What Does Fatah Think It Gains From Renewed Violence?

Fatah's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade terrorists in Gaza fired rockets into Israel in solidarity with protesters who have been raging against Israel after a Palestinian man died in Israeli custody. Palestinians claim he was tortured and killed, which Israel denies.

The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which says it is affiliated with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party, took responsibility for the attack. The rocket fell on a road in southern Israel. No injuries were reported, according to Israeli Defense Forces radio.

Days of clashes between dozens of Palestinian stone-throwers and Israeli soldiers have taken place since the death of Arafat Jaradat, a 30-year-old Palestinian man who died under unclear circumstances while in Israeli police custody.

Palestinian officials insist Jaradat was tortured to death during an interrogation. An Israeli autopsy conducted in the presence of a Palestinian physician showed bruises and a couple of broken ribs which, Israel says, could have occurred during resuscitation efforts.

Tensions were already high after several Palestinian demonstrations demanding the release of more than 4,000 prisoners held in Israeli prisons for everything from stone-throwing to terror attacks.

It's a flashpoint that Fatah thinks can it can exploit as President Obama is scheduled to come to Israel next month.

It makes no sense though.

The Palestinian Authority and Fatah have a level of autonomy that comes from an uneasy status quo where Fatah controls much of the West Bank with civil administrative control and regions are off limits to Israelis. All this was set forth in the Oslo Accords and follow on agreements.

Palestinians refused to even consider peace deals that included land swaps the two times that Israel proffered a comprehensive deal. In fact, in both instances the Palestinian response was more violence, not a counter proposal upon which further negotiations could occur.

Perhaps Fatah thinks that they need to remind Palestinians that they can resort to violence just as surely as Hamas has done since 2005. Yet, the end result of the violence would be further security clampdowns on Palestinian mobility through the West Bank and crossing points into Israel. That serves no one, least of all Palestinian businesses. The violence only ratchets up the tensions.

Perhaps Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas thinks that the violence will lead President Obama to come forth with a proposal that would impose a peace deal, but that's not going to happen. The US has already signaled that the President isn't coming with a peace proposal in hand, but instead is coming to hear what both sides have to say about the matter.

Or, perhaps Abbas thinks that they need this violence so as to engage in a rapproachment with Hamas, but I don't think Abbas is so cynical as to believe that that's possible given how Abbas and Fatah have generally worked out a coexistence with Israel on civil administrative and security matters that allows many in the West Bank to attend to the business of business. Hamas considers Fatah to be sell-outs of Palestinian freedom by merely accepting Israel's existence.

Reflexively, Palestinian leaders revert to violence when the needs suit them because they simply haven't accepted that a peace deal could be reached after all the promises that they've given Palestinians for generations that they would wipe Israel from the map and/or overwhelm them demographically with a right of return.

For its part, Israel has no reason to inflame tensions or ratchet up the violence. There's enough instability on Israel's borders to keep its security officials up at night. With the Syrian civil war raging and the situation in Egypt uncertain while the porous Sinai border with Gaza allowing an ongoing influx of weapons and material to Hamas, Israel's neighbors are all dealing with internal issues (though Assad and others may try to cause conflict with Israel so as to deflect attention from their own problems).

The US policy has been that a peace deal will come only when both Israelis and Palestinians sit down and hash out a deal. That's the right strategy as an imposed deal will not carry as much weight as one that the two sides manage to hash out. I'm quite pessimistic that any such deal could be worked out when Hamas still refuses to accept Israel's existence and that they view ceasefires as a hudna in which they're able to regroup and rearm for the next armed phase of their conflict with Israel.

In other words, Israel faces not a united Palestinian front, but one that for all intents and purposes has created three "states" - Israel, Fatah-controlled West Bank, and Hamas-controlled Gaza. A 3-state solution reflects the situation on the ground, but isn't a sustainable concept diplomatically when Hamas and Fatah are both nominally representing the Palestinian people. The 2-state solution is on life support, but it's been that way ever since the Palestinian civil war split control of Gaza and the West Bank between Fatah and Hamas, not because Israel wants to see an end to the dialogue.

Thus, the latest outbreak of violence will end as it usually does - lots more people injured, property damage, inflamed passions, and neither side budging on core issues.

On Yesterday's Historic Israeli Elections

Yesterday, Israelis went to the polls to determine the new makeup of the 19th Israeli Knesset. All 120 seats were up for grabs, and while Israeli pollsters largely predicted that current Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu's Likud bloc would retain its plurality in the Knesset, that margin would shrink and his current coalition government would see a shakeup. Currently, Netenyahu's coalition is Likud 27, Yisrael Beiteinu 15, Shas 11, Jewish Home 3, Independence (barak's party) 5, and UTJ 5.

Boy were they ever right about that.

The results are in, and there's a huge shift in the political landscape - much of it is personality driven.

Likud, which formed a bloc vote with Yisrael Beiteinu, won 31 seats (compared with 42 under the old grouping). Habayit Hayehudi had 11. Religious parties Shas maintained their 11 seats, while UTJ picked up two seats to 7 from 5. Arab parties combined for 12 seats (10% of the Knesset).

Yair Lapid, who formed a new political party for this election, exceeded all expectations and won 19 seats, making him the head of the second largest bloc in the Knesset.

Labor came in with 15 seats, Meretz and Hatunah with 6 each. Kadima, which had been formed by Ariel Sharon out of disaffected Likud and Labor, managed to scratch out two seats (early reports yesterday had indicated that they would have been shut out of the Knesset altogether). Exit polling by Channel 1, 2, and 10 all indicated that Kadima would be toast and underestimated the Arab vote

Lapid could choose to either form a government with Netenyahu or lead the opposition.

This gives Lapid tremendous sway over how Netenyahu's government will address outstanding issues that are critical to Israel's economic and social progress, including the Tal Law reformation process, economic and social opportunities, and the peace process that has all but ground to a halt.

Everyone and their grandmother is giving Lapid advice on how to proceed. After all, his choices will affect how the new coalition government is cobbled together. It could land Lapid with a major cabinet position and sway over policy.

That's precisely what Israel needs - someone who will address the issues pragmatically and integrate the Haredi into Israeli society. The Tal Law is at the forefront of that debate, and it's past time for the religious community to better integrate into Israeli society - not only with military service (or government service of some form), but to better integrate into the Israeli economy.

While the Israeli economy is a tremendous incubator of technology and medical advances, the Haredi community is largely on the sidelines. Getting that untapped pool of knowledge and insight into the economy would greatly expand economic opportunities for all.

That's part of Lapid's goal and mission, although some are seeing it as a combative effort to eliminate longstanding exemptions for the Orthodox. I think that's the wrong view on this issue. Mandatory service of some form will help unify Israeli society whereas the current exemptions only lead to further stratification.

At the same time, the new government will have to address the fact that the peace process is in a holding pattern. That doesn't sit well with armchair diplomats who think that Israel's intransigence is the reason there isn't a 2-state solution, but the problems extend beyond Israel's political situation to the fact that the Palestinians aren't exactly seeking a 2-state solution as Hamas reminds everyone on a regular basis. They have no intention of seeking peace with Israel or recognizing Israel's rights to territories either inside or outside the 1948 or 1967 borders.

The current Israeli position is to essentially do the minimum needed to work with the Palestinian Authority on issues and address Hamas only if Hamas and the other terror groups fire mortars or rockets at Israel. The Gaza disengagement showed Israel's polity just where Hamas' intentions lie. Even if Fatah seeks a peace deal, it would not address the situation in Gaza unless you're going to recognize that there's a de facto 3-state solution (Hamas' Gaza, Fatah's West Bank, and Israel).

All the other issues that flow from the still present schism between Fatah and Hamas are the main reason Israel has no reason to address a peace deal. They have no one to negotiate with. Only when the Palestinians resolve their own internal politics - and accept Israel's rights to exist, can the other issues begin to get addressed through negotiations (and I'd prefer that they be done in back channels where there's a greater flow of dialogue, than in publicly held negotiation sessions that generally lead to meaningless gestures and posturing that sets back the process).

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.

Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi Declared President of Egypt

A new chapter in Egyptian politics has dawned. Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate, was announced as the next President of Egypt in a disputed election over former Mubarak Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik.

A gathering of secular-leaning politicians criticized on Saturday what they said was U.S. meddling on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood. Other secularists stood behind the Islamist group preceding the initial announcement, calling it the best hope in the current circumstances against continued military domination of the country. The dispute preceding the vote highlighted how the country has been split into deeply polarized camps since the June 16-17 runoff vote between Morsi and ousted leader Hosni Mubarak's last prime minister Ahmed Shafiq, whose campaign had also said he had won by a narrow margin. Many Egyptians rallied behind Morsi as a chance to finally rid the country of the old Mubarak regime, while others supported Shafiq as the best bet to counter Islamists and restore order after a year of protests, economic hardship, and fear about crime and continued instability.

Egyptians faced the option between bad and worse - giving those involved in the Mubarak regime another shot at power, or handing power over to the Muslim Brotherhood, which has not exactly shown itself to be interested in freedom of religion or expression, let alone preserving the Camp David Accords with Israel. For Israelis they're going to warily watch events unfolding in Egypt and how the government proceeds. The military junta continues to control the apparatus of government and has superseded the acts of the parliament while limiting the powers of the presidency.

Egypt Terminates Energy Deal That Began With Camp David Accords

This is a seriously disturbing turn of events in Israel-Egypt relations. Egypt has terminated its longstanding deal to provide Israel with natural gas.

Ampal-American Israel Corporation, a partner in the East Mediterranean Gas Company (EMG), which operates the pipeline, said the Egyptian companies involved had notified EMG they were "terminating the gas and purchase agreement." The company said in a statement that the Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation and Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Company had notified them of the decision, adding that "EMG considers the termination attempt unlawful and in bad faith, and consequently demanded its withdrawal". It said EMG, Ampal, which is controlled by Israeli businessman Yossi Meiman, and EMG's other international shareholders were "considering their options and legal remedies as well as approaching the various governments". Before the sabotage, Egypt supplied about 40% of Israel's natural gas, which is the country's main energy source. In October 2011 EMG took legal action against the Egyptian government's energy companies and filed an $8 billion lawsuit against the Egyptians, claiming they had breached agreements obligating them to supply natural gas to the company.

The Jerusalem Post has a slightly different accounting of the cessation of the deal, where Egyptian leaders say that this is merely a contractual dispute, but it does appear that they're pushing to stop the gas deal that has been largely in place since the the Camp David Accords. There's no word from the Israeli government about the change in the deal, but they're going to have to address this rather quickly because it's a significant hit to Israel's energy needs. In the year since Hosni Mubarak was deposed, Egyptian leaders have had increasing trouble in trying to secure the pipeline that runs to Israel. The pipelines have been sabotaged several times, but it's the political leaders' statements about threatening to cut off Israel's gas shipments that are more disconcerting. Eygptian leaders seem to be more interested in ratcheting up the political rhetoric against Israel than they are in improving their domestic economic situation. The Egyptian junta is more than willing to use Israel as a foil for what ails Egypt than they are to actually take positive steps to improve economic opportunities for those least fortunate in Egyptian society. Not only that, but the Egyptians are shortsighted if they think that turning against the Camp David Accords will help with the Egyptian economy. After all, Israelis used to visit Egypt (particularly the Sinai) and spend their tourism dollars. With all the upheaval since the beginning of the Arab Spring last year, tourism revenues are down sharply and it's even more extreme when dealing with the share of Israeli tourists visiting the country. As far as Israel's energy situation is concerned, they're going to be scrambling to find additional energy sources. Accelerating exploitation of the natural gas fields off the Israeli coastline will occur, but that will be against a backdrop of Palestinian claims that Israel is expropriating their resources (when you consider that Palestinians consider Israelis to be illegitimate regardless of what borders one considers for the State of Israel, you begin to understand why they'd be opposed to any kind of development of any natural resources, not just natural gas). It would also mean that Lebanon and Hizbullah might get active since the gas fields run north into Lebanese waters - so there will have to be accommodation there as well.

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.

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.

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.

Hamas Rejects Israel (Again) and US Efforts to Broker a Peace Deal

What Hamas knows is that President Obama's statements demanding the Palestinians accept a Jewish state of Israel is antithetical to Hamas' very reason for existing - to destroy Israel and to refuse a 2-state solution.

The Islamic terror group that holds control over Gaza and holds sway as part of the Palestinian Authority, saw the speech quite differently than media outlets that saw the President's comments about the border as more important. That, as always, was never an issue.

The border between Israel and her neighbors would be determined through future negotiations as per Oslo, but without a partner in peace that recognizes Israel and a 2-state solution, all talk about borders is asinine and premature to say the least. The Palestinians continue to refuse to accept Israel's right to exist, and Hamas just says it clearer than most.

Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwan said that in light of Obama’s new speech, the PA should reconsider its position toward the peace process and increase efforts to achieve national unity.

“Obama’s speech is a disaster to all those who have been bidding on US policies and positions,” Radwan said. “We reject such statements which prove that the Americans are completely biased in favor of occupation at the expense of Palestinian rights.”

The Hamas spokesman strongly condemned the Obama Administration for “supporting the security of the Zionists and ignoring Palestinian rights.”

Radwan said that it has become obvious now that the Obama Administration is not talking about the 1967 lines or a Palestinian state. “What they are doing now is deception,” he said in reference to Obama’s speech at the AIPAC conference.

Another Hamas spokesman on Sunday also commented on Obama's speech saying it will not force Hamas to recognize Israel.

Obama explicitly referenced the need for Hamas to adhere to the Quartet principles after it recently entered into a Palestinian national unity government, whose formation he called “an enormous obstacle to peace.”

“No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction,” Obama said to cheers from the more than 10,000 AIPAC activists filling the massive convention center hall. “We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace, including recognizing Israel’s right to exist and rejecting violence and adhering to all existing agreements."

In response, spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri was quoted as saying by Ma'an that, "The US administration will fail, just as all others have in the past, in forcing Hamas to recognize the occupation," and that Obama's speech showed the US was "not a friend to the people of the region."

The Hamas spokesman added that Obama's continued support of Israel signaled that the US was biased, and would "support the occupation at the expense of the freedom of the Palestinian people," Ma'an quoted him as saying.

Hamas isn't merely talking about the West Bank; it's talking about the very existence of Israel on territory that Hamas believes part of a Palestinian state - all of the former Mandate territory. There is no bargaining here, and any diplomatic efforts to paper over this is doomed to failure.

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.

Have Palestinians Hit Upon a Winning Tactic Against Israel?

For decades, the Palestinians have used suicide bombers, terror attacks, mortar attacks, kassams, and all manner of violence to try and establish a Palestinian state.

This weekend dawned a different tactic and one that Israel was unprepared to deal with.

Thousands of protesters swarmed across Israel's northern borders in a predesigned incursion to which Israel responded with deadly force.

That's a visual that Israel can't deal with in the long run, and the Palestinians know this. Already international human rights organizations are demanding investigations, even though Israel has the sovereign right to defend its borders against invasion. That's on top of the hypocritical calls by Lebanon and Syria to investigate Israel's human rights abuses all while Syria is engaged in one of the most brutal crackdowns against protesters in recent history. Thousands have been detained and hundreds killed, but Israel takes steps to protect its borders from invasion, and that's suddenly more important than what the Arabs are doing to their fellow Arabs all across the Middle East?

Expect to see more incursions of this kind, not only as a way for Arab regimes to divert pressure on their own regimes from protesters but as a way to force Israel to make still more concessions towards the Palestinians. For its part, the Israelis lodged a formal complaint against Syria and Lebanon for the northern incursions:

Israel on Monday lodged a formal complaint with the United Nations against the Syrian and Lebanese governments over the border incidents.

On Monday, in a sign of alliance with Israel, the White House accused the Syrian government of fomenting the clashes in the Golan Heights to distract from its suppression of demonstrations at home.

Israel fortifies borders and Jerusalem after protests on Nakba Day, killing 15. Video courtesy of Reuters.

The Israeli prime minister said that while popular demonstrations across the Middle East could bring positive changes and peace in the long term, they are making Israel's situation more "problematic" by emboldening those opposed to Israel's existence.

"A Palestinian government, one half of which is composed of those that declare daily their intention to destroy the state of Israel, is not a partner for peace," he said.

Hamas continues to refuse to accept Israel's very existence, and although elections are now scheduled for October, the fact is that the group with which Israel is supposed to make a peace deal with has no intention of ever accept Israel's right to coexist shows the farce involved in the peace process. People are supposed to simply ignore Hamas and their intentions?

At the same time, President Obama is going to address the Palestinian-Israel peace process and once again demand that the Palestinians accept a 2-state solution, but that call is a tacit recognition that Oslo failed to achieve the basic goal of laying the groundwork for a 2-state solution. More than a decade after Oslo, the US and Israel is still trying to get the Palestinian Authority to accept its obligations under Oslo and accept a 2-state solution.

Moreover, this past weekend's protesters and incursions weren't seeking a 2-state solution, but rather seeking the elimination of Israel altogether and the establishment of a Palestinian state upon all the territories west of the Jordan River.

Still, given the track record of terror groups like Hamas and Hizbullah, they wont use the recent events as a guide towards peaceful demonstrations against Israel but will continue to use terror attacks where possible.

Israel Dealing With the Aftermath of the Palestinian Incursions

Israel has filed a protest with the United Nations Security Council over yesterday's border incursion/invasion by Palestinian protesters in the hopes of overwhelming Israel's security and causing a major headache for Israel. The protesters succeeded in getting Israel to open fire on the protesters, and nearly a dozen were killed while trying to infiltrate Israel's sovereign borders, particularly along the Syrian and Lebanese borders.



Those killed will be treated as martyrs for the ultimate goal of Israel's destruction.

These were not spontaneous protests, but organized with the intention of bringing the focus back on Israel, rather than the odious regimes that encircle Israel. Leave it to the UN Secretary General to ignore the fact that the Syrian regime is busy killing its own and used the Israeli Independence Day to export the violence to Israel:

"The secretary-general is deeply concerned that a significant number of people have been killed or injured," Ban's office said in a statement. "He calls on all concerned to show restraint and refrain from provocations so as to prevent escalation of tensions and ensure civilians are not killed or injured.”

Noting that the border breach originated from the Syrian side, Ban said he was “acutely conscious of the unsustainable status quo in the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is only thrown into sharper relief by the profound political changes now under way in the region.”

He added that there is an "urgent need for a just, lasting and comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace."

There can be no peace with Israel when Israel's enemies refuse to accept Israel's very existence. That's what yesterday's protests were about; they weren't demanding a 2-state solution whatsoever. The protests are meant to spur a change to the status quo as perceived by the Arab regimes- eliminate Israel and the problems and turmoil in the region disappears.

The problem isn't Israel, but with the regimes that spread this nonsense with frightening regularity. The regimes that spread turmoil, unrest, and export terror are those like Syria and Iran, whose proxies in Hamas and Hizbullah cause violence, upset delicate political compromises in places like Lebanon. Then there are regimes that are autocratic and whose regimes are built not on democratic principles and inclusiveness but which use violence and repression to remain in power. That, in turn, creates radicalization and still more violence.

The status quo has to change for the Arab regimes throughout the region that use Israel as a foil every time things get tough for those regimes domestically. They set up proxy armies to attack Israel; use the Palestinians as a crutch; and callously disregard human rights whenever it suits them, but gin up controversies with Israel at a moment's notice.

Moreover, it's rather rich that the Lebanese and Syrians are complaining about Israel's use of force to defend its borders all while Syria's Bashar al Assad continues the violent crackdown against opposition protesters - detaining more than 10,000 people and killing nearly 1,000. Syrian army forces have repeatedly opened fire on civilians, and Syrians are fleeing to Lebanon to avoid the violence:



Hizbullah's Hassan Nasrallah once again predicts that Israel will be destroyed and overwhelmed; he further predicts a day when Palestinian right of return will be fulfilled. That's not a call for a 2-state solution by any stretch; and that view is shared by Iran (which has been busy cracking down against its own opposition leaders for more than a year now).

Palestinian leaders and Arab regimes throughout the Middle East have used the "right of return" as a wedge to keep the Palestinian people segregated within their own countries - keeping them in squalid "refugee" camps, which continue existing decades after they were originally set up. It's little wonder then that some Israelis think it time that the charade of the right of return be excised from the peace process talks.

On Anniversary of Israel's Founding, Protesters Breach Israel's Borders on All Sides

Protesters from Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt joined in with thousands of protesters in the West Bank to breach Israel's borders. Israel had no choice but to fire on the masses attempting to breach the borders, and at least a dozen were killed.

At the Lebanese border Israeli troops shot at hundreds of Palestinians trying to cross, killing 10 protesters and wounding more than 100, the Lebanese military said.

The biggest confrontation took place on the Golan Heights when hundreds of Palestinians living in Syria breached a border fence and crowded into the village of Majdal Shams, waving Palestinian flags. Troops fired on the crowd, killing four of them.

Every year in mid-May many Palestinians mark what they call Nakba, or the catastrophe, the anniversary of Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948 and the start of a war in which thousands of Palestinians lost their homes through expulsion and flight.

But this is the first year that Palestinian refugees in Syria and Lebanon tried to breach the Israeli military border in marches inspired by recent popular protests around the Arab world. Here too, word about the rallies was spread on social media sites.

“The Palestinians are not less rebellious than other Arab peoples,” said Ali Baraka, a Hamas representative in Lebanon.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said the day’s protests were aimed not at creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel but at destroying Israel.

I agree fully with Netenyahu on this. This was not about protesting towards a 2-state solution, but an attempt to overwhelm Israel with an eye towards subverting Israel's very existence.

I have no doubt that the intentions here were not to protest towards a 2-state solution, but rather a coordinated attempt to overwhelm Israel in every conceivable fashion. Given how the media will likely cover this, expect the Arabs to make still more attempts.

Moreover, it's curious how the protesters from all around the region were able to coordinate their efforts towards breaching Israel's borders in such a systematic method. They were also counting on taking Israel by surprise, and to that extent - they succeeded. It also provides another relief valve on the Arab regimes that have been under assault for all these months - they can simply redirect the ire and anger on the street towards Israel, even though Israel was defending itself against an invasion.



Israel will continue to defend its borders against incursions and invasion - just as any other sovereign nation would do. The Arab regimes and the Palestinians themselves have no interest in peace with Israel and continue in their ongoing assertion to seek Israel's destruction. Those who are killed in confrontations with Israel are seen as martyrs to the cause, and the more that are killed the better.

For Syria's Assad, this couldn't come at a better time since it means that the spotlight will shift from his butchering of hundreds of Syrians who have rose up to protest Assad's brutal regime to Israel killing protesters who have invaded Israel in protest of Israel's very existence. Indeed, the irony is rich that Syria is complaining about Israel's defense of its borders while Assad murders Syrians without mercy.

The skirmishes occurred along the Lebanese border, the Syrian border, and along the Green Line between the West Bank and Israel and the border with Gaza.

Leave it to Hamas' Haniyeh to once again state the blatantly obvious - there can be no peace when the Palestinians want nothing less than Israel's destruction.

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.