How Can One Compromise with Those Holding Such Positions?

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Do Not Tell Me There’s No Intifada

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

 

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