Jimmy Carter, an unwilling Bilaam

Jun. 17, 2009

Just three weeks before the reading of the Torah portion about Balak, the king of Moab (Numbers 22-24), former US president Jimmy Carter visited Gush Etzion. In that Torah portion we read about the non-Jewish prophet Bilaam, who was asked by King Balak to curse the nation of Israel, as he feared “this people [who have] come out of Egypt… cover the face of the earth, and they dwell across from me…”

Refusing Balak’s offers of honor, Bilaam, who wished not to bless Israel but to curse it, says that he can only say the words that God puts into his mouth, and adds, “Even if Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord my God,” a comment that Rashi says indicates Bilaam’s mind-set of avarice.

Finally, God allows Bilaam to make the trip. A long and fascinating digression follows about his donkey and an angel in his way, but the bottom line is that, much to Balak’s shock and horror, Bilaam (to his own surprise) blesses the people of Israel, for those are the words that God puts into his mouth.

Carter paid his visit to Gush Etzion 61 years after it fell to the Jordanians, 42 years after its children returned to rebuild, 30 years after the signing of the Camp David accords between Menahem Begin and Anwar Sadat (the highlight of Carter’s career) and two years after the publication of his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, sharply critical of Israel.

But most significantly, his visit came one day after receiving the “Palestine International Award for Excellence and Creativity” from the Palestinian Authority, in an award ceremony at which he declared, according to The Jerusalem Post, “I have been in love with the Palestinian people for many years… I have two great-grandsons that are rapidly learning about the people here and the anguish and suffering and deprivation of human rights that you have experienced ever since 1948.”

Some of the residents of Gush Etzion were nonplussed at the idea of having a visit from Carter. What could be accomplished by hosting a man who has so maligned us?

He was to visit the Neveh Daniel home of Shaul Goldstein, the head of the Gush Etzion Regional Council. My first question was, “Why not Kfar Etzion, where the returning children found scraps of Torah scrolls that had been burned by the marauding Arab armies?” And why not show him the exact area that was settled in the 1920s, then abandoned in the 1930s due to Arab hostility, then dismantled after Arab riots, resettled in the 1940s and finally, again, in 1967?

I wanted Goldstein to show him the bunker into which in 1948 Arabs threw grenades that killed the wounded who were huddled there. Most of the others, men and women, had died fighting; a handful were taken into Jordanian captivity. Only the mothers and children had been evacuated months earlier, to Jerusalem.

Some Gush residents didn’t want Carter to set foot near any of our quiet communities. Local e-mail postings were fiery with demands that Goldstein not meet with someone who has expressed such virulent anti-Israel opinions. Other opinions ranged from “it’s best to ignore him” to “he hasn’t been president for 28 years.” One man wrote, after the visit, “I’ve always said that we should reach out and provide hospitality to VIPs, diplomats and reporters.”

A CASUAL BROWSING of the Carter Center Web site reveals that as recently as 2007 Carter gave an address at Brandeis University in which he demonstrated extreme and total ignorance about the geography, demographics and even traffic patterns of the area, when he said about Judea and Samaria, “…their choice hilltops, vital water resources and productive land have been occupied, confiscated and then colonized by Israeli settlers. Like a spider web, the connecting roads that join more than 200 settlements in the West Bank, often for the exclusive use of Israelis, Palestinians are not permitted to get on those roads… This divides this area into small bantustans, isolated cantonments.”

Anyone who has traveled through Judea and Samaria would be astonished at those words. The roads are replete with both Jewish and Palestinian vehicles, and it is the Jewish communities – settled on barren land – that are isolated. In addition, there is abundant Palestinian land outside of the Jewish communities which is richly cultivated, and kilometers of land that lie fallow.

Realizing that Carter’s visit was a done deal, some Gush residents suggested creative ways to demonstrate. My favorite was that of one woman, who had seen a banner in Jerusalem with a large picture of a Native American and the words, “Let me tell you about land for peace!”

In the end, Carter came, and in addition to local officials, met with victims of Palestinian terror, like Sherri Mandell, whose son Koby, 13, was murdered in a cave near Tekoa, and Ruth Gillis, whose husband Shmuel, a hematologist from Hadassah University Medical Center, was shot dead on the road from Jerusalem to Gush Etzion. Goldstein spoke passionately about the history and roots of Gush Etzion.

At the end of his visit, Carter declared to TV cameras, “I think I’ve done more listening than talking this afternoon… This particular settlement area is not one that I envision ever being abandoned… this is part of the settlements close to the 1967 line that I think will be here forever.” Goldstein said, “He said he saw things here that he never saw before. He was never here before.”

Aye, there’s the rub. He (like many others) was never here before.

When Balak hears Bilaam’s blessings and asks, “What have you done to me? I took you to curse my enemies, and you have blessed them!” Bilaam replies, “Must I not speak that which the Lord put in my mouth?” Balak takes Bilaam to three different locations, each time hoping for a different outcome, but it is always the same. That which God has planned cannot be undone.

Bilaam’s blessings are some of the best known in Jewish liturgy and lore, such as the treasured, “How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, your dwellings, O Israel! Stretching out like brooks, like gardens by a river… like cedars by water…” What an apt description of Gush Etzion.

Missing major questions] Analysis: Netanyahu’s demilitarized state

The huge issues surrounding Netanyahu’s demilitarized state are not how many
and what gizmos the PA “security forces” can have.

The big questions are:

#1. Who decides there is a violation? It sounds like Israel would agree
to a third party making this determination. And there isn’t a third party
around – including the U.S. that won’t ignore Palestinian violations when it
serves their interests. The Egyptians to this day insist that no weapons
are being smuggled form Egypt to Gaza…

#2. What happens when there is a violation? Israel is allowed to invade
at will and has a green light to do whatever it wants inside the sovereign
Palestinian state? Anyone claiming that this is possible is smoking
something – and it isn’t tobacco.

#3. What happens to the sovereign status of the Palestinian state after it
violates this in terms of its legal status?

Oops. At Netanyahu warned again and again in the past the answer is –
nothing. It remains a sovereign state. And if it signs a defense compact
with Syria and Iran. Oops. Right……]

======================================

Analysis: Netanyahu’s demilitarized state
Yaakov Katz, THE JERUSALEM POST Jun. 17, 2009
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184848455&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Yes to Kalashnikovs but no to mortars. Yes to Russian BTR-70 armored
personnel carriers but no to tanks. Yes to transport helicopters but no to
fighter jets. Yes to night-vision goggles but no to anti-tank missiles.

The idea of a demilitarized state that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu
spoke about on Sunday is not new vis-à-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
There are also a number of countries that have decided not to maintain a
standing military, such as Andorra, whose defense is the responsibility of
Spain and France, as well as Costa Rica, which abolished its armed forces in
1948 – these could be used as a role model for such a state.

In his monumental speech, Netanyahu laid out some of the characteristics of
the demilitarized Palestinian state he envisions. The state, he said, would
not be allowed to import weapons, make pacts with Israel’s enemies or close
its airspace to Israel.

Some of these characteristics, though, stand in direct contradiction to
precedents such as Andorra. A small, landlocked country in Western Europe,
Andorra may not have a standing military, but it does have a military pact
with Spain and France under which it will receive protection in the event of
a conflict. In his speech, Netanyahu said Israel would not allow the
Palestinian state to enter into military pacts.

Other possible models are Grenada and Barbados, which do not have militaries
but are members of the Regional Security System, an international body
established to provide security for the Eastern Caribbean. It is safe to
assume Netanyahu would not want the Palestinian state to join an
organization made up of Arab countries that would allow Arab military forces
to enter the state if needed.

Rather, the understanding in the defense establishment and IDF is that when
the prime minister speaks about a demilitarized state he is referring to one
without a full-fledged military, but rather one with a police/paramilitary
force, comprised of thousands of soldiers/policemen trained by the United
States and European Union.

The reason the Palestinians will be allowed to have this force is so they
can maintain law and order and at the same time crack down, if necessary, on
Hamas and other terrorist groups in the West Bank.

Currently, there are two forces that are being trained in the West Bank. The
first, called the “blue police,” is being trained by the European Union.
This is a regular police force being built from the ground up, with trainees
learning forensic and criminal investigation techniques.

The second, more dominant, force is the “green police.” Their name, however,
is confusing since the force is made up more of soldiers than of policemen.

This unit also goes by the name “Dayton’s force,” for Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton,
the US security coordinator to Israel and the Palestinian Authority – and
the man who is overseeing the training of forces in Jordan.

There are already three battalions in the West Bank and another three are
scheduled to deploy there soon. IDF sources recently said Dayton plans to
put total of 10 battalions in the West Bank by the end of the decade.

Israel, government officials said, supported Dayton’s work since it was part
of Netanyahu’s “bottom-up” plan, which calls for Palestinian reforms on the
ground before a diplomatic resolution to the conflict.

Israel is willing to take calculated risks when it comes to Dayton’s force.
The first risk was allowing a battalion to deploy in Jenin and to scale back
IDF operations there. The second risk was to allow a deployment in Hebron,
which is a known hotbed for Hamas and is also home to a small but relatively
radical Jewish settler population.

In the meantime, the force is equipped with light body armor and light
machine guns such as Kalashnikov rifles. As reported Tuesday in The
Jerusalem Post, 50 Russian-made armored personnel carriers are currently in
Jordan waiting to be transferred to the West Bank. They are being held up
since Israel and the PA are arguing over whether they will be allowed to
have heavy machine guns installed on their turrets.

If Palestinian forces continue to prove their effectiveness in the fight
against Hamas – as they have in Hebron, Jenin and recently in Kalkilya –
Israel will come under growing pressure to withdraw from additional West
Bank cities and transfer them to Palestinian control.This could expedite the establishment of Netanyahu’s demilitarized state

U.S. officials skeptical on a demilitarized Palestine

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said for the first time Sunday
that Israel would be prepared to live side by side with a Palestinian state,
but only if world powers guaranteed that it would be “demilitarized.” The
proposal came in a major statement of his views on the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict that attracted attention worldwide.

“We take the security of Israel very seriously, but we need a solution that
works, and this would be very difficult for the Palestinians to swallow,”
said an official, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity
of the diplomacy. American officials “are a long way away from the point
where we’d be talking about this kind of arrangement.”

He noted that Netanyahu provided no specifics about what would be a complex
task. Netanyahu has said previously that Israel could not agree to the
creation of a Palestinian state that possessed a military, had full control
of its borders or wielded authority over electronic communications.

Despite the criticism, U.S. officials were generally positive about the
speech, suggesting that it represented another step toward the high-level
negotiations they want to see begin soon between Israelis and Palestinians.

They hailed Netanyahu’s acceptance of the idea of a separate Palestinian
state, despite the conditions. U.S. officials were willing to overlook the
fact that Netanyahu did not agree to the Obama administration’s insistence
on a complete halt in the growth of Israeli settlements in Palestinian
territories.

Palestinian officials bristled at Netanyahu’s speech, but U.S. officials
portrayed the speech as simply laying out the Israeli opening position in
what was likely to be a protracted discussion.

“It’s going to be a complicated negotiation,” said Ian Kelly, the State
Department spokesman.

Netanyahu said in his speech that the Palestinians would need to recognize
Israel as a “Jewish state,” a comment that was widely taken to mean there
would be no right of return for Palestinian refugees.

But Kelly said U.S. officials took the view that it meant only that “the
Palestinians need to recognize the right of Israel to exist.”

paul.richter@latimes.com

The Middle Eastern Cold War

A cold war, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is “a conflict over ideological differences carried on by methods short of sustained overt military action and usually without breaking off diplomatic relations.” Note the three elements in this definition: ideological differences, no actual fighting, and not breaking off diplomatic relations.

The classic instance of a cold war, of course, involved the United States and the Soviet Union between 1945 and 1991, a long lasting and global standoff. The “Arab cold war ” of 1958-70, shorter and more localized, offers a second notable instance. In that case, Gamal Abdel Nasser, an Egyptian revolutionary, tried to upend the region while the Saudis led the effort to maintain the status quo. Their conflict culminated in the Yemen War of 1962-70, a vicious conflict that ended only with the death of Abdel Nasser.

A new ideological division now splits the region, what I call the Middle Eastern cold war. Its dynamics help explain an increasingly hostile confrontation between two blocs.

  • The revolutionary bloc and its allies: Iran leads Syria, Qatar, Oman, and two organizations, Hezbollah and Hamas. Turkey serves as a very important auxiliary. Iraq sits in the wings. Paradoxically, several of these countries are themselves distinctly non-revolutionary.

  • The status-quo bloc: Saudi Arabia (again) leads, with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and most Arabic-speaking states following, along with Fatah. Israel serves as a semi-auxiliary. Note that Egypt, which once led its own bloc, now co-leads one with Saudi Arabia, reflecting Cairo’s diminished influence over the last half century.

  • Some states, such as Libya, sit on the sidelines.

The present cold war goes back to 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in Tehran and harbored grand ambitions to destabilize other states in the region to impose his brand of revolutionary Islam. Those ambitions waned after Khomeini’s death in 1989 but roared back to life with Ahmadinejad’s presidency in 2005 along with the building of weapons of mass destruction, widespread terrorism, engagement in Iraq, and the claim to Bahrain.

The Middle Eastern cold war has many significant manifestations; here are four of them.

(1) In 2006, when Hezbollah fought the Israel Defense Forces, several Arab states publicly condemned Hezbollah for its “unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts.” An Iranian newspaper editorial responded with an “eternal curse on the muftis of the Saudi court and of the pharaoh of Egypt.”

(2) The Moroccan government in March 2009 announced that it had broken off diplomatic relations with Tehran on the grounds of “intolerable interference in the internal affairs of the kingdom,” meaning Iranian efforts to convert Sunnis to the Shiite version of Islam.

(3) The Egyptian government arrested 49 Hezbollah agents in April, accusing them of destabilizing Egypt; Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah then confirmed that the group’s leader worked for him.

(4) Close Turkish-Israeli ties have floundered as Ankara’s increasingly overt Islamist leadership opposes Israeli government policies, deploys hostile language against the Jewish state, invites its enemies to Ankara, transfers Iranian arms to Hezbollah, and uses anti-Zionism to isolate the Turkish military.

By diverting passions away from the seemingly interminable Arab-Israeli conflict, the Middle Eastern cold war may appear to help reduce tensions. That, however, is not the case. However venomous relations between Fatah and Hamas may be, with each killing the other’s operatives, they will in the end always join forces against Israel. Likewise, Washington will not find significant support in Saudi Arabia or any other members of its bloc vis-à-vis Iran. In the end, Muslim states shy from joining with non-Muslims against fellow Muslims.

Looking more broadly, the Middle Eastern cold war internationalizes once-local issues – such as the religious affiliation of Moroccans – imbuing them with Middle-East wide repercussions. Thus does this cold war add new flashpoints and greater volatility to what was already the world’s most unstable region.


Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org ) is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

PALESTINIAN REACTION TO NETANYAHU POLICY SPEECH: “THERE IS NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT”

Mr. Netanyahu’s speech, praised by the Obama Administration and lauded by the European Union, contained three operational diplomatic steps

A call for meetings with “all Arab leaders.”

A call for “Economic peace.”

A call for renewed Israeli negotiations with Palestinians “without preconditions.”

Following the Israeli Prime Minister’s address, the Israeli foreign Ministry wasted no time in establishing new working teams to follow up on all three issues

Israel has announced new diplomatic initiatives in Jordan, Egypt, and Morocco, new economic plans for cooperative joint Israeli-Palestinian business ventures, and new feelers put out to Palestinian Authority negotiators…

The reaction of Palestinian Authority chairman. Machmud Abbas was immediate, with Abbas telling the media that Netanyahu’s conditions to recognize a Palestinian state would “destroy all peace initiatives in the region”: and that “it will lead to no solution.”

Mr. Abbas, who, together with the late PLO leader Yassir Arafat had signed on to these very principles on the White House lawn sixteen years ago, told the media that “There is now nothing to talk about ”. Speaking to the Israeli press, Abbas’s political adviser, Nimr Hamad, categorically rejected Netanyahu’s call to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat declared that hat “now, after the prime minister’s speech, the ball is in the court of US President Barack Obama. “The peace process was moving at a turtle’s pace. This evening, Netanyahu put it on its back,” Erekat said

The Hamas spokesman in Gaza, Fawzi Barhoum, told the Voice of Israel Radio that “The speech was racist and expressed the extremist policy of Netanyahu and his government.”

Israeli Arab Knesset members said that the speech was no more than “sleight of hand.” Senior Israeli Arab member of the Israeli Knesset Parliament, MK Jamal Zahalka, said that there was no essential change in the speech. “It is a eulogy to peace,” he said.

While the Obama Administration lauded praise on Mr. Netanyahu’s speech, the U.S. government continued to ignored the Prime Minister’s.renewed call for a demilitarized Palestinian entity.

On Monday, following the Prime Minister’s appeal for a demilitarized PA entity, the United States announced that it would indeed still upgrade the training and equipping of Palestinian Authority security forces, following last week’s Congressional allocation of $109 million for PA military training projects meant to expand the security forces under the command of the Palestinian Authority. Under the measure, the administration of President Barack Obama would oversee the training and deployment of 10 battalions, or more than 5,000 troops, by 2011. The measure was included in the Supplemental Appropriations Bill passed by the House and Senate on June 11

So far, Washington has funded the training and deployment of three PA battalions, or about 1,500 troops. The troops included units from the National Security Forces and the Presidential Guard. The four-month course included counterinsurgency, anti-riot and basic combat skills.

U.S. security envoy Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton has informed the US Congress that he is training the PA to take over security responsibility in Bethlehem, Hebron, Jenin and Jericho.

The latent fear in the Israeli military is that there would be a repeat of what occurred in September, 2000, when western-trained Palestinian Authority security personnel joined forces with Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups in a carefully planned joint effort against Israel in what became known as the “second intifada” or uprising against Israel

Israeli Government Minister Landaui Warns: Demand for Demilitarization Will Fade

www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1093404.html

By next year, nothing will remain of the demilitarization stipulation that
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has set for the formation of a Palestinian
state, Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau warned on Tuesday at an event
sponsored by Yisrael Beiteinu in Jerusalem.

“My fear is that in a few months from now, no one will remember what
Netanyahu said about demilitarization,” Landau said. “They will only
register the fact that the head of the National Camp in Israel supports the
formation of a Palestinian state.”

The national infrastructure minister nonetheless praised Netanyahu for
articulating the precondition and for beginning his recent foreign policy
speech at Bar Ilan University on Sunday with the assertion that Jews were
entitled to live in an independent, Jewish state in the Land of Israel
because of their biblical heritage.

“I was proud to hear Netanyahu’s speech because he said we deserve this land
according to the Bible,” said Landau, a former Likud member who switched
over to Avigdor Lieberman’s party, Yisrael Beiteinu – now Likud senior-most
coalition partner.

Landau’s statements may be seen as a reaction to U.S. President Barack
Obama’s recent speech in Cairo, in which he linked the right of Jews to a
Jewish state to the murder of six million Jews in the Holocaust.

Landau was speaking in English before a predominantly American-Israeli crowd
of 100 people at Cafe Joe in the center of the capital. He devoted part of
his speech to defending Yisrael Beiteinu’s contested initiative to require
all citizens to pledge their allegiance to the state.

“The Israeli Arabs have every right in the country, and none on it,” he
said. “We are proposing to apply the loyalty oath to everyone. Many
countries, including the U.S., require new immigrants, for example, to swear
their allegiance.”

Introducing more nationalistic values into the school system with a greater
emphasis on flag and anthem, Landau said, would make Israel “a stronger
country.” In this context, Landau mentioned that as things stand now, “Arab
figures but also Jews stand up against us at times of trial.”

“The attempt of the highly respected U.S. President Barack Obama to
introduce symmetry into his attitude to the region is erroneous,” Landau
said. “There is no symmetry between those who observe human and civil
rights, and those who hand out candies when Israelis and Americans die in
horrible suicide attacks, as we have seen in September 2001.”

Syrian/Egyptian Military Deployment in Gaza?

[As Israel sleeps?] U.S.Egypt and Syria push for deployment of Arab armies in Gaza Strip

[Dr. Aaron Lerner – IMRA: So here we are at the very time that Prime
Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has focused on demilitarization as a critical
feature of a Palestinian state and the U.S., Egypt and Syria are all working
on arranging for the deployment of military forces from Egypt, the Emirates,
Saudi Arabia, Morocco and other Arab countries in the Gaza Strip.

One shudders to think that historians may later note the tremendous irony
that the seeds for a major Arab-Israeli war were sown this week because the
Israelis were so caught up with finding a way out of the confrontation with
Obama over settlement construction etc. that they never gave much thought to
this development.

And it doesn’t take much thinking to realize how deploying military forces
from Egypt, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and other Arab countries in
the Gaza Strip could lead to war.

In point of fact, it is insulting the intelligence of Hamas to assert that
they couldn’t come up with a way to manipulate the presence of such a force
in order to create a series of events that plunges the Arab states into war
with the Jewish State.

Is the Netanyahu team asleep at the switch?

Repeated attempts by IMRA to get official responses regarding this proposal
have consistently been met with a refusal to address “speculative news
reports” about proposals.]

Egypt, Syria increase pressure on Hamas to seal agreement with Fatah
By Akiva Eldar Haaretz Last update – 01:12 16/06/2009
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1093222.html

Egypt and Syria have upped their pressure on Hamas in recent days, in
support of a reconciliation agreement with Fatah. The deal would include a
multinational Arab force in the Gaza Strip that would operate in parallel to
joint Fatah-Hamas security forces.

An Egyptian source told Haaretz that the American administration is aware of
the plan’s details and apparently special envoy George Mitchell has asked
the Damascus government to use its influence over Hamas to push the plan and
the Quartet conditions. The Americans promised the Syrians that if they take
on a positive role in the Palestinian channel, the U.S. would act to resume
negotiations in the Syrian track.

The Hamas-Fatah reconciliation plan includes the creation of a joint
dozen-member committee, to be under Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud
Abbas’ indirect authority. The committee, only authorized to act in Gaza,
would be in charge of post-Operation Cast Lead reconstruction, government
reforms, and preparations for the January 2010 presidential and legislative
council elections. All factions would undertake to honor the election
results and allow the elected government to rule in both Gaza and the West
Bank.

Military forces from Egypt, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and other
Arab countries would assist local forces in maintaining order until and
throughout those elections. The plan is expected to increase pressure on
Israel to open border crossings and to push a deal for the release of
kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit forward. The Egyptian source noted that Hamas
had not deviated from its position regarding the number and identity of
prisoners to be released in exchange for Shalit.

According to the source, the main obstacle to the plan is the refusal of
Hamas’ leadership to accept Abbas’ authority. However, Egypt did announce a
July 7 deadline for the deal. Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, who met
last week in Damascus with Hamas political leader Khaled Meshal, told
Haaretz he believes Meshal is very interested in reaching a deal before the
deadline.

As part of the feverish activity to reach an agreement, Meshal met last week
in Cairo with Egyptian intelligence head Gen. Omar Suleiman. A senior Fatah
delegation also visited Cairo a few days ago.

Since U.S. President Barack Obama’s Cairo speech earlier this month, Hamas
has seemed more distressed and shown signs of a willingness for greater
flexibility. Meshal praised Obama’s speech, saying that Hamas would not
constitute an obstacle to talks.

By contrast, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech on Sunday met with
derogatory responses from Hamas. The organization’s Gaza spokesman, Fawzi
Barhoum, said the speech expressed “extreme and racist” ideology and offered
no new policy.

First Palestinian Authority Militray Operation Deemed a Failure

RAMALLAH [MENL] — The Palestinian Authority crackdown against Hamas’s military infrastructure in the West Bank has been marred by disorganization, lack of equipment and poor intelligence.

Palestinian sources said PA security forces were determined to have been unprepared for the order to attack Hamas’s military infrastructure in the West Bank city of Kalkilya in May 2009. They said the operation on May 31 went so poorly that foreign security advisers, believed to have been Americans, were summoned to direct the final assault.

“The forces were disorganized, unable to work or communicate with each other and there was a lack of basic equipment and specialized personnel,” a source involved in the operation said.

The source said about 25 U.S. and other security advisers participated in the final assault on the Hamas safe house in Kalkilya on May 31. The assault ended a 10-hour standoff by 3,000 PA troops against a handful of Hamas fighters.

“It was an embarrassing experience,” the source said.

In Kalkilya, the sources said, the PA deployed troops from virtually every security agency, including the National Security Forces, Presidential Guard, Preventive Security Apparatus, General
Intelligence, Military Intelligence and police. They said the PA force fired about 5,000 rounds of ammunition into the Hamas stronghold.

“It was the first time troops from different PA security agencies were asked to work together,” another Palestinian source said. “The situation was chaotic with everybody firing wildly.”

The sources the PA force lacked snipers, body armor, negotiators and medical evacuation forces. They said two officers from PSA and one from NSF, injured in the initial assault, bled to death because their colleagues could not evacuate them under Hamas fire.

“The intelligence was poor,” a PA officer recalled. “The assessment was that Hamas would surrender. They didn’t. Instead, they were ready to die as martyrs.”

The operation was supervised by U.S. security envoy Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, who was not seen in Kalkilya. The sources said as daylight approached on May 31, three vans with non-PA plates arrived in Kalkilya. About 25 black-clad men, wearing night-vision goggles and ear-pieces emerged. They did not greet any of the PA commanders.

At that point, a PA officer called on his bullhorn for the Palestinian force to withdraw about 10 meters to make room for the new squad. The black-clad men were said to have surveyed the Hamas safe house and ordered a reorganization of the PA frontline force.

The new arrivals then led an assault on the Hamas stronghold, barking orders in a non-Arabic language. Within minutes, the Hamas safe house was captured and three occupants, including the Hamas commander, were killed.
“They looked and acted like Americans,” a witness said. “Their tactics were nothing that the Palestinians here had seen.”

On June 4, PA security forces identified and raided another Hamas safe house in Kalkilya. The sources said the second operation, which resulted in three casualties, proceeded more smoothly than the May 31 raid.

Still, the Palestinian sources said morale within the PA plunged in wake of the bloody crackdown against Hamas in Kalkilya. They quoted parents of security recruits as saying that they had not realized that their sons were in mortal danger from Islamic insurgents.

“Many of those who joined the PA forces saw this as a means of prestige and the chance to walk around with a weapon,” the PA officer said.

“They didn’t imagine it would mean actually coming face-to-face with death.”

Background to Obama and Netanyahu Speeches: WHICH ROAD MAP TOWARDS A PALESTINIAN STATE?

For the past six years, the Middle East Road Map, placed on the table of middle
east negotiations by the Bush Administration, has been on the agenda of middle
east negotiations.
The only question question has been: which Middle East Road map?
The road map of April 30, 2003, which simply established a Palestinian State in the west bank and Gaza and even in Jerusalem?
Or the May 25, 2003 version of road map adopted by the government of Israel, which placed 14 conditions for a Palestinian state to be created.
At the November 2007 middle east conference convened by the Bush Administration in Annapolis, President Bush and US Secretary Rice both emphasized that the American government insisted on Israel abiding by the April 30 wording of the road map, without any of the May 25 2003 Israeli conditions.
Israeli Foreign Ministry officials at the Annapolis conference were aghast that the Both Bush and Rice saw fit to specifically delineate their demand that Israel accept the April 30, 2003 version of the road map.
As a result, since the Annapolis conference, there has been an open rift between the United States and Israel.
The May 25 2003 Israeli government conditions for accepting the road map for a Palestinian State include:
1. The Palestinians must dismantle existing terrorist organizations and combat
incitement to violence from all Palestinian Authority media outlets.
2. Progress must follow the full implementation of the preceding phase.
3. Emergence of a new and different leadership in the Palestinian
Authority within the framework of governmental reform.
4. A monitoring mechanism will be created under American management.
5. The character of the provisional Palestinian state will be determined
through negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.
6. The Palestinian entity must declare Israel’s right to exist as a
Jewish state and waive any “right of return” for Palestinian
refugees to claim land within the sovereign State of Israel.
7. The end of the process will lead to the end of all claims and not only the
end of the conflict.
8. The future settlement will be reached through direct negotiations between the two parties.
9. Issues not to be discussed: Jewish community expansion in Judea,
Samaria and Gaza, the status of the Palestinian Authority institutions in
Jerusalem.
10. Removal of all references to UN Resolutions other than 242 and 338 (1397, the Saudi
Initiative and the Arab Initiative adopted in Beirut).
11. Promotion of a reform process in the Palestinian Authority:
12. Deployment of Israeli armed forces along the September 2000 lines will be
subject to the stipulation of Article 4 (absolute quiet)
13. Subject to security conditions, Israel will work to restore Palestinian
life to normal.
14. Arab states will assist in condemnation and cessation of terrorist activity

Netanyahu Accepts “Demilitarized” Palestinian State

Newsmax.com

JERUSALEM — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday rejected demands for Israeli recognition of a Palestinian “right to return” to any part of the sovereign state of Israel, saying the “Palestinian refugee” problem must be solved in the Arab countries where most refugees have lived for several generations.

Netanyahu gave an impassioned 30-minute policy speech to the Begin Sadat Center at Bar Ilan University. The speech was not only a statement of political purpose, but also a reply to comments made by U.S. President Barack Obama last week in Cairo urging Israel to help create a Palestinian state.

In a strong and resolute tone, Netanyahu described the dilemma that Israel faces with its Palestinian population, “which Israel does not want to rule” and repeated the promise of previous prime ministers to recognize the right of Palestinian Arabs to self-rule.

Netanyahu also said that he would insist on Palestinians keeping the accord that Palestinian leaders Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas signed, but which the PLO would not ratify: to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state in the Middle East.

Netanyahu stressed that Israel does not exist because of the Holocaust, but because it is “our homeland,” adding that if Israel had been created only a few years earlier, there would have been no Holocaust.

Netanyahu added another condition – that the Palestinian entity be disarmed and that they not be allowed to forge military accords with other nations, or with the Hamas and Hezbollah terror groups, and that they not pose an aerial threat to Israel.

The Israeli Prime Minister then used the podium to remind the world that Israel’s 2005 pullout from Gaza had allowed Gaza Palestinians to take up positions to fire mortars and missiles into Sderot, Beershava, Ashkelon and Ashdod, placing more than one million Israelis under siege.

Palestinian Authority spokespeople rejected Netanyahu’s conditions out of hand.

And Netanyahu’s demand that the Palestinian State be demilitarized clashes with President Obama’s current allocation of funds and American military personnel to train the new Palestinian army. The American justification is that the Palestinian soldiers are being trained to fight Hamas, but the Palestinian army is now in negotiation with Hamas with the goal of forming a joint command.

It remains unclear whether the Israeli prime minister will go so far as to disarm Palestinians now being trained by the American armed forces.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.