Tuesday, May 8, 2007

Israel Just says NO to a Just Peace

Today is Day 14,269 of the Maintenance of the Immoral (and Illegal) West Bank Settlements and almost the 40th anniversary of the start of the immoral (and illegal) occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
Micah.6:8 “He has told you, O man, Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk humbly with your God
Israel Just Says NO to a Just Peace
How does the government of Israel usually avoid getting involved with any negotiations that might lead to a just peace - the terms of which have been “known” for years - Israel ends the occupation, dismantles the settlements, makes a just resolution to the Palestinian refugee issue - all resulting in a viable and contiguous Palestinian state?

It just says ‘NO”.
NO The Palestinian Right of Return is non-existent and non-negotiable.
Here are excerpts from the comments of Leonard Fein on the Saudi/Arab League Peace Initiative which can be found on the Americans for Peace Now On-Line Conversation
Here are the operative clauses of the initiative, originally agreed to in 2002 and now unanimously reaffirmed on March 28 in Riyadh by 21 Arab countries. (Libya was absent and Hamas abstained, while Mahmoud Abbas signed.): ….. The initiative calls for “full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon; achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194; the acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.”…….Were Israel to agree to all that – and, presumably, do it – then the Arab countries would “consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region” and “establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.”…..Nature, abhorring a vacuum, has conveniently offered a replacement. Now we have the “one no of Jerusalem.” The “no” is contained in Prime Minister Olmert’s extensive pre-Pesach interview by the Jerusalem Post. There, dealing the with Arab refugee issue, Olmert goes father than any Israeli leader in history: “I’ll never accept a solution that is based on their return to Israel, [not] any number.” In other words, what the Arabs have long referred to as “the right of return” is, from Israel’s official standpoint, non-existent and non-negotiable….. What is particularly troubling about the Olmert interview is that he apparently does not perceive any significant contradiction between his absolute statement on the refugee problem and his statement, in the course of the same interview, that “They [the Palestinians] are starting to move forward, and I want to play a role - quietly, tacitly, smartly - to help create the environment that will help the Palestinians make the right decision.” …… Their statement from Riyadh: Overshadowed entirely by the language regarding peace with Israel but surely worthy of note, the signatories agree “to spread the culture of moderation, tolerance, dialogue, and openness; to reject all forms of terrorism and extremism, as well as all exclusionary racist trends, hatred campaigns and endeavors.” One may be skeptical of the sincerity of such a pledge, or of the readiness to follow through on it. But surely even the rhetorical endorsement of tolerance and a rejection of extremism and terrorism suggest the coming, however sluggishly, of a new dawn. Whether the sun will also rise is now up to Israel.

NO We have no Partner for Peace
In the Boston Globe – May 8, 2007
Israel, Egypt and Jordan to discuss Arab peace plan
A Palestinian state is key to initiative
By Reuters May 8, 2007

JERUSALEM -- Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni plans to hold initial talks in Cairo on Thursday with the foreign ministers of Egypt and Jordan about an Arab peace initiative, officials said yesterday……that offers it normal relations with the Arab world in return for a Palestinian state and full withdrawal from land seized in a 1967 war. It's the first formal session," one Israeli official said. Political turmoil in Israel has delayed initial talks with the Arab League working group, diplomats involved in the matter said. An Israeli Foreign Ministry official said Livni's talks in Cairo were expected to focus mainly on the Arab peace initiative and "to see if it's possible to move forward." Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev declined to comment on the meetings, but said: "Moderate Arab leaders, of course they can't replace the Palestinians as partners in peace, but they can provide an atmosphere that is conducive to moderation." Washington has been trying to promote the Arab League peace initiative in the hope it might bring states such as Saudi Arabia, which do not recognize Israel, to deal publicly with the Jewish state and to help support Israeli-Palestinian talks. First launched in 2002, the Arab initiative calls on Israel to withdraw from all land occupied in the 1967 conflict, to reach an "agreed, just" solution for Palestinian refugees, and to accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital In return, Arab states would establish normal relations with the Jewish state.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Do not be fooled by “we have no partner for peace” and “we will not speak to them” In HDS Greenway’s op-ed in the November 14, 2006, Boston Globe he quoted President Kennedy “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.” Where there is a commitment for a just peace, the Israeli Government will have no difficulty finding Palestinians with whom to talk. As has been said often “You do not negotiate with your friends. You negotiate with your enemy.”

Do you need to find a “partner for peace” or sit down to “negotiate” ending illegal but inhumane practices? Of course not. You simply unilaterally prohibit it! The Israeli Government should unilaterally end all human rights abuses in the occupied territories beginning with the house demolitions, the uprooting of trees, the discriminatory road regime, the confiscating of land, the targeted assassinations and, with respect to the primary cause of all the violations, begin to dismantle all the Jewish settlements.

From there it is a short distance to a just and fair peace already described in the Geneva Accords and the Saudi/Arab Initiative including final terms and conditions about security, trade, redistribution of resources and refugee rights – negotiated in good faith by an Israeli Government.

NO There has been ..... a suicide bombing …………a rocket attack………. a kidnapping and the Palestinian authorities aren’t doing enough to stop the violence.
Interestingly enough, there was no mention of Prime Minister Ohmert taking out this dog-eared most used and abused index card of all

After which in revenge Israel assassinates “suspected" militants and kills additional innocent Palestinians and then for revenge a Palestinian suicide bomber kills herself and innocent Israelis and then Israel kills Palestinians by fire form an Apache helicopter and then………..

In his review of Encounter Point entitled "Israelis and Palestinians Destroy the 'No Partner for Peace' Canard", Evan Derkacz says “The Bereaved Families Forum is a major focus of the film's energies, comprised of families from both sides, all of whom have suffered the death of one or more loved ones to the conflict. Rather than resort to more violence, these people have each asked themselves, in one form or another, what Robi Damelin does in the film: "So what do you do with this pain? Do you take it and look for revenge and keep the whole cycle of violence going, or do you choose another path to prevent further death and further pain to other parents?"

In his January 20, 2006, Boston Globe op-ed piece, John A. Nevin, a professor emeritus at University of New Hampshire, said “In a review of seven terror campaigns, I found that even the most severe violent retaliation had no consistent effect: A subsequent increase in lethal attacks was as likely as a decrease. It appears that once initiated, terror campaigns develop a sort of momentum that makes them difficult to stop by acceptable means. Therefore, governments should recognize fundamental goals – such as national autonomy of people who have been excluded from political power and …. Seek ways to achieve these goals at least in part before the terrorists can claim success – in effect, rewarding terrorism.”

But the Knesset knows how NOT to say NO
From the Boston Globe, May 8, 2007
Olmert survives no-confidence vote
JERUSALEM -- Embattled Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert passed a parliamentary test with surprising ease yesterday, defeating three parliamentary motions of no confidence by wide margins. Under Israeli law, an absolute majority of 61 of the Knesset's 120 members is needed to adopt a motion forcing the government to resign. But each of the motions drew only 28 "yes" votes, while the vote against ranged from 60 to 62, with six to nine members abstaining. Olmert has been under increasing criticism over last summer's costly, bloody, and inconclusive war in Lebanon. (AP)


When will it become common knowledge that the government of Israel will raise transparently false objection after objection in order to avoid negotiating a just peace in good faith – that there is no partner for peace after the Geneva Initiative, that there can be NO right of return when most parties are searching for a “just” resolution to the issue, that there has been a killing of an Isreali by a suicide bomber when the military response is known not to be the solution?

When will a critical mass read the history of this conflict and conclude that the government of Israel has two goals – the annexation of the West Bank and permanent “quiet” from the Palestinians or their total absence and that’s it! The government of Israel does want peace but the unacceptable kind that Steffi Schamess in her RSVP to the Israel Bonds event refers to “a ‘peace’ which is only a euphemism for ‘quiet’, for keeping the Palestinian rockets at bay, for keeping the suicide bombers out of Israel, for maintaining a veneer of false calm that enables Israelis to get on with their daily lives while the Palestinians continue to suffer economic hardships, daily humiliations, and erosion of their human rights. That kind of ‘peace’ is not a just or fair solution.”

Isn't there any way to get the government of Israel to just say "Yes" to a just peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians?


Hmmm??? I was just reviewing my old e-mails and found terms and conditions of a peace proposal that would likely be acceptable to the government of Israel.

This was posted by: Mazin Qumsiyeh on the New England Tikkun Talk yahoo group Sunday, April 1, 2007 "Ramallah April 1, 2007.-- The newly appointed Palestinian leader Sasi Nasoos announced that he secured the agreement of all Palestinian factions on a new unity platform to replace the Palestinian Thawabet (constants) and previous unity agreements and supplant International law. The new unity platform to revive the peace process calls for world normalization with Israel on all fronts (especially economic) and accepts Israel's long-standing demand that Palestinians give up the right of return to their homes and lands, accept Israel as a Jewish state (accept the laws that discriminate against their remnants inside Israel), and accept the concept of the statelet that is to be named Palustan on parts of the West Bank. Palestinians will also accept Israel's annexation and sovereignty on the Western and Eastern Water aquifers (where the settlements lie in the Jordan Valley and the Western parts of the West Bank) and areas around Jerusalem (all the Jewish colonies there). Palestinians have also accepted Israel's sovereignty on the subterranean earth of Arab areas of East Jerusalem (especially under the Mosques of Al-Aksa, Omar etc), control over the air space of the West Bank, the electromagnetic spectrum, the natural resources, and the borders of the newly liberated Palustan. All resistance is to cease, all Palestinians to have no weapons, and all mention of Israel's military arsenal (especially its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons) is to cease as that would be considered incitement.

Enough said for now!!
Deutoronomy 16:20 – “Justice, justice shall you pursue that you may live and inherit the land which God gave you” and the footnote in the 1980 Hertz Edition “(T)here is international justice, which demands respect for the personality of every national group, and proclaims that no people can of right be robbed of its national life or territory, its language or spiritual heritage.

No comments: