The Barak Disengagement Plan

Israel's defense minister Ehud Barak has come out with a new plan that is spurring a new debate about Israel's role in the West Bank. Ehud Barak is part of the government coalition under Binyamin Netanyahu, but he's also the leader of his own political party and has aspirations to once again be Prime Minister of Israel.

That means that his comments need to be framed both as an internal political issue within the Israeli electorate and as a wider Israeli policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians.

Barak's plan? A disengagement from large portions of the West Bank, including uprooting settlements and using financial incentives to get Israel's to move back inside the Green Line. However, the Etzion and Ariel settlement blocs would not be included in the disengagement:

Defense Minister Ehud Barak is urging the government to examine a plan for unilateral withdrawal from Judea and Samaria. Under the plan, secluded settlements and outposts in Judea and Samaria would be evacuated by the state, and any Jews wishing to remain in the region would be permitted to live there under Palestinian rule.

In a special interview with Israel Hayom, to be published in full on Tuesday, Barak outlined the details of his plan and explained the logic behind it. Under Barak's plan, the settlement blocs of Gush Etzion, Maaleh Adumim and Ariel would remain intact. These blocs house some 90 percent of Judea and Samaria's Jewish population. Strategic areas (such as the Samarian hills overlooking Ben-Gurion International Airport) would similarly remain under Israeli control, and an Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley would be ensured. The remainder of the territory would be handed over to the Palestinians to establish a state. Dozens of small Jewish communities would have to be evacuated.


Barak's plan elicited a harsh response from the right on Monday, with Likud Minister Yuli Edelstein saying that "this is not a disengagement plan we are talking about. This is our survival. Ehud Barak is continuing to make rookie mistakes. After supporting the disastrous Oslo Accords, orchestrating the escape from Lebanon and advancing the withdrawal from Gaza, which put a million Israelis in bomb shelters, Barak is now willing to put millions more in harms way just to get more votes."

There has been no visible movement on the peace process in the past couple of years as Hamas has solidified its hold on Gaza while Fatah continues running the show in the West Bank autonomous areas where Palestinians have civil administrative control. Pursuant to the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority has full civil administrative control over certain portions, shared security arrangements in other areas, and Israel controls the remaining areas. The ultimate disposition of the West Bank would be determined in an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. But since Hamas has remained steadfast in its refusal to recognize Israel's very right to exist and has no interest in holding to already signed deals between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, there's been no movement. Israel can't work on a peace deal when it doesn't have a partner in peace.

Elections are likely in the next year, and Barak thinks he's got a shot at winning the opportunity to forge a coalition government rather than Netenyahu. Disengagement isn't likely to sit well with many Israelis after the Gaza experiment, though there are significant differences between the two scenarios. For one, Hamas had a greater presence in Gaza than in the West Bank, and Fatah has been more willing to coordinate security with Israel. That isn't to say that disengagement is without risk to Israel's security.

So, this is where Barak's proposal comes into play. It would seem to be a version of Ariel Sharon's Gaza disengagement plan. It would take into account the demographic problems that face Israel with a growing Palestinian population that would threaten the very character of Israel's Jewishness.

Critics of Barak's plan in Israel point to the problems resulting from the Gaza disengagement. Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor notes that the disengagement from Gaza allowed Hamas to overrun and take control of the area and turned Gaza into a rocket and terrorist haven. Thousands of terror attacks have been launched against Israel - in the form of mortars, kassams, and grad rocket/missile attacks against Israel from Ashkelon and Ashdod through Sderot. Meridor points out that something similar would likely occur if Israel unilaterally withdraws from areas in the West Bank.

"We saw what happened in Gaza," Meridor told Israel Radio, expressing his belief that unilateral withdrawal from settlements is "not a good idea."

"We all want to reach an agreement," he said, "but since Olmert's proposal (in 2006) we haven't had real negotiations, and they [the Palestinians] don't seem to want it."

Meridor stressed that Israel should make an effort to reach an agreement and that the current situation must not continue, but he added that the army must remain in the West Bank for the time being.

Meanwhile, Vice Premier Silvan Shalom all but dismissed the proposal, predicting that Barak will not have sway on government action in the settlements, following elections scheduled for 2013.

The view that Israelis are the ones blocking a path to a peace deal ignore the reality on the ground unless the goal is to establish not a two-state solution, but a three state solution. One for Hamas in Gaza, one for Fatah in the West Bank territories, and Israel. If that's the path to take, then we need to eliminate the fiction that the Palestinian Authority has any actual authority, that the votes the Palestinians took, and their civil war that led to the current situation but that would also mean that Palestinian self-determination in those elections wasn't determinative.

The problem with the three-state solution is that the Palestinians themselves don't appear to want that - they still hold fast to 2-state solution that ultimately leads to a 1-state solution in overruning Israel.

Fatah's Abbas isn't willing to make concessions on right of return or other critical issues that would lead to a new peace deal. And housing and settlements are a non-factor since Israel has repeatedly shown that Israel is willing to uproot settlers from housing to have an opportunity for peace.

They did it in Sinai.

They did it in Gaza.

And they'd do so in the West Bank if there was a peace deal to be had. Without a partner in peace though, the Israelis aren't going to warm up to another unilateral disengagement plan.

Palestinians Threatening To Abrogate Oslo Accords and Other Arrangements With Israel

The Palestinians, particularly Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas, is once again threatening to abrogate the Oslo Accords and the successor security arragements made with Israel so as to curry favor with Hamas as Fatah and Hamas try to reconcile their longstanding differences.

Mohammed Shtayyeh, member of the Fatah Central Committee and one of the Palestinian Authority negotiators with Israel, was quoted Sunday as saying that the Palestinians may cancel the agreements signed between the PLO and Israel.

Meanwhile, some PLO and Fatah leaders have privately criticized Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for agreeing to incorporate Hamas into the PLO.

At least three senior officials in Ramallah have voiced strong reservations over the decision, a Fatah official told The Jerusalem Post. He said that those who were opposed to the move were worried that Hamas would replace Fatah as the dominant party in the PLO.

One official was quoted as saying that Abbas was paving the way for Hamas and Islamic Jihad to take control not only over the PLO, but the entire West Bank as well.

Shtayyeh's comments were published by the London-based Asharq Al Awsat newspaper.

This was not the first time that a senior PA official had talked about the possibility of abrogating the Oslo Accords.

The comments came less than 48 hours after Hamas and Islamic Jihad agreed to join a temporary leadership of the PLO that would prepare for new elections for the organization's two key bodies - the Palestine National Council and Executive Committee.

In response to a question about Israeli settlements, Shtayyeh said: "If Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu insists that there is no difference between the settlement of Abu Ghneim [Har Homa] and Tel Aviv, we won't distinguish between Ramallah and Jaffa."

The Palestinian Authority hasn't held elections since 2005, when Hamas and Fatah split the vote and ending up fighting a civil war that left Hamas in full control over Gaza while Fatah maintained civil administrative control over the West Bank. The Palestinians continue their attempts to revise history by claiming that Oslo didn't recognize Palestinian rights to territories, but they continue to avoid recognizing Israel's rights to territories, including historic claims to Jerusalem that extend back hundreds and thousands of years.

