Abbas: Israel cannot change negotiating positions as result of Israeli elections

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
23 May '10

[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: Mahmoud Abbas is not a child. He knows that when an Israeli prime minister makes an offer that it is not binding on Israel unless the offer is brought before the Cabinet and approved. And even then, until a deal is signed, it only takes a unilateral vote of the Cabinet to rescind the offer.

So when he rejected then PM Olmert's reckless offers (that, by the way, then FM Livni was aware of - so she knew that Jerusalem was being divided even though she claims now that she was never involved in such a thing, and the Shas party - that was promised that Jerusalem wasn't yet on the chopping block was also lied to, but that not the point of this note) he blew it.

We had elections and as a result of this democratic process we have a coalition headed by a PM who won't come close to offering what Olmert did.

And now, like a child, Abbas is trying to turn back the clock.

Were is a comment from the Obama team putting Mr. Abbas in his place for this chutzpah?]

Abbas challenges Mitchell: Will Netanyahu uphold Olmert's promises? PA President stresses that Palestinians are still committed to the positions they presented in response to Olmert's offer in 2008.
By Barak Ravid and Avi Issacharoff
Haaretz
Published 01:48 23.05.10 Latest update 01:48 23.05.10

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas asked U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell during their meeting in Ramallah Wednesday to clarify with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu his stance on several issues. Among them, former prime minister Ehud Olmert's proposal on the borders and security arrangements for a future Palestinian state, as well as Netanyahu's views on the Palestinian response to that offer.

A source privy to the details of the conversation between Mitchell and Abbas told Haaretz that the Palestinian leader stressed that the Palestinians are still committed to the positions they presented in response to Olmert's offer, during negotiations held between August and December 2008.

(Read full article)

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.
.

Obama's 5 Big Lies About Israel

Daniel Greenfield
Sultan Knish
25 April '10

In preparation for his attempt to impose a final solution on Israel, Obama is spreading a variety of lies through the media and his spokesmen about Israel. And by exposing those lies, we can best get at the truth.


1. Netanyahu Must Choose Between Obama and his Right Wing


What Obama's people would like you to believe here is that all it would take to restore good relations with the Obama Administration is for Netanyahu to reject the "extremists" and do what Obama tells him to do.

But in fact the vast majority of Israelis support Netanyahu's position that Jews have the right to live anywhere in Jerusalem, and oppose Obama's position that Jews have no right to live or build homes in parts of Jerusalem that were seized by Jordan in 1948 and ethnically cleansed of Jews.

Netanyahu's real choice is between Obama and the vast majority of his country's voters. By demanding that he turn his back on them and do what Obama says, the real demand here is for Netanyahu to completely disregard Israel's democracy, and betray his own electorate, and enact Apartheid in Jerusalem. This will supposedly appease Obama. And all Netanyahu has to do is disregard the Israeli people's wishes in favor of DC's wishes.

So Netanyahu must choose between Obama and democracy. And the media is blasting him because he chose democracy over Obama.


2. Obama Wants Netanyahu's Right Wing Coalition to be More Centrist

More centrist. Really? Netanyahu's current coalition includes the left wing Labor party, an immigrant's rights party and the party of Sefardi Jews. It even has an Arab Muslim Deputy Minister.

So what is Obama's idea of a centrist Israeli government? One that jettisons Shas, the party of Jewish refugees from Muslim countries, and Yisrael Beitenu, the party of Jewish refugees from the USSR-- in favor of Kadima, an illegitimately created party headed by Tzipi Livni, a former member of Netanyahu's own Likud party. How is a coalition with Kadima more "centrist" than a coalition with the Labor party and parties that represent Israel's different minorities? The answer is it isn't. The only thing "centrist" about Kadima, is that Tzipi Livni airheadedly endorses every Obama proposal, which hasn't exactly made her popular in the country. But it has made her popular with Obama, who wants to force her into a coalition with Netanyahu.

If you believe the Washington talking heads, Livni will make Netanyahu's coalition more centrist than former Labor Prime Minister Ehud Barack. This despite the fact that Kadima officials have repeatedly stated they will not enter any coalition headed by Netanyahu.

Let me emphasize this again. Obama's people are trying to force Netanyahu to drop two parties, one of Jewish refugees from Muslim countries and another of Jewish refugees from Communist countries-- (it's not too hard to figure out why Obama would dislike both) in order to form a more "centrist" coalition with a former member of his own party.

(Read full article)

Please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Obama's Victimization of Jewish Refugees from Muslim Countries

Daniel Greenfield
Sultan Knish
23 March '10

One of the unreported aspects of Obama's manufactured insult over an Israeli housing project in Jerusalem is the way in which the administration has targeted Jewish refugees from Muslim countries.

While media reports frequently denounced Interior Minister Eli Yishai, as a "Right Wing Extremist", for approving one stage of the planned housing project-- what they did not report was the larger story. Eli Yishai is the head of the Shas party, one of Israel's largest political parties, which represents the interests of Sefardi and Mizrahi Jews from Muslim countries. And the housing project would have benefited Jerusalem's sizable population of Jews from Muslim countries.

In the 20th century a vast exodus took place in which as many as a million Jews from Muslim countries fled or otherwise departed, often leaving behind homes and valuables. Some came to America and Europe. Many more came to Israel instead. Today three million Mizrahi Jews live in Israel, indeed the majority of Israeli Jews are not the "immigrants from Brooklyn" derisively referred to by Israel-bashing pundits, but Jews whose families came to Israel from Muslim countries, or who spent many centuries living in Jerusalem under Muslim dominion.

They came from Yemen, Turkey, Libya, Syria, Morocco, Iran, Egypt, Iraq and Algeria. Some were driven out by enraged Muslim mobs. Others had their children stolen and their property seized by the government. Others remained behind "sand curtains", unable to leave. The ways in which some of these Jews were smuggled out of the country through a virtual "Underground Railroad" is unknown to most. And this is a story that continues today.

Consider the story of one woman who successfully helped smuggle out thousands of Syrian Jews by bribing Syrian government officials. And though she describes the work in terms of the Holocaust, "How do you negotiate the price of human lives? I was breaking up children from their parents. It was like the 1940s – they were desperate to get their children out", in fact the last family she saved was in 2001.

This is what a million Jews from Muslim countries escaped to begin their lives again in Israel. They left behind life in Muslim countries where they were Dhimmis, legally treated as second class citizens under Islamic law. They thought that they had turned their backs on a state of affairs where Muslims could dictate that synagogues should be built no taller than mosques, where their lives were worth less than a Muslim's and were paid for with blood money and forced to live in ghettos. That is until Obama decided to be gravely insulted because they had decided to live in a place that he thought they had no right to live.

(Read full article)
.

Obama Officials: Relax, We’re Just Trying to Break up Bibi’s Coalition

Noah Pollak
Contentions/Commentary
16 March '10

Jeffrey Goldberg spoke with White House officials today and posted this report.

So what is the goal? The goal is force a rupture in the governing coalition that will make it necessary for Netanyahu to take into his government Livni’s centrist Kadima Party (he has already tried to do this, but too much on his terms) and form a broad, 68-seat majority in Knesset…

Obama knows that this sort of stable, centrist coalition is the key to success. He would rather, I understand, not have to deal with Netanyahu at all — people near the President say that, for one thing, Obama doesn’t think that Netanyahu is very bright, and there is no chemistry at all between the two men — but he’d rather have a Netanyahu who is being pressured from his left than a Netanyahu who is being pressured from the right.

So here we have on record the Obama administration saying 1) that it is trying to topple the government of a democratic ally (if only we could try this in Tehran!) 2) that it believes it has such mastery of Israeli politics that publicly bludgeoning Bibi will result in such a shakeup, and that 3) even if the hoped-for new government is formed, the White House thinks it’s a good idea to go on record stating that the Prime Minister they will have to deal with is stupid.

This is pretty amazing. And it’s more evidence that not only is Obama ignorant of how Israel and the Middle East work, but that he refuses to do any on-the-job learning. He is pushing forward with his failed strategy of a year ago, only this time with a bigger hammer. He appears to be unconcerned with the importance to the Israeli public of his reversal on the terms of the settlement freeze, which the White House was praising just a few months ago. He clearly does not understand one of the basic lessons they teach in Peace Process 101 — that Israel does not take risks for peace when it feels threatened, especially not when it feels threatened by the United States. Obama clearly doesn’t understand this, although I remain skeptical that all of this is really about the peace process.

(Read full article)
.

How Bad is the Quality of Media Coverage? A Small Example

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
13 March '10

Here's an example of just how bad media coverage is. I'm not writing this as an example of anti-Israel media bias but of just poor reporitng which applies to lots of other stories.

1. Lack of understanding

Shas is a populist party whose constituency is poor Orthodox Jews of Middle Eastern origin. A Shas minister announced housing construction in such a neighborhood. He couldn't care less about international issues or the fact that it was five blocks across the pre-1967 border. He just wanted to show his constituents he was providing apartments for them.

Failing to understand this, prestigious Western media outlets claimed this showed how Israel was thumbing its nose at the US by the timing, Israel didn't want peace, etc. They didn't understand what was going on despite their highly paid correspondents, local stringers, pompous belief in their own brilliance, etc.

If they can't understand party patronage politics in a democratic society how the heck are they going to cover societies far more different from their own?

2. Short memory

A few weeks ago, Israel announced it was going to continue construction in east Jerusalem while stopping it elsewhere.

(Read full post)
.