Over a period of 30 years, I taught and advised (at the graduate level) nearly 1000 students from throughout the Islamic world. Many of these students have risen to high level positions within their countries. They keep in close touch with one another and with me. Unfortunately, much of the Muslim world is firmly dedicated to the destruction of Israel. The following report is the consensus view of several hundred Islamic reporters and stringers stationed throughout the Islamic world. Please bring these materials to the attention of those who you believe are most concerned about developments in the Middle East.
Subject: Israel's Future Through Moderate Islamic Eyes
Recorder: Lt. Col. L (United States Army, Retired)
Background
At a recent photo-documented meeting, the chief operating officer of a large Middle Eastern (primarily Arab) news organization summarized the inputs transmitted to him by his several hundred reporters and stringers stationed in 18 countries throughout the Middle East concerning their expectations for Israel's future.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Israel's Future Through Moderate Islamic Eyes (I, Part 1)
Near-term expectations
The reporters are skeptical concerning the next two years and the Annopolis-generated "peace negotiations" that are currently in progress. They emphasize that Syria (who's representative had previously spoken in warm support of President Bush's vision) has already denounced the negotiations as a "public relations stunt" and has already announced that Syria would veto any proposed agreement that might be reached at the negotiation table. Thus, the Syrians are committed that there will be no agreement possible within Bush's announced time deadline of signing an agreement by the end of 2008.
The reporters listed several negotiation alternatives that had been bruited about and presented their evaluations. These were:
1. The "Saudi Arabian Peace Initiative." The "Saudi Proposal" was first carried to Israel, to the United States and to the West by Tom Friedman. It was not officially signed by Saudi Arabia. Friedman was selected as the plan's bearer after careful consideration by the Saudi foreign policy advisor because of his high level government and extensive media contacts both within Israel and the United States and the Saudi's belief that Friedman's ego would make Friedman relish what he would perceive as his playing a critical role in changing the entire history of the Middle East. The reporters claimed that if the Saudis and the other Arab states were really interested in proposing this "solution", they would have invited Prime Minister Sharon to speak in front of the then pending Arab Summit.
The Saudi plan was described as follows: "Israel must first satisfy all of the current (and future) demands (e.g. territorial, water rights, etc.) of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon (Hezbollah). Israel must also agree to the unlimited right of return to Israel of all the Palestinian refugees and all of their descendants (as they self-identify). Israel must pay compensation to all refugees and all of their descendants who choose not to exercise their right of return. Only after Israel complies with each and every one of these demands (to the satisfaction of all of the Arab countries involved) will Saudi Arabia and the other Arab nations then consider recognition of Israel and normalizing relations with Israel."
2. The roadmap and Bush's vision as announced at Annapolis. Annapolis is presented by the US State Department as a "resumption" of peace talks. The plan that was proposed by the US is, in fact, a radical departure from the dynamics of the original roadmap. (The original agreed-upon roadmap had a series of reciprocal, tangible, measurable benchmarks, e.g.: stop the terror violence; disarm the armed non-government forces; develop a functioning legal/justice system; etc.) The Annapolis vision replaces the roadmap with a fixed end point goal and a deadline. This enables the Palestinians to exert pressure on Israel and the US by threatening to halt the talks, relieves the Palestinians from having to deliver anything tangible, and would compel Israel to deliver to the Palestinians, on or before some date certain, all or most of the West Bank, part of Jerusalem, control of many places holy to Jews, etc. In return, the Arab League, Hamas and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are adamant that they will never recognize Israel as a "Jewish State". Thus, implementation of the Annapolis approach would deny Israel both security and peace.
3. One democratic, secular nation for two peoples. Increasingly, the Arab League, individual Arab governments and the Palestinians are threatening to support a "one state solution" as their final objective. When evaluating this proposed "solution", both the Israelis and the Arabs are well-aware of the comparative Palestinian and Israeli birth rates, with both expecting that any democratic "one state" would soon have a Palestinian majority. Both sides are also well-aware that "secular" is the code word for the end of a Jewish state and termination of the currently existing world-wide Jewish right of citizenship in Israel. Presently, within the Palestinian controlled areas of the West Bank, within Gaza and within Jordan, it is a death penalty offense to even contemplate offering to sell land to a Jew. A one state solution would make the entire West Bank, parts of Jerusalem (and possibly some parts of the current state of Israel) "Jew-free".
The bottom line in evaluating the feasibility of any possible "solution" is the likely on-the-ground response of the Palestinians. Results of recent polls conducted by Palestinians show that: a) 57% of Palestinians would support armed actions (terror, missile and rockets attacks) against Israel while negotiations are being conducted; and b) even if Israel would meet each and every Palestinian demand (including the West Bank, Jerusalem, right of return, etc.), 45% of Palestinians would still strongly oppose any recognition of Israel.
The reporters are skeptical concerning the next two years and the Annopolis-generated "peace negotiations" that are currently in progress. They emphasize that Syria (who's representative had previously spoken in warm support of President Bush's vision) has already denounced the negotiations as a "public relations stunt" and has already announced that Syria would veto any proposed agreement that might be reached at the negotiation table. Thus, the Syrians are committed that there will be no agreement possible within Bush's announced time deadline of signing an agreement by the end of 2008.
The reporters listed several negotiation alternatives that had been bruited about and presented their evaluations. These were:
1. The "Saudi Arabian Peace Initiative." The "Saudi Proposal" was first carried to Israel, to the United States and to the West by Tom Friedman. It was not officially signed by Saudi Arabia. Friedman was selected as the plan's bearer after careful consideration by the Saudi foreign policy advisor because of his high level government and extensive media contacts both within Israel and the United States and the Saudi's belief that Friedman's ego would make Friedman relish what he would perceive as his playing a critical role in changing the entire history of the Middle East. The reporters claimed that if the Saudis and the other Arab states were really interested in proposing this "solution", they would have invited Prime Minister Sharon to speak in front of the then pending Arab Summit.
The Saudi plan was described as follows: "Israel must first satisfy all of the current (and future) demands (e.g. territorial, water rights, etc.) of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon (Hezbollah). Israel must also agree to the unlimited right of return to Israel of all the Palestinian refugees and all of their descendants (as they self-identify). Israel must pay compensation to all refugees and all of their descendants who choose not to exercise their right of return. Only after Israel complies with each and every one of these demands (to the satisfaction of all of the Arab countries involved) will Saudi Arabia and the other Arab nations then consider recognition of Israel and normalizing relations with Israel."
2. The roadmap and Bush's vision as announced at Annapolis. Annapolis is presented by the US State Department as a "resumption" of peace talks. The plan that was proposed by the US is, in fact, a radical departure from the dynamics of the original roadmap. (The original agreed-upon roadmap had a series of reciprocal, tangible, measurable benchmarks, e.g.: stop the terror violence; disarm the armed non-government forces; develop a functioning legal/justice system; etc.) The Annapolis vision replaces the roadmap with a fixed end point goal and a deadline. This enables the Palestinians to exert pressure on Israel and the US by threatening to halt the talks, relieves the Palestinians from having to deliver anything tangible, and would compel Israel to deliver to the Palestinians, on or before some date certain, all or most of the West Bank, part of Jerusalem, control of many places holy to Jews, etc. In return, the Arab League, Hamas and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are adamant that they will never recognize Israel as a "Jewish State". Thus, implementation of the Annapolis approach would deny Israel both security and peace.
3. One democratic, secular nation for two peoples. Increasingly, the Arab League, individual Arab governments and the Palestinians are threatening to support a "one state solution" as their final objective. When evaluating this proposed "solution", both the Israelis and the Arabs are well-aware of the comparative Palestinian and Israeli birth rates, with both expecting that any democratic "one state" would soon have a Palestinian majority. Both sides are also well-aware that "secular" is the code word for the end of a Jewish state and termination of the currently existing world-wide Jewish right of citizenship in Israel. Presently, within the Palestinian controlled areas of the West Bank, within Gaza and within Jordan, it is a death penalty offense to even contemplate offering to sell land to a Jew. A one state solution would make the entire West Bank, parts of Jerusalem (and possibly some parts of the current state of Israel) "Jew-free".
The bottom line in evaluating the feasibility of any possible "solution" is the likely on-the-ground response of the Palestinians. Results of recent polls conducted by Palestinians show that: a) 57% of Palestinians would support armed actions (terror, missile and rockets attacks) against Israel while negotiations are being conducted; and b) even if Israel would meet each and every Palestinian demand (including the West Bank, Jerusalem, right of return, etc.), 45% of Palestinians would still strongly oppose any recognition of Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)