web analytics
October 2, 2014 / 8 Tishri, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Oslo Accords’

9/11: The Day the West was Defeated.

Thursday, September 11th, 2014

More than anything else, the attack on the Twin Towers that we commemorate today symbolizes the end of 2000 years of Western civilization. This date, as it turns out, is also the Hebrew date on which the Oslo Accords were signed.

On the day that the Twin Towers fell, I was in New York and watched the dramatic events unfolding from up close. That week, I wrote an article called, “America Already Lost”:

America has been trapped by the same weakness that has overcome Israel in recent years. It is trapped in a false notion of power, making it incapable of identifying the enemy and fighting it. Consequently, America will lose the battle in the same way Israel now loses.

In the coming months, we will see a lot of military planes take off and land. We will see destroyers and missiles, and millions of tons of TNT exploding in the Iraqi desert and in Afghanistani caves. They will kill thousands of innocent people, but in the end America will lose – because it failed to identify the true enemy.

I wrote the above words 13 years ago. Obama’s current mobilization against ISIS is even more ludicrous and does not stand a chance. At this point, we are much closer to the essential defeat of the West that began on 9/11.

The phenomenon of Islamic suicide bombers made its premier appearance after the signing of the Oslo Accords. From the terror attacks in Jerusalem, this ‘novelty’ spread throughout the world, climaxing on 9/11.

To understand the world-wide process that is taking place, Israel’s central role and the tools we need to win, read the following analysis, written when nobody had ever heard of ISIS.

This article was published in Moshe Feiglin’s book, The War of Dreams

19 Elul, 5763 /September 17, 2003

It is amazing how the Israeli media ignored the tenth anniversary of the Oslo Accords. One would think that the media, always looking for hot topics, would not be able to get out of summarizing and analyzing the significance of the horrifying decade that Israel has suffered since the Accords were signed. But, no. The people pulling the strings of Israel’s media marionettes have no intention of building themselves a defendant’s bench, a place where they clearly have reserved seats.

The 13th of September passed like any other day. Nobody in Israel stopped to draw conclusions, and the fateful Accords continue to claim their daily pint of blood with ever growing lust.

But the 11th of September, the day that the Twin Towers collapsed, merited serious attention. September 11th threatens no one, so Israel’s citizens were treated to a number of media summaries and learned analyses on the massacre in New York.

Both the Israelis and the Americans have a blind spot: Without September 13th, September 11th would not have happened. The Oslo Accords brought about the destruction of the Twin Towers. Without the abominable handshake between Rabin, Arafat and Clinton on September 13, 1993, the Twin Towers would not have collapsed on September 11th, 2001.

*

The Oslo Accords are usually defined as peace accords that were established to bridge a physical disagreement as to the ownership of a particular parcel of land. That definition is a smoke screen that the “enlightened” public cannot seem to do without. Even the mystery of the attack on the Twin Towers, bereft of any territorial dispute or military or national conflict was defined within the parameters of the blind Western dogmas of tangible discord. The secular perspective can deal with territorial conflicts that can be solved within the narrow confines of the Western worldview. The Americans needed a state and army against whom to fight and Sadaam supplied the merchandise. The Israelis needed a state and army with whom to make peace, so they brought Arafat and provided him with a nation, army and state.

Obama-Kerry’s ‘Peace Process’ Team Falling Apart

Friday, September 5th, 2014

David Makovsky, a member of the State Department’s Middle East peace team, is returning to his think tank position.

The departure of Makovsky announced Thursday by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy is the latest signal that the Obama administration is retreating from its intensive efforts to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

Talks collapsed in April and, over the summer, team leader Martin Indyk also quit and returned to the think tank that employed him before he joined the effort in 2013, the Brookings Institution.

Other team members have left in recent months and not been replaced.

The team, numbering over a dozen at one point, was considered large for such an effort and represented Secretary of State John Kerry’s intense interest in brokering a deal.

Makovsky is director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy Project on the Middle East Peace Process and is the co-author of the book Myths, Illusions, & Peace with Oslo architect Dennis Ross, another disillusioned leftist.

The “peace process” died and was buried years ago, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s reincarnation efforts have produced nothing but war, which was going to happen anyway.

President Barack Obama once named George Mitchell as the great savior who was going to rescue the world, all of whose problems were seen as rooted in the lack of a new Arab country for the Palestinian Authority.

Mitchell slowly faded away into oblivion, as did Indyk, both of whom carried on with the American two-faced policy that it was up to both sides to decide the conditions for a peace accord while Kerry nevertheless unabashedly kept dictating the terms of a final agreement, mostly but not totally at the expense of Israel. He managed to lost the trust of both Israel and Mahmoud Abbas.

Even President Obama apparently has finally realized that the “peace process” is a dead-end that will give historians even more evidence in their indictments of his administration whose accomplishments can be counted on one hand with amputated fingers.

JTA contributed to this report.

Arabs (Again) Torch Joseph’s Tomb

Sunday, July 6th, 2014

Joseph’s Tomb, which is located in Nablus, a Palestinian Arab-controlled town, was torched over Shabbat. The Hebrew name of the town is Shechem. According to the Book of Joshua, 24:32, “The bones of Joseph which the children of Israel brought up from Egypt were buried in Shechem in the portion of the field that had been purchased by Jacob.”

This is only the latest torching of Joseph’s Tomb by Arabs, even though Joseph is a prophet, according to Islam.

After the 1967 Six Day War, Israel regained access to the site of the Tomb, and in the 1980′s a Jewish seminary was built there. A small military outpost was also placed at the site, in order to protect the Jewish students. But following the Oslo Accords, the surrounding area was handed over to the Palestinian Arabs, while Israel retained authority over Joseph’s Tomb.

When fighting broke out between Israelis and Arabs in the area in October, 2000, six Arabs and one Jew were killed in a battle which took place at the Tomb. Israel then agreed to withdraw from the area and handed over control to the Palestinian Arabs who were expected to guard it. Instead, when the hand-off took place, on October 7, the Arab police watched as their people destroyed the Tomb. They rioters burned books, shtenders and other religious paraphernalia, and defiled the Tomb.

In 2011, a nephew of Israeli Knesset member and culture and sports minister Limor Livnat, Ben-Joseph Livnat, was murdered by Palestinian security forces while visiting Joseph’s Tomb. Four other Israelis were wounded. Palestinian Arabs set Joseph’s Tomb on fire, and they also attacked the funeral procession of Ben Joseph Livnat with rocks.

Joseph’s Tomb has been attacked by Arabs several more times since that time, including the latest arson over Shabbat.

Here is a video of the most recent torching of Joseph’s Tomb which took place in the context of rapidly escalating violence between Palestinian Arabs and Jews:

Peres, Chamberlain, And The Quest For Peace

Wednesday, June 18th, 2014

Shimon Peres’s retirement as Israel’s president will be one more opportunity for journalists to try to sum up a career that has spanned the entire history of his nation. As was true of many other moments when it seemed as if Peres had exited the spotlight for good, eulogies may also be premature today.

Peres is planning on using his time in the future to promote various initiatives and may well seek to play the kingmaker of the left in future efforts to topple or replace Benjamin Netanyahu as the country’s prime minister. But since this is almost certainly the end of his time in public office, some appreciation of his impact on Israel is appropriate.

As an Agence France Presse article noted, at age 90 Peres truly can claim the title of “the last of Israel’s founding fathers.” That’s more than an honorific. As that piece pointed out, as an aide to Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, Peres played a significant role in the creation of Israel’s defense establishment and nuclear deterrent. In the 1970s, he was seen as the leader of the more hawkish wing of the Labor Party and supported the building of the first West Bank settlements.

That he eventually became the leading figure in the peace movement and the architect of the failed Oslo process and then later left Labor to join Ariel Sharon’s centrist Kadima Party shows not so much his evolution as a thinker as the fact that opportunism can lead a politician, especially one who was considered an indefatigable schemer, all over the place if he hangs around long enough.

Nevertheless, despite decades of public service during which he held every major office his country could offer and enough achievements to fill several lifetimes, it is for Oslo and the peace process that Peres will be most remembered. That this, his most important initiative, failed cannot be denied and it is on that failure many will judge him. Yet those who are inclined to damn Peres for his colossal misjudgment of the Palestinians would do well to read Winston Churchill’s 1940 eulogy for Neville Chamberlain, the historical figure to which many of the outgoing Israeli president’s fiercest detractors often compared him.

Churchill despised Chamberlain’s appeasement policies as well as having no great personal affection for his former rival. But the death of the man who had come back from Munich waving a piece paper signed by “Herr Hitler” and saying that he had brought his country “peace for our time” did not cause Churchill to revisit Chamberlain’s obvious mistakes. The great orator chose a different frame of reference for thinking about the great appeaser:

It fell to Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart – the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour. Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged. This alone will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of history is concerned.

When in 1994 I asked Peres about the dangers of the path he was charting for Israel at the height of Oslo euphoria, he gave me his standard answer at the time. He said that such questions were like reading the disclaimer on the back of an airline ticket that warned of the possibility of a crash. One had to have faith in the pilot, the plane, and the importance of the destination, he told me, rather than dwell on the negative possibilities. As it turned out, the peace plane he was flying was badly constructed and operated more on his wishes than a grasp of reality, which led to its crash, a result that led to the deaths and injuries of many Israelis.

Countering A Kidnapped Reporter’s Claims

Wednesday, April 30th, 2014

Many around the world breathed a sigh of relief at the news that American-Israeli reporter Simon Ostrovsky had been freed, relatively unharmed, by his Russian captors in the Ukraine. Now that he is thankfully out of danger, it can be told: Ostrovsky’s five-part video series on the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, titled “Renegade Jewish Settlers,” contains many innuendos and inaccuracies which, in the interests of truth, must be counteracted.

This is especially crucial now that Israel is under attack for having “thwarted” the peace talks with the PLO – when in fact the Palestinian Authority had turned down several opportunities over the past weeks to advance the talks, with barely a protest from the international community.

Specifically, PA leader Mahmoud Abbas refused to accept the American “framework agreement” document; refused to accept the terrorist release/UN deal; and issued “three nos” in his meeting with President Obama: No to recognition of a Jewish state, no to abandoning the “right of return” demand for millions of Arabs and their descendants, and no commitment to reaching an “end of the conflict.”

Let us begin with Part 1 of Ostrovsky’s video series. He states that since the Six-Day War, “what was supposed to be a temporary occupation of the Palestinian territories has turned into four and a half decades of misery for the Arab residents in the West Bank.”

The implication is that Israel proceeded, after the war, to occupy “Palestinian territories” – when in fact areas defined as such did not exist as such until long afterward. Jordan and Egypt demanded for years that Israel relinquish the area to them, and UN Resolution 242 did not even mention “Palestinians.” Even in the late 1990s, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said, “We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 as ‘Occupied Palestinian Territory.’ ”

“Decades of misery for the Arab residents?” Why then do polls consistently show that many of them do not want to live under a PA regime in place of Israel? Israel took many proactive measures after 1967 to significantly improve the conditions under which the Arabs had lived during Jordanian and Egyptian occupation – opening universities, sharing agricultural innovations, upgrading health care, and employing more than 100,000 Arabs of Judea and Samaria in Israel.

Even after the Oslo War of terrorism forced Israel to take strict security measures, Palestinian Arabs still remained better off than many of their neighbors. A recent UN Human Development Report ranks the Palestinian Authority just below Egypt, and ahead of Syria and Morocco, in terms of life expectancy, educational attainment and adjusted real income.

Ostrovsky tells his viewers at least twice in the video series that under international law “the settlements are totally illegal.” Let us note that Australia’s foreign minister recently said she knows of no international law to this effect.

More to the point, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention is often quoted by anti-settlers as forbidding an “Occupying Power” from “deport[ing] or transfer[ring]” its civilians into the territory, but international law experts have shown that this does not apply in the case at hand, for four reasons.

They are, in brief: Judea/Samaria had not been under sovereign control; Jews had a UN charter-protected right (Article 80) to live there; Israel did not transfer them; and the Convention’s objective was to protect citizens from Nazi-like atrocities – irrelevant to the Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria.

Ostrovsky states, “Over 300,000 Israelis have taken it upon themselves to settle what was supposed to be the future Palestinian state.” Who determined it was “supposed to be” a Palestinian state? In 1982, for instance, when the area was already well populated by Jews, President Reagan said, “The U.S. will not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.”

Ron Pundak, Active in Many Failed Peace Initiatives, Dead at 59

Saturday, April 12th, 2014

Ron Pundak, who was the executive director of the Peres Center for Peace, an architect of the Oslo Accords, and an active participant in the Geneva Initiative, died from cancer on Friday. Pundak was 59 years old.

Pundak is being widely lauded as a great peace activist and a visionary.

Israel’s President Shimon Peres said that Pundak, was a warrior, a man of values and an intellectual.

“He [Pundak] dedicated his whole life for the achievement of peace with our neighbors. He was willing to do anything for peace, sacrifice his life and dedicated each and every moment of his life to it. Ron was a family man, a great soul and he will be missed,” Peres said.

Israeli politician Tzipi Livni said: “There are war heroes but Ron was hero of peace. He was a Zionist who believed in peace and was not deterred by extremists, cynics and the hopeless.”

However, the Oslo Accords and the Geneva Initiative have both resulted in great harm to Israel.

And at the J Street Conference in 2011, Ron Pundak told the audience something to which they responded with thunderous applause.

“Israel,” Pundak said, “can live with a nuclear Iran and it must not base its policies on a worst-case scenario.”

Funeral arrangements had not yet been made before Shabbat.

Personal Bodyguard: Arafat Lied When Condemning Murder of Civilians

Monday, April 7th, 2014

One of Yasser Arafat’s long-time personal bodyguards told a BBC Arabic interviewer that Arafat intentionally and knowingly lied through his teeth when he publicly denounced the murder of Israeli civilians.

That would not be news if the foreign policy fools in Washington knew something about the Middle East besides what they studied in their post-doctorate studies in International Relations.

That is not to say that anyone tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth in diplomatic games. When Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said he wants a “Two-State” solution after having rejected it for so many years, he certainly knew that he didn’t have to mean it for the simply reason he saw the dark at the end of the tunnel. It was clear there won’t be such a solution considering the Palestinian Authority’s increasing appetite for the whole pie. Mahmoud Abbas has made it clear that he does not intend to leave Israel crumbs and not even the plate.

But when Arafat used to denounce the killing of Israeli civilians, he was not playing games. He was lying, as his former bodyguard Mohammed Al-Daya admits by revealing that Arafat was bowing to the pressure of then-Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated and published the interview last week, when Al-Daya stated, “Arafat ‘would condemn the bombing in his own special way, saying, ‘I am against the killing of civilians.’ But that wasn’t true.”

He explained some basic fundamentals of Islam, something that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry might want to take a look at before he makes any more trouble.

“Islam allows you to lie in three cases,” said Al-Daya. A good Muslim can lie “in order to reconcile two people, [and] if your wife is ugly, you are allowed to tell her she is the most beautiful woman alive.”

So Islam really does have some redeeming character.

The third exception to the prohibition of lying is a bit strange. “You are allowed to lie in politics,” he said, and that opens the trap door to lie about anything and everything so long as it is for political gain.

Enter Arafat.

“When there was a bombing in Tel Aviv,…. Mubarak would call Arafat and say to him, ‘Denounce it, or they will screw you.’ Arafat would say to Mubarak, ‘Mr. President, we have martyrs. The [Israelis] have destroyed us. They have massacred us.’ But Mubarak would say to him, ‘Denounce it, or they will screw you.’”

The former bodyguard concluded that Arafat would state, “’I am against the killing of civilians,’ but that wasn’t true.”

Ever since 1991, when President Bush the Senior dragged Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Shamir to Madrid for a debate that turned out to be the beginning of the “Peace Process,” truth went underground.

The entire diplomatic process was born a lie because the “Peace Process” is nothing more than a ”War Process,” as proven by the First Intifada and by the Oslo War – AKA Second Intifada – that followed the Oslo Accords that Arafat signed and then rejected.

The entire Palestinian Authority is a lie, but the “pro-Israel” lefties and the “pro-Israel” Obama administration, the one with an “eternal and unbreakable bond with Israel” whose security it “never will forsake,” have swallowed so many lies that their intestines are putrid. Their bellies are dark with worms, and their brains are so warped that the lie looks like the truth and the truth looks like a lie.

They either are morons or have had an operation to remove their hearing. Otherwise, they would not consider Abbas a “peace partner” when he and his cohorts torture the truth into contortions that would break the back of Plastic Man.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/israel/personal-bodyguard-arafat-lied-when-condemning-murder-of-civilians/2014/04/07/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: