Israel Matzav: Beck: Who needs Yasser Arafat when you have the President of the United States?

Beck: Who needs Yasser Arafat when you have the President of the United States?

I was getting emails about this while it was on television.

Glenn Beck rips Obama's sellout of Israel.

Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Cheryl H).



Make sure especially to watch the interview around the 14:00 mark.

Israel Matzav: Beck: Who needs Yasser Arafat when you have the President of the United States?

Israel Matzav: What's the change?

What's the change?

I've seen a lot of comments out there on the net claiming that it's not such a big deal that Obama wants the 'Palestinian state' to be based on the '1967 borders' (really the 1949 armistice lines), because Olmert and Barak both offered that in the past.

Well, it is a big deal. Here's why.

There is certainly something very new in the US endorsement of the 'Palestinian' position that the 'Palestinians' are presumptively entitled to sovereignty over all Mandatory areas captured by the Arab League in its invasion of Israel in 1948 and held by the Arab states until 1967, and therefore Israel has to compensate them one for one for anything it keepsu agreement reached between Israel and the PLO that endorses that position, and there is no previous US endorsement of that position. The Israeli position, which is quite reasonable under the agreed-upon negotiating framework of Resolution 242, is that borders should be “secure and recognized” rather than based upon where the Arabs reached in 1949. The US position used to be that borders had to be agreed upon. No more.

There is a major difference between Israel offering to establish a border on the basis of the 1949 armistice lines and the US claiming that negotiations must be based on that Israeli concession. In fact, one of the major requirements for both Barak and Olmert was that nothing was agreed upon until everything was agreed, i.e., that Israeli concessions regarding the borders could not be pocketed but would only be valid when coupled with various 'Palestinian' concessions that Barak and Olmert (foolishly) expected to receive. If Obama is now endorsing the 1949 armistice lines, he is essentially giving the Palestinians the offered Israeli concessions in exchange for nothing.

But the point for the general audience isn't what Obama endorsed, it's the language he used. No president has ever said the words "antagonism toward Israel" in a policy speech, nor have US presidents spoken of the "'Palestinians' suffering under occupation" by Israel.

What this will sound like to most people is that Obama took a position on one of the key points to be negotiated, meaning that the US has taken a giant step away from acting as a comparatively neutral mediator. There is a big difference between accepting an Israeli negotiating position, and announcing that the US will tolerate only that specific negotiating position.

Bush referred to 'Palestinian suffering' and so did Clinton. But neither of them spoke of the Palestinians suffering "the humiliation of occupation by Israel." Neither Bush nor Clinton targeted Israel as the source of 'Palestinian' suffering or humiliation. Obama explicitly did.

Israel Matzav: What's the change?

Love of the Land: But President Obama— There is No Such Thing as ‘Israel’s Pre-1967 Borders’

But President Obama— There is No Such Thing as ‘Israel’s Pre-1967 Borders’

Jeff Dunetz
bigpeace.com
19 May '11




Today President Obama called for any Israeli/Palestinian peace agreement to be based on the pre-June 1967 borders:

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

Forgetting for a moment whether Obama was right or wrong for making that declaration, there is a serious problem with his statement…the pre-June 1967 borders do not exist!

What President Obama refuses to admit is that there is no such thing as pre-1967 borders. That “green line” running through the West Bank is the 1949 Armistice Line. The armistice line was created solely because that’s Israeli and Arab forces stopped fighting at the end of the War of Independence (with some added adjustments in certain sectors). It was if the whistle blew and everyone dropped their gear. That 1949 line, that people call 1967 border, is really only a military line.

But don’t believe me, believe the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan:

Article II of the 1949 Armistice Agreement with the Jordanians explicitly specified that the line that was designated did not compromise any future territorial claims of the two parties, since it had been “dictated by exclusively by military considerations.” Of course the Jordanian rationale for that clause is to allow them to claim territory inside the armistice line for their very own.

Even the “famous” UN Resolution 242 which was passed by the UN Security Council five months after the Six-Day War recognized that the 1949 Armistice line was not supposed to designate final Israeli borders.

(Read full 'But President Obama— There is No Such Thing as ‘Israel’s Pre-1967 Borders’")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.

Love of the Land: But President Obama— There is No Such Thing as ‘Israel’s Pre-1967 Borders’

Love of the Land: Did Obama Think He Was Giving a Pro-Israel Speech?

Did Obama Think He Was Giving a Pro-Israel Speech?

John Podhoretz
Commentary/Contentions
19 May '11

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/19/did-obama-think-he-was-giving-a-pro-israel-speech/

I expect the president is going to be flabbergasted at the angry response to his speech today from friends of Israel. I think he thought he had given the most pro-Israel speech of his life.

Why? Because of this line: “Too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people’s grievances elsewhere. The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half-century after the end of colonialism. Antagonism toward Israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression.” This acknowledgment of the use of Israel as a two-minute-hate object for the Arab street by the region’s dictators was surprising and remarkable.

And this passage: “For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist. As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums.” This is the promise of a veto at the UN in the future, which for him, is like promising to undergo a root canal.”

And this: “Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them—not by the United States; not by anybody else.” By saying he would not “impose a peace” on them, he might have believed he was doing Israel a huge favor.

And this: “The recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.” Since he didn’t pose a comparable “question” for Israel, Obama might have thought he was being rhetorically generous.

Given what he probably truly believes of Israel in his heart, his acknowledgment of its utility as a scapegoat, its security concerns, its right to determine its own future, and the problems raised by the Fatah-Hamas agreement surely seemed like the height of generous good feeling. And you should expect that interpretation any minute now from his Jewish apologists.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.

Love of the Land: Did Obama Think He Was Giving a Pro-Israel Speech?

Love of the Land: Obama’s Partition Plan: A Trap for Israel

Obama’s Partition Plan: A Trap for Israel

David M. Weinberg
A Citadel Defending Zion
20 May '11

http://davidmweinberg.com/2011/05/20/obamas-partition-plan-a-trap-for-israel/


Over the past twelve hours, most news outlets and commentators have focused on President Barack Obama’s partition plan: the 1949 (or “1967”) armistice lines for Israel and Palestine. This is of course a significant departure from US policy and great achievement for the Palestinians. (Read Robert Satloff’s analysis of this matter).

What may be worse than this, however, is Obama’s suggestion to immediately negotiate borders and security arrangements, and delay discussions on core issues such as Jerusalem and refugees.

This is a trap for Israel!

The very impatient Obama is demanding that the Palestinians “urgently” get a West Bank state without settling the conflict with Israel; a Palestinian state that will not be at peace with Israel.

According to Obama, first Israel withdraws – a “full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces” to allow for “a sovereign and contiguous Palestinian state” – then the Palestinians continue to struggle for Jerusalem and refugee return. This, of course, means continuation of the conflict and no real recognition of Israel’s right to exist. It will provide another opportunity for Palestinians to swarm the 1949/1967 lines and to ramp up BDS and lawfare efforts until Israel accepts suicide through refugee “return” or the division of Jerusalem.

This is not a recipe for Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Obama even left open the possibility that the US would support some sort of refugee return! Where was the standard US statement – previously quite clear — that Palestinian refugee rights would have to be satisfied in the context of a Palestinians state or though resettlement elsewhere in the Arab world? Why introduce doubt into what was previously a settled topic and thus allow the Palestinians to continue dreaming of drowning Israel with refugees?

Note also that Obama did not repeat the Quartet’s established stance on Hamas: that it cannot be a partner for peace unless it recognizes Israel, accepts past agreements, and forswears terror. Instead, he mumbled something about how the Fatah reconciliation with Hamas “raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel.”

Apparently the “questions raised” – what a weak formulation for referencing the genocidal Hamas platform regarding Israel! – don’t bother Obama all that much, since he just commanded Israel to facilitate a 1967-borders-state for the Palestinians including Hamas – without an end-of-conflict situation for Israel.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.

Love of the Land: Obama’s Partition Plan: A Trap for Israel

Love of the Land: The President’s solution for an Israel-Palestinian agreement is a non-starter

The President’s solution for an Israel-Palestinian agreement is a non-starter

Fresnozionism.org
19 May '11

http://fresnozionism.org/2011/05/the-presidents-solution-for-an-israel-palestinian-agreement-is-a-non-starter/

President Obama made his much-awaited speech on the Middle East this morning (the full transcript is here). I’ll comment a bit on the part relating to Israel.

1. Although Obama told us what he wanted to see happen — a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, he did not say what, if anything the US would do to bring that about.

2. He implied (but did not say directly) that the US would not support a unilateral declaration of ‘Palestine’ in September.

A UN General Assembly resolution can still be passed and other nations can still recognize the state, but I assume the US would veto a Security Council resolution.

3. He referred to Israel as a “Jewish state” and the “homeland of the Jewish people.”

The Palestinians have loudly and often said that this is unacceptable to them. Will agreement be a requirement for negotiations to proceed to the border-drawing stage? The President mentioned the Fatah/Hamas agreement as a problem to which the Palestinians will have to “provide an answer”. Will this issue, too, need to be settled to Israel’s satisfaction before implementing changes on the ground?

4. He called for borders based on the “1967 lines” with agreed-on swaps.

I see this as a retreat from the principle of UNSC resolution 242, which calls simply for “secure and recognized boundaries,” even though Obama used this phrase. The “1967 lines” are in fact the 1949 armistice lines, which nobody — not Israel and not the Arab states — accepted as ‘borders’. They are where the armies happened to be at the end of the war of independence.

You could even call them the ‘lines of ethnic cleansing’, because Jews living beyond them, in eastern Jerusalem and Judea/Samaria, were expelled at gunpoint by the Jordanians in 1948. There is no reason to grant them special status, and no reason that the Palestinian Arabs should be ‘compensated’ with swaps for territory beyond them that becomes part of Israel.

5. He called for a “contiguous” state of Palestine.

What this means is that Israel will be cut in half, rendered non-contiguous. Why is this demand considered legitimate?

6. He proposed a ‘borders/security first’ model.

The first step will be “withdrawal of Israeli forces” from the area that will become ‘Palestine’, which will then become a “sovereign non-militarized state” but which will nevertheless take “security responsibility” for its territory. It has historically proven extremely difficult to enforce demilitarization, even of non-state entities — consider the rearmament of Hizballah in Lebanon under the noses of UN forces. Will the US-trained Palestinian ‘security forces’ become an army? What will keep the sovereign state of Palestine from augmenting them? Will Hamas keep its rockets?

At this point, “Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met,” said Mr. Obama. The difficult issues of Jerusalem and refugees will be left for later.

To put not too fine a point on it, Israel is being asked, or told, to surrender an area equal to the area occupied by Jordan in 1949 in return for some kind of security guarantee, without agreement on Jerusalem and refugees. If agreement cannot be reached on these issues, then Israel is left hanging.

But then why couldn’t the Palestinians press their claims for right of return, all of Eastern Jerusalem, etc. against Israel as a sovereign state, exactly as Mahmoud Abbas suggested that they would if a state were unilaterally declared in September? Indeed, it’s absolutely certain that they would.

7. The President left a great deal unsaid, particularly in regard to refugees.

In 2004, the US made a commitment to Israel that to the extent to which ‘refugees’ would be able to ‘return’, it would be to ‘Palestine’, not Israel. Since then there have been indications that the US does not intend to keep the promises it made in the 2004 letter, which was intended as an incentive for Israel to withdraw from Gaza. The fact that Obama did not rule out the resettlement of 4.5 million hostile Arabs in Israel is problematic, since the Arabs will certainly demand it.

Summary

The proposal that borders and security will be implemented before the rest of the issues means that this is is a non-starter, because it requires that Israel must relinquish control over land without agreements on Jerusalem and refugees, which implies that the conflict will continue forever.

It’s nice to know that President Obama believes that Israel is a Jewish state and the homeland of the Jewish people, but this has to be made a precondition of any agreement.

It is distressing that Obama did not explicitly agree to keep the commitments made in the 2004 letter. Israel will never agree to resettle millions of Arabs in Israel and become an Arab-majority state.

He does seem to understand that Israel is within its rights to refuse to negotiate with a PA that contains an unrepentant Hamas. Of course, we know that there cannot be any other kind of Hamas, so I presume that he expects to somehow redefine it as acceptable.

This proposal will clearly never be implemented and I think was included just in order to have something to say about the matter.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.

Love of the Land: The President’s solution for an Israel-Palestinian agreement is a non-starter

Love of the Land: Israel's Response: Elder, Yisrael Medad, and Daled Amos

Israel's Response: Elder, Yisrael Medad, and Daled Amos

Yosef
19 May '11

The first responses to Pres. Obama's speech are beginning to appear. The following three are always a good place to begin.

Elder of Ziyon: My review of Obama's speech

The Obama speech was clearly wordsmithed to keep Zionists as happy as possible while he slipped in a major US policy change. As far as I can tell, this is the first time that a US president has announced that the solution must be based on the so-called “1967 lines” as opposed to the previous position that the borders must be determined through negotiations.

Now, this has been the Israeli position–or at least the Labor and Kadima position–since 2000, and it is hard to ask the US to be more righteous than the Pope. But it is still a change in policy and it makes it much more difficult for Jews to believe that they will continue to have free access to their holiest sites. (Read full post)

==========================================

Yisrael Medad: Obama Has A Vision

From his speech today:

...The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region. [so, going back to the dispute over the Road Map outline, first come cessation of violence and incitement and perverse education in schools and summer camps and then only afterwards, negotiations about territory - and not parallel] We support a set of universal rights. Those rights include free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leaders [which means that the Arab society in Judea and Samaria still has a long way to go]... (Read full post)

=============================================

Daled Amos: Text Of Israel's Response To Obama's Middle East Speech

Here is the text of Israel's reaction to Obama's speech today:
Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace. Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state.

That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress. (Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.

Love of the Land: Israel's Response: Elder, Yisrael Medad, and Daled Amos

RubinReports: America: Once A Leader Now Brags About Being A Follower

America: Once A Leader Now Brags About Being A Follower

This article is published on PajamasMedia

By Barry Rubin

I'll bet your mother said to you at least once: "If all your friends jumped off a cliff would you do it also?"

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's statement on Libya reminded me of that kind of admonition:

"I would point out that Europe led the way in our response on Libya, and they were fully supported by the Arab League. So with respect to Libya, the United States is very willing to be part of this coalition, and we have contributed a great deal. But it was concern from Arab leaders and European leaders at the United Nations that really moved us forward with respect to Libya."

This is a very unusual U.S. government. It is eager to show that it isn't a leader. The underlying belief is that America must prove it isn't a bully so that the rest of the world will love it. What's important, however, is that in international affairs the strong are criticized but also get respect.

There is a strain in American political culture, from the founders, of not wanting to be too pushy in international affairs. At times in history this could shade off into isolationism, though that's pretty unlikely in today's world. Before the United States entered World War One, there was a slogan explaining that policy: Too proud to fight.

What the assassination of Usama bin Ladin proved is that America can get things done when it wants to do so. And also that it can act alone when necessary. It is less proof of President Barack Obama's brilliance and courage than it is of America's ability.

The question that must be foremost is whether a given action is in U.S. interests NOT whether it polishes the U.S. image. A willingness to be unpopular at times is a necessity for any country that wants to survive and prosper.

Just because the Arab League says it's ok is not a sufficient criterion for U.S. foreign policy to do something.

To be fair, I understand that this isn't precisely what Clinton is saying. I'm sure she would add that the intervention in Libya is in U.S. interests. But I still don't think that's true.

Moreover, this argument about what everyone else does becomes the rationale for not doing more about Iran or Syria. And one fears it will shape mistakes yet to come.

RubinReports: America: Once A Leader Now Brags About Being A Follower

Facebook Groups Call for Mass Invasion of Israel on Friday

by Phyllis Chesler
Posted on May 19 2011 10:06 am

Phyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York. For extended biography visit The Phyllis Chesler Organization.

My nightmares—what I knew could happen—is apparently happening.

The Third Palestinian Intifada on Facebook seems to have at least twenty different groups or pages, each with hundreds or thousands of fans. One group has 365,000 fans. According to Yedioth Ahronoth (YNet), these sites are now urging all Arabs to “rush the Israeli borders” after Friday prayers on May 20.

Look: This could be the work of one nerdy Palestinian in a basement in Ramallah. The fans could also be people who exist only in cyberspace.

But, these Third Palestinian Intifada websites could also be the work of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria, and the Palestinian Authority, all of which have problems of their own and for whom a diversion would be mighty fine. In fact, I think they are. Thus, this promised new aggression must be taken seriously and stopped in its tracks.

In any event, these Third Intifada facebook websites are suggesting that armed and unarmed hordes, masses, mobs of incited and hate-filled Arabs invade–“surge”–into sovereign Israel (as they have done for years to India.) The Indian press and police are too afraid to report it or to stop them. Israelis have no choice but to do so.

If and when they re-create their failed Nakba Day aggression, public opinion, the Arab “street,” the Arab League, the world’s intellectuals, journalists and progressives, the human rights organizations and the jihadist friendly United Nations, will probably view such an invasion as an act of “righteous resistance” and Israeli self-defense as an act of “unprovoked aggression.”

Facebook, to its credit, has removed one Third Palestinian Intifada site in the past. Clearly, others quickly sprang up, and Facebook has its work cut out for it. Just as the Civil Rights movement in America was initially and brilliantly non-violent, perhaps all the earth’s peace-loving people might now congregate peacefully on all of Israel’s borders to be the human wall that finally says no to jihadic barbarism.

For all those pacifists who genuinely believe in the non-violent teachings of both Gandhi and Martin Luther King, let them congregate and bear witness with their bodies at all of Israel’s borders that human courage and goodness is ready to stand against barbarism and evil.

For all those who believe that barbarism must be met with Navy SEALs, let them, too, gather at Israel’s borders to defend innocent Israeli civilians.

For all those who believe that a nation has the right to defend its people, let them now volunteer to join the IDF or raise money for it.

On the other hand, all those who invade sovereign Israel with malevolent and lethal and genocidal intentions should know in advance that they will be met with force. Israel should immediately begin announcing this, both day and night.

Of course, jihad is always seeking martyrs. This time, the Western media should not fall for the tricks of “Pallywood” (the al-Dura hoax, the “massacre” in Jenin, the “starving” masses in Gaza, etc.). The Western media should report the truth.

I am such a dreamer.

Of course, Israel can always start building walls up to the very sky in order to keep the barbarians out.

Taken From : Phyllis Chesler

Muslim Mothers Who “Honor Kill” Their Daughters

Two Muslim mothers, both widows, both living in Uttar Pradesh in India, helped each other murder their grown daughters, Zahida, 19, and Husna, 26, for having committed the crime of marrying Hindu men.

They held their daughters down and slowly strangled them to death. The poor dead darlings actually believed they were entitled to marry non-Muslim men and for “love,” and that ultimately their mothers and Muslim community would accept them back. This is typical of many honor killing victims. While these two young women knew enough to contact the police for help—and the police actually got their mothers to sign an agreement that they would not “harm” their children—it was only a deceptive piece of paper. But the daughters’ longing for reconciliation and naive hopefulness was their undoing. Their mothers agreed not to hurt them and sweet-talked them into returning; once the girls were home, they became prey for the kill.

But life without a family network is unthinkable for someone whose identity is not individual but rather located in a collectivity. Progress and “modernity” may be coming to India, but slowly, very slowly.

Neither mother, Khatun or Subrato, has expressed the slightest remorse. Both feel justified because their daughters brought shame to their families. According to the police, Khatun said: “We killed them because they brought shame to our community. How could they elope with Hindus? They deserved to die. We have no remorse.”

This is cold-hearted, barbaric, almost unbelievable. But such Muslim-on-Muslim crimes and woman-on-woman crimes are typical in many parts of the world.

Clearly, this is an extreme case of woman’s inhumanity to woman; I published a book with that title. We expect women, mothers especially, to be able to defy social custom for the sake of saving their children. The reality is just the opposite. The slightest transgression, especially by women, will upset huge networks and topple all social stability. No one will marry someone from a “shamed” family; that family will be forever ostracized, impoverished, and may also die out genetically. Mothers, fathers, relatives are loyal to their tribal social customs rather than to any one individual, even if that individual is their own child. The system itself demands and allows for such barbarism—but the sacrifice of the individual is seen as in the service of the greater tribal and caste based social structure or “civilization.”

In addition, woman’s inhumanity to woman is a common phenomenon in India where mothers-in-law routinely assist their sons in burning their daughters-in-law to death. This is known as a “dowry killing” because it is done so that a new bride can bring another dowry into the impoverished and/or greedy family. There is actually a special wing in a prison in New Delhi for such mothers-in-law. In addition, female infanticide was a long-time practice in both India and China. Both women and men steal children in India and sell them to be adopted abroad or, more frequently, to be groomed into sexual slavery either at home or abroad. A dear friend is visiting me from India right now and her stories on this subject are unbelievable — and yet all too believable.

Surveys have shown us that women in India believe that women deserve to be beaten. Perhaps they are also saying that women should simply expect this to happen. Many Hindu and Muslim mothers refuse to accept severely battered child-daughter brides back into their home. In Afghanistan, this often leads to suicide, often self-immolation as well.

To its credit, the Indian Supreme Court has recently declared that “It is time to stamp out these barbaric, feudal practices which are a slur on our nation.”

Once again, the major mainstream media in the United States have, thus far, failed to do any original stories about this awful case. The Washington Post relied again on an AP story. The New York Times has neither published nor posted anything.

In the past, the Washington Post has only covered Hindu honor killings in India. This time, they were forced to use the word “Muslim” to identify the perpetrators. The victims were not identified as “Muslims.”

That only happens when Israelis or Americans have killed them.

Taken from The Phyllis Chester Organization Muslim Mothers Who “Honor Kill” Their Daughters