FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

I hate to write about the ‘peace process’, because even to write about it is to suggest that it’s a process that under the right conditions might lead to peace. As has been clearly demonstrated in the past few days, there is an unbridgeable gap between the parties — and it isn’t construction in settlements.

At this point both sides are trying to explain why it is the other side which is intransigent, when really the problem is that there is no intersection between their objectives:

• Israel: live at peace in the Mideast
• Arabs: get rid of the Jewish state

Netanyahu has insisted that the Palestinian Authority (PA) recognize Israel as a Jewish state as a condition for extending the construction freeze. And predictably, the PA has refused. They say that such recognition would result in the expulsion of Arabs who are now citizens of Israel, and that it would contradict the “right of return” for the descendants of the Arab refugees from the 1948 war.

The first objection is absurd — Israel has always defined itself as a Jewish state and has not kicked out its Arab citizens, even when mightily provoked as in 2000 when ‘Israeli Arabs’ rioted — perhaps ‘engaged in rebellion’ would be better — killing Jews and destroying their property. So why should PA recognition have this effect now?

The second objection is correct. But Israel does not agree that the so-called refugees have any such right, and practically speaking understands that a ‘return’ would be the end of Israel. So the refusal of recognition amounts to a demand that there shall be no obstacle to the destruction of the state.

Recognition is the most important issue at stake in the entire process, because what has prevented peace — what prevented the Arabs from accepting partition proposals in 1937, 1947, 2000 and 2008 as well as other land-for-peace initiatives, is the fact that they do not accept the existence of a Jewish state within any borders.  Without recognition there can be no end of the conflict, no peace. So if this is unacceptable, what is there to negotiate?

From the Palestinian point of view, the negotiations are useful because each ‘obstacle’ that must be ‘surmounted’ amounts to yet another concession by Israel, a concession in land, security or sovereignty. Although there may never be agreement, concessions once made are difficult or impossible to unmake, and they advance the Arab goal little by little.

From the American point of view, the negotiations are useful because Barack Obama has promised that he would bring peace between Israel and the Arabs, and there’s an election coming up. They are also useful because the administration has promised its Arab allies, particularly Saudi Arabia, that it would squeeze concessions out of Israel.

But what good are they from an Israeli point of view? Ami Isseroff agrees that the Arabs are not interested in peace; rather they are interested in blaming the failure of the talks on Israel. Then they can unilaterally declare a state within the 1949 lines with (at least) EU support, and Israel will be left without Judea and Samaria or East Jerusalem, and without international support. Better, says Isseroff, to give them what they want and then Israel will have the “moral high ground” when the Arabs pay it back with war.

But the “moral high ground” is a laughable concept to the realists who make policy in the US, the EU, the UN, etc. Indeed, look how the US administration is already spinning this:

One Washington source suggested that Netanyahu’s move had not worked well with American officials, as it hadn’t come across as a sincere bid to resolve the issue given that the Palestinians were sure to reject it.

“It just looks like he doesn’t want to do it [extend the freeze], and he just wants to put it on the other side,” he said of Netanyahu apparently trying to shift responsibility – and blame – to the Palestinians.

“I don’t think it plays well here,” he said of Netanyahu’s gesture, “but I don’t think anybody wants to criticize it.”

The hypocrisy is blinding. The Arab demand for a freeze — something which is at bottom irrelevant to the outcome of the negotiations — is considered legitimate, while Netanyahu’s insistence on the most substantive issue of all is seen as a trick. In other words, we’re going to blame Israel no matter what.

And this is the US, arguably Israel’s closest ally. The EU doesn’t think that Israel should receive anything in return for extending the freeze, because their position is that settlements — that is, Jewish communities east of the 1949 line — are illegal, even communities that were occupied by Jews prior to 1948. This is simply racism covered with legalistic trappings, but there it is.

There is no reason to expect fairness from these venues, and Israel must not base policy on such an assumption.

It is also essential to keep in mind the overall situation — the threat from Hizballah, Syria and Iran, which is not disconnected from the ‘peace process’, because the various Palestinian terror groups may constitute an additional front in the next war.

But most important is the political content and psychological impact of the piecemeal surrender that is represented by the talks. The whole premise is that the Palestinian Arabs deserve a state, and Israel, which has wronged them, must be cajoled and pressured into giving it up.

The onus for the conflict is therefore placed on Israel rather than the Arabs, who, after all, violently resisted the international consensus to create Israel, engaged in continuous terrorism against the Jews that lived there, and to this day demand a right of self-determination for themselves while denying it to the Jewish people.

The one-sided “Arab (or Saudi) Initiative”, which has been praised by Barack Obama, is a perfect example of this kind of thinking. Israel is required to withdraw to 1949 lines, provide a solution for the Arab ‘refugees’ and for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Only then will there be some form of ‘normal relations’ granted to Israel (but not recognition as a Jewish state).

The implication is that because Israel is responsible for the conflict, it must first make amends — and then it will be allowed to live, although probably not for long if the ‘refugees’ are allowed to ‘return’.

By suggesting that Israel must honor the ‘peace process’, Ami Isseroff and others are in effect validating this concept. What they understand as the moral high ground is actually an admission of immorality — of guilt — and of submission to ‘morally superior’ Arab victims.

As long as Israel participates in a process that assumes its guilt, the outcome will be its punishment.

US administration speakers often say things like “how can we get to a Palestinian state?” But nobody talks about the need to protect Jewish sovereignty, which is endangered by the piecemeal concessions in return for nothing which characterize the ‘process’.

The correct framework for a ‘peace process’ would start with the recognition that Israel is the state of the Jewish people — just as ‘Palestine’ wishes to be the state of a ‘Palestinian people’ — and has a right to be at peace in its land. A corollary is that Israel must have, in the words of UNSC resolution 242, “secure and recognized boundaries,” rather than being based on the 1949 lines.

There is no reason to think that justice for both Jews and Arabs could not be obtained under such a framework.

Israel needs to take the initiative rather than allow the terms of the engagement be dictated by the Arabs, the EU and the Saudi-influenced Obama Administration.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Arabs, peace process

It’s Palestinian projection time. The Palestinian Maan News Agency reports,

Israeli violations against Palestinians were escalating with an intensity that had not been seen in decades, [PA President Mahmoud Abbas] told [Arab League] leaders convened for an emergency session in Sirte, Libya.

A process of ethnic cleansing in Jerusalem was being implemented, Abbas said, under which home demolitions, evictions, land confiscation, and settlement building had become daily occurrences. The president said the separation and “judaization” [sic] of the holy city bluntly violated signed agreements and commitments, and aimed to destroy the peace process.

In fact, what has been escalating is Arab terrorism, both the major, murderous kind, and minor, ‘misdemeanor terrorism’. Israeli motorists in East Jerusalem are being mobbed on a daily basis, and then blamed if anyone is hurt in the confrontation. The most recent case was a car attacked by stone-throwing kids — accompanied by at least seven or eight photographers. The car hit two of the kids (it seems that only one was slightly hurt, although the video is frightening).

One wonders whether an injury — apparent or real — wasn’t the intention? Barry Rubin has an analysis here, and see also Elder of Ziyon here. Suffice to say that the ambush composed of adult photographers and teenage (maybe even younger) boys raises disturbing questions about the motives of the adults, not to mention the responsibility of the parents of the boys.

Meanwhile, two of the Hamas operatives responsible for the murder of four Israelis, including a pregnant woman, in a drive-by shooting on August 31, were killed when Israeli security forces tried to arrest them on Friday morning. The Palestinian Authority (PA) had arrested hundreds of Hamas-connected men and proudly announced that they had found the car used in the shooting attack, but (I’m shocked!) missed the real culprits. Naturally, the PA complained about the Israeli operation:

Once again, the Israeli occupation chooses violence and death and we denounce this incident, regardless of its circumstances.

The PA denounced the incident

The ‘occupation’ chooses? The Hamas gunmen chose to do the drive-by, and to shoot at the police instead of surrendering. But from the Arab point of view, an Arab may kill a Jew but not vice versa, “regardless of circumstances.”

As always, we can see the multiple functions of Arab terrorism. The more serious incidents, like drive-by shootings, are intended to hurt Jewish morale and build Arab self-esteem as they recover some of their lost ‘honor’ (there is an almost infinite amount that they must regain in order to avenge the nakba). They create a sense of urgency — that is, a reason for the US administration and the EU to demand more Israeli concessions in the name of ‘peace’. And then if the perpetrators should be killed either during or after the attack, martyrs have been created and reasons for revenge attacks established.

The ‘misdemeanor terrorism’ — throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at Jewish vehicles, theft and vandalism at Jewish farms, etc. has some of the same functions, especially the effect of demoralizing Jewish residents and making a statement about whose land it is. As in the Jerusalem stone-throwing incident, it can be used to create some priceless propaganda footage, maybe even a new Mohammed Dura.

And it can easily become major terrorism if, for example, a bottle of flaming gasoline crashes through a car window and burns the occupants to death.

Cars burning in Silwan (East Jeruslem) after being struck by Molotov cocktails hurled by Arab youth

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians, terrorism

Recently I accused Bill Clinton of being stupid (or at least ignorant). One of the comments on that post corrected me: not stupid, the writer said. Corrupt.

Could this be true? I decided to look for the money.

Washington Post, December 2007:

The royal family of Saudi Arabia gave the Clinton facility in Little Rock about $10 million, roughly the same amount it gave toward the presidential library of George H.W. Bush, according to people directly familiar with the contributions.

Hmm, that’s a start.

Clinton has a foundation, which supports his library plus many charitable operations worldwide. In 2008, the Obama administration required the foundation to release its donor records as a condition of Hilary Clinton’s nomination as Secretary of state. It turns out that Bill’s foundation had received contributions totaling at least $492 million from various sources, including these:

Saudi Arabia gave $10 million to $25 million to the foundation…

Norway gave $5 million to $10 million. Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei and Oman gave $1 million to $5 million each.

Of course these are only the official contributions. Individuals can and did give more. So we are up to $25 million in Saudi money, plus millions more from, shall we say, non-Zionist sources. Here are just a few of the private donors:

• Saudi businessman Nasser Al-Rashid: $1 – $5 million.
• Friends of Saudi Arabia and the Dubai Foundation: $1 – $5 million.
• U.S. Islamic World Conference: $250,000 to $500,000.
• No. 97 on the Forbes billionaire list, Ethiopian-Saudi business tycoon Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi.

Now I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with what the Clinton Foundation does with its money. It funds various good causes like fighting AIDS, etc. Nor am I saying that all the donors were Arabs: one big donor is the apolitical Bill Gates, as well as prominent Jews like TV producer and activist Haim Saban. But the huge sums from Saudi and Arab sources — whose charity usually is limited to funding mosques and friendly academic enterprises (more on this later) are striking.

Here’s something else. The Saudi government made large contributions in 2007 and 2008, but not in 2009. In April of this year, Clinton paid an unpublicized two-day visit to the Saudi King. What do you think they talked about?

Could Clinton’s speech in Egypt be part of a quid pro quo?

I’ve just finished reading Mitchell Bard’s new book, The Arab Lobby. Bard explains that the lobby has basically three components: homegrown Arab-American groups, former government officials and oil-company executives of the Arabist persuasion, and Saudi Arabia and its agents. The Saudis are by far the most important and effective of the three (although of course there are connections between them).

Bard exhaustively documents how huge amounts of Saudi money flow, particularly to universities, departments of Middle East Studies, mosques and Islamic groups, even K-12 education and textbooks.

Like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton has apparently decided to tap into this immense source of funds. I’m sure he thinks that it’s a great deal — just preach their line a little and get millions to fight disease and poverty.

But you don’t make a bargain with the Devil and expect to wriggle out of it with your soul intact.

Technorati Tags: Bill Clinton, Saudi Arabia, Clinton Foundation

What could possibly go wrong?

Some things just make me tired. After everything that’s happened, we are still hearing this kind of crap from supposedly intelligent, informed (and important) people:

Former US president Bill Clinton said Tuesday that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would take away much of the motivation for terrorism around the world.

He described the long-running conflict as the key problem in the region and said resolving it would have a knock on effect [sic] that could result in Syria ending its support for the Lebanese militant group Hizbullah and Iran turning back its controversial nuclear program.

“It will take about half the impetus in the whole world — not just the region, the whole world — for terror away,” he told an audience of Egyptian businessmen from the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt. “It would have more impact by far than anything else that could be done.”

Does he — can he — believe that the Iranian nuclear program is in any way related to the situation of the Palestinian Arabs? Can he have missed the clear intention of the Iranian regime to control the region and its oil resources, and by the way, to destabilize the regime of Mubarak or his successor in Egypt?

Does he think that Syrian ambitions in Lebanon have anything to do with the Palestinians?

Does he think that the Palestinian issue motivates al-Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood in their efforts to banish Western influence from the Mideast and replace conservative regimes with radical Islamist ones?

Not to mention that ‘peace’ according to the usual formula is wholly unobtainable! Check out this list of 21 elephants in the room that prevent it.

But that’s not all. On another topic,

Weighing in on the controversy surrounding an Islamic Center being built in New York two blocks from the Sept. 11 attacks, Clinton suggested dedicating the proposed building to the 60 Muslim victims of the attacks.

“I think the decision to dedicate this center to the memory of those who lost their lives on that day would send a set of messages that would if not make this crisis go away, would dramatically reduce it,” he said.

The ‘crisis’ is that a majority of New Yorkers (and of Americans) think that the center should not be built in that location, either out of respect for the feelings of the families of the victims (all the victims) or because they have a suspicion that the center is intended to be — and will be perceived as — a triumphalist monument to the defeat of the US by radical Islam. It’s hardly likely that dedicating it to the Muslim victims of the attack would defuse these issues.

Possibly the AP report is incorrect and Clinton meant to suggest dedicating it to all the victims. Even so, the fact that it is a Muslim structure built on the scene of a successful attack in the name of Islam remains. There is one simple way to “make the crisis go away,” and that is to move the proposed structure by a few blocks. Of course, the fact that the promoters won’t agree to do this is telling.

I suppose that what this proves is that if you are a political celebrity like Bill Clinton, you can’t just tell every audience what you think they want to hear. Someone will report it and then, in the wider world, you’ll look like an idiot.

Technorati Tags: Bill Clinton, Israeli-Arab conflict, Ground Zero mosque