The most recent round of peace talks held between the Israelis and the Palestinians has been declared a failure by the Palestinians,  Even though the talks were held at a low level, involving only negotiating representatives from each side, there always somehow seems a little more hope when a dialogue is taking place.  In hindsight, it seems quite clear that there was never really any prospect that this round of talks would go anywhere.  For the Palestinians, it was always a case of simply going through the motions to get safely to the next trigger point.

Following the unsuccessful attempts by the Palestinians to gain recognition from the UN Security Council and General Assembly in the summer of 2011, the Palestinians had promised the Quartet that they would give another round of talks a chance until the 26th January 2012.  Having promised this, the Palestinians had no way of escaping from the commitment.  Despite the fact that a total of 5 meetings were held in the current round between the parties in a very short period of time, all of which took place under the sponsorship of the Jordanian government in Amman, it became clear very early in the process that there was little intent on the part of the Palestinians to make this round work.  Having seemingly exhausted its alternatives by making little progress at the UN, however, the question arises as to why the Palestinians were trying to torpedo these talks?  With few alternatives to allow them to make progress towards their objective, it would appear that talks seem to be the best alternative for Mahmoud Abbas and the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority.

In order to better understand why the Palestinians sabotaged the latest talks, it is important to the sub-plots that are going on behind the scenes, and which are having more of an influence on the actions by President Abbas and chief negotiator Saeb Erekat.  The first issue to address concerns the PA’s alternatives at the UN.  Even though the UN Security Council and General Assembly seemingly had little interest in promoting the cause of the Palestinians at their meetings last year, the UN is quite a disparate organisation with many different tentacles that are often disconnected from each other.  This was demonstrated when, soon after the failure at the General Assembly, the Palestinians did manage to win support for full membership to the UN cultural organisation UNESCO in October 2011.  Although this was a poor consolation prize for main objective, it did demonstrate to the Palestinians that they could use a slower and indirect approach in order to work their way into the UN organisation.  This includes the possibility of making use of the UN-sponsored International Court of Justice to charge Israelis with crimes against humanity arising from events in the recent Gaza War, Operation Cast Lead.  The Palestinians have repeatedly threatened to make use of this avenue in their battle against Israel.  Even if charges that they may bring through this court are ultimately dismissed, such actions could tie individual Israelis and the Israeli government up in legal proceedings for many years.  By bringing the latest round of peace talks with Israel to an end, the prospect of stepping up actions through these UN organisations is placed firmly back on the table, and exactly where the Palestinians wish it to be.

The second sub-plot concerns the evolution of the relationship between Fatah and Hamas.  The Palestinian Authority is controlled by Fatah, and with Mahmoud Abbas already serving his 8th year of a 4-year term, there is a great deal of pressure for elections to be held.  Fatah is clearly reluctant to call elections when there is a real prospect of them being routed, even in their perceived stronghold of the West Bank.  Many of these issues were taken care of, when a deal was signed between Hamas and Fatah to create a unity government for the Palestinian Authority.  This deal is a typical attempt to extend the longevity of politicians on both sides of the divide, by denying the electorate the right to express its will through the ballot box.  With Hamas being absolutely opposed to holding any negotiations with Israel at all, the establishment of the unity government was put on hold while the latest talks were held.  Now, with the talks dead and buried, the blockage has been removed.  For Fatah, entering into a closer relationship with Hamas may allow it to share in some of the popular support that Hamas continues to enjoy following recent prisoner exchange deal.  It may also extend the political lives of some of the bigger names.

A further sub-plot in play concerns the ongoing events in the Arab World, and the events which have resulted from the “Arab Spring”.  Mahmoud Abbas has announced that he will be taking the issue of the failed talks with the Israelis to the Arab League, to get direction as to what should happen next.  With the Arab League occupied with events in Syria, Abbas may have a created a smokescreen under which to operate.  Interestingly, the effects of the Arab Spring also seem to have created something of a split within Hamas, which may yet have an impact on the Palestinian Authority via the inclusion of Hamas in the unity government activities.  The leadership that was formerly based in Damascus (reports suggest that Khaled Meshal and his team have fled the Syrian capital) feel that non-violent protest against Israel may be effective as a “Palestinian Spring”, after having seen the impact of the popular uprising in Syria and Egypt first-hand.  The Gaza leadership is quite clear that it has no intention of adopting a new non-violent approach against Israel, and this issue may yet cause further internal conflict within the Palestinian camp.

The way in which the Palestinians went through the motions in the recent peace talks seemed a little more transparent than usual.  Despite the fact that the talks were primarily addressing the issues of borders and security, an Israeli official was prevented from fully presenting Israel’s position on borders to the Amman meeting.  An Israeli document setting out 21 points of principles needed to reach a peace agreement was not considered, and was then dismissed as being “just an outline”.  These attempts to dismiss Israel’s honest efforts in the talks seem clearly designed to sabotage the talks.  In the press, Israel’s border proposals have been labelled as “preventing a Palestinian state from being established”, and have been blamed for the breakdown of the talks.

In spite of the obvious reasons for the breakdown, the stale mate somehow seems still to have produced a slight edge for the Palestinian side.  The breakdown of the talks has been presented by the international community by saying that the Palestinians have at least fulfilled their commitment to continue to try until the pre-agreed date of 26th January.  Having tried and failed, all bets are off the table, but the rewards due to the Palestinians are triggered.  European foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton even had the audacity to call upon Israel to deliver “confidence-building concessions” to encourage the talks to continue.  We have already learned that this means delivering confidence to the international community, and concessions to the Palestinians.  The Palestinian side seems not to be expected to deliver confidence nor the concessions.  The international community would be better off understanding that any such concessions on Israel’s part, would amount to rewards to the Palestinians for bad behaviour.

It seems clear to me that a lasting peace will only be possible via a negotiated settlement.  This was also recognised by Fatah strongman Marwan Barghouti, who remains in an Israeli jail serving five life sentences for murder of Israeli citizens.  He made a rare court appearance during the last week, and managed to send out a message indicating that he believes in a negotiated settlement based on the 1967 borders.  The precise terms of the negotiated settlement remain a large outstanding issue, but it is interesting that the person believed to be the instigator of both the first and second intifadas is talking about a negotiated settlement at all.  The problem right now, is that there appear to be few Palestinians who believe that this is the correct route to take, and who are prepared to make the painful concessions necessary to bring this to reality.  Until this happens, the Palestinians will be going through the motions, and the cycle of violence will continue.

Going Through the Motions is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. A Unilateral Palestinian State is a Reward for Bad Behaviour
2. Analysing the “Palestine Papers” Leaks
3. Terrorism, Short Memories and Lack of Empathy

It has been interesting to watch developments within Hamas over the past few months, and especially since the prisoner exchange deal which saw the release of Gilad Shalit.  For Hamas, this has been a significant political event and has driven the organisation’s popularity to new heights amongst its Palestinian constituency.  It seems as though this popularity has not reached all parts of the organisation, and that this great political event may even cause something of a split within Hamas.

Since Hamas was founded in 1987, there has been some tension between the so-called Gaza leadership, and the leadership based in exile.  Until recently, the base in exile has been situated in the Syrian capital, Damascus.  This is where Hamas Political Chief and Hamas Leader Khaled Meshaal has been based, together with his exile leadership team.  On the other hand, Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and his cabinet are the ones who are ruling over the Gaza Strip on a day-to-day basis, close to the grass roots support that keeps the organisation so popular.  While Haniyeh does turn for guidance to Meshal in his capacity as the leader of the organisation, the truth of the matter is that the Gaza team is a fairly autonomous entity.  Since the Gaza team succeeded in winning control of Gaza from Fatah in a coup d’état in 2007, they have steadily risen in stature within the Hamas organisation.  Recent events have served to strengthen this position even further, to the point that the overall leadership of Hamas may see itself moving from the base in Damascus back to Gaza.

The rise in power of the Gaza leadership really began back in 2005, soon after the death of Yasser Arafat.  This event gave the leaders in Gaza the opportunity to raise their profile on the ground, starting with the assertion of their authority against arch-rivals Fatah.  The legislative elections held in 2006 were easily won by Hamas even though Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas managed to hang onto the presidency of the Palestinian Authority.  A year later, Hamas supporters rose up against the Fatah rulers in Gaza, and asserted their authority on the streets. This brought their victory at the ballot box to reality.  During this time, Hamas operatives kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, and held him as a bargaining chip for more than 5 years.  All the while, Hamas was firing missiles from Gaza into Israel and keeping the organisation’s name on the international stage.  These events have helped to popularise Hamas amongst its supporters in Gaza, and amongst extremist Muslims around the world.  This popularity has come at the expense of Fatah, but has also caused a split within the Hamas organisation itself.  There is no doubt that the Gaza leadership has taken all the credit for these events at the expense of the Damascus leadership.

The Arab Spring has further weakened the Damascus leadership in a few different ways.  It is reported that the instability in Damascus has resulted in the exile leadership being forced to move their office elsewhere.  Although there is no confirmation of the new location for their office, they may be forced to remain fairly mobile in light of the events of the Arab Spring moving around the Middle East fairly rapidly.  Meshal has also been influenced by the Arab Spring and decided to try to use its impetus to suggest the use of non-violent protest against Israel.  This suggestion has been forcefully rejected by the Gaza leaders, who continue to subscribe to violent protest and ongoing firing of missiles towards Israel.

This is not the only major disagreement between Damascus and Gaza.  The Damascus leadership has been very active in working on the negotiations with Fatah to reach an agreement on a unity government for the Palestinian Authority.  Besides the compromises that each side has been forced to make to reach an agreement with the other, there is another key elephant in the room.  This is the issue of the talks with Israel which are back on the table, albeit at a very low level.  The Gaza leadership remains absolutely opposed to reaching any agreement with Fatah, all the time that Fatah is willing to enter into negotiations with Israel.  This view seems to have prevailed over the past few weeks.  Despite having signed an agreement to enter into a unity government with Fatah amidst some fanfare in Cairo, Hamas has taken no active steps towards making this agreement a reality.

These events culminated in an announcement last week that Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal has decided not to see re-election as the movement’s chief in elections which are due to take place later during 2012.  This seems to be an acknowledgement on Meshaal’s part that he will be defeated in the election.  Rather than be defeated, he would prefer to bow out in a more elegant way.  Favourite to replace him is Ismail Haniyeh, leader in Gaza.

All of this indicates something of a radicalisation of Hamas in the future.  The Gaza leadership is naturally much more radical than that in Damascus, and the future path of Hamas is bound to be strongly influenced by this.  In addition, the rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood across the border in Egypt is ominous.  Hamas was founded as an off-spring of the Muslim Brotherhood, and continues to have a close relationship with this organisation.  The Mubarak regime succeeded to some degree in limiting the flow of arms into Gaza from Egypt, but the floodgates will be open now that the Muslim Brotherhood is calling the shots in Cairo.

While there were indications of compromise and understanding coming from the Damascus leadership, this appears almost certainly to have been overruled by the approach of conflict and confrontation dictated by the Gaza leadership.  This almost certainly means a continued schism within Palestinian politics between Fatah and Hamas.  For Israel, this probably means that another Gaza operation, similar to Operation Cast Lead, is inevitable in response to the continued missile attacks that seem almost assured.  In Middle East politics, this is a huge opportunity that will be missed.

Image by corbis.com.

Hamas Reaches a Fork in the Road is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. Hamas and Fatah Give Up on Negotiations
2. Hamas Planned to Abduct Terror Victim Bodies
3. Hamas Arrests Gaza Fatah Supporters

Last week, UNESCO, the United Nations division dedicated to culture and science, voted to allow the Palestinians as a full member state under the name Palestine. The United States and Israel were not happy about it, and they made their thoughts known through the mighty dollar.

Aside from the expected public disapproval of the vote, Israel suspended all payments to the international agency. While Israel’s roughly $2 million to the agency every year will not make a major difference, Israel also suspended tax payments to the Palestinian Authority for making such a move. That transfer, around $100 million per month, is vital for the Palestinian government to continue functioning.

Whiles some anti-Israel advocates around the world have spoken out against Israel’s move, it is proof that the Israelis expect the Palestinians to come to the table to negotiate a peace plan. Unless it is mutual, the Palestinians are side-stepping the peace process in a hostile act against Israel.

The United States also took a position to back its longtime ally in the Middle East. The United States fulfilled its promise to halt funding to UNESCO in response to the vote. The $60 million makes up about 22% of UNESCO’s annual budget.

Over the coming months, I imagine we will see more efforts by the Palestinians to ignore the peace process while it attempts international recognition on its own. In the mean time, terrorists continue to attack innocent Israelis with rocket fire in the South, Hezbollah continues to threaten the border in the North, and Israel’s military must work around the clock to keep innocent civilians safe from terrorists.

What a great peace we have with the Palestinians…

UNESCO Fallout is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. More Flotilla Fallout – Global Updates
2. Umm el-Fahm Fallout
3. US House Rejects Palestinian Statehood Bid

With the Jewish New Year occurring immediately after the UN General Assembly meeting in New York as it just did, it made me take stock of Israel’s current situation compared to last year (which seems like only yesterday).  In particular, I thought about where we were in our attempts to make peace with our Palestinian neighbours at this time last year, and the year before that.  As is the custom at the time of the new year, I thought about the future and what could realistically be achieved over the course of the next year.

The truth is that the peacemaking efforts have remained stagnant for many years.  Israeli leaders have come and gone, and a Palestinian leader has gone and another one come.  We have tried peace conferences in Madrid, Oslo, Camp David, Wye Plantation, Ramallah and Jerusalem.  And yet, the obstacles have not moved even one iota.  We are suffering with precisely the same issues as we have suffered with over the years, some of which seem to be beyond solution.

I heard a good piece of advice from our local Rabbi over the new year period about how to set behaviour patterns for the forthcoming year.  He said that we should close our eyes, and dream of where we wish to be in a year’s time from now.  We should think about the things that we would wish to achieve by then, and then think about the stage that precedes that achievement.  By continuing to think about the step which precedes each stage, we can finally return back to our present situation with a roadmap of how to reach our goal.  Although this sounds good in theory and a little more difficult to implement in practice, the concept is a good one.  It is important to close your eyes and dream a little, and to set objectives which can serve to guide you in your work and private life.

While thinking about all of this, I spent a few moments considering whether Mahmoud Abbas may have done some of his own dreaming for the Palestinian people which he leads.  Maybe the time of the Jewish New Year is not exactly when you would expect him to be considering this matter, but perhaps he would do so after Ramadan or on Ras as-Sana al-Hijreya, the Islamic New Year which falls at the end of November this year.  If he was to close his eyes and dream of what he would like to see for himself and his people at the same time next year, what would this be?  If we are to believe his public statements, this would be an independent Palestinian state.  Clearly there are details such as the borders and capital of this state, but the “big picture” dream, we are told, is the Palestinian state.  This is what he left us believing following his actions and speech at the United Nations.  If this is true, the answer is in his hands.  The Israeli government has agreed to it, and the sponsors in the form of the US and other members of the Quartet have also accepted this point.  All that is required for him to get there, is for him to make a few concessions and to compromise by dropping the detailed demands that he is making, in return for which the Palestinian state will be his.

The problem is that the details seem to be more important than the big picture objective.  He will not accept a Palestinian state unless its borders comply with specific conditions, or until Jerusalem is handed to him as its capital amongst some of his demands.  Although the Jewish people have prayed for more than 2,000 years for their return to Zion, to Jerusalem as the holiest city in the religion, the Jewish state existed for 19 years with Jewish access to only the western side of the city.  This meant that the holiest sites, including that upon which the holy temple once stood, were out of bounds to Jews.  This fact (and the small issue of being attacked on all sides by Arab countries in the region) did not deter the Jews from establishing Israel as the Jewish state.  The truth is that the objective of having an independent Jewish homeland was bigger than any of the details, no matter how important.  I do not get the same feeling that the Palestinians have the same objective.  Somehow, the details are playing a more important role than the headline objective.

My new hope is that his experiences at the UN a couple of weeks ago would somehow change Abbas’s approach to the peace negotiations.  Maybe, by some miracle, Abbas may decide that he needs to acknowledge Israel’s position as a Jewish country in order to make progress with his own objectives?  I am sure that he understands the need to make this concession, and how this may give him the state that he claims to yearn for.  His refusal to acknowledge this critical point is extremely concerning.  Is it possible that holding on to his position is more important than getting his independent state?

There is a real danger that the inhabitants of the Middle East have forgotten how to dream, and are forced to be reactive in confronting daily emergencies.  This would a great pity.  In the case of Mahmoud Abbas, it is not clear whether he has stopped dreaming, or whether the dreams that he is communicating to the outside world are not the same ones as the those that he is dreaming.  Under the current circumstances, his dreams will not be fulfilled, no matter what they are.

My new year’s dream is that Gilad Shalit will be with us and his family, for him to celebrate the new year in freedom next year.  I also dream that Mahmoud Abbas may change his dreams to create the possibility for real peace, although this may be expecting too much.  It is my wish that you will all realise your dreams in the new year, and that our nation’s dream of living in peace alongside our neighbours with mutual respect will be realised.  Shana Tova.

New Year’s Dreams is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. My Life Changed Four Years Ago Today
2. Fayyad Intends to Establish De Facto State Within Two Years
3. A Unilateral Palestinian State is a Reward for Bad Behaviour

All eyes were focused last week on the opening of the 66th session of the UN General Assembly in New York.  For weeks prior to this event, the Palestinians had dominated the international press with stories of taking a unilateral declaration of independence to the UN for a vote.  Even though the events of last week turned many minds back to the fateful vote by the same organisation in 1947 which paved the way for the establishment of the State of Israel as the Jewish homeland, the two situations could not be more stark in their differences.

After the build-up that took place to last week’s meetings, it all ended with something of an anti-climax.  There was no vote on the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state.  There was not even a vote to admit the Palestinians as full members of the UN.  Ultimately, the best that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was able to do, was to submit his application to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon for full membership of the UN by the Palestinians.  This application will need to be approved by the UN Security Council, and US President Barack Obama has already said that the USA will veto this vote if necessary.  As a compromise, the Palestinians may be able to upgrade their current status of membership of the UN from an “entity” to a “non-member state” in UN speak.  This requires only a vote by the general assembly without the need for approval by the Security Council, and is likely to be approved with some ease.  The benefits of this upgrade for the Palestinians, however, seem marginal.

Despite the fact that all of the hype resulted in very little action, there were a few important results that came out of the events of last week.  The first major outcome was the way in which President Barack Obama behaved when he was truly put on the spot.  Obama has distanced himself from the peace process since assuming office nearly 3 years ago.  He has yet to pay a visit to Israel or to the Palestinian Authority area, and has preferred to focus his time and energies on the many other issues currently confronting the USA.  Despite his statements about the importance of resolving Middle East conflict, and his attempts to set timetables within which this issue should be resolved, he has yet to devote any significant chunk of his time to make this happen.  When he was backed into a corner last week and forced to decide whether the Security Council should approve full membership for the Palestinians, he knew that exercising the USA’s veto is the only answer.  This was accompanied by a speech which was one of the most pro-Israeli addresses made by a US president at the UN for many years, and which surprised supporters and detractors alike.  In his speech, he told the story of the terror and hatred that Israelis have been forced to live with over many years, and he recognised Israel’s right to exist as the Jewish homeland.  This was perhaps the most critical statement, as it is the point which currently presents the main stumbling block to renewing peace talks.

The address to the general assembly by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was equally an important event during the week.  Despite his many faults, Netanyahu has consistently shown his ability to present Israel’s position on the international stage.  Once again, he did this with great confidence and conviction.  In particular, he addressed those people who feel that Israel should show greater flexibility in its negotiating position.  There are those who believe that Israel should be playing to the “Palestinian moderates”, by making concessions to give them greater position and power amongst their Palestinian colleagues.  In theory, these moderates will lead the peace agreement with Israel, and lead the Palestinians to a more moderate position.  In refuting this position, Netanyahu reminded the general assembly of the many concessions that Israel has already made in the interests of pursuing peace.  The most substantial of these concessions, a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza with all the implications of uprooting the lives of many thousands of people, has served to distance peace rather than bring it closer.  After handing the keys of Gaza to PA President Abbas, he proceeded to lose control of it to the radicals of Hamas.  Israel has been forced to endure constant rocket fire from the areas which were previously under Israeli control ever since.  If this is a model for making concessions, it is not particularly successful and does create much of a precedent for future concessions.

Overall, the right conclusion was reached at the UN.  This conclusion is that the UN cannot act as a replacement for the peace process.  The UN cannot grant a state to people who are unwilling to come to the negotiating table, because they refuse to recognise the most fundamental rights of their neighbour.  Until the Palestinians recognise the rights of Israel to exist, and to exist as a Jewish state, there can be no further discussion.  Without this recognition, there will always be the suspicion (or maybe a confirmation) that the Palestinians seek a state of their own alongside Israel only in order to use this as a springboard to destroy the Jewish state completely.  Hamas, along with their Hezbollah and Iranian friends, have not been shy to make this point clear in public.  Perhaps this is Mahmoud Abbas’s little secret.

The difference between the UN vote of 1947 and the UN non-vote of 2011 is perhaps best reflected by the responses of the general public awaiting the outcomes.  Jews were dancing in the streets of Jerusalem, across then-Palestine and around the world.  In contrast, Palestinians lined up across the West Bank with stones which were thrown at Israeli security patrols, and burning posters of President Barack Obama and Israeli flags.  Israeli military was on high alert in the south of the country after a concrete threat of a terror attack in the area.

While the UN has in the past been a very unhappy hunting ground for Israel and Jews around the world, these two occasions stand out as crucially arriving at the correct conclusion.  Each, for its own different reason, will take its place in Jewish history as a critical moment in time.

Palestinian Attempt to Hijack the UN Leads Nowhere is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. Palestinian Peace Perpetuates Regional Conflict
2. The Threat of a Unilateral Palestinian State
3. Route 443 Has Officially Opened to Palestinian Traffic

Every year at this time, our media is bombarded with scenes of commemoration ceremonies at Ground Zero, and across America for the victims of the 9/11 terror attacks.  We are shown movies and documentaries about the events that took place on that fateful day, new revelations that have come to light since then and security arrangements that are now in place which have changed America and the world.  This year, which marked the 10th anniversary of America’s largest terror attack on home ground, had greater significance and relevance as the new water feature at Ground Zero was finally opened to replace the buildings that once stood there.

At the time that the attacks took place on American soil ten years ago, there were more than a few Israelis who thought that the American people may view Israel in a different light in view of the terror attacks that they had experienced on their own soil.  For the first time in many years, the Americans were made to feel the threat and personal injury that Israelis have been forced to suffer since independence in 1948, and even before that.  There was a feeling among Israelis that Americans would be able to empathize with the Israeli people, and perhaps even view the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians in a slightly different way.  Perhaps there would not be such great pressure from the Americans and the rest of the international community to be forced to negotiate with the same group that is using terror to try to destroy the country.  Further terror attacks in London, Madrid, Bali and other locations raised this expectation even further.  Maybe these nations would also show greater understanding for Israel’s fight for existence against these terror activities.

For a time, it felt as though the balance did swing a little towards greater sympathy for Israel’s position.  Politicians and ordinary citizens of countries around the world showed some level of understanding for the extreme and unnatural circumstances under which Israeli citizens are forced to live while terrorists continuously attempt to blow up buses, restaurants  and other public areas, or launch missiles towards residential neighbourhoods where children sit in school classrooms.  This sympathy and understanding seemed to evaporate almost as quickly as it arose, and things went back to the same old situation that was in place prior to 9/11.  Instead, a level of self-pity replaced these feelings, with people feeling sorry for themselves that they were suddenly forced to suffer with increased levels of security at airports, train stations and other public areas.  And when the opportunity has arisen to associate with Israel and to hold the Palestinians to account for their terror acts against Israelis, suddenly the feeling of identification is forgotten.  The identification with another nation that has also been subjected to unforgiveable acts of terror, initiated by the same groups as those attacking the rest of the free world, is somehow completely missing.  The previous status quo has been replaced by a new one, and people have returned right back to where they were before.

Later this week on Friday, the Palestinians plan to bring a vote to the UN General Assembly requesting greater recognition for the Palestinian people.  It is not quite clear what the nature of the Palestinians’ request will be, and whether they will be requesting full membership of the UN General Assembly, or whether they will be going as far as requesting the UN to authorise the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state.  Whatever it is, more than 100 countries have lined themselves up to support the Palestinian initiative at the UN.  This is how the world is responding to an organisation that has constantly acted as a terror organisation over the years.  Although much of the world’s ire is directed towards Israel for the current hiatus in the peace process, it remains on the record that the Palestinians have still not removed the clause in the PLO charter that calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.  The current breakdown in talks is down to the Palestinians not agreeing to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.  Surely this should prevent them from coming to the UN with their application.

An article in an Israeli newspaper today referred to the current Palestinian initiative at the UN, and Hamas’ position on this process.  Hamas has not supported the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority’s intention to make an application at the UN, bringing to the surface many internal disagreements between the various Palestinian factions on this issue.  It was written today that Hamas would change their position and support the UN initiative, as long as it was agreed that there would be no acknowledgement of Israel’s right to exist.  It astonishes me that the international community would even think about debating an issue like this under these circumstances.  Before the UN admits a new entity to its hallowed halls, it has a responsibility to protect and defend the rights of the existing members.  This responsibility is not being fulfilled in the current circumstances.

The events of 9/11 and other attacks of terror remain close to the families of the victims, and to the various countries who suffered from them.  There is much sympathy from Israelis for the victims of these events and their families.  Who knows more what suffering these people are enduring than those who have suffered it themselves.  The price paid in human casualties and the attack on their freedom will not be forgotten in a hurry.  This unfortunately does not translate into a feeling of identification and understanding from these countries for other countries who suffer from this assault on their freedom in a more extreme way i.e. by an attack on their very right to exist.  Despite the intention by some countries to oppose the UN initiative this week, it somehow seems that this is a battle that Israel is destined to fight largely on her own.  Any agreement at the UN later this week to upgrade the diplomatic status of the Palestinians will be clear evidence of this.

Terrorism, Short Memories and Lack of Empathy is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. The Scourge of Terrorism in Southern Israel
2. Palestinian Peace Perpetuates Regional Conflict
3. Continue to Fight Terrorism

The Palestinian Authority, run by “moderate” Mahmoud Abbas, has authorized payments of £5 million British Pounds ($8,092,000 USD or ₪28,848,000 ILS) to the families of terrorists who died murdering Israelis. Another £3 million has been authorized for payment to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.

The increasingly anti-Israel United Kingdom gives £86 million in aid payments every year to the Palestinian Authority. The funds are intended to be used for development and government operating costs. Instead, corruption has led to the funneling of £8 million to terrorists and their families this year. The Palestinian Authority created a new law authorizing payments to the families of suicide bombers from its civil service budget. The total payments make up over 3% of the PA annual operating budget.

Not only is this a disgusting act, it is proof that the Palestinian Authority has no intention to make peace with Israel. By rewarding terrorists and the families of terrorists, the Palestinians are showing their true intentions. They want to see Israelis murdered and injured. They want to see terrorists infiltrate civilian areas and murder innocent people. They want homicide, not peace.

Hopefully the British will see what is happening and wake up to the disturbing state of the Palestinians. It is not news to me, but when your own money is used to fund terrorism, you might start thinking twice about who your friends are.

Families of Murderers Given £5 million by PA is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. Even The Palestinians Blame Hamas for Violence
2. More on Obama and Israel
3. Murder Most Horrid in Itamar

Image by DonkeyHotey via Flickr

Via AFP:

The US House of Representatives on Thursday warned the Palestinians that they risk cuts in US aid if they pursue UN recognition of a future state not defined in direct talks with Israel.

In an overwhelming 406-6 vote, lawmakers backed a symbolic resolution sending a stern message to the Palestinians one week after the US Senate unanimously approved a similar measure…

“Any Palestinian unity government must publicly and formally forswear terrorism, accept Israel’s right to exist, and reaffirm previous agreements made with Israel,” it says.

The United States congress is making it very clear that attempts to go directly to the United Nations in a bid for statehood will result in aid cuts. The President made it clear that the act will be vetoed in the UN Security Council.

So why do they keep trying? After failed attempts to restart peace talks due to Abbas holding to so many unilateral conditions to even sit down and talk, the PA is making it clear that it does not want peace.

The Palestinians want Israel to be gone. They are going to start by declaring disputed territory their own. We will see what they try to get next.

US House Rejects Palestinian Statehood Bid is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. Obama Against Palestinians Statehood Bid
2. Israel Wants to Build Palestinian Institutions Before Statehood
3. Bibi Rejects Livni Bid for Coalition

A new poll shows Israeli citizens strongly support Benjamin Netanyahu’s positions regarding Jerusalem, holy sites, and future peace deals with the Palestinians. It has to be a two sided process and the opinion of the Israeli people does, in fact, matter. From IMRA:

Jerusalem Poll: Oppose international control of holy places 73%:21%, Oppose construction freeze 67%:23%

Would you oppose or support having part of Jerusalem part of a Palestinian state?

Oppose any part 66% Support some Arab neighborhoods 23% [rest of table not recorded in time]

Would you agree to international control of the holy places within the framework of a peace agreement?

No 73% Yes 21% Don’t know 6%

Should construction be frozen in Jerusalem neighborhoods beyond the ’67 lines?

Build 67% Freeze 23% Don’t know 10%

Does Obama Support Democracy or The Palestinians? is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. Obama Against Palestinians Statehood Bid
2. More on Obama and Israel
3. Palestinians Build Illegal Settlement in Israel

A lot of very intelligent people have had a lot to say about the recent Middle East speech by President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s response.

Alan Dershowitz in the Jerusalem Post:

This recent statement clearly reveals the underlying flaw in Obama’s thinking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is no way that Israel can agree to borders without the Palestinians also agreeing to give up any claim to a “right of return.” As Palestinian Prime Minister Fayyad Salaam once told me: each side has a major card to play and a major compromise to make; for Israel, that card is the West Bank, and the compromise is returning to the 1967 lines with agreed-upon adjustments and land swaps; for the Palestinians, that card is “the right of return,” and the compromise is an agreement that the Palestinian refugees will be settled in Palestine and not in Israel; in other words, that there will be no right to “return” to Israel.

David Frum in the National Post:

President Obama devoted one-fifth of his speech on Thursday to Palestinian concerns. The president even endorsed the controversial concept that a future Palestinian state be granted control over an area equivalent in size to all the West Bank and Gaza territories occupied by Israel in 1967, albeit with border rectifications.

Netanyahu understandably complains: If that’s the consequence for bad behavior, why should the Palestinian Authority ever change to good behavior?

Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post:

Every Arab-Israeli negotiation contains a fundamental asymmetry: Israel gives up land, which is tangible; the Arabs make promises, which are ephemeral. The long-standing American solution has been to nonetheless urge Israel to take risks for peace while America balances things by giving assurances of U.S. support for Israel’s security and diplomatic needs.

It’s on the basis of such solemn assurances that Israel undertook, for example, the Gaza withdrawal. In order to mitigate this risk, President George W. Bush gave a written commitment that America supported Israel absorbing major settlement blocs in any peace agreement, opposed any return to the 1967 lines and stood firm against the so-called Palestinian right of return to Israel.

For 2 ¹/₂ years, the Obama administration has refused to recognize and reaffirm these assurances. Then last week in his State Department speech, President Obama definitively trashed them. He declared that the Arab-Israeli conflict should indeed be resolved along “the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”

Each article gives an interesting perspective and all are worth reading. This is an incredibly complex and sensitive issue. I can’t stress the importance of understanding and share the truth enough. The Palestinians are an aggressive and deceitful enemy and, due to a lack of understanding, the world rewards them for this behavior.

More on Obama and Israel is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. What Game is Obama Playing?
2. Does Obama Support Democracy or The Palestinians?
3. Obama Does Not Make Ludicrous Demands of Israel