Saturday, March 10, 2012

IMRA - Time to kick the Palestinian can?

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Weekly Commentary..
08 March '12..




Would it be prudent for Israel to launch now the kind of unilateral initiative proposed by former Yesha Council Director Naftali Bennett or is it best to leave well enough alone?

Under Bennett’s plan, Israel would annex Area C – where Jews live – granting full citizenship to the Palestinians residing in the area while at the same time Israel would make the heavy infrastructure investment required so that Palestinians residing in the remainder of the West Bank (under a “full” autonomy subject only to security-related limitations and restrictions on the return of refugees) could enjoy complete freedom of movement within and between those areas.

What’s wrong with continuing with the status quo?

That question itself hinges on a critical assumption, namely that the status quo can be reasonably expected to continue for the foreseeable future.

Will the Palestinians be able to change the situation on the ground or will they only spin their wheels in an ongoing series of international resolutions, declarations and photo ops?

Would a second term President Obama pull all the stops to impose his vision on the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza Strip?

Friday, March 9, 2012

Stern - Forced into Reflection

Paula R. Stern..
A Soldier's Mother..
09 March '12..

I've shared and confessed a lot about me, my family, my thoughts, etc. - so here's another confession. I love country music and I'm a Harry Chapin fan...and it's sad to think of how many of you are going to have to Google "Harry Chapin" to learn about him. He was a mixed bag of things in so many ways. But a line from one of his songs just came to mind, "forced into reflection by this half-hour wait."

It's from one of his songs that I've always had trouble listening to - it's about infidelity and not in a negative way. So, I'll ignore the sentiment and keep the line. I'm sitting here forced into reflection waiting for the yeast to rise a bit before I add the flour, the honey, the oil, salt and more to make tomorrow's challah for Shabbat. And, I'm reluctant to let go of Purim - a holiday we celebrated here in Israel today. I haven't checked the news, except for brief glimpses on my Blackberry phone.

A round up of the news then, is in order. A Palestinian was killed by soldiers today - that's what most of the world media will tell you and Gaza tweeters will announced. Will they tell you that Zakaria Abu Aram and his accomplice stabbed a soldier today, and that Abu Aram was then subdued by other soldiers before he could attack others? Will they tell you the two attackers were actually boys aged 14 and 17?

Honig - Prelude to murder

Sarah Honig..
Another Tack..
09 March '12..

The word “occupation” invokes differing definitions in the Arab realm. All involve Israel but the precise connotation depends on the context.

Liberal-hearted foreigners, whose sympathy and political support is sought, are told that occupation refers to lands Israel took (obviously out of unadulterated malice) in 1967. Unless these arbitrarily usurped territories are ceded, Mother Earth will know no peace and harmony.

But Arab/Muslim listeners discern other undertones. For them any Jew’s presence, even inside Israel, amounts to sinful and insufferable occupation. Rectifying that wrong means terminating the existence here of all Jewish trespassers.

This ethos was given emotive lyrical expression by Mahmoud Darwish – the late “Palestinian national poet,” once an Israeli-Arab Communist, later a PLO luminary and author of the Palestinian “Declaration of Independence.” Even post-Oslo, with its derivative coexistence prattle and two-state propaganda, Darwish’s verses encapsulate the ideology of his fellow Fatah leaders – Ramallah chieftain Mahmoud Abbas foremost among them.

Marquadt-Bigman - UNdoing International Women’s Day

Petra Marquadt-Bigman..
The Warped Mirror..
09 March '12..



Just in time for International Women’s Day on March 8, the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) has apparently decided that one of its most urgent concerns should be blaming Israel’s occupation of the West Bank for “degrading” the living conditions of Palestinian women. That’s perhaps a good occasion to highlight what the CSW prefers to overlook – so here are just a few of the “degradations” women elsewhere in the Muslim and Arab world have to endure.

Let’s start out with this report about a new survey on how the so-called Arab Spring has affected women in the region:

“In honor of International Women’s Day, Haleh Esfandiari, director of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, asked a cross-section of female scholars, activists, business executives, journalists, politicians, and officials to comment on how women have fared in the Arab uprisings. The answers, especially from women living in the thick of it in Middle Eastern countries, are depressingly negative–and sometimes scathing.”

Fresnozionsim - The Lie Insertion Key

The lie key
Fresnozionsim.org..
08 March '12..





Here is yet another example of how much of the media are incapable of writing an honest story that concerns Israel.

On my way to the gym this morning I listened to an NPR story about how Christian volunteers are helping out at a Jewish agricultural community called Shilo.

The article by Lourdes Garcia-Navarro is entitled “Christians Provide Free Labor On Jewish Settlements,” and mentions pointedly that the volunteers pay their own way. The implication is that this is somehow scandalous. Would they also write “Animal lovers provide free labor at shelters?”

The sixth paragraph of the article delivers the payload. Remember that this is a news story, not an editorial:

The problem is that the world doesn’t recognize this West Bank settlement or any other as part of Israel. The Palestinians and most of the international community view the Jewish settlements in the West Bank as illegal.

Israel captured the West Bank in the 1967 Mideast War and has established settlements throughout the territory, which the Palestinians are seeking for part of a future state. The settlements are one of the most contentious issues between the Israelis and Palestinians, and have been a major obstacle in attempts to restart peace negotiations.

This is presented in a matter-of-fact tone — “ho hum, everyone knows this.” In fact, I am certain that ‘journalists’ at NPR, the BBC and the New York Times have a special key on their keyboards to pop this into every article they write on the subject of Israel.

Nevertheless, every line of it is misleading. It is true that the climate of opinion in, say, the UN, tends to be anti-settlement. But it’s an inconvenient truth that a very good case can be made for the legality of Jewish communities in the parts of Mandate Palestine that happened to be occupied by Jordan from 1948-67.

