Jordan not the solution
Notion of Jordanian-Palestinian confederation is not a viable prospect
Shlomo Brom
According to some observers, the phoenix of Jordanian-Palestinian confederation seems to have risen from the ashes. Discussion of this issue has been revived following the crisis in the Palestinian Authority, which peaked with the violent takeover of the Gaza Strip by Hamas.
That crisis has deepened the Israeli-Palestinian impasse because it manifested the Palestinians’ inability to advance toward a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and aroused some nostalgia for the days before the Palestinian national movement moved to center-stage, when the fate of the Palestinians was determined by Arab states, especially Egypt and Jordan.
At first, the feeling took the form of proposals, especially by Israelis, that Egypt and Jordan send forces to restore order in Gaza and the West Bank and create the conditions for political progress. More recently, it has been expressed in the idea of confederation.
The idea of confederation was first raised in 1972 and resurfaced several times in the years since King Hussein decided in 1988 to sever links with the West Bank and recognize the PLO as the body responsible for the population there. The Jordanians never rejected the idea outright but did always stress that confederation can come about only if the Palestinians want it and that it can therefore be discussed only after an independent Palestinian state has come into being. Now, however, confederation is being considered from the outset as an alternative to a Palestinian state.
This version of the idea appears to have gathered momentum because of the conjuncture of two developments stemming from the Palestinian crisis. One is growing Jordanian concern at the possibility that the crisis will spill over into Jordan, in the form of a stream of Palestinian refugees. Those refugees would join the huge number of refugees from Iraq entering Jordan in recent years. They are already placing a strain on Jordanian infrastructure, but they do not constitute a truly heavy burden because Jordan has taken pains to allow only Sunnis with means to enter.
From the regime’s point of view, Palestinian refugees would be a more serious problem because they would lack their own resources and would threaten to upset the delicate demographic balance between East Bank Jordanians and those of Palestinian origin.
To read the entire article go to: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3426386,00.html
Rabu, 18 Juli 2007
17% of prisoners resume terror activity
Etgar Lefkovits, THE JERUSALEM POST Jul. 18, 2007
Nearly one in every five Palestinian prisoners who has been released returns to terror activities, a senior Justice Ministry official said Wednesday.
The remarks by Pardons Department head Emmy Palmor came just two days before Israel is scheduled to free more than 250 Palestinian prisoners in a confidence-building measure aimed at bolstering Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
About 85 percent of the Palestinian prisoners slated for release on Friday morning were from Fatah, and the rest from the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Palmor said. None of the prisoners were from Hamas, she noted.
# Israel releases two Hamas members
Palmor said that about 17% of Palestinian prisoners convicted on terror-related offensives who had been freed by Israel later returned to terror activities.
"I cannot tell you that none of the 250 prisoners who will be released on Friday will return to terror," Palmor said in a press briefing.
The Almagor Terror Victims Association, which has petitioned the High Court of Justice to delay the release, said Wednesday that 179 Israelis have been killed over the last seven years by Palestinians freed in previous deals.
"From an initial inspection of the list, there are already some names of terrorists whose release is unreasonable," wrote Almagor head Meir Eindor.
By law, the list of Palestinian prisoners to be freed must be published 48 hours before their scheduled release to allow for petitions to the Supreme Court.
But Israel's highest court has never blocked a prisoner release in the past, deferring to the government's jurisdiction on the issue, Palmor said.
The Justice Ministry, which carefully selects the prisoners to be released, in consultation with security officials, does not expect any delays in this week's release either, she said.
None of the prisoners scheduled for release had "blood on their hands," meaning they had not killed Israelis, and had at least one year left until the end of their original incarceration period, Palmor said.
An earlier list of prisoners was nixed by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert because many of the prisoners did not have one year left on their sentence, she noted.
Palmor also said that the Israeli legal term of "no blood on their hands" was morally ambiguous because it included convicted Palestinian prisoners who had tried to carry out mass murder but had failed in their attempts to kill or injure Israelis.
There are 7,000 Palestinian prisoners being held in Israeli jails, she said. The figure does not include those who are being held without trial in administrative detention.
Among those slated for release Friday is Abdel Rahim Malouh, 61, second in command of the PFLP. The group orchestrated the 2001 assassination of tourism minister Rehavam Ze'evi. Palmor said Malouh was not involved in the killing.
According to official statistics, fourteen of the prisoners to be released were due to complete their terms next year. The sentence of 70 others ended in 2008, 85 more in 2009, 46 in 2010, 32 in 2011, 6 in 2012, 2 in 2013 and 1 each in 2014 and 2015.
Palmor concurred that there were security risks inherent in the early release of Palestinian prisoners, but stressed that the release was a political decision taken by the government.
"I have a 15-year-old son taking the bus right now in Jerusalem. Nothing can be more personal," Palmor said.
During her briefing, Palmor also revealed that at least one Palestinian prisoner preferred to stay behind bars to continue receiving free arthritic medication.
Etgar Lefkovits, THE JERUSALEM POST Jul. 18, 2007
Nearly one in every five Palestinian prisoners who has been released returns to terror activities, a senior Justice Ministry official said Wednesday.
The remarks by Pardons Department head Emmy Palmor came just two days before Israel is scheduled to free more than 250 Palestinian prisoners in a confidence-building measure aimed at bolstering Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
About 85 percent of the Palestinian prisoners slated for release on Friday morning were from Fatah, and the rest from the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Palmor said. None of the prisoners were from Hamas, she noted.
# Israel releases two Hamas members
Palmor said that about 17% of Palestinian prisoners convicted on terror-related offensives who had been freed by Israel later returned to terror activities.
"I cannot tell you that none of the 250 prisoners who will be released on Friday will return to terror," Palmor said in a press briefing.
The Almagor Terror Victims Association, which has petitioned the High Court of Justice to delay the release, said Wednesday that 179 Israelis have been killed over the last seven years by Palestinians freed in previous deals.
"From an initial inspection of the list, there are already some names of terrorists whose release is unreasonable," wrote Almagor head Meir Eindor.
By law, the list of Palestinian prisoners to be freed must be published 48 hours before their scheduled release to allow for petitions to the Supreme Court.
But Israel's highest court has never blocked a prisoner release in the past, deferring to the government's jurisdiction on the issue, Palmor said.
The Justice Ministry, which carefully selects the prisoners to be released, in consultation with security officials, does not expect any delays in this week's release either, she said.
None of the prisoners scheduled for release had "blood on their hands," meaning they had not killed Israelis, and had at least one year left until the end of their original incarceration period, Palmor said.
An earlier list of prisoners was nixed by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert because many of the prisoners did not have one year left on their sentence, she noted.
Palmor also said that the Israeli legal term of "no blood on their hands" was morally ambiguous because it included convicted Palestinian prisoners who had tried to carry out mass murder but had failed in their attempts to kill or injure Israelis.
There are 7,000 Palestinian prisoners being held in Israeli jails, she said. The figure does not include those who are being held without trial in administrative detention.
Among those slated for release Friday is Abdel Rahim Malouh, 61, second in command of the PFLP. The group orchestrated the 2001 assassination of tourism minister Rehavam Ze'evi. Palmor said Malouh was not involved in the killing.
According to official statistics, fourteen of the prisoners to be released were due to complete their terms next year. The sentence of 70 others ended in 2008, 85 more in 2009, 46 in 2010, 32 in 2011, 6 in 2012, 2 in 2013 and 1 each in 2014 and 2015.
Palmor concurred that there were security risks inherent in the early release of Palestinian prisoners, but stressed that the release was a political decision taken by the government.
"I have a 15-year-old son taking the bus right now in Jerusalem. Nothing can be more personal," Palmor said.
During her briefing, Palmor also revealed that at least one Palestinian prisoner preferred to stay behind bars to continue receiving free arthritic medication.
The "Legal" War on Israel
By Moshe Dann
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 18, 2007
For nearly four decades the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has carried on a relentless battle against the right of Jews to live in Yehuda, Shomron, and Aza (YeShA). Declaring all Jewish presence beyond the 1949 Armistice lines "illegal," they condemn Israel for violating the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV). Acting as judge and jury in secret deliberations, they decided that Israel was guilty. And, despite objections from distinguished international legal experts, the ICRC refused to consider any appeal. There's only one problem: they made up 'the law' to fit their politics.
Several years ago, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) joined this effort by declaring Israel's 'security barrier' and all Israeli settlements "illegal" because they were built beyond the boundaries of 1949 on "occupied Palestinian territory." That territory was never defined; it couldn’t, since there is no such entity. And their conclusions ignored the facts.
Divided between two terrorist organizations, Fatah and Hamas, the Palestinian Authority is not a state, nor does it comply with the recognized attributes of statehood. Defining "Palestine" as a single unit between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, most Arabs agree that Israel has no right to exist. "The Nakba" (Catastrophe) was not in 1967, but 1948.
The ICJ, which includes former ambassadors of Jordan and Egypt, didn't consider any Israeli arguments (according to one of its members); in fact, Israel refused to participate in the charade, knowing the outcome had already been determined.
In other words, unlike domestic law which is made by legislatures and administrative bodies, the ICJ's decisions, as international "law," reflected political bodies (like the UN), or NGO's (like the ICRC) who are accountable only to themselves and whose criteria for decision-making when it comes to Israel lack objectivity, impartiality, or careful evaluation. Yet, that became "the law."
Charges that Israel "occupies Palestinian land" and "settlements are illegal" feed the myth that 'Jews stole Arab lands' and that 'Palestinians were forced to pay the price for The Holocaust.' Such unwarranted condemnations of Israel are elements in the volatile chemistry of demonization; they delegitimize and dehumanize Jews as perpetrators of lies and the cause of others' suffering, justify terrorism and may even become a prelude to genocide. In a modern rendition of blood libel, if Jews are evil it justifies whatever is done to them.
Denying the legal and historical rights of Jews to live in their homeland and refusing to recognize Jewish rights of self-defense is not only bigoted and immoral; in the context of terrorism, it's lethal.
Occupation, in and of itself, moreover, is not "illegal." International law recognizes the right of any state to occupy territory of an aggressor in self-defense and to remain in control to protect itself and until its security is assured. Jewish claims, however, rest on other grounds.
The historical right of Jews to their homeland in the Land of Israel was recognized in international conventions and agreements, including the League of Nations and the United Nations. Those confirmations cannot be abrogated – by anyone.
The Jewish people did not occupy territory of a legitimate and recognized sovereign authority. In wars of self-defense, Israel occupied territory that had been controlled by the British (the Mandate) and/or conquered by the Jordanians and Egyptians (along with other Arab countries) who declared a genocidal war against Jews.
The Fourth Geneva Convention does not prohibit Jews from living in YeShA. It states:
"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand…
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
Israelis moved to YeShA voluntarily; no one was 'deported or transferred.' In fact, the Israeli government often resisted such settlement. Nevertheless, the ICRC and ICJ declared that Jewish communities in YeShA are violations of GC IV, adding their own conditions -- that any assistance given by the Israeli government was an indirect transfer. That ruling is not supported by the Convention, or its context. Even if GC IV were applicable to YeShA, it was never intended to prevent Jews from building there.
Article 2 of GC IV states: "The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of a High Contracting Party…"
The occupation of YeShA (the territories) by Jordan and Egypt, however, was never recognized – even by the Arabs. This part of the Convention, therefore, by its own requirements doesn't apply. At no time was "Palestine" a state, or a political entity.
Since the Oslo Agreements specifically mentioned that borders and settlements were to be negotiated at a later stage, there exists a legal basis, under international law, for the existence and expansion of settlements until otherwise determined by agreement between Israel and the PA.
Moshe Dann, a former asst professor of History (CUNY), is a journalist and writer living in Israel.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=29202
By Moshe Dann
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 18, 2007
For nearly four decades the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has carried on a relentless battle against the right of Jews to live in Yehuda, Shomron, and Aza (YeShA). Declaring all Jewish presence beyond the 1949 Armistice lines "illegal," they condemn Israel for violating the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV). Acting as judge and jury in secret deliberations, they decided that Israel was guilty. And, despite objections from distinguished international legal experts, the ICRC refused to consider any appeal. There's only one problem: they made up 'the law' to fit their politics.
Several years ago, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) joined this effort by declaring Israel's 'security barrier' and all Israeli settlements "illegal" because they were built beyond the boundaries of 1949 on "occupied Palestinian territory." That territory was never defined; it couldn’t, since there is no such entity. And their conclusions ignored the facts.
Divided between two terrorist organizations, Fatah and Hamas, the Palestinian Authority is not a state, nor does it comply with the recognized attributes of statehood. Defining "Palestine" as a single unit between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, most Arabs agree that Israel has no right to exist. "The Nakba" (Catastrophe) was not in 1967, but 1948.
The ICJ, which includes former ambassadors of Jordan and Egypt, didn't consider any Israeli arguments (according to one of its members); in fact, Israel refused to participate in the charade, knowing the outcome had already been determined.
