Facebook Feed

5 days ago

Yoram Ettinger
2023 Jewish demographic momentum in Israel: bit.ly/40qV0aV ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

4 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
Purim Guide for the Perplexed 2023: bit.ly/3ZdlxHY ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

4 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
אתגר מרכזי לביטחון לאומי: bit.ly/3xkSwh1 ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

Beware of the Phased Plan!

This week’s meeting between Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal highlighted their common strategic goal, despite their bitter rivalry in recent years: The PLO’s Phased Plan aimed at the establishment of a Palestinian state in all of what was Palestine within the Ottoman/British Mandate borders.

 

Abbas (who is both the chairman of the PLO, established in 1964, and Fatah, established in 1959) told the U.N. General Assembly last year that the highest Palestinian authority was the PLO, and that the “occupation” began in 1948 and not in1967.

 

On August 14, 2009, Mahmoud Abbas concluded the Sixth Convention of Fatah, which ratified its platform, calling for the continued struggle – through peaceful and armed means – to eradicate the Jewish state. Fatah’s policy is founded on the claim of return for the1948 Arab refugees, self-determination, an independent state and the PLO’s 10-point Phased Plan (http://bit.ly/y2zkfZ ), formulated by the PLO’s Palestinian National Council in June, 1974.

 

The second of the 10 points, for example, calls for the establishment of an independent national authority over “every part of Palestinian territory that is liberated.” The third point states that the PLO will not consider a temporary agreement which renounces the final goal – Palestine from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. The fourth point states that each step will be just a phase in the liberation of the whole of Palestine. The eighth point obligates the Palestinian Authority to fight for the liberation of the entire Palestinian territory.

 

In September 1993, on the eve of the Oslo Accords, then-PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat declared in a speech broadcast by Amman radio that Oslo would be “the basis for a Palestinian state in accordance with the [Phased] policy of the Palestinian National Council from June 1974.”

 

Abbas makes the distinction between provisional goals, dictated by the current balance of power, and the permanent goals dictated by the “natural, historic, constitutional and permanent Palestinians rights” and by the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim “destiny.” The provisional goals (Judea and Samaria and Gaza) are a means to achieving the permanent goals (Jaffa, Tel Aviv and Haifa), but certainly not a substitute. Therefore, he does not view U.N. resolutions, peace talks with Israel or the “liberation of the 1967 occupation” as a compromise, but rather as pragmatism, or a springboard.

 

Abbas differentiates between phase-based temporary peace with Israel and a final peace, which can only be achieved by completing the permanent goal: the eradication of Israel. In his view, relinquishing parts of the homeland could lead to the loss of it entirely. That is why Abbas is entrenching the “claim of return” to Safed, the Galilee, Haifa, Jaffa, Ashkelon and the Negev – and the denial of any Jewish rights in Palestine – in the Palestinian Authoritiy’s kindergartens, schools, mosques and media. That is why he claims to represent all Israeli Arabs, and why he views the Palestinian Authority as a reincarnation of Palestinian liberty and the end of the “crusader-like” Jewish state.

 

Abbas is a practicing Muslim. His worldview is shaped by the Muslim principle that the right to all of “Palestine” is a religiously endowed, inalienable right (Waqf) that must not be relinquished, even when requiring the sacrifice of one’s life. He wages his internal, as well as his external struggles, in accordance with the principles of Islam, including the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (a pivotal treaty between Muhammad, representing the state of Medina, and the Quraish tribe of Mecca in 628 C.E.), which directly shapes contemporary intra-Arab conflicts.

 

According to Professor Majid Khadduri, the leading authority on Islamic law  (“War and Peace in the Law of Islam,” Johns Hopkins Press, 1955), Allah promised his followers a permanent victory; those who relinquish the struggle are considered apostates; the Hudaybiyyah precedent (the breach of a peace treaty that led to the conquest of Mecca) permits Muslims to agree to temporary peace in order to regroup and resume waging holy war. Moreover, the natural relationship between the Abode of Islam – the only legitimate religion – and the Abode of the Infidel is war; a peace agreement is not a goal, and not a means to advance coexistence, but rather a means to force submission on its adversaries.

 

The hate-education system that Abbas instituted in 1994, Abbas’ glorification of terrorists and their families, and the brainwashing tactics employed by mosques and media outlets controlled by Abbas – all aim to promote the Phased Plan, which guides Abbas and the so-called moderate Palestinian camp. This plan is the common thread connecting PLO’s Abbas to Hamas’ Mashaal and his “radical” camp.




