It gets more and more awful.
More disgusting. More distorted.
The Times of Israel has the
following headline this morning (emphasis added):
"In sea change, Arab
League backs land swaps in peace talks"
A sea change is defined as a
marked change or a transformation. But what we're looking at here is
nothing of the sort.
Members of the Arab League,
representing seven Arab nations, met with top US officials yesterday in
Washington. The topic of discussion was the "peace process" and ways
in which the Arab nations might advance it.
After the League delegation
huddled for consultations at Blair House, Qatari Prime Minister Sheik Hamad
Bin Jassem Al Thani announced "the possibility
of 'comparable,' mutually agreed and 'minor' land swaps
between the Israelis and the Palestinians." (Emphasis added)
Note that "land swamps" are
not agreed to firmly in principle. There is a "possibility" of
support for this, which means at the end of the day they might say, "Sorry,
we won't do this after all." After all, only seven of 22 nations of the
League were represented here.
And even if they were to agree, in
any case it would be "minor" swaps only. Piddling. Only piddling.
Most importantly, this entire
notion is predicated upon an erroneous and unacceptable concept.
~~~~~~~~~~
Secretary of State Kerry, who
seems to have staked his entire professional (sic) reputation on succeeding with
the "peace process," gushed:
“We’ve had a very positive, very
constructive discussion over the course of the afternoon, with positive
results...”
He praised the League for the
"important role it is playing, and is determined to play, in bringing about a
peace in the Middle East."
~~~~~~~~~~
A bit of background is in order
here:
The Arab League "Peace Plan" had
originally been advanced by Saudi Arabia in 2002, then was adopted by
the League, and subsequently "re-endorsed" by the League in 2007. It
was, and is, a horror:
If Israel will surrender all lands
acquired in 1967, and provide for a "just" settlement of the Palestinian Arab
refugee problem, based on UN General Assembly Resolution 194 -- which the Arab
world interprets as giving the "refugees" "right of return," when in fact there
is no such thing -- then the Arab world will "normalize" relations with
Israel. No specification of what normalization means re: diplomatic,
security, economic interaction and ties.
Translation: If you will surrender
the Temple Mount, and the Kotel, and the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hevron, and
Shilo, and much more, including the Golan Heights. And if you will return
to the 1967 line [the Green Line], which, admittedly, was recognized
by Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the Six Day War, as not
providing a secure border. And in addition, if you will take within
your borders millions of so-called refugees, rendered radical and hostile
by decades of UNRWA influence. Then all 22 of the Arab states -- and not
just "Palestine" -- will have some sort of ties with you.
This was touted as a great
opportunity for Israel, which would secure "normalization" with the whole Arab
world in one fell blow.
There were to be no
negotiations with this plan. It was a take-it-or-leave-it
deal.
~~~~~~~~~~
Israel rejected it out of
hand. Israel has legitimate rights to Judea and Samaria, based on a
heritage that is more than 3,000 years old, as well as legally binding
resolutions in the twentieth century, notably the Mandate for Palestine. Israel
will never return to the '67 line -- which, in addition to everything
else, provides insufficient strategic depth for adequate security.
Resolution 242 says the final border of Israel must be determined by
negotiations. Agreeing to pull back without negotiations is not the way to
go.
~~~~~~~~~~
For years now, the Palestinian
Authority and its supporters have promoted the idea that the '67 line is
Israel's "real" border, and that everything on the other side "belongs" to the
Palestinian Arabs. It is a crock. A myth. But
unfortunately -- because successive Israeli governments have not been vigorous
enough in countering this -- it has become accepted thinking in many
places.
It is this myth, this crock, upon
which the Arab League fashioned its "peace proposal."
And, more recently, it has been
President Barack Obama who has advanced proposals based on the same myth.
Has he swallowed it whole, so that he really believes it? There is no way
to be certain, although there is ample reason to suspect
so. We only know what he says.
Obama's only deviation from the
stipulation of return to the '67 line is the concept of "agreed-upon swaps" of
land. This means the principle of the '67 line as Israel's
legitimate border is retained but if Israel wants to hold on to a
community that, say, spreads over two square kilometers east of the line,
then "Palestine" will be given two square kilometers of land west of
the line, inside of Israel. In the end, Israel will be defined by an
area no greater than what rests within the '67 line.
No and no!!
~~~~~~~~~~
For the record, and this is
terribly important: the '67 line, or Green Line, was, with very minor
adjustments, the 1949 armistice line. It is the line
that was drawn when Israel and Jordan stopped fighting, at the end of the
War of Independence: Israel fought that war defensively, having been
attacked by the Arab nations on the day she declared independence. It is
referred to as the "'67 line" because Israel was behind that line until June
1967, when the Six Day war was fought.
The armistice agreement
signed between Jordan and Israel stipulated that the line was temporary and
that the permanent line would be determined by negotiations.
Actually, this stipulation was put in at Jordan's insistence. And, please,
note that it WAS Jordan on the other side of the line -- the nation with
which, it was presumed, Israel would ultimately negotiate. There was no
talk of "Palestine" or a "Palestinian people" with whom Israel had to
negotiate. Whatever existed on the other side of the armistice line, it
certainly wasn't a Palestinian state, or land defined as belonging to a
Palestinian people.
How Israel could be required to
"return" Judea and Samaria to the Palestinian Arabs is a
genuine mystery. The
historical situation has been distorted: It has morphed from the
reality into what people of a certain political bent wish it to be.
You will be doing Israel an
enormous service if you circulate this information -- this historical
clarification -- as broadly as possible.
If you see reference in news
sources to "Israel's '67 border," send a correction: It was
never a border, it was an armistice line, and it was
temporary; both the armistice agreement with Jordan and the subsequent UN
Security Council Resolution 242, called for negotiations to determine Israel's
final eastern border.
~~~~~~~~~~
What I see is that Kerry went to
these Arab League members and asked them for some flexibility so that he might
move ahead with the infernal process. And, to his delight, they delivered.
Not only delivered, but stated themselves willing to go along
with parameters outlined by the president.
At a press conference, Kerry
declared:
"The US and Arab League delegation
here this afternoon agreed that peace between Israelis and Palestinians would
advance security, prosperity, and stability in the Middle East. And that is a
common interest for the region and the whole world..."
Well, then, it's the Arab world
that sees eye-to-eye with President Obama, yes? And
Israel?
We can anticipate that the
secretary will now turn to Israel with a request/a veiled demand for more
"flexibility," for the sake of stability in the Middle East. But what has
been tentatively proposed is no more acceptable to Israel than the previous
formulation of the Arab League plan, or only very minutely so. (Now,
presumably, there would be some negotiations to determine the "minor
swaps.")
The essential premises of the plan
remain as unsatisfactory, and as faulty as a basis for peace, as
ever.
(With this discussion we have left
aside the fact that the entire notion of Israel striking a genuine
peace agreement with the PA -- a weak, totally corrupt, terrorist-supporting
entity -- is nonsense. An issue to be re-visited on another
day.)
I do not, for a moment,
anticipate that Israel will
agree to the terms tentatively outlined by the Arab League. But I do
anticipate a huge amount of pressure coming down the road.
It never hurts to communicate to
Prime Minister Netanyahu very briefly to let him know you are with him and
encourage him to stand strong.
~~~~~~~~~~
The peace conference to
be held in the US that Haaretz had issued a tentative report on recently --
which I carried -- is being denied by the US government. Maybe they thought
better of it. Maybe Haaretz was too eager. Whatever the
case, that, at least is good
news.
Next posting, hopefully
on Syria.
~~~~~~~~~~
©
Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner,
functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be
reproduced only
with
proper attribution.
If
it is reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be
noted.
This material
is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to
receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and
include your name in the text of the
message.
No comments:
Post a Comment