 AIPAC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ADDRESSES UPRISINGS IN THE MIDDLE EAST
BY: FERN SIDMAN
During the morning session of day two of the AIPAC 2011 Policy Conference, the organization's Howard Kohr addressed the recent insurrections in North Africa and the Arab countries of the Middle East. "Think back just one year ago: Which one of us, when people thronged the streets and squares across the Arab world, demanding regime change – which one of us would have predicted they would not be shouting slogans against the United States, or carrying signs slandering Israel? Which one of us would have predicted we would hear those voices crying out against the injustices of their own rulers – crying out for the right to determine their own fates?" he queried.
Despite the initial hopes that the advancement of democracy and freedom would eventually become endemic to these countries Mr. Kohr pointed to the fact that the precise opposite results have unfolded with "America and Israel once more the enemy." Using oblique references to the rise in popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamic elements, Mr. Kohr said, "There are forces – internal and external – in every one of the Arab nations who seek a different ending to the story. Who seek to strengthen the forces of oppression and stifle democracy. Who seek to defeat America and to destroy Israel. Who seek to use this moment of hope to advance their own power and substitute a new era of repression and aggression."
Reminding his audience of the recent January 25th revolution that took place in Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Mr. Kohr spoke of fallen president Hosni Mubarak and the ultimate outcomes of the uprising. "Even now, when the dictators have been deposed, that remains their legacy heard today on the Arab Street. Is it any surprise that the fall of a dictator leaves a vacuum – setting off a scramble for power in which the forces of democracy are just one contender among many?"
In stark contrast to the true nature of democratic institutions, Mr. Kohr addressed the underlying anti-Semitism that accompanies the protracted events. "We should all celebrate the genuine green shoots of democracy in the Arab world, but we must never shrink from calling out and condemning anti-Semitic policy under the guise of popular will. True democracy is more than the right to vote. True democracy includes building civil institutions and a sense of civic responsibility. And true democracy can never be rooted in racist hatred." He added, "We have an obligation to urge our policy-makers to do all they can to ensure that Egypt holds to its peace treaty with Israel" and said that this should be an imperative of American foreign policy.
"For 30 years, the prospect of an all-Arab war against Israel has been inconceivable – impossible, without the participation of Egypt. For 30 years, not only Israel, but the United States and the world have benefited in a shared strategic interest that there be no regional war in the Middle East. Should the new Egyptian Government renounce the peace treaty with Israel – the inconceivable becomes possible", he intoned.
Declaring that a post-Mubarak Egypt must maintain its commitment to peace with Israel, Mr. Kohr added that that would include "a continuation of the blockade of Gaza, no rapprochement with Iran and maintaining the integrity of the Suez Canal."
Pertaining the draconian measures employed against pro-democracy protestors by the Syrian government, Mr. Kohr was livid by the abject silence of the world."In Syria – we are witnessing political turmoil not seen in 30 years. What we see there is the raw power of repression. Indiscriminate killing. Mass graves. Tanks rolling through the streets. Secret police going door to door, rounding up thousands of people – torn from their homes, many never to be seen again. Where is the international outrage? Where are the demands that this must stop? And where is the U.N. Security Council Resolution? We applaud last week’s decision by the White House to sanction Assad, and we hope this is the beginning of ratcheted pressure on this regime."
Also addressing the international nemesis that is embodied by Iran, Mr. Kohr declared, "There is one regime whose leaders regularly celebrate the rising masses in every Arab nation – and yet, will not tolerate the smallest street gathering at home. When it comes to Iran – the international community has fallen silent. Yet, Iran is fomenting unrest in Bahrain. They are aiding the crackdown in Syria. Iran is funding Hezbollah, and they are arming Hamas. Iran is projecting its strength by sending naval ships into the Eastern Mediterranean. Iran is running new weapons into the region, and they are encouraging their proxies to probe and provoke Israel. And if that were not enough, Iran just went to the International Atomic Energy Agency and said – “We are ready to implement the next phase of our nuclear program.”
Concerning the ill advised partnership of Fatah and Hamas, Mr. Kohr proffered an astute analysis of the reluctance of the PA leader to takes the steps necessary to create a long-term peace agreement with Israel. "Abbas is ready to go to the ends of the earth but he will not travel the few short steps to sit down with Israel to pursue real peace." Citing Abbas willingness to orchestrate a propaganda campaign against Israel, he said, "So for the past 18 months, he has traveled a long and winding path, taking him farther and farther away from the neighbor he needs to sit down and negotiate with. Instead, Abbas has traveled as far as European and South American capitals, where he has encouraged the de-legitimization of the Jewish state, aimed at sapping Israel’s very ability to defend her own citizens. He has even begun to carve a path to the United Nations to seek a unilateral recognition for statehood. And now, in the last month, he has decided to come back – closer to home and pursue an effort to make peace with Hamas."
Mr. Kohr urged "faith, trust, and confidence between the leaders of Israel and the United States", adding that, "if Israel's foes come to believe that there is diplomatic daylight between the United States and Israel, they will have every incentive to try to exploit those differences and shun peace with the Jewish state."
PRESIDENT OBAMA ATTEMPTS TO SHORE UP SUPPORT AT AIPAC CONFERENCE
BY: FERN SIDMAN
In an address aimed at placating his disgruntled Jewish supporters, President Barack Obama told his audience of over 10,000 at the annual AIPAC policy conference in Washington, D.C. on Sunday that "a strong and secure Israel is in the interest of the United States and the bond between our two vibrant democracies must be nurtured."
He maintained that he did not say anything fundamentally new in his Thursday speech,, when he mentioned the "1967 borders" as a basis for future peaceTaking intense criticism from pro-Israel supporters since then, when he called for Israel to negotiate a future Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, he sought to heal wounds by enumerating actions taken by the US to foster Israel's security."We have made the most advanced technologies available to Israel including the 'iron dome' anti-rocket system. We have imposed the toughest sanctions on the Iranian regime as we remain committed to stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. We have told the United Nations that it will meet resistance from the US as we stand in steadfast opposition to their efforts to isolate and delegitimize Israel. We responded to the Goldstone report by reasserting our belief that Israel has a right to defend herself", declared President Obama. Obama said "demographic realities are making it harder to maintain Israel as both a Jewish and democratic state and a just and lasting peace can only be achieved through the establishment of two states for two peoples. Warning that procrastination on a peace deal with the Palestinians will only serve to "undermine" Israel's security, President Obama said that any borders for a proposed Palestinian state would be predicated upon "mutual swaps" and recognition that geo-political realities have changed since 1967. "We must acknowledge that a failure to try and make peace is not acceptable," he said.
He insisted that his statement last week, in which he mentioned the 1949-1967 borders as the basis for a peace agreement, was a continuation of the policy of previous administrations. Regarding the phrase “1967 lines,” Obama repeated part of his Thursday speech verbatim.
“Let me reaffirm what ‘1967 lines with swaps’ means,” he then added. “The parties themselves will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed in 1967. That is what ‘mutually agreed swaps’ means. It allows for the parties to take account of the changes that have taken place over the past 44 years, including demographic facts on the ground and the needs of both sides.”
Disclosing the essence of his meeting on Friday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Obama said, "As friends often do, we may disagree. We have an open and honest relationship.".
“Core issues can only be negotiated in direct talks between the parties,” he said, and reaffirmed that no country can be expected to negotiate with a terror organization bent on its destruction. Hamas, he said, must recognize Israel’s right to exist, reject violence and adhere to all existing agreements between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.
He called on Hamas to release captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit – and received a rousing ovation.
“What I did Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately,” he explained. “I did so because the world is moving too fast for us to wait another decade. Delay will undermine Israel’s security.”
He concluded with a quote from the Talmud, which says that as long as a person breathes, he should not abandon faith.
There was speculation that Obama would use the opportunity to announce a visit to Israel in late June, but he did not do so.
In his speech, which began shortly before 11:00 EDT, Obama told the audience that in his meeting with Binyamin Netanyahu, "We reaffirmed the fundamental truth that the bonds between the U.S. and Israel are unbreakable and the commitment of the US to Israel’s security is ironclad."
The US and Israel do not just share strategic interests or common dangers – like terrorism and the spread of nuclear weapons, he said. Rather, America’s commitment to Israel’s security flows from common values.
Obama reminded his audience of his visit to Israel before the 2008 election, and of his meeting with a Sderot boy who lost his leg in a Kassam attack.
He promised to continue to stand up to Hizbullah, and to block any attempt to delegitimize Israel. He cited the Durban conference, from which the US withdrew. “In both word and deed we have been unwavering in our support of Israel’s security,” he told the audience.
The conference is the largest in AIPAC history and includes more than 10,000 delegates, from all 50 states. According to AIPAC, the Policy Conference is the largest annual bipartisan gathering of U.S. senators, representatives, administration officials, diplomats and foreign ambassadors except for the State of the Union address.
 Quartet envoy to the Middle East Tony Blair portrayed Sunday a harsh picture of the region without a Palestinian state. "The alternative to a two-state solution is a one-state solution and that will, I assure you, be a hell of fight," he said in an interview to the CNN network. According to Blair, the next month "will be completely critical and fundamental" in the efforts to resume direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The former British prime minister noted that it was essential for the sides to sit down and talk "as quickly as possible". "I've just spent some time with the Israeli prime minister, Mr. Netanyahu," Blair said, "and I think he is genuine and serious in wanting the negotiation to start." He said he believed that "the majority of people, both Israelis and Palestinians, want to see a two-state solution." According to Blair, the Israelis want to know that their security is going to be protected, while the Palestinians want to know that the negotiations will really end the occupation and lead to a Palestinian state. He added that he thinks "the Palestinians have made significant progress on security and the Israelis are prepared to change significantly their posture on the West Bank." Blair, who served as British premier during the peace talks with Northern Ireland, which were led by US Senator George Mitchell, defended American President Barack Obama and his special Mideast envoy Mitchell, following a New York Times article accusing them of having no strategy. "I have worked with Senator George Mitchell together very closely. He is, in my view, one of the most skilled and strategic negotiators I've ever come across… I think President Obama and Secretary (of State Hillary) Clinton are completely committed to doing this… I went through situations in times in the Northern Ireland process where people were convinced that the thing was going to fail, where even at times I found it difficult to see a way through. But the thing is there is a way through here, because in fact both parties want to achieve a two-state solution." More at YNet 
 A senior Palestinian official tells Fox News in the next few weeks the Palestinian Authority is planning to call for Palestinian statehood through a UN resolution-- a similar maneuver to that by which Israel was created. Both Palestinians and some Israelis believe that there is growing support in the international community for such a measure. Asked to comment on the plan, an American official said that such a UN resolution, while not a cure-all, could be expanded upon eventually.
Still, he added: "It's a measure that would make you feel good for five minutes. Then what?" Palestinian officials predict the US would veto a UN resolution. If the resolution fails, senior Palestinian officials are considering completely dissolving the Palestinian Authority.
That would leave the burden of running the West Bank to Israel--a policy that the Israeli government would be fearful of. US tax payers pay $3 billion to aid Israel a year. If Palestinians hand the keys over to the Israelis more money will likely be needed to facilitate the occupation.
The senior Palestinian official added once the Palestinian Authority is dismantled, Palestinians will push for a 'one state solution'-- ultimately making Israel no longer a Jewish state. Source: FoxNews
 Israel must display vision and seize the current window of opportunity to resume negotiations on a final peace treaty with the Palestinians before it closes, United Nations Middle East envoy Robert Serry said on Friday. US President Barack Obama took office in January and "from day one" made a Middle East peace deal a priority, Serry said. Despite hard going so far Obama is not giving up, and he has full European Union, Russian and United Nations backing. "I am pessimistic that another such opportunity would come anytime soon," the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process told Reuters in an interview from his Jerusalem office. "The window is closing down ... we should not believe time is on our side." "The parties, deep down, know what it takes. They need the political will," the envoy said. "Frankly I don't see urgency on the Israeli side. I would like to see more commitment." "If Israel has a sense of urgency and finality it will live up to its commitments," Serry said. To those Israelis who believe the status quo is acceptable, he said: "I do not agree." It is obvious, Serry added, that there is no point in "talks for the sake of it". The negotiations must have "a credible political horizon", with two-state solution at the end. They must resume where they left off with the last Israeli government in late 2008, and not start from scratch while the new Israeli government continues to permit the building of settlements on occupied West Bank land, he said. Read more here,,,, Source: YNet
 By Robert Spencer Give up terrorism? Renounce Sharia? Cut out the rocket attacks? End the suicide bombings? Stop the genocidal rhetoric? Nope. They don't have to do a single thing. No preconditions. Let's establish that terror base state now! "National Security Advisor Reiterates US Commitment to Peace, Palestinian State at ATFP Gala," from the American Task Force for Palestine, October 16 (thanks to Pamela): Washington, DC, Oct. 16 -- At the Oct. 15 Fourth Annual Gala of the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP), the National Security Advisor, General James L. Jones, reiterated the Administration's commitment to establishing a Palestinian state and determination to move forward with peace talks. "We are clear, unambiguous and consistent," said Gen. Jones, "The time has come to relaunch negotiations without preconditions to reach a final status agreement on two states."
The National Security Advisor emphasized that, "President Obama's dedication to achieve these goals is unshaken, is committed, and we will be relentless in our pursuit of achieving these." He said that ending the conflict and the occupation is essential because what is at stake is "nothing less than the dignity and the security of all human beings." "We must move beyond talking about talks and get to the hard work of addressing the core issues that separate Israelis and Palestinians," Jones said.... Source: JihadWatch
 Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas met Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi on Wednesday in the capital Rome, at his office in Palazzo Chigi.
The meeting was part of a bid to help restart peace talks in the Middle East and amid calls for his resignation by Palestinian politicians.
Italian foreign minister Franco Frattini was also present at the meeting between Abbas and Berlusconi.
Before meeting the premier however, Abbas (photo) held an hour-long talk with Italian president Giorgio Napolitano in his Quirinal Hill office and then inaugurated the Palestinian Authority's new headquarters in Rome.
Rome's mayor Gianni Alemanno was also present at the inauguration and said he hoped that the two-state solution could be realised to bring peace to the region.
"We are absolutely convinced that the concept of 'two peoples-two states' is the key for a just and long-lasting peace in the Mediterranean.
"The decision to inaugurate the new headquarters for our Palestinian friends to use, shows our strong conviction," said Alemanno, who also urged Israel to stop its Jewish settlement construction.
"It is key that Israel does every effort possible to indefinitely stop the settlements in the West Bank," said Alemanno.
Meanwhile on Thursday, Abbas will meet Pope Benedict XVI in a private audience.
Abbas has been under fire in Ramallah for his decision to delay a vote on the United Nations-backed war crimes report on Gaza, or the so-called Goldstone report.
The report said Gaza's ruling Islamist party Hamas and the Israeli army both committed war crimes during the deadly three-week Israeli offensive in late December last year and early January.
Reports say Abbas gave in to pressure from the United States to withdraw a motion from the UN Human Rights Council to take action on the report by judge Richard Goldstone.
Some politicians from the Palestine Liberation Organisation have apologised to the Palestinian public for the delay, while others have called for the resignation of Abbas and the dissolution of the Palestinian National Authority government.
The leftist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine has demanded an apology for the "sin" of deferring the vote of the report, Palestinian news agency Maan said.
 Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York earlier this week. His 96-minute speech, which broke the alloted 15-minute protocol, marked the first time he addressed the international body since leading a coup in September 1969 which ended rule by monarchy in Libya and brought him to power. In an interview with Al Jazeera's Ghida Fakhry on Thursday, Gaddafi repeated his belief that a two-state solution is not a feasible approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and bringing peace in the Middle East. "Everyone is calling for a two-state solution [but] they don't understand the demographics of the region. Israel would be reduced to 14km and Israel will not accept this," Gaddafi said. "There is no way to have these two states so close, because they are already integrated. Two million Palestinians live in Israel, Gaza is isolated … torn apart and isolated. Israel should get rid of their nuclear weapons - the Muslim countries will not recognise Israel as long as they have nuclear weapons - and these problems would be done," he added. "I don't believe that Barack Obama [the US president] really understands the problem," he said. "He was a senator; he used to worry about the state that he represents and the American people. So he doesn't understand it deeply enough. Maybe in the future he might." The Libyan leader also said the current Arab approach to resolving the 60-year Arab-Israeli conflict and creating a Palestinian state would not yield positive results. "There is no way to have two states in that piece of territory." Read more here,,,, Source: Al Jazeera (English)
Palestinian Prime Minister: We'll Build State Institutions in Two Years. What Have You Been Doing for the last 15? This will never lead anywhere, but that’s the point isn’t it? Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has a new peace plan: he’s just going to create a state without reaching a peace agreement with Israel. The goal, in his words, is “to establish a de facto state apparatus within the next two years." Coverage of this just sort of took his word for it: "We must confront the whole world with the reality that Palestinians are united and steadfast in their determination to remain on their homeland, end the occupation and achieve their freedom and independence," he said. "The world should also know that we are not prepared to continue living under a brutal occupation and siege that flouts not only the law, but also the principles of natural justice and human decency.” If you actually examine what he says, however, all sorts of interesting things emerge: Fayyad has been finance minister for about seven years and prime minister for two years. But the PA has been in business for 15 years. That’s a long time. And what was the business of the PA? The first task was to negotiate a peace agreement with Israel, which it has refused to do and Fayyad appears disinterested in even today, given this new program. The second task was to—well, let’s use Fayyad’s own words here—“establish a de facto state apparatus.” So what’s it been doing all these years if the process of building that foundation hasn’t even begun? It’s been very busy: mobilizing warfare against Israel periodically, focusing on an international public relations’ campaign, stealing donor money (though Fayyad is competent and honest almost nobody else is), and raising a new generation to believe that the battle must continue until total victory. But establishing a de facto state apparatus? No. And that can’t be blamed on Israel. Well, they will blame Israel but there’s no basis for it.The next point, which is generally understood, is that the Palestinians are anything but united. Not only is there the battle of Hamas versus Fatah (with Gaza and the West Bank under separate regimes and no prospect of reunification) but also that of the establishment against the “Young Guard” (though I hate that term) opposition. Oh yes, and much of the establishment hates Fayyad and wants to get rid of him. A few months ago, they forced his temporary resignation. Next, if Palestinians are so steadfast in getting a state, why don’t they negotiate for one? If they are suffering under so much brutality doesn’t this give them an additional incentive to make a deal? But the suffering is just used as a public relations’ gimmick. Weird as it might sound in the West, this is how Palestinian politics work. If you simultaneously suffer and bleed--through violence and intransigence you yourself induce—and reject a compromise peace, this will hopefully bring international intervention to hand you everything you want with no cost on your part. If you truly understand the above paragraph you know everything you need to know about the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the failure to achieve peace. Finally, whatever sins can be put on Israel’s occupation, we should note that it is an involuntary and extremely partial one. There are no Israeli soldiers in the Gaza Strip and very few on the West Bank. The PA runs things there and if it prevented attacks on Israel there would be even less of a presence. Yes, there are settlements and roadblocks and an Israeli Jewish presence in Hebron. But the idea of some omnipotent occupation—certainly compared to the period before 1995 (when Palestinian towns were turned over to the PA) is largely fictional. And everyone likes to forget that the Israeli presence has been accepted by the PA itself in a number of agreements beginning with the Israel-PLO Oslo accord of 1993. Almost everything Israel does on the West Bank takes place in the context of things the PA has agreed to happen. This may sound counterintuitive but it is quite true and it is a point that needs emphasizing. By its own free agreement the PLO and PA accepted the existence of settlements in the West Bank until a peace agreement was signed. It is thus hypocritical to argue that the settlements are there in some "illegal" manner or against the will of the Palestinians. Detailed maps were agreed to by none other than Yasir Arafat and his then advisor, now head of the PA and PLO, Mahmoud Abbas about precisely which sections of the territory Israel would govern during the interim period.What’s the catch? The agreements say this will continue until a peace agreement is made which results in a two-state solution. So who’s responsible for the continuation of the “occupation”? Not Israel; the PA. And who can make all the settlements go away, at least within their own independent state? The PA. But the PA is not going to get what it wants: dismantlement of settlements, an independent state, and financial reparations unless it recognizes Israel, agrees to resettle Palestinian refugees within its own country, ends the conflict and all further claims on Israel, and provides security guarantees. That is what the Palestinian and "pro-Palestinian" campaign is about. To get a state without binding conditions that would truly end the conflict forever, leaving the PLO and PA free to continue the battle to destroy Israel completely.These are the issues which as many people throughout the world must be made to understand.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis (Palgrave Macmillan), Conflict and Insurgency in the Contemporary Middle East (Routledge), The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition) (Viking-Penguin), the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan), A Chronological History of Terrorism (Sharpe), and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
Source: http://www.gloria-center.org/blog/2009/08/state-institutions.html
By David Singer Jordan's King Abdullah is fast beginning to realise the serious ramifications threatening the continued rule of the Hashemite family dynasty in Jordan resulting from the failure of negotiations over the last 16 years to create a new Arab state between Jordan and Israel - “the two state solution“. Jordan’s intensive diplomatic support for the “the two state solution” has come apart at the seams as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas - emboldened by comments made by President Obama - now refuses to contemplate re-opening negotiations with Israel until Israel ceases all construction and building activity in the West Bank including the provision of residential housing to accommodate natural growth. Apparently Abbas regards adding a bedroom, a family room or a parent’s retreat to an existing house as an obstacle to resuming negotiations. Completing partly constructed houses to lock up stage is apparently anathema to the Palestinian Authority. Israel has made it clear that it will not be accommodating Abbas’s farcical demand for a total freeze on all construction in the West Bank. Some very neat diplomatic footwork will now have to be negotiated by President Obama - if Abbas - and Obama - are to save face and if Abbas is to be persuaded to resume the stalled negotiations. This process has already begun with President Obama stating on 18 August: “The Israeli government has taken discussions with us very seriously,” adding that he “was encouraged by what I am seeing on the ground.” Link Abbas however now also finds himself embroiled in a serious conflict of interest - negotiating for the “two state solution” as the head of the Palestinian Authority whilst simultaneously chairing Fatah which calls for a “one state solution” - the total destruction of Israel. Israel needs to seriously consider whether it should resume negotiations with Abbas whilst he retains both positions following his re-election as Chairman of Fatah in Bethlehem last week. The long running power struggle between Hamas and Fatah continues unabated. The intrusion of a new terrorist movement into Gaza politics - Jund Ansar Allah - has seen 30 Gazans killed and more than 100 wounded in fratricidal blood letting last weekend. Gaza and the West Bank remain divided into separate Hamas and Fatah fiefdoms with no end to that confrontation in sight. Read More here ... Source: CFP
by Daniel Pipes
July 5, 2009 I have long argued that the presence of Jews living on the West Bank does not present a problem to a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, for a true resolution would allow them to live peaceably in a Palestinian state. We'll know the conflict has ended, I like to say, when the Jews of Hebron have no more need for security than the Arabs of Nazareth. So, I read with considerable interest that Salam Fayyad, who calls himself the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority (a title I do not use, by the way), said roughly the same thing at a meeting of the Aspen Institute's Aspen Ideas Festival on July 4. According to "Palestinian prime minister: Jews would be welcome in future state" by Brent Gardner-Smith in the Aspen Daily News, former CIA director James Woolsey noted that a million Arabs in Israel account for one-sixth of the Israeli population and that they "generally they enjoy the guarantees that Americans look for in the Bill of Rights." He went on to ask: Now, if there is to be the rule of law in a Palestinian state, and if Jews want to live in someplace like Hebron, or anyplace else in a Palestinian state, for whatever reasons or historical attachments, why should they not be treated the same way Israeli Arabs are? That would be, there could be a sixth of the population consisting of them. They could vote for real representatives in a real Palestinian legislature, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and most importantly, be able to go to the sleep at night without worrying someone is going to kick down the door and kill them.  Salam Fayyad, "prime minister" of the Palestinian Authority. | Fayyad responded: I'm not going to disagree with you. And I'm not someone who will say that they would or should be treated differently than Israeli Arabs are treated in Israel. In fact the kind of state that we want to have, that we aspire to have, is one that would definitely espouse high values of tolerance, co-existence, mutual respect and deference to all cultures, religions. No discrimination whatsoever, on any basis whatsoever. Jews to the extent they choose to stay and live in the state of Palestine will enjoy those rights and certainly will not enjoy any less rights than Israeli Arabs enjoy now in the state of Israel. Gardner-Smith reports that the crowd "applauded enthusiastically" at this statement. Comments: (1) I applaud it no less enthusiastically. (2) But I would like Fayyad to say it not just in English in the rarified air of Aspen, Colorado, but also in Arabic in Ramallah. (3) Still, this is an important statement and a standard to which to hold the Palestinian Authority. (July 5, 2009) Source: Daniel Pipes
With all the talk about a Two State Solution, the question should be asked, what is it coming to solve anyway?
Nor has Obama or any of the currently enthusiastic backers of the "Two State Solution" offered any realistic plans for how terrorism will end. And yet turning two terrorist groups into the government of a new country is certain to make their existing terrorism a good deal worse. Especially since neither Hamas nor Fatah are ready to concede the right of a Jewish state to exist on the remaining land.
So clearly the Two State Solution is not here to stop terrorism, it's likely to only make it worse. This also kills any notion that the "Solution" will stabilize the Middle East. How can the Middle East be stabilized by any solution that makes terrorism, the current source of much of the regional instability, worse?
Creating a country run by two terrorist organizations will mean an open terrorist haven in the Middle State. This is no small problem when you consider that not only Hamas and Fatah, but even larger terrorist groups such as Al Queda, have found a base within the autonomous territories of the Palestinian Authority. If that is the situation now, imagine how bad it will get with open borders, an accessible port and airport? Not to mention all the arms that the new state of Palestine will be able to buy with international loans.
And the instability will not simply remain within Israel's borders. Hamas is a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks to overthrow Egypt's government and replace it with an Islamic state. Palestinian Arab terrorism has long been a destabilizing factor in Jordan and Lebanon's politics. What they lacked before was a secure national base of operations. Something that the "Two State Solution" will finally provide them with.
The US and its allies have spent countless blood and treasure struggling to clean up Afghanistan for the last 7 years. It would be the worst kind of folly to then turn half of Israel into the new Afghanistan. But that is exactly what the "Two State Solution" would accomplish, carving out a danger zone dominated by Sunni and Shiite terrorist groups looking to export their vision of Islam through the bullet and the bomb.
Osama bin Laden's best possible birthday present would be if the US were to force Israel to set up a new Afghanistan in Gaza and the West Bank, allowing him to recreate the murderous chaos of Iraq.
So if the Two State Solution will not end terrorism or being stability to the Middle East, what exactly will it solve? Diplomats say it will move the "stalled peace process" forward, but then their fallacy has always been to treat the peace process as an engine pulling a Palestinian state into place, greased by Israeli concessions. Every time the Palestinian Arab terrorist groups revert to type, and Israel locks down the area in self-defense, the diplomats declare that the "peace process" is stalled and demand more concessions from Israel.
This disastrous approach has led to the current fragmented Fatah/Hamas terrorist camps on the land gotten from previous Israeli concessions, the Israeli Separation Wall meant to keep their terrorism at bay, and the constant state of war. But like Sisyphus turned international mediator, the diplomats keep assuming that more of the same will make things better, when in fact it won't. By ignoring the general corruption, violence and dishonesty on the Palestinian Arab side-- the international peacemakers have insured that the process would fail at every point and turn. Their "See No Evil" approach insured that the process would fail at every point and turn, a failure that has not only been disastrous for Israel, but equally disastrous for Palestinian Arabs.
And yet Obama is bent on repeating that same process in spades, once again disproportionately pressuring Israel, while ignoring Fatah and Hamas' refusal to negotiate in good faith, recognize the State of Israel, end their own domestic human rights abuses and terrorism.
So if the Two State Solution won't stabilize the region, end terrorism or lead to peace... what in the world will it solve?
It might be argued that the Two State Solution will at the very least create a Palestinian state. And it might indeed do that. Just maybe. The odds of it are long though, when you consider that the current Palestinian autonomous territories are split between two warring terrorist factions, Hamas and Fatah.
The only thing that has preserved Fatah thus far is US backing. But how long will the US be able to save Fatah from Hamas? And since Hamas is not motivated by Palestinian nationalism, but the creation of a regional Islamic caliphate, its real goal would be to make Gaza part of a Muslim Brotherhood run Egypt. A similar plan would likely follow for Jordan and the West Bank, once Hamas is able to shove Fatah out of the way, as it did in Gaza.
Then there's the fact that the Palestinian territories are wholly funded entities of the UN, the US, Israel and Iran; who provide what there is in the way of money, food, jobs, power, medicine and all the other basic necessities that prevent the locals from turning to cannibalism.
The two biggest employers in the Palestinian territories are the UNWRA and the Palestinian Authority, whose funding comes from the US and Europe. Those are pretty much also the only employers, aside from various Israeli companies who bring day laborers across the border, often on construction projects. Paradoxically the very same construction projects in the Settlements and Jerusalem, that the Obama administration is furiously working to shut down. That of course would mean that the only major source of jobs in the Palestinian territories would be US and European funded bureaucracies, such as the UNRWA, that would have no reason to exist once a Palestinian state was created.
Which means that if a Palestinian state were created, it could not exist for 5 minutes without a workforce paid for by the US and the UN. A workforce that mostly consists of militia gangs who express their displeasure at not being paid with their AK-47's.
Any reasonable person would agree that this is not a workable plan for a state. At this point a Fatah run Palestinian state would be a fiction propped up by the US. A Hamas run Palestinian state would be a fiction propped up by Iran. Neither would be a workable political entity that could care for its people and manage their affairs.
So if the Two State Solution can't even create a Palestinian state, what can it solve? Absolutely nothing.
Source: Sultan Knish
 Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she is not surprised that her upcoming visit to Israel has sparked opposition at home. Labor colleagues have expressed concerns about the dialogue with Israeli leaders this week.
MP Julia Irwin, an executive member of the Australian Parliamentary Friends of Palestine group, has said the trip to Israel is unnecessary. And several other MPs voiced concern during a recent caucus meeting. Ms Gillard said it was hardly surprising that there are a range of views on the issue. "There's obliviously a debate, a very real debate about matters in the middle east, and so I suppose a politician's visit ... is going to be remarked upon,'' Ms Gillard told ABC television. Labor are "strong friends and supporters'' of Israel. The party strongly supports "a two state solution, with secure borders to recognise the needs and aspirations of the Palestinian people.'' "That will be my message in Israel,'' she said. Ms Gillard is leading the delegation to the inaugural Australia Israel Leadership Forum, which includes former treasurer Peter Costello, Liberal frontbenchers Chris Pyne and George Brandis, and Labor backbenchers Mike Kelly and Mark Dreyfus. Article from: The Australian H/T: GR
 Denying Israel's right to exist is no basis for a settlement NOT everybody got the message in Barack Obama's Cairo speech, that Middle East peace requires compromise. The Israelis did, demonstrated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech on Sunday proposing a new peace process. In return for accepting Israel as a Jewish nation he offered the Palestinians a two-state solution. But Israel's opponents are not having any of it. The Palestinian Authority says Mr Netanyahu's speech "torpedoed" peace initiatives. This was a pointless, posturing response which reflects the mentality of those members of the Palestinian political elite who prefer nihilism to negotiation and are happier denouncing Israel than dealing with it. And it reflects the mindset of those who want Israel treated as a pariah and who attempt to intimidate any individual or organisation that accepts the Jewish state's right to exist. It is a mindset that shapes the belief that Israel is an enemy to be destroyed, held in the Hezbollah terrorist training camps in the south of Lebanon, the Fatah government offices on the West Bank and in the Hamas arsenals of the Gaza Strip. And it is a mindset which permeates perceptions of Israel adhered to by people all over the world who want the Jewish state gone. Including people in Australia who abhor The Australian's commitment to the survival of the state of Israel. On Saturday this newspaper published an editorial supporting Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard's plan to visit Israel as an opportunity to express Australia's support for a two-state solution.
This outraged members of pro-Palestinian groups who responded with emails that less debated the newspaper's position than demanded it change. It didn't work. The Australian is pleased to publish well-argued opinion pieces and letters from all sides of the Middle East debate that are temperate in tone. But it has not, does not and will not, ever surrender to intellectual intimidation. The sheer venom of Israel's enemies this reflects demonstrates how hard it will be for President Obama to broker a deal. Israel wants peace, albeit not at any price. Mr Netanyahu will only accept a deal which acknowledges the country as a Jewish state and which ensures its security against terror attack, outright invasion or obliteration by Iran, where the re-elected Ahmadinejad regime makes no secret of its nuclear ambitions. And Mr Netanyahu will only accept a peace he can sell to an electorate in no mood for surrender after Hamas used Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2006 to create a new base for terror attacks. And there is no doubting the Israeli Prime Minister will bargain hard on all sorts of issues - from the exchange of land for settlements Israel should give up on the West Bank to the strength of Palestinian police force. But he is prepared to bargain, just as Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin was in Oslo in 1993, just as his successor Ehud Barak was at Camp David in 2000. On both occasions Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat backed away from a two-state solution, but in talking at all he did more than his heirs in the Palestinian factions appear prepared to do now. In rejecting Mr Netanyahu's proposal, the Palestinian leadership is betraying its people who need a permanent peace and functioning economy. Perhaps this is an opening gambit - or perhaps it reflects a permanent Palestinian orthodoxy, baldly stated in the Hamas Charter that Israel should not exist. Whichever it is The Australian will continue to publish news and opinions, regardless of who we offend. Source: The Australian
Pope Benedict XVI called for a Palestinian state during his recent visit to the Holy Land, thereby aligning himself - on this issue, at least - with the editorial boards of The Boston Globe, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times. And, for that matter, with most Israelis. A new poll shows 58 percent of the Israeli public backing a two-state solution; prominent supporters include Netanyahu's three predecessors - former prime ministers Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Barak - as well as president Shimon Peres. The consensus, it would seem, is overwhelming. As Henri Guaino, a senior adviser to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, put it on Sunday: "Everyone wants peace. The whole world wants a Palestinian state." It isn't going to happen. International consensus or no, the two-state solution is a chimera. Peace will not be achieved by granting sovereignty to the Palestinians, because Palestinian sovereignty has never been the Arabs' goal. Time and time again, a two-state solution has been proposed. Time and time again, the Arabs have turned it down. In 1936, when Palestine was still under British rule, a royal commission headed by Lord Peel was sent to investigate the steadily worsening Arab violence. After a detailed inquiry, the Peel Commission concluded that "an irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country." It recommended a two-state solution - a partition of the land into separate Arab and Jewish states. "Partition offers a chance of ultimate peace," the commission reported. "No other plan does." But the Arab leaders, more intent on preventing Jewish sovereignty in Palestine than in achieving a state for themselves, rejected the Peel plan out of hand. The foremost Palestinian leader, Haj Amin al-Husseini, actively supported the Nazi regime in Germany. In return, Husseini wrote in his memoirs, Hitler promised him "a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world." In 1947, the Palestinians were again presented with a two-state proposal. Again they spurned it. Like the Peel Commission, the United Nations concluded that only a division of the land into adjacent states, one Arab and one Jewish, could put an end to the conflict. On Nov. 29, 1947, by a vote of 33-13, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, partitioning Palestine on the basis of population. Had the Arabs accepted the UN decision, the Palestinian state that "the whole world wants" would today be 61 years old. Instead, the Arab League vowed to block Jewish sovereignty by waging "a war of extermination and a momentous massacre." Over and over, the pattern has been repeated. Following its stunning victory in the 1967 Six Day War, Israel offered to exchange the land it had won for permanent peace with its neighbors. From their summit in Khartoum came the Arabs' notorious response: "No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel." At Camp David in 2000, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians virtually everything they claimed to be seeking - a sovereign state with its capital in East Jerusalem, 97 percent of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, tens of billions of dollars in "compensation" for the plight of Palestinian refugees. Yasser Arafat refused the offer, and launched the bloodiest wave of terrorism in Israel's history. To this day, the charters of Hamas and Fatah, the two main Palestinian factions, call for Israel's liquidation. "The whole world" may want peace and a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians want something very different. Until that changes, there is no two-state solution. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com  Source: Boston Globe
 In blunt comments after talks that stretched past the three-hour mark, Mr Netanyahu offered talks “immediately” with the Palestinians but stopped short of endorsing Mr Obama's call for a two-state solution.
Both leaders also dwelt on Iran, with Mr Obama defending his diplomatic outreach strategy and an impassioned Mr Netanyahu voicing his fears that a nuclear-armed Tehran would pose a mortal threat to Israel.
The crucial first meeting between two leaders new to power was Mr Obama's deepest plunge yet into the labyrinth of Middle East peacemaking, which contrasted with his predecessor George W. Bush's initial hands-off approach.
Mr Obama said after the talks, which included a 90-minute one-on-one session, that he was “confident” progress on the Israel-Palestinian question was possible, praising Mr Netanyahu's historic vision.
All international parties had an interest in achieving “a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians are living side by side in peace and security,” he said, pointedly referring to Israel as a “Jewish state.”
Mr Obama also said Palestinians would have to do a “better job” in providing security guarantees and called on the Arab states to be “bolder” in moving towards normalisation with Israel.
Mr Netanyahu, who described the talks as “extraordinarily friendly”, did not use the words “Palestinian state” but also warned against obsessing on “terminology”.
“I want to make it clear that we don't want to govern the Palestinians _ we want to live in peace with them,” Mr Netanyahu said.
“We want them to govern themselves absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel.”
He said he had told Mr Obama, calling him a “great leader”, that he was ready to open talks with the Palestinians “immediately”.
Mr Netanyahu also appeared to discount reports the new Israeli government wanted to work to isolate Iran before moving on the Palestinian track.
“We want to move simultaneously and then parallel on two fronts: the front of peace, and the front of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capability,” he said.
There were also signs of division between the two men on the issue of the construction and expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank.
“Settlements have to be stopped,” Mr Obama said, hours after Israeli army radio reported that Israel issued construction tenders for the West Bank settlement of Maskiot.
The shadow of Iran's nuclear program, which the West and Israel believe is a disguised weapons drive, also loomed over the talks.
The US president said he expected little headway in diplomacy with Tehran until after Iranian elections in June, and he declined to lay out a firm timeline for progress.
But he added: “We are not going to have talks forever,” addressing Israel's fear that Iran will prolong diplomacy for months just to give it more time to build nuclear weapons.
“My expectation would be that if we begin discussions soon, shortly after the Iranian elections, we should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction,” Mr Obama said.
He also rejected a suggestion by a reporter that his offer of talks with Iran could be exploited by the government in Tehran.
“It's not clear to me why my outstretched hand would be interpreted as weakness,” Mr Obama said.
Mr Netanyahu, speaking separately later, welcomed Mr Obama's remarks, but insisted “Israel reserves its right to defend itself”.
“I hope the president's plan succeeds,” he said. “What is important is the commitment to the result _ that Iran does not develop military nuclear capability.”
Mr Netanyahu was also set to have a working dinner with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and talks with Mr Obama's national security advisor, James Jones.
His visit was the latest in a string of visits of Middle Eastern leaders to the White House in the run-up to Mr Obama's long-awaited address to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 4.
Mr Obama has already hosted Jordan's King Abdullah II and will meet Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak and Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas in the next few weeks.
By Caroline GlickArctic winds are blowing into Jerusalem from Washington these days. As Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's May 18 visit to Washington fast approaches, the Obama administration is ratcheting up its anti-Israel rhetoric and working feverishly to force Israel into a corner. Using the annual AIPAC conference as a backdrop, this week the Obama administration launched its harshest onslaught against Israel to date. It began with media reports that National Security Adviser James Jones told a European foreign minister that the US is planning to build an anti-Israel coalition with the Arabs and Europe to compel Israel to surrender Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to the Palestinians. According to Haaretz, Jones was quoted in a classified foreign ministry cable as having told his European interlocutor, "The new administration will convince Israel to compromise on the Palestinian question. We will not push Israel under the wheels of a bus, but we will be more forceful toward Israel than we have been under Bush." He then explained that the US, the EU and the moderate Arab states must determine together what "a satisfactory endgame solution," will be. As far as Jones is concerned, Israel should be left out of those discussions and simply presented with a fait accompli that it will be compelled to accept. Events this week showed that Jones's statement was an accurate depiction of the administration's policy. First, quartet mediator Tony Blair announced that within six weeks the US, EU, UN and Russia will unveil a new framework for establishing a Palestinian state. Speaking with Palestinian reporters on Wednesday, Blair said that this new framework will be a serious initiative because it "is being worked on at the highest level in the American administration." Moreover, this week we learned that the administration is trying to get the Arabs themselves to write the Quartet's new plan. The London-based Al-Quds al-Arabi pan-Arab newspaper reported Tuesday that acting on behalf of Obama, Jordanian King Abdullah urged the Arab League to update the so-called Arab peace plan from 2002. That plan, which calls for Israel to withdraw from Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights and accept millions of foreign Arabs as citizens as part of the so-called "right of return" in exchange for "natural" relations with the Arab world, has been rejected by successive Israeli governments as a diplomatic subterfuge whose goal is Israel's destruction. By accepting millions of so-called "Palestinian refugees," Israel would effectively cease to be a Jewish state. By shrinking into the 1949 armistice lines, Israel would be unable to defend itself against foreign invasion. And since "natural relations" is a meaningless term both in international legal discourse and in diplomatic discourse, Israel would have committed national suicide for nothing. Read more ...
Source: Jerusalem Post
Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon said yesterday that Israel would abide by all the commitments made by previous governments and that the new administration understood that Middle East "stability will entail a two-state solution". The comments were significant because Mr Ayalon, a former ambassador to Washington, is a key confidant of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, and both are leading figures in the hardline Yisrael Beiteinu party. The remarks came as Mr Lieberman began a week-long visit to Europe, his first trip as Foreign Minister. Israeli President Shimon Peres is due to meet Mr Obama in Washington tomorrow. Israeli and Palestinian politicians have begun posturing in the lead-up to Mr Netanyahu's May 18 talks at the White House. His first meeting with Mr Obama is likely to be dominated by the drive for an agreement to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Obama administration has repeatedly stated that "a two-state solution is the only solution". Mr Netanyahu, while not opposed to a two-state solution, has put a number of qualifications, including that any Palestinian state should not be allowed to have an army. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas yesterday outlined his main requirements to resume peace talks with Israel. "Our conditions and vision are part of the two-state solution, which also involves halting settlement building and the policy of house demolitions," Mr Abbas said after meeting Jordan's King Abdullah. King Abdullah is emerging as a key figure in the peace talks as he begins a tour of the Middle East to win support for a two-state solution among Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia. After yesterday's meeting, King Abdullah and Mr Abbas issued a joint statement: "The two Arab leaders demanded a halt for all settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian territories, particularly Jerusalem, and rejected all Israeli steps that seek to change the nature of the holy city through encroachment on its holy places and emptying the city of its population either by deportation or demolition of houses." Source: The Australian
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Posts