Videos

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb

Open letter to Prime Minister Bennett ahead of visit to USA

(Hebrew edition in “Israel Hayom,” Israel’s largest circulation daily)

During your first official visit to Washington, DC, you’ll have to choose between two options:

*Blurring your deeply-rooted, assertive Israeli positions on the future of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), which would be welcome by the Biden Administration, yielding to short-term political convenience and popularity inside the beltway;

or

*Tenaciously advocating your deeply-rooted, principle-driven positions, which would underscore a profound disagreement with the Biden Administration and the “elite” US media, while granting you and Israel long-term strategic respect, as demonstrated by some of your predecessors.

For example, the late Prime Minister Shamir honed the second option, bluntly introduced his assertive Israeli positions on Judea and Samaria, rebuffed heavy US pressure – including a mudslinging campaign by President Bush and Secretary of State Baker – suffered a popularity setback, but produced unprecedented expansion of US-Israel strategic cooperation. When it comes to facing the intensified threats of rogue regimes and Islamic terrorism, the US prefers principle-driven, reliable, patriotic, pressure-defying partners, irrespective of disagreements on the Palestinian issue.

Assuming that you shall not budge on the historical and national security centrality of Judea and Samaria, it behooves you to highlight the following matters during your meetings with President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, National Security Advisor Sullivan, Secretary of Defense Austin and Congressional leaders (especially the members of the Appropriations Committees):

  1. The 1,400-year-old track record of the stormy, unpredictable, violent and anti-“infidel” Middle East, which has yet to experience intra-Arab peaceful-coexistence, along with the 100-year-old Palestinian track record (including the systematic collaboration with anti-US entities, hate-education and anti-Arab and anti-Jewish terrorism) demonstrates that the proposed Palestinian state would be a Mini-Afghanistan or a Mega-Gaza on the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria.

It would dominate 80% of Israel’s population and infrastructures in the 9-15-mile sliver between Judea and Samaria and the Mediterranean, which is shorter than the distance between RFK Stadium and the Kennedy Center.

Thus, a Palestinian state would pose a clear and present existential threat to Israel; and therefore, Israel’s control of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria is a prerequisite for its survival.

  1. The proposed Palestinian state would undermine US interests, as concluded from the Palestinian intra-Arab track record, which has transformed the Palestinians into a role-model of intra-Arab subversion, terrorism and ingratitude. Arabs are aware that a Palestinian state would add fuel to the Middle East fire, teaming up with their enemies (e.g., Iran’s Ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood and Turkey’s Erdogan) and providing a strategic foothold to Russia and China. Consequently, Arabs shower Palestinians with favorable talk, but with cold and negative walk.

Hence, during the October, 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty ceremony, Jordan’s military leaders asserted to their Israeli colleagues that a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would doom the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River, and lead, subsequently, to the toppling of all pro-US Arab Peninsula regimes.

  1. There is no foundation for the contention that Israel’s retreat from the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria – which are the cradle of Jewish history, religion and culture – is required in order to sustain Israel’s Jewish majority. In reality, there is unprecedented Jewish demographic momentum, while Arab demography – throughout the Middle East – has Westernized dramatically. The Jewish majority in the combined area of Judea, Samaria and pre-1967 Israel benefits from a robust tailwind of fertility and migration.
  2. Israel’s control of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria and the Golan Heights, bolsters its posture of deterrence, which has daunted rogue regimes, reduced regional instability, enhanced the national security of all pro-US Arab regimes, and has advanced Israel’s role as a unique force-multiplier for the US. An Israeli retreat from Judea and Samaria would transform Israel from a strategic asset – to a strategic liability – for the US.
  3. As the US reduces its military presence in the Middle East – which is a global epicenter of oil production, global trade (Asia-Africa), international Islamic terrorism and proliferation of non-conventional military technologies – Israel’s posture of deterrence becomes increasingly critical for the pro-US Arab countries (e.g., Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman, Jordan), who consider Israel to be the most reliable “life insurance agent” in the region.

Contrary to NATO, South Korea and Japan, Israel’s defense does not require the presence of US troops on its soil.

  1. Sustaining Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge is a mutual interest for the US and Israel, which serves as the most cost-effective battle-tested laboratory for the US defense industries and armed forces. Thus, Israel’s use of hundreds of US military systems has yielded thousands of lessons (operation, maintenance and repairs), which have been integrated, by the US manufacturers, into the next generation of the military systems, saving the US many years of research and development, increasing US exports and expanding the US employment base – a mega billion dollar bonanza for the US. At the same time, the US armed forces have benefitted from Israel’s military intelligence and battle experience, as well as joint training maneuvers with Israel’s defense forces, which has improved the US formulation of battle tactics.

Prime Minister Bennett, your visit to Washington, is an opportunity to demonstrate your adherence to your deeply-rooted strong Israeli positions, rejecting the ill-advised appeals and temptations to sacrifice Israel’s national security on the altar of convenience and popularity.

Yours truly,

Yoram Ettinger, expert on US-Israel relations and Middle East affairs

Support Appreciated

 

 

 

 

 




Videos

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb