This past week Ma’ariv reported on a tentative plan being worked on, and reportedly covertly discussed between Israelis and Palestinians, that would involve a pullback from substantial parts of Judea-Samaria, establishment of a “provisional” Palestinian state, in return for a 10 year hudna.

Ladies and gentlemen, once again: A hudna is certainly not an end to hostilities, it is not even a ceasefire. A bit of background is in order here.

In 628, Muhammad, who had determined that he was not yet strong enough to take Mecca in battle, made a 10 year peace treaty — called the Hudaibya Pact — with the Quraysh tribe that controlled the city. Two years after signing it, when he had garnered considerably more strength, he abrogated the treaty and attacked the Quraysh with a force so overwhelming that they surrendered without a fight. He did this by waiting until their guard was down and then finding a pretext for attack.

In Islamic law, the way in which Muhammad conducted himself — the despicable, dishonorable way he conducted himself — is viewed as a model of proper behavior when dealing with non-Muslims. The term for this is hilam — “by stratagems, you will make war.” More than once Arafat referred to this publicly when talking about deals he had struck.

What does this mean? It means that the Palestinians would be happy to buy time in order to strengthen themselves. It says nothing but nothing about ultimate intentions. To surrender land to them under such circumstances would be truly insanity. If at all — and I do not believe we should at all — but if at all land is to be surrendered for a Palestinian state, it should only be when there is an absolute end to hostilities, terror organizations have been dismantled and the arsenal of weapons surrendered. To pull back to less defensible borders, to give them more land in which to operate, and to allow them time to garner additional strength — without demanding these conditions — is unthinkable. And yet, Olmert is thinking it.

Keep in mind that the Palestinians have a history of not keeping their signed agreements. Nor do they think they have to. They are dealing with us, with non-Muslims. This hudna would not last even ten years.

Olmert, of course, imagines that he would be the hero of the day for bringing “peace,” and the darling of the Western world. This is what he hungers for. What he would be doing, should he — G-d forbid — succeed in such a thing, would be to delay the Israeli grief and the death until after his watch. And it would be greater grief and death than if he contended with the threats we face in a forthright manner now. He would be committing a sin of great magnitude.

Everyone who loves Israel must speak out against such a plan. Nip it in the bud as early as possible.

Here, this means working to bring down the Olmert gov’t.

Reportedly Olmert shared this with Bush when he visited recently. And so, in the U.S. it is most appropriate to let the president know that this is dangerous and unacceptable.


Clearly, any open negotiation between Israel and the PA requires a shift in the PA gov’t first. Even Olmert wouldn’t sign a deal with a Hamas gov’t. (At any rate, I think not, but who knows.) The following report may be relevant:

According to Ghazi Hamad of Hamas, the spokesman for the PA cabinet, “American policy is the biggest obstacle to bringing peace and security to the region.”

“The Americans should not demand from the Palestinian side to commit or to abide by the Quartet conditions [to recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by past agreements],” he explained. “Americans should change their own policy and ask Israel to change its policies toward the Palestinian people.”


For maybe the hundredth time, a spokesman for Hamas, in this instance Ismail Rudwan, has said Hamas will never recognize Israel’s right to exist. What is more, Rudwan said he expects the platform of a unity government “not to recognize the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation.”

As to that anticipated unity government, which we are still being assured is coming shortly, there is now a new twist being suggested. Deputy Palestinian Prime Minister Naser al-Shaer says various Palestinian factions had reached a “consensus” that the unity government would have a program that would be separate from Hamas’s. This suggests an attempt to promote a “program” that would be acceptable to the Western powers without trying to force Hamas to agree to it. Of course, a “government” refers to the ministers in the cabinet; Hamas is still the majority in the parliament no matter who sits in the cabinet.

Should such a situation evolve, it will be interesting to see how eager the Western powers and our Israeli gov’t are to be gullible and play along.

It just might be that Hamas will prove so intransigent that they will save us from ourselves.


Caroline Glick, in her column on Friday, presents a very strong case for the need to take down the Olmert government. “The people of Israel,” she concludes, “must not be seduced by the blindness and empty promises of our leaders. All efforts must be made to sideline these incompetent, self-serving bumblers and replace them with responsible leaders as quickly as possible.”

She alludes to the desire of Olmert and Foreign Minister Livni to turn over Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians: “… because it would good for Israel.

“As Livni put it this week, we want to hand over land because otherwise the so-called peace process will stagnate, and ‘Stagnation is not in our interest and it is not our policy.'”

This itself is sickening enough, but it is hardly the worst. Glick reports that Olmert and Livni are deluding themselves that an international coalition is building with regard to stopping Iran from going nuclear. In fact, Livni seems to think that giving away Judea and Samaria will help make the world so happy with us that they will respond more positively in this regard.

“… Olmert and Livni are correct to say that today an international coalition made up of the US, the EU and some of the Arabs is forming around Iran. But what binds the members together is their collective opposition to taking any effective action to prevent Teheran from acquiring nuclear weapons…

“Despite Olmert and Livni’s breathless protestations to the contrary, no one will take action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. No one will block the prospect of Israel’s annihilation.”

Please see her entire column at:


What Glick describes with regard to Olmert and Livni is part of their on-going delusional pattern of thinking we can be saved by the international community. This is what lead Olmert to agree prematurely to a ceasefire in Lebanon — so UNIFIL could take care of Hezbollah for us. Anyone interested in knowing how that resolution is going?

A Jerusalem Post correspondent, Jacey Herman, in a brilliant move, took himself up into Lebanon close to the border with Syria on Thursday and spoke with civilians there. They reported seeing weapons brought across the border for Hezbollah at night. Rockets are reportedly being hidden under produce.

No one in the Lebanese army that Herman spoke with would confirm this. Reporters are told by the army not to take any photographs or conduct any interviews.

Not so long ago, I carried a report that UNIFIL was not active at night. Wonder why. And I note the outrage of the French head of UNIFIL over the Israeli fly-overs done to discover if weapons were being brought across the border from Syria. Those flights were in defiance of the resolution, you see. And the smuggling of the weapons? Guess the French aren’t aware of that.


Minister of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman, head of Yisrael Beitenu party, which is now nominally part of the coalition, has given an interview with Kol Yisrael that is refreshingly in opposition to Olmert’s policies:

“Continued adherence to the Oslo Accords and the road map will lead us to another round of confrontations, too much bloodshed, and in the end we will find ourselves at a worse dead end than the present one. It puts our whole future in danger…

“There is no point in targeting… Beit Hanoun and all such places… We have to focus on those who have something to lose – the leaders of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad. “We have a dependable partner, and that is Jordan. We must declare Abbas irrelevant. He is hated in the Palestinian Authority. We should ignore him because he has no authority, no power… This needs to be explained to the entire international community.

“I see all Hamas and Jihad leaders moving about freely, continuing to provoke… They must disappear… all of them. There is no room for compromise on this matter.

“We must learn our lessons from Oslo, from leaving Gaza, from what happened following the disengagement. Without those lessons, moving on is impossible.”

Lieberman advocates re-taking the Philadelphi Corridor.

A breath of sanity. How welcome. How needed. Now, how will these opinions affect what is happening?


see my website