web analytics
September 18, 2014 / 23 Elul, 5774
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Two State Solution’

Bibi: Unilaterally Separate from Your ‘Two State’ Negotiations

Sunday, June 8th, 2014

The entire concept of “two state solution” must be eradicated from the policy lexicon of the Israeli Government. Prime Minister Netanyahu is pushing us in the wrong direction.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday told the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Israel “must separate from the Palestinians,” Bloomberg News reported on Friday, citing an unnamed official source.

No further details were provided by the source, but the news agency noted that the language “was reminiscent of the term ‘disengagement’ that Israel used to refer to its 2005 withdrawal of settlers and soldiers from the Gaza Strip, carried out unilaterally under then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in the absence of peacemaking.”

Netanyahu’s still trying to solve Israel’s security problems by recognizing and negotiating with the terrorists. This crazy distinction between Hamas and Fatah is totally fictional. They are really the same and playing the world for suckers, which unfortunately is too easy when it comes to anything antisemitic. Pretending that Fatah is fundamentally different from Hamas is like trying to cure skin cancer with make-up. And pretending that there can be a “peaceful” Palestinian state sic in the midst of the Land of Israel is the greatest lie of all.

This Israeli attempt to “achieve peace” by “negotiating with the Palestinians” sick reminds me of those who died of lung cancer, because they kept trying to alleviate back pain without having a proper checkup to determine the cause of the back-pain.

The Arab terrorism isn’t due to the fact that Jews are living in Judea, Samaria, Jordan Valley, Jerusalem, Haifa, Tel Aviv-Jaffa etc. It’s because the Arab leadership, including Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah want to destroy the State of Israel. Listen carefully to this clip on the PMW site

.

Abbas admits PA sent terrorists to kill Israelis
PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas:”I demand [the release of] prisoners because they are human beings, who did what we, we, ordered them to do. We – the [Palestinian] Authority. They should not be punished while we sit at one table negotiating. Besides, they spent many years in prison. How much longer? Do they have to spend all their life in prison and even die there?”Interviewer: “How can we deal with their criteria “bloodstained hands?”

Abbas: “Such talk is illogical talk and I do not accept it. What does a bloodstained hand mean? We were fighting each other. They kill and kill. They hunt down people with planes and tanks and killed. The soldier who kills 50 or 20 persons here and there – are his hands stained with talc powder? They are stained with blood. This is war. One (i.e., Israel) ordered a soldier to kill, and I ordered my son, brother, or others, to carry out the duty of resistance (i.e., euphemism for terror). This person killed and the other person killed. So why say this person’s hands are stained with blood, and [he] must be kept in prison? He is a fighter just like any other fighter. We were in a state of fighting. When a truce is reached, in any country in the world, the past is forgotten… What meaning is there to peace with the Israelis if the wanted continues to be wanted, the prisoner continues to be imprisoned, and the deportee continues to be deported? What am I worth in the eyes of the ordinary [Palestinian] citizen? The ordinary citizen will ask me: ‘What did you get me? You ordered me – you are responsible for me.’”

Official Palestinian Authority TV Feb. 14, 2005 (2 min)

There has never been any official change in this policy.  A Palestinian State will only increase terrorism and insecurity for the State of Israel.

Visit Shiloh Musings.  / Batya Medad

Netanyahu ‘Astonished’ at Demands to Surrender Israel as Jewish State

Thursday, May 1st, 2014

People who refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state are trying to “undermine the historic, moral and legal justification for the existence of the State of Israel as the national state of our people.” Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on Thursday during a tour of Independence Hall.

He noted, “The Declaration of Independence sets, as the cornerstone in the life of the state, the national Jewish identity of the State of Israel.

“I find it astonishing that among those who call on Israel to make concessions in Judea and Samaria due to the self-evident desire to avoid a binational state, there are those who oppose defining the State of Israel as the national state of the Jewish People.”

The Prime Minister said that the argument to establish the Palestinian Authority as a country in order to preserve the Jewish identity of Israel makes no sense when it includes opposition to  recognizing Israel as a Jewish country.

Abbas Uses Syrian ‘Refugees’ as Pawns while They Die of Starvation

Wednesday, January 1st, 2014

Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas welcomed the “steadfastness” of so-called “Palestinian refugees” in Syria in a televised speech but forget to mention his concern for them did not extend to helping those who are dying of starvation.

“Marking the 49th anniversary of the Palestinian Revolution … Abbas [said], “We negotiate to reach a fair solution to the refugees’ issue based on the UN Resolution 194 as stated in the Arab Peace Initiative,” the official Palestinian Authority WAFA website reported Wednesday.

“Abbas greeted the ‘steadfastness’ of the Palestinian refugees in Syria, Lebanon and the Diaspora,” it continued

The several million “refugees” living outside of Israel serve as the Arab world’s doomsday demographic weapon to destroy Israel as a Jewish state. If their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and great-great grandparents had come from any other country, the United Nations would not have designated them as refugees, the United Nations would have considered them to be ordinary citizens who have to get on in life. The international body reserves the “refugee” status for first-generation people who flee or are forced out of a country.

It makes an exception for Arabs from Israel. The approximately 700,000 Arabs, who left on their own free will, fled or were forced out in previous wars, have grown to more than 5 million.

They are under the jurisdiction of UNRWA (U.N. Relief and Works Agency) and almost without exception are denied citizenship in their host countries.

However, their ranks have dwindled lately. At least 15 died from starvation in war-torn Syria since September, the Beirut Daily Star reported recently. UNRWA spokesman Chris Guneess told the French news agency AFP that approximately 20,000 of them in the village of Yarmouk are suffering from limited medical and good supplies.”

On Saturday, WAFA reported that Abbas finally ordered the dispatch of immediate food supplies to the Yarmouk camp. Well, he least that is what said.

That was on December 28, 2013.

And what did Abbas do exactly a year ago in January 2013?

He turned down an Israeli offer to allow “refugees” fleeing Yarmouk to enter Judea and Samaria. Why? Because Israel insisted they could enter only if they gave up their “right of return” to whatever would be left of Israel if Abbas gets his Palestinian Authority state on his terms.

The same week, five of the “refugees” were killed in the civil war.

Abbas’ great concern for the refugees is that they serve their true purpose in his life – pawns to be moved into Tel Aviv, Tzfat (Safed), Tiberias and anywhere else where the Palestinian Authority would have no legal sovereignty under its ”two-state” solution, which is his interim phase towards a one-state solution to the Jewish problem.

Israel: the Impudence Accompanying Betrayal

Wednesday, November 13th, 2013

Originally published at Rubin Reports.

I’ve always been amazed that anyone thought the United States would ever act against the Iranian nuclear threat. There was never any chance that such a thing would happen. The United States would never go to war with tens of millions of people.

Moreover, there was never any chance the United States would let Israel “attack” Iran.

In a Huffington Post article by Steven Strauss, the author quotes Netanyahu:

“‘I believe that we can now say that Israel has reached childhood’s end, that it has matured enough to begin approaching a state of self-reliance… We are going to achieve economic independence [from the United States].’ Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a Joint Session of the United States Congress – Washington D.C., July 10, 1996 (Source: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs).”

Unfortunately, today, almost 20 years later, this is not a fair statement to quote. Strauss continues: “In 1997, Israel received $3.1 billion in aid from the U.S. In 2012, Israel was still receiving $3.1 billion annually in U.S. aid.”

This, however, is not an appropriate comparison today. Let us look at the current situation: Egypt will receive $2 billion in U.S. aid; Saudi Arabia will receive military aid as well as the anti-Asad Syrian rebels; Turkey will receive billions of dollars and probably military equipment. Moreover, the United States and Europe will also reach out to Iran, and Hizballah and Syria will receive aid from Iran. In addition, the Palestinians have not made the least bit of commitment on a two-state solution. In other words, only Israel would lose. And this is the childhood’s end?

Strauss further notes, “Israel has become an affluent and developed country that can afford to pay for its own defense.” But the point is that other hostile countries will be receiving more while Israel will get the same amount.

He continues, “… Israel has a well developed economy in other ways.” But again, Israel will be placed at much more of a disadvantage.

The article’s claim, “Other countries/programs could better use this aid money,” does not state the reality.

“Even domestically, the aid that goes to Israel could be useful. Detroit is bankrupt, and our Congress is cutting back on food stamps, and making other painful budget cuts.” Again, the United States does not face an immediate threat from its neighbors, while Israel does. Moreover, this is shockingly implying that Israel is stealing money from poor people in the United States.

In other words, this is not equivalent.

“Israel and the United States have increasingly different visions about the future of the Middle East.” But again, so what? This is absolutely irrelevant.

“A major (bipartisan) goal of the United States has been the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Once again, this is a policy that is impossible, but the United States is going to try to force it on Israel anyway.

Note that the less security the United States and the West provide to Israel, the more difficult it makes it to secure or promote a desirable two-state solution. Strauss adds, “However, the current Israeli government is clearly not committed to the U.S. vision, and has done everything possible to sabotage American efforts.”

The problem with this last point is that the Palestinians have always tried to sabotage this. If this concept hasn’t gotten across in a quarter century, I can’t imagine when it will get across.

The current Israeli government has tried for many years to achieve a two-state solution and has made many concessions. And if Kerry can’t take Israel’s side on this issue, then I can’t imagine how decades of U.S. policy has been carried out. To say that the Israeli government is not committed is a fully hostile statement.

This claims Israeli settlement and not Palestinian intransigence has blocked the peace process.

Note that the author of this article has “distinguished” credentials: “Steven Strauss is an adjunct lecturer in public policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.”

Yet if this is what the U.S. government understands, it will end badly. Moreover, the issue of Iran and nuclear weapons is not the important point; rather, it is the transformation of the U.S. Middle East position that is significant. I do not believe there is any chance Iran will use nuclear weapons. The problem is that this is reversal of the U.S. policy. In other words, it is like going back to 1948 and opposing partition.

Finally, what this is all about is money and greed. Many European countries are drooling about the money to be made. For example, Vittorio Da Rold writes (Il Sole 24 ore), “Italian SMEs are hoping for a rapid agreement on the Iranian nuclear issue in order to return as soon as possible to trade without limits with Tehran and the rich Iranian market in hopes of finding new markets in a time when the European market flirts with deflation.”

Letter from the Students for Justice in Palestine (among others)

Monday, November 11th, 2013

Originally published at Rubin Reports. Several students from Students for Justice in Palestine have just written a letter to the university newspaper. They asked why Jewish students on campus weren’t open to a more moderate pro-two-state solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I will tell you the secret of why that is.

First of all, Israel has a great deal of experience, in fact, repeat experience for 50 years. Israel had many experiences that prove that the Palestinian leadership and the great majority of Palestinians are not interested in a long-term two-state solution. This is both in terms of Hamas and in terms of the Palestinian Authority. There have been tens of thousands of cases that show that both organizations want to destroy Israel.

True, Israel often wanted to give them a chance–indeed, from 1983 to 1993, it certainly tried. I remember clearly on the day the Oslo agreement was signed, I reached out to shake the hand of a Fatah official, who (even then) reluctantly accepted. Three years later, I stood on the street corner watching ambulances race to the scene of a bus terrorist attack, which was not condemned by the PA. In fact, out of many thousands of articles, I can only remember one when a PA official, a military commander, explained why terrorism was really bad for the PA.

Once at a private dinner with a PA official (who later became a PA foreign minister), he said Arafat was stupid for not agreeing to a compromise two-state solution.

Again, even many liberal and left-of -center Israelis know that peace and a two-state solution are not going to happen, at least not without a major ongoing strategic threat to Israel and also terrorism.

Certainly there are those individuals and groups open to peace with Israel, but these are mostly Turks, Kurds, Lebanese, Jordanians, Egyptians, Iranians, North African Arabs, Berbers, some Christian Arabs, and Druze.

In addition, Israel has not been given real security by the UN and Europe and most recently the United States. It has no reason to feel secure even in the furthest extent of concessions that Israel can afford to make.

Even if one is sincere, it appears there is no comprehension of what conditions Israel is facing nor of the hostility to ever accept Israel. This shows a lack of understanding of the structural situation. There is no concept or understanding of the situation, nor is any informed advice offered, yet such people want to risk the lives of Israelis.

This is ludicrous. Maybe one will come to understand in the future how ridiculous this is or perhaps this is known already.

If you would like to see into the future, here is what I predict:

  1. Hamas will continue the violent conflict and stage as many episodes of violence as possible, even if a future state of Palestine doesn’t want to. Hamas will commit terrorist acts, and the government of Palestine will not do much to stop this or punish them.
  2. Whenever a future Palestinian state indulges in violence, it will do so with state support. If Fatah or other government coalition groups engage in terrorism, it the state will usually do nothing to stop it and will deny it.
  3. The West and Europe will usually ignore violence because they want to pretend and suggest the peace process really worked.

It is unfortunately that this is true since the overwhelming majority of Israelis would prefer to have peace.

Nothing ‘Reasonable’ about Mideast Divide

Thursday, August 1st, 2013

Thanks to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decision to swallow a painful and embarrassing concession to please the Palestinians, Secretary of State John Kerry had his moment of triumph.

In announcing the start of a new round of Middle East peace talks, Kerry has seemingly justified the way he has concentrated his efforts on an issue that was not in crisis mode and with little chance of resolution while treating other more urgent problems such as Egypt, Syria, and the Iranian nuclear threat as lower priorities.

But now that he has had his victory, the focus turns to the talks where few, if any, observers think there is a ghost of a chance of that the negotiations can succeed despite Kerry’s call for “reasonable compromises.”

The reason for that is that despite the traditional American belief that the two sides can split the difference on their disagreements, as Kerry seems to want, the problem is much deeper than drawing a new line on a map.

Ironically, proof of this comes from a new poll that some are touting as evidence that both Israelis and Palestinians support a two-state solution. The poll was a joint project of the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah. It shows, among other often-contradictory results, that a majority of Israelis (62 percent) supports a two-state solution while 33 percent oppose it. Among Palestinians, 53 percent support and 46 percent oppose the two-state solution.

But the question to ask about this poll and the conflict is what the two sides mean by a two-state solution. The answer comes in a subsequent query:

We asked Israelis and Palestinians about their readiness for a mutual recognition as part of a permanent status agreement and after all issues in the conflict are resolved and a Palestinian State is established. Our current poll shows that 57% of the Israeli public supports such a mutual recognition and 37% opposes it. Among Palestinians, 42% support and 56% oppose this step.

In other words, Israelis see a two-state solution as a way to permanently end the conflict and achieve peace. But since a majority of Palestinians cannot envision mutual recognition even after all issues are resolved and they get a state, they obviously see it as merely a pause before the conflict would begin anew on terms decidedly less advantageous to Israel.

There are many reasons why the peace negotiations are likely to fail. The Palestinians are deeply split, with Gaza being ruled by the Islamists of Hamas who still won’t even contemplate talks with Israel, let alone peace. Kerry has praised Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas, but he is weak and hasn’t the ability to make a peace deal stick even in the unlikely event he signs one.

Though Netanyahu went out on a political limb to enable the talks to begin by releasing scores of Palestinian terrorists, Abbas has shown in the past that he will say no, even when offered virtually everything he has asked for. Netanyahu will rightly drive a harder bargain and refuse to contemplate a deal that involves a complete retreat to the 1967 lines or a Palestinian state that isn’t demilitarized. But it’s hard to imagine Abbas ever recognizing the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn.

The real problem, however, isn’t about where negotiators would draw those lines. As the poll indicates, even after Israel withdraws from almost all of the West Bank (reports indicate Netanyahu is ready to give up 86 percent of it), a substantial majority of Palestinians still can’t fathom the possibility of mutual recognition and normal relations.

How can that be?

The reason is very simple and is not something Kerry or his lead negotiator Martin Indyk (a veteran of numerous diplomatic failures who hasn’t seemed to learn a thing from any of them) can fix. Palestinian nationalism was born in the 20th century as a reaction to Zionism, not by focusing on fostering a separate identity and culture from that of other Arab populations. That doesn’t mean Palestinians aren’t now a separate people with their own identity, but it does explain why they see that identity as indistinguishable from the effort to make Israel disappear.

Danon Wins Internal Likud Election, Next Victory on the Way

Wednesday, June 26th, 2013

On Tuesday, Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon overwhelmingly won the elections for chairman of the Likud party convention. The position is mostly symbolic, but indicates strong support within the party.

Prime Minister originally planned to directly challenge Danon for the position, but withdrew his candidacy when he saw that Danon was likely to win.

On Sunday, elections will be held for the head of the Likud Central Committee, where Danon is also the leading candidate. His opponents are Michael Fuah, a Moshe Feiglin ally, and Ness Ziona mayor Yossi Shavo.

Danon has been an outspoken advocate for Judea and Samaria, and opposing the two-state solution. Whereas Prime Minister Netanyahu has been calling for negotiations with the Palestinians and a demilitarized Palestinian state.

Danon says he wants to reanimate, revitalize and restore the Likud’s ideology to the party.

Simultaneously, he reassured Prime Minister Netanyahu that he doesn’t plan to undermine Netanyahu, as that the Likud is loyal to its leaders. Danon said the Left have had a dozen different leaders since 1948, while the Likud has only had four.

But, as chair of the Likud Central Committee, Danon will have the power to fight and perhaps block Netanyahu’s diplomatic initiatives which he and most Likud party members disagree with.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/danon-wins-internal-likud-election-next-victory-on-the-way/2013/06/26/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: