RUTHFULLY YOURS

The State Department froze travel for diplomatic personnel to the West Bank and Jerusalem’s Old City as Palestinians declared three days of rage in response to President Trump’s expected announcement Wednesday that the U.S. Embassy will be relocated from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

“With widespread calls for demonstrations beginning December 6 in Jerusalem and the West Bank, U.S. government employees and their family members are not permitted until further notice to conduct personal travel in Jerusalem’s Old City and in the West Bank, to include Bethlehem and Jericho. Official travel by U.S. government employees in Jerusalem’s Old City and in the West Bank is permitted only to conduct essential travel and with additional security measures,” said the security notice from the U.S. Embassy.

“United States citizens should avoid areas where crowds have gathered and where there is increased police and/or military presence,” the notice added. “We recommend that U.S. citizens take into consideration these restrictions and the additional guidance contained in the Department of State’s travel warning for Israel, the West Bank and Gaza when making decisions regarding their travel.”

Trump, who is scheduled to give a statement on Jerusalem at 1 p.m. Wednesday from the White House, was supposed to decide by Friday whether to move the embassy or issue another six-month waiver. The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 requires that the president move the embassy to Jerusalem, but each president has invoked the law’s national security waiver every six months since — including Trump’s waiver in June.

Trump called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Jordan’s King Abdullah, Saudi King Salman, and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi today to discuss “potential decisions regarding Jerusalem,” the White House said. Each of the Arab leaders issued statements afterward decrying a planned move.

“The president reaffirmed his commitment to advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and the importance of supporting those talks,” the White House said. “He underscored the importance of bilateral cooperation with each partner to advance peace efforts throughout the region.”

In the Saudi version of the call, King Salman told Trump “that any U.S. declaration on the status of Al-Quds before reaching a final settlement would harm peace negotiation process and escalate tension in the region.” CONTINUE AT SITE

In order to test whether a peace settlement is possible between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the U.S. embassy must be relocated to Jerusalem as soon as possible. Close to 25 years after the signing of the Oslo Accords, it appears that Israel and the PA are no closer to peace. It is high time that the U.S. takes a different path to test whether the PA is ready to make true peace with Israel or whether this long-winded peace process is no more than a seemingly endless charade.

Israel has repeatedly taken actions in its quest for peace, including multiple transfers of territorial control in the West Bank, total abandonment of Gaza, and a 10-month long building freeze. Little, if any, good has come of it. The Palestinian Authority instead was involved in a murderous intifada against Israel that claimed the lives of roughly 1,000 Israelis, as well as frequent terrorist attacks over the years. The PA also actively seeks a unity pact with the Hamas terrorist organization, and has consistently been involved in incitement to murder and attack Israelis and Jews in all forms of the Palestinian media. This is reminiscent of the verse, “I am peace; but when I speak, they are for war.” (Psalms 120:7)

In addition, the PA and Mahmoud Abbas have refused to even make the most basic of gestures critical to any peace deal. The Palestinian Authority has refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, refused to recognize any part of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and even threatened that if the U.S. recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital (even if that recognition is limited to part of Jerusalem) it would amount to a “complete destruction of the peace process.”

If the U.S. seeks to test the feasibility of the peace process, it must therefore move the embassy to Jerusalem and not hold itself captive to terroristic threats of widespread violence made by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

Instead, President Trump should refuse to maintain a decades-old mentality of subservience to threats of radical Islamic terrorism. It is immoral for the world’s #1 superpower to allow itself to be swayed by terroristic threats. Such behavior by the U.S. does nothing to discourage terrorism; on the contrary, it implicitly rewards terrorism by demonstrating that threats of terrorism achieve results.

President Trump demonstrated leadership rarely seen in recent history by delivering a historic speech to leaders of Islamic countries in Saudi Arabia calling for the total defeat of radical Islamic terrorism. He is right.

Not only does it secure the future of both Israel and the Palestinians, it enables Arab states like Saudi Arabia to work openly with Israel to defeat their joint Iranian enemy.
Monday, The New York Times published the Palestinian response to an alleged Saudi peace plan. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly presented it to PLO chief and Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas last month.

According to the Times’ report, Mohammed told Abbas he has two months to either accept the Saudi proposal or leave office to make way for a new Palestinian leader who will accept it.

The Palestinians and their European supporters are up in arms about the content of Mohammed’s plan. It reportedly proposes the establishment of limited Palestinian sovereignty over small portions of Judea and Samaria. The Gaza Strip, over which the Palestinians have had full sovereignty since Israel pulled its military forces and civilians out in 2005, would be expanded into the northern Sinai, thus providing economic and territorial viability to the envisioned Palestinian state. While the Palestinians would not receive sovereignty over Jerusalem, they would be able to establish their capital in the Jerusalem suburb of Abu Dis.

There are several aspects of the alleged Saudi peace plan that are notable. First, the Palestinians and their many allies insist that it is a nonstarter. No Palestinian leader could ever accept the offer and survive in power, they told the Times. The same Palestinian leaders from Hamas and Fatah, and their allies, also noted that the Saudi plan as reported strongly resembles past Israeli proposals.

Awaiting a Trump administration “peace plan,” hoping to end the Arab-Israeli conflict, it would be wise to recall foreign minister Abba Eban’s observation that “the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” It is important, however, to understand that this persistent failure is not because of poor judgments or unintended mistakes; it is deliberate PLO policy, strategy and ideology.

Rather than lament the absence of a “Palestinian Sadat,” willing to make peace, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should explain why this false scenario is inevitably doomed to fail. Calling for an Israeli leader like Menachem Begin or Yitzhak Rabin, willing to make territorial concessions, is worse because it keeps the fantasy of a “two state solution” on life support when there have been no vital signs for many years.Arab Palestinian leaders recognized this nearly a hundred years ago, when, led by the pro-Nazi Mufti Haj Amin Husseini, they rampaged in murderous attacks against Jews. After the State of Israel was established, many Israeli Arabs accepted the new reality, but many did not and never will. The reason is simple: Arabs view Jewish success as their defeat. Moreover, unlike Arabs who migrated to what was called Palestine, Jewish nationalism, Zionism, is rooted in a historical and biblical attachment to the land. Nor did local Arabs imitate Zionist institution-building during the 1920s, ‘30s and ‘40s. Jews built hospitals and agricultural settlements; Arabs raided them. Jews built schools and parks; Arabs initiated pogroms.

The PFLP, like Hamas and other Palestinian groups, makes no secret of its goal to “liberate Palestine, from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea.” All should be commended for their honesty. If anyone has any doubts, their plan means the total destruction of Israel. Thus, as chairman of the PLO, Mahmoud Abbas cannot say that he represents the entire organization. He has no leverage with the PFLP, DFLP and the remaining terror groups operating under the umbrella of his PLO.

And now we come to the million dollar question: Does Abbas really represent all of Fatah? The answer is simple and clear: No. Over the past few decades, Fatah has witnessed sharp divisions and disputes, resulting in a number of splinter groups that broke away and are now openly challenging Abbas’s leadership and policies.

While Abbas is making noises about a peace process, his own Fatah faction is inciting violence and calling for the destruction of Israel. While Abbas is talking about his interest in achieving a two-state solution, his partners in the PLO, including the PFLP and DFLP, are openly calling for the destruction of Israel and advocating an armed struggle. While Abbas is claiming that he is the legitimate president of the Palestinians, many Palestinians, including senior officials in his Fatah faction, are legitimately stating he has no mandate from his people to sign any agreement with Israel.

Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas continues to mouth his “desire” to achieve peace with Israel on the basis of a two-state solution. Abbas’s ruling Fatah faction and PLO partners, however, evidently have a different agenda: to wage war on Israel until the “liberation of all of Palestine.”

In a speech delivered on his behalf by Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian envoy to the United Nations, on November 30, Abbas repeated his commitment to a two-state solution based on international law and the 1967 “borders.”

Abbas called on the UN “to force Israel to recognize the State of Palestine based on the 1967 borders as the basis for a two-state solution, and to agree on a demarcation of borders in line with the resolutions of the international community.”

Abbas’s claim to a commitment to the “two-state solution” is a staple of his talks to the international community. It is just not clear who Abbas represents when he talks about the Palestinians’ commitment to a “two-state solution.”