By Lee
Kaplan
The
email announcement certainly looked impressive: My alma
mater, UCLA, was serving as host to yet another “reconciliation group”
seeking
peace in the Middle East on February 26th.
The brain-child of an Encino attorney named
Josef Avesar, the event featured a panel of prominent intellectuals
seeking an
alternative route to the Road Map, supposedly because it is not
working. John Van De Kamp, a former LA district attorney, hosted the
panel,
which was filled out by a panoply of Arab intellectuals dressed in
suits from
the American university scene, a Middle East studies department head
from UC
Santa Barbara, a representative from the Muslim Public Affairs Council,
and
even an ex-Israeli general, Shlomo Gazit, one of the architects of the
Oslo
peace process and by all appearances there to fill the role of a token
Jewish
speaker. Alan Dershowitz was also advertised as a featured guest, but
appeared
only in a videotaped screening contrary to the live appearance
advertised.
It was
actually Dershowitz’s advertised appearance that drew
me to the conference. Dershowitz’s new book, The Case for Peace,
is so
replete with dangerously unrealistic visions of imaginary peace
concessions and
cooperative behaviors from the Palestinian Arabs – wishful thinking-
that it is
a danger to Israel and its continued existence. The book and its plans
for
Middle East peace ignores the situation on the ground for Israelis and
predicts
imaginary Palestinian support for peace with Israel. Rationalizations
about the
conduct of overseas terrorists incubated in a terrorist culture come
easily to
an intellectual like Dershowitz, safe in America at Harvard University.
For
example, nobody, particularly a Palestinian policeman who is part of
the Al
Aksa Martyrs Brigades, shoots at Dershowitz’s home from an Arab villa
above his
house. That does happen to Israelis
whose lives could be directly affected by the erroneous information in
Dershowitz’s book. The
Israeli-Palestinian Confederation was made up of people with views
identical to
those of Dershowitz, inhabiting a fantasyland where Hamas does not
exist or is
more benign than the terrorist group really is.
I had
posted on a website
over
forty questions challenging Dershowitz’s kumbaya
tome that takes for granted a Palestinian desire to cease the murders
of Jews
and Christians in the Middle East? On arrival, I found Josef Avesar,
the main
organizer of the IPC, and asked him if, in lieu of my asking a
question, I
could just mention the website’s address and allow people to read the
questions
after the conference. After all, it was
billed as an event that would not take sides, as an open discussion to
present
the peace plans of the hosts.
Avesar
abruptly refused by stating, “We’re selling something
here. We’re not going to to do it.” Moments
later I met Rebecca Tobias who introduced herself as a member of the
IPC’s
Board of Directors. When I asked her about presenting my questions to
the
audience, she said I could do so telling me Avesar was “just nervous.”
She took
the website address and a list of some separate questions I had and
assured me
they would be answered that afternoon.
Selling
something was an apt description of the event
that day. The entire conference was a big con job to arrange the long
term
dismantling of the Jewish state, disguised as a plan for peacefully
settling
the conflict.
Avesar
introduced himself as the President of the
Israeli-Palestinian Confederation, an organization composed of a
whopping 12
people who had met in his living room and voted him into office as
President.
“I
don’t think there’s a single person here who does not
feel strongly about the Israeli Palestinian issue,” he began. “I’m
going to ask the
impossible.”
He
continued by explaining that most people look at the
conflict with the question ‘Is it good for my people or bad for my
people?’
“We’re
not here to present a solution,” Avezar declared,
“but to present a mechanism, a mechanism that will be fair to everyone.
The
mechanism will reach a solution.”
Avesar
expressed reget that a Palestinian spokesman for the
IPC, Hisham Shkoukani, would be unable to attend due to his being
unable to get
a visa from the State Department. However, Avesar did not mention that
such
visas are usually denied to Palestinian leaders when they have links to
terrorism.
Avesar
began by asking for donations (more on that later) as
he began a power point presentation of the IP Confederation plan. He
argued
that the IPC’s plans conform to the desires of Israelis and
Palestinians,
specifically, “a desire for a political solution to the conflict for
their
children to live in peace.” This statement was the beginning of an
evening of
dialogue couched in ellipses, since “peace” to the majority of
Palestinians in polls
means the end of
Israel, and even today nearly half of Palestinians favor suicide
bombings.
Avesar,
ignoring the true meaning of the polls, then jumped
immediately to his planned political solution. Declaring his proposal
“fair” in
considering the needs of both sides, “balanced” because it required
consent of
both sides, and maintaining it would not replace the current systems of
government in Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Avesar proposed the
creation of 300 voting districts within the 1967 borders of Israel, the
West
Bank and Gaza. The Israeli government would be in charge of Israeli
citizens,
and the PA in charge of Palestinians. Of course, he did not mention the
recent
election wins by Hamas, nor its charter calling for the killing or
expulsion of
all Jews even within Israel’s 1948 borders.
Avesar
then proposed that 300 representatives mirror current
demographics: 180 Israelis to 120 Palestinians. He telegraphed his end
game by saying that over time changing demographics would result in the
Palestinians reversing that ratio, but that for now he was concerned
only about
his plan working. Apparently, the murder of Jews by militant Islamists
had no
part in this equation and would be deliberately ignored.
“All
of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza is 9 million people,”
Avesar continued. “Each district will encompass 30,000 people.” He then
advocated a government within two governments with a National Director
and a
Vice National Director who would rotate places after two years. These
two
positions would be run for as a team of one Palestinian and one
Israeli. Since
Jewish and Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem are intertwined, he never
explained
how he would find 30,000 people of the same ethnic background in one
area to
formulate a “district” in every case.
In
addition, he proposed a confederated court system between
the two sides. However, Avesar either chose to ignore or was ignorant
of the
fact that the Palestinian Authority’s constitution proscribes strict
Sharia
(Islamic law) in its territories, just as in Iran and Saudi Arabia. He
also
proposed a legislature in which bills must pass by 60% and the minority
losers
must still have 25% of the yes votes for it to pass. There would be no
Israeli
government veto, no Palestinian government veto.
Avesar
maintained the 300 representatives would look out
only for the interests of their local constituents ignoring the fact
that Arab
legislators (and some Israelis) are more open to influence by bribery
than even the worst US
congressman. He maintained that representatives from across the Holy
Land would
somehow work in complete cooperation with each other for the betterment
of all.
At least, that’s how he envisioned it from his Encino living room,
surrounded
by his twelve friends, both Arabs and Jews who do not live in Israel
with their
lives and the lives of their children on the line. The fact that
Palestinian
imams encourage the murder of Jews on daily Palestinian
television
has no place in Avesar’s utopian dream of cooperation.
Avesar
then maintained his plan would work because it would
generate what he estimated as $10 billion in outside donations. This money would go toward infrastructure
improvements such that the average Israeli standard of living would
increase by
100% and the average for Palestinians by 500%.
I
began wondering if Avesar was a reincarnated snake oil
salesman. The Oslo Accords produced similar economic and infrastructure
improvements for the Palestinians alone and they still went to war,
initially
armed by Israel who even provided them with the guns for “policemen” to
fight
terrorism who were in fact terrorists
themselves; the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, a known terrorist group,
is manned
by Palestinian Authority police
with their government’s blessing. Much more than $10 billion was
given to
the PA directly in foreign aid, not to mention a new
country-in-the-making from
which to launch a campaign to dismantle Israel. Was Avesar just
ignorant of
this? Had he never read a newspaper? And why was he choosing to ignore
the
issue of Islamic or pan-Arab hegemony over the Jews in the region by
assuming
that Arabs in the PA would be as cooperative as his coffee klatch back
home?
As the
panel opened up to discussion, the truth came out.
Although the event was billed as being non-partisan, one Cal Poly Arab
professor, Mahmoud Ibrahim, who frequents events designed to look like
reconciliation movements, but who is in fact a terror
apologist, began railing against Israel’s “occupation” even though
Israel
has withdrawn completely from Gaza and
other major parts of the West Bank. He carried on about checkpoints
without
addressing the fact they were there to stop suicide bombings and
terrorism. At no point did he call for the end of
killing Israelis, claiming that “peace” and “justice” were unobtainable
due to
the “occupation.” But to him “occupation” meant all of Israel
was
Palestine! Despite Avesar’s repeated claims that the IP Confederation
does not
take sides in the conflict, even Avesar himself voiced no objection to
Ibrahim’s rantings.
Surprisingly,
General Gazit came to the defense of Israel,
explaining that the current solution offered at the conference was
utopian and
carried with it no realization of success. He proposed an economic
Marshall
Plan for the region instead feeling that somehow improving the economy
would
naturally lead people to living together—part of the same theory that
drove the
failed Oslo plan he helped create. The Oslo Plan failed because it
ignored
Islamic and pan-Arab expansionism based on the elimination and
subjugation of
non-Arab or non-Muslim populations, a key issue needing to be addressed
first.
But
for what it was worth, Gazit at least still came to the
defense of Israel. Avesar claimed that for 55 years Israel had
failed to
make peace with the Arab world, as if Israel was solely at fault. Gazit
mentioned the peace treaties with Egypt, Jordan and Oslo as proof
against this
claim. He described the IPC “mechanism” as putting the cart before the
horse.
And he correctly stated that a reason the Oslo process failed was
because too
many issues had been postponed, including the establishment of final
borders,
issues around settlements, the refugee problems, water problems and the
accessibility of holy sites. But Gazit also spoke in ellipses. He
failed to
mention that Arafat walked away from any negotiations and began a war
when
Israel would not agree to unconditionally allow 5 million Arabs to move
inside
its 1948 frontier lines.
I
spoke to Gazit during a break and asked him why he did not
mention Islamic and pan-Arab intolerance in his discussions. He told me
because
he was there to support the IP Confederation. It revealed the mindset
of the
man; the very issues mentioned above that were not settled at Oslo were
somehow
soluble with an imaginary Arab constituency that would reject and
control
terror against Israelis while abandoning the idea of destroying a
Jewish state
and replacing it with Palestine. The fact that once Israel had ceded
the Temple
Mount to Islamic control, that Jews were restricted from praying there,
the
other fact that Joseph’s Tomb was attacked, its rabbi literally torn to
pieces,
and the synagogue converted to a green domed mosque while its Torah
scrolls
were burned publicly – these facts somehow played no role in his
thinking. He was right that Oslo failed,
but not
because issues were left unsettled. It was because he and others of his
ilk
refused to accept the reality on the ground before allowing a terrorist
movement to set up shop on Israel’s doorstep.
And
Gazit was not alone is his simplistic thinking that
things can be the way one wants them to be just by wishing it so. Nancy
Gallegher, the Middle East Studies head from UC Santa Barbara declared
she
could solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in fifteen minutes! Her
solution?
Create one state in the place of Israel, “share Jerusalem with equal
access to
all the holy sites,” she said, rather ingenuously.
How very sad Ms. Gallegher does not know
Israel always allowed equal access to all religious sites since it came
into
existence in 1948 and that the Arabs did not allow access for Jews and
Christians to their own holy sites as “affronts to Islam” for areas
under their
control from 1948 to 1967. Gallegher
also seemed unaware of the Joseph’s Tomb incident or the reluctance of
the Waqf to
allow Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount
even today. Of even more importance, she
seemed ignorant or unwilling to consider the 25,000 terror attacks
against
Israelis since year 2000, mostly against Jews, by a culture that she
seems to
think would be willing to abandon its religious exclusivity in fifteen
minutes!
It’s hard to believe this woman teaches about the Middle East to
college
students.
The
rest of the conference degenerated into cleverly worded
attacks against Israel by one panel member after another. Pressed for
time
during a brief discussion over regional water rights issues, Salam Al
Marayati
of the Muslim Public Affairs Council declared that “the Israelis steal
the
water from Gaza then sell it back to the Palestinians,” then dashed
from the
room. This was a lie since Gaza gets its water from Israel and always
has, not
having sufficient aquifers in its water tables. The other participants
then
began the inevitable complaint that Israel is a human rights abuser,
unwilling
to make peace, and the recipient of American favoritism.
The audience, predominantly anti-Israel
attendees, many wearing Arafat-style keffiyahs around their necks,
always
applauded and roared its approval at every dig at Israel. Rather than
inviting
constructive ideas for a peace process, the event was preaching to the
choir.
Yet it was billed as a “peace” forum” for the UCLA community.
And
what of Alan Dershowitz? He must have smelled a rat at
being invited to this event. The prerecorded video of him had him first
making
his usual “progressive speech” about peace between Israelis and
Palestinians
being possible. But he made it a point to say some progressive groups
advocate
a one state solution as a clever means of still dismantling Israel
while
claiming to protect its Jewish population. Without naming them,
Dershowitz was
likely avoiding cooperation with what the IP Confederation was really
seeking:
the long term dismantling of the Jewish state for a new Arab dominated
Palestine.
Although
we were all given 2” by 4” cards on which to write
questions, when the question and answer period came, Avesar and his
acolytes on
stage informed the audience that “people always ask the same questions,
so we
have prepared some power point questions to address then all together.”
They
then put their own leading questions up on the screen and pretended to
be
answering questions from the audience. Every prearranged question led
to an
answer praising the benefits of the IPC. None from the audience were
read
addressing Islam, pan-Arabism or terrorism. In short, the “question and
answer”
period was asked and answered by the presenters themselves!
Avesar
it should be noted here included a major donation
request for $35 million dollars for his IP Confederation “mechanism”
plan during the
conference. “Recommended donations,” in the form of cash, had already
been
deposited in a pail at the entrance. Avesar said he was seeking one $35
million
dollar donor or 35 one million dollar donors. He screened a budget that
looked
like this:
$6
million was to go for “advertising, legal issues,
computers, telephones, computers, supplies, etc.”
Election
– $16.5 million, for supporting local candidates,
international monitors and security
Post-election
- $12.5 million, for the travel, staff and
salaries of 625 people (there was no description about where these
people were
to be drawn from, their responsibilities or allegiances).
$35
million ain’t hay. Avesar is a lawyer specializing in
personal injury claims for his livelihood and his website
features a photo of him waving like a used car salesman with
testimonials from
some people who were given big awards due to his legal skills, such as
the
$60,000 he won for an injury sustained by a woman while simply parking
a car.
A few
“progressive Jews” and Arabs who would enable the
dismantling of the Jewish state over time could actually do quite well
for
themselves financially with this IPC project that ultimately makes no
sense in the real world and
cannot succeed. Could there be more to this repetition of the
nonsensical “Geneva
Accords” not long ago that also ignored Palestinian and Islamic
terrorism
and whose leaders
were handsomely
funded by the Swiss government and the EU for their trouble?
One of
Avesar’s board members advised me the IPC was a
nonprofit entity. A CPA advises me most nonprofit directors like Avesar
can
legally take 20% of funds raised as compensation in such situations.
Saudi
sheiks might donate a million here and there, because if the project
succeeds
it will end Israel over time, and, if it fails, it will still be a
group of
leftist radical Jews allied with Arabs to promote the propaganda war
against
the Jewish state. It’s highly unlikely that $35 million will be easily
raised,
not for a political mechanism doomed to failure because it is not
sanctioned by
either the Israeli or Palestinian governments and is divorced from the
reality
on the ground. But if fundraising reaches only halfway to the $35
million
dollar mark, Avesar and possibly his twelve acolytes stand to still
make a
bundle of money while failing. I advised one of Avesar’s fellow board
members
that for these very reasons, I’d be encouraging the California Attorney
General
to investigate the IPC as a charitable scam, a Ponzi scheme for
delusional
peace-at-any-price donors and potential Arab contributors who see the
real
danger it poses to Israel’s future existence. The difference from
Ponzi’s scam
is the IP Confederation would pay out in false peace promises instead
of cash
at the beginning.
As for
Rebecca Tobias, a little research uncovered she is
affiliated with the EU-funded Peace
Now and distantly linked to the Shefa Fund. The Shefa Fund has
actually
paid money to Israeli soldiers who will desert from the Israeli army. Ms. Tobias is also active in the Green Party
and is campaign director for Byron De Lear, a Greens Party candidate for the 28th
Congressional District in California. De Lear called
for the
impeachment of President Bush after his state of the union address.
Moreover, the Green Party has consistently
sided with the PLO in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute by calling
for
Israel’s dissolution into one Arab-majority state called Palestine. The
Greens
even feature the virulently anti-Semitic group Al-Awda in much of their
correspondence making one wonder if they represent an American
political party or a Palestinian one. One Green spokeswoman
explained their
support by noting that Arab Palestinians should not have to accept a
settlement
that would require them to live just 60 miles from the spot where their
dead
ancestors lived in 1948. In other words, Israel must open the
floodgates to an
Arab majority in one state, something the IP Confederation “mechanism”
would
also guarantee over time.
It was
no doubt comforting for some UCLA students to read
the IPC’s advertisements describing the brave living room group of
twelve
leftist Jews and Arabs, “impartially” seeking “peace” in the Middle
East, and
thoughtful enough to give a conference on campus without the common
agenda of
the out-and-out anti-Israel groups or radical groups that support the
Iraqi
resistance. This impression, however,
was simply untrue. The Israeli-Palestinian Confederation may be a Ponzi
scheme
to raise money for its twelve board members, or it may be just another
clever
way to talk peace while trying to dismantle Israel--or both--but all
college
students and communities this group may visit in the future should be
wary:
it’s all about dismantling Israel.