Three Questions For PM Netanyahu, For MOD Barak, For IDF

From David Bedein:

Questions for Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu

1. Who gave the order to evacuate children at 3AM from the outpost near Kiryat Arba on Wednesday night, January 11-12?

2. Will you ask that someone be punished for evacuating children at 3AM from outpost near Kiryat Arba on Wednesday night, January 11-12?

3. Will you look into the allegation that the IDF used Arabs to participate in the evacuation of the outpost and that these Arabs looted the property?

I'd ask if the Israel National Council for the Child or Orr Shalom have anything to say.

Can you gtuess who said this?

'Enforcement moves will tear kids from the only country they have ever known,'

UPDATE

Minister of Defense Ehud Barak's Media office has asked our agency to pose the questions to the IDF

2nd UPDATE

Hi David,

Thank you for your email. To receive answers, please contact the Israel Police. They carried out the operation.

Shabbat shalom,
Marina

North American Media Desk
Spokesperson's Unit, Israel Defense Forces

Funny, the IDF is the sovereign in the area.

3rd UPDATE

After two days of hourly media reports that the IDF conducted the 3AM operation in Kiryat Arba, the Israeli police have taken full responsibility for the action

An oral response was just received from the Israeli police spokesman, Mickey Rosenfeld, who said that "The police will decide when they want to carry out an operation of law enforcement at any time that it is convenient to the police".

In other words, the Israeli police ignored the Knesset testimony of the Israel Assn.for the Protection of the Child, who had asked that the security establishment refrain from removing children in the middle of the night, which constitutes wanton child abuse.http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/230557

In answer to the fourth question, about the use of Arabs in the demolitions, and the allegation that these Arabs looted the possessions of the residents, the answer was that he was "not familiar" with this subject.

^

It Should Be Formulated Differently

Yoram Ettinger has a very good piece, "Does freeze deal make sense?", over at YnetNews where he writes on The complex nature of Jewish construction in the communities:-

If Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria prejudges the outcome of negotiation, wouldn't Palestinian construction in Judea and Samaria have the same effect?!

If the uprooting of Jewish communities advances peace, why would the uprooting of Arab communities undermine peace?! The call for uprooting Arabs is immoral; Isn't the uprooting of Jews just as immoral?!

If the 300,000 Jews, among 1.5MN Arabs, in Judea and Samaria constitute an obstacle to peace, how would one define the 1.5MN Arabs, among 6MN Jews, within pre-1967 Israel?!

If Jewish settlements/communities in Judea and Samaria (est. 1967) constitute the obstacle to peace, why was the PLO established in 1964?! Why did anti-Jewish Palestinian terrorism flare up during the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s?!

Why did the Arab-Israel wars erupt in1948/9, 1956 and 1967? Why did an unprecedented Palestinian terrorism surge following the 1993 Oslo Accord and the 2005 uprooting of 25 Jewish communities in Gaza and Northern Samaria?!

Past freezes, slowdowns and dismantling of Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria intensified pressure and exacerbated terrorism – what would be the impact of another -freeze?!

But he errs.

In the international context, to compare Jews in Judea & Samaria and rights and restriction with the Arabs of the same territory is a mistake. First of all, as wrong as it is - and it must be challenged in another manner - most of the world accept the idea that there is a separate and distinct nation called "Palestinians" and they had a country called "Palestine" which they "lost" to the Jews, quite unfairly. Moreover, the Jews really aren't a nation and shouldn't have national claims on a territory but simply realize that due to antisemitism and the Holocaust, maybe they be allowed to live in the 1947 lines or better, as a minority within the future-to-be-established state of Palestine.

Many Jews and non-Jewish Zionist simply cannot fathom the full extent of the idiocy and meanness and animosity with which Jews are treated when they seek to assert national identity forms. Some may wish to ignore that situation, make fun of it, respond in irrational forms, but that is the situation.

But be that as it may, I wish to suggest another formulation in Ettinger's imagery. He writes:

If Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria prejudges the outcome of negotiation, wouldn't Palestinian construction in Judea and Samaria have the same effect?!

That should be formulated:-

If Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria prejudges the outcome of negotiation, wouldn't Arab construction in the state of Israel have the same effect?!

Notice the difference? Ettinger does this but only in his third paragraph.

I have suggested that Arab residential locations within Israel be referred to as "Arab settlements". That will establish the more correct balance between the competing narratives and claims.

If persons demand a total removal of Jews from Yesha and the dismantlement of their homes there, then that framework must apply equally to the Arab population of Israel. If there is proposed a transfer, it works both ways and for both population groupings.

^

No To Dismantling Communities

Way back in 2007, three years ago, we had this poll:

Poll: 37% of Israelis willing to cede sovereignty in Jerusalem's holy sites

which was cockamaney.

You see the results of this Yedioth Ahronoth and Dahaf Institute survey revealed odd numbers.

Whereas 52% of Israeli Jews were willing to change Jerusalem's status as part of a permanent peace agreement with Palestinians, 61% believe Israel should remain city's sovereign

That, of course, is a bit contradictory but that is what the pattern of Israeli public opinion. Pro-peace but anti-conditions that are harmful to Israel and its heritage and defense.

For example,

When asked whether or not Prime Minister Ehud Olmert could achieve a public mandate allowing him to change Jerusalem's status as part of a permanent peace agreement with the Palestinians, 52% of those taking part in the poll said they would lend their support to such a move if 80% of the ministers were behind it.

That's a "Yes, but...".

Moreover,

Sixty-three percent of those asked said they think Jerusalem should not be included in a peace agreement, 21% thought it should and 16% would agree to it only if the motion was carried out by referendum.

Again, "yes, but...".

And again,

As for the handing over of Palestinian neighborhoods in east Jerusalem to the Palestinian Authority, 68% of the poll's participants were against the idea, 20% agreed with it and 11% said they would agree should a referendum support the idea.

In other words, first of all, the headline was misleading.

Very:

But what of the holy places in Jerusalem? When asked who should remain sovereign of the Western Wall and Temple Mount, 61% believed Israel should be named sovereign...

But last week, Mina Tzemach told us that in 2005, prior to the disengagement taking place, 55% of the public supported dismantling communities across the Green Line.

In 2006, it went down to 47%.

And this month it's 45%.

You need to be careful with these polls.


- - -

Let's Make That Dismantlement Claim Very Clear

Abbas has made his vision of peace quite clear 'Palestinian state requires settlement dismantlement'

Specifically,

Acting Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas has reiterated that Israel must freeze all construction of illegal settlements so that a Palestinian state can be created.

During a visit to Bethlehem on Sunday, he said the Palestinian leadership had not abandoned the national objective of establishing a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders.

The Road Map (*) conditions not only call for a halt to the construction of illegal settlements but also the dismantlement of all of the settlements that are built on Palestinian lands in the West Bank in order to establish a Palestinian state, he added.

Dear Mahmoud,

Despite this, (a) I don't plan on moving

and

(b) I won't dismantle all Arab settlements in the state of Israel (but I will if you think that is a fair quid pro quo).

Do you?

And as for your reading comprehension, let's review the Road Map:

(*)

Phase I

Settlements

* GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001.
* Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).

Phase II

As part of this process, implementation of prior agreements, to enhance maximum territorial contiguity, including further action on settlements in conjunction with establishment of a Palestinian state with provisional borders.

Phase III

Second International Conference: Convened by Quartet, in consultation with the parties...to launch a process...leading to a final, permanent status resolution in 2005, including on borders, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements...

Sorry, there, Abbas, that's not what's written.

The IDF Dismantles...

No, the IDF did not dismantle an outpost, a satellite community or any other Jewish residential location.

So, what did it dismantle?

Here:

IDF dismantles two explosive devices planted along Gaza fence

Netanyahu - For The Record: No Evacuation/Dismantlement

Netanyahu: I'm not bound by Olmert pledges, won't evacuate settlements


Likud Party Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday said he would not be bound by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's commitments to evacuate West Bank settlements and withdraw from the territories.

"I will not keep Olmert's commitments to withdraw and I won't evacuate settlements. Those understandings are invalid and unimportant," Netanyahu said.