Peace Plans and Palestinian Politics

Rick Richman
Contentions/Commentary
10 March '10

Writing in the widely circulated Israeli newspaper Yisrael Hayom (“Israel Today”), Israeli journalist Dan Margalit reviews the prospects for the new peace process. The article is in Hebrew, but is summarized by the Israel Foreign Ministry:

The author recalls that in 2000, at Camp David, “Ehud Barak agreed to discuss the division of Jerusalem and the Palestinians fled the negotiations,” and adds that “In 2009, Ehud Olmert even offered to soften on the principle against ‘the right of return’ and again they fled.” The paper speculates that “In the current round, Israel is in a more complex position. Benjamin Netanyahu cannot offer Abu Mazen what came up in Ehud Olmert’s plan and if Ramallah rejected the previous move, what will it accept now?” The author notes that the Palestinians will, apparently, proffer a plan of their own in the hope that an Israeli rejection will draw the Obama administration to their side.

Presenting a plan they know Israel will not accept — to generate a condemnation of Israel for not accepting it – would be, in the weird world of the peace process, a step forward: at least the Palestinians would be proffering a plan. The last three times Israel offered the Palestinians a state – at Camp David, in the Clinton Parameters, and in the Olmert offer – the Palestinians rejected the offer without making a counterproposal.

If the process plays out as Margalit predicts, here is one way to determine the seriousness of the Palestinians’ plan: will they release it to their public before July 17? July 17 is the date set for local elections in the West Bank – coincidentally (or maybe not) a week after the four-month period the Palestinians have set for the new indirect talks.

(Read full post)
.

Dan Margalit vs. Jamal Zahalka

Sheikh Munis?

31 December 09
Erev Hadash 17:30

(IsraelNN.com) A rancorous TV interview last week with an Arab Knesset Member that revealed his apparent desires to conquer Tel Aviv continues to make waves. Arutz Sheva's Hebrew site entitled its article on the topic, "The Israeli interviewer who did not forget that he is Jewish."

The broadcast occurred on Thursday night, on the Erev Chadash (New Evening) program hosted by veteran broadcaster Dan Margalit and his younger co-host Ronen Bergman, and broadcast on Channel 1 and 23. Arab MK Jamal Zehalka (Balad) was their guest, and the discussion centered around that morning’s Arab protest against Israel. One Arab MK at the protest, Taleb A-Sana, used his cell phone to broadcast a live address to the rally by Hamas terrorist chief executive Ismail Haniye. Zehalka, for his part, said that Defense Minister Ehud Barak likes to listen to classical music and kill children, comparing him to a Nazi.

Zehalka told his interviewers that there is a “lack of knowledge among Israelis about the terrible situation in Gaza, and there is nothing wrong with Haniye expressing his opinion to the Israeli public.”

Bergman said, “He is the head of a terrorist organization that is at war with Israel, and you give him a platform to speak. You don’t see how this is perceived here?” Zehalka responded that it was good for Haniye’s voice to be heard. At this point, Margalit said, “I don’t think there is such a humanitarian crisis in Gaza as you think there is, though that’s not the point--”

Zehalka: “I can bring you examples from the UN report.”

Margalit: “Come on, who believes the UN? The UN is an arm of - look at the Goldstone report.”

Zehalka: “OK, so you believe the Israeli generals?”

Margalit: “I don’t have to believe anyone. I was in Sderot myself for three years and I saw the Kassam rockets that came flying over there, courtesy of Haniye and his friends, well before Israel carried out any military campaign. So come on. But that’s not the point; the point is that Hamas is an enemy, and you, as Knesset Members, apparently couldn’t care less…

Bergman: “Why don’t you protest against Egypt? If they would open their blockade of Gaza in Rafiach, there would be no humanitarian crisis there!”

Subtitled video begins here ....

.

Until the very last Jew

Moshe Feiglin
Manhigut
03 Tevet 5770
20 December 09

"It is important to understand," I said to television interviewer Dan Margalit, "I am just the canary in the coal mine. More politicians will be receiving this letter." That television interview took place close to two years ago. I was reminded of it last week when Tzippy Livni had a close brush with arrest in England. I had the dubious distinction of being the first Israeli politician since Menachem Begin to be classified as a persona non grata by her majesty's government. The only other Israelis to receive this classification have been IDF officers whose war against Arab terror has turned them into war criminals in British eyes.

I had the privilege to be inducted into this exclusive club because of an article that I had written years ago. The article included a sentence that read "The Arab is not the son of the desert, but rather, its father." Interestingly, this sentence was penned by none other than the first British Commissioner of Sinai, Sir Claude Jarvis, in 1938 in his book, The Desert Yesterday and Today. In other words, my entry to Britain was forbidden because I quoted an important British official. No matter. What is clear is that the British, who allow terror chiefs to enter England and lecture as they please, have bowed before the Islamic offensive that has conquered their land - and they do not like people who remind them to whom they have surrendered.

As Divine Providence would have it, Israel's Foreign Minister at the time that I was barred from England was Tzippy Livni. Livni was no longer a member of the Likud and had completely abandoned the ideology of her patriotic parents, but it would still have been reasonable to expect that an official letter such as the one I, an Israeli citizen, received from the British government would draw some sort of response from the Foreign Ministry.

There is no dearth of professors and politicians in England who attack Israel as a matter of course. Livni could have announced to her majesty's government that if it would continue to interfere with the freedom of expression of Israel's citizens, Israel would also bar a long list of publicists and professors from entering its own gates. At the time I didn't ask Livni to fight my cause. But if she had done her job, she wouldn't have to fight her own cause today. Now Livni finds herself – perish the thought – in the same boat as Moshe Feiglin.

(Read full article)
.