Now available for mobile phones!

If you wish to view the blog on mobile phone, click here.

Would you like to comment on postings?
Join the Jewish Current Events page on Facebook.

Friday, October 9, 2009

Mort ZuckermanEditor, U.S. News & World Report

Posted: October 8, 2009
The Jews of Israel are facing a cruel dilemma. They came home to find peace and safety in their homeland of Israel; to find an end to that vulnerable status of a perpetual wandering minority; an end to exile, alienation, and powerlessness; and the beginning of a normal national existence. Instead, they found neighbors who were not reconciled to their living again together in this tiny piece of land the Jews have regarded as home for 4,000 years. How do you share a home with someone who says, "You have no right to be here"?

The Arab assault on the Jews that began immediately and has continued for more than half a century made it clear the Jews could not control 2 million Arabs without eroding the moral character of their tiny state and, with that, its support in the world. So leader after leader decided to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine and any pretense that Israel could become a binational state in which one people ruled another. After Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres promoted the Oslo agreements, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Olmert, prime ministers all, made dramatic proposals in search of a live-and-let-live relationship with the Palestinians -- and all were rejected. They offered to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza in words and withdrew from them in deeds. Did this bring peace? No, it brought terrorist attacks by suicide bombers who menaced any kind of normal life within Israel. Prime Minister Sharon voluntarily withdrew every last Jewish settler and soldier from Gaza. It meant forcing close to 10,000 Jews out of their homes. Did it bring peace? Did the Gazans say, "Good riddance," and get on with building their own society? No, they hunted the Jews who had left. They turned Gaza into a launching pad for thousands of rockets against the Jewish people. Never even for one day did they cease. This was true even before Hamas seized control. Then, when Hamas did take control, the terrorism escalated.

In yet another effort to find peace, the Israelis risked their own security by dismantling security barriers and checkpoints -- down from 147 to 14 in the West Bank -- and so providing mobility for people in commerce. They have "not been getting much credit for it," in the words of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, but the economic results are dramatic. Wages in the West Bank were up 24 percent in 2008 over 2007; agricultural exports from the Palestinian Authority to Israel increased from 30,000 tons in 2007 to 92,000 tons in 2008; the number of permits for Palestinians to work in Israel rose from 21,000 to 23,000.

The trouble has been the absence of any responsible governance among the Palestinians -- no capacity to deal with terrorism and violence, no command-and-control structure, no political backing for Palestinian officers to go after sensitive targets, and no legal apparatus to try those who might be arrested. Terrorist operatives have gone in one door one day and out the next. So when successive American administrations have pushed for negotiation between the parties, the Americans have all discovered, as the Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea put it, "that they want an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement more than the Israelis and the Palestinians want it."

The Obama administration began unwisely. The president made an uncompromising demand for a full freeze on construction in the settlements, imposing no requirement on the Arabs. That missed the real point of contention. According to a recent poll of Palestinians, halting construction in the settlements is not important to them. The evacuation of the settlement outposts is much more important to them. For the Israeli public, the settlement issue was a nonstarter without a compensating concession by the Palestinians. In any event, the previous Olmert government had greatly reduced permits for construction settlements, and very few permits remain.

Now the administration has initiated a more promising policy. At September's three-way summit in New York, it achieved an agreement by all parties to commence negotiations with no preconditions. Everything is on the table.

Israel is now committed fully to two states for two peoples. At the United Nations, Obama voiced his unreserved support for Israel as the state of the Jewish people, one of the core issues. The peace negotiations were to begin in a matter of weeks.

Obama's previous efforts had been rebuffed. His speech in Cairo in June, which he thought would open a door to the Muslim world, did not gain any takers. The Arab rulers refused to enter the room, and most kept their distance. According to a recent poll released by the International Peace Institute, public hostility to the United States and to Obama remained high, and it appeared that only 1 in 6 Palestinians has a positive opinion of America, and only 1 in 4 has a positive opinion of Obama. The only one who responded to Obama was Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who made public his commitment to have two states for two peoples. Here we had a government built around right-wing parties yet able to pass a resolution supporting the two-state solution.

Netanyahu's approach holds that peace will come from the bottom up, not the top down. It is both about economic development and about bringing security under control. The PA had been paralyzed, its security organizations scattered and ineffective, so it was left to the Israeli Defense Forces to control things on the ground while the terrorists hid. Several hundred gang leaders created chaos in the territories, holding back commercial and economic life, demanding protection money, killing and wounding Arabs and Jews alike. The PA simply didn't have the capacity to deal with these gangs.

A new approach came from Israel's General Security Services in 2007. The GSS director approached the Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, offering the wanted men a deal. If they ended their involvement in terrorism and violence, gave up their weapons, and placed themselves under the protection of the PA, they would be taken off the wanted list and would neither be arrested nor killed.

There was to be a three-stage trial period. First, the wanted men would be under the protection of the security services, restricting their movements; second, they would be given relative freedom of movement in the area; and third, they would be allowed to return home and live a normal life as long as they adhered to the terms of the agreement.

The plan worked. Nine rounds of wanted men who have been processed, almost 80 percent of the members of the original list of gang leaders, have left the world of crime and terrorism, and the ground is quiet. Now terrorists from other organizations such as Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front have approached the Palestinian security organizations wanting to come in from the cold and get on the list of parolees. They want to go home, and they are willing to abandon terrorist attacks and crime.

The security organizations that had lacked control over the territory were suddenly in charge. Add to this the projects of American Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, who, also in 2007, began training the special Palestinian forces and helped begin security cooperation with Israel. The new security forces began to take over responsibilities for the cities. Nablus was the first city, Jenin the second. Terrorist activities in these cities virtually collapsed, as the terrorist infrastructures were located and dismantled and the public police took over on the ground and, this time, did it seriously.

Today, Hamas is as much of a danger to the PA as it is to Israeli citizens. In fact, these Palestinian security services have now confronted wanted Hamas operators and done it much more brutally than the IDF would have done it. As Ben Caspit reported in Maariv, an Israeli newspaper, "The Palestinians are not fighting for us but for themselves. They are not protecting our lives, but their own. The terrible scenes from Hamas's takeover of Gaza, the executions in the streets, the kneecapping, the officer who was thrown off the 15th floor have all done their part." The Fatah organization realized that if it did not hit Hamas with all its might, Hamas would hit it.

This doesn't mean that the terrorism capability of these organizations is completely gone, but the success has fed on itself. Most of the credit is due to Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister. He has changed the way things are done. He asserts he will be the Ben Gurion of the Palestinians -- i.e., he will build the foundations of a state before the Palestinians declare a state, so that when they do, the infrastructure of governance will exist. A critical part is that the PA is starting to exert control over the territories.

The president, Mahmoud Abbas, has also gained confidence as the leader of Fatah. He has focused on consolidating his own authority and gaining the upper hand over the rival Hamas movement, breaking both its social infrastructure and its terrorist network. Now his popularity is growing. In a recent poll, he was supported by 55 percent, compared with only 32 percent in support of Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas in Gaza; 64 percent believe that Haniyeh is harmful to the interests of the Palestinians.

This progress will take more time. The Israelis will not buy words; they will buy only deeds. They will not accept the West Bank as a platform for rocket attacks that could reach every major Israeli population center. That is why they believe that the IDF should have complete freedom of action in the West Bank to respond to terrorism and crime. That is why the only Palestinian state that Israel can accept is, in Blair's words, "one that is secure and properly governed."

The peace process must be the beginning of the future, not the beginning of the end. There is still a ways to go, but the progress being made by the Palestinians, especially in terms of controlling the terrorists and criminal gangs, is one of the most promising developments to have occurred in decades.

PM Netanyahu Congratulates US President Obama Upon His Winning the Nobel Peace Prize

09/10/2009

Dear Mr. President,

Congratulations on winning the Nobel Prize for Peace.   You have already inspired so many people around the world, and I know that this award also expresses the hope that your Presidency will usher in a new era of peace and reconciliation. 

Nowhere is such a peace needed more than in the Middle East, a region that has been long marked by terror and bloodshed.   I look forward to working closely with you in the years ahead to advance peace and to give hope to the peoples of our region who deserve to live in peace, security and dignity.

With respect,

Benjamin Netanyahu

Thursday, October 8, 2009


New York Times Magazine Whitewashes Palestinian Kids' TV

By Eric Rozenman, for CAMERA.org October 7, 2009 Selected excerpts.

"Can the Muppets Make Friends in On the West Bank?" avoids the real story — 16 years of anti-Israel incitement, based largely on distortion and outright falsehood, aimed at Palestinian Arab children by both the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority broadcasting and the Hamas-run Al-Quds channel. ...


Hamas TV preaches the need for Palestinian children to eliminate the filthy Jews.... PA TV children's shows routinely teach that Haifa, Tiberias, Jaffa and other Israeli cities are part of "Palestine" and that "resistance" (terrorism) is laudable.

Palestinian Media Watch (www.pmw.org.il) has chronicled the coverage.

[In her article, the author offers] no explanation of the intifada, no intimation of Palestinian responsibility....

[The author] skates over a 1990s effort to produce a joint Israeli-Palestinian version of Israeli Television's ... spin-off of American public broadcasting's "Sesame Street." She notes that "the official Palestinian TV station was unwilling to show 'Shara'a Simsim' because it was produced jointly with 'Rechov Sumsum,' the Israeli version of 'Sesame Street.'"

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Tehran, Damascus stir up Hamas-Israeli Muslim riots on Temple Mount

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report

October 4, 2009, 11:12 PM (GMT+02:00)

Hundreds of radical Muslims, Palestinian and Israeli, rioted on Jerusalem's Temple Mount Sunday, Oct. 4, for the third day in a row, forcing Israeli police, battling flying bottles and rocks, to shut the shrine down to Muslim worshippers, Jewish Succoth festival pilgrims and tourists. Temple Mount remains sealed off Monday to prevent Muslims hurling rocks on the Jewish Priests Blessing ceremony taking place below at the Western Wall. Only Muslims over 50 with Israeli IDs and women will be admitted.

Incoming intelligence is reported by DEBKAfile's counter-terror sources as fingering Iran and Syria as the hands behind the troubles and their likely escalation. As directives streamed to their Palestinian pawns and radical Israel Arab Muslim elements, the Assad regime cancelled without notice Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas' visit to Damascus Tuesday, Oct. 6.

The Syrians accuse Abbas of collaborating with the Israeli military and American CIA and putting his security forces at their disposal. They could hardly welcome him while stirring up what they are calling "The Battle for Defending al Aqsa" (the ancient Muslim mosque).

Israeli security circles are alert to the potential of the Temple Mount mob action to flare up into a fresh Palestinian uprising on the West Bank, like the one Yasser Arafat ignited in 2000 over Jewish visits to the Biblical Temple site led by former prime minister Ariel Sharon on Sept. 19 of that year.

According to our sources, Iran and Syria are resolved to derail the process of reconciliation unfolding between the rival Palestinian factions, Fatah and Hamas, under Egyptian and Saudi sponsorship. The Syrian president Bashar Assad is opposed to this process more fiercely even than Tehran and is determined to scotch it.

Far from erupting spontaneously, the riots were carefully planned for more than a month in covert contacts between Palestinian Hamas operatives and heads of the Israeli Muslim movement, under the guidance of Syrian and Iranian secret agents. They succeeded in bringing Palestinian Islamists and Israeli Arab radicals together for the first time for a joint violent anti-Israel operation, dubbing it Operation Murbitun (Guardians of the Walls).