Rennert - NY Times stokes Palestinian victimhood, ignores self-inflicted wounds

Leo Rennert..
American Thinker..
08 March '12..

In its March 8 edition, the New York Times runs a front-page article about the plight of the Palestinians. Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan Bronner writes that since the onset of the Arab Spring and the world's focus on Iran's nuclear program, "the Palestinian leadership has found itself orphaned." Palestinians are politically divided between Fatah and Hamas, peace talks with Israel have collapsed and foreign support is waning. ("Mideast Din Drowns Out Palestinians" page one )

Bronner goes on to quote Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, that Arabs elsewhere are preoccupied with their own problems, the U.S. is in an election year and has economic problems, Europe has its worries - "We're in a corner."

In sum, the Palestinian question is no longer front and center on the world's agenda.

All true. But who bears responsibility for this sad state of affairs? Bronner points to external forces and trends. But in doing so, he only helps perpetuate a familiar Palestinian sense of victimhood. It's always someone else who's to blame - whether it's Israel, the U.S., or oil-rich Arab states that don't come through with their financial pledges. In the meantime, a two-state solution recedes even farther on anyone's calendar.

CAMERA - Jimmy Carter Snipes at Israel Again

ER..
CAMERA/Snapshots..
07 March '12..

Israelis, former president Jimmy Carter worries, seem inclined to "resume" war with their neighbors. But he trusts that Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood -- its leaders having "assured me personally" -- will keep their country's peace treaty with Israel.

So the one-term chief executive (1977 - 1981) told "America's Morning News," the radio affiliate of The Washington Times ("Carter: Netanyahu seems too eager for war on Iran," March 7). Of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Carter said "I don't think that's [war with Iran] his first preference, but I think he's much more eager to go to war with Iran than President Obama (is). And I was glad to see President Obama discourage that immediate resumption of hostilities between Israel and its neighbors that the Israelis seem to be inclined to do."

Carter, who as president suggested Americans had an inordinate fear of communism, then professed to being shocked by the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan, said "I think the economic sanctions would be adequate. ... War with Iran can and should be avoided."

He was equally sanguine about the Muslim Brotherhood, which -- with the even more fundamentalist Salafist party -- holds two-thirds of the seats in Egypt's influential lower house of parliament. Carter said he recently met with Brotherhood leaders and "they know it's very important to Egypt to maintain peace with Israel. They assured me personally ... that they will honor the peace treaty that I helped to negotiate back in 1979 ... and I don't have any doubt they will carry out their promise to me."

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Tobin - Hamas Won’t Stay Out of an Iran-Israel War

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary/Contentions..
08 March '12..

Yesterday, there was a flurry of attention when the Guardian reported that a member of Hamas’s Gaza political bureau said the terrorist group would stay out of any conflict between Israel and Iran. Such a stand fit in with the idea that Hamas had completely broken with its former patron and was now more interested in aligning itself with Egypt and bolstering its influence on the West Bank. If true, it would have been good news for Israel, but optimism on this score may have been, at best, premature. A more senior Hamas official is quoted today by an Iranian wire service as saying Hamas would indeed attack Israel in the event of an Israeli strike on Iran.

Ties between Hamas and Iran have become strained, especially after Hamas dropped its support for Tehran ally Bashar Assad in Syria. But it is difficult to imagine the group maintaining a cease-fire in a situation where Iran and its Lebanese proxy Hezbollah are both launching missiles at Israel. Though Iran’s financial clout in Gaza has reportedly lessened in recent years, the ayatollahs probably understand the dynamic of Palestinian politics will always force Hamas to resort to violence if given the opportunity.

Ettinger - The Netanyahu-Obama divide

Yoram Ettinger..
Israel Hayom..
08 March '12..

The ideological divide between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama is unbridgeable. It cannot be papered-over by photo-opportunities, smiles and warm hospitality.

On the other hand, the worldview expressed by Netanyahu during his recent visit to the U.S. is consistent with the majority of Americans and their representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate.

According to a February 12, 2012 Pew Research Center poll, Americans support employing military force to prevent Iran from getting nukes by a margin of 58 percent to 30%. Twelve percent are undecided. Thirty-nine percent to 5% want the U.S. to support a potential Israeli military preemption to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear, while 51% want the U.S. to remain neutral. These opinions have been consistent since October, 2009. A majority of Americans - 64% to 21% - maintain that tougher sanctions will not be effective in preventing Iran’s nuclear drive. Most Democrats, Independents and Republicans concur that even tougher sanctions are ineffective.

Tobin - Who Marginalized the Palestinians?

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary/Contentions..
07 March '12..

For decades, the chattering classes have been working hard to teach us that the central issue of the region was not the Shia-Sunni conflict or the struggle for freedom by Arabs longing to rid themselves of autocratic monarchs or dictators. The belief in the centrality of the Palestinian issue was so strong that every other consideration had to be subordinated to the cause of trying to assuage the anger of the Muslim world at their plight. But in the past year, the main subjects of discussion have been the Arab Spring revolts and the debate over how best to stop the Iranian nuclear threat. The result is that the world is getting on with its business these days without obsessing about the Palestinians. Even President Obama, who had picked an annual fight with Israel, chose this year to abandon his usual attempt to pressure Israel into concessions to the Palestinians.

All of which has left the Palestinians and their foreign cheerleaders mighty upset. As one Palestinian told the New York Times today, “The Arab world is busy. The Palestinians are becoming secondary.” The question is who’s responsible for this state of affairs? Predictably, the Palestinians blame everyone but themselves. Yet if they want the answer, they need only look in the mirror.

Marquadt-Bigman - Ranting against Israel at The Economist

Petra Marquadt-Bigman..
The Warped Mirror..
08 March '12..



