PA Minister: Peace Deal Is Like Mecca Truce Broken by Muhammad

By: JNS News Service

Published: July 24th, 2013

Palestinian Authority (PA) Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash, in a sermon attended by PA President Mahmoud Abbas on the day that renewed peace negotiations with Israel were announced, compared PA peace agreements to a 10-year truce that was broken by the Prophet Muhammad after only two years.

The PA minister, according to a July 19 Palestinian Authority TV broadcast cited by Palestinian Media Watch, compared the Palestinian leadership’s approach to peace agreements such as the 1993 Oslo Accords to the “Treaty of Hudaybiyyah” between Muhammad and the Quraish Tribe of Mecca. Just like the Palestinian leadership encountered “much criticism and much opposition by some [Palestinians]” over the Oslo Accords, Muhammad was initially met with “anger and fury” from his followers for the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, Al-Habbash said. Questioned at the time why he didn’t decide to conquer Mecca, Muhammad assured his followers the 10-year truce would turn out to be a “victory.”

“In less than two years, the Prophet returned and, based on this treaty, he conquered Mecca,” Al-Habbash said. “This is the example, this is the model [for contemporary agreements with Israel].”

Similarly, the Oslo Accords brought Palestinians “to where we are today,” Al-Habbash said.

“We have a [Palestinian] Authority and the world recognizes the [Palestinian] state,” he said.

In order to get the PA to agree to renewed peace negotiations with Israel, announced July 19 by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Israel agreed to release 85 Palestinian terrorists who were imprisoned before the Oslo Accords

MARTIN INDYK: THE OBJECTIVE MEDIATOR? By David Bedein blogs.timesofisrael.com  Jul 23 2013 Martin Indyk, who served two stints as US ambassador to Israel, was reported to be the choice of Secretary of State Kerry to serve as the mediator between Israel and the PLO in negotiations that may soon commence in Washington. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/martin-indyk-the-objective-mediator/ Indyk’s record as an objective mediator should be examined. Indyk is generally looked upon as the man who planned the Oslo process that gave Yassir Arafat and the PLO armed control over most of the Palestinian Arab population. In 1994, journalist Haim Shibi of the Yediot Aharonot newspaper reported that in 1987, Indyk had convinced more than 150 members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment that Israel should unilaterally withdraw from territories gained in 1967 Six Day War. Indyk oversaw every step of the Oslo process with that precise policy in mind - Israel giving up land that is vital to her defense. Indyk, during his stint as US ambassador to Israel. did not hesitate to misrepresent the intentions and policies of the PLO while doing so, obfuscating the fact that the PLO never adhered to the basic commitment it made to cancel its covenant that calls for the eradication of the Jewish state. In September 1995, with the signing of the second Olso interim agreement at the White House, the U.S. Congress mandated that the U.S. would only be able to provide funds to the Palestinian Authority and provide diplomatic status to Arafat if the PLO covenant was finally canceled. The PLO never did so, yet the foreign aid money kept rolling in to the Palestinian Authority. On April 24, 1996, the PLO convened a special session of its Palestine National Council (PNC) to consider the subject of the PLO covenant cancellation. Our news agency dispatched a Palestinian TV crew to cover that session, which turned out to be the only crew that filmed the event. The film crew brought back a videotape that showed a lively discussion, the conclusion of which was to ratify Arafat’s suggestion that the PNC simply create a committee to “discuss” the subject. At my own expense, I rushed the VHS copy to Ambassador Indyk for comment, but he did not respond to that request for comment. Instead, he chose to ignore the decision of the PNC and, in moment of perjury. issued a falsified report to President Clinton and to the U.S. Congress that the PLO covenant had been canceled. As a result of Indyk’s false report, Arafat was provided with a red carpet greeting at the White House on May 1, 1996, and the PLO was only then allowed to open an office in Washington. The next day, however, Hebrew University Professor Yehoshua Porat, a former leader in Peace Now who ran on slot 13 on the Meretz ticket in 1992,an expert in Palestinian studies and fluent in Arabic, convened a press conference in which he shared protocols of the PNC session and the videotape which proved Arafat never canceled the PLO covenant. But the damage was already done. Thanks to the obfuscations of Martin Indyk, Arafat and the PLO received United States diplomatic recognition and foreign aid from the U.S., which continues to this day. In December 1998, President Clinton, finally convinced that Indyk’s 1996 covenant report was wrong, arrived in Gaza, accompanied by Indyk, where they asked for a show of hands from members of the PNC as to whether they want to cancel the PLO covenant and make peace with Israel. The real answer, however, they got the next day. Arafat’s personal spokesman, Yassir Abed Abbo, told the media that the PNC had, of course, not canceled any covenant. Yet there is more. In September, 2000, Dr. Uzi Landau, now a senior minister in the Israeli government, who served then as the head of the Knesset State Control Committee (the equivalent of the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Governmental Affairs), took the unusual step of filing a formal complaint against United States Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk. Landau quoted the September 16, 2000 report in the Guardian of London that “the U.S. Ambassador to Israel yesterday urged Israel to share Jerusalem with the Palestinians.” Mr. Indyk said: “There is no other solution but to share the holy city... ” and Landau also noted that Ambassador Indyk was similarly quoted by the Associated Press, The Jerusalem Post and Ha’aretz. Landau went on to say that “the timing of the speech and the political context in which it was delivered leave no room for doubt that Ambassador Indyk was calling on the Government of Israel to divide Jerusalem. Indeed, the Guardian correspondent described the remarks as ‘a sharp departure from Washington orthodoxy in recent years.’” In addition to his remarks concerning Jerusalem, Ambassador Indyk offered his views regarding secular-religious tensions in Israel and the role of the Reform and Conservative movements in Judaism. He also intimated his tacit support for Prime Minister Barak’s so-called secular revolution. As a commentator in the liberal daily Ha’aretz, noted: “readers are urged to imagine what the Americans would say if the Israeli ambassador to Washington were to come to a local religious institution and say such things.” Landau, who has served in a ministerial post in the Israeli government that negotiated sensitive relations between the U.S. and Israel, mentioned in his letter to Clinton that he wished to “strongly protest Ambassador Indyk’s blatant interference in Israel’s internal affairs and democratic process... I am sure you would agree that it is simply unacceptable for a foreign diplomat to involve himself so provocatively in the most sensitive affairs of the country to which he is posted. If a foreign ambassador stationed in the United States were to involve himself in a domestic American policy debate regarding race relations or abortion, the subsequent outcry would not be long in coming... Ambassador Indyk’s remarks about Jerusalem are an affront to Israel, particularly since he made them in the heart of the city that he aspires to divide. By needlessly raising Arab expectations on the Jerusalem issue, rather than moderating them, Ambassador Indyk has caused inestimable damage to the peace process. It is likewise inexplicable that Ambassador Indyk would choose to interject his private religious preferences into the debate over secular-religious tensions in Israel.” Landau made it a point even more by stating that “this is not the first time that the American Embassy in Israel has interfered in our internal affairs. In February, I wrote to you in the wake of media reports that Embassy officials were lobbying Israeli-Arab leaders regarding a possible referendum on the Golan Heights. My fear is that such interference in Israel’s affairs is rapidly becoming routine.” Landau concluded his letter to Clinton with a “request that you recall Ambassador Indyk to the United States.” Two months later, in early November 2000, Arafat’s Second Intifada terror campaign was getting underway, Indyk was strongly condemning Israel’s military actions against Arafat’s forces. Indyk remarked that what the Israelis had to do was to get Arafat to act against the perpetrators of the violence, such as Hamas, Tanzim gangs and the Islamic Jihad diplomatically. He did not mention that Arafat’s own Force 17 bodyguard, Preventive Security and other Palestinian Authority forces were also responsible for a considerable portion of the violence. Indyk never wanted to hold Arafat responsible when Arafat’s forces carried out terrorist activities. In late November 2000, when Israel issued a “white paper” on intercepted intelligence from Arafat’s headquarters that showed documentary evidence that Arafat and his mainstream PLO gangs were indeed facilitating the campaign of terror, Indyk made a special trip to Jerusalem to demand that the Israeli government withdraw its report. Indyk had just reported to the U.S. Congress that the Palestinian groups organizing the terror campaign were NOT under Arafat’s control. Eight months later, on May 21, 2001, in an address to Ben Gurion University, Indyk stuck to his guns and continued to position that Arafat and the PLO were the “U.S. colleagues in the War on Terror by telling Israel”: “What you do is you get Arafat to act against the perpetrators of the violence, Hamas, Tanzim gangs, the Islamic Jihad and you get the Israeli government to hold back the Israeli army while he does so. But that requires a great deal of energy and commitment on Arafat’s part - in very risky circumstances to take on the very angry Palestinian street - and that requires a great deal of restraint and forbearance on the part of the government of Israel.” Indyk’s admonition to Israel to turn the other cheek when it came to Arafat became his mantra.

Strangling Hamas

BY JONATHAN SCHANZER | JULY 22, 2013

HOW TO BANKRUPT HAMAS - The United States has enough leverage with Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority to bring Hamas to its knees. Why not use it? With Middle East peace talks coming and the Muslim Brotherhood on the rocks, now’s the time to bankrupt Gaza’s Islamists

http://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/2013/07/how-to-bankrupt-hamas/?utm_source=Mosaic+Daily+Email&utm_campaign=1912af233e-Mosaic_2013_7_23&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0b0517b2ab-1912af233e-41165497

….All of this presents U.S. Secretary of State Kerry with a rare opportunity to try to hasten the group's financial demise. And it is in his interest to do so.  The group, after all, carried out suicide bombings against Israeli civilian targets in the 1990s to torpedo the peace process. It's a fair bet that Hamas will launch a new campaign of violence now that talks are ramping back up.

What can Washington do, exactly?

For one, Congress and the administration could stop wringing its hands over whether the toppling of Morsy was a coup and instead openly encourage continued operations against the tunnels (while also holding the army to account as it navigates complicated transition). Congress, which dishes out some $500 million per year to the Palestinians, could also quietly work with the Palestinian Authority to scale back the funds that flow to Gaza.

From there, the United States could attempt to use whatever leverage it has to convince both Turkey and Qatar to cut back on their funding of Hamas. Admittedly, Washington doesn't have much pull in Ankara and Doha these days -- they have more sway with us -- but Congress could pull strings to speed up delivery of or withhold the advanced weapons systems that both countries are eagerly awaiting, depending upon how the conversation goes. Turkey, for example, is expecting Sidewinder missiles and Chinook helicopters, and it would like to purchase Predator and Reaper drones. Qatar, for its part, is expecting delivery of Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) Systems, and 500 Javelin-Guided Missiles.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a strident proponent of Hamas on the world stage, is unlikely to be swayed. Erdogan insists that Hamas must be part of the political equation when negotiating peace with Israel. Qatar, however, presents possibilities. The former emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor al-Thani, recently abdicated the throne for his son, Tamim. The new emir is still learning his way on the world stage, and it is possible, some analysts suggest, that he could be persuaded to adopt new policies that promote moderation in the Middle East.

While the math is fuzzy, one thing is clear -- the Egyptian army's tunnel operations are slowly strangling Hamas. If one or more of the Islamist movement's other funders cut back their aid even a little, its financial crisis will only deepen. The more acute the crisis, the more Gazans will grow frustrated with their Islamist rulers. A Muslim Brotherhood government just fell unexpectedly in Cairo -- if Hamas doesn't watch its back, it could happen again in Gaza.

For John Kerry and his tenuous peace initiative, this is a window of opportunity that should not be ignored.

Today’s Syria Is Tomorrow’s Palestine     7-22-13

It's become apparent to all that Syria is the natural Arab state. Without a strong and powerful leader, anarchy and internecine murder swiftly develops.

This is not because Arabs are primitive, though in part it is because Islam is fundamentally a violent religion. The real reason is that the Arabs are not really one people, as the root word in Hebrew “Arev” attests to. Arev translates as mixture. The Arabs are in reality a mix of distinct sects, tribes and clans who don't really like one another. When they are supposedly unified, it is only because a strong leader temporarily suppresses their independent identities and locks them together under his strong thumb.

Arab state after state proves this to be true.

This brings us to our first obvious question about the current peace process….

1) Who does Abbas actually represent in the peace talks? While Abbas controls the Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria, he doesn’t control the Palestinian Authority in Gaza, as that is under control of a different group – a competing terrorist gang that not only doesn’t he speak for, but a gang who is prepared to overthrow him once conditions are right.

Abbas also doesn’t have the support of the Chamulot, the traditional clan and tribes, who despise him, and would also overthrow Abbas in a second if given the chance.

So if Israel negotiates with Abbas, when the reality is that he doesn’t represent Gaza, when he doesn’t represent the Chamulot, and in fact, since there haven’t been elections, we don’t even know if he represents the rest of the Arab citizens he rules, and he is likely to be overthrown soon, what value does his signature have?

The answer is nothing.

That brings us to the second question…

2) What will keep the "West Bank" from turning into Syria? As we pointed out above, the so-called “Palestinians” are a mixture of different religious sects, tribes and clans, and Bedouin too, who all hate each other, if God forbid, Israel were to pull out the IDF further, we will quickly see a repeat of the Hamas takeover in Judea and Samaria. But this will end up as messy as Syria, when all the groups will start to kill each other to take over. The “West Bank” would quickly deteriorate, and it would be as if we had listened to Shimon Peres as his idiotic ideas to give away the Golan to Syria - pointless and dangerous.

What will stop this Syria-like collapse in the "West Bank"?

Again, the answer is nothing.

And that brings us to our third question and final question…

3) Why in the world would Abbas even want to make peace, when he knows that as soon as he does, his dead, mangled, and cannibalized carcass will be hauled through Bethlehem’s Manger Square by one of the many sects, clans, and tribes that want him dead, and will use this as an opportunity to attempt a coup?

The answer is, he does not.

Reaching peace in these peace talks is the last thing Abbas wants or needs. Ignoring for a moment that he will never obtain the terms of agreement that his cohorts and various friends and enemies are demanding, reaching a true peace agreement means his death, and no further access to his Swiss bank accounts.

For Abbas (or any other future “Palestinian” leader), nothing is better than the current situation. The continuation of the conflict provides him a lifeline (and access to his Swiss bank accounts).

What Abbas does need to get out of this, is a strengthening of his position vis a vis Hamas. The only subject of tangible value for him is the release of terrorists and baby killers.

“Palestinian” society is so sick, that the value they hold most dear, is the value of murdering Jewish babies, and those who murder Jewish women and children are their society’s heroes.

That is why releasing these baby-killers is their first and most non-negotiable demand.

That is why Abbas made it a requirement for talking peace.

Abbas expects nothing else from the talks. He wants nothing to succeed from the talks, but if he is being forced to talk, he can at least demand the one concession that he knows from experience Israel will give him that will temporarily buttress his position as the “Palestinian” leader before the talks collapse.

And that is the release of terrorists and baby killers.

And while I only said three questions, here’s a bonus fourth, which I’ll leave for you to answer.

4) Bibi Netanyahu knows all the above. So, what is he really hoping to achieve with these negotiations, and why?

Europe Hypocritically Lashes Out Against Israel   Isi Leibler   July 21, 2013 The European Union has disposed of any pretense of even-handedness with Israel, and has effectively repudiated the concept of disputed territories, which will be one of the principal issues of contention at the forthcoming peace talks sponsored by US Secretary of State John Kerry. Newly issued EU guidelines prohibit the issuing of funding, grants, prizes or scholarships to Israeli institutions located beyond the Green Line. Part of a 2014-20 financial framework, they cover all areas of cooperation between the EU and Israel, including economic, science, culture, sports and academia. While they do not directly affect trade agreements, the move is a clear penalty that could, in the future, extend to goods produced in the settlements, and launch of a new European anti-Israeli offensive. The EU is Israel’s most significant trade partner. In 2012, Israel imported $22.4 billion and exported $14.2 billion to the EU. Thus, the material and symbolic implications of the exclusion of settlements from EU trade agreements should not be underestimated. By no longer recognizing “disputed territories” the EU is demanding that Israel acknowledge that “settlements” and all territories occupied after 1967 are not part of the sovereign Israeli state. This not only incorporates the major settlement blocs that will never be forfeited, but also the officially annexed Golan Heights, the Jewish suburbs of East Jerusalem and the Old City, including the Western Wall. It means that the EU has abrogated its own Quartet Roadmap by unilaterally determining that the borders of Israel will be the 1949 armistice lines. It is also in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which stipulates that these are not deemed to be legal or permanent borders and specifies that Israel should have “secure and recognized boundaries.” Rather than supporting direct negotiations with the Palestinians, the EU is now imposing upon us indefensible borders that will endanger our future existence. This EU policy is utterly perverse and certainly will not advance the cause of peace. On the contrary, it will undermine the forthcoming peace talks, and provide an incentive to the Palestinians to reject any compromise knowing that intransigency will be rewarded by intensified European and global pressure on Israel to make additional unilateral concessions. Ironically released on the fast of Tisha B’Av, the EU announcement caught the Israeli government by surprise. But the writing has been on the wall for a long time. Moral relativism has dominated European thinking since World War II. This, combined with post-colonial guilt and mounting pressure from powerful Moslem groups, has encouraged Europeans to treat Jews, and in particular the Jewish state, as their scapegoats. But it goes further. The traditional anti-Semitism rooted in European culture throughout two millennia that went into remission after the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust is now rapidly re-emerging and actively directed against the Jewish nation-state. Many Europeans are deeply offended and agitated by suggestions that their policies towards Israel are motivated by bias or anti-Semitism. Yet the April 2004 Berlin Declaration of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) specifically defines anti-Semitic behavior as the application to Israel of “double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation,” “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” or “describing Israel as ‘a racist endeavor’.” Opinion polls consistently show that Europeans are convinced that Israel represents an equal or greater threat to world peace than North Korea or Iran. More ominously, a recent European poll indicated that 150 million Europeans endorse the view that Israelis treat Palestinians like the Nazis treated Jews. It is almost surreal that the EU is taking a punitive stand against Israel at a time when the civil war in Syria has cost more than 120,000 lives, Iran seeks to become a nuclear power, and Egypt and most of the region is in total flux. At the same time, the EU has been agonizing for more than a year whether or not to proscribe the so-called “military” wing of Hezbollah as a terrorist entity. In this context, it is obscene for the EU to flex its muscles against Jews living in the Jewish suburbs of East Jerusalem. Moreover, the EU knows that 90% of Palestinians in the West Bank already live under the authority of the Palestinian Authority and that Gaza is totally controlled by Hamas. The Europeans are also aware that, despite Israel’s repeated offers to negotiate without preconditions, the Palestinians have been the intransigent party, increasing their demands for unilateral concessions as a precondition and treating Israel as a supplicant. But the double standards applied against Israel have always been blatant. The EU has never made similar demands of China’s occupation of Tibet, India’s occupation of Kashmir or even Turkey’s control of one third of Cyprus. It is only toward Israel that it seeks to impose such extreme discriminatory measures. It is unclear where the Obama administration stands on this matter. Theoretically, the White House and State Department should be opposed to the new EU policy because it undermines even the remote prospects of a successful outcome to the forthcoming negotiations with the Palestinians. But neither the White House nor the State Department have criticized the initiative, and there is a lurking suspicion that there are those in the administration who welcome and may even have encouraged this move to exert pressure on Israel. Indeed, in his efforts to court the Palestinians to agree to negotiations, Kerry has been ominously hinting that the “disputed territories” should be substituted by the terminology used in the Arab League peace proposal. This could pave the way for the US to blame Israel for a breakdown in negotiations if we refuse to consider Arab demands for using the 1949 armistice lines as the benchmark for territorial negotiations. In combating this new European challenge, the need is greater than ever for our government to speak with one voice. Recent provocative statements by government ministers repudiating a two-state solution under any circumstances and calling for annexation of the territories in direct contradiction to official government policy provided a rationale for dispensing with the concept of disputed territories, which made it respectable for the EU to do the same. We must not concede to this malevolent, new EU demand which, if played out further, would entail abandoning hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens. We must make every possible effort to prevent the EU from expanding this move toward broader sanctions. And we must make clear that whilst this discriminatory clause remains in effect, we can no longer consider the EU an honest broker or an intermediary in peace negotiations. The European initiative is a wake-up call. While Israel has a powerful and resilient economy that can withstand trade restrictions, it cannot endure further isolation. We cannot write off Europe, but instead must exploit all our resources to shame the EU and more aggressively expose the double standards and bias it continues to employ against us.

The Fayyad equation

A + B + C x (EU) = 100%

By Jan Sokolovsky and Ari Briggs, JPOST

The big show we’re all watching stars US Secretary of State John Kerry, skeptical but concerned about his attempts to restart negotiations between us and the Palestinians. What preconditions are being demanded? Will Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu give in? What will be left of our tiny little country? But this is really just street theater, expertly acted by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, as are his unilateral declarations at the UN.

Unfortunately, the real show is being played out on another channel, behind the scenes and not in the media.

While we have been distracted elsewhere, Abbas, the PA, with full consent of the EU, have been quietly implementing the Fayyad Plan, so called because the front man was former Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayyad.

The PA’s July 2009 plan, to unilaterally create a de facto Palestinian state on the ground, is being implemented now at an accelerated rate, with our explicit consent or because of our fatal inaction, and with massive involvement of the international community specifically with funding from the European Union. This is a call for the Israel public to demand that our government exercise its authority over areas within our control, before we reach the point of no return.

Three major pillars support the PA’s Plan to create facts on the ground – structural reform of the central and local governments, restoring the PA security system, and building the economic and physical infrastructures necessary for a state. Deliberate emphasis was placed on establishing large parts of this national infrastructure in Area C, defined by the Oslo Accords as under full Israeli civil and security control, including authority over all building permits.

However, the intention of the PA and the EU, made crystal clear by the EU’s latest binding directive on all European countries, is to subvert our authority, to silently “annex” these areas, create corridors and contiguous territories in them, thereby establishing irreversible facts on the ground.

The gradual annexation method is being pursued simultaneously on two tracks. One requires coordinating with Israeli authorities by requesting their approval to construct projects of special significance. Usually, these are projects where international financing is dependent on our “stamp of approval” – Israeli consent.

Israel normally has no option but to consent to these projects because of the enormous pressure exerted by the funding countries.

The other track establishes facts on the ground – by widespread illegal construction and development activities, without coordination or approval from the Israeli authorities. In this track, one can absolutely detect a systematic and deliberate hand, an organizing logic which seeks to create contiguous Palestinian territories, while isolating and cutting off Israeli communities.

Three examples show how our blind cooperation with the PA, because of our desire to appear cooperative to the international organizations, will if unchecked create an irreversible reality. First, the approval of the new town of Nu’eima in the Jericho region, including an allocation of 500 acres of state land, much of which was illegally taken over by Palestinians over the past few years.

David Elhayani, head of the Jordan Valley Regional Council, says, “the… Palestinian criminals who settled on state lands surreptitiously are being rewarded, as they are now receiving hundreds of acres as a gift. This is a delusional and reckless plan that will choke our council’s communities.”

Second, the Civil Administration recently seriously considered a request by the PA to establish a security facility for their Preventive Security Service within Area C, where it would dominate Route 443, the road connecting Modi’in to Jerusalem. Is this not astounding? Fortunately, the request was rejected due to media attention and a public information campaign initiated by Regavim. But the fact that Israeli officials even considered such a request indicates their loss of moral compass and common sense.

Third, the Civil Administration is promoting the Ramon waste-collection landfill site in Area C in the Binyamin region, even though most of the waste will come from Areas A and B, and despite the fact that the PA has declared it will not be used for waste from Jewish communities.

Deutsche Bank is funding this site, never mind that landfill is considered the worst method of disposal, and is completely banned throughout Germany.

Despite the filing of over 100 objections, the Civil Administration continues to promote it, in part because of the pressure applied by the international community.

Simultaneously, the PA continues to build without our consent. Consider the illegal expansion of el-Bireh into Area C, which is intended to choke its Jewish neighbor Psagot. It is now only 100 meters from the fence of Psagot. Unauthorized development of infrastructure and road building, clearly intended to bypass Israeli checkpoints, continues unchallenged.

They especially construct buildings on dominating points to create a buffer in the hills between Psagot and Beit El.

Another example of this phenomenon is the Civil Administration retroactively approving the unauthorized construction of a soccer stadium in the area outside of el- Bireh. In 2009, construction began, near and visible to the Psagot community. Following Regavim’s application to the court, the Civil Administration issued a stop-work order, but work continued undeterred. In a further appeal to the Supreme Court, Regavim demanded that the law be enforced and the structure demolished. Yet in 2011, a building permit for the stadium was issued retroactively, allowing its construction and operation.

We believe that this was due to extreme pressure placed upon Israel by UEFA and the usual suspects – the EU.

No imagination is required to evaluate the results of 15,000 fervent fans marching at the end of a game, with only a five-minute walk between the stadium to Psagot. Against the background of various popular uprising scenarios, which the IDF is preparing for, this is a scary thought.

Where have we been while this is going on? Watching another channel. We must put a stop to the PA’s plan by refusing to approve any more PA projects in Area C until all illegal building is stopped.

This is especially true at this time where the EU has issued an open directive to boycott all Jewish activity in Judea & Samaria, East, North & South Jerusalem and the Golan. It’s time to tune into what is really going on in front of us, and demand that our Government act forcefully to enforce the law equally and protect our national interests.

Dr. Jan Sokolovsky is an attorney and serves as a policy adviser for Regavim. Ari Briggs is the international director of Regavim.

Regavim’s mission is to ensure the accountable, legal & environmentally friendly use of Israel’s national lands and the return of the rule of law to all areas and aspects of the land.

Is Obama Trying to Start Israel-Syria War?
Evelyn Gordon  7-15-13




Is the Obama administration trying to start a war between Israel and Syria? Because intentionally or not, it’s certainly doing its darnedest to provoke one.

This weekend, three anonymous American officials told CNN that Israel was behind an explosion in the Syrian port of Latakia on July 5. The explosion, they said, resulted from an airstrike targeting Russian-made Yakhont anti-ship missiles. If this report is true, this is the second time U.S. officials have blown Israel’s cover in Syria: They also told the media that a mysterious explosion in Syria this April was Israel’s work, even as Israel was scrupulously keeping mum–just as it did about the Latakia incident.

This isn’t a minor issue, as anyone who knows anything about the Middle East knows: In a region where preserving face is considered crucial, publicly humiliating Syrian President Bashar Assad is the surest way to make him feel he has no choice but to respond, even though war with Israel is the last thing he needs while embroiled in a civil war at home.

This truth was amply demonstrated in April, after three airstrikes attributed to Israel hit Syria within a few weeks. After the first two, Israel kept mum while Assad blamed the rebels; face was preserved, and everyone was happy. But then, the Obama administration told the media that Israel was behind the second strike–and when the third strike hit two days later, Assad could no longer ignore it: He vociferously threatened retaliation should Israel dare strike again.

The Latakia attack also initially adhered to Israel’s time-tested method for avoiding retaliation: Israel kept mum, Assad blamed the rebels, face was preserved, and everyone was happy. But the Obama administration apparently couldn’t stand it–and a week later, it once again leaked claims of Israeli responsibility to the media.

At best, this means the administration simply didn’t understand the potential consequences, demonstrating an appalling ignorance of Middle East realities. A worse possibility is that it deliberately placed its own political advantage above the safety of Israeli citizens: Facing increasing criticism for its inaction in Syria, but reluctant to significantly increase its own involvement and unable even to secure congressional approval for the limited steps it has approved, perhaps it hoped revealing that at least an American ally was doing something would ease the political heat–even at the cost of provoking a Syrian retaliation that claims Israeli lives.

The worst possibility of all, however, is that the administration knows exactly what it’s doing, and is deliberately trying to spark an Israeli-Syrian war as a way out of its own dilemma: It wants Assad gone, but doesn’t want to do the work itself. Starting an Israeli-Syrian war would force Israel to destroy Assad’s air force, thereby greatly increasing the chances of a rebel victory.

Whatever the truth, these leaks damage American as well as Israeli interests, because one of Washington’s consistent demands of its ally is that Israel not surprise it with military action. Hitherto, Israel has honored that request: Though it doesn’t seek America’s permission for action it deems essential, it does scrupulously provide advance notice. But if Obama administration officials can’t be trusted to keep their mouths shut, Israel will have to rethink this policy: It can’t risk getting embroiled in a war with Syria just to ease Obama’s political problems.