Showing posts with label pali state. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pali state. Show all posts

20 May 2011

Obama's Israel Policy Goes Native


To my most holy Jewish brethren - those who still worship at the feet of the idol O'Ba'alma and who drink from the bitter waters flowing from Jstreet, the time has come for you to do teshuva, if you still can.

Yesterday, in what must have a been like removing a load of bricks off his back, (not to be confused with the fallen ruins of the Twin Towers), the president of the United States of America shrugged off national interest and the hard and painful lessons learned from history in favor of his latent anti-Jewism, born of his early-years Medrassa education. How much of a relief it must have been for him to express his real inner feelings of despise for the lives of the Jewish people in the land of Israel?

Perhaps due to the frustration of having wasted two full years of solitary liberal rule in DC, the emir in chief has finally decided to "be himself" and express his true intentions. Israel, he told us must be reduced to the size it once was when former Ambassador Abba Eban coined the phrase, "the Auschwitz lines".

Since yesterday afternoon's Obamaism, many pundits have made reference to the 1967 "lines" where both friend and foe of the Jewish people have not justly explained what this means. On the surface, it merely means the pre-Six Day war line separating arabians and Jews. What it really means is the 1949 armistice line - the line separating between the Jewish army and the retreating arabian armies who attacked Israel immediately following Israel's declaration of Independence in 1948. The "green-line" as it was known became the Berlin wall of the middle east - demarcating not between freedom and tyranny as in Europe but between civilization and barbarism. So in reality Obama the terrible is calling for re-do, back to 1949, back to the Auschwitz line, back to the time before the humiliating defeat of the arabian armies at the hands of the descendants of monkeys and pigs. Sultan Hussein Obama's inner muslim is on display.

The next few days should be interesting to say the least. This Shmuly Boteach story kinda says it all. Obama will arrogantly speak at AIPAC and tell the Jews and supporters of Israel, that his recommendations are in Israel's best interests and that America's support for Israel is unshakable - just like he said in his Middle East speech on Thursday.

So let's backtrack a little to yesterday and look at just one paragraph of Obama's speech:

For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security, prosperity, and empowerment to ordinary people.

We could really hours on every word, every innuendo, every inflection, etc. But with better things to do, lets be brief. In the eye's of the president, the conflict is about death to the Jews vs. humiliation. Plain and simple it is what Obama said. I don't know that many Israelis that are constantly worried about buses blowing up or a rocket falling on their home - not to belittle these things are say they are not serious. But they are not worries. What does worry Israelis is having the carpet, (a prayer carpet, perhaps) pulled out from underneath them the way Obama did yesterday. What worries Israelis is the possibility of a major regional war with missiles flying in from Iran along with a newly muslimized Egyptian army attacking from, not in, the Sinai joined with a Syrian-Hizbollah offensive in the north. That is a worry. The pali-terrorists are a thorn in the side in comparison.

To equate the two ideas of death to the Jews and humiliation is of course, a demonstration of how little Jewish blood must be valued by the president. And as to the idea that the poor palis have never had a nation of their own, well who is to blame here? I wonder if Obama expressed this same concern to the little King Abdullah II who rules as a minority tribal sultan over millions of "palis" living on the east bank of the Jordan river? I wonder if Abdullah, in the midst of protests in Jordan, feels any safer today? One could argue of course that no arab living in an arabian land today has a country of his own unless he is prince or of royal ancestry. In those lands where an Emir or King or Prince or even Colonel or someone acting like one without the title rules, is the country really theirs? Where tyranny rules, one cannot be free. And where arabians rule, freedom is stifled and only those in power or support those in power can claim any form of ownership.

What is the nature of this statement by Prince Hussein Obama: "Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security, prosperity, and empowerment to ordinary people". Is he saying that the US and arabians are suffering diplomatically and strategically because of "the conflict"? Really? Is peace in the middle east contingent upon the palis building a thug-terror state in Judea and Samaria? He could mean something else but knowing the president and his historically cold view of Israel which is well-documented on this blog and other places, it is a fair assumption to read between the lines and expect the least from Obama's intentions.

When PM Netanyahu speaks to the Obama today, what will he say? More importantly, when Bibi speaks to the joint session of Congress on Monday, what will he say. If I were Obama, I would be very careful how I treat Netanyahu today and with what I say at AIPAC. Netanyahu may not be the perfect Israeli Prime Minister but I would not want anyone else speaking at AIPAC and more importantly before the Congress of the United States of America. My hope is that Bibi will clearly state before Congress that Israel is under no more moral or legal compulsion to negotiate with the terrorist thugs of a party which honors and trusts Hamas as an equal party than the US has a moral need to negotiate with al-Qaeda. Any party which routinely calls for the destruction of Israel and cannot even draw a map where Israel can be found is no partner for peace - only a partner for war. My hope is that strongly and unequivocally states "Jerusalem is not for sale" while calling upon the US to once and for all move the embassy to Jerusalem, not because it is Israel's capital but because it is Hakadosh Baruch Hu's capital.

See Ketzaleh's speech he wishes PM Netanyahu would deliver.



Stumble Upon Toolbar

23 June 2009

Fred Thompson Explains the Truth About the Palis

Hear Fred Thompson in his "Winners and Losers" segment cheerleading for Bibi Netanyahu. Fred understands Israel's situation better than most Israelis and explains it in a way in which only, well Fred could. FRED THOMPSON SHOW


Show date 22 June 2009



Stumble Upon Toolbar

27 February 2009

Avigdor Lieberman - From Kingmaker to Deal Breaker

No I am not surprised. Avigdor Lieberman saying I also advocate the creation of a viable Palestinian state is proof he was infected some time ago with the disease of conventionalism. When politicians are on the cusp of power but not sensing victory they grasp for support. Lieberman needed to reach a wider audience to win. The path was to secure the land of Israel loyalists yet also win over those sort of pragmatic folks who don't yet see or understand the nature of the divine in the land of Israel. Lieberman went wobbly - his biography title: From Bar Bouncing to Policy Bouncing.