At the Economist’s blog on “Democracy in America” – which is supposedly about American politics – one of the respected magazine’s correspondents identified by the initials M.S. has published a post under the title “Israel, Iran and America: Auschwitz complex.”

The post seems to have been written in a fit of debilitating rage.

Right at the outset, the writer quotes Netanyahu stating to Obama that he views it as his “supreme responsibility as prime minister of Israel…to ensure that Israel remains master of its fate.”

Everyone knows what this means in the relevant context of the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran: given America’s vastly superior military capabilities, the US can wait with a strike much longer than Israel to see how far Iran will get with its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

But the Economist’s correspondent seems oblivious of this widely noted issue.

Instead, s/he plays (?) dumb and, in an attempt at sarcasm, picks up on the notion of being master of one’s fate:

(Video) Latma - Peace Now's updated Purim Megilla

Latma..
carolineglick.com..
08 March '12..

Latma fills the order of the day, visiting the Twilight Zone of Peace Now. Enjoy!



Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. 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.
.

Medad/Pollak - Media Comment: Our great media

Yisrael Medad/Eli Pollak..
Media Comment/JPost..
07 March '12..



Enjoy your Purim holiday. Buy a newspaper, turn on your radio and press your TV remote control, sit back and enjoy the freedom of the press.  In the spirit of the Book of Esther being read today throughout the Jewish world, and tomorrow in Jerusalem and other walled cities as is the custom, we dedicate this column of ours to Purim.

As we all know, the Book of Esther includes several references to media activity. In those ancient days, communications were facilitated by letters (mentioned in 1:22; 3:13 and 9:20, 30) and the broadcasters were riders on swift steeds (8:10). Editorial decisions were signified by the imprint of a ring. Even the agra, the television license fee we pay, has its roots in the levying of a tax by the king (10:1). Thus, firmly ensconced in the Purim custom, let us praise our local media.

Israel’s media is a leader of the free world’s press, a prime example of how the media should act. It has been outstanding in its demonstration of how the enlightened few keep those of us who belong to the dark Middle Ages from misusing the democratic process.

First, let us consider the Supreme Court, the court of last resort in cases involving media misbehavior. Some parliamentarians, basing themselves on facts gathered by various organizations, have come to grasp that the Court does not truly reflect the plurality of Israel’s society, is not sufficiently balanced by the government in the composition of its public bodies and misuses its powers to impose its will with impunity.

Roth - Job security and benefits in the terror organizations: not what they used to be

Wafa Al-Biss in 2005
Frimet/Arnold Roth..
This Ongoing War..
07 March '12..

Elder of Ziyon posted yesterday (Wednesday) that Wafa al-Biss feels deeply resentful because of her inability to get funding from the terrorists of Fatah to pay for surgery.

Wafa's story goes beyond your usual unhappy-taxpayer-outs-unsympathetic-bureaucrats disclosure. You can understand her disappointment. She is a convicted terrorist, a so-called suicide bomber who was intercepted by Israeli security at the Erez Crossing in 2005 while trying to smuggle explosives into an Israeli hospital, Soroka, down south in Beer Sheva. She was 21 back then, and had been given approval to cross over into Israel to get delicate advanced treatment for severe burns suffered at home in a gas explosion.

The logic is fairly straightforward. Since she was a little girl, her dream had been, and still was, to be a shahid (“martyr”) and die for allah's sake. Getting the opportunity to have her body healed by Israelis was the provocation that led her to plot an explosion that would kill doctors, nurses and patients in the very hospital, Soroka, that was going to save her. You understand the logic, right?

Kedar - Is Jordan ‘The Alternative Homeland’?

Dr. Mordechai Kedar..
jewishpress.com..
07 March '12..

Since its establishment, the Kingdom of Jordan has suffered from a split personality between two identities, the Jordanian and the Palestinian, that are intertwined like a pair of Siamese twins who hate one another, but cannot part from each other. The source of the problem is the fact that most of the citizens of the Hashemite Jordanian monarchy define themselves as “Palestinians”, but their state is “Jordanian”. So how should they relate to it – as their country or as a foreign interloper?

The core of the problem hinges on the fact that the Kingdom of Jordan is not an entity with historic roots, but rather a modern creation of British colonialism, which succeeded the Ottoman Empire at the conclusion of the First World War. Back then its name was “The Transjordan Emirates” because the British did not have a better, more unique name for it. Jordan is part of the “Sham”, the area that today includes Jordan, Israel, Syria and Lebanon. Until the era of the British Mandate, Jordan was never a state or a distinct country, like – for example – Egypt, and did not have its own local leadership. The British appointed Abdullah, the son of Sharif Hussein, to be responsible for the Transjordan Emirates, despite the fact that the people of the area didn’t see him as a natural leader, or one of their own, as he was born hundreds of kilometers south of Jordan. This fact is the reason that the regime in Jordan is seen as an illegitimate regime by many in Jordan today.

Jordan is culturally divided into two parts: Bedouin on one hand, and farmers and city folk on the other. In the days of the British Mandate, before the establishment of the Emirates, everyone was “Palestinian” because everyone was a resident of the British Mandate for Palestine – the Land of Israel. After the founding of the Emirates, Abdullah, the son of Sharif Hussein from Mecca, was accepted as a legitimate leader mainly by the Bedouin, who formed the locus of those who were faithful to him, however the residents of the villages and cities felt that he was a foreigner whom the British brought in and paid off with a job. Therefore, the Bedouin adopted the identity of the Emirates, and subsequently, starting in the year 1946, assumed identity as subjects of the monarchy; while the residents of the villages and cities continued to call themselves “Palestinians” just as they had during the period of the Mandate. Some of them had family connections with the residents West of the Jordan, and therefore it was easier for them to adopt the Palestinian self-definition, which they preferred over that of “Jordanian”.

Gordon - Why Do Arabs and Muslims Keep Trying to Move to the “Apartheid State”?

Evelyn Gordon..
Commentary/Contentions..
07 March '12..

As Israel Apartheid Week circumnavigates the globe this month, a Jordan-based Palestinian journalist has offered an eloquent rebuttal that every Israel supporter should memorize and quote. If Israel is really an “apartheid state,” asks Ramzi Abu Hadid, “Why has it become the dream of many Arab Christians and Muslims to emigrate to the ‘apartheid state’? Is it possible that all these people are uninformed? Or do they really know the truth about Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East?”

Specifically, he noted, “thousands of the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip … try to infiltrate into Israel every morning in search of work and a better life,” while “tens of thousands of Arabs and Muslims have put their lives at risk by crossing the border into Israel from Egypt, where border guards often open fire at women and children.” In addition, “many Christian families from Bethlehem and even the Gaza Strip have moved to live in Israel because they feel safer in the ‘apartheid state’ than they do among their Muslim ‘brothers.’”

Abu Hadid doesn’t provide hard numbers, but the data amply prove his claims. During the first 11 months of last year alone, for instance, 13,851 illegal migrants entered Israel from Sinai; the biggest contingents were Muslim refugees from Sudan and Eritrea. And the risk of being shot by Egyptian guards is just one of the dangers they braved to reach “the apartheid state”: Migrants also face horrific abuse from the Sinai Bedouin who smuggle them over the border.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Weinthal - Bibi, the Begin Doctrine, and the U.S.

Benjamin Weinthal..
National Review Online..
07 March '12..

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a speech on Monday at the AIPAC conference reinforcing the Begin Doctrine — the preemptive-military-strike doctrine of Israel’s government since the early 1980s. This week marks the 20th anniversary of the death of former Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin. His administration declared that Israel’s “determination to prevent confrontation states . . . from gaining access to nuclear weapons” will be applied to hostile countries seeking to develop nuclear arms.

Bibi Netanyahu said Israel cannot “accept a world in which the Ayatollahs have atomic bombs.” With those words Netanyahu issued the 2012 version of the Begin doctrine. In short, in light of the Holocaust and the lethal anti-Semitism of the clerical regime in Tehran, Israel cannot tolerate the toxic combination of weapons of mass destruction with a regime determined to “wipe Israel off the map.”

The Begin Doctrine has been implemented twice in the young history of the Jewish state. In June 1981, Israel launched Operation Opera, sending eight F-16 fighter jets to destroy the Osirak nuclear reactor outside Baghdad. After two minutes of precision bombing, the reactor was reduced to a pile of rubble. In September 2007, Israeli jets launched Operation Orchard, targeting Syria’s secret nuclear facility at al-Kibar.

Tobin - Will the EU Back Down on Iran?

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary/Contentions..
07 March '12..

For the past several months, it has been the European Union that has taken the lead on ratcheting up sanctions against Iran. While President Obama was still dithering about implementing measures that would effectively create an international embargo against Iranian oil, the EU laid out its plans to actually shut down Tehran’s one source of foreign capital. But lurking behind this admirable boldness has always been a troubling sense that underneath their tough talk was an ardent desire to engage the Iranians and make all the unpleasantness go away.

That concern must go back to the front burner today with the announcement that EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton has accepted an offer to meet with the Iranians to discuss some new proposals Tehran is putting on the table. While the talks don’t obligate the EU to back down on its threats and can be construed in one way as proof that sanctions have gotten the attention of the Islamist regime, there is also the very real chance that once the negotiations begin the dynamic of diplomacy will predominate and allow Iran to play for more time as their nuclear program progresses.

It should be understood that the only reason why the Europeans have been so forward on the Iran issue is they are scared stiff an Israeli attempt to forestall the nuclear threat will play havoc with their economies. That isn’t to say that leaders such as French President Nicolas Sarkozy are not fully aware of Iran’s dangerous nuclear intentions or that they fail to understand that Tehran’s acquisition of such a weapon would not present a threat to European security. They understand this, yet absent pressure from Israel, it is doubtful the EU would have been as tough on Iran as it has been.

(Video) Perfect Purim Hamantaschen Baked In Israel

JewishPressTV..
05 March '12..

The Jewish Press' Malkah Fleisher travels to Herby's Bakeshop in Beit El, Israel to learn the secrets of making the perfect Hamantaschen for the Jewish holiday of Purim. Join Malkah and Leah Bat Tzion Fleisher, and Herby Dan for mixing, shaping, filling, and fun!



Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=r7LmkIEFgkI

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. 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.
.

Bryen - What Netanyahu May Have Added...

"We do not 'go' to war; war comes to us."

Shoshana Bryen..
Stonegate Institute..
07 March '12..

"Mr. President, you live in a big country: wide and long with friendly neighbors and oceans. The distance of your journey from Honolulu to Washington, DC is 4,835 miles – 25% farther than the distance from Tel Aviv to Tehran. Even from Los Angeles to Washington is 2,308 miles. From our southern tip in Eilat to Metullah in the north is 298 miles – just about Washington, DC to New York. Jerusalem to Tel Aviv is 37 miles – although it feels longer in traffic. From Gaza City to Sderot – 3 miles.

"The United States is big and Israel is small. You go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We do not "go" to war any more; war comes to us -- in the form of rockets and missiles. Abut ½ of 1% of Americans serve in the American armed forces. More than 75% of Israeli high school graduates serve before college and most of them then serve for years in the reserve forces. World War II killed 0.307% of all Americans based on 1940 population numbers. In 1933, approximately 9.5 million Jews lived in Europe; 1.7% of the total European population, but more than 60% of the world's Jews. So the Holocaust killed almost 2/3 of the Jews living in Europe, and about 39% of world Jewry.

"There are a lot of you and not so many of us. America is a young country. Your founding documents are no more than 300 years old and what you've built – with the exception of the Twin Towers – you've kept as long as you've wanted it. You have Harvard, Gadsby's Tavern, Elfreth's Alley, towns, cities and farms. Our founding document is more than 3,000 years old and we'd already lost our First and Second Temples while Jesus was still a living memory. Within today's living memory, we lost schools, synagogues, libraries, homes, businesses and the graves of our fathers in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa.

(Video) Israeli-Iranian CNN Debate: Bennett Shreds Claim that Iran's Harmless

myisraelHE..
05 March '12..





In a rare Israeli-Iranian debate, Naftali Bennett, former Chief of Staff to Netanyahu, debates Iranian Journalist Hooman Majd on CNN. Majd claims Iran has no military or terror intent. Bennett proves otherwise.



Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. 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 - Who’s the racist colonialist, anyway?

Roosevelt meets Ibn Saud, 1945.
"Give them Germany," he said.
Fresnozionsim.org..
06 March '12..

Recently I was present at an event at which a pro-Israel speaker was presented with a hostile ‘question’. The questioner insisted that Israel had engaged in planned, deliberate ethnic cleansing in order to dispossess the “native Palestinian people,” and continues to maintain an apartheid state. Israel was racist in essence and should not be a state. Like a magician calling up demons, he finished with a recitation of the names of the shades from which he drew his power: Shlaim, Pappé, Morris, Flapan, etc.

The recent BDS gathering at the University of Pennsylvania and the one-state conference at Harvard establish the theme: the very idea of a Jewish state is racist, and this particular state, born in an essentially racist act of colonialism, should be dismantled.

It isn’t relevant for the refutation of these ideas, but it is nevertheless interesting to note that there is no conference at an Ivy League university calling for the dismantling of any number of essentially racist states with questionable origins. Saudi Arabia, for example, was founded in 1932 after Ibn Saud, Sultan of Nejd, violently conquered the neighboring state of Hejaz (the center of the Islamic world, where Mecca and Medina are located).

The conquest included the massacre of the male population of the city of at-Ta’if. Since then, Saudi Arabia has been one of the most religiously intolerant of the world’s nations, a place where Christians are forbidden to build churches or bring Bibles, and Jews are forbidden to enter. As recently as 2004, the official Saudi website listed “Jewish persons” as one of the groups not welcome to travel there.

Rubin - Obama to Israel: Never mind

Jennifer Rubin..
Right Turn/WPost..
06 March '12..

Less than 48 hours after trotting out new, tougher language on Iran, President Obama revealed in his press conference how little substance lies behind his words. He struck a partisan note, claiming Republicans were “beating the drums of war” with Iran. So much for not making Iran a “political football,” as so many Democrats pleaded at AIPAC.

Even worse, when pressed by ABC News’s Jake Tapper on what he meant by his comment that we “have Israel’s back,” the president answered that it was “not a military doctrine that we were laying out for any particular military action. . . . It was a restatement of our consistent position that the security of Israel is something I deeply care about . . . [and] confirms how deeply we care about it.” In other words, he was not pledging anything in particular to the Jewish state.

This seemed to bolster conservatives’ view that Obama’s AIPAC rhetoric was meaningless. Bill Kristol, the co-founder of the Emergency Committee for Israel, blasted the president: “Barack Obama’s statements before AIPAC have a remarkably short shelf life. In 2008 he told AIPAC that Jerusalem must not be divided, and then retracted it the next day. Now, in 2012, he tells AIPAC that he’s got Israel’s back, and then retracts that two days later. For Obama, being pro-Israel seems to be a campaign strategy, not a foreign policy.”

Indeed, Obama’s rhetoric is fleeting. Presumably Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu is smart enough not to rely on this American president.

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obama-to-israel-never-mind/2012/03/06/gIQA1T3BvR_blog.html


Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. 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.
.

Plosker - Headline Abuse: Israel Singled Out

Simon Plosker..
Honest Reporting/Backspin..
05 March '12..

One of the most common forms of bias against Israel in the media is simply how the country is singled out for disproportionate attention compared to almost every other state. Take a look at this headline from The Sunday Times (subscription only):


Israel is, however, mentioned only once in the entire article in the second paragraph:

Using software to monitor the transmission of data from a Google Android mobile phone onto which a range of basic apps had been downloaded, The Sunday Times discovered private information — including telephone numbers, email addresses and the phone’s location — being sent to companies in China, India, Israel and America.

That’s right – only Israel is deemed worthy of inclusion in the headline presumably because in the eyes of The Sunday Times, only Israel conjures up nefarious and sinister images in the minds of its readers. Might that have something to do with the media’s portrayal of the country?

Link: http://honestreporting.com/headline-abuse-israel-singled-out/

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. 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.
.

Radosh - Netanyahu Vs. the Shadow of Annihilation

Ron Radosh/Allis Radosh..
pjmedia.com..
06 March '12..

There were a few surprises at Monday night’s AIPAC meeting. Throughout the previous two days, AIPAC spokesmen regularly championed the bi-partisan nature of Congress’s resolve to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but by the end of the evening the differences in their approach and resolve were apparent, and so were the sympathies of the more than 13,000 attendees.

First up was Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. After laying out the many ways in which Iran has acted as a dangerous and terrorist rogue state, and noting that while the Obama administration may share the common goal of stopping Iran from going nuclear, they had not come close to achieving success.It was the failure of Obama’s diplomacy from the beginning of his term that had forced Congress to act and would do so again.

The reason, McConnell said, was that the Administration’s policy contained a “critical flaw.” At first, the Obama team tried to negotiate with Iran by extending an open hand in friendship, but two different offers and deadlines to meet with their leaders in September and December of 2009 came and went with no results. Iran just continued to work on getting their bomb. As Congress grew impatient, it initiated a sanctions policy which the President opposed, eventually reluctantly signing it.Congress then handed the President an additional tool “he did not seek or ask for,” that of sanctions against the banks doing business with Iran.

But now, according to McConnell the President’s current error is to rely too heavily on sanctions alone. To say “all options are on the table,” McConnell said, might be a good talking point, but it is not a policy. Threats alone, he noted, “have lost their intended purpose.” A red line only works if the definition of that line is clearly spelled out and what the painful consequences will be if crossed. In light of the President’s reluctance to do it, McConnell said that Congress should. And then he laid out his plan:

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Greenfield - At the Poker Table with Bibi and Barack

Daniel Greenfield..
frontpagemag.com..
06 March '12..

As Netanyahu’s plane crossed the vast distance of the Atlantic Ocean, he must have thought that the oceanic gap was small compared to the diplomatic gap with the Obama administration. This time around there were no visible hostilities or outbursts. With an election coming up, Obama is less eager to humiliate Netanyahu, and Netanyahu does not seriously expect that a passionate appeal will get through to Obama.

Both men know the nature of the game they are playing, but neither of them expects much of the other.

Netanyahu does not believe that he can get Obama to set a firm “red line” that will trigger military action. For all the talk about “having Israel’s back”, the administration has not been willing to set such a “red line” in public or private, which makes all the assurances completely worthless. Without that “red line”, no actual commitments have been made, except a commitment to the Sisyphean diplomatic track.

And so Netanyahu has not bothered to seriously push for a “red line.” Any possibility of such a thing was off the table even before he arrived.

For his part Obama does not appear to believe that he can dissuade Netanyahu from carrying out a strike against Iran’s nuclear program with more talk of sanctions. The rhetoric that goes over well with Jeffrey Goldberg falls flat in the real world. The sanctions aren’t there to stop Iran; they’re there to stop Israel from doing something about Iran.

Kushner - From Israel: All Right!!

Arlene Kushner..
06 March '12..

Prime Minister Netanyahu truly got it right-- and eloquently so -- when he spoke at the AIPAC Conference last night. For this I thank Heaven.

So much talk, so much worry, about the possibility of his caving to Obama's pressure. For naught. Actually, in the statement he made after he met with Obama earlier in the day, it was already apparent where he was going.

Below you will find a link that provides the text of his speech and a video of the entire speech (with appreciation to ElderofZion for putting it up).

He touched all of the right bases:

He stated unequivocally that we have a right to act in our own self-defense, and that we will not depend on any other nation. (This addresses the position taken by Obama in his AIPAC talk a day earlier, which I will get to.)

"In every generation, there are those who wish to destroy the Jewish people. We are blessed to live in an age when there is a Jewish state capable of defending the Jewish people...


"As Prime Minister of Israel, I will never let my people live under the shadow of annihilation.


"...Today we have a state of our own. The purpose of the Jewish state is to secure the Jewish future. That is why Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat. (Emphasis added)


"We deeply appreciate the great alliance between our two countries. But when it comes to Israel's survival, we must always remain the masters of our fate." (Emphasis added)

Tobin - Will Iran Heed Netanyahu’s Warning?

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary/Contentions..
05 March '12..

Much of the attention devoted to U.S.-Israel diplomacy in recent months has been on whether the United States will seek to prevent the Jewish state from acting on its own to forestall an Iranian nuclear weapon. The differences between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu over the utility of sanctions or diplomacy and how much more time these measures should be allowed before force can be used have not been resolved. Nevertheless it is more likely than not that the Israelis are going to give the president a bit more time before launching their own strike.

But despite the near obsessive focus on the fractious Obama-Netanyahu relationship, the most important messages being sent from the speeches at the annual AIPAC conference in Washington were not those exchanged between those two leaders. Instead, it was the clear warning to Iran by Netanyahu that the Jewish people will not live under the shadow of annihilation. For all of the justified concern about what Obama will or will not do to try to impede the Israelis as he hangs on to the forlorn hope of a diplomatic solution to the problem, the fate of the Middle East hangs on whether Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei comprehended Netanyahu’s clarion call to action during his Monday night speech to the conference. Tehran must either stand down on its nuclear ambition or face an Israeli attack at some point in the not too distant future.

Sultan Knish - The View from a Broken Bridge

Daniel Greenfield..
Sultan Knish..
05 March '12..

Between the modern and the post-modern worlds, peace negotiations took on the fevered air of senseless enthusiasm that was once the sole preserve of wars. Once upon a time it was treasonous to oppose wars, now it is virtually mandatory to do so. Today it is treasonous to oppose peace processes, no matter how ill-founded, how senseless and how pointless they might be. The treason is no longer toward a country, but toward an ideal.

What ideal is it that the peace process represents? The ideal that we are all basically alike, that we might speak different languages, wave different flags and have differently shaped borders, but that we are all basically alike. We all want peace and wars only happen when our jingoistic leaders mislead us into a conflict. Peace happens when ordinary people of goodwill under the leadership of a few enlightened peacemongers get together and realize how much they have in common and that any disputes they have can be settled over some coffee or tea.

No mythical ideal propounded by the postmoderns is quite as dully stupid and thoroughly delusional as this one. It is progressive in its insistence that we are all alike because we are human and that being the same means that there is no reason for conflict. Its irrational insistence that war is irrational perfectly captures the false reason of progressive paradigms which treat their own philosophical constructs as more real than reality.

We do not stand at the end of history, but we are witness to the end of the West, which remains as deeply in love with the peace process, as the members of the League of Nations, shortly before their pacifism destroyed Europe and plunged the world into the most destructive war in human history which left the winners locked in a struggle that nearly culminated in the end of life on earth.

Fresnozionism - Clinton: Candidates pander to Zionists, just ignore them

Fresnozionism.org..
05 March '12..





This is (unfortunately) too good to hold back (h/t: Challah Hu Akbar):

In my previous post I said that politicians tailor their speeches to their audiences. Well, get a load of this snippet from a “Town Hall with Tunisian Youth” held by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on February 25 of this year (emphasis added by me):

QUESTION: My name is Ivan. After the electoral campaign starts in the United States – it started some time ago – we noticed here in Tunisia that most of the candidates from the both sides run towards the Zionist lobbies to get their support in the States. And afterwards, once they are elected, they come to show their support for countries like Tunisia and Egypt for a common Tunisian or a common Arab citizen. How would you reassure and gain his trust again once given the fact that you are supporting his enemy as well at the same time?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, let me say you will learn as your democracy develops that a lot of things are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention. There are comments made that certainly don’t reflect the United States, don’t reflect our foreign policy, don’t reflect who we are as a people. I mean, if you go to the United States, you see mosques everywhere, you see Muslim Americans everywhere. That’s the fact. So I would not pay attention to the rhetoric.

Secondly, I would say watch what President Obama says and does. He’s our President. He represents all of the United States, and he will be reelected President, so I think that that will be a very clear signal to the entire world as to what our values are and what our President believes. So I think it’s a fair question because I know that – I sometimes am a little surprised that people around the world pay more attention to what is said in our political campaigns than most Americans, say, are paying attention. So I think you have to shut out some of the rhetoric and just focus on what we’re doing and what we stand for, and particularly what our President represents.

Thank you, Ms. Clinton, for responding to the ‘fair question’, and making sure that we Zionists understand not to listen to what the candidates say, but to pay attention to what they really stand for. Perhaps we should apply this advice to your boss as well.

Link: http://fresnozionism.org/2012/03/clinton-obama-panders-to-zionists-just-ignore-it/

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. 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) Prime Minister Netanyahu's Speech to AIPAC

05 March '12..

Full text and video of the speech delivered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to delegates at the AIPAC policy conference in Washington D.C. 2012. (H/T algemeiner.com for text)


Thank you for the warm reception. It could be heard as far away as Jerusalem – the eternal and united capital of Israel. More than two thirds of the Congress is in attendance here tonight. I deeply appreciate your being here.



Last May when I addressed the Congress, you stood up to applaud the state of Israel. Now I ask the 13,000 friends of IL here to stand up and applaud you, the representatives of the American people. Democrats and Republicans alike, we applaud your unwavering commitment to Israel.

I want to recognize Yossi Peled who is here tonight. Yossi was born in Belgium. His parents hid him with a Christian family during World War II. His father, and many other members of his family, were murdered at Auschwitz. His mother survived the Holocaust, returned to reclaim Yossi, and brought him to Israel. He became one of Israel’s bravest and greatest generals.

And today, Yossi Peled serves as a minister in my government. Yossi’s life is the story of the Jewish people – the story of a powerless and stateless people who became a strong and proud nation able to defend itself. And ladies and gentlemen, Israel must always reserve the right to defend itself.

Fresnozionism - The AIPAC speech

Obama speaks at AIPAC yesterday.
Fresnozionism.org..
05 March '12..

Politicians tailor their speeches to their audiences, so President Obama’s AIPAC speech will represent the most pro-Israel interpretation of his positions.

It is very important for him to improve his relationship with the pro-Israel segment of the US Jewish community before the election. This is an older demographic, Jews who vote and donate to their party — and many of them live in the important swing state of Florida. Many of these Jews would very much like to vote for Obama because of his social and economic policies, but are deterred by the anti-Israel image that he has developed.

So despite the fact that Jews make up 1.7% of the population (and Jews that care about Israel less than this), it is important for the President to woo these voters. There is also a large community of pro-Israel Christians, but they overwhelmingly lean Republican, and his stance toward Israel is only one of many reasons that they dislike Obama.

The AIPAC speech is the best we will get; even if Obama does not explicitly renege on his commitments, the interpretation of them as actual policy after the election will be somewhat less positive. Keep in mind that many administration functionaries are actively hostile to Israel.

So let’s look at the important points of the speech.

First, there are a lot of statements about “America’s unbreakable bond” and the the President’s “unprecedented” commitment to Israel’s security. While they produce a warm feeling, they do not imply specific actions. They are vague enough that they have been used to justify, for example, pressuring Israel to make dangerous concessions to the Palestinians. With all due respect, this is fluff which is best ignored.

Rennert - At NY Times, it's always Israel's fault, while Palestinians get a pass

Leo Rennert..
American Thinker..
05 March '12..

To grasp the particular lens through which the New York Times covers the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one need look no farther than an article by Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan Bronner about a minor controversy over an Arab member of Israel's Supreme Court who stood during the singing of "Hatikvah," the national anthem, but did not sing along with the court's other members. ("Anger and Compassion for Arab Justice Who Stays Silent During Zionist Hymn" March 5, page 10.")

Bronner's piece, spread over six columns, prominently mentions the outrage on the political right, prompted by Justice Salim Joubran's mute stance during the singing of "Hatikvah." But then, Bronner stirs the pot further, citing an editorial in the far-left newspaper Haaretz, which called for changing the wording of the anthem because it dwells only on Jewish aspirations for a free nation in the land of Zion and Jerusalem.

Yet, despite this brouhaha, Bronner finally concludes that most Israelis took the entire episode in stride and, if anything, gloried in the fact that an Arab sits on Israel's highest court.

So far, OK. But Bronner isn't willing to leave it at that. As far as he's concerned, this little storm brings to the fore the much deeper question of "the nature of Israeli democracy." And, from that perspective, Bronner indeed takes a very gloomy view of the Jewish state. Again relying on Haaretz, he quotes columnist Gideon Levy as despairing over the Jewish state's basic values -- "Among all the speeches (yada, yada, yada) at the new Supreme Court president's inauguration ceremony, it was Joubran's silence that taught us an important lesson: that Israeli democracy is paper-thin and fragile. All it needs to ruin it is one judge who refuses to join the choir." Readers should have no trouble inferring that Bronner shares Levy's dark outlook about Israel.

Karsh - The Middle East's real apartheid

Efraim Karsh..
Middle East Forum
Jerusalem Post..
05 March '12..

In light of Israel Apartheid Week, which hit cities and campuses throughout the world recently, supporters of the Jewish state find it difficult to agree on the best response to this hate fest. Some suggest emphasizing Israel's peacemaking efforts, others propose rebranding the country by highlighting its numerous achievements and success stories. Still others advocate reminding the world of "what Zionism is – a movement of Jewish national liberation – and what it isn't – racist." Each of these approaches has its merits yet none will do the trick.

Peace seeking and/or prosperity are no proof of domestic benevolence and equality. The most brutal regimes have peacefully coexisted with their neighbors while repressing their own populations; the most prosperous societies have discriminated against vulnerable minorities. South Africa was hardly impoverished and technologically backward; the United States, probably the most successful and affluent nation in recent times was largely segregated not that long ago.

Nor for that matter is the apartheid libel driven by forgetfulness of Zionism's true nature. It is driven by rejection of Israel's very existence. No sooner had the dust settled on the Nazi extermination camps than the Arabs and their western champions equated the Jewish victims with their tormentors.

"To the Arabs, indeed Zionism seems as hideous as anything the Nazis conceived in the way of racial expansion at the expense of others," read a 1945 pamphlet by the Arab League, the representative body of all Arab states. A pamphlet published by the PLO shortly after its creation in 1964 stated: "The Zionist concept of the 'final solution' to the 'Arab problem' in Palestine, and the Nazi concept of the 'final solution' to the 'Jewish problem' in Germany, consisted essentially of the same basic ingredient: the elimination of the unwanted human element in question."

Indeed, it was the Palestinian terror organization that invented the apartheid canard in the mid-1960s, years before Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

This charge, of course, is not only completely false but the inverse of the truth. If apartheid is indeed a crime against humanity, Israel actually is the only apartheid-free state in the Middle East – a state whose Arab population enjoys full equality before the law and more prerogatives than most ethnic minorities in the free world, from the designation of Arabic as an official language to the recognition of non-Jewish religious holidays as legal days of rest.

Monday, March 5, 2012

Gordon - Gallup Data Shows Peace Process Undermines Support for Israel

Evelyn Gordon..
Commentary/Contentions..
05 March '12..

The annual AIPAC conference now taking place in Washington is the year’s flagship display of American support for Israel, so it’s an appropriate time to consider the roots of this support. To that end, a recent Gallup poll offers some strikingly counterintuitive data: In contrast to the conventional wisdom, which holds that support for Israel depends on its willingness to pursue peace with the Palestinians, it turns out that support for Israel has historically been lowest precisely when it pursues peace most vigorously.

The Gallup data includes a graph displaying 25 years of responses, from 1988 through 2012, to the question of whether Americans’ sympathies lie more with Israel or the Palestinians. It turns out the all-time peak for pro-Israel sympathies, 64 percent, was hit in 1991 – two years before the Oslo Accord was signed. Granted, that was the year of the Gulf War, when Palestinians outraged Americans by backing Saddam Hussein. But it was also the era of Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who flatly refused to talk to the PLO or even consider territorial concessions, and expanded settlements at a pace no subsequent government has approached. If pursuit of peace were the defining factor in mobilizing American support for Israel, pro-Israel sentiment should have soared after Yitzhak Rabin signed Oslo. Instead, it remained 20 to 25 points below the peak throughout Rabin’s term, and only during the last three years – with peace talks frozen and much of the world blaming Israel – has it once again surpassed 60 percent.

Weinberg - Read Obama’s body language

This US President is not going to order a military strike on Iran. No amount of rhetoric can cloak his true feelings.

David M. Weinberg..
A Citadel Defending Zion..
05 March '12..






Liberal commentators are already bemoaning the fact that “diehard Obama skeptics” aren’t giving the US President due credit for his “pro-Israel” speech at AIPAC yesterday. “There are many people in both America and Israel who wouldn’t believe Barack Obama’s commitment to Israel’s security even if he sang Hatikvah, enlisted in the IDF and did reserve duty guarding an isolated West Bank outpost,” writes Chemi Shalev in Haaretz today.

“(Yet) Obama’s speech was as solid and supportive as could be expected from any US president,” continues Shalev. “Obama reiterated his unequivocal pledge to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He dismissed any notion that he might accept a nuclear Iran as a fait accompli and adopt a policy of ‘containment’. He acknowledged Israel’s sovereign right to serve its own national security interests and to act in its own self-defense. He pleaded for more time for diplomacy and sanctions to work, but for the very first time explicitly listed the military among those proverbial options that are always on the table.”

Yes, but read Obama’s body language – not just his words. Obama’s body language tells a different story.

Few politicians are as physically graphic as US President Barack Obama. His intonation and inflection, pace of speaking, facial gestures and body movements are sensual, emotional, instinctive and distinctive. I have long taught executives whom I instruct in public speaking to observe and appreciate Obama’s speaking style. He is a pleasure to watch and actually quite easy to read.