The Forgotten Middle East Refugees

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

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

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.

Mixed feelings on Schalit

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?

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

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

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"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Walking a Fine Line on Borders Issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.