Hillary Leaves No Hope

Remarks of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in two interviews on Oct. 13 that relate to Israel which I wish to highlight - with my comments intersperesed in the text in brackets.

Reuters:

...QUESTION: Let me turn to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Toria today told us that the Department is very hopeful that the Israelis and the Palestinians will agree to this preliminary meeting in Jordan on the 23rd.

MS. NULAND: Did I say very hopeful? I don’t think I said very hopeful.

QUESTION: Indeed. Two tape recorders and a transcript. (Laughter.) Why are you very hopeful?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well –

[well?  if Clinton, Mrs., is not quite "hoeful", how should I feel?]

...SECRETARY CLINTON: – ...we hope to have a meeting, or we hope to have a preparatory meeting between the parties by the end of this month. Some have said one date, some have said other dates, but the important thing is that the meeting happened, because part of the problem with the schedule was that we had some – we lost a number of days to the Jewish holidays, which – you couldn’t deal with the Israeli Government because, for obvious reasons, they were not available.

[thatnk God for Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur]

...We are always hopeful, Arshad...Otherwise, it’s too depressing to contemplate...

[you're depressed? imagine me.]

...the Israelis have accepted without preconditions a return to negotiations. The Palestinians, as you know well, are reluctant because of the settlement freeze issue...

[note: Israel agreed without preconditions; Pals. - no]

...Now get back into negotiations where you can actually start talking about borders. What’s the best way to end the dispute about settlements? Start talking about borders...

[so, even Hillary agrees that no Jews can reside in this new state of "Palestine" which is the logical conclusion to what she just said.  Just call Jewish communities "settlements" and they have to be on the other side of the border]

 

and

the Associated Press
 
...President Abbas, as you know, is on a road tour, so to speak, and has been in a number of countries seeking support for his UN position. But we have made clear that he’s lodged his request in the UN; there is no route whatsoever for a state being formed through the UN; it can only be formed through negotiations...you have to return to negotiations and there has to be a way to work out your demand for a settlement freeze and the Israeli demand for no preconditions if you really want to make progress toward a Palestinian state.
 
[well, it seems fairly straightfoward for the Pals. - drop the demand for a freeze of Jewish life]
 
...I think that the situation has changed from a total paralysis or stagnation between the parties, because you do have the Israelis saying that they’re willing, ready, and able to go into negotiations; you do have President Abbas knowing that he cannot get a state through the United Nations even though he was able to express the aspirations of the Palestinian people by lodging his request at the Security Council.
 
[funny but he seems not quite accepting that Mrs. Clinton]

...But as I’ve told the Palestinians, and as I think the Quartet is now telling the Palestinians, what’s the best way to end settlement development? Negotiate borders. Come up with a process where what is yours is yours, what is theirs is theirs, and then it becomes moot. The Israelis, if they were sitting on this side of the table, would say to you everybody knows Gilo is going to be in whatever we negotiate. Everybody knows that. So what’s the big fuss? It’s not like we’re building in Ramallah; we’re building in Gilo. And there’s a certain logic to that because, in fact, I don’t know any map that doesn’t have Gilo in it. There are other places that are more controversial, but Gilo is pretty much assumed.

[If she thinks that, why didn't she make it clear 10 days ago or so when the affair flared up over that Gilo construction?]

...QUESTION: ...things are only going to get worse from here, is one [claim] that Ariel Sharon made five years ago. And now we’re five years down the road and, arguably, things are worse. I mean, are you worried that this just keeps getting moved along in some sort of weird middle-muddle and it never gets fixed?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Anne, I think that’s a possibility. And who knows? Look, who knows what would’ve happened if Rabin hadn’t been assassinated? Who knows what would’ve happened if Sharon hadn’t had a stroke?

[but why are things worse? if Israel under Sharon handed over territory, greenhouses and emptied out over two dozen communities with some 8000 Jews and we still are suffering terror and Hamas got elected and the PA continues its incitement and the idea of a responsible state is a joke but Hillary and Co. keep playing games on our account, ever "hopeful" but leaving Israel no hope of security, of even peace]

...You had Netanyahu, who doesn’t – who often it’s not written about this way – who embraced the two-state solution, which had not been something he had done before. And as I remind the Palestinians, Bibi Netanyahu agreed to a 10-month settlement freeze. I dragged you all to Jerusalem and stood on the stage with him and said look, this is a big deal, never been done before. There was never a settlement freeze when Rabin was there, Barak was there, Sharon was there. Ten months, and then for a confluence of events, the Palestinians didn’t come to the negotiating table until the ninth month, one week.

[and that says what?]

...I think we are building a good, strong case for international support for negotiations. We just have to convince the parties of that...

[oh?]

And the official statement:

Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
Question Taken at the October 12, 2011 Daily Press Briefing


Question: What is the State Department’s reaction to reports that Prime Minister Netanyahu seeks to legalize outposts on private Palestinian land?

Answer: Our position on this issue remains unchanged. The United States has a clear policy – we do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity. We oppose any effort to legalize settlement outposts, which is unhelpful to our peace efforts and would contradict Israeli commitments and obligations.

We call again on both parties to take constructive actions to promote peace and avoid actions that complicate this process or undermine trust. We urge both parties to take advantage of the Quartet proposal and return to direct talks.

God save us.

^

Wexler Nixes NY 9th District Congressional Win

Well, Robert Wexler thinks the Turner victory over Weprin has turned the tide - into a pro-Obama wave:

Since then, the people who never trusted Obama on Israel have won argument after argument. The policy hasn’t changed. In 2008, Obama backed a two-state solution, with the 1967 borders as the basis, and land swaps shifting the territories to ones that Israel and a theoretical Palestine could defend, and he wanted Israel to stop building settlements in Gaza and the West Bank. In 2011, Republicans ran against this—and on the idea that Obama was “disrespecting” Israel—to win the 9th congressional district seat in New York City. Last month, a Gallup Poll clocked Jewish support for Obama falling 30 points, to 53 percent.

Wexler doesn’t dispute that there was a problem. He dings the media for exaggerating it, hyping the critiques of people like Ed Koch, who endorsed the Republican in New York’s 9th. “His reputation in Florida with former New Yorkers is strong,” Wexler shrugs. “In New York, he’s maybe less persuasive. That’s just what I hear.

Besides, says Wexler: “The universe has changed dramatically since that election in New York. The past month, we have witnessed what may be a series of the most high-profile, staunchly pro-Israel actions by a president in years.” He rattles them off, drumming his fingers on the table to make his points: Defending the Israeli Embassy in Cairo, revealing a sale of bunker-busting missiles to the Jewish state. “You had the secretary of state, [U.N.] Ambassador [Susan] Rice, and others, aligned with Israel consistently, and at times seemingly against the world—certainly against a consensus of world opinion—in terms of thwarting the unilateral Palestinian effort for statehood at the United Nations.”

And then there was the killing of Yemeni cleric and al-Qaida leader Anwar al-Awlaki. It was good for America, he says, and helpful for his quest of brokering Middle East peace to help out Israel. “It shows a strong, bold, resolute president in defense of American interests,” he says. “As a result, America, as well as President Obama, gets more respect.” It helps America if an American citizen is killed by drones? “I think it’s totally within the bounds of the law. The more interesting legal questions will be: What about collateral damage? What about the unintended effects of some of these actions? Again, I think totally within the bounds of the law, but those may have factors that the law may not have anticipated.”

Wexler is president of the Washington-based S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace and was a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives, representing Florida's 19th congressional district.  Peace Now looks with favor on his activities. The tent cities' protest thanks him for his money.  Many Orthodox religious institutions do, too.

Of course, the Biden-Pollard mess has made a negative rebound.

(But look at the Pollard example here:

A Pakistani commission has recommended bringing charges of high treason against Dr. Shakeel Afridi. He's accused of helping U.S. intelligence with a vaccination program in Abbottabad to try to get DNA samples to see if Bin Laden or his family lived in the compound....


...TODD: Contacted by CNN, a Pakistani official could not say whether his government will put the doctor on trial. Our national security analyst Peter Bergen says if they do, the Pakistanis may have a case. He compares it to a well-known spying case in the U.S. in the 1980s.


PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Jonathan Pollard was tried in this country for spying for a friendly country's intelligence service, Israel. Why should Pakistan treat its citizens any different than the way we treat Americans who spy for even friendly countries?)

But let's return to Wexler

“I wish people, before they make these grandiose proclamations [such as  the call for an end to new settlements, a “snub” of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the 1967 borders discussion], would take into account at least two factors,” he says. “Number one, take the security impact on Israeli Security Forces. Number two, think of that Israeli mom who’s putting her kid on the bus in the morning—does your action make her kid more or less safe? If you take away that funding, the extraordinary security gains that have been laboriously achieved over the last half a dozen years will be compromised. The Palestinian people will suffer and the Israeli people will suffer as a result. Bankrupting the Palestinian Authority is a boon to Hamas! If you want to help the extremists in Gaza and the West Bank, bankrupt the Palestinian Authority. Go ahead!”

...The problem with the Obama-skeptics in the GOP, he says, is that their Israel policies are unrealistic, untethered to the peace process that actually exists. What’s the natural conclusion, he asks, of the attack on the two-state solution based on 1967 borders with swaps? Is it no Palestianian state? “You do that,” he says, “and then [Palestinians] say: ‘All right, I’ll take one state—can I have my vote please?’ I remember that Dick Armey—I don’t want to misquote him, I’ll paraphrase him—used to call for the expulsion of Arabs from the West Bank. Look. This isn’t the end of World War I. The world isn’t going to permit the mass expulsion of hundreds of thousands of people. Advocating for something that would make Israel less democratic, and less of a moral compass—I don’t think that’s in Israel’s best interest.”

Talking unrealisitically is also one way for Wexler (and Co.) to put down the cogent criticism of the Obama Administration's anti-Israel policies which pit supposed Obama solutions with actual "Palestinian" actions which will endanger Israeli's security and existence.  But more than that, what he suggests are the only conclusions of Israel's strong policy on retention of territories, on punishing the Pals. for their refusal to engage in negotiations or if they violate Oslo or in seeking to make sure Iran is not a threat, just to name a few, is a sort of straw-man approach.  He misrepresents what will develop, misconstrues the opportunities and possibilities and avoids a serious discussion of the issues Israel faces and what it can and should do to avoid the worst, even if the less-than-worst is a result.

In any case, yes, the Weprin defeat was a watershed.

Can we properly take advantage?

^

Seeing and Not Seeing in the Middle East

Who wrote this and about what?

Considering where we come from, who our partners are, and where we set our vision going forward, the option of despair and disillusionment is simply nonexistent.

Well, first the writers:

Stav Bar-Shany studies Middle East and general history at Tel Aviv University. A former member of the Meretz political party, Bar-Shany worked with member of Knesset Dr. Tzvia Greenfield...She thinks that Tel Aviv is the best place in the world, and that a two-state solution is the only political option to ensure that Israel will continue to prosper and fulfill its unique potential.

Maayan Ravid is soon to complete her studies in political science and the history of the Middle East and Africa at Tel Aviv University. Ravid has lived in Israel and in the San Francisco Bay Area and has been involved with community initiatives promoting peace and reconciliation on both continents. She has volunteered for several years with Sudanese refugees in Israel and worked with Hillel on social justice programs.

And now, take a deep breath for the vision

First, we look back: ...This is the only country we have, with its distinct Jewish character, historical ties, intensity, and never-ending challenges. We must continue striving to live here safely and peacefully. We cannot give up on their hopes and dreams.

Second, we look around: ...We understand that there must be another way to ensure safety and promote a livelihood for both sides — to create a viable future for two states...

Third, we look ahead: We want to continue living in this country. Our ancestors struggled for it in the past and we struggle for it today. But we do not want our children to need to continue that struggle further. The Zionist dream is not to continue living on the sword while preventing another people their own sovereignty. The Zionist dream is to be a nation among nations with many achievements, aspirations, and a sense of moral integrity. We cannot give up on the future.

There are none so blind as those who will not see or, as Jeremiah 5:21 has it:-

Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding, that have eyes, and see not, that have ears, and hear not:

How they can propose and presume to solve all their parameters within the reality we face is beyond me.

^

Jewish-owned NYTimes Pontificates

In its editorial, Palestinians and the U.N., the New York Times expresses

...sympathy for their [the "Palestinians"'] yearning and their frustration. For years, they have been promised a negotiated solution — President Obama called for a peace deal by September — and they are still empty-handed.

But whose fault is the failed negotiations?

Who rejected the Dayan Plan?  The Allon Plan?  Who agreed to the Three Noes of Khartoum?  Who rejected Begin's Autonomy Plan?  Who screwed up the Oslo Accords?  Who wouldn't take advantage of Netanyahu's Construction Moratorium?

The paper does admit that in going to the UN,

...the consequences could be profoundly damaging for all involved.

Why?

Because even if they get recognition of a state

...it would be in name only. After the initial exhilaration, Palestinians would be even more alienated, while extremists would try to exploit that disaffection.

Not that they deserve a state rather thatn a political framework of another type.

The best way, likely the only way, to head off this debacle is with the start of serious negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. The two sides haven’t even been in the same room together since September 2010.

The paper annoys in repeating a canard (which they actually correct, mostly, later on) that

Benjamin Netanyahu, has used any excuse he can find (regional turmoil, the weakness of his coalition government) to avoid negotiations. He has blustered and balked at President Obama’s prodding.

and worse, for NY Jewish liberals,

Republican leaders in Washington — who seem mainly interested in embarrassing Mr. Obama — have encouraged his resistance.

But the editorial writer picks up his magnifying glass and sees that

Arab leaders haven’t given the Israelis any incentive to compromise. The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, seemed to give up on diplomacy when Mr. Obama could not deliver a promised settlement freeze. We see no sign that he has thought even one step beyond the U.N. vote.

See, a bit of even-handedness doesn't hurt.
Returning to the essence of peace, the NYT informs us that

The core element: a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps and guarantees for Israel’s security. In May, President Obama endorsed that idea, which is widely accepted as the basis of any deal. At the time, Mr. Netanyahu scored points with hard-liners in Israel — and Republican lawmakers played the same game here — denouncing those boundaries as “indefensible.”

And they are.  Even American military experts agreed.

Here now comes the new interventionism of progressive humanists:

...To have any chance of inducing the Palestinians to drop their statehood bid — and finally move the peace process forward — the United States and its partners should put a map and a deal on the table, with a timeline for concluding negotiations and a formal U.N. statehood vote. The Security Council and the Arab League need to throw their full weight behind it.

And in the meantime

BEIRUT (AP) -- Syrian troops fired on mourners at a funeral and raided an eastern city Sunday, killing at least 59 people in an intensifying government crackdown on protesters...More than 300 people have died in the past week...Sunday's worst violence was in the eastern city of Deir el-Zour, where at least 42 people were killed...The government's crackdown on mostly peaceful, unarmed protesters demanding political reforms and an end to the Assad family's 40-year rule has left more than 1,700 dead since March, according to activists and human rights groups...

Not to mention closer to home, Hamastan in Gaza, rockets, PA incitement, summer camp indoctrination, et., etc., etc.

Such a peaceful Middle East.

^

Meet The (Not) Peace Partners

Did you know that

6 in 10 Palestinians reject 2-state solution, survey finds, 73% Support Hamas Charter

That JPost story details that


73% of 1,010 Palestinians in W. Bank, Gaza agree with Hamas Charter quote, 'hadith' about the need to kill Jews hiding behind stones, trees.

Only one in three Palestinians (34 percent) accepts two states for two peoples as the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to an intensive, face-to-face surveyin Arabic of 1,010 Palestinian adults in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip completed this week by American pollster Stanley Greenberg.

The poll...was conducted in partnership with the Beit Sahour-based Palestinian Center for Public Opinion and sponsored by the Israel Project, an international nonprofit organization that provides journalists and leaders with information about the Middle East.

Respondents were asked about US President Barack Obama’s statement that “there should be two states: Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people and Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people.”

Just 34% said they accepted that concept, while 61% rejected it.

Sixty-six percent said the Palestinians’ real goal should be to start with a two-state solution but then move to it all being one Palestinian state.

Asked about the fate of Jerusalem, 92% said it should be the capital of Palestine, 1% said the capital of Israel, 3% the capital of both, and 4% a neutral international city.

Seventy-two percent backed denying the thousands of years of Jewish history in Jerusalem, 62% supported kidnapping IDF soldiers and holding them hostage, and 53% were in favor or teaching songs about hating Jews in Palestinian schools.

When given a quote from the Hamas Charter about the need for battalions from the Arab and Islamic world to defeat the Jews, 80% agreed. Seventy-three percent agreed with a quote from the charter (and a hadith, or tradition ascribed to the prophet Muhammad) about the need to kill Jews hiding behind stones and trees.

You are surprised?

And you'll remember this.

^

I'm in a JTA Story

Six years on, lessons of Gaza withdrawal resonate for West Bank  By Linda Gradstein · July 4, 2011

SHILOH, West Bank (JTA) -- Yisrael Medad remembers when just eight families lived in the red-roofed homes in this Jewish settlement deep in the hills of the West Bank.

Now some 2,500 Israelis live here, and Shiloh has playgrounds, schools and a yeshiva. The red-roofed homes sprawl over several hills, and new homes continue to be built. At the bottom of the hill is the archaeological excavation of the biblical Shiloh, where the tabernacle is believed to have been built. Shiloh is often cited as one of the settlements likely to be uprooted under any final peace deal with the Palestinians. It is relatively isolated, about 28 miles north of Jerusalem, and halfway between the Palestinian cities of Ramallah and Nablus.
But with little movement in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Shiloh is not likely to disappear anytime soon. And even in the long term, any discussion of dismantling Jewish settlements in the West Bank is haunted by Israel’s experience six years ago this summer, when the removal of some 9,000 settlers from their homes in the Gaza Strip was followed by a Hamas takeover of Gaza and rocket attacks against Israel. “The expulsion from Gaza should serve as a warning for any withdrawal from Judea and Samaria,” said Hamutal Cohen of the Committee for the Residents of Gush Katif, which was the largest bloc of Jewish settlements in Gaza. “The government totally failed with 9,000 settlers. How can they manage with tens of thousands?”

...Yossi Klein Halevi, a journalist and a fellow at Jerusalem’s Shalom Hartman Institute, says support for Jewish settlers in the West Bank has gone mainstream in a way that support for settlements in Gaza never did.  “Two generations have grown up in Israel who see the settlements not only as part of Israel but as the heart of Israel,” Halevi told JTA. “Any withdrawal from the West Bank would involve mass refusal of soldiers to follow orders, and I am deeply worried about the ability of the army to continue to be an effective fighting force.”
Halevi estimates that Jewish settlers and their supporters make up 40 percent of some combat units; an Israeli army spokesman said the IDF does not release figures “on such a sensitive subject.” Orthodox men, who constitute a wellspring of support for the settlements, continue to volunteer for combat units in large numbers.

...It’s not clear whether Jews who live in settlements like Shiloh would have the option of staying on under Palestinian sovereignty or whether they would want to remain. Some Palestinian officials, including Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, have welcomed the idea, but PA President Mahmoud Abbas has expressed reservations.

“If a Palestinian state is created and my security could be ensured, I would definitely choose to stay,” said Medad of Shiloh, who has lived in the settlement since 1981.

^

EOZ Made of My Idea A Poster

I blogged an idea of mine that if the Arab regimes act so brutally towards their own, how can we make peace with them (and if we would have made peace what would have happened to us) and EOZ made a poster:

What do you think?

^

Think About This

Over the past few months we have witnessed Arab leaders killing, maiming, jailing and torturing their own peoples. Arabs vs. Arabs. Except for Syria (Allawis vs. Sunnis) and Bahrain (Sunnis vs. Shiites), it is also Muslim vs. Muslim - except fro Muslims vs. Copts. in Egypt.

In Egypt.

In Libya.

In Yemen.

In Bahrain.

In Syria.

It is with these leaders that the "world", the US plus the EU, the civilized world, wants Israel to make "peace". To surrender territory. To yield on security. To take a risk for peace. To make painful decisions.

Do they think us stupid? Insane?

With these people they wanted us to make peace?

And the Hamas - Fatah rivalry is better?

They were killing each other in Gaza just a few years ago and still can't get together.

Think about that - is that a peaceful resolution of our conflict?

If Israel would have "made peace" with these leaders, would there still be peace? Peace with Israel - or without Israel?


UPDATE

And over Shabbat, I read Caroline Glick's piece who also notes the intolerable acts being committed by Arab regime leaders against their own people and then leads to this:

As to the Palestinian Authority, this week’s Fatah-Hamas coalition negotiations in Cairo revealed the depth and breadth of Hamas’s control over the unity government now being formed. Despite massive American pressure, Hamas successfully vetoed Fatah’s bid to retain Salam Fayyad as prime minister in the unity government.

Moreover, in the face of significant international pressure, Hamas maintains its refusal to accept the so-called Quartet conditions of recognizing Israel, ending terrorism and agreeing to respect all previous agreements signed between the Palestinians and Israel.

Given Hamas’s maintenance of its annihilationist goals toward Israel and Fatah’s inability to convince Hamas to accept its minimal demands, it is obvious that Hamas is the stronger force in the Palestinian unity government. It is also clear that this government will not under any circumstances agree to make peace with Israel.

AND YET, in the face of these realities, US President Barack Obama is intensifying his pressure on Israel to agree to the now-powerless Fatah’s preconditions for negotiating. Indeed, he has adopted Fatah’s preconditions as his own.

Obama is demanding that Israel agree to surrender its right to defensible borders by insisting that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu accept the pre-1967 boundaries – that is the 1949 armistice lines – as the starting point for future negotiations. Since Obama surely recognizes that a Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority will not accept Israeli control over anything from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem to the Jordan Valley, he knows that he is requiring that Israel surrender its right to defensible borders before it even begins negotiating.

^

Obama Has A Vision

[see update & additionsal material below #]

From his speech today:

...The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region. [so, going back to the dispute over the Road Map outline, first come cessation of violence and incitement and perverse education in schools and summer camps and then only afterwards, negotiations about territory - and not parallel] We support a set of universal rights. Those rights include free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leaders [which means that the Arab society in Judea and Samaria still has a long way to go]...

...Let me conclude by talking about another cornerstone of our approach to the region, and that relates to the pursuit of peace.

For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. [and the consciousness that the very legitimacy of Jewish nationalism is negated and rejected] For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation [which only came about because they refused a state in 1947 and attempted, through the fedayeen and PLO terror to kill Jews], and never living in a nation [that should be country] of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security, prosperity, and empowerment to ordinary people.

My Administration has worked with the parties and the international community for over two years to end this conflict, yet expectations have gone unmet. Israeli settlement activity continues.[wait, wasn't there a moratorium on construction that was not matched by any Arab willingness to enagage in talks and negotiate?] Palestinians have walked away from talks. [hooray for that!] The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on for decades, and sees a stalemate. Indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward.

I disagree. At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever. [no, there is no linkage]

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. [but isn't that approach indicative of an unwillingness to achieve, ever, peace] Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist. [so, will the US actively disrupt and block the efforts of the PA in this direction?]

As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. [will the Congressional supervision, if initiated, of the American efforts to build a Pal. army finally help Israeli security rather than build a better terrorist group?] And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth [that is a troublesome term]: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River [actually, I think more are residing eat of the River]. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself [what does that mean?  unless the US will continue to provide the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria with advance training and access to sophisticated technology]. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people – not just a few leaders – must believe peace is possible [that is quite doubtful]. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation [yes, it can].

Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, nor can endless delay make the problem go away. But what America and the international community can do is state frankly what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples [and Jordan is not a "Palestinian state"?]. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel [and, of course, a viable Israel]. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines [but isn't a good deall of Jerusalem on the 'other side' of the pre-67 lines?] with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states [so, no territorial compromise and no Arab 'payment' for causing the 1967 war?]. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism [but is there's peace, why would there occur a resurgence of terrorism?]; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption [that's a big, no, huge assumption] of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized [that's a condition the Arabs will not accept] state (*). The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees [no they don't remain; they must be intergral to the essence for if the Arabs know their borders, they'll continue their delaying tactics to get half of Jerusalem and fill Israel and Judea & Samaria with refugees] . But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.

Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel – how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.

I recognize how hard this will be. Suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I’m convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past. We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones. He said, “I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict.” And we see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. “I have the right to feel angry,” he said. “So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate…Let us hope,” he said, “for tomorrow”

That is the choice that must be made – not simply in this conflict, but across the entire region – a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past, and the promise of the future. It’s a choice that must be made by leaders and by people, and it’s a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife...

Well, we have heard worse:

Here:

Secretary of State James A. Baker 3d said today that it was time for Israel to ''lay aside once and for all the unrealistic vision of a greater Israel'' and ''reach out to Palestinians as neighbors who deserve political rights.''


Speaking to the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israeli lobby, Mr. Baker for the first time laid out a comprehensive blueprint of the Bush Administration's approach to Middle East peacemaking.

The Secretary of State's speech was striking for the unsentimental and unusually blunt tone with which he addressed the Israelis, for the carefully balanced manner in which he called on both sides to make concessions for peace and for the clear endorsement he gave Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's proposal for elections in the West Bank and Gaza as a basis for breaking the Middle East deadlock.

''For Israel, now is the time to lay aside, once and for all, the unrealistic vision of a greater Israel,'' Mr. Baker said. ''For Palestinians, now is the time to speak with one voice for peace.''

[ Excerpts, page A10. ] Greater Israel is a term generally used by those in Israel who want the nation's final borders to include substantially more than pre-1967 Israel. It also includes East Jerusalem,the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights.

____________________

#

Check out EOZ.

Joshua Pundit.

Yid with Lid.

Tevi Troy.

Ben Smith.

Matthew Brodsky.

Daniel Pipes = "one line sums up Obama's mistake, where he declares that "The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel … must act boldly to advance a lasting peace." Note how he demands that Israel alone "must act boldly," code words for making concessions to enemies sworn to eliminate the Jewish state.  This is not policy; this is folly."

Charles Krauthammer: Obama speech shows he ‘has sympathies everywhere except Israel’ - it’s an issue of trust,” he continued. “Whenever Israel negotiates, there’s an asymmetry. It gives away a tangible asset — land in return for promises which are ephemeral...

Elliot Abrams:  ...other parts of the speech were less impressive, and two deserve note. First, the president simply rewrote history when it came to supporting democracy in the Middle East. He claimed to have done so from the start, with his Cairo speech. But in fact, his administration's policy was engagement--engagement with regimes, not peoples...Second, on the whole, the president's comments about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will lead nowhere. It is striking that he suggested no action: no meeting, no envoy, no Quartet session, no invitations to Washington. About the new Fatah-Hamas unity agreement...this is perhaps an acknowledgment by the president that negotiations are simply unrealistic right now.

From the archives of the late Shmuel Katz

From Robert Satloff:   ...the peace process principles he articulated constitute a major departure from long-standing U.S. policy. Not only did President Obama's statement make no mention of the democracy-based benchmarks injected into this process by President Bush in his June 2002 Rose Garden speech (which might have been appropriate, given the overall theme of his speech), he even included significant departures from the "Clinton Parameters" presented to the parties by the then president in December 2000:
President Obama is the first sitting president to say that the final borders should be "based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps."...The Obama formulation concretizes a move away from four decades of U.S. policy based on UN Security Council Resolution 242 of November 1967...Regarding IDF deployment, President Obama['s] statement implies categorical American opposition to any open-ended Israeli presence inside the future Palestinian state. This differs from the Clinton Parameters, which envisioned three Israeli "facilities" inside the West Bank, with no time limit on their presence...the most surprising aspect of the president's peace process statement was that it moved substantially toward the Palestinian position just days after the Palestinian Authority decided to seek unity and reconciliation with Hamas...Also odd was the fact that the president offered no implementation mechanism to translate these ideas into real negotiations.

Caroline Glick:  ...it is important to consider what it means for America.  Quite simply, Obama's speech represents the effective renunciation of the US's right to have and to pursue national interests. Consequently, his speech imperils the real interests that the US has in the region - first and foremost, the US's interest in securing its national security.

Jennifer Rubin notes a backtracking, sort of.
 
=================
UPDATE

Netanyahu's reaction:

Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace. Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state [i hit on that].

That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress [that's socking it to 'em].

Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines [yay!] which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines.

Those commitments also ensure Israel’s well-being as a Jewish state by making clear that Palestinian refugees will settle in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel.

Without a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem outside the borders of Israel, no territorial concession will bring peace.

Equally, the Palestinians, and not just the United States, must recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people [i hit on this, too], and any peace agreement with them must end all claims against Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu will make clear that the defense of Israel requires an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River.

Prime Minister Netanyahu will also express his disappointment over the Palestinian Authority’s decision to embrace Hamas, a terror organization committed to Israel’s destruction, as well as over Mahmoud Abbas’s recently expressed views which grossly distort history and make clear that Abbas seeks a Palestinian state in order to continue the conflict with Israel rather than end it.

(*) On demiliarization - I and II.
^

How The World Wants to See Israel After "Peace"

.

And this is what happens actually:-

^

Adopted from a Hugyfot advert.

^

The Netanyahu "Peace Plan" Speech

May 16, 2011
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Address at the Knesset
Herzl Day

Two days ago, on the Tenth of Iyar, it was the 107th anniversary of Theodore Herzl's death. It is no coincidence that his is the only portrait hanging on these walls. Herzl was the greatest leader the Jewish people has had in modern times. He was well aware of the condition of the Jewish people. He recognized the transformations that were taking place everywhere; and he clearly saw that a Jewish state was required in order for the Jewish people to survive, and that having an army was a necessity for the survival of this state. And not just an army, but a strong, modern army, equipped with advanced technology.

Here's what he wrote in 1896: "The [army of the] Jewish State… equipped, of course, with every requisite of modern warfare, to preserve order internally and externally." Herzl understood that nobody would protect us, and that we alone would have to safeguard our state. He wrote: "I only want this settlement, so that we can protect it with a Jewish army." Herzl was a man of vision, but at the same time he was also a realist. He understood that even after obtaining a state of their own, the Jewish people would still have to protect itself. People thought he was crazy for having thought up the idea of establishing a Jewish state, but he was scorned and ridiculed even more when he spoke of his vision for a Jewish army. Although Herzl had managed to recruit some of the leading Jewish intellectuals of his time: Nordau, Zangwill and others, it is interesting to point out that the richer and more intellectual Jews in the West were least tolerant to his ideas. The more common Jews in the villages and towns of Eastern Europe – Poland, Russia and the Ukraine – were willing to accept Herzl's vision and unite around his ideas.

Today, members of Knesset, we appreciate what many of our people ridiculed back then. Today we know that Herzl's most remarkable ability was his awareness to the changing reality and to come up with a solution, even if this solution was not accepted among the Jewish leaders of the time. Herzl had a capability that very few have, to see the hatred towards the Jews for what it was at its very beginning, and, no less acutely, to realize where it was going. Herzl did not succeed in sweeping all the Jews with his proposed solution, but he did manage to unite the Zionist factions around his central ideas. I believe that without this seed of firm agreement within the Zionist Movement, the movement would never been able to overcome the powers that opposed it around the world.

What can we learn today from Herzl's work? What is relevant to us today? The first lesson is that we must recognize changing reality. The Middle East is changing rapidly and drastically. Hundreds of millions of people around us yearn for political and financial freedom and are fighting to obtain these freedoms. These are inevitable changes. It is very possible that in the long term, these changes will be for the best, and I hope they will, for the good of these people and because at the end of the day, if this struggle is successful, it will promote the chance for peace and the peace's resilience. But in the short term, in the interim, our situation could possibly worsen, be more problematic and more challenging. We can see what is happening in Egypt, in Syria and in Lebanon. Lebanon is now controlled by Hezbollah, under the sponsorship of Iran, when only five years ago there was such great hope for freedom and progress. We saw what happened along the borders of Israel yesterday. Thousands thronged against our fences in an attempt to invade our territory and challenge our sovereignty. I must say that from the point of view of yesterday's rioters, 63 years of Israeli independence have changed nothing.

What were they yelling in Gaza yesterday? They were shouting that they want to return to Jaffa.

What were they crying in Syria yesterday? They were chanting that they want to return to the Galilee.

What did the leader of Hamas say yesterday? "We want to see the end of the Zionist agenda," the very same words used by his patrons in Iran, but, my friends, this was not only said there.

I said that we hear what is being said around us, but the most interesting thing is what happened in Bil'in. And this does not only happen there, but it was interesting, because two days ago at the demonstration in Bil'in, the cat was let out of the bag – more precisely, the key was let out of the bag. At the procession in Bil'in, a young girl was walking along holding a large symbolic key. Every Palestinian knows what that key symbolizes. This is not a key to their homes in Bil'in, Ramallah or Nablus. It is the key to our homes in Jaffa, Acre, Haifa and Ramle. My friends, the root of this conflict never was a Palestinian state, or lack thereof. The root of the conflict is, and always has been, their refusal to recognize the Jewish state. It is not a conflict over 1967, but over 1948, over the very existence of the State of Israel. You must have noticed that yesterday's events did not occur on June 5, the anniversary of the Six Day War. They occurred on May 15, the day the State of Israel was established. The Palestinians regard this day, the foundation of the State of Israel, their nakba, their catastrophe. But their catastrophe was that they did not have a leadership that was willing to reach a true historic compromise between the Palestinian people and the Jewish people.

Regrettably, since then until this day, they have not had a leadership that is prepared to recognize the State of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people. That has not happened yet.

My friends, we must not bury our heads in the sand. We must face reality, as it is, with our eyes wide open. We must stop self-flagellating and blaming ourselves. We must call a spade a spade: the true reason the Palestinians refuse to recognize the State of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people. I must say that I think that most people are beginning to understand this in face of the reality that is unfolding before us in our region and along our borders in particular. And I believe that most people are united regarding the standpoints that I will point out.

First, the people is united in our need to defend the country and its borders. Second, it is united in our need to maintain peace with Egypt and Jordan. Third, it is united faced with the threat of a nuclear Iran.

I also believe that most people are also united in regard to my viewpoints on the issue that seems to be in dispute, the political process with the Palestinians. The citizens of Israel are much more united than is commonly believed, and much more united than the political parties that are supposed to represent them here in this house. There are consensuses regarding the basic issues:

First, about my demand that the Palestinians recognize the State of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people.

Second, about my view, which is shared by many here, that the agreement between us must end the conflict and end the demands from the State of Israel.

Third, that the problem of the Palestinian refugees will be resolved outside of Israel and not within its borders.

Fourth, that a Palestinian state only be established under a peace treaty that will not compromise the safety of Israel. I believe there is agreement on this, and I stress that this state must be demilitarized, with practical security arrangements, including long term IDF presence along the Jordan River.

Fifth, we agree that we must maintain the settlement blocs. Many of us agree that the settlement blocs must remain inside the borders of the State of Israel.

Sixth, that Jerusalem remain the united and sovereign capital of the State of Israel.

These are the principles that guide my path, our path.

I know that a huge majority of people understands that we can only make peace with those who want to make peace with us. Those who wish to obliterate us are no partners for peace. A Palestinian government with half its members declaring daily that they plan to annihilate the Jewish state is not a partner for peace. Those who say, and I am familiar with the saying, that you only make peace with your enemies, must complement the statement with a small but important remark. You only make peace with an enemy, but with an enemy who has decided to make peace.

That is the major lesson from the 20th century, and I think probably from the 21st century too. Some of our neighbors and closest friends now understand that idea in relation to their own unrelenting enemies. I want to make peace with a Palestinian state that would end the conflict, I am not willing to accept a Palestinian state that continues it. I am prepared to accept a Palestinian state beside the State of Israel, but I will not accept a Palestinian state instead of the State of Israel. I know, I heard it even today, I know there are people who do not agree with some of the things I said here. But the large majority does agree.

Mr. Speaker and members of the Knesset, if they choose to recognize the State of Israel and abandon terrorism, they will find a unified people that is willing to make peace and is prepared for peace with concessions, but it must be real peace. That is what we want.

These compromises, by the way, will be hard to make because, no matter what, they are parts of our homeland. It is not a strange land, it is the land of our forefathers, to which we have historic rights as well as security interests.

Mr. Speaker, distinguished Members of Knesset,

Over 100 years ago, Herzl saw many factions in the Zionist Congress, with many different opinions. But he understood that there was agreement on the fundamental issues. He realized that the various sections of the Zionist Movement did see eye to eye on regarding the basics. He called upon the factions of the Zionist Congress to rise above factional and personal considerations. He called upon them to unite around the great ideas that served as the basis of the Zionist Movement.

This is what we must do today. In the past, the big Zionist powers were required to come together in order to establish the State, and today we need the big Zionist powers to come together to preserve the State and to ensure its future.

Therefore, at this historic moment, with our region in turmoil, with our very existence challenged, with the majority of us agreeing to the standpoints I outlined here, this is the moment to come together for our country.

I call upon you, Zionist members of the opposition, rise above party considerations, set aside your personal interests. Join us based on the principles that I have outlined, and let us present a united front for security, for peace, for the State.

_________________________

More than half of the Israeli public would support responding to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly by annexing West Bank settlements, a poll sponsored by Likud MK Danny Danon found.

...The poll was taken the first week of May among 500 respondents representing a statistical sample of the adult Israeli population, including Arabs. When asked whether they would support annexing "settlement areas in Judea and Samaria in response to the unilateral formation of a Palestinian state," 54.5 percent said yes, 30.4% said no, and 15% had no opinion.

________________________

Read Evelyn Gordon.
^

Michael Oren Has A Problem with Menachem Begin?

After reading Michael Oren's op-ed, I sent this letter to the NYTimes, which, as usual, was not published:

In his op-ed, Israel's Ambassador to the United States Michael B. Oren, in reviewing Israel-Egypt relations, notes that "Anwar Sadat, also started...a revolution of peace" ("Will Egypt Be a Partner in Peace?", February 21). It is unfortunate that Israel's highest official representative could not see fit to mention Sadat's partner in that peace process, Israel's Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who indeed initiated the new diplomacy that led to the 1979 treaty and for which merited the Nobel Peace Prize.



Yisrael Medad
Shiloh, Israel

Yisrael Medad is the co-editor of the recently published "Peace in the Making: The Menachem Begin-Anwar Sadat Personal Correspondence" published by Gefen

^

This Arabic Is Quite Understood

Do you know what this means?

الكثير من الفلسطينيين (خصوصاً من حركة فتح) والعرب آمنوا بوهم إقناع الاسرائيليين ب:-

أن الإسرائيليين والقوى الغربية ستسمح بإنشاء دولة فلسطينية ذات سيادة في الضفة الغربية المحتلة وقطاع غزة

وإسرائيل ستستقبل جميع اللاجئين الفلسطينيين الذين يرغبون في العودة وستعوضهم،

وإسرائيل ستتخلى عن سيادة القدس الشرقية

No?

Here is the translation:-

Many Palestinians (especially within Fateh party) and Arabs have deluded themselves that they can actually fool Israelis. They have convinced themselves that
Israeli and the Western powers will actually allow a Palestinian state in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip,
Israeli will be receiving all Palestinian refugees who wish to return, and
Israel will be giving up sovereignty and control over East Jerusalem.

^

So, Peace With the Pals. Is Possible?

David Solway says, basically, no.

An excerpt from his article:-

...For peace to have even an unhouseled ghost of a chance, several correlative concessions on the part of the Palestinians would be absolutely mandatory. For example:

•The Palestinians would have to agree that a Palestinian state would be no more Judenrein than Israel would be, let’s say, Muslimrein; there are one and half million Arabs resident in Israel, most of whom will not surrender their Israeli citizenship. Why then should 300,000 Jews living in Judea and Samaria be evicted from their homes?

•The Palestinians would have to realize that their insistence on the “right of return” to Israel of seven million so-called “refugees” is a complete nonstarter, and must be dropped from their negotiating position. Israel is not about to commit demographic suicide.

•They will be required to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

•They will have to accept Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and Ramallah as the capital of Palestine.

•They will need to be reminded that the “green line” is not an officially ratified international border but merely a temporary armistice line, allowing for adjustments that ensure Israel’s retention of strategic depth. For the Palestinian Authority to assume that its proposed or unilaterally declared state would abut the pre-1967 borders is a violation of UN Resolution 242. Moreover, Clause 5(2) of the Rhodes Armistice Agreement of 1949 stipulates that “In no sense are the ceasefire lines to be interpreted as political or territorial borders” and that they do not affect “the final disposition of the Palestine question.”

•They will consent to cease promulgating anti-Jewish hatred in media and mosque and to erase anti-Israeli incitement from textbook and classroom.

•Given Israel’s meager territorial scale and the volatility and inherent violence in the region, especially the aggressive meddling of Iran in local affairs, the smuggling of rockets and other armaments threatening Israel, and the inroads made by al-Qaeda and its offshoots, the Palestinian Authority will be compelled to permit a defensive Israeli presence in the adjacent hill country.

The likelihood of the Palestinian Authority agreeing to even one of these conditions is virtually nil. But in order for a viable peace to take root, all of these conditions would need to be implemented...

Gee, just like I have been saying.

And check out his earlier piece.

^

Great Letter

In the NYTimes:-

To the Editor:

In “A U.N. Plan for Israel” (column, Dec. 14), Robert Wright says, “The United Nations created a Jewish state six decades ago, and it can create a Palestinian state now.” But it cannot and would be well advised not to try.

First, the United Nations didn’t “create” Israel — sovereignty was asserted by its provisional government at the termination of British authority in the territory — nor indeed was the 1947 General Assembly partition resolution even legally binding. It would have been, had both Jews and Arabs accepted it, but Arabs did not. Had Arab arms prevailed over the Jewish forces, there would have been no Israel, regardless of United Nations resolutions.

Second, despite the importance of that resolution in changing the conditions surrounding Israel’s emergence, the United Nations came onto a scene that Britain, the governing power, was vacating. In short, it filled a vacuum. There is no such vacuum today.

Third, this idea suffers from the flawed tendency to believe that creating a Palestinian state will produce peace. Yet no perusal of Palestinian sermons, statements or publications suggests that Palestinians accept the idea of a peaceful state alongside Israel. If a Palestinian state won’t bring peace, why create it?

A United States policy that devises carrots and sticks to induce Palestinians to relinquish their war on Israel’s continued existence provides the best basis for future, fruitful negotiations.

Daniel Mandel
Haddonfield, N.J.

UPDATE

And Rick Richman appreciated it too:-

Mandel’s third point deserves a place high on the list of peace-process topics that merit further reflection.

It has been assumed, without much evidence to support it, that a Palestinian state would bring peace. But given the Palestinian unwillingness to recognize a Jewish one, or relinquish a “right of return” (which was never a right, only a short-term recommendation in another non-binding UN resolution from 1949, which the Arab states voted against), or cease the continuous incitement that permeates Palestinian schools and civil society, or dismantle Hamas as required by Phase I of the Roadmap, or express a willingness to put an end-of-claims provision in a peace agreement, the factual basis of the assumption is unclear.

Nor is it clear that the creation of a 22nd Arab state, including a second one within the area that was promised to the Jews under the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate, or the transfer of tens of thousands of Jews from their homes in Judea and Samaria to create the Judenrein state the Palestinians demand, would serve American interests. After 17 years of a peace process that has produced multiple offers of a Palestinian state but no peace, the unexamined belief that such a state should continue to be a central American concern is debatable at best — and should be debated.

Unfortunately, most readers of the New York Times will not get the chance to think about Mandel’s points. His letter was posted on the Times’s website yesterday but was not published in the national deadwood version of the Times either yesterday or today.

^

Goldberg's Goldblog Goes Gone

Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic takes on Rabbi Reuven Spolter of Elkana who opposes Goldberg's "contention often made on [my] blog, that it is in Israel's best interest to help birth a Palestinian state on the West Bank".

He quotes Spolter:

Why is it always up to us? Why does the Israeli Prime Minister need to travel to Ramallah to provide a vision? Has he ever heard of Hamas? Does he really think that the larger Palestinian goal is two live peacefully, side-by-side? And even if he does, would he bet his life on it, much less mine?

and attempts briefly to answer his questions. His answers follow - with my comments:

1) It is not up to Israel entirely, of course, but it is Israel that occupies the land in question, not the Palestinians;

Since the reason that Israel administers that portion of its homeland that was to be established as "the Jewish national home" with "the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine" taken into consideration (whereas the word "Arabs" does not appear at all but rather "non-Jews") as a result of a defensive response to Arab aggression in 1967 that was preceded by 19 years of terror attacks on its civilian population by fedayeen and Fatah, a territory that was not to "be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power" the administration of which, "while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co­operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes", all of this guaranteed by the League of Nations as international law, I would suggest to Goldberg that Israel has the better right to administer the area of Judea and Samaria and is in no way obliged to be the first to yield on its rights which foremost belong to the Jewish people which, of course, introduces another interpretation as to Israel, Jews and the Land of Israel.

2) Ramallah would be a good place to challenge the Palestinians to grapple with a generous vision of the future, because it is their de facto capital; Paris would be a nice place, too, but it is less relevant to the issue at hand; 

I'd go for Hebron since it the de facto capital of Hamas in Judea and Samaria (Hamas already has a statelet in Gaza) and most probably, as it did in Gaza, will seek and most probably succeed overthrow the PLO's Fatah in Ramallah.  All of which, of course, indicates that Goldberg is flogging am almost-dead horse.

3) Hamas is that chickpea spread you put on pita, right?

Golldberg fails at being funny or facetious and pundits should never attempt to be witty if thet are wrong - see #3 above.

4) I'm not sure what the larger Palestinian goal is. I believe there are many Palestinians who would see a Palestinian state as a launching pad from which they could begin the final assault on Israel; I also believe there are Palestinians who, in their hearts, have reconciled themselves to their Jewish neighbor. Israelis have a profoundly important stake in empowering that latter group; 

I would suggest that 'empowering', or whatever, should come before surrendering territory and subjecting Israelis to intolerable security threats.  Moreover, why can't CBMs (confidence building measures) be provided by the Pals. in the form of cessation of incitement, halt to those military-style summer camps, using maps in school that include Israel, accept that a supposed 'right of return' is not acceptable, agree not only to the concept of a Jewish state but accept Jews as residents no less than Arabs are citizens of Israel (12 Arabe MKs, et al.) and more?

In addition, if he is interested in knowing what Pals. think, let Goldberg try this and this, as a small, as it were, sampling.

5) Let me reverse this question on Reuven Spolter: Does he believe that his country will survive if it continues to dominate another ethnic group that resists domination? Because that, in essence, is what he is arguing for.

Despite my desire to be cynical about Golberg's audacious hubris, let me just say that (a) there are many such countries - and if believes they are immoral in their actions, well, let him go after them first and when he's finished, we can re-discuss Israel; (b) perhaps it may be that Arabs are illegally occupying Jewish territory; (c) I would suggest that Israel's survival is best served by retaining Judea and Samaria - even if we did not, as a people, possess rights to that land; (d) since Israel has done so for 43 years, with 325,000 Jews resident in Judea and Samaria and 250,000 in the new neighborhoods in Jerusalem, it is obvious that this is the trend that, to use Goldberg's word, dominates the politics of the situation.

One more thing: if American Jews would only be willing to accept what they know is true - and the above is only part - and promote that agenda, reject J Street and the subversion of Hillel, stand up to the Obama Administration and a few other matters, all of us, Jews in America and we Jews in Israel, would be part of a New Coalition - JUSTIS, Just Israel.

And JUSTIS, which has already taken its first steps will be seeking a greater impact on US-Israel relations. Stay tuned.

^

But His Conclusion, Oiy

Left-wing Zionists, like Yossi Alpher, are not bereft of commonsense.

Here he is in the NYTimes today:

...when the Palestinians’ quarrel with Israel touches on fundamental issues of ownership, whether in the claims of 1948 refugees or in the competing claims to the Temple Mount, the question of legitimacy comes to the fore.

This is how even moderate Israelis view the public rejection by the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, of former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s peace offer in 2008 — a set of proposals that Israelis deemed extraordinarily generous.

That rejection followed on the disappointments of Oslo, Camp David II and the unilateral withdrawals. And it dovetailed, in Israeli eyes, with the growing radicalization of the intellectual and political leadership of the Israeli Arab community in its calls for Israel to become a binational state — a formula Israelis view as the effective end of the Jewish state.

Israelis, then, feel that the peace agreements they do have, as well as those they may achieve, are premised at best on an Arab readiness to accept them at a superficial and conditional level, one that is little different from tactical non-belligerency.

This in turn reinforces the sense that Israel’s security depends far more on its military might than on any peace agreement.

But it is the matter of solutions, based on wishful-thinking that is so silly - and dangerous:

...with the right “marketing,” Israelis can be turned on by the prospect of peace even if this means heavy sacrifices. Peace — even cold peace — is so important that, in the absence of Arab initiatives, marketing should begin at home.

Unfortunately, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not seem to realize that the demographic thrust of his settlement policies contradicts his insistence that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state. Yet the real problem is not a hypocritical prime minister, but the support he draws from a skeptical Israeli public.

That leaves Barack Obama. To enlist Israelis he has to address us directly. And he has to deliver not only justified demands about settlements but reassurances regarding Israel’s security and integrity in a less than welcoming neighborhood.

Marketing?

But if the goods are rotten, stale, inimical to one's health, what marketing does is fool the consumer.

An Observation To Ponder

An Observation of Noah Pollak:

...what I see on the West Bank and Gaza are societies that have made themselves so dysfunctional and self-hating that the UN collects their garbage for them. Somehow, the weaker and more divided the Palestinians get, the more powerful they become. And the more economically and militarily mighty Israel gets, the weaker it becomes.

Found here.

Diehl: No Deal

In the Washington Post, of all places, we read of the expiration of the Bush/Rice peace push on Israel to recognize the need for a Pal. state, refugee return and, ultimately, Israe'l weakening.

Jackson Diehl writes:-

...the Bush administration's attempt to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal has quietly expired. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's 16 trips to the region over the past 21 months; last year's Annapolis peace conference; months of meetings between Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams -- all have sunk under the weight of the corruption charges against departing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the competition of crises from Georgia to Pakistan.

Nor is the peace process likely to revive anytime soon. The winner of last week's party primary election to replace Olmert, Tzipi Livni, will probably be mired in efforts to form a new government for weeks or even months. To succeed she probably will have to make promises to coalition partners that would make a deal impossible. If she fails, Israel will have an election in which the favorite, for now, is hard-liner Binyamin Netanyahu.

Those are just Israel's hurdles. The Palestinians are still split between Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. And if the presidential campaign is any indication, promoting a Middle East peace won't crack the top 10 on the next administration's list of priorities.

What does he suggest?

...a different approach to an intractable problem, one that focuses on building a foundation for peace from the ground up, rather than pushing fickle and fragile leaders to dictate a settlement from above. The timeline for success would be measured in years, not months. The goal would not be a document that Livni and Abbas could sign but the construction of a healthy and vibrant Palestinian civil society -- that is, independent media, courts, political parties and nongovernmental organizations that could stand behind a settlement with Israel.

Not bad.

First, the onus is on the Pals. Prove you deserve a state.

But that's, I believe, an insurmountable challenge. They'll never do it. Palestinianism is the polar negative to Zionism. Without Zionism and Jewish nationalism, Palestinianism doesn't exist.

The Whole Sorry Story

Timeline of Israeli-Arab Peace Initiatives since 1977
Jan. 22, 2008: Israel Continues to Provide Humanitarian Aid and Electricity to Palestinians in Gaza: Despite the increased number of ongoing rocket and mortar fire from Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza; over 4,000 missiles and rockets were fired since Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in August 2005, the country continues to seek peace with the Palestinians. Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni said on Jan. 24, 2008 “The goal is to end the conflict between our two nations, our two peoples, by the creation or giving the answer to the national aspirations of the Palestinians by creating a Palestinian state. Just as Israel is homeland for the Jewish people, the Palestinian state is and should be by its own creation a homeland for the Palestinians.” [1]

Jan. 9-11, 2008: President George W. Bush Visit to Israel: President Bush embarked on a tour of a number of Middle East countries, starting with Israel. The purpose of the visit was to advance peace negotiations initiated at the Annapolis conference in Nov. 2007. Bush urged the Palestinian side to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and also called on Israel to halt settlement construction and remove unauthorized settler outposts. [2]

Nov. 27, 2007: Annapolis Summit: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas sign a joint statement in Annapolis, Md. to lay the groundwork for peace talks. The joint document delineates broad principles of agreements and commitments to peace and stipulates that both sides will establish steering committees, led by the heads of their delegations to the Annapolis talks, that will meet continuously starting Dec. 12, 2007. Both sides agree to meet on a bi-weekly basis and express hope to reach a final peace agreement by the end of 2008. [3]

June 25, 2007: Sharm el-Sheikh Summit II: Olmert meets in Sharm el-Sheikh with Abbas, Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah II. The leaders gather to discuss containment of Hamas in the Gaza Strip and to strengthen Abbas' Fatah party in the West Bank. As a goodwill gesture, Olmert announces the Israeli government's intention to release 250 Fatah prisoners who have 'no blood on their hands' and who pledge to renounce violence. [4]

April 1, 2007: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's acceptance of Arab Peace Initiative: In response to the March 28, 2007 Arab League Summit at Riyadh, Olmert welcomes the Arab Initiative, revised since its conception in 2002, and invites the Arab heads of state to a meeting in Israel to further discuss the initiative and collaborate on improving it. [5]

Aug. 15-Aug. 23, 2005: Gaza and West Bank Disengagement: In an effort to relieve the security threats against Israelis living in Gaza and to try to put the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks back on track, Israel unilaterally pulls all of its citizens out of the Gaza Strip and the northern West Bank. This dramatic move costs Israel approximately $2 billion, and includes the evacuation of all of the roughly 9,000 Israelis living in the affected areas in addition to exhuming and transferring all graves in Gaza to Israeli territory. On Sept. 12, 2005, the last Israel Defense Forces soldier departs the Gaza Strip, marking a historic step towards peace by Israel. [6]

Feb. 8, 2005: Sharm el-Sheikh Summit I: Sharon meets with PA President Abbas, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah of Jordan to announce the implementation of Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank. Abbas and Sharon agree upon a ceasefire. Sharon expresses his hope that the disengagement will foster a step forward in the Roadmap for Peace. [7]

Dec. 18, 2003: Fourth Herzliya Conference: At this conference, Prime Minister Sharon presents a plan for Israel's unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria in exchange for peace. The Israeli Cabinet approves the plan on June 6, 2004 and the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) approves it on Oct. 25, 2004. The disengagement plan, a major sacrifice for peace, calls for evacuating nearly 9,000 Israeli residents living in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel also proposes the disengagement plan in hopes of stimulating progress in the peace process on the Palestinian side. [8]

June 4, 2003: Peace Summit at Aqaba: Sharon and Abbas meet in Jordan to reaffirm their commitment to the Roadmap. Sharon promises withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian areas, and Abbas pledges an end to the Intifada and the Palestinian culture of hate against Israel. The prospects of the summit are shattered Aug. 19, 2003, after Palestinian terrorists carry out a suicide bombing in Jerusalem. As a result, on Sept. 1, 2003 the Israeli Cabinet decides to wage war against Hamas and other terrorist groups, and halts the diplomatic process with the Palestinian Authority until it proves it is taking concrete measures to stop terrorism. [9]

Apr. 30, 2003: Roadmap for Peace: Based upon President Bush's speech of June 24, 2002 and principles of the Oslo Accords, this plan is supervised by the Quartet: the United States, the European Union, the Russian Federation and the United Nations. It calls for serious alterations in the Palestinian government and results in the appointment of Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. The Roadmap, which charts progress toward a final-status agreement through a series of benchmarks relating to security and political progress, is still the official blueprint towards peace between Israel and the Palestinians, with the Quartet meeting intermittently to track the progress of the plan. [10]

June 24, 2002: Bush's Vision for the Middle East: In a Rose Garden Speech, President George W. Bush outlines a new plan for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, with the possibility of a sovereign Palestinian state established in the near future. This policy calls for new Palestinian leadership (specifically acknowledging the corruption and unwillingness to stop terrorism that characterized Arafat's regime) and a reformulated democratic government for the Palestinians. The president also calls upon the Palestinians, as well as other Arab states supporting or tolerating terrorism, to cease those activities. The plan focuses mainly on the impediments to the peace process posed by the Palestinians since the Israelis had repeatedly offered and acted upon various concessions for peace, and on greater democratization throughout the Arab world. [11]

March 28, 2002: The Arab Peace Initiative: Leaders of Arab nations come together at the Beirut Summit, where Saudi Arabia proposes a plan for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This plan is known as the Saudi Initiative, or the Arab Peace Initiative. The plan calls for Israel to withdraw completely to pre-1967 borders; supports the 'right of return' for all Palestinian refugees and their descendents; and the creation of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. The Arab states in attendance pledge not to exercise military action to end the hostilities, and state that if Israel agrees to the aforementioned stipulations without modification, the Arab countries will in return consider the Arab-Israeli conflict to be over and normalize relations with Israel. Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres responds to the initiative on behalf of Israel, stating that Israel views the plan as encouraging, but that the agreement must be discussed directly with the Palestinians and that no accord can come to fruition unless terror activities are ceased, a condition not mentioned in the Arab Initiative. [12]

Jan. 22-27, 2001: Taba Conference: In the midst of the Second Intifada, and as a follow-up to the Camp David Summit, the Israelis and Palestinians meet for a final attempt to come to an agreement on a Palestinian state. Israel offers 94 percent of the West Bank in addition to Israeli land, culminating in an offer of 97 percent of the total land area requested by the Palestinians. The 'right of return' is also considered. However, the conference ends again in a standstill, and an Israeli-Palestinian Joint Statement is issued asserting that the two parties have never before been so close to an agreement and expressing hope for the future. [13]

July 11-25, 2000: Camp David Summit: To keep to the schedule set by the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum, Arafat and Barak meet with President Clinton at Camp David. In an effort to achieve peace once and for all, Barak offers a series of concessions including Israeli withdrawal from the entire Gaza Strip and 95 percent of the West Bank; the subsequent creation of an independent Palestinian state in the aforementioned areas; the dismantlement of all Israeli settlements in those areas given to the Palestinians; land compensation outside of the West Bank for settlements to remain under Israeli sovereignty; and Palestinian rule over East Jerusalem and most of the Old City (excluding the Jewish Quarter) and 'religious sovereignty' on the Temple Mount. In exchange, the agreement called for Arafat to declare an end to the conflict and a prohibition of future claims on Israeli land. Arafat rejects the proposal and makes no counter-offer. The summit ends in failure, but a Tri-Lateral Statement is issued delineating the principles of future talks. [14]

Sept. 4, 1999: Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum: This memorandum addresses the delay in implementation of the Oslo Accords created by Palestinian non-compliance with security obligations and the subsequent Israeli refusal to redeploy troops in the face of a growing terror threat from Area A (which is under full Palestinian administrative and security control). At this time, Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak meet to reaffirm their commitment to the Oslo Peace Process and set a new deadline, Sept. 13, 2000, for the completion of peace talks. [15]

Oct. 23, 1998: Wye River Memorandum: U.S. President Bill Clinton hosts Netanyahu and Arafat to negotiate the details of implementation of Oslo II of 1995. The memorandum emphasizes the need for the Palestinian side to uphold its security obligations. In return, for each phase the Palestinians successfully complete, they are to receive a specified percentage of land (through measures such as Israeli troop deployments). [16]

Jan. 17, 1997: Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron: The redeployment of Israeli soldiers from Hebron, the last remaining Palestinian city under Israeli control, is orchestrated in the Hebron Agreement. The protocol is signed by Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This marks the first time Israel's Likud party government has supported territorial withdrawal in the West Bank (also known as Judea and Samaria), until then widely considered a Labor party policy. [17]

Sept. 28, 1995: Oslo II: The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, known as "Oslo II" or "Taba," broadens and supersedes the 1994 Gaza-Jericho Agreement. This agreement deals with many aspects of the transition to Palestinian autonomy, including how Israel will leave Palestinian-populated areas in the West Bank and Gaza; the provision for Palestinians to elect the newly established Palestinian Council; and the division of the area into three sections based on which group retains responsibility for security divided into Areas A, B and C. Israel also releases Palestinian prisoners as a sign of goodwill. [18]

Oct. 26, 1994: Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty: After a series of meetings, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Jordanian Prime Minister Abdul-Salam Majali sign the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty. The basic provisions of the treaty delineate the international border; prohibit hostilities between the two nations; agree upon water usage from shared bodies of water; allow for freedom of movement between the two countries as well as access to religious sites within Jerusalem; and formally normalize all relations between Israel and Jordan. Diplomatic relations begin Nov. 27, 1994, and additional bilateral agreements are signed in the coming years in areas such as environment, trade and tourism. [19]

July 25, 1994: The Washington Declaration: King Hussein of Jordan and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin meet publicly in Washington, D.C. for the first time and take important steps toward implementing a peace treaty. The official state of war between the two countries is ended; each nation agrees to follow U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 to seek a total and lasting peace; and Israel acknowledges Jordan's special role in the oversight of Muslim holy places within Jerusalem. The two leaders also focus on future economic cooperation between Israel and Jordan. [20]

May 4, 1994: Gaza-Jericho Agreement: In what is also known as the Cairo Agreement, Israel and the Palestinians outline Israel's initial withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and Jericho, as well as the creation of the Palestinian Authority. Although Israel is removing all of its forces from these areas (and later from Palestinian cities in the West Bank), Yasser Arafat's PA fails to meet the security conditions requiring it to crack down on terror groups such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. [21]

Sept. 14, 1993: Israel-Jordan Common Agenda: After almost two years of Madrid Conference-inspired bilateral talks between Israel and Jordan, the two nations sign the Common Agenda which outlines the impending peace treaty between the two countries. [22]

Sept. 13, 1993: The Oslo Accords: After secret negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians in Oslo following the Madrid Peace Conference, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat shake hands and sign the "Declaration of Principles On Interim Self-Government Arrangements," better known as the Oslo Accords. The agreement calls for the transfer of power in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the Palestinians, beginning with an interim phase, leading to self-government and elections among the Palestinians, and culminating with a final-status agreement in which a permanent Palestinian state will sign an end-of-conflict agreement with Israel. The negotiations phase of the Accords include Rabin and Arafat exchanging letters in which Arafat pledges that the PLO recognizes Israel and commits itself to peace, while Rabin states that Israel recognizes the PLO as a legitimate party in the negotiations for peace. The "land for peace" strategy is heavily employed in these accords. The Oslo Accords are carried out through phased meetings. [23]

Oct. 30-Nov.1, 1991: Madrid Peace Conference: The United States and USSR co-host a conference in Spain to set the framework to negotiate peace between Israel and Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians, the first time direct and open peace talks are held between Israel and these four partners since 1949. The three-day conference sets in motion bilateral talks between Israel and each of its neighbors, as well as multilateral talks, about issues such as trade, resource development and conflict-prevention. Ultimately, however, no agreements develop from the Madrid process. [24]

May 14, 1989: Israel's Peace Initiative: Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin announce a plan for peace, based on the Camp David Accords, consisting of four basic parts: strengthening peace with Egypt as a regional cornerstone; promoting full peaceful relations with the Arab states; improving refugee conditions through international efforts; and establishing interim self-rule for Palestinians, including Palestinian elections, during a five-year period leading to a "permanent solution." [25]

-----------------

Footnotes

[1] IDF Spokesman’s Unit, Jan. 2 and Jan. 20, 2008; “Supply of electricity to Gaza continues,” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jan. 21, 2008, http://ncane.com/fow; “Remarks by FM Livni at the Davos World Economic Forum,” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jan. 24, 2008, http://ncane.com/rf9

[2] Heller, Jeffrey and Spetalnick, Matt, "Bush urges end to Israeli occupation," Reuters, Jan. 10, 2008, http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080111/ts_nm/bush_mideast_dc_19

[3] "Bush: Israelis, Palestinians agree on framework for peace talks," CNN, Nov. 27, 2007, http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/27/mideast.summit/index.html;
Ravid, Barak, Benn, Aluf and Uni Assaf, "Israel, PA agree to strive for accord by end of 2008," Haaretz, Nov. 27, 2007, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/928637.html

[4] "Israeli-Arab Negotiations: Background, Conflicts, and U.S. Policy," CRS Report for Congress, April 10, 2007, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33530.pdf
Knickmeyer, Ellen, Washington Post, June 26, 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500283.html

[5] "Paying the Price for Peace," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, July 28, 2005, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2005/Paying+the+Price+for+Peace+-+July+2005.htm.

[6] "Israeli-Palestine Negotiations," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sept. 7, 2003, http://tinyurl.com/67w5e
"Israel's Disengagement Plan: Renewing the Peace Process," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, April 20, 2005, http://tinyurl.com/9f3e7

[7] "Israel's Disengagement Plan: Renewing the Peace Process," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, April 20, 2005, http://tinyurl.com/9f3e7

[8] "Israel's Disengagement Plan: Renewing the Peace Process," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, April 20, 2005, http://tinyurl.com/9f3e7

[9] "Israeli-Palestine Negotiations," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sept. 7, 2003, http://tinyurl.com/67w5e

[10] "What was the 2003 'Road Map' for peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs?" Palestine Facts, http://palestinefacts.org/pf_current_roadmap.php, accessed July 17, 2007.

[11] "What was the Middle East plan put forth by Pres. Bush in June 2002?" Palestine Facts, http://palestinefacts.org/pf_current_bushplan_2002.php, accessed July 17, 2007.

[12] "Beirut Declaration on Saudi Peace Initiative - 28-Mar-2002," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, March 28, 2002, http://tinyurl.com/36cwu8; "Response of FM Peres to the decisions of the Arab Summit in Beirut - 28-Mar-2002," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, March 28, 2002, http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/about%20the%20ministry/mfa%20spokesman/2002/response%20of%20fm%20peres%20to%20the%20decisions%20of%20the%20arab

[13] "What happened at the Taba Conference in January 2001?" Palestine Facts, http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_alaqsa_taba.php, accessed July 17, 2007.

[14] "What took place at Camp David in 2000?" Palestine Facts, http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php, accessed July 17, 2007.

[15] "What was the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum in 1999?" Palestine Facts, http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_sharmelsheikh_agreement_1999.php, accessed July 17, 2007.

[16] "The Wye River Memorandum," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Oct. 23, 1998, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/The%20Wye%20River%20Memorandum

[17] "What was the Hebron Protocol and Agreement in 1997?" Palestine Facts, http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_hebron_agreement_1997.php, accessed July 17, 2007.

[18] "What was the 'Oslo II' Interim Agreement in 1995?" Palestine Facts, http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_oslo_accords_2.php, accessed July 17, 2007.

[19] "Main Points of Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Oct. 26, 1994, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Main%20Points%20of%20Israel-Jordan%20Peace%20Treaty

[20] "The Israel-Jordan Negotiations," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, March 24, 2003, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Israel-Jordan%20Negotiations

[21] "What was the Gaza and Jericho Agreement of 1994?" Palestine Facts, http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_gaza_jericho.php, accessed July 17, 2007.

[22] "The Israel-Jordan Negotiations," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, March 24, 2003, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Israel-Jordan%20Negotiations

[23] "What were the details of the Oslo Accords?" Palestine Facts, http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_oslo_accords.php, accessed July 17, 2007

[24] "The Madrid Framework," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jan. 28, 1999, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/The%20Madrid%20Framework

[25] "What was Israel's May 1989 peace initiative?" Palestine Facts, http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_israel_peace_1989.php, accessed July 17, 2007.

Source