Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, May 20, 2011

Work accident!

Hamas' Al Qassam Brigades announced this morning that Muhammad Abu Shamala died during "training" in Khan Younis, Gaza.

The announcement says that he had a great career of hard work and sacrifice and Jihad.

Who says that Hamas doesn't encourage young men in their careers?

Palestine Papers: Mitchell vs. Erekat

From Ma'an:

"Anyone who was even slightly familiar with the process knows full well that Prime Minister Netanyahu never gave Ambassador Mitchell a chance," resigned negotiations affairs official Saeb Erekat lashed out Thursday.

Well, according to the PLO's own transcripts of meetings between Erekat and Mitchell, it sure looks like it is Erekat himself who frustrated Mitchell:

GM: But if you have good faith negotiations …

SE: They have a different interpretation of good faith, if you ever dealt with the Israelis.

GM: I would agree with Israel if you were negotiating and bringing actions against them [going to international bodies] it would be in bad faith.

SE: If they don’t take illegal measures, I would have no complaint. You think I complain for nothing! You know even rabbits have defence mechanisms. Let say they throw more families out of their homes. They defied you on this, and the UN.

GM: You can go for a public statement. The ICC is a different thing.

SE: I might go to the General Assembly.

GM: You would go to the GA if two families are thrown out?

SE: Maybe if it’s 50 families.

GM: Let’s not get diverted.
...

GM: How would the process begin?

SE: It’s been happening. Netanyahu tested you – what can be done. He’s getting the message. You should tell him you’re not going to have the cake and it too, if you want Lieberman and the settlements. And you’re not going to get me to sit with him under these circumstances. We know Bibi. He’s nervous. That’s why he is making a campaign now ‘asking’ AM to be a leader.

GM: So no talks with him while settlement activity continues.

SE: Yes. You asked me yesterday and I said that.

GM: So why are we having a discussion over the language?

SE: That’s a good question.

GM: So even if we give you the your ToR language, there will be no negotiations without the freeze?

SE: Yes.

GM: Then please rip out and the text I read out. [RD and KE hand GM papers] So you want us to give you the outcome. You’re saying there won’t even be negotiations. That’s your position.

SE: As long as BN continues as I said. They can send YD and AG to talk to us.

GM: So we reconsider the whole approach – why talk to both sides?

SE: It’s important. To get them to make decisions.

GM: But they need to make decisions with you, not us. And you’re not taking the same position as before. You negotiated without a freeze all the time.

SE: I told DH while you were out: don’t fool us. All the promises over the years – not delivered. The last time it was Bush, with Frasier and Selva. They did not deliver Before that Clinton and before that Baker.

GM: It was never promised. They said they would make an effort.

SE: They promised us last time they will be the judge.
...

GM: In all candour, your assessment of the political situation in Israel is totally wrong.

SE: I know the Israelis. If someone sneezes in Tel Aviv, I get the flu in Jericho. We know what it take, after 19 years. They cannot decide if they want two states. They want to keep settling in the areas of my state.

GM: But they will settle more if you continue this way.

SE: Then we announce the one state and the struggle for equality in the state of Israel. If our state will not be viable and will have the wall we will fight against apartheid. You either have a decision for peace or a decision for settlements. You cannot have both. Maybe as people keep saying that we never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, but we were never given an opportunity, not my grandparents or my parents, like I am not being given an opportunity.

GM: You’ve expressed your frustration over the last 19 years. But I tell you there has never been a president on this issue like this one. You are denying him the opportunity to create the state that you want. By saying one state you are telling him to get out, even though you negotiated with every Israeli government before under different administrations.

SE: We’re beat. We’re like a horse without rations who can’t walk.

GM: So then summon all your energy.

(h/t Serious Black)

The issue isn't "1967 lines." It is the Jordan Valley.

Obama's speech has certainly created a lot of controversy in the pro-Israel community, and most of it is centered on this one section:

The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.

Some are saying that this means a return to the 1949 armistice lines, others are a bit more optimistic that the "land swaps" could potentially mean significant land swaps - not necessarily in a 1:1 ratio - where Israel could keep significant parts of the West Bank, not having to uproot most of the Jews who live in Judea and Samaria.

The media is, predictably, getting it wrong more often than they get it right. CAMERA found four mistakes in a three-paragraph AP article on the speech. It is obvious that reporters are not being as careful with their words as the President was.

Netanyahu's reaction, as reported in the media, seemed to be centered on the "1967" issue. However, the important part of his statement about borders was not the western border of "Palestine," but the east - the border with Jordan:

Prime Minister Netanyahu will make clear that the defense of Israel requires an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River.

This is one of those issues that the media never really understood, probably because there are relatively few Jews living near the Jordan (though there are some settlements there.)

Israel has always maintained the importance of maintaining a military presence in the Jordan Valley. The Clinton parameters included it, although not indefinitely. It also included three "early warning" radar stations within the Palestinian Arab state.

The Obama speech seemed to preclude that possibility by saying "permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt." So in this sense he is calling for something beyond Camp David, and something that many Israelis - even those opposed to settlements - would be reluctant to agree to.

Should Jordan's kingdom come crashing down and become replaced with an Islamist government - not too far-fetched, especially when you look at the results of the latest Pew Global Attitudes poll, where Jordanian Muslims are shown to be more Islamist than most Middle East countries - Israel cannot rely on "Palestine" to be a buffer. On the contrary, in all likelihood "Palestine" and Jordan would confederate the way the PA has with Hamas.

Israel simply cannot afford to go back to being a nation that is merely nine miles wide. It needs strategic depth, and that means some sort of presence in the Jordan Valley to deter aggression. Otherwise, Israel is just a sliver of land backed up against the sea.

This is the most problematic part of Obama's speech, and the issue cannot be swept under the rug any more.

Ahmadinejad claims Europeans are "emptying the clouds" to dry out Iran

MEMRI finds a beauty.

Following are excerpts from an address by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which aired on IRINN, the Iranian news channel, on May 19, 2011.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: In Europe, there is a lot of rain – an average rainfall of over 1,500 millimeters. They do not need [watering] systems because they have natural irrigation, but they used equipment at their disposal to empty the clouds

As you know, clouds move from west to east. They are formed over the ocean, and then move over the Mediterranean, where the air undergoes changes. Then they pass over Iran, moving eastward. The clouds were emptied of most of their content.

As you saw on the news, there was an unusual amount of rainfall and snow in Europe, while [Iran] was dry during the fall. A certain politician, who is not an expert on water or construction, wrote an article, 7 or 8 months ago, about a water crisis in the next 30 years, in which he included a map of the world, with an area that he claimed would be arid, stretching from Turkey to us, and then further east. This is precisely the area that they are afraid of, due to the creation of [our] civilization and culture. These were the arid areas.

I was at a meeting where someone said that there was a water crisis, and that someone had written an article about it. I told him that this guy does not work in this field, and that he is not an expert on water, meteorology, or hydrology. How did he reach this conclusion? We had reports that they are doing this in Europe. They are emptying the clouds, so that they will not move our way.

Then we conducted studies and became convinced that what this gentleman had written was not a scientific forecast. Rather, this is a premeditated event. We will deal with this through legal channels. We will not permit such a disgraceful thing to take place.

Here's the EoZ exclusive picture of Iran's leading scientists who came to thsis startling conclusion:

(h/t Benjamin, Challah Hu Akbar for telling me about the embed code)

Afternoon links

If I don't get these up soon, I'll forget all about them...

WaPo: Jackson Diehl on Mahmoud Abbas’s formula for war

IDF: A conversation with soldiers dealing with Sunday's riots

BBC: Inside the UK's Hasidic community

HuffPo: Danny Ayalon - Learning from the "Jewish Spring"

Commentary: Noah Pollak: Fatah Agrees With Hamas: Palestinian State Will Be At War With Israel

PJMedia: Michael Totten: Don't even think of defecting to Lebanon

I'm falling way behind in the voting for the Pro-Israel Blog-Off. Vote!

(h/t Silke, David G, probably others)

My review of Obama's speech

Here is an article I wrote about President Obama's speech, which is unfortunately now only available here:

The Obama speech was clearly wordsmithed to keep Zionists as happy as possible while he slipped in a major US policy change. As far as I can tell, this is the first time that a US president has announced that the solution must be based on the so-called “1967 lines” as opposed to the previous position that the borders must be determined through negotiations.

Now, this has been the Israeli position–or at least the Labor and Kadima position–since 2000, and it is hard to ask the US to be more righteous than the Pope. But it is still a change in policy and it makes it much more difficult for Jews to believe that they will continue to have free access to their holiest sites.

On the other hand, he did have quite a few good things in the speech in regards to Israel. (Of course, my speech for him would have been better!)

Let me conclude by talking about another cornerstone of our approach to the region, and that relates to the pursuit of peace.
For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security, prosperity, and empowerment to ordinary people.

Mentioning incitement is important. It was a bit underemphasized but at least it was there.

My Administration has worked with the parties and the international community for over two years to end this conflict, yet expectations have gone unmet. Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks. The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on for decades, and sees a stalemate. Indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward.

Israel has been very bad at telling the world that the “settlement activities” have all been within the existing boundaries of the villages and towns for years now. In short, no new land is being taken. I would argue that this is a mistake–only if Palestinian Arabs see land actually disappearing will they have incentive to negotiate; right now the status quo is not a danger to them.

But it was good that Obama mentioned exactly who walked away from negotiations.

I disagree. At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever.
For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

Here Obama is implying that the US will not support the September stunt, which is a huge blow for Abbas. And he is bringing the Hamas issue to the forefront.

As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

Again, at least he isn’t framing it as “Israel alone” must take steps for peace.

The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself.A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people – not just a few leaders – must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

I assume that he is referring to rockets with the “technology” sentence. In fact, nothing can really stop that except a serious security presence.

Saying that all Arabs must accept peace is important.

The international community being tired seems a curious reason to move forward.

Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, nor can endless delay make the problem go away. But what America and the international community can do is state frankly what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

Again, a key phrase–especially since so many, like J-Street, insist that the US must do exactly that: impose peace. This is a welcome indication that Obama is not blindly following the J-Street/Tom Friedman line.

At least until the next election.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

He quotes UN Resolution 242 here, which is good. How it is possible is a completely different question.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign,non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

The “by itself” is a nice response to those who claim that American lives are being put at risk by Israel.

The “non-militarized state” part has been Netanyahu’s mantra, and it is nice to hear it from Obama. Realistically, however, for how long can we expect a “Palestine” to be non-militarized if it is independent? It sounds nice, it is necessary, but I cannot see it lasting more than a decade. Which is an eyeblink in Middle East terms.

These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.

Actually, the Jerusalem issue and the idea of “secure and recognized borders” issue are pretty much mutually exclusive.

It would have been good if Obama mentioned the obvious: that Arab states will have to be part of the solution for “refugees.” By staying away from that he is ensuring more misery. The truth must be stated.

Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel – how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.

The Hamas issue shouldn’t just worry Israel–it should worry the Quartet as well. This makes it sound like he is putting daylight between the prior insistence of Hamas accepting the Quartet pre-requisites for being accepted and the current thinking. This is something to be concerned about.

I recognize how hard this will be. Suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I’m convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past. We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones. He said, “I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict.” And we see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. “I have the right to feel angry,” he said. “So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate…Let us hope,” he said, “for tomorrow”
That is the choice that must be made – not simply in this conflict, but across the entire region – a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past, and the promise of the future. It’s a choice that must be made by leaders and by people, and it’s a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife.

I expected much worse. But I think that the Palestinian Arabs expected much, much more. Their tweets so far are reflecting sheer anger. Given that they regard everything as a zero-sum game, then at least from their perspective this is a huge win for Israel and Netanyahu.

Also , I just received Prime Minister Netanyahu's official reaction to the speech:

Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace. Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state. That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress. Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines. Those commitments also ensure Israel’s well-being as a Jewish state by making clear that Palestinian refugees will settle in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel. Without a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem outside the borders of Israel, no territorial concession will bring peace. Equally, the Palestinians, and not just the United States, must recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, and any peace agreement with them must end all claims against Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu will make clear that the defense of Israel requires an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River. Prime Minister Netanyahu will also express his disappointment over the Palestinian Authority’s decision to embrace Hamas, a terror organization committed to Israel’s destruction, as well as over Mahmoud Abbas’s recently expressed views which grossly distort history and make clear that Abbas seeks a Palestinian state in order to continue the conflict with Israel rather than end it.

Artists4Israel paint Hebron

From YNet:

Residents of Hebron woke up Thursday to discover their city painted in bright colors. For the past two days 15 artists from the US and Europe have been hard at work painting large-scale graffiti art on bulletproof cement walls, homes, and IDF bases.

Craig Dershowitz, a Jewish resident of Manhattan and the president of Artists4Israel, told Ynet that most of the artists who worked with him on the project were not even Jewish. "We have no political message," he said.

Danny Cohen, Chabad envoy to Hebron, met some of the group members by chance two years ago, when they painted over Sderot, and invited them to the city.

"They had no trouble with the fact that this is Hebron, because these guys have a goal – which I very much agree with – to take places that have a bad reputation, and are associated with fear and chaos, and insert a little color into them," Cohen said.

The artists were confronted with violence just once, outside the city's Kasbah, where Palestinian youths threw stones at them.

"I was sure the incident would put an end to this beautiful project, but this unpleasant occurrence only increased their motivation and the guys just continued to paint. They have this message, 'Art and color will vanquish all stones'," Cohen said.

Malaysian "blockade busting" ship still in limbo outside Egypt

Remember the "blockade busting" ship, the "Spirit of Rachel Corrie," that Israel intercepted earlier this week? It was supposed to go to El Arish in Egypt to offload its cargo, PVC pipes for Gaza's sewage systems.

But Egypt isn't letting it in!

An Egyptian navy gunboat has ordered aid ship MV Finch (Spirit of Rachel Corrie), which has been at anchor for three days, to leave the waiting area at El-Arish Port.

"They are preventing the ship from berthing," said Bernama journalist, Mohd Faizal Hassan, who is one of the 12 passengers and crew on board the MV Finch, in a SMS note to Bernama's headquarters here Thursday night.

According to Mohd Faizal, the MV Finch has been ordered not to come within a three nautical mile radius of the port.

He also reported that fresh rations and water supply were fast running out.

He said the ship was still waiting for permission from the port authority to berth.

"We do not know when the permission will be given," he said.

The ship carrying 7.5 kilometres of PVC pipes to help repair Gaza's devastated sewerage system had tried to break Israel's blockade of the strip but had to divert to El-Arish Port after it came under fire from Israeli naval forces.

There are practically no news stories about this. Certainly nothing blaming Egypt. I guess the world has "flotilla fatigue."

(h/t Mike)

Jordanians against naturalization of Palestinian Arabs

In what has become almost routine, another group of prominent Jordanians warned against any government plan that would naturalize the Palestinian Arabs into full citizens.

The same thing happened a couple of weeks ago. From MEMRI/Al Jazeera:

A national conference of former soldiers in Jordan has criticized the Jordanian regime, due to its "colossal failure" in the administration of the country. ...

The conference accused Queen Rania of making decisions in the kingdom, including security decisions, and demanded that the 1988 decision to sever the kingdom's connection with the West Bank be implemented, and that interior ministers who have since then permitted Palestinians to become naturalized citizens be prosecuted, because doing so serves Israel and harms Palestinian national identity.

Even though most Palestinian Arabs in Jordan are citizens, Jordan has been slowly stripping away their citizenship if they have any tenuous link to the West Bank.

Here is the story of only one man who has nothing to do with Palestine and yet who is losing his Jordanian citizenship, as he wrote to the Ammon News:

The Department of Civil Status and Passports (DCSP) / Amman Branch has written off my name from Certificate of Citizenship obtained by my father Sulieman Salameh Alfrejat, born in Beer Sheva 1942, on the grounds that I had exceeded the age of eighteen by two months' time (my father got citizenship in the 17th of March 1987),telling me that I should have applied to an independent Certificate of Jordanian Citizenship separately at that time .

Here comes the question :whose fault was that? My illiterate father's fault or DCSP's fault?! who is to be blamed?it is clearly that the mistake committed by DCSP and therefore it is their responsibility to correct it.

Accordingly, the Department of Civil Status decided to cancel my caller ID and my Family's Book from the register of civil status and asked me to hand them to the Department.Moreover they made a ''security-block'' on my account on Department of Civil Status's computer network , knowing that I was born in Zarqa, Jordan in 1969 and have Jordanian Certificate of Birth a birth and have been living in Jordan on a continuous basis without interruption or travel Since that date until now, and that I am married to a Jordanian lady and I have two sons. Also I do not have any relationship with the West Bank or PA and I have never been there and so I have never had any of its ID's or Cards, you are kindly requested to see the accompanying documents.

My grandfather , my father,my mother and all of my 15 brothers and sisters have Jordanian citizenship and live here in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, I also have Jordanian identity number 6285778 and the Jordanian Family Book number 557 233 C which are threatened with cancellation in addition to the Military -Service Book .

Because of this step, my family is now 'scattered' between Kingdom of Suadia Arabia where my wife started working there 18 months ago and Jordan where I ,with my 4 and 2 year- old sons respectively , have been waiting for this problem to be resolved but no progress has been achieved so far..

I hope this call find its way to any one with generosity and humanity or to whom it may concern to help me get my documents back soon so that our family could be reunited , knowing that I have handed Ministry of Interior personally,as well as some MPs, a detailed Copy/Letter of my problem attached to it copies of the papers and documents which I have had, but no answer so far - imploring God Almighty to bless and save you He is all –Hearing, All-knowing.

Mohammed Suleiman Salama Alfrejat

For the past 63 years, the majority of Palestinian Arab suffering has been at the hands of Arab countries pretending to love them - not Israel.

Poll: Palestinian Arabs prefer Al Qaeda to Obama; they still support terror

A new Pew Global attitudes poll reveals once again how those "peace loving" Palestinian Arabs really think.

If you judge how worthy people are to deserve a state by how they feel about violence and Islamism, then the Palestinian Arabs are pretty much the least deserving people in the Middle East.

Let's start off with a quick comparison of two answers:

28% of Palestinian Arabs have a favorable opinion of Al Qaeda, and only 18% of President Obama.

And Hezbollah rates higher among Palestinian Arabs than any other Arabs.

A plurality of Palestinian Arabs sympathize with Islamic fundamentalists - and a quarter of Israeli Arab (Muslims) agree.

A new state of Palestine will, right off the bat, hate America. A whopping 80% of Palestinian Arabs have an unfavorable view towards the US.

Over a third of PalArabs want a nation that adheres strictly to Shari'a law, and 30% more want it to be influenced by Islamic law. (Jordan's and Egypt's numbers in this question are very troubling for those who want to see a true Arab Spring.)

No surveyed people support Islamic fundamentalists more than Palestinian Arabs, except for Pakistan.

Comparing the answers from Jordan and Egypt to the previous two questions makes it clear that in those countries, people do not define "fundamentalist" as equivalent to " strict adherence to Sharia law." This is something to remember when people claim that those nations do not embrace fundamentalism.

Hamas' popularity has gone down in the past few years, especially in Gaza, but the movement is still a major force.

No one loves Hezbollah more than PalArabs.

Fully two thirds of all Palestinian Arabs believe that suicide terrorism is often or sometimes justified, making them unique among all people in continuing to embrace that form of what they call "resistance." No other country showed a rate of approval of suicide bombing that was even close to that of the "moderate" Palestinian Arabs.

And while most Muslim countries have exhibited a steep decline in approval for suicide bombs over the years, the Palestinian Arab enthusiasm for that particularly gruesome method of killing civilians has stayed relatively steady.

So when we look at whether "Palestine" is ready for statehood, should we trust the World Bank's arcane justifications or should we look at whether the country would contribute or detract from world peace?

As it stands, it is clear that "Palestine" will not make the world a more peaceful place. Quite the contrary.

Here is what Obama should say in his speech today about the Middle East (crossposted from NewsRealBlog):

During these past few months, we have seen a real change in the Arab world. We have all watched the dramatic protests, first in Tunisia and then in Tahrir Square, protests that have effected a real change in the Arab world and that have brought hope to tens of millions of people who had lived under decades of crushing, autocratic rule.

We join in the celebrations of freedom for the Arab people. We wholeheartedly support freedom and democracy all around the world, and we are cautiously encouraged by what has happened. The United States stands by everyone who wants freedom and liberty. President Roosevelt listed the Four Freedoms and they are just as necessary today as they did in the dark early days of World War II. As he stated them, they are:

Freedom of speech and expression — everywhere in the world.
Freedom of every person to worship God in his own way — everywhere in the world.
Freedom from want — securing to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants —everywhere in the world.
And freedom from fear — everywhere in the world.

These are not just slogans, and these goals are not unrealistic. These are the primary foreign policy goals of the United States.

The Arab Spring shows that all people want, and deserve, real freedom.

My commitment is to do everything possible to bring that freedom not only to the Arab world but to every country on the planet.

Unfortunately, freedom is not free. One cannot just wave a magic wand and expect nations to embrace real freedoms on their own. Elections alone do not make a democracy. It takes time to build up the institutions of democracy, to give people a real choice in who they want to govern them. People must be exposed to the entire marketplace of ideas before making their own decisions. The process can be bumpy, and rushing it can be as counterproductive as not doing it at all.

Three times in the last century has the world been threatened by vicious, evil, totalitarian movements. The first two were communism and Nazism. Even though both of them used the terminology of freedom and civil rights, both of these movements were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people.

They were fundamentally against freedom and they brought with them a swath of destruction and genocide.

There is a third, equally dangerous movement, and it is especially worrisome in the Arab world. That movement is Islamism.

Make no mistake–I am not talking about Islam. In a democratic, free world, everyone has the choice of which religion they want to follow, or not to follow one at all. That freedom is sacrosanct. Islam is a major world religion and it deserves as much respect as any other personal religion.

But Islamism is a political movement whose goals are no less destructive than Nazism and Communism were in the 20th century. Political Islamism seeks nothing less than domination of people, subjugation of women, cessation of freedom of speech, and little choice in how people worship.

Islamism’s principles are antithetical to each of the Four Freedoms of President Roosevelt. It is an inherently evil movement that creates an environment of fear among those who are unfortunate enough to live under its strictures.

Islam, as a personal religion, needs to be protected. Islamism, the political movement, needs to be destroyed.

Only when this occurs can there be truly an Arab Spring. Only when the hundreds of millions of Arabs feel free to express themselves without fear, to change religions without fear, to elect women as their leaders without fear–only then can we say that spring has come to the Arab world.

Any government that is based on Islamic law is, by definition, a government that rejects the basic tenets of human rights, of true equality before the law.

This must change. The sooner that Islamism is defeated, the sooner than Arabs can enjoy real freedom and security.

This is the main reason why the recent unity agreement in the Palestinian Arab territories is so problematic. Hamas is an Islamist, terrorist group. It is not interested a free, democratic Palestinian state–instead, it is dedicated to creating a pan-Islamist nation stretching across three continents. Gaza is a regime of fear, and people there have suffered greatly as a direct result of Hamas’ aggressive, violent, anti-freedom agenda. While unity may be a laudable goal, it can only work as long as all of the parties agree to the basic principles of freedom and democracy. Hamas is not an organization that is even capable of such thoughts.

While American policy has been to create a Palestinian state, statehood itself is not a right. It must be earned. The Palestinian Arab people must elect, and be led by, leaders who truly understand the necessity of these four freedoms, and the importance of real peace.

Unfortunately, this has not yet happened. The Palestinian Arab Fatah leadership has consistently chosen incitement over true peace and cooperation with Israel, the Jewish state. They have adamantly refused to continue peace negotiations. And now they have chosen to partner with a terror group instead of move toward a real, permanent solution to Arab-Israeli peace.

Let me be clear. Israel exhibits all of the freedoms we are discussing, even while under a constant state of war. It is a strong, reliable ally of the United States. America will never abandon Israel nor will we endanger it.

Israel’s freedoms should be the model that the Arab world follows as it moves toward a true spring. And when the Arab world is ready to make a real, true peace with the Jewish state, the payoff will be tremendous for everyone, as all of the artificial fear and hate that has been stoked over the decades will melt away.

I am not talking about a detente, or a paper truce with Israel. I am talking about real peace, where Jewish doctors can come to Arab countries to treat Muslim children, where poets from Syria can recite their works in a Tel Aviv concert hall, where Arab and Israeli researchers can work together to solve shared problems such as water, energy and the environment.

This is my vision for peace and my vision for the Middle East. We have spent too much time missing the forest for the trees. Real peace will not come from endless meetings haggling over borders, nor from using human rights terminology to push a hateful agenda. A true peace will only exist where Arab and Jew alike can feel free to travel, speak and laugh in the entire region, without fear from their cousins. I want to see a train line running from Jerusalem to Amman, a highway from Haifa to Beirut, commercial airliners flying from Riyadh to Tel Aviv.

This is what an Arab Spring must result in. It is not merely a dream, but it is a vision that everyone needs to work toward. As the president of the United States, I intend to lead the way toward this vision. I urge you you help me in this task.

Thank you, and God bless you.

Syrians tried to kidnap an IDF soldier on "Nakba Day"

Details from the Syrian side last Sunday were published in Tishreen.info.

One of the rioters, Sabri Yousef Al-Sawalma, said that he was shot in the legs while trying to grab and drag an IDF soldier to kidnap him.

It is obvious that the IDF soldiers were badly outnumbered. One rioter says he placed a Syrian flag on an IDF jeep.

The protesters were chanting "We go to Jerusalem, martyrs in the millions."

One of the first to break through the barbed wire said that he and his colleagues threw stones at the soldiers.

Another who was injured said that he wanted nothing more than to be martyred in Palestine.

Hospital officials said that most of the injuries were from gunshots to the legs.

It is also notable that the rioters were placing Syrian flags (as well as Palestinian Arab flags) everywhere they went, which - combined with the kidnap attempt - makes this more of an invasion from a foreign country than a peaceful protest.

(h/t Joel, MEMRI)

Belgian "justice" minister says its time to forget about the Holocaust

From The Telegraph:

Stefan De Clerck, a Flemish Christian Democrat, has polarised Belgium, fuelling the country's one year political crisis, by supporting a blanket amnesty for the 56,000 Belgians who were convicted of collaborating with the Nazis after the war.

"Perhaps we should be willing to forget, because it is the past. At some point one has to be adult and be willing to talk about. perhaps to forget, because this is the past," he said at the weekend.

The Simon Wiesenthal centre has sent a letter to Yves Leterme, the Belgian Prime Minister, accusing the minister of a "betrayal of history, his obfuscation of its lessons and his contempt for the very concept of justice."

Around 25,000 Belgian Jews were deported to Auschwitz from the Mechelen army barracks, north of Brussels, after being rounded up by authorities that often enthusiastically collaborated with the Nazis despite strong resistance from Belgium's people.

Only 1,207 survived and in 2007 the Belgian state he Belgian state apologised for "a collaboration unworthy of a democracy with a policy that was disastrous for the Jewish population".

The Flemish minister has insisted that his comments were misinterpreted but the row has further poisoned already tense relations between Dutch and French-speaking politicians.

The sensitive issue has reignited after the Belgian Senate accepted draft legislation from the far-right Flemish Vlaams Belang party that would grant amnesty to all those who collaborated with the Nazis during the war.

European Jewish Press adds:

The Belgian Jewish community said it was “scandalized” by De Clerck’s comments.

"We cannot forget that Belgian collaborators have contributed, often with zeal, to the stalking of men, women and children doomed to deportation by the Nazis. It is those non repentant Nazi and Fascist Belgians that the Justice Minister seeks to absolve through amnesty," said CCOJB, the umbrella group of Belgian Jewish organizations, in a joint statement with CCLJ, the Jewish Secular Center in Brussels.

On Monday, the minister issued a statement saying that he "didn’t intend to minimize" the acts of collaboration perpetrated during WWII.

GIYUS has a list of places to write to call for his removal from office.

It is also notable that the Vlaams Belang party is pushing that legislation.

Pink (brain)washing

From Time:

Next month is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Pride month, an international season of parades, cultural festivals and street parties celebrating gay rights. But amid all the good cheer, tensions are rising over a controversial issue that is splintering LGBT communities. Around the world, major pride events are being used as battlegrounds to combat what some pro-Palestinian, progay activists are calling pink washing: Israel's promotion of its progressive gay-rights record as a way to cover up ongoing human-rights abuses in the West Bank and Gaza.

The accusations stem from efforts over the past half-decade by the Israeli government to weave the country's gay-friendly policies - including national hate-crime laws, employment protection for LGBT workers and openly gay military service - into its larger national-rebranding strategy, in the hopes of redirecting its global image away from politics, terrorism and the occupied territories. "The Israeli government and its propaganda organs ... insist on advertising and exaggerating its recent record on LGBT rights ... to fend off international condemnation of its violations of the rights of the Palestinian people," says Joseph Massad, associate professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University in New York City.

... In June 2010, gay-pride parade organizers in Madrid banned a contingent of Israeli marchers in response to the deadly Gaza flotilla raid weeks earlier. That same month, activists protested the Israeli government's co-sponsorship of San Francisco's Frameline LGBT Film Festival. In March this year, the pro-Palestinian group Palestina protested a conference in Stockholm featuring Israeli LGBT cultural figures. And at the Berlin gay-pride parade on June 25, the Israeli delegation will reportedly promote Tel Aviv - rather than the country as a whole - in an attempt to avoid provoking anti-Israel sentiment.

People who call themselves "progressive" and yet hate the most progressive country in the Middle East get tied up in knots when two of their pet causes contradict each other so starkly. They simply cannot assimilate that the nation they despise is so consonant with their stated beliefs in non-Middle East matters. Making them even crazier is the fact that the Arabs they say they love so much are not exactly gay-friendly.

How can these modern haters reconcile these mutually contradictory positions? Very simple: they claim that Israel is not really so progressive, but cynically uses its progressive positions to distract the world from the Real Problem.

They use the same insane arguments when Israel sends aid to disaster areas, as we have seen. In short, their hate for Israel is so total that they cannot even admit that Israel ever does things that are good. They hate, and they dedicate their lives towards spreading that hate.

This is the textbook definition of bigotry, by the way. Unfortunately, these modern bigots cannot appreciate the irony that they are the worst practitioners of something they claim to abhor.

(h/t Zach N)