Everything That Is Wrong With Olmert's Government

...is basically summed up by this article from IMRA by Aaron Lerner:

The danger of self imposed moderation in Gaza Strip operation

When PM Olmert, DM Peretz and COS Halutz snap back at their critics that the
IDF is already doing everything it can to stop the Qassams from the Gaza
Strip, there are some huge caveats attached to the claim.

- The IDF's mission includes destroying weapons stores, but if the weapons
are stored in a residential area the IDF gives the Palestinians thirty
minutes warning before attacking the location to either relocate the weapons
or bring in even more human shields to protect it from attack.

- Weapons stored in "sensitive" locations such as mosques are off limits to
IDF operations and Palestinian combatants can shield themselves with
cooperative civilians.

- No operation within the Gaza Strip can be open ended - even in the
Philadelphi Corridor that separates between Egyptian Sinai and Gaza.

And so, having set rules that make it next to impossible to succeed, it is
hardly surprising that this team is so keen on finding a way to make a deal
with the Palestinians according to which the various Palestinian groups can
continue smuggling in weapons and manufacturing ever more effective Qassam
rockets as long as they don't shoot.

For a while.

Until they decide to start shooting again.

When they can shoot even more powerful and more numerous rockets prepared
during the Israeli hiatus in security operations.

If the above rules reflect some notion of morality then it's a sick one
which gives preference to the lives of Palestinian human shields over those
of Israeli victims.

If these rules are for public relations they indicate a profound
misunderstanding of how the world sees the story.

The world doesn't praise Israel for respecting human shields - they either
don't believe it or they think Israel is stupid. And there is no reward for
stupidity.

And the world certainly isn't impressed by the restraint Israel has shown so
far. That's because even restrained operations can make a headline or get a
few seconds on the evening news on a slow news day

The truth is that the PR costs of a massive brutally effective operation are
barely more than the costs of a mediocre one.

That's because you get almost the same coverage for an operation taking
place simultaneously in ten locations as in only one. The same goes for
casualties.

The Olmert-Peretz-Halutz approach is wrong. Dead wrong.

The last thing Israel can afford to do today is continue policies that could
ultimately corner it into accepting a timeout for a Palestinians arms build
up.

For if Israel accepts such a timeout, the Jewish State may find itself in
the same situation as the proverbial frog in pot of water being slowly
heated to a boil.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Olmert and Peretz .

You Can't Say That Olmert Didn't Warn Us

"Israel's response will be restrained but very, very, very painful"
Prime Minister Olmert

We've seen all along that Israel's response has been restrained--we just assumed that Olmert meant that it was Hezbollah that would be feeling the pain.

Israel Matzav refers to an article at Israel Insider that really is, as he points out, a must read.
It is a must read for what is going wrong with the war in Lebanon.
It is a must read for what is going wrong in the Israeli government.
It is a must read for the consequences of the attitude, expressed by Olmert himself:

We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies, we want that we will be able to live in an entirely different environment of relations with our enemies.

Bottom line, according to Israel Insider, the IDF had a plan to defeat Hezbollah and it was not put into effect. There was a plan to move decisively, to move forcefully--but also stragegically--to outmaneuver Hezbollah and Nasrallah.

This plan was supposed to have begun with a surprise air onslaught against the Hezbollah high command in Beirut, before they would have had time to relocate to their underground bunkers. This was to have been followed immediately by large scale airborne and seaborne landing operations, in order to get several divisions on the Litani River line, enabling them to outflank Hezbollah's "Maginot line" in southern Lebanon. This would have surprised Hezbollah, which would have had to come out of its fortifications and confront the IDF in the open, in order to avoid being isolated, hunted down and eventually starved into a humiliating submission.

Instead, Olmert nixed the latter half of the plan--plus only southern Lebanon was attacked instead of Beirut. The results of Olmert's castration of the IDF plan?

In terms of the war itself:

The decision to not bomb Beirut immediately enabled Nasrallah to escape, first to his bunker, subsequently to the Iranian embassy in Beirut.

The decision to cancel the landings on the Litani River and authorize a very limited call up of reserves forced the ground forces to fight under very adverse conditions. Instead of outflanking a heavily fortified area with overwhelming forcers, they had to attack from the direction most expected, with insufficient forces. The result, high casualties and modest achievements.

In terms of Israeli leadership:

According to informed sources, there is an almost total breakdown in trust and confidence between the General Staff and the PM's office. They have described the situation as "even worse than the crises that followed Ben Gurion's decision to disband the Palmach, and Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan's cynical decision to place all the blame for the Yom Kippur fiasco on the IDF's shoulders.

On a larger scale, Olmert's determination to aim for a limited war will also affect Israel's relationship with the US in the long run as well. According to Israel Insider, Israel was given the green light to bring the war to Syria as well. Naturally, in line with his smaller focus, Olmert nixed that idea. One can argue that in light of Syria's involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and the US interests in the region that it was up to the US to follow through and take aggressive action against Syria--but the fact remains that Israel had an opportunity at the time to help restore a measure of stability to the region in general and Lebanon in particular.

The scenario was that Syria, no military match for Israel, would face a rapid defeat, forcing it to run to Iran, with which it has a defense pact, to come to aid.

Iran, which would be significantly contained by the defeat of its sole ally in the region, would have found itself maneuvered between a rock and a hard place. If it chose to honor its commitment to Syria, it would face a war with Israel and the US, both with military capabilities far superior to Iran's. If Teheran opted to default on its commitment to Damascus, it would be construed by the entire region, including the restless Iranian population, as a conspicuous show of weakness by the regime. Fascist regimes such as that of the ayatollahs cannot easily afford to show that kind of weakness.

We've quoted before from this article at IMRA:

Weaker Israel: Election marks shift in counterterror alliance with U.S.

The United States has harbored mixed feelings for Olmert and his
predecessor, Sharon. President Bush has been pleased with Israel's
willingness to cooperate with the U ited States on virtually every major
issue, including Iraq, the Palestinians and arms exports.

At the same time, Bush and some of his aides have been quietly concerned
over the image of Israel as a country ready to withdraw in the face of
terrorism. Privately, leading aides and strategists believe that Israel's
hesitancy to fight Hamas, Hizbullah and other terrorist groups could
encourage Al Qaida and those sworn to defeat the United States. They also
see Israel's failure to defeat Palestinian insurgents as encouraging Iran's
belligerency.

...Bush's attitude toward Israel has changed as well. Until 2002, Bush saw
Israel has a powerful ally of the United States and able to deter its
enemies. Today, the president sees Israel as weak and Bush has publicly
pledged to protect the Jewish state from an Iranian attack.

..."The feeling in both the administration and among belatedly among many
conservatives in Congress is that Israel has to accept the fate of a small
nation reliant on a superpower patron," a leading U.S. analyst who is close
to the administration said.

The fact is that Israel's importance to the US is not merely based on the fact that it is the only democracy in the Mideast--the US is not interested in forming a Glee Club--rather the US is interested in those countries that can forward her own interests and needs. Israel had a tremendous opportunity to do this and blew it, with consequences for herself, for the US, for the Mideast and for the West.

Israel Matzav mentions in passing that the Israel Insider mentions the army using the C-word.
I thought he was referring to the word coward.
He wasn't.

This war is no longer about achieving victory.
It is about rescuing it.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Iran and Lebanon and Hizbollah and Hezbollah and Olmert

Sharansky: Only Olmert Could Have Pulled This Off

Joel Mowbray reports from Israel via Powerline about his interview with Natan Sharansky:

Ariel Sharon would not have responded this strongly because he was so concerned with changing his image, and while Bibi would have done exactly the same thing as Olmert is, half of the country would have been protesting about what the ‘monster’ is doing,” explained former Israeli cabinet member and world-famous dissident Natan Sharansky.

Choosing his words as he stirred his breakfast shake, Sharanksy suggested that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, with his center-left coalition, is perhaps the only leading figure capable of a muscular response to Hamas and Hezbollah that enjoys overwhelming public support. He seems almost relieved when he says, “This is a unique moment of unity.”

Needless to say, this is not what most people are probably thinking--and Sharansky saying it does not make it so--but it is an interesting point of view.

Of course, if Olmert has support when it comes to Hizbollah, he does not have it when it comes to his plan for Convergence.

IMRA reports on a poll taken today:

In your opinion, in light of what recently took place in Gaza, was the
disengagement plan [AL: the retreat from Gaza] justified?
Yes 44%
No 31%
Don't know/other replies 25%

Are you for or against Ehud Olmert's convergence plan? [AL: aka
"consolidation plan", retreat from most of the West Bank]
For 19%
Against 52%
Don't know/other replies 29%

In your opinion, do most of the citizens of the State of Israel have enough
information about Ehud Olmert's convergence plan?
Yes 11%
No 71%
Don't know/other replies 18%

Still Sharansky's point is interesting, if for no other reason than that one might have thought that if Sharon was still Prime Minster--Hizbollah would not have started this, let alone Hamas.

According to Mowbray, there are high-ranking members of Kadimah itself who say that the Convergence Plan is dead--for now.

In any case, it would seem that Hizbollah underestimated both the kind and degree of response that Olmert was capable of, even assuming he was pressured into it.

Mowbray concludes with with the following cautious note by Sharansky:

“I hope he’s not making one mistake, and that is planning for more weeks ahead. At most, he will have days.” Why, I asked him, will Israel only have days, especially if Hezbollah continues firing rockets into Israeli civilian areas? “Because of the world,” he answered. “At the moment Israel starts becoming successful, the world tells us to stop.”

Israel's military might not be thinking along the same lines. Yesterday's Jerusalem Post quotes a high-ranking officer, who gave the following assessment of the progress made against Hizbollah thus far:

About 25 percent of Hizbullah's capabilities have been hit, a high-ranking IDF officer estimated on Sunday night at the end of the fifth day of Operation Just Reward.

According to the officer, the group's chain of command is still functioning. He estimated that the Lebanese group would not be annihilated when the dust settles, only severely damaged.

The officer predicted that the operation would end in the middle of next week. [emphasis added]

Israel is now in a fight against time, not so much against her enemies as against those who should be her allies.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel and Olmert and Sharansky and Hizbollah and Hezbollah and Mowbray.

Olmert's Divergence From Convergence

According to Haaretz, PM drafting alternative to convergence plan, based on Olmert's failure to gather any international support for the Convergence Plane, he is going to repackage it and try again:

In light of the international opposition to further unilateral steps by
Israel, the government has begun to draft an alternative plan that would
essentially convert Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's unilateral convergence plan
into a bilateral move carried out in conjunction with Palestinian Authority
Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

According to the plan now being drafted by the Prime Minister's Office and
the Foreign Ministry, Israel would propose to Abbas that they reach an
agreement to establish a Palestinian state with provisional borders in Gaza
plus about 90 percent of the West Bank. The provisional border in the West
Bank would match the route of the separation fence, with one exception:
Israel would retain security control over the Jordan Valley.

In this way, Israel hopes to present the convergence plan as an
implementation of Phase II of the road map peace plan, thereby acceding to
the demands of the United States, Jordan, Egypt and others that Israel
resume negotiations with the PA under the road map.

Haaretz is nice enougth to point out that going to Phase II means bypassing Phase I which was never fulfilled--you remember, the part about stopping the terrorism.

Another problem--on the one hand:

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni confirmed to Haaretz that she told senior
ministry officials last week that "currently, Abbas is not a partner for a
final-status agreement, but he could be a partner for other arrangements, on the basis of the road map's phased process."...One participant in this meeting said that Livni spoke explicitly about an agreement to establish a Palestinian state with provisional borders. [emphasis added]

This of course requires Abbas to be thinking along similar lines. As it so happens, Abbas seems to be thinking along totally opposite lines:

Prior to Hamas's rise to power in the PA, Abbas rejected the idea of a state
with provisional borders, demanding immediate talks on a final-status
agreement instead.

An interesting contradiction:

However, Washington backed Israel's stance in favor of a provisional state, and Jerusalem expects that the U.S. will pressure Abbas to change his position....Israel could bypass Hamas and implement this program in conjunction with Abbas, thereby bolstering his status.

It's not clear how forcing Abbas into taking a position that he publicly opposed is going to bolster his status, but hope springs eternal.

IMRA is critical of the new packaging:

PM drafting alternative to convergence plan [strip Road Map of requirement for Palestinian compliance?]

The fundamental difference between withdrawal within the framework of
the Road Map and Olmert's proposed retreat is that Israel wants to retreat
while leaving open the question as to what happens in the void the retreat
creates.

It would appear that the "solution" the Olmert team is working on is to
strip the Road Map of any requirement for Palestinian compliance.

This way Israel will retreat and face a sovereign entity filling the void -
with all the Palestinian terror infrastructure intact. ready for the next
round of war.

"Israel would retain security control over the Jordan Valley" is the same
wording that PM Sharon's team first used to describe the original Gaza
retreat plan for controlling the Philadelphi Corridor after the retreat.
Ultimately Israel never held the line.

Of course, another thing you won't find mentioned in connection with the Road Map are Sharon's 14 Reservations, which were ignored anyway--by Sharon as well--almost as soon as they were drawn up. Here are some of them:

1. Both at the commencement of, and during the process, and as a condition to its continuance, calm will be maintained...

2. Full performance will be a condition for progress between phases and for progress within phases. The first condition for progress will be the complete cessation of terror, violence and incitement...

5. The character of the provisional Palestinian state will be determined through negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. The provisional state will have provisional borders and certain aspects of sovereignty, be fully demilitarized with no military forces, but only with police and internal security forces of limited scope and armaments...

6. In connection to both the introductory statements and the final settlement, declared references must be made to Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and to the waiver of any right of return for Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel.

14. Arab states will assist the process through the condemnation of terrorist activity.

Don't look for any of these points to be raised--who would take them seriously?

Olmert's is not willing to accept that sometimes a bad idea really is just a bad idea.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel and Olmert and Road Map and Convergence Plan.

Haditha, Olmert, and Jenin

Olmert was in Egypt on Sunday and apparently upset some people because he acted like...Olmert:

"On behalf of the State of Israel," Olmert said, "I would like to express my deepest regret over the incident that occurred over the weekend in which two Egyptian security personnel were killed. We have initiated a joint committee to investigate the incident; we will consider its findings. Similarly, we have instructed our security and intelligence forces to cooperate on the issue and to make every effort to prevent a recurrence of such incidents in the future."

This after the IDF confirmed that:
o 3 men infiltrated 150 meters withing the Negev-Sinai border
o The 3 men fired first
o They wore the uniforms of a foreign country
o They were armed with radios and Kalachnikov rifles and 9 magazines of bullets

True to form, Olmert also said:

"I see you, Mr. President [Mubarak], as a true partner in the effort to bring peace to our region... Your contribution is as vital as it was during the successful implementation of the Disengagement Plan.

"I am very pleased by the cooperation between our countries in the struggle against global terrorism... We have agreed to enhance cooperation and coordination between us and between our countries on this issue.

This despite the fact that--according to Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA:

o Mubarak continues to refuse to visit Israel
o He continues to ensure that radical forces in Gaza remain armed
o He continues to spend billions of American aid dollars on sophisticated weaponry in apparent preparation for a future war against Israel
o Also, according to MK Yuval Shteinitz (Likud), who chaired the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee from 2003-2006, 90% of all arms and explosives used in Judea, Samaria and Gaza for terrorism against Israel comes from Egypt

So why is Olmert bending over backwards--even more than usual--in apologizing to Mubarak, all things considered?

Maybe with the media coverage of Haditha and the issue once again in the news that the best of armies are capable of terrible errors of judgement, Olmert decided to be very, very cautious--even though the investigation is not finished and all the facts are not yet in.

Of course such 'caution' in Israel is not new nor specific to Olmert. Back when the second Intifada started:

Following months of increased violence and extremism in the Arab-Israeli sector incited directly by the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli Islamic Movement and the Arab members of Knesset, violent riots seized the Arab sector of Israel in October 2000. During the week of riots, Arab Israelis threw rocks and Molotov cocktails at Israeli civilian cars throughout the country. Israeli motorists were dragged out of their cars on Highway 65 along Wadi Ara and beaten. An Israeli motorist was murdered when Arabs from Jasser a-Zarka threw a rock at his windshield as he drove down the coastal highway.

...In the wake of the riots, the government of then-prime minister Ehud Barak went into a state of panic, concerned that the Labor Party would lose its support base among Arab Israelis. And so, rather than arresting the Arab leaders who incited the riots, banning the Islamic Movement and ending PA infiltration into the Arab sector, Barak sought to appease the very leaders who had fomented the violence. This he did by offering to establish an independent commission led by a retired judge that would investigate the police behavior towards the rioters. That commission, led by retired justice Theodore Or, was given the perverse job of investigating only the police, as if the officers had simply been firing at ducks in a shooting gallery rather than trying to contend with a violent, heavily incited mob that was paralyzing and terrorizing the country.

The Astute Blogger also draws a parallel between Haditha and Israel. He sees the media story of the Jenin Massacre as an example of the kinds of myths that the MSM is capable of creating and propagating.

But whatever the Haditha investigation comes up with in the end, there is something to what Time Magazine quotes in the name of a senior Marine officer, that a the media is ready to condemn without all the facts--calling it cold-blooded and easily comparing it to My Lai--while ready to look into the background and social circumstances of a common murderer:

"Isn't it a strange turn of events that Marines are expected to be perfect under the stresses and brutality of a guerrilla war, but society says we need to uncover every mitigating circumstance that would possibly explain why street criminals kill?"

In Israel's case, seeing that terrorist infiltration is not uncommon, and in the absence of any stated indication that there was any error in judgement by the IDF, Olmert's offer of an investigation in the context of the absurd praise for Mubarak does more to call his judgement into question than that of the IDF.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Olmert and Haditha and Mubarak and Egypt.

Friends Don`t Let Friends Appease Terrorists

Maybe the light at the end of the tunnel is not an oncoming train--or if it is, at least someone may finally be applying the brakes.

In Tough Love From Israel's Friends, Jeff Jacoby writes about friends of Israel that are speaking out forcefully--against what she is doing. He writes about the Center for Security Policy, a Washington think tank. After years of supporting Israel's right to defend itself against her enemies, they have come out with a new television ad (view here) that says Israel's withdrawal from Southern Lebanon and Gaza has played into the hands of terrorists and Olmert's Convergence Plan will do more of the same--"for Israel and for us."

Jacoby quotes Joseph Farah's article, I give up on Israel, which describes Olmert's plan as a "national retreat," and "appeasement of the global jihad," and the Disengagement as an "unmitigated disaster."

Jacoby also quotes an article from the Wall Street Journal by former CIA director James Woolsey that a West Bank Terrorist State, resulting from Olmert's Convergence Plan would be a threat to Jordan as well as Israel--and "Israeli concessions will also make the US look weak."

And that is the key to the tough love that Jacoby writes about--the actions that Israel is ready to take, and have taken, affect the US as well.

Others have noted this new realization as well. Back in April, IMRA quoted from an article in Geostratetgy-Direct (subscription required) that Bush has mixed feelings about Olmert and Sharon. While Israel has cooperated with the US:

At the same time, Bush and some of his aides have been quietly concerned over the image of Israel as a country ready to withdraw in the face of terrorism. Privately, leading aides and strategists believe that Israel's hesitancy to fight Hamas, Hizbullah and other terrorist groups could encourage Al Qaida and those sworn to defeat the United States. They also see Israel's failure to defeat Palestinian insurgents as encouraging Iran's belligerency.

With all of this, there might be good news as well. That is what David Bedein says in an interview with A7 Radio's "Weekend Edition" with Tamar Yonah and Malkah Fleisher

Here is a short excerpt of the interview (3.40 minutes):

In the interview, Bedein claims that for Canada and the US, the days of appeasement are over. They want Israel to be strong. Hamas coming to power back in January was a wake-up call to Western intelligence agencies. There is an expectation both in the US and Canada that Israel is going to find a way to resist the Palestinian Authority's attempt to destroy her and the West. The agenda is to stand strong, and Olmert is not the kind of leader they are looking for.

Bedein is Bureau Chief of the Israel Resource News Agency, which has recent articles that hint at this change in attitude. There is an article about Canada--where Bedein spoke with Jason Kenney, the prime minister's parliamentary secretary about measures Canada can take to reform the UNRWA--and an article about the US, where there is an amendment in the works that would condition U.S. funding of UNRWA on an independent audit.

David Bedein writes:

Marvin and Bernard Kalb, in their seminal book, "Kissinger", written in 1976, report that in 1968 the new Israeli ambassador and recently retired Israeli commander in chief, Yitzhak Rabin, accompanied US presidential candidate Richard Nixon to view the Golan Heights, recently captured from the Syrians.

Peering down from Syrian gun positions that were trained on the farmers in Israel's Hula Valley, Nixon observed that, "If I were an Israeli, I would never give up the Golan". Rabin smiled from ear to ear. "Mr. Rabin, what I said was that 'if I was an Israeli'. I am not an Israeli".

As long as Israel's security alone was the issue, the US looked towards it's own concerns first and not necessarily with Israel's best interests at heart. But now there is a conflation of interests, even the survival, of the West and Israel, and if Bedein is correct, the US and Israel may never have been more allies than now.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tags: Israel, Olmert, Disengagement, US and UNRWA and Hamas and Palestinians and Terrorism.

The US Is Getting What It Wished For

IMRA quotes from an article in Geostratetgy-Direct (subscription required) that apparently the US is caught between getting what it demanded from Israel, while at the same time choking on the result:

The United States has harbored mixed feelings for Olmert and his predecessor, Sharon. President Bush has been pleased with Israel's
willingness to cooperate with the United States on virtually every major
issue, including Iraq, the Palestinians and arms exports.

At the same time, Bush and some of his aides have been quietly concerned over the image of Israel as a country ready to withdraw in the face of terrorism. Privately, leading aides and strategists believe that Israel's hesitancy to fight Hamas, Hizbullah and other terrorist groups could encourage Al Qaida and those sworn to defeat the United States. They also see Israel's failure to defeat Palestinian insurgents as encouraging Iran's belligerency.

The result is a new relationship between the US and Israel, and it is one that is probably going to make it that much more difficult for Israel to deal effectively with Hamas. It may also have a less than salutory effect on Israel's self-respect, which has already taken a terrible beating:

Bush's attitude toward Israel has changed as well. Until 2002, Bush saw
Israel has a powerful ally of the United States and able to deter its enemies. Today, the president sees Israel as weak and Bush has publicly pledged to protect the Jewish state from an Iranian attack. Quietly, Israeli defense officials dismiss Bush's pledge was little more than symbolic given the start of the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

"The feeling in both the administration and among belatedly among many
conservatives in Congress is that Israel has to accept the fate of a small nation reliant on a superpower patron," a leading U.S. analyst who is close to the administration said.

But if the US really feels that Israel's cooperation with US demands weakens her image in the eyes of the Arabs and the world while undermining the US--that is not stopping the US from supporting more of the same kind of measures that are sure to continue Israel's slide, as the State Department supports Olmert's plans for a Disengagement from the West Bank.

Finally, the US recognizes that Israel's fight is her fight--yet out of a perverse uncontrollable habit continues support further Israeli concessions.

Technorati Tag: Israel and US and Bush and Middle East.

Have The Palestinians Cheated The US Out of Millions?

Back in 2002, in an article for the Wall Street Journal, Ben Wattenberg was already saying that the numbers being given for the Palestinian Arab presence and the famous Arab birth rate were exaggerated:

Truth is, fertility rates in Arab and Muslim countries have been falling rapidly in recent decades. Indeed, it would be remarkable were they not; it's been happening everywhere else.

...The U.N. issues data for what it calls the "Occupied Palestinian Territory." On average, Palestinian women are bearing 5.6 children, which is a very high rate, but down from an estimated eight in 1970 and seven in 1985.

Last week a findings were reported along similar lines, challenging the numbers that have heretofore been accepted at face value:

American Researchers Bennett Zimmerman, Roberta Seid, and Michael Wise Say Previous Population Figures for Arabs in West Bank and Gaza Are Highly Inflated While Jewish Births and Immigration Forecasts Are Underestimated

...The researchers who leading U.S. demographer Nick Eberstadt said "caught the demographic professionals asleep at the switch" by finding "the most portentous demographic discrepancy in the Middle East" are now shattering the population axioms that drive Israeli policy in their new study, Forecast for Israel and West Bank 2025.

Zimmerman's web site, PA Demographics, notes the reason for the demographic error in a press release that came out in January 10 of last year:

The assumption that Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza pose a demographic threat to Israel has to be radically revised. The 2004 Palestinian-Arab population was closer to 2.4 million than to the 3.8 million reported by Palestinian Authority (PA) officials. These findings should have a significant impact on politicians, policy makers and international aid agencies.

The million-and-a-half person gap occurred because the PA numbers are based on Palestine Bureau of Statistics (PBS) 1997 projections, not on actual population counts. The PBS used the PA’s official 1997 census as a base population and assumed the population would grow at 4 to 5% a year, one of the highest growth rates in the world. PA Ministry of Health birth data and actual border entry/exit data, confirm that the PBS expectations were not met in any year between 1997 and 2004. There were dramatically fewer births and lower fertility rates, and instead of immigration, the West Bank and Gaza experienced a steady net emigration. When the PBS incorrect assumptions are applied over many years, the error in population forecast compounds exponentially.

The press release lists the mistakes made in calculating the Palestinian Arab population--some resulting from error, while others the result of outright cooking of the numbers:

o Fewer births: PA Ministry of Health birth reports were substantially lower than the number predicted by the PBS.

o Lower Fertility Rates: Palestinian fertility rates declined from the mid-90’s through 2003, according to PA Ministry of Health, consistent with the trend occurring in other Middle Eastern Arab societies.

o Net Emigration: Instead of the large immigration originally projected by the PA, the Territories experienced a steady net emigration averaging 10,000 a year.

o Double Counting: 210,000 Jerusalem Arabs who are already counted in Israel’s population survey were included in the PA survey.

o Inclusion of non-residents: Palestinians with IDs living abroad for over one year were included in the PA Census & Projection.

o Internal migration: 150,000 PA Arabs who have legally relocated to Israel since 1993 are still counted by the PA..

o Retrospective Alterations of Recorded Birth data.

In the Washington Times of January 14th of last year, Joel Mobray wrote that corraboration of these Zimmerman's report came from information produced by the Palestinians themselves:

...The study already has at least one unlikely ally: the Palestine Central Elections Commission. According to the agency's own Oct. 14 press release, a million Palestinians had registered to vote, which represented two-thirds of adults. Of the 1.5 million eligible adults (not counting 110,000 eligible Jerusalem Arabs), the release stated that 200,000 were living abroad.

This PA-released figure meshes almost exactly with the study's final conclusion that the actual Palestinian population is approximately 2.4 million.

On the one hand, the falsified numbers are important to the issue of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the political justification for continued Israeli Disengagement in response to a growing Palestinian Arab population. As IMRA has noted:

Looking back over the last ten years it can be noted that the "demographic issue" took prominence when the miserable failure of Oslo along with the growing effectiveness of Israeli security forces against the "intifada" stripped withdrawal advocates of the security justification for withdrawal.

However, the falsified demographic data is an issue of direct importance to the US taxpayer as well:

Dramatic new findings about the Palestinian population will be presented to the
Middle East Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee, which
is chaired by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, on March 8 by Bennett Zimmerman, Project
Leader of the American-Israeli Demographic Research Group (ADRG).

The name Ileana Ros-Lehtinen should be a familiar name. She is the Republican Congresswoman of Florida, who back in January proposed legislation, according to the NY Sun "to slash American funding to the Palestinian Authority and the United Nations; designate the Palestinian Authority as a "terrorist sanctuary," and close down some Palestinian Authority offices in America as part of a reduction of Palestinian-American diplomatic ties."

The reason that Zimmerman addressed the House International Relations Subcommittee on the Middle East is directly related to its investigation of the U.S. funding of the Palestinian Authority. According to World Net Daily, if in fact the Palestinians have inflated their numbers by nearly 50%, then

almost $3 billion in United States taxpayer funds may have been provided as aid to the Palestinians in part based on fraudulent data.

"American tax dollars and other international humanitarian aid have been based on inflated population numbers which have been accepted without question by governments and aid agencies. Our researchers pointed out that money has been spent to help Palestinians who were double-counted, never born or not present in the West Bank and Gaza," Bennet Zimmerman, head of the new study, titled "Arab Population in the West Bank and Gaza," told WND.

Interestingly, the only mention of the issue of US overfunding has apparently been made by Arutz Sheva, World Net Daily, PRNewswire, and Yahoo--and the Yahoo story uses the PRNews story, mentioning the connection in the headline but giving no other mention or detail in the body of the article.

It was reported that Zimmerman's findings were presented on March 8th. Today is the 13th. Still not a peep from the major media.

Technorati Tags: Israel and Palestinians and USA and PA.

Hamas in Power: The Taming of the Shrew?

Who wooed in haste, and means to wed at leisure.
The Taming of the Shrew Quote Act iii. Scene 2

In today's The Best of the Web, James Taranto has a great post, "Democratically Elected Terrorists" covering Hamas and their election victory.

One point he makes up front is the history of Hamas' terrorist attacks and murder of Israelis. He gives a link to an Arutz Sheva article, History of Hamas Murderous Attacks:

Hamas has set the destruction of Israel as its goal. Between September 2000 and April 2004, Hamas perpetrated 425 terrorist attacks against Israel and murd1ered 377 Israelis - nine every month.

...Hamas is responsible for 24 murders before the Oslo Accords, 156 more before the Oslo War began in September 2000, and at least another 377 since then - a total of at least 557.

The article highlights a number of attacks and links to IMRA, which provides A Chronology of Terrorist Attacks Carried out by Hamas Since September 2000

The key question addressed by the articles Taranto links to is what direction Hamas will take: will it continue as a terrorist organization or be tamed by the political system?

Emanuele Ottolenghi, who teaches Israel studies at Oxford University, writes an article for The National Review that advocates the view that in victory, Hamas has gotten more than it bargained for:

Hamas’s favored outcome was not victory, but a strong showing that would leave Hamas with the best of both worlds: It would remain in opposition (or would be invited to join a coalition as a junior partner) but would impose severe limitations on the Fatah-led government on how to manage its relations with Israel. Hamas could thus claim to reject Oslo, decline to recognize the Palestinian Authority and its commitments under the Oslo accords and the roadmap, and continue to use its rising political clout and its military strength to sabotage any effort to revive the moribund peace process.

What victory does to Hamas is to put the movement into an impossible position. As preliminary reports emerge, Hamas has already asked Fatah to form a coalition and got a negative response. Prime Minister Abu Ala has resigned with his cabinet, and president Abu Mazen will now appoint Hamas to form the next government. From the shadows of ambiguity, where Hamas could afford — thanks to the moral and intellectual hypocrisy of those in the Western world who dismissed its incendiary rhetoric as tactics — to have the cake and eat it too. Now, no more. Had they won 30-35 percent of the seats, they could have stayed out of power but put enormous limits on the Palestinian Authority’s room to maneuver. By winning, they have to govern, which means they have to tell the world, very soon, a number of things.

They will have to show their true face now: No more masks, no more veils, no more double-speak. If the cooptation theory — favored by the International Crisis Group and by the former British MI-6 turned talking head, Alistair Crooke — were true, this is the time for Hamas to show what hides behind its veil.

As the government of the Palestinian Authority, now they will have to say whether they accept the roadmap.

They will have to take control over security and decide whether they use it to uphold the roadmap or to wage war.

There will be no excuses or ambiguities when Hamas fires rockets on Israel and launches suicide attacks against civilian targets. Until Tuesday, the PA could hide behind the excuse that they were not directly responsible and they could not rein in the "militants." Now the "militants" are the militia of the ruling party. They are one and the same with the Palestinian Authority. If they bomb Israel from Gaza — not under occupation anymore, and is therefore, technically, part of the Palestinian state the PLO proclaimed in Algiers in 1988, but never bothered to take responsibility for — that is an act of war, which can be responded to in kind, under the full cover of the internationally recognized right of self-defense. No more excuses that the Palestinians live under occupation, that the PA is too weak to disarm Hamas, that violence is not the policy of the PA. Hamas and the PA will be the same: What Hamas does is what the PA will stand for.

If this analysis is to be believed, in its haste to enter the government, Hamas thought it would have the time to further manipulate the political situation towards its own prefered ends but now will be reigned in by political responsibility.

But as much as one would like to think that the spotlight will be on Hamas, for Ottolenghi's analysis to become a reality the real spotlight will have to be on the US and Europe.

Just where is this pressure on Hamas to act responsibly supposed to come from?

The world has been content to refer to murderous terrorists as "freedom fighters" and to put pressure on Israel to make concessions without requiring reciprocity on the Palestinian Arabs to respond in kind. It has failed to insist on enforcing the Palestinian requirements of the Roadmap--and even the media has glossed over the fact that disarming and ending terror were primary requirements of the PA, independent of any measures taken by Israel.

Instead, the only Palestinian issue that really seems to have upset the PA's financial backers in the West is the waste of money--not that fact that it was used for terror, but that it was used to line the pockets of corrupt officials.

Fighting corruption was the main issue of yesterday's election. What is going to keep Hamas from thinking that ending corruption and providing accountability is all it will take to satisfy the West? It will have to be more than talk--public statements making demands are likely to have as much effect on Hamas as they have had thus far on Iran.

Since the US has taken a hands-off approach towards creating democracy in the PA as opposed to its involvement in Iraq, Hamas can easily point to unwelcome steps by the US as interference in their internal affairs, while with-holding of aid and money can be labeled the same way.

Meanwhile, what is to keep Hamas from continuing the excuses that served Abbas so well. Further suicide attacks or the firing of artillery into Israel from Gaza can just be blamed on splinter groups and demands for crackdowns can be responded to with claims that action will cause civil war.

Why should the West now be taken seriously by Hamas? But if the West does not now step up to the plate, any talk about Hamas and its inevitable moderation (whatever that means in the Middle East) will be nothing more than wishful thinking and punditry.

He that knows better how to tame a shrew,
Now let him speak; ‘tis charity to shew.”
Act 4, Sc. 2, Lines 188-211

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tags: Israel and Hamas and Terrorism.

US and Hamas: If You Can't Beat'em...

In a post back in October (Oh, THAT Hamas), I quoted IMRA, which carried an article from Geostrategy-Direct, on the implications of a Hamas victory in the election:

Of course, US concerns about Hamas go beyond concerns just about Israel:

The prospect of a Hamas takeover of a Western-funded PA has alarmed Congress. Members of the House subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, who have been receiving frequent closed-door briefings on the decline of the PA, warned that Hamas could eventually use Western funding and weapons to fight the United States.

And then of course there is the sticking point that if Hamas were to be in control, the US would be unable to deal with them:

Under U.S. law, Washington would be unable to deal with any foreign government controlled by groups deemed by the State Department to be terrorists.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad have been designated terrorist organizations,and the former intends to run in elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council in January 2006.

"Hamas has already been in government in the Palestinian Authority," [Assistant Secretary of State David ] Welch said. "Under American law, we can't deal with them. I don't see that law changing after January."

If Welch cannot imagine the US dealing with Hamas, maybe he just didn't try hard enough. If the US can utilize loopholes to avoid moving the embassy to Jerusalem or closing the PLO office, a little question of US law is not going to stop it.

According to Arutz Sheva, the US will use a sophisticated diplomatic technique for getting around the problem: giv'em the Silent Treatment:

The United States and the European Union both consider Hamas a terrorist
group, yet both are apparently willing to continue working with the Palestinian
Authority government even if it includes Hamas terrorists.

...The U.S. is likely to continue to have diplomatic relations with such a
government, minus direct contacts with Hamas ministers. "As a matter of policy,
we don't deal with Hamas," Stewart Tuttle, the U.S. Embassy spokesman in Tel
Aviv, said. "If Hamas members win seats... we are not going to deal with those
individuals."

Oh, yes--the US has no end of clever diplomatic negotiating tactics. That'll show them.

Of course, any analysis of the situation would not be complete if Israel cannot be blamed:

Some blame Israel for the fact that the international community now faces
this dilemma. Robert Satloff, Executive Director of the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy, told the Herzliya Conference yesterday that Israel's
contradictory policy on Hamas was "partly responsible for its already having
gained political legitimacy through the election process," The Jerusalem Post
reported.

Satloff said that Israel should have stood firm against Hamas participation
in the upcoming elections. He noted that the PLO was long unrecognized by the
Israel and the US because it did not renounce terrorism or recognize Israel's
right to exist - while today, no one requires either of these from Hamas.

Standing firm against US pressure: you're intrangient if you do and a wimp if you don't.
Can someone please mention that to Binyamin "Concessions Will be Necessary in Future Agreement" Netanyahu?

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hamas.

The Wizard of Odds

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"
The Wizard of Oz

Today, Arutz Sheva reports that "Sharon Plans Massive Withdrawals"

Middle East Newsline (MENL) reports in the name of "political sources" that Sharon has begun briefing senior U.S. officials of his intention to withdraw unilaterally from more than 95% of Judea and Samaria.

But keep in mind that this is all very hush-hush:

One of the most valuable "acquisitions" of the Kadima Party, MK Chaim Ramon, formerly of Labor, said openly last week that Sharon will unilaterally
withdraw to final borders in Judea and Samaria if Palestinian terror continues. IMRA reported that Ramon said this on a live interview on Channel 10's "London and Kirschenbaum" news program just hours after he announced his decision to join Sharon's Kadima.

Ramon explained that Sharon will keep his plans secret until the elections because he wants to give the Road Map a chance.

By all means, let's not let the Palestinian Arabs know that terror is getting them everything they want and more. Shhhhhhhh. Better yet, announce it on TV. Diabolically clever, no?

Though Sharon has denied that he plans any further disengagements, he pledged last week to "lay the foundation for a peace in which we set the permanent borders of the state, while insisting on the dismantling of the terror organizations."

Oh yes, "insisting on the dismantling of the terror organizations." Where have we heard this before? Let's see:

The Palestinian Authority has yet to comply with even one agreement they have signed since the Oslo Accord. They have violated the Oslo agreement, Oslo II, and the Road Map. Each agreement required the PA to disarm its terrorists and to empower its “security forces” to protect the safety of Israelis as well as Palestinian Arabs.

Everything2 explains the phrase "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" as

a catchphrase that describes an organization or policy that attempts to conceal its true intent.

But this is Israel. Leave it to Sharon to declare his plan to the entire world and expect to get away with it.

Can he pull it off?

The odds seemed to be against the Disengagement, and here we are now dealing with its aftermath. For that matter, after Sharon was forced to resign as Defence Minister after the Sabra and Chatila massacre, who could have expected that Sharon would someday be Prime Minister?

The question is not whether he can pull it off; the question is what are the odds that anybody can stop him.

See also: Sharon: Is He Planning a Bank Withdrawl?

Crossposted on Israpundit

Technorati Tags: Israel and Sharon.

"A Question That Sometimes Drives Me Hazy..."

A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?

Albert Einstein

Abraham H. Miller's article, The Palestinian-Israeli War, conjures up that question:

When it comes to the Middle East most observers don't process data, they process denial. When almost immediately after Oslo, Arafat stopped in a Stockholm mosque to repudiate the Accords and was subsequently caught, he denied what he had said. Those who could not see beyond Oslo were eager to accept his denial. When the PLO did not formally change its position on Israel's existence, those who wanted to believe it had done so, simply saying that the formalities didn't make a difference.

According to Miller, the reason that Daniel Pipes makes people so angry is because they just cannot deal with his answers. Pipes refers not to a conflict or a problem, but to a war--a Palestinian-Israeli war:

Pipes forces you to give up the ether of confusion that has been created around this war. And most people cannot bear to part with it. Compelled to think in ways that are different, they get angry.

Pipes thereby challenges his audience to face reality. His paradigm requires that we look at the Palestinian-Israeli War as it is, not as some may wish it was.

As Pipes explained, the reality is that diplomacy hasn't worked. Oslo made the situation worse because it was based on the premise that in the end if you could provide the Palestinians with equality and autonomy and the Israelis with recognition and security, you could have peace. You can't have peace as long as the Palestinians believe that ultimately they can and will destroy Israel. Then, Oslo becomes not a means to peace but a means to attaining strategic advantage.

And of course no one--not the UN, not the EU, not the US, and not even Israel--is giving the PLO the slightest reason not to think that their current course of action is going to get them what they want.

Which of course is why--

The Palestinian Authority has yet to comply with even one agreement they have signed since the Oslo Accord. They have violated the Oslo agreement, Oslo II, and the Road Map. Each agreement required the PA to disarm its terrorists and to empower its “security forces” to protect the safety of Israelis as well as Palestinian Arabs.

As for the agreement itself:

Use of the Rafah crossing will be restricted to Palestinian ID card holders and others by exception in agreed categories with prior notification to the GoI and approval of senior PA leadership.

Israel gets notified; the PA gets to approve.

The GoI will respond within 24 hours with any objections and will include the reasons for the objections;

The PA will notify the GoI of their decision within 24 hours and will include the reasons for their decision;

Israel gets to give their objections--after which the PA will let Israel know what they decide to do, thank you very much.

These procedures will remain in place for a period of 12 months, unless the 3rd party delivers a negative evaluation of the PA running the Rafah crossing. This evaluation will be done in close coordination with both sides and will give due consideration to the opinion of both sides.

Kinda makes you giddy with optimism, doesn't it?

And as IMRA points out

Text: Palestinian Official: No live video feed from Rafah (despite agreement)

Agreement says:
"-A liaison office, led by the 3rd party, will receive real-time video and
data feed of the activities at Rafah and will meet regularly to review
implementation of this agreement, resolve any disputes arising from this
agreement, and perform other tasks specified in this agreement."
Agreed Principles for Rafah Crossing - General
http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2005/Nov/15-381874.html

Palestinian official says:
"Meanwhile, the director of borders and crossings, Salim Abu Safiyyeh,
asserted that there won't be any live video streams to the Israeli side via
the surveillance cameras installed in Rafah terminal, pointing out that even
the joint control room will not receive these live feeds, and will be only
for the presence of the third party that will monitor the borders."

Not exactly an auspicious start.

This agreement is crazy.

And it doesn't take an Einstein to figure that out

Technorati Tag: Israel and Palestinians.

Bush and Abbas

Before Bush's meeting with Abbas, the ABC news website had an article about what could be expected. The article is noteworthy for the apparent list of what Abbas could be expected to ask for:

Abbas is seeking help from Israel to get November's harvest to outside markets, and also would like to focus attention on Palestinian demands for full-scale Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

The Palestinian leader also wants Bush to lean on Israel to drop curbs on Palestinian motorists using West Bank roads. The restrictions were imposed after a recurrence last week of deadly terror attacks on Israelis.

Abbas also would like Bush to call again on Israel to abandon makeshift outposts on the West Bank that are supposed to be dismantled under the blueprint, or roadmap, to peace talks adopted by the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia and accepted by Sharon and the Palestinian Authority.

...He also wants to form a partnership with the United States in resolving such issues as the Palestinian economy, Hamas and lawlessness, [Ziad J.] Asali (president of the private American Task Force on Palestine) said.

That's quite some list.

Long forgotten is what Abbas and the Palestinian Arabs were actually expected to contribute to the process. According to the Roadmap, during Phase I (which was supposed to take one month, May 2003)

the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence according to the steps outlined below

and

"Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel.

Does anyone actually take any of this seriously any more?

In their followup article to the meeting, ABC news reports that:

President Bush said Thursday he has never been more confident of peace between Israel and the Palestinians...

Sure. This after the destruction of synagogues and greenhouses in Gaza, the murder of 3 Israelis this past week, and the first year that deaths of Palestinians at the hands of other Palestinians is greater than the number of Palestinian terrorists killed by Israel.

And yet, according to IMRA:

neither Congress nor the administration plans to offer an alternative to the current PA leadership. Officials and congressional sources said that despite growing PA instability, the United States did not have any near-term alternative to Abbas.

Really, does anyone actually take any of this seriously any more?

See also: Oh, That Hamas

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Oh, THAT Hamas

IMRA is carrying an article from Geostrategy-Direct, entitled "U.S. warning allies of Hamas takeover of Palestinian Authority". It turns out that maybe backing Abu Mazen might not have been such a great idea after all:

During a Sept. 20 meeting, the Quartet - officials from the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and the United States - discussed a Hamas takeover of the PA. Officials said the Quartet, which plans to allocate $3 billion to the PA over the next three years, concluded that the international community could not prevent such a prospect.

It's interesting that following that meeting, Secretary of State Rice said:

SECRETARY RICE: This is going to be a Palestinian process and I think we have to give the Palestinians some room for the evolution of their political process. (I wrote in another post my impressions of Rice's overall comments)

I imagine that the evolution that will take place will be the replacement of a group of terrorists that pays occasional lip service to a relationship to the US by one that offers no such illusion.
But that won't stop the State Department.

Of course, US concerns about Hamas go beyond concerns just about Israel:

The prospect of a Hamas takeover of a Western-funded PA has alarmed Congress. Members of the House subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, who have been receiving frequent closed-door briefings on the decline of the PA, warned that Hamas could eventually use Western funding and weapons to fight the United States.

And then of course there is the sticking point that if Hamas were to be in control, the US would be unable to deal with them:

Under U.S. law, Washington would be unable to deal with any foreign government controlled by groups deemed by the State Department to be terrorists.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad have been designated terrorist organizations, and the former intends to run in elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council in January 2006.
"Hamas has already been in government in the Palestinian Authority," [Assistant Secretary of State David ] Welch said. "Under American law, we can't deal with them. I don't see that law changing after January."

The closing of the article, though, is problematic:

Still, neither Congress nor the administration plans to offer an alternative to the current PA leadership. Officials and congressional sources said that despite growing PA instability, the United States did not have any near-term alternative to Abbas.

"Let's be honest," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, a senior member of the House International Relations Committee. "On its good day, the Palestinian Authority is rife with corruption and riddled with political hacks and thugs. It is never one news cycle away from political emasculation. Yet, this is the horse we're betting on. And truth be told, it's the right bet. There's no one else to bet on."

There was a time not so long ago that the US policy was a hands-off, wait-and-see policy, one that was roundly criticized by the world leaders even while it contributed to the growing insignificance of Arafat.

But by giving in to the pressure and becoming more involved and promoting the idea of elections which produced Abu Mazen, the door was opened for Hamas. Maybe not so different than the error Israel made in opening the door that led to Arafat's gaining control (and according to Sidney Zion led to the loss of Gaza).

Rather than claiming that Abbas was the best bet around, perhaps it would have been wiser to just stay away from the racetrack.

The criticism that democracy cannot be introduced into Iraq may or may not be valid, but it surely applies to the Palestinian Arabs, who have never had a country--and now is hardly the time to make one up for them.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Alice In Wonderland

by Dr. Alex Grobman

Statements by Arab and Israeli politicians sometimes have an Alice and Wonderland quality to them. Just as Alice had trouble in understanding adult behavior that seemed strange, comments by Shimon Peres often have the same quality. On July 24, 2005, IMRA reported that Peres said that the meaning of President Bush’s letter (that is frequently used to rationalize the expulsion of Jews from Gaza) is that "President Bush does not object to Israel retaining large settlement blocs - if the Palestinians agree.”

Peres believes the Arabs might agree to trade land to allow Israel to keep the Etzion Bloc, Maaleh Adumim and a "tightly defined Ariel bloc," but he is convinced that retaining Hebron and all of Jerusalem would not even be a consideration.

Anyone not knowing the history of the Israeli/Arab conflict might conclude that the Arabs won all of the wars in which they fought, and could therefore dictate the terms of the peace. A logical question might be asked: By what legal right are Arabs permitted to live in Gaza and the West Bank, but the Jews are restricted to only certain portions of these areas? The Mandate for Palestine conferred the right of the Jews to settle anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This entitlement has not been changed in international law.

Does the government believe that leaving Gaza will ensure Israeli security? Shin Beit Director Yuval Diskin said that after Israel leaves Gaza, international Islamists will have the “opportunity to launch terror attacks inside Israel.” Some are reported to be already in Gaza. Other Arabs are moving the fight to the West Bank because “The withdrawal will not be complete without the West Bank and Jerusalem.”

As an added bonus, the Arabs see the retreat as a victory for terrorism. According to a joint Israeli-Palestinian Public Opinion Poll conducted in June 2005 by The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah and the Harry S. Truman Research Institute, 45% of the Israelis and 72% of the Palestinians believe that removing Israeli settlements from Gaza is a triumph for the Palestinian armed struggle against Israel.

Israel historian Jacob Talmon observed that at the end of the First and Second World Wars, the French were not concerned how the Germans might regard them. In both conflicts, the Germans attacked the French and each time the French defeated them. It would not have been surprising, therefore for the French to regard the Germans as an eternal threat. Under the circumstances, “Could anyone have imagined suggesting to the French that they surrender Alsace-Lorraine or make any security concessions so the Germans might accept them?” Talmon asked.

On June 5, 1967, Israeli prime minister Levi Eshkol warned King Hussein of Jordan not to join Egypt and Syria in attacking Israel. The Jordanians attacked Israel anyway, resulting in their loss of the West Bank of the Jordan River.

Because Israel was attacked, Talmon noted, one might have been assumed that the world
would not want to reward the aggressor for their unprovoked attack by asking Israel to give back the land Jordan lost in war. Yet on November 22, 1967 the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 242 outlining the guidelines to achieve a "peaceful and accepted settlement." As Eugene V. Rostow pointed out, Israel is allowed 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 obligated 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, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.”

Talmon asked if there had ever been another case in history where, “the victor has been expected to withdraw from conquered territory before the defeated party agreed to discuss peace terms, where the vanquished had openly avowed he would never make peace under any circumstances, would never recognize the right of the victor to exist… but would continue to pursue his mission to destroy and annihilation the victor until he succeeded?"

For years the Israelis have been negotiating with themselves—something that no self-respecting politician or nation would do. Attempts to accommodate the Arabs by offering them one concession after the next are seen as signs of weakness-not sincere attempts at making peace. When the Arabs are willing to accept the existence of the Jewish state, when they are prepared to accommodate the Israelis instead of expecting the Israelis to accommodate them, then we will know that they are serious about peace. Transferring Jews from their legal residences, pitting one Jew against another will not bring peace-only aid and comfort to our enemies.

Dr. Grobman’s most recent book is Battling for Souls: The Vaad Hatzala Rescue Committee in Post War Europe [KTAV]. He is also co-author of Denying History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened? (University of California Press, 2000) His next book Zionism Equals Racism: The New War Against The Jews will be published in 2005.

U.S. Attempts to Prevent Terror Victims from Suing Terrorist Regimes

ZOA & STEPHEN FLATOW PROTEST U.S. GOV'T ATTEMPT TO PREVENT TERROR VICTIMSFROM SUING TERROR-SPONSORING REGIMES

December 29, 2003
Contact: (212) 481-1500 Attn: NEWS EDITOR
Terror Victims' Rights at Risk in U.S. Courts

NEW YORK The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and Stephen Flatow, father of terror victim Alisa Flatow, are deeply concerned about theBush administration's new attempt to prevent victims of terrorism from suinggovernments that sponsor terrorism.

Officials of the State Department and Justice Department presentedarguments to this effect before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Districtof Columbia on December 15 that would prevent victims of terror from suinggovernments that sponsor terror.

Read the whole article at
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=19309