Israel in Need of New Approach to Peace Negotiations

To even the most casual of observers the Israel Palestinian peace negotiation under the Oslo Accords, Roadmap, Saudi Plan, or whatever metric one uses to measure the progress the entire peace process is a dismal failure which has become moribund in a coma for at least two years if not much more, even possibly more than a decade. Since the Oslo Accords were first introduced the formula for peace has not changed despite that with each incoming new Presidential Administration the name of each rendition of the plan has changed. In every case the general theme was for Israel to make concessions in order to entice the Palestinians to rejoin the talks followed by a televised and highly photographed meeting, often with a White House backdrop, where the sitting Israeli Prime Minister would shake hands with either Yasser Arafat or Mahmoud Abbas after Arafat’s death, the United States President would take credit for the great accomplishment of restarting the peace process and praise the sacrifices taken for peace by both sides and a subsequent meeting schedule was announced. The schedule collapsed after one or two meetings or even without any further meetings taking place. Then the arm twisting would begin in efforts to get Israel to make concessions and the cycle would repeat. The Palestinians make ever changing demands for preconditions pocketing Israeli concessions as they slowly advanced their positions one concession at a time while the only concessions offered by the Palestinians were the exact same as their initial promises, to work to disarm terrorists, remove anti-Zionist and anti-Israel lessons from their education system, act to prevent further terror attacks, and act to end incitement of terror. These intended promises by the Palestinians have never been met, and truth be told, have never even been attempted to implement and thus allowing for these same concessions to become the permanent promise offered by the Palestinians. Since everybody acknowledges that the Palestinian promises are not being made in good faith, their constantly ignoring and reneging on their promises has become accepted as unalterable and thus no further demands are ever made upon the Palestinians. Instead of forcing the Palestinians to actually make any sacrifice or adjustment towards coexistence, the world simply accepts the Palestinian deceit as unavoidable and beyond any chance for change and thus all pressures are placed upon Israel to make concessions until Israel has reached well beyond the point where concessions have become a dangerous threat against the continued existence of the State of Israel. Despite this known fact the world still demands that the Israelis offer just one more round of concessions, for now, and then they will ask for one more the next time, and the next time. The modus operandi has been established but perhaps it is time for a change.

 

To date the assessment of the peace process has taken for granted that the Israelis desire for peace will drive them to make compromises and concessions while the Palestinians are seen to have a dysfunctional society incapable of change thus unable to make compromise or concessions so no such demands are made of the Palestinians. This has led to a stalemate where Israel has given to the point where there is nothing left for them to compromise on if the Israelis expect to receive anything remotely resembling a compromise. The Palestinians through intransigence have moved the debate over borders to the point where Israel returning to the 1949 Armistice Lines and dividing Jerusalem has become the initial starting-point for further negotiations, some form of ‘right of return’ for Palestinian refugees has begun to be accepted by even some Israelis, and there are supporters in the world for including Hamas in the negotiations. The time has certainly come for a change in the going trends and presumptions. The concept that Israel wanting peace must surrender on every front constantly until they surrender themselves out of existence must be declared dead and buried before it reaches the obvious conclusion. It is time for Israel to take the initiative and reinstate the original concepts of UNSC Resolution 242 which guaranteed that Israel had only to return some of the lands gained in the Six Day War in June of 1967 and retain all lands Israel found necessary to provide them with secure and defendable borders. Israel need take the position that her return of the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip was sufficient land returned to meet the requirements of UNSC Res. 242 and that Israel requires all of Judea and Samaria up to the Jordan River as their eastern border in order to provide Israel with defensible borders. Make this the eventual target for all negotiations with the Palestinians and before each offer presented to the Palestinians take one step towards that finality. The slow and inexorable reclaiming of lands of Judea and Samaria as time passes will act as a much better stimulus to bring the Palestinian to the negotiating table to honestly reach a real peace with mutual stability, recognition, security and peace. It has become obvious that making concessions will never lead to honest negotiations from the Palestinians because as the metric currently sits they get rewarded for not negotiating. It is well past time to make a new metric where not honestly negotiating will cost the Palestinians instead of rewarding them.

 

Many make the false premise that Israel cannot take such steps because they would lose their Jewish majority if they annexed all of what the world dishonestly calls the West Bank because of the large numbers of Arabs residing within. There are a number of falsehoods hidden in such claims. The first is that even should Israel grant all of those residing west of the Jordan River Israeli citizenship they would remain with a two to one Jewish majority. Furthermore, there is no requirement in International Law which requires Israel to grant any of the Palestinian Arabs who were Jordanian citizens prior to the Six Day War Israeli citizenship. Israel would be within their rights to declare them as resident aliens continuing to view these refugees as remaining to be Jordanian Citizens and could even generously offer to compensate them for any properties they may wish to sell and aid them in returning to their country of origin, Jordan. Such is the default from many previous examples of similar situations such as India and Pakistan where Muslims emigrated into Pakistan and Buddhists and Hindus emigrated in the opposite direction into India. Not all of these peoples chose to relocate, but the vast majority did so. It is well past the time that Israel must demand that they be treated no differently than other nations of the world and that they be permitted the same options, rights, and privileges as are granted without even a second thought to every other nation on Earth. The world demanding a different metric with which to measure Israel and a unique set of rules be applied to Israel while denying Israel the comforts, rights, definitions and pleasures allocated to every other nation must be brought to an end as to allow such to continue is to formalize anti-Semitism on an international scale. Time to end the charade, the injustices, the separate and unequal treatment and demand that Israel be accepted as an equal among nations and an end of all traces of bigotry and hatred concerning Israel resultant from anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and anti-Israelism once and forever.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Netanyahu Apology to Turkey

The last action by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu topping off United States President Obama’s visit was facilitated by the President who made the phone call to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan and gave an introductory preface for Netanyahu’s apology over the Mavi Marmara interception during which IDF Naval commandos came under attack by IHH terrorists causing a firefight which resulted in nine IHH members deaths, eight of which were Turkish citizens and one was an American citizen. Prime Minister Netanyahu made his apology and promised to make compensatory payments to the next of kin of those who died during the confrontation. The entire confrontation was an effort by the IHH group with the cooperation of members of the Turkish government to break the internationally recognized naval blockade by Israel on ships wishing to carry cargo in or out of the Gaza Strip in order to prevent the transfer of arms or terrorists with Hamas and the other terrorist groups operating in the Gaza Strip. The Israeli blockade is recognized and has been determined to be legal and meeting all the requirements imposed by international law and has been approved by the United Nations. The blockade requires that ships unload their Gaza Strip bound cargoes at an Israeli port where the contents are examined for contraband and all which is not on the prohibited list of goods are then transferred into the Gaza Strip via recognized land crossing along with the regular daily shipments of aid provided by Israel.

The Mavi Marmara was the sole ship from the flotilla which refused to divert to the Israeli port and instead attempted to break the blockade. The goods on the other ships was inspected and transferred into the Gaza Strip where it sat until removed as the out of date foodstuffs and medicines were of no interest to Hamas or the people residing in the Gaza Strip as they receive sufficient supplies of fresh food and medical supplies as part of the support provided via Israeli truck transfers. The Mavi Marmara contained no supplies whatsoever and was solely intended to force a confrontation for the sake of propaganda against Israel and providing news footage which would show the IDF forces as being needlessly violent and using undue force against the IHH mercenaries who were to be portrayed as innocent, nonviolent human rights activists. Their plan was foiled as footage of the confrontation revealed the violence which was unleashed upon the Israeli soldiers as they rappelled onto the Mavi Marmara’s decks. They were set upon by terrorists wielding baseball bats, iron rods, knives and swords. The Israeli commandos were armed with paintball guns filled with pepper-ball ammunition and were forced to turn to their sidearms in self-defense. The result of the attacks was nine IHH members died and several IDF soldiers were hospitalized with at least one permanently disabled. The IHH members were recorded claiming their desire to either break the blockade or die as shahids, martyrs. There were miscalculations and planning errors made by the Israeli commanders who apparently thought that the flotilla was a protest stand and not a military operation intent on confrontation and possibly killing the IDF soldiers. The Mavi Marmara did not carry aid of any sort and was being utilized purely for the confrontation with intent on causing as much violence as they potentially were able. As to which side was at greater fault is dependent upon the person asked and needless to point out is that the Turkish government and many leaders blame Israel for using disproportional force and murdering the nine IHH members and the Israelis point to the film of the confrontation which shows the overt and potentially lethal force unleashed on the IDF soldiers as they boarded the Mavi Marmara and claims their actions were purely self-defense and completely legal.

Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan insisted that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu make a formal apology and pay compensation to the families of the nine dead IHH members. Prime Minister Netanyahu refused to apologize and held fast to that position until he finally capitulated to President Obama’s demands onboard Air Force One under the coxing of United States President Obama. Even with the apology and offer of payment to the families, Prime Minister Netanyahu had not entirely surrendered and Prime Minister Erdogan had also compromised by accepting a phone call apology instead of a formal apology. The apology by Prime Minister Netanyahu has caused a fair amount of controversy in Israel with the divide along the lines one might expect with a few exceptions. Former Foreign Minister Lieberman made the first and likely most boisterous condemnation claiming that Israel should not be seen to grovel over defending herself. Minister of the Knesset Chetboun also objected claiming that the apology conveyed a message to IDF soldiers that the government does not have their backs in such situations and confrontations when facing violent terrorists. Meanwhile, Tzipi Livni and Shelly Yachimovich both supported Prime Minister Netanyahu making the apology claiming that good relations with Turkey outweigh pride and was the expedient thing to do. The question is whether or not the apology will return relations between Israel and Turkey to be as they were before the Mavi Marmara incident or if the relations have deteriorated too far already and if so why and at whose initiative?

There will be many who will propose that things between Turkey and Israel are on the mend and will point mainly to trade or anything else that they can show which supports such a claim. Tourism might even revive with time but the real signs that relations are improved would be on the political and military relations. Since the Mavi Marmara confrontation, Israel and Turkey have not had any further joint military exercises with Turkey insisting Israel not be included in what had previously been joint exercises the two nations and the United States and NATO. Those who will use trade as their proof are pointing to one aspect of Turkish-Israeli relations which had not suffered any real measurable amount as that was one area which remained healthy except for the military sectors. Most of the military trade between Israel and Turkey consisted of Israeli systems traded to Turkey which were curtailed as part of the freeze which had set in. The break began when Turkey cancelled all outstanding orders for Israeli military systems. Should this sector of trade resume it may be a sign of a return to healthy and friendly relations.

Turkey is currently in a state of siege with half a million Syrian refugees and a full blown civil war on their southern border. Adding to this is the undeniable fact that Iraq has sided with Iran and has been facilitating the Iranian supplying of Syrian dictator Bashir Assad’s forces including sending IRGC troops to fight against the rebels. They are also going to need to deal with what is essentially a Kurdish state on their eastern borders. Turkey will bear watching in the immediate future to discern which direction Prime Minister Erdogan will lead his country. Should he continue in the path he has been following the world will watch as Turkey slides closer to the Muslim world and discards their secular history returning to their Islamic past. Erdogan has wisely moved slowly initially, almost unperceptively, undoing everything that was built through the changes brought be Kemal Atatürk. We had discussed the trend towards Islamist principles and their trending away from Western culture and warned of the growing threat Turkey was going to pose for NATO on January 15, 2010, in an article titled <a href=http://beyondthecusp.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/the-turkey-problem-for-nato/>The Turkey Problem for NATO</a> and earlier noted the slide towards Islam as part of an article titled <a href=http://beyondthecusp.wordpress.com/2007/06/21/is-turkey-at-the-tipping-point/>Is Turkey at the Tipping Point?</a> back on June 21, 2007. Unfortunately most of the Western nations have blithely been ignoring all the signs right before their eyes and continue to ploy Turkey with arms and favorable treatment. But then again, if the recent deals made to arm Egypt and Saudi Arabia is any sign, the Western nations are blithely ignoring every warning sign. It is due to this limitation in foresight that it will be claimed that Israel and Turkey are friends once more and anything which can be attributed to that end will be applauded and touted as a great achievement. Hopefully, at least some in the Israeli leadership will not be blinded to the truth and will advise a cautionary approach in relations and trust towards Turkey. A little caution is always advisable and even more so when dealing with new friend, or as in this case a renewed friend. Israel should not be too quick to forget the bad blood that has come between them and Turkey or to forget and forgive that the Turkish government supported and assisted the IHH terrorists with their flotilla. Israel should not believe that they had no knowledge of the planned violence by the IHH members even though this will be exactly what the world will demand of Israel.

Beyond the Cusp

Argument Against Claims Israel Occupying Palestinian Lands

In a recent article discussing how Prime Minister Netanyahu should respond to any pressures from President Obama if he should demand or simply pressure Israeli leadership to provide a schedule for the withdrawal of Israelis from Judea and Samaria, aka the West Bank, my advice was that Prime Minister Netanyahu should “refuse to give the withdrawal even the dignity of discussion.” A comment posted in reaction to the article Rumor Obama Will Demand Timetable for Israeli Withdrawal West Bank Looking Credible insisted that I withdraw the word ‘dignity’ from my article. But they were not finished with my dressing down as they went on stating, and I quote the whole of the comments exactly as written, “I think you should remove the word dignity. Regardless of your views, which seem to be(this is not an absolute statement) pro-Israeli at any costs, there is still the case of an occupation that never ends. Occupation is not a picnic, it’s a horror trip, no matter how much we try to doll it up. And refusing discussion of any kind is the worst advice anyone can receive. Israel is a super-power, not some half-starved wannabee state with Katuscha fireworks, stop pretending that it isn’t. Unfortunately, anyone who doesn’t support the occupation regime(policy) is immediately set upon, whether friend or foe: the world does not support it – it’s wrong and unbecoming of the Jewish/Israeli people. Talking/Dialogue is always the right way forward, and anyone who says otherwise, is a warmonger.” Well, let us look at the reality according to treaties, agreements and other pertinent items and see if I truly must be considered a warmonger.

The crux of the commenter’s argument is bound to the opinion that Israel is in occupation of lands which belong to some other nation and that Israel is the militarily superior power in the region possessing immense military and in comparison we see, and I quote, ‘some half-starved wannabee state with Katuscha fireworks.’ Apart from the misrepresentation of the presumed limited firepower possessed by the Palestinian terror forces who, in addition to the presumably harmless Katyusha fireworks, which are actually dangerous and potentially deadly rockets and not merely harmless fireworks, also have rockets capable of carrying payloads of up to a one ton warhead with a range capable of reaching the outskirts of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem from their launching grounds in Gaza. Should one actually be fully honest they would also need to include the rocket stores held by Hezballah in Lebanon which will someday very likely be loosed on Israel which include scud rockets provided by Syria and Iran which are capable of being armed with chemical or biological warheads supplied by Syria’s President Bashir Assad. The representation of the forces allied against Israel as being represented solely by the Palestinians, or even including Hezballah, is a misrepresentation as the reality is that Israel’s enemies include numerous other Arab and Muslim countries some of which are still in a state of war with Israel. What is commonly ignored is that of the countries who declared war on the nascent state of Israel in 1948 only Jordan and Egypt have made a technical peace with Israel. That means that Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Algeria, Sudan, Lebanon, and the entirety of the Arab League nations remain in a state of war with Israel. In addition to these countries which continue to hold themselves as in a state of war with Israel since her founding in 1948, we must add the name of Iran as they have declared themselves in a state of war with both Israel and the United States but have simply chosen to not turn from their declared cold war into an active hot war. Stating that the entire conflict between the Arab and Muslim world and Israel consists of just the Palestinians is ignoring the larger threats which are very real and will be acted upon should the situation ever appear to favor these forces being able to defeat Israel. Should these other nations decide to renew active warfare with Israel we can assume with a fair amount of confidence that Egypt and very likely Jordan will renege on their peace treaties with Israel and join the assault. So, the truth is that Israel’s adversaries when viewed in their true entirety are armed with far greater sized military forces than Israel could ever dream of fielding.

But what can be said about this so-called occupation? I believe my commenter is referring to the misconception that Israel is in occupation of the Palestinian people and refusing to permit their constituting their country of Palestine. For Israel to be in occupation of a nation called Palestine it would have been necessary for Israel to have been at war or in a state of hostilities with a country called Palestine and have defeated them and taken over their recognized lands. But Israel has never been at war with a country named Palestine; not now and not even in antiquity. Israel did have a period where there was a state of war between the Israelis (also known then as the Hebrews) with the Philistines from the nation of Philistine. This conflict has been settled history for over three-thousand-years and the Philistine people melted into the pages of history and no longer are a recognized people. The Palestinians, despite modern mythology, are Arab peoples originating from Syria, Egypt, Iraq and small numbers from other Arab nations. The mislabeled West Bank was given this false name by Jordan after they conquered Judea, Samaria and the eastern half of the city of Jerusalem during the 1948 war of annihilation declared by several Arab nations who intended to completely erase the newly formed Jewish State from existence. Israel, through a miracle from Hashem, managed to survive this onslaught but lost some lands which included Judea, Samaria and the eastern half of the city of Jerusalem lost to Jordan, the Golan Heights lost to Syria, and the Gaza Strip lost to Egypt. Egypt never claimed Gaza so there was no international decision as to whom Gaza actually belonged. Syria claimed the Golan Heights and was recognized as rightfully possessing the land. Jordan claimed what they called the West Bank to obscure the Jewish roots of the actual names of the lands they held. The rest of the Arab world did not recognize the Jordanian claim and neither did the majority of nations. The only countries which recognized the Jordanian claim were Great Britain and Pakistan. So, Jordan was seen as an occupying force when they held what they called the West Bank.

That begs a question; whose lands did Jordan occupy when they claimed the lands of Judea and Samaria along with the eastern half of Jerusalem? Jordan was occupying Israeli lands as the lands from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea were the recognized borders for Israel when the Arab League refused the partition plan refusing to establish an Arab state side by side with Israel in 1948. So, as Jordan was occupying Israeli lands after the 1948 war, when Israel reestablished control over Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem they were liberating these lands and reestablishing their rightful ownership. By International Law the Arabs who were residing in the areas of Judea and Samaria along with eastern Jerusalem who moved there after the end of the 1948 War along with any residents who took the Jordanian offer of citizenship would be returned to their country of origin and would be resettled in Jordan. Those who resided on these lands before the 1948 War would be eligible to petition for Israeli citizenship and if accepted be Israeli citizens and if refused could remain on the lands as legal foreign residents where they would own their land and would be permitted limited rights including being allowed to seek employment and if doing so to pay taxes, they would not be granted full citizenship and would not be granted the vote. Israel is not occupying any lands as they liberated what were previously their lands from Jordanian occupation. Even the presumed granting the Jordanian rights to the land to the Palestinians are meaningless as Jordan never rightfully owned these lands.

The final argument over the rightful ownership of the lands of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem we need to look back at the history of treaties and other legal documents and edicts. The original division of the lands was declared in the Balfour Declaration which set aside lands between the Mediterranean Sea and the border with Iraq for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people. The League of Nations ratified the Balfour Declaration and codified it as an International Agreement including setting up the Mandate system from which many of the countries in the Middle East were formed. These included but not limited to Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Oman. The Jewish homeland was initially including everything from the Mediterranean Sea and the border with Iraq. The British decided to renege on this agreement and approached the Zionist leadership and made them an offer which they were not in any position to refuse as the English were a world power and the Zionists were a committee and some settlers without any military might. The agreement was written out in the Churchill White Papers taking the area of the British Mandate Lands from the Jordan River to the Iraq border and founded Transjordan which is known today simply as Jordan. That removed seventy-eight-percent of the lands originally intended for the Jewish State. The British and the member States of the League of Nations promised that the remaining twenty-two-percent of the Mandate Lands, including all from the Jordan River west to the Mediterranean Sea, were to be held sacrosanct and indivisible for the Jewish homelands. The founding of the United Nations included in its Charter in Article 80 the full recognition of the Mandates and all that was formed from these lands which had been tasked to France and Britain to dispense and establish nations. The only treaty which pertained to the lands of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem subsequent to the United Nations Charter was the Jordanian Israeli Peace Treaty in which Jordan recognized the return of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem to Israeli control. As an afterthought and in recognition of Yasser Arafat and his efforts against Israel, the King of Jordan claimed that he had actually deeded the lands of the West Bank to the Palestinian people to establish their own State in the treaty with Israel. No such denotation is written in that peace treaty where it states that the lands which Jordan referred to as the West Bank, also known as Judea, Samaria and eastern parts of Jerusalem, were ceded back to Israeli control.

One is not a warmonger to claim that the contested lands rightfully belonging to Israel. The Arab League could have established an Arab country on half of the lands in 1948 but instead opted to use an attempted war of genocidal aggression to erase the Jewish State and murder its peoples. The combined Arab armies were, blessed be Hashem, unsuccessful and only managed to steal some of the lands. Among the stolen lands are the contested lands that my commenter believes belong to a mythical people who populated a nation called Palestine which was subsequently conquered through Israeli reactions to aggression, as if it existed and had lost a war of aggression against Israel. Even if this were a reality, Israel would still be entitled to retain the lands under International Law which allows any State which gains lands responding to the aggressions of another State is entitled to retain those lands. So, even if the lands belonged to Jordan or anybody else, since the war in which they fell to Israeli control was brought upon Israel and she fought a defensive war against efforts of aggression, then Israel still retains the lands and there is no occupation. No matter how one approaches the ownership of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem, International Laws and agreements and treaties all grant Israel sovereignty over the lands if she so chooses to exercise her rights under International Laws and Agreements.

Beyond the Cusp