Good Israel Public Relations

Fundamentally Freund: The end of ... JPost - Opinion - Columnists

2012-02-17T06:47:00.000-08:00

Michael Freund makes the case in the Jerusalem Post that....

We must make the case that this is the end of Palestine, the death knell of the delusion that the Palestinian leadership was interested in reconciliation, compromise and peace. For if Abbas and his cohorts truly wished to see an end to the conflict, they would not have joined hands with those who advocate endless confrontation. By affixing his signature to the unity deal, Abbas has therefore settled the argument once and for all.

Faced with a choice, he discarded the possibility of an armistice with Israel, thereby closing the door on any chance of a resolution. Abbas chose Hamas over harmony. Now we must make sure he pays a price for doing so.

Read the entire op/ed piece by clicking here.

Human rights for Syrians

2012-02-07T11:38:00.001-08:00

by Jack Cohen

Where are the protests, where are the "human rights activists", where are the slogans "Stop killing Arabs"? Nowhere to be seen. It could be the cold weather, but we know it's not, we know that the so-called "human rights activists" only come out if Israel is involved. They are not motivated when thousands of Syrian Arabs are being killed in the streets, even though the degree of state-sponsored murder is much bigger than they usually protest. After all, they usually come out only when the IDF accidentally kills one or two Palestinian civilians. That's what really gets them riled up, Palestinian lives are more valuable to them than Syrian lives, even though these people speak the same language, are all Muslims and to all intents and purposes are identical. In all likelihood most of these so-called "human rights activists" agree wth Russia and China that Assad should be left to kill his own people and he is continuing to do just that.

In fact, Pres. Assad's regime in Syria has killed approximately as many people in the past 10 months as Israel has killed Palestinians in the whole of the Israel-Palestine conflict. It is estimated by the UN that ca. 6,500 Syrians have been killed, but this does not include those arrested and tortured by the regime, up to 25,000, most of whom have disappeared. Since the 1948 Israeli War of Independence, it is estimated that 8,000 Palestinians have been killed in 64 years, the majority of them soldiers (terrorists) wearing civilian clothes. On the Israeli side the figures are very comparable, perhaps 6,000 killed, including those IDF soldiers killed by the Egyptian Army on the Suez Canal in the Yom Kippur War 1973. At no time has there been mass casualties caused by Israeli military actions, compared to the mass killings now occuring in Syria. Even the killings in Libya and Egypt are on a far larger scale than happens to the Palestinians even when they inflict hundreds of deaths of Israeli civilians thru terrorism. Another Arab regime, like Syria, would probably send in its army and decimate their towns and villages, but Israel does not do that. Even in the most recent clash, Operation Cast Lead in Dec 2008 in Gaza, there were only ca. 1,200 Palestinian casualties, about two thirds of them being combatants (usually not in uniform). Pres. Assad in Syria gets rid of that number in about a week.

Most Western countries have a policy not to negotiate with terrorists. So does Israel. Hamas, the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, is registered as a terrorist group by the UN, EU, US and Israel. In the past it has killed hundreds of Israeli civilians in terrorist attacks, and continually shoots rockets from Gaza into Israel (sometimes using proxies like Islamic Jihad). Understandably, the Israeli Government refuses to have talks with this organization that is dedicated to "wipe Israel off the map," as their sponsor the Iranian PM Ahmedinejad says, and they also refuse to talk to Israel. In Qatar, the Head of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal, and the Head of Fatah, Pres. Abbas of the PA, the largest faction in the PLO, are having unity talks. They are trying to implement the unity agreement that was arrived at in negotiations in Egypt last year. So far nothing concrete has come from that supposed agreement. This time it is expected that they will come closer, because there is pressure on Hamas to compromise with Fatah because of the current unrest in the Arab world and the threat of Iran. But, if they do form a unity government then Israel will refuse to negotiate with them, because one does not negotiate with terrorists! PM Netanyahu was quite forthright, he advised Abbas, "either negotiate with Hamas or negotiate with us, you can't have it both ways!"

What is missing in the Middle East?

2012-01-16T09:26:00.000-08:00

by Jack Cohen

1. A peace movement in the Arab world. There is NO Arab country that has a public movement that wants to make peace with Israel. On the contrary, the newly "liberated" countries like Egypt are talking about cancelling or changing the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, and most Arab countries are continuing to express their hatred of Israel and their determination to destroy Israel. Meanwhile Israel has a very active peace movement, such as "Peace Now."

2. An Arab refugee resettlement plan. In the Arab world Palestinian refugees are never settled, they always remain "refugees" until the third and fourth generation. Meanwhile the forgotten refugees, the nearly 1 million Jews who fled or were forced out of Arab lands have been re-settled for 50 years in Israel. That is the difference, Israel had a successful re-settlement plan, the Arabs have NO refugee re-settlement plan (except to destroy Israel)!

3. Minority rights. There is NO concept of minority rights under Islam. In Egypt the Coptic Christian minority (ca. 10%) are continually being attacked and their churches burnt down. In Iraq the Chaldean Christians (ca. 2%) are continually being attacked and their churches burnt down. In Gaza and the West Bank the Christian minority (4%) are continually being attacked and their churches burnt down. Question, what can one conclude from this? That wherever there are Muslims, such as in Pakistan, Nigeria, Philippines, there are attacks on Christians and their churches are burnt down. Luckily there are few Jews any more to be targets for the Muslims in these countries.

4. Democracy. There is NO successful Arab democracy in the Middle East, notwithstanding the uprisings that started a year ago. Iraq and Tunisia are closest to becoming democracies, but Egypt and Libya are still struggling, Jordan and Lebanon are far from democracy and Syria is entering a civil war as the Assad regime tries to stem the popular tide by force. The Palestinians are split between Islamist Hamas and radical Fatah, with no hope of a united democracy. No wonder they can't make peace with an actual democracy like Israel.

It is the preponderance of these NO's that makes the Muslim Arabs so intransigent relative to Israel. Those who focus on Israel's policies, such as building houses on the West Bank, are really missing the point!

Apartheid in the Middle East?

2012-01-10T08:53:00.000-08:00

Official, institutionalized discrimination against Palestinians is widespread in the Middle East.
Where does this Apartheid take place, and what are the reasons behind it?

Check out this informative video by StandWithUs.

The Forgotten Middle East Refugees

2011-12-15T11:27:00.000-08:00

by Jack Cohen

Whenever someone hears the phrase "Middle East refugees" they think of the Palestinians, mainly because the Palestinian refugees have been made into an international cause celebre. But, in fact there were more Jewish refugees in the Middle East than Arabs. However, their narrative has been entirely lost and overlooked in the whole context of the Middle East situation. While there have been ca. 150 resolutions of the UN on the Palestinian refugees, there have been none, zero, on the Jewish refugees. Further, the UN agency specially established to perpetuate the Palestinian refugee problem rather help them integrate in Arab countries, UNWRA, has spent ca. 3.5 billion dollars on them in the past 60 years, but nothing has ever been spent on the Jewish refugees. In effect there was an exchange of populations (ca.750,000 Palestinian Arabs for ca. 850,000 Arab Jews) between Israel and the Arab countries.

On Tuesday in the AACI lecture series at Netanya College we heard the story of Linda Menuhin, born Linda Abdul Aziz in Iraq, who was one of nearly a million Jewish refugees from Arab countries who came to Israel in the wake of the establishment of the State. It is important to note that they were refugees who were indigenous to the Middle East, hence their organization named Jimena, Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa. Jimena has assumed a hasbara role to introduce the symmetrical tale of the exchange of two populations of refugees.

The Jewish refugees were not only ignored by the international community, but also by successive Israeli Governments, who lumped them in as immigrants with the rest of the population, including many Holocaust survivors from the camps of Europe after WWII. They were granted Israeli citizenship and even though they were initially housed in tents in camps, called ma'abarot, that dotted Israel in the early 1950's, they were never registered as refugees. In effect, by integrating them into the Israeli population their story and their rights were neglected and ignored. The value of the property stolen from these refugees by Arab countries (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Morocco) estimated at 100 billion dollars, far exceeds the value of the property left by Palestinians when they fled Israel during the Israeli War of Independence in 1948.

There is ample documentation of the plight of these Jewish refugees. There is an excellent pamphlet by Martin Gilbert entitled "The Jews of Arab Lands" published in 1976, recently followed by his extensive history "In Ishmael's House, a history of the Jews in Muslim Lands." Although this topic was ignored for many years, several events have recently brought it to the fore, the Knesset recently passed a law requiring the Israeli Government to represent the rights of these refugees in any negotiations with the Arab side. In his latest hasbara video Deputy Israeli FM Danny Ayalon discusses the refugee question and includes the Jews for Arab Lands, Dan Diker Secty. General of the World Jewish Congress, also put the cause of Jews from Arab lands as a priority item on their agenda and the David project released a couple of years ago a video entitled "The Forgotten Refugees," (available on YouTube) which was screened at the lecture.

Linda told us her own moving story. That her ancestors had been in Iraq for 1,000 years before the advent of Islam in the Arab pennisula . How in 1941with the fall of the Iraqi anti-Semitic Government Nazi style, the mob fomented riots called "the Farhud" in Arabic, meaning "dispossession." Meanwhile the British troops stationed outside Baghdad overlooked the looting and killing. This was a major milestone that pushed out Iraqi Jews from Iraq. How she grew up both in a stable Middle class Jewish home, yet was surrounded by constant fear. Her father became an influential lawyer with many Arab clients, and when after the establishment of Israel the majority of the 130,000 Iraqi Jews left. Her father, a lawyer, was appointed the registrar of their property, so the Iraqi Government had a complete detailed listing of all property confiscated by their decree. Through many ups and downs her father decided to remain and he was discreetly promised a passport by the authorities, as he was adamant not to leave illegally. There was a bloody coup led by the Ba'ath Party in 1968 and things got much worse for the Jews.and their number decreased to ca. 3,500. Linda and her younger brother decided they must leave and so in 1970 they went in disguise to the north dressed as poor Arabs with only small bags. Since Jews were forbidden to travel a distance of more than 80 kms from their home, they sat at the back of buses in order to avoid identification by the guards at checkpoints. They arrived in the Kurdish area where they were met by Pesh Merga, the Kurdish fighters who were armed and trained by Israel and were brought on mules over the border to Iran and from there to Israel. Her mother also escaped with her younger sister, but her father waited until he received his passport. But, then he was the first Jew that was kidnapped to be followed by 21 more who disappeared without a trace.

Ba'ath means "renaissance" in Arabic, and the party was founded in Lebanon by a French-speaking Christian Arab named Michel Aflaq who based it on the National Socialist (Nazi) Party of Germany. The Ba'ath Party took power in a coup in Syria in 1963 and in Iraq in 1968. In effect both regimes were fascist regimes and were virulently anti-Jewish. The Ba'ath regime of Saddam Hussein lasted until 2004 when he was defeated by the US forces, and that of the Assad family in Syria is currently engaged in a civil war for its survival.

Linda having been Head of the Middle East affairs desk of the Israel Broadcasting Association (IBA) News from 1981-1991 and Foreign Press liaison with the Israeli Police from 1995-2000 is a freelance commentator and writer on Arabic and Middle Eastern affairs. In her work she tries to build bridges to Arab-speaking counterparts and has many contacts with Palestinians and Iraqi Arabs. She believes that reconciliation will only be achieved when there is mutual recognition of the suffering of both sides in the Middle East.

Newt's Law

2011-12-12T09:16:00.001-08:00

by Jack Cohen

Newt Gingrich, the current front runner in the Republican Presidential race, was being interviewed for a Jewish program and was asked his opinion of the Palestinian leadership. He replied succinctly that they are all terrorists and he gave his opinion that the Palestinians are "an invented people." Basically, he argued, they are Arabs and as such have no right to be in the Jewish Holy Land. Although at this time the candidates are falling over themselves to attract Jewish votes, when Newt was criticized for his opinions and called "a racist" by several spokesmen of the PA, at the latest candidate's forum he stuck to his guns.

Actually, in fact, Newt is correct. There is no evidence for a Palestinian people in history separate from other Arabs until ca. 1964. When Abu Rudeineh in response to Newt said that the Palestinians have lived here for thousands of years, he was speaking sheer nonsense and actually lying. The Arabs were in Arabia until after Muhammed formed the Muslim armies and then captured Jerusalem from the Byzantines (Greek Christians) in 637 ce. There is no evidence of any Arab presence in what was then the Holy Land until that date. They subsequently built the Mosques that stand on the Temple Mount, where the Jewish Temple once stood until it was destroyed by the Romans in 70 ce and that was then replaced by a Byzantine Church which the Arabs destroyed. The Jews had an independent kingdom here 2,000 years before the Arabs arrived on the scene and conquered the area.

In the Ottoman Empire the area that is now Israel/Palestine was called Southern Syria and the Arabs living there were indistinguishable from those in neighboring areas. This remained true after the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. Although the bulk of the fighting against Israel was carried out by the armies of the surrounding Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq), there were Palestinian Arab contingents, although there is no evidence that they considered themselves distinct in any way (language, religion, culture) from the others. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded originally by the Egyptian secret service of Pres. Nasser in 1964 and Yasir Arafat (born in Cairo, educated at Cairo University) was appointed its head. But, it was only with the defeat of the Arab armies in the "6-Day War" of 1967 that Arafat moved from Cairo to the Gulf area and the PLO adopted an independent course. Still, the so-called Palestinian Arabs are indistinguishable from their fellow Arabs in surrounding areas in all respects. Thus, they are an "invented people."

But, whether or not this is true, the question arises, is this a smart approach. If you want to pretend that there is a "peace process" or a real chance for peace, which is the liberal view, then it's not a good statement. However, what is the point of Israel making more concessions to the PalestinIans in order to entice them back to the negotiating table, if they have no intention of going anyway. In the Middle East of all places, particularly when there are so many unknowns now, it makes no sense for Israel to make any concessions, until the dust settles, if it ever will. What is needed in the ME is a complete re-think of western strategy, it should be "Iran first," take care of Iran and then the other conflicts may fall into place. We need realpolitik, not sentimental illusions. So let Newt be Newt, and if he is the Republican candidate, so be it; then I for one would vote for him any time over Obama.

Jerusalem Post: The simple truth: They want it all

2011-10-18T06:41:00.000-07:00

The simple truth: They want it all

By BARRY RUBIN
16/10/2011

PA wants an independent state on all the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem with no restrictions, no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.


No matter what the Palestinian Authority is offered – money, concessions and even steps toward statehood– the response is always “no.” Media, academic “experts” and governments seem to find this amazing phenomenon very hard to understand.The answer is simple, but a lot of the people paid to deal with this stuff don’t get it. So let me elucidate: The Palestinian Authority (PA) wants everything. Read entire article here.

No matter what the Palestinian Authority is offered – money, concessions and even steps toward statehood– the response is always “no.” Media, academic “experts” and governments seem to find this amazing phenomenon very hard to understand.The answer is simple, but a lot of the people paid to deal with this stuff don’t get it. So let me elucidate: The Palestinian Authority (PA) wants everything.

Read entire article here.

Mixed feelings on Schalit

2011-10-17T11:42:00.000-07:00

by Jack Cohen

The majority of Israelis have mixed feelings over the impending prisoner exchange between Gilad Schalit, held in captivity by Hamas for 5 years in solitary confinement, and ca. 1,000 Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. The majority definitely want Schalit to be released, but the question is at what price. For many the price seems too high, since the ratio is not only 1,000:1 but many of the1,000 Palestinians being released are arch-terrorists who had been convicted in court of the murder of Israelis. In fact ca. 300 of them to be released in the first round at the same time as Schalit are in the category of having "blood on their hands," a group that the Israeli Government has in the past declared that it would never release or exchange. But, as some members of the Cabinet who voted for the exchange have said, they felt that this was the last chance to release Schalit, and so had to vote for the deal but with a heavy heart. Some Israelis who have lost loved ones to the murderers being released are antagonistic to the deal, for example a man who lost all his family in the Sbarro bombing in Jerusalem in 2001, defaced the Rabin memorial in Tel Aviv in protest against the deal. Many clear-headed Israelis see this deal as sentiment overtaking reason. There is little doubt that a percentage of those being released will return to terrorism and kill more Israelis. At least some of the terrorist leaders, Marwan Barghouti and Sa'adi of the PFLP are not included. So is it a good deal?

The advantage for Israel and for its Government are clear, they get Schalit back and can play the heroes, as well as removing this impedient to their freedom of action over Gaza. For Hamas, the deal is a victory of a kind, since it catapults them into the news as the saviours of the Palestinian prisoners and gives them a huge advantage over Pres. Abbas of the PA, who is attempting to obtain unilateral statehood for Palestine, but so far without success. It is also a victory for Egypt which has brokered the deal, following attempts by France (of which Schalit is also a citizen), Germany, Qatar and Turkey. In the case of Turkey, it has been said that the deal will please Turkish PM Erdogan. The exchange will take place at the Egyptian border and Israel has pledged not to attack any of the prisoners released unless they return to terrorism. In order to check this it has been suggested that all prisoners released should be given a secret electronic tag so that they can be followed wherever they go.

Under the circumstances, this may have been the best deal that Israel could get and although in the past such unbalanced exchanges have been seen to have been mistakes, one can only hope that in this case the results will not be too bad. The ratio of 1,000: 1 indicates the general value of Palestinians vs. Israelis. But, the IDF must take greater measures to prevent future kidnappings. Perhaps all IDF soldiers should also be given an electronic tag so that their whereabouts can be monitored at all times. The problem is that this disproportionate exchange means that there will be a premium by Hamas and other terrorists to kidnap Israeli soldiers in the future.

What the media didn't report in UN speeches?

2011-09-27T07:35:00.000-07:00

It is interesting to read the official transcripts of the speeches delivered by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the UN.

As reported on honestreporting.com, "Take a look at how Netanyahu emphasized “peace” (44 times in fact) and mentioned the Palestinians on many occasions. Contrast this with Abbas, whose speech contained nothing in the way of conciliatory language with little emphasis on peace (26 times) or addressing Israel, the state with whom the Palestinians must make peace with."

Further, "

While Netanyahu reached out his hand to Israel’s neighbors and the Palestinians, Abbas not only dispensed with any conciliatory statements but actually came out with statements and claims that the media chose to ignore.

Abbas referred to 63 years of Palestinian suffering under “occupation” – the implication being that the birth of the Israeli state in 1948 is the real issue rather than Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip which began in 1967 following the Six Day War.
Abbas spoke of the importance of the Holy Land to both the Christian and Muslim religions failing to even acknowledge the undeniable and historical connection of the region to Judaism."

There appears to be a real lack of coverage on the specifics of the speeches. In fact, very little history has been conveyed (eg. There was a treaty between the Arabs and Jews known as the Balfour Treaty – signed in 1917 long before the UN took up statehood for Israel, granted in 1947).

For a country that is so bright, why can't Israel develop a better pr team?

Anti Boycott Law is Wrong

2011-07-18T05:58:00.000-07:00

Here is a good example of being able to support Israel yet criticize an internal matter.

While I recognize the need to speak out against those that threaten to harm Israel, taking away the freedom to speak out is not the way to combat critics.

Throughout Israel's history, many have tried to organize boycotts against Israel.

This week the Knesset the Boycott Law. This law makes it possible to bring to court anyone who calls for an economic, academic or cultural boycott of the State of Israel, including Judea and Samaria, and sue them for damages. While the passing of the law may be constitutional, the cost of treading on the freedom of expression is questionable.

Jack Cohen's analysis is a good one:

The so-called "Boycott Bill" has been a major bone of contention between the right and the left in Israeli politics for some time. The right alleges that left-wing Israeli organizations are accepting donations from abroad to support the boycott of Israeli goods, institutions and academics, and that this is tantamount to treason. The left alleges that right-wing organizations also take donations from abroad that support the settlement movement, and that this undermines the chances of peace with the Palestinians. After much wrangling, the Boycott Bill was passed on Tuesday, but after it was greatly modified. Instead of criminalizing the use of foreign funds to influence Israeli policies, the Bill only opens such activities to civil suits. In other words, if an individual or an organization feels that it has been harmed by the use of foreign funds by an Israeli organization that is trying to influence Israeli policies, then they can sue in civil court. Since the Bill was supported by the Israel Beitanu faction, one of the first possible suits would be by an IB MK against Ahmed Tibi, an Arab MK who has been openly supporting the boycott movement from within Israel. Another possible suit would be by companies that are losing financially due to the boycott of their products against those supporting the boycott.

The left is now starting a campaign against the Bill on grounds of its constitutionality, in that it will be used to prevent the free expression of opinion in relation to the boycott. They claim that the Bill will be used to shut down critical voices on the left against Netanyahu's policies. They have brought a case against the Bill in the Supreme Court of Israel. There is serious discussion amongst lawyers as to the rightness of using legal means to stop foreign funds influencing Israeli policies. The argument of the supporters of the Bill is that these funds are used by enemies of Israel to influence Israeli policies and public opinion against valid Israeli activities, such as settlement on the West Bank and production there. It is pointed out that not only is Israeli settlement legal under international law (whatever the political considerations), but that it also gives work to thousands of Arabs who otherwise would have none. Also, to support the BDS movement from within Israel is aiding and abetting those who have the intention of destroying the Jewish State.

Whatever one's political opinion, the Bill will now be tested in court, and those who criticize Israel must acknowledge that Israel is a democratic country where the rule of law is paramount.

More insightful commentary by Jack Cohen

2011-07-14T16:28:00.000-07:00

Here are some comments on the current situation:

1. We have a dilemma. The flotilla and fly-in activists are doing this to get publicity and to be provocative. We must be careful not to inadvertently give them publicity and show them that we are provoked. One measure of our success is if they are NOT mentioned in the news and on the TV. Let's not give them cause to think that they are successful. The flotilla is a flop, the fly-in has been stopped before it starts. The Israeli Govt. has been successful in its diplomatic moves (with Greece and with the airlines). Let's spread our word but with the minimum of fuss, let's keep a low profile for now.

2. The Palmer Report, that has not yet been officially issued by the UN, concludes that the Israeli blockade of Gaza is LEGAL according to international law and custom. This is the first UN enquiry that was really neutral (i.e. unlike the Goldstone Committee that was established by the UNHRC to investigate Israeli "war crimes" in Gaza). The PR mainly criticizes Turkey for conniving with the IHH Islamists, but it also criticizes Israel for the use of undue force (are the IDF allowed to defend themselves?) The publication has been delayed by mutual consent between Israel, Turkey and the UN for 3 weeks to allow Israel and Turkey to negotiate a post-flotilla agreement. Turkey demands an apology from Israel for killing its citizens, but Israel refuses to apologize since their citizens were deliberately violent and provoked IDF reaction. Maybe some compromise can be reached since both sides now apparently want to improve relations. If not the Report will be published and Turkey will bear the brunt of the criticism!

3. Opening a can of worms. The point should be made that any Government that votes for the establishment of a Palestinian State at the UN GA in September is opening a can of worms. If this were adopted then any dissident group could go to the UN and ask for independence once a precedent has been established. The Chechens in Russia, the Abkhazians in Georgia, the Native Americans in the US, the Hungarians in Romania, and so on. Palestine would be a bad precedent for all! Perhaps the countries of the world will realize this before they vote. But, if the Pals get a majority in the GA they still would need Security Council approval for actual recognition and joining the UN, and we know that at least the US would use its veto to prevent this.

4. If the Palestinians take unilateral action by going to the UN for recognition, Israel would be legally justified in cancelling the outcome of the Oslo Accords, and then annexing parts of the West Bank where its citizens live and that it needs for security purposes. If it doesn't, lacking any negotiations, the Palestinians will claim these areas as part of its State. FM Lieberman has stated this, but it is not clear that it is official Israeli Government policy. No doubt the US and others would look askance at any Israeli counter-action, but why should we sit still when the Palestinians are breaking all the rules set by the UN of bilateral negotiations accepted by both sides until now.

5. The failure of the flotilla and the "flightilla" (horrible word) is all a Jewish plot! Not only did we order the Greek Government to stop the boats in their harbors, but we also caused all European countries to shut their airports to the well-meaning useful idiots who wanted to visit "Palestine" (somewhere near Oz, its over the rainbow). So only about 120 idiots actually reached the wonderful Land of Israel and were temporary guests of the Israeli prison system, before being hastily expelled. But, here's the clincher, we also arranged the "hacking" scandal in Britain, the shootings by the Syrian Govt, the visit of the Royals to Canada and the US, all to take news attention away from the Gaza wannabees. It proves the Jews control the media. At least we seem to be successful this time.

"Israel's Peculiar Position"

2011-07-09T12:57:00.000-07:00

Eric Hoffer was a longshoreman who turned into a philosopher, wrote columns for newspapers and some books. He was a non-Jewish American social philosopher. He was born in 1902 and died in 1983, after writing nine books and winning the Presidential Medal of Freedom. His first book, The True Believer, published in 1951, was widely recognized as a classic.

Eric Hoffer was one of the most influential American philosophers and free thinkers of the 20th Century. His books are still widely read and quoted today. Acclaimed for his thoughts on mass movements and fanaticism, Hoffer was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1983. Hopewell Publications awards the best in independent publishing across a wide range of categories, singling out the most thought provoking titles in books and short prose, on a yearly basis in honor of Eric Hoffer.

Here is one of his columns from 1968 -- 42 years ago! Some things never change!

"Israel's Peculiar Position"
by Eric Hoffer
Los Angeles Times, Sunday May 26, 1968, Section G-7.

The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.

Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it.

Turkey threw out a million Greeks and Algeria a million Frenchman.

Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese and no one says a word about refugees.

But in the case of Israel , the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees.

Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single one.

Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis.

Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms.

But when Israel is victorious, it must sue for peace.

Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world.

Other nations, when they are defeated, survive and recover but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed.

Had Nasser triumphed last June [1967], he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews.

No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on.

There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Blacks are executed in Rhodesia .

But, when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one demonstrated against him.

The Swedes, who were ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we did in Vietnam , did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews.

They sent Hitler choice iron ore, and ball bearings, and serviced his troops in Norway.

The Jews are alone in the world.

If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources.

Yet at this moment, Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally.

We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us.

And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer [1967] had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war, to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.

I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us.

Should Israel perish, the Holocaust will be upon us all.

Ten Talking Points about the second flotilla

2011-07-03T14:05:00.000-07:00

Thanks belong to Jack Cohen for putting these together.

Here are ten talking points about the supposed second flotilla, which is being organized by anti-Israel activists to try to break the Israel naval blockade of Gaza. Please distribute (in your own words) to all your friends on e-mail and facebook.

1. NO Humanitarian crisis: The ostensible basis for having such a flotilla is because there is a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza, in other words, people there are starving and there is not enough food or other supplies. This is entirely false! The International Red Cross representative in Gaza said several weeks ago that "there is NO humanitarian crisis in Gaza," she continued "this can be seen in the shops." Pictures and videos of Gaza that are widely available on the internet show clearly that Gaza's shops are full of food and goods.

2. Israel is sending hundreds of trucks and thousands of tons of food and medical supplies into Gaza on a daily basis (these are paid for and ordered by UWRA and other international agencies) . Not only does Israel supply all the basic food needs of Gazans, but Israel also supplies ample water and electricity from the Israeli grid. Many other goods (TVs, even cars) are smuggled in from Egypt including thru the many tunnels under the Egyptian-Gaza border.

3. Hamas is in a "state of war" with Israel. Hamas is a terrorist organization recognized by the UN, US, EU and UK, that denies Israel's right to exist and is mainly supported by the Iranian regime. One proof of this is that Hamas has fired ca. 8,000 rockets into Israel in the past 8 years, and the current "ceasefire" (since Israeli Operation Cast Lead) has been pronounced as a "temporary" ceasefire. Also, when rockets are still fired at Israeli territory aimed at Israeli towns in order to kill civilians, Hamas claims that they do not control all the extremist groups.

4. The Israeli blockade of Gaza is legal. Under international law it is legitimate for a country at war to blockade the territory of an enemy in order to prevent the supply of arms and personnel (for example the US blockaded Cuba). On board the Mavi Marmara was a group of trained Turkish extremist members of the IHH organization, that if they had been allowed to reach Gaza would have contributed to the armed forces of Hamas. Also, several large shipments of arms have been stopped on the seas by Israeli naval forces on their way to Gaza. Since the blockade is legal, to try to breach it is itself an illegal act.

5. Provocation. This flotilla is an obvious provocation intended to delegitimize Israel and deny Israel's right to defend itself. Some fo the boats do not have any cargo and most of the passengers call themselves "human rights activists" but in fact all of them are extreme anti-Israel campaigners. They see no evil anywhere except the lone Jewish State of Israel. They have no flotillas to the Arab ports of Banias in Syria and Misratah in Libya where ordinary civilians are being killed by the forces of their dictators, Assad and Gaddafi, and where there really are humanitarian crises.

6. The passengers have been inflitrated. According to reports, extremist Islamists have infiltrated among the passengers that consider themselves innocent "human rights activists," also known as "useful idiots." They ahve learned form experiecne, int eh frist flotilla all the extremists were concetrated on the Mavi Marmara and after attacking the Israeli commandos, seven of them were shot. The proof of this is that there was no violence aboard the other ships int eh first flotilla. They have learned this lesson and are now dispersed throughout the crew and passengers, so as to make matters mroe difficult for the ISraeli forces.

7. This flotilla is coming from Greece. The first flotilla or the Mavi Marmara flotilla came from Turkey, with Turkish Government covert support. This time for political reasons the Turkish Government decided not to support the flotilla and not to allow the Mavi Marmara (under the excuse that it was damaged!) to sail with the second flotilla. The IHH organization also officially dropped out. The Greek Government (beset by economic crisis) has not supported or cooperated with the second flotilla.

8. The size of the flotilla is reduced. There were plans for 12 ships and maybe 1,500 people on board. However, this number has dwindled down to 7 ships and ca. 250 people. According to reports one of the ships was sabotaged in its berth in Greece, having the propellor shaft cut. Noone knows who might have done this, if true. That leaves 6 ships, two of which left from France some days ago and are due to rendezvous with the others near Cyprus. Cyprus has refused to allow ships of the flotilla to dock there and will not allow them to use its territorial waters.

9. The sailing of the flotilla is delayed. According to reports the sailing of the flotilla (the four remaining boats from Greece) has been delayed by days and up to a week because of delays in obtaining the necessary maritime insurance and the shipping permits from the Greek port authorities.

10. International opinion has turned against the flotilla. The US and most European countries have come out against the flotilla, uging those who want to send humanitarian aid to do so through the legitimate routes, either the Israeli port of Ashdod or the Egyptian ports of Port Said or El Arish and thence by road thru the Rafah crossing into Gaza, with the agreement of the Egyptian authorities. Note that the Egyptians search any material destined for Gaza and check every individual to ensure that they are not terrorists. The US and other coutnries have warned their citizens not to participate in an illegal action in a war zone.

The Gaza Flotilla 2

2011-06-30T08:00:00.000-07:00

The next Flotilla is getting ready to sail. HonestReporting.com has put together a good resource list to answer critics with something they are not used to receiving....facts. Click here for the list.

Biased OP/ED in Miami Herald

2011-06-07T12:18:00.000-07:00

In his op/ed piece on June 2, Mr. Samah Sabawi builds a case against Israel by conveniently leaving out some facts.

For example, he correctly cites the Kahan Commission’s finding against Israel’s Defense Minister Ariel Sharon. However, he does not explain that Sharon was found to be indirectly responsible. Rather, the Commission concluded that direct responsibility of the massacres of Palestinians in Sabra and Shatilla rested with the Gemavel Phalengists led by Fadi and that no Israelis were deemed directly responsible.

Today, within Israel, Jews are a majority, but the Arab minority are full citizens who enjoy equal rights. Arabs are represented in the Knesset, and have served in the Cabinet, high-level foreign ministry posts (e.g., Ambassador to Finland) and on the Supreme Court. Under apartheid, black South Africans could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they formed the overwhelming majority of the population. Laws dictated where they could live, work and travel. And, in South Africa, the government killed blacks who protested against its policies. By contrast, Israel allows freedom of movement, assembly and speech. Some of the government's harshest critics are Israeli Arabs who are members of the Knesset.

It is clear that Mr. Sabawi’s goal is to delegitimize Israel. What remains unclear is why the Miami Herald chose to publish this biased commentary.

Illegal UN Resolution

2011-06-06T16:41:00.001-07:00

A UN resolution to recognize a Palestinian State within the "1967 Borders" would be illegal.

The following is a letter drafted jointly by lawyers of the Legal Forum for Israel and by Amb. Alan Baker, Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

The letter is directed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and signed by jurists and international lawyers from around the world.

It cautions the Secretary General as to the inherent illegality and harm to the UN and to the Middle East peace process which would be caused by the adoption of a resolution declaring a Palestinian state and determining its borders.

May 25, 2011

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon,
Secretary-General of the United Nations,
1st Avenue & 44th St.

New York, NY 10017

Excellency,

Re: The Proposed General Assembly Resolution to Recognize a Palestinian State "within 1967 Borders" - An Illegal Action

We, the undersigned, attorneys from across the world who are involved in general matters of international law, as well as being closely concerned with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, appeal to you to use your influence and authority among the member states of the UN, with a view to preventing the adoption of the resolution that the Palestinian delegation intends to table at the forthcoming session of the General Assembly, to recognize a Palestinian state "within the 1967 borders."

By all standards and criteria, such a resolution, if adopted, would be in stark violation of all the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as contravening UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and those other resolutions based thereon.

Our reasoning is as follows:

The legal basis for the establishment of the State of Israel was the resolution unanimously adopted by the League of Nations in 1922, affirming the establishment of a national home for the Jewish People in the historical area of the Land of Israel. This included the areas of Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem, and close Jewish settlement throughout. This was subsequently affirmed by both houses of the U.S. Congress.

Article 80 of the UN Charter determines the continued validity of the rights granted to all states or peoples, or already existing international instruments (including those adopted by the League of Nations). Accordingly, the above-noted League resolution remains valid, and the 650,000 Jews presently resident in the areas of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem reside there legitimately.

"The 1967 borders" do not exist, and have never existed. The 1949 Armistice Agreements entered into by Israel and its Arab neighbors, establishing the Armistice Demarcation Lines, clearly stated that these lines "are without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto." Accordingly, they cannot be accepted or declared to be the international boundaries of a Palestinian state.

UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) called upon the parties to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and specifically stressed the need to negotiate in order to achieve "secure and recognized boundaries."

The Palestinian proposal, in attempting to unilaterally change the status of the territory and determine the "1967 borders" as its recognized borders, in addition to running squarely against Resolutions 242 and 338, would be a fundamental breach of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in which the parties undertook to negotiate the issue of borders and not act to change the status of the territories pending outcome of the permanent status negotiations.

The Palestinians entered into the various agreements constituting what is known as the "Oslo Accords" in the full knowledge that Israel's settlements existed in the areas, and that settlements would be one of the issues to be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations. Furthermore, the Oslo Accords impose no limitation on Israel's settlement activity in those areas that the Palestinians agreed would continue to be under Israel's jurisdiction and control pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.

While the Interim Agreement was signed by Israel and the PLO, it was witnessed by the UN together with the EU, the Russian Federation, the U.S., Egypt, and Norway. It is thus inconceivable that such witnesses, including first and foremost the UN, would now give license to a measure in the UN aimed at violating this agreement and undermining major resolutions of the Security Council.

While the UN has maintained a persistent policy of non-recognition of Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem pending a negotiated solution, despite Israel's historic rights to the city, it is inconceivable that the UN would now recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, the borders of which would include eastern Jerusalem. This would represent the ultimate in hypocrisy, double standards, and discrimination, as well as an utter disregard of the rights of Israel and the Jewish People.

Such unilateral action by the Palestinians could give rise to reciprocal initiatives in the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) which could include proposed legislation to declare Israel's sovereignty over extensive parts of Judea and Samaria, if and when the Palestinians carry out their unilateral action.
Excellency,

It appears to be patently clear to all that the Palestinian exercise, aimed at advancing their political claims, represents a cynical abuse of the UN Organization and of the members of the General Assembly. Its aim is to bypass the negotiation process called for by the Security Council.

Regrettably, this abuse of the UN and its integrity, in addition to undermining international law, has the potential to derail the Middle East peace process.

We trust that you will use your authority to protect the UN and its integrity from this abuse, and act to prevent any affirmation or recognition of this dangerous Palestinian initiative.

Signed by jurists and international lawyers

This article can also be read at: http://www.aish.com/jw/me/Illegal_UN_Resolution.html

Jogging Memories of 1947 and 1967 on Jerusalem Day

2011-05-31T10:51:00.001-07:00

JERUSALEM POST BLOG
Tuesday May 31, 2011

I hate disappointing the worrywarts, but today, Jerusalem Day, 2011, 44-years after its reunification, Jerusalem is a remarkably functional city, a surprisingly peaceful city, a delightfully magical city. The city I experience daily is not the city described in the headlines. It does not feel like it is in eclipse, nor does it feel like a powder keg. I absorbed New York’s fear of crime in the 1970s, Boston’s racial tension in the 1980s, and Montreal’s linguistic complexity in the 1990s much more intensely. While jogging through the Old City daily, I feel lucky to live in such a livable city.

Jerusalem invites time-traveling in profound ways while doing mundane tasks. Every day, crossing the footbridge over the Cinemateque looking toward Mount Zion, I observe a panorama of peace reinforced by a symphony of silence, with the Tower of David crowned by its Israeli flag and Muslim crescent, church spires and minarets, the new city’s modern construction to my left and the older houses abutting the Old City to my right. The sweeping Old City walls dominate front and center.

These days, I confess, I think more about recent history than the walls’ ancient history, built by Suleiman the Magnificent 500 years ago but evoking Abraham binding Isaac, King David designating King Solomon, thousands of years earlier. Mahmoud Abbas’s rewriting of the history of 1947, which passed the New York Times’ editorial muster, Barack Obama’s obsession with the 1967 lines, have me wishing Jerusalem’s stones could talk, confirming what really happened when Zionists founded Israel in 1947-1948, when Israelis liberated Jerusalem in 1967, and during the difficult intervening years.

My daily plunge into this past begins with Jerusalem’s 19 years of rupture, as I traverse what was the barbed-wire-and-mine-strewn No-Man’s Land. To my right, the Cinemateque looms, a center of Israel’s edgy, often critical, vibrant democratic culture, contradicting false cries of McCarthyism. To my left, the red-roofed houses of Yemin Moshe unfold, beside Moses Montefiore’s 1857 windmill. I think about the poor people who lived in this, the first neighborhood outside Jerusalem’s walls, during the State’s first years. And I wince imagining their terror when, periodically, Jordanian snipers would shoot. The Jordanian army always reassured the UN that a soldier had gone crazy – again and again.

Scampering up Mount Zion, holy to us and our Christian brethren, I wonder what the fifty soldiers following Captain Eli Kedar thought while hustling along this alley on June 7, 1967. Did they remember the failure to free the besieged Jewish Quarter from this alley in 1948? Did they know the last Jew to leave the Jewish Quarter, headed to Jordanian prison for nine months, was a 15-year-old, Eli Kedar? Did they appreciate their commanders’ genius in mostly attacking from behind, via Lions Gate? Did they know Israel began the war two days earlier with only 71 troops in Jerusalem? Were they aware that, even while the Jordanians shelled Jerusalem, Israeli Prime Minster Levi Eshkol offered peace to Jordan’s King Hussein, making the war one of self-defense and any resulting territorial gains not an illegal occupation? Did they sense they were about to correct the historic mistake of the city’s division, returning the Holy Temple’s remnants to Jewish sovereignty after 2000 years? Did they appreciate their army’s sensitivity in deploying archaeologists to try preserving holy sites? Probably, most simply thought about going home – which 759 Israelis after six days never did.

Entering the Jewish quarter I again ponder the nineteen years preceding the Six Day War when Israel – living under Barack Obama’s 1967 borders – were banned from the Old City, although the UN never validated Jordanian control. Those, ahem, illegal occupiers trashed Jerusalem’s synagogues. Contrast that bitter past to the redemptive sights and sounds of kids playing and praying, the burger bars adjoining archaeological museums, the glorious dome of the Hurva synagogue, which means ruins: bombarded by Jordan in 1948; rebuilt and rededicated last year.

Crossing the Jewish Quarter, then the Arab market, seamlessly, safely, I exit through Jaffa Gate. Sixty-four years ago, on December 2, 1947, just days after the UN proposed partitioning Palestine on November 29, Arabs shouting “Death to the Jews!” looted the Jewish commercial center across the way, at the entrance to today’s David Village. This was the Palestinian response to the compromise the Jews accepted. Mahmoud Abbas’s recent New York Times column lied, claiming the Zionists rejected compromise, then “expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state,” when the Arab rejectionists chose violence – and continue to reject a Jewish state.

I also recall the first British census of Jerusalem in 1931, which noted population growth since 1922 by 20,107 Jews and 21,282 Arabs. If only both sides acknowledged that history flows, populations move, borders shift, we could compromise.

As I finish by sprinting along the newly-restored century-old train tracks, I toast the city’s dynamism. The 800,000 residents now include 268,000 Arabs. During these 44 years, as their population has grown by 200,000, many Arabs have appreciated Israeli rights and services. The number of Arab Jerusalemites granted Israeli citizenship quadrupled from 2006 to 2010.

In Six Days of War, Michael Oren quotes Arik Akhmon one of the first Israelis in 1967 to enter the Western Wall plaza, as bullets whizzed by. Although not religious, Akhmon recalled, “I don’t think there was a man who wasn’t overwhelmed with emotion. Something special had happened.”

Jerusalem is a real city which cannot “overwhelm” residents daily – life intrudes. But every day I note something “special” about the place, its history or mystery, its sights or smells, its old memories or new achievements. Today, Yom Yerushalayim, let’s honor its secret ingredient, the people it attracts, connected to Jerusalem’s lush past, enlivening the city during its complex yet compelling present, and shaping a safe, spiritually-rich, yet charmingly commonplace future keeping the city magical and livable.

Gil Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and a Shalom Hartman Research Fellow in Jerusalem. The author of “Why I Am A Zionist: Israel, Jewish Identity and the Challenges of Today,” his latest book is “The Reagan Revolution: A Very Short Introduction.” giltroy@gmail.com

Jogging Memories of 1947 and 1967 on Jerusalem Day

2011-05-31T10:51:00.000-07:00

JERUSALEM POST BLOG
Tuesday May 31, 2011

Obama Walking a Fine Line on Borders Issue

2011-05-31T09:51:00.000-07:00

By Robert Satloff
Jewish Journal, May 24, 2011

One week ago, on May 19, President Barack Obama delivered powerful remarks on democracy and reform in the Middle East. He not only raised these normally hortatory ideals to top-tier U.S. interests, but he put the dictator of America's most dangerous Arab antagonist -- Syria's Bashar Assad -- on personal notice that he may soon find himself joining the leaders of Egypt and Tunisia in forced retirement. All this was welcome news.

The last part of the president's remarks, however, took a different course. After critiquing Arab regimes that have used the Arab-Israeli conflict as a distraction from their own internal problems, he undermined the potency and effect of his own message by unveiling new -- and controversial -- principles guiding U.S. efforts to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Specifically, the principles he articulated constitute a major departure from long-standing U.S. policy. To argue that they are just a repackaging of previous statements does not hold up under scrutiny. The very fact that they were the subject of such intense internal debate before delivery and prompted such consternation from Israeli leaders afterward underscores that there was, indeed, something new in what the president said.

In his speech, Obama became the first sitting president to say that the final borders should be "based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps." (The Clinton Parameters -- which former President Bill Clinton presented to the two sides in December 2000 and then officially withdrew a month later, when they were not accepted -- did not mention the 1967 borders but did mention "swaps and other territorial arrangements.")

The Obama formulation concretizes a move away from four decades of U.S. policy based on U.N. Security Council resolution 242 of November 1967, which has always interpreted calls for an Israeli withdrawal to a "secure and recognized" border as not synonymous with the pre-1967 boundaries. The idea of land swaps, which may very well be a solution that the parties themselves choose to pursue, sounds very different when endorsed by the president of the United States. In effect, it means the official U.S. view is that resolution of the territorial aspect of the conflict can only be achieved if Israel cedes territory it held even before the 1967 war.

The president also said that the new Palestinian state should have borders with Egypt, Jordan and Israel, and referred to the "full and phased" withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces. This statement implies categorical American opposition to any open-ended Israeli presence inside the future "Palestine." This is also the first such statement by a U.S. president, and it differs significantly from the Clinton Parameters, which envisioned three Israeli "facilities" inside the West Bank, with no time limit on their presence.

The president's words also gave official endorsement to the idea that Israelis and Palestinians should first negotiate their territorial dispute and the security arrangements that would govern relations between the two states, leaving the subjects of refugees and Jerusalem for future negotiations. This is an odd reading of the relevance of those two latter issues. For Palestinians, the refugee issue may be powerfully emotive, going to the core of Palestinian identity; for Israelis, however, it is as much an issue of security as ideology. For the president not to repeat previous U.S. government statements -- e.g., that Palestinians will never see their right of return implemented through a return to Israel -- is to raise expectations and inject doubt into a settled topic.

Perhaps more than anything else, the most surprising aspect of the president's peace process statement was that it moved substantially toward the Palestinian position just days after the Palestinian Authority (PA) decided to seek unity with Hamas. Indeed, the president seemed nonplussed that Mahmoud Abbas, president of the PA, has opted to reconcile with Hamas, a group the United States views as a terrorist organization. Hamas-Fatah reconciliation "raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel," the president noted -- but evidently not questions so profound and troubling to the United States that they would impede a shift in U.S. policy that advantages the Palestinians.

Given the importance of these principles, it was odd that the president offered no implementation mechanism to translate these ideas into action. He named no high-level successor to Sen. George Mitchell, the just-resigned peace process envoy, nor announced any practical effort to get the parties back to the negotiating table. In essence, he launched his principles into the ether.

Despite this absence of an action mechanism, the likely next step is for Palestinians to take up the president's call, ask for renewal of negotiations on precisely the terms the president outlined -- borders that are "based on the 1967 lines with mutual swaps," with no reference to refugees or other issues on which the Palestinians would make major compromises -- and wait for Israel to say no.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly objected to the president's emphasis on the 1967 borders -- an unusual way to begin what was a tense White House visit. The two leaders may find a way to blur their differences over the principles outlined in Obama's May 19 speech, given their partnership on strategic issues and mutual interest in political cooperation and amity. But the specific territorial principles on Israeli-Palestinian peace enunciated by Obama have within them the seeds of deepening tension and perhaps even rift between the United States and Israel -- the very distraction from the focus on democratic reform the president said he wanted to avoid.

Robert Satloff is The Washington Institute's executive director and Howard P. Berkowitz chair in U.S. Middle East policy.

Canada takes strong pro-Israel line at G8 summit

2011-05-30T09:43:00.000-07:00

Fri May 27, 2011 7:06pm EDT

By Luke Baker and David Ljunggren

DEAUVILLE, France (Reuters) - Group of Eight leaders had to soften a statement urging Israel and the Palestinians to return to negotiations because Canada objected to a specific mention of 1967 borders, diplomats said Friday.

The government has adopted a staunchly pro-Israel position in international negotiations since coming to power in 2006, with Prime Minister Stephen Harper saying Canada will back Israel whatever the cost.

Diplomats involved in Middle East discussions at the G8 summit said Ottawa had insisted that no mention of Israel's pre-1967 borders be made in the leaders' final communique, even though most of the other leaders wanted such a reference.

The communique called for the immediate resumption of peace talks but did not mention 1967, the year Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza from Jordan and Egypt during the Six-Day War.

U.S. President Barack Obama last week laid out a vision for peace in the Middle East, saying pre-1967 borders should be a basis for talks to achieve a negotiated settlement. Israel quickly dismissed the idea as unworkable.

"The Canadians were really very adamant, even though Obama expressly referred to 1967 borders in his speech last week," one European diplomat said.

Harper, pressed repeatedly by reporters, declined to confirm he had objected to the language on borders but said he would oppose what he called unbalanced statements on finding peace in the Middle East.

"We are very much at ease with President Obama's speech but you cannot cherry pick elements of that speech," he said.

"If you're going to get into other elements then obviously I would have liked to see a reference to elements that were also in ... (the) speech, such as for instance the fact that one of the states must be a Jewish state, the fact that the Palestinian state must be demilitarized."

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman thanked Canada for taking a "brave stand" at the conference, his spokesman said in a statement.

It added that Lieberman had thanked his counterpart, John Bird, for Canada's understanding that "the 67 lines do not fit in with Israel's security requirements and the current demographic situation," a reference to Jewish settlements Israel has built in the occupied West Bank.

The G8 communique said: "Negotiations are the only way toward a comprehensive and lasting resolution to the conflict."

It added: "The framework for these negotiations is well known ... We express our strong support for the vision of Israeli-Palestinian peace outlined by President Obama."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Israel would be indefensible if it returned entirely to the borders that existed before 1967.

Canada's strong backing for Israel was cited by diplomats last year as one reason why Ottawa failed to win a rotating two-year seat on the United Nations Security Council.

In the wake of the vote, Harper said: "When Israel, the only country in the world whose very existence is under attack, is consistently and conspicuously singled out for condemnation, I believe we are morally obligated to take a stand."

(Reporting by Luke Baker, David Ljunggren and Yoko Kubota; Editing by Jon Boyle and Mark Trevelyan)

Gaza Border With Egypt Opens After Four Years Amid Israel Security Concern

2011-05-28T08:52:00.001-07:00

By Saud Abu Ramadan and Calev Ben-David
BLOOMBERG - May 28, 2011

Hundreds of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip entered Egypt as the border crossing was opened permanently for the first time in four years amid Israeli concerns that the move strengthens Hamas’s rule of the area.

About 300 Palestinians crossed into Egypt this morning, and “it was smooth and easy,” said a Hamas police officer at the crossing who gave his name only as Abu Osama. “If the situation remains as smooth as it was today, I don’t see any future problems.”

Egypt’s decision to scale back crossing restrictions for the Gaza Strip has been welcomed by the Hamas Islamic movement, which controls the Palestinian enclave, while raising concern in Israel that the wider border access poses a security threat.

For rest of article, click here.

Gaza Border With Egypt Opens After Four Years Amid Israel Security Concern

2011-05-28T08:52:00.000-07:00

By Saud Abu Ramadan and Calev Ben-David - May 28, 2011

Hundreds of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip entered Egypt as the border crossing was opened permanently for the first time in four years amid Israeli concerns that the move strengthens Hamas’s rule of the area.

About 300 Palestinians crossed into Egypt this morning, and “it was smooth and easy,” said a Hamas police officer at the crossing who gave his name only as Abu Osama. “If the situation remains as smooth as it was today, I don’t see any future problems.”

Egypt’s decision to scale back crossing restrictions for the Gaza Strip has been welcomed by the Hamas Islamic movement, which controls the Palestinian enclave, while raising concern in Israel that the wider border access poses a security threat.

NY Times' Ethan Bronner analyis of Netanyahu's trip

2011-05-27T13:58:00.000-07:00

It is interesting to note that Ethan Bronner's analysis appeared in print on May 26, 2011, on page A6 of the New York edition with the headline: In Israel, Premier’s U.S. Trip Dims Hopes for Advancing Peace Talks.

Then, the headline got changed to "Israel's See Netanyahu's trip as diplomatic failure.

For the article, click here.

I prefer the analysis of Herb Keinon in the Jerusalem Post in which he wrote, "...He knew that the speech, and its reception, would fill many of his countrymen – and Jews around the world – with pride, and would boost his popularity at home."

Ha'aretz + NY Times Editorials on this week's speeches

2011-05-27T13:53:00.000-07:00

May 25, 2011

Netanyahu wasted his chance to present a vision for peace

Netanyahu is leading Israel and the Palestinians into a new round of violence, along with Israel's isolation and deep disagreement with the American administration.

Haaretz Editorial

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had an outstanding opportunity yesterday to present a vision of a just and sustainable peace for Israel and the Palestinians. Millions watched his speech at the U.S. Congress with bated breath.

They anticipated a momentous address that would break the stalemate in the diplomatic discourse over a final peace agreement and lead to the end of the bloody conflict between the two peoples. Many hoped the new winds blowing in recent months in the Middle East would also sweep the prime minister along a new path.

In recent days, Netanyahu's associates have even given indications that the prime minister would present "new ideas and formulations." Instead, we were witness to the same old messages.

Netanyahu wasted the generous credit he got from his American hosts to cast accusations at the Palestinians and impose endless obstacles in connection with the core issues. Instead of accepting the principle that the border between Israel and the Palestinian state would be based on the 1967 lines, Netanyahu declared that the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers in Judea and Samaria.

He couched his readiness to make far-reaching concessions within endless conditions that have no relation to reality.

He demanded that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas forgo reconciliation with Hamas in advance. Netanyahu contended that six Israeli prime ministers tried to come to a final peace agreement with the Palestinians, but failed, purportedly because of the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people.

He ignored all the positions by two of his predecessors, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, on a fair division of Jerusalem, an agreed upon solution to the refugee problem and particularly on agreement on exchanges of territory that would leave a decisive majority of West Bank territory in the hands of the Palestinians.

The prime minister will return home from the United States without major developments to show for himself. He is leading Israel and the Palestinians into a new round of violence, along with Israel's isolation and deep disagreement with the American administration. The time has come for the large numbers of those in Israel who seek peace to be heard. Israel deserves a different leader.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

May 26, 2011

The Mideast Peace Process: No Plan for Talks

NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL

This is the time for bold ideas to salvage Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel did not seize it. In his address to Congress, he showed — once again — that he has no serious appetite for the kind of compromises that are the only way to forge a two-state solution and guarantee both Palestinians their long-denied state and Israel’s long-term security.

President Obama showed more rhetorical initiative when he spoke, but he doesn’t appear to have a strategy for reviving negotiations. Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, is refusing to come back to the table and is apparently betting his people’s future on a misguided deal with Hamas and symbolic gestures.

This is more than just a wasted opportunity. Continued stalemate feeds extremism. And there is a deadline looming: Absent negotiations, Palestinians plan to ask the United Nations in September to recognize their state. The measure won’t get them what they want, and the United States will veto it when it gets to the Security Council. But the exercise will further isolate Israel and Washington.

President Obama vowed to revive the peace process but checked out when Mr. Netanyahu rejected his demand for a settlement freeze and Mr. Abbas refused to negotiate without it. Mr. Obama got back in the game last week. In a speech on the Arab Spring, he goaded allies, including Israel, to take political risks for peaceful change.

What drew the most attention was his call for negotiations on a Palestinian state based on Israel’s pre-1967 borders — with mutually agreed land swaps. The idea has been the basis of all negotiations for more than a decade, including those backed by President George W. Bush.

Mr. Netanyahu immediately insisted that Israel would never return to the “indefensible” pre-1967 boundaries. Playing to his conservative base at home, and on Capitol Hill, he ignored the second half of Mr. Obama’s statement about “mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

Pretty much everyone but the hardest liners — on both sides — assumes that in a peace deal Israel will retain many of its West Bank settlements and compensate Palestinians with other land. On Monday, Mr. Netanyahu acknowledged as much, saying that “in any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders.”

His aides had raised hopes that Mr. Netanyahu would offer new ideas to revive talks, but there was really nothing new there. He insisted that Jerusalem “will never again be divided” and Israel’s Army would remain along the Jordan River. And while he basked in Congress’s standing ovations, Ethan Bronner reported in The Times that in Israel the trip was judged a diplomatic failure. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz said Mr. Netanyahu’s “same old messages” proved the country “deserves a different leader.” Palestinians dismissed the visit and said they would focus on nonviolent protests leading to September.

So what happens now? More drift and recriminations, unless Mr. Obama comes up with a plan to get the parties into serious talks. We see no hint that he is working toward one. We are told that he has no immediate plans to appoint a new envoy to replace George Mitchell, who resigned, or to send Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to the region. Negotiations will become even harder once the unity government with Hamas is formed and it gets closer to September. Time is running out.

Netanyahu, the King of Israel Public Relations

2011-05-24T19:04:00.000-07:00

From the algemeiner
May 24, 2011 8:53 pm

No matter how anyone who supports the Israel feels, there’s no question that Prime Minister Netanyahu is an amazing spokesperson for the Jewish State. Watching his address today to the Joint Members of Congress was inspiring and chilling.

Whilst I, and many others may not agree with every word, he included many wise statements which should be heard and absorbed around the world:

1. “Of 300 million Arabs in the Arab world, the only ones who are truly free and live in a democratic country are the Arabs who live in Israel. Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East, Israel is what is right about the Middle East.”

My 2 cents: Why doesn’t the world act for gay rights, feminism rights, and non torture amongst other things throughout the Arab world ? Where’s Obama’s outrage on these issues ?

2. “America must never permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons.” “Jerusalem must remain under Israel’s sovereignty to ensure all religions can continue to pray in Jerusalem.”

Classic Netanyahu – Tie America and Israel together. One wonders how many churches and other religions function freely in the Muslim world ? Why doesn’t Obama and other seekers of peace speak out about these vital issues ?

3. “In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish People are not foreign occupiers. There should be no distortion of history between the Jewish people and the Jewish land.”

He spoke of biblical messages. Inspiring (and beautiful to see pictures come out on facebook of a meal where he and his advisors wore yarmulkes. Proud Jews.)

As Netanyahu said, “when we say never again, we mean never again. We rose from the generation of the Holocaust.” Citizens of the world, and this grandson of Holocaust survivors, and son of a woman born in a DP camp must never forget to remember those words.

Prime Minister Netanyahu deserves the thanks of the Jewish people, for speaking so clearly in front of the joint members of congress. Let us all pray, and act to support him and the Jewish state. Benjamin Netanyahu – thank you for speaking truth to power.

Ronn Torossian is CEO of 5WPR, 1 of the 25 largest Public Relations Agencies in the US.

Obama's speech

2011-05-20T05:15:00.000-07:00

President Obama delivered a speech on May 19 entitled "Remarks by the President on the Middle East and North Africa."

While he began by summarizing the Arab revolt of the past five months, he ended with remarks about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Here's the excerpt. Notice (bold, red) that Israel must act boldly but not the Hamas and Fatah.

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it’s important that we tell the truth: The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people -– not just one or two leaders -- must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them -- not by the United States; not by anybody else. But endless delay won’t make the problem go away. What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows -- a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

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

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself -– by itself -– against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Now, let me say this: Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.

I recognize how hard this will be. Suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I’m convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past. We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones. That father said, “I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict.” We see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. “I have the right to feel angry,” he said. “So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate. Let us hope,” he said, “for tomorrow.”

That is the choice that must be made -– not simply in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but across the entire region -– a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past and the promise of the future. It’s a choice that must be made by leaders and by the people, and it’s a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife.

For all the challenges that lie ahead, we see many reasons to be hopeful. In Egypt, we see it in the efforts of young people who led protests. In Syria, we see it in the courage of those who brave bullets while chanting, “peaceful, peaceful.” In Benghazi, a city threatened with destruction, we see it in the courthouse square where people gather to celebrate the freedoms that they had never known. Across the region, those rights that we take for granted are being claimed with joy by those who are prying loose the grip of an iron fist.

For the American people, the scenes of upheaval in the region may be unsettling, but the forces driving it are not unfamiliar. Our own nation was founded through a rebellion against an empire. Our people fought a painful Civil War that extended freedom and dignity to those who were enslaved. And I would not be standing here today unless past generations turned to the moral force of nonviolence as a way to perfect our union –- organizing, marching, protesting peacefully together to make real those words that declared our nation: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

Those words must guide our response to the change that is transforming the Middle East and North Africa -– words which tell us that repression will fail, and that tyrants will fall, and that every man and woman is endowed with certain inalienable rights.

It will not be easy. There’s no straight line to progress, and hardship always accompanies a season of hope. But the United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves. And now we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just.

Netanyahu's Speech

2011-05-18T07:20:00.000-07:00

-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Cohen <jcohen2@bezeqint.net>
To: Jack Cohen <cohen.jack@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wed, May 18, 2011 12:11 am
Subject: Netanyahu's speech

PM Netanyahu is scheduled to visit Washington this week and give an important speech next Monday at a joint session of the Houses of Congress. Before he leaves he spoke yesterday to the Israeli people and gave an outline of his diplomatic policies in a speech in the Knesset. Perhaps another reason why he wanted to give this speech is also to set his guidelines before Pres. Obama gives his own speech on Thurs addressing issues in the Middle East. Although Obama's speech is supposed to focus on the current uprisings in the Arab world, he is also intending to address the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Perhaps Obama's speech is designed to preempt Netanyahu's address to Congress, so Netanyahu got in first.

Netanyahu presented six points that he said were critical to any future agreement with the Palestinians:

The Palestinians must recognise that Israel is the national homeland of the Jewish people
Any agreement must end the conflict and all claims against the State of Israel
The problem of the Palestinian "refugees" must be resolved outside Israel's borders
Any Palestinian State must be demilitarized and not endanger Israel's security
Israel will retain the major settlement blocs, but may be prepared to give up settlements not in blocs
Jerusalem will remain the united, sovereign capital of Israel

Some have criticized Israel for not having its own "plan." Well here it is. It builds on the prior commitment of Netanyahu to accept a two-state solution with peace and security for all.

Not surprisingly these proposals were immediately rejected by Pres. Abbas of the PA in Ramallah and by some of the more right-wing hawks in the Knesset, including some in Likud. But, even Kadima Head Tzipi Livni, leader of the opposition, criticized some aspects of Netanyahu's proposals, so he can't be all wrong. At least he has laid down the gauntlet before Obama gives his speech on Thurs. However, all this is hypothetical if the Palestinians are led by a unified government that includes the terrorist Hamas and if they choose to take a unilateral approach by asking the UN to recognise a Palestinian State. Even Pres. Obama agrees that only a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians can lead to a two-state solution that satisfies the needs of both sides.

While many may consider Netanyahu's proposals as a basis for negotiations with the Palestinians, everyone knows that once Hamas joins any Palestinian Government, all bets are off. Israel cannot and will not pretend to negotiate with any organization that rejects its right to exist. Fatah and the PLO have supposedly recognized Israel, but Hamas has not and will not. Abbas said that Israel is "not a partner for peace," which of course reverses the actual political reality, as the Palestinians often do. Netanyahu criticized Palestinian leadership, calling them short-sighted and unwilling to compromise.

Whether or not a Palestinian State will be voted on at the UN in September, and whether or not there are further civil disobedience demonstrations like those on Nakba Day, Netanyahu has set a course and hopefully will stick with it. He may be hoping and praying, like Ben Gurion did in 1948, that the Arabs will always reject any compromise offered to them. If they do and they take unilateral action, then it is likely that Netanyahu will follow up his speeches with the unilateral annexation of the large Jewish settlement blocs in Judah and Shomron. Then the situation of the Palestine problem will be changed forever.

There’s that double standard again

2011-05-05T13:57:00.000-07:00

from JERUSALEM POST 04/05/2011

By A. DERSHOWITZ

The targeted killing of Osama bin Laden is being applauded all over the world, and rightly so.


The decision to target and kill Osama bin Laden is being applauded by all decent people. Approval to capture or kill this mass-murdering terrorist leader was given by presidents Obama and Bush. It was the right decision, morally and legally. Although bin Laden wore no military uniform and held no official military rank, he was an appropriate military target. As the titular and spiritual head of al-Qaida, he was the functional equivalent of a head of state or commander in chief of a terrorist army. From the beginning of recorded history, killing the king has been a legitimate goal of military action. The phrase “checkmate” means “the king is dead,” signifying the successful end of a battle. Yet there are those who claim that all targeted killings are immoral and illegal. These critics characterize such actions as “extrajudicial executions,” and demand that terrorist leaders and functionaries be treated as common criminals, who must be arrested and brought to trial. The operation that resulted in bin Laden’s death was a military action calculated to kill rather than “arrest” him. It is possible, though highly unlikely, that he could have been captured alive and brought to trial. The decision to employ military personnel with guns, rather than a drone firing rockets, was probably made by generals rather than lawyers. Had it been militarily preferable to fire a rocket, that option would almost certainly have been selected – as it was by the NATO forces that rocketed Gaddafi’s compound. A rocket attack would have been a pure targeted killing, with no possibility of live capture. The operation directed against Bin Laden may have been designed, in part, to have preserved the theoretical option of arrest, though a live capture was virtually impossible under the circumstances. Indeed, it is likely that bin Laden’s death was deemed preferential to his capture and trial, because the latter would have likely resulted in al-Qaida taking hostages and trying to exchange them for bin Laden. Indeed, a US national security official has confirmed to Reuters that “this was a kill operation,” and there was no desire to capture bin Laden alive. This was a targeted kill, appropriate for a military combatant, but not for an ordinary (or even an extraordinary) criminal. Nonetheless, the government felt it necessary to announce that bin Laden was shot after he resisted, thus suggesting he was not killed in cold blood. But it’s clear that he would have been killed whether or not he resisted, since this was a kill operation from the outset, and it is unlikely he was ever given the opportunity to surrender – an opportunity not required under the rules of war. ACCORDINGLY, THOSE who oppose the very concept of targeted killings should be railing against the killing of Osama bin Laden. Among others, these critics include officials in Britain, France, Italy, Russia, the EU, Jordan and the United Nations. A former British Foreign Secretary once said: “The British government has made it repeatedly clear that so-called targeted assassinations of this kind are unlawful, unjustified and counterproductive.” The French foreign ministry has declared that “extrajudicial executions contravene international law, and are unacceptable.” The Italian foreign minister has said: “Italy, like the whole of the European Union, has always condemned the practice of targeted assassinations.” The Russians have asserted that “Russia has repeatedly stressed the unacceptability of extrajudicial settling of scores and ‘targeted killings.’” Javier Solana has noted that the “European Union has consistently condemned extrajudicial killings.” The Jordanians have said that Jordan has always denounced this policy of assassination, and its position on this has always been clear. And Kofi Annan has declared that “extrajudicial killings are violations of international law.” Yet none of these nations, groups or individuals have criticized the targeted killing of Osama bin Laden by the US! The reason is obvious. All the condemnations against targeted killing were directed at one country. Israel, of course. Israel developed the concept of targeted killings, and used it effectively against the “Osama bin Ladens” of Hamas, who directed terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, killing and wounding far more Israelis (as a percentage of Israel’s population) than the number of Americans killed by bin Laden. It was when Israel managed to kill the head of Hamas that the international community, with the striking exception of the United States, decided that targeted killing was illegal and immoral. But now that it has been used against an enemy of Britain, France, Italy and other European nations, suddenly targeted killing is not only legal and moral, it is praiseworthy (except, of course, to Hamas, which immediately condemned the US killing of bin Laden). Well, the truth is that when used properly, targeted killing has always been deserving of approval – even when employed by Israel, a nation against which a double standard always seems to be applied. Indeed the use of targeted killings by Israel has been closely regulated by its Supreme Court, and permitted only against terrorists who are actively engaged in ongoing acts of terrorism. In the United States, on the other hand, every decision to use this tactic is made by the president alone, without any form of judicial review. So let the world stop applying a double standard to Israel, and let it start judging the merits and demerits of military tactics such as targeted killing. On balance, targeted killing, when used prudently against proper military targets, can be an effective, lawful, and moral tool in the war against terrorism. The writer’s latest novel is The Trials of Zion. This article is also available on our website’s Premium Zone.

The decision to target and kill Osama bin Laden is being applauded by all decent people. Approval to capture or kill this mass-murdering terrorist leader was given by presidents Obama and Bush. It was the right decision, morally and legally.

Although bin Laden wore no military uniform and held no official military rank, he was an appropriate military target. As the titular and spiritual head of al-Qaida, he was the functional equivalent of a head of state or commander in chief of a terrorist army. From the beginning of recorded history, killing the king has been a legitimate goal of military action. The phrase “checkmate” means “the king is dead,” signifying the successful end of a battle.

Yet there are those who claim that all targeted killings are immoral and illegal. These critics characterize such actions as “extrajudicial executions,” and demand that terrorist leaders and functionaries be treated as common criminals, who must be arrested and brought to trial.

The operation that resulted in bin Laden’s death was a military action calculated to kill rather than “arrest” him. It is possible, though highly unlikely, that he could have been captured alive and brought to trial. The decision to employ military personnel with guns, rather than a drone firing rockets, was probably made by generals rather than lawyers.

Had it been militarily preferable to fire a rocket, that option would almost certainly have been selected – as it was by the NATO forces that rocketed Gaddafi’s compound. A rocket attack would have been a pure targeted killing, with no possibility of live capture. The operation directed against Bin Laden may have been designed, in part, to have preserved the theoretical option of arrest, though a live capture was virtually impossible under the circumstances. Indeed, it is likely that bin Laden’s death was deemed preferential to his capture and trial, because the latter would have likely resulted in al-Qaida taking hostages and trying to exchange them for bin Laden.

Indeed, a US national security official has confirmed to Reuters that “this was a kill operation,” and there was no desire to capture bin Laden alive. This was a targeted kill, appropriate for a military combatant, but not for an ordinary (or even an extraordinary) criminal.

Nonetheless, the government felt it necessary to announce that bin Laden was shot after he resisted, thus suggesting he was not killed in cold blood. But it’s clear that he would have been killed whether or not he resisted, since this was a kill operation from the outset, and it is unlikely he was ever given the opportunity to surrender – an opportunity not required under the rules of war.

ACCORDINGLY, THOSE who oppose the very concept of targeted killings should be railing against the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Among others, these critics include officials in Britain, France, Italy, Russia, the EU, Jordan and the United Nations. A former British Foreign Secretary once said: “The British government has made it repeatedly clear that so-called targeted assassinations of this kind are unlawful, unjustified and counterproductive.” The French foreign ministry has declared that “extrajudicial executions contravene international law, and are unacceptable.”

The Italian foreign minister has said: “Italy, like the whole of the European Union, has always condemned the practice of targeted assassinations.”

The Russians have asserted that “Russia has repeatedly stressed the unacceptability of extrajudicial settling of scores and ‘targeted killings.’” Javier Solana has noted that the “European Union has consistently condemned extrajudicial killings.”

The Jordanians have said that Jordan has always denounced this policy of assassination, and its position on this has always been clear.

And Kofi Annan has declared that “extrajudicial killings are violations of international law.”

Yet none of these nations, groups or individuals have criticized the targeted killing of Osama bin Laden by the US! The reason is obvious. All the condemnations against targeted killing were directed at one country. Israel, of course.

Israel developed the concept of targeted killings, and used it effectively against the “Osama bin Ladens” of Hamas, who directed terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, killing and wounding far more Israelis (as a percentage of Israel’s population) than the number of Americans killed by bin Laden. It was when Israel managed to kill the head of Hamas that the international community, with the striking exception of the United States, decided that targeted killing was illegal and immoral.

But now that it has been used against an enemy of Britain, France, Italy and other European nations, suddenly targeted killing is not only legal and moral, it is praiseworthy (except, of course, to Hamas, which immediately condemned the US killing of bin Laden).

Well, the truth is that when used properly, targeted killing has always been deserving of approval – even when employed by Israel, a nation against which a double standard always seems to be applied.

Indeed the use of targeted killings by Israel has been closely regulated by its Supreme Court, and permitted only against terrorists who are actively engaged in ongoing acts of terrorism. In the United States, on the other hand, every decision to use this tactic is made by the president alone, without any form of judicial review.

So let the world stop applying a double standard to Israel, and let it start judging the merits and demerits of military tactics such as targeted killing. On balance, targeted killing, when used prudently against proper military targets, can be an effective, lawful, and moral tool in the war against terrorism.

The writer’s latest novel is The Trials of Zion. This article is also available on our website’s Premium Zone.

5 Myths of Palestinian Unity

2011-04-28T12:26:00.000-07:00

Honest Reporting had another insightful article. An excerpt follows:

Here are a five media myths to beware.

Myth: Hamas is pragmatic about peace.

Fact: Hamas still wants to destroy Israel. It has always defied calls to renounce violence, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and honor past negotiating agreements. The Hamas charter remains unchanged.

Myth: Ruling Gaza has moderated Hamas.

Fact: Quite the opposite. Hamas is emboldened, imposing Islamic law, smuggling sophisticated weapons, and watching the Muslim Brotherhood’s gains in Egypt. No goodwill gestures for Gilad Shalit from a new and improved PA are on the horizon. Need I go on?

Myth: Palestinian unity paves the way for UN recognition of Palestinian statehood.

Fact: It remains to be seen how durable this unity will really be. The two sides will bury their squabbles till September, but all bets are off afterwards. Remember, Hamas and Fatah already reconciled in 2007, only to see Hamas take over Gaza as Fatah supporters like Mohammed Sweirki ?were literally thrown off the rooftops. And both sides have other calculations. Fatah lost its biggest patron, Hosni Mubarak, while Hamas faces losing Bashar Assad. Now, they need each other, for better or for worse.

Myth: Abbas is displaying real statesmanship.

Fact: Salam Fayyad’s state-building efforts were the PA’s main source of credibility in the West. The closer we get to September, the more the PA needs to tout Fayyad’s program. Instead, Abbas is throwing Fayyadism under the bus. That’s stupidity, not statesmanship.

Myth: Israel must prove its willingness to make peace by negotiating with a unified Palestinian government.

Fact: What’s to negotiate when the other side wants to destroy you?

Palestinian reconciliation could work to Israel's advantage

2011-04-28T05:14:00.000-07:00

Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel believe Netanyahu will be able to use the newly signed unity deal as proof that Abbas doesn't really want peace.

By Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel

Fatah and Hamas announced in Cairo on Wednesday that they had agreed to a reconciliation agreement, ending four years of feuding between the Palestinian factions. The historic deal was greeted cooly in Jerusalem.

In an about-face, Hamas said that it would sign the agreement, which was drafted by the Egyptians and signed by Fatah in October 2009.

The agreement calls for a setting up a caretaker government of technocrats, and for holding presidential, parliamentary and National Palestinian Council elections within a year.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced the move, attacking the Palestinian Authority for its willingness to reconcile with Hamas, which "aspires to the destruction of Israel." The reconciliation was a sign of weakness, he said.

Hamas had refused to sign despite repeated pleas by Egypt, in part because of apparent pressure from its two main patrons, Syria and Iran. The fall of Egypt's Mubarak regime two months ago may have pushed Hamas to change its stance.

The representatives of the two movements, Fatah's Azam Al-Ahmed and the deputy head of Hamas' Damascus political bureau, Mousa Abu Marzouk, met in Cairo at the invitation of the new Egyptian intelligence chief, Mourad Mouafi, and foreign minister Nabil Al-Arabi.

Next week, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas politbureau head Khaled Meshal will meet to sign the final agreement, they said. Senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar, who also took part in the meeting yesterday, said that several clauses in the 2009 deal had been changed, which enabled Hamas to sign.

The parties also reached an agreement regarding who would sit on the central elections committee, and on a 12-judge committee to oversee the elections, al-Zahar said on Wednesday. A joint Hamas-Fatah defense committee will oversee the Palestinian security forces. The caretaker government will be composed of technocrats without party affiliation, to be chosen jointly by both parties.

The agreement raised surprise in Israel: While there had been intelligence about the move, Israeli sources had not expected the Palestinians to reconcile so soon.

It is not clear whether the process will go through, as several earlier agreements have collapsed.

Netanyahu on Wednesday called on the PA to choose between Hamas and Israel.

"You can't have peace with Hamas and with Israel," Netanyahu said.

Despite the harsh response, the reconciliation may well work to Israel's advantage. Israel has been struggling internationally, as more than 100 nations prepare to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state in the UN in September. Renewed relations between Hamas and Fatah, however limited, could shed a different light on Abbas' intentions, and Netanyahu, who is due to speak before both houses of Congress next month, will be able to present the agreement as proof that Abbas doesn't really want peace.

If the reconciliation does indeed go through, Israel's immediate concern would be the future of security coordination with the PA. A Hamas foothold, however limited, would mean that Israel could not share intelligence with the PA.

Between the Hamas election victory in January 2006 and the Hamas coup in Gaza in mid-2007, Israel had been engaged in complex maneuvers to produce at least the appearance of completely excluding Hamas from any security arrangements.

If the reconciliation is accompanied by a mass release of Hamas prisoners from West Bank prisons, this would further increase the risk of terror attacks.

However, if Hamas is participating in a unity government, even if through technocrats, this would minimize the group's desire to renew the conflict on the Gaza front, which could help maintain calm there.

In the most optimistic scenario, the reconciliation may even improve the chances of a deal to return captive soldier Gilad Shalit. Hamas' military wing, which is holding Shalit captive, has presented very tough stances in its negotiations with Israel.

Reducing tension with Fatah and the daily friction with the Israel Defense Forces could create a more positive atmosphere for negotiations, and the PA may also scale back its opposition to a prisoner exchange. Until now, the PA has objected because it would be a massive coup for Hamas.

Both parties appear increasingly interested in implementing a deal, but many of the details remain unclear. One key detail is who the ministers will be, and more important still, who will lead it and what will happen to the incumbent prime ministers - Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas and Salam Fayyad of the PA.

The last question is particularly troubling for the PA, which has won much of the improvement in its international standing thanks to Fayyad's work. However, the personal grudge that many in both Hamas and Fatah hold against Fayyad may mean he will be the first to pay the price of unity. The agreement also does not detail how each party's security forces will be reformed, which in turn may influence international funding - the U.S. Congress in particular is unlikely to enthusiastically give hundreds of millions of dollars that may end up in the hands of Hamas in less than a year, should it win the elections.

Black student leaders slam 'apartheid' characterization

2011-04-11T09:26:00.000-07:00

By JORDANA HORN, JPOST CORRESPONDENT
04/09/2011 10:09

Letter says "decency, justice and hope compel us to demand immediate cessation to deliberate misappropriation of words."

NEW YORK – African-American student leaders from a variety of historically black colleges and universities took out full page ads in numerous American college newspapers Thursday, displaying an “Open Letter to Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP),” to convey that they were offended by SJP’s use of the term “apartheid” at recent Israel Apartheid Week events at campuses across the country.

The 16 signatories to the letter are students and alumni from historically black colleges and universities who are members of the Vanguard Leadership Group, a leadership development academy and honor society for top students. The letter ran or is slated to run in student newspapers at Brown University, University of California- Los Angeles, University of Maryland and Columbia University over the next few days.
“The Students for Justice in Palestine’s labeling of Israel, an extremely diverse and vibrant country, as an apartheid state is not only false, but offensive,” Vanguard President Michael Hayes told The Jerusalem Post. “Additionally, this rhetoric does absolutely nothing to help Israel-Palestine negotiations or relations. We feel this type of action serves to hinder the peace process domestically and abroad, and have made it our priority to take a stand to shift the tide of understanding.”

In a statement released by the Vanguard Leadership Group as to why they authored the open letter to SJP, Vanguard described itself as “proudly involved in the pro-Israel movement in America.

“The use of the word ‘apartheid’ by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) in its characterization of Israel is patently false and deeply offensive to all who feel a connection to the state of Israel,” the letter reads. “Your organization’s campaign against Israel is spreading misinformation about its policies, fostering bias in the media and jeopardizing prospects for a timely resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Such irresponsibility is a blemish on your efforts.”

The letter continues to state that “[p]laying the ‘apartheid card’ is a calculated attempt to conjure up images associated with the racist South African regimes of the 20th century,” and calls the strategy “as transparent as it is base.”

“Beyond that, it is highly objectionable to those who know the truth about the Israelis’ record on human rights and how it so clearly contrasts with South Africa’s,” the letter reads, noting that under apartheid, black South Africans had no rights in a country in which they were the majority of the population.

Saying that the analogy manipulates rather than informs, the letter requests SJP to “immediately stop referring to Israel as an apartheid society and to acknowledge that the Arab minority in Israel enjoys full citizenship with voting rights and representation in the government.”

“Decency, justice, and the hope of peace and reconciliation in the Middle East compel us to demand an immediate cessation to the deliberate misappropriation of words and of the flagrant mischaracterizations of Israel,” the letter concludes. “Your compliance with this request will be viewed as a responsible and appropriate first step toward raising the level of discourse.”

Militants Put Gazans in Danger, Group Says

2011-04-10T17:00:00.000-07:00

March 30, 2011

By FARES AKRAM and ETHAN BRONNER

GAZA — A Palestinian human rights group in Gaza took the unusual step this week of condemning the building and storage of anti-Israel rockets in densely populated areas, a practice that has led to injuries and deaths of civilians.

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights said that it had investigated recent rocket explosions and found that locally produced projectiles had fallen on homes in Gaza or exploded in factories where they were made or stored. Shrapnel severely wounded several people, including a 22-year-old woman and her 7-month-old baby.

It called on the Hamas government, which controls Gaza, to investigate “and take measures to protect Palestinians and their property.” It added that “members of the Palestinian resistance continue to store explosives or to treat such explosives in locations close to populated areas.”

“This poses a major threat to the lives of the Palestinian civilians,” it said.

Israel has long accused Hamas and other groups of endangering Palestinian civilians by carrying out militant activities in densely populated areas.

Hamdi Shaqura of the rights center said conducting such investigations was risky in Gaza. Militant groups generally deny responsibility. He noted that the Hamas Interior Ministry Web site blamed Israel for the landing of what were locally produced rockets on Palestinian targets.

On Wednesday, a Palestinian militant was killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza, days after armed groups here announced a commitment to an unofficial cease-fire with Israel.

A rocket fired from a drone hit two militants on a motorbike in the southern city of Rafah, wounding them both, and one later died in the Rafah hospital, doctors there said. The two were members of Islamic Jihad’s armed wing, which has fired dozens of mortar shells and missiles at Israel recently. The Israeli military said they were part of a squad that launched rockets at southern Israel a day earlier.

Also Wednesday, Hamas police officers broke up a small demonstration by youths calling for an end to the split between Gaza and the West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority holds sway. Recent efforts by the authority to reconcile with Hamas have so far led nowhere.

Fares Akram reported from Gaza, and Ethan Bronner from Jerusalem.

UVM won't divest over Palestinian issue

2011-04-06T06:38:00.000-07:00

Written by Tim Johnson, Burlington Press Staff Writer

The latest divestment proposal at the University of Vermont — that UVM withdraw endowment funds from companies doing business in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories — is apparently dead.The university’s Socially Responsible Investing Work Group has decided to take no position on the proposal. The group is a composite committee charged with screening all divestment proposals for the board of trustees, which has final authority over the endowment.

That means that the trustees’ Investment Subcommittee — the next step in the approval process — is unlikely to take the matter up, effectively ruling out any action by the full board. No other American university is known to have implemented such a proposal.

Read rest of article here.

Israel urges U.N. to cancel Gaza war crimes report

2011-04-03T05:32:00.000-07:00

updated 4/2/2011

JERUSALEM — Israel Saturday called on the U.N. to cancel a report which said it had committed war crimes during its December 2008-January 2009 Gaza offensive, after its author said he may have been wrong.

South African jurist Richard Goldstone chaired a fact finding mission which in a 2009 report to the UN Human Rights Council said both Israel and the Islamist group Hamas, which controls Gaza, were guilty of war crimes in the conflict.

Goldstone wrote in a Washington Post column published on Friday: "If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document."

Israel’s Public Relations Problem

2011-03-31T20:24:00.000-07:00

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

March 31, 2011 - by Joseph Puder

This September 2011, when the United Nations General Assembly meetings open in New York, the Palestinians, led by Mahmoud Abbas, will receive overwhelming international support for recognition of a Palestinian state. The Palestinians have galvanized worldwide support by strategically organizing a targeted public relations campaign.

Recognition of a 23^rd Arab state will mark the greatest public relations failure the Israeli government has ever experienced. Israel has categorically failed to convey a simple message: a contiguous Palestinian state will, in no uncertain terms, become a terrorist state, destabilizing both Israel (with over 1 million Israeli Arabs) and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, where approximately 70% of its people are easily radicalized Palestinians.

Citizens of a separate Palestinian state, without any semblance of an economic infrastructure, any sea access (unless Gaza is incorporated), or any natural resources, would become like the Bedouin, whose livelihood has traditionally come from raiding neighboring tribes. Only, instead of tribes, “independent” Palestine would attack the neighboring states of Israel and Jordan.

The state of Israel has failed miserably in winning over the English-speaking world, as well as the French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, and Russians, by ignoring the need for an essential media tool — a satellite television channel with an ability to broadcast worldwide news reports and interviews, similar to Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya, or the BBC. Even Hezbollah had the foresight to set up a satellite operation, Al-Manar, influencing viewers across Europe and the Middle East. Since Israel is not on the world communications map, it is neither on the geographic map. Israel has foolishly depended on outlets such as CNN and the BBC to bring its side of the story to English speaking households. Its image has been severely damaged as a result, leading to a worldwide willingness to participate in a concerted effort to delegitimize the state through a so-called “BDS” campaign of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions.

Israel controls much of the ground the Palestinians hope to have for their state, and while the IDF is more than capable of circumventing the operations of a Palestinian state, the international community would not permit that to happen. Unless Israel is prepared to be isolated politically and perhaps economically as well, a Palestinian state would possess full sovereign rights. That would mean that the two principal conditions Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu set in his Bar Ilan address in 2009 for supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state next to Israel — recognition of the latter as a Jewish state and demilitarization of the former — would amount to a pipe dream.

All Palestinian leaders, including the current chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and (disputed) president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, have refused to state their recognition of Israel as the Jewish state. They have argued that doing so would undermine the lives of their Arab-Muslim brethren who reside in Israel, and that recognition would also prevent the “right of return” of Palestinian-Arabs to Israel — a sure way to undermine the Jewish nature of Israel. Not publicly mentioned is the fact that deals made with the “Zionist entity” could be the last deals Arab Muslims make. And, of course, statehood for the Palestinians, if recognized at the UN and sanctioned worldwide, would put the lives of more than 300,000 Israelis at great risk.

Palestinian leaders have been silent on the issue of demilitarization of the Palestinian state. Obviously, there are no demilitarized states, especially in the Middle East. (Netanyahu is fully aware of this, as is the Obama administration.)
Last week’s Israeli naval action served as a reminder of the fallacy of demilitarization. An Iranian civilian vessel laden with advanced weaponry was intercepted as it made its way from Iran through Syria and Turkey to Egypt. Its ultimate aim: Hamas-led Gaza. For each ship intercepted by Israel (and Egypt, which has aided in interception but may, in the future, become a supplier of weapons to Gaza and the Palestinian Authority), there is an Iranian shipment that gets through. And, should a Palestinian state become a reality, there would be no way for Israel to legally intercept shipments of weapons from neighboring states and beyond, arriving either by sea or by air.

An armed Palestinian state would be an unequivocal strategic threat to the state of Israel. It would threaten major Israeli population centers, its international airport (Ben Gurion), and its power stations — all of which are within range of artillery fire, not to mention the sophisticated missiles the new state would rush to acquire.

And so, it is tragically uncanny that a technologically sophisticated Israel has neglected to mount a robust public relations campaign through a worldwide satellite TV channel station. Such neglect represents gross negligence on the part of the successive Israeli governments. Israel has the facilities: TV studios, qualified broadcasters, and technical personnel who know how to create and operate a satellite TV. And Israel enjoys the money to bankroll such an operation. What it lacks is the will to take action. Israel’s well-being depends on arming itself with a global communications weapon like Al-Jazeera.

An Israeli, pro-Zionist, Al-Jazeera-like channel would help Israel overcome the biased reporting of European and most American channels, and would reach households in Europe as well as the U.S. with a clear and undiluted message as to the dangers a Palestinian state would pose to Israel, Jordan, and the region.

Utilizing satellite technology would allow Israel’s 7 million people to match the Arab/Muslim world propaganda, even with its vast resources and 350 million people. As Israel is being savaged and delegitimized in the media, on campus, and in international institutions, Israel must fight back — not with government press releases, speeches, conferences, or meetings with world leaders, but by bringing its message to ordinary citizens worldwide.

Joseph Puder, a freelance journalist, is the founder and executive director of the Interfaith Taskforce for America and Israel (ITAI).

- Pajamas Media - http://pajamasmedia.com

Settlement on the West Bank?

2011-03-23T09:40:00.000-07:00

Question:

I have no wish to be controversial but the subject is very serious. It seems to a lot of people around the world, including loyal supporters of Israel, that Israeli settlement in the west bank is perhaps the greatest danger to Israel imaginable. Is there no feeling in Israel that this matter, in all its forms, legal and illegal, is and will be seen as beyond reason in this day and age?

It did seem to be strange that after the terrible murders of the family in Israel that Israel’s answer was to authorise more building in the West Bank. It also seemed strange to me that the settlement where these horrible murders took place was an isolated town in the heart of PA territory.

Why would anyone want a settlement there? Do not misunderstand me. I am just terribly curious as to why things are as they are.

Jack Cohen Answers:

In order to answer your question adequately I must provide some background. Unfortunately, delving into the past tends to put off those who think that all the settlers are Orthodox and base themselves on the Bible. I am not Orthodox, far from it, and I do not support the settler's position based on the Bible per se. But, let me say up front, that Israel has a perfectly legal claim on the territories called "The West Bank" and the legal situation is that until a negotiated agreement is reached between Israel and the Palestinians, Jews have a legal right to build and settle there. To believe otherwise is to accept Arab propaganda.

1. One should be aware that this area, what is now Israel (including the West Bank), was inhabited by Jews from the destruction of the Jewish State by Rome in 55 bc until the Muslim conquest of the 7th century ad. It is important to remember that there were no Arabs here until then, they came from Arabia and conquered the land and forced most of the inhabitants, Christians and Jews, to convert to Islam or be killed. From 1517-1917 it was part of the Turkish Empire.

2. In 1917, during WWI, the British Government issued the Balfour Declaration that stated that they would establish a "Jewish homeland" in "Palestine" as they called it (the term derives from the Philistines who no longer existed) if they conquered the land from the Turks.

3. The British conquered the Land and were given a Mandate to control it by the League of Nations, with the legal requirement to fulfil the Balfour Declaration. Nothing was mentioned about an Arab State in Palestine.

4. After WWI there were various treaties, such as the San Remo Treaty of 1922, that required the British to establish a Jewish homeland. But, not only did Britain unilaterally establish "Transjordan" from part of the Mandatory territory, in 1938 they also reneged on their commitment to establish a Jewish State.

5. After WWII, the Jewish forces (Haganah, etc.) fought the British and the Arabs and established the State of Israel in 1948, recognized by the UN. At no time did Israel give up its right of sovereignty over "the West Bank." Although Jordan occupied the West Bank from 1948-1967, this occupation was never recognized in international law. So the "West Bank" was never under Arab sovereignty, and certainly never under Palestinian sovereignty. This may come as a surprise to most people fed on the pro-Arab propaganda of the western media. But, let me repeat that, the West Bank is neither "Arab land" nor "Palestinian land", it has never been under the sovereignty of either. It is disputed land between Israel and some supposed Arab entity.

6. Therefore it is not surprising that Jews believe that they have the right to live on the West Bank, just as Arabs do. But, Israel Governments, while first not supporting such settlement (under Labor Governments) in the expectation of a peace agreement with the Palestinians after 1967 and then supporting settlement (under Likud) when there were murderous suicide bombings of the two intifadas (1980-2000s), now is freezing all new settlements and buildings in established settlements under pressure from the US. This is an artificial situation, when settlements are growing and there are major Jewish towns on the West Bank that all Israeli Governments intend to incorporate into Israel in any agreement with the Palestinians.

7. One of the few political moves an Israeli Government can now make is to continue building and expanding settlements as a pressure on the Palestinians to either stop terrorism or to make some move towards peace. This is what the Netanyahu Government did in the wake of the horrible murders of 5 in Itamar. You could call it state-controlled building. But, 500 building permits are on the face of it minimal. Incidentally Itamar is not in "PA-controlled territory," it is in an area that is under Israeli control according to the Oslo Accords interim agreements, which divided the WB into three categories (PA control, Israeli control, joint control). Only the seven Palestinian cities (Ramallah, Nablus, etc.) are in PA-controlled territory.

8. There is no doubt that Jewish/Israeli building on the West Bank will continue and will expand the longer the Palestinians refuse to compromise and engage in direct peace negotiations with Israel.

9. At present the Palestinians are apparently not prepared to deal with Israel, because they are divided between Hamas in Gaza and Fatah on the West Bank, and because the Pali-leaks exposure on al Jazeera showed that the Abbas regime lied to its own people.

10. That is why the PA is attempting to obtain a unilateral establishment of a Palestinian State through the UN. But, if they act unilaterally, so can Israel, and the future of the West Bank might then be determined by force rather than through negotiation.

Ha Navi Answers:

The hatred comes from the fact that Israelis tolerating two (2) so called "Palestinian" states. One is Jordan, which is their true home-land, while the other is Gaza, Judea & Samaria. There is NO Jewish occupation! There is only a Muslim occupation of Judea & Samaria, which the Muslims cleverly renamed 'The West Bank', in order to de-Judaize the area in the world's collective mind. The Muslims of Jordan (formerly Trans-Jordan, which England created), cleverly re-named themselves "palestinians" in the 1960's, and revised history in order to gain world sympathy for their cause, which is the annihilation of Israel, and to teach the great lie, which is, that the Jews stole their land from them! Before Jordan started its war against Israel, they told their Muslims brothers in Jerusalem & in Samaria & in Judea to sell the land to the Jews, because they were confident that they & their co-religionist Muslim nations (Syria, Egypt, etc.), would destroy Israel & so they could thereafter keep the land as well. So they sold & fled & waited for the results of the war. Israel won that war. They recaptured the Holy Jewish land; Jerusalem, Samaria & Judea. They rightfully settled it, even though Obama the Muslim, who constantly quotes the Koran, (NOT the Bible), demands Israel to stop settling Jewish, Israel, unlike the Jordanians, allowed Christians & Muslims to come & go freely in those areas. The deeds to the land were and are owned by Jews. They allowed the Muslims to continue living in Jewish apartments & homes as long as they continued paying rent to the Jews. Arafat came along & told the Muslims to be arrogant & not pay! They stopped paying and were consequently evicted. Of course Islam, the revisionist liars, tell the world that the Jews are pushing them out of their rightful land! It is NOT Muslim land, regardless of the fact that the Muslims continue to teach and even believe their own lies!

Israel files U.N. complaint over mortar barrag

2011-03-20T09:05:00.000-07:00

March 20, 2011

JERUSALEM (JTA) -- Israel's foreign minister ordered the country's delegation to the United Nations to file a formal complaint after over 50 mortars struck southern Israel in one morning.

More than 50 mortars were fired from Gaza into Israel on Saturday morning. Two Israelis were injured by shrapnel and homes and buildings sustained damage, according to reports. Hamas' armed wing Izzadin Kassam Brigades claimed responsibility for 10 of the explosives.

Israel's military struck several Hamas targets with tanks and aerial fire in Gaza later Saturday in response to the barrage. The strike lasted some 45 minutes, Ynet reported, and at least two Hamas terrorists reportedly were hurt.

The previous day, 10 mortars were fired on Israel from Gaza.

In the complaint, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman decried international support for the establishment of a Palestinian state, saying that it would be a "terrorist state whose primary goal is the destruction of Israel." He also noted that the attack on Israel came as Hamas and the Fatah Party of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas were talking about reconciliation.

Israel also filed a formal complaint with the U.N. Security Council on March 18 over its seizure of the cargo ship Victoria, which was transporting concealed arms from Iran via Syria to Gaza via Egypt.

Meanwhile, gunmen claiming to be from Hamas on Saturday raided the Gaza offices of the Reuters news agency, striking one employee with a metal bar, and smashing a television and other equipment. The gunmen also raided the offices of CNN and the Japanese station NHK.

The Death of an Illusion

2011-03-18T19:16:00.000-07:00

Rich Lowry wrote an interesting analysis of the recent series of Middle Eastern revolutions for the March 18, 2011 the National Review Online.

In the great Middle East whodunit, the verdict is in: The Jews are innocent. They aren’t responsible for the violence, extremism, backwardness, discontent, or predatory government of their Arab neighbors. The past few months should have finally shattered the persistent illusion that the Israeli-Palestinian question determines all in the Middle East.

Read the rest of the essay here.

Why are there revolutions in the Middle East?

2011-03-05T12:35:00.000-08:00

Thomas Friedman opines in the New York Times about several reasons for the recent revolutions in the Middle East.

He suggests that one reason is the media coverage of Israel by the Arab TV network. He writes:

"ISRAEL The Arab TV network Al Jazeera has a big team covering Israel today. Here are some of the stories they have been beaming into the Arab world: Israel’s previous prime minister, Ehud Olmert, had to resign because he was accused of illicitly taking envelopes stuffed with money from a Jewish-American backer. An Israeli court recently convicted Israel’s former president Moshe Katsav on two counts of rape, based on accusations by former employees. And just a few weeks ago, Israel, at the last second, rescinded the appointment of Maj. Gen. Yoav Galant as the army’s new chief of staff after Israeli environmentalists spurred a government investigation that concluded General Galant had seized public land near his home. (You can see his house on Google Maps!) This surely got a few laughs in Egypt where land sales to fat cats and cronies of the regime that have resulted in huge overnight profits have been the talk of Cairo this past year. When you live right next to a country that is bringing to justice its top leaders for corruption and you live in a country where many of the top leaders are corrupt, well, you notice."

Definitely an interesting analysis.

Grad rocket hits Beersheba

2011-02-25T04:10:00.000-08:00

Grad rocket hits Beersheba

Gaza Strip terror reaches Negev capital for first time since Operation Cast Lead. Damage caused to several houses, vehicles after rocket exploded in backyard. No injuries reported

Ilana Curiel

Published:

02.23.11, 22:17 / Israel News

A Grad rocket fired from the Gaza Strip hit a backyard in Beersheba Wednesday. Damage was caused to several nearby houses and vehicles. Magen David Adom emergency services said they are unaware of injuries. It remains unclear how many rockets exploded.

An alarm was sounded in the area at around 9:40 pm accompanied by explosion sounds.

The MDA director ordered the alertness level be raised in the Southern District. Police forces are at the scene.

Beerheba Mayor Rubik Danilovitch said one house was hit. "No one was hurt thanks to the fact that everyone entered fortified areas and the rocket landed outdoors."

One of the residents said he heard the alarm while in his backyard. "As the alarm went off I stepped inside and told the whole family to enter the fortified room. We then heard a loud blast and one of the doors fell inside the living room. Luckily no one was hurt. "

Salit, a Ramat Gan resident whose parents reside in Beesheba told Ynet that the windows at her parents' house had shattered but that her parents have not been injured.

Noa Raz, a Beersheba resident told Ynet she heard two loud blasts.

The Negev police said they received reports from residents who heard explosions. "We have yet to detect a hit at this point," one officer said.

Earlier on Wednesday, three mortar bombs exploded in the Shaar Henegev Regional Council. No injuries were reported. One of the bombs exploded near a soccer field, another near a pool and the third near a kibbutz outside the border fence. Also Wednesday, 11 Palestinians were hurt by mortars fired by the IDF in the eastern Gaza Strip.

The Islamic Jihad's military wing, Al-QudsBrigades, claimed its people fired two mortars at IDF forces which crossed the fence, causing the tanks to fire shells back at them. According to the Islamic Jihad, three of their men were injured, one was severely injured.

Last Saturday, a rocket landed in an open area in the Eshkol Regional Council. No alarm was sounded. There were no reports of injuries or damage.

Tova Dadon contributed to this report

Muddle East

2011-02-21T06:13:00.001-08:00

by Jack Cohen

The uprisings throughout the Middle East have led to a very muddled situation. In Tunisia and Egypt the uprisings were focussed on removing old and decrepit dictators who had been in control for 23 and 30 years, respectively, and they were successful in that. A similar situation exists in Yemen, where the dictator, Abdullah Saleh, has been in office for 32 years and in Libya, where Col. Qaddafi has been in control for 40 years! But, in Libya, Qaddafi is pretending that there is already "democracy" because they have local "popular" committees, although it is a pyramid and he sits on top. In Bahrain it is more a question of the Shia majority trying to overthrow the Sunni rulers. There have been shootings in Libya, Yemen and Bahrain showing that the powers in charge have got the message that this is serious and they are suppressing the rioters with deadly force. But, Qaddafi is anti-American, while the Khalifa royal family in Bahrain is pro-American, and the US sixth fleet is stationed there. In Jordan, the situation is complicated by the fact that the majority of protesters are Palestinians and the majority of the King's supporters are Beduoin.

But, one common feature in all these places is that the rioters are mainly anti-American and anti-Semitic. In Tunisia the synagogues have been surrounded by mobs calling for all Jews to be killed, a common feature of Muslim mobs. In Cairo's Tahrir Square CBS's chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan was mobbed by a crowd of ca. 200 men shouting "Jew! Jew!" and she was separated from her crew and sexually assaulted for about 30 mins, before she was rescued by a group of women and policemen. She is now recovering in a hospital in NY. What is most disturbing about this incident, by no means the first such attack on a foreign reporter, is that CBS failed to report it for 4 days, and when they did they left out the small matter of the fact that the crowd was anti-Semitic, even though Logan of course is not Jewish. Such a mob doesn't wait to ask. Those who think that democracy, with its rational basis and protection of minorities, is soon going to arise in Egypt, or the whole "Muddle" East, should think again. The situation is somewhat akin to that in Christian Europe when the protection of the autocratic rulers who protected the Jews was removed to give greater freedom to the population. Ironically the populace turned on the Jews and there were anti-Semitic pogroms. History is repeating itself in the Muslim world.

The Arab world would like to repeat the peaceful "people power" revolutions that took place in the Philippines to replace the dictator Marcos and the so-called "velvet" revolution that enabled Slovakia to split off from the Czech Republic, as well as the "orange" revolution that resulted in elections in Ukraine. But, there were also violent clashes in Poland against the Solidarity movement and in Russia against Yeltsin's anti-Communist coup. Although one can predict that in the end the people will be victorious, it may take a long time before actual democracy ensues.

In Iran the situation is quite opposite. While the Arab dictators (except for Qaddafi) are seen as having been pro-American, and so the mobs that removed them are anti-American, in Iran the leaders are virulently anti-American and anti-Semitic and so the rioters are pro-American. Quite a distinction. Yet, I am sure that as they have their own rioters in Iran that oppose their regime, the leaders of Iran are busy helping the Muslim Brotherhood to take a more active role in trying to take over Egypt. At present the Army is in control there, and the Israel-Egypt peace treaty is being honored. But, for how long this will last is anybody's guess. All the major opposition groups, Ayman Nour, Mohammed El Baradei and the MB are calling at least for "changes" to the Treaty. Remember it was elements of the Army that assassinated Pres. Sadat of Egypt because he made peace with Israel. Don't expect the peoples of the "Muddle" East to do what is in their own rational interests, mobs by their nature are irrational.

First UN veto under Obama is a good one

2011-02-18T18:50:00.000-08:00

U.S. vetoes U.N. resolution declaring Israeli settlements illegal

From Richard Roth, CNN

February 18, 2011 8:20 p.m. EST

United Nations (CNN) -- The United States vetoed Friday a U.N. Security Council resolution that would have declared Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said that while the United States agrees about "the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, we think it unwise for this council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians."

The veto is the first to be used under the Obama administration.

Treaty with Israel to be honored

2011-02-13T06:35:00.000-08:00

Egypt’s military assures allies

Pledges to support civilian rule, honor treaty with Israel

By Kareem Fahim New York Times / February 13, 2011

CAIRO — As a new era dawned in Egypt yesterday, the army leadership sought to reassure Egyptians and the world that it would shepherd a transition to civilian rule and honor international commitments like the peace treaty with Israel.

Exultant and exhausted opposition leaders claimed their role in the country’s future, pressing the army to lift the country’s emergency law and release political prisoners and saying they would present their vision for the government. And they vowed to return to Tahrir Square to honor those who had died in the 18-day uprising that toppled Hosni Mubarak after nearly 30 years of authoritarian rule.

In an announcement broadcast on state television, an army spokesman said Egypt would continue to abide by all of its international and regional treaties and the current civilian leadership would manage the country’s affairs until the formation of a new government. But he did not discuss a timetable for any transfer of power, and it was unclear how and when talks with opposition figures would take place.

Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, welcomed the statement, saying the treaty “has greatly contributed to both countries and is the cornerstone for peace and stability in the entire Middle East.’’

Israel has been deeply concerned that Egypt’s turmoil could threaten the peace accord, the first between an Arab nation and Israel. But Egypt’s military strongly supports the peace deal, not in small part because it guarantees US aid for the armed forces, currently running at $1.3 billion a year. While anti-Israeli feeling is strong in Egypt, few so far seriously call for the treaty’s abrogation.

The Egyptian army spokesman said the military was “aspiring to guarantee the peaceful transition of power within the framework of a free democratic system that allows an elected civilian power to rule the country, in order to build a free democratic state.’’ The impact of Egypt’s uprising rippled across the Arab world, as protesters turned out in Algeria, where the police arrested leading organizers, and in Yemen, where progovernment forces clubbed demonstrators.

The Palestinian leadership responded by announcing that it planned to hold presidential and parliamentary elections by September. And in Tunisia, which inspired Egypt’s uprising, hundreds demonstrated to cheer Mubarak’s ouster.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will travel to Jordan and Israel for talks as both countries deal with the reverberations from Egypt’s revolution.

In Tahrir, or Liberation, Square, some members of the movement that toppled Mubarak vowed to continue their protests, saying that all their demands had not yet been met.

A long list included an end to the emergency law that allows detention without charges, the dissolution of the Parliament, seen as illegitimate, and for some of the protesters, the prosecution of Mubarak.

About 50 protesters stood in the square yesterday morning as the military removed barricades and concertina wire on the periphery. But the uprising’s leading organizers, speaking at a news conference in central Cairo, asked protesters to leave the square.

The group, the Coalition of the Youth of the Revolution, which includes members of the April 6 Youth Movement, the Muslim Brotherhood Youth and young supporters of Mohamed ElBaradei, a prominent opposition figure, said it had not yet talked with the military and that today it would lay out its road map for a transitional government.

The coalition said Ahmed Zewail, a Nobel laureate in chemistry, and other respected figures would work as intermediaries between the youth group and the military.

“The power of the people changed the regime,’’ said Gehan Shaaban, a group spokeswoman. “But we shouldn’t trust the army. We should trust ourselves, the people of Egypt.’’

Again, there were signs that not all the protesters were willing to give up. During the news conference, a protester yelled: “We should all head to Tahrir and stay there, until we ourselves are sure that everything is going as planned! The government of Ahmed Shafiq has to go!’’ Shafiq is the prime minister. The woman’s shouts brought the news conference to a close.

As the protesters and opposition groups prepared an agenda, they sought clues about exactly whom they were negotiating with. On Friday, Vice President Omar Suleiman said Mubarak had authorized the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to manage the state’s affairs, marking the transition from civilian to military rule.

Suleiman, a former general who became Egypt’s foreign intelligence chief, straddled the two worlds. But Hosam Sowilam, a retired general, said Suleiman no longer played a leadership role. “Omar Suleiman finished his time,’’ he said. “He’s 74 years old.’’ Others were not so quick to dismiss Suleiman, a close ally of Mubarak who was mentioned as his successor.

In interviews, protest leaders said they assumed that the defense minister, Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, 75, who was considered a loyalist of Mubarak, was now the country’s de facto leader. Yesterday morning, his convoy tried to drive to Tahrir Square, according to a paratrooper stationed there. But he did not leave his car.

Security officials said the recently appointed interior minister, Mahmoud Wagdy, visited units of the department’s feared security services yesterday in the hope of returning police officers to work. The officers vanished from Egypt’s streets on Jan. 29.

That security force, including plainclothes officers widely accused of abuse, are loathed by the protesters, who have demanded police reform to end brutality and, in particular, torture in police stations.

Prosecutors are weighing charges against the previous interior minister, Habib al-Adly, who seemed to ignore or encourage police abuses.

On state television, which for weeks depicted the protesters as a violent mob of foreigners, an anchor spoke of the “youth revolution.’’

In Tahrir Square, thousand of volunteers who brought their own brooms or cleaning supplies, swept streets and scrubbed graffiti from buildings. On the streets around the square, the celebrations from the night before continued.

Material from the Associated Press was included in this report.

The question of Jewish "settlements" settled?

2011-01-25T06:06:00.000-08:00

Good analysis by Robin Shepherd on the release of documents showing that the PA is willing to accept "settlements" in east Jerusalem.

The Palestinian Papers & the British Press

by Robin Shepherd

The Guardian is more hard-line against Israel than the Palestinian leadership itself.

Game over. No way back. An entire edifice of anti-Israeli demonization definitively consigned to the scrap heap, never to be recycled again. This is the uncompromising message that comes out of yesterday’s revelations on Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. To the horror of a European political intelligentsia which has been steadfast to the point of fanatical in its opposition to Israeli “settlements” in east Jerusalem, the Palestinian leadership itself, we now know, has long accepted that the vast majority of Israeli settlements can be considered legitimate and would become part of Israel under any reasonable peace agreement.

This is utterly devastating since it simultaneously shows that everyone from the British Foreign Office and the BBC to the European Commission and the continent’s passionately anti-Israeli NGO community have been adopting a position which was significantly more uncompromising on “settlements” than the Palestinian leadership itself, and also that that same Palestinian leadership had accepted that the so called 1967 “borders” — the gold standard for practically every anti-Israeli polemic around — are irrelevant to the prospects of a lasting peace.

In one of its most resentful leader columns for years, the Guardian was nothing short of apoplectic: not so much with Israel, but with a Palestinian leadership which has effectively blown the credibility of the Guardian’s very own mantras on the MidEast straight out of the water. The Palestinian leadership, the paper declaimed, had been shown to be “weak” and “craven”. Their concessions amounted to “surrender of land Palestinians have lived on for centuries”. And, in words that look alarmingly close to the position adopted by Hamas, “The Palestinian Authority may continue as an employer but, as of today, its legitimacy as negotiators will have all but ended on the Palestinian street.” This is sheer spite.

The Palestinian leadership accepts what any reasonable person has been able to accept for decades. The Guardian then slams them as surrender monkeys. The Guardian newspaper is more hard-line against Israel than the Palestinian leadership itself. And bear in mind, as you mull over the implications of that stark and unyielding state of affairs, that the Palestinian Authority is led by Mahmoud Abbas, who is a Holocaust denier.

Privately and morally, senior Palestinians can see that there is nothing illegitimate or even especially problematic about most of the “settlements.”

But it gets worse. The only conceivable way out of this for the anti-Israel community is to turn this all upside down and argue — as analysts, reporters (anyone they can get their hands on) have been doing on the BBC all day — that what this really shows is the extent of Israeli “intransigence”: the Palestinians offer all these concessions, and still the Israelis say no! This was the line adopted by Paul Danahar, the BBC’s MidEast bureau chief, who quite casually averred that, “The Israelis look churlish for turning down major concessions”. Good thing no-one’s taking sides then.

Tragicomically, it just won’t wash. Privately and morally, senior Palestinians can see that there is nothing illegitimate or even especially problematic about most of the “settlements”, (as reasonable observers of the MidEast have been saying for years). This we know from the leaks themselves. But publicly and politically they cannot sell such concessions to their own people. This we know because they are currently trying to distance themselves from the leaks, and because they educate their own people in an implacable rejectionism which extends to the “moderate” Palestinian authority glorifying suicide bombers and other terrorists by naming streets and squares after them.

Logically and reasonably, the Israeli response is to see such “concessions” for what they are: well intentioned in so far as they go, but impossible to implement in practice. Quite apart from the question of Hamas-run Gaza, the Palestinians have been playing the same old game of saying one thing to one audience and something else to another. They are not a credible partner for peace, and the Israelis do not look remotely “churlish” for understanding this.

It will be interesting to see how this whole affair now plays out. But never again can the anti-Israel community play the settlement card and at the same time retain a single ounce of credibility.

This article can also be read at: http://www.aish.com/jw/mo/The_Palestinian_Papers__the_British_Press.html

Dear Time Magazine

2011-01-23T20:24:00.000-08:00

A response to "Israel's Rightward Lurch Scares Some Conservatives." from Ron Dermer, Senior Advisor to the Office of Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Dear Time Magazine

NOTE: I had a letter-to-the-editor recently published in TIME in response to its obit for Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah

A Painful Farewell
Re your obit for Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah [Dec. 27 — Jan. 3]: I think TIME readers would like to know how you made the decision to honor with a farewell the man the U.S. considers responsible for the 1983 bombings in Beirut in which 241 U.S. Marines and other service members and 58 French paratroopers were killed.
Martin Cohn,
Brattleboro, Vt., U.S.

'Palestinians agreed to cede nearly all Jewish areas of East Jerusalem' - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

2011-01-23T19:59:00.000-08:00

Newly leaked documents reveal series of concessions made to Israel by PA negotiators; East Jerusalem offer was rejected as it didn't include settlements deeper in West Bank.

'Palestinians agreed to cede nearly all Jewish areas of East Jerusalem' - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

Middle East Conflict Explained

2011-01-18T06:30:00.000-08:00

According to conservative talk show host Dennis Prager, the Middle East Problem may be hard to solve, but it's easy to explain. He goes on to summarize the situation in a five minute video that is simple yet powerful.

Check it out here.

Probe launched on 'Travel Palestine' ad omitting Israel

2011-01-11T10:26:00.000-08:00

Yasher Koach to HonestReporting.com for another expose:

"Travel Palestine" Tourism Ad Erases Israel

Since when were tourists able to visit Jerusalem in a state of Palestine stretching from the Med to the River Jordan?

2010 may be over but the Palestinian campaign to delegitimize Israel and erase the reality of Jewish history in the region continues unabated. In November 2010, an official paperpublished by the Palestinian Authority claimed that the Western Wall belongs to Muslims and is an integral part of Al-Aqsa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif (the Islamic term for the Temple Mount complex, meaning the Noble Sanctuary).

Now, the latest UK edition of National Geographic magazine includes an advert published by the Palestinian Tourism Ministry, which:

Implies that Palestine is a country
Claims that Jerusalem is part of Palestine
States that “Palestine lies between the Mediterranean coast and the Jordan River”.

Of course, a look at a map of the region will show that the only country that lies in that particular geographic area is… Israel.

The Jerusalem Post reports that the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority has already received 60 complaints about the advert. This is the same ASA that, in April 2010, ruled against an Israel Government Tourist Office advert, referring to an image of Jerusalem's Western Wall and Temple Mount that "the photograph featured for Jerusalem was of East Jerusalem" and therefore "the ad misleadingly implied that East Jerusalem was part of the state of Israel."

Will the ASA also rule against the Palestinian advert? After all, the ad misleadingly implies that Jerusalem is part of Palestine not to mention the claim that this non-existent state covers the area on which the very real state of Israel exists.

If the ASA does not rule against this advert, it will have demonstrated gross hypocrisy in light of its previous ruling and confirmed its bias against Israel.

We await the ruling with interest.

Probe launched on 'Travel Palestine' ad omitting Israel

Agents of influence

2011-01-07T18:51:00.000-08:00

JERUSALEM POST

By CAROLINE B. GLICK
01/07/2011 15:35

The time has come to determine just how “Israeli” these organizations that form such a big part of the int'l political war against Israel are.

On Sunday, December 19, the self-proclaimed “Israeli human rights” group B’Tselem disseminated a shocking story to the local and international media. B’Tselem claimed that the previous day, Palestinian shepherd Samir Bani Fadel was peacefully herding his sheep when he was set upon by a mob of Israeli settlers.

He alleged that these kippa-clad Israelis drove up in a car and chased him away. Then they torched the pasture and burned 12 pregnant ewes alive and badly burned five others. B’Tselem furnished reporters with graphic photos of the dead sheep.

While the media published the account without a shred of skepticism, the police found Fadel’s account hard to believe. Observant Jews neither drive nor light fires on Saturdays.

And indeed, when questioned by police investigators, Fadel admitted he made the whole attack up. He accidentally killed his herd himself when he set fire to a pile of bramble. Too embarrassed to admit his mistake, he decided to blame the Jews and become a local hero. B’Tselem was only too happy to spread his lies.

TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE, CLICK HERE.

Why are you protesting Israel?

2011-01-01T14:13:00.000-08:00

Found this youtube video entitled "Why are you protesting Israel." Worth the watch.

Click here.

Iran Outraged as Star of David Revealed on Airport

2010-12-29T07:42:00.000-08:00

The Israelis built this airport for the Iranians sometime in the early

1970's... They put a Star of David on the roof with the Iranians remaining

absolutely clueless about it. Almost four decades later, the Iranians find

out via Google Earth imagery what the Israelis did...and they ain't happy

about it.

Here's a report from FoxNews about how the Iranians are

outraged (that they never noticed, in 38 years, that there was a Star of

David on top of their airport).

Seattle: Anti-Israel ad campaign rejected by city officials

2010-12-27T07:38:00.000-08:00

Jerusalem Post

By JPOST.COM STAFF

12/24/2010 07:38

An anti-Israel advertising campaign on city buses in Seattle, Washington was rejected on Thursday, according to the StandWithUs organization.

The "Seattle Mideast Awareness Campaign" which was set to begin December 27, was rejected by King County Executive Dow Constantine due to the "potential for disruption to transit service."

Constantine on Thursday approved an interim policy from Metro Transit which called for a "halt to the acceptance of any new non-commercial advertising on King County buses."

On Wednesday, Seattle Jewish community leaders held a meeting with senior officials from the King County Executive's office and Metro Transit management about the "potential threat to the Seattle-area Jewish community" after over 2,000 emails, and numerous organizations announced that counter advertisements would be initiated to promote Israel.

'Israeli War Crimes' signs to go on Metro buses

2010-12-20T17:05:00.000-08:00

SEATTLE – "Israeli War Crimes," the enormous advertisement reads. "Your tax dollars at work."

To the right of the image is a group of children -- one little boy stares out at the viewer, the others gawk at a demolished building, all rebar and crumbled concrete.

It's an ad you'll be seeing soon on a handful of Metro buses in downtown Seattle.

A group calling itself the Seattle Mideast Awareness Campaign has paid King County $1,794 so that 12 buses will carry that message around town, starting two days after Christmas. That's December 27: the two-year anniversary of Israeli attacks on Gaza, aimed at stopping rocket attacks and weapons smuggling.

Read entire article here.

WikiLeaks Cables Vindicate Israel

2010-12-18T12:05:00.000-08:00

The picture of Israel that is emerging from the documents is the opposite of the damaging narrative that has been advanced for 60 years.

December 18, 2010 - by Ryan Mauro

The U.S. and its allies are struggling to contain the damage caused by WikiLeaks, but there’s one country that needn’t worry much and can actually look at the disclosures as positive publicity: Israel. The documents show that the threat from Iran is not an illusion conjured up by the Zionist lobby and that Israel is not the imperialistic aggressor seeking to dominate and brutalize Palestinians as the country is so often characterized.

Read the rest of this analysis by clicking here.

Turning the tables on Israel-bashers

2010-12-15T09:32:00.000-08:00

Gabriel Latner, a law student who helped win a debate on the delegitimisation of Israel by arguing that it is a “rogue state” only because of positives including humanitarianism and protection of civil liberties, provided a speech that should be shared by all.

You can read an article about his speech by clicking here.

Or, you can read his speech, "Is Israel ‘a rogue state’? You’d better hope so"

Zionism and the occupation - Israel and the Palestinian

2010-12-09T05:12:00.000-08:00

by Ami Isseroff

No country has ever had its legitimacy called into question because it ran an occupation. Nobody believes the United States should be destroyed because it is occupying Iraq, or that Iraq should be destroyed because it occupied Kuwait. This strange argument is applied only to Israel.

Nobody should live under occupation. The current occupation is not the result of "Zionism" but of the refusal of Arab Palestinians to live in peace with Israel. It is complicated by the beliefs of some Israelis in "Greater Israel," which was not a part of mainstream historical Zionist ideology and does not have consensus support of all Zionists.

The occupation is a result of of the vicissitudes of history. In the view of most Israeli Zionists, it is not a part of Zionist ideology.

Unfortunately, for many years, the Arabs of Palestine claimed that all of Israel is "occupied" Palestine, and many continue to do so. The Palestinian Authority presents maps that show "Palestine" as all of Israel.

The conflict did not begin in 1967, and anti-Zionism and Arab objections to the existence of Israel did not begin then either. All of the ills that have befallen the Arabs of Palestine result in large part from their refusal to allow Jewish settlement in their midst. Violent opposition began with the riots and massacres of the 1920s, and continued in the 1948 war of independence. Despite the opposition of Palestinian Arabs, the Jews of Palestine built a state, and because of the war, the Arabs of Palestine were deprived of their own chance for self determination. Their opposition to Israel was expressed as Palestinian Arab nationalism in the formation of the Fatah and the PLO, well before 1967. These organizations aimed to destroy all of Israel, "occupied" by the "Zionist entity." Given that position, it was hardly likely that Israel could negotiate peace with the Arabs of Palestine.

Gamal Nasser closed the straits of Tiran and threatened to annihilate Israel in 1967. The PLO declared that their goal was to evict every Jew who had entered Israel after 1917. Jordanian guns fired continuously on Jerusalem and other parts of Israel despite warnings to stay out of the conflict. Israel was forced to defend itself. The territories were conquered primarily as "hostages for peace." This was an Israeli government decision, and it was repeated often and openly in public speeches by Israeli officials in the summer of 1967. However, it soon became apparent that there would be no peace negotiations. At the Khartoum conference, the Arab states vowed, "no peace, no negotiations, no recognition." In their 1968 covenant, the PLO vowed to "liberate" all of "Palestine" - including Israel.

Until 1967, the West Bank was part of Jordan and Gaza was administered by Egypt. Israel did not prevent the Palestinians from forming a state, but they did not do so. The 1949 armistice borders were never recognized by any Arab state. They were meant to be the basis of peace talks, not permanent borders, but the peace talks never happened. In international law, an occupied territory is territory of another sovereign that has been conquered in war. Jordan renounced its claims to the West Bank, and Egypt never claimed the Gaza strip as part of its territory. The Palestinians do not have a state, and have said they do not want a state with interim borders. Therefore the legal status of these territories as "occupied" is dubious. Nonetheless, many Zionists have come to recognize that another people live in Gaza and the West Bank. The Arabs of Palestine have declared themselves to be a nation, just as we Jews recognized our own nationhood in the Zionist movement. Most Zionists now recognize that we must take cognizance of Palestinian national aspirations. However, at the same time, and by the same logic, the Arabs of Palestine and their supporters must honor the Jewish right to self determination.

The occupation was for many years relatively benign. Palestinian Arabs worked in Israeli towns and Israelis visited Arab towns. There was no "Apartheid" and the checkpoints were usually a formality.

A part of the Zionist public believed that the newly conquered territories should be part of Israel. They included areas that had held Jewish communities for many years, as well as holy places of the Jewish religion such as the wailing wall in Jerusalem, the tomb of Rachel near Bethlehem, and the tomb of Abraham in Hebron. They included areas such as Gush Etzion, Atarot and the old city of Jerusalem, where Jewish communities had been ethnically cleansed and expelled or forced to flee in 1948. Nonetheless, initially, the majority consensus in Israel was that most, or all of these territories would be returned in return for a genuine peace offer.

As the years passed, attitudes hardened. In 1975, the UN passed the infamous "Zionism is Racism" resolution. Israeli political sentiment veered to the right in reaction, and the Labor government was forced to allow the founding of Elon Moreh. In 1977, the rightist Likud party came to power. They believed in the cause of Greater Israel, and they gave settlement expansion a big boost. However, even the leader of the Likud, Ariel Sharon, has come to understand that it is wrong to rule over another people. Israel is withdrawing from the heavily populated Gaza strip, taking the calculated risk that this area may become a base for intense terrorist activity against Israel, under the control of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad extremists. These organizations believe it is their holy duty to wipe Israel off the map.

Optimism over a reasonable solution that would allow self-determination for both sides was born in the Oslo accords. Unfortunately, though the PLO officially renounced violence in the Oslo accords, Palestinian Arab extremist organizations began a series of lethal terror attacks, forcing Israel to institute a harsh regime of checkpoints, and to build "Jews only" bypass roads to Jewish settlements. In 2000, the negotiations broke down and the Palestinian Arabs resorted to terror attacks and suicide bombings in Israeli cities. At one point, there were 130 Israeli casualties in a single week. To control the bombings, Israel stepped up the regime of checkpoints and is building a security fence. These measures undoubtedly cause regrettable hardship to the Palestinians. However, they were implemented reluctantly. They are not the result of an "apartheid" ideology, as critics claim, nor are they attempts to "ethnically cleanse" Palestinians. They are security measures implemented with the greatest reluctance. In particular, the security fence contradicts the "Greater Israel" ideology and is certainly not a product of radical Zionism.

The occupation is more benign than its critics would have you believe. The "evils of the occupation" have been deliberately exaggerated by Palestinians and enemies of Israel. Officials of the Palestinian Authority spread false rumors that Israel was injecting Palestinian children with AIDs and distributing poisoned candies, that Israel had dumped radioactive waste in the West Bank, that Israel was irradiating Palestinians and giving them cancer at checkpoints, and that Israel had killed over 500 Palestinians in Jenin in operation "Defensive Wall." Several anti-Zionist writers insisted that the Israeli government is engaged in a diabolical plot to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank, offering no proof at all. None of these rumors and announcements have any truth to them. They are part of a propaganda war aimed at justifying terrorism and extremist demands.

Isn't Israel doing to Palestinians what the Germans did do the Jews - Another "Holocaust"?

One of the most diabolical claims of anti-Zionists is that Israelis are like Nazis, and are perpetrating an Holocaust in the Palestinians. Israelis are not putting Palestinians in gas chambers or starving them to death. Israel is fighting a war, against a vicious and implacable enemy. The Jews of Europe were innocent citizens who were selected by the Nazis for extermination solely because of their religion. Israel has instituted security measures that are cause hardships for the Palestinians and are sometimes harsh. Occasional excesses, committed by Jewish and Muslim and Druze IDF soldiers alike are not the result of evil conspiracies or racist ideology, but errors of individuals that are the sad and inevitable result of a war that has been forced on Israel.

November 29-- Today in History

2010-11-30T09:17:00.001-08:00

Received an email from Jack Cohen that I believe is worthy of sharing with all.

Today, 29th November ("caf-tet november"), is an important date in Jewish history, it is the date when the UN GA voted in 1947 for the partition of Palestine and the establishment for the first time in modern times of a sovereign Jewish State. The Jews of Palestine accepted and celebrated wildly, while the Arabs rejected the partition plan and in a fury attacked the fledgling Jewish entity. The following day six Arab armies invaded Palestine - Egypt, Syria, (Trans)Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia - as well as the Palestinian armed gangs. The vastly outnumbered Jews defeated them all and established the credibility of the Jewish State to everyone's astonishment. Let's not forget that all stood by and waited for the Arabs to massacre the Palestinian Jews, just as they had done a few years before during WWII when the Germans and most Europeans had massacred European Jews. Fortunately, this time the Jews were able to survive and defeat the invading enemies. But, they have not given up and continue trying to this day to destroy Israel, 63 years later!

Coincidentally, on the same day, Wikileaks released the first batch of 250,000 confidential cables from US ambassadors around the world over the last 10 years. It has not proved a disaster for Israel as most expected. On the contrary, it shows Israel as a moderate and peace-seeking country, and shows Iran as a major threat to the stability of the Middle East. The main revelation, although not unsurprising, is that the Saudi King and many other moderate Sunni leaders have been pressuring the US over the past few years more insistently than Israel to take military action agsinst Iran and "cut off the head of the snake." The Arabs feel at least as threatened as Israel by Iran's current regime, for two reasons, first Persia and the Arabs have always been rivals fighting for hegemony of the Persian Gulf region, and second the Sunni States fear the influence of the Shia extremists based in Iran. They specifically fear the influence of Iran on Hamas in Gaza and Hizbollah in Lebanon. It is clear in the WIkileaks documents that no Arab country was prepared to come to the aid of Hamas in Gaza when Israel attacked in Operation Cast Lead in 2006. They were in fact hoping that Israel would totally destroy Hamas, and the Egyptians were not prepared to come forward and help Israel by offering to occupy Gaza. Even the PA Palestinians on the West Bank declined, preferring not to be seen as cooperating with Israel, even though it would have been massively in their interest. They will live to regret that particular piece of stupidity.

But, there is one incredible thing in these leaks that is conspicouous by its absence, at no time do the Sunni Arab States ask the US to help them against the threat from Israel. In effect they don't fear Israel, they don't refer to Israel in anything like the same way that they refer to Iran. Although on the surface Israel is their enemy and they use their Muslim majority in the UN to constantly delegitimize Israel, in truth when they are desperate for military protection it is not against Israel but Iran. For a long time I have argued that it should not be "Palestine first" but rather "Iran first." Many, apparently including Barack Obama, regard the solution of the so-called Palestine problem as the kingpin to settle all other conflicts in the region, when in reality it is the other way around, the Palestine problem can only be settled once Iran is taken care of, once Iran no longer threatens the stability of the whole region with its extremist philosophy, its Holcaust denial, its anti-Semitism and its nuclear weapons program. If anything is revealed in these leaks it is that Iran is the kingpin to resolving peace in the Middle East.

The Other Peace Partner

2010-11-29T19:42:00.000-08:00

Much attention has been focused on barriers Israel brings to the peace process; notably whether or not Jewish settlements should continue in East Jerusalem. Not a day goes by without an article discussing US pressure on Israel to resume the peace process.

However, an article that appeared on UPI.com today reported that the Fatah Revolutionary Council concluded its fifth convention in Ramallah over the weekend by declaring its refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Strangely this news article did not make the large media outlets.

How is Israel supposed to sit down to discuss peace if it is not recognized? And, how is Israel supposed to discuss peace when media bias is so rampant?

Israel Needs to Correct Dismal Public Relations

2010-11-19T21:29:00.000-08:00

The Epoch Times ran a good article by Alon Ben-Meier on November 11, 2010 about the need to improve PR for Israel.

Israel’s public image today is dismal. As Elie Wiesel once joked, “Jews excel in just about every profession except public relations, but this should not surprise us: when God wanted to free the Jews from Egypt he sent Moses, who stuttered.”

However, today Israel’s problem is not that its leaders are stuttering, rather that they are stalling to show leadership toward ending the Arab-Israeli conflict. In doing so, they are sending a message to the international community that Israel does not care what the world thinks, and that it does not want peace after all.

Israel’s public relations problem is not due to a lack of attention.

The entire world is watching Israel closely, but they do not like what they see. In recent weeks the world community has witnessed near daily vandalism by settlers against Palestinian property in the West Bank, the passage of a “loyalty oath” aimed at marginalizing Israel’s minorities, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s obnoxious speech at the United Nations, and the government’s continued refusal to halt settlement construction in order to improve the environment for peace negotiations, despite unprecedented offers from the United States to encourage it do so.

This is not to mention a range of public blunders by the Israeli government in the past year, from Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon’s insult to the Turkish ambassador, to Israel’s harsh blockade of the Gaza Strip—since eased—viewed by the international community as collective punishment of the people of Gaza.

All of this has served to undercut public relations campaigns regarding the very real threats to Israel’s security, its genuine contributions in computer sciences and health care technologies, and its leadership in humanitarian relief efforts in times of crisis, such as in Haiti. As a result, Israel is becoming more and more isolated each day, and is increasingly appearing to be the obstinate party keeping the Middle East peace process from moving forward.

Israelis Resigned

Faced with increasing criticism and delegitimization campaigns, Israelis are becoming resigned to the belief that nothing they do will improve their public image. A recent poll conducted and published in August by Tel Aviv University and the Israel Democracy Institute indicated that 56 percent of Israelis believe that “the whole world is against us.”

Even more Israelis—77 percent of those polled—believe that no matter what Israel may do to try to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians; the world will continue to be critical.

These are disconcerting statistics with significant implications for Israel’s public relations, and more importantly, for its policies. The perception that Israel’s policies and public relations simply do not matter to the world leads Israel to ignore policies, which should be advanced, and to neglect communicating its message when and where it matters most.

But Israel cannot simply complain about the discriminatory treatment it receives and make hardly any effort to explain itself.

The decline of Israel/Turkey relations offers a prime example. In the period between 2005 and 2009, Israel’s efforts to explain to the Turkish public the onslaught of Hamas rocket attacks appeared to be few and far between. As the Turkish public became increasingly critical, Israel dismissed the trend as a sign of the influence of the new Islamic-rooted AK Party in its rise to power, not the result of poor public relations (or policies).

As a result, rather than seeking to mend relations, adapting policies, and improving communications, Israel ignored its longstanding ally, and even worse, insulted it. Instead of using quiet diplomacy to address Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s verbal attacks while focusing on a well-orchestrated public relations campaign to change Turkish public perception, Israel’s deputy Foreign minister summoned the Turkish ambassador to have him seated on a lower chair in front of the press.

Following the flotilla affair, Israel’s failure to explain itself and continue to drag its feet in providing information to the commission appointed by the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, yet again, further damaged its image.

Disunity

Much of the blunders of Israel’s public relations today are derived from the disunity of Israel’s governing coalition. Let’s face it: Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, charged with serving as Israel’s messenger to the world, is a man who 60 percent of Israelis according to a recent Yediot Aharonot (Israel’s late addition newspaper) poll believe is the politician “most responsible for the increased extreme nationalist and racist tendencies” in Israel today.

His speech at the United Nations, which was subsequently rebuked by Prime Minister Netanyahu, exemplified the mixed messages Israel has been sending to the international community, and the division within Israel’s current coalition.

In fact, disunity in the coalition is significantly damaging Israel’s public relations in two important arenas: in New York, where outreach and communications with the American Jewish community is critical, and at the United Nations, where Israel faces an onslaught of criticism and delegitimization on a daily basis.

Prime Minister Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Lieberman were unable even to agree upon who should serve as consul general in New York or ambassador to the United Nations. Only recently the Israeli Ambassador to Colombia Meron Reuben, who was filling the position of interim ambassador of Israel to the U.N., was finally instated as the permanent U.N. representative.

If Netanyahu and Lieberman could not even agree in a timely manner on the messenger, how can they ever agree on a cohesive, positive message, not to speak of a constructive policy? And without that clear message, Israel’s image is suffering precipitously.

Bad PR at Home

The combination of the Israeli public’s disillusionment that peace efforts will ever improve its global image and the disunity within the government further exacerbates Israel’s historic public relations woes across the globe.

But Israel is also inept at public relations at home. A recent poll showed that Israelis continue to oppose the Arab Peace Initiative. While 56 percent of Israelis polled reject the plan, 57 percent of Palestinians polled support it.

That the majority of Israelis do not recognize the opportunity posed by the Arab Peace Initiative as a historic repudiation of the Arab League’s “three no’s” at the 1967 Khartoum Conference, in which they declared “no to negotiations, no to recognition, no to peace,” is an indictment of the Israeli government.

Instead of marketing the plan as a genuine vehicle for negotiating an end to the conflict, the Israeli government has largely ignored the Arab League’s peace effort, and the public has followed suit. As a result, the global community gets a clear message: the Palestinians-and Arab states-are pursuing peace, while Israel is not.

This failure is more than just one of public relations, but of the Israeli government’s responsibility to pursue and advance all possible efforts to end the conflict and provide Israel with the security it requires.

Changing the Dynamics

Some may argue that Israel’s public relations have in fact, never been better.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is viewed by many Israelis as a master of PR. Israel’s ambassador to the United States, one of the most important positions for presenting Israel’s perspective to its most critical ally, is led by a respected academic and historian, Michael Oren.

But Netanyahu and Oren’s mastery of the English language cannot overcome the black eye to Israel’s image that Foreign Minister Lieberman provides.

And without a government that has a positive message, one that embraces efforts to secure peace and aggressively communicate with its allies in times of agreement and differences, Israel’s image will continue to suffer.

Contrary to the Israeli public’s indifference to global opinion, at a time when Israel is facing a strengthening delegitimization campaign across the globe, Israel’s dismal public relations are dangerous for the prospects of peace and for Israel’s security. In fact, to effectively counter the impact of these campaigns, Israel should send the global community the kind of concerted, positive message, which it is sorely lacking today.

Many across the globe believe that Prime Minster Netanyahu can change the dynamics of the peace process-and Israel’s image-at any moment if he wished.

The world knows that should Netanyahu genuinely wish to achieve a peace agreement, he has Kadima waiting in the wings, ready to enter into a coalition to support him. The fact that he has not done so in itself sends the world a negative message: he does not really want peace. The world sees this and rightly concludes that Netanyahu would rather stick with Lieberman and stall the peace process, than bring Tzipi Livni into the coalition and seek to conclude it with a lasting peace agreement.

Should Netanyahu finally decide to bring Livni in, and make a genuine effort to end the conflict, he could dramatically improve Israel’s image and live up to his reputation as a master of public relations rather than a demagogue.

Alon Ben-Meir (alon@alonben-meir.com; Web: www.alonben-meir.com ) is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

Promotion of Israeli Films is Good for Israel

2010-11-14T21:25:00.001-08:00

We need to take action
11/13/10

When organizers decided to focus last year's Toronto International Film Festival on Israeli filmmakers, more than 1,000 prominent actors and filmmakers signed a statement threatening to boycott the event.

The UJA Federation of Greater Toronto and the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles came up with a counter statement supporting the festival. Among its signers: Jerry Seinfeld, Natalie Portman, Sacha Baron Cohen, Lisa Kudrow, Jason Alexander and Lenny Kravitz.

"It was a great lesson and set a template on how to respond because clearly, the other side is running a linked campaign with international funding and global strategy but local implementation," Ted Sokolsky, president of the Toronto federation, recently told JTA.

The Jewish Federations of North America and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs want local communities to be able to spring into action in defense of Israel on a regular basis. That's why they are gearing up to launch a multimillion-dollar joint initiative to combat anti-Israel campaigns.

Locally, the Jewish Community Relations Council also is planning to step up its efforts through an Israel Action Center.

These actions come not a moment too soon. The BDS (boycott, divest and sanction) movement is a sinister campaign designed to erode the very basis of Israel's legitimacy. With the exception of the seemingly unrelenting Iranian effort to build nuclear weapons, this push to undermine the idea that Israel has the right to exist as the Jewish state in the Middle East is its greatest existential threat.

Israel's supporters must quickly do what they can to stem the damage. Not simply by talking about all of Israel's terrific accomplishments or by bashing its enemies, but by confronting boycotters head on, as did the Toronto film festival's supporters.

And, as did the JCRC when it learned in July that a boycott was planned outside the Ulta store in Silver Spring, urging customers not to buy Ahava products, charging they "were illegally produced by settlers ... on stolen land." The JCRC sent out an e-mail alert late on a Friday afternoon, notifying those on its mailing list of the boycott and urging them to buy Ahava. By Monday morning, Ulta's Ahava shelves were bare.

Such efforts can't simply be ad hoc. JCRC, for example, urged its "buycott" just once, despite continued efforts to boycott Ahava. Fighting BDS must be part of a continuing effort to educate the public, both Jews and non-Jews -- particularly civic leaders -- about Israel's legitimacy and proper place in the world.

Whatever the source of action, the message should be clear: Though we may not always agree with all of Israel's policies, we all stand with our brothers and sisters in Israel in defense of the Jewish homeland and its right to exist.

http://washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=29&ArticleID=13739&TM=35516.28

Point - Counter Point in Brattleboro

2010-11-13T12:56:00.000-08:00

Letter Box

Posted: 11/12/2010

Don’t vandalize the messenger

Editor of the Reformer:

This is an open letter to the person who scratched the "Free Palestine" bumper sticker off my car with a key:

Dear Vandal, I will attempt to make this simple, as I can tell you are a simple person. I put this bumper sticker on my car as a quick way to remind Americans that their taxes support the abuse, displacement and death of millions of Palestinians, most of whom want to do nothing more than live their lives, educate their children, work at their jobs, worship at their chuches and mosques, tend to their crops, shop in their stores and visit their friends and family. Unfortunately, the billions of U.S. tax dollars that we send to Israel every year deprive the Palestinians of the ability to do these things freely. This makes the Palestinians sad and sometimes angry. If a Palestinian was caught vandalizing an Israeli automobile, as you did mine, most likely he or she would be brought to jail and held, possibly on far more serious charges or no charges at all, and most likely would serve considerable jail time. S/he might even be tortured, as this often happens to Palestinian men, women and children in Israeli jails. Just imagine if you had to go to jail and even endure torture for your silly act!

By removing the simple "Free Palestine" message from my bumper you did not erase the reality of Israel’s occupation. What you did do is help Americans to forget these ugly facts -- as they often do -- thereby making the situation worse. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to explain this to you and others. While it will be easy for me to replace my $1 bumper sticker, in the long run it will be much more difficult for Americans to reconcile their billions of dollars in support of Israel’s heinous (this means very bad) human rights abuses of the Palestinian people.

Kathryn Casa

New York, Nov. 2

A visitor to Brattleboro

P.S. It’s a good thing you left the other bumper sticker, "AIPAC owns your congressman," since that’s a much more complicated story.

http://www.reformer.com/letters/ci_16591256

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Letter Box

Posted: 11/13/2010

A little clarification

Editor of the Reformer:

I agree that Kathryn Casa’s bumper sticker should not have been vandalized. However, her letter discussing U.S. support of Israel left out some relevant information.

Just this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the U.S. has transferred $150 million in new aid to the Palestinian Authority to help close its budget gap. Ms. Clinton said, "This new funding will help the Palestinian Authority pay down its debt, continue to deliver services and security to its people, and keep the progress going. It will support our work together to expand Palestinians’ access to schools, clinics and clean drinking water in both the West Bank and Gaza [Strip]."

These funds bring U.S. direct budget assistance to the Palestinian Authority to $225 million this year. Overall support and investment to the Palestinians is nearly $600 million for the year.

Martin Cohn,

Brattleboro, Nov. 12

http://www.reformer.com/letters/ci_16600930

Would we go to Israel?

2010-11-11T08:15:00.000-08:00

JERUSALEM POST

By NABIL SHARAF ELDIN
11/10/2010 23:12

It’s hard for an Arab to find a safe place to visit in the region... except for the state our demagogues continue to call ‘the alleged entity.’

I have been haunted since early boyhood by an infatuation with Bilad al-Sham, or Greater Syria – the territories of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine.

For me, this fascination started with recognizing the voices of singers like Syrian Sabah Fakhry (born 1933) belonging to the al-Sham region.

I conjured up these images and feelings as I was boarding a plane heading for the “land of beauty,” dreaming of soirées in Aleppo, touring Damascus’s old marketplaces and hanging around its cafés.

Such daydreams were flashing through my imagination until the “blessed” plane landed in Syria, when all dreams faded away within half an hour at Damascus Airport.

I was quickly singled out by a security officer, who checked my passport. He reviewed a list, and asked me to stand aside until he had dealt with a “routine problem” that would not take time. Ten minutes later, a grim-faced officer in plainclothes came and told me to follow him. When I asked if I should bring my luggage, he pointed to an office and said it was already there. It was a government office affiliated with a security department whose name was not disclosed to me.

Two or more hours now passed, with me sitting on a very bad seat inside a vault not much bigger than a jail cell. A third officer then presented himself. He hammered me with questions, starting with my “dubious” profession (journalism) and including my favorite brand of cigarettes, Marlboro Red.

I answered with composure and calmness, trying in vain to alleviate the sharp tone he was using. “Your case is under examination,” the officer said disgustedly, adding that he would let me know the result “shortly.”

An hour later, a fourth officer arrived, no less grimfaced than his predecessors. Addressing the would-be “ambassador of the devil,” he told me I was not welcome in Syria. It was “a sovereign decision,” according to him, and he said he was not obliged to give any explanation.

So I had to carry my luggage (which had clearly been subject to a stormy search) back through the airport.

Now, on board a plane heading to Cairo, I recalled all the opinion pieces and TV interviews in which I had been critical of the policies and remarks of some senior Syrian officials. That was the reason for what had happened! My expulsion from Syria took place almost 18 months ago. I preferred at the time to turn a blind eye, as I believed it wasn’t worth making an issue out of it, particularly with a regime ruled by a man who had inherited his power. Yet I cannot help smiling in bitterness whenever I listen to Syrian officials parroting the Ba’ath Party’s famous slogan: “One Arab nation with a timeless message.” I have now become totally aware of what that one nation and timeless message stand for!

I THOUGHT about visiting Beirut and attending a concert by Lebanon’s iconic diva Fayrouz that was scheduled at the Al-Bayal hotel, and actually began to prepare for this once-in-a-lifetime event.

I phoned a Lebanese friend and fellow journalist.

He was terrified by my daring thought, and taken by surprise by my naivete – merely thinking about visiting Lebanon with my record of dire assaults on Hizbullah (I had once dubbed the powerful Shi’ite group a “war contractor” and a proxy for Iran’s regional aspirations).

I was even oblivious to the fact that Hizbullah men are in de facto control of Beirut Airport – another source of amazement for my colleague, who feared for my safety.

Although it was once a part of Egypt, I don’t even feel safe visiting Sudan, due to my verbal attacks on the regime of Omar Bashir, who insists on presiding over a collapsing state.

I am sure that Muammar Gaddafi’s Revolutionary Command Council will not deny me access to Libya.

Yet I am almost as certain I would never come out again, just like many others.

RCC “knights” would not be any more merciful to me than they were to my late Libyan colleague, London- based journalist Daif al-Ghazal, whose body was found off the coast of Benghazi on June 2, 2005, more than two weeks after his disappearance. He had been tortured almost beyond recognition, according to Reporters without Borders.

No one assumes to know what kind of suffering the 32-year was subject to when he was taking his last breaths, the words he uttered when the electric saw was cutting through his fingers or his screams upon being burnt with mineral acids. Nobody knows.

Rather, nobody cared to know about his suffering, and Arab newspapers didn’t highlight Ghazal’s case; the story was covered only by Western papers, rights groups and some websites.

I remember that I published many reports and opinion pieces on the incident, recalling notorious precedents by the Libyan regime. This is not all; I also commented more than once on Gaddafi’s weird, comic remarks, particularly during Arab summit conferences. That’s why I couldn’t risk going even to Salloum, the Egyptian city bordering Libya.

Being one of those in the Middle East who refuses my assigned role as a regime loyalist, I sometimes face charges of seeking normalization with Israel, apostasy from Islam or designation as an American agent.

FAILING TO find a glimpse of hope across the greater Arab world, we must concede that Israel has become the only “safe haven” where one can be sure of his life and dignity. Yes, Israel, the state our demagogues continue to call “the alleged entity.”

Just like the Palestinian Helles family who fled Hamas “jihadists” in Gaza to Israel, I foresee a time when millions of Arabs might stand humbly in front of IDF soldiers, begging for protection.

So, I urge you, dear fellow Arab, to visit Israel.

The writer is an Egyptian journalist and political analyst.

Listen to American Jews' stand on Israel

2010-11-02T05:44:00.000-07:00

HAARETZ - October 31, 2010

Examining the views of American Jews toward Israel is crucial in light of both the U.S. midterm elections and the Jewish Agency reform program initiated by Natan Sharansky.

By Gabi Sheffer

Where do American Jews stand on Israel and how are these positions linked to their attitude toward the American administration? Examining this issue is crucial in light of both the U.S. midterm elections and the reform program for the Jewish Agency initiated by Chairman Natan Sharansky.

First, it must be recognized that American Jewry is not a homogenous community. There is a core, which includes those who emphatically identify as members of the Jewish faith and nation, but the number of Jews who have completely integrated into American society and who stand on the fringes of the Jewish nation is growing. Half of American Jews define themselves as ethnic Jews, and not Jews by faith. These two facts have great meaning for the positions of Jews in general, and specifically regarding Israel.

Many Jews in the core group feel an emotional tie to the Land of Israel, but not necessarily to present-day Israel. Most of these Jews are convinced that Israel is not the center of the Jewish people and that it has no right to interfere in their affairs, including on issues related to Jewish education. They believe there are at least two centers of Judaism: Israel and American Jewry.

According to polls not cited in Israel, most Jews who have completely integrated into American society display total apathy for events that unfold in Israel. Only 30 percent of American Jews care deeply about what happens here.

Most Jews who do care clearly support a solution involving two states for two peoples. What's more, an increasing number of Jews back the division of Jerusalem and turning half of it into the capital of Palestine (not only Jews in the United States, but also in Canada, France, Britain and even Australia, which was considered the Diaspora group most closely tied to Israel ).

Not only are more and more individual Jews coming to hold such views, but the number of organizations pushing these positions is also growing. J Street, which has come under harsh criticism from the Israeli political establishment, is not the only group with such a stance. Many people in the Reform Jewish community support its views, and similar organizations are being established, and not only in the United States.

It can be cautiously stated that many Diaspora Jews do not support the policy of the Israeli government. Put more bluntly, they oppose most aspects of Israeli government policy, not only in the political-military sphere, but in many other areas, including policy connected to defining the national Jewish-Israeli identity. Undoubtedly, more than half of American Jews who identify as such will not support a religious definition of the Jewish nation and the State of Israel.

In terms of American Jews' attitude toward the Obama administration, it is vital to understand that few of them will stop supporting their president solely because of his positions on the Middle East peace process. The positions of a great many American Jews are and will be determined by the social, political and economic situation in the United States, since American Jews feel they are an integral part of the country in which they live.

In light of all this, it is very important to examine carefully what is being said and written by members of Jewish organizations in the United States whose positions and interests are similar to those of Israeli governments, as well as the words of professional politicians and bureaucrats in Israel whose work and livelihood are linked to relations between Israel and the Diaspora.

The author teaches political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Is CBS' 60 minutes anti-Israel?

2010-10-31T16:51:00.000-07:00

Leslie Stahl reported on a "controversial archeological dig site in Jerusalem.

Was it accurate or biased?

Decide for yourself by clicking here.

How did so many photographers happen to be in the right place at the time?

2010-10-11T16:25:00.000-07:00

HonestReporting.com has once again uncovered a conspiracy by media photographers to create anti-Israel propaganda. This time it appears that a stoning incident was staged in Silwan for a photo caption: "An Israeli motorist run down a masked Palestinian youth who was among a group of boys throwing stones at Israeli cars in the mostly Arab east Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan." Amazing that seven photographers happened to be at the site at the same time to capture the incident.

Check out the full story here or watch a podcast.

Sunday NY Times Travel Section: When History Speaks

2010-10-03T16:34:00.000-07:00

A wonderful article in today's Sunday NY TIMES Travel section about Israel. The accompanying photos are great too.

September 29, 2010

By DAVID LASKIN

CHAIM KAHANOVICH, an 18-year-old Polish Jew, caught his first brown glimpse of the Holy Land from the deck of a steamer in November 1924. He would never leave. Dark-haired, short and solid, Chaim brought with him a teenager’s blazing passion and an ideologue’s stubborn commitment to a cause. The long, slow journey had taken him from Warsaw by train to the Black Sea port of Constanta, then by ship through the Bosporus Straits and across the Mediterranean to Palestine. There at last, rising like the back of an ox from the blue water of Haifa Bay, was the sere ridge of Mount Carmel — the Promised Land.

From his boyhood study of Torah, Chaim would have known that Carmel was the place where the prophet Elijah faced down the pagan priests of Baal and fled the wrath of Queen Jezebel. But he had not come to Palestine to study Torah. He and his comrades were called halutzim — pioneers — and they had made aliyah (literally the ascent) to the Holy Land to plow the soil, plant grapevines and citrus groves, raise chickens, tomatoes and children, and to found a new nation.

I know the details of Chaim’s life and circumstances because he and his wife, Sonia, were relatives of mine (my maternal grandfather was their first cousin), and I recently went to Israel with my oldest daughter, Emily, for the first time to retrace their journeys and uncover what I could about our family’s story — a story of immigration shared by thousands of others. What made this trip especially inspiring was that I was able to cover so much of Israeli history: in this ancient but recently conceived nation, the founders lived just a generation ago. It’s as if the children and grandchildren of Washington, Jefferson and Adams were around to give interviews and point out historical sights.

So with Chaim and Sonia’s three middle-aged children, Leah, Shimon and Benny, as our guides, Emily and I made a kind of roots pilgrimage to farmhouses and cemeteries, museums and archives — tracking 25 years of Chaim’s life. We were fortunate because our Israeli cousins proved to be tireless family historians. Drawing on letters, interviews and stories they remembered, they put together a written account of Chaim’s emigration and early life in Palestine. They unearthed and translated a lengthy interview they had recorded with their mother shortly before her death. They introduced me to elderly relatives and friends who had lived through that period as children and to others who had come to Israel after surviving the Holocaust. Museums and archives in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and online databases helped, too, providing context, background, color and precious pieces of the genealogical puzzle.

Making our home base in Netanya, a rather drab but beautifully situated 1970s-era beach town north of Tel Aviv with a weird mix of French and Russian clientele, we began our journey where Chaim began his — in Haifa, looking down from the famed Bahai Gardens perched over the city on the slope of Mount Carmel.

From the gardens’ uppermost level, Haifa today has some of the topographical drama of Genoa or San Francisco — lush, green manicured terraces step down to a cityscape of red tile roofs and white low-rise apartment buildings; a working harbor, more muscular than pretty, bustles behind a breakwater; the azure bowl of a perfect bay opens beyond palms and beaches. The contemporary city also has its share of the depressing sprawl that blots much of Israel’s coastline. It was very different when Chaim disembarked here in 1924. Mixed Arab and Jewish then as now, the city Chaim saw was a tight enclave huddled between port and mountain. Mount Carmel, which today is thickly planted with luxury hotels, university campuses and condos, was largely wild.

It probably took Chaim and his comrades the better part of a day to creep by train from Haifa to the Sea of Galilee in Palestine’s northeast corner. We did the 50-mile trip in Benny’s car in under an hour and a half. But it felt like crossing into a different world, or several different worlds. A few miles east of Haifa, the congested suburbs drop away and the land opens up into the cotton fields and citrus and avocado groves of the black-soiled Jezreel Valley. On the other side of a range of hazy blue mountains, the landscape alters again to something vaguely reminiscent of the Rocky Mountain foothills — tan soil, scrubby vegetation, the air noticeably warmer and drier. We crested a rise, and suddenly, there at our feet was the immense turquoise teardrop of the Sea of Galilee (known as Kinneret in Hebrew) bordered by a patchwork of irrigated farm fields.

The lakeside city of Tiberias, on the western coast, offers the full panoply of tourist amenities, with resorts, spas and water-themed amusement parks. There is also plenty of recreation on the lake itself — boating, fishing, camping — and tours geared to Christian pilgrims who come here to see where Jesus was baptized (the exact spot is believed to be in the Jordan River just south of where it flows out of the south end of the lake) and to sail on the water that bore his feet. We were here not to relax or commune with God but to see the region where Chaim lived first and always loved best.

The south shore of the Sea of Galilee (in fact a freshwater lake fed and drained by the Jordan River) was the site of some of the earliest successful Jewish agricultural settlements, starting with the Kinneret Colony in 1908. Since the area is almost 700 feet below sea level, the climate is quite toasty most of the year (and blazing hot in summer), though if you can stand the heat, it’s a stunningly beautiful region and remains largely unspoiled. Chaim, during his first two years here, lived and worked not on the lakeshore but at a small isolated satellite settlement called Mount Kinneret, way up in the hills.

His sons had never been to the long-abandoned colony, and so with Benny driving and Shimon manning the GPS, we spent about 15 minutes careening around one-lane roads past mango groves, date palms and prickly pear until we found a place to park near a path that descends from the road into a bit of rocky scrub bisected by a stream. Today not a scrap remains of the collective farm that Chaim and others struggled to sustain here on a few precipitous acres. Benny cut the engine, and in the balmy silence, I tried to imagine the shock Chaim felt when he first laid eyes on the place. I knew from my research that he probably slept on boards laid over empty gasoline cans; that his hands split open and his back cramped from the toil of coaxing crops from the stony ground; that he had no privacy.

Ultimately, life at Mount Kinneret was too rugged and precarious even for Chaim, and in 1926 he moved down to the Kinneret Colony, a walled agricultural compound of eight small houses set back a few dozen yards from the shore. That was our next stop. After driving down the mountain, we met with a man named Mulik, a settler in his 80s with a phenomenal memory, who showed us around a small museum housed in a former pharmacy at the colony’s entrance. Every early settlement and kibbutz has its own museum or archive. Some, like this one, include just a few simple rooms of photos and farm tools; others, like the museum at the nearby Degania kibbutz, offer a fuller picture of the nation’s natural and human history. Mulik steered us to a grainy photo of the colony taken in the 1920s — eight houses bake in the sun in a landscape that looks as bare and crumpled as the Dakota Badlands.

“See that house with the flat roof?” asked Benny, pointing to the third building in from the right. “That’s where the Cohen family lived. They hired our father as a farmhand, and he lived in the shed beside the house.” We strolled a hundred yards from the museum, and there was the house, a modest unadorned bungalow shaded by a small front porch. The flat roof has been raised and tiled and a few tropical shrubs now grow in the yard, but the shed where Chaim boarded remains the same — a rickety stucco outbuilding with one tiny window. Nevertheless, according to the history my relatives had put together, Chaim had spent the happiest days of his life here. “Chaim loved the place and the Cohen family loved him,” one passage reads. “He often took the children sailing on the Kinneret. There was romance in the air.”

After lunch, we wandered down the lakeshore — a glorious vista composed of wide swatches of saturated color, soft green in the irrigated fields around the lake, powder blue in the mountains ringing it, deep royal blue on the lake’s surface. My cousins said that the place gets busy during holidays, but on the afternoon of our visit a couple of sailboats skimmed by, tiny waves lapped the shore, and a light haze muffled the distant mountains. It all felt ancient, serene, far from the world. But history has cast its shadow here, too. Shimon pointed across the water to the Golan Heights. “That’s where our older brother, Arik, fell.” I knew the story well: Arik, Chaim and Sonia’s tall, handsome, athletic firstborn son, was serving as a major in the Israeli army tank corps when he was killed on Oct. 12, 1973, by a Syrian shell in the Yom Kippur War. Shimon and Benny talked about driving us to the spot where their brother died but for reasons they kept to themselves, decided there wasn’t time.

In January 1929, Chaim, suffering from malaria (which was epidemic among the settlers), left the Kinneret and moved to another fledgling colony — that of Herzliya, near the Mediterranean coast. Israel is so compact that we were able to retrace his journey in a matter of hours. In the course of a single day we looped from our hotel in the coastal city of Netanya, up to Haifa, over to the Kinneret and back to Netanya in time for dinner; the next morning Shimon whisked us from Netanya to Herzliya in about half an hour.

Today a seaside resort north of Tel Aviv with gorgeous beaches and plush high-rise hotels alongside leafy villas owned by diplomats and business tycoons, Herzliya in Chaim’s day was an agricultural training center for garinim — groups of young Jewish farm workers. The Beit Rishonim (Founders’ House), a small museum devoted to Herzliya’s past, wonderfully captures the struggle and ardor of the early modern Jewish settlers.

While Emily and I browsed the museum’s photos of sweaty young men (and a few women) digging wells and planting orange trees in the desolate sand dunes, Shimon filled us in on the family history. Chaim had been working in Herzliya for three years when his cousin (and soon to be wife) Sonia joined him from Poland in 1932. She and Chaim were married in December 1933, and a year later moved 20 miles up the coast to the village of Kfar Vitkin to join a newly formed moshav (a cooperative farming village akin to a kibbutz but with families farming individual plots and raising their own children).

Though now engulfed in the sprawl creeping north from Tel Aviv, the 150-family Kfar Vitkin moshav has retained some of its agricultural character. Citrus and avocado groves (and tennis courts) fringe the farmsteads, a big feed and grain distribution warehouse looms beside the village center, and the smell of cow manure pervades the air on warm evenings.

We visited the tiny stucco box of a house that Chaim and Sonia built for their family, which would come to include four children and Sonia’s father, who had miraculously left Poland to visit family in New York — mine — before war broke out and joined his daughter in 1948. What surprised me was how small the plots were — barely bigger than a good-size lot in the American exurbs. Chaim became the moshav’s driver, and his sons fondly remember hauling produce and eggs into Haifa with their father in a dusty old truck.

Then, when he was in his early 50s Chaim suffered a stroke that left him partly paralyzed and unable to work until his death in 1965 at the age of 59.

Before dinner one night, Benny brought Emily and me up to the moshav’s cemetery on a breezy hillside outside of town. We wandered, while he translated the names on the headstones: Arik; Sonia’s father, Sholom Tvi; and Sonia, whose stone was inscribed not only with her own name and dates (1910 to 1996) but also the names of her two sisters and her mother. They have no graves of their own because they stayed in Poland, and perished along with 14 other relations.

Our final days in Israel were dedicated to learning what we could about the lives and deaths of these relatives. To pursue this search, we left behind the mountains and coastal farming villages where we had spent the first part of the week and headed to the nation’s two major cities — one of them ancient, the other not even a century old, both rushing rapidly into an uncertain future. Specifically, we were intent on visiting two major cultural institutions, one in Tel Aviv, the other in Jerusalem, dedicated to helping the Jewish people untangle and come to terms with their past.

In Tel Aviv we devoted most of our time to Beit Hatfutsot (the Museum of the Jewish People, commonly called the Diaspora Museum) on the campus of Tel Aviv University. Two floors of multimedia galleries packed with dioramas, replicas of Jewish artistry and architecture, historic film clips, snatches of music, photos, models of synagogues, and searchable computer terminals conjure up 2,000 years of Jewish exile in all corners of the world. I was most interested in the shtetls of Eastern Europe, where my family had lived for hundreds of years, and though I found much that was redolent of the spirit of the past, there was little specific to my search.

I had hopes of learning more in the ground-floor database room, where a couple of helpful English-speaking archivists are on hand to guide visitors at no charge through searches of digital genealogical and historical files. But I had already visited the museum’s Web site before I left home, and the same information came up. Far richer was a search for our family’s shtetls on the Yizkor (memorial) Book Project run by Jewish Gen (jewishgen.org/yizkor/).

Toward the end of the week, we headed to Jerusalem. We did a bit of sightseeing from our guesthouse in the Old City, and then spent a full day at Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial in West Jerusalem. In the brief five years since it opened, Yad Vashem’s history museum has become a rite of passage of sorts for all history-minded visitors to Israel, and after spending a day there, I could see why. The galleries designed by Moshe Safdie enclose — indeed almost imprison — you in a nightmarish maze of photos, film clips, posters, artifacts and scale models of death camps: the whole story of the destruction of Europe’s Jews from the rise of Hitler to the liberation of the camps. I stood weeping before a film clip of Jewish prisoners forced to run from trucks to the killing pits of Ponary outside the Lithuanian city of Vilnius, where Nazis machine-gunned tens of thousands and bulldozed earth over the bodies. One of Sonia’s brothers-in-law probably died there. I listened to a guide explain how crystallized pellets of the poison gas Zyklon-B were dropped into sealed death chambers at Birkenau. I gazed at photos of children starving to death in the same ghetto where Chaim and Sonia’s family was imprisoned.

The Diaspora Museum brought me close to the vanished sepia world where my family once lived. Yad Vashem immersed me in the hell in which 17 of them died. But it also shed some light on one aspect of my family’s history that had never been resolved.

Right before my visit, I had e-mailed the names, dates and places of birth of my relatives killed in Europe to Rita Margolin, a staff researcher in the Yad Vashem archives. She had uncovered one bit of information that my Israeli relatives had not known, and she shared it with us when we stopped by the archives. Shortly before the war ended, one of Sonia’s nephews had been deported from the Vilnius ghetto to a slave labor camp called Klooga, where he died at the age of 16 — exactly how remains unknown.

This 16-year-old prisoner, No. 641, Chaim and Sonia’s nephew, was Benny and Leah and Shimon’s first cousin. They have his pictures in their family albums; their mother visited his family in Vilnius, then Vilna. Another relative, a survivor of the Vilna ghetto we met with in Tel Aviv, told us that the nephew fell ill with scarlet fever in the ghetto and went deaf.

After two emotionally draining days, we left Jerusalem for Hadera, the city north of Tel Aviv where my cousin Shimon lives, eager to share this new detail at a party the family gave for us on our last night. Chaim and Sonia’s three surviving children were there, along with most of their grandchildren and great-grandchildren — maybe 25 people, all of them living in Israel, all of them living, because two starry-eyed halutzim had left Poland some 80 years before to make a new life in the Holy Land.

IF YOU GO

Family members make the best guides for heritage travel, but you can customize a trip using professionals through Best Guide (bestguide.co.il, in Hebrew only), with tours in Hebrew or English.

The Galilee is an easy day trip from Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. If you want to spend the night, there is a wide range of accommodations in Tiberias, an ancient Roman city that has evolved into something of a 21st-century party town. More tranquil and bucolic lodging (standard motel units as well as apartments and cottages with kitchens) can be found at the resort village run by the Ein Gev kibbutz on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee (eingev.com).

For family reasons, we focused our visit to the Galilee on the Kinneret Colony and its small history museum (open by appointment, 972-4-675-0142), but for a more complete overview of the region’s agriculture, modern Jewish settlement and natural history, I would recommend a tour of Degania A (degania.org.il), Israel’s first kibbutz. Children might be interested in the displays of local animals (and plants) at the kibbutz’s Beit Gordon natural history museum (beitgordon.museumline.co.il, in Hebrew only).

A two-minute drive from Degania brings you to Yardenit, the site on the Jordan River traditionally associated with the baptism of Jesus (yardenit.com). Open March to November. Admission is free.

Beit Rishonim, or Founders’ House (8 ha-Nadiv Street, Herzliya; 972-9-954-8561. Admission: individuals free; for groups, 20 shekels, or $5.35 at 27 cents to the shekel, a person.

Beit Hatfutsot, the Museum of the Jewish People, on the Tel Aviv University Campus (Gate 2; bh.org.il). Admission: 35 shekels. You can access the research database through the Web site.

Yad Vashem (yadvashem.org), a complex of history and art museums, memorials, gardens and an archive, library and resource center, is about a 20-minute cab ride from the Old City of Jerusalem. Admission is free. For help with researching Holocaust victims, e-mail can be sent to holocaust.resources@yadvashem.org.il.

David Laskin, a Seattle-based writer, is at work on a history of his family.

http://travel.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/travel/03Israel.html?pagewanted=1

PHOTOS:

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/09/28/travel/20101003ISRAEL.html

UNHRC abuses human rights

2010-09-28T09:10:00.000-07:00

By DANNY AYALON
09/27/2010 03:23

JERUSALEM POST

Once again, a report has blamed an event almost solely on Israel while refusing to assign responsibility or even suitably investigate any other party.

Unsurprisingly, a United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) report has once again slammed Israel’s acts of self-defense. The recently released report ostensibly investigating the events that surrounded the interception of the Gaza-bound Mavi Marmara in May is a modern blood-libel, and another nail in the coffin of the council’s credibility. The full report is scheduled to be officially presented to the council on Monday.

While its name would seem to indicate a worthy body, the UNHRC has two sole functions: to defend serial human-rights abusing nations from reproach, and to revile and attack Israel.

The UNHRC, created in 2006, is the successor to the thoroughly discredited United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). When the mandate for the new council was debated, certain basic reforms and standards were proposed to ensure the commission’s failures were not repeated. Unfortunately, few of the reforms received substantial support in the UN General Assembly, which refused to adopt them.

Those that were adopted have been abused.

The General Assembly resolution that created the council merely required member states to “take into account” a candidate’s human-rights record when applying to the UNHRC. Not even a nation under sanction from the UN Security Council for human-rights abuses need refrain from seeking election.

During the application process, candidate nations make pledges of adherence to human rights standards by way of justifying their candidacy. These statements have been described as Kafkaesque in their deviance from reality and historical record. One glaring example is that of Saudi Arabia, which claimed a “confirmed commitment to the defense, protection and promotion of human rights.”

The reality of course, is very different.

The US State Department’s annual human rights reports consistently criticize Saudi Arabia for its serious human rights failings, including arbitrary arrest, discrimination against women, restriction of worker rights and lack of religious freedom.

However, Saudi Arabia is hardly alone, as only 20 of the 47 nations on the UNHRC are considered “free” by Freedom House, an independent NGO which monitors human rights and political freedoms. This means the majority of nations currently represented on the UNHRC do not allow basic freedoms for their own people, let alone concern themselves with global human rights.

Another example of this farce was the recent election of Libya to the UNHRC.

Libya received support from 155 of the General Assembly’s 192 member states in a secret ballot, angering a coalition of 37 human rights organizations which described Libya as one of the most repressive societies in the world.

ONE OF the root problems is the influence of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) within the UNHRC.

The UNHRC heavily weights membership on its council to nations from Africa and Asia – two continents where the OIC has considerable influence. The OIC controls the lion’s share of the world’s energy resources, including oil, gas and uranium.

The OIC and its allies have an automatic majority on the UNHRC, and this is represented in the council’s workload.

Human Rights Watch claims that the OIC has “fought doggedly” and successfully within the UN Human Rights Council to shield states from criticism, except when it comes to criticism of Israel. The OIC’s mantra has been that the council should work cooperatively with abusive governments rather than condemn them.

This has led to the absurd situation in which Israel is condemned 33 times by the UNHRC out of a total of 40 countryspecific condemnations, while the UNHRC expresses only “deep concern” over Sudan and praises its cooperation.

In addition, the UNHRC adopted a unique decision to discuss human rights violations committed by Israel in all of the council’s meetings. It has also been criticized for redirecting attention to the fate of Muslim minorities within non- Muslim countries, but diverting attention from the treatment of ethnic minorities in Muslim-majority countries, such as the oppression of the Kurds in Syria, the Ahwaz in Iran, the Al-Akhdam in Yemen or the Berbers in Algeria.

Furthermore, the OIC has been at the forefront of silencing freedom of expression.

An amendment to the duties of the special rapporteur on freedom of expression, passed by the Human Rights Council on March 28, 2008, has acted against this very freedom. The OIC and its allies have sought to ban anything they deem as criticism of Islam. Some nations were outraged by this amendment, which they claimed “turns the special rapporteur’s mandate on its head.”

Nevertheless, it is on the subject of Israel that the OIC appears to have unique influence. When the UNHRC discussed issues relating to the Second Lebanon War in 2006, four of the council’s independent experts reported the findings of their visit to Lebanon and Israel. State after state from the OIC took the floor to denounce the experts for daring to look beyond Israeli violations to discuss Hizbullah’s as well.

This sent a very clear message that experts filing reports for the UNHRC involving Israel should never look at the conduct of any other party. Justice Richard Goldstone understood this very well, as was reflected in the report he gave the UNHRC. In an interview given to Al Jazeera in 2009, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary-general of the OIC, explained how his organization not only initiated, but drove the Goldstone process from start to finish.

THE PANEL of experts compiling the report on events surrounding the flotilla has clearly understood its mandate well. Once again, a report has singularly blamed an event almost solely on Israel while refusing to assign responsibility or even suitably investigate any other actor. What makes the report so absurd is the recent release of many first-hand accounts by people on the Mavi Marmara.

These accounts, written by some hostile to Israel in the first place, depict very different scenes to those described in the report.

In his recently released book, Turkish journalist Sefik Dinç, while sympathetic to the militant IHH, writes that the crisis was “calculated” by those on board, and reportedly describes how the IDF soldiers did not open fire until after other soldiers were taken hostage. Dinç describes in his book, with the aid of photographs, how preparations for confronting the Israelis on the Mavi Marmara were “not going to be that passive.”

Our internal investigations indicate that not only did the soldiers only open fire when their lives were threatened, but that the first shots were fired by those on the boat; there are reports that one soldier suffered a knee injury from a non-IDF weapon as soon as he came on board.

This biased, libelous report indicates that the OIC has once again achieved its aim of condemning Israel through its proxies in the UNHRC. One again, it has proven UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and former high commissioner for human rights Mary Robinson’s criticisms that the council acts according to political considerations as opposed to human rights. In fact, the report stands as an affront to the secretary- general’s own panel of inquiry, with which Israel is fully cooperating.

General Assembly President Joseph Deisss warned recently against the marginalization of the UN itself by stating the need for urgent reforms, like reviewing the UNHRC. At stake is the plight of millions of victims of human-rights violations around the world.

It is high time for democracies to reassess their participation in a council that places political calculations over the protection of human rights while providing cover to some of the world’s most brutal regimes.

We must give a voice to the oppressed, justice to the abused and equity for all of humanity. None of this will be achieved by always attacking and condemning Israel while allowing totalitarian nations to hijack the international human-rights agenda.

The writer is the deputy foreign minister.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=189354

Be an ambassador for Israel

2010-09-26T13:14:00.000-07:00

Many of us, whether we’re traveling or living abroad for an extended period of time, get involved in discussions with locals during which they bring up misconceptions and false information regarding Israel, without our having the tools and the correct information for coping with the questions or the barbs of criticism put to us.

At such moments, we’re seized with an urge to make the other person open their mind and especially their heart, and see us—see Israel—differently.

The Israeli Ministry of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs has created a Web site that contains good advocacy information.

Check it out by clicking here.

Yom Kippur at Sea

2010-09-19T13:18:00.000-07:00

NEW YORK TIMES — OP/ED

September 17, 2010

By SAM KESTENBAUM

Deer Isle, Me.

TODAY is Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. It is the Day of Atonement, a day of meditation, of repentance and redemption. Many Jews will spend it at temple or in a house of study, meditating, reading Torah and chanting contemplative psalms together or quietly to themselves.

Last year, right after graduating from college, I took a job on a commercial lobster boat here in my hometown as a sternman, one half of a two-man crew. A few days before Yom Kippur, I told the captain that I couldn’t work on the holiday.

This is not a typical day for lobstermen to take off, at least not on Deer Isle, and he looked puzzled. I explained, “You see, it’s a High Holy Day.” It was 4:30 in the morning and the sun had yet to rise. We were sipping coffee on the dock as the row of diesel boats beside us sputtered to life.

I wasn’t sure how much he knew about our holiday, or how much I should tell him.

Should I explain that we fast on this day, humbling ourselves before God and preparing for judgment? Should I tell him how fates are sealed in the Book of Life? Or should I instead share some of the biblical stories that we retell on Yom Kippur? Launch into the tale of the binding of Isaac, or talk about Abraham and Sarah? Should I recount Jonah’s trip to the bottom of the sea, and the redemption he finds there in the belly of a whale? Should I commandeer the CB radio on our boat and blow the shofar, the ram’s horn, across the airwaves?

We finished our coffee and made our way to the boat, lunch boxes in hand. I decided it was too early in the morning for shofar blowing. Besides, we had more than 300 traps to haul — a full day’s work.

Growing up on Deer Isle, I quickly learned that there was something a little different about how my family worshiped. There were many churches on the island — from Catholic to Protestant to Latter-day Saints; from small, one-room church houses to big, established churches with freshly paved driveways. We didn’t pray at any of these. Instead we made a weekly pilgrimage to the nearest synagogue, 60 miles away in Bangor.

One day, earlier in the fishing season, my captain and I were stacking lobster traps in his dooryard. Another fisherman sat nearby and watched us. He was in his mid-80s and spoke with a thick Down East accent, the kind that would be unintelligible to anyone from out of state.

“I see you’ve got a man who works hard. Think you’ll keep him around?” he asked my captain. Then he chuckled and turned to me.

“What did you say your name was again?”

“Sam,” I said. “Sam Kestenbaum.” He raised his eyebrows.

On the island, the name Kestenbaum is often met with this kind of puzzled look, then followed by, “You’re going to have to spell that.” Certain last names fill up pages in the phone book here. The names of old families that have been here for generations, networks of cousins, aunts and uncles — Eaton, Haskell, Hardy, Heanssler and Weed, among others. But you will find only one Kestenbaum family in Hancock County. And you won’t find too many other Jewish lobstermen (perhaps not particularly surprising considering the non-kosher status of the catch).

Despite this, I feel close to my faith when I’m on the water. The work is difficult, but meditative. Fishermen grapple daily with the elements: the wind, the tide, the shifting of the seasons. Jews also keep their eyes on the elements, recognizing the great, sacred powers that are present in the world. And wherever we go, we believe God travels with us.

It is said that when the Jews went into exile, the Shekinah, the divine presence, went into exile, too — hovering over us, around us wherever we were, waiting for us to invite the sacred into our lives. This is one of the great gifts of diaspora: we travel, move, but remain who we are.

Last year, during the week of Yom Kippur, a storm whirled into Penobscot Bay, the first of the fall. The rain was heavy; fierce winds shook the trees and bent their branches. It turned out I wasn’t the only fisherman to spend the holiday onshore. Most stayed in their shops, mending traps, coiling rope or painting buoys.

And me, I drove the hour and a half to the Bangor temple to meditate on teshuvah — on turning and returning to God, on starting fresh. It wasn’t boat work, but it was work — a kind of repair, a checking of the knots and wiring, refueling for another year.

And today I’ll do the same. On this Yom Kippur, I wish my fellow Jews “gmar chatima tova,” may you be written in the Book of Life for good. And to my fellow fishermen: I wish safe waters and good hauls. May the price per pound of lobster rise. May we weather the coming storms.

Sam Kestenbaum works on a lobster boat.

The Palestinians, Alone

2010-09-15T12:24:00.000-07:00

The following op-ed appeared in the August 1, 2010 NY Times. It discusses a recent survey by Al Arabiya TV that found 71% of the Arabic respondents have no interest in the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks.

By EFRAIM KARSH

London — It has long been conventional wisdom that the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a prerequisite to peace and stability in the Middle East. Since Arabs and Muslims are so passionate about the Palestine problem, this argument runs, the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate feeds regional anger and despair, gives a larger rationale to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and to the insurgency in Iraq and obstructs the formation of a regional coalition that will help block Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.

What, then, are we to make of a recent survey for the Al Arabiya television network finding that a staggering 71 percent of the Arabic respondents have no interest in the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks? “This is an alarming indicator,” lamented Saleh Qallab, a columnist for the pan-Arab newspaper Al Sharq al Awsat. “The Arabs, people and regimes alike, have always been as interested in the peace process, its developments and particulars, as they were committed to the Palestinian cause itself.”

But the truth is that Arab policies since the mid-1930s suggest otherwise. While the “Palestine question” has long been central to inter-Arab politics, Arab states have shown far less concern for the well-being of the Palestinians than for their own interests.

For example, it was common knowledge that the May 1948 pan-Arab invasion of the nascent state of Israel was more a scramble for Palestinian territory than a fight for Palestinian national rights. As the first secretary-general of the Arab League, Abdel Rahman Azzam, once admitted to a British reporter, the goal of King Abdullah of Transjordan “was to swallow up the central hill regions of Palestine, with access to the Mediterranean at Gaza. The Egyptians would get the Negev. Galilee would go to Syria, except that the coastal part as far as Acre would be added to the Lebanon.”

From 1948 to 1967, when Egypt and Jordan ruled the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, the Arab states failed to put these populations on the road to statehood. They also showed little interest in protecting their human rights or even in improving their quality of life — which is part of the reason why 120,000 West Bank Palestinians moved to the East Bank of the Jordan River and about 300,000 others emigrated abroad. “We couldn’t care less if all the refugees die,” an Egyptian diplomat once remarked. “There are enough Arabs around.”

Not surprisingly, the Arab states have never hesitated to sacrifice Palestinians on a grand scale whenever it suited their needs. In 1970, when his throne came under threat from the Palestine Liberation Organization, the affable and thoroughly Westernized King Hussein of Jordan ordered the deaths of thousands of Palestinians, an event known as “Black September.”

Six years later, Lebanese Christian militias, backed by the Syrian Army, massacred some 3,500 Palestinians, mostly civilians, in the Beirut refugee camp of Tel al-Zaatar. These militias again slaughtered hundreds of Palestinians in 1982 in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, this time under Israel’s watchful eye. None of the Arab states came to the Palestinians’ rescue.

Worse, in the mid-’80s, when the P.L.O. — officially designated by the Arab League as the “sole representative of the Palestinian people” — tried to re-establish its military presence in Lebanon, it was unceremoniously expelled by President Hafez al-Assad of Syria.

This history of Arab leaders manipulating the Palestinian cause for their own ends while ignoring the fate of the Palestinians goes on and on. Saddam Hussein, in an effort to ennoble his predatory designs, claimed that he wouldn’t consider ending his August 1990 invasion of Kuwait without “the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Israel from the occupied Arab territories in Palestine.”

Shortly after the Persian Gulf War, Kuwaitis then set about punishing the P.L.O. for its support of Hussein — cutting off financial sponsorship, expelling hundreds of thousands of Palestinian workers and slaughtering thousands. Their retribution was so severe that Arafat was forced to acknowledge that “what Kuwait did to the Palestinian people is worse than what has been done by Israel to Palestinians in the occupied territories.”

Against this backdrop, it is a positive sign that so many Arabs have apparently grown so apathetic about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. For if the Arab regimes’ self-serving interventionism has denied Palestinians the right to determine their own fate, then the best, indeed only, hope of peace between Arabs and Israelis lies in rejecting the spurious link between this particular issue and other regional and global problems.

The sooner the Palestinians recognize that their cause is theirs alone, the sooner they are likely to make peace with the existence of the State of Israel and to understand the need for a negotiated settlement.

Efraim Karsh, a professor of Middle East and Mediterranean studies at King’s College London, is the author, most recently, of “Palestine Betrayed.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/opinion/02karsh.html

'Rhymes With Fagin'

2010-09-08T05:54:00.000-07:00

WALL STREET JOURNAL — TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 — BY BRET STEPHENS

Time magazine adds its voice to the chorus of those attempting to delegitimize the Jewish state.

If you're a reader of a certain age, you might understand the headline.

In May 1977, when Menachem Begin was elected Israel's prime minister, Time magazine set out to describe the man, beginning with the correct pronunciation of his last name: "Rhymes with Fagin," the editors explained, invoking the character from Oliver Twist. Modern Israeli leader; archetypal Jewish lowlife: Get it?

The magazine's other characterization of Begin was that he was "dangerous." A year later, he shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Egypt's Anwar Sadat.

Maybe there's something in the magazine's DNA. This week, readers were treated to a cover story by Karl Vick titled, suggestively, "Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace." That's one way for Time to address the current state of negotiations between the Jewish state and its neighbors, which otherwise barely rate a mention in the article.

Mr. Vick's essay draws on the testimony of a pair of real estate agents, a columnist for a left-leaning newspaper, and a few others to explain that Israelis are too blissed-out by the fruits of their economic prosperity to pay much attention to the subject of peace, much less whatever sad things may transpire among their neighbors in Ramallah and Gaza. "We're not really that into the peace process," says Gadi Baltiansky, a peace activist quoted in the story. "We are really, really into the water sports."

It's hard to say what to make of this, since the article concludes by contradicting its central thesis: "For all the surf breaks, the palms and the coffee, the conflict is never truly done, never far away," Mr. Vick writes.

View Full Image

none

Indeed it isn't: Nearly every Israeli has a child, sibling, boyfriend or parent in the army. Nearly every Israeli has been to the funeral of a fallen soldier, or a friend killed in a terrorist attack. Most Israeli homes and businesses come equipped with safe rooms or bomb shelters; every Israeli owns a gas mask. The whole country exists under the encroaching shadows of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the prospect of a nuclear Iran. How many Americans, to say nothing of Europeans, can say the same about their own lives?

Yet when it comes to scoring cheap shots against the Jewish state, Time is not the sort of magazine to allow the obvious to disturb a prejudiced hypothesis. Can the magazine point to equally pointed cover stories about internal Palestinian affairs and what, perchance, they mean for the peace process? I checked: It last did so in April 2002 with a largely sympathetic portrait of Yasser Arafat "All Boxed In" by an invading Israeli army.

That's a pity, journalistically speaking, because the stew of Palestinian politics tells us something important about the wider drift of the Arab world, not least the ways in which Iran has seized the mantle of anti-Western radicalism to make ideological inroads among Sunnis. But raising that line of inquiry probably asks too much of a magazine whose circulation is in steep decline, and whose journalism is now the subject of parodies in The Onion. (Recent headline: "TIME Announces New Version of Magazine Aimed at Adults.")

Journalism aside, there's also a moral dimension here, especially for a magazine that recently devoted its cover to the question of whether Americans are "Islamophobic." That dimension is known as the delegitimization of Israel—the idea that the country ought not to exist. Insisting that Israel be wiped off the map, as Iran's leaders do with such numbing frequency, is one method of delegitimization. Suggesting that Israelis don't care about peace—not all of them, of course; there's always a remnant of politically anguished Israelis to be found, quoted and celebrated for the purposes of native standing and moral cover—is another.

Which of these methods does more lasting harm, the malignly blunt or the well-meaningly insidious? Probably the latter: It shapes a climate of supposedly respectable opinion that doesn't hesitate to tar one nation the way it never would any other. Or did I somehow miss the Time covers devoted to why Russians don't care about democracy, or Kenyans about corruption?

This has consequences.

Last week, a man named Karel de Gucht told a radio station in Belgium that the current round of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations were certain to founder upon the stubbornness of Jews. "There is indeed a belief—it's difficult to describe it otherwise—among most Jews that they are right," he explained. "So it's not easy to have, even with moderate Jews, a rational discussion about what is happening in the Middle East."

Mr. de Gucht sounds like a neo-Nazi; in fact, he is the trade commissioner of the European Union. How does a paladin like him come to say something like that? Because it's really not that far from the sorts of things that already are being written; that are, as they say, "in the air." Like the cover of a magazine that will someday cause a future editor of Time (assuming there is one) to hang her head in shame.

Write to bstephens@wsj.com

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703946504575469502667359126.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

No Palestinian concessions at upcoming peace talks

2010-09-07T14:05:00.000-07:00

From Israel Today:
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas clarified for his people on Monday that he intends to make not even one concession or compromise in direct peace negotiations with Israel, and that for a final status peace to be achieved, Israel will have to fully meet all Arab demands and abandon its own conditions.
First and foremost, Abbas told Palestinian newspapers that if the Jewish building freeze in Judea and Samaria (the so-called "West Bank") is not extended indefinitely, the negotiations will come to an immediate halt. But Abbas also said he would walk out of the talks if he is pressured at all to alter the Palestinians' more hardline positions.
"If they demand concessions on the rights of the refugees or the 1967 borders, I will quit. I can’t allow myself to make even one concession," Abbas told the Palestinian newspaperAl-Ayyam.
Abbas was referring to the Palestinian demand that Israel solve the purported "Palestinian refugee" issue by opening its border to millions of new Arab citizens. Abbas has long championed that demand, despite the fact that it would mean the demographic destruction of the Jewish state. Even Israel's most liberal politicians reject the so-called "right of return."
The Palestinian leader's position on the issue was two-faced, as he then turned around and insisted that an independent Palestinian state created by the current peace process must not have a single Jew living in it. "We clarified that [the Palestinian Authority] would not agree to continued Israeli presence, military or civil, within a future Palestinian state," Abbas said.
In speaking of the 1967 borders, Abbas made it clear that he will not allow Israel to maintain control over a united Jerusalem as part of any peace deal. Up until 1967, the eastern half of Jerusalem was illegally occupied by Jordan. The Palestinians now claim it as their rightful capital.
Abbas reiterated his position in an interview with Jerusalem-based Arabic newspaper Al-Quds when he rejected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's talk of a historic compromise between the two sides in order to reach a durable peace agreement.
Abbas also addressed Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinians must recognize Israel as "the Jewish state."
"We're not talking about a Jewish state and we won't talk about one," Abbas said. "For us, there is the state of Israel and we won't recognize Israel as a Jewish state."
Analysis by Jack Cohen:
In an interview with the Palestinian newspaperAl-Ayyam, Pres. Abbas stated regarding the current direct negotiations, "I can't allow myself to make even one concession."

Actually, in the current negotiations the positions of the Israeli and PA Governments are quite similar. For example:

1. Israeli representatives emphasize that both sides must be prepared to make significant compromises. The Palestinian side agrees that the Israeli side must be prepared to make significant compromises.

2. The Israeli side insists that there are no preconditions to the talks. The PA side agrees, but insists that the talks cannot proceed without Israel extending the building freeze on the West Bank after its 10 month period ends.

3. The Israeli side is prepared to make concessions, such as removing checkpoints on the West Bank and allowing hundreds of Palestinian businessmen to enter Israel. The Palestinian side agrees with this concession.

4. The Palestinian side insists that the borders of the future Palestinian State must be the pre-1967 ceasefire lines. The Israeli side mistakenly assumed that there was going to be a negotiation on borders.

5. The Palestinian side insists that no Jews can be allowed to live within the West Bank area that will become the Palestinian State, since they ethnically cleansed the area of Jews from 1929 to 1949 (including massacres in Hebron and Etzion).

6. The Israeli side points out that there is a 20% minority of Arabs who are Israeli citizens, but the Palestinian side considers the Israeli denial of the "right of return" of the so-called Palestinian refugees as "racist."

7. The Israeli side proposes mutual recognition between the Palestinian Arab State and the Jewish Israeli State. The Palestinian side agrees that Israel must recognise their sovereign rights, but they cannot reciprocate, since after the Muslim conquest of Palestine in the 8th century the whole of Palestine was ethnically cleansed of Jews, and so they cannot therefore recognise the right of the Jews to a State in Palestine.

Whoever is optimistic about the outcome of the current talks, due to reconvene in Taba in Egypt in two weeks, must face the reality that the Palestinian side is not ready to actually negotiate on anything, except Israeli concessions.