The Oslo Accords were an egregious, imbecilic act of moral turpitude, whose ratification hinged on an endorsement by a soon-to-be convicted drug-smuggling fraudster, and which brings dishonor to anyone associated with it. Yitzhak Rabin, Bill Clinton and Yasser Arafat at the White House during the Oslo Acords, Sept. 1993.
Many people, close to father [Yitzhak Rabin] told me that on the eve of the murder he considered stopping the Oslo process because of the terror that was running rampant in the streets and that Arafat wasn’t delivering the goods – Dalia Rabin, October 8, 2010
Sandwiched between the end of September, the month in which the Oslo Accords were signed, and beginning of November, in which Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, October is a month awash with introspective ruminations, retrospective reflections, solemn memorial ceremonies and soul-searching commemorations.
Closely connected in the public mind
It is a month in which, invariably, some-well known public figure can be found analyzing – or pontificating on – the significance of an event (the Oslo Accords), whose anniversary has just recently been observed, or of an event whose anniversary is just about to be observed (the Rabin assassination).
Moreover, because of discrepancies between the Gregorian and Hebrew calendars, anniversaries according to the latter sometimes fall within – as occurred this year with the 18th anniversary of Rabin’s assassination. According to the Hebrew calendar this took place on the 12th of the month Heshvan, i.e. on Wednesday, October 16, this week.
Although they are entirely separate events – the signing of the Oslo Accords and the Rabin assassination – they have become almost inextricably intertwined in the public consciousness to comprise a contrived tragi-heroic conceptual complex presented as “Rabin’s heritage.”
The proximity of the dates has facilitated this perceptual fusion of the two events, which have cognitively merged to become mutually sustaining components in the perpetuation and propagation of this “heritage.”
Both are crucial to its preservation. The assassination provides the element of tragedy, while the Oslo process provides the image of heroic daring in a bold endeavor to achieve peace. Absent either element, and the notional construct of “heritage” loses much, of its dramatic effect, and hence its political potency.
Distortion, deception, deceit
In recent weeks, I have written repeatedly on control of the discourse in Israel, how certain aspects of issues and events are underscored and others downplayed and how this control plays a major role in determining the political agenda.
The coverage this week of the commemoration of the Rabin assassination, coupled with that of the Oslo process, provided a remarkable illustration of the working of this mechanism in promoting the alleged inevitability of the two-state-solution.
The perception of a positive Oslo-related Rabinesque “heritage” can only be maintained by pervasive distortion, deception and deceit. For the Oslo Accords were an act of moral turpitude that by any rational criterion of common sense and common decency should bring dishonor to anyone associated with it. It was an egregious, imbecilic blunder that precipitated all the tragedy its opponents warned of, and none of the benefits its proponents promised.
It is more than doubtful that Yitzhak Rabin would have ever committed his pen to paper if, prior to his signature on the ill-considered Oslo Accords, he had at his disposal a crystal ball by which he could foresee events – the thousands of Israelis killed and/or maimed, the Islamist takeover of Gaza, the massive build-up of rockets aimed at Israeli cities.
But of course, those who have hitched their political fortunes to the Oslowian paradigm of political appeasement and territorial withdrawal cannot allow the truth of the gruesome consequences to dominate the discourse. Accordingly, they need to produce, promote and perpetuate a parallel narrative that suppresses discussion of what has happened and fosters the illusion of what hasn’t. This they have done with great success.
Sadly, the mendacity of this endeavor is matched only by the impotence and the incompetence of their alleged ideological opponents.
Reinventing events
A vividly illustrative demonstration of how this is done was furnished by opposition leader Shelly Yacimovich, in her address on Wednesday at a Knesset session commemorating the 18th anniversary of the assassination.
In many ways this is a particularly distressing example, since for all the differences I have with her on a range of topics, Yacimovich comes across as a politician of greater integrity than most.
It is thus especially disturbing to encounter what can only be charitably characterized as an “imaginative” account of Rabin’s political precepts, intentions and abilities.
For example, regarding Rabin’s adoption of the Oslo process, she proclaims, “He was murdered because he implemented a policy he believed in; for which he was elected in democratic elections to lead the nation. He did not surprise his voters as did leaders of the “Right… he did exactly what he promised.
That is what he was elected for.”
Yacimovich goes on to disingenuously impute to Rabin endorsement of the two-state principle, declaring: “We haven’t really tried the two-statesfor- two-peoples solution. We might have intended to. Rabin intended to – honestly and sincerely. He was also capable of leading such a move; to implement it in practice with all its complexities difficulties and risks. He was murdered before we tried it.
Rabin did not endorse the idea of two states because he was enamored with the Palestinians or with the peace process. [He did it because] he loved Israel.”
Setting the record straight
Yacimovich is of course wildly incorrect on both scores – with regard to Rabin’s electoral pledges and to his embrace of the two-state-for-two-peoples idea.
Rabin’s electoral campaign never included the slightest hint that he would engage Arafat’s terrorist PLO in negotiations and certainly none that he would hand over large swathes of Judea, Samaria and Gaza to PLO rule. That would have almost certainly ensured electoral defeat. Indeed, at the time of the election any contact with the PLO was forbidden by Israeli law.
The ban on private contacts was lifted only several months after the 1992 election, pushed through by left-wing elements in the coalition despite Rabin’s reluctance, arguably underscored by the fact that he did not show up for the Knesset vote.
As David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy notes (in his “Making Peace with the PLO”): “This may have been one of the many indications that [Rabin] had no grand design to initiate negotiations with the PLO.”
Indeed, Makovsky remarks that even after the passage of the bill, “Rabin pledged there would be no governmental contacts [with the PLO].”
Astoundingly, as Makovsky reveals, Rabin was unaware of the Oslo process until almost nine months after the June 1992 election, when Peres informed him of them – in February 1993!! How then could Yacimovich claim that Rabin was elected to implement a policy whose formulation he knew nothing about at the time he was elected?
Setting the record straight (cont.)
Yacimovich also grossly misrepresents Rabin’s embrace of the two-state paradigm.
Prof. Sean McMahon correctly points out in his The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations: “During the [1992] election campaign Rabin promised that…he would try to reach an agreement on Palestinian autonomy within six to nine months. Rabin’s Labor Party platform ‘categorically rejected the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River.’ “Rabin promised to pursue an autonomy agreement with the Palestinians. He did not promise to pursue an agreement whereby Palestinians would obtain statehood.”
McMahon continues, “Even after [Oslo I] had been accepted by the Knesset Peres and Rabin [kept] assuring the Israelis that the new Palestinian entity [would] not be a sovereign state…. Rabin was explicit: a Palestinian state would not issue forth from the Oslo process.”
A brief glance at the Labor platform for the 1992 election will quickly confirm McMahon’s contention.
It states, “The political realities in the region… make it imperative to reach a Jordanian- Palestinian framework agreement… and not a separate Palestinian state west of the Jordan.”
Perhaps Yacimovich should consult her party archives.
Rabin’s real ‘heritage?’
But perhaps the most dramatic demonstration of how Rabin’s political doctrine (read “heritage”) has been corrupted by his self-anointed “disciples” is to be found in the text of his final address to the Knesset, on October 5, 1995, barely a month before his assassination. In the address, in which he sought parliamentary ratification of the Oslo II Agreement, he laid out his vision for the permanent agreement with the Palestinians.
Repudiating the well-known Obama prescription, he asserted categorically, “We will not return to the June 4, 1967, lines.”
Rejecting the idea of a sovereign Palestinian state, he declared: “The permanent solution will include a Palestinian entity which will be an entity which is less than a state.”
He then went on to detail some of the “the main changes, not all of them, which we envision and want in the permanent solution.”
On Jerusalem: First and foremost, a united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma’aleh Adumim and Givat Ze’ev – as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty.
On the Jordan Valley: “The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest sense of that term.”
On the settlements: “Changes which will include the addition of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Betar and other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the Green Line prior to the Six Day War.”
And perhaps most significantly: “The establishment of [new] blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the ones in Gush Katif” [subsequently destroyed by Ariel Sharon’s 2005 disengagement from Gaza].
Democratic debacle?
This was the last public articulation of parameters Rabin envisioned for the final settlement with the Palestinians. Significantly, the address was made after he had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and after having been internationally lauded as a “valiant warrior for peace.”
This is what the Israeli public was led to believe was the significance of the Oslo Accords.
Yet today, were any Israeli leader to embrace verbatim Nobel laureate Rabin’s prescription, he would be dismissed as an unrealistic extremist, bent on obstructing the attainment of peace, by the likes of Yacimovich, who remarked sarcastically in her Knesset address that she did not expect Binyamin Netanyahu “to identify politically with Rabin.”
Seeing that Netanyahu has already proposed arrangements far more concessionary than any Rabin ever dreamed of, one can only wonder what she would say if he did! But quite apart from the mean-spirited hypocrisy that characterizes the discussion of Rabin’s alleged “heritage,” the entire Oslo process is an abomination in terms of democratic governance, and a moral blight on the nation’s history.
Not only was it a calamitous failure that brought grief and trauma to thousands of Israeli homes; not only did it entail violations – explicit and implicit – of electoral pledges; not only did it involve demeaning appeasement with, and recognition of, a murderous Judeophobic organization, headed by a bloodstained murderer who embodied virtually all the most repugnant humans vices imaginable, but its passage through the Knesset comprised a grave distortion of the wishes of the electorate as expressed at the polls.
Born in sin
Given the fact that over 60% of the current population are too young to have had any real interest in politics at the time, few will remember that following Rabin’s above-mentioned address, Oslo II was ratified by a margin of a single vote. It was the vote of one MK, Gonen Segev, who had been elected to the Knesset on behalf of the hawkish Tzomet faction, which opposed everything Oslo represented. He was “bribed” by Rabin to desert his party and join the Oslophilic coalition in exchange for a ministerial portfolio.
Several year later, ex-minister Segev was arrested and convicted for drug-smuggling and credit-card fraud. He was sentenced to several years in prison and on release was last heard of somewhere in Nigeria.
So in the final analysis, Oslo owes its entire existence to a drug-smuggling fraudster, who betrayed his voters – and brought disgrace to his country. That is perhaps the most compelling testimony as to the nature of those egregious, imbecilic accords – and something I am sure Rabin would want expunged from his “heritage.”
Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.net) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. (www.strategic-israel.org)
@ yamit82:
Shimon never acknowledges his mistakes. He never learns. The EU loves him which proves how dangerous he is.
@ CuriousAmerican:
You are not really aware of the events as they occur and I do not have time to teach you history. I do not follow your points as coherent but as best just argumentative for whatever motivation (I do not know as I am not a mind reader).
dove Said:
Pray harder!
@ yamit82:
Pray that Hashem gives the ultra – orthodox the sign that they need. Don’t they see it already?
@ Shy Guy:
Didn’t forget it but it was without translation.
There used to be a black joke that Peres wouldn’t mind if the country was destroyed as long as he would be the last man standing.
@ Shy Guy:
Good Morning!! Good nite!!
yamit82 Said:
How could you forget to post the video?!
The arrogance of the man! Sadly, with Peres, we are all losers.
@ dbdent:
Shimon Peres in 1997 asked the Labor Party: “Am I a loser?” To his chagrin they responded, “Yes.”
Shimon Peres
THE ACCOMPLISHED LOSER
Shimon Peres considers his options after losing the presidency of Israel to a political lightweight
His opponent was a nonentity. The press had predicted victory. His political allies had counted more than enough votes for a win. All that was left was for Shimon Peres to wait out the official balloting in the Knesset for the largely ceremonial post of the nation’s President, a position well-suited to the country’s most senior statesman. But when the final tally came in last week, the result was written all over Peres’ stricken face. Contrary to the general expectation, Israel’s new head of state was not Peres but the underdog, Moshe Katsav, a decent guy by all accounts but a political lightweight.
Actually, the secret 63-57 vote should not have been such a shock. It was in keeping with Peres’ long and inglorious electoral record. Though he is the most accomplished politician in Israel-and a seasoned world figure as well-
Peres was the chief architect of Israel’s military-industrial complex, including its nuclear weapons programme, and a key drier behind the 1993 Oslo peace accords with the Palestinians, a role that earned him a Nobel Peace Prize.
Peres’ wit and elegance have made him a favourite among foreign dignitaries, but those qualities make little impression on Israeli voters, who prefer their policitians rough-cut and earthy. Early in his career, Peres gained a reputation as a self-promoter, an image reinforced by old party rival Yitzhak Rabin, who reflecting on what he saw as sabotage by Peres during his first stint as prime Minister, memorably dubbed his competitor a “tireless subverter”.
Yet neither that nor other humiliations, including rejection for the presidency, motivated Peres to quit public life. Last week he revoked his resignation as Minister for Regional Development, tendered in anticipation of victory in the presidential vote, and vowed to continue working for peace. There was some speculation Barak might name him Foreign Minister after David Levy quit the post to protest the Prime Minister’s peace policies. Peres said he would not seek the job. But perhaps he has simply learned by now that admitting he wanted it would spoil his chances of getting it.
From Time Magazine
sorry last posts allowed no editing therefore some errors
no 3 should be areas A & B not B & C, there is a second no. 3 which should be 4.
ms Said:
Continued from last post: the implementation of compulsory transfer after allowing for voluntary transfer.
1-Israel revokes the canard of illegal jewish settlement in YS and begins a massive affirmative action policy to restore justice and mitigate the damage which resulted from obstructing Jewish settlement rights. The goal would be the fastest and largest jewish settlement and immigration possible. Israel provides free land grants(ie US homestead act land rush) in area C to jewish immigrants and settlers. This phase can proceed until annexation timing of A & B is decided.) Because the arab population is small Israel can decide to grant or not grant temporary or permanent residence with no possibility of future citizenship
2- Israel expels the PLO, militias from the west bank claiming that Oslo is dead and that all who were admitted under Oslo no longer have legal standing to remain in Israel. Israel deports them to any or all of the 3 adjoining non treaty entitites of Gaza, Lebanon and/or Syria. This must be will planned and secret because they will be the main obstruction to transfer. It is done logistically by seizing buffer zones across the 3 borders, bussing the transfers, depositing them across the border and withrawing. Their future will be taken over by the resident UNRWA, EU and arabs. This will allow more time and motivation for voluntary arab transfer of B & C without the political interference of the PLO/PA
3- Israel offers a voluntary program of resettlement outside of Israels borders to the arabs of A & B and offers EU, UN, UNRWA and arabs the opportunity to participate in the funding and resettlement. Israel annexes B & C declaring that arab residency will be temporary pending voluntary or compulsory transfer. The declaration of no future citizenship and no permanent residency might encourage voluntary transfer to be paid by EU, UN or arab sources. Otherwise compulsory locks in.
3-Phased compulsory bussing to the same zones begins for those who are not voluntarily resettled. Any compensation is based on the compensation to jews that left arab lands and whether done voluntarily.
this solutions efficacy is based on the following advantages:
1- it is unilateral requiring no cooperation. Bussing to non treaty areas requires no permission. Israel has already seized areas in all 3 entities.
2-It will force those responsible to pay and to resettle the arabs. The refugees in Gaza, Syria or Lebanon will become the responsibility de facto of those entities. The existing UNRWA can be expanded as the west bank facilities and funding are decreased. the EU, UN, arabs and 3 entities will be highly motivated to implement realistic solutions of resettlement because if they do not then those entities will become politically unstable and lapse into civil war.
3-resettlement will be permanent because there will be no gains to maintaining the problem in the eu/arab war against the jews as the problem will no longer exist in Israel.
4- It will be sustainable because resources spent on internal 5th column security can be redirected to military external security investment.
5- It is moral becuase it employs the principle of no double standards, resolves the jewish refugee problem into a poulation exchange problem, permanently resettles the pals thereby ending their being pawns,
This is a solution which is driven by a focus on the Jews rather than the pals. Everything springs from what is best for the jews whereas other solutions are driven by what is best or better for the pals.
ms Said:
Although you have spent a lot of time and contributed greatly to the discussion I feel there are fundamental problems with your approach aside from whether the pals will even accept it. We agree on transfer but not on method. It appears that Israeli payment is chosen because it is easier than forcing those who caused and maintained the problem to pay. I believe this approach will encourage the same intransigence, obstruction and non acceptance as how not unilaterally enforcing Israels legal rights of settlement encouraged the canards of illegal jewish settlement. The very choice of Israel paying is likely because it is considered to be the transfer solution that will make the least waves with those who actually maintain the problem. this is a mistaken notion: con artists and crooks do not reward such behavior but rather respond with more swindling and intransigence. My belief is that the international community(especially euros, are not acting in ignorance in swindling and libeling the Jews bu rather that they are action intentionally.
First, I believe it is a big mistake for Israel to take the lead in compensating the pals because it sets a double standard which is IMHO the continuing cause and maintenance of the Pal problem. By allowing those who caused and maintained the problem to avoid compensation we allow for future swindles, libels and canards against the Jews and Israel.
Second, I believe that the biggest mistake is to ever consider, or discuss, the arab/pal refugee problem without first discussing and resolving the Jewish refugee issue. The fact that the world accepted the arab ethnic cleansing after the Geneve conventions perpetuates the double standard and encourages the international community to keep conning the Jews. the most important issue is to end the acceptability of the world conning the Jews with double standards and broken agreements.
My solution is to accept that which actually offers the most permanent and sustainable resolution, has the greatest possibility of resettling the arabs, forces those responsible to pay and implement the resettlement, utilizes the same refugee infrastructure until the refugees are resettled,resolves the double standard of jewish refugees from arab lands by declaring it a populations exchange and implementing the arab part of the exchange, reduces internal security massively thus allowing external security to advance. Jews do not consider it outrageous to consider the arab transfer of Jews and the Jew free arab areas or the unsolvable violent behavior of arabs to jews. However, mention transfer and the Jews assume it is undiscussable, unmentionable and inhumane when it is the opposite. the pals would receive compensation, they would get final and permanent resolution, the current funding of UNRWA and terror funding can flow to resettling the arabs, the UNRWA already exists in Lebanon, gaza, and Syria and it can grow as the west bank funding reduces. It is a unilateral solution requiring no cooperation or acceptance by anyone.
Once it becomes accepted by Israel that the arabs cannot stay and once solutions can be fairly discussed then an offer can be made for the responsible parties to pay and the arabs to voluntarily leave. The only thing it requires is the re-education of Israel and Jews to accepting compulsory transfer as doable, logical, moral, legal sustainable,permanent, and the only solution without double standards. Offers may be first made for volutary transfer to be paid by euros, UN , arabs and in the event of refusal then compulsory transfer.
These are the required ingredients of the only permanent and sustainable solution:
1-the Jews finally accept that the arabs must leave
2-the Jews must refuse to proceed along any line of double standard. This means a refusal to exclude transfer due to humanitarian reasons when those reasons were not applied to Jews in arab lands by international community. A refusal to maintain equal rights for arabs when arab PA, Gaza and Jordan do not do it. This would mean coming to understand why transfer is equitable as a result of jewish transfer from arab lands in the same conflict couple with the glaring lack of the international community refusing to apply the Geneva conventions to that Jewish transfer. The absolute refusal to ever consider or discuss arab refugee problems without first a discussion of the Jewish refugees.
3- Israel must do what is best for Jews- Therefore,no granting of citizenship to the arabs for the obvious reasons. It cannot be logical to say that because it is impossible to give citizenship then the only solution is to give them the land that belongs to the jews. The inability to coexist was caused by the arabs and therefore they must pay the price, Furthermore, land was already given in gaza and Jordan that is jew free. This is the Jews biggest problem, the arabs have no problem excluding the Jews from any consideration in their “solutions”.
my next post for the implementation procedure of the solution.
@ yamit82:
Another joke was that when Peres was seeking high office he went to a senior Rabbi who told him to go to Vizner Rav ‘s shul on Shabbat and request an aliya.
So like a good boy he went, approached the shammas with his request and the Shammas said OK.
Came the aliya and the Gabbai called out ” Ya’amod Shimon a loozer ben…..”
dbdent Said:
escept for those politicians who continue to be paid, blackmailed or extorted by foreign intellignce services or the 5th column orgs allowed to tout their anti semitism in Israel paid by the euros.
dove Said:
Dog ate my alarm 🙂
yamit82 Said:
Disturbingly, he is still there and is now President in spite of never winning. I wish this joke were circulated more widely, I never knew that he never won an election.
yamit82 Said:
love the song, no apologies to all those who continue to libel and swindle the Jews. this is the appropriate answer to the lousy swindlers.
I have never ever written much about the Rabin assassination but there was much more to it than appears.
I actually forecast it to some friends several months before it happened – not because I knew who actually did it or of his plan/ thoughts but because of the prevailing atmosphere in Israel- which one could cut with the proverbial knife ; of the illegal & brutal misbehavior of the police at demonstrations; of the verbal & racial nonsense spouted by Rabin. However there was one thing which made my blood seethe – bombs were going off everywhere – in Jerusalem & Tel Aviv. People were dying & sitting shiva . NOT ONCE did Rabin get off his backside to go & visit and offer condolences etc. NOT once did he offer support or explanation. This IMO was the prompt to what occurred – the anger and grief that could not be expressed fully.Indeed I heard a rumour that when the last one exploded at French Hill he decided that maybe he should go to French Hill — and his security advisers recommended that he stay put because , in their words ” you will be lynched!” If I could forecast it then Shabach also could. Hamish is a bit of a nutcase but a lot of what he wrote makes smoke and beneath this smoke one can expect to find a fire!
And yes there was no doubt at the time that religious parties were saying that he had to go ie preferably resign; and some prayed for other means.
I for one cannot forgive Rabin for his inexcusable behaviour and do not/ cannot mourn for him.
I also feel that Peres is a dangerous person who struts around like a PM even tho he is supposed to be a President and should keep his mouth shut.
When Peres dies the 2 state option will also die because there really is no one else at the top left [pun] to push it.
Then we shall probably have to fight yet once again!
bernard ross Said:
I have me problem,
How does a politician survive at or near the top of the political pyramid for nearly 65 year and never win an election?
Only in Israel and Peres has done just that. He has never won an election.
For decades, the joke in Israel went:
“How do you know when Shimon Peres is headed for defeat?
When he announces that he is running”.
@ CuriousAmerican:
That you are the only commenter on this blog who seems unhappy over the prospect leaves no doubt what are your real sentiments.
I know how to deal with them….
and if that does not work then …then there is the Biblical remedy decreed by the G-d of Israel:
“”So Samuel returned after Saul, and Saul prostrated himself before HaShem. Samuel then said, ‘Bring me Agag, king of Amalek.’ And Agag went to him submissively. And Agag said, ‘Surely, the bitterness of death has passed.’ And Samuel said, ‘As your sword made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.’ And Samuel cut Agag into pieces before HaShem in Gilgal.” (I Samuel 15:31-33)
Your problem is you expect us to behave as christians, G-d forbid!!!! :”There is a futility that takes place on the Earth — there are righteous ones who are treated as [if they had performed] the actions of the evil ones; and there are evil ones who are treated as [if they had performed] the actions of the righteous ones — I declared that, also, this is a futility.” (Ecclesiastes 8:14)
@ bernard ross:
Wakey wakey rise and shine!
bernard ross Said:
Follow the money.
Dear Ted, I have been having trouble with the comment editor tool. for me it has not been loading today.
CuriousAmerican Said:
they already have 2 states in jordan and gaza. they are proving that without supervision it would be best they have no state. Right now in Jordan they are supervised by the hashemites.
CuriousAmerican Said:
If my instructions are followed(trasfer across the 3 non treaty borders) the ones who will have to figure aout what to do will be Lebanon, gaza,Syria,arabs, UN, and euros(who must be involved in everything). If they don’t figure it out quickly then all 3 entities will be destabilized into civil war with their new guests. I am 1000% sure that with Israel out of the picture there will be a sudden massive motivation to solve their refugee problem. It is a matter of Israelis gaining the will and resolve to unilateral action for their own benefit. Perhaps G_D will create the solution.
ms Said:
I wonder what happened between then and now? The mind boggles.
leonkushner Said:
Their denial of Jewish links to the land of Israel, their training their children to hate and kill Jews: this would be enough to completely disallow any negotiations and to transfer every arab across the border without apology. Once they cannot be trusted to live in peace there is no reason to suffer them or cater to them. As a famous Israpundit poster once said “the rest is window dressing”.
Martin Sherman is knowledgeable and articulate. I doubt many of us knew about Segev. So again, thanks for the info. And Ted, please continue to post articles by Mr. Sherman.
One can argue either way as to what the current situation would look like had we not signed on to Oslo and although Curious makes a valid point about the eagerness of zionist settlements, I concur 100% with Mr. Sherman on his accurate description of the accord (ie. egregious, imbecilic act of moral turpitude). Have you ever heard of the expression ‘don’t do business with people you can’t trust’?
Therein lies the problem that continues to haunt us until today with the never ending ‘peace negotiations’. Like the Oslo accords, these will prove no less imbecilic but possibly even more dangerous.
Meanwhile Shelly reminds me of the PLO who continue to try to replace history with their own creative narrative. I ask, how can we get the true Jewish, Israeli narrative out to the world starting about 3000 years ago when we can barely get the facts straight on one of Israel’s contemporary Prime ministers (Rabin) ?
Terror: In the decade immediately following the Oslo agreement the number of terror victims was almost 6 times that in the decade immediately preceding it
Settlements: Shimon Peres in 1977
“[We need] to create a continuous stretch of new settlements; to bolster Jerusalem and the surrounding hills, from the north, from the east, and from the south and from the west, by means of the establishment of townships, suburbs and villages – Ma’ale Edumin, Ofra, Gilo, Bet-El, Givon, and IDF camps and Nahal outposts – to ensure that the capital and its flanks are secured, and underpinned by urban and rural settlements. These settlements will be connected to the coastal plain and Jordan Valley by new lateral axis roads; the settlements along the Jordan River are intended to establish the Jordan River as the [Israel’s] de facto security border; however it is the settlements on the western slopes of the hills of Samaria and Judea which will deliver us from the curse of Israel’s “narrow waist”; the purpose of the settlements in the Golan is to ensure that this territorial platform will no longer constitute a danger, but a barrier against a surprise attack…”
Shimon Peres, Tomorrow is Now, Jerusalem: Keter, 1978, p. 48.
Ted, can you post my disappeared comment please?
@ CuriousAmerican:
Hogwash! My heart pumps purple passion pee CA. They can have a state, just NOT on Israeli soil…..back to Jordan. If you knew and understood history the Palestinians were gone along ago. These are displaced arabs who chose to call themselves Palestinians.
And there was NO problem before Oslo?! A lot of those deaths would have come anyway. The Intifada preceded Oslo.
A lot of the impetus to move into Judea and Samaria was by ideological Zionist intent on subverting Oslo. No Oslo would have meant less settlement.
@ CuriousAmerican:
1500+ Dead and maybe 10,000 wounded is a disaster. That is just the start of the problem.
Very related: Beyond Political Dermatology, by Prof. Paul Eidelberg
@ CuriousAmerican:
CuriousAmerican says “Now you have to figure how to deal with the Palestinians.”
True – For the only non-coercive approach that can ensure the long-term survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people – see:
IN MY JERUSALEM POST COLUMN
PALESTINE: WHAT SHERLOCK HOLMES WOULD SAY
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=251509
UNINVENTING PALESTINIANS
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=249674
RETHINKING PALESTINE
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=250612
PREVENTING ‘PALESTINE’ PART I
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=283307
PREVENTING ‘PALESTINE’ PART II
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=284173
PREVENTING ‘PALESTINE’ PART III
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=285044
THE HUMANITARIAN APPROACH: RESPONDING TO READERS – PART I
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=285742
THE HUMANITARIAN APPROACH: RESPONDING TO READERS – PART II
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=286107
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
RETHINKING PALESTINE: A PARADIGM SHIFT FROM THE POLITICAL TO THE HUMANITARIAN
http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/rethinking_palestine_a_paradigm_shift_from_the_political_to_the_humanitaria/
SHIFTING THE PALESTINE PARADIGM: FROM THE POLITICAL TO THE HUMANITARIAN
http://www.jinsa.org/publications/research-articles/israel/shifting-paradigm-palestine-political-humanitarian
THE PALESTINIAN PROBLEM: A REAL SOLUTION
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/08/03/the-palestinian-problem-a-real-solution-2/
RETHINKING PALESTINE
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3863043,00.html
http://www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/hs_short_eng.htm
this is one of Sherman’s better articles. “What starts bad in the morning cant go good in the evening”.
HMMM???? Peres????? the continuous presence who can perhaps explain the incredible shift of the right to the left, the selling of the patrimony of the jewish people. is it possible that Barry Chamish is correct????? Is there more to him than big smiles at school children events???? Is he the evil termite in the house of Israel alluded to by Chamish???? I know little of him and his connection to Oslo, how Oslo arose without a PM knowing anything about it and then completely taking over the lives of the duped Jews. It appears that someone has been involved in a swindle about which they knew and perhaps even guided the outcome from the intial con of the accords to the present rot. Was it Peres?
my first post has disappeared into cyberspace. Ted, you need a software which relates to the actual processes on this forum
this is one of Sherman’s good articles. “What starts bad in the morning cant go good in the evening”.
HMMM???? Peres????? the continuous presence who can perhaps explain the incredible shift of the right to the left, the selling of the patrimony of the jewish people. is it possible that Barry Chamish is correct????? Is there more to him than big smiles at school children events???? Is he the evil termite in the house of Israel alluded to by Chamish???? I know little of him and his connection to Oslo, how Oslo arose without a PM knowing anything about it and then completely taking over the lives of the duped Jews. It appears that someone has been involved in a swindle about which they knew and perhaps even guided the outcome from the intial con of the accords to the present rot. Was it Peres?
The damage of Oslo was bad, but not as bad as one would think.
The Palestinians do not have a state, and there is no chance they ever will.
It prompted Zionist youth to move into J&S to prevent Oslo, a process they might not otherwise have done so rapidly.
Frankly, Oslo and the two state solution is dead.
Now you have to figure how to deal with the Palestinians.