The Zionist Conspiracy |
|
|
A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews. 
|
Monday, December 29, 2003
Israeli Media Freedom The editorial in today's Beirut Daily Star states, in response to Israeli media criticism of the IDF's shooting of an Israeli trying to cut the security fence, as follows: "The utility of the Naamati incident goes beyond what it says about Israel’s media by underlining the impossibility of a similar controversy’s taking place in any Arab country. Apart from a too-common willingness to portray Israeli Jews as cartoon characters with large noses, the Arab journalist is also wary of criticizing his or her own government not because being called “traitors” might hurt one’s feelings but because being prosecuted and imprisoned can end a career and maybe a life." Thursday, December 25, 2003
Jewish Press Column My column in this week's Jewish Press is now online. Following is the column: Olmert, Demographics and the Right By Joseph Schick Much of the right-wing reaction to Ehud Olmert’s call for unilateral withdrawal has consisted of a barrage of personal attacks. Olmert has been called a political opportunist, a leftist, a fraud, a traitor to Likud’s ideology, and much worse. Meanwhile, the substance of his arguments has been largely ignored. The personal attacks on Olmert have been successful. According to polls, most Israelis believe that Olmert’s shift is motivated by politics, and that he is not trustworthy. Yet the same polls also indicate that a narrow majority supports Olmert’s unilateral withdrawal plan. The personal nature of the criticism toward Olmert, and the failure by most to offer a cogent response to his arguments, are unfortunately typical of the Right’s approach since Oslo, and a primary reason why the Left has been winning the battle of ideas. As a result, whereas a decade ago there was almost no support for a return to the 1967 borders even for full peace, today many Israelis who identify as centrist support radical concessions even without an end to the conflict. One example of the failed approach appeared in a recent column published in this newspaper, entitled “Debunking The Myth Of Yitzhak Rabin.” The column’s absurd premise was that “Rabin’s military record extends beyond incompetence.” While Rabin’s military achievements are beyond the scope of this column, the previous column failed to mention anything about the Six Day War, when Rabin was the IDF’s Chief of Staff, and distorted the performance of the Harel Brigade, which Rabin commanded in 1948. If there is a myth about Rabin that must be debunked, it is that the Clinton Plan, the Geneva Accord and similar ideas are somehow consistent with his legacy. Rabin’s decisions relating to Oslo were disastrous, but a month before his murder, he stated that Israel would permanently retain a united Jerusalem, the entire Jordan Valley, Gush Etzion, the settlements near Jerusalem, and settlement blocs encompassing other communities. With respect to Olmert, while he has not released a detailed plan, the general outlines he has presented suggest withdrawal from all of Gaza, outlying Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, and much of Judea and Samaria. He has said that “tens of thousands” of Jews would be evacuated from Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Olmert has also said that his plan “entails sizeable annexations to Israel.” Israel would retain the Old City of Jerusalem, Gush Etzion, the Jordan Valley, Western Samaria, the settlements near Jerusalem, and other settlement blocs. Olmert believes that Israel must withdraw from all areas with large Arab populations to maintain a Jewish majority within Israel’s borders. He views the precarious demographic balance as the most dangerous threat to Israel’s existence, and argues that his separation plan is necessary to eliminate that threat. According to Olmert, Palestinians will soon demand Israel’s replacement with a bi-national state, and gain international support, by saying they merely desire the right to vote. “The day they do that,” he says, “is that day we lose everything… The thought that the struggle against us will be headed by liberal Jewish organizations who shouldered the burden of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa scares me.” Israel’s demographic problems are real, and they render annexation of all of Judea and Samaria unrealistic. But Israel has not annexed any part of Judea, Samaria or Gaza, and thus Olmert’s fears are fallacious. If Palestinians say they only want the right to vote, Israel’s response should be that it fully supports that right – in the Palestinian Authority, which has jurisdiction over the Palestinians. While Olmert is right to express concern that Palestinians may call for one bi-national state, his suggestion that there would be any legitimacy to that demand is wildly off base. Olmert might respond that regardless of whether it would be legitimate, the international community, applying principles of democracy, would nevertheless accept the Palestinian position. After all, Israel is now seen as an occupier, even of territories governed by the PA. But in that case, Olmert’s unilateral separation plan would not stave off pressure for a bi-national state. While in Israel the focus would be on the withdrawal from most of the territories and the destruction of Jewish communities, everywhere else there would be fury at Israel for annexing (formally or de facto) significant portions of “Palestinian land.” Indeed, Olmert has admitted that the borders set by Israel would be rejected by the world. The Palestinians would reject the state given to them as non-viable, and demand full Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders to ensure “territorial contiguity.” The security fence separating the Palestinian areas from Israel’s new borders would be portrayed as an “apartheid wall,” with territories under Palestinian control compared to the Bantustans in South Africa. Furthermore, once Israel unilaterally withdraws, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians will flood into Judea, Samaria and Gaza, further altering the demographic balance in their favor. Demands for a bi-national state encompassing all of the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea would quickly follow. This is not to deny the existence of the demographic problem, or suggest that Israel should not consider steps to alleviate that problem or that any unilateral separation plan is unacceptable. Indeed, there may be reasons – demographics among them – for Israel to make certain unilateral moves during 2004, when President Bush is less likely to offend Jewish voters in key swing states by strongly opposing those steps. But there are no magical solutions to the challenges confronting Israel, which must be faced soberly and not rashly. In exaggerating the nature and extent of the demographic problem, and presenting a remedy that would not solve it, Ehud Olmert has contributed little to the goal of a large Jewish majority in a secure Israel. Wednesday, December 24, 2003
Jewish Week Letter This week's Jewish Week published my letter in response to Gary Rosenblatt's column last week: Gary Rosenblatt’s statement that the Maccabee war against secular Jews in the Chanukah story is “almost as if the haredim of Jerusalem today were to take up arms against the secular Jews of Tel Aviv, and much of Israel,” is shocking and deeply offensive. In fact, Chanukah was a war of liberation against the Greeks, who forbade Jews from practicing our religion. They banned Jewish observance — including Shabbat and circumcision — and desecrated the Temple. The “more assimilated brethren” to whom Rosenblatt refers were not secular humanists who wanted to be left alone to live a Hellenist pagan lifestyle. They actively aided and supported Antiochus in the existential Greek war against Judaism. In sharp contrast, the secular Jews of Tel Aviv — even the very anti-religious ones like Tommy Lapid — are not calling for a ban on Shabbat observance and supporting a brutal occupier of Israel, as our “more assimilated brethren” did at the time of Chanukah. Joseph Schick Forest Hills, N.Y. Tuesday, December 23, 2003
Guardian Compares Libya With Israel Typical trash from The Guardian, whose columnist, Peter Preston, asks why Israel should retain its nuclear weapons, as Libya is giving up its weapons of mass destruction. It is time, Preston writes, for "the confrontation we never seek with the nuclear power we - let alone Messrs Bush and Blair - seldom mention: Israel." Curiously, Preston does not suggest that Britain give up its weapons of mass destruction. Incidentally, Preston is also the person who supported suicide bombers, asking, "Are they - the inexhaustible legions of Hamas and Hizbullah - to be condemned for that?... "The IDF has its jets and tanks, weapons of conventional war built and used to kill. The Palestinians possess no such weaponry; they are completely outgunned and outclassed. No one - apart from Arabs bearing wan words - comes to their aid. But they have, nevertheless, found a weapon at last that the Israelis cannot counter. Suicide is their chosen tool, their howitzer of ultimate resort, clinically chosen." Egyptian: Israel Cannot Be Destroyed In today's Daily Star, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a Cairo intellectual, writes that Arabs must "realize that it is impossible to vanquish or annihilate Israel, regardless of the number of suicide bombings carried out by Palestinian militants." Friday, December 19, 2003
Sharon's Plan Many are already dismissing Sharon's speech yesterday as mere rhetoric. In fact, his plan will dominate the Israeli agenda in 2004. Sharon clearly intends to dismantle settlements in the coming year. Today's New York Times reported that as many as 22 settlements may be destroyed. Previous reports had indicated that Sharon would dismantle 17 settlements as part of the road map. The speech was typically devoid of details, and vague. Even as he said that some settlements would be "moved," Sharon spoke of "strengthening" Israel's control over Judea and Samaria areas it intends to retain in its permanent borders. But if Sharon is going to break the taboo on destroying settlements, then the taboo must also be broken on annexation. Vague terms such as "strengthening" areas Israel wants to keep are not sufficient. It is obvious what "moving" settlements means. Nobody, probably including Sharon, knows what the reference to "strengthening" other settlements means. Indeed, from the speech, it is not clear whether any territory would be formally annexed, and if not, what steps (if any) would be taken to further Israel's claim to parts of Judea and Samaria. If Sharon were to annex communities such as Maaleh Adumim and Givat Zeev to Jerusalem, tell the evacuated settlers that the country will provide them with housing in those areas, and tell the world that Israel no longer considers the annexed areas to be settlements but parts of Jerusalem - so that Israel will build houses there as it pleases, and build an extended fence that includes Ariel, the other Western Samaria towns and the Jordan Valley, the plan will provide benefits to Israel generally and to the settlement enterprise particularly. My sense, however, is that Sharon will dismantle settlements, but then back off from the "strengthening." National Union and the National Religious Party are both almost certain to leave the government and be replaced by Labor once settlements are destroyed. Labor and Shinui would oppose any plan to annex parts of Judea and Samaria. It is likely that Shaton wants to carry out the unilateral plan during an election year, since he knows Bush would not be able to express strong opposition without forfeiting his chance to gain Jewish votes in key swing states. While that makes sense, to implement his plan Sharon will have to stave off fury and strong pressure from his right, his left, and the international community. Sharon's previous actions as Prime Minister suggest that the Right will be left most disappointed. Wednesday, December 17, 2003
Stupid Column of the Week I usually wait until all three New York Jewish weeklies are released before granting the prestigious SCOTW award. This week, however, there is no reason to wait for the Forward. Gary Rosenblatt's Jewish Week column is the winner. The column's headline 'Why Modern Zionism Trumps The Maccabees,' is a sign of how off the wall it is. (While a columnist doesn't always get to choose his headline, it's safe to assume that Rosenblatt, the JW's editor, chose his.) Rosenblatt writes that what "troubles" him is that "the story of the Maccabees is taught universally in Jewish schools while so few young people know anything about modern Zionism." I happen to agree that modern Israel should be taught much more comprehensively in Jewish schools, though it certainly need not (and should not) be at the expense of Chanukah. The extent of how troubled Rosenblatt is becomes clear when he writes: "The truth is, the Maccabee story happened thousands of years ago and, while we focus on the stirring tale of the defeat of the invading Greeks, it is also about how a small group of Jewish religious zealots made war against their more assimilated brethren. In many ways it's an ugly story, resulting in a reign of Maccabee descendants in ancient Israel who brought no glory on their family name. "It's almost as if the haredim of Jerusalem today were to take up arms against the secular Jews of Tel Aviv, and much of Israel, and become the basis of a tale that would be taught to succeeding generations and a holiday that would be observed with great pride." Wow. If Rosenblatt would study just a little about Chanukah, he would discover that it was a war of liberation against the Greeks, who forbade Jews from practicing our religion. They banned Jewish observance - including of the Sabbath and circumcision - and desecrated the Temple. The "more assimilated brethren" to whom Rosenblatt refers were not exactly secular humanists who wanted to be left alone to live their Hellenist pagan lifestyle. They actively aided and supported Antiochus in the existential Greek war against Judaism. Rosenblatt's invective against charedim is sadly typical of his expressions of animosity toward the observant, whether charedi or not. His suggestion that Chanukah is "almost as if the haredim of Jerusalem today were to take up arms against the secular Jews of Tel Aviv, and much of Israel," is moronic and hateful. Clearly the secular Jews of Tel Aviv - even the very anti-religious Tommy Lapids - are not calling for a ban on Shabbat observance and supporting a brutal occupier of Israel, as our "more assimilated brethren" did at the time of Chanukah. Jewish Press Letters This week's Jewish Press has published five letters in response to my column last week. Below are the letters and my responses: 1. I found Joseph Schick`s article (Defending Israel's Right To Secure Borders, Dec. 12) to be a valuable historical lesson. But while few would deny the wording and intent of Resolution 242, the sad fact is that not a single American administration since 1948 has embraced the idea of a "greater Israel." At the risk of sounding heretical, Bill Clinton came closer than anyone. President Bush is not even a close second. And Mr. Schick does not offer anything to counter the apparent reality that the U.S., as far as Israel is concerned, is the only game in town. Sheldon Katz Miami, FL The column did not primarily relate to 242; the references to that Resolution evidenced the fact that Israel has a right to retain territory beyond the '67 borders. Furthermore, Mr. Katz's reference to "greater Israel" is not relevant to the column, since I was not arguing on behalf of Israeli annexation all of Judea and Samaria. There is clearly a large gap between Greater Israel and something like the Geneva Accord. As for my not offering "anything to counter the argument that the U.S. ... is the only game in town," I did not know any such argument was (or would be) made, so obviously did not counter it. The column did quote five U.S. secretaries of state, and two Presidents, recognizing the importance of the United States position. 2. Given the length of Joseph Schick`s article, it would have been nice if he spent a few lines focusing on the dilemma that has confronted every Israeli government: what to do with the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who live there. Perhaps the Pereses and Beilins of the world are more in touch with reality than the Schicks. Certainly they deserve better than to be portrayed as craven appeasers. Helene Hymowitz (Via E-Mail) The column touched upon the demographic issue in stating that Israel could annex 30 percent of Judea and Samaria without incorporating more than a small number of Palestinians within its borders. It is not my responsibility to focus on the demographic issue in an article relating to something entirely different. As for Hymowitz's statement that Peres and Beilin "deserve better than to be portrayed as craven appeasers," I have no idea how the article portrayed either of them in that way. Peres was not mentioned at all, Beilin was mentioned once, in passing, and the words appease, appeaser, or appeasement never appeared. I explained why the Geneva Accord is unacceptable, and Hymowitz can disagree if she wishes, but she has no right to criticize me for something that is not in the column. If, as is likely, her problem is with the Jewish Press generally, she shoud complain to, or about, the paper, not about me. 3. Joseph Schick is like many of us in the Jewish community. We seem to think that the world is the Jewish people writ large. It may surprise us that out there in the boonies, there is scant support for Israeli triumphalism even as there is support for Israel as a home for the Jews. We mix the two notions at our peril. Miles Glassman New York, NY This should be Protocols' Stupid Letter of the Week, though it probably won't be because without reading my column (and I don't know that the Elders did), one would not be aware of the extent of its stupidity. Never did I express anything resembling "Israeli triumphalism." Nor did I convey anything that could possibly be construed as a belief that "the world is the Jewish people writ large." Glassman was either referring to somebody else's column, or had three drinks too many at his company's holiday party. 4. At long last a carefully presented, cogent statement of Israel`s rights in Judea and Samaria. We should all now resolve to bring this message to Washington and our elected officials: We will not be misled by political and diplomatic chicanery. Thank you, Joseph Schick, for a well-researched, well-written article. I've waited for something like this for a long, long time and e-mailed it to several friends and relatives. David Perlmutter (Via E-Mail) Thanks very much, David. Like you, I also had a long wait - until the fourth letter for something complimentary. 5. Armed with Mr. Schick's vast arsenal of quotes taken straight from the mouths of so many diplomats, leaders and other notables, I already have forced several of my leftist friends to reconsider their cherished little myths. Articles like Mr. Schick's are what make The Jewish Press stand out. Carl Aptowitz (Via E-Mail) Hopefully Carl's letter won't get the Protocols award as a result of the last sentence. Anyway, Carl's "leftist friends" need not necessarily change their political affiliations. As I explained in great detail, permanent retention of an undivided Jerusalem, the entire Jordan Valley, Gush Etzion, and various settlement blocs is consistent with the policy of Prime Minister Rabin. Those with left-wing leanings should support territorial compromise along the lines of Labor's historical positions prior to 2000. Jewish Press This week's issue of The Jewish Press is out. On the cover and all of the back page is the excellent Geneva Accord/Tom Friedman piece by Steven Weiss of Protocols. Not something most Protocols readers would have expected in light of that blog's criticism of the JP, but it's good that Jewish Press readers will have a chance to read the piece. Speaking of Protocols, my column in last week's Jewish Press received five letters in this week's issue. (I will post a response to the letters after they appear online.) Perhaps one of them will be awarded Protocols' Stupid Letter Of The Week. That would be a thrill. Tuesday, December 16, 2003
Olmert and Friedman In Thursday's New York Times, Thomas Friedman wrote, "the biggest political fallout from the Iraq war has not been in the Arab world. It's been in Israel." According to Friedman, "by destroying Saddam's regime and the real strategic threat posed to Israel by Iraq, the Bush team has taken away one of the strongest security arguments from Israeli hawks: that Israel needs to keep the West Bank, or at least troops on the Jordan River, as a buffer in case Iraq again tries to come through Jordan to strike Israel, as it has done before." As a result, Friedman writes, Ehud Olmert now argues that "Israel should consider unilaterally dismantling settlements and withdrawing from most of the territories." Friedman is wrong that Israel no longer needs to retain the Jordan Valley, but he's entitled to his opinion. However, his use of Olmert as evidence of "political fallout" in Israel as a result of Saddam's fall is quite interesting. While Olmert still has offered few details on his plan - including in his speech today at the Herzilya Conference - he has indicated that any withdrawal would not pertain to the settlement blocs around Jerusalem, in Gush Etzion, or in Western Samaria (including Ariel). Olmert also envisions permanently retaining the Jordan Valley, which is almost entirely empty and can therefore be annexed to Israel without affecting the demographic balance. The entire premise of Friedman's column is therefore either illogical or dishonest. Friedman's point is that as a direct result of the war in Iraq, Israelis generally, and Olmert particularly, are calling for withdrawal from the territories, including the Jordan Valley. Yet Olmert would keep the Jordan Valley. Either Friedman is simply ignorant, in which case he should no longer be cited as a Middle East pundit, or he simply ignores the facts to advance his agenda. Monday, December 15, 2003
Powell's Prostate Two great posts here and here by Laurence Simon on Colin Powell's prostate cancer surgery. Powell's decision to have surgery is surprising, and in sharp contrast to his usual call for restraint against deadly cancers. As Simon writes: What? No Roadmap To Being Cancer-Free? No Genital Accords coming from the cancer-appeasing members of his family, worked out in secret with the insurance company without Colin's approval and then announced publicly? No parlay and negotiations between Colin and the cancerous tumors in his "disputed genital area?" (It's the holiest site of all of orgasm, you know) No continuous six-month waivers for acting upon the deadly tissue, re-upping the lease that the rapidly-spreading malignancy uses to gain a foothold upon the rest of Colin Powell's body? No blaming his own body's white blood cells and T-cells for fighting the cancerous insurgency while killing off the occasional "normal" cell? His cancerous prostate has been removed. However, it was removed after several hours of negotiations, during which the cancerous prostate refused to relinquish its "Right of Return" to Colin Powell's groin. The United Nations has overwhelmingly voted in favor of the Right Of Return of Colin Powell's cancerous prostate, and they have designated December 15th as International Solidarity With The Cancerous Cells in Colin Powell's Prostate Day. Despite extensive paperwork proving such a link exists, Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has denied funding clandestine attempts to reintroduce individual cancer cells into Colin Powell's body for "martyrdom operations" upon his remaining sexual organs. Concerns are high that several thousand prostate cancer cells (aka "Prostatestinians") managed to escape into Colin Powell's body to prepare an insurgency and "resistance operations." They may attempt to make bloody examples of innocent body tissue and cells to demand the rescinding of the "illegal transfer" of the cancerous prostate. Rachel Corrie's parents were on-hand in Walter Reed Hospital to show their solidarity for the cancerous prostate. Despite their professional and moral obligations, technicians in the Pathology Labs governing the disposal of medical waste are refusing to allow the cancerous prostate to be disposed of, instead demanding its return into Colin Powell and working hard to foster its malignant growth outside of his body. Thursday, December 11, 2003
Stupid Column of the Week After thorough consideration, it is with considerable reluctance that I announce that none of the columns appearing in the three major New York Jewish weeklies has earned this week's Stupid Column of the Week award. Several can be quibbled with, but they do not meet the rigorous standards that this blog demands. The challenge to JJ Goldberg, Jason Maoz and Gary Rosenblatt is to provide more suitable candidates next week. Wednesday, December 10, 2003
Thomas Friedman on Hardball Last night, Tom Friedman was Chris Matthews' guest on Hardball, and displayed his typical intellectual dishonesty. Friedman described the Geneva Accord and Ehud Olmert's call for a unilateral partial withdrawal as revolutionary, a sign that Israelis were fed up with Sharon. Friedman particularly attacked Sharon for including several settlements within the security fence (Friedman calls it a wall, even though only 5 percent of it is a wall). What Friedman did not mention is that Olmert expressed total opposition to Geneva and strongly criticized Colin Powell and the State Department for meeting Yossi Beilin. Olmert also supports the fence. According to Friedman, Israelis have decided that Sharon is a failure, because he has not implemented something similar to Geneva. Yet today's Haaretz published a survey in which 57 percent of Israelis answered that Sharon has not missed any opportunities for peace. The poll also shows that 69 percent view Sharon's policy toward the Palestinians as "too moderate" or "appropriate", 78 percent oppose the evacuation of West Bank settlements other than those which are "remote and isolated", and 61 percent oppose dividing Jerusalem. UPDATE - 12/11: Friedman's column this morning states that as a result of the Iraq war, Israelis are calling for unilateral withdrawal, even from the Jordan Valley. His proof? That Ehud Olmert called for a (partial) unilateral withdrawal. Just one problem, though: Olmert's motivation is the demographic issue, and he prefers to keep the Jordan Valley, which is virtually empty and therefore irrelevant to the demographics. An interview with Olmert is supposed to appear in tomorrow's Jerusalem Post. I'll then analyze the Friedman/Olmert issue in more detail. Comments For the second time, I'm adding comments. Here's why: Last month, when I strongly criticized Ben Shapiro's Jewish Press column about Yitzhak Rabin, I received a barrage of comments and questions via e-mail. Many of the e-mails were essentially identical. In this week's issue, the Jewish Press published a column I wrote. The column, with 55 links to quoted material, is also posted below. I will try to respond to every e-mail, but would greatly appreciate if general comments about the column (and my other posts) would be submitted on the blog, where it is much less time-consuming to respond. Therefore, I will follow the custom of Hasidic Rebel, on whose blog, "Emails may be used in postings except if specifically requested otherwise." Obviously, e-mails that include comments or questions that are in any way unrelated to a post won't be added to the comments, so don't hesitate to e-mail privately. Who's A Wahabi Now? Thomas Friedman has called Jewish residents of the territories, "Wahabi settlers." Yet, it appears that he has far more in common than they do with Wahabism, and not just because of his close relationship with Saudi Arabia's leaders. In an excellent Jewsweek article, Steven Weiss of Protocols reports that at the conclusion of an Israel Policy Forum reception in honor of the Geneva Accord, the following occurred: Harvey Schwartz, a Manhattan lawyer, greets Friedman and with a smile on his face tells him he learned two things from Friedman that night: That the columnist, "Supports drilling in ANWR," and is, "willing to sacrifice Israel on the altar of Iraq." Friedman yells "F**k you," hits the guy with his right hand, and then shoves him into a small crowd of people with their backs turned. Schwartz has a good foot and 100 pounds on the diminutive Friedman, but he went about three feet backwards from Friedman's push. Friedman turns around and sees me with my notebook and tape recorder. Deer in the headlights. Schwartz goes, "Did you get a picture of that?" Still under the lull of the truth is untrue/up is down nature of the event, I consider for a moment whether I'm a photographer. Friedman runs over to an IPF executive, the one who said he does "the most unbelievably insightful reporting ever," (sans an adjective) to tell on Schwartz. Like those wimpy nerds in grade school, he hits first, tattles second, screaming about "that asshole," who apparently is so mean that his innocuous comment deserves a whack. Finally, I have Friedman cornered. Can he answer some questions? "No, no." But I've got one question I think he'll have a cool answer to: What do you think your role is for the Geneva Accord? "I'm a journalist, I'm a columnist," he says and then runs away. Sure, he is those things, but only in the loosest sense: more, he's an actor, a trader, and a fighter. The man who spent the past few hours pronouncing how we need to see past the present, the rhetoric, and the attacks to achieve peace has just gone violent on some random guy. You couldn't ask for a more fitting ending. The entire Weiss piece is superb, and his left-wing political views did not stop Weiss from highlighting the absurdity of Geneva. UPDATE: Today's New York Sun has a front page report on the Friedman incident. Jewish Press Column Here's my Jewish Press column, including 55 links to quoted material. This is the version that I submitted to the paper; the published version might be (very) slightly different. Defending Israel’s Right to Secure Borders By Joseph Schick Following the Six Day War, UN Resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw “from territories occupied in the recent conflict,” while affirming Israel’s “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.” The principal authors of 242 were Eugene Rostow of the State Department, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Arthur Goldberg, and Lord Caradon of Britain. Lord Caradon explained, "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places where the soldiers of each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948.” Rostow wrote in The New Republic that Resolution 242 “allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until ‘a just and lasting peace in the Middle East’ is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces ‘from territories’ it occupied during the Six-Day War--not from ‘the’ territories nor from ‘all’ the territories, but from some of the territories.” Goldberg concurred, saying, “the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal." Unfortunately, in the last few years, the intent and meaning of 242 have been ignored, resulting in unfair demands on Israel to withdraw from all or nearly all of Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”) and to redivide Jerusalem. The Sharon government’s plan to include several large towns within the security fence have been sharply criticized by the Bush Administration, even though those areas were slated for annexation under the peace plans of Prime Ministers Rabin and Barak. Colin Powell has praised the Geneva Accord, which calls for Israel to withdraw from 98 percent of Judea and Samaria, with almost all settlements to be surrendered intact after a detailed inventory is taken, so that Palestinians could move right in and turn the synagogues into mosques. Geneva would divide Jerusalem, give Palestinians control over Jaffa Gate, the primary route to the Western Wall, relinquish control over the Temple Mount, the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb, and make international parties such as the UN and the EU the arbiters of any disputes. Israel would take in an undetermined number of refugees (there is no ceiling), and pay compensation to all refugees. These concessions go far beyond what the drafters of Resolution 242 contemplated. The prevailing trends are disturbing, but not necessarily irreversible. A determined media and public relations effort must be made to explain that withdrawal from Judea and Samaria would leave Israel with indefensible borders; that Israel has strong legal and historical rights to Judea and Samaria; that those territories were captured in a defensive war in which Arabs attempted to annihilate Israel; that Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are not located on Arab land; and that annexation of those communities would not displace Arab residents. An end to the demonizing of residents of Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria must also be demanded. Whatever one’s political position, the routine comparisons of “settlers” with Hamas terrorists is no less a Big Lie than were the blood libels in Christian Europe. The result has been a legitimization of the murder of Jewish civilians living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Until 2000, there was a bipartisan recognition in both Israel and the United States, shared by Likud and Labor, Republicans and Democrats, that Israel would not return to the 1967 borders, and would retain permanent control of a significant portion of Judea and Samaria. In 1968, President Johnson said, "a return to the situation of June 4, 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders." In 1982, President Reagan promised, "In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.” In 1991, the Bush Administration assured Prime Minister Shamir that the “United States does not intend to issue a call for a return to the 1967 borders or for only cosmetic changes in these borders.” Secretary of State Powell’s four most recent predecessors all expressed similar sentiments. George Shultz said, “Israel will never negotiate from, or return to, the lines of partition or to the 1967 borders.” When James Baker was asked whether Judea, Samaria and Gaza are “occupied Arab territories” or disputed territories, he responded, “They’re clearly disputed territories. That’s what resolutions 242 and 338 are all about.” Warren Christopher assured Prime Minister Netanyahu, “Israel is entitled to secure and defensible borders.” Madeleine Albright stated: “We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 as occupied Palestinian territory.” In contrast, Powell recently called the Green Line “a recognized border” and territories beyond it “Palestinian areas.” Among Israelis, there was almost unanimous agreement that secure borders require a united Jerusalem and annexation of the Jordan Valley along with a number of settlement blocs. Labor initiated settlement of the Jordan Valley and Gush Etzion, and the Allon Plan, under which Israel would keep about one-third of Judea and Samaria, guided its peace plans. In the early 1980's Yitzhak Rabin visited Lincoln Square Synagogue and urged congregants to move to the new community of Efrat that their rabbi, Shlomo Riskin, was founding. Even the Oslo Accords did not shatter this consensus. In October 1995, one month before he was murdered, Prime Minister Rabin told the Knesset that Israel’s permanent borders “will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 borders.” Rabin called for a “united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma’aleh Adumim and Givat Zeev,” and the annexation of the entire Jordan Valley, Gush Etzion (including Efrat) and of settlement blocs. Rabin opposed the formation of a Palestinian state, preferring a limited “entity which is less than a state.” Similarly, in a visit to Beit El, Ehud Barak promised that “Israelis will remain here in Beit El forever,” and that “a united Jerusalem must remain under full and unequivocal Israeli sovereignty… under no circumstances will we return to the 1967 lines.” After he was elected Prime Minister in 1999, Barak insisted that Israel could make peace while annexing towns such as Beit El, Ofra and Ariel. A June 4, 1999 Jerusalem Post editorial stated what then seemed obvious: “No mainstream Israeli leader, and certainly not Ehud Barak, can imagine Israel leaving the towns of Ariel, Ma’aleh Adumim, or Efrat.” On June 1, 2000, in a ceremony marking Jerusalem Day, Barak vowed: “Never again will Jerusalem be under foreign sovereignty. Only someone who has no sense of reality, who does not understand anything about Israel’s yearning and longing and the Jewish people’s historical connection for over 3,000 years would even consider making any concessions over the city.” Barak quickly broke his vow, first at Camp David, and again at Taba. In accepting the Clinton Plan, he agreed to divide Jerusalem and withdraw from the Jordan Valley and most of the communities in Judea and Samaria, including Beit El and Ofra. The IDF’s Chief of Staff, Shaul Mofaz (the current Defense Minister), blasted the Clinton Plan, telling Barak’s cabinet that it would expose Israel to “great danger,” would “threaten the security of the state,” was “almost out of the question from a security standpoint,” and would leave Jews remaining in Judea and Samaria in an “unbearable situation vis-à-vis the Palestinians.” Unfortunately, despite more than three years of terror, Israel’s right to secure borders has been mostly forgotten, proposals offering territorial concessions even more extreme than the Clinton Plan are gaining legitimacy, and the Sharon government’s attempts to include within the security fence areas that would have been annexed to Israel under the Clinton Plan have been strongly condemned. Worse, the Labor party has completely abandoned Rabin’s red lines, and set forth principles calling for a return to the 1967 borders, including dividing Jerusalem. In doing so, Labor is undermining implementation of a plan based upon Barak’s concessions, by opposing the inclusion within the fence of towns that Barak would have annexed. Tellingly, Barak rejects the Geneva Accord and has disavowed the Clinton Plan and Israel’s Taba concessions in favor of his less egregious Camp David proposals. Under Barak’s Camp David offer, Israel would have kept 8-10 percent of Judea and Samaria, and its concessions in Jerusalem applied to outlying Arab villages, but not to the Old City. During his short tenure as Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, Abu Mazen told Newsweek that President Bush “told us that he will stick to his vision of a Palestinian independent state and Israeli withdrawal to the ’67 borders.” Abu Mazen’s statement obviously cannot be verified, but the Bush Administration has endorsed the roadmap, which says nothing about secure borders and references the Saudi plan, which calls for a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines. Bush has opposed Israel’s desire to include the Western Samaria settlements (including Ariel) within the security fence, even though those settlements would have been annexed even under the Clinton Plan. The Clinton Plan called for settlements containing 80 percent of Judea and Samaria’s Jewish residents to be annexed, but without Ariel’s 18,000 residents, it would be impossible for that percentage of settlers to remain. As a recent Jerusalem Post editorial stated, “Bush should … be categorical that terrorism will not succeed in moving him to the left of Clinton, that is, by undermining the settlement blocs that even Clinton recognized must be annexed to Israel.” Powell’s support for the Geneva Accord, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz’s lauding of a similar plan, are causes for serious concern. Also disappointing is that when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld referred to Judea, Samaria and Gaza as “the so-called occupied territories,” the Bush Administration quickly clarified that Rumsfeld was speaking only for himself and that “occupied” is the Administration’s term for the territories. Despite the negative trends, some assume that Israel would never leave Ariel and Efrat, and give up Rachel’s Tomb and all of Hebron. This view is naïve; it is very possible that Yossi Beilin, the architect of Oslo, will persuade a future government to implement his Geneva Accord. Israel’s right to secure borders has especially been undermined by the media’s acceptance of the Palestinian narrative, according to which all of the territory captured in 1967 is occupied Arab land. By never formally claiming any part of Judea or Samaria, Israel has contributed to this presumption. The “settlers” are continually falsely labeled as colonialists who “unmistakably squat on land that was once Palestinian,” as Richard Cohen wrote in the Washington Post, and, particularly in Europe, as violent fanatics who scuttle prospects for peace. Little is being done in support of an accurate portrayal of settlements and their residents’ right to live peacefully within them. Proudly proclaiming that Barak offered almost all of the territories, as Israelis and their supporters often do, is the wrong approach. Alan Dershowitz tried it recently on CNN, telling Lou Dobbs that Barak offered 97 percent of the West Bank. Dobbs asked what right Israel has to the other three percent, and compared Israeli retention of even a tiny portion to rat poison, because “it's that 2 percent that gets you.” Netanyahu applied a better approach in a recent Washington Post column, explaining, “most of Judea and Samaria is barren and empty. The combined Palestinian and Jewish populations live on less than one-third of this territory. But the empty swaths of disputed land, comprising the heart of the Jewish ancestral homeland, are vital for Israel’s security.” Joshua Schwartz recently wrote in The Jerusalem Post that Swiss reporters came to his town of Efrat, the largest community in Gush Etzion, and asked his daughter, a Bar-Ilan student, how she feels living on “Arab land.” The young woman responded by informing the reporters of the history of Gush Etzion, where Jews lived from Biblical times until 1948, when Arabs looted and then completely destroyed all four settlements, massacring 240 men and women. On June 7, 1967, hours after the liberation of Jerusalem, Gush Etzion was liberated. “Thanks to my daughter,” Schwartz wrote, “what they did not know before – they know now.” Many dismiss the media as inherently hostile, and some of the media are. But in December 2001, MSNBC’s Gregg Jarrett (now of Fox) hosted a program live from Efrat. Jarrett’s tone was favorable toward the town and its residents. He quipped that Efrat looked like Palm Beach, and described the community as a “resettlement,” explaining to viewers that Jews lived in the area until 1948 and had returned to reestablish their presence. When the spotlight is not on “the occupation” but on the universal right to live in one’s home, the results are favorable. For example, in a poll commissioned by the ZOA asking whether Jews should be permitted to live and build homes in Judea and Samaria, more than 60 percent of Americans answered in the affirmative. The goal must therefore be to shift the focus from Arab claims of “occupation.” As a result of these claims, many people are under the erroneous impression that prior to Israel’s formation a Palestinian state existed. This myth must be destroyed. Contrary to what Richard Cohen wrote, Israelis do not "unmistakably squat on land that was once Palestinian." Palestinians never had a state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. It must be reiterated that Israel captured the disputed territories in a defensive war; that the PLO was founded for the purpose of destroying Israel in 1964, prior to that war; that Hamas leader Moussa Abu Marzook boasted on CBS’s 60 Minutes that Hamas’ Qassam rockets are able to hit Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem; that Israel must therefore maintain its presence in areas north of Jerusalem such as Beit El and Ofra and areas south of Jerusalem such as Efrat; that if Israel withdraws from Western Samaria, Qassams or shoulder-fired missiles could shoot down airplanes taking off or landing at Ben Gurion airport; that Israeli control of the Jordan Valley is vital, because if the Jordanian border is controlled by Palestinians, smuggling of weapons from Jordan will occur, just as massive smuggling has taken place at the Gaza-Egypt border; that there is a long Jewish history in Judea and Samaria; that Judea and Samaria are mostly empty; that Arab towns and people have not been displaced as a result of settlements; and that annexation of 30 percent of Judea and Samaria would leave only a small percentage of its Arab residents under Israeli rule. This is not a “right-wing” issue. Support for territorial compromise is consistent with Israel’s right to secure borders, beyond the indefensible ones it held in 1967. That right is under severe threat. It must be asserted. Tuesday, December 09, 2003
Concessions to Terror Yossi Klein Halevi and Michael Oren have an excellent column about the Geneva Accord in this week's New Republic. They point out that the Geneva Accord "denies Israel the means to defend itself by placing "Israel's security in the hands of a multinational force," including the UN and the EU, that "worshippers on their way to the Western Wall would have to pass through Palestinian territory," and that "there is no explicit renunciation of the right of return." The column also blasts the notion of rewarding terror by increasing the extent of territorial concessions following terror. They explain that Geneva would effectively force Israel back to the 1967 borders, while Israel offered 92 percent of Judea and Samaria at Camp David and 96 percent at Taba. Yet, disturbingly, Klein Halevi and Oren inadvertently appear open to giving in to terror. They write, "From our office window, we overlook Cafe Hillel, site of Jerusalem's last suicide bombing. No one needs to remind us that peace is worth painful sacrifices." Real peace is indeed worth painful sacrifices. But Cafe Hillel is not a reminder of that fact. It is a reminder that making concessions as a result of terror will inevitably lead only to more terror. In an otherwise fine article by two excellent writers, this fact was surprisingly lost. Sunday, December 07, 2003
Guardian and Anti-Semitism Julie Burchill has resigned as columnist for the (London) Guardian, and as a parting gift, leaves us with two gems. Both columns are worthwhile reads in their entirety; following are excerpts: In her column last week, Burchill wrote, "Not only do I admire the Guardian, I also find it fun to read, which in a way is more of a compliment. But if there is one issue that has made me feel less loyal to my newspaper over the past year, it has been what I, as a non-Jew, perceive to be a quite striking bias against the state of Israel... "I don't swallow the modern liberal line that anti-Zionism is entirely different from anti-semitism; the first good, the other bad... The fact that many Gentiles and Arabs are rabidly Judeophobic, while many others are as horrified by Judeophobia as by any other type of racism, makes me believe that anti-semitism/Zionism is not a political position (otherwise the right and the left, the PLO and the KKK, would not be able to unite so uniquely in their hatred), but about how an individual feels about himself." Yesterday Burchill published another column, picking up where she left off: "Make no mistake, the Jews are not hated because of Israel; they are hated for their very modernity, mobility, lust for life and love of knowledge. Their most basic toast, "L'chaim!" (To Life!), is a red rag to those who fetishise death because they have failed to take any joy from their life on earth." Avrum Burg: Kippah But Not Kosher Labor MK Avrum Burg has built his career by presenting himself as a religiously observant Jew with left-wing views. He always wears a kippah, and has claimed philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz to be his spiritual mentor. The Jerusalem Post reports, however, that while in Geneva for the reception honoring the Geneva Accord, "Although a table full of kosher food was provided, nearly all the Israeli delegation, including kippa-wearing MK Avraham Burg, ate the non-kosher delicacies at the Middle-Eastern themed meal." Burg's kippah, and the fact that his late father was Yosef Burg, a venerated leader of the National Religious Party, helped him achieve political prominence. It's difficult not to wonder if his claim to be observant has more to do with politics than with religious commitment. Friday, December 05, 2003
Maariv Report on Sharon Plan Apparently today's Maariv is reporting that Prime Minister Sharon plans to evacuate the Gaza settlements and some settlements in Judea and Samaria. At the same time, Israel would annex certain settlements, such as Maaleh Adumim and some of those in Gush Etzion. If Israel unilaterally withdraws from parts of the territories, annexation of some settlements would be an essential balance. Also in Maariv, a poll shows only 29% percent support for the Geneva Accord, though 59% of Israelis are not satisfied with Sharon's performance. Paul Wolfowitz An interesting column in the Beirut Daily Star mentions that at a recent question and answer session at Georgetown University, Wolfowitz revealed himself to be "probably the most pro-Palestinian member of the Bush administration." That column notes that Wolfowitz "frequently extemporizes on Israeli abuses, condemns settlements and the separation wall, and continues, seemingly unbidden, to voice support for grassroots initiatives such as the Geneva Initiative on Israeli-Palestinian peace that Sharon so angrily opposes." Tom Friedman on Charlie Rose Tom Friedman can't stand the fanatics who oppose the Geneva Accord. Except the Palestinian ones. Last night, on Charlie Rose's program, Friedman appeared with Professor Rashid Khalidi, Columbia University's Edward Said Professor of Middle East Studies, and chair of Columbia's Middle East Institute. Khalidi objected to Geneva because it did not make clear that the Palestinians have "a right to return," and because Israel did not take full responsibility for (in Khalidi's words) the dispossession of "three-quarters of a million" Palestinians, and the destruction of Palestinian society. Friedman listened to this, and not only did not object, but respectfully responded that Khalidi may have a point. Friedman also absurdly claimed that Prime Minister Sharon was elected (in two landslides) to carry out something like the Geneva Accord. He also stated that the four former Shin Bet heads who recently criticized Sharon "are definitely not doves." Really? One of them, Ami Ayalon, is pushing a plan similar to Geneva (though less detailed). Another, Carmi Gillon, has long advocated left-wing positions. While Friedman calls Jewish residents of the territories Wahabi terrorists, he has no difficulty with someone like Khalidi. As reported by the New York Sun, Khalidi supports the murder of Israeli soldiers. He also has dedicated a study to "those who gave their lives in defense of the cause of Palestine and the liberation of Lebanon," and referred to Israel as having an "apartheid system." He also has labeled Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz "a fanatical, extreme right-wing Zionist." Olmert's Yediot Interview In today's Yediot Ahronot, Ehud Olmert calls for a unilateral withdrawal from most of Judea and Samaria, and is reported to have conceded that the only difference between him and Labor is that he would keep Jerusalem united, and would feel pain at giving up most of Judea and Samaria. Olmert is a senior Likud minister in the Israeli government, and former mayor of Jerusalem. I took a look at Ynet in an effort to read the Olmert interview, but will wait until the piece is translated into English before posting an analysis. UPDATE: The Jerusalem Post now has an article about the Olmert interview. Olmert is quoted as saying that Israel can either withdraw to the 1967 borders, or unilaterally "define our borders that will in no way be similar to the Green Line." I'm still going to wait for the full interview or at at least a more detailed report before analyzing what this means. More Times Libel Apparently the Times will do anything to further the false impression of Prime Minister Sharon's government as being extremist. Today, an article about Colin Powell's meeting with Yossi Beilin matter-of-factly states, "top Israeli leaders denounced Mr. Beilin as a traitor and demanded that Mr. Powell not meet with him or other negotiators." (emphasis added) No "top Israeli leader" referred to Beilin as a traitor. The Times' claim is simply, and totally, false. Nor did Israel "demand" that Powell not meet with Beilin "or other negotiators." Ehud Olmert and Dore Gold asked Powell not to meet Beilin, and criticized the planning of such meeting, but there was never a demand by Israel of the U.S. Thursday, December 04, 2003
Stupid Column of the Week Take a look of Yossi Beilin's website, and the website of the radical leftist Shahar Movement, which Beilin heads. Each offers detailed arguments in defense of Beilin's positions. It behooves those of us who oppose Beilin to offer a cogent response. Yet in this week's Jewish Press, Steve Plaut launches a 2150 word front-page tirade against the Israeli "Left," whose members he describes as "evil" and as "motivated by hostility to Israel, animosity toward Jews, and classic self-hatred." While this might apply to a few on the extreme left-wing fringe, it is absurd and offensive to refer to hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Israelis in this manner. Is a typical Meretz or Labor voter - most of whom served in the IDF - really motivated by self-hatred of themselves and their country? Is it too difficult to understand why some Israelis, whether out of extreme naivete or desperation for peace, would support foolish policies that promise peace? Perhaps Plaut was only referring to a few hundred rabidly anti-Zionist Israeli professors and intellectuals who then influence many others, in which case he should have explained himself. The Israeli Left is winning the battle of ideas in large part because the Right has failed to engage in this battle. People like Yossi Beilin, Avrum Burg and Yossi Sarid, and their supporters, offer plenty of incitement against the Right (including their government), but also present a rationale for their positions. It's not enough to say that those positions are wrong. We also must counter them with our own. We must explain to those who consider support for dangerous ideas like the Geneva Accord why those ideas will not bring peace, but will assure disaster. Calling them evil traitors won't be a successful approach. To its credit, the Jewish Press also published a fine piece by Michael Oren and David Eisner praising Ariel Sharon and ridiculing the international community's condemnation of his government. Oren, incidentally, is the author of the fantastic book Six Days of War. Tuesday, December 02, 2003
Times Grossly Misrepresents Geneva Accord Today's Times misrepresents the Geneva Accord to a shocking extent. A short article headlined 'What Each Side Would Agree To' lists the "highlights." My corrections and clarifications appear in italics below each item: A DEMILITARIZED PALESTINIAN STATE would be created and Jerusalem would split into two capitals. In fact, Palestine would be allowed to have weapons as "specified in Annex X." References to Annex X appear throughout the Geneva Accord, but Annex X has not been completed or published. In any event, any proposed changes to Annex X are to be considered by a Multinational Force. If no agreement is reached regarding changes to the weapons Palestine may possess, a group comprised of the U.S., Russian, the EU, the UN "may make its own recommendations." ISRAEL would withdraw to the borders existing before the 1967 war. Some major settlements would be dismantled, although 75 percent of Jewish settlers would stay in Palestinian territories under Israeli protection. The Times' reference to settlers staying in "Palestinian territories" is completely wrong, since these areas would be annexed to Israel and would not be under "Israeli protection" but under Israeli sovereignty. Further, the 75 percent number is inaccurate, as it includes Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem that are not considered "settlements." Of the residents of settlements in the West Bank, only about half would be allowed to remain, with the other half forced to evacuate. All Gaza settlements would be evacuated. ISRAEL would give up parts of the Negev adjacent to its border with the Gaza Strip. Israel would indeed exchange parts of the Negev for several large settlements. PALESTINIANS would waive the right of about 3.6 million people whose families became refugees in the 1948-49 Arab-Israeli war to return to what is now Israel. The Palestinians do not have any right to return to Israel, so the Times' statement that they "would waive the right... to return to what is now Israel" is nonsensical. Furthermore, nowhere in the Geneva Accord do Palestinians concede that refugees cannot "return" to Israel. This issue is in fact left vague, and Palestinians are already insisting that Geneva recognizes a right of return. Israel also is required to pay compensation to refugees "for their refugeehood and for loss of property" and "remuneration" to "states that have hosted Palestinian refugees." In other words, Israel would accept responsibility for the refugee problem, which resulted from Israel's failure to lose its 1948 War of Independence, which started when Israel was invaded by five Arab countries. The amount of compensation to refugees would be determined by "a Panel of Experts" to be appointed by an "International Commission" comprised of the UN, the U.S., the refugee's Arab host countries, the EU, Switzerland, Canada, Norway, Japan, the World Bank, and Russian ISRAEL would cede sovereignty over a flash point shrine in Jerusalem's walled old city known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary. The site would get international monitors. Israel would retain control of the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest site. The Temple Mount is Judaism's holiest site, not the Western Wall. While the Western Wall is slated to be under Israeli sovereignty, the Palestinians have said that this will apply only to the Wall itself, not to the surrounding area around the Wall. PALESTINIANS would disarm, recognize Israel as a Jewish state and end violence and incitement against Israel. The Palestinians will not "recognize Israel as a Jewish state." Rather, they would recognize "the right of the Jewish people to statehood." Both Israel and Palestine would make "comprehensive and continuous efforts against all aspects of violence and terrorism." Similarly, with respect to incitement, both Israel and Palestine would be required to "promulgate laws to prevent incitement," implying that Israel incites and commits terrorist acts against Palestinians. Monday, December 01, 2003
Beilin's Times Op-ed In today's Times, Yossi Beilin and Yasir Abed Rabbo published an op-ed about the Geneva Accord, of which they were the principal negotiators. The column states that: "The document is complicated and thus difficult to summarize, but its central idea is that in exchange for peace with Israel, the Palestinians would at last gain a nonmilitarized state. The Palestinians would also get sovereignty over the Temple Mount, though Jewish access to the holy spot would be guaranteed by an international security force. In addition, Israel would have the opportunity to keep some West Bank settlements, including many of the new Jewish communities constructed on the Arab side of Jerusalem." Amazingly, the op-ed fails to mention how the refugee issue is resolved. The reason for this is that while Beilin claims the Palestinians have conceded on that essential issue, Abed Rabbo insists that Israel actually recognized the Palestinian "right of return." In the op-ed, the solution was apparently to simply ignore the issue. | "
