Peace Requires Reeducation

Imagine this being proposed after hostilities with Hamas in Gaza, and then extended to the areas of Judea and Samaria to include Fatah:

On September 15, 2045, which is exactly one month after the announcement of the defeat in the war, the Palestinian government through the minister of education issued the ‘Education Policy Guidelines for the Development of New Palestine,’ which contain 11 work guidelines:

1. Education aims to broaden insights and knowledge, improve the ability to think scientifically, foster a spirit of peace-loving, and improve people's morality. 

2. Erasing all subjects related to the military; all teaching and research must be focused on peaceful purposes. 

3. Revised the textbooks so that the contents are in accordance with the new education policy. 

4. The Ministry of Education organized a re-education program for teachers, to understand the new education policy. 

5. Giving special learning opportunities for students who had been deployed to the battlefield or to the factory, which forced them to drop out of school. 

6. Scientific education aimed to train the ability to think scientifically and not just to pursue temporary interests. 

7. To foster high morality and broad-minded people, it was necessary to increase education outside of school for adults and workers, through public facilities such as public libraries and museums, as well as utilizing media such as painting exhibitions, theater shows, publishing popular science books, etc. 

8. Facilitating the formation of local youth groups, as a forum for communication and fostering social solidarity. 

9. Sought interfaith cooperation to foster friendship and world peace. 

10. Facilitating sports competition events to improve physical and spiritual health, as well as fostering the spirit of fair play and friendship among the nation's children and between the people of Palestine and other citizens. 

11. Restructuring the ministry of education to form the directorate of sports and directorate of scientific education.

A great dream, yes. Wild? Improbable?

Well, that text actually exists. But it was dated in the year 1945. And instead of Palestine and Palestinian, it read Japan and Japanese.

Think about that.

Source:  Journal of Strategic and Global Studies | Volume 2, Number 2, July 2019

^

The Palestinian Authority and the US Peace To Prosperity Plan

President Donald Trump announced his so-called Deal of the Century on January 28 this year.

It is quite beneficial for the Arab side. Since then, what has been done or said by the Palestinian Authority?

The next day they had people take to the streets as part of a "day of rage". Saeb Erekat said the Trump administration had simply "copied and pasted" the steps that Mr Netanyahu wanted to see implemented. "It's about annexation, it's about apartheid.

Mahmoud Abbas declared "We say a thousand times, no, no, no. We rejected this deal from the start and our stance was correct."

Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas said he is ending "all agreements" with Israel and the United States 

The Palestinian Authority prime minister Mohammad Shtayyeh said it would be “buried very soon.”

At the UN in early February, Abbas announced,  "we will not accept this plan; we will confront its application on the ground.”

In May, Abbas notified all that “The Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] and the state of Palestine are absolved, as of today, of all the agreements and understandings with the American and Israeli governments and of all the commitments based on these understandings and agreements, including the security ones.” Note: he did that last July and two years earlier.

Terror attacks continue. That the PA is creating an atmosphere of terror and war for the Palestinian street is documented.

I think things are quite clear.

So does Jared Kushner keep pushing? Was Jason Greenblatt smart to get out?

^

The Key is Reducinig The Four-Year Period

How to prevent the establishment of a second Arab state (well, third if we include Gaza) even though Israel has indicated acceptance of the Peace for Propserity Plan?

Simple.

Reduce it.

What four years?

Here is President Trump on January 28:

Perhaps most importantly, my vision gives the Palestinians the time needed to rise up and meet the challenges of statehood.  I sent a letter today to President Abbas.  I explained to him that the territory allocated for his new state will remain open and undeveloped for a period of four years.  During this time, Palestinians can use all appropriate deliberation to study the deal, negotiate with Israel, achieve the criteria for statehood, and become a truly independent and wonderful state.

President Abbas, I want you to know that if you choose the path to peace, America and many other countries will — we will be there.  We will be there to help you in so many different ways. 

How to reduce those four years?

Here are the preconditions Trump set out:

To ensure a successful Palestinian state, we are asking the Palestinians to meet the challenges of peaceful co-existence.  (Applause.)  This includes adopting basic laws enshrining human rights; protecting against financial and political corruption; stopping the malign activities of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other enemies of peace; ending the incitement of hatred against Israel — so important; and permanently halting the financial compensation to terrorists. 

No basic laws? Time reduced from the four years.

Continued financial corruption? No halt in pay-for-slay compensation for imprisoned terrorists? Time taken off those four years.

Terror continues?

Incitement continues? 

No negotiations (as at present)? Time reduced.

UPDATE EDIT

I was sent by LBD back to the full text of the plan itself so, as in Section 22,

If the PLO and the Palestinian Authority shall not refrain from any attempt to join any international organization without the consent of the State of Israel; or act, and not dismiss all pending actions, against the State of Israel, the United States and any of their

citizens before the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, and all other tribunals, more time can come off.

