NZFOI: Rob Berg’s reaction to Donald Trump’s “deal of the century” was published alongside a reaction from John Minto. Minto’s views are his own, and not ours, we re-publish this without any endorsement.

It would be easy to throw up our hands in horror at the announcement of the so-called “deal of the century” but that would be pointless. We’ve all known for a long time that this “deal” would be a boon to Israel and a kick in the guts for Palestinians.

The Trump administration has given the Israeli government the green light to: continue building Jewish-only settlements on Palestinian land; annex most of the occupied West Bank; continue its ongoing military occupation of Palestine and the siege of Gaza; refuse Palestinian refugees the right to return to their land and homes and to continue its religious and ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem.

For the Palestinian side there is nothing aside from a vague reference to a hollowed out Palestinian state that would resemble apartheid South Africa’s bantustans. As the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem says – “the deal is like Swiss Cheese – the Israelis get the cheese while the Palestinians get the holes.”

The US “deal” rewards the oppressor and abuses the oppressed. Politically Trump is making a strong play for the evangelical Christian vote in the coming US elections. These are Christians who confuse the Israel of the Old Testament in the Bible with the modern political state of Israel.

On the Israeli side the “deal” is a gift to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who faces a third election in early March after failing to get enough support in the previous two elections to form a government. Netanyahu hope the deal will get him over the line this time.

Meanwhile none of the issues of profound injustice and oppression by Israel of Palestinians will go away, irrespective of the political manoeuvrings of Trump or Netanyahu.

So what is the way forward for Palestine?

The answer is surprisingly simple and was contained in a report last October from the United Nations Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur for Palestine, Mr Michael Lynk. 

The Lynk report says the international community has a responsibility and legal obligation to compel Israel to end its 52 year-long “occu-annexation” of Palestinian territory and remove barriers preventing Palestinian self-determination. Lynk points out that this occupation is the longest in the modern world and says it is “endlessly sustainable without decisive international intervention because of the grossly asymmetrical balance of power on the ground”. 

He says “Accountability is the key to opening the titanium cage that is the permanent occupation. The international community has issued countless resolutions and declarations critical of the never-ending Israeli occupation. The time has long past to match these criticisms with effective consequences.” Well said.

To remedy this, Michael Lynk recommends that the international community should devise a list of effective countermeasures against Israel which would be “appropriate and proportional” to the circumstances. 

He suggests some modern examples of applying pressure, such as diplomatic public statements, trade sanctions, flight bans, travel restrictions and reduction or suspension of aid.

Most importantly he says that “should Israel remain unmoved, (the international community) should apply and escalate the range of its targeted countermeasures until compliance had been achieved.”

After the “deal of the century” this is the only viable way forward.

The world faced a similar situation in the 1970s and 1980s with regard to the racist South African regime. While the great mass of humanity supported the struggle for self-determination of black South Africans, white South Africa was strongly supported by the UK and the US with leaders Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagan respectively giving unwavering support to its brutal oppression of blacks.

Despite this iron-clad support from key Western governments a critical factor in forcing democratic change was the people and governments around the world implementing a wide range of boycotts against the regime – sporting, trade, investment and diplomatic boycotts were all part of the mix – which helped bring irresistible pressure for change.

Israel’s brutal military occupation and its racist apartheid policies towards Palestinians cannot and will not survive international boycott action. 

South African Archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu is clear on the importance of the approach proposed by Michael Lynk: 

“In South Africa, we could not have achieved our democracy without the help of people around the world, who through the use of non-violent means, such as boycotts and divestment, encouraged their governments and other corporate actors to reverse decades-long support for the apartheid regime.”

And Archbishop Tutu has a message for governments like New Zealand. 

“Those who turn a blind eye to injustice actually perpetuate injustice. If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

Michael Lynk’s report points the way. Our New Zealand government should be at the forefront in supporting this United Nations proposed approach.

Let’s do this!

Source

On 29 January 2020, president Trump finally presented his long-awaited ‘Deal of the Century’, his vision to end the ongoing conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis, a conflict which has been going on in some form or another for over seventy years. Whilst the details of the plan may not have been previously known, the reactions from the Israeli and Palestinian sides could not have been more predictable.

As has been the case since the days of the British Mandate, the UN 1947 Partition Plan and many other opportunities, most latterly in 2000 and 2008, the Israelis have always agreed to what has been offered, even when the concessions have been painful, such as the division of Jerusalem, or withdrawal from Hebron. The Palestinians, and Arab nations before them, have never failed to say “no”. Most famous was the 3 no’s in Khartoum in September 1967. “No to peace with Israel. No to recognition with Israel. No to negotiations with Israel”. Fast forward to 2020 and the ‘Deal of the Century’, and we have almost exactly the same response from president Abbas, “We say 1,000 ‘no’s to this deal”.

The Palestinians may feel the ‘deal’ does not give them what they wanted, but even when offered a far greater deal by Prime Minister Barak in 2000 which included 92% of the West Bank, much to president Bill Clinton’s frustration and amazement, the Palestinians under Yasser Arafat said “no”. And then in 2008 they were offered an even better deal by then Prime Minister Olmert. This deal offered the Palestinians 98% of the West Bank with land swaps to account for the remaining 2%, East Jerusalem as their Capital, and the dismantling of Israeli settlements in the proposed Palestinian State. Again, this time by Mahmoud Abbas, the answer was “no”.

The Trump deal goes far short of the Olmert offer, and the Palestinians run the risk of losing everything if their intransigent approach to peace with the world’s only Jewish State continues in the same vein as it has for over 70 years.

Israel fits into New Zealand approximately 13 times and is roughly the size of Canterbury. Giving up any land has a significant impact on its size and ability to defend itself. To ask of Israel to put its existence at risk is something that no one or no country should expect. Yet Israel has continually offered the Palestinians land for peace, just as it did with both Egypt and Jordan before it. Israel also unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005, which has now become a strong hold for terrorist activity heavily backed by the Iranians. The concerns of Israelis are more than justified.

Israel has no error for margin. The first war it loses, is its last. It is difficult to comprehend this reality from our relative safety here in New Zealand, yet Israel has shown continuous willing for compromise. Each time, the offer of compromise, the offer to agree on a peace deal through direct negotiations has ended up with Palestinian rejection. Yet, the Palestinians offer no viable alternatives. Instead they insist on all of pre-1967 East Jerusalem, including the Old City and Judaism’s most accessible Holy site, the Western Wall, being part of ‘Palestine’. And they insist on the ‘right of return’ to all Palestinian refugees and their descendants. A ‘right’ afforded to no other people in the world. Yet they insist on this because they know it will ultimately lead to the end of the Jewish State.

And here is the crux of the matter. Until the Palestinians accept that Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish people is not only here to stay, but has a right to exist in the spiritual and historical homeland of the Jewish people, peace will be as far away as ever. Yet, the Trump Plan, with all its flaws, presents both the Israelis and the Palestinians with an opportunity. An opportunity as a starting point for direct talks and negotiations with the aim of a real and lasting peace, one that recognises the rights and aspirations of both people.

This may or may not be the last opportunity for the two State Solution to come to fruition. Instead of a “thousand no’s” hopefully Abbas will see this as a chance to bring a life of peace and prosperity to both Israelis and Palestinians. His final legacy. Hopefully he will choose a path to peace rather than stay on the road of conflict.

Source

From 1994 through 1996, as a captain in the IDF, I served as a member of Israel’s negotiating team with the PLO. Those years were the heyday of the so-called peace process. As the coordinator of negotiations on civil affairs for the Coordinator of Government Activities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, I participated in all of the negotiating sessions with the Palestinians that led to a half a dozen or so of agreements, including the Interim or Oslo B agreement from September 28, 1995, which transferred civil and military authorities in Judea and Samaria to the PLO.

Throughout the period of my work, I never found any reason to believe the peace process I was a part of would lead to peace. The same Palestinian leaders who joked with us in fancy meeting rooms in Cairo and Taba breached every commitment they made to Israel the minute the sessions ended.

Beginning with the PLO’s failure to amend its covenant that called for Israel’s destruction in nearly every paragraph; through their refusal to abide by the limits they had accepted on the number of weapons and security forces they were permitted to field in the areas under their security control; their continuous breaches of zoning and building laws and regulations; to their constant Nazi-like anti-Semitic propaganda and incitement and solicitation of terrorism against Israel – it was self-evident they were negotiating in bad faith. They didn’t want peace with Israel. They were using the peace process to literally take Israel apart piece by piece.
Israel’s leaders shrugged it off. Instead of protesting and cutting off contact until Yasser Arafat and his henchmen ended their perfidious behavior, Israel’s leaders ignored what was happening before their faces. And in a way, they had no option of doing anything else.

When Israel embarked on the Oslo peace process it accepted Oslo’s foundational assumption that Israel is to blame for the Palestinian war against it. From the first Oslo agreement, signed on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993, through all its derivative deals, Israel was required to carry out “confidence-building measures,” to prove its good faith and peaceful intentions to Arafat and his deputies.

Time after time, Israel was required to release terrorists from prison as a precondition for negotiations with the PLO. The goal of those negotiations in turn was to force Israel to release more terrorists from prison, and give more land, more money, more international legitimacy and still more terrorists to the PLO.
On Tuesday, this state of affairs ended.

On Sunday morning, just before he flew to Washington, US Ambassador David Friedman briefed me on the details of President Donald Trump’s peace plan at his home in Herzliya.

Friedman told me that Trump was going to announce that the United States will support an Israeli decision to apply its laws to the Jordan Valley and the Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria.

I asked what the boundaries of the settlements would be.

He said that they have a map, it isn’t precise, so it can be flexibly interpreted but it was developed in consultation with Israeli government experts.

Suspicious, I went granular. Khan al-Ahmar is an illegal, strategically located Beduin encampment built on the access road to Kfar Adumim, a community north of Jerusalem. Israel’s Supreme Court ordered its removal, but bowing to pressure from Germany and allegedly, the International Criminal Court, the government has failed to execute the court order.

I asked if Khan al-Ahmar is part of Kfar Adumim on the American map. Friedman answered in the affirmative.
What about the area called E1, which connects the city of Maaleh Adumim to Jerusalem?

Yes, it’s inside the map, he said.

How about the illegal building right outside the northern entrance to my community, Efrat, south of Jerusalem in Gush Etzion. The massive illegal building there threatens to turn Efrat’s highway access road into a gauntlet. Is that area going to be under Israeli jurisdiction?

He nodded.

How about the isolated communities – Yitzhar, Itamar, Har Bracha? Are they Israel?

Yes, yes, yes, he said. Our map foresees Israel applying its sovereignty to about half of Area C, he explained.

What about the other half? Without control of the surrounding areas, the communities in Judea and Samaria will be under constant threat. Their development will be stifled by limitations on the development of critical infrastructure.

For now, Friedman replied, everything in the rest of Area C will be governed as it has been up until now. Israel will have overriding civilian powers and sole security authority. In fact, in our plan, he explained, Israel will have permanent overriding security authority over all of Judea and Samaria, even after a peace agreement is concluded.

Friedman then turned to the nature of the agreement the Trump administration seeks to conclude.

The Palestinians have four years, he explained, to agree to the President’s plan. To reach a deal they have to agree to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. They have to accept Israeli control over the airspace and the electromagnetic spectrum. They have agree to a demilitarized state and accept that there will be no Palestinian immigration to Israel from abroad. They have to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the border with Jordan. They have to disarm Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza and demilitarize Gaza.

If they do that, we will recognize them as a state and they will receive the rest of Area C.

What if they don’t agree to those terms? I asked.

If they don’t agree, he replied, then at the end of four years, Israel will no longer be bound by the terms of the deal and will be free to apply its law to all areas it requires.

You’re telling me that in four years we’ll be able to apply Israeli law on the rest of the territory? I asked, almost afraid to hear the answer.
Yes, that’s right.

My heart started thumping like a rabbit tail.
You mean the Palestinians lose if they don’t agree to peace? Does President Trump support this? I asked in stunned disbelief.
Yes, of course, he supports this. It’s his plan, after all, Friedman said, smiling and a bit surprised at my reaction.
Boom.
Unannounced, tears began flowing out of my eyes.

Are those tears of happiness or sadness, Friedman asked, concerned.
For several moments, I couldn’t speak. Finally, I said, I feel like I need to take off my shoes. I’m witnessing a miracle.

Shortly thereafter, after thanking him and wishing him well, (and washing my face), I left his home, got in my car and drove to the Kotel.

As I listened to his briefing, there in his study, I didn’t feel like I was alone. There with me were fifty generations of Jews in every corner of the globe mouthing the Psalmist’s verses, “And the nations of the world will say, God has greatly blessed them; God has greatly blessed us, we were like dreamers.”

And closely, more immediately, as I sat there listening, I felt 27 years of worry and frustration washing away. The 27-year Oslo nightmare was over. The blood libel that blamed Israel for the Palestinians’ war against it was rejected by the greatest nation in the world, finally.

When you read the Trump plan closely, you realize it is a mirror image of Oslo. Rather than Israel being required to prove its good will, the Palestinians are required to prove their commitment to peace.

Consider the issue of releasing Palestinian terrorists.

Like the Oslo deal and its derivatives, the Trump deal includes a section on releasing terrorists. But whereas under Oslo rules, Israel was supposed to release terrorists as a confidence building measure to facilitate the opening of negotiations, under the Trump deal the order is reversed.

Israel is expected to release terrorists only after the Palestinians have returned all of the Israeli prisoners and MIAs and only after a peace deal has been signed.

Whereas Israel was required under Oslo to release murderers, the Trump deal states explicitly that Israel will not release murderers or accessories to murder.

One of the PLO’s more appalling demands was that Israel release Arab Israel citizens convicted of terrorism charges. The subversive demand implied PLO jurisdiction over Arab Israelis. Israel strenuously objected, but all previous US administrations supported the PLO demand.

The Trump deal states explicitly that Israeli citizens will not be released in any future release of terrorists.

There are many problematic aspects to the Trump plan. For instance, it calls for Israel to transfer sovereign territory along the Gaza border to Palestinian control in the framework of the peace deal.

More immediately, the deal requires Israel to suspend building activities in the parts of Area C earmarked for the Palestinians in a future deal for the next four years. This requirement will pose a major burden to the Israeli communities adjacent to these areas. To develop, these communities require surrounding infrastructure – roads, sewage, and other systems – to develop with them.

On the other hand, the Trump plan places no restriction on construction inside of the Israeli communities. Residents of Shilo and Ariel will have the same property rights as residents of Tel Aviv and Beit Shean.

This then brings us to Israel and the leaders who accepted the Oslo rules for the past 27 years. The Trump plan is a test for Israel. Have we become addicted to the blood libel?

Will Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu keep his word and present a decision to apply Israeli law over the Jordan Valley and the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria at the next government meeting or will he lose his nerve and hide behind “technical” issues?

Will Benny Gantz and his Blue and White party agree to abandon the Oslo blood libel most of its members embrace, and accept that Israel is capable of asserting its sovereign rights to these areas? Or will they hide behind the legal fraternity braying for Netanyahu’s head and preserve the anti-Semitic Oslo paradigm for their friends in the Democratic Party?

And will the legal fraternity, led by Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit act in accordance with the law, which empowers the government to determine national policies even before elections? Or will it continue to make up laws to block government action and so render the March 2 poll a referendum between democracy and Zionism and the legal fraternity and post-Zionism?

Under Oslo, Israel had no interest in taking the initiative. Every “step forward” was a set-up. Tuesday Trump ended the 27-year nightmare. Oslo is the past. Sovereignty is now. We were like dreamers.

The time has now come to give thanks for the miracle and get on with building our land.

Source: Glick, C (29 Jan 2020). The Oslo blood libel is over. Israel Hayom. www.hayom.com.