According to Yasser Arafat, the signing of the Oslo Accords was only the first step in a phased plan that would eventually put the Muslim Arab world in a position to again attempt the annihilation of the Jewish state.
But more steps, more Israeli concessions, were needed before the Arabs could seriously consider launching another full-scale war against Israel.
And the "Palestinians", for their part, had agreed to put an end to the terrorist murder of Israel's Jews, leaving the Arab states with little leverage.
However, it was never Arafat's intention to keep that promise, so he promptly broke it, refused to make terrorism against the Jewish state a thing of the past, and retained the terrorism card.
It is no coincidence that in each of the seven major "peace" agreements Israel has signed with the Palestinian Authority since 1993, the Arabs' obligation has always remained the same - to stop the flow of illegal weapons, eliminate incitement, and curb terrorism.
The Palestinian Arabs need terrorism as a political bargaining chip. Without it they bring little to the table with which to extort concessions from Israel.
Which brings us to this week's international court case against Israel's right to build a security fence.
Israel's separation fence threatens to, at least partially, remove their one card from the "Palestinians'" hands. Their inability to perpetrate out terror attacks would leave Israel firmly in the driver's seat, as far as the negotiations go.
Israel would no longer "need" the PA to provide security for it.
(It is important to note that even Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the fence's main proponent, acknowledges that the barrier will not provide a total preventative to Palestinian terrorism. And as Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter reported to the Knesset Tuesday, the Palestinians are actively enhancing their artillery capabilities so as to bypass the fence and continue killing Jews.)
Such a situation - a peace process wherein Israel holds all the cards - would constitute an intolerable situation for the international community.
The ability of the nations to cultivate their relationships with the oil-rich Arab world depends largely on their willingness to push Israel to allow the creation of a Palestinian Arab state on ancient Jewish lands.
As such, the world will suffer no attempt by Israel to unilaterally remove the scourge of "Palestinian" terrorism, and by doing so prove it doesn't need to negotiate the creation of "Palestine" in order to provide true security for its people.
(This logic is also behind the world's regular and virulent rejection of Israel's right to militarily confront the forces of Palestinian Arab terrorism. For Israel to actually defeat Islamic terrorism would put everyone but Israel in a much weaker position.)
Thus, Israel was dragged before the UN's International Court of Justice in The Hague on Monday to be tried for building a fence and attempting to unilaterally defend its citizens. All this leaves us with the impression, then, that the Jews of Israel are not allowed to provide security for themselves, but must rather buy protection by dolling out parcels of land through farcical negotiations.
Any attempt by Israel to bypass the "land-for-security" formula is slated as illegitimate if not downright criminal.
The US and much of Western Europe came out in opposition to the court hearing. These nations don't want the court in The Hague to rule on Israel's fence, because it would "politicize" the issue - meaning they all have similar issues they don't want brought before the court. But, all of these nations have openly opposed Israel's right to unilaterally build the fence where it deems necessary, and by doing so protect its people.
WHY ISRAEL WAS REALLY DRAGGED TO COURT
By Jerusalem Newswire Editorial Staff February 25, 2004
(This editorial is brilliant. Read it carefully and you will understand the not understandable. I made a similar point a year ago and have posted my artilce entitled "The Art of Negotiations" below this one. Ted Belman)
Over the past ten years of failed "peace" efforts, the Palestinian Arabs have held only one card for use in negotiating with Israel - terrorism.
While the Israelis are prepared to make peace for the sake of peace, the Palestinians, by their own admission, desire more than a compromise deal and coexistence.
According to Yasser Arafat, the signing of the Oslo Accords was only the first step in a phased plan that would eventually put the Muslim Arab world in a position to again attempt the annihilation of the Jewish state.
But more steps, more Israeli concessions, were needed before the Arabs could seriously consider launching another full-scale war against Israel.
And the "Palestinians", for their part, had agreed to put an end to the terrorist murder of Israel's Jews, leaving the Arab states with little leverage.
However, it was never Arafat's intention to keep that promise, so he promptly broke it, refused to make terrorism against the Jewish state a thing of the past, and retained the terrorism card.
It is no coincidence that in each of the seven major "peace" agreements Israel has signed with the Palestinian Authority since 1993, the Arabs' obligation has always remained the same - to stop the flow of illegal weapons, eliminate incitement, and curb terrorism.
The Palestinian Arabs need terrorism as a political bargaining chip. Without it they bring little to the table with which to extort concessions from Israel.
Which brings us to this week's international court case against Israel's right to build a security fence.
Israel's separation fence threatens to, at least partially, remove their one card from the "Palestinians'" hands. Their inability to perpetrate out terror attacks would leave Israel firmly in the driver's seat, as far as the negotiations go.
Israel would no longer "need" the PA to provide security for it.
(It is important to note that even Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the fence's main proponent, acknowledges that the barrier will not provide a total preventative to Palestinian terrorism. And as Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter reported to the Knesset Tuesday, the Palestinians are actively enhancing their artillery capabilities so as to bypass the fence and continue killing Jews.)
Such a situation - a peace process wherein Israel holds all the cards - would constitute an intolerable situation for the international community.
The ability of the nations to cultivate their relationships with the oil-rich Arab world depends largely on their willingness to push Israel to allow the creation of a Palestinian Arab state on ancient Jewish lands.
As such, the world will suffer no attempt by Israel to unilaterally remove the scourge of "Palestinian" terrorism, and by doing so prove it doesn't need to negotiate the creation of "Palestine" in order to provide true security for its people.
(This logic is also behind the world's regular and virulent rejection of Israel's right to militarily confront the forces of Palestinian Arab terrorism. For Israel to actually defeat Islamic terrorism would put everyone but Israel in a much weaker position.)
Thus, Israel was dragged before the UN's International Court of Justice in The Hague on Monday to be tried for building a fence and attempting to unilaterally defend its citizens. All this leaves us with the impression, then, that the Jews of Israel are not allowed to provide security for themselves, but must rather buy protection by dolling out parcels of land through farcical negotiations.
Any attempt by Israel to bypass the "land-for-security" formula is slated as illegitimate if not downright criminal.
The US and much of Western Europe came out in opposition to the court hearing. These nations don't want the court in The Hague to rule on Israel's fence, because it would "politicize" the issue - meaning they all have similar issues they don't want brought before the court. But, all of these nations have openly opposed Israel's right to unilaterally build the fence where it deems necessary, and by doing so protect its people.
Posted by Ted Belman at February 27, 2004 04:21 PM