It’s fairly intolerable from where I sit. PM Olmert hosted PA president Abbas in his residence today. Prior to the meeting, the word out of Olmert’s office was that it would focus on humanitarian issues and was designed to keep the channels of communication open without touching on political issues.
Then came a statement from Olmert, not long before the meeting, that he was ready to "treat seriously" the Saudi plan. What? The Saudi plan of 2002, which is expected to be revisited at the up-and-coming Arab League summit in Riyadh, calls for Israel to move back to pre-’67 lines and for "return" of refugees in exchange for "normalization" of relations with Arab states. "Normalization" is not necessarily synonymous with "diplomatic relations and full cessation of hostilities" although it is meant to lend that impression. This is a non-starter.
And then the meeting…
Abbas told Olmert that Shalit would be released soon, and that he would make "every effort" to see to it that the release happened this week, before the unity gov’t was formed. Well, that’s all very lovely, but it’s not done until it’s done — and it was supposed to have been done a long time ago. Abbas gets bonus points for this?
Apparently so, because according to the Post, an "unnamed Arab diplomat" reported that Olmert said he was prepared to consider a "creative solution" to the refugee issue. There are no red lines, and bells are ringing in my ears…loudly. I am not suggesting that Olmert is about to approve the entry of 4.2 million hostile so-called refugees into Israel tomorrow. However…always a bit more caving, always a bit more conciliation that is appeasement, even if just in words.
Of course, Abbas didn’t get everything he was after: He had demanded that Israel release frozen tax funds, extend the ceasefire (so-called) to Judea-Samaria, and release all Palestinian prisoners. His gall is limitless, is it not?
Abbas reportedly "stressed" during the meeting that any government founded in the PA would be committed to past agreements. But that is just a lie, a bald lie. For Abbas has signed on to the Mecca Accord, which gives Hamas the right to NOT abide by previous agreements. Does Olmert smile when Abbas tells these lies, and pretend to believe them? Apparently he has said that even if the unity gov’t with Hamas is formed, he will continue to meet with Abbas. This is all constructive, you see.
According to Arutz Sheva, Muhammad Dahlan, an Abbas supporter with strong terrorist credentials who attended the meeting, said that both sides agreed that the unity gov’t is an internal PA matter. Well, this has been Abbas’s claim — that it doesn’t concern Israel (Israel isn’t even mentioned in the Accord) but is a move to forestall intra-Palestinian violence. But Olmert would have been foolish to agree on this point if indeed he did, because a gov’t has been negotiated by Palestinian factions that doesn’t call for peace, for cessation of violence or for Israel’s right to exist. This concerns Israel more than a little.
After the meeting, according to YNet, Olmert aides said the two sides "…allegedly agree that the Saudi initiative could serve as a basis for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians."
I would like to share here the explanation by Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA of what makes Mahmoud Abbas a "moderate": "Mahmoud Abbas makes it clear that ‘moderation’ = not trying to murder Israelis if you think you can get your way without having to murder them." Lerner has a way with words sometimes.
As to that unity gov’t, Haniyeh requested of Abbas, and received, more time to complete its formation. He hopes to have it completed before the Arab League summit. Haniyeh is currently writing a political statement, outlining what will be the new gov’t’s positions, to be presented to the Palestinian Legislative Council.
The coalition will include Fatah, Hamas, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and Islamic Jihad — an amalgamation of the Palestinian terrorist groups committed to Israel’s destruction.
The first order on the new national agenda is dealing with Israel, which is trying to "disrupt Palestinian viability," via the "separation" fence, annexation of Jerusalem, holding Palestinian prisoners, denying refugee rights, etc. Their goal is to form a state on the "lands of ’67" with Jerusalem as its capital, and deal with the refugee issue.
I would like to be as clear as possible here, because it is so easy to misunderstand. Saying they want to have a state on the "lands of ’67" does NOT mean they are supporting a two-state solution. It’s word-play, for there is no statement regarding Israel’s right to exist on the other side of that ’67 line. Obviously the demise of Israel is what they’re after if they’re pushing the refuge issue — they would hope to destroy us from within. But even if they don’t succeed with regard to the refugees, I quite assure you that they see a state on the "’67 lands" as only interim — a stage that would weaken us for what they hope would be the final blow.
Meanwhile, there is more Fatah-Hamas violence and another death. As is the routine, each side accused the other of fomenting the trouble.
Farouk al-Kaddoumi, a top leader of the PLO, has given an interview with Syrian TV in which he said the only way to liberate the occupied Palestinian territories is through resistance. Resistance? That’s terrorism. I remind you that the PLO is the official Palestinian organization that negotiated Oslo with Israel and "presumably" is committed to negotiations.
I’d like to call your attention to a report from Palestinian Media Watch ( http://www.pmw.org.il/ ) regarding the way in which hate terminology in Arabic utilized in a major Palestinian news service, Ma’an, is sanitized for English translations. This is critically important to understand, because it’s key to recognizing true Arab intentions. Statements must be analyzed in Arabic, not utilizing English translations meant for Western consumption.
Some examples: When the suicide bombing occurred in Eilat, the English report in Ma’an referred to the "southern Israeli resort." The Arabic referred to Eilat as being in the south of occupied Palestine. In English there was a reference to the family of the bomber. In Arabic this was the family of the "shahada-seeker" (i.e., martyr-seeker, a term of honor).
This posting can be found at: https://arlenefromisrael.info/current-postings/2007/3/11/posted-march-11-2007.html