Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: impossible peace

Showing posts with label impossible peace. Show all posts

Monday, November 16, 2020

The PLO's Red Lines for a Palestinian state, from the Palestine Papers, part 1: Borders and recognition

In 2011, Al Jazeera and The Guardian released a collection of over a thousand documents related to the Israel/Palestinian peace process, most of them leaked from the Negotiations Support Unit (NSU)of the PLO headed by Saeb Erekat. They were known as The Palestine Papers. One of Erekat's many resignations came in response to these papers being leaked, presumably by one of his own people.

The articles at the time from Al Jazeera and The Guardian cherry picked out-of-context quotes from Israeli negotiators quoted in the papers to make them look bad. As far as I know, I am the only person who spent a bit of time actually reading the Palestine Papers and discovering many embarrassing things about the PLO as well as how Al Jazeera and The Guardian mischaracterized their findings.

After Saeb Erekat's death, I revisited the Papers which are still available at the Al Jazeera site. I found one document that is terrifically important, possibly the most important document in the collection, that no one else seems to have noticed - or wanted to report on.

It is called the NSU Negotiation Principles Matrix and it lists, over fifteen pages, every single issue that Israel and the PLO negotiated over, what the PLO's core position was on each issue, and what the PLO was ready to be flexible on and exactly how much.

It is a blueprint to the maximal concessions that the PLO would ever give for peace and what their true "red lines" are. This document, in all probability, is why Erekat dissolved the NSU and resigned - it showed all of the PLO's negotiating cards.

It also shows how impossible it is for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians. The PLO's public negotiating position is entirely consistent with this document and there is no reason to think that the Palestinian leadership has moved from these positions one bit.

Given that a new Biden administration will go back to an Oslo mentality, trying to negotiate a two state solution, this document is more relevant than ever. It shows, in the PLO's own words, how intransigent they are and how intransigent they always will be.

It makes no sense to pressure Israel for more concessions when the PLO already says that they won't be enough.

The matrix starts off with the PLO positions on the negotiations as a whole, upon which there is no flexibility.

ISSUE

CORE PRINCIPLES

POSSIBLE FLEXIBILITY

CORE PRINCIPLES

· No end of claims until full implementation of the CAPS

· Strong implementation and verification mechanism

· No backdoor acceptance of state with provisional borders

· No end of occupation until full withdrawal of army and all settlers and full Palestinian control over all the territory, its inhabitants and all external relations

· Full normalization with Israel by any Arab State shall only commence following the full implementation of the Treaty.

Most of these are things we have heard before as PLO demands.

Note here that the PLO is insisting that they must receive all of their demands, completely and up front, before Israel gets anything. Notice also that the PLO is speaking for all Arab states, whether they like it or not.

MUTUAL RECOGNITION

· Should include recognition of Israel along recognized and agreed borders.

· Must not include recognition of certain characteristics of the state of Israel, i.e as a Jewish state.

Here the PLO is saying that they will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state. This is meant to protect the "right to return" so they can plan to turn Israel into an Arab state by forcing it to take in all so-called "refugees" which will be discussed later on in the document.

INTERNATIONAL BORDERS

Location of international borders

· Must be based on 1967.

· 1967 line = 1949 armistice line, including all legal and agreed modifications. [Alternatively,

· Land corridor/link could be part of swap package if Palestinians get sovereignty over the land corridor.

language could specify that the West Bank includes East Jerusalem and No Man’s Land.]

· Demographic arguments cannot be used to draw the border. If Israel wants to argue demographics then UNGA 181 must be the basis of discussion.

· Negotiate size of area, not percentages.

· Swaps must be minor - not more than 100 km² in TOTAL .

· No swap of land inhabited by Palestinians, regardless of citizenship (e.g., Um el Fahm).

· Equal in quantity and quality (e.g., Jerusalem land for Jerusalem land, agricultural land for agricultural land).

· Swap only settlement built-up areas, not empty Pal land (i.e., no ‘blocs’).

· Swap only settlements adjacent to the border. Swapped areas cannot disrupt contiguity. (No annexation of Ma’ale Adumim, Ariel, Pisgat Ze’ev, Neve Ya’cov, Giv’at Ze’ev, or Efrat.)

· No swap of land inhabited by Palestinians regardless of citizenship (i.e Um el Fahm).

· Proposals for tripartite land swap with Egypt (or Jordan) should be rejected.

· No leasing.

· Most of the options with respect to borders will be in the various swap scenarios, which should be guided by the principles herein.

· Residency rights is a creative option to avoid swapping difficult areas and which may make Palestinians look more reasonable at the table.

Here the PLO is saying that the 1949 armistice lines must be the basis for the final borders, and the Palestinians should even get the "no man's land" between the Israeli and Jordanian positions in 1949.

It is saying that it does not want to gain land in Israel that includes a single Arab. Only lands where Jews would be expelled, or empty land, can be swapped for small settlement areas adjacent to the Green Line.

It explicitly says that Israel must give up all lands that are not, in the PLO's view, contiguous with the 1949 armistice lines. Ma’ale Adumim, Ariel, Pisgat Ze’ev, Neve Yaakov, Giv’at Ze’ev, Efrat - and certainly places like Bet El, Hebron and scores of other communities - must be emptied of Jews.

But if Israel pushes back, the PLO can consider allowing a few Jews to stay as residents of Israel "to make Palestinians look more reasonable."

All of these are clearly non-starters for Israel. But the PLO is saying that it will not budge on this - hundreds of thousands of Jews must leave their homes before Israel can get any benefits of peace.

Delimitation and demarcation	· Delimitation on agreed and appropriately scaled maps.	· This is purely a technical issue. It should not be contentious.
Maritime Boundaries	· Palestine will claim full share of what we are entitled to under international law as a coastal state. · Maritime boundaries must be agreed, according to international law. · Include clause that says maritime boundaries will be agreed in the future [ideal time would be at or immediately post CAPS].	· Willing to negotiate shared/joint zones. · Maritime boundary does not have to be agreed at the FAPS or CAPS stage. It can be agreed post-statehood. · There are many options for the maritime boundaries in line with international law and equitability.
Private property	· Deal with private property interests in the swapped areas separately from delimitation of the border	·
Sovereignty and Inviolability	· West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip are one united and integral part of the territory of Palestine · Palestinian sovereignty must be full and respected by Israel	· NOTE: issues of sovereignty should not be confused with functional arrangements that suit both Palestinian and Israeli interests. For example, Palestine could enter into arrangements based on its sovereign equality on various issues in accordance with its own interests.

The next section we will look at contains the PLO demands about Jerusalem.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

The Peace Now Litmus Test

On Friday, Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez changed her mind about participating in an event commemorating former prime minster Yitzhak Rabin on the 25th anniversary of his assassination.

She made her decision after backlash from "pro-Palestinian" activists, who told her that Rabin was a monster and that Palestinians are worse off after Oslo than before.

The event is sponsored by Americans for Peace Now.

In August, there was another clear split between Peace Now and the far socialist Left, when Peace Now praised the Israel/UAE agreement and the socialists were horrified by it.

There is a common thread here.

Peace Now supports Israel living in peace and security in the Middle East. While I strongly disagree that their policies would result in such an outcome, their motivation is based on ending the conflict and leaving an Israel at peace with its neighbors.

On the other hand, the socialist Left is against Israel making peace with anyone under circumstances that leave Israel existing as a secure Jewish state.

If you look at Peace Now and see a racist, apartheid-supporting group, as the Israel-haters do, then you aren't against racism or apartheid. You are against the existence of a Jewish state and using codewords to hide your hate.

These two examples show how the socialist Left, that is making increasing inroads in the Democratic Party, has an effectively antisemitic agenda - the destruction of the Jewish state and its replacement with a Jew-hating, terror supporting Palestinian Arab majority state, which they ludicrously claim will treat Jews with equal rights. Sure. The same equal rights they have under every other Arab regime.

When Peace Now is too far to the right for you, you are not interested in peace. You are against any rights for Jews in the Middle East.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

How would Palestinians act under Peter Beinart’s “one-state” solution?

Peter Beinart has gotten a lot of press this week over his essays in the far-Left Jewish Currents and the increasingly far-Left New York Times opinion pages for his proposal that instead of a two-state solution, the preferred outcome is a Jewish “homeland” in a single state that would presumably be called “Palestine.”

This is of course not a new idea. In 1947, when Arabs faced the possibility that the UN would vote for partitioning the land and creating a Jewish state, they suddenly declared that they were interested in a “bi-national” state with the Jews – predicated on the idea that Jewish immigration must end first, which would ensure an Arab majority in any election.

The more modern version of the idea espoused by many English-speaking Arabs also emphasizes to their Western audiences that a one state solution with equal rights is wonderful, as long as millions of Arabs with Palestinian ancestry are first allowed to flood the area and ensure that there is an Arab majority in any election.

Another version of the plan is Iran’s, where only the Jews whose families were in Palestine before 1917 would be allowed to vote.

The New York Times published a similar op-ed in 2009 for a one-state solution. It’s author was that famous peacemaker, Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, where he actually pretended to be proposing this plan for Jews’ security:

A two-state solution will create an unacceptable security threat to Israel. An armed Arab state, presumably in the West Bank, would give Israel less than 10 miles of strategic depth at its narrowest point.

Obviously Jews should live next to Arabs who want to kill them rather than across a border. See how much he cared?

These thinkers’ interest in “democracy” is only to ensure that Jews do not have a state, not out of any love of the democratic system. And this is obviously true, because these same people never advocate for democracies in Jordan or Egypt or the UAE; they don’t even demand that Palestinians have elections themselves. They only want a single election meant to dissolve the Jewish state – what happens after that is unimportant.

But let’s look at that very question – what would happen after that?

We just have to ask Palestinians how they would envision sharing the entire area from the river to the sea with a sizable Jewish population.

One indication of their answer can be in polls over recent years about whether Palestinians are willing to share Jerusalem, which is a key part of most two-state plans, and therefore a good proxy for how they feel about sharing all of the country with Jews.

A clear majority of Palestinians demand not only full control over the formerly Jordanian-occupied portions of Jerusalem, but the entire city. 52% of West Bank Palestinians, and 80% of Gazans, agree with the statement “We should demand Palestinian rule over all of Jerusalem, East and West, rather than agree to share or divide any part of it with Israel.” This means that they would immediately ban all Jews from entering the city the way Jordan did from 1948 to 1967. Say goodbye to the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter – Palestinians aren’t quite willing to share anything.

And there is no reason to think that they would consider Tel Aviv to be any more Jewish than Jerusalem is. Their maps make it very clear how willing they are to share the land, although there is no shortage of clueless Westerners who believe the lie that “Arabs and Jews lived in peace and harmony before Zionism.”

Beinart says that a two-state solution is ideal, but Israel has made that impossible. (Palestinians, as always, have no agency or responsibility in his eyes.) But how do Palestinians feel about a two state solution where they can have a state of their own?

Most Palestinians who say they want a two-state solution do not see that as the end of the conflict, but a stage towards the strategic goal of ending any Jewish rule.

And they see the “right of return,” flooding Israel with millions of Arabs, as the ideal way to destroy the Jewish state.

How would Palestinians act towards a significant Jewish minority of Jews in a single state? Again, one needs only to look at the history of Jews in Arab lands, or even in Palestine. Jews were attacked before Zionism. Immediately after the 1947 partition vote, when Arabs solemnly pledged that they would respect Jews as equals in their binational state, they started slaughtering them.

I made a cartoon last night to illustrate the immorality of an American telling Israelis what is best for them:

An Arab-majority state that would treat Jews as equals is nothing short of a fantasy. The reality would be a return to the daily attacks on Jews that were seen in Palestine before 1948.

Beinart’s plan is based on a theory of a peaceful Palestinian Arab population that has absolutely no objective support. Does he seriously believe that Hamas and Islamic Jihad would be disarmed in this fantasy state?

Peter Beinart is supremely concerned over what he sees as Jewish mistreatment of Palestinians yet shows literally zero concern over the certainty – not probability, but certainty - that his plan will result in massive Arab abuse of Jews.

Kushner vs. Erekat shows that Kushner is right

There has been an interesting clash in the media between Jared Kushner and Saeb Erekat that, when analyzed, shows that Kushner is right.

Kushner went on Arab MBCTV to defend the plan. As usual, no one can argue with what he says so they are upset over his tone which they claim is condescending. This interview does not sound condescending to me:

During the interview Kushner also slammed Erekat for being part of the problem:

"He says a lot of things that have turned out not to be true," Kushner told Egyptian journalist Amr Adib on MBC Masr's Al Hikaya political program. "The guy has a perfect track record at failing at making peace deals."

Kushner riled up Erekat and anti-Israel activists last week when he said, accurately, that Palestinians like Erekat have screwed up every previous opportunity for peace:

Jared Kushner, senior adviser to the President, says the White House's Middle East plan is "a great deal" and if Palestinians reject it, “they’re going to screw up another opportunity, like they’ve screwed up every other opportunity that they’ve ever had in their existence.” pic.twitter.com/ABAI3gKjig
— CNN (@CNN) January 28, 2020

Erakat tweeted after the MBC interview:

It is because of people like you who want to dictate rather than negotiate and who they thought could impose an apartheid Netanyahu plan on the Palestinian people forever. Ending the occupation, two states on the 1967 borders, otherwise is failure.

Yet as I noted, the 2008 Olmert plan gave Abbas everything he demanded - and more. Erekat admitted this himself:

“I heard Olmert say that he offered 100% of the West Bank territory. This is true. I’ll testify to this. He [Olmert] presented a map [to Abbas], and said: ‘I want [Israel] to take 6.5% of the West Bank and I’ll give [the PA] 6.5% of the 1948 territory (i.e., land in Israel) in return.’ [Olmert] said to Abbas: ‘The area of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip on the eve of June 4, 1967, was 6,235 sq. km. [I said to Abbas]: ‘There are 50 sq. km. of no man’s land in Jerusalem and Latrun.’ We’ll split them between us, so the territory will be 6,260 sq. km.” [I said to Abbas:] Olmert wants to give you 20 sq. km. more, so that you could say [to Palestinians]: ‘I got more than the 1967 territories.’ Regarding Jerusalem, [Olmert said]: ‘What’s Arab is Arab, and what’s Jewish is Jewish, and we’ll keep it an open city.’ Regarding the refugees, [Olmert] offered him [Abbas] 150,000 refugees … [Olmert] said: “The refugees’ right to return to the State of Palestine is your law. But regarding Israel, we will accept 150,000 refugees over 10 years. 15,000 [per year] over 10 years.”

So by denouncing all previous plans - which is in fact what many "pro-Palestinian" activists are doing in response to Kushner's CNN interview - Erekat is saying that his opposition isn't to Trump's plan but to every single previous plan as well for not going far enough.

The only possible interpretation is that Abbas' demands in 2008 were a lie, and he wanted to paint Olmert into a corner, not thinking he would (stupidly) agree to every demand for land and Israel taking responsibility for 1948 refugees and splitting Jerusalem. Abbas didn't want to end his claims on all of Israel down the line; he didn't want to stop at 150,000 Arabs "returning" - he didn't want to agree to anything that would leave Israel strong and viable.

Kushner is accurately pointing out that if Palestinians want a state, they can have one. In this plan, he notes, all the checkpoints will be gone - a Palestinian can travel through the entire state without seeing a single Israeli. Any Arab that wants to pray at Al Aqsa can do so. Details that were never dreamed of in previous plans are considered with the welfare of average Palestinians in the forefront of its philosophy.

Erekat's fuming response is, essentially, that nothing less than full Israeli surrender to the demands of those who claim they have nothing is acceptable - and that includes "return" to destroy the Jewish state. He is showing that his problem is not with Trump but with all previous plans, which fulfilled every ostensible Palestinian demand.

Erekat's words show that Palestinian leaders were never serious about peace or an independent state.And the Palestinian people are the ones who lose out because of the egos of Erekat and Abbas and all the rest.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

It's the peace, stupid

One of the biggest complaints by the anti-Israel crowd against the Trump plan is the supposed "bantustans" of Palestinian territory only connected by roads, bridges or tunnels. This is said to be intolerable for a sovereign nation

Yet if you look at Wikipedia, you can see that there are literally hundreds of examples where the territory or territories of one state is fully or functionally within the territory of another, known as enclaves, exclaves, or variants of those. The largest example in the world (which is really a semi-enclave) is Alaska, only accessible to the rest of the US via land through Canada.

We mentioned one example in passing, that of the border between the Netherlands and Belgium at Baarle-Hertog:

This is the possibly the most complicated one but there are a huge number of others. Up until 2015, the border between India and Bangladesh had not only over a hundred enclaves but enclaves within enclaves (and one parcel of land that was a piece of India within Bangladesh, within India, within Bangladesh.)

There are even some small Canadian land parcels that are only accessible through the United States.

If there are hundreds of examples of such arrangements working perfectly well, then why is there such an uproar over a pathway to peace that would do the same for Palestine?

The answer is in the question. The Israel-haters have no desire for peace.

It is no coincidence that the Trump plan is named "peace to prosperity." Unlike every single previous plan, this is the first one that is focused on peace, not land.

If there is real peace, then no one would care about the enclaves of Palestinian lands in Israel and Israeli lands within Palestine (i.e., "settlements.")

The ideal, which the plan envisions, is that Israel and Palestine would be like Belgium and the Netherlands - two partners in peace. Any Arab can visit the Temple Mount, any Jew can visit the synagogues in Jericho and Joseph's Tomb in Nablus, without the need of heavily armed security protecting the visitors.

When there is real peace, the borders are not important.

This is the fundamental reason why Israel supports the plan and the Palestinians are so dead-set against it. Only Israel has ever desired real peace, just as Israel has thirsted for real peace with Jordan and Egypt and the rest of the Arab world.

The "pro-Palestinian" activists, although many belong to groups with "peace" in their names, do not want peace with Israel. They want Israel to be destroyed one way or another, and they - as well as Palestinian leaders - look at an independent Palestine as a weapon to end Israel, not as a goal in itself.

If Palestinians wanted a state, they would have had one in 2000, 2001 and 2008. If they wanted peace, they could have a state tomorrow.

It has been 26 years since Oslo, but in all that time no Palestinian school - not one - has taught students that they should thirst for peace with Israel. On the contrary, Israel is always the enemy and it must one day be reclaimed as "Palestine."

For some reason, the world thinks that the existence of two states would automatically bring peace. Everyone has it backwards. It is peace that would bring two states, because Israel would happily give the responsibility of governance to a Palestinian state that was friendly, where the borders are as open as those between EU states.

The Trump plan is a true peace plan - a vision of how peace and prosperity can bring about a political solution. The reason it is unrealistic is because Palestinians are taught hate from birth.

And that is the real obstacle to peace.

The world seems to have forgotten that peace is the goal.

(h/t Ian)

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

#DealOfTheCentury tweets

I was pretty busy on Twitter over the past 24 hours...Here are my most popular tweets on the "Deal of the Century." Many of them could be expanded into posts, but there are only so many hours in the day.

Palestinian leaders: "We Palestinians would rather stay in misery than have a chance to improve our lives - because we have principles!"
Palestinian people: "Ummm...you guys live in mansions. We've been suffering for 71 years."
Leaders: "Anyone who disagrees goes to prison!"
— Elder Of Ziyon ҉ (@elderofziyon) January 28, 2020

Well, except the human right of Jews to live without fear of being murdered.

But, hey, some human rights are more important than others, right, @amnesty? https://t.co/iJ3abvFd1c
— Elder Of Ziyon ҉ (@elderofziyon) January 28, 2020

Peaceniks send love and rage. pic.twitter.com/GmQZfdfsTW
— Elder Of Ziyon ҉ (@elderofziyon) January 28, 2020

Apparently, supporters of @BernieSanders think that pro-Israel Jewish Americans are Israeli spies.

