Wednesday 31 July 2013

IDF Field Intelligence Soldiers Predict and Prevent Future Terrorist Attacks from Gaza

Major Orian Pundak is the commander of an observation company in the Gaza Division’s Northern Brigade. Her soldiers keep a close eye on the border, preventing attacks and protecting the quiet.
All hours of the day, seven days a week, the Gaza Division’s Nesher Observation Battalion keeps a close eye on the Gaza Strip. Major Orian Pundak, a company commander in the battalion, admits that there are no shortage of challenges when it comes to being the IDF’s eyes in the field. However, after two years in her position, she knows that her soldiers’ work has prevented attacks and kept the civilians in the region safe.
For soldiers who spend every day watching the Gaza Strip, it is clear that the picture has changed since Operation Pillar of Defense. “The [Gaza] Strip appears very bucolic and placid, but even amid the calm we search out those who intend to attack,” Maj. Pundak said. “The challenge is to understand what will happen in the future. Even during the relative quiet, to understand that on the other side there will be someone looking to violate it.”
IDF observation soldiers keep a close watch
The feeling among the observation soldiers, according to Maj. Pundak, is that the quiet in the sector depends largely on the work they do every day. “Everybody wants to feel that what they do is important, and [the observation soldiers] truly deserve that self-recognition. When you are stationed at an observation post, you are responsible for ensuring that the civilians in their homes can live in quiet. It is a great responsibility but also privilege to say: I have defended my state,” she said.
In the course of recent years, the IDF’s observation capabilities have seen significant technological upgrades. Among the changes have been the implementation of surveillance systems that integrate firepower capabilities, and the introduction of cutting-edge new radar systems.
The IDF's Granite Tactical Vehicle
The IDF's Granite Tactical Vehicle
“Our surveillance apparatus is growing and becoming more powerful in light of the fact that its centrality in the battlefield is well understood,” Maj. Pundak explained. “The observation soldiers should be the first to raise the alarm about every unusual incident in the sector. We need to remain alert to every minor change in the field – to always think about where the next attack will come from or where they will try to infiltrate. We are always prepared for the next incident, there is no time for rest.”
Despite the advanced technology, there is no replacement for human eyes. “No machine will be able to determine whether a shepherd who crosses every day is planting an explosive. You need the person behind the machine, who will operate with understanding and exercise judgement – the person who will be able to see what is different from day to day and if something appears to be not quite right,” she said.
“In Operation Pillar of Defense, in the time of war, we faced many great challenges,” Maj. Pundak recalled. “Suddenly we saw our work during an emergency, how we could assist so many forces that needed us. I felt that the hard work paid off and that we were ready to face those challenges.”

Tuesday 30 July 2013

United States Presses Israel to Release Murderers but won’t release Pollard


[J4JP Disclaimer: Recirculation of this article should not be construed as
an endorsement, in whole or in part, of the author’s statements regarding
the current peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, being led by
the US. J4JP categorically rejects all American efforts aimed at exploiting
the plight of Jonathan Pollard for use as a bargaining chip against Israel.
The US is obliged to release Pollard as a matter of simple justice. We
appreciate the author’s strong, clear statements about the injustice of
Jonathan Pollard’s sentence and his encouraging President Obama to do the
right thing by commuting Jonathan Pollard’s grossly disproportionate
sentence to time served. ]

The Israeli cabinet took a courageous and politically unpopular step by
approving the release of 104 Palestinian prisoners, including many
terrorists who had murdered Israeli babies, women, the elderly and other
civilians.  According to Israeli intelligence some of these released
murderers are likely to rejoin terrorist organizations and may kill again.
Relatives and friends of the victims have protested the decision to release
these killers.  Yet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his
cabinet withstood these pressures and ordered their release.

The United States government had pressured the Israeli government to release
these prisoners because the Palestinian Authority had made their release a
condition to resuming peace talks.  The Israeli government, which had agreed
to peace talks with no preconditions, submitted to the Palestinian
precondition, and talks are now likely to go forward.

Prime Minister Netanyahu had reportedly asked the Obama Administration to
make it easier for him to release Palestinian murderers by releasing
Jonathan Pollard, who has already served 28 years for spying for Israel.  No
American in history has ever come close to serving that long—indeed none has
ever served a double digit sentence—for spying for an American ally.
Moreover, there were grave doubts about the lawfulness of Pollard’s
sentence, as evidenced by the strong words of the dissenting judge who
characterized the government’s breach of the plea agreement as a
“fundamental miscarriage of justice requiring relief…”

But the Obama Administration slammed the door in Netanyahu’s face by
categorically rejecting the request to commute Pollard’s sentence to the
excessive term he has already served.  Despite this rebuff from the Obama
Administration, Netanyahu agreed to release the prisoners.  Now the
Palestinian Authority is asking for more prisoners to be released including
some of the most dangerous terrorists on the face of the earth.  The United
States will probably continue to put pressure on Israel to risk the lives of
its own civilians by releasing more Palestinian terrorists in order to get
the Palestinians to continue to negotiate.

The time has come—indeed it is well passed—for the United States to do the
right thing with regard to Jonathan Pollard.  Pollard poses no continuing
danger to America, since he has not had access to our secrets for nearly 30
years.  Unlike the Palestinian prisoners who are to be released, he has
expressed regret over his actions and has sought forgiveness.  Moreover, his
life sentence is excessive by any standard of justice and it violated the
government’s plea bargain which promised, in exchange for Pollard’s guilty
plea, not to seek life imprisonment.

Peace between Israel and the Palestinians requires the active involvement of
the United States, as evidenced by Secretary John Kerry’s intensive efforts
to bring the parties together.  But if peace is in our national interest, as
the Obama Administration insists it is, and if peace requires sacrifice by
both Israel and the Palestinians, then we too must be willing to give a
little.  Releasing Jonathan Pollard after requiring him to serve 27 years,
some in solitary confinement, is not much of a sacrifice to ask of the
United States.  It is the least we can do to make it easier for Israel to
make far greater sacrifices and take far more dangerous risks in order to
secure peace.

The request to release Pollard now has bipartisan support in the United
States and multi-partisan support in Israel.  Knesset members on all sides
of the Israeli political spectrum have called for Pollard’s release as a way
of encouraging the peace process.  “It’s a window of opportunity of good
will to Israeli, who are not going through an easy time,” said Labor MK
Nachman Shai.  “It would build up public support for negotiations and show
that the US also understands the gravity of this historic moment.”

American political leaders from both sides of the aisle, as well as from all
religious backgrounds, have called for Pollard’s release on compassionate
grounds, based on the length of his sentence and his deteriorating physical
condition.

Israel will go forward with negotiations regardless of whether Pollard is
released, because the Israeli government wants a peaceful resolution that
assures security.  But in the end the Israeli public will have to vote for
any deal struck between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, with the help
of American negotiators.  The outcome of any such referendum will depend on
whether Israeli voters believe that their security has been assured and that
the United States continues to stand behind them.  Releasing Jonathan
Pollard—as a gesture of good will, as a show of American support, and in the
interests of justice and compassion—will go a long way toward encouraging
the Israeli public to vote in favor of a peace agreement that requires great
sacrifices on their part.
http://www.jpost.com/premium/premiumzone.aspx

related
Abbas: negotiations will focus in beginning on borders and security :: Abbas said that no Israeli settlers or border forces could remain in a future Palestinian state

Abbas: negotiations will focus in beginning on borders and security :: Abbas said that no Israeli settlers or border forces could remain in a future Palestinian state

Just two days after Israel agree to release 104 terrorists.........we wake up to a rocket attack.....

Rocket hits open area in Sha'ar HaNegev, no injuries reported


Published:  07.30.13 11:08 / Israel News

I just dont get it How & Why is releasing convicted terrorist prisoners a ground for opening peace talks...contrary to the meaning of peace

--


By Noah Browning
CAIRO (Reuters) Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas laid out his vision on Monday for the final status of Israeli-Palestinian relations ahead of peace talks due to resume in Washington for the first time in nearly three years.
Abbas said that no Israeli settlers or border forces could remain in a future Palestinian state and that Palestinians deem illegal all Jewish settlementbuilding within the land occupied in the 1967 Middle East war.
The forceful statements appeared to challenge mediator U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's hopes that the terms of the talks, scheduled to begin Monday night over dinner, be kept secret.
"In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli - civilian or soldier - on our lands," Abbas said in a briefing to mostly Egyptian journalists.
"An international, multinational presence like in Sinai, Lebanon and Syria - we are with that," he said, referring to United Nations peacekeeping operations in those places.
He was in Cairo to meet with Egypt's interim president, Adli Mansour, nearly a month after the country's armed forces ousted his elected predecessor, Mohamed Mursi. He also discussed with senior Egyptian intelligence figures relations between the two governments and the easing of movement of goods and people between Egypt and the Gaza Strip.
Israel has previously said it wants to maintain a military presence in the occupied West Bank at the border with Jordan to prevent any influx of weapons that could be used against it.
But Abbas said he stood by understandings he said he reached with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, predecessor to more right-wing leader Benjamin Netanyahu, that NATO forces could deploy there "as a security guarantee to us and them."
The United States is seeking to broker an agreement on a two-state solution in which Israel would exist peacefully alongside a new Palestinian state created in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, lands occupied by the Israelis since a 1967 war.
The talks will be conducted by senior aides to Netanyahu - Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and Yitzhak Molcho - and to Abbas - represented by Saeb Erekat and Mohammed Ishtyeh.
On the future of Jewish settlements on the West Bank and the status of Jerusalem - among the most contentious issues facing the two sides - Abbas signaled no softening of his stance.
"We've already made all the necessary concessions," he said.
"East Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine ... if there were and must be some kind of small exchange (of land) equal in size and value, we are ready to discuss this - no more, no less," he said.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Before agreeing to return to talks last week, Palestinian officials were adamant that negotiations should have three main prerequisites: the release of veteran Arab prisoners in Israeli jails, a full settlement freeze and an acknowledgment of the 1967 lines as the basis for future borders.
Israel has publicly granted only one of those demands when its Cabinet on Sunday voted by a slim margin to approve the phased release of 104 Arab prisoners.
Abbas said on Monday that he refused to endorse any half-measure whereby he would let Israel freeze construction in smaller, more far-flung settlements but allow it to build in the larger and more populous "blocs" closer to the 1967 lines.
"There was a request, 'We'll only build here, what do you think?' If I agreed, I would legitimize all the rest (of the settlements). I said no. I said out loud and in writing that, to us, settlements in their entirety are illegitimate."
Asked if the Americans may try to get Israel to agree to a de facto settlement freeze, the president made a broad smile and declined to answer: "I don't know."
Palestinian sources say officials remain uncomfortable with the lack of a firm Israeli commitment, publicly or behind closed doors, to meet their remaining expectations.
They say that in talks in the coming days, the Americans hope to satisfy Palestinian objections by issuing a statement declaring the 1967 lines the basis for negotiations, and the United States will attempt to compel the Israelis to endorse their note.
Israeli officials have in public repeatedly refused to accede to the Palestinian demands, calling them preconditions on issues that must be agreed at the end, not the start, of talks.
Senior aide to the president Tayyeb Abdul Rahim, accompanying Abbas, told Reuters: "We're between two opinions: should Israel agree to stop building settlements, or should they agree to a state on the 1967 borders to go back to talks.
"What's stronger? (The second) means that all settlements are illegitimate. America is convinced of our point of view ... Israel has not yet agreed to a state on the 1967 lines, but it will go to the talks on that basis."
(Additional reporting Ali Sawafta in Ramallah; Editing by Philip Barbara and Eric Beech)
(This story was refiled to change Arabic translation in the fourth paragraph to "resolution" from "solution" and fixes typo in the penultimate paragraph)



CAIRO, July 30, 2013 (WAFA - PLO news agency) –

Abbas from Cairo: US is Serious in Solving the Conflict


President Mahmoud Abbas said  Monday that the United States was serious in solving the Middle East
conflict and that both US President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry have promised to support negotiations until there is a solution.

Abbas made these statements to Egyptian journalists before leaving Cairo later that day following a short visit during which he met President Adli Mansour and other top Egyptian officials to discuss bilateral relations, the
conflict with Israel, the situation in the Gaza Strip and reconciliation efforts between his Fatah movement and Hamas, which controls Gaza.

Abbas said negotiations with Israel, which started in Washington over the dinner table on Monday night Washington time between the Palestinian and Israeli negotiating teams with US presence, will be bilateral and trilateral with US participation in the beginning and will discuss all issues, including political, economic and security, but mainly political.

He said the negotiations, which will be for between six to nine months, will focus in the beginning on borders and security and will later discuss all permanent status issues such as refugees, water and other issues.

He said the issue of the pre-Oslo prisoners was a difficult one but it was possible to solve it.

He said Israel has agreed to release 104 prisoners held since before signing the Oslo accords in 1993 in three or four batches and there is now talk about release of another 250 prisoners arrested after Oslo.

Abbas commended the European Union for deciding not to deal with products made in the Israeli settlements illegally built in the occupied West Bank. He said he supports all EU decisions on this matter.

Abbas also stressed the Palestinian position of non-interference in internal Arab affairs, mainly in the internal affairs in Egypt.

“I hope the Egyptian media will understand that the majority of the Palestinian people believe in non-interference in internal Egyptian affairs and that their main goal is to get rid of the (Israeli) occupation of their
country,” he said.

Abbas spoke about the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt and about the smuggling tunnels and said that it is important to find a legal solution to the crossing that would allow reopening Rafah crossing for people and cargo as it was in 2005 when the Palestinian Authority managed it along with the European Union with Israeli approval.

He said he was opposed to the smuggling tunnels started seven years ago following the Israeli blockade on Gaza.

Abbas said he discussed the issue of the crossing and the tunnels with his Egyptian counterpart.

On reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas with Egyptian mediation, Abbas said that Egypt will remain the party overseeing reconciliation efforts until an agreement is reached.

He stressed that the negotiations that have kicked off in Washington on Monday should not affect reconciliation efforts since both should be moving alongside each other.

He said he was still eager to see the reconciliation take hold with the establishment of a unity government by the middle of next month as agreed by the two parties after which presidential and legislative elections will be
held within three months in all the Palestinian Territory.  
source


related

PA ministry: Bennett terrorist who defames freedom fighters

Urgent Call to Action:: ISRAEL, STAND FIRM ON INTERNATIONAL LAW!
Your Help Is Needed, everyone take part.
Say NO to "land swaps" and NO to releasing convicted terrorist murderers

PM certain of majority on prisoner release, but debate goes on:: If Palestinians really want peace, why demand terrorist release?:

Deputy FM: ‘Netanyahu wrong to back Palestinian state, and it’s hurting him in Likud’



PA ministry: Bennett terrorist who defames freedom fighters

wow just look how they manipulate words....//""Terrorists are those who occupy the lands of another people and displace them by force and settle in their place. Palestinian prisoners are strugglers for their freedom and not terrorists," the PA Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement.""//
Next they will want an apology too.
--


RAMALLAH (Ma'an) --
The Palestinian Authority on Monday slammed remarks by
an Israeli minister who said Palestinian prisoners were "terrorists."

"Terrorists are those who occupy the lands of another people and displace
them by force and settle in their place. Palestinian prisoners are
strugglers for their freedom and not terrorists," the PA Ministry of Foreign
Affairs said in a statement.

The ministry was responding to remarks by Israel's Economy Minister Naftali
Bennett, who has protested the planned release of 104 long-serving
Palestinian prisoners to coincide with the resumption of peace talks.

Bennet, leader of the Jewish Home party, has called the proposed prisoner
release a "disgrace" and said "terrorists should be eliminated, not freed."

The PA ministry responded that some Israeli officials were "terrorists."

"The definition of terrorism completely applies to many Israeli politicians
who defame Palestinian prisoners especially those jailed before the Oslo
Accords."

At a cabinet meeting on Sunday, Bennett said Palestinian "terrorists" should
be killed instead of jailed, the Hebrew-language newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth
reported.

When told such a policy would be illegal, Bennett responded that he had
"killed many Arabs and I never had a problem," the report said.
www.imra.org.il


related

Urgent Call to Action:: ISRAEL, STAND FIRM ON INTERNATIONAL LAW!
Your Help Is Needed, everyone take part.
Say NO to "land swaps" and NO to releasing convicted terrorist murderers

PM certain of majority on prisoner release, but debate goes on:: If Palestinians really want peace, why demand terrorist release?:

Deputy FM: ‘Netanyahu wrong to back Palestinian state, and it’s hurting him in Likud’
----


GOV. WATCHDOG: REVEAL SECRET TERRORISTS RELEASE REPORT.

Im trying very hard to understand all this, but failing miserably.  Outrageous....so with the Shalit deal, Israeli citizens knew only half of the deal? now the truth is rearing it's ugly head.  As we all know give in to blackmail and there is no end.  Has a thought here been spared for ALL the Israeli citizens murdered by these terrorists? the soldiers killed in operations to catch these murderers?  Some of the terrorists released in the Shalit deal are yet again behind bars, but sadly not before murdering Israeli citizens. 

Convicted terrorists murders to be released, back to the beginning......
* *

Arutz 7 report...
Quality Government group calls to publish the report that guides government on terrorist release.



The government must let the public know what principles are guiding it in planning mass terrorist releases, says the Movement for Quality Government watchdog group.

The group has turned to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in light of the government’s decision to release 104 terrorists, and has demanded that he reveal the findings of the Shamgar Committee, which advised the government on guidelines for terrorist release.

Arutz Sheva spoke to Attorney Eliad Shraga, head of the Quality Government group, about the hidden Shamgar report.

The report was commissioned years ago, during the captivity of soldier Gilad Schalit in Gaza. The report was to guide the government in its decision regarding whether or not to release terrorist prisoners in order to win Schalit’s freedom, and if so, how many prisoners and which ones.

The committee reached its conclusions, but those conclusions were never made known to the public, Shraga explained. At the time, with negotiations for Schalit’s release underway, the government may have had reason not to publicize its guiding principles, he said – but today, the report’s continued secrecy is a violation of the principles of democratic governance.

Publishing the report would have a benefit beyond conformance with ethical government, he added: it would let Israel’s enemies know where the limits are, so that they do not assume they can ask any price for an Israeli captive.

“Let them know the rules of the game. Them and us, also the families of future victims of terrorism, G-d forbid, and the families of future Israeli captives, G-d forbid,” he urged.

While the report was commissioned primarily to provide clarity in negotiating for the release of Israeli hostages, it is likely to have discussed the issue of terrorist release as a “good-will gesture” as well, Shraga said. If it did not, then the public deserves to know that the report is not guiding Netanyahu in his latest decision, he argued.

When asked if publishing the report could increase public pressure on Netanyahu, Shraga said, “If he has a backbone and does not cave to pressure, things will be clear.”

“Everything is clear for the Americans,” he added. “They are no less democratic than us, and they do not negotiate with terrorists even if they see a Marine decapitated on television.”

Israel used to have a similar rule not to negotiate with terrorists, he noted. The famous Entebbe raid, in which Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s brother was killed, was carried out in order to return captives without negotiating with the hostage-takers.

source

Monday 29 July 2013

Urgent Call to Action:: ISRAEL, STAND FIRM ON INTERNATIONAL LAW!

Your Help Is Needed, everyone take part.

Say NO to "land swaps" and NO to releasing convicted terrorist murderers


Dr. Mordechai Kedar will speak tomorrow (Tuesday, July 30) to a Knesset lobby on Anti-Semitism. He plans to explain that UPHOLDING ISRAEL`S LEGAL RIGHTS is their strongest defense against anti-Semitism!

