Favorable American Moves Shouldn't Change Israel's Red Lines - by Dr. Aaron Lerner

...We are here for the long haul. We simply cannot afford to fritter away our assets no matter how friendly or supportive an acting president may be.

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Weekly Commentary..
30 November '17..
Link: http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=72915

If President Trump were to honor his campaign promise and move the American embassy to Jerusalem it would be the right thing to do. But it wouldn't change the fundamentals on what should and should not be acceptable for Israel in a "deal" with the Palestinians.

It would not even change the fundamentals on what concessions of a permanent nature Israel should and should not make to the Palestinians prior to such a "deal".

And for good reason.

Whether the American embassy is in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv the fundamental problems with having a sovereign Palestinian state remain just that: fundamental.

A sovereign Palestinian state remains a sovereign state even if it openly declares the agreements that they signed as part of the package that facilitated its creation null and void.

Israel's Red Lines and Oslo

...“Terrorists” became “freedom fighters,” and the Palestinian Charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel, was never amended. The number of suicide bombers grew and peace became an idea that was left lying on the lawn at Camp David, farther away from us than ever.

MK Uzi Landau..
Op-Ed Contributor/JPost..
11 September '13..

This week, we will mark 20 years since the signing of the Oslo Accord. Twenty years after this agreement was signed, we must admit that it has been a historic failure.

The Oslo vision stated that in the New Middle East, there would be no more wars, that the conflict was not about the existence of Israel, but about territory. It claimed that if we would just give the Palestinians a state, there would be peace.

We took Arafat the terrorist and transformed him into a partner for peace. The Palestinians are no longer our enemies who want to kill us, but our neighbors. And terrorists became “freedom fighters” who were protesting the “occupation,” the cause of their terror. The Israeli people were told that a peace agreement would bring security, instead of security bringing peace. And above all, if no agreement was reached, then we would be the guilty party because we did not give up enough. We were promised a day of celebration, but instead it turned out to be a day of mourning. Instead of sanctifying life, we’ve buried our dead and cared for our crippled and injured.

In retrospect, the Oslo Accord does not reflect political wisdom or even a calculated risk. It was simply a dangerous gamble.

Since it was signed, we have been subjected to forceful barrages of attacks carried out by terrorists.

Bombs have exploded on the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, on buses and in commercial centers.

More than 1,000 people were murdered and the thousands of people who have been injured were witness to this terrible mistake.

These victims were quickly dubbed by the Oslo Accord architect, “victims of peace” instead of “victims of terror.”

These semantics have not succeeded in making these people less dead and have not brought us any closer to peace. All they have done is bolster terrorism. The idea that concessions would bring about peace has had disastrous results in the short term and bodes poorly for Israel’s long-term strategy.

Israel has made many concessions: It withdrew from numerous territories in accordance with the Oslo Accord; it allowed the PLO to relocate from Tunis to the West Bank; it unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon; it made deals in which hundreds of terrorists were released from prison; it made ridiculous roadmap concessions; and it unilaterally disengaged from Gaza.

These actions have not been perceived by the enemy as benevolent, but as an expression of weakness, and have resulted in a barrage of rockets being aimed at Sderot and the communities surrounding Gaza.

I cannot, however, recall any concessions from the Palestinian side.

Meltzer - Israel’s Missing Red Lines

Yoel Meltzer
yoelmeltzer.com
26 October '11

http://yoelmeltzer.com/israels-missing-red-lines/

Long before the Shalit deal or immediately following it, Israel should have declared any of the following: the Israeli military will respond immediately and overwhelmingly to any future kidnapping; Israel will not supply any food, electricity, medical supplies or other essential items to Gaza in the event of a future kidnapping emanating from there; any future prisoner swaps will be on an equal basis – one for one.

The fact that Israel doesn’t make such declarations is indicative of a much larger problem plaguing Israel, namely it has no red lines. For instance, once upon a time Israel’s leaders proudly declared that Israel does not negotiate with terrorists. Then over the course of years this was modified to “Israel does not release prisoners with blood on their hands”. Needless to say, the Shalit deal proved that this last red line was just as hollow as its predecessors.

The problem however is not limited to negotiating with kidnappers. For example, before the beginning of the Oslo process eighteen years ago, nearly every political and military leader agreed that the Golan Heights was not negotiable because of its strategic importance to Israel. Nevertheless, once the Oslo process was launched, the alleged strategic necessity of maintaining the Golan Heights faded away as many of the same leaders began saying that Israel can survive without the Golan. Thus, the purported Israeli red line that there was nothing to discuss regarding an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights simply vanished into thin air.

If Israel Won’t Say It, Who Will?

Evelyn Gordon
Contentions/Commentary
24 August '10

In yesterday’s post, I discussed some of the negative consequences of Israel’s habit of treating its own negotiating demands as unimportant. But there is another devastating consequence: its effect on international public opinion.

Take the latest Israel Project poll, which found that even in America, normally a pro-Israel bastion, only 45 percent of respondents believe Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is committed to peace, and only 51 percent — down from 63 percent last year — think America should support Israel.

The second finding isn’t due solely to the first, but neither is it unrelated: even Americans who realize that peace isn’t possible now expect Israel to be committed to it in principle.

So why do Americans think Netanyahu doesn’t want peace? Well, everyone knows the Palestinians have demands that he refuses to meet (like a pre-negotiations commitment to the 1949 armistice lines); they say so constantly. But few people realize Israel has demands the Palestinians have consistently refused to meet because Israel doesn’t say so.

To understand how deep this Israeli pathology runs, consider official Israel’s response to a New York Times editorial earlier this month. The editorial urged Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to begin direct talks with Israel but sympathized with the fear he “no doubt” feels that Netanyahu “will use the process to give the illusion of progress while never addressing Palestinian concerns about borders, security, refugees and the future of Jerusalem” — and that despite this, “the Palestinians will be blamed if negotiations fail.”

Based on past experience, the reverse is far more likely: in previous talks, Israel made massive concessions on these issues while the Palestinian made no concessions at all to Israel’s concerns, yet most of the world still blamed Israel. The Times, however, neglected to mention that possibility.

(Read full post)

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.
.

NGO Monitor Calls on New Israel Fund to Draw “Red Lines”

NGO Monitor
11 February '10

JERUSALEM – The research and watchdog group NGO Monitor today called on the New Israel Fund (NIF) to implement clear “red lines” regarding the activities and rhetoric of the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that it funds. NIF has been widely criticized for supporting advocacy groups that contribute centrally to demonization through allegations of “war crimes” and intense lobbying on behalf of the Goldstone Report.

“Instead of using its relationship with NGOs to advance constructive agendas, NIF has been supporting and defending campaigns that demonize and delegitimize Israel,” charged Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor. “In many cases, it appears that NIF donors are unaware of the activities of these groups and their damaging impact. It is essential that powerful organizations like NIF establish clear guidelines and implement them in a unequivocal and transparent manner.”NGO Monitor proposes that NIF adopt “red lines” that prevent funding for organizations that support activities designed to promote the NGO “Durban strategy” to isolate Israel:

(Read full article)
.