Showing posts with label peace agreement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label peace agreement. Show all posts

Friday, July 5, 2019

Mossad head to push comprehensive peace agreement? - by Dr. Aaron Lerner

The Mossad's ultimate goal is insuring the survival of the State of Israel. Regional understanding could most definitely contribute to achieving this goal. But truly pushing for a "comprehensive peace agreement" is more likely to contribute to instability in the region to the detriment of Israel. If that's Yossi Cohen's goal I suggest he joins a political party and leave his organization out of this.

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Weekly Commentary..
03 July '19..
Link: http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=73533

Mossad head Yossi Cohen told the Herzliya Conference this week that "the Mossad sees a rare opportunity to reach a regional understanding that would lead to a comprehensive peace agreement" and that "It’s the Mossad's role to lead this effort.”

Let's be clear about the situation.

We share a common enemy with many of our Sunni neighbors.

And these neighbors are willing to collaborate with us in facing the challenges created by our common enemy.

Beyond that, rhetoric notwithstanding, our neighbors share other interests with us that are of greater importance or interest than the Palestinian cause is to them.

So this most certainly creates opportunities for both clandestine and open relations and cooperation.

Monday, July 22, 2013

(+Video) Peace treaty? This is the example, this is the model.

...All this never would have happened through Hamas' impulsive adventure, but only through the wisdom of the leadership, conscious action, consideration, and walking the right path, which leads to achievement, exactly like the Prophet [Muhammad] did in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, even though some opposed it...

Palestinian Media Watch..
Palwatch.org..
22 July '13..

PA Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash delivers his Friday sermon in the presence of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas:

"We hate war. We don't want war. We don't want bloodshed, not for ourselves, nor for others. We want peace. We say this because our culture is founded on this, and because our religion is based on this. Yes, we want peace, but not any peace. We want a peace based on justice, therefore the Palestinian leadership and the PLO have not missed any opportunity for peace...



The Palestinian leadership's sense of responsibility towards its nation made it take political steps about 20 years ago (i.e., signing the Oslo Accords). Despite the controversy, despite much criticism and much opposition by some, it brought us to where we are today: We have a [Palestinian] Authority and the world recognizes the [Palestinian] state.

All this never would have happened through Hamas' impulsive adventure, but only through the wisdom of the leadership, conscious action, consideration, and walking the right path, which leads to achievement, exactly like the Prophet [Muhammad] did in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, even though some opposed it...

The hearts of the Prophet's companions burned with anger and fury. The Prophet said: 'I'm the Messenger of Allah and I will not disobey Him.' This is not disobedience, it is politics. This is crisis management, situation management, conflict management...

Allah called this treaty a clear victory...

Omar ibn Al-Khattab said: 'Messenger of Allah, is this a victory? Is this logical? Is this victory? We are giving up and going back, and not entering Mecca. Is that a victory?' The Prophet said: 'Yes, it is a victory.'
In less than two years, the Prophet returned and based on this treaty, he conquered Mecca. This is the example, this is the model."

[Official Palestinian Authority TV, July 19, 2013]

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q86jQX6GJKA

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook.
.

Friday, May 3, 2013

The consistent inconsistencies of the narrative of referendum opponents

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Weekly Commentary..
02 May '13..

Let's set aside the small minority of Israelis who genuinely oppose requiring a referendum to approve any deal cut with the Palestinians because it doesn't jibe with their concept of how Israel's democratic system of governance should function.

The overwhelming majority of opponents of a national referendum assert that requiring the approval of a national referendum would kill the chances of ever completing a deal with the Palestinians.

Yet these very same people are constantly proclaiming that the majority of Israelis support the "two state solution" and that "everyone knows" what the elements of the "solution" are.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

International promises? A chimera that Israelis no longer will rely on.

Evelyn Gordon..
JINSA Fellow..
09 January '13..

In an interview with The Jerusalem Post last month, Czech Ambassador to Israel Tomas Pojar was asked to comment on recent remarks by Israel's then-foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, who compared European countries' oft-proclaimed commitment to Israel's security to their commitments to Czechoslovakia in the 1930s. Pojar replied, correctly, that the parallel isn't exact; there are many differences between Israel's situation today and Czechoslovakia's in 1938.

Nevertheless, Pojar warned, there is one important similarity: "There are parallels about how much guarantees you can get from outside, and how much you should rely on them."

Judging by the results of a new poll conducted by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs in late November, it seems the Israeli public has internalized this warning. When asked how the country could best ensure its security, 61 percent of Jewish Israelis (and 52 percent of all Israelis) said that defensible borders were preferable to a peace treaty - i.e., a document enshrining commitments by another country or countries. Just 26 percent preferred a peace treaty. This constitutes a noticeable shift from 2005, when only 49 percent preferred defensible borders.

Moreover, they don't believe the world's preferred formula for an Israeli-Palestinian deal - the 1967 lines with "minor adjustments" - provides such borders: Fully 72 percent said Israel should not agree to such a deal, even if Palestinians agreed to declare an end to the conflict in exchange, and 73 percent opposed ceding the Jordan Valley in particular. That's a logical corollary of the fact that they don't believe the risks of doing so could be mitigated by stationing international forces there, as various peace plans have proposed: Only 16 percent said Israel could trust international forces to ensure its security; 78 percent said security had to remain in the hands of the Israel Defense Forces.

In part, of course, this emphasis on self-reliance stems from overwhelming skepticism about Palestinians' willingness to make peace with Israel: Fully 83 percent of Israeli Jewish respondents thought that even withdrawing to the 1967 lines wouldn't actually end the conflict (most polls aren't quite so lopsided, but all have shown a majority of Israeli Jews holding this view for years).

But it also reflects the lessons Israelis have learned - or relearned - in recent years about the value of international guarantees.

Friday, April 15, 2011

Obama Administration: When Peace Treaty Fails, Its Time to Sign Another One

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
14 April '11

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/04/obama-administration-when-peace-treaty.html

It's very difficult to overstate the illogical nature of Obama Administration Middle East policy. Here's a small example.

Israel made a peace treaty with the government of Egypt. The government of Egypt has now been overthrown. All the political forces in the country now openly talk about unilaterally revising or throwing out that peace treaty. The "moderate" candidate for president said that if Israel attacked the Gaza Strip (after being attacked from the Gaza Strip of course) Egypt should go to war with Israel.

SO the Obama Administration concludes that Israel must rush to make a deal with another government (which doesn't even control half the territory that it claims to represent) that might be overthrown and...

Well, you get the picture. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration doesn't.

Add to this:

--Israel's other peace treaty is with Jordan. And while that regime probably won't fall (and if it did its successor would definitely tear up the peace treaty) it is facing a bigger possibility of being overthrown than at any time in 40 years.

--Israel's other main agreement was to end the war with Hizballah in 2006. At that time, the U.S. government guaranteed and the UN promised to have a force to keep Hizballah from returning to southern Lebanon. Now, Hizballah has more weapons than ever and a recently released Israeli map of Hizballah's military positions in Lebanon shows dozens of them, more than in 2006.

So are these the people and this is the advice to be followed?

The funny thing is that I doubt you could see the chain of reasoning above even mentioned anywhere in the Western mass media.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

From Israel: Telling It Straight

Arlene Kushner
Arlene from Israel
15 February '11




Enough, a part of my brain keeps telling me. Take a rest from the writing. And yet I find myself compelled, again and again, to make points that must be made.

What I'm seeing in too many quarters is a simplistic rejoicing at what has happened in Egypt, for --according to those who rejoice -- we're witnessing a new day, with the flowering of democracy. The people have spoken.

Coupled with this is criticism -- both implicit and overt -- of Israel for being the "spoil sport." Why are we not joining the celebration? Why are we so stuck in our old thinking, and so negative?

And it's not just that old Israel-basher Tom Friedman, either.

~~~~~~~~~~

Coupled with this, of course, is the push for us to take advantage of this wonderful new time and quickly sit down with Mahmoud Abbas and forge a peace treaty.

~~~~~~~~~~

Thus have I decided to write: To reinforce the points that need to be made, yet again.

~~~~~~~~~~

The notion that we must quickly achieve a peace agreement with the Palestinian Arabs (which, in fact makes the erroneous assumption that they'd even sit down with us now) can be dispensed with quickly. For the fact that a government with which we had a peace treaty was overturned in a little over two weeks, so that the treaty is now at risk (with some potential future leaders calling for its cancellation), is sobering and provides a very salient lesson in caution.

Precisely how dumb does everyone think we are?

Mubarak maintained a sort of control in Egypt that Abbas would never achieve were he to stay in office until 100. And yet Mubarak went down. Abbas cannot be sleeping well at night. Before all of this unrest, he was afraid to venture into certain PA areas, and he already knew Hamas was breathing down his neck. And now?

What would it avail us, to withdraw (Heaven forbid!) from major parts of Judea and Samaria in the name of "peace," only to find that the PA had fallen and Islamists were at our (vastly more vulnerable) border?

And this concern does not even factor in another unease: We now know, as the world knows, that the American administration cannot be counted on when the going gets tough.

So let's move on...

~~~~~~~~~~

To a person, I think, we here in Israel would rejoice if there were to be true democracy in Egypt. But the modest chances of this happening are further diminished by the very rush to see it happen quickly.

Yesterday I cited an Egyptian in exile who pointed out that 30% of Egyptians are illiterate -- they cannot sign their own names, never mind read their nation's constitution. They have never been exposed to written political analyses or proposals for platforms. They are likely to go with what they know and what has made them comfortable. And for many, this is the Muslim Brotherhood -- a Brotherhood, by the way, that has provided food and medical care for many of those struggling Egyptians..

This is the simple fact of the matter.

~~~~~~~~~~

We here in Israel have a better understanding of the radical Muslim mind, and Islamist subterfuge, than most in N. America do. It's born of hard experience, and we are not so quickly taken in.

Fervently do we wish that our words might help others -- starting with the White House -- to fashion a more cautious, and thus ultimately more successful, approach. But I see scant chance of this happening.

~~~~~~~~~~

Bret Stephens, writing today about the Muslim Brotherhood in the Wall Street Journal, begins his piece thus:

"...On Feb. 16, 1979, the New York Times ran a lengthy op-ed by Richard Falk, a professor of international law at Princeton, under the headline "Trusting Khomeini."
"'The depiction of [Khomeini] as fanatical, reactionary and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false,' wrote Mr. Falk. 'What is also encouraging is that his entourage of close advisers is uniformly composed of moderate, progressive individuals.'

"After carrying on in this vein for a few paragraphs, the professor concluded: 'Having created a new model of popular revolution based, for the most part, on nonviolent tactics, Iran may yet provide us with a desperately needed model of humane governance for a third-world country.'"

Wake up world!

~~~~~~~~~~

Continues Stephens:

"The Times is at it again. Last week, the paper published an op-ed from Essam El-Errian, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood's Guidance Council, who offered this soothing take on his organization: 'We aim to achieve reform and rights for all: not just for the Muslim Brotherhood, not just for Muslims, but for all Egyptians.'

"It's easy to be taken in by the Brotherhood: Eight decades as a disciplined, underground organization, outwardly involved in charitable social work, have made them experts at tailoring messages to separate audiences.
"...Today the Brotherhood has adopted a political strategy in keeping with [founder] Banna's dictum that the movement must not over-reach on its way toward '[subjugating] every unjust ruler to its command': 'Each of these stages,' he cautioned his followers, 'involves certain steps, branches and means.' Thus the Brotherhood has gone out of its way in recent weeks to appear in the most benign light, making an ally of former IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei and forswearing any immediate political ambitions.

"But that doesn't mean the Brothers don't have an idea of what they're aiming for...

"Nor should there be any doubt about what the Brotherhood is aiming against. 'Resistance is the only solution against the Zio-American arrogance and tyranny,' Muhammad Badie, the Brotherhood's supreme guide, sermonized in October. 'The improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained . . . by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.' (Emphasis added)

"...unless Egypt's secular forces can coalesce into serious political parties, the people for whom Islam is the solution won't find the fetters of democracy to be much of a problem."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703584804576143933682956332.html

~~~~~~~~~~

For the non-radical or reasonably democratic opposition parties in Egypt to get their acts together will take time, and guidance and funds. Education of the populace regarding various party positions, and what their choices are, is part of what must be done to foster democracy.

The Muslim Brotherhood, which does have its act together, is now in the process of preparing application to be a legal party.

Understand, they have been outlawed until now and have succeeded in winning elections and achieving seats in the parliament via persons affiliated with the Brotherhood who ran as independents. And once they are a party?

~~~~~~~~~

Khaled Abu Toameh explains why a group like the Brotherhood is better organized than moderate groups:

"For decades, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and other Arab dictators used to tell Americans and Europeans that if they did not support them, the result would be Muslim extremists coming to power.

"This is why these dictators never took drastic measures against Islamic fundamentalist groups in their countries.

"This pattern gave the Muslim Brotherhood a chance to grow and win over more supporters, as the local people became more and more disgusted both with their dictators and the Western governments who supported them.

"Instead of focusing their attention on the Islamists, Arab dictators chose to chase secular reformists, liberals, democrats, newspaper editors and human rights activists; by suppressing the emergence of these people, the Arab dictatorships paved the way for the rise of radical extremists."

http://www.hudson-ny.org:80/1877/arab-dictators-radical-islam

~~~~~~~~~~

I encourage you to also hear the fantastic interview of Harvard history professor Niall Ferguson, who touches all the important bases:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9sMo-LTdSc

~~~~~~~~~~
Lastly, I wish to raise an issue that I have not taken the time to look at before, with all that had to be reviewed: That is, the damning of Mubarak in the street demonstrations by painting a Star of David on his face.

I provide a couple of photos showing this, below. There are many more. Not only is this blatantly anti-Israel and anti-Semitic, please note the "moderate" garb of the people carrying the signs.

There would be something wrong with us in Israel, if we were not very worried about what comes next.




















~~~~~~~~~~

© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.

see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

The Real Demographic Threat


Evelyn Gordon
Contentions/Commentary
19 April '10

As Israel celebrates its 62nd Independence Day this evening, is the country actually independent? Judging by the remarks of some of its leading politicians, one would have to conclude that the answer is no.

Speaking at a Memorial Day ceremony yesterday, for instance, Defense Minister and Labor-party chairman Ehud Barak declared that only by signing a peace agreement with the Palestinians could Israel preserve its Jewish majority. Ehud Olmert made this claim even more bluntly in 2007, when he was prime minister, declaring that if “the two-state solution collapses … the State of Israel is finished.” Olmert’s successor as head of the Kadima party, opposition leader Tzipi Livni, has made similar remarks.

In other words, Israel has no control over its own fate; its continued existence depends entirely on the goodwill of a nation that would like nothing better than to see it disappear. Moreover, all the Palestinians have to do to secure this outcome is to continue doing exactly what they have done for the past 17 years: say “no” to every peace offer Israel makes. If that is true, Israel really is finished.

In reality, of course, the Barak-Olmert-Livni conclusion is ridiculous even if one believes the demographic doomsayers (there are grounds for skepticism, but that’s another story). Should Israel someday decide the status quo is untenable, it doesn’t need a peace agreement to leave; it can always quit the West Bank unilaterally, just as it did Gaza. After decades of condemning Israel’s “illegal occupation” and demanding its end, the world could hardly object if Israel complied.

(Read full post)

Please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.