Israel Matzav: Freeze would be ethnic cleansing

Freeze would be ethnic cleansing

Remember how angry Prime Minister Netanyahu was when Deputy Prime Minister Moshe "Boogie" Yaalon aligned himself with Moshe Feiglin? Well, it may be on its way to happening again.

Speaking to a packed audience at Jerusalem’s Great Synagogue, Ya’alon referred indirectly to a Haaretz report that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is willing to freeze all construction on government land in West Bank settlements if Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas resumes direct diplomatic negotiations.

“The demand for territory without Jews anywhere else would be called ethnic cleansing,” Ya’alon said. “We cannot accept a demand for ethnic cleansing in the land of Israel.”

Ya’alon said that Israel was under pressure from people who incorrectly believe the cause of the Middle East conflict is the building of homes in Judea and Samaria. He denounced that theory as “a corrupt way of thinking” and explained why the true cause of Middle East instability was the Islamic fundamentalism emanating from Iran.

He spoke about other topics too - read the whole thing. Finally an honest politician? I hope to hear soon what Feiglin thinks.

Israel Matzav: Freeze would be ethnic cleansing

Israel Matzav: Netanyahu is in great company now

Netanyahu is in great company now

Prime Minister Netanyahu has gotten himself into some great company. Guess who else thinks trading 1,027 terrorists for one kidnapped soldier is a great idea? Of course, Jimmy Carter.

In a telephone interview with Haaretz, Carter said that national leaders must act according to the individual circumstances of each case, and he believes he would have acted as Netanyahu did in the Shalit case.

The former American president said that as far as he knew from following negotiations in the case closely, Netanyahu could have reached a similar deal on Shalit's release two years ago. He said he was not being critical of the Israeli prime minister, however, explaining that it was in the nature of negotiations.

Carter is very familiar with the Shalit case. He attempted to assist in efforts to free him, and convinced Hamas political leader Khaled Meshal to allow an exchange of letters between Shalit and his family.

In a letter from Gilad Shalit that the former U.S. president sent to the Shalit family in June 2008, the captive soldier begged for his life. Carter said at the time that Hamas officials told him that Shalit was being held under better conditions than Palestinian prisoners in Israel.

Aren't you all glad he was a one-term President?

Israel Matzav: Netanyahu is in great company now

Israel Matzav: Bill Clinton reinvents history again

Bill Clinton reinvents history again

Former National Security Council member Elliott Abrams blasts former President Bill Clinton for reinventing history again (Hat Tip: Dan F).

As he did last year, Clinton once again offered his vulgar, pop sociology explanation of Israel: “you've had all these immigrants coming in from the former Soviet Union, and they have no history in Israel proper, so the traditional claims of the Palestinians have less weight with them. The most pro-peace Israelis are the Arabs; second the Sabras, the Jewish Israelis that were born there; third, the Ashkenazi of long-standing, the European Jews who came there around the time of Israel's founding. The most anti-peace are the ultra-religious, who believe they're supposed to keep Judea and Samaria, and the settler groups, and what you might call the territorialists, the people who just showed up lately and they're not encumbered by the historical record.”

Natan Sharansky, one of those Soviet immigrants “who just showed up lately” and who Clinton presumably thinks does not want peace, said in response: “I am particularly disappointed by the president's casual use of inappropriate stereotypes about Israelis, dividing their views on peace based on ethnic origins.” Presumably, if you disagree with Clinton over the necessary preconditions for peace, you are against peace entirely—and you need to be denounced. The implication that someone like Sharansky, because he is an immigrant from the USSR, is “not encumbered by the historical record” and is indifferent to Palestinian claims requires no refutation; Clinton should be ashamed of himself. Unlike Clinton, whose most frequent foreign visitor to the White House (13 times!) was Yasser Arafat, Sharansky has stressed the importance of human rights and democracy as a prerequisite for a Palestinian state. Clinton was apparently quite ready to allow Arafat to create a terrorist satrapy.

Clinton also spouts off about the 2002 “Arab Initiative,” saying, “The King of Saudi Arabia started lining up all the Arab countries to say to the Israelis, ‘if you work it out with the Palestinians ... we will give you immediately not only recognition but a political, economic, and security partnership.’ … This is huge.... It's a heck of a deal."

That “deal” was adopted at an Arab League summit attended by only 10 of the 22 Arab leaders of the day, and among those not in attendance were the king of Jordan, the president of Egypt, and Yasser Arafat—suggesting that support for this proposal may have been quite limited. Moreover, it was a take-it-or-leave-it offer, never proffered as a basis for negotiation. This “heck of a deal” required “Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon.” In other words, go back to the indefensible 1967 borders, give up every settlement bloc, and give up every square foot of Jerusalem, including the Western Wall. Not quite as “huge” an offer as President Clinton recalls.

“The two great tragedies in modern Middle Eastern politics, which make you wonder if God wants Middle East peace or not, were Rabin’s assassination and Sharon’s stroke,” Clinton said. I can think of some others: The fact that a terrorist and thief, Yasser Arafat, led the Palestinian people for decades; the fact that he turned down Israeli peace offers at Camp David; the fact that the Palestinians turned down Ehud Olmert’s even more generous peace offers in 2008; the fact that thousands of Israelis were wounded or killed in the first and second intifadas; the fact that no Palestinian leader has ever spoken with candor to the Palestinian people about the compromises they will need to make in any peace agreement; the fact that for the last two and half years the Palestinian leadership has adamantly refused to come to the negotiating table.

Read it all.

Israel Matzav: Bill Clinton reinvents history again

Israel Matzav: What Ketzaleh thinks Bibi should say to Congress

What Ketzaleh thinks Bibi should say to Congress

What will Prime Minister Netanyahu say to Congress on Tuesday night? National Union leader Yaakov Katz (Ketzaleh) wrote a speech that he sent to Netanyahu, and he asked Arutz Sheva to translate and post it (Hat Tip: Gershon D).

If only he would say it.

Read the whole thing.

Israel Matzav: What Ketzaleh thinks Bibi should say to Congress

Israel Matzav: Why did Obama do something so dumb?

Why did Obama do something so dumb?

J.E. Dyer believes that President Obama has no clue how to negotiate.

If Obama had merely recommitted America to seeking a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, without staking out a specific parameter for the negotiations, I doubt Bibi would have made the statements he did in the press conference on Friday. It all could have been left unsaid, for who knows how many more months. But Obama backed him into a corner by announcing a US position based on the pre-1967 armistice line. Failing to address that prejudicial announcement – appearing with the American president in seeming accord – would have made Israel look weak and out of options. Israel can’t afford that; indeed, no nation in that part of the world can.

So Bibi said what had to be said. Where Obama had stepped in and outlined a position the US has no business delineating, Netanyahu said what only the prime minister of Israel is in a position to say. It was not Obama’s place to say any of these things – that the “right of return” demand is “not gonna happen,” that the pre-1967 armistice line is not acceptable as a border – any more than it was his place to impose the pre-1967 line as a condition. The purpose Obama served – however inadvertently – was getting Bibi to say these things. And say them from the White House, sitting next to the president of the United States, to boot.

Obama served this purpose by hearkening to his particular muse: the Muse of Campaigning. I’m not sure he has ever heard from the Muse of Negotiation, but in the case of his Middle East speech, the two muses had conflicting advice.

Obama isn’t the first American president to give short shrift to the fundamentals of negotiation; most of our presidents know little about it. As a superpower, we are essentially a continent-size island with only two land borders, and our chief executive is his own separate branch of government, intended to counterbalance the legislature rather than emerging from it after years of parliamentary sausage-making. It is rare for our presidents to enter the office with any meaningful experience in negotiation, and even rarer for them to appreciate it as a political discipline and be good at it.

But I don’t know that we’ve ever had a president who seemed, as much as Obama does, to live in a galaxy far, far away from “negotiation,” the human concept. It’s not that he appears to dismiss the ramifications of his actions for ongoing negotiations; it’s that they don’t even seem to occur to him. In one of the most counterintuitive episodes in a long time, it took an attitude this blunderingly dysfunctional to corner the consummate statesman Benjamin Netanyahu and induce him to say, bluntly and unequivocally, what had to be said about Israel’s irreducible requirements for survival.

I was going to point out that Obama spent two years (or was it four?) in the Senate, but that seems kind of pointless. But what if Obama purposely wanted to degrade Israel's position? What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: Why did Obama do something so dumb?

Israel Matzav: Why Bibi gets it and Obama doesn't

Why Bibi gets it and Obama doesn't

What Bibi gets and Obama doesn't is the depth of 'Palestinian' hatred for Jews and Israel.

Here's one example.

Let's go to the videotape.



Here's more about the same woman.

Israel Matzav: Why Bibi gets it and Obama doesn't

Israel Matzav: What's the difference between Bibi and Obama?

What's the difference between Bibi and Obama?

What's the difference between Binyamin "Bibi" Netanyahu and Barack Hussein Obama? Answer: One is a statesman and the other is the former junior Senator from Illinois who is currently President of the United States.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Saturday said that news of a disagreement with US President Barack Obama over the resumption of peace talks was "blown way out of proportion."

"It's true that we have some differences of opinion, but these are among friends," the prime minister was quoted as saying by a spokesman.

Netanyahu believed that Obama had "shown his commitment to Israel's security, both in word and in deed," the spokesman added. "And we are working with the administration to achieve common goals."

Obama must have begged him to put out that statement.

Heh.


Israel Matzav: What's the difference between Bibi and Obama?

Israel Matzav: A deal on Shalit?

A deal on Shalit?

There are reports of a deal in the works for the release of kidnapped IDF corporal Gilad Shalit. It's not a great deal, but it's much better than some of the deals to which former Prime Minister Ehud K. Olmert was ready to agree: The terrorists with 'blood on their hands' would be sent out of the 'Palestinian territories' (i.e. away from Israel) so that hopefully they cannot rebuild the terror infrastructure.

According to a report in the Arabic-language London-based newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi, Israel has agreed to release 20 Palestinian murderers with blood on their hands as part of a prisoner exchange for the captive soldier. As part of the potential agreement, the released prisoners would not be allowed to remain in the Palestinian territories after their release.

No deal has yet been signed, but the report stressed that negotiations were in final stages.

According to the report, Turkey, Egypt and Germany were privy to these most recent negotiations.

On Friday, Palestinian sources told Chinese news agency Xinhua that Egypt and Turkey are sponsoring indirect negotiations between Hamas and Israel on the release of captive IDF soldier Gilad Schalit. Germany's role was not mentioned.

The negotiations are still in the early stages and it is "still too early to talk about a breakthrough," the sources told the Chinese news agency.

On Thursday, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal said Egypt is making vigorous moves to advance a prisoner exchange deal that would see Schalit released.

"Schalit's release depends on the Israeli position," Mashaal said. "The ball is now in [Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu's court," saying Netanyahu is responsible for the lack of progress in the deal.

Also on Thursday, the US added The Army of Islam, one of the organizations responsible for the capture of Schalit, to its list of terror organizations.

I'll believe it when I see it.


Israel Matzav: A deal on Shalit?

Israel Matzav: Bibi owned Obama

Bibi owned Obama

Say what you will about Friday's joint press availability with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Hussein Obama, this much is clear: Bibi owned Obama. Rush Limbaugh wishes Bibi could run for President of the United States, and urges potential Republican candidates to watch and listen.

Benjamin Netanyahu: "We cannot negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by Hamas. Hamas just attacked you, Mr. President, for getting rid of Bin Laden." Netanyahu is saying this to our young man-child president. We can't go back to the '67 borders. So you strip everything else away here, folks, and it's obvious to me who's coming off as the more serious man in that room. And I gotta tell you, I can't wait to see what the media does with Netanyahu. I can't wait to see how the media characterizes this. Will they say he showed profound disrespect, that these comments should have never been made in public. It would be fine to share these sentiments with President Obama in a private meeting, but to go public like this and to slap the president.

Maybe they don't look at it that way. Maybe they don't look at the president being slapped down here. Maybe it isn't the president. I gotta give myself a wide berth here because right now I'm visual only and reading closed-captioning. So it appears to me that what Netanyahu is saying is, essentially, "Look, that stuff you said yesterday, we really appreciate how you feel. We can't do any of it." Is that how it's coming across? It says we're not gonna do anything. We can't. Now he's talking about the Palestinian refugees. He is not gonna accept them. He said that's not gonna happen. And everybody knows it's not gonna happen.

I have to be right. Look at Obama. Look at Obama. He's sitting there as though Bibi is Paul Ryan at the health care -- oh-ho, folks. Oh-ho-ho-ho-ho, mama! Cool this is. Cool this is. We're rolling tape on it, and we'll have audio of this as soon as we can assemble it and put it together for you. Obama hasn't said a word in four minutes now. He's sitting there with his hand on his chin and it's covering his mouth, and you can't tell if he's smiling. Netanyahu has not stopped talking. He's looking alternately at Obama and then at the cameras. The US and Israel, they have differences here and there. So can't go back to the '67 borders. They don't take into account the changes that have taken place on the ground. Israel cannot negotiate with the Palestinian government backed by Hamas. Hamas just attacked you, Mr. President, for getting rid of Bin Laden. He said that.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. We are not gonna negotiate with a terrorist organization. A terrorist organization just attacked you, Mr. President, and of course, unstated here is that yesterday you, Mr. President, aligned yourself with Hamas, which is a terrorist organization. Obama has his hand up like Hillary had her hand in the Situation Room photo during the Bin Laden raid. You know, when Hillary had her hand over her mouth with that wide look on her eyes (gasping), but Obama does not have that expression. Netanyahu says that the Palestinian leaders are going to have to choose between a pact with Hamas or peace with Israel. Whoa! This is the gauntlet!

Folks, the gauntlet's being thrown down here. Can Bibi run for the Republican nomination? Would you people in Indiana support Bibi? I'm just teasing, of course. Obama's not gonna say anything. They ended this thing without Obama saying anything. They cut out of it. Obama did not say a word. The thing just ended. The last word was Netanyahu. The only word was Netanyahu. Well, Obama opened it up. Okay. So now, folks, I don't think there's any question that Obama's mad.

...

And I'm looking at this today, and I'm asking myself, "Why did Obama allow this to happen?" Obama just allowed himself to get slapped on national TV in front of the world. Now, Bibi was respectful, don't misunderstand. That's what makes this even better. How could Obama, after talking to Bibi, not know what he was gonna say? You're president of the United States. Okay, you got this joint thing planned, but if you get wind that Netanyahu's gonna go out and say these kind of things, creating that facial reaction, that visual reaction on your part, you cancel it and you come up with some explanation. Whatever explanation the cancellation ends up being is not nearly as bad as what happened.

This looked like Obama had no control over the events, or else it looked like the same thing, he was so arrogant, he was so cock-certain that Netanyahu had to go along with whatever Obama proposed 'cause he's Obama, he's the first black president, he's the president of the world, everybody loves Obama, Bibi's gonna have to automatically cower. Maybe Bibi in their private meeting didn't say these things, maybe it's a total sandbag, I don't know, but you're president of the United States, and you don't allow yourself to get sandbagged this way. And he did. Obama did. I'm stunned at this. Where's the staff? Even if Obama's too young and idealistic and impressed with himself, where's an adult around here warning, "You know, Mr. President, you don't want this to happen."

I'll be eager for you people to see this later on today, if you haven't yet when you get yourself near a television. When you see Netanyahu and Obama you'll see a true leader, and you'll see a lightweight in direct side by side contrast, a true leader and a lightweight. You know, Netanyahu said, "Israel is my responsibility." He didn't say it's not yours to Obama, but the implication was clear. Now, the meeting prior to this presser, this little joint presser they have here -- it wasn't a presser; the appearance -- meeting went on more than an hour than was scheduled, so I would assume that Netanyahu had a lot of things to say to Obama.

...

NETANYAHU: The third reality is that the Palestinian refugee problem will have to be resolved in the context of a Palestinian state, but certainly not in the borders of Israel. The Arab attack in 1948 on Israel resulted in two refugee problems: A Palestinian refugee problem and Jewish refugees in roughly the same number, who were expelled from Arab lands. Now, tiny Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees, but the vast Arab world refused to absorb the Palestinian refugees. Now 63 years later, the Palestinians come to us, and they say to Israel, "Accept the grandchildren, really, and the great-grandchildren of these refugees; thereby wiping out Israel's future as a Jewish state." So it's not gonna happen, everybody knows it's not gonna happen, and I think it's time to tell the Palestinians forthrightly: It's not gonna happen.

RUSH: This is unprecedented? (laughing) This is unprecedented! Gosh, folks, I can't tell you! This is orgasmic. So simply stated: "It's not going to happen. It just isn't gonna happen and everybody knows it's not gonna happen." He just said, in effect, "Your speech yesterday was just a bunch of worthless words. Your speech yesterday was just a bunch of pap. You know this isn't gonna happen; everybody knows this isn't gonna happen. It would be the end of the Jewish state if we had the grandchildren of these refugees flowing into our country." It's not gonna happen, just isn't gonna happen." By the way, Netanyahu also went to Harvard and MIT, and I'm telling you: In his life he's done more in five minutes than Obama has done in his whole career.

Read the whole thing.

Jeffrey Goldberg agreed that Netanyahu owned the President, but he's insulted by it.

So Netanyahu "expects" to hear this from the President of the United States? And if President Obama doesn't walk back the speech, what will Netanyahu do? Will he cut off Israeli military aid to the U.S.? Will he cease to fight for the U.S. in the United Nations, and in the many international forums that treat Israel as a pariah?

I don't like this word, "expect." Even if there weren't an imbalance between these two countries -- Israel depends on the U.S. for its survival, while America, I imagine, would continue to exist even if Israel ceased to exist -- I would find myself feeling resentful about the way Netanyahu speaks about our President. Netanyahu had an alternative, of course: He could have said, as he got on the plane to Washington, where today -- awkward! -- he will be meeting with President Obama: "The President today delivered a very fine speech. His condemnation of Hamas and Iran, his question about whether the Palestinians actually seek peace; his strong language against Syria; his recognition of Israel as a Jewish state; his re-assertion of the unshakeable bond between our two nations -- all of this and more brought joy to my heart. There are a couple of points in the speech, having to do with borders and refugees, that I would like to clarify with the President when I see him, and I'm looking forward to a constructive dialogue on these few issues."

Of course, he didn't say this. Instead he threw something of a hissy fit. It was not appropriate, and more to the point, it was not tactically wise: If I'm waking up this morning feeling that the Israeli prime minister is disrespecting the President of my country, imagine how other Americans might be feeling. And, then, of course, there's this: Prime Minister Netanyahu needs the support of President Obama in order to confront the greatest danger Israel has ever faced: the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran. And yet he seems to go out of his way to alienate the President. Why does he do this? It's a mystery to me.

Read the whole thing.

I'm with Limbaugh more than Goldberg on this one, as you might imagine. But the problem with Bibi is that he talks a great show - and then he caves anyway. Will it happen again?

Israel Matzav: Bibi owned Obama

Israel Matzav: Bibi to expel 130,000 Jews from home?

Bibi to expel 130,000 Jews from home?

National Union party leader Yaakov (Ketzaleh) Katz has accused Prime Minister Netanyahu of preparing the expulsion of 130,000 Jews from their homes in Judea and Samaria.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s seeming agreement to surrender Jewish communities outside of “settlement blocs” sets the stage for the largest expulsion of Jews since the Spanish Inquisition in 1492, National Union chairman and Knesset Member Yaakov (Ketzaleh) Katz charged Tuesday.

The Prime Minister did not spell out which “settlement blocs” he meant during his Herzl Day speech in the Knesset Monday night.

“Now the truth has become clear,” said MK Katz. “This is the first time that the Prime Minister has stood up and declared, contrary to the platform of his Likud party, that he is prepared to expel 130,000 Jews, residents of the hills of Judea and Samaria, in effect advancing Kadima party policies.

“There has been no such wholesale expulsion since the Spanish Inquisition by the worst Jew-haters of Europe." He urged MKs and ministers of the Likud to join the National Union “to be true to the platform on which they were elected.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu may not have spelled out which Jews he intends to expel from their homes in Judea and Samaria, but Ketzaleh has. If you go to Arutz Sheva's Hebrew site, there's a list of communities Netanyahu intends to keep and a list of those he intends to give up with their populations (Hat Tip: Avraham F). Even I was surprised.

Israel Matzav: Bibi to expel 130,000 Jews from home?

Israel Matzav: A word of caution about Obama's 'turnaround'

A word of caution about Obama's 'turnaround'

I have a sense of deja vu regarding President Obama's seeming turnaround. In the last couple of months, he has seemingly let up on pressuring Prime Minister Netanyahu and has lowered both the tone and the priority of the 'peace process.' Now, word is coming out of Washington claiming that Obama's speech on Thursday night will be conciliatory to Israel, and well it might be if he doesn't want to be booed out of the room when he speaks to the AIPAC convention on Sunday.

I feel like we're back in 2008. We're being told to ignore the fact that Obama sat in Reverend Wright's anti-Semitic church listening to his sermons for 20 years and listen only to what he is saying now. We're being told to ignore the fact that one of Obama's closest advisers called for sending US troops to Israel to enforce a 'Palestinian state' because he fired her anyway and she won't be part of his administration. We're being told that the 'new Obama' understands that Prime Minister Netanyahu has done all he can to bring about peace and that he realizes that we cannot even negotiate with an entity that includes an unrepentant Hamas. We're being told all these warm and fuzzy things. And they are all a lie.

When we look at Arab leaders, we are constantly warned - and rightfully so - to look at what they are saying in Arabic before accepting what they say in English at face value. In fact, an entire cottage industry (principally MEMRI and Palestinian Media Watch) has sprung up to translate the words of the Arab media into English. Similarly, we cannot just accept what Obama says to Israel supporters and ignore what he says to our opponents. So let's look at what Obama said to one of our opponents (whose word I have no reason to doubt on this), the insufferable MJ Rosenberg.

In 2007, the day after Obama declared his candidacy for president, I met with him in his office (I was then working for Israel Policy Forum).

Obama listened carefully while I explained why it was critical that he be an "honest broker" on Israel-Palestinian issues. Nothing I said, including my opinions of AIPAC's influence, would surprise anyone who reads my columns. My bottom line was that the occupation was terrible for the United States, for Israel and, most of all, for the Palestinians and that he should understand that the status quo lobbyists who defend everything Israel does are not representative of the Jewish community or anyone else.

Obama listened, cupped his ear, and said, "I can't hear you."

I didn't understand; I was sitting right next to him.

He then said: "No, not literally. I mean that I don't hear from people like you. But I hear from AIPAC {he then named the local AIPAC leader in Chicago} every week. I'm going to be President and, when I am, it is your job -- you and all the people who feel the way you do -- to make sure I hear that message. You cannot simply rely on t

he belief that you are right. You need to raise your voice so that I hear you and not just them."

So maybe, just maybe, the President wants us to shout and holler about, what appears to be, a sellout to AIPAC. After all, he is making no attempt to cover up what he's doing or why he's doing it. He only hears one voice.

Maybe Obama's latest actions are a cry for help.

Don't just read Yoram Ettinger's headline and assume that all is well for Israel in Washington. If Obama wins in 2012, all is not well. Every action Obama takes for the next 18 months has one goal and one goal only: To get himself re-elected. Once that happens (God forbid), the Obama who visited MJ Rosenberg, the Obama who sat in Reverend Wright's church, the Obama who was close friends with Rashid Khalidi and Ali Abunimah, is likely to come out of the closet.

What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: A word of caution about Obama's 'turnaround'

Israel Matzav: What Obama's going to say on Thursday night

What Obama's going to say on Thursday night

I have seen discussions of a summary of President Obama's speech for Thursday night. The speech (apparently there is also a complete copy floating around) has not been authenticated. I know where it came from and I know who has been tasked with authenticating it, but I cannot tell you that it's authentic. But it's authentic enough that someone at Yediot apparently got a hold of it and this is the result.

Obama is expected to urge Israel to return to the 1967 lines while negating the Palestinian Authority's planned unilateral bid for statehood in September.

According to the draft – which may change again by Thursday – Obama will call on Jerusalem and Ramallah to reignite the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process, saying it is the only way to achieve viable peace.

Obama stands to demand the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel as the Jewish state, and that the Palestinians unequivocally abandon terror.

He is also likely to stress Israel must cease any settlement expansion in the West Bank and further avoid any act which could be construed as changing the status quo on the ground.

The subject of Jerusalem also stands to be included in the American president's speech: Washington sees the city as the capital of both Israel and the Palestinian state, with its east Jerusalem neighborhoods – which are largely populated by Palestinians – under the PA's sovereignty, and its Jewish neighborhoods under Israeli sovereignty.

Following Netanyahu's vehement speech before the Knesset plenum Sunday, it seems Washington has decided to lower its expectations of Netanyahu.

There's another version of the same article that was posted on ScribD, which was written by Shimon Shiffer and which I managed to get before it was apparently removed by the person who originally posted it. Here's the key passage:

According to one source exposed to talks among Netanyahu’s advisors ahead of the premier’s Friday meeting with the US president, Obama will define as illegal the settlements built in the territories after 1967. It is as yet unknown what will be Obama’s policy on the settlement blocs; in his speech on Monday Netanyahu noted he would demand that they remain under Israeli sovereignty.

Amidror and Arad tried to convince their interlocutors, headed by National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, to change some of the planned formulations in the speech. The Israeli side claimed that Obama’s outline will not enable true negotiations, and is in essence an endorsement of the Arab approach. A senior US administration official told the Israelis that they have no reason to act like a “surprised virgin.

There are at least four major changes in US policy here: First, the 'settlements' are defined as 'illegal.' Only Jimmy Carter has done that. Second, the 'Palestinians' are assumed to have the right to all areas that were beyond the 1949 armistice lines. That was never US policy. Third, that the areas outside the 1949 armistice lines for which Israel will now be expected to 'compensate' the 'Palestinians' will include areas in 'east' Jerusalem. Fourth, the US has never called on Israel to return to the 1967 borders 1949 armistice lines.

For the record, National Security Adviser Yaakov Amidror, who is mentioned in the passage above, denied that he attempted to get Obama to change the speech.

Amidror told Army Radio that he never "tried to convince anyone of anything" and that "only thing right about the report was mine and Uzi Arad's name. The issue of Obama's speech did not come up in the meeting with Danilone, and there was not even a hint about what the president [Obama] and the prime minister [Netanyahu] will say."

Recent reports in the media have claimed that Amidror's latest trip to Washington was designed to prepare officials for Netanyahu's speech to Congress, but Amidror said "This is a big mistake of the newspapers. The speeches are not a big issues for us. There are many issues which are important for the future of Israel and on these issues we focused."

The Yediot Ahronoth report claimed that from conversations between Amidror and his predecessor Uzi Arad, US President Barack Obama intends to call on Israel to return to 1967 borders in a speech he is expected to give Thursday.

Hmmm.

Israel Matzav: What Obama's going to say on Thursday night

Israel Matzav: What would Abu Bluff do for peace?

What would Abu Bluff do for peace?

In an article that bears the obtuse title (yes, I know, op-ed writers don't always get to title the article) What would Netanyahu do for peace? David Makovsky urges Prime Minister Netanyahu to show up with a vision for renewed talks when he comes to Washington later this week.

Israel’s reaction to the Hamas-Fatah pact has been to hunker down, hoping that the unity government will collapse under the weight of the parties’ differences. Yet paralysis carries its own risks. The U.S. partners in “the Quartet” — the European Union, Russia and the United Nations, which joined Washington in 2006 to lay out steps by which Hamas must reform should it want to become a legitimate interlocutor in the peace process — have cautiously welcomed the new government with hopes, as opposed to demands, that Hamas will evolve, though some have championed the fact that cabinet ministers in the new body are affiliated with neither Hamas nor Fatah. A majority of countries is likely to recognize a Palestinian state at the U.N. General Assembly this September.

This should be of serious concern to Netanyahu, who needs to overcome suspicions about his desire for a breakthrough. Rather than slide to September, Netanyahu should take the opportunity of his May 24 address to a joint session of Congress to lay out a compelling political vision toward renewed peace talks. He could state that if — and only if — Abbas cuts ties with Hamas, Israeli and Palestinian leaders could cross historic thresholds meaningful to both sides.

Polls show that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians want a two-state solution but remain uncertain of whether the other side is willing to make the necessary concessions. Both Netanyahu and Abbas need to address the other side’s gut fears. And the only chance of one side crossing a threshold is if the other side takes a comparable step.

In theory, the United States should have engineered and synchronized this crossing of thresholds. It has, however, been preoccupied with the Arab Spring and has not focused on this issue, perhaps precipitating former senator George Mitchell’s departure as envoy. The new Palestinian configuration further hamstrings our position. A speech by President Obama this Thursday, focusing on the Mideast writ large, with a possible mention of U.S. principles to end the conflict, is far less preferable than substantive leadership by Netanyahu and Abbas; it would be perceived in the region as exhortation without follow-through.

So it is up to both parties to act. Netanyahu should spell out to Congress the major threshold he will cross, but only if Abbas is willing to respond publicly in kind. Since Palestinians’ major fear is that Israel will hold on to the West Bank, Netanyahu needs to clearly state that this will not be the case. Although Palestinians realize that Israel will not return to the pre-1967 borders and that enforced security arrangements are vital for any agreement, they want assurance that the 1967 line will be the baseline for calculations in configuring the final border. Thus, whatever land Israel keeps from within the West Bank — which is likely to be adjacent to the old pre-1967 boundary, where a significant majority of the settlers live — will yield an equivalent amount from within Israel proper. Such a deal is in line with Israeli offers to every other Arab state on its borders; a statement to this effect will go far in assuring Palestinians that Netanyahu is serious about peace.

Netanyahu set out a detailed vision of peace in his Bar Ilan speech in June 2009. We have never heard a vision of peace - detailed or otherwise - from Abu Mazen or any other 'Palestinian' leader.

Netanyahu has repeatedly called for negotiations without preconditions and that's how civilized people sit down to talk. There is no rhyme or reason for Israel to give assurances about the outcome of negotiations by making concessions before coming to the table, particularly when the 'Palestinians' have never given any such assurances. There is certainly no reason Israel should commit in advance to turn over the entire 'West Bank' or to give equivalent land to anything it retains from 'Israel proper.' The fact that Israel made the mistake of turning over every last grain of Sinai to Egypt and gave some land along the Dead Sea to Jordan does not mean that it is required to follow the same model in every peace agreement. The areas demanded by the 'Palestinians' are far more sensitive to Israel's security than the Sinai or the Dead Sea area.

The real question Makovsky ought to be asking is what Abu Mazen would do for peace. Sadly, the answer appears to be nothing, which may be why Makovsky doesn't even ask the question.

Oh, and George Mitchell quit because there have been no negotiations since September, and not because of anything that happened in the last week. I'm sure that decision was long in the making.

Israel Matzav: What would Abu Bluff do for peace?

Israel Matzav: Breaking: 10 Syrians killed, Bibi reacts

Breaking: 10 Syrians killed, Bibi reacts

Israel Radio reports at 6:00 pm that Israel has returned 10 bodies to Syria.

Some Syrian wounded may be treated in Israel.

The IDF is searching for those who did not return to Syria from Majdal Shams.

In Lebanon, 6 dead and 71 wounded in Maroun Aras.

After the 6:00 pm news we got reactions from Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has ordered the IDF to calm things down as quickly as possible.

Prime Minister Netanyahu says we are determined to defend our borders and our ownership. Important to note that this day is meant to mark the establishment of the State of Israel. The fight isn't over the 1967 borders, but over the very existence of Israel, which they call a catastrophe. It's important to know with whom and what we are contending.

Hopefully, Netanyahu will remember that when he speaks in Washington next week, and tell the Congress and President Obama that this is not about the 1967 borders, but about Israel's very existence.

Finally, Israel Radio is reporting that all the Syrian infiltrators left and the Syrian buses returned them home.

The border fence will be repaired - it was broken open in two places. The IDF is fixing it now.


Israel Matzav: Breaking: 10 Syrians killed, Bibi reacts

Love of the Land: Cheering Their Failed Israel Policy

Cheering Their Failed Israel Policy

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
20 March '10

The Washington Post headline — “Experts question whether U.S. has a real Israel strategy or ‘talking points’” – suggests the disarray in the Obami’s approach and the general consternation that has greeted their bully-boyism directed at the Jewish state. Indeed, the Post can find no one but George Mitchell’s lackey Martin Indyk (more on him later) who agrees with Hillary Clinton’s obnoxious claim that the staged hissy fit with Israel is “paying off.” (And if it were bearing fruit, then we are back to amateur hour when Hillary announces as much, and on the Israel-hating BBC, of all places). Elliott Abrams dryly notes: “It has made life harder and has made negotiations harder for the Israelis and the Palestinians.” Certainly taunting one side in public has that effect.

We are now in a fencing match. Hillary demands some concessions; Bibi tries to serve up some small gesture or soothing platitude so Hillary and company can climb down off the roof on which they have perched themselves to impress their Palestinian friends. But all we have to show for this is Palestinian stone-throwing, a dead Thai worker, a strained but not yet broken relationship with Israel, and further reason for Palestinians to do what they do best — play victim and demand unilateral concessions.

But nothing is more telling than the comments of Indyk, an adviser to Mitchell, who presumably channels the Obami’s thinking:

Martin S. Indyk, vice president for foreign studies at the Brookings Institution and an adviser to Mitchell, said the administration in the past 10 days has made the Israeli government “supersensitive” to the issue of Jerusalem. He praised the administration for not revealing its demands and said U.S. officials adroitly turned down the heat as quickly as they turned it up.

“I think they handled it quite well,” he said.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Cheering Their Failed Israel Policy

Love of the Land: Obama and Israel: Not Smart

Obama and Israel: Not Smart

John Podhoretz
commentarymagazine.com
15 March '10

In both politics and diplomacy, actors must think at least one move ahead. They need to be reasonably sure that when they say or do A, then the other party will say or do B. And they should want the other party to say or do B, otherwise it makes no sense to say A in the first place. The purpose of action isn't just to act, in other words, but to make sure that the reaction you get advances your purposes and your interests. Which is why the administration's behavior in deepening and perpetuating its latest confrontation with Israel is actually rather bewildering. Let's start out by acknowledging that what happened during Vice President Biden's trip last week — the announcement of new housing starts in East Jerusalem — was an affront to the United States. I believe Israel has every right to do what it is doing, but the view of the visiting representative of the administration is that what it is doing is wrong and injurious to future prospects for peace, and this conflict of visions is not going to be resolved. Biden was embarrassed, his visit overshadowed, and expressions of diplomatic dismay appropriate as a result. The Israeli prime minister, who did not know about the announcement, apologized to the visitor and was embarrassed as well by the way in which the dysfunctional Israeli political system was exposed to international view.

All of that happened in a day — on Tuesday. It happened, it was reported on, the administration made its displeasure known, with Biden himself condemning the announcement. Prime Minister Netanyahu's office made clear he had been blindsided by the announcement, which was made by the head of a party inside his coalition government. On Wednesday, privately and publicly, he and other Israelis made their own shame known, and it was clear that there were going to have to be fences mended. Fence-mending is what diplomacy is usually all about, especially by an administration that seems to think its predecessor didn't spend enough time at it.

And then matters escalated. And they escalated because the United States escalated them. Hillary Clinton called up Bibi Netanyahu on Friday and, if one reads between the lines in the reporting on their conversation, basically screamed at him for 45 minutes. Then her spokesman went out and told the world she had done so, and used startlingly violent language — calling the announcement a "deeply negative signal."

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Obama and Israel: Not Smart

Love of the Land: Clinton warns Israel: If you make concessions that rely on U.S. support it may not be there if you err?

Clinton warns Israel: If you make concessions that rely on U.S. support it may not be there if you err?

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
14 March '10

[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA:

"In her call, Clinton appeared to link U.S. military support for Israel to the construction in East Jerusalem"

Bottom line: After the miserable failure of President Obama's appeasement policy towards Iran - and the passage of his 2009 "deadline" for Iran we now have a reminder to Israel that the U.S. could threaten Israel in the future if it finds itself in a policy dispute.

So the warning: the last thing Israel can afford to do is take "risks for peace" that rely on American support since there is always the possibility that a future policy dispute will lead to that support being subject to question.?]


Clinton rebukes Israel over East Jerusalem plans, cites damage to bilateral ties

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 13, 2010; A01
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202615.html

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton rebuked Israeli Prime Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu on Friday about the state of the U.S.-Israeli
relationship, demanding that Israel take immediate steps to show it is
interested in renewing efforts to achieve a Middle East peace agreement.
.....

Some analysts applauded the administration's tough stance, saying it may jar the right-leaning Israeli government into making gestures to the Palestinians. But others said Clinton's call risked emboldening Arab and Palestinian officials to make new demands before talks start, if only so as not to seem softer than the Americans.

In her call, Clinton appeared to link U.S. military support for Israel to the construction in East Jerusalem, which Palestinians view as the site for their future capital. "The secretary said she could not understand how this happened, particularly in light of the United States' strong commitment to Israel's security," Crowley said. "She made clear that the Israeli government needed to demonstrate, not just through words but through specific actions, that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process."

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Clinton warns Israel: If you make concessions that rely on U.S. support it may not be there if you err?

Love of the Land: Palestinians may declare state. So?

Palestinians may declare state. So?

FresnoZionism.org
15 November 09

The latest Palestinian threat is that they will unilaterally declare a state:

Bethlehem – Ma’an/Agencies – The Palestinian Authority is mobilizing international support for declaring statehood, chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat said on Saturday.

“The idea is clear and understandable,” Erekat told the Palestinian daily newspaper Al-Ayyam. “Now we mobilize.”

Palestinians will bring the issue to a vote before the United Nations Security Council, which would declare a Palestinian state on the 4 June 1967 border with Israel, he explained.

This is supposed to strike fear into the heart of PM Netanyahu and his (not really so) right-wing government. But imagine the conversation:

Saeb Erekat: We are unilaterally declaring a state.

Binyamin Netanyahu: A state? But you could have had one in 2000. Why didn’t you accept it? Or what about the offer that Olmert made last year, supposedly even worse — I mean, more generous — then the Camp David and Taba ideas? He offered you 98.1% of Judea of Samaria plus a connecting passage through Israel from Gaza, most of East Jerusalem, and to allow 5,000 ‘refugees’ to enter Israel. Why didn’t you say ‘yes’ to that?

SE: Because we want all of East Jerusalem and all of Judea and Samaria. And we want all 5 million Arab refugees to have the right to return to their homes in Israel even if they never lived in them. And we aren’t going to say that Israel belongs to the Jewish people because it belongs to the Arabs that live there now and the ones who will return.

BN: That’s absurd. We’d never agree to that — it would mean the end of the Jewish state.

SE: Bingo.

BN: Well, declare whatever you want. But then you won’t get any land swaps, we won’t evacuate any settlements, and you won’t get ‘contiguity’ to Gaza. You will be in violation of all the agreements that you signed, and you’ll freeze the map as it is today, with no more territory in your hands. You’ll be Foreign Minister of Ramallah.

SE: But the Security Council will protect our new state. The UN will come and kick all 500,000 Jewish settlers [he's including the Jewish population of E. Jerusalem -- ed.] out of our land!

BN: So you are telling me that even the Obama administration wouldn’t veto a resolution to send UN troops to fight the IDF? Because that’s what it would take.

SE: We’ll have our capital in Holy Jerusalem!

BN: But if you won’t negotiate, you’ll get none of East Jerusalem. Even my administration, which is not as right-wing as some say, would agree to negotiate Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. Declare a state unilaterally and you’ll just make the present status quo permanent. Is that really what you want?

SE: (losing it) What we really want is to end the occupation, from the river to the sea!

BN: Bingo. But you aren’t going to get that. So you can either keep things as they are today — either by unilaterally declaring a state or by just continuing to refuse to talk — or you can finally accept that “two-state solution” means that one of those two states will belong to the Jewish people, and make a deal.

(Continue reading)

Love of the Land: Palestinians may declare state. So?

Love of the Land: If Hillary's Happy, I'm Not

If Hillary's Happy, I'm Not

Batya Medad
Shilo Musings
1 November 09

It's a very simple equation, Arithmetic, not Mathematics. United States policy is bad news for Israel, so if Secretary for State Hillary Clinton is pleased with something ourPrime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has to say, I automatically consider it a danger to our security and existence. Very simple.

The Obama-Clinton Administration is demanding a very racist, one-sided halt in Jewish growth and building in Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, including parts of Jerusalem. And again, like uncountable times in the past, it's the Arab intransigence which has saved us. They're betting that our Israeli Government will be so desperate to please the Americans and make a deal that we'll give up even more.

I hope and pray that our government will quickly realize that all of these concessions only weaken and endanger us. We have to send all the busybodies packing and do what's best for the security, development and continued existence of the State of Israel. No foreign promises will protect us.

Love of the Land: If Hillary's Happy, I'm Not

Love of the Land: Another Tack: Unhappy Birthday, Bitter 16

Another Tack: Unhappy Birthday, Bitter 16

Sarah Honig
JPost
10 September 09

"Tra-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la happy birthday sweet 16," Neil Sedaka crooned his way to pop-culture immortality in those antediluvian days of 1961. Sixteen years are indeed a milestone. Any girl born this week in 1993 is, to borrow from yesteryear's hit-song lyrics, "not a baby anymore." She might well have "turned into the prettiest girl" and into "just a teenage dream."

But not all birthdays are sweet at 16. Some stick painfully in the craw. Sometimes what grew up before our very eyes is nothing less than a teenage nightmare, certainly nothing to rejoice about.

Such is the pitiless pseudo-peace conceived clandestinely in Oslo, imposed undemocratically on hapless Israelis and launched festively on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993.

Worst of all, this misshapen 16-year-old grotesque has changed our circumstances forever. The cataclysmic chain reaction it set off rages still. Thus far nobody has possessed the pluck to snuff the monstrosity. Even those who once pronounced it dead, like Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, now make nice and vow to nurture it.

NEARLY NINE years ago, when campaigning for seeming superhawk Ariel Sharon, Netanyahu declared that "Oslo is dead. The Palestinians quashed the deal they themselves signed." On that occasion he set three conditions for restarting talks: "an absolute cease-fire, a fundamental revamp of the message broadcast by the Palestinian leadership to its people, and testing these conditions over a prolonged period - not just two or three weeks."

He stressed that "no real coexistence can emerge from a situation in which Palestinians speak war and Israelis speak peace. Only after thorough and unambiguous overhauls of Palestinian intentions and behavior can we return to a clean negotiating table."

In actual fact, however, rather than being unceremoniously disposed of and buried, the Oslo ghoul mushroomed hideously from atrocity to atrocity. After two intifadas, nearly 2,000 Israeli dead, the attendant betrayal and folly of disengagement, the Hamas takeover of Gaza (which resulted from disengagement) and an ever-burgeoning series of egregious Israeli concessions (all of which the Palestinians disdainfully rebuffed), it can be confidently concluded that our geopolitical situation has never been this bad.

We mechanically move, as if mesmerized, from debilitating delusion to devastating weakness. Given everything that transpired, it's hard to recall how much better things were in the summer of 1993, before the Oslo newborn was underhandedly unleashed on unsuspecting us.

The first intifada had been quelled. The PLO was down and out, crumbling and deprecated even in the Arab milieu. Yasser Arafat and 50,000 of his henchmen hadn't yet been imported here to set up their corrupt latifundia. The Palestinian state was a chimera. "Family reunions" hadn't yet added 150,000 Arabs to Israel's population.
(Full Article)

Love of the Land: Another Tack: Unhappy Birthday, Bitter 16