Thousands of young Palestinians and Israeli Arabs were quietly spirited into Jerusalem during the weeks before the outbreaks. They were divided into "platoons" of 150-200 men each and entrusted with watching over al Aqsa around the clock "to prevent its occupation by settlers, right-wingers and the Israeli police." The call to "everyone who can to come and defend the Muslim shrine" spread like wildfire. Abbas' Fatah had no choice but to jump into the "jihad."

Sunday night, gangs from the Palestinian village of Issawiyeh in northeastern Jerusalem rolled flaming tires onto the Jerusalem-Maaleh Adummim highway and hurled bottle bombs at passing traffic and border police called in to reopen the road.

The unrest predicted for Jerusalem in the coming days is expected to spread to other Arab communities, including those in Israel's heartland in the north.

Copyright 2000-2009 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved. www.debka.com

Friday, October 2, 2009

Only film footage of Anne Frank emerges



July 22 1941. The girl next door is getting married. Anne Frank is leaning out of the window of her house in Amsterdam to get a good look at the bride and groom. It is the only time Anne Frank has ever been captured on film. At the time of her wedding, the bride lived on the second floor at Merwedeplein 39. The Frank family lived at number 37, also on the second floor. The Anne Frank House can offer you this film footage thanks to the cooperation of the couple.

Film in now archived on YouTube.com


(hat tip: Israellycool.com via margosmaid.blogspot.com)

Hamas chief: Shalit video deal a 'triumph' of armed struggle

Hamas Gaza chief Ismail Haniyeh said on Friday that a deal exchanging Palestinian prisoners for a videotape of abducted Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit was a 'triumph' of the armed resistance against Israel.  
 
Ha'aretz,  October 2, 2009

Speaking in front of an assembled Gaza crowd, the Hamas strongmen congratulated the families of the female prisoners released earlier Friday, saying Hamas would not rest until all the Palestinian prisoners jailed in Israel would be released.

"This is a day of great hope. We welcome our incarcerated sisters on this blessed day in a deal between the Israeli enemy and the victorious Hamas battalions," Haniyeh said.

"This is an amazing accomplishment to the Palestinians who captured Shalit," he added, saying it was "a great triumph to the resistance."

Speaking to the Palestinian prisoners still jailed in Israel, the Hamas Gaza chief said that the Palestinian were a people "who does not forget its prisoners and my government will not give up on your freedom," adding that "the armed forces will not give up on your honor."

Earlier Friday, Israel Radio had reported that the militant organization was planning to hold a victory parade, urging Palestinians to take to the streets to celebrate the release of Palestinian prisoners exchanged with Israel for a videotape of Shalit.

In addition, Channel 10 reported that Hamas activists had said they were barred by Palestinian security forces from participating in celebrations taking place in the Fatah-controlled West Bank.

Israel ordered the release of 19 Palestinian woman prisoners earlier Friday after it had verified that the video of Shalit it received earlier had indeed met its demands.

Members of the Israeli negotiating team for Shalit's release viewed the footage to ensure it met Israel's demands - primarily with regard to how recently it was filmed. Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi has also viewed the video.

As soon as it was determined that the tape did indeed meet requirements, the Palestinian prisoners were transferred to Red Cross vehicles which finalized their release by transporting them over the border with the West Bank.
 

Thursday, October 1, 2009

No Peace Without Compromise
By Mitchell Bard

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is complex and yet its solution can be boiled down to one word – compromise.

Throughout the history of negotiations, first Zionists and later Israelis have accepted this reality and repeatedly made and offered compromises, but the conflict has persisted because the Palestinians have never been willing to do the same. In fact, if you look at their negotiating position today, it is as recalcitrant as it was nearly a century ago.

Israeli Position

Since the early 20th century, it has been clear that the only way to satisfy the competing demands of Jews and Arabs in Israel/Palestine was to divide the land. For more than 70 years, since Britain’s Lord Peel first proposed partitioning Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state, the Jews have accepted a two-state solution to the conflict.

Palestinian Position

To this day, the Palestinians do not accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state in what they consider Palestine.

Israeli Position

When the United Nations voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, the Zionists accepted a compromise that left them with a national home in less than 20 percent of the area originally promised to them by the British.

Palestinian Position

The Palestinians rejected the offer of an Arab state and joined with Israel’s neighbors in a war to exterminate the Jews. They lost. One consequence of their decision was that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians became refugees.

Israeli Position

After 1948, Israel offered to allow as many as 100,000 Palestinians to return in exchange for a peace agreement with the Arab states.

Palestinian Position

The Palestinians and Arab leaders rejected any offer that implied the recognition of Israel. Palestinian refugees were confined by their Arab brothers to refugee camps and prevented from becoming citizens (except in Jordan, which recently decided to strip them of their citizenship). Jordan and Egypt occupied territory now claimed by the Palestinians, but the Palestinians never demanded an end to the occupation or independence. Palestinians formed terror groups that have engaged in a violent campaign against Israelis and Jews around the world to the present day.

Israeli Position

After a series of provocations and an act of war (Egypt’s blockade of Israeli shipping in the Gulf of Aqaba), Israel attacked Egypt, Syria and Jordan (after King Hussein ignored warnings to stay out of the fighting and shelled Jerusalem) and captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It immediately offered to return most of the territory in exchange for peace.

Palestinian Position

The Arabs responded to Israel’s peace overture with three noes: “no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel.”

Israeli Position

In 1979, Israel signed a peace treaty with Egypt, dismantled settlements and other Israeli installations in the Sinai and returned the territory to the Egyptians. The Palestinians were offered autonomy, a formula for limited self-determination in the short-run that inevitably would have led to statehood.

Palestinian Position

The Palestinians rejected the autonomy proposal and refused to participate in negotiations.

Israeli Position

In 1993 and 1995, Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo accords with the aim of creating a Palestinian state within five years. Israel agreed to gradually withdraw from most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in exchange for peace. Israel withdrew from approximately 80 percent of Gaza and 40 percent of the West Bank and turned over most civil authority to the Palestinian Authority.

Palestinian Position

Terrorism continued unabated and escalated by the mid-90s.

Israeli Position

Israel agreed in 1998 to withdraw from another 13 percent of the West Bank in return for a Palestinian promise to outlaw and combat terrorist organizations, prohibit illegal weapons, stop weapon smuggling, and prevent incitement of violence and terrorism.

Palestinian Position

The Palestinians once again failed to fulfill their promise to end terror and sabotaged the plan for additional Israeli redeployments.

Israeli Position

In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 3 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third. Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have “religious sovereignty” over the Temple Mount. The proposal also guaranteed Palestinian refugees the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them.

Palestinian Position

Yasser Arafat rejected the proposal without even making a counter offer. Arafat, according to chief U.S. negotiator Dennis Ross, was not willing to end the conflict with Israel. The Palestinians subsequently instigated a five-year war of terror that claimed more than 1,000 Israeli lives.

Israeli Position

In 2005, Israel decided to evacuate every soldier and citizen from the Gaza Strip. This painful disengagement uprooted 9,000 Israelis from their homes. At the request of the Palestinians, Israel razed all the settlements to make room for what the Palestinians said would be high-rise apartments for refugees living in camps. American Jews bought greenhouses from the Israelis and gave them to the Palestinians so they would have a ready-made multimillion dollar export economy and businesses that could employ hundreds of Palestinian workers. By ending the “occupation” and removing the settlements, Israel was testing the oft-expressed view that these were the obstacles to peace. The expectation in Israel was that the Palestinians would take the opportunity to build the infrastructure of a state and, since they no longer had any justification for “resistance,” they would have the chance to show they could coexist beside Israel and set the stage for future compromises on the West Bank.

Palestinian Position

The Palestinians objected to the disengagement and refused to cooperate with the Israeli plan to withdraw. Since the evacuation, the Palestinians have not laid a single brick in the former settlements to build housing for refugees. The greenhouses were vandalized and the chance for taking over Israeli exports was lost. The few greenhouses that remained intact were converted to Hamas terrorist training camps. Instead of building the infrastructure for a state, the Palestinians had a civil war that led to the takeover of Gaza by Hamas. Instead of getting peace in exchange for territory, Israel was bombarded over the next three years with 10,000 rockets and mortars.

Israeli Position

Despite what virtually all Israelis viewed as the failure of the disengagement experiment, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert restarted negotiations with the Palestinians and offered to withdraw from approximately 94 percent of the West Bank, with 4.5 percent of the remainder to be received in a swap for land now in Israel. Another 1.5 percent of the territory would be used for passages to a Mediterranean port and Gaza. Olmert reportedly proposed a form of international (Arab states plus Israel and Palestine) control of the Holy Basin (the Old City) and a joint committee to administer East Jerusalem until permanent arrangements were settled.

Palestinian Position

Abbas rejected the deal. Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said later, “First [the Israelis] said we would [only have the right to] run our own schools and hospitals. Then they consented to give us 66% [of the occupied territories]. At Camp David they offered 90% [actually 97%] and [recently] they offered 100%. So why should we hurry, after all the injustice we have suffered?” Echoing the three noes of 1967, Palestinians declared at the Fatah conference in Bethlehem in August 2009: no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and no end to the armed struggle against Israel.

Israeli Position

Israel has offered compromises on all the final status issues:

Borders – UN Security Council Resolution 242 called for Israel to withdraw from territory – not all territory – it captured in 1967 in exchange for secure and defensible borders and peace. Israel has already withdrawn from 94 percent of the territory it captured in 1967. It has given up 100 percent of the Gaza Strip and nearly half the West Bank. As noted above, as recently as 2008, Israel offered to withdraw from 94 percent of the remaining territory in the West Bank.

Palestinian Position

The Palestinians insist that Israel withdraw to the 1967 border.

Israeli Position

Refugees – Israel has allowed roughly 200,000 Palestinians into Israel since Oslo and has agreed to take in an additional number on a humanitarian basis. Israel also supports the return of refugees to an eventual Palestinian state and the payment of compensation to the refugees from an international fund. Israel also expects that the Jews forced to flee from Arab countries be compensated.

Palestinian Position

The Palestinians demand the right of all refugees to live in Palestine, including what is now the State of Israel. They do not acknowledge the claims of Jewish refugees.

Israeli Position

Settlements – Israel has already dismantled all the settlements it built in the Sinai and in Gaza. It has also dismantled four settlements in Samaria. Israel has in the past offered to dismantle most settlements in the West Bank and has, at various times, frozen settlement construction in the course of peace negotiations in the hope of reaching a final agreement. Prime Minister Netanyahu has also offered a temporary settlement freeze.

Palestinian Position

The Palestinians demand that all settlements be dismantled from the West Bank and Jerusalem. While they maintain that Arabs have the right to live in Israel, they deny the right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria.

Israeli Position

Jerusalem – Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its eternal capital and has resisted Palestinian demands that the city be divided. Still, Barak offered to allow the Palestinians to establish their capital in Eastern Jerusalem and offered a compromise over control of the Temple Mount. Olmert also offered to compromise on Jerusalem.

Palestinian Position

The Palestinians have rejected all Israeli compromises on Jerusalem and insist that although there has never been an Arab capital in Jerusalem, they should be allowed to establish one there.

Conclusion

Israel has a long history of compromising and continues to offer concessions in the interest of peace. The Palestinian’s have an equally long history of refusing to compromise. As President Obama seeks to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians it is clear where the emphasis must be placed if he hopes to succeed in ending the conflict.