Neil Diamond sings Sweet Caroline at Fenway opener
The Sox had an 8-7 lead over the hated Yankees as they went to the bottom of the 8th inning on opening night at Fenway on Sunday night (the Sox eventually won 9-7), and you know what that means: It's Sweet Caroline time. But this time there was an extra treat: Neil Diamond showed up in person to sing it.
Let's go to the videotape.
I know that all of you who missed the game because of Passover will be happy to see that.
Nidra Poller: 'Israel is the heart of our civilization, not the appendix'
Nidra Poller's latest article is called Israel is the heart of our civilization, not the appendix.
The airwaves are thick with the sound of raucous voices and clashing swords. O Jerusalem--well, ok, East Jerusalem-- and the thundering hooves will brook no opposition! Get Israel!
At the slightest twinge of international pain they cry out, “Cut it off! Get rid of it, and the worldwide body politic will finally live in peace.” Ahmadinejad has promised hundreds of times to wipe Israel off the map without provoking much of a reaction. His proxies stock arms, poke and prod, without raising international eyebrows. Then Israel approves housing construction in Jerusalem and the sleeping warriors awake. Grrrrrr! The Obama administration bares its fangs and the troops go into action. General Petraeus warns—then denies he warned-- that the unresolved Israel-Palestine conflict is disturbing Muslim nations, stimulating extremism, and putting our boys in danger. Walt & Mearsheimer point the finger at homegrown Zionists who are twisting the arm of this vast nation, bringing it to its knees, and forcing filthy Israel down our throats. Israel is a pain. Dr. Quack has the solution. Cut out that festering appendix and the ummah will welcome us with open arms.
The “two-state solution that everyone knows will resolve the conflict” is brandished like a scimitar: Israeli withdrawal to the ’67 (’49 armistice) lines, dismantlement of settlements, a mini territorial tradeoff, a “solution” to the refugee problem, and the creation of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital… The “solution” is a lethal narrative, a knife to the heart of Jerusalem that cripples Jewish sovereignty in the homeland.
What makes Jerusalem so precious? The Jews. Mecca was sanctified by Islam, even though the black stone pre-existed the founding gesture, and Jerusalem was sanctified by Judaism. Subsequent religious claims to the city are accretions to the original consecration. Jerusalem is the Christian holy land because Jesus was a Jew. And Islam’s claim is based on a scriptural injunction to supersede Judaism and Christianity. If Muslim claims to Jerusalem are not religious they are inexplicable. Ramallah would be a more suitable capital of a Palestinian state that truly intended to live peacefully side by side with Israel. Why should the world be dragged into a fierce tug of war when there is enough for everyone… if, in fact, it is a question of legitimate aspirations. The Muslim claim to Jerusalem is staked on the Al Aqsa mosque and the gilded Dome of the Rock that dominate the Temple Mount (the French call it “l’esplanade des mosquées”). And if it is granted, the heart of our civilization will be broken. The precedent established in Jerusalem will be extended to Paris, New York, London, the Hague, Detroit, Washington D.C… wherever a mosque is built, Islam will extend its political sovereignty. It will be the end of separation of church and state, the end of religious and political freedom. Al Aqsa is built on the ruins of the Jewish Temple. Europeans—so eager to impose the division of Jerusalem-- finally nixed plans for mega- mosques in Rome and London. But their long-delayed awakening is trumped by the anti-Zionism of the American president.
Jennifer Rubin Contentions/Commentary 04 April '10
The Obami are promising another round of sanctions aimed at Iran. This will be the fourth round, and we should not, judging from press reports, expect them to be “crippling.” As Bill Kristol noted on Fox News Sunday:
The only things that can stop the Iranian nuclear program are — would be the success of the green movement in Iran, which the Obama administration has done nothing to help and remains incredibly indifferent to and standoffish to on the one hand, or military action on the other, which the Obama administration seems uninterested in doing and I’m afraid is setting up a situation where Israel will feel it has to act.
The abject lack of seriousness from the Obama administration — its disinclination to even suggest the use of force or to aid the Green Movement in any meaningful way — has not gone unnoticed either here or in Israel. At the AIPAC conference, the contrast between Hillary Clinton’s platitudinous “unacceptable” formulation and Tony Blair’s “whatever it takes” phraseology was hard to ignore. And, as Kristol points out, even doves in Israel like Ephraim Sneh, a former deputy defense minister, are talking about the need for an Israeli strike on Iran this year, absent the implementation of “crippling sanctions.” (”An Israeli military campaign against Iran’s nuclear installations is likely to cripple that country’s nuclear project for a number of years. The retaliation against Israel would be painful, but bearable.”)
We can speculate as to whether the Obami’s assault on Netanyahu over the Jerusalem housing permit was meant to stymie Israel’s plans for such action. If so, this is yet another gross error in judgment by the Obami, who have an exaggerated sense of their own ability to bully those who interfere with their plans. As fraught with peril as an Israeli military operation might be and as unseemly as it might be for the U.S. to stand idly by – ignoring its role as leader of the West and shrinking from its international responsibilities – Israel, if faced with the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran and a recalcitrant U.S. administration, will have no choice but to act in its own defense. Netanyahu said it clearly last month, no doubt to put the administration as well as the mullahs on notice. (”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.”)
The term Moderate Muslim is a misnomer, because it is the equivalent of describing him as a Secular Catholic or a Liberal Conservative. Muslims who pride themselves on sticking to the Koran view extremism as a virtue, not a fault. Islam's reform movements that succeeded were not movements that made Islam more liberal, but that made it stricter, harsher and more unfeeling.
Aside from the original Sunni-Shiite schism, which has its basis more in power politics than in theology, the spectrum within Islam itself always runs to the more extreme. A new alternative mosque that succeeds is likely to be a place more conservative and more hostile to the outside world. A new Islamic movement is usually one that calls for more blood and guts, and a lot less women walking around on the street. A movement that fails to do that rarely survives or essentially is forced outside of Islam if it does.
And so what the West's pursuit of moderate Muslims really does is push them toward more extreme views. A Muslim ruler who develops closer ties with the West is forced to compensate for it by moving further to the extreme in order to avoid being vulnerable to domestic charges that he is a bad Muslim. It is no surprise then that Saudi Arabia, America's closest ally in the Muslim world, is also the most extremist Muslim country on the planet, that is behind the growing push to the extreme around the world.
The Saudi Royal Family's balancing act trades American support for them and their oil off by supporting the expansion and spread of increasingly radicalized mosques and imams. This is supposed to hold future Bin Ladens at bay. Meanwhile American politicians praise the country where women aren't allowed to drive and non-Muslims can't even set foot in Mecca for its commitment to moderate Islam.
The Western pursuit of moderate Muslims alone helps create more enthusiasm for pushing Islam further to the extreme. Once Western leaders define a Muslim group as moderate, new more extreme groups are quickly spawned in order to set a new bar for "True Islam", as opposed to the compromise variety that the infidels praise. For example when Israel and the US announced that they had successfully made a deal with Arafat, the rise of Hamas was all but assured. When the UK or the US tries to treat Islamists as mainstream, not only do the Islamists become more extreme, but they develop new and more extreme rival groups.
So the pursuit of Muslim moderates not only pushes them into even greater extremes, but it spawns a host of new more extreme groups looking to capitalize on setting an even more extreme standard that will be praised for its faithfulness to the Koran. While the West tries to pretend it is bringing Muslims in from the cold, in fact it is turning up the heat.
By Matthew M. Hausman 04 April '10 H/T to Israpundit
When Hillary Clinton addressed AIPAC’s 2010 annual convention, she had the perfect opportunity to show that the United States still stands with Israel despite the manufactured crisis over Ramat Shlomo. She could have done so by conceding that Jerusalem neighborhoods are not “settlements” and were always excluded from the temporary building freeze. She also could have recognized Israel’s many concessions for peace and declared that the U.S. would no longer tolerate the Palestinian Authority’s antisemitic incitement and support for terrorism.
Instead, she glossed over the PA’s lack of commitment to real peace, equated Israeli civilian deaths with those of terrorists and the Arab civilians they put at risk, and subtly gave voice to Mr. Obama’s revisionist canards. But even more disturbing than her distortions were the applause and standing ovation she received from many of the convention delegates.
Clinton’s performance should have surprised no one. As Secretary of State with marching orders from her President, she was merely articulating Mr. Obama’s anti-Israel agenda despite her fuzzy claims of support. Obama’s true feelings regarding Israel were apparent from the early days of his campaign based on his personal, political and philosophical allegiances to the likes of Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Rashid Khalidi, Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Despite these troubling relationships, Obama kept a reasonably low profile on controversial Mideast issues during the campaign, and he was aided by liberal Jews who shamelessly vouched for his mythical pro-Israel and philo-semitic bona fides.
After his inauguration, Obama was swift to show his true colors, beginning with his solicitation of the Arab-Muslim world, his adoption of the revisionist Palestinian narrative, and his enabling of Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. He never missed an opportunity to blame Israel for sabotaging the peace process, but never faulted the PA or even Hamas for continuing to call for Israel’s destruction or engaging in terrorism. Whenever his disdain for Israel became too obvious to ignore he would trot out Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, or proxies from J Street, to savage his critics and paint them as reactionaries. Not once did he recognize that only Israel had complied with its obligations under the moribund Oslo Process or the Roadmap.
This dynamic is sadly reminiscent of the Second World War, when Roosevelt used Jewish political allies, such as Rabbi Stephen Wise and the American Jewish Committee, to discredit Jews who publicized the Holocaust as it unfolded and criticized the administration for failing to act. Among their targets were the Bergson Group, the Aggudat Ha-Rabbonim, and all those who refused to be silenced by secular Jewish political elites who were more interested in being good New Dealers than in helping their own people in Europe. Although history has not judged Roosevelt’s political lackeys very kindly, their dubious acts in the name of progressive politics are being replayed today as Mr. Obama seeks to throw Israel to the wolves.
It was maddening to watch as convention delegates applauded, exuded warm emotion, and then rose to their feet as Clinton spouted nonsense. Without a trace of embarrassment, Clinton condemned Hamas, not Fatah, for dedicating a town square in Ramallah to a Fatah terrorist who killed dozens of Israeli civilians. Clinton knows, of course, that Ramallah is located in the Fatah-controlled “West Bank” – not Gaza – and that Fatah was honoring one of its own for an act of terror it had sponsored. But Clinton’s deception was consistent with Obama’s policy of portraying the PA as a moderate entity worthy of a state. With a nod and a wink, Obama and his foreign policy stooges ignore that Fatah remains a terrorist organization that continues to engage in anti-Israel and antisemitic incitement and whose charter still calls for the destruction of Israel and the extermination of her people.
1954. No-one knew Israel would be fighting wars for generations; it was reasonable to believe the one recently won had sufficed, even if the borders were not peaceful and the neighbors were anything but welcoming. Given this state of the matter, some folks went elsewhere to look for kicks.
Petra, for example. The unique Nabatian town carved into the red rock in southern Jordan, not that far east of Israel's border. You start at the border, cross the desert, climb a canyon, see the wonder of Petra and scurry back. The whole things takes, what, two days?
Eventually the Jordanians figured out what was going on, and its troops began ambushing the adventurers. I don't know how many young Israelis were killed, but some were. What had started out as an extreme lark was turning into a deadly stupid game.
At which point Arik Lavi came out with a haunting shir called Hasela Haadom, The Red Rock, about three young Israelis who made it to Petra but didn't make it back.
The authorities were horrified. It seemed to them the song was more likely than not to encourage additional daredevils. So they banned it. Being a democracy they couldn't make it illegal or anything, but since in those days all two radio channels (three?) were government controlled, the order went out that the song was not to be broadcast. (No, the was no television in Israel in the 1950s).
I don't know if it worked. Israelis apparently stopped going to Petra, for whatever reason: maybe their Jewish mothers read them the riot act. On the other hand, I can remember, some years later, the awe with which we kids talked about the mysterious banned song (by the time we were old enough to have entertained thought of going there, the world was a different place and it never occurred to us). After a while the ban faded, and anyway, long before You-tube, no-one would have dreamed of asking the government what they thought about a song anyway.
Though in the meantime there was one other attempt to ban a song; that story was more dramatic and complex. Perhaps some other day...
Words: Across mountains and the desert the stories say, there's a place that a living person has not yet returned from, and it's called the red rock. Oh, the red - red - rock.
Three went on the way with the sunset, against the the mountains' red scorching, an old dream, a map and a water-bottle they did take to the red rock. Oh, the red - red - rock.
The first went (as) navigator, lifting his face, looking at the stars up high, but the view that his eyes saw - was the view of the red rock Oh, the red - red - rock.
Surely, they encamped some time between stones, one said, like smiting a dream: I see - its face is white. His mates answered: the red rock. Oh, the red - red - rock.
The Wall Street Journal's editorial opines that Obama knows he can't stop the Iranian nuclear project, and has given up trying. Their line of argumentation is a bit different from Greg Sheridan in Australia, but the thesis is the same.
I continue not to have enough insider information to know. On the other hand, Jeffrey Goldberg, through whom I reached this item, claims that
On the other hand, no one, IMHO, has made a convincing argument that a military strike could, in fact, work.
Which puzzles me a bit, first, because I don't see why a military machine such as the US has couldn't put the Iranian program back many many years. It should be considerably easier than, say, subduing a civil war in Iraq: You need to destroy a limited number of hard targets, that's all. Second, because if it can't, why are American taxpayers spending so much money on it? Mostly, however, I'm puzzled because Goldberg seems to feel that such military capabilites should be posted on CNN or somewhere, for everyone to see them.
Let there be no mistake: President Obama’s attack on Israel’s right to govern in eastern Jerusalem has nothing to do with American national interests, and nothing to do with a “peace process.” Other American leaders may have disagreed with Israeli policy, but none of them made it a casus belli.
No other prominent politician sought to impose the “two-state solution,” based on 60-year-old cease-fire lines with Jordan, instead of a negotiated agreement. Obama’s move leaps beyond all previous “accords,” plans and “road maps.” Never before has the United States sought to dictate the terms of Israeli surrender, thereby undermining its only reliable ally in the region.
Obama’s obsession with the establishment of a second Arab Palestinian state might be understandable if it were based on a realistic appraisal of conditions as they are, instead of what they might be. The warning signals are there.
Two dramatic shifts have made the “two-state solution” irrelevant: the stand-off victory of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the hegemony of Hamas in Gaza and many areas of the West Bank, nominally under the Palestinian Authority, controlled by Fatah. One has to be ignorant, and/or blind not to appreciate what these situations mean – especially given the threats from Iran.
The developments have led to the widespread recognition, especially among Israelis, that the so-called “Oslo process” (“land for peace”) has failed, that Israel has no “peace partner,” and, therefore, that a second Arab Palestinian state is no longer relevant.
Today, unilateral withdrawal from Yehuda and Shomron (“the West Bank”) and the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state is a “clear and present danger,” not only to Israel, but to the entire region.
Steven Stotsky CAMERA Media Analysis 29 March '10 Posted before Chag
The Financial Times of London is the British equivalent of the U.S.-based Wall Street Journal, focused primarily on business and financial news. Readers might expect that such a media outlet would present the Arab-Israeli conflict in a dispassionate manner. But this is hardly the case. The newspaper's editorials are relentless in their lopsided criticism of Israel, portraying Israel as a rogue state and urging the United States to withdraw its support from the Jewish state. This striking bias was quantified in a report by British media watchdog group Just Journalism.
In an eight day period from Nov. 18 through Nov. 26, three separate editorials called on the Obama administration to end its policy of defending Israel from UN resolutions condemning the Jewish state. Op-Eds during the four month period of November 2009 through February 2010 repeatedly urged the U.S. to pressure Israel into accepting severe Arab demands that it retreat to the 1949 armistice lines, which would leave Israel's main population center within a vulnerable 8-10 mile wide strip of land and forfeit any claim to a unified Jerusalem. The Financial Times' displeasure at Israel's refusal to consent to such demands is expressed in vindictive and accusatory opinion pieces.
A Dec. 15, 2009 piece by former European Union Commissioner Chris Patten expressed support for EU President Carl Bildt's pro-Palestinian policy — with the caveat that it did not go far enough. Patten wrote that "seemingly on instructions from Israel's foreign ministry Italy, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Romania fought to dilute the original text." Evidently, there was no possibility, in Patten's view, that these nations simply held a view of events and issues related to Israel less negative than his. Rather they must be receiving "instructions." Nor was any proof provided for his insinuating a nefarious Jewish influence on European governments.
For Patten, the antagonism towards Israel is personal. As the official responsible for handing over billions of Euros to the notoriously corrupt Palestinian Authority, the lack of positive results clearly upsets him. Rather than admit this failure is due to endemic corruption among Palestinian officials, Patten instead shifts blame onto Israel, claiming: "The money I spent in Palestine.... has drained away into the blood-soaked sand." He further alleges the EU has become the "paymaster for [Israeli] intransigence and disproportionate force."
Part II of a two-part interview with Moshe Arens — former Israeli defense minister, foreign minister, and ambassador to the U.S. (Read Part I here.)
Ruthie Blum Leibowitz Pajamasmedia.com 04 April '10 Posted before Chag The concluding half of Ruthie Blum Leibowitz’s interview with Moshe Arens — former Israeli defense minister, foreign minister, and ambassador to the U.S.
Q: Are the Obama administration’s policies towards Israel a total about-face from the position of the Bush administration, which maintained there was a global struggle going on between the West and radical Islam, and that the Palestinian conflict belonged to that struggle? The current administration seems to be asserting that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not only a phenomenon in and of itself, but that solving it is necessary to dealing with the rest of the world.
A: The major difference, again, is that this administration is taking its disagreements with the Israeli government public. If we look back at the history of U.S.-Israel relations, the last time we can discern this kind of a breach in the discourse was during the Eisenhower years. That was right after the Sinai Campaign, when Secretary of State [John Foster] Dulles publicly pressured Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion into moving the Israeli army out of the Sinai and the Gaza Strip, though Ben-Gurion was initially hesitant. The Eisenhower administration made no bones about its views on that subject, and hinted at additional pressures that might be forthcoming if Israel did not accept. That was in 1957. Here we are 53 years later.
Q: Why didn’t you mention the Carter administration in this context, as so many commentators have been doing of late?
A: Well, I don’t think we had a serious rift with the Carter administration, though we certainly might have had one, had Prime Minister Menachem Begin not accepted the terms that Egyptian President Anwar Sadat insisted on during negotiations at Camp David. President Carter might very well have come down on Sadat’s side. But we never got to that point, and in the final analysis, Carter was quite happy with the fact that Begin, after some convincing and maybe a little bit of discrete pressure, accepted the condition that there be a total withdrawal of Israeli forces and removal of Israeli settlements from the Sinai.
Q: Can Netanyahu be compared to Begin in this respect? After all, at the time, Begin seemed to be the least likely prime minister to give away territory. Netanyahu, today, is considered by many to be “intransigent.” Will the upshot in this case be similar? Will Netanyahu ultimately agree to withdraw to the 1967 borders?
A: It’s very unlikely. And the analogy is not entirely apt. Begin was quite doctrinaire, and what made it possible for him to agree to a total withdrawal from the Sinai was his view that it was not really part of the land of Israel. The fact is that he was not prepared to give an inch of the Gaza Strip, because he said it was part of the land of Israel.
Douglas Murray Telegraph.co.uk 01 April '10 Posted before Chag
Let’s say you have disagreements with a foreign government. How do you make your feelings clear? By writing to your MP? Engaging in peaceful and legitimate protest? Or do you decide to do what some people did earlier this week and… target a string quartet?
At lunchtime on Tuesday, the Jerusalem Quartet were doing a recital at the beautiful Wigmore Hall in London. It was broadcast live on BBC Radio 3. The Jerusalem Quartet – who come from Israel and who have done national service like everyone else there – were performing string quartets by Mozart and Ravel. Nothing too controversial there, you would have thought. Ravel is pretty established repertoire, and it’s a while since anyone had a problem with Mozart.
But enter the great anti-string quartet alliance (for this was a joint operation by the “Brighton and Hove Palestinian Solidarity Campaign” and a group called “Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods” (J-Big) which has membership running into single digits).
A little way into the Mozart string quartet, a semi-trained, fully barking music teacher called Debbie Fink started braying a witless anti-Israeli song at the top of her voice to disrupt proceedings. The effectiveness of this tactic of hers can be judged from an earlier video available here. Once again, this time at the Wigmore Hall, she was led away. Then, in this carefully planned offensive, another member of the Wigmore Hall forward-operations unit stood up to denounce the quartet as having “blood on their hands”. This tactic of disruption was repeated, every ten minutes, by a few other planted members of the audience so that the concert was wrecked. Radio 3 cancelled their live broadcast.
Here's an interesting resource for those interested in studying terrorism, a 163-page list of those groups and individuals designated as terrorists by New Zealand's government. A large portion are associated with Taliban though there are many other groups (though some, like the PFLP, aren't on the list). What's unique here is the inclusion of individuals associated with terrorist groups.
Please be subscriber 9,836. Just put your email address in the box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
We depend on your tax-free contributions. To make one, please send a check to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003. The check should be made out to “American Friends of IDC,” with “for GLORIA Center” in the memo line.
By Barry Rubin
Recently, I wrote an article about receiving a letter saying the Center for American Progress is running a project to advocate U.S. engagement with Hizballah and that high-ranking officials in the Obama administration were encouraging this as part of their own campaign to start talking with the Lebanese terrorist group that is a client for Iran and Syria in trying to take over Lebanon and destroy Israel.
The head of the project, Cambanis, a strong supporter of Hizballah, has denied it. Yes, he admitted. That's what my assistant wrote but he lied. The letter began, however, with the assistant saying the director asked him to write me. So one would think the director approved the letter.
"The Islamist axis commands real power and is a force to be reckoned with. Israel has never stopped negotiating with Hamas and Hezbollah. European diplomats are quietly talking to Hezbollah officials, and looking for ways to initiate contacts with Hamas without violating European law. American intelligence services and diplomats find they have less and less leverage and understanding from their increasingly isolated stations and embassies; they’ll need to craft new channels through which to speak to groups in the Islamist axis."
For more on his strongly pro-Hizballah views, see here.
That sounds to me like advocating contacts with Hizballah as well as Hamas. The statement about Israel, by the way, isn't true at all, with the very limited exception of freeing Israelis held prisoner, which is not exactly the kind of political talks in which the United States would engage.
The Cable, a publication of Foreign Policy magazine, speaks dismissively of a "conspiracy" proving to be non-existent. In one-sentence, it said the Center for American Progress denied the story: "In a separate interview with The Cable, CAP's Katulis confirmed Cambanis's account and added that he's a `deep skeptic' of the prospects of engaging terrorists...."
Glad to hear it. I wrote in some detail, however, about why this response in the Cable wasn't satisfactory. But why have three different sources told me that they were explicitly contacted, invited to participate, and told that the Center for American Progress was doing this study by different people?
Incidentally, aside from Obama's "counter-"terrorism advisor John Brennan, who favors engaging Hizballah, the other most militant such official in the Obama administration on these issues is Mara Rudman, on the staff of Middle East negotiator George Mitchell. She is a former leading figure at the Center for American Progress.
She is also the most likely candidate as the source for a particularly nasty slur leaked on National Security Council official Dennis Ross, who was said to be more loyal to Israel than to the United States because he didn't think the administration's current confrontation with Israel was a good idea. Ross, by the way, may be the only foreign policy expert so respected that he was appointed to a high position under Presidents Bush, Clinton, and now Obama, that is three of the last four chief executives.
It's peculiar. If someone was running around falsely claiming he was doing a project for your think tank wouldn't you expect that institution to loudly proclaim it isn’t true and to be real angry with Cambanis for saying otherwise? Has the Center for American Progress sent an angry note to Cambanis asking him to stop using their name? Has Cambanis fired his assistant for a great (alleged) ethical abuse?
So I’m getting even more suspicious that the story is true and they are undertaking such a project, albeit somehow making a denial on some technical grounds.
President Obama thought he had a great innovation when he decided to demand a full 'settlement freeze' from Israel, including 'east' Jerusalem. But as Steve Rosen points out, all Obama has done is to ensure that no negotiations between Israel and the 'Palestinians' can take place.
The record is clear and consistent: The United States has never liked Israeli construction in East Jerusalem, and frequently stated that it complicated the peace process. But until Obama, no U.S. president had made its cancelation a precondition for negotiations, and until Obama, Palestinian leaders including Abbas did not make it a precondition either. For 19 years -- from the Madrid conference of October 1991 through the Olmert/Abbas negotiations that ended in 2008, negotiations moved forward while Jerusalem construction continued. Madrid, Oslo I, Oslo II, the Hebron Protocol, the Wye River Memorandum, Camp David, Taba, the disengagement from Gaza, and the Olmert offer to Abbas -- all these events over the course of two decades were made possible by a continuing agreement to disagree about Israeli construction of Jewish homes in Jewish neighborhoods outside the pre-1967 line in East Jerusalem.
Today, for the first time in 19 years, we have an aministration unable to produce Israeli-Palestinian negotiations . Abbas is following Obama's lead in demanding an unprecedented precondition that Israel cannot satisfy. This is the same Abbas who negotiated with seven previous Israeli prime ministers -- Shamir, Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu (in his first term), Barak, Sharon, and Olmert, without the precondition that he now demands of Netanyahu. We have a crisis. Netanyahu is doing something that every past Israeli prime minister of the left and right has done, but Obama is doing something that past American leaders considered unwise. It is the U.S. behavior that has changed.
At this moment, Obama's decision to confront Netanyahu about construction in Jerusalem wins wide praise. Whether Obama's policy will still look good in six months, when people realize he has mired the negotiations in quicksand, remains to be seen.
Obama would do better to take the advice of his own Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, who wisely told PBS host Charlie Rose, "For the Israelis, what they're building in is in part of Israel. Now, the others don't see it that way. So you have these widely divergent perspectives on the subject. Our view is, let's get into negotiations, let's deal with the issues and come up with a solution to all of them including Jerusalem. ... The Israelis are not going to stop settlements in or construction in East Jerusalem. ... There are disputed legal issues. ... And we could spend the next 14 years arguing over disputed legal issues or we can try to get a negotiation to resolve them in a manner that meets the aspirations of both societies."
Please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
We depend on your tax-free contributions. To make one, please send a check to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003. The check should be made out to “American Friends of IDC,” with “for GLORIA Center” in the memo line.
By Barry Rubin
President Hamad Karzai has reportedly complained about the lack of U.S. support and is nervous about being abandoned (thrown under the bus, in current slang) by the Obama administration. He has reportedly complained that the United States is interfering too much in Afghanistan's internal affairs. Karzai appears worried that U.S. policy is too open toward making a deal with the Taliban, or at least the "moderate" elements in it.
Yes, just as the administration is reaching out to Iran, Syria, Colombia, and others who are enemies of the United States, it is also hoping to "win over" some from the group that hosted Usama bin Ladin and turned Afghanistan into a hellish situation. Karzai is also no doubt miffed at some hints that he didn't win the election fairly, which are probably true but Obama saying so was taken as an insult.
Yes, when the United States criticizes an ally which it thinks dependent on Washington's backing--the only countries in the world that the Obama administration dare criticize or pressure nowadays--even a relatively "weak" country may not take it lying down.
Karzai then also dropped his own anti-American hints, saying according to the Wall Street Journal that the Taliban is only fighting because of the foreign presence, implying they like him but not America.
It should be remembered that President Barack Obama said things about Afghanistan that went beyond former President George W. Bush's optimism about Iraq. Obama said the United States was going to help build an effective Afghan army and an honest government, which sort of doesn't comprehend the nature of Afghanistan.
One is starting to wonder what country in the world really has a high opinion of America's leaders nowadays and feels it can depend on them for support or survival. That confidence certainly isn't a widespread view in the moderate regimes of the Arabic-speaking world. I wouldn't bet on even the United Kingdom, France (President Sarkozy is on record saying some sharply critical things about his counterpart), or Germany.
How I wish I could stop writing this kind of article and talk about what a great job the Obama administration is doing! But it has to do something well in foreign policy first.
Please be subscriber 9,833. Just put your email address in the box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
We depend on your tax-free contributions. To make one, please send a check to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003. The check should be made out to “American Friends of IDC,” with “for GLORIA Center” in the memo line.
By Barry Rubin
Recently, I wrote an article about receiving a letter saying the Council for American Progress is running a project to advocate U.S. engagement with Hizballah and that high-ranking officials in the Obama administration were encouraging this as part of their own campaign to start talking with the Lebanese terrorist group that is a client for Iran and Syria in trying to take over Lebanon and destroy Israel.
The head of the project, a strong supporter of Hizballah, has denied it. Yes, he admitted. That's what my assistant wrote but he lied. The letter began, however, with the assistant saying the director asked him to write me. So one would think the director approved the letter. The Cable, a publication of Foreign Policy magazine, dismissed the story merely because the director denied it. The Cable's headline speaks dismissively of a "conspiracy" proving to be non-existent. Yet the Cable didn't even bother to interview anyone from the Council for American Progress!
Two different sources told me that they were explicitly told the same story by those running the project about the connection to the Council and the Obama administration.
Thus, I wrote in some detail about why this response in the Cable wasn't satisfactory. But now there's a new factor:
My two stories and the Cable article have been widely circulated. It suddenly struck me that the Center for American Progress has issued no denial that it is conducting such a project. It's hard to believe they thought the project director--a strong supporter of Hizballah--had said enough.
But it's peculiar! If someone was running around falsely claiming he was doing a project for your think tank wouldn't you expect that institution to issue an official denial?
So the lack of a denial by the Center for American Progress is making me even more suspicious that the story is true and they are undertaking such a project. The project director's letter also said it is being done for the Obama Administration. Might that also be true?
If the Center for American Progress denies conducting this project I'd be ready to believe them. But why haven't they denied it?
Remember the absurd Reuters article that implied that Israel was doing everything it could to discourage Arab Christians from visiting Jerusalem, and that Israeli policies were keeping Christians from Arab countries away?
Many of the Arab Christians flocking to holy sites in Israel this Easter Sunday come from neighboring Jordan.
But they do so at a price.
Those who make the trek – and, as part of a broader rise in religious tourism, more are making it every year – risk their professional reputation and their family’s disapproval.
For a country whose 1994 peace treaty with Israel was never accepted at the popular level, receiving an entry stamp, let alone a visa from Israel, is considered “treason” to the Arab cause.
But despite a growing movement to discredit those involved with the “Zionist enemy,” hundreds of Jordanians risk their careers and reputation to complete a pilgrimage to holy sites in Israel’s occupied territories.
“I cannot help it,” says Daoud Yazeed, a Jordanian Christian who disguises his pilgrimages as business trips. “Jerusalem is calling.”
In 2009, 15,000 Jordanians traveled to Israel, the most of any Arab or Muslim country. While a majority of them were visiting Palestinian relatives, a significant number are part of a growing trend of religious tourism.
According to tour operators, an increasing number of Jordanian Christians and Muslims – Jerusalem is Islam’s third holiest city – are taking part in all-inclusive week-long trips through Nazareth, Hebron, and Jerusalem, priced at $600.
But under the Anti-Normalization movement, spearheaded by Islamists and professional associations opposed to Jordan’s 1994 peace treaty – or “normalization” with Israel – those found to have normalized are disbarred from their union and lose their professional licenses, which are required by Jordanian law.
Families further face the public humiliation of being added to a once-publicized blacklist of individuals and companies that deal with the “Zionist entity.” 'Anti-normalization' activists
Anti-Normalization activists are determined to crack down on the practice this holiday to bring to light those who have “normalized with the enemy,” according to Muslim Brotherhood and National Anti- Normalization Committee leader Hamzah Mansour.
“This is supporting Zionist efforts to rid the holy lands and Palestine of its inhabitants, and it is forbidden,” he said.
He compared trips to Jerusalem to the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca which is considered the duty of every adult Muslim, pointing out that the journey is not required if a worshiper has poor health or a lack of money.
“Al Aqsa is occupied territory and you are not expected to pilgrimage to Al Aqsa. God understands,” Mr. Mansour said, calling on Jordanian Christians to pray in local holy sites this Easter to “support the local industry.”
According to the professional associations, they have yet to revoke union memberships over normalization. But the threat itself has deterred hundreds, if not thousands, from making the trip, or pushed their travel into secret, tour operators say.
Normalization, however, was the last of the concerns for Ramzi Mustafa, one of 200 Christian pilgrims from Egypt – the only other Arab country that has made peace with Israel – in the holy city this weekend with organized tour groups.
He said his participation in processions on Via Dolorosa on Good Friday is a way of showing support for the Palestinians and the need for peace, not support for “Zionism.”
And what do the Arabs of Jerusalem think about all this?
Nor do Muslim pilgrimages suggest support for occupation, says the head of Jerusalem’s holy sites, Sheikh Mohamed Azzam Tamimi.
"Jordanians and Egyptians, all Arabs should come and see the holy city,” he said, noting that due to visa restrictions most of the visitors are from Asia, not the Arab world. “We may be under occupation, but supporting our efforts is not normalization.”
Politics should not prevent Arab Christians and Muslims from traveling to the holy city, according to William Shomali, auxiliary bishop of the Latin Patriarch in Jerusalem, who welcomed all Arabs to take part in Easter services.
“Our dream is for all Arab Christians and Muslims to come and pray in the holy city,” he said, acknowledging the current situation has been “difficult” for Arab Christians across the region.
“They should come regardless of the political situation,” he said. “We should separate politics from religion, even if certain parties want to join them together; all have the right to pray in the holy sites.”
The Islamists in Jordan, Egypt and elsewhere threaten those who want to come to Jerusalem for any reason - religious or to give cultural support for Palestinian Arabs. The PalArabs who they pretend to be supporting are unanimous in their desire for the visitors, even if they get an Israeli visa stamp.
It just goes to show once again that the people who pretend to care about Palestinian Arabs really only care about hating Israel, not supporting their Palestinian brethren.
It also shows that Israel welcomes these Arabs into the country, and it indicates that Israel is much more interested in freedom of religion for the holy sites under its control than Arab nations ever were.
By way of example, some 105,000 visitors were expected in Jerusalem this week, as opposed to the 10,000 or less that would come during Holy Week before the Six Day War. Any implication that Israeli policies have reduced the number of religious visitors to Jerusalem (as the Reuters article implied) is not only a lie, but an egregious lie.
Michael Young NOW Lebanon 02 April '10 Posted before Chag
By most accounts it was a confident Bashar al-Assad who received Walid Jumblatt in Damascus on Wednesday. When it comes to Damascus’ regional position, the Syrian president sees the stars aligned in his favor. Which means that, at worst, he can afford to do nothing at all, and, at best, negotiate to arrive at nothing at all.
John Kerry, the chairman of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, returned to the Middle East this week, visiting both Lebanon and Syria, and it’s not difficult to see what he had in mind. With the prospect that the Palestinian-Israeli track will remain stalled, ambitious foreign policy players in Washington are looking to the Syrian-Israeli track for a possible breakthrough. And these days when Americans propose openings toward Syria, they come to Beirut first, as did Kerry, to insist that “anything we do with respect to the peace process in this region will not come at the expense of Lebanon.”
That’s good to hear, but also irrelevant since the Syrians have already managed to largely reimpose their writ in Beirut. And this they’ve done because of many factors, Lebanese divisions chief among them, but also because people like John Kerry have spent years feeding Assad political oxygen by lauding the advantages of engaging Syria, even when Syria was destabilizing its neighbors.
Kerry’s trip will likely yield few tangible results. But the senator already knows that. His primary aim is to register his political stake in a Syrian-Israeli negotiation process, if one eventually resumes.
That may sound familiar. The Syrian regime spent the decade of the ‘90s receiving buoyant Americans in Damascus wanting to talk about peace with Israel. And while it’s true that the Syrians were prepared at one stage to conclude a final settlement, which was rejected by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, it was always essential to their approach that peace should not undermine the Assad regime. Peace had to be on Syrian terms and defined in such a way that it would preserve Syria’s complex security scaffolding propping up the regime.
This video is actually several golden oldies by Avraham Fried played by the Shlomie Dachs Orchestra. The first one (Hithyazvu u'R'oo) happens to come from Monday morning's Torah reading.
Let's go to the videotape.
Chag Sameyach (Happy Holiday) to everyone.
Because the holiday is only one day in Israel, I will be back with more on Monday night, God willing.
When I was in yeshiva here some thirty years ago, my Rabbi used to invite us regularly to spend the Sabbath in his home. We were a nice group of boys, and we always brought something with us: flowers, wine, chocolates.... Well, the Rabbi didn't like the flowers (although I believe his wife did), and one day he harangued us about it during our daily lecture.
"What good are flowers?" He asked. "Can I eat them? Can I give them to my children to play with?"
I suspect our Prime Minister feels the same way about flowers that my Rabbi did (I don't know whether he still does feel that way - maybe he's softened in his old age). Either that or he's way too worried about offending Mr. Obumbler.
But before I tell you the story, let's go to the videotape to get into the mood:
The story is that a group of American Christians wanted to send Prime Minister Netanyahu 800 dozen yellow roses from Texas - at a low price of $19.48 per bouquet - as a gesture of solidarity with Israel against President Obumbler. Netanyahu turned them down.
Has the fight between US President Barack Obama and Israel become so fetid that it can overcome the fragrance of more than 10,000 roses?
That appeared to be the case on Thursday, when officials in the Prime Minister’s Office made clear that they cannot accept a donation of more than 1,000 dozen yellow roses from American Christians who were upset by reports of Obama’s treatment of Binyamin Netanyahu in the White House last week.
Florida-based radio host and author Janet Porter was so incensed by what she thought was Obama’s inappropriate behavior that she called upon her listeners to give Netanyahu yellow roses to symbolize friendship, with each bouquet costing a symbolic price of $19.48.
The response was overwhelming as Christian supporters of Israel went online to the Web site of Porter’s Faith2action organization and ordered the flowers, which were to be accompanied by a card with the words, “Be encouraged, Americans stand with you,” along with a quote from a psalm: “The Lord builds up Jerusalem.”
Porter contacted respected Beit Shemesh-based florist Richard Kovler, who would be ready to deliver the huge amount of flowers after Pessah ends next week. But he needs someone in the Prime Minister’s Office to receive them.
When Kovler contacted the appropriate Netanyahu adviser, he was told that the Prime Minister’s Office could not get involved, because Netanyahu must be very careful to avoid anything that smacks of disrespect for the president at such a sensitive time.
That was quick: Special screening on terror-supporting Muslim countries rolled back
Well, that was quick. Just ten days after naming Nawar Shora, legal director of the Arab-American Anti-Defamation Committee (ADC), to serve as a senior adviser for the TSA's office of civil rights and civil liberties, the Obama administration has canceled the special restrictions that were imposed on travelers to the United States from fourteen terror-supporting countries after Omar Farouk Abdulmutallab arrived in Detroit on Christmas Day with a bomb in his underwear.
The extra checkpoint scrutiny for these people has been removed, and, predictably, applauded by the usual whiner suspects from CAIR, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (whose chief honcho’s wife, Dr. Layla Al-Marayati, heads a HAMAS-enabling charity).
The Obama administration is lifting an emergency order that has required extra airport screening of all passengers flying to the USA from 14 terror-prone countries, two senior administration officials said Thursday.
The emergency order was implemented after the attempted bombing of an airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day.
The new system will treat all passengers flying into the USA the same way, regardless of nationality, said the officials, who were briefed on the policy. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because the policy is not being announced until today.
Back to the same old failed “security” policy, which failed to catch the Undie-bomber.
On Tuesday, it was reported that a 15-year old in Gaza had been shot dead by IDF forces at a 'Land Day' demonstration (Land Day - March 31 - is the day that the 'Palestinians' and their 'Israeli Arab' brothers protest the alleged confiscation of 'Palestinian land' by Israel). The IDF denied the story, and therefore I didn't run it on Tuesday night.
Now Maan, the same outlet that reported the story in the first place, is reporting that the kid had been arrested by the Egyptians at the Egyptian end of a smuggling tunnel, and has returned home to his family on the Gaza side of Rafah.
According to the Ma’an report, Farmawi arrived in Gazan Rafah on Friday alive and well. He was discovered to be part of a group of 17 Palestinian youths who were arrested after trying to infiltrate Egypt via smuggling tunnels. Gaza police facilitated the boys’ return to their homes.
Farmawi’s mother had “wept for days at the loss of her son,” whom she considered a martyr, Ma’an reported.
The IDF had stressed that although the protesters in southern Gaza – among them Farmawi – had moved their demonstration to a dangerous zone close to the security fence, no soldier had shot to kill.
“The demonstrators knowingly occupied a zone in which movement is forbidden and attempted several times to reach the security barrier,” read a statement by the IDF Spokesman’s Office released on Tuesday evening. “As a result, it is possible that a number of demonstrators were hurt.”
The 'Palestinian' who was never dead came back to life.
But look how 'detailed' the 'Palestinian' reports of his death were:
Dr Muawiya Hassanein, of Gaza's health ministry, announced on Tuesday that the teenager had been killed during protests near to the Gaza border to mark Palestinian Land Day.
The day commemorates the deaths of six Palestinians with Israeli citizenship who were killed at a demonstration over land seizures 34 years ago.
...
He said the boy had been left "bleeding for hours" before a medical team was allowed to collect his body.
However, amid confusing reports, unnamed Palestinian sources also said the boy's death "may have been an internal matter", without giving further details.
After Muhammad returned home, Dr Hasanien said: "We were getting wrong reports from the officer in the field and we announced later in the day that we did not find the body."
He added: "Anyway, thank God the boy is alive."
The motto of the story is never to believe 'Palestinian' reports unless they've been solidly confirmed. But then, we knew that already, didn't we?
Oh and by the way, if the 'Palestinians' are so anxious for their children to become 'martyrs,' why was the family so relieved to find him alive?
Fooling most of the 'Jewish leaders' most of the time
Late Friday night Israel time, Laura Rozen reported on a Friday conference call between Dan Shapiro of the National Security Council and American 'Jewish leaders' in a bid to calm the storm that the White House created over the Ramat Shlomo announcement three weeks ago.
What was the message?
“Not much,” one source, who declined to be identified, said. “No crisis. Media reports are wrong. More agreement than disagreement” inside the administration, regarding how to advance the Middle East peace process. [The administration’s] “hand was forced [with regard to] Jerusalem by circumstances during Biden’s trip,” the source said, referring to the Israeli government’s announcement last month during Vice President Joe Biden's good-will trip to Israel that it had approved construction of another 1,600 homes to be built in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood.
[In other words, big internal debate some hack reported on last weekend? Overblown. All is harmony inside the administration on its approach, how hard to push, who to push, what to push for, etc. To which another source who'd been on the call Friday said, Oh that report? "It is so obviously true.”]
...
The content of the call was “just a reiteration of administration's policies/statements from the last few weeks,” another source who declined to be identified said. “Shapiro was asked about cutting aid, which he assured was not even on table."
So was the 'Jewish leadership' really taken in? Apparently, not entirely.
Those on the call also said he spent a considerable amount of time pushing back against media reports calling the recent tensions a crisis or characterizing Netanyahu’s White House visit – conducted under a media blackout without even an official photograph released – as a snub.
He faulted the “fog” of press reports for portraying the meeting as negative, which he pointed out was arranged hastily after the president canceled an overseas trip to work on health care legislation and made for the fourth visit of Obama with Netanyahu in the US, the most of any foreign leader.
Shapiro also referred to the media’s bias toward the more “sexy” news story of US criticism of Israel over American criticism of the Palestinians to claim that the Obama administration has been equally demanding of both sides.
One caller later asked that he produce a compendium detailing American censure of the Palestinian Authority alongside Israel to provide documentation to the wider Jewish community, which has been critical of the US administration for coming down more heavily on Israel than on the PA.
The National Security Council hand also noted that Netanyahu’s meeting with Obama dealt significantly with Iran, on which he said there is close coordination between the two countries and that there is no foreign policy issue the US is working harder on, according to call participants.
...
Yet he questioned the White House take on the recent tensions. “They created the storm. Why are they surprised?”
Another participant also expressed skepticism at what he heard, particularly the effort to blame the media for blowing things out of proportion.
“It wasn’t incredibly reassuring, but it was unclear whether the White House was downplaying the crisis because they erroneously think there isn’t a crisis, or they’re downplaying the crisis as means of ending the crisis,” he said. “If it’s the latter it’s a positive thing, but if they really are clueless and have their heads in the sand, that’s bad.”
One Jewish official on the call, though, expressed more criticism at his colleagues than at the White House, taking them to task for not speaking more forcefully during the call against what had happened.
“They didn’t challenge the administration on this,” he said. “It was very disappointing, really very disappointing.”
The JPost also notes a White House claim that much of the 'meeting' between Netanyahu and Obama dealt with Iran. If so, you can bet it was Obama threatening Bibi with all the terrible things that would happen to Israel if we dare to strike Iran without His Lordship's approval.
Paul Mirengoff notes that one reason why there may have been so little pushback from the 'Jewish leaders' is that they don't expect much pushback from Netanyahu against the President.
Unfortunately, according to one participant in the conference, the Jewish leaders did not push back very much while the call was taking place. Then again, it's far from clear that Netanyahu himself is going to push back.
It's not clear yet that he won't either. The country has been pretty much shut down all week for Pesach (Passover) and my guess is that we'll start to see a lot more activity come Tuesday morning.
I would bet that Netanyahu will offer some sort of package: a terrorist release, and some suspension of Jewish building in the predominantly Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem in exchange for scrapping the proximity talks and moving to direct talks. Maybe they'll take down a few more roadblocks and endanger some more Jewish lives. Whether that will satisfy Obama or the 'Palestinians' remains to be seen. But I don't think he can get a whole lot more than that through his cabinet even if he wanted to try.
This much is for sure: Sometime between Tuesday and when Netanyahu departs for that nuclear disarmament conference in Washington next week, some kind of offer will be made.
An announcement by Iran’s nuclear chief of plans to build new atomic facilities in the country, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s newest warning regarding Israel’s demise, underline the need for “determined and effective international action,” a senior government official said on Saturday night.
“Ahmadinejad’s continuous outbursts of extremist rhetoric only prove to the entire international community the seriousness of the threat posed by the Iranian regime’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, and heightens the need for determined and effective international action,” the official said.
Ahmadinejad, referring on Saturday to escalating tensions in the Gaza Strip, said IDF action would “cost” Israel “too much.”
“I say to the Zionists and their supporters that they have already committed enough crimes,” he told an Iranian crowd. “A new adventure in Gaza will not save you, but hasten your demise.”
Faced with the prospect of new sanctions because of Iran’s nuclear defiance, Ahmadinejad said that such penalties would only strengthen his country’s technological advancement and help it to become more self-sufficient.
“Don’t imagine that you can stop Iran’s progress,” Ahmadinejad said in remarks broadcast live on state television. “The more you reveal your animosity, the more it will increase our people’s motivation to double efforts for construction and progress of Iran.”
The Iranian president claimed US pressure on Iran had backfired and made Washington more isolated in the eyes of the world.
In fact, according to Arutz Sheva, Ahmadinejad's threat against Israel was even more explicit.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad once again threatened Israel with annihilation, saying over the weekend that if Israel attacks Gaza again, it will bring Israel “closer to certain death. I want to tell the Zionists and their supporters that they have committed enough crimes already,” he said adding that “the new adventure will not save you.”
But the sanctions being touted by the Obama administration are too little and too late. If China doesn't veto them in the Security Council.
Restricting the movement of leaders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (such as preventing them from taking ski vacations in Europe), or enforcing various insignificant financial restrictions, will certainly not stop the uranium enrichment programs at Iranian nuclear facilities.
Just yesterday U.S. President Barack Obama announced that there is evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and warned that the entire Middle East would be 'destabilized' if they succeed in attaining nuclear arms, and further trigger an arms race in the region.
Yet it is highly unlikely that Obama's chosen line of action to stop this growing trend will prove to be the right one. In an interview on CBS Obama stressed that a united international community will back the soon-to-be-approved sanctions against Iran.
That is true.
The President said that a nuclear Iran is not only bad for America's national security, but also for the entire world. An impelling proclamation, but not what is going to stop the Iranians.
The President went on to say that in time Iran's economy will be influenced by their actions. "We're going to ratchet up the pressure and examine how they respond but we're going to do so with a unified international community," Obama said.
The trouble is that time is exactly what is lacking in the equation. According to analysts across the globe, Iran will be able to manufacture nuclear warheads by the end of this year. Perhaps Tehran is not in any particular rush to produce nuclear weapons so as to avoid provocation. Yet while the Americans debate what to do with Iran after the expected failure of the current sanctions, the centrifuges will continue to enrich uranium in either the Natanz or Qom nuclear plants.
Will Prime Minister Netanyahu run Obama's red light on Iran? Will a new Congress with more Republicans and fewer Democrats make a difference? Or will we be facing a nuclear Iran nine months from now - a prospect that might cause 23% of Israelis to leave the country?
The partisan gap on Israel between Democrats and Republicans has widened to 50% according to a Zogby poll taken for the Arab-American Institute.
* 42% of Democrats had a favorable rating of Israel compared to 92 of Republicans resulting in a 50% gap between the parties. * While the gap is higher in this poll, the finding is consistent with a recent Gallup poll that had 53% of Democrats with a favorable view compared to 80% of Republicans.
Especially if the earlier poll was taken before President Obama abused Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House.
But don't expect that to change how Jews vote in the next elections. The new Democratic motto is F**k the Jews, they'll vote for us anyway.
“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
(Robert A. Heinlein quotes)
From LFJ to Northern Breeze
-
I am writing to you from the celestial city of Tz’fat (Safed), set amidst
the green hills of Israel’s beautiful Galilee, where I moved from Jerusalem
with ...
Building the New Walls of Yerushalayim
-
Ha-Rav Avishai Tzruya
Rosh Yeshiva of Ateret Yerushalayim
located in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City of Yerushalayim
Asara Be-Tevet – the 10th ...
Nitai Stern's Playground
-
When I was a schoolboy, fallen soldiers were a special kind of grownup.
Usual grownups went to work and had meetings, whatever those were, or they
drove...
Descubram as diferenças
-
Como é que uma notícia com autoria "Diário Digital com Lusa" é *tradução
exacta* de uma com autoria "AFP com Times of Israel"?
Descubram as diferenças:
...
Até um dia Sefarad...
-
Chegou ao fim um ciclo iniciado há 5 anos.
Agradeço a todos os leitores a sua passagem por "Terras de Sefarad", em
especial aos que contribuíram com ...
HA'AZINU; TOWER OF SALVATION
-
by Rabbi Baruch Binyamin Hakohen Melman In our parsha, Ha'azinu, as for
every parsha, we need to ask: what is the question and what is the answer?
In this...
Parashá Tzav
-
“Shabat Hagadol”
No contexto da parashá desta semana, Parashá Tzav, na qual a Torá nos
relata as obrigações dos sacrifícios, com tantos detalhes que chegam...
Marketing Israel
-
At this point, it would be a cliche to say that Israel has a PR problem. It
is clear that in many sectors, Israel has lost the battle for hearts and
minds....
Women Of Valor (אשת חיל מי ימצא)
-
22 of the Tenth Month 5771
אֵשֶׁת-חַיִל, מִי יִמְצָא; וְרָחֹק מִפְּנִינִים מִכְרָהּ. מִשְׁלֵי לא,י
A woman of valor who can find? for her price is far abov...
SHALOM, SHALOM
-
Afirmava Elie Wiesel que o oposto da vida não é a morte, senão a
indiferença. Como membros da sociedade democrática occidental temos
contraído a obriga de...
Posts
