Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, May 22, 2011

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.

The Knesset speech that people like to forget

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

Members of Knesset,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer is, of course, nothing.

(h/t Asher)

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

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

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

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

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

Moderate, peace-loving PA putting terrorists on the payroll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the US State Department:

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

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

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

The media jihad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Work accident!

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

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

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

Palestine Papers: Mitchell vs. Erekat

From Ma'an:

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

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

GM: But if you have good faith negotiations …

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

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

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

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

SE: I might go to the General Assembly.

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

SE: Maybe if it’s 50 families.

GM: Let’s not get diverted.
...

GM: How would the process begin?

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

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

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

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

SE: That’s a good question.

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

SE: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GM: So then summon all your energy.

(h/t Serious Black)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MEMRI finds a beauty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afternoon links

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

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

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

BBC: Inside the UK's Hasidic community

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

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

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

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

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

My review of Obama's speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saying that all Arabs must accept peace is important.

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

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

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

At least until the next election.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Artists4Israel paint Hebron

From YNet:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Malaysian "blockade busting" ship still in limbo outside Egypt

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

But Egypt isn't letting it in!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(h/t Mike)

Jordanians against naturalization of Palestinian Arabs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mohammed Suleiman Salama Alfrejat

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