web analytics
December 27, 2014 / 5 Tevet, 5775
 
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Arab League’

Jordan To Propose Date for “Palestinian” State

Saturday, November 29th, 2014

Jordan is planning to present a timeline to the UN Security Council for the creation of a “Palestinian” state, according to Arab League General Secretary Nabil Al-Arabi, following an Arab League meeting held in Cairo.

Israel of course has quite a few options it can respond with.

Jordan is currently negotiating with Israel to double the water supply it receives from the Kinneret, Israel could put an end to those discussions.

But sometimes turnabout is fair play.

Israel could agree with the timeline, and say they are prepared to recognize that Jordan is Palestine on that date.

The Palestinian Issue in Perspective

Sunday, July 20th, 2014

The Hamas-Israel war is a test of Israel’s power-projection and posture of deterrence, which directly impacts the national security of Jordan and other pro-US Arab countries. They rely on Israel’s posture of deterrence in their own battle against rogue Islamic regimes.

In addition, the Hamas-Israel war highlights the limited impact of the Palestinian issue – both the PLO and Hamas – on Middle East developments and intra-Arab relations.  The war underlines the gap between the Western perception of the Palestinian issue, on the one hand, and the Egyptian and overall Arab perception on the other hand.

Contrary to Western conventional wisdom, Egyptian President Sisi and all other Arab leaders do not consider the Palestinian issue a top priority, a strategic added-value, a core cause of Middle East turbulence or the crux of their conflict with Israel.  In contrast to US policy – as executed by President Obama since his June 2009 speech in Cairo, when he elevated the Muslim Brotherhood to unprecedented heights and dumped President Mubarak – Sisi outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, the “parent company” of Hamas, branded it a terror organization and sentenced its leaders to death.     

The Arab World has not flexed political, financial or military muscles on behalf of the Palestinian Hamas during the current war, nor did they during the recent intensive Israeli military crackdown on Palestinian terrorism in areas controlled by Mahmoud Abbas (in the aftermath of the murder of three Israeli teens).  This low Arab regard toward the Palestinian issue was, similarly, displayed in reaction to Israel’s wars against Hamas terrorism in 2009 and 2012; Israel’s 2000-2004 comprehensive war on Palestinian Authority terrorism (2nd Intifada); Israel’s 1987-1991 military suppression of PLO  terrorism (1st Intifada); and Israel’s 1982-83 hot pursuit of PLO terrorists in Lebanon, all the way to Arafat’s and Abbas’ expulsion from Beirut.

Recently, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have extended a $20bn emergency financial assistance to Egypt; in 2006-7, the Saudis supported Lebanon with a $2.5bn package; during 1980-1988, Riyadh provided $1bn annually to the Muslim rebels in Afghanistan, compared to $100MN annually to the PLO; but, the Saudi financial aid to the Palestinian Authority has been limited to a total of $1bn-$1.5bn since 1994, reflecting the Saudi mistrust of Mahmoud Abbas and Arafat.  Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States do not forget and do not forgive Mahmoud Abbas’ participation in Saddam Hussein’s August, 1990 plunder of Kuwait, which provided home to some 300,000 of Abbas’ Palestinian relatives, friends and supporters.  They are aware of Abbas’ track record of subversion and terrorism since the 1950s in Egypt, 1966 in Syria, 1970 in Jordan, 1970-1982 in Lebanon and 1990 in Kuwait.

President Sisi’s attitude toward the Palestinian issue is consistent with President Sadat’s and President Mubarak’s distrust of the PLO/Palestinians.  For example, during 1977-79, President Sadat defied President Carter’s insistence upon placing the Palestinian issue at the center of the Egypt-Israel peace process.  Sadat did not trust the PLO and was convinced that a PLO-dominated state would undermine regional stability.  In 1994, during the signing of the Cairo Israel-PLO agreement, President Mubarak expressed his attitude toward the PLO, scolding Arafat in public: “sign, you dog.”  In recent months, the Egyptian military killed scores of Palestinian terrorists in Sinai, as they did in the aftermath of Israel’s 2005 “disengagement” from Gaza, killing scores of Palestinians in Rafah.  Moreover, Sisi’s fundamental position on the Palestinian issue was influenced by Abbas’ and Arafat’s key role in the Cairo cell of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1954, when the Muslim Brotherhood attempted to assassinate Egyptian President Nasser. Abbas and Arafat fled Egypt due to their involvement in subversion and terrorism.

The Arab League – just like all Arab countries – has been preoccupied with the Arab Tsunami, which is sweeping the Middle East independent of the Palestinian issue, highlighting the marginal role played by the Palestinian issue in shaping the Middle East. The Arab League persists in its historical attitude toward the Palestinian issue: showering Palestinians with rhetoric, but not with resources. Thus, in 1948, the Arab League formed the “All Palestine Government” as an Egyptian-molded phantom, which was reduced by 1952 to a department within the Arab League and officially dissolved, in 1959, by Egypt’s President Nasser.  In 1948/49, The Arab countries did not fight Israel for the Palestinians, did not share the spoils of the war with the Palestinians (Hama, Jerusalem, Samaria, Judea and Gaza) and were not interested in establishing a Palestinian state.

While Hamas urges the Arabs to rise in support of the Palestinians, the Egyptian media features unprecedented criticism of Hamas, reminding Egyptians that Hamas murdered 16 Egyptian soldiers in Sinai in August, 2012, supported the Muslim Brotherhood in toppling Mubarak, broke into Egyptian prisons and released Muslim Brotherhood terrorists, supported the Muslim Brotherhood’s attempts to oust the Sisi regime, and undermined the stability of Arab countries.

Putting the Palestinian issue in its proper intra-Arab perspective is a prerequisite for a realistic Middle East policy (focusing on “smothering sandstorms,” not on “tumbleweeds”), for any progress in the “peace process,” and for the survival of Jordan and other pro-US Arab regimes, which face clear and present Islamic terrorist danger.  They realize that the outcome of the Hamas-Israel war may either embolden or deter their mortal enemies.

Why Do Arabs Oppose Recognizing a Jewish State?

Tuesday, April 1st, 2014

Prime Minister Netanyahu suggested to US secretary of state John Kerry that the framework he was drawing up for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority include Palestinian Arab recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, as the nation-state of the Jewish people. Kerry intended to include this Israeli proposal, but since has backed away from it in view of Arab opposition, first of all from Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah and Palestinian Authority. Just last week, the Arab League voted its support for Abbas’ position.

One of the justifications for this opposition that apologists for the PA/PLO present is that by Israel being a Jewish state, the civil rights of Arab citizens of Israel would be adversely affected.

However, all states belonging to the Arab League define themselves as Arab states. All Arab League member states but Lebanon define themselves constitutionally as Islamic states in one way or another. This does not stop them from opposing Israel being defined as a Jewish national state.

The arguments against Israel as a Jewish state could logically be applied to Arab and Islamic states, and with more justification, since we have the benefit of hindsight to know just how non-Arabs and non-Muslims have been treated in Arab states.

The explanation for the Arab position lies, I believe, in the traditional Arab-Muslim view of Jews as an inferior dhimmi people, a millet [see below] devoid of national rights, and only entitled to live if they pay a yearly head tax on dhimmis called the jizya. The dhimma system applied to all non-Muslims who were subjects of the Islamic state, with individual exceptions. Within this system, the Jews were at the bottom of the barrel, at least in the Fertile Crescent countries, including the Levant, where the Jews’ status was inferior to that of their fellow dhimmis, the Christians.

Whereas the Quran and medieval Arab historiography, such as the the writings of Ibn Khaldun, recognize the Jews as a nation or people, the entrenched Islamic view of Jews as an evil, inferior contemptible millet is now dominant. Moreover, in fact, in practice, that was the actual status of Jews in the Arab-Muslim countries for centuries. Even today in the 21st century Muslims believe that Jews do not deserve the dignity of having a national state of their own, the Quran and the old Arab historians notwithstanding.

This contemptuous view of Jews is clearly stated by the PLO in its charter. Article 20, already denies that the Jews are a people, claiming that they are merely a “religious” group. Jewish tradition holds that the Jews are both a people and a religious group. Here is the relevant text of Art. 20:

“The claim of historical or religious ties between Jews and Palestine does not tally with historical realities nor with the constituents of statehood in their true sense. Judaism in its character as a religion is not a nationality with an independent existence. Likewise the Jews are not one people with an independent identity. They are rather citizens of the states to which they belong.”

Note the contempt for Jews which oozes from this text. The history of Israelite/Jewish kingdoms in the country, as well as of the Roman province of Judea, is denied. The setting of much of the Hebrew Bible lies in the Land Of Israel which the PLO denies in a way reminiscent of Holocaust denial. Further, Jews do not have “the constituents of statehood in their true sense.” Just by the way, the Nazis and other German Judeophobes claimed that the Jews were not capable of being a “state-forming nation.” [see Francis R Nicosia, The Third Reich and the Palestine Question (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press 1985)].

Arab League Says ‘Yes’ to Digging New Grave for Kerry’s Peace Talks

Wednesday, March 26th, 2014

The Arab League summit meeting at Kuwait on Wednesday maintained the ancient Muslim tradition of saying “no” when it comes to Israel and stated a thunderous denial of the idea of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state.

“We express our total rejection of the call to consider Israel as a Jewish state,” it said on one of the few if not only issues that united the League’s members.

Officials told the Bethlehem-based Ma’an News Agency that Arab envoys are thinking about withdrawing the Saudi 2002 “Peace Initiative” that promised “normalization” of ties with Israel, without any explicit statement of diplomatic recognition, in exchange for the creation of a Palestinian Authority country based on the 1949 Temporary Armistice borders and for Israel’s accepting the immigration of millions of foreign Arabs whose only connection with Israel is that they are considered “refugees.”

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry continues to march into the Peace Talks Cemetery and flew from Rome to Amman Wednesday for an emergency meeting with Mahmoud Abbas.

The Obama administration has constantly put public pressure on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to surrender to Arab demands while keeping the pressure on Abbas under wraps.

Pundits are trumpeting the scheduled release of the last of 104 terrorists, always are referred to as “prisoners,” as the stumbling block to the diplomatic stalemate, but during the last eight months of a dialogue with the deaf, Palestinian Authority officials have made it increasingly clear they feel confident enough to end the so–called peace talks and return to the United Nations to win recognition based on its own terms.

The best Kerry can hope for is an extension of the talks he has orchestrated, but he might do one better by blaming Netanyahu and Abbas and giving the Peace Process another indecent burial.

Is the Arab League a Legitimate Peace Broker?

Tuesday, March 25th, 2014

The Arab League rejects Israel as a Jewish State. So, who is the Arab League?

It is illuminating to examine the record of the League of Arab States since the founding of the League in 1945. It is hardly the model for peaceful settlement of disputes in the spirit of the United Nations.

Prior to the establishment of the Jewish state, the League took the following steps:

•In December 1945, the Arab League launched a boycott of ‘Zionist goods’ that continues to this day.
•In June 1946, it established the Higher Arab Committee to “coordinate efforts with regard to Palestine,” a radical body that led and coordinated attempts to wipe Israel off the map.
•In December 1946, it rejected the first proposed Palestine partition plans, reaffirming “that Palestine is a part of the Arab motherland.”
•In October 1947, prior to the vote on Resolution 181 – the “Partition Plan” – it reasserted the necessity for military preparations along Arab borders to “defending Palestine.”
•In February 1948, it approved “a plan for political, military, and economic measures to be taken in response to the Palestine crisis.”
•In October 1948, it rejected the UN “Partition Plan” for Palestine adopted by the General Assembly in Resolution 181.

On May 15 1948, as the regular forces of Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and contingents from Saudi Arabia and Yemen invaded Israel to ‘restore law and order,’ the Arab League issued a lengthy document entitled “Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine.” In it, the Arab states drew attention to:

“The injustice implied in this solution [affecting] the right of the people of Palestine to immediate independence … declared the Arabs’ rejection of [Resolution 181]” which the League said “would not be possible to carry it out by peaceful means, and that its forcible imposition would constitute a threat to peace and security in this area” and claimed that the “security and order in Palestine have become disrupted” due to the “aggressive intentions, and the imperialistic designs of the Zionists” and “the Governments of the Arab States, as members of the Arab League, a regional organization … view the events taking place in Palestine as a threat to peace and security in the area as a whole. … Therefore, as security in Palestine is a sacred trust in the hands of the Arab States, and in order to put an end to this state of affairs … the Governments of the Arab States have found themselves compelled to intervene in Palestine.”

The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, was less diplomatic and far more candid. With no patience for polite or veiled language, on the same day Israel declared its independence on May 14 1948, at a Cairo press conference reported the next day in The New York Times, Pasha repeated the Arabs’ “intervention to restore law and order” revealing:

“This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” The League of Arab States continued to oppose peace after Israel’s 1948 War of Independence:

In July 15 1948, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 54 calling on Arab aggression to stop:

“Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine; that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine.”

•In October 1949, the Arab League declared that negotiation with Israel by any Arab state would be in violation of Article 18 of the Arab League.
•In April 1950, it called for severance of relations with any Arab state which engaged in relations or contacts with Israel and prohibited Member states from negotiating unilateral peace with Israel.
•In March 1979, it suspended Egypt’s membership in the League (retroactively) from the date of its signing a peace treaty with Israel. More recently, in the Beirut Declaration of March 27-28, 2002, adopted at the height of Palestinian suicide attacks in Israel, the Arab League declared:

Arab League Still Firmly Rejecting Israel as Jewish State

Monday, March 10th, 2014

The Arab League refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state in the framework of current peace talks with the Palestinians, as per Israel’s demand.

On Sunday, Arab League foreign ministers released a resolution at a meeting in Cairo that supported the decision by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

“The council of the Arab League confirms its support for the Palestinian leadership in its effort to end the Israeli occupation over Palestinian lands, and emphasizes its rejection of recognizing Israel as a ‘Jewish state,’” the resolution said.

The demand, the statement said, “aims to annul the right of return and compensation for Palestinian refugees.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made the signing of a peace agreement contingent on the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, the first prime minister to do so.

The U.S.-backed peace talks are scheduled to end on April 29. Abbas has said he will not allow for an extension of the nine-month process.

Abbas is scheduled to meet in Washington with President Obama on March 17. Obama met with Netanyahu last week.

State Dept: No Guarantee Arab League Recognize Israel Even after Deal

Saturday, February 8th, 2014

In her Friday news briefing, State Dept. Spokesperson Jen Psaki was asked: since the Arab league’s offer to accept the right of Israel not to be annihilated if only it withdrew from all the territories it acquired in 1967, will the league embrace the Jewish State should a deal with the Palestinian come through, or will there be other demands?

It’s a fair question on several levels, especially if the deal, should it, God forbid, take place, is softer on territorial demands than the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.

You would think that would be the problem, right? You would be wrong. It’s all about Syria.

The reporter’s question on Friday was: The Secretary has repeatedly made remarks on the Arab Peace Initiative and how it “holds out the possibility of normalizing relations with Israel.” He’s said this numerous times, but in December, at the Saban Forum, he said, “Israel would enjoy a normal peaceful relationship the minute this agreement” – as in agreement with the Palestinians – “is signed with 22 Arab nations and 35 Muslim nations, 57 countries in all.”

That was the promise – very similar to the blunt promises of sticks and carrots with which Secretary Kerry has been saturating Israel’s official, left-leaning media. That’s been the gist of Tzipi Livni’s call to give up a few negligible, ancient stones in favor of regional peace and prosperity, courtesy of our loving Arab neighbor states.

Reported continued: Now, I was with someone at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy the other day who made the note that the Arab Peace Initiative (API) has a very distinct qualification to that, which is that Israel “completely withdraw from the occupied Arab territories, including the Golan Heights.”

Indeed, the argument could be made that while Judea and Samaria are integral parts of the promised biblical Eretz Israel, the Golan’s status has always been less certain, even in Jewish sources. If Israel is tearing out its historic heartland, what’s the big deal about giving back a part of Syria?

Reporter continued: So is the Secretary working on having the Arab League amend the API, or is the hope that the Arab League put aside the API and endorse some future Kerry plan? One of those two things has to happen. Otherwise, his statement isn’t entirely accurate. Is that right?

Ms. Psaki responded: Well, as you know, we’re working with both parties on a framework for negotiations. We don’t have a final framework that’s even being discussed at this point, so in terms of what will or won’t be in a framework, never mind a final agreement, that’s not something I could speak to or we have the information to speak to.

So far nothing but hot air which has no relation at all to the question. It’s what spokespeople do.

Ms. Psaki continued: He is in constant touch with the Arab League and the Arab Peace Initiative Follow-On Committee and briefs them regularly every couple of months about the status of the discussions, the status of the negotiations, and where things stand. And they have indicated very publicly their support for those efforts. In terms of what the outcome will be and what will be needed or required, I’m not going to make a prediction of that because we have several steps to take before then.

Yes, but her boss had indeed made a prediction, it’s the centerpiece of his sales pitch to the Israelis: just say yes to some form of a Palestinian state, and the whole region will become your oyster. You can do all that song and dance and then retreat into a quiet corner and pretend you have no idea what we’re talking about, “what do you mean dance, moi?”

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/state-dept-no-guarantee-arab-league-recognize-israel-even-after-deal/2014/02/08/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: