Wilder - The Answer to 'September'

David Wilder
hebron.com
04 September '11

http://www.hebron.com/english/article.php?id=725


Well, it's finally arrived. Summer vacations are over. The kids are back in school. Autumn is approaching. Labor Day barbeques are in full swing.

September also witnessed the 'jovial' signing of Oslo, exactly eighteen years ago. And this year, we may be privileged to witness another international farce, this time, not on the White House lawn, rather in the hallowed halls of the United Nations. The signatures will not be of the US president, an Israeli Prime Minister, and an Arab terrorist dressed in a Kaffiyeh and a tie. Rather, the nations of the world will raise their hands high in an attempt to erase the achievement of that same body on November 29, 1947. For, in reality, that is what the creation of a 'palestinian state' is all about. The deletion of the State of Israel from the world map.

That too, was the goal of Oslo. It is worthwhile to take a short glance behind us. Oslo was signed on September 13, 1993. On June 24, 2001, (six months after the outbreak of the 'Oslo War' aka the 'Second Intifada') the greatest of all Arab spokesman, Faysal el-Husseini granted an interview to the Egyptian newspaper Al-Arabia. El-Husseini was internationally recognized as a true moderate spokesman for the Arab cause. In the interview (his last – he died of a heart attack a short time after the interview), this 'moderate' is very clear about the intents of Oslo:

"I now tell you all, all those to whom I spoke in a secret meeting during the days of Oslo: 'Climb into the horse and don't question what type of material the horse is made of. Climb into the horse, and we shall transform your climbing into that horse into a beginning of a building era rather than an era of the end of hope."'

"When we are asking all the Palestinian forces and factions to look at the Oslo Agreement and at other agreements as "temporary" procedures, or phased goals, this means that we are ambushing the Israelis and cheating them.

"In short, we are exactly like they are. We distinguish the strategic, long-term goals from the political phased goals, which we are compelled to temporarily accept due to international pressure. If you are asking me as a Pan-Arab nationalist what are the Palestinian borders according to the higher strategy, I will immediately reply: "From the river to the sea." Palestine in its entirety is an Arab land, the land of the Arab nation, a land no one can sell or buy, and it is impossible to remain silent while someone is stealing it, even if this requires time and even [if it means paying] a high price."

That was in 2001. Now let's jump to August, 2009 – the Fatah 6th General Conference:

Mordechai Kedar - Turkey – What Went Wrong?

JewishIndy

By Mordechai Kedar
Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation) Bar-Ilan University
Middle Eastern Insights No. 11
3 September, 2011

http://www.jewishindy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=15928

(Note: This article was written and published in Hebrew in mid October 2009, more than seven months before the Mavi Marmara (the flotilla) issue. It's first part was updated in June 2011, and believe me, I am not a prophet. MK)

The Turkish elections on June 12, 2011, were held against the backdrop of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s intention of winning two-thirds of the parliamentary seats; had it been achieved, this majority would have enabled Erdogan to rapidly advance the Islamization of Turkey by altering its constitution to position him as its all-powerful president with broad authority. This goal apparently frightened some of the voters so that he won “only” 326 of the 550 seats, a drop of five seats with respect to the outgoing parliament. Interestingly, this majority (almost 60%) was reached despite the fact that his party, The Justice and Development Party, received slightly less than 50% of the valid votes, a percentage that is higher than the 47% in the 2007 elections. The parliamentary majority allows Erdogan to govern without a coalition and to amend the constitution via referendum. Not easy, but possible.

Opposition representatives, combined, won about 40% of the seats: The Republican People’s Party’s strength rose from almost 21% to 26% and it will hold 135 seats; the second largest opposition party, The Nationalist Movement Party, declined from 14% to 13% with 53 seats. It is important to note that this party managed to pass the high 10% threshold. An additional 36 independent representatives, mostly Kurds, were elected; some are in prison for participating in the struggle against the government.

Accordingly, Erdogan will continue for a third, and apparently last, term as prime minister, and his foreign minister – Ahmet Davutoglu – will maintain the foreign policy of the last eight years, aimed at strengthening Turkey’s independent international standing based on the consistent and rapid 8% annual growth rate; the large and loyal army; internal stability (despite the Kurdish opposition); and the good relations with most countries in the region. Without a doubt, Turkey deserves to be called a “regional power”, a title it shares with Iran and, perhaps, Israel. The situation in these three countries is in marked contrast to the ongoing destruction of the crumbling, divided and splintered Arab political collective. Erdogan is currently perceived in the Arab world as the most popular leader, although he himself is not an Arab. Under these circumstances we can assume that the tension with Israel will continue and Turkey’s ties with the Arab and Islamic world will continue to grow stronger.

The question that automatically comes to mind is how did Turkey evolve from a country with a secular constitution to one with an Islamic agenda and “Ottoman” imperial-like tendencies that indicate its intention to return to Islamic hegemony.

Dr. MacEoin's Response to Edinburgh Student Association Motion to Boycott Israel

Paula R. Stern
A Soldier's Mother
04 September '11

http://israelisoldiersmother.blogspot.com/2011/09/response-to-edinburgh-student.html

Following is a response by Dr. Denis MacEoin, a senior editor of the Middle East Quarterly, in response to a motion to boycott Israel by the Student Association. In their motion, they claim Israel is under an apartheid regime. Dr. Denis Maceoin (a non-Jew) is an expert in Middle Eastern affairs. Here is his letter to those students.


Dr. Denis MacEoin addresses The Committee of the Edinburgh University Student Association.

TO: The Committee Edinburgh University Student Association.

May I be permitted to say a few words to members of the EUSA? I am an Edinburgh graduate (MA 1975) who studied Persian, Arabic and Islamic History in Buccleuch Place under William Montgomery Watt and Laurence Elwell Sutton, two of Britain's great Middle East experts in their day.

I later went on to do a PhD at Cambridge and to teach Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University. Naturally, I am the author of several books and hundreds of articles in this field. I say all that to show that I am well informed in Middle Eastern affairs and that, for that reason, I am shocked and disheartened by the EUSA motion and vote.

I am shocked for a simple reason: there is not and has never been a system of apartheid in Israel. That is not my opinion, that is fact that can be tested against reality by any Edinburgh student, should he or she choose to visit Israel to see for themselves. Let me spell this out, since I have the impression that those members of EUSA who voted for this motion are absolutely clueless in matters concerning Israel, and that they are, in all likelihood, the victims of extremely biased propaganda coming from the anti-Israel lobby.

Being anti-Israel is not in itself objectionable. But I'm not talking about ordinary criticism of Israel. I'm speaking of a hatred that permits itself no boundaries in the lies and myths it pours out. Thus, Israel is repeatedly referred to as a "Nazi" state. In what sense is this true, even as a metaphor? Where are the Israeli concentration camps? The einzatsgruppen? The SS? The Nuremberg Laws? The Final Solution? None of these things nor anything remotely resembling them exists in Israel, precisely because the Jews, more than anyone on earth, understand what Nazism stood for.

It is claimed that there has been an Israeli Holocaust in Gaza (or elsewhere). Where? When? No honest historian would treat that claim with anything but the contempt it deserves. But calling Jews Nazis and saying they have committed a Holocaust is as basic a way to subvert historical fact as anything I can think of.

Gordis - Nowhere to run

Daniel Gordis
JPost Magazine
02 September '11

http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinion/Article.aspx?id=236294



There is a simple and inexplicable power to being home. It makes you no safer, and it may, in fact, make you a target. But choosing a home like that promotes clarity.

There’s nothing quite like staying in a lakeside cabin in Ontario for a few days to get the Middle East entirely out of your system.

Surrounded by nothing but trees, birds, water and a couple of wonderful friends, it all begins to melt away. The doctors’ strike, the omnipresent stinking piles of garbage on Jerusalem’s streets, the histrionic politics and the looming UN vote – it all fades with time.

As there’s little to do there but hike, kayak and read, I brought Yair Lapid’s recent – and truly wonderful – autobiography of his father (no, that’s not a typo) for the vacation. The book opens with Tommy Lapid’s childhood in Nazioccupied Budapest. It’s a harrowing account, as most of them are, particularly when he notes following a narrow escape in a latrine that though he was alive, the danger had not passed. The Nazis and their collaborators were everywhere; there was simply no place to run.

Sobering, to put it mildly; but even Lapid’s exquisite writing couldn’t undo the placidity of the lake. The water was too calm, the forest too thick with the sounds of beavers and loons (real birds, not MKs) for those harrowing memories to undermine the calm. There’s no Internet in the cabin and hardly any 3G.

The world as we know it might as well have been a different planet. I felt I could have stayed there forever.

THERE WAS, though, one windowsill where you could leave your BlackBerry, where every now and then, a signal came through. So if you left the BB there overnight, chances were that in the morning, you could at least check your e-mail and not fall too far behind. A big mistake.

One morning I woke up and checked my e-mail. There wasn’t much, thankfully, but one from my brother caught my attention. “Is everyone OK?” was the subject line, with no text. But there didn’t need to be. An e-mail like that can mean only one thing. I got in the car, raced to town, bought a coffee I didn’t want so I could sit in the Wi-Fiequipped diner and read about what was unfolding on the southern border.

So much for calm that comes with falling asleep to the sound of crickets.

I spent most of the day by that windowsill, trying to coax my BlackBerry into getting the news. Details slowly emerged. Terrorists had infiltrated the Negev. Among others, two sisters, with their husbands on vacation, had been heading south when the border highway was blocked by gunmen who shot them each at point-blank range, an eyewitness said. The other stories were no less gruesome.

I spoke to someone reasonably high up in Intelligence, usually a bit too trusting of our “peace partners” for my taste, but very smart and always worth hearing out. Was this somehow connected to the upcoming September UN vote, I wondered? Not at all, he said. These attacks take months to plan. They launch them when they can.

Rubin - Reflections on the First Day of School in Israel

Barry Rubin
Rubin Reports
01 September '11

http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/09/01/reflections-on-the-first-day-of-school-in-israel/?singlepage=true


I ask my son how the first day of his elementary school (sixth grade) went. He tells me that the number of guards has been upped from two to five, and now they have metal detector wands. One of the guards, as before, carries a .38 caliber pistol. For good measure, he adds that the guard at the nearby clothing store is now carrying a G36C fully automatic Heckler & Koch. (Daniel’s an expert on small arms and has a high opinion of this weapon, one of his many hobbies.)

They are not carrying this equipment because of concern over random trespassers or shoplifters. I often reflect that if terrorists were to attack the elementary school successfully, they would be regarded as heroes in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and among millions of Arabs and Muslims.

In contrast, of course, Palestinian schools, stores, and malls do not have to fear attack. On the contrary, certainly in the Gaza Strip and to a lesser extent on the West Bank, they are being taught in textbooks that it is proper and virtuous to slay Israelis wherever they find them. Would all this change overnight if there were an internationally recognized Palestinian state? Of course not.

And incidentally, in high school my daughter did a course on comparative religion, including a fair and accurate study of Islam. In the schooling of both children there has never been the slightest demonization of Arabs or Muslims while there has been a genuine effort to understand (without apologizing for or advocating) the viewpoint of those peoples.

Whatever the real shortcomings of the Israeli school system (don’t get me started!), my son isn’t subjected to the very conscious indoctrination that he faced during a stint in an American public school. (Long-time readers of my blog know the details. A personal favorite is how the math teacher used “Vote for Obama” playing cards for some math exercises.)

Rennert - Wash. Post inverts UN report on flotilla raid to blacken Israel

Leo Rennert
American Thinker
03 September '11

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/09/wash_post_inverts_un_report_on_flotilla_raid_to_blacken_israel.html

Let's start with the actual conclusions of the UN report on last year's Israeli commando raid on the Mavi Marmara, the lead Turkish vessel in a flotilla attempting to breach Israel's blockade of Gaza . To wit:

--Israel was within its legal rights to blockade Gaza because of persistent attacks from this Palestinian territory on Israeli towns. "Israel faces a real threat to its security from militants in Gaza," the report declares. It calls the blockade a "legitimate security measure." In this respect, the UN panel -- personally appointed by Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon -- completely repudiates an earlier finding by the discredited, anti-Israel UN Human Rights Council that the blockade was illegal.

--Violence-bent activists aboard the Mavi Marvara engaged in "reckless" attacks on the commandos descending from a hovering helicopter to the top deck.

--Israel was justified in using force to repel this assault on the commandos.

--Turkey should have done more to screen passengers on the ship before departure to weed out dangerous characters.

--Israel need not issue a formal apology to Turkey, but should come up with an expression of "regret" and pay compensation to families of the nine Turks killed in the battle with the commandos. This is exactly what Israel has offered to do all along, except that Turkey has kept insisting that it would not be satisfied with anything less than an apology.

--Israel's own investigation, which cleared the commandos, was the work of professional and independent investigators, while Turkey's investigation was "tendentious" -- i.e. propagandistic.

--The commandos, when screening other passengers, were sometimes abusive.

-- While the commandos were perfectly entitled to use force to protect themselves from getting killed, they nevertheless used "excessive" force under the circumstances.

All in all, a UN report that tilts heavily in favor of Israel and doesn't let Turkey off the hook. No wonder that Israeli officials view it as a rare vindication of Israel at the UN, while the Turkish government went ballistic in repudiating nearly all its major findings and conclusions.

But now guess which part of the report gets to play in the Washington Post. Yup, the main headline in big type on page A6 of the Sept. 2 edition blares: "Israel's use of force in raid called 'excessive.''

Fresnozionsim - A rare diplomatic victory

Hamas leader Khaled
Meshaal meets Turkey's
Foreign Minister Ahmet
Davutoğlu in Ankara, 2006

Fresnozionism.org
02 September '11

http://fresnozionism.org/2011/09/a-rare-diplomatic-victory/

The Palmer report expressing the conclusions of the UN commission chaired by former New Zealand PM Geoffrey Palmer about the Mavi Marmara incident last May 31 is now public.

For a UN document, it is remarkably fair, including the following:

Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law…

Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade. The majority of the flotilla participants had no violent intentions, but there exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH. The actions of the flotilla needlessly carried the potential for escalation…

Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their own protection. Three soldiers were captured, mistreated, and placed at risk by those passengers. Several others were wounded…

But,

(video) Daphne Anson - When Anti-Zionism Becomes Anti-Semitism

Daphne Anson
02 September '11

http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2011/09/when-anti-zionism-becomes-anti-semitism.html

Racist antisemites including Hitler described Jews as a "bacillus" that must be extirpated...

At the Al Quds Day rally in Toronto (complete with a female speaker from the Uniting Church, a "useful idiot" if ever there was one!) on 28 August the Jewish State was described as a "cancer" that must be removed ...

In the words of the uploader:

'This video is an alarming reminder of how anti-Semitism frequently emerges in the form of "criticism" of Israel.

At this rally, Israel is called "a cancer", Israel is accused of "sucking resources and blood", and Hezbollah flags were flown (a banned terrorist organization). The video also shows how those who genuinely believe in human rights often share a podium with hate-filled extremists. Activists should be accountable for the company they keep.'

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.
.

Kushner - From Israel: UN Issues

Arlene Kushner
Arlene from Israel
02 September '11





I want to concentrate today on the UN, and the up-coming Durban III. What's encouraging here is the enormous response against Durban III that is being mounted. While there is much ugliness in the world, there seems to be far less passivity with regard to it. This is a hopeful sign

~~~~~~~~~~

Eye on the UN, the organization headed by Anne Bayefsky, has put out a short new video regarding "Durban III and the Perils of Global Intolerance": http://www.durbanwatch.com/ On this same page you can find backgrounders regarding Durban I and II.

~~~~~~~~~~

The date for Durban III at the UN is September 22. At the same time, there will be a counter-conference sponsored by The Hudson Institute -- with which Bayefsky is associated -- and Touro College Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust at the Millennium UN Plaza Hotel.

What a line-up of speakers they will have, including: John Bolton, Mike Hukabee, Dore Gold, Ruth Wisse, Wafa Sultan, Khaled Abu Toameh, and Simon Deng.

There will be a live conference webcast and at the durbanwatch site above you can secure information for logging into that.

~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps even more important is "We Have a Dream: Global Summit Against Discrimination and Persecution.," sponsored by an international coalition of NGOs. This will be "a parallel summit to place urgent situations of discrimination and persecution on the international agenda, promote human rights and democracy, and give a voice to the voiceless."

The goal, quite simply, is to focus public attention on the genuine human rights atrocities taking place in the world, as counterpoint to the obscene and libelous UN charge that Israel is the greatest violator of human rights. At one and the same time it will put the lie to the Durban III charges and, as its PR indicates, "give a voice to the voiceless." It will call attention to genuine human suffering that is too often ignored.

The Summit will take place on September 21 and 22 on the UN Plaza across the street from the UN. And it will feature people such as a survivor of Tiananmen Square and president of Initiatives for China; one of the "lost boys of Sudan," as well as people connected to and fighting against human rights abuses in places such as Vietnam, Cuba, Burma, Rwanda, Sudan and Iran. There will be, for example, a spokesperson for the Uyghur people, a Chinese ethnic people that endures suffering at the hands of the Chinese government.

There will be a webcast of these proceedings as well, which you should be able to access at: NGOsummit.org.

Rubin - Why Supporting Unilateral Palestinian Independence Is A Deadly Mistake

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
01 September '11

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-supporting-unilateral-palestinian.html


Marwan Barghouti, leader of the Fatah West Bank grassroots' (Tanzim) group and under a life sentence in an Israel prison, has said that if the United States vetoes a unilateral Palestinian statehood proposal at the UN, there will be massive riots. To underline the point, he called such a decision a “historic, deadly mistake.”

When he says, “deadly,” he means it. Indeed, Barghouti, the leader of the Fatah grassroots' (Tanzim) organization on the West Bank, is in prison precisely because he organized massive deadly riots after the Palestinian Authority (PA) rejected a compromise peace with Israel that would have given them a state in 2000. In other words, they’re intransigent and then start a war when they don’t get everything they want.

It’s the basic tactic in the terrorist playbook: Give me everything I want so I can better destroy you in the long run or I will kill you in the short-run.

And it is encouraged by the basic tactic often used by Western governments: We feel your pain, understand that you are a victim, and will give you as much as possible. Those concessions are rejected and then more are demanded.

This doesn’t make sense to most Western observers: Aren’t the Palestinians desperate for a state and to end a terrible “occupation?” In fact, though, Israel pulled completely out of the Gaza Strip six years ago this month and the Palestinian Authority (PA) has now governed almost all West Bank Palestinians for the last 17 years.

In fact, the PA is not in a hurry to negotiate a deal for several reasons.

Linde - Editor's Notes: Caging the tiger

Steve Linde
JPost Editor-in Chief
01 September '11

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=236366

Larry Derfner crossed the line into territory of hate speech when in a personal blog last week he sought to justify Palestinian terrorism.

In one of my first columns as editor-in-chief (“Halting the hatred,” July 22), I urged The Jerusalem Post’s journalists and contributors to be more sensitive when it comes to reporting and commenting on potentially inflammatory topics in the news.

“We at the Post believe that hate speech harms the civil discourse in Israel, and in my opinion, it poses a real danger to the country’s very existence as a democratic Jewish state,” I wrote.

Larry Derfner, a veteran journalist who penned a weekly column and reported for our Magazine, crossed the line into the territory of hate speech when in a personal blog last week he sought to justify Palestinian terrorism against Israelis.

His egregious posting came in response to the August 18 terrorist murder of Israeli citizens on the Egyptian border.

“Whoever the Palestinians were who killed the eight Israelis near Eilat last week, however vile their ideology was, they were justified to attack,” Derfner wrote. “Palestinians have the right to resist – to use violence against Israelis, even to kill Israelis.”

These comments are exceptionally offensive to most Israelis, and especially hurtful to those who have been victims of terror. They endorse and encourage, if not incite and inflame, terrorism against Israel.

When Derfner asked that we run the piece in the Post, we rejected it and dissociated ourselves completely from his comments, to which we object in the strongest possible terms.

Even though his column did not appear in the paper, we came to the conclusion that we could no longer provide a stage to someone who openly promulgates such venomous views.

Glick - Cliche-based foreign policy

Caroline Glick
carolineglick.com
02 September '11

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/09/cliche-based-foreign-policy.php


US Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, kicked up a political storm this week. On Tuesday, Ros-Lehtinen introduced the United Nations Transparency, Accountability and Reform Act. If passed into law it would place stringent restrictions on US funding of the UN's budget.

The US currently funds 22 percent of the UN's general budget. That budget is passed by the General Assembly with no oversight by the US. America's 22% share of the budget is nonvoluntary, meaning the US may exert no influence over how its taxpayers' funds are spent.

If Ros-Lehtinen's act is passed into law, the UN will have two years to enact budgetary reforms that would render a minimum of 80% of its budget financing voluntary. If the UN does not make the required reforms, the US government will be enjoined to withhold 50% of its nonvoluntary UN budget allocations.

Beyond this overarching demand for UN budgetary reform, the act contains several specific actions that are directed against UN institutions that advance anti-American and anti-Israel agendas.

Ros-Lehtinen's act would defund the UN Human Rights Committee until such time as it repeals its permanent anti-Israel resolution, and prohibits countries that support terror and are under UN Security Council sanctions from serving as its members. It would also prohibit the US from serving as a member of the UNHRC until such reforms are enacted.

Ros-Lehtinen's bill defunds all UN activities related to the libelous Goldstone Report, and the anti-Semitic Durban process. It vastly curtails and conditions US funding of UNRWA, the Palestinian refugee agency permeated by members of terrorist organizations. UNRWA's facilities are routinely used to plan, execute and incite terrorism against Israel and to indoctrinate Palestinians to seek Israel's destruction.

The bill pays special attention to the Palestinian Authority's plan to have the UN Security Council and General Assembly vote in favor of Palestinian statehood later this month. The bill would cut off US funding to any UN agency or organization that upgrades the Palestinian mission to the UN in any way in the aftermath of a General Assembly vote in favor of such an upgrade in representation.

Ros-Lehtinen's bill, which has 57 co-sponsors, provides detailed explanations for how the targeted UN agencies and activities harm US interests. It notes that the US's membership since 2009 in the UN Human Rights Council has had no impact whatsoever on the UNHRC's anti-Israel and anti-American agenda. The US has been unable to temper in any way the UNHRC's actions and resolutions, including its decisions to form the Goldstone Commission and to endorse the findings of the Goldstone Report, and its continued support and organization of the anti-Semitic Durban conferences in which Israel is attacked and libeled as an illegitimate, racist state.

The bill notes that despite US efforts to extend oversight over UNRWA's hiring process, UNRWA continues to hire members of terrorist organizations. The bill provides a long list of UNRWA employees who have perpetrated terrorist attacks.

Ignoring its fact-based assessment of UN failings, the Obama administration has rejected the Ros-Lehtinen bill out of hand. Speaking to Politico, an administration source panned the bill, claiming, "This draft legislation is dated, tired and frankly unresponsive to the positive role being played by the UN."

Honig - Khartoum’s three ‘no’s’- the Ramallah version

Sarah Honig
Another Tack
01 September '11

http://sarahhonig.com/2011/09/01/another-tack-khartoum%E2%80%99s-three-%E2%80%98nos%E2%80%99-the-ramallah-version/

Our media – forever plying an advocacy agenda and tendentiously promoting hyped humbug – showed no interest in focusing on Ramallah figurehead Mahmoud Abbas’s latest song and dance. Denied resonance, the story expired virtually unnoticed.

Most Israeli news-consumers were highly unlikely even to have detected any fleeting resemblance between Abbas’s three “no’s” and the three “no’s” enunciated so bombastically in Khartoum exactly 44 years and one day ago.

Representatives of all Arab League members and the PLO hobnobbed in Sudan on August 29, 1967, soon after the Six Day War. On September 1, they published their resolution, popularly dubbed “the three no’s”: “no peace, no recognition, no negotiation with Israel.”

It would serve us well to recall that this was when Israelis delusionally awaited, as Moshe Dayan phrased it, “a phone call” from Arab leaders. We sincerely convinced ourselves that given the new circumstances in the region, there’s no alternative for the Arab world but to shake off its refusal to accept Israel and to effect a lasting reconciliation.

Had the Arabs operated according to our patterns of logic, this indeed should have been the outcome. But the idealistic expectations that our enlightened rationale would guide the reactions of others were (and, alas, still are) pie-in-the-sky. Then-foreign minister Abba Eban promised we’d be “unbelievably generous in working out peace terms.” In direct talks with official Arab interlocutors, he stressed, “everything is negotiable.”

This past August 27, two days short of the anniversary of the Khartoum summit’s opening, Abbas chose to echo its rejectionist sentiments. He announced three “no’s” of his own: no to recognizing a Jewish state, no to tolerating Jewish settlement blocs and no to forgoing the demand that Israel be overrun by untold millions of hostile Arabs (marketed to all and sundry as the Right of Return).

This is all fundamentally significant, not least because we find ourselves at the outset of what we’re told will be a fateful September – the month in which a great tsunami will violently engulf us both in the diplomatic arena (at the UN General Assembly) and right on our own turf (via orchestrated terror campaigns touted as grassroots demonstrations).

Abbas has just definitively defined what it’s all about, even if we were distracted and loath to listen to him – as we almost always are.

IMRA - Egyptian force enhancement in Sinai under conditions of regime uncertainty

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
Weekly Commentary
01 September '11



Let’s keep this simple:

We have absolutely no idea who will be ruling Egypt in the near future.

That’s “near future”.

So policy recommendations vis-à-vis Egyptian force deployments in the Sinai in excess of the treaty that hinge their reasoning on the composition, intentions, or anything else of the currently ruling military regime are grossly short sighted.

Short sighted and irresponsible.

If anything, any policy recommendation on this matter must answer the following critical question:

What impact will there be on Israel’s security if Israel accepts Egyptian force deployment “X” in the Sinai in excess of the treaty and the regime ruling Egypt decides to support a military campaign against the Jewish State – either by actively participating in an invasion or by engaging in various maneuvers within Egypt that force Israel to divert military resources from other fronts facing an invasion.

That’s not to say that Israel must rule out any and all changes in the agreement.

Just that it must do it with eyes wide open, fully aware of the potential ramifications of the move.

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.
.

Fresnozionism - Iron Dome is not a panacea

Fresnozionism.org
01 September '11

http://fresnozionism.org/2011/09/iron-dome-is-not-a-panacea/

The Iron Dome system is a very mixed blessing. During recent rocket attacks the system intercepted many (but not all) rockets fired at populated areas. Now an additional battery is being deployed to protect Ashdod, one of the targets for Grad missiles.

War, like many things, is an economic activity. Resources must be allocated where they will be most effective, and there is never an unlimited amount of money. So deploying Iron Dome to protect the civilian population is a decision to use scarce resources in a particular way.

Some critics say that the system enables the terrorists’ economic warfare against Israel, since each projectile fired by Iron Dome costs $40,000, while rockets are relatively cheap. But of course the cost of the damage caused by rockets which get through (not to mention possible loss of life) as well as the cost of alternative means of deterrence — helicopter missions aren’t cheap either — must be considered.

In my opinion, Israel should not rely on Iron Dome or similar systems for defense of the civilian population for a different reason. This is that while passive defense systems may useful tactically, dependance on them is a poor long-term strategy, from military, psychological and political points of view.

Militarily, reliance on defense allows the enemy to stockpile missiles and build infrastructure without interference. A large stockpile of missiles allows them to attack by ‘saturation’, firing more missiles than the systems can intercept in a given period. No matter how many batteries are deployed, it’s always possible to overwhelm them by firing enough missiles. In addition, if the terrorists are allowed to continue infrastructure development undisturbed — digging tunnels, building bunkers, etc. — then this will be disadvantageous if (when) at a later date there is a direct confrontation.

It is also the case that shooting down rockets does not deter the enemy from building and firing more of them. Only retaliation directed at the enemy soldiers, the storage and manufacturing facilities, smuggling tunnels and commanders of the terrorist groups can do that. These kind of operations must not have resources diverted from them on the grounds that Iron Dome will protect the population.

Bechor - Mideast rules must change

Guy Bechor
Israel Opinion/Ynet
01 September '11

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4116543,00.html

Land for peace formula dead, Israel must adopt doctrine based on equality

Ever since the Six-Day War we’ve been hearing, like a mantra, the buzz about “land for peace.” The tiny Israel, a small dot on the globe, shall give up “land,” and in exchange it shall receive “peace” from the Arab side.

This mantra was so absolute that it was accepted here as an unqualified truth that cannot be denied; we even went as far as to convince the world that this is good for us. However, in the wake of the shocks experienced by the Arab world in recent months, there is no escaping the assertion that this mantra is no longer valid.

While Israel paid with hard, irreversible currency when it handed over land to the Arab side, the Arabs paid with soft, completely reversible currency - that is, words and agreements. Now we are hearing claims that these deals were made with the regimes rather than with the “people”; that is, they lack any legitimacy.

In Egypt there are many voices, including among presidential candidates, declaring that the Camp David Accord with Israel must be annulled or at least changed. That is, change the aspects that pertain to “peace” with Israel. Yet if the Egyptians wish to annul the Camp David Accord, will they return the Sinai desert to Israel? After all, they received this territory through the peace treaty between the two states, after failing to secure it through war. Yet for some reason, this is unthinkable for them.

The peace treaty with Egypt is undergoing changes rather casually at this time in respect t to the deployment of Egyptian troops in the Sinai, an issue that was a major element in the agreement. This shows how easily one can change agreements or understandings and possibly annul them altogether.

Slowly, Egypt is returning its army to the northern Sinai, a move that may prompt harsh implications for the ties with Israel. Yet did anything change about the land? Did Israel again annex Taba? Of course not. And why does the tiny Israel have to pay with land? After all, the Arab countries around it hold huge territories. Why wouldn’t they pay with land, while Israel gives them peace?

Rubin - What Middle East Pundits Get Wrong

Barry Rubin
GLORIA Center
29 August '11

http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2011/08/what-middle-east-pundits-get-wrong/

A British writer named David Hearst has suggested in the Guardian that Israel will disappear because Arabs and Muslims continue to “resist” its existence. This is a fascinating example of the many things wrong with political analysis, media, intellectual debate, and the understanding of the Middle East today. Here’s a list:

1. The confusion between wishful thinking and analysis. Every day I am forced by reality to say things I don’t want to say. But people who no longer understand scholarly, scientific and intellectual values assume I only say it because of some political agenda. And that belief derives from the cynical, neo-Marxist, post-modernist concept that everyone merely represents a specific political interest. That concept kills democratic discussion.

An example: I would love Egypt to be a stable democratic state. That isn’t, however, what I see based on evidence. Yet if I say so, the response is likely to be insults or name calling. For instance, I only say it because Israel or America wants to discredit the Egyptian revolution. Yet understanding and policy can only be made on the basis of honest assessment. Otherwise, they will fail or make things worse.

Of course, the British writer is echoing what he hears in Arab discussions. They want Israel to collapse, hence they predict it. But basing their lives and policy, spending their blood and money, on this effort will lead Arabs to disaster – as it has already done for 60 years – and postpone progress for themselves.

2. The lack of real historical perspective. This article in question could have been written in 1948 or in any year since. If people continually predict something and it doesn’t happen, might that not indicate a need to change their view? Indeed, evidence shows that Israel has become more successful while Arab states – as recent months unfortunately prove – have become mired in internal conflict and retrograde Islamism.

3. One of many ironies about “multiculturalism” is its egocentrism. “Other” peoples are reduced to political symbols, something like an old Communist poster of heroic workers and equally heroic peasants.

Their views are only taken into account if they are led by the “proper” leaders. A Muslim leader who denounces the West and makes demands on it for accommodation is “legitimate,” but an immigrant who wants to integrate fully into Western civilization, or a leader who wishes to be an ally of the United States – they are sell-outs not worthy of respect. Moderate Muslims or democratic oppositions in Iran, Lebanon, and Turkey are put into that category. That’s why there are no campus or other demonstrations on their behalf.

In addition, true inquiry into other countries and groups is discouraged because it might lead to “unacceptable” conclusions. It’s amazing how little we know – especially from academic research or journalistic investigation –about Muslim communities in the West. There is hardly any real work on, say, Palestinian politics, political groups in Egypt, the Syrian opposition or the nature of Turkey’s ruling party.

Tobin - Derfner’s No Martyr to Free Speech

Jonathan S. Tobin
Commentary/Contentions
31 August '11

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/08/31/derfner-terror-free-speech/

I wrote last week, Jerusalem Post columnist Larry Derfner’s defense of the right of Palestinians to murder Israelis “was beyond the pale of civil debate and that he would deserve every bit of the abuse that comes his way from fellow Israelis.” If anything, I underestimated the opprobrium that rained down on Derfner, who subsequently gave a non-apology apology and took down the controversial post from his personal blog. But his evasions were of no use, and he wound up losing his job at the Post this week.

While Derfner’s critics are celebrating his demise, his firing generated a predictable wave of sympathy from liberals who are claiming he is a martyr to freedom of speech. In particular, New York Times blogger Rocker Mackey takes up Derfner’s talking point about the use of terror during Israel’s struggle for independence in a specious attempt to portray the writer as doing nothing more than telling the truth. Such absurd arguments miss the main point about Derfner’s piece. There’s nothing new about treating Palestinian terror as morally equivalent to Israeli self-defense. Derfner’s main fault was his claim Israelis deserved to be killed because they were the only party at fault in the conflict.

Abstract arguments about the utilization of terror are one thing, even if they are premised, as the Times attempted to say, on a false analogy between those striving to create the sole Jewish state and those attempting to destroy it in order to create one more Arab nation. But Derfner’s astonishing assertion that Israelis are asking for it by refusing to give in to Palestinian demands is quite another. As fellow Jerusalem Post columnist Isi Leibler argued, such statements are actually actionable as an incitement to terror under Israeli law, because there is no absolute First Amendment protection of speech there (or in just about any other democracy) as there is in the United States.

But even if we apply American standards to this situation, there is nothing in any law that obligates a newspaper to employ a writer or an editor who espouses beliefs utterly repugnant to that publication and its readers. That was the case with the Jerusalem Post, and Derfner was a fool if he expected this episode to end any other way but with his dismissal.

I take no pleasure in the idea of a working journalist, even one whose ideas I despise, being given a pink slip. But as much as I sympathize with Derfner’s family, I have a lot more sympathy for Israelis who live under the threat of terror from killers who will use his arguments to justify their atrocities. As for Derfner, I doubt he will starve. The left-wing press in Israel is alive and well and given the millions being poured into the country by left-wing and anti-Zionist NGOs, it would be surprising if he didn’t soon find a more congenial home for his odious writing than the centrist 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.
.

(Video) Israel's Answer to the PA Declaration - תשובת ישראל למדינה פלסטינית: ריבונות ביהודה ושומרון

Uploaded by
dannydanon
Aug 30, 2011



This September , the establishment of a Palestinian State is expected to be declared. World Likud Chairman MK Danny Danon believes " The Solution to a PA Declaration - Israeli Sovereignty Over the Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria.





Join Today! Sign the petition calling for the implementation of sovereignty over the Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria.

Sign the petition! http://www.worldlikud.org.il/?page_id=1343
or http://www.facebook.com/PA.declaration.Israel.JudeaSamaria.sovereignty?sk=app_244223328944520

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.
.

Leibler - Explaining doublespeak to our friends

Isi Leibler
Candidly Speaking from Jerusalem
01 September '11

http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=3089



These are difficult times, as we simultaneously confront threats from our neighbors and intensified pressure from every direction.

The situation is aggravated by the upheavals in the Arab world, which have in all instances resulted in radical anti-Israel Islamic elements either taking control or significantly strengthening their influence. Even our peace treaty with Egypt is now in question. And at the same time, Hezbollah and Hamas have accumulated arsenals of deadly rockets which in the event of a conflict would be directed toward all the country’s major populated areas.

In this context, the enthusiastic bipartisan congressional support accorded Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on his recent Washington visit should not create excessive euphoria. It is the White House, in the main, that controls foreign affairs, and in view of the current economic meltdown, the pro-Israel Congress is more likely to be concentrating on issues of urgent domestic concern rather than confronting Obama over his Middle East policies. We also have legitimate grounds for unease if Obama obtains a second term and no longer faces election constraints and party pressures; he will likely intensify his one-sided demands on us.

To this day, Obama has not diverged from his initial approach of appeasing Islamic states and making harsh demands on Israel. Yet the American president is respected by neither friend nor foe. The manner in which he unhesitatingly abandoned long-standing US ally Hosni Mubarak while delaying calls for the ouster of Syrian President Bashar Assad have encouraged America’s traditional Muslim allies to lose confidence in him. At the same time, his adversaries consider him a wimp who capitulates on every front. Even dovish former Labor minister Yossi Beilin maintains that Obama “holds zero accountability for his presidency” and “waits for someone else to implement his grand plan.”

We are confronted with a major challenge in September. Irrespective of whether the UN General Assembly endorses Palestinian statehood, there are likely to be concerted attempts to encourage tens of thousands of Palestinians to bypass roadblocks into Israeli territory. We will be obliged to exercise force to protect our security and sovereignty. Even taking maximum precautions, there will almost certainly be casualties, and Israel is likely yet again to face global condemnation.

(Diplomatic farce) UNIFIL Mandate Renewal - Statement to UN Security Council by Amb Haim Waxman

Haim Waxman, Deputy Permanent
Representative of Israel to the UN,
 addresses a meeting of the Security
Council (Photo/JC McIlwaine)

IMRA
31 August 31









[Diplomatic farce] Amb. Waxman thanks UNIFIL at UNSC but says they're ineffective

[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA:  Read the description of how UNIFIL has miserably failed to do its job - followed at the end by words of thanks.]


**********************************

UNIFIL Mandate Renewal - Statement to UN Security Council by Amb Haim Waxman
30 Aug 2011

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Relations/Israel+and+the+UN/Speeches+-+statements/UNIFIL_UNSC_Statement_Amb_Waxman_30-Aug-2011.htm

While Israel is committed to cooperating with the United Nations to ensure the full implementation of resolution 1701, serious threats to peace and security in Lebanon stand in the way of fully implementing this resolution.

Thank you, Mr. President. Allow me to commend you for your able stewardship of the Security Council this month.

I would like to begin by offering Israel's condolences to all of those affected by the appalling attacks on UN Headquarters in Abuja, Nigeria last week.

Israel welcomes the adoption of today's resolution and the renewal of UNIFIL's mandate. UNIFIL plays a vital role in promoting stability in our region. I would like to convey Israel's appreciation to the UNIFIL troops, their commanders, the troop contributing countries, and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Israel is committed to cooperating with the United Nations to ensure the full implementation of resolution 1701.

Yet, as we convene here today, serious threats to peace and security in Lebanon stand in the way of fully implementing this resolution. I would like to highlight four of these challenges this morning.

First, Hizbullah continues to rapidly build up its arsenal of advanced weaponry - and expand its military presence throughout Lebanon, including south of the Litani River. Tens of thousands of sophisticated missiles and rockets are now in the hands of this terrorist organization. Its growing arsenal places the majority of Israeli civilians under the specter of attack.

Hizbullah seeks to acquire even more advanced weapons through joint and coordinated transfers of illegal arms supplied by Iran and directly facilitated by Syria across the Syrian-Lebanese border.

The United Nations and others in the international community are aware of the scope and magnitude of these transfers. Yet, the existing arms embargo has not been enforced - and there has been a lack of progress in the disarmament and disbandment of Hizbullah and other militias, as is mandated by Security Council resolutions. Israel views this stagnation with great concern.

Mr. President,

Israel's second issue of concern relates to the cynical Hizbullah tactics that use Lebanese civilians to further their terrorist activity targeting Israeli civilians. Since the deployment of UNIFIL forces in 2006, Hizbullah's modus operandi has shifted towards intentionally embedding its military infrastructure within civilian villages and residential areas. These deployments are occurring in UNIFIL's area of operations and throughout other densely populated areas of Lebanon. Hizbullah terrorist bases, firing positions and missile storage centers are located adjacent to - and sometimes within - schools, hospitals, homes and mosques.

Such exploitation of civilians as human shields stands in grave violation of international law. On numerous occasions, Israel has provided the international community with detailed information about these violations. Yet, they continue.

More concerted efforts must be made to fully implement paragraph 8 of today's resolution, which calls on all states to, (and I quote) "fully support and respect the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani River of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and UNIFIL."

The Lebanese Authorities bear particular responsibility for putting an end to these serial violations of resolution 1701.

Silverman - A Forty-Year Fraud

Yonatan Silverman
frontpagemag.com
26 August '11

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/26/a-forty-year-fraud/



Since its establishment in 1993, the Palestinian Authority has been the leading political body for achieving Palestinian rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But behind the scenes in the UN, the Committee for the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People has been holding a knife to Israel’s back since 1975. And just recently, this monstrous organization based within the venerable corridors of the UN lashed out maliciously and baselessly at Israel again.

On August 19, the UN Committee for the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People issued an extremely harsh condemnation of Israeli settlement policy. The UN Public Information Office press release begins: “The United Nations committee on inalienable Palestinian rights today called on the international community to take ‘credible and decisive action’ to compel Israel to halt its settlement activity in occupied Palestinian territory.” The press release goes on to say:

The illegal Israeli settlements have a corrosive effect on confidence and undermine goodwill, absent which serious and genuine permanent status negotiations are unlikely to succeed… the issues of settlements and Jerusalem are among core issues to be negotiated by the parties. All unilateral actions by Israel which prejudge the outcome of negotiations by creating faits accomplis on the ground have no legal validity.

The Palestinian Inalienable Rights Committee also strongly condemned Israel’s “illegal and provocative acts,” which it said were aimed at “encircling and separating East Jerusalem from the rest of occupied Palestinian territory behind a wall of settlements.”

The committee’s statement concludes by demanding the UN Security Council implement harsh punitive measures against Israel.

Two years ago, in 2009, the Palestinian Authority halted bilateral peace negotiations with Israel and set off on a global diplomatic initiative to obtain the support of governments for its proposed unilateral statehood recognition in the UN.

The consequences and repercussions of this recognition are unclear.

Some even say that now at the last minute Palestinian Authority chairman Abu Mazen is having cold feet about the UN vote in September. For his part, Abu Mazen continues to claim he prefers direct negotiations with Israel, but this claim is always attached to completely unacceptable conditions. So it appears the die is cast.

But the problem is not something that started in 2009; it goes back 35 years to 1975 and the establishment of the UN Committee for the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People:

Rubin - You Can’t Spell “Chutzpah” Without “PA” (Palestinian Authority)

Barry Rubin
Rubin Reports
31 August '11



http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/08/31/you-can%E2%80%99t-spell-%E2%80%9Cchutzpah%E2%80%9D-without-%E2%80%9Cpa%E2%80%9D-palestinian-authority/

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has refused to condemn an attack on Israel from Egypt by an al-Qaida affiliate group that killed eight Israelis. The PA is also going to the UN to get support for a unilateral declaration of independence that violates every agreement it reached with Israel since 1993. The PA leader, Mahmoud Abbas, has said that even if Palestinians get an independent state they will continue to demand that millions of Palestinian Arabs must be allowed to go live in Israel so they can turn that into a Muslim Arab state.

Oh, and even when the PA declares that it is a Muslim Arab state (as it says in the PA Constitution) that it will refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. And on September 20, the PA is organizing massive anti-Israel demonstrations that will probably lead to violence. Did I mention that the PA is currently in partnership with Hamas—even though that isn’t working out so well—which regularly attacks Israel with rockets and mortars, as well as declaring that it’s going to kill all the Jews?

But, wait! The PA needs money! So what does it do?

Why, of course it goes to Israel and asks for money! Specifically, it requested that Israel move up the turnover of the $105 million in tax revenues Israel has collected on imports. Not just pay the money, mind you, but pay it sooner than required! The PA took out a short-term bank loan on the assumption that this would happen since Israeli civil servants in the finance and defense ministries recommended it be done. Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz said, “No.”

The nerve! Now, according to previous agreements that Israel and the PA have made, Israel is supposed to give the money. But it is under no obligation to give the money ahead of schedule. Moreover, the PA is denouncing these same agreements which require, for example, that the PA stop incitement to murder Israelis; arrest those planning to commit terror attacks or who have done so; and negotiate in good faith toward a compromise peace.

The PA wanted to pay salaries for its personnel (including those in prison for murdering Israelis and for those living in the Gaza Strip, whose payment would pump money into the Hamas-ruled statelet that is attacking Israel on a regular basis).

And one might ask what has happened to the billions of dollars in international aid, a higher per capita payment than any other political entity has received in the history of the planet earth?

Let me dramatize the situation for you:

Hi! I know I’m in partnership with a group at war with you; am inciting my people and teaching my children to murder you, am refusing to negotiate with you, have stolen most of the money I’ve received in foreign aid, which is why I’m broke, am rejecting and breaking the agreements on which your obligation to pay me rest; am going to the UN to get international sanction for breaking the previous agreements; am lying about you every day (a PA minister has just accused Israel of stealing organs); am seeking an outcome in which I can then wipe you off the map; and using the money you would be giving me to pay people who have murdered your citizens….

BUT can you move up your payment of money to me as a favor?

This is the absurdity of the Israel-Palestinian issue, whose reality is never reflected in the Western mass media.

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.
.

Divest This! - Dear YNet: The Sky is not Falling

Jon
Divest This!
31 August '11

http://www.divestthis.com/2011/08/dear-ynet-sky-is-not-falling.html

With this the 300th entry to Divest This (can you believe there have been that many things to say about this subject?), I had planned to write a description of what the final failure of BDS might look like. But with publication of today's “Sacrebeu! BDS is On the March! We’ve Got to Do Something!!!!!” panic piece from Ynet, I thought it best to alert my reader that the sky is indeed not falling.

The first thing I noticed when reading over the Ynet article was that the author got nearly every single fact wrong.

Agrexco, Israel’s leading flower company, is going through financial problems not because of significant losses in exports, but due to a major drop in the domestic market (along with a host of general financial issues). Similarly 2009-2010 “divestment” from the Africa-Israel Corporation was not due to politics but to the company’s near hopeless debt situation, trigged by the 2008-2009 crash in the real estate industry. In both these cases, BDS activists have made claims that the financial problems these companies face were based on their boycott and divestment advocacy, but (as chronicled here and elsewhere), these claims were exposed as fraudulent time and time again.

The article also mentions Caterpillar Tractor without once mentioning that anti-Israel divestment targeting Caterpillar at universities, churches and the like have been going on for close to a decade without one share of Caterpillar stock ever being sold by one of these institutions for political reasons. And Caterpillar itself has all but told the BDSers to piss off after years of harassment at annual shareholder meetings.