via memeorandum

Israel Matzav noted that PM Olmert has apparently gone even beyond Ehud Barak’s generous concessions to Syria and promised Bashar Assad the complete Golan even up to the Kinneret.

But my question is why now? Why would Olmert extend a lifeline to Assad at this point?

It’s just been revealed the Syrians were re-arming Hezbollah. The United States is just revealing more evidence that the site Israel hit in Syria was a nuclear reactor. In other words it’s time to be pressuring Syria not giving into its demands.

Of course this wouldn’t be the first time that Israel has strengthened an enemy at a critical time. In 1993 Israel rescued Arafat from political oblivion with Oslo. In 2000 Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon allowing Hezbollah to bolster its power and leading to the 2006 war. In 2005 Israel withdrew from Gaza after killing the leaders of Hamas, giving Hamas a platform to regroup and intensify its war against Israel.

Past experience says this isn’t the time to concede anything to Syria.

Yesterday the NYT reported that Israel and Syria hint at progress on Golan deal:

Peace overtures between Israel and Syria moved up a gear on Wednesday when a Syrian cabinet minister said that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel had sent a message to President Bashar al-Assad to the effect that Israel would be willing to withdraw from all the Golan Heights in return for peace with Syria.The Syrian expatriate affairs minister, Buthaina Shaaban, told Al Jazeera television, “Olmert is ready for peace with Syria on the grounds of international conditions; on the grounds of the return of the Golan Heights in full to Syria.” She said that Turkey had conveyed the message.

Israeli officials did not deny the statement from Damascus but would not confirm it either, offering a more general, positive reaction. “Israel wants peace with Syria; we are interested in a negotiated process,” said Mark Regev, a spokesman for Mr. Olmert. “The Syrians know well our expectations, and we know well their expectations.”

The Washington Post today gives some background of past efforts:

Syria and Israel last held direct peace talks in 2000. The negotiations, mediated by President Clinton in the waning days of his administration, foundered over how much authority Syria would have over the coast along the Sea of Galilee.

It’s also worth pointing out that Assad insisted that Israel agree to his terms of withdrawal before negotiating with Israel. This is the reason Assad didn’t make peace with Israel.

Elliott Jager notes that Assad the younger isn’t likely to be welcoming Israel with open arms even if he gets all he (and his father) demand up front:

WHATEVER HIS motivations, Israel should judge Assad by what he says and what he does. Assad insists that even under a peace treaty normalization is out of the question. This is how he put it at a conference in Damascus last week: “Restoration of land and rights may lead to relations based on routine, but not [necessarily] normalization. What happened in Jordan and Egypt is proof to us that the public does not want normalization, and therefore nobody can impose it on anybody else. I know that the Syrian people reject normalization and therefore I will not impose it on them.”

Still that doesn’t stop Ha’aretz from enthusiastically supporting the surrender of the Golan in Don’t be afraid of Peace with Syria. (I won’t call it peace, because I don’t believe that the withdrawal from the Golan will bring peace.)

There seems to be a need to repeat, over and over, this basic fact: Nothing contributes to Israel’s security more than a peace accord. Before the protests of solidarity with the Golan Heights begin, it should be emphasized that withdrawal from the Golan in exchange for peace is endorsed not only by bleeding hearts, but by distinctly security-minded figures. The supporters of the Golan are West Bank settlers, like Golan resident Effi Eitam, who see any withdrawal as a national catastrophe; parties that gain strength by sowing security-related fears, such as Israel Beiteinu; those with economic interests in the region, hikers, bird-watchers, wine connoisseurs and winemakers; and mainly the people of the past, who still consider the lookout point on Mount Hermon to be “Israel’s eyes,” even though those eyes did not prove a very effective source of warning in 1973. Today, neither advance warning nor deterrence rely on the “Alpinists” (the elite IDF unit trained for snow operations), and the missile war expected in the future is not affected by natural boundaries, whether of the flowing or the ascending kind.

Of course it could be argued that Israel hasn’t come to a hot war with Syria since 1967 while it held the Golan. Also, why need peace come only on Syria’s terms? Why can’t Israel obtain peace for half the Golan? Surely if Assad would agree to a compromise that would be a better indication of peace than if Israel meets his unconditional demands, wouldn’t it?
Here’s Jager again:

It is in Israel’s long-term interest to have a peace treaty with Syria, but not at any price. Israel would have to make irrevocable strategic concessions. So it’s hard to imagine many Israelis having the confidence to support a deal that does not signify a true opening of genuine peaceful relations.

That’s the subtlety Ha’aretz and like minded folks miss. Syria views talking peace only in terms of what it will receive. So Assad and his lackeys can say “peace,” but don’t mean peace in any meaningful sense of the word. They want territory, and they’ll deign to accept that territory from Israel.

By insisting that ceding territory is the same thing as achieving peace, Ha’aretz accepts Syria’s “peace” talk at face value. It is a view that unhelpfully echoes through the diplomatic world. But it puts Israel at a disadvantage. Israel then in the name of “peace” is required to cede real assets in return for nebulous future considerations. It requires an element of trust that Bashar Assad, in his recent activities, has contradicted.

If people want peace, there needs to be a demonstrated change of heart from Damascus. Ceding the Golan Heights by itself won’t bring peace, unless one defines peace simply as the acceptance of land by a hostile country.

Meryl offers her thoughts.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Look at these two articles from the AP on the most recent terrorist attack in Israel:

Israeli military says 2 Israelis dead in shooting
A Palestinian militant shot and killed two Israeli security guards early Friday in a factory on the border between Israel and the West Bank, the Israeli military said.

Medics pronounced the two middle-aged guards dead at the scene, rescue services said, and troops began combing surrounding areas for traces of the assailant.

No Palestinian militant group immediately claimed responsibility.

Palestinian security officials in the nearby town of Tulkarem said soldiers moved into the West Bank in force and set up a checkpoint. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press.

And this one:

Israeli military says Palestinian militant kills 2 Israelis
A Palestinian militant shot and killed two Israeli security guards early Friday at a factory along the divide between Israel and the West Bank, the military said. The attack highlights the enormous challenge faced by moderate Palestinians to keep extremists in check.

Meanwhile, Israel rejected a proposal from Hamas, the militant rulers of the Gaza Strip, for a cease-fire in the territory.

Medics pronounced the two middle-aged guards dead at the scene, rescue services said, and troops began combing surrounding areas for traces of the assailant. One body remained on the ground outside the factory, covered in a gray blanket, and police concealed the second body with a white sheet.

No Palestinian militant group immediately claimed responsibility.

Funny how when it’s Palestinians killed by the IDF—even when it’s just your run-of-the-mill terrorists—the AP headline is always, “IDF kills 2 Palestinians” or “Israel kills Palestinians”. No fudging around with “Palestinians say 2 dead in shooting”. The active voice is almost always used when the IDF is doing the act. The passive voice is usually used when it is Palestinians killing Israelis.

And note how the AP quotes “the Israeli army,” as usual, without naming a spokesperson. On the Palestinian side, it always seems to be “Palestinian medics” or “witnesses,” and the victims of the attacks are always named, aged, and given marital status, family life, and quotes from the relatives, along with pictures of screaming women over bodies.

The time of the latest AP update is 06:19 ET. That’s 15:19 Israeli time. At 13:04 Israeli time, Ynet had these facts:

Two Israeli guards were killed Friday morning in a shooting attack in an industrial zone near Nitzanei Oz in the Sharon region. The two were in charge of checking Palestinians arriving from the West Bank. The two were identified as Shimon Mizrahi, 53, of Bat Hefer and Eli Wasserman, 51, of Alfei Menashe

The Al-Quds Brigades, the Islamic Jihad’s military wing, and the Izz al-Din al-Qassam, Hamas’ military wing, claimed shared responsibility for the shooting attack.

The Ynet article—which was published before the second AP update—has the facts on who claimed responsibility for the attack. Ynet has quotes and pictures of one of the widows and family members. Funny how the AP can’t manage to find these people when Israelis are killed, but the Israeli press can. But then, portraying Israelis in a human and sympathetic light doesn’t really fit the narrative, does it? Portraying terrorists as cold-blooded murderers doesn’t fit the narrative, either.

And the perpetrator of the attack? He’s a terrorist that “escaped” from a Palestinian prison a few days ago. If it’s the one I’m thinking of, several prisoners simply walked out. It’s the Palestinian system of keeping terrorists from hurting Israelis. If they’re pressured, they do. If they’re not, well, they can’t control “militants.” Just look at the lede in the second AP article.

There’s another disturbing section of the Ynet article:

Sources in the IDF raised questions over the developments of events, claiming that the incident could have ended differently.

“There were three guards facing one terrorist at the terminal. It shouldn’t have ended this way,” a security official told Ynet.

An initial military investigation revealed that one of the killed guards forgot his weapon in the car and was standing at the terminal unarmed, while a third guard fled the area upon hearing the gunshots.

Most of my readers probably don’t know this, but your typical Israeli security guard isn’t far different from your typical American security guard, with the risk factor raised exponentially. It’s a low-paying, unskilled job. And if the company that hires the guards skimps on the training, the result is successful terrorist infiltrations. I’m thinking the company skimped on the training. This is an industrial zone that uses Palestinian workers. The guards should have been better trained and better able to prevent this attack.

Brigadier-General Noam Tibon, commander of the Judea and Samaria Division, said that “between 6 am and 7 am, laborers entered the industrial zone. According to the area’s security portfolio, there should have been three armed people at the crossing to bring the laborers in.

“Most of the laborers had entered by 6:45 am, and at 7 am a lone terrorist arrived and fired at the factory from the gate, hitting his target. The terrorist did not enter the industrial zone.

“We will investigate the incident, also in order to understand how three armed people failed to fire at the terrorist, kill him or at least injure him. We plan to capture the terrorist shortly.”

I suspect they’re going to find the reason was money. Now that, the AP will probably report.

Update: The AP updated their story. They now include a picture of the widow of one of the guards. But she isn’t named, nor are the victims. The editorial comment in the lede has been replaced with comments by a PA spokesman. And the headline? Unchanged.

Israeli military says Palestinian militant kills 2 Israelis

The AP has a story about the UN cutting off food distribution in Gaza. Why? Because they can’t get fuel to distribute the food. Why? Because Hamas is stealing half the fuel, and refusing to deliver the other half. But is that what the AP says in their lead?

Of course not. Here’s what your local newspaper is going to print tomorrow:

UN halts Gaza food aid over fuel cutoff; Israel blames Hamas
The United Nations stopped distributing food to Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip on Thursday after its vehicles ran out of fuel because of the Israeli blockade, a U.N. official said.

Israeli countered that fuel is available, but said the Islamic group Hamas ruling Gaza is preventing it from being distributed.

A spokesman for the United Nations’ Relief Works Agency, Adnan Abu Hasna, said 700,000 Palestinians won’t be getting packages of basic foods because the agency could not bring in new shipments or distribute them without fuel for its vehicles.

Note the weasel-word “countered,” as if this is a he-said/she-said argument. It is not. There is absolute proof that the fuel is not being distributed, and the AP offers that proof—in nearly the last two paragraphs of the article. Buried deeply, so that the truth will not be read in your international section in your local paper.

There is some fuel stored in Gaza but a local strike by distributors means it is not reaching the public.

So, it’s the Palestinians’ fault that the fuel isn’t reaching the Palestinians. Funny, I don’t get that from the rest of this story. And gee, how much is “some” fuel?

Palestinian distributors have been refusing to pick up about 264,000 gallons that Israel pumped earlier this month into the Palestinian side of a border fuel depot, saying the quantity is insufficient.

That much, huh? So there’s plenty of fuel, but the Palestinians are letting it sit in the Nahal Oz crossing—site of a recent terror attack that murdered two civilians. And that’s not all. Here’s another fact that got buried deep within the story.

Col. Nir Press of the Israeli military liaison unit with Gaza said Israel agreed to allow fuel shipments for the U.N. agency to keep its vehicles on the road, but Hamas stopped the delivery.

“We don’t control the internal situation in Gaza between Hamas and UNWRA,” he said. “I hope the Hamas will allow UNWRA access to the fuel we have supplied.”

So UNWRA is, once again, toeing the Hamas line and blaming Israel for what is absolutely Hamas’ fault. Hamas refuses to let Israel deliver fuel to the UN vehicles that carry food to the Palestinians. Why? To manufacture a fake crisis. Why? So they can then blame Israel for starving Gaza, when it is Hamas’ actions that are causing the shortages to begin with. And then, Hamas can break through the Israeli border and pretend that they’re justified in doing so, as they did with the crossing into Egypt.

The worst thing about all this? The UN, the media, Hamas, and Israel all know that Hamas is causing these fuel shortages deliberately. And still, the AP publishes a story like the one quoted above, instead of being bold and publishing the truth: That Hamas is deliberately causing a fake crisis in Gaza. The media are not only not objective in this, they are actively aiding the terrorists by publishing stories such as these.

Not that I expect any better of them. Not any more.