Posted tagged ‘Palestinian state’

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Another area where Congress must be ready to oppose the president.

October 2, 2016

Another area where Congress must be ready to oppose the president, American Spectator, September 30, 2016

President Obama is rumored to be considering a major reversal of decades-long U.S. policy toward Israel by supporting a UN Security Council resolution that unilaterally recognizes a Palestinian state before a peace agreement is negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians. Congress must act to counter this bold and reckless move that endangers Israel’s security and America’s strategic interests.

There is much at stake: Israel is a free and democratic ally in a hostile region that has been repeatedly attacked by its neighbors. Before it occupied the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights in 1967, these territories were used as a base of war and terrorism against the Jewish state. Offers to create a Palestinian state in Gaza and most of the West Bank that would allow for a safe and secure Israel have been repaid by intifada after intifada.

Others have argued persuasively that any Palestinian state established in the absence of a peace agreement with Israel will become a virtually ungovernable hotbed of terrorism sure to threaten not just Israel, but also the region and the world. The events in Gaza in the past decade strongly support this position. Ordinary Palestinians will also suffer, forced to endure rule by the same Islamic fanatics and brutal, corrupt autocrats who have destroyed their economy.

A White House decision to support unilateral Palestinian statehood would unquestionably be contrary to the will of Congress: 88 senators recently signed a letter opposing such an action, while 388 members of the House have signed a similar letter supporting a veto of all “one-sided” UN resolutions concerning the Israel/Palestine issue.

And these numbers understate congressional opposition: several senators refused to sign the letter because they thought it was insufficiently strong. Furthermore, a White House reversal on unilateral Palestinian statehood would also be contrary to the stated policies of both the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees.

To dissuade a determined White House from this course of action, Congress will have to do more than write letters. Here are some of the legislative options that could throw significant roadblocks in its path.

First, Congress should make clear its intention to sanction any unilaterally-declared Palestinian state and its new leaders, blocking their access to U.S. banking and markets, similar tosanctions on the Iranian regime.  Loss of access to the U.S. financial system would be extremely costly to any Palestinian regime.

Second, Congress should make clear its intention to immediately and completely cut hundreds of millions of dollars in annual U.S. direct aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the event that President Mahmoud Abbas succeeds in his bid to win Palestinian statehood recognition at the UN.  Congress reduced this aid by 22 percent last year in retaliation for the PA’s continuing terrorism incitement.  It would be a significant blow to a new state to cut all such aid.

Third, Congress should mandate that any newly-created Palestinian state be designated a state sponsor of terrorism. This designation would include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; and various other restrictions. The Palestinian Authority (PA) currently uses a shell-game topay the families of terrorists, something Congress is currently working to stop.  Other PA ties to various terrorist activities go back decades.

Finally, Congress should review and update decades-old federal laws prohibiting U.S. funding of any UN organization that “accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the same standing as member states” to ensure that they apply and cannot be skirted if Abbas wins Security Council recognition of Palestinian statehood.

Congress should use its power boldly to exert influence over this vital issue.  Large majorities in Congress opposed the Iran nuclear deal and had both the facts and public opinion on their side. But due to the peculiarities of the law and the politics of the situation, they were outmaneuvered.  Congress should work to ensure this situation is not repeated.

Though knowledgeable and trusted congressional leaders like Senators Arthur Vandenberg and Henry “Scoop” Jackson once led coalitions in Congress that held great influence in foreign affairs, there is a bipartisan belief that Congress has shirked its duty to shape foreign policy in recent decades.  Now would be a good time to start taking it back.

Categories: Israel, Obama and Israel, Palestinian state, U.S. Congress, UN Security Council
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama Administration: A UN Resolution That Would Divide Israel And Jerusalem Is Back In Play

March 9, 2016

Obama Administration: A UN Resolution That Would Divide Israel And Jerusalem Is Back In Play

By Michael Snyder, on March 8th, 2016

Source: Obama Administration: A UN Resolution That Would Divide Israel And Jerusalem Is Back In Play

According to the Wall Street Journal, the White House is considering drastic measures to reboot the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.  Among those measures is a UN Security Council resolution that would set the parameters for a two state solution and that would recognize East Jerusalem as the official capital of a Palestinian state.  If Barack Obama makes this move, it will almost certainly be before the election in November.  I had previously reported that France was ready to introduce a similar UN Security Council resolution back in September, but at that time the French backed off because they did not have full support from the Obama administration.  But now that Obama is approaching the end of his term, he suddenly seems more willing to make a bold move.

Remember, this is not just some Internet rumor.  This comes directly from an article that was just published in the Wall Street Journal that claims to have top White House officials as the source of this information.  According to those anonymous officials, the Obama administration is now ready to potentially move forward with the kind of UN Security Council resolution that I mentioned above…

The strongest element on the list of options under consideration would be U.S. support for a Security Council resolution calling on both sides to compromise on key issues, something Israel had opposed and Washington has repeatedly vetoed in the past.

The article goes on to say that the parameters of an agreement for a two state solution would be based on the 1949 armistice line but would allow for land swaps so that many Jewish settlements that have been built since 1967 would not be swallowed up by the new Palestinian state.

The Palestinians would be required to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and East Jerusalem would receive full UN Security Council recognition as the capital of a new Palestinian state.  This is something that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promised that he would never agree to.

But Barack Obama appears to be completely fed up with Netanyahu at this point, and that is why the White House is now strongly considering moving forward with a UN Security Council resolution.  Needless to say, this would represent a dramatic change in policy from previous administrations.  Here is more from the Wall Street Journal…

Mounting a push for a Security Council resolution would be a significant shift in U.S. policy and one the Israeli government has feared could marshal international sentiment in a way that could make it harder to resist making concessions. Such a move could further strain already tense relations between Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu, who have clashed over U.S. diplomacy with Iran and the administration’s past attempts to forge a Middle East peace agreement.

Last year, the White House threatened to allow action at the U.N. to proceed without objection from the U.S. after Mr. Netanyahu said during his re-election campaign that he wouldn’t support a two-state solution. The Israeli leader subsequently walked back his statement, and the White House didn’t follow through with its threat.

Right now, 136 nations already formally recognize a Palestinian state.  But a Palestinian state has never had full UN Security Council recognition because the United States has always blocked efforts in that direction.

Many people don’t realize this, but if Obama throws his support behind such a resolution, it would be considered binding upon both the Israelis and the Palestinians.  The following comes from Israel National News…

A Security Council resolution would be binding upon all parties, unlike General Assembly measures which are non-obligatory recommendations. Such a resolution would remain in force even after the president leaves office next January, effectively shaping the future of American policy in the region for Mr. Obama’s successors.

The resolution would require Israel cease construction over the Green Line and would force Israel to recognize eastern Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.

Needless to say, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be absolutely furious if the Obama administration pushes forward with a UN Security Council resolution that would attempt to dictate a solution to the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Perhaps this explains why Netanyahu just cancelled a meeting with Barack Obama at the White House later this month…

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declined an offer to meet President Barack Obama at the White House later this month and canceled his trip to Washington, the White House said on Monday, citing Israeli news reports.

Netanyahu’s decision to nix his U.S. visit marked the latest episode in a fraught relationship with Obama that has yet to recover from their deep differences over last year’s U.S.-led international nuclear deal with Iran, Israel’s arch-foe.

Of course there are lots of reasons why Netanyahu would potentially be upset with Obama.  In addition to the ridiculously bad Iran deal, we should also remember that Obama tried to help defeat Netanyahu during the last Israeli election, and the Wall Street Journal has reported that the Obama administration has been actively spying on Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders.

Barack Obama has stabbed Israel in the back over and over again, and so it would be absolutely no surprise if he decided to push for a UN Security Council resolution that would permanently divide the land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem.

Unfortunately, such a move would have very serious implications for all of us.  By dividing the land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem, Obama would be cursing our nation, and that is not something that any of us should want.

If Obama is going to do this, it will almost certainly happen before the election in November.

That means that we are looking at roughly an eight month time period.

Personally, because of how the UN schedule works, I would say that the most likely time for such a resolution to be introduced would be in September or October.  But it is definitely possible that it could come sooner than that.

For a long time, Barack Obama has expressed a desire to see the establishment of a Palestinian state before he leaves office.  Netanyahu has always been his nemesis in this regard, but now Obama seems determined to try to make something happen at the United Nations while he still has the power to do so.

Let us pray that he is not successful.

March 8th, 2016 | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Category: Politics, World

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Abbas: Palestine a state under occupation, no longer bound by Oslo accords

September 30, 2015

Abbas: Palestine a state under occupation, no longer bound by Oslo accords ‘Our patience has come to an end,’ PA leader declares to UN, calling on international community to recognize Palestinian state; Netanyahu blasts ‘deceitful’ speech

By Itamar Sharon and Sara Miller

September 30, 2015, 7:46 pm

Source: Abbas: Palestine a state under occupation, no longer bound by Oslo accords | The Times of Israel

I see possibilities here !

 

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas addresses the 70th session of the United Nations General Assembly, at U.N. Headquarters on Sept. 30, 2015. (AP/Richard Drew)

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas addresses the 70th session of the United Nations General Assembly, at U.N. Headquarters on Sept. 30, 2015. (AP/Richard Drew)

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said Wednesday that the PA would cease to abide by agreements signed with Israel, including the 1993 Oslo accords, claiming Israel had shown that it, too, was no longer committed to them.

“So long as Israel refuses to commit to the agreements signed with us, cease settlement construction and release prisoners, Israel has left us no choice but to insist that we will not remain the only ones committed to these agreements,” Abbas told the UN General Assembly in New York.

Israel, he said, must now “fully assume all its responsibilities as an occupying power… our patience for a long time has come to an end.”

The Israeli government later rejected the speech as “deceitful” and called for renewed peace talks.

Abbas also warned in his speech that Israel was in danger of turning a political conflict into a religious one, saying that its recent actions on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount holy site represented an attempt to change the status quo there.

Abbas said “extremist Israeli groups” visiting the compound under Israeli security protection were seeking to impose a new reality and divide the compound, which is host to the al-Aqsa mosque but is also sacred to Jews as the site of two biblical temples.

He accused Israeli “occupying forces” of entering the site while preventing Muslim worshipers from exercising their religious rights.

Such policies, he warned, could lead to an “implosion” in the region.

“It is no longer useful to waste time in negotiations for the sake of negotiations; what is required is to mobilize international efforts to oversee an end to the occupation in line with the resolutions of international legitimacy,” he said. “Until then, I call upon the United Nations to provide international protection for the Palestinian people in accordance with international humanitarian law.”

Abbas said that, as opposed to Israelis, the Palestinians were a “peace-loving” people, and urged full UN recognition of a Palestinian state.

“We do not respond to the Israeli occupation’s hatred and brutality with the same,” he claimed. “Instead, we are working on spreading the culture of peace and coexistence between our people and in our region, and we are anxious to realize it and to witness the day when all of the people in our region will enjoy peace, security, stability and prosperity.”

He alleged that world nations that do not support the recognition of a Palestinian state at the UN and other international platforms were in fact encouraging extremists in Israel, “making them believe that they are above the law.”

He accused the Israeli government of continuing “its illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank, especially occupied East Jerusalem.”

The Jewish state, he added, “continues its blockade of the Gaza Strip, thus deepening the immense suffering of the people there, in defiance of UN resolutions and agreement signed between the two sides.”

Abbas called for an end to the “humiliating” checkpoints in the West Bank and said “racist, terrorist, colonial settlement” was destroying the two-state solution.

“How does a nation that claims to be a bastion of democracy accept the existence of ‘price tag’ gangs?” he asked, referring to attacks by right-wing extremists against Palestinian civilians, which Israeli leaders have said constitute Jewish terrorism.

“Is it not time for racism to end? For Israeli checkpoints in our land to be removed? For the blockade of Gaza to be removed so that our people can move freely in their homeland? Is it not time to demolish the settlements that are ruining the two-state solution? Is it not time for Palestinian prisoners to know freedom and meet their families and communities?

“All of the crimes against our people…have passed without punishment. For how long will Israel remain above international law and without accountability?”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Abbas’s speech to the UN distorted the truth, and accused the PA president of having no intention of making peace with Israel.

“[Abbas’s] speech is deceitful and encourages incitement and disaster in the Middle East,” he said in a statement. “Unlike the Palestinians, Israel strictly adheres to the status quo on the Temple Mount, and is committed to continuing to do so in accordance with the agreements between Israel and Jordan and the Waqf. We expect and urge the [Palestinian] Authority and its leader to act responsibly and accept the offer by the prime minister of Israel to hold direct negotiations with Israel without preconditions. The fact that he time and again has not responded is the best proof there is that he has no intention of reaching a peace agreement.”

In an opinion piece published in the Huffington Post ahead of the speech, Abbas called for a multilateral peace initiative and accused the nations of the world of abandoning the Palestinian people and leaving them to suffer Israeli “ethnic cleansing” that was, he said, worse than apartheid.

“Palestine has languished on the UN agenda since the organization’s inception,” Abbas wrote. “This persistent neglect has cost too many lives, dampened hope, undermined international law and stained the reputation of the UN.”

In the run-up to the event speculation abounded that Abbas could rattle relations with Israel by making various bold declarations such as ending the ongoing security coordination with Israel, declaring the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority, or announcing his own resignation.

The speech is set to be followed by a ceremony marking the raising of the Palestinian flag at the United Nations, a highly symbolic move hailed by Ramallah as a milestone in the Palestinians’ drive for statehood.

Critics in Israel, the US and elsewhere have derided the move as unhelpful toward peace efforts, but Abbas in his Huffington Post piece blamed moribund peace talks on “Israel’s pursuit of reckless policies,” a likely reference to Israeli settlement building.

Israel Radio reported on Wednesday that Hamas and the Islamic Jihad had called on Abbas to use the speech to abandon the Oslo Accords that created the Palestinian Authority and have been the basis for cooperation with Israel ever since. The report cited Nabil Shaath, a senior Palestinian negotiator, as saying that Abbas knows a one-sided commitment to the accords is pointless.

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he would use his speech at the UN the day after Abbas to call on the Palestinian Authority to desist from “gross lies” and “wild incitement” over the Temple Mount, saying Israel was committed to the status quo at the holy site.

Stuart Winer contributed to this report.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

The West has dealt itself a weak hand in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

February 24, 2015

The West has dealt itself a weak hand in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

By Ted Belman

February 24, 2015

via Articles: The West has dealt itself a weak hand in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

 

The Western countries have dealt themselves a weak hand, yet they are going all in. Israel need only call their bluff.  The pot they hope to win is an agreement, misnamed as a peace agreement, which will establish a Palestinian state on the ’67 borders with Jerusalem as its capital. But there are no takers on either side of the ’67 lines.

To win this pot, the EU is threatening Israel with sanctions and with an amendment to the existing Free Trade Agreement. They are also threatening to reduce economic cooperation. They want Israel to stop building settlements in places that will make the two state solution untenable. So far they have accomplished nothing with the threats and I venture to say if they implement their plans, Israel will initiate moves of its own.

Israel could call their bluff by building in such places. Israel can take the heat. The EU is trying to apply sanctions only against products built in Judea and Samaria (West Bank).  This will hurt the Palestinians more than anyone and Israel has alternate markets for their products.

Israel could also up the ante by threating to prohibit European venture capital from making deals for Israeli innovations. China, India, Japan, Singapore and others are already lined up and anxious to take a seat at the table.  And Israeli trade with these countries is increasing exponentially and deals are being made. Israel’s trade with China has now exceeded her trade with the US.

Tony Blair, the EU’s economic envoy, recently visited Gaza for two hours and said. “You could lock Israeli-PA negotiators in room for eternity and peace would not come.” He laid out three preconditions to a “successful peace process.”

  •  “dramatic and broad improvement” in the daily lives of Palestinians
  •  “unified Palestinian politics” that “explicitly is in favor of peace and two states, meaning a sovereign State of Palestine and a secure, accepted State of Israel.”
  • “an enhanced role for the region, in alliance with the international community, which must step up to share leadership of the issue.”

None of these things are about to happen.  That he is putting his money on these things, shows how bad a bet they are making. But he also laid the blame on Hamas and said they had to change.

Meanwhile the US is expressing concern that the PA may disappear soon due to its desperate need for money.

“It’s true we’re very concerned about the continued viability of the Palestinian Authority if they do not receive funds soon,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters.

The present shortage of funds is due entirely to the decisions and policies of the Palestinians. First of all 30% of their budget is usually covered by the international community. Yet they have no interest in living within their means or decreasing their dependency on foreign aid. In fact, their actions have resulted in this aid being curtailed.  The US which provides about $400 million in yearly aid has now made the aid conditional on them not joining the International Criminal Court on April 1/15 as they intend. They were also penalized for joining UNESCO.

Because of the expressed intent of the PA to join the ICC, Israel has withheld $128 million now due them for taxes and customs collected by Israel for them. Europe has charged that Israel is breaking the Oslo Accords by doing so. From Israel’s point of view, she feels entitled to impound this money and to apply it in part payment of the $400 million due to the Israel Electric Corporation from the PA for the supply of electricity. The PA never pays this bill and demands the electricity for nothing, which they are not entitled to.

Their dire straits are due in large measure to their expenditures on salaries and pensions to terrorists, their embassies and consulates around the world, their propaganda war against Israel, their graft and corruption, their bloated government personnel and so on and so forth. The world refuses to hold them really accountable which it could if it wanted to, by simply demanding that these things change as a precondition to financing. So far the aid donors haven’t even threatened to do so.

Hamas did its part by starting the war last summer. The IMF reported last month that the war between Israel and Gaza drove the Arab economies of Gaza, Judea and Samaria into their first contraction since 2006.

Meanwhile the world has yet to make good on $5.4 billion promised at a Cairo conference in October to help rebuild Gaza. The main reason that the money has not been forthcoming is that Hamas stands in the way as Blair’s remarks above indicated. The money was supposed to be paid to the PA who were to be responsible for using it to rebuild Gaza and in part to cover part of their budget deficit.

At a recent conference, Israel’s FM Yaalon said “We tried to enable the Palestinian Authority to enter the Gaza Strip and they did not want to.”  Instead, “they ran away.” “They are good at blaming us in the UN Security Council and in the ICC, but when they need to take responsibly they are gone.”

The hand that the west has is lousy due in large part to the policies of Obama in the region. He has destabilized the region by his embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood and of the Mullahs in Iran. His efforts to bring Gadhafi down have resulted in a civil war in Libya, the proliferation of weapons available to Islamists, the murder of the American Ambassador and three other American personnel and finally in a threat to Egypt. His retreat from Iraq paved the way for the rise of ISIS and the increased influence of Iran in Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

He supported the removal of Mubarak so that Morsi and the Brotherhood could come to power in Egypt. Fortunately the Egyptian people rose up against Morsi and the Egyptian Army took over installing Gen el Sisi as the leader. Notwithstanding this coup, Obama continues to back the Brotherhood and in doing so has alienated Egypt who is now buying arms from Russia with Saudi money. Egypt in now fighting ISIS in Libya and the Sinai and Hamas in Sinai. It is a serious war.

His decision to lift much of the sanctions on Iran that were working, and instead to embrace Iran as a regional power, has made the likelihood of a good deal with Iran which prevents it from being a nuclear threshold state, all the more improbable.

These actions have resulted in a growing informal defense pact, between Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Israel, all of whom find Obama’s choice of friends as an existential threat. They are meeting secretly, talking regularly by phone and coordinating their actions. A case in point is the united front that Egypt and Israel maintained in the Gaza war last summer, effectively freezing out Obama and Qatar. Currently, King Abdullah has declared war on ISIS and Israel has pledged to defend Jordan should it be necessary.

In addition, Israel is now faced with an imminent threat from Hezb’allah on Israel’s border with Syria.

Giving all that is happening around them, does anyone really believe that a deal will be agreed upon, especially a deal that requires Israel to return to the Auschwitz border (’67 Lines) and allow full sovereignty to the Palestinians.

I suspect that the West now understand that the cards they hold are lousy and that all the bets they made on them will be lost.

Ted Belman is the publisher of Israpundit

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Italy to vote on recognition of Palestinian state

February 19, 2015

Italy to vote on recognition of Palestinian state

Ruling Democratic Party of PM Matteo Renzi said to be ready to back motion in effort to restart peace talks between Israel, PA

By Times of Israel staff February 19, 2015, 6:02 am

via Italy to vote on recognition of Palestinian state | The Times of Israel.

 

Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi speaks to journalists as he leaves at the end of an European Council leaders summit at the European Union (EU) Headquarters in Brussels, on February 12, 2015. (Photo credit: AFP/THIERRY CHARLIER)

Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi speaks to journalists as he leaves at the end of an European Council leaders summit at the European Union (EU) Headquarters in Brussels, on February 12, 2015. (Photo credit: AFP/THIERRY CHARLIER)

 

The Italian parliament was set to vote on a non-binding bill calling for the recognition of a Palestinian state, following similar initiatives last year by France, Britain, Ireland, Portugal and Spain. The Swedish government formally recognized a Palestinian state in October.

Italian lawmakers may vote on the motion put forth by MPs from the Left Ecology Freedom and the Socialist Party as soon as Thursday. Prime Minister Matteo Renzi’s Democratic Party was reportedly ready to back the initiative, according to the International Business Times.

The bill urges the government “to recognize the state of Palestine so that negotiations to reach a two-state solution are restarted.”

In December, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly to recognize a Palestinian state “in principle.”

The motion was a watered-down version of an original resolution which had urged EU member states to recognize a Palestinian state unconditionally. Lawmakers approved the motion by 498 votes to 88 with 111 abstentions.

A bid by the Palestinian Authority to the UN Security Council asking for a resolution backing a Palestinian state on the pre-1967 lines and an Israeli withdrawal to those lines by 2017 was shot down in December.

The Palestinian Authority estimates that 135 countries have now recognized Palestine as a state, although that number is disputed and several recognitions by EU member states date back to the Soviet era.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: ,

Comments: 5 Comments

Imperialism, Obama style

December 20, 2014

Imperialism, Obama style, Dan Miller’s Blog, December 20, 2014

Obama condemns “wicked” U.S. imperialism for supporting American values such as freedom and democracy abroad. Simultaneously, he tries to precipitate “regime change” in Israel so that she will support His values and those of Palestinians rather than American and Israeli values of freedom and democracy.

The Palestinians have placed before the United Nations Security Council a “peace proposal” intended to force Israel to agree to creation of a Palestinian state and “an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines” by the end of 2017. Secretary Kerry has argued that the matter should not be considered until after the Israeli Knesset elections in March. According to an article in Foreign Policy,

Speaking at an annual luncheon with the 28 European Union ambassadors, Kerry cautioned that any action by the U.N. Security Council would strengthen the hands of Israeli hardliners who oppose the peace process. . . . [Emphasis added.]

“Kerry has been very, very clear that for the United States it was not an option to discuss whatever text before the end of the Israeli election,” according to a European diplomat.

The diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the luncheon was confidential, said that Kerry explained that Israel’s liberal political leaders, Shimon Peres and Tipzi Livni, had expressed concern that a Security Council move to pressure Israel on the eve of election would only strengthen the hands of Israeli hardliners, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Naftali Bennett, an implacable foe of a Palestinian state and leader of the right-wing Jewish Home party. Netanyahu is also fiercely opposed to the Palestinians effort to secure Security Council backing for its statehood drive. [Emphasis added.]

Kerry said Livni had “told him that such a text imposed by the international community would reinforce Benjamin Netanyahu and the hardliners in Israel,” as well as the hardliners in Palestine, according to the European diplomat.

The message, said another European diplomat, was that U.N. action would “give more impetus to more right-wing parties, that there was a risk this could further embolden the more right-wing forces along the Israeli political spectrum.” [Emphasis added.]

Kerry’s remarks highlight the Obama administration’s delicate balancing act when it comes to its tense relationship with the Israeli government. On the one hand, senior  administration officials make little attempt to hide the personal dislike between Netanyahu and President Barack Obama or their sharp disagreements on issues ranging from the peace process to Iran. On the other hand, Kerry and other top policymakers have tried to avoid saying or doing anything that could be seen as meddling in the Israeli election in an effort to oust Netanyahu and replace him with a more centrist prime minister. [Emphasis added.]

On an open microphone in March of 2012, Obama

told Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more flexibility after November’s election to deal with contentious issues such as missile defence. . . .

Obama’s candid remark was considered a gaffe because He made it assuming that the microphone had been turned off and that no one other than Medvedev would hear Him. Kerry, however, candidly but intentionally told twenty-eight European Union ambassadors that it is U.S. policy to encourage the Israeli left, to diminish the Israeli right and to make it more difficult for Prime Minister Netanyahu to remain in office. Aside from his incredible naivete, why did Kerry do that?

For Obama and European leaders, Israel is reducible to the peace process. And the Israeli left depends on the support of foreign governments for its network of foreign funded non-profit organizations. The Israeli left can’t let go of its exploding version of ObamaCare [Palestine] because the left is becoming a foreign organization with limited domestic support. Its electorate isn’t in Israel; it’s in Brussels. [Emphasis and bracketed insert added.]

. . . .

Escalating a crisis in relations has been the traditional way for US administrations to force Israeli governments out of office. Bill Clinton did it to Netanyahu and as Israeli elections appear on the horizon Obama would love to do it all over again.

There’s only one problem.

The United States is popular in Israel, but Obama isn’t. Obama’s spats with Netanyahu ended up making the Israeli leader more popular. The plan was for Obama to gaslight Israelis by maintaining a positive image in Israel while lashing out at the Jewish State so that the blame would fall on Netanyahu. [Emphasis added.]

Kerry’s remarks — covered by Israeli media — seem, contrary to his intentions, likely to enhance the chances of Israeli “hardliners” on the “right,” to hurt the chances of those on the left and hence to increase PM Netanyahu’s chances of remaining in office. Even leaving that aside, how will Kerry’s remarks favoring regime change be viewed by other increasingly reluctant U.S. allies in the Middle East?

Israeli “hardliners” have already yielded to the Palestinians as much as, if not more than, they can without greatly endangering the security of Israel because there is no Palestinian entity with which peace can be made other than through Israel’s suicide.

The remarks of the Islamic preacher at the mosque in Jerusalem reflect a general Palestinian view.

Interestingly, the speaker doesn’t mention the longing for Palestinian statehood or independence. Instead, he talks of the establishment of the “Islamic Caliphate.” “Oh Allah’” he states, “Hasten the establishment of the State of the Islamic Caliphate,” and further rants, “Oh Allah hasten the pledge of allegiance to the Muslim Caliph.” He spews forth the latter statement three times to chants of “Amen!” from the large, approving crowd congregating around him.

These comments, which would register horror and revulsion in the West (at least in some quarters) are almost banal among Palestinians. In fact, a similar video featuring a different speaker some days earlier at the same venue, conveyed identical sentiment, expressing admiration for the Islamic State and calling for murder of Jews and annihilation of America. [Emphasis added.]

Here’s the other video referenced in the article:

Guttural anti-Semitism is ingrained and interwoven in the fabric of Palestinian society. Despite their minuscule numbers, 78% of Palestinians believe that Jews are responsible for most of the world’s wars while a whopping 88% believe that Jews control the global media and still more believe that Jews wield too much power in the business world. [Emphasis added.]

Much of the blame for this can be placed squarely on the doorstep of Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority, which subjects the Palestinian population to a steady diet of hate-filled, Judeophobic rhetoric through state-controlled media and educational institutions. It is so well entrenched that the process of deprogramming, if it were ever attempted, would take generations to reverse. [Emphasis added.]

As noted in the Wall Street Journal article linked in the quote immediately above,

To understand why peace in Palestine is years if not decades away, consider the Palestinian celebrations after Tuesday’s murder in a Jerusalem synagogue of five Israelis, including three with joint U.S. citizenship. Two Palestinian cousins armed with meat cleavers and a gun attacked worshipers during morning prayers, and the response was jubilation in the streets.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility, while Hamas praised the murders as a “response to continued Israeli crimes.” The main obstacle to peace isn’t Jewish settlements in the multireligious city of Jerusalem. The barrier is the culture of hatred against Jews that is nurtured by Palestinian leaders. [Emphasis added.]

Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas condemned the killings, but not without calling for Israel to halt what he called “invasions” of the holy Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Mr. Abbas has previously said the Temple Mount was being “contaminated” by Jews, despite assurances by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque are for Muslim worship only. The Memri news service reports that the Oct. 29 issue of the Palestinian daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida was full of false accusations that Israel is damaging Jerusalem’s holy sites. [Emphasis added.]

Moreover,

An overwhelming majority of Palestinian Arabs support the recent spate of terrorist attacks against Israelis, an opinion poll released Tuesday finds, according to The Associated Press (AP).[Emphasis added.]

The poll also found that more than half of Palestinian Arabs support a new “intifada” (uprising) against Israel, and that Hamas would win presidential elections if they were held today. [Emphasis added.]

Palestinian Arab pollster Khalil Shikaki said the results reflected anger over Israeli statements about Jerusalem, as well as a loss of hope following the collapse of U.S.-brokered peace talks and Israel’s recent war with Hamas in Gaza.

Shikaki heads the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, which interviewed 1,270 people in the Palestinian Authority-assigned areas of Judea and Samaria and Gaza last week. The poll had an error margin of 3 percentage points.

“There is an environment in which violence is becoming a dominant issue,” Shikaki told AP. “This seems to be one of the most important driving forces.”

Hamas is, if possible, even worse than Abbas’ Palestinian Authority.

Both Hamas and Abbas’ Palestinian Authority seek the death of Israeli Jews and the destruction of Israel, the only democratic and free nation in the Middle East. Kerry’s ill-conceived efforts to assist them at the expense of Israel, most recently by actively seeking to promote Israel’s left wing, to diminish its right wing and hence to empower Palestinians intent upon the death of Israel, may well fail. Succeed or fail, those efforts are consistent with Obama’s preference for Islamic dictators over democracy coupled with freedom.

Barack Mitsvah

Categories: Abbas, Antisemitism, Caliphate, European Union, Foreign policy, Gaza, Hamas, Iran, Islam, Islamic jihad, Islamic slaughter, Israel, Israeli elections, Jewish occupation of Israel, Kerry, Leftists, Middle East, Netanyahu, Obama, Palestinians, Peace process, Settlements, Two state solution
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Palestinian UN bid is an ‘act of war,’ minister charges

December 18, 2014

Palestinian UN bid is an ‘act of war,’ minister charges

Yuval Steinitz says Israel may have to mull dismantling PA after draft statehood resolution submitted to Security Council

By Times of Israel staff December 18, 2014, 8:46 am

via Palestinian UN bid is an ‘act of war,’ minister charges | The Times of Israel.

Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz addresses the seventh Annual INSS conference in Tel Aviv, Wednesday, January 29, 2014 (photo credit: Gideon Markowicz/Flash90)

Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz addresses the seventh Annual INSS conference in Tel Aviv, Wednesday, January 29, 2014 (photo credit: Gideon Markowicz/Flash90)

he submission overnight Wednesday of a Palestinian-sponsored UN draft resolution calling for a peace deal within a year, and demanding an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines by the end of 2017, drew a spate of condemnations by Israeli ministers.

Yuval Steinitz, the Israeli minister of intelligence, international relations and strategic affairs, said Thursday morning that the Palestinian draft resolution was an “act of war.”

“The Palestinians made sure to remove any mention of Israel’s status as a Jewish state from the draft, which means this is not an act of peace, it’s an act of war,” he told Israel Radio.

Steinitz called for Israel to weigh a harsh response, including cutting off ties with the Palestinian Authority and even dismantling it.

“We need to consider every move including cutting off economic ties with the PA and stopping the transfer of taxes collected on its behalf,” he said.

“If the PA continues to incite against us, against our existence, against the Jewish nation, if it [continues to] take unilateral action, we need to respond not just in the international sphere but also in the Palestinian sphere and to consider, if there is no other choice, dismantling the [Palestinian] Authority,” he added.

Steinitz said that if the terms of the Palestinian bid are adopted by the international community, it will precipitate a Hamas and Islamic State takeover of the West Bank.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman (Yisrael Beytenu) said the PA’s UN bid served no real purpose, and urged the Security Council to address more pressing matters rather than be taken up with “Palestinian gimmicks.”

“[Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud] Abbas is undertaking actions with the sole purpose of taunting Israel. They serve no real purpose for the Palestinian people. On the contrary, these actions will only worsen the conflict and will not advance a peace deal because without Israel’s agreement, nothing will change [on the ground],” he said in a statement.

“The Security Council is better served dealing with issues of true importance in the world, like how to handle the deadly terror we saw this week in Australia and Pakistan. Or the Syrian civil war, or Libya, and not waste its time on Palestinian gimmicks,” he added.

Housing Minister Uri Ariel (Jewish Home) said Israel should respond with a construction boom in Jerusalem and the West Bank.

In a Facebook post, Ariel urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop the “silent construction freeze” and strengthen Israeli sovereignty in the capital and in the West Bank. “Judea and Samaria are part of Israel and as legitimate as Tel Aviv and Haifa and instead of apologizing, we should state that clearly,” he wrote.

Overnight Wednesday, the Palestinians submitted a UN draft resolution setting a 12-month deadline to reach a final peace deal with Israel and the end of 2017 as the date for completing an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines.

The text obtained by AFP said a “just, lasting and comprehensive peace solution that brings an end to the Israeli occupation” and “fulfills the vision” of a Palestinian state should be reached no later than 12 months after the adoption of the resolution.

It also defined a series of parameters for the negotiated solution including a phased Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories according to a timeframe “not to exceed the end of 2017.”

The Palestinian representative to the UN said there could still be negotiations on the text.

The draft was presented to the UN Security Council by fellow Arab member Jordan, envoy Riyad Mansour told reporters, thanking Arab and European nations for their help and indicating he would not press for a quick vote on the text, to allow for more discussion.

The Palestinians had earlier said they wanted a quick vote on the draft resolution but they backed down, apparently under pressure from fellow Arab states including Jordan, which is still seeking a draft that will be acceptable to the United States.

US Secretary of State John Kerry said earlier that Washington had “no problem” with Palestinians moving to boost their hopes for statehood, providing it doesn’t heighten tensions.

The US diplomat insisted “we haven’t seen the language yet, we don’t know precisely what was filed,” adding that Washington had been “troubled by some of the language that had been out there at different points of time.”

Kerry only returned Wednesday from a whirlwind three-day trip to Europe, where he sought to head off a showdown at the United Nations.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki refused to respond to Palestinian claims that Kerry had told Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat that Washington would veto a resolution, which the Palestinians said they had asked Jordan to submit on their behalf.

Israel fiercely opposes any suggestion that the Security Council impose terms for a Palestinian state, insisting on bilateral negotiations. Talks initiated by Kerry last year broke down in the spring after the two sides couldn’t agree on the ground rules.

The Palestinian push at the Security Council is largely symbolic, but comes amid growing international pressure for Palestinian statehood which has seen a series of European parliaments vote to ask their governments to recognize a Palestinian state.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is under domestic pressure to take steps toward statehood after US-led negotiations with Israel hit a dead end. Israel has refused to resume talks with Abbas so long as he is partnered with Hamas, the Islamist terror group that rules Gaza, in a so-called Palestinian unity government. Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Abbas Shuts the Door to Negotiations with Israel

December 7, 2014

Abbas Shuts the Door to Negotiations with Israel

Lt. Col. (ret.) Jonathan D. Halevi,

December 4, 2014

via Abbas Shuts the Door to Negotiations with Israel.

 

Institute for Contemporary Affairs
Founded jointly with the Wechsler Family Foundation

Vol. 14, No. 39       December 4, 2014

  • On Nov. 29, the Arab League approved a political action plan by PA President Mahmoud Abbas aimed at imposing the establishment of a Palestinian state without any political compromise on the Palestinians’ part. Jordan, currently the only Arab member of the UN Security Council, will submit a resolution to the Council along the lines of Abbas’ plan in the coming days.
  • The plan involves internationalizing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by having the Security Council fix a date for the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines with east Jerusalem as its capital.
  • Abbas, who claimed there was no longer an Israeli partner for a political settlement, said his plan includes having the “state of Palestine” join international conventions and organizations, particularly the International Criminal Court in The Hague, and requesting the UN to provide protection to the Palestinian people.
  • Abbas’ political plan shuts the door to any possibility of reaching a political settlement through negotiations with Israel. The conditions he has presented for resuming negotiations impose terms on Israel with no reciprocity from the Palestinians in the context of a political compromise.
  • Abbas is trying to exert pressure on the U.S., the international community, and Israel simultaneously. Abbas hopes to goad the international community into forcing Israel to recognize a sovereign Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines without a peace agreement being signed.
  • The Palestinian Authority is determined, even at the price of a run-in with the U.S. and Israel, to advance a unilateral political process that is aimed against Israel. The rioting and terror in Jerusalem and the West Bank, which are being encouraged by the Palestinian Authority, serve as a form of pressure on Israel and are also aimed at spurring the international community’s intervention.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas - The Palestinian Authority Presses Its Unilateral Process against Israel

On November 29, 2014, the Arab Peace Initiative Committee of the Arab League Council approved a political-action plan submitted by Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), “president of the state of Palestine,” which aims to “bring an end to the Israeli occupation of lands of the state of Palestine.”1 An announcement published at the end of the meeting held in Cairo said the issue had been transferred to the Arab League Council appropriate action.2  A diplomatic official told the Al Arabiya network that Jordan, currently the only Arab member of the UN Security Council, will submit in the coming days a proposal for a resolution along the lines of Abbas’ plan.3

The political plan Abbas presented was detailed in a speech he gave to the Arab League Council.4 The plan involves internationalizing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by submitting a proposal for a resolution to the Security Council, whereby the Security Council would fix a date for the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines with east Jerusalem as its capital.

In his speech Abbas, who claimed there was no longer an Israeli partner for a political settlement, set forth the other components of his plan. They include: the “state of Palestine” joining international conventions and organizations, particularly the International Criminal Court in The Hague and a conference of states parties to the Geneva conventions, where one of the resolutions would be to declare the conventions applicable to the state of Palestine;” requesting the United Nations to provide protection to the Palestinian people; and a diplomatic effort to convince additional states to recognize the “state of Palestine.”

Abbas’ political plan shuts the door to any possibility of reaching a political settlement through negotiations with Israel. Whereas Abbas conveys to the world at large that he remains committed to the path of negotiations, the conditions he has presented for resuming them entail imposing terms on Israel with no reciprocity from the Palestinians in the context of a political compromise.

Abbas says Palestinian conditions for renewing the talks include: ending construction in the settlements, freeing the fourth group of Palestinian prisoners (terrorists who are Israeli citizens and are serving prison sentences), withdrawing IDF forces from parts of Area A in the West Bank that are supposed to be under the Palestinian Authority’s full security control, and Israeli agreement to negotiate with the Palestinians on making the 1967 lines the border between the state of Israel and the state of Palestine.

Abbas’ Pressure Tactics Include Violence

Abbas is trying to exert pressure on the United States, the international community, and Israel simultaneously. He told the Arab League Council that he sees no need to wait for the results of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s attempt to bridge the Israeli and Palestinian positions, and that, if the United States vetoes the resolution in the Security Council, he would then reassess relations with Israel, end security cooperation with it (which is aimed at preventing terror), and transfer control of the “state of Palestine” to Israel, which he called “the occupying state.” By means of that scenario – which could foster political and security chaos leading to an Israeli-Palestinian confrontation (a third intifada) that would have a regional and international impact – Abbas hopes to goad the international community into forcing Israel to fulfill the Palestinian condition of recognizing a sovereign Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines, without a peace agreement being signed.

Thus the Palestinian Authority is determined, even at the price of a run-in with the United States and Israel, to advance a unilateral political process that is aimed against Israel and has the full support of the Arab League. The rioting and terror in Jerusalem and the West Bank, which are being encouraged by the Palestinian Authority, serve this political process as a form of pressure on Israel and also are aimed at spurring the international community’s intervention. Abbas not only has not condemned the wave of Palestinian anti-Israeli terror but, in traditional fashion, his speeches have reiterated the formula of “praise to the pure martyrs, freedom to the heroic prisoners, and rapid recovery to the heroic wounded.” What this adds up to is backing for every Palestinian who takes part in the struggle against Israel, including terrorist murderers.

The unilateral Palestinian political process marks the launching of an all-out political campaign against Israel accompanied by terror that could develop into an armed intifada. In relation to the international community Abbas has a supreme interest in maintaining the tenuous unity agreement with Hamas, since it indicates that the Palestinian Authority exercises rule (actually only apparent) over Gaza as well. Hamas, the real and unquestioned ruler of Gaza, is extending a rope to Abbas because it sees him as a means, in the international sphere, of attaining the “liberation” of the West Bank, which Hamas wants to take over in a similar way that it drove Fatah from Gaza in the summer of 2007. Hence, for the time being, Hamas is not likely to initiate hostilities with Israel from Gaza, and most of the terror effort will be directed at the West Bank and, from it, at Israel, while continuing to rehabilitate and build up terror infrastructures and military capabilities in Gaza.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

French FM: Last chance for Mideast peace through talks

November 28, 2014

French FM: Last chance for Mideast peace through talks

Fabius says France seeks to host international talks for deal within two years; MPs end debate on Palestine recognition, vote set for Tuesday

By AFP November 28, 2014, 2:38 pm

via French FM: Last chance for Mideast peace through talks | The Times of Israel.

 


French Foreign Affairs minister Laurent Fabius at the French National Assembly in Paris, November 28, 2014 (Photo credit: Patrick Kovarick/AFP)

 

ARIS, France — France’s foreign minister Friday urged the international community to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within two years, as the French parliament debated whether to recognize a Palestinian state.

“At the United Nations, we are working with our partners to adopt a Security Council resolution to relaunch and conclude talks. A deadline of two years is the one most often mentioned and the French government can agree with this figure,” Laurent Fabius told MPs.

The Palestinians are planning to formally submit to the UN Security Council a draft resolution calling for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank in 2016.

Fabius said that France is prepared to host international talks in a bid to push forward a drive for peace.

“An international conference could be organized, France is prepared to take the initiative on this and in these talks, recognition [of the Palestinian state] would be an instrument … for the definitive resolution of the conflict,” he said.

Fabius did not specify when this conference, also mentioned late Thursday by French President Francois Hollande, might take place, nor did he say who might be invited.

Nevertheless, he said France hoped to bring together all the main players in the conflict, citing the European Union, the Arab League and all the permanent members of the UN Security Council.

“If these efforts fail. If this last attempt at a negotiated settlement does not work, then France will have to do its duty and recognize the state of Palestine without delay and we are ready to do that,” stressed Fabius.

The minister has frequently said that France would recognize a Palestinian state “when the time comes,” arguing that a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict logically implies recognition of a Palestinian state.

Earlier Friday, French MPs held a two-hour debate on a non-binding, symbolic motion on whether to recognize Palestine. The motion will be voted on Tuesday and is expected to pass.

The vote follows similar resolutions approved by British lawmakers on October 13, Spanish MPs on November 18 and the formal recognition by Sweden on October 30.

On Thursday Hollande said that France has a role to play in renewing stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and was seeking to organize an international peace conference for the purpose.

French President Francois Hollande addressing the nation, on May 26, 2014 during a TV broadcast at the Elysee presidential Palace in Paris. (photo credit: AFP/FRANCE 2)
 

“France must take the initiative to find a diplomatic solution” to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict “that has been going on for decades,” the French president said in an interview to France 24, TV5 Monde and RFI.

On Wednesday, the EU Parliament debated whether to issue recognition and is set to vote sometime in December.

In the debate, European Parliament members appeared sharply divided on what policy to endorse. One lawmaker branded Israel “a state of child killers and land robbers,” while another likened a Palestinian state to the Islamic State terrorist group.

Brokered by the US, Israeli-Palestinian peace talks restarted in July 2013 but collapsed in April, with tensions and violence mounting again dramatically in recent weeks.

There has been international alarm over a spate of deadly terror attacks carried out by Palestinians inside Israel along with rioting in East Jerusalem and the deadlock over peace talks that are fueling fear of another flare-up after the Israel-Hamas war earlier this year.

AP contributed to this report.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The world’s illogical rush to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian State

November 28, 2014

The world’s illogical rush to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian State | Anne’s Opinions, 27th November 2014

 

Dry Bones’ excellent political insight into the Two State Solution

Following the brouhaha over Israel’s declaration of the country as “the Jewish State“, and the international and domestic opposition to such a law, despite the Prime Minister’s vow to uphold democracy and minority rights, you would think that there would be similar opposition to unilateral recognition of a Palestinian State, especially one that has specifically stated will not allow a single Israeli to reside there. But you would be wrong.

Last month Sweden became the first country to officially recognize the State of Palestine. The UK has already voted last month to “recommend recognizing the State of Palestine” – albeit solely a “recommendation” rather than actual recognition; last week Spain voted – symbolically – to recognize Palestine – davka on the day of the Jerusalem synagogue massacre; and a similar vote is going to take place in France, though there are doubts it will pass, and in Denmark. And while the Germans, of all nations, object to the recognition of the Palestinian State, the EU have been debating the issue today.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu commented on Israeli opposition to unilateral recognition of Palestine after the Spanish vote:

Speaking Sunday with Germany’s foreign minister, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called similar resolutions that passed the British and Irish parliaments this fall counterproductive, saying the “the calls… to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state pushed peace backwards.”

“They don’t tell the Palestinians that they have to make their peace with a nation-state for the Jewish people,” he said. They just give the Palestinians a nation-state.”

Today’s debate at the EU was a bitter one:

New EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini called on Israel and the Palestinians Wednesday to resume direct peace talks, as the European Parliament debated whether to recognize a Palestinian state.

“The sense of urgency is getting higher and higher in the absence of a political context,” Mogherini told lawmakers at the start of what she said was a “timely” debate. “There has to be a direct dialogue.”

I have yet to hear a reasoned explanation for the sense of urgency in recognizing what will be in essence a terrorist state. I also eagerly await an explanation of how such recognition will enable negotiations. Surely recognition of a Palestinian state will bring a full stop to any negotiations, for after all, what will be left to negotiate?

In Wednesday’s debate, European Parliament members appeared sharply divided on what policy to endorse. One lawmaker branded Israel “a state of child killers and land robbers,” while another likened a Palestinian state to the Islamic State terrorist group.

If the Europeans can’t agree amongst themselves how to define Israel and the Palestinians (and what antisemitic terms they use to describe Israel!), how can they possibly expect Israel and the Palestinians to be able to negotiate existential questions?

But the sort of good news:

A vote, originally expected Thursday, was put off until December.

A month is a long time in politics.

As for Germany’s objections to unilateral recognition, thank goodness for Angela Merkel’s steady hand at the wheel:

Germany, Israel’s closest European ally and the EU’s most powerful member, is a leading opponent of recognizing Palestinian statehood before Israel does. To do so, German officials say, would do more harm than good.

Chancellor Angela Merkel said Friday it was better to focus on getting Israel-Palestinian talks going again, although “that appears very difficult in the current conditions.” She added that “we also believe that unilateral recognition of the Palestinian state won’t move us forward.”

A partial answer to my questions above about the urgency of unilateral recognition comes here:

There has been international alarm over a spate of deadly terror attacks carried out by Palestinians inside Israel along with rioting in East Jerusalem and the deadlock over peace talks that are fueling fear of another flareup after the Israel-Hamas war earlier this year.

But that still does not make sense. Does anyone really think that granting, or recognizing, Palestinian statehood will make them more peaceful? On the contrary. From past experience, any time the Palestinians achieve a political goal without effort, they take that as a reward for their violent behaviour and only increase their terrorist activities. As Israeli ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor said in his reproof of the Europeans’ behaviour:

European parliaments voting to recognize Palestine are “giving the Palestinians exactly what they want — statehood without peace,” Prosor told the UN General Assembly.

“By handing them a state on a silver platter, you are rewarding unilateral actions and taking away any incentive for the Palestinians to negotiate or compromise or renounce violence,” he added.

Regarding the upcoming French vote, not everyone in France is for recognizing a Palestinian State. Former President Nicholas Sarkozy voiced his objections:

Sarkozy was quoted as asking fellow UMP party members on Tuesday to vote against the resolution.

“I will fight for the Palestinians to have their state. But unilateral recognition a few days after a deadly attack and when there is no peace process? No!” he said, in reference to last week’s terrorist attack at a synagogue in the capital’s Har Nof neighborhood that killed five Israelis.

The renowned French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy also heartily opposes such unilateral recognition, as he writes, “He who would act the angel acts the brute“:

One does not recognize, even symbolically, a state in which half of the government denies another state’s right to exist.One does not recognize, especially not symbolically, a government in which half of the ministers dream of annihilating that state.

…One day, perhaps, a majority of Israelis may come to believe that the least bad form of protection against this situation is a clean break. But that will be their decision, not the decision of a Spanish, English, Swedish, or, now, French parliament improvising a hasty, ill-founded, and, above all, inconsequential resolution.

One cannot be horrified at the decapitations in Iraq and then dismiss murders with knives and hatchets in Israel.

…No honest observer can ignore the fact that both sides have a long way to go.

…

But that is precisely what the proponents of unilateral recognition deny.

It is very precisely what they forget when they go around saying “we can’t take anymore of this” and “it is urgent that things move forward,” or that a “strong gesture” is needed in order to “apply pressure” and “unblock the situation,” and that no better “strong gesture” can be found than to impose on Netanyahu a non-negotiated Palestinian state.

And that points to the last critique to be laid against them: Their reasoning presupposes that there is only one blockage (the Israeli one) and only one party that needs to be pressured (Israel), and that nothing needs to come from the Palestinian camp—literally nothing: Stay put; take no initiative; whatever you do, do not demand the revocation of a Hamas charter that drips with hate for Jews and contempt for international law—because, hey, now you have your state.

Whilst I take issue with Levy’s implicit equating Israel’s settlements policy with Palestinian violence, I heartily agree with all the rest.

I would refer you back to an earlier post of mine (from 2 years ago) where I linked to an Algemeiner article explaining “Why I don’t want a Palestinian State” It states clearly and politically incorrectly why a Palestinian State would be a terrible idea, and only strengthens my puzzlement at the world’s eagerness to do so.

And it is interesting to note the timing of these votes, and also the original date of the Palestinians vote at the UN – 29th November, known in Israel as “Kaf-Tet beNovember”. On this date 67 years ago, 29th November 1947, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 181, “the Partition Plan”, partitioning Palestine into two entities: a state for the Jews and one for the Arabs. Yes, in those days Palestinians were the Jews. The “Palestinians” of today were simply “Arabs”.

The Arabs rejected Resolution 181 unanimously, and they have been trying ever since to overturn their stupid rejectionism. And in the typical Palestinian fashion of co-opting, aka stealing, Jewish history, they choose to hold these votes on the day that Israel was granted de-facto recognition in the Partition Plan. See my posts from 2011 and 2012 for examples of their attempts on 29th November.

And here they are again today, 67 years later, still trying to undo the results, with the eager connivance of the UN and the Europeans. The Palestinians have asked the Security Council to demand that Israel pull out of Judea and Samaria within two years. Since world attention has been distracted by the on-again off-again nuclear talks with Iran, the Palestinians decided to delay the vote. They always were attention-seekers, like 3 year old children. But now “chief negotiator” Saeb Erekat, denies the deferral. The more likely cause for the deferral of the vote, if it is indeed is deferred, is that despite their bombastic claims, the Palestinians have not been able to guarantee 9 Security Council votes. (h/t Israel Matzav).

Only the Palestinians are ever allowed to turn back the clock of history and get a do-over of the wars they started, each time hoping for a different result.

Categories: Israel, Israel, Palestinians
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »