Doc's Talk: Syrian FM: There's no need to amend Arab peace initiative

Thursday, May 07, 2009

Syrian FM: There's no need to amend Arab peace initiative

Associated Press , THE JERUSALEM POST
Syria's foreign minister on Thursday rejected amending an Arab peace offer to Israel to make it more acceptable to Jerusalem, saying there's no justification for making another concession.
Arab diplomats have said that the US has asked Arab nations to amend the 2002 land-for-peace proposal as part of a new approach to peacemaking.

Jordan's king Abdullah II said Wednesday a new "combined approach" currently under discussion with the US would have Israel, Syria, Lebanon and other nations sitting down together to try to resolve the Middle East conflict.

The idea is the latest indication that the Obama administration is trying to build on the shared interest of its Arab allies and Israel in blunting the threat from Iran.

"It is not possible to amend the Arab peace initiative. ... I don't see any justification for amending this initiative," Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem told a news conference with the foreign ministers of Finland and Estonia.

Moallem said he did not wish to comment on Abdullah's statement, but added: "Is it logical that with every new Israeli government that Arabs would concede and put forth a new plan and new concessions under the slogan of a comprehensive plan?"

The Arab peace initiative offers Israel collective Arab recognition, peace and normal relations in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from territory it conquered in the 1967 Six Day War, the establishment of a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital and a just solution to the issue of Palestinian refugees.

Israel initially rejected the initiative when it was first proposed by Saudi Arabia in 2002. It was relaunched at a 2007 Arab summit, and in the past year, Israel has said the initiative could be a starting point for discussions.

The proposal's author, Saudi King Abdullah, warned earlier this year after the IDF's offensive in Gaza that the offer could not remain on the table indefinitely.

Syria has gone further, with President Bashar Assad at one point saying the peace plan should no longer be offered.

Arab diplomats said this week that the US had asked the 22-member Arab League to amend a 2002 peace initiative to make it more palatable to Israel. Several, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media, said the Americans are asking the Arab nations to drop the Palestinians' right of return and agree to either resettle the refugees in the host countries or in the Palestinian territories.

Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa has rejected that suggestion.

Moallem also spoke before meeting two US envoys in Damascus for talks expected to largely focus on repairing US-Syrian relations.

The top US diplomat for the Middle East, Jeffrey Feltman, and National Security Council member Daniel Shapiro are in Damascus for the second time since March, signaling the Obama administration's efforts to explore ways to improve relations with a country Washington has criticized as a state sponsor of terrorism.

"I have to see what he's bringing," Moallem said. "I don't want to prejudge things before meeting with him. We are still in the process of testing the American intentions toward Syria."

Syria's ambassador to Washington, Imad Mustafa, on Wednesday called Syrian-US relations "positive and constructive."

He told The Associated Press the discussions aim "to further consolidate the common denominators between the two sides."

The US withdrew its ambassador to Syria in 2005 to protest Syrian actions in neighboring Lebanon. Washington has criticized Syria for supporting Islamic terror groups such as Hamas and Hizbullah. The US has also accused Syria of not doing enough to stop the infiltration of terrorists to fight US and allied forces in neighboring Iraq.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710893492&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Comment: Of course this is the reaction to our Israeli position.This is not a new technique used by the Arabs in negotiationg laws, business deals or agreements of any kind. If you understand the culture and realize they know who they have to deal with now, this is predictable. They want to see, to challenge the Obama "new positions" in the ME by taking this stand against no adjustment in the Saudi plan. A plan that is a non-starter here in Israel-and all the Arab countries know this. However, there is a belief, based upon previous Obama behbavior, that they, the Arabs now have not only a friend in Washington DC, but also an advocate. Let us watch the push back, if any from DC. Certainly the Israelis will walk a tyight rope, for now, trying to not upset Obama and his gang. Watch for an increase in such rhetoric from multiple Arab states prior to May 18-all designed to isolate Israel. This is not about fairness, never was and never will be. It is about politics and who gets what for whom! We, Israel, are a tiny speck on this planet and are standing up to the evil now morphing across the planet-never again!!

2 comments:

George said...: I have spent the better part of a whole evening reading all of your articles and for what it is worth, at least you arent afraid to direct your anger at the person (Obama) that is finally going to end this whole mess. I consider myself a centrist in all this and I believe the Jewish people have a right to a homeland inside the 67 borders and without a doubt the right to protect themselves. I would imagine all of this anger is in response to the fact that you and many jewish people are probably kicking yourselves for not unilaterally withdrawing to borders you found acceptable when you had a much better friend in the White House. Instead, this dream of a greater Israel will now come to an end because of senseless greed. You are about to find that Obama is going to take alot more than you ever imagined.; 5:25 AM
GS Don Morris, Ph.D./Chana Givon said...: George,
thank you for taking time to read my blog. Interesting how you perceive words-anger-no-analysis that is contrary to your position-yes.I find it interesting that every time I or others with my concept of fairness addresses these kinds of ME issues and they are contrary to your point of view, you word smith our responses with emotional descriptors, doing your best to invalidate points/positions taken which in turn makes you the "guiding light" of reason. Let's take a critical analysis of just one point you attempted to make in your response-you are aware that the "1967 borders" do not exist-these were not then nor are they now "borders"-if you know your history you would know this and if you know your history this is the worn out strategy of misrepresenting facts. Your disingenuous remark regarding our right to protect ourselves is another example of your lack of understanding the "defense issue" while appearing that you are a "caring centrist".You are correct with one item, Obama is going to "take" and this blog shall be a constant voice opposing any plan that places Israel's security at risk. Your concept of greed as used in your reply is not demonstrative of a centrist position-all the more the pity is you believe it so.; 7:14 AM

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk