that terrorism is planned to continue even after the Palestinian state has been established. So, with this as the likely scenario, what would be the result?

 

Should Israel face an ever growing terrorism problem where the attacks of any form, be they suicide bombers, rockets or full-fledged incursions by armed groups raiding and terrorizing Israeli citizens, destroying property, burning crops, and stealing herds, eventually Israel would have to respond with the IDF. Once the Palestinians are living in their own universally recognized state then any terrorist attacks would be tantamount to an act of war. A repeated and growing terrorist threat would definitely be interpreted as acts of war. What would be the result if Israel had to take military interventions to attempt to destroy terrorist infrastructure? How would the world react in such an instance? Taking into consideration how the world reacts to current uses of force by Israel in response to terrorist attacks, any such endeavor by Israel would probably result in the United Nations holding panicked meetings to determine how to prevent Israel from simply annexing the Palestinian areas undoing everything that it took to establish the Palestinian state. And what might be even worse is if Israel intervention did result in the annexation of the Palestinian areas sending everything back to square one, there would be a dangerous difference as the Palestinian population would be double resulting from the refugee influx. This would mean that Israel would find it necessary to monitor and police twice the number population while attempting to pacify any terrorist cells or forces. Such a situation would be today’s problems on steroids with demonstrations and riots reaching levels and sizes which would eventually result in a situation where the resultant casualties could easily become horrific. Such a calamity would be guaranteed if the Palestinians used a similar tactic as was utilized during the second intifada where men with semi-automatic and full-automatic assault rifles stayed concealed behind youths both male and female and would open up when the from behind the youths throwing rocks and bricks waiting to get in close range and then open fire. These situations potentially become high casualty clashes with very unfortunate results. Simply put, allowing a Palestinian state has problems of unimaginable proportions should the full numbers of refugees be allowed to be repatriated into the Palestinian state. It would be advantageous to address this potential situation before allowing the formation of the Palestinian state and set a reasonable number on the refugees allowed to return while making as many as possible to be finally absorbed by their host nations just as Israel absorbed and repatriated the nearly eight-hundred-thousand plus refugees who entered Israel from the combined expulsions and other violent actions taken by the Arab and Muslim world in the first decade after the formation of Israel. This is something that should have been addressed long ago but instead the Arab and Muslim world made the fateful decision that the Palestinian refugees and their families for the ensuing generations were to be utilized as a bludgeon with which to pound Israel rather than accept them as fellow human beings and shown them the respect due any person, especially those who turn to you for help. But we must deal with things as they are, not as we would have wished them to be. The problem is that now these unfortunate victims have swelled in numbers to the point that they are now potential human threats to the possibilities for a successful Palestinian state in the future.

 

Beyond the Cusp