In other words, unlike domestic law which is made by legislatures and administrative bodies, the ICJ's decisions, as international "law," reflected political bodies (like the UN), or NGO's (like the ICRC) who are accountable only to themselves and whose criteria for decision-making when it comes to Israel lack objectivity, impartiality, or careful evaluation. Yet, that became "the law."
Charges that Israel "occupies Palestinian land" and "settlements are illegal" feed the myth that 'Jews stole Arab lands' and that 'Palestinians were forced to pay the price for The Holocaust.' Such unwarranted condemnations of Israel are elements in the volatile chemistry of demonization; they delegitimize and dehumanize Jews as perpetrators of lies and the cause of others' suffering, justify terrorism and may even become a prelude to genocide. In a modern rendition of blood libel, if Jews are evil it justifies whatever is done to them.
Denying the legal and historical rights of Jews to live in their homeland and refusing to recognize Jewish rights of self-defense is not only bigoted and immoral; in the context of terrorism, it's lethal.
Occupation, in and of itself, moreover, is not "illegal." International law recognizes the right of any state to occupy territory of an aggressor in self-defense and to remain in control to protect itself and until its security is assured. Jewish claims, however, rest on other grounds.
The historical right of Jews to their homeland in the Land of Israel was recognized in international conventions and agreements, including the League of Nations and the United Nations. Those confirmations cannot be abrogated – by anyone.
The Jewish people did not occupy territory of a legitimate and recognized sovereign authority. In wars of self-defense, Israel occupied territory that had been controlled by the British (the Mandate) and/or conquered by the Jordanians and Egyptians (along with other Arab countries) who declared a genocidal war against Jews.
The Fourth Geneva Convention does not prohibit Jews from living in YeShA. It states:
"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand…
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
Israelis moved to YeShA voluntarily; no one was 'deported or transferred.' In fact, the Israeli government often resisted such settlement. Nevertheless, the ICRC and ICJ declared that Jewish communities in YeShA are violations of GC IV, adding their own conditions -- that any assistance given by the Israeli government was an indirect transfer. That ruling is not supported by the Convention, or its context. Even if GC IV were applicable to YeShA, it was never intended to prevent Jews from building there.
Article 2 of GC IV states: "The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of a High Contracting Party…"
The occupation of YeShA (the territories) by Jordan and Egypt, however, was never recognized – even by the Arabs. This part of the Convention, therefore, by its own requirements doesn't apply. At no time was "Palestine" a state, or a political entity.
Since the Oslo Agreements specifically mentioned that borders and settlements were to be negotiated at a later stage, there exists a legal basis, under international law, for the existence and expansion of settlements until otherwise determined by agreement between Israel and the PA.
Moshe Dann, a former asst professor of History (CUNY), is a journalist and writer living in Israel.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=29202
Selasa, 17 Juli 2007
To President Bush
Eli E. Hertz | July 17, 2007
I read with interest your remarks on the Middle East given on July 16, 2007 at the White House.
I appreciate your sincere commitment and devotion in promoting and advancing the creation of functional democracies and peace around the world - particularly your effort in the Middle East.
As one who devotes his time studying the Arab-Israeli conflict, and as a person of the Jewish race and religion, it became incumbent upon me to direct your attention to statements you made of which I found offending. Statements perceived as fact, but in reality are, in my humble opinion, misguided.
I would start with the notion that your administration will not 'do business' with terror organizations and those who call for the destruction of Israel, or at best, suggest to toss the "Jews to the sea."
This brings me to Fateh, the main faction of the PLO for whom Mahmoud Abbas is the driving force and was one of its founding members. This is the organization and leadership that the administration relies upon to bring functional democracy, freedom and peace to the region.
Mr. President, it takes little effort to learn what Fateh is all about. Its constitution calls under Article 12 for the "Complete liberation of Palestine, and obliteration of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence."
As for how it will achieve its goal to wipe Israel off the map, Fateh's constitution, Article 19, minces no words:
"Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated" [italic by author]
If this does not suffice, please review Abbas' words in a recent rally on January 11, 2007, to a crowd estimated at nearly 250,000 supporters. Abbas calls on Palestinians to refrain from internal fighting and to direct their guns only against Israeli "occupation."
He promises to "not give up one inch of land in Jerusalem" and he "considers the settlements illegal."
In his book, "the issue of the refugees is non-negotiable"
So as much for the partner.
And now to the "Occupation"
I notice with relief that you did not spell out who is the occupier and who is the occupant - just to make sure I will discuss the legal occupation under international law of Jewish settlers in the area known forever as Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.
In 1897 it was Benjamin Herzl, founder of modern Zionism who said: "Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvelous potency."
In 1917 it was Arthur James Balfour of Great Britain who declared:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object ..."
In 1922 it was Winston Churchill (your hero), British Secretary of State for the Colonies that declared:
Jews are in Palestine "as of right and not on sufferance ... When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride."
On July 24, 1922 it was fifty-one member countries - the entire League of Nations - that published the legally binding document "Mandate for Palestine" and unanimously declared:
"Recognition Has Been Given to the Historical Connection of the Jewish People with Palestine and to the Grounds for Reconstituting their National Home in that Country."
The "Mandate for Palestine," a historical League of Nations document laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, a 10,000-square-mile area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law and valid to this day.
On June 30, 1922 it was the joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States that unanimously endorsed the "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine - anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
"Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
"resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United State of America in congress assembled, That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected." [The resolution was incorporated in the 1937 Palestine Royal commission Report, Chapter II, page 31]
On September 21, 1922 it was Warren G. Harding, President of the United Sates of America who signed the joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
Mr. President, Palestine is a geographical area, not a nationality!
As a matter of fact there has never been a sovereign Arab state in Palestine. The artificiality of a Palestinian identity is reflected in the attitudes and actions of neighboring Arab nations who never established a Palestinian state themselves. Nor did the Arabs recognize or establish a Palestinian state during the two decades prior to the Six-Day War when the West Bank was under Jordanian control and the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control; nor did the Palestinian Arabs clamor for autonomy or independence during those years under Jordanian and Egyptian rule.
Mr. President - Jewish "continuing occupation" that you speak about, is legal and endorsed by international law.
The "Mandate for Palestine" document defined where Jews are and are not permitted to settle. Article 6 of the Mandate clearly states:
"The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."
The "Mandate for Palestine" document is the last legally binding document regarding the status of what is commonly called "the West Bank and Gaza." The September 16, 1922 memorandum (of the Mandate) is also the last modification of the official terms of the "Mandate" on record by the League of Nations or by its legal successor - the United Nations - in accordance with Article 27 of the "Mandate" that states unequivocally: "The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate."
Mr. President, political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed in three other mandates - in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. A forth Arab state east of the Jordan River - Trance-Jordan, came to fruition via the "Mandate for Palestine."
Mr. President:
300,000,000 Arabs in 21 'exclusive' Arab countries now occupy an area of 5,207,000 Square Miles, including all the principal Arab and Moslem centers.
6,000,000 Jews in 1 country now occupy an area of nearly 10,000 square miles [will fit into Lake Michigan with plenty of room left] in Palestine, and you Mr. President propose to reduce it even further.
This is an injustice and a grievous handicap to the continuous development and security of the Jewish State.
Thank you.
Eli E. Hertz
PO Box 941
Forest Hills, NY
718-544-8030
Sources:
The President speech: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070716-7.html
Commentary: This Land is My Land (Includes the "Mandate for Palestine" text at:
http://www.mythsandfacts.com/Conflict/mandate_for_palestine/Mandate_for_Palestine.pdf
A short presentation at:
http://www.mythsandfacts.com/Conflict/mandate_for_palestine/ThisLandIsMyLand.ppt
Mandate for Palestine, the legal aspects of Jewish Rights at:
http://www.mythsandfacts.com/Conflict/mandate_for_palestine/Mandate_for_Palestine.pdf
Mandate Document - British Archive.
Part One of Two Parts
What to Do Now About the Palestinian Authority?
Khaled Abu Toameh
Vol. 7, No. 10 12 July 2007
· Within a few months after Abbas came to power, Palestinians started realizing that he was not delivering. Instead of fighting corruption, he surrounded himself with the same Arafat cronies. There was a decrease of perhaps 30-40 percent in the level of corruption but an upsurge in internal violence.
· The January 2006 election that brought Hamas to power was mostly about: "Let's punish these Fatah thieves." Hamas was building schools and kindergartens and clinics, while the PLO was building a casino and villas for its leaders. I believe some 30-35 percent of the Palestinians who voted for Hamas did so as a vote of protest because they were unhappy with the way the Palestinian Authority was running the show.
· Let Mahmoud Abbas and the PLO and Fatah start rebuilding their institutions, reform themselves, get rid of the corruption, and come up with a new list of candidates. Then run in another free and democratic election and offer the Palestinians a better alternative to Hamas.
· The Palestinians do not need more guns and military training. If the U.S. has $86 million and wants to help the Palestinians, then help them build civil institutions, help them build freedom, educate them about good things. What's the point in taking 200 Presidential Guards to Jericho to train them? Who are they going to fight at the end of the day? In Gaza they were defeated.
· What should Israel do at this stage? Nothing. There is no one to deal with on a serious basis on the Palestinian side. Abbas doesn't even have control over his own Fatah militias. Israel should just sit and wait. Don't repeat the mistake of unilateralism, when Israel left Gaza to Hamas and Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda-affiliated groups.
· It is ironic that the West is supporting the guys who are suppressing the moderates and people who want democracy. The West is actually undermining its own goals.
When Abbas Took Over the PA
In the post-Arafat era there was a lot of hope among the Palestinians that the Palestinian Authority would become a better body. There was much talk of reforms and democracy, good governance, and an end to financial corruption. Mahmoud Abbas' 2005 election campaign was about ending financial corruption and building good institutions. Palestinians saw Abbas' agenda as aimed at repairing all the damage that Arafat had done.
Within a few months after Abbas came to power, however, Palestinians started realizing that he was not delivering. Instead of fighting corruption, Abbas surrounded himself with the same Arafat cronies. There was a certain decrease in the level of corruption, but it wasn't enough.
Instead of bringing democracy and restoring law and order in the Palestinian areas, there was an upsurge in internal violence in 2006. For the first time, the number of Palestinians killed in internal fighting was even higher than the number of Palestinians killed in fighting with the Israelis. If a judge can't issue an order because he's afraid or if a Palestinian security commander can't return a stolen bicycle, what kind of an authority is this?
Hamas Wins in Parliamentary Elections
In January 2006 - at the request of the United States, the Europeans, and the international community - there were parliamentary elections and Hamas decided to run for the first time. Hamas actually copied the platform of Mahmoud Abbas from a year earlier and promised the Palestinians reforms and democracy. Hamas' list was called Change and Reform, and Hamas fielded a very impressive list of candidates that included university professors, doctors, and engineers. If I were living in Gaza back then, I would have also voted for Hamas, not because I support suicide bombings and want to eliminate Israel, but because the January 2006 election was mostly about: "Let's punish these thieves." I know Christians, secular Palestinians, and PLO people who voted for Hamas because they were unhappy with the Palestinian Authority.
Palestinians felt they did not have much to lose by voting for Hamas. It is true that Hamas is a terrorist organization and a very dangerous ideological, religious, fanatic group. It's true that Hamas wants to destroy Israel. Yet when I go to the West Bank and Gaza, I and most Palestinians still see the other side of Hamas, providing a vast network of social, economic, education, and health services. I have seen Hamas doing what the Palestinian Authority should have been doing with the international aid. Hamas was building schools and kindergartens and clinics, while the PLO was building a casino and villas for its leaders. So this is one reason why Hamas won the hearts and minds of many people in the election campaign.
But not all of those who voted for Hamas did so as a protest vote. Of course Hamas has its own supporters, especially in Gaza. There are many who really believe in Hamas' ideology and that Israel can be eliminated. However, I believe that 30-35 percent of the Palestinians who voted for Hamas did so as a vote of protest against Fatah and the Palestinian Authority.
It is amazing that Condoleezza Rice did not see what any Palestinian child could see on the eve of the elections, namely, that Hamas was going to win. One day before the January 2006 election, I was asked by the Wall Street Journal to write a small op-ed about the elections and I wrote that the Palestinians were headed toward a regime change. Everyone here knew that Hamas was going to win.
So Hamas came to power and again there was some hope among the Palestinians. Maybe the Islamists would succeed where the secular PLO had failed? Maybe the Islamists would at least bring good governance?
Hamas Would Defeat Fatah If an Election Was Held Today
Yet the election created tensions between Fatah, who refused to give up power, and Hamas. I am confident that if we held another free and democratic election tomorrow in the Palestinian areas, Hamas would win again, and this time by a larger majority, because the man on the street is saying that no one gave Hamas a chance to rule. Besides, why should any Palestinian vote for the same Fatah people he voted out of office 18 months ago?
Immediately after the elections, the international community should have come to Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah and told them they lost the election because they are thieves, because their people don't trust them anymore, because they failed to deliver. Let them start rebuilding their institutions, reform themselves, get rid of the corruption, and come up with a new list of candidates. Then run in another free and democratic election and offer the Palestinians a better alternative to Hamas.
This remains the main issue for the Palestinians: reforms and good governance - even more than ending the occupation. There is a feeling that members of the Palestinian security forces are responsible for a lot of the anarchy and chaos on the Palestinian street and this also applies to Gaza.
What to Do Now About the Palestinian Authority?
Khaled Abu Toameh
Vol. 7, No. 10 12 July 2007
· Within a few months after Abbas came to power, Palestinians started realizing that he was not delivering. Instead of fighting corruption, he surrounded himself with the same Arafat cronies. There was a decrease of perhaps 30-40 percent in the level of corruption but an upsurge in internal violence.
· The January 2006 election that brought Hamas to power was mostly about: "Let's punish these Fatah thieves." Hamas was building schools and kindergartens and clinics, while the PLO was building a casino and villas for its leaders. I believe some 30-35 percent of the Palestinians who voted for Hamas did so as a vote of protest because they were unhappy with the way the Palestinian Authority was running the show.
· Let Mahmoud Abbas and the PLO and Fatah start rebuilding their institutions, reform themselves, get rid of the corruption, and come up with a new list of candidates. Then run in another free and democratic election and offer the Palestinians a better alternative to Hamas.
· The Palestinians do not need more guns and military training. If the U.S. has $86 million and wants to help the Palestinians, then help them build civil institutions, help them build freedom, educate them about good things. What's the point in taking 200 Presidential Guards to Jericho to train them? Who are they going to fight at the end of the day? In Gaza they were defeated.
· What should Israel do at this stage? Nothing. There is no one to deal with on a serious basis on the Palestinian side. Abbas doesn't even have control over his own Fatah militias. Israel should just sit and wait. Don't repeat the mistake of unilateralism, when Israel left Gaza to Hamas and Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda-affiliated groups.
· It is ironic that the West is supporting the guys who are suppressing the moderates and people who want democracy. The West is actually undermining its own goals.
When Abbas Took Over the PA
In the post-Arafat era there was a lot of hope among the Palestinians that the Palestinian Authority would become a better body. There was much talk of reforms and democracy, good governance, and an end to financial corruption. Mahmoud Abbas' 2005 election campaign was about ending financial corruption and building good institutions. Palestinians saw Abbas' agenda as aimed at repairing all the damage that Arafat had done.
Within a few months after Abbas came to power, however, Palestinians started realizing that he was not delivering. Instead of fighting corruption, Abbas surrounded himself with the same Arafat cronies. There was a certain decrease in the level of corruption, but it wasn't enough.
Instead of bringing democracy and restoring law and order in the Palestinian areas, there was an upsurge in internal violence in 2006. For the first time, the number of Palestinians killed in internal fighting was even higher than the number of Palestinians killed in fighting with the Israelis. If a judge can't issue an order because he's afraid or if a Palestinian security commander can't return a stolen bicycle, what kind of an authority is this?
Hamas Wins in Parliamentary Elections
In January 2006 - at the request of the United States, the Europeans, and the international community - there were parliamentary elections and Hamas decided to run for the first time. Hamas actually copied the platform of Mahmoud Abbas from a year earlier and promised the Palestinians reforms and democracy. Hamas' list was called Change and Reform, and Hamas fielded a very impressive list of candidates that included university professors, doctors, and engineers. If I were living in Gaza back then, I would have also voted for Hamas, not because I support suicide bombings and want to eliminate Israel, but because the January 2006 election was mostly about: "Let's punish these thieves." I know Christians, secular Palestinians, and PLO people who voted for Hamas because they were unhappy with the Palestinian Authority.
Palestinians felt they did not have much to lose by voting for Hamas. It is true that Hamas is a terrorist organization and a very dangerous ideological, religious, fanatic group. It's true that Hamas wants to destroy Israel. Yet when I go to the West Bank and Gaza, I and most Palestinians still see the other side of Hamas, providing a vast network of social, economic, education, and health services. I have seen Hamas doing what the Palestinian Authority should have been doing with the international aid. Hamas was building schools and kindergartens and clinics, while the PLO was building a casino and villas for its leaders. So this is one reason why Hamas won the hearts and minds of many people in the election campaign.
But not all of those who voted for Hamas did so as a protest vote. Of course Hamas has its own supporters, especially in Gaza. There are many who really believe in Hamas' ideology and that Israel can be eliminated. However, I believe that 30-35 percent of the Palestinians who voted for Hamas did so as a vote of protest against Fatah and the Palestinian Authority.
It is amazing that Condoleezza Rice did not see what any Palestinian child could see on the eve of the elections, namely, that Hamas was going to win. One day before the January 2006 election, I was asked by the Wall Street Journal to write a small op-ed about the elections and I wrote that the Palestinians were headed toward a regime change. Everyone here knew that Hamas was going to win.
So Hamas came to power and again there was some hope among the Palestinians. Maybe the Islamists would succeed where the secular PLO had failed? Maybe the Islamists would at least bring good governance?
Hamas Would Defeat Fatah If an Election Was Held Today
Yet the election created tensions between Fatah, who refused to give up power, and Hamas. I am confident that if we held another free and democratic election tomorrow in the Palestinian areas, Hamas would win again, and this time by a larger majority, because the man on the street is saying that no one gave Hamas a chance to rule. Besides, why should any Palestinian vote for the same Fatah people he voted out of office 18 months ago?
Immediately after the elections, the international community should have come to Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah and told them they lost the election because they are thieves, because their people don't trust them anymore, because they failed to deliver. Let them start rebuilding their institutions, reform themselves, get rid of the corruption, and come up with a new list of candidates. Then run in another free and democratic election and offer the Palestinians a better alternative to Hamas.
This remains the main issue for the Palestinians: reforms and good governance - even more than ending the occupation. There is a feeling that members of the Palestinian security forces are responsible for a lot of the anarchy and chaos on the Palestinian street and this also applies to Gaza.
Senin, 16 Juli 2007
The joke's on us
'It's all a joke. It's just a joke."
That's how the Palestinian terror commanders in Judea and Samaria explained the show they made of handing in their weapons to Fatah commander Mahmoud Abbas's official militias over the weekend.
"This is all a big joke," they told reporters while posing for pictures. "Abbas asked us to sign a declaration saying we won't attack Israel and so we are."
And why not? The Palestinian Authority Chairman agreed to pay them thousands of dollars in exchange for the photo opportunities. There is also the non-financial incentive. In exchange for their propaganda photos and their signatures on declarations not to engage in terror anymore, Israel has pledged to take these murderers off of its wanted list. So just for participating in a satire, these men get to walk without fear for the first time in years.
The deal between Prime Minister Olmert and Abbas claims that 178 members of Fatah's Aksa Martyrs' Brigades terror organization will hand in their weapons and pledge to stop being terrorists. From now on the only Palestinians in Judea and Samaria who will bear arms will be members of Abbas's "official" security forces. But since most of these men are already members of those official militias, and the rest are set to be commissioned in short order, the deal has no impact on any of them.
In anticipation of the formalization of the agreement at the Olmert-Abbas meeting Monday, the IDF ended its nightly raids in Judea and Samaria for the first time in five years. Those raids, in which thousands of terrorists were apprehended in their sleep and their networks disrupted, were the main reason that Israelis in Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv, Netanya and Hadera have been able to sleep in a modicum of safety for the past three years.
To read the rest of this article: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1184585439056&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
WARNING!!
Cell-Phones Bought En-Mass in Texas
America's Truth Forum
8 Middle Eastern people, both male and female, set about purchasing "pay as you go" cell phones en-mass, continuously throughout the day on Monday of this week. The same thing occurred again on Tuesday. An employee checked the sales on the item and it showed that just for Sunday through Tuesday they had purchased approximately 1170 cell phones in the amount of about $22,000. The Middle Easterners acted nervous when they made their purchases and never left the store moving straight for the exit, instead zig zagging their way out. They used shopping cards that had $300 on each and used tax-free cards. The 2 tax-free cards were under the business names of "Saat International" in Richardson Texas and "Wireless Supply" in Carrolton, Texas. Several of the employees noticed and wanted to call the police but the store manager got upset saying he wanted the sales for the store and that they "were not doing anything wrong." He did limit each person in the group to purchasing 2 phones at a time. In response to this limitation the Middle Easterners would buy 2 phones take them out to their car and come back to purchase more. They were driving a Ford Windstar LX, dark blue in color with Texas license plates. Although the FBI was contacted and a report was made, they indicated that although the activity was suspicious it was not an "illegal activity. The employees who rightly took action indicated that they wanted to remain anonymous for fear of being fired.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)