Palestinian Leadership Declare War on Israel

 

Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Fatah and the Palestinian Authority (PA) head-man and ruler of the Palestinian Arabs as well as being leader of the revolt and instigator for terrorism, Mahmoud Abbas has decided to wage war through surrogates throughout the world. Abbas has announced standing with French President Macron that the United States has disqualified itself from Mideast peace process. Apparently, Mahmoud Abbas is serious about this, for now, as he has also refused to answer Jared Kushner’s phone call and turned down the United States invitations for a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. But he has been a busy little beaver beyond refusing everything offered which might actually be capable of finding a solution. But Abbas does not desire a solution; he simply wants to destroy Israel by any means he can leverage. His current target is President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel and future sight for the American Embassy. Abbas is drooling over the chances he might grab allowing him to hold the Temple Mount, Old City, Mount Olives Cemetery and all of Eastern Jerusalem where he can evict three entire neighborhoods for the fact that they are Jews, the unwanted, what he terms invaders despite the fact that two of these neighborhoods are Jews reclaiming what was their homes before the Jordanians performed their ethnic cleansing, something Abbas intends to repeat. Abbas hungers for all of East Jerusalem and every inch of the lands Jordan occupied for nineteen years. Abbas and the “PLO Executive Committee praised the “uprising of the Palestinian people” in response to the U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel and stressed the importance of further strengthening the “popular struggle by peaceful means.””

 

Salim Zanoun, the chairman of the Palestinian National Council (PNC), who also serves as chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s (PLO) Central Council, demanded on Sunday that the Central Council members, who are meeting in Ramallah to take a stand on the future of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and to reexamine the PLO’s recognition of Israel, renege on the Palestinian supposed recognition of Israel, something which despite Abbas constantly pretending, was never accepted. The reality is the Arab leadership will once again claim that Israel is a European colony with no connection to the Jews. Additionally they will restate a claim with a slight twist, that the Arabs were the Canaanites who originally built Jerusalem six thousand years ago. They also claim that the largest navy in the world at the end of World War II, the Netherlands Navy, to transport European Jews, the ones with no connection to Israel, to take the lands away from the Palestinian Arab founders of the area and, according to another older claim, the Palestinian Arabs invented the Canaanite language which was the first written language on Earth. You cannot make these claims up and outdo their wild declarations.

 

Abbas has gone to one of his favorite Jew and Israel hating entities, this time the European Union. He has demanded that they join him in declaring the State of Palestine as an independent nation with East Jerusalem as its capital and the June 4, 1967 lines. The date he is demanding is quite important as it is the day before Jordan joined Egypt and Syria, who had conjoined to become the United Arab Republic (UAR) who had invaded Israel intending to destroy Israel and force the Jews from the land one way or another the next morning of June 5, 1967 and the war concluded on June 10, 1967 after only six days, thus the name Six Day War. Instead of driving the Jews out of Israel, Israel had defeated the combined forces of three Arab nations, Egypt, Syria Jordan and Saudi Arabia with units from Lebanon and Iraq and additional assistance from Algeria, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Pakistan, Sudan and Tunisia. Below is a map of Arab nations’ military moves which predicated the Six Day War as the threat encircled the Jewish State.

 

Arab nations’ military moves which predicated the Six Day War

 

The threats became war when Israeli intelligence intercepted the attack orders and in a defensive move attacked the Egyptian Air Force while the majority of the planes were still on the ground. Israeli intelligence was so thorough that they left the decoy aircraft which were plywood replicas spread on the airfields to confuse any attacker as to which were the real aircraft so they would waste resources attacking the decoys. Israel struck only the real aircraft cementing their air superiority for the war. Later that fateful day in June of 1967 the Israeli Air Force defeated the Syrian Air Force and when the Jordanian Air Force attacked that afternoon they were met and routed by the Israeli Air Force. By the end of the war on June 10, 1967 when the United Nations, Soviet Union, United States, Britain and numerous other entities all demanded that the Israeli forces cease their advances and realizing the Arab forces had been routed and completely defeated and Israel stood ready to capture Cairo, Amman and Damascus if not prevented by the rest of the world, there was no other choice, Israel had to be prevented from capturing any Arab capital city. Israel was threatened by the world powers thus preventing Israel from declaring total victory and instead settling for territorial gains and without capture of any Arab capitals. Below are two maps showing the starting positions and resulting territories Israel captured or liberated (Judea and Samaria were occupied by Jordan renamed West Bank) during the Six Day War.

 

Six Day War Beginning and Resulting Positions from June 5, 1967 to June 10, 1967

 

So, now we understand Abbas and his inspiration for choosing June 4, 1967, as he desires a reset to the starting points from the Six Day War. Egypt already made peace and all of the Sinai Peninsula was returned by Israel and Egypt relinquished all claims to Gaza which was later gifted to the Palestinian Authority in August and September of 2005, and then taken over in a coup by Hamas in 2007. This also would return the highlands overlooking the densely populated and industrialized lands within Israel allowing for direct firing of rockets into Tel Aviv and surrounding areas. Abbas is not relying solely on the European Union as he has a great idea for using the United Nations. He desires for the United Nations convening of an international conference with full powers to resolve all the outstanding issues and all final status issues. He insists that this United Nations conference be empowered to set the final borders of the Palestinian State along the June 4, 1967 lines, the 1949 Armistice Lines or the Green Line, all names for what Israeli Abba Eban; Israeli diplomat, politician and scholar, who referred to the pre Six Day War lines as Israel’s “Auschwitz borders.” The reasoning becomes evident in the two pictures below, one before Israeli retreat back to the June 4, 1967 lines and the lower one within days if not minutes after Israel is forced back behind the Green Line, the Auschwitz borders.” That is why Israel can never accept such a solution and even should the entire world demand Israel fold and accede to Mahmoud Abbas and his eternal demands, the only result would be an inevitable war as even one attack would be intolerable.

 

Tel Aviv Now Before Green Line Peace
and
Tel Aviv the Day After Green Line Peace

 

Abbas is attempting to collect every adversary of Israel’s continued existence calling on the United Nations and European Union to join him in declaring the maximum potential borders as reality including forcing all the Israeli residents from their Judea and Samaria communities, East Jerusalem and even areas of Western Jerusalem which would become no-man’s land just as it was when Jordanian snipers would randomly shoot any Israeli which came within their scope sights. Not only would parts of Jerusalem become areas where one’s life would be endangered just traversing, but also major Israeli roadways and even Ben Gurion Airport (see images below). For people who regularly use Trans-Israel Highway Route 6 daily, they would be required to find an alternate route using secondary roads and finding a longer and more time consuming route to and from work, family, friends or simply to go to another area of Israel as simply by constructing what appears to be a residence in order to use the roof to place a sniper making this section of the Trans-Israel Highway Route 6 completely unusable unless encased in a rocket and bullet proof encapsulation. A person with a MANPAD standing on the grounds overlooking Ben Gurion Airport they could blow any aircraft landing or taking off right out of the sky. These are further examples why Israel would not be able to permit a Palestinian State to have the June 4, 1967 borders demanded by Mahmoud Abbas, and he is totally aware of this which is why his demands.

 

Trans-Israel Highway Route 6
(c/o Dr. Martin Sherman and Arutz Sheva)

 

Ben Gurion Airport Plane Vulnerability from Palestine
(c/o Dr. Martin Sherman and Arutz Sheva)

 

Mahmoud Abbas can get the European Union, United Nations and any other group, organization or grouping of allied nations to declare whatever borders or solution he can arrange, no such declaration will have any effect on the current situation and will most definitely establish any real borders which he is chasing so eagerly. The only place that Mahmoud Abbas can go and readily arrange to have borders, peace and an actual state is to meet with Israel. Only Israel is capable of making an agreement which would be enforceable. Not the United Nations and all its various institutions, not the European Union or any of its members, not Russia, China or the United States and not the Arab League, Organization of Islamic Cooperation or the entirety of Islam and the force of Allah can force a solution. If Mahmoud Abbas truly desires peace and actually wants a real nation then instead of refusing every offer and grandstanding collecting condemnations of Israel, United Nations statements which are completely unenforceable or other meaningless denunciations of the situation, then he simply need to sit down with the Israelis and not demand that Israel get nothing and he gets his entire wish list. But being reasonable or even settling for anything which does not instantly destroy Israel would be not making good on his endless promises to destroy Israel and that is why he will never accept peace as he believes that if the Arab press this long enough the world will tire of the entire affair and destroy Israel just to be rid of the conflict. We will not ruin it by providing a spoiler, as that exact situation was already predicted and the result of the ensuing conflict was given in the Bible. The world should hope it never comes to that, as the end is less than pretty.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

World Ready for Security Council Without United States?

 

In Israel most of the hubbub has revolved around the speeches before the General Assembly by Mahmoud Abbas and his accusations and abuses heaped on Israel and the response and defenses along with counter arguments by Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu by his speech. Further, there has been commentary of those parts of the speech by President Obama, among others, which were applicable to Israel in particular and the Middle East in general. Other than Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comparison equating Hamas and ISIS, not much of the other references and activities regarding ISIS have been given comment as they have mostly been ignored or mentioned in passing for background and supporting commentary by which Israel should expect to possibly find more vocal, unrestricted, unrestrained and unqualified support along with potentials for a more sympathetic understanding of the threats and difficulties faced by Israel and her peoples. But even should these hopes and aspirations materialize or not, there may have been evidence of a potentially far more sweeping and definitive change in the future which might have far reaching detrimental results for Israel. There was evidence given of a united opposition to the efforts by the United States to address and attack ISIS without having first attained the support of the United Nations and attaining a Chapter Seven Security Council Resolution. These demands were made by Iran and Russia who backed their complaint with accusations that the United States and their allies’ attacks on ISIS and their intents to arm and train Syrian opposition rebel groups as an uninvited aggressions and assault on the independent nations of Syria and Iraq. They further pointed to the actions taken jointly by the United States and Russia to attain Security Council backing for the initiatives to remove the chemical and biological weapons stores held by Bashir Assad in Syria which prevented any attacks on Syria by the United States holding them up as an example of the correct and cooperative manner for addressing such actions and its being preferable to any unilateral actions.

 

An international journalist and professor at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics, Boris Kalyagin, speaking to Pravda.Ru on 23 September stated, “Such actions must be carried out exclusively within the boundaries of international law. That means not formal unilateral ‘notification’ of strikes but the clearly expressed approval of the government of Syria or the passage of a decision by the United Nations Security Council.” Further comments from the Wall Street Journal; noted that, “Hasan Rouhani, the president of Iran, agreed and said the U.S.-led airstrikes were illegal and constituted an attack on Syria, while also condemning Islamic State militants as ‘barbarians.’” Also quoted in the same article was Bassam Abu Abdallah, director of the Damascus Center for Strategic Studies, which is close to the Syrian regime, who stated “We are witnessing the beginning of change in the U.S. position. And in politics you have to deal with reality no matter how long you resist; there is a Syrian state that has persevered and there are institutions that one can communicate with.”

 

The question many might be asking about now is, “How does this relate to the Security Council without the United States?” It probably would not surprise anybody to hear that Russia in a former life as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) had expressed desires to have the veto power removed from the United States as well as its permanent membership in the Security Council even at the cost of giving up its similar privileges. These expressions were usually supported by the Soviet bloc nations as well as China, the Arab and Muslim bloc nations and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) nations, all of which have misgivings about the vetoes cast by the United States which have blocked their efforts to enforce their political intrigues. One glaring example has been the attempts of the nations of the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (IOC) and other Muslim and Arab majority nations to gain sanctions, denunciations and other censures against Israel which have almost universally met with a United States veto. One outstanding exception was after the Israeli airstrike against the Iraqi Osirak Reactor on June 7, 1981, when the United States did not veto the Security Council’s denouncing the Israeli strike on another United Nations member state, something not usually successfully accomplished against Arab nations for actions and activities against Israel. The desired changes which those disgruntled with the veto powers of the five permanent members of the Security Council, whether the discontent is over their permanent representation or their ability to unilaterally vote down any motion unilaterally with their permanent veto powers, is for at a minimum to have the veto powers rescinded and more optimistically to have the permanent representation rescinded as well thus allowing for all the positions on the Security Council to be rotated allowing for complete equality in the representation to the Security Council which would result in the Security Council to be nothing more than a glorified General Assembly with the Western nations facing overwhelming opposition by the representation from the rest of the nations. Such a Security Council would result in regular denunciations of Israel and the United States rendering both nations susceptible to economic sanctions and potential interventions by the rest of the world all done under the auspices of the United Nations. Imagine the Security Council acting as an echo chamber for the Human Right Council or the General Assembly. Such would be a resounding nightmare for the so-called free world.

 

Where these denunciations of the efforts by the United States and allies in combating ISIS and incorporating arming and training the Syrian rebels in their attempts to change the Syrian governance which would likely remove Syria from Iranian influences have not mentioned removing the United States veto power or permanent status in the Security Council, they are being initialed by the same interests. Former attempts to remove the United States from their blocking position in the Security Council had been centered and championed by the USSR and these efforts had pretty much gone into remission after the fall of the Soviet Union. With the recent expansionist policies and efforts engineered by Russian leader Vladimir Putin and the resumption of some of the old axes of the Arab bloc nations joining with the replacement of the USSR, the Russian Federation, we may also soon witness a renewal of the efforts to change the makeup of the Security Council which would start by removing the veto powers of the permanent members and eventually the removal of any permanent membership thus removing much of what differentiates the Security Council from the other United Nation bodies. This was a warning shot over the bow of both the United States generally and President Obama in particular. The message was a simple one warning President Obama not to get too adventurous and to not strike out too independently and remember his place and the promises he has made and the predicament that President Putin had rescued him from vis-s-vis the Syrian chemical weapons Obama Red-Line fiasco, thus the mention of the cooperative efforts between Putin and Obama and their using the United Nations to address that situation before it got completely out of hand. The warning is that there is the possibility that President Obama may have misjudged the situation and this was the one opportunity he was being warned to take to return to the greater flexibility he had promised to be capable of taking after his reelection. This was also a blatant warning from President Putin to President Obama to back off and remember his place. The odds are that President Obama will heed this warning and retreat and seek to gain the cooperation of the Security Council and by such provide Iran and Syria with a say as to how the allied bombings against ISIS will be carried out and where and when such strikes will be allowed to be carried out. We might also see a retreat on training of the rebels though it is doubtful that Britain’s Prime Minister Cameron will back away from his efforts in training and arming rebel forces so easily. It is not likely that there will be any efforts immediately to seek the redefinition of the Security Council as President Putin also enjoys the ability to stymy any adventurous use of the powers of the Security Council, especially should such efforts be taken pertaining to the conflicts currently in the Ukraine and the potential for further Russian adventurism in Luxemburg or any of the other former Soviet satellite nations. This will be an interesting test of whether President Obama has grown any bolder as a result of being forced by the threat situation to act boldly and take military measures in the Middle East and especially in Iraq, even more so after he had announced that he had pulled all the American forces from Iraq and left behind a strong, vibrant and independent nation capable of taking care of its future without the need of American military presence. It will also be an indicator of what direction the Iran nuclear negotiations are likely to take, but more on that in the near future.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Irreconcilable Differences

Very late on Friday, almost while Secretary of State Kerry was on his way to catch his flight back to the United States, Mahmoud Abbas gave his consent to resume peace talks. Since then there have been some interesting statements from both the Palestinian and Israeli sides. Palestinians have mostly claimed their presumed victory in forcing concessions from the Israelis while the Israelis have spoken of the great opportunity that has opened before them and how it was attained without granting Abbas any of his preconditions. It is nice to know that the two sides are as far apart when in agreement as they had been before their announced agreement. Of course there are probably all kinds of excitement at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue where they are laying out the grounds for the sole accomplishment which will come of this great achievement, the photo-op for President Obama which will accompany the historic handshake before the negotiations collapse once more. One would love to be more optimistic about the return to the Peace Process but the track record of these talks is far from promising.

What is needed between the Arabs and the Israelis, which is truthfully what the Palestinian-Israeli conflict represents, is not a peace process or long, drawn out talks, they need a victor. This is not a peace process as the two sides continue to be locked in an eternal struggle for ownership and complete control over the same lands. Neither side is willing or able to accept the other coexisting in the tiny space between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. These two sides more resemble a divorcing couple with the land being the house that only one of them will win the rights to in the end. The Palestinians have, along with the Arab and Muslim worlds behind them, flatly stated that even should someday come when they sign a treaty dividing the land with the Jews they intend to continue the resistance until all of Palestine has been freed. That is as simple a way of stating it is not over until one side has been vanquished and as long as one side will not be content until the other has been vanquished completely then it matters not if the other side is willing to compromise, there can be no compromise other than complete victory. Furthermore, since even should the Palestinian lose completely and Israel be recognized by even the most cynical European nation as rightfully possessing the lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea along with the United Nations Security Council, the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation would not accept such a finality and the conflict would continue. The Arab-Israeli conflict will not end until wither Israel is defeated or some great change comes over humanity and nothing less will suffice.

In the meantime and before the negotiations collapse as they inevitable will let us congratulate Secretary of State Kerry for his herculean effort, indomitable perseverance and infinite patience which he displayed in forcing through this agreement even if it ends up being a one-time meeting as has been the result previously. One has to wonder if perhaps this will not win Secretary Kerry a Nobel Peace Prize and whether it will have President Obama receive a second peace award as he is prone to setting firsts and nobody has ever won two Nobel Peace Prizes or received one for their expected accomplishments after winning a Presidential race. All that remain now is the nervous period awaiting the handshake on the White House lawn, weather permitting, and the eventual point at which Palestinian President Abbas huffs and puffs his way out of the talks in a pique of anger over some invented slight all the while reminding this editorialist of the little train that couldn’t get over the hill and attain the peaceful valley beyond.

Beyond the Cusp