Taking Necessary Action

Fox News is reporting today that Egypt’s President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi is doubling the buffer zone between Egypt and Gaza.

The article reports:

The operation will expand the existing 500m buffer zone created last November to a full kilometer (0.6 mile), a move meant to halt the passage of weapons and militants. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to journalists, expect to complete the expansion by the middle of next week.

The forced evictions are displacing a population with longstanding grievances against the government of Egypt’s President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi. The northern Sinai Peninsula has become a hub for Islamic extremists, and security forces in the area face regular deadly attacks.

The President of Egypt was elected democratically, but has ruled with an iron hand. He has arrested members of the Muslim Brotherhood and spoken out against Islamic terrorism. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood after he signed a truce with Israel, and President el-Sissi is trying to avoid a similar fate. President el-Sissi understands that to allow terrorism or terrorist organizations to operate freely in your country is not wise. Eventually the terrorists you allow will turn on you.

It Has Taken A While For The Truth To Come Out

Yesterday the Daily Caller reported that Suha Arafat, the wife of the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, stated last month in a TV interview that the Palestinian terror campaign against Israel launched in 2000 was a premeditated act orchestrated by her husband, not a spontaneous “intifada,” or uprising, as many have claimed.

The intifada was supposedly triggered by the visit to the Temple Mount by then-leading Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon. What actually occurred was that Yasser Arafat felt that he was being pressured to betray the Palestinian cause and was not willing to do that. He told his wife in Paris after the failure of the Camp David negotiations, ‘You should remain in Paris because I am going to start an intifada. They want me to betray the Palestinian cause. They want me to give up on our principles, and I will not do so.’” It would be interesting to know exactly what those principles were.

The article reminds us:

In a summit convened by President Bill Clinton at Camp David in July 2000, Arafat rejected an offer by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barack to create a Palestinian state in the equivalent of roughly 97 percent of the West Bank, including land swaps, and all of the Gaza Strip, according to an account by America’s chief Middle East negotiator at the time, Dennis Ross. East Jerusalem was to be the Palestinian capital.

It should be noted here that had Arafat agreed to that offer, he would have been signing his death warrant. Anwar Sadat was murdered by the Muslim Brotherhood for making peace with Israel, and it is quite possible that Arafat would have suffered the same fact. His body is currently being exhumed to determine the actual physical cause of his death, but I am not sure that if evidence reveals that he was murdered, there will be an obvious choice of motive.

The article concludes:

As a result of the four-year terror campaign, more than 1,000 Israelis were killed by Palestinian terror groups, while more than 3,000 Palestinians, including terrorists, died as result of Israel’s efforts to stop the violence.

The world’s media accepted the fact that the visit to the Temple Mount was the cause of the intifada. The world’s media has accepted many false stories about tensions and violence in the Middle East. It is refreshing to see that (even years later) someone told the truth.

Enhanced by Zemanta

How We Got Where We Are In The Middle East

Dr. Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and senior lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School. He posted an article at CNN on Friday entitled, “Why Land For Peace Is Dead.”

The article reminds us that September 18, 1978, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin signed the so-called Camp David Accords.This agreement set up the idea that Israel could trade land and receive peace in exchange. In 1979, a peace treaty was signed between Israel and Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Anwar Sadat for signing that treaty. Despite the loss of Anwar Sadat, the idea that the Sinal Peninsula had been successfully traded to bring peace brought hope.

Dr. Rubin reminds us:

It was this example that Bill Clinton sought to capitalize upon in the 1993 Oslo Accords. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) agreed to recognize Israel and work toward peace in exchange for land in historical Palestine. I was in Bahrain in 1994 when PLO chairman Yasser Arafat entered the Gaza Strip to establish the Palestinian Authority. Enthusiasm was palpable across the region. Within weeks, Jordan had signed its own peace accord with Israel, and Persian Gulf emirates, Tunisia, and Morocco looked like they might follow suit.

The concept of land for peace was also the reason Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000.

Dr. Rubin further reminds us:

The logic of land for peace became the basis for Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000. The formula of trading land for peace had already begun to unravel. Israel expected if not peace, then quiet. They had removed the last remaining dispute between Israel and Lebanon. Alas, Israel’s withdrawal foreshadowed greater conflict. Even though the United Nations certified Israel’s withdrawal as complete, Hezbollah laid claim not only to the Shebaa Farms – an Israeli occupied area which historically is part of Syria – but also seven villages in the Galilee, a region well within Israel’s recognized borders.

It sounds as if the concept of land for peace was being exploited early on. From there, things go downhill quickly.

The article reports:

Peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority was also rapidly deteriorating. Certainly, when it comes to the Arab-Israel conflict, there are always mutual recriminations. What is clear, however, is that Arafat had voided his pledge to resolve future conflict with Israel at the negotiating table. Many commentators mark the beginning of the “Second Intifada” as Likud leader Ariel Sharon’s September 28, 2000 visit to the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif. But this is dishonest. On August 24, 2000, several weeks before Sharon’s visit, Palestinian Justice Minister Freih Abu Middein threatened, “Violence is near, and the Palestinian people are willing to sacrifice even 5,000 casualties.” Communications Minister Imad al-Faluji reportedly admitted to Palestinian radio that “Arafat ordered preparations for the current intifada immediately after the Camp David summit, as part of the negotiating process with Israel.” The Oslo Process and the land-for-peace formula that underlay it had begun to breakdown.

There are two very telling quotes in the conclusion of the article:

Most Israelis view their experience of land-for-peace in the same fashion that Native Americans consider their experience with the concept.

...Hamas’ decision to turn Gaza into a forward missile base rather than the engine for an independent Palestine condemns 35 years of peacemaking to history’s garbage bin and sets the stage for a conflict far more disruptive than anyone in the region has seen in a half century.

Israel has been seeking peace since 1948. They are not the problem. Until Hamas seeks peace and acknowledges Israel’s right to exist, there will be no peace.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta