 |
Contents:
Rabinšs Legacy that Never Was
Israelis often ask the haunting question what would have happened if Rabin were alive? Would he have achieved the yearned-for peace? On the 11th anniversary of Rabinšs assassination, and in light of more recent events, most significantly the self inflicted destruction of Gush Katif and the troubling war with Hezbollah, it is our duty to examine closely Rabinšs true agenda and stir the public debate back to the realities of his legacy. How easily and quickly some of us forget what Rabin stood for, how far was he really prepared to concede and what was his intended peace plan. Yes, he spoke about comprehensive peace but it may surprise you that he never spoke about an independent ŗPalestinian˛ state. Since Rabinšs death, Israelis have turned Rabin into an emblem of their leftist political cause. They idolize him to further their agenda of appeasement, an agenda to which he never subscribed. This on-going process of false adulation was particularly evident in the latest Tel Aviv rally in his memory, when speakers, most notably the author David Grossman, canonized Rabin as the prince of peace. Had he lived, so they claim, Eretz Yisrael would today be divided into two independent states in which two free nations would be living peacefully side by side. Did Rabin advocate a fully independent Palestinian state? Did he plot the dismantling of Jewish settlements? Did he agree to entrust the security of Israelšs borders to the hands of Arabs or international forces? The answer to all these questions is a resounding no. The real tragic consequence of his untimely death was not the lost opportunity for a non- existing peace, but the start of a process of erosion in Israelšs positions. I am convinced that just as Rabin led Israel into the peace process, he would have had the tenacity to lead Israel out of it at the first sign of the inevitable Arab deceit. Rabin was a strong leader who was prepared to steadfastly defend Israelšs vital interests. Had he survived, Israel today would still be without peace, but much stronger. In fact, Rabin today would most likely be spiritual leader of the Israeli right. Now, think for a moment: How many of you were led to believe that Rabin was prepared to grant the ŗPalestinians˛ an independent state? That Rabin was prepared to dismantle Jewish settlements? If you are among them, you have fallen prey to leftist propaganda and the re-writing of history! The fact is obvious, Rabin was hijacked by the left! On October 5th 1995, a mere one month before his assassination, Rabin stated his intentions in a pivotal speech to the Knesset. The speech is of course public record, yet the Israeli left persistently ignore its essentials, particularly the parts in which Rabin lists his red lines, lines he believed Israel should never agree to surrender.
The occasion was the debate to ratify the Israel-Palestinian Interim
Agreement. You will find the entire speech in Israelšs Foreign Office site,
Two issues in Rabinšs presentation could not be clearer: Concessions would come only through negotiations and only if the Palestinians strictly adhere to each obligation in the Agreement, including absolute end to terror. Rabin never contemplated any unilateral moves. When you read the entire speech, pay close attention to the importance Rabin attached to our Jewish holy places, not a typical leftist cause. Here are some of Rabinšs stated red lines: The State of Israel will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate. The Palestinians will have an entity which is less than a state. Israel will not return to the 4th of June 1967 lines. For security purpose, Israel will maintain full control of the Jordan Valley in the broadest meaning of that term. Gush Katif will serve as model for the establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria. Israel is committed not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder further construction for natural growth. It is deplorable how many and how severely Rabinšs red lines have been eroded by successive Israeli governments, particularly those of Sharon and Olmert. It is even more appalling how brutally Rabinšs positions have been distorted by the Israeli left and the Israeli leftist media. (c) 2006 Yuval Zaliouk > This article appeared in the Toledo Jewish News
News and Analysis from UN Watch in Geneva:
Contrary to the self-congratulatory statements by many Council ambassadors at the session's close, this outcome is neither a victory for the Council, nor for the long-suffering victims in Darfur. The brief resolution merely expresses the Council's "concern regarding the seriousness of the human rights and humanitarian situation" in Darfur. (A European proposal would have expressed "grave concern," but even that was too strong for Sudan's African, Arab and Islamic Group allies.) Neither the government of Sudan nor any other party to the conflict is deemed in any way responsible for causing, contributing to, or stopping that "situation." The resolution even "welcomes" the Sudanese government's "cooperation" with the UNconveniently ignoring Khartoum's repeated refusals to admit the UN peacekeeping force mandated by the Security Council last August. This soft approach stands in stark contrast to the harshly condemnatory language of the resolutions from the Council's three previous special sessions, on Israeli actions in Gaza, Lebanon, and Gaza again. Moreover, as a result of the denials by Sudan and its supporters of the gravity of the crisis, the Council could not even agree on the well-documented facts, but only on the need for an assessment missionby "five highly qualified persons" chosen by the Council President, and the Council's independent expert on Sudan. Although it remains to be seen who the President, Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico, will chose for the mission, this composition is at least slightly better than the African Group's initial proposal for a mission made up of Council members themselvesan attempt to assert political control over what should be an impartial process. The special session's outcome only confirms the double standard at work in the Council: Israel is repeatedly and harshly condemned, while other countries, if addressed at all, are treated with kid gloves. Yes, the Council has now addressed Darfur, but only weakly and without criticism. Israel is still the only country in the entire world that the Council, in its six months of existence, has censured for human rights violations. The Council, to date, has passed eight condemnatory resolutions against the Jewish state. In a statement delivered on behalf of 31 NGOs, UN Watch expressed our hope that the special session would be "just the beginning of the Council's active engagement, not only on Darfur, but on all major human rights crises worldwide." We are deeply disappointed in the session's immediate outcome, but we have not abandoned that hope. The Darfur assessment mission may yet turn out to be truly impartial, independent, and expert, and if so, it could help lay the groundwork for concrete, future Council action to help the millions of victims in Darfur. And the Council may yet begin to address other egregious human rights situations around the globe. We still hope for improvement in the Council's performance, and we will be watching. _____________________ Full Text of Statement HRC 4th Special Session The Human Rights Situation in Darfur December 13, 2006 Delivered by Leon Saltiel of UN Watch Thank you, Mr. President.
The Israel Resource Review is brought to you by
the Israel Resource, a media firm based at the Bet Agron Press Center in
Jerusalem, and the Gaza Media Center under the juristdiction of the Palestine
Authority. |
Printer
friendly version of this article