Lieberman's move was predictable. As a leader of a non-religious party, (also calling for civil marriages) Lieberman is not held to the standard of consistency (to be fair much of the Israeli political world can not be measured by this indicator either- contradiction is the life force that makes Israeli governments). The YNET article below characterizes Lieberman's opinion of the peace process, negotiations and Pali Independence as based upon false assumptions. Then, he was not a kingmaker. Now, he can own the peace process, the prestiege, the White House visits, the constant attention - so it makes sense to him. Today, Lieberman has revised his assumptions. No doubt many of his voters from a mere few weeks ago are revising their own assumptions, wishing they had voted for National Union. And as measured by the world media's own conventional wisdom, I bet many are scratching their heads this morning. (see below)

I could be cynical and conspiracy minded enough to say that Lieberman stands accused with Sharon, Olmert, and Livni of sacrificing the policies of the country and the trust of the voters as leverage for political gains and/or posturing in light of pending criminal investigations. But that maybe going to far. Maybe.

While many in Israel and around the world are questioning Lieberman's inconsistency, Aryeh Eldad, speaking for the frustrated around the world summed it up “Only ostriches and illiterates should be surprised. Throughout the campaign we said that Lieberman is not the true Right.


Nationalists Blast Lieberman’s ‘Palestinian State’
Adar 3, 5769, 27 February 09 12:08by Gil Ronen(IsraelNN.com) Yisrael Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman’s article supporting the creation of a ‘Palestinian state’ was ill-received in the nationalist camp, with some accusing Lieberman of deserting his former positions on the subject and carrying out an about-face.

The ‘Mattot Arim’ action committee reacted by saying that had Lieberman made the statements in support of a ‘Palestinian’ state before the elections, “the Yisrael Beiteinu party would have gone down from 15 mandates to 9.” [Yisrael Beiteinu went up to 15 mandates from 12 in the last Knesset. -ed.]

Mattot Arim clainmed that before elections were held, Yisrael Beiteinu gave them a written, clear-cut statement that opposes the establishment of a ‘Palestinian’ state.

The group noted that Lieberman made that commitment public in several ways, including a full-page advertisement in the Jerusalem Post. “In addition, at least three party candidates confirmed before the election that the party opposes a Palestinian state: Danny Ayalon, Uzi Landau and David Rotem,” according to Mattot Arim, which also cited similar statements on the Yisrael Beiteinu website and in the media.

Terror Victims’ group Almagor said that “nothing has improved since Lieberman cooperated with the terror victims on explaining the dangers” of such a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

MK Aryeh Eldad (NU) said, however, that “Only ostriches and illiterates should be surprised. Throughout the campaign we said that Lieberman is not the true Right. His diplomatic plan includes transferring sovereign parts of the State of Israel to the Palestinian.

Hardline populist Lieberman could be surprise kingmaker in Israeli election - hit piece from Guardian


Israel election: profile of 'kingmaker' Avigdor Lieberman - Telegraph
Mr Lieberman thinks that what we call the "peace process" has been a mistake from the start. Put simply, Mr Lieberman rejects every facet of President Barack Obama's thinking on the Middle East. When the nationalist leader has real power in Israel, the country could find itself on a collision course with America's new administration.

The Palestinians and their Arab brethren are determined to destroy Israel, he believes. Giving them a state along the 1967 borders that used to contain Israel would only whet their appetite for more.

Instead of leading to a settlement, the peace agreement that America and Europe would foist on Israel would only weaken the Jewish state and embolden its Arab neighbours to fulfil their destiny and eradicate the "Zionist Entity".

"The peace process is based on three false basic assumptions," Mr Lieberman has explained. "That the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the main fact of instability in the Middle East, that the conflict is territorial and not ideological, and that the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders will end the conflict."

Lieberman: Territorial concession concept failed - YNET
"Israel needs to explain that the demand for an independent Palestinian state and the refugees' right of return is a cover for radical Islam's attempt to destroy the State of Israel," he stated in the document.

Lieberman OpEd - IMRA

Stumble Upon Toolbar

06 May 2008

The Clock Ticking Down on the Bush and Condi Championship Game

Rice: Young Palestinians Losing Hope For Deal With Israel
Heading Back To Mideast, Rice Says Young Palestinians Are Losing Hope For Deal With Israel


WASHINGTON, May. 6, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP) Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told an American Jewish audience Tuesday that young Palestinians are losing hope for an agreement with Israel.

"Increasingly, the Palestinians who talk about a two-state solution are my age," Rice, 53, said in a somber speech to The American Jewish Committee at its 102nd annual meeting.

Insisting that the Bush administration will never yield to dealing with Hamas militants, Rice said, "What you don't want is that the hopelessness and the vision of the extremists have no counter."

Set to leave early Thursday for more jawboning with moderate Arabs and Israeli leaders, after talks in London designed to raise more economic support for the Palestinians, Rice called on Israel to make "difficult decisions" to provide the Palestinians with the dignity of statehood.

In fact, she said, "we have a chance to reach the basic contours of a settlement by the end of the year" _ a scaling back of President Bush's initial hope for a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians before he leaves office.

Rice also poured cold water on any prospects that Israel and Syria could negotiate peace terms.

The two sides, working partly through Turkey, have shown some renewed interest. The basis would be Israel swapping the Golan Heights for a peace treaty with its Arab neighbor.

Rice said the Bush administration had tried to interest Syria in peacemaking, with such moves as an invitation to a Mideast conference last November in Annapolis, Md.

"It is hard to see there is a Syrian regime receptive" to negotiations with Israel at this point, she said.

"Syria is like Iran's sidecar," she said, aligning itself tightly with a country that threatens Israel's existence. And, she reminded the American Jewish Committee, a powerful pro-Israel lobby and foe of intolerance and anti-Semitism, "you know about Syria's nuclear program."

Rice referred to a nuclear facility built with North Korea's cooperation and then wrecked by Israeli jets last September.

The central theme in her 15-minute speech and 20-minute question-and-answer session was that the Bush administration would not give up trying to steer Israel and the Palestinians toward a settlement that provides the Palestinians with a state.

And, the administration would have no dealings with Hamas or other Palestinian extremists that war with Israel and refuse to recognize the Jewish state.

"Either you are a political party or a terrorist group," Rice said. "You cannot be both."

Once again, Rice criticized former President Jimmy Carter for holding talks with Hamas leaders. "I don't see the point of trying to negotiate with people who are determined to destroy the foundation of peace," she said.






Dr. Rice is talking like a basketball coach watching the clock tick away with her team down in the championship game and realizing that with every day of 2008 sliding by, the chance of making a comeback is increasingly unlikely. Then again, maybe these statements are yet another example of the Bush Administration's arabian "end run", not meaning for any true, permanent, resolution to the conflict between the arabians and Israel, just attempting to finish the game in good form.

Her comments lead me to believe there is confusion on her part as to the reason for talks, or is it after all an attempt to stall? If the youth are not interested in peace, who are the guarantors of any agreement? If Hamas cannot be a "political party" how is that Fatah/PA can be a partner for negotiations? The trouble with such logic as hers is that it leaves the door open for one day accepting Hamas as a party to negotiations. Why, all you have to do is say you are a "political party" and ta-da, welcome to the White House.

What is it with this age issue after all? The arabians have been saying since the re-establishment of the Jewish homeland that a war of "liberation" was the only way to expel the Jews. This message has been taught for generations now in "palestinian" and arabian schools. The official PA educational curriculum and press still de-humanizes Jews and Israel. How can it be that only now, the youth of "palestine" do not talk of a "two-state solution"? The only arabians talking two-state solution are the PA on the US and European payroll. Nothing has changed in this regard.

In fact the idea of modernizing, democratizing, de-militarizing the PA is contradicted by Condi's words. It is fair to say that the PA arabians have secured more compromises, promises and diplomatic success than any effort to destroy Israel did in previous generations. An American President has called for the creation of an independent "Palestine" and the sitting Prime Minister of Israel (for the time being that is) is ready to hand over as much land of Judea and Samaria as needed with part of Jerusalem as its capital for the erstwhile new Pali homeland for a people who never had one. None of this was achieved by war, only through talks.

How is it then that younger arabians are not interested in "two-states"? Maybe it is because the older arabians are not really interested in "two-states" either and like the Bush administration may be doing, just walking the walk. So, after President Bush is gone, PM Olmert is gone and very possibly Abu Mazen is gone, then who picks up the pieces of the "failed" negotiations? When will the lesson be learned that just as when road blocks are removed Jews die, chas v'shalom, that when talks fail Jews die, chas v'shalom?


Stumble Upon Toolbar

24 January 2008

Obama? Oh My!

Jewish Leaders Question Obama's Stand on Middle East

17 Shevat 5768, January 24, '08
(IsraelNN.com) Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama still is reeling from negativity from the Jewish community, which is questioning his position on the Palestinian Authority (PA)-Israeli conflict. Earlier this week, seven Jewish democratic senators wrote an open letter condemning an e-mail campaign that falsely accused Sen. Obama of being a Muslim.

The American Jewish Committee (AJC) circulated a memo questioning Sen. Obama on his approach to Iran's nuclear development and on negotiations between the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Israel. The Jewish Forward revealed the memo, which stated that Sen. Obama "appears to believe the Israelis bear the burden of taking the risky steps for peace, and that the violence Israel has received in return does not shift that burden. The AJC expressed "regret" that the internal memo was published.

The memo also notes that Sen. Obama previously has made statements favoring diplomatic talks with Iran and negotiating with Syria.



January 23, 2008

Barack Obama's Middle East Expert
By Ed Lasky

Barack Obama's real thinking about Israel and the Middle East continues to be an enigma. The words he chose in an address to AIPAC create a different impression than the composition of his foreign policy advisory team. Several advisors have evidenced a history of suspicion and worse toward Israel. One of his advisors in particular, Robert Malley, clearly warrants attention, as does the reasoning that led him to being chosen by Barack Obama.

A little family history may be in order to understand the genesis of Robert Malley's views. Normally, one should be reluctant in exploring a person's family background -- after all, who would want to be held responsible for the sins of one's father? However, when close relatives share a strong current of ideological affinity, and when a father has a commanding persona, it behooves a researcher to inquire a bit into the role of family in forming views. That said, Robert Malley has a very interesting father.

His father Simon Malley was born to a Syrian family in Cairo and at an early age found his métier in political journalism. He participated in the wave of anti-imperialist and nationalist ideology that was sweeping the Third World. He wrote thousands of words in support of struggle against Western nations. In Paris, he founded the journal Afrique Asie; he and his magazine became advocates for "liberation" struggles throughout the world, particularly for the Palestinians.

Simon Malley loathed Israel and anti-Israel activism became a crusade for him-as an internet search would easily show. He spent countless hours with Yasser Arafat and became a close friend of Arafat. He was, according to Daniel Pipes, a sympathizer of the Palestinian Liberation Organization --- and this was when it was at the height of its terrorism wave against the West . His efforts were so damaging to France that President Valerie d'Estaing expelled him from the country.

Malley has seemingly followed in his father's footsteps: he represents the next generation of anti-Israel activism. Through his writings he has served as a willing propagandist, bending the truth (and more) to serve an agenda that is marked by anti-Israel bias; he heads a group of Middle East policy advisers for a think-tank funded (in part) by anti-Israel billionaire activist George Soros; and now is on the foreign policy staff of a leading Presidential contender. Each step up the ladder seems to be a step closer towards his goal of empowering radicals and weakening the ties between American and our ally Israel.

Robert Malley's writings strike me as being akin to propaganda. One notable example is an op-ed that was published in the New York Times (Fictions About the Failure at Camp David). The column indicted Israel for not being generous enough at Camp David and blamed the failure of the talks on the Israelis.

Malley has repeated this line of attack in numerous op-eds over the years, often co-writing with Hussein Agha, a former adviser to Yasser Arafat (see, for example, Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors ). He was also believed to be the chief source for an article by Deborah Sontag that whitewashed Arafat's role in the collapse of the peace process, an article that has been widely criticized as riddled with errors and bias.
(excerpt - the remainder of the article is here.)




Just a few days ago, the heads of major Jewish organizations released a press release denouncing smear jobs on Obama but seemed to ignore what Obama is really about. One wonders why Abe Foxman, Marvin Hier and company are spending their time worrying about urban myths aimed at Obama's feelings instead of examining the candidate's positions. With all fairness, Obama is not as best as I can determine anti-Semitic (in that he has no hatred for Jews or Israel based upon economic, political or religious beliefs) although his long time pastor Jeremiah Wright probably is. I give credit to Obama for distancing himself from Wright's infatuation with Farrakhan.

However, Obama's history lends itself to an interpretation that he may be anti-Jew if he really concludes that Israel is to blame for the conflict in the middle east. I draw that conclusion based upon the available evidence: the AJC memo, his associations and interest in negotiating with Israel's enemies. A casual reading of the comments quoted in the Israel National News story of the AJC internal memo as reported by Forward, show a callousness towards Israel which causes concern.

Israel must never be pushed into "taking the risky steps for peace" as the memo reveals Obama supports. Such moves lead to an increase in terrorist attacks and the spilling of Jewish blood. All the more so, if attacks by lunatic barbarians who seem to be intentionally trying to provoke a significant military response from Israel by firing rockets into Sderot daily cannot evoke from Obama a sense of sympathy, what must one conclude? Obama, in order to hold this position, (if accurately reported) must not value Jewish life or feels that randomly dropping rockets on civilian population centers is a legitimate form of warfare. (Warfare for the underclass nationalist movements, etc.) An opinion such as that one leads the same casual observer to wonder what Obama must have learned in Midrassa.

The belief that the Jew must take his punishment and still be responsible for changing the scenario where the punishment is being meted out is anti-Jew. There is no way around this conclusion. But give Obama a benefit of the doubt. The underpinning of his belief is no different than that held by many others, primarily but not limited to the left in America today. The leading proponents for a mythical two-state solution are on the left. (Bush and Condi excluded). Blaming Israel is part of counter-culture mythology a function of a mis-interpretation of who is the aggressor and who is the victim, who has ill will toward whom. When Israel is viewed as the oppressor of the poor palestinians, a view held more so on the left than the right, the logical conclusion is that Israel must give something to compensate the victims of their anger. While the arabians are the weaker party in terms of the pali-Israel conflict, they are clearly not innocent. The left avoids studying how the situation got to where it is today; liberals need no justifications. Someone should ask Obama if he knows why there was a war in 1948 and if he believes that had a "palestine" been established at that time if there would be peace today. Why was the PLO established before Israel "occupied" Yesha? Why did the Six Day war occur? Readers of this blog know the answers to these questions. Does Obama? Hillary? One wonders whether Foxman, Hier and company have the seichal to ask?

Stumble Upon Toolbar

20 January 2008

MoJo Debates Israel

5 Questions On Israel For The Next Debate

As I've said before, there's been a vacuum surrounding Israel and Palestine this campaign season. Moderators have broached the issue only twice in the last 13 debates. And the most recent question, posed by Wendell Goler last week at the Fox News debate in South Carolina, was pretty weak. As Goler wound up—"Mayor Giuliani, President Bush is in the Middle East ... laying the groundwork for a Palestinian state"—there was, briefly, a glimmer of hope. Then he tossed this doozy of a softball: "I wonder, sir, how you would keep a Palestinian state from becoming a breeding ground for anti-American terrorism." One of several surreal assumptions behind the question seemed to be, "The Palestinians are prostrate, mightn't it be better if they're kept that way?" And that to the candidate with the Likudnik A-team advising him. Oh, well.

Since the debates have been so deficient in this area, I asked five well-informed Middle East observers what they would ask the candidates on the issue, if they could ask anything. The only ground rule was to keep it brief; no other boundaries. Here are their responses:

From Juan Cole of Informed Comment: Has Israeli colonization of the West Bank proceeded to the point where a two-state solution has become impractical? And, if so, isn't there now a choice between an Apartheid state or a one-state solution?

From Matthew Duss of TAPPED: Recognizing that Israel's settlements in the occupied territories are considered illegal under international law, and recognizing that their relentless expansion, which has continued over the last decade despite repeated Israeli assurances to the contrary, is both a source of Palestinian suffering and a major instigator of extremism and violence, as well as being deeply prejudicial to final status negotiations, are you prepared to take a firm stand against the settlements, and to carry through with real consequences if Israel does not cease settlement expansion?

From Trita Parsi, author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States: Since 1993, the United States has pursued a policy of seeking peace between Israel and Palestine by isolating Iran. As former Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk said, the two were symbiotic. Peace was necessary to isolate Iran, isolating Iran was necessary for peace. Fifteen years later, we can conclude that this strategy was an utter failure. Yet, the Bush Administration is following a similar path, seeking to create an alliance of Israel and Sunni Arab dictatorships to isolate Iran under the guise of peacemaking. In your administration, how would you approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? By repeating the Bush/Clinton policy or by pursuing a holistic approach aimed at giving all regional actors a stake in the outcome and process of peacemaking?

From Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss: Why is it that our last two presidents only made a major push on Israel/Palestine at the end of their 8-year terms, when they had nothing politically to lose? Doesn't this show that this is the big enchilada in foreign affairs and that our politics around this issue are unhealthy? What will you do differently, before your 8 years are up?

From Stephen Zunes of Foreign Policy in Focus: For Senator Clinton. During the 2006 war in Lebanon, you co-sponsored a resolution condemning Hezbollah for its alleged use of "human shields." Since then, detailed on-the-ground studies by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, while highly critical of Hezbollah's responsibility for civilian deaths in Israel, have challenged the claims by the Bush administration that Hezbollah's alleged use of "human shields" contributed to the high numbers of civilian deaths from Israeli bombardment in Lebanon. Similarly, the reports of these credible human rights organizations have placed responsibility for the vast majority of the 800 Lebanese civilian deaths on the government of Israel. Are you willing to acknowledge that Israel was culpable for most of the Lebanese civilian deaths? And, as president, would you belittle the findings of human rights groups in order to support violations of international humanitarian law by U.S. allies?

I'll be sending these along to the next few debate moderators. Have a good question for the candidates on Israel? Put proposals in the comments.—Justin Elliott






I do not usually go out looking for liberal tripe (is there any other?) But one of the feeds on the right hand side of the APRPEH blog is a Google news about Israel feed. Most of the time the main stories of the day appear there originating from various news services around the world. In terms of Israel news, it doesn't really make too much of a difference which news service you read. While the product of bias can be expressed through endless variation, begging indulgence in the mixing of metaphor, when it comes to pigs in a poke, a squeal is still a squeal. Characterizing the comments of these "well-informed Middle East observers" as anything other than an exercise in anti-Jew reflux would be to unfairly attribute a benefit of the doubt to the undeserving. But then again it is "Mother Jones".

Briefly skimming the surface of the comments for the basic assumptions of the questions, objectivity requires an honest assessment of credibility. None can be found. Israel's legal right to all of Yosh (setting aside the strongest case for not only developing Yosh but for retaining sole authority in Yosh; that is, G-d deeded assignment of this land to the Jews) is not only more credible than that posed by the Arabians it is justified by history and precedent. Using the terminology of "colonization" and "apartheid" muddy the waters of reason with emotional appeals relying on sound bites. All states set their boundaries, by fighting if necessary, and determine who is a citizen and who is not entitled to remain within those borders. If this is what the so-called “well informed observer” above means, than guilty as charged. Since Israel is by right, owner of Yosh, then these decisions justifiably are as legal for Israel to make as is for any state. Further, the idea that Israel is the reason for arabian extremism somehow causing barbarians living in and around Israel to act barbaric must be measured against the actions of those arabians who do not live in and around Israel. And not only in comparison to the nearness to Israel but also to the lengths of years for which arabian barbarism has existed. If Israel is to blame for the attacks of islamic facism and arabian terrorism, what was the cause for this behavior prior to Israel's re-establishment or prior to Jews even returning to the land in large numbers in the late 1800s? Such a line of reasoning and questioning is based solely on blame the Jew illogic.

Jews, as almost everyone knows have been the most loyal of voters for the democrat party. Is it the desire to intervene in the affairs of Israel and jeopardize her security which drives these voters to the liberal's home of political power in the US? Is it the will of the Jewish liberal voters to bring an unfavorable resolution of the conflict (as if it were negotiable) thereby endangering their brethren, (the ultimate in self-hating Jewish guilt) or is it the supposed guarantee assumed by the leadership of the left that espousing such clearly anti-Israel policies has no cost? Why worry about losing Jewish voters? Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III earned a reputation of scorn amongst Jews for supposedly saying something of the sort " F--- the Jews, they don't vote for us anyhow". And the collective voice of leftist elitists, what do they say?' F--- the Jews, they'll vote for us anyhow!" The Jew is left to be the Jew. And judging from the voices printed in this leading journal of liberal thought, what conclusion can one objectively draw?

As to the final claim regarding human shields, it is astounding that anyone would question what has been an arabian war strategy for as long as anyone can remember? The US has faced the same tactics in Iraq as Israel has in every war beginning in 1948. Who cares what HRW reported? The best evidence of course, is general neglect of ascribing any rights to civilians by arabians during war. The use of bomb belts strapped to the religious youth, "our future" we in the west would call it (ergo- Whitney Houston) produces the kal v'chomer. If arabian and islamic tactics permit human bombs, surely they permit the lesser offense of shooting at Jews from within civilian residential neighborhoods, mosques and public centers? Certainly, storing munitions in schools and using ambulances to haul fighters are all therefore permissible? Since these offenses have been documented repeatedly, one wonders what motivation is driving reports that are contrary to the precedent? But to be purely logical, the question presented above ignores motive. Did Israel target civilians or military positions in Lebanon? Did Hizbollah (or substitute any of your favorite arabian death gangs) shoot at civilians during the war or military targets? The weight of evidence exceeds overwhelms deniability. Hizbollah has not earned the reputation of "terrorist organization" for nothing and Israel the reputation of being one of the most professional military organizations in the world despite the unimpressive results of the war against Hizbollah.

Maybe in future debates, the candidates should be asked to whom they extend a benefit of the doubt? Or maybe they should be asked this question instead of the questions suggested in the article: "If Israel is to make a deal with the "palestinians", provided that the “palestinian” side has a legitimate negotiating authority with the power to implement a deal and the will to do so, and the deal in your opinion served to weaken Israel's ability to defend itself and thereby damages American interests in the middle east, should US policy be to support or oppose the peace agreement?" Let this question be the truth test.

Human Shield backgrounder

Stumble Upon Toolbar

08 January 2008

The Bush Burned And Olmert Was Consumed

The following is a press release from Americans for a Safe Israel I received by email today. Judging by the headline in today's Jpost, Olmert and Abbas to start negotiations on core issues the long awaited crash of the Olmert regime may finally come to fruition. Bye bye Shas and Yisrael Beitenu. Pres. Bush may leave Israel wondering if he caused his friend Ehud his job.

Click to enlarge

Press Release:

U.S. Evangelical Leaders Reject Palestinian State in Judea and Samaria
in Jerusalem Post Ad Keyed to President Bush’s Arrival in Israel

Jerusalem, 1/8/08 – Proclaiming “an ineradicable bond between the geographical integrity of the land…and God’s promise of the land as “an everlasting possession” to the people of Israel, 26 American Evangelical pastors and lay leaders from 11 states and the District Colombia (plus a Canadian entry from British Columbia), affixed their signatures to a full-page Jerusalem Post ad flatly rejecting President Bush’s Annapolis-launched campaign to shoehorn a “Palestinian State” between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River (see attachment {the above ad, APRPEH}).

Headlined “President Bush: There will be No Legacy” and timed for the President’s January 9-10th visit to Israel, the ad declares the creation of such an entity “detrimental to the stability or both Israel and Jordan, the peace of the Middle East and the security interests of the United States.

The signatories mirror a cross section of some of the most influential voices on the U,S.Evangelical and Pentacostal scene, including, inter alia, national media personality Dr. Michael Evans, chairman of Churches United With Israel in Mr. Bush’s home state of Texas; Tennessee Pastor Robert Upton, a major figure in the powerful Pentacostal Congress; Pastor Jim Vineyard, whose press and internet opposition to Israeli territorial concessions has attracted national attention, and White House backyard neighbors the Rev. James Hutchens of the Jerusalem Connection and Richard Hellman, head of Christians’Israel Public Action Campaign, Capitol Hill’s best known pro-Israel Christian advocacy group.

Herbert Zweibon, chairman of New York-based Americans For A Safe Israel, sponsor of the ad, characterized it as a “reflection of the rising concern among Bible-oriented Christians at the negation of the Covenant, the marginalization of four millennia of Judeo-Christian civilization and the existential and geostrategic peril implicit in any decision to dismember Jerusalem and deliver Judea and Samaria into the hands of a radical Islamic nexus.”

Zweibon said he was awed by the moral courage exhibited by the signatories. “Taking issue with a president they admired and supported was no easy matter for these pastors and their congregants,” he noted, “but as Christians, addressing a professed born-again Christian, they felt obligated to tell the president that pressuring a weak and extremely unpopular Olmert government to place Israel in the direst jeopardy it has ever known was morally, religiously and geopolitically indefensible. We all hope he gets the message.”

Stumble Upon Toolbar

12 October 2007

End the Olmert Occupation of Israel

PA Demands Kotel as Failed Taba Accords Revived

by Hana Levi Julian

(IsraelNN.com) Israel and the Palestinian Authority have agreed to take a second look at the principles discussed during the January 2001 Taba Summit between then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak and then-Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said this week that he has accepted the principles reached during the negotiations but that had not been formalized in a final document, as a basis for current negotiations, according to an unnamed PA official quoted by the Maariv newspaper.

The source said that the PA has also agreed to the same principles as a basis for talks but has not formulated that in a formal manner.

“The problem is that Olmert has internal opposition from Barak,” said the source referring to the former PM who recently returned to politics and became Defense Minister.

“The gaps between Olmert and Abu Mazen are not large,” he said. “In one-on-one talks with Abu Mazen, Olmert has already agreed to Taba but he has not announced this formally.” He predicted that an agreement of principles would be reached by the time of the Mideast summit scheduled for November 26 in Annapolis, Maryland.

PA “Accepts”, but Demands Jews Throw on ‘Kotel’
PA negotiator Adnan Husseini, a senior advisor the PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, said the PA now accepts the Taba agreement that Arafat turned down six years ago, according to Voice of Israel government radio.

However, he rejected Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall as well as the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Givat Ze’ev and Ma’aleh Adumim.

Husseini said Thursday night that the Western Wall “is part of Islamic heritage that cannot be given up, and it must be under Muslim control.” He also insisted that the entire Old City belongs to the Muslims.

Abbas earlier had agreed that a land swap would allow Israel to retain sovereignty over the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall in the Old City.

Summary of Taba Accords:

The concessions by Israel in Taba six years ago included:
• Jerusalem would be designated as an open city, with Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall and Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem and PA sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods in the city. Each side would define their part of Jerusalem as its capital. The issue of the Temple Mount had not been resolved and the PA has now demanded the Western Wall as well.
• Israel agreed to withdrawal from Judea and Samaria over a 36-month period and withdrawal from the Jordan Valley over an additional 36-month period, to be replaced by an international force. Arafat rejected these ideas.
• Israel proposed handing over blocs of land occupied by Arab residents, and retaining so-called “settlement blocs” within Judea and Samaria.. Arafat rejected this.
• Israel agreed to withdraw from 97 percent of its territory restored in the 1967 Six-Day War. Arafat rejected this too.
• Israel agreed to a limited so-called Right of Return, which would allow some 5,000 foreign Arab descendants of those who fled the country during the 1948 War of Independence. Barak proposed that the Arabs be allowed to immigrate (a) to Israel, (b) to Israeli swapped territory or (c) to the PA state. A second proposal offered to Arafat included (a) rehabilitation and relocation within the current Arab host country or (b) relocation to a third country. Arafat rejected these proposals.
• Both sides agreed to phase out the UNRWA agency that administered internationally-funded programs among the PA population, within five years.
• Both sides agreed the PA state would have sovereignty over its airspace.
• Both sides were willing to make a commitment to fight terror and cooperate on security issues.
• Both sides agreed to abide by United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and that the June 1967 lines would become the basis for permanent borders between Israel and the new PA state.


background story from One Jerusalem: PA Advisor Wants More Of Jerusalem




I guess in the eyes of the main-stream or as Rush calls it the "drive-by media", acceptance of the ridiculous conditions for "peace" set at Taba represents further evidence that the PA is the moderate negotiating partner vis a vis Hamas which would never accept such "limited" conditions.

The provisions of the Taba plan would leave Israel hardly stronger or strategically better off but with an arab terror organization in control of 97% of Samaria, Judea and Gaza (not mentioned directly) including control of the airspace. Why the insistence of maintaining seemingly endless talks with these people raises questions as to the sanity of the Israeli side?

Jerusalem will always be, not a point of contention as the conventional wisdom crowd would have you believe, but a beacon of hope and strength for the Jews. Jerusalem is indeed the single issue which SHOULD unite all Jews and will prevent any major accord with the arabians, unless the arabians give up claims to the Jewish holy city. Organizing to oppose the government's negotiating strategy and to remind these wayward and rebellious Jews that in the words of MBD "Jerusalem is not for sale" is underway drawing heavy weights such as Rav. Elyashiv (see story).

The pali cause, for what its worth will not be advanced when their liars negotiators go one record stating the phony islamic claims to the Kosel or any of Jerusalem for that matter. (see the sidebar link "Islam's Temple Mount").

The Jewish people must unite over the issue of Jerusalem. The Israeli electorate must unite over the disposal of the morally and spiritually failed Olmert government. Shas and Yisroel Beitenu are the empowering and enabling Olmert to continue this reckless abandonment of the land and thereby ancient Jewish dreams and both parties' leaderships should be held accountable.

In closing, here are some comments by the late Lubavitcher Rebbe ZTL, in response to a letter he received from 1970 concerning Jerusalem. Olmert is very lucky he didn't have to contend with the Rebbe.



Jerusalem Is Only For Am Yisrael

November 20, 1970
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Concerning your letter dealing with my words regarding Jerusalem, which were challenged, saying that there is no basis for what I said ... I only wish it were true. But to my sorrow, the present situation clearly refutes the contention that there is no basis for my words. What aggravates this impression is that they (the Israeli Government) are numbing public opinion — with the usual slogans. I warned about this also, and they know that the only thing which is holding them (the Israeli leaders) back now is lack of convincing propaganda, which will satisfy the Jewish masses. Now with regard to the politicians, they have already toyed with many different phraseologies, among them one which I mentioned (they want to turn The City of the Great King[112] into “The City of Three Kings”).

There is presently “no King over the Jewish people, and each man does according to what is right in his eyes,”[113] since we are, after all, living in a democratic society. [They will then decide the issue of Jerusalem] as “three partners,” in order of quantity, of course, which is the deciding factor in a democracy; first come the Christians, then the Muslims, and only then ... (Yesterday, the most important newspaper here, the New York Times, printed the latest approach, which was taken from the words of the Foreign Minister in the name of the Government: “It is the desire of the Israeli Government to retain “political control” over Jerusalem, and not to compromise on places upon which Israel’s security depend, like the Golan Heights and certain other points on the West Bank of the Jordan.” This is sufficient evidence for whoever understands.)

May it be G-d’s Will that in approaching the month of redemption,[114] the month of Kislev, we should be saved — even before the coming of Moshiach — from the modern-day Hellenists.[115] Through the spreading of the wellsprings of Chassidus, which is the central theme of the holiday of redemption Yud-Tes Kislev, each individual will light flames using pure oil, which has not been tampered with by the hand of a stranger, or even lit by one, illuminating both the house and the outside world simultaneously, in an increasing and illuminating manner.


Respectfully, with blessings for true health
and good news in all mentioned here
and with blessings of Mazal Tov
on the birth of your grandchild,
may he live and be well,

/Signed: Menachem Schneerson/

Stumble Upon Toolbar

15 August 2007

Rudy's Fopo


No Palestinian State Now
(You Can't Be Bush and Run From Bush At the Same Time)
Politics
Giuliani: No Palestinian State Now, The Associated Press
2007-08-15 13:16:58.0
Current rank: # 430 of 5,494

WASHINGTON -
Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani said he opposes creation of a Palestinian state at this time and would take a tough stand with Iran, including destroying its nuclear infrastructure "should all else fail."

Outlining his foreign policy views in the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, Giuliani said "too much emphasis" has been placed on brokering negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians - an apparent swipe at President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who have been pushing both sides for final status negotiations despite Hamas's takeover of Gaza in June.

"It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism," the former New York City mayor said.

"Palestinian statehood will have to be earned through sustained good governance, a clear commitment to fighting terrorism, and a willingness to live in peace with Israel," Giuliani said. "America's commitment to Israel's security is a permanent feature of our foreign policy."

Giuliani said in the article that he would not rule out negotiating with Iran, but such negotiations should proceed from "a position of strength."

"The theocrats ruling Iran need to understand that we can wield the stick as well as the carrot, by undermining popular support for their regime, damaging the Iranian economy, weakening Iran's military, and, should all else fail, destroying its nuclear infrastructure," Giuliani said.

Bush recently warned Iran of "consequences" if Iran is determined to be assisting the flow of explosive devices into Iraq.




This strong statement by Rudy is direct and to the point right? Almost. This article which appears, on the surface to reveal a strong pro-Israel position is in actuality much weaker upon reflection. Based solely upon the quotes in the article above, these lines caught my attention:

"It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism," the former New York City mayor said.

"Palestinian statehood will have to be earned through sustained good governance, a clear commitment to fighting terrorism, and a willingness to live in peace with Israel," Giuliani said.


Realistically, how is this different than the Bush administration's position? W. and Condi staked a position which calls for an end to the conflict and no violence. The administration's operating philosophy can be characterized as... the spread of democracy will negate terrorism and support for terrorism. Hamas of course, has proven this position doesn't apply to Arabia.

Does anyone think that Bush, viewed by many (but not all) as a pro-Israel President wants to create a PLO state which, depending on who is running it will invite Al-Qadea to execute operations out of Gaza or turn a blind eye to lawlessness so long as the ruling elite is able to deposit large sums of cash in overseas accounts? Hardly.

The following is an excerpt from a February 2007 article written by Morton Zuckerman which ran in the Jewish Press and appears on the ZOA website:


Bush called for the Palestinians to elect new leaders "not compromised by terror." But instead the Palestinians voted in the terrorist group Hamas. Bush called for Palestinian Arabs to "engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure." But the PA has not jailed and disarmed terrorists, confiscated their weaponry or closed the bomb-making factories. The terrorist killings go on.


Bush also called for ending "incitement to violence in official media, and [to] publicly denounce homicide bombings." But incitement and glorification of terror continue unabated in the PA-controlled media, mosques, schools and youth camps. In fact, PA president Mahmoud Abbas recently called at a rally of 250,000 Palestinians for Palestinian groups to turn their guns on Israelis, saying, "Our rifles, all our rifles are aimed at the Occupation."


In the PA, schools, streets and sports teams are named in honor of suicide bombers and other mass-murderers of Israelis while in PA maps and atlases, a country called "Israel" is nowhere to be found. Instead, "Palestine" appears in is place.


Bush called on "Palestinians to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty." But in PA-run areas Christians are persecuted, Jewish holy sites desecrated, women remain second-class citizens and liberty is as remote as ever.


It's clear the Palestinians have not fulfilled a single one of President Bush's conditions for statehood. Moreover, whether ruled by Abbas's Fatah or by Hamas, the PA remains a terrorist regime.


Well, it is nice to see that Rudy supports the Bush position. The original article from Foreign Affairs, entitled Toward a Realistic Peace is here.

Fred Thompson, to the best of my recollection has not staked a specific position on a "pali" state but his views on the conflict in general are found here Terrorized. Thompson did co-sign a 2001 Senate letter to the President calling for a reassessment of US-Palestinian relations.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

What Words Offend Arabs? The Truth.

Children's Poetry Booklet Recalled After Arabs Complain
(Israeli censorship kowtows to Arabs.
When Will We Tell The Truth Without Fear)

(IsraelNN.com 7 Sivan 5768/June 10, '08) Ynet's web site and Arab complaints against a ten-year-old boy's poem about terrorists has resulted in the recall of all of the Nes Ziona municipality's children's poetry booklets.

Ynet boasts that its coverage of the poem resulted in its being recalled.

The text of the poem (Ynet's translation):

Ahmed's bunker has surprises galore: Grenades, rifles are hung on the wall. Ahmed is planning another bombing!What a bunker Ahmed has, who causes daily harm.Ahmed knows how to make a bomb. Ahmed is Ahmed, that's who he is, so don't forget to be careful of him.We get blasted while they have a blast!Ahmed and his friends could be wealthy and sunny, if only they wouldn't buy rockets with all their money.

Poetry competition director Marika Berkowitz, who published the booklet, was surprised at the protests and told Ynet: "This is the boy's creation and this is what he wanted to express. Of course there should be a limit, but I think the there is no racism here. 'Ahmed' is a general term for the enemy. These are the murmurings of an innocent child."

The Education Ministry told Ynet: "The local authority that published the booklet should have guided the students in a more correct manner through the schools. The district will investigate the issue with the local authorities."
4Torah.com
4Torah.com Search from Pre-Approved Torah sites only
Photobucket
Custom Search

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter