Love of the Land: Syrian Scuds to Hezbollah? Obama is on the case!

Syrian Scuds to Hezbollah? Obama is on the case!

Elder of Ziyon
14 April '10

In response to reports from various quarters that Syria has been transferring Scud missiles to Hezbollah, which would be able to hit virtually any target in Israel, the Obama administration showed what it's made of. Here is what White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had to say on the matter:

Q Robert, let me ask you a foreign policy question because the Israeli government yesterday contended that Syria is sending long-range Scud missiles into Lebanon into the hands of Hezbollah, a game-changing -- in their words -- military maneuver that they’ve found extremely destabilizing to the region. U.S. officials expressed some other similar concern. Give me the administration’s evaluation of that. And in the context of what some have described as a rough patch in U.S.-Israeli relations, how does this fit?
MR. GIBBS: Well, as I have said many times up here, we are -- we have an unbreakable bond with the Israeli people --

Q Even when they’re wrong?

MR. GIBBS: -- and in ensuring their security. We are obviously increasingly concerned about the sophisticated weaponry that is allegedly being transferred. We have expressed our concerns to those governments and believe that steps should be taken to reduce any risk and any danger of anything from happening.

Q How has that message been sent and what does this do to the administration’s attempt to engage the Syrians in this more complex discussion about Middle East peace?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, we have relayed our concerns.

Q At the highest level?

MR. GIBBS: We have.

Q At the highest level?

MR. GIBBS: Yes. And again, obviously this is a -- you heard the President speak yesterday about Middle East peace, his desire to have this nation remain focused on that goal. The potential destabilizing effect, the alarming effect that this has, we’ve expressed our great concern about that.

Love of the Land: Syrian Scuds to Hezbollah? Obama is on the case!

Love of the Land: To only say Iranian nukes are unacceptable is to accept them

To only say Iranian nukes are unacceptable is to accept them

William Kristol
Washington Post
28 March '10

In March 1936, Hitler occupied the Rhineland. The French prime minister, Leon Blum, denounced the act as "unacceptable." But France, Britain and the rest of the world accepted it. Years later, the French political thinker Raymond Aron commented, "To say that something is unacceptable was to say that one accepted it."

In March 2010, as Iran moved ahead with its nuclear weapons program, the American secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, speaking at the policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last week, said no fewer than four times in one paragraph that a nuclear-armed Iran would be "unacceptable." It would be unacceptable simply, "unacceptable to the United States," "unacceptable to Israel" and "unacceptable to the region and the international community."

Then, perhaps sensing the ghost of Raymond Aron at her shoulder, Clinton hastened to add: "So let me be very clear: The United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

But this attempt at reassurance merely conjured up (at least for me) another ghost: that of Richard Nixon. Didn't Nixon always say, at moments of utmost insincerity, that he wanted to make something very clear?

In March 2010, as Iran moved ahead with its nuclear weapons program, the American secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, speaking at the policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last week, said no fewer than four times in one paragraph that a nuclear-armed Iran would be "unacceptable." It would be unacceptable simply, "unacceptable to the United States," "unacceptable to Israel" and "unacceptable to the region and the international community."

Then, perhaps sensing the ghost of Raymond Aron at her shoulder, Clinton hastened to add: "So let me be very clear: The United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

But this attempt at reassurance merely conjured up (at least for me) another ghost: that of Richard Nixon. Didn't Nixon always say, at moments of utmost insincerity, that he wanted to make something very clear?

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: To only say Iranian nukes are unacceptable is to accept them

Love of the Land: Bibi’s Predicament

Bibi’s Predicament

Noah Pollak
Contentions/Commentary
27 March '10

(While I'm sure I'll be posting additional thoughts on this, there is quite a consensus that this is not a passing phenomenon but something both dangerous and with malice. We're going to need to reach inside and find some real strengths we haven't had to use lately, a lot of effort, a lot of tefilot. Y.)

It should be clear by now that President Obama intends to pursue the “peace process” in the same way that he pursued health care — by ramming it down his opponent’s throat, in this case, Israel’s.

According to news reports, Obama has presented Bibi with a long list of demands, acquiescence to which would “resolve” the immediate Obama-created crisis and “allow” a move toward proximity talks (never mind that Israel has always been willing to hold direct talks). Obama thus places Bibi on the horns of an impossible dilemma: Both accepting and rejecting the demands carries immense costs.

Accepting the demands would be humiliating to Bibi. He would have to roll over and — in front of a global audience – expose his stomach to Obama like a defeated dog. This would surely please our thuggish president, but it would carry severe costs for Netanyahu: 1) He would be vilified in Israel and his domestic position imperiled. 2) Even if he wanted to roll, his government may not allow it; one or several of his coalition partners may abandon him. At a moment of critical national-security threats, the government might descend into crisis. Bibi knows that to allow this to happen in the decisive phase of the Iranian nuclear standoff would be supremely dangerous. And 3) Obama’s vindictive and outlandish behavior raises legitimate Israeli suspicions that the “proximity talks” would actually be a trap — and therefore Israel should reject the immediate demands as a way of forestalling the next round of bullying. Let us recall that just four months ago, the administration hailed the settlement freeze as an unprecedented concession; today Obama pretends that he never made the agreement.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Bibi’s Predicament

Love of the Land: Netanyahu Can Say "No"

Netanyahu Can Say "No"

Ephraim Inbar
BESA
Perspectives 103
25 March '10

EXECUTIVE SUMMERY: The Obama administration’s attempt to force Israel to accept the division of Jerusalem as a prerequisite for peace talks is astonishing. Despite the obvious reluctance to confront an American president, Prime Minister Netanyahu can effectively resist such American pressure on Jerusalem. In fact, Jerusalem is the issue on which Netanyahu can best make a stand against Obama.

President Barack Obama capitalized on a minor Israeli glitch – the announcement of Israel's plans to build in Ramat Shlomo – to fabricate a crisis in US-Israeli relations. Obama seeks to renegotiate the agreement reached for starting proximity talks with the Palestinians and to extract additional concessions from Israel. Most striking and central is the administration's effort to force Israel into accepting the division of Jerusalem even before the talks start.

The White House expects that the Israeli prime minister will bend under pressure to its wishes. While in the past Netanyahu has proven susceptible to such pressure, the administration may be overplaying its hand on the issue of Jerusalem. Despite the obvious reluctance to confront an American president, Prime Minister Netanyahu can effectively resist American pressure. In fact, this is the issue on which Netanyahu can best take a stand against Obama.

The division of the city is opposed by the current democratically-elected Israeli government and (according to polls that I have directed) by over 70 percent of the Jews in Israel. Few issues in Israel command such a large and clear majority.

The timing of the crisis also serves Israel well. A few days before Passover when Jews repeat a 2,000-year-old text pledging, “Next year in Jerusalem,” Netanyahu can say no to American demands for concessions in Jerusalem. Rejection of the division of Jerusalem expresses the deepest wishes of an overwhelming number of Jews living both in Israel and the Diaspora.

(Read full paper)

Love of the Land: Netanyahu Can Say "No"

Love of the Land: All Process, No Peace

All Process, No Peace

Elliot Abrams
The Weekly Standard
21 January '10

(While not agreeing to a number of points, this covers a lot of ground and is worthy of attention.)

Peace in the Middle East has been on the Obama administration’s mind from the beginning. Two days after his inauguration the president traveled to the State Department to announce the appointment of George Mitchell as his Middle East peace negotiator. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described the administration’s approach as “an intensive effort from day one.” Here was the plan: Israel would freeze construction in all the settlements and in Jerusalem; Arab states would reach out to Israel in tangible ways visible to their own publics and to Israelis; and the Palestinians would do better at building political institutions, ending incitement against Israel and fighting terror. With these achievements in hand the administration would lead the parties into peace negotiations to be concluded within the president’s first term. Nobel Prizes would be the frosting on the cake.

That’s not how it turned out, except for the Nobel Prize. As the Obama administration begins its second year in office, its Middle East peace efforts are widely regarded as a shambles. Its initial goals have all been missed. Israelis, Palestinians, and Arab governments have lost confidence in American leadership. The challenge for Year Two will be how to get out of this mess and on to a more positive track—but that will require some candor inside the administration in assessing what went wrong.

(Read full article)

During George W. Bush’s first term in office, Abrams was appointed as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs. In Bush’s second term, he was given the job of deputy national security adviser.

Love of the Land: All Process, No Peace

Israel Matzav: Which part of "no" does the West not understand?

Which part of "no" does the West not understand?

Barry Rubin takes the Obama administration to task for refusing to hear "no" as an answer from Iran on its nuclear program.

Now what is the president of the United States's response to all this? Hold onto your syntax:

"Iran has taken weeks now and has not shown its willingness to say yes to this proposal...and so as a consequence we have begun discussions with our international partners about the importance of having consequences."

Can you imagine what would have been said if President George W. Bush, that fumblemouthed clown so unlike the brilliant articulate Obama had said "the importance of having consequences"? What does that phrase mean? Translation: I refuse to threaten Iran. I am reluctant to put on sanctions. I don't want to admit that engagement has failed. Where's the teleprompter?"

Now a new voice has been added asking for Obama to take tough action. that of Mohsen Makhmalbaf, international spokesman for Iran's main opposition movement. He urged Obama to increase public support for Iranian dissidents and stop the regime from getting nuclear weapons.

Recall that Obama's claim that a tougher stance would hurt the opposition was a major reason for him refusing to condemn the election theft, speak out forcibly against the repression, and hit the regime harder. Well, obviously that's untrue.

But even Makhmalbaf, former campaign spokesman for presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, thinks the regime won't make a deal because, in his words, "If they agree not to pursue a nuclear bomb and start negotiations, they will lose their supporters. Definitely dialogue is better than war. ... But can you continue your dialogue without any results?"

Answer: Apparently yes.

But it's not just the Obama administration that hasn't got the... well, you know what... to take Iran to task. If you thought that French President Sarkozy or British Prime Minister Gordon Brown found their tongues back in September, they've apparently lost them again.

The West is "disappointed" over Iran's failure to respond positively to a UN-brokered nuclear deal, diplomats said in a statement Friday following a meeting of the UN Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany. However, no new sanctions were discussed during the meeting, according to an EU source.

"We urge Iran to reconsider the opportunity offered by this agreement ... and to engage seriously with us in dialogue and negotiations," the statement said, noting that Teheran had not responded positively to the proposal of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

An EU official said there was no mention of imposing further sanctions against Iran at the meeting. "These things are a matter of timing, and this was not the right time for it," said the official who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter.

The Western officials said they would hold a follow-up meeting around Christmas.

'Around Christmas.' Figure that might happen the first week in January, because it sure isn't going to happen before Christmas or between Christmas and New Year's. So we're talking nearly two months from now. And in the meantime, the centrifuges continue to produce more enriched uranium.

Jonathan Tobin sums up:

Right now, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must be laughing themselves silly at this toothless response from the West. While President Obama circles the globe in a fruitless effort to find support for the sort of sanctions that might force the Iranians to reconsider their position, the Islamist regime continues to delay even the hope of negotiations to buy more time for their program. Obama’s feckless campaign of “engagement” has rightly earned their scorn. After this performance, who could blame the Iranians for believing that the West isn’t serious about stopping them?

The West is not serious about stopping Iran. After all, it's only Israel that's in immediate jeopardy. There is always time to try to reach an accommodation with Iran after Israel is destroyed (God forbid). Israel is going to have to go it alone to take out whatever it can take out of Iran's nuclear capability. Iran knows it. Over the weekend, they threatened to hit the center of Tel Aviv if they are hit by Israel or the United States. But Iran will be hit. There is no choice left for Israel. It's just a question of timing.

What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: Which part of "no" does the West not understand?

Love of the Land: When it Comes to Iran, President Obama Won’t Hear “No” For an Answer

When it Comes to Iran, President Obama Won’t Hear “No” For an Answer

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
20 November 09

Question: What does Iran have to do to get across the fact that it isn’t making a deal on its nuclear program?

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton says she doesn’t consider the Iranian foreign minister’s statement that they aren’t making the deal to be “the final word.” The Obama Administration will give Tehran a few more chances—and probably a few more months—to stall in order to race ahead in their atom bomb program and to build up ways of overcoming any sanctions that are some day applied.

Indeed, the United States and five other powers are holding still another meeting to, in the words of EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana's spokeswoman "review the latest developments on the Iran nuclear issue." But since no one is concluding Iran is saying no, they won’t take one step toward higher sanctions.

Higher sanctions, you might remember, were supposed to come about in September 2009 under the Obama Administration's own original time table. You know when the deadline was for the multi-year European negotiations with Iran was? September 2007.

Now at the earliest sanctions probably wouldn’t come before, what, March 2010? Victory for the Iran regime.

Another great power statement says that Iran has "not responded positively" to the plan, "We are disappointed by the lack of follow-up," and "Iran has not engaged in an intensified dialogue and in particular has not accepted to have a new meeting."

I think Iran is trying to tell you something, guys. But since it isn’t in writing yet, well, they claim they can’t do anything. And of course the Iranian regime will--with U.S. government cooperation--draw this out as long as possible.

Memo to world leaders: Do you think they might be stalling for time?

Note something important here. It isn’t as if the minute they declare that Iran rejects any compromise or serious negotiations there will be stronger sanctions. Oh, no. At that point, the United States and Europeans will start meeting to figure out what sanctions to put on. Of course, they will disagree, the Russians and Chinese will water it down. The plan is also to bring in the entire EU which means, for example, that Spain or Sweden could slow down the process or force a reduction in the planned pressures on Tehran.

Now what is the president of the United States's response to all this? Hold onto your syntax:

(Continue to full article)

Love of the Land: When it Comes to Iran, President Obama Won’t Hear “No” For an Answer

Love of the Land: Analysis: Obama's press on Gilo shows a continued misread of Israel

Analysis: Obama's press on Gilo shows a continued misread of Israel

Herb Keinon
JPost
19 November 09

US President Barack Obama is an extremely intelligent man surrounded by equally intelligent advisers, many of whom have years of experience dealing with the Middle East. His continued misreading and misunderstanding of the Israeli public is, therefore, somewhat baffling.

This misread was evident again in the past few days by the US objection to the Jerusalem Municipal Planning Committee's approval of a plan to build some 900 new units in Gilo - not in a far-flung settlement overlooking Nablus, nor even in one of the settlement blocs like Gush Etzion, nor even a Jewish complex in one of the Arab neighborhoods of the capital, but in Gilo, one of the large new neighborhoods built in the city following the Six Day War. If Israel cannot build in Gilo without US approval, than it cannot build in Ramot Eshkol, French Hill, Ramot, Neveh Yaakov, Pisgat Ze'ev, East Talpiot or Har Homa.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Tuesday expressed "dismay" at the decision. The dismay, however, cuts both ways, with many Israelis clearly dismayed that the US - like Europe - now seems to be considering as settlements the post-1967 neighborhoods in Jerusalem. The EU, clearly following Gibbs's lead and then taking it one step further, released a statement on Wednesday saying, "The European Union is dismayed by the recent decision on the expansion of the settlement of Gilo."

Truth be told, this is not the first indication of US policy on this matter. Former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice seemed to be giving the new neighborhoods settlement status in 2007 when she opposed a new project in Har Homa. She didn't clarify, however, whether other Jerusalem neighborhoods over the Green Line, such as Gilo and Ramot, were settlements in the eyes of the United States.

(Continue reading...)

Love of the Land: Analysis: Obama's press on Gilo shows a continued misread of Israel

Love of the Land: Frolicking in the Quicksand: How the Obama Administration Keeps Making Huge Mistakes in the MIddle East

Frolicking in the Quicksand: How the Obama Administration Keeps Making Huge Mistakes in the MIddle East

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
19 November 09

Of course, the Obama Administration has its defenders. They either ignore criticism of the Administration’s foreign policy or claim it is all partisan and ideological. And yet the truth is that if you watch the government's policy on a daily basis it is truly remarkable how many dumb, avoidable mistakes are made.

I won’t supply a long list here but instead will talk about the latest one. Let’s take it step by step to see what a mess is being created.

Background: Israel announced in 1993, at the time of the Oslo agreement with the PLO, that it did not view construction on existing settlements as a violation. The Palestinians, during the ensuing 16 years, never made this a big issue. The U.S. government, while it can say it technically opposed this, was pretty quiet about it, never did anything.

Then President Barack Obama came to office and made the construction issue the centerpiece of his Middle East policy, sometimes it has appeared to be the keystone of his whole foreign policy. It may seem like an exaggeration but often it seems as if the administration believes that if Israel stopped building 3000 apartments all the region’s problems would go away.

So far, the Administration has wasted almost ten months in this pursuit. First, it shouted at Israel as if it were some servant to do it fast or else. Then when Israel didn’t, the Administration realized that perhaps Israel should get something in exchange for the concession. So it went to Arab states and asked—presuming, wrongly, that they are desperate for a peace agreement—for some compromise but got nothing.

Now it had destroyed its own policy since the Palestinian Authority (PA) refused to come to negotiations until there was a complete freeze. How could it be less hardline than the president?

But there was a solution, sort of. Israel agreed to stop all construction once the apartments currently being built are finished. And naturally, Israel said, this didn’t apply to east Jerusalem.

The United States accepted the deal, with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton exulting about what a huge concession Israel was making. Aside from everything else, the U.S. government knew how big a risk Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was taking with his coalition.

Ok. Sorry to give you all this background but it is necessary to understand how the Administration loves to jump in the quicksand.
(Continue reading...)

Love of the Land: Frolicking in the Quicksand: How the Obama Administration Keeps Making Huge Mistakes in the MIddle East

Love of the Land: Apartments in Jerusalem, Now More Scandalizing than Ever

Apartments in Jerusalem, Now More Scandalizing than Ever

Noah Pollak
Contentions/Commentary
18 November 09

The latest expression of displeasure from the Obama administration over Israeli construction in Jerusalem should not be taken as a comment on the construction itself. It is actually a clumsy attempt at damage control. From China, Robert Gibbs said:

“We are dismayed at the Jerusalem Planning Committee’s decision to move forward on the approval process for the expansion of Gilo in Jerusalem,” Gibbs said in the statement. “At a time when we are working to re-launch negotiations, these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed. Neither party should engage in efforts or take actions that could unilaterally pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations.” … “Our position is clear,” Gibbs continued. “The status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties.”

If “neither party should unilaterally preempt negotiations,” what does Gibbs have to say about the actual reason there are no negotiations currently taking place? That would be the Palestinian refusal to hold talks, on the unprecedented and invented grounds that any Israeli construction on land that was occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967 unilaterally preempts negotiations. In other words, the White House has endorsed the Palestinian preconditions on negotiations — at the same time as it rejects any attempt to set preconditions on negotiations. Quite a feat.

But this level of nonsense is necessary, and not because of anything the Palestinians or Israelis did. It is because of the immense damage the administration has done to the Palestinian Authority and Mahmoud Abbas. Having staked the peace process on an undeliverable promise to the Palestinians of a settlement freeze, the administration is now forced to spin furiously for Abbas in order to shield him from even more humiliation than he’s already suffered.

Robert Gibbs pretends to be scandalized, but nobody should buy it. Are we really supposed to believe that George Mitchell thought the Netanyahu government, having rejected numerous such demands previously, would suddenly agree to allow the State Department to dictate to Israel about housing construction in its own capital?

Love of the Land: Apartments in Jerusalem, Now More Scandalizing than Ever

Love of the Land: Benign Neglect for the Peace Process

Benign Neglect for the Peace Process

Noah Pollak
Contentions/Commentary
08 November 09

Thomas Friedman’s column today is utterly sensible and completely realistic.

The only thing driving the peace process today is inertia and diplomatic habit. …

Right now we want it more than the parties. They all have other priorities today. And by constantly injecting ourselves we’ve become their Novocain. We relieve all the political pain from the Arab and Israeli decision-makers by creating the impression in the minds of their publics that something serious is happening. “Look, the U.S. secretary of state is here. Look, she’s standing by my side. Look, I’m doing something important! Take our picture. Put it on the news. We’re on the verge of something really big and I am indispensable to it.” This enables the respective leaders to continue with their real priorities — which are all about holding power or pursuing ideological obsessions — while pretending to advance peace, without paying any political price.

Let’s just get out of the picture. Let all these leaders stand in front of their own people and tell them the truth: “My fellow citizens: Nothing is happening; nothing is going to happen. It’s just you and me and the problem we own.”

Let me be the first to congratulate Friedman on joining the ranks of us killjoy, spoilsport, wet-blanket neocons, who have been saying exactly this for years — and have been assailed for doing so by people like, oh, Tom Friedman. I recall writing a year ago that the peace process existed to “cater to the illusions of what has become a self-sustaining diplomatic, bureaucratic, and media industry.” It’s nice to have Friedman on our side.

Love of the Land: Benign Neglect for the Peace Process

Love of the Land: Neither a bi-national state nor a two state solution

Neither a bi-national state nor a two state solution

Ted Belman
Israpundit
07 November 09

Jeffrey Goldberg interviewed Hussein Ibish the author of “What’s Wrong With the One-State Agenda?” on The Fantasy World of One-Staters. Ibish was one of the speakers at the J Street Convention.

Ibish thought that the J Street tent was too big to find a consensus and it would have to create some cohesion and a central message before it could be effective.

(Ibish) I mean people ranging from the sort of centrist-center left, all the way to post-Zionists, anti-Zionists, who were there, too. It’s not ultimately a group that’s going to form, I think, a functional coalition. Right now, they’re finding their feet. This is normal, it’s inevitable — but at a certain point, I think they have to clarify what they are, who their constituency is, what they stand for, who they are, who they’re not. They’ve been more successful in creating a space for themselves as a new voice that is compelling, but at other moments it’s looked like where they were simply positioning themselves as the alternative to AIPAC. And my sense of things is that, initially, that they would look too much to their rivals. But sooner rather than later, they’re going to have to just move on and start to define themselves in a much more coherent and pro-active way, not just in contrast to the traditional Jewish organizations but also to distinguish themselves from people in the Jewish community whose criticism of Israel makes them anathema to the mainstream of the community. They can’t go there and I think they’ve tried not to go there.

I think he is entirely wrong in this because he assumes that the goal of J Street is to attract a substantial number of Jews and thus speak for a major segment of the Jewish community. But what they really want to do is undermine the Jewish state. They are not pro-Israel they are anti-Israel. They will never compromise their ideology to get more support.

But I was more interested in what he had to say about the fantasy of the one state solution that some are touting now. He thought it was a fantasy because hardly any Israelis would agree to it.

He totally rejected the belief “that through the application of what they (the one staters) call BDS - Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions - globally that they can crush the will of the Israelis and break the Zionist movement.”

Anyone who thinks that is plausible in the foreseeable future doesn’t understand the nature of the American relationship with Israel. The commitment of the U.S., not just the government but American society, is to the survival and security of the Israeli state. And then there’s another aspect, which is the extent to which Israeli institutions, organizations and corporations are interwoven at a very fundamental level with many of those in the U.S.

I’m talking about corporate, governmental, intelligence, military, industrial, scientific ties. The point is that you can only take talk of boycott and sanctions seriously if you really don’t understand any of this. And if you don’t understand any of this, then you’re living in a fantasy world.

Furthermore, he says, the world has moved on.

These people are trapped in the language of the Fifties and Sixties. You’re talking about a worldview is anachronistic in the most fundamental sense. It doesn’t recognize any of the changes that have taken place since then. For example, the strategic situation that’s emerged in the Middle East, where the Arab states and the Arabs generally have a lot of other things to worry about other than Israel. This is a world in which a lot of Gulf states are extremely concerned about Iraq, and where there are Arab states — Jordan and Egypt — that have treaties with Israel, where Syria has a motive to be civil with Israel that is unpleasant but completely stable, and where it’s a very different environment than simply the Arabs and Israelis are enemies.

The other thing that they’ve missed completely, and this is sort of the amazing thing, is the total transformation in American official policy toward the Palestinians over the past 20 years. Twenty-one years ago, there was no contact ever between the U.S. and the PLO. No contact, zero, and no Palestinian statehood is the consensus American foreign policy and it is a national security priority under Obama. People in the House, key positions like the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Howard Berman, chair of the Subcommittee on the Middle East, Gary Ackerman, Nita Lowey on Appropriations - all of them Jewish American members of Congress, stalwart supporters of Israel, and all of them committed to peace based on two states. And all of them, by the way, who were on the host committee of the American Task Force on Palestine gala last week.

It is easy to understand why these supporters of Israel and a two state solution would consider the expansion of settlements an obstacle to the two state solution. That’s why they supported Obama’s demand for a freeze, in part, if not in whole. But what about Israel. Israelis are in favour of building in Jerusalem but less supportive of building in the rest of Judea and Samaria. Those who support continued construction do not support a two state solution save for those who firmly believe that only through such construction can the Arabs be forced to make a deal. Time would not be on the side of the Arabs. If construction were to stop entirely, the Arabs could wait another hundred years to destroy Israel. Our American friends should understand this.

Israel should too. Israel can’t have it both ways. She can’t favour a two state solution and at the same time expand the settlement endeavour. Perhaps the Netanyahu government has come to this conclusion and therefor has frozen all new construction in favour of renewed negotiations. But the opposition to such a freeze is very strong. The opposition to withdrawing from Judea and Samaria is even stronger.

Netanyahu’s current policy is not aimed at the same end result as envisioned by Israel’s friends in the US, namely two states living in peace. He doesn’t believe it is possible. Netanyahu is aiming for limited sovereignty, only, for the Arabs, otherwise known as autonomy.

I would argue that the two staters are also pursuing a fantasy. To believe that such a solution is possible is to ignore that neither party wants to make the necessary compromises. It also ignores how intractable the problems are.

What is missing from the predominant view is a third possibility, namely, one where the one state is not a bi-national state but a Jewish state with a Jewish majority.

If Israel were to annex Judea and Samaria, the Jewish residents in the expanded Israel, would outnumber the Arab residents, 2:1 for the foreseeable future. (See AIDRG and One Jewish State .) Jewish citizens would exceed Arab citizens by even a greater majority. The Arabs would be granted citizenship over time according to western norms e.g. they must speak the language, swear loyalty, do national service and so on.

Basic Laws would be passed to ensure that Israel remain a Jewish state. This would not be unusual as many states affilliate with Christianity or Islam in their constitutions. The Arab citizens would simply have to accept that.

It is either that or autonomy only, over Area “A” only. This is about 40% of Judea and Samaria.

Pursuing such alternate solutions would have the best chance of success if the US committed to it.

Love of the Land: Neither a bi-national state nor a two state solution

Love of the Land: The mullahs' big week

The mullahs' big week

Caroline Glick
carolineglick.com
06 November 09

At first glance, this past week seems like a week that Iran's mullahs would very much like to forget. Early Wednesday morning, IDF naval commandos boarded the merchant ship Francop and diverted it to the naval base at Ashdod. There the IDF displayed its cargo of 3,000 rockets and various and other sundry ordnance useful only to terror forces.

The Francop originated in Iran and was intercepted en route to Iran's Hizbullah proxy force in Lebanon via Iran's Arab toady Syria.

As Israel's political leadership noted, this shipment constitutes hard proof that Iran is actively sponsoring terrorist armies in Lebanon, and doing so in full breach of binding UN Security Council resolutions. The commando raid also exposed the depth of Syria's collusion with Iran in arming Hizbullah. After Israel's seizure of the Francop, voices claiming that Syria is but a bit player in the terror game can be laughed off the international stage.

Israel's interception of the Francop came a week after Yemeni forces seized an Iranian ship transporting armor-piercing weapons to Houthi Shi'ite rebels in northern Yemen. As Saudi Arabia's Al-Watan reported over the weekend, Iranian Revolutionary Guards are training Houthi rebels in Eritrea and sponsoring their insurgency against the Yemini regime.

Earlier in October, the Hansa India, which sailed from Iran to Germany, fell under suspicion as it made its way to Syria. It was diverted from Egypt to Malta, where its cargo of bullets and industrial materials intended for weapons production was removed.

On Wednesday morning, just as Israel was announcing the capture of the Francop, scores of thousands of Iranians in cities throughout the country took advantage of the regime's planned demonstrations celebrating the 30th anniversary of the seizure of the US Embassy in Teheran to protest against the regime. These regime opponents willingly placed themselves in front of the batons, tear gas cannons and guns of Iranian regime goons to protest June's stolen presidential election and to call for the overthrow of the mullahs' regime of tyranny and its replacement with a democracy.

The protesters turned regime supporters' calls for "Death to America," and "Death to Israel" into big, deadly jokes by calling out, "Death to the Dictator" (that is, supreme ruler Ali Khamenei) and "Death to Russia."

Far from embracing the regime's 30-year war against the US and the nation-state based international system, representatives of the "Green Revolution" asked the US to forgive Iran for taking 52 US Embassy personnel hostage in 1979.

Back in Israel, for the past two weeks some 1,400 US military personnel have been deployed throughout the country for the biennial Juniper Cobra missile defense exercise with the IDF. Although Juniper Cobra is a routine maneuver, this year's exercise was unprecedented in size and scope. Observers claim that there have never been so many American generals in Israel at one time.

No previous Israeli-American joint exercise has been conducted with such a high profile. And Israeli leaders did not hesitate to name the enemy in this year's exercise. This year's Juniper Cobra exercise, they said, was part of the two nations' preparations for a joint response to a potential Iranian strike against Israel. The obvious message Israel and the US hoped to transmit to Teheran was that the strategic alliance between the two countries remains strong.

ALL IN all then, on the surface, this past week seemed like a horrible week for the mullahs. But appearances can be deceiving. Unfortunately and counterintuitively, the past week has been one of the best weeks the mullahs have had for a long, long time. Certainly, it was the best week the Iranian regime has had since it falsified the results of the June 12 presidential elections.
(Full article)

Love of the Land: The mullahs' big week

Love of the Land: Obama Administration on Anniversary of Embassy and Hostage Seizure in Iran: We're trying to be Friends!

Obama Administration on Anniversary of Embassy and Hostage Seizure in Iran: We're trying to be Friends!

Equal parts day off from school and angry demonstration, Iranian school children commemorate the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran with anti-U.S. and anti-Israel chants and the burning of American, Israeli flags.

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
05 November 09

Will Rogers, the great American comedian of the 1920s and 1930s, famously said, “I never met a man I didn’t like.” The problem with the Obama Administration, at least so far, is that it has never met an enemy that it could identify as such.

Of course, the story isn’t over yet. Indeed, one does see signs of change. But we are still getting prologue. Consider for example the Statement by the President of November 4, 2009, on the thirtieth anniversary of the seizure of the U.S. embassy by Iran and the holding of American diplomats and citizens as hostages, an unprecedented act of terrestrial piracy.

Yes, there is a good case for not making such a statement an opportunity for blustering against Tehran, but—following on the similar announcement of the anniversary of the murder of 241 American servicemen in Beirut by Iran, Syria, and Hizballah—it doesn’t even mention who were the perpetrators.

After thanking the American victims—“unjustly held hostage”—the statement says in a rather neutral tone:

“This event helped set the United States and Iran on a path of sustained suspicion, mistrust, and confrontation.”

That’s sort of like saying that the attack on Pearl Harbor created certain problems between the United States and Japan.

President Barack Obama then says America “wants to move beyond this past, and seeks a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect.” Again, this is an understandable approach. But it is followed by no criticism, no threats, no pressure, and no remarks about Iran’s behavior in recent years or recent days, and then lists a series of nice things the United States has done for Iran:

“We do not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs. We have condemned terrorist attacks against Iran. We have recognized Iran’s international right to peaceful nuclear power. We have demonstrated our willingness to take confidence-building steps along with others in the international community. We have accepted a proposal by the International Atomic Energy Agency to meet Iran’s request for assistance in meeting the medical needs of its people. We have made clear that if Iran lives up to the obligations that every nation has, it will have a path to a more prosperous and productive relationship with the international community.”

And so, he concludes, “Iran must choose. We have heard for thirty years what the Iranian government is against; the question, now, is what kind of future it is for.”

Here’s the problem: the Iranian regime has chosen and shows us all every day what kind of future it is for. The only question is when or whether the Obama administration will recognize that fact.

Meanwhile, Iran's Supreme Guide, the country’s most powerful man in the country, made his own statement on the embassy seizure. It’s worth comparing to the one Obama issued.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Obama Administration on Anniversary of Embassy and Hostage Seizure in Iran: We're trying to be Friends!

Love of the Land: U.S.-Syria Relations: Syrian Dictator Bashar al-Assad Complains that America isn’t Giving Him Enough Concessions in Exchange for Nothing

U.S.-Syria Relations: Syrian Dictator Bashar al-Assad Complains that America isn’t Giving Him Enough Concessions in Exchange for Nothing

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
04 November 09

As I’ve previously reported, policy toward Syria has been the best-run aspect of Obama Administration foreign policy. That’s largely because it has been left in the hands of State Department officials who have no illusions about that radical dictatorship which is Iran’s closest ally and is determined to remain that way.

Now Syrian dictator President Bashar al-Assad has complained to the country’s official news agency, November 1, that while the U.S. government is talking instead of “commanding” nothing much has changed with the Obama Administration. "It is hard to say that big steps have been taken in bilateral relations," Assad said.

More American official delegations are going to Damascus but they’re not being converted by the trip. One topic they are pressing is better Syrian control over its border with Iraq, a euphemism for: stopping helping terrorism in Iraq.

More than four months after the U.S. government announced it would send an ambassador to Syria for the first time in years, nobody has been named.

Now, the problem with tough diplomacy can be that it does not “work” immediately or seemingly not at all. This is a persistent Obama Administration criticism of its predecessors: they were tough on Iran and other radicals but the problems didn’t go away. Right! But what’s better:

--To be tough on enemies in order to weaken them, isolate them, put them on notice to change their behavior, and reinforce the determination of those being attacked by them in the region (in this case, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia) OR

--To be soft on enemies, persuading them you are weak so they will be more aggressive, giving them concessions all the better to eat you with, and demoralizing the radicals’ victims by acting as if you are on the side of the “bad guys?”

After all, Syria continues to:

Arm, finance, transport, and encourage terrorists murdering American soldiers and Iraqi civilians; oppose peace with Israel; try to seize control over Lebanon; sponsor terrorism against Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan; refuse to cooperate with the international tribunal investigating past Syrian terrorism in Lebanon; deny human rights at home and torture peaceful dissidents; and a long list of other such things.

The main criticism I have toward Obama Administration policy on this issue is the failure to support Iraqi government complaints against Syria for sponsoring terrorism and giving safe haven to its leadership, a failure you can read about here and here. Remember that these groups are openly part of al-Qaida and even the Obama Administration says that the United States is at war with al-Qaida.

Love of the Land: U.S.-Syria Relations: Syrian Dictator Bashar al-Assad Complains that America isn’t Giving Him Enough Concessions in Exchange for Nothing

Love of the Land: When No Means No

When No Means No

Pleading with Iran will get the West nowhere.

Bret Stephens
Wall Street Journal
02 November 09

I once overhead a guy try to make a date over the phone. His end of the conversation went roughly as follows:

"How about Friday?" (Pause.) "Not Friday? Because I'm free most of the weekend." (Pause.) "Not this weekend? What about next Saturday?" (Pause.) "Are you free at all next week?" (Long pause.) "Well, are you ever free?"

Apparently she was not, at least as far as he was concerned.

Now it's the turn of the Obama administration to play the guy who won't take a hint. And it falls to the Islamic Republic of Iran to be the girl who's hard—actually, impossible—to get.

Tehran's most recent abrupt rejection came last week, when it reportedly decided that it was not enough for the U.S. to trash four binding Security Council resolutions demanding that Iran cease enriching uranium. Nor was it enough that France and Russia were prepared, with America's blessing, to convert Iran's existing stockpile of low-enriched uranium (LEU) to a grade of 19.75%, a hair's breadth shy of the 20% needed for a crude nuclear device.

"The key issue is that Iran does not agree to export its lightly enriched uranium," an unnamed senior European official told the New York Times. "That's not a minor detail. That's the whole point of the deal."

Perhaps this is merely some tactical posturing by Iran; as of this writing, its foreign minister hasn't yet categorically ruled a deal out. Then again, it's probably worth rehashing the history of the West's nuclear negotiations with Tehran to see where things are likely to go from here.
(Read more...)

Love of the Land: When No Means No

Love of the Land: Why Are Arabs Unhappy with Hillary? Blame Obama

Why Are Arabs Unhappy with Hillary? Blame Obama

Jonathan Tobin
Contentions/Commentary
02 November 09

If Hillary Clinton is unhappy about the abuse she is taking from the Arab world over her equivocal attitude toward Israel, then she should blame President Obama and those of his foreign-policy advisers who urged him to make picking a fight with the Jewish state over settlements one of their top priorities once they took office. Clinton is taking flack for her comment that Israel’s offer to “restrain” the building of housing in Jewish settlements in the West Bank was “unprecedented.”

She’s right, in that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone a long way toward trying to mollify the Obama administration on this issue. But having spent much of the past year hounding Netanyahu over settlements in a futile attempt to undermine the Israeli’s hold on power (in fact, Netanyahu’s popularity has grown as a result of his refusal to bow to Obama, while the Israeli public has lost all faith in the U.S. president’s goodwill), the Americans have raised Arab expectations to the point where any Israeli gesture on the issue is considered insignificant. Even more, when the United States reacts to such Israeli gestures with anything but complete contempt, it is interpreted by the Arabs as American acquiescence with the entire settlement enterprise. The Arab world was wrongly encouraged by months of Washington skirmishing with Jerusalem to think that the administration intended to completely ditch the U.S.-Israel alliance. Anything less than a break with Israel winds up being seen as a betrayal of those unrealistic hopes that were engendered by Obama’s ill-advised strategy.

So what does Clinton say in her defense in response to Arab criticisms? All she can do is repeat past rhetoric that attacks Israel on settlements, which does nothing to ameliorate Arab hard feelings. Allowing more “daylight” between Israel and the United States has turned out to be dead end from which the administration cannot extract itself.

But let’s go back to the basics about this whole dispute. The settlements argument was utterly pointless, because even if Israel continued to build everywhere at a breakneck pace, it wouldn’t mean that they couldn’t or wouldn’t surrender territory if a real peace deal was in the offing. But it isn’t. In fact, the Palestinians still have no interest in negotiating with Israel for reasons that have everything to do with the toxic nature of Palestinian nationalism and their refusal to accept a Jewish state within any borders and nothing to do with any gestures the Israelis have or have not made. So the argument with Israel accomplished nothing to undermine America’s standing on both sides of the argument, which is, when you think about, quite a trick.

The bottom line of Obama’s and Clinton’s first 10 months in office is worsened relations with both Israel and the Arab world, with peace just as far off as it was under Bush. All of which should leave us wondering just how much worse off another year of Obama’s foreign-policy incompetence will leave the Middle East.

Love of the Land: Why Are Arabs Unhappy with Hillary? Blame Obama

Love of the Land: Clinton's Mideast Pretzel

Clinton's Mideast Pretzel

Ben Smith
Politico
02 November 09

Hillary Clinton's voice has not been heard all that often in the Mideast peace process, but she has provoked crises with almost every word.

Administration officials hold Clinton largely responsible for entrenching an unsuccessful focus on settlements in thesprint, when she -- responding to a question -- insisted on a complete "freeze" of Israeli settlement activity, including "natural growth," turning what had been a U.S. negotiating position into a public principle, and putting Palestinian leaders in a difficult position when the U.S. reached a compromise with the Israelis on a partial freeze.

This weekend, she tacked in the opposite direction, lavishing far more praise on Israel than other administration officials while, as Laura Rozen writes, she stood "next to a beaming and self-confident Israeli Prime Minister."

She then walked it back, Rozen reports, reading from a prepared text:

Speaking at a luncheon meeting with Morocco's foreign minister in Marrakesh today, where Clinton is attending a conference of Arab foreign ministers, Clinton tried to clarify her previous remarks on the Obama administration's position on Israeli settlments.

"Israel has done a few things but needs to do much more," Clinton said, adding that the Obama administration's position is that it does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlment activity. But she also said Israel has put some limitations on itself, which if acted upon would be "unprecedented."

To keep this straight: Clinton leaned harder on Israel than the administration intended, infuriating the Israelis while putting the Palestinians far out on a limb. Then she sawed off the limb.

The early questions about her role in Middle East politics -- would she be as hawkishly pro-Israel as she was in the Senate -- haven't really been answered, and her actual views remain unclear. But in this most delicate, closely parsed of diplomatic arenas, her inexperience as a diplomat, and her tendency toward incautious statements (disguised by a campaign image of "competence") has really turned into a liability for the administration.

Love of the Land: Clinton's Mideast Pretzel

Love of the Land: Hilary's in Jerusalem and Sees that Israel is Helping Obama; Palestinians are Sabotaging Him

Hilary's in Jerusalem and Sees that Israel is Helping Obama; Palestinians are Sabotaging Him

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
1 November 09

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went out of her way October 31 to praise Israel as making "unprecedented" and very specific concessions regarding construction on West Bank settlements. At a joint press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu she said that Israel was ready to put significant limits on any new building.

Obviously, the Obama Administration has an interest in portraying itself as making great progress on the peace process even though it isn't. What's especially interesting though is that this strategy requires good relations with Israel and building up its willingness to be flexible. And of course this is quite different from some of the behavior seen during the administration's early days.

At the same time, though, Clinton and her colleagues must be aware that this stance will enrage the Palestinians. After all, Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders keep insisting that they won't even talk to Israel unless all construction stops completely without a single exception.

There are two reasons for this Palestinian position.

First, the PA wants an excuse not to negotiate with Israel because it isn't interested in reaching a comprehensive solution. Much or most of the PA still has its heart set on total victory and Israel's disappearance. And with growing support in the UN and--at least they think--Western intellectual circles for this goal, they are in no mood to compromise on a real and lasting two-state solution.

Second and more immediately, the PA leadership is facing pressure for not being even more militant. The recent controversy over the Goldstone report--the PA held back briefly on pushing the report in the UN at Obama's request but then changed its mind--shows that the PA leadership will pick its own militants and even making a deal with Hamas over cooperation with the United States.

This signal has to be coming across clearly to the Obama Administration even if it says nothing publicly. Israel is being helpful to the White House; the PA is sabotaging the White House. The Administration is being friendly toward Israel and pretends that there's nothing wrong with its relations to the PA.

Yet this contradiction cannot be ignored forever and is likely to change U.S. policy over time into something more closely resembling that of Obama's predecessors.

Love of the Land: Hilary's in Jerusalem and Sees that Israel is Helping Obama; Palestinians are Sabotaging Him

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