I found this gem from M.J. Rosenberg on jta.org today and thought: once again, those who refuse to hear what their enemies are saying continue to endorse those same enemies.
The so-called Arab Peace Initiative first surfaced out of the cesspool of Jew hatred that is Saudi Arabia in 2002. At first, it was hailed by Arabs and idiots alike as a bold new initiative that would bring peace to the war-torn MiddleEast by presenting an agreement that both Arab and Israeli could agree on. In short:
The plan consists of a proposal to end the Arab-Israeli conflict. It offers Israel normalization of relations and comprehensive peace agreements with Arab countries in exchange for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the Occupied Territories including the Golan Heights, and the recognition of "an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital," as well as a "just solution" for the Palestinian refugees.
The initiative is based upon:
The principle of Land for peace.
The conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties.
The goals of the initiative are:
Full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967
Implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.
The establishment of an independent Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as its capital
A just solution to the Palestinian Refugee problem, to be agreed upon in accordance with section 11 of UN General Assembly Resolution 194.
The normalization of relations in the context of a comprehensive peace
At the request of Lebanon, the fourth section stipulated that Palestinians would not be patriated at the expense of "the special circumstances of the Arab host countries" - understood to refer to Lebanon's demographic balance.
For the last six years, not unlike a bad case of herpes, the Initiative has been pushed by one anti-Israel party or another as a comprehensive solution to the problem of Israel in the MiddleEast. However, it has never really taken off in any practical way, mostly because despite what voting for Ehud Olmert might imply, Israelis really aren't so stupid as to trust the countries which are the leading producers, supporters and suppliers of anti-Israel terrorism today. Everyone with functioning brain cells (this excludes the Israeli left) knows that agreements with the Arab states aren't worth the paper they're printed on, and they're printed on pretty cheap paper at that. After all, in the entire time since the Oslo Discords in 1993, the so-called Palestinians have failed to keep a single provision of any agreement they've signed, in any context. Excuses they have but compliance? No, no, that's only for the dirty Jews.
This is why the article by Rosenberg annoyed me. Consider some of the less brilliant statements:
The campaign is over and governing time approaches. The new administration will soon have to decide how to proceed. One thing is certain: It has a stronger hand than any new administration in recent history. It won in a landslide; Obama is the first Democrat to win a majority of the popular vote since Lyndon Johnson. His party controls both the House of Representatives and the Senate. And Jewish voters are in his corner.
So where should he start?
He should start by endorsing the Arab Peace Initiative—the best offer the Arabs have ever made to Israel.
Really? His economy is collapsing, his financial markets are in turmoil, and he still has messy wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. How is the Israel-Arab conflict a priority?
As for the idea that the initiative is the "best offer the Arabs have ever made to Israel", this is utter nonsense. After all, with this logic the Khartoum pronouncement: No peace, no recognition, no negotiations was also the best offer the Arabs had ever made to Israel at that time! Crap is crap and just because it smells a little less than the older crap and has a pretty bow on it doesn't change the fact that it's crap.
Forget what some Israeli officials and Jewish organizational types say about the Arab League plan. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. I say that because every provision requires the agreement of both Arabs and Israelis. So what if its language on borders presupposes full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-’67 lines? So what if it contemplates the return of more refugees than Israel can handle? Or that it envisions the full return of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians?
None of that matters because the language of the initiative represents the maximum Arab position, an opening position. The Saudis (and the other Arabs) are not saying "take it or leave it." They are saying "let’s negotiate."
Yes, forget about the concerns the people who actually live in the neighbourhood have. The agreement has nothing wrong with it? Peruse the specifications again if you dare. Every Israeli commitment is very clearly spelled out. The Arab ones? They're just a wee bit vague. Does it set a timeline whereby the Arab states must all normalize ties with Israel if Israel complies with its part of the Initiative? Does it spell out penalities to Arab states which continue to boycott and refuse to recognize Israel? As well, don't forget that the Arab states generally see agreements as one-sided and it's Israel's side that will be expected to hold by the Initiative without anything binding on the Arab side. Add that to the current Arab record of keeping promises they've signed to (currently running at 0%) and can you still say there's nothing wrong with the agreement?
As for: "the language of the initiative represents the maximum Arab position, an opening position. The Saudis (and the other Arabs) are not saying 'take it or leave it.' They are saying "let’s negotiate."", that's a lie. The Arabs have said, on numerous occasions, that this Initiative is non-negotiable and that they have no intention of altering it at all. They also have no intention of keeping up their side of the deal but I've already dealt with that.
It calls for the "achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem agreed upon (my emphasis) in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194." Could anything be more clear? A solution to the refugee problem would not be imposed on Israel; it would have to be accepted by Israel.
Yes, well the Nazis also called for solutions to the Jewish problem and we recall what happened there. As for Resolution 194, 242 and 338, it has been well-established that the Arab states have their own unique interpretations of those resolutions and that these interpretations are also not subject to negotiation. Yes, technically speaking Israel will not be imposed on but could you imagine the pressure it will be subjected to the minute it hints that it is willing to accept the Initiative? The Arab world will unleash a tsunami of propaganda complete with their interpretations of the UN resolutions and stating that Israel, by accepting the Initiative, has committed itself to absorbing 5 million or more Arabs who all claim nationality in a fictional country. How dare Israel not hold by its side of the deal?!
The initiative states that following successful negotiations, every single Arab state will: "(I) consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region, and (II) establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace."
So why is Israel dragging its feet rather than accepting the plan and starting to negotiate? The reason is, almost surely, the settlers. It’s always the settlers.
Now Rosenberg's true animus comes out. Never mind that Egypt is the world centre for anti-Semitic literature and media. Never mind that the Saudis fund every anti-Israel terrorist group the Iranians don't. Never mind that Lebanon functions as a lauching pad for Hezbollah. Who are the real enemies of peace in the region? The Jews who have left their comfortable homes to live on land that was given to Israel by the League of Nations and the British Mandate and which was illegally stolen from them by the Arabs in 1949. Consider how Rosenberg distorts the facts:
No peace plan is going to permit a few hundred thousand Israeli settlers to remain in the West Bank—settlers who have no intention of leaving. For instance, this weekend some 20,000 settlers and their supporters are descending on Hebron to defend their right to remain in a Palestinian home they seized.
No, the home was legally bought, thank you. As for the first part of the paragraph, look how easily he dismissed several hundred thousand Jewish lives. Sorry, the Arabs who want to kill you are more important. We don't want to offend them. You, well look at the great job Israel did moving 7000 Jews out of 'Aza. How much worse could the State get it this time? But who cares if you become homeless, if you lives are ruined? A small price to pay to get a worthless agreement and a smile on the face of the King of Saudi Arabia.
That is not America’s problem. Our problem is to resolve a conflict that harms American interests throughout the Muslim world, and has done so since 1967. Perhaps the American interest hurt most of all is Israel’s long-term prospects for survival.
As a final piece of stupidity, Rosenberg contradicts himself in consecutive sentences. If it's not America's problem, why the obsession with destroying Israel? As for the argument about American interest, consider the record. The Americans helped save Bosnia and Kosovo from the Serbians, the latter time violating international law and the NATO constitution to do so. It has liberated Iraq from a crazy dictator and supplies Egypt with enough money to prevent its collapsing economically. If all that does not win love and approval from the Arab world, will the dismantling of Israel, chas v'shalom, do so?
Rosenberg's opinion should be ignored and his ideas laughed at.