All the people who hyperventilate over new buildings, projects and plans for Jerusalem seem to forget the most basic fact there is: Jerusalem is a modern, living, growing city. |
One of the terrorists who defiled the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in 2002 has died. |
For some reason I have been seeing the phrase "high quality porn" sprinkled throughout the Google autotranslations of Arabic articles about politicians. which seems to indicate that they were good videogame players. In fact, the word is "Qassami", or simply members of the al-Qassam Brigades. |
Alan Dershowitz, a huge supporter of Obama in the 2008 elections, challenges the president in a strong Wall Street Journal piece:
(The only way to read WSJ articles in full without a subscription is to do a Google search on something like "Dershowitz," finding the article and then clicking the link.) |
Islam Online, one of the most influential Islamic publications that was under the control of terror-supporting sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, is suffering from a crisis.
|
The Hamas "interior minister," Fathi Hammad, said in an interview that Hamas plans to start executing people who had been sentenced to death, no matter how much human rights organizations object. |
From Arab News:
|
Bret Stephens found some notes that Prime Minister Netanyahu left on his plane to Washington on Monday morning. But on to more pressing matters. We've had a bad few weeks, your administration and mine. I'm glad we can talk them over face-to-face. As Hillary told me the other day [isn't she a charmer?], it takes a true friend to tell the hard truth. I'm sure you'll agree that in our friendship that works both ways.
I know that, from your part, you think the hard truth is that we've got to get out of the settlements. You don't have to sell me on that score. I've said repeatedly that we don't want to rule over the Palestinians; I'm all for a two-state solution in theory. It's the practice of it that's got me concerned. In fact, it's what got me elected.
So here's the first hard truth: Just as you've got your Ben Nelsons and Bart Stupaks, I've got my Avigdor Lieberman ultra-nationalists and Eli Yishai ultra-Orthodox. Some of them have ideological red lines; some of them just want stuff. That's how politics works. So what's my Cornhusker kickback, or my executive order on abortion funding? I'd welcome your ideas; [you're obviously good at this].
This brings me to the second hard truth, Mr. President: Most Israelis don't trust you, the way they trusted George W. Bush or [even] Bill Clinton. And let me tell you why that's a problem.
When my predecessor Arik Sharon pulled out of Gaza, he didn't do so through negotiations with the Palestinians. Those negotiations fail time and again, in part because the Palestinians figure they can hold out for more, in part because they're cutting their own deals with Hamas.
So what Sharon did was negotiate with you, the United States. And what he got was a promise, in writing, that the U.S. would not insist on a full withdrawal to the 1967 lines in any final settlement agreement.
My problem is that Hillary disavowed that promise last year, and you did so again by treating a neighborhood in Jerusalem as a "settlement." So when you pledge your commitment to Israel's everlasting security, how can we take your word for it, or know that your successor won't also renege? We don't want to wind up like Belgium before World War I, relying on phony guarantees of neutrality.
Mr. President, you need to start building some serious trust with Israelis if you mean to give me the political tools to negotiate with the Palestinians. Honestly, you didn't help yourself by ratcheting up the rhetoric against us the way you did. If your purpose was to show the Palestinians that you're going to play hardball with us, all you did was give them a reason to be even more uncompromising than before. And if your purpose was to try to drive me from office, it didn't work either: To Israelis, you came across not as anti-Bibi, but as anti-Israel.
But the hardest truth is that Israelis are losing faith that you'll do whatever it takes to stop Iran's nuclear bid. The sanctions you promise keep getting delayed and watered down. Hillary gave a fine speech at AIPAC yesterday, but we all know that you're already planning on containing a nuclear Iran. That's not acceptable to me.
Let's make a deal, Mr. President: Our settlements for your bombers. We can't fully destroy Iran's nuclear sites—but you can. You can't dismantle our settlements—but we can. We'll all come out the better for it, including the Palestinians. Think about it, Barack.
You recall that the Obami were all about linking progress on the Palestinian issue to a successful effort to block the Iranian nuclear program. Yes, it was a non sequitur, but that’s what they said. In reality, the Obami’s Middle East policy is communicating a different message to Israel: you’re going to have to take care of Iran on your own. The U.S. is so enamored of getting along in the Muslim World and so unwilling to draw a line with the mullahs that Israel will/is faced with a choice: do nothing (which is the same as waiting around for the Obami to act) or take military action themselves.
By his recent verbal assault, Obama meant perhaps to paralyze Israel, creating uncertainty as to whether the U.S. would be with Israel if it came down to a military action against Iran. But Israel cannot be paralyzed into inactivity (for reasons amply stated by Alan Dershowitz on the same newspaper page). The result then of all the Obami carrying on is to create a less secure U.S.-Israel relationship and to spur Israel to act unilaterally. Unfortunately, that part isn’t fictional.
The Arabic media is abuzz over rumors that a high-ranking Bahraini minister was fired because he was laundering money for Iran's Revolutionary Guards. |
Palestinian Media Watch explains: This advertisement is another example of the misuse of UN funding. An ad by a Palestinian youth organization, PYALARA, which is funded by UNICEF, shows an axe destroying a Star of David. The UNICEF logo is right on the ad. The large Star of David that has been destroyed has on it pictures of stars and stripes, presumably representing the USA, and an additional smaller Star of David.Aren't you glad that your tax dollars (if you're in the US, your government pays 22% of the United Nations' annual budget) is going to support this?
The organization PYALARA (Palestinian Youth Association for Leadership and Rights Activation) has been funded by UNICEF since the year 2000: "PYALARA has been chosen by UNICEF as a major strategic partner in Palestine." [PYALARA website]
On the axe that destroys the Star of David is the word: "Boycott!" in the imperative tense. Youth are invited to watch the PA TV program calling for a boycott of Israel. In the program the host acknowledges that they are aware that the boycott is illegal but they have chosen to ignore this:"We know that the Palestinian Authority is tied to a number of agreements that prohibit it from completely boycotting Israel... we call upon all the youth, to all the residents, to all businesses and stores, to completely boycott the Israeli goods in their stores."The ad reads that the weekly youth program Speak Up is "produced in cooperation with PBC (PA TV) with the support of UNICEF."
The program started as follows: "The program Speak Up has decided to dedicate this program to a theme which is a national obligation upon each of us - the topic of boycotting Israel in all ways."
[PA TV March 21, 2010]
Politico reports that many candidates for House and Senate seats in the US midterm elections later this year are finding that Israel has become a primary issue in their campaigns. The White House-Israel feud over settlement building in East Jerusalem has Republicans racing to attack the White House as squishy and disloyal to Israel, weak-kneed on foreign policy and even soft on Iran. Democrats, meanwhile, are dealing with sensitive intraparty conflicts between those who want to reiterate America’s strong support for Israel and a more dovish wing that insists a tougher approach to Israel is the best way to push the peace process forward.
“I think candidates are just hiding under their desks because no one wants to get into this,” said Steve Rabinowitz, a longtime Democratic strategist and Clinton administration official who has advised Jewish groups. “This week, the answer is to just not dance.”
The disparate postures on the matter — as well as its sudden emergence as a point of contention in various races — reveal that even at a time when domestic policy is dominating the election debate, candidates in both parties recognize that the equilibrium of America’s relationship with Israel remains a critical concern for voters.
For many Republicans — particularly conservative Christians who are strongly pro-Israel — President Barack Obama’s nuanced approach, and its results so far, represent a betrayal of a key ally. Many also view the ongoing debate as a proxy for the debate over the muscularity of American foreign policy.
“Support for Israel is one of those issues, like anti-communism used to be, that holds together a number of pieces of the conservative movement, including evangelicals but also neocons, economic conservatives and foreign policy hawks,” said Tevi Troy, a visiting senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who served as Jewish liaison in the George W. Bush White House.
For Democrats, the issue is less cut and dried. Democratic candidates must straddle the divide between the party’s hawkish pro-Israel wing and a constituency that views the intransigence of Israel’s conservative government as a serious obstacle to peace.
“It’s easier to be a Republican on this issue. It’s a lot harder to be an honest Democrat,” said Rabinowitz. “I just don’t think it’s in a Democrat’s interest to follow Eric Cantor or Sarah Palin. If you’re a Republican candidate, no problem.”
...
Troy said the conservative movement’s unification around Israel comes as a welcome diversion at a time when the broader conservative coalition is experiencing deep rifts — particularly between evangelicals and tea party activists, who have found themselves at odds over the centrality of social issues.
“There has been a sense that Obama has not been [as much of] a supporter of Israel as he could have been,” said Troy. “Mark my words: Whoever is the Republican nominee in 2012 is going to be hitting this issue hard. This just will not be forgotten.”
J-Street is trumpeting a poll that, they say, shows that American Jews agree with their politics. A short examination of their methodology shows that the poll itself was designed to generate the answers that the J-Streeters are looking for.  Professional pollsters know that the order of the choices can influence results. The wording here shows that they always presented their own preference first for this question, and the "other" side last.Since the poll shows pretty convincingly that most American Jews do not follow Israel closely, it means that the interviewees are especially prone to manipulation since they do not have strong views on the topic. In this case, J-Street first presents a statement that sounds reasonable to an little-informed subject:
A person without strong opinions will hear that statement and will generally agree as it sounds reasonable. The question itself is a form of education for the person polled. Now that the subject already has committed himself to the first statement, he will be reticent to change his mind so quickly when hearing the second, "other" statement. I can guarantee you that if the two questions were reversed, switching "some" with "others," the results would be reversed as well. It is also telling that J-Street doesn't bother finding out what Jews who are care the most about Israel feel. They rely on the ignorant, apathetic Jewish majority for their support. Which means that they rely on Jews they can manipulate. |
The monthly 'war and peace index' from Tel Aviv University came out on Monday, and they asked a few questions about the latest dust-up between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu. Most Israelis believe that Netanyahu knew the Ramat Shlomo announcement was coming. And while they also believe Israel should consult with the United States on these issues, the bottom line is that building in Jerusalem is like building in Tel Aviv. The poll found that 62% of Israelis do not believe Netanyahu's disavowal of knowledge, and 54% believe Israel must consider Washington's stance on the expansion of settlements, even due to "natural growth".
However most of those asked by the survey supported the view that construction in east Jerusalem should be treated like construction in Tel Aviv, despite the harsh criticism launched at the government over the recent diplomatic dispute with the US.
Only a quarter of those polled believe the construction project should not have been approved, with 41% saying that only the timing was wrong. The number of people supportive of the construction in Ramat Shlomo neighborhood is twice that of its objectors.
My parents knew Ed Koch growing up. Koch and my parents were among the leaders of a youth group that was a forerunner of one of today's Jewish youth groups. My parents told me that Koch was a straight shooter, and that certainly has always seemed to be the case from when I've seen Koch in action.What is most disturbing about the truly harsh and inflammatory rhetoric of both Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton directed at the government of Israel, is that it is speculated President Obama himself may have ordered Biden and Clinton to make the statements they made. The Times of March 16th reported, "...the President was outraged by the announcement of 1,600 housing units in an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood in East Jerusalem during Mr. Biden's visit, administration officials said. Mr. Obama was deeply involved in the strategy and planning for Mr. Biden's visit and orchestrated the response from Mr. Biden and Mrs. Clinton after it went awry, these officials said." President Obama and his administration's overly harsh public reaction to the construction in East Jerusalem appears to have emboldened Israel's enemies and provided a cover for their extremist views. It has also created a serious crisis of confidence among the Israeli public that it can depend on this administration for its security.
There will be an effort this week when Prime Minister Netanyahu meets with President Obama to mend fences. There will be huggy-kissy pictures with Hillary and handshakes by Bibi Netanyahu with Joe Biden and the President, but the relations will never be the same again. Humpty Dumpty has been broken and the absolute trust needed between allies is no longer there. How sad it is for the supporters of Israel who put their trust in President Obama.
J Street, the pro-Obama, pro-imposed 'solution' lobby, ran a full-page ad in the New York Times on Monday, in which it called for the Obama administration to impose a 'solution' to the impasse between Israel and the 'Palestinians.' The clock was part of the ad. It's a rather curious clock - you can find out more about it here. You can find the full text of the ad here.Israel said it regretted the British move. “The relationship between Israel and Britain is mutually important. We therefore regret the British decision,” said Yigal Palmor, the spokesman for the Foreign Ministry.
While the government was measured in its response to the new diplomatic crisis erupting with the UK, MPs from the far right were quick to denounce the British as “dogs” who were not to be trusted.
"I think the British are behaving hypocritically and I don't want to offend dogs on this issue, since some dogs are utterly loyal," MK Aryeh Eldad, of the National Union, an ultra-nationalist pro-settler party, told Sky News. "Who are they to judge us on the war on terror?"
Mr Eldad called for a tit-for-tat expulsion of a senior British diplomat, but Israeli officials said such a move was out of the question.
Another National Union MP, Michael Ben-Ari, added, "The British may be dogs, but they are not loyal to us, but rather to an anti-Semitic system, and Israeli diplomacy partially plays into their hands. This is anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Zionism".
Other, more centrist MPs said however that Israel’s policy of refusing to respond to such accusations had served it well and allowed it to weather the diplomatic storm that erupted when Dubai police accused Mossad of killing the Hamas leader.
"I believe keeping silent was a good policy at the height of the Dubai crisis, and certainly it is now, when it is nearly behind us," said Tzahi Hanegbi, a member of the opposition Kadima Party who chairs the parliamentary Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee.
Prime Minister Netanyahu is meeting with President Obama at 5:30 pm Israel time (11:30 am Washington time). In what is seen as a sign that Obama is still angry at Netanyahu, the Prime Minister will once again have to enter through the White House's rear entrance and no photographers will be present. The only other leader to be treated similarly by Obama was the Dalai Lama.Obama’s health care victory may prove a decisive pivot point in the way he is viewed both domestically and abroad and in how powerful a negotiator he is perceived to be by foreign leaders. And nowhere is that true more than in Israel, a place obsessed with American politics.
“Every time I met with an Arab diplomat or anyone from the Middle East, including Israelis, they would invariably ask me, ‘How’s health care going?’” said former Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), who retired in December to become president of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace. “And the first couple [of] times, I didn’t really realize what they were actually asking. They were asking, ‘How strong is the president of the United States?’”
Netanyahu’s aides have recently confided that they see Obama as a weak leader whose tenure they can weather, but that calculus may now have to change. After his health care victory, says Wexler, “the president is now a much stronger president, and that will play out in a variety of ways in the Middle East, and also in his direct relations with the leaders in the region, especially Prime Minister Netanyahu.”
...
“Definitely Bibi’s inner circle ... their strategy has almost literally ... been to wait out Obama,” said one Washington Middle East hand who asked for anonymity. Even as recently as last month, Netanyahu’s advisers were saying, ‘We just need to wait him out.’ They [thought] he is a one-term president and that he’s weak.”
Asked about those reports, Wexler said he wasn’t “certain that was [Netanyahu’s] strategy. But if it was, I think that strategy today is dead.”
Administration officials indicated an empowered Obama would not press any new demands on the parties. “Neither our commitment nor our goal has changed,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference the morning after Obama’s health care victory. “The United States will continue to encourage all parties to take steps that advance the prospects for peace.”
...
One former congressional Democratic staffer said the health care victory’s impact may not be so much on the Mideast peace process but on Obama himself, who saw the rewards of tenacity.
“When Netanyahu meets Obama in the White House Tuesday, he will meet a smiling Obama, who has aged a bit over health care but who has been vindicated,” the former staffer continued. “What people learned about Obama, and what Obama learned about the process [himself], is you have got to keep pushing.”
That realization is likely to affect how the Obama administration deals with other challenges both domestic and foreign, he said, including how hard to push for the two-state solution amid both resistance and cynicism from Middle Eastern leaders.
“The day after a potentially transformative president shepherds his signature health care legislation through Congress, the troublesome Israelis show up in town,” said veteran Middle East peace negotiator Aaron David Miller.
“The storm is coming as differences between the U.S. and Israel on settlements and the negotiations loom large. The real question is: Does Obama have the smarts and the b---- to be both reassuring and tough when the time comes to push both Israelis and Palestinians to an agreement?”
Miller said he doesn’t know the answer.
In his AIPAC speech on Monday night, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did not back down. Netanyahu, who apologized for the announcement of new housing in Jerusalem during Joe Biden's visit ten days ago, does not reprise his apology, according to prepared remarks. Instead, he reminds the White House that the new housing -- though a thumb in the eye -- did not actually violate any commitment he'd made, as any settlement freeze always excluded Jerusalem.
"The connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel cannot be denied.The connection between the Jewish people and Jerusalem cannot be denied," Netanyahu says. "The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 year ago and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today.Jerusalem is not a settlement.It is our capital."
"Everyone knows that these neighborhoods will be part of Israel in any peace settlement.Therefore, building them in no way precludes the possibility of a two-state solution," Netanyahu said.
"Peace requires reciprocity .It cannot be a one-way street in which only Israel makes concessions. Israel stands ready to make the compromises necessary for peace. But we expect the Palestinian leaders to compromise as well," he says.
"The future of the Jewish state can never depend on the goodwill of even the greatest of men. Israel must always reserve the right to defend itself," Netanyahu says.
Experience has shown that only an Israeli presence on the ground can prevent weapons smuggling.This is why a peace agreement with the Palestinians must include an Israeli presence on the eastern border of a future Palestinian state.As peace with the Palestinians proves its durability over time, we can review security arrangements. We are prepared to take risks for peace, but we will not be reckless with the lives of our people and the life of the one and only Jewish state.
The IDF has prepared another 1,000-page report to the Goldstone Report accusations, but the report has to be 'converted' from diplospeak to legalese. Its release will be delayed for an opportune moment, probably when UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon issues his next report in about four months. The completion of the paper comes fast on the heels of a 500-page report, first revealed by the Post last week, that was written by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center and that documents how the Goldstone Commission whitewashed the way Hamas waged its battle against Israel.
While that report dealt with Hamas and its tactics, the still-unpublished IDF report examines the sections of the Goldstone Report on how the IDF operated, and refutes Goldstone’s allegations of war crimes on a case-by-case basis.
Another integral part of the IDF’s counter-Goldstone Report is the chapter on the humanitarian efforts the IDF made during the three-week operation.
While this report is expected to go a long way toward battling the Goldstone Commission findings, it will probably not be published until there is some Goldstone-related development, perhaps the report that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has to present to the General Assembly in some four months on progress Israel and the Palestinians have made on investigating the Goldstone findings.
“We don’t just want to take this report and throw it into the air,” the diplomatic official said. “We want to peg it to something concrete.”
The British government is to formally accuse Israel of being behind the liquidation of Hamas murderer and arms dealer Mahmoud al-Mabhouh by a team of liquidators traveling on 'cloned' British passports (Hat Tip: Russel H). Ron Proser, the Israeli Ambassador to London, was summoned to the Foreign Office on Monday to be told the results of an inquiry into the murder of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, whose body was discovered in a luxury Dubai hotel room in January.
Several members of the team suspected of killing him were found to be travelling on passports cloned from documents belonging to British citizens living in Israel. Other passports had been stolen from Irish, German, Australian and French citizens.
Speculation has been growing that a senior Israeli diplomat would be expelled as a mark of the “anger” within the Government that British passport holders had been put at risk as a result of the operation.
A ministerial statement to be made to Parliament will formally name the Israeli security services as responsible for the cloning of up to 15 British passports, which were copied after being taken away by airport officials.
The statement will say that it proved impossible to confirm definitively whether Mossad, the feared Israeli secret intelligence service, was responsible for the operation, with suspicion also resting on the Military Intelligence Directorate.
But the probe had determined for certain that the passports were cloned when British citizens passed through airports on their way into Israel, with officials taking them away for “checks” which lasted around 20 minutes.
Foreign Office sources expressed frustration that there was little more that could be done to “punish” Israel over the affair.
Posts
All Comments
