Look who's 'representing' Israel

As US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice embarked on her maiden voyage, it was reported that she departed from America armed with a new policy paper on how to implement the Quartet's road map produced by the James Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University.

According to Edward Djerejian, the former US ambassador to Syria who directs the Baker Center, the paper, with its detailed recommendations, is a "street map to the road map."

One of the things that make the paper significant is that it bears former US secretary of state James Baker's name. Not only did Baker serve under the president's father, he now plays a formal role in mobilizing international support for Iraqi reconstruction efforts.

As well, the team that composed the report included senior policy makers from the US, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Canada and the World Bank. The US was represented by current Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs William Burns as well as by Norman Olsen, the political counselor at the US embassy in Israel. The PA was represented by security strongman Jibril Rajoub and by senior aides to Mahmoud Abbas, Yasser Arafat and Ahmed Qurei. Egypt was represented by Dictator Hosni Mubarak's senior adviser Osama El Baz and by General Hossam Khair Allah.

Israel had no official representation. Rather, the Jewish state was represented by none other than Yossi Beilin's Geneva Accord crowd. Amnon Lipkin Shahak and Shlomo Brom, signatories to that subversive agreement where private citizens tried to abscond with the government's sovereign power to determine foreign policy by negotiating the scandalously anti-Israel "accord," participated. They were joined by members of Beilin's EU-financed think tank, the Economic Cooperation Foundation.

Not surprisingly, the product this team produced and delivered to Rice is soft on Palestinian terrorism, soft on Palestinian democratization, and relentlessly harsh toward Israel – its sovereignty, its right to defend itself, and its ability to claim any right to retain any of the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria.

The document makes no clear statement on the need for the Palestinians to dismantle terrorist organizations. Indeed, the term "terror organizations" is absent from the report. Instead, the Palestinian requirement to combat terrorism is reduced to demands on Israel to facilitate the training, arming and operation of the "reformed" Palestinian security services while not interfering with them in any way.

While the report pays lip service to the need for the PA to reform its governing institutions, its only clear statement on the end-product of reform is unabashedly authoritarian. The aim of all the reforms must be the "consolidat[ion of] Fatah as the main political player in Palestinian society."

While the report makes no call for the destruction of Palestinian terror organizations and bucks up the authoritarian, corrupt PA, it calls for Israel to be treated with hostility and suspicion.

The paper calls for the establishment of a multinational force that will implement the agreements. Implicit in this statement is the assumption that Israel will be prevented by the presence of this force from taking any measures to defend itself against attacks.

International border crossings in Gaza and Judea and Samaria, including the weapons smuggling hub at the Philadephi Corridor which separates Gaza from Egypt, are to be controlled by the Palestinians. The report gives Egyptian forces a more prominent role in implementing the agreements than the IDF.

WHERE THE report's anti-Israel bias is most blatant is in its discussion of the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria. The authors refer to their desire to see "The Palestinian people establish a viable state in the West Bank and Gaza" and make it clear that a precondition for the state's viability is that it be racially pure – entirely cleansed of Jewish communities. At the same time, they express their desire to "assure that Israel will continue to exist as the democratic homeland of the Jewish people and its other citizens." So in the authors' view, Israel is to be a state of all of its citizens while "Palestine" is to be Judenrein.

The report calls for the institution of a draconian regime in the Defense Ministry and the Justice Ministry to effectively prevent any building activities whatsoever from being conducted in the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria. This regime, "The Special Office on Settlement Activities," will be obliged not simply to act as the enforcer of the attrition of these communities. The report determines that this body will be subordinate to the US embassy in Israel – effectively ceding Israeli sovereignty to the US.

The study even dares to dictate what propaganda moves must be made by the Israeli government to force the Israeli public to accept this policy. A close reading makes it clear that the result of this policy will be the expulsion of more than 400,000 Israeli Jews from their homes. This is so because the destruction of Israeli neighborhoods in Jerusalem is implicit in the section's opening paragraph, which mendaciously claims: "The US government policy has been based on the principle that there can be no acquisition of territory by war."

Not only does this sweeping and totally false statement necessarily include Jerusalem; it can easily be interpreted as saying that the only borders Israel can legitimately claim are the UN partition borders from 1947 since much of the land that makes up the 1949 armistice lines was acquired in war.

Perhaps it is reasonable that officials pushing a plan that would cause Israel to effectively become the ward of the international community should not feel limited by the positions of the Israeli government as it makes its plans – sufficing instead to have Israel "represented" by radical free agents with Israeli citizenship.

But two questions still arise: Why is the US government sending its officials to participate in a "working group" which works to undermine the sovereignty of a US ally; and why is the Israeli government not taking legal action against private citizens who travel the world "negotiating" away the sovereign rights of the state while undermining the prerogatives of the Israeli government?

I think what's going on here is that Condoleezza Rice is trying to establish for herself a running start as Secretary of State.As her predecessors did before her, she will find out that the Palestinians, along with the representatives of most other countries of that region, are duplicitious, liars and that their over-riding agenda is to destroy Israel, if not on the battlefield, which fortunately they cannot do, then at the "peace table."

Rice will discover before long that she is embarking on a dangerous and harmful mission, which also poses much risk for the US. This is basically a charade, Like Clinton's Wye Conference, and the true character of these people will emerge sooner rather than later.

The scariest part of this whole deal is the re-emergence of James Baker as a key player. But in due time, the true nature of these bloodsuckers will emerge. I hope Israel hasn't ceded anything too significant before then. Pres.Bush must keep Baker at arms-length from any major role in these "negotiations."

A further possibility is that Bush and Rice both see the Israel/Palestinian conflict linked to the War Against Terrrorism. If their mission indeed is to introduce freedom into the Arab world, they cannot but cozy up to these Arabs and at least pose as a "fair" representative of that freedom. The Arab leadership will never be able to turn their populations in the direction of Democracy without the US being regarded in a more positive light.

The good news, I think, is that some way, somehow, the Arabs will screw it up, and hopefully Siyata Dishmaya
(G-d's help) will intervene on behalf of Israel. However, if by some miracle genuine Democracy is introduced into the Arab world, it would be a big step in the War Against Islamic Terrorism." But we're talking about a long, arduous process which at best will have its good days and bad days.

If Palestine were indeed to become a state, and Hamas a declared non-participant in the so-called ceasefire, were then to attack Israel, the excuse of "occupied territory" will no longer hold, and maybe that's how Israel will be able to justify to the world to finally fight a no-holds- barred war against this enemy.

"Anyone want to bet that the "paper" wasn't given to Sharon for his comments/additions prior to its circulation?"

>Is this an allusion to the July 2000 Camp David summit which in the new book, "The Truth About Camp David," author Clayton Swisher makes the claim that Clinton ordered (during his absence to attend a fund raiser) that Dennis Ross take the draft over to Ehud Barak to give him a "sneak preview," and when changes were demanded by Barak, Ross made them, thereby undermining on the part of the Palestinians' confidence that the U.S. could be a fair broker and draftor? That it was these things that Swisher lists, and not that there wasn't a "peace partner," that caused the summit to fail? Has this allegation been confirmed elsewhere, and was it relevant?

>>Sure it is very relevant to any Palestinian propogandist who starts with the view that if they did not get every single thing they wanted and more they will revert to savages and it is the fault of the Jews.

>>>If I understand the author, Clayton Swisher, he contrasted that compromised process with the process President Carter followed when he was able to bring Egypt and Israel together in a permanent peace agreement.

Swisher goes on to say that there was then a concerted campaign between America and Israel to blame Arafat for there not being any peace partner, for turning down "the deal." Swisher says that in Dan Meridor's own words, who was one of the Likud’s members that Barak brought with him: "he [Meridor] talks about the night before staying up with [American Middle East Envoy] Dennis Ross and drafting the blame speech."

Yet according to Aaron Miller, Deputy Middle East Envoy, “There was no deal, there was no formalized offer.” Also from General Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, former IDF Chief of Staff who was one of Barak’s negotiators at Camp David, “It was not a serious dialogue.”

So the question arises whether the public has been given information by which to make informed assessments? (see Clayton Swisher's appearance on BookTV for the sourcing for this information: http://www.c-spanstore.org/cgi-bin/cspanstore/174221-1.html?id=WCHLXnZ8 )

The impression that the Palestinian position was "if they did not get every single thing they wanted and more" does not seem to apply to what these people are saying were the facts of the situation.

Swisher says that by misrepresenting what actually took place, positions were hardened and polarized leading to a situation where almost 1100 Israelis and almost 3300 Palestinians have been killed since, whereas in the three years preceding this missed Camp David opportunity that only 12 Israelis, as tragic as that is, had died.

If the situation were reversed, and instead the draft had been carried to Arafat for the "sneak preview," hopefully there would be just as much and more concern for Israel's sake about the integrity of the process. Also, if Clayton Swisher - who comes across as a sincere young man, and who recommends reading all the books of those who were involved, not just his - is wrong on the facts in his book, this reader would be interested.

Hopefully lessons learned will serve to strengthen the negotiation process now underway, and it will lead to a permanent peace such as Israel, Egypt and Jordan together enjoy.

"Yes I am sure Clinton brought Arafat to the White House more than anyone else (except Monica) in order to not make a serious offer..."

> Swisher makes the case that the process was so fouled up (because they got away from using drafts and had not done their homework it broke down into a bazaar of proliferating voices, NSC and State often yelling at each other) such that they could not effectively get to the substance, some of which was indeed groundbreaking and historical.

"...of course we have the Zionist conspiracy (they control Clinton also) to fool the whole world."

> [speculative here] It didn't need to be a Zionist conspiracy, there just needed to be an upcoming Presidential election where every vote counted (his wife was running for Senator in NY) to spin it a certain way.

"If there were any minor changes made at the close that should have not been enough for Arafat to go home"

> According to Swisher, in December with negotiations running out of time they didn't even have maps to mark up (he repeats this three times for effect). The process was flawed because nothing was getting written down. He contrasts this with Carter's approach and the Geneva Accords approach.

"...and start a war (actually it had already started)."

> Swisher makes the case that Arafat did everything he could to try and keep Sharon from going to the Temple Mount when things were such a tinderbox given how Camp David was portrayed as Arafat rejecting the best deal he would ever get.

Swisher also says that the Palestinians made a huge mistake in not correcting the record when it was portrayed that a "deal" had been offered and rejected. He also says that both Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell were given "tainted" briefings as to what had really happened when they came into office.

Here is part of the transcript I took notes on from the Swisher BookTV program. I by no means have come to any conclusions, waiting hopefully for possible rebuttals of the facts to first be debated more fully in the press. The goal is that hopefully the current negotiations may be far more constructive for both sides.:

[Swisher] "The main sin that I have, the main criticism I have of the Clinton Administration in spite of all their hard efforts is the way they left things off. The one thing the Bush Administration was entitled to – and I’m not to suggest here for a moment, I’m not going to tell you that they were eager to jump on Middle East peace and they were going to do better folks, that would be a lie, but they were entitled to a fair incoming brief on why things ended, and how they ended, and who bore responsibility.

Unfortunately, the atmosphere was so charged, so conflated were the hopes, so unrealistic were the expectations, that the briefing that you will see, that was given, and you’ll hear Aaron Miller, Deputy Middle East Envoy talk about it, was a very tainted one. Colin Powell was given a very tainted brief, and why the Camp David talks ended, why the chances for Middle East peace dissipated. Vice President Chaney in January 2004 this year in Beverly Hills, he was giving a fund raiser, and he says at this fund raiser, he says I can remember Inauguration day January 20, 2001 and we were in the White House as it was customary that day and all Clinton kept doing was pacing back and forth saying how Arafat screwed him and to not deal with him.

These same things have been repeated over and over again, and folks they gave way to this no partner for peace theory. No, there is no Palestinian partner for peace. That this is what the Israelis left, I mean with the American Administration giving their imprimatur to it, this is what they had believed, that it is the truth.

There was also a very prolific debate in Israeli newspapers this summer that this debate was falsified intelligence on behalf of the Israeli Ministry of Defense. There is a very prolific debate about falsified intelligence assessments that were made that summer to members of the Knesset and political leaders blaming Arafat saying he had held everything up on the right of return and that he didn’t envision a two-state solution. Very similar to the sorts of things we saw in our Defense Department pre-Iraq war. Manipulating the intelligence, feeding that which would serve an agenda. They existed in Israel too.

I’m saying these things clouded, and they paved the way for a very grim time that has followed and has continued. With Arafat’s passing recently, a lot of people hope there is going to be Palestinian leadership that is going to be more pliant, that is going to accept less than what Arafat turned away. This is very wishful thinking. Abu Mazen Abu Ala, the entire Palestinian delegation – I interviewed Mohammed Dahlan and he said to me it wasn’t just Arafat that found these positions untenable, it was all of us.

And indeed the percentages improved significantly in the months that continued between July at Camp David and December. That is to suggest that it would have continued if the political clock had not ran out, they might have ended up somewhere close to positions that were laid out at Geneva."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.