Beyond the Cusp

May 5, 2012

Why Everyone Insists Israel Sacrifice for Peace

Filed under: 1949 Armistice Line,1967 Borders,2012 Elections,Administration,Ahmadinejad,Anti-Israel,Anti-Zionist,Arab World,Arabs,Ayatollah,Ayatollahs,Bedouin Tribes,Blood Libel,Borders,Boycott,Building Freeze,Building Freeze,Checkpoints,Condemning Israel,Defend Israel,Democracy,Disengagement,Divestment,Egypt,Elections,England,Europe,European Union,Fatah,Fatah Charter,France,Gaza,General Assembly,Germany,Government,Green Line,Hamas,Hate,Hezballah,History,Holy Sites,Human Rights,IDF,Iran,Iraq,Islam,Islamic State,Israel,Jehrico,Jenin,Jerusalem,Jewish Leadership,Jewish State,Jews,Jihad,Jimmy Carter,Jordan,Judea,Judean Hills,Kotel,Lebanon,Media,Middle East,Mount of Olives,Mount of Olives Cemetary,Muslim Brotherhood,Muslim World,Muslims,Myth,Negev Desert,Netherlands,NGO,Non Governmental Organization,Old City,Oslo Accords,Palestinian,Palestinian Authority,Partition Plan,Peace Process,PLO,PLO Charter,Politics,Pre-Conditions,Protests,Recep Tayyip Erdogan,Recognize Israel,Refugee Camp,Refugees,Religion,Samaria,Sanctions (BDS),Saudi Arabia,Secretary General,Secretary of State,Security Council,Settlements,Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process,State Department,Syria,Taqiyya,Tel Aviv,Temple Mount,Temple Mount,Terror,Transjordan,Turkey,Two State Solution,United Nations,United States,UNRWA,West Bank,Western Wall,World,Zionism,Zionist — qwertster @ 5:49 AM
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

One significant element which has remained a constant in all facets of the drive to reach peace; either the general recognition and peace between the Arab nations with Israel, or the more specific recognition and peace between the Palestinians and Israel, is that the links in this chain are forged upon Israeli concessions and rarely if ever Arab or Palestinian concessions. This has become such an accepted norm that nobody even bothers to mention this in the discussions and discourse, let alone actually question why this is so. Well, perhaps it is time to take a slightly deeper inspection of this phenomenon along with a few other misconceptions.

The first item which most people are unaware is that the Oslo Accords signed on September 13, 1993, by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was an agreement between the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) and the nation of Israel, there was no Palestinian Authority yet established. All subsequent negotiations, agreements and other interactions were to be held between the PLO and Israel, not the Palestinian Authority and Israel. These Oslo Accords spelled out a five year period in which the two sides were to negotiate the “permanent status issues” leading to Palestinian autonomy. These parts of the negotiations were to begin no later than the third year of the negotiations. The Oslo Accords were to lead to a final agreement by the end of the five year period and held no powers past that five year period. If one were to be technical, the Oslo Accords are really on life support being extended through the two sides and the rest of the world choosing to continue as if the Oslo Accords were open ended and were to continue indefinitely until they attained their intended mission. Truth be told, the Oslo Accords died and were no longer applicable as of September 14, 1998, meaning they have been dead for over a decade. This necessitated the Oslo II agreement was signed in 1995 which divided the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) into areas A, B and C and divided up the civilian and security responsibility of each.

The main points of the Oslo Accords are defined in a Declaration of Principles (DoP). These were to govern the process by which power and responsibilities were to be transferred in stages by Israel to the Palestinians via the PLO as the negotiations reached certain agreements though the DoP does not set any preconditions or prejudgments upon the final arrangements concerning  Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements and borders. Such determinations are even forbidden from being included within any interim arrangements which may be set on the path to the final agreement. It is also stipulated in the DoP that Israel retains all responsibility for all foreign interactions, security, defense of borders and Israel’s position on Jerusalem was to remain unchanged as the ancient and eternal capital of the Jewish people. Israel retained the responsible for security along the international borders and the crossing points into Egypt and Jordan. Many of these points came under assault with intent to modify them and force Israeli concessions and relenting on the rights which had been reserved by the Oslo Accords exclusively to the Israeli side.

Obviously, the Oslo Accords have run their course over three times their intended length and have somehow generated the Palestinian Authority which has, for all intended purposes, replaced the PLO in the negotiations with Israel. Another item from the original Oslo Accords was the insistence that the PLO submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel’s right to exist. In return, Rabin gave a letter to Arafat confirming Israeli recognition of the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and authorized the beginning of negotiations with the PLO within the Middle East peace process. To this day the PLO Charter has yet to be amended and retains the denial of Israel’s right to exist. There have been show votes stating intent to follow up with a committee to rewrite these sections of the Palestinian Charter made when the Palestinian National Council had observers witnessing their procedures but no committee was ever formed nor were any changes ever proposed, let alone made.

Since the beginning of the Oslo Accords there have been almost countless times where the negotiations have broken down, most often when a final solution seemed so close a moderator could almost taste it. This scenario became a theme which was repeated at Camp David, in Taba, in Paris and in such plans as Oslo Accords I, Oslo Accords II, the Hebron Protocol, Wye River Memorandum, Camp David 2000 Summit, the Roadmap to Peace, and numerous less famous intermediate meetings, intents and related futile measures. One of the recurring reasons for each failure was Yasser Arafat making additional demands during the final negotiation which he was fully aware would never be agreed to by the Israeli negotiators. Often the demand made was for the repatriation of over four million Palestinian Arab refugees within Israel proper and not the Palestinian areas, the division of Jerusalem to be used by both countries as their capital, full ceding of the Temple Mount, Old City and the areas including the Kotel (Western Wall and plaza) to Palestinian control, release of all prisoners held by Israel including terrorists convicted of murder, or some combination of these and other thrown in simply because he could. When the Israelis predictably balked at the sudden demands at the eleventh hour, Yasser Arafat would denounce the Israelis as intransigent and would walk out in obvious state of agitation. This is what leads to the near constant series of demands being placed upon the Israelis and not the Palestinian side.

The obvious surface reason that the vast majority of the demands have been placed at the feet of the Israelis has been that the majority of demands have been made by the Palestinians. The Israeli demands have remained fairly consistent and included the peace treaty signify the end of all claims and violence; borders which allow Israel to be defendable; full settlement of refuges within the new Palestine with a possibility for a very limited number within Israel; universal access for all religions to holy sites; and more recently Israel has added Palestinian State must be demilitarized and recognize Israel as the Jewish State. Meanwhile, the Palestinian negotiators have steadily incorporated their wildest extreme dream positions on permanent status issues as their preconditions upon which they demand Israel meet before the two sides enter into negotiations. This has even gone beyond anything ever sought by the Palestinians, even when speaking to their own people with the one exception being the eradication of Israel and the Jews living within, an ideal solution often spoken about in Arabic while never breached when speaking in English, but have shifted even further after President Obama pressed Israel for further concessions beyond anything ever previously demanded. The main pair which President Obama first spoke and have now mysteriously become standard demands by the Palestinian leadership are a total building freeze on all lands beyond the Green Line or contested by Israel and the Palestinians and acceptance of the 1949 Armistice Lines (also referred to as the 1967 Lines or the Green Line) as the starting borders with negotiated exchanges of land for land in setting final borders, after all, the Palestinians could not demand anything less severe than the demands made by the President of the United States.

The powers of individual European governments, the European Union, the United Nations, the United States, numerous Arab and Muslim countries, and anybody else adding their two-cents worth have almost universally placed the onus of making concessions in order to restart the Palestinian-Israeli final status negotiations on the Israelis. Such demands have included combinations of removal of roadblocks, removal of checkpoints, building freeze in the West Bank, remitting control of more lands over to the Palestinian governance, releasing terrorists and prisoners early, and anything which could be qualified as confidence building measures. The reason these demands are virtually always aimed towards the Israelis has a logical and easily explained reasoning, the Palestinians have never met even the initial requirements which they had promised to execute when they signed the original Oslo Accords. The most obvious of these has been the removal of the call for the eradication of all of Israel and building their Palestinian dream state on all the lands from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea. On the other hand, Israel has made numerous concessions over the years including but not limited to a ten month building freeze in Judea and Samaria, removal of numerous roadblocks and/or checkpoints, release of prisoners, turning lands over to complete Palestinian control such as almost all of Hevron, and even the complete evacuation of every Jewish resident and IDF troop from the Gaza Strip turning it over to the Palestinians along with following this with continued humanitarian aid of food and medical supplies, fuel, and other critical aid in order to avoid hardships upon the Palestinian people of Gaza. Israel has proven that they are willing to be flexible and bending to extremes in order to facilitate peace. The Palestinians have made it evidently clear they are unwilling to make even the slightest concession and have declared, in Arabic of course, that even should they ever reach and sign a peace agreement with the Israelis, they still will reserve their “right” to continued violence and terrorism until they have liberated all of Palestine from the River to the Sea. The Palestinians consider current negotiations which have been held over the last ten to fifteen years as simply having been negotiations intended to defeat the Zionists in stages. The Palestinians are willing to accept a state along the 1967 Lines, followed by another state which incorporates the Negev under the Bedouins, and an additional Arab state in the Galilee Valley on and on until Israel has been erased, even Tel Aviv then unifying all of these states under the Palestine flag. The entire world is fully aware of all of this and realizes Israel honestly and truly desires a lasting, permanent, and real peace while the Palestinians will only accept the replacement of the Zionist state with a Palestinian Arab Muslim state. The Palestinian leadership has expressed their intent to form a true Islamic state with Sharia Law and all that implies. The many different entities which have made demands of Israel to facilitate and aid the Palestinians in acquiring the initial requirements for stage one and after this has been accomplished they will also be likely to support each step on the way to erasing Israel with as much vigor as they currently spend on Israel. And these wonderful people who wish only to pursue “Peace” will work diligently to eradicate the side willing to make concessions as to try and force the Palestinian side to make any concession has proven too difficult, and if there is anything these vultures for peace desire is the easy path, and all the better if the path leaves these vultures a dead body to peck apart and feed upon in the end.

Beyond the Cusp

April 29, 2012

Coming Presidential Race Comparisons Accurate by a Half

The temptation to compare the coming presidential contest of incumbent President Barack Obama against his Republican adversary, Mitt Romney, to the 1980 contest between incumbent President Jimmy Carter and his Republican adversary, Ronald Reagan, are not a totally accurate comparison. President Barack Obama is not exactly a President Jimmy Carter and Mitt Romney, despite the expected attempts to describe him so, is no Ronald Reagan. Granted, there are some similarities between the Presidency of Barack Obama to the Presidency of Jimmy Carter, but there are also differences. The differences of Mitt Romney to Ronald Reagan are somewhat more glaring and is the weaker half differentiating these two periods. The other differences are the state of the United States, the composition of the American populace as well as the electorate, and the current state of the world in general. So, let’s make a more detailed inspection and determine the similarities which may be helpful and the differences which could change the outcome.

We will start with a comparison of both the men and the Presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama and how they apply to the coming contest. There is little doubt that many parallels can be drawn between the economies each President experienced with peaking unemployment, a weak dollar, high gasoline prices, and a general sense of malaise and a high misery index, two terms invented to describe the economy under President Carter. But the differences are probably more important than are the similarities. The most evident difference is that we do not have lines forming at 6:00 or earlier in the morning to fuel your car or odd and even day rationing as we experienced during the Carter years. High prices are one thing, getting up hours earlier and hoping the station does not run out of fuel before you get to fill your tank is another. Despite the lagging economy, President Obama is not being berated by the press on the evening news every night with terms like malaise and misery index becoming a part of the daily discourse. The other helpful item which President Obama enjoys that President Carter did not is the fact that the economy has had its ups and downs over the last twenty-five years while the twenty-five years before the Carter Presidency was one of the longest and fastest growing economic periods in American history. Another large difference is that Wall Street has had periods of recovery that has given hope that maybe the worst is over, unfortunately right before the next bubble bursts or reports come in with lower profits or other negative economic indicators forcing the next crash. Despite the truth that in many ways the two Presidencies of Carter and Obama may numerically appear very similar, somehow the coverage and mood of much of the populace does not seem to hold President Obama as directly accountable as the populace did President Carter. The months leading up to the election will end up telling the whole story and it may result in the economy being an even larger problem for President Obama if anything else goes seriously bad on the economic front.

Both President Carter and President Obama have had their share of difficulties in dealing with the Middle East. Even though President Carter could claim the Egyptian and Israeli peace treaty as a major accomplishment, it meant absolutely nothing as the hostage crisis took center stage. As for President Obama, he had his most ambitious military operation with the capture and death of Osama bin Laden which was seen as a complete success despite the loss of the stealth helicopter compared to President Carter and the horrific failure of his attempt to go in and free the embassy hostages in Iran. On the other side, President Carter only turned one Middle East country over to the rule of hostile Islamic rulers, Iran; while President Obama has managed to turn a number of countries over to hostile Islamic rulers. The list includes Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. During the Obama Presidency, Turkey has also completed its long and drawn out march from being a secular country towards becoming an Islamic ruled country under Prime Minister Erdogan. The final plunge was assisted by the actions of the European Union and a number of the member states along with President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton when they all backed Prime Minister Erdogan and preempted any attempt by the Turkish military to force Erdogan from office setting up a new election when it became obvious that the country was slipping away from its secular governance as they are empowered by the Turkish Constitution to implement as a protection of the state from overt religious influences. The main advantage that President Obama has over the predicament President Carter faced is that unlike President Carter who faced the daily reminder of his Middle East problems with the ongoing hostage crisis throughout the election cycle, nothing has yet to completely blow up in President Obama’s face, though Iran may once again provide such for an incumbent American President.

The comparison of Mitt Romney to Ronald Reagan is both stark and subtle. The most obvious difference is the ease with which Candidate Reagan was able to appear with the people. He had a level of comfort and reassurance that has not been duplicated by Mitt Romney. Where both men have the air of assurance and a strong presence, Ronald Reagan had a certain comfort about him where Mitt Romney sometimes seems a little stiff and almost out of sync. Ronald Reagan had an earthiness that is lacking in Mitt Romney though both men have a good sense of humor and are quick on their feet though Mitt Romney comes across more formal while Ronald Reagan appeared more folksy. The biggest difference between Ronald Reagan and Mitt Romney is that Ronald Reagan had a definitive turning point in his life where he made an obvious and complete change of views and a longer run as a true and strong conservative while Mitt Romney still needs to assure many that his conservatism is real and he has made an honest change from his more liberal leanings when he was Governor of Massachusetts. This will very likely be where Mitt Romney will sink or swim gliding into the presidency, assuring the most conservative of his base that he is truly allied with their desires and meets their demands while still satisfying those in the Republican Party and those independents who are demanding he prove to be a moderate. How he can satisfy both camps without being cast as duplicitous is the real test Mitt Romney will face. Perhaps he may want to watch some of Ronald Reagan’s speeches and debates and realize that one can be a real conservative and still sound rational and a man of the people. Ronald Reagan did it; can Mitt Romney pull it off?

This race may appear on the surface to have numerous similarities to the 1980 Presidential election but I have my suspicions that it will turn out to be very different. Granted, President Obama cannot run on his record just as President Carter had to try to hide from his record. President Obama is a much more accomplished speech maker than was President Carter and he will need every ounce of that ability if he is to sway sufficient voters to give him another term. Truthfully, I believe that Mitt Romney is facing the greater challenge as he not only has to compete and defeat the incumbent President, he has to go against a press that is far more hostile against him than the press faced by President Reagan. Still, Mitt Romney has to win over a large portion of his base to have any hope of becoming President. Polls have shown Mitt Romney actually comfortably ahead of President Obama among independents but they also show Mitt Romney being very weak among the conservative Republican base, and without the base his chances are almost nil. The one thing that is guaranteed to put an end to President Obama’s chance for reelection is if the Middle East catches fire and explodes in his face. Such could obviously happen with Iran, but there are also some very precarious problems which could come to the surface and make things very difficult coming out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the possibility of a conflict between Israel and any one or more of the neighboring countries as well as the Palestinians. This election is just another case of the more things change, the more they appear to be the same.

Beyond the Cusp

Theme: Rubric. Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: