FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

What is it possible to say about Shimon Peres, Israel’s new president?

Israeli President Shimon Peres has proposed that Israel release all 10,000 Palestinian security prisoners it is holding in exchange for the Palestinian Authority finally cracking down on anti-Jewish terrorism, Israel’s Ma’ariv daily newspaper reported on Monday.

According to the report, Peres’ plan would see Israel free 2,000 prisoners every year for the next five years as an incentive for the Palestinians to begin dealing with the terrorism emanating from territories under their control. The Palestinians were supposed to start cracking down on terror back in 1993, when Israel granted them autonomy with a guarantee of statehood at some point in the future. — Israel Today

I hate to use the same quotation twice in the same week, but Benjamin Franklin allegedly said that the definition of insanity was to do the same thing over and over while expecting different results. If anyone was ever insane in this way, it is Mr. Peres.

Last week, Peres proposed a ‘peace’ plan that would have Israel withdraw from most of the West Bank while ‘compensating’ the Palestinians with territory within the Green Line so that they end up with 100% of the territory that he believes belongs to them.

Never mind, as Isi Leibler points out, that this is throwing out the correct interpretation of UN resolution 242 and accepting the Arab version. Never mind that it calls for unprecedented concessions regarding Jerusalem and the ‘right of return’ for Palestinian ‘refugees’.

Never mind that since 1993 we have learned, except for Peres who is apparently incapable of learning anything, that concessions do not bring peace, but rather more war.

Never mind that proposals like this, even if the government officially denies them, send a message of weakness and surrender which will ultimately result in more bloodshed, when Israel responds to the inevitable terrorism which is the Arabs’ way of showing strength.

Only a man with the enormous arrogance of a Shimon Peres can accept the honor of being elected president, a post which incidentally is supposed to be above politics, and then turn around and make proposals for which he does not have any kind of mandate, and which are actually dangerous to the state that he is supposed to serve.

There are no more Nobel Prizes waiting for you out there, Mr. Peres. Incidentally, Arafat’s prize, which he got at the same ceremony, is now in the hands of Hamas, which stole it from Arafat’s Gaza headquarters. I devoutly hope that this doesn’t happen to yours.

Technorati Tags: Peres, Israel

An editorial on Wednesday’s Ha’aretz English site discusses the so-called ‘Peres plan’, which I mentioned yesterday (and which the Prime Minister’s and President’s office have denied). Ha’aretz believes that we are now on the verge of “genuine diplomatic processes and practical plans for solving the conflict”, as opposed to previous “empty words” and “barren meetings”.

What is the great breakthrough that PM Olmert and Palestinian President Abbas have achieved at their recent meeting? Nothing less than this:

Olmert, basing himself on a proposal by President Shimon Peres, welcomed the key principle of the Arab peace initiative, which guarantees that negotiations over the borders of the Palestinian state will be based on the June 4, 1967, lines.

It seems to me that all two-state proposals, including Oslo, the Geneva Initiative, etc. have ‘based themselves’ on the 1967 borders, more or less. So this isn’t exactly a breakthrough.

Maybe it’s the part about the Arab [League] Peace Initiative? But that calls for “Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines”, which of course does not leave room for Israel to keep some settlement blocs while compensating the Palestinians with land from within the 1967 lines, as in the Peres plan. Nor does it leave room for the “practical and balanced solutions for the issues of Jerusalem and the refugees’ return to places other than Israel’s sovereign territory” that are called for in the Peres plan.

So either Olmert has agreed to nothing, or he has given away the store.

Ha’aretz’ exposition of the alleged Peres plan is interesting not so much for the content, as for the point of view it exposes:

The Peres document proposes that Israel and the Palestinians draft a document of principles, with an upfront guarantee that Israel will provide the Palestinian state with territory equal to 100 percent of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A prior agreement on this central issue, along with a binding timetable, would enable negotiations to be held on the details of the agreement. Such a discussion would focus, among other issues, on what compensation the Palestinians would receive for the designated settlement blocs, which must not interfere with the West Bank’s territorial contiguity.

It seems strange to me that somewhere along the way from the Balfour Declaration, through the major wars and minor conflicts, it has become enshrined as an inviolable principle that the territories belong to the Palestinians, and Israel must transfer them or compensate their owners.

It might be possible to convince me that for practical reasons Israel should not hold on to all of the territories, but I certainly do not start from the position that they are Palestinian territories which Israel must give back to their rightful owners! But this is the position expressed above, and what bothers me about it is the slippery slope to the next step, which is the general Palestinian position that all of the area of the mandate belongs to them, from the river to the sea. If we agree that the territories are Palestinian, what is the distinction between them and the rest of Israel?

Ha’aretz continues to display its remarkable perspective as follows:

Moreover, time is not on the side of pragmatic forces in the Middle East. Israel’s failed war in Lebanon, and the failure of American policy in Iraq, have raised the status of Shi’ite fanatics like Hassan Nasrallah, who receive support from Iran. [my emphasis]

Israel’s war? Somehow I’d thought that Hezbollah’s invasion of Israel, the kidnappings, and the rocket attacks would make it Nasrallah’s war.

And here’s the main point Ha’aretz wants to make:

Without a substantive change in the situation in the territories [i.e., Israel abandoning them], Hamas’ takeover of the Gaza Strip is liable to turn out to be the first step in a takeover of the entire territories by Islamic fanatics.

And I ask: How will an abandonment of the West Bank be different from the abandonment of Gaza?

Olmert, Peres, Abbas, and Fayad may sign a document with great fanfare, and maybe more Nobel Prizes will be distributed. Then, when the IDF has evacuated the Jewish residents from the Judenrein province of Palestine and has withdrawn across the green line, what will prevent Hamas from doing exactly what they did in Gaza?

Maybe this time they won’t even have to fight; perhaps the Saudis can negotiate a unity government for them.

Technorati Tags: Ha’aretz, Peres, Olmert, Abbas, Israel, Palestinians, West Bank, Hamas

Israeli PM Olmert and President Peres have strongly denied reports that they are talking about a two-state deal with the Palestinians that will allow Israel to keep about 5% of the heavily Jewish portions of the West Bank, while compensating the Palestinians with some Arab-populated territory within the 1967 lines, with the consent of the residents.

Although this would be a rational way of bringing about a two-state solution, insofar as any such solution could be made to work, it is impossible for at least two reasons.

First, very few Arab citizens of Israel, no matter how ‘Palestinized’ they may have become, will be prepared to trade the conditions they enjoy in Israel for life in a Palestinian state governed by the Islamist Hamas or the corrupt Fatah.

And second, the PA is not interested in “populated-area exchange” because they see the Israeli Arab population as a lever to put pressure on Israel, even as a possible fifth column in the event of a regional war. The last thing they want is fewer Arabs inside Israel.

In fact, a form of this plan was proposed by right-wing cabinet minister Avigdor Lieberman in 2004:

The Lieberman Plan suggests a territorial exchange whereby Israel would acquire most Jewish regions in the West Bank at the same time as it would cede Arab regions of Israel to the Palestinian Authority. There are three major Arab regions in Israel, all contigious with the West Bank; (1) the southern and central Galilee, (2) the central region known as “the Triangle” and (3) the Bedouin region in the northern part of the Negev desert. Giving up these three regions would reduce the number of Israeli Arab citizens by 90%. Only those Arabs living in isolated villages and as minorities in Jewish cities would remain. The ethnically Druze community which is Zionist would also remain part of Israel. All remaining citizens whether Jews or Arabs would have to pledge an oath of allegiance to the state in order to keep their Israeli citizenship.

It would be ironic indeed to find Shimon Peres and Avigdor Lieberman on the same side of this issue, but even if the report is true, it’s certain that an Olmert/Peres plan would differ significantly from Lieberman’s. In response to the rumor, Lieberman said,

“I welcome the acceptance of my idea of population exchanges, because there is no other solution… The solution must include all of the settlement blocs and leave Jerusalem united under Israeli sovereignty. But there is no sense in talking about a Palestinian state until the PA proves itself.”

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians, Peres, Olmert, Avigdor Lieberman

The media in the US barely mention this stuff anymore:

A massive terror attack was foiled Saturday night when an IAF air strike on two vehicles near the southern Gaza Strip’s border with Egypt killed two Palestinians, including an Islamic Jihad operative, and wounded 21 others, the IDF said.

The army said that one of the vehicles was carrying Islamic Jihad operatives and was filled with explosive devices including suicide bomb belts.

The group, said the IDF, was on its way to carry out a huge terror attack against Israelis…

Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for firing a rocket into a Sderot neighborhood shortly before the air strike, but it was not clear if they were the same group hit by the IAF strike. Two more rockets were fired at the western Negev on Saturday night. No casualties or damage were reported as a result of the Kassam attacks. — Jerusalem Post

Rockets are falling on southern Israel every day. Hamas still holds Gilad Shalit. Hezbollah still holds Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, if indeed they are alive.

These facts represent violations of international law. They represent denials of basic human rights to Israelis. If you listen to pro-Palestinian voices, you hear the same stuff over and over: Israel mistreats us, Israel denies us our rights, Israel builds an annoying fence, etc.

How can anyone miss the fact that Palestinians (and others) are trying to kill Israelis and the only thing that prevents them from doing so is the army?

Isn’t it reasonable to think that you would be tempted to treat someone badly if he is trying to kill you, in fact, if he has been trying to kill your family since the beginning of the 20th century?

Just sweep away all the accusations and counter-accusations and you are left with the simple fact that Arabs have always wanted to kill Jews in the Middle East, and Jews (and later Israelis) have responded in various ways to protect themselves.

This isn’t news anymore.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians