The Hamas-linked Palestine Times has an article about some new Jewish housing on Har HaZeitim - the Mount of Olives - an area that has been Jewish for centuries but that happens to be in what the media loves calling "Arab East Jerusalem."
Har HaZeitim is the burial site for thousands of prominent Jews, and the graveyard was ravaged by Jordan in those 19 anomalous years between 1948 and 1967 that the world considers legally important. The idea of giving that area to Arabs, land that is unbelievably sacred, is literally sickening.
But the best part of the Hamas article is the photo, meant to inflame the passions of Arabs - but that actually is a wonderful photo for Jews to gaze upon:
In Monday's Washington Post, Richard Cohen argues that Binyamin Netanyahu has to make peace, now, with the Palestinian Arabs:
A moderate and pragmatic Palestinian leadership has actually emerged in the West Bank (but not, for sure, in Gaza), terrorism has been denounced, rejected and, in the West Bank, all but disappeared. A Palestinian state in some sort of pupa form is taking shape, even able to police itself. The trumpeted unification of Fatah and Hamas is indeed a problem — the latter being a virulently anti-Semitic terrorist organization — but even here, where there’s a will there’s a way.
I can understand Netanyahu’s reluctance to move off the dime. The Arab world is in flux. Zealots, radicals and anti-Semites are vying for influence. The region’s so-called revolutions are actually counterrevolutions — reversing the policies of the military men who secularized their governments and tempered their hot hate of Israel with cold pragmatism. The region may not be getting ahead of history but returning to it. It could be a swell time to do nothing.
...Time has not only moved on but, as Obama pointed out, it is no longer on Israel’s side. The occupied West Bank is a looming demographic disaster, and the world has embraced the Palestinian cause. Today’s moderate Palestinian leadership may disappear tomorrow, and the 1967 borders are no less defensible than the current ones — missiles and rockets do not pause for barbed wire.
In my talk on Monday night I spent a little time discussing how important it is to dissect anti-Israel arguments to expose their fallacies. Here is a wonderful example that shows the fallacies not only of this specific article but from many liberals who push Israel to make one-sided concessions for "peace."
Cohen builds a case. He states, accurately, that the current PA leadership appears more moderate than any other. His conclusion is that this is therefore the time for Israel to be more pro-active - which means to make more concessions - to break the deadlock. If Israel waits too long, Cohen says, then the current leadership could disappear and be replaced by something worse.
What are Cohen's unstated assumptions and implications?
The major fallacy is the same one that many, many people make. It is that a peace treaty that results in a Palestinian Arab state would represent a real, permanent peace, one where neither side will have any claims against the other, where terrorist groups disappear or change their ways. Since that is a laudable goal, it is important to do whatever is needed to get there.
But what if that endgame is impossible? What if Palestinian Arab groups never agree to forgo the "right of return" or parts of Jerusalem or settlement blocs? In fact, is there any indication whatsoever that such demands would disappear?
Cohen's assumption has no basis in reality, no proof and is pure wishful thinking.
The next fallacy is that a relatively moderate Palestinian Arab leadership is equivalent to a truly moderate Palestinian Arab leadership. This fallacy is that since Abbas is not actively supporting terror, he is therefore someone who can be counted on to bring real peace.
This is false. Abbas has shown no flexibility on "return" or on the 1967 lines, nor on prisoners or Jerusalem. He has publicly bragged that he has not compromised at al on any of these issues. He still praises genocidal Jew-haters.. He has not stopped incitement in the PA media. For heaven's sake, he went out of his way to have a special meeting with child-murderer Samir Kuntar when he visited Lebanon! By any objective measure, he is not moderate. Comparing him favorably to Haniyeh or Arafat does not make him a Gandhi.
If the PA leadership was truly moderate and showed interest in compromising for peace, then Cohen might have a point that the ball is in Netanyahu's court. But by ignoring their coddling of terrorism, he is rewarding it by insisting that it is Israel, and Israel alone - the one party that has already given compromise after compromise - to move yet again.
The third fallacy is that real problems aren't real. Cohen says, "The trumpeted unification of Fatah and Hamas is indeed a problem" but dismisses it out of hand: "even here, where there’s a will there’s a way." The supposedly moderate PA has just agreed that an anti-semitic terror organization belongs in its government, yet to Cohen this is merely a small problem that can be swatted away with meaningless platitudes. To him, the necessity for peace (which would never be a true peace to begin with) is so important that Israel must ignore real risks and paper over real issues.
The fourth fallacy is that Israel is the intransigent party. Yet it is Abbas who broke off the talks, not Netanyahu. It is Abbas who has refused to return to the table despite pleas from the US president. It is Abbas that added new conditions for talks that had never been there before. Israel has always said it wants to talk without preconditions. Why is Cohen's column not aimed at Mahmoud Abbas?
The fifth fallacy, not explicit here but one that underlies many of the arguments, is that Netanyahu is the problem. If he could be forced out of office, the thinking goes, a more flexible Israeli leader would be able to break the deadlock.
This is also false. Netanyahu's recent US speeches are well within the mainstream Israeli consensus, Kadima and Likud alike. Negotiations with the previous government foundered on these very issues, these very same red lines, with only minor differences - differences that would not make the Palestinian Arab leadership any more flexible.
A sixth fallacy is implicit here, the idea that the PLO's uncompromising negotiating position is inherently just and Israel's is not because of the "occupation." Even though UNSC resolution 242 calls for compromise in setting borders, the mantra of "illegal occupation" has made people reflexively blame Israel when it tries to compromise instead of caving to all demands - something everyone knows must happen anyway. This gives the PLO effective veto power over any Israeli concessions.
The Palestinian Arab position that Jerusalem and "right of return" are prerequisites for peace has been swallowed whole by many liberals. In fact, why is an independent Palestinian Arab state dependent on that? Israel accepted the partition plan without Jerusalem, because it wanted to build an independent state above all to be a refuge for the Jewish nation worldwide. If Palestinian Arabs want a state so badly, why is Jerusalem a prerequisite for it to be viable? Their insistence of these issues do not, in themselves, make them critical. In fact, they call into question whether the end game for the Palestinian Arabs is to build a state - or to destroy one. When even the Likud leader publicly calls for a Palestinian Arab state in front of millions of TV viewers, it is hard to argue that Israel is against it. So what do the Palestinian Arabs really want, and if things are so desperate, why aren't they feeling pressure to come back to the table?
By embracing the Palestinian Arab narrative of preconditions, peace becomes less likely, not more.
Cohen knows deep down that Palestinian Arabs have not embraced peace, and are not likely to. There is one assumption he makes that is accurate: that the next PA leadership is not likely to be as moderate as today's. Hamas will have a big influence in the next PA government, no matter what. He knows - or should know - that Palestinian Arabs do not have any moral qualms against suicide bombings, but their respite is tactical. What does this mean for the future of the peace process? Doesn't it mean that Abbas and Fayyad, for all their vaunted moderation, are out of touch with how Palestinian Arabs really think? Doesn't it mean that there is serious tension within the PA as to whether Abbas is too peaceful and too cooperative with the US and Israel? Why does it make sense to force a peace agreement onto a people who do not want to live with its provisions?
For people like Cohen, the goal is a signed peace agreement - but that is not anything close to real peace. He assumes that the two are identical, but this is the most fatal assumption of all. Israel's insistence on its red lines is to ensure both a real peace and the ability to defend itself if that peace should go south - a very reasonable concern given what is happening in the Arab world today.
There is no shortage of people who say they have Israel's best interests at heart by forcing it to make concessions that would compromise its own security, both short term and long term. Those people need to take a long hard look at their underlying assumptions. Too often, they allow their desire for an agreement overwhelm their ability to soberly look at both the pros and cons of that very agreement. They don't even consider what might happen the day after an agreement is signed.
The goal is a real peace. Israelis have yearned for that moment since the state was born. Israel has made concession after concession - giving up real, tangible assets like land and oil fields and entire beautiful towns - to reach that goal. It is insulting to say that it is the Israeli side that needs to do yet more to make peace with an entity that has walked away from peace talks, that praises terror, and that is now aligned with Hamas.
Real peace cannot be built on lies and fallacies and wishful thinking.
Palestine Today quotes Fatah spokesman and Central Committee member Nabil Shaath:
This is not a speech but a declaration of war on the Palestinians, Hamas, Iran and Lebanon. What we heard from Netanyahu were only threats of war. Netanyahu did not offer anything new on the issue of refugees, Jerusalem and the withdrawal from settlements and withdrawal to the 67 borders."
Palestine Today reports that the price of construction materials like cement and iron pipes has gone down some 30% in recent months.
Most of the decline comes because of a great increase of these materials coming from Egypt through the smuggling tunnels.
Interestingly, the article is saying that the prices of smuggled materials is lower than for materials that come from Israel though the Kerem Shalom crossings: 525 shekels versus 540 shekels per ton of cement, 3400 shekels vs. 4000 shekels per ton of iron. Aggregate is still cheaper from Israel, though.
I was under the impression that all the building material coming through Israel was earmarked for specific NGO projects like UNRWA schools and housing. I don't know if these prices reflect what the NGOs pay, or if it indicates a further loosening of restrictions on building materials from Israel, or if there is a black market in construction materials meant for UNRWA and other NGOs.
In an interview with the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar, senior Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahhar set out the compromises the party was willing to make for a unity deal with Fatah, and made clear that unity would not change the party's platform.
"Reconciliation does not mean Hamas has changed its agenda," the leader was quoted as saying in the Tuesday report, adding that nor was Fatah bending its own goals to those of Hamas when it signed the document.
Unity would simply set out the framework for a functioning governance structure, Zahhar said, adding that the platforms of each party would be determined by Palestinians, and would be put to the test at the ballot box when elections are called.
Is that clear enough for the idiots who think that this was a sign of Hamas moderation?
There is also evidence of an intra-Hamas rift that has been bubbling up in the Arabic media lately:
The Gaza-based Hamas leader said that while the movement's leader in exile Khalid Mash’al had agreed to give the PA time to negotiate with Israel, he was "speaking on his own," in a decision that had more to do with the unity deal than with Hamas' political position.
Zahhar said the issue was being "seriously reviewed," hinting that Mash'al was out of touch with the priorities of Hamas supporters in the West Bank and Gaza.
Asked if he was hinting that Mash'al should return to Gaza, Zahhar said he made no such intimation, but offered that he believed all those who wished to return to the coastal enclave should do so, including Fatah supporters so long as they were not "involved in the crimes of 2007," he said, referring to the infighting that cemented the division between the factions and led to separate governments in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The Syrian Hamas leadership took exception to this, issuing a statement that Khaled Mashal is the real leader of Hamas and that Zahar has no right to speak on behalf of the movement. Their spokesman, Osama Hamdan, added that Zahar was not part of the original leadership of Hamas and only joined in the late 1980s, and that he was only expressing his own opinion.
Yesterday, I wrote about an article in This Week in Palestine by Kieron Monks that exposed how the NGO industry in the Palestinian Arab territories was a waste of money that only kept the cycle of anti-Israel sentiment alive while not actually helping Palestinian Arabs at all.
Monks took exception to my use of his article. He commented:
As the author of the article it is obviously a critical take on the aid bubble created in Palestine. It has actually been very well received by Palestinians who want a more sustainable economy. It is published in a Palestinian magazine and will obviously not be taken down-
The country is full of freeloaders, everyone should acknowledge that, and NGO culture does not help to resist the occupation-it facilitates it. This article does not seek to score points in the Pal/Israel conflict-so its a misinterpretation for you to use it this way. Seeing EVERYTHING in black & white terms (Israel good/Pal bad or vice versa) is moronic. I hope you have gained insight from my article but it does not prove everyone in the universe is anti-semitic or any other bizarre theories.
Palestine's NGO sector...has become a byword for corruption, incompetence and meaningless job creation. Thousands of NGOs have sprung up, promoting everything from family planning to liberal arts education, bloating the aid industry without delivering long-term benefits.
Naseef Mu'allem, director-general of the Palestinian Centre for Peace and Democracy, revealed that "JICA – the Japanese government aid mission – invested $5m last year, but practically what they spent is $600,000. The rest is given as salaries, accommodation, hotels, retreatment and transportation for the foreign employees here but not for the Palestinians". Without donors thoroughly checking on their investments, this kind of private profiteering has become normal.
Palestinian perceptions of foreign NGOs are revealing. Bir Zeit University's 2008 survey found just 35% of the West Bank population feel they contribute to the development of Palestinian society; 78% said they played some role in reducing human suffering and 55% felt they contribute to reinforcing the Israeli occupation.
According to [Joseph] DeVoir, the combination of these results seems to reveal a perception that NGOs "do not achieve political goals; they facilitate occupation by making it bearable". Certainly NGOs and international agencies have financial motives for sustaining the occupation, without which they could not obtain the funding to combat its effects.
The foreign money flooding into NGOs has entrenched class divisions in Palestinian society. Employment opportunities within them are typically limited to the educated elite class, narrowed further by routine nepotism. In Ramallah, the difference is most apparent with glitzy nightclubs on the doorsteps of refugee camps – the preserve of foreigners and rich Palestinians who live too comfortably to identify with the struggle for independence. Their money has already immunised them against the worst effects of occupation, working in jobs that allow them to cross borders and checkpoints, lessening their incentive to fight the status quo.
Yet Monks also writes:
Individual NGOs have attempted to assert their independence from donors. Many reject USAID funding due to its political demands, which preclude assistance for projects that could benefit people with affiliations to undesirable political groups.
Monks is not upset about aid that gets diverted to terror groups. His view is that this is the choice of the Palestinian Arabs; that the West should not decide or even oversee where their billions of dollars are going - if a percentage goes towards rockets or anti-tank missiles, it is none of the donors' business. He implies that this is how they will gain true independence.
He misses the point.
Israel is not against helping Palestinian Arabs. No one is opposed to them building institutions or getting jobs or improving their economy, in fact, Israel has done more than all the NGOs combined to help them do exactly that.
Obviously Israel is interested primarily in one goal: security. In Israel and the West's view, security comes from a combination of strong PA security apparatus that fights terror and a strong economy that gives people incentive to work and build honorable lives for their families rather than be attracted to extremism. Just as obviously, an independent Palestine cannot exist for long without true peace with Israel, so aid that gets diverted towards Hamas and other terrorist groups is - and should be regarded - even more counterproductive to a Palestinian state than the current economic dependence on foreign aid.
Monks conflates the aid from donors that is meant to weaken the terrorist influence on Palestinian Arab society with a nebulous idea that Westerners want to prolong "occupation." He is only partially right.
The problem is that the goals of the NGOs, the Western donors, Palestinian Arabs and Israel are not congruent.
NGOs, as Monks implies, only want to keep the gravy train running. Their number one concern is staying in business and well-funded. They attract young people who don't care about Palestinian Arab independence or self-sufficiency - their desire is often to pressure and ultimately destroy Israel. Many have no problem with Hamas and Islamic Jihad; in fact, they support their goals implicitly or explicitly. A real Palestinian Arab state at peace with its neighbor is not their goal - a Palestinian Arab state or two that replaces Israel is. (I'm talking about NGOs like the ones that sponsor the "flotillas.")
UNRWA has zero desire to dismantle the camps that exist even within Area A and Gaza. It will not contribute in the least to creating a generation of people who are self-sufficient. It will continue to beg for more and more money, even as it has no rule to take "refugee" status away from someone besides their death. It has, more than anyone else, served to prolong Palestinian Arab misery.
The US wants to see real peace, with an independent Palestinian Arab state alongside Israel the way Canada is alongside the US. Terror groups are antithetical to that desire.
The EU wants what the US wants as well, but is more sympathetic to the idea that the corrupt NGOs can decide where the money should go without as much oversight.
And no one is really looking at a long term strategy that would build a real economy and strong institutions - with the exception of Israel and, ironically, the hated Likud.
The real question is: what do Palestinian Arabs want? If they continue to tolerate and glorify terrorism, then their state will never come to pass. Nor would such a state be desirable.
The problem is that people like Monks believe that statehood, built on artificial but ultimately irrelevant demands like "the 1967 lines" and "Jerusalem" that are orthogonal to the concept of an independent state, is a right that should be granted no matter what form it would take and independent of whether such a state would help or hurt peace in the region.
Monks also fails to notice that all the money going to these corrupt NGOs would be better used to help real countries with real issues of poverty and war, and that the world's obsession with Israel has magnified the importance of "Palestine" way out of proportion to the need. Yes, a significant percentage of the world's obsession with the region is because of modern anti-semitism disguised as anti-Zionism. There is no other explanation that explains why Palestinian Arabs gain such a lion's share of attention from the world even as other Arabs are in far worse shape.
So while it is great that Monks exposes the corruption endemic in the mushrooming NGO industry in the territories, he misses the point. The problem is that all the parties are at cross-purposes and that "Palestine" is not a right but something that must be earned by the Palestinian Arab people themselves - by proving that they can act responsibly and peacefully both within and without.
If a truly peaceful Palestine was in the cards - one where there was no incitement, where Israel is a real partner, where the ordinary people are disgusted by Hamas and Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Brigades, where Jews would be allowed full access to their holy sites without fear of being stoned or shot - then all the other problems would disappear. Ultimately, this is the real issue, and one that neither the NGOs or the Palestinian Arabs or the EU or the UN is willing to address.
So at the end of the day, there were only a few things that Netanyahu could mention. He wants Abbas to say the six holy words - "I will accept a Jewish state". If the whole world approves this theory, this means they did not occupy Palestine. There will be no Palestine anymore. This also means they will kick out the more than a million Israeli Arabs (those who did not leave when Israel was created in 1948).
....Sorry Mr Netanyahu. Your great theory doesn't pass in modern history. Maybe three or four thousand years back, you could have built countries based on religions.
Besides the fact that the Jewish people are a nation, not just a religion, and besides the fact that it is a fevered fantasy that Israel plans to kick out all its Muslim and Christian citizens if Arabs accept it as a Jewish state, we have a little bit of hypocrisy to clear up.
Syrian security forces have killed at least 1,062 people since pro-democracy protests broke out 10 weeks ago, an activist told AFP.
"We have a list of 1,062 names along with where they were killed," said Ammar Qurabi, head of the National Organization for Human Rights. "The victims were killed by live ammunition."
He added that 10,000 people had been detained in the fierce government crackdown on the unprecedented protests threatening the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
There are still numerous daily protests, most listed here - many with video.
The reasons for our current state are many. Try America's growing Christian obsession with Israel's "security."
Try the level of campaign contributions from Jewish sources.
Try American public opinion, in a post-9/11 world, on who should be supported in the Middle East.
Try all of these, if you like.
Regardless of the reasons, the brass tacks comes out the same, every time: Israel's narrative dominates in America, Israel's "interests" (if Netanyahu's position can be articulated as such) dominates in America, Israel's diplomatic stances dominate in America.
Nothing really unexpected or spectacular from the anti-Israel lefties...except for the original title of the post.
It was at first called "The Elders of Zion Crowd is Pointing Our Direction."
Soon afterwards, the writer "Troubadour" thought better of that title and changed it to the only slightly less absurd "U.S. Congress Shows an Unparalleled Lack of Patriotism." You can still see the original title in the URL of the post, and in Google.
Daily Kos is one of the most popular liberal blogs in America.
Presidential spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh said Tuesday that what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had said at the US Congress is not going to lead to peace.
“What Netanyahu had said does not lead to peace,” he said, accusing the Israeli premier of “putting more obstacles in the way of the peace process.”
“Peace for us means a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital,” said Abu Rudeineh. “We will not accept any Israeli presence inside the Palestinian state, particularly on the River Jordan.”
The presidential spokesman said that “peace should be based on international resolutions and negotiations, and not by putting preconditions and more obstacles in the way of the peace process.”
1967 lines, Jerusalem and the eastern border aren't preconditions and obstacles?
Fatah-leaning Palestine Press Agency called the US Congress "stupid" for applauding Netanyahu:
It is strange that every sentence Netanyahu said was met with applause from members of Congress; apparently they are stupidly ignorant of the true meaning to the suffering of the Palestinian people under occupation.
From the Israeli Prime Minister Facebook page: I am deeply honored by your warm welcome. And I am deeply honored that you have given me the opportunity to address Congress a second time.
Mr. Vice President, do you remember the time we were the new kids in town?
And I do see a lot of old friends here. And I do see a lot of new friends of Israel here. Democrats and Republicans alike.
Israel has no better friend than America. And America has no better friend than Israel. We stand together to defend democracy. We stand together to advance peace. We stand together to fight terrorism. Congratulations America, Congratulations, Mr. President. You got bin Laden. Good riddance!
In an unstable Middle East, Israel is the one anchor of stability. In a region of shifting alliances, Israel is America’s unwavering ally. Israel has always been pro-American. Israel will always be pro-American.
My friends, you don’t need to do nation building in Israel. We’re already built. You don’t need to export democracy to Israel. We’ve already got it. You don’t need to send American troops to defend Israel. We defend ourselves. You’ve been very generous in giving us tools to do the job of defending Israel on our own. Thank you all, and thank you President Obama, for your steadfast commitment to Israel’s security. I know economic times are tough. I deeply appreciate this.
Support for Israel’s security is a wise investment in our common future. For an epic battle is now unfolding in the Middle East, between tyranny and freedom. A great convulsion is shaking the earth from the Khyber Pass to the Straits of Gibraltar. The tremors have shattered states and toppled governments. And we can all see that the ground is still shifting. Now this historic moment holds the promise of a new dawn of freedom and opportunity. Millions of young people are determined to change their future. We all look at them. They muster courage. They risk their lives. They demand dignity. They desire liberty.
These extraordinary scenes in Tunis and Cairo, evoke those of Berlin and Prague in 1989. Yet as we share their hopes, but we also must also remember that those hopes could be snuffed out as they were in Tehran in 1979. You remember what happened then. The brief democratic spring in Iran was cut short by a ferocious and unforgiving tyranny. This same tyranny smothered Lebanon’s democratic Cedar Revolution, and inflicted on that long-suffering country, the medieval rule of Hezbollah.
So today, the Middle East stands at a fateful crossroads. Like all of you, I pray that the peoples of the region choose the path less traveled, the path of liberty. No one knows what this path consists of better than you. This path is not paved by elections alone. It is paved when governments permit protests in town squares, when limits are placed on the powers of rulers, when judges are beholden to laws and not men, and when human rights cannot be crushed by tribal loyalties or mob rule.
Israel has always embraced this path, in the Middle East has long rejected it. In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel stands out. It is different.
As the great English writer George Eliot predicted over a century ago, that once established, the Jewish state will "shine like a bright star of freedom amid the despotisms of the East.” Well, she was right. We have a free press, independent courts, an open economy, rambunctious parliamentary debates. You think you guys are tough on one another in Congress? Come spend a day in the Knesset. Be my guest.
Courageous Arab protesters, are now struggling to secure these very same rights for their peoples, for their societies. We're proud that over one million Arab citizens of Israel have been enjoying these rights for decades. Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel’s Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights. I want you to stop for a second and think about that. Of those 300 million Arabs, less than one-half of one-percent are truly free, and they're all citizens of Israel!
This startling fact reveals a basic truth: Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East. Israel is what is right about the Middle East.
Israel fully supports the desire of Arab peoples in our region to live freely. We long for the day when Israel will be one of many real democracies in the Middle East.
Fifteen years ago, I stood at this very podium, and said that democracy must start to take root in the Arab World. Well, it's begun to take root. This beginning holds the promise of a brilliant future of peace and prosperity. For I believe that a Middle East that is genuinely democratic will be a Middle East truly at peace.
But while we hope and work for the best, we must also recognize that powerful forces oppose this future. They oppose modernity. They oppose democracy. They oppose peace.
Foremost among these forces is Iran. The tyranny in Tehran brutalizes its own people. It supports attacks against American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. It subjugates Lebanon and Gaza. It sponsors terror worldwide.
When I last stood here, I spoke of the dire consequences of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Now time is running out, and the hinge of history may soon turn. For the greatest danger facing humanity could soon be upon us: A militant Islamic regime armed with nuclear weapons.
Militant Islam threatens the world. It threatens Islam. I have no doubt that it will ultimately be defeated. It will eventually succumb to the forces of freedom and progress. But like other fanaticisms that were doomed to fail, militant Islam could exact a horrific price from all of us before its inevitable demise.
A nuclear-armed Iran would ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It would give terrorists a nuclear umbrella. It would make the nightmare of nuclear terrorism a clear and present danger throughout the world. I want you to understand what this means. They could put the bomb anywhere. They could put it on a missile. It could be on a container ship in a port, or in a suitcase on a subway.
Now the threat to my country cannot be overstated. Those who dismiss it are sticking their heads in the sand. Less than seven decades after six million Jews were murdered, Iran's leaders deny the Holocaust of the Jewish people, while calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state.
Leaders who spew such venom, should be banned from every respectable forum on the planet. But there is something that makes the outrage even greater: The lack of outrage. In much of the international community, the calls for our destruction are met with utter silence. It is even worse because there are many who rush to condemn Israel for defending itself against Iran’s terror proxies.
But not you. Not America. You have acted differently. You've condemned the Iranian regime for its genocidal aims. You’ve passed tough sanctions against Iran. History will salute you America.
President Obama has said that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. He successfully led the Security Council to adopt sanctions against Iran. You in Congress passed even tougher sanctions. These words and deeds are vitally important.
Yet the Ayatollah regime briefly suspended its nuclear program only once, in 2003, when it feared the possibility of military action. That same year, Muammar Qadaffi gave up his nuclear weapons program, and for the same reason. The more Iran believes that all options are on the table, the less the chance of confrontation. This is why I ask you to continue to send an unequivocal message: That America will never permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
As for Israel, if history has taught the Jewish people anything, it is that we must take calls for our destruction seriously. We are a nation that rose from the ashes of the Holocaust. When we say never again, we mean never again. Israel always reserves the right to defend itself.
My friends, while Israel will be ever vigilant in its defense, we will never give up on our quest for peace. I guess we’ll give it up when we achieve it. Israel wants peace. Israel needs peace. We've achieved historic peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan that have held up for decades.
I remember what it was like before we had peace. I was nearly killed in a firefight inside the Suez Canal. I mean that literally. I battled terrorists along both banks of the Jordan River. Too many Israelis have lost loved ones. I know their grief. I lost my brother.
So no one in Israel wants a return to those terrible days. The peace with Egypt and Jordan has long served as an anchor of stability and peace in the heart of the Middle East.
This peace should be bolstered by economic and political support to all those who remain committed to peace.
The peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan are vital. But they're not enough. We must also find a way to forge a lasting peace with the Palestinians. Two years ago, I publicly committed to a solution of two states for two peoples: A Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state.
I am willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace. As the leader of Israel, it is my responsibility to lead my people to peace.
This is not easy for me. I recognize that in a genuine peace, we will be required to give up parts of the Jewish homeland. In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. We are not the British in India. We are not the Belgians in the Congo.
This is the land of our forefathers, the Land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the idea of one God, where David set out to confront Goliath, and where Isaiah saw a vision of eternal peace. No distortion of history can deny the four thousand year old bond, between the Jewish people and the Jewish land.
But there is another truth: The Palestinians share this small land with us. We seek a peace in which they will be neither Israel’s subjects nor its citizens. They should enjoy a national life of dignity as a free, viable and independent people in their own state. They should enjoy a prosperous economy, where their creativity and initiative can flourish.
We've already seen the beginnings of what is possible. In the last two years, the Palestinians have begun to build a better life for themselves. Prime Minister Fayad has led this effort. I wish him a speedy recovery from his recent operation.
We've helped the Palestinian economy by removing hundreds of barriers and roadblocks to the free flow of goods and people. The results have been nothing short of remarkable. The Palestinian economy is booming. It's growing by more than 10% a year.
Palestinian cities look very different today than they did just a few years ago. They have shopping malls, movie theaters, restaurants, banks. They even have e-businesses. This is all happening without peace. Imagine what could happen with peace. Peace would herald a new day for both peoples. It would make the dream of a broader Arab-Israeli peace a realistic possibility.
So now here is the question. You have to ask it. If the benefits of peace with the Palestinians are so clear, why has peace eluded us? Because all six Israeli Prime Ministers since the signing of Oslo accords agreed to establish a Palestinian state. Myself included. So why has peace not been achieved? Because so far, the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state, if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.
You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about. In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews said yes. The Palestinians said no. In recent years, the Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli Prime Ministers, to establish a Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six Day War.
They were simply unwilling to end the conflict. And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees.
My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I said… "I will accept a Palestinian state." It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… "I will accept a Jewish state."
Those six words will change history. They will make clear to the Palestinians that this conflict must come to an end. That they are not building a state to continue the conflict with Israel, but to end it. They will convince the people of Israel that they have a true partner for peace. With such a partner, the people of Israel will be prepared to make a far reaching compromise. I will be prepared to make a far reaching compromise.
This compromise must reflect the dramatic demographic changes that have occurred since 1967. The vast majority of the 650,000 Israelis who live beyond the 1967 lines, reside in neighborhoods and suburbs of Jerusalem and Greater Tel Aviv.
These areas are densely populated but geographically quite small. Under any realistic peace agreement, these areas, as well as other places of critical strategic and national importance, will be incorporated into the final borders of Israel.
The status of the settlements will be decided only in negotiations. But we must also be honest. So I am saying today something that should be said publicly by anyone serious about peace. In any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders. The precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated. We will be very generous on the size of a future Palestinian state. But as President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible lines of 1967.
We recognize that a Palestinian state must be big enough to be viable, independent and prosperous. President Obama rightly referred to Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, just as he referred to the future Palestinian state as the homeland of the Palestinian people. Jews from around the world have a right to immigrate to the Jewish state. Palestinians from around the world should have a right to immigrate, if they so choose, to a Palestinian state. This means that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel.
As for Jerusalem, only a democratic Israel has protected freedom of worship for all faiths in the city. Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel. I know that this is a difficult issue for Palestinians. But I believe with creativity and goodwill a solution can be found.
This is the peace I plan to forge with a Palestinian partner committed to peace. But you know very well, that in the Middle East, the only peace that will hold is a peace you can defend.
So peace must be anchored in security. In recent years, Israel withdrew from South Lebanon and Gaza. But we didn't get peace. Instead, we got 12,000 thousand rockets fired from those areas on our cities, on our children, by Hezbollah and Hamas. The UN peacekeepers in Lebanon failed to prevent the smuggling of this weaponry. The European observers in Gaza evaporated overnight. So if Israel simply walked out of the territories, the flow of weapons into a future Palestinian state would be unchecked. Missiles fired from it could reach virtually every home in Israel in less than a minute. I want you to think about that too. Imagine that right now we all had less than 60 seconds to find shelter from an incoming rocket. Would you live that way? Would anyone live that way? Well, we aren’t going to live that way either.
The truth is that Israel needs unique security arrangements because of its unique size. Israel is one of the smallest countries in the world. Mr. Vice President, I'll grant you this. It’s bigger than Delaware. It’s even bigger than Rhode Island. But that’s about it. Israel on the 1967 lines would be half the width of the Washington Beltway.
Now here’s a bit of nostalgia. I first came to Washington thirty years ago as a young diplomat. It took me a while, but I finally figured it out: There is an America beyond the Beltway. But Israel on the 1967 lines would be only nine miles wide. So much for strategic depth.
So it is therefore absolutely vital for Israel’s security that a Palestinian state be fully demilitarized. And it is vital that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River. Solid security arrangements on the ground are necessary not only to protect the peace, they are necessary to protect Israel in case the peace unravels. For in our unstable region, no one can guarantee that our peace partners today will be there tomorrow.
And when I say tomorrow, I don't mean some distant time in the future. I mean -- tomorrow. Peace can be achieved only around the negotiating table. The Palestinian attempt to impose a settlement through the United Nations will not bring peace. It should be forcefully opposed by all those who want to see this conflict end.
I appreciate the President’s clear position on this issue. Peace cannot be imposed. It must be negotiated. But it can only be negotiated with partners committed to peace.
And Hamas is not a partner for peace. Hamas remains committed to Israel's destruction and to terrorism. They have a charter. That charter not only calls for the obliteration of Israel, but says ‘kill the Jews wherever you find them’. Hamas’ leader condemned the killing of Osama bin Laden and praised him as a holy warrior. Now again I want to make this clear. Israel is prepared to sit down today and negotiate peace with the Palestinian Authority. I believe we can fashion a brilliant future of peace for our children. But Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by the Palestinian version of Al Qaeda.
So I say to President Abbas: Tear up your pact with Hamas! Sit down and negotiate! Make peace with the Jewish state! And if you do, I promise you this. Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations. It will be the first to do so.
My friends, the momentous trials of the last century, and the unfolding events of this century, attest to the decisive role of the United States in advancing peace and defending freedom. Providence entrusted the United States to be the guardian of liberty. All peoples who cherish freedom owe a profound debt of gratitude to your great nation. Among the most grateful nations is my nation, the people of Israel, who have fought for their liberty and survival against impossible odds, in ancient and modern times alike.
I speak on behalf of the Jewish people and the Jewish state when I say to you, representatives of America, Thank you. Thank you for your unwavering support for Israel. Thank you for ensuring that the flame of freedom burns bright throughout the world. May God bless all of you. And may God forever bless the United States of America.
The Al Quds newspaper (Arabic) has an editorial urging Hamas not to give in to Western pressure to recognize Israel.
It notes that President Obama and Turkish President Gul have urged Hamas to give up its core principle of rejecting Israel's existence.
These statements can only be explained as a concerted pressure campaign to push the Hamas movement to abandon the most important point in its Charter, which is the refusal to recognize Israel, under the pretext of advancing the peace process based on the two-state solution going forward.
We do not know how well Hamas can face these pressures. Publicly, the movement rejected in all its literature and the statements of its officials any recognition of Israel and its occupation of historic Palestine and its holy sites, but the same time offered a truce could last for thirty years in the event of a independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders and the return of Palestinian refugees.
The Palestine Liberation Organization came under similar pressure which led eventually to the Oslo accords and the recognition of the State of Israel and renunciation of terrorism or armed struggle and the adoption of two-state solution and peaceful negotiations as the only way to get to an independent Palestinian state.
...After about 18 years of negotiations on the basis of two-state solution, a Palestinian state is still elusive, and more dangerously, the encroachment of settlements in the West Bank did not stop.
Non-recognition of Israel is the most important point in the Charter of the movement 'Hamas.' Do not give it away for free in response to U.S. pressure, in order to sit down with some U.S. or European officials. It's a trap had been carefully prepared to dump the backbone ideology of the movement, which brought her the basic respect for the Palestinian people and win in the last legislative elections, especially that any non-recognition has been deepened by upholding the option of resistance and practical application on the ground.
...We hope that the 'Hamas' can learn from the lessons of the degrading treatment suffered by the PLO before being dragged or falling into the trap of not only recognizing Israel, but also of Israel being a Jewish state.
Palestine Today reports that George Galloway, along with other members of Viva Palestina like Kevin Ovenden, met with Islamic Jihad leader Abu Imad Rifai in his office in Beirut.
Galloway praised the Arabs who marched towards Israel on May 15th.
Rifal thanked Galloway for his help in the battle against the Zionist enemy and emphasized the "right" of Palestinian Arabs to "return" to Israel. He also slammed President Obama for supposedly creating a conspiracy where Palestinian Arabs would be naturalized in the countries of their birth like Lebanon and Syria instead of being kept in stateless misery for the upcoming decades as he evidently prefers.
Here is the happy couple:
I cannot find a single news story or blog entry that mentions that Galloway is even in Lebanon, let alone meeting with and supporting terrorist leaders. But this photo was indeed taken today.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
Are we There Yet?
-
[image: Dry Bones cartoon, Israel, Hostages, Shuldig, Gaza, Hamas, War,
Oct7,]
Has Israel been Trumped?
* * * Please support DRY BONES (through PayPal or y...
Chief Rabbi of Turkey passes away
-
The Haham Bashi or Chief Rabbi of Turkey, Isak Haleva, has died aged 85.
Haleva served as chief rabbi since 2002 in an increrasingly hostile climate
fo...
Diversity Insurance
-
Is your home on fire because your local fire department is run by three
lesbians named Kirsten and there’s no water because that department is also
bein...
Steve Kramer: Eternal Refugee Status? – No problem
-
Steve Kramer: Eternal Refugee Status? – No problem IsraelSeen.com
Steve Kramer: Eternal Refugee Status? – No problem In addition to the many
news sources I...
The BBC apology should be absolutely rejected
-
Last week I ran an exclusive which exposed blatant antisemitism in a live
BBC News interview with a Jerusalem based Rabbi. When faced with the
undeniable...
Jewish "settlers" in 1932, in Russia
-
Mr. Medad, are Jews in their historic national homeland termed "settlers"?
That's the language everyone now uses. In the London Times of August 20,
1932, ...
Just in time for Chanukah – 4 interesting new books
-
He’s An Anti-Zionist Too!: Cartoons by Elder of Ziyon The Elder of Ziyon
(EoZ) is one of the most important pro-Israel bloggers. You can read my
interview ...
Hamas/Gaza War Musings #36- Dangerous Surrender!
-
As a student of the Bible/Tanach, most recently Prophets/Navi, that's the
message. Gd will save us if we do the right thing. That's how we won the
1967...
One Choice: Fight to Win
-
Yesterday Israel preempted a potentially disastrous attack by Hezbollah on
the center of the country. Thirty minutes before launch time, our aircraft
destr...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Elder of Ziyon
