Saturday, February 1, 2014

Middle East: Truth And Reality vs Lies And Distortions

It is truly amazing the lies and distortions that we are constantly fed as relating to Israel and the so-called 'peace plan'. This is part of a conditioning process as forwarded by the MSM, politicians and those who loathe Israel. Such hatred can only come from one source - the same source who promotes lies and distortions. 

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies
(John 8:44)

[First, the conclusions of this article and then some highly germane quotes]

Clearly we are getting to crunch time.

Kerry is waiting for Netanyahu to agree to his framework. Until he does, Kerry, his allies and agents will escalate their threats and subversion.

So far, Netanyahu, Bennett and Ya’alon have competently exposed the lies behind the threats.

And they must continue on this course.

As we learned from Oslo and Gaza, nothing good comes from surrendering our rights and our land. And with Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem hanging in the balance, the stakes have never been higher.

Finance Minister Yair Lapid delivered a scary speech on Wednesday. At the Institute of National Security Studies conference, Lapid warned that if we don’t accept US Secretary of State John Kerry’s framework for negotiations, the Europeans are going to take away our money.

Lapid claimed that Israel’s economic future is dependent on surrendering Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria to the PLO. If we don’t, he said, the EU will abrogate its economic association agreement with us. And such a move on Europe’s part will cause serious harm to our economy.

According to Lapid, “If negotiations with the Palestinians stall or blow up and we enter the reality of a European boycott, even a very partial one, the Israeli economy will retreat, the cost of living will rise, budgets for education, health, welfare and security will be cut [and] many international markets will be closed to us.”

On the other hand, if we give up Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, Lapid promises that we will all get rich.

It took less than 10 minutes for Lapid’s remarks to be exposed as utter nonsense.

The EU delegation to Israel flatly denied that the EU is considering abrogating the association agreement.

“There has been absolutely no consideration in the EU of the abrogation of the association agreement. It is not in the cards,” a statement by the delegation said.

As for the economic benefits Lapid promised Israel would reap from giving in to the PLO, here too, his claims do not withstand scrutiny.

First of all, Israel’s economy will be dramatically weakened, not strengthened, by a deal with the PLO.

As Economy Minister Naftali Bennett explained last week, the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem would cause unprecedented damage to the economy. Like the de facto Palestinian state in Gaza, such a state would serve as a launching ground for missile attacks against Israel. And from Judea and Samaria, the Palestinians would have the capacity to destroy Israel’s economy with just a few, relatively primitive projectiles.

As Bennett out it, “Imagine if just one missile per day fell on [Israel’s technology hub in] Herzliya Pituah, what that would do to Israel’s economy.

If even one plane which was supposed to land at Ben-Gurion Airport crashes [due to terrorism] per year, it would crush the Israeli economy.”

Beyond what the Palestinians would do, there is no reason to believe – and every reason to doubt – that Europe would reward Israel in any way for giving its capital and heartland to the PLO.

As we learned from our experience with the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, Israel’s actions play no role in Europe’s perception of the Jewish state.

Europe will not cease to perceive Israel as “a colonialist state” even if we remove ourselves, lock, stock and barrel to the 1949 armistice lines.

In the lead-up to the Gaza withdrawal, Livni promised that once Israel quit Gaza, its diplomatic position would improve dramatically. By ending the so-called occupation of Gaza, she argued, Israel would prove its good will, and the Europeans would stop attacking us and take our side against the Palestinians at the UN and other arenas.

In the event, not only did this not occur, but the EU refused to acknowledge that the so-called occupation of Gaza even ended. To this day, Europe castigates Israel for its mythical “occupation” of Gaza.

As Livni accidentally explained, as far as Europe is concerned, Israel’s size is not the issue. Israel is the issue. True, Israel surrendered Gaza to Palestinian terrorists and removed every Israeli civilian and soldier from the territory. But since Israel is still stronger than the terror state in Gaza, Israel is still the “occupier.”

By the same token, even if Israel were to quit Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem completely, as long as Israel remains more powerful than the Palestinians in the areas, Europe will castigate Israel as the “occupier.”

And since the Palestinians and their allies will destroy Israel if it is ever less powerful than they are, Europe will stop condemning Israel as “a colonialist state” only if Israel ceases to exist.

The Bottom Line:

Kerry’s framework for Middle East peace offers neither anything new nor anything positive for the Israeli public to support. Were Israel to follow him down his garden path, we would receive neither peace, nor demographic security, nor national security nor national prosperity.

We will not receive peace because there is no Palestinian leadership interested in making peace, and there is no significant Palestinian constituency that supports peace. As Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz said at the INSS Wednesday, PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas is “the world’s number one anti-Semitic leader.”

The following are selected predictive excerpts from my June column, which as I shall show later, are being borne out with eerie – and infuriating – accuracy:

“As the growing specter of international… sanctions looms ever larger… public concern will be harnessed to fan the flames of resentment toward the designated cause of these potential punitive measures – the continued Jewish presence across the 1967 Green Line

"… a well-orchestrated campaign to discredit the residents of the Jewish communities of Judea-Samaria will begin. They will be portrayed as the source of economic burden and physical danger to the rest of the population living within the pre-1967 frontiers…

“In parallel, a drive will be launched… to accustom the public to the notion of ‘constructive unilateralism’ [i.e. unilateral withdrawal from virtually all of Judea-Samaria – M.S.] and to persuade it of its acceptability, indeed, inevitability…

"Conferences will be staged with compliant, high-profile participants to impart ‘intellectual depth’ to this shallow, capricious concept; opinion polls will be conducted, with questions carefully crafted to elicit responses that can be portrayed as reflecting widespread public endorsement; opinion pieces will be published/posted and primetime interviews granted in mainstream media channels… with sympathetic editorial policies, to build up pressure on politicians and policy-makers.”

January was a bad month for common sense, and augured ill for Israel’s future. It was a month which brought an avalanche of corroboration of the dire prophesies I have been making for almost two years in various forums and which I condensed in my column last June.

As if reacting to a well-rehearsed cue, the program unfolded as a carefully choreographed campaign to panic the public and political leadership into believing that unless Israel relinquishes control over virtually all of Judea-Samaria, it will face economic ruin and international ostracism, like South Africa during the apartheid era.

The Channel 2 program Derfner refers to was a classic case study in the use of the mainstream media for political manipulation. Presented by the comely Dana Weiss, the program painted a dour picture of the prospects for Israel’s economy if settlements across the pre- 1967 Green Line continued to exist.

True to my warning that “conferences will be staged with compliant, high-profile participants…” to advance the sanctions scaremongering and promote the idea of unilateral withdrawal-cum-settler abandonment, the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) held its annual conference this week in Tel Aviv. As usual, Yair Lapid, the numskull who, courtesy of the gullibility and imprudence of the Israeli voter, holds the title of the nation’s finance minister, was a keynote speaker.

Like Livni, he lent legitimacy to the apartheid analogy used so frequently against Israel, stating: “The apartheid regime in South Africa did not notice the starting point of the boycott. We are now at the tipping point in the context of the boycott.” According to Lapid, if Israel is blamed for failure to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, the EU is considering canceling its association agreement with Jerusalem.

Displaying that his grasp of international politics is as sparse as his knowledge of macroeconomics, he pontificated: “If negotiations with the Palestinians will stall or blow up and we will enter the reality of a European boycott… the cost of living will rise, budgets for education, health, welfare and security will be cut, many international markets will be closed to us… [which will] substantially hurt the pocket of every Israeli.”

So now all the Palestinians have to do is show sufficient intransigence to ensure the failure of the talks, in order to inflict massive harm on the Israeli economy.

As stated before, King Abdullah of Jordan is someone for prophecy watchers to watch closely:

The current peace plan was reportedly proposed by Jordanian King Abdullah II to US President Barack Obama last year in order to avoid Jordan becoming Palestine.

Since January 8, 2014, the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper has published three reports on the alleged details of the Kerry peace plan.  Al-Quds Al-Arabi is one of the most prominent Arab newspapers and considered a major source of inside information on most Arab regimes. According to Al-Quds Al-Arabi, US Secretary of State John Kerry’s plan revolves around Jordan’s king settling Palestinian refugees living in Arab countries in his kingdom and in exchange he would receive $55 billion for “Jordan’s role in hosting refugees for over five decades”.

Al-Quds Al-Arabi adds that the US administration sees Jordan’s role as the key to solving the refugees problem as it has been one of the most difficult obstacles to peace.
 Al-Quds Al-Arabiadds that Kerry’s plan includes the Palestinian Authority (PA) recognizing Israel as a Jewish state and Israel handing the West Bank to the PA. Settlements would be condensed to certain areas and 20 percent of settlers would be relocated. Israel would keep little over 6 percent in the West bank which will be substituted by 5.4 percent of land inside Israel being given to the PA.

On 19 January, Ynews reported that the current peace plan was proposed by Jordanian King Abdullah II
to US President Barack Obama last year in order to avoid Jordan becoming Palestine (i.e. Jordan’s king being toppled by his Palestinian majority). Ynews confirms that “This is how Kerry’s plan was born”.

A fascinating but dicey and possibly dangerous moment is rapidly approaching in the epicenter.
The Obama administration is about to tell the Israelis and Palestinians how to solve their problems. The White House is about to pressure both sides to agree “in principle” to an interim agreement, and then work on a final peace treaty. How the two sides will react is anyone’s bet. Could the dynamic actually lead to a peaceful resolution of an ancient conflict? Seems unlikely. Could it lead to a calm and quiet at least for a while? Sure, theoretically. But to be candid, it could also lead to political chaos, or even to renewed violence.
Let me explain as concisely as I can.

Within days, or at most a few weeks, Secretary of State John Kerry will present both sides with what he calls a “framework agreement.” Essentially, this is an American-crafted peace plan. Yes, it will be based on month after month of discussions with both sides, and with the Jordanians. But make no mistake: it’s the plan President Obama wants to impose on the two parties. It is supposed to create the context for the final peace treaty, which the White House wants negotiated, completed, and signed by the end of 2014.

First, the Obama team could inadvertently make the situation worse. It could accidentally set into motion events that lead to renewed Palestinian terrorism (i.e., a “Third Intifada”) which would force the Israeli Defense Forces into a combat mode. Casualties could escalate, and things could get out of control. It’s happened before. In 2000, then-President Bill Clinton tried to pressure the Israelis and Palestinians to make a final deal at Camp David. Then-Israeli PM Ehud Barak finally agreed to make sweeping concessions to PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. Barak offered the Palestinians all of Gaza, 93% of the West Bank, and half of Jerusalem for their capital, in return for a final peace treaty and the end to all claims. But wanting much more, Arafat said no. He quit the talks, left Camp David and then supported the Second Intifada, which unleashed a wave of suicide bombers who kept killing Israeli civilians, and caused the IDF to invade cities and towns in the West Bank to find and crush these terror cells.

Second, trying to force both sides to accept an American peace plan could blow up either or both governments.
If the Netanyahu government says “yes” to this interim Obama peace plan, his coalition may revolt. Already the right-wing parties fear that Netanyahu will make dangerous concessions in the final negotiations. He has made major concessions before, giving the ancient city of Hebron to the Palestinians, for example. If Netanyahu looks like he’s agreeing to more painful and arguably unwise concessions, certain Israeli political parties may quit the coalition, or Netanyahu might fire them. Political tensions in Jerusalem have been spiking all week for these very reasons. Saying “yes” might mean the Netanyahu government has be significantly reshuffled (i.e., replacing defecting right-wing parties with one or more left-wing parties). But it also could collapse all together. If so, then new elections would have to be called, which would further delay if not derail the “peace process.”

  • “The Obama administration will soon present a framework for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement that the sides may accept with reservations as a basis for a final deal by year’s end, the top US negotiator told Jewish leaders.
  • Martin Indyk, the State Department’s lead envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, told the Jewish leaders on Thursday that under the framework agreement about 75-80 percent of settlers would remain in what would become Israeli sovereign territory through land swaps; he added that it was his impression that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was not averse to allowing settlers who want to remain as citizens of the Palestinian state.
  • This was because Indyk and Secretary of State John Kerry consulted closely with the leaders of both governments as Indyk’s team drafted the agreement.
  • Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Abbas would be expected to accept the agreement, with reservations, as the basis of continued negotiations, Indyk apparently said.
  • Making it a US-drafted framework permitted the leaders to distance themselves from politically sensitive issues, Indyk said. “There may be things we need to say because they can’t say them yet,” he said, according to the notes of one participant.
  • Broadly, Indyk said, the agreement will address: mutual recognition; security, land swaps and borders; Jerusalem; refugees; and the end of conflict and all claims.
  • A request for comment from the State Department was not returned.
  • On some sensitive issues — particularly the status of Jerusalem — the framework would be vague, but Indyk went into detail on other issues that participants said was surprising.
  • Among these was the security arrangement for the border between Jordan and the West Bank: Indyk said a new security zone would be created, with new fences, sensors and unmanned aerial vehicles.
  • Indyk also said that the framework would address compensation for Jews from Arab lands as well as compensation for Palestinian refugees — another longstanding demand by some pro-Israel groups but one that has yet to be included in any formal document.
  • He said that the framework would describe “Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people and Palestine as the nation state of the Palestinian people,” a nod to a key demand by the Netanyahu government that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state.
  • He said the framework would address the issue of incitement and Palestinian education for peace.

“Let me tell you something that is deeply concerning – the abuse of power from this administration,” Cruz told Schieffer. “We’ve seen multiple filmmakers prosecuted and the government’s gone after them. Whether it’s the poor fellow that did the film that the president blamed Benghazi and the terrorist attacks on, turns out that wasn’t the reason for the attack, but the administration went and put that poor fellow in jail on unrelated charges. Just this week it was broken that Dinesh D’Souza, who did a very big movie criticizing the president, is now being prosecuted by this administration.”
Schieffer didn’t think that was a newsworthy charge – or even worth pursuing further. But Cruz continued despite Schieffer’s attempt to cut him short and close the interview.
“Can you image the reaction if the Bush administration had gone and prosecuted Michael Moore and Alec Baldwin and Sean Penn?” he asked rhetorically.

Schieffer again tried to cut him off.
“It should trouble everyone that government uses government power and the IRS in particular to target their enemies. And you are talking in a few minutes to Chuck Schumer – he’s calling on the administration to …”
This time Schieffer did cut him off, saying: “We are going to leave this for another day, senator. Thank you for joining us, and we’ll talk to you again.”

Cruz is simply stating the obvious here. The indictment of D’Souza should have been the biggest news story of the last few days. It should have overshadowed Obama’s State of the Union Address and even his latest attempt to subvert the Constitution by raising the minimum wage without congressional action.
Cruz is right. It’s so obvious that it is payback time for D’Souza. Obama feels safe going after his enemies. He knows his friends in the media will protect him by labeling anyone who points out the obvious as a conspiracy theorist who is jumping to conclusions. If there were any other motivation for indicting D’Souza, an administration worried about appearances would have blocked it for obvious reasons. Not the Obama administration. Not in this controlled media environment – precisely the kind necessary for tyrannical, lawless actions to go unchecked.
The trouble with all-powerful government is that it can get anyone at any time for any reason.

The only real protection any of us have ultimately is whether the press exercises its watchdog role – which just doesn’t happen when people they don’t particularly like find themselves in the cross-hairs.
This is how tyranny comes.
It comes when some people are prosecuted for crimes while others are not – based on their political point of view.
It comes when the press fails to recognize obvious political payback by a president against a prominent critic.
It comes when the officials charged with law enforcement become the chief lawbreakers.
It comes when the rule of law is replaced by the rule of men.

No comments: