Cheering Their Failed Israel Policy

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
20 March '10

The Washington Post headline — “Experts question whether U.S. has a real Israel strategy or ‘talking points’” – suggests the disarray in the Obami’s approach and the general consternation that has greeted their bully-boyism directed at the Jewish state. Indeed, the Post can find no one but George Mitchell’s lackey Martin Indyk (more on him later) who agrees with Hillary Clinton’s obnoxious claim that the staged hissy fit with Israel is “paying off.” (And if it were bearing fruit, then we are back to amateur hour when Hillary announces as much, and on the Israel-hating BBC, of all places). Elliott Abrams dryly notes: “It has made life harder and has made negotiations harder for the Israelis and the Palestinians.” Certainly taunting one side in public has that effect.

We are now in a fencing match. Hillary demands some concessions; Bibi tries to serve up some small gesture or soothing platitude so Hillary and company can climb down off the roof on which they have perched themselves to impress their Palestinian friends. But all we have to show for this is Palestinian stone-throwing, a dead Thai worker, a strained but not yet broken relationship with Israel, and further reason for Palestinians to do what they do best — play victim and demand unilateral concessions.

But nothing is more telling than the comments of Indyk, an adviser to Mitchell, who presumably channels the Obami’s thinking:

Martin S. Indyk, vice president for foreign studies at the Brookings Institution and an adviser to Mitchell, said the administration in the past 10 days has made the Israeli government “supersensitive” to the issue of Jerusalem. He praised the administration for not revealing its demands and said U.S. officials adroitly turned down the heat as quickly as they turned it up.

“I think they handled it quite well,” he said.

(Read full post)
.

Obama and Israel: Not Smart

John Podhoretz
commentarymagazine.com
15 March '10

In both politics and diplomacy, actors must think at least one move ahead. They need to be reasonably sure that when they say or do A, then the other party will say or do B. And they should want the other party to say or do B, otherwise it makes no sense to say A in the first place. The purpose of action isn't just to act, in other words, but to make sure that the reaction you get advances your purposes and your interests. Which is why the administration's behavior in deepening and perpetuating its latest confrontation with Israel is actually rather bewildering. Let's start out by acknowledging that what happened during Vice President Biden's trip last week — the announcement of new housing starts in East Jerusalem — was an affront to the United States. I believe Israel has every right to do what it is doing, but the view of the visiting representative of the administration is that what it is doing is wrong and injurious to future prospects for peace, and this conflict of visions is not going to be resolved. Biden was embarrassed, his visit overshadowed, and expressions of diplomatic dismay appropriate as a result. The Israeli prime minister, who did not know about the announcement, apologized to the visitor and was embarrassed as well by the way in which the dysfunctional Israeli political system was exposed to international view.

All of that happened in a day — on Tuesday. It happened, it was reported on, the administration made its displeasure known, with Biden himself condemning the announcement. Prime Minister Netanyahu's office made clear he had been blindsided by the announcement, which was made by the head of a party inside his coalition government. On Wednesday, privately and publicly, he and other Israelis made their own shame known, and it was clear that there were going to have to be fences mended. Fence-mending is what diplomacy is usually all about, especially by an administration that seems to think its predecessor didn't spend enough time at it.

And then matters escalated. And they escalated because the United States escalated them. Hillary Clinton called up Bibi Netanyahu on Friday and, if one reads between the lines in the reporting on their conversation, basically screamed at him for 45 minutes. Then her spokesman went out and told the world she had done so, and used startlingly violent language — calling the announcement a "deeply negative signal."

(Read full article)
.

Clinton warns Israel: If you make concessions that rely on U.S. support it may not be there if you err?

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
14 March '10

[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA:

"In her call, Clinton appeared to link U.S. military support for Israel to the construction in East Jerusalem"

Bottom line: After the miserable failure of President Obama's appeasement policy towards Iran - and the passage of his 2009 "deadline" for Iran we now have a reminder to Israel that the U.S. could threaten Israel in the future if it finds itself in a policy dispute.

So the warning: the last thing Israel can afford to do is take "risks for peace" that rely on American support since there is always the possibility that a future policy dispute will lead to that support being subject to question.?]


Clinton rebukes Israel over East Jerusalem plans, cites damage to bilateral ties

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 13, 2010; A01
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202615.html

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton rebuked Israeli Prime Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu on Friday about the state of the U.S.-Israeli
relationship, demanding that Israel take immediate steps to show it is
interested in renewing efforts to achieve a Middle East peace agreement.
.....

Some analysts applauded the administration's tough stance, saying it may jar the right-leaning Israeli government into making gestures to the Palestinians. But others said Clinton's call risked emboldening Arab and Palestinian officials to make new demands before talks start, if only so as not to seem softer than the Americans.

In her call, Clinton appeared to link U.S. military support for Israel to the construction in East Jerusalem, which Palestinians view as the site for their future capital. "The secretary said she could not understand how this happened, particularly in light of the United States' strong commitment to Israel's security," Crowley said. "She made clear that the Israeli government needed to demonstrate, not just through words but through specific actions, that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process."

(Read full article)
.

The Palestinian Authority Walks Out of Talks with a Big Smile on Its Face

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
12 March '10

In 1994, Israel asserted, and the PLO accepted, that construction would continue on existing Jewish settlements. For the next 15 years, negotiations were never stopped by that building.

In January 2009, the Palestinian Authority (PA) stopped negotiations because Hamas attacked Israel from the Gaza Strip and Israel defended itself. Of course, Hamas is also the PA’s enemy and the PA would be delighted if Israel destroyed that group. But for public relations’ purposes, the PA had to pretend inter-Palestinian solidarity.

Then came President Barack Obama who demanded a stop to all construction on settlements in 2009. Israel finally complied but announced that it would keep building in east Jerusalem. The United States accepted that arrangement and even highly praised Israel’s policy as a major concession.

But the PA refused to return to negotiations. Why, because the construction offended it? No, because the PA’s radical forces don’t want to make a peace deal because they believe they can win total victory and destroy Israel. The more moderate forces are too weak to make a deal because of Hamas and their own radicals, though they also have some problems with mutual compromise.

In September 2009, Obama announced that within two months there would be full and final peace negotiations in Washington. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said “yes”: PA leader Mahmoud Abbas said “no.”

No Western media outlet said that the PA refusal to negotiate for—as of today—about 15 months shows that the PA doesn’t want peace. Yet they had no hesitation about saying that Israel doesn’t want peace (or at least maybe doesn’t) because Israel announced the building of apartments on the basis of a policy it has followed for 16 years, without serious complaint for most of that time.

(Read full post)
.

Palestinians may declare state. So?

FresnoZionism.org
15 November 09

The latest Palestinian threat is that they will unilaterally declare a state:

Bethlehem – Ma’an/Agencies – The Palestinian Authority is mobilizing international support for declaring statehood, chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat said on Saturday.

“The idea is clear and understandable,” Erekat told the Palestinian daily newspaper Al-Ayyam. “Now we mobilize.”

Palestinians will bring the issue to a vote before the United Nations Security Council, which would declare a Palestinian state on the 4 June 1967 border with Israel, he explained.

This is supposed to strike fear into the heart of PM Netanyahu and his (not really so) right-wing government. But imagine the conversation:

Saeb Erekat: We are unilaterally declaring a state.

Binyamin Netanyahu: A state? But you could have had one in 2000. Why didn’t you accept it? Or what about the offer that Olmert made last year, supposedly even worse — I mean, more generous — then the Camp David and Taba ideas? He offered you 98.1% of Judea of Samaria plus a connecting passage through Israel from Gaza, most of East Jerusalem, and to allow 5,000 ‘refugees’ to enter Israel. Why didn’t you say ‘yes’ to that?

SE: Because we want all of East Jerusalem and all of Judea and Samaria. And we want all 5 million Arab refugees to have the right to return to their homes in Israel even if they never lived in them. And we aren’t going to say that Israel belongs to the Jewish people because it belongs to the Arabs that live there now and the ones who will return.

BN: That’s absurd. We’d never agree to that — it would mean the end of the Jewish state.

SE: Bingo.

BN: Well, declare whatever you want. But then you won’t get any land swaps, we won’t evacuate any settlements, and you won’t get ‘contiguity’ to Gaza. You will be in violation of all the agreements that you signed, and you’ll freeze the map as it is today, with no more territory in your hands. You’ll be Foreign Minister of Ramallah.

SE: But the Security Council will protect our new state. The UN will come and kick all 500,000 Jewish settlers [he's including the Jewish population of E. Jerusalem -- ed.] out of our land!

BN: So you are telling me that even the Obama administration wouldn’t veto a resolution to send UN troops to fight the IDF? Because that’s what it would take.

SE: We’ll have our capital in Holy Jerusalem!

BN: But if you won’t negotiate, you’ll get none of East Jerusalem. Even my administration, which is not as right-wing as some say, would agree to negotiate Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. Declare a state unilaterally and you’ll just make the present status quo permanent. Is that really what you want?

SE: (losing it) What we really want is to end the occupation, from the river to the sea!

BN: Bingo. But you aren’t going to get that. So you can either keep things as they are today — either by unilaterally declaring a state or by just continuing to refuse to talk — or you can finally accept that “two-state solution” means that one of those two states will belong to the Jewish people, and make a deal.

(Continue reading)

If Hillary's Happy, I'm Not

Batya Medad
Shilo Musings
1 November 09

It's a very simple equation, Arithmetic, not Mathematics. United States policy is bad news for Israel, so if Secretary for State Hillary Clinton is pleased with something ourPrime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has to say, I automatically consider it a danger to our security and existence. Very simple.

The Obama-Clinton Administration is demanding a very racist, one-sided halt in Jewish growth and building in Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, including parts of Jerusalem. And again, like uncountable times in the past, it's the Arab intransigence which has saved us. They're betting that our Israeli Government will be so desperate to please the Americans and make a deal that we'll give up even more.

I hope and pray that our government will quickly realize that all of these concessions only weaken and endanger us. We have to send all the busybodies packing and do what's best for the security, development and continued existence of the State of Israel. No foreign promises will protect us.

.

Another Tack: Unhappy Birthday, Bitter 16

Sarah Honig
JPost
10 September 09

"Tra-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la happy birthday sweet 16," Neil Sedaka crooned his way to pop-culture immortality in those antediluvian days of 1961. Sixteen years are indeed a milestone. Any girl born this week in 1993 is, to borrow from yesteryear's hit-song lyrics, "not a baby anymore." She might well have "turned into the prettiest girl" and into "just a teenage dream."

But not all birthdays are sweet at 16. Some stick painfully in the craw. Sometimes what grew up before our very eyes is nothing less than a teenage nightmare, certainly nothing to rejoice about.

Such is the pitiless pseudo-peace conceived clandestinely in Oslo, imposed undemocratically on hapless Israelis and launched festively on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993.

Worst of all, this misshapen 16-year-old grotesque has changed our circumstances forever. The cataclysmic chain reaction it set off rages still. Thus far nobody has possessed the pluck to snuff the monstrosity. Even those who once pronounced it dead, like Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, now make nice and vow to nurture it.

NEARLY NINE years ago, when campaigning for seeming superhawk Ariel Sharon, Netanyahu declared that "Oslo is dead. The Palestinians quashed the deal they themselves signed." On that occasion he set three conditions for restarting talks: "an absolute cease-fire, a fundamental revamp of the message broadcast by the Palestinian leadership to its people, and testing these conditions over a prolonged period - not just two or three weeks."

He stressed that "no real coexistence can emerge from a situation in which Palestinians speak war and Israelis speak peace. Only after thorough and unambiguous overhauls of Palestinian intentions and behavior can we return to a clean negotiating table."

In actual fact, however, rather than being unceremoniously disposed of and buried, the Oslo ghoul mushroomed hideously from atrocity to atrocity. After two intifadas, nearly 2,000 Israeli dead, the attendant betrayal and folly of disengagement, the Hamas takeover of Gaza (which resulted from disengagement) and an ever-burgeoning series of egregious Israeli concessions (all of which the Palestinians disdainfully rebuffed), it can be confidently concluded that our geopolitical situation has never been this bad.

We mechanically move, as if mesmerized, from debilitating delusion to devastating weakness. Given everything that transpired, it's hard to recall how much better things were in the summer of 1993, before the Oslo newborn was underhandedly unleashed on unsuspecting us.

The first intifada had been quelled. The PLO was down and out, crumbling and deprecated even in the Arab milieu. Yasser Arafat and 50,000 of his henchmen hadn't yet been imported here to set up their corrupt latifundia. The Palestinian state was a chimera. "Family reunions" hadn't yet added 150,000 Arabs to Israel's population.
(Full Article)
.

Weekly Commentary: Strengthening Netanyahu by not blindly supporting him

Dr. Aaron Lerner

IMRA

04 September 09

"In today's complex situation, our prime minister whom we chose, Binyamin Netanyahu, must maintain all our national interests - the settlements that are the apple of our eye, Jerusalem, and also our relations with the United States and avoiding international isolation, because we will not be able to do the things that are close to our hearts if we are isolated...I am hearing a lot of talk, and I ask of the faction members: Support the prime minister. He believes in what we believe in, with only one difference - he sees the entire picture with regards to security and diplomacy,"Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar addressing Likud party gathering in Tel Aviv today.

Minister Gideon Sa'ar supports Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, but Sa'ar's remarks weaken rather than strengthen Netanyahu's position as his team negotiates with the Americans and in turn the Palestinians.

The greater the opposition to Israeli concessions, the greater the value placed on the concessions Israel finally agrees to and in turn the greater the consideration Israel can require in return for those concessions.

The harsher the criticism of concessions, the easier it is for Netanyahu to stand his ground against pressure for unacceptable concessions.

This is a policy - not personality - debate.

And what if there is some deep dark secret that somehow justifies a concession that those of us without access to the "entire picture" are not aware of?

Again no problem. Since opposition within the Likud reduces American expectations of what concessions Netanyahu can deliver.

On a personal level, Prime Minister Netanyahu may prefer hearing the blind support of Sa'ar over the sharp warnings of others.

But this isn't personal.
.

Since Israel Betrayed Pollard, not One Israeli Captive has Come Home Alive

Manhigut Yehudit

Press Release

14 Elul, 5769 (Sept. 3, '09)

It is commendable that the State Comptroller has decided to probe the Pollard situation. But those who are willing to face the truth do not need his investigation. The State of Israel has consistenly betrayed its agent; it has never officially requested his release from prison. Israel's message to the US is clear. "We would prefer that Pollard die in your prison."

Since Israel betrayed Pollard 24 years ago, not one Israeli soldier has returned home alive from captivity. Israel's lack of values in the Pollard affair has brought it to a low point from which it can no longer protect its soldiers, who daily risk their lives for their country.

Trades since founding of Israel
www.al-magor.com/history%20prisoners%20release.htm
Based on article in YNET on 15.7.08

1. 14 March 1979: 1 soldier traded for 70 terrorists.
2. 23 November 1983: 6 soldiers traded for 4,765 terrorists
3. 28 June 1984: 6 Israelis for 312 Syrians (including 291 Syrian soldiers
captured in Lebanon)
4. 21 May 1985: 3 soldiers for 1,150 terrorists
5. 12 September 1991: 1 dead soldier for 52 terrorists
6. 21 July 1996: 2 dead soldiers for 105 dead terrorists
7. 25 June 1998: 1 dead soldier for 60 terrorists
8. 29 January 2004: 3 dead terrorist and Israeli criminal (Tenenbaum) for
427 terrorists
9. 15 October 2007: 1 dead soldier for Lebanese prisoner
10. June 2008: Body parts for Lebanese spy
11. 16 July 2008: 2 dead soldiers for 5 terrorists

Related: Lawyer Lambasts Pollard Report

also A Birthday Letter For Jonathan Pollard

Jonathan Pollard: 8688 days in prison http://www.jonathanpollard.org/
.

Lawyer Lambasts Pollard Report

JPost Staff
03 September 09

Jonathan Pollard's lawyer, attorney Nitzana Darshan-Leitner, strongly criticized Thursday's report by State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss on the case of the convicted spy. According to Darshan-Leitner, "The report is an additional cover-up of the failures of successive Israeli governments on the issue of Pollard's release."

"No government at any time has made any effort to release Pollard, throughout all the years of opportunity that he has been in prison - 24 years," said Pollard's attorney.

Darshan-Leitner asserted that the government has abandoned Pollard.

"Pollard, an Israeli agent, tried to use all legal means at his disposal with the US authorities, including numerous requests for a retrial, and he has no choice but to depend on the [Israeli] government to release him," said Darshan-Leitner.

"However," added Pollard's attorney, "the Israeli government still pretends that all of Pollard's activities took place in an operational framework that was directed by [former senior Mossad official and Pollard's handler] Rafi Eitan under special authority, and not by the upper echelons of the state, and leaves him to deal alone with the results of this failure."

The attorney demanded that Lindenstrauss's entire report be released to the public."The fact that the overwhelming majority of the report is otherwise confidential, means that it contains dark secrets surrounding the Pollard affair that the government does not want the public to know," she claimed.

"The Israeli public must demand that the report be released in its entirety, including its classified parts, in order that the public can decide if there was indeed an effort on the part of the Israeli government to release Pollard, or if all of the successive administrations have relegated Pollard to the dustbin."

The new report said the Pollard issue was not neglected by consecutive Israeli governments, but suggested the convicted spy had likely been denied due legal process during his trial in the United States. The report refutes complaints by Pollard's family and friends, who have accused the government of not doing enough to secure his release.

While most of the report issued by Lindenstrauss remains classified, an abstract of the report was released for publication on Thursday afternoon.

Pollard was convicted in a US court of spying for Israel and has been in jail since November 1985. An American citizen, Pollard received Israeli citizenship in 1995. From May 1998 he was acknowledged as an agent working for Israel.

During his work on the matter, Lindenstrauss met with Pollard's attorneys and with former ministers, prime ministers and other government officials who worked to try and secure his release. He also met with Pollard's father, Prof. Morris Pollard.

The state comptroller also ordered a professional legal opinion from, among others, Prof. Kenneth Mann, a well-known expert in US and criminal law. Based on Mann's opinion, Lindenstrauss suggests that Pollard apparently did not enjoy his constitutional right for due legal process. He cited the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which articulates the basic rights of a person suspected of a crime.

Lindenstrauss found that consecutive US administrations refused to budge when it came to Pollard, with the main reason cited as the US intelligence community's strong opposition to his release, claiming it would be detrimental to US security interests.

The report by Lindenstrauss covers the administrations of prime ministers Binyamin Netanyahu (during his first term), Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. He said all four discussed Pollard in meetings with US presidents, but said these talks should have been documented. Lindenstrauss offered to establish a protocol where such discussions, in the future, would be recorded.

"Such documents will provide an aggregate of insights on what has already been done to secure his release, and they can be used to draft future plans," Lindenstrauss states. According to the state comptroller, Israel also contacted congressmen and members of the US justice system, but their efforts were in vain.

Pollard's case is "closed, but not resolved" he said. "The prime minister and his government must do all in their power to release Pollard... the State of Israel owes Pollard the mitzvah of releasing captives and it's better late than never, in light of his frail health," he concluded.

Related: A Birthday Letter For Jonathan Pollard

Jonathan Pollard: 8687 days in prison http://www.jonathanpollard.org/
.

A Strategic Terror Attack

By Moshe Feiglin
3 Elul 5769 23 August 09

Question:
If, G-d forbid, Kassams would have hit Sderot last week, or if there had been a shooting or stabbing terror attack, would the Prime Minister have cut his vacation short, make special announcements to the press and hurriedly summon the Minister for Strategic Affairs to his office?

Another Question:
If such a terror attack had taken place, would it have commanded all the major headlines in all the major media outlets for two days?

The answer is clear. So why, when two politicians from the same party speak at a public forum and say things that are not new, does the media and the Prime Minister attach to the non-event the significance of a strategic terror attack?

Last Thursday, my picture made the front page of the Ha'aretz newspaper. The caption was: "Feiglin: With G-d's help, we will do good things together."

Wow. How fortunate we are to have courageous reporters who dare to inform the public of such a horrifying statement.



Let us make some order out of this firestorm.

First of all, we must understand that Ya'alon's statements at the Manhigut Yehudit Likud Activist Conference were nothing new. Everything that he said, including what he thinks about Israel's Left, is written in his book. He has publicly made the same statements many times. Netanyahu was never disturbed by his opinions and the media wouldn't have given them more than the status of "quote of the day" if not for the place in which they were delivered. In other words, the media fury was triggered not because of what was said, but because of where it was said.

To better understand how a meeting between two Likud members takes on the proportions of a strategic terror attack, we have to get to the root of the issue.

Since the Second Aliyah to Israel one hundred years ago, the hegemony over the Return to Zion has been in the hands of the Left. True, in 1977 there was a mini-revolution and Begin became prime minister, but it soon became clear that the Jabotinsky Right could not present a comprehensive alternative to the Zionist Left. Most of the Israeli public is rightist in its views and values, but the classic Right never attempted to develop its identity and values into a ruling alternative. That is why, despite the rightist leanings of the Israeli public and despite the fact that the public elects the Likud to rule time and again, the national agenda does not change and the leftist agenda continues to control Israel.

It's even worse than that. When the Likud is in power, it carries out the Left's agenda even better than the Left itself – despite the clear desire of its voters. Simply put, the Likud's inability to present a comprehensive alternative based on Judaism allows the Left to neutralize the Likud's victories in the voting booth and to continue to rule in Israel. Israelis already know that if you vote left, you get Left, and if you vote right, you get double Left

Enter Manhigut Yehudit in the Likud. That annoying Feiglin insists on running for head of the party and the national camp. What he is really saying is that the Jewish majority no longer accepts the old order of things. The Jewish majority demands that it wins the elections, its collective will will be expressed in reality and that the government will reflect its values.

Manhigut Yehudit has presented a true and comprehensive alternative to the Left – an alternative with faith based, historical Jewish depth. When we speak of a revolution, we are not talking about musical chairs between political clones from the Right and Left. We are talking about revolutionizing the state of Israel, its national agenda and its most basic goals. That is why we are such a threat to those people who have become accustomed to ruling Israel with no regard to the outcome of the elections. Manhigut Yehudit is the only factor that threatens their perpetual hegemony

In his first term, Netanyahu learned what happens to a politician who opposes the "elites". He understands that his political survival depends on living in "peace" with the right people. That is why Netanyahu, with the help of the Supreme Court, downgraded me from my "sure" place on the Likud roster - despite the outcome of the primaries - and knowingly paid the price of the loss of approximately 10 mandates that defected from the Likud to other parties.

Minister Ya'alon's very attendance at a Manhigut Yehudit conference has opened a crack in the wall that has been erected to isolate and de-legitimize us. As far as the elites are concerned, that really was a strategic terror attack. The hysteria that we witnessed last week was actually the elites attempt to close the crack in the wall and to restore "order" in its court.
.

West Bank: slowly, determinedly, settlers bid to build new town

Rory McCarthy
guardian.co.uk
23 August 2009

(Not exactly a friend but considering the source it could've been worse. As a matter of fact, on his blog it was worse. Second thoughts can get you everytime.)

Nadia Matar, a leader of the settler group Women in Green, puts an Israeli flag on a hilltop near the former Israeli army post Shdema, where activists are claiming the land. Photograph: Gali Tibbon

Early in the morning, Nadia Matar drove to the hills south of Jerusalem, near the Palestinian town of Beit Sahour, and turned into a dusty, unmarked road. There she planted a sign which read "Welcome to Shdema". She drove on, stopping every few metres along the route to jam into the rocky ground a series of fluttering blue and white Israeli flags. Israeli soldiers let her pass unhindered as she drove up to the concrete ruins of what was until a few years ago the Israeli military base of Shdema.

Here, just a stone's throw from Palestinian homes and only a few minutes from the city of Bethlehem, Matar and her friends are intent on building a Jewish community, the next settlement outpost in the occupied West Bank.

It is a glaring challenge to the Obama administration, which is trying to halt all Israeli settlement growth as a precursor to renewed peace talks. But recent history suggests it is the highly-motivated settlers like Matar, 43, a mother of six born in Belgium and now living in the settlement of Efrat, who may in the end triumph on this particular dusty patch of land.

Tomorrow, the Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu arrives in London for a series of key meetings, including four hours of discussions on Wednesday with the White House's special envoy, George Mitchell, and talks with Gordon Brown tomorrow. The continued colonisation of the West Bank, an extraordinarily successful project over the past 40 years, will dominate the agenda. Settlement on occupied land is regarded as illegal by the rest of the international community, but nearly 500,000 Jewish settlers live in east Jerusalem and the West Bank. Shdema is even beyond Israel's West Bank barrier, which runs deep into Palestinian territory and which many believe will one day be the final border of Israel.

Matar's goal is "redemption of the land". In her view, the land on which the Palestinian homes sit belongs by Biblical and historical right to the Jewish people and is, for now, "temporarily under Arab occupation". She is trying to build a "Jewish Shdema" and to prevent the land from remaining Palestinian. After the military evacuated the base there were plans, since shelved, to build a hospital for Palestinians. "They want more pieces of land that belong to the Jews. They want to take it away from us," Matar said.

"The Land of Israel was given by God to the people of Israel," she said. "Some will tell you God gave it to us, others will say Jewish history of 4,000 years is our historical right … You don't have to be a religious Englishman to see London belongs to the British."

This is a rare insight into how outposts get built: with determined settlers and eventually complicit Israeli authorities.

At first, after the army withdrew from the base three years ago, soldiers closed the area off and prevented all settlers from approaching. But the settlers sneaked in and kept coming. Eventually Matar, a leader of the group Women in Green, and her supporters convinced the military to allow them in just once a week, on a Friday. They cleaned the buildings up, painted over graffiti, tidied the rooms and held workshops and discussions. Sometimes they have stayed the night, sometimes they have been allowed to come twice a week and eventually, they believe, settlers will begin to live here.

Similar struggles take place every week on other hilltops across the West Bank. All this is happening even though the Israeli government says in public it will allow no new settlements.

"At the beginning we fought against the army to come up here," said Matar. "But when they saw we were adamant they let us come on a Friday … But it's not enough for us. We don't want to ask permission to be in our homeland."

Now every time they come the army far from preventing them in fact provides them with security, deploying several soldiers and armoured vehicles but not interfering with their activities. In April the military also halted the construction of a Palestinian park, part funded by the US government, because it was at the foot of the hill claimed by the settlers at Shdema.

Already the settlers have produced a glossy brochure with architectural plans of the Shdema they would like to see: it has grassy lawns, lines of trees, a cultural centre and a small but thriving Jewish community.

On this day around 30 settlers of different ages gathered, among them several children, a rabbi and at least two women carrying discreetly holstered pistols. They sat in one room on plastic chairs as Tomer Karazi, 34, a rabbi with five children, discussed a Biblical text and the importance of building a new village in this Biblical land.

Later Karazi said he and his wife Hannah were ready to move from their home in the settlement of Nokdim to Shdema as soon as possible. "It's our duty not to escort the process of redemption from the outside but to be involved and active from the inside," he said. "We don't need to wait for things like water and electricity. And we really love the place. It's beautiful."

Then out came large tubs of white emulsion paint and several brushes and the group began painting over the grey concrete walls, stopping occasionally for glasses of water and slices of watermelon.

Yosef Ziggerman, 18, a settler from Efrat had been involved in several other, often unsuccessful, attempts to establish new outposts on nearby hills. "I believe every single piece is ours and I don't see many pieces of land as beautiful as this," he said. "We aren't doing anything crazy or fanatic. We're painting and making it look nice."

Several spoke of their frustration with other Israelis who enjoy the more secular lifestyle of cities like Tel Aviv or Eilat but who seemed not to understand or endorse the settlers' millenarian ideology and their effort to claim the West Bank as their own. Since Israel withdrew its settlers from Gaza four years ago, many fear more compromises and would rather take a more radical and practical stand to expand Jewish settlement of the West Bank.

They described themselves as a frontline in a wider struggle against what they see as radical Islam, insisting that settler outposts protect the larger settlement blocs, which in turn protect Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and which in turn protect the Western world.

"People like to present us like crazy lunatics," said Matar. "But one day these people in the West will see. The Muslims are taking over there too. You better be on our side for your sake, but you guys in Europe are not. Those who curse Israel will be cursed, and those who bless Israel will be blessed.
.

Video: MK Danon stands behind Ya'alon

MK Danny Danon gave an interview to IBA today defending Minister Moshe Ya'alon's recent speech before the Likud Manhigut faction. For video click here.

Related: Manhigut Yehudit Hosts Vice Premier Ya'alon in Jerusalem

Vice Premier Ya'alon Forges Political Partnership with Feiglin JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST Vice Premier and Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon seems to have recently forged a political partnership with Likud activist and head of Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership Movement) Moshe Feiglin, as evident in footage released Wednesday evening on Channel 2, in which Ya'alon also called 'Peace Now' and the Israeli elites "viruses." Speaking in a closed meeting organized by Feiglin for Manhigut Yehudit members this week, Ya'alon openly expressed his fears that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu might succumb to the Left. "Even today we must remain concerned. I am still worried and they [the media and Left] have power to influence the prime minister... The virus 'Peace Now,' and if you will, the elites, their damage is great." "As far as I'm concerned, Jews can, and should live in all of theLand of Israel forever," Ya'alon said to applause. The minister went on to say that as he had said on many occasions while serving in the IDF, "Every time they [the government] bring the dove of peace, the army has to clean up after it." Feiglin, who Netanyahu considers a dangerous political foe, was visibly pleased with the vice premier's sentiments. "What is important to us is to cooperate on every positive move you make, and it's obvious you will make such moves. In our party you will find this group helpful," he said referring to Manhigut Yehudit members, "and we will do good things together." The prime minister's office in response said that Netanyahu, who is currently on a private vacation, will summon Ya'alon for a closed conversation when he returns. Ehud Barak's office issued a statement in response to the report, saying that the Defense Minister and the Labor Party "are committed to advancing a two-state solution, while upholding interests crucial to Israel's security." "This is an undignified statement that does not dignify Ya'alon," sources close to Barak said, adding that "Peace Now is an integral and important part of the democratic and pluralistic debate in Israeli society."

No Alternative to Israel

By Moshe Phillips
5 Towns Jewish Times
August 06, 2009

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to wipe the state of Israel off the face of the planet. Sadly and strangely, two American-born Jewish writers seem content to go along with the idea. One of the writers explains: “Sometimes I think it might have been better had Herzl dreamed of a Jewish state in a place less embattled than the Middle East.” The defeatism from these writers—and far too many others—is blatant.

Pulitzer prize–winning author Michael Chabon was the first Jewish writer to recently examine the modern history of plans to establish sovereign and semi-sovereign Jewish territories outside of the Land of Israel. Chabon’s 2007 novel The Yiddish Policemen’s Union is set in an imaginary Jewish settlement in Alaska. In Chabon’s alternate universe, Israel was destroyed in the 1948 war and a proposal by Harold L. Ickes, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Interior, to develop parts of Alaska as a “haven for Jewish refugees from Germany and other areas in Europe where the Jews are subjected to oppressive restrictions” had been implemented. Now, Hollywood filmmaking mavens Joel Coen and Ethan Coen are reportedly planning to make The Yiddish Policemen’s Union into a movie. So, tragically, these long-forgotten ideas will be romanticized for still larger audiences throughout the world.

Adam Rovner is writing a nonfiction book that examines the proposals to create a Jewish refuge on the island of Madagascar off the coast of Africa and “various [other] proposals to establish Jewish ‘homelands’ around the globe.”

In an article in the May/June 2009 issue of Moment magazine titled “Madagascar: An Almost Jewish Homeland” Rovner writes, “Early Zionists debated a host of proposals to settle Jews in remote regions of the world, and one of them was Madagascar. I’m an American-born, naturalized Israeli citizen and sometimes I think it might have been better had Herzl dreamed of a Jewish state in a place less embattled than the Middle East. That’s why I am so curious about this would-be promised land that, at least until a recent military coup, was a relatively pacific republic in the Indian Ocean.”

As if the dream of a Jewish state originated with Herzl. Hatikvah, the anthem of modern Zionism, was written in 1878, 18 years before Herzl published The Jewish State. The dream began in Biblical times with Abraham, and survived Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Mamelukes, and Ottomans.

There are three key points to consider when looking at this nonsense from Chabon and Rovner:

First, at the core of Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric is a strategy of breaking down Israel’s will to survive. Chabon and Rovner play right into his hands. If Ahmadinejad really wanted to nuke Israel, G-d forbid, why would he declare it? What would be his advantage to warn Israel of his plans? Ahmadinejad wants to destroy Israel’s key security asset: its morale. He wants to force Jews to reconsider the value of a national Jewish homeland versus the threat of annihilation. Iran wants to drive Israel into making suicidal concessions.

Secondly, there is a disconnect of the Jewish commitment to the Land of Israel that Chabon and Rovner imply. The Land of Israel is called the “Promised Land” for a reason. It was not promised to the Muslims. The Holy Land was deeded to the Jewish People in the Holy Bible. Does any people anywhere in the world have a clearer deed than that? There was never an independent Muslim nation in the Land of Israel in all of history. Moreover, how would the U.S., Israel, or the West benefit from the creation of yet another hostile Muslim state—wherever it would be?

Lastly, for President Obama as well as Chabon and Rovner, there is a misunderstanding of Zionist history as it stands apart from the Holocaust. Zionism was not born of a wish to escape Nazi persecution or any other modern forms of anti-Semitism.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his June 14 foreign-policy speech at Bar Ilan University, summarized it as follows:

“The right of the Jewish People to a state in the Land of Israel does not arise from the series of disasters that befell the Jewish People over 2,000 years: persecutions, expulsions, pogroms, blood libels, murders—which reached its climax in the Holocaust, an unprecedented tragedy in the history of nations. There are those who say that without the Holocaust the State would not have been established, but I say that if the State of Israel had been established in time, the Holocaust would not have taken place. The tragedies that arose from the Jewish People’s helplessness show very sharply that we need a protective state. The right to establish our sovereign state here, in the Land of Israel, arises from one simple fact: the Land of Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish People.”

Netanyahu, tragically, missed the essential point, just as he does far too often. Yes, the Land of Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish People—but that is not all. G-d decided that the Jewish People be given the Land of Israel as their only homeland for all time; it was not a decision the Jewish People the Jewish People made of their own volition. The Jewish connection to the Land of Israel is unlike the attachment of any other people to their homeland. The relationship is unique.

Modern Zionist resettlement in the Land of Israel began before Hitler was born. Tel Aviv was established in 1909. The desire of Jews to return to the Jewish homeland never left the Jewish People throughout our exile, and Jews throughout history lived in Jewish communities in Jerusalem, Hebron, Tsfat, and elsewhere for hundreds of years before Zionism was reinitiated. Jews from Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Afghanistan, Libya, Morocco, and elsewhere in the Islamic world did not return to Israel because of European anti-Semitism. Jews from throughout the world made their way to Israel for the same reason as did Jews in the times of Moses and Joshua—it is the Divinely established homeland for Jews. There is no other.

Moshe Phillips is a member of the Executive Committee of the Philadelphia Chapter of Americans for a Safe Israel (AFSI). The chapter’s website is at www.phillyafsi.com and Moshe’s blog can be found at http://phillyafsi.blogtownhall.com.
.

Herschkowitz sure PM will reject Obama's natural growth freeze (construction may be secret?)

IMRA
16 August 09

[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: "Herschkowitz suggested that an arrangement could be found that could allow construction in the settlements to continue without public acknowledgment."

And Peace Now's program monitoring construction will decline to report the construction?]

(Dr. Lerner's comment certainly covers anything I might say. Take a look at the article and see if there is an issue.)

Herschkowitz sure PM will reject Obama's natural growth freeze
Gil Hoffman , THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 16, 2009
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418621164&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will reject US President Barack Obama's request for a freeze on natural growth in Judea and Samaria, Habayit Hayehudi head Daniel Herschkowitz said Sunday, based on conversations with Netanyahu.

In an interview with the science and technology minister at his Jerusalem office, Herschkowitz told The Jerusalem Post that he did not believe Netanyahu would cross any red lines of Habayit Hayehudi, the most right-wing party in his coalition.

"From my own talks with the prime minister, I can say confidently that I don't think he will freeze natural growth in the settlements," Herschkowitz said. "I am sure he is in favor of allowing natural growth, but he must navigate smartly and walk between the rain drops to ensure that he will get along with the American administration."

Herschkowitz suggested that an arrangement could be found that could allow construction in the settlements to continue without public acknowledgment.

He said this would be preferable to the opposite scenario of press reports of settlement construction when in fact there is none.
(Continue)
.