Pentagon Halts Israeli Fighter Jet Bid, US a Rival on Tender

Malkah Fleisher Pentagon Thwarts Israeli Jet Bid
A7 News

A scandal has arisen out of the United States military establishment after Pentagon pressure on Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) to withdraw from a massive aircraft tender for the Indian Air Force leaves competing American aerospace companies in prime position to win it.On the table: a $12 billion Indian Ministry of Defense tender for 126 multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) for the Indian Air Force.

In a bid to win the tender, IAI was offered a partnership with Sweden's Saab AB to jointly develop an advanced model of the JAS-39 Gripen jet fighter. Israel was to build the electronic systems for the craft, including communications, electronic warfare and radar systems.

The Pentagon contacted Israel's Ministry of Defense, ordering them to force IAI out of contention, citing concerns that Israel would integrate American technology into the fighter jets.

However, two of the remaining four bidders are American companies, leaving Israeli officials speculating that the actual reason for the demand was America's interest in winning the bid without having to compete by lowering prices, according to Israeli officials quoted in Israeli media

Lockheed Martin's F-16 and Boeing's F-18 Hornet are still in the running, as well as Russia's MiG-35 and the UK's BAE Eurofighter.

The United States has a history of intervening to thwart Israeli military contracts, to America's benefit. Last summer, Israel's defense establishment backed down from a $500 million Turkish tank tender in order not to compete with the Americans.

In 2006, the IAI lost a $2 billion South Korean Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) tender after the US imposed technological and commercial restrictions, which prevented Israel from meeting the terms of the tender.

In 2003, the US opposed a $1 billion AWACS contract between Israel and India, citing India's stance against the US war in Iraq. The US offered Israel $1 billion in US military goods to back down from the agreement. However, Israeli officials speculated that the US may have opposed the deal for commercial reasons.
Comment: A prime example how politics can impact Israel. This is all about the kind of pressure Obama will use to get his agenda passed. So much for transparency, fairness and equal opportunity to compete.

Read more!

The religious kulturkampf

Isi Leibler
July 6, 2009
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=1689

The intense political and economic challenges confronting us divert attention from a festering kulturkampf within the religious arena the outcome of which will impact heavily on the future of Israeli society. Orthodox Jews were never a monolithic group. Over the past century major divisions separated Zionists and anti-Zionists; those favoring stringent applications of Halacha versus those seeking more liberal interpretations; those rejecting secular studies beyond religious learning versus those seeking to synthesize learning Torah with worldly knowledge.

Current trends display a strengthening in the power of the non-Zionist and more extreme religious elements. This is reflected in the extraordinary growth of the haredi school network with almost 25 percent of Jewish first graders currently estimated to be enrolled in the haredi Ashkenazi or Sephardi educational streams. If the high haredi birthrate (a major asset in maintaining Jewish demographic levels) is sustained, the proportion of haredi schoolchildren in the general population will further increase.

In most developed countries, haredim are not exempt from mandatory government requirements that all children receive a minimal secular education. However here, to obtain haredi political support, the Olmert government agreed to extend state funding to the haredi educational network while simultaneously granting it complete autonomy from the government educational network, thus effectively legitimizing the exclusion of core secular curriculum subjects. The current government has also been pressured into providing additional funds exclusively to the independent haredi school system.

The social, economic and political repercussions of these developments will impact over the next few decades. In an approach without precedent in Jewish tradition, most haredi schoolchildren are being encouraged to disdain the virtues of earning a livelihood. One of our great sages, Maimonides (who would doubtlessly be disqualified from teaching in a typical haredi school because of his secular education) wrote in Mishna Torah, "Whoever thinks he can study Torah and not work, and relies on charity, profanes God's name."

In addition, during these difficult times, graduates from haredi schools obliged to seek employment are discovering that having been denied a secular education and lacking professional skills, they are doomed to a life of poverty and reliance on welfare.

An additional offshoot of this system is an accelerating increase in haredi youngsters evading the draft. It is surely bizarre for religious Zionists to be proportionately overrepresented in IDF combat units, willing to fight and die for their country, while their haredi counterparts, without any genuine halachic justification, as evidenced by the tiny but admirable haredi IDF unit, are directed by their rabbis to shirk their national obligations.

THE HAREDI HIJACKING of state rabbinical instrumentalities and courts is also having major negative social repercussions. A substantial proportion of the newly appointed haredi rabbis, chosen on the basis of cronyism, are utterly unsuited for their roles. Many are also unreconstructed anti-Zionists, refusing to recognize the flag, the national anthem, Independence Day and other obligations of living in a Jewish state.

Even the Chief Rabbinate, once the bastion of religious Zionism, has been transformed into an haredi fiefdom, despite undisguised haredi contempt for the institution. Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger is universally regarded as a mere puppet of the zealots.

The displacement of Zionist rabbis by extremists paves the way for further problems, such as efforts to undermine the heter mechira (sale of land) introduced nearly a century ago by chief rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook to enable farmers to maintain their produce and livelihood during the shmita year.

The most disastrous impact of the haredi dominated rabbinical courts applies to conversion, where fanatical zealots like Rabbi Avraham Sherman are striving to impose unprecedentedly extreme and cruel halachic interpretations.

Sherman went so far as to retroactively annul conversions on grounds of alleged laxity in ritual observance. More outrageously, he accused highly venerated Zionist Rabbi Haim Druckman of expediting fraudulent conversions. He proclaimed that over the past 15 years, thousands of conversions approved by the government Conversion Authority headed by Druckman must be considered invalid unless endorsed by one of his haredi rabbis. Metzger, whose own beit din had supervised these conversions, created a furor after endorsing Sherman's approach and was even called upon to resign.

Every individual is entitled to impose upon himself the most rigorous application of Halacha. Besides there are many positive aspects to the haredi lifestyle that Israelis could emulate to their advantage and a constructive haredi presence should be an important element in the tapestry of Israeli life.

But when zealots leverage their political positions to intrude on personal lives or impose extreme standards on the entire nation, it only serves to alienate people from religion. Even Israelis who support the strengthening of Jewish values within the framework of the state, are angered and frustrated when haredi political zealots leverage their positions to extort sectional concessions which frequently conflict with the national interest.

There are enlightened Orthodox groups sensitive to these tensions which endeavor to promote religious precepts in a nonconfrontational manner. They also encourage a review of Halacha, which has evolved over thousands of years of exile, to relate to the needs of a modern democratic Jewish state. They include organizations like Eretz Hemda, Beit Morasha, Tzohar, Bar-Ilan University and many others who cultivate the shvil hazahav, Maimonides's designated golden path of moderation and tolerance.

THERE IS a need for religious Zionist rabbis and laymen to become more assertive. Religious Zionist parliamentarians scattered among Knesset political parties should insist that state funds for religious functionaries serving in rabbinical courts be channeled toward Zionist rabbis who send their children to the army, embrace modernity and can communicate with university-educated youngsters. While endeavoring to strengthen the Jewish character of the state, they must act on behalf of the nation as a whole and demand an end to shady deals with haredi parties promoting narrow sectional interests. The neutralization of haredi power to extort or veto reform is an additional reason why Kadima should act in the national interest and join the government.

There are ticking time bombs waiting to explode. The aggressiveness of extremist groups, like the Eda Haredit in Jerusalem, which over the past weeks threatened "to set the country on fire" if a proposed Jerusalem parking lot remained open on Shabbat, must be dealt with firmly or the anti-Zionist zealots will achieve a new lease of life.

The time to confront burning issues such as the haredi school system, military service, conversions and Shabbat legislation is now.

ileibler@netvision.net.il

Read more!

Strategic Challenges in Changing Middle East

Moshe Yaalon
A reminder

Ze’ev Schiff Memorial Lecture – June 9, 2009

Good afternoon ladies & gentlemen,

It is a great honor for me to speak to you today here in the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. I feel at home here. Thank you, Rob, for the invitation to honor the memory of my friend and colleague Ze'ev Schiff.
I knew Ze'ev for years. Our personal acquaintance began in 1992. At that time I was the commander of the Judea and Samaria division of the IDF and Ze'ev came to visit the area. Since I was familiar with his articles, I was interested in getting to know him and therefore personally escorted him during his visit. This was enough for me to notice that Ze'ev was a special type of journalist. His primary goal was not to find a scoop. Ze’ev was very systemic in his approach to any issue and he had ample knowledge on a wide variety of subjects. Rather, he was interested in preserving his integrity and, more important, ensuring the integrity of his reporting. So instead of the usual ritual of questions and answers, we spent the time during that visit in a very interesting discussion about the then-prevailing situation, toward which his contribution was no less than mine.

From that meeting on, as I moved from one assignment to another – director of military intelligence, commander of the central command, deputy chief of staff and chief of staff, we continued getting together to discuss the security and military challenges that Israel was facing, and I always came out of these meetings with admiration of Ze'ev's ability to contribute so much from his point of view.

Of course I started reading his articles long before I knew him personally, and I don't think I missed even one of them. Unlike many others, Ze’ev was not affected by which way the winds were blowing at any given time. He followed his own compass and did his own research, and based upon that he drew his own conclusions. That is why he was so highly appreciated both in Israel and throughout the entire world.

Finally I think that Ze'ev was respected also because he was not shy about his patriotism and his care and love for the state of Israel and everything it stands for. This gave him the necessary credibility when he criticized what he thought needed to be corrected and when he challenged what he thought was wrong.

Ze'ev Schiff approached his profession in a very cautious manner because he was fully aware of the huge influence he had on politicians and public opinion. Today, I want to pursue that same path, because I am also aware of the immense impact the media has in shaping policy.

Once the mainstream media starts to believe something is true – or, more troubling, where it fails to even investigate, but simply parrots someone else’s narrative -- and then refers to this as fact or uses it as an underlying assumption, it becomes extremely difficult for anyone to ever thereafter question the veracity of that purported “fact” or the assumption, let alone to uproot and replace it with a different concept. Simply put, it becomes conventional wisdom.

The media is pervasive. It affects our perception, and nowadays perception is a major component of the complicated, asymmetrical conflicts in which our weaker foes depend primarily on cognitive warfare, especially in the changing Middle East.

There are three examples of this phenomenon that I want to discuss today. One relates to the Iranian issue, the second relates to tensions between pragmatists and radicals in the Middle East, and the third, to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The Iranian Issue

There are two problems with the way the media frames the Iranian issue.

The first one is the notion that the Iranian problem is first and foremost a conflict between Iran and Israel. Here we can see, for example, the setting of Fareed Zakaria 's discussion on Iran on CNN. Look at the definition of the subject on the bottom of the screen: "Iran vs. Israel".





The second troubling manner in which the media frames the Iran issue is the recurring suggestion in the media that a combination of a sincere dialogue and non-military sanctions will peacefully persuade the Iranians to change their policy and give up the military nuclear program. Unlike the previous example, which has some relationship to reality, this mistaken assumption is based primarily on wishful thinking.

If, as much evidence suggests, dialogue and non-military sanctions will not work, then there may indeed be a need to resort to the military option in order to halt the Iranian project. Yet, those in the media who frame the issue as one that requires negotiations and diplomacy do the world a disservice by failing to present to their audiences the evidence that such a strategy in fact won’t work.

The media approaches this issue with the assumption that Iran is a rational actor, very much like Western states, and that its primary concern is American behavior towards it.
While I believe this is unlikely, let’s assume that it may be true. But shouldn’t the media nonetheless inform their public of an alternative view?
That alternative view suggests that the Iranians have a completely different agenda and set of motivating factors. Those facts will not only sound strange, but very uncomfortable to the Western ear, yet there is substantial basis for them. All the media has to do is take note of them and report them to the public.
For example, many key Iranian players, in particular the Mullahs, consider the destruction of Israel as just a step on the way to changing the entire world order. The Iranians want to bring about this change, and they have many allies who, though they may not share Iran’s Shiite goals, nonetheless share its desire to bring down American-led global liberalization. Syria and Chavez are of course key active partners in this. The goal of such an alliance is not just the conquest of Israel, but the entire Western world as well.
To appreciate the fallacy of this notion of Iranian “rationality,” it is crucial to understand that the Iranian leadership, just like all the other radicals, is not interested in contributing to stability. On the contrary, they are interested in turbulence and instability - as long as it doesn't threaten their survival and their ability to stay in power - because stability would shore up the very world order they want to replace. Furthermore, the Iranians view the West’s reluctance to use force against them as a lack of will and proof that Iran is moving in the right direction.
There are so many examples of this mindset in the rhetoric of the Iranian leadership that it is quite amazing to consider how little of that affects the way the media refers to the Iranian issue. Let me just mention some of President Ahmadinejad's declarations in recent weeks. For example when he paid a visit to his Syrian counterpart, President Bashar Al Assad, in early May he said that "Alongside the resistance and steadfastness, we must also strive to create a new world order; otherwise new oppressive regimes will emerge." He called the West's fundamental values "inhuman and belonging to past decades," and insisted that "The philosophy and order that emerged after World War II have come to the end of their road, and [the West] is unable to offer solutions for the world's problems." Now granted, this may sound silly to Western ears – that we are inhuman and oppressive in comparison with Syria and Iran. But the media censors this material because they either don’t take it seriously, or they don’t want people to draw the wrong conclusions from it.
Ahmadinejad also added: "today the circumstances in the world and in the region are rapidly changing. Those who, for many years, said that Iran and Syria must be pressured, and wanted to prevent [them] from defending the rights of the peoples in the region, now openly declare that they require the help of Tehran and Damascus in solving their problems. Today we are beginning to move on the path of triumph, and even greater victories lie ahead." Note how Ahmadinejad interprets US desire to negotiate as a sign to press their own advantage.
In a recent speech in Kerman Ahmadinejad announced that Iran was drawing up a new package of proposals for negotiations surrounding the country’s nuclear program. He emphasized that the West was weak, and could not force anything on Iran. “If the United States wants dialogue, there must first be a withdrawal of all Western forces, the destruction of the West's entire nuclear arsenal, and respect for Iran's right to its nuclear program,” he said, and added. “Nearly 7,000 centrifuges are spinning today at Natanz, mocking you."
"The Iranian nation will not accept domination from oppressive powers," said Ahmadinejad, dressed in his trademark light-colored jacket and dark trousers as young men and women chanted "Ahmadi! Ahmadi!" "We have to build an Iran that will have a role in directing the future of the world," he added as the crowd kept shouting. Again, some may wish to dismiss this as “mere rhetoric,” but is the media acting responsibly when it suppresses the public’s awareness of the problem?
There are so many examples of this mindset in the rhetoric of the Iranian leadership that it is quite amazing to consider that none of this gets reported to the Western public in the mainstream media and, more troubling, that the media doesn’t even stop to reevaluate their positions.
How can the American public intelligently discuss major policy decisions that could have major consequences for the entire world, when the MSM withholds basic information that would enable them to conduct a serious analysis of the problem?

Moderates vs. Radicals
The second area that deserves our attention, where the MSM misrepresents the evidence, is in addressing the tension that exists between the radicals and the pragmatists in the Middle East. The mainstream media almost unanimously adopts two basic approaches.

One is the dramatically unempirical notion that the radicals are but a tiny minority, while the vast majority of Muslims embrace the same moderate principles of peace, prosperity and coexistence that we exalt in the West.

The second, perhaps more realistic approach, rests on the following principles: (1), Radicals are the true representatives of the Middle Eastern society while the pragmatists are too weak to be expected to do anything; (2), the reason for this unfortunate situation is because of the Western policy of confrontation; and, therefore (3), the way to stop the radicals is to engage in dialogue with them and simultaneously strengthen the pragmatists by giving them concessions.

This approach does begin correctly by recognizing that the radicals have succeeded to a large extent in influencing the way Middle Easterners perceive themselves and how they relate to the rest of the world. But then it errs by suggesting that the radicals are ascendant primarily because of the behavior of the West which has supposedly alienated a potentially moderate public. This type of reporting works to the advantage of both the radicals and the pragmatists. Indeed, it turns the weakness of the pragmatists into their most valuable asset.

Both the radicals and the pragmatists take full advantage of the Western response to avoid accountability and expect the West to keep feeding them with more and more money and concessions, especially those that come at Israel’s expense. Since this policy has proven quite successful in recent years and since Middle Easterners consider the new administration even more committed to this set of assumptions than its predecessors, the Middle Easterners have bigger expectations and less readiness to change their way of action.

The reaction in the Arab world to President Obama’s reconciliation speech last week was very indicative of this approach. The audience was very receptive and supportive to those words they considered a move towards them but very cold at any mention of the need to give up the use of violence or to accept Israel's right to exist. The pragmatists show no intention to adopt these advices but expect the administration to follow up on its demands from Israel.


In fact, the pragmatists constitute quite a large part of the Middle Easterners and, with proper encouragement; they can play a major role in controlling the radicals. This was proven again in the impressive victory of the opponents of Iran, Hezbollah and Syria in the Lebanese elections. I would like very much to see the Lebanese leadership follow this achievement, that reflects their understanding that Israel is not their enemy, with an initiative towards normalizing the relations with Israel, but I doubt if this is going to happen, bearing in mind that the main reason for the pragmatists' animosity towards the United States and to some extent even towards Israel has very little to do with the reality of the way they are treated by the Americans or the Israelis, and much more with their being persuaded by the radical’s propaganda which portrays all shortcomings of Muslim society as the outcome of a Western plot against them. Thus, despite the best of intentions, it is counterproductive for the West to make more and more concessions and to continue to express regret and contrition, since this “mea culpa” attitude just plays into the hands of the radicals and strengthens their claim about the plot. In the West, we expect that concessions and apologies will lead to reciprocal moves on their part. In the Middle East, it just strengthens their convictions of victimhood and their resolve to restore their honor.

One case which illustrates the dangers of this media-promoted approach is the claim that the Palestinian Israeli conflict is the most important issue for Middle Easterners and that it has to be solved in order to convince the pragmatists to overcome the radicals and help the West and Israel in confronting Iran. But let’s seriously look at that claim. In fact, radicalism in the Middle East began long before the establishment of the state of Israel, and was always characterized by anti-Western feelings and was the reason for many wars between rival Arab and Muslim camps that had nothing to do with the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

To sum up these issues, Iran is the main reason for instability in the region. The combination of the strengthening of the radicals and progress on the Iranian nuclear project, both of which are emboldened by the media’s selective coverage of these issues, are the main threat to Israeli and American security and other interests. As long as the radicals feel that they are marching towards victory we can not afford to show signs of weakness. They will only make our job harder.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is again a set of so-called facts that have become a conventional wisdom that largely goes unchallenged.

The first is that this is primarily a territorial conflict and therefore there must be a solution for this conflict that can be achieved within a short period of time. The media, and with it most Western politicians, wish to believe that if the obstacle for achieving this solution will be removed – such as by conceding territory – a solution will be easy to reach.

Second, the only possible solution is a ‘two state solution’ – in which one state is a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria as we call it, and the other is the state of Israel.

And third, the Israeli “occupation” and settlement activity are major obstacles for moving towards this inevitable solution and – as I mentioned before - for mobilizing the pragmatic states to the fight against the radicals.

These assumptions stood behind the Oslo process, and its failure indicates that they deserve to be reexamined. Such examination will reveal that, whereas the Israelis were really ready for this kind of a solution, including myself, the Palestinians do not accept that ‘the two state solution’ refers to two states for two peoples. In their view one state should be the Palestinian state and the national identity of the other state should remain undefined, so that in the future it can become a Palestinian state as well. Abu Mazen's public statement a few weeks ago that he would never recognize Israel as a Jewish state, (just as he refused to recognize a Jewish state before Annapolis), was but another, more recent manifestation of this approach.
This means that there's an asymmetry between the Israeli recognition of the Palestinian demand for self determination and the Palestinian recognition of the existence of Israel. As professor Bernard Lewis has put it before the Annapolis summit:
"What is the conflict about?" There are basically two possibilities: that it is about the size of Israel, or about its existence.
If the issue is about the size of Israel, then we have a straightforward border problem, like Alsace-Lorraine or Texas. That is to say, not easy, but possible to solve in the long run, and to live with in the meantime.
If, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist."

It is obvious that a solution cannot be realized before there is a change in the Palestinian position and the Palestinians accept Israel's right to exist in peace and security as a Jewish state. The reason the Palestinians refuse to accept this is because for them this is not a territorial dispute, but an existential conflict. The media’s failure to report this most basic point, the evidence of it, and the implications of it, creates a dangerously misleading portrayal of the situation and prospects for its resolution. Peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan were signed without addressing this fundamental issue because unlike the case with the Palestinians, we do not share the same land with them.

Regarding the obstacles that prevented the implementation of ‘the two state solution’ I would argue that the settlement activity was never a serious obstacle to peace. Israel proved several times that it is ready to reverse its settlement activity both in the framework of an agreement or unilaterally. In contrast, the Palestinian reaction to Israeli withdrawals has demonstrated time and again that the dismantling of Israeli settlements or the Israeli withdrawal from territory does not yield peace, but rather more warfare.

Instead of using the implementation of the Oslo agreement as an opportunity to prepare the state institutions, Arafat preferred to establish an authority of gangs, without accountability, allowing freedom of action to terror organizations, and so did Abu Mazen, who turned his weakness into a strategic asset that enabled him to escape accountability.

Following Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza, which uprooted nearly ten thousand Jewish people from more than twenty living communities, leaving not a single Israeli settlement or person remaining on Gazan territory, Palestinians had another opportunity to prove that ending the Israeli occupation would lead to fundamental change and bring peace. Yet, the opposite occurred. Terror activities continued and proved that the problem is not the occupation or the settlements.

The lessons that we can learn from all of this are that a permanent settlement of the conflict is not easy to achieve as long as the Palestinians do not remove the real obstacles to peace: namely, by accepting Israel as a Jewish state, by stopping terror activity and incitement, and by addressing the lack of preparedness of the Palestinian authority to assume the responsibilities of a state – governability, monopoly over the use of force, security and economic stability. Without these issues being fully addressed, the creation of a Palestinian state will lead to the establishment of an unstable terror entity on the border of Israel that will threaten not only Israel's security but the stability of moderate states in the region, especially Jordan and American interests in the Middle East.


So, what is the Israeli policy in view of these realities? First, Israel considers itself a part and parcel of the free world and is committed to its strategic friendship with the United States. Just like the new administration, we too believe that friends should be candid with each other. We also believe that since we are living in the Middle East and that we will face the consequences of any policy most directly; it is our duty to explain to our American friends our concerns.

Practically we believe that the radical threat to the world order is the most dangerous challenge of our time. North Korea is a big challenge but the repercussions of a nuclear Iran are much more severe. We consider the prevention of this dangerous development a necessity. If this can be achieved through negotiations and dialogue it's wonderful, but since we doubt it very much we believe that the free world, under the leadership of the United States, has to prepare all the options to deal with this problem and make it clear that it will be ready to use them if it deems it necessary. A credible threat is probably the only effective way to make the Iranians carefully reconsider the direction of their project, and may make them choose another course.

We believe that the pragmatists in the Middle East should, and are ready to, contribute to halting the Iranian nuclear program and to countering the strengthening of the radicals, and that Western concessions are counterproductive toward that process. Likewise, the Palestinian issue has no relationship to it either. On the other hand, we do believe that such pragmatists have an important role to play in the Palestinian context by adopting the solution of two states for two peoples’ and helping to promoting the preparedness of the Palestinians to assume responsibility.

Finally, in regard to the Palestinian issue, we have no intention or will to govern the Palestinians and run their daily life. We want to have a stable peace and for that purpose we are ready to consider further ways to disengage and contribute to the ability of the PA to control the territories under its responsibility in a way that does not threaten the state of Israel. At the same time we believe that an almost exclusively top down approach that characterized the way the Palestinian issue was handled under the Oslo and Annapolis processes should be replaced by a determined performance based, bottom up approach that characterized the road map, which would focus first on building the necessary infrastructure for peace. We have spoken much over the past few years about dismantling the infrastructure of terror. Let us begin to talk about building an infrastructure for peace.

This should include five reforms within the Palestinian authority, which at this stage can be performed only in the West Bank:
1. Educational reform, whereby the PA will stop educating its people to deny any connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel, stop treating Zionism as a colonialist movement and every Israeli town or village (including Tel-Aviv) as an illegal settlement. This reform has to include stopping the incitement in the media, the mosques and the public discourse as well as an end to raising kindergarten children to hate Israelis and to carry out suicide bombing attacks against the infidel.
2. Economic reform that would focus on strengthening the role of the private sector in the economy and fight corruption. The irresponsible system in which money collected from poor people in rich countries helps rich people in a poor area to become even more rich has to stop.
3. Political reform that would promote an adequate governing culture by strengthening civil society and emphasizing the values of free speech, human rights, and other universal values.
4. Law and order reform which should lead to the implementation of the concept of "one authority, one law, one weapon" – namely, the existence of a strong police and law enforcement system. We fully approve and support in this respect the efforts led by General Dayton.
5. Security reform under which there will be a unification of the security apparatuses and a full range of activities against terrorism including: intelligence collection, thwarting activity, investigations, putting to trial of suspects and imprisonment of convicted terrorists.

It's not clear whether this process is going to be successful. Its success depends first and foremost on the Palestinian leadership, which until now failed in establishing an accountable political entity. The international community should encourage the Palestinians to make progress in this direction through the use of carrots and sticks and not via the provision of unconditional economic aid and blanket political and diplomatic support. Only when the Palestinians give up this hope of destroying Israel and accept Israel’s right to live in peace as a Jewish state will there be a chance to have peace between us and the Palestinians. This is the essence of the change that Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to promote.

Conclusion

But if we are to succeed in bringing about this change and advancing peace, we must all be ready to challenge the conventional wisdom.
I know that challenging conventional wisdom is not easy and that there is a price to pay for it. But I do not demand of others what I do not demand myself.

As head of military intelligence, I, a member of the Kibbutz movement, was a believer in Oslo, a believer that it could bring about the peace for which we have waited so long.

But when I looked at the evidence, at all the facts, I could not turn my back on the truth. And when I saw the dangers that the disengagement from Gaza would pose to Israel’s security, I could not turn my back on the truth.

I believe that we always have to look reality squarely in the eye and that we must act as Ze'ev Schiff acted his entire life – by letting the evidence lead us to our conclusions, however difficult those conclusions might be.

The reality may be difficult for us to accept. It does not lend itself to simple answers. But if we are prepared to face it honestly, then I am convinced that we can begin to change it for the better -- and we can start heading down the path to a genuine and lasting peace.

Read more!

Obama's Move Against Jerusalem Gets Clearer

http://www.onejerusalem.org/2009/06/obamas-move-against-jerusalem.php

Top Obama advisors say time for Israel to surrender Jerusalem

A Washington-based think tank that is viewed as one of the primary sources of foreign policy advise for US President Barack Obama is recommending that Israel surrender control of Jerusalem to an international body.

The Center for American Progress (CAP) correctly determined that the issue of Jerusalem is the primarily obstacle to peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

As such, in order to move forward with the land-for-peace process as a whole, CAP has suggested that a third party administer and police the city while both Israel and the Palestinians maintain their claims to sovereignty until an agreement can be reached.

CAP expects that agreement would take a very long time to reach, if ever, but that in the meantime the rest of the conflict could be concluded.

There are concerns in Israel that Obama will adopt the recommendation considering his close ties to CAP and his overriding determination to oversee an Israel-Palestinian peace agreement.
Bloomberg News reported that "CAP has been an incubator for liberal thought and helped build the [Democratic party] platform that triumphed in the 2008 campaign."

It was also noted that Obama adopted many of CAP's policy recommendations while he was still president-elect.

This week Obama's favorite think tank, The Center for American Progress, issued a report detailing Obama's determination to take Jerusalem from the State of Israel and the Jewish people.The study's premise is that the Old City of Jerusalem is a problem. This means that the State of Israel must give up control of the Old City. (It should be noted that reports of the Center of American Progress have repeatedly stated the thinking of the Obama Administration. One Jerusalem brought the Center's influence to public attention and it was the basis for our predictions that Obama would give a speech to the Muslim World and try to negotiate with Iran's mullahs.)

The Center's report on Jerusalem focuses on what entity should replace the State of Israel as the administrator of the Old City, i.e. The Temple Mount, Churches, etc. It does not entertain the idea that Israel should continue in this role. It does not acknowledge that since the State of Israel wrested control of the Old City it has been secure and open to all people. This reality was certainly not the case from 1948 to 1967 when Jewish population was forcefully ejected from the Old City and its synagogues and schools destroyed.

In other words, Obama begins with the premise that the current successful situation must be replaced to satisfy the Palestinians. The plan they highlight creates a third party administrator of the Old City. This, of course, will be a failed experiment. At best it will create a situation that the Old City will be the center of dispute and conflict. For one, Israeli security will be replaced by some international body: The Ant-Israel United Nations?

Obama's determination to bend over backward to satisfy the political whims of Israel's enemies is clear, disturbing, and dangerous. It must be stopped.

If you want to be part of saving Jerusalem from Obama we urge you to take a few minutes to bring this blog post to the attention of friends, relatives, and supporters of Israel. Urge them to sign the our petition to keep Jerusalem united under the State of Israel so they can stay informed about what is happening and they can participate in action items we will bring to your attention during the coming months. If you care about the future of Jewish controlled Jerusalem now is the time to get involved.

On a related note, for anyone who questions Obama's commitment to the Muslim world we bring to your attention his Administration's appointment of America's first State Department representative to the Muslim World. Read about it here.

Vote in our One Jerusalem poll on the Old City.

______________________________
http://www.onejerusalem.org/2009/07/harvard-picks-up-the-internati.php

[07.04.2009]
Harvard Picks Up The Internationalizing Of Jerusalem Theme

One Jerusalem has correctly identified policies of the Obama Administration in their developmental stages. During his transition period we predicted that Obama would adopt a policy of engaging the blood-thirsty Ayatollahs of Iran, we predicted that Obama would give a major address to the Muslim world, and we are now predicting that Obama will pressure Israel to either divide or internationalize Jerusalem.

Our success in predicting Obama policies before they occur is not the result of divine intervention or spies in the White House. It stems from careful study of the Obama inner circle and their allies in the policy making community. Last week we brought to your attention the recommendations on Jerusalem of Obama's favorite think tank. This week we are tracking the movement of the idea of Israel giving over sovereignty of Jerusalem to one of the Obama clans favorite academic institutions: Harvard University

In an essay filled with tortured reasoning a Harvard publication published a Professor Barnett's policy advice on breaking the diplomatic log jam between Israel and the Palestinians. In his piece Barnett acknowledges the absence of any serious opportunities for negotiations and he purposes that Israel simply turn the problem over to the United Nations. And he sees Israel agreeing to internationalizing Jerusalem under the auspices of the United Nations

Professor Efraim Inbar exposes the weakness of Barnett's case very effectively. He writes:

Michael Barnett is right in pointing out that the two-state paradigm cannot solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because the two sides cannot reach an acceptable compromise. Without saying so explicitly, he realizes that this paradigm lost its appeal in part because the Palestinians have not been capable state-builders. Probably, this is why he suggests that the UN become the de facto ruler of the areas now in the hands of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and under Israeli military control.

This suggestion shows the great gulf between diagnosis and prognosis that even respected political scientists have problems bridging. The UN is a morally bankrupt institution with automatic majorities for the most ridiculous preferences of dictatorial Third World states. Moreover, for decades the UN has shown an entrenched anti-Israel bias, singling out Israel for every type of abuse. It was the UN that declared Zionism, the Jewish national movement, to be racist, and it is the UN that hosts anti-Semitic Durban-type conferences that annually adopt hundreds of anti-Israeli resolutions.

Finally, the UN is hardly an effective organization that can issue credible security assurances. The UN peacekeeping record is very flawed. In the Arab-Israeli arena, the UN forces have played a particularly dysfunctional role. Will they fight Hamas? The recommendation to place the security of Israelis in the hands of the blue helmets vastly overestimates what the UN can do, and shows disregard for the welfare of Israelis who face Palestinian hatred and terrorism.
Moreover, the belief that a UN trusteeship would bring law and order, prosperity, and political stability to the Palestinians is divorced from Middle East realities. The Palestinians are beleaguered by problems similar to those that haunt other Arab societies, such as in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and Somalia. The UN is hardly the remedy for the emerging failed states in the Arab world. Neither UN administrators nor generous outside funding can save the Palestinians from their problems.

While exposing the weakness of Barnett's argument is important, it is even more important to understand that Obama's team is legitimizing these harmful to Israel policies through their allies. Once again, we urge you to take seriously the idea of stripping Jerusalem from the State of Israel. We are confident this idea will be part of a comprehensive peace plan the Obama Administration will try to impose this fall.

You can help stop this morally bankrupted policy by helping grow the One Jerusalem community by getting family and friends to sign our petition to keep Jerusalem united and free the way it is today. The bigger our community becomes the better we will be able to disseminate the truth about what is going on with Jerusalem. You can be sure Obama's media friends are not interested in telling our side of the story.

To all our American friends we wish you all a Happy Independence Day.
______________________________

http://www.onejerusalem.org/2009/06/obamas-move-against-jerusalem.php

[06.08.2009]
Jerusalem Is At The Heart of Zionism

Today, in a speech to a small group of Israel supporters, Israel's Minister of Strategic Affairs, Moshe Yaalon repeated the words of a Palestinian leader who spoke approvingly of the two-state formula because once Israel gets out of Jerusalem "the Zionist idea will begin to collapse."

Throughout his address Yaalon emphasized that the Palestinians were not interested in peace with the Jewish State of Israel. He called for the abandonment of the failed policy of talking to Palestinian leaders and the adoption of what Prime Minister Netanyahu has called the bottom up approach.

Yaalon argued that Israel has no peace partner at this time. He noted that the Palestinian leadership teaches its youngsters to hate the State of Israel; its maps do not include the State of Israel; and it refers to Tel Aviv as a settlement founded in 1948. These leaders also refuse to recognize the free and independent Jewish State. He reminded the audience that recently the Palestinian leader Abu Mazen refused to call Israel a Jewish State.

Yaalon said that Israel should not be expected to help the Palestinians create a state (another Hamastan) that refuses to allow Jews (the way they cleansed Gaza of Jews). He said they must earn acceptance into the international community. This will require educational, political, economic, and security reform. So far they have only made progress on the policing side thanks to the American effort under General Dayton.

Yaalon, who is a retired Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, lamented the fact that the international community keeps rewarding the Palestinians with money even though they have done nothing to earn support from anyone. He noted that financing the Palestinian Authority is a case of poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in a poor country. This aid does not go to those who need it. It is pocketed by those who rule.

Yaalon made it clear that the Netanyahu government is breaking with the policy of dealing with the corrupt Palestinian leadership, that it will not allow a terror state to come into existence, and that it will support the Palestinians if they want economic and political reform.

We left Minister Yaalon as he began his journey to Washington, D.C. to tell the Obama Administration what he told us. With patriots like him, Israel is in good shape to fight the coming battles..

Read more!

Hamas fears a swap!

Chances of securing release of abducted soldier Shalit at this time are slim

Guy Bechor
YNET News

Much had been written in recent months about the Gilad Shalit affair. Shady dealers, self-interested parties, self-righteous individuals, singers, PR firms, celebrities, journalists, non-profit groups, banks, ministers and others made Shalit their top priority. Shalit had also become a way to boost one’s publicity, exposure, and reputation.. In the wake of yet another wave of rumors, what are the realistic chances of securing Shalit’s release? Slim, to my regret. Why so?



1. Gilad Shalit is today the main and possibly only asset possessed by Hamas. He is what turns them from a terror gang to a respectable organization that prompts global politicians to meet with its representatives, seemingly for a “humanitarian” purpose but only a naïve individual would believe that. The Shalit negotiations enable Hamas to bring senior group members into and out of Gaza, send them to Egypt and Syria, grant them immunity from assassination, etc. A reasonable person would not give up such an asset. Israel, with its desire to advance a swap, merely reinforced this asset and made it precious.



2. Egypt promised Israel that as long as Shalit is in captivity, it will not open the Rafah crossing, so that he will not be smuggled in. And so, Shalit has become Egypt’s insurance policy to ensure that Gaza will never be connected to Egypt.



3. Israel’s willingness to release Marwan Barghouti amazed Hamas. After all, the group added his name to the list in order to hinder the talks and did not believe for a moment that Israel would agree to it. Do you think Hamas will agree to secure the release of its greatest enemy so that he will prepare Fatah to engage in a military move against Hamas?



4. For Hamas, Shalit and the prisoners are not the number one issue. This issue has no priority. Higher on the list are the issue of a Palestinian unity government, which will not be established, and the issue of the crossings. As long as these issues hit a snag, the talks on a prisoner swap will also hit a dead-end.



5. Hamas is incredibly scared of the huge outcry in the wake of a swap, once it turns out that instead of 12,000 prisoners it made do with the release of 1,400. Each prisoner’s family is certain that her son will be among those released, and this is a real threat on Hamas and its popularity. This is the reason it will prefer to keep the prisoners in jail. Hamas knows that Mahmoud Abbas will only gain from such huge protest.



6. The moment such a swap is completed, Hamas will lose its media glory. Look how Hizbullah disappeared. Without prisoners and a desperate effort to cling to Israel, there is no interest. Hamas does not like this possibility.



7. Senior Hamas figures are currently in Israeli jails. Should they be released, the balance of power between the domestic Hamas and the group’s leadership abroad may change in favor of the domestic branch. Khaled Mashaal, Musa abu-Marzuk and other Hamas leaders in Damascus view this as a threat to their leadership. In their view, Israel is doing them a favor by detaining the authentic domestic leadership.



8. The Israelis are fighting amongst themselves; one brother slams the other; one urges the government to release Shalit at any cost, while another person rejects this; one person demonstrates, while another person protests for the opposite cause. Hamas takes great pleasure in watching this.



9. There were those around here who deluded themselves into thinking that another name added or taken from the list would get the job done. They sent emissaries Ofer Dekel and Amos Gilad, they played with the lists, but this never had a chance. Hamas is facing weighty interests, rather than a list of names, which in any case are not too important at the moment.


10. Finally, we must realize that an organization like Hamas must be in conflict with us; this is its raison d’être. Holding a captive Israeli soldier reinforces its belligerent Islamic ethos. A captive Israeli soldier symbolizes its all-out struggle against Israel; it symbolizes Hamas’ ability to defeat and embarrass Israel. Without Gilad, Hamas will be forced to actually fight Israel, and Hamas is not interested in doing so at this time.

Read more!

Netanyahu, First Time: '2-State Solution'

Maayana Miskin
A7 News

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu discussed his government's first 100 days in power on Sunday, and touted the “two-state solution” as an accomplishment. “We have brought about national agreement on the concept of two states for two peoples for the first time,” he said.. Netanyahu credited his government with giving “real meaning” to the concept of “two states for two peoples” by insisting that Israel retain its status as a Jewish state under any agreement aimed at creating a demilitarized Arab state in Judea and Samaria.

The speech was the first time Netanyahu has used the term “two states for two peoples.” Three weeks earlier he made headlines by using the phrase “Palestinian state” for the first time.

The prime minister repeated his conditions for the implementation of a “two state solution,” saying, “The Palestinians will need to recognize the state of Israel as the state of the Jewish people, and the refugee problem will be solved outside Israel's borders. Israel needs, and will get, defensible borders and the complete demilitarization of the Palestinian territory.”

PA Rejects

The Palestinian Authority has rejected all of Netanyahu's conditions, and continues to insist that Arab “refugees” descended from those who fled pre-state Israel in the 1940s be allowed to “return” to Israel. Millions of foreign Arabs currently consider themselves “Palestinian refugees.”

The PA refuses to recognize Israel as Jewish, fearing that such recognition would be taken as denying foreign Arabs the possibility of immigrating to Israel and becoming the demographic majority.

Other Accomplishments: Economy, Calm in South

Netanyahu also claimed the relative calm in Israel's south as one of his government's accomplishments. Operation Cast Lead, conducted shortly before his government took office, created a basis for calm, he said, emphasizing that the actions taken over the past three months preserved the calm.

Israel has maintained its gains in Cast Lead by responding to every single shooting from Gaza, he explained.

The prime minister claimed accomplishments in the financial realm as well. His government has achieved “national economic unity” and stands to pass Israel's first two-year budget, a step he said “is a component of stability in an atmosphere of instability.”

The government has more plans for economic reform, including a proposal to ease building laws, he added.

Read more!

Pastor's wife's letter

DISCLAIMER: I forward this "letter" as is. I make no claims to its authenticity, and I don't know whether "Lynn Remualdo-Gallagher" is indeed a pastor's wife and/or the author of this "letter" or whether such a person even exists. Whatever the truth, its content is terrifying.
Dave

Pastor's wife's letter

How's this for apocalyptic literature. This was written by a pastor's wife in biblical prose as a commentary on current events. It is Brilliant.

And it came to pass in the Age of Insanity that the people of the land called America, having lost their morals, their initiative and their will to defend their liberties, chose as their Supreme Leader that person known as "The One".He emerged from the vapors with a message that had no meaning; but He hypnotized the people telling them, "I am sent to save you. My lack of experience, my questionable ethics, my monstrous ego, and my association with evil doers are of no consequence. For I shall save you with Hope and Change.

Go, therefore, and proclaim throughout the land that he who preceded me is evil, that he has defiled the nation, and that all he has built must be destroyed." And the people rejoiced, for even though they knew not what "The One" would do, he had promised that it was good; and they believed.

And "The One" said, "We live in the greatest country in the world. Help me change everything about it!"

And the people cried, "Hallelujah! Change is good!"

Then He said, "We are going to tax the rich fat-cats."

And the people said, "Sock it to them!"

"And redistribute their wealth."
And the people said, "Show us the money!"
And then He said, "Redistribution of wealth is good for everybody"

And Joe the plumber asked, "Are you kidding me? You're going to steal my money and give it to the deadbeats??"

And "The One" ridiculed and taunted him, and Joe's personal records were hacked and publicized.

One lone reporter asked, "Isn't that Marxist policy?" And she was banished from the kingdom!

Then a citizen asked, "With no foreign relations experience and having zero military experience or knowledge, how will you deal with radical terrorists?"

And "The One" said, "Simple. I shall sit with them and talk with them and show them how oh-so-nice we really are; and they will forget that they ever wanted to kill us all!"

And the people cried, "Hallelujah!! We are safe at last, and we can beat our weapons into free cars for the people!"

Then "The One" said, "I shall give 95% of you lower taxes."

And one lone voice said, "But 40% of us don't pay ANY taxes."

So "The One" said, "Then I shall give you some of the taxes the fat-cats pay!"

And the people cried, "Hallelujah!! Show us the money!"

Then "The One" said, "I shall tax your Capital Gains when you sell your homes!"

And the people yawned, and the slumping housing market collapsed.

And He said, "I shall mandate employer-funded health care for EVERY worker and raise the minimum wage. And I shall give every person unlimited health care and medicine and transportation to the clinics."

And the people said, "Give me some of that!"

Then he said, "I shall penalize employers who ship jobs overseas."

And the people asked, "Where's my rebate check?"

Then "The One" said, "I shall bankrupt the coal industry, and electricity rates will skyrocket!"

And the people said, "Coal is dirty, coal is evil, no more coal! But we don't care for that part about higher electric rates."

So "The One" said, "Not to worry. If your rebate isn't enough to cover your expenses, we shall bail youout. Just sign up with ACORN and your troubles are over!"

Then He said, "Illegal immigrants feel scorned and slighted. Let uss grant them amnesty, Social Security, free education, free lunches, free medical care, bi-lingual signs and guaranteed housing..."

And the people cried, "Hallelujah!!"

And they made him King!

And so it came to pass that employers, facing spiraling costs and ever-higher taxes, raised their prices and laid off workers. Others simply gave up and went out of business, and the economy sank like a rock dropped from a cliff. The banking industry was destroyed. Manufacturing slowed to a crawl. And more of the people were without a means of support.

Then "The One" said, "I am the "The One" - The Messiah - and I am come to save you! We shall just print more money so everyone will have enough!"

But our foreign trading partners said unto Him, "Wait a minute. Your dollar is not worth a pile of camel dung! You will have to pay more..."

And the people said, "Wait a minute. That is unfair!!"

And the world said, "Neither are these other idiotic programs you have embraced. Lo, you have become a Socialist state and a second-rate power. Now you shall play by our rules!"

And the people cried out, "Alas, alas!! What have we done?"

But yea verily, it was too late. The people set upon "The One" and spat upon him and stoned him, and his name was dung.

And the once mighty nation was no more; and the once proud people were without sustenance or shelter or hope.

And the Change that "The One" had given them was as like unto a poison that had destroyed them and like a whirlwind that consumed all that they had built.
And the people beat their chests in despair and cried out in anguish, "Give us back our nation and our pride and our hope!!"

But it was too late, and their homeland was no more.

You may think this is a fairy tale, but it's not. It's happening RIGHT NOW!!!
Lynn Remualdo-Gallagher

Read more!

Israel's reliable friend

Recent Israeli governments have underestimated the power of Congress

Yoram Ettinger
YNET News

President Obama and his advisors pressure Prime Minister Netanyahu to avoid intensive contacts with Congress. They claim that such contacts would undermine the Presidency, and would therefore damage US-Israel relations. However, refraining from such contacts would demote Congress into a "Supporting Actor," and thus would be an insult to the American People, to its representatives on Capitol Hill and to the US democracy, which regard Congress as a "Co-Starring Actor." In the long run, it would degrade vital Israeli interests and weaken US-Israel relations. In 1992, I was told by then Majority Leader, Senator George Mitchell: "Doesn't Israel realize that the US is not a monarchy and that the President is strong but not omnipotent?!" And, in fact it was Congress – and not the President – that stopped US military involvement in Vietnam (Eagleton Amendment,) Angola (Clark Amendment,) Nicaragua (Boland Amendment,) forced the USSR to let the Jews go (Jackson-Vanik Amendment,) approved emergency aid to the former USSR (Aspen-Nunn Amendment,) toppled the White regime in Pretoria (Anti-Apartheid Act,) provided Israel with emergency assistance following the 1991 Gulf War in defiance of Bush and Baker, etc.


Recent Israeli governments have underestimated the power of Congress, as a result of the highlighted global profile of the President. Still, a US President is powerful, but – unlike Israeli Prime Ministers – he is not the chairman of his party and not the leader of his congressional slate. He does not anoint the Speaker, majority leaders and committee chairs. And he does not determine which bills should pass in Congress.


The President is one of three arms of government, which are equal in power and independence. He is constrained by the decentralized Federal system, by an effective Separation of Powers and by an elaborate system of checks and balances, which are designed to prevent tyranny. The President initiates and executes policy, but Congress – which is featured in the first article of the US Constitution - possesses the "Power of the Purse" and the authority to change, suspend and initiate policy, prevent senior presidential appointments and add and eliminate government departments and agencies.


While the relative presidential weight increases during national security crises, the relative weight of Congress is upgraded during financial crises. The confrontational or defiant nature of the President-Congress relationship constitutes a significant watchdog over US democracy.


Israel's government assumes that the Congressional Democratic majorities provide President Obama with a "free ride." However, Senator Robert Byrd, President Pro-Tempore of the Senate has persisted in quipping at Democratic and Republican presidents: "Legislators are the servants of the Constitution, not the servants of the President."


Cultivate ties with Congress
Former Speaker, Democratic House Member Tom Foley, advised President Clinton in 1993 not to take House and Senate Democratic majorities for granted: "We won't be able to support all your ambitious policies, because our political life expectancy (running every two years) is different than yours (running every four years)." Clinton ignored the advice and caused the Democratic Party crash in the November 1994 election.


The loyalty of the 535 federal legislators – who represent districts and states more than political parties – is first and foremost to their constituents, to the Separation of Powers and to the independence of the Legislature and only then to the President. Therefore, over 30 Democratic House Members supported the impeachment of Clinton, many Democrats opposed Clinton's free trade initiatives, caused Obama to rescind the appointment of anti-Israel pro-China Chas Freeman, forced Obama to boycott the UN Durbin II Conference and are not automatic supporters of Obama's proposals to close down the Guantanamo jail, to bail out Wall Street and the Detroit car makers, dramatically increase the national debt, etc.


As the November 2010 congressional elections approach, and as economic recovery is further delayed, the more dependent Obama becomes on a willing Congress and the more independent and defiant will the legislators become.


In 1891, six years before the First World Zionist Congress, in defiance of the US Department of State, 400 US dignitaries co-led by the Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee signed the "Blackstone Memorial," which called for a Jewish national home in the Land of Israel. In 1922, 26 years before the establishment of the Jewish State, The US House and Senate unanimously passed a Joint Resolution, reaffirming congressional support of a Jewish State between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.



The enhancement of Israel's critical interests and the demonstration of respect towards the US democracy, behoove Israel's Prime Minister to cultivate ties with Congress - the most authentic representation of the US public, equal in power to the President, a bastion of support for closer US-Israel ties, which appreciates the unique covenant binding the US and the Jewish State: Democracy, shared Judeo-Christian values, mutual regional and global threats and joint strategic interests.


Yoram Ettinger is a US and Middle Eastern affairs expert

Read more!

PA Arabs in Late Response to Obama Speech: No, We Can't

Maayana Miskin
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132187


(IsraelNN.com) A poll released this week showed that PA Arabs are reluctant to grant rights to Jews or Christians within areas demanded for a PA state. A survey conducted by the Arab World for Research and Development among 1,200 Arab residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza found that did not feel Jerusalem should be shared with Jews and Christians. When asked to what extent they agreed with a statement made by United States President Barack Obama that Jerusalem should be “a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims,” less than 17 percent said they agree, while 20 percent said they “somewhat agree.” More than 42 percent said they disagree with the statement, while 17 percent “somewhat disagree.”

Reject violence? No thanks
More than 45 percent of those surveyed disagreed with a second statement of Obama's in which the president called on the Arab world to reject violence and killing as a means of struggle. Twenty-two percent did not give an answer, while the remainder said they “agree” or “somewhat agree” with the statement.

The poll showed that PA Arabs were pessimistic regarding Obama's speech to the Arab world in early June. More believed that Obama's visit to the region would strengthen Israel, increase restrictions on Gaza, and do nothing to promote negotiations than believed the opposite. Only 14.2 percent said they fully agreed that Obama is serious when he calls for the creation of a PA state.

Jews want rights as minority in PA
Another new poll showed that most Israeli Jews believe that any future Palestinian Authority-led Arab state in Judea and Samaria should provide Jews with equal rights, including the right to live freely in its territory. The statistic was revealed Thursday by a Maagar Mochot poll published by the Independent Media Review and Analysis.

Fifty-eight percent of the 506 Israeli Jews surveyed said they believed Israel should insist that any future PA state respect the right of Jews to live in its territory. Thirty-one percent believed Israel should not insist that Jews be allowed to live in a PA state.

Roughly 300,000 Jews reside in Judea and Samaria, and approximately 250,000 more live in Jerusalem neighborhoods demanded by the PA. The views exposed by the Maagar Mochot poll are at odds with government policy, which has been to forcibly remove Jews from PA areas in line with PA demands that any future Arab state in Judea and Samaria be rid of the current Jewish minority.

An even larger majority of those polled believed that Israel should insist that the PA commit to allowing Jews full access to Jewish holy sites in Judea and Samaria, including those considered holy by Muslims as well. Eighty-two percent said Israel should insist on access to holy sites, while only 11 percent said Israel should not make such a demand.

Indicator of national dignity
Jewish holy sites in Judea and Samaria include the Tomb of the Patriarchs (Me'arat Hamachpelah) in Hevron, Joseph's Tomb in Shechem, and Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem. Jews are currently allowed full access only to the latter site, while the Tomb of the Patriarchs is split into Jewish and Muslim sections, and Jews are allowed to visit Joseph's Tomb only intermittently.

While a narrow majority of respondents said Israel should negotiate with the PA without preconditions, most said Israel should insist on Jewish rights during the negotiation process.

More than 60 percent of those polled said that demanding Jewish rights under PA rule was an indicator of national dignity. Israeli leaders who fail to demand freedom of residence and access to holy sites for Jews lack self-respect, they said.

Read more!

Lieberman: Settlements issue blown out of proportion

Jack Khoury, Haaretz Correspondent and Reuters

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Thursday responded to remarks made earlier by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who said that Israel's construction in West Bank settlements jeopardized the two-state solution, and said that the world has blown the settlements issue entirely out of proportion.
"The situation in the West Bank and the cessation of settlement construction shouldn't top the international community's agenda," Lieberman said during a meeting with Druze leaders at the home of fellow party member MK Hamad Amar in Shfaram.

"North Korea fired three missiles today, despite the warnings and the sanctions, and the world is still occupying itself with Yitzhar and Migron," he said, referring to an outpost north of Jerusalem and a West Bank settlement.
Advertisement
"We have to allow the residents of the West Bank to live normal lives," Lieberman went on to say. "We can't strangle them. We must explain our stance and refrain from strangling people."

Lieberman added that "we all saw the occurrences and the dramatic events in Iran. Does the attempt to lead a normal life in Judea and Samaria top that on the international community's priority list? We have to bring things back into proportion."

The foreign minister also criticized what he termed as the Israeli government's concession policy, saying "we are certainly a government that wants to advance toward a resolution of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, to come up with solutions, that isn't afraid to take responsibility. But taking responsibility doesn't mean that we always have to concede. We are always loved and applauded when we concede and concede. I'm not sure that these concessions lead to any kind of result."

Earlier Thursday, Merkel demanded that Israel halt construction in the West Bank settlements, saying it endangered efforts to achieve a two-state solution with the Palestinians.

"I think it is now important to get commitments from all sides and that includes the issue of settlement building," Merkel said in a speech to the Bundestag lower house of parliament.

"I am convinced that there must be a stop to this. Otherwise we will not come to the two-state solution that is urgently needed."

Merkel's remarks are in line with the positions of the European Union and the United States, but were unusually clear-cut for the German leader, who regularly cites her country's special obligation to Israel because of the Holocaust, in which six million Jews were deliberately murdered.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has said U.S.-backed peace talks with Israel cannot resume until all settlement activity has ceased on captured land the Palestinians want for a state.

Washington has also called for a total halt to settlement building in the West Bank, a demand that has opened the most serious rift in U.S.-Israeli relations in a decade.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on Wednesday that Israel would consider a limited moratorium on new settlement construction, but said it should be part of a broader deal bringing Arab states into the peace process.

Comment: "Settlements" are villages, towns and cities inhabited by Israeli citizens living in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria.

Read more!

'Not a single Jewish home without Obama's OK'

Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

TEL AVIV – Not a single Jewish home will be built in the strategic West Bank without approval of the Obama administration and the Palestinians, Nimer Hamad, senior political adviser to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told WND.

In spite of recent reports Israel will build 50 new homes in a northern West Bank Jewish community, Hamad said U.S. guarantees make him "confident" such housing will not actually be constructed. . "The guarantees we received from the U.S. make us confident all the talks about the 50 houses in Adam are only a piece of meat (Defense Minister Ehud) Barak threw to the settlers," Hamad said.

"I am not excited about these reports. I am confident no single housing will actually be built outside an agreement between the Palestinians, the Americans and the Israelis," he said.


Barak's Defense Ministry approved the construction of 50 new homes in Adam, an existing West Bank community, as part of a wider plan to absorb residents slated to be evicted from an area called Migron.

Migron is considered an illegal outpost since it wasn't constructed with Israeli government approval. The U.S. has demanded all illegal outposts be removed.

The new houses in Adam would defy a demand by the Obama administration that Israel halt all settlement activity, including natural growth, in apparent abrogation of a deal made by President Bush in 2004.

Barak was in New York yesterday to meet with U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell in an effort to agree on a compromise formula on settlement construction.

Sources in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office told WND that Barak favors a "temporary freeze" of Jewish communities and a declaration that the issue be resolved in talks with the PA.

Top ministers in Netanyahu's cabinet, such as Vice Premier Moshe Yaalon, the strategic affairs coordinator, oppose a settlement freeze, fearing it will become permanent, according to sources close to Yaalon.

Obama tells Jews to stop building in Jerusalem

Earlier this week, WND quoted a top PA negotiator stating the Obama administration told the Palestinians the "golden era" of Israeli construction in sections of Jerusalem and the strategic West Bank will soon come to an end.

"The U.S. assured us that for the first time since 1967, we are going into a period where there will not be allowed a single construction effort on the part of the Israelis in the settlements, including in Gush Etzion, Maale Adumum and eastern Jerusalem," said the negotiator, speaking from Ramallah on condition his name be withheld.

Maale Adumim is located in eastern Jerusalem. Israel reunited the eastern and western sections of Jerusalem and the West Bank during the 1967 Six Day War. Eastern Jerusalem, claimed by the PA for a future state, includes the Temple Mount.

The negotiator told WND the positions of the PA and U.S. regarding ongoing Jewish construction in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem "are closer than ever."

"The U.S. used to differentiate between natural grown and adding new communities. Not anymore. No construction will be allowed, not even natural growth," the PA negotiator said.

The negotiator claimed that while Barak might reach an understanding with the U.S. regarding possible West Bank movements, such a deal would be for Israeli political purposes and wouldn't translate into actual Jewish construction on the ground.

The West Bank borders major Israeli cities and is within rocket firing range of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Israel's international airport.

Military strategists long have estimated Israel must maintain the West Bank to defend itself from any ground invasion. Terrorist groups have warned if Israel withdraws, they will launch rockets from the West Bank into Israeli cities.

Many villages in the West Bank, which Israelis commonly refer to as the "biblical heartland," are mentioned throughout the Torah.

The book of Genesis says Abraham entered Israel at Shechem (Nablus) and received God's promise of land for his offspring. He later was buried in Hebron.

The nearby town of Beit El, anciently called Bethel, meaning "house of God," is where Scripture says the patriarch Jacob slept on a stone pillow and dreamed of angels ascending and descending a stairway to heaven. In that dream, God spoke directly to Jacob and reaffirmed the promise of territory.

And in Exodus, the holy tabernacle rested in Shiloh, believed to be the first area the ancient Israelites settled after fleeing Egypt.

Guest Comment:It would be a gross understatement for us to say that we in Israel are damn fed up with the interference of the 'pro-Israel' folks who feel free to dictate to us what we may and may not do.

From Sarkozy who tells the Netanyahu government whom to fire (of course, the French leader has so many Muslims in his country that he has to be careful ), to Congressman Robert Wexler who was described in the Jerusalem Post today as "a close political ally of US President Obama and a stalwart Israel supporter", we are receiving 'orders' from those who have no business telling us what they believe is 'in Israel's interest'. A constant stream of officials - most of them Jewish - appear to dictate to the Israeli leadership how we must acquiesce. ENOUGH!!!!

When the Iranian government used brutal measures to quell those who protested against the fraudulent re-election of Ahmadinejad, the American president used such mild language initially in response that he was even criticized by US citizens. His excuse was that he did not want to interfere in the workings of another country. Imagine! Then why does he take the liberty of dictating to Israel what we may do?

In addition to many other reasons, Obama's ignorance and incompetence in foreign policy most likely helps drive him to pressure a small and vulnerable country like Israel. It is obvious from his actions since becoming president that he does not care if Israel survives; while not directly destroying us he is creating conditions for our surrounding enemies to do the job. During electioneering last year he was openly supported by the Arabs; monies flowed to his campaign from the Middle East. Hamas, with its publicized goal of destroying Israel, featured mugs and shirts with Obama's photo! Does this not tell us something?!

We are aware that much of what happens in Israel never makes the news; when I have forwarded some information to friends in the States they have confirmed this. Warnings about some of Obama's questionable associations were not heeded. His charisma, golden tongue that insisted that he was 'pro-Israel' , and the desire for change hid the real goals of the man. So many Jews, traditionally Democrats, were fooled - misled into choosing a leader who favors those who wish to annihilate the Jewish homeland - just for a start. Let no one doubt that this would again unleash such a worldwide anti-Semitic outburst that there would be no place to hide.

We must remember that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a religious leader, was a cohort of Hitler's and supported the 'final solution'. A recent American expert on the subject of terrorists connected their ideology to that of the Nazi dictator. The goals have not changed - just the players.
It would behoove everyone to remember that many millions of non-Jews were victims of those who just started their killing with Jews but it did not end there.

Those who now see that they have been misled must now stand up and demand that the US government desist from any pressure on Israel. The alternative would be catastrophic for the world! Please act now! Call members of Congress and forward this message to others.

Chana

Read more!

Agreements must be honored

Dov Weissglass
YNET News

On May 1 and 16, 2003, during discussions of Israel’s reservations in respect to the Road Map initiative, it was agreed that there will be no construction at Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, with the exception of existing communities. These words were uttered, agreed upon, and documented in the records of the talks kept at the Prime Minister’s Office. I’m sure that an efficient search will reveal the parallel American records. This is how most day-to-day diplomatic activity takes place: Talks between the authorized representatives of states, followed by a verbal agreement recorded in real-time by one or several of those present, and the documentation that reflects the agreements.



Regular diplomatic contacts and the understandings reached through them only rarely result in a detailed contract that includes an introduction as well as numbered clauses and paragraphs. And this is precisely how the above-mentioned agreement was secured, as an exception to the general construction freeze decree in the Road Map.



The agreement was brought to the public’s attention in Israel and abroad on December 18, 2003. In the “Herzliya speech,” which for the first time presented the Gaza disengagement plan, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon detailed the substance of the agreement that is now shrouded in controversy. This is what he said at the time: “Israel will deliver on all its obligations, including on the matter of settlement construction. There will be no construction beyond the existing construction lines. There will be no land confiscations meant for construction, no special economic incentives, and there is no construction of special settlements.”



The text of the speech was read, analyzed, and carefully studied everywhere, and especially in the United States. Yet nobody, either here or there, stood up or protested: “What construction? What agreement?” The speech was met with laud applause, among others by the US ambassador to Israel at the time – who was among the guests of honor at the Herzliya Conference, and who recently made a point of denying the existence of the agreement in an article he wrote.


Embarrassing position

The US Administration’s current position on the matter is embarrassing, to say the least. Talk such as “there was never such agreement,” “these were only verbal understandings,” or “if there was an agreement, it was violated by Israel, and in any case it should be annulled given the changing circumstances” is reminiscent of a person who at court claims that he never signed a promissory note, while at the same time arguing that he already paid it in full a long time ago.



The current secretary of state went as far as declaring that no mention of the agreement can be found in the Administration’s records. A former senior White House official, Elliot Abrams, wrote recently that Clinton is wrong, and that an agreement was reached. “I was there,” he noted in a Wall Street Journal article last week.



Indeed, there was an agreement, which was documented (at least in Israeli records) and publically announced. We should also keep in mind that a verbal agreement is one that must be honored, as long as there is substantial evidence of such agreement’s existence. Moreover, nothing fundamental has changed in the past six years that justifies the annulment of the agreement.



The Administration’s denials are not only unfair and unjust; they are also unwise. The Arab-Israeli conflict is replete with suspicions. Once final-status peace treaties are secured, they will require many American guarantees and obligations, especially in respect to long-term security arrangements. Without these, it is doubtful whether an agreement can be reached.



Yet if decision-makers in Israel (or elsewhere) discover, heaven forbid, that an American pledge is only valid as long as the president in question is in office, nobody will want such pledges. The ancient rule whereby “agreements must be honored” is the basis for the existence of the social and political order in the world.



For that reason, we must note the following: Israel’s right for limited construction in Judea and Samaria communities, within existing construction lines, was agreed upon as an exception to the construction freeze clause in the Road Map. And as agreements must be honored, Israel too must remove any doubt regarding its adherence to the Road Map. The obligation to honor agreements applies to Israel as well.



http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3740136,00.html

Read more!

'Obama' Think-Tank: Israel Should Cede Jerusalem Sovereignty

Hillel Fendel Proposal: 3rd-Party to Rule Jlem

A think tank which is arguably the most influential in Washington is proposing an “interim” neutral administration to govern Jerusalem instead of Israel. The Center for American Progress (CAP), headquartered just three blocks from the White House in Washington, is regarded as one of the most influential think tanks in the city, if not the most influential. “CAP has been an incubator for liberal thought and helped build the [Democratic part platform that triumphed in the 2008 campaign,” according to a Bloomberg.com report, which noted that some of the group's recommendations were adopted by Obama while he was still president-elect.

Four weeks ago, CAP held a panel discussion based on the premise that the Old City of Jerusalem is the main impediment in finding a solution to the Israel-Arab problem in the Holy Land. Michael Bell, a former Canadian Ambassador to Jordan, Egypt and Israel, presented a plan entitled the Jerusalem Old City Initiative. The plan does not call for the internationalization of Jerusalem -- but is not far off from that. It recommends that both Israel and a future state of Palestine appoint a third-party administrator that would run and police the city.

Bell explained that the plan calls for an administration or regime that would govern the Old City of Jerusalem for an interim period, without either Israel or the PA giving up their demands for sovereignty: “Frankly, I don’t think there’s going to be any agreement on sovereignty. I think that the two sides need not cede their demands for sovereignty; these claims can remain exactly as they are today. The sides would simply agree to delay the implementation or assertion of these claims until after an agreement is reached. Until then, a special administration would be set up, with the two sides agreeing to set this up, at least on an interim basis. And what this would do … would be to ensure dignity, human rights and equity for all living in the Old City, all visitors, and all pilgrims.”

Questions and Clarifications

The implication that these values are not currently provided and offered by Israel was not challenged. An audience member did ask afterwards why the status quo could not simply be retained, and Bell responded, “We thought of this option ourselves, but we thought it would be too intangible…”

He also said, “I don’t think you would find a majority on either [side to the conflic that would agree to defer its claims to sovereignty” - though Israel is already sovereign there, and would seemingly not mind retaining the status quo.

Bell did not quantify the plan’s “interim period,” though he did imply that it could very well be “close to permanent.”

“The Chief Administrator would be appointed by both sides to administer the city according to the mandate they give him,” Bell said. “He would be accountable to them, but the mandate would have to be sufficiently forthcoming. They would have to agree that he would handle crises such as massacre, land-grab, or whatever, without their intervention.”

CAP Report Cites Western Wall as Holiest Site

The CAP report on the event states, “The Temple Mount’s Western Wall is the most sacred place of Jewish worship, and the al-Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount), where Muslims believe that Mohammad ascended into the heavens, is the third holiest site in Islam.” However, law professor Marshall Breger -- co-author of “Jerusalem's Holy Places and the Peace Process” and consultant to the Jerusalem Old City Initiative – who spoke at the panel about the competing religious claims, said more than once that it was the Temple Mount itself, and not the Western Wall outside it, that is the holiest place in Jerusalem.

Bell: Whether Belief Systems are Historically Valid is Beside the Point

Both Breger and Bell dismissed the claims of those who challenge Islam’s connection to the site. Breger agreed, but implied that current Islamic claims that Judaism’s Holy Temple was never built there are totally unfounded, noting that the Waqf itself published literature some decades ago boasting that the Dome of the Rock is on the site of the Holy Temple. At that point, Bell said, “It’s very important to realize that it’s beside the point whether these belief systems are historically valid or not… It’s not up to me to tell you whether your narrative is valid or not…”



Breger: Take Politics Out

Breger similarly said that the argument that Jerusalem is not so holy to Islam is “a silly one.” He said, “It’s true that when Jerusalem was not under Islamic control, such as during the Crusader period, the British Mandate and under Israeli control, there was more discussion about Jerusalem in Muslim sources… but it’s silly to say that it’s not so holy to Islam, because you have to accept a religion’s definition of what is holy.” However, this appeared to contradict what he said just minutes before: “One of our problems is that we have to weed out the ‘politics of religion’ from the ‘doctrine of religion’…”

He did not note that Jerusalem is not mentioned even once in the Quran.

Breger did say that the current Muslim clerical view that non-Muslims should not enter the Temple Mount “was clearly not always the Muslim view,” since just a few decades ago the Waqf "charged admission to non-Muslim visitors."

Daniel Kurzer on Jerusalem

Daniel Kurtzer, an Orthodox Jew and diplomat who has been credited with coining the concept “land for peace” and insisting long ago that Jerusalem be included in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, was the moderator. He said that discussing the option of imposing a settlement freeze on Jerusalem would make it easier to have serious negotiations.

Kurtzer further warned that a solution for Jerusalem had better be found before Israel builds its E-1 housing project near Maaleh Adumim and before the City of David (Silwan) Jewish settlement project proceeds much further.

Comment: This blog and Docstalk blog over a year ago predicted this outcome and warned voters to pay attention to those surrounding Obama. Well you got what you voted for and the dangers are mounting. It is patently false and absurd that Israel must give away parts of Jerusalem. It is time for caring Americans to say stop the madness-enough is enough.

Read more!

Israel will say 'yes' to settlement freeze, Wexler tells 'Post'

Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST

Israel would lose nothing, and potentially gain everything, by agreeing to a temporary moratorium on construction in the settlements for a short period of time, Congressman Robert Wexler, a close political ally of US President Barack Obama and a stalwart Israel supporter, told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday. Wexler, on his third visit to Israel since December, met with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Wednesday, a day after Defense Minister Ehud Barak and US Middle East envoy George Mitchell met in New York and decided that the discussion over settlement construction would continue.

"A request for a moratorium or freeze in settlement activity that can be mutually agreed upon by the US and Israel in the next several weeks is a tiny, tiny gesture and down payment to make when you look at potentially what is on the other side of the equation," said Wexler.

On other side of the equation, he said, were 22 Arab countries being urged by the US to take significant steps now towards normalization with Israel.

"I want to call their bluff," Wexler said. "I want to see, if Israel makes substantial movement toward a credible peace process, whether they are willing to do it. And if they are not, better that we should find out five or six months into the process, before Israel is actually asked to compromise any significant position."

Asked what would happen if Israel were to say no to the moratorium request, Wexler said, "I don't think Israel will say no. I don't see an equation where it is in Israel's interest to say no, so I believe Israel will say yes, under a certain set of qualifications that Israel will agree to. This is one hundred percent in Israel's national security interest."

Regarding the types of "qualifications," Wexler said that that was up to the Israeli prime minister to decide.

"Any process of discussion requires compromise, particularly amongst friends and allies if they are coming from different points," he said, adding that every reasonable actor in the process understands that in a political dynamic there must be give and take.

Wexler bewailed that while the US demands on Israel were highlighted in the Israeli press, Washington's demands on the Arab world were not gaining similar attention.

According to Wexler, the Obama administration was making "equal, if not greater, demands on the Arab world in the context of starting the process and negotiations."

Wexler said that the demands on the Arab world - Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and the North African Arab states - were quite substantial in terms of steps of normalization. He said what was being discussed were trade offices, direct economic links, cultural and educational exchanges and over-fly rights for Israeli air carriers.

Moreover, he said the US was "open to suggestions from the Israeli side as to all the different indicators of normalization that would be important for Israel and that would create credibility among the Israeli public."

An Israeli settlement moratorium could go a long way toward moving that normalization process ahead, he said.

When asked why the Arab world couldn't first show signs of a willingness to normalize before Israel declares a moratorium, Wexler characterized such a demand as "childish."

Wexler, a liberal Democratic congressman from South Florida who was the first high-profile Jewish politician outside of Illinois to endorse Obama's presidential candidacy in 2007, said Obama was asking Israel for a moratorium on settlements, and a relaxing of conditions in the West Bank consistent with Israel's security requirements, in exchange for the Palestinians' adhering to their security conditions and responsibilities, and the Arab world being given a set of responsibilities that has not been given in the past.

"And if the Arab world fails to deliver," Wexler said, "you can rightly say that all bets are off."

Wexler dismissed concerns that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was waiting for Obama to "deliver" Israel while the PA made no conciliatory steps, saying that if he did believe that, he was disabused of the notion by Obama's positive response to Netanyahu's speech last month at Bar-Ilan University.

"If in fact the Palestinians believed that the American posture was that they didn't have to do anything, and the Americans would take care of this, then I think they learned the hard way," he said.

Wexler was also dismissive of the notion that the US was pushing Israel hard on the settlement issue as a way of bringing down the Netanyahu government.

"The president of the US does not have a view, or an opinion, or either a tactical or strategic posture on the government of Israel," he said. "The idea that the president, or anyone in any position of responsibility in Washington, is designing a process to undermine the policy or position or standing of the government of Israel is absurd."

Channel 1 reported last night that according to an Israeli source, Obama would be announcing his Mideast peace plan within a month.

Netanyahu on Wednesday night called Israel's bond with the United States "unbreakable."

"We have a brave relationship with the United States, a bond that President Obama himself defined as unbreakable; Indeed, our bond with the US is unbreakable," Netanyahu said, speaking at the US Independence Day reception at the American ambassador's residence in Herzliya.

Netnayhu went on to praise the US, calling the country a model for freedom and values.

In an allusion to the Iranian nuclear program, Netanyahu said freedom has usually triumphed over repressive regimes, but warned that the world order could break down if tyrannical regimes obtain weapons of mass destruction.

"The greatest danger facing our world today is that this historical consistency of the triumph and spread of democracy could change if the world's worst regimes acquire the world's most dangerous weapons," he said.

Netanyahu did not mention Iran, but he has often warned against allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran has denied it is pursuing nuclear weapons.

The prime minister went on to stress that the State of Israel and its citizens deeply appreciate the US, noting that several of Jerusalem's streets are named after former US presidents.

US Ambassador to Israel James Cunningham also mentioned the strong bond to Israel, and said the US is committed to the security of Israel and to the security of Israel's citizens.

Jerusalem Post staff contributed to this report
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443695869&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Read more!

Azerbaijan's moderate dream

RubinReports

Barry Rubin
Baku, Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan, an oil- and history-rich country on the Caspian Sea’s western coast has a dream: to be a pragmatic, moderate, secular, tolerant Muslim-majority state which serves as good example to others in the region. Given its unique history—and despite its geopolitical situation--it may succeed. The country’s basis is a unique combination of circumstances. After more than a century of Russian—Czarist, then Communist—rule, Azerbaijan achieved independence when the USSR collapsed. By that point, its largely Shia Muslim and Turkic population had been shaped by that long situation. To a large extent, it had lost any distinctive national or religious identity. Or, as one sophisticated Azerbaijani put it, “We thought we were Russians.” While many Azerbaijanis are still bilingual and switch between Azeri and Russian easily, the younger generation is now learning English as a second language.

Moreover, a large part of Baku’s population was Armenian, Jewish (both long-native and immigrant from the USSR), and Russian. In the early 1990s, there was a massive population exchange in the post-USSR era. Russians went to Russia; Armenians went to Armenia; Jews went to Israel; and Azerbaijanis returned from all parts of the former Soviet Union. So now the republic of Azerbaijan is, of all things, full of Azeris. At a time when Western Europe has been moving toward abandoning the nation-state, twenty-five new ones are born or reborn further east out of the old Soviet bloc.

For Azerbaijan, this means defining its national character and goals. As an Azerbaijani intellectual put it, “We’ve been around for centuries yet this is the first time we’ve really ever had our own country.” But wait, there’s more geopolitics first before we get there. It’s the combination of all these factors that makes Azerbaijan such an interesting place.

--Urbanization: About half the population now lives in Baku. The stereotype of the Caucasus as a place of village peasants is outdated.

--Islam: Azerbaijan isn’t comfortable with neighboring Iran’s brand of radical Islamism. Azerbaijan is a secular state, proud of its toleration of other groups. Azerbaijan is active in international Muslim organizations, presenting its own brand of moderate Islam. Women’s rights, a legacy of the Soviet era, are very much advanced.

--Oil: Azerbaijan has a lot of it in the Caspian Sea. A decade or so ago, pumping it out was still a vision and many believed that a huge pipeline to Turkey’s Mediterranean ports would never be built. Well, it has, and Azerbaijan has made a lot of money out of oil. Development has been rapid though lower prices now will slow it down.

--Democracy: This remains an aspiration rather than a current reality. It is clearly understood that Azerbaijan has a long way to go until it achieves that goal. Still, basic rights seem pretty well-entrenched.

--Turkey: Azerbaijanis like Turkey and they are themselves a Turkic people. But their identity, language, and history are quite distinct from their cousins in Anatolia. When one says the word “Turk,” they are talking about foreigners.

--Russia: In the Azerbaijani assessment, Russia is the principal threat to their country’s well-being and independence. There are certainly indications that the big neighbor’s regime is increasingly thinking about recreating the Russian empire in some way, at least by including Azerbaijan and the south Caucasus (including also Armenia and Georgia) in its sphere of influence. Russia’s alliance with Armenia has also brought Azerbaijan’s biggest problem.

--Armenia: This neighbor inflicted a humiliating defeat on Azerbaijan, seized the Nagorno-Karabakh region, resulting in hundreds of thousands of Azeri refugees. Responding to a lack of international sympathy and effort, an Azeri official proclaimed in exasperation, “But don’t they know that we were the ones attacked?”
The conflict is unresolved, there are all sorts of plans, groups, and peace processes going on and none of them are likely to lead to any actual progress in resolving the conflict. A key element on this issue is that Azerbaijanis view Russia as the real problem, egging on Armenia and even maintaining its own troops on their territory.

--Iran: A very worrisome neighbor as well. Azerbaijanis will tell you that there are 30 million Azeri Turks in Iran. The true number is about half that but still Azeris are about one-quarter of Iran’s total population. In general, there is no discrimination against Azeris as individuals—though there is a push toward “Persianizing” them and any specific Azeri identity is discouraged.

On the one hand, some Azerbaijanis dream of a united Azeri state, though no one seems to be pushing for one in practice. On the other hand, more Azerbaijanis worry that Iran thinks they are dreaming about a united Azeri state and thus views them as a threat to be attacked.

The export of Islamism to Azerbaijan could set off terrorism and even civil war. The threat seems to be contained so far rather effectively. --Strategy: Facing conflicts with three neighbors—Russia, Iran, Armenia—what’s a country to do? The answer is to seek allies strong enough to balance them out.

Thus, Azerbaijan’s approach is to seek strong relations with the United States, the West in general, Israel, and its other neighbor, Georgia. While hating to say so, nowadays I’m particularly fearful for countries putting their faith in the West. Western intellectuals and politicians might view such behavior as reckless and provocative, eager as they are to appease any state that threatens them.

Yet there is indeed a conflict between more aggressive dictatorial-type states and conflict-averse democratic ones. And there is indeed a battle between democratic-style modernization and merely grafting technology onto traditional authoritarian-oriented social structures. One can well expect that the internal and international fate of countries like Azerbaijan is going to determine the fate and direction of the twenty-first century

Read more!

Barak, Mitchell remain disputed on settlements

After long meeting in Washington between defense minister, US Mideast envoy, two fail to agree on settlement freeze. Issue to be debated again when Mitchell meets PM Netanyahu in two weeks' time

Yitzhak Benhorin
YNET News

WASHINGTON - Defense Minister Ehud Barak and US special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell failed to reach an agreement regarding the Israeli construction in the settlements during their meeting in Washington Monday. Mitchell is scheduled to meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netnayahu in about two weeks.


Criticism
UK deplores Israeli decision to allow new settler homes / Reuters
British foreign secretary tells parliament, 'Settlements are illegal under international law and they are a major blockage to peace in the Middle East on the basis of a two-state solution'
Full Story

A joint statement published following the meeting said that Barak and Mitchell "discussed the full range of issues related to Middle East peace and security and the contributions Israelis, Palestinians, their neighbors and the international community should make to this effort.



"Specifically, their discussions covered a wide range of measures needed to create a climate conducive to peace. These included measures on security and incitement by the Palestinians, steps by Arab states toward normalization with Israel; and, from Israel, actions on access and movement in the West Bank and on settlement activity. The discussions were constructive and will continue soon."



The two discussed ways to jumpstart the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinains. Barak made it clear that Israel is willing to pay a price for renewing the talks, but that the Arab world needs to contribute to the efforts as well. "We are weighing any positive contribution we can make to promote the peace efforts, while taking into consideration our security interests," he said.



No agreement was reached on freezing settlement construction. The US is demanding that Israel put an immediate moratorium on all building in the settlement blocs. However, the Obama administration is interested in decreasing the conflict that has flared between the US and Israel over the issue out of an understanding that such a state of affairs does not serve their interests in the Middle East.


Mitchell will arrive for another round of meetings in about two weeks. Until then, the Americans are expecting a number of goodwill gestures from Israel, such as easing restrictions on West Bank Palestinians.


Barak's entourage received the impression that the Americans understand that any demand for freezing settlement building must not be separate from an inclusive, regional peace process. Therefore, the US will also be looking for goodwill gestures from the Arab states.

Read more!

Barak wants to delay decision on settlements

Defense minister to ask US to discuss settlement freeze only when talks with Palestinians begin; Washington Post columnists call on Obama to relinquish tough stance on settlements

Roni Sofer
YNET News

Defense Minister Ehud Barak left for a visit to the US Monday afternoon, after a forum of ministers including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided not to freeze construction in West Bank settlements. Barak will attempt to soften the US and EU's stance on the issue by proposing that the future of the settlements be determined during talks with the Palestinians.


On Monday six ministers including Barak, Netanyahu, and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman met to discuss the issue of the settlements.


During the meeting Barak said an accord must be reached in order to prevent conflict with the US. The prime minister supported his view.


However Lieberman, together with ministers Benny Begin and Moshe Ya'alon of the Likud, said Israel should not compromise the future of settlements destined to remain within its borders.


Netanyahu and Barak said a decision on the issue could be delayed if Israel postponed discussion until talks with the Palestinians were underway. But the ministers were divided on whether preconditions should be determined before talks were started, or whether Israel should make gestures that would jumpstart the process.


Barak, who holds the latter view, said Israel should offer to temporarily freeze construction if this helped peace talks get underway. He said willingness to do so would alter Israel's "refusing" reputation.


The defense minister issued a statement saying "intimate" talks with the US were ongoing. "The talks with (George) Mitchell are a continuation of President Obama's speech in Cairo and Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech at Bar Ilan. Their aim is to promote the process of a regional accord in the Middle East," the statement said.



"Within this framework it is possible to hold efficient negotiations with the Palestinians. The questions regarding settlements can be solved in this dialogue."


Post columnists urge Obama to let go

Meanwhile, two Washington Post columnists have called on President Obama to relinquish his tough stance on the issue of the settlements.



Jackson Diehl, deputy editor of the Washington Post, wrote that "Obama began with a broad strategy of simultaneously pressing Israel, the Palestinians and Arab states to take concrete steps toward peace", but that this front had been "narrowed to a single point: a standoff with the Israeli government of Binyamin Netanyahu over whether 'natural growth' would be allowed in Jewish settlements".


David Ignatius wrote Monday that "the Obama team assumes that if it can pressure Israel into a real settlements freeze, the Arabs will respond with meaningful moves toward normalization of relations – which will give Israel some tangible benefits for its concessions".



He quotes a senior Arab diplomat whose stance negates these assumptions. "'What will I do in exchange for a settlements freeze? Nothing. We're not interested in confidence-building, or a step-by-step approach,'" Ignatius quotes him as saying. .

Read more!

Israel Must be self-Reliant!

Steven Shamrak

In a reversal of her stated position as a presidential candidate, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed that an Iranian attack on Israel would no longer be considered as an attack on America . Speaking during an interview on ABC TV, she said "I think there would be retaliation. And I think part of what is clear is, we want to avoid a - a Middle East arms race which leads to nuclear weapons being in the possession of other countries in the Middle East." She would not, however, repeat her explicit statement from 2008 that the U.S. would be a part of such retaliation. When asked if her new statement was official U.S. policy, Clinton dodged the question, "I think it is U.S. policy to the extent that we have alliances and understandings with a number of nations (too evasive). I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that, were Israel to suffer a nuclear attack by Iran , there would be retaliation."

(After a nuclear attack, American 'retaliation' would bring little comfort to the remaining Jews in Israel! If some people did not have doubts about the US before they do now! The United States has never been an honest and reliable partner of Israel and many of its other allies, which were sold out when it was convenient for the United States. Israel was assured by the US that the Oslo agreement would not move toward a two-states solution, but it did; the understanding about Jewish settlement which Israel had with president Bush has been ignored and unilaterally thrown into the rubbish bin by the new administration and there is no longer any commitment "to come to Israel's defence". After a nuclear attack there would be little need for the US to defend Israel. Self-reliance and pursuit of the Jewish National goal is the best option for the survival of the Jewish state !)

The election in Iran has proved her wrong again. Only three months ago U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: I want to see what the president's engagement will bring& I think there's an enormous amount of potential for change, if the Iranians are willing to pursue that." Even president Obama admitted "The difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised," "Either way we are going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States."

Both Iranian presidential candidates are fundamentalists serving the Ayatollah's dictatorship. As Mossad chief Meir Dagan said "we mustn't forget Mousavi is the one who started the (Iranian) nuclear program." (Iranians are not willing to pursue change for peace - just a cosmetic change! Israel can neither wait for the actual nuclear attack from Iran nor afford the stupidity of wishful thinking and policy of appeasement the Obama administration has adopted!)

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

Opening parking lots in Jerusalem on Sabbath, especially next to the Welling Wall, the holiest Jewish place - Isn't it like brining a lag of ham to Mecca?

Considering the response of the United States to one terror attack perpetrated by Al Quaida, what do you think the appropriate response by Israel should be after more than 60 years of continuous terror attacks perpetrated by or on behalf of fake nation, the Palestinians?

Obama and Clinton Lied Again! Elliot Abrams, who served under United States Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, took issue on Thursday with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's claims that there were no understandings between the Bush administration and Israel about construction for natural growth in Judea and Samaria. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Abrams said, "Despite fervent denials by Obama administration officials, there were indeed agreements between Israel and the United States regarding the growth of Israeli settlements on the West Bank."

Emotional Cruelty of Hamas. Hamas cannot confirm or deny if captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit is still alive, said an official authorized to speak on the issue. "The crazy war on the Gaza Strip wiped out everything so we don't know if Shalit is still alive or if he has died". He said that Israel still has to go ahead with talks to exchange Shalit for a number of Arab prisoners "whether the soldier was dead or alive." ( For three years Hamas did not offer any proof of life, did not allow the IRC to visit Shalit, and changed its demands any time the negotiations came closer to an agreement. It means that since the abduction Hamas has been playing a cruel game!)

That is What They were After. Long time PA diplomat Saeb Erekat told the BBC that the Palestinians are currently in a position of strength compared to Israel, thanks to the pressure Washington is putting on the Netanyahu government. (Only self-respect and determination to achieve the Jewish National Goal can bring back strength to Israel and Jews!)

Quote of the Week:

"You ought to let the Jews have Jerusalem ; it was they who made it famous." - Winston Churchill to diplomat Evelyn Shuckburgh, 1955, Descent to Suez; Diaries 1951-1956 - Even he understood the importance of Jerusalem for Jews!

Jerusalem Will Always be Ours. "Unified Jerusalem is the capital of Israel . Jerusalem always has been and always will be ours and it will never be divided again," said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "Jerusalem will never be divided again" ( To end any ambiguity and painful speculation, the idea of a Jewish "Unified Jerusalem" and all Jewish land must be adopted by the Knesset as the irreversible law of the state of Israel!)

Islamic Brotherly Love. The death toll from suicide truck bombing in northern Iraq has risen to almost 80 and wounded 211 people, destroying at least 50 buildings. It occurred in a busy area near a mosque in the town of Taza , about 10 miles southwest of Kirkuk. ( The different brands of Islam have been hating each other, as much as they despise infidels, for centuries. By isolating them the Western democracies will be able to prevent an Islamic onslaught and contain the spread of terror ! Whatever they do to each other in their own country is not our business.)

Will Biblical Ark be Revealed? Patriarch Abuna Pauolos of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church told reporters that the time had come to reveal the Holy Ark before the world: "The Ark of the Covenant has been in Ethiopia for many centuries. As Patriarch, I have seen it with my own eyes". But he failed on Friday to make good on a promise of an announcement regarding the Ark of the Covenant. (Was it a publicity stunt?)

Must the 'Show' Go on? Syrian President Bashar Assad rejected the offer of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for a resumption of peace talks between the two countries and stressed that Israel is well aware that the basis for talks is full withdrawal from the Golan Heights. (And this is after so many publicity stunts - promotion of Syrian interest to negotiate peace with Israel!)

Hypocricy of the Headlines.

"Israel seen as test of Obama's credibility" - Houston Chronicle - Why isn't the US president's credibility tested by resolving the current economic crisis, or implementation of promised health reforms or restoration of the crumbling and aging US infrastructure? Aren't those issues more important to American voters and weren't they promised to be resolved during the election campaign ?

New Broom in Lebanon with the Same Attitude. Lebanon will not conduct an independent peace track with Israel and may not even join the Arab peace initiative: "the Arab initiative includes many countries for the peace process, and Lebanon will come as we see fit." said Hariri, the 39-year-old so-called moderate leader of the largest parliamentary bloc, which dealt a major setback to Hizbullah and its Syrian and Iranian backers, but his hateful attitude toward Israel is the same as others!

It Is Expensive to Live under Terror Threat. A report in the Economist revealed that Israel has the highest per capita spending on defense in the world. Israel's total defense expenditure in 2008 was $16.2 billion, or a ratio of more than $2,300 per person. The United States posted the second largest ratio at $2,000 per person.

Illegal Arab Settlement on Jewish Land.

Over 100,000 Arabs Live Illegally on Jewish-Owned Land in Jerusalem and Israeli government and JNF do nothing about it!

Key land in Qalandiya and Kfar Akeb is owned by the Jewish National Fund (JNF), which over the years has allowed tens of thousands of Arabs to illegally squat on its land, resulting in the current Arab majority. The organization bought the land in the early 1920s using Jewish donor funds for the specific purpose of Jewish settlement.

Arabs first constructed facilities illegally in Qalandiya and Kfar Akeb between 1948 and 1967, prior to the 1967 Six-Day War during which Israel retook control of the entire city of Jerusalem . The bulk of illegal Arab construction in Qalandiya occurred in the past 20 years, with construction of several new Arab apartment complexes taking place in just the past two years. Neither the Israeli government nor JNF took any concrete measures to stop the illegal building, which continues today. (Why isn't President Obama talking about this illegal expansion of Arab settlements?).

Read more!

Israeli Navy drops US Warship for made-in Israel option

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132104
by Yehudah Lev Kay

(IsraelNN.com) The Israeli navy has dropped plans to purchase U.S. made warships and instead is exploring the possibility of a home-grown military shipbuilding industry, according to the website of Defense News.

The Ministry of Defense had originally planned on purchasing either the small Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) from Lockheed Martin or similar corvettes built by Northrop Grumman. However, costs for the LCS ships skyrocketed to $637 million, and costs for the corvettes were estimated at $450 million, both deemed prohibitive to the navy. “As much as we sought commonality with the U.S. Navy, it became much, much more expensive than planned,” a naval source said. “At the end of the day, we had no choice but to face that fact that, for us, it was unaffordable."

Instead, the ministry is now considering building two ships based on the German Meko A-100 corvette at the Israel Shipyards in Haifa, where the project would give a much-needed shot in the arm to the economy.

“One of the things we put on the table is how to vector our urgent operational needs into a project that can support local industry,” the source said. “We believe a strong case can be made for making this into a national project that fosters self sufficiency and provides all the economic benefits that come with creating a military shipbuilding industry.”

The 2,200-ton Meko was designed by the Hamburg-based ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, which currently builds Dolphin-class submarines for the Israeli navy. The version to be built in Haifa would likely include on-board systems built by the Israel Aerospace Industries.

The main issue which needs to be worked out for the program to take off is how the defense ministry will finance a home-grown ship building plan estimated to cost $600 million.

“If political leaders determine that this is a critical national program, then it’s reasonable to expect significant funding to come from the Treasury,” a second naval officer said.

In addition, the navy is examining how a part of annual U.S. foreign military financing to Israel could be used to fund the project. Israel used part of those funds to finance the locally produced Merkava battle tank, which incorporates raw materials and an engine produced in the U.S.

The price for involving U.S. funds in the plan, however, is a limit on Israel’s ability to export the technology, as is the case with the Merkava.

Read more!

Comments on PM Netanyahu's speech - from Israel

Submitted by Chana Givon, Jun 28, 2009 19:26

Dear Dr. Pipes,

Now that the long-awaited speech by PM Netanyahu has been delivered - with a bow to President Obama's demand re a 'Palestinian' state - we wonder what the American leader is prepared to do regarding Iran. We recognize his attempt to falsely link that country with the creation of an Arab state in Palestine. If it is the same as his belated response to the dangers of a more advanced threat of No. Korea - sanctions - then the world, including Israel, has gained little.. Iran is still behind in perfecting its nuclear capability and strict sanctions would be more likely to have an effect - if anything can - before it achieves its goal and threat to annihilate Israel. Those of us who have followed Obama's m.o. see him as one whose 'talk' is far greater than his 'walk'. It is as though by ignoring certain crises they will disappear.This does not demonstrate the strength that is required these days in coping with the creeping global danger of a radical ideology.

Now the question remains as to what is going to be required of Abbas. To this point, he has reneged on every demand made of them in the so-called 'peace process'. That empty expression should be discarded; it has been proven meaningless. A 'process' implies give and take on both sides - compromise - until an agreement is reached with neither side getting everything that it wants.

Time after time, Israel has been the only side to be held to more than the letter of the law. The Arab leadership has refused outright to disarm terrorists and disband them. Each time Israel has made 'painful concessions in the interest of peace' it has been the recipients of more vicious terrorism by an emboldened enemy. Israel's release of hundreds of terrorists has also brought little comfort to its families who have been deprived of comfort and closure by not knowing the whereabouts and welfare of their captured loved ones.

Israel's enemies have not lived up to the minimal laws of war ; the International Red Cross has not been permitted visitation rights or any kind of contact with a young soldier like Gilad Shalit. This is simply inhuman yet the world does little to force adherence to law. The U.N., created with such hope, has been proven to be useless; it has been hijacked by ruthless anti-Israel countries. Knowing that, we must wonder why President Obama is attempting to work through such an organization that has falsely validated and passed more resolutions against the Jewish state than any other country while ignoring more blatant examples of inhumanity such as Darfur.

The much publicized 'fresh start' that the present American administration has pursued with the Islamic world is about to be tested. The President's new path has been hailed by Abbas, Fatah, and Hamas, the terrorist entities who openly supported his candidacy and continue to do so, expressing satisfaction at finally having a president who 'understands' and will deliver for them. Abbas has the expectation that the US will pressure Israel to acquiescence to the PA demands. Now Mr. Obama has an opportunity to demonstrate whether or not the new path that he has chosen will enable him to make the necessary demand of his new admirers.

PM Netanyahu spoke eloquently; even at the risk of antagonizing many of his supporters who see danger in his offer to the Arabs. They remember too well Sharon's 14 reservations before agreeing to the Road Map and the fact that they were ignored. Israelis have not forgotten this shameful betrayal and it cannot be repeated. The ball is in President Obama's court.

Sincerely,

Chana Givon

Jerusalem, Israel

Read more!

Comments on PM Netanyahu's speech - from Israel

Submitted by Chana Givon, Jun 28, 2009 19:26

Dear Dr. Pipes,

Now that the long-awaited speech by PM Netanyahu has been delivered - with a bow to President Obama's demand re a 'Palestinian' state - we wonder what the American leader is prepared to do regarding Iran. We recognize his attempt to falsely link that country with the creation of an Arab state in Palestine. If it is the same as his belated response to the dangers of a more advanced threat of No. Korea - sanctions - then the world, including Israel, has gained little.. Iran is still behind in perfecting its nuclear capability and strict sanctions would be more likely to have an effect - if anything can - before it achieves its goal and threat to annihilate Israel. Those of us who have followed Obama's m.o. see him as one whose 'talk' is far greater than his 'walk'. It is as though by ignoring certain crises they will disappear.This does not demonstrate the strength that is required these days in coping with the creeping global danger of a radical ideology.

Now the question remains as to what is going to be required of Abbas. To this point, he has reneged on every demand made of them in the so-called 'peace process'. That empty expression should be discarded; it has been proven meaningless. A 'process' implies give and take on both sides - compromise - until an agreement is reached with neither side getting everything that it wants.

Time after time, Israel has been the only side to be held to more than the letter of the law. The Arab leadership has refused outright to disarm terrorists and disband them. Each time Israel has made 'painful concessions in the interest of peace' it has been the recipients of more vicious terrorism by an emboldened enemy. Israel's release of hundreds of terrorists has also brought little comfort to its families who have been deprived of comfort and closure by not knowing the whereabouts and welfare of their captured loved ones.

Israel's enemies have not lived up to the minimal laws of war ; the International Red Cross has not been permitted visitation rights or any kind of contact with a young soldier like Gilad Shalit. This is simply inhuman yet the world does little to force adherence to law. The U.N., created with such hope, has been proven to be useless; it has been hijacked by ruthless anti-Israel countries. Knowing that, we must wonder why President Obama is attempting to work through such an organization that has falsely validated and passed more resolutions against the Jewish state than any other country while ignoring more blatant examples of inhumanity such as Darfur.

The much publicized 'fresh start' that the present American administration has pursued with the Islamic world is about to be tested. The President's new path has been hailed by Abbas, Fatah, and Hamas, the terrorist entities who openly supported his candidacy and continue to do so, expressing satisfaction at finally having a president who 'understands' and will deliver for them. Abbas has the expectation that the US will pressure Israel to acquiescence to the PA demands. Now Mr. Obama has an opportunity to demonstrate whether or not the new path that he has chosen will enable him to make the necessary demand of his new admirers.

PM Netanyahu spoke eloquently; even at the risk of antagonizing many of his supporters who see danger in his offer to the Arabs. They remember too well Sharon's 14 reservations before agreeing to the Road Map and the fact that they were ignored. Israelis have not forgotten this shameful betrayal and it cannot be repeated. The ball is in President Obama's court.

Sincerely,

Chana Givon

Jerusalem, Israel

Read more!

Ideologue-in-chief

Jun. 29, 2009
Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST

For a brief moment it seemed that US President Barack Obama was moved by the recent events in Iran. On Friday, he issued his harshest statement yet on the mullocracy's barbaric clampdown against its brave citizens who dared to demand freedom in the aftermath of June 12's stolen presidential elections. Speaking of the protesters Obama said, "Their bravery in the face of brutality is a testament to their enduring pursuit of justice. The violence perpetrated against them is outrageous. In spite of the government's efforts to keep the world from bearing witness to that violence, we see it and we condemn it."

While some noted the oddity of Obama's attribution of the protesters' struggle to the "pursuit of justice," rather than the pursuit of freedom - which is what they are actually fighting for - most Iran watchers in Washington and beyond were satisfied with his statement.

Alas, it was a false alarm. On Sunday Obama dispatched his surrogates - presidential adviser David Axelrod and UN Ambassador Susan Rice - to the morning talk shows to make clear that he has not allowed mere events to influence his policies.

After paying lip service to the Iranian dissidents, Rice and Axelrod quickly cut to the chase. The Obama administration does not care about the Iranian people or their struggle with the theocratic totalitarians who repress them. Whether Iran is an Islamic revolutionary state dedicated to the overthrow of the world order or a liberal democracy dedicated to strengthening it, is none of the administration's business.

Obama's emissaries wouldn't even admit that after stealing the election and killing hundreds of its own citizens, the regime is illegitimate. As Rice put it, "Legitimacy obviously is in the eyes of the people. And obviously the government's legitimacy has been called into question by the protests in the streets. But that's not the critical issue in terms of our dealings with Iran."

No, whether an America-hating regime is legitimate or not is completely insignificant to the White House. All the Obama administration wants to do is go back to its plan to appease the mullahs into reaching an agreement about their nuclear aspirations. And for some yet-to-be-explained reason, Obama and his associates believe they can make this regime -- which as recently as Friday called for the mass murder of its own citizens, and as recently as Saturday blamed the US for the Iranian people's decision to rise up against the mullahs -- reach such an agreement.

IN STAKING out a seemingly hard-nosed, unsentimental position on Iran, Obama and his advisers would have us believe that unlike their predecessors, they are foreign policy "realists." Unlike Jimmy Carter, who supported the America-hating mullahs against the America-supporting shah 30 years ago in the name of his moralistic post-Vietnam War aversion to American exceptionalism, Obama supports the America-hating mullahs against the America-supporting freedom protesters because all he cares about are "real" American interests.

So too, unlike George W. Bush, who openly supported Iran's pro-American democratic dissidents against the mullahs due to his belief that the advance of freedom in Iran and throughout the world promoted US national interests, Obama supports the anti-American mullahs who butcher these dissidents in the streets and abduct and imprison them by the thousands due to his "hard-nosed" belief that doing so will pave the way for a meeting of the minds with their oppressors.

Yet Obama's policy is anything but realistic. By refusing to support the dissidents, he is not demonstrating that he is a realist. He is showing that he is immune to reality. He is so committed to appeasing the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei that he is incapable of responding to actual events, or even of taking them into account for anything other than fleeting media appearances meant to neutralize his critics.

Rice and Axelrod demonstrated the administration's determination to eschew reality when they proclaimed that Ahmadinejad's "reelection" is immaterial. As they see it, appeasement isn't dead since it is Khamenei - whom they deferentially refer to as "the supreme leader" - who sets Iran's foreign policy.

While Khamenei is inarguably the decision maker on foreign policy, his behavior since June 12 has shown that he is no moderate. Indeed, as his post-election Friday "sermon" 10 days ago demonstrated, he is a paranoid, delusional America-bashing tyrant. In that speech he called Americans "morons" and accused them of being the worst human-rights violators in the world, in part because of the Clinton administration's raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas in 1993.

Perhaps what is most significant about Obama's decision to side with anti-American tyrants against pro-American democrats in Iran is that it is utterly consistent with his policies throughout the world. From Latin America to Asia to the Middle East and beyond, after six months of the Obama administration it is clear that in its pursuit of good ties with America's adversaries at the expense of America's allies, it will not allow actual events to influence its "hard-nosed" judgments.

TAKE THE ADMINISTRATION'S response to the Honduran military coup on Sunday. While the term "military coup" has a lousy ring to it, the Honduran military ejected president Manuel Zelaya from office after he ignored a Supreme Court ruling backed by the Honduran Congress which barred him from holding a referendum this week that would have empowered him to endanger democracy.

Taking a page out of his mentor Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's playbook, Zelaya acted in contempt of his country's democratic institutions to move forward with his plan to empower himself to serve another term in office. To push forward with his illegal goal, Zelaya fired the army's chief of staff. And so, in an apparent bid to prevent Honduras from going the way of Daniel Ortega's Nicaragua and becoming yet another anti-American Venezuelan satellite, the military - backed by Congress and the Supreme Court - ejected Zelaya from office.

And how did Obama respond? By seemingly siding with Zelaya against the democratic forces in Honduras who are fighting him. Obama said in a written statement: "I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of president Mel Zelaya."

His apparent decision to side with an anti-American would-be dictator is unfortunately par for the course. As South and Central America come increasingly under the control of far-left America-hating dictators, as in Iran, Obama and his team have abandoned democratic dissidents in the hope of currying favor with anti-American thugs. As Mary Anastasia O'Grady has documented in The Wall Street Journal, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have refused to say a word about democracy promotion in Latin America.

Rather than speak of liberties and freedoms, Clinton and Obama have waxed poetic about social justice and diminishing the gaps between rich and poor. In a recent interview with the El Salvadoran media, Clinton said, "Some might say President Obama is left-of-center. And of course that means we are going to work well with countries that share our commitment to improving and enhancing the human potential."

But not, apparently, enhancing human freedoms.

FROM IRAN to Venezuela to Cuba, from Myanmar to North Korea to China, from Sudan to Afghanistan to Iraq to Russia to Syria to Saudi Arabia, the Obama administration has systematically taken human rights and democracy promotion off America's agenda. In their place, it has advocated "improving America's image," multilateralism and a moral relativism that either sees no distinction between dictators and their victims or deems the distinctions immaterial to the advancement of US interests.

While Obama's supporters champion his "realist" policies as a welcome departure from the "cowboy diplomacy" of the Bush years, the fact of the matter is that in country after country, Obama's supposedly pragmatic and nonideological policy has either already failed - as it has in North Korea - or is in the process of failing. The only place where Obama may soon be able to point to a success is in his policy of coercing Israel to adopt his anti-Semitic demand to bar Jews from building homes in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. According to media reports, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has authorized Defense Minister Ehud Barak to offer to freeze all settlement construction for three months during his visit to Washington this week.

Of course, in the event that Obama has achieved his immediate goal of forcing Netanyahu to his knees, its accomplishment will hinder rather than advance his wider goal of achieving peace between Israel and its neighbors. Watching Obama strong-arm the US's closest ally in the region, the Palestinians and the neighboring Arab states have become convinced that there is no reason to make peace with the Jews. After all, Obama is demonstrating that he will deliver Israel without their having to so much as wink in the direction of peaceful coexistence.

So if Obama's foreign policy has already failed or is in the process of failing throughout the world, why is he refusing to reassess it? Why, with blood running through the streets of Iran, is he still interested in appeasing the mullahs? Why, with Venezuela threatening to invade Honduras for Zelaya, is he siding with Zelaya against Honduran democrats? Why, with the Palestinians refusing to accept the Jewish people's right to self-determination, is he seeking to expel some 500,000 Jews from their homes in the interest of appeasing the Palestinians? Why, with North Korea threatening to attack the US with ballistic missiles, is he refusing to order the USS John McCain to interdict the suspected North Korean missile ship it has been trailing for the past two weeks? Why, when the Sudanese government continues to sponsor the murder of Darfuris, is the administration claiming that the genocide in Darfur has ended?

The only reasonable answer to all of these questions is that far from being nonideological, Obama's foreign policy is the most ideologically driven since Carter's tenure in office. If when Obama came into office there was a question about whether he was a foreign policy pragmatist or an ideologue, his behavior in his first six months in office has dispelled all doubt. Obama is moved by a radical, anti-American ideology that motivates him to dismiss the importance of democracy and side with anti-American dictators against US allies.

For his efforts, although he is causing the US to fail to secure its aims as he
himself has defined them in arena after arena, he is successfully securing the support of the most radical, extreme leftist factions in American politics.

Like Carter before him, Obama may succeed for a time in evading public scrutiny for his foreign-policy failures because the public will be too concerned with his domestic failures to notice them. But in the end, his slavish devotion to his radical ideological agenda will ensure that his failures reach a critical mass.

And then they will sink him.

caroline@carolineglick.com

___________________________________________________________________________________________
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1246296529986&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Read more!