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.

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.

More Details Emerge On Pending Swap For Shalit

New details are emerging about the pending deal to swap more than 1,000 Palestinians for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit who has been Hamas clutches for more than five years since he was captured in a terror attack inside Israel that killed two other Israeli soldiers and wounded several others.

Hamas claims that the deal would swap 1,027 Palestinians, including 315 serving life sentences, for Shalit. The first batch of 450 prisoners would be swapped for Shalit, with the rest coming in short order. That swap may occur within a week and Shalit would be transferred to Israel via Egypt.

Most troublesome is the fact that Hamas bigwig Khalid Meshaal says that this is not only a huge accomplishment, but the first step in cleansing the region of Israel:

In Damascus, Syria, Khaled Meshal, the political leader of Hamas, said in a televised address that the negotiations had been “very, very difficult” and called the deal “a national accomplishment” that augured well for the Palestinians, who he said hoped to “cleanse the land, and liberate Jerusalem, and unite the Palestinian ranks.”

There's no other way to interpret that statement than to see that the Palestinians continue to refuse acceptance of a 2-state solution and a peace process.

So, why is Israel going along with this? The Times points out that some key figures in the Israeli defense and intelligence community have been replaced and the previous objections to large-scale releases of terrorists have been overcome. Moreover, the Israelis aren't expected to transfer these prisoners to the West Bank, where they were seen as being more of a risk. In other words, adding 200 more terrorists to the ranks of the 20,000 strong Hamas ranks would not change the strategic calculus. Then again, I have no doubt that some of those released will attempt to carry out attacks at the first possible opportunity, and that bodes poorly for Israel's long term security.

Indeed, among those being released in the first batch are Palestinian terrorists responsible for the deaths of 599 Israelis. As I've warned, Hamas will welcome them with open arms and jubilant celebrations - making heroes of murdering terrorists who think nothing of murdering Israelis - including children.

It has done nothing to moderate Hamas or Palestinian views of Israel, and while it means that the Shalit family will be able to welcome home their son Gilad, it puts Israelis at risk across the board.

It's little wonder then that Hamas sees this as a huge tactical and strategic victory. The names of those being released will be announced on Sunday, which suggests that there is some last-minute discussion on who exactly is being handed over.

UPDATE:
CNN has still more details and it looks like Marwan Barghouti isn't among those getting released.

"The deal will happen in two stages -- the first stage the release of 450 Palestinian prisoners, including 315 Palestinian prisoners that have one or many life sentences and the ones who are with high sentences. The second stage will include 550 Palestinian prisoners," he said.

Of the 450 Palestinian prisoners to be freed during the first stage, 110 will go to the West Bank while 40 will go abroad, according to Mark Regev, Netanyahu's spokesman. The 550 prisoners scheduled to be released during the second stage will be freed two months later, he said.

According to Regev, jailed Palestinian lawmaker Marwan Barghouti is not among the prisoners Israel has agreed to release.

The Personal Politics of the Middle East Conflict

As this past week's events at the United Nations have once again demonstrated, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in particular, are dominated by the personal politics that can overtake the facts on the ground.

This is an area near and dear to my heart. It's a subject on which I've spent the better part of the past two decades thinking and writing about (including my Master's Thesis).

Put simply, the actions of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas shows a level of cowardice to avoid making any concessions or dealing directly with Israel and that the peace process is all but dead as a result of Israel lacking a political leader among the Palestinians willing to put their life on the line to actually cut a deal establishing a 2-state solution.

For decades, Palestinians have bought into the notion that if they can wait out Israel's leadership, they'll not only get a state of their own, but that they will overwhelm Israel through demographics and geopolitical realities to eventually create a Palestinian state on what was once Israel.

Israel will not go quietly into the night, but it has made repeated efforts to make peace with its Arab neighbors. First, Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat made the historic trip to Jerusalem to make the case for peace. The resulting Camp David Accords solidified the notion of land for peace, and Israel withdrew from Sinai (a landmass more than twice the size of Israel proper and which had mineral and oil deposits and dozens of Israeli communities from 1967 onwards). Israel forcibly removed those Israeli settlements in making the case for peace.

Sadat's bravery in the face of overt hate towards all things Israel made him a target for assassination, and he died at the hands of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (a forerunner for al Qaeda). Yet, for nearly 30 years, there has been a peace between the two countries.

Jordan's King Hussein likewise made peace with Israel, despite a significant Palestinian population within his own country that he had kept under tight reign after the PLO sought to overthrow his government in 1970 (the PLO is the umbrella organization that includes Fatah).

Jordan's King Hussein likewise made peace, and the Palestinian Authority was designated as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Yasir Arafat, the head of Fatah, was given several opportunities to make a peace deal by and through the Oslo process, but never even gave the consideration of a counterproposal. He simply walked away from the process, opting instead to maintain civil administrative control over the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza all while pursuing the ultimate goal of a 1-state solution.

By the time Arafat died and was superseded by Abbas, the Palestinians have not budged from their ultimate goal of a 1-state solution.

Hamas now controls Gaza after Israel unilaterally disengaged from the region and left Palestinians in full and complete control over their future there. Far from creating an economic and social environment for improving Palestinian lives, Hamas has turned it in to a terror-haven for incessant attacks against Israel, requiring Israel to defend itself against suicide bombers and rocket and mortar attacks. \

Hamas refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist and none of the Palestinian leadership talks of recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. That comes as the same Palestinian leadership speaks of making its own territories (at present and looking ahead to a future Palestinian state in the West Bank) - free from Jews. That's ethnic cleansing any way you cut it, and world diplomats consistently ignore that reality.

Abbas not only cannot rise above this, but he actively encourages undermining Israel's rights to exist, and his craven cowardice shows that Israel has no partner in peace.

That's despite an Israeli electorate that has consistently shown itself willing to cede land for peace despite the security risks it posed to Israel. The Israeli public has moved away from land for peace as the Gaza disengagement has shown that withdrawing from land will not mean peace - particularly with the Palestinians. It's led to a hardening of Israeli positions on security, but the Israelis have maintained that a 2-state solution is the only solution.

But for the failures of the Palestinian leadership to actually lead and show courage in adopting a 2-state solution, there would be peace.

That's entirely on the failure of the personal leadership of Palestinians like Mahmoud Abbas who cannot get past his regimes' decades-long goals. When you've spent decades building up towards a 1-state solution, accepting a 2-state solution is untenable; the population has been radicalized into believing that they can ultimately get what they want and will continue using all means at their disposal towards a Palestinian state.

Moreover, they can look forward to seeing Israel being forced into negotiating against itself - it keeps putting forth deal after deal to the Palestinians from which they get no counterproposal. If they were so keen on a state to call their own, they could have accepted either the 2000 or 2007 Israeli proposals establishing a Palestinian state. They have chosen not to do so and have made no such effort to create a functioning state in the territories in which they already have full dominion or civil administrative control. Instead, Abbas, the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas revel in the ability to attack Israel's sovereignty and take no responsibility for the situation of their own making.

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.

The Hypocrisy of the Arab League Knows No Bounds

The Arab League preparing to ask UN to recognize Palestinian state when it meets in September. The Arab League always seems capable of issuing derogatory statements about Israel on a moment's notice and agreeing about any action that harms Israel, but it never seems capable of denouncing its own members when they engage in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or democide.

Where is their outrage about the ongoing slaughter in Syria? For that matter, where is the Arab League's concern about recognizing Kurdish rights to statehood? That would affect Kurds living in Turkey, Syria, and Iraq, which means they get ignored, but Palestinians who never had a state (and which lived under Jordanian and Egyptian control from 1948 to 1967) are paid lip service in a bid to harm Israel.

The only thing all these regimes can agree upon is that Israel is a wedge issue that keeps all concerned in business as a relief valve and MacGuffin. It's a shiny object that gets tossed out there when things go bad for Arab regimes (and it's always bad economically and socially, so it remains persistent throughout much of the Middle East).

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.

President Obama's Speech On Middle East Relations

Some reports prior to the President addressing the issue today claimed that this would be some form of a reset but the speech was actually a rehash of longstanding US positions, with a few caveats. I don't think this broke new ground, although there are more than a few people claiming that the US has changed position on Palestinian-Israeli relations.

For one thing, the President admitted that the US hasn't exactly held countries like Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia to the same standards that it should have when those regimes cracked down against protesters. This part is particularly good - because he admits that his own Administration's policies towards Bahrain, Yemen, and even the Saudis has been flawed:

Our opposition to Iran's intolerance - as well as its illicit nuclear program, and its sponsorship of terror - is well known. But if America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for change consistent with the principles that I have outlined today. That is true in Yemen, where President Saleh needs to follow through on his commitment to transfer power. And that is true, today, in Bahrain.

Bahrain is a long-standing partner, and we are committed to its security. We recognize that Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and that the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law. Nevertheless, we have insisted publically and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain's citizens, and will not make legitimate calls for reform go away. The only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can't have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail. The government must create the conditions for dialogue, and the opposition must participate to forge a just future for all Bahrainis.

As for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the President said that there cannot be a resolution when the Palestinians deny Israel's right to exist. Yet with that in mind, how exactly can he turn around and restart the peace process when that's precisely the situation Israel faces? With Hamas involved in the Palestinian Authority, the amount of pretzel logic need to claim that the Palestinians accept a 2-state solution is mind-boggling, especially when both Hamas and Fatah refuse to accept Israel (Fatah being part of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority).

Heck, we can't even get the Palestinian Authority to adhere to their obligations under Oslo to stop inciting Palestinians to violence and otherwise de-legitimizing Israel's right to exist.

The President briefly mentioned Jerusalem in the speech, but the key was that the resolution would involve land swaps and as agreed upon by the parties.

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.

Also, I'm curious how he intends to have a contiguous Palestinian state when Gaza and the West Bank are separated as they are now. Previous discussions have suggested building land bridges or tunnels, but none of these issues can be acted upon until the Palestinians get over the threshold issue of accepting a 2-state solution, which is something that was originally included in Oslo.

On this point, the President's speech regarding Israel and the Palestinians isn't breaking ground. It rehashes the American positions since at least the George H.W. Bush Administration (Madrid Conference). It doesn't break any new ground.

Yet, there are some media outlets that clearly get the reporting on this wrong, including the AP.

President Barack Obama is endorsing the Palestinians' demand for their future state to be based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war, in a move that will likely infuriate Israel. Israel says the borders of a Palestinian state have to be determined through negotiations.

In a speech outlining U.S. policy in the Middle East and North Africa, Obama on Thursday sided with the Palestinians' opening position a day ahead of a visit to Washington by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is vehemently opposed to referring to the 1967 borders.

This is inaccurate reporting at its finest. Obama hasn't changed US position on resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, and is still committed to final status talks to resolve final borders.

Where Obama clearly gets it wrong is in his statements to cajole Bashar Assad into leading a transition of how Syria is governed. Assad hasn't remained a dictator by getting out the way or transitioning his regime into something else. The Hama Rules rule for a reason in the ME (and Assad's father stayed in power using them to the hilt). Assad's only error is that he didn't use enough power to crush the opposition weeks ago.

So unless the US is going to get involved in Syria to the same extent that the US/NATO is in Libya, Assad isn't going anywhere unless the Syrian people rise up and are joined by the military in that uprising. That isn't likely to happen as the military has pretty much remained solidly behind the Assad regime. There were some reports that some units refused to fire on protesters, but they were dealt with by Assad's loyalists.

Sanctions aren't going to get Assad to change tactics.

UPDATE:
With the growing brouhaha over Obama's speech as it relates to Israel and its borders, this is perhaps the most important part of his speech, as per the transcript:

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.

Everything else is moot unless the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist. That includes any talk of final status borders.

This is the strongest wording on this point and it supersedes all talk about Israel's borders. After all, if the Palestinians don't accept Israel's right to exist, talk about borders is moot.

Moreover, if Obama was truly talking about 1967 borders as the media keeps shilling, then in reality he'd be talking about the post 1948 border (aka the Green Line), but that's not the terminology he used.

There was a specific reason he used 1967 line - with agreed upon land swaps, because it is a reference back to UN SCR 242 and 338 and Oslo, all of which involve land for peace and do not require Israel to return to the pre 1967 Green Line border.

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.

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.

Palestinian Teens Arrested In Murder of Fogel Family As Teen Victim of Palestinian Terror Dies

While Gazans mourn the death of a pro-Palestinian activist, Israel is mourning the death of a 16-year old Israeli who died of injuries sustained when the bus he was on was struck by an anti-tank missile fired from Gaza.



Israeli authorities have arrested two Palestinian teens in connection with the grisly murder of the Fogel family in an Israeli settlement. They were apparently members of the PFLP, which is a PLO offshoot:

The attackers sneaked into the settlement of Itamar on March 11 and killed the family members as they slept. Among the victims was a 3-month-old baby girl, along with her parents, Udi and Ruth Fogel, and two other children, ages 4 and 11.

Grisly pictures from the attack, along with the ages of the young victims, outraged Israelis. The search for the killers focused on the neighboring Palestinian village of Awarta, which was put under curfew while residents were systematically arrested, interrogated, fingerprinted and forced to give DNA samples.

The two suspects, teenagers from Awarta, belonged to a small PLO faction, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, although it appeared they acted independently, said Col. Nimrod Aloni, a West Bank military commander. The mother of one of the suspects said her son is innocent.

Aloni said the teenagers said during questioning that they "wanted to test their courage and bravery" by penetrating the settlement and stealing a rifle. He said the pair claimed they did not initially plan to kill anyone, but panicked when the baby started crying, endangering their escape.

Families of the teens claim that they were coerced into admitting their roles, including claims of torture. Yet, the families have longstanding ties to the PFLP, and was not the first time that family members carried out attacks against Itamar.

Israel Mourns The Brutal Murder of Five Israelis While Rival Terror Groups Claim Responsibility

Israelis are in mourning today after burying a family of five Israelis who were butchered while asleep in their home in the West Bank. The Fogel family, Udi, Ruth, Elad, Yoav and Hadas, was laid to rest after a funeral attended by 20,000. They were slaughtered while they slept - and the youngest victim was all of three months. Their murderers slipped into the Itamar settlement near Nablus after dark and broke into a neighboring home first but found no one home before carrying out their murderous deeds in the Fogel's home.

Hamas approves of the terror attacks, and Fatah's response is to name a street after a Fatah terrorist who killed 37 people in 1978 (just days after naming a youth center after the first female suicide bomber last week).

Incitement is expressly forbidden under Olso, but Fatah and Hamas routinely ignore that.

Those are the terror groups that Israel is supposed to be negotiating peace with.

Building housing is not an impediment to peace - and it never has been. Housing can always be transferred, but when Israel lacks a partner, talk about negotiating and peace deals is a pipe dream.

As for who was behind the attack - both Islamic Jihad and Hamas claimed responsibility (and other Hamas thugs say it wasn't them) but Israeli authorities don't think that those groups were involved since they lack the terror network in the West Bank. Yet, Hamas is saying that they're going to resume terror ops from the West Bank.

Hamas militants in the West Bank have resumed their efforts to kill Israeli soldiers or civilians and abduct their bodies, Palestinian and Israeli security sources have told Haaretz.

The sources said Hamas activists believe they cannot keep Israeli hostages out of the Shin Bet and Palestinian Authority's reach for long. So they plan to kill them, abduct and bury the bodies, then negotiate returning them to Israel.

Hamas headquarters in Damascus and Gaza are pressuring organization cells in the West Bank to kill Israelis and abduct their bodies, in view of the effect Gilad Shalit's abduction has had on Israeli public opinion. Another reason for the pressure is the failure of Shalit's abduction to bring the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, the sources told Haaretz.

The only way that Fatah has remained in power in the West Bank is because Israel has propped them up against Hamas - the evil of the lesser of two evils.

So, what can you take away from Hamas' contradictory statements? They are itching for a fight with Israel, but aren't ready to do so on their terms. They know that the murder of this Israeli family would be enough to get Israel to go after the terror group behind the attacks in a serious way - particularly because of the brutal and heinous way they butchered the family as they were asleep.

Protesters Continue Defying Mubarak's Regime

After yesterday's riots and skirmishes started when pro-Mubarak groups stampeded camels and horses through Tahrir Square and hundreds of people were injured, the Egyptian Prime Minister apologized for the violence. Gunfire overnight rang out through Tahrir Square and at least five people were killed. That was after hours of melee combat between the pro-Mubarak thugs and protesters included hurling rocks, Molotov cocktails and anything that wasn't firmly attached to the ground.

Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq told state TV that the attack on the anti-government protesters which began late Wednesday was a "blatant mistake" and promised to investigate who was behind it. He said the actions of the pro-Mubarak supporters were "a million percent wrong."

In an attempt to quell the violence, Egyptian army tanks and soldiers cleared away pro-government rioters Thursday and deployed between them and the protesters seeking the fall of President Hosni Mubarak.

The protesters accuse the regime of organizing the assault, using paid thugs and policemen in civilian clothes, in an attempt to crush their movement.

Government supporters charged central Tahrir Square Wednesday afternoon, sparking 15 hours of uncontrolled chaos, with the two sides battled with rocks, sticks, bottles and firebombs as soldiers largely stood by without intervening.
Video: Witness: Gangs roam Cairo with 'iron bars, knives' (on this page)

However, the military began to move with muscle to stop the fighting early Thursday after a barrage of automatic gunfire hit the anti-government camp before dawn.

Four tanks cleared a highway overpass from which Mubarak supporters had hurled rocks and firebombs onto the protesters.

Multiple journalists were assaulted by mobs of demonstrators, making it more difficult for reporting to get out. So, what has the Egyptian government/military done?

Well, the military has begun rounding up the journalists.

The Egyptian military started rounding up journalists, possibly for their own protection, on Thursday after they came under attack from supporters of President Hosni Mubarak who have been assaulting anti-government protesters.

The U.S. State Department condemned what it called a "concerted campaign to intimidate" foreign journalists in Egypt. The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said Wednesday that violence against journalists was part of a series of deliberate attacks and called on the Egyptian military to provide protection for reporters.

Foreign photographers reported a string of attacks on them by Mubarak supporters on Thursday near Tahrir Square, the scene of battles between supporters of Mubarak and protesters demanding he step down after nearly 30 years in power.

One Greek print journalist was stabbed in the leg with a screwdriver. A Greek freelance photographer was punched in the face by a group of men who stopped him on the street near Tahrir Square and smashed some of his equipment.

An Associated Press reporter saw eight foreign journalists detained by the military near the prime minister's office, not far from Tahrir Square

The Arabic-language satellite channel Al-Arabiya pleaded on an urgent news scroll for the army to protect its offices and journalists.

Instead of capturing those who were assaulting the journalists, the military is squandering an opportunity to do the right thing to maintain the flow of information.

Despite the military's ongoing presence in Cairo, the violence continues as the pro-Mubarak thugs continue their ongoing assault on the protesters.

Meanwhile, jihadis are looking on and trying to figure out how they can take advantage of the situation to further their own agenda.

At Muslm.net, a Web site associated with Al Qaeda in Egypt, the call was for foreign youths to come to Egypt to join the jihad.

“Hey, brothers, the fall of Egypt’s tyrant is a fall of the earth’s tyrants,” it urged. “This is the time to slaughter the cow.”

That, one expert said, was about the most they could make of the crisis.

“Like always, Al Qaeda’s online movement is viewing this through consummately opportunist lenses,” said Jarret Brachman, a counterterrorism consultant and author of the book “Global Jihadism,” who monitors jihadi Web sites.

Elsewhere, Web postings urged jihadis in Egypt to attack the Arish-Ashkelon gas pipeline, which goes to Israel. “This is a chance to stop the supply to the Israelites,” urged a writer on the Shumukh al-Islam forum, according to a translation by the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors extremist Web sites.

In Yemen, where Al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula is stronger, the group posted a videotaped speech by its deputy leader Abu Sufyan al-Azdi encouraging attacks on a Shiite group that it considered part of an Iranian advance on the country, according to SITE.

The jihadi groups, which created mayhem in Egypt in the early part of the last decade, were largely crushed by Mr. Mubarak’s government, and do not enjoy popular support. They face structural challenges in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood, a conservative but nonviolent organization, forms the best-known political opposition.

Though many Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden’s No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, began in the Muslim Brotherhood, the two movements have often contrary positions, and the Brotherhood on Tuesday announced its support of Mohamed ElBaradei, a liberal Muslim, to lead an opposition umbrella group in negotiations on a new government to replace Mr. Mubarak’s — a position that is antithetical to Al Qaeda, because it exalts human authority rather than divine.

On Hanein, a Qaeda Web site, a poster using the name Citizen of the Village called jihadis to join with the Muslim Brotherhood because both supported Islamic revolution, whatever their differences.

“You have printed the exact truth,” another replied. “We have to sacrifice for our religion and not let titles hinder us.”

From their weakened position, some jihadis struggled to figure out their role in the protests in Cairo.

In a post on the Ansar al-Mujahedeen forum, translated by SITE, an anonymous writer noted many jihadis’ objections to the demonstrators’ “mistakes and distance from religion.”

But he added, “it is nevertheless our duty not to ignore the benefits that may come about,” including an empty throne. “Jihadists may then leap on that throne.”

Yet, the writer also acknowledged that within the jihadi movement many felt that replacing Mr. Mubarak with a secular, democratic leader might mean simply exchanging one tyrant with ties to the United States with another. “So we wait and do not care for those revolutionaries against injustice, and we continue our jihadi path and the support of our jihadi brothers.” Ultimately, “separating the jihadi movement from the popular Muslim movement is the end of this movement,” he wrote.

Perhaps most ominous are the calls for the jihadi groups to come under the Muslim Brotherhood umbrella to help topple the Mubarak regime.

UPDATE:
There are reports that the Egyptian Central Bank is imposing limits on how much depositors can withdraw. That would suggest that the Bank is contemplating a possible bank run - except that the news of those limits might itself bring on a bank run not just in Cairo, but around the country. That's going to upset the already delicate economic situation even further and would suggest that the government is even more worried about the financial picture than they're letting on.

Meanwhile, the BBC is reporting that the Egyptian Constitution will be amended to impose term limits and who can or can't be elected to the presidency.

#
1457: More from Vice-President Suleiman, as reported by state TV: He says articles 76 and 77 of the Egyptian constitution will be amended, and other articles are open to amendment as well. Article 76 specifies who can or can't run for president, and article 77 says the president can be re-elected, without specifying a term limit.

That's not sufficient to placate the protesters.

The BBC is also reporting that at least one employee at the state-run television network has quit over the propagandizing nature of the network's reporting:

#
1450: Shahira Amin, was until yesterday a journalist with the state-run Egyptian channel, Nile TV. She told the BBC World Service that she had to leave her job because she no longer felt able to report the state view when what she saw on the street was so different: "We were basically showing the pro-Mubarak rallies all day long, as if that was the only thing that was happening. I couldn't show what was happening here in Tahrir. I couldn't even report the figures as they were. So no thank you. I feel liberated."

NYT Lede coverage continues here.

Mohamed ElBaradei has given Mubarak 48 hours to leave the country, but that's an idle threat since ElBaradei doesn't exactly have the power to make that happen. It's just a strong statement made in the hopes of currying favor among the disparate opposition groups.

UPDATE:
The regime is systematically attempting to thwart reporting of the protests, the riots by pro-Mubarak thugs, and otherwise getting the news out about the ongoing conditions in the country.

Many journalists covering the protests in Egypt were detained and attacked on Thursday, and human rights groups were also a target, in what appeared to be an escalating effort to block reports on the violence.

The Egyptian security forces were rounding up workers for human rights groups as well as foreign journalists, witnesses in Cairo said. Security police raided the Hisham Mubarak Law Center, where many nongovernmental organizations operate. They ordered people there to lie on the floor and disabled their mobile phones. Two people were being interrogated. The state news agency Thursday has asked foreign press to evacuate all the hotels near Tahrir Square.

The Committee to Protect Journalists was investigating at least 10 cases of reporters being detained on Thursday. The government told the journalists that they were not being arrested but rather taken into "protective custody," according to the group.

UPDATE:
There are protests in Gaza to support the anti-Mubarak protesters, but similar protests were disbanded by Hamas in Gaza and Fatah has prevented similar gatherings in the West Bank. The PA Prime Minister says that the Egyptian situation is blamed on the failure of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said Thursday during a visit to Paris that he thinks the failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is playing into the unrest in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Fayyad said he thinks protesters' complaints stem partly from the internal situations in countries hit by unrest, but also from "a frustration, a desperation because of the failure of efforts to solve the Palestinian problem."

Ah, when all else fails, blame Israel. Never mind that the situation in Egypt is directly related to with the failure of Mubarak to provide socioeconomic opportunities and allow a political process to develop and flourish that was open - high food costs, high unemployment, and lack of political participation have nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with the autocratic regime in place whose economic policies have led to more than half the population of Egypt living on less than $2 a day.

And you wonder why I have no expectation of success in a peace process when Israel is demonized its so-called partners in peace at every opportunity.

A Map Will Not Bring Peace

The New York Times reports that a think tank has come up with a map that they think might lead to a breakthrough in the impasse in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Fat chance.

Once again, it's the lack of a partner in peace that is the impasse, not maps or plans.

The Palestinians have steadfastly refused to accept a Jewish state of Israel and Jewish ties to lands that include the pre-1967 borders. Palestinians continually attempt to rewrite history and Jewish ties to lands both within and outside the 1948 borders. Palestinian Authority "historians" claim that Jews don't have claims to the Temple Mount, despite a 3,000 history of documented ties.

Palestinians can't even negotiate with a single voice - Hamas and Fatah are at odds, and Hamas refuses even to negotiate with Israel. Hamas refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, and Hamas controls Gaza - not Fatah.

There's no amount of maps that can trump the fact that Hamas controls territory that would ostensibly become part of any Palestinian state and that it would use that territory not to create a prosperous country and society, but to resume jihad against Israel.