Wednesday 12 August 2009

Israel Matzav: Why Obama's Iran policy will fail

Why Obama's Iran policy will fail

Here's an interesting and different take on why President Obama's 'engagement' policy in Iran will fail.

Mr. Obama's problem is that Mr. Khamenei could only have chosen Ahmadinejad because he does not want friendly talks with the U.S. He evidently calculates that without the ideology of "anti-Americanism" the regime would collapse. He is right.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Why Obama's Iran policy will fail

Israel Matzav: Does Hillary Clinton want to be Secretary of State?

Does Hillary Clinton want to be Secretary of State?

As I'm sure you all heard, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 'lost it' on Monday as a result of a mistranslated question at a meeting with students in the Congo.
See Video and Read All at :
Israel Matzav: Does Hillary Clinton want to be Secretary of State?

Israel Matzav: What if the situation were reversed?

Israel Matzav: What if the situation were reversed?

Israel Matzav: Calling the 'Palestinians' bluff

Calling the 'Palestinians' bluff

If one were to assume that the Arabs did not wish to destroy the Jewish state, the main stumbling block to solving the Israeli-Arab dispute would be the 'Palestinian refugees.' This article presents itself as a recipe for resolving the 'Palestinian refugee' problem, but what it is really doing is calling the 'Palestinians' bluff. But to understand the solution, one must understand the problem. So a bit of history is in order.

Initially, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which administers the refugee camps, defined Palestine refugees as persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. The camps opened in 1950, in the wake of the first Arab war to destroy Israel. The precise number of Arab refugees as a result of that war is uncertain, the estimates ranging from 450,000 to 700,000. Even experts who lean toward the higher side believe that no more than 550,000 wound up in refugee camps, since some fled to families settled in other Arab countries and fleeing Bedouin resumed their nomadic life style in Jordan.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Calling the 'Palestinians' bluff

Israel Matzav: Rasmussen: Israel 62, Egypt 30, all others negative

Israel Matzav: Rasmussen: Israel 62, Egypt 30, all others negative

Israel Matzav: Obama's nuclear summit

Obama's nuclear summit

It looks like President Obama may have put his foot in his mouth again by making grandiose promises without thinking through how he will fulfill them. In July, Obama told the G-8 summit that we would convene a meeting in March to discuss nuclear security. The meeting ought to include all of he world's current and aspiring nuclear powers - some 25-30 nations. But whom will Obama invite? Is Israel on the list?

There’s no good choice.

Invite Israel, and open its leaders up to questions about the country’s widely reported nuclear weapons program — which the Israelis have long refused to discuss.

But leave out Israel, and the Middle Eastern nations who would seem to be a necessity at any summit discussing nuclear security would feel compelled to point to Israel’s reported efforts as a source of instability in the region.

“I see this as one giant root canal which is going to be really painful for everybody who shows up — and for everybody who doesn’t,” said Aaron David Miller, a former State Department official who worked on Arab-Israeli peace negotiations under four presidents.

“Even if you try to define the summit agenda to be nuclear terrorism and nuclear security, the people you do invite are going to bring Israel to the table, figuratively speaking, anyway,” Miller said. “They’re going to need to think this through extremely carefully.”

The summit, set for March 9 and 10, is aimed at combating nuclear terrorism, which Obama has called the “most immediate and extreme threat to global security.”

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Obama's nuclear summit

Israel Matzav: What giving the medal of freedom to Mary Robinson says about Barack Obama

What giving the medal of freedom to Mary Robinson says about Barack Obama

Wednesday is the day that President Obama plans to bring disgrace upon the United States by presenting the medal of freedom to anti-Jewish, anti-Israel and anti-American 'human rights activist' Mary Robinson. Giving the medal to Robinson has aroused so much fury that the fact that the medal is also being presented to South African bishop Desmond Tutu - who would also fit each of the adjectives above - has gone almost unnoticed.

There were a slew of articles on Tuesday about Robinson and I'd like to highlight them and send you off to read them on your own to understand why this vile woman is completely undeserving of the United States' highest civilian honor.

This is from former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton:

Durban is not the only reason Ms. Robinson should not receive the Medal of Freedom. Over the years she has actively opposed “the security or national interests of the United States,” one of the categories of eligibility for the Medal. Those in the administration who recommended her either ignored her anti-Israel history, or missed it entirely, as they either ignored or overlooked her hostility toward America’s role in promoting international peace and security. Or perhaps they share Ms. Robinson’s views.

One example, particularly significant today given the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, is Ms. Robinson’s strong opinions about the use of force. During the Clinton administration’s (and NATO’s) air campaign against Serbia because of its assault on Kosovo, for instance, she opined that “civilian casualties are human rights victims.” But her real objection was not to civilian casualties but to the bombing itself, saying “NATO remains the sole judge of what is or is not acceptable to bomb,” which she did not mean as a compliment.

In fact, Ms. Robinson wanted U.N. control over NATO’s actions: “It surely must be right for the Security Council . . . to have a say in whether a prolonged bombing campaign in which the bombers choose their target at will is consistent with the principle of legality under the Charter of the United Nations.” One wonders if this is also Mr. Obama’s view, given the enormous consequences for U.S. national security.

This February, asked whether former President George W. Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes, Ms. Robinson answered that it was “premature,” until a “process” such as an “independent inquiry” was established: “[T]hen the decision can be taken as to whether anybody will be held accountable.” In particular, she objected to the Bush administration’s “war paradigm” for dealing with terrorism, saying we actually “need to reinforce the criminal justice system.” Asked about Mr. Obama’s statements on “moving forward,” Ms. Robinson responded that “one of the ways of looking forward is to have the courage to say we must inquire.”

Ms. Robinson’s award shows Mr. Obama’s detachment from longstanding, mainstream, American public opinion on foreign policy. The administration’s tin ear to the furor over Ms. Robinson underlines how deep that detachment really is.

Read All at :


Israel Matzav: What giving the medal of freedom to Mary Robinson says about Barack Obama

Israel Matzav: The ugly American

The ugly American

Jonathan Tobin nails the reasons why Israelis have not responded favorably to President Obumbler's initiatives, and why the use of his rhetorical skills is not going to change anything.

THE IDEA here seems to be that if the Israeli people are sufficiently exposed to the charms of the American president, they will force Netanyahu to do as he has been told by Washington. However, the administration misunderstands the nature of its problem. Contrary to its belief, the Israeli people already understand Obama very well. His problem is that they don't buy what he's selling. Indeed, this decision to launch a PR campaign reminds one of stereotypically "ugly American" tourists who believe the proper response to foreigners who don't understand English is to merely speak English louder. The administration needs to win the trust of Israelis through more realistic policies, not a bigger megaphone.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: The ugly American

Israel Matzav: Life Magazine photos of Israel 1948-67 Part 3

Life Magazine photos of Israel 1948-67 Part 3

The third in the series of photos from Life Magazine at Ben Atlas' blog consists of scenes of life in Israel from 1960 taken by photographer Paul Schutzer. The largest number of photos seems to come from Lag BaOmer celebrations in Meron. You can view the whole set here.

Post taken from :Israel Matzav: Life Magazine photos of Israel 1948-67 Part 3

Israel Matzav: Rump king continues to seethe

Rump king continues to seethe

Two months ago, MK Aryeh Eldad, who is not a member of the government, introduced a resolution in the Knesset declaring a simple truth: That the solution to the 'Palestinian' problem lies in the only country in the world with a population that has a majority of 'Palestinians.'

Since then, the rump king of the 'Palestinian' state has whined and seethed like a baby at the prospect that someone might actually expect him to take responsibility for the nomadic tribes whose members make up 70% of his country's population. And unfortunately, Israel has joined the crowd in attempting to soothe the brat's ego.

Last week, an Israeli security delegation visited Jordan to reassure the little boy king that it is not cooking up a plan with the United States to declare Jordan the 'Palestinian state.' But the spoiled little boy is still throwing his tantrum.
Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Rump king continues to seethe

Israel Matzav: 'What's going on in the Jewish community is a gradual move away from Obama' says... former Clinton adviser Dick Morris

Israel Matzav: 'What's going on in the Jewish community is a gradual move away from Obama' says... former Clinton adviser Dick Morris

Israel Matzav: Fatah: Out with the old and in with the new?

Fatah: Out with the old and in with the new?

The Fatah terror group has voted for new senior party leaders. Early election results show that it is the party's 'youth' that will take Fatah forward.

There are actually two reports here.

The two key players are both murderers of course: Mohamed Dahlan and Marwan Barghouti.
See Video and Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Fatah: Out with the old and in with the new?

The Torah Revolution: Oh yeah!

The Torah Revolution: Oh yeah!

What the Conflict is Really About

What the Conflict is Really About

Ethan Bronner has a forgettable article in yesterday's NYT, about how things look good in Israel these days but the Israelis are worried. Or rather, that's what the first four fifths of the article says. Near the end it veers off in the opposite direction when he approvingly cites Aluf Benn in Haaretz last week, who posited that when Israelis feel secure they see no reason to make compromises for peace. (That wasn't my reading of Ben's article, but I see how Bronner could have read it that way).

The opening of Bronners article is useful for my purposes:

Rocket fire from Gaza has markedly declined. The Lebanese border is quiet. Terrorist attacks from the West Bank are rare. The national airport processed a
record number of travelers in the first week of August. The currency is so strong that the central bank has bought billions of dollars to keep the exchange rate down.
Israel is flourishing this summer, and one might imagine its people and leaders to be breathing a sigh of relief after nearly a decade of violence and unease. That, however, is far from the case. On every front, Israel is worried that it is living a false calm that could explode at any moment. Its airwaves and public discourse are filled with menace and concern.


So Israel has managed to beat off its many foes, once again, but it still feels threatened. Perhaps because the foes are still there, nursing their wounds and brooding over their thwarted plans to get rid of us. Which is, in a way, the thesis of the unlikely Hussain Agha-Robert Malley duo, in their NYT op-ed of two days ago, or, as Jeffrey Goldberg describes it, in the latest of "their never-ending series of provocative and thoughtful op-eds".

Agha-Malley, in the unlikely case you've never heard of them, are the fellows who double-handedly saved the day for the Palestinians and their myriad appolgists at the height of their war against school-children and bus riders earlier this decade. At the time Bill Clinton's rueful but public recognition of the fact that it was the Palestinian side that had thwarted peace, was forcing the more sane among Israel's haters to admit weakness in their case. Then, in August 2001, Malley and Agha published a seminal article in the New York Review of Books which claimed that actually, no. Ehud Barak had been mean to Arafat; he hadn't really intended on letting the Palestinians have anything; and while Arafat's negotiating style wasn't pretty, the talks failed because of the Israelis. Any number of well-informed people refuted this narrative, including Malley's boss Bill Clinton, but facts interest Israel's enemies only to the extent they can be used against it; otherwise they're not important.

Jonathan Tobin has more on this here.

Perhaps they're incorrigible contrarians; perhaps they derive special pleasure from poking American Presidents in the eye. Whatever the motivation may be, over the past year the duo's line has been inching towards an acceptance of reality. In this week's op-ed the factual part of their analysis is roughly the same as mine is, believe it or not.

Over the past two decades, the origins of the conflict were swept under the carpet, gradually repressed as the struggle assumed the narrower shape of the post-1967 territorial tug-of-war over the West Bank and Gaza. The two protagonists, each for its own reason, along with the international community, implicitly agreed to deal with the battle’s latest, most palpable expression. Palestinians saw an opportunity to finally exercise authority over a part of their patrimony; Israelis wanted to free themselves from the burdens of occupation; and foreign parties found that it was the easier, tidier thing to do. The hope was that, somehow, addressing the status of the West Bank and Gaza would dispense with the need to address the issues that predated the occupation and could outlast it.

That so many attempts to resolve the conflict have failed is reason to be wary. It is almost as if the parties, whenever they inch toward an artful compromise over the realities of the present, are inexorably drawn back to the ghosts of the past. It is hard today to imagine a resolution that does not entail two states. But two states may not be a true resolution if the roots of this clash are ignored. The ultimate territorial outcome almost certainly will be found within the borders of 1967. To be sustainable, it will need to grapple with matters left over since 1948. The first step will be to recognize that in the hearts and minds of Israelis and Palestinians, the fundamental question is not about the details of an apparently practical solution. It is an existential struggle between two worldviews.
For years, virtually all attention has been focused on the question of a future Palestinian state, its borders and powers. As Israelis make plain by talking about the
imperative of a Jewish state, and as Palestinians highlight when they evoke the
refugees’ rights, the heart of the matter is not necessarily how to define a state of Palestine. It is, as in a sense it always has been, how to define the state of Israel.


This line is aggravating some of Israel's supporters. Even Jeffrey Goldberg, one of the most sofisticated and nuanced of them, is uneasy:

This reads to me like an unfortunate bit of pussy-footing. Events are moving
me into the camp of people who believe there isn't an actual solution to the
Arab-Israeli conflict, and it seems as if events are moving Agha and Malley
in this direction as well. But if they're arguing that the conflict will only
end when Israel ceases to define itself as a Jewish state, they should say it
outright. It's not an appealing notion -- that there is room in the Middle East
for twenty-three Muslim-majority states, but not room enough for one Jewish
state , but they should state it if they believe it.


Whether Agha-Malley come out and say what they think or not seems to me less important. Why do we need to care about their personal opinions? Jonathan Tobin's point is more important.

Though many will dismiss this piece as extremist fare, Malley has a history of being the thin edge of the wedge when it comes to anti-Israel polemics. Though the authors couch their article in terms that allow them to pose as peace advocates, what Agha and Malley are attempting to do is legitimize the theme that peace depends on the end of the Jewish state even within the 1949 armistice lines.


The lines of discussion are indeed becoming ever more clear, even if the team at the White House doesn't see it. The issue is the right of the Jews to sovereignty in their ancestral homeland. Not the right of the Palestinians; that has already been acepted by any fair minded person. It's the right of the Jews which is being discussed, evaluated, and in many cases rejected. This is what the Jews need firmly to keep in mind.
taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Ruining the World's Consensus

Ruining the World's Consensus

The Guardian's Comment is Free section hosts the Agha-Malley column published in the New York Times yesterday (post above). (Their URL is called israel-palestine-two-state-solution, which may indicate someone wasn't paying attention).

The comments start off with some very edgy statements from the small pro-Israel team that tries, valiantly and futilely, to combat the poison which infests the comments part of Comment is Free. Their task is so hopeless and frustrating that one can appreciate why they're losing their own ability to think calmly. After their comments, however, the usual irrational animosity kicks in. Irrational and dripping with malice it may be, but not necessarily incoherent. I especially liked this comment:

Justice here - the implementation of instruments of international law and respect for UN institutions (to which Israel owes its 'existential' incarnation and survival) - is not an essentially contested concept relative to any particular world-view, but carries universal precepts grounding global peace and common jurisprudence since the world started putting itself back together in 1945. The frustration of the emergence of a Palestinian state is due almost entirely to the gross delinquency of successive Israel governments and the UN Security Council in honouring the obligations of the UN's founding principles. Defaulting to the failed and destabilising formulae of partition and recidivist nationalism would constitute acknowledgement that a member state has been rewarded for wrecking the post-1945 consensus ... and it is no surprise that Israel takes all the awards in public opinion polls concerning the biggest threat to global peace.

In English: The world healed itself in 1945 by creating a New World Order, based on justice, universal values and international law. Israel's existence contradicts all these. If the World Order doesn't fully work it's because Israel has been wrecking the consensus all this time. That's why Israel is so universally hated. You bet there shouldn't be a two state solution: that would mean the Israelis won.

There's no need to argue with this hallucinatory mishmash. We do need, however, to be aware of it, to understand that many people agree with it, and to accept that it's a worldview that regards itself as drawing on universal morality and a respectful reading of history, tied together in a rational system. It draws on the Enlightenment, in other words - as all of the world's worst monstrosities these past few centuries have.
taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

DoubleTapper: Women, Guns and Civilization

DoubleTapper: Women, Guns and Civilization

Top Ten Myths about the Middle East Conflict

Top Ten Myths about the Middle East Conflict

Jews Tired of Waiting, Plan to Move into Jerusalem Property - Inside Israel - Israel News - Israel National News

Jews Tired of Waiting, Plan to Move into Jerusalem Property - Inside Israel - Israel News - Israel National News

Terrorist Marwan Barghouti Elected to Fatah Central Committee - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Terrorist Marwan Barghouti Elected to Fatah Central Committee - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

‘War’ at Northern Border: Beethoven vs. Raucous Street Parties - Inside Israel - Israel News - Israel National News

‘War’ at Northern Border: Beethoven vs. Raucous Street Parties - Inside Israel - Israel News - Israel National News
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...