David Ignatius, "How to break Hamas’s stranglehold on Gaza": Two Blind Mice

The geocentric model of the universe, which explained how the sun, the moon and the stars revolve around the earth, persisted until the 16th Century. Although the underlying facts were wrong, some of world's most brilliant people continued to "improve" the geocentric model until Copernicus came along in 1543 with his heliocentric model of the solar system. Bottom line: Before wedding yourself to a universally accepted model, review the underlying facts.

In his latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "How to break Hamas’s stranglehold on Gaza" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/07/21/how-to-break-hamass-stranglehold-on-gaza/?hpid=z3), David Ignatius writes:

"Hamas’s biggest weakness of all is its unpopularity among Palestinians in Gaza now. A poll taken in June, before the latest fighting began, showed that 70 percent of Gazans wanted a continuing cease-fire with Israel; 57 percent wanted a Fatah-Hamas unity government to renounce violence against Israel; 73 percent thought nonviolent resistance had a positive impact, and large majority thought Hamas had failed to deal with crime and corruption.

The future? Asked if Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas should send security personel and other officials to take over administration of Gaza, 65 percent said yes. The poll was published in July by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and its senior fellow, David Pollock."

So what isn't Ignatius telling us about the results of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy poll results (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/new-palestinian-poll-shows-hardline-views-but-some-pragmatism-too)? David Pollock also states (my emphasis in red):

"Regarding the longer-term, fundamental issue of a two-state solution, Palestinian public opinion has clearly taken a maximalist turn. Other recent polls, even after the collapse of the latest peace talks, showed a majority or plurality still favoring the goal of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, alongside Israel (though the numbers were gradually declining). But now, a clear majority (60% overall, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza) say that the five-year goal 'should be to work toward reclaiming all of historic Palestine, from the river to the sea.'"

Ignatius commends Jackson Diehl for his WaPo opinion piece published yesterday (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/07/jackson-diehl-when-gaza-fighting-is.html), in which Diehl declared:

"A smart U.S. strategy would aim at brokering a deal between Israel, Abbas and Hamas whereby prisoners are released and the blockade on Gaza eased in exchange for Hamas’s commitment to a long-term cease-fire and free and fair elections for a unified Palestinian government. The result could be a new generation of Palestinian leaders with a genuine mandate from their people."

However, as I observed yesterday, Diehl is also ignoring Palestinian radicalism, held by a majority of Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza, which rejects Israel's basic right to exist.

Build a model for peace based upon Palestinian moderation and common sense? Regrettably, both Ignatius and Diehl are ignoring the underlying facts.

Yousef Munayyer, "America’s Failed Palestinian Policy": Only by Attacking Israeli Civilians Do Palestinians Achieve Their Goals

Indeed, if you are seeking rabid enmity and unsubstantiated loathing toward Israel cloaked in the presumed integrity of a once great national newspaper headed for Chapter 11, Andrew Rosenthal's op-ed page of The New York Times provides a spring of malice that never goes dry.

Have a gander at the latest Israel bashing guest op-ed in The New York Times entitled "America’s Failed Palestinian Policy" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/23/opinion/americas-failed-palestinian-policy.html?_r=0), written by Yousef Munayyer, executive director of the Jerusalem Fund. Munayyer, who calls for a "significant re-evaluation of the American policies" toward Israelis and Palestinians, writes:

"Hamas has used armed struggle to achieve certain objectives, albeit at significant cost."

Indeed, Hamas has used "armed struggle," i.e. suicide bombings and missiles directed at Israeli civilians, to seek to achieve "certain objectives." And what might those "objectives" be? You don't have to look very far. They are all explicitly spelled out in the Hamas Covenant (see: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp), which provides, inter alia:

• "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with."
• "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."
• "In their Nazi treatment, the Jews made no exception for women or children. Their policy of striking fear in the heart is meant for all. They attack people where their breadwinning is concerned, extorting their money and threatening their honour. They deal with people as if they were the worst war criminals."
• "The Islamic Resistance Movement consider itself to be the spearhead of the circle of struggle with world Zionism and a step on the road."

Or stated very simply, Hamas is a racist organization, which rejects recognition of Israel and calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis.

Munayyer would excuse the terror tactics of Hamas directed against Israeli civilians by observing:

"American policy initially signaled to Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah, a Palestinian party committed to the idea of negotiations, that talks would yield a Palestinian state on 22 percent of the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. At the same time the United States, which has monopolized the role of mediator for itself, failed to do anything to change Israel’s policies of settlement expansion in the West Bank.

Palestinians’ patience grew thin as the number of Israeli settlers tripled between the beginning of the 'peace process' in 1991 and today. Palestinians learned that the message they initially got about a peace process’ [sic] leading to statehood was either made in bad faith or an outright lie."

Of course, there is no mention by Munayyer that Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert offered the leaders of Fatah, Arafat and Abbas, an independent state along the 1967 lines with agreed upon land swaps, and Olmert even offered Palestinian control of east Jerusalem. Arafat and Abbas refused.

There is also no mention by Munayyer that Israelis settlements occupy less than two percent of the West Bank.

In addition, Munayyer "forgets" to mention that in November 2009, Netanyahu acceded to Obama's request for a 10-month freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank; however, Abbas ignored the gesture.

Munayyer goes on to observe:

"The real danger is if the underlying causes of discontent in Gaza — the denial of human rights and dignity for Palestinians — continue to go ignored once rockets stop targeting Israel."

So only Israel is responsible for "the denial of human rights and dignity for Palestinians." Yeah, right. Needless to say, Munayyer makes no mention of discrimination against women (e.g., "honor killings"), gays and Christians in the West Bank and Gaza.

And even Human Rights Watch has acknowledged the brutal repression of freedom of speech by Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza (see: http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/04/06/west-bankgaza-stop-harassing-journalists).

Democracy in the West Bank and Gaza? Presidential elections were last held by the Palestinians in January 2005. Parliamentary elections were last held by Fatah and Hamas in January 2006. Israel is not to blame.

Bottom line: Munayyer would have us believe that Palestinians have no choice other than to make use of terror attacks against Israeli civilians in order to achieve their goals:

"What message is sent to Palestinians when the only time we pay attention to their plight, and the only time they make gains, is through the use of arms?"

In fact, absolutely nothing has been gained by the Palestinians in this latest round of fighting during which Hamas and Islamic Jihad fired more than 1,500 missiles and rockets at Israeli towns and cities. Hamas's infrastructure has been shattered with nothing of substance to show for the renewed bloodshed, and Hamas has again demonstrated that it is no more than a terrorist entity dedicated to killing Jews.

The New York Times, "Islamist Victors in Egypt Seeking Shift by Hamas": More Spurious Reporting

In its current lead online article entitled "Islamist Victors in Egypt Seeking Shift by Hamas" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/world/middleeast/egypts-election-victors-seek-shift-by-hamas-to-press-israel.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1332572445-A8zFGadjfpRQ6ce0Losf5A#), The New York Times would have us believe that the Muslim Brotherhood is seeking to moderate the views of Hamas toward a negotiated peace with Israel and declares:

"Israel, for its part, rejects the 1967 borders as insufficiently defensible for its security."

This is spurious reporting.

First, there were no "1967 borders." Rather, there were only armistice lines from Israel's War of Independence in 1949, inasmuch as Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon refused to recognize Israel prior to the Six Day War and to negotiate borders.

Second, Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert both offered their Palestinian counterparts, Arafat and Abbas, respectively, peace agreements along the 1967 lines with land swaps.

Given the range of the rockets and missiles in the Hamas arsenal in Gaza (for example, over 60 kilometers with respect to the Fajr-5, placing Tel Aviv well within range) and the proximity of Israeli population centers to the West Bank (Israel is some nine kilometers wide at its waist, where much of its population resides), any borders today will not provide Israeli population centers with sufficient distance from Palestinian missiles. Rather, the primary obstacle to a negotiated peace remains the Palestinians' intractable refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and not Israel's refusal to agree to borders approximating the 1967 lines, as this New York Times article seems to suggest.

Will Hamas now amend its charter, which rejects negotiation with Israel and calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis, as the result of prodding from Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood? Don't hold your breath.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is restoring the annual $1 billion in aid it provides to the Egyptian army, notwithstanding the attempt by the Egyptian army, backed by the Brotherhood, to arrest 43 NGO workers seeking to encourage Egyptian democracy, and notwithstanding the Brotherhood's persistent threats to review Egypt's 1979 peace treaty with the "Zionist entity."

[I have asked that The New York Times correct this article. Let's see if they bother responding.]

Thomas Friedman's "What to Do With Lemons": A Lemon of a Proposal

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "What to Do With Lemons" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/opinion/19friedman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion), Thomas Friedman proffers a "different approach" to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians, which, he would have us believe, is "much bigger and with more imagination" (Tom is a modest man). Friedman suggests that U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181, which partitioned Palestine in 1947 into independent Jewish and Arab states, now be reaffirmed by the Security Council based upon the 1967 borders with land swaps and security arrangements:

"Each side would get something vital provided it gives the other what it wants. The Palestinians would gain recognition of statehood and U.N. membership, within provisional boundaries, with Israel and America voting in favor. And the Israelis would get formal U.N. recognition as a Jewish state — with the Palestinians and Arabs voting in favor.

Moreover, the Palestinians would get negotiations based on the 1967 borders and Israel would get a U.N.-U.S. assurance that the final border would be shaped in negotiations between the parties, with land swaps, so theoretically the 5 percent of the West Bank where 80 percent of the settlers live could be traded for parts of pre-1967 Israel.

. . . .

Meanwhile, the U.S., rather than being isolated in a corner with Israel, can get credit for restarting talks — without remaining stuck on the settlements issue."

"Very simple," the Gray Lady's wizard informs us. Wow, why didn't I think of that? Actually, I can think of a number of reasons why I didn't think of it.

As reported earlier this month by Khaled Abu Toameh of the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=223181), Azzam al-Ahmed, a member of the Fatah Central Committee who is closely associated with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, informed the Egyptian newspaper Al-Masry Al-Youm that "Fatah has never recognized Israel and will never do so." Somehow I don't find that reassuring.

Then, too, there was the unity deal between Fatah and Hamas signed at the end of April. At the risk of sounding redundant, the Hamas charter calls for the murder of all Jews, rejects any negotiated settlement with Israel, and demands that Israel be eliminated by jihad, i.e. holy war, an oxymoron if ever there was one. With Fatah embracing Hamas, which has been recognized as a terror organization by the U.S., the E.U., Canada and Japan, is this the time to believe that territorial compromise by Israel will bring enduring peace with the Palestinians?

Don't get me wrong: I favor a two-state solution based on the 1967 lines with land swaps. But let's not forget how Israel was rewarded with mortar shells and missiles when it unilaterally evacuated Gaza in 2005. I am also painfully aware that Israel is nine miles wide at its waist, and any withdrawal to the 1967 lines will leave Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa and Netanya at the mercy of Qassam rockets.

Friedman would have Israel return to the 1967 borders with "mutually agreed border adjustments and security arrangements." Well, I'm ready for this, Tom, but first explain to me those very simple "security arrangements." You see, I personally witnessed some of those 12,000 mortar shells, rockets and missiles hit civilian targets in southern Israel, yet a cynical world never cared, demanding only that Israel respond "proportionately."

So what is the solution? Perhaps there is no current solution. Given the violence, upheaval and uncertainty surrounding the so-called "Arab Spring," Fatah and Hamas, both struggling to remain in power, are at the moment prevented from reaching any compromise with Israel. In the real world, as opposed to the Merry Old Land of Oz located in Maryland just outside of Washington, timing is critical.

Let's first hear from either Fatah or Hamas that they are prepared to recognize Israel's right to exist within any boundaries whatsoever, and then let's start to talk. Unfortunately, this is a precondition that neither Fatah nor Hamas can presently accept.

Fatah Condemns Itamar Killings While Dedicating a Square in the Name of the Coastal Road Massacre Leader

Hamas in Gaza is labeling the Itamar killings of three sleeping children and their parents a "heroic operation" (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=211849). I apologize for shocking the sensibilities of any of my readership, and I hope there are no children who read this blog, but for those capable of withstanding the horror of viewing graphic pictures of these tragic murders, see http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142846. What monster could possibly perpetrate such an act?

Palestinian President Abbas is now denouncing the killings as "despicable, immoral, and inhuman", but on Sunday Abbas's Fatah faction dedicated a town square in El-Bireh after Dalal al-Mughrabi, the leader of the 1978 Coastal Road Massacre.

The Coastal Road Massacre? On March 11, 1978, 11 Fatah terrorists landed near Ma’agan Michael. After killing Gail Rubin, an American nature photographer, they hijacked a passing taxi and drove south toward Tel Aviv. Stopping a northbound bus, they turned it around and began shooting passing cars.

Stopping another bus and taking additional hostages, they were halted at the Glilot Junction north of Tel Aviv, where a battle ensued. As the ultimate result of this barbarity, 37 Israelis and one American lost their lives, including 13 children, and 71 were wounded. (See: http://www.jpost.com/Features/InThespotlight/Article.aspx?id=211632)

Make no mistake about it: Abbas is saying one thing for the consumption of Washington, while doing something altogether else to please the Palestinian street and save his own skin.

New York Times Editorial "President Abbas and Peace Talks" Reveals Astonishing Naiveté

In an editorial in today's New York Times entitled "President Abbas and Peace Talks", it is claimed:

"But if Mr. Abbas is not at the table, there is no serious way of testing Mr. Netanyahu’s intentions and whether there is any real chance of peacefully achieving a Palestinian state."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/opinion/11wed1.html?hp

It never occurred to the author of this editorial, who is swift to label Netanyahu a "master manipulator", that Abbas is not interested in testing Netanyahu's intentions. As Abbas stated in May 2009 to Jackson Diehl of The Washington Post:

"'I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements,' he said. 'Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.'"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html

Unacknowledged by the author of this editorial is the current murderous enmity between Fatah, rulers of the West Bank, and Hamas, rulers of Gaza, which prevents Abbas from reaching any agreement involving Gaza. Satisfied with 8% GDP growth, security collaboration with Israel against Hamas, and only 14 remaining Israeli checkpoints, Abbas is currently loathe to take steps which could jeopardize Fatah's dominion over the West Bank.

Remarkably, the author of this editorial also ignores Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's 2008 offer, which was predictably rejected by Abbas, to swap Israeli territory for settlement blocs and to provide a safe passage corridor between the West Bank and Gaza.

Abbas is not standing on principle. Deathly afraid of Hamas, he has good reason to avoid talks with Israel, which could undermine his regime.

New York Times: "Future of Palestinian Authority Is in Question"; P.T. Barnum: "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute"

A November 9 article by Ethan Bronner, entitled "Future of Palestinian Authority Is in Question", was given top online billing yesterday by The New York Times. The article, with a "less than spontaneous" picture of Abbas supporters raising his picture (how was this photographed from under a circle of supporters raising his picture?), states:

"The collapse of the Palestinian Authority, Israel’s negotiating partner, was raised as a possibility on Monday, as several aides to its president, Mahmoud Abbas, said that he intended to resign and forecast that others would follow."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/world/middleeast/10mideast.html?_r=1&hp

This news item is as credible as the accompanying picture. Funny how the announcement was made when Obama was about to meet Netanyahu.

Abbas & Co. are going to relinquish their power and perquisites, turn the West Bank over to Hamas, and watch as their families are thrown off twelve-story buildings? Ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Just another instance of Middle East Speak coupled with NYT nescience.

Whose Arm to Twist?

Demonstrators in Tehran are bludgeoned into submission, and Obama remains silent. The tiny Shepherd Hotel in East Jerusalem's Sheikh Jarah neighborhood is considered for 20 apartments where Jews might live, and Israeli Ambassador Oren is summoned to the State Department.

Meanwhile, Rafik Natsheh, a member of the Central Committee of Fatah and a former Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, has just stated in an interview with Al-Quds Al-Arabi that the so-called West-leaning Fatah "doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist and never asked this of others." Natsheh said Palestinians would forever pursue armed struggle against Israel.

When not bowing to Saudi King Abdullah, Obama knows whose arm to twist.