Thursday 24 September 2009
Love of the Land: In Case You Thought It Couldn’t Get Any Worse
In Case You Thought It Couldn’t Get Any Worse
Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
24 September 09
The Goldstone report can’t even get a stamp of approval from Mary Robinson. (I bet it’ll make the Osama bin Laden reading list, however.) We noted last week the rather tepid response from Ambassador Susan Rice. Then it appeared that the U.S. was actually going to step in to block further action on the report—almost like it was defending an ally who had been unjustly accused by ideologically craven opponents. But that, it turns out, was a mistake, a misstatement, a gaffe. The Obama administration wouldn’t dream of such a thing. This report explains:
A White House official “misspoke” when he said the Obama administration would not allow the Goldstone report recommendations on Israel’s conduct in the Gaza war to reach the International Criminal Court. A top White House official told Jewish organizational leaders in an off-the-record phone call Wednesday that the U.S. strategy was to “quickly” bring the report—commissioned by the U.N. Human Rights Council and carried out by former South African Judge Richard Goldstone—to its “natural conclusion” within the Human Rights Council and not to allow it to go further, Jewish participants in the call told JTA.
Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman, called JTA later to say the official “misspoke” and that administration policy on the Goldstone report remains as articulated last week by Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador.
Rice described the UNHRC mandate as “unbalanced, one sided and basically unacceptable. We have very serious concerns about many of the recommendations in the report. We will expect and believe that the appropriate venue for this report to be considered is the Human Rights Council and that is our strong view.”
She did not mention what the United States would do were the report to be referred to the ICC.
Well this is pretty much par for the course in the hapless and comically inept Obama foreign-policy operation. It’s bad enough to pull out on missile defense, but then we call allies in the middle of the night and announce the news on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. It’s bad enough that we don’t put an end to the Goldstone travesty, but first we say we will—before we say we won’t.
Implementation and execution matter in foreign policy, as the Obama campaign reminded us continually. They assured us that they would be smart, adept, subtle, and sophisticated—and oh so worldly. The reality is a shocking display of amateurism and disdain for our allies. The Obama team was supposed to “restore” our place in the world; instead we are transforming friends into embittered former allies.
It makes one long for the “clumsy” cowboy diplomacy of George Bush. You remember—when Israel, Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras, and human-rights activists felt they had a friend in the White House and when the administration’s pronouncements weren’t always popular but didn’t require an errata sheet.
Love of the Land: In Case You Thought It Couldn’t Get Any Worse
Love of the Land: Regarding That "Boy in Gaza": Obama Overlooks Genocidal Regime and Real Barriers to Peace
of Israel to fulfill its earthly goals - Manhigut Yehudit
Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
24 September 09
Love of the Land: Regarding That "Boy in Gaza": Obama Overlooks Genocidal Regime and Real Barriers to Peace
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Regarding That "Boy in Gaza": Obama Overlooks Genocidal Regime and Real Barriers to Peace
Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
24 September 09
We've seen transcripts of numerous Hamas children's shows but this one, for example, is a clear and open call to genocide. When will there be some international reaction to this kind of thing? There's Pallywood and then there's the reality show: the real Hamas.
Here’s a debate on a Hamas children’s show, “Tomorrow’s Pioneers,” aired on al-Aqsa television, September 22. Should all the Jews in Israel be wiped out or merely expelled and their society destroyed?
The bear puppet Nassur makes the following statements.
The Jews must be “erased from our land.”
"We want to slaughter them, Saraa, so they will be expelled from our land….We'll have to [do it] by slaughter."
"There won't be any Jews or Zionists, if Allah wills. They'll be erased."
The young girl who is hosting the show says:
"They'll be slaughtered." But at another point says: “Just expel them from our land."
Then they reach a true dialectical resolution:
Nassur: "We want to slaughter them, so they will be expelled from our land, right?"
Saraa: "Yes. That's right. We will expel them from our land using all means."
Nassur: "And if they don't want [to go] peacefully, by words or talking, we'll have to [do it] by slaughter."
This is an open call for genocide, worse yet is teaching children this is what they must do. One of Obama's closest advisors in the White House, Samantha Powers, is an alleged expert on genocide yet she's totally unconcerned with this issue. Guess she's only an "expert" on genocides after they happen.
It has become a cliché that those who would commit genocide announce it beforehand, as Germany’s dictator once did in his book or as happened in Rwanda in radio broadcasts before the mass murders. Supposedly, the world is united in opposing such a horrendous policy.
Yet while there are sanctions against Hamas, there is no concerted effort to overthrow the regime, even by those who claim to be in favor of Israel-Palestinian peace as a high priority. But as long as Hamas is in power there can be no such peace. Indeed, the main international attempt was to restrain Israel in its war in Gaza and then to criticize it afterward in a way that positively benefits Hamas.
How can this be reconciled with the fact that on a daily basis Hamas is seeking to carry out genocide clearly in terms of all the standard international legal and moral definitions?
Here is Obama’s only mention of Gaza in his speech to the UN:
“We must remember that the greatest price of this conflict is not paid by us. It is paid by the Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the night. It is paid by the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call his own. These are God’s children. And after all of the politics and all of the posturing, this is about the right of every human being to live with dignity and security.”
This is meant to be one of those even-handed throwaway lines about how everyone is suffering. But let’s examine it more closely.
First, I can’t help but remark as a tiny example of the sloppy way American policy is conducted nowadays that rockets are never fired from the Gaza Strip at night.
More importantly, what about the alleged lack of clean water and actual lack of a country by the Palestinian boy in Gaza?
If he has no clean water—which more than likely isn’t true—it’s because the Palestinian Authority didn’t build the proper facilities during the dozen years it governed the Gaza Strip even though U.S. aid money was given for the project! And because since then Hamas prefers to sustain a war against Israel and use its income for military goals.
What about the fact that the Palestinian boy—and why not Palestinian girl, who faces a whole range of oppression—will not enjoy freedom because he is living under a repressive dictatorship which will force him to fight for decades. That boy is being taught by Hamas television to believe that Jews are subhumans and that his duty to wipe them out--child, woman, man--one way or another. Isn’t that significant?
Yet this is the president of the United States speaking and one should expect some basic logic. Let’s assume that he gets the Palestinian Authority and Israel to make peace (of course this isn’t going to happen). A Palestinian state is created on the basis of this agreement. That agreement would have no effect whatsoever on the little boy in Gaza! He’d still be living under Hamas rule.
Hamas would try to wreck the agreement, perhaps using that boy as a suicide bomber. It would plow every penny it could get on weapons; it would provoke wars leading to more damage on the infrastructure and casualties.
Isn’t that worth pointing out? So to help the boy, the United States would have to call for and help bring about the overthrow of Hamas.
Obama could have done so in his own way, drawing a contrast between what he might call the wonderful, peace-loving, moderate Palestinian Authority and the evil repressive Islamists of Hamas. But that would be defining enemies, taking sides, showing leadership.
Instead, in his UN speech, Obama never mentioned Hamas—not once—and did not condemn it. Yet what is a bigger barrier to peace: the building of apartments on existing Israeli settlements or the fact that almost as many Palestinians and almost as much land is governed by Hamas as by the Palestinian Authority?
[Note: I also can’t help but adding that if he wanted to discuss genocide he might also have said something about Sudan—I don’t know if the term is appropriate for what’s going on in Sudan but many observers say it is. That, however, would have been embarrassing since the Sudanese government leads the “nonaligned” movement, the most powerful bloc in the UN, which is his supposed mechanism for solving world problems!]
Here’s a debate on a Hamas children’s show, “Tomorrow’s Pioneers,” aired on al-Aqsa television, September 22. Should all the Jews in Israel be wiped out or merely expelled and their society destroyed?
The bear puppet Nassur makes the following statements.
The Jews must be “erased from our land.”
"We want to slaughter them, Saraa, so they will be expelled from our land….We'll have to [do it] by slaughter."
"There won't be any Jews or Zionists, if Allah wills. They'll be erased."
The young girl who is hosting the show says:
"They'll be slaughtered." But at another point says: “Just expel them from our land."
Then they reach a true dialectical resolution:
Nassur: "We want to slaughter them, so they will be expelled from our land, right?"
Saraa: "Yes. That's right. We will expel them from our land using all means."
Nassur: "And if they don't want [to go] peacefully, by words or talking, we'll have to [do it] by slaughter."
This is an open call for genocide, worse yet is teaching children this is what they must do. One of Obama's closest advisors in the White House, Samantha Powers, is an alleged expert on genocide yet she's totally unconcerned with this issue. Guess she's only an "expert" on genocides after they happen.
It has become a cliché that those who would commit genocide announce it beforehand, as Germany’s dictator once did in his book or as happened in Rwanda in radio broadcasts before the mass murders. Supposedly, the world is united in opposing such a horrendous policy.
Yet while there are sanctions against Hamas, there is no concerted effort to overthrow the regime, even by those who claim to be in favor of Israel-Palestinian peace as a high priority. But as long as Hamas is in power there can be no such peace. Indeed, the main international attempt was to restrain Israel in its war in Gaza and then to criticize it afterward in a way that positively benefits Hamas.
How can this be reconciled with the fact that on a daily basis Hamas is seeking to carry out genocide clearly in terms of all the standard international legal and moral definitions?
Here is Obama’s only mention of Gaza in his speech to the UN:
“We must remember that the greatest price of this conflict is not paid by us. It is paid by the Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the night. It is paid by the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call his own. These are God’s children. And after all of the politics and all of the posturing, this is about the right of every human being to live with dignity and security.”
This is meant to be one of those even-handed throwaway lines about how everyone is suffering. But let’s examine it more closely.
First, I can’t help but remark as a tiny example of the sloppy way American policy is conducted nowadays that rockets are never fired from the Gaza Strip at night.
More importantly, what about the alleged lack of clean water and actual lack of a country by the Palestinian boy in Gaza?
If he has no clean water—which more than likely isn’t true—it’s because the Palestinian Authority didn’t build the proper facilities during the dozen years it governed the Gaza Strip even though U.S. aid money was given for the project! And because since then Hamas prefers to sustain a war against Israel and use its income for military goals.
What about the fact that the Palestinian boy—and why not Palestinian girl, who faces a whole range of oppression—will not enjoy freedom because he is living under a repressive dictatorship which will force him to fight for decades. That boy is being taught by Hamas television to believe that Jews are subhumans and that his duty to wipe them out--child, woman, man--one way or another. Isn’t that significant?
Yet this is the president of the United States speaking and one should expect some basic logic. Let’s assume that he gets the Palestinian Authority and Israel to make peace (of course this isn’t going to happen). A Palestinian state is created on the basis of this agreement. That agreement would have no effect whatsoever on the little boy in Gaza! He’d still be living under Hamas rule.
Hamas would try to wreck the agreement, perhaps using that boy as a suicide bomber. It would plow every penny it could get on weapons; it would provoke wars leading to more damage on the infrastructure and casualties.
Isn’t that worth pointing out? So to help the boy, the United States would have to call for and help bring about the overthrow of Hamas.
Obama could have done so in his own way, drawing a contrast between what he might call the wonderful, peace-loving, moderate Palestinian Authority and the evil repressive Islamists of Hamas. But that would be defining enemies, taking sides, showing leadership.
Instead, in his UN speech, Obama never mentioned Hamas—not once—and did not condemn it. Yet what is a bigger barrier to peace: the building of apartments on existing Israeli settlements or the fact that almost as many Palestinians and almost as much land is governed by Hamas as by the Palestinian Authority?
[Note: I also can’t help but adding that if he wanted to discuss genocide he might also have said something about Sudan—I don’t know if the term is appropriate for what’s going on in Sudan but many observers say it is. That, however, would have been embarrassing since the Sudanese government leads the “nonaligned” movement, the most powerful bloc in the UN, which is his supposed mechanism for solving world problems!]
Love of the Land: Regarding That "Boy in Gaza": Obama Overlooks Genocidal Regime and Real Barriers to Peace
Love of the Land: A Speech for the Ages
A Speech for the Ages
Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
24 September 09
If the president’s speech was one of the more embarrassing and shameful displays by a U.S. President before the UN, then today brought a reminder of the power of moral clarity. Bibi Netanyahu delivered a scathing condemnation of those who sat and listened to Holocaust denier Ahmadinejad. And he brought some visual aids:
Read and see all at :
Love of the Land: A Speech for the Ages
Israel Matzav: Israel's Gaza civilian to military kill ratio much lower than NATO's in Serbia
Israel's Gaza civilian to military kill ratio much lower than NATO's in Serbia
In an op-ed in Thursday's Boston Globe, Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the US, discusses the number of civilian casualties caused by Operation Cast Lead. Despite Hamas’s cynical use of civilians as human shields, the Israel Defense Forces repeatedly called off operations deemed too dangerous to civilian populations and endangered its own troops by warning Palestinian neighborhoods of impending attacks. Yet even the most moral army can make mistakes, especially in dense urban warfare; for every Serbian soldier killed by NATO in 1999, for example, four civilians died. By comparison, more than half of the Palestinian casualties in Gaza were military. Still, Israel launched investigations into some 100 cases of alleged misconduct by its soldiers, 23 of which continue. If found guilty, as one soldier already has been, the perpetrators will be brought to justice under Israel’s internationally respected legal system.
I'll bet many of you who are not news junkies didn't know that the military to civilian kill ratio was 1:4 in Serbia as compared with 1:less than 1 in Gaza.
But of course, Oren is using the Israeli figures of who is a civilian and who is a terrorist, since they are by far the most reliable. What's more amazing is that even had he accepted the Hamas figures, the ratio would still have been less than 1:4. And I doubt that anyone in the West would accuse the US military of deliberately perpetrating a massacre.
The fact that the IDF's civilian kill ratio was much lower than other Western armies is something that needs to be stressed in the media in the post-Goldstone Report period.
The picture at the top is an example of a terrorist whom Hamas classified as a civilian. You can find out more about him here.
But of course, Oren is using the Israeli figures of who is a civilian and who is a terrorist, since they are by far the most reliable. What's more amazing is that even had he accepted the Hamas figures, the ratio would still have been less than 1:4. And I doubt that anyone in the West would accuse the US military of deliberately perpetrating a massacre.
The fact that the IDF's civilian kill ratio was much lower than other Western armies is something that needs to be stressed in the media in the post-Goldstone Report period.
The picture at the top is an example of a terrorist whom Hamas classified as a civilian. You can find out more about him here.
Israel Matzav: Israel's Gaza civilian to military kill ratio much lower than NATO's in Serbia
Israel Matzav: Russia agrees to new sanctions on Iran?
Russia agrees to new sanctions on Iran?
Reuters is reporting that Russia has agreed to new sanctions on Iran. [Russian President Dmitry] Medvedev made clear that Moscow was ready to back further sanctions against the Islamic Republic unless it changes course on its nuclear program, despite Russia's general reluctance to support such punitive measures.
"Russia's position is simple," he said. "Sanctions are seldom productive but they are sometimes inevitable."
...
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is expected to join his counterparts from the other five countries to discuss their Oct. 1 meeting with an Iranian delegation in Geneva. It is the six powers' first meeting with Iran since July 2008.
Russia had previously ruled out new sanctions against Iran but appears to have reversed its position.
Obama announced last week that he would scrap plans for a U.S. missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland that had angered Russia. Washington and Moscow have denied any quid pro quo deal on Iran sanctions in exchange for scrapping the shield, but analysts and U.N. diplomats suspect otherwise.
The previous U.S. administration said the shield would protect against an attack by Iran but Moscow suspected it was the target. Moscow's anger about the project was one of the reasons U.S.-Russian relations sank to a post-Cold War low.
Russia and China reluctantly backed three council resolutions imposing sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program but worked hard to dilute the measures.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki met with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband at the United Nations on Tuesday. Mottaki said afterward that the Western powers knew sanctions were a failed policy.
"If they would like to taste once again the failed policies, that is up to them," he said.
The United States and Germany have called for targeting Iran's energy sector if it refuses to suspend its enrichment program. The U.N. sanctions in place against Tehran focus on its nuclear and missile industries.
Let's not celebrate prematurely. Russia may be willing to endorse sanctions but what's left unsaid is what sanctions they might be willing to endorse and whether those sanctions might be effective.
We're still a long way from stopping Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
We're still a long way from stopping Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Israel Matzav: Russia agrees to new sanctions on Iran?
Israel Matzav: More anti-Israel bias at the Guardian
More anti-Israel bias at the Guardian
CiF Watch, which keeps an eye out for the doings at the Guardian's popular online soapbox Comment is Free, writes today about an op-ed that discusses the recent decision by Britain's Trade Unions Council (TUC) to boycott certain Israeli and non-Israeli companies that deal with Israelis in Judea and Samaria.At the end of an excellent post, they relate this interesting story:
The truth is that trade union members of Unite, Unison, the Fire Brigade Union and the GMB – some of the unions whose executives were pushing for action against Israel – were never consulted about the matter. The one occasion when a union was forced to consult its members resulted in overwhelming opposition to a boycott (the Association of University Teachers in 2005, voting on an academic boycott).
In the matter of Israel, the UK trade unions have been hijacked by the hard Left. Since the collapse of communism, the hard Left has been bereft of a cause. In addition it is facing the prospect of a long period of Labour in opposition. Israel – more precisely the false analogy of Israel with apartheid South Africa – gives it a cause.
PS: My comment welcoming the article and pointing out that no union has balloted its members was deleted without trace. But this comment remains – with 62 recommends, so far:
lalibella
23 Sep 09, 2:12pm
I support whatever action British trade unions can take to oppose the racist, apartheid policies of this disgraceful Israeli government
Nothing like providing an open forum for discussion, is there?
Read the whole thing.
By the way, for those of you in the US who don't understand the voting thing, in Britain, like in Israel, unions can call strikes without the approval of the union members, and the union members are obligated to go along. Very democratic, isn't it?
Read the whole thing.
By the way, for those of you in the US who don't understand the voting thing, in Britain, like in Israel, unions can call strikes without the approval of the union members, and the union members are obligated to go along. Very democratic, isn't it?
Israel Matzav: More anti-Israel bias at the Guardian
RubinReports: Obama to Israel and Palestinians: Make Peace Right Now Cause I Said So!
Obama to Israel and Palestinians: Make Peace Right Now Cause I Said So!
By Barry Rubin
It is difficult to overstate the absurdity in context of President Barack Obama’s performance during the Israeli-Palestinian photo opportunity he organized at the UN. The outstanding theme is his commandist style.
We will reverse man-made global warming, he has said. We will have a health-care bill. This is like the style of an Arab dictator, proclaiming that his will is all and that uttering words make something so. It is not the style of someone helping two parties solve a problem or of a mediator .
But let’s allow William Shakespeare to explain it:
“Why, man, he stands on top of the narrow world
Like the Colossus of Rhodes, and we little men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves disgraceful graves.”
Yet this thundering, you-will-do-this style is combined with an extraordinary weakness, equally self-willed. Giving orders when you are tough is scary; giving orders when you are weak provokes derision. If America won’t use force or be tough or face confrontations or define enemies as such, then the gap between such arrogance and weakness is a chasm into which U.S. foreign policy will fall.
This might wow them in elite salons of the United States but in lots of other countries, people have to lean against the wall to try to stop themselves from laughing.
Personal note: I don’t want to keep bashing Obama, it’s simply that he keeps saying and doing things that defy satire and beg for the harsh criticism and exposure of absurdities that he is not getting in the mainstream media.
But how can one do otherwise when confronted with these statements by him:
“It is past time to stop talking about starting negotiations; it is time to move forward.”
Arab-Israeli negotiations have been going on for sixty years but Obama really seems to believe they have just been waiting for him to give the go-ahead signal.
As I keep stressing the ONLY reason there have been no negotiations for six months—a point the media never points out—is that Obama introduced the demand that Israel freeze all construction on settlements. This issue had never prevented talks before but once Obama raised the ante, well the Palestinians couldn’t be less militant than America’s president.
Instead, the New York Times tells us rather vaguely: “[Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud] Abbas has in the past refused to return to peace talks unless Israel freezes settlement growth in Palestinian territories.” Really? In the past like before January 20, 2009?
"There is a way, I think,” said Obama in an interview with ABC, “to relaunch the peace process and not get bogged down with this question, because we've just wasted six months on this issue. We could waste another six months. I think that's not good. I want to move on to peace."
This could be called the stamping my little foot strategy. And incidentally I’d wager that Obama has no idea of any way to resolve the conflict quickly. Those questions he doesn’t want to get bogged down with are basic and existential ones. And, again, it is his fault that six months have been wasted (he’s also wasted six months on confronting Iran, but that’s another issue).
Instead, Obama wants to leap to permanent status. When was the last time that happened? Think back to 2000 when President Bill Clinton advanced to final status talks and that only after more than six years of preparation called the Oslo peace process. At Camp David the talks quickly fell apart and the Palestinians launched massive violence. And for the last nine years those involved have been saying that it was a mistake to go to final status talks when the foundation for an agreement didn't exist.
The best way to deal with the Israel-Palestinian issue is to get the limited progress possible, not through grandstanding and demagoguery but by finding solutions on small things that can strengthen the status quo and limit violence for the decades stillneeded by the Palestinians to decide they are ready to make real peace with Israel.
Yet perhaps Obama thinks he’s Alexander the Great who, when faced with the Gordian Knot, rather than untie it merely cut through it with his sword. Obama, who carries no sword, can’t do that with a dozen issues that could be listed at this point.
The fact that this man has no real experience in international relations is beginning to tell. No matter how good (or bad) advisors are cannot fully make up for a president who hasn’t a clue of how to deal with an issue like this. I don’t want to be unfair but this seems literally to be true.
And then there’s his style. Obama makes it sound as if countries must do things not because it is in their interest to do so (with American help, pressure, and even threats being part of that interest) but because he wants it and it will benefit him.
"We cannot continue the same pattern of taking tentative steps forward and then stepping back," Obama said. "It is absolutely critical that we get this issue resolved."
But a man who knows more about these issues, Nahum Barnea, the left-leaning Israeli columnist, put it this way: "The Americans discovered that they want an Israeli-Palestinian agreement more than the leaders of both sides desire one.”
Barnea might have more accurately written, “Should have discovered” because evidently the president hasn’t yet found this out.
Instead, Obama stated, “It is time to show the flexibility and common sense and sense of compromise that’s necessary to achieve our goals.”
Flexibility? Common sense? Sense of compromise? What place is he talking about?
It is difficult to overstate the absurdity in context of President Barack Obama’s performance during the Israeli-Palestinian photo opportunity he organized at the UN. The outstanding theme is his commandist style.
We will reverse man-made global warming, he has said. We will have a health-care bill. This is like the style of an Arab dictator, proclaiming that his will is all and that uttering words make something so. It is not the style of someone helping two parties solve a problem or of a mediator .
But let’s allow William Shakespeare to explain it:
“Why, man, he stands on top of the narrow world
Like the Colossus of Rhodes, and we little men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves disgraceful graves.”
Yet this thundering, you-will-do-this style is combined with an extraordinary weakness, equally self-willed. Giving orders when you are tough is scary; giving orders when you are weak provokes derision. If America won’t use force or be tough or face confrontations or define enemies as such, then the gap between such arrogance and weakness is a chasm into which U.S. foreign policy will fall.
This might wow them in elite salons of the United States but in lots of other countries, people have to lean against the wall to try to stop themselves from laughing.
Personal note: I don’t want to keep bashing Obama, it’s simply that he keeps saying and doing things that defy satire and beg for the harsh criticism and exposure of absurdities that he is not getting in the mainstream media.
But how can one do otherwise when confronted with these statements by him:
“It is past time to stop talking about starting negotiations; it is time to move forward.”
Arab-Israeli negotiations have been going on for sixty years but Obama really seems to believe they have just been waiting for him to give the go-ahead signal.
As I keep stressing the ONLY reason there have been no negotiations for six months—a point the media never points out—is that Obama introduced the demand that Israel freeze all construction on settlements. This issue had never prevented talks before but once Obama raised the ante, well the Palestinians couldn’t be less militant than America’s president.
Instead, the New York Times tells us rather vaguely: “[Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud] Abbas has in the past refused to return to peace talks unless Israel freezes settlement growth in Palestinian territories.” Really? In the past like before January 20, 2009?
"There is a way, I think,” said Obama in an interview with ABC, “to relaunch the peace process and not get bogged down with this question, because we've just wasted six months on this issue. We could waste another six months. I think that's not good. I want to move on to peace."
This could be called the stamping my little foot strategy. And incidentally I’d wager that Obama has no idea of any way to resolve the conflict quickly. Those questions he doesn’t want to get bogged down with are basic and existential ones. And, again, it is his fault that six months have been wasted (he’s also wasted six months on confronting Iran, but that’s another issue).
Instead, Obama wants to leap to permanent status. When was the last time that happened? Think back to 2000 when President Bill Clinton advanced to final status talks and that only after more than six years of preparation called the Oslo peace process. At Camp David the talks quickly fell apart and the Palestinians launched massive violence. And for the last nine years those involved have been saying that it was a mistake to go to final status talks when the foundation for an agreement didn't exist.
The best way to deal with the Israel-Palestinian issue is to get the limited progress possible, not through grandstanding and demagoguery but by finding solutions on small things that can strengthen the status quo and limit violence for the decades stillneeded by the Palestinians to decide they are ready to make real peace with Israel.
Yet perhaps Obama thinks he’s Alexander the Great who, when faced with the Gordian Knot, rather than untie it merely cut through it with his sword. Obama, who carries no sword, can’t do that with a dozen issues that could be listed at this point.
The fact that this man has no real experience in international relations is beginning to tell. No matter how good (or bad) advisors are cannot fully make up for a president who hasn’t a clue of how to deal with an issue like this. I don’t want to be unfair but this seems literally to be true.
And then there’s his style. Obama makes it sound as if countries must do things not because it is in their interest to do so (with American help, pressure, and even threats being part of that interest) but because he wants it and it will benefit him.
"We cannot continue the same pattern of taking tentative steps forward and then stepping back," Obama said. "It is absolutely critical that we get this issue resolved."
But a man who knows more about these issues, Nahum Barnea, the left-leaning Israeli columnist, put it this way: "The Americans discovered that they want an Israeli-Palestinian agreement more than the leaders of both sides desire one.”
Barnea might have more accurately written, “Should have discovered” because evidently the president hasn’t yet found this out.
Instead, Obama stated, “It is time to show the flexibility and common sense and sense of compromise that’s necessary to achieve our goals.”
Flexibility? Common sense? Sense of compromise? What place is he talking about?
RubinReports: Obama to Israel and Palestinians: Make Peace Right Now Cause I Said So!
Love of the Land: Obama and the Middle East
Obama and the Middle East
Efraim Inbar
BESA Center For Strategic Studies
24 September 09
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: US President Barack Obama has adopted an activist foreign policy, attempting to engage the Muslim world and signaling his expectation that an end the Israel-Palestinian conflict can be negotiated within two years. This ambitious agenda has so far produced meager results. Many regional players are primarily concerned about Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons, and are not easily amenable to American overtures.
US President Barack Obama's summit meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas in New York this week was a good thing, but it amounted to little more than a photo opportunity. The impatient Obama demanded that the parties seriously discuss peace now. Obama appeared to be on the verge of enunciating his own peace plan in order to restart peace negotiations and to eventually end the protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict – all within two years!
It is worth reminding the president that the many past US peace plans for the Middle East failed to bring the anticipated results. Moreover, the recent meeting in New York only reinforces the evaluation that after eight months in office, the record of Obama’s policy toward the Middle East is far from impressive.
Obama’s much heralded speech to the Muslim world in Cairo failed to make a dent in Middle Eastern realities and attitudes. His belief in the power of words to change people is naive when it comes to well-rooted attitudes or entrenched interests of nations. In instances where the US sided with Muslims when in conflict with non-Muslims, such as in Pakistan, Bosnia and Kosovo, there was little impact on Muslim dispositions. The anti-American rage among Muslims, primarily Arabs, is a result of a concatenation of factors: frustration originating from past grandeur, current poverty, backwardness, and a dark future; a cultural difficulty to accept responsibility; and a preference to blame others for failures to modernize and democratize. While words have great importance in Muslim culture, even the best of speeches cannot change the tide of history. Obama’s words are unlikely to have long-term positive effects for the US, which in final analysis is seen as foreign and domineering.
The “soft power” that this administration extols has its limitations, particular in a region where the use of force is part and parcel of the rules of the game and fear is a better political currency than empathy or love.
So far the “engagement” policy toward Iran, which is part of the new approach to the Muslim world, has produced no results. The nuclear program of Iran continues, and its new proposal to the West did not provide any opening for negotiations on the nuclear issue.
Similarly, the engagement of radical Syria hardly changed Syrian policies. Damascus still supports Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza; allows insurgents to infiltrate Iraq in order to destabilize the current regime; refuses to enter peace negotiations with Israel without preconditions; and above all continues its alliance with Iran. Why should Assad change Syrian foreign policy if he fears no American wrath? As a matter of fact, Iran, Syria, as well as the rest of the Middle East, see “engagement” primarily as an American weakness.
Obama’s Washington does not get anywhere even with its friends. The leaders in all Arab countries know that the American “engagement” of Iran is hopeless in stopping the nuclearization of Iran. During his August trip to Washington, Mubarak of Egypt tried to inject sense into the young American president. Moreover, Mubarak rejected Obama's offer for a nuclear umbrella. So did other pro-American Arab states. American promises to defend them are simply not credible if the US is reluctant to use military force to stop the Iranian nuclear threat.
The impending American withdrawal from Iraq and the difficulties in “fixing” Afghanistan contribute to the general sense of a decline in American influence in the Middle East. Indeed, as regional politics take their toll, a Pax Americana in the Middle East is no longer seen as a viable option for providing progress and prosperity. It is not only the Palestinians that have failed to develop a capacity to govern, with institutions that respond to the needs of the people. The political malaise of the Palestinians is not unique. We see several additional failed states in the Arab world: Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and even Iraq. Pakistan, a Muslim state, is in danger of collapsing. Even American conquests, such as in Iraq and in Afghanistan, coupled with generous international aid, are not enough to transform these countries. Neither American speeches, nor American “soft power” are able to reform societies deep in crisis. Only a modernizing local leadership can do the trick. (Continue)
Love of the Land: Obama and the Middle East
Love of the Land: What are “the legitimate rights of the Palestinians”?
What are “the legitimate rights of the Palestinians”?
Ted Belman
24 September 09
Yesterday Pres Obama addressed the UNGA on the subject of the conflict between Arabs and Jews conflict and had this to say;
- …I will also continue to seek a just and lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world.
What is noteworthy here, is that he referred to “Palestine” like it was a state already. Is that not pre-judging the outcome? He also wants there to be peace with the “Arab world” which means more pressure on Israel to cave to the demands of Syria.
Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security. Israelis have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians. As a result of these efforts on both sides, the economy in the West Bank has begun to grow. But more progress is needed. We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.
He appears to be signing on to Netanyahu’s ideas regarding building the economy as a means to peace. But to my mind by rejecting the “legitimacy of the settlements”, he is declaring war on Israel.
The settlements are legitimate and legal. By taking such a position on no or spurious legal reasoning he is no better than Goldstone who took the position that Israel was guilty of war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity. Nether of the positions of Obama or Goldstone have any legitimacy. They are imposing on Israel an interpretation of law which favours the outcome they desire. Once again Obama has prejudged the outcome of negotiations. If the settlements are illegal as he says, then Israel Israel must agree to withdraw from all lands east of the green line. He made no distinction with respect to Jerusalem. But the US has long maintained the position that no one should do anything to prejudge the outcome.
Most presidents have shied away from saying that the settlements were illegal and contented themselves with declaring them “obstacles to peace”. This, also, is a debatable issue.
The time has come — the time has come to re-launch negotiations without preconditions that address the permanent status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem. And the goal is clear: Two states living side by side in peace and security — a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people. (Applause.)
Obama is misleading the world to say that negotiations should start “without preconditions” when he doesn’t mean it. The negotiations will be fraught with preconditions. He names a few such as that Palestine must be “independent”, “viable” and “contiguous”. But there are others such as the need to “end the occupation that began in 1967″. This implies full withdrawal rather than partial withdrawal as provided for in Res 242. Then there is the matter of whether the negotiations are starting fresh, which would be without preconditions, or whether the negotiations must pick up where they left off. Obama has been pressing for the latter.
As we pursue this goal, we will also pursue peace between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and a broader peace between Israel and its many neighbors. In pursuit of that goal, we will develop regional initiatives with multilateral participation, alongside bilateral negotiations.
To break the old patterns, to break the cycle of insecurity and despair, all of us must say publicly what we would acknowledge in private.
On the contrary, when is he going to say privately what he says publically. Once again he wants to be “honest” with us.
The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians. (Applause.) And — and nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks against Israel over constructive willingness to recognize Israel’s legitimacy and its right to exist in peace and security. (Applause.)
Now here is the bottom line, what are “the legitimate rights of the Palestinians”?
Refugees There is no legitimate right of return, There is only a right to receive compensation for the property owned by them and left behind when they evacuated. The Jewish refugees have a similar right for property they left behind in Arab countries when they were expelled.
Land. The land lying east of the armistice line, which the Arabs refer to as the West Bank and the Jews refer to as Judea and Samaria, can in no way be Palestinian land as claimed. The Palestinians never had sovereignty over it. Having lived there or even owned small parcels of land there, never confers sovereignty. There is absolutely no way they can establish a “legitimate right” to these lands. According to international law,The Jews were given these lands, as their national homeland over which they had political rights. These rights have never been forfeited.
Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a Jewish concept, not an Islamic one. Jerusalem, as a city means nothing to Islam. Jerusalem means everything to Judaism. It is at the core of it. I have no idea why anyone would consider that the Arabs have legitimate rights over Jerusalem but am sure that Obama includes a share of Jerusalem as a legitimate Palestinian right.
“Legitimate rights” are important in a court of law. They have no place in negotiations. Negotiations are essentially a power play whether between Management and Labour in labour disputes or between countries in negotiating treaties. Obama is supporting the Palestinians to strengthen their negotiating position. He is attempting to influence the outcome while at the same time he says that no one should do anything to prejudge the outcome.
It amounts to an imposed solution. Obama leaves little to be negotiated. He has predetermined all. In fact, has he not publically embraced the Saudi Plan.
Love of the Land: What are “the legitimate rights of the Palestinians”?
Israel Matzav: Who are the 'Palestinian refugees'?
Who are the 'Palestinian refugees'?
Lenny Ben David explains who the 'Palestinian refugees' are and how they are used as pawns in a battle to undermine Israel's existence. With the help of Gulf countries, led by Qatar and Bahrain, any number of affordable and suitable communities and productive industrial zones could be built on land controlled by the PA and Hamas. Ten Rawabis should be built, including some on the scorched earth in Gaza where Jewish communities once existed. These towns could provide construction jobs and low-cost housing for both local Palestinians and refugee families, many of whom have been on the UNRWA dole for 60 years. In many cases their new homes would be just a few miles from homesteads where their grandparents claimed to have lived.
There are two problems with this plan. First, has any part of Rawabi been set aside for refugees? It’s unlikely; reading between the lines of the marketing spiel, it is apparent that Rawabi was built to serve the housing and employment needs of the grown children of the Palestinian bourgeois and the yuppie offspring of Palestinian Authority officials on the West Bank.
Why is there so little concern among the elite of Palestine for the poorest of their fellow citizens? Because “Palestinian” is an artificial category, and a very weakly felt one. The track record dating back to 1947 provides little evidence that the Palestinians’ new-found national identity trumps their clan, religious, political, or class differences. In Israel, we shuddered at the barbarism of the Fatah-Hamas fratricide in Gaza in 2006 — the Palestinian “wakseh” or humiliation — when Palestinian families were gunned down by other Palestinians and political opponents were thrown from tall buildings.
During the waves of immigration to Israel of Soviet and Ethiopian Jewry in the 1980s and 1990s, I recall dozens of my neighbors donating furniture to the new immigrants and assigning companions to help settle them in the neighborhood and maneuver through the absorption bureaucracy. Children were happy to tithe from their toys for the new kids on the block who arrived with nothing. If only such a spirit were evident among the Palestinians.
Beyond the Palestinians’ lack of community feeling lies the so-called “right of return.” Palestinian leaders claim that each family has a right to reoccupy the land it held before Israel’s war for independence. Settling refugees comfortably in other areas would weaken their claim to this “right,” while keeping them in camps is a harsh but effective way to maintain pressure against Israel from the international community. What stands in the way of prosperity for Palestinian-controlled areas is the deep brainwashing of Palestinian children that there must be an actual physical return to their ancestral homes, along with an international and Israeli recognition of the “injustice” done to them.
The “right of return” frightens almost every Israeli. Not only would Jewish towns and communities in the West Bank’s “settlement blocs” become targets for a flood of four generations’ worth of refugees, but so would major Israeli cities and towns inside the 1949 armistice line (the “Green Line”). The city of Ashkelon (Majdal, to the Arabs) and the tony neighborhoods of north Tel Aviv (Sheikh Munis), for example, are built on the sites of Palestinian villages, according to both Palestinian and Israeli historians. Neighborhoods in Haifa and Ramla, to name but two, are coveted and claimed by the descendents of Palestinians who left in 1947 and 1948.
Rawabi is a new 'Palestinian' city that is being built six miles from Ramallah. But only the 'Palestinian' elites are being allowed to move there. The 'refugee camps' include luxurious homes for the elites while the ordinary people live in squalor. The picture at the top of this post is Mohamed Dahlan at his home in Gaza where he was commander of Fatah's 'security forces' until the Hamas coup two years ago.
Every attempt to improve the living conditions of ordinary 'Palestinians' has collapsed under the 'need' to 'preserve' the 'right of return.' That's what happened in Gaza City's Sheikh Redjwan neighborhood after the Six Day War when Israel attempted to provide normal housing for the shanty-dwelling refugees. The leadership would not allow it.
And you - American, Israeli and European taxpayer - are footing the bill for perpetuating this cycle of poverty - through your government's support of UNRWA.
Every attempt to improve the living conditions of ordinary 'Palestinians' has collapsed under the 'need' to 'preserve' the 'right of return.' That's what happened in Gaza City's Sheikh Redjwan neighborhood after the Six Day War when Israel attempted to provide normal housing for the shanty-dwelling refugees. The leadership would not allow it.
And you - American, Israeli and European taxpayer - are footing the bill for perpetuating this cycle of poverty - through your government's support of UNRWA.
Israel Matzav: Who are the 'Palestinian refugees'?
Israel Matzav: Honduras and Israel
Honduras and Israel
If any of you still believe that there is no connection between Israel and what is going on in Honduras, where the Obama administration is continuing to try to restore Hugo Chavez's buddy Manuel Zelaya to power, please consider this interview with Zelaya in the Miami Herald. It's been 89 days since Manuel Zelaya was booted from power. He's sleeping on chairs, and he claims his throat is sore from toxic gases and ``Israeli mercenaries'' are torturing him with high-frequency radiation.
``We are being threatened with death,'' he said in an interview with The Miami Herald, adding that mercenaries were likely to storm the embassy where he has been holed up since Monday and assassinate him.
``I prefer to march on my feet than to live on my knees before a military dictatorship,'' Zelaya said in a series of back-to-back interviews.
Yes, of course, it must be the Israelis evil Joooos who are trying to force Zelaya from power after Honduras' Supreme Court ordered him overthrown for trying to subvert that country's constitution.
For the record, 'Israeli government sources' in Miami deny the presence of any 'Israeli mercenaries' outside the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa, where Zelaya is holed up.
But does anyone doubt what Zelaya is trying to accomplish by accusing 'Israelis' of trying to 'assassinate' him? And what does Barack Obama's support for this delusional anti-Semite say about the American President?
For the record, 'Israeli government sources' in Miami deny the presence of any 'Israeli mercenaries' outside the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa, where Zelaya is holed up.
But does anyone doubt what Zelaya is trying to accomplish by accusing 'Israelis' of trying to 'assassinate' him? And what does Barack Obama's support for this delusional anti-Semite say about the American President?
Israel Matzav: Honduras and Israel
Israel Matzav: 'Our friends the Egyptians' press to monitor Israel's nuclear program
'Our friends the Egyptians' press to monitor Israel's nuclear program
Egyptian foreign minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit (pictured) has sent a letter to all 15 members of the UN Security Council urging them to put Israel's purported nuclear program under international supervision and calling for the Council to set a time frame for a nuclear-free Middle East. The letter follows the passage of a resolution at the IAEA meeting in Vienna last week that for the first time called on Israel to sign the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. For the first time in 18 years, Israel, the United States and the Western powers last week were unsuccessful at preventing passage of a resolution calling on Israel to sign the NPT.
The resolution, passed at the end of the annual general assembly of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna on Thursday, also demands that Israel open its nuclear reactor in Dimona to international inspectors.
The resolution was passed by a majority of 49 countries, among them the members of the Arab League and the bloc of developing nations; against 45 Western countries, including the European Union and the United States, and 16 abstentions.
The non-binding resolution mentions "Israeli nuclear capabilities."
In the past, the United States and other Western countries were able to persuade the developing countries not to join the resolution, thus thwarting its passage.
The proof that Israel having nuclear weapons does not endanger the region is that Israel has allegedly had nuclear weapons for 45 years and has never used them - not even when it had its back to the wall during the first days of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Egypt is simply fighting a danger that does not exist.
But what's most astounding here is where Egyptian hubris has led. Arguing that Israel ought to be subject to the NPT is exactly the tactic Iran has taken in arguing that the World should not interfere in its quest for nuclear weapons unless it puts equivalent pressure on Israel. Egypt is one of the countries that most fears Iran - it has already busted an Iranian - Hezbullah plot to destabilize the Egyptian government. And yet Egypt is playing right into Iran's hands by taking the lead on excoriating Israel for its non-membership in the NPT treaty.
Why is Egypt behaving this way? As usual with the Arab Muslims, it's a question of their 'honor.' The Greeks called undue concern about honor hubris. They must have had the Egyptians in mind.
But what's most astounding here is where Egyptian hubris has led. Arguing that Israel ought to be subject to the NPT is exactly the tactic Iran has taken in arguing that the World should not interfere in its quest for nuclear weapons unless it puts equivalent pressure on Israel. Egypt is one of the countries that most fears Iran - it has already busted an Iranian - Hezbullah plot to destabilize the Egyptian government. And yet Egypt is playing right into Iran's hands by taking the lead on excoriating Israel for its non-membership in the NPT treaty.
Why is Egypt behaving this way? As usual with the Arab Muslims, it's a question of their 'honor.' The Greeks called undue concern about honor hubris. They must have had the Egyptians in mind.
Israel Matzav: 'Our friends the Egyptians' press to monitor Israel's nuclear program
Israel Matzav: Disturbing trends in immigration to the US
Disturbing trends in immigration to the US
Those of you who live in the US ought to get on the horn and try to do something about this before you end up like Eurabia. Debbie Schlussel reports that although immigration to the US was down in 2008, immigration from terror sponsors like Iran and Syria rose - in Syria's case quite significantly. A Wall Street Journal graph (above), at least, shows that the number of Iranian-born immigrants is up by 18, 730 from 2007, for a total of 344,935 (though the WSJ article on this story doesn’t cover Mid-East immigration and sticks to the “immigration is down” narrative). While some of the nearly 19,000 new U.S. residents from Iran came here to get away from Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs, some did not. And we have no way of knowing which are which. If even only a fraction of that number are anti-American and inclined to do Iran’s bidding here, that’s far too many.
Then, there are the figures from Syria. The Census figures show that the number of Syrian-born residents in the U.S. increased by 11,349 persons to 66,077 Syrians here in 2008. That’s an alarming increase, given that most Syrians here (in recent years) are Shi’ite Muslims who support the (Alawite) Assad government and its hand in Hezbollah. (Most Syrian Christians who were going to leave left there long ago.)
From Lebanon, the increase is only 3,550, according to the Census. But that’s an estimate. And based on the number of Lebanese immigrants–both legal and illegal–here in Detroit, I’d say it’s far larger. And, still, most of those are Shi’ite Muslims who support Hezbollah. We really do not need even one more Hezbollah enabler on American soil, let alone the majority of 3,550 of them.
And none of this takes into account immigrants from the Gulf States–Al-Qaeda hotbeds of extremism–Saudi Arabia and Yemen, not to mention United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, which don’t have their own category in the Census survey.
...
Still, it’s annoying–no, it’s maddening. Since 9/11, as I’ve noted over and over again, we’ve done everything to make it hard for Hispanic illegal aliens, but little to discourage Islamic ones–you know the Muslim Arabs with the same theology and heritage as the 19 hijackers. That’s why it’s so disturbing–but not at all surprising–that we see this increase in population, despite the bad economy, from our friends in the “Religion of Peace.” For them, a bad economy doesn’t hinder their non-stop milking of the system, bailouts, and entitlements, a la Najibullah Zazi and Ali Nemr and Rania Rahal. And it certainly doesn’t discourage their plans to Islamicize America.
They murdered nearly 3,000 Americans, and yet we keep welcoming them to our shores.
I'm afraid it's going to take a new administration in the US for any of this to change.
Read the whole thing.
Read the whole thing.
Israel Matzav: Disturbing trends in immigration to the US
Israel Matzav: International Criminal Court may try IDF lawyer
International Criminal Court may try IDF lawyer
As a result of the Goldstone Commission Report, the International Criminal Court is exploring the possibility of trying IDF reserve officer David Benjamin, a dual citizen of Israel and South Africa, for 'war crimes' allegedly committed during Operation Cast Lead.
A senior prosecutor at the International Criminal Court in The Hague said Monday that he is considering opening an investigation into whether Lt. Col. David Benjamin, an Israel Defense Forces reserve officer, allowed war crimes to be committed during the IDF's three-week offensive in the Gaza Strip this winter.
The officer - a dual citizen of Israel and South Africa, where he was born - served in the Military Advocate General's international law department, which authorized which targets troops would strike before and during the operation.
Newsweek magazine released an interview Monday with ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo of Argentina in which he said he is convinced his office has the authority to launch an investigation into Benjamin's actions.
The ICC has until now refrained from trying IDF officers, as it lacks authority to do so, since Israel is not a signatory to the 2002 Rome Treaty that founded the court. South Africa, however, did sign the treaty, so the ICC is authorized to indict its citizens.
In case any of you missed it, Benjamin is not a combat officer on the field of battle: He's a lawyer. So in addition to the question of whether Benjamin ought to be subject to ICC jurisdiction as a South African citizen for acts he performed as an Israeli citizen, we face a situation where Benjamin may be prosecuted for giving legal advice to the IDF regarding the permissibility of targeting certain terrorists or facilities. Does that sound familiar to you Americans? If not, it should.
In the United States, the Obama administration has vacillated regarding the idea of prosecuting Bush administration lawyers who approved 'enhanced interrogation techniques' for terrorists out of fear that such a prosecution would have a chilling effect on legal advice given to its own and future administrations. An ICC prosecution of lawyers could have precisely the same effect, and the United States and all western democracies ought to oppose it.
There's no picture on this post, because I'm sure the IDF and Advocate Benjamin would rather not have his picture all over the web even if I could find it and be sure it was him.
In the United States, the Obama administration has vacillated regarding the idea of prosecuting Bush administration lawyers who approved 'enhanced interrogation techniques' for terrorists out of fear that such a prosecution would have a chilling effect on legal advice given to its own and future administrations. An ICC prosecution of lawyers could have precisely the same effect, and the United States and all western democracies ought to oppose it.
There's no picture on this post, because I'm sure the IDF and Advocate Benjamin would rather not have his picture all over the web even if I could find it and be sure it was him.
Israel Matzav: International Criminal Court may try IDF lawyer
Israel Matzav: The irony of immortality
The irony of immortality
I received this via email and so I am passing it on in full. Enjoy. The Irony of Immortality
By Norma Zager
The recent scene in a West Wing rerun was startling familiar. It dealt with Iran’s pursuit of The Bomb and the United States’ warning to Israel to discontinue settlement activity.
It could have been filmed this morning and yet it was ten years old.
Is this a tribute to Aaron Sorkin and his fellow writers’ ability to foresee the future? Or is it merely a testament to man’s inability to evolve?
Watching the story unfold I was struck by a great irony. Man’s driving force is his desire for immortality. This fuels his constant need to exert power over his environment and his neighbors.
It is beyond ironic the weapon man chooses to aid in this quest is the most capable of bringing about the annihilation of all mankind.
If humans are obsessed with life, why do they battle to compete for the greatest arsenal to shorten it and destroy one another?
I suppose man has become adept at rationalizing his bad behavior.
The United States has always contented itself with the logic the bomb ensures peace. It is, in the minds of America, Israel and others, a deterrent to the use of nuclear proliferation by other countries with far less regard for human life. The bombing of Japan was predicated on the saving, not taking, of human life. I would not judge.
The newest fly in the nuclear ointment is the ability of rogue nations to possess nuclear weapons. Who could not have seen this coming? Stevie Wonder could have spotted this a mile off.
Each new innovation carries the gene for good or evil. It is up to the grown ups to ensure it is used for the right reasons.
These nations and terrorists believe the weapons are not a deterrent to slaughter, but a fast track to Armageddon.
Where are the great dreams for the 21st century?
Man’s future in space technology has been abandoned and now functions as a spy network for those nations able to orbit satellites.
Where are the jet packs, colonies on the moon and promises of a futuristic world portrayed in our youth?
We are closer to the caves than ever, and true technology and research have been discarded in lieu of nuclear capability.
The search for immortality has been one of the true constants throughout man’s stay on earth.
Cavemen drew pictures depicting death, Egyptians developed mummification and religion developed an afterlife to end the finality of our finality.
Death has been the one universal agreement of humankind. The desire to end the end has come full circle and man has achieved a better way to accomplish the job.
We are obsessed with codes, conspiracies, life extension, cryonics and any or all methods to prevent leaving earth. Why then create the ultimate weapon to ensure we do?
We believe North Korea can be contained so we indulge their guilty pleasure and allow them to play with their little bomb. Then, when they act up, we slap them on the wrist and say naughty, naughty, and remind them they are the child and not the parent. Where is it written children cannot do great harm?
We sleep at night despite the fact at any moment Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal may be overtaken by crazies who blow up schools so women cannot be educated.
Why does Iran frighten humanity so? Because Iran will not be stopped until they blow up the world. Every man, woman and child on planet earth, except those in the White House understands this problem clearly.
The Mullahs believe the bomb will bring to them their ultimate goal, Armageddon and eternal life.
There it is again, that desire to live forever. The only difference; Iran is happy to live forever in the next life, not necessarily this one.
They would not miss their iPod, Sponge Bob, new George Clooney movie or the Internet pictures of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s new baby.
Mankind is marching backward in Iran faster than Congress is spending taxpayer money, and the only new technology the world is invested in is nuclear holocaust. Like a shampoo commercial, Iran will get the bomb and they’ll tell three friends and then they’ll get the bomb and on and on until BOOM!
Nostradamus, credited for his visions by those who believe his quatrains contain some coded messages about the future, mentioned the East as the final showdown for civilization. About that I imagine few would argue, or would they?
Was it the Middle East, or perhaps the east coast of America?
He predicted a man would come and present himself as a man of peace, but oh well, April fool! He’s just joshing and will actually be the instigator of World War III. He’s quite a kidder this Anti Christ.
There are so many candidates for that title, the mind boggles under the weight of the prospects.
There is no doubt man has lost his vision for civilization and botched the job. If this were a test, I’d say we failed with flying colors.
When I was a child in elementary school, General Electric made a series of movies for the classroom starring Dr. Frank Baxter that I recall watching in science class. There were warnings about oil shortages in the year 2000, updates on space travel, cities of the future and amazing fun stuff that would make any Flash Gordon fan shiver with excitement. In the fifties it didn’t take much to excite us.
Where did man take a wrong turn?
Did I miss a vote?
I don’t recall anyone asking me if I was opposed to a Beep Beep Rosie cleaning my push-button house. It would feature a moving walkway to my hovercraft capable of flying me to the Galactic Moon Mall. Or was that the Jetsons? Either way, as they say, what the mind of man can conceive, it can achieve.
As long as one country, filled with a mindset from the middle ages is allowed to plot the future of mankind, we are doomed.
While 25,000 children die each day, women are stoned for wearing a pantsuit, countries continue their determination to destroy their neighbors and believe murder is the road to heaven; there can be no future.
When reason is eradicated by the desire to die and spend eternity in heaven, rather than build a greater life on earth, what hope is left?
Man must accept his failure before he can walk a new road toward success.
Aaron Sorkin is not just a great writer, but a soothsayer and dreamer. His President Bartlett possessed a moral compass long ago extinct in politicians.
It seems we are running in the opposite direction to our intentions.
Man raced headlong toward immortality only to discover a faster path toward his own mortality. Perhaps the next inhabitants of earth might do a better job of world building. They certainly could not do any worse.
A very happy and hopeful year to us all! May we find our way back to the path of peace and innovation to serve, not destroy, us all.
In the series “Postcards from Israel,” Ari Bussel and Norma Zager invite readers throughout the world to join them as they present reports from Israel as seen by two sets of eyes: Bussel’s on the ground, Zager’s counter-point from home. Israel and the United States are inter-related - the two countries we hold dearest to our hearts - and so is this “point - counter-point” presentation that has, since 2008, become part of our lives. Feel free to share with others.
© Postcards from Home, September, 2009
If anyone can find a link to the episode in question, please email it to me and I will add it to this post.
Israel Matzav: The irony of immortality
Israel Matzav: Obama flip flops on Goldstone, throws Israel under the bus
Obama flip flops on Goldstone, throws Israel under the bus
Late Thursday night, I received an email with a JTA article attached, which said that the Obama administration had pledged to 'quash' the Goldstone Commission Report and not to allow Israel to be brought to the International Criminal Court. While my first reaction to the report was "what's this going to cost us," when I clicked on the link I discovered that the official who had given that first statement had 'misspoken.' In a flip-flop reminiscent of his flip-flop on Jerusalem during the 2008 Presidential campaign, Obama is now throwing Israel under the bus. The White House says an official "misspoke" when he said the Obama administration would not allow the Goldstone report recommendations on Israel's conduct in the Gaza war to reach the International Criminal Court.
A top White House official told Jewish organizational leaders in an off-the-record phone call Wednesday that the U.S. strategy was to "quickly" bring the report -- commissioned by the U.N. Human Rights Council and carried out by former South African Judge Richard Goldstone -- to its "natural conclusion" within the Human Rights Council and not to allow it to go further, Jewish participants in the call told JTA.
Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman, called JTA later to say the official "misspoke" and that administration policy on the Goldstone report remains as articulated last week by Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador.
Rice described the UNHRC mandate as "unbalanced, one sided and basically unacceptable. We have very serious concerns about many of the recommendations in the report. We will expect and believe that the appropriate venue for this report to be considered is the Human Rights Council and that is our strong view."
She did not mention what the United States would do were the report to be referred to the ICC.
...
The Obama administration is ready to use the U.S. veto at the U.N. Security Council to deal with any other "difficulties" arising out of the report, the White House official said Wednesday. The administration also has made clear to the Palestinian Authority that Washington is not pleased with a P.A. petition to bring the report's allegations against Israel to the International Criminal Court.
So the White House is 'not pleased' with the 'Palestinian Authority' petition to the International Criminal Court, but won't do anything to stop it.
What could go wrong?
What could go wrong?
Israel Matzav: Obama flip flops on Goldstone, throws Israel under the bus
Israel Matzav: Abu Mazen refuses to meet Netanyahu
Abu Mazen refuses to meet Netanyahu
As I predicted on Wednesday morning, Abu Mazen is refusing to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu unless and until Israel agrees to a full 'settlement freeze.' Israelis and Palestinians said Wednesday that their envoys would meet with U.S. officials but not with each other, cementing the impression that a U.S.-sponsored meeting between their leaders had fallen flat.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said there would be no follow-up session with the Israelis because the two sides hadn't bridged the divides that have prevented them from resuming talks.
"It's not happening because we agreed to continue dealing with the Americans until we reach the agreement that will enable us to relaunch the negotiations," Erekat said.
...
Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said Israel would dispatch envoys to meet with U.S. officials in Washington, but there were no plans now to meet again with the Palestinians.
Jennifer Rubin points out that President Obama is to blame for this situation.
By elevating the issue of settlements, Obama only played into the Palestinians’ natural inclination toward rejectionism and obstructionism. But let’s be candid: the Palestinians are in no position to make a deal—or discuss a deal. What promise could they give about terrorism? What offer of recognition would they be empowered to make? All that has happened is that the naive and self-described “impatient” U.S. president has given the Palestinians a ready-made excuse not to show up.
So does this mean that Obama will quietly drop the effort to force the parties into a negotiation neither of them want right now? Not if Wednesday's UN General Assembly speech is any indication.
Israel Matzav: Abu Mazen refuses to meet Netanyahu
Israel Matzav: The 'impoverished' Gaza Strip
The 'impoverished' Gaza Strip
This is a picture of 'Palestinians' in a Gaza City coffee shop watching coverage of Wednesday's meeting between President Obama, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Abu Mazen.
I trust that your local coffee shop has a giant flat screen TV like the one in the picture, since there is no way you could be as impoverished as the 'Palestinians' of Gaza. Israel Matzav: The 'impoverished' Gaza Strip
Esser Agaroth: The Super Power Meme
The Super Power Meme
6 of the Seventh Month 5770
Jacob Da Jew tagged me with the "Super Power Meme." He says he tagged me "'cause the West Bank is the new Wild Wild West and a Superpower sure would come in handy."
Here are the rules of this meme,...which I, in typical Esser Agaroth fashion, will bend, break, and destroy, one by one.
1: Write one superpower you would like to have and what you would do with it.
2: Write why you chose that super power over everything else.
3: Tag and link lots of people, and write why you think they will have an interesting meme.
4: fix your broken links.
So, which super power would I like to have? Well, that all depends. I'll break it down into themes.
If I were a member of the Justice League of America, I'd want to have the power of the Green Lantern's power ring.
The power ring's most distinctive effect is the generation of green, solid-light constructs, the precise physical nature of which has never been specified. The size, complexity, and strength of these constructs is limited only by the ring-bearer's willpower; whatever the wearer imagines, the ring will create. No hard upper limit to the power ring's capabilities has yet been demonstrated and it is often referred to as "the most powerful weapon in the universe."
Do I really need to provide an explanation as to why I would want the powers of a ring which is limited only by whatever the wearer imagines (...and the color yellow)?
Now, if I were to choose from the super powers of the X-Men, one of my favorite series, I choose either the telekinetic abilities of the Phoenix or the shape-shifting abilities of Mystique. It would be way cool to be able to move anything around, including myself or to shape-shift into any appearance.But, the truth is that the one super power I would really like to possess is magic, like in the wizarding world of Harry Potter. Or, as Jacob Da Jew might phrase it...
It's all in the wand, baby!
I don't know if Jacob, or the originators of this meme would count this as a super power, but so what.... I'll do what I want. And, if I had Harry Potter's magic, I really could do what I want.
As most of you, know, I do not like to hassle people with tags. I'll just make a few suggestions, going back to the Justice League/Super Friends theme.
Rafi is more of a long-distance runner than a sprinter, but perhaps could be seen as The Flash anyway.
I could see Batya or Lisa as Wonder Woman. (Rumor has it that Lisa is an avid comic book reader, too.)
I have it on good authority that Ron (AKA: The Hashmonean) likes powerful vehicles. I could see him feeling quite comfortable behind the wheel of the Batmobile, souped up with loads of gadgets, mowing down a terrorist or two. I actually see him more as Robin that as Batman. The honor of being Batman gets bestowed on Nathan of Lines Writing Lines. You're both in Tel-Aviv, so that'll be convenient for you to work together. Have you even met, yet? I think you might get along. I'm pretty sure, anyway.
Jack's leadership skills make him suited for the role of Superman, the proverbial head of the Justice League/Super Friends (AKA Super Bloggers). Plus, as an abba (dad) , I'm sure a super power or two would come in handy (eg. x-ray vision, superhuman strength, superhuman speed, flying, etc).
I could see Bar-Kokhba as Aquaman. Don't ask me how I came to this conclusion. It's a secret.
Eric at The Israel Situation would make a good Hawkman. "Why?" you ask. Why not? He's in Colorado,...lots of peaks and mountains. Being able to fly would certainly come in handy.
I wonder if Material Maidel would make a good Bat Girl. Let's ask her.... She already chose "time travel" as super power. But, since she might be a closet nerd, Bat Girl would be perfect for her, as her alter ego is a librarian.
Omri at Mere Rhetoric could be Atom, getting into places he shouldn't. And Daniel of The Jewish Fist could be Green Arrow. That should help him deal with his local "nuisances."
What about Occidental Israeli? Could he be a Human Torch?
Originally posted by :
Esser Agaroth: The Super Power Meme