Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Afternoon links - part 1

I have a lot of links in the queue...

Victor Shikhman on the current politics between Israel and the US

Anonymous Mugwump on Hamas Hasbara

Jonathan Hoffman - Is the BBC biased towards Israel???

Here's proof: the BBC quotes the IAEA as saying that the Syrian nuclear site bombed by Israel in 2007 was "likely nuclear."

Toameh on power struggles between Hamas and Fatah

Jordanian journalist Mudar Zahran is more pro-Israel than most self-declared Zionists....

The US now says the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab countries could be "on the table."

(h/t Silke, Jihad Watch, Jim W.)

Rare footage of Operation Solomon, 1991

You don't need to understand Hebrew to be moved by this footage of Ethiopian Jews being saved anf flown to Israel in 1991's Operation Solomon.

Here's a frame showing a family on the plane:

Doesn't Zionism look like racism here?

(h/t Joel)

Operation Embarrass: British bombed Jewish refugee ships

From The Daily Beast:

As Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, the pitiful remnants of History’s greatest crime, tried to make their way across an often hostile Europe at the end of the Second World War, toward at least a semblance of safety in the Holy Land, they had no shortage of problems with which to contend, including disease and malnutrition, Polish anti-Semitism, Soviet indifference, Allied bureaucracy, and Arab nationalism. Now we discover that they faced yet another peril in the shape of bombs planted on their transport ships by Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, better known as MI6.

A new book to be published next week entitled MI6: The History of the Secret Intelligence Service 1909-1949, by the distinguished British historian Keith Jeffery, reveals the existence of Operation Embarrass, a plan to try to prevent Jews getting into Palestine in 1946-'48 using disinformation and propaganda but also explosive devices placed on ships. Nor is this some speculative spy story that can be denied by the authorities: Dr. Jeffrey’s book is actually, in their own words: “Published with the permission of The Secret Intelligence Service and the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.”

When on June 1 this year the British government denounced as “completely unacceptable” the way that the Israelis landed troops on the Turkish flotilla to Gaza we did not know that its predecessor had done much the same, actually blowing up one ship and damaging two more vessels of a genuinely humanitarian flotilla that was trying to bring Jewish survivors of the Nazi death camps to their people’s ancient homeland.

It now emerges that in late 1946 the Labour government of Clement Attlee asked MI6 for “proposals for action to deter ships masters and crews from engaging in illegal Jewish immigration and traffic,” adding, “Action of the nature contemplated is, in fact, a form of intimidation and intimidation is only likely to be effective if some members of the group of people to be intimidated actually suffer unpleasant consequences.” Among the options contemplated were “the discovery of some sabotage device, which had ‘failed’ to function after the sailing of a ship,” “tampering with a ship’s fresh water supplies or the crew’s food,” and “fire on board ship in port.” Sir Stewart Menzies, the chief of the SIS, suggested these could be blamed on an invented Arab terrorist group called The Defenders of Arab Palestine.

Operation Embarrass was launched after a meeting held on February 14, 1947 between officials from MI6, the armed services, the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office, the last represented by William Hayter, the head of Foreign Office Services Liaison Department, a high-flier who later became ambassador to Moscow. I knew Sir William Hayter in later life, but needless to say he never breathed a word about this operation. In his defense, it must be said that Hayter did order MI6 to ensure that arson “must be arranged, if at all, when the ship is empty.”
The Operation Embarrass team was told that “the primary consideration was to be that no proof could ever be established between positive action against this traffic and His Majesty’s Government [HMG].” A special communications network, codenamed Ocean, was set up with a budget of £30,000 ($47,000), a great deal of money in 1947. The operation had three aspects: direct action against refugee ships, a “black” propaganda campaign, and a deception scheme to disrupt immigration from Black Sea ports. A team of former Special Operations Executive agents—with the cover story of a yachting trip—was sent to France and Italy with limpet bombs and timers. If captured, “they were under no circumstances to admit their connection with HMG” but instead claim to have been recruited in New York “by an anti-Communist organization formed by a group of international industrialists, mainly in the oil and aircraft industries,” i.e. to lay the blame on rich, right-wing, unnamed Americans. They were told that this cover “was their final line of defense and, even in the event of a prison sentence, no help could be expected from HMG.”

During the summer of 1947 and early 1948, five attacks were undertaken on ships in Italian ports, of which one was rendered “a total loss” and two others were damaged. Two other British-made limpet mines were discovered before they went off, but the Italian authorities did not find their country of origin suspicious, “as the Arabs would of course be using British stores.” Operation Embarrass even considered blowing up the Baltimore steamship President Warfield when in harbor in France, which later became famous in Israeli history as the “Exodus” ship that “launched a nation.”

The country that ought to be embarrassed by Operation Embarrass—indeed shamed—is Great Britain, which used explosives to try to stop truly humanitarian flotillas after the Holocaust, but now condemns embattled Israel for halting entirely politically inspired flotillas to Gaza despite her rights of legitimate self-defense. The depth of the animosity that Establishment Britain, especially the Foreign Office, felt toward the Jews of Palestine clearly went even further than we had ever imagined, and even 70 years later is by no means extinguished.

(h/t Joel)

The "new" neighborhood in Maale Zeitim

From Getty Images:

A Jewish settler girl in her living room during the inauguration ceremony of new settler homes on May 25, 2011 in the Jewish enclave of Maaleh Zeitim in the Palestinian neighbourhood of Ras al-Amud in east Jerusalem, Israel. Maaleh Zeitim was financed by American millionaire Irving Moskowitz who has bankrolled other settlement projects in the occupied West Bank, and east Jerusalem.

Interesting which "facts" Getty choose to highlight in the caption. In fact, the land was purchased by Jews in 1928 and Israel has upheld that purchase, and allowed Moskowitz to buy it legally.

But there is something else that is interesting about the Ras al-Amud:

Settlement remains dating to different phases of the Middle Canaanite period (2200-1900 BCE) and the last years of the First Temple period (eighth-seventh centuries BCE), including an inscription in ancient Hebrew script that mentions the name “Menachem”, were recently exposed in an archaeological excavation the Israel Antiquities Authority is conducting in the Ras el-‘Amud neighborhood, prior to the construction of a girls’ school by the Jerusalem municipality.

Among the remains from the First Temple period is a handle on which the Hebrew name (ל)מנחם meaning (to) Menachem, is engraved. According to archaeologist Dr. Ron Beeri, the excavation director on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority,

I have a feeling that the area was not always known with the Arabic name of "Ras al-Amud."

Details on Egypt opening Rafah

The news that Egypt is opening up the Rafah crossing permanently starting on Saturday is being widely reported, but the details are not.

According to the Hamas Palestine Times newspaper, there are still restrictions on who could cross the border.

Women and children under 18 are allowed to cross without prior coordination with Egypt.
Men over 40 can as long as they meet certain conditions.
Students with valid papers and medical cases will be allowed as well, along with Gazans with investments in Egypt who have the proper paperwork.

There will still not be any facilities for large shipments of materials through the crossing, but families can go shopping in Egypt and bring back their own needs.

The opening is expected to be a bonanza for taxi drivers who will be ferrying people to and from both sides of the border. And lately the number of taxis in Gaza has mushroomed as lots of cars are entering the area, both from Israel and smuggled in from Libya.

Justin Bieber's "mysterious" Hebrew tattoo

This is for all the people who read EoZ for my deep and penetrating knowledge of pop culture.

From the Daily Mail:

After winning six gongs at the Billboard Music Awards on Sunday night, it looks like Justin Bieber has decided he deserves a holiday.

The 17-year-old pop star was pictured heading to the beach yesterday after flying to Hawaii with girlfriend Selena Gomez.

Stripped to the waist, the Canadian star showed off his rock-hard stomach in a pair of bathing shorts teamed with flip flops and white sunglasses.

Is there no one in Great Britain who recognizes Hebrew?

As many other sites noted, it is the Hebrew spelling of Jesus.

(h/t Joel)

Anti-Hezbollah Shi'ite cleric arrested in Lebanon as an "Israeli spy"

From The Daily Star (Lebanon):

Lebanese authorities have arrested a Shiite sheikh in southern Lebanon on suspicion of spying for Israel, a security source told The Daily Star Tuesday.

The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Lebanese intelligence personnel arrested Sheikh Mohammad Ali Husseini, leader of the obscure Arab-Islamic Resistance group, late Saturday in his apartment in the Riz complex just east of the southern port city of Tyre and took him to the Defense Ministry in Yarze, east Beirut, for questioning.

The source said information gathered about Husseini over the past 10 days led to his arrest.
The Lebanese intelligence unit also confiscated computer sets, communication equipment and documents from Husseini’s home.

Reporters based in south Lebanon said Husseini, who is critical of both Hezbollah and the Amal Movement of Speaker Nabih Berri, has been funded by Saudi Arabia since 2008.

Michael Totten interviewed Husseini and described him in his book, The Road to Fatima Gate.

Husseini is not just a Shi'ite cleric. He is a direct descendant of Mohammed himself, a "sayyed," and Totten described him as being "untouchable" in Lebanon. While reporters are severely restricted from taking photographs in the Hezbollah controlled sections of the country, when they are with Husseini they can do whatever they want because no one would dare challenge him. He outranks Nasrallah as a cleric, according to Totten.

Husseini is against war and terrorism, writing an entire book about nonviolence based on Quranic sources. Unfortunately, he has little political power.

His "resistance movement" was a publicity stunt to try to co-opt Hezbollah's message of resistance, and it failed badly.

This is not merely another spy case. This is Hezbollah showing exactly how powerful they really are.

"Aida" to be performed at Masada, Arabs upset

The Islamic Jihad newspaper Palestine Today says that the staging of Verdi's opera Aida next month in front of Masada is showing how Israel is taking advantage of Egypt's turmoil.

The props for the opera include a reproduction of the Sphinx as well as statues of other Pharaohs.

The opera tells the love story of an Ethiopian princess and an Egyptian army officer.

The article says that Israel is "stealing" the opera. Not quite sure how.

If you want to go, the website is here.

Palestinian Authority would keep Gilad Shalit as a hostage after "unity" (UPDATED)

IMRA asks Nabil Shaath, a senior Palestinian Arab official, a great question in this audio clip:

IMRI: When unification is completed, of the Gaza Strip and West Bank under one authority again, what do you expect would happen with the handling of the Gilad Shalit case? Would that still be the purview of Hamas, or would it be the responsibility of this unified authority?

Shaath: It should be the responsibility of the unified authority, and we should proceed as soon as possible to exchange Shalit for as many Palestinian prisoners as possible...

It seems that Israel's "peace partner" wants to keep a Shalit as a hostage and bargaining chip.

Just like Hamas.

UPDATE: This same Nabil Shaath was interviewed after Shalit's kidnapping, claiming that the PA was doing everything possible to free him!

(h/t Ray Cook)

Israelis give 1000 hearing aids to Palestinian Arabs

From YNet Hebrew:

From Israel with Love: A thousand Palestinians were given hearing aids

A thousand Palestinians received, for the first time, hearing aids undera joint project of the Sheba Medical Center, Starkey Foundation and Physicians for Human Rights. A Ynet reporter joined doctors in Tulkarm and watched the smiles that came on the faces of people who, for the first time, could hear.

The cost of the devices is about one million dollars.

...or about $1000 per person.

This is Zionism.

Video of Egyptian teacher beating students

This video has been causing an uproar in Egypt, as a teacher in Kafr el-Deeb is shown reviewing written assignments from little kids in his class - and then beating every single one of them with a ruler.

The cameraman laughs a few times, and at the very end we see there are other adults in the room who hadn't protested at all.

One scared little girl tries to avoid his wrath, and he therefore gives her more beatings than anyone.

I can imagine a few fitting punishments for this disgusting excuse for a human being.

Cession and dereliction (updated)

What makes the West Bank "Palestinian territory?"

Jordan held onto the West Bank from 1949 to 1967, and between 1967 and 1988 many people considered it "Israeli-occupied Jordan."

This is problematic for a number of reasons. The main reason is that the international community in general never recognized as legal Jordan's annexation of the territory to begin with. However, during that time period it cannot be considered "Palestinian" (in the sense of Palestinian Arab) either, because the Palestinian Arab leadership rejected the partition plan and never declared a state on that territory. It was essentially in limbo.

But for argument's sake, let's say that Jordan's annexation of the territory was legal.

In 1988, Jordan ceded that territory, no longer under its control, to the PLO, and stripped citizenship from West Bank Palestinians.

Is that cession legal?

According to International Law: a treatise, Volume 1, here are the laws of cession:

Cession of State territory is the transfer of sovereignty over State territory by the owner-State to another State. There is no doubt whatever that such cession is possible according to the Law of Nations, and history presents innumerable examples of such transfer of sovereignty. The Constitutional Law of the different States may or may not lay down special rules 1 for the transfer or acquisition of territory. Such rule can have no direct influence upon the rules of the Law of Nations concerning cession, since Municipal Law can neither abolish existing nor create new rules of International Law.” But if such municipal rules contain constitutional restrictions on the Government with regard to cession of territory, these restrictions are so far important that such treaties of cession concluded by heads of States or Governments as violate these restrictions are not binding.”

Since cession is a bilateral transaction, it has two subjects-namely, the ceding and the acquiring State. Both subjects must be States, and only those cessions in which both subjects are States concern the Law of Nations. ...

It seems very clear that one cannot legally cede territory to an entity that is not a state. I cannot see how Jordan's cession to the PLO has any legal validity.

For a territory to be occupied, it must belong to a state. While it seems clear that the humanitarian aspects of occupation must still be adhered to, but to consider it a legal occupation requires that the occupied territory be claimed by a state. (Again, this is for argument's sake; Israel did not consider itself an occupier even before 1988 and considers the territory disputed.)

In fact, Jordan's "cession" might be a case of legal dereliction:

Dereliction as a mode of losing territory corresponds to occupation as a mode of acquiring it. Dereliction frees a territory irom the sovereignty of the present owner-State. It is effected through the owner-State completely abandoning territory with the intention of withdrawing from it for ever, thus sovereignty over it. Just as occupation requires, first, the actual taking into possession (corpus) of territory, and, secondly, the intention (animus) of sovereignty over it, so dereliction requires, first, actual abandonment of a. territory, and, secondly, the intention of giving up sovereignty over it. Actual abandonment alone does not involve dereliction as long as it must be presumed that the owner has the will and ability to retake possession of the territory. Thus, for instance, if the rising of natives forces a State to withdraw from a territory, such territory is not derelict as long as the former possessor is able, and makes efforts, to retake possession. It is only when a territory is really derelict that any State may acquire it through occupation. History knows of several such cases. But very often, when such occupation of derelict territory occurs, the former owner protests, and tries to prevent the new occupier from acquiring it.

If Jordan's washing its hands of the West Bank is in fact a case of dereliction, then Israel's occupation is quite legal, at least since 1988 (again assuming that Jordan's annexation was considered legal to begin with - if it wasn't, then the territory has no state anyway.)

There may be one way that Jordan's action has some legal validity: if it was not a cession, but a secession by the Palestinian Arabs from Jordan. This is in fact how King Hussein phrased the topic when he announced Jordan's move in July 1988:

Arab unity between any two or more countries is an option of any Arab people. This is what we believe. Accordingly, we responded to the wish of the Palestinian people's representatives for unity with Jordan in 1950. From this premise, we respect the wish of the PLO, the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, to secede from us as an independent Palestinian state.

But, as far as I can tell, there needs to be some sort of legal agreement between the two parties, the one that is seceding and the original state. I cannpt find any such document. The PLO's official declaration of statehood was not done at the time of this announcement but on November 15, 1988. Jordan's move was not bilateral but unilateral. Only three days prior, Jordan stopped a $1.3 billion development program in the West Bank; there is no indication that this was done in concert with the PLO.

So while Jordan uses the language of secession, in reality it appears - and seems to be regarded - as a case of cession instead, which, as we see, is problematic and might be closer to dereliction.

Once again, I stress that I am not a lawyer, and could be way off base here. But I can't find anyone who talks about the legality or legal consequences of Jordan's actions in 1988. And I cannot find any possible legal justification for calling the West Bank "Palestinian territory."

UPDATE: A well-known international law expert pointed that I have no idea what I am talking about. :)

In short:

Stripping away the issues of belligerent occupation, I’m not sure you have a coherent, let alone cogent, argument. The Palestinian claim to sovereignty is generally couched in terms of self-determination, not cession from the Jordanians. Even if it were phrased as based on cession from the Jordanians, the Palestinians would argue that it is possible to cede rights to a state in statu nascendi. In addition, if you accept the validity of Blum’s argument, you should understand that it works in both directions; the Palestinians do not have to claim a classic mode of acquisition in order to claim superior title. In other words, even if one asserts that the Jordanians had title and then abandoned it, with no ability to cede it to anyone, the Palestinians could still have superior title to Israel.

I can't say I understand it, but it is enough to make me realize I'm in way over my head!

Sometimes the Arab press has the best photos

The Hamas-linked Palestine Times has an article about some new Jewish housing on Har HaZeitim - the Mount of Olives - an area that has been Jewish for centuries but that happens to be in what the media loves calling "Arab East Jerusalem."

Har HaZeitim is the burial site for thousands of prominent Jews, and the graveyard was ravaged by Jordan in those 19 anomalous years between 1948 and 1967 that the world considers legally important. The idea of giving that area to Arabs, land that is unbelievably sacred, is literally sickening.

But the best part of the Hamas article is the photo, meant to inflame the passions of Arabs - but that actually is a wonderful photo for Jews to gaze upon:

Auto-translation of the day

From Palestine Times:

See? He loves Obama!

(He meant "puppet.")

Bursting liberal assumptions about the peace process (updated)

In Monday's Washington Post, Richard Cohen argues that Binyamin Netanyahu has to make peace, now, with the Palestinian Arabs:

A moderate and pragmatic Palestinian leadership has actually emerged in the West Bank (but not, for sure, in Gaza), terrorism has been denounced, rejected and, in the West Bank, all but disappeared. A Palestinian state in some sort of pupa form is taking shape, even able to police itself. The trumpeted unification of Fatah and Hamas is indeed a problem — the latter being a virulently anti-Semitic terrorist organization — but even here, where there’s a will there’s a way.

I can understand Netanyahu’s reluctance to move off the dime. The Arab world is in flux. Zealots, radicals and anti-Semites are vying for influence. The region’s so-called revolutions are actually counterrevolutions — reversing the policies of the military men who secularized their governments and tempered their hot hate of Israel with cold pragmatism. The region may not be getting ahead of history but returning to it. It could be a swell time to do nothing.

...Time has not only moved on but, as Obama pointed out, it is no longer on Israel’s side. The occupied West Bank is a looming demographic disaster, and the world has embraced the Palestinian cause. Today’s moderate Palestinian leadership may disappear tomorrow, and the 1967 borders are no less defensible than the current ones — missiles and rockets do not pause for barbed wire.

In my talk on Monday night I spent a little time discussing how important it is to dissect anti-Israel arguments to expose their fallacies. Here is a wonderful example that shows the fallacies not only of this specific article but from many liberals who push Israel to make one-sided concessions for "peace."

Cohen builds a case. He states, accurately, that the current PA leadership appears more moderate than any other. His conclusion is that this is therefore the time for Israel to be more pro-active - which means to make more concessions - to break the deadlock. If Israel waits too long, Cohen says, then the current leadership could disappear and be replaced by something worse.

What are Cohen's unstated assumptions and implications?

The major fallacy is the same one that many, many people make. It is that a peace treaty that results in a Palestinian Arab state would represent a real, permanent peace, one where neither side will have any claims against the other, where terrorist groups disappear or change their ways. Since that is a laudable goal, it is important to do whatever is needed to get there.

But what if that endgame is impossible? What if Palestinian Arab groups never agree to forgo the "right of return" or parts of Jerusalem or settlement blocs? In fact, is there any indication whatsoever that such demands would disappear?

Cohen's assumption has no basis in reality, no proof and is pure wishful thinking.

The next fallacy is that a relatively moderate Palestinian Arab leadership is equivalent to a truly moderate Palestinian Arab leadership. This fallacy is that since Abbas is not actively supporting terror, he is therefore someone who can be counted on to bring real peace.

This is false. Abbas has shown no flexibility on "return" or on the 1967 lines, nor on prisoners or Jerusalem. He has publicly bragged that he has not compromised at al on any of these issues. He still praises genocidal Jew-haters.. He has not stopped incitement in the PA media. For heaven's sake, he went out of his way to have a special meeting with child-murderer Samir Kuntar when he visited Lebanon! By any objective measure, he is not moderate. Comparing him favorably to Haniyeh or Arafat does not make him a Gandhi.

If the PA leadership was truly moderate and showed interest in compromising for peace, then Cohen might have a point that the ball is in Netanyahu's court. But by ignoring their coddling of terrorism, he is rewarding it by insisting that it is Israel, and Israel alone - the one party that has already given compromise after compromise - to move yet again.

The third fallacy is that real problems aren't real. Cohen says, "The trumpeted unification of Fatah and Hamas is indeed a problem" but dismisses it out of hand: "even here, where there’s a will there’s a way." The supposedly moderate PA has just agreed that an anti-semitic terror organization belongs in its government, yet to Cohen this is merely a small problem that can be swatted away with meaningless platitudes. To him, the necessity for peace (which would never be a true peace to begin with) is so important that Israel must ignore real risks and paper over real issues.

The fourth fallacy is that Israel is the intransigent party. Yet it is Abbas who broke off the talks, not Netanyahu. It is Abbas who has refused to return to the table despite pleas from the US president. It is Abbas that added new conditions for talks that had never been there before. Israel has always said it wants to talk without preconditions. Why is Cohen's column not aimed at Mahmoud Abbas?

The fifth fallacy, not explicit here but one that underlies many of the arguments, is that Netanyahu is the problem. If he could be forced out of office, the thinking goes, a more flexible Israeli leader would be able to break the deadlock.

This is also false. Netanyahu's recent US speeches are well within the mainstream Israeli consensus, Kadima and Likud alike. Negotiations with the previous government foundered on these very issues, these very same red lines, with only minor differences - differences that would not make the Palestinian Arab leadership any more flexible.

A sixth fallacy is implicit here, the idea that the PLO's uncompromising negotiating position is inherently just and Israel's is not because of the "occupation." Even though UNSC resolution 242 calls for compromise in setting borders, the mantra of "illegal occupation" has made people reflexively blame Israel when it tries to compromise instead of caving to all demands - something everyone knows must happen anyway. This gives the PLO effective veto power over any Israeli concessions.

The Palestinian Arab position that Jerusalem and "right of return" are prerequisites for peace has been swallowed whole by many liberals. In fact, why is an independent Palestinian Arab state dependent on that? Israel accepted the partition plan without Jerusalem, because it wanted to build an independent state above all to be a refuge for the Jewish nation worldwide. If Palestinian Arabs want a state so badly, why is Jerusalem a prerequisite for it to be viable? Their insistence of these issues do not, in themselves, make them critical. In fact, they call into question whether the end game for the Palestinian Arabs is to build a state - or to destroy one. When even the Likud leader publicly calls for a Palestinian Arab state in front of millions of TV viewers, it is hard to argue that Israel is against it. So what do the Palestinian Arabs really want, and if things are so desperate, why aren't they feeling pressure to come back to the table?

By embracing the Palestinian Arab narrative of preconditions, peace becomes less likely, not more.

Cohen knows deep down that Palestinian Arabs have not embraced peace, and are not likely to. There is one assumption he makes that is accurate: that the next PA leadership is not likely to be as moderate as today's. Hamas will have a big influence in the next PA government, no matter what. He knows - or should know - that Palestinian Arabs do not have any moral qualms against suicide bombings, but their respite is tactical. What does this mean for the future of the peace process? Doesn't it mean that Abbas and Fayyad, for all their vaunted moderation, are out of touch with how Palestinian Arabs really think? Doesn't it mean that there is serious tension within the PA as to whether Abbas is too peaceful and too cooperative with the US and Israel? Why does it make sense to force a peace agreement onto a people who do not want to live with its provisions?

For people like Cohen, the goal is a signed peace agreement - but that is not anything close to real peace. He assumes that the two are identical, but this is the most fatal assumption of all. Israel's insistence on its red lines is to ensure both a real peace and the ability to defend itself if that peace should go south - a very reasonable concern given what is happening in the Arab world today.

There is no shortage of people who say they have Israel's best interests at heart by forcing it to make concessions that would compromise its own security, both short term and long term. Those people need to take a long hard look at their underlying assumptions. Too often, they allow their desire for an agreement overwhelm their ability to soberly look at both the pros and cons of that very agreement. They don't even consider what might happen the day after an agreement is signed.

The goal is a real peace. Israelis have yearned for that moment since the state was born. Israel has made concession after concession - giving up real, tangible assets like land and oil fields and entire beautiful towns - to reach that goal. It is insulting to say that it is the Israeli side that needs to do yet more to make peace with an entity that has walked away from peace talks, that praises terror, and that is now aligned with Hamas.

Real peace cannot be built on lies and fallacies and wishful thinking.

(h/t DG for #6)