Arens: Netanyahu had the courage to stand up to Obama

Moshe Arens
Ha'aretz
31 May '11

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/netanyahu-had-the-courage-to-stand-up-to-obama-1.365070

Somebody should have told the president that for most Israelis the '1967 lines,' those that Abba Eban in his famous UN speech referred to as the "Auschwitz borders," are like a red rag to a bull.

It's been a long time since these words were spoken by an Israeli prime minister. "In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers," Benjamin Netanyahu said in his address to both houses of the U.S. Congress, and the representatives of the American people rose and cheered. Former Israeli prime ministers passively accepted the slurs hurled at Israel over the years at home and abroad that Israel was an "occupier" in the areas beyond the 1949 armistice lines. Even Ariel Sharon in his last years in office began referring to the Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria as the "occupation."

This false role that Israeli prime ministers regretfully assumed in the name of the people of Israel, causing inestimable damage to Israel's image throughout the world, helped embed the concept that this "occupation" was an evil that had to be eliminated. It was no mean feat that Netanyahu had the courage to deny the falsehood of the "occupation" in speaking to Congress, a falsehood that had been adopted by his predecessors in recent years.


The many disappointed Israeli commentators who had hoped that Netanyahu would herald the end of the "occupation" had no difficulty finding excuses for the rousing reception his words received in Washington. One went so far as to write that even if Netanyahu had been reading from the telephone book he would have received standing ovations. Others remarked that no significance should be attached to the enthusiastic reception his words received in Congress, reminding the reader that all Israeli prime ministers had been greeted by standing ovations when addressing Congress.

But they just forgot to mention that those former Israeli prime ministers addressed Congress on occasions when their policy was completely coordinated with the White House. This time it was different. Netanyahu spoke to Congress after he had made it clear that he did not agree with Barack Obama's call for Israel to withdraw to the "1967 lines," and he reiterated that position in his speech.

So now come the self-anointed Israeli experts on the American system of government and explain to their readers that in the United States, foreign policy is made by the president and Congress plays no part. So it really doesn't matter if the present Congress is especially friendly and supportive of Israel and the positions of the democratically elected government of Israel if it has no voice in making foreign policy.

But these "experts" are only displaying their ignorance of the checks and balances in the United States between the president and Congress, a system that extends to foreign policy. While executive authority rests with the president, he is limited in pursuing a foreign policy that runs counter to the position of the majority in Congress.

In any case, even these "experts" must understand that Netanyahu's reception in Congress was an impressive demonstration of the strong bond between the people of America and the people of Israel. They might also take a look at the Washington Post headline the day after Netanyahu's appearance in Congress, which stated that senior Democrats had criticized the president. When a few days later Obama took part in the G8 meeting in Europe, he was probably surprised when the prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, objected to the inclusion of the "1967 lines" in the G8's resolution on the Middle East. North of the U.S. border there is another great friend of Israel who seems to agree with Netanyahu.

Obama probably realizes by now that he made a mistake when he said the "1967 lines" should serve as the baseline for territorial negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Somebody should have told him that for most Israelis the "1967 lines," those that Abba Eban in his famous UN speech referred to as the "Auschwitz borders," are like a red rag to a bull.

Another person probably made a mistake on this occasion. The leader of the Israeli opposition, Tzipi Livni, without giving it a moment's thought, used the opportunity to criticize the prime minister, announcing that Netanyahu should have accepted Obama's proposal. She is likely to discover that withdrawal to the "1967 lines" is going to make for an unpopular Kadima platform in the next election.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Ya'alon: Conflict isn’t territorial

Moshe (Bogi) Ya'alon
Israel Opinion/Ynet
30 May '11

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4076102,00.html


Op-ed: Deputy PM Ya'alon says Israel must be recognized as Jewish state for peace to prevail

The key sentence in the prime minister's speech before Congress made it clear that the main reason for the failure of all attempts to secure Israel-Palestinian peace is the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish State; that is, to recognize the Jewish people's right to maintain a Jewish nation-state, the State of Israel, on the land of its forefathers.

Israel's Palestinian dialogue partner in peace talks is the PLO; all members of this umbrella organization, including Fatah, reject Israel's right to exist, while accepting it (because of the IDF's military power) on the condition that it would be an entity that lacks an ethnic identity – that is, that it will not be the Jewish people's nation-state.

The Palestinians always stress that they are in favor of the "two-state" solution, rather than a solution based on "two states for two peoples." According to Palestinian leader Abbas, the Jews are not entitled to a state. He rejects a connection between the Jews, as a religion, and the Land of Israel, even though he admits to a Jewish presence in Eretz Yisrael in the distant past, as the Koran often refers to it. Indeed, Abbas defines Jewishness as a religion, rather than a nationality.

Ever since the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians have resorted to a series of verbal maneuvers in order to reject Israel's identity as the Jewish people's nation-state, and they have never renounced the return of refugees. This approach is not only espoused by some sly statesmen. It is the main message conveyed to the Palestinian public in general and Palestinian youth in particular, via the media, textbooks, constitutive documents of political organizations, religious authorities and cultural work.

Palestinian maps make no mention of Israel, and the PMW website, which monitors the Palestinian media, shows us the Palestinian leadership, headed by Abbas, beaming while a talented singer promises that Haifa and other areas within Israel will again be part of Palestine. Moreover, Palestinian children are being educated from young age to hate Israel and adore suicide bombers. This is not the way to make true peace. This is not how one prepares for coexistence.

Rockets in response to concessions

Promoting an atmosphere that encourages violence and terror, combined with incitement for hatred of Israel and the Jews, is the reason for the ongoing suffering of the Palestinians rather than the steps adopted by Israel to defend itself in the face of this incitement. An Israeli concession on this matter will prompt the establishment of a hostile (and apparently failed) state near our population centers.

The heart of the conflict with the Palestinians is existential and not just territorial, as proven by Nakba Day events and as the prime minister made clear in his speech. As far as the Palestinians are concerned, the occupation started in 1948 and not in 1967. Hence, Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish people's nation-state is a required condition for viable peace with the Palestinians, although it is not a condition for entering negotiations.

Imparting this realization to the Palestinian public is a condition for implementing a peace deal and will require significant time. We should not delude ourselves and cultivate false hopes.

Past experience taught us that for any territory we gave up in order to move closer to the peace we seek, we got terror and rockets rather than peace. I'm glad to see that more and more Israelis are aware of this danger, and the more united Israel is on this front vis-à-vis the Palestinians and the international system, the higher our chances will be of prompting the Palestinians and the world to address the issue, and as result to secure stable, agreed-upon peace that will meet the national demands of both peoples.

The writer is Israel's deputy prime minister and minister for strategic affairs


If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Factors in Netanyahu's Warm Reception in America

Daphne Anson
29 May '11

http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2011/05/factors-in-netanyahus-warm-reception-in.html

This is a guest post by Wales-based historian Professor William Rubinstein:

Netanyahu's amazingly enthusiastic reception before the American Congress was one of the most remarkable demonstrations of support for anyone I have ever seen. I doubt if George Washington, if he came back to life, would have received stormier applause or more standing ovations.

The question is why.

Surely no other foreign head of state would have received the same treatment.

Of course, one might be cynical. Congressmen court the Jewish vote. But it seems unlikely that the Irish, Italian or Polish prime ministers would have received 25 or more standing ovations, although their communities' votes also count.

Netanyahu is obviously a charismatic speaker, and one who speaks English with an American accent. Nevertheless, there appears to be something unique about contemporary Israel and today's United States.

Let me briefly suggest some factors.

First, the Holocaust sweeps everything before it, like some giant, irresistible tsunami. For many Jews, this seems counter-intuitive, since they fear that the Holocaust will be forgotten. During the past thirty years the exact opposite has happened. The Holocaust has become universally internalised as the supreme example of evil in modern history, with the State of Israel widely seen as the pheonix which has risen on its ashes. The loudest applause Netanyahu received, I believe, was when he emphasised that there would be no second Holocaust. It is also important to realise that the Palestinians and Arabs have nothing to set against it, which is why they are so keen to depict the Palestinian nakba of 1948 as its equivalent, although this was simply a population transfer, similar to many others at the time, not an act of genocide.

Secondly, Americans, like Jews, often and regularly regard themselves as somehow chosen by God, with America seen by many of its citizens as "God's own country". A kind of theology has arisen in recent decades among many conservative Protestants that God chose two peoples, the Jews in ancient times and the Americans in modern times, and (unlike conversionist Christianity) one built upon the other rather than displacing it. The strength of Christian Zionism, explicit or implicit, in the United States should not be underestimated, and it is an important factor in the warmth of Netanyahu's Congressional reception. It is probably particularly important, rightly or wrongly, in backing the Israeli claim to all of Jerusalem.

Thirdly, of course, there is militant Islam and the threat of terrorism. There seems to be no doubt that many, perhaps most, Americans perceive Middle Eastern Muslims as primitive, violent, and above all very dangerous barbarians, and see Israel as America's proxy in the region, engaged in a common struggle. The spontaneous demonstrations of American patriotism, in large part by young people and college students in many American cities when the announcement came through that Bin Laden had been killed is evidence of this.

As things stand, then, Israel appears to have nothing to fear from the American government. Whether this can last indefinitely is, of course, another matter.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

From Israel: Reprise

Arlene Kushner
Arlene from Israel
29 May '11




Yours truly is back at the computer -- a tired and very grateful savta: My grandson, my 12th grandchild, was born last Monday. (For those interested in a peek, you can see him at the end of this post.)

It is with great gratitude to Hashem that I write that he is healthy, very alert, and beautiful, and that my daughter-in-law came through exceedingly well.

~~~~~~~~~~

While I was tending to other matters, a great deal was going on in the larger world. I do not wish to belabor the obvious, and yet, before turning to matters current, I would like to take a look at what has transpired in the last nine days -- with a few commentaries added for good measure.

I left off posting over a week ago by looking at the way in which Obama undercut Netanyahu by making a speech at the State Department that, in essence, called for resolution of the Palestinian Arab-Israeli conflict via return to the '67 lines, and suggested that Israel make "bold" moves for peace before the question of "refugees" or Jerusalem was even settled.

I subsequently learned that Netanyahu knew what Obama was considering before he got on the plane to fly to the US. He had had a long conversation by phone with Hillary Clinton, imploring that the president not go this route. (No US president had ever come out with a statement on the "'67 lines" such as Obama was planning.)

Obama ignored Netanyahu's urgent request. And when the prime minister got off the plane, he was furious.

~~~~~~~~~~

Observations made by Caroline Glick with regard to the Obama speech were enormously on the mark, and it is worth sharing highlights:

In "Obama's diversionary tactics" she argues that the president deliberately picked a fight with Netanyahu:

"And so it was a stinging rebuke when Obama declared...'The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.' According to the Washington Post, Obama wrote these lines of his speech himself and Netanyahu was informed of them just as he was scheduled to fly to the US on Thursday evening. Obama gave the speech while Netanyahu was in the air on his way to Washington to meet Obama the next morning. It is hard to think of a more stunning insult or a greater display of contempt for the leader of a US ally and fellow democracy than Obama’s actions last week. And it is obvious that Netanyahu had no choice but to react forcefully to Obama’s provocation.

Ari Shavit frustrated: Netanyahu did not include text from trial balloon in address to Congress

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
26 May '11




[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: Someone provided Ari Shavit with a 30 word text "trial balloon" that was ostensibly going to be included in PM Netanyahu's address to the US Congress. It remains unclear just how committed Mr. Netanyahu was to including the 30 words. After all, it would not be the first time that staffers and others lobbying for a prime minister to follow their recommendations leaked their ideas to a reporter in the hopes that the trial balloon takes on a life of itself. Then again, there is also the possibility that Mr. Netanyahu himself was toying with the 30 word text and shared the information with Shavit.


What happened?


Let's not forget that before PM Netanyahu arrived in the U.S. the Israeli media was gleefully marching Netanyahu down the gangplank, predicting that he was going to be devoured by President Obama.


It is conceivable that, out of sheer desperation, Mr. Netanyahu prepared a 30 word text to use as a last measure to avoid - or at least postpone - disaster.


But that's not how things played out.


American leadership and many in the American media were troubled by President Obama's remarks before Netanyahu's arrival.


And then a big surprise: it was thought that the concept that Israel was not required by 242 to provide a Palestinian state with a land mass equal in size to the West Bank and Gaza Strip was too complicated to explicitly argue. But it turned out that the opposite was the case. American leaders and the media not only followed the argument - many embraced it.


In fact, a whole series of serious points were relayed, absorbed and accepted.


So by the time Prime Minister Netanyahu made his way to Congress to deliver his address the situation had radically changed.


Instead of having to cower and offer a 30 word text to the "concessions Moleh", Mr. Netanyahu could hold his head high and present Israel's case.


And so he did.


And a frustrated Ari Shavit along with most of the rest of the Israeli media joined in trying to explain to the Israeli public that it was a disaster.


A view that the Israeli public - despite the media offensive - utterly rejected.]

===============================
Netanyahu's peace stance is running Israel into a wall
Barak and Meridor must make it clear to the prime minister this week that if an Israeli initiative doesn't materialize pronto, they will quit. Who knows? Perhaps, faced with a real threat, he will finally emerge from his shell.

By Ari Shavit
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/netanyahu-s-peace-stance-is-running-israel-into-a-wall-1.364109 Published 02:51 26.05.11Latest update 02:51 26.05.11

When Benjamin Netanyahu became prime minister, he had to formulate a peace strategy. He had to decide whether he aspired to reach an interim agreement or a final-status one with the Palestinians. He opted to go for a final-status agreement.

Lessons of Netanyahu's Triumph

Caroline Glick
carolineglick.com
27 May '11

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/05/lessons-of-netanyahus-triumph.php

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was hoping to avoid his clash with US President Barack Obama this week in Washington.

Four days before his showdown at the White House with the American leader, Netanyahu addressed the Knesset. His speech was the most dovish he had ever given. In it, he set out the parameters of the land concessions he is willing to make to the Palestinians, in the event they ever decide that they are interested in negotiating a final peace.

Among other things, Netanyahu spoke for the first time about "settlement blocs," and so signaled that he would be willing to evacuate the more isolated Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. He also spoke of a longterm military presence in the Jordan Valley rather than Israeli sovereignty along the militarily vital plain.

Both strategically and ideologically, Netanyahu's speech constituted a massive concession to Obama. The premier had good reason to believe that his speech would preempt any US demand for further Israeli concessions during his visit to Washington.

Alas, it was not to be. Instead of welcoming Netanyahu's unprecedented concessions, Obama dismissed them as insufficient as he blindsided Netanyahu last Thursday with his speech at the State Department. There, just hours before Netanyahu was scheduled to fly off to meet him in the Oval Office, Obama adopted the Palestinian negotiating position by calling for Israel to accept that future negotiations will be based on the indefensible - indeed suicidal - 1949 armistice lines.

So, just as he was about to board his plane, Netanyahu realized that his mission in the US capital had changed. His job wasn't to go along to get along. His job was to stop Obama from driving Israel's relations with the US off a cliff.

Netanyahu was no longer going to Washington to explain where Israel will stand aside. He was going to Washington to explain what Israel stands for. Obama threw down the gauntlet. Netanyahu needed to pick it up by rallying both the Israeli people to his side and rallying the American people to Israel's side. Both goals, he realized, could only be accomplished by presenting his vision of what Israel is and what it stands for.

And Netanyahu did his job. He did his job brilliantly.

ISRAEL TODAY is the target of an ever escalating campaign to demonize and delegitimize it. Just this week we learned that a dozen towns in Scotland have decided to ban Israeli books from their public libraries. One Scottish town has decided to post signs calling for its residents to boycott Israeli products and put a distinguishing mark (yellow star, perhaps?) on all Israeli products sold in local stores to warn residents away from them.

Israelis shake their heads and wonder, what did we do to the Scots?

In San Francisco, there is a proposition on the ballot for the fall elections to ban circumcision. The proposition would make it a criminal offense to carry out the oldest Jewish religious ritual. Offenders will be punished by up to a year in prison and a fine of up to $1,000.

Israelis shake their heads and wonder, what did we do to the people of San Francisco?

It seems that everywhere we look we are told that we have no right to exist. From Ramallah to Gaza, to Egypt, to Scotland, Norway, and San Francisco, we are told that we are evil and had better give up the store. And then Obama took to the stage on Thursday and told us that we have to surrender our ability to defend ourselves in order to make room for a Palestinian state run by terrorists committed to our destruction.

But then Netanyahu arrived in Washington and said, "Enough already.We've had quite enough of this dangerous nonsense."

And we felt things we haven't felt for a long time. We felt empowered. We felt we had a voice. We felt proud. We felt we had a leader.

We felt relieved.

The American people, whose overwhelming support for Israel was demonstrated by their representatives in both houses of the Congress on Tuesday, also felt empowered, proud and relieved. Because not only did Netanyahu eloquently remind them of why they stand with Israel He reminded them of why everyone who truly loves freedom stands with America.

It is true that the American lawmakers who interrupted Netanyahu's remarks dozens of times to applaud wanted to use his presence in their chamber to send a message of solidarity to the people of Israel. But during the course of his speech, it became apparent that it wasn't just their desire to show solidarity that made them stand and applaud so many times. Netanyahu managed to relieve them as well.

Since he assumed office, Obama has been traveling the world apologizing for America's world leadership. He has been lecturing the American people about the need to subordinate America's national interests to global organizations like the United Nations that are controlled by dictatorships which despise them.

Suddenly, here was an allied leader reminding them of why America is a great nation that leads the world by right, not by historical coincidence.

It is not coincidental that many American and Israeli observers have described Netanyahu's speech as "Churchillian." Winston Churchill's leadership was a classic example of democratic leadership. And Netanyahu is Churchill's most fervent pupil. The democratic leadership model requires a leader to set out his vision of where his country must go and convince the public to follow him.

That is what Churchill did. And that is what Netanyahu did this week. And like Churchill in June 1940, Netanyahu's success this week was dazzling.

Just how dazzling was make clear by a Haaretz poll of the Israeli public conducted after Netanyahu's speech before the Congress.

The poll found that Netanyahu's approval ratings increased an astounding 13 percentage points, from 38 to 51 percent in one week. Two-thirds of the Israelis who watched his speech said it made them proud.

As for the US response, the fact that leading Democrats on Capitol Hill, House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, felt it necessary to distance themselves from Obama's statements about Israel's final borders makes clear that Netanyahu successfully rallied the American public to Israel's side.

This point was also brought home with Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's interesting request to Republicans during their joint meeting with Netanyahu. In front of the Israeli leader, Wasserman Schultz asked her Republican counterparts not to use support for Israel as a campaign issue. Her request makes clear that following Netanyahu's brilliant triumph in Washington, Democrats realize that the president's poor treatment of Israel is an issue that will harm them politically if the Republicans decide to make it an issue in next year's elections.

WHILE THE democratic model of leadership is certainly the model that the founders of most democratic societies have in mind when they establish their democratic orders, it is not the only leadership model that guides leaders in democratic societies. This week, as Netanyahu demonstrated the strength of the democratic leadership model, two other leadership models were also on prominent display. The first was demonstrated by Obama. The second was exhibited by opposition leader Tzipi Livni.

Obama's leadership model is the model of subversive leadership. Subversive leaders in democracies do not tell their citizens where they wish to lead their societies. They hide their goals from their citizens, because they understand that their citizens do not share their goals. Then once they achieve their unspoken goals, they present their people with a fait accompli and announce that only they are competent to shepherd their societies through the radical shift they undertook behind the public's back.

Before Obama, the clearest example of subversive leadership was Shimon Peres. As foreign minister under Yitzhak Rabin, Peres negotiated his deal with the PLO behind the public's back, and behind Rabin's back - and against their clear opposition. Then he presented the deal that no one supported as a fait accompli.

And as the architect of the deal that put the PLO terror forces on the outskirts of Israel's major cities, Peres argued that only he could be trusted to implement the deal he had crafted.

Eighteen years and 2,000 Israeli terror victims later, Israel still hasn't figured out how to extricate itself from his subversive legacy. And he is president.

Today, Obama recognizes that the American public doesn't share his antipathy towards Israel. So as he adopts policies antithetical to Israel's security, he waxes poetic about his commitment to Israel's security. So far his policies have led to the near disintegration of Israel's peace with Egypt, the establishment of a Fatah-Hamas unity government in the Palestinian Authority, and to Iran's steady, all but unimpeded progress towards the atom bomb.

As for Livni, her model is leadership from behind. Although Obama's advisers claimed that this is his model of leadership, it actually is Livni's model. A leader who leads from behind is a follower. She sees where her voters are and she goes there.

In Livni's case, her supporters are on the Left and their main spokesman is the media. Both the Left and the media oppose everything that Netanyahu does and everything he is. And so, as Livni sees things, her job as the head of the opposition is to give voice to their views.

As Netanyahu stared Obama down in the Oval Office and reminded Israelis and Americans alike why we have a special relationship, Livni was telling audiences in Washington and Israel that Netanyahu is a warmonger who will lead us to devastation if we don't elect her to replace him soon. With Obama adopting the Palestinians' negotiating positions and with Fatah embracing Hamas, rather than honestly admitting that all hope for peace is dead for the duration, Livni said that Netanyahu is leading us to war by defending the country.

Netanyahu's extraordinary leadership this week has shown that when used well, the democratic model of leadership trumps all other models. He also showed us that he has the capacity to be the leader of our times.

In the coming weeks and months, the threats to Israel will surely only increase. And with these escalating threats will come also the escalating need for strong and certain leadership.

Netanyahu should realize what his astounding success means for him as well as for Israel.

The people of Israel and our many friends around the world will continue to stand behind him proudly if he continues to lead us as well and wonderfully as he did this week.

And we will admire him. And we will thank him.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.


If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Rubin: Israeli People and Experts: We Support Netanyahu and Don’t Want to Return to 1967 Borders. U.S. Media: Israelis Don’t Like Netanyahu and Israeli Experts Say 1967 Borders are OK

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
26 May '11

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/05/israeli-people-and-experts-we-support.html

We are living in Satireworld. I mean what more can you say? Well, I can say the title of this article that sums it up:

Israeli People and Experts: We Support Netanyahu and Don’t Want to Return to 1967 Borders.

U.S. Media: Israelis Don’t Like Netanyahu and Israeli Experts Say 1967 Borders are OK

Here's the evidence:

New York Times headline:" Israelis See Netanyahu Trip as Diplomatic Failure."

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel returned from Washington on Wednesday to a nearly unanimous assessment among Israelis that despite his forceful defense of Israel's security interests, hopes were dashed that his visit might advance peace negotiations with the Palestinians.”

Actually, Israelis generally have no hopes that anything is going to advance peace negotiations with the Palestinians because even though it makes them unhappy they know that the Palestinians don't want to advance peace negotiations. But that theme--the Palestinian leadership doesn't want peace--is not permitted in virtually all of the American mass media.

And who cares that the article is the exact opposite of the truth:

Ha’aretz headline: "Ha'aretz Poll: Netanyahu's Popularity Soaring Following Washington Trip"

"A new poll conducted by Dialog, under the supervision of Prof. Camil Fuchs of the Tel Aviv University Statistics Department, showed that 47% of the Israeli public believes Netanyahu's U.S. trip was a success, while only 10% viewed it as a failure."

Because the American media wants to tell its public the exact opposite:

Washington Post [should be but isn't] headline: Israelis Oppose '67 Borders with Land Swaps

Oops! That’s not the headline! The real headline is: “Netanyahu says pre-1967 borders are indefensible for Israel, but experts wonder if that’s so.”

Get it? What does Netanyahu know? Obama knows better and Israeli experts (two of them!) agree with him.

If hundreds of thousands of lives weren't at stake this would all be very funny.

The Times Gets Israel Wrong Again—And Why It Matters

Evelyn Gordon
Commentary/Contentions
26 May '11

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/26/the-times-gets-israel-wrong-again—and-why-it-matters/

The New York Times is certain it knows exactly what Israelis think of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s U.S. visit: “Israelis see Netanyahu trip as diplomatic failure,” it proclaimed in a headline yesterday. The story asserted “a nearly unanimous assessment among Israelis that despite his forceful defense of Israel’s security interests, hopes were dashed that his visit might advance peace negotiations with the Palestinians.”

One can easily see how correspondent Ethan Bronner reached this conclusion: As he correctly reported, Israeli “newspapers and airwaves were filled with similar commentary.”

But it’s utterly refuted by the lead story in today’s Haaretz, the Times’s very own Israeli partner, which details the unequivocal verdict of a new poll: Ordinary Israelis—as opposed to the exclusive club of journalists, academics and leftist politicians who dominate the newspapers and airwaves—considered the visit a rousing success.


Of respondents who followed the trip closely enough to express an opinion, those who deemed it a success outnumbered those who deemed it a failure by a whopping 37 points (47% to 10%). Of respondents who thought the visit would affect U.S.-Israeli relations, twice as many foresaw improvement as foresaw deterioration. And Netanyahu’s overall approval rating rose by an incredible 30 points, from minus 15 five weeks ago (38% favorable, 53% unfavorable) to plus 15 today (51% favorable, 36% unfavorable).

Moreover, the claim that the visit dashed hopes of advancing peace talks is ludicrous, because outside the small circle Bronner quotes, most Israelis entertained no such hopes. Every poll for years has shown that roughly two-thirds of Israelis see no chance of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement in the coming years (i.e. this one from October 2010), because they believe the Palestinians “have not accepted Israel’s existence and would destroy it if they could.”

But why does it matter if the Times got it wrong? Because most people, including policy makers, rely heavily on the media for their understanding of foreign countries. Thus when journalists misinterpret elite opinion as the majority view, policy makers wind up making egregious errors.

A prime example is the “Arab Spring.” The media had proclaimed for years that ordinary Arabs were concerned above all with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and Western governments set policy accordingly. They devoted enormous efforts to the “peace process” and virtually none to pressing Arab autocrats to democratize. And then they were taken by surprise when it turned out that what ordinary Arabs really cared about was their tyrannical, corrupt governments.

Similarly, President Barack Obama has been repeatedly surprised by Netanyahu’s ability to defy him successfully, because Israeli elites, via the media and diplomatic corps, had assured him Israelis would turn on any premier who risked a fight with an American president. In reality, most Israelis will back their prime minister if they perceive him as defending core Israeli interests, which has been the case in every Obama-Netanyahu spat.

Ideally, foreign correspondents would explore the world beyond their comfortable circle of like-minded elites. But since they don’t, readers need to take their reports with a large grain of salt.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Harel: Israeli opposition should recognize Netanyahu's U.S. victory

Israel Harel
Haaretz
26 May '11

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israeli-opposition-should-recognize-netanyahu-s-u-s-victory-1.364112

Netanyahu's opponents, who prayed that U.S. President Barack Obama would bring him to his knees, are full of frustration at his having succeeded in winning the heart of Congress and moderating the pressure from the White House.

Only in Israel, only in a community lacking all self-respect, are such reactions possible: Members of both the American Houses of Congress applaud the prime minister of the Jewish state, rising to their feet time after time to emphasize their agreement with what he says, and the hearts of most Israeli commentators turn sour. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dared to present his plan and no, not as they have been trying to dictate for years, not their plan. And therefore, "There is no Israeli plan."

The peak of the fury came when Netanyahu declared, to the sounds of the most prolonged applause registered during the entire speech, that the Jewish people has an ancestral right to the land of its forefathers and it is not an occupier in Judea and Samaria (and he even dared speak aloud the ineffable names of these tracts of land ). And if Congress so sweepingly adopts the Jewish right to the land, where are all those Israelis coming from, who for years have been explaining to the world that this is occupied territory? It seems some of those members of Congress felt regret, far more than Jews in Israel, when Netanyahu declared that despite our historical and religious ties to the places where the Jews became a people, Israel is prepared to give up, for the sake of a permanent status agreement, parts of its historic homeland. This was, without a doubt, one of the smaller days for politicians and commentators in Israel. Smallest of all was Kadima MK Shaul ("the Likud is our home" ) Mofaz, a political panhandler, who accused Netanyahu of suppressing every hope for peace. And Amram Mitzna: Netanyahu is endangering the state of Israel.


To my total chagrin, Netanyahu did sketch a clear, though at this stage general, outline of concessions. The gist as I interpret it: The head of the Likud is giving up the heart of the land of our forefathers. And a Palestinian state will arise there. And there will be settlements that will not be inside Israeli territory. And along the Jordan there will be security arrangements and not Israeli sovereignty.

Netanyahu's opponents, who prayed that U.S. President Barack Obama would bring him to his knees, are full of frustration at his having succeeded in winning the heart of Congress and moderating the pressure from the White House. Is it any wonder the Palestinians waited for the disappointed reactions in Israel in order to recite them in their entirety?

The aim of the pens that took aim at Netanyahu was to minimize his important diplomatic achievement. They cannot forgive him for having proved that also standing on basic principles can enlist America's support, and to that end there is no need for total surrender. They will not forgive him for not having presented in Congress, the Channel 2 commentators' political doctrine or the leading Army Radio broadcasters' identification with the Palestinians.

Israel has been lucky, and there exists in the world one legislature in which there aren't elements trying to undermine its existence, and where there aren't people who participate in Hezbollah and Hamas conferences and express open support for terror and Israel's enemies. It has also been lucky that some influential media organizations remain supportive of Israel. Fox News, for example. Even CNN did not hesitate to heap praise on Netanyahu. And The Washington Post last week attacked Obama for his attitude toward Israel.

Only from them did we not hear again and again that "Congress does not determine foreign policy."

If we had a responsible opposition here, all parts of the nation, certainly those who do not want total surrender to Obama, would have to congratulate themselves on the prime minister's success in Washington. Most regrettably, this is not the case when it comes to the opposition in Israel.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

PM Netanyahu's Message to Congress - Justice is on Our Side : Israel Straight Talk

Avi Abelow
Israel Straight Talk
IST #66
25 May '11



We LIKE the great support PM Netanyahu received from the Senators and Congressman in standing up for Israel's rights to its homeland. They gave standing ovations when the PM Netanyahu said that Judea and Samaria has always belonged to the Jewish people. He received a standing ovation when he said that Jerusalem will always remain the undivided capital of the Jewish State!



Thank you PM Netanyahu and thank you Congressman and Senators for standing up for our rights to our homeland. Any comments or questions join us on http://www.facebook.com/israelstraighttalk

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Prime Minister Netanyahu Before the U.S. Congress

Shoshana Bryen
Senior Director for Security Policy
JINSA Report #: 1,092
May 24, 2011

http://www.jinsa.org/node/2315

He looked as if he belonged there. He spoke as if he was one of us. And in the ways that count, he was.

Not because his English is impeccable, but because he spoke to the convergence of historical, religious, political, security, moral, and ethical views and values between the State of Israel and the United States. In the broadest and deepest sense, he came from where we come from. He came from the camp of deeply held core values that Americans understand. He came from the camp of compromise and political realism. He may not always have been in that camp, but he could not have been clearer about his membership now, and Americans relate to that.

He came from the pro-American camp in which most of us reside. (Can you imagine Abu Mazen saying, "God bless America"?)

On the merits, the speech turned the most important table, as Prime Minister Netanyahu said the conflict was not about forming a Palestinian state - which, he noted, Israel agreed to in 1947 and which the last six Israeli Prime Ministers have reiterated - but rather that the Palestinians are unwilling to accept a Jewish state. Congress applauded.

He called for an end to Palestinians teaching their children that Israel would disappear and an end to the glorification of terrorists. Congress applauded.

He said Palestinian refugees would not be resettled in Israel, but in their own country. Congress applauded.

He said Jerusalem would not be re-divided because only under Israel has the city been accessible to adherents of all religions including Judaism. Congress applauded.

He said Israel needs defensible borders, not arbitrary lines; the Jordan River Valley is one such line. Congress applauded and we think the King of Jordan did as well.

He called on the Palestinian Authority to end its relationship with Hamas - "the Palestinian version of al Qaeda" - and negotiate with Israel. Congress applauded.

Prime Minister Netanyahu invited the Palestinian Authority to join Israel in expanding and enhancing the economic improvements that have already come to the West Bank since Israel rooted out the terrorists who orchestrated the so-called "second intifada" and since the IDF works with the Palestinian Security Forces to maintain security there. It was a generous invitation and Congress applauded.

Netanyahu spoke the thoughts of the Congress of the United States and the Congress stood and applauded twelve times (in case you were counting). Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives made clear their appreciation of the difficult conditions under which Israel lives, the determination of Israel to be strong and defend its people, and the desire of Israel to find a way to give the Palestinians what they have been unable to take since 1948 - a peaceful, prosperous state next to Israel, the national home of the Jewish people.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Tobin: Netanyahu’s Triumph

Jonathan S. Tobin
Commentary/Contentions
24 May '11

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/24/netanyahus-triumph/

President Obama may have thought he could upstage Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s scheduled address to a joint meeting of Congress by delivering his own Middle East policy speech that tilted the diplomatic playing field in the Palestinians favor the day before the Israeli arrived in Washington. Obama’s declaration that the 1967 lines must be the basis for peace talks was widely interpreted as a challenge to Netanyahu for which the prime minister was thought to have no effective answer.

PBS News Hour -
Netanyahu: Borders Must Reflect 'Dramatic' Changes From 1967

Uploaded by PBSNewsHour on May 24, 2011


But Obama was wrong. Netanyahu’s gutsy decision to refuse to take the ambush planned by the White House lying down was thought impertinent by many observers but it was the right decision. Rather than being cowed by the administration’s pressure play, Netanyahu’s assertion of Israel’s rights and security illustrated something that his country’s critics don’t seem to understand: the American people back Israel.

Rather than Obama’s speech overshadowing Netanyahu’s address, it merely served to increase interest in the prime minister’s remarks. When Netanyahu arrived in the House chamber, he was given a warmer greeting than most American presidents receive. During the course of an eloquent and brilliant speech that laid out Israel’s desire for peace as well as the threats that face it, Netanyahu was interrupted with standing ovations from the assembled Congress over 50 times. The cheers were not mere form; they were a genuine expression of the heartfelt support that huge majorities of both parties in both chambers feel for Israel. The speech was a triumph that can well be compared to the applause earned by Winston Churchill when he spoke to Congress as a wartime ally. It didn’t just highlight the bonds between Israel and America but the willingness of this Congress to view Netanyahu personally as a special friend of the American people.

Rather than boxing Netanyahu into a corner from which he would be forced to accept Obama’s terms, the Israeli will return home secure in the knowledge that Congress has his back and that he will be able to withstand the pressure that both the White House and America’s European allies plan to put on his country. Obama’s Middle East speech broke new ground but it will ultimately lead to nothing since the Palestinians will continue to refuse to make peace with Israel. But the support for the Jewish state that Netanyahu’s speech illustrated is a fact of political life that Obama will have to learn to live with. As he did when he outmaneuvered Obama the previous times when the president picked fights with Israel, Netanyahu emerged triumphant.

=========================

Speech by PM Netanyahu to a Joint Meeting of the U.S. Congress

24/05/2011

I am deeply moved by your warm welcome. And I am deeply honored that you have given me the opportunity to address Congress a second time.

Mr. Vice President, do you remember the time that we were the new kids in town?

And I do see a lot of old friends here. And I see a lot of new friends of Israel here. Democrats and Republicans alike.

Israel has no better friend than America. And America has no better friend than Israel. We stand together to defend democracy. We stand together to advance peace. We stand together to fight terrorism. Congratulations America, Congratulations, Mr. President. You got bin Laden. Good riddance!