Hamas is not ruling out running in elections that may be held in 2012. They think that they might win in a landslide. That may be wishful thinking on their part considering that Hamas has shown an inability to do anything other than carry out attacks against Israel and find reason to blame Israel for all that ails the Palestinians. It can't do anything constructive. While Fatah remains open to concerns about corruption, Palestinians living in areas controlled by Fatah are able to move about more freely and have far more economic opportunities than those in Gaza. It doesn't seem likely that people living in the West Bank would consider voting for Hamas, unless they're looking for a more violent confrontation with Israel and an end to the peace process.

Yet, Hamas must think that they've got support to make such claims. Indeed, looking back at the 2006 election results, and one sees that Fatah maintained support only in a few select West Bank cities, while Hamas generated support elsewhere. That dynamic isn't likely to change even though the economic situation is worse now in Gaza than before the elections.

Despite the worsened economic conditions, Hamas wears that with a badge of pride - all in the cause of fighting Israel's existence and undermining Israel's right to exist at every opportunity. They portray the fight and the lack of economic opportunity as sacrifices that must be made in the fight against the Zionists.

Hamas celebrates a 3-year anniversary since the start of Operation Cast Lead, when Israel went after the Palestinian terror group after hundreds of rockets and mortars slammed into Israeli cities and towns. They refer to Israeli war crimes and genocide, even though by Hamas' own admission the vast majority of those killed were Hamas terrorists. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of civilians killed were not purposefully attacked by Israel, but were rather used by Hamas as human shields so as to inflate the body count and inflame Palestinian passions against Israel. At the same time, Palestinians look the other way as those Hamas rocket and mortar attacks were themselves war crimes as they purposefully targeted civilians so as to maximize the body count. To Hamas, there are no Israeli civilians - all are worthy targets.

New Skirmishes Erupt As Gazan Terrorists Attack Israeli Security Forces Along Fence

Gazan terrorists carried out a sustained attack against an Israeli security force working on the security fence between Israel and Gaza. It was a sustained skirmish, and no Israelis were injured in the attack on the Israelis who were fixing the security barrier between Israel and Gaza.

Armed Palestinians on Thursday opened fire on IDF forces that were working on the security fence near Kibbutz Zikim, north of the Gaza Strip.

The force was positioned near the fence when suddenly shots and mortar shells were fired at them from the Gaza Strip. The force responded with fire, hitting several members of the terrorist cell. No injuries reported among the IDF forces, but a military vehicle sustained light damage.

This may have been an attempt to capture an Israeli a la Shalit but were thwarted by a concerted effort by the Israelis to pin down and kill the terror cell attacking them.

A Hamas operative was among the Palestinian terrorists killed.

Israel has suspended transfer payments to the Palestinian Authority following the UNESCO vote to grant the PA membership. The Israelis have also stopped their $2 million payment to UNESCO over the vote.

All this follows over 40 mortars and rockets fired at Israel over the weekend.

UNESCO Grants Palestinian Authority Membership While Rockets Fall On Israel Fired From Gaza

UNESCO has voted to recognize the PA for full membership. The international organization may well lose US funding (a longstanding US law prohibits funding to int'l organizations if they recognize PA before statehood through negotiation).

Legislation dating back more than 15 years stipulates a complete cutoff of American financing to any United Nations agency that accepts the Palestinians as a full member. Unesco — the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization — depends on the United States for 22 percent of its budget, about $70 million a year.

After the vote, David T. Killion, the American ambassador, said that the United States “remains deeply committed” to Unesco. But he said that Monday’s decision, which he repeatedly called premature, “will complicate our ability to support Unesco.” The United States will seek other means to support the agency, Mr. Killion said, although he did not offer specifics about any avenues under consideration.

The Obama administration and Unesco had tried to avert the approval and diplomats had desperately negotiated with Congress, the Palestinians and other Unesco member states to find a resolution that would preserve the agency’s budget.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sought to head off a vote and avoid a cutoff in aid. “We’ve made the point that there are very clear redlines in U.S. legislation and that if those are crossed in Unesco, that the legislation is triggered,” the department’s spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, said last week.

Unesco, perhaps most famous for designating world heritage sites, is a major global development agency whose missions include promoting literacy, science, clean water and education, including sex education and equal treatment for girls and young women.

In the past, many in the United States and in some allied countries viewed the organization as politicized, corrupt and anti-American, antipathy that came to a head in 1984 when President Ronald Reagan withdrew American membership.

The United States rejoined the organization under President George W. Bush after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

American officials criticized the Palestinian application for recognition, part of its bid for full membership in the United Nations, saying they feared it would lead to more conflict with Israel and further undermine the possibility of peace talks.

The vote wasn't particularly close, and that reflects the way that the international organization is gamed by those who have a beef with Israel and use international organizations as a way to go after Israel.

They accepted that vote despite the US responsibility for paying a hefty percentage of the organization's budget (22%).

Israel may itself reconsider its support for UNESCO, which includes designation of world heritage sites and protecting cultural and historical sites. UNESCO designation is also quite politicized, especially relating to sites in Israel and the territories.

Yet, no one takes the Palestinians to task or holds them accountable when they engage in ongoing terrorism. Just days after the prisoner swap for Gilad Shalit was concluded, and after threats were made by Hamas and other terror groups to kidnap more Israelis, the rockets are again slamming into Israel. The latest barrage hit near Ashkelon after being fired from Gaza. Again.

Abbas Calls For Statehood At UN; Netenyahu Calls For Restart of Peace Process

Palestinian leaders continue talking right past Israel and towards the international stage, where regimes are more open to the Palestinian worldview rather than the hard task of making peace with Israel - and accepting a 2-state solution.

That's exactly what happened today, when Mahmoud Abbas stepped to the dais at the UN General Assembly to push for Palestinian statehood and membership at the UN, and he was followed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu who called for a resumption of final status negotiations towards a 2-state solution.

Palestinians, with Hamas in particular, don't want a 2-state solution and their behavior from the past few weeks puts the diplomatic efforts in a different light.

The Palestinians do not have anyone willing to pull a Sadat and make the trip to Jerusalem to pursue peace - a real peace (even if it turns out to be cold). The rhetoric remains the same from Palestinian leaders, whether it was Arafat, or Abbas, or the Hamas/PIJ thugs.

Israel, for its part has gone from Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres to Kadima's Ariel Sharon - a former Likudnik who split to pursue a more moderate course, and ended up going for the Gaza disengagement to not only limit Israel's contact with Palestinians that caused friction in Gaza, but was meant to improve Israel's security situation.

Not only did the opposite occur, with the rocket war ensuing shortly after Israel put in place a more secure barrier between Gaza and Israel, but Sharon was felled by a stroke. That left the incompetent Ehud Olmert trying to carry on with similar policies and his weaknesses were exposed during the rocket war and the Hizbullah war.

The disengagement and the rocket war/Hizbullah war left Israelis realizing that they do not have partners in peace, despite Oslo obligations with the Palestinian Authority.

Netenyahu is from that mold - he doesn't see the Palestinians as a partner in peace and isn't afraid to say that to the consternation of diplomats who would willingly paper over that inescapable fact in pursuit of a deal.

Israel has repeatedly shown a willingness to cede land for the sake of peace, and while it's worked with Egypt (a cold peace at that following Israel's withdrawal from Sinai and the forcible relocation of hundreds of Israeli communities that were on the Peninsula - a landmass twice the size of Israel proper at that), the Gaza disengagement showed the limits of land for peace where one party doesn't want peace.

The Palestinians have to be held responsible for their situation, and Abbas going to the UN for statehood would be rewarding them for their intractable position regarding Israel and further undermines Israel's sovereignty and right to exist.

Palestinians complain about Israel's security measures that thwart their economic opportunities, but ignore that but for Palestinian terror attacks, Israel would have had no need to operate those security checkpoints, build security fences, or use military action against terrorists who operate from the midst of civilian populations in places like Gaza.

Have Palestinians Recanted US Diplomatic Efforts On Statehood Declaration

After reports yesterday indicated that the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas would not call for a declaration of statehood and that he would agree to negotiations to begin within a month about final statehood discussions with Israel, Palestinian officials have backtracked and appear to be on a collision course with US and Western diplomatic efforts.

The spin about President Obama's (and America's) waning influence globally is not a rebuke of Obama's multilateral approach, but rather a result of the President pursuing a multilateral approach at a time when American leadership is needed. Yet, there are limits to leadership - and the Arab-Israeli conflict is one such area.

The Arab-Israeli conflict is one in which Israel lacks a partner in peace among Palestinians. This has been repeatedly demonstrated in recent weeks, but diplomats are trying their hardest to ignore reality and substitute their own to get a deal done that would avert a Palestinian call for statehood at the UN and a deal done to establish a 2-state solution in Israel and the territories.

It completely ignores that the Palestinians repeatedly indicate that a 2-state solution is not their ultimate goal; it's to completely eliminate Israel and a 2-state solution is a means to that end.

The failure of a peace process isn't on the President as Palestinian Authority critics would have it, it's on the Palestinians themselves - but the President failed to understand that injecting himself into that process was setting himself up for failure and blame regardless of his intentions.

American Diplomatic Efforts Appear To Have Paid Off Over Palestinian Issue At UN

So Abbas backs down, and appears to have backed off a call to declare statehood for a Palestinian state.

Abbas reportedly gave in, telling President Obama at their meeting Wednesday that although he will ask the UN for statehood, he will not demand an immediate vote. That means the U.S. will continue to give the Palestinians the $450 million in annual aid they get from us, but it’s unclear if this will mean more anti-American sentiment in the Arab world.

“We will give some time for the Security Council to consider first our full membership before heading to the General Assembly,” senior Fatah Party official Nabile Shaath said.

“President Abbas has already met with Ban Ki-Moon. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, and told him that on Friday he would be submitting to him a letter asking for Security Council discussion and approval.”

“Let us cease our endless debates on the parameters and let us begin negotiations and adopt a precise and ambitious timetable,” French President Nicholas Sarkozy said.

French strategy, in concert with the Americans, is to entice the Palestinians back to the bargaining table by proposing a fast-track one-year time table for negotiations that result in Palestinian statehood.

“Let’s have one month to resume discussions, six months to find agreement on borders and security, one year to reach definitive agreement,” Sarkozy said.

The French/American strategy appears to have gotten some traction, but it again hinges on Palestinian acceptance on Israel's existence.

Israel has repeatedly shown itself willing to cede territory, and settlements were not, are not, and will continue not to be the real impediment to peace. A lack of a partner in peace is the real reason for a lack of a deal. Diplomats will continue to ignore that key point in pushing for some kind of a deal - hoping that a cold peace is better than an ongoing low-level conflict.

President Obama Speaks Before United Nations General Assembly

President Obama spoke at the opening of the United Nations General Assembly discussing how the US is preparing to end its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and once again reiterated the American position on the Palestinian-Israel question - that there can be no peace without direct negotiations between the parties and that declarations at the United Nations are counterproductive to that ultimate end.

The President noted that the United Nations is seemingly preoccupied with one issue more than any other - that of Israel's very existence, and that far too many in the General Assembly see this as the sole issue. He proceeded to speak to fact that the Jewish people have historic ties to Israel and the land and that the Palestinians have had their national aspirations put on hold for far too long.

What he couldn't (and didn't) say was that Israel lacks a partner in peace, particularly after the string of statements by the Palestinian leaders who represent the Palestinian people have made in the run up to the General Assembly, or that other Arab regimes have used the Palestinians as a pawn for their own power and control.

The President's speech covered much more than that though. It was a laundry list of achievements from the past year dealing with the Arab Spring and the overthrow of regimes across the Middle East and North Africa, primarily because of how Arab leaders have suppressed political, social, and economic development all to maintain control.

"Something is happening in our world. The way things have been is not the way they will be," Obama said. "The humiliating grip of corruption and tyranny is being pried open. Technology is putting power in the hands of the people."

Obama also spoke of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that he inherited and are winding down. "We are poised to end these wars from a position of strength," he said.

He further discussed the ongoing brutality by the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad and Libya's Mumar Khadafi's refusal to go away.

Overlooked Imagery Shaping Palestinian Demands

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is expected to press for a statehood bid at the United Nations this week. That's not unexpected, and it certainly wont be helpful to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

But one thing that has been overlooked is the overarching demands of Palestinians towards Israel. They do not want a 2-state solution, and they do not want to share Jerusalem, despite diplomats claiming otherwise.

Recall the setting in which Abbas made his statements at the Ramallah headquarters.

Here's that photo:

Here's the photo with a map showing that view:

View Larger Map

This photo shows a mural of a Palestinian flag flying over the Old City of Jerusalem - looking not towards the West Bank and a future Palestinian state there, but over Jerusalem and into Israel - areas beyond the Green Line demarcating the 1948 cease-fire line. The mural shows the view of Jerusalem looking to the West - and into Israel itself. The skyscrapers in the distance are in West Jerusalem.

It's akin to this photo of Jerusalem as seen from near the Mount of Olives.

It's an optic that has been overlooked, but which shows the Palestinians' ultimate agenda. It's not a 2-state solution. It's a state upon the ashes of Israel.

It's why the peace process has fallen apart, even between the so-called moderates in Fatah and Israeli diplomats. The goal of the Palestinian Authority, Fatah, the PLO, and Hamas are united in the destruction of Israel. The only difference is the time frame for such an outcome. Hamas seeks an immediate war and destruction of Israel, while Fatah is more content with a long range outlook.

It is quite telling that the PA efforts to get a statehood recognition at the United Nations hasn't exactly been met with open arms, particularly from terror groups and regimes that have always sought a Palestinian state - precisely because the effort doesn't go far enough.

Palestinians Continue Push Towards Declaring Statehood At United Nations

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is expected to declare Palestinian statehood at the United Nations this week, and it's yet another effort to undermine Israeli sovereignty in the process.

We'd just have to ignore all the pronouncements made by Palestinian leaders in the past several weeks to believe that this is about creating a Palestinian state.

Palestinian officials have stated that they want to create a Jew-free Palestine, something that no regime or country has sought to do since Nazi Germany. This is something that would otherwise be considered ethnic cleansing and subject to all manner of hue and outcry from human rights groups around the world, but they have largely remained silent.

Palestinian officials have stated that they do not want to permit Palestinians living outside the West Bank or Gaza the right of return to the Palestinian state and will not resettle refugees living in the dozens of refugee camps scattered throughout the Middle East; they would rather keep these people living in squalor rather than build a productive state.

Mr. Abbas’s plan, made public in a television address, follows months of failed American and European efforts to restart Palestinian negotiations with Israel. Some fear that Mr. Abbas’s move will raise expectations among his people, with nothing changing for them on the ground. Combined with alarmed reactions from Israeli settlers, violent showdowns could erupt.

But the Palestinians say that after decades of occupation and about 20 years of failed talks with an increasingly hawkish Israel, it is time for a new approach in which the borders of a Palestinian state are first recognized globally and then two states, Israel and Palestine, negotiate final details.

The decision to apply for membership through the Council signals a double defeat for the United States. Washington not only failed to dissuade the Palestinians from a unilateral bid for statehood, but also fell short of its goal of confining the application to the United Nations General Assembly, where Obama administration officials believe a vote in favor of statehood would be more symbolic and less divisive.

The Obama administration has vowed to use its veto at the Council to prevent full recognition of Palestine. But it is eager to avoid doing so because that action would likely leave the United States isolated on the issue, weakening its standing with Arab nations at a politically delicate moment.

“We need to have full membership at the U.N.,” Mr. Abbas said in the speech from his office in the West Bank city of Ramallah, which was broadcast live on Al Jazeera and other outlets. “We need a state, a seat at the United Nations.”

He added, “We are going to the Security Council,” as Palestinian dignitaries gave him rousing applause and a standing ovation. Mr. Abbas called it “our decision, which we have conveyed to everyone.”

The borders Mr. Abbas seeks are those of 1967, meaning East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza would be included. More than 500,000 Israelis have settled beyond those lines.

These statements show that Israel lacks a partner in a peace process, and it's little wonder then that Israel has grown more hawkish since the Oslo process began near 20 years ago. What began with so much promise has turned into a nightmare because the Palestinian leaders have been exposed for what they are - they seek a one-state solution that ultimately wants Israel's destruction and all their actions are in furtherance of that goal.

Israel withdrew from Gaza unilaterally, and Palestinians promptly launched a terror war that continues to this day with rockets, missiles, and mortars - precisely because the initial suicide bombing campaign was thwarted with the construction of a security fence. Palestinians complain that the fence thwarts economic activity, but for the terrorism, indoctrination and support for terror activities, Israel would not have had a need to build the fence, maintain a security cordon off Gaza's coast to prevent terrorists from being resupplied, and the economic conditions for Palestinians would be greatly improved.

For the most part, Hamas has been silent about Fatah's Abbas and Palestinian Authority statements, but it has announced that the UN bid is empty of content because it doesn't sufficiently deal with the Palestinian right of return to Israel. That's right folks, Hamas, which is part of the Palestinian government and which controls Gaza, doesn't think that Abbas and the PLO/Fatah are going far enough in their delegitimization efforts. They want the whole kit and kaboodle.

Hamas has never recognized Israel's right to exist, and it refuses to accept any deal that recognizes Israel alongside a Palestinian state.

So, with all that in mind, what is the United States to do with the ongoing situation. Pundits in the US think that Obama has to take a strong stand so as to retain the Jewish vote (and they point to the outcome of the NY-09 House race as proof). But no matter the outcome of the 2012 elections, the UN situation the Palestinian Authority is putting President Obama in the hot seat on how to deal with a major policy crisis. Wording a resolution that somehow raises the status of the Palestinian mission to the UN to something less than a state but more than an observer is a likely outcome.

The Palestinians have done nothing to warrant any kind of support here; they have engaged in terrorism for years on end and have not been a partner in peace. Israel's sovereignty and right to exist are inalienable rights, and yet the Palestinians are busy undermining Israel at every opportunity and with no regard for human rights - Palestinian or Israel.

A peace process requires two partners interested in a peaceful outcome, but the Palestinians refuse to accept any outcome where Israel exists.

Moreover, do the Palestinians really understand what having a state is all about. It's going to put terror attacks on par with acts of war and enables Israel to formally declare war against the Palestinians should they engage in the kinds of rocket battles that have been fought since 2007.


The world's leaders repeatedly chastise Israel when it defends itself from terrorists, but barely shrugs its shoulders when countries like Turkey invade Iraq and kill Kurdish groups that Turkey claims are terrorists or harboring terrorists.

The world's diplomats have no interest in the facts; they are far more interested in their legacy and appearance of signed documents. That's why the Palestinians continue to be advancing their agenda despite an ongoing disregard for the sovereignty of Israel.

This is the quandary facing Israel and the US.

Palestinians Now Refusing Right of Return To Fellow Palestinians In Proposed State

First, Palestinians demanded the right of return for all Palestinians to lands occupied by Israel (pre and post 1967 borders - areas within and outside the Green Line that established the borders of Israel as recognized in 1948 following the cease fire).

Now, the Palestinian representatives are saying that they're going to refuse to grant the right of return of Palestinians living all over the world to return to the expectant Palestinian state.

From behind a desk topped by a miniature model of Palestine’s hoped-for blue United Nations chair, Ambassador Abdullah Abdullah spoke to The Daily Star Wednesday about Palestine’s upcoming bid for U.N. statehood.

The ambassador unequivocally says that Palestinian refugees would not become citizens of the sought for U.N.-recognized Palestinian state, an issue that has been much discussed. “They are Palestinians, that’s their identity,” he says. “But … they are not automatically citizens.”

This would not only apply to refugees in countries such as Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Jordan or the other 132 countries where Abdullah says Palestinians reside. Abdullah said that “even Palestinian refugees who are living in [refugee camps] inside the [Palestinian] state, they are still refugees. They will not be considered citizens.”

Abdullah said that the new Palestinian state would “absolutely not” be issuing Palestinian passports to refugees.

Neither this definitional status nor U.N. statehood, Abdullah says, would affect the eventual return of refugees to Palestine. “How the issue of the right of return will be solved I don’t know, it’s too early [to say], but it is a sacred right that has to be dealt with and solved [with] the acceptance of all.” He says statehood “will never affect the right of return for Palestinian refugees.”

Let that sink in.

Palestinians, who have been agitating for decades to have a state to call their own, are going to refuse to grant Palestinians living in refugee camps for decades the right to return to a Palestinian state.

The reasons are clear, but unstated. The PLO and Palestinian Authority war against Israel continues unabated and these groups find it useful to continue a refugee crisis without end. It's all to undermine Israel's inalienable right to exist and it again shows that Israel lacks a peace partner accepting of a 2-state solution.

The Palestinians are looking to supplant Israel and are going to use a declaration of statehood to further alienate and undermine Israel's sovereignty.

The thing is that Palestinians the world over should have a right to return to a state of Palestine if it is established - but that their representative government is looking to disenfranchise them is quite telling. Their leaders see the refugees as pawns for exploitation; they are disposable pawns whose misery is self-inflicted and exploited by not only Palestinian leaders but Arab leaders throughout the region who use the situation to blame Israel and the US for the ongoing problems. It ignores the culpability and failures of Arab regimes and the Palestinians themselves to negotiate in good faith towards a 2-state solution that doesn't seek to eliminate Israel through demographics (forcing a Palestinian right of return on Israel) or which foists indefensible borders on Israel.

Palestinians Plan On Agitating For Statehood During UN General Assembly Session

The Palestinians have been rumbling for months that they intend on declaring statehood during the United Nations General Assembly sessions this month. That comes even as the Palestinians claim that they want to make their new state free from all Jews.

The Palestine Liberation Organization's ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that any future Palestinian state should be free of Jews, USA Today reported.

"After the experience of the last 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated," Maen Areikat, the PLO ambassador, told reporters. (Ynet)

The PLO is the largest faction within Fatah, which makes up part of the Palestinian Authority - the legitimate government entity for the Palestinians. Hamas would certainly agree to that, and both ultimately seek Israel's elimination.

This statement is essentially the position of the Palestinian representatives to the United Nations and the group with whom Israel is supposed to negotiate.

But the specifics of their plans for the Palestinian state are extremely troublesome.

The Palestinians are pushing for something that no regime has done since Nazi Germany sought to eliminate the Jewish presence from all territories it occupied.

They would engage in racially and religiously profiling to eliminate a population group from lands that it historically lived in for generations stretching back centuries. That's what the PLO is proposing.

But if Israel tries to protect itself from Palestinian terrorists who continue plotting attacks, that's apartheid according to the PLO and pro-Palestinians for the past couple of decades.

Yet, no one blinks when the Palestinians say that they want to make their country free of all Jews. But note that Israel has banned political parties who seek to do the same thing to its Arab populations (Kach and the Kahanists).

Moreover, the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel's rights to defend itself and pushes such unreasonable demands on Israel that demonize Israel at every opportunity.

Palestinians could have had a functional and vibrant economy in Gaza had they not started a terror war against Israel that continues to this day - including thousands of rockets and mortars fired at Israel since 2006 because Israel has effectively prevented suicide bombers from infiltrating into Israel across the borders with Gaza and limited terror activities in the West Bank in areas that it maintains security control.

But then again, this has never been about settlements in Gaza or the West Bank - land can be transferred and housing can be sold/transferred between groups to improve the contiguous borders for the proposed 2-state solution.

It's about a fundamental refusal to accept Israel's existence.

That's why the declaration of statehood is so troubling; the Palestinians want statehood but not responsibility for what happens thereafter - especially when their elected representatives agitate for war against Israel (Hamas and Fatah are both elected representatives of Palestinians as per the elections previously held). Hamas refuses Israel's existence, and Fatah's many spinoff groups, including the PRCs refuse to recognize Israel's existence and agitate for war.

Moreover, all this would be a fundamental violation of Oslo, which calls for direct negotiation between the parties to bring about statehood. Going to the UN to vote a Palestinian state into existence would abrogate the entire Oslo process.

Israel can have no peace with partners such as this.

Trying To Salvage Peace Process Means Heading Off Palestinian Calls For Statehood at UN

President Barack Obama and Israel are facing a September deadline. They have to convince the Palestinians that declaring statehood at the United Nations in September would be a train wreck of the worst kind. Yet, the Palestinians are increasingly likely to make that declaration and throw what's left of the "peace process" under the bus. That assessment comes from former Middle East envoy George Mitchell:

"The United Nations does not have the authority to recognize states," Mitchell said. Recognition of a state, especially if passed by an overwhelming margin at the UN, would be "very harmful for Israel, for the United States, and not good for the peace process."

The United States has consistently expressed the opinion that bringing the issue of a Palestinian state to the UN is harmful to the peace process with Israel. Despite this, several countries, have already granted recognition to an independent Palestinian state of their own accord.

In a recent meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned against unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state, saying "We do not think that unilateral steps are helpful."

The way the Middle East conflict is going to end, Mitchell said is "by an agreement in which the United States plays an active and substantive role but an agreement that will be owned by, be the property of, and be the result of negotiation by Israelis and Palestinians."

The envoy also spoke about the recent reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, saying "obviously we hope that Abbas and the Fatah Party will win the election, not Hamas."

Mitchell should know better than most that the Palestinians will more than likely vote along the same lines as the last elections held - Hamas wins Gaza and parts of the West Bank, while Fatah wins elsewhere. Hamas would likely repeat its totals, and again throw the "peace process" into turmoil since Hamas refuses to accept Israel's very existence, which is a necessary condition for any talks between Israel and the Palestinians to be worth more than the paper they're printed upon.

While it's worth noting that other countries are backing the US on seeing that the peace process continue via direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians, no one should hold any parties just yet - Hamas and Fatah continue to reject Israel's existence and any talk of a 2-state solution can't occur until such time when Hamas and Fatah - the elected representatives of the Palestinian people, accept Israel's right to exist.

It seems that every other day Hamas or Fatah spokeshacks declare their intentions to seek liberation of all Palestine and seek Israel's demise. They aren't hiding their intentions, but the diplomats continue working under the illusion that there is a framework for peace to be found.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert gets in on the act too, complaining that peace will not come from speeches and polls. That's rather rich considering that he botched not one but two wars with terror groups - the Hizbullah War and the Operation Cast Lead. Instead of fighting both to defeat Hizbullah and Hamas when they lobbed thousands of rockets, mortars, and missiles at Israel, he took half measures and limited Israel's military efforts to dislodge the terrorists from their refuges. Failing to disrupt the terror networks gave the terror groups renewed hope that they could defeat Israel in the long run.

It's worth noting that Prime Minister Netenyahu essentially agreed with President Obama's calls for peace and painful concessions, but only after the Palestinians accept Israel's right to exist. There are no such statements forthcoming from the Palestinians, who hold on to the belief that they can wait out Israel and plot Israel's demise all while forcing Israel into making still more concessions without any reciprocation.

Then, there's the issue of what exactly would happen if the Palestinians declared independence in September? Well, it would mean the end of the peace process as it currently exists, and would then position the territories of Gaza and West Bank into a different category under international law. Gaza would be sovereign territory - and if terrorists launched attacks from Gaza into Israel, it would be a clear act of war to which Israel could respond with force. The situation in the West Bank is more complicated considering that it is carved up into areas of responsibility - A, B, and C zones that give Palestinians and Israelis different levels of control and authority. Jerusalem has been annexed by Israel, but the Palestinians refuse to accept that - or Israel's borders, so it would set the stage for yet another war.

There's no word on whether Palestinian leaders would keep their fellow Palestinians bottled up in refugee camps as they've done throughout Gaza and the West Bank, but that's what they've done to date and there's no reason to believe that they'd end the refugee camps until Israel ceases to exist. That's the ultimate goal under Palestinian demands for a right of return.

Making a Joke of the "Peace Process"

The idiotic coverage of the President's speech earlier this week, and then blowing the context of the speech and the response by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netenyahu have done nothing to resurrect a moribund and defunct "peace process". Fact is that Israel has not had a partner in peace in the Palestinians, even dating back to the signing of Oslo.

The Palestinian Authority has not been the partner in peace Israel was looking for and Palestinians still refuse to accept a key condition to any deal - accepting a 2-state solution with Israel as a Jewish state. Hamas refuses to accept Israel's very existence, and they're part and parcel of the Palestinian Authority.

That's why President Obama's latest statements show the farce that the entire process has become.

US President Barack Obama said Wednesday that a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was "more urgent than ever." He said that he was "confident" that there could be a Jewish state with "safe and secure" borders alongside a Palestinian state where Palestinians can "determine their fate and future."

Speaking alongside UK Prime Minister David Cameron at a press conference after the two privately met, Obama said that the Palestinians must understand that "they have obligations as well."

The US president said that the conflict rests on four central points: territorial boundaries, Israeli security, the Palestinian refugee issue, and Jerusalem. He said that the last two issues were "extraordinarily emotional" and would require "wrenching concessions."

He stressed that talks were necessary and that without negotiations, there would be no peace. He said that a UN resolution calling for an independent Palestinian state, if passed, would not create a viable Palestine and, in the end, would not "serve the Palestinians."

Obama acknowledged, however, that Hamas was not a partner for negotiations until it renounced violence and recognized Israel. He said Israelis have a right to be worried by the reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, given that Hamas does not recognize Israel and has not renounced violence.

The US president also thanked Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for expressing his position, and making recommendations on how to restart the peace process.

Both the UK prime minister and US president expressed unity in supporting Israeli security, as well as a sovereign Palestinian state, in a jointly penned op-ed on Tuesday.

He warns that Hamas is no partner in peace, and yet Israel has to work with the Palestinian Authority. What a way to mangle reality. We have to turn a blind eye to the fact that Hamas is involved in the PA and get Israel to the negotiating table with groups that refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, the Palestinians keep making the same demands that they've been making for years - an unlimited right of return that would swamp Israel demographically with millions of Palestinian "refugees" most of whom have never actually lived in the area from which Israel was created or which it later captured from Jordan, Syria, or Egypt.

What exactly is so urgent about forcing a peace deal? It is to provide a legacy achievement for any President who works through a deal, but is it actually in the interests of Israel to cut a peace deal that undermines its security? With the Palestinians steadfastly incapable of adhering to the Oslo requirements - including accepting a 2-state solution, we now have Mahmoud Abbas claiming that he's going to the United Nations in the fall to declare Palestinian independence when Oslo requires a negotiated statehood.

Abbas claims Netenyahu's speech shows that Israel is the stumbling block to a deal, but the reality is that the Palestinians view Israel's existence as the stumbling block - not settlements, not right of return. Eliminate Israel and voila - peace.

You want a breakthrough on a peace deal - how about the Palestinians giving up the right of return. How about them actually eliminating all references to an eternal struggle to destroy Israel in their charters (Hamas charter, PLO charter, and incorporated into everyday affairs such as maps that show Israel as being wiped out).

That's the crux of the Palestinian position, and it is in its most extreme form with Hamas. But Fatah, the PLO, and other Palestinians adhere to that line.

Continuing Fallout From President Obama's Middle East Speech

Despite the fact that the speech was largely directed at areas other than the Arab-Israeli conflict, the headlines are pretty much in concert that President Barack Obama made demands on Israel that exceed anything demanded by the US in the past.

That's simply wrong, but the Administration isn't stepping forward to address the situation.

The fact that President Obama says that the borders of a 2-state solution will be along the 1967 lines with land swaps is essentially the same exact language used by President George H.W. Bush, President Bill Clinton, and President George W. Bush. In many respects, the speech carries on the policy prescriptions of President Bush, who wanted Israel to have secure and defensible borders:

Initially, the Clinton administration supported the idea of defensible borders in its January 17, 1997, letter by Secretary of State Warren Christopher to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But with the 2001 Clinton Parameters, the idea of defensible borders was dropped and replaced by "security guarantees." Indeed, Clinton proposed "an international presence in Palestine to provide border security along the Jordan Valley."

In contrast, Bush refers to defensible borders in the context of preserving and strengthening "Israel's capability to deter and defend itself, by itself."

Here's the entirety of what Obama said about Israel's borders:

We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.

That's a formulation that essentially covers the same exact ground as laid out by President Bush. This isn't a change, but a reaffirmation of existing US policy.

Indeed, yesterday's speech actually continues a trend started by Obama's immediate predecessor by calling out allies who have acted wrongly by not respecting human rights:

He also followed Bush in attacking some US allies, calling on Bahrain and Yemen to make changes. It was a speech that enraged almost every powerful actor in the Middle East and put America out on a limb. Like Bush, Obama is willing to confront some of America’s closest allies (the Saudis, who back the crackdown in Bahrain). Like Bush, he hailed Iraq as an example of democracy and pluralism that can play a vital role in the transformation of the region. Like Bush, he proposes to work with opposition groups in friendly countries.

His policy on Israel-Palestine is also looking Bushesque. Like Bush, he wants a sovereign but demilitarized Palestinian state. Like Bush, he believes that the 1967 lines with minor and mutually agreed changes should be the basis for the permanent boundaries between the two countries — and like Bush he set Jerusalem and the refugees to one side.

The President is nailing his colors to the mast of the Anglo-American revolutionary tradition. Open societies, open economies, religious freedom, minority rights: these are revolutionary ideas in much of the world. Americans have often been globally isolated as we stand for the rights of ordinary people (like immigrant African chambermaids in New York hotels) against the privilege of elites. A faith in the capacity of the common woman and the common man to make good decisions (and in their right to make those decisions even if they are sometimes wrong) is the basis of America’s political faith; President Obama proclaimed today that this needs to be the basis of our policy in the Middle East.

While everyone is apparently focused on the Israel 1967 line/border statement, everyone is simultaneously ignoring the fact that President Obama made the clearest declaration to date that the Palestinians would never see statehood if they continue to refuse to accept a 2-state solution and press for independence via means other than direct negotiation with Israel. That's about as strong a supportive statement for Israel as one can give.

So why are so many people, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu so bent out of shape over Obama's line on borders? Even Netenyahu knows that the borders aren't going to be exactly along the 1967 line (or 1948 Green Line); and that without the Palestinians accepting a 2-state solution the Israelis wont get to the point of having to worry about the delineation of the border.

For those who simply haven't read the speech or have adopted the media spin about the speech, here's the comments in question and their supporting context:

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people - not just a few leaders - must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, nor can endless delay make the problem go away. But what America and the international community can do is state frankly what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself - by itself - against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.

This is an essential restatement of obligations under Oslo Declaration of Principles. It isn't a major divergence from existing policy.

So the media and pundits should stop treating it as such. The fact is that the media and pundits are up in arms over a speech that was anything but controversial - and if anything - made even more explicit the demand that the Palestinians give up the ghost of trying to destroy Israel or seek anything other than a 2-state solution.

UPDATE:
A few media outlets and pundits are managing to actually parse the speech correctly, including Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, Ben Smith at Politico and the Christian Science Monitor, which notes the following:

Netanyahu, who sometimes users bluster as a negotiating tool, practically ordered Obama to change course yesterday. In a statement ahead of his US trip that began today Netanyahu said a Palestinian state would not be founded "at Israel's expense" and that he "expects to hear from President Obama a reconfirmation of commitments to Israel from 2004." The Jerusalem Post characterized Netanyahu's response as "quick and bitter."

But what is the commitment from 2004? It's a letter written by President George W. Bush that ... suggests more or less the same thing that Obama said yesterday.

"In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion," President Bush wrote to former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in April of 2004. "It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."

Now, the language of Bush's comment may be flipped a little, in the sense that he emphasizes that the borders will be different from the 1949-67 borders rather than emphasizing that those should be the starting point, but the overall sense is the same. The real contours of the borders will be determined between the Israelis and Palestinians with "mutually agreed changes" (in Bush's formulation) or "mutually agreed land swaps" (in Obama's).

In other words, this speech broke no new ground despite all the manufactured outrage.

Where Tom Friedman Continues Believing Israel Has A Partner In Peace

Here's a memo to Tom Friedman about the chances for an Arab-Israeli peace deal (and particularly a Palestinian-Israel deal). No deal can be had when the Palestinians refuse to undertake their most essential obligation under Oslo - agreeing to a 2-state solution. Friedman believes that the problem isn't Hamas and Fatah, but rather Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu's refusal to make concessions.

That puts the cart before the horse. Why exactly would any Israeli leader make still more concessions when the Palestinians have refused to carry out their stated obligations under Oslo?

When Hamas, which has reconciled with Fatah and rejoined the PA, refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist and doesn't include Israel on a map other than to use as targeting data for its terror plots, Israel lacks a partner in peace.

Israel can and has shown an uncommon willingness to swap land for peace, but the Gaza disengagement should have disabused the world of the notion that land for peace will work when one party to the deal doesn't accept Israel's existence. Instead of using Gaza to build a productive society, the Palestinian leadership turned the region into an armed camp for a terror war against Israel using fellow Palestinians as human shields. Palestinian propaganda continues touting those killed in these attacks as martyrs for the cause of liberating all of Israel from Israeli control.

That is not the framework for peace, and Netenyahu and other Israeli leaders would not be carrying out their sworn obligation to defend Israel from its enemies if it granted still more concessions to Palestinians when Palestinian obligations go unfulfilled.

Housing can be swapped - and has been in the past - it was, and never has been, the real stumbling block to peace no matter how much the left in Israel and the pro-Palestinians try to spin it. The history of Israel's land swaps disprove that time and time again (Camp David, Gaza disengagement).

Palestinians simply can't accept a Jewish state of Israel alongside a Palestinian state - regardless of what borders are delineated on a map. The border incursions weren't about Israel capturing the West Bank, Golan and Gaza in 1967, but called for liberating all of Israel for the Palestinians; a tacit call for Israel's destruction.

These are the partners in peace that Friedman and others like him think Israel should be making still more concessions to in the hopes that the Palestinians will somehow moderate.

Frankly, the recent history has shown that whenever Israel has made concessions, the result has been to portray Israel as weak and terror groups, including Hamas (still part of the PA) has unleashed waves of terror. Israel makes concessions and gets terror as a consequence. Israel doesn't make concessions, and it still gets threats of terror. With that calculus, there's no reason to make further concessions. The onus should be on the Palestinians to show that they are truly committed to a 2-state solution.

To that end, that means a full repeal of the Hamas charter and PLO/PA charter provisions calling for Israel's destruction. Yet, we all know that will never happen since Hamas' raison d'etre is to seek Israel's destruction as a religious and political goal. Hamas considers Israel's very existence as an abomination against Israel, and phrases its call to jihad as a duty for all Muslims. This isn't a partner in peace, but the call by a terror group to commit genocide should it have the means at its disposal.

Dropping the Pretense of Peace

The Palestinians claim that they've had a breakthrough on their reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah. To do so, they're ignoring key issues and hoping that the rest of the world do the same.

That means that they want everyone to ignore the fact that Hamas has no intention of recognizing Israel's right to exist all while demanding more concessions from Israel towards a "peace" deal.

International mediators should drop their demand that the Gaza Strip's Hamas rulers recognize Israel, an aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Wednesday, just hours before his Western-backed government was to sign a reconciliation deal with Hamas.

The accord, to be inked in Cairo, would end a four-year rift between the bitter rivals and pave the way for a joint caretaker government ahead of national elections next year.

Israel has denounced the plan for Abbas' Fatah movement to join forces with Hamas because of the militant group's long history of deadly attacks against Israeli targets, and has equated the deal with a renunciation of peacemaking.

Like the United States and the European Union, Israel considers Hamas a terrorist organization and says it will not negotiate with a future Palestinian government that includes the Iranian-backed group.

It's not clear whether Western powers would deal with the new government that is to emerge from the unity deal. They've said they are waiting to see its composition.

The Quartet of Mideast mediators — the U.S., the E.U., United Nations and Russia — has long demanded that Hamas renounce violence and recognize the principle of Israel's right to exist.

Hamas has no intention of making peace with Israel. It's antithetical to Hamas' very existence. These tenets are part of the Hamas charter - the call to destroy Israel begins in just the second paragraph:

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

The terror group was founded on the principles that Israel must be destroyed and that Israel's destruction is a religious and political obligation among Palestinians. Hamas went to war with Fatah after the 2006 elections over how the two terror groups diverged in their means towards a Palestinian state and Israel.

The whole reconciliation is based on an understanding that a caretaker government would handle affairs until new elections are carried out. Perhaps everyone should put any kind of talk of a peace process on hold to see what kind of outcome those elections bring. After all, the last elections showed that Fatah was incapable of handing over power in an election and Hamas was incapable of dominating in the West Bank.

What Does Presumed Hamas-Fatah Reconciliation Mean For Peace Process?

Egyptian news sources are indicating that Hamas and Fatah have managed to overcome their ideological differences and are paving the way for holding new elections and power-sharing. The plan involves creating a caretaker government and then holding elections that are long overdue.

Hamas and Fatah engaged in a civil war following Israel's Gaza disengagement. Hamas threw Fatah out of Gaza and left Fatah maintaining a tenuous hold on the West Bank with the backing of Israel, while Hamas consolidated its power in Gaza.

Hamas refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, which means that the "reconciliation" would necessarily affect any supposed peace process with Israel. With one party to the peace process refusing to accept the existence of the other, peace is simply impossible.

For its part, Fatah has asserted that it would unilaterally declare a Palestinian state and petition the UN for acceptance.

I can therefore only conclude that this will once again mean that Hamas and Fatah are going to fully coordinate in their triangle offense of terror against Israel. As they've done in the past, they'll use terror attacks to further their ideological goal of eliminating Israel and establishing a Palestinian state on all the land west of the Jordan River all while denying Israel and its Jewish population any rights to any territory - including access to Jewish holy sites that are situated in disputed territory.

UN Report Claims PA Ready To Govern Palestinian State

The United Nations has prepared a report claiming that the Palestinian Authority is capable of governing a state, but that the ongoing occupation presents obstacles to doing so.

The Palestinian Authority is ready to govern a state of its own, according to a report published Tuesday by the office of UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Robert Serry, AFP reported.

The report, which will be submitted to Palestinian donor nations at a meeting in Brussels on Wednesday, said that in six areas where the UN is most engaged there are sufficient governmental functions to establish a state.

The report, however stressed that it would be difficult for the Palestinians to make further progress while peace talks remained stalled and Israeli "occupation" continued.

Serry praised Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas and Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in a statement accompanying the report.

Curiously, there is no mention of the fact that Hamas refuses to recognize Israel, and that the Fatah/Hamas schism is a geographical and ideological divide so severe as to make any claims that the PA is ready to govern ludicrous. The last time that Fatah and Hamas attempted to share/redistribute power between the two terror groups, a civil war erupted and Hamas threw Fatah out of Gaza.

Now, this particular report claims that Israel's ongoing military presence in the West Bank is preventing the PA from operating. That too is a serious misrepresentation of the facts on the ground.

Israel and the PA have divided the West Bank into sectors of operation - the PA has civil administrative control over nearly all the West Bank, and Israelis are limited to move only within certain areas altogether. Israeli security forces operate only within certain areas as well, and the PA is responsible for security in those areas where Israel currently does not operate. These are designated by A, B, and C areas. This was arranged under Oslo, the Gaza-Jericho Accords, Wye, and other interim documents and agreements.

The PA has shown an inability to deal with the terror groups operating from its territories, and the PA has limited ability to operate within Gaza altogether, where Hamas rules with an iron fist.

So, before there can be any talk of statehood, the UN needs to reorient itself with the facts on the ground instead of engaging in wishful thinking about what should happen if Israel stops taking actions defending its citizens against ongoing terror threats arising from both Gaza and the West Bank.

Peace talks have ostensibly been on hold since late last year because Israel decided to go ahead with building housing on areas claimed by both Israel and the Palestinians within the West Bank. Yet, it isn't the housing dispute that causes problems so much as the fact that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian terror factions have been unrelenting in their terror war against Israel's very existence.

The Gaza disengagement should have exposed the lie of land for peace for the world to see, but it is ignored by the diplomats. Instead of using Gaza to establish an economic and political center for a future Palestinian state, it was turned into a terror camp.

Land does not equate with peace.

Settlements - housing - can be transferred, but when one side (the Palestinians) refuse to accept a Jewish state of Israel alongside a Palestinian state, you get to the heart of the problem. The Palestinians refuse to accept Israel on religious, ideological, and political grounds despite the statements in English made to the diplomats. The rhetoric, propaganda, and indoctrination of refusing to accept Israel's very existence continues to this day despite their prohibition under Oslo.

That is the problem.

Until the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, there can and will be no peace. Israel will have to continue to defend itself against terror attacks on a daily basis because the Palestinians refuse to accept the facts on the ground and that Israel will not go quietly into the night.

Thus, this report whitewashes the problems with the Palestinians themselves, and instead focuses on what Israel is doing to prevent a Palestinian state. It's an infantilization of the Palestinian people - and shows that no one requires them to carry out their obligations under Oslo.

UPDATE:
Hamas has released video confirming Israel's longstanding claims that the terror group purposefully fires rockets and mortars from within heavily populated areas of Gaza (HT: NJDhockeyfan at LGF).

Palestinian Authority Blocks West Bank Rally Supporting Tunisian Protests

You really can't make this stuff up. The Palestinian Authority, which in the West Bank is essentially Fatah, has no interest in ceding power to anyone, whether it is Hamas, or allowing demonstrations that might raise awareness about the corruption and failures of Palestinian leadership to accomplish anything since they were given civil administrative control over much of the West Bank.

The PA has banned demonstrations supporting the Tunisian overthrow of the odious Ben Ali government and demands for a house-cleaning of those allied with Ben Ali.

The Palestinian Authority refused to grant permission for a rally to celebrate the overthrow of Tunisia’s authoritarian president on Wednesday in Ramallah, the administrative capital of the West Bank.

The French newspaper Le Monde reported that a few dozen Palestinians who defied the ban arrived in the square in Ramallah where the rally was to take place only to find that they were outnumbered by members of the ruling Fatah party, who chose the same time and place to stage a demonstration in support of Palestinians held in Israeli jails.

According to the Palestinian Maan news agency, “It was not clear whose demonstration was planned first.”

A correspondent for Le Monde, Benjamin Barthe, observed that a police cordon around the square and “the presence among the demonstrators of many mukhabarat (secret police) officers left little doubt about the Palestinian Authority’s intention to prevent any expression of solidarity with the ‘jasmine revolution’ ” in Tunisia, which led the president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, to flee into exile.

The reporter added that just as one young Palestinian began to wave a Tunisian flag, an officer grabbed it, on the grounds that it was disturbing the demonstration in honor of the prisoners. .

Omar Barghouti, a leading Palestinian human rights activist who was present at the thwarted celebration, told the French newspaper: “It’s unbelievable. … The police are in the process of confirming the charge that the Palestinian Authority is on the side of Ben Ali and that it also fears the people and the street.”

The Palestinian security forces have banned all displays of the Tunisian flag or anything that can reference the Jasmine uprising.

This goes back to what I've been saying about the lessons learned from the Tunisian uprising and overthrow of Ben Ali. Middle Eastern regimes and despots have learned that tolerance of demonstrators and protesters may lead to their overthrow so that regimes will now try to nip any protests or demonstrations in the bud before they can blossom into events that they can no longer control or shape.

The PA and Fatah has learned this lesson well, and the Palestinians are worse off for it. Fatah has repeatedly failed the Palestinian people - refusing deal after deal to have a 2-state solution, and isn't a partner in peace. Fatah's Abbas would much rather retain the status quo - where he can profit from the situation without having to actually do any work towards building a civil society that is engaged in constructive activities rather than peddling a nihilistic worldview that sees eliminating Israel as the cure-all for what ails the Palestinian people.