Those four years will become a few months or even weeks. In fact, over four months have already passed and the map has not yet been converted from a conceptual one.

This time Mr. Trump needs to hear: no four years!

^

Then and Now, A Concise Perspective: Baker vs. Trump

Then, Statement by Secretary of State James Baker to AIPAC, May 22, 1989

It is therefore high time for serious political dialogue between Israeli officials and Palestinians in the territories to bring about a common understanding on these and other issues. Peace and the peace process must be built from the ground up. Palestinians have it within their power to help define the shape of this initiative and to help define its essential elements. They shouldn't shy from a dialogue with Israel that can transform the current environment and determine the ground rules for getting to, for conducting, and, indeed, for moving beyond elections.

We should not hide from ourselves the difficulties that face even these steps here at the very beginning. For many Israelis it will not be easy to enter a negotiating process whose successful outcome will in all probability involve territorial withdrawal and the emergence of a new political reality. For Palestinians, such an outcome will mean an end to the illusion of control over all of Palestine, and it will mean full recognition of Israel as a neighbour and partner in trade and in human contact.

Let the Arab world take concrete steps towards accommodation with Israel, not in place of the peace process, but as a catalyst for it.

And so we would say, "End the economic boycott. Stop the challenges to Israel's standing in international organizations. Repudiate the odious line that 'Zionism is racism."'

For Israel, now is the time to lay aside, once and for all, the unrealistic vision of a Greater Israel. Israeli interests in the West Bank and Gaza, security and otherwise, can be accommodated in a settlement based on Resolution 242. Forswear annexation; stop settlement activity; allow schools to reopen; reach out to the Palestinians as neighbours who deserve political rights .

For Palestinians, now is the time to speak with one voice for peace. Renounce the 'policy of phases' in all languages, not just those addressed to the West. Practise constructive diplomacy, not attempts to distort international organizations, such as the World Health Organization. Amend the covenant. Translate the dialogue of violence in the intifada into a dialogue of politics and diplomacy. Violence will not work. Reach out to Israelis and convince them of your peaceful intentions. You have the most to gain from doing so, and no one else can or will do it for you. Finally, understand that no one is going to deliver Israel for you.

Today, Remarks by President Donald Trump, the White House, January 28, 2020

My vision presents a “win-win” opportunity for both sides, a realistic two-state solution that resolves the risk of Palestinian statehood to Israel’s security...This is the first time Israel has authorized the release of a conceptual map, illustrating the territorial compromises it’s willing to make for the cause of peace.  And they’ve gone a long way.   This is an unprecedented and highly significant development...We will form a joint committee with Israel to convert the conceptual map into a more detailed and calibrated rendering so that recognition can be immediately achieved.  

We will also work to create a contiguous territory within the future Palestinian State for when the conditions for statehood are met, including the firm rejection of terrorism.  (Applause.)

Under this vision, Jerusalem will remain Israel’s undivided –- very important — undivided capital.  But that’s no big deal, because I’ve already done that for you, right?  (Laughter.)  We’ve already done that, but that’s okay.  It’s going to remain that way.

And the United States will recognize Israeli sovereignty over the territory that my vision provides to be part of the State of Israel.  Very important. 

And, crucially, the proposed transition to a two-state solution will present no incremental security risk to the State of Israel whatsoever.

We will not allow a return to the days of bloodshed, bus bombings, nightclub attacks, and relentless terror.  It won’t be allowed.  Peace requires compromise, but we will never ask Israel to compromise its security.  Can’t do that.

As everyone knows, I have done a lot for Israel: moving the United States Embassy to Jerusalem; recognizing — (applause) –- recognizing the Golan Heights — (applause) — and, frankly, perhaps most importantly, getting out of the terrible Iran nuclear deal.  (Applause.) Therefore, it is only reasonable that I have to do a lot for the Palestinians, or it just wouldn’t be fair.  Now, don’t clap for that, okay?  But it’s true.  It wouldn’t be fair.  I want this deal to be a great deal for the Palestinians.  It has to be.

Today’s agreement is a historic opportunity for the Palestinians to finally achieve an independent state of their very own.  After 70 years of little progress, this could be the last opportunity they will ever have — and “last” for a lot of reasons...

This map will more than double the Palestinian territory and provide a Palestinian capital in eastern Jerusalem where America will proudly open an embassy.  (Applause.)  No Palestinians or Israelis will be uprooted from their homes.  (Applause.)

Israel will work closely with a wonderful person, a wonderful man — the King of Jordan — to ensure that the status quo of the Temple Mount is preserved and strong measures are taken to ensure that all Muslims who wish to visit peacefully and pray at the Al-Aqsa Mosque will be able to do so...

Our vision will end the cycle of Palestinian dependency upon charity and foreign aid.  They will be doing phenomenally all by themselves.  They are a very, very capable people.  (Applause.)  And we will help by empowering the Palestinians to thrive on their own.  Palestinians will be able to seize the new future with dignity, self-sufficiency, and national pride.

To ensure a successful Palestinian state, we are asking the Palestinians to meet the challenges of peaceful co-existence.  (Applause.)  This includes adopting basic laws enshrining human rights; protecting against financial and political corruption; stopping the malign activities of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other enemies of peace; ending the incitement of hatred against Israel — so important; and permanently halting the financial compensation to terrorists.  (Applause.)

Perhaps most importantly, my vision gives the Palestinians the time needed to rise up and meet the challenges of statehood.  I sent a letter today to President Abbas.  I explained to him that the territory allocated for his new state will remain open and undeveloped for a period of four years...President Abbas, I want you to know that if you choose the path to peace, America and many other countries will — we will be there.  We will be there to help you in so many different ways.  And we will be there every step of the way.  We will be there to help...In truth, Jerusalem is liberated.  (Applause.)  Jerusalem is a safe, open, democratic city that welcomes people of all faiths and all places.

It is time for the Muslim world to fix the mistake it made in 1948 when it chose to attack, instead of recognize, the new State of Israel.  It’s time.  (Applause.)

...But America cannot care more about peace than the stakeholders in the region.  There are many Muslims who never visited Al Aqsa, and many Christians and Jews who never visited the holy sites in the West Bank described so vividly in the Bible.  My vision will change that.  Our majestic biblical heritage will be able to live, breathe, and flourish in modern times.

All humanity should be able to enjoy the glories of the Holy Land.  This part of the world is forever connected to the human soul and the human spirit.  These ancient lands should not be symbols of conflict but eternal symbols of peace.

 ^

Routing Rosner: Peace Is Not A Dirty Word

Shmuel Rosner's piece in the NYTimes is quite ingenuous.

While the headline asks

How Did ‘Peace’ Become a Dirty Word in Israel?

in the body of his text we have this

How has “peace” become such a politically charged term? Jews include the word “shalom,” or peace, in their daily prayers; they use the word as a greeting regularly. But in the political arena, many Israelis are no longer willing to say that peace is their goal for their country, because they fear that saying so will make them sound fainthearted or deluded or — God forbid! — like leftists.

Israelis have developed two strategies as they shun the politically poisonous word “peace.” The right generally avoids the subject entirely. Since it believes peace is not a realistic goal, there is nothing to talk about. 

and in addition, there's this:

by “peace” in this context, I mean what Mr. Rabin wanted: a concrete and stable peace with their Palestinian neighbors. 

But we know what Rabin wanted, and what he didn't want, and it wasn't what the Israeli Left is promoting.

A month before he was assassinated, he spoke in the Knesset in a debate on an Interim Agreement arrangement as part of the Oslo Process and said:

In the framework of the permanent solution, we aspire to reach, first and foremost, the State of Israel as a Jewish state, at least 80% of whose citizens will be, and are, Jews.

At the same time, we also promise that the non-Jewish citizens of Israel -- Muslim, Christian, Druze and others -- will enjoy full personal, religious and civil rights, like those of any Israeli citizen. Judaism and racism are diametrically opposed.

We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.

And these are the main changes, not all of them, which we envision and want in the permanent solution:

A. First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev -- as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, while preserving the rights of the members of the other faiths, Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access and freedom of worship in their holy places, according to the customs of their faiths.

B. The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.

C. Changes which will include the addition of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar and other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the "Green Line," prior to the Six Day War.

D. The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

The Left when never accept this today (and it didn't then). They even make up stories based on hearsay that Rabin really didn't believe in what he said.

What is true is that the term "peace" has been sullied, denuded of what it should mean.

It should mean a Jewish state. Security. Freedom of worship at Jewish holy sites. It should mean reconstituting the Jewish national home. It should mean a loyal citizenry who deserve and require full civil liberties, rights and freedoms, without discrimination.

And for that we have the Left, both pre-state and post-Oslo to 'thank' for that peace is viewed with trepidation and disbelief.

(h/t=MP)

^

More US Consulate Discrimination

As I noted here some three and a half years ago, according the the standards of the Jerusalem Consulate of the United States of America, Jews are not really native to the geographic region the Consulate supervises.

I made this point based on the material found at its website and Facebook page:

in consistently ignoring the Jewish population, the US Consulate is avoiding what peace in the region should be: coexistence.  If the Jews and Arabs are always kept apart, what kind of peace can emerge?  Essentially, this direction of staging events is predicated on separation (did I hear ''apartheid'' ''segregation''?) and encourages local Arabs to assume that once some sort of peace is in place, the Jews will be nowhere found.  Jews aren''t there when these events took place and so they surely won''t be there when some form of future political administration assumes full control.  And that will be what "Palestine" will look like, if it comes to pass, just as the Consulate is promoting.

If you check, that situation is current and ongoing.

Following a link at its FB now, I read about a shout-out for an event sponsored by AMIDEAST for the 2014‐2016 English Access Microscholarship Program, funded by the United States Department of State through the American Consulate General in Jerusalem.

Checking the details, I read this:

ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

In order to be considered for English Access Microscholarship Program, a student must meet all of the following requirements:

...Be a resident of one of the following cities/districts:
Nablus
Jericho
Gaza City
Ramallah
Jerusalem
Rafah
Jenin
Bethlehem
Khan Younis
Qalqiliya
Hebron
North Gaza
Salfeet
Tulkarem
Gaza Middle Area

Except for one location above, no Jews live in any of those cities and towns.  What "Gaza Middle Area" is, I do not know but I hope they are not implying something akin to Tolkien's Middle Earth for that would be plain fantasy.

As for "Jerusalem", I have a hunch that no Jews living in the city would be eligible either.

Can you imagine the US funding a program for Israel and limiting residency to cities where no Arabs live, although, admittedly, that would, in practice, be quite difficult? Arabs are full citizens and live throughout Israel (yes, kibbutzim and yishuvim are sui generis) even if Jews would find it quite difficult and practical to live in Rahat or Um El-Fahm, unless one married an Arab, having to convert to do so according to the Muslim demand.

So, what is America up to in these administrative directives?

Peace?  Equal opportunity?  Coexistence?

^

Promoting a Kurtzer Peace

In a "TAKING NOTE" column from March 7, What an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Framework Might Look Like, Carol Giacomo (who seems to specialize in Middle East matters, a former diplomatic correspondent for Reuters, she's now also Ferris professor of journalism at Princeton University - which means she teaches one of their seminars in journalism on editorials: how they are conceived and constructed and how they aim to shape national debate on important issues, and whose official title is "foreign affairs and defense policy editor"),

promotes Daniel Kurtzer's "6-page model framework" for peace (no, not these six points).  Kurzter, to point out a possible conflict of interest, is Lecturer and S. Daniel Abraham Professor in Middle Eastern Policy Studies Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at ... Princeton.

Kurtzer, we should recall, was angry about "a very bad idea" that "the United States [was] poised to reward Israel for its bad behavior" back in 2010, a "deal [that] will shake the foundation of the U.S.-Israeli strategic partnership".  that was the construction moratorium. Truly an objective commentator on the issue.

She really appreciates his "way to settle [sic] the dispute over Mr. Netanyahu’s demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel not just as a state but as a Jewish state" with this formula:

“Israel will recognize Palestine as the home of the Palestinian people and all its citizens and Palestine will recognize Israel as the national home of the Jewish people and all its citizens.”

More, 

Palestinian refugees should have the right of return to the state of Palestine while Israel should “offer a program of family reunification, including citizenship, for a limited number of refugees.” 

and, as for the issue of the city of Jerusalem, 

Kurtzer proposes that it become “the capital of the two states...undivided...”...[and] envisions an international administrator appointed by the two parties.

Giacomo finishes up writing

Israeli and Palestinian leaders have usually not encouraged an open dialogue on the specifics. Rather, they have spent their time talking to their own communities, reinforcing maximalist demands and the perfidies of the other, not advocating areas of compromise.

I left this comment (with additions):

"Maximalist demands"? First of all, permitting an unchecked 'return' of refugees into Judea & Samaria will only exacerbate the security danger facing Israel if the retention of the hills of that region is not a part of a peace arrangement.   Second, any so-called internationalization of Jerusalem ("a special regime to administer the Old City under an international administrator appointed by them"), even if limited to the "holy sites" will not procure for Jews adequate freedom of religion (despite his belief that "The parties will agree to act in accordance with the dignity and sanctity of the city.") because the rocks will come down on worshippers at the Western Wall if Israeli police are not stationed on the Temple Mount, not to mention the demand that Jews be allowed to respect in a spiritual fashion the Temple Mount.

Those are actually "minimal" requirements. But Kurtzer's suggestion - and he is a former ambassador in Israel and should know better - that the Pals. must refrain from threats is laughable given the conflict's history. If, until now, they cannot even recognize Jewish national ethos, can we trust any such pledge?

I wonder if Ms. Giacomo would permit an opposing view to grace the Opinion pages of her newspaper?

Or would she provide a curt negative?

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

UPDATE

My comment is up.

^

For the Sake of the Children

The Oslo Process kicked in 20 years ago.

There are many things one can write about its effects, its influences and its results.

One theme I stress is that for true peace to evolve out of the mess Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin and Yitzhak Rabin got us into, is that the generation of schoolchildren who grew up during this period, from kindergarten on to university, must be weaned away from the hatred, the inculcation of animosity and the deprecation of the Jews and the anti-Israel incitement that the Palestinian Authority to this day is engaged in and corrupting the minds of their youth.

All this negativity must be unraveled and healed.  Peace programming must be in the schools.

If not, no peace.

So, to my not-surprise, one Brad Parker over at the closed-thinking Open Zion site, you can read this in Palestinian Youth and the Failure of Oslo:

Instead of growing up with a law-based, negotiated settlement founded on universal human rights principles, justice and respect for human dignity; Palestinian youth have had their futures stifled and suppressed by systemic discrimination, constant settlement expansion, and prolonged military occupation.

^

Jimmy Carter's 1000 Year Peace Right of Israel

I found this in the minutes of the July 20, 1977 meeting between then US President Jummy Carter and then Israel Prime Minister Menachem Begin:

Where have I read that "1000 year" phrase before?

^

The Easy Peaces

Found here:

An Easy Coalition: The Peacecamp Identity and Israeli–Palestinian Track Two Diplomacy

Abstract

This study presents a systematic transcript-based analysis of the dialogue occurring in a track two workshop attended by Jewish–Israelis and Palestinians. We hypothesized that participants from conflicting groups would form a shared superordinate identity in the course of the workshop. Our findings confirmed this hypothesis. 

Consistent with self-categorization theory, we demonstrate that the observed Jewish–Israelis and Palestinians mutually identified with the peacecamp, a collection of people and organizations that promote dialogue and conflict resolution efforts. In line with our expectations, and in contradiction to previous findings concerning communication between groups in conflict, participants demonstrated patterns of cooperative, counter-ethnocentric interaction. Through the paradigm of social identity theory, we explain these phenomena as the result of the participants' salient superordinate peacecamp identity. The study's findings offer an innovative theoretical contribution to the common ingroup identity model, showing that the reduction of intergroup bias can actually hinder the effectiveness of conflict resolution efforts. 

Specifically, by forming a superordinate identity, the observed participants are left less able to represents the needs, demands, and claims of their respective national groups and, hence, less able to produce ideas acceptable to their respective publics. The study also offers a practical contribution to the field of track two diplomacy, empirically verifying Hebert Kelman's assertion that when facilitators allow participants to form a cohesive group, they risk damaging both the quality of the workshop's ideas and the participants' ability to influence their leaderships (Rouhana and Kelman 1994; Kelman 1999, 2002).

I have not read this but I am going to offer my own theoretical suspicions:

these key phrases:

-  mutually identified with the peacecamp 

-  participants demonstrated patterns of cooperative, counter-ethnocentric interaction 

-  the result of the participants' salient superordinate peacecamp identity 

-  forming a superordinate identity

are a giveaway. 

I think I'd call it 

self-induced pre-participation submissive identification.

I mean, if the participants are, from the start, sharing not only goals but a history and tag-line of "peace camp" which, given the reality, has proven to be (a) one-sided on the Israelis side; (b) virtually non-existent of the Arab side; (c) basically, radical left-wingers for the most part in Israel who are self-delusional, ignorant of facts, too critical of Zionism and proven unwilling to accept the multiple proofs of failure, then of course they will cooperate.

The model of "a superordinate identity" is basically a trick.  It makes use of an 'umbrella' group identity to erase the tensions of prejudice and animosity by having the groups that are in conflict adopt a new definition of who they are.  In this study, I would guess that instead of being Jews and Muslims, Arabs and Zionists, Israelis and Palestinians, etc., they convinced themselves they were all peaceniks or some other identity label, maybe even citizens of a new "state of all its citizens".

Thus, these two claims:

the reduction of intergroup bias can actually hinder the effectiveness of conflict resolution efforts

and

by forming a superordinate identity, the observed participants are left less able to represents the needs, demands, and claims of their respective national groups and, hence, less able to produce ideas acceptable to their respective publics.

are obvious, or should be.

The question is, however, how did the study develop?  If the apparent result was "a hindering of the effectiveness of conflict resolution effects", how is peace to be achieved?

If peace is the supreme value, rather than, say, security or national identity, were attempts made to alter identities drastically?

So, how easy, or not, was it to make peace?

^

That New Arab Peace Initiative? And Who Opposes?

Which new initiative?

Start here:

Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, who is in charge of the negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, met Thursday with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to discuss reviving the Middle East peace process, AFP reported.  Flying in under the radar from Israel, Livni met with Kerry for about 30 minutes, with U.S. officials declining to divulge any concrete details.

"This opportunity was part of the secretary's ongoing discussions with Israeli and Palestinian officials and Arab and European officials, who have much at stake, as well to explore possible ways forward to resolve this conflict," acting deputy State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said, according to AFP.  "They discussed the full range of political and security issues facing Israel," he added.

 
Continue here:

Arab League leaders appeared to make a surprise concession Monday in saying a Palestinian state should be based on the pre-1967 borders but with mutually-agreed land swaps with Israel.

Note this:

...the Palestinian envoy to the United Nations, Riyad Mansour, said that Israel was only "paying lip service" to peace talks.  "While serious regional and international efforts are under way to revive the path of peace and to salvage the two-state solution, Israel instead continues to choose colonization and confrontation," Mansour said.

Mansour slammed Israeli tactics in a letter to Ban and the UN Security Council which highlighted how "hundreds of Palestinians have been forcibly displaced" in the past week and others face eviction.

His reaction:-

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh stressed on Hamas movement’s rejection to the Arab initiative for peace with the Israeli occupation, and to the idea of land swap.

...“Our borders are the historic land of Palestine. The land belongs to us, and we refuse the Arab initiative,” Haniyeh said. He stressed that the new Arab position that supports the exchange of land represents an unacceptable waiver and encourages the occupation to continue the settlement activity.

Gaza Premier called on the Palestinian people to adhere to the option of resistance as it represents the strategic choice. “What was taken by force can only be restored by force. Negotiations can never be the way towards the liberalization,” he said.

And his:

The Arab Peace Initiative seeking a swap of land between Palestine and Israel is “an attempt to alter history”, a senior Hamas leader said Friday. Mahmoud Zahhar said that no one can take the rights of Palestinians to return to their lands.

He added that Palestinians have four immutable rights: the right to their land, their beliefs, their holy places and their right to return.  Zahhar called on Palestinians to cling to these rights and not give up any small piece of “Palestine’s soil”.

His, too:

Political analyst Dr. Naji Batta said that Hamas movement had unequivocally rejected the Arab initiative, and said that "it does not meet the minimum rights of the Palestinian people."  Batta told PIC on Saturday that the Arab initiative and the idea of land swaps crossed red lines and pointed to more concessions.  "The Arab initiative is originally rejected, because Palestine is not for sale or rent," the political analyst said, stressing that no one has the right to give up any part of the land of Palestine.

What "peace initiative"?

^

From Hamas to Peace via The Boston Terrorists

First, read this:-

Hamas authorities introduced the 'Futuwwa', or youth programme into the state curriculum last September for 37,000 Palestinian boys aged between 15 and 17, conceiving it as a scheme intended to initiate a new generation of Palestinian men in the struggle against Israel.
Izzadine Mohamed, 17, was among the students who attended the weekly school classes, which covered first aid, basic fire fighting skills and how to fire a Kalashnikov rifle. He was also one of 5,000 boys across Gaza who also signed up for an optional two-week camp held at a Hamas military base.
"I was excited to learn the right way to use a weapon," said Mr Mohamed. "It's important because of the occupation. I feel stronger and more confident with the knowledge, which I could use against the occupier."
At the two-week camp, the boys spent their time dressed in a military-style uniform of black t-shirts and black jeans, and were trained by officers with the Hamas National Guard and militants with Hamas' armed wing, the al-Qassam Brigades.

Then, ask yourselves:-

if the Boston brothers, the Islamic terrorists, despite for 10 years or so residing in the US and going to school there where they actually teach civil rights and liberties and democracy and tolerance, couldn't absorb those values, how long do we need wait until these kids are rid of terror training and an attitude of hate toward the Jews before there'll be peace?

^

Romney's Analysis of Israel's Problems

From Mitt Romney's four-month old remarks:

I'm torn by two perspectives in this regard. One...is that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish....Some might say, well, let's let the Palestinians have the West Bank, and have security, and set up a separate nation for the Palestinians. And then come a couple of thorny questions...—what the border would be? Maybe seven miles from Tel Aviv to what would be the West Bank…The other side of the West Bank, the other side of what would be this new Palestinian state would either be Syria at one point, or Jordan. And of course the Iranians would want to do through the West Bank exactly what they did through Lebanon, what they did near Gaza. Which is that the Iranians would want to bring missiles and armament into the West Bank and potentially threaten Israel...These are problems—these are very hard to solve, all right? And I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say, "There's just no way." And so what you do is you say, "You move things along the best way you can." You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem....On the other hand, I got a call from a former secretary of state. I won't mention which one it was, but this individual said to me, you know, I think there's a prospect for a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis after the Palestinian elections. I said, "Really?" And, you know, his answer was, "Yes, I think there's some prospect." And I didn't delve into it.

^

Madonna is So Peaceful

The persons in this picture, founders of the Palestinian-Israel Peace NGOs Forum, are standing together with Madonna on her recent visit:

We spoke to her for a few minutes and we asked if she would say anything about peace,' Peace Now's Yariv Oppenheimer told AFP, 

And just afterwards, she appeared on stage so

and like this

So peaceful.

Just like the Oslo Peace Process.

That's real kaballah.

^

How Right - Or Wrong - Is Wright?

Robert Wright, senior editor at The Atlantic, writes (inter alia attacking poor Jeffrey Goldberg) this in a piece entitled Who Is Responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse?.

In assigning responsibility for the impasse...you can ask:

...Why is it that it's starting to look as if a two-state solution is impossible--or, at least, close to impossible and getting closer every month? The answer to that question, it seems to me, is the settlements. There are just too many settlements, interconnected by too many roads that restrict the movement of too many Palestinians, for a two-state deal to result in anything Palestinians could proudly call a "state." It would take a massive exertion of political will on Israel's part to uproot enough settlements for a two-state deal, and Israeli politics are nowhere near permitting such a thing. And here's the kicker: As the settlements grow, the amount of political will it would take to uproot them grows, while (as Hussein Ibish recently noted) the supply of such political will drops, since the Israeli constituency for the settlements grows.

...the settlements are the thing blocking the road. (At least, that's my view, and Goldberg, too, has in the past emphasized this pernicious effect of the settlements.)

At the risk of belaboring the metaphor: Suppose two people--a Palestinian and an Israeli--are in a car driving to a town called "two-state solution". Suddenly they see that a giant tree has been cut down and impedes further progress. The two people can, if they want, argue about which of them is responsible for not having gotten past this point before the tree was felled. (Who dawdled at rest stops more, etc.) That's question number one, and Goldberg says the two are about equally to blame. Question number two is: Who cut down the tree that now lies in the middle of the road?

That would be Israel. And the tree would be the settlements. (Which isn't to say that the settlements were necessarily put there in order to block a peace deal, though no doubt some settlers had that motivation--just that that is the settlements' effect.) And this would explain why Peter Beinart wants to put pressure on the settlements--because he thinks that they are what stand in the way of progress and that it's not too late to do something about that...

[Update, 3/21, 8:40 p.m.: I want to emphasize that I'm not saying that the settlements are the only current obstacle to a two-state deal. There are attitudes and positions on both the Israeli and Palestinian side that are obstacles. But the settlements are the biggest, closest-to-immovable obstacle, and they're getting closer and closer to immovable as the settler population continues to expand. If you ask the growing number of people who think it's too late for a two-state solution why they think that, a large majority will say, first and foremost, "the settlements."]

I left this comment there:

But ask yourself, using your example: who, even before that Israeli and the Arab set out on their car trip not stymied by a felled tree, was killing Jews, joining up with Hitler, pogroming, burning, chopping down trees, blocking up wells, refusing to accept partion plans and even receiving 70% of the original Mandate territory and pressuring the British Mandate authorities to halt immigration and then engaged in ethnic cleansing of Jewish communities in place in Hebron, Nablus, Gaza, etc. for centuries (what you would call "settlements") way before our current "occupation" began in 1967 (that nasty war we were forced to win) and way before any of the "settlements" that bother you were constructed.


I know you may say 'but that's so long ago' or even 'but what has that to do with contemporary and future peace deals', and I'll reply: the Arabs refuse to acknowledge any Jewish political national identity, will - and habe - done everything to halt it and even roll it back and are so concerned with this project that they give no thought to themselves, their people and their own identity, preferring to imagine who they are while refusing to recognize Jewish history.


Peace cannot be achieved given this history and this attitude.

^

Can Pals. Live Together With Jews?

Will Jews be Able to Live in a Future Palestinian State? asks Dan Rothem, a Senior Research Consultant for the moderate, left-leaning S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, and explains:

Allowing Israeli settlers to remain in the West Bank may ease the burden of drawing a border, but it is not in the interests of Palestinians or Israelis...Why can't Israelis stay in the West Bank as citizens or residents in the new Palestinian state? Are Palestinians insisting on a Judenrein?

Good point.  We can add "apartheid regime" terminology, too.

He continues that "the key question to ask here is whether the Palestinians would accept such a notion" and outlines the problems:

Palestinians, in short, have resoundingly objected to such a proposal. "If we want an independent state, I will not accept any single Israeli in our territories," Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said at a dinner with Jewish leaders in 2010 hosted by the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace. "We are not against the Jews. We are against the Israeli occupation."

And why are Palestinians so opposed to this idea?

...In their eyes -- and in the eyes of the vast majority of the international community -- they embody Israel's aggressive strategy to chip away at what is left of the 22 percent of their historical homeland that they claim for a state.

Politically, the continuation of settlement growth and expansion has signaled to them Israeli insincerity about a viable two state solution. It is no surprise, therefore, that the Palestinians insist that as part of a final resolution of the conflict, all settlements and settlers will be removed from within the borders of the new state of Palestine. For them, it would be the minimal correction to an historic injustice.

..."Once we have peace and two states on the ground, we will have to work on the best of the special relationships between Palestinians and Israelis," chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told the Jerusalem Post. "I hope the day will come when Israelis can live freely in the state of Palestine."

But there is another logic: come to terms with the Jews who have lived among you for 40 years and making prace with Israel will be a puiece of cake.  We revenants would be the test.  Yes, it's a challenge but think of the long-term ramifications which would be positive for all.
But

It is difficult to gauge the level of sincerity with which Palestinians endorse such an option.

and

...many Israeli officials object to it. Their first concern is the Israeli interest of clarifying that the two-state solution is a two nation-state solution: Israel fulfills the national aspirations of the Jewish people and Palestine fulfills the national aspirations of the Palestinian people. Accordingly, mixture of populations should be kept to the absolute minimum necessary.

Wait, does that mean the Arabs of Israel get transferred/moved to "Palestine"?

Then again

...allowing settlers and settlements to stay intact in Palestine would undermine the basic Israeli rationale for amending the 1967 lines. If all settlers could stay where they are -- why change the 1967 lines to annex some of them at all? Thirdly, and not least important, is the issue of security..."How can I provide Israelis living in Palestine with security?" asked former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni during the Annapolis negotiations. "I cannot bear the responsibility of their life in case they are exposed to danger and then the army will have to interfere."

But there'll be peace, no?

There are additional issues:

Will the settlers be granted Palestinian citizenship or will they be only residents of Palestine? Will dual Israeli-Palestinian citizenship be allowed by Palestine? by Israel? What will be their civil obligations to Palestine and to Israel? Will they be able to vote in either or both places? But the key impediment to its adoption is that, despite its allure in relieving the need to evacuate Israeli settlers, it is in the interests of neither Palestinians nor Israelis.

So, why can't people live together?  Where's the coexistence?  Where's the eventual peace?

^

On The False Recognition Ploy

Khaled Abu Toameh reports that a PA negotiator is suggesting the PA may withdraw recognition of Israel:

Mohammed Shtayyeh, member of the Fatah Central Committee and one of the Palestinian Authority negotiators with Israel, was quoted Sunday as saying that the Palestinians may cancel the agreements signed between the PLO and Israel...In response to a question about Israeli settlements, Shtayyeh said: "If Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu insists that there is no difference between the settlement of Abu Ghneim [Har Homa] and Tel Aviv, we won't distinguish between Ramallah and Jaffa."

...Shtayyeh explained: "The recognition of Israel was not a balanced recognition. The PLO recognized Israel in the geographic sense, but Israel did not recognize Palestine geographically, but as an institution. Israel only recognized the PLO. Now we are demanding a mutual recognition. We want Israel to recognize the Palestinian territories of 1967."

Of course, the minister has it backwards, as usual.

As Palestine Media Watch has proved with its studies and monitoring, and others as well, the PA does not recognize Israel, not intrinsically as an expression of Jewish nationalism and neither in its geography of borders.  Israeli cities and regions are "Palestine".  They teach and they broadcast that there is no difference between Haifa and Beersheba and Bethlehem and Shchem.  The PA symbols eliminate Israel from maps.  The educational system does not instruct the existence of Israel in any positive fashion.  No peace or coexistence programs are run.

It's all a fake.  The ungenuine peace.  The false recognition ploy.


(k/t=IMRA)

^

Ah, The Outstreached Hand of 'Peace'

.

^

They Saw It Coming

Friends of mine:

1)  Caroline Glick:

Another problem with the deal that Israel made with Sadat the dictator is demonstrated by the current unrest in the Sinai. In 1977 Egypt's was the strongest regime in the region. So when Israel thought about the threat emanating from Egypt, it thought about the Egyptian army barreling toward Beersheba. That is why the Egyptian military was barred from operating in the Sinai.

The last thing on Israel's mind in 1978 was the Bedouin tribes in the Sinai. Back then Sinai's Bedouin were pro-Israel and bitterly disappointed when Israel withdrew. But a lot has changed since then.

Over the past 20 years or so, the power of Egypt's central authority in its hinterlands has weakened. The strength of the Bedouin has grown. And over the past decade or so, the Bedouin of Sinai, like the Bedouin from Saudi Arabia to Jordan to Israel have become aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood and its al Qaida and Hamas spinoffs.

The Bedouin attacks on Egyptian police and border guard installations in al Arish and Suez over the past three weeks are an indication that the fear of a strong state, which was so central to Israel's thinking in during the peace process with Egypt, is no longer Israel's most urgent concern. Transnational jihadists in the Sinai are much more immediately threatening than the Egyptian military is. But the peace treaty - signed with a military dictator -- provides neither Israel nor Egypt with tools to deal with this threat.

2) Barry Rubin (k/t=DG)

Another problem is border security. Again, we are told that it is in the interest of Egypt, especially the army, to avoid having terrorists cross the border into Israel. Yet similar logic has often proven mistaken in previous, similar cases. With junior officers and soldiers sympathizing with Islamism or radical nationalism, the orders of the generals back in Cairo might not be followed with a high degree of discipline. There are already reports of al-Qaida planning to infiltrate into the Sinai to launch cross-border attacks.

And he referred to this JP article which included this:

According to information obtained by Israel, Iran has been working to build new infrastructure in the Sinai that can be used to smuggle advanced weaponry in large quantities into the Gaza Strip.

“Iran wants to take advantage of the current anarchy in Egypt and establish a stronger foothold in Gaza,” a senior defense official said. “They are building new capabilities, upgrading smuggling mechanisms and studying the new military presence there to see how it will affect them.”

 
 

Pays to read me and my friends.
 

^

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.

^