Jerusalem Post, November 28, 2010

Fatah: No to Israel as Jewish state, no land swaps

By KHALED ABU TOAMEH AND TOVAH LAZAROFF 
11/28/2010 02:05

Israeli official asks: What sort of peace are you offering us; Revolutionary Council urges PA to foil J'lem-Golan Heights referendum law 

The Fatah Revolutionary Council concluded its fifth convention in Ramallah over the weekend by declaring its refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

The council also urged the Palestinian Authority leadership to work toward foiling a new Israeli law requiring a referendum before any withdrawal from Jerusalem and the Golan Heights that has not been passed by two thirds of the Knesset.

The Palestinians are opposed to any understandings between Israel and the US that could harm their interests, the council said.

“The council affirms its rejection of the so-called Jewish state or any other formula that could achieve this goal,” said a statement issued by the council.

“The council also renews its refusal for the establishment of any racist state based on religion in accordance with international law and human rights conventions.”

The council made its statement as Israel awaits a document from the US which would set out an incentives package in exchange for a 90-day freeze on new settlement construction based on the terms of the 10- month moratorium on such activity which expired on September 26.

The Palestinians have insisted that Israel must halt all settlement activity before direct negotiations can be resumed.

An Israeli government official on Saturday night called on the Palestinians to resume direct negotiations without any preconditions.

“Let us meet and talk,” he said.

The official said he was disappointed by the council’s statement with respect to a Jewish state.

“I would ask the Palestinians the following question: If the Jewish state is fundamentally illegitimate in your eyes, what sort of peace are you offering us? “It is clear that their refusal to recognize the Jewish state’s legitimacy is the true obstacle to peace and reconciliation,” the official added.

In its statement Saturday, the Fatah council said it was categorically opposed to proposals for a land swap between Israel and the Palestinians under the pretext that “illegal settler gangs can’t be put on an equal footing with the owners of the lands and rights.”

Israel has long assumed that any final status agreement would include land swaps.

The Fatah leaders said they supported PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s policies, especially with regard to the peace process with Israel.

“The council salutes President Mahmoud Abbas for adhering to the basic rights, first and foremost the right of return for Palestinian refugees,” the statement said. “Also, the council salutes President Abbas for standing up against pressure aimed at resuming the peace talks without achieving the demands of the Palestinians.”

The council dismissed plans to supply Israel with weapons in return for reviving the stalled peace talks. It added that the Palestinians would not accept any understandings between Israel and the US which could “harm Palestinian rights and prolong occupation.”

The reported US package of incentives to Israel does not serve the cause of peace, the Fatah council cautioned.

“Such gifts to the occupier will only make the occupier more stubborn and radical.”

Referring to the new Israeli law regarding Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, the council said it was in violation of international law and urged the PA leadership to make efforts through the UN and the Security Council to thwart it.

Abbas told Fatah leaders during the three-day gathering that the Palestinians want a just and comprehensive peace, but would not compromise on their rights.

He also ruled out the possibility of returning to the negotiating table without a full cessation of construction in settlements and east Jerusalem.

In its sessions, the council also reiterated its opposition to the idea of creating a Palestinian state with temporary borders. A PA official said there was no change its position on this issue.

“The PA leadership dismisses the idea of a state with temporary borders, the official said.

“We insist that the issue of borders and security be the first to be discussed when the negotiations resume.”

The official’s statements follow statements by several Israeli politicians who recently came out in favor of creating a Palestinian state with temporary borders in an effort to prevent a diplomatic vacuum and give the Palestinians the responsibility that a state would provide.

Kadima leadership candidate Shaul Mofaz unveiled a plan a year ago in which Israel would annex settlement blocs while withdrawing from 60 percent of the West Bank, comprising Areas A and B, where 99.2 of the Palestinians live, and additional land to create a contiguous Palestinian state. Intensive negotiations would then begin on final borders.

Mofaz said that he has met with senior Palestinian, American and European officials who have privately endorsed his plan.

President Shimon Peres and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have also expressed support for the idea of creating a Palestinian state with temporary borders.

Journalist Yair Lapid, who is expected to run for the next Knesset, wrote in his Yediot Aharonot column last week that Israel should forget about trying to achieve peace and instead focus on creating a Palestinian state as soon as possible.

“The time has come to separate the question of establishing a Palestinian state from the question of peace,” Lapid wrote.

“Israel must work toward the establishment of a Palestinian state not because it would bring peace, but rather because it would be much easier to manage the conflict vis-a-vis such a state.”

He predicted that the establishment of a Palestinian state would “take the world off our backs, curb the process of turning us into a pariah state, enable us to maintain our security with fewer restraints, lift the burden of controlling three million people, and enable us to manage the discussion on our final borders and the future of the settlements.”

What's missing:
Everything. Once again, this entire story is missing from all major Western mass media. Quite simply, Fatah, the supposedly "moderate" Palestinian party, has:

1. Rejected the concept of a Jewish state
2. Rejected the right of Israeli citizens to determine their own future in a referendum
3. Rejected the concept of land swaps, a basic component of every negotiation since the Oslo agreement was signed in 1993.
4. Rejected Israel's right as a sovereign nation to undertake agreements with the United States

In other words, Fatah has made it pretty clear that there is little or no point in negotiating anything. And yet we don't see this reported anywhere. Why have the BBC, CNN, the New York Times, The Guardian, Canada's Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star and other major media chosen to ignore it completely.

The Guardian, November 16, 2010

Turkish James Bond enters dangerous waters to take on Israeli flotilla raiders

 Excerpt:

Israel and Turkey signed a military accord in 1996 which made the latter Tel Aviv's closest ally in the Muslim world. Since then, however, relations have become increasingly strained due to Turkey's public condemnation of Israeli treatment of Palestinians. In the aftermath of the raid on the flotilla, they hit an all-time low.
Turkey says ties cannot return to normal until Israel offers an apology for the attack and provides compensation for its victims (1). Israel, meanwhile, is concerned that Turkey is moving closer to Iran.

What's missing:

(1)  The Guardian provides a completely one-sided view of the Mavi Marmara incident, leaving the reader to believe that Turkey is reasonable in expecting an apology and that the "victims" are owed compensation. However:

Under international law, Israel had every right to enforce its blockade - and even to act in international waters. The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994. The relevant section (Section V;67) reads:
Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;

There is no question that Hamas is involved in an armed conflict with Israel. Based on information available at the time, Israel had every reason to believe that the Mavi Marmara was carrying contraband and was attempting to breach the legal Israeli blockade. Clearly, Israel had the right to stop this ship and others in the flotilla. (Incidentally, the Mavi Marmara was the only ship whose passengers resisted the Israeli attempts to redirect them to Ashdod. The other ships in the flotilla were all peacefully docked and unloaded.)

Then there is the matter of compensation for "victims". Based on video footage, it's clear that the "activists" on the Mavi Marmara came prepared to fight, added to their preparations before a single Israeli had boarded the vessel, and then viciously attacked the soldiers. How can someone who attacked a soldier lawfully carrying out a boarding, subsequently claim compensation for any injuries suffered?

Editorial, National Post, November 16, 2010

West Bank horse-trading

National Post · Monday, Nov. 15, 2010

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is attempting to persuade members of his coalition government to impose a 90-day freeze on the construction of new settlements. We hope he succeeds. If there is to be long-term peace between Israelis and Arabs, some sort of agreement will have to be reached on the future borders of a Palestinian state in the West Bank. And Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas has made it clear that he will not conduct negotiations under the shadow of ongoing Jewish settlement construction(1). That said, the circumstances surrounding the mooted settlement freeze are far from ideal. According to media reports, Washington would effectively bribe Mr. Netanyahu's government with the offer of US$3-billion in aid -- including 20 new fighter jets. Cynics naturally might ask whether Mr. Netanyahu will merely pocket these concessions, then go through the motions with Mr. Abbas for the next three months until the settlement construction freeze ends (2).
Mr. Abbas is far from an ideal peace partner: So far, he has refused even to concede the obvious fact that Israel should be properly regarded as a Jewish state. But unlike his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, Mr. Abbas at least is a pragmatist who seems interested in building a real national infrastructure in the West Bank.
As we've written in this space before, Israel does itself no favours if it appears reluctant in its pursuit of peace (3): Not only does such a posture make a peace deal less likely, it plays into the hands of propagandists who (falsely) label Israel, as opposed to Arab rejection of the Jewish presence in the Middle East, as the source of the region's tensions.
Even putting aside the issues of peace and propaganda, the optics of this week's possible quid pro quo represent an indignity for a nation that has become a regional economic, technological and military superpower. Israel's per-capita GDP is on a par with many other OECD nations. It doesn't need bribes from the Americans or anyone else to do what is right.

What's Missing:

 (1) From 1993, with the signing of the Oslo agreement, until 2008, when negotiations between Mahmoud Abbas and the former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzippi Livni, the Palestinians never once demanded a freeze on Jewish construction anywhere. It was only when President Barack Obama inextricably linked negotiations to settlement freezes that Mr. Abbas was forced to take this stance. After all, he could not appear to less pro-Palestinian than Obama.

(2) Far from going through the motions - and before there were any US concessions, Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly called on the Palestinians to come to the table with no preconditions whatsoever. In fact, it's the Palestinians who have repeatedly set preconditions. 

(3) In November 2009, Netanyahu offered an unprecedented (see note 1 above) settlement freeze of 10 months. For eight of those months, nothing happened. The Palestinians refused to come to the table, and only reluctantly entered negotiations in August 2010. The first meeting was held in September, 2010.  However, the National Post here cautions Israel about appearing "reluctant in its pursuit of peace"?