Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Lag B'Omer open thread

Today is Lag B'Omer, a minor but joyous Jewish holiday characterized by picnics and bonfires. I'm pretty busy today - and I also have to prepare for my talk tomorrow night in East Brunswick, NJ (email me if you want details) - so here is an open thread to pass the time...

Why "1967 lines" was a gaffe - and why they are indefensible

Since I originally wrote about the Obama speech, I've been trying to understand the strong Israeli reaction to the "1967 lines" part, given the history of negotiations and the other parts of in the speech that was positive.

Jackson Diehl explains it well:

The basic question is this: By saying that a division of territory between Israel and Palestine should be “based on” the “1967 lines” between Israel and the West Bank, with agreed “swaps” of land, did Obama move beyond the previous U.S. position on the subject?

The short, technical answer to this question is: no. The longer, political response is that by stating the principle, Obama gave a boost to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who has tried to make Israeli acceptance of it a condition for peace talks, and a slap to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who has resisted it.

That Obama would do this on the eve of Netanyahu’s arrival in Washington for a White House meeting — and apparently without warning the Israeli leader — is a gaffe that has understandably angered Netanyahu and many of his U.S. supporters.

...The idea that Obama has proposed that Israel “return to the 1967 borders,” as various GOP hopefuls are claiming, is simply untrue.

That doesn’t mean that Netanyahu doesn’t have reason to be fuming as he heads for his meeting with Obama today. For months, Washington has been privately pressing the Israeli leader to endorse the 1967-lines-principle as a way of jump-starting moribund talks with Abbas. Netanyahu has resisted, though he inched toward the position in a speech last Monday. Now Obama has publicly sprung the principle on him — even though there is next to no prospect that negotiations can be started anytime soon.

In the end this looks like another instance in which Obama’s insistence on pushing his own approach to the peace process will backfire. The president was urged by several senior advisers not to delve deeply into Israeli-Palestinian affairs in this speech, just as he was warned last year not to continue insisting on a freeze of Israel’s West Bank settlements. Apparently at the last minute, Obama chose to include the 1967-lines idea in his speech. The result has been the draining of attention from the speech’s central discussion of Arab democracy, a cheap talking point for GOP opponents — and yet another pointless quarrel with Bibi Netanyahu.

And here is a video that shows why Israelis say the 1967 lines are indefensible:

(h/t David G)

Morning links

Lots of stuff out there....

Politico has a list of reactions to Obama's speech by major pro-Israel Democrats.

WaPo editorial attacking Obama's approach.

While I dislike quoting rock stars as political pundits, Gene Simmons is just so much fun.

Jay Leno's monologue - start at the 30 second mark.

Barry Rubin on the speech

Canada won't back Obama's proposal

Dore Gold

Efraim Karsh on how Abbas' family left Safed (Tzfat).

(h/t Israel Matzav, Omri, Judith, Mike, Ed)

Today's idiocy from Roger Cohen

It is amazing how utterly clueless one man can consistently be.

Israeli security begins with a reconciled Fatah and Hamas committing irrevocably to nonviolence, with Palestinian acquiescence to a nonmilitarized state, and with Palestinian acceptance that a two-state peace ends all territorial claims. Palestinian sovereignty begins with what Obama called “the full and phased withdrawal of Israeli security forces” — including from the Jordan River border area — and with the removal of all settlements not on land covered by “mutually agreed swaps.”

If Cohen would spend fifteen minutes actually reading Hamas' words, he would know that the idea of a nonviolent Hamas is an oxymoron. Instead he substitutes his own fantasy world onto the real one - and keeps writing as is his fantasies are real.

This is difficult but doable. The 1967 lines are not “indefensible,” as Netanyahu declared in his immediate response to Obama’s speech. What is “indefensible” over time for Israel is colonizing another people. That process has continued with settlements expanding in defiance of Obama’s urging. The president was therefore right to pull back from President George W. Bush’s acceptance of “already existing major Israeli population centers” beyond the 1967 lines.

And what is Cohen's evidence that a nine-mile wide state, where the capital is surrounded on three sides by the enemy, is defensible?

Palestinians have been making ominous wrong moves. The unilateralist temptation embodied in the quest for recognition of statehood at the United Nations in September must be resisted: It represents a return to useless symbolism and the narrative of victimhood. Such recognition — and of course the United States would not give it — would not change a single fact on the ground or improve the lot of Palestinians.

But the Europeans are considering it. And the South Americans already gave it. To dismiss this move as wrong but unimportant is, again, missing the point.

What has improved their lot is the patient institution-building of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad on the West Bank, his embrace of nonviolence, and his refusal to allow the grievances of the past to halt the building of a future. To all of this Netanyahu has offered only the old refrain: Israel has no partner with which to build peace.

It does — if it would only see and reinforce that partner. Beyond siege lies someone.

Earth to Roger: Fayyad is out, and it wasn't Israel that has forced him out. It was that "reconciled Fatah and Hamas" that you love so much.

Completely, predictably, utterly clueless.

Hamas promo video brags about targeting schoolbus

Here's a video from Hamas that I edited down to show how they view targeting a schoolbus with an anti-tank missile:

They even make an animation reproducing the terror attack, that's how proud they are!

(original video here.)

Arabs hated Obama's speech

I have taken a little (offline) flack in my instanalysis of Obama's speech as being something that Arabs wouldn't like, because the meme that quickly bubbled up in right-wing circles (and among some Israelis) that Obama was throwing Israel under the bus. Memetics is often the enemy of truth.

It is possible that I downplayed the importance of his "1967 lines" reference, especially since the White House had denied earlier that the president would mention it. In retrospect, I am almost happy that Obama did say it because otherwise we might not have witnessed Bibi's opportunity to clearly and articulately lay out Israel's red lines - something that was badly needed.

When I analyze a piece of text, I try not to start off with bias about the source, although I will be skeptical about whether the author is being consistent. I am afraid that too many people - the same people who bitterly complained about "Bush Derangement Syndrome" - have adopted the same formula for Obama, and will reflexively attack whatever he says, even if the first part of his speech sounded a lot like what Bush would have said.

There was a lot to Obama's speech. Only a part of it was about the Israeli/Arab conflict. Much - not all, but much - of it was decidedly pro-Israel. This is not to say definitively that the White House has changed positions or has started to see the light. But on its own merits, there was a lot to like, and it is a shame that this is being downplayed in the glare of the "1967" issue.

But don't take my word for it. Here's part of an op-ed in Ma'an:

In his Middle East speech, Obama adopted the Israeli story and their demands; he spoke as if he were the Israeli prime minister.

In fact, Obama called for a Jewish state, a land swap without defining the size of this land, gradual and phrased withdrawal from occupied territories, a Palestinian demilitarized state, and strong and strict security arrangements for the sake of Israel, postponing the core issues such as Jerusalem and the refugees.

The speech included what Israel always asked Palestinians for, security arrangements, which in fact was the main issue for Israel during 20 years of negotiations.

Most importantly, with severe contempt, Obama threatened Palestinians. He warned them of attempting to attain recognition at the UN, he said he would not allow them to isolate Israel; he looked at this step as an attempt to delegitimize Israel. This won't create an independent state, Obama said.

According to Israelis, the above points were on the agenda of Netanyahu. "What more could he want," an Israeli source stated. Obama rejected the Palestinian reconciliation agreement as well as the Palestinians' recognition campaign.

Obama promised he wouldn’t impose a deal on Israel, he demanded both sides return to negotiations. He did not condemn the settlement building in the occupied territories, he didn’t consider them as illegitimate or obstructing the peace process as he did before, and of course he didn’t call for a settlement freeze. On the contrary, he was trying to justify the settlements by saying they continue because negotiations stopped.

It doesn't look like there is too much love for Obama's speech on the other side. And this story is not being reported much.

UPDATE: The NYT did say today:

Nabil Shaath, a leader of Mr. Abbas’s party and a veteran negotiator, said that Mr. Obama’s speech had “contained little hope for the Palestinians,” except for the one sentence that spoke of the borders of a future Palestinian state being based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps, a shift in American diplomatic language that addressed a long-held Palestinian demand.

(h/t Challah Hu Akbar)

Video of Netanyahu's stunning speech at the White House

It was a stunning speech, one where an Israeli leader stated his opinion in public in an unapologetic manner that has not been seen since Menachem Begin.

Netanyahu's red lines are not very different than the red lines that every Israeli government has had since 1967 (and I showed earlier that Yitzchak Rabin was more hawkish in 1995.) The problem has been that they have never been consistently enunciated by Israeli leaders to the rest of the world. It felt as if every prime minister felt that the facts were so obvious that they didn't have to belabor the point.

But the Palestinian Arabs never stop repeating their own red lines - 1967 borders, "right of return," prisoners, Jerusalem and so on. And because they have been so consistent, and Israel hasn't been, the topsy-turvy message based on historical lies and distortions have gained prominence.

This speech should not have been stunning. It should have been the same speech every Israeli leader ever gave to every President. It may be too late. And, no doubt, it will be spun as a huge insult to the White House by the same people who cannot see that Palestinian Arab leadership has made much worse insults, much more directly to America, much more often.

But while Bibi's speech may be thirty years too late - better late than never.

Weekend links

On Obama's speech, Jennifer Rubin and Barry Rubin

Benny Morris has a problem with Abbas' take on history

CiFWatch shows how the Guardian romanticizes terrorism

Gateway Pundit exposes some Reuters' media bias

A lawsuit alleges Iranian complicity in 9/11

27 protesters killed in Syria - and they drag Israel into it

From Now Lebanon:

Syrian security forces on Friday killed least 27 people, including a child, as pro-democracy protests swept the country, with demonstrators pressing on with calls for more freedom in defiance of a fierce crackdown, activists said.

The child was among 11 people killed in the central city of Homs while another 10 died in the town of Maaret al-Naaman, located near the western city of Idlib, the activists said.

They said security forces also killed two people in the southern region of Daraa, epicenter of protests that have gripped Syria since March 15, one in Daraya, a suburb of Damascus, another in the port city of Latakia and two in the eastern town of Deir al-Zour.

"The victims in Maaret al-Naaman were gunned down at the entrance of the city where many people were converging from other nearby towns to join the protest," an activist said.

Protests were also reported in several other towns across Syria.

This video, showing protests in Damascus today, is a bit troubling:

According to the tweet accompanying it, the protesters are chanting ""We challenge coward Bashar [al-Assad] to send troops to Golan."

In the Middle East, you don't get any credibility unless you accuse your opponents of being too Zionist.

The Knesset speech that people like to forget

Here is part of the speech given by Israel's Prime Minister to the Knesset to set Israel's requirements for peace:

Members of Knesset,

We are striving for a permanent solution to the unending bloody conflict between us and the Palestinians and the Arab states.

In the framework of the permanent solution, we aspire to reach, first and foremost, the State of Israel as a Jewish state, at least 80% of whose citizens will be, and are, Jews.

At the same time, we also promise that the non-Jewish citizens of Israel -- Muslim, Christian, Druze and others -- will enjoy full personal, religious and civil rights, like those of any Israeli citizen. Judaism and racism are diametrically opposed.

We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.

And these are the main changes, not all of them, which we envision and want in the permanent solution:

A. First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev -- as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, while preserving the rights of the members of the other faiths, Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access and freedom of worship in their holy places, according to the customs of their faiths.

B. The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.

C. Changes which will include the addition of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar and other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the "Green Line," prior to the Six Day War.

D. The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

The hawk that gave this speech was none other than Yitzchak Rabin, weeks before he was assassinated in 1995.

Yes, the sainted, Nobel-peace prize winning Rabin was far more hawkish in his positions than Binyamin Netanyahu is today.

Something to think about as people continuously attack Netanyahu for being so intransigent and "hawkish."

And while you are thinking about it, think about how the PLO's policies have changed between 1995 and today in regards to what they are willing to do for peace.

The answer is, of course, nothing.

(h/t Asher)

Hamas responds to Obama: "We will never recognize Israel"

Hamas' Palestine Times newspaper quotes Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri, reacting to President Obama's speech.

He called it bereft of content and said that Obama's speech was a failure, and "the nation does not need to take lessons from Obama."

Zuhri added, "Reconciliation is an internal affair and we reject the American intervention, and Hamas will not recognize Israel."

If it was Islamic Jihad, this wouldn't be news. And for Hamas, this shouldn't be news, because they have been nothing but consistent in their adamant rejection of the concept of recognizing Israel. But since so many clueless journalists and others are insisting that Hamas actually does support a two-state solution, and since this is part of the government that Israel is being cajoled to turn into a state, I am afraid that I need to post every time I see Hamas repeat what it has been saying, practically daily, for years.

Moderate, peace-loving PA putting terrorists on the payroll

For years, we've known that the PA pays a sort of "terrorist insurance" to the families of prisoners in Israel. In 2005, it was estimated that 10% of the PA budget went towards families of terrorists and other prisoners in Israel.

The PA has also made special payments to the terrorists themselves, such as in 2009 during Eid al-Adha,

It seems that all of this time the prisoners themselves have been on the PA payroll - even those who are Israeli citizens. From PalWatch:

A law published in the official Palestinian Authority Registry last month grants all Palestinians and Israeli Arabs imprisoned in Israel for terror crimes a monthly salary from the PA. The Arabic word the PA uses for this payment is "ratib," meaning "salary." Palestinian Media Watch has reported numerous times on Palestinian Authority glorification of terrorists serving time in Israeli prisons. Following the signing of this new law, the PA is now paying a salary to these prisoners.

The PA has defined by law which Palestinians would be considered "prisoners."
"Anyone imprisoned in the occupation's [Israel's] prisons as a result of his participation in the struggle against the occupation."
[Ch. 1 of Law of Prisoners, 2004/19,
passed and published by the PA Chairman and Government, December 2004.
The Prisoners' Centre for Studies,www.alasra.ps Accessed May 9, 2011]

In other words, all Palestinians in Israeli prisons for terror crimes officially join the PA payroll. According to the definition in the PA law, Palestinian car thieves in Israeli prisons will not receive a salary, but Hamas and Fatah terrorist murderers will.

The PA also gives a salary to Israeli Arabs convicted of terror crimes against Israel - the country of which they are citizens. PA benefits to Israeli Arab terrorists, in fact, are greater than the ones extended to Palestinian terrorists.

Those serving more than 20-year sentences will receive a greater PA salary than prisoners serving shorter sentences, the new PA law establishes. Salaries are to be paid from the day of arrest until release.

How much of the PA budget, that comes from the West and the EU, goes towards paying terrorists in Israeli prisons and their families? Where is all that transparency we've heard so much about? What does the World Bank have to say on the matter?

State Dept adds Gaza "Army of Islam" to list of terror groups

From the US State Department:

The Secretary of State designated Army of Islam (AOI) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Secretary also designated AOI under section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224. AOI is a Gaza Strip-based terrorist organization founded in late 2005, which has been responsible for numerous terrorist acts against the Governments of Israel and Egypt, as well as American, British and New Zealander citizens. These actions include a number of rocket attacks on Israel, the 2006 kidnapping of two Fox News journalists in Gaza (an American and a New Zealander) and the 2007 kidnapping of a British citizen, journalist Alan Johnston, in Gaza. The group is also responsible for early 2009 attacks on Egyptian civilians in Cairo and Heliopolis, which resulted in casualties and deaths.

The group is led by Mumtaz Dughmush and operates primarily in the Gaza Strip and Palestinian territories. It subscribes to a Salafist ideology of global jihad together with the traditional model of armed Palestinian resistance. AOI has previously worked with Hamas and is attempting to develop closer al-Qa’ida contacts. On May 7 the group released a eulogy for Osama bin Laden via its Al Nur Media Foundation.

And the difference between AOI and the newly respected Hamas is....?

The media jihad

President Obama's speech yesterday discussed the entire situation in the Middle East, from Tunisia to Bahrain. While perhaps a third of the speech was about the Israel-Arab conflict, it was not the major focus of the speech - in fact, much of the speech was a Bush-style call for greater freedom and democracy in the Arab world and a stunning setback for the "realist" position that has gained such prominence in recent years.

But the top story on CNN this morning, for example, was his mention of the "1967 lines."

Perhaps it is because of the drama of Netanyahu's reaction to the speech (which did not seem to be nearly as vehement as the media is making it out to be) but the entire point of the speech is being drowned out by the media's obsession with Israel.

The President's words and his emphases, whether you agree with them or not, were very specific and deliberately chosen. In this case, it is the media that is trying to create drama and conflict, far more than the actual players are.

Of course this is what the media does, but it is worth remembering that we should get our news from primary sources - like the actual speech, and actual reactions - rather than from news media whose entire purpose is to sensationalize events.

Did Netanyahu have a "furious" phone call with Hilary Clinton before the speech? Was there last-minute "furor"? These words are the New York Times' description, but how accurate is it, really? How much is true and how much is juicing up a story?

We should not ignore the media's version of events, but we should not take it at face value, either.