Nothing antisemitic about that. pic.twitter.com/lTJviURfJQ
— Elder Of Ziyon ҉ (@elderofziyon) January 28, 2020

$10 for anyone who can find me article or speech by a Palestinian Arab from 1949-1967 upset over Jordan's annexation of the West Bank.
— Elder Of Ziyon ҉ (@elderofziyon) January 28, 2020

This is freaking hilarious.@MedeaBenjamin on camera duty, @arielelysegold leading ZERO protesters in DC.

Yes, ZERO.

Livestreamed! https://t.co/2VynCnD8zR
— Elder Of Ziyon ҉ (@elderofziyon) January 28, 2020

The haters are literally going out of their minds. pic.twitter.com/ItoU64yDlW
— Elder Of Ziyon ҉ (@elderofziyon) January 28, 2020

Abbas invites Hamas to an emergency meeting to discuss responses to the #DealOfTheCentury .

Because when given a choice of peace or terror, Palestinians consistently choose to align with terror.https://t.co/b5jVcUNbME
— Elder Of Ziyon ҉ (@elderofziyon) January 28, 2020

One thing's for sure: The #DealOfTheCentury would do more to help improve ordinary Palestinians' lives than the past fifty years of NGO and EU aid combined.

The fact that no "pro-Palestinian" activist is willing to even discuss it shows what hypocrites they are.
— Elder Of Ziyon ҉ (@elderofziyon) January 28, 2020

Anyone think the Kurds would reject a deal that gave them a path to a state and $50 billion if they just behaved like human beings?
— Elder Of Ziyon ҉ (@elderofziyon) January 28, 2020

So you are saying that two states with conditions is worse than nothing? Because "nothing" is the alternative. https://t.co/3NVEBryw9w
— Elder Of Ziyon ҉ (@elderofziyon) January 28, 2020

"Palestinians are in a desperate situation!"

"But the Trump plan will help them in many ways! Industry, governance, rooting out corruption, exports, more land..."

"Well, they aren't THAT desperate."
— Elder Of Ziyon ҉ (@elderofziyon) January 28, 2020

Abba Eban's quote, "Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" is a more reliable rule than the laws of physics.
— Elder Of Ziyon ҉ (@elderofziyon) January 28, 2020

Remember back in 1937 when the Palestinian Arabs rejected the Peel Commission plan?

I bet they regret that now.

And in 80 years, they'll regret rejecting today's plan too. pic.twitter.com/XQkhHjlFcp
— Elder Of Ziyon ҉ (@elderofziyon) January 29, 2020

I love reading good news from Israel haters. pic.twitter.com/mqYzEIBGkd
— Elder Of Ziyon ҉ (@elderofziyon) January 29, 2020

Every Deal critic:

"Let's reward Palestinians for acting like spoiled brats when they rejected multiple peace plans that included everything we are complaining the Trump plan doesn't have." pic.twitter.com/17aT61jc7f
— Elder Of Ziyon ҉ (@elderofziyon) January 29, 2020

In other news, extremist right-wing hawk Benjamin Netanyahu offered large swaths of land from within Israel to become part of a potential Palestinian state, tripling the size of Gaza.

Doesn't quite fit the media narrative, does it? pic.twitter.com/B9nYgvULWX
— Elder Of Ziyon ҉ (@elderofziyon) January 29, 2020

As was utterly predictable, a plan that would improve Palestinian lives immeasurably is rejected by fake "human rights" expert @KenRoth who (in only one world conflict) feels that "fairness" is a human right that trumps the right to live in peace, security and prosperity. https://t.co/LWVRHPpKQB
— Elder Of Ziyon ҉ (@elderofziyon) January 29, 2020

To all Deal critics like @jstreetdotorg and @PeaceNowUS @FMEP:

In YOUR peace plan, what stops terror groups from shooting rockets at Tel Aviv on Day Two?
— Elder Of Ziyon ҉ (@elderofziyon) January 29, 2020

And exactly how does the Palestinian Authority, the violent dictatorship that shuts down any dissent, rewards terrorists and receives billions from the EU, have any legitimacy to speak on behalf of the Palestinians they oppress, @sarahleah1? https://t.co/QMB6f7jO9s
— Elder Of Ziyon ҉ (@elderofziyon) January 29, 2020

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.