Showing posts with label Israel Palestinian conflict. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel Palestinian conflict. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Diplomatic Assault More Dangerous than Hamas

By Michael Oren, former Israeli Ambassador to the USA
In his address to the United Nations General Assembly, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas proved that he is not a partner for peace.  And a Palestinian leader who accuses the State of Israel, which arose from the ashes of the Holocaust, of committing genocide in Gaza, apartheid and ethnic cleansing, has no intention of becoming a partner for peace either.
In his previous General Assembly speeches, Abbas denied the Jewish people's historical connection to the Land of Israel and Jerusalem. But this time he conveyed an unprecedented message: He does not want negotiations - not even American-brokered talks - and is not interested in durable pace based on security arrangements and mutual recognition...
Abbas' plan basically sets an impossible ultimatum for Israel : He has asked the UN Security Council to impose a nine-month period of negotiations, during which the core issues will be discussed based on the 1967 borders, without security arrangements and with a solution to the refugee problem.  If Israel refuses to accept these conditions - and there is not a single Israeli government, even a left-wing one, which will be prepared to accept them - Abbas will turn to the International Criminal Court in order to impose sanctions on Israel as an occupying force of a UN member state...
We must not forget that we are not operating in a void. The United States and President Barack Obama are currently dealing with significant threats in our region, led by ISIS . When Obama said in his UN address that the establishment of a Palestinian state was part of the war on ISIS, he was basically demonstrating how the regional challenges are only increasing the pressure on Israel...

We must not wait for the point in which we have lost control over our future. Our approach is to initiate for our future.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

BDS - In Their Own Words

BDS proponents often present their case  in terms of peace, human rights and justice; however, this masks the real agenda of seeking to destroy Israel rather than simply improve the lives of Palestinians and help them achieve independence. 

The true aims of BDS become clearer when the views of the movement’s leaders are examined. As the examples below demonstrate, they oppose a two-state solution or any other resolution to the conflict that would recognize the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their homeland. 
—————————————————————————————————————–
“Going back to the two-state solution, besides having passed its expiry date, it was never a moral solution to start with.”
-Omar Bargouti
Founder, Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
——————————————————————————————-
“Israel is the oppressor, not the settlements.”
-Hind Awwad,  National Coordinator, BDS Committee
——————————————————————————————-
“Good riddance! The two-state solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is finally dead. But someone has to issue an official death certificate before the rotting corpse is given a proper burial and we can all move on and explore the more just, moral and therefore enduring alternative for peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs in Mandate Palestine: the one-state solution.”
-Omar Bargouti
——————————————————————————————-
“(The one state solution means) a unitary state, where, by definition, Jews will be a minority.”
-Omar Bargouti
——————————————————————————————-
“I am completely and categorically against binationalism because it assumes that there are two nations with equal moral claims to the land.”
-Omar Bargouti,
——————————————————————————————-
“Ending the occupation doesn’t mean anything if it doesn’t mean upending the Jewish state itself…BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state. But can’t I see the value in reaching across the aisle, so to speak? The movement may be burgeoning but remains too small. Why shouldn’t we indulge in ad hoc partnerships to get things done? Richard Silverstein, Richard Goldstone, and many other self-proclaimed Zionists have done an immeasurably positive amount of work in skinning the Zionist cat (That’s a deliberate analogy. I don’t kid myself about how difficult it must be for a Jewish person to criticize the Zionist state), shouldn’t they be asked to join the BDS movement?
To be sure, I’m not dogmatically against cooperating with people whose views I find objectionable. If it came down to it, I’d be happy to work with the racist up the street to get the city to fix a neighborhood pothole.”
-Ahmed Moor, Pro-BDS Author
——————————————————————————————-
“BDS represents three words that will help bring about the defeat of Zionist Israel and victory for Palestine.”
-Ronnie Kasrils
——————————————————————————————-
“[Israel] was Palestine, and there is no reason why it should not be renamed Palestine.”
-Omar Barghouti
——————————————————————————————-
“The real aim of BDS is to bring down the state of Israel….That should be stated as an unambiguous goal. There should not be any equivocation on the subject. Justice and freedom for the Palestinians are incompatible with the existence of the state of Israel.”
-As’ad AbuKhalil
——————————————————————————————-

“Peace-or better yet, justice-cannot be achieved without a total decolonization (one can say de-Zionization) of the Israeli state.”
-Michael Warschawski, BDS activist
——————————————————————————————-
“[Palestinians have a right to] resistance by any means, including armed resistance. [Jews] aren’t indigenous just because you say you are….[Jews] are not a people…the UN’s principle of the right to self-determination applies only to colonized people who want to acquire their rights. ”
-Omar Barghouti
——————————————————————————————-
“I think the BDS movement will gain strength from forthrightly explaining why Israel has no right to exist.”
-John Spritzler, Pro-BDS Author
————————————————————————————————————–
“BDS’s stated goals (ending the Occupation, equality for non-Jews and Jews, and the right of return of the Palestinian refugees) logically imply the end of Israel as a Jewish state….The “state of the Jews” is actually an instrument by which a Jewish elite ruling class of billionaires and generals and politicians secures its oppressive grip on ordinary Jews in Israel…This is why there should not be a Jewish state.”
-John Spritzler
——————————————————————————————————————–
“The goal of #BDS is the full restoration of Palestinian rights, not an agreement to create an artificial mini-state in order to save Zionism”

-Ali Abunimah, BDS activist

Saturday, April 5, 2014

The Abuse of History.

Tony Elliot - Resident of Israel and UK

It is possible to take details from history (or omit them) and distort present day reality. This is happening regarding the peace process in the Middle East at the time of writing.

Viewing Israel through the prism of contemporary history can be used to create the wrong impressions. The conflict in the Middle East needs a context. Part of that context is the historical facts.

“The past must not be consigned to irrelevance. Unbroken historical continuities contextualize current events. Nothing springs forth from a vacuum. What takes place began back there”
-           Sarah Honig  

To paraphrase:  If we ‘airbrush out’ or ‘spin’ aspects of history we lose integrity and distort reality.   

On the 13-03-2014  Secretary of State. John Kerry addressed the House of Foreign Affairs Committee. He made the point that Israel was deliberately making things difficult for the Palestinians by insisting they recognise Israel as a Jewish State. This he intimated was an un-necessary stumbling block being put before the Palestinians because their recognition had been endorsed in the 181 Resolution back in 1947. Basically he was telling Israel to stop ‘banging on about it’.

Quote  “They (Israel) keep raising it again and again as a critical decider of their attitude towards the possibility of a state and peace and we’ve obviously made it clear”

This statement is either a mistake or worse a dangerous and deceptive manipulation of historical fact. It is true that in Resolution 181 Nov29th 1947 the words ‘The Jewish state is mentioned 40 times’. However Mr Kerry misses out one important fact: The Arabs never accepted Resolution 181. Their response to Resolution 181 was to mobilise 7 armies with the intention of exterminating the Jewish people. Gen Abdul Rahman Azzam Pasha articulated Arab priorities. Quote  “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre”.  That sentiment remains today.

Israel insists the Palestinians recognise the Jewish State of Israel because it is stated in the UN Resolution 181. To Israel the present day reality and the historical facts cannot be separated. Nor should they be!  What the Arabs rejected 67 years ago must be accepted today. The issue should not be ‘airbrushed’ away.  It is the central issue in the search for a lasting peace.    
Another example of interpreting history through a contemporary prism appears in Robert Fisk’s book ‘Pity the Nation’ quote:

‘……….Yad Vashem is not so much a memorial as a political statement. Its documents, photographs, dictate its theme: That the holocaust produced the state of Israel and that anyone who opposed the creation of that state is on the level of the Nazis’

The historical context tells a different story. By this statement he makes three insinuations:

1.       That Yad Vashem is more a political statement.
2.       That the Holocaust produced the State of Israel.
3.       Anyone who opposes the creation of the State of Israel is a Nazi.

1.Yad Vashem has two functions: First and foremost as a memorial to 6 million men, women and children, who were denied the right to live. Secondly as a place of study and research into the subject of genocide. To reduce Yad Vashem to the level of a political statement is an abuse of the historical facts and an insult both to the memory of those who perished and the integrity of Israel’s government.

2. The State of Israel was long in process before the Holocaust.  Mr. Frisk ‘airbrushes’ over the facts and creates a distorted picture. The vision for a Jewish homeland existed as early as 1809. A London Missionary group supported by people like William Wilberforce had an agenda which worked towards the physical restoration of the Jewish people to Eretz Israel.  
In 1895 Theodor Herzl wrote Der Judenstaat (the Jewish State).

“The Jews who will it shall achieve their State. We shall live at last as free men on our own soil, and in our own homes peacefully die. The world will be liberated by our freedom, enriched by our wealth, magnified by our greatness. And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind."

To suggest that the Holocaust produced the State of Israel is either ignorance or a deliberate manipulation of the facts.

3. Mr. Fisk’s third insinuation does contain some relevance to historical fact because, Hajj Amin al Hussieni, the grand Mufti of Jerusalem (1921-1948) actually joined the Nazis party. He vehemently opposed the creation of the State of Israel.  However Mr. Fisk uses the word ‘anyone’ to infer that Israel is in the business of stereo typing ‘anyone’ who disagrees with its politics as ‘Nazis’. Another example of a misleading interpretation.

Contemporary history needs the context of past history.  It is dangerous to pick and choose aspects of history in order to push an agenda.

Friday, April 4, 2014

Kerry Misleads the Palestinians

FACT:-   Israel never agreed to releasing pre-Oslo Israeli Arab terrorists as part of the 4th round of releases and Secretary of State John Kerry misled the Palestinians and told them that Israel had agreed to release them.

This is not something told reporters by tertiary sources. It isn't even something told on background not for attribution.

It is something that senior Israeli ministers have said for attribution. Further, they have said this in interviews broadcast on Israel Radio over the past week.

Again:  the 4th release as far as the Palestinians are concerned includes the Israeli Arabs.  And this wasn't going to happen in a vacuum.

PM Netanyahu made this clear from the start.

This is a mess caused by Secretary of State Kerry's decision to apparently make the assumption that he could easily force PM Netanyahu to release the Israeli Arabs.


But PM Netanyahu was absolutely honest in explaining that it would take very special and unique circumstances to make it possible for the Cabinet to approve the release of the Israeli Arab terrorists.


Abbas to Kerry: Please Beg Me More!

Khaled Abu Toameh  April 4, 2014 

Abbas is convinced that it is only a matter of time before U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry rushes back to the region in yet anther desperate effort to "salvage the peace process."
In recent weeks, according to Palestinian officials, Kerry has literally been "begging" Abbas to agree to an extension of the peace talks after the end of April.

Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have concluded that the Obama Administration is prepared to do almost anything to show some kind of "victory" in the peace process between Palestinians and Israelis. Palestinian demands therefore have continued to increase almost every day.

Palestinian Authority [PA] leader Mahmoud Abbas is now waiting to see what the U.S. Administration will offer him in return for refraining from pursuing his bid to join various international treaties and institutions.

In recent weeks, according to Palestinian officials, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has literally been "begging" Abbas to agree to the extension of the peace talks after the end of April.

Hours after Abbas signed the applications for joining a number of international bodies and treaties, he received an urgent phone call from Kerry asking him to refrain from further moves that could "derail" the peace process.

Abbas is convinced that it is only a matter of time before Kerry rushes back to the region in yet another desperate effort to "salvage the peace process."

On Wednesday night, Abbas and the PA leadership received the first sign that the U.S. Administration was nervous and confused following the PA's surprise decision to join 15 international organizations and treaties.

Kerry's envoy, Martin Indyk, invited Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat and Israeli Justice Minister Tsipi Livni to an emergency meeting in Jerusalem to find ways of preventing the "collapse" of the peace talks in the wake of Abbas's decision to apply for the memberships.
The meeting lasted for several hours and, according to Palestinian sources in Ramallah, Indyk and Livni "reprimanded" Erekat for surprising Israel and the U.S. Administration with the new decision.

So far, however, Abbas does not seem to be satisfied with what his emissary, Erekat, heard from Indyk and Livni. Abbas is therefore expected to step up pressure on the two parties in the coming days and weeks, if he can, in the hope of extracting as many concessions as possible.Abbas dispatched Erekat to the meeting to see what the Americans and Israelis are prepared to offer him in return for suspending this bid.

Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have concluded that the Obama Administration is prepared to do almost anything to show some kind of a "victory" in the peace process between Palestinians and Israelis. Palestinian demands have therefore continued to increase almost every day.

Realizing how desperate Kerry is to achieve an extension of the talks, Abbas decided that this was the right time to set new conditions, such as the release of jailed Fatah militia leader Marwan Barghouti and Ahmed Sa'adat, Secretary-General of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Barghouti is in prison for his role in terrorist attacks against Israelis during the second intifada. Sa'adat is serving a lengthy prison term for his role in the assassination of Israel's Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze'evi.

As Kerry increased his pressure on the Palestinians to agree to an extension, Abbas added two more conditions: the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners and a complete cessation of construction in settlements and east Jerusalem neighborhoods.

Abbas has also made it clear that his decision to join international organizations and treaties does not mean that he is interested in a "clash" with the U.S. Administration.

Abbas is right. Of course he does not want a "clash" with President Barack Obama and Kerry. Rather, Abbas wants the two men to continue begging him not to walk out of the peace process and turn their entire Middle East policy into another blunder. He wants them to exert pressure on the Israeli government to accept both his old and new demands.


Abbas apparently thinks he is moving in the right direction, and that Obama and Kerry have no choice but to accept his demands and intensify U.S. pressure on Israel. Abbas does not want totally to walk out of the peace talks at this stage. He feels that he can still extract further concessions from the Israelis and Americans, and that his decision to join 15 international organizations and treaties has left the U.S. Administration in a state of panic that the peace talks might fail. Now he is waiting to see what price Obama and Kerry are willing to pay to avoid that scenario.