Send this letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Knesset and urge them to stand firm and say NO to anti-Semitic "land swaps" and NO to the anti-Semitic release of convicted terrorist murderers who will only kill again.

Included in Dr. Kedar`s presentation is Howard Grief`s important legal brief. It is hoped that this definitive presentatio will convince Israeli leadership to "Stand Firm on International Law."

Feel free to modify the letter as you see fit.

TAKE ACTION
click here to read letter and fill out form then click send


3965 W. 83rd. Street #292 Shawnee Mission, KS 66208
tel: 913.648.0022 | fax: 913.648.7997 | Email: voices@israelunitycoalition.org

Website © 2006-2013. Unity Coalition for Israel.

Deputy FM: ‘Netanyahu wrong to back Palestinian state, and it’s hurting him in Likud’


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu errs in his support of a Palestinian state, and that misguided support is badly weakening his position within the Likud, Netanyahu’s own deputy foreign minister and Likud colleague Ze’ev Elkin told The Times of Israel.



In an interview at his office in the Foreign Ministry, where he serves as the deputy to acting foreign minister Netanyahu, Elkin said Netanyahu “is going against the flow of his own party. He’s paying a political price day after day, hour after hour, for his belief in a Palestinian state… It’s very hard for him in his party.”

Asked whether this meant Netanyahu would ultimately lose control of the Likud, Elkin said he didn’t know. Pressed, the deputy foreign minister said Netanyahu is “prepared to pay a political price for something he believes is right. I think he’s wrong. We have a real disagreement. But I respect his capacity to say, ‘This is what I believe is right and I’m prepared to pay a political price. I’m leading in this direction because I believe in it.’… Anyone who understands and sees the price he pays politically in his party and on his control of the party because he’s insistent on this [moving ahead with talks with the Palestinians on a two-state solution], knows that it would be foolish for him to do this if he wasn’t serious about it and if he didn’t really think it was right.”

Elkin, who immigrated from the former Soviet Union in 1990, and moved from academia into politics after leading an effort among Russian immigrants to oppose prime minister Ariel Sharon’s disengagement from Gaza, entered the Knesset in 2006 with Kadima but moved to the Likud in the 2009 elections. A resident of Kfar Eldad in the Etzion Bloc south of Jerusalem, Elkin, 42, an Orthodox former Bnei Akiva secretary in the FSU, is a staunch opponent of Palestinian statehood and said that opposition to a Palestinian state was overwhelming in the Likud’s Knesset faction. He said a majority of the government and the coalition opposed a Palestinian state as well.

Asked why Netanyahu had placed known Likud opponents of so central a policy in key government positions — including himself as deputy foreign minister and Danny Danon as deputy defense minister — Elkin said Netanyahu really had little choice. Numerous relatively young Likud politicians who oppose Palestinian statehood had fared well in the Likud party primaries before the last elections, and so they had to be given relatively prestigious jobs. By rights, said Elkin, he ought to have been a minister in the government. When it became clear that there was no room for him, he said, he was offered the deputy ministerial post of his choice, and chose foreign.

Elkin, who made plain he would have opposed the release of pre-Oslo Palestinian prisoners that was approved by the cabinet on Sunday, said he saw little prospect of progress in the resuming peace talks, “not that this saddens me. For 20 years the Palestinians haven’t budged a millimeter in their demands. They’ve only enlarged them. They haven’t given in on anything. Not on the ’67 lines, not on Jerusalem, not even on the ‘right of return’ in the negotiating room. The only ones who budged in those 20 years are us. And Netanyahu is not ready for the ’67 lines and nor is his party.”

Excerpts:

The Times of Israel: What do you think Israel should do with the territories. Annex it all? Act incrementally? Do you share Netanyahu’s concerns about a binational state?

Ze’ev Elkin: Let’s work by a process of elimination. First of all, a Palestinian state, I oppose it for many reasons. Partly for ideological reasons, a question of rights. These are precisely the areas of the Land of Israel which is the historical basis of the Jewish people. If you dig in Tel Aviv, the likelihood of finding something Jewish is weak. In contrast to the area where I live.

Secondly, in the past 20 years, every withdrawal has brought more Palestinian terrorism. Whether under Oslo I, Oslo II or the disengagement, the result was always the same: a worsening of security. Ask a resident of Ashdod today if he felt more secure before the Oslo Accords or now, the answer is obvious. The conclusion is that this solution doesn’t work. It brings less security and more problems. It doesn’t advance us anywhere.

So, what would you propose?

My answer is complicated. The western approach, which says there has to be a solution right away and that it’s binary — you have to decide now — is often wrong. When you try to build a solid concept on shifting sands, your concept collapses. There are situations when you have to say sometimes, “I don’t see a solution,” like now. I don’t have to say that, since I don’t have a solution, I’ll take the first solution that comes to hand. I have to ask myself whether that solution will make matters worse or better. If I think it will make matters worse, I shouldn’t adopt it. I don’t accept that there’s a [binary] dilemma between a Palestinian state and a single binational state. Nobody can predict how things will pan out. And if I know that a Palestinian state is bad, I don’t have to run to it simply because I don’t have another option on the table. I can seek to manage the conflict, and wait and see. Perhaps another solution will emerge.

But you’re not just waiting.You’re supporting settlements and expansion of settlements.

Absolutely, and I certainly think a Palestinian state is no solution. And if I think a Palestinian state is no solution, that means I do want a Jewish presence here. Which raises the question: What do you do with the Palestinian population? And I don’t think the answer to that question can be found right now. But a Palestinian state is no solution, not for us and I don’t think for them either. I’m in touch with lots of Palestinians, given where I live, and lots of them say that things are much worse now than they were before Arafat. Now, with Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas], it’s a little bit better.

Do you think of annexing the territories?

The state of Israel, in its handling of the negotiations with the Palestinians, has always made a beginner’s mistake. We ran the negotiations salami-style.The other side consistently raised its territorial ambitions and we always said, “We’ll say how much we need at the end.” The other side isn’t static. Things that the other side wouldn’t have dreamed of demanding at the start of the process, today it demands. Arafat talked about [wanting sovereignty on] the outskirts of Jerusalem so that he’d be able to say that Al Quds is the capital of Palestine. Now, Abbas won’t talk about anything less than the Temple Mount. Over the past 20 years, they’ve made dramatic headway in enlarging their demands, in their understanding in what they can get from Israel.

If you’re going to disengage from Gaza, why do you not simultaneously annex Judea and Samaria?
Today we’re ostensibly arguing with them about 60 percent of Judea and Samaria. They have Gaza and they have 40 percent of Judea and Samaria already, and we’re arguing as though we’re still at the start. What we gave, we gave. It’s no longer on the table. That’s a mistake. It wouldn’t work in a bazaar.

In my opinion we shouldn’t be giving, but if you are giving, if you believe in a Palestinian state, then you have to take as well. If you’re going to disengage from Gaza, why do you not simultaneously annex Judea and Samaria? If we’d at least annexed when we gave, our situation with the Palestinians today would be better. They would come to terms with what was ours and we’d be arguing over the balance. It’s a fatal mistake.

There needs to be gradual annexation in accordance with the Israeli consensus. Where there isn’t a Palestinian populace and there is a consensus in Israel and a degree of international recognition that this will be Israeli, we should have moved forward. Does that mean that I’m saying today, immediately, we should annex? I don’t believe that that would pass. We have gotten the world used to the fact through these years that we’re leaving annexation to the end. The world has gotten used to that.

We have to decide for ourselves and then to explain to the world. It will take time to change the world back. Internally too, this requires a fundamental change. It’s not a political decision. We have to admit where we went wrong and change the Israeli approach.

If we want to keep a democratic, Jewish Israel, that does require separation from the Palestinians. You don’t want to give them a state, so what rights do you want to give them?

They already have a certain amount of self-determination — something that’s less than a state but covers almost all of the Palestinian population. People forget that in the 60% of Judea and Samaria that is Area C we barely rule over any Palestinians there.

But that’s not enough for them, or for the international community.

For at least half of the Palestinian population, the ’67 borders aren’t enough either. So long as you can’t reach a final status agreement, they’ll always be unsatisfied. But I stress, I don’t know what’s going to happen in the future. There are all sorts of instabilities on the other sides of our borders.

What does it say about the prime minister, and his commitment to a two-state solution, that he put you in this job, and Danny Danon as deputy defense minister, and allows Yariv Levin, his coalition chairman, to head the Land of Israel lobby — when you all oppose Palestinian statehood?

We’re a democratic state and the Likud is a democratic party. There was always a range of opinions in the Likud.

We’re not talking about a party. We’re talking about the government.
The government reflects the public.

The deputy British foreign minister wouldn’t follow a completely different vision from that of his prime minister.

All over Europe there are multi-party coalitions. The notion that a government has to be of a single color is not appropriate for a parliamentary democracy.

But you’re the foreign minister representing the government.

So your question is different. Your question is, How am I supposed to act in the Foreign Ministry? If you count how many people in the Likud today openly support the two-state solution, there are not many (probably just Netanyahu, Yuval Steinitz and Tzachi Hanegbi — DH.) who would say they are certain in support of a Palestinian state. And in the last primaries, a group of young politicians came very high and so they should have been incorporated into the government. The prime minister can’t ignore that.

He didn’t have to put you in this job, of all places, and Danon in that job.

But Danny Danon came fifth in the primaries. He had every reason to expect to be a minister.

But the prime minister still had some options.

You can’t face off against everybody. All the young politicians came high. You had Danon and me and Yariv Levin and Tzipi Hotovely. You could include Miri Regev, and Yuli Edelstein with his views.

Do you constrain yourself when discussing your views in this job?

Talking to you, no. Because I assume you’re interviewing me as a public figure and not only as the deputy foreign minister. But when I hold formal meetings [with international politicians], I don’t lecture them that it’s forbidden to establish a Palestinian state. As deputy foreign minister, I represent the ministry’s policy. There’s a foreign minister and that minister is the prime minister.

If we want to prevail, the right has to be interested in hasbara action abroad no less than it is active in building another new home

If they ask my personal opinion, I don’t hide it. I haven’t changed my opinions. I don’t say, ‘What I see here, I didn’t see from there.’ I haven’t changed my opinions despite the Israeli tradition to do so. But I have a lot now to say to my friends the settlers and my friends on the right, that I had internalized less before.

Such as?

I’ll give you an example. Not long ago there was a conference about hasbara (propaganda) that the Yesha (Settlers) Council organized. I spoke after Naftali Bennett (the minister of economics and the leader of the religious-nationalist Jewish Home party). That was the speech in which he spoke of shrapnel in the rear end. What he said that wasn’t accurate, in my opinion, is that ‘We don’t have a problem. The world isn’t interested in the Palestinian issues. We’re inventing this problem. If we stop scaring ourselves everything will be fine.’ I spoke after him. He got very warm applause. I strongly disagreed with him. I said I wished that he was right. I told him that it was very difficult in Europe even among our friends to find countries that support the settlement enterprise. I think it would be an erroneous stance to say there’s no problem. There is a problem.

But from there I don’t draw the conclusions that Tzipi Livni draws — that the only solution for us is to go with the flow, and to give in to them, and to establish two states, and then the world will calm down and everything will be fine — because I think that will bring us to a lousy place. My solution was that the right needs to think about hasbara and diplomatic activism. The right and the settlement movement for a long time focused only on practical action, and completely abandoned diplomatic activity. Today we’re paying the price, a very heavy price, for not engaging in hasbara and not explaining our position to the world. If we want to prevail, the right has to be interested in hasbara action abroad no less than it is active in building another new home.



That’s one of the reasons why I wanted to be in this job. I chose it. By virtue of years in parliament, I ought to have been a minister, but because of the limitations, it didn’t work out. I was the first one to miss out. I could choose: the Defense Ministry, Foreign, Education. And I chose the Foreign Ministry.

It doesn’t hurt the prime minister’s credibility that he tells the Europeans and the world that he supports a Palestinian state while his deputy foreign minister says the opposite?

Quite the contrary. He has no other people. The Israeli public determined the political map. The world might want to see a different public, but these are the politicians who the Israeli public voted into parliament, and from them, a coalition was built, a coalition of people with different views trying to work together.

When they (overseas politicians) hear my views and they know that I’m part of the majority in my party, they can appreciate even more what the prime minister is doing. He is going against the flow of his own party. He’s paying a political price day after day, hour after hour, for his belief in a Palestinian state. In his party. It’s very hard for him in his party.

Does that mean that in two to three years he will lose control of the Likud?

I don’t know.

Is this political suicide?

He’s prepared to pay a political price for something he believes is right. I think he’s wrong. We have a real disagreement. But I respect his capacity to say, ‘This is what I believe is right and I’m prepared to pay a political price. I’m leading in this direction because I believe in it.’ That’s what I expect of a leader — to know when to lead against the flow. In this instance, I disagree with him, but I respect him. Anyone who understands and sees the price he pays politically in his party and on his control of the party because he’s insistent on this, knows that it would be foolish for him to do this if he wasn’t serious about it and if he didn’t really think it was right.

Why would he think that there’s any prospect of success in this process? Why does John Kerry think so?

Excellent question. I don’t think there’s much chance. Not that this saddens me. For 20 years the Palestinians haven’t budged a millimeter in their demands. They’ve only increased them. They haven’t given in on anything. Not on the ’67 lines, not on Jerusalem, not even on the ‘right of return,’ in the negotiating room. The only ones who budged in those 20 years are us. And Netanyahu is not ready for the ’67 lines, and nor is his party.

So if Kerry announces that these talks are on the basis of ’67, Netanyahu gets up and leaves?

For that to serve as the basis of the talks, all sides would have to agree, and Israel does not agree.

What Kerry says or doesn’t say is not the point. The American position is known, to my sorrow. And on the issue of borders, the American position largely matches the Palestinian position. That’s no secret, with certain variations. But that doesn’t bind us. So long as we are saying that, ‘No, we’re not prepared to commit ourselves to the ’67 lines as a basis for negotiation,’ the mediator can say what he wants, but we haven’t agreed to that.

If they want us there on the basis of the ’67 lines, we won’t be there.

By the way, even for those who support a Palestinian state, it would be ridiculous to state now that you’re prepared [to go back to the '67 lines]. Even if you were prepared to end up at that position, it would be really foolish to say so now.

So the president of the United States is being really foolish?

No, because he doesn’t see our interests (as his prime concern). That’s not his job. He sees the traditional American position. This is the president and the secretary of state of the United States, not of Israel.

If an Israeli who supports a Palestinian state says all the time that the ’67 lines are an interest of ours, why would the Palestinians give you anything in your interest? Too many Israeli politicians in recent years dashed all over the world and said that the establishment of a Palestinian state is an Israeli interest — because of the demographic problem and other problems. If that’s what we say, we lose the capacity to go to the Palestinians and ask them for something in return for this. ‘If it’s your interest, do it. What do you want from me?’

So those politicians, however surprising this may sound, are actually pushing an accord away, not bringing it closer. Even an Israeli leader who is prepared for the ’67 lines, wants things in return. He won’t get anything in return if they’re convinced that it’s in our interest. In this way, people on the left, to my pleasure, are pushing off an agreement with the Palestinians.

Would you resign if there’s an agreement on a Palestinian state?

If they are going to establish a Palestinian state, obviously I would fight it. I wouldn’t vote in favor of it. I couldn’t vote for it, and if I couldn’t vote for it in the government, I couldn’t be part of the government. That’s elementary. I’d have to leave, no question. Unless the government were to give you freedom to do so.

But I don’t see it, because the Palestinians are not moving a millimeter and I don’t believe Netanyahu will move completely to the place where the Palestinians are. And the idea of a referendum as a refuge for frightened politicians, that’s not my style.

Does Netanyahu have a majority in the cabinet or the coalition for a Palestinian state?

Certainly not in the government. In the coalition, I think not. He does have a majority in the Knesset. But the argument over a Palestinian state is a theoretical argument among the Jews alone.The only answer that the referendum can give is a yes or a no to the Palestinian position, because they’re not moving — in other words a yes or a no to [a withdrawal to] the ’67 lines and the division of Jerusalem. That’s the real argument. That’s what divides Israeli politics between right and left. And that’s what links me and the prime minister in the same party.

I don’t think there’s another place in the world where someone would think that releasing a murderer helps a peace process

Barely.

If the Palestinians were one day to change their positions, it could be that the Likud would have a major problem. But I don’t see that happening now.

Do you think there’s a majority in the public for the Palestinian position, for the ’67 lines?

If you ask the question — yes or no for a return to the ’67 lines, that’s the real question. And you divide [Israelis on that basis] between right and left, then the right has a majority.

With land swaps?

With land swaps. As for land swaps, the fact is you only have 3 or 3.5% that you can give. So if it’s one-for-one land swaps, you can only retain 3.5 or maximum 4%. What does that mean? That it’s not settlement blocs, it’s settlement strings. You can’t retain a large contiguous bloc which enables you to widen the borders. You can hold on to Ariel, and a road leading to it. You can retain Maaleh Adumim and a little road leading to it. But you won’t be able to lead a functional life in those settlements, and you’ll be reversing the whole imperative. The idea of the settlement blocs was not in order to solve a problem for the residents of Maaleh Adumim. Rather they were placed there in order to widen the border from Jerusalem. Why did they build Ariel? So that the whole area around Ariel would be retained, to widen the border.

You said there needs to be more diplomatic activism by the right. What are you doing to try and explain your position?

We established that 5% of the Palestinian budget goes on salaries to terrorists in jail. If you’re in jail for longer, you get more money. Those who are most rewarded, therefore, are those who carry out the biggest attacks. You have prisoners being paid 10,000 and 12,000 shekels a month, where members of the Palestinian security forces only get 3,000, so the way to get the best salary in the Palestinian Authority is to become a “successful terrorist.” That’s a terrible educational message for the next generation of Palestinians.

And now they’re going to go free.


What an extraordinary situation. I don’t think there’s another place in the world where someone would think that releasing a murderer helps a peace process.

related

PM certain of majority on prisoner release, but debate goes on:: If Palestinians really want peace, why demand terrorist release?:

source


Sunday 28 July 2013

PM certain of majority on prisoner release, but debate goes on:: If Palestinians really want peace, why demand terrorist release?:

DON'T MISS..scroll down to post......PA TV song calls to attack Israel, the "snake's head," with the rifle....THESE ARE THE TERRORISTS WE ARE RELEASING!!!
* *


Ministers Sa’ar and Landver to vote in favor of freeing 104 convicts, ensuring cabinet approval of controversial move; terror victims’ families protest outside PMO

Israelis rallying against a planned prisoner release with fake blood on their hands
Sunday. (photo credit: Flash90)

The cabinet met late into Sunday afternoon to debate releasing security prisoners as part of the restart of peace talks with the Palestinians, but a majority for the controversial move was guaranteed with the announcement that ministers Gideon Sa’ar (Likud) and Sofa Landver (Yisrael Beytenu) would support it.

Earlier, Education Minister Shai Piron (Yesh Atid) and Homefront Defense Minister Gilad Erdan (Likud) unexpectedly announced that they planned to vote against the motion, though Piron’s party colleagues were subsequently trying to change his mind.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu postponed the commencement of the meeting in order to take time to convince his Likud party ministers to back up his proposal for the release of 104 mainly Palestinian prisoners jailed since before the 1993 Oslo Accords. Netanyahu invited Shin Bet head Yoram Cohen to brief the ministers on the security ramifications of approving the release, reiterating that decisions regarding the release of Arab-Israeli prisoners would be brought before the cabinet and that any “provocation” would lead to the halt of further planned releases.

Crucially, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said he would back the move “with a heavy heart,” though he would oppose freeing pre-Oslo Israeli Arab convicts since, he said, the Palestinian leadership did not represent them. Ya’alon has opposed prisoner releases in the past, and his security credentials — he is a former chief of staff of the IDF — may ease the worries of some ministers who are hesitatant to vote with Netanyahu.

“I believe that renewing the diplomatic process is important for Israel, both in order to bring an end to the conflict and in light of the complex realities in our region, primarily the security challenges from Iran and Syria,” said Netanyahu at the start of the meeting, stressing that “this is not an easy day for me.” He added: “Any agreement that will be reached through negotiations, will be brought before the public in a referendum. It is important that on such critical decisions, every citizen gets to weigh in directly.”

The cabinet subsequently approved a bill mandating a referendum for any accord involving Israel relinquishing sovereign territory.

Israel's ministers attend the weekly cabinet meeting at the
 Prime Minister offices in Jerusalem, on Sunday, July 28 (photo 
credit: Kobi Gideon / GPO/Flash90)

With Piron wavering, Yesh Atid’s other ministers and Hatnua’s two were planning to vote for the releases. In the Likud, Netanyahu will obviously vote in favor, as will those ministers who are politically dependent on Netanyahu for their positions, including Minister of Intelligence, International Relations and Strategic Affairs Yuval Steinitz and most likely also Culture and Sport Minister Limor Livnat.

Sa’ar and Water and Energy Minister Silvan Shalom were set to support the release, or at least to be willing to grudgingly vote in favor in order to permit Netanyahu to move ahead with the American-brokered peace talks.

Firmly on the “no” side are the Jewish Home’s three ministers — party head Naftali Bennett, Housing Minister Uri Ariel and Pensioners Affairs Minister Uri Orbach — and Likud’s Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz. Katz on Sunday morning called the prisoner releases “a mistake.”

Yisrael Beytenu’s four ministers were granted the right to vote as they see fit by party leader Avigdor Liberman. While Internal Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch is expected to vote in favor, it is likely that Agriculture Minister Yair Shamir and Tourism Minister Uzi Landau will vote against.

While waiting for the meeting to begin, Bennett spoke to families of terror victims who were staging a demonstration against the decision outside the prime minister’s office.

“Releasing murderers brings a lot of bereavement and it is a mark of disgrace against Israel. Anyone on the other side [the Palestinians] who today calls for the release of murderers and burners of children and women, does not deserve to be called a partner,’ said Bennett.

Bennett told the families to keep their heads held high. “Terrorists need to be wiped out, not released. We will vote against releasing murderers,” he promised.


Relatives of Israelis killed in terror attacks hold up signs as they demonstrate outside the prime minister’s office as the Cabinet votes on Netanyahu’s proposal to free 104 prisoners as a good will gesture to the Palestinians, on Sunday, July 28 (photo credit: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)


Finance Minister Yair Lapid said ahead of the meeting that while he was saddened by the decision to release murderers, it was necessary in order to give peace a chance.

“This is not a happy day for the State of Israel. These people should rot in prison all of their lives, but we need to do what is possible in order to start the peace process,” said Lapid.

A new appointment that Netanyahu hopes will prevent future cabinet squabbles was announced Sunday. Minister of Science and Technology Yaakov Peri will be joining the inner cabinet committee set up to select which prisoners will go free and oversee the implementation. Peri, a former Shin Bet head who belongs to the centrist Yesh Atid party, will join Netanyau, Ya’alon, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and Aharonovitch on the committee.

The addition of Peri is meant to ensure Netanyahu a majority in the event that Ya’alon and Aharonovitch were to decide to torpedo aspects of the deal.

Opposition leader Shelly Yachimovich on Sunday urged the ministers to vote in favor of the releases. “It is a difficult and painful decision, first and foremost to the victim’s families, but it will not damage Israel’s national fortitude and instead will enable the jump-starting of the negotiations,” said Labor chair Yachimovich. “The prime minister must stop being led by the extremist elements of his cabinet.”

Netanyahu reportedly promised US Secretary of State John Kerry that the decision to release the 104 long-term prisoners would go through. On Friday, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told the Palestinian public that it could expect a “pleasant surprise” on Sunday.

The prisoners are set to be freed in four phases over the next nine months, as Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, set to resume in Washington on Tuesday, progress.

On Saturday, Netanyahu called the decision “extremely difficult,” saying it “pains the bereaved families [of the victims], it pains the entire Israeli public and it pains me very much. It clashes with a foundational value — justice.”

The letter continued: “Our best response to the loathsome murderers who tried to terrorize us into submission is that in the decades that they sat in prison, we built a state to be proud of.”

Shortly after his announcement, families of Israeli terror victims came out strongly against Netanyahu.

Netanyahu’s decision constituted “surrender,” the families from the Almagor terror victims’ association said in a harshly worded statement. “Again it seems that the prime minister is falling apart and can’t withstand pressure at the difficult moment.”

The families alleged that Israel was being “pressed again into failed negotiation” because of the personal ambitions of US President Barack Obama and his secretary of state, John Kerry.

They said that Netanyahu had issued “repeated assurances” that Israel would not be releasing terrorists and had rebuffed with “various evasions” their requests that he meet with them.   source
* * * *


With 'heavy heart' Israel set to free more terrorists
With 'heavy heart' Israel set to free more terrorists
"From time to time, prime ministers are called on to make decisions that go against public opinion – when the matter is important for the country." These were the words of the opening paragraph of Benjamin Netanyahu’s open letter to the Israeli public concerning the release of Palestinian terrorist prisoners as a precondition for resuming peace negotiations.
Netanyhau has agreed to release 104 Palestinian and Arab-Israeli prisoners arrested before the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993. Why? Because the Palestinian Authority told US Secretary of State John Kerry that that it would not attend resumed peace talks in Washington this week unless this pre-condition was met.
A "reluctant" decision on Netanyahu’s part, he states in his letter that it was one of pain not only for the nation but also for him (having lost his brother to terrorism 37 years ago), and that the decision made "collides with the incomparably important value of justice."
As expected, the decision was met with frustration by much of the Israeli public, especially those who have lost family members to terrorist activity and those who continue to fight against it today. Dozens of families protested against the prisoner release by protesting outside the Prime Minister's Residence as Netanyahu and his cabinet were voting on the measure.
“We have enough pain and loss. We will not agree that more and more families will be forced to join the ranks of the bereaved families and victims of terrorism,” they said.
Many more were embittered by what was termed an act of cowardice after Netanyahu issued "repeated assurances" that Israel would not free terrorists as a precondition to talks.
Within his own government, Netanyahu faced stiff opposition. "You kill terrorists, you don't free them," insisted Trade Minister Naftali Bennett.
Deputy Foreign Minister Ze'ev Elkin, echoing the views of many of his colleagues, added: "Experience has taught us that every prisoner release encourages terror, and has never brought peace. It informs the next generation of terrorists that someone will work to release them. All the democracies in the world have learned this lesson. They don’t release terrorists even in exchange for captured citizens. They won’t even negotiate."
Returning to this paradox of "justice," it appears that when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict the definition of the term has yet to be understood.
As Rabbi Eliezer Weiss questioned, “Why does the Weisenthal Center track down Nazis who murdered Jews, while here we have Muslim Nazis who murdered Jews, who spilled blood as if it were water, who burned a mother and three children and an unborn baby alive – and they are released? Is there a difference between them and the Nazis criminals?”
Rabbi Eliezer’s wife and three children were burned to death in a fire bomb attack 22 years ago. Their murderer is set to be released.
Many Israeli lawmakers were left questioning the morality and motive behind such a move, with some questioning, given a similar situation, would America loose the jailed murderers of its citizens?
As MK Motti Yogev (Bayit Yehudi) made clear, "Negotiations based on releasing killers have nothing to do with peace, or security, or morality, or truth."
In the words of those that have been exposed to the outcome of terrorist activity, "The murderers of our loved ones have faces and names, they are not numbers. They cannot hide behind long lists and government meetings." Unfortunately it seems that this lack of sensitivity has become reality, and justice somehow dissipates into the milieu of political diplomacy and efforts of "peace."
The release of prisoners is set to take place in four phases over the next 9 months. These are the profiles of some of the prisoners that will be among those freed:
  • Issa Abed Rabbo, jailed October 1984: Attacked a young couple near the Cremisan Monastery south of Jerusalem. Later revealed to the police that he had tied the couples' hands, blindfolded them with rags, and executed them at point blank range.
  • Muhammad Tus, jailed October 1985: Member of a south Hebron terror cell that carried out five bus attacks, killing Zalman Avolnik, Michal Cohen, Meir Ben Yair, Edna Harari and Motti Swisa.
  • Fayez Hour, jailed November 1985: Killed two Israelis in the Gaza Strip and planned to assassinate former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir whilst in jail.
  • Mohammed Daoud, jailed December 1987: Hurled a Molotov cocktail (firebomb) at a Jewish vehicle, killing a mother and her young son.
  • Jomaa Adam and Mahmoud Harbish, jailed October 1988: Attacked an Israeli passenger bus north of Jericho with Molotov cocktails, killing Rachel Weiss and her three young children, as well as soldier David Delarossa, who attempted to rescue the other victims.
  • Nihad Jundiyeh, jailed July 1989: Murdered Israeli contractor Zalman Shlein.
Many other prisoners on the release list carried out attacks against IDF soldiers.
* * * 

If Palestinians really want peace, why demand terrorist release?
If Palestinians really want peace, why demand terrorist release?
It would seem counterproductive to achieving a genuine peace to set free those who had so brutally done all they could to ensure peace found no footing.
And yet, the Palestinian Authority last week was adamant it would not rejoin US-backed peace talks with Israel until the latter agreed to loose 104 terrorists jailed for either murdering or attempting to murder Israeli Jews.
Under normal circumstances, such a demand would leave those on the losing end of that equation scratching their heads.
"It's hard for many Israelis to grasp why their partners for peace demand that the murderers of children be freed," wrote Avi Mayer, the Jewish Agency's director of new media, on his Twitter account.
But after nearly two decades of a failed peace process, most Israelis know better. They know the Palestinian leadership isn't looking for a genuine peace. They know that Mahmoud Abbas and his PLO remain dedicated to the movement's founding principles of never accepting Israel and working continuously, through any means, to bring about the eventual demise of the "Zionist entity."
So, why does Israel continue to play this game? Why is it that every few years Israel repeats what it knows is the wasted gesture of setting free blood-soaked killers?
Israeli Interior Minister Gideon Saar had the answer at Sunday's cabinet meeting, where he passionately argued in favor of the prisoner release despite admitting nothing good could come of it.
"I don't believe we can get a peace agreement with the Palestinians, but I want to preserve Israel's international standing," Saar was quoted as saying by Ha'aretz reporter Barak Ravid. The minister continued: "If we don't vote for the prisoner release our last few friends around the world might not support us anymore in the UN."
Sadly, this is the kind of groveling to which Israel's leaders have been reduced.
As with every previous release of jailed terrorists, this will send a clear message that even the most savage acts of violence against even the most innocent of Israelis will not earn one lasting punishment, but rather a hero's status. And terrorists will be emboldened to continue on their destructive path. And peace will remain elusive.    source
* * * *

PA TV song calls to attack Israel, the "snake's head," with the rifle
"With the rifle we will impose our new life... Oh Palestinians, I want to go... and with you attack the snake's head"
by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik

A song demonizing Israel and calling for violence is currently being rebroadcast on official Palestinian Authority TV Live. The song demonizes Israel as "the snake's head" that kills Palestinians, and adds that by using "the rifle we will impose our new life" on Israel.

Click to view

Palestinian Media Watch has documented the ongoing PA policy of demonizing Israel and glorifying violence.

Since 2011, PA TV has broadcast at least 4 different versions of the song. This version currently being rebroadcast is a performance at a Fatah event in 2011 in front of senior PA and Fatah officials, including PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. Another version includes visuals of Palestinian terrorists in training. The two other versions are performed by different singers.

The following is the text of the song performed in front of the PA and Fatah leadership:

"Oh Palestinians, the revolution is certain,
with the rifle we will impose our new life.
Oh Palestinians, [the Zionist] shot you with the rifle,
the Zionists are killing your doves in your sacred area.
Oh Palestinians, I want to go and be with you.
Fire is in my hands, and with you attack the snake's head (Israel)."
[Official PA TV and Official PA TV LIVE, 2011 -2013, numerous times]

The following PA leaders are in the audience:
Sultan Abu Al-Einein - Advisor to Mahmoud Abbas
Abbas Zaki - Member of the Fatah Central Committee
Hanan Ashrawi - PLO Executive Committee member
Abd Al-Rahim Maluh - Member of the PLO Executive Committee
Mahmoud Abbas was also present at the event sitting near the other PA leaders.