FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Ami Ayalon and Sari Nusseibeh’s peace plan (as summarized by Bradley Burston, original here):

The borders of the new state would be based on 1967 lines, with a territorial exchange allowing for Israel to annex major settlement blocs and an equal amount of area to be granted Palestine from areas now within Israel proper. No settlers would remain within Palestine.

The Palestinian state would be demilitarized, under agreements in which the international community would guarantee its security.

Regarding the right of return, “Palestinians refugees will return only to the State of Palestine; Jews will return only to the State of Israel.” In addition, Israel, Palestine, and the international community would set up a fund to compensate Palestinian refugees for their suffering.

As for Jerusalem, the Palestinians would have sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods, and Israel over Jewish neighborhoods. Neither side would have sovereignty over holy sites. Israel would act as guardian of the Western wall, Palestine as guardian of the Noble Sanctuary mosque compound.

I don’t want to talk about the justice or fairness of the plan. Just a couple of guesses about how such a plan would be received by Israelis and Palestinians:

My first guess is that if they were convinced that security guarantees would be effective (a very big ‘if’), the majority of Israelis would accept such a plan.

My other guess is that no imaginable Palestinian leadership would accept it.

Historically, since the 1937 Peel Commission and through the 2000 Clinton/Barak proposal, Israelis have been prepared to accept partition, even when it would be objectively disadvantageous, on the grounds that it would bring peace. Israelis who think that the entire Land of Israel should be in Jewish hands for religious reasons are a minority.

Most Arabs have always opposed partition. It has always seemed to them — even before the founding of the state — that the entire land belonged to them, indeed, that any land held by Jews was in some sense stolen (even if it was purchased). Compensation has never been considered an acceptable substitute for possession.

There is a fundamental asymmetry in the thinking of Israelis and Palestinians. Israelis are mostly pragmatic and most of them are more interested in peace than land. Indeed, opposition to withdrawal from the territories is overwhelmingly based on security considerations.

Palestinians are not pragmatic, they are idealistic. They are prepared to undergo great hardship in order to obtain what they think is theirs, and they are uncompromising. Even this proposal, signed by the moderate Nusseibeh — and if there ever was a moderate Palestinian, it’s Nusseibeh — has to take Palestinian idealism into account.

I’m referring, of course, to the statement at the end of the first paragraph: No settlers will remain in Palestine. Although one presumes that both sides envisage that Arabs will continue to live in Israel, the idealistic Palestinians require that Palestine must be completely Judenrein.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians, Ayalon, Nusseibeh

It would be crude to ask Arab Knesset members “whose side are you on?”, but sometimes one feels that it’s appropriate.

Arab MKs were infuriated Monday morning by the appearance of Reform Party of Syria leader Farid Ghadry at the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee [FADC].

“Ghadry decided to act against his people and his country, and chose to be a mercenary for Americans,” Hadash Chairman Muhammad Barakei argued.

“He came to act as a wretched servant for the belligerent agenda and the extreme right wing. Scum is bad, but American scum of this kind is much worse,” Barakei added.

MK Ahmed Tibi (UAL) stopped Ghadry in the Kneseet corridor and accosted him in Arabic: “Aren’t you ashamed? You should be ashamed, coming here as a cheap pawn of [Likud Chairman Binyamin] Netanyahu. — Jerusalem Post

So what outrage did Ghadry commit to deserve this?

Ghadry clearly stated on Sunday that he still believed that the Golan Heights belonged to Syria and he planned to make a point of it during the FADC meeting.

Ghadry told an audience at the Harry Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University that Israel should refrain from making peace with Syria’s current dictatorship until its leadership becomes a democracy.

“Syria will become democratic, have patience … Peace with a non-democratic Syria … is perilous and short-sighted.”

I might add that returning the Golan Heights to a Syria which is not only non-democratic, but engaged in a huge military buildup — as well as sponsoring and supplying Hezbollah in its own war preparations — would be foolhardy in the extreme. One doesn’t need to be a member of the “extreme right-wing” to see this!

Like former MK Azmi Bishara, who fled the country following accusations of espionage on behalf of Syria during the Lebanon war, his colleagues apparently feel that their interests lie closer to those of Syria than Israel.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Ghadry, Syria, Golan

I am beyond words:

Some of the Palestinian gunmen who participated in the kidnapping of IDF soldier Cpl. Gilad Schalit last year have long been on the payroll of the Palestinian Authority, Palestinian sources revealed Sunday.

The sources named two of the suspected kidnappers as Muhammad Azmi Farawneh and Majdi Tayseer Hammad…

Farawneh is believed to have played a key role in the abduction of Schalit. Hammad was the commander of the Nasser Salah Eddin Brigades, the armed wing of the Popular Resistance Committees - one of the groups that claimed responsibility for the kidnapping.

The two were killed a few weeks after the abduction in air strikes launched by the IAF in the Gaza Strip.

The fact that they have been on the payroll of the PA was disclosed after their families protested against the low pension that the PA has decided to allocate them…

The PA has also been paying salaries to thousands of Fatah gunmen belonging to the faction’s armed wing, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades. The majority of these gunmen are registered as members of various branches of the PA security forces, particularly the General Intelligence, Force 17 and the Preventive Security Service. But until now it was not common knowledge that members of the Popular Resistance Committees had also been receiving salaries from the PA.

The Popular Resistance Committees is an alliance of various armed factions in the Gaza Strip, including Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The group was also behind the roadside bomb attack that killed three US security guards in the northern Gaza Strip in 2003.

– Khaled Abu Toameh, Jerusalem Post

The US continues to funnel millions of dollars and large quantities of arms to the PA to pay the salaries of these ’security’ forces and to ’strengthen Palestinian moderates’.

My tax dollars are arming and paying terrorists to kidnap and murder Israelis and Americans!

Technorati Tags: Palestinians

In April, the largest union of British Journalists voted to boycott Israeli goods. At that time BBC reporter Alan Johnston had been a prisoner in Gaza for about a month, and he’s still not out.

Yesterday, the Islamic Jihad organization showed its appreciation of continued support for the Palestinian cause by most of the world news media by using a jeep camouflaged to look like a press vehicle in order to attempt to carry out an attack (probably another kidnapping) against an Israeli position.

Here is my message for journalists and others who support the Palestinian and other jihadist causes:

Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other such groups, in addition to being murderous terrorists, do not respect concepts like access to information, a free press, or indeed a free anything. Any part of the world that they inhabit becomes a kind of hell permeated by thuggery and intolerance. They cynically manipulate and take advantage of democratic and enlightened traditions in places like Israel to try to destroy them.

So when you ‘tell the story’ of the poor, persecuted Palestinians (whose terrorist militias are supported by the jihadist oil superpowers of Saudi Arabia and Iran), keep in mind that you might end up kidnapped like the unfortunate Johnston, or as the unintended target of an Israeli tank.

And keep in mind that Europe and North America are next.

Technorati Tags: Jihad, Journalists, Israel, Palestinians

Ze’ev Schiff, respected military correspondent for Ha’aretz, writes:

Israel is experiencing something in Sderot that it has not experienced since the War of Independence, if ever: The enemy has silenced an entire city and brought normal life there to a halt. The despair of Sderot’s mayor is one sign of what is happening. The sight of the town’s elderly residents returning from a “rest and relaxation” trip and refusing to alight from the bus and go home is additional proof that what is happening in Sderot is a national disgrace.

Schiff adds that the defeat in Sderot is “a serious national failure, which in my opinion is worse than the failure of the Second Lebanon War”.

Unlike the US, Israel’s parliamentary system allows for a simple majority vote of the Knesset to force the government to resign and bring about early elections. How can the government which lost both the Lebanon War and the battle of Sderot, whose Prime Minister had an approval rating of 3% among the public, and which is now talking about beginning negotiations to return the Golan to Syria while Syria prepares for war — how can this government remain in power?

The explanation is two-fold. First, new elections would result in many current Knesset members being removed, and they would prefer to keep their seats. Second, apparently not enough members are convinced that there is a better alternative.

The problem is that the government has lost its ability to lead the people, any respect that it may have had in the international arena, and its power of deterrence over Israel’s enemies. It’s time for democracy to do its work, and the political chips must fall where they may.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Sderot

Brit Tzedek v’Shalom (BTvS), the “Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace” wishes to promote dialogue among American Jews about US policy towards Israel.

National Advocacy Chair Diane Balser has published a manifesto called “‘Let’s Talk!’ Wrestling with the Conversation about Israel“.

There are almost as many points along the political spectrum about Israel as there are Jews. Most (but certainly not all) of these represent positions that are pro-Israel, although they may have very disparate areas of emphasis and promote entirely different strategies. BTvS claims to be in this part of the spectrum, but there is much in Balser’s manifesto that I found disturbing, and which brings this claim into question.

(more…)

Is Hamas going soft?

Palestinian group Hamas is sending some “not unhelpful” signals about the Middle East peace process but should be clearer on where it stands, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said in an interview broadcast on [al-Jazeera] Friday — YNet

Blair did not make a specific reference, but:

The Palestinians are united in seeking a state in the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem, a senior Hamas leader said in an unusually enthusiastic endorsement of an idea the extremist Islamic movement long opposed.

Moussa Abu Marzouk, a deputy to Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal (residing in Damascus), made the comment in an interview published Saturday in the Hamas-linked newspaper “Palestine.”

Hamas was founded on a pledge to seek Israel’s destruction, but some in the movement have softened their stance as part of coalition talks with the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority Chariman Mahmoud Abbas. The Hamas-Fatah government’s platform calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, the lands Israel captured in the 1967 Six Day War.

In the coalition talks, Hamas had presented its acquiescence to the idea as a major concession.

However, in his interview, Abu Marzouk presented a state alongside Israel as an achievement for the Palestinians.

“Now there is one team, one program, one united government … so there is a big chance to reach the goal we agreed upon at this stage, which is a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem,” he said. [my emphasis] — Jerusalem Post

Is there indeed anything new here? Only in a public relations sense.

Hamas has traditionally favored the total replacement of Israel by a Palestinian state. Here is Abu Marzouk last December:

It is not impossible, Abu Marzouk, emphasized, to establish a viable state on the whole territory of Palestine from the river (Jordan) to the (Mediterranean) sea. Not thinking to establish the state in that form represented the first mistake by the PLO when it thought that Palestine could accommodate two states. As to Hamas’s approach, it states that Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians have a historical right in Palestine, and that all Palestinians must be able to return to their homeland . — Ikhwanweb.com (Muslim Brotherhood website)

Arafat’s PLO did suggest, for public consumption, that it would accept a state alongside Israel and end the conflict, although on terms that were always designed to be unacceptable to Israel, such as inclusion of a right of return for refugees and their descendants to Israel, full control of East Jerusalem, etc. However, there is plenty of evidence that the intent of Arafat and the PLO leadership was to consider any Palestinian state that did not stretch from the river to the sea as an intermediate stage, a platform that would make the final re-conquest possible.

The Hamas leadership, unlike Arafat, does not generally lie about their goals, but relies on indirection and Western/Israeli wishful thinking to distract attention from them. So note Abu Marzouk’s inclusion of the phrase “at this stage” in the first quotation above, which I interpret to mean that Hamas would view a Palestinian state in the territories as temporary, and not an end to the conflict.

And indeed, in the Muslim Brotherhood article Abu Marzouk also said,

Even if a Palestinian state comes into existence this doesn’t mean that Israel has become legitimate, because there remain rights for the Palestinians that they must restore, notably the right to return to their homes.

An even more explict statement was made by Hamas co-founder and Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar in July of 2005:

Speaking to the Corriere Della Sera newspaper, al-Zahar said Hamas would “definitely not” be prepared for coexistence with Israel should the IDF retreat to its 1967 borders.

“It can be a temporary solution, for a maximum of 5 to 10 years. But in the end Palestine must return to become Muslim, and in the long term Israel will disappear from the face of the earth.” –YNet

It’s highly unlikely that Hamas has suddenly taken a 180-degree turn and is now even more moderate than Arafat’s PLO, actually prepared to offer peace in return for a state in the territories.

Rather, the statement seems to say that Hamas will go along with its other coalition partners in seeking a state alongside Israel — as a ’stage’, a short-term goal. It does not negate the longer-term aim, expressed in the Hamas covenant, of replacing Israel with an Arab state.

Technorati Tags: Hamas, Israel, Abu Marzouk

Paradoxically, the talk about possible war between Israel and Syria has been mixed with suggestions that a peace deal might be possible:

JERUSALEM, June 8 (Reuters) - Israel has told Syria it is willing to trade land for peace and is waiting to hear whether President Bashar al-Assad would cut ties with Iran and hostile guerrilla groups in return, Israeli officials said on Friday.

One said Syrian officials had so far indicated a willingness to conduct discreet contacts that might lead to a resumption of formal peace talks after a seven-year hiatus. In two weeks, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is due to meet U.S. President George W. Bush, who would play a crucial role in any such process.

Israel may well talk to Syria because it does not wish to miss (or be perceived as rejecting) any opportunity for peace. But although Assad would certainly like the Golan back, In an interview with Michael J. Totten, Barry Rubin, author of The Truth About Syria, thinks that it is unlikely that he wants it in the framework of a peace agreement:

It is commonplace to say that Syria wants back the Golan Heights. But one need merely ask the simple question: what happens if Syria gets it back? If Syria’s regime made peace with Israel it has no excuse for having a big military, a dictatorship, and a terrible economy. The day after the deal the Syrian people will start demanding change. The regime knows that.

Indeed, Rubin sees Syria’s leadership as heavily invested in quite the opposite of peace:

While the Syrian regime poses as being desirous of peace and engagement with the West, in fact its institutions, ideology, propaganda, and activities go in the exact opposite direction. To survive, the minority-dominated, dictatorial, and economically incompetent government needs radicalism, control over Lebanon, regional instability, anti-Americanism, and using Israel as a scapegoat.

Syria is sponsoring a terror war against Iraqi civilians and American forces in Iraq; it is subverting Lebanon, not even stopping at killing the most popular political leaders there; playing the leading role in being the patron of radical Palestinian forces against Israel; promoting anti-Americanism; formulating the new “resistance” strategy which combines radical Arab nationalism and Islamism; being Iran’s main Arab ally; and even being the main Arab state sponsor of revolutionary Islamism.

American plans to drive a wedge between Syria and Iran — which may include awarding the Golan to Syria — are not likely to be successful, says Rubin, because there is little we can offer the regime compared to Iran:

Iran supplies Syria with a strategic ally and protector, a lot of money, an Islamist and Islamic cover, and much more. The two countries may not have identical interests but they are close: making Iraq into a member of their alliance; dominating Lebanon; driving out U.S. and Western influence; destroying Israel; backing Hizballah and Hamas; and so on. What can the West possibly offer Syria to replace that? High-tech military weapons? Lebanon and Iraq as satellites? To discuss the issues is to show how ridiculous the idea of splitting the alliance is in practice.

The whole Totten interview is worth reading (and probably so is Rubin’s book).

Technorati Tags: Israel, Syria, Rubin

Hizbullah in Lebanon continues to rearm:

Lebanese troops have seized a truckload of rockets and ammunition belonging to the Hizbullah guerrillas in eastern Lebanon, security officials said Wednesday.

The shipment of Grad rockets and ammunition for automatic rifles and machine guns was seized late Tuesday at a random army checkpoint near the town of Baalbek, a stronghold for the Shi’ite Muslim militant group.

Six Hizbullah members in the truck were let go but the confiscated weapons were taken to army barracks nearby. — Jerusalem Post

Here is a Russian-made BM-21 Grad rocket launcher (sometimes incorrectly called ‘Katyusha’, which was an earlier version, dating back to WWII). It is capable of firing 40 122mm rockets in 20 seconds, striking targets up to 32 km away (20 miles, varies with rocket type). Once loaded, the launcher can be driven to the launch location where it can be prepared and fired in seconds, and then quickly removed to a hiding place. While Israel destroyed quite a number of these from the air during the war last summer, it’s not easy to catch them and even harder to do it before they launch.

The US and Israel are developing laser-type weapons to destroy these rockets in the air. An American system is available and expensive. Israel has not deployed any such system as yet, as far as I know.

The Grad rocket is 9 feet long and can deliver a 45-pound payload. It can be used to deliver explosives or chemical weapons. Although it’s old technology, it’s still deadly and — because of the lack of countermeasures — represents one of Hizbullah’s greatest threats.

Technorati Tags: Hizbullah, Grad rocket

I’ve written before about the possibility of war between Israel and Syria. It seemed to me that neither side wants a direct conflict, although a proxy war involving Hezbollah and Hamas with Syrian support is likely.

There’s another option that I did not discuss, the case of an accidental war, or what I like to call a ‘war of incompetence’ which neither side wants. Because there is a great advantage to the side that strikes first, all that’s necessary to trigger hostilities is the belief on one side that the other is about to attack. And incompetence is in generous supply on both sides.

The recent Syrian buildup near the border is dangerous because it reduces the warning time that Israel would have in the event of an actual Syrian attack, thus raising the likelihood of an Israeli preemption.

Here’s what Daniel Pipes says about the situation:

The talk of war and negotiations simultaneously points to the extraordinary instability and fluidity these days of Syrian-Israeli relations. Under severe pressure for his government’s and perhaps his personal role in the murder of Rafiq al-Hariri, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad is desperately trying to change the subject. But his ambivalence in not knowing whether to change it to war or peace showcases his limitations as a leader. As I keep saying, let’s hope he was a better ophthalmologist than he is a dictator.

As for Ehud Olmert, he proved himself to be such a terrible military chief last year in Lebanon that a Syrian intifada on the Golan Heights now looms as a real possibility. And his severe political unpopularity makes him receptive to negotiations that a stronger Israeli prime minister would scorn.

This unusual combination of circumstances makes the Damascus-Jerusalem confrontation unusually volatile. Incompetence has a way of generating unpredictability. I cannot assess the chances of war beyond saying they are worrisomely real.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Syria, Daniel Pipes

Here we go again:

High-ranking defense officials told the Post Wednesday that security chiefs in Abbas’s office passed on a “weapons shopping list” to Gen. Keith Dayton, the US security coordinator to Israel and the Gaza Strip, in the middle of May, asking for millions of bullets and thousands of rifle magazines, hand grenades and Kalashnikov automatic rifles.

The officials said Dayton then passed the list on to the Egyptians, who would need to provide the arms and ammunition, as well as to Israel’s Defense Ministry, which would need to authorize the transfer.

The defense officials said that Dayton personally recommended that Israel permit the weapons supply…

Israeli officials stressed that the weapons would not be transferred by Israel to the PA. “We do not physically supply the Palestinians with weapons,” an official in Defense Minister Amir Peretz’s office said. “We just allow it to happen.”– Jerusalem Post

Why this is dumb:

• It won’t work. Fatah can’t defeat Hamas because Fatah’s people are not as well motivated as Hamas’ people. It doesn’t depend on how many bullets they have. Both sides have more than enough already.

• The weapons will sooner or later end up in the hands of Hamas. The Fatah people will sell them, Hamas will take them, or the Fatah people will become Hamas people. All these things have already happened.

• Fatah is also an anti-Israel terrorist group. Didn’t Israel learn this in the Oslo period?

Technorati Tags: Israel, Fatah, Hamas

This received almost no coverage in the major media:

President Bush extended a waiver on moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem just days before a Congressional vote on whether to urge him to move the embassy [the resolution passed the House unanimously — ed].

The White House released the text of the waiver of the 1995 law on Friday night, a “dead” time for news organizations and after the Jewish Sabbath had begun. Waiving the law, the statement said, “is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States.” It adds: “My Administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our Embassy to Jerusalem.” — JTA

I am not picking on President Bush; President Clinton did the same. And I’m sure that both of them thought it was a shame.

But you see, if the US moved its embassy to the actual capital of the State of Israel, the way it is located in the actual capital of every other country that has an embassy, then the Arabs would get angry.

And everyone knows that angry Arabs tend to riot, blow things up, take hostages and sometimes behead them, fly airplanes into buildings, and so on. Far better to have angry Jews, who just write blog articles.

By the way, this cannot have anything to do with “The Occupation”, at least not the one that started in 1967. The Knesset meets in West Jerusalem, which has been in Israeli hands since 1948.

Technorati Tags: Jerusalem, Israel, Bush