Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, May 23, 2011

When Begin chastised the US

Netanyahu's words at the White House were positively obsequious compared to Menachem Begin's reaction to what he characterized as US "punishment" of Israel for the Osirak attack, Golan Heights law and Lebanon invasion, in December 1981.

From Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs website:

In an unprecedented move, Mr. Begin summoned the United States ambassador to Israel, and read to him the following statement. It was later read to the cabinet and issued to the public. Mr. Begin complained that the U.S. had punished Israel three times in the past six months. Israel was no. "vassal state" or a "banana republic." He also hinted of anti-Semitic overtones in some of the punitive measures taken by the United States. Text:

Three times during the past six months, the U.S. Government has "punished" Israel.

On June 7 we destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor "Osirak" near Baghdad. I don't want to mention to you today from whom we received the final information that this reactor was going to produce atomic bombs. We had no doubt about that: therefore our action was an act of salvation, an act of national self-defense in the most lofty sense of the concept. We saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, including tens of thousands of children.

Nonetheless, you announced that you were punishing us - and you left unfilled a signed and sealed contract that included specific dates for the supply of (war) planes.

Not long after, in a defensive act - after a slaughter was committed against our people leaving three dead (including an Auschwitz survivor) and 29 were injured we bombed the PLO headquarters in Beirut.

You have no moral right to preach to us about civilian casualties. We have read the history of World War Two and we know what happened to civilians when you took action against an enemy. We have also read the history of the Vietnam war and your phrase "body-count". We always make efforts to avoid hitting civilian populations, but sometimes it is unavoidable - as was the case in our bombing of the PLO headquarters.

We sometimes risk the lives of our soldiers to avoid civilian casualties.

Nonetheless, you punished us: you suspended delivery of F-15 planes.

A week ago, at the instance of the Government, the Knesset passed on all three readings by an overwhelming majority of two-thirds, the "Golan Heights Law."

Now you once again declare that you are punishing Israel.

What kind of expression is this - "punishing Israel"? Are we a vassal state of yours? Are we a banana republic? Are we youths of fourteen who, if they don't behave properly, are slapped across the fingers?

Let me tell you who this government is composed of. It is composed of people whose lives were spent in resistance, in fighting and in suffering. You will not frighten us with "punishments". He who threatens us will find us deaf to his threats. We are only prepared to listen to rational arguments.

You have no right to "punish" Israel - and I protest at the very use of this term.

You have announced that you are suspending consultations on the implementation of the memorandum of understanding on strategic cooperation, and that your return to these consultations in the future will depend on progress achieved in the autonomy talks and on the situation in Lebanon.

You want to make Israel a hostage of the memorandum of understanding.

I regard your announcement suspending the consultations on the memorandum of as the abrogation (by you) of the memorandum. No "sword of Damocles" is going to hang over our head. So we duly take note of the fact that you have abrogated the memorandum of understanding.

The people of Israel has lived 3,700 years without a memorandum of understanding with America - and it will continue to live for another 3,700. In our eyes it (i.e., the U.S. suspension) is an abrogation of the memorandum.

We will not agree that you should demand of us to allow the Arabs of East Jerusalem to take part in the autonomy elections - and threaten us that if we don't consent you will suspend the memorandum.

You have imposed upon us financial punishments - and have (thereby) violated the word of the President. When Secretary Haig was here he read from a written document the words of President Reagan that you would purchase 200 million dollars worth of Israel arms and other equipment. Now you say it will not be so.

This is therefore a violation of the President's word. Is it customary? Is it proper?

You cancelled an additional 100 million dollars. What did you want to do - to "hit us in our pocket"?

In 1946 there lived in this house a British general by the name of Barker. Today I live here. When we fought him, you called us "terrorists" - and we carried on fighting. After we attacked his headquarters in the requisitioned building of the King David Hotel, Barker said: "This race will only be influenced by being hit in the pocket" - and he ordered his soldiers to stop patronizing Jewish cafes.

To hit us in the pocket - this is the philosophy of Barker. Now I understand why the whole great effort in the Senate to obtain a majority for the arms deal with Saudi Arabia was accompanied by an ugly campaign of anti-Semitism.

First, the slogan was sounded "Begin or Reagan?" - and that meant that whoever opposes the deal is supporting a foreign prime minister and is not loyal to the President of the United States. And thus Senators like Jackson, Kennedy, Packwood and of course Boschwitz are not loyal citizens.

Then the slogan was sounded "We should not let the Jews determine the foreign policy of the United States." What was the meaning of this slogan? The Greek minority in the U.S. did much to determine the Senate decision to withhold weapons from Turkey after it invaded Cyprus. No one will frighten the great and free Jewish community of the U.S., no one will succeed in cowing them with anti-Semitic propaganda. They will stand by our side. This is the land of their forefathers - and they have a right and a duty to support it.

Some say we must "rescind" the law passed by the Knesset. "To rescind" is a concept from the days of the Inquisition. Our forefathers went to the stake rather than "rescind" their faith.

We are not going to the stake. Thank God. We have enough strength to defend our independence and to defend our rights.

If it were up to me (alone) I would say we should not rescind the law. But as far as I can judge there is in fact no one on earth who can persuade the Knesset to rescind the law which it passed by a two-thirds majority.

Mr. Weinberger - and later Mr. Haig - said that the law adversely affects UN Resolution 242. Whoever says that has either not read the Resolution or has forgotten it, or has not understood it.

The essence of the Resolution is negotiation to determine agreed and recognized borders. Syria has announced that it will not conduct negotiations with us, that it does not and will not recognize us - and thus removed from Resolution 242 its essence. How, therefore, could we adversely affect 242?

As regards the future, please be kind enough to inform the Secretary of, State that the Golan Heights Law will remain valid. There is no force on earth that can bring about its rescission.

As for the contention that we surprised you, the truth is that we did not want to embarrass you. We knew your difficulties. You come to Riyadh and Damascus. It was President Reagan who said that Mr. Begin was right - that had Israel told the U.S. about the law (in advance) the U.S. would have said no. We did not want you to say no - and then go ahead and apply Israeli law to the Golan Heights.

Our intention was not to embarrass you.

As regards Lebanon, I have asked that the Secretary of State be informed that we will not attack, but if we are attacked, we will counterattack.

Somehow, Israel survived this verbal attack on its ally.

A two-year old article that compares Begin with how Netanyahu had been acting in the face of American pressure can be found here.

(h/t Yisrael Medad)

Proof that Arabs don't care about the "right to return"

From the Jordan Times:

Prime Minister Marouf Bakhit on Sunday stressed the importance of the right of return for all Palestinian refugees, which is a top priority for Jordan.

During a meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Amman yesterday, Bakhit said Jordan is concerned about recognition of the right of return before discussions on the mechanisms to implement it.

During His Majesty King Abdullah’s meeting with US President Barack Obama recently in Washington, the King underlined the firm Arab stance regarding Palestinians’ legitimate rights and that reaching a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict should be at the top of the global political agenda, Bakhit said.

Abbas voiced appreciation for the King’s supportive stances towards the Palestinian people in international forums, stressing that King Abdullah’s positions are in line with the Palestinian national principled stands.

Abbas underlined the importance of Israel’s recognition of the Palestinian refugees’ right of return and compensation, adding that it should also recognise Jerusalem as part of the occupied Arab territories.

Is Jordan really keen on the rights of Palestinian Arabs to "return" to their homes?

In Jordan, in the town of Jerash, is a "refugee" camp that is mostly made up of Gazans who fled in 1967. It is even known as the "Gaza camp." Some 24,000 people live there.

The homes that the Jerash Palestinians want to return to are not in Israel, but in Gaza. Moreover, Gazans in Jordan do not enjoy the benefits of citizenship so they are living in really wretched conditions with very few human rights.

If Jordan is so interested in the "right to return," then why aren't they insisting that the Jerash camp be dismantled and the people go back to Gaza? Right now, there is nothing stopping Jordan from arranging safe passage through Egypt to Gaza. They can go back and claim their old homes, just like the other "refugees" want to do in Israel.

So why is there no Arab demand that Jerash residents go to Gaza?

The same UNRWA money being used to maintain the camp in Jordan can be redirected to Gaza. No doubt there would be plenty of international support for building new shelters if necessary. Free Gaza and the IHH would contribute all the money needed, as would Arab nations who are interested in the "right to return."

After all, these people lost their homes and want to go back. This is the essence of "return."
It is a consensus position among Arabs. Israel can't stop them at the Rafah border. So what's the problem?

The Jerash residents themselves clearly want to go back to Gaza. From 2005:

As children in the street chanted "Gaza is liberated," 65-year-old Ayed Suleiman Abu-Hashish broke into tears.

"I can't wait to go back," he said. "I bet it has changed a lot since I left nearly 40 years ago."

For many in this squalid refugee camp, Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip (search), which began Monday, revived hopes they could return to homes they fled in the 1967 Middle East War.

Could it be that Arab idea of "return" is only to parts of "historic Palestine" and not to others? And those parts all happen to be Israeli?

The fact that Jerash exists today, six years after Israel left Gaza, without anyone calling for it to be dismantled, shows that the Arab demand for "return" has nothing to do with their feelings towards their Palestinian brethren - and has everything to do with destroying Israel.

(h/t Sabril, Joel)

Erekat emerges, adds a new precondition

From JPost:

Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat said that the Palestinians need to hear one line from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in order to return to the negotiating table. "There's one line," Erekat told Army Radio Monday, that "negotiations should lead to two states along 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps."

The PA, he repeated, is "waiting to see if Prime Minister Netanyahu says he accepts two states on 1967 lines with agreed swaps. Until we hear that, I think it would be a waste of time to speak about any other issue."

Didn't Erekat resign a few months ago? Or was that just one of the many lies that he likes to tell?

Jeffrey Goldberg, the "sha, shtil!" Jew

An old joke:

Two Jews are dragged off by anti-Semites before a firing squad. The first one cries, "Stop! Stop! You're murdering an innocent man."

"Shhhhh!" hisses the second Jew. "Don't cause trouble!"

Throughout the history of the Diaspora, Jews have become almost genetically programmed to embrace the philosophy that they must meekly submit to the will of their rulers, that the worst thing to do was to call attention to themselves. Back-room politics was the preferred way to get things done, in places that Jews could exercise that prerogative. This was a very good survival tactic for a small nation that was spread out in the world.

Zionism brought with it an alternative method: defending your people from a position of pride and a knowledge that you are right.

These two methods have clashed in the past. During the Holocaust, there were many (mostly religious) Jews who tirelessly fought behind the scenes to save as many Jews as possible; there were others who fearlessly went public with their battles - much to the dismay of Jews who were raised with the idea of the Yiddish "Sha, shtil!" - "Shut up!"

The same battle occurred during the long fight to open up the Soviet Union to allowing Jews to emigrate. In that case, the loud people won. The mass rallies in Washington were noted in Moscow, and they brought the issue to the forefront in Congress and in the White House. Ultimately, the loudmouths won.

Israel finds itself still under attack by the "Sha, shtil" Jews, Jews who are fundamentally uncomfortable with the idea of fellow Jews acting truly independently. These Jews cannot wrap their heads around the idea of Israel proudly acting for its own best interests, or at best, acting against what they arrogantly believe are Israel's best interests from the Diaspora.

Jeffrey Goldberg's latest column shows him to be a "sha, shtil!" Jew.

Like many of you, I watched the Prime Minister of Israel publicly lecture the President of the United States on Jewish history with a mixture of shock, amusement and bewilderment.

Notably, not an ounce of pride.

It wasn't the content of Netanyahu's lecture that I found so shocking -- Jews, over a few thousand years, have earned a great deal of our paranoia -- but that he chose to hector the American president, an American president who, the day before, gave Netanyahu two enormous gifts -- a denunciation of the radical Islamist terror group Hamas, and a promise to fight unilateral Palestinian efforts to seek United Nations recognition as an independent state -- in public, in the White House, in a tone that suggested he thought he was speaking to an ignoramus. Politico's Mike Allen, who writes Washington's most influential tip sheet, framed the Bibi lecture this way: "Netanyahu scolds Obama in Oval," and he goes on to quote NBC's Andrea Mitchell telling David Gregory, "I was told that even some Israeli officials, David, were uncomfortable with what they acknowledged was a lecturing tone by the prime minister. But he felt very strongly he had to say this to the world, (in) President Obama's face."

It is telling that Goldberg feels that an American president denouncing a terror group is an "enormous gift." Jews should genuflect when a president acknowledges the bleeding obvious?

Goldberg also doesn't get who Netanyahu's audience was, as alluded to by Andrea Mitchell. Netanyahu wasn't so much lecturing Obama - he actually took pains to be polite in his unscripted, un-teleprompted speech - as much as he was using the opportunity to speak to the world. Rarely do Westerners actually get to hear the words of an Israeli leader beyond sound-bites, and here Netanyahu had an audience much larger than he ever had speaking to Wolf Blitzer. It might have been a lecture, but it was largely meant for the world.

Goldberg lists the reasons for his "sha, shtil!" discomfort:

There are a number of problems, tactical and strategic, with Netanyahu's pedantic behavior:
1) President Obama actually does understands Jewish history: he understands it well enough to know that the permanent occupation of the West Bank would be an historical anomaly;

Netanyahu did not say, or even imply, anything about a permanent occupation of the entire West Bank. This is Goldberg putting his "hawkish Likud" meme ahead of what was actually said. Netanyahu's words could have been said with very little change by Tzipi Livni or Ehud Barak and still been consistent with their parties' policies.

It is also profoundly troubling that Goldberg has no feelings at all about Israel losing its holiest places because they happen to all be in what he apparently believes is Arab, Muslim land and whose Jewishness is merely an "historic anomaly."

2) Even if Obama didn't understand Jewish history, it is still off-putting for many Americans to watch their president being lectured by a foreign leader in his own house;

"Sha, shtil!" People understand, and respect, pride and the truth. Netanyahu's major point was that too much of Western Middle East policy is based on not wanting to ruffle the feathers of the Arab world and therefore avoiding saying basic truths, like the fact that Palestinian Arab "refugees" are never, ever going to "return." If Obama would have stood up and actually said that in his address, it would have been the biggest step towards real peace in recent memory.

3) The Prime Minister doesn't seem to understand what President Obama is trying to tell him: That Israel cannot maintain the occupation of the West Bank without becoming a pariah state (previous LIkud-bred prime ministers, namely Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, both understood this);

Given that this is a theme that is found ad nauseum in every liberal publication, it is absurd to think that Netanyahu doesn't understand this perspective. And, again, Goldberg is believing that "occupation" is an all-or-nothing game; he has bought the lie that somehow an independent Palestine must be along some arbitrary lines that have nothing to do with security and are themselves the real historical anomaly. Goldberg here is engaging in the same kind of condescending rhetoric that he accuses Netanyahu of.

4) The Prime Minister desperately needs President Obama to defend Israel in the United Nations, and even more crucially, to confront Iran's nuclear program, which poses an existential threat to the Jewish state; angering him constantly doesn't seem to be an effective way to marshal the President's support;

And when, exactly, have the "sha, shtil" methods made Obama more likely to love Israel and understand her position? Whether Goldberg likes it or not, Obama has publicly moved closer to Israel's correct positions exactly because of external pressure, not from Goldberg's style of trying to privately convince him.

5) Based on the mail I've been receiving, and conversations I've been having with Jewish leaders of various ideological persuasions, there is a great worry that Netanyahu, through his behavior even more than his policies, is alienating other of Israel's friends, needlessly.

The kind of people that Goldberg is corresponding with are the kinds of people who already agree with his "sha, shtil" mentality.

As I have pointed out previously, the supposedly moderate Mahmoud Abbas has truly insulted Obama - directly, not couched in diplomatic niceties - only a few months ago. Goldberg didn't rage against this slap in the face of his President then. Perhaps he was not even aware of the fact that the PA government officially called the US an obstacle to peace and said it cannot be an honest broker - words that make Netanyahu's look like fawning praise.

What was the penalty to Abbas for putting out this press release on his own government website? How did it affect US/Palestinian Arab relations? Where was the gnashing of teeth by Palestinian "moderates" about how Abbas crossed the line?

In short, why is Israel standing up for its principles so awful when her enemies do it routinely - and insultingly without any repercussions?

It is because Arabs never grew up with the concept of "sha, shtil!"

Report from AIPAC, day 1 (Bruce)

Fellow blogger Bruce is attending the AIPAC conference and he filed this report from Day 1:

In the first day of the conference, two politicians elicited howls of support from over 10,000 AIPAC delegates, after they publicly criticized President Obama's stance on the pre-Six Day War lines.

In a dramatic speech just moments before President Obama took the podium, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer [D] jabbed the President emphasizing "if peace and security are to exist, Israel's borders must be defensible and must reflect reality on the ground." That a fellow Democrat would sting the President seemed to thrill the crowd, which erupted in a howls of agreement which lasted for several minutes. It was the most dramatic moment of the day, which began with hours of exhausting pre-conference security dictated by President Obama's attendance.

AIPAC President Lee Rosenberg's introduction of President Obama was unusual, but carefully scripted to help the President avoid a cold greeting. Mr. Rosenberg gave a traditional introduction, the crowd rose to stand for President Obama, but then Mr. Rosenberg awkwardly added "before the President addresses us, I'd like to add..." He then gave a rather long list of thank-yous ["we thank you Mr. President..."], seemingly to remind the crowd of times when we were happier with him. When Rosenberg finished, the President received a respectful welcoming, which included a milquetoast standing ovation.

President Obama's speech was well crafted and took us through areas of common ground [Iron Dome & Iran]. The two most poignant moments of his speech was when he insisted that Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist before any negotiations and his call for Hamas' release of Gilad Shalit. All of this was, of course, absent from Thursday's "Arab Spring" Speech. One had the distinct impression that the President was trying to clean up the electoral problems created by his picking yet another fight with Netanyahu. To his credit, the President pointedly said that he knew that he "generated some controversy over the past few days." But then he had the chutzpah to quote the offensive lines from his Arab Spring Speech, trying to claim that he was merely misunderstood. That earned him the only audible booing of the speech.

The most intelligent comments of the day came from Majority Whip Eric Cantor [R].  His speech included the following:

"In order for us to win this great struggle, we must have the courage to see the world not as we wish it to be, but as it truly is. It is not morally equivalent when the offenses of terrorists are equated with the defenses of Israel.

The following story illustrates Israel's dilemma.

A Palestinian woman from Gaza arrives at Soroka Hospital in Beersheba for lifesaving skin treatment for burns over half her body. After the conclusion of her extensive treatment, the woman is invited back for follow-up visits to the outpatient clinic. One day she is caught at the border crossing wearing a suicide belt. Her intention? To blow herself up at the same clinic that saved her life.

This is the root of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. It is not about the '67 lines."

With that the crowd again erupted in the longest standing ovation of the day.

Cantor added:

"To Mr. Abbas, I say: Stop the incitement in your media and your schools. Stop naming public squares and athletic teams after suicide bombers. And come to the negotiating table when you have prepared your people to forego hatred and renounce terrorism - and Israel will embrace you."

While Minority Whip Hoyer earns the "most dramatic moment of the day" award, Majority Whip Cantor earns the "most intelligent comments of the day" award.

Donate to erect a Gilad Shalit billboard near the UN

Donations are being solicited to put a billboard near the UN, in an initiative that is supported by the Shalit family, asking that the international community works to free Gilad Shalit.

This is a great idea to keep his plight in the public eye.

Here's a JPost article about this campaign.

Donate now!

Why is the status quo unsustainable?

Twice this week we have heard President Obama declare, as if it is self-evident, that "the status quo is unsustainable."

It is worthwhile to examine exactly why the President believes that.

These seem to be the reasons he gave Sunday:

First, the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian territories. This will make it harder and harder – without a peace deal – to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state.

This is an old argument, and I cannot say that I am expert enough to say how true it is. But it is worth mentioning that this is hardly a universal view, and that there is much evidence that shows otherwise. As with everything else, the truth needs to be determined outside of politics.

Second, technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself in the absence of a genuine peace.

A genuine peace is one where Israel's neighbors do not even fantasize about attacking Israel. Not one where they are coerced into not attacking by an ephemeral government, not one where they do not attack because of the military consequences - but one where they simply have no desire to, as I imagine most nations in Western Europe and the Americas are.

This will never happen in the Middle East. There will never be that level of peace, just as there wasn't between Israel and Egypt. The best we can ever hope for realistically is a detente where the weaker party has no desire to stir things up, even if it covets everything owned by the other.

This means that the best that Israel can hope for is a "Palestine" that keeps a short leash on its terrorists out of fear. Not love, not friendship, but fear. Just as Israel is not currently overly concerned about rocket attacks from Egypt, because it knows that Egypt will work to stop any such attacks, that is the best that Israel can want from a Palestinian Arab state.

And this is exactly the status quo today.

Anything that upsets this status quo will inevitably increase the danger to Israel's citizens. The reason is simple: real peace is not possible between Arabs and Jews who are not in a dhimmified state and who control land considered to be both Arab and Muslim. Muslims aren't going to change their religion and Arabs are not going to change their culture just because the president wishes to use his supposed great powers of personal persuasion.

And third, a new generation of Arabs is reshaping the region. A just and lasting peace can no longer be forged with one or two Arab leaders. Going forward, millions of Arab citizens have to see that peace is possible for that peace to be sustained.

The Arabs who are revolting have shown not only no desire to have a peaceful relationship with Israel but a significant desire to fight Israel. Whether this trend wil continue with each Arab uprising remains to be seen but there is little reason to be optimistic. Optimism, in this case, is the enemy of reality, and saying that peace must occur because it, um, just has to is simply ignoring reality. Israel can do nothing to make Arabs like them enough for real peace, in this or any other universe.

Just as the context has changed in the Middle East, so too has it been changing in the international community over the last several years. There is a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations. They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process – or the absence of one. Not just in the Arab World, but in Latin America, in Europe, and in Asia. That impatience is growing, and is already manifesting itself in capitols around the world.

Is impatience a reason to do something foolhardy? I can guarantee that if these impatient countries knew that the "peace process" would lead to war - and that this is pretty much inevitable - their enthusiasm would wane quickly. They are also wishing and hoping for a peace that is impossible.

Right now, under this supposedly unsustainable status quo, West Bank Palestinian Arabs are in about as good shape as they were during the 90s under Oslo - an economic boom they threw away with the second intifada. Gazans, now that they have mostly stopped rocket attacks, are also in better shape then at any time since Hamas took over Gaza.

If an independent Palestine was declared, the economies of both areas would plummet again. Israel would wash its hands of existing agreements that have helped make Ramallah and Nablus and even Jenin normal places again. The PA economy, right now completely dependent on Israel (and curiously deficient in having forged close trading relationships with other Arab countries) would go into a tailspin, budgets wouldn't be met, police and security personnel wouldn't be paid, and they would then migrate over to (probably Iranian-funded) terrorist alternatives. This is not a pessimistic Likudnik pie in the sky theory - this is what we saw happen during the second intifada. If police aren't paid, they join terror groups who will pay them. In Gaza, they're a bit more honest about it.

All of a sudden, the status quo doesn't look so bad. The "unsustainable" status quo is a far sight better than what will replace it.

BDS Medical Emergency Card

People who want to boycott Israeli goods are invited to print this and carry it with them at all times.

On the back is the fine print:

Israel is a leader in biotechnology development

Israel developed a drug that delays Alzheimer’s and helps Parkinson’s patients

Teva is a leading pharmaceutical firm from Israel - no medicines from them

Two out of three common Multiple Sclerosis drug treatments were developed in Israel

Israeli company Given Imagining, developed the PillCam for examining the esophagus and digestive tract.

Medical researchers in Israel developed a device that looks like a regular pen, but tests and identifies unwanted substances in bodily fluids

Israel developed a revolutionary device for diagnosing sleep related breathing disorders

And much more

(h/t Harry's Place via Ploni Almoni)

Aftenposten headline: "Rich Jews Threaten Obama"

The headline has since changed, but the caches show that it was really what they had written originally.

Details at Tundra Tabloids.

There is less than an hour left to vote in the Pro-Israel Blog-Off semi-finals, where I am up against CiFWatch in an epic battle of good vs. good. They put up their last-minute post asking for votes, so now it's my turn.

As of this writing, I am about ten votes behind, so lets make this a photo-finish! If I win, I promise a great finalist post. I've already done a cartoon, a serious text post and my current entry, my series of "This is Zionism" posters. You might be able to guess what form my finalist post would take.

But I have to win this round to have the incentive to create that final post.

So, go out and vote, and may the best blog win!

Full text of Obama speech at AIPAC

From Politico, the entire text:

Good morning! Thank you, Rosy, for your very kind introduction. But even more, thank you for your many years friendship. Back in Chicago, when I was just getting started in national politics, I reached out to a lot of people for advice and counsel, and Rosy was one of the very first. When I made my first visit to Israel, after entering the Senate, Rosy – you were at my side every step of that very meaningful journey through the Holy Land. And I want to thank you for your enduring friendship, your leadership and for your warm welcome today.

Thank you to David Victor, Howard Kohr and all the Board of Directors. And let me say that it’s wonderful to look out and see so many great friends, including Alan Solow, Howard Green and a very large delegation from Chicago.

I want to thank the members of Congress who are joining you today—who do so much to sustain the bonds between the United States and Israel—including Eric Cantor, Steny Hoyer, and the tireless leader I was proud to appoint as the new chair of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

We’re joined by Israel’s representative to the United States, Ambassador Michael Oren. As well as one of my top advisors on Israel and the Middle East for the past four years, and who I know is going to be an outstanding ambassador to Israel—Dan Shapiro. Dan has always been a close and trusted advisor, and I know he’ll do a terrific job.

And at a time when so many young people around the world are standing up and making their voices heard, I also want to acknowledge all the college students from across the country who are here today. No one has a greater stake in the outcome of events that are unfolding today than your generation, and it’s inspiring to see you devote your time and energy to help shape the future.

Now, I’m not here to subject you to a long policy speech. I gave one on Thursday in which I said that the United States sees the historic changes sweeping the Middle East and North Africa as a moment of great challenge, but also a moment of opportunity for greater peace and security for the entire region, including the State of Israel.

On Friday, I was joined at the White House by Prime Minister Netanyahu, and we reaffirmed that fundamental truth that has guided our presidents and prime ministers for more than 60 years—that, even while we may at times disagree, as friends sometimes will, the bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable, and the commitment of the United States to the security of Israel is ironclad.

A strong and secure Israel is in the national security interest of United States not simply because we share strategic interests, although we do both seek a region where families and their children can live free from the threat of violence. It’s not simply because we face common dangers, although there can be no denying that terrorism and the spread of nuclear weapons are grave threats to both our nations.

America’s commitment to Israel’s security also flows from a deeper place —and that’s the values we share. As two people who struggled to win our freedom against overwhelming odds, we understand that preserving the security for which our forefathers fought must be the work of every generation. As two vibrant democracies, we recognize that the liberties and freedom we cherish must be constantly nurtured. And as the nation that recognized the State of Israel moments after its independence, we have a profound commitment to its survival as a strong, secure homeland of the Jewish people.

We also know how difficult that search for security can be, especially for a small nation like Israel in a tough neighborhood. I’ve seen it firsthand. When I touched my hand against the Western Wall and placed my prayer between its ancient stones, I thought of all the centuries that the children of Israel had longed to return to their ancient homeland. When I went to Sderot, I saw the daily struggle to survive in the eyes of an eight-year old boy who lost his leg to a Hamas rocket. And when I walked among the Hall of Names at Yad Vashem, I grasped the existential fear of Israelis when a modern dictator seeks nuclear weapons and threatens to wipe Israel off the map.

Because we understand the challenges Israel faces, I and my administration have made the security of Israel a priority. It’s why we’ve increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels. It’s why we’re making our most advanced technologies available to our Israeli allies. And it’s why, despite tough fiscal times, we’ve increased foreign military financing to record levels.

That includes additional support – beyond regular military aid – for the Iron Dome anti-rocket system. This is a powerful example of American-Israel cooperation which has already intercepted rockets from Gaza and helped saved innocent Israeli lives. So make no mistake, we will maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge.

You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Here in the U.S., we’ve imposed the toughest sanctions ever on the Iranian regime. At the United Nations, we’ve secured the most comprehensive international sanctions on the regime, which have been joined by allies and partners around the world. Today, Iran is virtually cut off from large parts of the international financial system, and we are going to keep up the pressure. So let me be absolutely clear – we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Its illicit nuclear program is just one challenge that Iran poses. As I said on Thursday, the Iranian government has shown its hypocrisy by claiming to support the rights of protesters while treating its own people with brutality. Moreover, Iran continues to support terrorism across the region, including providing weapons and funds to terrorist organizations. So we will continue to work to prevent these actions, and will stand up to groups like Hezbollah who exercise political assassination, and seek to impose their will through rockets and car bombs.

You also see our commitment to Israel’s security in our steadfast opposition to any attempt to de-legitimize the State of Israel. As I said at the United Nation’s last year, “Israel’s existence must not be a subject for debate,” and “efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States.”

So when the Durban Review Conference advanced anti-Israel sentiment, we withdrew. In the wake of the Goldstone Report, we stood up strongly for Israel’s right to defend itself. When an effort was made to insert the United Nations into matters that should be resolved through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, we vetoed it.

And so, in both word and deed, we have been unwavering in our support of Israel’s security. And it is precisely because of our commitment to Israel’s long-term security that we have worked to advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Now, I have said repeatedly that core issues can only be negotiated in direct talks between the parties. And I indicated on Thursday that the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction. We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel’s right to exist, rejecting violence, and adhering to all existing agreements. And we once again call on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years.

And yet, no matter how hard it may be to start meaningful negotiations under the current circumstances, we must acknowledge that a failure to try is not an option. The status quo is unsustainable. That is why, on Thursday, I stated publicly the principles that the United States believes can provide a foundation for negotiations toward an agreement to end the conflict and all claims – the broad outlines of which have been known for many years, and have been the template for discussions between the United States, Israelis, and Palestinians since at least the Clinton Administration.

I know that stating these principles – on the issues of territory and security – generated some controversy over the past few days. I was not entirely surprised. I know very well that the easy thing to do, particularly for a President preparing for reelection, is to avoid any controversy. But as I said to Prime Minister Netanyahu, I believe that the current situation in the Middle East does not allow for procrastination. I also believe that real friends talk openly and honestly with one another. And so I want to share with you some of what I said to the Prime Minister.

Here are the facts we all must confront. First, the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian territories. This will make it harder and harder – without a peace deal – to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state.

Second, technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself in the absence of a genuine peace.

And third, a new generation of Arabs is reshaping the region. A just and lasting peace can no longer be forged with one or two Arab leaders. Going forward, millions of Arab citizens have to see that peace is possible for that peace to be sustained.

Just as the context has changed in the Middle East, so too has it been changing in the international community over the last several years. There is a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations. They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process – or the absence of one. Not just in the Arab World, but in Latin America, in Europe, and in Asia. That impatience is growing, and is already manifesting itself in capitols around the world.

These are the facts. I firmly believe, and repeated on Thursday, that peace cannot be imposed on the parties to the conflict. No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state. And the United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the UN or in any international forum. Because Israel’s legitimacy is not a matter for debate.

Moreover, we know that peace demands a partner – which is why I said that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Palestinians who do not recognize its right to exist, and we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and their rhetoric.

But the march to isolate Israel internationally – and the impulse of the Palestinians to abandon negotiations – will continue to gain momentum in the absence of a credible peace process and alternative. For us to have leverage with the Palestinians, with the Arab States, and with the international community, the basis for negotiations has to hold out the prospect of success. So, in advance of a five day trip to Europe in which the Middle East will be a topic of acute interest, I chose to speak about what peace will require.

There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. Administrations. But since questions have been raised, let me repeat what I actually said on Thursday.

I said that 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.

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.

That is what I said. Now, it was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the lion’s share of the attention. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.

By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is 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.

If there’s a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance. What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. I have done so because we cannot afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades, to achieve peace. The world is moving too fast. The extraordinary challenges facing Israel would only grow. Delay will undermine Israel’s security and the peace that the Israeli people deserve.

I know that some of you will disagree with this assessment. I respect that. And as fellow Americans and friends of Israel, I know that we can have this discussion.

Ultimately, however, it is the right and responsibility of the Israeli government to make the hard choices that are necessary to protect a Jewish and democratic state for which so many generations have sacrificed. And as a friend of Israel, I am committed to doing our part to see that this goal is realized, while calling not just on Israel, but on the Palestinians, the Arab States, and the international community to join us in that effort. Because the burden of making hard choices must not be Israel’s alone.

Even as we do all that’s necessary to ensure Israel’s security; even as we are clear-eyed about the difficult challenges before us; and even as we pledge to stand by Israel through whatever tough days lie ahead – I hope we do not give up on that vision of peace. For if history teaches us anything—if the story of Israel teaches us anything—it is that with courage and resolve, progress is possible. Peace is possible.

The Talmud teaches us that so long as a person still has life, they should never abandon faith. And that lesson seems especially fitting today,

For so long as there are those, across the Middle East and beyond, who are standing up for the legitimate rights and freedoms which have been denied by their governments, the United States will never abandon our support for those rights that are universal.

And so long as there are those who long for a better future, we will never abandon our pursuit of a just and lasting peace that ends this conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security. This is not idealism or naivete. It’s a hard-headed recognition that a genuine peace is the only path that will ultimately provide for a peaceful Palestine as the homeland of the Palestinian people and a Jewish state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.

Thank you. God bless you. God bless Israel, and God bless the United States of America.

If I have time later I will point out where Obama still doesn't get it, but it was all in all a pretty good speech.

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.